Greenwood CPW
http://www.greenwoodcpw.com/PublicInfoCustomer ServiceContact UsRatesJob OpeningsPay Your CPW Bill OnlineBoard Meeting MinutesCPW CommissionersActive BidsLinks

WORK SESSION

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS

January 12, 2006

 A work session of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, January12, 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

Chuck Watson               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 presented the Commissioners with an update on the CPW Cares Program. He stated that a couple of months ago the Board authorized matching funds up to $25,000 towards the CPW Cares contributions to assist with heating bills. He stated that Ms. Gorham had informed him that as of this date, contributions have totaled only $1,027.00. Of the $25,000 pledged, only $1,027.00 has gone to United Ministries. Chairman Monaghan noted that we gave $15,000 one time and suggested that if we do that again, it should be spread out over a three-month period so that it lasts longer. The Commissioners then discussed contributing the balance of the $25,000. Mr. Reeves stated that he was thinking that should cover the rest of January and February, usually the coldest months, and noted that March bills would be for February consumption. Chairman Monaghan stated a desire to continue to match any contributions that come in, and Commissioner Hancock responded that he would rather wait and make a decision as the contributions come in. Mr. Reeves stated that another option would be to give up to $20,000 now and leave the $4,000 balance for matching fund contributions. The Commissioners agreed with this approach. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock and seconded by Commissioner Watts to contribute $20,000 of the $25,000 originally pledged by the Board, and to divide this amount up by month through the end of March; the motion was unanimously approved. 

B.     Manager Reeves presented an update on annexation to the Commissioners. He stated that we are one signature away from finishing the process of obtaining signatures for annexing the properties out to Northside Middle School, and have a commitment from that one to sign on Monday. He asked the Commissioners for direction on whether to proceed with contacting property owners to annex Metro. Chairman Monaghan stated that he would rather continue discussion in depth when maps showing the potential annexation are available. He stated that Mr. Meredith had provided a good financial analysis. He added that if there is potential, it might be something they would want to do if it was a good move for the future. Mr. Reeves stated that they have the map available and could discuss this today or hold off on any further discussion until a later time. Mr. Reeves stated that at this point, he did not feel it was worth it, but we don’t know what would come as a result of all the annexation.   

C.     Manager Reeves presented a plaque for the fourteenth consecutive Financial Reporting Award. He noted that it has already been in the newspaper.   

D.     Manager Reeves reminded the Commissioner that at the last bid opening, action was delayed on electric meters. Mr. Meredith was asked to look at the possibility of testing a different meter and to determine whether there is sufficient cost savings in buying a different type of electric meter to justify purchasing additional test equipment. Mr. Meredith’s recommendation is to now proceed with the low bid for a different style electric meter. Mr. Reeves stated that he is assuming from Mr. Meredith’s recommendation that we can use the same test equipment we have now. Mr. Meredith responded that we should be able to use the same test equipment; there is one portion of our test equipment that is not functioning with this meter; however, we feel it is a firmware issue and not a test equipment issue.  Commissioner Hancock asked about parts for these meters and Mr. Meredith stated that they are all solid-state meters and that should not be a problem. Chairman Monaghan asked what the difference was in the low bid and the second low bid. Mr. Reeves responded that the low bid for the house meter was $58.70 and the second bid for the meter we have been using was $64.00, for a difference of $5.25 for 240 meters. Mr. Meredith noted that the same ERT module would be on these as on the others. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock to purchase the GE electric meters at the low bid cost of $58.70; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

E.      Manager Reeves presented information to the Board for discussion of OMR meters versus a meter reader position. He stated that an employee had recently moved from the meter reading department into an open position at the water treatment plant. Staff has looked at the possibility of not filling the meter reader position. We have been adding a lot of ERT modules, which are the automatic meter reading devices, to a lot of meters over the last couple of years. It is the opinion of Ms. Gorham, Ms. Giannetti, and Mr. Wayne Bartley that we are in a borderline position now that we could possibly get by without filling the position; they are asking that for the next couple of years they take the value of that position including salary, benefits, vehicle, uniforms, etc. estimated to be right at $50,000, and buy additional modules to put on the meters to help relieve the stress that would be on the remaining meter readers. We are at the point now where the more of these we can get on the meters, the shorter timeframe it would be for the meter readers. They feel very comfortable that if we can do this, they can get by for the next couple of years. Then we will be in a position where we would not need that additional meter reader. Chairman Monaghan stated that he thought there was an ongoing program for putting on these modules. Mr. Reeves responded that some are already budgeted in the gas and water budgets and they want to take these and put them on electric meters. Because they can be done in a very short time and installed quickly. They can purchase an additional 770 for that $50,000 rather than replacing the meter reader and reduce the meter-reading time. Mr. Reeves added that this is in keeping with the long-range plan. We have talked about the possibility of eventually using the fiber optic system with transmitters and receivers and maybe eventually not having meter readers. Chairman Monaghan asked how long we had been in a position where an extra guy was not needed. Mr. Reeves responded that we are on the borderline at the current time, by adding the 2,500 in the budget, plus the additional 770, we feel they will be alright. Mr. Reeves explained that these would be put in some of the areas like the mill villages where the water and gas meters are out front, but the electric meter is behind the house. By putting them on electric meters, time will be saved because they will not have to walk around behind the house. Commissioner Watts asked if it was time to replace those meters and Mr. Reeves responded they would not replace the meters, they will just add the ERT module to them. Chairman Monaghan asked how often we review our workforce as to whether or not we have other extra positions. Mr. Reeves stated that we are at the stage where we are approaching the borderline of almost having too many meter readers, but without one, we would almost have too few. Chairman Monaghan asked if the quality of the department would be reduced. Ms. Gorham explained Mr. Bartley’s reason for asking for the modules to be installed on electric meters is because they can be installed so much quicker than water and gas. With the additional water and gas to be installed throughout this year, if we can get these 770 in quickly, then we would not need to replace the meter reader position. If we don’t, then we would likely suffer. Mr. Reeves stated that in the meantime if we run short on meter time, then we will have some of the meter readers to work a little overtime. He added that he would rather do that than to hire somebody and then in six months not need them. Ms. Giannetti pointed out that meter readers and servicemen are the ones who will be installing these and will work in a very short concentrated period of time to get as many in as quickly as possible over the next two months. Mr. Reeves stated we are looking at using meter readers to install them on Saturdays, and with eight men, it can be done in six Saturdays. Mr. Barnett pointed out that some of the servicemen could help read meters for a short time if necessary. Chairman Monaghan asked if a cross benefit analysis had been done. Mr. Reeves responded that they did to some extent. The six days of work would cost just over $9,000. The expense for the units is the $50,000 we would transfer based on employee salary, so that is $60,000. The long term savings are $1.25 million because that is that person’s salary over the remaining 25 years of their employment. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock and seconded by Commissioner Watts to install 770 modules versus hiring another meter reader. The motion was unanimously approved.

F.      Mr. Reeves stated that Mr. Chuck Watson had asked to address the Commissioners. Mr. Watson began by stating that Simple DSL had “bit the dust” and is officially closed despite a valiant effort. He informed the Commissioners that customers would be transferred over to another company that wants to try to keep it going; the plan is that service would not be interrupted. He stated that his involvement was over. He then thanked the Commissioners and CPW for their support in helping to get a local business off the ground. He stated his appreciation for their backing and support and also for the customer base. Chairman Monaghan stated disappointment in hearing this news and thanked Mr. Watson for partnering with CPW.

G.     Manager Reeves presented a request for sewer from an individual for property out East Laurel Road near Avondale. They want to annex if we can get sewer to them. Mr. Reeves noted on the map that there is sewer along the drainage basin. He stated that Mr. Amick ran three estimates with the longest coming in at $100,000 and the cheapest at $30,000. Chairman Monaghan asked if Avondale had sewer. Mr. Reeves responded that it does but there would not be access to this property without crossing other people’s property and the fall would not be sufficient. Chairman Monaghan asked how much he planned to build there and Mr. Amick responded that a preliminary plan showed “thirty something” lots, actually 46 lots; however, he knows that he will lose some of those because of a power line that runs through there. Mr. Reeves stated that at $30,000 it would certainly be worth us doing it, but he wanted the Board’s consensus. Mr. Amick added that he has an option on the property now and he did not want to proceed with purchasing unless he knew he could get sewer later. Commissioner Hancock asked if he knew for sure he was annexing and if he knows our policy. Mr. Reeves stated he will put his own in and it is subject to reimbursement, this would be at our cost. He just needed to know whether to start working on property owners for easements, rights-of-way, and the design for the sewer line. Chairman Monaghan stated that if we say we are going to do this, we should follow through. Mr. Reeves stated that we will advise him that we are in favor and the Board supports it; if he chooses to annex then we will proceed.

H.     Manager Reeves informed the Commissioners that we had received a final survey on the Keller tract of land we are purchasing near Highway 246 next to the city pond property. He stated that it turned out to be 47.25 acres, and we will be cutting a final check to close in the next couple of weeks. Chairman Monaghan asked about the price and Mr. Reeves stated it was $2,900 per acre.

I.        Manager Reeves informed the Commissioners that the City is looking at a number of projects downtown. The Phase I project is entitled South Main Streetscape and this is detailing adding trees and shrubs on the south end of Main Street. They have asked for additional street lighting and an irrigation system at a cost to CPW of about $12,000. They will purchase the materials, they are just asking for in-kind labor from us. The Commissioners stated their agreement and noted that it would be included in the annual exchange of checks with the City. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to grant the City’s request.

J.       Manager Reeves presented information on requests for bids to be sent out on three properties. Mr. Reeves stated that the first property is 9.72 acres at Pump House Road; the second one being the six acres or so at the old electric operating center on Bypass 25 below Jerry’s Produce; and the last is the piece of property off Sample Road that we have divided and retained five acres of land around our substation for future growth with the remaining 9.9 acres to be offered for sale.  Mr. Reeves stated that unless there was any discussion or disagreement from the Board, he would proceed with a mail out to local real estate agents, developers, and contractors. Commissioner Hancock asked about the line from the lake, the intake, where it comes up through there right-of-way wise. Mr. Reeves responded that it runs right along Pump House Road. Mr. Reeves pointed it out on the map and Chairman Monaghan asked if we have to do something with that. Mr. Reeves stated that everything is being sold “as is”. Commissioner Hancock asked about old lines pumped into those ponds through that property and how much land the pump house takes up. Mr. Reeves stated it does not really take up anything. He added that one of the developers he had talked with indicated they would probably leave it there, take out the motors, and build a large community pier and deck in a small subdivision. Chairman Monaghan noted that there would likely be some ridiculous offers. Mr. Reeves responded that any bid can be rejected for any reason.  Commissioner Hancock stated that he brought up the lines because that is what brings in that water into that pond out there and the lakes and you have to keep them full one way or the other; if they ever go empty there will be problems. Chairman Monaghan stated that we are not pumping water right now; Commissioner Hancock stated that rain water is saving us now. Mr. Reeves stated that he didn’t know if we could pump from them because first, Duke has removed all of the electrical lines that fed that, that could be reinstalled. The pumps probably likely would not work, the line itself is deteriorated to the point you would have to put a liner or replace it before you could even pump water. Mr. Banks stated that was correct because it has been empty for so long, it would probably be rusted to the point it would leak like a sieve and would have to be lined all the way from the lake. Mr. Banks stated that as far as filling the lower pond, we still have the well there that we can pump into. Commissioner Hancock stated that a history needs to be written for the Commissioners explaining that the pumps are gone out there, and the pipe is deteriorated and completely gone. Somebody will come back one of these days and get on us about those ponds because we have some liability for them. Some water is going to have to be kept in those ponds. If we put City water in there, we will kill the fish. Commissioner Hancock stated that someone needs to certify that the pipe is no good, the pumps are gone, Duke took electricity out, and have it for evidence that this is the reason we did away with it and sold the land because we benefited everybody with the revenue. Commissioner Hancock stated he did not want to get into any trouble over this later. Discussion concluded with Mr. Reeves stating that a motion was not necessary at this time; nothing will be final until sales are approved by the Commissioners.

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 a fiber optic lease.

            The meeting returned to open session with further discussion of item E. Commissioner Hancock commented on gas customers in Ware Shoals and rural Greenville and his belief that ERT modules should be put there before putting them in a congested area in the city. Mr. Reeves and Mr. Barnett responded “not necessarily”. There are different things you look at with deciding where to put them. For example, somewhere downtown there is an electric meter way to hook up on a telephone pole. You have to get a ladder on a wall and all of that; that was one of the first places that we put one of those. Commissioner Hancock noted that we have meters inside the stores, too. Mr. Barnett stated we have looked at those. We looked at where we would get the most bang for the buck, if we can put them on a well defined apartment complex where when you can go there, click the button and move on, that is much more advantageous time wise than having one stuck off the road somewhere way out. Until the day comes when we can actually bring that information back on the line, we have to look at where we can really get the best benefit. Sometimes it is somewhere off the main road, but you still have to get within a certain distance to get back the reading. That would work when we get to where we have a transmitter that can transmit maybe a mile back to a fiber, then those in outlying areas like that really give you some benefit because you wouldn’t even have to go there. Commissioner Hancock stated that if you can ride down the road up near Greenville and read all of those, if should save a lot of time. Mr. Barnett stated that when we get enough of them out there, you can then go through with a band where the transmission distance is a little better, but with the handheld itself to be realistic you are looking at probably less than a half mile away from you (1,000 feet), you might get up to that but still have to get fairly close. That is why with an apartment complex where everything is close, basically you punch the button and in less than 30 seconds, it has read everything and you are moving on. Commissioner Hancock asked if there is a QC program on these ERT’s yet to make sure that everything is picked up in an apartment complex. Mr. Barnett stated that when it is read it tells you that the meter information is in the handheld. Before they come back in, they know which meters were not read. Commissioner Hancock asked if we have any trucks equipped to ride by and read and Mr. Reeves stated that we do not have that yet. The technology is there, some utilities have it, but we don’t have enough of them on the system yet. Mr. Barnett stated that every year we have to look at how many can be installed and when we started we anticipated having most of the systems up by now, but we have always had to shift that priority to other things. Mr. Reeves stated that only about 10% of the 50,000 meters on our system are covered; there are still a lot of meters left to be done. There are about 20,000 water meters, about 19,000 on gas, and 12,000 on electric. Mr. Bartley asked for electric to be installed over water because they are easier to put on and also because they are usually located on the other side of the house which saves walking time, even over the water meters where you have to remove the covers and clean it off before reading.

            Mr. Reeves reminded the Commissioner of the Chamber of Commerce dinner that evening at 6:30 p.m. at the Civic Center, and the annual Awards Banquet on Thursday, January 19, at 6:00 p.m. at the COC.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.