WORK SESSION

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS

March 9, 2006

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

Ron Lemon,  Scott Banks

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 reminded the Commissioners of the upcoming SCAMPS Legislative Event on March 22 in Columbia and informed them that they would leave from the main office at 3:00 p.m. He stated that although the registration packages had not been received, the SCAMPS Annual Meeting is scheduled for June 27 – 30.  He asked the Commissioners to let him know as soon as possible if they planned to attend so that arrangements can be made.  

B.     Manager Reeves asked the Commissioners about changing the time of the June 26 meeting since it would be the day before the SCAMPS meeting. The Commissioners discussed moving the time to 10 a.m. or possibly an hour earlier and decided to wait until closer to June to make a decision.

C.     Manager Reeves distributed a draft to the Commissioners of Requests for Proposals on the City Pond property. Mr. Reeves pointed out the contents of Items 1, 2, 3 and 4 then moved ahead to Item 7 for discussion. He informed the Commissioners of a conversation with Mr. Richard Coleman at Metro about how this might be worded.  Mr. Reeves read from Item 7, “The developer shall be responsible for paying a prorated cost of this line in relationship to the needs of the development”. Mr. Reeves explained that if the development requires a 16-inch line and Metro wants to put in a 36-inch line, then the developer has to pay the cost of putting in the 16-inch line and Metro would pay any cost on top of that to enlarge the line. He continued reading, “The sewer line will drain into a pump station until future date when Metro decides to extend gravity lines to connect to the referenced trunk gravity line. The cost of the pump station shall also be prorated among the developer, Metro, and CPW, with CPW and the developer sharing the cost of the pump station as designed for the subdivision or for the development on a 50/50 basis.” Mr. Reeves explained that if you have a pump station and require a pump station of 1,000 gallons a minute just for the development itself, then there is an estimated cost for that. He suggested that it could be worded so that the developer and CPW would split that cost, then if Metro wanted to enlarge it to a 2,000 gallon per minute pump station, then Metro would pay the additional costs to upgrade or upsize the pump station. He then continued to read “The operation of the pump station shall be the responsibility of GMD. GMD and CPW shall solely and jointly approve the development requirements.” He stated that we do not want a contractor coming in and saying that they can get by with an 8-inch trunk line when we think it needs to be a 16-inch. He continued reading, “GMD reserves the right to apply the cost of the pump station toward the cost of extending the gravity trunk line from an existing trunk line to the property.” Mr. Reeves explained that if there is $1 million to be spent on a pump station, they may elect to ask that the $1 million be given to them; then they may decide to extend the gravity line from the existing location all the way up to the property, which would be the same money either way. They are asking for an easement at no cost to them throughout the property for their trunk line. Mr. Reeves added that there was some discussion with Mr. Coleman that Metro may elect to recommend to their Board to downsize the 36-inch future gravity line for now and to possibly put in an 18-inch line. That certainly is cost savings on the front end, with the reason being that you do not know how long is will be before you will really need a 36-inch line. Mr. Reeves expressed that his only concern was that you will probably be putting in $500,000 homes in this area; you put in a 36-inch line, Mr. Amick would probably take a 50-ft. easement for that size line and type of construction; if you do it ten or fifteen years down the road and you are going through these manicured, landscaped yards, that could be a tough issue to face. Chairman Monaghan asked about a marker on the map that said “City Pond Property” and Mr. Reeves responded that it was within the red area and should probably have gone a little across the red line. It is actually the pieces outside of the City Pond area. Mr. Reeves pointed out that this does include the 47-acre strip that was just purchased. Commissioner Watts asked about the difference between the cost of an 18-inch and 36-inch sewer line. Mr. Reeves responded that he was sure there would be a big difference; just the trenching alone would be tremendously different, but added that would be a decision that Metro would need to make. Whatever size line goes in would be a joint decision between them and the developer. Chairman Monaghan noted that on the request there is no provision for somebody to bid any different way; we are asking for a price per acre. Mr. Reeves stated that we actually put in there on the second paragraph of the front page that bidders are give the option of bidding one all-in price or may elect to submit a proposal of their choosing. CPW still reserves the right to reject any and all bids. Chairman Monaghan asked if they will be able to look at and understand the map. Mr. Reeves responded that he believes they will. Chairman Monaghan suggested making the boundary line a little darker or more predominant. Mr. Reeves directed Mr. Amick to move the arrow at “City Pond” and put the label “City Pond” within the boundary rather than an arrow. Mr. Reeves noted that the yellow shading stands out and suggested that it might work better to change the color. Chairman Monaghan then asked about the width of the “dogleg” area. Mr. Amick responded that it is about 75 or 80 feet. Mr. Reeves added that there is plenty of room for a roadway, even at the very tip where it touches Highway 246, there is still 50 feet. Commissioner Hancock asked if there is a problem with a flyway at the airport. Mr. Amick responded that he did not know. Commissioner Hancock noted that we had already had to swap some property out there to have the airport out there and we do not want to restrict that down and that someone should check that out. Mr. Reeves stated that you could do it that way, or sell the property “as is” and leave that up to the developer to question, we are just putting in on the market. Mr. Reeves stated that no decision was necessary today; this can be discussed at the next Board meeting to give the Commissioners an opportunity for further review. Commissioner Hancock stated that he wanted some questions answered about how much timber is left on all of this property; also from Metro about them going ahead and running the sewer through there to get from one side to the other, what they will do with that. Mr. Reeves responded that he had talked with Mr. Coleman and that has not been determined and that is why it was left like it is. Commissioner Hancock stated that the County and City are going to get something out of this and the sewer needs to gravity feed back to the Wilson Creek Plant and that opens up all this other land that we are next to also. Chairman Monaghan asked about reserving some acreage for a fire substation. Mr. Reeves stated that we have not approached that at all; he could get something from Steve Brown if the Commissioners want to put that in as a line item and reserve one acre of land for a fire station. Chairman Monaghan pointed out that having a fire station might be a promotion to a developer. Chairman Monaghan asked where the new property is on the map and Mr. Reeves pointed it out. Mr. Reeves stated that the new property opened up another side for development.

D.     Manager Reeves informed the Commissioners of a letter of congratulations to the electric department from the American Public Power Association for a first place award in Group C of their 2005 Safety Contest. He stated this award will be presented at a later time.

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 the Internet and a personnel matter pertaining to advance payments for travel.

            The meeting returned to open session with general discussion of sewer at the City Pond property. Chairman Monaghan asked if Mr. Patrick had looked over the RFP on the City Pond property. Mr. Reeves responded that he did look at it initially but not this latest part on the sewer. Mr. Reeves stated that he and Mr. Coleman got together yesterday and finalized what they were given today. Chairman Monaghan stated that Mr. Patrick should look it over again.

            Chairman Monaghan asked when the new inside phone book would be ready. Mr. Reeves stated that Mr. Falls is waiting for the County’s response. Chairman Monaghan stated they should go ahead without the County and do a supplement later if necessary.

            Commissioner Hancock asked about the switch with the County. Mr. Reeves stated that the City and Sheriff’s office have agreed to an internet connector and want to be a part of it. Mr. Auman and Mr. Meredith were to meet with Larry Smith and he had not heard from that.

            Mr. Reeves informed the Commissioners of a monthly review and financial report on our insurance standings. For the last six months or so, we have been hovering at about $250,000.00 on our reserves, but it dropped significantly this month. Ms. Giannetti called and found that there were probably five or six large claims that added up to about $220,000.00 in just one month. Ms. Giannetti reported that the large claim amounts within one month were $73,000.00, $59,000.00, $20,000.00, $39,000.00, $19,000.00 and $10,000.00. Chairman Monaghan asked whose they were and Ms. Giannetti stated that we do not know because of privacy issues. Mr. Reeves stated that we do know that one of the dependents at Metro is battling cancer and there are probably some very significant costs there. He added that he is guessing there are probably some others similar to that. He stated that our reserves have dropped down to a current reserve balance of $114,000.00. We are required by the rules of the SCLGAG to keep at least 12% in reserve, which is normally around $250,000.00. Mr. Reeves stated that we need to decide how to address this. Ms. Giannetti has run some numbers and it appears that CPW and Metro needs to send around $137,000.00. The breakdown would be $38,500.00 for Metro and $98,500.00 for CPW. A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to send the CPW portion.

            The Commissioners directed Mr. Reeves to talk with Mr. Coleman about the package plant and Metro’s portion of the insurance reserve.

            General discussion took place on property bids, future development, and annexation.  Chairman Monaghan mentioned that a group picture of the three Commissioners still needs to be made, and also, individual pictures for the website. Mr. Reeves noted that Mr. Gentry had worked it out with the Partnership to take their pictures at no charge but we have not heard from them. Mr. Reeves noted that the picture provided by Commissioner Monaghan is on the website but pictures of the other two Commissioners are not. The Commissioners agreed to have pictures made at the next Board meeting.   

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