Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-21-1996 Combined Meeting CALLED MEETING AND COMMISSION-COUNCIL CHAMBERS PUBLIC HEARING October 21, 1996 Augusta-Richmond County Commission convened at 5:21 p.m., Monday, October 21, 1996, the Honorable Larry E. Sconyers, Mayor, presiding. PRESENT: Hons. Beard, Bridges, J. Brigham, Handy, Mays, Powell, Todd and Zetterberg, members of Augusta-Richmond County Commission. ABSENT: Hons. H. Brigham and Kuhlke, members of Augusta- Richmond County Commission. Also present were Lena Bonner, Clerk of Commission-Council; James B. Wall, Augusta-Richmond County Attorney; and Cathy Pirtle, Certified Court Reporter. MAYOR SCONYERS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Augusta-Richmond County Board of Commissioners Special Called Meeting. We're going to have the Invocation by the Reverend Max Hicks, and if you'll remain standing we'll have the Pledge of Allegiance. THE INVOCATION WAS GIVEN BY THE REVEREND HICKS. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WAS RECITED. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Reverend Hicks. Ms. Bonner, do you want to call the first order of business, please? CLERK: Yes, sir. A Resolution to provide for the acquisition by redemption payment or otherwise by Richmond County in all of Richmond County water and sewer revenue bond series, and finalizing the terms of the Series 1996A, Series 1996B bonds and the Series 1997 bonds, and for other purposes. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor and members of the Commission, this is a bond resolution, which is the first step insofar as proceeding with the proposed bond -- revenue bond issuance. This was advertised both as a public hearing and a called meeting, and the purpose of the public hearing was to respond to any questions and to be sure that everyone understood the terms of this. And I think Mr. McKie has a presentation insofar as briefly outlining the plan of financing and what is to be proposed, and I ask, Mayor, that you recognize him and let him explain the process. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The presentation that we have for you looks like this [indicates report], and it's an outline of what we'd like to do. I'll go straight to the Plan of Finance, which is on Page 5. The purpose of the issue is to consolidate our debt into a series of level payments in order that we can streamline operations, change our cash flow to better benefit the operations of the Waterworks and, in fact, to produce a small net present value cash flow savings. Additionally, we have projects totaling some $42.7 million that are presented as new projects as a part of a five-year capital improvement program of some $62 million. On Page 6 is a brief outline of the capital restructuring that we're doing. We have existing Richmond County Series '91, '87 and '86, and City of Augusta Series '91 and '72. We're going to consolidate those into one payment of three new series, one issue. The 1996A issue is the new projects and refunding of the Augusta Series '91 and Richmond County '91 and '72. Now, the reason why these are -- we have three different series here is because of some tax reasons. We have refunded the Richmond County '87 Series the limited number of times, so that issue will be taxable and it has to be separate from the other issues. What this issue does is pledge the net revenues of the water and sewer system. It has a rate covenant that we will maintain debt coverage of 1.1 times the senior debt, which will be this series of bonds. Our Debt Service Reserve Fund will be maintained at maximum annual debt service. MR. ZETTERBERG: Butch, what does that mean? MR. McKIE: I'm sorry, what, the -- MR. ZETTERBERG: The rate covenant, 1.10x senior lien debt service. MR. McKIE: Okay. The amount of the debt service, let's say it's $5 million a year, then we will maintain operating income of 1.1 times that, so $5,500,000. We're saying that we will provide the ability to pay the debt plus 10%. And to do that, we -- MR. ZETTERBERG: So you pay that down? MR. McKIE: We'll pay it down on the amortization schedule. MR. ZETTERBERG: At 1.1? MR. McKIE: Oh, no, sir. We'll amortize it on a level principal and interest basis, but this means that our income will have to be -- we promise to sustain our income to be more than what that debt is. So if we owe -- whatever we owe in debt service, we promise to either cut costs or raise rates or sell more water so that we'll make enough income to pay the debt and have 10% left over. Our coverage right now -- MR. ZETTERBERG: What do we normally have? A lot more than that. MR. McKIE: Right now it's 8. We expect that it will be at 3.5 after this. So this promises really one-third of what our normal -- one-eighth of what our normal rates are. This is a industry-wide common number that we're agreeing to. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. MR. McKIE: Should we desire to issue additional bonds during the term of these bonds, we will have an additional bonds test, which will mean that our historic and projected net earnings would have to be 1.25 times any debt service for any new bonds. So if we wanted to issue another $1 million a year in bonds, then we would have to show that our income would be $1,250,000 a year in order to pay for that. Again, these are normal industry rates and our totals at this time are several multiples of that. On Page 8 is a very simplified version of the flow of funds, that is, the chief language in the resolution. But basically, we're going to take our system revenues, all of those will flow into a revenue fund, and at the end of the month the revenue collected from that fund will be disbursed according to the priority of payments in the lower left-hand box. First we'll pay for operations and maintenance costs; second, we'll set aside an amount necessary for debt service; and, third, we will leave in the Waterworks operating fund-- we're calling it the Utility General Fund, not to be confused with the government's General Fund--the residual of revenues collected. Now, in doing that, we promise to maintain a minimum fund balance of the lesser of $2 million or 5% of revenues of the system for the prior fiscal year at all 2 times--our retained earnings at this time is some $35 million, so we're well over that 2--and to limit transfers to the county's General Fund until 2 everything else has been provided for. And there is a schedule of transfers that we've talked about in the past: would be, I believe, 6.7 this year, 5.2 -- MR. WALL: 3.7. MR. McKIE: 3.7, 2.5, and then after that we still have 2.5 each year if you choose to do it. That would be the maximum. There has been some discussion about whether or not you want to close it out all together. I'm not sure if we can have an open and closed fund at the same time, but if you don't like the 2.5 and you effectively want to close it, then you could change that $2.5 million to one dollar. So you can set that number after four years to anything you desire and effectively close the fund. MR. WALL: And you can do it on a calendar basis, too. MR. BRIDGES: Butch, can I ask a question? Maybe this is of Jim, but didn't -- I think I got a fax from you that said that after ever how many years that we can close it, it just has to remain closed; is that right? MR. WALL: That's correct. Once it's closed it would forever remain closed. MR. BRIDGES: And that's the one I hope we'll do. Because I understand you've got to wean the urban side off of this thing, but what my fear is, that somewhere down the road in the future, you know, this august group here won't be on the board and another group will be there that doesn't remember the financial problems that the old city got into using the water funds. And I'd like to see us after, say, the Year 2000 or in the Year 2000 to just close it off and from there it be closed out and strictly used for water and sewer. MR. ZETTERBERG: Can that be in the language? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, it can be in the resolution. MR. WALL: And it would need to be included in the resolution if, in fact, that's what you wanted to do in order to make it binding. MR. BRIDGES: Well, we'll vote -- in other words, we'll have time to vote on that today then? MR. WALL: Well, if that is the direction that the Commission wants to take, what I would ask that you do, it would just be one page that would change, and that's Page V-8, and -- MR. BRIDGES: Number (e) there. MR. WALL: Yes, sir. Well, it'd be that last part there, I guess, that last sentence. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah. MR. WALL: And I would ask that you would approve the resolution with the provision that it would be closed at whatever point in time y'all decide, and that I be authorized to substitute a page upon it being revised. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I'd just like to make a quick comment and we'll discuss it later. In the sense that this is going to the new government's General Fund and not being designated to any particular designation, then I like the methodology of changing it to one dollar later, and I would assume that you can change it back up to the maximum amount. So I don't see this as something that we're using to subsidize the urban service district operation but it's going to the General Fund. And we're going to be next year one fund, one General Fund, to pay for everything; therefore, it's not to do tax avoidance or whatever as far as any specific service district. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Todd, my fear there is if we go with one dollar or 5%, whichever is less, at some future date before these bonds are paid off -- it's my fear and it's, I guess, a fear of government that I guess I have, is that a future commission may not have been through the experience that we've been through here in the past few years and that they may change it from one dollar to $2,500 or some other amount. And so what I'm trying to do is to keep that from happening in the future and keep the city in the future, you know, 10/15/20 years down the road, from being in the financial straps that we've experienced in the past. So I guess it's sort of like Thomas Jefferson said, you chain the government down with the chains of the Constitution, and I'd like to chain, you know, this government down with the chains of this resolution and close it out after the Year 2000. And I guess we can go ahead and discuss the other aspects and bring that back --make the resolution at that time, Jim, would that be the proper time to do it? MR. WALL: Yes, sir, I think so. MR. McKIE: On Page 9 of my little presentation is a preliminary source and use of funds, and I'd like to call your attention to a couple of numbers on there. Of course, the top amount is the amount of the bonds that we're going to sell. The fourth number down, '72 and '91 DSRF, those are our existing debt service reserves. That's cash we have in the bank right now. We're going to close those out and use those in our refunding at the bottom. The uses, $39,771,000 is for our project list. Now, you'll see when you look at the list of projects we have $42.7 million. The difference is the interest that we expect to earn while these projects are under construction and we have this money invested on forward contracts. The last item, refunding escrow, $18,438,000 is the amount that we will place with an escrow agent in order to pay off the existing $28 million debt that we have. And, of course, from today until those debts are paid, that will earn interest and that's why we have only to borrow $18 million instead of the 28. The surety bond, above there, is to make sure the escrow agent does that. So those three series are there. On Page 12 is a graphical presentation of our aggregate debt service after the issuance of the bond. You see it's -- it'll be a level term until the year 2027, at which time the bonds will be paid off. This will allow us a much better -- we'll be able to plan our budgeting in capital projects much better with this level debt service than the wild swings we had in the past. As it stands now, we had some very heavy debt payments coming due in the next three years, which when they were issued -- or refunded back years ago they were on the order of balloon payments. No one at that time anticipated either of the two events that have overtaken us, consolidation and the draining of the renewal and extension funds from the city Waterworks, so having this level debt service and adding the projects is actually less debt over the next four years than we would have paid out without the bond issue. So what we've done with that is use that to increase our renewal and extension and to bring us away from our transfers to the city's General Fund, so this refunding is helping in that regard as well as cutting costs. Any questions so far? MR. POWELL: Mr. McKie, in addition to it cutting the overall debt service to the citizens, is it going to lower fees as far as tapping fees and stuff? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, we have discussed that in the past. One of the provisions that -- one of our existing bond issues requires a rather high additional tap fee. Now, when that bond issue is defeased, that goes away, and you'll be at liberty to set a new fee. That fee is somewhat different in the county and the city, so you really will need to set those on a consistent basis. MR. HANDY: That was the question I was just going to ask. Since we have a fee on there and they have it because of the water system, now once we're combined as one, then that's no longer -- that's null and void and we got to start all over again far as setting fees? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. The basic difference in the city and the county is how you get to the other side of the road. In the county, if you live on the side of the road opposite from the sewer line or water line you have to pay to go underneath it and contact it. If you live on the same side as the line you're in luck and you don't pay for it. So there's $200 difference depending on where you live. In the city, the city charges the same rate no matter which side you live on. Basically we would, I think, recommend that we adopt something like that, because the government --or the utility chose which side of the road they were going to put the line on, thereby disadvantaging probably half the people, those who live on the other side of the street. So it'd be revenue neutral to us, but certainly would be fair to those people who have to pay or would have to pay. If there are no questions about the financing, the next section is The Project, and I'd ask Max Hicks to take us through that part. MR. HICKS: We have selected projects that will benefit the entire area. We have funds under the water and the sewer which we call extension to unserved areas. I'll address the water supply systems, and then ask Tom Wiedmeier to address the sewer supply. The first, the baffling and repiping of the clearwells, that's at the filter plant at Highland Avenue. This is work that needs to be done in order to have that facility meet EPA requirements so far as contact time for chlorination. So this is a project that's needed, and it will benefit the entire distribution system. Then improvements to connect the urban and suburban systems. As we have mentioned before, there are at least four points right now that we know of that we're going to connect, and then there are others where we have even longer lines that we'll need to put in. And that $2,500,000 is to allow the water to flow more freely from the former urban to the suburban section and reduce the demand on the area of interface and thereby allow the well system to serve the area even better in the middle. Now, the next is the Kimberly-Clark wellfield and 10 Mgd treatment plant. That is a wellfield that will be located on the eastern side of Highway 56 south of Horseshoe Loop Road, in the area south and east of the elevated water tank that's down there. The 10 Mgd treatment facility will either be located near the elevated tank or we'd really like for it to be located down near McBean if it could be located just as easily there. That would give a better distribution of water into that area, and that would reduce the draw on the existing two plants for that area of the county. And so we feel like with these improvements that we've talked about, the connection of urban and suburban and this Kimberly- Clark wellfield, that we will effectively eliminate the water shortage situations and improve the flow. MR. BRIDGES: The 10--I guess that's supposed to be gallons--Mgd treatment plant -- MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. MR. BRIDGES: -- that would be similar to the Messerly plant? MR. HICKS: No, sir, that's a water treatment plant. It would be like the water plant that's located there at Four-H Club Road. MR. BRIDGES: I got you. All right. MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. And then the new 60-inch raw water line -- as you're well aware, that 42-inch water line broke last year. We need a replacement line. We went ahead and put a 60-inch line in here to meet our needs for the considerable future years and give reliability of supply. That would be a ductal iron pipe and it would run along an alternate route from where the others go. Then a 1 MG elevated storage tank, that would be off of Wheeler Road, out in the High Point area just before you get to Columbia County. That's one of the fastest growing areas in the county insofar as office complexes and facilities of that type. Then we have $1 million for extension to unserved areas. This is to extend water lines to systems that perhaps would need it. And let me point this out, and I know Tom will point it out also under the sewer aspect of it, there will be a number of areas that you perhaps will be interested in having water lines extended to. Under this bond program there will be money in the renewal and extension fund each year by which we can handle extensions to unserved areas even though they might not be under the bond issue. MR. BEARD: Max, I'd just like to ask, will this qualify all areas of the county? And I'm speaking of especially in the -- out there off of Barton Chapel Road and that area. Because we had someone in the other meeting talking about the lines were not adequate, that they could not get their supply of water there, and there's no sewerage in that area and going on out to Belair Hills Estate and that area. Now, once we do this, is this going to satisfy all areas? And I'm particularly asking about that area. MR. HICKS: If you wanted to use, say, a portion of this $1 million insofar as extension to unserved areas, Belair Hills would be one you could indeed consider. That's an area that years ago got caught in the city-county crunch, and it was a development in the county and the water lines were city and so the subdivision suffered. MR. BEARD: What do you mean by if we want to consider it? MR. HICKS: Well, right now, see, this is undesignated, this $1 million, and so that would be a project that could be used with this or you might want to designate renewal and extension funds. See, this is not the only source of money we'll have to extend water and sewer lines, but we could also serve that with renewal and extension. MR. BEARD: What kind of time -- no matter where the money is coming from, I understand you're saying we have it there, what kind of time line can we tell people in those areas, unserved areas, that they can be expecting that? MR. HICKS: If you were to decide to do it, the design time would be very short for extending water lines. Say, maybe two months for design time and then maybe four or five months for construction time, you'd be looking at the middle of next year, toward the last quarter of next year and they'd have water out there. Those would be easily. Excuse me, I don't mean to take your place, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg, then Mr. Todd. MR. ZETTERBERG: Since I don't have a very good grasp of all the unserved areas in the county, does this --is this comprehensive? I mean, can we do everything we want to do and extend water and sewer? MR. HICKS: Not to everybody, no, sir. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Now, what would that bill look like? MR. HICKS: Oh, my goodness. Well, in the former urban area alone we had about 5 or 6 million dollars worth of lines that would be of that 2 nature, and in the county I know it would be at least that much or more. We would probably be talking about, I'd say 10 to 15 million dollars more to do that. We'll have to approach that on an ongoing basis. MR. ZETTERBERG: But the only way you're going to do that over -- in time -- anytime soon would be to put into a bond issue, isn't it? I mean, what was sacred about $42 million in the bond? MR. McKIE: Just the total level of debt that we could pay. MR. ZETTERBERG: That's all you could service, is $42 million? That was the -- MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, so that we could balance our renewal and extension, our ongoing capital, and provide a steady stream of 5 to 6 million a year for that. MR. WALL: Butch, why don't you mention the three-year construction limitation. MR. McKIE: Right. Additionally, for tax exempt bonds you would have to begin -- CLERK: Butch, they can't hear you back here. MR. McKIE: For this type of financing where we're using tax exempt bonds, we have to begin construction within three years and complete it within five, so there's a certain physical capacity and restraints on what we can do. MR. ZETTERBERG: So there's debt structure and length of time of construction? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. And -- MR. ZETTERBERG: I'd like to see that sometime, Max, really what we're talking about to bring water to everybody in the entire area -- water and sewerage. MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. We had an overall meeting of that sort I guess about February or March. Commissioner Powell called us all together and we laid out all the projects like that that we had in mind so that we would have coordination between storm sewer, sanitary sewer, water lines, and there was - - it was quite an expenditure. I'll be glad to share that with you. MR. ZETTERBERG: Okay. Thank you. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: I think when we're talking about Barton Chapel Road between Wrightsboro Road and Gordon Highway, we have water but no sewerage, and we're talking about inadequate water lines to supply firetrucks as far as fire hydrants go, and we operate tankers from the Barton Chapel Road area. Now, I can understand the need to upgrade to the size line that we would need to help those folks out as far as their insurance go and also to catch all those pockets as far as sewerage go. There's pockets from Meadowbrook Drive to Belair -- Wrightsboro Road/Belair, back over to Washington Road, areas in there where we have pockets where folks don't have sewerage and they're on septic tanks; and also in the Boykin Road area, back in that area, you know, et cetera, Sand Ridge. And we need to catch those, but I don't think that we need to sit here and think that we're going to give every citizen in Richmond County sewerage--it's not practical or feasible--or every citizen in Richmond County water. There is folks that's out in deep rural South Richmond that we're not going to be able to pipe water to probably in the next ten years. But when we're talking about in the developed areas, then certainly we should make every effort to give them water and to give them sewerage. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Handy? MR. HANDY: Yes, sir. Mr. Hicks, I just got one simple question. When we make all these tie-ins to the county system or the city system -- I'm just sitting here thinking. Now, we know we're going to get well water and we're going to get surface water all mixed together. MR. HICKS: Yes, sir. MR. HANDY: Is there any way of knowing -- not say where the water is coming from, because it's all the same water, but far as the treatment part of it, or basically all the treatment is done continuously? MR. HICKS: It's continuously. MR. HANDY: I mean, both systems is treated the same way and you couldn't tell is the water coming from the well or the water coming from the river once it's mixed together, that's what I'm asking. MR. HICKS: That's basically correct. Once they're treated they're both to a pH of about seven-three. Insofar as their hardness, they're both fairly soft waters. Even the water coming out of the ground doesn't have a lot of mineral content. So they would be basically indistinguishable once you got them into the system. MR. HANDY: Both would be compatible to each other, so they won't -- MR. HICKS: Yes, sir, they would be. MR. HANDY: I was just thinking whether or not we had to do some type of extra treatment because of the mixture from the well as far as the river and the system. I'm just asking something crazy, you know. MR. HICKS: No, sir, that's a legitimate question. If it were that the waters from the county were very hard, high in mineral content, that sort of thing, it might pose a problem, but it's not. MR. HANDY: Okay. Thank you. MR. HICKS: Okay, that finishes the water portion. And, Tom, would you like to give -- MR. WIEDMEIER: The Wastewater related projects are pretty much balanced between renewal and extension. The renewal projects are mostly focused on the major trunk sewer lines: the Rae's Creek, Spirit Creek, Butler and Rocky Creek trunk lines. The extension projects are three separate projects that will serve the Kimberly-Clark industrial site, that 1,500 acre site, and take that over to the Messerly plant for treatment, and then there's an extension of the RCCI trunk sewer off the Spirit Creek line. There are also two projects that are located at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, one being rehabilitation of the plant's main lift station and the other is the odor control project at the plant. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd, then Mr. Bridges. MR. TODD: We haven't decided on a technology or a lock down on a technology as far as the odor control, have we? MR. WIEDMEIER: No, sir. I would recommend that a study be performed by a firm that's done odor control before and let them recommend the technology. MR. TODD: Yes. Certainly I'm for the odor control, but I don't want to experiment with a technology, I want to go with a sound technology. And there's plants that have -- that's implemented odor control, even where they burn sewerage, like Washington, D.C., et cetera. So certainly I support it, but I think that we need to go with a proven technology, my comments there. Now, on the areas where we have spotted areas where we don't have sewerage, I'm assuming that the expansion money is there for that? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, sir, there is. There is $2 million to get unserved areas for sanitary sewer. One of the things that we were hoping to do in the near future is bring back to the committee and Commission all the pockets of unsewered areas and then ask for help in prioritizing the sewering of those areas. MR. TODD: Yes. What's the time table of that initiative -- time line? MR. WIEDMEIER: 30 to 60 days, I would guess. MR. TODD: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: Tom, on this RCCI trunk line sewer extension, where will that run? Will that run from 56 Spur, down Tobacco Road, across 25? Will that area be serviced by that sewerage line? What I'm asking is I understand we're losing restaurants at 25 and Tobacco Road because there's no sewerage there, and would that alleviate that? MR. WIEDMEIER: Yes, this would get sewer very close to 25 and Tobacco Road, and could be extended on over. The project that was designed and is included comes off of Spirit Creek east of Highway 25, comes up, crosses 25, and then follows that draw up to the prison. And it generally is running west of Highway 25, but it could easily be extended on over to pick up that intersection. MAYOR SCONYERS: Any other questions? Thank you, Tom. Thank you, Max. MR. McKIE: If you'll go to 17, please. Page 17. This is entitled The System, but basically it's some information not about the technical aspects of the system but about the customer base and some comparative rates, which we are very proud of. On Page 18 and 19 are the ten largest sewer and water customers. Now, the significance of this lies in the percentage--the right- hand column--the percentage of the water revenues. The credit analysts like to look at this and see how concentrated our customers are. The more dispersals you have among your customers, the lower risk you have. For example, if we had one customer that took 50% of our water and something happened to it, we'd be in serious financial problems. As it is, the top ten customers only take 13.9% of the water and the other 57,900-and- whatever take the other 82%, so we are very widely dispersed and, consequently, have a relatively low risk factor from that regard. MR. ZETTERBERG: Or we don't have enough industry. MR. McKIE: Right. On Page 20, typical monthly residential water and sewer bills for selected cities in the area is calculated on 4,000 gallons per month, and it represents our most current rates along with everyone else's. Why ZEL calculated at 4,000 when our average is some 7,000 we don't know. We're going to change this to show 7,000, because then we are significantly lower than everyone else. At 4,000 we're only slightly lower than Aiken (inside), but at 7,000 gallons we're some -- almost a dollar lower than they are on the average bill. So we are lower than Aiken County or Columbia County for residential water and sewer bills. MR. WALL: Do you want to refer to this? [Mr. Wall proffers a report to Mr. McKie.] MR. McKIE: Oh, okay. Yeah, thank you. You can reference this on Page 16 of your engineering report, if you have that. On Graph 1 at the top of Page 16, if you'll look over between 5 and 10 thousand gallons, and about two of those marks over there would be 7,000 gallons, and you'll see the heavy dark line would be our rates and everyone else's above us at that point. We actually -- for this comparison in the book, the 4,000 gallons is one of the worst spots we could have picked to compare. So for the more we use, the better we are compared to other people -- to other cities and counties, and I'm proud to say that's because of the rate structure we adopted, the thickest, versus variable cost that goes out at that 45 degree angle. So the same information can be seen on the bottom on the commercial size. And, Max, do you -- is there an average commercial? MR. ZETTERBERG: So there's definite advantages of living in the city; right? MR. McKIE: Right. So Pages 21 and 22 show our customers; and, again, these are for the consolidated systems, water and sewer. Over on 23, 24, and 25 we begin to get into -- I'm sorry, we're back on my little flipchart now. We begin to look at the level of capital -- water system capital improvement projects. We'll look at water and sewer in total. The white blocks on this graph represent what has been and what is planned to be financed by the bond issue and by renewal and extension, or internal cash. You see in '96, in our first year we're doing about $458,000. The bond issue comes in -- and we are constructing these bond projects over the next three years, but notice how we've also increased the renewal and extension money going into capital projects. That's because we are cutting down on the transfers to the General Fund and the fact that we have leveled out our debt service. So you see by the Year 2000 we plan on being up to 2.7 per year for the water system alone in internally generated funds for capital. And the same thing shows on the sewer side. We're at $1.8 million there by the Year 2000, and it's totally internally generated. On Page 25 we go back and look from '91 through '95, and see how we are swinging from a totally debt oriented system to one that's beginning to provide for a combination of cash and debt, and we hope to swing more toward the cash only as we go farther out. The system budget for the year is on the next page to give them an idea of the size of our system. We will -- at the time we go, we'll give them an update on where we are, where our estimates are. The Finance Committee was presented the third quarter numbers this afternoon, and I included those for everyone else so you can take a look at those. But we're ahead of these numbers at this point, and we expect to close out a very good year. The next page over is just a summary from '91 through '95. We have the eight- month numbers. I did not bring those. They were given to Robinson-Humphrey, but they weren't put in this fax, so --but we'll have -- when we complete this, we have a couple more things to go, we'll get you a new copy of it. The next chart, 28, is just historic net operating income, to show how that's grown except for '94. And your next page over after that should be--it'll either be bound in your book or you'll have a loose page--the General Fund transfer policy. That's probably the most, you know, important issue that we've discussed in this next to the projects themselves. But this is the official language, and it shows the schedule by which you may withdraw amounts, not exceeding these amounts, and the required payments. Again, the rest of the information after this is just CSO projects. On Page 34, Mr. Zetterberg, the debt service coverage. You had asked earlier about that. '97 should be 7.9 times, and then we should level out about 3.5. And, of course, as we go -- as our income grows and we set aside more funds, you know, that really extends our ability to generate capital because we'll have more internal plus this. The rest of this is just statistical information that's really designed for the credit analysts in New York, for us to go up and talk about how good we are and what a great place it is to live and how our unemployment has come down, building permits are up, and that'll be easy to do because we all feel that way. So I'll turn it back over to Mr. Wall unless you have some more questions. MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I know that based upon Mr. Bridges' comments there may need to be some discussion about the transfers from the General Utility Fund into the General Fund as expressed on Page V-8, but I would ask that you consider for approval the bond resolution authorizing this financing as amended as y'all choose to do so with regard to that one provision. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor? MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges? MR. BRIDGES: I make the motion that this bond, I guess this is a resolution, be approved with the exception of Page V-8, the beginning paragraph there, Section (e), that that be changed to read--and this is for the Year 2000 on--that that be changed to read "in each succeeding fiscal year, no funds are to be drawn from the operating revenues of the system, and the system is to be, from that point on, a closed system." MR. POWELL: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Motion by Mr. Bridges, seconded by Mr. Powell. Discussion? Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Would Mr. Bridges add to that that the Attorney be authorized to substitute pages? MR. BRIDGES: I'm sorry, Jim, what was that? MR. WALL: That the Attorney be authorized to substitute pages in the original resolution so that we can begin the necessary advertising. MR. BRIDGES: Yeah, I'd accept that as a part of the motion. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'm concerned not that we have a open bond -- revenue bond where we can transfer money, but my main concern is where that money is being transferred. If the money is being transferred to, as the language was earlier on, you know, in just discussion, to do tax avoidance or to pay off urban service district only operation costs, then I had a problem with it and objected to it and had been very vocal in that objection to that. But I'm not sure that I'm sold on the fact that if we somewhat have a cash cow, that we're going to manage and make sure and put safeguards in that we don't overspend the fund like a previous government. Then certainly if those safeguards are in there, I think that we should go on and go with a open revenue bond, and certainly if it's not going to cost us any more in interest to do it that way. And I'd like to hear from the County Attorney or Mr. McKie on whether it's going to cost us any more in debt service to do it that way. MR. WALL: I'll let Butch address it. I mean, basically the rating bureaus prefer to see a closed system. Now, whether or not this limitation will be the equivalent of a closed system -- I don't know whether Butch has got an opinion or not. MR. McKIE: You can't almost be pregnant, you know, you've got to be one way or the other. And being almost a closed system, you still will have a $2 million gap out there. To be quite honest, I can't see, especially in 2 view of where we've come from, that limiting this to $2 million in or out 2 would make a lot of difference. It certainly would give them a lot more confidence to know that you had summarily elected to close it period and it would be that way forever more. That would give everyone in the market more confidence. How they would react negatively if you left that $2 million in 2 there, I can't say, but certainly I think you can say that it would not be as well as if it were closed. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I think that what we've got to keep in mind in trying to look at the big picture, we have a telecommunications act that's going to change the way that we collect franchise revenue. And I know that we're banking on approximately 6 to 7 million dollars in franchise revenue for next year and in the years to come. Well, it may be more than 7 million, you know, per this new act or law, or it could be a heck of a lot less. We've got to treat everybody the same, and I would hope that someone is up on this that we don't get caught short. And those are my concerns, and I don't have any -- I'm going to go on and make a substitute motion that we adopt it as it is -- the resolution as it is in the book. MR. MAYS: I'll second it to get it on the floor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Did you second that, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I second it. MAYOR SCONYERS: I have a motion by Mr. Todd, seconded by Mr. Mays. That's a substitute motion. Discussion on that? Before we go any further, Mr. Beard was next, then Mr. Powell, on the original motion. MR. BEARD: Mr. Mayor, on the original motion, I'm just -- as long as we have the safeguards in there, you know, I can kind of live with that with an open system as far as I know it. I'm just a little reluctant of saying that at one point in time we're going to close it and we can't open it again. I thought I heard somewhere in here saying that, what, you could leave -- close it with a dollar or something of that amount and set limits on that. I would rather see that. I would just hate to think that down the years -- am I to understand that if we close this it would be a permanent closure? MR. WALL: Yes, if you close it, it would be a permanent closure. Now, with it being limited with a dollar, I mean, you're effectively closing it at that point if you put that kind of restriction in there. And this bond -- MR. BEARD: Well, I'm not -- I just asked that as a question, you know, to see what can we do. Personally I'm just a little reluctant of binding future generations into something at this point in time. MR. ZETTERBERG: Maybe this is -- what would happen if -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell was next. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Mayor, gentlemen, we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of Augusta-Richmond County to be accountable. The citizens of Augusta-Richmond County deserve that. All we're wanting to do is to preserve the water money so that we can expand the system, maintain the system, and we won't have episodes occurring of taking the water money and placing it in the General Fund to compensate for mismanagement. That's all we're asking. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: What happens if there's a catastrophic problem, an earthquake, would that have an impact on our situation? Would a closed fund cause us a problem? MAYOR SCONYERS: Who wants to answer that? MR. HICKS: If we had a catastrophic situation like that it would disrupt, break, topple, do all kinds of stuff to the water system, so that we would really have to have a closed fund or be able to use all the revenues to do the repairs that we possibly could. So closing it wouldn't have any effect on that. And insofar as the general repairs to buildings, streets, roads, the magnitude of money there, I would imagine you'd have to have federal grants to help. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Brigham? MR. J. BRIGHAM: Mr. Wall, my question is to you. And I personally think I favor the closed system, but I'm kind of concerned that if for some reason we did not generate the kind of revenues that we anticipated on the franchise tax, if we was to close this system, the only way to reopen it then would be to refinance these bonds? MR. WALL: That's correct. And you have to recognize as well that you are refunding a number of bonds, and insofar as those that are refunded because of the current tax code, you would not be able to refund that portion of this bond issue that you're refunding now. This is the last chance for those bonds. MR. J. BRIGHAM: That was going to be my next question. If we did close it and wanted to refund it, at what intervals can we do that? MR. WALL: Well, only the $42 million new money would be able to be refunded. The balance of it, this is the last refunding that can be done with regard to those monies. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. Can you rest any fears that you think that the franchise tax will continue to generate the kind of revenues that we anticipate, or do you anticipate that the new telecommunications bill will affect those revenues in any way or? MR. WALL: Well, let me address the telecommunications act. I mean, the county has a franchise ordinance insofar as the cable television is concerned, as does the city. The county's does not expire for another two to three years, and I'm not sure exactly what it is. What we're attempting to do is to negotiate with them in order to up that franchise fee and to do it on a short- term basis because of the changing rules and regulations insofar as the telecommunications industry is concerned. So I'm not sure that there's going to be that -- you're talking about two cents and three cents is the current rate: two cents in the city and three in the county. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Maybe I went into telecommunications when I should stick with franchise fees as to Georgia Power, Atlanta Gas, Jefferson Electric. Do you think that those fees are likely to change anytime in the near future? MR. WALL: Well, certainly. I mean, you've adopted the new utility franchise agreement insofar as the power company is concerned, and that's going to generate a substantial amount of income that will begin to be realized next year. And the fact that we now have franchise agreements that have been accepted and approved by Georgia Power Company, Jefferson EMC, Atlanta Gas Light, that are county-wide; I'm going to bringing before you KMC, which negotiated one insofar as the city is concerned, they're offering to make that same agreement applicable county-wide; and you're going to have some other fiber optic companies coming into the county as a result of the changing technology, that I think that you're going to have increased franchise fees, and I think those are pretty well set at this point. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Also, it's my understanding that the franchise fees are for 50 years? MR. WALL: The Georgia Power Company is 50 years, Jefferson EMC is 50 years, Atlanta Gas Light I don't remember, I thought it was 30 years. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. And the bond issue's duration is only 30 years? MR. WALL: That's correct. MR. J. BRIGHAM: So there's not -- any kind of law that would affect those changes would be ex post facto? MR. WALL: Well, not only is it an ordinance, it's a contract, so you've got a contractual agreement with those companies. MR. J. BRIGHAM: Okay. I'm just trying to rest some fears. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Todd? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, to Mr. Wall, do the act supersede the local contract and agreements? And it's my understanding that the act pretty much say that you got to charge the same. You got to have a fee, whether you do it in a franchise fee or a users fee for that right-of-way uses, you got to charge the same. So if you're charging one 3%, the other one can take you to court and say, hey, you're charging me 4% or 5%. So those are my concerns, you know, whether we're going to have any -- whether there's anything out there in the dark from this act that's going to come and kick us a year down the road or six months down the road. MR. WALL: I don't think that there will be a loss of franchise fees. If anything, there will be an increase in franchise fees. MR. TODD: With the new franchise fees on fiber optics, et cetera, you feel it'll be a new increase? MR. WALL: Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Okay. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further comment, gentlemen? Mr. Zetterberg? MR. ZETTERBERG: By closing it, it does limit our options, doesn't it, downstream, in the out years? MR. McKIE: Yes. MR. ZETTERBERG: Although I support the reasons for closing it -- I mean, I think that's noble. We've all said we want to operate it as an enterprise fund. I think that the possibilities that we could end up having some problems downstream are realistic, and so I think we would be very prudent not to close the fund but at least have the intent of doing that as a body. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Bridges, then Mr. Powell. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I'm going to speak once again to closing it in the Year 2000. I think it's critical. I think we've seen from past history that the danger has not been that we need to leave it open so we can dip into the fund, the danger is that we left it open and we did dip into the fund. That's been the past history here, and that's what we need to consider. And I'd strongly urge this board -- I think they'd be making a critical financial mistake for us and for future governments if you leave this system open. I think the most reasonable and prudent measure financially is to close this system after the Year 2000. That way we bypass having to increase taxes in the city, yet we have an enterprise fund that extends these water and sewer lines and repairs them. The money is there and it hadn't been taken out to fund other projects. So I'd really encourage the board to take what I think and truly believe is a responsible fiscal step and close that system after the Year 2000. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, we've made moves in the past to close the Landfill. We made that an enterprise fund. That was a good idea, it's working out wonderfully. We need to take the same steps to protect our water revenues, and we owe it to the citizens to be fiscally responsible. MAYOR SCONYERS: Further comment, gentlemen? MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I just want a clarification, if I may. When we're saying tax avoidance for the city we're not talking about what the language was several weeks ago, tax avoidance for the urban service district, we mean the city and we mean from county line to county line with the exception of Hephzibah. MAYOR SCONYERS: That is the new city, that's correct. Yes, sir. MR. TODD: Thank you. I wanted that for the record. MAYOR SCONYERS: Right. Do we have any citizens that want to make a comment or anything at this time? MR. CUNNINGHAM: Mr. Chairman, this is the event of my life. I've worked all my life for just what y'all are doing here today. CLERK: Give us your name, Mr. Cunningham. MR. CUNNINGHAM: I'm George Cunningham, in case anybody don't know who I am. This water system has been a bugaboo, and I'm so proud that y'all are here today to do this thing. I wanted to see it, I've prayed for it, I've done everything that I knew to get it. But it's not a life or death situation. Your Attorney there will tell you, every time you sign for liability insurance on your automobile or your grandchildren come up and you take them in -- this thing here, the next government can take and make changes as they see fit. So we don't have to take and dot the I's, but what you don't want to do is do like the city done back years ago with perpetual care in the cemeteries. They took $125 and then when you come along you got to take and keep the cemeteries clean and ain't got the power to raise the money. So for God sakes, go ahead and pass it either way. It's not going to be a life event thing. And both sides have points, but let's get this thing going. Let's get this out of the way so we can get ahold of something other else. You've got so damn many problems that you need to get ahold of something else. Let's finalize this one and let it go. Thank you, sir. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you, Mr. Cunningham. Mr. McKie? MR. McKIE: I'm sorry I put that $2 million in there now. I left it 2 at that strictly to give the governing body some flexibility because I didn't feel that I could forecast four or five years down the road or for the rest of the term of the bond issue that you might need that for something. $2 2 million represents one mill of taxes. It represents on a $259 million budget, what, 1%. The traditional interest rate, inflation adjusted, is 3%. There are three components to an interest rate that you pay: there's the true rate of interest, which economists will tell you is about 3%; there's the inflation component, which right now is about 3%; and there's market risk, and then 2 there's customer risk. So we're expecting interest rates of 5-3/4 to 6. So, theoretically, the rate that we're going to pay has negative risk for us. It's less than the true rate plus the inflation rate. Now, certainly a credit manager would look at a closed system and say this represents less risk for the bond holders, for the insurers, and so therefore I won't charge as much insurance premium or I might not charge as much -- we might be able to sell the bonds at a lower rate. But you have to look at the size of it as well. 2 is not a lot, and I just don't think that it would --while it's a 2 factor, I don't think that it would make a great deal of difference either way. I certainly -- it's not going to be $2 million a year, you know, in 2 terms of entry cost or anything like that, so it's just going to be a matter of personal preference and whether or not you want to leave yourself some flexibility in the future. MAYOR SCONYERS: Well, Mr. McKie, that can also be put back into Water Department funds, can't it? MR. McKIE: Oh, yes, sir. This language does not say you have to do that, it says you may do it. If you don't positively elect to do it, it stays right where it is. So you will have to vote to make this transfer, and any other government will, too. MAYOR SCONYERS: Otherwise it will automatically be deposited there. MR. McKIE: Yes, sir, it will stay in the Waterworks unless it's positively moved out. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I'd like to amend the substitute motion to state that it will be $1 million after the Year 2000, per year, the maximum that can be transferred. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Is that all right with you, Mr. Mays? MR. MAYS: I'm going to lose with this deal all the way around today, so, hell, I might as well go along with it. Can I ask this, Mr. Mayor, while we're under discussion? And I'm going to be very brief with it, but I guess I'm going to express this opinion from the non-expert sitting here because probably I'm the only one that doesn't understand everything that's written in this total thing here. Now, we've taken professional advice from a lot of folk today. And this is a very important, it's a very herculean task, and I don't think anybody who maybe has a slight difference of opinion wants to be in a position of not being fiscally responsible. But now, if on everything other than this one paragraph that's got us hung -- and basically it's been on what to a certain extent we as policymakers have not put together, and we're basically relying on counsel and upon our folk in Finance. I'm going to ask, like I did when we finally got a chance to correct the water rates that I thought we rushed to make such a great amendment to the bill and found out that we'd made one hell of a catastrophe and didn't know how we got there. I don't think we can do the same thing with this and say we don't know how we got there. I'd like to ask them, whether it's Butch or Jim, from the standpoint of originally drawing up this document obviously there had to be a reason for leaving the flexibility -- and probably it may be redundant on what you just said Butch, but obviously there has to be a reason for that being put in that way and having the experience of having gone to New York before to deal with other projects in that manner. I don't think it would have been put there from the standpoint of we thought we were going to run the risk with the bond people of it being rejected. I would hope in a consolidated government that the fires of two old governments aren't still burning and that's what's driving us to deal with one system or another one. Because, you know -- no, I'm not saying that from you all drawing it up, I'm saying that from us on this side of the fence, because every reference that's being made is being made to something that somebody else did in another government and how they got there. And probably if you got to that point you could go A, B, C, D, and not just deal with what was transferred out of Waterworks, you probably could deal with other monies that were dealt with that were maybe more recklessly done than what was done in Waterworks. And I just wanted to say that, that I hope at some point, wherever we were last year on consolidation, that now that we've got there, that we'll deal with it with that type of mentality and not one that's in the past that got another government in that predicament. MR. TODD: Mr. Mayor, I call for the question. MAYOR SCONYERS: Mr. Powell had his hand up first. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to give Mr. Mays a point of information. When he's talking about the water rates being a hell of a catastrophe, he needs to open up his engineering report and look on Page 16. Augusta-Richmond County has got the lowest water rates. MR. HANDY: Now we call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. MAYS: Well, if it wasn't a catastrophe, Mr. Public Works Chairman, I don't think you would have admitted to not knowing why. And I believe that statement is in print and on audio that we basically didn't know what we were doing, and I'm basically quoting it from the ten --eight people who voted for it. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. McKie, I want you to explain to the press and all the folks here what it cost us to do this bond issue and the parties involved and how much money is involved so everybody will be up and aboveboard. MR. McKIE: If we can go to the section early on in the book, Page 9, we'll be able to pick those numbers up from Page 9, 10, and 11. MR. POWELL: Which book, Mr. McKie? You had about three out here today. MR. McKIE: I'm sorry. My little blue-bound book. MR. POWELL: Okay. MR. MAYS: We've got an expert, it don't make no difference. MR. McKIE: Mr. Mayor, there are two components of cost of issuance. One, there's a -- what I'll call a above-the-line cost. That shows up in the sources of original issue discount. That's a combination of what the discount is given to brokers who sell the bonds and any difference between our rate and the market rate. So that's the first element of cost. The second -- MR. HANDY: That's 3,714,000? MR. McKIE: Yes, sir. All right, the second element of cost is composed of three numbers on the bottom. Cost of issuance, $1,327,033. That's an estimated number. Insurance premium, $495,626. That's to ensure that these will be triple-A bonds, and it incidentally buys the rate down. And that's an analysis that will be done with ourselves and Robinson-Humphrey and presented to you before we buy the insurance, because if it doesn't buy it down low enough that we save more in interest than the premium, then we don't do it. And the surety bond is to make sure the escrow is paid off. Now, the cost of issuance -- and that will be the same on each of these three issues; okay? So if we look at that, that's estimated $1.3 million there, the next page over is $70,600, and 112 on the last issue. So that's 192 -- roughly $1.5 million is what's been estimated. I really don't think that it's going to be that high. This composed of cost on two sides of the issue: our side where we're issuing the bonds; that's legal fees, financial advisor fees, cost of printing, any travel that's done, out-of-pocket costs for Robinson-Humphrey. I'll have to work those out individually and get you the -- and, incidentally, those will be presented individually to counsel before any of them are approved, so that's -- these are estimates right now. And that we can do. Now, out of the bond issue, the underwriter's cost also comes as well, which is their side of the legal. I think that's 75. Jim, is that right? MR. WALL: Yeah. MR. McKIE: So I'll have to work these up in detail for you. MAYOR SCONYERS: And are we about even, under, high or low? Where are we at compared to the costs that some of the other people have quoted us? MR. McKIE: I'll have to break out the different components because we haven't had quotes from everybody. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. I just want the public to know that what we're doing is straight down the line. MR. McKIE: Oh, yes, sir, those will be presented and will be public information. These are just estimates here. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Powell? MR. POWELL: Mr. Chairman, are those going to be made public information before or after we vote on this thing? MR. McKIE: Before you vote on issuing the bonds. You're voting tonight on the resolution to issue bonds. MR. HANDY: Call for the question, Mr. Mayor. MR. McKIE: That'll be at the next meeting. MR. POWELL: Okay. Thank you, Mr. McKie. MR. HANDY: Time is running out. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay, the substitute motion first, made by Mr. Todd. Do you want to re-read Mr. Todd's motion so we know exactly what the motion was, please? CLERK: The substitute motion by Mr. Todd was to adopt as is, with an amendment that only $1 million after the Year 2000 as the maximum be transferred. MAYOR SCONYERS: Okay. Mr. Wall? MR. WALL: Just so that I'm clear, is that in the Year 2000 and after? Because that was Mr. Bridges' original motion was in the Year 2000, or is it after the Year 2000? MR. TODD: After the Year 2000. MR. WALL: After the Year -- MR. TODD: Yes. Wasn't that initially what was in the resolution, after the Year 2000, or was it in the Year 2000? MR. WALL: In the Year 2000. MR. TODD: Well, we'll amend the after to in the Year 2000, $1 million per year. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor of Mr. Todd's motion, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. BRIDGES VOTES NO. MR. H. BRIGHAM AND MR. KUHLKE OUT. MOTION CARRIES 7-1. MAYOR SCONYERS: Anything else, gentlemen? MR. WALL: Mr. Mayor, I have a personnel matter I need -- MAYOR SCONYERS: Yes, sir. We have a quick personnel matter that we need to take care of right now. It's most important. MR. HANDY: Do you need a motion to adjourn or you already got it? MAYOR SCONYERS: Let's have a motion to go to a personnel meeting. MR. POWELL: So move. MR. MAYS: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: All in favor, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MR. H. BRIGHAM AND MR. KUHLKE OUT. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. [EXECUTIVE SESSION, 6:36 - 6:45 P.M.] MAYOR SCONYERS: We have an announcement to make tonight, that effective this afternoon Mr. Estabrook -- well, actually effective tonight, I just got it a few minutes ago. Mr. Estabrook has withdrawn his name from the Administrator of Augusta-Richmond County, so we're back to ground zero again. And I will give y'all a copy of his announcement if you so desire. MR. BRIDGES: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to adjourn. MR. HANDY: Second. MAYOR SCONYERS: Thank you. That's a non-debatable motion. All in favor of the motion to adjourn, let it be known by raising your hand, please. MOTION CARRIES 8-0. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:46 P.M. Lena J. Bonner Clerk of Commission CERTIFICATION: I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Called Meeting of Augusta-Richmond County Commission held on October 21, 1996. _________________________ Clerk of Commission