September 21, 2026 - 6:00 PM - Board of Commissioners Meeting Minutes

10 623 Meeting of the Johnston County Board of Commissioners September 21 , 2026 6 00 pm The Johnston County Board of Commissioners met in regular session Monday , September 21 , 2026 at 6 00 pm in the Commissioners Meeting Room , Johnston County Courthouse Annex , Smithfield , North Carolina The following members were present Present Chairman Patrick E Harris , Vice Chairman RS “ Butch ” Lawter , Jr , Ted G Godwin , April Stephens , Bill Stovall participating remotely , Michelle Pace Davis and Mike Rose Absent None Also Present County Manager Rick J Hester , Finance Officer and Deputy County Manager J Chad McLamb , County Attorney Jennifer J Slusser , Clerk to the Board Dana G Cuddington , and Executive Assistant Deputy Clerk Susie Reeves Chairman Patrick E Harris called the meeting to order at 6 00 pm Commissioner Mike Rose opened the meeting with an invocation Commissioner Ted G Godwin led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance to the American Flag 1 Approval Discussion of Agenda Upon a motion by Commissioner Ted G Godwin , seconded by Commissioner April Stephens , and carried unanimously , the Board approved the agenda as presented 2 Recognition of 2026 Johnston County Little League 12U Softball World Series Champions Chairman Patrick E Harris announced the recognition of the 2026 Johnston County Little League 12U Softball World Series Champions Chairman Harris welcomed the team to the meeting and expressed how excited and proud the Board was of this accomplishment Chairman Harris invited a spokesperson to come forward Head Coach Ben Catarozzoli thanked the Board for having the team present and stated it was an honor to be recognized for what the girls achieved over the summer Chairman Harris responded that the Board was very proud of the team and the excellent job they had done He asked Commissioner Mike Rose to read aloud a Resolution of Congratulations and noted that Johnston County Challenge Coins would be presented to all players , with additional coins sent to those who could not attend Commissioner Mike Rose read aloud the following resolution and moved for its adoption Commissioner April Stephens seconded the motion , which passed unanimously RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS FOR THE 2026 JOHNSTON COUNTY LITTLE LEAGUE 12U SOFTBALL TEAM WHEREAS , the Johnston County Board of Commissioners recognizes the importance of outstanding athletic achievements ; and WHEREAS , the Johnston County Little League 12U Softball Team won the State Championship on July 9 , 2026 advancing the team to the Little League Softball World Series ; and WHEREAS , the team represented themselves and the entire County with outstanding play and sportsmanship ; and WHEREAS , the Johnston County Little League 12U Softball Team won the 2026 Little League Softball World Series on August 9 , 2026 NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED , that the Johnston County Board of Commissioners does hereby join the entire County in congratulating the 2026 Johnston County Little League 12U Softball Team Ages 12 and Under on their World Series Championship in Greenville , North Carolina , and wishes them all the best in their future endeavors Page624 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued st RESOLVED THIS THE 21 DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2026 3 Consent Agenda Items Upon a motion by Commissioner Ted G Godwin , seconded by Commissioner Mike Rose , and carried by unanimous vote , the Board approved the following consent agenda items A Approval of Minutes – August 17 , 2026 6 00 pm B Department of Transportation – Additions to System The Board concurred with the North Carolina Department of Transportation’s recommendation to add the following roads to the State Maintained System Red Rocks Circle – Lowery Meadows – Elevation Township C Town of Clayton – Appointment of Plat Review Officers , resolution adopted as follows Johnston County Board of Commissioners RESOLUTION OF APPOINTMENT FOR THE TOWN OF CLAYTON REVIEW OFFICERS th WHEREAS , NC Senate Bill 875 , ratified the 8 day of July , 1997 , revised Article 2 of Chapter 47 of the NC General Statutes by adding section 47 - 302 to require the Board of Commissioners of each county to designate by name one or more persons as a Review Officer to review each map and plat required to be submitted for review before recordation by the Register of Deeds ; and WHEREAS , one of the services the Town of Clayton staff provides to their community is a similar technical process for subdivision plat review in order to verify compliance with the Town’s development regulations ; and WHEREAS , the Johnston County Board of Commissioners has reviewed the request from the Town of Clayton to designate Town staff to be appointed or reaffirmed by the Johnston County Board of Commissioners to serve as Review Officers for all lands within the municipal and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Clayton , in order to certify each map and plat presented to the Johnston County Register of Deeds for recording satisfies the statutory requirements for recording NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT RESOLVED that the Johnston County Board of Commissioners does hereby reaffirm the appointment of Planning Director Conrad Olmedo , Assistant Planning Director Haley Downey and Senior Planner Lauren Staudenmaier to serve as Review Officers for all lands within the municipal and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Town of Clayton st Adopted this the 21 day of September , 2026 D Sheriff’s Office – Request to Surplus Vehicles and Schedule Public Auction Per the request of Johnston County Sheriff Steve Bizzell , the Board declared the following vehicles as surplus and approved for them to be sold at a live ONLINE auction beginning at 6 00 pm on Sunday , November 8 , 2026 by Wester Auction Company of Benson , NC Year Make Model VIN Mileage 1 2010 CHEVROLET TAHOE 1GNUKAE07AR115256 150,649 2 2014 CHEVROLET TAHOE 1GNSKAE02ER134021 125,544 3 2014 CHEVROLET TAHOE 1GNSKAE01ER153675 129,256 4 2016 CHEVROLET TAHOE 1GNSKFKC8GR127265 129,024 5 2016 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT1GH303673 112,645 6 2016 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT5GH303675 127,781 7 2020 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXKTXLH168041 129,343 8 2020 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXKT1LH175329 130,127 9 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT2MH527983 129,957 10 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT4MH527984 130,318 11 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXATXMH527987 128,733Page625 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued 12 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT1MH527988 134,618 13 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT5MH527993 129,221 14 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT0MH527996 128,814 15 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT4MH527998 128,303 16 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT4MH528004 130,209 17 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT1MH669421 129,060 18 2021 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT3MH669422 98,844 19 2023 DODGE CHARGER 2C3CDXAT5PH595151 133,992 NOTE Items # 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 were purchased with Federal forfeiture funds , and proceeds from the sale of these vehicles must be credited back to the appropriate line item in the Sheriff’s Office budget 1051007418 E Planning and Zoning – Resolution for Approval for Case 26 - 02 At the September 8 , 2026 meeting , the Board approved the rezoning request for Case 26 - 02 The Board adopted the following corresponding Resolution of Consistency for Approval RESOLUTION FOR CASE NUMBER 26 - 02 RESOLUTION APPROVING ZONING AMENDMENT AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF CONSISTENCY REGARDING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAPS AND THE LAND USE PLAN OF JOHNSTON COUNTY WHEREAS , pursuant to NC Gen Stat § 160D - 605 , prior to adopting or rejecting a zoning amendment , the governing board is required to adopt a statement approving or rejecting the zoning amendment and describe if the amendment is consistent or inconsistent with the comprehensive zoning plan and why the board considers the action taken to be reasonable and in the public interest ; WHEREAS , the Johnston County Planning Board has reviewed a proposed amendment to The Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County , for parcels identified as tax ID 06E02031 , 06E03010A , & 06E02059M located on Cornwallis Road near the intersection Cleveland Road in Cleveland Township , from Agricultural Residential AR to Industrial 1 - Conditional Zoning I1 - CZ WHEREAS , based on a review of the proposed amendment the Planning Board found that the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates and further recommended that the Board of Commissioners deny the proposed amendment ; and WHEREAS , this Board has reviewed and considered the above written recommendation of the Planning Board and has held a public hearing on the proposed amendment , and this Board desires to approve the zoning amendment and adopt a statement describing why the adoption of the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Johnston County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and updates , and the Board considers the proposed amendment to be reasonable and in the public interest NOW , THEREFORE , BE IT ORDAINED BY THE JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS THAT 1 This Board finds and determines that the adoption of the proposed amendment to the Official Zoning Maps of Johnston County is not consistent with the Johnston County Land Use Plan and hereby amends the Land Use Plan as follows a Although the property lies within a Medium Density Residential place type and Rural Crossroads place type pursuant to the adopted future land use map ; whereas these place types are described as areas of moderate density residential development consisting predominantly of single - family detached homes and small concentrations of commercial uses in rural areas of the county serving a small population across a large geography , the Board amends the Land Use Plan hereby designates the referenced parcels as Employment Center ” place type b The agreed upon conditions as listed in the conditional zoning agreement mitigates the adverse impacts of the proposed development by substantially reducing the allowable uses , increasing the buffers along the property boundary adjacent to residential uses , and proposed improvements to the local roads indicated as option 2 in the NCDOT Congestion Management review letter of the Traffic Impact Analysis 2 This Board finds and determines that it is reasonable and in the public interest to approve the proposed amendment because a The scale and intensity of the proposed conditional development is mitigated by the agreed upon conditions Page626 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued 3 This Board approves the proposed zoning amendment from Agricultural Residential to Industrial 1 - Conditional Zoning st Adopted this the 21 day of September , 2026 F Budget Revisions , approved as follows Health REQUESTED CHANGE FUND BUDGET CODE LINE ITEM CLASSIFICATION EXPENDITURE INCREASE DECREASE 10 59600200 Salaries & Wages 5,30500 TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES 5,30500 REQUESTED CHANGE FUND BUDGET CODE LINE ITEM CLASSIFICATION REVENUE INCREASE DECREASE 10 596034155 State Grant 5,30500 TOTAL NET REVENUE 5,30500 REQUESTED CHANGE FUND BUDGET CODE LINE ITEM CLASSIFICATION EXPENDITURE INCREASE DECREASE 10 59450200 Salaries & Wages 1,29600 TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES 1,29600 REQUESTED CHANGE FUND BUDGET CODE LINE ITEM CLASSIFICATION REVENUE INCREASE DECREASE 10 594534155 State Grant 1,29600 TOTAL NET REVENUE 1,29600 Sheriff REQUESTED CHANGE FUND BUDGET CODE LINE ITEM CLASSIFICATION EXPENDITURE INCREASE DECREASE 10 51001700 Vehicles 2,01083 10 51007414 Capital Outlay – Sheriff 6250 TOTAL NET EXPENDITURES 2,07333 REQUESTED CHANGE FUND BUDGET CODE LINE ITEM CLASSIFICATION REVENUE INCREASE DECREASE 10 510032106 Controlled Substance Tax 6250 10 510032509 Insurance Recovery 2,01083 TOTAL NET REVENUE 2,07333 4 Public Comments A Citizen Comment – Meleka Byrd Mrs Meleka Byrd , Cleveland area , addressed the Board and stated that she wished to address several statements made by Commissioners in the past Mrs Byrd referenced comments from some Commissioners asserting that the Board cannot dictate what citizens may or may not do on their own property She asked the Board to recall the 619 - page document presented earlier in the year , referred to as the draft Unified Development Ordinance UDO , and stated that document contained numerous regulations governing private property She listed examples including greenhouse size , eligibility for farm stands , fencing requirements , livestock permitted within certain fencing , building size , rules on selling produce , and the restriction of four hens and no roosters She stated these examples demonstrate that the Board can impose limits on what citizens could do on their own land Mrs Byrd then cited an instance involving a farmer who sought to place a cell tower on his property and had met all County requirements ; however , the Board denied the request , preventing the aging farmer from retiring who had to then continue working for several more years Mrs Byrd continued by stating that Commissioners had said they had spoken with a handful of large - scale farmers who opposed certain measures She asked what consideration was given to small farmers and other County residents , and whether the opinions of a few held more weight than those of the broader community Mrs Byrd also referenced statements by Commissioners encouraging citizens to speak up , but statedPagePage pageNumber5627 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued that when citizens do so , some Commissioners appear distracted either looking at phones , reviewing papers , or staring upward She asked the Board to show respect by listening attentively if they want citizens to participate Mrs Byrd added that Commissioners often tell residents to email or call , promising to respond , but she stated that there have been multiple instances where emails and calls were not returned , including her own She clarified that her comments were not intended to be malicious or provoke anger , but instead are to highlight inconsistencies between statements and actions She concluded by saying that many citizens had reached their limit , that they want to be heard , and that they want change B Citizen Comment – Will Byrd Mr Will Byrd , Cleveland area , explained that his family had been forced to move to a new home some years ago , to a property that had previously relied on multiple well sites He stated the County left them with no choice but to connect to County water , making them one more household added to the Johnston County water system He stated that despite becoming part of that system , the County currently cannot provide adequate water service to existing citizens and imposes restrictions on usage Mr Byrd expressed concerns that the County intends to add significant new development despite a diminishing water supply He noted that the river serving Johnston County is relied upon by multiple counties upstream and downstream , all the way to the ocean He repeated a point he had made in prior meetings , saying that if one cannot water a herd of cows , one should stop buying cows He stated that he had stood in the river at the proposed Richardson Bridge site for five months and observed little more than ankle - deep water , which he said demonstrates that the site is not a viable solution Mr Byrd urged the Board to be responsible with the upcoming UDO and stated the draft should include water and sewer provisions tied directly to development He stated the County must manage growth in a way that does not leave current citizens burdened with the cost of responsibility C Citizen Comment – Carl Holloway Mr Carl Holloway , Elevation Township , addressed the Board stating he is a Johnston County taxpayer , voter , and citizen He stated he was present to speak about the UDO and he expressed support for a 75 - foot setback , which he felt was fair He noted that agriculture involves many different circumstances , not only large operators with extensive equipment He described his own background in agriculture , stating that he had operated a bona fide farm since 2000 and had previously grown cucumbers , watermelons , tobacco , sweet potatoes , and other crops on sandy soil Mr Holloway stated agricultural operations need more room and a 35 - foot setback is insufficient He referenced an example he had seen near Cleveland School Road and Barber Mill Road , where a property owner needed more space He then expressed concern about the number of elected officials serving on various boards and stakeholder groups stating he had reviewed the backgrounds of individuals serving on such boards and saw many with extensive professional and civic credentials , but few representing agriculture He stated that agriculture is the County’s main source of income and questioned why that was not reflected in board representation Mr Holloway asked whether a farmer with a hog operation had ever served on the Planning Board and stated in watching past meetings , such representation would have been helpful He noted that the County was halfway through its planning process and the UDO would soon become law He stated his belief is that County Commissioners should rule on all subdivisions regardless of the number of houses proposed Mr Holloway questioned what kind of message it sends to citizens that the Board could vote on the UDO on November 2 , the day before the election He stated he is old school and always votes on Election Day , and he wondered whether the Board’s plan included making voting records public immediately or at a later time He stated he likes to know everything before voting He thanked the Board for listening to his comments Chairman Patrick E Harris asked the Clerk to the Board if there were any e - mails received The Clerk to the Board indicated there were none 5 Public Hearing – Dissolution of Whitley Heights Sanitary District Advertised – The Johnstonian News and The News in Review – September 2 , 9 and 16 , 2025 Chairman Patrick E Harris opened the public hearing to allow for public comment on the proposed dissolution of the Whitley Heights Sanitary District He called on Deputy County Attorney Marie Coats to present the item Deputy County Attorney Marie Coats explained that the Whitley Heights Sanitary District was created by Resolution of the Board of Commissioners in May of 1988 at the request of residents who were experiencing low water tables and water quality issues and at that time , the County did not provide water service as far out asPagePage pageNumber6628 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued Whitley Heights She stated in January of 2000 , Johnston County entered into an agreement with the sanitary district transferring water and sewer services to the County and granting ownership of the sewer infrastructure to the County She reported that under the terms of that agreement , the district was required to pay off a bonded water system debt issued through the US Department of Agriculture in June 1992 and once that debt was paid , the water infrastructure would also transfer to the County Ms Coats confirmed that the debt has been fully satisfied and that there is no outstanding bonded indebtedness remaining Ms Coats stated the question before the Board is whether to dissolve the sanitary district She reported by statute , a sanitary district may be dissolved if it has fewer than 500 freehold residents She stated GIS analysis confirmed approximately 125 freeholds within the district , with some duplicates , meaning the number is lower She stated dissolution would eliminate the additional tax that residents have been paying to support the district’s debt obligations Ms Coats stated to dissolve the district , the Board would need to find that there is no bonded indebtedness , agree to assume any other outstanding indebtedness the district may have , and adopt a plan for meeting the needs and providing the services currently associated with the district Ms Coats noted that residents are already within the legal boundaries of the Little Creek Water District , and that water and sewer services are already being provided by the County She stated the plan would simply continue those services She noted the Board would also need to find that the district’s services are being operated in compliance with all local , State , and Federal regulations and Public Utilities Director Chandra Farmer has confirmed that they are She stated finally , the Board would need to adopt a resolution stating that dissolution is in the best interest of the district’s residents and the County , and that the Board of Commissioners should continue providing the services Ms Coats acknowledged the work of several County offices in preparing this matter , including Internal Audit , Finance , the Tax Office , GIS , and Public Utilities Director Chandra Farmer She offered to answer any questions There being no questions from Commissioners , the Chairman asked whether any members of the audience wished to speak on the matter There being no public comments , the Chairman closed the public hearing Upon a motion by Commissioner Ted G Godwin , seconded by Vice Chairman RS Butch Lawter , Jr , and carried unanimously , the Board voted to approve the dissolution of Whitley Heights Sanitary District through adoption of the following resolution A RESOLUTION BY THE COUNTY OF JOHNSTON TO DISSOLVE THE WHITLEY HEIGHTS SANITARY DISTRICT WHEREAS Whitley Heights Sanitary District is a sanitary district located in Johnston County , North Carolina and was created by resolution of the Johnston County Board of County Commissioners in May 1988 after residents of the Whitley Heights subdivision requested a sanitary district WHSD ” due to low water tables water quality in the area ; and WHEREAS in January 2000 Johnston County hereinafter sometimes referred to as “ County ” and WHSD entered into an Agreement whereby WHSD transferred water and sewer services to Johnston County and granted ownership of the sewer infrastructure to the County By the terms of this same Agreement , when WHSD satisfied the existing water system debt a June 1 , 1992 bonded USDA loan , then the County would receive ownership of the water system infrastructure The 1992 USDA loan was paid in full as of February 29 , 2024 and WHSD has no outstanding bonded indebtedness ; and WHEREAS the number of resident freeholders in the WHSD does not exceed 500 ; and WHEREAS the customers in WHSD are located within the legal boundaries of the Little Creek Water District Customer water revenues and expenses are currently through the Little Creek Water District and could continue to be served as any other County Water District water and sewer customers ; and WHEREAS Johnston County agrees to assume and pay any other outstanding legal indebtedness of the WHSD as of the effective date of this resolution ; and WHEREAS the water and sewer systems are operated in compliance with all local , state , and federal rules and regulations ; andPagePage pageNumber7629 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued WHEREAS the Board of Commissioners adopts , as a plan for providing continued operation and provision of all services previously being performed or rendered to the District , for these services to be performed as a part of county government and services will be carried out in compliance with all applicable local state , and federal rules and regulations ; and WHEREAS the interest of the citizens of WHSD and Johnston County will be best served if the operation and services provided by WHSD are provided for by Johnston County through its Board of County Commissioners ; and WHEREAS upon adoption of this resolution , all property belonging to WHSD vests in and becomes the property of the County ; all judgments , liens , rights of liens and causes of action in favor of WHSD vests in the County ; and all rentals , taxes and assessments and other funds , charges or fees owed to WHSD may be collected by the County ; and WHEREAS the procedures of NCGS § 130A - 85 have been followed and a public hearing was held in accordance with the same NOW , THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED , that the Board of Commissioners of Johnston County hereby unanimously approves as of the adopted date of this Resolution a dissolution of the Whitley Heights Sanitary District , the metes and bounds of which are on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board and that the Whitley Heights Sanitary District is hereby dissolved in accordance with NCGS § 153A - 85 a ; b the plan for continued operation and provision of services outlined in the recitals above is approved ; c all property belonging to WHSD vests in and becomes property of County ; all judgments , liens , rights of liens and causes of action in favor of WHSD vests in the County ; and all rentals , taxes and assessments and other funds , charges or fees owed to WHSD may be collected by the County ; and d Johnston County shall assume and pay any other outstanding legal indebtedness of WHSD as of the effective date of this Resolution ; and e the County Board Chair , County Manager , County Attorney , and other appropriate county officials are authorized and directed to execute documents and take all actions necessary to carry out this Resolution BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED , that a copy of this Resolution be forwarded to the Department of Environmental Quality st Adopted this the 21 day of September , 2026 6 Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Smithfield County Attorney Jennifer Slusser explained that the agreement before the Board concerns the Smithfield Ballpark Facilities Improvement Project She clarified that the Board had already voted to appropriate funds for the project on October 6 , 2025 , and that she was not asking the Board to revisit that decision She stated the matter before the Board is the Interlocal Funding Agreement outlining the process by which payments would be made Ms Slusser stated the purpose of the agreement is to fund improvements to the ballpark facility in order to enhance recreational access for Johnston County citizens She stated the Board had appropriated an amount not to exceed 2 million for the project and phase one is anticipated to be completed by May 1 She stated the agreement is structured as a reimbursement arrangement with the Town of Smithfield , meaning the Town would make expenditures and then submit requests for reimbursement She stated the County Finance Office would review each request to ensure the expenditures fall within the scope of the project approved by the Board before issuing payment Ms Slusser noted the agreement was drafted carefully to prevent duplication of reimbursement because multiple funding sources were involved in the project She stated payments submitted to Johnston County could not include costs already covered by other sources She confirmed that the funds were already included in the County budget as previously approved Ms Slusser reiterated that the agreement before the Board addresses only the process for payment and reimbursement and she offered to answer any questions from the Board Chairman Patrick E Harris asked whether Board members had any questions and hearing none , he asked for the wishes of the Board PagePage pageNumber8630 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued Motion Commissioner Mike Rose made a motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Smithfield A citizen in the audience asked if public discussion had been offered on the item Chairman Harris explained that this was not a public hearing item The citizen who raised the question stated that he would have spoken earlier during Public Comment had he known Chairman Harris clarified that the decision to fund the project had already been made in October , and the Board was now only reviewing the administrative agreement governing how payments would be handled The citizen stated he understood but had a suggestion regarding how the agreement should be reviewed and enacted Chairman Harris assured everyone that the Legal Department had examined the agreement and recommended the structure presented Second to Motion Commissioner Ted G Godwin seconded the motion Further Discussion by the Board Commissioner Bill Stovall stated he had not supported the original appropriation of funds to the Town of Smithfield and explained that he had a philosophical difference regarding the use of taxpayer money to build a venue for a for - profit private sports entity and that those objections remained He acknowledged however , that the majority of the Board voted to contribute 2 million toward what was then projected to be a 6 million project , and he had accepted that decision Commissioner Stovall noted that the project cost had since increased to more than 16 million , placing a significant burden on taxpayers He referenced the Board’s fiscal analysis of the 2 million contribution , stating that the Chief Financial Officer had determined it could take ten to fifteen years to recover that investment through sales tax revenue He stated he did not know how the Town of Smithfield planned to secure the remaining funds needed to complete the project but hoped they would not return to the County for additional support , as the County has too many pressing needs to take on further financial obligations Commissioner Stovall reiterated that the vote before the Board was not a reconsideration of the funding decision but rather a vote on the appropriateness of the written agreement governing administration of the payments He stated that he respected the work of the County Attorney and her team in preparing the document but , because of his philosophical objections to the use of funds for this purpose , he would not vote in favor of the agreement Vice Chairman RS Butch Lawter , Jr stated that he wished to echo some of Commissioner Stovall’s comments He noted that when the matter was originally considered in October , he had not been in favor of the appropriation for many of the same reasons ; however , he stated the agreement before the Board concerned only the administration of the funding already approved He explained that because the County had already committed 2 million , he wanted an agreement in place that both Johnston County and the Town of Smithfield could follow and for that reason , he stated he would vote in favor of the agreement document Commissioner April Stephens provided a point of clarification stating she shares some of the same concerns raised by Commissioner Stovall and wanted the public to understand that the agreement did not commit the County to any additional financial obligation to the Town of Smithfield regarding the ballpark or any related matter Ms Slusser confirmed that this was correct and explained that through the agreement , the Board would be committing to a sum not to exceed 2 million She described the process , noting that Smithfield would submit a disbursement request , which would be forwarded to the County Finance Office who would then review the request and all supporting documentation , and if the expenses qualified for reimbursement under the agreement , payment would be made She emphasized that no payment would be issued until the Finance Office completed its review PagePage pageNumber9631 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued Commissioner Stephens added that she wanted to clarify her own position She acknowledged concerns about the project and noted that , as Commissioner Stovall had mentioned , the scope had evolved since the original vote in October She stated the Board’s goal at the time of the appropriation was to provide an additional regional recreational option for the County She stated for that reason , she understood the need for the agreement and supported having a clear process in place based on the prior decision Commissioner Mike Rose stated the Board had all read about the significant increase in the project’s price tag He stated the primary reason for the increase was the change in site location and had the project remained at its original site , it likely would have already been completed at the original cost He added that the changes did not alter the Board’s prior vote or commitment and that he continued to believe the project would be worthwhile for the entire County He stated he would be voting in favor of the agreement Vote The motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the Town of Smithfield carried via the following vote Ayes Chairman Patrick E Harris , Vice Chairman RS “ Butch ” Lawter , Jr , Ted G Godwin , April Stephens , Michelle Pace Davis , and Mike Rose Nays Commissioner Bill StovallPage0632 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm ContinuedPage1633 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm ContinuedPage2634 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm ContinuedPage3635 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued 7 Johnston County 911 Communications – Request to Move Funds Finance Director and Deputy County Manager Chad McLamb explained that he was appearing on behalf of 911 Communications Mr McLamb reported that the State 911 Board had approved radio maintenance and backup server upgrades for Johnston County He clarified that the funds needed for the project were not Johnston County taxpayer funds but instead would come from the North Carolina 911 Board He reported that the 911 fund balance currently totaled 766,990 , and 325,000 of those restricted funds were needed to complete the project He stated the request is to move 325,000 from the restricted 911 fund balance into the Operating Fund to complete the work Upon a motion by Commissioner Ted G Godwin , seconded by Commissioner April Stephens , and carried unanimously , the Board voted to approve moving funds in the amount of 325,000 from the Emergency Telephone System Fund into the Operating Fund to complete the work At the request of Commissioner Mike Rose , Mr McLamb reiterated that these funds came from North Carolina 911 funding provided by the State for Johnston County Communications 8 Johnston County Emergency Services – Request for Approval of Stryker Contract Emergency Services Deputy Director Josh Holloman explained that Emergency Services is requesting approval of the Stryker contract as a sole - source agreement He reported that Stryker provides several major pieces of equipment used by EMS , including power - load systems for loading stretchers into ambulances , power stair chairs , and mechanical CPR devices He stated that Stryker is the only provider able to perform maintenance and repairs on these devices , and therefore Emergency Services is requesting approval of the contract as a sole source procurement He added that the County Attorney’s Office had reviewed the request Chairman Patrick E Harris asked if any Board members had questions Upon a motion by Commissioner April Stephens , seconded by Commissioner Michelle Pace Davis , and carried unanimously , the Board voted to approve the Stryker Service Plan contract for the EMS Division as a sole source procurement 9 Johnston County Emergency Services - Request for Approval of Peregrine Software Contract Emergency Services Deputy Director Josh Holloman explained that Peregrine is a data - integration platform that will benefit all three divisions of Emergency Services EMS , Emergency Management , and the Fire Marshal’s Office He stated the software will allow the Department to combine large sets of data from various programs used across the divisions , enabling real - time analysis and operational decision - making Mr Holloman noted that the software purchase had already been included in the approved budget and the Department is requesting approval to proceed with the contract as a sole - source procurement because Peregrine is the only provider of the service He stated the request had been reviewed and supported by the County’s Technology Services Director due to the technology component and has also been reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office Commissioner Ted G Godwin asked whether other agencies similar to Johnston County had used the program , noting that integration projects often present challenges Mr Holloman responded that several agencies in the Raleigh and Cary area are using the software , as well as High Point Fire He stated he had also spoken with the Emergency Services Director in Orange County , who is considering the software He stated the company has provided multiple references , including some from out of State He stated the software appeared dependable and Johnston County would not be the first nor the last to implement it Commissioner Michelle Pace Davis asked how long it would take to begin integration once the contract was approved Mr Holloman estimated that implementation would begin within a couple of months Upon a motion by Commissioner April Stephens , seconded by Commissioner Michelle Pace Davis , and carried unanimously , the Board voted to approve entering into a contract with Peregrine Technologies for the software enhancement through sole source procurement Page4636 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued 10 Presentation on Proposed Double Bucks Program at Local Farmers Market Cooperative Extension Agent Nicole Youngblood updated the Board on a proposed Double Bucks Program Ms Youngblood recalled that in June of 2025 a group of citizens from a local organization approached Commissioners about exploring a SNAP Double Bucks Program and she had been asked to research the topic She emphasized that her remarks constituted a proposal for the Board to consider and that no action was required st at this meeting Ms Youngblood stated the proposal is to launch the program on October 31 and begin with one established market in the County She recommended the Clayton Farm and Community Market , noting that it is the longest standing market with strong volunteer support and that it operates independently from the Town of Clayton under its own governing board She described the proposal as a pilot project and estimated the cost at approximately 2,500 based on research and consultation with other Extension Agents who have implemented similar programs Ms Youngblood explained that a Double Bucks Program allows SNAP EBT users to swipe their card at the market’s manager or trained volunteer station She used the example of a 10 EBT transaction that would become 20 in purchasing power , with the additional 10 provided through County matching funds She recommended a cap of 30 per SNAP EBT cardholder per market day , which would become 60 in total purchasing power She stated eligible purchases would be limited to raw agricultural products requiring home preparation , not prepared foods or baked goods Ms Youngblood described the token and certificate system used to track purchases and redemptions and stated oversight would be handled through the Cooperative Extension Office , where she would serve as liaison She noted that she had already consulted with County Finance staff , DSS program integrity staff , and representatives from the Clayton Farm and Community Market Ms Youngblood stated she planned to be present on launch day to assist with implementation She recommended providing information in English and Spanish and working with the County’s Public Information Office to distribute materials through County TV screens , Town partners , social media , and other channels She also proposed outreach to elementary schools in the Clayton area She noted that the proposed launch date would fall the weekend after the Clayton Harvest Festival , a large community event where information could be shared Ms Youngblood concluded her presentation and invited questions from the Board Commissioner April Stephens expressed excitement about the program , noting prior meetings with local organizations and saying she was pleased to see the initiative taking root She emphasized the program’s potential to support both farmers and citizens by strengthening access to local agriculture Ms Youngblood agreed , noting that the program could benefit local farmers as well as residents Commissioner Bill Stovall stated that he had not previously heard the presentation but believes the program could be a win - win He noted that SNAP benefits support families struggling to put food on the table , and the Double Bucks Program would increase their purchasing power through matching funds He added that directing those purchases to local farmers markets would increase commerce for local growers and provide families with fresher , more nutritious food than what is typically available on grocery shelves He stated that he hoped the program could be implemented and become successful Commissioner Stephens added that the program would also include educational components , such as materials and classes to help families learn how to save , cook , and grow their own food Ms Youngblood agreed and introduced her colleague , Teresa Palma , the new Family and Consumer Science Agent for Johnston County She explained that Ms Palma would join her at the market on launch day to provide recipes and inspire families to use local foods She stated they hoped to have activities for children as well Ms Youngblood added that the program would be tracked throughout the fiscal year , and she planned to report back to the Board with data on participation , total funds used , and the number of farmers involved She invited Commissioners to let her know if there were specific metrics they wanted included Commissioner Ted G Godwin asked if there would be an overall limit on the County’s financial exposure Ms Youngblood confirmed that the pilot would be capped at 2,500 She stated if the program reached that amount , she would return to the Board before proceeding further Chairman Patrick E Harris stated the program offers an opportunity to help families in need while also supporting local farmers and he thanked Ms Youngblood for her presentation Page5637 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued 11 Solid Waste – Award of Contract Bid – Barber Mill Convenience Site Expansion Project Chairman Patrick E Harris called on County Manager Rick Hester for the item related to the Award of Contract Bid for the Barber Mill Convenience Site Expansion Project County Manager Rick Hester explained that Johnston County operates twelve solid waste convenience sites , with Barber Mill being the busiest He recalled that the Board purchased additional property at the site a couple of years earlier to expand the facility and improve safety and traffic flow He stated staff is now bringing forward a request for approval of the construction contract Mr Hester recognized Solid Waste Manager Brian Beasley and explained that bids had been received for the project He noted that Consultant Garrett Moore has worked with County staff on the project and the recommendation is to award the expansion project contract to ST Wooten He asked County Attorney Jennifer Slusser to provide more information on the bids received County Attorney Jennifer Slusser outlined the staff’s recommendation She reported that five bids were received and the apparent low bidder was Wells Brothers Construction with a bid of 394,407 She explained that bid item number one bonds , insurance , and mobilization was priced at 72,26426 She stated the bid specifications required that this line item be limited to 5 of the total of line items 2 through 17 and for Wells Brothers , that amount should have been approximately 16,000 , but their bid exceeded the cap by more than four times Ms Slusser stated in her opinion this constituted a material deviation from the bid requirements for several reasons ; 1 the bid violated the explicit 5 cap ; 2 the deviation was price - related , 3 the County’s instructions prohibit deviations related to price ; and 4 the County has the right to reject unbalanced bids , which this cost allocation qualified as She explained that the Board had two options which are to reject all bids and rebid the project , or award the contract to ST Wooten , the lowest responsive and responsible bidder She noted that the price difference between the two bids was approximately 38,534 Ms Slusser stated staff recommends awarding the contract to ST Wooten for two principal reasons ; 1 the project is a high - priority safety improvement that has been in development for some time , and 2 rebidding would not guarantee more favorable pricing She offered to answer questions from the Board Commissioner Mike Rose asked how long rebidding would delay the project Ms Slusser estimated at least three months Commissioner Michelle Pace Davis asked what improvements were included in the project and if a turn lane would be added Ms Slusser deferred to Solid Waste Manager Brian Beasley for details She explained that the project includes circulation and access improvements within the site itself She noted Mr Beasley has previously stated there were no NCDOT required off - site improvements Mr Beasley stated the expansion is designed to move customer traffic off Barber Mill Road and onto the site He noted that the State had conducted a study to determine whether a turn lane was needed , but no requirement had been issued to date Vice Chairman RS Butch Lawter , Jr commented that traffic concerns at the site had been discussed for a long time and navigating the current layout can be difficult He stated the expansion would move the queue onto the site rather than leaving vehicles lined up on Barber Mill Road He added that discussions with the NCDOT would continue and there may still be opportunities to pursue a turn lane Commissioner Davis asked when construction would begin once the bid is awarded Mr Beasley responded that work could start in October , with an anticipated 147 - day construction period He noted the Barber Mill site served 112,000 customers last year , underscoring the importance of the project Chairman Patrick E Harris agreed that the expansion had been in development for some time and he is pleased to see it moving forward Commissioner April Stephens asked what type of notification would be provided to citizens Mr Beasley stated the County had been advertising the upcoming construction for the past three to four months and the plan is not to close the site during the project He stated customers would see progress as work occurred Page6638 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued Commissioner Stephens noted the expansion would create four or five lanes to move traffic efficiently within the site Vice Chairman Lawter noted the existing entrance and exit would become the entrance only , and a second exit - only lane would be added , creating a horseshoe - shaped traffic pattern Upon a motion by Vice Chairman RS Butch Lawter , Jr , seconded by Commissioner Ted G Godwin , and carried unanimously , the Board voted to award the Barber Mill Convenience Site Expansion Project to ST Wooten Corporation in the amount of 432,94100 12 Update on Unified Development Ordinance Community Meeting Planning Director Braston Newton provided the Board with a debrief on the community drop - in session th held on September 9 at the Agriculture Center He stated staff has compiled all comments received and the document before the Board contained the raw , unedited written comments submitted on the comment cards placed in the collection box He noted that various poster boards were displayed throughout the meeting space addressing different components and topics previously discussed with the Board , most of which had been covered during the August work session Mr Newton began with the topic of subdivisions , explaining that the discussion at the community meeting centered on review responsibility for conventional or major subdivisions , whether approval authority should lie with staff , the Planning Board , the Commissioners , or some combination He reminded the Board that it had previously directed staff to structure administrative approval for subdivisions up to 19 lots He noted administrative review includes not only the Planning Department but also other departments such as Public Utilities , Environmental Health , and the NCDOT , which reviews nearly all development proposals in the County He noted that the comments received reflected a range of views on who should hold responsibility and to what extent Commissioner Mike Rose asked for clarification , stating that regardless of whether the final UDO sets the administrative threshold at 19 lots , 9 lots , 30 lots , or another number , the rules and required checks would remain the same He emphasized that the standards applied to a small subdivision would be identical to those applied to a larger subdivision reviewed by the Commissioners , and that the rules do not change based on who performs the review Mr Newton confirmed Commissioner Rose’s understanding was correct He explained that under State law , conventional subdivisions are generally reviewed in one of two ways He stated the first is administrativePage7639 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued review , in which established , standards - based criteria are applied by staff He noted administrative review typically involves a Technical Review Committee made up of multiple departments such as Planning , Public Utilities , Environmental Health , and external partners such as the NCDOT , which reviews nearly all development proposals in the County He stated staff also evaluates applicable County policies , such as residential sewer service policies He emphasized that these standards and policies apply consistently , whether a subdivision is reviewed administratively , by the Planning Board , or by the Board of Commissioners Mr Newton described the second review method which is quasi - judicial or evidentiary hearings He stated in those cases , the Planning Board or the Board of Commissioners conducts a public hearing , and the applicant must present evidence demonstrating that the subdivision meets all applicable standards He noted that this process is also standards - based Mr Newton added that a third type of review that is legislative occurs only when a rezoning is involved , such as a general rezoning or conditional zoning He stated in those cases , the Board has greater discretion because the applicant is seeking a change in zoning to allow additional density or flexibility He noted that such cases typically arise when a development seeks connection to utilities At the inquiry of Commissioner Rose , Mr Newton clarified that rezonings are always decided by the Board of Commissioners under both the current Ordinance and the draft UDO Mr Newton moved to the next topic which is open spaces He explained that staff had displayed a poster board at the drop - in session to gather public feedback on whether the County’s Open Space requirements were adequate He stated the poster board included three questions , and the comments shown were the raw responses submitted by attendees He noted that staff would continue reviewing those comments and another drop - in rd session would be held on September 23 from 6 00 to 8 00 pm at the Johnston Community College Auditorium Mr Newton addressed the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance APFO poster board He stated there had been significant discussion among both the public and Commissioners about APFOs He explained that the draft UDO does not include a formal APFO or set - aside standards , nor does the current land development code He stated the draft UDO does include language directing decision - makers to consider adequate public facilities and infrastructure when evaluating development proposals He noted that APFOs are extremely difficult to craft and administer within legal constraints , and several landmark court cases have made them challenging to implement Mr Newton addressed the shooting ranges poster board and explained that the topic arose from prior feedback and the comments displayed were again raw submissions from the public He clarified that the standards under discussion apply only to shooting range facilities , public or private , for - profit or government - operated , not to individuals shooting on their own property for personal use He emphasized that backyard shooting is allowed , though the County encourages safe practices and can direct residents to resources He stated for shooting range facilities , comments focused on clarity , setback reductions , and standards related to occupied dwellings , including dwellings on the same property He noted that any shooting range facility would require a zoning entitlement or zoning change before development could occur Commissioner Rose asked for clarity about the APFO and the legal restrictions Page8640 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued Mr Newton stated while the concept makes intuitive sense , ensuring that development does not outpace schools , water capacity , roads , or emergency services , the legal framework places significant limits on how counties may apply such standards Mr Newton referenced a landmark North Carolina case commonly known as the Lanvale case He reported in that case , a local government attempted to tie development approvals to school capacity and required developers to pay a mitigation or impact fee if capacity was insufficient He stated the court ruled that such fees were unlawful and the decision held that it is the responsibility of the County or jurisdiction to provide and fund school facilities through its own capital planning and revenue sources , and that counties cannot charge impact fees for schools Mr Newton noted that , in general , counties in North Carolina cannot impose impact fees except in very narrow circumstances explicitly authorized by Statute , such as system development fees for utilities , which have a specific formula and statutory framework He stated for schools and most other public facilities , no such authority exists He added that similar limitations apply to emergency services capacity and counties cannot require a developer to pay a mitigation fee to offset impacts on fire , EMS , or other services He stated that while counties may consider public facility capacity “ within reason ” when evaluating development proposals , they must do so within the constraints of State law and without imposing unauthorized fees or conditions Vice Chairman RS Butch Lawter , Jr asked how many local governments currently have APFOs in place and actively use them Mr Newton replied that while some jurisdictions have adopted APFOs , the ones he is familiar with are not actively enforcing them He explained that due to the Lanvale decision and other case law , enforcement is extremely difficult and presents a legal “ slippery slope ” He stated as a result , many jurisdictions keep APFOs on the books but do not apply them Commissioner Ted G Godwin asked if a measurable utility capacity , such as the daily processing capability of a county’s water plant , could be used as a basis to limit subdivision approvals Mr Newton deferred to the County Attorney for a response County Attorney Jennifer Slusser explained that utilities are included as a factor for consideration in the proposed standards , but they cannot be the sole factor She stated the County may consider elements tied directly to a development but must do so carefully because zoning statutes require counties to provide for the orderly development of land She noted that the statutes are broad and court decisions have provided little guidance or flexibility She explained that in the Lanvale case , the APFO was intended to help the jurisdiction reach a more orderly development pattern , but the court rejected it without offering alternative approaches or explanation She stated that standards without fees or financial mitigation requirements are more likely to withstand legal scrutiny , but the lack of detailed guidance in both statutes and case law should give local governments pause She acknowledged that the legal landscape is sparse and restrictive , making it difficult to tie development approvals to specific public facility thresholds She added that staff had attempted , in the most recent draft , to incorporate standards related to infrastructure , access , circulation , and emergency ingress and egress within subdivisions She stated staff believes these standards are permissible under current law but acknowledged that there was no definitive legal certainty Commissioner Bill Stovall expanded on the earlier discussion of utilities He noted that utilities operate as an enterprise fund , meaning costs are paid by the customers using the system He expressed concern that when he joined the Board , the County had sufficient average daily water capacity but insufficient peak - day capacity , requiring purchases from outside sources He stated relying on capacity the County does not control is not sound business practice , and approving development without adequate capacity effectively forces existing ratepayers to subsidize private development He emphasized that inadequate utilities should be a major factor in determining whether development continues , even though the County cannot charge impact fees under North Carolina law He emphasized that water and sewer costs will be major drivers of future expenses , citing the Richardson Bridge Project’s estimated 700 – 800 million first phase and 12 – 2 billion full buildout He stated those costs will be passed to system customers , and therefore elected officials , not staff , should make final decisions on development requiring utility allocations Commissioner Rose responded that while he agreed with much of the concern , the County also has a legal responsibility to provide services He noted that the County currently has water capacity , and an outright halt to development would face legal challenges He stated every approval moves the County closer to a finite limit on water , schools , roads , and other infrastructure , and the UDO update must grapple with the reality that growth cannot be stopped entirely He acknowledged that many citizens want growth slowed but also understand that some level of growth is unavoidable He stated at some point the County will reach a capacity limit , and major investments , such as the Richardson Bridge water expansion , will become necessary He emphasized thatPage9641 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued future Boards would face similar decisions decades from now He stated the Board must work closely with legal counsel to determine what can be done lawfully to manage growth responsibly He stated the public should know the Board is taking the issue seriously and understands that ratepayers will bear the cost Commissioner Stovall added that while ratepayers do bear utility costs , when it comes to public utilities , counties do not have a legal duty to serve and developers have other alternatives if public water and sewer are not available Commissioner Stovall stated the County wants customers on its system to keep it robust and self - sustaining but must avoid creating costs so high that services become unaffordable for households He reiterated that discretion is needed in decision - making and that elected officials should retain that discretion , so citizens know who is accountable for future rate increases Commissioner Godwin commented that the discussion is frustrating because , in many areas of life , capacity limits are clear and enforceable ; for example , a movie theater cannot admit more people than the Fire Marshal allows He stated he wished the County had similar flexibility with development approvals , but legal constraints make it difficult Mr Newton continued with the next topic regarding paper districts and noted that staff had received public comments about these districts He explained these are zoning districts included in the UDO document but not mapped anywhere in the County He clarified that the County cannot map these districts because of downzoning legislation enacted in late 2024 as part of the Hurricane Helene Relief Bill He reported under that law , the County cannot apply a lower - density zoning district to any property without written consent from all affected property owners He stated the districts remain in the UDO only , so they are available if the Statute is ever rescinded He noted that the County’s Land Use Plan recommended diversifying zoning districts , including creating districts with lower density in rural and environmentally sensitive areas to reduce surface runoff , protect environmental features , and preserve rural character and farmland He stated the downzoning statute currently prevents the County from implementing those districts Mr Newton addressed a request from the Public Health Department to add vape shops as a defined use with specific standards He explained the proposed standard would require a 1,000 - foot separation from newly built schools He emphasized that the language applies only to new schools and would not create nonconformities for existing vape shops located within 1,000 feet of existing schools He reported this approach was necessary because the downzoning statute prohibits creating nonconformities for non - residential uses He noted that some public comments suggested 1,000 feet was not enough , and staff is willing to revisit the distance ; however , 1,000 feet is consistent with standards used by other local governments across the State Commissioner Godwin stated that he preferred the 1,000 yards more than feet as was mentioned in the comments Commissioner Rose asked if increasing the separation to 1,000 yards would create legal issues Mr Newton responded that vape shops are regulated by the State , and while local governments can impose reasonable separation standards , any change would need to be evaluated carefully He stated 1,000 feet is a common standard statewide , but staff could review whether a larger distance would be legally defensible He shared that increasing the separation requirement from 1,000 feet to 1,000 yards could increase the likelihood of a legal challenge He noted that any regulatory standard carries some risk , but expanding the buffer significantly would heighten that risk Commissioner April Stephens asked if the County could achieve a similar level of separation by placing vape shops in the same zoning classification as adult - oriented businesses Ms Slusser explained that such an approach would not be appropriate because adult - oriented businesses are governed by a distinct set of statutes tailored specifically to sexually oriented uses and vape shops do not fallPage0642 September 21 , 2026 – 6 00 pm Continued under that category She stated vape shops are relatively new in the regulatory landscape , and prior to the recent downzoning legislation , most local governments had not yet defined them in their ordinances She emphasized that the County must be cautious about creating nonconformities or imposing excessive buffer requirements that could trigger legal challenges related to property rights She explained that overly large buffers can raise concerns about exactions and restrictions on lawful use of property She also noted that the General Assembly recently enacted additional Statewide regulations on vape shops , strengthening public health and safety protections She stated those changes occurred after the public health departments recommended the 1,000 - foot separation but did not alter staff’s reco