COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS

Minutes of March 27, 2006

The regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Monday, March 27, 2006, at 4:00 p.m., in the boardroom at 121 West Court Avenue.

In attendance:

Gene P. Hancock,  Steve D. Reeves, Jr.,  Scott Banks,

Vickie Gorham,  Michael G. Monaghan,  Denise Giannetti,

Jeff Auman,  Ron Lemon,  Henry O. Watts,  Jeff Meredith,

Stacia May,  Lee Roper,  Ken Barnett,  Richard Gentry,

Charles Schulze,  Curtis Burnett,  Ken Whittle,  Mark Amick

I.              Chairman Monaghan called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Commissioner Hancock.

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 and seconded by Commissioner Watts to approve the minutes of the February 27, 2006 regular meeting; and the March 9, 2006 work session. The motion was unanimously approved.

IV.              Financial Statement: 

Chairman Monaghan noted that with the power purchased for resale we will get around $1 million and asked why it was not shown in the financial report. Ms. Giannetti stated that it was accrued at the end of December because it was in 2005. He noted $84,000 was spent for customer site work and the budget was only $18,000. Ms. Giannetti responded that we do not budget salaries and benefits into customer site work but we do charge those expenses to those areas. She added that some of those costs are worked into the rates  and captured through the rates as well. He asked Ms. Giannetti to show a comparison within the budget so they know where we actually stand. Chairman Monaghan asked why sale for the City of Greenwood was so much more than last year. Last year we were at $69,000 and so far this year it is already $129,000. Commissioner Hancock noted that another fire station was added. Ms. Giannetti responded that toward the end of 2005 they caught up street lighting and started accruing it monthly. Chairman Monaghan asked for this to be changed in the new budget to reflect “apples to apples”.   

V.                 New Business: 

A.     Manager Reeves presented a petition of annexation to the Commissioners for the 47.25 acres recently purchased adjacent to the City Pond property.  He recommended that the property be annexed prior to any consideration of disposal of the property. He informed the Commissioners that City Council had already held first reading, but formal approval is needed before second reading. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts and unanimously approved to authorize the signing of the petition of annexation.  

B.     Manager Reeves recommended acceptance of the low bid in the amount of $11,919.87 from R. E. Mason Company for orifices and springs for regulator upgrades. A motion to accept the low bid from R. E. Mason was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved. 

C.     Manager Reeves recommended that all bids for electrical cabinets and pads for the Northside Middle School project be rejected and bid at a later time for the Oregon Avenue project. Mr. Reeves added that there is no longer an urgent need because Mr. Meredith found one locally. A motion to reject all bids was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and unanimously approved.  

D.    Manager Reeves recommended acceptance of the bid for a Pauwels 1500-KVA pad mount transformer from Line Equipment in the amount of $19,505.00, based on lowest cost of ownership.  A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.  

E.     Manager Reeves reminded the Commissioners that bids were opened at the last bid opening for three parcels of property. Mr. Reeves made a public disclosure for one of the bidders who bid on all three properties, Southern Concepts. He noted that one of the three partners of Southern Concepts, Mr. Mark Amick, is a CPW employee and is the Director of Engineering. Mr. Reeves informed the Commissioners that through discussions with legal counsel, we have found that his participation in this bid process is both legal and ethical and meets the guidelines and restrictions of the CPW’s Moonlighting Policy. Mr. Reeves suggested that each parcel be addressed individually and made the following recommendations:  

      Parcel A is the property located at Harris Landing on Pump House Road.  There were three bids in the amounts of $75,320.00; $57,500.00; and $126,000.00 with the high bid coming from Southern Concepts. Mr. Reeves recommended that all bids be rejected because of the likelihood that the property value will increase to at least the appraised value, if not more. A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Hancock and unanimously approved to reject all bids for Parcel A.

      Parcel B also known as the old electric operating center, located on Bypass 25 S. E. received two bids. Mr. Reeves noted that the high bid came from Carolina Pride in the amount of $35,000.00, and the second bid was for $6,000.00. He added that this property was appraised at $48,000.00 for the usable property on this site. Since that time, approximately five acres was cut off to maintain for our ownership, and we are maintaining the existing buildings to the left of the driveway. Mr. Reeves stated that the $35,000.00 bid exceeds the appraised value per acre and recommended disposal of this piece of property. A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Hancock, and unanimously approved to accept the bid of $35,000.00 from Carolina Pride. Chairman Hancock stated that this area should be fenced.

      Parcel C was originally 14 acres located off Sample Road, the site of a   former wastewater treatment plant and the site of a current electrical substation. This property was surveyed before being offered for sale.  About five acres was cut off around the substation to maintain for future use, leaving approximately nine acres for disposal. Mr. Reeves noted that the “per acre” cost based on the bid exceeds the “per acre” cost from the appraisal. There was only one bid in the amount of $26,000.00 from Southern Concepts. The recommendation is to dispose of this property and to accept the bid received since the price exceeds the “per acre” appraised value. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock and seconded by Commissioner Watts to dispose of Parcel C and accept the bid of $26,000.00 from Southern Concepts. Chairman Monaghan stated that although this may be ethical and legal, there was only one bid and expressed concern that this would create a poor appearance to have CPW employees bidding. The motion passed by a vote of two to one, with Chairman Monaghan voting “no”.  

F.      Manager Reeves explained the necessity of upgrades to the GIS system for the water department to make it more usable for staff and the water department. He noted that two bids were received with the lowest from MWH Soft in the amount of $17,025.00 for an InfoWater system; and the other bid from Bentley, formerly Haestad Methods, for a WaterGems system at a cost of $26,250.00. He stated that staff had reviewed the bids and recommends acceptance of the low bid from MWH Soft in the amount of $17,025.00. Commissioner Watts asked about the annual subscription fee. Mr. Reeves responded that the annual fee is $3,000.00 and is included in the price. Chairman Monaghan noted that neither is sold through distributors and asked if that limits the ability to get competitive bids. Mr. Reeves explained that they do not “farm” their software out to distributors so there are not a number of distributors representing each product. The product is only available through the company itself. There are only a limited amount of companies that have this type of software.  A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock to accept the bid of $17,025.00 from MWH Soft. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts and unanimously approved.  

G.    Manager Reeves explained the bids that were received for vehicle and equipment maintenance and referred to a spreadsheet. Mr. Reeves pointed out the difficulty of evaluating these bids given the number  received and the variance in prices and discounts. He stated that he met with Mr. Burnett and their recommendation is to choose at least two vendors in each classification of vehicle. Given the large number of vehicles, if any one vendor is tied up, there will be another vendor from which to choose. Mr. Reeves made the following recommendations:

   Gasoline Vehicles – Ballentine Ford for repair service; Big Mac’s Tire Store for oil change and repair service; Mr. Lube for oil service; Superior Automotive for oil change and repair service

    Diesel Trucks – Dickert’s Automotive and Wrecker Service for oil change and repair service; Emerald Center Services for repair service; Mr. Lube for oil changes; Price’s Full Service for repair service

    Large Trucks – Ballentine Ford for oil changes and repair service; Price’s Full Service for oil changes and repair service

    Equipment – Greenwood Equipment and Repair for oil changes and repair service; Price’s Full Service for oil changes and repair service. 

    Commissioner Hancock made a motion to approve as stated all of the vendors recommended for vehicle and equipment repair and maintenance and Commissioner Watts seconded the motion. Commissioner Watts asked about the difference in price to change the oil in a large truck and a small one. Mr. Reeves responded he was not sure how much more difficult, but the difference probably has to do with the number of quarts of oil. Mr. Reeves pointed out that with diesel and larger trucks, like bucket trucks and digger derrick trucks, there is only about a $10.00 price difference. Chairman Monaghan stated that a concerted effort should be made to work with the City to see how much of this they can perform. Mr. Reeves responded that this was discussed with Mr. Brown, who has not yet provided a price. Mr. Brown indicated that he believes their price will be high in comparison because of more services they provide when changing oil. Mr. Reeves added that would only be removing the tires and checking brakes and he was not sure that needs to be done every time the oil is changed. Chairman Monaghan stated that he is talking about minor repairs where they would sell us parts at cost and not just oil changes. He noted that we may be getting a lower labor rate, but paying the difference in the markup on parts. Mr. Reeves responded that when we went out for bid we asked for discounts and probably should have asked for markups instead. He suggested that before these are formally approved, we should probably go back and ask them for their markup so that we know when we get the bill what to expect. Then we can take the bill and subtract the markup and do a fair comparison in the local shops to see if we are being charged an accurate amount for particular parts. The Commissioners stated their agreement with Mr. Reeves’ suggestion. The original motion was amended to include having staff review the markups for parts versus discounts. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Barnett stated that Mr. Meredith had informed him that Emerald Center Services is the only one that can do the boom part with the electric boom truck. Mr. Reeves stated that he was not aware of this when we went out for bids. Mr. Reeves noted that Emerald Center Services submitted the same bid ($50.00 per hour) for diesel trucks as for large trucks, and because they are being approved for one, it would be acceptable to use them for that particular item.  

H.    Manager Reeves stated that discussion of gas incentives for piping and other offerings was placed on the agenda at the request of the Commissioners. It was suggested that consideration be given to an extension on our free piping or free service line where we currently provide the first 100 feet at no cost and then charge per foot after the first 100 feet. The request was to consider going to 200 feet free of charge. Chairman Monaghan stated that a there are a lot of large houses being built with longer setbacks. He stated that two builders pointed out that this would be a good incentive to attract those type developers. Mr. Reeves pointed out that there are a number of ways you can do this. You can provide the first 100 feet free if it’s just one appliance. If it includes the hot water heater and the furnace, then go to 200 feet free of charge. You could make it where the service line is free of charge no matter how long it is if they go to those units. Chairman Monaghan asked what the criteria are now. Mr. Reeves responded that anytime you apply for a gas service line, we will provide the first 100 feet free no matter which gas appliances are installed. Chairman Monaghan stated that he believed it should go to 200 feet. He asked that a couple of criteria be presented for consideration at the next meeting. Chairman Monaghan added that one person who had asked about it was planning to put in gas stove, furnace, hot water heater and gas dryer. Mr. Reeves responded that in that case, you run it all the way to the house no matter how far.  

I.        Chairman Monaghan stated that he had asked Mr. Gentry to look into rebates on gas furnaces or water heaters. Mr. Reeves stated that he believed Mr. Gentry and Mr. Lemon had been working on this but do not have a formal recommendation ready for consideration. He added that this can be considered at the next meeting. Mr. Lemon stated that the rebate amount they had discussed was about $300.00. He noted that the difference in the cost of gas and electric furnaces and gas and electric water heaters is around $300 to $500, depending on the units. They felt that somewhere in that range would be an appropriate amount to offer to builders to offset the difference. Chairman Hancock noted that there are now generators that heat water instantaneously and more efficiently, and they should look into those also.   

      Mr. Gentry asked the Commissioners if they had seen the ad in The Index Journal on Sunday. He reported that it will run every other Sunday for about four months, and that the person in the ad will change to represent different areas of the company. Chairman Monaghan stated that he would like to see some promotion for gas in the newspaper. Mr. Gentry stated that an ad will run every month for twelve months in the Lakelands Association newsletter and it will get a little more into gas and gas incentives. He stated that another ad will run in the Chamber of   Commerce Community Guide. CPW purchased a half page and Metro the other half page for a little over $1,000.00. Commissioner Hancock asked about the development at Blazer’s and noted they are in the planning stages and some of the foundations are already in now. Mr. Gentry responded that he would look into it. He reported that some work is being done for Metro with Earth Week, and also on an appropriations grant. He stated that a CDBG Block Grant application for East Cambridge Street is due by April 10 for CPW. Mr. Reeves added that was down to discuss under Other Business, but could be discussed now. Mr. Banks then explained that the grant will be for $500,000.00 and CPW would have to match a minimum of 10%. As with most grants, they are telling us that the more we are willing to match, the better the chances of getting the grant.  Based on what we are looking at, if we can do up to $750,000.00 of work, we would get a two for one return on our money. Mr. Reeves added that a sense of direction is needed today from the Commissioners. The coverage area that has been put together would be a $750,000.00 project; if we commit $250,000.00, then we may qualify for the $500,000.00. We can cut the project down a little to a $550,000 - $600,000 project. The more we are willing to put in, the more we can get done. The Commissioners stated their agreement that this investment would be worthwhile. Chairman Monaghan thanked Mr. Gentry for his report.  

VI.       Other Business:                          

1.   Manager Reeves reminded the Commissioners that pictures are scheduled to be made on Wednesday at the Metro meeting.  

2.   Manager Reeves presented a request to participate in the Watershed Leaders Forum. He reminded the Commissioners of the last session at the Drummond Center at the State Park. They want speakers and contributions to help pay for food, etc. He stated that we are a member of the Consortium but they are asking for contributions above the membership fee. The Commissioners discussed the levels of contribution. Mr. Reeves noted that the smallest level suggested is $5,000.00 and goes up to $25,000.00 or more. Commissioner Hancock suggested a contribution of $2,500.00 and an in-kind contribution of speakers. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts and unanimously approved to contribute $2,500.00.

3.   Manager Reeves showed the Commissioners the plaque from the American Water Works Association that was just received. He added that the award will be formally presented in San Antonio in June. He asked for direction as to where the plaque should be placed. The Commissioners decided to display the plaque for a month at the Water Treatment Plant, and then return it to the main office for public view.

VII.      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 pole attachment agreement with Sprint, the potential use of CPW property in the exchange for other properties, the potential disposal of the City Pond property, a personnel matter pertaining to the current policy on moonlighting, and a legal matter pertaining to the Solutia bankruptcy.

The meeting returned to open session with discussion of annexation. Commissioner Hancock stated that Greenwood has a population of about 22,000 within the city limits and the County has 67,000. He added that we are losing land right and left; the library is going into the old Winn Dixie building and taking taxable property; Lander University is building a baseball stadium in the old Roses location; all the non-taxables like churches and resale stores in town are paying no taxes, we are getting eaten up. He added that 28% of property inside the city is non-taxable and everybody keeps asking the City for money.  Chairman Monaghan asked Commissioner Hancock if he had talked with Steve Brown about cutting the grass. Commissioner Hancock responded that they will cut it at the front of the main office. Commissioner Hancock noted that CPW helps the City with everything and they should also help CPW. Commissioner Hancock stated that we have to get something going with the annexation. Mr. Reeves stated that the biggest advantage for annexation would be through legislature and getting annexation laws passed. 

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