Do what’s right, not just the least costly

There’s no doubt the New Prague City Council will do the right thing in cleaning up the mess caused by its decision and the contractor involved in razing the house north of city hall. After waiting two weeks for a response from the Minnesota Department of Health, the city will move swiftly to work with the Department of Health and a state-certified asbestos contractor to ensure the site is remediated to standards of the Minnesota Department of Health.

You can bet Steve Roiger, a neighboring property owner, will make certain it will.

The city recently razed the house because it didn’t keep it in a condition its insurance company would cover. The house was built in the early-1900s. It’s probably not a big surprise the structure was laden with asbestos. Even if asbestos is in a house, it is usually not a serious problem, according to the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission. Information online indicates asbestos was used frequently as early as the 1920s through the 1970s in a long list of household products. City staff indicated it was aware of the presence of asbestos in the house.

The city decided the contractor it selected to demolish the house, Deutsch Construction, the lowest responsible bidder, was a better option than taking care of mitigation itself and then allowing a contractor to handle the proper removal and disposal of the asbestos. But it turns out the contractor hired apparently didn’t have the proper license but rather relied on the landfill where the product would be disposed for the proper licensure. This should not have caught the city by surprise.

The house was razed with one of Deutsch’s employees watering down the structure in an unsuccessful attempt to keep dust from spreading. The inadequate amount of water being used, along with a breeze, allowed asbestos to spread to neighboring properties.

The Minnesota Department of Health has confirmed what Roiger was concerned about. Now, Roiger wants to make sure his yard is safe for a grandchild to play in. The city has indicated it will take care of the cleanup to the Minnesota Department of Health’s satisfaction. Assuring Roiger of that and then standing behind it is the least the City of New Prague should do. Anybody disagree?

The point here is going for the lowest price is supposed to be the best value for taxpayers. Bids and quotes are awarded to the lowest responsible contractor. It works out most of the time, but not always. It’s always easy to say what the city should have done. Knowing there was asbestos in the building, should the city have required the house be thoroughly doused with water to the point of it collapsing under the weight of saturation? Should the city have had an inspector on site throughout the demolition work? The city says its SOP is to inspect the property before the demolition and again after it was demolished to make sure no debris was left behind.

Hindsight is almost always 20-20.

Moving forward, the city ought to make sure it is doing things right and not just inexpensively.

Value includes looking beyond the lowest price. The city got by for years renting the house based on a gentleman’s agreement rather than based on terms in a legal contract. So-called gentlemen’s agreements should keep a city’s legal counsel up at night worrying about what could go wrong.

When New Prague’s insurance provider notified the city council it would no longer provide insurance coverage of the house, the city was fortunate the occupant readily found available housing, sparing the city the notion it was evicting a senior citizen from a house because it didn’t spend the money to properly maintain the house.

So, for now, the city needs to make sure the properties adjacent to the house it had razed are not tainted with asbestos from the house formerly at 208 Central Ave N. The city can then address the issue with its demolition contractor.

This is a chance for learning on the city’s part. Hopefully, the issue will be worked out amicably and everybody will walk away happy, or at least accepting the final outcome.