After almost a year of protests against a $250,000 consulting contract with the Veolia Water North America, the controversial company has decided not to do business with the City of St. Louis, according to Mayor Francis G. Slay’s representative who spoke at an aldermanic committee meeting on Tuesday morning.
Slay’s office spoke with the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) on Monday about taking on the role that Veolia would have played – improving the functions and efficiency of the water department – said Mary Ellen Ponder, the mayor’s special assistant.
However, Slay’s announcement did not stop the Ways and Means Committee members from approving a board bill, 5-2, to officially block the Veolia contract.
This month, Slay angered both city aldermen and environmental activists by claiming that the board had approved the Veolia contract when it passed the city budget in June. Several aldermen on the Ways and Means committee called this claim of Slay’s “insane” and “sneaky.”
To clarify any differing opinions on the legislative process, Alderman Terry Kennedy introduced Board Bill 216 on Friday to “unappropriate” $250,000 from the water division’s budget. This would force the consulting contract to go before the Board of Estimate and Apportionment, which has long been the standard process, he said.
Slay’s claim that the Board of E&A did not have to approve the Veolia contract caused a lot of confusion about the budget process, Kennedy said.
“There is still a larger issue that we need to look at,” Kennedy said. “Whatever we can do to legislate and make that process clear, we should do that. I would never want to see this committee and this board go back through this again.”
The Veolia contract has been criticized by aldermanic President Lewis Reed and the St. Louis Dump Veolia Coalition, among others. Opponents say Veolia Water, a French multinational and the largest private water services provider in the world, operates under questionable environmental and human-rights standards.
Despite Slay’s statement that Veolia does not want to do business with St. Louis, Reed and activists remain on guard. Reed said Slay may try to employ Veolia on a subcontract with MSD. He is not taking Slay’s word for it that Veolia has truly stepped away, he said.
“The Mayor’s Office is just trying to go around the process,” Reed said. “I don’t think they’ve given up.”
Lance LeComb, spokesperson for MSD, said MSD can complete most of the work in-house. However, when asked about concerns that Veolia could be a MSD subcontractor for the work, LeComb said he could not comment. MSD would use its consultant selection process for any outside subcontractor.
At this point, the agreement between the city and MSD is strictly verbal, LeComb said, and more details on costs and responsibilities will be finalized in the coming weeks.
In Ponder’s testimony on Tuesday, she said several times that the Veolia contract was “politicized” over the past year. Improvements to the water division have been held up by politics for too long, she said.
Alderman Antonio French responded, “You keep saying this is politicized. I don’t think the people out here are here for a political reason. This whole process highlights how this administration does not get along well with others.”
French said Slay disrespected the Board of Aldermen when he suggested that the aldermen had approved the Veolia contract – without their knowing it.
“The worse example was this letter to Comptroller Darlene Green, demanding that she sign the contract,” French said. “That’s not really how you get along with other officials. I hope the administration has learned something.”
In an Oct. 4 letter to Green, City Counselor Patricia Hageman, who is appointed by the mayor, said Green must sign the contract out of “ministerial duty.”
Kathleen Logan Smith, director of environmental policy for the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, agreed with French.
“The Mayor’s Office was poised to approve a Trojan-horse contract, and it would have cost the rate payers of the City of St. Louis an unknown amount of money,” Logan said.
Logan said she believes MSD is a good choice to complete the work because the district is currently under legal scrutiny. In June 2007, the coalition, the State of Missouri and the EPA filed a lawsuit against MSD – in part, because untreated sewage was flowing into the Mississippi River. In August 2011, the EPA announced a settlement agreement that calls for MSD to spend $4.7 billion over the next 23 years to eradicate over 350 sewer overflows.
Because of the settlement, MSD is being watched very closely, she said.
“It was shocking and encouraging that Veolia has decided to swim downstream,” Logan said. “It speaks highly of citizen involvement.”