COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS

Minutes of October 12, 2006

A regular meeting of the Board of the Greenwood Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, October 12, 2006, at 10:15 a.m., in the Board Room at 121 West Court Avenue, Greenwood, SC.

In attendance:           

Gene P. Hancock    Steve D. Reeves, Jr.         Vicki Knott

Curtis Burnett         Michael G. Monaghan    Jeff Meredith

Brian Ward              Richard Gentry               Henry O. Watts

Jeff Auman               Denise Giannetti             Vickie Gorham

Stacia May               Ron Lemon                     Melinda Bishop

Ken Whittle     

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

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

III.               New Business:

A.     Manager Reeves gave an explanation of a request for water modeling and noted that several proposals were received to perform this project. He explained that this would take the GIS information and put it in a water model, which would make it possible to run the hydraulics of the system on the computer and have the system tell you where there are weak points. He explained a benefit of water modeling over what we do now. Periodically, we report to DHEC after manually testing different points on the system. DHEC has adopted a new evaluation program and if the water modeling is tied in with GIS as is proposed, they will accept it off the water model instead of physically going out and pressure testing different points. Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation from staff to accept the “not to exceed” price of $25,000 from GST Consulting. Mr. Reeves noted that this same firm has previously done our GIS work. Commissioner Monaghan noted a variance in prices. He asked about the methodology for obtaining prices and what kind of specification went out. Mr. Reeves responded that the variance comes from the fact that there are a couple of firms that did not really want to do it; in looking at the two low bids, one was “not to exceed” $25,000” the next bidder was “not to exceed” $30,000, which is fairly close. Mr. Reeves stated that his understanding from Mr. Banks was that the other two firms just really did not want to do it. Mr. Auman added that this is in part because this ties heavily into the GIS and there is a lot of work with the integration part. A lot of companies feel that if they are not doing the overall GIS part, they don’t want to do it and literally voiced that to Scott Banks. Mr. Reeves agreed with Mr. Auman and added that some of these firms felt that since they were not involved, they did not want to come in on the middle of a project and do a piece of it. Commissioner Monaghan noted that usually with this type of situation, it is a function of the way the price was requested.  He stated concern that there is a certain procedure when things exceed the limit of the Manager’s discretion and then go out for bids. He stated that he was not comfortable with the methodology of going out and getting prices and then presenting them to the Board; usually the principals come in and make a presentation whether it is a closed bid or just a presentation, and the Board on the advice of staff selects the best party. He added that this is probably fine, but there can be factors and courses of events that maybe the Board doesn’t want in the selection of the vendor. He stated the desire to stick with the methodology established earlier that the Board participates in the selection of vendors and pricing. He added that even if it is based not just on pricing but on other attributes, usually you have the people come in and make a presentation. Mr. Reeves noted that in this case, we have done that and through the Board selected GST Consulting as our consultant of record for GIS services. As in other projects, once the vendor has been selected, typically we just get a scope of services from that vendor and continue on instead of changing consultants midstream. Probably we could have just come in with GST since they are the vendor of record on our GIS programs and computer modeling. Commissioner Monaghan stated that actually the vendor was changed to the GIS consultant rather than the guy that sold the software. Mr. Auman explained that with the software, there is a base package you buy but then have to integrate. It is really two separate pieces because the software could come from multiple vendors. However, not many vendors want to sell the software if they are not doing the integration part because of some agreements with the vendor that makes the water modeling where they don’t want it sold as a package. Commissioner Monaghan asked for an explanation of the individual distribution system evaluation. Mr. Reeves responded that it is the program the state is implementing that allows municipalities and public water systems to turn in data. We have to turn in inspection data and reports to DHEC annually. They have adopted this program to allow us to use computer generated data for the report, rather than physically going out and pulling test data. Commissioner Monaghan commented that the proposal says “not to exceed unless approved”, which is not a closed type agreement. Mr. Reeves responded that staff would not exceed the $25,000 amount without first coming back to the Board. Commissioner Monaghan noted that the $30,000 vendor did say it was closed. Mr. Reeves pointed out that if we go with a closed bid, for instance the $30,000, then we will have paid that entire amount; with GST we may get out for $20,000. Mr. Auman noted that on previous projects GST Consulting has come in under price. A motion to approve GST Consulting for the Water Modeling Project, “not to exceed” a cost of $25,000, was made by Commissioner Watts; seconded by Chairman Hancock, and unanimously approved.

B.     Discussion and action on the Cross Connection Policy was delayed until the next regular meeting. 

C.     Manager Reeves provided updates on annexation. He noted an announcement in the newspaper about Ernest Health Rehabilitation Hospital on Genesis Circle. He added that they are going to annex and take our services. The paperwork on Sam Zimmerman has been finalized; second and final reading is planned for the City Council meeting on Monday. First reading on the Howard Corley property is planned for Monday, and second and final reading will take place on the Countybank property. Mr. Reeves noted that Timms has not been back in touch with the City. He added that he wanted to discuss sewer with Mr. Steve Brown. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that he also talk with Mr. Coleman.  Mr. Reeves added that they had talked with Jimmy Brailsford’s office about the use of sewer to promote annexation to make sure we are legal. Mr. Brailsford feels that the restriction in the deed is perfectly fine; however, he suggested additional language to make it even tighter and suggested that we consult a real estate attorney. Mr. Reeves reported that Bill Patrick’s office is working on language to tighten up the deed restriction that will go to Metro. Once we have that, we will likely come in with a suggestion to install the sewer line behind the Timms’ property. Commissioner Monaghan noted that Peter Manning is good with real estate law. Commissioner Monaghan stated that Timms is talking with Metro about establishing pump stations rather than gravity. Mr. Reeves noted that he has to pump it somewhere and we are paying for the line at Sam Zimmerman’s so they can’t tap into that one unless it is annexed and there is not another in that vicinity. Chairman Hancock stressed the need to have the language on those lines cleared up. Mr. Reeves responded that he would talk with Richard Coleman. He then reported on another meeting with Piedmont Health Group this week and although they have not committed at this point, the feeling is that they are leaning heavily toward annexation. He added that the City came up with additional tax rebates, and offered a higher percentage than they have been offering. Because Piedmont Health Group is buying twelve acres but will only use seven, the City offered them an opportunity get the tax credits off those at a future time rather than the people who actually build there. He added that this type of thing is done by developers all of the time. Mr. Reeves stated that this made it much more enticing to Piedmont Health Group. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he felt we were getting our money’s worth with the Partnership. Mr. Reeves agreed but added that we still need to speed up the process. Commissioner Monaghan stated he had talked with them about the Columbia lawyer situation. Mr. Reeves stated that in conversations with Steve Brown, they discussed the possibility of taking Jeff Fowler out of the loop. He explained that it is just a legal process and if we can get the lawyers working for us instead of going through them, we could probably be a little more demanding on their timeliness. Mr. Fowler would still be a player in helping sell the program, but once it is sold, would not be getting it administered. Commissioner Watts asked about Advance Auto. Mr. Reeves responded that they are still planning on annexing into the City; however, their lawyer is still questioning whether there is a contract with Duke Power. We are maintaining that they requested service from us and we will move forward quickly to put service in. Mr. Richard Gentry reported that during the past two weeks with the incentive program there have been 15 furnaces put in, eight of which are new service; twelve water heaters, five of which are new service; two ranges, both are new; and two dryers. Mr. Reeves asked about tracking those that convert from electrical heating or hot water heating to natural gas, and Mr. Whittle responded that Curt Brown is tracking them. Mr. Reeves reported that Curt Brown has seen a number of small residences, particularly low income or elderly, that do not qualify for the incentive because of the 50,000 BTU stipulation. In most cases, the maximum size unit they can put in those houses will be 30,000 BTU’s. Mr. Reeves explained that he used the $450 rebate to determine that it comes out to $90 per 10,000 BTU’s.; Curt Brown writes a note explaining the circumstances case-by-case, and based on that calculation, issued rebates of $270. Mr. Gentry reported on a meeting with Tom Burns with Corburn and Company about a development off of Durst Avenue where they are building 19 houses that will be anywhere from 1,000 to 1,500 square feet. They are looking at putting in gas heat, water heaters, and ranges in each house. Mr. Gentry stated that he informed them to write Mr. Reeves beforehand if any of the units were less than 50,000 BTU’s. Mr. Burns indicated that they are working on another development that will be even larger, but did not disclose the location. Mr. Lemon added that information was provided on where to find gas lights and websites with additional information. Mr. Lemon added that information was also provided on the Policy Act just enacted and other items received at a recent Gas Association conference. He noted that they are also considering tankless water heaters as an option. They asked for a comparison between gas and electricity and the advantages of being in the City versus outside. Mr. Lemon added that Freddie Anderson was also in the meeting with Mr. Burns to talk about electricity. Mr. Gentry stated that Mr. Burns also asked for a comparison of Duke rates to CPW rates which was provided as well. Chairman Hancock asked Mr. Lemon to provide information to him on tankless water heaters in case someone asks about them. Commissioner Monaghan suggested including information in the ad campaign to educate the public since these are fairly new. Mr. Lemon pointed out that with new construction there is actually a savings with putting in a tankless unit because of the venting for a gas water heater. Corburn and Company thinks that there may be a government rebate program for installing them. He added that there can be a significant savings when you put the whole package together and look at the cost of operation. He noted that some units come with a feature so that a thermostat can be installed in the bath allowing the homeowner to control the temperature from there, which could be of particular interest to people with small children. Mr. Gentry reported on a lead that came through Mark Hamm for Carolina Springs Academy on the other side of Due West. They are about 2,500 feet from our existing gas line and are on propane. Mr. Whittle noted that there is nothing between those 2,500 feet. Mr. Lemon stated that this facility has a number of houses, a gymnasium, and kitchen, and based on the size of the facility, the usage would be similar to Generation Home on Highway 25 North. They are putting together figures on their usage and are very interested in finding a cheaper energy source. Mr. Gentry showed the Commissioners signs prepared for placement at Lowe’s, Baker Supply, and JES Supply. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the size of future newspaper ads and added that they should be large enough to be noticed. Mr. Gentry stated he had reduced the size somewhat for budgetary reasons, but plans to increase the budget for 2007. He added that the ad for this Sunday would be smaller because there would not be time to change it. Chairman Hancock asked about ranges in schools. Mr. Lemon stated that the vocational school is teaching something similar to home economics and they use gas ranges. Mr. Lemon reported that the prison system has come in with new usage which should be a significant increase from what they were using. Chairman Hancock noted the need to get in with District 52 now while they are in the beginning stages with building new schools. He added that although most schools put in heat pumps now, we can at least get the kitchen equipment or heat the gymnasiums. Mr. Auman reported that the new website should be available on Monday for review by the Board and directors before going live. Commissioner Monaghan noted that he still cannot find the CPW links on the Partnership, City, and County websites. Mr. Auman responded that the County in particular is very hard to find; the City is a little better. Commissioner Monaghan asked Mr. Auman to talk with them again about making them easier to find. Mr. Reeves directed Mr. Auman to send an e-mail and to copy the Commissioners. Commissioner Monaghan asked why Metro’s minutes are not on their website. Mr. Auman responded that it was because of the issue that Metro had gone back and forth with about how the minutes would be on the site. He noted that they were taking every word verbatim and did not want to put minutes on the website because they were too lengthy. The last time he talked with Mr. Coleman, the Board and staff had not come to an agreement. Mr. Auman noted that once they are available, it was simple for them to put them out there. Commissioner Monaghan asked how CPW does their minutes. Mr. Auman responded they are not done verbatim, but are basically summarized without taking out any of the main content. Any particular discussion that needs to be exact is done verbatim. Ms. May added that what is posted on the website is exactly as they are approved by the Board, and as soon as the meetings are over, the minutes go into a folder for Mr. Auman’s department to post them to the website. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that when it gets to a point that there are too many, they remove a year or two and only keep three years at a time. Mr. Auman stated that he would be glad to put whatever Metro has; he just needed to hear something from the Metro Board and Mr. Coleman. The Commissioners agreed to bring this up with Metro. Mr. Whittle stated that he received an e-mail from someone through our website asking about gas generators as a backup for power. He suggested that it might be a good idea to put information on the website. Mr. Lemon added that with larger homes in particular, they are being shown as standard features. Depending on how much you want to spend, they can run an entire house or at least select appliances. Mr. Gentry added that one reason they plan to put the website out for review before actually publishing was to give the departments an opportunity to make suggestions and have input about what should be there for their department. He added that one of the goals is to make it informative, and a section showing the benefits of gas generators, or information on tankless water heaters could be included. Commissioner Monaghan stated that there could also be some benefit in running ads on electricity. Mr. Meredith stated that they had discussed a few different ads. Commissioner Monaghan noted a number of complaints about water prices outside of the City. Mr. Reeves stated that is a big proponent for annexation. Commissioner Monaghan noted that he had never seen an article or ad on the benefits of living in the City, but there should be one. The public perception is that it is not better because of paying city taxes. He pointed out that an advertising campaign showing a comparison might be beneficial. Mr. Gentry stated he would like to run an ad every week next year introducing a variety of topics. Commissioner Monaghan stated his appreciation for their efforts. Commissioner Monaghan asked about contact with the Realtor’s Association. Mr. Gentry responded that he had completed the form and would turn it in. Commissioner Monaghan noted an open house at the Federal Building on October 26, from 5:30 to 7:30 p.m.

IV.              Other Business:

              1. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the Grace Street Park. Mr. Reeves responded that he had heard nothing further.

              2. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the credit card lawsuit. Mr. Auman responded that he is waiting on a response as to whether we can proceed with in-house now but not    the online part.  Commissioner Monaghan asked about online electronic payments through the bank and if we could go ahead and set that up ourselves. Mr. Auman responded that uses part of the same technology in the background as far as how the payments are sent.  Commissioner Monaghan stated that you would not be involved with the SC.Gov system. Mr. Auman stated that it would be another vendor like them; this is also part of the overall package with SC.Gov. Mr. Auman added they looked at handling this manually and decided it would not be good business; we basically would connect to it, take the payment, and then have to turn around and key it back into our system, and keep track of which transaction was which manually. If someone comes back with a payment that is wrong, it has to be checked manually. We are trying to get integrated so that when we take a payment, it goes in and applies immediately on our system and we know that it is valid. Mr. Auman noted that there is already a process in place to accept draft payments from checking accounts. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he did not see the difference in that and the bank making the payment electronically. Mr. Auman responded that according to the lawyers, this is part of the process that is in question because it uses the same basic processing in the background. He explained the difference with a draft payment where funds are literally transferred from your account like a wire transfer. He added that an online payment is done like a debit   transaction; a debit transaction uses the same system or payment engine as a credit card.  He added that they are moving away from wire transfers more and more because it is much easier and cheaper to do debit type transactions.

              3.  Manager Reeves referenced a bid opened prior to the meeting for the purpose of  lowering a waterline for the Highway Department. He stated the Highway Department is pushing us to get out of their way because we are in their right-of-way. Mr. Burnett noted that the low bidder for the project appeared to be Payne, McGinn & Cummins., Inc. A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan to accept the low bid contingent upon the approval of engineering; Commissioner Watts seconded and the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Ward added that he would talk with the contractors to be sure they can do the work in a timely manner, and noted that we are holding up two other contractors in doing this work. Mr. Reeves added that the bids would be evaluated after the meeting, and if this is not determined to be the low bid, it would come back to the Board.

              4.  Manager Reeves distributed copies of a Termination Policy to the Commissioners. He reminded them of an incident in Greenville involving an elderly lady who died during the winter as the result of being disconnected by Duke Power Company. This became a very political issue and the state legislature passed guidelines requiring each utility to adopt a Termination Policy and to submit it to the state for review and approval. This has to take place by November 1. Mr. Reeves explained that the SCAMPS organization has been working on behalf of all 21 municipal electric and gas systems to develop a platform or version that everybody can adopt. He stated that certain areas were left blank for your particular information. He stated that was completed and the policy was reviewed by staff and our attorneys. Mr. Reeves suggested that the Commissioners review the policy and call him with any questions. He stated that he would call them in about a week for verbal approval so that the policy can be submitted before the November 1 deadline, and then get formal approval at the next Board meeting. Mr. Reeves pointed out that we were already doing most of the things outlined in the guidelines.

              5.  Manager Reeves informed the Commissioners of the approaching deadline of the 2003 Bond Issue. He referred to a list provided by Ms. Giannetti showing projects that have already been completed. He stated that these are qualifying projects in the electric department and named Northside Middle School and Northside Baptist Church. Mr. Reeves noted that the Board would have to formally approve these additional projects to be paid through bond funds. This would leave a balance of $138,000 to purchase land for substation 7 which was identified in the original bond project. A motion to approve the list of projects as presented to be included in the 2003 Bond Issue was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

              6.  Commissioner Monaghan requested that meetings be scheduled for the remainder of the year. Manager Reeves noted that the October meeting had already been moved to Tuesday, October 31; and the November meeting rescheduled to November 30.             Commissioner Monaghan suggested meeting once during December. The Commissioners were in agreement to meet on Thursday, December 14. Mr. Reeves noted that a budget work session with the Board would need to be scheduled, preferably during the first week of December. Mr. Burnett pointed out that the annual bid items are normally opened during December and asked about a date since there will only be one meeting in December. Mr. Reeves suggested November 30 for the annual bid opening with the bids to be approved on December 14. 

              7.  Commissioner Monaghan mentioned a presentation at Piedmont Tech about future expansion. Mr. Meredith noted that one building was to have already been built and occupied by now but nothing has been heard from them. He added that we were waiting to see what the City’s response was to a letter they sent about six months ago.

V.                 With no further business, the meeting was adjourned