GREENWOOD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

MINUTES OF THE November 8, 2006

regular Meeting

 

The regular meeting of the Greenwood Metropolitan Commission was held Wednesday, November 8, 2006 at 3:00 p.m., in the Training Room of Greenwood Metropolitan District Technical Service Facility, 110 Metro Drive.

 

       In attendance:

       Bob Haynie                              Daniel Clark                 Danny Ware                 Larry White

       Gene Hancock                         Wayne Daniel               Bill Moore                    Fred Bridwell

       Michael G. Monaghan              Gayle Grogan               Jeff Smallwood             Aaron Frazier

       Henry Watts                             Paige Holley                 Tina McGinn                Tony King

       Bryon Smith                             Marsha Meyer              Bill Weeks                    Lewie C. King

       Richard Coleman                      Jamie Peeler                 Richard Kloskey           Elizabeth King

       George Martin                          Brian Waldrep              Nancy Page                  John Wiseman

       Marion Boone                          Doug Bell                     Jennings Parker            Michael Nix

 

         I.        Chairman Haynie called the meeting to order and George Martin gave the invocation.

 

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

 

III.   Mr. and Mrs. Lewie King (113 Pineview Drive) requested to address the Board regarding a sewer line problem they have at 604 and 606 Grier Street.  Their service line has a swag in it and is holding water.  They have cleaned the line several times during the year.  Once the line is cleaned, they do not experience any problems for a few months and then it needs to be cleaned again.  Mr. King asked for Metro to address the swag problem in the line.  Commissioner Hancock asked if the problem is on their service line going out to the street.  Mr. King said the problem is under the street.  Commissioner Hancock asked if Metro has been out to video the problem.  Metro has been out and videoed the line.  Mrs. King would like for the Board to notify them of what Metro recommends them to do to solve this problem.  Mr. King also asked if they could tie into the sewer line that runs behind their house without paying the tap fee.  Chairman Haynie said the Board will discuss this and reply back to the Kings. 

 

IV.  Mr. Tony King (318 Lebanon Church Road) requested to address the Board regarding a problem he has at 419 Bond Avenue.  Mr. King said the main trunkline runs under the corner of the house.  Mr. King had Metro to come out and video the pipe.  Metro was unable to find any problems.  Mr. King has also seen the video and saw where the pipe does not appear to have a problem.  Mr. King has had several events to happen that he does not understand.  The first event is the discovery of a large crack on the front corner of the house around the windows.  The top of the window has separated about 1 ½ inches.  Mr. King has patched the crack yet it continues to grow.  Mr. King is also having a problem with mildew in the house, which leads him to believe there is a moisture problem.  Mr. King believes there is a problem around the manhole that is causing his problems.  Mr. King would like to know if there is anyway Metro can reroute the trunkline.  Chairman Haynie said the Board will discuss this and reply back to Mr. King. 

 

V.     Cokesbury Street Replacement Sewer Bids

Bidder                                                            Amount

Chandler Construction Services, Inc.               $1,845,810.00

Good Water, Inc.                                            $2,396,700.00

Lake Murray Utility Company                         $2,123,545.00

Moorhead Construction, Inc.                           $1,715,235.00

Payne, McGinn & Cummins                            $2,515,750.00

Tom Brigman Contractors                               $1,835,495.00

 

VI.  Staff will review the bids to assure compliance with the specifications.  If the bid is in compliance, the bid will be awarded to the apparent low bidder Moorhead Construction, Inc. at the next Board Meeting.

 

The engineer’s estimate for Cokesbury was $2 million. 

 

VII.   72 Bypass Trunkline Segment Bids

Bidder                                                            Amount

Chandler Construction Services, Inc.               $120,676.00

Good Water, Inc.                                            $106,500.00

Moorhead Construction, Inc.                         $57,000.00

Payne, McGinn & Cummins                            $108,742.00

Town & Country                                           $69,845.00

 

VIII.      Staff will review the bids to assure compliance with the specifications.  If the bid is in compliance, the bid will be awarded to the apparent low bidder Moorhead Construction, Inc. at the next Board Meeting.

 

IX.  Wilson Creek Update

Mr. Ware provided the Board with an update on the upgrade to Wilson Creek.  Mr. Ware distributed to the Board information concerning two change orders.  One of the change orders was for water stop materials in the amount of $1,435.  Commissioner Hancock asked if Davis and Floyd would share some of the cost since it was not included in the original specifications.  The other change order is in the amount of $24,500 for poor soil conditions.  Some of the poor soil condition is due to the fill soil from the old lagoon.  Commissioner Monaghan asked how is the soil test performed.  Mr. Ware explained what is done when performing a soil test.  Commissioner Monaghan asked how do we know this is a fair price for the amount of work that was performed.  Mr. Ware said they asked for back-up data on how the amount was determined.  Commissioner Hancock asked if flowable material was considered to help stabilize soil.  The contractor is moving right along with phase 1A construction.  Mr. Ware provided pictures of the construction and explained the pictures to the Board.  Everything is on schedule based on the contractor’s schedule.  Regarding phase 1B, Davis and Floyd has met with staff and they are discussing the VE recommendations.  Davis and Floyd should have a synopsis of the recommendations for the Board at the next meeting. 

 

X.     Commissioner Monaghan moved and Commissioner Hancock seconded the motion to approve the $24,500 change order for the Wilson Creek Plant Upgrade Phase 1A Project.  The motion was approved. 

 

XI.     Commissioner Monaghan moved and Commissioner Watts seconded the motion that the minutes from the September 15, 2006 meeting, October 3, 2006 called meeting, October 11, 2006 called meeting, October 11, 2006 regular meeting and the October 13, 2006 called meeting be approved as mailed.  The motion was approved.

 

XII.   GMD’s Portfolio

Mr. Michael Nix of Greenwood Capital gave a report on the District’s portfolio.  Several questions were answered by Mr. Nix.  Mr. Nix reminded the Board that some project money will come from our accounts at Greenwood Capital.  Mr. Nix would like a payment schedule for the Cokesbury Project.  A separate account has been set up to receive the bond proceeds.  A distribution schedule has been established for the new bond account.  Commissioner Monaghan asked how much money is the revenue bond.  Mr. Nix said the revenue bond has already been deposited into the account.  Manager Coleman said the bond was $14 million, but we reimbursed ourselves $3.3 million.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if the availability account is controlled by the County.  Manager Coleman said that it is not controlled by the County, but Metro can only spend it on certain capital projects.  We cannot use the money for operating and maintenance items.  Chairman Haynie asked if Greenwood Capital manages the millage account for the County.  Mr. Nix said he would have to check on this.  Commissioner Monaghan requested a basic bond workshop from Greenwood Capital.  Greenwood Capital will provide Metro with some proposed dates for the workshop. 

 

XIII.      Monthly Financial Reports

The monthly financial reports were reviewed.  Commissioner Watts asked what the remaining amount due on Lakeshores Phase I & II was for.  Mrs. Grogan said we are holding some retainage.  Manager Coleman asked what is the status of the punch list items.  Mr. Boone said phase I & II are about finished.  The contractor has to re-spray a pump station and will do that when they work on phase III pump station.  Commissioner Monaghan stated that generally we are doing very well with our budget.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro would spend all of the money left in capital expenses this year.  Manager Coleman said if the projects go according to how we project them, we will spend all of the money.  Typically capital projects take longer than you expect.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if the amount for capital projects coming from O&M are going to be reimbursed by bonds or reserve money.  Manager Coleman said according to the spreadsheet on capital projects some of the money is coming from bonds, reserves or O&M.  Commissioner Monaghan said depending on where the money to pay for the capital project comes from, it could impact the user rates.  Commissioner Monaghan said that at CPW the bond interest is coming out of their O&M account, but the bond principle is not.  Commissioner Monaghan asked Gayle to talk to Denise regarding how she prepares CPW reports.  Mrs. Grogan said that she shows the principle and interest whenever it is paid.  The ’98 Revenue Bond and State Revolving Loan come from O&M.  The ’99 and ’04 GO Bond comes from the millage account.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if the value for the sewer line that Howard Corley installed is correct.  Manager Coleman said that was a line that was donated to Metro after it was installed.  Commissioner Monaghan asked who installed the line.  Manager Coleman said Howard Corley installed the line.  Commissioner Monaghan asked for Metro to check to make sure who has the title to the line.  Commissioner Monaghan noted that the chemical expense for West Alexander doubled.  Mr. Peeler said he would have to check on this, but he noted that the UV did not start until September 18^th.  One reason could be due to the timing on when we receive the chemicals.  For example magnesium hydroxide comes by the truck load and it costs around $5000 per load.  Commissioner Monaghan would like for the department manger to look at any account when the actual is doubled the budgeted amount.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if Greenwood Fabricating and Plating reimbursed Metro for any of the lab tests.  Mrs. Grogan said we received a check in the amount of $10,000 from Greenwood Fabricating and Plating just before this meeting.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if this was for fines.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro was billing Greenwood Fabricating and Plating for the lab tests.  Manager Coleman said we started billing them on September 1^st. 

 

XIV.      Service Reports

The Department Managers answered all questions from the Board that was directed to their department.

 

XV.        Mr. and Mrs. Lewie King Issue – Service Line Issue

Mr. Martin said that Metro’s current policy established by the Board states that unless there is structural damage Greenwood Metro has nothing to do with maintaining the service line.  The issue they talked about is if they were to tie onto the sewer line in the back would Metro charge them.  The only fee Metro would charge is the $72 inspection fee.  Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know if the swag is affecting their service.  Manager Coleman stated the swag is in their service line.  Mr. Martin said their service line goes under the road.  Commissioner Monaghan said that Metro would repair a service line if they were in the public right-of-way.  Mr. Martin said only if they are structurally damaged, not swags or roots.  Mr. Daniel said the line is holding water for 70 feet.  The line will always be a problem unless the line is rerouted or properly installed to grade.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if they would need to cut the road to fix the swag.  Mr. Daniel said the line could be rerouted so they would not disturb the road.  Chairman Haynie asked if rerouting the line would be the most cost effective answer.  Mr. Daniel said yes it would.  Commissioner Monaghan asked who would pay to have the line rerouted.  Mr. Martin said based on our current policy the homeowner would have to pay.  Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know how much it would cost to reroute the line versus fixing the swag.  Mr. Daniel said it would cost more to fix the line than to reroute it.  Mr. Daniel estimated the cost to be around $1,500.  Mr. Boone said the policy also stated the old line will be properly abandoned which it is estimated to cost around $100.  Chairman Haynie directed the Manager to inform them that based on policy we will honor their second request to waive the tap fee and allow them to connect to the other line and to make sure they know they will need to properly close their old service line. 

 

XVI.      Mr. Tony King – 419 Bond Avenue

Manager Coleman said in this situation where houses were built on top of the service line exists in a lot of places.  Mr. Martin said the direction the Board gave to Metro on this issue was that it is Metro’s responsibility to keep the flow in the pipe.  Mr. Martin said the homeowner stated that he is not sure if the sewer line is causing the problem.  Metro has TVed the line and there is no indication that the sewer line is causing the problem.  Mr. King has seen the video of the sewer line.  Mr. Daniel said there was a repair done to the sewer line that runs in the back of his property prior to Metro taking ownership of the lines.  Commissioner Watts asked if where we repaired the manhole had anything to do with the current problem.  Mr. Daniel said the manhole we repaired is not under his house.  The manhole is behind the house and the crack in the wall is on the front.  Mr. Martin said Mr. King is connecting the two problems, but they are not related.  Commissioner Hancock said we have discussed on a case by case basis rerouting the sewer lines to help solve this problem.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if it would be cheaper to reroute the line than pay to fight a lawsuit.  Mr. Bell said Metro has a similar issue in this case.  Mr. Bell is not sure how much detail we would like to discuss it in terms of liability without going into executive session.  Mr. Bell said that part of a decision would be based on how the original lines were conveyed to the City.  Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know if there is any leaks in the manhole that could cause the water to go under his house.  Mr. Daniel said it does not appear to be a large quantity of soil getting into the lines.  Mr. Boone said there is nothing that we can tell that caused this to happen.  Chairman Haynie said that he would like to defer this discussion until Roy is here and we can discuss it more in-depth.

 

XVII.               Action Items

a.       Rate Structure Information

Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know why Daryll Parker was not present at the meeting.  Manager Coleman said he was not aware that he had to attend the meeting.  Commissioner Monaghan said he asked for this information over a year ago, but did not receive anything until this morning.  Manager Coleman said he did not receive the information from Mr. Parker until yesterday at 2:22 pm.  Commissioner Hancock said that Mr. Parker did not have all of the updated information.  Commissioner Monaghan said that Mr. Parker was given all of the information from CPW meter readers in August.  Commissioner Monaghan said that in December 2005 he asked for this information and again in January, 2006.  On April 26, 2006, Mr. Spearman summarized the wishes of the board for Mr. Parker.  Commissioner Monaghan would like for Mr. Parker to match the numbers he used from the American Waterworks Association with what the meter readers from CPW gave him.  Commissioner Watts asked if we need to schedule a time for Mr. Parker to meet with the Board.  Manager Coleman said Mr. Parker did not receive some of the information from CPW until Monday of this week.  Manager Coleman said that Mr. Parker presented the information he had to the Board on July 26^th.  Mr. Parker received the information from CPW’s meter reader in August.  Mr. Parker discussed the rate study with Mr. Coleman while they were in New York for the bond rating (September 26^th).  On October 26^th, Mr. Parker sent an email to Ken Barnett asking for the information in a spreadsheet format.  Commissioner Hancock said that you could have residential with the small lines, other commercial, and a different class for large and small commercial users.  Commissioner Monaghan said that he does not mind doing it by meter size if the representative residential units were close to reality.  Manager Coleman said the number of units on the spreadsheet is the number of apartment units behind the meter.  Commissioner Monaghan asked what does equivalent units mean?  Manager Coleman said the equivalent unit for an apartment is ¾ of a Residential Equivalent Unit (a house).  Chairman Haynie said the equivalence factor is based on the AWWA not on our information.  Manager Coleman said the number of units is the information that was supplied.  Manager Coleman said currently the commercial users pay an 800 cubic feet minimum.  Commissioner Monaghan said that could be another question for Mr. Parker.  Do you want to differentiate between the intensity of the discharge?  Chairman Haynie asked if you would have to monitor the discharge.  Commissioner Hancock said that is something you do not normally monitor.  Commissioner Monaghan had questions for Mr. Parker to address at the meeting on November 29, 2006 at 1:00 pm:

1.      Should there be a volume rate difference between a residential and commercial recognizing the type of commercial discharge into the system?

2.      Explain what is the standardized demand criteria for the America Water Works Association.

3.      Study of the REU billing basis for multi-family apartment complexes to be compared to the standardized demand criteria.

a.       We could then adjust the factors to meet our current reality.

4.      How will our lack of tax revenue impact the overall rate study?

5.      Discuss what is included in exhibit 4 – the detail of the basic rate structure.

6.      Should there be a separate class for multi-family units (large and small)?

 

b.      Commission Working Rules

Chairman Haynie said that Roy feels the Board should adopt these working rules by a resolution.  Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know why.  Manager Coleman said that would make it more binding to future boards as opposed to just a motion.  See attachment A.

 

Commissioner Smith moved and Commissioner Hancock seconded the motion to adopt the resolution regarding commission working rules.  The motion was approved.

 

c.       Service Awards and Gift Cards

In the past Metro has given out service awards and gift cards from a grocery store.  This year we are going in with the City and CPW to get an extra 2% off on the gift cards.  Also, in the past we have given service awards for 1 – 14 years, 15 – 29 years and then 30 plus years.  If Metro gives the awards out like in previous years the total amount would be $14,572 including the gift cards.  Metro is proposing to break the service awards down into 5 year increments.  The total for the proposed way is $15,747 including the gift cards.  Commissioner Watts said the difference is around $1,200.  Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know why Metro wanted to change.  Manager Coleman said the employee that has worked for 1 year will get the same as an employee who has worked for 14 years.  This would reward service in smaller increments.

 

Commissioner Watts moved and Commissioner Smith seconded the motion to distribute service awards in five year increments and give all employees gift cards.  The motion was approved. 

 

d.      Medical Insurance Reserve Increase

Manager Coleman said CPW and Metro tries to keep a $250,000 reserve.  When the reserve drops below that amount we need to add money to bring it back to that amount.  Metro’s portion will be $41,807.55. 

 

Commissioner Smith moved and Commissioner Watts seconded the motion to add $41,807.55 (Metro’s portion) to the insurance reserve fund.  The motion was approved.

 

e.       Shrine Club Road Project

Mr. Martin met with Ms. LaForge yesterday.  She is waiting to hear back from the State.  She hopes to hear back next week.  Chairman Haynie asked if we are running out of time on the bids.  Mr. Martin said no since we re-bid the project we have about 45 days left.  Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know what still has to happen.  Mr. Martin said we had to go back to the State since the number of people has been modified to convince the State.  Commissioner Monaghan said he received a complaint yesterday from Dan Richardson regarding the $5,000 Metro is charging people that is not in the low-moderate income classification.  Mr. Richardson feels that cost is too high.  Mr. Martin said that charge is based on real cost. 

 

f.        Commissioner Monaghan would like to have a management letter and any handouts included in the packets along with what the staff recommends. 

 

g.       Administrative Building

Commissioner Monaghan asked if we are going to take any action on the administrative building.  CPW has offered Metro $500,000 for their portion of the building.  Chairman Hayne said Metro offered $150 per square foot.  Commissioner Watts asked if CPW was to move where would that leave Metro.  Chairman Haynie said we would still stay in the portion of the building that is considered to be Metro.  Chairman Haynie said Metro Commissioners are waiting until the third person is appointed before they make a decision.  Commissioner Watts said we need to look to see what is in the best interest for both CPW and Metro.  No action was taken. 

 

h.       Bond Resolution

Manager Coleman said that County Council has approved the general obligation bond not to exceed $3.5 million.  The resolution for Metro to adopt is written the same way.  The actual amount is $3.1 million.  As stated: “To provide for the issuance and sale of not exceeding three million five hundred thousand dollars ($3,500,000) general obligation bonds, series 2006 Greenwood Metropolitan District, South Carolina; to prescribe the purpose for which they proceeds shall be expended; to provide for the payment thereof; and other matters relating thereto.  See attachment B for bond resolution. 

 

Commissioner Hancock moved and Commissioner Smith seconded the motion to adopt the 2006 general obligation bond resolution.  The motion was approved. 

 

i.         Report on Generator Purchase

Commissioner Monaghan wanted to know what was the report for on a generator that was purchased.  Mr. Martin said this was information on how we gather the list of vendors, what criteria Metro uses to write the specifications, etc.  Marsha is to email the information to Commissioner Monaghan.

 

j.        Partnership/Economic Alliance

No meeting since last board meeting.

 

k.      Vehicle Policy

Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro has a vehicle use policy.  Mr. Martin said yes.  Commissioner Monaghan would like to receive a copy of the policy. 

 

l.         Grants

Commissioner Monaghan asked when Metro would start looking for additional grants for the Lake Greenwood area and Henderson Street.  Manager Coleman said we can only have two open grants.  Mr. Martin said we are constantly monitoring for new grants.

 

XVIII.             Executive Session

 

Commissioner Watts moved and Commissioner Smith seconded the motion to enter into executive session to receive legal advice.  The motion was approved.

 

The Chairman returned the meeting to open session.  No action was taken.

 

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

 

 

 

 

Approved: December 13th, 2006                                    ________________________

                                                                                    Secretary