2026-09-28 - Board of County Commissioners Briefing

00:26Good afternoon. We welcome our staff and

00:29our visitors. Uh we're here today for

00:32our briefing and it will in uh for our

00:36our meeting on Thursday, October 1st,

00:392026.

00:41Um and we will be we have a a discussion

00:45item after our briefing. So I will turn

00:48this over to our manager.

00:50>> Thank you, Madam Chair, and good

00:51afternoon, commissioner, staff, and

00:53guests. Agenda item number one is a

00:55public hearing on an ordinance amendment

00:57proposed by planning and development

00:58services staff to modify sections in

01:01chapters 3456 78 and nine of the unified

01:04development ordinances. Chris Murphy our

01:07planning director will brief this item.

01:11>> Good afternoon madam chair Mr.

01:14>> Good afternoon

01:14>> Mr. Vice Chair members of the board. Uh

01:17this is uh a

01:21staff change proposed uh sorry a text

01:24change proposed by staff. We do these

01:27every once in a while. We've collected

01:29items where we have found discrepancies

01:31or errors, spelling, numbering and or

01:34there are things that we need to correct

01:36uh related to uh clarification and or

01:40removing conflicts with other uh state

01:43or local regulations.

01:46UDOccc35

01:48includes three amendments that provide

01:50clarification to ordinance requirements.

01:52Um those three include the building

01:55offset uh dimension for the use indoor

01:58uh storage services retail and what that

02:02means is when you have a certain length

02:04of a building you have to either provide

02:05a reject a recess or a projection to

02:08kind of break up that facade. But we

02:10don't give currently a dimensional

02:11requirement related to that. So, we've

02:13had some arguments with architects that

02:15six inches is sufficient. So, um we have

02:19put a measurement in there that we think

02:20five feet uh should be um that

02:24measurement. Another one of those

02:26clarifications deals with how we uh do

02:30parking reductions for tree safe. Keep

02:32in mind this text amendment was started

02:34well before the general assembly took

02:36away parking requirements. That will go

02:38into effect January 1. We're going to go

02:40ahead and pro proceed with this, but um

02:44this will be coming back to you probably

02:46in our overarching parking text

02:48amendment that will come before you. Uh

02:50but just know we were already in the

02:52process of clarifying this reduction um

02:55whenever that change was made at the

02:57statute at the state level. Uh and then

02:59the final ordinance clarification is

03:02just providing clarification that

03:03commercial and industrial subdivisions

03:06are not limited to three lots on private

03:08streets.

03:09um

03:12transition from that to other uh we have

03:14three other amendments that remove

03:15conflicts with other state, county or

03:17local regulations or long-standing

03:21policy and or um

03:26process.

03:27Um the first one of those is the MLKO.

03:31Uh we have to exempt town homes and

03:34multif family units or developments of

03:36less than four units. And that's because

03:39the state statute was recently changed

03:41that basically classifies that as

03:44residential um under the residential

03:46code and you can't have design standards

03:48for things that fall under the

03:49residential code. So we have to make

03:50that exception. Uh historically we have

03:54had a um square footage measurement for

03:57both indoor space and outdoor play area

04:00that's been more restrictive been a

04:03higher standard than what the state has

04:04had for child daycare centers. And you

04:07know, we you heard recently uh that

04:11again, I think everyone knows that child

04:13daycare, we need more of it. So anyway,

04:16we can try to make our standards be

04:18consistent with the state, we wanted to

04:20take that opportunity. So that's a

04:21clarification in this. And then the

04:24final one is something um that has been

04:28in the ordinance since 1995. I've been

04:30here 26 years and we have never required

04:33an LCID to be renewed

04:35uh either at the elected body level or

04:37at the board of adjustment level. So

04:39again, we have 31 years of that being in

04:43there and it's never been a requirement

04:44for any renewal. We think it should be

04:46removed if you meet the findings of fact

04:48related to the issuance of a special use

04:50permit initially.

04:53We have ways to handle things if you run

04:56a foul of the ordinance, but if you met

04:58the findings of fact, there shouldn't be

05:00a reason to go back through for a

05:01renewal. Those are kind of the six that

05:04run beyond just standard um corrections

05:09to numbering or lettering, misspellings,

05:11and grammar. We have 10 of those that

05:12are also sandwiched in this text

05:14amendment.

05:16And with that, uh this was heard by the

05:18planning board at their May 14th, 2026

05:20public hearing. There weren't any

05:22speakers in opposition and following the

05:23public hearing, the planning board did

05:25vote unanimously to recommend approval

05:26of this text amendment. And it this also

05:29was adopted by city council on Monday

05:32night last week. And with that, I stand

05:35ready to answer any questions or go into

05:36any other detail that you might want to

05:38discuss.

05:39>> Questions?

05:42>> Thank you, Chris.

05:43Agenda item number two is a resolution

05:45recognizing October as domestic violence

05:48awareness month and in recognizing the

05:49efforts of Bridges to Hope Family

05:51Justice Center for Scythe County. We'll

05:53have staff here to recognize it on

05:55Thursday. And just a reminder, wear

05:57purple if you have purple for that.

05:59Agenda item number three is a

06:00proclamation recognizing the 25th

06:02anniversary of Winston Net. Um and Chair

06:05Wizenhunt will be presenting that

06:07proclamation at one of their upcoming

06:09events. Agenda item number four is

06:11approval of minutes for the meeting of

06:13September 17th. Madame Clerk, have those

06:15gone out yet?

06:17>> They have not, but I hope to get them

06:18out either this evening or tomorrow

06:20morning. Thank you. Agenda item number

06:22five is a resolution authorizing

06:23execution of an agreement with the state

06:25of North Carolina on behalf of its

06:27Department of Agriculture and Consumer

06:28Services for Forest Services. Leslie

06:31Rose, our cooperative extension

06:32director, will brief this item.

06:37>> Good afternoon, commissioners. So this

06:40agenda item would approve a contract

06:42with the North Carolina Department of

06:43Agriculture and Consumer Services, North

06:46Carolina Forest Service for Forcy County

06:49share of the costs associated with our

06:51county forestry department. The total

06:54cost for this fiscal year uh is

06:57$241,000494.

07:01The county share of that is 40% being

07:04$96,597.

07:07This is a decrease from last year. Uh

07:10last year they purchased a firet truck.

07:12They don't have that expense in there

07:13this year. Um and this has been included

07:16in the approved budget. I'm happy to

07:18take any questions you might have.

07:21>> Questions?

07:22>> Do we have a fire dozer?

07:25>> I don't believe so, but I can check into

07:28that and get back with you.

07:31>> How much does one cost?

07:33>> I also don't know that, but can look

07:34into it.

07:38Okay,

07:39other questions.

07:41Thank you, Leslie.

07:42>> Agenda item number six is a resolution

07:44approving the septic system agreement

07:46and authorizing the grant and execution

07:48of an easement to Horizon's residential

07:50care center across a portion of Force

07:52County owned real property. Chelsea

07:54Swain, our deputy general services

07:55director, will brief this item.

07:57>> Good. Good afternoon. This item is to

08:00approve a septic system agreement with

08:02Horizon's residential care center and

08:04grant access easements to Horizon's

08:06across a portion of Horizon's Park

08:09property. So, a little background on

08:11this item. As you all probably know,

08:13Horizon's residential care has um had a

08:16lease at this property on Horizon's Lane

08:18since the late 70s. They started out

08:20with about 35 acres of property and over

08:23time that's been amended and fluctuated.

08:25Currently they lease about 13 acres of

08:28property and with that they operate a

08:30septic system. The lease that they

08:33currently have does reference the septic

08:35system and it stipulates that it is

08:38their responsibility to maintain that

08:40system. However, the system is outside

08:42of their lease bounds.

08:44Unfortunately, the county unknowingly

08:46put a parking lot over the repair area

08:50for their septic system earlier this

08:52year. And we found out about it when

08:54their septic operator um notified us of

08:56that. And you may be thinking, how did

08:58we do that? And we just did not know

09:00that the repair area was where it was

09:02and there was nothing in the process of

09:05um constructing the parking lot that

09:06would have triggered an environmental

09:08review of that to tell us that that's

09:10where that was. So, we are correcting

09:12that mistake and error. And this item

09:16would approve the septic agreement and

09:19would grant them being Horizons and

09:22their operator access to cross into the

09:24county park property to maintain their

09:27septic system and pump their tank and

09:29access their repair fields. So, this

09:31really just puts Horizons in their

09:33system back in compliance with state um

09:35requirements. I'm happy to answer any

09:37questions and Chris Weevil is also here

09:38if you have any questions of him.

09:40questions.

09:42>> So, we're not charging them for an

09:44easement because we put a parking lot

09:46over the area in between.

09:50>> Well, we're Yes.

09:52>> Okay. Thank you.

09:55>> Um,

09:55>> Commissioner Vessie,

09:56>> thank you. Um, is there any um

10:02specific access roadway that they're

10:04presently using uh that this would apply

10:08to? Um,

10:11>> yes, they do have an access path and

10:12Chris and his team have dropped some

10:14recent gravel there to kind of make that

10:16a little bit nicer for them to access

10:18their tank to pump the tank.

10:20>> Would the easement limit them to access

10:23using that particular roadway?

10:27>> The roadway only goes to the tank. It

10:29doesn't go to the repair area as well.

10:32So, they would have access to go to

10:34multiple places, if that makes sense.

10:36But there's not actual roads going to

10:39all of those places.

10:40>> Okay. Um, is it possible or does the

10:43proposed easement define uh their

10:46pathways that they can use? Um,

10:50>> I don't believe we defined a pathway for

10:53that, but I'll let Chris speak to that.

10:54He's worked most on this.

10:59>> Good afternoon, commissioners. Um, no

11:01sir. Uh, there's not a defined path at

11:04the moment. All that we're doing or all

11:06that the state has required us to do is

11:08to identify a repair area. There's no

11:11actual work being uh taking place. Um so

11:14the the repair area that they have

11:16identified uh is about 80 feet north of

11:20the uh the current septic field for the

11:23two new buildings that that they just

11:24built there. Uh so it's just outside of

11:27their current lease area. So u the

11:29pathway is right off of an access road

11:32that they've got to the building. I I

11:34say that would be the the the area that

11:36I would, you know, most certainly think

11:38that they would use. Uh so there's not a

11:40lot um we're actually con uh in the

11:43process constructing the um Horizon's

11:46Park multimodal trails. So most of the

11:49spot has been cleared. Um the state has

11:52allowed us uh if we ever have to get in

11:54there and do the construction for the

11:56repair area. there's some trail that

11:58will be uh affected, but once the repair

12:00area or once the if the repair area is

12:03ever used, uh the pathways can go back

12:05on top of that. It's not going to

12:06preclude them from doing any of that

12:07type of work. So, I don't know if that

12:08answers your question or not, but

12:10>> um

12:12not [clears throat] quite. or your

12:15answer suggests that um a

12:19an access way could be defined and

12:22that's what I'm interested in seeing in

12:24this kind of easement rather than

12:26leaving open the question of how do you

12:29get the access because often um even a

12:32well-meaning uh user can be more

12:37destructive than necessary in terms of

12:39clearing additional uh area or you know

12:43imposing on uses like the trail.

12:47>> Correct. I don't know if I can answer

12:49that. Um we like I said, we do not have

12:51that that we've got the area defined. We

12:53do not have a pathway at this particular

12:55point in time. Um I don't know the way

12:57the contract reads, Chelsea. If they

13:00ever had to do anything at that point in

13:02time, we would have to maybe direct them

13:04where they could go.

13:05>> We would we could work with them to do

13:07that. Yes.

13:08>> Okay. If Yeah. If you um can either

13:10define it or define a process for the

13:14county reviewing and approving the the

13:16route that they that they use, that

13:18would be that would satisfy that

13:20question. Thank you.

13:24>> Other questions? Thank you.

13:27>> Agenda item number seven is Chelsea's as

13:29well. It's a resolution declaring

13:31certain real property as surplus and

13:33authorizing publication of an offer to

13:34purchase county-owned real property by

13:36negotiated offer advertisement and upset

13:38bids procedure.

13:40So, as you all recall at your last

13:42meeting, we brought this item to you.

13:44This is to declare property at zero

13:46Williams Road as surplus and authorize

13:48the publication of an offer to purchase

13:50for upset bids. At your last meeting,

13:53you all voted to delay declaring this a

13:55surplus and delay advert um voting to

13:58advertise the offer. Since that time,

14:00the county has actually um received an

14:03additional offer from another gentleman,

14:05James Perkins, in the amount of

14:07$328,450.

14:10Um I did go back to the original offer,

14:13Mr. and um told this to him and asked if

14:16he, you know, would con was interested

14:18in increasing his offer to meet or

14:20exceed that. and he has bowed out from

14:23that process. We have are um in the

14:25process of returning him his deposit

14:26that he had already deposited with the

14:29county. So therefore, this item would is

14:32similar in nature, but actually would

14:34approve a different offer from a

14:35different individual. And again, this

14:38item would approve the offer from James

14:40Perkins in the amount of $328,450.

14:44And so just, you know, as a reminder and

14:47refresher, this is the property that the

14:49tax department had um suggested an

14:52equitable value would be around

14:54$284,600.

14:56So the current offer exceeds that

14:57amount. And if you all were to vote on

15:01Thursday to approve this item, that

15:03would then give the clerk authority to

15:06publish in the Winston Salem Journal the

15:08offer and um start the upset bid

15:10process. That would be a 10-day process.

15:12We would continue the upset bid period

15:14until no additional offers were

15:17received. Then we would work with the

15:19individual or entity who had the highest

15:21offer and negotiate a purchase agreement

15:24with them. We would then bring that

15:25agreement back to you all to approve for

15:28the actual sale. So any action on

15:30Thursday would not be approving a sale,

15:32just declaring this property as surplus

15:34and um approving to publish the offer

15:37for advertisement. So happy to answer

15:39any questions. questions.

15:42>> Is that put in the classified in a

15:44journal? Is that where it's advertised?

15:46>> It is in the Winston Salem Journal. Yes,

15:48sir.

15:48>> Is any place else?

15:50>> Um, we have listed them on our website

15:53before,

16:00but I was had wondered what

16:03advertisement it would uh

16:07be.

16:11other questions.

16:12>> Miss manager, did on the uh advanced uh

16:16email, did you put that in red so I

16:18would recognize it?

16:20>> I put it in red so everyone would

16:22recognize it. Yes, sir.

16:25>> Thank you.

16:27That more than doubles the offer on the

16:30property, I would think. Puts it up over

16:3216 grand an acre, something like that.

16:35>> Yes, sir. So, the adjacent owner who has

16:38made that offer, is that property

16:39currently used for residential or

16:43commercial purposes or is it vacant?

16:46>> There's a structure on it, but I don't

16:48know what he uses it for. Um, I don't

16:52believe he lives there all the time

16:54because he made reference that he lives

16:56downtown.

16:58>> Well, is it a residential structure?

17:00>> I don't know. I can't see it from the

17:02road and I haven't driven back there.

17:04>> Okay. Thank you.

17:07I do. Oh, go ahead.

17:08>> Go ahead, please.

17:09>> I do want to um put on the record as it

17:12relates to the use of this property, if

17:16I am reading this correctly by way of

17:19the um Mr. Perkins who is um proposing

17:22to um purchase the property that it

17:26reads only the property adjacent to this

17:28county land. It concerns me that no one

17:32is monitoring the use of the property. I

17:35would feel much safer owning this parcel

17:37and proper and properly managing it for

17:40safety. So I don't want to broadly

17:44assume he's just going to hold it just

17:47to make sure that it is used in a safe

17:50way. So did he indicate anything else

17:53that he was interested in?

17:54>> He did not. No, ma'am.

17:57I will say though that our um grounds

17:59team was out there last week and they

18:01did post quite a few signs on the

18:04property. You know, no trespassing,

18:06hunting is not permitted, those type of

18:07things.

18:10>> Mr. attorney if um

18:14and it's likely that somebody else may

18:17own it other than the county at some

18:19point, but would the owning not um

18:23clarify the uses that could be there?

18:29It it would current it it's currently

18:31zoned. Um I'm sure at least part of it

18:34is in the Yadken River zoning. I'm not

18:36sure if the entire property is um but

18:40the zoning would still apply unless

18:42somebody comes in and applies for a

18:44reasonzoning.

18:45>> Okay.

18:47>> Yes.

18:48>> Um can you show us where on the map uh

18:51the um the adjacent land owner that make

18:54that made the offer property is? Yes.

19:26Thank you.

19:30>> Are there further questions?

19:34>> Thank you.

19:35>> Agenda items eight and nine are refunds

19:37by the tax assessor collector. Eight is

19:39in the amount of $1,2876

19:43and nine is in the amount of $16,22169.

19:48And then we have our reports. 10 and 11

19:51are our reports. 10 is the August

19:52contributionbased benefit cap report and

19:5511 is the August financial report.

19:59And those are all of our agenda items.

20:01Um we're certainly happy to begin our

20:03discussion on data centers if no one has

20:05any other questions about the agenda.

20:08>> I think we're ready.

20:12What I'll say, I'll turn it over to um

20:14Commissioner Bessie has provided a

20:16proposed ordinance um for a data center

20:20moratorum. Um staff is here to answer

20:24any questions, provide any updated

20:26information. I do just for the record

20:28want to state that staff has taken no

20:31position in regards to whether we're for

20:33or against data centers. Our job as

20:36staff is to provide you with information

20:38and education on what the matter is. And

20:41so whether it's um you know it's appears

20:45to be supportive or not supportive, it

20:47has nothing to do with that. It has

20:48everything to do with our jobs providing

20:50education and information. With that,

20:52I'll turn it over to Commissioner

20:53Bessie.

20:54>> Thank you very much. Um,

20:57Madame County Manager and Madam Chair,

21:00um, what you have before you in this

21:02document,

21:04uh, is, uh, proposed ordinance imposing

21:08a temporary moratorium, and moratorium

21:10just means a pause. Uh, a temporary

21:13moratorum on the issuance of approvals

21:15for the development of large-scale data

21:17centers in Foresight County. Um

21:21this to the best of my understanding uh

21:25meets all the legal requirements for

21:27what is to be included in a mortorium

21:30resolution. uh and uh should the

21:35majority of the commission uh decide to

21:38go forward with this could be set for

21:42Thursday's meeting uh to uh vote on

21:46whether to call a public hearing and the

21:50earliest we could do that at that time

21:52would be the October 15 meeting to

21:56consider this or a version of this as a

21:59moratorum. Um uh the u

22:04the specific statutory requirements are

22:07included in 160D 107 moratorum.

22:10Uh and it provides authority to the uh

22:15to local governments to impose

22:18development moratoriums under certain

22:20conditions. Uh hearing is required. uh

22:24specifics apply regarding what um

22:28projects are exempt from the terms of

22:30the moratorum. Uh and those are specific

22:34in the statute uh and the statute is

22:37referenced uh in the draft resolution.

22:41Uh then there are required statements

22:43four of them uh a statement of the

22:45problems or conditions necessitating a

22:47moratorum and what courses of action

22:50alternative to a moratorium were

22:51considered by the local government and

22:54why those alternative courses of action

22:56were not deemed adequate. Second a

22:58statement of the development proposals

23:00subject to the moratorum and how a

23:02moratorium on those appro approvals will

23:05address the problems or conditions

23:06leading to imposition of the moratorum.

23:09Three, a date for termination of the

23:11moratorum and a statement setting forth

23:14why that duration is reasonably

23:16necessary

23:18to address the problems or conditions

23:20leading to imposition of the moratorum.

23:22Uh and for a statement of the actions

23:25and the schedule for those actions

23:27proposed to be taken by the local

23:29government during the duration of the

23:31moratorum to address the problems or

23:33conditions leading to imposition in the

23:35mortorium. Uh the draft before you uh

23:39contains each of those four

23:40requirements. Um, and I can tell you

23:42where I got the model that I was using

23:46for this. Um,

23:48I

23:51took three examples

23:54from uh

23:57county jurisdictions in here in the in

24:00the Pont um that um were comparable

24:05either in size or urban scope uh or

24:11proximity. Uh the the three models that

24:14uh I examined were Davy County,

24:17Cumberland County, Fateville uh and

24:20Alamance County. Of the three, the one

24:23that looked most comprehensive and

24:24carefully worded uh in my opinion was

24:28the Alamance uh version. And so I

24:31modeled the format of this resolution on

24:34that. uh shared the draft uh with the

24:38county attorney and the county manager

24:40who also discussed it with heads of of

24:43relevant departments um received their

24:47suggestions uh and made modifications uh

24:50in order to respond to the suggestions.

24:53Uh I believe that this meets all the

24:55requirements if a majority of the

24:58commissioners wish to move forward with

25:00a discussion of whether or not uh to set

25:04a hearing for consideration of this. So

25:08from here it would be a two-step

25:09process. We would have to set the

25:12hearing and then at the hearing get

25:15public comments, consider any

25:18modifications that we wanted to make and

25:20vote yes or yes or no. So this is um at

25:24this point the question before the

25:26commission is whether or not to move

25:29forward the process of considering this

25:32not whether to take action on it but

25:35considering it. Uh and I can go into

25:38more details about any of the specifics

25:41uh of the four findings and the

25:44rationale for it. Uh in summary though,

25:48um rationale for doing this is that so

25:52many of the counties uh and

25:54jurisdictions near us have already

25:57adopted moratorium uh that if we don't

26:01put something in place, we are in effect

26:05uh inviting a slew of proposals that um

26:09uh we would never have the opportunity

26:12to uh uh to examine if we don't take

26:15action. At this point, uh the um

26:20uh the cautions that have been

26:21specifically offered uh regarding the

26:24action uh is that we can't propose to do

26:29anything that would be considered a

26:31downzoning under current law. Uh that is

26:34absolutely correct. That is recognized

26:36in the contents as I have drafted them.

26:39Um the uh

26:43and the salient

26:47part of the moratorum there is what

26:51potentially could we consider doing that

26:55would not run a foul of the downzoning

26:58prohibition. Uh there are uh matters

27:01that we could consider uh such as

27:04strengthening the county noise ordinance

27:07uh such as uh strengthening what we

27:09would anticipate we need in terms of uh

27:12pre-treatment of industrial discharges

27:15to uh our our sewage system. um such as

27:21uh additional limitations on property

27:24that was not zoned uh to allow data uh

27:31centers as defined in our current

27:33statute by right now.

27:38So the question is whether we want to

27:40consider

27:41putting a pause on entirely new

27:44proposals

27:46uh that would not include ones that have

27:48already started the process. uh for

27:51example um

27:54I'm aware of two cases where that is

27:57likely to um to see projects in motion

28:02that would be exempt from the the

28:04requirements of the moratorum uh or the

28:07pause I should say imposed by the

28:09moratorum because they have vested

28:11rights. Uh it is um uh rumored to be the

28:16case that um the applicants for the uh

28:21the the reasonzoning that we turned down

28:24earlier this year are coming back for

28:26another bite at the apple which they're

28:27entitled to do. Uh and if they file the

28:30necessary paperwork, they would be

28:32exempt uh and not affected by the pause.

28:36Um uh there I have just learned that

28:39there is apparently another uh data

28:42center proposal [clears throat]

28:45uh for what is now zoned uh for uses

28:50that

28:52allow a data center assuming that it has

28:55taken steps to give it vested rights by

28:58the time we were to adopt any moratorum

29:01resolution. uh and the earliest that we

29:03could do that would be the 15th of this

29:06month. They too would be exempt.

29:09Uh we have had our attention called to a

29:13recent decision uh in Chadam County with

29:16regard to a data center uh proposal that

29:20was in progress there. Uh I've read the

29:23uh the findings of fact. Um I have read

29:27the u uh the judge's order uh and just

29:32to to be blunt. It seemed like the

29:36Chattam County in that case

29:40attempted to

29:42stop processing

29:44approvals for a case that uh pretty

29:47clearly qualified to have vested rights

29:51and to be exempt from the proposal. So,

29:53we need to avoid making that kind of

29:55mistake. But if we do, then we would not

29:58be affected by the uh the terms of that

30:00decision.

30:03And that's my summary and I'm sure there

30:05are questions.

30:09>> I would like to ask our attorney to come

30:12forward and address this please.

30:24>> Good good afternoon [clears throat]

30:25commissioners and thank you for

30:28um allowing me to speak. I I would say I

30:31I I do want to lead off with the case uh

30:33Commissioner Bessie referenced and

30:35that's the Chattam County case. It's

30:36Ecotip West LLC versus Chattam County.

30:40Um I I have told you as you remember

30:43several times that there was litigation

30:45outstanding against one of these

30:47counties and that was Chattam County. um

30:51what happened in that case and I don't

30:53have all the facts um but a group came

30:57along they wanted to build believe a

31:00data mining um like cryptocurrency type

31:03of data center there county was against

31:06it they passed a moratorum and they said

31:10no one can build a data center for the

31:12next year and that's been in litigation

31:15since then

31:18unfortunately ely the opinion is

31:22poorly written and so I had to read I've

31:24I've had to read it several times

31:26because there are no findings of fact

31:28there are no conclusions of law the only

31:30conclusion of law is data center wins so

31:33what was alleged in that case uh reading

31:36from the order is the plaintist alleged

31:39that the moratorum itself was illegal

31:42they also alleged they had vested rights

31:47unfortunately we know how the judge

31:49reached the opinion. And so it's

31:52possible that the whole moratorum could

31:54be thrown out. Um and so the um from

31:59what I read, just looking it up online,

32:01the data center alleged that they

32:03invested $11 million

32:07to prepare for this data center. Um what

32:10the order says is Chattam County has to

32:12pay attorney's fees for the data center

32:16and they said come back in a couple

32:17weeks and we're going to decide damages.

32:19And so we don't know what those damages

32:21are quite yet. They could be $11

32:24million. They could be a multiple of

32:26that if you talk if you think about loss

32:28profits because there is no data center

32:30there. So, um I I I would urge you to

32:35consider that and and to and to have

32:37some caution because this is the only

32:39case that I know of in North Carolina

32:41where this has been litigated and

32:43Chattam County, which I believe is about

32:45a quarter of the size or less than for

32:48county could could really suffer because

32:50of this. And so, um that this is is

32:54dangerous. Uh I believe um Commissioner

32:59Messi did you know read through the

33:01statute about moratorum

33:03and um you know there there are certain

33:06circumstances where the board can

33:08approve a moratorum in this case as as

33:11I've said several times and it's been

33:13echoed by planning staff.

33:16It's dangerous for us because any really

33:19substantive change you might want to

33:21make would violate the down zoning. And

33:24so it's hard to see how you could

33:27permanently

33:28really limit data centers in the county

33:31under the current regime where we are.

33:34And that's not your fault. It's it's

33:36really what the state legislature has

33:38saddled us with. So, um you you

33:40obviously can reach whatever decision

33:42you want, but but I would

33:45bring to your attention as a warning

33:47that Chattam County case.

33:51>> Thank you. Are there questions from

33:52Gordon? There were no findings or

33:54conclusions though in that order, were

33:56there?

33:57>> No.

33:58>> But under rule 65, they're not required,

34:00are they? For injunctive rulings.

34:04>> Well, this this is a summary judgement.

34:06Um I I I mean the

34:08>> Well, that doesn't require them either.

34:10>> Yeah, it it's not required, but it's um

34:13if you were writing the order, you you

34:16would have you would have I'm sure been

34:18a little bit clearer on that. But it it

34:20it makes it hard for us to follow. So,

34:22it makes it hard to us to know

34:23definitively

34:25why the judge reached that decision. But

34:27regardless, the judge said that the data

34:30center wins and the county potentially

34:32owns owes many millions of dollars.

34:36>> Now, you know, I'm not saying they're

34:38going to have to pay that. They may

34:39reach a settlement or something like

34:40that, but um I would imagine they're

34:43going to owe quite a bit of money unless

34:44they somehow get the order overturned or

34:48they allow the data center to go

34:50forward.

34:53The question that I would have um I'm

34:55not first of all I wanted to just say

34:57that I'm not for putting this county

35:00into any kind of pearl or litigation.

35:03So, that's one. And my question to you,

35:06Gordon, and it's something that we had

35:08already talked about, but I think that

35:09constituents um should know. Um when I

35:13asked about whether the um

35:19they had already had an order previously

35:22on the records or was this after?

35:28>> I'm I'm sorry, I'm not following the

35:30question. You talking about the Chadam

35:31case? they already have an order for a

35:34moratorum before or did this happen

35:38afterwards?

35:40So, for example, if we already have two

35:42people that are in the queue

35:44>> for a moratorum, I mean for um a data

35:47center and we're trying to do this um

35:51I'm sorry I understand I understand your

35:53question. So, so the answer is I don't

35:55know because there if there were

35:57findings of fact it would say um ECOTIP

36:01did this step, they did that step, they

36:03fully qualified, they filed everything

36:05they did. Um, as I understand it, the

36:08data center says we we we filed

36:10everything. We have vested rights. The

36:12county says, "Oh, no, you didn't. You

36:13didn't you didn't complete your

36:15application." And so, I I I don't know

36:18the answer to that, but but you're

36:19right. Um and and and Commissioner

36:22Bessie included this in his proposed

36:24moratorum that if anyone does have

36:27vested rights,

36:29>> they they can still go forward. Now the

36:31question is what a court would consider

36:32vested rights. That could be tricky.

36:34There could be a third or a fourth

36:38data center out there that hasn't gotten

36:40in touch with Chris or Kirk and they

36:43they may pop up and say, "Oh, wait, wait

36:45a second. We we we have vested rights

36:47too because by right we could put in a

36:50data center today and you've taken that

36:52away from us. I'm not saying that's a

36:53good or bad argument, but we we don't

36:56know what we don't know.

36:58>> So I heard you say permanent and I think

37:01that Commissioner Bessie is offering um

37:03just a pause temporarily, right?

37:06>> So with that language

37:09um could you share your thoughts around

37:13it being temporary? Well, a moratorium

37:16is by definition temporary. Um, I I I

37:18think you still run the risk of somebody

37:21saying, "I have a right today to erect a

37:25data center and you're taking that away

37:26from me and you're really what you're

37:28really doing is a pretext and you're

37:29just doing it because you don't like

37:31data centers." That's that's the

37:32allegation. I'm not saying they

37:33necessarily win on that, but that's the

37:36that's what they would say.

37:37>> And and this is my last question. So,

37:39playing on words, um, pause is the

37:42purpose, right? So that's our purpose.

37:45The purpose would be for us to give time

37:48for ourselves to listen to the

37:50constituents, gather more information.

37:53Again, we've had that presentation, so

37:55we're continuing to do that. Um, we're

37:58learning what the impacts are going to

38:00be on the environment. Um, and then

38:02we're un better understanding what the

38:05safeguards are before moving forward.

38:08So, if we were to use the word pause

38:11versus moratorum,

38:13would that work?

38:14>> No. I I mean, it doesn't matter what

38:17term you use. It's the same thing. The

38:19the statute refers to a moratorum. So,

38:21it it doesn't matter what word you use.

38:24And so, um whether or not that's legal,

38:27that's a question. But, um the

38:30terminology wouldn't make a difference.

38:32>> Okay. Thank you.

38:34I do have u one question to um the

38:37county attorney. So in in all due

38:40respect to um commissioner best and I

38:44appreciate you doing this hard work. Um

38:48I do want to ask about

38:51um maybe your opinion about one of us

38:54who obviously we are political people

38:56and we have our own opinions about

38:58things and then we do the research and

39:01present this is how our oratorial will

39:05come out to the public. Then someone who

39:09um like a company that wants to bring in

39:12or develop a a data center, would they

39:15be able to say there is bias in our

39:18morator because one of us sort of

39:21created the documentation to

39:25have one in our county. Is that a is

39:28that a risk factor? You think

39:30>> there there is some risk in that?

39:31Obviously, you're entitled to to your

39:33own opinion. And I and I would state and

39:37things change from day to day. So, this

39:39not may not be exactly correct. Last

39:41time I checked, I believe 14 counties

39:44had enacted moratoria for data centers,

39:47but that means 86 had not. So, the great

39:49majority have not uh enacted those. Um

39:53there there could be an allegation of

39:54bias. I mean, if one of you came out and

39:56said, you know, I'm never going to

39:58approve a data center. I don't care

40:00where it is. um that could cause some

40:03problems even in a reasonzoning. But but

40:05you do still as as I keep telling you

40:08with a with a reasonzoning because it's

40:09legislative, you do you do have quite a

40:11bit of authority. Um if if if it got to

40:14a special use permit then we then we

40:16would be in trouble. If if we got to a

40:18special use permit hearing, which we

40:20don't we don't have here and and you

40:22said I'm against data centers, then you

40:24really could you really could not be

40:26unbiased.

40:28But so I'm sorry that's that's a long

40:30way of talking around the issue, but um

40:33I think you're okay expressing opinions

40:36about it one way or the other as long as

40:38you don't close it off permanently like

40:42saying it could never exist. A data

40:44center could never exist.

40:45>> I think my question is about obviously

40:47we all have opinions but only

40:50commissioner Bessie has proposed a

40:52moratorum. Would you then say, "Oh, it's

40:54not his."

40:56In essence, we created it as staff. we

40:59recreated this document to put before

41:01the commissioners that just based on you

41:06know staff recommendation that because

41:08that would be I think something that I

41:12would and again with all due respect to

41:15um Commissioner Bessie I would want

41:18staff to create the document that we

41:20would obviously you would but I'm just

41:22saying as of right now it appears that

41:25the moratoria is coming from maybe one

41:28commission additional verses from the

41:30work of staff.

41:32>> That's because it is um we you know we

41:35we've we've we've appeared before you a

41:37couple times and and you know our at

41:40least my recommendation is is against a

41:43moratorum and but any one of you or

41:46three of you or four of you can

41:48certainly propose something and and if

41:49the board is in favor of something

41:51obviously you you can vote on it. Um,

41:54again to to echo what the manager said,

41:58we're we're not trying to be for or

42:00against data centers. We're we're just

42:02trying to protect the county.

42:03>> So would you then this is my last

42:05question. I don't want to keep going

42:06around a circus. I guess my question

42:08directly to you is if we as a body or

42:13the majority decide we want the

42:15moratorial, would you and your staff

42:17then present one to us for us to vote

42:20on?

42:22I could do that, but knowing I've

42:25already told you that I'm I'm not I

42:28don't recommend it. But I mean, you

42:30know, if if we're instructed to do it,

42:32we can come up with the best version we

42:35can. But I what I'm telling you is I

42:37don't think we can come up with a

42:39version that is going to protect the

42:41county.

42:41>> Fair enough. Thank you.

42:42>> I I was going to ask you had you read

42:45this when that was presented to you from

42:48Commissioner Bessie?

42:49>> Yes.

42:51Thank you.

42:53>> I have a question. Um

42:57Gordon, aren't you in effect saying to

42:59us that because in your opinion there is

43:02no way to um uh enact meaningful uh

43:08condition requirements

43:11uh on the placement or the uh uh the

43:17setbacks, the noise, the the water

43:21discharge, etc. because in your opinion

43:24there's no way to enact those um under

43:27current law

43:29that uh we should not even consider uh a

43:36pause to collect other expert opinions

43:40and information. In effect, we have

43:42heard

43:44nothing on the legality of this other

43:47than my research and your research and

43:50opinion. We have not heard from other uh

43:54legal uh experts or those who have you

43:58know different experience with this

43:59issue.

44:01>> So I I think there are ways that this

44:03could be addressed and and we we've

44:05spoken about this. I I think um

44:09you know planning staff could be

44:11researching

44:13what a res what a restriction would look

44:15like and be ready with a restriction if

44:18we can convince the legislature to to

44:20get rid of down zoning or to provide the

44:24county authority over data centers.

44:25There were there were two bills as I

44:27mentioned uh in my last presentation.

44:29One passed the House, one passed the

44:31Senate.

44:32One would give you authority over data

44:35centers. one would get rid of down

44:36zoning. Unfortunately, they didn't come

44:38together. And so if if we could be ready

44:42with something if that did happen, that

44:44would that would be something we could

44:45do. Um, alternatively or at the same

44:49time really um and and planning staff

44:52has has has been working on this to some

44:54extent with with the past proposal for

44:56for a data center is to come up with

44:59reasonable

45:01conditions if somebody asked for a

45:04reasonzoning. So, um, you know, I

45:06understand

45:08one or two cases are probably coming

45:11before you. One, one of them would be

45:13resoning. The one you've already heard

45:15would come back in a different iteration

45:18if they had, you know, kind kind of

45:20plugandplay conditions based on their

45:23research. That's something we could be

45:24preparing now. And I think to some

45:25extent they've already done that.

45:28Just to clarify though, Gordon, because

45:30I want to make sure the board is clear.

45:31Those are recommendations, but neither

45:33recommendation would involve a moratory.

45:36That's correct. I just want to make sure

45:37we're clear on that.

45:40>> If if I can, um, Commissioner Bessie, so

45:43what I'm hearing, are you saying that

45:46you've spoken to someone at the

45:48association for some assistance around

45:52this? No,

45:55>> no,

45:58>> I'm not really sure who Are you talking

45:59about the NCAACCC?

46:00>> Yes, I know.

46:02>> I don't really know that they would have

46:03anything to say about this. I

46:06>> mean, they've provided um I mean, and

46:08some of you sat in on it. I mean, you

46:10know, education, which we've seen, and

46:13Nico has provided information, which

46:15we've seen, school of government has

46:16guidance out there, which we've seen,

46:18and all of that is being considered. At

46:20the end of the day, it comes down to a a

46:24legal interpretation of um with the

46:26downzoning statute

46:28>> and and I have to I'm sorry to probably

46:30answer the question better. Um I have

46:32spoken with the school of government um

46:35about that and attended several

46:36presentations and and

46:39you know I even I even I was trying to

46:40come up with some kind of way we could

46:42do this and and everything I came up

46:44with got shot down. So, um,

46:48yeah, I I have consulted with the school

46:50government.

46:52>> If I may, um, in section five of the

46:55draft, and by the way, I had originally

46:58thought that, um, we would be able to

47:00get a draft that was correct and

47:03complete as to form um, from the

47:06attorney's office. I would have been

47:08happy to start with that. Uh, I drafted

47:12this myself because it was clear that I

47:15was not going to get that. Would that be

47:17a fair statement?

47:21>> So, no, I I did not draft one. That's

47:23correct.

47:24>> Okay. Um, if I can refer you to section

47:27five, the work program. Uh, there are

47:30three parts to that and they address um

47:34what we've been discussing about here.

47:38uh that is what the purpose uh what kind

47:41of information would be collected during

47:43the pause

47:46and during and I'm not talking about

47:50just the staff looking at this and

47:53giving us their interpretation of what

47:55they recommend. I'm talking about our

47:58looking at this information directly and

48:01determining what we want to ask to be

48:04prepared.

48:06Now gathering Uh the start first

48:08paragraph talks about gathering

48:09information materials on appropriate

48:11conditions and limitations on the siding

48:13and development of large-scale data

48:15centers including best practices or

48:18recommendations from the National

48:20Association of Counties, the NC

48:22Association of County Commissioners,

48:24other jurisdictions in North Carolina

48:27that have studied the issue and other

48:30states which have experience addressing

48:32the impacts of large-scale data centers

48:35and subject matter experts on relevant

48:37environmental and utilities impacts and

48:40public comments would be taken. What I'm

48:43thinking about in this case when I

48:44reference other states talking about

48:47just across the state line in Virginia,

48:49you know, Loen County uh is considered

48:53the epicenter for data center

48:56development in the United States pro

48:58possibly in the world at this point. Um

49:01their county officials have direct

49:04experience in dealing with the problems.

49:06They have direct, concrete, substantive

49:09recommendations to make. Some of them we

49:11probably couldn't do under current

49:14statute. Some of them perhaps we could.

49:17I think we owe it to ourselves and our

49:22constituents

49:24to take the time to hear that

49:27information directly,

49:29not simply filter it through our

49:33outstanding staff. Because There are

49:36going to be different opinions on what

49:39is important and what will work and we

49:42need to consider those different points

49:44of view.

49:45>> Well, Mr. Bessie, I have been to Nico

49:49workshops and I've been to NCACC

49:52in east in uh NCACC. They had a workshop

49:56that had uh a guy from Lowden County

50:00there.

50:01>> I was there.

50:02>> I know you were. So to don't do not make

50:05the public believe that commissioners

50:09have not studied this issue because I

50:12know for a fact I have I know you have

50:15um and we've gone to workshops but

50:18neither is Niko nor NCAC going to make a

50:23recommendation because they represent

50:26everybody and neither of them are going

50:29to send you information that will say

50:33uh data centers are not good for you or

50:36data centers are good for you. They're

50:38not going to do that. I think what they

50:40have done and I think that uh it would

50:42be u of interest to the public to hear

50:46this. Uh they have made recommendations

50:50regarding conditions that uh should be

50:53addressed that uh um and alternatives

50:58u that other jurisdictions have followed

51:02and the folks in in Logen County um have

51:07that you know lived experience uh that

51:11we don't have here yet. And I think that

51:14it would be of interest to the public to

51:16bring in some folks uh in a public

51:18setting where they could hear and ask

51:21questions. Um that's the kind of process

51:25that this gives us an opportunity to do

51:28in a meaningful way. Uh it um uh it

51:34provides a a legal means of putting a

51:37temporary pause on new projects started

51:41and not trying to throw a monkey wrench

51:43in projects that already have vested

51:45rights and that was Chadam County's

51:47error.

51:50Uh but Paul's own new ones coming in. uh

51:54and we would take that kind of

51:57information and then we would you know

52:00consult with our legal counsel UNCC

52:03school government other available

52:04information regarding potential options

52:07for implementing conditions and

52:08limitations deemed to be needed to

52:11address the potential issues identified.

52:13Options considered may include county

52:16ordinance changes uh including

52:19comprehensive changes to development

52:21ordinance definitions and conditions. uh

52:24changes to development ordinances that

52:26apply only to properties which are not

52:28at present in zoning districts which

52:30allow data centers, noise ordinances and

52:34industrial weight wastewater

52:36pre-treatment conditions as well as

52:38requests for statutory adjustments. So

52:41if at the end of the process a majority

52:46of the board says we agree with Gordon's

52:48basic assessment that there isn't

52:50anything that we can do that would be

52:52meaningful uh except ask for statutory

52:56change that's written in as an option.

52:59Uh so we do have legal options

53:02referenced uh in the work plan.

53:06Uh

53:09there is plenty of grounds for

53:12reasonable disagreement on whether we

53:15should do a moratorum. I respect uh our

53:19expert uh attorney Watkins opinion that

53:24it's not worth doing. I do not share

53:26that conclusion.

53:29I think that the public examination

53:32process that this would entail

53:36is worthy in its own sake because as I I

53:40believe

53:42one of my colleagues has pointed out

53:45that there is a great deal of

53:47misinformation running around. Uh and we

53:50can we can take meaningful action to uh

53:55help remedy that by bringing in in a

53:59public setting uh outside uh experts uh

54:03you know subject matter as well as legal

54:06and experienced local governments and

54:09other jurisdictions to help go over the

54:11complications.

54:13>> Can I just say that um I I appreciate um

54:18I County Attorney Gordon Watkins stand

54:22firm. Good gracious. Because you know I

54:25know that just even when I was on the

54:26school board I wanted Dion to do a whole

54:29lot of stuff. Shade no we trying to keep

54:31you all off the front of the paper and

54:34all kind of other issues. And so I do

54:37want to empower you to do what we ask

54:41you to come and serve to do on behalf of

54:44the citizens and this board. So, thank

54:47you for saying, "Hey, I hear what you

54:49all are saying. I respect your opinion,

54:51but I have to give you, as Commissioner

54:55Bessie said, my expert opinion. What you

54:58all do with it, it is on you. So, thank

55:01you for standing strong in an opinion

55:03that I absolutely respect whether or

55:06not, you know, I go one way or the

55:09other. So I don't want um you or staff

55:12to feel any way like you know you have

55:15to be compromised in order to do what

55:18you know the citizens expect you all to

55:20do which is to give us the information

55:22we need so that we can govern in an

55:25effective way. But with that being said,

55:28I do

55:30um respect what Commissioner Bessie is

55:33trying to bring to light to this

55:35community around

55:37um although we have gone to sessions, I

55:40think as county commissioners um and and

55:43I and I still don't feel comfortable

55:46where I am about data centers. I think

55:49that it is, you know, a learning process

55:52um for for sure. I think that we may

55:55have had the benefit of the information,

55:57but a lot of our citizens have not had

56:00that information and I don't know

56:02whether uh hearing is going to per se

56:06give them the information that's needed

56:09versus the county um and even maybe this

56:12city coming together to offer some

56:15sessions throughout this community

56:16around data centers. And therefore, it's

56:19not politicized. is just hey this is a

56:22large enough county and city and you

56:25know they're coming so let's try to

56:27provide information to our citizens

56:30um so that they can come I think in a

56:33hearing and be empowered with um

56:36information that you know um all things

56:39being equal maybe they have been able to

56:41come out and hear um from the county and

56:44cities around um data centers but my

56:47question to

56:49lastly commissioner Bessie is what is

56:52your argument against just voting no on

56:55a data center if we're not ready to move

56:58forward versus the moratorial?

57:02>> That is an alternative. Um not all

57:05potential

57:07um uh requests are going to fall uh

57:12under the

57:17as clear a case as we were looking at in

57:20the um uh uh the the rural hall adjacent

57:24request. um that was a um uh

57:30an area zoned for agriculture and

57:33lowdensity residential. Um there was no

57:36question that data center use uh was not

57:41allowed uh in that zoning. Uh and it was

57:44a cleancut uh case where an up or down

57:47vote uh was all we needed to do. Um

57:50there

57:52could well be gray area cases that come

57:55forward uh in which we would um uh would

58:00want time to study the issue. Uh and

58:03this would give us time. This would give

58:05us that six-month pause. And I would add

58:09that uh the legislature is not currently

58:13in active session.

58:15uh they're not going to come back until

58:17late November at the earliest and

58:20possibly not till December to consider

58:23uh action on either of the bills that um

58:26that attorney Watkins referenced. Um uh

58:30a six-month pause on uh new projects

58:35that do not have vested rights.

58:38Pause on new projects that do not have

58:40vested rights. um would uh give us the

58:45opportunity among other things to see

58:47what the legislature is going to

58:49actually do on this.

58:52But just waiting for the legislature to

58:55act when it has no firm timetable

58:59uh and no assurance that it will act at

59:01all, I think is a an unsatisfactory

59:05substitute for for our moving forward

59:07with what we could do.

59:10>> I have a question. I'm not not going to

59:12limit myself to just one, but I've got

59:15one for right now.

59:19Go back on the tape just a little bit

59:21about four or five questions ago or

59:26observation. It was observation you

59:29made, Commissioner Bessie, in regard to

59:32your u uh

59:35your draft. I couldn't have done better

59:38myself. I I didn't uh I looked to see

59:41whether we'd got the email early this

59:44morning, hadn't got it. Looked at it

59:46again, hadn't got it,

59:49and looked at it just before I was

59:52getting ready to come out here. And

59:54there it had popped up. So, I did take

59:57the time to read it. So, that was just

1:00:00about

1:00:0211 11 o'clock, I believe. I don't know.

1:00:05I didn't pay attention to what time it

1:00:06was sent, but I took the time to read it

1:00:08anyway. So, but in reference in your uh

1:00:15draft,

1:00:19>> you it my interpretation of that is and

1:00:22that's that's that's fine. I took a lot

1:00:25of time to work through that. Um

1:00:30it seemed to be that

1:00:32uh in the conversation back and forth

1:00:35with you and um Mr. Watkins,

1:00:40you felt like you had to do that because

1:00:42the county attorney hadn't done it

1:00:44hadn't done a draft. In the last month

1:00:48or so when we've been discussing this,

1:00:51has it any time the majority of the

1:00:54board

1:00:56requested that he draft anything?

1:01:00>> I don't believe so. Well, we've had

1:01:02>> and he he's

1:01:05uh

1:01:07if if I come up with uh something and I

1:01:12probably could, but I'm don't have

1:01:14anything at present that I wanted the

1:01:18attorney to uh draft for me and it was a

1:01:21controversial matter

1:01:26and he knew it and most likely he'd

1:01:28probably tell me that it was I don't

1:01:30know but I I think you probably would.

1:01:33Uh

1:01:35then

1:01:37if it was controversial then uh if I

1:01:40want to try to get it forward, I would

1:01:43uh try to convince the Ford whatever the

1:01:46issue that I had was well I want the

1:01:49attorney to draft something for me

1:01:52because it's controversial and

1:01:55and he don't do that.

1:01:59And then if the board uh

1:02:04if the board directs him

1:02:07uh to do that then

1:02:11I think that's probably what he uh would

1:02:15need to do at the direction of the U

1:02:19board. But if if wherever we get to on

1:02:23this

1:02:25and there's got needs to be some kind of

1:02:28draft

1:02:30If the attorney's not in uh involved in

1:02:35doing that,

1:02:38then

1:02:41I guess I got a problem myself. I won't

1:02:44uh u with all you've got there without

1:02:49the attorney uh

1:02:52giving if it's

1:02:55it just seems to be that he can't uh uh

1:02:59give advice but as good as what you've

1:03:01got written down there and I'd say it's

1:03:03all strictly by the law u

1:03:09I don't think I'm going to totally

1:03:10accept that without the attorney our

1:03:13attorney

1:03:15I don't know how he's going to do it

1:03:17without at least saying these things is

1:03:20what uh needs to uh be put in a draft.

1:03:25And I think

1:03:29some way he can uh he's

1:03:33if we ask him to do some work or the

1:03:35county manager to do some kind of work,

1:03:41they probably do it more often than we

1:03:43think for

1:03:45that. They got opinions, but to go ahead

1:03:47and and they don't tell us what it is.

1:03:49And majority of the board ask them

1:03:52direction to do that, they do it.

1:03:56So,

1:03:57um,

1:03:59with all the good work you got there,

1:04:00I'm just wherever we end up, majority

1:04:04ends up going to go forward, then

1:04:07somewhere along the line,

1:04:10um, our attorney is going to have to be

1:04:12involved in it, too, or either uh might

1:04:16be something I couldn't support.

1:04:19>> Well, and I think that's quite a

1:04:21reasonable uh suggestion. Um uh in this

1:04:25case I was hopeful and I recognizing

1:04:29that there was no board mandate u

1:04:31because um it's been difficult to get

1:04:33this to a vote of any kind. Um but there

1:04:36was no board majority mandate. Um in

1:04:40order to put us in a position where we

1:04:43could discuss the possibility we needed

1:04:45a draft of what a resolution would look

1:04:49like. Um uh I when you know, uh when our

1:04:55our county manager um pointed out to me

1:04:59that staff were uncomfortable

1:05:02drafting,

1:05:04uh and please correct me. Um, so what I

1:05:07will say is I reached out to

1:05:08Commissioner Bessie to ask if he had any

1:05:11language or specific items he would like

1:05:14us to consider because based on the

1:05:16information um that we presented at the

1:05:19last meeting, we were really unclear

1:05:22because on from staff's perspective,

1:05:25we did not see a pathway forward with a

1:05:27moratorum and so we were hopeful that um

1:05:30Commissioner Bessie had some language

1:05:32that would address those concerns. So I

1:05:35asked him if he had any language or

1:05:36recommendations. Um, when we received

1:05:40back, quite honestly, we were surprised

1:05:42because we thought there was going to be

1:05:43something that was different than what

1:05:45we discussed as concerns and what we

1:05:48received back wasn't. Um, it it really

1:05:51it didn't address any of the concerns

1:05:52that we previously stated um that we did

1:05:56not feel comfortable with the moratorum

1:05:59a as such because of all the things

1:06:01we've already discussed. So, at that

1:06:04point on the staff level, we were a

1:06:06little bit at a well, what are we going

1:06:08to present on Monday? Because what we've

1:06:11received does not address any of those

1:06:12concerns, which is why I then reached

1:06:14out to Commissioner Bessie to ask him

1:06:16then, how would you like us to go into

1:06:19today's discussion? Would you like us to

1:06:21send the draft ordinance to the board?

1:06:24That's kind of how how we are here. And

1:06:27if I may, um,

1:06:30what county manager Robinson and I are

1:06:33saying is pretty much the same thing

1:06:34with different points of emphasis. Um,

1:06:37uh, I

1:06:40had indicated that I was going to ask

1:06:42the board to consider a moratorum.

1:06:46uh and uh county manager Robinson

1:06:49indicated basically that after talking

1:06:52to other staff uh that they were looking

1:06:55for

1:06:57alternatives to a moratorum that

1:07:01I mean that's that's the upshot

1:07:03>> I I will say we weren't necessarily

1:07:04looking for alternatives to a moratorum

1:07:07we were hopeful that you were going to

1:07:09present something um and provide us with

1:07:12language that gave clarity that a

1:07:14moratorum was allowed. So, something

1:07:16different than what we had previously

1:07:18discussed. We thought you were going to

1:07:20provide us with a draft that addressed

1:07:22those concerns. Um, so we thought you

1:07:26would actually have something that you

1:07:28sent to us that we would say, "Oh, okay.

1:07:30Yes, we can do this moratorum, but

1:07:32unfortunately the draft that we received

1:07:34did not address staff's concerns."

1:07:38And that's the puzzler because I did in

1:07:41fact uh draft language that addressed

1:07:45the concerns that were raised.

1:07:48Uh and you know the

1:07:52they were what were we going to study?

1:08:00What would we consider in the process of

1:08:03that study? It's in there. uh and what

1:08:06potential

1:08:08outcomes

1:08:09could we see that's in there as well

1:08:14respectfully I think we have a

1:08:16difference of opinion on what addresses

1:08:19the substantive issues and what is

1:08:21adequate perfectly legitimate

1:08:24but that's why I drafted a resolution

1:08:28there was no way to get a resolution

1:08:31for a moratorum before this body as a

1:08:36for consideration

1:08:38through staff work alone.

1:08:41>> Can I just say um Commissioner Bessie,

1:08:44if it makes you feel any better, the

1:08:45county is an equal opportunist. I have

1:08:48wanted to create things and Shantel

1:08:50says, Shay, do you have the votes? No.

1:08:53So then I may go and talk to attorney

1:08:56Watkins and we go back and forth around

1:08:58the two and then I'll create something

1:08:59and share it with you all. I think

1:09:02probably some of the

1:09:05concern that, you know, I even felt, you

1:09:10know, sort of um I was very empathetic

1:09:13with um the county attorney when you

1:09:15said that, hey, we asked you to do

1:09:17something, you didn't do it. And it made

1:09:19him look like he is not responding to us

1:09:24as a body versus, you know, I did, you

1:09:28know, this is the best that I can do

1:09:30without, you know, the the the counties,

1:09:33you know, doing it for me, if you will.

1:09:35And I think that's maybe for me at

1:09:38least, that's some clarification that I

1:09:40would like to make to the citizens that

1:09:43unless it's a body of us, we don't tell

1:09:45staff what to do. You know, we may ask

1:09:48for help so that then we can share

1:09:51information with one another. But I do

1:09:54think that at least from and I think

1:09:56from all of our experiences, you know,

1:09:58when we go through of course proper

1:09:59channels that staff, you know, will

1:10:02assist. But it seemed like earlier you

1:10:04made a point to say that the county

1:10:07attorney was not responsive to something

1:10:09we asked him to do.

1:10:11>> If let me let me just let me just say

1:10:13something. Um it's not that I don't want

1:10:16to do this. It's not that I'm refusing

1:10:19to do this. It's that what I understood

1:10:22the board saying to me multiple times is

1:10:26is there a way forward with a moratorum?

1:10:28and I've said repeatedly, "No, I don't

1:10:31believe there is." And so that's still

1:10:34my response. I I believe the Cadam

1:10:38County case is a real warning. And I

1:10:41would say if you do want to go forward

1:10:43with a moratorum, you need to really

1:10:45think seriously about setting aside a

1:10:47contingency if we get sued on it because

1:10:49that's a real possibility. Okay? So, I I

1:10:52don't that doesn't bring me any joy

1:10:54because what I want to do is I want to

1:10:56give you all um the maximum choices. I

1:11:02just feel like the legislaturator's tied

1:11:04your hands on this one. And so, I I

1:11:06don't think I'd be doing my job if I

1:11:08just came up with a moratorum and I

1:11:10said, "Alamance passed it. That's good

1:11:12enough." And so, I'm not I'm not going

1:11:13to do that. I'm not going to say because

1:11:14Alamance passed it, we should pass it.

1:11:17So, I mean, I given you my opinion.

1:11:19Obviously, you don't have to agree with

1:11:20me, but

1:11:22>> that's what my opinion is.

1:11:23>> Attorney Watkins, if I if I could ask

1:11:25this question. Does continuing education

1:11:28on this issue require a moratorum?

1:11:33>> I mean, obviously not. And and and as

1:11:35the chair and well, I mean, I've seen

1:11:37many of you at at education events, so I

1:11:40know that many of you have attended

1:11:41those and but but obviously, yes, we we

1:11:44we all need to continue to learn more.

1:11:48Well, I love telling the county staff

1:11:50what to do. Um,

1:11:53hardly ever do it. Um, but I I want to

1:11:56commend our county attorney and also

1:11:58Commissioner Bessie for the hard work

1:11:59they put into this matter. Um, I mean,

1:12:02it's a high level discussion and I

1:12:04appreciate that. I'm afraid I come back

1:12:06around though to Commissioner

1:12:08Woodberry's position and that was well,

1:12:11you know, why can't we if look at

1:12:13another data center if one gets proposed

1:12:16uh and make a decision about it and I've

1:12:18already voted against one in this uh

1:12:20county because I thought it was the

1:12:22wrong one under the circumstances. I

1:12:24hear now we may have a couple of more

1:12:26coming. Um, and I think what I said at

1:12:28the last meeting that fell on deaf ears

1:12:30was it really helps me as a mere lawyer

1:12:35to know a specific project proposal to

1:12:39which I can respond. I mean, we've

1:12:41gotten a lot of education just dealing

1:12:43with the last one. And as Commissioner

1:12:44McDaniel said, uh, we heard the public

1:12:48commentary on that. We heard how they

1:12:49felt about it and and I welcome that

1:12:52also. But when you look at a proposal

1:12:57and I see in the uh the draft from

1:13:00Commissioner Bessie, I I commend him for

1:13:02saying there are multiple sites in this

1:13:03county um that are that still remain.

1:13:07When you look at a specific uh proposal,

1:13:10I think that one is in a position to try

1:13:13to assess that and determine what

1:13:15conditions need to be imposed. Uh we

1:13:18we've heard about it. We've read about

1:13:19it. I visited a big data center at a

1:13:22town called Maiden where they're crazy

1:13:23in love with it. Um, you you know, you

1:13:26got these features of of noise and the

1:13:29uh power grid, the loop water system

1:13:31aesthetics and other environmental

1:13:33considerations, who's the enduser, and

1:13:35that's crucial. We didn't have that in

1:13:37the one for rural hall. And of course,

1:13:39zoning undergards all of that. So, uh, I

1:13:44just think that, uh, this proposal here

1:13:47is not one that works in that context,

1:13:50uh, because if it did or if I could see

1:13:53a way to see clear to do that, you know,

1:13:56then I might be so inclined. So, given,

1:14:00you know, the risk averse nature of what

1:14:02you're describing to us, uh, and I'm not

1:14:05as riskaverse or I am as riskaverse as

1:14:07anybody else, uh, because of my

1:14:09background. Um, I do take I take pause

1:14:13in approving something like this.

1:14:19>> One more.

1:14:23>> I know there's been a lot of concerns

1:14:25about property taxes.

1:14:29I've got to focus on that and I would

1:14:32never want to subject our county to be

1:14:35having to increase our property taxes to

1:14:38potentially pay a data center. So, uh, I

1:14:42kind of have to take the guidance that

1:14:44our attorney has on this because I just

1:14:47wouldn't want to subject our county like

1:14:49potentially what Chattam County is

1:14:51having to face raising taxes to pay a

1:14:54data center.

1:14:56I would just I would just add to that

1:14:58that um polls are coming in 70 to 80% in

1:15:03favor of the constitutional amendment

1:15:06to limit property taxes. So you may not

1:15:09have the ability to raise property tax.

1:15:12>> So or lower benefits.

1:15:16>> Thank you. Um I wanted to say that I was

1:15:20not intending to denigrate attorney

1:15:23Watkins. um but merely to explain why I

1:15:28had to draft something if anything of

1:15:30this nature was going to be before the

1:15:33board for consideration.

1:15:35Uh and I, as I indicated, I do respect

1:15:39um your professional analysis. Uh I

1:15:43don't share all the points. I think that

1:15:45in the Chattam County case, for example,

1:15:47it is crystal clear that the liability

1:15:51there was based on uh Chadam's declining

1:15:56to recognize

1:15:58um what seemed on the facts presented uh

1:16:02pretty clearly a strong case uh to be

1:16:05considered an exempt project. Um I do

1:16:09think that there are uh reviews that we

1:16:13are passing up by declining to take this

1:16:17uh process step. Uh such as a review on

1:16:20the costs to the uh uh the constituents

1:16:25here of uh increases in electric bill of

1:16:28increases in their water sewer bill. U

1:16:31if we have uh too many poorly sized,

1:16:34poorly located facilities of of this

1:16:37type. Um, at this point it's it's clear

1:16:41that I don't have the votes to move

1:16:43forward. Um, and I'm going to take that

1:16:46as the the uh uh the response of the

1:16:51commission, but I would like for the

1:16:54record if there is anyone else who wants

1:16:56to join me in saying that we should move

1:16:58forward with this process to just hold

1:17:00up a hand uh and see let folks see who

1:17:04is for and who is against. and I see

1:17:06myself and Commissioner McDaniel holding

1:17:08up a hand to consider this.

1:17:10>> So, Commissioner Bessie, what I wanted

1:17:12to say to you um relative to your

1:17:16position with this, you are the atlarge

1:17:19um commissioner. So, that means that you

1:17:22um are responsible for the constituency

1:17:24throughout Force County. I will tell you

1:17:28that I do support you. Nonetheless, we

1:17:31don't have um the support on this board.

1:17:34So, the hand raises is really not

1:17:36necessary. I will tell you, thank you

1:17:39for this body of work. I'm getting the

1:17:41emails like you are. Again, do not be

1:17:44dismayed. We've done what we could do.

1:17:47And um you just don't have what you

1:17:50need. So, we'll just move forward.

1:17:53>> And I would just say um and I know you

1:17:55said the last person chair, so I

1:17:58apologize, but I just take issue with

1:18:00asking for the straw poll. I think that

1:18:03that's not where I thought this would

1:18:06end up. I I thought that and in all due

1:18:09respect, um, Commissioner Bessie, I

1:18:11thought that we landed in a good space.

1:18:13I don't have the votes. Let's just move

1:18:14forward. But to ask us to take a straw

1:18:18poll, that wasn't collegial. I thought

1:18:21that I I think that that wasn't a good

1:18:23show of how we can support one another.

1:18:26So, I just wanted to put that on record.

1:18:28is not that I don't support informing

1:18:30studentu citizens and having their voice

1:18:32be heard. I think we're just at a point

1:18:35where we need to figure out with staff

1:18:38how to move forward. But I I I just

1:18:42don't appreciate that last part.

1:18:46>> Thank you, Gordon. We appreciate you. Um

1:18:49have a motion to adjurnn.

1:18:54Have

1:18:54>> a motion and a second. We're jar.