It is currently Sun Jun 24, 2018 6:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 33  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:51 pm 

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm
Posts: 1315
Pegasuspinto wrote:
The 2nd of the competing bids

Hint-compare all 3 bids to see what is included, and just as important, NOT included, in the various bids.



The Inland Environmental contract does not say who will receive the intrinsic scrap value of the locomotive and rails. The contract addresses those items merely as materials to removed and disposed of without acknowledging any scrap value of those items.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:04 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am
Posts: 524
Thanks Robert!

I skimmed through all three proposals; all three respondents expected to scrap and remove the locomotive, tender and track. The winning proposal includes this line:
Quote:
"Inland will provide demolition of train and the rails and removal from the property."
Non-winning proposal #1 included these lines:
Quote:
"Scope of work for the demolition includes.... Process the metal materials from the Steam Locomotive by cutting them into smaller pieces, haul off and recycle including railroad tracks. Demo the railroad ties, haul off and dispose as weathered railroad ties at a landfill licensed to accept these materials"
Non-winning proposal #2 includes these lines:
Quote:
"demolition of the train sections and removal of the train tracks from the train.... Dismantle where possible and demolish remaining train structure.....remove train rails


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:08 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 420
Location: Minneapolis, MN
In all of these proposals it looks like there is an ASSUMPTION that the city gives up ownership of the locomotive to the contractor for whatever value the scrap has. I say ASSUMPTION because there is not specific language conveying ownership to the contractor, only that the contractor will "remove the train and its tracks", nothing being said about returning to the City the moneys realized as scrap .

The scrap value is apparently taken into consideration in the Inland quote. The other proposals apparently do not take the scrap value into consideration in this way. However, in all of these proposals the locomotive is expected to no longer be a locomotive but a pile of scrap.

The problem is that the locomotive is not actually disappearing as envisioned by the city and Inland. Regardless of how the locomotive "disappears", the city has, by implication, given title to Inland. If Inland has a legally binding contract, and it certainly appears that it does, then whether it "removes" the locomotive by scrapping it on site or contracts Jason, et. al. to "remove" the locomotive is immaterial.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:33 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 359
hamster wrote:
In all of these proposals it looks like there is an ASSUMPTION that the city gives up ownership of the locomotive to the contractor for whatever value the scrap has. I say ASSUMPTION because there is not specific language conveying ownership to the contractor.


Well, there is this on page two of the AAR proposal dated November 6, 2017. It is the last item under the heading "Assumptions":

"Demo contractor has all salvage rights."


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:36 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 498
IMHO-I'm not a lawyer, yadda yadda

all of them imply the removal of the locomotive

#1 doesn't give any recognition of the value of scrap, or even recognize it will be scrapped, only disposed. It could just as easily be a pile of concrete or lumber that actually costs to dispose of. No title was transferred. If the city chose to cancel the contract, they would at most be on the hook for the $23760.

#2 doesn't give any recognition of the value of the scrap either, but they DO retain salvage rights. No title transfer.

#3 also gives no value on the scrap,and they do not specifically retain salvage rights. No title transfer.

I don't know what to make of the part where Inland's bid comes in at less then 1/3 of the price of the other two. I'd like to know more about that discrepancy.

My take on it is the city can stop the work and simply pay the bill, and since it wasn't outlined as part of the compensation, the scrap value is meaningless. I think that's pretty much what the city already said the other day.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:08 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1702
Location: Pottstown,Pa.
The paperwork now in the public domain clearly shows;

1. The long winded speech by Councilman Doucet proclaiming that the City had not made " any decision" regarding the future of " train 503" was clearly untrue. Either he knew of the agreement with Inland Environmental and was outright telling a lie or the City Manager had done all the work and agreed to the contract without informing the Council. As the latter is very unlikely the former appears to be the case.

2. Inland was willing to take the $ 23,760.00 cash PLUS what they could get for the 503 as scrap as enough compensation to make it a worthwhile effort.

3. Inland moved its equipment onto the job site and was about to begin the scrapping phase when Jason&Co. intervened. They had already done the initial asbestos work and would have accomplished the scrapping phase in a very few days and then proceeded with phase # 3 ( site clean-up and soil remediation).

I would hope that at tomorrow nights Council meeting it will get worked out that :

A. Inland has a valid contract from the City that allows them to satisfy the part of the contract that calls for the "removal" of the 503 from the site however they deem best.

B. The City will honor its contract with Inland and once the 503 is gone, the site soil is remediated and the other provisions have been fulfilled will promptly pay in full any remaining funds needed to bring the total paid to Inland to $ 23,760.00

C. In return Inland will agree to transfer ownership of the 503 to Jason for $ 35,000.00 and assist as needed in getting the locomotive loaded for shipment and on its way.

My sense is that the biggest danger here is that Doucet will grandstand and try to find a way to abort the Inland contract and figure out a way to keep the 503 in Port Arthur. I hope I'm wrong and that it goes smoothly and the whole thing is put to rest tomorrow night.

We'll soon see. Ross Rowland


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:27 pm 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 359
A little preview for tomorrow night. 503 is in Bryan Park, which is in District 4, Councilmember Doucet's district. Former Councilmember John Beard is from District 4 and is somewhat of a gadfly. A quick use of the site search feature on the Port Arthur News website shows he is still very active and vocal on various issues. He was on the local TV channel a week and a half ago opining on the situation with 503.

http://kfdm.com/news/local/port-arthur-city-officials-make-deal-to-scrap-historic-train


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 8:32 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 5:19 pm
Posts: 1702
Location: Pottstown,Pa.
Sad to say it but he's right in what he says about the under handed way the city did the deal with Inland without any public disclosure.

Hopefully the whole thing won't blow up at tomorrow nights meeting but it might.

Keep our fingers crossed for a happy ending.

Ross Rowland


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:22 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 420
Location: Minneapolis, MN
I really don't think there was anything underhanded going on. The city manager had discretionary authority to spend up to $25000 before having to get permission from the council. Inland knew that and made their proposal exactly the right size. Remember, Inland's business is scrap, not environmental remediation. They fully expected to remove the locomotive, scoop out the contaminated soil, replace it with relatively clean soil and be done. They did not need the certifications that the other companies have because they don't bid on complex environmental cleanups.

Frankly, Jason did everyone except the locomotive a disservice by stepping the middle of an otherwise straightforward deal.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:25 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:19 am
Posts: 5419
Location: southeastern USA
Not underhanded - just perhaps a lack of foresight about potential backlash from emotional reactives who cared not at all until they got a platform and decided to care after the fact. Where were they when she was rotting away for decades?

Probably given the bigger picture, the city manager believed - and not without reason - he was finding a way to eliminate a potentially costly liability for the city without great expense when they have so many more pressing needs to fund after the storm. Had the citizens done anything to maintain the locomotive, or even to pressure the city to do so, he wouldn't have made what only became a mistake in retrospect thanks to local media creating an emotional hook to capitalize on to build their own audience.

I feel for the city manager - who did pull off a low cost remediation of a liability very competently. I don't feel for the citizens who have convinced themselves to start caring now - and if they get her to remain, their level of care will drop quickly and precipitously thereafter, and after paying a lot more for the same job. In another decade she'll be a rusty neglected park hulk again.

Jason and Nick have almost pulled off something never done before and deserve respect and thanks no matter how it turns out. And, I hope it turns out in steam in Florida or anyplace else it will be preserved and used responsibly.

_________________
"Techies never minded eating bits and jots of their work. They were grit and grease inside and out and could turn a pile of junk into a magical kingdom."

Andrea Hairston


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:12 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2010 11:43 am
Posts: 498
hamster wrote:
Remember, Inland's business is scrap, not environmental remediation


you might tell that to their webmaster. I think he got the wrong idea.

http://inlandenvironments.com/


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:13 pm 

Joined: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:51 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Interestingly, the winning Inland bid does not specify the number of pieces the locomotive must be 'dismantled' into. Removing one cab window frame, for example, 'dismantles' the locomotive into two pieces, and likewise taking off the tender tank lid 'dismantles' the tender as well. So long as Inland does that, I don't see how they could be in violation of their written contract.

Nick


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:03 pm 

Joined: Sun May 15, 2005 2:22 pm
Posts: 1315
After looking at those three competitive bids on demolishing and removing 503 from City property, and considering that one had been accepted and the work begun, I had to go back and again watch Councilman Doucet’s speech last week. It is here: http://portarthurtx.swagit.com/play/02272018-1226/14/

He says this at the opening:

“Council did not make a decision on whether this train will remain in Port Arthur or leave Port Arthur; or whether it would be demolished. …So we never really made a decision, contrary to what you heard and what you read…”

He says that you can always tell when the Council makes a decision because it must be made in the open. Therefore, because they never voted in the open, they never made a decision.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:36 pm 

Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:27 am
Posts: 471
Location: Winters, TX
That is true, but then again there was never any need for the council to make a decision. The city manager handled the contract without the need for the council's approval.

Curious that none of the documents mention the state mandated March 6 deadline.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Trying to save the 503
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:48 pm 

Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 12:41 pm
Posts: 420
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Pegasuspinto wrote:
hamster wrote:
Remember, Inland's business is scrap, not environmental remediation


you might tell that to their webmaster. I think he got the wrong idea.

http://inlandenvironments.com/


I should have written "PRIMARILY scrap". It is obvious that Inland is NOT in the same environmental remediation business as either of the other bidders.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 486 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 ... 33  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bartman-TN, Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Jdelhaye, Jennie K, LeoA and 60 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: