MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 7550 Lohmeyer Ave. St. Louis, MO. April 18, 2012

Transcription

1 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 1 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 7550 Lohmeyer Ave. St. Louis, MO April 18, 2012 The meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Present were K. Cohen T. Durham J. Harsh C. Hinderliter J. Kelly J. Schorr S. Shoemaker Staff present: T. Donnelly A quorum was present and due notice had been given. AGENDA ITEM 2 Approval of Minutes M/S/C (Hinderliter, Durham) unanimously to approve the minutes of the 3/21/12 meeting. AGENDA ITEM 3 Public Comments There were no public comments. AGENDA ITEM 4 Communications Donnelly circulated a letter from Bonnie LaVelle, Metro tax preparation volunteer, thanking the Library for providing space for tax assitance this year. AGENDA ITEM 5 Treasurer s Report Donnelly presented the Treasurer's Report. He noted that there was a big expenditure in Ac 533 Repairs because the Closed Circuit TV computer broke down last month. M/S/C (Kelly, Hinderliter) unanimously to accept the Treasurer's Report AGENDA ITEM 6

2 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 2 Librarian s Report Donnelly noted that the lower level leaked badly a few weeks ago and the area was closed to the piblic for a few days. Since then, Public Works has regraded the front yard and plugged a discharge pipe on the SE corner of the building, and there have been only minor leaks. Shoemaker reported that she attended a Trustee Training video conference at the Kirkwood PL. She and Donnelly will the handouts from the meeting. Donnelly noted that he will be on vacation next week. At this point, the agenda order was amended (M/S/C (Schorr, Shoemaker) unanimously) to proceed in reverse order for the remainder of the meeting, Item 10 Item 7. AGENDA ITEM 10 Motion was made to hold a Closed Session to discuss matters relating to litigation, legal actions and/or communication from the City Attorney as provided for in Section (1)RSMO. M/S/C (Kelly, Hinderliter) unanimously to enter Closed Session AGENDA ITEM 9 New Business Preliminary budget discussion, FY Donnelly presented an estimate of the final disposition of revenues and expenses for the current fiscal year. He estimates that the Library will receive 99% of budgeted revenue and spend 97% of budgeted expenditures, finishing with a surplus. He noted that the budget finished in the black this year primarily from receiving the reimbursement for the Drupal grant from the State (which was paid for in the previous FY). He estimates that tax revenue could be a little more than last year, because the CPI is now 2.7%, up from 1.5% a year ago. Since this is a non-assessment year, the assessed valuations should not change. The Board was asked to think of items they would like to add, reduce or remove from the new budget, and they can pass them on to Donnelly as he works on the draft. AGENDA ITEM 8 Unfinished Business Credit Card Acceptance Donnelly presented proposals from Gravity Payments and T-Sync.

3 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 3 M/S/C (Cohen, Hinderliter) unanimously to sign a contract with Gravity Payments to handle credit card acceptance at the Library. Strategic Plan, 2012 Donnelly and Hinderliter presented cost estimates for some of the public relation projects proposed for inclusion in the Plan. The third draft of the Plan, which includes these projects, was examined. M/S/C (Kelly, Durham) unanimously to adopt the draft of the Strategic Plan for AGENDA ITEM 7 Committee Reports Public Relations The programs noted in the Strategic Plan were discussed as part of Old Business before the vote on the Plan. AGENDA ITEM 11 Next Meeting Date The next meeting of the Board will be on 5/16/12, at 7:00 p.m. in the Meeting Room. AGENDA ITEM 12 Adjournment The meeting adjourned at 8:52 p.m. Terrence Donnelly Recording Secretary Janet Harsh President

4 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 4 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 7550 Lohmeyer Ave. St. Louis, MO April 18, 2012 Closed Session to discuss matters relating to litigation, legal actions and/or communication from the City Attorney as provided for in Section (1)RSMO. Donnelly first reported on the current state of the waterproofing repair project: a. We have begun the mediation process to recover our costs and have a meeting scheduled for 5/8/12. b. Diestelkamp Construction is in receivership and is no longer part of the mediation. c. Diestelkamp's bond company, Western Surety, and Bond Wolfe are the other parties in the mediation at this time. d. Western Surety has decided not to provide a contractor to finish the repairs and prefers to come to a monetary settlement. e. The City has completed laying the drainpipe along the South of the Library to the parking lot. This drain will eventually accept the drainage from the Library foundation on the North and along the sides. We have not been billed for this yet (the City is billing only for equipment rental and materials). f. Public Works Director Anthony Traxler will help the Library prepare an RFP for a contractor to do the work on the North (and hopefully help us select one and manage the actual project). In light of the impending mediation, Western Surety has indicated a wish to make a payment before this date and take themselves out of the mediation. Donnelly has been working with the lawyers and the engineers at Horner & Shifrin to determine the cost of the repairs, as well as any ancillary costs and damages (see breakdown attached to the Closed Session minutes). Our lawyers today delivered a letter to Western Surety demanding $300,000 in compensation. If Western makes an acceptable counter-offer, the Library will accept it, and enter mediation only against Bond Wolfe. Our lawyers have asked the Board to determine what they will accept in several different scenarios. After much discussion, an agreement was reached that the Board feels protects and compensates the Library and its taxpayers as much as possible while avoiding greater expense if the mediation process fails. M/S/C (Hinderliter, Kelly) that the Library will accept $175,000 from Western Surety before the mediation, ending the case against them. Cohen Durham

5 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 5 Harsh Hinderliter Kelly Schorr Shoemaker M/S/C (Hinderliter, Kelly) that the Library will accept $88,000 from Bond Wolfe before the mediation, or that Donnelly is authorized to use his best judgment in mediation against Bond Wolfe alone. Cohen Durham Harsh Hinderliter Kelly Schorr Shoemaker M/S/C (Hinderliter, Durham) that the Library will accept $175,000 if both parties are brought to mediation. Cohen Durham Harsh Hinderliter Kelly Schorr Shoemaker Donnelly said he would pass on these figures to their lawyers. M/S/C (Schorr, Shoemaker) unanimously to end Closed Session and return to the Public Session.

6 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 6 MAPLEWOOD PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES 7550 Lohmeyer Ave. St. Louis, MO April 18, 2012 Closed Session Supporting Notes Project Costs source demand will accept Repair Costs Re-do North side H & S estimate Questionable Yard drain on N H & S estimate Protection & Restor H & S estimate Contingency (20%) H & S estimate Out-Of-Scope Costs Drain on S. city 2500 Tie in to N H & S estimate Damages Consultant fees actual invoices totals Repairs actual invoices $88,533 Loss of use lawyer estimate Total Repair costs: the actual cost to correct the job. I consider this part of our bottom line. 2. Questionable: a. the yard drain might be considered out of scope, since H & S has added a second drain, but the sump drain was improperly installed and needs to be corrected, so I consider this also part of the bottom line. (In addition, the excavation of the site to correct the defective work would likely destroy part of any pre-existing drain, so MPL s argument is that it needs to be restored regardless.) b. Protection & Restoration might mean just refilling and regrading, which is part of construction, but it might include landscaping, which may be out of scope. I recommend accepting a lesser figure. (Would also add that this category is not itemized in the estimate (and also not completely predictable), so may be a realistic point of contention by the parties.)

7 Minutes, 4/18/12 p. 7 c. a Contingency of 20% is industry-standard, but may be too much to demand; I recommend accepting a lesser figure. 3. Out Of Scope a. Drain on the South wasn't part of the original plan. The City has done it for us and will bill us for equipment rental and materials ($2500 is an estimate). We should be willing to drop this figure. b. Connecting the foundation drains to the city drain could be considered either inscope or out-of scope. I recommend we be willing to drop this figure. 4. Damages: it is not likely we would be reimbursed for all of these. Bond Wolfe is most liable for them. a. Consultant fees: it can be argued that some of these fees relate to out-of-scope testing or design work and would not be allowed. (another argument might be that a portion was prepared for litigation/dispute resolution, such as WDP s opinion letter). b. Repairs: I'm not sure how much would be allowed. c. Loss of Use: very hard to quantify for a non-profit; probably would not be allowed. Recommended Strategy: 1. Give Western Surety a chance to give us a check before mediation. a. If the amount is acceptable, they can be removed from the litigation. b. If it is not acceptable, we continue to mediation. 2. At mediation, a. if both Bond Wolfe and Western Surety are involved, demand the whole amount. b. if only Bond Wolfe is still involved, demand the difference between our original amount and what Western Surety paid us. 3. The Board must decide what their bottom line is, from Western Surety before mediation and in total at mediation. 4. Any of the parties can reject the mediation settlement. If that happens, we must decide if we want to pursue binding arbitration (we can't sue them, under the contract). a. This can be very expensive and time-consuming. b. We must accept the final decision of the arbitrator. c. We would almost certainly get only a small part of what we demand. d. This could also cause further delay in retaining someone to complete the remedial work. I personally consider it most important to get the cost of the actual foundation repairs paid for. We haven't had to take out any loans or put off any major expenditures. While I wish we could get back all we paid out, if the repair costs are covered, we don't take on any long-term damage if we don't get the other costs reimbursed. That said, if we can't even recover the full costs of construction (if Western Surety questions some of the estimates, for example), I would still settle for what we can get, to avoid costly and uncertain arbitration and to get the project finished and move on.