Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Let's pray. God, we come this evening to just thank you, your creator, your sustainer of all. Thank you for this beautiful area that we have an opportunity to live in. Thank you for our elected officials, for our appointed officials. Father, continue to minister to and through them. Thank you for our commissioners, and just ask that you continue to watch over them. And, father, just pray as they seek your heart as they're making decisions for each of the citizens here in Blount County. Father, we especially lift up our first responders. Thank you for all that they do. God, just continue to protect them.

We realize that there are those in Texas that are hurting. There are those that are neighbors here that are still trying to recover. Father, a lot of things are taking place. We trust you. We look to you and thank you for your son, Jesus, who died on a cross and rose so our sin can be forgiven, honoring you always. It's in Christ's name we pray. Amen.

Thank you. Welcome everyone to the board of county commissioners meeting for Blount County for Thursday, 07/17/2025. I would like to thank our chaplain Greg Long and our deputies for leading us in the invocation and the pledge. Next, we will have the announcement for the emergency evacuation procedures. Next, we have roll call.

Madam clerk, please take the roll.

Mister chairman, there are 16 members present. Five members are absent.

Thank you, madam clerk. I will declare that a quorum is in attendance. Commissioners Acord and Reagan let me know they could not attend tonight's meeting due to conflicts. Next, we have welcome and recognition of special guests. Commissioners, are there any are there any special guests that need to be recognized? Seeing none, we'll move on to item a, setting of the agenda. Chair will stand for a motion to set the agenda as published. I have a motion from commissioner McMahan, second by commissioner Bright. Any discussion on the agenda? Seeing none, if you're in favor of adopting the agenda as published, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

16 yes. The motion carries. The agenda is set as published. Item b, general consent calendar. Chair will stand for a motion. Got a motion to adopt the general consent calendar from commissioner McMahan. Second by commissioner Giles. Any discussion on the general consent calendar? Seeing none, if you're in favor of adopting the general consent calendar, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

16 yes. The motion carries. The general consent calendar is adopted. Item c, public input on items on the agenda. I have several cards. Speakers, when I call you up, please come forward, tell us your name, tell us the district in which you live, and tell us the item on the agenda that you wish to speak about. You'll have three minutes. There'll be a timer up here on the screen that'll let you know when the time runs out. Please address the commission as a whole or the chair and not individual commissioners. Alright. First, I have David Nahigian.

Thank you very much, commissioners. My name is David Nahigian, and I'm from District 5 where commissioner Anderson and Carver are, and appreciate your time here. Yeah. I'm urging you, commissioners, to not reduce the open space requirement that's on g five, I believe, is the is the item on on the agenda from 40% to 30%. I just think that, reducing the open space will increase, the dis the land disturbance and habitat and the long term ecological damage that it could've could affect would would really, kinda ruin our our county.

I've seen that happen before in other places. You know, rural roads can handle more dense development and emergency services, obviously, as well as our water. And so I'm urging you to vote against this measure. You know, there's less open space means more runoff, more flooding. And, also, weakening our open space standards accelerates the suburban sprawl and erodes what makes our community special.

And as we heard in the prayer, this is a beautiful county. This is a beautiful place, and we we don't wanna see our environment, our this place that that has that that we're enjoying so much become something that we've seen in other states and other other places. So urge you please to, vote to against the, the measure to reduce the open space in clustered development from 30 to 30%.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Alright. Next, we have Joy Nehigian.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Joy Nehigian, and my husband is David. We live in Maryville, and, commissioner Anderson and Richard Carver, District 5. And I would like to speak to item g five as well, and I'd like to reiterate what my husband just said. We're very grateful to live in this county, and we are really thankful for your service because we know that you work really hard.

And we're kinda behind the scenes sometimes seeing how hard all of you work, and we do really appreciate it. So I would just like to say that, David and I are really involved in our community, and we love it. We love that involvement. And so in 2023, we attended the there was a workshop for Blount County planning department, and they asked for public input. So we proposed a three page proposal on about how to make sure that Blount County stays in in a intact the way it is without overdeveloping, making sure that we use zoning, appropriately.

One of the things that they that we emphasized in our our proposal was to please adhere to whatever the comprehensive plan that the the county develops. And so as a result, we would like to say, in keeping with that, the comprehensive plan emphasized that cluster developments stay with the aligned with the citizens' request to make sure that we don't overdevelop and then we keep open spaces as large as we can. So as a result, I would just like to please propose that you uphold the 40% open space requirement to stay true to the comprehensive plan and for all your decisions going forward to make sure that you consult all all the plan in requires according to citizen input and extensive research that was done for to put that plan together. And so, hopefully, you'll honor that citizen's input to uphold the 40% open space and that you will keep Blount County the way it is because we love it so much. And so thank you for your time.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you, ma'am. Next, we have Phil McGill.

I'm Phil McGill from District 4. Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here today to advocate for the, zoning code, specifically taking it from 40 down to 30. I have a this is not about cutting corners. This is about balancing conservation with affordability and responsible growth.

Let's look at the facts. According to the National Association of Home Builders, land cost is up to 40%, which makes it a very significant burden, especially in counties that have limited infrastructure and families are struggling to find affordable homes. By mandating 40%, you're only going to be given 60% for development, which pushes per unit cost up. And developers either build these large, big McMansions, or they go somewhere else to build, and we don't have homes for people that need it. Now consider studies from the American Planning Association.

It shows 30% open space is common and effective benchmark in many successful cluster developments. It provides ample space, rooms for trails, tree buffers, pocket parks, stormwater control without hamstringing the housing supply. With a 30% requirement, we still protect significant open space and encourage thoughtful, walkable neighborhood design, but we also allow for more compact lots, greater housing variety, and a much better match for the real needs of our population. Here in our county, the medium home price has raised 30% in the last five years. At the same time, our workforce, our men and women that are teachers, nurses, police officers, first responders, young families are being priced out of our market.

We can't address the crisis without revisiting some of the well meaning but rigid requirements that are driving up land consumption and costs. This proposal doesn't eliminate green space. It simply brings our policy in line with successful evidence based planning modules across the country. In closing, I ask you to support the adjustment from 40 to 30. It's a practical step grounded in data, consistent with best practice planning, and responsible to the housing needs of our computer community. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. That's all the yellow cards I have. Does anyone else wish to address the commission? If so, please raise your hand. Come forward, ma'am.

At McGill, district four. I always say I'm not gonna take my three minutes. I hope I don't tonight, but I just want to say to the first two speakers that spoke here thinking about what they say, I am for what they want, and that is I do not want urban sprawl. But we are going to need a certain amount of homes in our community. Like it or not, we are going to need a certain amount of homes to meet the need of just the future children and grandchildren that live here now or people who move back home.

You know, I know in some of these, I spent some time and talked to the planning commission or the, planner, and found out that the there has only been five cluster developments built since 2021. Only five. And I really had hoped I'd have enough time since last Thursday to kinda do some homework and ask some folks who sold homes, how many of those were sold to the people that we want them to be sold to, our teachers, our nurses, our firemen, our sheriffs, you know, some of those kinds of things. But I ran out of time. I do know that 30 of those homes went to, I think, veterans because they they purchased with a VA loan, and that's a really ready readily accessible, number I can pull out.

So we those cluster developments provided homes to 30 people who fought on my behalf and your behalf or were there if they needed to fight. And those are the kind of people I want to see in in our homes, in our county. I don't want to run them out to another county. And I do know that when if we need a certain amount of homes and we can't compact them in a little closer community, a little bit more suburbanizing area close to town, that we will still need the same amount of homes, except that's what causes urban sprawl. Because now we're using more and more and more land to be able to provide the same amount of homes to those people.

The amount of people are not going to decrease. It's not going to change. It's just how much land we use to provide housing to those people. And that's why I am for a reduction of the open space to 30%. It won't be a whole lot, but at least maybe it will make some of that property more accessible to developers who can build on those homes. I know it's a hard decision. I know you all have a lot to think about, and I do appreciate you all giving us the opportunity to give our input. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Please raise your hand. Come forward, sir.

Good evening, county commissioners. Thank you all for the opportunity to speak tonight. I'm Austin Pinton, district four here in Merrillville. I'd just like to start by saying, I think we all love Blount County. I think everyone here is here because they love Blount County or else they wouldn't be here. So I think we can all agree that the motion that was made was a good thing. I think we're all in support of some number. I think the problem is we've gone too far. We had zero regulation, and now I think we've gone kinda too far the other way. So I think what we're asking for is not taking it back down to zero.

That's not where we're at. We're just asking for something reasonable to where maybe we can get some of these developments in place and still have that green space that everybody kinda is looking for. And then you couple the 40% green space along with a point seven five requirement, per acre point seven requirement per lot, per county lots on septic, and then point five on sewer, an average of point six nine per lot. That is a lot of sprawl. If you're talking about you have to have point seven five acre for every house you build in the county, that's a lot of sprawl. You go take a look at a development like Franklin Manor out off Morganton Road. I'm sure several of you have probably been through there. That is a beautiful community out there. It's gorgeous. Don't get me wrong.

All those lots out there are point seven five. Some of them go up to three or four acres. Beautiful community. The problem we have is that community ranges anywhere from 730,000 at a starting point to get into that community all the way up to 1,200,000. Now that is not affordable housing, and most Blount County citizens probably cannot afford that area.

Beautiful subdivision. It's great. But I think we also need to provide an alternative for some affordable things. Like I said last week, d r Horton and some of these other communities like Smith built ball homes, you can get in a home from 140 to a $170 a square If you go look at the average price of a preexisting home, you're gonna be anywhere from probably $2.20 up to $2.70 for something that doesn't need extensive repairs. That is a wide margin of a difference between a preexisting home and a brand new built home that goes through all of the county inspections, all of the city inspections, just like any other builder would go through.

So they have to be good homes or they wouldn't be approved, through the building, codes that they have to come out and be inspected. So I think that in in summation here, I think we're just trying to get to something reasonable. I think that what we did was a good thing. I think we just went a little bit too far the other way. I think maybe if we can reel it in and find a good number that kinda works for everybody and gives us a happy medium, I think that's what the objective of this motion was. And I think that, we can we can get to 30% and maybe get some of these things, more in towards the middle. Thank you all.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else who wishes to address the commission on items on the agenda? Please raise your hand. Yes. Please come forward.

I'm Molly Folger. District 4 is Merrillville. Yes?

I'm sorry?

District 4 is Merrillville. Yes? I apologize. This is my first time being here.

Oh, District 4, it it's it's in the county. It's unincorporated Blount County mostly.

Alright. So I guess District 4. But, again, this is my first time here. But from what I understand, I personally am against decreasing the open space. I have a lot of experience in ecology.

And by decreasing open space, you're not only, you know, just habitat destruction in general, and that's a huge factor for population decline in many animals. But, also, for example, there's quite a few basically, quite a we live in a rainforest. Right? So there's quite a there's at least one endemic species around here. And since there's most likely not, like, a lot of funding to really continue looking for endemic species, I'm my more concern, here is if you were to increase the, basically, the amount of urban sprawl, it could potentially impact the populations of, this endemic species, your Jordan salamander.

And another thing is, as a solution, to my understanding, aren't there quite a few bit of homes that are technically just, like, you know, there, but no one's living in them. Right? I know that's a bit of a problem in America. Again, this is my first time here, so I don't know exactly how extensive this problem is in Blount County in particular. But I would say maybe go looking into how many homes that haven't been demolished but have no one living in them and see if maybe they can be refurbished to be used for affordable housing without having to increase the amount of houses built, at least look into that first is what I'm basically trying to say.

I know it's kind of an, uneducated idea, but I'd say at least look into it first before really doing anything. So that's pretty much what I'm trying to to implore you to do before you go ahead and vote to decrease it from 40 to 30% in regards to open space.

Okay. Thank you very much. Anyone else who wishes to speak? Yes, sir. Please come forward.

Andrew Stuegel, District 10. I'm here today to speak in favor of preserving rural space in Blount County and to, at the same time, speak in favor of greater greater housing density because I think that is the only way you can achieve that. The way that I see this problem, there are three corners of the triangle. One of them is more rural land. The other one is more affordable housing. The other one is less housing density. You can only get to two of those at the same time. With any policy problem, you're gonna have trade offs. So if you want less housing density and more rural land, you're not gonna have the affordability. If you want more rural land and you want more affordable housing, you're

gonna

have less housing or you're gonna have more housing density, which is the solution here. And if you have less housing density and more affordable housing, then you are pushing all of that, as I think it was Pat that said, out into the country. You are choking out that rural land, like a weed growing out there. So I just, you know, wanna speak in favor of gathering more of this housing in one space. It's not that the entire county is zoned that, you know, we're decreasing the we're voting here to decrease all of the open space in the entire county. It's per lot. It's, you know, as Pat said, we're gonna need the housing anyways. So I would, I'd like to speak in favor of, lowering the requirement. So thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else who wishes to speak to us? Alright. Seeing none, we'll move on to item d, budget consent calendar. Chair will stand for a motion to adopt the budget consent calendar. We've got a motion to adopt from commissioner Bright, second by commissioner. We'll record that as Davis. Any discussion on the budget consent calendar? Seeing none, if you're in favor of adopting the budget consent calendar, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

Motion carries. Budget consent calendar is adopted. Under item e and f, there are no, items to vote on, so we'll move on to item g, new business. Madam clerk, please read the call.

Sorry. Blount County Sheriff's Office grant application $1,575,000 to apply for fiscal year twenty six school security officer grant for 21 SROs at $75,000 each. No matching funds are required. Referred to full commission with a favorable recommendation by the budget committee five zero.

I have a motion to approve the VCSO grant application from commissioner Michaels, second by commissioner Giles. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor of approving the VCSO grant application, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

16 yes votes. The motion carries. The BCSO grant application for 1.575 is approved.

Blount County Sheriff's Office grant application, $74,000 to apply for fiscal year twenty six litter grant. No matching funds are required. Referred to full commission with a favorable recommendation by the budget committee, five zero.

I have a motion to approve the BCSO grant application for the litter grant by commissioner Michaels, second by commissioner Carver. Any discussion? Commissioner Hanley, you're recognized for the first time.

My screen's frozen.

Mine is too. I was going

to get dressed.

If you'll try clicking the on the floor at the bottom left. Did that work? Commissioners, if that happens, take your mouse and go down and and click on the words on the floor at the bottom of the screen. Okay. Did

you get yours? Jessica get hers.

Is yours face commissioner?

She makes out.

Oh, you're good. Okay. Sorry. Okay. Alright. Any discussion on the motion? Alright. Commissioners, vote yes if you're in favor of approving the BCSO grant application for the litter grant. Vote no if you're not in favor. Okay. Yeah.

Mister Martin. Mister chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

16 yes votes. Motion carries. BCSO grant application for the litter grant is approved.

Resolution number twenty five seven zero zero one budget increase. Blank County Sheriff's Office, $230,000. Appropriate one time general county funds for already supported items, including k nines, AEDs, drones, and battery backup for the jail. Refer to full commission with a favorable recommendation by the budget committee five zero.

I have a motion to adopt resolution number 25 dash seven dash zero zero one from commissioner Michaels, second by commissioner McMahan. Any discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor of adopting resolution number 25 dash 7 dash zero zero one, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

16 yes votes. The motion carries. And resolution number 25 dash seven dash zero zero one is adopted.

Resolution number 257002, budget adjustment. Blount County Sheriff's Office, $72,453, appropriate general county funds to recognize the total expense incurred for the real time crime position approved in this year's budget. This increase is currently offset by reimbursements from Merrillville, Alcoa, and nine one one operations referred to full commission with a favorable recommendation by the budget committee five zero.

I have a motion to adopt resolution number 25Dash7Dash002 from commissioner Michaels, second by commissioner Carver. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, if you're in favor of adopting resolution number 25 dash seven dash zero zero two, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister

chairman, there are 16 yes votes.

16 yes votes. The motion carries, and resolution number 25 dash seven dash zero zero two is adopted.

Resolution number 257012 to amend the zoning resolution of Blount County, Tennessee by modifying section 7.2 c to revise the open space requirement of cluster developments.

I have a motion to adopt resolution number 25 dash seven dash zero one two by commissioner Wells, second by commissioner French. Is there any discussion? Commissioner Wells, you're recognized for the first time on the motion to adopt. Thanks,

mister chairman. I'll make a couple of quick comments here, after last week's, good discussion and several phone calls to with with folks and and emails for the week. It's been a it's been a good learning opportunity. So I would I I appreciate and I and even in here last week and then again tonight. So thank you everyone for for input.

I think the input is is what we all want, and I wanna listen to that. And speaking to that end, you know, there's been some that have thrown around a little bit of I would call a little more harsh accusation that as though this particular measure is a pro growth measure that's just grow at all cost and and just grow, grow, grow, and do do more and more and more. And I would just contend, and then then my statement has has been if if that were true, if that were even remotely true, I would dare say two years ago, I would have not authored this particular resolution to amend our cluster development program because we'd have just left it the same, which would be zero open space requirement, and and divide the lots in half and just go build. We just left it alone. But I think the commission worked really hard to put together a very comprehensive plan that I think we can all be very proud of the detail that went into that, the research, the discussion, the time spent on it.

So I'm very proud that we put together a good program that that can address that because every one of us I'm I'm gonna go out on a limb and say all 21 commissioners have spent a decent amount of time talking with constituents about responsible growth. I'm pretty sure I can put a wager on that one and be pretty safe. So with with that being said, you know, we are all trying to address that. That's why this was brought forward originally with these parameters was to try to address exactly what all of us were being asked for, and that is why this cluster development program was developed like it is. So I I was just wanted to say that first and so that we're we're all on the same page as to what we're what we're doing here.

And what we're seeing is existing developments that we have in the county now. There are there are a few, and there are a few that that are wrapping up. There are no new applications. There haven't been any new applications over the last two years, partially due to a little missed stringent program that we have currently at that at that particular rate. But the ones that we do have out there as use cases, you know, I could lift out a couple of examples.

I won't name the the itself by name, but I would dare say what I'm seeing in the marketplace. And I'll I'll look around the room, see if I get agreement. But I believe that we're seeing somewhere in the neighborhood of about five to 10% of open space being used currently. I think that that's what I'm seeing is that the here's what I would tell you in case this was part of the problem is that detention ponds were counted as open space straight up, one to one. So if you had one, then you qualified as open space.

You met the requirement, period. And detention ponds, drainage ponds, land that was undevelopable that undevelopable that was 30 degrees or more, all of that counted toward open space at a 100%. So I would dare say that right now, looking at it, five to 10% is what we're seeing actually in these developments as far as being used open as open space. So what I'm proposing is this those are actual builds. So us moving to 30%, if we see one get built at 30, then we're actually increasing the existing open space use by 20%.

We're not reducing it at all. Even on paper is 40%, but that's just in a program on paper right now. That's not been built anywhere. That's not being used. It's just on paper somewhere. So an actual increase would look a whole lot more like 20 or more percent in actual usage of open space, which is exactly what I heard tonight from some of the folks who wanted to see less open space or see more open space. So I'm actually saying to you tonight that's exactly what we're trying to accomplish. We're increasing it from what has existingly been built at five or 10% and moving it to 30%. Now the last comment I'm gonna make is this. I gotta fall on my sword.

The last thing I wanna be is disingenuous to anybody in at in the horseshoe or in the room. You know, I did a lot of digging, a lot of research. I think y'all know that by now. So I went back and looked at my own proposal. I had I hadn't looked at it. I said to you all that I proposed it at 30%. That's what I told you all. I won't be disingenuous. I actually meant false. I proposed it at one third.

I proposed it at one third to the to those that were on the the planning commission and to those that were on the, the study that we worked through this together. So that's not accurate. I didn't propose it at 30%. I proposed it at one third, which is a whole lot more like 33.3%. So I wanna be honest with you and tell you the truth that that's what my original number was. So this resolution calls for 30%, which I think is still a reasonable number, but I wanna be truthful and tell you that what actually was in my original proposal in that program. So thank you for letting me share.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Giles, for the first time on the motion to adopt.

Thank you, chairman Anderson. Just a brief explanation. I had eye surgery yesterday, so I'll be wearing glasses and trying to piece together some things here. So please bear with me if if you will, you and the rest of the commission. Obviously, this is an extremely important topic for our discussion.

I think it's one that's gonna have an important impact on our citizens, not only today, but as we move forward in the many years to come. The hope that I have, I'm gonna present you with quite a bit of information, and I will take my time. I hope that my fellow commissioners tonight will listen to the facts and base their decisions on their learnings and their experiences and not just vote who they think provided the best presentation. So I'm asking to really dig deep and to listen to what I'm gonna say and, vote your conscience, if you will. Since our workshop meeting last Thursday, I've spent quite a bit of time looking into this local issue with local experts, local people, state people on a statewide basis, and so forth.

And what I find out found out that the information that I have gathered is very interesting, but it does not, and I wanna be clear, it does not present a definitive ass answer for this question for Blount County. Okay? As an elderly gentleman, I found out over the years that you're either I have a philosophy that you're either growing or you're dying, that you're not staying the same. So our county has to continue, in my opinion, to continue to grow. I don't want us to die.

I don't wanna put restrictions there. If you look through some of the data for some of the other counties, they would love to be in the position that we're in as Blount County in terms of our quality of life and our growth and everything around those types of things. So I'm saying that to say, I wanna see Blount County continue to grow and prosper, but not exactly as we stated today. I don't wanna see us stay the same. I wanna see us continue to grow.

Here are the facts that I've been able to uncover the best of my abilities since last week. Approximately a year ago, and if I'm mistaken, please correct me, Blount County did not have any formal restrictions on open spaces for cluster developments. They did not. Through the Blount County Planning Commission, a 40% open spaces was proposed and passed. That's a percentage.

We are trying to decide whether or not we wanna reduce that percentage to 30%. Before I share my thoughts and my position, I'd like to share some more pertinent information. Although I've heard a lot of discussion, there's a there's a correlation between open space and and home pricing. I've not seen any definitive data that says if you go from 32% to 40% that you're gonna see a 10 or 15 or 20% drop in prices. If it's out there, I have not been able to find it.

If it's there, I would challenge someone to share that information with me, please. Affordable housing, we keep talking about affordable housing. At the risk of sounding a little off the cuff, that train's left the station for Blount County, in my opinion. Medium home price as of June, median home price, $410,000. $410,000 medium home price in Blount County.

Now that is a 1.2% drop from last year's prices, but still, I couldn't afford to buy a $410,000 home, and I'm an old guy. So although there's a lot of builders in the area, and as as commissioner Wells stated, we have a lot of a lot of homes being built without any prior restrictions around open space percentages. I won't I won't mention any of those names, but all you have to do is check the realty transfers. And as of last week, there were homes, and I'm quoting, 417,000, 423,000, 430,000, and $600,000 closing price on some of these corporate homes to local people. And that's with no no percentages around or no restrictions around open spaces.

Once again, I I expected those I was surprised to see those prices that high. Some people say a lot of people are drawn to Blount County because of the home prices. We just talked about home prices are huge. I wanna share a personal experience, if I may. I think one of the things that's so attractive to Blount County and as a direct result of the work that this commission, mayor, and his staffs have done is our low tax rate.

Without getting into a lot of details, I live in a in a home that was built in the late seventies. I have an uncle and aunt who live in a home that's built in the late seventies in Lake County, Illinois, Northeast County Of Illinois near the Wisconsin border. If you look at the appraisal prices of both of those homes, they're pretty equivalent within within $50,000. My Blount County property taxes are approximately $3,500 a month or $3,500 a year. His property taxes, and I just saw them, $20,300.

That's almost $1,700 a month in real estate taxes on an equivalent sized priced home. We're not going there. So we can't go there. So what we have to continue to do is grow Blount County so we can take our costs and can continue to divide that over more households and so forth so we don't get to the point. So we're paying unbelievable property taxes. Okay. So now let me give you some data. I'll get to my point. From the state of Tennessee, very quickly, Wikipedia and calls to other county county commissions and, planning departments,

The four I looked at

the four richest counties in Blount County, the four counties that are growing the quickest. I won't mention the names. One county is 30%. Another county is 35% in terms of open spaces percentages. Another county is 40%, and another county is 35. You look at the the four cheapest or the the least per capita counties, and they're 35%. One county just had 7,000 homes. I don't think they were hit to worry about cluster developments myself. And the last county was at 20%. So I looked at also what I'm what that tells me is there's not an indication between how fast you're growing, how much money you make.

And let me be very clear. The top the highest grossing, net income for a household in Tennessee is a 101 point $111,000. The poorest county is 28,200, so there's a huge discrepancy there. But here's where I get to my point. Also looked locally. What are the local counties doing? What are we looking at in terms of open space percentages? And here they are. Blunt is currently at 40 proposing to go to 30. Bradley County, just south of us, at 20%.

Hamilton County, which is around Chattanooga, is 50%, but I have not been able to get that confirmed by somebody in their planning department. Here's what you'll find interesting. Monroe County, 35%. Farragut, 35%. Although we don't wanna be Farragut.

Loudoun, 35%. Knox County, 35%. So with that said, and with all the data and the input from the local experts, I've said, I supported the 40% level, but I've had a slight change of heart. By realizing that there's not a perfect percentage, I'd like to propose a compromise on the art of negotiation of changing the resolution to state open spaces to 35 instead of the 30% that we're currently discussing in cluster developments. As you've already heard, that falls very well within line with many of our surrounding counties and some of the wealthiest and fastest growing counties in our state.

I hope that that 35% level is acceptable to you and that you will support this effort. I wanna formally suggest a change to 35% on the open spaces for cluster developments. And the last thing that I wanna say out of a complete 86 page study out of the University of Tennessee, their conclusions are zoning under most scenarios suggesting the design of open space may be at least as important as the quality. So we keep top or the quantity. We keep talking about quantity, but it's also the quality of that space. Thank you.

Alright. Commissioner, are you making that motion?

Are you making make the move to move the resolution to 35% open space requirements for cluster developments to 35%, sir?

Okay. Commissioner Giles moves to amend the resolution to change 30% proposal to 35%. Is there a second? Second by commissioner Carver. We are now discussing the motion to amend to 35%.

Commissioner Davis, do you wish to speak to the motion to amend, or do you want me to come back to you on the main motion? Okay. We're doing the motion to amend right now. Commissioners, if you wish to speak to the motion to amend, hit your button at this time. Alright. Seeing none, if you're we're gonna take a vote on the motion to amend to 35%. If you're in favor of the motion to amend to 35%, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 10 yes votes and six no votes.

10 yes votes, six no votes. The motion fails, having failed to receive 11. We're back on the, motion to adopt the resolution as originally presented. Commissioner Davis, you're recognized

Thank you, dear.

For the

first time. So

cutting open space, it's a bad idea. We're gonna hurt our land, our water infrastructure, and the rural character. I do not support cluster development in Blount County. I support the people of Blount County. I don't have any special interest with a builder or a real estate agent.

I will tell you that cluster developments, they'll cause water issues, damages to property. My family's experienced these damages. If you're aware of the Walker Road flooding and the subdivision that was built behind my family's property, you'll understand that having a water meter out of the ground from erosion due to a developer is very frustrating when you take pride in your family property that's been around since the nineteen forties. So let's be honest with this. We can't zone our way into affordable housing.

That's a market issue. My priority is protecting Blount County, not cramming subdivisions and do more harm. If there's no sewer, these developments don't belong here. Septic systems and dense growth don't mix long term. And, yes, I'm here for the salamanders too, and that's all I got to say.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Carver, you're recognized, for the first time on the motion to adopt the resolution.

This is on the original. When commissioner Wells had mentioned that he proposed a third for being green space, is that what was passed?

Or No. It was commissioner. Okay. That was That's what I wanted to be sure. Yeah. Just suggested to, I think, the study group of the planning commission. Alright. Commissioner Michaels, for the first time on the motion to adopt.

Thank you, mister chairman. I've heard a lot of talk tonight from the commissioners that are in favor of this about how many people they've heard from and how many calls they've got. And and we've got quite a bit of people here tonight. I would love to have a list of the people that are here and find out what business they're with or in. Because I think if we did that, we would find real estate people.

We'd find developers. We'd find builders. We'd find whatever that gamut offers. We'd find it. We've heard statistics from one of the other commissioners tonight that says the top most growing foremost growing counties in the state have 35% open space. Doesn't sound like there's enough. We've we've got 40% right now. Our our county has been advertised. Come here. Bring your retire here.

That's what it was five years ago. When they realized that they were running people, the the our children, and they're running people out of the market from affording a house. Our police officers, our emergency workers, our hospital staff, when they realized that what they had done, they backtracked. They changed their advertisements. But our real estate developers and our real estate agents and our builders, Turner Homes, Doctor Horton, Smith built, They're like, uh-oh.

Uh-oh. Obviously, 40% is keeping cluster developments from happening. And if we lessen that, it sounds like I mean, they're all here. It's gonna roll, folks. Exactly what the people that I hear from on a regular basis, you're up in about the traffic, you're up in about this, you're up in about that.

That that's exactly what's gonna happen. The trucks are gonna start rolling. They're gonna start railing the dadgum material in here from out of town. They're gonna bring crews in here. They're gonna throw these things up faster than you can check a stick.

What we better be doing is going back when we started having to battle this in 2021. The Perry Farm on Wildwood Road was part of this discussion. It was it was about to be demolished. Some of the prettiest farmland you ever seen got the little river running right through the middle of it. What we better do is make sure that the Blount County GIS, Alcoa GIS, Maryville City GIS, Townsend GIS guy, whatever, knows where our urban growth boundary is because I'm telling you, the last time I was sitting in a meeting with two of those entities, they were arguing about it.

It's in the river. Nope. It's it's 500 foot out of the river. It's 50 foot out of the river. That's what we better be figuring out before we start cutting everything out to pieces.

You you're not gonna you're not these these people are not gonna pour in here and build all these homes and have 30% open space and be affordable. That's that's asinine to think that we're gonna build affordable housing, that developers and real estate agents and builders are gonna build affordable housing. We've been through that, what was it, two months ago, three months ago. Folks, I'm a builder. I've got background in real estate.

You're not gonna build enough houses for the amount of people. We we are a very well off county. We are doing great. And as another commissioner stated, we have pretty low taxes here. But if we continue, that's gonna go up. I promise you, that's gonna be the next next thing that goes up. Well, we've had to increase the the emergency services. We've had to hire more people because there's more people here. We've built all these homes, and we can't service the calls. That's how your taxes go up.

That's how your taxes go up. I've heard from some other commissioners, what are the surrounding counties doing? They're running these people out of their county on a rail. The commissioners are are don't want it because the people don't want it. What we need to do is start listening to our constituents, not the people with the pocketbook.

Our county's fine. I'd say it's grown just enough, and we should sustain right there. Right here. It's good. Maybe a little bit between now and another ten years, but we're we're we're fixing to open Pandora's box if we start taking this away and allowing this to go on.

It is obviously, it stopped that from happening. They're not gonna come in here and build a a house that somebody making $50,000 a year, two people, two family income is gonna be able to afford. That's not what they're gonna build. All those corporate builders that we've talked about time and time again, they're not building $250,000 homes anymore. The average median price for a home is $407,000, and that's where they're gonna build them because that's what the market says is the average price.

That's what they think is affordable. But we know, you all know, that's not. So I I just I just think that we need to we need to pay close attention to what we're fixing to do. Did we have did we have some restriction? No.

We went to 40 to keep cluster from happening. Let's define let's try to define our urban growth boundary. Let's work on those things. Then we'll talk about this again. But that's that's not before we start opening the gate, we need to define some other things within our zoning regulations and define them before we do. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Carver for the second time on the motion to adopt.

So the concern I have is our children that are wanting to stay here. What are we gonna do for them? And that's something that we need to take do we need to go back to the planning commission and redo the lot sizes and keep that green space there. But what about our children? And they wanna stay here, but they're not able to stay here because they can't afford even what is the average cost of the lot? Three quarter lot. Does anyone know the answer? They're they're selling them for a 110,000 down at Franklin Manor right now. That's that's not a really good lot. If they're a 110,000

Commissioners, let's get back on order.

But, again, it would be good to know what are we gonna do for our next generation that are from here that wanna stay here. You know? I moved away and was glad to come back, and and I I wanna have my children or my grandchildren now that opportunity to have a house when they get old enough. So something to keep in

your mind. Thanks. Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Wells, for the second time on the motion to adopt.

Thank you, mister chairman. I won't try to address all the things that were were stated a few minutes ago, but I think when it was mentioned that we should start listening, I'm suggesting that's what we did two years ago was because we were hearing what we needed to do and address responsible growth. The program was never meant to be a moratorium. Some might want it to be. I get that.

That was never intended to be that. But because some had actually proposed to be to have a more moratorium, but I'd but that's not what we intended to do. But, nonetheless, I mean, we we we look at, what is in front of us and an opportunity to that we've been asked to do this, to to be responsible with with what growth we have. I was asked this question, and not by any of you, in the room or, here, but by someone else that that obviously didn't particularly care for me bringing this forward. I'll just mention it that way.

But and and ask me the question of who asked you to do this. And so we we had a discussion about that. And because I can answer you this way, and the answer is nobody. No one asked me to bring it up first time except for a constituent who actually had an opposing view that I had and asked me to say, hey. Were you looking to cluster development?

So I did and thought that was a good plan and a a good good solution for the county overall. But going forward even into this, you know, looking at the 40% and just seeing that it wasn't getting used, there's a program that was a good, well developed program except for this one particular area, which is 40%, which was a little too high, and was keeping it from being a financially feasible program to be used. I'd love to have a program be usable. So, we'd worked on it really hard. So that that's the reason I really looked into the details of it, decided to bring it forward again back to what I had thought was I was saying was my original percentage at 30.

So knowing what I said earlier to you all that I did not intentionally misspeak before, but I did, let me do this. I want I wanna be genuine, and I wanna be on point with what I proposed originally. My research took me to the point of saying one third. So, mister chairman, I'd like to make a motion to amend this to one third as opposed to 40%.

So, commissioner, we'd make that 33.3%. That'll probably make it easier to

If if you'd like to carry the threes out, you're welcome to.

We'll say 33.33%. Motion made by commissioner Wells. Second. Second by commissioner French. Alright. We're now in debate on the motion to amend to one third, which is 33.33 repeating percent. Commissioner French, you recognized for the first time on the motion to amend. Thank

you, mister chairman. I I amended that motion because I look back to the time when my wife and I were struggling to to build a home. I look back to that time. And we were fortunate. Both of us were working. And we worked. We saved our money, and we were able to build a home. Times have changed since that time. Guarantee you times have changed. Interest rate is more than double what it was back then.

Houses are six to eight times more expensive than what we were able to afford. We built what we could afford. That's the whole issue. I have to agree with commissioner Carver. What are we gonna do for our children? We're running them out of Blount County. We're running them out because they can't afford to live here. And guess what? They're running to Knox County and Sevier County to live. Now what are the Knox County and Sevier County doing that these that our folks can afford to live there?

Why can't we do something and make it affordable for them to stay here in Blount County? I I'm fortunate we were able to do that. I'm also fortunate that we were able to buy some property so my kids and our grandchildren are gonna have a place to live. What are your what are the people in Blount County gonna do? Most of them can't afford to buy property to where their children can can live on that piece of property.

I was able to do that. I'd say some of the people behind this, oval have done that. I'd say some of you people out there have done But most of the people in Blount County have not been able to do that. So what are we gonna do where they can afford to do it? We could the the like like I said, houses have kept going up.

And I I I've I've heard arguments. Well, you can buy a house on Internet for $50,000. What 800 square foot home? Well, you are you gonna live in that house full time? No, sir. You bought that house

or who have

bought that they've they've got another house they're gonna live in full time. You buy that house for $50,000, you still have to buy a lot to put it on. You still had to put that house

on a lot.

These cluster developments, you don't you buy the house and the lot that might be maybe you can afford. That's that's that's what we're driving toward. We're driving toward someplace where our kids and grandkids can afford to live. I I'd like take a survey like commissioner. Michael's wanting to.

How many people out there have got property? And I'll they say it's just theoretical that your kids and grandkids can build on and afford with without with with you as the owner? How many people that can do that? How many people in Blount County can do it? I'll bet you 95 90% of them can't do that.

I'm fortunate enough to where I can, and I'm tickled to death that we were able to do that. Now we had to do without some things growing up. We had to do so without a lot of thing. So I don't drive I don't drive fancy new cars, automobiles. I don't I don't go out and eat at all fancy restaurants because I want my children and grandchildren to have a place to live in Blount County if they want it.

So we've got to do something got to do something to where they can afford to do that. And I think we're I know 40% is is we we've like, commissioner Welch, we've kinda put a moratorium on. Well, we we can't stop development. We can't stop. But the problem is the people that are buying the homes that are being built down are coming from all over.

They're not coming from Blinn County. So people, wake up. Wake up. In ten years, we're gonna have Blount County is not gonna be Blount County. It's gonna be some kinda county from California up north somewhere. So we need we need to start doing something to keep Blount County in in Blount County. That's all I'm about to say.

Thank you, commissioner. Anyone else on the motion to amend? Commissioner Michaels for the first time on the motion to amend?

Thank you, commissioner, chairman. I I don't think that that this being said at forty was meant to be a moratorium, like it's being called. But it's it's absolutely maybe served as one. Thank god. I I don't think what was it?

Bradley County there a while ago. Bradley County was stated to have 5050%, 20%. Which one was 50? Sorry, chairman.

Commissioner, without objection, can you answer that question?

Yes. I think I could.

Thank you. Let's keep it brief. Thank you.

Let me just move on one side.

Commissioner Michaels, the only one that I had at 50% was Hamilton County, but I was not able to validate that through somebody in their planning department.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mister Giles. That proves my point even more. Bradley County is a, I guess, a secondary county to what we would look at at Hamilton County like Blount County is to Knox County. It's one of the one of the four major counties in or, you know, in our in our state. Obviously, Hamilton County has been overrun. So theirs is at 50 because they're trying to slow it down. Okay?

20% in Bradley County, they're trying to open it up to where some of that will come up to Bradley County to increase their tax revenue, to increase their Bradley County's a a a fairly nice county, but it's a lot like Blount County. It's a lot of it's rural. Those people, I think, like it like that. But I I would say that they need some economic development. I would say that they need a chamber that that helps boost businesses and support businesses, and we've got we've got that here.

They've they've done a great job with that here. We we could actually probably do a little a little less of it. I think I talked to somebody the other day in Jefferson County, and they said we run we run chamber out here. They don't even people don't even pay dues up there. But they're overrun too. You know? Dandridge, that area up there. We we could be like that. We could go we could go with what what, Hamilton County and says, hey. 50%. You know why? They're overrun. They're overrun already. We're full. That's what that means.

If we if we less lessen this to 30, that's what we're doing. Right now, we're talking about 33.3. I'd rather been at the 35, but I'd rather just stay at 40. That's what that's what your constituents want. That's what your constituents want. And, we we know which ones of us won't won't roll that way. We always do. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Bowers, for the first time on the motion to amend. Thank you, mister chairman.

I like to preface this to say that I am not pro growth. I'm just like everybody else up here in this horseshoe. I don't like all the traffic. I don't like all the people. But the bottom line is we are gonna grow. We need good controlled growth. We've been talking about that on this commission for two years. I'll throw a few more statistics out there to add to mister Giles. Anderson County is at 35%. Jefferson County is at 15%.

Brown County is at 25% in the urban growth boundary and 50% in R 1. So just to give you a little bit more statistics. So I'm gonna throw a real monkey ranch in here and amend the amendment to say, we'll lower it to 35% in suburbanizing, but we're gonna leave it 40% in r one and r two. That'll preserve our agricultural land, keep my agricultural friends happy who I'm happy to Keep them happy because I'm one of them, but maybe promote a little bit more afford affordability for our kids. Does adjusting this cluster development thing lower house prices?

I don't know. I think it might a little bit. We all talk about inventory and affordability, and the affordability part, I think, leans more toward lowering interest rates on a thirty year mortgage would help a lot. We're about 7% right now. Few years ago, we were at two and three. So, hopefully, that's coming down the road. Hopefully, wages are going up. Obviously, our cost of our houses are going up. So I'm gonna amend the amendment, and somebody wants to second it, they can.

Alright. There's a motion to amend from commissioner Bowers. Second from commissioner Bright.

I will.

And just let me confirm. 35% in suburbanizing, 40% in r one and r two?

Yes. Okay. Could you repeat that one more time, mister chairman?

I've got down 35 open space requirement in suburbanizing. Mhmm. 40% open space requirement in r one and r two.

Which it will stay the same.

K.

Correct.

You got that? Alright.

Well, we commissioners, we're now in discussion on the the motion to amend the amendment. And let me let me preface this before we get too far into debate on this and just say, I think my understanding is that this this went through the process. It went through the planning commission. It's been through the regional planning commission for Alcoa. Any changes that we make to this other than what has been proposed is gonna have to go back anyway.

We can't enact it tonight. It's gonna have to go back to the planning commission for review and approval. So I'm gonna give some leeway on the amendment. But if we do amend this from what has been proposed and already been through the planning commissions, I think the proper motion would have to change to, a motion to adopt to where we take a vote on the motion to forward this to the planning commission for them to send it back to us. And if there's anybody that can comment to tell me otherwise, I'd certainly like to to hear that. But that's my understanding from legal on on these these kinds of changes. Alright. Commissioner Bright on the motion to amend amendment.

Point of clarification. We have conflicting amendments here. They one's at 33.3 and one's at 35. So I don't know how we can pass both those at the same time.

Well, what we're gonna do is is the motion to take it to 35 and suburbanizing and 40 in r one and r two, that's the pending motion.

K.

So if that passes, that will amend the amendment, and then we'll have to take a vote to pass the amendment, which probably be a formality at that point. If that one doesn't pass that commissioner Bowers proposed, then we'll go back to debating 33.33.

Thank you.

Commissioner Michael's on the motion to amend the amendment.

Thank you, mister chairman. So I think at this point, I can support this. I am in favor of this. I I understand that where we sit up here, we have to be a little bit, you know, negotiable, and and I I will be in support of this. So I I do I would like to see our urban growth boundary defined in in in all of our municipalities in our county come to an agreement on that.

I think that's important. Obviously, if we're gonna have different, zoning regulations and suburbanizing in r one and r two, obviously, that urban growth boundary is very, very important. So as we move forward, I will support this. I hope we can pass this. And then at that point, maybe we need to bring a recommendation to, give our planning commission to to see if they can, define and get all of our municipalities and county on the same page. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Any other discussion on the motion to amend the amendment? Alright. Seeing none, if you're in favor of amending the amendment, this is to take it, to 35% requirement in suburbanizing zone and 40% in r one and r two zone, you'll vote yes. If you're not in favor of that amendment to the amendment, you will vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 15 yes votes and one no vote.

15 yes, one no. That motion carries. The the motion, the primary amendment has now been amended, to the 35 in suburbanizing and 40 in r one and r two. As a formality, probably, we need to vote to, pass or reject the amendment itself, which is now what we just voted on. So if you support that again, you'll vote yes. If you're not in favor, you'll vote no. So, commissioners, you probably should just vote the same way you just voted if you support the proposal.

You could just we got speakers coming up.

Alright. We need some clarification.

Yeah. Commissioner

That's what I'm asking for is clarification. Clarification.

Okay. So we're voting yes. We just voted to pass the secondary amendment. Correct. And that that amended the primary amendment. We are now on the primary amendment as amended.

Gotcha.

Okay? So now we are actually voting the the one we just voted on was to take the amendment from commissioner Wells to take it to one third and amend it to thirty five and forty. And now we're applying it in this vote or not to the main resolution. So if you're in favor of applying that those requirements, thirty five and forty to the main resolution, you'll vote yes. And if you're not in favor, you'll vote no. And then we'll vote on the main resolution. Commissioner French, go ahead.

Point of clarification. When we vote this and it and it passes, then it goes to the the previous amendment. That still has to go back to the planning commissions, am I?

Right.

Both planning commissions

That's right. Before for approval. That's my understanding.

Okay.

Alright, commissioner. So this is to apply the 35 suburbanizing and 40 r one and r two to the main resolution. If you're in favor of that, vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Mister chairman, there are 15 yes votes and one no vote.

15 yes, one no. The primary amendment as amended passes. We are now back on the main motion to adopt as amendment as amended. If there's no objection, we will amend this to from a motion to adopt for a motion to forward this with the amendment to the planning commission. Is there any objection to that course of action?

Alright. With that objection, the most pending motion now is to forward resolution twenty five zero seven zero one two as amended with the 35 and suburbanizing and the 40 and r one and r two to send that to the planning commission for a comment review and and approval. Does anyone need clarification? Alright. If you support, forwarding this to the planning commission, resolution twenty five zero seven zero one two as amended, Vote yes. If you're not in favor, vote no.

Jim, there are 15 yes votes and one no vote.

15 yes, one no. That motion carries. That resolution as amended will be forwarded to the planning commission, to go through the process for review and approval. Thank you, commissioners, for bearing through the parliamentary procedures. Alright.

We'll move on to item h, announcements and statements. There are several from the chair. The planning commission will meet on Thursday, July 24 at 05:30PM in Blount County Courthouse, Commission Meeting Room 430. The board of zoning appeals will meet on Thursday, August 7 at 6PM in Blount County Courthouse, Commission Meeting Room 430. Commissioners, as was previously announced, due to a conflict with the Lincoln Day dinner on Thursday, August 14, the deadline for drafted resolutions will be Tuesday, August 5 at by noon.

The budget committee will meet on Tuesday, August 12 at 5PM, followed by a workshop committee meeting that same Tuesday, August 12 at 6PM in Blount County Courthouse Commission Meeting Room 430. Are there any other announcements or statements? Seeing none, we'll move on to item I, public input on items not on the agenda. I do have one card from Rebecca Brado or Brado.

Thank you, chairman and commissioners, and special thanks to commissioner Jessica Hanna for inviting me out this evening. I'm Becca Brado with Persevere. We are a national nonprofit tackling technology workforce shortages across six states. While we're already transforming lives across Tennessee, we're here today because we see tremendous potential to expand our proven model to Blount County. Several of our successful graduates have already chosen Blount County as their home, and we believe this community is perfectly positioned to benefit from our workforce development solution.

Our region faces a hidden crisis. One in twenty eight children has an incarcerated parent, And without intervention, these children are seven times more likely to become incarcerated themselves. Meanwhile, East Tennessee employers struggle to fill critical tech positions, costing our economy billions annually. At Persevere, we're transforming these dual challenges into opportunities through our unique two generation approach. Our program delivers over 1,000 of intensive training equivalent to a college degree in high demand skills, including website and app development, software engineering, data analysis, and artificial intelligence.

Our graduates earn 18 to $35 per hour in sustainable careers, not just jobs. In Tennessee, our results are remarkable. Recidivism rates under one percent compared to the national average of sixty eight percent, eighty seven percent employment rate within six months, and taxpayer savings of $35,000 to $70,000 per graduate who remains out of prison. What sets Persevere apart is our two generation solution. While parents gain technical skills and support, their children receive STEM education, trauma informed counseling, mentorship programs.

And this comprehensive approach breaks the cycle of intergenerational incarceration while building a skilled workforce for our community. We're actively seeking funding partnerships to expand our proven programs into East Tennessee, including Blount County. Every dollar invested generates significant returns through reduced incarceration rates and increased economic activity. I have detailed information with me today about funding opportunities and program outcomes, and I'd welcome the opportunity to speak with anyone about ways to get involved, whether through potential funding, volunteering, hiring our graduates, or learning more about our program. Let's work together to make Blount County a leader in innovative workforce development and community transformation. Thank you.

Thank you. And does anyone else wish to speak to us on items not on the agenda? Yes. Come forward, please.

Pat McGill, District 4. Sorry I'm back again, but I do want to talk about this. This has came up before, and I really don't know why I'm not considered a constituent. I am a Blount County taxpayer. I vote.

I pay my property taxes. I try to do all my shopping in Blount County. As a matter of fact, because of a conversation with the mayor one time, if my gas light comes on in Knoxville, I'll wait till I get the top side road to buy gas because that's how much of a believer I am in Blount County. And it really bothers me to hear people say because I'm in real estate that somehow these matters should not be important to me. And so I just I just wanna point that out.

And to hear people say, it's the people in here, you'd like to have a list of people and what their their industry is. Let me explain. I've told you guys I grew up on a farm. You younger folks on this commission may not know what I'm talking about, but I grew up in a Jim Walter home. Do you know what that is? It's a little three bedroom, And my mom wanted to have a guest room, so I still had to share a room with my sister because she wanted a room nice and clean if anybody ever came and spent the night. But before that, until I was five, I lived with my grandparents. We heated with coal. When I was and I used to crawl on the floor and crack it like it was ice. I think that's why I'm healthy.

I got minerals out of that coal. When I got married at 18, my first set of silverware, my grandfather, Doug, salvaged out of a slop where he got up in the morning before he went to his public job, and he got he got the slop when the when they allowed restaurants to save it. And my grandfather would pick out every piece of silverware, and he was very happy to give me a set of a full set salad forks, soup spoons, teaspoons, things that we didn't eat with, but he was very happy to give me. I was terribly embarrassed to think that the silverware I was using came out of the slop. I was a pretty grown woman before I got the courage to say that's my slop silverware, and yes, I still have it, and I'm very proud of it.

And so I just want you to know these are not deep pockets. These are pockets that have worked hard. As a single mom, most of the time, three jobs to be able to make ends meet. But I am proud to say that I am a taxpayer in Blount County. What happens here is important to me, and that not only am I a taxpayer, but I'm also a an employer. I have employees that work here who also pay taxes, and I encourage them to buy their gas in Blount County too. So I just want to let you all know who I am, and I thank you again for being here.

Thank you, ma'am. Yes, sir.

Hey. Austin Pittman again, and I'd just like to second everything that Pat just said there. As you all know, I'm a part of the NAR as well. I am a real estate agent, but I don't do it, for money. Everyone sitting on this board and everyone sitting on this audience gets paid for going to work, or they wouldn't go to work, ladies and gentlemen. So we have to get paid for what we do just like everyone else sitting in this room. It's an important piece of the community and this environment that we've built as a country. If you don't get paid, you don't go to work. It's just the way it works. So we have to get paid, ladies and gentlemen. Unfortunately, I'd love to do it for free, but, unfortunately, I have a family that I have to service as well, and I pay those taxes as well. And as a matter of fact, I hang my license with Pat. So I will second what she said. Moving back to the issue, I'd like to circle back for just a moment if you don't mind.

I need to keep it we need to keep it off the thing that was on the agenda because Sure.

Sure. I think that what we've done is, as you said, a moratorium on this, maybe we can be a little bit more reasonable and not completely curtail Sir, I'm sorry.

That was the item on the

agenda. But this is, this is part of the agenda. I was gonna say

I know. It's not part of

the agenda.

Items off of the agenda.

I'll I'll move off of it. I was gonna say, can we propose maybe an impact fee where if we're gonna have those developments, at least make them pay for the infrastructure? Go look at what Loudoun County is doing. They have an impact fee for every per every square foot you build, it costs you a dollar per square foot. Make it $2. Make it $3. Whatever the number is, make it something that'll pay for the infrastructure that we have issues with, and let's make the developers pay for. I mean, we but we have to be reasonable. We have to have homes in this county. We don't have enough homes to service the people that are here. And if we stop these developments, we're not gonna have them. You have Creek Bridge that's built out. You have Best Farms probably has 60 to a 100 lots out there. You've got the new phase of Smithville over at Best Farms. You've got Whispering Springs.

You got about seven lots left out there. You got Ball Home. It's got about 20 lots left out there. And that's it, ladies and gentlemen. There's nothing else being built. There's nothing else. Everything else in this county is required to have point seven five acres per lot. And you know what kind of home that's gonna be? That's gonna be a $750,000 home, or it's gonna be a million dollar home. Because the numbers don't make sense to buy a point seven five acre lot and then put a house that you can sell for $350,000. The math don't work. Sorry, ladies and gentlemen. The math don't math. That just don't work. So we have to have more affordable housing.

And whether you like these giant corporations or or you don't like these giant corporate a corporations, they are providing relatively affordable housing. And I get that's a relevant relative term in Blount County. We've gotten to a place where we just have to deal with the reality of where we are, and we have to have relatively affordable housing. Thank you all.

Thank you. Anyone else on public input on items not on the agenda? Yes?

Thank you, chairman. David Corwin, district nine. So a lot's been said about affordable housing. So Blount County, this is according to Redfin. As of June, the median house price in Blount County is 410,000, Knox County is 415,000, and Sevier County is 435,000.

So, obviously, unbridled development is not creating cheaper homes. You can go down Hardin Valley Road in Knoxville, which used to be all farms, a lot like Wildwood or a lot of areas in our county. And you'll see farms and you'll see mass development farms and mass development. It hasn't protected rural land at all. What's really driving housing prices up are the higher construction costs, and costs have gone done nothing but gone up since the pandemic.

And that's really what's been driving our houses up. So commissioner Davis is right. We can't zone our way to cheaper housing because you have to lower construction costs in order to get cheaper housing. It's just the way it is. You also have to take in account the, mortgage rates, the interest rates on mortgages. People wanna move here. That's just it. Blount County is a wonderful place. We have the scenery. We have the communities.

It it's great, and people wanna move here. Well, the side effect of that is is they can afford to sell their houses in whatever community they leave, and they can afford to outbid anybody here that we want to stay here for houses. Again, you're increasing the supply, but you're also increasing the demand with the supply. The demand does not stay static. So all that being said, you know, I'm gonna share it.

I couldn't afford to buy the house I'm in now if I hadn't bought it pre pandemic, and that's that's disturbing. But the answer is not necessarily to take our limited resource of land and then get rid of it because there will be another housing crash. We don't know when. We don't know how bad, but there will be. And once there's another housing crash, that land that we took and we let people develop is gone. We'll never get it back. So all that to say, I don't know what the answer is. I wish I had a grand scheme and plan that would work, but I don't. But more development is not necessarily the answer. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else who wishes to speak to items not on the agenda? Yes, sir.

My name is David Townsend. I'm a, I'm in District 2, and I'm a pastor. And I just wanted to make it, bring it to the attention of the board and to the gallery here and make it public record that, as I did last month, I wanna say again and invite all of you and invite all those within the reach of my voice to a psalm assembly in two days from now just outside that window on the, courthouse steps. And this is in keeping, with the Tennessee general assembly's h j r 51 that dedicated July as a month of prayer and fasting in the state Of Tennessee. And so, in keeping with that, the the author of that, the writer of that, representative, Monty Fritz from District 32, he wrote these words.

Tennesseans cannot legislate or spend their way out of most of the problems we share. Adding to the massive and complex volumes of law books nor continuing with ever growing expenditures of the people's money will not solve our problems. We need a move of Jesus Jesus' healing hand That begins with a move of his people turning from our corrupted ways, seeking his forgiveness and will in Tennessee. Our founding fathers, all imperfect men, yet creationists in the worldview understood this. A secular humanist mindset in government today fuels unhealthy trends like over spending, over regulating, over legislating, and assuming of authorities, god has not, god has not granted civil government.

As our fiscal year for Tennessee begins in this month, let's make this month one of an offering of a first fruit of repentance before the one and almighty god who has so blessed our state and shown mercy to us. This resolution seeks an agreement among those spiritually inclined and physically able to prepare themselves in repentance before god for the benefit of all Tennesseans. So in, answer to the, previous gentleman's statement as he ended, there is an answer to this, and there is an answer to the direction and the future of Blount County, and that is to recognize that we have gone a long time believing that we could figure it out on our own. And we have refrained from, settling, founding ourselves on the mercy of God as our as our ancestors did with the constitution declaration of independence, which together mentions the name almighty god or nature's god four times, we need to remember that god is not an addition to this county. He's not something that accents it like Trim.

He is the foundation. And without him, what we have seen here tonight, I think I can speak for everyone here, it doesn't work. And I think it's time we remember that. This is not sponsored by one church. We would rather no one get any recognition for it. It is about creating a spiritual quorum that returns this county to the group good graces of God. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else on items not on the agenda? Oh, yes. Come forward, please. Name and district, please.

Okay.

District 4. My name is Phyllis Crisp. I'm the register of deeds, and I'm from District 4. I just wanted to, inform all of you guys just in case you hear or your constituents ask you questions about this. We've had an influx of of calls and people coming into the office this week and emails, people getting letters saying that they can get copies of their deeds for $89.

That's a scam. Those people cannot it's it's not considered criminal because they're offering a service. And but it looks official that it's, like, from the court. They have clerk court, clerk. But, anyway, in our office, you can come and you can get a copy of your deed for 50¢ a page, which, generally, it's a two page document.

You can get a certified copy for $1 a page, $2, versus the $89. So if you get any calls from any of these people or whatever, tell them it's a scam. Also, we email copies for free. It's it's kinda got our, senior citizens, scared. They think that, it's a scam to steal their property or whatever.

They give them a certain date to respond by, all that. They can pay by credit card or check. Well, if you're giving them your credit card information, that's that's not good. But, anyway, I just wanted to let everybody know, we've shared it on Facebook. The mayor's put it on his his website.

WVLT came out today and and did a story on it. So, my heart just goes out to everybody because $89 is a lot of money. And they're targeting people that had bought their property, like, from 01/01/2023 to December '23. So they go back two years because they think those people don't remember where's my deed. I've gotta get my deed. So that's all I have to say.

Alright. Thank you very much. Sir?

Andrew Schlegel, district ten again. Also echo what Pat said. I'm a taxpayer here. I have no ties to real estate. I'm happy to give you my email address. I wager based on the fact that you said that you have some ties there that I have less than you do. So I think those kind of aspersions are very, unbounded. The chair. Absolutely. Yeah. And I think to speak to what other folks said, I don't think we can wait for Jesus to take care of this. I think that we have our own voices here. I don't think that you know, nobody's saying that you can zone your way out, but there's I mean, to put it very simply, there's supply and there's demand. There's not much you can do about supply or about demand. There's not much you can do there at all.

You can't stop people from coming here. They're going to come here. And what happens if you build no more housing is those prices continue to rise, and they continue to rise, and they continue to rise. And then none of anyone's children, no one else, no one, except for the people moving here from other places who sold their houses for a lot more can afford that. The only thing that you can control there is the supply, and this is an attempt to do that. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else on items not on the agenda? Alright. Seeing none, we'll move on to item j adjournment. Is there a motion to adjourn? That objection, we're adjourned.