Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Public Comment Parks topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Union resident urges redistribution of parks funds and calls for moratorium on data center approvals

Union County Council · June 16, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Missy Kirby Wilkes told Union County Council that budget priorities favor a single sports complex over neighborhood parks, urged transparency and asked council to pause data center approvals and consider a land-use moratorium; she framed the argument as protecting local families and recreation assets.

Missy Kirby Wilkes addressed the Council during the allowed three-minute presenter slot and identified herself as a Union County resident and a beekeeper. "My name is Missy Kirby Wilkes and by now you all know how much I love Union County," she said, and urged the council to consider how line items reflect community priorities.

Wilkes singled out Parks and Recreation line-item funding, saying $852,000 was largely used to maintain Timken Sports Complex while neighborhood parks — Buffalo, Monarch, South Hills, Santuc, Kelton and Lukesville — remain underfunded and in poor condition. She contrasted spending on a single "showpiece" location with the needs of everyday community users and asked, "Can we pause, hit the brakes, and pass a moratorium and land ordinance until the public gets real transparency?" She characterized Ordinance 412 as showing "corporate over community and centralization over rural fairness."

Wilkes also linked the budget choices to a pending 49-megawatt industrial data center project near Lukesville and warned that the project would impose a large industrial load "in their backyard" while neighborhood parks go without maintenance. Her remarks did not prompt a direct verbal response from council during the meeting. The comment was part of the public presenter section of the agenda and did not change the Council’s subsequent adoption of the budget.