|
Public
Menu - 2006 Minutes
- 2007 Minutes
Commission Minutes
GREENWOOD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
MINUTES OF THE
april 25, 2007
Regular Hearing
The regular meeting of the
Greenwood Metropolitan District Commission was held
Wednesday, April 25, 2007, at 3:00 p.m., in the Board Room
of CPW/Greenwood Metropolitan District Administrative
Building, 121 West Court Avenue.
In attendance:
Commissioner Tim
Burke Richard
Coleman Paige Holley
Commissioner Gene
Hancock George Martin
Bill Moore
Commissioner Bob Haynie
Heath Davis Michael Nix
Commissioner Michael G.
Monaghan
Gayle Grogan Danny Ware
Commissioner Henry
Watts Roy Hemphill
-
Chairman Haynie called
the meeting to order and George Martin gave the
invocation.
-
Chairman Haynie gave the
statement of compliance with the notification provision
of the Freedom of Information Act.
-
Mr. Heath Davis
requested to address the Commission.
-
Mr. Davis stated he
was present to ask what steps were needed to provide
sewer service to the south end of Greenwood.
Commissioner Hancock responded there is some water
and sewerage on the south end of town; it just
depends on how far south. Mr. Davis responded the
service stops at the Callison Highway. Commissioner
Hancock stated that CPW has water down that far and
there would be no problem in extending the gas
lines. He stated that sewer services goes down to
Augusta Fields. Mr. Davis stated the problem is
further down. Mr. Davis stated there is 33,000
acres that is currently undeveloped. Congressman
Barrett’s office has given some information to Mr.
Davis of a contact person to help acquire grant.
Commissioner Hancock stated that area is outside of
the Metro District. He stated that there are
tainted wells; they should be able to get a grant
from the State. CPW would be glad to extend the
water. Mr. Davis asked what are the boundaries of
the Metro district. Manager Coleman responded that
Metro goes to Augusta Fields. Commissioner Monaghan
stated the area could be annexed. Manager Coleman
stated that it would take an annexation and another
pump station to pump it back. Commissioner Monaghan
stated there probably would be a need to acquire
grant money either through the County, State or
Federal. Commissioner Burke stated that currently
the zoning allows one house per five acres. Mr.
Davis responded that only one section is zoned that
way. Manager Coleman responded that unless you can
get grant money there is no economic benefit as far
as number of customers to pay for the line. The
area would first need to annex into the district
before the property could be served. Chairman
Haynie stated that Mr. Davis can contact Manager
Coleman and/or Mr. Martin from Metro to help with
any sewer questions.
-
Wilson Creek Plant
Update
-
Mr. Ware provided
the Board with handouts regarding phase 1A. The
first sheet was an updated schedule. Overall the
project is going well. The contractor estimated
that they are about one month ahead of schedule.
The concrete work for clarifier #1 has been
completed. The hydrologic testing is now underway;
should be completed within a week. The concrete
work on clarifier #2 is about two weeks from being
finished. The masonry work on the RAS/WAS pump
station building is completed. All of the roof
slabs have been installed and sealed. The
contractor is currently in the process of putting on
the membrane roof system. From the overall schedule
standpoint, the project is doing much better than
what is currently being shown on the schedule.
Change Order #10 was brought to the Commission for
consideration. The change order addresses changes
to the aeration basin plan. The contractor is to
install two effluent boxes that will take the flow
from the aeration basin and bring it to the two new
clarifiers. Davis and Floyd required in the
specifications that the contractor submit a plan for
a coffer dam and build the structure while keeping
the aeration basin operating. The plan that the
contractor submitted was to install a coffer dam
that settles on the slope of the aeration basin. A
box was installed, but the water could not be
stopped from coming into the coffer dam. The
contractor would need to drive interlocking piles to
create a dam to solve this problem. Commissioner
Monaghan inquired about the sub-contractor wanting
to be released from liability. Mr. Ware responded
that would not be acceptable. The contract will
still be with the prime contractor. The prime
contractor still has the responsibility listed in
the general conditions about safety, shoring up the
job site, protection of equipment and existing
conditions. Mr. Ware stated that he deems it as a
condition between the sub-contractor and the prime
contractor. He believes that if the prime
contractor is willing to accept the condition; it
does not means that Metro is accepting the condition
because Metro’s contract is with the prime
contractor. Mr. Ware noted that if change order #10
is executed the total for change orders 1 through 10
is $153,000 which represents 1.8% of the contract
amount. Chairman Haynie asked what was the
contingency amount. Manager Coleman responded that
we did not have a definite amount. Mr. Ware stated
that he was not aware if that was discussed. Manger
Coleman stated that in general you try to stay
within 2 to 3% of the contract bid price.
Commissioner Monaghan asked what was staff’s
recommendation. Manager Coleman responded the staff
recommends the change order because it needs to get
done and stay in operation. Mr. Ware stated that
the plans for phase 1B are still being reviewed by
DHEC. He stated they are continuing to work on the
project.
Commissioner Monaghan made a
motion to approve change order #10 in the amount of $34,276
contingent upon Davis and Floyd’s inspector verifying what
is considered changed conditions of the existing soils;
Commissioner Hancock seconded, and the motion was
unanimously approved.
-
Commission Minutes
-
Commissioner
Monaghan inquired about any revised minutes.
Manager Coleman stated that the financial section of
the minutes was redone verbatim, but that made the
minutes long and hard to read. Manager Coleman
asked what exactly did Commissioner Monaghan want to
add to the minutes. Commissioner Monaghan responded
that we need to put down what we said. Commissioner
Monaghan asked if the revised minutes differ from
the minutes that are in the package. Manager
Coleman responded some words may be left out.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that he was talking
about the meaning of the minutes. Manager Coleman
responded that he did not think it did.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if he actually said
$1,573,400. Mrs. Holley responded that the amount
needs to be changed to $1,005,734.45. Commissioner
Monaghan stated that he does not understand what
Manager Coleman was saying; you went back and looked
at the financial section. Manager Coleman responded
that Mrs. Holley went back and looked at section
VII. The parts that were underlined are what were
added verbatim. Some of the verbatim part repeats
what was already stated and we did not see the need
to repeat them. Commissioner Monaghan stated that
he has not had a chance to look at them and that he
is very concerned about the minutes. He thinks the
minutes are a legal document and need to be accurate
in the full meaning of what is going on and it has
to be in the minutes. The minutes are referred to
if there are any lawsuits etc. etc. etc.
Commissioner Monaghan wants to make sure the minutes
reflect what is actually said. Manager Coleman
reminded the Board that the minutes are no longer
done verbatim. Commissioner Burke stated that then
they are not considered the minutes if they are not
done verbatim, but are being summarized. Chairman
Haynie stated that he believes the minutes are a
summarization of the discussion, but a verbatim
statement of the action taken (ex. motions, etc.).
Chairman Haynie expressed that minutes in his
experience have not been transcripts. Commissioner
Monaghan stated that he is not asking for a
transcript, but if you leave something out or add
something you can change the meaning of what went
on. He stated that if you are going to summarize,
you need to summarize so that the context is the
same. Chairman Haynie stated that is why the
Commission approves the minutes to make sure we are
comfortable. Commissioner Monaghan stated that is
why he is questioning them. He felt that some of
his comments were left out of the minutes and if
they were to add them. He noted the dollar amount
first then started to read the texts and thought
some of his comments were omitted. Manager Coleman
responded that the revised minutes were emailed back
to Commissioner Monaghan on Monday, April 22nd.
Commissioner Monaghan responded that he never saw
them. Chairman Haynie asked if they were sent to
all Commissioners. Manager Coleman reminded that he
asked Commissioner Monaghan what he wants us to do
and Commissioner Monaghan responded to do that.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that he told Manger
Coleman what to do, but he never saw the corrected
minutes. Commissioner Monaghan would like to look
at the revised minutes to see if that is right.
Manager Coleman stated the Board meetings are on
Wednesday and the following Thursday is when the
packets are delivered. There is a time crunch on
getting the minutes ready and reviewed by four
different people before they are included in the
packet. Commissioner Monaghan suggested approving
the minutes at the last meeting of the month.
Commissioner Burke suggested approving the minutes
in the arrears each time. For example the minutes
for the April 11th meeting will be
submitted for approval at the May 9th
meeting and the minutes from the April 25th
meeting will be submitted for approval at the May 23rd
meeting. Manager Coleman stated that the minutes
can be emailed and delivered to the Commissioners
for comments before they are included in the
packet. Commissioner Monaghan stated that if we
would review the CPW meetings, you would see that
they are summarized. Commissioner Monaghan stated
that you have to be careful about the meaning.
Manager Coleman stated that is why the minutes are
given to the Board for approval. Commissioner
Monaghan stated that his rebuttals to Manager
Coleman rebuttal are not included in the minutes.
Chairman Haynie inquired if Mrs. Grogan sent the
information that Mr. Monaghan requested.
Commissioner Monaghan responded that she did.
Chairman Haynie stated that in the future all
information should be sent to all Commissioners.
VI.
Monthly Financial Report
a.
Mr. Michael Nix of Greenwood Capital gave a report on
the District’s portfolio. The 1081 account is now called
the “Reserve Account”. The 1082 Availability Account is now
called the “Capacity Account”. Mr. Nix pointed out that the
first page shows which bonds have been sold or called and
the next page provides a summary of what is currently in the
Reserve Account. Commissioner Monaghan inquired if the
report was in Excel. Mr. Nix responded that the report is
in a portfolio accounting software. Commissioner Monaghan
would like for the heading to be displayed on all pages of
the report. Mr. Nix further stated that the next couple of
pages for the Reserve Account are effectively a current
appraisal of what is in the account. The last page is the
performance report of the Reserve Account for fiscal year to
date. The next set of reports regard the Capacity Account.
Mr. Nix noted that the first page shows which bonds have
matured, called or sold during the period; the related net
gains or loss on those particular issues. Mr. Nix explained
what the arrows represent on the reports. The next few
pages show the assets that are currently in the account.
The performance report for the Capacity Account shows the
contributions and withdrawals, realized and unrealized gains
and interest that was generated for the period. The Revenue
Bond Proceeds Account (1852); the mandate for this account
is to maximize the interest that can be generated on the
money by Greenwood Capital’s investment as well as to match
up the draw schedule for projects. Mr. Nix reported at the
end of March there was about $900,000 in cash. Large
withdrawals are scheduled for the month of May and June.
Manger Coleman stated that according to Mr. Ware the
contractor is running about a month ahead of schedule. Mr.
Nix noted that the draw schedule started out slow, but has
picked up. From a draw standpoint Metro is about $600,000
behind where we thought we would be according to the initial
draw schedule. Mr. Nix noted that the last page of the
report is the performance report. Mr. Nix noted that in
general for fiscal year to date performance wise for the
Reserve Account is 4.64%, the Capacity Account is 4.49% and
the revenue bond proceeds account is 2.11%. The cash flow
seems to be on track. If you look at the performance last
year from March, 2006 to March, 2007 the Reserve Account is
5.28% and the Capacity Account is 5.41%. The average yield
for the last twelve months is right at 5.12%. Mr. Nix
stated that he has already talked to Mrs. Grogan regarding
budget preparations for next fiscal year. His goal once the
initial budget has been set will be to keep the Board
up-to-date. Commissioner Monaghan stated that there has
been an ongoing dialogue on whether to draw down the
reserves versus issuing new revenue bonds. He asked if
Greenwood Capital would perform an unbiased study on that
issue for Metro. Commissioner Monaghan stated that if Metro
has enough money in the reserves to substantially pay for
the cost of the revenue bonds so why would you draw down the
reserves. Mr. Nix responded that is a reasonable issue to
address. He stated that Metro does get into a debt coverage
ratio, are the current bonds outstanding and the issuance on
new bonds. Greenwood Capital can help Metro evaluate where
the market is for revenue bonds; where you can anticipate if
you are or are not insuring what the rates will be. They
can make a fairly reasonable analysis on the cost of those
bonds. Mr. Nix stated that it is harder at times depending
on the terms of those bonds. Metro will need to concentrate
on the covering ratio. Greenwood Capital is willing to help
with any analysis and will be unbiased. Commissioner
Monaghan stated that he would like to commission someone to
study the best thing to do. Commissioner Hancock responded
that the financial plan goes along with what the Board wants
to do. He said that he would like to stay in debt, but do
it for the long term so the rates will stay stable and to
keep cash to help pay for the debt. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that is the same thing he is saying. Commissioner
Hancock stated that Metro has a plan to do this.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that he did not agree with the
plan. Commissioner Hancock noted that Metro is raising the
rates by the financial plan. Manager Coleman stated that
the long range financial plan addresses it over a seven to
ten year period. Chairman Haynie stated the rate study took
the long range financial plan into consideration. Manager
Coleman noted that some items have changed since the long
range financial plan was adopted a year and a half ago.
Items in particular are the rate structure and the cost of
projects have increased. Commissioner Hancock noted that
Metro had slowed down on the number of projects. Manager
Coleman stated that has saved Metro some money. For
instance, Wilson Creek Upgrade Phase 1A was projected to be
a 9 month project, but it is actually about a 15 month
project. The other part of that is the initial cost of
phase 1A was estimated at $6.2 million, but the actual cost
is $8.1 million. Chairman Haynie asked who did the
financial study. Manager Coleman responded that Daryll
Parker did the study. Mr. Nix stated that in general from
the market standpoint there is a fine balance. One of the
reasons Metro has very strong credit is because of the
underlying reserves. Commissioner Monaghan commented that
was correct. Mr. Nix stated that Metro will need to look at
the balance of the debt coverage ratios versus paying down
the reserves. Then if Metro needs to issue a bond down the
road and not have the reserves to support it; it could
affect that. Commissioner Monaghan commented that he sees
that Metro is financing $20 million worth of debt and it is
only costing Metro $40,000. He would like to know why would
Metro draw down the reserves and not issue more revenue
bonds. Manager Coleman responded the study looked at both
extremes; borrow the most you could and build up the
reserves or borrow the least you could. The Board chose the
middle of the road approach. This is the current path that
Metro is on; keeping the reserves where they are for this
period and towards the eighth or ninth year draw the
reserves down to keep the rates from going up more.
Commissioner Monaghan asked why would the rates go up more
if the reserves are paying for the bonds; that is what he
does not understand. Manager Coleman responded that as
Metro borrows more and more, the reserves will not go up
correspondingly, because Metro is having to finance more and
more projects through time. Commissioner Monaghan stated
that Metro has a $400,000 pad between the cost of the
revenue bonds and the interest Metro earned. Manager
Coleman responded that in the eight year period it changed;
it did not stay the same during the whole time. Chairman
Haynie asked if it would be advisable if Metro received an
update on the financial plan before any rate increases.
Commissioner Monaghan commented that is should be done as a
part of the budget process. Commissioner Monaghan would
like to have someone review the plan and give suggestions.
Mr. Nix responded that he has had experience in analyzing
this and would be more than happy to do it, but he
recommends that Metro consults someone whose expertise is in
that particular area. He did a courtesy look at the rate
study when it was done. Manager Coleman stated that it is
time to update the long range financial plan. Commissioner
Hancock commented the long range financial plan will keep
the rates as stable as possible and that will tell you how
the money is going to come out. Manager Coleman stated
rehab projects are costing more. Commissioner Hancock
stated Metro had a plan at one time and had it laidout that
in 2011 to do away with the ad valorem taxes; Metro will
never get close to that. Manger Coleman commented they are
gone this year.
b.
Chairman Haynie asked for questions from the Board on
the Financial Report. Manager Coleman noted the revenue is
still under what was projected. He noted that the water
consumption is low. Commissioner Monaghan referred to page
16 of the packet “Chemicals”. He inquired about how much
the chemical category will be reduced due to the UV
process. Manager Coleman responded there will be no
chlorine or sulfur dioxide at West Alexander. Commissioner
Monaghan pointed out the cost this year is very similar to
the cost from last year. He thought that it would be less
due to the UV process. Manager Coleman responded that Metro
did not project nine months of chemical use at West
Alexander. Commissioner Monaghan stated he is talking
“actual to date” and “actual prior year to date” is only
$10,000 difference. Manager Coleman stated that he will
analyze the chemicals expenses. Commissioner Monaghan
commented that he thought the chemical expenses would be
less using the UV process. Manager Coleman reminded the
board that chemicals are not purchased for the West
Alexander Plant, which is the smaller of the treatment
plants, the bulk of the chemicals are purchased for Wilson
Creek. Commissioner Hancock stated that Metro should
compare chemicals and electrical cost at West Alexander.
Commissioner Monaghan referenced page 23 of the packet
“Taxes Collected”. He noted that Metro is still collecting
tax money. He asked how is that happening. Chairman Haynie
responded from personal property. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that he thought no taxes would be collected this
year. Commissioner Hancock responded that was on property;
the County is still collecting every month on vehicles.
Mrs. Grogan stated there is no fee-n-lieu tax. Commissioner
Monaghan stated that amount is not in the budget because it
was all taken out. Chairman Haynie responded the amount was
left in the budget. Manager Coleman stated Metro did not
know about the change until after the budget process.
Commissioner Monaghan referred to page 24 “2006 Revenue Bond
Proceed Distribution.” He inquired about where the grant
money is reflected for Maxwell. Mrs. Grogan responded that
Metro has not received the grant money for Maxwell. Metro
just sent the information to the City and should receive the
money this week. The only grant money that Metro has
received is for Shrine Club Road, but it is not reflective
since it is not paid out of this bond. Commissioner
Monaghan asked for a column for grant money to be added to
the spreadsheet on page 26 of the packet. Chairman Haynie
asked if those would be set up as a receivable. He inquired
about the amount of money Metro was to receive for Oregon
and Maxwell. Mrs. Grogan responded that Oregon was
$100,000. She took out the grant money that was allotted
for those projects on the spreadsheet. Commissioner
Monaghan stated the grant money was deducted from the cost
of the project. Mrs. Grogan stated for Maxwell, Metro
originally took out $225,000 and it is only going to be
$105,000. Manager Coleman stated that Metro thought it
would be $225,000 but just found out that it would be
$105,000 last week. Mr. Martin stated the reason was the
$119,000 and put it directly to paving. Commissioner
Monaghan inquired on how the Capacity Fee for the homeowners
in Northfall Acres and Driftwood are collected and where are
they reported. Mrs. Grogan responded that the money is
reflected under the Capacity Account. Those residents pay
monthly to CPW and then CPW pays Metro. Commissioner
Monaghan referenced page 33 “Special Contracts -
Collections”. He inquired as to what items are considered
to be in that account. Mr. Martin responded that was the
chemical root control. Commissioner Monaghan referred to
page 49 “Professional Services Labs – Wilson Creek”; he
noted the lab costs are three times the budgeted amount. He
asked if that was due to problems. Chairman Haynie
responded that is due to Metro having to monitor more and
Metro is charging the cost back to the industry. Manager
Coleman responded the toxicity cost is more at West
Alexander. He stated that Metro has had some problems at
Wilson Creek. Manager Coleman commented that the ETT bill,
the company that runs the toxicity test, is a lot higher
than normal. The testing performed on Greenwood Fabricating
and Plating would be reflective in the cost, but we are
getting reimbursed. Commissioner Monaghan commented that
the reports are very good.
VII.
Action Items
a.
Establish a Budget Review Work Day
Chairman Haynie asked if the
Board had any suggestions on a date and time for the
review. Commissioner Monaghan asked when does the budget
need to be approved. Chairman Haynie responded the budget
is effective July 1, 2007. Manager Coleman stated that
Metro tries to have the budget approved by the end of June.
Commissioner Burke asked about having the budget reviewed
prior to the meeting on May 9th. Commissioner
Monaghan commented that he would do the review in June. He
inquired as to what will be the actual numbers. Mrs. Grogan
responded the actual number will be through April. The
budget review work day will be determined at the May 9, 2007
meeting.
b.
Report from the design manual committee meeting on
April 19, 2007
Mr. Martin reported the
scope of the work was laid out where CDM thoroughly
understood it. CMD’s original price was $14,400. Their new
price after addressing the scope of work is $24,100.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if Mr. Martin called and talked
to CDM about the new price. Mr. Martin responded that he
did. Commissioner Monaghan asked what was their response.
Mr. Martin stated that CMD felt like it was more work after
Metro described the scope of work. Commissioner Monaghan
would like for Metro to contact other firms to review the
design manual. He stated he did not feel like Metro changed
the scope of work that much. Mr. Martin stated he thought
the work level was reduced after the meeting. Commissioner
Burke stated he did not think the review is worth $24,000;
he thought it was barely worth $14,000. Commissioner
Monaghan stated if the contractors are charging Metro more;
we might spend $14,000 and save in the long run. Mr. Martin
requested permission from the Board to receive more quotes
for the committee to review. The Board was in agreement to
receive quotes.
c.
The Board directed staff to contact Daryll Parker to
start updating the long range financial plan. Commissioner
Burke inquired if Mr. Parker would have the ability to take
the current plan that was approved and graph it to the
actual as in revenues and bonds being spent to see if Metro
is following the same curve that was approved.
VIII.
Miscellaneous Administrative Matters
a.
Timeline for the Technical Service Facility (TSF)
Expansion
Commissioner Monaghan stated
that CPW had a question on documents. Chairman Haynie asked
if the questions were on the sell contract. Mr. Hemphill
responded that he has them and Mr. Patrick has reviewed the
contract. As Mr. Hemphill understands it, there was some
discussion about changing the terms. Mr. Hemphill has not
incorporated those in because CPW will meet tomorrow to
discuss it. Chairman Haynie asked if the Board had any
questions regarding the timeline submitted by Davis and
Floyd. Mr. Moore responded that the contract is prepared
and should be submitted to Manager Coleman by Monday of next
week. Commissioner Monaghan commented that he thinks the
estimated construction cost and architectural fees are
high. Chairman Haynie stated that Metro is more worried
about the actual cost. Mr. Moore responded that they would
rather estimate high than low. Commissioner Monaghan asked
when will the contract be finalized. Mr. Moore responded
that he should have the contract to Manager Coleman by
Monday. Chairman Haynie asked if the Board needs to approve
the contract with the architectural firm. Mr. Moore
responded that the Board’s attorney will need to review the
contract. Mr. Hemphill stated that he does not believe the
Board needs to approve the contract.
b.
Commissioner Monaghan shared that the bill passed and
the Governor has to sign the bill within twelve days. This
bill will allow Metro to install collection and lateral
lines. Chairman Haynie stated that is a good option for
Metro. Commissioner Hancock commented that Metro needs some
grant money to run the lines to the customers. Commissioner
Monaghan stated that he and Mr. Martin had been talking for
the last few days about a house at 101 Kirksey Drive. The
house has a service line with two other houses. Mr. Martin
stated it is actually a beauty shop and two houses. The
service line keeps getting clogged. The owner of this house
is spending around $300 each time to clean the line.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that in Newberry if more than
one house is on a line it is considered a collection line.
Mr. Martin stated the house is about 140 feet to the nearest
line. Commissioner Monaghan stated the homeowner is willing
to pay something, but the homeowner should not have to pay
for the beauty shop and the other house. Commissioner
Monaghan stated according to Mr. Martin the homeowner will
need two manholes in his service line. Mr. Martin shared
that the homeowner if he wanted to remove the other two
connections (the beauty shop and other house) he will have
to extend the line 140 feet and add two manholes.
Commissioner Monaghan asked when these type of situations
occur, should Metro not take over the line. Commissioner
Burke stated Metro would reclassify the line as a collection
line because the line is taking more than one discharge.
Manager Coleman said this is the case in a lot of the mill
village area. Commissioner Monaghan commented that the mill
village is a low income area; these people cannot afford to
spend the money to fix their service lines. He wanted to
know if Metro had some kind of obligation to the
homeowners. Manager Coleman asked if this particular
problem is in the City. Commissioner Monaghan responded it
is in the City. Commissioner Hancock stated all mill
villages are inside the City except for Harris.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if there is something that Metro
can do for this particular home. Chairman Haynie inquired
if the homeowner owns the other two properties that are tied
into the same line. Commissioner Monaghan responded no he
does not. Commissioner Hancock noted that grant money will
be received next year to work on the sewer and water in that
area. Chairman Haynie stated that Metro will need to deal
with these issues as they come up. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that if multiple houses are on a service line, does
Metro assume responsibility for maintenance of that line.
Manager Coleman asked what is the obligation for being
inside of the City. The City said they will provide sewer
service if you are inside the City. Commissioner Monaghan
responded that is correct. Manager Coleman responded that
is still effective. Commissioner Monaghan responded no he
did not think so since Metro took over; in fact Metro owns
the line now. Manager Coleman responded that Metro owns
what is existing. Commissioner Hancock stated that he feels
if it is inside the City, CPW is still responsible for
supplying the sewer service. Commissioner Monaghan
responded the address already has sewer. Commissioner
Hancock stated he was talking about unapproved.
Commissioner Monaghan stated he is talking about this
particular situation. Chairman Haynie stated that is a good
point, the address already has service, but it is just not
adequate. Mr. Martin stated the service is not adequate.
Manger Coleman stated that someone (the second and third
service) took advantage of connecting into the original
service line. Mr. Martin stated this particular situation
goes across two properties and ties into a manhole which
runs under a house. Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro
should send the vactor over to clean the lines rather than
the homeowner pay for a plumber to clean the line. Manager
Coleman responded that is getting into the service line
business which Metro is out of. Commissioner Monaghan
responded that Metro is back in it since the bill has
passed. Mr. Hemphill stated that bill was concerning
collection lines not service lines. Commissioner Monaghan
stated some people say if more than one residence, it is a
collection line. Mr. Hemphill responded there are some
semantic involved. The Board knows the technical
standpoint. It is trunk versus collection versus service
and what is the definition of them. Commissioner Burke
responded a service line services a unit and a collection
line collects services. Commissioner Monaghan suggested
that Metro do like Newberry; if it is more than one house on
the service line it is considered a collection line.
Commissioner Burke responded that Metro will need to look at
the big picture. Commissioner Monaghan commented that the
mill village system is terrible and Metro is a public
agency. Commissioner Burke noted the mill villages have
been their Metro portion of the taxes forever. Mr. Martin
responded if the Board directs staff to rod the line, Metro
will go and do it. This issue is a slippery slope. Mr.
Martin inquired on how Metro will separate this particular
issue from any other issue that has more than one house on a
service line. Commissioner Monaghan responded you do not.
Mr. Martin stated some of these are in very influent areas.
Commissioner Monaghan responded Metro would have to do all
areas. Mr. Martin stated Metro is talking about thousands
not hundreds of homes. Commissioner Burke responded all of
the mill villages. Mr. Martin responded there are some
downtown; it is not just the mill villages. Commissioner
Monaghan inquired if there is any way to decide how many
exist. Mr. Martin responded Metro would need to TV every
service line. Chairman Haynie directed the staff to start
looking at this issue. Commissioner Monaghan commented that
Metro should not dismiss this issue, but to study it. Mr.
Martin stated the bill was to install collection lines with
a front foot assessment. Mr. Hemphill stated this
legislation allows Metro to take advantage of the front foot
assessment law. Commissioner Monaghan stated for example in
Lodge Grounds, Metro goes in there and that is a collection
line and Metro flushes those lines. Mr. Martin responded
that Metro cleans the lines in the road. Commissioner
Monaghan stated because it is a collection line and if Metro
calls three houses on a line, a collection line then what is
the difference. Mr. Martin responded the difference is
Metro’s policy describes what Metro is responsible for as a
collection line; it has to have a manhole on the end of it.
This line in particular tees into a line that runs under a
house. Where the problem is for the homeowner is where a
deck was built onto the house. The homeowner’s clean-out is
right at a post that is holding up the deck. The line runs
straight out across a yard. There is a fence line and then
it ties into the eight inch line on the other side. There
is an eight inch line in the roadway. Metro would need an
easement. Metro could come back and install a eight inch
collection line. The beauty shop and the house at 101
Kirksey Drive. The third house would stay on the other
line. Commissioner Monaghan commented that this is
something to think about. Commissioner Burke stated that
Metro has opened up some thought in the verbiage about a
line that accepts waste from more than one facility is
reclassified as a collection line, but the newly classified
collection line has to be located within a public easement.
He stated Metro cannot classify the line if it runs across
un-granted easement property; Metro cannot be responsible
for lines that run under houses. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that Metro is responsible because the lines in the
mill villages run under all kinds of things. Mr. Martin
stated Metro has easement for those lines. Manager Coleman
responded that Metro will do anything the Board directs them
to; it is just a matter of costing a lot of money and
changing the policy. Mr. Martin stated the plumbers will
complain that Metro is taking away their business. Metro
just agreed with the City on how Metro will handle service
lines. Commissioner Monaghan stated that Metro is not
talking about service lines. Mr. Martin responded that
Metro is talking about service lines. Metro plainly
describes a collection line in their policy; it has to have
a manhole on the end of it and a public easement. Chairman
Haynie directed staff to start looking at this issue.
Commissioner Monaghan stated it is a matter of public
obligation. Metro is here for the health and welfare of the
people in our District. The cost is a consideration, but if
it is the duty to do something then Metro needs to find the
money to do it. Mr. Martin reminded the Board about a
previous attempt to maintain service lines and that policy
was changed within four months. Commissioner Hancock asked
Manager Coleman to check with Richard Gentry at CPW
regarding the grant for the Mathews Mill Village.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that if it is CPW’s obligation
to build that line then CPW will.
c.
Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the status of
the Bailey Circle Project. He wanted to know if staff had
written a letter to the contractor regarding the fines. Mr.
Martin responded the letter was written and Mr. Hemphill
reviewed the letter. Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro
has a copy. Mr. Martin responded that he did not have a
copy with him. Commissioner Monaghan inquired about the
next step. Mr. Martin responded that in the letter Metro
said they were holding the money. Manager Coleman stated
that Metro has not received the final invoice from the
contractor. Mr. Martin stated the contractor has finished
everything, except for the one issue in the yard.
Commissioner Burke stated the paper trail is there and
everything is documented.
d.
Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro has received any
activity since joining Palmetto Utility Protection
Services. Mr. Martin responded that no tickets have been
received.
e.
Commissioner Monaghan commented that Metro may want
to take a picture and write an article of the Operations
Challenge team for the newspaper.
f.
Commissioner Monaghan inquired if bids had been
solicited for the permanent flow meters. Mr. Martin
responded that they are still working on the
specifications.
g.
Commissioner Monaghan inquired if any industries had
called complaining about the meter size rate increase.
Manager Coleman responded that Metro has not received any
complaints, but has received some inquiries. Chairman
Haynie asked if Metro was able to help Greenwood Mills.
Manager Coleman responded that if they were to change their
meter size it would help. He noted that the only industry
that would really notice the change would be industries that
have a large meter compared to the volume of usage (small
usage).
h.
Commissioner Monaghan inquired on the status of front
plate license tags for company vehicles. Mr. Martin
responded the cost is estimated to be $500 to order 250
tags. The Board was in agreement to order the license tags.
i.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that Solutia has some
concerns about new requirements for BOD. He noted that he,
Manager Coleman, and Tony Williamson met with Richard Briere.
He wants to make sure that Metro’s calculations are
correct. Solutia is very concerned because they are looking
at expanding. The new requirement would really impact their
cost. Commissioner Monaghan stated that Metro needs to be
sure the calculations are correct before they impact the
industrial cost. Chairman Haynie stated that he agrees, but
Metro does not make the rules. Metro needs to make sure
that they do not impose anything more than necessary.
Commissioner Monaghan stated that he would hate for Solutia
not to expand because of the new pretreatment requirements
from Metro. Chairman Haynie inquired if Solutia would have
limits anywhere else. Mr. Martin responded it would be
according to the receiving stream and some other factors.
Commissioner Hancock stated the biggest problem Metro has is
there is no dilution in the streams. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that in the course of this discussion the most
disturbing thing to him was to find out there is no room for
any expansion. Manager Coleman responded it is based on the
way Solutia is currently permitted. The way Metro is set up
Metro can allow industries with extra strength wastewater to
discharge to Metro and have a surcharge for the extra
strength wastewater. Metro has also written into the
regulations that Metro can require the industry to pretreat
down to domestic strength so that Metro has room for
everyone. Right now normal strength wastewater is 300
milligrams per liter or less. Solutia is permitted at 1800
milligrams per liter which is six times the normal
strength. Metro is asking them to pretreat down to a level
that Metro can handle. You are talking about volume and
mass; you have to meet both of them in order to handle the
discharge. Metro has some excess room at the plant, but the
way Solutia is permitted if everybody discharged the maximum
to their permit; Metro would be over permitted. DHEC is
asking Metro to look at this and get the permits back down
in line with what capacity Metro has at the plants.
Commissioner Burke asked if Metro is at 80% and has DHEC
asked Metro to start looking at it. Manager Coleman
responded that actually Metro is at 126% if you add the
permitted capacity. DHEC is asking Metro to change the
permits for the extra strength wastewater so it comes down
inline to where Metro has room for the domestic, industrial
and extra strength discharge. The extra strength is not
just volume. When you add the strength to it, it is the
equivalent of adding more mass. Chairman Haynie stated
Metro’s point is if Solutia does not pretreat then Metro
does not have the capacity. Manager Coleman stated Metro
proposed to Solutia to not have a concentration limit which
would need to be around 1200 milligrams per liter, but to
have a mass limit which would be 9,000 pounds per day daily
maximum or 18,000 pounds per day monthly average. If Metro
was to review the last two and a half years with that limit,
Solutia would have only had one excitant. If Metro went to
the 1200 milligrams per liter and only a concentration
limit, Solutia would have around 27 to 29 permit
violations. The new proposed permitted way would allow
Solutia some flexibility on how to meet the permit.
Commissioner Burke inquired if the new EPA standards are
done by weight not volume. Manager Coleman responded that
Metro has to meet both mass and flow limits. Flow limits
are the most commonly talked about, but the calculations
include both mass and flow limits. Generally flows are at
domestic strength. Commissioner Monaghan asked if Metro
looked at the email sent from April 20th, where
Mr. Briere is talking about the domestic contributions
versus business. Manager Coleman responded that he is
working on the response. Commissioner Monaghan stated that
in essence Metro is saying they are at 95% efficient. He
wanted to know how does Metro know that. He inquired as to
how the efficient is calculated. Commissioner Monaghan
stated that Mr. Briere was saying that if Metro was at 96%
he would not have a problem. Then Mr. Briere is saying if
domestic contributions is only 14,000 pounds then Metro’s
efficient is either higher or Solutia’s impact is lower.
Commissioner Monaghan wanted to make sure that Metro’s
calculations are correct. Manager Coleman responded that
Solutia is trying to exert different things and make it fit
their situation to have it for their advantage. Metro has
to put the entire package together and submit it to DHEC for
DHEC’s approval or disapproval. It is not just how Metro is
affecting Solutia, it is the entire system that DHEC has to
approve. Commissioner Hancock inquired if someone could
look over Metro’s permit on this particular issue. Manager
Coleman responded this is why Metro is at this point now.
Metro thinks there is a suitable solution, but Mr. Briere is
objecting to it. Commissioner Monaghan stated that Mr.
Briere is objecting to because it is going to raise his
costs. Commissioner Monaghan would like for Metro to make
sure they are correct with their calculations before they
impact expansion or growth of the industrial base. Chairman
Haynie expressed his agreement with Commissioner Monaghan.
Commissioner Hancock stated that Metro cannot 100% come down
and say how efficient Metro is. Manager Coleman responded
that it is not just meeting one of the requirements, it is
the least efficient Metro could be. The wastewater is going
to coming and Metro will treat it down to a certain number.
Metro can say that is 95% efficient. If Metro reduces what
is coming in, Metro is still treating it to that number. It
is within certain limits. Metro cannot go all the way down
to zero or go all the way up to infinite; it is within a
range that Metro is talking about. Metro has to submit a
pretreatment package, which encompasses all of the
pretreatment permit, as well as Metro’s current loads to
DHEC. DHEC would then approve or disapprove the entire
package. Commissioner Monaghan asked if someone would
review the package before Metro submits it to DHEC. Manager
Coleman responded that Metro works with DHEC to come up with
the mass limits as opposed to just the concentration limit.
Chairman Haynie stated that Metro wants to work with the
industrial partners anyway they can. Manager Coleman asked
does Metro spend more money to treat the extra strength
discharge or does the industry spend the money to lower the
strength of the discharge. It is cheaper to treat it at the
source than at the treatment plant. Chairman Haynie asked
if there is a way Metro can help Solutia treat the discharge
at their facility. Manager Coleman responded that for
example an industry is going to spend $30 million and it
will create 75 jobs. Add the pretreatment cost and the
total may be $31 million just to create 75 jobs. Metro is
not talking about their impact doubling the cost of an
industry’s expansion.
j.
A group picture will be taken on Wednesday, May 23,
2007 at 3:00 pm. The regular meeting will be at 3:30 pm and
the public hearing concerning the grinder pump rate will be
at 5:00 pm.
-
Commissioner Hancock
made a motion to go into Executive Session to discuss a
contractual matter; Commissioner Monaghan seconded, and
the motion was unanimously approved.
-
The meeting returned to
open session. No action was taken during executive
session.
-
With no further
business, the meeting was adjourned.
|
