COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS Minutes of March 22, 2007

Transcription

1 COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC WORKS The regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Public Works was held on Thursday, March 22, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in the boardroom at 121 West Court Avenue. In attendance: Gene P. Hancock Steve D. Reeves, Jr. Vickie Gorham Jeff Chapman Michael G. Monaghan Kenneth Barnett Vicki Knott Bill Patrick Henry O. Watts Stacia May Carlos Cometto Charles Schulze Denise Ogletree Jay Thompson Steve Brown Curtis Burnett Jeff Auman Billy Nicholson Melinda Bishop I. Chairman Hancock called the meeting to order. The invocation was given by Kenneth Barnett. II. III. IV. Chairman Hancock gave the statement of compliance with the notification provision of the Freedom of Information Act. A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan and seconded by Commissioner Watts to approve the minutes of the February 8, 2007 regular meeting; and the February 22, 2007 regular meeting as submitted. The motion was unanimously approved. Financial Statement: Commissioner Watts referred to check # 7108 to Staff Source and inquired as to when they are used. Manager Reeves responded that they are used from time to time on a temporary basis to fill in with secretarial positions or for traffic control. Commissioner Watts noted a negative $13,000 shown for tapping fees in the water department. Ms. Ogletree responded that it was for an adjustment from a prior period. Commissioner Monaghan asked for an explanation after pointing out $83,000 last year. Ms. Ogletree pointed out a timing issue when someone actually requests that service and it may have been a negative because we had to ask them to return the fee to us. Commissioner Monaghan noted that $13,000 is pretty significant and asked if that was the reason. Ms. Ogletree responded that she would research it and get an answer to Commissioner Monaghan. Chairman Hancock added that it could be somebody had applied for the service and then declined it. Commissioner Watts referred to Gas Recovery on page 17, and asked if there was an addition mistake in the first column shown as $2 million. Ms.

2 Page 2 Ogletree responded that it was a mistake. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out the need to double check the reports. Mr. Chapman asked if the tapping fee was related to the situation where Greenwood Mills had gone down on their tap size from an 8 in. to a 2 in. due to the cutback in business. Manager Reeves noted that should not impact the tap fee, it would be a cost to them to reduce the meter size and not posted in tapping fees. Commissioner Monaghan inquired as to how $386,000 on page 17 would be recouped. Mr. Barnett responded that in past years, it was done in each month from now through June with an adder to the PGC to recoup the difference. He added that was what had been done almost every spring coming out of winter. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he did not understand why there was such a big knock in December if every month we change the calculation. Manager Reeves responded that they had started in October and November to offset what is known and expected will be a negative number in December. They discussed starting in August to try to peel a little bit off to mitigate the December under collection. Commissioner Monaghan asked if the reason for the under collection was because we cannot anticipate a month ahead of time. Mr. Barnett responded that the biggest thing is that December wound up being much warmer than typical and buying is based on normal trends. When you are projecting the cost of gas for that future month, you are basing it on a certain amount of sales. When those sales don t come through, that affects collections and puts you in a negative. He explained another situation where it may be that a certain price is projected and for whatever reason the price through the month goes up a lot, and we do not have a lot of fixed price already there and it s on a gas daily, then maybe gas daily goes up and your usage goes up. He stated that it winds up catching you on a month to month basis because of all of the variables. Mr. Barnett pointed out that one factor was that December wound up being extremely warm and they had projected a lot more sales than they actually had. Commissioner Monaghan noted a struggle with the formula for several years, and asked if we are confident with having the right ingredients. Mr. Barnett responded that this had to be revisited constantly. One of the big things as far as this report is concerned is that with industrials, their metering matches up with our monthly bill from our supplier, but all of the residential and firm commercial customers meter readings do not match up. He added that we are assuming that 50% of whatever the billing shows happened in that particular month, but it could easily be 30% one month or 60%. Mr. Barnett stated that they are constantly looking at how to tweak it. Commissioner Monaghan expressed concern with going in with that large number in February, and the next months there is less usage and it is harder to recoup over the spring. Mr. Barnett agreed that it is harder to recoup in spring because there are not enough sales. Chairman Hancock added that

3 Page 3 they try to level out in June if possible. Mr. Barnett stated that last year there was a worse situation than this and by the time June was done, we were at $30,000 and almost came back even to zero. Chairman Hancock pointed out the need to start in August. Mr. Barnett stated that they were going to start earlier this year. Chairman Hancock postponed discussion of the Grace Street property under Old Business until the arrival of Billy Nicholson. V. New Business: A. Chairman Hancock presented a request for substation maintenance and oil testing based on the recommendation of staff. Manager Reeves proposed splitting the bids because of the potential savings. He explained the recommendation to issue a purchase order in the total amount of $28, with $11, going to Line Equipment Sales for testing of circuit breakers, relays, and transformer maintenance; and the regulator maintenance portion to Voltage Specialist, Inc. in the amount of $17,100. Chairman Hancock noted that one bidder had refused to bid. Mr. Reeves explained that they would have been lower on the regulator maintenance but refused to accept that portion based on splitting the bid. A motion to approve a purchase order in the amount of $28, based on the recommendation of staff was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved. B. Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation from staff to accept the low bid for drill rods and 2 in. duct pullers in the amount of $13, from Ditch Witch of the Carolinas in Columbia. A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved. C. 1. Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation to accept the low bid in the amount of $39,352 based on lowest ownership cost for four (4) Pauwels 150 KVA padmount transformers from Line Equipment Sales. A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts and unanimously approved. 2. Chairman Hancock presented a recommendation to accept the low bid from Line Equipment Sales for three (3) Pauwels 300 KVA padmount transformers in the amount of $39,819 based on lowest ownership cost. A motion was made by Commissioner Watts, seconded by Commissioner Monaghan, and unanimously approved.

4 Page 4 D. Chairman Hancock presented information outlining a request from Jeff Chapman and David Tuck to amend a bid for sulfuric acid and approve a new purchase order to Brenntag in the amount of $24, Chairman Hancock noted that the original low bidder had indicated they could provide sulfuric acid but later discovered that they could not provide the NSF certified 78% sulfuric acid as was requested. Manager Reeves noted that this item would not be rebid but would go to the next low bidder which was Brenntag. Commissioner Monaghan inquired as to whether this was a blanket order. Manager Reeves stated that the request was to cancel the purchase order in place now, and to authorize issuance of a new purchase order to Brenntag in the amount of $24, Commissioner Monaghan stated that you would not issue a purchase order for the total amount because you would not take delivery of the full amount. Mr. Reeves responded that when Mr. Burnett issues a purchase order, it states that it is delivery as needed and as requested. Commissioner Monaghan noted that it should state at a unit price and not $24,000. Mr. Burnett stated that they put down a unit price but take delivery as needed and pay for each delivery as it comes in. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out that you are not committing to $24, Mr. Burnett responded that with this purchase order and with others in the past, they had put down the quantity expected to be bought over a period of time and the price, but only take deliveries as needed. Commissioner Monaghan asked if they were going to put $24, on a purchase order. Mr. Burnett responded that would be the total amount of the purchase order. Commissioner Monaghan stated that should not be done. Mr. Patrick suggested that Mr. Burnett show the unit price of $ and state on the purchase order in anticipation of using 258,000 lbs. to be delivered as requested. He pointed out that Commissioner Monaghan wanted to make sure we are not committing to buy 258,000 lbs.; we are committing to buy only what is requested at the unit price. Mr. Burnett added that to answer Commissioner Monaghan s question, the total price does print on the purchase order because that is how it is programmed and he did not have a way to change it. Commissioner Monaghan stated that the programming should be changed. He added that we do not want to put into a legal document that we are going to pay $24,000 and then maybe not use that amount. He stated that if he was a vendor and received a purchase order showing that amount, he would expect to be paid that amount. Mr. Burnett responded that they would change the purchase order. A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan to cancel the previous purchase order and issue a purchase order to Brenntag at $ per lb.; Commissioner Watts seconded, and the motion was unanimously approved.

5 Page 5 E. Chairman Hancock asked Manager Reeves for an explanation of staff s recommendation on the East Cambridge Water Rehab Project. Manager Reeves explained that CPW was working in cooperation with the City of Greenwood and the Upper Savannah Council to receive a grant to upgrade the water system in the East Cambridge area. He reported that the apparent low bidder was Trotter Builders at $614,336, and after reviewing the documentation, staff did not find it sufficient to support their bid. Therefore, the recommendation was to accept the second low bid from Garcon, Inc. in the amount of $806,728 for the PVC construction. Mr. Reeves added that this was reviewed with Ruth LaForge at Upper Savannah who was in contact with the Grants Administration. They are also in agreement with supporting the second low bidder, Gar Con, Inc. Chairman Hancock noted a difference of more than $192,000 between the low bidder and second low bidder. Commissioner Monaghan requested an explanation to justify the difference. Mr. Reeves responded that upon the advice of legal counsel, the preference was to simply say that the documentation was not sufficient. He added that if the Board preferred, they could get into more detail but would rather not get too critical of the low bidder. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out the need for some kind of justification before spending nearly $200,000 more. Mr. Reeves stated that he hoped it would suffice to say that staff had investigated the qualifications and experience of the contractor and found them to be lacking in experience with working with this type of project in a close knit neighborhood. He stated that their documentation indicated that they were well qualified to work in open field construction but did not demonstrate that they were qualified to work in a close environment. Mr. Reeves informed the Commissioners of a request from the low bidder to adjust a bid and pointed out that was found to be improper. Mr. Patrick noted that the second low bid was still less than the estimate for the work. Mr. Reeves voiced concern with whether the grants folks would agree to the price differential. He stated that based on the explanation provided to them, they were in agreement. A motion was made by Commissioner Watts to accept the bid of $806,728 based on staff s recommendation and Chairman Hancock seconded. The motion was passed by a vote of two to one, with Commissioner Monaghan voting no. Commissioner Monaghan stated his reason for voting no was because he questioned whether or not it should be rebid. VII. Other Business:

6 Page 6 1. Manager Reeves provided an update on annexation issues. He reported that Jim Timms had been in touch with the City to request additional information on incentives. Mr. Reeves reported on a conversation with Howard Corley during which he indicated that he was anxious to get started on a new development and wanted to be annexed prior to construction. Mr. Reeves reported that Mr. Brown had been in contact with Advance Auto who has now agreed to move forward with annexation in a timely manner. Mr. Brown added that they were getting the incentive documents approved along with Greenwood County for Greenwood Rehab Hospital. Chairman Hancock inquired about the type of building on the Timms property; Mr. Brown responded that it was a spec building. 2. Manager Reeves presented a Gold Award plaque from United Way for an increase in giving over last year, and credited Kathy Hastings with spearheading these efforts. 3. Manager Reeves asked for consideration of an Amendment to the Gas Purchasing Policy. He explained that in the past the Policy had allowed the use of puts as a hedging tool in purchasing gas or advance purchasing gas. He pointed out the need to add language to the Policy to be able to use the tools of calls or collars. He noted discussions with Mr. Schulze and Mr. Patrick who both think it is implied in the Policy but is not specifically mentioned. He stated that puts are specifically mentioned and they would like to add calls and/or collars for the benefit of staff so that whatever instrument turns out to be the most advantageous could be used. Mr. Patrick referred to paragraph 1 where it states they have the authority to buy gas on forward purchase contracts. He stated a belief that this implies you could use calls or collars but does not say that specifically. He suggested that to accomplish that, the language should state including calls and/or collars. Commissioner Monaghan asked about including puts, calls and/or collars. Mr. Reeves stated that the word puts was mentioned later. Mr. Patrick stated that puts is not really buying gas but is buying the right to tender gas that you have already bought. Commissioner Monaghan stated that it is not any different than a call ; it is just on the other side. Mr. Patrick stated that puts are mentioned specifically elsewhere. He referred to the Policy and read: As insurance against falling prices, CPW management is authorized to purchase natural gas puts for a future period for volumes not excess of items that CPW is committed to purchase for such periods. He stated that the Policy says that we will not purchase puts in excess of the volumes that you have contracted for already. Mr. Barnett stated that the first section with calls and collars deals with doing the advance purchasing of gas. The second section deals with when there are concerns

7 Page 7 with a falling market on the price and would then do the puts. Commissioner Monaghan made a motion to approve the Amendment to the Gas Purchasing Policy as recommended by staff; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved. 4. Chairman Hancock shared a thank you note from a third grade class at East End School. VIII. Old Business: A. Chairman Hancock recognized Mr. Billy Nicholson who then addressed the Board regarding the Grace Street property. He distributed copies of a letter from Mr. Jim Kier with Greenwood County and referred to a County Council meeting where Commissioner Monaghan was in attendance. He informed the Board of a conversation prior to the meeting with Jim Kier, Robbie Templeton, and Dee Compton where discussion took place on the CPW letter outlining the terms by which that property would be conveyed over to the City and then the County. He noted that County Council had already voted to accept the property and added that neither Jim Kier nor Robbie Templeton expressed any reservations about accepting the property under those conditions. He continued by stating that engineering studies were done of possible problems that risk management people has assessed the possible risks and they are willing to accept the risk. He noted a problem whereby the City through their attorneys expressed some concern that they be in the chain of title. He referred to a conversation with Steve Welch. Mr. Nicholson noted the need for the City to get with Mr. Brown, but if the County is accepting the responsibility and if there is an indemnification agreement, Mr. Welch did not see a problem with that now. Mr. Nicholson requested that the attorneys draft documents, with the conditions of separate side agreements that need to be in place in addition to the deed, and that those be passed to the City attorney and County officials. Commissioner Monaghan referred to the letter from the County where the letter stated that CPW was to transfer to the County. He pointed out that right off the bat, the first sentence is incorrect because CPW cannot legally transfer to the County. Chairman Hancock stated that City Council had twice voted not to accept the liability. Mr. Brown responded that City Council had never voted. Chairman Hancock then asked Mr. Brown if the City had not turned it down, and Mr. Brown responded that they had not. Mr. Patrick clarified that they just had not agreed to accept it. Chairman Hancock stated that if they will not accept it, we cannot give it away. Mr. Brown stated that City Council had some concerns and if those concerns could be addressed in a satisfactory manner, then he was sure they would consider it. He added that if Mr.

8 Page 8 Nicholson is saying that they can be and that he can make it happen, then City Council would entertain taking action. Commissioner Monaghan pointed out that the big liability and hang up is with the building. He added that the CPW would not accept any residual liability. Mr. Nicholson stated that they are estimating what it would take to redo the building including the lead paint and possible chemicals or asbestos. In the meantime, it may be that since this will be the County s property, they may have to put a fence around it to keep people out until something can be done with the building. He stated that his understanding was that the documents would read that the CPW would not retain any liability or responsibility for the building or do anything with the building in the future. Mr. Patrick pointed out that an appropriate person or entity would have to agree to indemnify the CPW if there is a claim against the CPW. Mr. Nicholson responded that was in the County s letter. He stated that they went over the CPW s letter line by line with Robbie Templeton, Dee Compton, and Jim Kier. Chairman Hancock asked how long it would take to build a park. He pointed out it had already been five years plus ninety days and there was still no money available. Mr. Nicholson responded that they cannot apply for grants until they get the deed to the property. Chairman Hancock stated that he had been told there was no more grant money in Greenwood. He added that they are going to build a 20 acre park in the lower end of the County, and that Lander is taking over the old Rose s building complex. He noted that soon there would be no property left in the City. He commented on what would happen to the school property when Northside School comes out next door where there is already playground equipment. Mr. Nicholson pointed out this would not be the same type of park for ball fields and tennis courts like Lander is doing. Commissioner Monaghan stated that if the liability problem could be solved, he did not have a problem. Commissioner Watts stated that his problem was with having a piece of valuable property sitting there for a number of years. We are doing a disservice to our ratepayers by not utilizing that property by selling it or getting some revenue from it. He continued by pointing out that what they are talking about now could go on and on. Mr. Nicholson responded that it would not go on and on because CPW had set a sunset provision of five years so that if it doesn t become a park within that time, it reverts back to CPW and would be all the more valuable in five years. It would be worth twice as much as it is now. Commissioner Watts responded that would not help our present ratepayers. He pointed out an 8% unemployment rate, the Greenwood Mills closings, and that people cannot afford to pay their bills. He stated that he was looking at this as revenue for our ratepayers. Mr. Nicholson indicated his understanding of Commissioner Watts statements and

9 Page 9 pointed out how that decision obviously was considered by CPW back when the offer was made. Chairman Hancock noted other things had come up since that time, such as another 20 acre park, and another big park. He stated that CPW is in the process of doing about $10 million worth of bond projects; if you take maybe $4 million of that, it would clip that down and save the rate payers a lot of money and put money on the tax books for the City. He reiterated how the situation had changed considerably over the past five year period. Commissioner Watts added that CPW had been more than reasonable with the length of time they had been trying to work something out. Mr. Nicholson stated that he had no problem with putting a shorter period of time than five years on getting started. Chairman Hancock pointed out how CPW had been maintaining the property for the five years and 90 days already. Commissioner Monaghan suggested that Manager Reeves provide history as a matter of record. Manager Reeves stated that it started in the late 90 s and culminated in 2000 with an offer to the City of Greenwood under the same circumstances and conditions that were recently placed in the offer to the City. At that point in time, as Mr. Brown had already said, it was not voted on either to reject or accept. Mr. Reeves stated that from his viewpoint, if it wasn t accepted, then it was rejected. He added that since that time it had gone back and forth and noted a lot of money had been spent on the site. He stated that about $29,000 was spent for an environmental study by Davis & Floyd, which then found lead based paint and asbestos in the building. Following that, a gasoline leak from a prior underground tank was discovered and is still an ongoing cleanup process. About $25,000 was spent on cleanup efforts and since that time, clean up has been under the control of the state who paid the remaining liability. In addition, CPW spent money to close out seven wells and for other continuing maintenance. He stated that all in all, CPW had spent somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 since that time. He continued to point out how liability going forward would always be a concern with a site of this nature. Mr. Reeves reported on an offer made on the site putting the value in the $4 to $5 million range. He pointed out an upcoming bond issue that would be addressed in the next couple of weeks that would be in the $10 million range and that would have an impact on ratepayers. He stated that with debt service added to annual expenses, certainly $4 to $5 million would go a long way toward offsetting that interest debt. He noted financial information was available and could be shared showing how an investment of $4 to $5 million could almost offset the entire interest on the $10 million bond issue over the next 20 years. Commissioner Monaghan added that over the years CPW had offered a variety of plans and suggestions on how to use the park. Mr. Reeves

10 Page 10 continued with an explanation of the original offer to maintain some twelve to fifteen acres on the front for commercial development, and about a ten acre residential site on Merrywood Drive. The thought then was that it would have benefited not only the Parks Commission by giving them about thirty acres, but it would have also benefited the ratepayers, and the taxpayers of the City and the County by adding that back on the tax books. Mr. Reeves continued that since that offer, there were two additional designs presented, both of which were rejected by the Parks Commission. Additional efforts were made to secure a different site in another section of town at a much lower value in cost. CPW approached the landowner and asked about a value for value trade for a portion of the Grace Street property to obtain a 54 acre site in another section of town and that was rejected. He reported that an additional effort was made at a luncheon with Dr. Roger Stevenson and representatives from Lander University. At that time, there was a concerted effort to join with Lander in enhancing their recreational complex on Montague Avenue to make it more conducive for parks and recreation and that effort was also rejected. Mr. Reeves stated that to Mr. Nicholson s credit, he had bent over backwards on a number of occasions trying to make this thing happen to no avail at this point. Chairman Monaghan added that CPW did not just sit on the property for five years. Mr. Nicholson responded that he would like to clear the record because he felt like he had been trying to work with Mr. Reeves and stated that he felt slighted by Mr. Reeves comments because Mr. Reeves knew that he had been trying to work with him. He stated that they had made the consideration of the plan of the residential on the top. He stated that he wanted Mr. Reeves to tell the group how that ended up, and why they did not pursue that. Mr. Nicholson continued that it was because they got an estimate and said it was going to cost $1.5 million to fill in the upper pond, and was going to cost more to do that, to create that opportunity to put residential there, and that was why CPW abandoned it. Mr. Nicholson stated that they did not abandon it and were in favor of doing it. Mr. Reeves stated his disagreement and added that Mr. Nicholson had been very cooperative and he was not suggesting by any means that Mr. Nicholson as an individual had not been cooperative, but the group as a whole had rejected these ideas. Mr. Nicholson responded that they did not reject it. They sat down and came up with a plan for the residential at the top, and the commercial down on the By Pass so that CPW could make money. Mr. Reeves stated that the request to them was for additional property of the 54 acres so that CPW could offset the cost of that $1.5 million to put in the residential and that was rejected. Mr. Reeves pointed out that in order to pay for that, we needed more than ten acres. Mr.

11 Page 11 Nicholson stated that Mr. Reeves had admitted that it would not make sense to fill in the pond, instead spend $1.5 million to create $1 million worth of residential. Mr. Reeves referred to option 1 mentioned earlier which was for a ten acre site on Merrywood Drive outside of the pond areas that would not have required any filling in of the pond. Mr. Nicholson responded that he did not know if that was ever discussed. He added that Mr. Reeves came back to him with an alternative of just keeping the ten acre tract down by the By Pass. Mr. Reeves responded that he came back with that because everything else had been rejected. Mr. Nicholson stated that they did not reject it; the numbers themselves rejected the issue of the residential at the top. Mr. Reeves stated his disagreement with Mr. Nicholson and added that they did reject it. He stated that he would be happy to provide the drawing for option 1 that was rejected by the Parks Commission. Mr. Nicholson stated that the Parks Commission and the County would have to get grants and money to develop the park. If you cut the property, the ponds at the top and the building, you have got money you are going to expend in development cost in doing that. The valuable property for CPW is the ten acres down on the By Pass and he stated that they had not fought over that. There was some in the group who fought about that, but in the last agreement, they understood that was the highest value commercial profitable piece for CPW was down on the By Pass. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he had gone by the fifty acres on New Market and Emerald Road and commented on how beautiful it is with trees and noted it was beautiful land in a good section. No buildings or ponds to fill in, and the Parks Commission rejected that. Lander University was chomping at the bit to have help and expand that park that dovetails into the Cambridge Street Park. Mr. Nicholson noted that this had been under consideration for a long time and he had a lot of people in the community who are behind this project. It sounds like the Commission now wants to take the park now and get money out of it. Commissioner Monaghan stated disagreement and noted that they are exhausted with trying to do business. Mr. Nicholson stated that he had been trying to do business for the past 90 days and confusion has been caused. They got a letter from CPW. He stated that he knew Bill Patrick had given advice on that letter. Steve Welch is saying that there is no way the City is going to take it. So he has to deal with that situation. There is a County attorney that will not talk with the City attorney. He stated that there have been issues that he had to deal with for the last 90 days. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he was willing to extend the 90 days of the agreement and still have the same agreement in effect. Mr. Brown commented on concern that the City would be the bad boy in this whole thing. He stated that Billy would

12 Page 12 verify that this was the first time that they actually had something in writing from the County. He added that to his knowledge, he had never seen a document where the County said they would accept it. That has been one of the problems with the City. One would say they would, one would say maybe. He stated that they now have something in writing where they are on record as saying they would accept it. Up until this point, they never had it. Mr. Nicholson agreed with the statement. Mr. Brown stated that Mr. Nicholson had asked him to get a copy of CPW s letter to them and he asked them if they would accept it and Mr. Nicholson told him that they would try to negotiate that with them and get something in writing from them. Mr. Brown stated that he thinks that Mr. Nicholson had done that, but it should be noted that this is actually the first time that the County had ever officially said that they would accept it and assume liability. Mr. Brown shared another concern from the City which is that you can sign all kinds of indemnification documents, but how good are they when somebody wants to make a claim. He also shared concern with an old Attorney General s Opinion that says public agencies cannot indemnify. He stated that he would want to check into that and see whether legally the City of Greenwood can indemnify you and the County could indemnify us. He stated that he did not know if that was possible. He stated that he was trying to be realistic about it; if he provided a letter today saying that they indemnify you, how good is it when it comes to the courts and the laws. Mr. Brown proposed a question of whether you can walk away from environmental issues. He pointed out the issue of whether EPA or DHEC would let you pass on your liability for environmental issues. He expressed the need to have these legal questions answered. He stated willingness to move forward if all of these issues could be addressed and worked out. Mr. Patrick stated that Mr. Brown s points were well taken and referred to an old Attorney General s Opinion stating that public agencies can indemnify. He stated that one way around that might be to have committed ongoing insurance if you can get it. He stated that the CPW and the City Council are both the City of Greenwood for separate purposes. The CPW s is to operate the utilities; the City Council has basically all of the other general purposes other than to operate the utilities. He stated that he did not have any real question that the CPW just like it annually does can transfer assets to the City. He stated that he did have very substantial question and in his opinion the CPW cannot transfer assets to the County or the Parks Commission for less than full and fair market value because you are taking rate payers and residents of the City s assets and giving them to another body. He stated that if the transaction is one that is structured so that it is known in the beginning as a critical or integral part of the transaction that not only are

13 Page 13 you going to give it to the City but the City is committed to give it to the County, might somebody come in and challenge that as trying to do indirectly what you cannot do directly and be able to upset it. If that is an integral part of the transaction that may create some legal issues that had to be resolved in one way or another. He stated that he did not know how to resolve it. He stated that he did not think there was a definitive answer out there. Mr. Patrick agreed that there are legal issues to be dealt with. He referred back to the question earlier from Commissioner Monaghan about extending the 90 days and stated the opinion that no official action would be necessary as long as something had not been done with the land or taken any action to put it out for bids; you still have the opportunity to come back to it. There was a 90 day limit; the offer is still on the table but there may be other things that need to be resolved as mentioned by Mr. Brown. Mr. Patrick stated it was not anybody s intention to try to make anybody the bad guy. Mr. Patrick referred to Mr. Nicholson s earlier comment about CPW wanting to take the park and sell it. He pointed out that it is not a park, it is the CPW s property that they had talked about doing as a park but there had never been any final deal. Commissioner Monaghan stated a concern with not being able to justify retaining liability on the property without it being under our control, especially the building. Mr. Nicholson stated that he was not asking CPW to retain liability. Commissioner Monaghan stated that other than that, he still considered the offer on the table, but did not know what had to be done to make that offer. He stated the need to move on it, and if that does not happen, then CPW has to sell it because we are retaining that liability by just having it sitting there. Mr. Nicholson stated his understanding that CPW has an asset there that has some value; and you do not want to give away that value and still have the liability. He added that he had expressed that to the County and they understand that. Chairman Hancock pointed out the $4 $5 million offer; Mr. Nicholson stated that he understood the offer involved the property which CPW is getting anyway. He stated that the property they were taking would take a good bit of money to develop and that CPW may be giving away $1 $2 million. He stated that CPW would be retaining the ten acres on the By Pass and therefore keeping the valuable piece of property. The part that is being given away has the building to deal with, two ponds to deal with, so if it is worth $2 $3 million, you would have to spend $2 million to develop it. Commissioner Monaghan stated that he was not sure what Mr. Nicholson was basing that on and disagreed with Mr. Nicholson s evaluation of the property value. Mr. Nicholson stated that when they offered $4 million for that piece of property they are giving you a lot of money for the ten acres on the By Pass and not as much for the back stuff. Mr. Patrick referred to

14 Page 14 the issue made earlier about not retaining liability and Mr. Brown s point about the old Attorney General s Opinion. He stated that if the property were to be sold to a private entity or individual to develop for residential, commercial, or a combination, based on what he had heard say over the years, part of that sales contract agreement would be that that entity would agree to indemnify the CPW and there would not be any question about the public entity indemnification there so you would know you had to the extent that entity was viable, that indemnity there. That would be one advantage to dealing with a non governmental entity that would remove that question. Mr. Patrick stated for clarification that if it was the wish of the Board, the offer could be extended until some date. Chairman Hancock asked about the plan to get grant money within a reasonable length of time. Mr. Nicholson stated that the County has committed to do money under a bond issue to do this park and they would get grant money on top of that. The County has expressed interest in doing a bond issue for the prison and including the park. They are committed to getting this done as a park after seeing the success of West Cambridge Park. Commissioner Monaghan noted that the County does not participate in West Cambridge Park. CPW put in all of the electric and water, Metro did the sewer, the City is doing all of the maintenance. Mr. Nicholson stated that the County just paid off the debt. Chairman Hancock asked why the County does not come up with a revenue stream for support. Mr. Nicholson stated they are combing the active and passive parks within the recreation department and the maintenance would be done under that. Commissioner Monaghan asked if the County would do the maintenance and Mr. Nicholson responded that was what they had discussed. Mr. Reeves pointed out that their letter stated that the park would be funded from private resources. Commissioner Monaghan noted that was beside the fact and suggested extending the offer rather than going on forever. He added that we still have the liability unless we sell it or give it to them. Commissioner Watts stated that he was prepared to make a motion that we proceed with selling the property. Mr. Nicholson stated that they should consider they would have to rezone the property. Chairman Hancock stated that in his opinion we would not have to rezone; planned unit development takes ten or fifteen acres and there are 47 acres there. He stated that revenue sharing from the federal government when they gave money back to cities and counties was used for recreation. The revenue sharing that the City had way back was given to the County to build a civic center. He added that he was not sure how the County used theirs, but an agreement was made at that time that the County would do the parks. He stated that it ought to be countywide; the City should not do it because there are people out in the County who use these facilities and

15 Page 15 ought to help pay for them. We ought to have 28% of the people in the taxable property that is in the City; 28% of them don t pay any taxes. You have all of these people sitting on the periphery who would use these facilities and we are having to pay for them. We have paid for the infrastructure to get it out there to develop all of it without getting the return back from the City on it. Plus these other two parks built here in the City take up more property. Commissioner Monaghan made a motion to extend the offer another sixty days. The motion died for lack of a second. Chairman Hancock stated that we had gone five years plus ninety days and still no change. He added that CPW could use the revenues off the property to help ratepayers and had the figures to back that, plus we were going to help out with the other park the City was going to build. The City is already helping out with the Lander project and we were also going to help some with that as well. He stated that he was willing to go thirty days and if it was not cleared up by then, he would vote to sell. Commissioner Watts again stated that he was prepared to vote today to sell. Chairman Hancock made a motion to give thirty additional days, and Commissioner Monaghan seconded. The motion passed by a vote of two to one, with Commissioner Watts voting no. Mr. Nicholson asked for clarification on what needed to be done within thirty days. Chairman Hancock stated they would need to clear up the Attorney General s Opinion on the liability. Chairman Hancock stated that he was for parks, but somebody had to pay for them. They are getting grant money to build the parks but are not maintaining them. They are relying on government for maintenance. Somewhere there has to be a revenue stream to maintain the parks, and the County should be that source. Chairman Hancock stated that they get out there and work extremely hard to get grant money to build nice parks, but he did not agree with the way it falls back on the City to keep the parks up. He added that it should be county wide and noted that most of the people on the Parks Committee who had rejected all of the suggestions that were made live outside of the city limits. He stated that this property belongs to the citizens of Greenwood; it does not belong to people outside of the City, it belongs to the people inside. Mr. Nicholson stated his belief that he had sincerely tried to consider all alternatives. He asked about a timeframe for getting language back from Mr. Patrick about what he wants in the deed. He stated that thirty days is a short period of time for a legal transaction if you have attorneys who are not talking to each other. Commissioner Monaghan stated that they had better get on the ball. Mr. Nicholson asked for guidance from Mr. Patrick on how to proceed with the conditions of the deed. They agreed to discuss those at another time.

16 Page 16 IX. Executive Session A motion was made by Commissioner Monaghan, seconded by Commissioner Watts, and unanimously approved to go into Executive Session to discuss a contractual matter. IX. With no further business, the meeting was adjourned. Approved:, 2007 Secretary