Council - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the September 14th meeting of the Town Council of Batesburg-Leesville to order. We'll start off by asking Andrew Bidey to come up and give us our invocation.

I've been excited about the opportunity to stand in front of you all and talk. Hadn't been able to do that in a little while, so excited. Now, if you would, let's pray. Heavenly Father, we just thank you for this day. And Lord, we thank you for the freedoms and the opportunities and the privileges you've given us, Lord. And we just ask that you teach all of us not to take those for granted. And Lord, we just thank you of our freedoms and those that have sacrificed to give us the freedoms we enjoy. And Lord, the events of yesteryear that are fresh on our mind this past week, we just remember those events and remember the strength and the compassion that came from that and the unity of our country. And we thank you for proof that we can be unified and reach a common goal. And Lord, we just pray that you'd be with this meeting tonight and be with everyone involved. We thank you for those that are involved for this town and work with this town. And we pray that everything we do and say will glorify you tonight. And be with us as we go forward. Be with us as we go to our homes and watch over us as we travel back there. And return us back here in your town again safely, if it be your will. In Jesus' name, amen.

Thank you, Andrew. At this time, those that are available, let's stand and do the pledge to the flag.

I pledge allegiance.

At this time, I would like to ask for a motion to approve the agenda. So moved.

I second the motion and would like to make a motion to amend the agenda. Item 10... Let me find it again. I apologize. Item 10D, approval of appointment and planning commission. I would simply ask council to allow me to add to the agenda approval of a nominee for the Board of Zoning Appeals. Okay.

We have a motion to amend the motion to approve the agenda. Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second to amend the agenda. It's now open for discussion. If there's no discussion, we'll vote. All those in favor of amending the agenda to add the nominee for the Board of Zone and Appeals? We'll vote now. District 1? Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? Yes.

District 5? Yes.

District 6? Yes. District 7? Yes. District 8? Yes. And the mayor votes yes. The motion to amend the agenda carries. We now are in the motion to approve the agenda as amended. It's open for discussion. All right. If there's no discussion, we'll vote to approve the amended agenda. District 1? Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? District 3 votes yes. District 5?

Yes.

District 6? Yes. District 7? Yes. District 8? Yes. And the mayor votes yes. The agenda carries. All right. At this time, I'd like to entertain a motion to approve the amendments from the August 10th Meeting. Do I have a motion? So moved. Do I have a second? So moved.

Agenda.

all right we have a motion and a second to approve the minutes of the regular council meeting on august the 10th 2026 it's now open for discussion there's no discussion we'll vote district one yes district two yes district three just to think about yes district five yes district six yes district seven yes district eight yes and the mayor votes yes The minutes have been adopted. Now we need a motion to adopt the minutes in the work session on August the 24th.

So moved.

Motion to have a second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to adopt the minutes from the work session on August 24th. It is now open for discussion. If there's no discussion, we'll vote. District 1? Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? Yes. District 5? Yes. District 6? Yes. District 7? Abstain. Was not here. District 8?

Yes.

And the mayor votes yes. Motion carries. All right. Presentation of awards, proclamations, and resolutions. We don't have any, so we're going to move on. Mayor's report. The next council meeting will be October 12th, 2026. Brings us to council committee report, Central Midlands. Joe Montgomery.

Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Our main... talking point at our last meeting was our new business resolution h approval of the hazard mitigation plan which i strongly recommend council that we approve this in short gives us funding uh availability to get fema funding for any kind of natural disasters that may occur uh lexington county's put this plan together and i recommend that we follow it through when the time comes

all right thank you mr joe environmental planning advisory councilman beau turner uh mr mayor uh we did not have a meeting this month um but we are scheduled to have one mid-month here come this month thank you councilman turner that brings us to joint municipal water sewer commission and me the joint municipal water and sewer commission met on august 12 2026 and took the following actions officers were elected with all current officers retained being retained for another term we got financial reports and the and and Account findings of the physical year for 2025 were presented and reviewed on the audit reports. The Commission entered two executive sessions to discuss several matters. Upon returning to open session, authorization was granted to Jay Nicholson, who's the Executive Director to pursue a potential land acquisition with no further business to come before the commission the meeting adjourned there will be no september meeting for the commission all right that takes us through the up to mr mike taylor with the council report chamber report not council i'm sorry

Our annual auction was held on Saturday, August 15th, and it was very successful due to the support and generosity of the business community and those in attendance. Ticket sales and sponsorships were the highest I think since before COVID, so we're most appreciative. It was a great evening. uh august general membership meeting was sponsored by edward jones investments members received information on their history and client uh and uh services david beatty who's with stantec gave a presentation on lexington county-wide transportation improvement plan the plan presented included seven corridor widings which is basically 24 miles 31 intersection improvements 110 miles of resurfacing and repaving and 20 miles of dirt road paving it's an estimated cost of 800 million dollars If this goes for vote in the November 27 election, it would be from capital sales tax, and they anticipate $100 million that would come in each year for that over the eight-year period. This past Wednesday, I was able to attend a quarterly chamber partner Zoom meeting with Small Business Administration. This quarter meeting centered on disaster preparedness and recovery. 40% of business that closed after the disaster never reopened. The meeting covered how to prepare yourself with an up-to-date plan and the loan opportunities if a disaster should occur. Information is available at sba.gov backslash prepare. The Chamber provided ribbon-cutting this past Saturday during Freedom House's grand opening. There were a lot of activities, as we all know, going on this weekend in our community, but it was a great crowd there that welcomed Alma Durant, her staff, and Freedom House to the business community. There will be a Business After Hours Tuesday, September 22nd, hosted by Baltanite Pumps. It will begin at 6.30, and it's a great opportunity for local businesses to network, socialize, and also to enjoy a little bit of chicken bug, I understand. May the 18th, Sharon Ergel, who's chairman of our board of directors, and I were invited to a meeting, I'm sorry, to Meeting the Moment Leadership Workshop held at Columbia Metropolitan Convention Center. meaningful dialogue centered around education workforce development infrastructure housing and many other factors that will shape long-term success for the midlands from scout motors investment each of the participants was signed to a committee i was assigned to the housing committee If you go if you walk go down highway 23. Now and look, it's what's going on locally. You go down highway one as centers veil and all out then see what's going on. You wonder how in the world we're gonna get rid of all these houses. So you'll find this amazing, like I did. Um, The Millions of South Carolina faces a workforce housing gap of at least 25,000 units, driven by 15 years of underproduction compounded by 5,000 direct jobs at Scout Motors that will generate an estimated 12,000-plus additional jobs in the regional economy by 2029. at the historic average of one home for every two new jobs scout alone demands more than 8 500 new units above and beyond what the region is already falling to failing to build so it's coming and it needs to come so it'll continue that's my report mr mayor Thank you. Other than one thing coming up, October 4th, Arts on the Ridge, Fall for the Arts, and I see it's on the agenda, so I won't say any more. Thank you very much. Any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Mott.

Brings us to public comment regarding items on the agenda. Do we have anyone wishing to speak? All right, we'll move on. Unfinished business, we have none. And that takes us to new business. If I can get these pages to cooperate. The first item is approval of change order number four for the decommission of the water plant, Brody Pump Station, and Town Pond facilities. Do I have a motion, hear a motion to approve this change order?

I will move. I so move.

We have a motion and a second for approval of the change order number four for the decommission of the water plant Brody pump station and town pond facilities. It's now open for discussion. Mr. Mayor. Yes, sir.

If you look at the document that Hazen provided us where they recommend what work needs to be done, and you look at number 11 regarding flowable fill will be used to abandon the existing water, unit cost for the flowable fill is $330, so forth and so on. If you go down to what I assume is the contractor's agreement to do the work, Excuse me one second. Under exclusions is flow filling or removal of any underground pipes. So it looks like we're being recommended to have something done that the contractor that we're about to hire says they're not going to do.

So we're not going to do it. It needs to be removed. So we're going to need to amend that motion.

Well, I will say this. There is some urgency with that $437,000, $423,000. I had not noticed that. Andrew, do you have anything you can add on clarity with that?

Where are you referencing? I've got it on my computer, Andrew, if you want to see it. Is it? Keep on going down. Go further down.

Keep going.

Right there. The last exclusion listed.

i'm sure it was an oversight but i have a issue with approving the way it's written counselor can we just strike that and and and move on with it or no if that's your wish but um exactly i don't know is that what we know what the contractor's intention then we need to take

Well, so I think we do have the ability to certainly strike that. That does not conflict with the ability to decommission the plant. So if we want to drop line 11, abandon water lines.

Then I'll amend my motion to approve the work. uh with the exclusion of exclusion the last exclusion item in the proposed uh work from the contractor so item number 11 yeah item number 11 that is recommended and then their exclusion of item number 11. if i may mr mayor yes why why are we having a fourth change order i don't know understand why we're adding more money to what we've already approved in a contract with them um

So, Councilman Montgomery, that was covered during the work session. I know you weren't here, but this is a fourth change order to the very first phase of the water project, the $10.6 million project, which brought water from Joint Municipal to town. So this was approved by the Rural Infrastructure Authority as an acceptable addition to this project for the decommissioning. That was also in line with the approval from SRF to give that $437,000 in additional funding, which was not part of the original scope. So this was the recommended path from the Rural Infrastructure Authority. Thank you. Yes, sir.

We have an amendment. We need a second. Second.

I would second.

All right. We have an amendment offered for the original motion to exclude item 11. Add that to the original motion with the exclusion of item 11. It's now open for discussion.

For clarification, we're actually going to approve the expenditure of $656,000, not the full $680,000. In the white paper, I had recommended just as a precaution a 5% addition. Let me back that up.

So the original cost was $689,713.50. And I had recommended a 5% contingency of $34,485. So we can adjust that. The engineer felt that there was not a great need for contingency. That's why we went with 5%, not 10%. But yes, if you want to scale it back by that $33,000 or honestly, if you wanted to... If you wanted to vote to approve it at the $689,000 minus $33,000, which would be the

Well, that would be the logical thing to do since the work is not going to be performed. I don't understand why we would approve the expenditure of the money. I was referring to the contingency. Well, but the contingency is not part of that contract. The contractor is saying he's going to do work worth $656,000, not $689,000. Yes, sir. Now, the contingency is still there because it's a separate line item and may be used. But at this point in time, I feel that what we're voting on is $656,713. And if additional funding beyond the contingency is needed to cover anything, management would come back, administration would come back to council for that approval.

Yes, sir. And if I could just clarify the motion that I made to amend, we're not eliminating item number 11. We're eliminating the exclusion that excludes item number 11.

Right. The cost is still there. Right. The cost would still be there.

All right. Any further discussion on the amendment?

So the same cost would still be there is what we've got. We're not eliminating. We're eliminating the exclusion, so there's no cost.

I don't know that there's a change in cost based on that.

That's what I was thinking.

Well, the motion doesn't go to that. We would have to address that with another motion anyway.

Excuse me. I'm lost here. And, of course, some people say old and senile, but I'm a little bit lost. If we eliminate the exclusion, then you're telling us that we're telling the contractor he has to do that. It was excluded. We're eliminating the excluded. We're going to go back to the contractor and say, you cannot exclude this. You must include it. Okay. is that the logic i would agree with that okay correct so if we exclude it we need to exclude the cost i mean if if you're if you want the work done that's one issue if you're going to not do the work then we need to exclude the expense but we want the work done i think because that's what they're recommending be done it's just for whatever reason they included it as an exclusion

And it may have been an oversight to be completely honest.

But if we can't take that chance, if I may, he, I think what the original said, they had to dig it up or they could flow fill it. And I think the contract is elected to flow fill it compared instead of digging it up. And that might be why we have a increase in cost. He's probably already given us a price to remove the pipe.

I'm guessing flow fill. It's going to mean pumping it full of concrete.

Is that what that is? So one other option could be the approval of the full price. And then the, we get that clarified tomorrow. And, um, because we are on a time crunch with that 437,000 that needs to be expended by the end of the year. Um,

Well, the motion in all the amendments says anything about taking money out. Okay. So that would have to be another motion anyway.

Okay. So the motion is to remove.

Right now, if there's no further discussion on the amendment, we need to vote to remove the exclusion. All right. Move that from the original motion to approve it. Any further discussion? If not, we'll vote on District 1. Yes. District 2. Yes. District 3. District 3 votes yes. District 5. Yes. District 6. Yes. District 7.

Yes.

District 8. Yes. And the Mayor votes yes. The amendment carried now. The, which brings us back into the discussion of the motion to approve the change order with the exclusion of removing the exclusion. It's now open for discussion.

So, Mr. Mayor, we are voting for the $657,000 instead of the $680,000. That's correct.

We didn't amend the money, so we have to vote on it.

It's $689,000. $689,000.

$689,000. Whatever that number is up here, it's the same. The motion did not authorize the amendment, nor the motion authorizes taking any of the money out. So we have to vote on the motion as proposed.

So, Mr. Mayor.

Yes.

So, am I understanding we're spending $689,000 to demolish the water plant or decommission our current water plant, right? Yes, sir.

The former water plant.

Okay, well, the former water plant. yet we don't have a secondary emergency water plan or source, which will probably wind up costing us at least that amount of money. Is that right?

Well, The way it is, and the original thing that we signed to get water from Joint Municipal and DES approval, we don't have any choice. All water plants got to go.

Well, I mean, that was a part of a negotiation. What I'm saying is that it really doesn't make sense to spend almost a million dollars to decommission a perfectly functioning water system. And then we're going to have to wind up.

Then it's going to cost a whole lot more than a million dollars for us to pay all that money back to the federal government.

I'm not debating what we did. What I'm saying is that this for the record that eventually this council is going to come back to the citizens and say, we need to have a secondary water source for emergency purposes. And right now, I don't know who negotiated that deal. I'm sure I didn't vote for it, but that was not. In my opinion, a very smart thing to do and here we are.

Can I can I make a point to you? Sure. All the years that we use this, what was our backup? We didn't have 1. we've never had a backup to the water system. We got what we got. It's impossible to have a backup and expect it to be feasible when we knew it. Every public... Well, we did have a backup. What did we have?

We had the Brawley Pond, which was a backup.

No, you had this water plant. We're not decommissioning the pond. We're decommissioning the equipment that purified the water and the system.

Right. But you said we didn't have a backup. We had a backup source of water. No, we didn't have a backup source of another plant. We never had a backup. Right. Well, I mean, you don't need two plants.

We've never had a backup, and that's what we're saying now. Why do we need two plants if we're going to rely on joint municipal? I don't understand the reasoning to want a backup for something that we don't need.

We're going to need a backup. If something happens to their plant or their water source at the lake, we're going to need to have somebody.

If something happened to our plant, what would we have done? We would have been trying to get water from somewhere, and we would have had none.

We probably would have just dug a well down there and put that water around the pond and put that water into the system. Anyway, that's water under the bridge, no pun intended. No pun intended. I just want to put that on the record.

Okay. All right. Any further discussion on the motion as amended? If not, we'll vote. District 1. Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? District 3 votes no. District 5? Yes. District 6? Yes. District 7? Yes. District 8?

District 8 votes yes.

And the mayor votes yes. That motion carries. All right. This brings us to first reading of an ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance for C1, permitted principal uses and structures to include hospitals and medical treatment facilities. Do I have a motion to approve first reading of this ordinance?

Yes, sir. I so move.

Do I have a motion? Do I have a second?

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second to approve first reading of an ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance for C1 permitted principal uses and structures to include hospitals and medical treatment facilities is now open for discussion.

Mr. Mayor, if I may. Yes, sir. Is there someone here who could explain the reasoning we want to put a hospital in such a highly congested C1, C2 zone? I don't understand the reasoning of that. In the modern-day world, you do not locate hospitals in an area that's already congested. Now, basically, a hospital, by state law definition, is a facility that provides surgical ability to perform surgical operations and to keep a patient overnight. We're what we're calling a dock in a box, for a better definition. does not have the ability to maintain patients overnight. I just question the need for this in its totality to add a hospital to a congested area. And the other one is the fact that we adopted the international building codes. And the International Building Code has a section that classifies buildings by use and medical facilities, veterinarian facilities, all of the ones listed here under C1C2. are classified as professional offices. C1C2 allows professional offices already. It's an interpretation that a zoning administrator should be making as to whether or not something falls in the professional category. I just don't see the need to make these changes.

If I may. So this situation arose from a developer requesting to construct a dock-in-a-box, an urgent care NC1 on Highway 23. the zoning administrator at the time uh... it spells out specifically hospitals and medical treatment facilities the same terminology in c two but not c one it is not a permitted special exception in our zoning so the original decision from zoning was to deny that request And so the developer asked that it go to the Planning Commission for their review, and they recommended unanimously to place that in C1. And again, the terminology with hospitals, it is not a hospital that's proposed, but that was consistent with the other zoning districts.

But technically, the International Building Code classifies it as a professional office, and C1 and C2 say professional offices. So therefore, what you're doing is trying to correct something that the zoning administrator erred in previously by rejecting

I think she was simply interpreting the zoning as written, and it specified in other districts, hospital and medical treatment facilities, but did not specify that in C-4. But we have an ordinance adopting the international building codes. I'm just... I'm just relaying what was done by zoning. And I think her interpretation was fair. Although, as you see, we have numerous medical treatment facilities scattered throughout C1. So I think that perhaps is a difference from a previous zoning administrator making those determinations, as Councilman Hall stated, to the new zoning or the recent zoning administrator saying, no, it's not specifically allowed.

So can we accomplish the same thing that was the thrust for recommending the change by not changing anything?

I don't think it was simply a matter of interpretation. My personal opinion, and again, I didn't have this conversation with the Planning Commission, I think hospitals absolutely fall into C1. If you look at Lexington Medical Center, you look at Richland Memorial or Baptist, all of the hospitals in the Columbia area are in C1. You look at Little X on Highway 1 in Lexington is in the middle of a commercial district. think it absolutely fits in c1 it doesn't fit in a tight lot no but I do think that a hospital would be appropriately zoned in c1 c2 as well I personally would recommend the approval and I think it takes away interpretation that obviously has led to some confusion you know I think it would clarify the the zoning for future zoning administrators.

Well, my point is that we already have traffic congestion issues here, and now, of course, it's very remote that we're going to get a full-fledged hospital anytime soon, but we're intentionally adding to the congestion by putting a hospital there. What Lexington does, we have a comprehensive plan, which is in the best interest of our citizens. Our citizens, not Lexington, not Columbia. And if you'll recall, most of those facilities predate most zoning requirements. So I seriously object to putting a hospital in a highly congested area.

Mr. Mayor, if I may.

Yes, ma'am.

It appears that You were saying that it would already fall into C-1 due to international building codes. And what we have now, they're already in C-1. So it's just a clarification on the interpretation of where it needs to be because it already kind of falls there, but it just actually uses that term hospital and doctor term. for c2 but it doesn't say that specifically in c1 although it does fall under professional offices so it's just a clarification councilman confirming those things that's the way i'm seeing it councilman i do not recall saying that hospitals were entitled to be professional under the building codes hospitals are treated as a totally separate entity under the

international building codes. It has its own definition and it is not typically classified as a professional building. It is classified as a hospital. South Carolina state law treats hospitals as a separate classification with its own definition. It does not define unfortunately state law does not define uh what a that a dock in a box is a professional building but international building code does but it does not say that hospitals are the same and nor does it say that they fit in c1 or c2 so mr mayor yes jay basically

We're not deciding where it can go.

I mean, they're going to put it there, right? Well, they have been told previously no, based off of it being not mentioned specifically in the zoning in C1.

What not being zoned?

We were talking about the urgent care that was being proposed by a developer. When he approached zoning, it was not specifically spelled out in C1, and that's why it went to the Planning Commission, and Planning Commission made this recommendation. Where it wasn't C2, they wanted to add it to C1. okay so becky decided and she her interpretation was it is not written in there but it is specifically written in c2 and so the interpretation was it's not allowed there because it is specifically allowed elsewhere and now you could also amend it to just say medical treatment facilities and exclude the hospital but again i think hospitals belong in c1 that is where your major travel arteries are your main highways you're not going to put it in residential. I think C1 and C2 would be appropriate for a hospital. But again, that's certainly counsel's.

So was there ever a discussion among planning whether it was appropriate to be there or was it okay to be there and we just had the language issue?

I think that, and I was not at the meeting, but from what I understood was planning commission was fully supportive of adding it to C1.

Not so much the description of it, but the actual physical place itself. So is it appropriate? I'm asking if somebody actually looked at the traffic pattern and made a decision based on is it a good fit for that particular area. Or was it just a conversation about...

The developer had requested, they wanted to be in a high-traffic area, and that parcel... I don't know what the developer wanted. Well, yeah, they wanted it in that high-traffic area.

Did anybody from the town look at it and say, okay, this is a good fit for...

If I may... If we put some verbiage in these, some of these ordinances where we say that. If we have like a hospital or a medical treatment center coming in on our 123 that they do a traffic study. And then if turn lanes are needed, especially on 23, the developer has to get that plan together permanent through and improve the intersection. That's whether it may be traffic signals. I don't know, but I think we ought to back up and put a little verbiage in there saying. That at the discretion of. the town that we recommend that traffic studies be done along these two corridors that they're calling out because I agree with Mr. Hall here, Councilman Hall, that we do have some congested areas, but our traffic study could help eliminate that just by adding turn lanes inside the already provided right of way and make that be a cost to the developer to put that, implement those changes.

I guess my question was, does it fit within the overall plan, the strategic plan that we have? Does that medical, because I'm hearing that it may be owned by Lexington Medical Center anyway.

I don't believe it was. Okay. But there has been a desire for more urgent care options. And this was a private developer that was looking to fill that void. They saved the void as well. And so they were looking to add that urgent care option. And they felt that this was...

I 100% agree to an urgent care. We have spoken about this before. But I'm also concerned, like Councilman Hall, about... the congestion that we are creating because we make decisions one by one. You know what I'm saying? Like we make a decision on this, but we're not looking at how this overall fits or is going to affect traffic five years from now, or, you know, when these other houses come on, come online, because you talk about 200 houses, two cars per house, you talk about 400 cars, a minimum, just up in that Walmart area, right? Yes. So and then so we really need to think about what seems to be high traffic now. Some other area of town may wind up being just as high traffic. So it might not be appealing to them now, but as the houses and things come online, these areas are going to be how they travel. Yes.

A traffic study will do a 20 year projection and a 40 year projection that will help that will help.

Yeah, I think that we ought to be looking at this way and we need to direct where we want traffic to to be. I have a question. We're coming coming there because that's where all the action is. That's what the people is. That's what they want to be. But we need to look at.

you know what's going on down by the police department area of town because when i come out my house i go right i'll never go left towards mr mayor i have a question about the motion i'm sorry oh yeah the motion if our current zoning ordinances reference international building codes are we putting ourselves in jeopardy by adopting this change

You can sue Buff for anything, but yeah.

I don't have that answer. And I'm looking at council for that answer.

Mr. Mayor, may I make a motion to table this for further workshop?

I'll second.

We got a motion and a second to table a motion to hand. It's now open for discussion. All right. There's no discussion. We'll vote the table. The first reading of ordinance to change the zoning ordinance for C1. District 1? Yes. District 2?

Yes.

District 3? District 3 votes yes. District 5?

No.

District 6? Yes. District 7? Yes. District 8? Yes. May I vote yes? The motion is table. And the ordinance is table. We'll get some clarification and come back. That brings us to first reading of the ordinance to amend subdivision ordinance section 13-1. And that is on the council. And it says planning commission approved to submit changes during August meeting. The intent is to ensure that all subdivision developments be required to have financial protections in the form of a bond. Currently, the language of May leads it up to the town to require or not require it. And this change in this ordinance will change May to shall. Any discussion? We don't have a motion. We need a motion first.

Move to adopt. Move to adopt. I'll second.

I have a motion and a second to change the ordinance from may to shall is now open for discussion.

Mr. Mayor, if I may.

Yes.

Under this provision, if it says may, then obviously it has to come before council to determine not only if there is a bond required, but the amount of the bond. My question is, if we make it shell, who makes the determination whether or not the bond is adequate?

I would hope the Planning Commission.

What is the amount of the bond? So we're going to advocate the financial responsibility to the Planning Commission?

So I believe it does spell out 150% in the ordinance. I believe so.

It says in there 1.5%.

Yeah, 13-2.1 bond is equal to 1.5 times construction cost of all improvements.

But those are estimates provided by the developer, subject to review by council to see whether or not they feel they're adequate. You can get a developer to lowball it. Therefore, his requirement for the bond is obviously going to be significantly lower. I personally feel the council should review the bonds to see whether or not they're adequate, regardless of whether they're 150% of what. We should determine what the what is. Just my viewpoint.

Here's the procedures.

Is that not in the ordinance? Do we need to amend the ordinance to put that verbiage in there? Can we do that now as we change in Chau and May?

But that's what it would do. It would change it from shall where they have to do it.

Bob was talking about having council. Would you put that in there?

It's already in there at the amount that they got up here.

Either we agree with that amount or we change the amount.

Well, it's in the procedures as well how that's done, and I think it does say the town council.

It would require getting a set of plans and then going out on site and looking to see what is actually completed and what is not, and then we would go from there.

under 13-3 there's some procedures there that my question is does changing the verbiage from will to shall remove the ability of council to actually review any bond before it is made fact or it says we shall It doesn't say we will. Will leaves the option open for the council to review the bond. My question is, if we say shall, it says we will accept the bond.

It says the town attorney shall submit the materials to the town council for approval. And then if the town council approves the bond, then the preliminary plat shall be given bonded plat approval. Under 13.3.

So this just compels us to do this in every case instead of having to consider it every time it comes up?

Well, I'm saying does the shell give us an option of saying yes or no? Why would we say no? If it's inadequate.

Well, that's true, but is it set in stone in this ordinance, or do we have judgment from what's up here? Do we have the ability to review it? That's just telling them they've got to have a bond is the way I'm interpreting what it says. That is correct. If the amount of the bond is not necessarily set in stone, we would still have to review it.

It says 1.5%, but then it says we have the option to approve it.

i simply read it as removing council from the ability to review and to approve i don't see it that way i don't either that's the way it works it sounds like we're debating uh the amount of improvements because i mean this obviously says uh one and a half times the amount of improvements that that's not a debate but is it that council wants to

cost is and I think that's what we're referring to and if the registered civil engineer of record can provide it will hold him bound to that amount so I think we'll be safe I really do

I don't see where it's going to change. We're just, instead of it being optional whether they have to pay a bond or not, put shall in there so they're going to have to do it.

Well, that was what was explained as the intent. Yeah.

Yes. I think that's all we're trying to clarify and not letting it be an option. All we're trying to do is make sure that everybody's got to have that bond that protects the town in the long run.

Move to vote, please.

Excuse me, if I'm reading it says the base for ladies will count down shall accept a bond. It says we must accept the box.

Mr. Mayor, so if the wording that Councilman Hall was saying to be will, how does that really change? How does that give us an option to refuse? If it says town council will accept the bond.

Will in legal terms says may.

May is where it's at now.

That's right.

We're changing that to shall instead of will. My point is, why change it?

It will compel – that shall will compel us to take it, though. Well, I would point out in that first paragraph right below the highlighted shall – that Batesville Town Council shall accept a bond in an amount in with certainty and condition satisfactory to it, and it is town council, providing for and securing to the town of Batesville. So council still has the approval authority of the amount. That's the way I read it.

We still approve the amount. We're just going to make sure they do it.

It's a requirement.

I was getting that earlier. So you still have to. We still have to approve approved a bomb once you're satisfied with the improvement call for the question call for the question call for the vote.

Please order of the day. It's my prerogative.

All right any further discussion. All right we'll vote on the ordinance to amend the subdivision ordinance 13-1 to change it from may to shall district 1 yes district 2 yes district 3 yes district 5 yes district 6 yes district 7 yes district 8

District 8 votes no.

Mayor votes yes. First reading of that ordinance carries. We now have an improvement of appointment for the planning commission. And that's in the thing my and the board of zoning appeals as was amended. So it's.

If you'd like, so that would be for the Planning Commission, the at-large appointed by the Mayor would be Justin Howard, and then District 2 Board of Zoning Appeals would be Todd Antonovich, as requested by Councilman Spradley.

Do we have a motion to approve this appointment? So moved. A second.

Second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the appointments to the Planning Commission and the Board of Zonal Appeals. District will vote. All right, it's now open for discussion. There's no discussion. We'll vote. District 1? Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3?

District 3 votes yes.

District 5?

Yes.

District 6? Yes. District 7? Yes. District 8? Yes. I'm going to vote yes. That carries. Burnett explains this to the approval of the Psycholata Poultry Festival H-Tax grant request. And that, with the paperwork, is in the amount of $10,000. Wow. And it's in the packet. You want Mr. Hendricks to go through it and tell us what's what, or are we good with that?

to the terms. However, three, Jay, only three people get it. I move we approve.

Second. I have a motion to accept it. All right. I have a second.

Somebody seconded.

Second? Second. Somebody didn't second? Bob. I do.

Okay. I have a motion to second and approve the South Carolina Poultry Festival H-TAC grant request. It's now open for discussion.

If I may, Mr. Mayor. Yes. This represents only about 10% of the budget for the Poultry Festival, unlike others where we go as high as 50%. So it's money well spent. I believe, correct me, Mr. Hendricks, but we receive... publicity by the fact that it's featured on the literature that's circulated. So actually we're buying $10,000 worth of advertisement at a festival that contributes a great deal to the community. So I'm heartily in favor.

Any further discussion? If not, we'll vote. District 1? Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? District 3 votes yes. District 5? Yes. District 6? Yes. District 7? Yes. District 8? Yes. Mayor votes yes. That motion carries. Next is approval for Fall of the Arts H-Tax Grant Request. And that is in the amount of? $5,500.

$5,500. $5,000. I can't see.

$5,500. Do I need to zoom it in a little bit more for you, Mr. Mayor? All right, let's get me some new glasses. I'll move to adopt. Second. A motion and a second to approve the fall for the arts H tax grant $5,500. It's now open for discussion.

I just want to say the fact that some people ask for more of a percentage is not their fault because their operations aren't as big as the poultry festival, for example.

Mr. Mayor, if I may. This brings up an issue that the council needs to address, which is related to H-Tax grants. Our procedure, but it's not part of the ordinance, but our procedure specifies that grants need to be closed out and final reports within 30 days of the actual I note that in the event, in the case of the St. Paddy's Day Parade, which I believe is typically held in March, just being Mediterranean Irish myself, But I believe that report did not close out until June. I suggest that council consider a proposal that if reports are not closed out as specified, that a 10% deduction be made from the grant. But that's something we can cover at a work session.

Any further discussion?

Yes, Jay, we're going to eventually have a work session on hospitality, right?

H-tax is October. October is all H-tax stuff.

Okay, because my great-great-granddaddy was Irish, too, so I do support St. Paddy's Day. Okay.

I believe that was County Galway or Cork, perhaps.

I didn't have the pleasure.

Give me a chance to get my breath back. We'll be good with this. If there's no further discussion, we'll vote on the approval of the grant H tax grant for the fall for the arts. District 1.

Yes. My ancestors were mostly Italian, but I'm voting for it anyway. Yes.

District 3.

District 3 votes yes.

District 5. Yes. District 6. Yes. District 7. Yes. District 8.

District 8 votes yes.

And the mayor votes yes. That motion carries.

Board of privilege, please. Yes. If I may address Councilman 2, District 2, I suggest he have a DNA run.

How did I know you were going to say that?

50% of me is Italian. If I may correct the council member, DNA will prove that you are Greek.

This brings us to the resolution to suspend the open container ordinance for fall for the arts festival. Touche. Do we have a motion? So moved. Adopt us. We have a second? I second. We have a motion and a second that we have a resolution to suspend the open container ordinance for the fall for the arts festival. It's now open for discussion. There's no discussion. We'll vote. District 1. Yes. District 2. Yes. District 3. District 3 votes yes. District 5.

Yes.

District 6. Yes. District 7. Yes. District 8.

Yes.

And the mayor votes yes. That resolution carries. All right. That brings us to the resolution to approval of the hazard mitigation plan as submitted by the Central Midlands Council of Governments. Do we have a motion to accept this resolution?

Motion to adopt as written.

I have a second. A motion and a second to approve the hazard mitigation plan as submitted by Central Midlands Council of Government as written. Is there any discussion? If not, we'll vote. District 1? Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? District 3 votes yes. District 5.

Yes.

District 6.

Yes.

District 7. Yes. District 8. Yes. Mayor Boachess at motion case. All right. This brings us to approval of the memorandum of agreement with the South Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice. We have a motion to approve this memorandum of agreement.

So moved. Second.

We have a motion and a second that we approve the memorandum of agreement. It's now open for discussion. There's no discussion. We'll vote district 1. Yes district 2. Yes district 3 to 3 votes. Yes. District 5. Yes district 6. Yes, this is 7. yes. District 8. Yes. And the mayor vote chess. All right. Brings us to approval of a mutual aid agreement between B&L Police Department and the town of Lexington Police Department. Do we have a motion to accept this mutual aid agreement?

So moved.

We have a motion and a second that we approve the mutual aid agreement between B&L, the police department, and the town of Lexington. It's now open for discussion.

For the record, all that's changing is our police chief's name. That's correct.

That's what it do say.

Is that necessary?

That is approved anyway. He's got to sign it.

Yeah.

All right. If there's no further discussion, we'll vote District 1. Yes. District 2.

Yes.

District 3.

District 3 votes yes.

District 5. Yes. District 6. Yes. District 7. Yes. District 8. Yes. Mayor votes yes. That agreement is approved. All right. Brings us to a mutual aid agreement between the B&L Police Department and the Saluda County Sheriff's Department. Motion to accept.

I second.

Joe and Chip.

I have a motion and a second to accept this agreement between B&L Police Department and Saluda County Sheriff's Department. It's now open for discussion. There's no discussion. We'll vote. District 1. Yes. District 2. Yes. District 3. District 5. Yes. District 6.

Yes.

District 7.

Yes.

District 8. Yes. And the mayor votes yes. That carries.

All right.

And for those watching at home, the mayor is recusing himself for the next item.

Okay, this brings us to the next item on the list is the approval of 150th anniversary badge purchase for the B&L Police Department. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved.

Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Okay, so we have a first and we have a second. It's time for discussion. Are there any discussions? How much are the badges? $28,000. $28,000? Yeah, $28,000. Okay.

All right, if I may.

Yes, sir, Mr. Hall.

Is there a reason why we don't just make this the badge for the police department? We should be proud of it in year 2028 as we are in 2027. We're going to spend $157 per badge for a badge that's going to be worn for one year.

Yes, sir. That's customary in law enforcement. Recently, the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources had their anniversary badge. The town of Lexington had their anniversary badge. I'm sure the list goes on, but those are the two that I can come up with off the top of my head. You only have a birthday of 150 years one time. We missed our 100th birthday.

I have yet to have one.

I feel that it's important for the history of the town and of the police department. I know that there is... Kind of given a little bit of back date here, August 7th of 1877 is when the Batesburg police department was was formed. Walter golf is the historian who has researched all of this ongoing based off his research information that when the towns consolidated the police bar consolidated on January 1st of 1993. so. The Batesburg police department has only been around since nineteen ninety three, but the Batesburg police department, the number that was given to the Batesburg police department is the that we use. So, it's kind of stands to reason that that's what we consider our birthday all the way back to. And we've been here for a hundred and fifty years. there are going to be there there will be one die so there'll be one badge for it it incorporates without revealing too much it incorporates all of the years of history um of badge design and and current and the badge that we're in now and it's just a way to showcase that 150 years um and and What I have suggested, or what I am requesting is customary for what every agency law enforcement agency in the United States has done based on working with our, our bad provider.

So every agency has given away coins and also badges to private individuals. And my concern there is that we comply with all federal and state laws. And there is a concern on the federal level.

Well, the badges that we would give outside of law enforcement for commemoration, the only thing that would have the word police on it is the name of the police department. It would not say officer. It would not say anything else. All of that's been taken into consideration based on... Based on the design that the badge company has already done with many agencies before us.

So you're saying that the badge that is being given to officers will be different than the badge that is being distributed to donors?

They will be very similar. It's the verbiage on the ribbons that will be on the badge that will be different. Officers will be receiving badges that say officer. Anyone else will just say officer.

Right. Because basically federal law says that private citizens are not entitled to possess an official badge. So this is going to be a commemorative badge. We're buying one badge for the police officers were buying another badge to be distributed to the A's?

The only badge that would be the official badge would be the one that would be for the officers for the calendar year. The hopes is if this passes this evening that we can get that badge ordered. And they should be in and be able to put in service on January 1st of 2027. The drop-dead date would be the six-month date prior to August 7th, which would be February 7th. So, and working with our supplier that we've, we've, we're at the point where we shouldn't have any issues for reaching that January 1st on December 31st, the badge that the officers would be issued would then become a commemorative badge for them. And if they've worked the entire year.

For the town, the 31 badges will cover our projected. We have how many sworn officers that are entitled to a badge?

We're requesting for a total to cover 85 badges.

But how many of those will be commemorative badges and how many of those will be available to law enforcement? I'm saying you've got 31 sworn.

In the packet that was out. Well, 31 covered. 31 for sworn.

Well, how many sworn officers do we have?

13 for retirees. Nine for council members.

I'm not cutting you short, sir, but I've read the numbers. But my question is, we're getting 31 badges for sworn officers. We have how many sworn officers?

We have 25 positions for sworn officers and five positions for sworn jailers for a total of 30.

So we're only allowing one for turnover?

No, if someone leaves in that year, they don't keep their badge. They have to be here the entire year. The 31st badge would be an officer's badge to go into the historical record of the police department.

And the coins are challenge coins?

They are challenge coins, yes. And they would be numbered, and there would be one run, and then that die would be destroyed. We would maintain the die for the badge. It would become ours. That is the largest part of the expense.

As I read your proposal, sir, essentially this would be technically possibly a break-even that you're not actually – the town is not going to be out the full 20 – $6,000 because you're going to auction off?

That is the plan. The plan is, and I've been in talks with our attorney about establishing a foundation for the police department so we can be a non-profit. And we can raise those funds, and hopefully we can return up to the amount that we borrowed. I hope... that this fundraiser, the 150th birthday party that's planned, if all this goes into place. I hope that we make way more than we need to pay the town back if the town does decide to do.

So those funds would go back into the general fund?

I would say they would go back to wherever the town reserve fund.

Right. There is no reserve fund, if I may say so.

All right. We have a surplus.

But my point is, of course, obviously, I have to protect the funds from our constituents. And we have a budget that we approved based on revenues that council has yet to take action to. procure those, so therefore we have some questions as to whether or not this year's revenues will meet this year's expenditures. In addition to that, I understand we actually removed a police truck, a truck from the police budget in order to balance the budget. Call for the question.

Wait. No, don't call for the question.

I'll accept the call for the question.

Civility does not seem to be the... Well, let's not call for the question. I'd like to see if we have any other discussion.

Just as long as we continue discussion on the motion.

Yes. The motion is whether or not we can afford it.

The discussion is whether or not we can afford it.

Yes. The $28,000 for the approval of these 150 anniversary badges. Any other discussion? But did you have something that you want?

Yeah, my, my only issue. Yeah, I think my only issue is when I look at it and I look at spending 28,000, I think about the requests that have come from the police department. to council for cars for additional officers the fire department is wanting another full-time fire uh firefighter um there are a lot of things that you know and i think dave you'll probably be back here um in a couple of months you know we've been talking about buying new cars and and other things and so i I don't disagree with the premise, but the money part of it is something that does bother me. I don't know how you plan to recoup. And I like the idea. I think we talked about the interruption of balance type of after school summer program and things like that. So the nonprofit, I don't know if the nonprofit will fall under the town councilor. Would that be part of a town budget or is that standalone to the police department if they become a 501c3? When you mix private money with public money, everything becomes public money now?

That's the point of the foundation. So you don't do that. They can take donations.

Okay, yeah, Dave, maybe you can explain justify spending 28,000 dollars.

Well, if we had a foundation in place, we wouldn't be asking counsel for the money and we're not asking to be a whole different fight.

We will fight that later on. But just right now with what we have. I'm having a hard time wanting to vote for it.

When it breaks down to brass tacks, I'm asking for a loan that we anticipate from the town to pay for this project because they only have 150th birthday in law enforcement.

I got you.

So, you know, I feel it's very important. It is extremely important for morale. It is extremely important for retention of officers to show that we recognize the work that for the past 149 years that everybody has given to make the town of Batesburg-Leesville succeed. And we recognize it this year with the folks that are working here.

Let me ask one other question because I know everybody ready to go. Okay, go ahead. I haven't finished answering your question. I know. I got the gist of it. Bob asked about making the badges, the permanent badges, so that – what was your idea on why we're not making those permanent badges for the officers? Like that's just our design. That's our new badge.

Because the design that we currently use, which is this design right here, is the – as close to the original design of the Batesburg Police Department badge as we can possibly have. The addition, the change that was added to the badge is the eagle on the top of the badge. It's not the exact design, but it's very, very close. And all of those features are going to be incorporated without revealing the design. All of those features are going to be incorporated into what the The proposal from the badge company that we get all of our badges from now, it incorporates all of that together.

So it's – Well, you're not going to use it as a permanent badge.

No, we're not. For the year of – for the 150th year, we are. It will be the badge of the Batesburg-Liesel Police Department. After that, it will no longer be.

Okay, so on this loan, we negotiated 4% interest on that?

Well, and for clarity's sake, after that one year, we will revert back to the existing badges. That's correct. They will still be.

That's correct. So those will not be given away. That's right. Those are the badges that we will go back to using.

Okay. Are there any other discussion? Well, will the officers be allowed to keep their badges?

If they work the entire calendar year or if they come in in the calendar year to fill in a vacancy and remain through the end of the period, the badges won't get.

I got you.

If they leave early.

That's a great morale booster. It means something for the guys.

That's right. That's right. Because there won't be any more of them.

Okay. Are there any other questions for the chief? Thank you, Chief Botnock.

Thank you.

So if there's no more discussion, let's take a vote. District number one? Yes. District number 2?

2. Yes.

District number 3?

District number 3 votes yes.

District number 5? Yes. District number 6 votes yes. District number 7?

Yes.

District number 8? Votes yes. And the motion carries. Thank you.

J. 4%. Jay, are we about to do your report? Yes. Okay. On your way up, I just want to make a point that our agenda tonight was two pages. We might need to break these down into two meetings. Monday night football. I mean, there are other activities, church activities going on Monday night as well.

You have a different church or different chapel that you're referring to there.

Hail Mary.

You did go to Catholic school, correct. All right, so just a quick run-through of the manager's report. You have it on your dice. We just had Labor Day, so the next town holiday is not until Veterans Day in November. A couple of schedule updates. Board of Zoning Appeals will be September 21st at 6 p.m. Planning Commission will follow 30 minutes later at 6.30. Do have the work session planned for September 28th at 7 p.m. for Council. Again, go ahead and mark that fourth Tuesday for work sessions. Probably not December, because that'll probably fall into Christmas, but certainly for September, October and November. And again, the work session is planned to address business licenses, permit fees, several other things, the general fund impact fees, and we'll also touch on the utility impact fees again to follow up from last month.

What days did you say again, Jay?

It'll be the fourth Tuesday. The Tuesdays? Yeah. Excuse me, not Tuesday, Monday.

Okay. That's why I was curious.

Thank you. Thank you for correcting me there. I did have a chipped tooth earlier today, so I'm going to blame that for causing some brain confusion. So a couple of event updates. National Night Out was last Thursday. We were able to recognize two veterans, Otho Shealy and Gerald Long, who served in World War II in Korea, respectively. Ted Felder from Joe Wilson's office was in attendance to present them with an American flag that flew over the U.S. Capitol. Attendance wasn't great, but we did have a good turnout of supporting law enforcement agencies and the military from the National Guard. A big thank you to Sergeant Al Wilson with BLPD for heading up that event. The foodies event over the past weekend was a big hit. That was Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. All of these events were at the Lifelong Learning Center in a partnership with the school district. We ended up with 90 vendors, food, and artisans. Attendance was good despite the heat and the evening rainstorms on Friday and Saturday. There was only one EMS call for heat over the weekend, which is pretty solid. And a big thank you to our event planner, Kathy Perry, for all of her hard work. It was months in the making. And then also a big thank you to our street department, planning, fire, and police departments for their hard work. And I hope I didn't leave anybody out.

Jerry, are we going to do the same thing this spring?

Not in spring. Spring? A foodie? No, not twice a year.

Okay.

Poultry Festival.

Yeah. Poultry Festival, okay.

Poultry Festival will be your foodies event there. Okay, all right. So the final numbers aren't in yet, but the town did spend $1,100 for additional insurance with MASC to cover the school property. That would cover both events. And then we also have had $7,000 in revenue on the business license side. There will be additional H-tax revenue that will trickle in over the next few weeks. Mr. Hammond?

Yes, sir.

Was there overtime involved with the street department or department for there was 13 hours of overtime in the street department for the whole weekend and no on the police or fire on other departments. Thank you. Yes, sir. Next week we do have – this is not on your agenda, but we do have a litter pickup scheduled for next week. We have partnered with the – basically it's a football team. So the intent is to focus on the Duncan, Lester, Solomon Street area to do a litter pickup with the football team. Again, the supplies coming through Palmetto Pride and Keep the Midlands Beautiful. So thank you to them for their support. So that will be next Thursday if you're interested in coming out and helping. All right. And then we're also working on Halloween on May, October 31st. That's just around the corner. That is a Saturday. And then, of course, as you mentioned, heard earlier, Arts on the Ridge, Fall for the Arts Festival is October the 4th on Oak Street. In the project updates, I mentioned the 28th is the business license permit fees, general fund impact fees, and utility impact fees. Might throw something else in there. We might try to focus on that item that got tabled earlier. We can add that if we want to discuss that. Safe streets for all. We've got a meeting scheduled tomorrow with Jamie. The goal has been to try to have a plan for October when we talk about age tax projects to have some cost estimates for a few projects to gauge Council's interest in moving forward with those directions. AMI update, no real change. It's still on target for installation of antennas this month and test meters in October. So still looking at early 2027 for that completion. And Springbrook software updates continue to move forward. This is the first week of payroll going live. So we're hoping that that goes well and we all get paid. And on the back of your paperwork, the financial update, just kind of showing the last three months. Drug forfeitures has not changed, 15-206. Municipal courts, 52,824. The utility account is at 431-109. Capital improvement impact fees at 385,342. The fire department 1% account is at 38,346. The town general fund line item or account is 189,952 police donations, which would some of that would include the. Nonprofit that chief bought and I was talking about. That's a 23,226 H, tax is a 220,985 victims assistance is at 13,756 senior assistance. 2 dollars. We always keep it 2 dollars and add as necessary from the. And then at the bottom, LGIP general fund balance is $1,917,939. Utility is $2,642,246. And H-tax is $1,156,480. Does anybody have any questions? Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Hendricks. At this time, I will entertain a motion to go into executive session. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second to go into executive session. It's now open for discussion. No discussion. We'll vote District 1. Yes. District 2. Yes. District 3. Yes. History 5.

Yes.

District 6. yes district 7. yes district 8. yes. Yes, we are in executive session 827. Motion to come back in a regular session.

I move we return from executive session. Second.

We have a motion and a second that we return to regular sessions. Now open for discussion. There's no discussion. We'll vote district 1. Yes. District 2? Yes. District 3? Yes. District 5?

Yes. District 6? Yes.

District 7? Yes. District 8?

Yes.

Mayor votes yes. We are back in session at 939. Since we have no action to take up after executive session, that takes us to items to be placed on the next agenda.

Mr. Mayor?

Yes.

I would like to place the changing our zoning ordinance concerning streetlights in new developments, please.

Okay.

The background is the current ordinance specifies high-pressure sodium streetlights, which are obsolete and no longer supplied.

so we need to be able to specify leds plus the type of pole to be used and i think council should address that i agree for that i agree with that but i since things change rapidly i think we need to make it where we can go to the most advanced available that would cost us the least amount of money be it led or whatever they come up with next Because it's ridiculous that we are still specifying sodium vapor.

Would we like to have that as part of the work session for the 28th?

We can, but I don't know what's that big a deal. It's just a matter of changing it to get a little bit more modern light that's going to save us money.

Okay.

Because it's going to get to the point where to get that from Dominion, we probably are going to pay extra.

Well, actually, the ordinance specifies 15,000 lumens. Dominion has a standard 15,700-lumen light among their five choices. So it would be fairly clear-cut as such. But work session, if you'd like to put it in a work session, I'm agreeable to that.

Okay.

that'll work also uh well do we're gonna never mind i i'm actually i withdraw that i'm fed up anything else anybody would like to have on the next agenda

That's got to come off the table, but that wouldn't be unless we're going to talk about that. You got that in the work session for what we table tonight, right? Yes, sir. Okay. That's already in the work session and then it would naturally should could come up in the next meeting. Anything else?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like us to counsel to address the town pond again with the hurricane season coming and the town still assuming a lot of liability there. I think it's something pressing we need to discuss.

Anything else? If not, do I hear a motion that we adjourn? So moved. Second. Since it's privileged and not debatable, District 1. Yes. District 2. Yes. District 3. District 5.

Yes. District 6. Yes.

7. Yes. 8.

Yes.

The mayor votes yes. We are adjourned at 9.43.