Jackson developer disputes work with city

A misunderstanding between a developer and the city of Jackson that started more than two years ago has turned into in a heated feud.

A developer who says the city reneged on an informal agreement has presented a $148,075 bill for materials and wages to the Jackson Board of Aldermen for work he did in preparation for a sewer project along U.S. 61.

"I feel like I've been conned," said Ron Clark, the Jackson developer.

The city says Clark's claims are baseless, according to a position statement issued during Monday night's board of aldermen study session.

Mayor Paul Sander and city administrator Jim Roach say the city never made an agreement, informal or otherwise, with Clark on the sewer project. They say Clark acted on his own, the city cut off negotiations with him but he continued working anyway.

"If he takes legal action, that's his right," Sander said. "We're not going to pay him a penny. We feel like we owe him nothing."

Clark admitted at the study session he never had a signed document from the city instructing him or awarding him to do any work.

Clark, of Clark and Sons Excavating, owns several acres of property on U.S. 61 where R&K Construction of Festus, Mo. -- after submitting the lowest bid -- ultimately completed the sewer project for $302,000 this year.

Developer's story

Clark's account of events is this: The city struck a deal allowing that, if he were able to obtain easements from adjoining property owners, the city would award him the sewer job on the condition that Clark and Sons would not charge the city for labor. The city would pay for materials and purchase Clark's easement for $52,075, as outlined in a draft agreement drawn up by the city and provided to the Southeast Missourian by Clark.

In order to live up to his end, Clark said, he had to negotiate with the property owners to get them to grant easements. Roach said the city had no knowledge of Clark doing this at the time.

For negotiation purposes, Clark said he tore down houses and did other construction jobs in return for easement commitments. Once the easements were obtained, Clark said the Jackson Board of Aldermen agreed to give him the job.

Roach and Sander say no agreement was reached because nothing was put in writing, but Jackson Alderman Joe Bob Baker said he thought the city indeed led Clark to believe the job was his.

"I don't think it was a situation where city staff led him on intentionally," Baker said. "I don't think either side set out to do anything wrong. Things just got messed up."

According to minutes from a May 2 aldermen meeting, the board voted to authorize staff to work out an agreement with Clark on a sewer project.

Clark said that once he thought he had a go-ahead from the city, he began to clear out woods for the sewer's path.

An official with R&K Construction confirmed that many trees had been cleared when that company arrived to do the work.

Once Clark cleared the area, he performed rock tests on the property with a piece of equipment called a Trackdrill. The city paid for the one-day rental of the machine, which cost $811.

Clark said he performed the tests and submitted the results to the city. Roach said Clark was asked by the city to conduct the test with a city employee present to make sure of the accuracy of the tests. He said Clark did the tests on his own on a weekend.

An invoice document shows city engineer Dan Triller's initials for approval of the equipment rental.

Shortly thereafter, the city notified Clark that the project would be bid out.

Unclear cost

According to the city's position statement, "among the problems of concluding this arrangement with Mr. Clark was the fact that the city was unable to pin Mr. Clark down on the cost of the project to the taxpayers."

Roach said Clark was inconsistent -- that the developer kept coming up with new and more things that would be needed for the project.

Clark says the reason he kept coming up with different cost estimates was because the city kept adding to the length of the sewer. Clark's last proposal was for $119,147.93, according to a document provided by the developer that was dated Jan. 28, 2002. About $6,000 was added as a possible contingency cost if extra hauling were required to fill in holes left after blasting.

Roach said Clark was encouraged to bid on the project and would have almost certainly gotten it because he could have done the work on his own land and done it more cheaply.

Clark said he didn't bid on the project "Because if I re-bid it, I'd be saying we never had this deal and my cost for obtaining the easements would've been wasted," he explained.

Prior to the failure of negotiations, Clark said he wasn't going to charge the city for clearing the land and the costs incurred while reaching deals for easements.

The city argues that it shouldn't have to pay Clark for improving his own property. In the position statement, it said "Mr. Clark has benefited in excess of $100,000 as a result of the city's installation of the sewer extension within Mr. Clark's development at no cost to Mr. Clark."

Clark said he was prepared to run his own sewer line on his property -- in a different direction -- for $25,000 to $30,000. He also added that the city did not provide any place to hook up to the sewer.

Clark and the city have tried to work out compromises but to no avail.

Clark said he has no immediate plans to sue the city. He said he has received some legal advice from a lawyer, but has not hired one to represent him. He said he wants to keep the discussions in the open. Under Missouri law, city governments can discuss legal issues in closed-door meetings.

bmiller@semissourian.com

243-6635