MOPR'S 11/19/01 LEVEE CMSN MTG MINS
Notes: None. Present: See below.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 1 of 17
DC: I already took the roll, so all present & accounted for. (Pledge Allegiance) Have any additions or deletions to the agenda? (they approve the agenda & the mins of 8/20/01 & 10/15/01) Discussion items for this mtg:
Item ( Phase) 2 update - I don't know whether any of you's went by or noticed, but the uh levee has been graded; the erosion problem solved; the grass is planted; & it's comin' up; & it really looks good. I looked at it 2 or 3 times & it really, really looks - I guess with the little water we got on it, the fella was supposed to come water it; I don't know whether he did or not, but it really looks good & came up nice. Guys did a very good job I think on it.
JZ: I got a couple things to mention on that. One is that under this contract, the uh contractor's come back next Spring, apply herbicide if any more Crown Vetch comes up & take care of the _ _. & the second thing is uh, the city has agreed to cut grass on this levee & all the Item 3 levee, but I think that's just great, uh - DC: that will_ _ - JZ: keep from happening looks like that on the other levees.
DC: Another item I'm gonna have to be takin' care of pretty quick up there. We haven't determined whether it's a beaver dam or a muskrats, but they're building a big uh dam uh in, in front of the outlet inlet structure on the det pool. CLM: Do they have a permit from the COE? (they laugh) DC: They don't have a permit; no they don't. I went over & checked; none of 'em have a permit. I've gotta be in contact with the Conservation Dept tryin' to find out what we can do with 'em, & I haven't heard back from 'em yet. I didn't want to go up & destroy this den or anything because I'm afraid there might be some people around that, you know, goin' on about it. But as soon as I get with the Conservation Dept, we'll either get somebody in to trap the muskrats or uh, I don't know if they relocate or what they do with 'em, but he hasn't got back with me yet. & then we'll tear it up. Quite a hugh thing! ?: _ _ _ _ _ ? DC: Huh? ?: Where was _ _ _ ? DC: I don't think this is a beaver dam; I think this is muskrats. They cut all them uh, crap in that uh little rushes & stuff , put 'em in the reeds that we have _ _. You can walk out on 'em _ _ _ . But Item 2 is movin' along very good. ?: _ _ _ _.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 2 of 17
Item 4B update (Phase 4B) - I don't really have anything except maybe Jim can give us some idea, maybe a clearing contractor goin' on. JZ: I don't know if we've been thinking about that, um haven't, haven't yet. Uh, kind of depends on what, what the timing is for the uh, for the main contract 'cause we can't clear after uh Oct 1st. We just have _ _ Oct 1st, maybe Sept 1st or Oct 1st, we can clear the contracts awarded in Nov which we think is about the right timeframe. Then perhaps we ought to include that work with a major contract. Uh, we're still considering what we should do about the clearing contract.
EM: Jim, you & I discussed the fact that the bd had authorized me to seek out bids for uh hardwood. JZ: Right. EM: Maybe elaborate on that. You had a biologist that indicated that he thought - JZ: Uh, ok, as part of our process to get the 404 Permit extended, you know, from, to uh Dec 2002, there is uh, a coordination from our regulatory office to other agencies. & uh, one of the responses was from the (SHPO) State Historic Preservation Offices, saying that they oughta just, they oughta clear the uh, archeological architectural uh survey of the g/p. CLM: Phase 1? JZ: They didn't say Phase 1 or what. CLM: They usually do. JZ: Uh, they didn't say.
& so we're looking back at our, our records of coordination with the SHPO, ok, which, which we did coordinate quite a bit over the yrs, uh back in the 80's, we had an env'l assessmt & a find of most inhibited impact did mention, you know, the g/p, some, some info about the g/p in those, & the SHPO came back from MDNR, a letter that didn't really say ANYTHING about the g/p. You know, they talked about other things that we needed to be looking at. So we're, we're in the process of sorting out uh & communicating with the SHPO, but in the interim, uh this, you know, the biologist who's involved, doesn't think it would be wise to go out there & start cutting down trees & knocking over trees & dragging them out & possibly damaging g/p doing that when we have this correspondence from the SHPO.
EM: However, biologist, you indicated was excited because he thought there was hardwood trees with significant value. Is that - JZ: That's what he said. & I don't know whether your timber people have looked at that & got any response from people like that or not, but they - EM: Well, I'm just waiting for you because I was unsure of the scope. When, when we last discussed it, you indicated that you didn't want the entire area timbered. You wanted to leave some -
JZ: Well, ooh no! You are waiting for me because you need a footprint - EM: Right. JZ: where we think the trees need to be cleared & they don't, you know, obviously, they don't need to clear all the way over to the Meramec River, so we kept the g/p uh area of g/p where the levee's going thru. So yeah, you should, you should wait for a footprint from us.
CLM: This is separate from the final logistics of the bats in the cage? Is that the same volex? DS: They're gonna find very few hardwoods in there, if any 'cause I can't remember seein' any. DC: It was timbered out oh, '84? EM: '94. (Thruout this discussion, a few talk at once.) DC: They had a contract to go in there & timber & cut all the _ _. & you can, if they go down there & look, you can see that's why most of all that, a lot of that is on the ground where it's been cut. If somebody went in Oct & looked at it, I - JZ: Was that done by the city? EM: It was the landowner. DC: No, it was the landowner I think timbered it out before he sold it to the City VP. JZ: & it may not have been a good idea, but, but I, I _ _ _ hardwood timber. ?: Who's the biologist?
RW: The city stopped that - EM: Yeah, because he didn't have a permit & I think he went ahead & pretty - by the time the city had stopped it, - DC: That was pretty much too much, too late; he had cut marketable timber I guess was in there, outta there & it left it in a mess! ?: _ _ _ _ _ ? DC: Huh? ?: _ _ _ _ _ ? DC: Oh yeah, well, he just dropped what he wanted, & the other stuff, he just let lay. ?: Who is the biologist?
DC: If one of the biologists or one of 'em would like to go out & take a look at it, let me know & I'd be glad to go over there. ?: equipmt runnin' over stuff & draggin' it - DC: We could go over there & take a look at it. JZ: He was trying to be helpful & __ timber & help the city earn some money _ _ that wood. DC: Right; I think it would be a good idea, but like I say, you know, we've got a city, before they go into any contract, they gotta make sure they got, these people are liable because if they go over there with any kind of equipmt to get them trees outta there & that; that's a dangerous place over there! JZ: Right; I'm just pointing out, we want to uh, see if we can, see what we have to do about this SHPO before we uh, before we uh, anybody gets in there & does any -
11/19/01 Levee - Section 3 of 17
DC: Probably the most important thing to do is to get somebody out, get us out here & get it started on this uh, bat, uh, markin' them bat trees & everything so we can get that - JZ: As far as marking the bat trees, the uh, the, this, the biologist in, in our, in our civil eng'g (rahl?), his name is (Ken Delner?) I think. DC: That's the biologist? JZ: Yeah. They were out looking at the bat trees, & what should be potential for marking bat trees to be cleared, selectively cleared & he felt that there were so many trees that, potential bat uh, nesting trees, that it would be unwise to mark 'em all & cut 'em down individually; it'd be much uh more efficient to cut down all the trees at one time. So we were thinking - DC: Oh, ok - JZ: in terms of cutting all the trees down. ?: Right. DC: Well, that would, you know - JZ: handle that problem, rather than just selectively. So that's, that would be the direction we go, if we go that, that route this Winter.
DC: Just have a completely clear, have a complete clearing contract - JZ: Right. DC: before April 1st. JZ: It would cost 'em more money to mark all the trees - DC: Oh yeah! JZ: & cut 'em down, than it would be to cut all the trees down, so - DC: Oh yeah! I mean you've been out there & you've seen the, the # of dead & rotten trees out there. There isn't much in that g/p that really is worth anything because all of it is mostly dead timber & everything else. There's a lot of brush in there, but -
11/19/01 Levee - Section 4 of 17
JZ: Um, I was asked - well go on - I mean we, I was asked by the chief (RW) here about potential of the city still having an emergency road coming around the outside of the levee & getting back up, going underneath Hiway uh RR bridge & perhaps under 141, coming back up on, on _ _ _; & we're looking at that. Uh, one thing I was asked to get was the uh, distance between the wheel base. RW: The truck - JZ: the longest one I suppose. RW: 210. JZ?: 210 ! Really? Wow! JZ: You bring that truck around the emergency rd? RW: That one more frequently than the other one. Single axel, that's the one that runs the interstate calls.
JZ: Then they're looking at a ramp, you know, that, the latest thought is that you would come, you said over uh Kena, & just not have to, not have to come over the levee there, but come along the river where it'd go under the uh RR bridge, under 141, come up in the area of the uh, of the eng'd fill; come up a ramp there & then you'd have 7' on the top to make a turn & come back down the other side where the other side is a 1 on 3 slope. You would come down a ramp obviously. RW: Right. JZ: That's, I mean that's the concept that we're lookin' at. RW: So I guess the way I gather here that the contract that we let on this next phase some time after Dec, 2002, that -
JZ: Our expectation is that we have uh, we have an expectation of when all the real estate will be acquired for this & all the uh HTRW studies will be done & so forth & we'll be in shape to advertise the contract. & basically, all we've taken a position that takes about a yr from the time that we provide the ROW to the cmty, but that's typically what happens with the COE. We provided the ROW requiremts & drawings & certain drawings to VP in August, so we're thinking that in August of next yr is about the time we'll have all the - that's our projection of when everything will be done.
If Eric thinks it could be done sooner than that, uh & if that's the case, then we have the advertisemt, you know, we have to give time for them to prepare bids, 'cause usually it's open bids, & award the contract & we're looking at November. That's been our schedule; that's our estimated schedule for awarding the final contract.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 5 of 17
?: That's Phase 4B? JZ: 4B, which would make uh, just mixed, couple of _ things_ _ construction. CLM: How many days you anticipate? JZ: Um, on most schedules, about 2 yrs, with, with potential for uh, that we would have actual protection in 2 yrs & then uh, so that'd be April _ _ of 2004 & then usually with a contract, there may be things over to the Spring, just check out the turf, make sure that uh everything is in good shape, so the actual completion of the contract would be - DC: Spring, 2005? JZ: Right.
CLM: I think it's important when people ask that question, that everybody understands that you tell 'em that the protection will be completed _ _ _ - JZ: Well, that's alright. There, there, there are quite a few things that has to happen between now & award of the contract & then actually complete const. CLM: Too many times, people will just use the final completion date, not knowing that that involves a lot of piecing up of odds & ends, actually you're actually not protected.
DC: We got a lot of ground work to cover before, even after the land is acquired & everything when we start tearin' out the g/p. That's gonna be part of it. JZ: It's gonna be part of operation. We have to have a plan for a fixed time. Eric's well aware of this uh, during const, we have to have a plan for uh, containing the runoff from the g/p material as we excavate it, stockpile it & place it. ?: (rogertondit?) JZ: So there's, there's a lot that's gonna be involved in the const of it. DC: We've got a lot of relocations left to do then in some areas. Any other questions on 4B?
11/19/01 Levee - Section 6 of 17
As you see from my uh mtgs, you have a uh report here of, progress report, uh the modifications & that on uh 4A will be done on 4B, to the gate structure that JC & I'll be takin' care of in that contract. So we'll be uh,doin' several things on the levee. We've got some on 3B, we've got a little uh drainage problem around one of the catch basins on the land side of the levee down by 5th, uh Leonard field. Better stay away from the cage _____ come out & I guess look at that. I don't know whether they've been out, whether they just had 'em out here yet or not. I was down with Vic & he looked at it, & then he got the cage - JZ: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. DC: Yeah, they really don't know what's wrong, but there's some kind of a problem that it's goin' down. We don't know whether the pipe slipped or whatever; I don't know. JZ: My understanding, they told the contractor they need to pump it with a sump pump. DC: Right. Vic said he'd see if he got Kajacs up, he'd give me a call, but I haven't heard anything from him. Ok, moving on.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 7 of 17
Item C, city cost share for the project & TPC. EM: Uh, before we get there, let me, let me go back a little bit, Dave had touched on uh the uh the RELOCATIONS. I can bring the bd up to date what's going on so far.
Um, the uh pump sta over off of Kena is currently being designed, & that's ___ 5/4, design has to be approved by MSD. So that would be relocation #1; we're estimating the cost of 350 - $400,000 on that, uh, depending on the, the pricing out of the hardware; uh, the uh, land is an extra; then it looks like we'd be able to have a lot into Pharoah that'll satisfy the use for that. We of course already own the ROW, uh between Kena & River Rd & that's where our access road is going to be that we discussed. So we've acquired the, the new emergency rd entrance or exit, I guess depending on which way you're coming.
Um, I, I guess as we get down the pipe, depending on what sort of usage uh is envisioned, we'll make the next step decision whether or not to, to hard surface that road or not, but I think at this juncture at any rate, we're, we're just thinking it's gonna be crushed road banks, uh, but uh - DC: When they get this access road, is this only gonna be access for emergency or is this going to be something that's open to the public? EM: No, it'll be public road because that's your access to the baseball fields down at the uh, Johnny Mac's. DC: But are you gonna let it be access all the time, back over underneath the RR bridge or -
EM: You know, I don't know & it's up to the bd of ald. I, I, I would think that we've gotta keep it open uh until such time as uh, somebody gets the go-ahead to, to purchase all the properties there in between the RR bridge & the access road, 'cause those peole have some right to, to obviously get to their properties. You're lookin' at uh - DC: You mean the houses? EM: Yeah. DC: Right. RW: Well, once the levee goes up, it's gonna be closed off. That's what you mean? - DC: Right. EM: Well, it's gonna be closed off from one side! DC: Right.
EM: Uh, the other thing that's going on is uh to the west side, down old 141. I, I think I've mentioned before that, that SWB has some fiber optic cables in a, a vault & I believe there's a, it's a 6-chamber vault. I, I don't know how big it is or what it looks like, but by (waldeg?), they're talking about some sort of concrete meter & then there's chambers in this, in this big vault. & the, the wires go thru it in conduit fashion. Obviously you can't build a levee on or around it. There are manholes uh, uh currently on the uh land side, that, that still exist in order to svc it; uh & there's gonna ha, be a, have to be a manhole on the, the river side for svc & somehow it's gonna have to be uh, some, some sort of water tightness & it'll have to be built inside. Um, at any rate, what they're going to do is crush this, this vault & uh lay the, the lines just down on top of each other & build the levee on top of this. & then once the levee's complete, they'll snip it off & go ahead & run it over. Uh, we are still discussing cost; as you all could imagine, when you're screwin' around with the phone co, it's real expensive to, to uh splice all these fiber optics.
Um, the road is a public road. We will be vacating that public road & it's my contention of course they will have the right to be on a private way. Uh, but, but we're still getting to that point; we, we haven't gotten any bills or anything else from SWB on that aspect of it. Um, we're getting pricing on uh water. We, we think water lines are gonna be about $38,000 & of course, as you could imagine, the water is really only serving uh a limited # of properties down on River Dr, together with the baseball fields. Uh, there are no sewer relocations. Uh, Union Electric costs, while they're probably expensive compared to the other relocations, it won't be that much simply because we're talking about raising uh cable, electric wires. Um, the, the only other one that I'm, I'm really aware of is Sprint. & I, I think Sprint is pretty much the same situation.
DC: How about the gas line down on Pyramid? EM: Oh yeah, I, I forgot about that & that's a main ah gas line. DC: That's a big one. EM: Um, they're, they're trying to characterize what the point of that gas line is. We think it's the main trunk. Uh, &, & it should be able to come up & over. I, I don't think there is any way it could go underneath, if I'm not mistaken. Talking to, to uh, Pat Conroy about it because it's a, it's a void kind of thing; it's not filled with, with, with anything. You know we're all working with, with Laclede Gas & we have yet to hear anything from them on costs.
But I, I'm estimating total relocation costs will be under 3/4 of a Million Dollars, & hopefully, uh they'll be under a half Million, with the major ones being the MSD lift sta; & doggone it, there's just no way to get around that, that devil because uh, there's just no way! You gotta, you've gotta have both lift stations in place, uh, &, & we, we know the lift sta outside the levee probably will fail uh of its own accord because it's not gonna have enough waste to generate, to, to keep it wet. So it's gonna dry & burn out, but that's, that's kind of why it's a waste. Um, &, &, & frankly when that happens, I'm not sure how those people outside are going to uh, have their waste pond. I, I haven't heard an answer. We may have to install individual pumps. I don't know if it's gonna be our problem or not; we haven't heard back from MSD. DC: This won't be an MSD pump station, will it? This will be oper - EM: (laughing) Well, if you pay for it, but yeah, it's, it's MSD. DC: We won't be in charge of operating under - EM: No, no.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 8 of 17
JZ: Just a general statemt about this. Uh, Eric is providing info on real estate costs & potentially you know, some all of you didn't approve of some new real estate cost estimate. & uh, you know at the same time, we, we need to uh just get a, a good overall estimate of real estate costs & utilitiy, & utility relocations, tentative relocations, but that could, that's gonna impact our TPC - EM: Sure. JZ: & impact the cost sharing.
EM: Sure. I, I guess I - JZ: didn't finish - EM: I'll, I'll bring it up tonight that, that the city's submitted all their costs up thru 1999 I believe for, per predrick process; & the reason we're doing that is, is to determine how much money that the city is obligated to pay the COE, uh in cash. & if in the best uh, scenario, & that is the COE accepts our prices, our appraisals, uh that have been submitted, we'll end up owing the COE another Million Dollars, & that's an awfully round #, but it's a Million in cash, over the 2-yr plus life of the project. Uh, do you want to go into the $20 Million? JZ: Well I'm going to. I was waiting _ _ _ _.
EM: Ok, alright, um, the, the way the process works is, I, I deal with one entity called a real estate office, & they, they have to take a look at all the appraisals that we've had, all prices we've spent, & all the, the fees that have been generated in getting those appraisals, & buying the properties & relocation costs & everything else. Then they come back & they'll, they'll give us um, I guess a semi-official uh - JZ: There, there''ll be a letter, a memorandum signed by the Chief Real Estate & me, you know, when we finally, when we approve the ledger. &, & it'll, it'll say these are approved subject to final audit; that's what it'll say.
EM: At, at that point, we'll have a real good idea of where we are, the city is. We know what land we have to, to get; we have a good estimate on what that is. The only thing that's really up in the air would be exact costs, would be total relocations, & we won't know until we get final bill utilities. But the other unknown out there is the extent of the acceptance of our costs &, & what that is, what impact that's gonna have on the project itself & whether or not we have to come up with more money as a result of what we've submitted. Obviously I'm trying to target the, the minimum amt here so we don't spend any more money, other than things we prafes. Now Jim, has his own problem - JZ: Right. EM: which becomes a city problem.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 9 of 17
JZ: Right. Alright, just to, just to finalize that, I mean, we have a, we have official project cost estimate as of last August, last August, & when we have a revis, a revision to the lands & relocations costs, you know, that'll, that soon that'll raise that part of the project cost & that can cause reductions in the, in the cash contribution requiremt which is all 4 areas. So that, hopefully that whole picture will be coming together some time in the next couple months.
Uh, as far as my own problem, this deals with federal & sponsor funding for FY 2002, uh, let me, let me give a little, a little background, uh, so you understand. In 1981, this project was authorized. Actually a project for the Lower Meramec River was authorized, it was authorized to study, the Lower Meramec River from St. Louis & uh, Jefferson Counties. & in that language it said, we will uh pro credit no more than $20 Million for the levee. CLM: An estimated authorized cost. JZ: Uh, so, so - CLM: It's federal, federal cost. JZ: Federal, a limit on the federal funds of $20 Million in that language of authorization. Um, subsequent to that, there was a, a major study done of the uh, of the Meramec in St. Louis & Jefferson Counties. & they looked at many communities, I'm just gonna say 20 communities or more, for a potential uh flood control projects & found really only one, which is VP. That planning effort involved about $1.2 Million, but it's not assigned to the VP Project. But it does count against the $20 Million limitation.
So um, in 1999, & I'm sure Tom's well aware of this & maybe was involved in drafting of the language - CLM?: pretty much. JZ: Uh, Congress referred to the old law & said uh, the authorization, or the federal expenditures is increased to a maximum of 35 Million IF the Sec'y of the Army determines that the project is uh (1) economically feasible, (2) technically sound & (3) env'tly acceptable. So there's a proviso as far as the uh the increased $35 Million federal cap. Uh, I think that ball was cast right around Sept, 1999 I believe. TH: Ordered in '99. JZ: Ordered in '99. Uh, in Dec of '99, I became project mgr in Oct of '99, in Dec of '99, we um wrote a letter to our division office uh making the case for the fact that the project was economically justified, technically sound, env'tly acceptable. & um, we referenced the pri__requipment had gone forward to have a whole bunch of economics. So the economics stuff they, anyway. CLM: _ _? JZ: It was Dec of '99.
Um, our division office really wasn't satisfied with what we had in our report being sufficient. Uh, they, they sent us a letter & I gave a copy of this to Eric, in uh April of 2001, indicating what they wanted us to do, uh, to satisfy them to be fwd'd up to the (ASA) Assistant Sec'y of the Army to make a determination. & the thing they asked for was an eng'g documentation with support. CLM: Who did they actually _ _ _? EM: Well, you mean, Eric has the - CLM: The eng'g documents - JZ: COE's requiremts from the division was pretty specific about what they wanted in there, ok. I can get you a copy of the letter if you really want to know. But they wanted um, updated economics because the previous report on economics was 1999, so everything was 2 yrs old.
So they wanted new costs, new benefits & new benefit cost ratio. They really didn't say much about what they wanted for uh to show the project was technically sound, but we had to show that. & then they said they wanted some recent env'l coordination documented to uh to show that the project was still env'tly acceptable. That's generally what they asked for & they wanted us to put it in the form of an eng'g documentation report which had a specific format.
So the first, I don't want to get in, this is taking an awfully long time, but the first step was we had to finish our design because at that particular point in time, we were in the middle of a design of the uh Item 4B & tryin' to determine what to do with the g/p material & the most cost effective way of handling it & coordinating with MDNR, etc. & St. Louis County. So, we, we had to finish the design to develop a cost estimate & we did, you know, we did that & we had the cost estimate in something like July from what I recall.
Um, & then this is, this is where I've got the problem, um at that particular point in time, I was only looking at project funds & I wasn't thinking about the $1.2 Million Dollars that they were gonna spend on the planning effort. EM?: Eureka. JZ: for the study of the whole Meramec area of the overall. So that's, that's where I ran into a problem 'cause I thought we had plenty of federal funds that we weren't really walking up against this $20 Million limit. But I was going thru this process in the Summer. But as I got into preparations of the report, uh, the place where it's discussed is in the old Economics Report & so I found & I saw it again.
& I realized we are very close to the $20 Million cap. ?: 35. JZ: No, the $20 Million cap, we haven't got approval to go to the (someone coughs) Million. CLM: 'cause you gotta include the 1.2 Million they spent studying the whole area. JZ: Right, so, so uh, the situation as of today is, we have this fund from the city which they provided uh, a cash contribution was A Hundred Thousand Dollars & you have, you know, we have some federal funds & those funds will take us thru approximately the middle of December.
_ _ _proceed in the court, which we of course have been planning to do. So what I've asked Eric is, if the city would provide another $50,000 in cash contributions which would take us to the middle of January, ok.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 10 of 17
Now what's happened is this eng'g documentation report is prepared, was sent to our division office in November, signed by the Colonel, & uh, the division reviewed it & currently we're in preparation of it. So soon as we finalize this, have the Colonel signed it, division office was, was uh satisfied with the report & they fwd'd it to headqtrs, like & you know, saying that they got it, like _. So it's in headqtrs informally & division is, has gotten it in the mail & they're doin' their formal course of events to send it fwd to uh headqtrs. But in any case, headqtrs received it informally.
The normal review process, I don't - what we'd like to do is give them 30 days at headqtrs & 30 days at ASA to look into this & get the Sec'y's determination. Which would take it, if they sent it on 11/9, they'd have it in headqtrs roughly 12/9 & then ASA, who you have to send it to approximately 1/9, & hopefully with that kind of a review time allowed, they could get this reviewed & get the secretary's determination, that therefore it frees up the federal dollars.
So that's why I've asked Eric to provide another $50,000 from the sponsor to allow us to have this, this review of the headqtrs & uh ASA mobile. CLM: But you really gotta take at least 2 wks out of that 60-day period _ _ _ _ _ _ _. JZ: Well, & I mean I've also talked to Eric about the fact that in Jan, there will be potentially add'l funds available, uh at the end of the yr for this project because tax receipts come toward the end of the yr. So there's some potential for add'l funds as well. But I've asked for the 50, I think the 50 is uh, it's very important & uh, it would just allow us to handle the uh, review of 2 of the parts of the approval by the ASA in a more orderly fashion. CLM: Who's head of this division, Jim? Tommy uh - JZ: Tommy Shaw. CLM: Tommy Shaw. Joe Reese in the peace office? JZ: _ _.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 11 of 17
EM: On, on the city's side of it, as, as you know, we are pretty much at the end of our agreemt with the school dist, altho they are aware that we're gonna need add'l money to, to finish 4B & our cash contributions. Um, we're at the end obviously of the calendar yr for our TIF & we do have limited resources in the TIF, altho I think you'll have $50,000 left, you know, to, to uh pay out. We, we currently have uh, before disbursemts, uh on, on the school, right around $109,067, &, & we get money in months late, uh thru uh sales taxes captured in, in the TIF. So we'll have enough there.
Uh, I didn't put it on the bd's disbursemt request because this was new stuff, but I'll, I'll bring that up tonight. Um, we should have a new bond issue in place by early March I'm hoping, uh, or, or April. I've been waiting on the COE & I guess the COE uh indicates they're only a wk or 2 away with giving me some, some data that I need to complete my submission to the COE. Uh, so, so that's where we're at. JZ: Yeah, I again appreciate 50,000 from the bd of ald.
TH: See I was under the impression that when they got the debt ceiling on it raised, from 20 to 35 Million, that was done, that was a done deal & that was - CLM: That language they put on, the 3 criteria, that's automatically on everything the COE does now. It's part of the congressional approval for almost anything. It has to be technically sound, economically feasible & env'tly acceptable. TH: Wow! Well isn't - CLM: It's kind of an after-thought really, I mean there's no special significance. TH: Isn't it already technically sound & env'tly __ble? CLM: Oh yeah! It's just a question of doin' the paperwork, gettin' the package together & gettin' Thee Division satisfied & action of the people that you thought was movin' the paper thru the - TH: So basically, right now tho as we're talking, the cap is still at 20 Million? CLM: Yeah, they actually cannot exceed the 20 Million federal expenditure. TH: & they're comin' close to doin' that & you should, & with the extra 50,000, you should make it into Jan you say? JZ: Right. CLM: Yeah.
TH: Well, we certainly got a lot of - I, I don't know what the Levee District's gonna do, but we certainly have to get uh - I was under the impression that that cap was already there, it was a done deal. Uh - CLM: Well I knew that in the language on, but I didn't realize it was gonna become an issue tho. RW: _ _ _ what a yr & a half ago? ?: The guy that raised it 2 yrs ago really. CLM: but it was subject to those 3 conditions.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 12 of 17
EM: You know I do have a question. It's this, um, we were really authorized in one retrostek, 1986 I believe, uh, &, & it was thru a deauthorization of the Meramec- ?: in '81. EM: Oh '81, I'm sorry. CLM: That was the overall study of the Lower Meramec with the provision that no submissions, including a dam - EM: That was the recon end of it. CLM: That was the authorization. That's what this is - JZ: The project was authorized before there was this money. CLM: This project has been difficult to - EM: I understand, but our - CLM: with all respect to Congress. EM: but our particular, the levee project, was in the Water Resources Act of '86 & then we were funded in '92 -
JZ: Let me tell ya, in 1981, the study of, er the works along the Meramec River in St. Louis or Jefferson County were authorized & funded up to $20 Million - EM: Right, & that was the warning system. JZ: No, it's anything that's done & there was really no, no specific description of what this $20 Million would be spent for. So the next step was for the COE to do a General Design Memorandum, in a planned formulation effort, to put out a report, in uh, I believe it was 1987 that described all the studies of all the different communities they did along the Meramec River & also the overall warning system. CLM: One project in Pacific, one in Arnold & one project, a warning system, St. Louis County, the VP Levee. & the other 3, Pacific, Arnold & St. Louis County, all said we're not gonna be the local sponsor. So there was only one that came out with a local sponsor.
EM: & that's the point. There was no local sponsor for them for the warning systems that were generated by the recon. But, but the problem I've having with this is that... (exchange tapes!) ...EM: ... you're telling me that's lies. JZ: Well, no, let me just explain more. The part that gets captured in the VP Project, due to the cost share, is uh, does not in, use round #'s again, it's about $1.5 Million spent on this study effort, ok, for the whole region. & they took some # like 250,000 of that & said that applies to the VP Project & that is in your cost sharing part - CLM: yes it is, cost sharing. JZ: so you're not cost sharing anything on the planning study, the remainder of the planning study, which is about 1.2 Million, but on a (level?) of 1.2 Million - EM: That's still counting on the 20. JZ: counts against the 20 still. TH & JZ echos: It counts toward the cap.
CLM: Jim, let me help out. I was involved with Congressman Bob Young & staff about getting that language in there. It was kind of a throw-away. They wanted to deauthorize Meramec Basin Projects. Bob Young wouldn't agree to it unlessen they threw this in & I helped him draw up the language. The way the language was written, Tom & everybody here, the $20 Million was just a # they pulled out of the air, with no intentions of it ever becoming a hard & fast #. But the way the law was written & the way it always is, is whatever's spent for everything from day 1 under that authorization, comes out of the 20 Million cap. Now later on, because we, we basically, our project historically grandfathered back to that 1981 authorization. That's why we're only paying 25%, instead of 35% local share; 'cause the '86 wording changed the cost share into 86%. So we convinced the COE, & the Congress ok'd back in the 80's, that they would let us be grandfathered so we only have the lower cost share as far as this project's concerned. But this project was never specifically authorized by the Congress. It grew out of this general authorization.
EM: Deauthorized, when, when the Meramec Dam was deauthorized. CLM: No. When the Meramec Basin was deauthorized, this study was authorized, but it didn't authorize ___; didn't authorize anything except the study. & as a result of the study, this popped out as being something that was feasible, that early examination stage, & had a local sponsor. So the COE pursued it just like it had been an authorized study even tho it never really was authorized specifically.
& we've had difficulty at every step of the, you leap one barrier, go to the next one. Chief's office & the Sec'y of the Army's office always came back & said, 'oh you can't do that'. _ _ _ being overruled, better go round. But we're still stuck with that 20 Million, but all I want you to understand it, that 20 Million at that time in 1981 when Congress stuck that on there, I've been involved with congressional authorization going back to '69 timeframe, they just pulled a # out of a hat that the COE gives 'em. Nobody expects that # to be hard & fast. Nobody understands that it's gonna take 20, 25 yrs to build one of these ultimas, & by that time, the fish will drive the cost up & you go back to the Congress & get it changed, which is what we did with Congressman Talent & Tom's help & Senator Bond on the Senate side.
So we got the # changed, but the boiler-plate language & the change authorization include these 3 criteria. & at that time, I didn't anticipate that it'd be dragged out & be a problem. What really caused the problem was 2-fold: One is everybody realized that we had to include the 1.2 Million against the 20 Million, which surprised everybody; and secondly, was the fact that we couldn't respond to the division's request for an update on the economics, they denied our #'s, because they had to come up with the design. So there was nobody at fault for causing the delay, it's just that's the way it comes out.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 13 of 17
We're at the point now, where everything has been sent to Washington, the chief's office. & if you don't mind, Jim, I'll touch base with Tommy Shaw in division - JZ: Tommy's already fwd'd the report to the people. I would say that at the COE level uh, all the way thru the top of our office, are very much interested in this & trying to expedite - CLM: I want, I want to talk with Tommy to find out what Joe Reese in the Washington office has to say. TH: Could, could these be cons, are these the same as - CLM: Joe Reese is the guy with the tambino in Bond's office.
TH: I know. I know. I know. Um, are these the same? Could this 1.5 Million, & I'm, I'm hope, I might be ignorant here, are they the same as like pre-sump costs? You know what I'm talkin' about? CLM: Yeah, yeah. TH: What about the possibility of tryin' to get these pre-sump costs waived? CLM: Uh, it would be more difficult than getting this approval. See VP's not having to cost share the whole amt. TH: Right. CLM: The COE just - TH: Right. It's counted toward the cap & that's what's killin' us. CLM: Yeah, but see once - it'll be easier to get the cap approved. This, this is a paper exercise really & all we gotta do is just get the paper to move. & we, we know the key players at each level that includes the Sec'y's office.
TH: Yeah, but with the holidays, it's not gonna move; I don't expect to have this done by 1/9. I just don't. CLM: It'd be even more difficult to get the 1.5 taken out. Because the way the law is written, uh, it'd be very, very difficult, Tom. TH: Ok. CLM: If I thought we had a chance to do it, I'd be knocking on the door asking to help. TH: 'cause I'm told that's been done on other projects before. CLM: Well, this is a little bit different type. You said sump costs & I said yeah; it's not really the same. TH: Ok. CLM: 'cause this is, if you can excuse my language, this is a bastard authorization & it grew out of a deauthorization legislation. I've been arguing about everything involving VP's project since then to the Washington office.
TH: Well now, if we don't, correct me if I'm wrong, Jim, if they don't come back & get this approval taken care of by uh Jan, work stops on it, right? JZ: Well, the first step would be I'd go back, I mean Washington's going on of course, I would come back there & just say, 'how, how is the uh, revenues coming thru for the city as far as add'l revenue by the end of the calendar yr? Not that this next president _ _ , can you make more funds available for the project, you know, in January?' That'd be my first trip. CLM: It also doesn't affect the contractor being able to come back & sue the COE for damages.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 14 of 17
JZ: We are, by the way, we are in a good situation in that all of our const work has just been essentially wrapped up except coming back to spray herbicide, & _ _ _ _ - CLM: This is a good time to have the delay. JZ: Well, we don't want a delay, but for - CLM: Of course it's not really a delay in const, is what I'm sayin'. JZ: Well, we don't want to have a, it's, I was gonna make that point, but uh you know, we think that const of the levee is extremely important & critical. We, we understand that & we'd like to not do anything that hurts the critical path & get that project awarded. TH: & right now we're looking at a 11/02 award. JZ: That's our estimate. TH: Ok, yes we certainly don't want that date to slip.
CLM: I'll go speak to Tommy Woods. TH: Ok, well, I mean I guess I'm just here to try to offer - CLM: No, if I run into - TH: our office's assistance on this. CLM: If I run into a problem with Joe Reese, or he indicates there's a problem in the Sec'y's office. & I think Jim Smize's gonna be the guy in the Sec'y's office signing off on it - TH: Uhuh. CLM: same guy that attended that mtg with Bond. If that's the case - TH: Alright. CLM: then I may be asking for some help, but I don't anticipate this being a problem. Biggest problem I see right now is to mediate January time fixin', 'cause everybody takes off. TH: That's my concern, but that's when we need an approval from, by both chief's office & ASA's office.
CLM: Oh, by ASA? TH: Right, but we got, to get ASA, we gotta get the chief's. CLM: But I'll take the chief's office first & the Lt. because that's boiler-plate language. There's nothing really, it's - TH: Is it up at the chief's office? CLM: Yeah, it's in the chief's office done by e-mail with normal mail following it. TH: Ok. CLM: This is routine boiler-plate language & uh, I think division was crossing their T's & dottin' the I's, uh in order to ask for money from the gov't because if they hadn't, I'm convinced the secretary's office would have. So it's good that they do I suppose.
11/19/01 Levee - Section 15 of 17
JZ: I have one more item to mention. You brought up last mtg about the river guage. Uh, I talked with Don Coleman, he's the guy that handles that for the COE. We talked about the possibility of putting this river guage on the RR closure structure as a potential location. He mentioned that this typically is a box that's like 4' x 4' x 8' as far as the siding is concerned, that they would put on a levee or something like that. I certainly don't think they want to put 'em on top of an embankmt, put it on road, in a compartment next to a RR, ok.
Uh, basically, what Don said is that there's a temporary guage & evidently the uh Nat'l Weather Svc asked you to take it off & not use the one on the, on the, uh, under the bridge. DC: Alright. JZ: & that there's a temporary guage near the RR bridge. There's a potential for having a guage at 2 locations. There'll be one, you know, he told me one would be constructed on the final location on the levee after it's constructed so you will have the automated guage in place prior to the levee being constructed. & that typically, the COE uh, COE program pays for the installation of the guage, the installation of the equipmt which may cost 15 to $20,000. So evidently you would pay that you know twice; we haven't figured a percentage on it.
He said that uh, the maintenance of the guage runs about $10,000 a yr & uh, you know, generally, the COE is trying to cost share those paymts, possibly. There are many, many guages, in fact basically almost all guages are not cost share, but paid for, paid for by the COE's program. But uh, just something uh initiate the thought about what the city needs to - ?: What's the cost share? JZ: cost sharing. JZ: Well, it's about 10,000 per yr for maintenance percentage. ?: Percentage? JZ: I mean that would be the thought - he's thinking - ?: 92. ?: 82, 80. JZ: Uh, he's thinking maybe the city would pay for all the maintenance, ok, of the guage. ?: $10,000 a yr? JZ: But, on the other hand, maybe, maybe the city would pay part of the maintenance. So I mean he's just throwing out the idea.
EM: I'm sorry; if it's cost shared, isn't there, there's no set formula? JZ: This is not like a cost share project. This is kind of a, a program where the COE - ?: eyeball - JZ: uh, installs equipmt or river guages & typically, uh, I think it might be GS that does the actual maintenance. DC: Do what? JZ: Which, there's another agency that does the actual maintenace of - CLM: _ _ _ - DC: I think so. JZ: Yeah, it's not the COE. DC: It's not the COE. I think it's - JZ: Typically, the COE pays them to do that, U.S.G.S., but uh, you know they're tryin'' to move toward cost sharing if that's possible, & uh, just tossing out the idea that maybe the city - CLM: _ _ _ _charge (he chuckles). JZ: would be interested in putting some money into the maintenance of the guage 'cause the city is certainly very much interested in having the guage right there in VP that's automated.
DC: Now does Don think it's feasible for us to put one in right away, or wait - JZ: He thinks it's feasible to put it in & maybe you have to move it then. DC: Right. & the idea of puttin' it in the RR is not a good one? JZ: Not right on the RR structure 'cause we were hopin', we were hopin' that maybe if we put it some place where we could _ _ _, it could be there permanently. DC: Right. JZ: Unless there's another location that I'm, you could work out that's not right at the RR itself. Uh, too close to the RR, trains that are going thru that opening. I don't think the RR would agree to that.
DC: No, I would, I would, when after when I talked to Don, & this, about relocating it, we have a structure down on River Rd at about, I guess it's maybe a block, below, & I really don't know what it was, maybe Don Smith could give us idea. That old concrete structure that sits down there along River Dr. DS: Well. DC: It's an old well house. There's nothing, they don't use it anything, for anything any more. DS: No. DC: Uh, I've, I've looked at that for 2 or 3 times & I'm probably gonna call Don Coleman & ask him to come out & take a look at this thing. This is a huge structure, uh that maybe it is would be a place that we could uh, uh you know, revamp or do something to & put this structure on this uh this structure that's down there right now. I mean it's been down there & it's went thru the floods. I mean you know, it's been there for yrs, hasn't it, Don?
DS: Let's see, 85? DC: I mean it's, it's went thru, it's went thru the floods & it's uh, but I'll, I'll call Don now that I understand what he's talkin' about & I'll call him & maybe I can have him come out & we'll meet down there some day & take a look at this thing & we can maybe uh get some more idea on that. I think _ _ _ _ (someone yawns loudly).
11/19/01 Levee - Section 16 of 17
TH: On uh, the federal funding, uh the House conference, or the conference before the Energy & Water Appropriations Bill which funds these projects, came out of conference, which basically is to work out, when the House & Senate go out & work their final version, uh, it came out in VP uh, with the recommendation that VP receive 1.2 Million in federal funds this yr for const & that was the full capability. So we got the full capability. Yeah! The House has approved it & uh, I don't, that was about 10 days ago, I don't know if the Senate has taken it up yet, or if they've approved it. Uh, I've e-mailed Senator Bond's office, but they're pretty busy. Uh, & I don't know, but once the Senate approves it, it's just gotta go to the President's desk for the signature. JZ: It's been signed from what I understand. TH: Oh, it's been approved & signed? JZ: Right. TH: Well, great! So we got the money.
JZ: We uh, we did a savings & slippage on it; & they've subtracked the percentage out of there. TH: A savings & slippage? CLM: 15%. JZ: Across the COE's program, they've always reduced the amt that's actually appropriated. CLM: OMB does that. JZ: & uh, we got one, we got a Million zero zero - TH: Every yr they do this? CLM: Yeah, historically, the COE does not use all the monies that it gets appropriated for all the projects. TH: Is it just in the COE or is it, is it projects all over? CLM: Everything. The COE's a little different. They handle it a little bit differently because of the way the COE does business. TH: So you're, so you're sayin' like last yr, with our 1.4 Million I guess that we got, we didn't get - CLM: The district - TH: 1.4 Million? We got a savings or slippage of 15% taken off? CLM: They usually take between 8 & 15%. TH: Well, if that's standard & happens every yr, that's fine! That's the first I've heard of it, but yeah. JZ: Standard, we, we have, it happens all the time _ _ _ _. TH: Oh yeah. CLM: I'd be very mistaken if the COE doesn't anticipate losing that amt of money they come up with typical. TH: Ok, that's probably __, but - CLM: _ _ _ _ _ . DC: Does that cover C & D?
11/19/01 - Levee Section 17 of 17
JW: _ _ ask. How many cmte members are gonna be able to attend that 12/17 that's kind of a holiday close time there. I'm not gonna be able to attend. So I just wanted to check & see if there's anybody else that has plans. DC: Would you like to not have the mtg in Dec? RW: I'll take a holiday break. DC: I, I don't think we really have that much really - JW: I mean if we - DC: right at this time as far as const -
?: In other words, you're not gonna be here & (they all laugh) CLM: Dave, why don't you propose that the cmsn vote on termporarily suspending that mtg date subject to something coming up which could - DC: Right. CLM: which possibly could be handled by telephone? For all ___ & purposes, there'll be no mtg unless - JW: I move in that direction. RW: 2nd. DC: I have a motion to uh, curtail the mtg in Dec 17 unless something important comes up & we'll be contacting each member by - CLM: to counter date in Jan as far as motion. JW: Yeah, I'm goin' to the next scheduled - DC: Ok, Jan. JW: move to _ _ _ _ whatever the date is. DC: I'll put the date on the one we send out in Jan for the mtg in Jan, same time, same place. (They vote to & adjourn.)