Commission Meeting Minutes 4-5-18 with Attachments<\/a><\/p>\nTo read the minutes, please open or download the pdf from the link above, or you may see more below.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission<\/strong><\/p>\n1703 Gloucester Street, Brunswick, GA 31520<\/strong><\/p>\nThursday, April 5, 2018 at 2:00 PM<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nCOMMISSION MINUTES\u00a0<\/strong><\/h1>\nPRESENT: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\nDonald M. Elliott, Chairman<\/strong><\/p>\nMike Browning, Vice-Chairman<\/strong><\/p>\nCornell L. Harvey, Commissioner<\/strong><\/p>\nClifford Adams, Commissioner<\/strong><\/p>\nSteve Copeland, Commissioner<\/strong><\/p>\nTripp Stephens, Commissioner<\/strong><\/p>\nG. Ben Turnipseed, Commissioner<\/strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nALSO PRESENT: \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\nJimmy Junkin, Executive Director<\/strong><\/p>\nCharlie Dorminy, Legal Counsel HBS<\/strong><\/p>\nAndrew Burroughs, Deputy Executive Director<\/strong><\/p>\nTodd Kline, Director of Engineering<\/strong><\/p>\nPam Crosby, Director of Procurement<\/strong><\/p>\nJohn D. Donaghy, Director of Finance<\/strong><\/p>\nJay Sellers, Director of Administration<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong><\/p>\nChairman Elliott called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM.<\/p>\n
Chairman Elliott provided the invocation and Commissioner Copeland led the pledge.<\/p>\n
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD<\/strong><\/p>\nChairman Elliott opened the public comment period.<\/p>\n
There being no citizens for public comment, Chairman Elliott closed the public comment period.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nEMPLOYEE RECOGNITION<\/strong><\/p>\nCertificate Presentations \u2013 C. Harvey \/ C. Barnhart <\/strong><\/p>\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Jerry Dean Aldridge, Jr. <\/strong>\u2013 Wastewater Collection System Operator<\/p>\nCommissioner Harvey presented Jerry Dean Aldridge, Jr. with his Wastewater Collection System Operator Certification and congratulated him.\u00a0 Cindy Barnhart from Teamwork Services, Kirk Young and his direct supervisor, John McCallum were also present to recognize this employee.<\/p>\n
APPROVAL<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Minutes from the March 15, 2018 Regular Commission Meeting <\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Commissioner Browning made a motion seconded by Commissioner Stephens to approve the minutes from the March 15, 2018 Regular Commission Meeting.\u00a0 Motion carried 7-0-0.\u00a0 (Unanimous.)\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n\n- Sinclair Unsolicited Proposal<\/strong> \u2013 C. Dorminy<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Charlie Dorminy presented the Commission with a recommendation for approval of an unsolicited proposal submitted by the Sinclair Developer.\u00a0 He provided a memo containing the background information and overview, the Sinclair Proposal, and a draft of the Agreement for the Commission to review.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy advised that the Developer owns property within the System on the east side of Lawrence Road on Saint Simons Island, Georgia, known as \u201cSinclair\u201d and desires that the property be serviced by the JWSC System, and also desires to improve the sewer infrastructure located on and serving the property, including the installation and manifold of a new parallel force main and upgrades to wastewater Lift Station 2056 to serve the property.\u00a0 He further noted that the Developer submitted an unsolicited proposal pursuant to the JWSC Unsolicited Proposal Policy to address capacity shortages to support the Project.\u00a0 The Utility and Developer desire to enter into a Comprehensive Agreement wherein Developer will construct the Project and dedicate same to Utility, and, in exchange, the Utility will reimburse Developer through applying an equivalent amount of credit toward future capital improvement fees that would otherwise be due upon the phased development of the Property. Mr. Dorminy then provided an overview of the proposal.\u00a0 He noted that the Developer will provide to JWSC the Final Engineering Report, including plans sufficient for JWSC to bid the Project in accordance with the JWSC Purchasing Policy.\u00a0 JWSC will solicit and review bids for the Project in accordance with the Utility Purchasing Policy. \u00a0He added that within the scope of work there would be two phases.\u00a0 Phase One would be to provide upgrades to Lift Station 2056 sufficient to ensure operation at 530 gpm at 135 feet of tdh; and Phase Two includes upgrades to the force main along Frederica Road from approximately Lift Station 2032 up to 2056.\u00a0 The Developer is going to be tasked with negotiating with the contractor who the JWSC selects and awards the contract to, the Developer will then manage the Project, and JWSC will have an opportunity to approve or disapprove all change order requests.\u00a0 The Developer will have the right to complete the Project in two (2) phases or construct both phases at one time, and JWSC will have the right to inspect the phases upon their completion.\u00a0 The Developer will then dedicate the improvements to the JWSC in accordance with the JWSC Dedication Policy. Mr. Dorminy continued that upon dedication of each phase of the Project improvements the JWSC will apply a credit as outlined here, essentially all amounts paid by the Developer for the Project will be credited by JWSC towards future capital improvement fees.\u00a0 He added that the Developer will submit evidence of payments and expenses upon completion of the Project and JWSC will have the opportunity to verify those amounts.\u00a0 The amount credited will be based on the capital improvement fees current as of today (April 5, 2018), totaling $6,800.00 per 1-inch service line.\u00a0 For example, if the Project improvements cost the Developer $680,000.00, the Developer will be credited with one hundred (100) 1-inch service line accounts.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy also noted that the Developer will be responsible for paying any operational and administrative fees associated with opening the accounts and installation of all meters based on the Utility Rate Resolution as of the time of any construction plan approval, and will then be responsible for all monthly rates and fees as well once the accounts are opened. He provided that the Developer will also have a reservation of capacity upon completion of the Project, JWSC will reserve and guarantee that sewer capacity and system access for the Property for ten (10) years from the dedication of the Project improvements.\u00a0 He then noted that time limit of ten (10) years from dedication of the Project improvements, no credit can be redeemed after ten (10) years, and the reservation of capacity will expire in ten (10) years from the dedication.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Turnipseed asked why this project was to be done in two phases.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy advised that this was as requested in the proposal. Todd Kline added that Phase One essentially gives Sinclair what they need for their Development which is the pump upgrades at the station, and the line work is what JWSC would benefit from to bring sufficient capacity in that area. \u00a0Commissioner Stephens asked about the ten years, if it was ten years total, or if each phase was allowed ten years for a total of twenty years. \u00a0Mr. Dorminy advised ten years from dedication, so it would be ten years from each Phase.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed commented that it could then be twenty years, and Mr. Dorminy advised that yes, it could be.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens then asked about the credit and if it was for anywhere in the JWSC System, or only for that Property.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy advised that it was only for that Property.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed asked if the credit was transferrable to another party if someone bought it, and Mr. Dorminy advised it was assignable.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed again noted that he thought it should be done in one phase, and Mr. Dorminy said that it being done in two phases was to help ease the burden on the Developer for the amount of resources he has to spend as well. Chairman Elliott asked if the Development Project was being done in two phases, and Mr. Dorminy responded that it was being done in four or five different phases.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott confirmed that the Developer doesn\u2019t need the additional capacity until he gets to a certain level, and Mr. Dorminy confirmed yes.\u00a0 Commissioner Browning then noted that the Developer would have to stop at a certain phase until the second phase of the Project improvements has been done, and Mr. Dorminy advised yes.\u00a0 Commissioner Browning also confirmed that he understood that JWSC would have the right to do a final inspection, and asked if JWSC would have the ability to inspect as the work is being done, and Mr. Dorminy confirmed they would.\u00a0 Andrew Burroughs added that as part of the final inspection is to verify it is getting the flows as it should be.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed expressed additional concern about Phase Two and the case of if JWSC needed it to be done before the Developer was ready.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy added that it can be added to the agreement that Phase Two will be started within a certain number of years from the dedication of Phase One. \u00a0Commissioner Stephens inquired as to this being done as two separate Projects and approving Phase One and then when Phase Two is ready approving it.\u00a0 He questioned if this was really two different Projects.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy advised that this was essentially what was being done by only applying credit for the amount that has been expended.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens confirmed that JWSC is committing to the ability to apply the credit to the second, and Mr. Dorminy responded yes, but added the credit won\u2019t be redeemable until they have dedicated the second Phase.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens noted concern about the Rate Structure being higher than $6,800.00 several years in the future, and suggested to approve Phase One as a first Project, and at the time for Phase Two to come back and approve it with real numbers for taps at that time.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy confirmed with Todd Kline that the capacity needed by the Developer to complete the entire Property will be done once they upgrade the lift station, and Mr. Kline agreed.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed asked then why not just have the one phase period and not even have the second phase.\u00a0 Andrew Burroughs provided that the difference with having the second phase is that the Developer does that work rather than paying us and then we go do the work, this simplifies the process since we are eventually going to need it done anyway because that lift station now has more commitments to it than we have capacity.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens asked to clarify his earlier question regarding the credit for the purchase of taps and how that credit would be applied.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy confirmed that it would be the total amount paid by the Developer divided by $6,800.00 to equal the number of taps credited is applied towards.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy noted that this could be changed in that the credit would be applied based on the rates in place on the date of dedication.\u00a0 Commissioner Copeland confirmed that this would be what the capital fee is at the time of dedication divided into the total cost for the number of credits for taps.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy reminded the Commissioners that the Agreement is not being approved at this meeting, it can be discussed and revised at a later time.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott inquired as to what today\u2019s approval would be for, and Mr. Dorminy replied that according to the Unsolicited Proposal Policy, this would be to approve the Proposal and direct the attorney to negotiate the Agreement which would then be brought back to the Commission for final approval.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Browning made a motion seconded by Commissioner Adams to move that JWSC approve the unsolicited proposal submitted by the Sinclair Developer and direct the JWSC attorney to negotiate the Comprehensive Agreement for subsequent review and approval or rejection by the JWSC.\u00a0 Motion carried 7-0-0.\u00a0 (Unanimous.)<\/u><\/p>\n\n- City of Brunswick MOU \u2013 Magnolia Park Storm Drainage and Water Utility<\/strong> Improvements<\/strong> \u2013 P. Crosby<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Pam Crosby presented the Commission with a recommendation to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Brunswick.\u00a0 She advised that the City of Brunswick has a current SPLOST project for storm drainage and roadway improvements in Magnolia Park.\u00a0 The City of Brunswick approached JWSC to perform water main replacements while the area is already disturbed during their project. \u00a0She provided that this MOU was for the engineering services, that it would be a 50\/50 cost split, and the City had already issued the RFP for the engineering services.\u00a0 Mrs. Crosby advised that eight engineering firms attended the pre-bid meeting of which six submitted a proposal, and those bids were evaluated by a team composed of three members from JWSC and three members from the City of Brunswick.\u00a0 EMC Engineering\u2019s proposal in the amount of $117,050.00 received the highest score of 494 on the evaluation. Mrs. Crosby noted that the City of Brunswick developed the Memorandum of Understanding for BGJWSC and the City of Brunswick to share a 50\/50 cost split of the engineering services associated with the project.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed asked what the total estimated construction costs are, and Andrew Burroughs responded that JWSC\u2019s current budget for the water portion was $1.5M.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed questioned if these engineering services were just for the water portion of the work or if the EMC contract would be for the paving too, and Mrs. Crosby confirmed that this was for the cost of the engineering plan and design for the entire project.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed then asked what the total budget was for the whole project, and Andrew Burroughs replied that it was $1.5M for our portion and he did not have the amount of the total budget for the City of Brunswick.\u00a0 Mrs. Crosby noted that some of the benefits were that it was a cooperative project with the City of Brunswick, the neighborhood would only be disturbed once, and this provided a comprehensive engineering plan covering the entire project and with less conflicts than if the two parts were engineered separately. Commissioner Turnipseed asked if there was a time frame in the proposal noted for the engineering.\u00a0 Mrs. Crosby provided that it was seven to eight months, and that the extra time was being spent in the engineering phase to incorporate all of the utilities, lines, etc., and data would also be provided for what type of water lines are currently in place (transite and cast iron).\u00a0 She explained that the extra time spent in the engineering was in order for everything to be designed prior to the construction phase and to reduce unexpected findings during construction. \u00a0Commissioner Turnipseed asked who prepared the $1.5M estimated construction cost, and Todd Kline advised it was done by JWSC but is the budget amount.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed then asked what was included in the $1.5M, and Mr. Kline responded that it included all the water line replacements, paving, valves, fittings and parts, all the services and reconnecting services.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott asked if JWSC was paying for all the paving or if that would be cost shared, and Mrs. Crosby provided that it would be a 50\/50 cost sharing on the construction and that there would be a separate MOU for construction.\u00a0 Commissioner Turnipseed asked when the Notice To Proceed for the engineering would be issued, and Mrs. Crosby advised that the City had already approved everything and were waiting on this MOU to begin.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens asked if it was included in JWSC Policy to include liquidated damages, and Mrs. Crosby replied that it was included and that there would be a defined timeline for the project in construction, there would be penalties for liquidated damages.\u00a0 Commissioner Harvey provided that this was a SPLOST Project for the City of Brunswick and noted that lessons have been learned from prior projects.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Turnipseed made a motion seconded by Commissioner Browning that the Brunswick Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with the City of Brunswick to contract for a 50\/50 cost share of the estimated amount of $117,050.00 from EMC, Inc. for Engineering Services proposal related to the Magnolia Park Storm Drainage and Water and Utility Improvements project.\u00a0\u00a0 Motion carried 7-0-0.\u00a0 (Unanimous.)<\/u><\/p>\n\n- Surplus Equipment<\/strong> \u2013 P. Crosby<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Pam Crosby presented the Commission with a memo and listing of four pieces of equipment staff is requesting to be authorized and declared as surplus which will then be placed on GovDeals for sale. Commissioner Turnipseed asked what the easement machine was and Kirk Young provided a description.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Turnipseed inquired if the trencher was not needed anymore, and Kirk Young also provided that it was found to not be useful and it has not been used during the four years he has been with JWSC. \u00a0Commissioner Stephens asked if any of the listed equipment were to be replaced, Kirk said no for his two items, and Mrs. Crosby noted that the excavator for Water Distribution would be replaced with another piece of equipment which will come out of the remaining budget for that division. Commissioner Turnipseed asked how this was advertised and to be sold as surplus.\u00a0 Mrs. Crosby explained the GovDeals website, bidding and sales processes.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Adams made a motion seconded by Commissioner Harvey that the Brunswick Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission approve the additional items to be declared as surplus and disposed of in a manner most beneficial to the JWSC.\u00a0 Motion carried 7-0-0. (Unanimous.)<\/u><\/p>\n\n- Approval of Investment Management Agreements \u2013 Deposit and Operating Reserves<\/strong> \u2013 J. Donaghy<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
John Donaghy provided that in response to the discussion from the previous Commission Meeting regarding investing customer deposits that are currently held in a day to day cash account, staff was requested to research alternatives for placing this money into a higher interest bearing account.\u00a0 He advised that as our selected banker, BB&T Bank was contacted and they partner with Sterling Investments for providing investments with governmental funds.\u00a0 Mr. Donaghy referred to the information as provided regarding the various investment alternatives and details, and noted that those options all meet the Georgia Law for municipal investments and also matchup with JWSC\u2019s investment categories within the JWSC Financial Policies and are all approved investment options.\u00a0 He added that there would be a management fee equal to 1\/10th<\/sup> of 1 percent of the amount that would be invested.\u00a0 Half of the customer deposits and operating reserves would be a $1.5M investment and the investment fee would be about $1,500 for the year. \u00a0Mr. Donaghy noted that the interest earned after the management fees still far exceed the current interest earned on these funds. He mentioned that other accounts held were also looked at, for example an $800K held in operating reserve which is targeted at four months of operating expenditures to cover in the case of a catastrophic event.\u00a0 He further noted that this money has remained untapped for some time and could also be placed into a higher interest bearing account, separate from the funds from the customer deposits. \u00a0Commissioner Stephens asked what percentage of interest was projected, and Mr. Donaghy replied it would depend on how much was invested, long it was put in for investment, and including the fees.\u00a0 He also noted that some of it may be laddered, but we need to look particularly at the deposit funds and consider how many are refunded on a monthly basis and how much needs to be kept liquid.\u00a0 He added that these investments are relatively liquid, we can withdraw at any time and have funds back in a few days. Andrew Burroughs asked if there are fees for withdrawing early, and Mr. Donaghy replied there are some. \u00a0There was some discussion regarding the various interest rates possible to earn on these investments and the associated details. Commissioner Stephens asked why only invest half of the reserve when that seems like a small margin, and Mr. Donaghy noted he would prefer to start with being cautious and can add more later after determining the rates of returning deposits. \u00a0Commissioner Stephens noted he preferred to be more aggressive.\u00a0 Mr. Donaghy added that he would check with BB&T to see if there are investments where there would be no early withdrawal fees.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott commented that he would like to have a quarterly report for the Commission on all of the JWSC investments.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens noted he would make the motion, but would still like to be more aggressive with the investments in the future.<\/p>\nCommissioner Stephens made a motion seconded by Commissioner Copeland to move that the JWSC authorize the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Executive Director and Director of Finance be authorized to execute the necessary documents to establish Investment Management\/Custody Fee Agreements with BB&T Retirement and Institutional Services for investment of funds held for customer deposits and in the Operating Reserve of the JWSC.\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n
Chairman Elliott asked if there were any additional questions and Commissioner Adams asked how long customers\u2019 deposits are held, and Mr. Donaghy replied it was held until the customer closes that particular account.\u00a0 Commissioner Adams clarified that there was no grace period where if the customer pays their bills perfectly they get their money back, so they never get their money back.\u00a0 He noted that it was not our money, and added that we are making money off of their money and mentioned he has a problem with that.\u00a0 He explained that he knows other companies pay back customer deposits after a certain period of time.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens added that this is what was spoken about last time and that was the recommendation he had made, and he did not think their money should not be held forever, once they are good.\u00a0 He continued that if we are holding money, whatever money we\u2019re holding for however long it is held, interest should be made off of it during that timeframe, rather than sitting and drawing no interest.\u00a0 Mr. Junkin noted that there are liabilities and bad debt to be considered, and our utility is different from the power company and others where they do not allow accounts to become delinquent and they will just shut you off without any discussion or payment plan.\u00a0 Commissioner Copeland provided that the interest earned by these investments will ultimately go back to the rate payers anyway.\u00a0 Commissioner Harvey clarified that not back to specific individuals, but it goes back to them through the whole System.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Adams noted that in the workshop on the day prior, there was concern about raising the bills for the low income customers, and we are holding their money now.\u00a0 He added that for customers who pay their bills diligently for whatever time set, that low income person should get their money back. Commissioner Stephens noted he agreed with that, but until we get it back to them, we should make interest on it.\u00a0 Commissioner Harvey noted he agreed, and added that we have started an aggressive cutoff system now which before we did not have, and now after a certain period of time people know that their water will be cut off just like the power company would.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens suggested to start with a 90 day investment with that half of the money, and in the meantime discuss a policy of returning customer deposits after a determined period of time. \u00a0Chairman Elliott asked Mr. Dorminy if there any legal issues with JWSC using customer deposit money to earn money off of it.\u00a0 Mr. Dorminy replied there was nothing noted in the Legislation or Operating Agreement that said we could not make the investments with this money.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott indicated he wanted to be sure there was no state law that indicates this cannot be done.\u00a0 He added that he has listened to the discussions and believed that the commission should go ahead and approve the investment, but to also task the staff to come up with recommendations on returning the deposits and have a further discussion on that at a later date within the next three months and establish a policy since at least three Commissioners are in favor of returning deposits, at least investigate it.\u00a0 He then noted there was a motion and a second and asked if there was any further discussion or questions.\u00a0 There being no further discussion, Chairman Elliott asked for the vote.<\/p>\n
Motion carried 7-0-0. (Unanimous.)<\/u><\/p>\n
After the vote, Chairman Elliott noted that the Commission should discuss the customer deposits in the month of June.<\/p>\n
DISCUSSION<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Budget and Rate Structure Calendar <\/strong>\u2013 J. Donaghy<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
John Donaghy presented the Budget and Rate Structure calendar with the Commission.\u00a0 He provided the details of the actions and required dates as on the calendar.\u00a0 He noted that staff had through the next week to address the budget changes and questions that came from the workshop on the previous day and send a second package out to the Commission to review.\u00a0 With the next Commission meeting on April 19th<\/sup>, it was suggested to have another workshop on Wednesday the 18th<\/sup> to go over the budget revisions. He also added that on the next Commission Meeting on April 19th<\/sup> they would be asking the Commission to release the budget to the City and County for their review and comment as required by the Operational Agreement, and noted this must be done by May 1st<\/sup>.\u00a0 The inserts in the customer bills are required to be started on May 8th<\/sup> and will take until June 11th<\/sup> to get inserts out with all bills.\u00a0 Mr. Donaghy added he would like to expedite the inserts in order to get them out well ahead of the Public Hearing meetings.\u00a0 He noted that the final budget would come to the Commission for approval on June 21st<\/sup>.<\/p>\nIt was noted that the 19th<\/sup> was a scheduled Commission Meeting day, and the Budget and Rate Workshop would start at 9:00 am on April 19th<\/sup>.\u00a0 Commissioner Stephens asked if they could have information as needed e-mailed to them ahead of time.<\/p>\nCommissioner Turnipseed commented on the revised rate structure and noted that they need to decide if they want as a Commission to approach the change of the Operational Agreement with the County and City, because otherwise, we don\u2019t know what rate structure we can go with, and he then mentioned the Commission giving staff some guidance on the rate structure. Mr. Junkin provided that the attorney will continue to pursue the operational changes that are required.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott noted that the reason why the Utility, in his opinion, needs to change the way the rates are structured is that most of the costs are fixed and very few costs are variable.\u00a0 The current rate structure is volumetric, meaning to get more revenue, we have to sell more water. We are covering with a volumetric charge costs that are actually fixed, and these fixed costs are essentially maintaining the infrastructure for water distribution and water collection and treatment.\u00a0 To get the rates in line with what we actually need the money for, we need to gradually over time change the way we collect our revenue from our rate payers, and that means going to a base rate which would cover the fixed costs, and then a subsidy of a volumetric cost that would reflect the cost of operating and treating the water and the waste.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott continued that in looking at what was talked about yesterday, he noted understanding the issue of the low end user and where we establish the base rate at, and staff is going to look at setting the base rate at the lowest level and then over time gradually move into a situation where the actual fixed costs that we have to cover is covered by the base rate.\u00a0 There was some additional discussion regarding the rates, variable and fixed portions, and the costs associated with providing water as compared to the costs of providing sewer.<\/p>\n
\n- Arrears Accounts and Cutoff Procedure Update <\/strong>\u2013 J. Sellers<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Jay Sellers presented the Commissioners with an update on the Arrears and Cutoff Procedure.\u00a0 He began by noting that there was an overall 15% reduction in the number of arrears accounts, a 13% reduction in the arrears balances, a cash flow increase of 11% from February to March, and the number of payment plans arranged increased by 25%.\u00a0 Mr. Sellers added that as of noon today (April 5) there are 591 active payment plans representing over $678K of the total arrears, which is 22% of that total.\u00a0 That was an increase of 91 payment plans since the current report was generated on Monday.\u00a0 He noted that the goal was to recover all of the arrears within 48 months, which is the longest term offered on a payment plan at this time, and he added that ideally in a year the 48 month plan would no longer be needed as an option.\u00a0 He provided that systems are now in place to reduce the extreme arrears in the future.\u00a0 Mr. Sellers mentioned that the official cutoff program began that same morning with just below 140 work orders and 8 field staff available to do that work, and this process will continue over the next month with a focus of getting these daily work orders done before 10 am in order to keep overtime costs down.\u00a0 He noted that when the next arrears update is presented on May 3rd<\/sup>, all but a few routes will have been run through a complete cycle of cutoff.\u00a0 Just under 22% of accounts are now in arrears, with the overall goal for the future being to reduce the amount of accounts in arrears to between 3% and 5%.\u00a0 He added that the expectation now would be that every account with an overdue balance of $100 would be on a payment plan.\u00a0 Mr. Sellers commented that affordability is a concern which staff is working hard to resolve, and he ensured that staff in the business office will remain aware of the need to keep the cash flowing on time every month while operating with grace when it comes to those we know will have difficulty when making their payment. Commissioner Stephens asked about the 18% interest rate on accounts in arrears that was discussed in a previous Commission meeting.\u00a0 Mr. Sellers replied that it was not being charged at present, due to administrative testing to be sure that it would be charged accurately, but before that goes live it will be discussed again regarding not charging accounts that are set up on payment plans.\u00a0 Commissioner Browning confirmed that from March 1st<\/sup> to April 1st<\/sup>, 14 of the accounts with arrears in the range of $5,000 or greater had paid their balance, and Mr. Sellers confirmed but added that some of those may have been commercial accounts that sporadically paid, and some may have been those owing for septic collars.<\/p>\n\n- R & R Capital Projects Update <\/strong>\u2013 T. Kline<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Todd Kline presented the R & R Capital Projects Update to the Commission.\u00a0 He referenced the attachments and maps as provided. He noted the details and status of the various projects with construction in progress and those nearing completion, as well as projects in the engineering phase.<\/p>\n
Construction in Progress: <\/u><\/p>\n
Project 232 \u2013<\/u> Directional drilling section are in now on Phase II, with three points of connection left to make the loop, and once this is done the loop will be connected from Spur 25 to Mackenzie Road on 341.\u00a0 On Phase I, still working on some easement acquisitions with Seaboard Construction and Georgia Pacific.<\/p>\n
Project 319 \u2013<\/u> Essentially complete with final payment in progress.<\/p>\n
Project 421 \u2013<\/u> All work is essentially complete with some final punch list items work to be done.\u00a0 The City has obtained a final change order request from the contractor, with the largest part of that request being concrete removal that was discovered under the roadway early on in the project, and the contractor has claimed a large expense in removing and disposing of that concrete.\u00a0 There was some additional discussion pertaining to the pricing, contract, liquidated damages, change orders, scope of work, etc.<\/p>\n
Project 503 \u2013<\/u> Have met with Glynn County and contractor to review submitted record drawings.\u00a0 Final completion documents received.<\/p>\n
Project 701 \u2013<\/u> Project is essentially complete, awaiting record drawings. A couple of punch list items to be completed.<\/p>\n
Project 702 \u2013<\/u> Increases in pumping capacity have been verified. Contractor working through final portions of project. Completion expected in May 2018.<\/p>\n
Engineering in Progress:<\/u><\/p>\n
Project 501 \u2013<\/u> Re-evaluation of project scope.\u00a0 Considering reformulating project rather than upsizing waterline in the loop on Alder Circle.<\/p>\n
Project 602 \u2013<\/u> Have requested County to bid project.\u00a0 Bid package being prepared.<\/p>\n
Project 702 \u2013<\/u> CCTV of Phase II Downstream gravity sewer section on Whitlock, 30\u201d RCP gravity sewer in poor condition, CCTV to be done to establish the actual condition of sewer line in order to determine options. Bloodhound LLC to do CCTV work. Phase III preliminary engineering near completion, working with Glynn County to finalize route on Canal Road.<\/p>\n
Project 703 \u2013<\/u> Reconsidering the de-commission of PS4003 and installation of gravity sewer.\u00a0 Work is extensive and costly.\u00a0 SPLOST allotment is $3.3M and budget for de-commission and gravity sewer is $6.8M.\u00a0 Under internal review.\u00a0 Staff states that for now it is being by-passed with a by-pass pump.\u00a0 Considering rehabilitation of pump station.<\/p>\n
Project 704 \u2013 <\/u>Nothing new to report.<\/p>\n
Project 705 \u2013<\/u> Nothing new to report.<\/p>\n
Project 804 \u2013<\/u> MOU approved earlier in Commission regarding engineering of project. Engineering to be complete within 7 to 8 months.<\/p>\n
Project 805 \u2013<\/u> 45-60 days for design to be complete and package prepared for bid on construction.<\/p>\n
Chairman Elliott inquired about 2032 and the collapsed pipe.\u00a0 Kirk Young provided a detailed description of the issues and work involved on the project.\u00a0 Chairman Elliott asked for a status of this project and any others that have issues like this at future Commission meetings. Kirk Young suggested that the various divisions have many projects going on that should be included and discussed for Commission updates.<\/p>\n
Mr. Junkin advised that the project report would include projects over $50K, and for those less than that to be considered maintenance projects, but updates will be provided as necessary.<\/p>\n
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\u2019S UPDATE<\/strong><\/p>\nMr. Junkin noted that some of the items on his update list were already discussed in the meeting today.\u00a0 He mentioned a reminder that the Budget and Rate Workshop will be on April 19th<\/sup>.<\/p>\nThe organization as a whole has to develop a strategic business plan. \u00a0Staff has worked on efforts and discussions have been had regarding the top ten attributes of a utility to be considered in this plan.\u00a0 He added that Mr. Burroughs has done assessments, developed a survey based on the top ten attributes, and did surveys with senior staff to come up with where the major areas are that need to be focused on.\u00a0 Mr. Burroughs is also developing a process to give strategic key performance indicators for various areas in the ten attributes, and is planning to get with senior staff to look at the history of those KPIs to understand the background of what has been done in the past, what the trends are, what past efforts have affected the business in a positive way, and to be able to provide to the Commission a strategic plan to show direction for monitoring, seeking improvement on a continuous basis in all areas of the organization, etc.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nCHAIRMAN\u2019S UPDATE<\/strong><\/p>\nChairman Elliott had no further update.<\/p>\n
EXECUTIVE SESSION<\/strong><\/p>\nChairman Elliott requested a motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting to enter into Executive Session to discuss litigation, and stated that there would be no vote.<\/p>\n
Commissioner Adams made a motion seconded by Commissioner Copeland to adjourn the Regular Meeting to enter into Executive Session.\u00a0 Motion carried 7-0-0. (Unanimous.)\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n
Return to Regular Session<\/p>\n
Commissioner Copeland made a motion seconded by Commissioner Harvey to return to the Regular Session.\u00a0 Motion carried 7-0-0. (Unanimous.)\u00a0<\/u><\/p>\n
There being no additional business to bring before the Commission, Chairman Elliott adjourned the open meeting at 4:34 p.m.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
For your consideration, please read the minutes from the Commission Meeting held on Thursday, April 5, 2018. Commission Meeting Minutes 4-5-18 with Attachments To read the minutes, please open or download the pdf from the link above, or you may see more below.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_members_access_role":[],"_members_access_error":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8755","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-commission-meeting-minutes"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8755"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8755\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8755"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8755"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goldenisleslepc.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8755"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}