Category: Government

FAIRFIELD – When County Council first broached the subject of demolishing the dilapidated former home of the County’s Voter Registration office at 117 E. Washington St. in Winnsboro during their April 22 meeting, the timing could not have been worse for Chamber of Commerce President Terry Vickers. Vickers told Council that night that her organization had just been green-lighted for a $40,000 grant to implement a farmer’s market in downtown Winnsboro, and the historic livery stable at 117 E. Washington was part of that vision.

“I know the Council has been very lenient with that building,” Vickers said back on April 22. “I know that building is not in good shape. But we still have dreams of using that building, because it is an historic building.”

But Phil Hinely, County Administrator, said it was a miracle that the building was still standing at all. Hinely told Council last month that the building was a fire hazard and suffered from every possible code violation one could name. He was surprised, he said, that the building had even survived through the winter. Hinely recommended that the County move forward with razing the structure and replace it with a building to be used for housing records from the County Courthouse, as well as evidence from past criminal cases, all of which he said the County was required by law to maintain. David Ferguson, Council Chairman (District 5), said it would cost the County more to bring the building up to code than to replace it, and said Council would have to take the matter up in the near future.

But an alternative may have been found.

During a May 6 work session, Councilman David Brown (District 7) asked Council to consider a proposal from Christ Central Ministries (CCM) to repair the building, bring it up to code and make it part of Vickers’ farmer’s market plan. CCM has almost completed renovations to the Fairfield Country Club, Brown said last week, and a plan for 117 E. Washington will be presented to Council at their June 10 meeting.

“They’ll renovate it and give the front third of the building to the Chamber, rent-free,” Brown, who sits on the CCM Board of Directors, said. “The middle third can be used for classrooms, and the back third can be converted into a kitchen.”

A covered area can be added to the rear of the building, Brown said, to serve the farmer’s market. And the whole project would not cost the County a dime.

“It’s cheaper than tearing it down,’ Brown said, “and that’s the only way it’s going to get renovated.”

Vickers and the Chamber have been temporarily relocated to 120 N. Congress St. while renovations are currently under way at the Town Clock. Being in a ground-floor office, she said, has had its advantages and new offices, also on the ground floor – and rent-free – sound too good to pass up. But there may be a downside, she said.

“There’s something to be said for being on the first floor,” Vickers said. “We’ve gotten very used to not climbing stairs every day, and our foot traffic has doubled, if not tripled, since we’ve been here.”

Vickers said she was somewhat apprehensive about being located on a side street, if the 117 E. Washington location worked out to be their future home. And, she added, she would feel better if she knew the future of the old News and Herald Tavern building (114 E. Washington St.), which was gutted by fire more than two years ago. She also said she hoped any proposal by CCM would include the farmer’s market, which is more than just a market. Funded by a grant from Clemson University, the market is also an educational program, designed to offer classes on how to can and preserve fruits and vegetables and how to mass produce those goods and market them. The market itself, she said, would go beyond a traditional farmer’s market and would be certified to accept SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) cards as well as similar federal assistance for seniors.

“This would open up new revenue streams for our local growers,” Vickers said.

RICHLAND – A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed by Samuel T. Brick of LongCreek Plantation against Richland County will be heard the week of June 10 in the Court of Common Pleas in Columbia. The lawsuit stems from a year-long fight by residents of LongCreek Plantation to stop rezoning for a 100-acre development they considered incompatible with their rural neighborhood.

In an effort to succeed in its rezoning plan, the developer, LongCreek Associates, turned to the County’s Green Code. The issue has been before the Planning Commission more than once, examined by the Richland County Development Review Team (DRT) repeatedly and appealed by Brick and Monica Iskersky, another LongCreek resident. As a result, the County has now scrapped its Green Code in favor of a new Open Spaces code and declared that the DRT doesn’t meet. Along the way, Brick claims, the state’s FOIA laws were breached multiple times by Richland County, Tracy Hegler (Chairwoman of the Richland County DRT), Sparty Hammett (Assistant Richland County Administrator), Patrick Palmer (Chairman of the Richland County Planning Commission) and Fairways Development, LLC (registered agent, John T. Bakhaus).

Brick makes four complaints in his filing:

1. Brick alleges the Richland County DRT is a public body but operates in secret. He says the DRT developed the Open Spaces legislation in secret after it was requested by the County Council to develop changes in the law and report back to them. Brick says that because the DRT is supported by public funds and actually drafts ordinances that the County enacts, its business should be open to the public.

2. Brick alleges that the Richland County Planning Commission held two executive sessions, on two separate occasions, during an appeal of the DRT’s approval of a major land development. Brick alleges the following three things: In each session the Planning Commission voted on and announced they were going into executive session to receive legal advice. They took in with them their attorney, the Planning Director and another attorney who represented the Planning Director. The Planning Director basically was the respondent to the appeal as she is head of the DRT. Furthermore, Brick says there was no other reason for them to go into executive session.

3. Brick alleges Richland County failed to make a determination to provide requested documents within the 15 work-day period required by state law. Brick says the County didn’t comply until the day he filed suit. Brick said the County considers its determination to be a letter, that it has the complaint and Brick has to pay to get it, but that the County will not release it until the legal office approves. Brick’s contention is that waiting for the County legal office means a determination has not been made.

4. Brick alleges that the DRT is a public body. But he says the DRT does not consider itself to be a public body. Recently, Brick says, provisions regarding approvals of major land developments, which include interpretations of land development ordinances, were made to keep the DRT from actually meeting. Brick says that the public does not know when or even what the DRT is reviewing. Brick alleges that the only public announcement of a meeting is on the wall outside the Planning Department office and does not say what the action entailed — only that so-and-so’s application was approved. Brick’s complaint says the DRT now acts totally in secret, and they make final decisions on major land developments with the only review being if someone appeals. Brick says the appeal would be to the Planning Commission, but to appeal one would need an FOIA request regarding the application, which would take almost the entire period within which an appeal is authorized.

The Richland 2 School Board met Tuesday evening, May 28. Board member Barbara Specter was not in attendance. A quiet moment of prayer for the three Spring Valley High School members involved in last Friday‘s serious traffic accident was offered.

Renovations to the District Office have begun. The Planning Office has been moved into Longleaf Elementary School, which was under capacity. Some sections of Human Resources will be housed on the Windsor Elementary Campus in portables. A group of Richland Northeast parents have complained that the portable housing for the County Sheriff’s Deputy, located in the RNE parking lot, gave a negative impression of RNE. So the portable will be moved to Windsor Elementary.

First on the District Office renovation priorities is the removal of the portables to make way for a parking lot. With the portables removed, the paving is expected to begin June 10. It would be more reasonable to expect the paving to be saved for last – instead of having construction and equipment on the new asphalt. There was no discussion on how the building itself would be re-configured or for what use.

The second in a three-part presentation of Common Core was given with a focus on how professional development emphasized the new Common Core standards. Common Core standards have been fully integrated into the lessons of kindergarteners through second-graders in Richland 2. Common Core State Standards have been set for the subjects of English Language Arts (ELA) and Math. In 2014/2015, our students will be tested in a standardized test similar to the PASS or HSAP currently used.

The District will continue to offer professional development and training throughout the summer for teachers and non-certified personnel – particularly with emphasis on integrating Common Core standards into our curriculum. Nancy Gregory and the ELA and Math coaches reported on what has been done and what is expected to be done until the 2014/2105 year of full implementation. District coach Mary Lostetter, whose contract was not extended by the District due to her higher salary as an experienced teacher, was encouraged by Board member Melinda Anderson to continue to find ways to share her wealth of knowledge regarding math instruction in middle and high school students.

Knowing that Common Core as our new state educational standards has garnered much discussion, Gregory and her team have gathered community and parent resources from around the country and personalized the information into pamphlet per grade of what each student is expected to learn. Drafts of a seventh-grader’s year plan were delivered to the Board.

This being the last Board meeting of the school year, Board members waxed poetic about the success of the students and the hopes for a safe school year. Chairman Bill Fleming ended the comments, saying that the Lonnie B. Nelson Elementary ACE students exemplified what is good and right in our District with their hearty presentation, evaluating current carpool safety and ways to motivate parents to comply with their safety standards. Superintendent Katie Brochu and Chief Academic Officer Sue Mellette were also in full agreement.

Skipping a meeting date, the Board will meet again June 25 at Killian Elementary. In the meantime, The Voice will share its research regarding Common Core and a summer series on the good, bad and ugly of Choice in Richland 2 high schools. We deeply appreciate your comments and phone calls with thoughts on direction even when they are divergent from one another. Please keep it up!

BLYTHEWOOD – Town Administrator John Perry is appointing a committee of local residents to refine the list of local projects that have been previously prioritized to receive funding from the new Richland County Penny Tax Committee. Perry named Bill Wiseman, Blythewood’s representative on the County committee, as chairman of the local committee.

Wiseman said things have changed on the list of priorities that was established several years ago. He said he thinks there will be four or five members on the board and that he will pass their recommendations for prioritizing projects on to the County Penny Tax Committee. Wiseman said he expects the local committee to be appointed and start meeting in the next couple of weeks.

BLYTHEWOOD – Due to the Memorial Day holiday, Town Council met on Tuesday night at the Manor instead of Monday. After a public hearing for the zoning of two properties on Sandfield Road, and an ordinance to reduce the minimum side building set-backs for certain lots in Cobblestone Park, the Council unanimously passed second and final vote on the matters.

Council held first vote on three Administrative Ordinances: Ord. 2013.007, to raise fee schedules for permits; Ord. 2013.008, to bring ordinances and fee schedule forms into line with each other; and Ord. 2013.009, to adopt the budget for fiscal year 2013-14. All three passed unanimously. Town Administrator John Perry said a public hearing will be held on June 24 for the fee schedule ordinance.

Council proclaimed Iron Brew Coffee as the official coffee of the Town. The beans are grown in Brazil and roasted in Blythewood, and the coffee is manufactured in a facility in the industrial complex area of Community Road.

Sarah Bailey was announced as being in charge of the Blythewood Farmer’s Market, which will open on Monday, June 3, from 3-7 p.m.

Perry announced that the first Blythewood Brainery session is completed with 31 students participating. It will begin again in July. Perry also announced that a fireworks event will be held at the Manor on July 6 and said he would have more information available later.

Councilman Moscati gave a report on the park construction and said the Park Committee would meet in late July. Moscati said that by then he should know what the funding is for the park. Mayor J. Michael Ross said Council would need to look to the private sector for funds in order to get the park finished. Moscati also said he would like to remind the residents that they are not currently paying any property taxes to the town, but he said he does think there’s going to be a time when they will have to pay a property tax for services. Councilman Ed Garrison agreed, saying the cost of doing business is increasing and it’s going to cost for services, such as maintaining the park. Ross said he didn’t mind paying taxes if he sees he gets something nice.

Council members will attend the annual Municipal Association meeting in Greenville the week of July 18-23.

A special Town Council meeting has been called for next Wednesday, June 5, to review the budget.

FAIRFIELD – With the clock ticking on a pair of controversial bills in the General Assembly designed to prevent counties from owning a monopoly on waste disposal (House bill H.3290 and its Senate companion, S.203), to which many S.C. counties, including Fairfield, are opposed, an attorney with the S.C. Association of Counties (SCAC) delivered an update on the legislation to County Council during their May 13 meeting.

“This bill went through the House like a hot knife through butter, with virtually no discussion,” Robert Croom told Council last week. “On the Senate side, they tend to slow things down a little bit and with any luck this will be slowed down for the rest of the year.”

Croom said the House version of the bill now sits on the Senate’s contested calendar, and unless some special procedural actions are taken, it is not likely to reach the floor for a vote before the session ends. But it could happen, he said, and if it passes, counties who have invested bond money into landfills will be left in the lurch. Unable to compete with private industry to dispose of waste, Croom said that taxpayers will ultimately have to pick up the tab to pay for those landfills. If not, he said, and counties default on those bonds, the bond market will no longer lend the public money to build landfills.

“We’ll end up with a lot of larger landfills,” he said.

Even worse, Croom said, was a one-word change in the bill, from “industrial” waste to “solid” waste.

“That one-word change in Section 2, it guts the decision DHEC (the Department of Health and Environmental Control) makes on permits,” Croom said. “Your county’s solid waste plan would no longer be able to address large chunks of that waste, and they would have nothing to base their permit decisions on.”

Councilman Kamau Marcharia (District 4) asked Croom how the bill would affect the flow of out of state waste, something opponents of the bill have been saying for months would increase under the new legislation.

“If I wanted to come and build a landfill in your community, if I wanted to bring nuclear waste from New York or wherever and drop it in your community, we would have absolutely nothing to say about it?” Marcharia asked.

“Not if you don’t own the hole you don’t,” Croom said.

But supporters of the legislation, including local senator Creighton Coleman (D-17), say that is not true, and documents from DHEC appear to back that position up.

Coleman and other supporters have said that the only goal of these bills is to amend the state’s Solid Waste Management Act to prevent counties from dictating where private waste disposal companies dump their waste. In 2009, Horry County did just that, passing an ordinance mandating that waste picked up in Horry County must be dumped in the landfill owned and operated by Horry County, and paying whatever fees Horry County established. That ordinance, Coleman and others say, created a de facto monopoly, preventing a private company from disposing of waste at a cheaper facility across county lines. H.3290 and S. 203 address that and nothing more, they claim.

Last month, Coleman inquired of DHEC about any other possible ramifications of the bill, specifically when it comes to out of state waste.

“(t)his bill does not affect any legal requirements with regard to out-of-state waste,” DHEC wrote in a letter of response, dated April 24. “We have thoroughly reviewed the language of this bill and see no basis for reaching such a conclusion. Nor does the bill change the requirement of the Solid Waste Management Act that requires a waste facility be consistent with a county’s local solid waste management plan.”

The bill does, DHEC noted, address consistency with zoning and land use ordinances.

“In that case, H.3290 empowers the counties by allowing them to present a letter of consistency to DHEC in order to satisfy the zoning and land use consistency requirements of the Solid Waste Management Act,” DHEC wrote. “(H.3290) does not affect current environmental laws and regulations other than adding the requirement that solid waste processing facilities register, report volume and prove financial responsibility to the department.”

H.3290 is intended to work out an economic, rather than an environmental issue, DHEC said, adding, “We made this view clear to the interests on both sides of this issue.”

The Voice recently acquired a copy of an internal memo, generated by DHEC in 2010 following their analysis of the Horry County ordinance. That memo indicates a concern within DHEC about public landfill capacity and how that might change, for the worse, if all 46 counties adopted similar ordinances.

“If every one of the 46 counties is allowed to in effect ‘hoard’ its waste by prohibiting it from leaving the county, it would have a significant negative impact on the regional concept so strongly promoted in the (Solid Waste Management) Act,” the memo states.

The General Assembly previously limited the amount of allowable landfill space in the state through the Determination of Needs regulation, the memo notes, and Horry County’s ordinance runs counter to that.

“A single county flow control ordinance may not in itself reverse the direction the state has taken in managing solid waste,” the memo states, “but certainly a proliferation of similar county ordinances would.”

N.C. Firm Offers Revitalization Services

WINNSBORO – What to do with the Old Armory? It has, for many years, been steadily slipping into a state of advanced decay, and Tuesday night Town Council learned that all of their options carry a hefty price tag.

John Dunham, with the Greenville architectural firm DP3, presented Council with their options, following a study of the building.

“It has some great bones to it,” Dunham said. “It’s a great building. It does, obviously, need a lot of work, ranging anywhere from code issues to aesthetics to its functionality. It’s obviously suffered from deferred maintenance.”

The Town’s first option, Dunham said, was to renovate the building as it is now, at a total cost of $1,329,922.28. That includes $216,972.50 just to bring the building up to code, and nearly $92,000 to replace the roof.

The second option, to demolish the building and replace it with a prefabricated metal structure, would cost the Town $1,258,975. Third, the Town could demolish the building and replace it with a brick structure, at a cost of $2,145,250.

Council took no action on Dunham’s report. Council also took no action on a proposal by Jess Kryzenske, Community Development Manager for HandMade in America, an Asheville, N.C., firm vying to help kick start the revitalization of downtown Winnsboro at a cost of $9,500 to the Town.

Kryzenske said her group has helped lead grassroots efforts in nearly a dozen small towns in Western North Carolina over the last 20 years and said she believes they can do the same for Winnsboro. By bringing community leaders together and utilizing the work of volunteers, she said, new life could be breathed into downtown. Kryzenske said her group works primarily through what she called “placemaking,” something she later defined as identifying specific things unique to the community – history and historic homes, in Winnsboro’s case – and helping the community highlight and market those features.

Outgoing Councilman Bill Haslett made HandMade a cornerstone of his recent failed bid for mayor, telling an audience at a candidate’s forum in March that, if elected, he would bring HandMade – and jobs – to Winnsboro.

“Towns are moving forward through volunteerism,” Haslett said Tuesday night. “It’s not up to the Town or the County to do these things.”

Councilman Clyde Sanders said he was concerned with keeping a group of volunteers together, focused and dedicated to a revitalization project.

“The success of this is not based on the Council, it’s based on citizen participation and business owners,” Sanders said. “My only question is what kind of participation are you going to have? Nine thousand dollars is not a lot of money to some people, but it is a lot of money to the Town of Winnsboro. I question the participation and the dedication of the people in the town. I think, just judging from past experience, you’d have a lot of people come out to the first meeting to see what’s going on, then it dwindles and then it stops.”

Mayor Roger Gaddy said it was vital to find out what the community wants before launching a long-term project. Kryzenske said one thing her group helped towns do was to constantly recruit new people to the process, in order to compensate for those who drop off, while maintaining a dedicated core of volunteers. Councilman Danny Miller requested that the Town speak with other towns on HandMade’s resume to get a feel for what kind of success they have experienced.

Kryzenske said she spent two days surveying Winnsboro two weeks ago, and suggested that, if Council doesn’t opt to go with HandMade’s proposal, they should seek out some outside firm to help bring the community together and focus local energies on a common goal.

FAIRFIELD – As Fairfield County code enforcement officers continue their sweep across the county, implementing the County’s tougher property maintenance codes, County Council is considering legislation that will make it easier to determine who, exactly, is responsible for one aspect of that code – hauling away abandoned or derelict mobile homes.

During their May 13 meeting, Council heard from consultant Dan Vismore and his recommendations to revise Ordinance 541, which in its current state, he said, places the onus for removing an abandoned or derelict mobile home on either the land owner or the “local official;” i.e., the County.

“It was not the intent of the County when they adopted this ordinance to get into the removal business of derelict mobile homes,” Vismore said. “What we are proposing to do is to strike reference to the ‘local official,’ so we will place the sole responsibility with the land owner.”

Vismore said that in many cases, the County has found that the owner of such a mobile home has abandoned not only the home, but the county as well, making it difficult to pin down responsibility for removing the home.

“And that has left us in a Catch-22,” he said. “That means that either the County is going to have to remove that mobile home, or we’ve got to place full and sole responsibility on the land owner that is housing that derelict mobile home.”

All costs associated with removing the home will, if the amendment to Ordinance 541 passes, become the responsibility of the landowner and can only be waived by an order from the Magistrate’s Court.

“That makes it simpler for us to administer, simpler for everybody to understand, there’s no contradiction as to who’s responsible and who’s not responsible, and it makes everybody’s job a whole lot easier,” Vismore said.

Councilwoman Carolyn Robinson (District 2) said there may be some difficulty in implementing the amendment, particularly when it comes to searching out and locating a legal title for abandoned mobile homes. And a legal title, she said, was required before any such home could be moved or even torn down.

“If it is abandoned and it is derelict and it’s impossible to get a title, based on your scenario, we either have to let it stand there because our hands are tied, or we exercise this revised ordinance and place the responsibility on the land owner to get that mobile home off of his property,” Vismore answered. “He (the land owner) was, in fact, the person responsible for allowing it to go on his property, so all we’ve done is to put the responsibility back on him to get it off of his property.”

If a legal title is required, Vismore made clear, it will be the property owner’s problem, and not the County’s.

John James, the County’s attorney, said it was his understanding that once a home was demolished, a title was not required to remove the remains, but agreed to research the law upon the request of Chairman David Ferguson. Council will take up Vismore’s recommendations again at their next regular meeting, June 10.

WINNSBORO – With Fairfield County moving forward with an aggressive enforcement of more rigid property maintenance codes, Winnsboro Town Council made a move to keep pace during their May 7 meeting, voting 3-0 to approve a contract with the Central Midlands Council of Governments to review Winnsboro’s codes.

“We’ve asked the Council of Governments to review our property codes and advise us of what to do and what to change,” said Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Wilkes, who chaired last week’s meeting in the absence of Mayor Roger Gaddy, sidelined with illness. “We’re hoping to get something similar to what the County’s got. There’s no sense in us having something different.”

Wilkes said it was also possible that Winnsboro would petition the County to administer the codes, once the new regulations are in place.

Winnsboro is shelling out $2,400 to the Council of Governments for their assistance in the review.

“We thought it would be easier, simpler and faster than bringing the committees in to get this done,” Wilkes said.

Council also heard from Vickie Dodds, Chairwoman of the Friends of Mt. Zion Institute (FOMZI), who reiterated her group’s commitment to working with the Town to salvage the historic school building.

“Whatever form our partnership takes, we vow to keep our mutual interests in opportunities for the county front and center,” Dodds said. “This opportunity is about so much more than the preservation of a building. It is an opportunity to impact the economy, our quality of life and our visible standing in the state.”

Council agreed to schedule a work session with FOMZI in early June in order to sketch out the details of the project.

FAIRFIELD – County Council gave the final approval to their 2013-2014 budget Monday night, a budget nearly 11 percent smaller than that of the previous fiscal year, weighing in at $33,440,757. The budget passed on a 6-1 vote, with Carolyn Robinson (District 2) casting the lone dissenting vote.

“That’s what District 2 wanted to do,” Robinson said after the meeting.

Robinson voted with the majority in approving the associated millage rates, which come in at 181.87 –  8.6 mills less than last year.

“Because it was a reduced rate,” Robinson explained. “We finally got something right.”

Although the public hearing on the budget was officially held April 22, Council got an earful from constituents prior to Monday’s vote, many of them angered over tax rates, as well as the County’s $24.06 million industrial development/recreation bond, passed April 15.

“I don’t think there was any coordination whatsoever between County Council and the School Board, that they would simultaneously pass $44 million worth of bonds, which will start in 2014,” said Oliver Johnson. “Spending is out of control. We have the third highest millage of any county in this state. We have the highest general fund budget per capita of any county in this state. We’ve got the eighth highest assessed property values per capita. We’ve got a fixation on the industrial park, we’ve poured money into it, we’ve taken acreage off the tax rolls, built spec buildings because the state says that’s the way to attract industry. Frankly, and I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t think we’re going to attract industry. We need to go after retirees. Bring them in here with disposable income.”

Jeff Schaffer, of Dawkins, said he would like to see more accountability, as well as a refund to taxpayers.

“Stop spending and start improving,” Schaffer said. “If you’re a school teacher, you better be one who can show your class is improving, if not you won’t be in the budget next year. Same thing goes for the hospital and every other charity case us taxpayers take on. I would like to see a budget that is reduced by last year’s spending by 10 percent across the board, and that reduction I would like to see redistributed under the category of Fairfield taxpayers by sending us a refund check.”

Schafer also suggested imposing an “excise tax” on people who work in the county but who do not live here.

“If every employee who works in the county but does not live in the county paid a millage rate, we would pay less and they would pay for the services that I and others provide for by paying those taxes,” Schaffer said.

Betty Scott Frazier Bell said she sees a mass exodus from Fairfield County every day between 3:30 and 5 p.m.

“People who are working in Fairfield County, driving Mercedes and SUVs, all leaving the county with salaries they are making in Fairfield,” Bell said, “and you are planning a new industrial park in Blythewood’s back yard.”

The industrial park, Bell said, was a mistake, and the bond money could be better spent elsewhere, if at all.

“To put up a building before you had water and sewer?” Bell asked rhetorically. “You put in an industrial park that is not even a certified site and you’re asking for a little over $20 million to remedy that mistake. Richland County should be writing you a thank you note for putting in the infrastructure for their residents.”

After the vote, Bell’s comments, and those of her colleagues, drew an impassioned response from Council. David Ferguson, Council Chairman, said that the industrial park was indeed a Class-A certified park. He also said that there was no correlation between the School District’s bond and that of the County. But most of all, Ferguson stood firm on the County’s policy of industrial development.

“When you have a stable environment and you have a job, you may can stand at that microphone and tell me we don’t need jobs in Fairfield County,” Ferguson said. “When we’ve got 11 percent unemployment, and in a lot of cases husband and wife unemployed, don’t bother to tell me we don’t need jobs. If you talk to those people who are unemployed, they’re not going to agree with you. And I don’t agree with you, either. I would be very disappointed in the Council if I was sitting out there and you were sitting up here and you were not trying to get jobs for me to work at and better my family. I don’t think anybody in our county wants us not to be trying to bring gainful employment to this county.”