Two residents voiced their skepticism about Charleston’s proposed ethanol plant at the city council meeting Tuesday night.

In the portion of the meeting reserved for citizens to address the council, local resident Eric Bollinger addressed the plant’s potential drawbacks.

“I think even in the best-case scenario, we’re devoting a prodigious amount of water to one company, water that we might want somewhere down the line,” Bollinger said. “Even if it’s built with the best specifications, it might degrade the environmental quality of Charleston. It’s likely to attract similar businesses that would further degrade the environmental quality of Charleston. What can I say? It’s just not a good idea.”

Bollinger added that the plant would simply not be worth the benefits it would provide, and that it’s short-term thinking.

“I just wonder what’s next,” he said. “Do we shoot for a nuclear waste depository? Lots of things bring in jobs. But they can also have negative consequences.”

When resident Steve Moulden wished to know if the council had come up with definitive answers to questions posed to them about the plant, Mayor John Inyart said they hoped to have all the questions answered within a week.

“We plan to have all the answers to the questions posted online for review, so they will be available to the public,” said council member Lorelei Sims.

Moulden then proposed a question to add to the online list, inquiring about the potential changes in property value if the proposed plant was built.

In addition, the council approved the execution of a disbursement agreement with the Charleston Carnegie Public Library that maps out how funds will be dispensed for the building’s reconstruction.

New lighting was approved for Whitetail Crossing, Arrowhead Ridge and the Fields, Phase VIII. Three new streetlights were also approved for the area of Woodberry Lane near Coles-Moultrie.