Board of Commissioners - Regular Meeting

Good evening, I'm calling to order the Columbia County Board of Commissioners September 1st, 2026 meeting to order. As vice chairman couch to open us with the invocation.

Thank you. Please bow your heads. Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this day and for the privilege of serving the citizens of Columbia County. Please watch over our citizens, our staff, and those who keep us safe. Grant us the wisdom and clear judgment as we consider the agenda items before us tonight. Help our decisions honor you and serve our neighbors well. In your most holy and precious name I pray. Amen.

Please join me for the pledge.

United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Let the record show we have a full quorum of commissioners. Commissioners, you have the minutes from the August 18th, 2026 commission meeting and the August 18th, 2026 executive session meeting. If you've had a chance to review them, I'll accept one motion to approve them.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept both the commission meeting minutes and the executive session minutes as presented.

I'll second that.

Any questions? There's a motion second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. That motion carries. Any changes to the agenda?

It's ready for your approval, Mr. Chairman.

It is approved. Special recognition. I think we have some guests here with leadership. Yeah, I know. If you will just stand up and tell us your name. They weren't expecting that.

Sorry. Welcome. Thank you for coming.

Commissioners, you have the consent agenda in front of you. Each item on this committee, excuse me, on this agenda has been to the necessary committees and received the necessary votes to be placed on the consent agenda. So if they meet with your approval, I'll accept one motion to approve them all.

Mr. Chairman, I make a motion to accept all of these consent agenda items as presented.

I'll second.

Any questions? The motion is second on the floor. All in favor raise your right hand. That motion carries on to the debate. Commissioner Malheur, I believe you have the first one.

We have some unfinished business. This is an item that we discussed. At the last commission meeting and we had some questions that needed to be answered and gave the applicant the opportunity to circle back with us this week. Did staff had opportunity to work with him or get the questions answered?

Mr. Sterling did provide some questions to him. I have not received response. Mr. Sterling has not received response. At the staff level, we have not received a response.

An official response?

Okay. We got the response.

I have a packet provided from another source that I was reviewing today. Commissioners, did y'all have any questions or concerns based on the information in here? I believe we got answers to them. And I am going to make a motion to deny the request for the rezoning from R2 to S1 for property located at tax map 079, parcel 122A, subject to the condition enumerated in the August 6th Planning Commission report for this proposed glamping cap ground.

I'll second. Are there any other questions? There's a motion to second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. Opposed? That motion carries. Commissioner Steed.

Yes, I'll make a motion to approve the request for a rezoning from R3 to PRD for property located at tax map 077B, parcel 114, subject to the condition enumerated in the August 6, 2026 Planning Commission report. Second.

Second.

So this request is to go from R3 to a PRD. This is for a townhome development. This is 107 units concentrated to the center of the side. You can see here on the plan they are showing a 40-foot buffer around the site with a fence included in this buffer. Lots are 24-foot wide, 90-foot deep, 20-foot front setbacks. They are intended to have two-car garages. Additional off-street parking is also provided, as well as some amenities that are included in this plan. You've got some pickleball, some, I believe, cornhole, walking trails. They're also looking to a 25-foot buffer along McCormick Road. This will have a berm in it with plantings on top of the berm. This will be a gated community. Be happy to answer any questions you may have about it.

Mr. Schlatter, as I'm looking at this, this looks very nice. If we do not approve this, it says it's R3, which we don't see very much of. Tell me what could possibly go there without our approval or recommendation or say so.

So as currently zoned, R3 is the smallest residential lot that Columbia County has. Matter of fact, the code has actually done away with new R3 approvals, so only R3 that's out there remains. With this site, you could approximately get 46, 47 lots on this property. There would be no buffer requirements, so you would have houses right up against existing houses. You would have no design standards. You would have no amenities. You would basically have 46 lots, small lots, the smallest lots allowed by our code in this area.

Any other questions? That's a motion. Second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. All opposed? That motion carries three to two. Commissioner Malir, I believe you're...

Yes, sir. I make a motion to approve the Intergovernmental Agreement regarding Economic Development Services and Project-Related Infrastructure with the Development Authority. Second.

Second.

I'll take that one. This is the intergovernmental agreement with the development authority. This intergovernmental agreement actually establishes the compensation to be paid by the development authority to the county for the services allowed by law to allow for additional development in the county. It is our intent, as we publicly stated, to use this money as obviously it will be used for development in the budget, but the money that it frees up will then be excess monies that House Bill 439 allows us to roll over into the Homestead Tax Relief Grant. Hopefully, if the citizens vote that in this November, we'll establish that Homestead Tax Relief Grant this year with the intent of fully funding that going forward. I'll answer any questions that you may have about that.

No questions? No questions? Super. Good work. Motion and second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. The motion carries. Oh, we have... You're still up. Our next one.

Let's see. I2B1. I2B1. This is the... Fairfax Street one. Can we have our discussion and explanation before I make my motion, please?

So this is a request for a variance to lock and structure requirements asking for a setback variance. This was recommended for disapproval at staff level. The Planning Commission also recommended a disapproval. The original request was for a building that has already been started. It is not complete yet, but it has been started without permits. They are approximately four foot from the side property line and five feet from the rear property line. You see a picture of the building here. Once the Planning Commission recommended a denial by this body, the applicant came back in and gave us a revised drawing. At this point, they're cutting part of the building off or sliding it over. I'm assuming they're modifying the building to a 9'2". inch from the property line versus the five foot or four foot three foot four foot three inches from the property line so this would be a one foot setback encroachment on the side property line both options show the five foot setback from the rear property line i want to make sure you all saw that those two options so the denial recommendation was based on four foot three inches you have another option the applicant provided after all the public hearings with a nine foot two distance from this from the side setback line Be happy to answer any questions you have about this one.

So this building was started without any permits?

Correct. Correct.

Was there any public input, the neighbors?

Yes. So several spoke about it. They are not in favor.

Do you have any other further questions before I make a motion? I make a motion to disapprove the request for the variance to section 90-53 for property located at tax map 078F parcel 063 to reduce the side setback and rear setbacks for an accessory building under construction.

I'll second.

Any other questions? There's a motion to second on the floor. All in favor raise your right hand. That motion carries. I make a motion to approve the request for the conditional use for therapeutic massage for property located at tax map 073C parcel 092.

I'll second.

So this is a request for conditions for massage, for therapeutic massage. This is an existing building they're looking to locate in. Hours will be from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., seven days a week. They're looking for two massage-licensed folks to work in this location. There's some other business in this location as well. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

I have none. Any questions? There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries.

I make a motion to approve the request for the rezoning from R2 to P1 for property located at tax map 073B, parcel 001, for a proposed professional office subject to the conditions enumerated in the August 20th Planning Commission report.

I'll second.

If this one has a companion variance, if it's okay, I'd like to explain both at one time. So this is a request from R2 to P1. This is the corner of Oakley Purple and South Bel Air Road. looking to open an insurance, I believe, I'm sorry, real estate-related services. They do have some issues they need to work through, which is why the variance has come into place. There are conditions on the zoning that were put in place by the Health Department and Environmental Compliance requiring the septic tank to be mitigated since they are now on county sewer. When it comes to the variance, they are looking for setbacks. If you can see here, the existing setback required by code is here and here. That's when Bel Air Road was not the road it is today. As you can see, the existing building is well inside of those setbacks. They're looking to change the setbacks to 25 foot from the right of way along Bel Air. And I believe it is 40 foot on the Oakley-Perkle. Originally it's 90 feet from the center of Oakley-Perkle. They want to reduce it to 40 foot from the property line.

That would not be changing the building footprint, just bringing it into compliance the way it is?

Bringing the existing building into compliance. There's also a condition that the building back here be removed. There's also a condition from traffic asking that the driveway be pushed as far west as possible to allow for better traffic access. There's also an encroachment into the structural buffer to allow a, I will call it a detention berm, detention, it's a pond, a swell, to allow for stormwater to prevent that stormwater from running straight off into the neighboring property. I believe I've covered them all. Let me get back to my conditions here. Encouragement of the buffer is permitted for the interest of the property as well, so when they move the driveway down, we'd like to be as far away from the intersection as possible, so we would allow it to enter into that buffer, but it's limited to as minimal as possible. When we go through site plan review, we'll actually figure out the best location for that driveway, but we want to have the ability to move it down as far as possible, so that would require going into that buffer. Again, I said the existing shed shall be removed. Any change in use shall require assessment of the driveway connection for possible changes to configuration based on applicable safety and traffic Again, we've already mentioned the condemnation of the septic system, and I believe I've got them all covered. Do you have to answer any questions? That's a lot in that one.

And I don't see anything in my packet that talks about the neighbors.

Do any of the neighbors or properties that about this have ... We did have members present, but no one spoke either way for or against.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I have a motion and second on the floor for the first item.

There is a motion and second on the floor, as the madam said. Is there any questions? All in favor raise your right hand. That motion carries.

Thank you. As a follow-up to that, I make a motion to approve the request for the variance to sections 90-98, list of lot and lot structure requirements, and 90-139 buffers and screening for property located at tax map 073B parcel 001 to reduce building setbacks to 25 feet from the property line along South Bel Air Road. 40 feet from the property line along Oakley-Perkle, and to allow a stormwater facility within the buffer against the residential property, subject to the conditions enumerated in the August 20, 2026 Planning Commission Report, and that also includes the driveway moving that Mr. Sopter spoke of.

I'll second. Any questions? Motion and second on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. That motion carries.

I make a motion to approve the request for the major PUD revision for property located at tax map 065, parcel 554, to reduce the rear setback to five feet and allow an ancillary dwelling with a maximum size of 2,200 square feet under the roof, subject to the condition enumerated in the August 20th Planning Commission report.

I'll second.

So this is an application to revise the setbacks. As you see here, they're looking to construct a pool house at the end of the driveway and They do abut property owned by the HOA. However, there's an agreement that they're allowed to use that property. They have to maintain it as well, as our understanding. There is a condition that is limited to 2,200 square feet. The applicant is still working on the layout interior of the building. So currently, as shown, there's about 510 square foot dwelling and approximately 472 square foot of storage. But there is a loft area that could be developed as well. which could get up to about 1,600 square feet, but as they develop, it may grow. So that's why the condition of limiting to 2,200 square feet is placed on this.

Any questions? None. There's a motion and a second on the floor. All in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries. Seeing no legal matters, requests for review by committee, public comments. Ms. Susan Warren.

Thank you for this time tonight. And Mr. Johnson, I want to thank you for the Columbia County Compass episode 26. As you suspected, I did listen to every word of this episode. Oh, sorry. Okay, in fact, more than once, because it was a lot to take in. Tonight, I just want to comment on some of the first half that you devoted to the data centers. There was a lot of information in that section, but as you said, the early process was too quiet for a project of this scale, and I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. When you spoke about residents' outcry of the project, you pointed out that the project only encompasses 3% of the land in Columbia County. but I don't think you had really heard what most of the residents were saying. It's not as much about how much it is, but where it is. Now, I'll admit that most of my objections about the project itself is because I abhor AI use for things other than medical and research and et cetera. And I've admitted that right here in this room. But then my home won't be impacted like so many others in the county. You also talked about how data centers pay a lot, but they also use a lot environmentally, electrically, etc. And the county had not addressed a lot of those issues with a separate data center ordinance until residents spoke of this many times. And now hopefully we have enough safeguards built in, I hope. When you talked about why data centers are needed, you gave us all the usage statistics that contribute to that need. Those numbers are staggering, to say the least. But if we bring enough attention to the subject, maybe there can be a change in how much data we generate with all we send to this cloud, as it's called. Do we really have to save 10,000 pictures, 20,000 emails without deleting them? As you said, we have created this situation. I sincerely look forward to more time to read and less time speaking. But you're right, the algorithms are the beast. Next, you laid out a timeline of the property starting with the EDAC loan and purchase of the property in late 2024, which you characterized as phase three of the project. Why wouldn't you give us a hint of what was happening in phase one or two? Didn't have to be all the details, just something that we would know there would be additional growth coming to that area of the county, where Amazon and Club Car already were. And that the county was probably buying more land there. I'm sure some of you are smart enough to be able to word it so that people could at least be aware that they should pay attention to this and not feel that this land was already bought and rezoned before they knew about it. And Lord knows your rezoning signs in this county are a joke. If anyone can read those as they go down the road, they're doing great. And they don't stay long enough before the meetings. So then we get to the rezoning in May to S1. We may not have been experts on data centers by that time, but we knew enough that we realized S1 didn't begin to cover the issues relating to them. So we continued to speak against it. I did see your advice for those of us who speak against the rezoning. You said buy property if you don't want it rezoned. Well, it's a little hard to do when it's already sold for $30 million. Well, I do appreciate that, as you said, you were all learning as you went. So at least you listened to the residents and developed the data center ordinance so that it covers both sites that are part of the Google purchase, both White Oak and Pumpkin Center. Now I want to take a minute for a personal observation. You said public outcry is good, but not necessarily how it's shown. You talked about being non-political. Then you went on to tell us that you bet you could tell a person's political party by asking them just what their stance is on abortion, the Second Amendment, book censorship, flock cameras, and data centers. I'll tell you my stances tonight. Women's bodies belong to them, not the government. I don't believe the Second Amendment should cover AR-15s and high capacity ammunition, but guns for hunting and protection are fine. Parents should be the only arbiter of what their children read. I don't care about flock cameras one way or the other, and I don't like hyperscale data centers. I do not, never have, and never will belong to a political party as I choose to vote and work for the people whose ideas and values align with mine. I have voted for and worked for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, and will continue to do so for anyone that I agree with. So guess which way I'm voting in November? Anything else you wanna know about me? Thank you.

Mr. Johnson, I think we need to clear up something. So when we did the S-1 zoning to buy that property, we were simultaneously working on the DC

Ordinance.

Ordinance. And it was always our intentions to come back to DC Ordinance and the purchaser knew that, correct? That's correct. And so no matter how many times somebody says that the public, these were things we had, I don't know the exact dates, but I guess we could find out when we flew to DC. to Virginia and spent hours with the county manager there going over and developing the rules that we put in. Those were put in very quickly after, I don't know, was it like the next meeting from the S-1? It was very close.

I'm not sure if it was the next meeting, but it was very close. We were working on that the entire time.

Right. And we knew that there was not going to be any construction, and the purchaser of that knew that we were going to have those in there, correct? That's correct. I just wanted that on the record.

I'd like to point out that in addition to the legal requirements for that rezoning, which include putting up signage and running an ad in the Augusta Chronicle, we also posted that to our website. And I personally made a Facebook post about the rezoning on my political page to inform the citizens of District 4 that that was occurring. So I just wanted to be sure that Ms. Warren was aware of that.

Matt, I think Lindsey Brantley came in here two meetings ago with some, not say rezoning, just the sign-in changes and all. Where does that stand? I know you were looking into it. You guys were looking into it.

Yeah, we actually looked at their sign. Their sign actually has the Planning Commission date. It also has the Board of Commissioners date on it. They're much smaller than the date we have on there. It does... They do hold two public hearings. That's why they advertise both dates. They advertise a public hearing at the Planning Commission. They also advertise a public hearing at the Board of Commissioners meeting. I do have a copy of it upstairs, but I believe our sign is larger. It presents the information in a larger format, but it does not have the meeting date for the commission. We did put together an example of one that has both, and it does make the type smaller. It's a bigger sign. Yeah, bigger sign or a function of what information do we want? We want the public hearing to be the most prominent information and make the Board of Commissioners smaller. It's a function of what information we need out there that's the most important at the time.

What size limitations would we have on signs to put up like that?

I believe the law says minimum is three by five. Correct. It has a maximum.

But so often, as you can see tonight, we had two items that had been postponed from a previous meeting. If you put a sign that says we got planning meeting this Thursday and here's the date for commission and it doesn't happen because it's been postponed or whatever, then you have to go back and make new signage. And that's a way you could trip something up.

We actually would do stickers and we would put stickers over top of the signs. So it would be updated if a postponement were to happen, we would go out and place stickers across the old date with the new date on it.

If somebody saw the old one and was counting on it, and then you put a sticker, I'm wondering what kind of confusion that would cause if you change it on the file like that.

I was going to say the next committee meeting or the one after that, can you come up with a presentation to show us the differences? Absolutely.

Thank you.

Howard Johnson.

Good evening. My name is Howard Johnson. I live at 252 Silver Maple Road. It's three and a half miles from here. It takes me usually between 15 and 17 minutes driving from my house to these meetings to be here before six o'clock during after work traffic. It's gonna take me about 12 minutes to get home. In that three and a half mile drive, those 12 minutes, I'm gonna be scanned by four flock cameras. To be clear, I have nothing to hide. I proudly come here to these meetings. I have no problem people knowing that this is where I'm at. And I'm super happy to show my face, use my full government name, even give you my address to know where you can come find me if you've got a problem with anything I have to say. I'm not hiding anything, I just have serious concerns for mine and resident of Columbia County's privacy. These flock cameras, and to be clear, when I say flock camera, I'm using that as a genericization the same way that you might say Velcro or Kleenex when what you really mean is hook and loop fasteners or tissue. I'm speaking about all automatic license plate reading cameras that are set up tracking the movements of vehicles on all of our roadways. This network is massive. It's taking a massive amount of data on all of our movements. It is currently possible for me to get to the highway without being scanned by a flock camera. If I take a very winding route out past Thompson to get onto a highway entrance there. And of course, once I'm on the freeway, it's not gonna be long until I am scanned. And now again, my movements are being tracked. I fear that the creation of this database, scanning every car every time it passes every flock camera, is a serious security risk. This database is accessible by law enforcement and throughout the country we have seen law enforcement officers getting in trouble, fired, other legal consequences for misusing this database for stalking exes, people they've met. I actually just read an article this morning that two officers in Richmond County were recently let go for these problems. I want to be clear, I'm not preemptively accusing anyone of anything. My fear is that the existence of such a complete database is rife for abuse. 99.9% of our employees, I'm sure, are perfectly trustworthy. But the existence of all of this data, the accessibility of it, there's gonna be one, right? There's gonna be somebody who will misuse it. And I believe that we need to limit the collection of this data I'm here to ask that county leadership begin forming ordinance that protects the privacy rights of county citizens, that limits where these cameras can be filmed, where these cameras can be installed, and codifies how that data can be handled and its storage. The massive amount of data being collected on citizens is just it makes my blood run cold, to be perfectly honest. Additionally, if we weren't collecting all this data and analyzing all this data, because that's the real problem, up until about five years ago, my privacy regime, so to speak, was knowing I'm one of 300 million people. Nobody's looking at Howard Johnson. As AI capabilities increase, Now you can be looking at Howard Johnson. We can track everybody. And so the massive amount of data being collected and analyzed, if we weren't doing that, we might not need to build so many data centers.

Let me ask you a question, Howard. Do you do any research about how often they're audited? Yes, sir. Because I think that's probably a problem, too, that they're not audited enough.

So I'm simply saying that the existence of this technology is troublesome. I don't believe anybody can be trusted with that level of information about the entire population. The potential for abuse is too high. We should not allow the creation of such a system.

I think we already have one.

Listen, there are lots of privacy concerns in modern life. I do not believe that that is a reason to sit tight and do nothing as our privacy rights are being trampled further. I'm gonna go ahead and wrap up and remind everybody to treat their bodies like a data center, remember to drink water, read lots of literature, and cause a hullabaloo at your local government meetings. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Howard.

Thank you, Doug. Before I get started, I had the opportunity last week to go to Missouri to visit a data center site, 1,900 acres. What was so ironic was when I got off of the interstate, the intersection was just like exit 183, two roundabouts. First time when I saw when I got off of the interstate was, watch out for potholes. Chairman and Commissioners, good evening. Tonight I want to talk about two things that are inseparable, public involvement and financial transparency. County Manager Scott Johnson has acknowledged that the early data center process was too quiet, which I wholeheartedly believe was by design. He acknowledged that the county officials had more information than the public had, and that when many residents first learned the true scale of what was being contemplated, a state filing was already public and rezoning was already moving. Was this strategic? I believe so. This was not a routine rezoning. We now know the project represents a minimum 17 billion investment and not hundreds of billions that Mr. Johnson shared in a legislative hearing or on the local radio show. Quite the difference and all more the reasons citizens want to see the real numbers. Initial rezoning moved through in roughly two weeks. Was that legal? Yes. But the meeting, the minimum legal requirement is not the same thing as practicing good governance. The public record I possess also shows Vice Chair Couch knew the deal well before the public was ever made aware. She was actively involved in shaping the rezoning narrative before it even entered the normal public process. Again, the question is not simply whether that was legal. The question is, where was the public? And here is why it matters. Once citizens finally became involved, things improved. Mr. Johnson said it himself. The public made us write a better ordinance, albeit a negotiated ordinance It did bring some improvements. Of course, Mr. Johnson said tonight it was already in the works before the citizens ever talked about it. Citizens raised concerns about water, power, generators, noise, lighting, buffers, traffic, property values, and environmental protections. So if a citizen involvement made the project better after the train had already left the station, what might have happened if citizens had been meaningfully involved from the beginning? The project still would have likely have moved forward, but citizen trust, knowledge, and concerns would have been appropriately addressed. The ordinance, the protections, the infrastructure planning, and the public trust would have been stronger. Mr. Johnson also told citizens researching data centers to check their algorithm. I agree that everyone should challenge their own assumptions. If you oppose something, read the case for it. If you support something, read the case against it. Serious citizens do that. I do that. We read public records, state filings, utility documents, ordinances, financial agreements. We may use Google, AI, attorneys, engineers, accountants to help us understand them. The tool is not the issue. The issue is, is the information true? Can it be documented? Can it be independently verified? And that brings us to where we are now. Before citizens are asked to vote on tax relief, they deserve to see the actual numbers. Georgia generally assesses taxable property value at 40% of fair market value. And I emphasize, if the entire 17 billion investment represented taxable fair market value in a single year, that would produce approximately 6.8 billion of assessed value. Using the 2026 millage rates adopted this year, their arithmetic would be significant. At 4.49 mills, the county general levy alone would be 30.5 million. At the school system, 4.997 mills, approximately 102 million. And at 2.78 mill fire district, if applicable, would represent roughly another 19 million. That's approximately $151 million per year. A $17 billion investment commitment is not necessarily 17 billion of taxable fair market value. Build out occurs over time, equipment depreciates, exemptions and abatements apply, but that is exactly my point. Where is the side by side analysis? Show us what this project would pay under ordinary tax structure. Show us what it will pay after exemptions, abatements, bond for title treatment and negotiated fees. Show us what revenue is being foregone. Show us what is being replaced. and show us what is contractually guaranteed. We're being told about $40 million a year for seven years, hundreds of millions in fees, and billions in future taxes. Boy, I love the way we use these big words. I'm not saying those numbers are wrong. I am saying show us the documents. I have asked the Development Authority for the documents that back up your numbers. They don't exist. They haven't been made available. They haven't finalized them. All the words that we are sharing and all the numbers we're sharing are presumptions. That tells us this process is still evolving. So before voters are asked to trust this structure, put the numbers on the table. put the signed agreements on the table, put the assumptions on the table. The lessons of the two years should not be the citizens made the process difficult. The lesson is when citizens finally become involved, the process gets better. Next time, bring them before the train leaves the station. And I also wanted to share with y'all tonight because I do use chat GPT. And I downloaded your full transcript, Mr. Johnson, and I asked for an analysis. I'm not gonna share it, but I'm gonna provide it with y'all. But one of the key things it did say in that analysis, his apology or acknowledgement today may be sincere, But acknowledging after the land, the transactions, the rezoning, the developer commitments, the negotiations, the identification of Google, that we should have communicated sooner cannot restore the decision-making opportunities citizens would have had before those things occurred. You are public servants. You serve the public. Start doing a better job.

Session I believe they're yours vice chairman couch.

Yes, sir. I make a motion to accept the donation of a portion of parcels 0 6 2 1 7 4 a and 0 6 2 1 7 4 3 from Canterbury Farms Association to obtain right-of-way and temporary easements for the horizon South Parkway and Chamberlain Road connector project Small easement that we needed to fee simple and ease we needed to modify the intersection there as part of the Chamberlain Road connector project

Any questions? This motion is seconded on the floor. All in favor, raise your right hand. The motion carries.

I make a motion to approve the purchase and sale agreement with Pollard Land Company, Inc. for parcel 029048. Second.

I'll take this one. This is a purchase sale agreement for a 97 acre parcel, a little over 97 acre parcel that actually abuts the piece of property that we recently bought for the new park south of I-20. We tried to get this land a few years ago and weren't able to get this land. So the total amount here is $3,915,600.

What's the combined land?

We're gonna combine those two. This piece actually lays very flat.

Right, I was just asking, do you have the two combined?

I'm sorry?

97 acres plus?

No, it's 97 acres plus the 75 acres we already purchased.

Okay, that's what I was asking, thank you. Yes. Motion to second on the floor, all in favor raise your right hand. Motion carries.

I make a motion to approve the purchase and sales agreement with Keith Allen Pollard for parcel 028015A. Second.

This property is 22 acres, plus or minus. It's located off of 221 and also backs up to County Camp Road. This is adjacent and contiguous to our existing campus in Appling. We look to expand our roads and bridges in the future. We've got a fire training facility we have to build in that area, so this will give us a little more room to align everybody in that location. What's the purchase price? $484,000.

Any questions? So motion and second on the floor. All in favor raise your right hand. That motion carries. I believe there's only one more item we need to vote on.

I make a motion to adjourn.

Second.

We are adjourned.