Greene commissioners rescind I-587 covenants and revise revaluation vote minutes after vendor-dinner dispute

Greene County commissioners voted Monday to rescind the protective covenants on the I-587 Business Campus, the former Walstonburg industrial park, clearing the way for a proposed residential sale. The board also revised its Oct. 5 minutes to record a 5-0 vote on the county’s revaluation contract. Vice-Chairman Jerry Jones argued that Commissioner Derek Burress’s earlier non-participation on October 5th should count as a yes.

The Oct. 5 vote has now been described three ways. Chairman Bennie Heath first announced it as 4-1, then corrected it to 4-0 with Burress recorded as recused. On Monday, the board changed the minutes to 5-0. Burress had asked to be recused because representatives of the winning valuation firm paid for a steakhouse dinner attended by three commissioners. Jones attended the same dinner, recused himself on Oct. 5, and later rejoined the vote. The sequence raises questions about how the county distinguishes a conflict-based recusal from an ordinary refusal to vote.

The meeting also included public comment on a possible data center on Burnette Road, an introduction from the new regional head of Trillium Health Resources, and a closed session on a personnel matter.

Call to order, agenda, and public information

Heath opened the Monday meeting with an invocation and the Pledge of Allegiance. The board approved the agenda without changes. Heath said the monthly collection and financial reports were in the packets for information only and were not action items.

The collection report, dated Oct. 9, covers collections posted through Sept. 30. It shows $482,965.59 collected in September and $1,912,209.15 for the fiscal year so far. About $10.66 million remains uncollected, nearly all of it from the 2026 levy. That levy has $10,437,703.09 outstanding and is 15.14 percent collected. The 2025 levy is 99.14 percent collected, with $103,036.13 outstanding. Earlier levies range from 99.68 percent collected for 2024, with $37,327.60 outstanding, to 99.96 percent for 2016, with $3,645.75 outstanding. Levy added in September was $416,421.16. For the fiscal year, the office reports $12,304,170.51 in added levy, $1,872,212.90 in principal payments and $1,527.49 in interest. It also reports $8,236.86 in releases, $11,356.54 in refunds, $4,239.11 in adjustments, and $1,613.31 in write-offs.

The September financial summary shows the General Fund had taken in $3,512,512, or 12.85 percent of its $27,328,693 budget. It had spent $6,977,345, or 25.53 percent. Property taxes were at 17.59 percent of budget, and other taxes and licenses at 0.35 percent. Among expenses, General Government stood at 77.74 percent of budget, Emergency Management at 46.22 percent, Economic Development at 38.38 percent, and the schools at 18.01 percent.

The Utility Fund took in $1,390,611 against $686,764 in expenses, a surplus of $703,846. The Landfill Fund took in $291,350 against $252,320, a surplus of $39,030. The Transportation Fund took in $166,544, including $131,187 in grants, against $174,802 in expenses, a year-to-date deficit of $8,259. The fund balance table lists $21,424,302 for 2024-2025, including $5,440,480 unassigned.

Consent agenda and the vote correction

When Heath asked whether the consent agenda needed any changes, Jones spoke up about the minutes of the Oct. 5 meeting. He said, “When a commissioner refuses to vote, that is a yes vote,” citing Robert’s Rules of Order. He said the revaluation contract vote should read 5-0 instead of 4-0. Heath answered, “I was not aware of that,” and thanked him. The consent agenda passed with that one correction.

The rest of the consent agenda included two late tax relief applications, one for the elderly or disabled exclusion and one for present use value. State law lets the board approve late applications for good cause, effective for the current year only. The tax administrator wrote that the applicants and parcels meet eligibility requirements.

Releases totaled $547.13. Six were $65 solid waste fee releases for residents who use private haulers. The seventh, $157.13, covered a bill that did not reflect an exclusion that had been approved, with $2,820 in assessed value released. Refunds totaled $1,098.54. Two 2026 property tax refunds, $81.66 and $67.74, went to a taxpayer who paid on two parcels in error after selling them. Eight 2025 vehicle tax refunds totaled $949.14, ranging from $1.54 to $234.77, after vehicles were sold or tags surrendered. One includes $10.60 in interest.

Public comment

County Manager Kyle DeHaven said two people had signed up.

Cindy Cook told the board she has worked for a commercial real estate company and knows quite a bit about data centers, though she is not an expert. She said she has owned property since 1985 less than half a mile from a tract she believes is under option for a data center in the Burnette Road area, including the Burnette farm. Her concerns are noise, water, and electricity.

She began with jobs. A 2-million-square-foot data center in Phoenix, she said, has only 13 employees, so job claims deserve scrutiny. She called noise “a low humming noise” and said it is probably one of her biggest concerns. She said the Tar River has been low during a three-year drought, which she said worries farmers as well.

Cook said she had read an extensive Wall Street Journal article on “phantom” data centers. She said the field is a race, and some developers lack the investors or cannot get the water or electricity to build. She said towns are responding by asking developers to put up money first, because otherwise taxpayers carry the cost of bringing in electricity, fiber, and water. She told the board that if it considers a data center, “I would ask for big money, not little money.”

She also cited a small data center being converted from a back-office and industrial building about half a mile from an apartment community she is selling in a $120 million deal. She said residents objected that they had not known data centers were coming when industrial zoning was approved, so the project is on hold. She closed by noting that early computers filled a desk and now fit in a hand. She said data centers may shrink the same way, leaving “a huge building sitting empty in five or 10 years.” Heath thanked her.

Her comments follow earlier ones. On Aug. 17, three residents asked the board for a moratorium. On Oct. 5, Saint Paul Edwards IV, speaking for his parents and other residents along Burnette Road, opposed a data center. According to the minutes, he cited industrial construction, traffic, water, and the preservation of nearby homes, questioned the economic benefits, and asked the county to consider other locations. The county said in a Sept. 18 statement that no data center permit has been filed anywhere in the county and that the Burnette Road site is being marketed for industrial use. The town of Farmville adopted a 12-month moratorium in August. The Greene County board has not acted on a moratorium.

Sean Kenney, the North Central regional vice president of Trillium Health Resources, introduced himself. He replaced Dave Peterson, who retired in June. He described Trillium as the county’s local management entity and managed care organization for mental health, substance abuse, traumatic brain injury, and developmental disabilities. He said the organization is very proud of its relationship with Greene County and that he is at the board’s service. He thanked Vice-Chairman Jones for serving on Trillium’s regional advisory board. He said he had learned more about local government in two meetings with DeHaven than in 20 years in the field.

County manager: I-587 covenants

County Manager, Kyle brought one item. He said the board’s recent decision to sell the I-587 campus for residential use means the protective covenants must be rescinded for the sale to go through. He said, “I would just ask for that simple motion.” He said that at a later meeting he will ask the board to set a public hearing on rezoning the land to residential. He believed it is now zoned industrial. He said the hearing and rezoning would complete the sale process.

Vice Chairman Jerry Jones moved to rescind the covenants and have the rescission recorded at the Register of Deeds. The board approved the motion with no discussion.

The covenants were executed July 15, 2024, and recorded Aug. 28, 2024, in Book 775, pages 699 to 702. They limit the campus to industrial or commercial use and prohibit residential activities. They also set a 7,500-square-foot minimum building size, require county approval of architectural plans and signs, cap signs at 50 square feet, ban temporary signs, and limit lot coverage to 80 percent. They ban parking on the state-maintained road on the campus and require underground utilities. The county reserves the right to enforce them and to fine violators. They can be amended by a two-thirds vote of campus owners, and the county is the owner.

As previously reported, the board awarded the site off U.S. 264 to First Flight Development of Pitt County. On July 20, the bid was $790,000 for 68 lots. On Aug. 17, the board accepted a revised $890,000 offer for about 74 lots of at least 12,000 square feet each, with homes of at least 1,600 square feet.

County attorney

Heath called on County Attorney Kevin MacQueen, who had no comments for the board.

Commissioners’ comments

Commissioner Derek Burress said Greene County entrants have earned eight ribbons at this year’s state fair so far, and that he might have missed a couple. He announced a ham and turkey giveaway at Free Gospel Church on Nov. 14 at 10 a.m.

He then returned to the minutes. On Jones’s point, he said, “Normally, I would raise cane about that,” but he said that earlier in the meeting, he had passed the county attorney a note seeking clarification whether or not Jones’ statement and interpretation were correct. MacQueen told Burress that he did not know and was unsure. Burress, in his comments at the end of the meeting, asked that the county attorney look into it. Jones replied that he had encountered the question at another meeting. Heath said, “We’ll make sure we do it right,” and referred the matter to the county attorney.

Commissioner Ray Johnson announced the first annual golf tournament of the Scuffleton Volunteer Fire Department on Oct. 30 at the Ayden Golf and Country Club. Heath announced the Hookerton Family Fest on Oct. 24 at a church in Hookerton that he described as the old Methodist church. It will feature gospel singing by about five groups, a Christian comedian, and food trucks. Heath said parking is tight in Hookerton, so organizers plan shuttles, and he believed the event runs from about 1 to 6 p.m. “Hookerton’s looking for a very large turnout on the 24th of October,” he said.

Background: The dinner and the Oct. 5 recusal

The tax office sent out the request for proposals for the county’s 2029 revaluation on July 8. Four proposals were later received. The proposal due date is not established in the available records.

The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners’ 119th Annual Conference was held Aug. 20-22 in Durham. Burress, Jones and Johnson were the only Greene commissioners who attended. Burress has said that during the conference, DeHaven asked the commissioners whether they wanted to go somewhere else for dinner. They left the conference and later ate at a steakhouse away from the conference site. Representatives of Vincent Valuations paid for the meal. One of the two was later in the audience at the Oct. 5 meeting. Burress has said the commissioners did not learn the firm had paid until afterward, when DeHaven told them.

On Oct. 5, Tax Administrator Stephanie Wiggins recommended Vincent Valuations LLC. She said its proposal was the only one of the four that fully met the county’s requirements. According to the agenda packet, Vincent proposed a countywide reappraisal of approximately 12,850 parcels at $37.50 per parcel, for a total of $481,875.

Heath made a motion based on the staff recommendation and asked for a second. After the motion and second, but before any vote, Burress said he had a conflict and asked to be recused. Jones and Johnson then also recused themselves. That left Heath and Commissioner Bobby Taylor Jr. as the only commissioners eligible to vote. Heath said the board could not have a majority vote and tabled the item.

Later in the same meeting, MacQueen returned to the disclosure. He said he had spoken with some of the commissioners during the recess about what took place at the dinner. “I fully understand the necessity and the desire to avoid an appearance of impropriety,” MacQueen said. “I see no actual impropriety here.” He said he saw no actual need for any commissioner to recuse, “unless you determine in your own heart and soul that’s the way for you to go.” He told the board he thought it could proceed. He said each commissioner could decide for himself, and that if someone wished to still recuse, that was fine. The board took no formal vote on whether a conflict existed.

Heath treated the recusals as effective. Burress remained recused. Jones and Johnson rejoined the vote. The board then approved selecting Vincent Valuations and authorizing contract negotiations.

Heath first announced the result as 4-1. MacQueen asked whether Heath meant 4-0. Heath then announced 4-0, explaining that one commissioner had recused and that there were only four ballots. The official minutes recorded the result as 4-0 with Burress recused.

What Robert’s Rules and state law say

As parliamentary references describe them, Robert’s Rules treat abstaining as not voting. A majority is more than half of the votes actually cast, excluding blanks and abstentions. Abstentions are not counted as yes or no. By default, a member who says nothing when the chair calls for a vote is abstaining and is not counted as a yes. The rules apply only where a board has adopted them, and no state law or board rule says otherwise.

North Carolina county commissioners have a duty to vote. The board may excuse a member only on questions involving the member’s own financial interest or official conduct, or where state law bars the member from voting (G.S. 153A-44). The county statute does not say how to record an unexcused non-vote. The city statute (G.S. 160A-75) counts it as a yes, according to the UNC School of Government, and some county boards have adopted similar rules of procedure. On Oct. 5, the board took no formal vote to excuse anyone.

The state gift law

G.S. 133-32 makes it unlawful for a contractor, subcontractor, or supplier to give gifts or favors to an officer or employee charged with awarding or administering a public contract. It reaches firms that already have a contract, firms that performed under one in the past year, and firms that merely anticipate bidding on one in the future. It is also unlawful for such an officer to accept them. The law is not intended to bar nominal advertising items, honorariums for participating in meetings, meals furnished at banquets, or gifts allowed under G.S. 138A-32. Another statute, G.S. 14-234, bars public officials from benefiting from contracts they help make.

Burress has said he sought recusal because of the vendor-paid dinner. Whether the gift law applied to this dinner, whether an exception covers it, and whether it required or permitted his recusal has not been established by the board.

Why the minutes matter (analysis)

How the official minutes record the Oct. 5 action may matter in later reviews. A clean 5-0 entry without a notation of the conflict-based recusal may not fully document the circumstances of the dinner and the contract award. Official minutes form the permanent public record that outside reviewers, including state regulators and auditors, rely on when assessing gift and conflict questions.

Closed session and adjournment

The board went into closed session on a personnel matter under N.C. Gen. Stat. 143-318.11(a)(6). It returned to open session, and Taylor moved to adjourn. The board adjourned.

Disclosure: The author is a sitting member of the Greene County Board of Commissioners. He attended the dinner described in this article, asked to be recused from the Oct. 5 vote, and asked the county attorney to look into the rule during Monday’s meeting. This article is written in a personal capacity and does not represent the board or county government.