It's beginning to seem like if crippling local businesses were an
Olympic event, the city of Livingston would take the gold.
It's a carefully guarded secret that merchants within the borders of
the city of Livingston appear to be paying as much as twenty times
more for their garbage as their counterparts in the county. Taking
one example just asking around, a city restaurant, we'll call it
Restaurant A, is paying a typical $600 a month for its trash. In
contrast, Restaurant B, just across the line in the county, is paying
about $30 a month, for the same kind of business and pretty much the
same garbage. As part of this, city businesses are told, in an
environmentally unfriendly way, they cannot recycle their glass, so
the city can force the glass weight to be included in the grossly
expensive billed tonnage. In an informal survey of the Livingston
merchants versus county merchants this contrast continues to pan
out. In another local business's case, for equivalent-sized small
towns in its chain, the rates it pays the city, it turns out, are the
highest in the nation.
Right now all businesses in the city of Livingston are being charged
around $110 a ton for garbage while the residents pay $45 per ton - a
$65 a ton difference. The disproportional Livingston tax on business
versus residential garbage has been in place for some time, but no
one ever seems to question it. When asked how much they are paying a
ton for their garbage, it has been typical that businesses have had
to figure it out themselves. All they know is they are struggling to
stay in business, and the city doesn't seem to be their ally.
The county is charging its businesses a flat $360. Simpler,
infinitely cheaper than the six or seven grand the city businesses
get gouged for annually, the county still stays in the black, and
even this can be appealed to the refuse board under special circumstances.
Sometimes in a small town when things obviously don't make sense,
they don't make sense for a reason. Remember how the city supposedly
strapped for cash pulled away from the county and chose to build a
million dollar redundant transfer station, possibly in a carcinogenic
plume, 1100 feet from the Yellowstone River, rather than use the
existing transfer station built jointly by both the city and the
county? Is a possible explanation the fact that were Livingston to
join the refuse board, under Montana state law all incomes would have
to be paid directly to the refuse board, including that nice
additional $65 a ton the city is extracting from its businesses?
Livingston's official position that the county refuse board is "too
expensive" reflects over $340,000 in county expenses for green box
guards which the county was forced to hire, replete with vehicles,
maintenance, insurance, retirement, etc., due to the suit instigated
by the city itself, not the county, that the county was letting city
merchants dump their refuse in the county green boxes, and hence, the
city was deprived of, as they put it, their "rightful
revenue". Without the lawsuit-mandated expenses, though, all county
residents, and hence Livingston, would be paying about $50+ per
residence per year less. (The figures sometimes get murky to figure
out because they are treated in terms of tons instead of a form
people can more easily compare.) And it looks like the city's own
original estimates of the price of handling trash on its own were
artificially low, since they apparently didn't reflect the new
additional cost of driving large trucks to the Logan landfill or even
Great Falls and back. Hint: those trucks are not energy efficient
economy vehicles, they're not meant or maintained for long-distance
driving, it's a lot of paid hours of driving, and the exorbitant cost
of fuel in the world is probably only going to keep going up.
The city, expecting the extra $65 per ton from its merchants, has
gone into debt based on that in a variety of areas. It appears to
have already committed that money into the future with off-budget
expenses like lease-purchased vehicles, expenses, pet projects, and
salaries using it. Is that above board and fair to struggling city
merchants? With "solutions" like this, things will only get tougher
as the price of fuel and maintenance on the city trash trucks
skyrockets with the long-distance hauling arrangements. It's not you
they're looking out for.
Now let's assume you want intelligent, honest, rational
government. Just for a minute, for sake of argument. You could work
out a deal with the county, kill the costs not already wasted on a
unnecessary redundant transfer station, save your taxpayers money,
thereby helping the local economy, and treat local business
as friends and employers, not a bunch of unlimited ATM
machines. Would that truly be so unreasonable?
In tough economic times when businesses are beginning to knuckle
under with the weight of their own trash costs, it is wrong that this
has gone unchallenged for so long. Something smells, and it's not
the dumpster out behind. Is it time to take the town back?
Friday, July 11, 2008
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Cyberterrorism in "Livingston (Lying) Out Loud"
“This is how the world ends, not with a bang, but with a whimper.” When members of a community can no longer, even in jest, talk honestly with each other without being censored on line by what can only be called a blatant form of intimidation and there is no refutation of falsehoods, then they face their collective loss of Constitutional rights. The battle for freedom is mostly fought, ironically not in the streets of Bagdad, but at the local level and here the kind, honest and fair-minded Livingston residents must not yield to the machinations of a twisted mind like the author of “Livingston Out Loud.” Her ramblings do not represent our community and it is an outrage that she uses our name in her tirades. There may be a reason that author could have been given a golden corporate parachute, lost any local businesses attempted, was on local boards for a very, very short time before finally being rejected, and generally is shunned in the community in spite of her personal endorsement by the local paper and her good friend Vicki Blakeman. Local people call the blog site “Livingston Lying Out Loud” because the blog site contains more half truths than a month of Bill O’Reilley comments on Fox News and the author of those also half lies, apparently has no conscience and certainly no sense of human decency. Generally speaking, Livingston community members have stopped looking at the blog site mostly because of its malicious nature, but apparently the author, lost in what seems to be her narcissistic belief that she runs this community with a poison pen, and lost in intellectual self-message, continues her path of attempting to harm the lives of others with no accountability---thus far. But the people she supports most and from whom she gets the greatest part of her encouragement in her efforts at cyberterrorism, Vicki Blakeman, Steve Caldwell, and Mary Beebe, may well be also harmed by the authors tenor in her writing in the long run. One can only hope that during a George Bush administration, with its Patriot act, its attempt to take away first amendment rights, and its attack on innocent people, that the trickle down effect of his policies to the local level can be reversed by the good intentions of those Montanans who would stand up for basic human rights on either side of the political spectrum.
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Another study gone to waste?
Cut and paste the following site to your browser to see the Study that so many
Livingston Citizens put their time and thought into.
http://www.ci.livingston.mt.us/entranco.shtml
In 2002 every man woman and child, via our urstwhile city commissioners, contributed
$8.82 from the pockets each of each man, woman and child in Livingston to purchase the Entranco study. About $60,000.00 all told. That was four years ago and I only know of one project that was recommended in the study that has been implimented: the sidewalk on 3rd and Callender.
In 2004 the city commission voted to look at the Old East Side School as a new location for the outgrown City County Building. Instead, it was put on the market with no asking price.
Sure, it's legal, but is it right for our community?
Livingston Citizens put their time and thought into.
http://www.ci.livingston.mt.us/entranco.shtml
In 2002 every man woman and child, via our urstwhile city commissioners, contributed
$8.82 from the pockets each of each man, woman and child in Livingston to purchase the Entranco study. About $60,000.00 all told. That was four years ago and I only know of one project that was recommended in the study that has been implimented: the sidewalk on 3rd and Callender.
In 2004 the city commission voted to look at the Old East Side School as a new location for the outgrown City County Building. Instead, it was put on the market with no asking price.
Sure, it's legal, but is it right for our community?
City-County/East Side School give away
Transcript of East Side School Discussion
Livingston City Commission July 23, 2007 Livingston, Montana
City County Building-Community Room
Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Blakeman, Beebe, Grabow (Commissioner Van Aken absent) City Manager: Ed Meese, Attorney: Bruce Becker, City Planner: Jim Woodhall, Public Works Director: Clint Tinsley, Police Chief: Darren Rainey, Fire Chief: Jim Mastin.
From Commissioner Packet “Action Item:”
A. Consider bid for East Side School. Only only one bid was received. Pgs. 127-130” (Pgs 127-130 attached at the end of transcript.)
City Manager Meece; You are all aware that we have had a bidding process on East Side School. We received one bid as a result of that process for the amount of $150,000 cash at closing for direct purchase and as an alternative, if we were to do the bill back at the office, under our own financial wherewithal, then the lease rate would be $9.00 per square foot. If this particular purchaser were to mark those costs, then we would be charged the $9.00 per square foot, plus a rate which amortizes the cost of the construction over three years for a three year contract.
We looked at this---staff looked at this and while it is certainly a genuine bid and we appreciate the, we feel that its below the market value that’s there for this building, uh, as it was priced four years ago, so it would be our recommendation
that, uh, the city commission consider either a direct rejection of this bid or, perhaps we could authorize that just a negotiations with respect to the purchase price.
Commissioner Caldwell: “Do you have ? what that appraised value was four years ago?”
City Manager Ed Meece: I think it was $225,000.
Commissioner Grabow: My understanding was that we would go ahead---that we talked about the possibility of going ahead with an appraisal as well as an appraisal should we condiminimize the building---those two. That is a more reasonable course. My suggestion is that we jump in a go ahead with the appraisals. The parties would be welcomed to come back with future bids.
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, that would certainly was staff’s intent and would still be our intent were we to go on that line---simply, in my absence, it one of those things that didn’t get done for that reason.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Further discussion. Is there a motion?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I move that we decline the bid.”
Mr. Becker: “Motion should be in the positive.”
Commissioner: “Grabow: Okay. I’m sorry. What?”
Mr. Becker: “Move to accept the bid.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Okay, I move to accept the bid.”
Chairman Caldwell: There is a motion to accept the bid. Second?
Commissioner ?: ‘Second.”
Chairman Caldwell: “Discussion? Discussion? Roll call”.
T----: Vicky Blakeman: “Against.”
Mary Beebe: “Against.“
Steve Caldwell: “Against.”
Patricia Grabow: “Against.”
Commissioner Caldwell or Mr. Becker?: “Do you need further direction or we would leave there to renegotiate?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, I would ask the commission authorize that we enter into negotiation at this point to see if there is another agreement that could be reached before proceeding further.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I think it would be appropriate to do the appraisals first.”
City Manager Meece: “That could be part of our process.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is that a motion? Is there a second?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Could we include that in our motion---that we go ahead and approve the appraisals.”
Commissioner Blakeman: “Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a motion for authorization of staff to renegotiate with provision that appraisal be done.”
Commissioner Grabow:” “Mr. Chairman. I don’t see the ? being as viable as simply defined. It seems reasonable to go ahead and get the appraisal then make the decision as to whether or not we are going to even enter into negotiations with this party.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I am beginning to see if the staff’s discretion as to how to procede would require commission action, would it not?
City Manager: “We can do that.”
Commissioner Caldwell: (Public ready to speak at the microphone) “Please. If you could identify yourself.”
Robert Story: “My name is Robert Story, a CPA here in town. I live at 130 South 5th Street. As you may know, my firm studied East Side School building last year with the help of Patricia. And, uh, I just would like you to know that I represent a client who has another substantial piece of real estate here in town that is very interested in East Side School and wants to make an offer at least 20-30% higher.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “You understand, this bid process has been closed.”
Mr. Story: “Yes, I understand.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair.”
Commissioner Caldwell: Mr. Meece
City Manager: That could be part of staff’s discussion (untelligible)
Commissioner Caldwell: “With the understanding that are not currently in a bid process. Is that enough direction?”
City Manager: “Yes.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I wanted to note that the proposal that was made last November was with condiminimizing. There was an interested buyer who would buy just the office space off of East Side School (gym) and two other office spaces
would have netted $1,300,000, so, I mean we are talking about considering the disparity between this particular building being sold. |It seems unreasonable to go ahead. We need to go ahead with appraisals and have those in our hands.”
City Manager Meece: “For clarification, could I ask a question of Commissioner Grabow? You alluded to a $1.3 purchase price. I am just curious. Where does that come from?”
Commissioner Grabow: “From Mr. Story’s proposal last November.”
City Manager Meece: “We didn’t receive a bid to purchase the property.”
Commissioner Grabow: “It wasn’t allowed. The proposal indicated, if you go back and review the proposal then you will see ?”
Commissioner Caldwell: “That proposal was outside the process the city established for distribution of assets.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Yes. It brought up the issue of the value of condominimizing the building.”
City Manager Meece: “It was not a bid for $1.3 million dollars. It was an estimate. It said that there was a possibility that the building might be worth.”
Mark Hartwig: “If I may, I would like to make a public comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Please go ahead.”
Mark Hartwig: “One of the parties that bid on the property.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you, Mark.”
Mark Hartwig: “Obviously I don’t want to belabor the bid. That’s very clear. We would consider negotiating with respect to the lease term. What we set as three years ? square foot triple net as you folks could build out further than that on
the space that come back to you. Obviously as we do the build up ourselves and ask for amortization, then there could be a longer-term leaseten years or whatever works best. I am a little bit bothered by Ms. Grabow’s comments in the process. I understand the decision that’s been made, but Ms. Grabow talked about a $1.3
million dollar bidding process that didn’t exist. We submitted a bid in good faith. I
would pay some homberage, now that there is some talk of other bids that are out there---other people who want to bid in the process that has happened. We are very happy to go into negotiations and discuss with the city. I will say at the outset that things have changed drastically since the process started. One is that you have reduced the amount of land that is available by wanting to keep the parking lot that is on the west side of the building which, we thought, reduced the value. The other thing that has happened is that construction costs have gone up and the market is sliding in general property values, so our bid was made in good faith at 84 cents a foot, the costs of renovating ? handicapped. So, I just want to assure you
that the bid was made in good faith as you consider the options that might be out there.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a humble apology for a misinterpretation.”
Chris Rodgers: “Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions with respect to procedure. One is, would it not be observing the bid process over at the Depot---one of the bids for labor came in too high so the foundation simply rejected the bids outright and went to a second round of bids. Would it not seem more appropriate to simply say we have to go through the bid process again rather than negotiating specifically with one particular party.”
City Manager Meece: “We could take another offer down the road. This is a point that Mr. Becker and I discussed several times and thought about the process ourselves. Mr. Rodgers is correct. That is certainly a way you could go. It’s the way we go several times like this or other types of purchases, but if you only have
one bid that is submitted with any type of interest and you go through a rather detailed bid process to get there, just repeating the bid process, doesn’t assure that you are going to have any more bidders or any more fair process. That’s why, and we discussed this earlier, I felt that the next step to take was to enter into negotiations because we have been through a very exhaustive process and its been, I don’t know, at least two or three different tour sessions, with meetings. I think we’ve done quite a bit, I feel like, if there were something that we had missed or some huge issue that create in the bid process, it would come to light.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a shelf life to this offer?”
City Manager Meece: “I think what we’ve done tonight ended the shelf life on this offer, but, from what I hear from the City Commission, we certainly have reserved the right to enter into negotiations, which may precipitate a new offer.”
Chris Rodger: “And yet, I would wonder, whether or not, and, still, I don’t know the extra work it would entail, but, it seems to me that you would not want to be appearing to close the door on any future bids, you know, irrespective of what the first might be.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, we haven’t closed the door on any future bids. We completed a bid process, according to Montana law and we have satisfied that bid process according to Montana law and we think its well within the
administration’s discretion to be able to choose. It’s a good step forward. Anything that would come up, would require approval of the city commission, so even if we enter into negotiations, there is nothing that we could do short of a city commission vote that would make it happen.”
Chris Rodgers: “My second question would be then the procedure would be, at the latter stage of the bids, proceding with this issue, would the next step not be, once you had a second bid in hand, would you not proceed to open public comment on the bid in hand? I was talking with someone earlier on the Historic Preservation
Commission and she suggested that it might be normal procedure that, rather proceed to vote directly on the bid, that public comment occur first?”
City Manager Meece: Mr. Chair, just a second. (Leans over and whispers to city attorney, Mr. Becker.)
City Manager Meece: “I just wanted to consult with Mr. Becker to make sure I was right. We’re not required to undergo a public hearing with respect to a specific bid. Uh, especially with the bid forms. These forms set out different types of information that we requested in the bid process. If we are not satisfied with the
information that’s provided or the information that comes back at the initiation, we will ask for more. We had discussions with members of the Historic Preservation Commission. At that time there wasn’t any discussion about a public hearing process. I think the administration probably said that we would entertain---if we
made a recommendation as a result of the city commission negotiation---part of the normal action item, would be a potential for discussion. If there were public comment, then they could certainly do it. At the same time, when we had the public hearing, over the sale of the building, we had no one from the community show up to give any comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I just want to reiterate that we are not precluding public input, written or oral, at this stage of the game. We just ? organized public hearings---“
Chris Rodgers: “Then the expectation would be prior to the commission’s vote on the negotiation.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Ms. Grabow”
Commissioner Grabow: “Did we receive any public input at all on East Side School---email, letter, anything? Ms. Wend?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wend did come in and testify. We didn’t have any other. In fact, I’m not sure it was a comment. I think it was a question with regard to whether or not the school would be---not a for or against type of comment.”
Action Item B. (End of Discussion on East Side School)
UBLIC COMMENT-City Commission Meeting :
Chris Rodgers comments at the end of the meeting on East Side School
Chris Rodgers: “I apologize for troubling you, but I had further thoughts with regard to the discussion. One of the remarks, and again I apologize, of having toured the building and seen the building and seeing its limitations, I just want to say that I concur with the manager and the staff with respect to stewardship, but I
think he’s off, personally, in my opinion, not by a value of a digit, but by an order of magnitude with respect to the value of the building. I’m not a professional. It’s just my opinion.”
“In a point of fact, he said that he and I were the only people attending, when there was not just one tour. I attended both. He was at the second only. Others were also represented on the tour of the property and, again, I don’t know how this falls under a point of order, but, it seems to me, that if negotiations are going to take
place, then the county should be part of it. The option may exist to discuss with other parties as well. It seems to me, that a county bid could be, essentially, competitive. So that’s the extent of my comment. Thank you.”
Livingston City Commission July 23, 2007 Livingston, Montana
City County Building-Community Room
Present: Commissioners Caldwell, Blakeman, Beebe, Grabow (Commissioner Van Aken absent) City Manager: Ed Meese, Attorney: Bruce Becker, City Planner: Jim Woodhall, Public Works Director: Clint Tinsley, Police Chief: Darren Rainey, Fire Chief: Jim Mastin.
From Commissioner Packet “Action Item:”
A. Consider bid for East Side School. Only only one bid was received. Pgs. 127-130” (Pgs 127-130 attached at the end of transcript.)
City Manager Meece; You are all aware that we have had a bidding process on East Side School. We received one bid as a result of that process for the amount of $150,000 cash at closing for direct purchase and as an alternative, if we were to do the bill back at the office, under our own financial wherewithal, then the lease rate would be $9.00 per square foot. If this particular purchaser were to mark those costs, then we would be charged the $9.00 per square foot, plus a rate which amortizes the cost of the construction over three years for a three year contract.
We looked at this---staff looked at this and while it is certainly a genuine bid and we appreciate the, we feel that its below the market value that’s there for this building, uh, as it was priced four years ago, so it would be our recommendation
that, uh, the city commission consider either a direct rejection of this bid or, perhaps we could authorize that just a negotiations with respect to the purchase price.
Commissioner Caldwell: “Do you have ? what that appraised value was four years ago?”
City Manager Ed Meece: I think it was $225,000.
Commissioner Grabow: My understanding was that we would go ahead---that we talked about the possibility of going ahead with an appraisal as well as an appraisal should we condiminimize the building---those two. That is a more reasonable course. My suggestion is that we jump in a go ahead with the appraisals. The parties would be welcomed to come back with future bids.
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, that would certainly was staff’s intent and would still be our intent were we to go on that line---simply, in my absence, it one of those things that didn’t get done for that reason.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Further discussion. Is there a motion?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I move that we decline the bid.”
Mr. Becker: “Motion should be in the positive.”
Commissioner: “Grabow: Okay. I’m sorry. What?”
Mr. Becker: “Move to accept the bid.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Okay, I move to accept the bid.”
Chairman Caldwell: There is a motion to accept the bid. Second?
Commissioner ?: ‘Second.”
Chairman Caldwell: “Discussion? Discussion? Roll call”.
T----: Vicky Blakeman: “Against.”
Mary Beebe: “Against.“
Steve Caldwell: “Against.”
Patricia Grabow: “Against.”
Commissioner Caldwell or Mr. Becker?: “Do you need further direction or we would leave there to renegotiate?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, I would ask the commission authorize that we enter into negotiation at this point to see if there is another agreement that could be reached before proceeding further.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I think it would be appropriate to do the appraisals first.”
City Manager Meece: “That could be part of our process.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is that a motion? Is there a second?”
Commissioner Grabow: “Could we include that in our motion---that we go ahead and approve the appraisals.”
Commissioner Blakeman: “Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a motion for authorization of staff to renegotiate with provision that appraisal be done.”
Commissioner Grabow:” “Mr. Chairman. I don’t see the ? being as viable as simply defined. It seems reasonable to go ahead and get the appraisal then make the decision as to whether or not we are going to even enter into negotiations with this party.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I am beginning to see if the staff’s discretion as to how to procede would require commission action, would it not?
City Manager: “We can do that.”
Commissioner Caldwell: (Public ready to speak at the microphone) “Please. If you could identify yourself.”
Robert Story: “My name is Robert Story, a CPA here in town. I live at 130 South 5th Street. As you may know, my firm studied East Side School building last year with the help of Patricia. And, uh, I just would like you to know that I represent a client who has another substantial piece of real estate here in town that is very interested in East Side School and wants to make an offer at least 20-30% higher.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “You understand, this bid process has been closed.”
Mr. Story: “Yes, I understand.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair.”
Commissioner Caldwell: Mr. Meece
City Manager: That could be part of staff’s discussion (untelligible)
Commissioner Caldwell: “With the understanding that are not currently in a bid process. Is that enough direction?”
City Manager: “Yes.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you.”
Commissioner Grabow: “I wanted to note that the proposal that was made last November was with condiminimizing. There was an interested buyer who would buy just the office space off of East Side School (gym) and two other office spaces
would have netted $1,300,000, so, I mean we are talking about considering the disparity between this particular building being sold. |It seems unreasonable to go ahead. We need to go ahead with appraisals and have those in our hands.”
City Manager Meece: “For clarification, could I ask a question of Commissioner Grabow? You alluded to a $1.3 purchase price. I am just curious. Where does that come from?”
Commissioner Grabow: “From Mr. Story’s proposal last November.”
City Manager Meece: “We didn’t receive a bid to purchase the property.”
Commissioner Grabow: “It wasn’t allowed. The proposal indicated, if you go back and review the proposal then you will see ?”
Commissioner Caldwell: “That proposal was outside the process the city established for distribution of assets.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Yes. It brought up the issue of the value of condominimizing the building.”
City Manager Meece: “It was not a bid for $1.3 million dollars. It was an estimate. It said that there was a possibility that the building might be worth.”
Mark Hartwig: “If I may, I would like to make a public comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Please go ahead.”
Mark Hartwig: “One of the parties that bid on the property.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Thank you, Mark.”
Mark Hartwig: “Obviously I don’t want to belabor the bid. That’s very clear. We would consider negotiating with respect to the lease term. What we set as three years ? square foot triple net as you folks could build out further than that on
the space that come back to you. Obviously as we do the build up ourselves and ask for amortization, then there could be a longer-term leaseten years or whatever works best. I am a little bit bothered by Ms. Grabow’s comments in the process. I understand the decision that’s been made, but Ms. Grabow talked about a $1.3
million dollar bidding process that didn’t exist. We submitted a bid in good faith. I
would pay some homberage, now that there is some talk of other bids that are out there---other people who want to bid in the process that has happened. We are very happy to go into negotiations and discuss with the city. I will say at the outset that things have changed drastically since the process started. One is that you have reduced the amount of land that is available by wanting to keep the parking lot that is on the west side of the building which, we thought, reduced the value. The other thing that has happened is that construction costs have gone up and the market is sliding in general property values, so our bid was made in good faith at 84 cents a foot, the costs of renovating ? handicapped. So, I just want to assure you
that the bid was made in good faith as you consider the options that might be out there.”
Commissioner Grabow: “Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer a humble apology for a misinterpretation.”
Chris Rodgers: “Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of questions with respect to procedure. One is, would it not be observing the bid process over at the Depot---one of the bids for labor came in too high so the foundation simply rejected the bids outright and went to a second round of bids. Would it not seem more appropriate to simply say we have to go through the bid process again rather than negotiating specifically with one particular party.”
City Manager Meece: “We could take another offer down the road. This is a point that Mr. Becker and I discussed several times and thought about the process ourselves. Mr. Rodgers is correct. That is certainly a way you could go. It’s the way we go several times like this or other types of purchases, but if you only have
one bid that is submitted with any type of interest and you go through a rather detailed bid process to get there, just repeating the bid process, doesn’t assure that you are going to have any more bidders or any more fair process. That’s why, and we discussed this earlier, I felt that the next step to take was to enter into negotiations because we have been through a very exhaustive process and its been, I don’t know, at least two or three different tour sessions, with meetings. I think we’ve done quite a bit, I feel like, if there were something that we had missed or some huge issue that create in the bid process, it would come to light.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Is there a shelf life to this offer?”
City Manager Meece: “I think what we’ve done tonight ended the shelf life on this offer, but, from what I hear from the City Commission, we certainly have reserved the right to enter into negotiations, which may precipitate a new offer.”
Chris Rodger: “And yet, I would wonder, whether or not, and, still, I don’t know the extra work it would entail, but, it seems to me that you would not want to be appearing to close the door on any future bids, you know, irrespective of what the first might be.”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chair, we haven’t closed the door on any future bids. We completed a bid process, according to Montana law and we have satisfied that bid process according to Montana law and we think its well within the
administration’s discretion to be able to choose. It’s a good step forward. Anything that would come up, would require approval of the city commission, so even if we enter into negotiations, there is nothing that we could do short of a city commission vote that would make it happen.”
Chris Rodgers: “My second question would be then the procedure would be, at the latter stage of the bids, proceding with this issue, would the next step not be, once you had a second bid in hand, would you not proceed to open public comment on the bid in hand? I was talking with someone earlier on the Historic Preservation
Commission and she suggested that it might be normal procedure that, rather proceed to vote directly on the bid, that public comment occur first?”
City Manager Meece: Mr. Chair, just a second. (Leans over and whispers to city attorney, Mr. Becker.)
City Manager Meece: “I just wanted to consult with Mr. Becker to make sure I was right. We’re not required to undergo a public hearing with respect to a specific bid. Uh, especially with the bid forms. These forms set out different types of information that we requested in the bid process. If we are not satisfied with the
information that’s provided or the information that comes back at the initiation, we will ask for more. We had discussions with members of the Historic Preservation Commission. At that time there wasn’t any discussion about a public hearing process. I think the administration probably said that we would entertain---if we
made a recommendation as a result of the city commission negotiation---part of the normal action item, would be a potential for discussion. If there were public comment, then they could certainly do it. At the same time, when we had the public hearing, over the sale of the building, we had no one from the community show up to give any comment.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “I just want to reiterate that we are not precluding public input, written or oral, at this stage of the game. We just ? organized public hearings---“
Chris Rodgers: “Then the expectation would be prior to the commission’s vote on the negotiation.”
Commissioner Caldwell: “Ms. Grabow”
Commissioner Grabow: “Did we receive any public input at all on East Side School---email, letter, anything? Ms. Wend?”
City Manager Meece: “Mr. Chairman, Ms. Wend did come in and testify. We didn’t have any other. In fact, I’m not sure it was a comment. I think it was a question with regard to whether or not the school would be---not a for or against type of comment.”
Action Item B. (End of Discussion on East Side School)
UBLIC COMMENT-City Commission Meeting :
Chris Rodgers comments at the end of the meeting on East Side School
Chris Rodgers: “I apologize for troubling you, but I had further thoughts with regard to the discussion. One of the remarks, and again I apologize, of having toured the building and seen the building and seeing its limitations, I just want to say that I concur with the manager and the staff with respect to stewardship, but I
think he’s off, personally, in my opinion, not by a value of a digit, but by an order of magnitude with respect to the value of the building. I’m not a professional. It’s just my opinion.”
“In a point of fact, he said that he and I were the only people attending, when there was not just one tour. I attended both. He was at the second only. Others were also represented on the tour of the property and, again, I don’t know how this falls under a point of order, but, it seems to me, that if negotiations are going to take
place, then the county should be part of it. The option may exist to discuss with other parties as well. It seems to me, that a county bid could be, essentially, competitive. So that’s the extent of my comment. Thank you.”
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Hauling vs Incineration and Recycling
A full copy of the Zia Engineering report, (including charts) that the city and county sponsored can be viewed/Printed and/or downloaded from the Park County Web Site at
http://www.parkcounty.org/">http://www.parkcounty.org
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
September 2006
Prepared By:
Zia Engineering &
Environmental Consultants, LLC
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
Fergus 130 No
http://www.parkcounty.org/">http://www.parkcounty.org
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
September 2006
Prepared By:
Zia Engineering &
Environmental Consultants, LLC
City of Livingston & Park County
Montana
Solid Waste Management Plan
Fergus 130 No
Protect our City Real Estate
Save Livingston's Real Estate.
Making wise decisions
Is selling East Side School good for Livingston?
Making wise decisions
Is selling East Side School good for Livingston?
Livingston Needs an Independent City Manager
Let's elect our City Manager but it can't be done with our present type of government.
Let's look at city-county government instead. Petitions are being drawn to put City-County Unification on the 2008 Primary and General Election Ballot. Please sign the petition and learn about the pros and cons by reading this blog, asking questions and adding your ideas..
This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is a people of Livingston and Park County issue.
Let's look at city-county government instead. Petitions are being drawn to put City-County Unification on the 2008 Primary and General Election Ballot. Please sign the petition and learn about the pros and cons by reading this blog, asking questions and adding your ideas..
This is NOT a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it is a people of Livingston and Park County issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
