(912) 261-7100    |   Contact Us

Commission Meeting Minutes – November 2, 2017

For your consideration please read the minutes from the Commission Meeting held on Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 2:00 p.m.

Commission Minutes 11-2-17 with Attachments

To read the minutes please open or download the pdf from the link above, or you may see more below.

Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission

1703 Gloucester Street, Brunswick, GA 31520

Thursday, November 2, 2017 at 2:00 PM 



Donald M. Elliott, Chairman

Clifford Adams, Vice-Chairman

Mike Browning, Commissioner

Steve Copeland, Commissioner

David H. Ford, Commissioner 

ALSO PRESENT:                 

Jimmy Junkin, Executive Director

Charlie Dorminy, Legal Counsel HBS

Andrew Burroughs, Deputy Executive Director

Todd Kline, Director of Engineering

Pam Crosby, Director of Procurement

John D. Donaghy, Director of Finance

Jay Sellers, Director of Administration 


Cornell L. Harvey, Commissioner

Robert Bowen, Commissioner                       

Chairman Elliott called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM.

Chairman Elliott provided the invocation and Commissioner Adams led the pledge.


Chairman Elliott opened the public comment period.

There being no citizens for public comment, Chairman Elliott closed the public comment period. 

Chairman Elliott requested a motion to excuse Commissioner Harvey from the Commission Meeting.

A motion was made by Commissioner Ford and seconded by Commissioner Copeland to excuse Commissioner Harvey from the November 2, 2017 Commission Meeting.  Motion carried 5-0-2.  (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were not present for the vote.)

Chairman Elliott then requested a motion to excuse Commissioner Bowen from the Commission Meeting.

No motion was offered to excuse Commissioner Bowen from the November 2, 2017 Commission Meeting.

There was a brief discussion regarding the number of unexcused absences from the Commission Meetings allowed for the Commissioners.  It was suggested that the policy on this matter should be researched for future consideration.  


Compliance & Legislative Committee – Commissioner Browning

There was no update at this time.

Facilities Committee – Commissioner Adams

There was no update at this time.

Finance Committee – Chairman Elliott

There was no update at this time.

Human Resources & Safety Committee – Commissioner Harvey

There was no update at this time.

 Public Information & Customer Relations Committee – Commissioner Copeland

There was no update at this time. 


In Process Review of Business Analysis for Academy Creek WWTP – J. Junkin / Jim Kizer, Constantine Engineering.

Chairman Elliott reminded the Commission that at the October 19th Commission Workshop session, the strategic vision was the subject and the purpose was to look at issues and be able to make decisions on what critical issues need to be addressed for the future within the collection and wastewater treatment of the water systems.  Part of that process included a look at Academy Creek, the technologies that need to be planned and the refurbishing of Academy Creek in the best interest of the community and the ratepayers.

Mr. Junkin advised that the vision included a look at the overall needs, changes in the organization, capital projects, and all aspects of the operations.  He then introduced Constantine Engineering as a qualified consultant who has the experience in process design of wastewater treatment facilities, and noted four of their key personnel and provided a packet containing information about some of their projects and history.  He mentioned the correlation between projects Constantine has done previously with what is needed at Academy Creek.  Commissioner Ford asked what exactly was the scope of their work and what were they asked to do.  Mr. Junkin advised that they are assessing the current condition of both Academy Creek and Dunbar plants, and then will advise what opportunities there are to optimize those facilities. He then introduced Jim Kizer, the president of Constantine and noted that he has done the lead work on this project, and his presentation of the technologies currently in place and what options there are for upgrading and the benefits thereof.  Chairman Elliott inquired as to how much of Constantine’s business is in water and wastewater utility design and construction.  Mr. Kizer advised that 80% of their work was in the water and wastewater area.  They are principally a water and wastewater design and consulting engineering firm and work for large and small municipalities. He noted that they have been in this business for over 30 years, and added that some of their staff have worked together since college and they built their firm around people who are leaders in the industry.  Commissioner Ford then asked about evaluating the alternatives and to what level Constantine is supposed to work them out?  Are they going to present the entire business case and go all the way down to the engineering design, or just presenting the alternatives?  Basically, to what level has Constantine been hired?  If we select an alternative, are we going to stick down this path to the final design, or is this report just going to give us a steering direction on what we want to do with the treatment plant?  Mr. Junkin advised that this report does not contain the final numbers, but is a very front end conceptual plan to be used as a business plan to direct JWSC where to go and is a steering analysis.  The final numbers will not be available until all of the construction design is done and operations are in place, due to the many variables that happen. Commissioner Copeland confirmed if Commissioner Ford’s question was to what level of engineering will be completed in order to come up with the numbers, a preliminary level or detailed engineering?  Mr. Kizer advised that this report does not contain detailed engineering and is all conceptual engineering to a level.  He added that they have run process models on the wastewater treatment plant and also ran spreadsheet models.  Constantine is currently working on six wastewater treatment plants that are in the design to construction phase, of which four of those are under construction right now, and they have good recent numbers for these projects and the costs associated with them. Those projects are very similar to what is being looked at in Brunswick. Commissioner Ford clarified that before an alternative selection is made, there has to be a better grasp of the cost, personnel changes (training, etc.), and what’s in the future. He also noted that all of this has to be included in a business case, and asked what the parameters of this report will be.  Mr. Junkin advised that the labor issues were not included in the report at this time, but that full training to the new technologies would certainly be done.  Commissioner Ford commented that everything needs to included in a full business case.  Mr. Kizer advised that normally when they perform these analysis for other clients, at this level they look at the 3 largest areas where there are costs of operating wastewater facilities, those being labor, chemical and power. At the Academy Creek facility there are additional parameters that need to be considered in the analysis, those being solids disposal and the purchase of liquid oxygen.  Since we are not planning to change the level of staff mix, the labor is not a significant change to be considered at this conceptual stage of the analysis. Mr. Kizer continued to discuss the various significant costs and changes that were considered in the evaluation. Commissioner Ford asked if the Commission would receive a full copy of the report.  Mr. Kizer advised they would. Commissioner Copeland noted that his idea of a conceptual engineering study would contain a conceptual diagram of the plant, a conceptual flow diagram, a summary of demolition costs, capital costs such as major equipment, O & M costs, and all the main components at a conceptual level, and the total of all those components with an estimated percentage for variation.  Mr. Kizer advised that especially when using some of the existing structures they typically run the contingency between 15 to 25%, but that on this project it will probably fall in the 20% range. Commissioner Copeland confirmed that the study for Academy Creek does include all of the components he had mentioned.  Mr. Kizer confirmed it did include a summary of all those components. He then presented and discussed the current state and processes of the Academy Creek WWTP in full detail. He explained the “Unox” process and how it is presently being used at the Academy Creek facility including the current design of the basins and equipment involved and the limitations of the current state. Chairman Elliott asked about the cause of the odor.  Mr. Kizer indicated that there is an open junction box and there is a flow coming from a 36” line from the North Mainland system and 36” line coming in from the South Mainland system.  In the South Mainland system there are some food processing facilities that discharge a high strength organic matter, there is no oxygen, and anaerobic activity occurs in the collection system where the bacteria breaks down that organic waste and forms sulfides.  The sulfides are then broken down by other bacteria that live in the walls of the pipe and this forms hydrogen sulfide, which gives off that “rotten egg” odor which comes from that junction box.  A solution to this was explained as a part of the study.  Mr. Kizer continued to discuss that the estimated current cost to run Academy Creek plant is $1.8M per year.  The cost to upgrade that plant is about $33M per year.  Chairman Elliott asked, “What is the impact of F.O.G. (Fats, Oils and Grease) that gets through the collection system and comes into the plant?”  Mr. Kizer noted that F.O.G. are discharged into the plant because people don’t maintain their grease traps, there are haulers that will discharge into the system and also residential discharge.  The temperature that the wastewater typically operate at congeals the F.O.G. and clogs the pipes and orifices on equipment, and it collects rags and debris. This matter then ends up in the basins and aerators and affects the efficiency of the treatment process and clogs up the pipes being a major problem causing additional maintenance and other issues. Commissioner Copeland asked about the process of the Academy Creek plant.  Mr. Kizer advised that it is the “Unox” process developed in the 1970’s by Union Carbide, and explained the process.  He then continued to discuss the recommended upgrades such as a new screen facility, reapportioning four of the clarifiers as primary clarifiers which would then be able to remove 50 to 60% of the soluble material, converting the “Unox” basins into anaerobic digesters which will no longer require oxygen, and other upgrades along with their advantages.  Commissioner Copeland questioned if the primary modifications are able to be accomplished while the plant is operating.  Mr. Kizer then discussed the planned order and staging of the modifications and keeping the plant operational. He also presented information on another plant upgrade project in Warner Robins, Georgia performed by Constantine.  Discussion then continued with permitting and scheduling. Commissioner Copeland asked about other projects that Constantine has been involved with and how the contracts are structured (the relationship) between the owner, the engineer and the contractor. Mr. Kizer responded that Constantine has done a variety of types of contracts to include traditional design contracting with the owner and then putting the construction project out for bid; assisting with identifying the low responsive responsible bidder; then helped with contracting that bidder; and providing a variety of additional services during the construction.  He named various types of other contracts Constantine has entered into and the services provided within.  Mr. Junkin then presented a Cost Break Analysis of the Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 (out of the total of 4 Alternatives) which appear to be the best options.  The operations cost and the capital costs for the two alternatives were projected out for a period of 30 years (the life of the bond). Commissioner Ford questioned as to what happened to Alternative 1 and Alternative 3, and wanted to know if it had already been narrowed down to Alternative 2 and Alternative 4, or were they going to discuss all of the Alternatives? Mr. Junkin responded that all can be discussed, but in essence it had been narrowed down to these two.  He continued to explain that Alternative 1 was to rehab the existing plant and keep the dryer which continues the cost of having to dispose of the dry solids produced.  Alternative 2 was to rehab the existing plant but dispose of the dryer.  Alternative 3 was to improve the technologies with the dryer, again with the same existing cost of disposal of the dry solids.  Alternative 4 includes rehabilitation of the plant, new technologies and does not include keeping the dryer.  Commissioner Ford indicated that all of the Alternatives needed to be discussed.  Chairman Elliott asked about the numbers on the initial investment costs and the O & M costs.  Mr. Kizer noted from the draft of the costs that costs for the Alternatives with the dryer included a cost of $15M for the new dryer system, which would put out the solids in a pelletized form.  The old dryer puts out a non-pelletized solid of which there is not a market for other than composting, of which people do not want to use.  The cost benefit of the pelletized solids is that they can be sold for $15 per ton to a company based out of North Carolina that has clients in this area that buy it, with the reason is that it is good for putting out in the fields when crops are young to keep the deer away. The operating cost of the old dryer is also higher than on the new dryer system. This makes Alternatives 1 and 3 to be less cost effective than Alternatives 2 and 4.  Commissioner Ford asked what the capital cost was for Alternative 2, and the response was about $33M.  He then asked what the capital cost was for Alternative 4, and the response was about $62M. Mr. Junkin referenced the line graph he provided for the Annual Cost Comparison of Alternatives 2 and 4 and noted that the annual cost of operating by going with Alternative 2 was much higher in  30 years than the annual operating cost of Alternative 4 (about $3.7M higher). Alternative 4 offers more advantages, better compliance, lower costs, flexibility in the future to expand, and is more resilient to hold up to certain situations such as major storms.  He continued that overall the 30 year loan with the upgraded technology was the better way to go. Even though Alternative 4 has the highest capital cost there were advantages discussed such as lower operating costs and the opportunity to sell services which make it appear to be the best choice. Chairman Elliott requested Mr. Junkin to produce for each of the commissioners and the public a complete document of the conceptual that lays out what we are going to purchase on the investment portion; have the chart from the original draft that lays out what the operating costs are; include the charts Mr. Junkin provided at this meeting; the information from Mr. Kizer and Constantine on the slide program; address some of what we know right now in terms of the labor force that is going to be required (even though this won’t change), estimated training costs, any licensing changes; and provide this in detail, even though it is part of the total $62M cost. Commissioner Ford requested that before any presentations to have the background information first.  He would like to have at least 3 or 4 days to review the business case first in order to understand and ask the questions he needs answers to for consideration.  Chairman Elliott asked about having the book for the Commissioners by the middle of the next week from Constantine.  Mr. Kizer indicated it would be a couple of weeks to complete them. Chairman Elliott noted concern about rushing too much.  Commissioner Copeland asked for them to include confidence intervals around the economics, at least broad numbers within the report detail.  Mr. Junkin advised they would get all the documents finalized and then have a special called meeting to discuss it again. 


  1. Minutes from the October 19, 2017 Regular Commission Meeting

Commissioner Browning made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the minutes from October 19, 2017 Regular Commission Meeting.  Motion carried 5-0-2. (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)

  1. Minutes from the October 19, 2017 Executive Session

Commissioner Browning made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to approve the minutes from October 19, 2017 Executive Session.  Motion carried 5-0-2. (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)

  1. JWSC Project #232 – SR 99/US 341/Green Swamp Rd. Water Main Extension Project Change Order #2– T. Kline

Todd Kline presented the recommendation for Change Order #2 for the Project #232 SR99/US 341 Water Main Construction. He advised that this capital project is currently under contract with Seaboard Construction Company, and that the scope of work is for a large amount of water main. He noted the project map as provided which indicated the divisions the project is broken into and that water main installation on Divisions IIA and III is complete.  Change Order #2 regards Division II and a requested change in methodology from open cut to Horizontal Directional Drilling.  Due to many unforeseen utility conflicts on Division II which were not shown on the original plans, JWSC along with the help of RGA redesigned this section to facilitate the water main installation along Highway 341 by obtaining easements from the Sterling Baptist Church and revising installation methods to Horizontal Directional Drill as opposed to open cut to receive G-DOT approval.  Mr. Kline continued to note that the contractor has produced a change order to facilitate the changes in methodology, and referenced Change Order #2 (Exhibit “B”).  Seaboard Construction also requested (Exhibit “C” as provided) $116,279.55, in addition to the pending costs for plan modifications, representing extra costs incurred by Seaboard due to delays incurred from utility conflicts, plan discrepancies, multiple remobilizations, as well as other documented losses including diminished production over the last 18 months. These extra costs when added to the pending methodology revisions of Change Order #2 equal a total of $134,356.64 for the request for approval.  This amount will cover all Seaboard losses at this time. Mr. Kline noted that there will be an expected two more Change Order requests within the total project, and also advised that the initial price of the contract along with the additional costs will still place the cost of the project to be below the opinion of probable cost estimate by RGA.  There was additional discussion with the Commission. Staff recommended that it is advantageous and beneficial to have the Contractor facilitate the installation of the new water main as proposed at this time while they are mobilized.  The pricing and plan proposed by the Contractor is consistent with other current work.

Commissioner Ford made a motion seconded by Commissioner Browning that the Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Water & Sewer Commission approve and authorize the Executive Director and Board Chairman to execute the additional pricing provided by Seaboard Construction Company to be processed as Contract Change Order(s) in the amount of $134,356.64.  Motion carried 5-0-2.  (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)

  1. Christmas Gift Cards for Employees – F. Wilson

Frances Wilson presented the background to the Commissioners that the Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission has in past years given employees a Christmas gift card as an expression of thanks for their service.  She noted that staff recommended that the BGJWSC provide employees a gift card in the amount of $25 to Walmart.  She added that the total number of gifts would be 155, which included 149 employees, 4 temporary employees hired through Express Services, and 2 extra cards.  The total cost of the purchase would be $3,875.00.

Commissioner Ford made a motion seconded by Commissioner Adams that the Brunswick-Glynn County Joint Water and Sewer Commission provide employees a gift card in the amount of $25 to Walmart. Motion carried 5-0-2.  (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)

  1. Surplus Property – 131 Shangri La Avenue – P. Crosby

Pam Crosby presented a recommendation for approval of surplus property at 131 Shangri La Avenue that is no longer of any use to the mission of the JWSC.  The property is not easily accessible by JWSC vehicles, and there are no lift or pump stations located on the site. It abuts up to a park owned by Glynn County. This is just a wooded piece of property, and Mrs. Crosby referenced a GIS map of the property location she provided for the Commissioners.  Commissioner Adams asked how much acreage the property was, and it was noted to be 1.28 acres.

Commissioner Ford made a motion seconded by Commissioner Browning declaring the property identified as 131 Shangri La Ave., Brunswick as surplus and authorizing its disposal in a manner most beneficial to the JWSC.  Motion carried 5-0-2.  (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)  

  1. Bond Counsel Award Recommendation – P. Crosby

Pam Crosby presented the Bond Counsel award recommendation to the Commission.  She advised the background that in preparation for a revenue bond issue, a team of professionals for the various roles to complete the bond transaction will need to be assembled.  She informed that in November of 2016, the JWSC selected Davenport & Company for the Financial Advisory Services role. Selecting the Bond Counsel is the next step in the process.  Mrs. Crosby added that a Request for Qualifications for Bond Counsel Services was released in September.   A committee of three comprised of the Executive Director, JWSC Legal Counsel, and the Finance Director reviewed the eleven (11) submissions that were received. The scoresheet was provided for the Commissioners’ review, along with a list of all submissions received. Commissioner Ford asked if the Commission was getting ahead of itself when it is not yet known how much money needs to be borrowed, and that it had been indicated to be about a six month process to obtain the bonds.  Mr. Junkin advised that the initial target date for bond issue had been set for March 1, 2018. He added that at this point, we are not obligating ourselves to spend any money, but are just selecting the attorneys that would be used at the point where the paperwork is ready to be put through. This is just a part of the process, not any part of a financial commitment.  Pam Crosby added that the Financial Advisors have looked at what the current ratings are and have provided suggestions of things that JWSC should be doing to maintain or improve those ratings.  One of the things that they did was to put together the schedule with the March date. This selection is just a part of the process that has to be done whether it is now or later. Commissioner Ford questioned what was actually being awarded at this time. Mrs. Crosby advised that the process of negotiations with the selected Bond Counsel would begin and their rates would be reviewed and the agreement process would begin. Nothing is being set to be paid at this time. This is a part of the total project and process for the bond issue. Mrs. Crosby noted that this recommendation is based specifically on qualifications in being able to provide full counsel services in the bond issue. There was further discussion by the Commission as to how the payment for Bond Counsel Services is made and when the payment is actually made.  The payment to the Bond Counsel is not made until the bond is closed out.  Charlie Dorminy, will be involved with the process. Typically the JWSC Legal Counsel will work with the recommended Bond Counsel, but the Bond Counsel duty is to JWSC.

Commissioner Browning made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford that approval be granted to award the contract for Professional Bond Counsel Services to Gray, Pannell & Woodard, LLP.  Motion carried 5-0-2.  (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)


  1. Hurricane Irma Recovery Support – P. Crosby

Pam Crosby presented an overview on the scope of work within an agreement that BGJWSC has entered into with Hagerty Consulting.  The agreement is for Hagerty to assist with putting together a project worksheet for the various categories of reimbursement, and to also determine projects for mitigation. These are projects for improvement and resiliency to help avoid the damages happening again in a similar situation.  She gave an example of an item being flooded during the past hurricane, and elevating it to avoid it happening again.  Mrs. Crosby advised that the Project Manager has been working with JWSC for about 3 weeks, and has a background with FEMA. The scoping meeting was held and the worksheets for potential projects have been started.  She noted that this should also help educate us in the process of disaster. An outline of the project proposal elements and scope of work was provided. This will help JWSC to prioritize which FEMA programs to apply under for the necessary projects.  There is a 60 day period for submitting all of the project requests, which is December 30 based on the date of the scoping meeting for Hurricane Irma.  The contract period with Hagerty Consulting is 90 days.  Chairman Elliott asked if there is any matching fund requirement for the projects, and Mrs. Crosby advised there were not.  It was confirmed that this was related to the mitigation efforts.

  1. Hurricane Matthew Reimbursement Update – P. Crosby / J. Donaghy

Regarding Hurricane Matthew, Pam Crosby noted that there had previously been a question regarding the amount of reimbursement from FEMA that had been filed for, how much had been collected, and where this stood.  A report was provided which broke down the data into different categories of damage claims that were associated, and the amount that were filed for in each. She added that the FEMA reimbursement was only for 75%.  JWSC had filed claims to FEMA in the amount of $417,338.39, and has collected $311,643.79 in reimbursements under the public assistance program.  There is one additional project that is open for mitigation for Hurricane Matthew.  

  1. Rate Model Analysis Update – J. Donaghy

John Donaghy presented the Rate Model Analysis Update to the Commission.  He noted that back in July work with Raftelis Financial Consultants had begun to develop a rate model.  Previously the rate models were done by Burton & Associates (later becoming Stantec), and they used a proprietary model which was more cumbersome and time consuming in the rate process, especially when looking at alternatives was necessary at budgeting times.  Mr. Donaghy added that the purpose of going with Raftelis was two-fold, first to construct a working model for the JWSC using our current rate structure and second to have Raftelis put together models using alternative rate structures whereby cost pools could be differentiated or combined, etc.  He noted that they recently met and reviewed various scenarios in order to put together several different models of scenarios with different rate structures. In response to a question asked by Commissioner Ford, Mr. Donaghy advised that previously with Burton & Associates, JWSC had to provide all of the information, numbers, demographics, etc. to them.  Burton & Associates would then, using their proprietary model enter all of the data and provide the results to JWSC, and JWSC did not have actual access to the working model.  Now, we have a model that belongs to JWSC that is functional and we can go in and enter the various data and numbers and will be able to do the rate computations.  JWSC will continue to work with Raftelis to continue to test the voracity of the model and make changes in it as necessary.  JWSC will have much more control over the inputs into the model and have it at our disposal at any given time that modifications are needed.

  1. GEFA Technical Assistance – A. Burroughs

Andrew Burroughs advised that back in January 2017 GEFA put out notice that people could apply for technical assistance in their water loss calculations to help improve the water loss audits and the reliability of those. There were parameters necessary to be met in order to apply.  BGJWSC was notified in April that we did meet those parameters and would be receiving some technical assistance. He added that the technical assistance did begin on Monday, and that Matchpoint out of North Carolina has been conducting leak detection surveys on the water mains and will be doing so for the next three weeks. Mr. Burroughs continued that BGJWSC was awarded seventy-five (75) miles of leak detection.  Staff reviewed and determined that the area from King and Prince to “R” Street, encompassing much of the downtown area that has some of the oldest pipes that may be in the worst shape.  Matchpoint will provide us with reports at the end of where they suspect the largest leaks are, and where we need to approach this going forward.  This requires no funds from the Commission and JWSC is not technically managing the contract.  The contract is with Cavanaugh & Associates through GEFA.

  1. Customer Service Update – J. Sellers

Jay Sellers began his presentation by noting that the standard is for 100% customer satisfaction, which doesn’t mean that every customer is going to leave here satisfied with the response that we give them.  The customer satisfaction level is a percentage of the calls offered (coming in to us) versus those that are answered, and this is gathered from the Mitel phone system. He noted that the call volume more than doubled from the first of this year to the summer, so the service level over those 2 periods dropped from about 65% to 28%, through no fault of the customer services representatives.  The aim will be to help better serve the customers overall, not just related to the call volume.  The focus has been on the walk-in traffic rather than the phone calls when there are customers in the lobby.  Mr. Sellers provided a visual chart indicating “Walk-ins Processed” and “Call Volume”.  He noted that the walk-in traffic has been rather steady, and about 16% of our customers are walk-ins.  On the average from January 2014 up to July 2016, there were 2,400 calls per month with 70% being answered and 30% not being answered.  From August 2016 to July 2017, there were about 2,550 calls per month with 69% being answered and 31% not being answered.  From August 2017 to Present, there have been about 6,371 calls per month with only 36% being answered, and 64% not being answered.  There was some additional discussion pertaining to the types of calls included in these numbers.  Mr. Sellers recommended that a call center be staffed by six part-time personnel that will answer calls but not process payments.  They will work a maximum of 3 per 8 hour shift, will rotate, and each will work no more than 24 hours per week.  As part-time personnel, they will not be eligible to receive benefits such as medical, dental or vacation days.  Chairman Elliott questioned if the personnel policy will require changes to include this, and Jay replied that the policy would need to be changed since there is nothing in the policy regarding part-time personnel and their not receiving benefits. It was confirmed that this needs to be presented to the Human Resources Committee, and then the next Commission Meeting. The existing customer service representatives will also continue to take calls in between walk-in customers.

Chairman Elliott requested a motion to move the Discussion Item #6, R & R Capital Projects Update to the next Commission meeting.

Commissioner Browning made a motion seconded by Commissioner Ford to move the Discussion Item #6 to the next Commission meeting.  Motion carried 5-0-2. (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote.)


Mr. Junkin noted that on November 14 and 15 he would like for some of the staff members to go to the Ft. Walton Wastewater Treatment Plant, and he also invited any of the Commissioners to attend.  He then noted that as a matter of public information, Scott Ryfun has been invited to come to BGJWSC to do a live feed from this location to allow the public to call in with any questions that the staff may answer. 


Chairman Elliott noted that BGJWSC now has the capability to have the meetings live on Facebook.  He asked for any objections to this, and there were none.


Commissioner Ford made a motion seconded by Commissioner Copeland to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss potential litigation issues.  Motion carried 5-0-2 (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote).

The Chairman stated that there will be no vote after the Executive Session.

Return to Regular Session.

Commissioner Adams made a motion seconded by Commissioner Copeland to return to the Regular Meeting.  Motion carried 5-0-2 (Commissioner Harvey and Commissioner Bowen were absent for the vote).

There being no additional business to bring before the Commission, Chairman Elliott adjourned the open meeting at 5:22 p.m.

Stay in the know.

Sign up to receive updates on boil water advisories, bid opportunities, billing notifications, and more. 

Brunswick - Glynn Joint Water & Sewer Commission - 1703 Gloucester Street Brunswick, GA 31520 - 912-261-7100