This is a big picture thing again about um maybe some redundancy, but just more per cart, some some the additional cards for some users, right?

Here's what some of that language looks like again years out as we as we continue to support the best service in the state.

Commercial proposed uh fees, um same same thing, some granular increases to have support our growing operation from commercial services, um equipment and the needs of community for those business owners getting dumpsters, roll-off containers, and roll carts.

It's a little small, but it just talks about some more fees over time.

Um based on the same models.

Um I won't go through the entire presentation because again it's just it gets granular and granular and granular.

I want to kind of stay stay focused on the biggest impact, and we've come to you with is the residential fees, and that's where we are.

Um so let's go back here.

It's a great place to kind of land on as we further our conversation.

Oh at this point, uh, and what I'd like to just share, and we did um review the proposal that was presented relative to a discount for um for households within a two-mile radius, and we have some some numbers there.

That's not something that we are recommending.

Um, and you'll see the fiscal impact, and then there's a city um uh proposal that is something that we may be able to consider in 2026.

Uh but would the uh we would want the board to approve something that it would come on automatically in 2027 unless we came back and uh requested that it not okay.

But those are just some some thoughts.

Are you basically saying sorry, Zach?

You're basically saying uh propose the rate increase, but it takes effect for the municipalities in 27 and they've got more time to correct uh prepare their budgets for that.

Correct.

And and then hopefully we've we've made the the point over time uh in our discussions that you know the sanitation department um like many other uh departments, but it has had need.

Uh we have done those things possible to reduce operating cost uh with the whether it's reduction to one day a week, um, you know, those those types of things.

So we we've squeezed the efficiency we believe out of the system.

But we're at a point uh whether it's the rising cost in fuel, whether it's the rising cost of employees, that in order to keep up and sustain and maintain um the department, uh we just need this this rate increase to move forward.

So okay.

Um I guess to take this one slice at a time.

Could you go back to the uh projected to deficit screen?

I think it was page two or three.

Yeah.

Okay.

Some with all the bar graphs.

Yeah, no, go back to going back.

Uh nope, not those bar graphs.

I'll just hand it to him and quick messing with this.

Yeah.

I got right there.

Okay.

So um again, uh, just for those who are uh at home watching, um, and commissioners are already knowledgeable about this.

If we did nothing, 2027, it looks by your information, Director McKinney, that the county is facing just about a 31 million dollar deficit, uh, and then 28 at balloons to almost 66 million.

Am I reading those?

Absolutely.

That is correct.

Okay.

And so um, and I'm just sort of recapping what's been talked about.

Y'all came to us with a 25% rate increase, and we said that might be a bit dramatic for our residents, and then you came back with two fifteen's yes, uh, followed by uh uh eight uh pardon me uh uh 10 percent for the next eight eight years after that.

So that's uh a way that we'll hopefully keep the uh or get the balance uh in the positive for uh the enterprise fund.

Um so this is sort of where where I'm at uh commissioners, uh commissioner uh Terry, are you questions, comments, and we're gonna just keep it if it's okay right now, focused on just the conversation of the rate increase itself, and then we're gonna get into your proposal after that.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I have did you get this right here?

So what I'm handing out is just the um the proposals that I brought up at the um town hall meeting in the last uh committee meeting.

And so um I've just I've got them all laid out here, so happy to um go over these potential policies at the right time.

So I don't know if you want to use the question itself of of the rate increase, no other you you know what you know, and there's no need to go into more.

Is that fair to say?

I have no questions on the presentation.

Cool, okay.

I'm good.

Uh Commissioner Johnson, any questions on the presentation itself or the proposed rate increases?

No additional questions.

I think we've talked through them in the previous presentations we've had.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um what I would like to do is let's go ahead, if y'all are comfortable, vote on 9 30.

Um and then we're gonna go to the top of page two for Commissioner Terry's uh 25-1787 discussion.

Um and then we'll come back to uh page one for the um the uh stormwater utility fee conversation.

So y'all are good with that.

I'll open up the floor for conversation or motion on the proposed rate increase before us.

Move to approve item 0930.

Okay, got a proper motion.

Uh uh second for purpose of discussion.

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner Terry.

Uh we've got uh the clock.

Are you gonna time me?

No need to for time.

I mean, I don't think we time people at committee meetings, but if we're gonna start doing that, then prepare for me to protest every single committee meeting.

Just to be honest, like we've we've got uh six pages of items, and I want to move through them.

You know, like you it's only 500 million dollars over 20 years.

I do want to spend five minutes talking about it.

I'm the chair, I'd ask for the respect that the chair is entitled, and I will give you the respect that you're entitled as my colleague.

All right, well, I'm just pointing out that if we're gonna make a big decision about it, we probably should spend some time on it and not rush it.

We're going to do that.

Okay.

Sorry, I just heard something about we have more important things to work on.

Apparently.

So let me see if I can go through this and efficient process.

Um, because by the way, this was just brought to us like a month and a half ago.

So, you know, I appreciate that if some folks take years to digest information before they can make a decision.

I had you know a matter of weeks to go through this.

But I put together a package because I'm a full-time commissioner and I spend time, I use critical thinking skills, I do research, I talk to the committee, I asked for their feedback.

We had a town hall meeting, people gave us ideas and feedback.

So I've incorporated that into my proposals.

I don't think we should move forward with this agenda item as is.

I thought there was gonna be an opportunity for amendments, but you just jump right into the the vote.

Um so my first policy proposal is to change the minimum scale fee.

I've outlined that right here.

We shouldn't have just a catch-all for anything over 250 pounds.

It should it should be staggered.

Um so I've used Rome, Georgia as a uh a similar example, but this basically would just set a zero to two fifty rate, a two fifty to five hundred, a five hundred to seven fifty, a seven fifty to a thousand, and then a thousand plus and a two thousand plus.

And so it just is a more equitable way to look at small amounts of garbage from decab residents um that might be dropped off, um, not having to pay a high minimum fee.

Um we've discussed the the tire tip fees.

I don't know if that made it into the because I don't I don't have that documentation here, but if we're gonna raise the tire fee, do not pass this legislation because it's already resulting in more tires ending up in our neighborhoods and our creeks and our streams.

So the recommendation from our own staff is 350 for any tire under 18 inches, 16 tires over 18 inches, $30 if the tire has a rim.

So that's number two.

Uh we've gone we've have discussed the um the environmental equity program that would have a discount based on how close that you live uh to the landfill.

I have put in a projected fiscal impact to that.

Um it comes out to 1.4 million dollars.

Um if every single person, you know, that could qualify applies.

And it that's not 100% certain because some might either not apply, be absentee landlords, um, renters, etc.

So it's really dependent upon who applies to the program.

Number four, uh, we have at the last rate increase, we agreed that we would do a composting facility, and we have not done that yet.

And the issue is it just took so long to begin the study that we're just now like beginning the study at Pole Bridge as we're talking about the next rate increase.

So what I want to see is just a commitment to build a compost facility.

And it doesn't have to be a pole bridge, it could be wherever.

To me, it seemed like the the greatest opportunity at Polbridge doesn't work out is that this the seminal road landfill when we get our uh EPD air permit renewed, that we have those conversations with them.

So I'm just looking for some commitment to composting because composting will reduce the odors at the landfill.

That's just something the EPA has said is a best practice policy.

So this relates to the individuals.

Um, you know, approximately 10,000 households that live within that half mile, you know, stink zone of the landfill.

So I think we should just be incentivizing more composting and more food diversion.

Um so that's the fourth policy.

The fifth policy is the incentivization for the cities.

Um we have talked with Shambley, Avondale, and City of Decatur.

They are already in talks with a compost vendor to provide a citywide composting curb side program for their residents, which is fantastic.

Um diverting that from the landfill is good for the landfill, like I pointed out.

Um it would reduce some of the tonnage, it wouldn't be a one-to-one.

Um, but we do believe that it's an important incentive, and it also allows for the cities to have a more reasonable tip fee for their overall garbage.

Um I would, you know, accept some, you know, MOU language act that just said they have to have an MOU with the county solid waste department that basically just sets metrics for achieving that composting percentage over the next several years.

Um I might say that we don't we don't do it where if they I think what you were saying is if they don't do it by 2027, then 2028 goes into effect automatically.

I might just reverse it and just say if they don't do it, then we would vote to increase the um the tip fees.

Um but I'm open to discussion on that one.

Um we did hear from several individuals who are worried about fixed income seniors, and so we did reach out to the tax commissioner's office and we asked for the analysis of all of the senior homestead exemption uh properties.

Okay.

Am I being okay?

I can't even see the clock, so I mean I don't even know what when the time is.

I mean, that's that's another skill we gotta learn in life.

Is that was that five minutes.

Any other questions?

Any comments?

I think the only comment I have on the synopsis of these proposals.

Some of these items I feel like we have time to work through because they're not directly tied to the rate increase.

Um the one for the senior exemption, I I feel like that's not a bad idea, but that's gonna take a lot of work to get to that point.

So with the where we are in our timeline, I'm afraid I don't know that we have time to flush out all of this, and then has any of this been sent to the administration so they can start working on the numbers?

I know you just handed this to us, but were you able to get this to them before that?

Yeah, they have all these information, but remember we got this proposal a month ago.

So I mean, you're telling me I need to give them time, but they haven't given us time.

So who's in charge here?

You know, they're gonna be able to do that.

Again, my question is by waiting to the last minutes.

Simple if if you had been able to give them this.

Yeah, within the last week, within the last year.

That's all I was asking, sir.

Um so again, I'm not opposed to some of these items.

I think some of them can be worked on.

I don't know that they are can necessarily tie to uh pending vote on the increase.

I I'm in I think I'm in favor of the senior rate increase, but or the senior discount, but I think we need to do the research to make sure it's uh something that can be done.

And yes, there is a short timeline on this, and that is my concern that I think we should do the research so that maybe it's not implemented this year, but we could get it for next year because we're so close to a tax bill deadline.

Whether we increase this or not, that tax bill deadline is looming before us, and we have to make those hard decisions.

So those are my comments.

Thank you.

I yield.

Okay.

Commissioner Terry, three minutes.

All right.

So I did do the research on the last page.

Um there are 15,000 H4 senior homestead exemptions for unincorporated, 6795 through H6, H8 exemption, 146, and H9, 2,912.

Um, and then I did the analysis.

Um the tax commissioner uh we asked for how many senior exemptions are there.

Uh H4 is the biggest one, that is the low income one.

Um, and my understanding of this is simply how we decide to tax individual parcels.

So if the if the county knows that the rate increase will go into effect, except for these identified parcels that are already in the task commissioner's record, the tax commissioner is the one that sends out the bill, we simply tell them to charge a different rate.

So I I don't think there needs to be any more research done.

We have all the information the task commissioner knows who these people are.

If we indicate which parcels based on their exemption should qualify, and what I'm proposing is we just don't raise their rates this year.

We have a one-year pause on those rates.

We can reconsider it next year.

So I'd like for this year for those approximately 20,000 residents, seniors on fixed incomes, disability, there's a veterans uh exemption that we uh we pause uh for this year.

Okay.

A uh I guess a question.

I know that the county had worked on a senior exemption program years in the past, and uh that that that had some legal challenges, legal difficulties.

Is that right?

So the there had been, and I believe there still exist a program where seniors who were signed up years ago.

I mean, this this program has not had new sign-ups to my knowledge in the past 13 years since I've been here.

Right.

Um, but it did exist, and there are a number of participants in that program where they get either a discount or or something.

So there is uh some senior um uh discount that has been applied for the last 10, 15 years or more.

Um but can I respond to each of the other?

If you would please, yes.

Yeah, so the compost facility, which was a commitment that we had made last time, we envisioned that that would continue.

Um so we had no intention of changing our commitment.

Um, and I think we are now uh moving in that direction uh more earnestly.

The tires program, I think we can definitely look at that.

Our goal would be to uh greatly reduce um the cost of tires um because quite frankly, we're coming up with another strategy that will hopefully divert tires from uh the the being collected by us.

The scale fee, I think is something that we can take a look at.

I don't know that that you know it can be handled separately, but if we were to include it here, I don't know that these numbers are going to make a significant impact.

Um the city incentive, um I think that's something that you know we would really want either this time, you know, we implement the rate increase, and either the city has um you know lived up to certain expectations or they would automatically receive the rate increase because we did forego a rate increase for the cities last time.

So you know, I would just want that automatic.

The environmental deduction, uh, that's just something that we're not prepared to support.

And um an expanded senior thing, we would just want more time to to look at that um and maybe even compare some of this data to what already exists in terms of um what is already being applied.

Okay, all right.

Um so that being said, really the the question that's before us is um agenda item 2026-0930.

This is for all commission districts, sanitation department increases of commercial and residential landfill fees uh and transfer station tipping fees.

So uh we have a proper motion, we may have a proper second.

Um ready to take a vote, let's take the vote.

I'm ready.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

All right.

Well, we got that.

All those opposed, lake sign.

Okay.

Uh we got that two to one.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh next uh don't go away.

So Commissioner Terry had also asked about the um agenda item 2026-0744 for all commission districts, a resolution adjusting all DeCab County tire tip fees to one dollar.

And I believe Commissioner Terry had said that was not a hard number.

I think a 350 was the high end that you were willing to consider.

Um is that something that we can yes?

I think we've run the numbers and it was a nominal impact.

Um plus, as I articulated, we are looking to do all that we can to divert tires to another strategy.

So if we were to reduce even down this low, I don't think that would be much of a problem.

Okay.

All right.

Commissioner Terry.

I mean, the resolution is simply asking the administration to put this in item 0930, but we just approved 0930.

So this would be a writer.

So it it gets added in either way.

Yeah, if you if you approve it, then we would just amend, or you know, we yes.

However, but it doesn't need to be is this resolution to be approved by the full board before we I mean what what's the order of operations here?

I and I'm gonna you know make it up as I go, but I think if you approve this in committee, we're in agreement that it's fine.

We would simply show the tire fee at one dollar in 0930, if that's okay with everyone.

Well, it's um it's uh I'm recommending um based on staff's research, uh three three fifty for any tire under 18 inches, sixteen dollars over eighteen inches, thirty dollars if it has a room.

So that's so there's three different um we could incorporate parts of it.

Okay.

So I will open the floor for a motion.

Uh Commissioner Johnson, I'm sorry, any questions or comments?

No, uh it sounded clear that administration was okay with this one, so no questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Terry, got a motion.

Okay.

Uh motion to approve item 0744 as amended with uh as amended based on what I just said 350 for any tire under 18 inches, 16 tires over 18 inches, 30 dollars if it has a room.

Second for the point of discussion.

Okay, uh proper motion, proper second.

Commissioner Johnson.

So please go ahead.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So tell me so you're reading those adjusted is what was in this.

That's what you're repeating from?

Yeah, number two.

Okay, thank you.

I yield, thank you.

All right.

Um unless there's any other questions or conversation, I'll open the floor from well, we already opened the floor for motion.

All those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, we got that.

Three zero.

All right, and then we're gonna hop over to um page two, and we're gonna uh talk about agenda item 2025-1787 for all commission districts, a resolution to enhance environmental equity and sanitation practices in DeCab County.

Um Commissioner Terry.

I know we've you've presented this.

Is there anything else that you want to add to the conversation at this time?

Well, I'll just say that I mean if the administration is concerned about revenues and you know, sort of the the overall impacts, um, you know, the zones were really based on you know, just staff research.

Um Mr.

Allen worked with us on just you know trying to come up with something that was equitable.

Um but if we simply just made the discount for those who live a half mile from the landfill, which is really close, um we're talking about 3200 households.

And so it's about half of it's about 517,000 is our projections.

Um so if if the committee doesn't like the whole package, which would be 1.2 million fiscal impact for the two miles.

Um I mean I'm open to other you know tweaks to it, uh but I mean I think the idea is that if you live directly around the landfill, I mean you you smell it a lot.

And um and so I have half of these are my constituents.

I have half the landfill.

And so I'm just looking out for them because um they have been complaining about it for many, many years and have asked mainly for us to shut down the landfill, which I don't think is practical, um, but I would like to provide some relief for those who are experiencing um what is a very difficult situation.

All right.

Um Mr.

Williams.

Thank you.

I definitely uh respect the commissioner's position.

Um but you know our recommendation is not to approve uh this item.

Commissioner uh Johnson, any comments?

Yeah, question um Mr.

Williams.

So I know the recommendation is not to approve, but did you have the opportunity to look at the numbers and the data that was provided?

Right.

So the numbers and and I know the Commissioner Terry just provided an additional assessment going uh kind of varying.

What we looked at uh was an impact, I want to say starting at about call it 1.5 million a year, and then we took it out 10 years, I believe, and it looks something like 24 million dollars over the term.

So, you know, we if if we re-ran the numbers, it would be less, but I don't know that you know, although it'd be a lesser impact, it would still be an adverse impact um to the fund.

And I and quite frankly, we just kind of see this as something different than maybe the other proposal on seniors or something like this.

This also may have kind of a precedent um a policy precedent, which it's if the board makes policy, but not one that we would recommend.

Yes.

So I thank you for that.

And I think part of my concern is if we are giving a discount to those who are living within a certain radius of the landfill, um, solid waste users that are outside that radius, are they gonna have to pick up that slack and might be making up that difference and how they're paying for it.

So I don't feel like it's equitable for all of the users of the Solid Waste Service, and since it is an enterprise fund, I don't know that this might not be the best way to try and achieve what Commissioner Terry is trying to achieve and not place a burden on somebody else.

So those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

Commissioner Terry.

Yes, um, there are many different ways to look at this issue, and it just requires us to be creative and to think about the ultimate impact.

Um so one other idea would simply to pause the rate increases for those who live directly around the landfill.

Um that would be one way to lessen the burden.

Um the reason why I'm making a big deal about this is because four years ago we were supposed to do a compost facility, and I met with residents around the landfill, and I said, the research says that we can reduce landfill odors by diverting food waste.

And they said, Great, that sounds great.

We would love it if you could find ways to reduce the odor that we have to smell every time we go out of our front door or in our backyard.

And because we didn't do the compost facility work for four years, they're looking at me being like, Did y'all so you just you just lied to us?

You just you see you voted for this but didn't do it.

I mean, this is like at the end of the day, when we say that we're going to do something, especially when we're because like that was in the rate ordinance.

I mean, it was something that we voted on that was in the rate ordinance, it is a law, and we did not do it.

So I just I mean, what am I left with but other to have to have out some other solution to deal with what you know about 3,000 residents who live directly around the landfill are dealing with?

So it's just you know, trust in government, not necessarily our government, but when people say do they you trust government, people don't trust government.

Federal, state, local, they just don't trust government.

So every time we say we're gonna do something and then we don't do it, especially when it impacts someone's lives, that person says, there you go, that's just government again.

They say one thing, they do another.

So I you know, I didn't want to have to do this.

I thought the appropriate policy was to do composting, but it just didn't happen yet.

And it's just we've taken so long to do it.

Now we're at this point where we're asking for an increase, and the last increase, the residents have nothing to show for it.

Like they've they paid for it, you know, through all the you know, the different fees, and they're not getting anything out of it.

All right.

Commissioner Terry, you're you're you're done.

You've stated your stuff.

Okay, all right.

Uh Zach, can you respond to those?

I I don't know that I have any any specific contribution, uh additional contribution to the conversation.

Okay.

Uh you've heard my recommendation, but one of the things I would say that the rate increase in the past has covered is just the continuing service.

So unfortunately, I mean, we're not asking for rate increases to enhance the service, but as the cost of fuel, health insurance, employees, just all the things that a business, you know, business costs.

Um, and so that's that's all we're looking to cover.

Um yeah, no, I uh I agree uh to the statement that there's nothing to show.

The the the difficulty is is uh we have good service, and I can only speak for district one, uh, but the level of service in district one from Dunwoody uh to Tucker to unincorporated district one, uh the residents are generally very happy with the level of service.

Um and so uh the rate increase benefit was everything continued, and you didn't have concerns with the failing service.

We have an actually uh high-level, high quality level of service that's delivered to the residents.

And so uh that's really the the aim and the goal of this.

Um as was stated, part of the objectives of this rate increase is to pay for the closing of one cell and the construction of another cell.

Uh and we are sort of in a time-constrained situation.

Uh if we do no action, which is a which is an option, um the realities are is that we will have a financial deficit and we would also have um a problem with one cell being full and not having time to build out the other cell.

Um, you know the the overall concern I have with giving discounts for any group.

And and this sort of gets to the larger conversation that we're having in the state of Georgia at the governatorial race, the notion that um it's free.

Someone else pays for it.

And I don't have to worry about the cost, but I get the service nonetheless.

And and the difficulty at the local level is is uh we're not the Federal Reserve, we don't print money.

We're not the state, we don't have 16 billion dollars that we're sitting on.

Uh and at the end of the day, uh our own policy say that we maintain a 12-month excuse me, a a one-month, one-twelh of our annual budget uh reserve.

There's not a lot of slack.

If we were to have another great recession level event, the county would be in a in a tough situation.

And and those are some of the financial realities.

Um when tax time comes around, April 14, everyone has to make a true up check to the government.

Nobody wants to do that.

I certainly don't want to do that.

But um I appreciate the services from the city of Doraville, Dunwoody, when I be living there, to Cab County.

Um it it takes money to operate a government, and if you want quality, it does take money to do that.

Um, the handout that someone gave to us uh showing the projections for the two discounts that are being suggested over 10 years, that's almost 40 million dollars.

And we're if we do nothing, we're looking at a 40 million dollar deficit next year.

Pardon me, a 31 million dollar deficit.

So um it may not be appropriate for this round, but it may be that there are things that can be worked in for any of the suggestions for discounts.

Uh I I do recall with the the previous director uh telling me about the some of the problems that happened with the discount program that happened the last time the county put that together uh and that it created some type of a legal challenge.

And so I don't want the county to end up being in another legal challenge.

Um again, that's my perspective.

Um commissioners, unless there's anything else to add.

Uh Commissioner Terry, please go ahead.

Yeah, I'll just um just clarify.

So um the resolution isn't giving anyone free service.

I mean, it was a discount.

So just let me clear.

And the the resolution is not saying you get free service.

Um I appreciate that you brought up the 40 million over 10 years.

I did just say though that if you just did zone one, it would make that number a lot smaller.

Yeah.

So please please, please, please just notice that I'm trying to offer compromises.

And I'm I'm hoping that someone will say, oh, that's reasonable.

You've met me in the middle, as opposed to going off in a totally different direction and somewhat mischaracterizing what I've said.

Um the other proposal that I just said was we could just pause the rate increase for those who live directly around the landfill.

That would be a much smaller fiscal impact.

So I've offered up two potential changes to this resolution that I think would be a smaller fiscal impact that would still accomplish the goals of this resolution.

And as with all pieces of legislation, Commissioners, I'm open to amendments, but it the legislative process does not work if no one is willing to work on those amendments.

If you just say you don't like it and you vote it down, then it either says that you're unwilling to work with your colleagues, or you don't understand what the amendments I'm putting forward are trying to do.

And so I hope I've been clear here, because I've repeated it several times just for clarity.

Okay.

Could could mean that democracy is in action when you have a majority vote.

Just saying.

Okay, Commissioners.

We've uh we have uh I believe we've got a proper motion and we have not had a motion.

Okay, so open the floor for a motion on agenda item 2025-1787.

Motion to deny.

Okay.

Is there a second?

I'll go ahead and second.

Uh all those in favor of the denial, raise your hand and say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed, please like sign.

Okay.

All right.

We're gonna switch back to page one.

Uh this is a good one.

Mr.

Chair, I was I'm yes, I'm opposed to that.

Motion.

Sorry, say again.

I was I voted.

Uh yay for the opposition.

He was confirming that he'd voted against.

Okay.

I thought you had noted that.

Yeah, I did.

I did.

Uh uh two four, one against uh duly noted.

Um all right.

So uh we're gonna go back to page one.

We've got public works, roads, and drainage.

Uh we have agenda item 2026-0587.

This is for all commission district.

This is the proposed stormwater utility fee increase.

Uh Zach.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Chairman.

This item uh has come before the commission or the the uh committee on a few occasions, including the town hall meeting, and so we're gonna have a very similar discussion to what we've had.

Um the issues are quite frankly very simple, um, and they were articulated in the master plan, the stormwater master plan that we shared about a year or so ago, uh, which is that there is significant need, and it's the need continues to grow.

We're proposing what is quite frankly a modest increase, um, although the percentage may look fairly, you know, 10%, but it's uh modest overall, because I believe it's about a dollar a month.

Um, but in order to maintain this system uh and and to keep up with the uh cost as well as implement a meaningful capital program, uh we need this increase.

Uh so uh Mr.

Gruole, I will give a brief, very brief presentation because I know you have a lot of other things to tend to.

Yep, okay.

Rich, good to see you.

I was just back there looking at the radar.

We're about to have a stormwater day.

Yeah.

We've got a remnant storm about to hit within the hour.

So just uh I I've got the presentation from last week's pub town hall.

If we need to go back to that, I just threw a couple slides together uh based on Zach's request, just to kind of reiterate what the plans are to use the funds for.

Uh again, just continue maintaining the current existing infrastructure, uh implement the master plan, service the debt from the GIFA loan that the commission approved a couple of years ago.

Um, and then kind of moving beyond that, uh the provide for the debt coverage in order to have the funds to secure the uh what they call the SWIFT B loan, which is going to address the 30 million dollars in uh needs for existing dams in the county, uh as well as fund future capital uh and renewal of the systems, provide for regional green infrastructure opportunities and just offset uh impacts over time.

And then there at the bottom, just a reminder of what we told uh the public in the in the town hall that you know the funding priorities are promote safety uh for life and and the property, avoidance of isolated and trapped communities, uh minimize displacement arrives and businesses and traffic disruption and inconvenience to try to avoid that as well.

So just uh kind of bring this down just kind of a little less ethereal.

Um as you know, for Snapfinger, we uh have been looking at the critical infrastructure, and that's just uh shows you some of what we're looking at, about a thousand pipes of those.

Uh they went out and did uh actual visual inspections of those assets, and you can see about 155 of them were marked to be in poor or inoperable condition.

Um and this just kind of shows you a smattering of where they are again in the central part of the the county.

Um this is just uh an example from one of our dashboards.

You can see uh the photo there in the uh kind of right middle area.

Uh that's just an example of a pipe, Corgate mail pipe that's failing.

The bottom of the of the pipe is is missing because it's rested out.

It's just hit it's the end of its age.

Um so what we did was of those thousand assets again, 155 or so were found to be in poor condition.

So we said let's separate the big potatoes from the little potatoes of the poor.

We are of all those poor uh assets conditioned assets.

We ran models on them just to see how they're performing from a performance standpoint, and what we found was the ones that you're seeing here, those dots on the screen, are ones that were performing at less than a 25-year storm event.

That means they're more likely to overtop or flood.

Um we're recommending those for what we call capital improvement projects where they would actually be uh dug up and replaced with larger infrastructure to improve the performance and reduce the flooding.

So this is just an example.

Um this is Meadowbrook Chase.

Uh there's just a pipe there at the at the entrance to the subdivision.

You can see there in the the image on the on the bottom left.

That's that's all the homes have to go over that that pipe.

That's why it's considered critical.

So if it collapses, it would create a big hole in the in the main road going back to all those homes.

So the recommendation is to uh increase the performance from a current five-year level of service to a hundred-year level service, which is the current county standard.

We're looking at about $379,000 ish, we think.

No known flooding complaints on this one, just the risk to the run.

Similar type scenario here is another one.

Christian Springs Drive, again, another what we call single ingress egress, where it's the only way in and out of the neighborhood.

Current two-year level of service, proposed hundred-year, uh much larger system, so it's considerably more expensive to replace.

In this particular case, there are known flooding complaints.

The resident uh at the home that you see there on the right has complained about water going in his um in his garage, I believe, uh, because the water has to stage up behind his house uh if it can't get through the pipe system and then uh flows out onto the red through the through that property.

So just some examples.

Now I mentioned there was 155 assets, that was only 36 locations.

The other ones uh are operating at a 25 year or greater level of service, so the risk of flooding is is lower.

So in that particular case, we're recommending pipelining, which is just we basically kind of form a pipe inside the pipe and extend the service life.

Uh it's much less intrusive, we don't do a lot of digging.

Um it's a lot cheaper, and of we've found about 70 locations where we're recommending lining.

So that gets us up to all our poor conditioned pipes.

Um in addition to that, I know you guys have heard me talk about this before.

Um there are um over 200 detention ponds that are owned and or maintained by the county.

Um we've done some analysis on those.

Um about 30% of them we're saying can probably just be decommissioned because they're not providing a great benefit, uh, but there are some that we think could be modified to provide better service, and then some of them um we don't think are providing a lot of flood benefit, but we'd think they're great opportunities for uh boosting water quality.

The rest of them we're saying the risk of downstream flooding is enough that we probably should continue to operate them as uh ponds.

In addition to that, and this is kind of the next level, and I don't think we've shown this to you guys yet.

Um this is where we're starting to look at regional and green infrastructure opportunities.

This is kind of give you an idea of what we're talking about.

That's Memorial Drive at 285, it's where the jail is.

Yep.

Um looking at doing some combined stuff there, uh kind of going beyond just standard pipe repair.

In addition to that, I've also mentioned that we are looking up in the northern area of the county as well.

This is uh Peachtree Creek, Norfork, South Fork, and the Peach Tree.

Um this is just a screenshot from our dashboard.

But this is as of this morning, about 10 o'clock.

You know, we've got about half the infrastructure looked at there, again, another thousand pipes.

Um just another example of what we're seeing, another screenshot from the dashboard.

So with that, um I'm gonna pause because I know you all got a very busy agenda and okay.

Thank you, Rich.

Appreciate that.

Um again, commissioners.

Uh we had the town hall where this was talked about.

Uh, we're sort of generally very knowledgeable, but uh, we'll open the floor if there's any Commissioner Terry.

Any questions for staff?

Yes, thank you, Ms.

Chair.

Um Zach, I was looking for the actual ordinance draft, and we don't we don't have that in our um packets.

We didn't have it on the sanitation one either, by the way.

Okay, yeah.

So I just think it's best practices because this is a rate increase.

It is an ordinance, correct?

Yes.

Okay, so if we're doing an ordinance, that is a law, and we should not be approving things unless we actually have the language.

So I guess on the last one, you're gonna have to get that to us, you know, because we needed something to vote on.

Um, but this is really important, Commissioners, because I don't want us to be in a position of voting for huge rate increases, and it and then they're not being the follow-through of what we said that we were gonna do.

And I mean, there was just two things that I've raised um at the meeting, the last couple of meetings, um, that I think are important is one we need to continue the green infrastructure funding set aside, and that was in the last ordinance, uh, but it's so that I don't have the ordinance in front of me.

I don't know if it's in there or not.

Um so that should continue, and then the it would be good to get some.

Yeah, so the acknowledgement of the uh it'd be the same ordinance with new rates.

Okay.

All right, well, we should see it.

Um then I would like to see the um the remaining master plans done concurrently.

That was something that um I keep saying arcadis, but I met a Dutch person and they called it our arcades or something.

So it's just their accent.

Okay.

Arcadis.

They say our um that's obviously arcade arcadis.

So I'm pretty sure.

Well, I don't know, I think it was you um Rich that um said that you could do the master plans concurrently.

As opposed to just waiting and doing them one at a time.

Correct.

Yes.

Okay.

So there's only those.

I've actually got, I believe I got the proposal already.

Okay.

So those are just the two things that I would like to see in this.

Um because I I do support everything in the plan and I understand the life safety risk and the importance of water quantity and water quality.

Get all that.

Like we're long overdue to get caught up on these investments.

Um so that would be my um, I guess my motion, like when we get to it, Mr.

Chair, is the concurrent master plan and then the um the 700, the 700,000 a year set aside uh for district directed green infrastructure.

I think it was 350.

No, it's 700,000.

Let's look at what the uh original idea is.

Yeah, we'll just split it.

Oh, and let me ask, I mean, if that's a the previous one did have 350,000 set aside um for green infrastructure.

Are you proposing, Commissioner Terry, a hundred thousand dollars per dist instead?

To do a hundred thousand okay.

Yeah, that's right.

On an annual basis.

Okay.

I mean, that's just we just hadn't looked at it like that.

I mean, we can we can run those numbers.

Um but you know, certainly 350 is what we were prepared for.

And if you we hadn't thought of dividing it out by district, but um you know, I I suspect that with this item as well as the next item, we're really gonna be looking to have this on the on the uh July 7 uh BOC so we can get it.

So that it's on the tax bill.

Yeah, that's correct, so we can get that taken care of.

Um if we uh if we are not able I suspect we're not gonna get through our agenda uh completely today.

So uh commissioners, if there's a available date, perhaps as soon as Monday for a special call, uh let's go ahead and start looking into that.

Um and then that gives time for any other documentation that needs to be put together so that the you know it's it's ready to go when it goes to the full committee or pardon me, the full commission for a vote.

I think that would be appropriate.

Um but I guess the question for us uh is uh some of the ideas that Commissioner Terry mentioned.

Um that's what's being that's something to consider.

Is there anything else that you have, Commissioner Terry?

No, those are the only two items I would like to see in the uh final agenda item.

Uh Commissioner Johnson, uh any thoughts?

Um just general thoughts.

So I know since I've been a commissioner and we were doing the 10 by 10 10 rate increase for water and sanitary sewer was harpy on the fact that stormwater would be the next one that we need to be paying attention to.

And we are we are here.

I'm grateful that we are trying to pay attention to it, uh, the work that we're doing now to pay attention to this infrastructure is very important.

Um never in favor of rate increases, but understand the importance of them.

Okay.

All right, Commissioner Swall, I'll open the floor for a motion at this time.

Motion to approve.

Okay.

Uh we I'll second if you'll take a friendly amendment.

What's the friendly amendment?

Uh to uh require the concurrent master plans for the remaining watersheds and for the 700,000 annual set aside for green infrastructure uh stormwater projects.

Sure.

Okay, I'll I do have some questions offline about the set aside, but we can handle those offline, Zach.

I just asked some questions.

Okay.

Okay.

Uh second, and we got a proper motion, proper motion, proper second with friendly amendments.

Uh Zach?

May I just ask a question?

If we could with the the friendly amendment of the 700,000, we have a couple of years worth that's sitting.

Can we use that to start this 700,000?

So I'm saying to roll that forward into these.

Well, and that's part of the questions I have is how who's selecting the project, identifying them.

What if a hundred thousand per district isn't enough?

So I'm not opposed to it, but I think those details can be worked out.

Can I um respond?

Please.

Um to be clear, it's not that we can just willy-nilly say, oh, we need a storm train over there.

It's more saying that this is a dedicated green infrastructure.

Um a lot of constituents, including parks department, and arcadis, just like the um uh detention pond and notify is that people do reach out to us and say there are things that we can do to improve you know uh the infrastructure.

So it's not meant to be like willy-nilly, it's it would be approved through roads and drainage and they would be applicable projects, but what we're looking for is an acknowledgement that we are investing in green infrastructure in a in a dedicated way, and I think that sometimes having the commissioners be able to sort of pinpoint on you know pain points in the community would allow us to respond more rapidly in those neighborhood contexts.

So it wouldn't it wouldn't just be whatever we want it after go through the process of review and analysis.

If if if I if I could suggest rather than having it district-based, if 700,000 is the number that that you need to get to yes, because really what we've been hearing is is the issue comes down to a basin perspective as opposed to a district or a municipal or a county line.

So if if you need the number of 700,000 to get to yes, let's just say it's 700,000.

Okay, that's fine.

Um and then they have the ability to put that money towards green infrastructure.

Um a consideration before we have the final vote on this, though, is is uh how much of a fund are we gonna create, and then there may not necessarily always be the need for that green infrastructure.

But maybe that's a thing that they can work out as uh as a conversation point that we can have before we get to the seventh, if that makes sense.

Is that yeah, I'm so if the if the motion would um accept just the 700,000 set aside for green infrastructure, and then we'll just you know I think the idea is that commissioners would work with roads and drainage public works to identify pain points that could be projects in the neighborhoods or parks, for instance.

Um so just I want to keep it like professional um but have some agency for us to identify those pain points.

Because again, uh a a particular basin may cross our districts multiple times, and that still gives access to the being able to ask the question again.

Yeah, I understand that makes sense.

Then my other I'm f well I'm good to move forward with this, but one of my other concerns is if you're only doing it like per district, then what if that one green infrastructure project costs more than that hundred thousand for that district?

How do we make sure that that project gets implemented?

Um so I just think those little minutiae would need to be ironed out.

But I think I'm fine with moving forward.

If and I think if uh Ted, I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think I heard he said that he's comfortable with just the number and not necessarily district based, but the number is there.

And if a commissioner has something that's the basin crosses over Ted's or yours or my's district, um there's a way that those monies could be already set aside or they're already set aside for a particular project.

Uh and I suspect that might be something in one of our parks where there's a there's a sticky issue and it's causing problems for residents as well as users may not be able to use it.

Is that is that a fair assessment?

It is yeah, thank you for mentioning that because um I think what I've identified over the last few years is that sometimes when the parks department has park improvements, the stormwater budget is is being considered in their parks budget, and really some of those stormwater facilities and parks are basically the land we control, and so we can reduce flooding downstream by doing park stormwater improvements.

So um I I imagine that the green infrastructure which is gonna make the biggest impact is gonna be with parks in our districts when they have they got to do the playground, the parking lot, and oh by the way, they also have to do the stormwater facility.

And so you know, trying to combine funding to support those overall park improvements, I think probably to me would be a top priority.

Right, but that are that are stormwater right, because it has sports stormwater just a question, and as we work through this, because we have funds set aside or identified from previous years because we had not, and I think there's some projects that were ready to move on, but I would love to be able to use those funds to at least get this fund started, you know, kind of roll them forward as I mentioned, as opposed to immediately taking 700,000 out if we have to start next year.

Yeah.

Okay, that's what Nicola and I mean.

Thank you.

Are we generally in agreement and understanding?

So just to clarify the 700, so the 350 is still in effect though this year.

Right.

And so what I would do is I would roll forward this year and last year to start the 700,000 dollars next year.

Okay, and then moving forward at 700 annually.

Yeah.

Okay, so you can work out that in the ordinance.

Yeah, we'll have someone figure out how to do that.

Because it was an ordinance last time.

Right, right.

And so we would modify it to say that.

Okay.

Okay.

Commissioner Terry, your second stance?

I'm good.

You're good.

All right.

Um I'm gonna open the floor for motion.

All those are ready to take the vote.

If you're all in favor, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That's three zero folks.

Um Mr.

Chair.

Please.

Um we have a request that the committee entertained discussion of oh of 2026-0927 on the bottom of page two.

We have some nine schedule and deadlines that we'd like to get to.

Okay.

Could you repeat that number one more time?

0927.

0927.

It's 2026 0927.

Okay.

Watershed management.

Absolutely.

Yeah, let's do that one next.

Thank you, Commissioners.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Um as um the county attorney mentioned, um, some of these projects that are intended to be executed via um these contract mechanisms has been required as previously referenced by the county attorney.

So to get us started with this, and I'll try to make it as quickly as possible.

We essentially have a summary of the proposed um awards.

I know it seems as a large number, but we have multiple contractors over multiple years.

Um, and we have done individual um contract awards that have exceeded some of the awards that we're doing today.

Um, there are benefits to this new strategy that we're implementing that will save the county.

And we're going to utilize it over four types of projects: water projects, sewer projects, emergency projects, and of course the consent decree offline storage projects, which you know I'm referencing previously.

So a summary of Maria, just for clarity, I I know that we are under a time crunch, but this is $325 million.

It is.

And so we're gonna take the time.

Time, okay.

Respectfully, so I'll slow down.

They'll have to they'll have to readjust.

Uh this is too big to let out the door.

So let's start by first summarizing the award.

We are doing an award to six different contractors.

It's going to be over a four-year period, and that's going to take us through 2030.

The total value is above 325 million dollars.

And it is an on-call style of work.

Um, so if you look at the table there, you have the names of the contractors and each of the four categories that we're doing the awards with.

So we have our water projects that are essentially covered by three contractors first, our sewer projects, which tend to be related to our consent decree, and those similarly have three um contracts or contractors that are being awarded.

Our emergency as well as the offline storage, which are specific consent decree projects, um, they are being awarded to Georgia Sewer and Storm.

Okay.

So more specific as to why this new strategy.

And we are seeing the benefits of having a multiple award.

We do one solicitation for an on-call contract, and we are looking at higher bid quantities, which lowers the overall cost.

And that's one of the savings that we're seeing.

The longer term award, the four-year contract, gives us also better pricing, and we are being good partners in that contractors when they are looking at how they're managing their crews and their workforce.

It's easier to do it over a multi-year focus.

And similarly, um we are having our contractors utilizing this approach, get a better understanding of what's anticipating over all of these years.

So we're bringing more contractors to the table.

We're generating um better results with active competition.

So this is going to get into some examples of specifically what we intend to do and utilize our contractors to accomplish.

So on the water side, our previously mentioned three contractors, the total award will be 140 million dollars.

And that's primarily our small diameter water distribution means.

As we've mentioned previously, as we've talked about the CIP process, we always harp on, you know, three to four breaks per day.

It's what's currently occurring in DeCap County, and we need to get to more industry standards in how we manage our system.

Anytime you have breaks, that emergency takes you into a higher category, a higher cost factor, and we are strategically attempting to get ahead of all of those breaks by investing in the system.

So essentially we have about 70 projects that are already planned through the 10-year CIP, as I've shared previously in previous months as we continue to describe the CIP.

We actually have more projects.

We have a couple hundred projects that are ready to go, but in the 10-year window, we are tackling about 70 projects.

And some of the examples of things that are recently being done includes Done What You Know, you know, San Gabriel.

I think some of you all know some of these names.

So that's the strategy on the water side.

So let's shift to the consent decree and the sewer side.

Three contractors again, totaling 155.5 million.

And this is really our small diameter sewer upsizing proje um projects.

We are also doing a lot of lining, so we're keeping the stormwater out of the system.

Part of it also supports our capacity assurance program, and that's where developers come in, and we may not be able to authorize them to connect to the system because we don't have sewer capacity, and we need to have um dollars available so we could actually do additional rehab to the system.

Our developers, if they are large developers, they match that cost.

We improve the system and they are allowed to connect.

Of course, we've all always mentioned the Pepsi bottling plant.

There's no way they would have been able to expand if we did not have this program in place.

So part of this the dollar amounts that we're going to be utilizing is to actually improve the system so we we could allow additional um connections, whether we're having um deserts, grocery deserts, whether we're having additional housing needs or additional um job creation with other industries coming into DeCap County.

Um, this helps us along there.

Basically, with sewers, if you build it, they will come.

Exactly.

Okay, so our next port portion, as we continue to rehabilitate both our water and our sewer systems, we're still going to experience emergency.

Everybody remembers the Claremont failure.

Um we all remember as well the Glendale um precast concrete failure, the half of the road going away, people's um in front of people's homes just disappearing because of the water um main break.

This we are going to set aside a portion of it, and this is just based on how we have performed historically, the dollars that we typically have to set aside for emergencies, large-scale emergencies.

So $19 million, that's our allocation to Georgia Water.

Um, I'm sorry, Georgia Sewer and Storm.

Similarly, this is specifically consent decree projects that need to be completed by 2027.

Um, we have a short time frame to get those accomplished, and we will be allocating 10 million dollars to those six projects within the community.

And really, this is just a extra um information regarding how we're going to accomplish those and what's significant about that, it is going to resolve our couple of our priority fixed list items where we see constant repetitive sewer spills over the next year and a half utilizing this contract vehicle, we are going to resolve a lot of them, particularly targeting those six sites, either resolve or reduce the spills that are occurring in the community there.

And that's really um our summary of how um how we're utilizing this contract source.

Okay.

Uh, thank you very much for the presentation.

Again, very informative.

Um commissioners, any questions, any comments?

Okay.

A couple questions um and probably just more confirmation for the public.

How will the work be monitored with each of these contracts?

Since with such a large overall um contract amount, just want to give the public and us assurances of how the projects will be monitored.

So part of what um the board has already done is approve some contract management um services.

We also, in addition to that layer, we also have our own DeCAP County inspectors that also go out and oversee, and we have our project management team as well.

Um, AECOM that helps us in those parameters.

So we have a couple of layers of oversight, and I believe we brought that forward to PWIs um previously.

If if the public would like to go back and look at that, where we are implementing the CAHOA system and it talks about the checks and balances in there.

Um earlier this year we talked about the general guidance for the whole CIP um process, and that's also available as one of our PWIs um earlier on.

So there are records where we've shared this year, um, whether it's our SOPs, whether it's our principles of operations, whether it's the new CAHOOA software system, as well as our booths on the ground, be it our construction management contractors, as well as our inspectors, our project managers, et cetera, to make sure that we're managing a lot of this these dollars.

Thank you for that.

And then again, I think I know the answer to this, but it also just want to make sure it's clear.

These are the projects that are available on the public website.

These there's no additional projects.

We're still working through that long list of CIP projects.

There are, and um, in addition, uh, projects of these magnitudes, we tend to classify them into three buckets.

The most rigorous buckets, the the larger projects get a community meeting as well as billboards, um door hangers, letters to the community, and then continuation.

We normally create a project hotline.

If there are any issues, people could call us.

The second tier, this is routine work that's happening within the community.

You may not um encounter community meeting per se, but we do have the door hangers, the other communication.

So we have different levels depending on that's documented, we follow our script as to how we engage um different community members, be it the schools, be it the hospitals, be it um the MARDA buses, how we engage to make sure we're not inconveniencing um the community while we work on correcting our infrastructure deficiencies.

And then I think my last one have we worked previously with all of the contractors?

I most of them I recognize, but I think there was one that I didn't recognize off the top of my head.

I think the Georgia sewer and storm, have we had that before, Cassandra?

They they've been a sub.

Okay.

So so everyone else, um, we've had interactions with them.

Um they know how our processes work, what they have to deliver before we approve invoices, things of that nature.

Thank you.

Two two-week where we bring them in, talk about what's your two-week look ahead, things of that nature.

Thank you so much.

I yield.

Okay.

Uh a couple of questions, uh Maria.

So for other projects that the county's been involved with, I remember that there's been some controversies over blasting, and I know Commissioner Bolton just put a brand new blasting ordinance in place, but um you guys are prepared to work under the I guess the guidance of that blasting ordinance uh should blasting be a uh a thing that has to happen.

We do.

Um we actually work in close collaboration with the fire marshal to approve our blasting plan.

Um two and a half years ago, um, we also did in PWI the presentation on blasting and how um we do it um as well, where we have the we go out previous to and we engage with the property owners and we sometimes ask them, okay, can we take a video or pictures of your property before we do blasting, then we schedule, get all the permits with the fire marshal, do the mat covers, and then afterwards, you know, we all also has the have the seismic um meter going to ensure that we're not um impacting or having a negative impact on our community members.

So we do have a process for that as well.

Perfect.

Okay.

Um and I know you probably aren't the right person to talk to about this.

Uh both of my colleagues have mentioned uh the monitor for the BOC.

Do we have an update on where I don't know if that's uh Marcus Allen or Mr.

Lee May?

That's uh that's a you that that's elite may uh question.

I have uh sat down with uh Ms.

Michelle Butler um to just um to really begin to hammer out kind of the steps for that.

Um my initial conversation with you all were was what's up with the you know the hiring of that person, but the resolution that you all pass contemplates the hiring of a vendor, a consultant, and so we're going down that role.

There's a couple of items that I did want to bring to you all uh individually, or since you asked me here today that's in that resolution.

Um number one, it um precludes that person or vendor from doing any other business, you know, or excludes that person from doing any other business.

We'll see if that will be a challenge uh uh or not as well.

And uh and so we want to make sure that uh and then I think the decision of uh how quickly we want to move forward with this, as you see these big numbers, keep popping.

Yeah, you all have approved maybe about 700 million dollars well with this approval as well.

And so going through a traditional RFP process could take some time.

And so kind of the decision on how do we want to make that selection.

Do we want to do maybe a RFQ of qualifications and then just make a selection that way as well?

So that's really where we're landing.

Uh you all had an in the resolution and attachment A, uh, a scope of what you all were looking to accomplish uh in that, and so kind of using that to kind of build what we want to accomplish with that.

So I want to err on the side of let's just go ahead and um lean towards the side of let's go ahead and get this person because when I'm seeing all these big numbers, yeah, it just kind of makes me go you know, and I want to make sure that at least on the board side, because it's intended to be independent from the uh the administration and no no no charge against them.

They're doing good work, but you know, we want to see from your standpoint that there is an independent view on that.

So I would welcome that conversation at our next uh PWI.

I don't it is something that affects all of the commissioners.

So if there was a convenient opportunity to put it into a cow, I'd even welcome that uh as a way moving forward, uh Madam PO if that is something that you would be willing to contemplate as well.

I why don't we start the conversation in PWI and kind of see where it's going and then bring it once we might need to flush it out before we bring it to the full but uh not opposed.

Okay, if possible, uh Mr.

May, if you could put something together for us for an SPWI.

Um we are obviously at five o'clock and not gonna make it through the rest of the agenda, so we do need to have a special called um I think as early as Monday would probably be doable.

But uh commissioners, I know you gotta check our calendars and make sure, but um uh July 7 is a critical date, so I will be available as need be.

So to clarify, Commissioner, you're requesting a special call uh meeting to cover any agenda items that were held today prior to your next PWI on July 7th, correct?

I I think we need to because we want to get those items uh voted on, and I know um prior to the June 23rd BOC, which would be Tuesday.

So you're trying to move to the case.

I mean if we can if Commissioners, again, it's your calendar, but I feel like if we've got July 7 as the backup, then we have some flexibility.

Okay.

Uh so we'll coordinate with you right after this meeting as well as the administration and see if there's any items that are of you know such high priority that we need to move as quickly as Monday.

Um, and then also if it's possible that conversation about the monitor, let's let's have that at that reading as well because I think that's that's becoming more and more important.

Um okay.

Commissioners, I think I've asked this before, unless you have anything else to add to the conversation.

Um we are on agenda item uh 2026-0927.

I'm gonna read this full thing out completely because I'm not sure I did that the first time.

All commission districts, low bid invitation number 2025-070, uh, indefinite quantities, water, sewer, and emergency multi-year contract for use by the Department of Watershed Management to provide means for water and sewer infrastructure repairs, replacements, and unforeseen malfunction responses.

Recommend award to the lowest responsive and responsible bidders, Georgia Sewer and Storm LLC, GS Construction Incorporated, Instaform Technologies LLC, Ruby Collins Incorporated, SAK or SAC Construction LLC, and S D and C Incorporated, total amount not to exceed 325 million, 572,000, 28.52 cents.

Motion to approve.

Second.

Proper motion, proper second.

All those in favor, raise your hand say aye.

Aye.

All right, commissioners.

Man, I hate for us to separate like this without a complete agenda, but uh we gotta do what we gotta do.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

Proper motion, proper second.

All those in favor, raise your hand, say aye.

Aye.

All right, guys, we'll be back.

Thank you everyone for your time and attention.

Appreciate it a lot.