Great.

I would like to call to order the meeting of the personnel and administration committee for Thursday, July 23rd, 2026 at 11 a.m.

Uh Madam, it is Madam Clerk today.

Yes.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Call.

Aldo Woman Clark Hubbard.

Here.

Altamet Aldrich.

Aldaman Devotee.

Here.

President Green present.

Vice Chair Call.

Alda Woman Boy.

Aldama Aldrich.

Present.

Present present present.

Yeah, we can hear you now.

Corin being present, I will entertain a motion on the approval of minutes from Thursday, July 9th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

My chair call.

Aldo Woman Boy.

Aldo Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Adamant Aldridge.

I don't know.

President Green.

Aye.

Or I vote.

By your vote, you sustain the motion.

With that, we have no board bills or resolutions for review, but we will go down to committee discussions.

First, I'd like to take up discussion item number three, because that does not need to be done in closed session.

If I could turn it over to her.

Thank you, Madam President, members of the committee.

As you may remember a number of months ago, you approved funding for renovations in 232 and 234 at the board, including remediation removal of the asbestos that was found in testing of the carpeting and the offices that do not include where the legislative assistants sit, but where one of our secretaries and some of the aldermen have offices.

During the course of a walkthrough, and um we hosted all of the contractors who are going to be doing the work.

Most of that cost coming from the fact that a new subfloor needed to be put down, which was around $6,000, but the total of that would be around $8,000.

Because as you know, we do have an extremely tight budget for fiscal year 2027.

And I had do have Kevin who's been working with me on the project from facilities here to kind of explain in greater detail the issues that were identified.

But I I did ask either facilities or the contractor to absorb the additional cost since it was our understanding in the committee's approval that the asbestos would be remediated and what's being recommended now is that it be sealed.

They indicated that they do think the option to seal the uh stuff that is not able to be remediated is safe enough, but it's basically kicking the can down the lane in terms of the fact that it won't be removed, which is what we've done in projects here in the past is is do a full removal.

Um so I think I'm happy to take questions now or pass it over to Kevin from facilities to explain, I think better than I can in greater detail, sort of where we are and how we got here.

Why don't we go ahead and pass it over to Kevin?

Um if you want to give us a little bit more detail detail.

Yeah, sure.

Thank you for having me.

Um the problem that we encountered was that when we had our site visit, the carpet layer and the uh abatement contractor kind of discovered that the substance that they use to remove the asbestos could potentially cause a problem with the backing of the carpet.

So another layer is needed between them to separate them.

It's not um it's it's really when we say encapsulation.

It's not um it's it's real when we say encapsulation, I think I think it's I think it's probably my fault a little bit for uh not explaining it or using words that I'm assuming everybody understands and maybe that and that's probably my fault.

Um but to make a long story short, we needed to just add a layer between the oil-based uh solvent that they're using to remove the asbestos so that it does not have a uh negative chemical reaction with the backing of the carpet um and cause it to kind of roll up on its corners.

Um the the process by which we're we're going to remove the asbestos is the same process that we use majority of the time throughout throughout City Hall.

Um, and it is perfectly safe.

Um, building like this, we always kind of assume that there's you know, asbestos pretty much everywhere.

If I mean not everywhere, but you know, there's there's gonna be asbestos on most jobs.

Um still don't know if I did a great job of explaining it, but uh so we have we so Rick Ernst, the commissioner of facilities did uh say that we would find a way to pay for it uh since your uh budget was from 26.

Um trying to think if I mean I don't know if I can explain much more.

If you have questions, I can definitely answer them.

Okay, um any questions from members of the committee.

Uh Alderman Cohn's not here, Alder Woman Clerk Hubbard, uh Alderman Aldridge.

Did he drop off?

Alderman Devode.

No questions.

I guess just the question I have is so when they were when they were bidding on this to figure out what the project scope was, there was not a walkthrough that was done.

There were individual walkthroughs with um with the asbestos removal and uh and the monitoring.

So there's two different companies, one that removes the asbestos, one that monitors that company while they're doing it, so that we know that that it's being done you know the right way.

And these two companies work together, you know, they they do a lot of our work here at City Hall because we have a contract with um PEE, which is Bill Pietro Virgo, and um so they did not realize so the carpet company, which we kind of used a bid that um, I don't know, Christine might be able to tell me more about this, but we had received a bid previously, and so we were using that bid.

Um, and I think that there was just a little bit of gray area as far as them knowing what the solvent was that that um Thornberg was going to use to remove the asbestos, and the when once they found out they said, okay, well, that might be bad, you know, because it might make our the backing of our carpet you know react negatively.

Um so the solution is to put a a layer of basically a chemical break in there so that the chemicals don't combine.

Okay, and you said that facilities will be able it will be able to find funds to pay for this.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so we don't need to make an action to appropriate more money.

Maybe that's a director and gracia question.

Yes.

So um just to clarify the amount that facilities has offered to pay would include the encapsulation process and not include the full removal and remediation.

Um, I also neglected to let you know that there are if you want to look in the drive, the bid um from the contractor that lists that it would be the asbestos would be removed and not encapsulated is in the drive, as well as some communications on the topic and the testing that we did in March.

Um to that let us know that the asbestos was there.

So I guess what the committee needs to decide today is whether or not um they want to accept facilities offered to pay for the encapsulation if they want to request that um and I I did try on my own that facilities or the contractor either individually or shared absorb the cost of the option to have the asbestos fully remediated in a new subfloor put down, or if the board is going to take something from another line item for fiscal year 27 to pay for um full remediation removal.

Kevin, did you have something?

Yes.

So this is this is my my uh my fault again.

So when we're saying encapsulation, we can use that in two different ways, right?

Encapsulating just means to wrap something up so that it's so that it can't be exposed or or subject to touching anything else, things like that.

So we're not what we're not we're encapsulating, is not the asbestos.

The asbestos is being removed, and then what we're encapsulating is the the residue, the oil that is being used to remove the asbestos, we're gonna encapsulate that so that it does not touch the carpet.

So we are encapsulated.

There is two different forms of encapsulation here, and I'm obviously not doing a very good job of explaining uh the one versus the other.

Um but yeah, there's so what we're encapsulating is the oil-based solvent, I believe it is that is going to negative react with negatively react with the back of the carpet.

Okay, but this is the this is the option that we've recommended since the beginning before there was a before there was a who's gonna pay for it kind of issue.

Uh this is what we do most of the time, unless there's another reason to remove the subfloor and replace it, because you know, sometimes we're dealing with electric and and things like that in the floor that um, for example, we just did a job in 114 where we had to remove it down, and actually that was more about getting the height correctly correct to uh to match the existing.

Um but neither neither one of these options are going to leave any of the all other people or or anybody in the offices or anyone um negatively exposed to anything, much you know, much less uh asbestos.

I mean, that's it's not something that we take lightly.

Uh Alderman Devotee.

I uh uh I I guess I'm a blockhead because I'm I'm a little confused.

If I could regurgitate to make sure that I I understand.

So Kevin, what you're saying is that under your proposal, the asbestos will be removed and remediated as part of that process.

There is a particular kind of chemical is that is used.

Um there's a concern that that chemical interacts in a bad way with the carpet uh adhesive that might interfere.

So the encapsulation has to do with after the asbestos is removed, what you're encapsulating is the cleaning product, so that the glue adheres to the floor.

Is that right?

It's not really the glue, it's literally the backing of the carpet um that we're trying to not expose to that chemical.

So it's but but you're pretty much right off.

But but importantly, importantly, under your proposal, the current proposal, the asbestos is being uh abated.

And the the uh oh my goodness.

The the uh the the surface is being put down essentially to protect the carpet backing, but but there is no health risk, correct?

Correct.

What we would do in either in either circumstance would remove the asbestos down below the EPA's acceptable um limitation, which is very very little.

Um if we if we took everything up, uh, you know, that would be that would be great.

It would just be a lot more expensive, a lot more work.

Um, but it would be we're we're we're going under the EPAs of the tolerance for um asbestos in either one of the circumstances or up.

And under your suggestion, facilities is picking up the cost of encapsulation, correct?

Um yeah, I mean, that that's Rick Ernst is yeah, he he he was the one that I don't I don't have the you know the money, you know, he has the money, so yeah, he's under his suggestion, yeah.

Uh understood.

Thank you, President.

Uh are there other members of the committee who have questions before I ask another one?

Okay, I guess I'm just trying to figure out when we remediated from the chambers.

We completely remediated.

We took out the subfloor and uh and removed all of all of it.

So I I guess I'm just trying to understand why the difference in approach between what we did in the chambers versus what's being um uh asked for uh today.

So I did not have anything to do with the chambers um abatement, so I can't really speak to that.

Um but what I mean, yeah.

I I'm I don't really know if I can answer that very well because I don't know much about that other job um other than location, but they're both options, and this is generally a more cost effective option, um, but it's also a safe option.

Um I mean it's what we do more times than not.

Okay.

Um and director Ingrasia, can you repeat for me what was the if we did removal, what was the additional cost?

Let me pull that up really quickly.

Sorry, I closed the drive.

Um but it's around 8,000, I believe.

Um I guess the other option you could consider would be um whether the committee would want to take facilities up on the offer for the amount that they were willing to pay and have the board pay the difference.

Um is not an option that I suggested before.

Um trying to find the drive.

I apologize.

Here it is.

So eight thousand eight hundred and eighty-five dollars to put the subfloor down and then two thousand two hundred and fifty dollars um for the other process.

But but that would um it's not the eight, it's it's the eight thousand plus um plus removal as opposed to which was about a similar cost was two thousand something.

Um so it was about the same, but we there's no uh encapsulation needed because the whole reason for doing that is so the they can adhere together without that chemical reaction, if you if that's clear.

Um so in the one case it's it would be you know a little over 2,000 from uh the carpet company, and in the other case it would be a little over 6,000 from the carpet company and a little over 2,000 from the abatement company.

So not to split hairs, but it yeah, it's sorry, that was continuous.

If we did the encapsulation that would be covered by facilities, facilities would basically cover the 2200 whatever amount.

If we did full removal, it would be the 6,000 uh keeps timing out here.

Um six thousand nine fifty-two is what it looks like plus the two thousand and two hundred and whatever.

So we'd be looking um it was two thousand five hundred and eighty-five.

Sorry, I just found it.

Um from for the wood subfloor removal.

So we're either paying for removal and replacement or the the layer between.

Okay, so we'd be looking at like nine thousand five hundred something total.

I believe that's correct.

Um for discussion amongst committee members on um kind of which course of action.

either paying for removal and replacement or the the layer between okay so we'd be looking at like nine thousand five hundred something total that's correct um okay like to open that up for discussion amongst committee members on um kind of which course of action i thought i saw alderman yeah alderman cohn jumped on uh alderman cohn i don't have any uh quite i'm just catching up it's a few minutes late but uh i don't have any questions okay well i was opening it up for discussion more so we can determine which course of action we want to take the um either the encapsulation route that facilities would cover um that would not remove all of the would not remove the asbestos but would encapsulate it or the removal uh full removal of it which is what we did in the chambers but that cost would be a little less than 10 000 uh president green i saw him shake his head a little bit i think there might be some clarification yeah it's so we are removing the asbestos in either either situation okay it's just whether we have to encapsulate the chemicals that we're using so that they don't react with the carpet or whether we're removing the wood that has that chemical on it and replacing the wood okay that makes more sense to me okay yeah I I apologize I know that I'm not doing a very good job of explaining it and I apologize this is the first time I've been on anything like this so I'm a bit nervous but um this obviously is not our uh you know we don't do this we don't do asbestos abatement every day right right right so I apologize if I'm confusing everybody uh hopefully the hopefully it's clearer now than when we started but the difference is removing the subfloor or not essentially and either way the asbestos gets removed yes okay in your recommendation what is the safest there uh they're they're pretty pretty comparable to each other i mean um i there's uh maybe either way we're gonna be below the EPA's limit for for asbestos so it's you know and their limit is very very low um it's not it's almost nothing okay alderman cohn any further questions or discussion um i mean if if they both have the same outcome you know i would probably go with saving the money and doing whichever one is more affordable okay uh alder woman boyd to apologize for being late but is this for what area is this covering uh 234 okay part part partial to 234 yeah so some of the one of the secretary's offices and uh the alder people offices that are back there so not the not the new section that was just done for the LA's but the other section that was not touched during that renovation so where our offices are yes okay so it so I'm just trying to play catch up so the S best is where where is it located or where do they think it is or it's on the floor it is yes it's in the tile on the floor okay so it's in the town okay it's underneath the carpet where that's that's there now so our our our the threat is that if we pull up the carpet it might disturb the tile so that's why we're just we're gonna remove the tile to be okay you know and so both of what you propose was is doing the same thing it's the same result in the difference is cost and um the method of of removal um it's either way we end up complying with EPA standards.

Save the six eight grand.

Is Alderman Aldridge still here?

I don't see him.

I see Alder Woman Sanye is here.

Any questions or comments?

No questions.

I would probably just agree with Alderman Devotee.

Okay.

Then I would entertain a motion, I think, um, to just go ahead and do the encapsulation, the more cost-effective option.

So moved.

Second.

Second.

Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

I'm sorry, who second the motion?

The vote.

Matt and both Matt and A.

Yeah.

I I think I I heard Matt just a little bit faster.

Vice Chair Collin.

Aye.

Alderwoman Boyd.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Five I vote.

By your vote, you sustain the motion.

Um the next two items need to be done and closed session.

Um, so I would entertain a motion that portions of the meeting of the Board of Alderman's personnel and um administration committee may be closed to the public under provisions of 610.0213 and section 610.022 in order to permit the members of the committee to discuss matters related to the hiring, firing, disciplining, or promoting of employees of the board of aldermen.

So moved.

There are second.

I say second.

I'm on mute just holding the conversation.

Uh Madam Clerk, if you could please call the roll.

Vice Chair Collin.

Aye.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Aye.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Aye.

Alderman Aldridge.

Alderman Devotee.

Aye.

President Green.

Aye.

Five.

Director Ngrasia, did you have a question?

Anyone else can see it, but I just got a pop up on my screen that said the meeting was being transcribed.

So before we move into closed session, I just wanted to check with STL TV on that.

Uh I'm not sure if that has to do with the captioning, possibly.

I don't see uh any AI bot or anything.

I had that pop up when I first entered the meeting.

I think we just have to make sure that that transcription is off when we go into closed session.

I can turn my caption.

If uh you could if STLTV, you could please place us in closed session.

All right.

Um I think all members were present today.

Uh so I would entertain a motion to adjourn.

Foul mock.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Motion carries.

We are adjourned.