Council tables radon action

By Eric Fleischauer
DAILY Staff Writer
Printed: June 4, 2002; The Decatur Daily News, online edition

Invisible and odorless, radon is an elusive gas -- like Appendix F of the building code that the Decatur City Council once again tabled Monday night.

After the coucil tabled a decision on the building code in May because it omitted the radon systems, Brothers said he would resubmit the building code with Appendix F included this time.

He did resubmit it, but then it was removed. Then it was added at the last minute. Then the council president tabled it.

All of this has city officials saying they aren't sure what happened.

Appendix F requires passive radon reduction systems in new one-and two-family dwellings.

On Friday, both Mayor Lynn Fowler and Building Director Jimmy Brothers said that the building code to be considered at Monday's meeting of the City Council would omit Appendix F -- that is, it would not require radon reduction systems in new homes.

On Friday, Brothers acknowledged that the building code to be considered by the council was the version without radon reduction requirements.

He said he did not understand why the version requiring radon reduction was not the one going before the council.

Fowler, who opposes the radon reduction, also said Friday that the council's vote would be solely on a version of the building code that did not require radon reduction systems.

But one hour before the council meeting, at a precouncil meeting, City Attorney Herman Marks, Jr. distributed a second version of the building code ordinance -- this one requiring a radon reduction system.

Marks today acknowledged that the agenda packet he recieved Friday did not include the radon-reduction version.

He said he first realized the omission Sunday when he read an article about it in THE DAILY. He said Brothers contacted him about it Monday morning, and Brothers printed copies of the radon reduction version for distribution Monday night.

Marks said Brothers created two versions weeks ago. Marks said he usually takes resolutions for the city clerk's office, but in this case Brothers took both versions to the clerk.

Marks said he does not know why Fowler said on Friday that the City Council was only suppose to consider the version without a radon-reduction requirement.

Three council members -- a quorum --attended the pre-council meeting. Two of them, Phil Hastings and Dot Montgomery, expressed a desire to pass the ordinance with a radon reduction requirement.

The mayor argued against it vigorously. He requested that a member of the Home Builders Association in attendance at the precouncil meeting. Ernie Smith, speak to the council against the requirement.

When neither of the council members changed position, Fowler argued that council should table the vote -- even though Hastings said he preferred to go ahead and vote in favor of the version requiring a reduction system.

Fowler today said he did talk to Smith about the meeting during the weekend. Fowler said the decision on radon reduction is the council's and he did nothing to affect that decision.

Questioned further, Fowler said, "Ernie (Smith) said he was going to be there, I said that was fine. I did not go out and solicit him to come or anything like that. Well, I mentioned to him when I saw him over the weekend that it was going to be discussed. I may have said, 'You may want to be there to hear what is said.' I don't know."

At the precouncil meeting, Council President Pat Woller announced that the decision would be tabled without further input.

Mrs. Woller said after the meeting that she did not know why the agenda included a version of the code without Appendix F, but she thought it was a mistake that occured when City Clerk Gail Busbey called her to confirm the agenda items.

Ms. Busbey, however, said after the meeting she included two different versions of the ordinance -- one with Appendix F and one without -- before leaving town late last week.

She distinguished the versions by underlining the ordinance number in one version but not the other.

She said she did not know why the version requiring radon reduction was omitted from the ordinances that the clerk's office distributed.

From her packet of originals, she displayed the underlined and non-underlined versions.

She said she thought that Brothers, the building director, had convinced the mayor that inclusion of the radon reduction requirement was unnecessary.

But Brothers said the mayor never asked for his input on the issue.

Asked whether someone outside the clerk's office could have removed the ordinance requiring radon reduction systems during her absence, Ms. Busbey said it was possible, but it would require removing it from each of the council's agenda folders, or removing it before an assistant clerk made copies of the resolutions.

Fowler said the did not remove any resolutions from the agenda packet and added that he never is involved in preparing the agenda packets.

Fowler and Mrs. Woller said that tabling a vote on the ordinance was necessary because the city has few results back from about 100 free test kits it distributed through the Building Department.

Morgan County Extension Agent Julie Dutton, who accepted an invitation to speak to the council at a work session in May, provided the council with the results of 861 radon tests from Decatur's 35601 and 35603 zip codes.

About 16.4 percent of the kits in the 35601 zip code and 12.2 percent of the kits in the 35603 zip code showed hazardous levels of radon.

"I really don't know what other evidence they need. It's not like we've got just a few test results. We've got hundreds, and I've given them to them," Mrs. Dutton said.