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

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS
Minutes of September 10, 2009

A regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, September 10, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in the Boardroom at 121 West Court Avenue.

 Meeting attendees are listed in the Print Friendly PDF version above.

                                                                              

  1. Chairman Hancock called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Ken Barnett.        
  1. Chairman Hancock gave the statement of compliance with the notification provision of the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

  1. Business:
    1. Mr. Mark Warner reported on activities with Greenwood Economic Alliance noting over thirty projects being tracked on the current project list. He stated that when comparing the overall numbers for the past couple of years on layoff numbers reported versus jobs announced, they are within a margin of about 100 jobs. He noted that further progress with adding product to the inventory would be shared during Executive Session. Mr. Warner thanked the Commissioners for their continued support.

 

    1. Chairman Hancock presented a request for a transfer from the 2007 Bond Construction Fund into the General Operating Fund in the amount of $761,740.94. He referred to a memorandum from Ms. Ogletree requesting the transfer. Commissioner Monaghan requested a copy of a spreadsheet from Ms. Ogletree.

A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.

    1. Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation from staff to approve a requisition in the amount of $13,961.90 for Blanchard Machinery Company to perform service on generators at the Water Treatment Plant. He referred to memorandum from Mr. Tuck explaining that a different vendor had been used who had provided less than satisfactory service;  these are Caterpillar generators with Blanchard being the authorized dealer. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the length of the contract; Mr. Chapman responded that it would be multi-year for preventive maintenance and operation. Commissioner Monaghan asked if the price was for one year; Mr. Chapman responded that it was for this year adding that they want to contract with the dealer that works on these generators. Commissioner Monaghan asked what was included and if the agreement was all encompassing; Mr. Chapman responded that it should include all maintenance and tests. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about any additional charges over and above this number; Mr. Chapman responded that there should be none. Commissioner Monaghan asked if that meant there definitely would not be any or that there should not be and asked if it was in writing. Mr. Chapman responded that it was not in writing in front of him, but he was told that it was covered. He noted that was the same contract as at the COC. Manager Reeves asked if the contract at the COC was all encompassing with materials; Mr. Meredith responded that typically you have different phases and levels of service and the water plant actually does more extensive maintenance on those generators because they are used as standby generators for Duke Power’s systems and would get back credits. For that reason, they tend to need more extensive maintenance than what is done at the COC. He continued that they list out the maintenance levels; however, since he had not seen this particular agreement, he was not sure of the particular maintenance level. He added that their agreement had always included parts, labor, travel time and everything. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he wanted to be sure there would not be additional charges. Mr. Chapman added that he was told there would be none; Commissioner Monaghan asked who told him. Mr. Chapman responded that they had told David Tuck that it was all encompassing. Manager Reeves asked if it was in writing; Mr. Chapman stated that it was not in front of him but he was told they have it in writing. Manager Reeves stated that it would be verified before the agreement is signed.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan upon the condition that the Manager review the agreement; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

    1. Manager Reeves presented a request from Lander University regarding development of a recreational complex on Montague Avenue. He stated that Lander is in the process of raising funds for the construction of that facility and had requested consideration for CPW to participate in a number of different parts of that project in order to reduce their costs. He stated that a listing of a number of electrical projects totaling $160,000 was provided, as well as some additional water line extensions at around $7,000. He reminded the Commissioners of past discussions about the possibility of contributing the water meter pit, adding that would typically cost in the range of $30,000 to $40,000. He suggested that should the Commissioners feel inclined to make a contribution, that contribution be limited to providing the water pit at no cost.  Chairman Hancock asked if that would include the impact fee. Manager Reeves responded that guidance was needed from the Commissioners as to exactly what would be provided at no cost. Chairman Hancock pointed out that the impact fee would also be a donation if not charged. Commissioner Monaghan expressed that $30,000 to $40,000 was quite a contribution and is enough. Commissioner Watts asked if the tap fee, meter pit and installation were all included; Manager Reeves responded that the tap fee is generally the cost of the installation of the tap and the pit, so in essence you are giving them a tap fee; however, the impact fee would be separate.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan to furnish water meter pit installation for Lander University at a cost ranging from $30,000 to $40,000; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

    1. Manager Reeves noted discussions with staff on vehicle usage by on-call personnel. As a result of those discussions, they found various opinions existed on what was actually allowed under the current policy. He recommended amending Addendum A to the current policy to be more specific with how on-call employees may use CPW vehicles. Manager Reeves explained that the amendments would allow for the use of vehicles to leave their homes to attend family functions, school functions, church functions, and even go to commercial establishments while on call. The amendments would limit how they use the truck for personal use, noting that only those things that can be stored in the cab of the truck away from public view would be allowed. Commissioner Watts expressed concern with employees being able to go to community events such as football or soccer games with their children, adding that they should be allowed to do those kinds of things. Manager Reeves agreed adding that if they are not allowed to do that, then they should be compensated. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the kind of compensation; Manager Reeves stated that they are not compensated to stay home; they are paid $8 per day. If you were to pay them to stay home, you would have to pay for the number of hours times their hourly rate. Commissioner Watts stated that he was on-call for a number of years and understood what it is like to sit at home and not be able to go anywhere the entire weekend. Commissioner Monaghan commented that according to the policy, they have to be twenty minutes from the COC. He asked if they always go to the COC. Manager Reeves responded that they do not, but they are required to basically live within a twenty minute drive of the COC now. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out that the policy states that they have to stay within twenty minutes of the COC; Manager Reeves responded that is to prevent them from taking the vehicles and going some distance such as to Spartanburg to a game.  Commissioner Watts expressed the opinion that if their sons or daughters are playing a sport, an employee should not have to sit at home; they should be allowed to go to the game. Manager Reeves noted that this should keep them within the vicinity. Commissioner Monaghan noted that if they are to live within twenty minutes of the COC, the truck could be kept at the COC. They could go there, get the truck, and then go. Manager Reeves responded there would be a question of a time response element with efficiency if they had to drive twenty minutes to the COC and then to their call. Commissioner Monaghan expressed confusion with the policy since it states that they have to be within twenty minutes to the COC; Manager Reeves responded that was included just to keep them within a range of Greenwood. It is not to get them to go to the COC but is to keep them in the vicinity. He stated that it could be reworded from “within twenty minutes of the COC” to possibly state “within a five mile radius of the city limits of Greenwood”. Commissioner Monaghan stated that the initial policy came about because of abuse with the use of vehicles; the Commissioners were receiving numerous calls and complaints. He expressed an opinion that this could open a Pandora’s Box and be hard to police. Commissioner Monaghan then asked about the frequency of being on-call; Manager Reeves stated that it varied by department depending on the number of crews. Mr. Chapman explained that his guys rotate every two and a half months, but if they pick up a call for someone else, that could increase. They are on call for a week and then are off for about two months. Manager Reeves noted that Mr. Meredith’s electric guys are on call for a week every five weeks so it depends on the number of employees. Mr. Chapman stated that there are three guys in the water department that are on-call; the lead guy is on-call about every ten weeks; he may bump off and be the alternate so that if the lead guy needs help, he would be the second one called. Commissioner Monaghan asked if others besides those three can do the work; Mr. Chapman responded that there are other people in the department if you can reach them. Commissioner Monaghan stated that was not what he meant, noting that Mr. Chapman said there are only three individuals that are on-call and the rest of them are not. Manager Reeves stated that he was also confused, and asked how three people can rotate every ten weeks and be on call for only one week at a time. Mr. Chapman clarified that Commissioner Monaghan was asking how many people in the department are on call. He explained that of the three different positions that are considered on-call positions, there are eighteen people that rotate. One of those three is the lead on-call person who takes the vehicle home. Commissioner Monaghan asked about maintaining the rotation; Mr. Chapman responded that they schedule out for six months at a time so that nobody is loaded up. If someone has a family event, is going out of town, or gets sick, they can switch with someone, making it possible to be on call for two weeks in a row. He noted a procedure in place whereby the water plant is notified of any change to ensure being fully staffed twenty four hours a day. Commissioner Monaghan stated that everyone should get a fair amount of compensation so that one guy does not get all of the on-call work and other guys don’t get a chance. He then pointed out that exception was taken to Wal-Mart and Kmart in the policy; Manager Reeves noted that was a hot topic with the Board in the past and was the reason for the emphasis. Commissioner Watts noted that church, family and community activities are allowed; Manager Reeves stated that was basically there before but not worded in the policy, but it also allows them to go to the grocery store, pharmacy, or hardware store. Commissioner Monaghan asked why they cannot take their own cars there. Manager Reeves explained the purpose for taking the company vehicle is so that if they get a call while out, they can immediately turn loose and go to that call. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that the revisions to Addendum A be accepted as recommended adding that any incidences of abuse would have to be addressed.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.

IV.       Other Business:
                          

  1. Chairman Hancock noted a joint meeting scheduled with City Council on September 15.   
  1. Manager Reeves requested that the second meeting of November be rescheduled because of the Thanksgiving holiday. The Commissioners agreed on Thursday, November 19, at 10:30 a.m. for the second meeting, with the first meeting to remain on November 12.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.

  1. Manager Reeves presented a requisition for chemicals at the Water Treatment Plant in the amount of $14,850 which exceeds the spending limit of the Manager. He noted that this was part of the annual bid and the pricing remained the same.

 

A motion to approve the requisition was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.   

  1. Manager Reeves noted that the City had paid $49,999 toward the recently approved CDBG Grant in the amount of $499,999. He explained that 10% was to come from local government, and the City’s planned contribution in the beginning was $30,000; therefore, CPW now owes the City of Greenwood the balance of $19,999.  He pointed out that the grant money would be used for CPW water projects within the city.    

 

A motion authorizing a check to the City of Greenwood was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

  1. Manager Reeves noted that the Department of Commerce had agreed to provide the City of Greenwood a $300,000 grant for facade and streetscape improvements on Long Alley. At that time, CPW was asked to contribute up to $50,000 for lighting improvements and agreed to do so; however, there was never a formal motion. He stated that since it is now in process, a motion authorizing that $50,000 contribution toward lighting on Long Alley was needed. Manager Reeves noted that we would install the lighting and that lighting would be added to the exchange of checks with the City.

 

A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.

  1. Commissioner Monaghan noted that “no certificate” came up when trying to access the CPW website. Mr. Auman responded that he was not aware that there was still a problem, noting that the problem had been taken care of on the customer side. Commissioner Monaghan stated that it still does it on his e-mail side. Mr. Auman responded that they would follow up again. Commissioner Monaghan expressed appreciation for the departmental reports.

 

  1. Manager Reeves noted an upcoming meeting with the consultant from Washington, D. C. to get an update on possible federal funds on the horizon.  
  1. Chairman Hancock inquired about a waterline extension to a subdivision on Laurel Avenue. Mr. Meredith responded that it is already in the City; they have electricity there. Chairman Hancock then inquired about Barrington Subdivision, noting that impact fees had not yet been paid to Metro. Mr. Meredith responded that they would stay in the County. Chairman Hancock noted three gas projects: Bentley Park, Graystone at Stoney Point and Summerset Subdivision that had held off on natural gas and asked about any construction going in there yet. Mr. Elliott stated that no progress had been made yet, and adding that he was unfamiliar with Summerset but would check. The developer is not ready and nobody is building right now. Chairman Hancock stated that if they go on and build there, that customer is lost from now on. There is a subdivision on Lake Greenwood that is the land the County sold out there; we have put in the water and the gas line is sitting there to go in not far from it, but if they the contractor goes in and builds houses and gas is not in there, you will never get those customers on gas. Russell Holley stated that Summerset had not even been cleared yet; adding that Chairman Hancock was referring to Summer Place. Mr. Holly noted that he thought there was gas at Summer Place. Summerset is a little bit closer in toward Greenwood and has not been cleared yet. Mr. Elliott added that they typically go in once they record the plat.

           

  1.       Executive Session:

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

The meeting returned to open session. Manager Reeves stated that during Executive Session staff provided an update on a need for assistance from a consultant pertaining to requirements for billing out compliance statements with the Southeastern Electric Reliability Corporation (SERC). It would be appropriate based on those discussions to authorize retaining a consultant to assist the electric department in meeting SERC requirements, with a not to exceed fee of $52,500.

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.  

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

                                                                                 

    Return To Top