COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS
Minutes of June 10, 2010
The regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, June 10, 2010, at 10:00 a.m., in the Boardroom at 121 West Court Avenue.
Meeting attendees are listed in the Print Friendly PDF version above.
- Chairman Watts called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Mr. Barnett.
- Chairman Watts gave the statement of compliance with the notification provision of the Freedom of Information Act.
- Business:
- Manager Reeves commented on the need to discuss the bond project listing to complete scheduled 2007 projects, as well as proposed projects for a 2010 bond issue. He recalled that the Commissioners had indicated at a previous work session that they had questions for department heads on several projects. He noted a total request over the next seven years of $22,912,190 in total system improvements, with approximately $2,060,000 of that amount to be completed with the remaining 2007 bond issue. Manager Reeves commented that the number had now been reduced to a request of $12,204,775. Commissioner Monaghan asked what had been reduced; Manager Reeves responded that the initial request from departments was in the amount of $22,912,190. He commented that some of those projects are still listed in the first column of numbers on the listing provided. Manager Reeves noted that they are asking for approval of everything shown highlighted in yellow as projects for the 2007 bond issue. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that 2007 be done first, since those monies are already received from the bond. Commissioner Monaghan asked what part of the water project requests is due to FEMA mandates. Mr. Chapman responded that he was not familiar with FEMA, adding that they are not under any consent order for regulatory mandates; these requests are for maintenance items that must be addressed. He continued that if they are not addressed now, they could fail and could have a catastrophic event. He noted that both the walkway structure and concrete basins are in rough shape so these projects are routine, and have been on the bond issue list since 2003. Commissioner Monaghan asked if any mandates have been put on us at the water plant by Homeland Security. Manager Reeves responded that there are a few from Homeland Security; the front entry gate being one. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out that he was trying to identify those unfunded federal mandates that would have to be covered. Mr. Barnett stated that would consist of the front and rear entry gates. Manager Reeves noted a cost of $20,000 for the front entry gate and $41,000 for the rear entry gate. Commissioner Monaghan questioned spending $41,000 on the rear entry gate; Mr. Chapman responded that a fence cannot be put around the lake perimeter to block ingress from the lake side. Having the gate at the back of the property and controlled with a camera for security protects us from anyone gaining entrance from the lake side. Commissioner Monaghan commented on that being the government’s theory, and asked how long the water plant had been there. Mr. Chapman responded that it had been there for close to fifty years. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the number of ingresses during those fifty years. Mr. Tuck noted that on occasion fishermen who had broken down on the lake would come up to the plant looking for someone to come get them. He noted that Puckett’s Ferry and Harborside had built up since the plant was built, and kids now come around on the lake. The population of that area has grown pretty significantly in just the last ten years. He explained that there are chemical tanks and feeders right at the rear gate entry, so we definitely need to be able to monitor those tanks that are out of sight from the control room. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the necessity of concrete rehab basins shown on the listing at a cost of $1,253,000. Mr. Tuck explained that some of the concrete is fifty years old with aggregate and rebar showing. Over time as water goes through the basins with chlorine and caustic materials, the lime in the concrete is leeched away. They have to be recoated and the epoxy coatings that will extend the life of the concrete can be pretty expensive. Mr. Chapman noted that this was addressed in the 2003 bond list and was pushed back at that time. He added that we might be able to push it back again, but eventually it would reach the point where there is a catastrophic failure. Mr. Tuck noted that these are the original basins from 1960 to 1980 expansions; there are cracks due to settling over the years that have to be addressed. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about walkway structures; Mr. Tuck responded that was an additional walkway to have better access to washout basin six where there was never a walkway. He explained that it is hard to get in there to clean; if there was a walkway around the east corner of the end basins, there would be better access to clean out those basins. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the bottleneck on the raw water line; Mr. Tuck responded that where the three main lines come together at the Venturi vault , there is a 12-inch connection between the two 24-inch mains that is creating a little head loss where all that water comes together to be metered in one big line. Basically, they are looking at taking out the bottleneck to reduce the head loss of the by-water flow. Mr. Barnett added that the plant has the capacity to put out the finished water, but the bottleneck significantly limits how much can be put out because it controls the flow of the raw water through the plant. Commissioner Monaghan stated that unfortunately, the Board is limited in their knowledge to be able to determine what is absolutely necessary, adding that we are in a jam with the water. He expressed reluctance to increase debt service for projects that are not absolutely necessary or that might be deferred. For example, if less could be spent on an entry gate, maybe that could be put toward something more critical. Commissioner Monaghan continued that he was unsure how to go about deciding since the Commissioners are not qualified to prioritize the projects. He suggested that the list be looked at again and revisited later with another recommendation. He stated that when something is done that is not really necessary and a new bond is issued, that increases the debt service, which causes rate increases at a time when there is economic crisis in our community. He stated that if the federal government says we have to do something that we don’t think is necessary, then let’s drag our feet a little bit. Manager Reeves stated that the word “necessary” may be the definitive thing here; whether it is broken to the point it needs to be fixed today, then the answer would probably be “no” in most cases. Is it broken to a point where if something is not done soon it will break and cost us more to wait, then the answer is “yes”. Mr. Chapman expressed agreement, and noted that Mr. Meredith had reminded them earlier that the electrical switch intake had already been approved under the vulnerability assessment. Commissioner Monaghan stated that it did not matter if something had already been approved, the Commissioners can change their minds. Mr. Chapman continued that he could not tell them with any degree of confidence whether the federal government would come down tomorrow and fine us for not doing what they said, and further agreed that some things may appear unnecessary and definitely are not mandated. Commissioner Watts stated that there would be more cost later on the water projects that are not done now. Commissioner Hancock agreed and stated that things would only deteriorate more and then cost more to fix later, adding that you either pay now or you pay more later. Commissioner Watts asked what was meant by “one to five years”; Mr. Chapman responded that it was capital improvement plan projects identified to be done in the next five years. Originally when bond discussion started, they were asked to prioritize the projects, and those shown as one to five years were determined to be critical. Commissioner Monaghan asked if bad concrete spots could be patched for less than $1.2 million; Mr. Chapman responded that they could; however, that is what has been done since 2003. He stated that his recommendation would be to not delay any longer because when it fails, it will not give a lot of warning. When it starts to fail, it might be too late and could be to the point they would have to shut down that basin and rebuild the wall rather than sealing and patching it. Right now, the basin could be drained, put the seal in and make the patches, and extend the life of the basins. Commissioner Hancock commented that a walkway should have been put in when the plant was built because someone could be hurt with the way it is set up now. He continued that they already knew about the surge lightning protection, and had been provided with direction on the need for cameras at the gates as mandated because of what is going on in the world. Manager Reeves stated that another issue to consider is that the total request for water over the next seven years is $17 million with only around $8 million of those being recommended. He continued that it does not mean that those other projects would go away, those are still needed and very likely within that seven-year timeframe. The more those are delayed, you simply add to the next bond issue because those projects will be creeping into the list of projects on the list that need to be done. Commissioner Hancock added that it also does not include the maintenance to the tanks that will be needed.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock and seconded by Chairman Watts to approve the highlighted projects; the motion passed by a vote of two to one, with Commissioner Monaghan voting “no”.
Manager Reeves clarified that the motion was to approve the highlighted projects and asked if there were any questions pertaining to the recommendation for the 2010 bond issue. He noted conversations to begin the process with the bond attorney and underwriters, but until there is a definitive project list, there is only so much that can be done. He requested approval to proceed with a 2010 bond issue in the amount of $12,204,000, unless some of those projects were to be eliminated. Mr. Roper asked if these were the non-priority projects; Ms. Ogletree responded that they are, and were the items shown in the 2010 bond column. Chairman Watts inquired about clarifiers; Mr. Tuck explained circular clarifiers that are in each basin to collect sludge, adding that these are forty to fifty years old, beginning to show wear, and would need to be replaced. To extend the life of the sedimentation basins for another twenty to fifty years, those need to be replaced in the timeframe shown. Commissioner Monaghan commented that he had no problem with the gas and electric items since those are funding the capital expansion. He continued that his problem is that water is losing money, and at this point, he was uncomfortable with all of the money being spent on the water system when we are in a dilemma and losing money. The bond issue is for $600,000 for gas; gas is a thriving side of the business. Electric is $5 million, but electric more than pays for itself and in good position. He continued that we have one of the lowest electric and gas rates in the state, but he did have a problem with spending $16 million on the water system when we are losing money. He stated that he needed to be more convinced that all of these projects are absolutely necessary. Commissioner Hancock stated that the water system is fourteenth from the bottom in cost now out of 247 water companies; we are one of the lowest water providers in the state and have also never made a dime on water here. Water has to be subsidized; however, you have to maintain the system. The reason we have problems with the water rates is because we are not selling enough water. He continued that all of the textile plants were lost, Sara Lee, Solutia has cut back half, Fuji has cut back, and Ninety-Six and Sloan plants. There is only one textile plant still running; the reason the water plant was built was to provide water to all of those, as well as Ninety-Six, Hodges, all around on the lake, and Ware Shoals. If any kind of industry comes in here we will start selling more water and have some possibilities of selling more water with requests we have received. Commissioner Hancock concluded that it is possible that we could raise rates and then come back and reduce them in two or three months; the problem is we are not selling enough water, but regardless, we still have to maintain the system. Commissioner Monaghan stated that we are selling less water but are going to spend $5 million on a new ground storage reservoir. Manager Reeves stated that was long-range and was not included here; Commissioner Hancock stated that was in 2015 and probably further than that. Mr. Chapman added that Commissioner Hancock is absolutely correct that the reason we are in the current position is because of the drop in water sales. He pointed out that legislation had passed this year and is awaiting the governor’s signature for the Service Water Withdrawal Act. The amount of water you can pull out of the reservoir is tightening up; if we do not maintain the plant, it will be down rated by DHEC. If that happens, we basically give up that capacity and would have to pay a lot more money in the future to get that capacity back. Commissioner Monaghan asked if $1.5 million for distribution lines replacement is our contribution to grants; they give us so much and we pay a certain amount, or is this CPW funding it all without a grant. Mr. Chapman responded that this is the cost that was identified; we have to apply for the grant down the road. With the CDBG project just applied for we had to show what our planned capital improvement was for galvanized line replacement. If we do not have any money to fund it, CDBG will not grant us any money. In attempting to clarify, Manager Reeves asked if what was being said is that we have $1.5 million in projects that need to be done, and that is without funding from CDBG or any other grant facility. If we were to get grants, that amount of money would either be reduced or applied to some other project. Commissioner Monaghan asked why the debt service was increased to get the $1.5 million. Mr. Barnett responded that we do not have a guarantee of the grant yet, adding that we are struggling with the one right now. Even though it is identified here, if we were to get grants and did not need the $1.5 million for this particular line item, the Commissioners would have the ability to shift those funds to other projects that we would be funding. He stated that if the grant monies are not obtained, we would still need the $1.5 million. Manager Reeves stated that this is only a starting point and is not set in stone; it can be changed as they go forward.
A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock and seconded by Chairman Watts to proceed with a 2010 bond issue in the amount of $12,204,775. The motion passed by a vote of two to one, with Commissioner Monaghan voting “no”.
Ms. Ogletree pointed out that when 2007 was approved, that meant all of those projects in the 2007 bond listing. Mr. Barnett commented that the 2007 listing would be all the 2010 bond projects. Commissioner Hancock stated that 2007 is in the 2010 bond too. Ms. Ogletree noted that there were not enough funds available to fund all of the items in yellow, and in particular the $1,243,500, but there was enough to cover several other projects that were not listed in the budget. Mr. Barnett stated that they are approving $2,060,000. After the Commissioners expressed confusion over the previous motions, Mr. Roper and Manager Reeves attempted to clarify whether a separate motion was needed to approve the distribution line replacements at $185,000 included in the $2,060,000 that are not highlighted, and three under electric totaling about $100,000. Manager Reeves concluded that another motion would be needed to include: distribution line replacement of $185,000; circuit breaker 43 replacement of $32,000; substation and EOC security system for $35,000; and ACSMTU replacement for $34,200, all included in the 2007 bond issue. Mr. Auman noted that relocation of the server at a cost of $79,180 would also be included, if they so choose.
A motion to approve the 2007 bond issue items as stated was made by Commissioner Hancock, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.
- Mr. Gentry reported on visiting some new construction sites, and provided a brochure showing cost comparisons adding that they would be looking at who gets building permits to get them in the hands of builders. Manager Reeves noted that they would show the savings against propane. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that Mr. Gentry try to attend some of the Builders’ Association meetings.
- Commissioner Hancock requested that Mr. Meredith take a look at a tree next to the hospital close to the corner with limbs on each side over the road and wires running through them and over houses.
- Executive Session:
A motion was made by Commissioner Hancock and seconded by Commissioner Monaghan to go into Executive Session for personnel and contractual matters; the motion was unanimously approved.
- With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Approved: , 2010
Secretary
Meeting attendees are listed in the Print Friendly PDF version above.
Return To Top
|
|
