Greenwood CPW

COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS
Minutes of March 25, 2010

The regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, March 25, 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 Hancock called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Ken Barnett.

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

Approval of Minutes:

A motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting of February 11, 2010 and the regular meeting of February 25, 2010 as submitted was made by Commissioner Monaghan and seconded by Commissioner Watts; the motion was unanimously approved.

Financial Statement:

Commissioner Monaghan referred to page 27 showing accounts receivable and debt set-off and asked for an explanation. Ms. Ogletree explained that Department of Revenue (DOR) is part of the state tax debt-set off program through MASC. The amount in claims sent back on December 1, 2009 was $1.3 million; the amount they have taken out of the taxes was $114,780.91. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out that total claims sent and received was $1,314,290.38, then the next amount shown is set-offs received. Ms. Ogletree responded that would be the amount of tax set-offs received from customers’ tax refunds and actually collected. Commissioner Monaghan suggested it would make more sense to change the wording to “collected”. He then asked what was meant by “adjustments”. Ms. Ogletree responded that is when there is some discrepancy between the amount sent to the agency and our accounts. Ms. Gorham clarified that would be if a bad debt needed to be credited off for some reason; maybe it was sent and should not have been, such as a victim of identity theft and an adjustment would be made. Commissioner Monaghan expressed confusion with “credits-to-date” and asked if that was adding to total claims; Mr. Barnett suggested that they combine the two into the “adjustments-to-date” since that is also an adjustment. Ms. Ogletree responded that could be done, adding that direct payments to CPW are those who came in and paid instead of having that amount taken from their tax return. Commissioner Monaghan agreed that it would be less confusing to put them in with “adjustments”. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the reason for the undercharge for February shown on page 32. Mr. Smith explained that the $389,145.77 under-recovered was where they had been boosting the PGC to generate greater recoveries in December and January; they decided in February that they did not see an imbalance and did not boost the PGC. Commissioner Monaghan asked if this was to balance out the over-recovery for the previous month; Mr. Smith responded that was correct. This was to be sure they recovered enough early in the winter months; in February they chose not to do any kind of boosting.

Business:

Mr. Barnett informed the Commissioners that the CPW tapping team competed and received first place at a recent Environmental Conference. He noted that they can represent the state of South Carolina at the National AWWA meeting in Chicago later this year. Along with that award, the Association contributes $2,500 to defray expenses of going to the national competition. Mr. Hawkins explained “tapping” as being basically the same process as when they come to your house to give you water. He introduced the team consisting of: Jody Patterson, Matt McCoy, and Charles Clinemyer. Mr. Chapman pointed out that they must wear all of the required safety equipment during the competition. The team had a winning time of one minute, thirty-one seconds; later that evening, they did an expo tap at the conference in front of the crowd in the exhibit hall and actually laid down the tap in one minute, four seconds. Mr. Barnett continued that CPW had also won the Kelly A. Hunsucker Award, which is a system protection award for the cross-connection program. Mr. Clinemyer explained that CPW was nominated by DHEC; he further explained cross-connection as being any connection to all potable water coming from the water treatment plant and going through our pipes. Once it goes through a meter, if there is anything like a well or another system that may produce water connected to our system, it is then considered a cross-connection. For example, with water that is sold to a plant, we make sure that proper devices are in place so that it cannot connect with our city water and contaminate our water, so that it remains as safe as possible. Mr. Barnett reported that CPW had also placed second in the state’s Best Tasting Water Contest. Mr. Chapman stated that the plaque would be presented at a later Board meeting. Mr. Barnett shared a letter of appreciation from a customer who was very complimentary of two employees in the water department, Jody Patterson and Daniel Boggs.

Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation for a fund transfer from Ms. Ogletree. Mr. Barnett noted that the request was to transfer $523,217.75 from the 2007 Bond Construction Fund into the General Operating Fund for expenses paid out for various projects.

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

Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation from staff to accept the low bid in the amount of $12,329.23 from Cooper Power Systems for a VR-32 voltage regular.

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

Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation from staff for the low bid in the amount of $19,088 each for three, 2010 pickup trucks from Vic Bailey Ford. Commissioner Monaghan recalled a prior request for vehicle maintenance records before making a decision; Mr. Chapman distributed copies of a spreadsheet to the Commissioners. He then provided justification for each vehicle they were requesting be replaced. He explained that vehicle #106, which is a 1998 Ford pickup, was nearly thirteen years old with over 200,000 miles. Prior to being moved to the water department, this vehicle was in the gas department. The records start at the point when the water department took ownership sometime in 2005. He stated that in 2008, the gas department replaced a pickup; they transferred it over to water distribution; distribution then used it and transferred it to the water department. The water treatment plant took ownership roughly around 2008 so what is shown is the current tracking. Mr. Chapman noted $4,000 in overall maintenance spent since the time the vehicle came to the water department in 2005. He noted that it is leaking fluids, and the shop estimate for repairs to get it back up to speed is around $3,310. The Kelly Blue Book value as a trade-in for this vehicle is $575. Mr. Chapman then outlined a Dodge Ram van used at the water plant, noting $5,327 spent for maintenance over the years. Of that amount, $2,619 would be considered non-routine (tires, oil changes, etc.). Currently, that vehicle has 127,758 miles, and some serious rust issues on the body. Not including the painting cost, it is in need of about $1,200 in repairs to correct fluid leaks, and has a Kelly Blue Book value of $1,025. Mr. Chapman then outlined pickup truck #108, a 1998 model with 191,248 miles of usage. He stated that the vehicle is experiencing rear-end issues; estimates for repairs came in at $1,442.62; and the Kelly Blue Book value is $1,100. He reported that $5,901 had been spent on non-routine repairs over the life of this vehicle. Commissioner Monaghan expressed satisfaction with there being sufficient justification for the pick-up trucks.

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan to purchase three 2010 pickup trucks at $19,088 each from Vic Bailey Ford; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

Commissioner Monaghan then asked for justification for the SUV. Mr. Chapman stated that the Jeep that they are asking to replace is a 1994, with close to 17 years of service. It currently has 174,448 miles and is in need of repairs for fluid leaks in the amount of $1,091. The Kelly Blue Book value of this vehicle is $288. He stated that after the last meeting, the prices of the SUV were compared to a mini-van. He noted a cost of $19,567 for a 7-passenger mini-van at state contract price, for a $233 difference in price. He provided a projected comparison of cost of ownership per year, not including maintenance, using an average life of ownership of 13 years with 150,000 miles at the end of that time in order to come up with the Kelly Blue Book value. For the SUV, the Kelly Blue Book value would be $550; the mini-van would be $213. He stated that he then subtracted that from the initial price and divided by 13 years to get cost of ownership per year; the cost of ownership for the SUV is $1,481; the cost of the mini-van was $1,489. Commissioner Monaghan noted that the real question is more with the usage. Mr. Chapman responded that on that week, Mr. Gentry, Mr. Barnett, and he had traveled to some typical locations. Commissioner Monaghan asked who would be driving the vehicle, and what the typical application would be, because they had just approved three pickup trucks. Mr. Chapman responded that the pickups would go to these places as long as they feel comfortable and as long as there is not inclement weather. Commissioner Monaghan expressed his understanding was that this was going to be used by the water plant director. Mr. Chapman responded that it would be assigned to the water plant superintendent. Commissioner Monaghan asked what occasion he would have to go where he would need a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Mr. Chapman stated that he could provide photos of sites where he routinely goes to the investigate discharge from the sludge lagoons; also, to construction sites, or when the sampling person from the lab must go to these sites to collect the sample. For example, after the amount of rain this past winter, it certainly would have been more comfortable going to many of these sites with a 4-wheel drive vehicle. Commissioner Monaghan asked if someone else goes to the sites, or if it would be the superintendent. Mr. Chapman stated that the superintendent would not drive to collect samples, that would be a backup use of that vehicle. Commissioner Monaghan asked if another 4-wheel drive vehicle is available to plant personnel. Mr. Chapman responded that there is not one available at the water treatment plant; the only other vehicle is the little “mule”, the utility vehicle that cannot legally be used on public roads. Mr. Barnett added that he had them take him to some of the place they must go; there are some places where you would definitely not want to take a van, in some weather a pick-up would be fine, but some places you would not want to take a pick-up, especially in rainy, wet weather. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he was not making an issue just to be contrary, but they needed to start cutting back somewhere. If you can get a $10,000 sedan to do the same purpose, he would rather get two of those instead of one of these. He added that he would have to rely on their judgment as to how often they go somewhere in a 4-wheel drive, but perhaps you could borrow another one to do the job and replace the vehicle with a cheaper sedan. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that the decision on this particular vehicle be tabled until the next meeting. He stated that he would go along with whatever was recommended at that time.

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan and seconded by Commissioner Watts to table the item; the motion was unanimously approved.

Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation from Mr. Auman to purchase a bill printer from Morris Business Solutions, the Xerox Color Qube 9201 at an initial purchase price of $19,454.74. While this is not the lowest initial cost, this unit provides the lowest cost of ownership over the five-year projected life of the printer. Mr. Auman also provided a spreadsheet showing a comparison of the total cost of ownership over five years; it became obvious as the bids were opened that there was not an “apples-to-apples” comparison. Chairman Hancock pointed out that although a little more would be paid initially, there would be a significant cost savings over the life of the printer, given the expected volume of copies. Mr. Auman added that the monthly amount paid for actual service was shown under the contractual heading. The upfront cost is $19,454.74, with a monthly billing for the service based on the five-year contract amount. Mr. Auman noted the inclusion of a letter from Morris stating that they would replace the printer should something go wrong during the five-year contract period since the last one did not last that long. Commissioner Monaghan expressed appreciation for the spreadsheet provided by Mr. Auman.

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan to approve the printer from Morris Business Solutions; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved.

Other Business:

1. Mr. Barnett referred to an invoice from SCDOT in the amount of $10,244.52. He explained that we are billed each year based on miles of transmission lines through one of the pipeline safety programs. He noted that the amount is just above the spending limit for either him or the General Manager.

A motion was made by Commissioner Watts to authorize payment of this invoice; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.

2. Mr. Barnett reminded the Commissioners of the SCAMPS Legislative Meeting in Columbia on April 13, beginning at 5:00 p.m. with a briefing, followed by dinner at 6:00.

3. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about grant activity. Mr. Gentry reported that everything was done with the new CDBG grant; there are about eight or nine to be turned in that are in process, and only two are “shovel ready”. Commissioner Monaghan asked about news from Washington, D. C. Mr. Chapman responded that he was contacted by Senator Graham’s office asking whether CPW is eligible for SRF funds. He informed them that we are not because it is considered a growth issue and not a compliance issue; however, the consultant seems to think that plays in our favor. Senator Graham’s office is completing the paperwork and indicated it would go to committee and would probably not get the markup copy back until sometime in the summer.

Executive Session:

A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan and seconded by Commissioner Watts to go into Executive Session for contractual and personnel matters.

The meeting returned to open session. Chairman Hancock stated that discussion took place on the Federal Building during Executive Session, with no action taken.

With no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Return To Top