Union council approves Parliament Place subdivider agreement after debate over Planning Commission review and TIF

Union City Council approved the Subdivider's Agreement for the Parliament Place subdivision on Feb. 23, 2026, after a contested debate over whether the Planning Commission and council had followed the city's subdivision procedures and whether the project’s tax-increment financing (TIF) arrangement provides adequate public oversight.

At the meeting, resident Kristy Daugherty said the Planning Commission lacked required documents when it voted, including a performance bond and a full list of public improvements, and pressed officials to explain why those materials were not provided before the commission’s December 2 meeting. City Manager John Applegate replied the Planning Commission acted on a preliminary plan and that completion documents such as engineering plans and the final bond follow the preliminary approval process. “What the Planning Commission approved…and I was there also…was the preliminary plan submittal,” Applegate said.

Council member Mrs. Black disputed that timeline and cited the code sections she said require a two-week submission period and specific approvals to accompany a final plat. She moved to refer the final plat and the performance bond cost estimate back to the Planning Commission for a full two-week review. Applegate and other supporters argued the administration followed the city’s long-standing administrative practice for subdivision approvals. Applegate told council the development now has a performance bond of approximately $2.5 million guaranteeing completion of public improvements and that the process complied with the regulations as applied to Union's current governance structure.

Council voted on the referral motion first; it failed on a 5–2 vote (Mrs. Black and Mr. Brookover voting yes; Mayor O'Callaghan, Mr. Bruns, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Rarick and Mrs. Thomas-Roth voting no). A separate motion to postpone the Subdivider's Agreement died for lack of a second. Mr. Bruns then moved to approve the Subdivider's Agreement; Mayor O'Callaghan seconded. The approval passed 5–2.

The floor debate also touched on the TIF arrangement for the project. During public comment, Daugherty expressed concern that a TIF would divert tax revenue from the general fund; Applegate responded that the TIF ordinance sets a cap and that the amount authorized is limited. At the meeting Daugherty and Applegate discussed a $500,000 figure; Applegate said the TIF is limited to the amount specified in the ordinance and council controls the future of the district once revenues are realized.

What happens next: Applegate and staff said engineering plans, required agency approvals and the documented performance bond are in place as part of the administrative steps following council action, and the developer may proceed with work under the Subdivider's Agreement. Council did not adopt any ordinance amending the TIF during the Feb. 23 meeting.