WORK SESSION

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS

February 9, 2006

A work session of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, February 9, 2006, at 3:15 p.m., in the Boardroom of the Greenwood Commissioners of Public Works at 121 Court Avenue.

In attendance:

Gene P. Hancock          Steve D. Reeves, Jr.         Denise Giannetti

Michael G. Monaghan   Kenneth M. Barnett          Mark Amick

Henry O. Watts             Jeff Meredith                    Richard Gentry

Ken Whittle                   Ron Lemon                      Scott Banks

Jeff Auman

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

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

III.               Discussion Items:

A.     Manager Reeves asked for clarification from the Commissioners on an issue that was brought up several years ago. At that point in time, the main office building was made “smoke-free” and smokers must now go outside to smoke. Operations center employees were allowed to continue smoking in the kitchen because there is an exhaust fan. Mr. Reeves stated his understanding that the warehouse area was not addressed at that time. He added that probably both locations have gotten to a point where there are enough non-smokers complaining that clarification is needed. He then stated that he had a request to make interiors of all facilities “smoke-free”. Mr. Reeves noted that a covered area is at the backdoor of the operations center. Chairman Monaghan noted that most public buildings now have a non-smoking policy and we also have to respect the rights of those who do not smoke because second-hand smoke is a health hazard. Commissioner Hancock asked that a bench be placed outside of the warehouse area. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to make all CPW facilities “smoke-free”.  

B.     Manager Reeves informed the Commissioners of an evaluation of the roof at the water treatment plant and noted that they have been having a considerable amount of leaks. Lloyd’s Roofing has been out and is suggesting a very extensive construction project, probably in the $50,000 to $100,000 range. Mr. Reeves stated that several months back we had asked a consultant to look at the roof on the main office building and we have asked them for a price to do the same at the water treatment plant. Mr. Reeves explained that if we are going to spend that much money, he would like to have someone tell us exactly what needs to be done from a specifications standpoint. He stated that the proposed fee for this evaluation is $6,000 and is certainly in line if we are looking at construction of $50,000 to $100,000. The alternative would be to get Lloyd’s Roofing to come in and write the specs; however, since Lloyd’s is going to bid, that would not be fair to everyone else. Mr. Reeves stated that he would like to retain Facilities Consulting Group to do an evaluation of the roof and to write a set of specifications for us to bid the roof repairs. Chairman Monaghan asked about the kind of job they did here and Mr. Reeves stated that they did a good job. He added that there are a number of outlets on the roof that probably need to be removed because they could potentially cause leaks but there was not a lot we could do right now. They are not causing any problems so we have not followed through but very likely will eventually. Commissioner Hancock inquired about the kind of roof they are recommending and Mr. Reeves stated the consultant will make a recommendation on the kind of repairs that need to be made and then write the specs around that. Mr. Reeves noted that this amount was within his spending limit and unless the Commissioners were not in agreement, he would proceed.

Chairman Monaghan stated that if the Emergency Preparedness communications failed, they have to go to Saluda for backup. From Saluda the radios don’t operate very well back here. He stated that they are looking for a backup communications room to put equipment in case the one at the courthouse fails. Chairman Monaghan asked if there was anywhere at any of our facilities and suggested Wilson Creek, Metro, or maybe the water plant. He stated that the COC would not be a good place because of the railroad runner. Mr. Banks noted there is also a railroad runner outside of the water plant so that rules that out as well. Commissioner Hancock added that the telephone company used to have a backup at one of our water tanks at one time. Mr. Banks responded that Hodges is big enough; Stockman did have some relay equipment in a small building; and he was not sure about Phoenix. Mr. Reeves stated he did not know of any vacant rooms here that could be used. He added that there is probably enough property at the Hodges site for them to pour a slab, put a small building there to house equipment, and put an antenna on top of the tank. Mr. Reeves stated there is also room at the propane plant but that would probably not be a good place.

C.     Manager Reeves presented information on a 2006 Opportunity Grant for Commercial Revitalization that the City has been pursuing. The City is working with Metro and CPW staff to put together a proposal. He stated that no commitment is necessary; he was simply sharing information at this time. He added that there is the potential for about $250,000 in grant monies but it will take a commitment of $100,000 from CPW. Mr. Reeves stated his belief that this is something we should definitely pursue, and noted it would be for upgrades to the water and electrical system. He added that Metro is also looking at updating the sewer system. He stated that they are looking at grant monies of $350,000 for sewer, $150,000 for electrical, $75,000 for water, $325,000 for streetscape, and $400,000 for facade. The City’s portion will be about $300,000; they are asking for a $100,000 commitment from CPW and $150,000 from Metro. Commissioner Hancock asked for clarification on the amounts and Mr. Reeves responded that we would be committing to $100,000 to get $225,000 rather than $250,000.

D.     Manager Reeves asked Mr. Banks to explain an idea for subdivision wells. Mr. Banks explained how many times when someone is doing a subdivision outside of the city limits where we do not have water, they will come by and sign a paper with DHEC stating that they don’t have water. If it is a pretty good ways out and they are not willing to pay the money to get it there, they will do one of two things. They will either put in a community well or have each individual lot put in a well system. Normally they are not putting in the infrastructure that would be up to our standards if and when we ever got to that point. He gave an example where they are considering putting in a subdivision on an adjacent property. Normally, when they work up the estimate to serve that one property, they also look at all of the other potential properties. If a subdivision already has either a community well or individual wells, they are not really a potential customer. The idea would be to market the idea to Homeowner’s Associations and developers that if they will put in the infrastructure up to our standards and put in a community well, we would run and operate that well system for them until such time as we are there adjacent to them with our water lines. He then named Eagles’ Harbor as a case-in-point. Had that happened with this case, we would be able to serve it with a well system and if and when we ever got out there sometime in the future, we could tie them over. Currently, since they are on individual wells, it wouldn’t be feasible to run or to try to help them at this time. He noted that a lot of entities in the more rural areas do similar type projects. He stated that with a typical 50-lot subdivision, we would not make a lot of money from it but could more than cover our costs. Likewise, the first year or two, depending on how fast it builds out, it might cost us a little, but over time it would more than pay for itself. It would all depend on the size of the subdivisions, the bigger they are, the more the cost of that well system and they would probably be less likely to put forth the money. He added that with a typical 50-lot subdivision, the additional cost to the developer would more than be offset from the standpoint of public water being there because he can charge more for his lots, and likewise sell more lots because the lots can be smaller. It would be a wash for the developer. The payback for us would come once we are there; we would not have to redo it because the infrastructure would already be there. With some of the well systems in recent years, we had to go in and put in new pipes because the community well system leaked so badly it just wasn’t cost effective to leave the system in. Commissioner Hancock asked if the County subdivision regulations dictate the infrastructure going into a subdivision like they do with roads. Mr. Banks stated they do not and that if it is a private development, the County will not be maintaining it like they are maintaining the roads.  Mr. Banks added that the main thing that subdivision regulations dictate is offsets and the roads they are going to maintain, but as far as piping infrastructure, that is left up to the utilities. In that case, that would be a private utility and most private utilities don’t worry with it. Chairman Monaghan stated that this was a good idea and Metro is looking at the same kind of problem. They are looking at building package plants for a subdivision that may be near the same areas and we could partner with Metro and do the same with water. Mr. Reeves stated that is basically what this is. The well would be the source of water and we would treat the water in the well and we would own the well. Mr. Banks stated that the developer would put in the well and then turn it over to us just like it was part of our system. Chairman Monaghan asked how much it would cost to put in a well like this. Mr. Banks responded that depending on the size of the subdivision, for instance with a larger subdivision like Eagle’s Harbor with over 200 houses, you would probably have to put in additional wells. Every time you have fifty houses or more, you have to add an additional well and then incrementally above that. Mr. Banks added that in talking with DHEC, of the 200 well systems they have on, only four require additional treatment and so chances are we would not have to chlorinate or put in fluoride. If we have to add other chemicals such as softening, at that point then we have to add chlorine, but the chances are good that it would just be a well system that we would not have to add additional treatment to until we got there. We would run a monthly bacteriological test and visit at least weekly. Once we start adding treatment, we would have to visit daily. We would also have it on SCADA so if the pump shut down we would know about it and act accordingly. Mr. Reeves responded to Chairman Monaghan’s earlier question about the cost and stated that it would run under $10,000 per well if they hit water the first time. Mr. Reeves added that we can show the developer how he could bear the expense of putting in the well by putting in smaller lots. He gets his money back by selling additional lots. Mr. Banks added that since there is public water, the lot becomes more valuable. Chairman Monaghan asked again about partnering with Metro. Mr. Reeves said that very likely wherever we did this, Metro would want to put a package plant, and wherever they put a package plant, CPW may want to be. Chairman Monaghan asked Mr. Reeves to talk with Metro. Commissioner Watts asked if there is enough staff to take care of this. Mr. Banks responded that there would be initially until we had several systems. We would probably not add but one system every two or three years. We already have a person that collects samples daily and weekly. Chairman Monaghan asked about fire extinguishing. Mr. Banks stated that to start with, we would only put in yard hydrants for flushing purposes. Once we come through and tie it on to our system, then we would go back and where the yard hydrant is, go back down and put that hydrant leg. Mr. Reeves stated that the system would be designed for fire protection; we just would not have the hydrants. Mr. Reeves noted that DHEC would prefer this because it takes septic tanks and individual wells out of the system and puts a public entity in charge. Mr. Banks stated that in the proposal, they will probably go ahead and charge the outside city rate. Our cost would be drastically less, but this would allow us to put that money into an account to have funds we can tap as we are getting ready to run a line and tie them onto the system or if the well goes bad and we have to drill another well. Chairman Monaghan again stated this was a great idea and we just need to get the information into some kind of package to “peddle” to the developers. 

IV.              Executive Session:

            A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to go into Executive Session to discuss a contractual matter pertaining to power supply.

            The meeting returned to open session with general discussion on annexation issues.

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