Greenwood CPW

A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, February 8, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in the Boardroom at 121 West Court Avenue.

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

Manager Reeves presented a request to consider a Policy for Tuition Reimbursement. He explained that the current policy is somewhat informal, and pointed out that the proposed policy would have more “teeth” to protect both the employee and CPW in the event that an employee leaves after going through the educational process. Commissioner Monaghan expressed concern with the high limit amount per credit hour. Mr. Reeves agreed that the limit per credit hour is high and stated that it could be reduced. He noted that most classes at Lander University run around $800 to $900, depending on whether it is summer school or other, with tuition for one semester at around $2,400. Commissioner Monaghan noted that the allowance for “required books and supplies” seemed pretty generous as well. Mr. Reeves stated that most textbooks are at least $100 each. Commissioner Monaghan asked what was done with the books after a class was completed. Mr. Reeves stated that in the past, the requirement has been to turn them over to CPW. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that a better alternative might be to sell the books back to the bookstore.

With no further questions, a motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan to approve the Policy for Tuition Reimbursement; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

Manager Reeves reported on a meeting with Ernest Health during which Mr. Barrineau provided a proposal showing the utility savings from CPW and a tax incentive package from the City and County. All indications at the time are that they will annex, although they have not officially signed the petition for annexation. Mr. Reeves reported on a meeting with Dr. Roger Stevenson at the Genetic Center during which they indicated their intent to sign a petition for annexation of the entire 187 acres. Commissioner Monaghan requested more details on building planned along Highway 246 near the City Pond property. Mr. Reeves responded that not much information is available, but they would try to get more detail from the Planning Department. Chairman Hancock inquired about the location of the property they were discussing. Mr. Reeves responded that it was to be in Coronaca near Piggly Wiggly. Commissioner Monaghan added that some shopping centers and housing developments were supposed to go in that area. Mr. Gentry provided copies of an ad on natural gas that would run in the Sunday newspaper. Mr. Reeves referred to the SCAMPS electric rate comparison distributed prior to the meeting. Commissioner Monaghan recalled a comparison provided to him by Ken Whittle that showed dramatic differences with gas rates for cities in South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia, and also the national average per therm. Mr. Gentry stated that he would check with Mr. Whittle to find out where it came from. Mr. Lemon stated that with their comparison, they erred on the side of caution and added their margin in which makes a lot of difference. He stated that they assumed the cost of the national average was “delivered cost”. He stated that the school of thought is that it probably was not the delivered cost, but they erred on the side of caution rather than having someone come back and question them. Mr. Gentry added that they left the margin off at first. The chart they used for the national average appeared to have the margin included, but there was no way to verify that. Mr. Gentry informed Commissioner Monaghan that the ad could be pulled before the 12:00 deadline if he found the handout provided by Mr. Whittle. Commissioner Monaghan stated that Mr. Gentry should go ahead with the ad that was ready. Commissioner Monaghan stated concern with the public’s understanding of “per thousand cubic feet” in the ad, and asked about another way to express it that might be less confusing. Chairman Hancock noted similarity between cubic feet or therms, and water with going with cubic feet to gallons. He explained how they get the average btu of the gas for the whole month that is a multiplier times the cubic feet to come up with the therms. He stated that a therm will change according to the btu’s of gas; the btu of gas with SCE&G was 1.042 last Sunday with 42 extra therms per cubic foot and it changes every month. Manager Reeves noted that therms might be even more confusing to the public. Commissioner Monaghan commented on the positive comments from the first ads. Mr. Gentry continued by noting difficulty with obtaining information on national water rates. He stated that the American Water Works Association was coming out with a rate survey that could be purchased. Commissioner Monaghan commented on the importance of continuing to run reminders on the rebates. Commissioner Watts commented on the SCAMPS electric rate comparison. Mr. Reeves noted that CPW was the lowest of all of the state municipalities. He stated that rates were not provided for the electric cooperatives and “investor owned” utilities; however, he felt sure that the “investor owned” would not be lower and that 98% of the cooperatives are not lower. Commissioner Monaghan noted that according to the SCAMPS survey, CPW’s rates are now lower than Orangeburg. Mr. Reeves commented that they either had a rate increase or made a fuel adjustment. Mr. Gentry stated that he was putting together a PowerPoint presentation for builders and developers. He stated that they always have copies of the incentive program available at the builders’ meetings. Mr. Gentry reported on a seminar the previous week where CPW employees were certified to do installation of tankless water heaters. He reported that discussion is ongoing with incentives for propane gas users. Commissioner Monaghan asked who was in attendance at the tankless water heater seminar; Mr. Gentry responded that it was gas department employees. Mr. Lemon added that this same seminar was done initially back in November for the builders. Chairman Hancock inquired as to whether they had information about hot water heaters to heat apartments and hot water at the same time with a circulating and fan coiled unit. He explained that water is pumped through a regular 40-gallon water heater and it goes through a fan coil unit and blows over that hot water coil to heat the building. Mr. Gentry responded that the tankless water heater rep had mentioned them one time. Chairman Hancock noted that this would be good information to have for builders and developers planning apartment complexes and smaller houses.

Mr. Auman provided an update on credit card payments. He reported that SC.Gov had found a way to work around the patent by making a slight change to the program. He stated that although it had not been confirmed, it looks like the target date to go live on the web and to accept payments downstairs could be February 28.

IV.       Other Business:

1.   Manager Reeves presented a request for a consulting contract to update the GIS system. He noted that this was an ongoing process with GST Consulting, and added that a number of things were budgeted for this year. He stated a desire to get started and to continue the upgrades and get to a point where the system is more useful. Mr. Reeves noted that Mr. Jeffares was unavailable to provide a demonstration today; however, they would like to have him come to the next meeting to provide an update of what has already been done. He stated that the preference was to get approval today, but it could wait until that time. Mr. Auman added that there are some ongoing projects that are at a halt until this is approved. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he would like an opportunity to read the information that had just been provided by Mr. Auman before making a decision. Mr. Auman stated that Mr. Jeffares could do either a fifteen-minute presentation or something more in-depth. Commissioner Monaghan asked how much money is involved; Mr. Auman responded that the total proposed initially was $120,000 and included GPS for meters and field extension of electric, in addition to normal GIS services and programming. Commissioner Monaghan stated a desire to read the information provided by Mr. Auman thoroughly, and then to listen to the presentation from Mr. Jeffares. He wanted a better understanding of what CPW is doing in comparison to Metro. He added that he did not thoroughly understand what CPW is doing, but did understand what Metro had done. The Commissioners postponed action until Mr. Jeffares made his presentation at either a special called meeting or the next scheduled meeting.
2.   Manager Reeves pointed out the urn now in place at the front entrance and added that the electric department had installed spotlights to illuminate the area for better viewing from outside. He informed the Commissioners of employees’ suggestions to add gas lamps at the front entrance to represent and demonstrate all three utilities. He stated that Mr. Lemon had looked into the cost and found it would be less than $1,000 for two light poles with gas lamps at the corners of the walkway. Mr. Reeves noted that a motion would not be necessary; the Commissioners expressed no particular objection to the suggestion.
3. Manager Reeves noted a presentation request from the City of Greenwood. Mr. Charlie Barrineau shared information on the inclusion of a new ladder truck in the City Council budget this year. He stated that they are looking at the lease/purchase of a fire truck at an estimated figure of $1,000,000. He noted the significance of mentioning this purchase which was to show that the City is utilizing the CPW exchange of checks to purchase one-time items of this type. He stated the importance of CPW understanding that their investment in the City allows them to invest in these types of things which are impressive to people like Ernest Health. Mr. Barrineau reminded the Commissioners of a discussion at the last joint meeting with City Council concerning consideration of projects on a one-time basis. He stated that Council was in agreement with asking for reconsideration of the Phoenix-Pressley parking lot project and another project. Mr. Barrineau distributed information and explained the true cost of the City’s investment in the parking lot. He stated that it was purchased for $75,000 and $122,279.76 had been expended on design, Satterfield Construction costs, the purchase of plantings, and irrigation. He noted that CPW committed through the exchange of checks to allow the purchase of Hall of Fame streetlamps at an estimated cost of $25,000, and also to assist with the installation of the irrigation system, at a total cost to CPW of $30,000. He asked for consideration to make this outside of the exchange of checks as a one-time contribution to the project. He pointed out the City’s belief that this project is critical because of a number of key merchants on that side of the square, with the Uptown Family Practice the biggest user of the lot. There is also a belief that the trend will be toward residential growth in that area and permanent parking will be needed. Mr. Barrineau stated that all funds expended on this project came from City money; there was no grant money involved. Commissioner Monaghan asked if this was part of the central City rehab and Mr. Barrineau responded that it was. Chairman Hancock emphasized that the electric supply, water supply, and irrigation system to that area should always be included in the exchange of checks, and Mr. Barrineau agreed and responded that they would be in the future. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the amount of time left on the Federal Building noting that could offset these costs should CPW decide to do this. Mr. Barrineau responded that the agreement was for five years and the City took it over in 2003. Mr. Reeves added that they could check to be sure, but he suspected we are in the last one to two years. Commissioner Watts asked for clarification on the discussion taking place. Mr. Reeves explained that when the plans to upgrade and remodel the Federal Building were first made, the City asked CPW to provide the utilities free for a five-year period, and that amount of time was close to ending. Commissioner Monaghan made a motion to approve the request from the City to make the costs associated with the Phoenix-Pressley parking lot outside of the exchange of checks; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved. Chairman Hancock emphasized again that it be in there that we bill for the water and electric but help with everything else. Mr. Barrineau then explained a request from the Inn on the Square, owned by IOS, LLC. He pointed out the external painting that was part of their exterior/interior up fit to become a Clarion Collection Hotel. He explained that Clarion’s Collection Hotels is a line of specialty, boutique, and historic hotels. An agreement was signed to be franchised with Clarion, and as part of the agreement, they require certain things to be done. To help get them there, the Uptown Development Cooperation and the Upper Savannah Council of Governments gave them a combined loan of $300,000. Presently, they have 28 employees and will add twelve additional staff potentially giving them 40 full-time employees. Mr. Barrineau noted that the parking lot adjacent to the Inn on the Square is owned by the City. He further explained that in the 80’s when the Inn on the Square project was put together, the City obtained a community development block grant to demolish homes that were there and to construct the current parking lot. Clarion has asked that improvements be made to the parking lot from an aesthetic standpoint. Mr. Barrineau stated that the parking lot is in good shape and the base is very solid. He stated that the projected estimated cost to do something very similar to what was done at the Phoenix-Pressley parking lot was $17,975, and would include landscaping, irrigation, and sealing and striping of the parking lot. He pointed out that it is critical that the Commissioners understand that they struggle with asking CPW to install irrigation because of the time it takes away from CPW staff’s work time. Mr. Barrineau stated that for that reason and because it could be turned around faster, they believe it would be more beneficial to hire a contractor to install irrigation, and proposed paying separately for installing the irrigation system. Commissioner Monaghan stated concern because the parking lot appears to belong to the hotel and does not appear to be a public parking lot. Mr. Barrineau pointed out that the parking lot belongs to the City and is a public parking. Mr. Reeves stated that the perception is that it belongs to the hotel, but the reality is that it belongs to the City. Mr. Barrineau noted that the parking lot is also used by Discount Furniture and a step-down to Phoenix Street was installed so that B & F employees could park there. Mr. Reeves suggested putting up a construction sign showing that the parking lot is “City Owned”. Mr. Barrineau stated the intent of the City to develop signage for all parking lots to read “City of Greenwood Public Parking”. Commissioner Monaghan stated that this would be different than the parking lot just approved because we would be helping the hotel; Chairman Hancock pointed out that there would be no hotel there without the parking lot. Mr. Barrineau stressed how hard it is to make hotels work in downtown areas. He noted that the Inn on the Square has struggled over the years, adding that this is the third owner in the seven years that he had been in Greenwood. He stated his belief that the new owners had turned it around from where it was. He stated that hotels are not going to make it in downtown areas without some assistance. Commissioner Monaghan stated concern with the parking lot being clearly marked in order to be comfortable approving the request. Mr. Barrineau provided pictures of the library addition to be constructed across the street from the Inn on the Square. He then provided a cost estimate for twelve to fifteen lights at a CPW installation cost of $35,000 – $40,000. He stated that all they were asking on the irrigation was assistance with the boring. A contractor would be hired to install conduit and lines. It would be metered on electrical and water. Commissioner Watts asked if CPW would purchase and install the lights and Mr. Barrineau responded that was the request. Commissioner Monaghan noted that the lights shown were different than the others downtown. Mr. Barrineau responded that they are looking at using a new light in most areas downtown. The Hall of Fame acorn light is intended to go in other areas, and possibly at the library. Mr. Meredith stated for the purpose of clarification his understanding of the City’s request. He explained that CPW adds all of their energy charges into the exchange of checks and noted that Chairman Hancock had asked for that to continue. The only thing different about this request would be that with a decorative light, there is a non-standard fee charged in addition to the energy charge to recoup the capital cost of the light itself; it does not include any labor. In doing this, the City is not going to see a $40,000 bill when it is done. In the exchange of checks, these lights would probably come up to be about $20 per month for the non-standard fee, so each light would be about $240 per year, which is essentially what Mr. Barrineau is asking. Mr. Barrineau commented on the need to confirm that with City Council. Mr. Meredith continued and stated that CPW pays for anything up front when lights are put in for any customer. Typically, the customer signs a seven-year contract which allows CPW to get their capital investment back over that timeframe. He stated that he understood what Mr. Barrineau was asking to be that we not deal with them at all, we don’t bill them. Mr. Barrineau reiterated that he needed to make sure that City Council understands it that way. Mr. Meredith continued that essentially with the parking lot we are considering now, for the decorative non-standard fee that would be billed at about $2,400 per year; the City is asking CPW to waive the $2,400 fee. Mr. Barrineau stated that what they were wanting was for the infrastructure to be purchased by CPW and for the ongoing electrical costs to operate that to be included in the exchange of checks. Mr. Meredith asked if the City was essentially asking CPW to waive the non-standard fee. Mr. Reeves suggested that the request be granted contingent upon acceptance by City Council. A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan and seconded by Commissioner Watts to approve the request for the Inn on the Square parking lot improvements contingent upon acceptance by City Council, and the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Barrineau asked for clarification on what the City would be paying. Chairman Hancock stated that the City would be paying for electricity and water and Mr. Barrineau agreed. Chairman Hancock emphasized again the need for signage clearly designating this as a City-owned public parking lot.

V.        Executive Session

            A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved to go into Executive Session to discuss contractual matters.