Main Menu

GMD Public Information

Public Menu -  2006 Minutes - 2007 Minutes

Commission Minutes

GREENWOOD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT

MINUTES OF THE January 24, 2007

Regular Meeting

The regular meeting of the Greenwood Metropolitan District Commission was held Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 3:00 p.m., in the Board Room of CPW - Greenwood Metropolitan District Administrative Office, 121 West Court Avenue.

In attendance:

Bob Haynie                              Gayle Grogan

Gene Hancock                         Roy Hemphill

Michael G. Monaghan  Paige Holley

Byron Smith                             Danny Ware

Henry Watts                             Micheal Nix

Richard Coleman                      Trip Compton

George Martin                         

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

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

3. Wilson Creek Update

   1. Mr. Ware provided an update from the contractor on the phase 1A schedule.  On the schedule that was handed out he pointed out the dashed line representing present construction, and noted they are a little bit behind on the secondary clarifier #2.  The construction of clarifier #2 is going a lot faster than the first.  Mr. Ware pointed out that the contractor has had weather delays, but appears to be doing everything in their power to continue the progress of work.  Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the number of months the contractor is behind.  Mr. Ware responded that they are close to five months behind the overall schedule.  Commissioner Monaghan asked what the white line represents.  Mr. Ware responded that a white line item is not a continuous work item, but an item that work takes place on as time allows.  A change order summary and pictures of the construction were provided to the Board and each picture was explained in detail.  A new Preliminary Engineer Report (PER) was submitted to DHEC for phase 1B, based on the changes that were made.  Mr. Ware stated that he had spoken to the review engineer at DHEC and hoped to have DHEC’s review of the PER by next week.  Davis and Floyd is proceeding with the design trying to formulate the construction permit packet.  Once they receive an approved PER from DHEC they will submit the construction permit packet.  Commissioner Monaghan asked Mr. Ware for a brief summary of the changes in the design of phase 1B.  Mr. Ware responded that the biggest change was removing six million gallons of equalization from phase 1B and adding a second 6 Million Gallon per Day (MGD) BNR system.  He noted other recommendations on ways to improve some gates and the grit removal from the Value Engineering Team were to be implemented.  Davis and Floyd is preparing the process drawings and any items needed by DHEC to review the project.  He added that the DHEC review could possibly take up to six months.  He concluded by pointing out the desire to have information to DHEC around the first of February, and they will continue to work on other issues like electrical, instrumentation, etc. 

4. Commissioner Smith made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 10, 2007 Regular Meeting be approved as amended and Commissioner Watts seconded.  The motion was unanimously approved.

5. Commissioner Watts made a motion to approve the minutes from the January 10, 2007 Public Hearing as mailed; Commissioner Smith seconded and the motion was unanimously approved.

6. Financial Report

   1. Chairman Haynie asked for questions from the Board on the Financial Report.  Commissioner Watts asked if revenue was unusually low for December.  Manager Coleman responded that the sewer service revenue is generally lower in winter.  Commissioner Watts asked if Metro had lost any customers.  Manager Coleman responded that the majority of sewer service charge is based on water usage and generally more water is used in the summer months than winter months resulting in a decline of billable flow in the winter.  Manager Coleman added that he was not aware of any industry closing.  Chairman Haynie reminded the Board of a variance in the property taxes based on what was budgeted versus what we are receiving.  Commissioner Hancock asked if everything has been worked out regarding the tax millage for this year.  Mr. Hemphill stated that he would like to discuss this during executive session.  Commissioner Monaghan referred to the minutes from the regular meeting on page 4 item D with regard to information sent to the Board by Gayle on the County account.  Commissioner Monaghan stated a desire for Metro to identify where the proceeds from the 2006 Revenue Bond are going.  Mrs. Grogan stated the information that was emailed to Commissioner Monaghan was on the revenue bond.  Commissioner Monaghan stated that no information was emailed on the revenue bond.  Mrs. Grogan stated that it was over $10 million and is the bond with Greenwood Capital.  Mrs. Grogan added that a pay schedule and an explanation as to how payments are processed was sent.  Commissioner Monaghan asked for clarification and Mrs. Grogan explained how payments are done.  Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro has a separate account at Greenwood Capital for this particular bond.  Mrs. Grogan responded that we do for the 2006 Revenue Bond.  Mrs. Grogan noted that information was included in the packets and a copy of the 2006 bond account in the handouts from Greenwood Capital. 

2. Mr. Michael Nix of Greenwood Capital gave a report on the District’s portfolio.  Chairman Haynie thanked Mr. Nix for the bond seminar last week.  Commissioner Monaghan asked about the 1081 account.  Mr. Nix responded that the 1082 is the availability account, and the 1081 represents the general reserves account.  He pointed out that the first page shows which bonds have been sold or called, and the next two pages provide a summary of what is currently in the 1081 account.  Chairman Haynie asked if that is based on the day of the report, and Mr. Nix responded that was correct.  Mr. Nix further explained that the last page gives the performance report for fiscal year to date.  The unrealized gain or loss reflects both amortization of the premium or the accretion of a discount.  He referred to the bottom line showing the portfolio value as of December 31, 2006.  He stated that the 1082 (availability) account has a combination of US Treasury and Agencies.  The performance report shows the contributions and withdrawals, realized or unrealized gains interest paid and the ending value for the account.  Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the kind of scheme Metro has for withdrawals.  Manager Coleman responded that generally Metro would draw the 1082 account down to $500,000 and the 1081 account to $4 million.  He added that the 1082 (availability) account is used for specific items like upgrades and building transmission lines, with no restrictions on the 1081 (general) account.  Commissioner Monaghan stated that he did not want to get stuck where Metro has used the other account and cannot use the money in the 1082 account for this purpose.  Commissioner Monaghan stated a desire to use the 1082 to the minimum and then go to the other as long as there is the rationale to use it.  Manager Coleman stated that the Long Range Financial Plan shows those accounts being drawn down over time.  Commissioner Monaghan asked how long Metro had to use the money from the revenue bond.  Manager Coleman responded that they have two years.  Mr. Nix added that if we were to prioritize what is being liquidated for the projects you are going to use the bond proceeds funds initially.  Manager Coleman noted that the revenue bond would be used first for those projects listed in conjunction with the bond.  You can have other projects come up not part of the revenue bond and would have to use some of the other money.  Commissioner Monaghan stated that the 1081 account would be used last.  Manager Coleman noted that Metro does not necessarily use one account up before using the other account.  Mr. Nix pointed out that the next account (1852) is the revenue bond proceeds, and this account did not open up until October 25, 2006.  He noted that a draw schedule was set up for this account.  If Metro gets to a point where it looks like payments have been pushed back for several months, Greenwood Capital could reinvest the month for a few more months.  Right now this account averages 5.25 percent on yield to maturity.  Performance year to date is right at about 3.25 percent fiscal year to date.  Commissioner Monaghan asked about flexibility with the draw schedule.  Manager Coleman responded that the schedule on the Wilson Creek Project given to Greenwood Capital is already five months behind.  Mr. Nix noted that the majority of the draws from a dollar standpoint will occur in the first six months of this year.  Greenwood Capital will always have a little bit of flexibility in the payments. 

VII.      Action Items

1. Commissioner Hancock made a motion to award the Maxwell Avenue Project to low bidder Chandler Construction Services, Inc. in the amount of $447,935.00; Commissioner Smith seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved

2. Commissioner Monaghan asked when the root control contract was bid and how many had companies bid.  Mr. Martin responded that it was about three years ago and only two companies could handle this bid.

Commissioner Monaghan made a motion to extend the root control contract to Duke’s Root Control in the amount of $75,000.00; Commissioner Watts seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved.

3. Commissioner Monaghan stated that the administrative building issue would need to be resolved sooner or later.  Chairman Haynie stated that staff was working on some ideas.  Commissioner Monaghan will talk to the Legislation Delegation on Friday regarding the appointment of a Commissioner.  Commissioner Smith commented on the need for the Board to pursue the issue again if an appointment is not known by the end of January.

4. Commissioner Watts asked when the bids would go out for the Cambridge Project.  Mr. Martin responded that they are supposed to go out in about three weeks.  Commissioner Watts asked if Metro will be doing this in conjunction with CPW.  Mr. Martin responded that this job is totally different and Metro would not be involved with CPW.  Commissioner Monaghan commented on the possibility that Metro might work in conjunction with CPW to make repairs if needed while the street was in disrepair for water improvements.  Mr. Martin responded that Metro has tons of sewer problems.  He noted that Cambridge Ave would be a massive sewer rehab project for Metro and he would talk to Carlos Cometto regarding the project.  Commissioner Watts added that CPW’s bid is scheduled to go out in four to six weeks.

5. Commissioner Monaghan asked about the time line for the City Pond Project.  Mr. Martin responded that the project engineering is underway; they will be bringing three rehab projects and three new trunk line extension projects to the Board.

6. Commissioner Monaghan asked for an update on Eagles Harbor.  Mr. Martin responded that it may be in litigation.

7. Commissioner Watts asked about Bailey Circle.  Mr. Martin responded that the contractor is hauling in top soil.  Commissioner Monaghan asked what was being done around Main Street UMC.  Mr. Martin responded that they were vacuum testing manholes and air testing sewer lines.

VIII.   Commissioner Monaghan made a motion to go into Executive Session to receive legal advice; Commissioner Hancock seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved. 

9. The meeting returned to open session.  No action was taken during executive session.

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