COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS

Minutes of April 25, 2005

The regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Monday, April 25, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in the boardroom at 121 West Court Avenue.

In attendance:

Gene P. Hancock, Steve D. Reeves, Jr., Stacia May, Lee Roper,

Michael G. Monaghan, Kenneth M. Barnett, Scott Banks,

Michael Nix, Henry O. Watts, Denise Giannetti, Jay Thompson,

Jean Martin, Melinda Bishop, Rebecca Steifle  

I.              Chairman Monaghan called the meeting to order and Commissioner Hancock gave the invocation. 

II.                 Chairman Monaghan gave the statement of compliance with the notification provision of the Freedom of Information Act.

III.               A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock to approve the minutes of the March 28, 2005 regular meeting; Commissioner Watts seconded and the motion was unanimously approved.  

IV.              Chairman Monaghan asked a question from the financial statement about communications and the tremendous difference between year-to-date this year and last year. Ms. Giannetti stated that the Director of Information Technology and the other person were charged to a different department this year. Chairman Monaghan noted an $18,000 increase in the customer relations department, and a $50,000 difference in billing and collections. Ms. Giannetti stated that some of the difference came from a combination of increases in salaries and insurance. She added that she would look a little further and report back to Chairman Monaghan.   

V.                 New Business:                     

A.     Mr. Michael Nix with Greenwood Capital Associates provided copies of a portfolio appraisal on the CPW’s investments. (A copy is attached.) Mr. Nix stated that assets were received into the investment account in January of 2005; however, the full $5 million initial investment was not fully invested until the later part of March. He stated that the initial report is an appraisal of the bonds held and that as the relationship progresses, additional reports will be provided. He stated that fixed income investing is one of the most complicated investing vehicles that you can have because of the fluctuation in the value of the account. He referred to page 3 showing the bottom line number with a current yield of 4%, based off the income relative to the current market value. Mr. Nix stated that this number will change depending on whether you are buying premium or discount bonds, and that he looked at every bond purchased in this account and the actual yield to maturity; true yield for the entire account is 4.55%. He clarified that should he not do anything else and let this account sit like it is and all of those bonds mature, assuming no re-investment of income and no re-investment of matured bonds, the yield at the end of the period would be 4.55% over that period of time. He noted that it will change anytime he buys a new bond, anytime a bond is sold, or a bond is called and is replaced. He stated that it is a volatile interest rate environment right now, so the position has been to stay pretty short to try to remove the volatility within the account. If you look at that current 4% and the income produced off this, it is $198,512.52 per year over a twelve-month period, assuming nothing changes. He stated that as some of these bonds come due, ideally we will be investing at higher rates. He added that he would like to think that in twelve months as rates start to rise and we are re-investing, current yield could be 5%. He added that if we see the economy start to slow down, rates could also go down. Chairman Monaghan stated that there is over $10 million in operating cash and another $5.9 million and asked about a better vehicle to get a better return on that portion. Ms. Giannetti responded that we are about to move more funds over to Greenwood Capital for investment. Mr. Nix added that if we have short-term money that can be invested for six or nine months then you would need the cash back, they can buy discount notes they know come due on a certain date and would work with us if that is communicated to them. He stated that if something changes with the objective with the money, if that is communicated, it can be set up. Chairman Monaghan asked about the possibility of taking the bond reserve and getting a 120-day note. Ms. Giannetti responded that we get into arbitrage issues if we earn too much interest on bond money. Mr. Barnett asked about a Fannie Mae (STEP) shown on page 2 and whether this means that the interest rate will step up every six months to a year. Mr. Nix responded that occasionally they buy STEP bonds that have a built-in STEP call feature. He stated that an explanation of the characteristics of each of these bonds and call features involved can be provided. Mr. Barnett asked whether they calculate by yield-to-call date or maturity date. Mr. Nix responded they use yield-to-worst and further explained that the 4.5% mentioned earlier is yield-to-worst, the worst case scenario that would be earned.  

B.     Chairman Monaghan noted a number of trucks had been bid. He then gave the recommendations from staff on those bids and motions were made as follows:

      a.         a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid for a ¾-ton service body truck in the amount of $21,502.96 from Carolina Ford.

      b.         a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid in the amount of $25,924.45 each for a total bid of $77,773.35 for                              three trucks from Carolina Ford.

      c.         a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid in the amount of $16,534 for a ¾-ton regular cab pickup truck from Benson Chrysler.

      d.         a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid in the amount of $16,429.670 from Carolina Ford for a ½-ton extended cab pickup.

      e.         After hearing the recommendation to accept the low bid from Smith Chevrolet, Commissioner Hancock asked where they are located and noted the small difference in the low bid and the local bidder. Mr. Barnett responded that he thought they were located in Columbia and Commissioner Hancock stated it would cost more than the $124 to go there and pick it up. Chairman Monaghan noted his desire to have people continue to bid and if we weaken the bid process, will these people bid again. A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Smith Chevrolet in the amount of $15,326 for a ½-ton regular cab pickup truck.

      f.          a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Benson Chrysler in the amount of $19,089 for a ½-ton crew-cab pickup truck.

      g.         a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Ballentine Ford in the amount of $12,000 for a compact pickup truck.

      h.         a motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid in the amount of $35,181.31 from Carolina Ford for a Series 550 truck with service body. 

C.     Mr. Reeves explained the recommendation to accept the low bid for lights and poles for the new Brewer Middle School parking lot. Mr. Reeves explained that these are more expensive lights and the cost is reimbursed through the rate tariff. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Wesco for 62 lights and 45 poles at a price of $58,594.68.    

D.    Mr. Reeves explained the request for fiber optic cable and fittings and a recommendation from Mr. Meredith to accept the low bid from Wesco in the amount of $39,563.25. Mr. Reeves noted that Wesco was the only bidder that bid on all items. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, and seconded by Commissioner Watts to accept the low bid from Wesco. Chairman Monaghan stated that in these cases, we should talk with other bidders to learn why they did not bid on all of the items. Commissioner Hancock noted that some probably did not have all of the fittings. Chairman Monaghan stated that we do not want to “cherry pick” from package to package because you lose bidders that way. The Commissioners stated their desire to bid items separately to avoid these situations. The motion was then unanimously approved.

E.     Mr. Reeves explained the recommendation for a fiber splicer. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Wesco in the amount of $19,258.

F.      Mr. Reeves noted the receipt of four bids for a bucket truck. He recommended the low bidder meeting all specifications; Altec Industries, Inc. Mr. Reeves noted that we have had good experience with Altec. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Altec Industries for a bucket truck at a cost of $137,913.  

G.    Mr. Reeves recommended the low bid from CCC, Inc. for sludge and trash hauling and disposal. Mr. Reeves stated they have provided this service since we started hauling sludge. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from CCC, Inc. in the amount of $27,362.50.

H.    Mr. Reeves explained the recommendation for chlorine dioxide feed equipment that are part of the upgrades at the water treatment plant. He stated that the consulting engineer, Mr. Ken Parnell, met with staff to review bids and specifications and they are recommending the low bidder, Pure Line Treatment Systems, Inc. in the amount of $51,890. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Pure Line Treatment Systems, Inc.

I.        Mr. Reeves explained the recommendation for chemical meter pumps that are part of the water treatment plant upgrades. The recommendation is for Combs & Associates for Pulsafeeder, Inc., in the amount of $319,160, including an add-on for non-loss motion pumps. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to accept the low bid from Combs & Associates.

J.        Mr. Reeves stated he received a call from the consulting engineer for the water treatment plant improvement projects prior to the meeting stating concerns with the recommendation made in the agenda package on instrumentation integrators. He stated that part of the concern is with some of the addendums the bidder had placed on them during the review process. Mr. Reeves added that Mr. Parnell wants to get clarification on a couple of items before awarding this project to avoid change orders later. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to postpone this item.

      Mr. Reeves reminded the Commissioners that the directional boring system and the sodium hypochlorite feed system have also been postponed.  

VI.              Other Business

1.      After discussion, the pre-bid conference was rescheduled for Tuesday, May 31, at 10:00 a.m. at the water plant. After all three Commissioners responded that they would attend, Mr. Reeves stated that a notice would be posted.

2.      Mr. Reeves reminded the Commissioners of a Public Hearing on May 4 at 5:30 p.m. and distributed copies of the notice placed in The Index Journal. A work session to review the rate designs was set for May 3, at 10:00 a.m.

3.      Commissioner Hancock stated that he had received information on gas water heaters and cook stoves, but still did not have a response to his question about gas pressure on New Market Street. Mr. Barnett responded that he had an answer and would go into more detail with him at another time.

4.      Commissioner Watts noted that the Work in Progress Report showed that only two streetlights were repaired in March. Mr. Thompson responded that there was a flaw in the way this information was reported and he would get the updated information to Commissioner Watts. He added that there were a lot more than two streetlights repaired.  

5.      Commissioner Watts asked about the contract with Metro and CPW to prevent illegal tapping into sewer. Mr. Reeves stated that a deed was sent to Metro with a restriction and they have sent an agreement back that will be discussed during Executive Session.  

6.      Commissioner Watts inquired about new information on the Sprint Pole Attachment Agreement. Mr. Reeves responded that Mr. Roper had information to share during Executive Session.

7.      Chairman Monaghan asked about the release from The Countybank for additional fibers. Mr. Reeves stated that we are proceeding without a release.

8.      Chairman Monaghan inquired about the number of gallons of water used at the fire in Ninety Six. Mr. Reeves stated that he had not talked with Ms. Gorham about actual usage. 

9.      Chairman Monaghan inquired about the progress on the talks about the park at the old water plant. Mr. Reeves responded that he called Mr. Nicholson with a proposal last week. There seems to be some feeling that it is something they are owed, but he pointed out they are getting a lot of value in property they are not being asked to pay for, so they should not expect too much. Mr. Reeves added that Mr. Nicholson said he would discuss this with other committee members and get back with him. Chairman Monaghan stated that Mr. Reeves should emphasize to them that we want to get this completed. Mr. Reeves stated that he had emphasized to Mr. Nicholson that CPW wants a park there, but also wants something where everybody gains. He added that everyone seems to be together on a plan; right now it’s more about whether there are any dollars involved.

10.  Chairman Monaghan inquired about the additional computer position. Mr. Auman stated that a second interview is scheduled this week. Chairman Monaghan inquired about the status of the Marketing Director position. Mr. Barnett responded that he is going through resumes. Mr. Reeves stated that George Martin has indicated he would like to review them as well since Metro will partially fund this position.

11.  Chairman Monaghan inquired about old transformers that are sometimes sold and whether we have an inventory of old depleted transformers we are hanging onto. Mr. Thompson stated that Mark Falls handles that area and he did not know the exact process involved.  Mr. Reeves stated this is transformers that may have some fault on the inside that needs repair and Mr. Thompson responded that those are scrapped.

12.  Chairman Monaghan inquired about the letter to residents of Corrie Court. Mr. Reeves responded that letters were sent out and there was no feedback.   

VII.            A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to go into Executive Session to discuss legal and contractual matters.

            The meeting returned to open session.

            Mr. Reeves stated that during Executive Session discussion took place on an Indemnification Agreement between the Greenwood Commissioners of Public Works and the Greenwood Metropolitan District. Mr. Reeves stated that if the Board wished to accept that Indemnification Agreement, it would be appropriate to authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement with one change noted; to eliminate the third paragraph that reads “Whereas GMD is reluctant to accept ownership of the sewer line with such a restriction”. Commissioner Hancock made a motion to accept the Agreement with the change, Commissioner Watts seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved.             

VIII.         With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.