MOPR'S 3/18/02 LEVEE CMSN MTG MINUTES

 

Notes:  None here.

 

Present:    DC, RS, BL, JH, DS, RW, EM, JZ.  (per roll call).  JW arrived shortly after roll call.

 

I presume RC was present as usual.  Also present was Ed Harrawood, who owns #2 & 22 Arnold Dr. (aka #1 & 2) & #4, all on the south side of Arnold Dr.  Ed also owns #7 on the north side of Arnold Dr, between my  #8 &  Mr. McGhee's #6 which is next to Env'l Landscaping. 

 


 

3/18/02 Levee - Section 1 of  19

 

DC:  OK, we'll call this mtg to order at about 5:10.  Roll call:  RS (here);  RH (no response heard);  JW (no response heard);  BL (here);  JH (yes);  JK's absent.  Do you know anything about Jerry?  He said he was recovering from surgery.  JH:  He had a _ _ _ _ _ cancer of the kidney & had a kidney removed & he's doin' real good.  He had said he'd be back next wk.  But they said it didn't spread anywhere else.  ?:  That's good.   DC:  Don Smith (he's here);   RW (here);  EM (here);  JZ (here).  Let's all stand for the Pledge of Allegiance (& they do so). 

 

DC:  Do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda?  I have one addition here, we'll add on 7D.  We have a speaker card for Maureen Morris & Ed Harwood.  I'll put that under 7D. (They approve tonight's agenda.)  Item 6, approve the mins of, we already approved the mins I think of 1/22 (when?).  I, I, when I wrote this up, I forgot what we did at that mtg. 

 

Uh, 2/18 mins, uh did you all get a copy?  Did you get a copy of the mins for the 2/18/02 mtg?  Jeff, you have your agenda?    JW:  Yes, yes.  DC:  Did everybody get 2002 mins?  Any more copies of them mins, uh Eric?  EM:  Uh, yeah.  I'll give one to Jeff here.  Who else needs 'em?  DC:  Jeff.  JW:  Yeah, I got 'em.  DC: He's got one;  give one to Jim.  Bob's (!) got 'em.  Everybody had a chance to read 'em?  (A few make indecipherable comments.)  I'll give you time.  (a couple or so mins pause)  ?: (useabalkta?) center?  DC:  Yeah.  ?: Ok.  (a couple more mins pause & indecipherable comments)  JW:  That's right,  all those Millions.  DM: Yeah. _ _ _ _ .  RW:  I'll make a motion we approve the mins.  JW:  2nd.  DC:  I have a motion & a 2nd to approve the mins of 2/18.  All in favor?  (some or all do)  Ayes have it.  Item 7.

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section 2 of  19

 

Item (Phase) 4B update.  Anybody have anything on Item 4B?  JZ:  Yeah, I've got a few things, anybody else wants to go first, uh.  I brought a drawing along this time;  it's over there on the chair.  & um, the color coding is that uh, of course the river's in blue.  The part of the project that we've completed const on is in green.  & I guess the one part that'd be hard to see is that we've completed this closure structure from here down to the RR.   & then the part in yellow is Item 4B, the rest of the levee.  & it all, 4B also includes uh, relief wells which, you know, don't really show up on that drawing.  But 4B of course is needed to finish the flood protection for VP & until we get 4B completed, uh at least almost completed, uh we'll have no flood protection for the city.  Uh, & the g/p is shown in, in red there, just kind of a, a footprint of the St. Louis Glass Plant ruins. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  3 of  19

 

Um, the objective, I'm quotin', the COE & the city has been to award a const contract to, to begin Item 4B in November of 2002.  & I'm just gonna go thru uh, & then to get enough funds to really complete the const up to, uh complete the levee essentially for flood protection purposes in about, in about 2 yrs, so by November of 04.  & then we figure that, uh after, after that, there'll still be some minor work to be done that will take us into the Spring of 05 & maybe the Summer of 05 to finish up the levee.

 

CLM:  But you'll have the essential flood protection by - JZ:  November of 04 is the, is the objective & uh you know a schedule.  So want I want to go thru right now is um, some reasons why awarding the contract in Nov of 02 is questionable, whether that's gonna happen or not.  Um, & there's, there's a lot of different reasons, different KINDS of reasons. 

 

But the first one I'll mention is that um, you know, we, we have had this problem of getting, getting an increase in the uh federal limit to spend federal funds on the project.  There, you know, early-on, there was a limit of $20 Million & then in 1999, Congress passed a, a law saying that the limit was raised to 35 Million for federal expenditure if certain conditions are met.  Uh, basically, the (ASA), Assistant Secretary of the Army  has to make a determination that the project is still economically feasible & technically sound & env'ly acceptable.  Uh, we've been trying to go thru the process of getting that determination by the ASA for quite a while now. 

 

Um, I guess the good news is that this uh, report that we have sent fwd to, to our Washington office, our headqtrs office, in November, was reviewed & approved & passed from the chief of engr's office, to the ASA, which is one level higher.  But uh, but that's where it is now & we understand it may take you know wks & maybe even months before his determination is made.  So that's, that's the situation as far as uh, federal funds are concerned.  & we are essentially out of federal funds;  we're operating with only sponsor funds ever since the past Oct as far as designing this project & mtg the env'l re, requiremts, etc. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  4 of  19

 

CLM:  Jim, has _ _ _ _ meet with OMB has to sign off on the letter the secretary's gonna sign?  Has any action been taken to get word to OMB?  JZ:  Well, I'm - CLM: _ _ _ _  - JZ:  We were told that it's gonna take a couple of wks just to get it from the ASA's office over to OMB, &, & you know, the person who's involved, you know, was gonna be gone for part of a wk & - CLM:  Where, in the chief's office?  JZ:  In the secretary's office.  ?: _ _ _ _ _ - JZ: Just sign it.  Right.  So the answer is I, I really have, don't know about any word going to anybody except uh, the fact that it, the report & the che, & well, actually it's a recommendation on the part of the uh, director of civil works that, that the assistant secretary, you know, determine that the project is eonomically feasible & env'ly acceptable & technically sound.  That recommendation went fwd & I don't know, you know, anything more about uh, progress since then.  I do have a copy of the memorandamum.  I might give Eric a copy of that memorandum & send it fwd.  So that's, that's the story on uh  -

 

CLM:  Did you bring that from the chief's office _ _ _ timeframe to go ahead & get the approval?  JZ:  Well, you know, they said it's gonna be at least 2 wks before it goes to OMB & after that, it would, it could take months, but, but they don't really know.  CLM: So maybe _ _ - JZ:  Nothing beyond that.  CLM:  Other than e-mails?  JZ:  Nothing beyond that.  Right.  CLM:  Who's, who's the guy _ _ _ chief, not Joe Reese, in the chief's office?  JZ:  Well, it was Joe Reese & there was a fella named  _ _ _oot...  (Apparently I had turned the tape off for probably just a few minutes.  At the time, I was not concerned with this specific topic, & had no idea I'd be posting this info.)

 

JZ: ... I already said a little bit about this.  Our design work has continued since Oct thru uh, last wk, basically, using sponsor funds.  The sponsor gave us a total of $160,000 so far.  But we are now out of sponsor funds.  & so uh, I understand Eric is, is uh, from Eric, that there may be a, a vote tonight from the, at the bd of ald to provide another $50,000 in sponsor funds for this, for this project so we can continue, uh, with design effort & env'l, uh some env'l issues which I'm gonna go into in just a minute here.  Uh, we really need, we really need uh, the federal dollars as well, but it would certainly help to get some sponsor funds & then to, to uh, keep working, keep our design people working & our env'l.  So, that's, that's uh another piece of info. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  5 of  19

 

Uh, now the next one has to do with the budget, the federal budget for fiscal 03, next fiscal yr.  That FY 03 begins 1 Oct, 2002, so we had planned to award this contract in, er we scheduled to award this contract in Nov, 2002, which is the first part of FY 03, ok.  & the President's budget, uh has some rules attached to it this yr.  The President's budget for FY 03, which covers the whole country & all the projects, not just VP, that no new const contracts can be awarded in FY 03.  So that's, that's a problem you know.  That would mean we can't award this contract.  & the other thing is that they would not allow us to budget for, you know, actually payin' a contractor FY 03.  So we have some money in the budget for fiscal 03 & it's really kind of a strange thing;  it's for design & actually const mgmt, but, but we're not allowed to award the contract, or I mean we don't have funds to pay a contractor.  So that's, that's a problem as far as um, moving ahead with const.

 

CLM:  As you know, Jim, we're working on that problem _ _ the congressional delegation _ _ secretary''s office to get the money increased to as close to 5.2 Million total _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ appropriations bill _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ contracts for 200_.  DM:  Could the city sponsor some money to get the project started now so it's not, like say in Sept, so it's not _ _  the project next yr?  JZ:  No, I mean the rules are - DM: or does it have to be federal money?  JZ:  It has to be kind of jointly funded because it's, we're not supposed to get ahead as far as having the city pay, you know, several Million Dollars extra or anything like that.  DM: Since I'm goin' since Oct, sounds like we're gettin' kind of up there now.  JZ:  Yeah.  DM:  I was hopin' we could  - JZ:  But as it gets - DM:  kick some money in.  JZ:  It's, it's il, it's not legal for us to accept - DM: _ not legal  -

 

CLM:  We also have the restriction _ _ _ _ _ contracts & you got that language in there _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - DM:  I was hopin' to get a, an existing contract clinched now, & then_ _ _ _ next yr, but sounds like we're not allowed to do that since federal funds are dried up right now. 

 

CLM:  & I don't think, Jim, that the COE would be ready to award that contract  - JZ:  I don't you know, either _ _ _ Nov at the earliest.  I wasn't very happy _ _ _ & I don't, I'm not sure - the land has to be acquired before we can even award, I mean before we can advertise the const contract.  So that's another factor.  CLM:  Would've been a good way if we could've done that tho. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  6 of  19

 

JZ:  Um, another, another thing that impacts uh, Nov, 02 award is that um, there's a Section 404 Permit for this project which was issued back in 1992.  & it, it needs to be up, renewed periodically so it stays in force.  & we're, we're being told by our Section 404 Permit staff that we need to uh, re-look at the env'l impacts of the project & uh, come up with a, what's called a Compensation Plan.  You know, there are, there are impacts you know that mitigation uh is required.  We have to have a plan that shows the impact, the env'l impacts & the mitigation.  & then that, that plan has to satisfy our own, our own regulatory, uh personnel as well as the resource agencies that are, uh have jurisdiction in this kind of work.  & we have uh, been working with some resource agencies uh, & working on this issue for, for some time. 

 

Uh, we had a field trip, uh back in the end of February on the snowy & coldest day of the yr I think it was - DC:  Right.  JZ:  turned out.  Uh, & we had uh EPA here & MDNR & MO Conservation Dept & others, uh, all coming to look at the project &, & become familiar with it.  So uh, so they'll be ready to review any plans that we can come up with

 

Um, some, some of the env'l issues & I just want to - that's the main reason why I brought this drawing along.  Um, this, this creek - you're familiar with this - Fishpot Creek, before we uh, before const here, Fishpot Creek came, comes along like this & then it has an ox-bow & meanders over here, then it meanders back & it eventually crosses under the RR, & goes down, down to the Meramec River. 

 

Well, we have straightened out the creek & we've put it, you know, along here in this channel.  & we put a levee on top of it where the creek used to be & we've made a, uh - DC: det area.  JZ:  det area right at this part of the creek

 

So there are, there's stream impacts which uh, we have to mitigate because we did this, ok.  & the same thing is true of arengranyen, uh Grand Glaize Creek.  We, you know the creek doesn't meander as much, but it does meander.  & we've taken that & made it some more straight & put the levee on top of a little part of that.  So there's again, stream, loss of streams because of our project. 

 

& so alternatives that are being considered to mitigate, include repair of streams & also there's a potential for purchasing acres in what's called a stream mitigation bank.  Uh, it's like in, in another area - actually there's a, there's a mitigation bank in the Meramec River watershed at Fox, Fox Creek.  & you know, there's a way of purchasing acres to mitigate what we've done to this creek here.  So at this point, actually we've got some people coming out again tomorrow, Eric, to look at upper Fishpot Creek up thru uh, the city park to see if there's any way to uh  - 

 

CLM:  What time are they comin' out?  JZ:  Uh, I, I can, I think it's like 10:00 or so.  CLM:  We, we've, we've uh,  retained svcs with our own firm to handle these mitigations.  So we think we can mitigate within the - JZ:  the bank?  CLM: within the VP limits.  JZ:  Like to have 'em get together?   CLM:  Yo, yeah, by all means.  Who should we, who should they contact?  JZ:  Um, they should contact me probably;  I'll be there in the office in the morning.  & Ken Dalrymple & Mike Daily are going out.  Mike Daily's in our regulatory office.  Uh &, 2 biologists.  EM:  It's Andy McCord or Don Purdy, one of those 2.  JZ:  Ok.  EM:  I think you've talked to 'em.  JZ:  Ok. Um, so we will arrange that they get together. 

 

EM:  One other thing, um I contacted the Big River Mitigation Bank in uh Lincoln County as well.  & I understand we're within their catchment area.  Is there - & they may be a heck of a lot cheaper than Fox Creek.  Uh, is there a requiremt that the Meramec watershed be mitigated?  JZ:  Um, I, I don't know the details of the requiremts.  I think it's somewhat desirable that it be in the same watershed, but uh, I, I don't know if it's ruled out or a big deal.  EM: Ok. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  7 of  19

 

JZ:  Uh, another, another kind of impact is uh, the fact that there's a really small, just a small area of wooded wetlands;  it does not show on this drawing, but it's over here, over where it's Pyramid St, & our levee's gonna go on top of this.  & they're all little wooded wetlands in here - area, area that holds water & has trees in it, ok.  & there's a couple of wooded wetlands over at the g/p det area, a total of 2.2 acres.  & so we look, we've been looking for ways of creating wooded wetlands & there also is a possibility of purchasing, again acres, in a mitigation bank that, that uh, develops wooded wetlands.   

 

EM: &, & it's not acre for acre, it's - JZ:  Well, no it's not.  It's typically, I mean, you start out with, well, 2.2 acres here & it could be you know, a factor of 3;  & I think you have to, you have to mitigate like 3, 3 times that - 6.6 acres of wooded wetlands, depending on - CLM: That's to be negotiated.  This is what Fish & Wildlife say, they always ask for more than they expect to get.  JZ:  It, it's, it's negotiable somewhat, but I mean the COE has an opinion sometimes, & our own regulatory people, & other agencies may have a different opinion.  Uum, & I think our opinion changes depending on what you're doing.  Maybe if you're actually, physically creating something in the project area, our own people might think it's only a 2 to 1 requiremt, you know.  Whereas if you - CLM: This, this is what we would like to do. - JZ:  If, if we do a mitigation bank, our own people may say you need 3 to 1, you know.  So it's something that's somehow negotiated between these people & I think our people have the final say.  But um, maybe, maybe MDNR has a say too because they have to do a water certifiation, clean water certification

 

DM:  Jim, does the city have to buy land inside the city itself?  Fishpot Creek comes from unincorporated county to the west _ _ -   JZ:  I don't think it's really limited to the city.  Uh, I think - DM:  If we bought something up there for instance _ _ - JZ: But I do think it does require, any of these mitigation measures, require you know, buying the land, having, having the right to do what you're gonna do permanently.  & uh, doing some work & then actually maintaining this uh system that you're creating.  You know if there's trees that die, you gotta go replant, maintaining it for a period of time & then you know have a conservation esmt that, that lasts forever.  Those kind of things. 

 

EM:  Let me tell the cmsn just, it's kind of a pie in the sky thing.  But uh, what we met, &, & talked about, was our env'l eng'g firm was uh a goal of this, that we uh, research Fishpot Creek particularly in the area of, of where the Vance Trails Park is.  Um, that we do the mitigation in that area.  The, the, the prooblem in that area is that the banks have been degraded substan - ?: Oh, yeah.  EM: substantially.  What we'd like to do is, uh regrade those, uh reforest if,  if we can.  Uh, &, & with the bonus as, as some members of the bd know, uh, we do have a pending complaint against us for ADA problems.  Um, if, if that bank is regraded, uh, maybe we can kill several birds with one stone.  I mean that's my pie in the sky kind of thoughts here & that's what we've been talking with a env'l firm ah about it & they're going to be coordinating with uh Fish & Wildlife & the COE, uh &, & the other agencies regarding that possibility.  Um, there's also a possibility too of some matching monies that, that could be thrown in as well. 

 

Ju, just on the flip side, if it doesn't work out, the problem that I see is, is that we're kind of buying credits from off-site areas.  The, the Fox Creek mitigation area is uh, was, was developed by the Breckenridge Corp some yrs ago, in conjunction with the Legends.  Um, &, & it's a for-profit industry where they've set aside, uh I think 90 acres if I'm not mistaken, or something, there's some quantity of acres & they sell you credits.  In other words you want uh, uh to mitigate 2 acres of, of wooded wetlands, well, they'll create your 6 acres of wooded wetlands on the 3 to 1, & they'll sell you that on a per acreage cost.  JZ:  Right.

 

& their cost ranges & it depends on the market  I found out, uh, between $14,000 at a minimum, up to $50,000, uh per acre.  Ok, uh there, there's another one of these outfits up in Lincoln County called the Big River, which is around Ellsberry.  Uh, & it's the same thing;  they're, they're cheaper because they're further away from the metropolitan area.  But the, the other problem, & the final, & I'll shut-up then, but the final problem is, if these places go bankrupt & remember they are private concerns, if they go bankrupt, the credits go away & it comes back on the sponsor to re-mitigate, uh, uh, because the credits go away. 

 

JZ:  I hadn't been told that, but that's -  EM:  Yeah, that's one of the, the downfalls with this program.  JZ:  I mean once you make a deal, it should be good for - ?:  (in the background) You're not thinkin' of buyin' those, (are you?)  -  JZ:  The project's gonna be over & the budget's done & so forth you know.  CLM:  But they still come back because it's the perfect, perfect team relationship.  JZ:  Yeah, I know;  that's interesting.  & I think it's not just the sponsors, the federal gov't & the sponsor are just together in this.  EM:  Well, we're both on the hook, so - JZ:  Yeah, you know, we're in this together as far as mitigation's concerned  if  the cost sharing is the same as it is for flood control.  Except for if you buy land, that's you know, that's the sponsor responsibility, but if there's work done or credits bought, as far as I know, it's a cost share responsibility.  EM: Right.  JZ:   I guess I look at the, I'd like to find out more about that problem, but in general, I look at the mitigation banks as being a, as an alternative that at least we have out there that's, that's workable, you know.  & it may be the, may be the least cost alternative, & it's good to have this one set of alternatives out there that we can actually implement  - EM:  Sure.  JZ:  it with, & the other ones we can look into.  Maybe we can find one -

 

EM:  &, & once again, we've dis, Jim & I, have discussed this &, &, & CLM, the city has set aside 60 acres of hardwood uh, lands in Vance Trails Park & the area behind uh, or that runs parallel to the Meramec River, uh in between Meramec &, & Vance Rd behind the subdivisions.  Um, &, &, & I, I just think it would be a shame for us to look elsewhere if, uh, particularly where a regrading of those banks would, would have a lot of benefits to, I, I think, the city as a whole.  JZ:  Yeah, we better look at that. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  8 of  19

 

DC:  What about that borrow area down between the levee & the uh Meramec River, down below Pharoah & uh - JZ:  this borrow area right here (on map)?  DC:  Right.  JZ:  Ummm - DC:  Why can't that be a wetlands?  JZ:  Well, if, the only, we don't think there's water that gets to it anymore because the levee blocks drainage from this way, ok, &, & the, you know, the drainage that's going this way, is going to be coming out a rain control structure here & I think up here also.

 

DM:  Is it a lot higher than the river?  Maybe we could have the river flow into it a little bit to make it a wetlands.  JZ:  Well, the river is really a lot lower than that spot;  the bank of the river is very - DM:  It's too low, huh?  JZ: (chuckle) Uh we looked, we thought about the possibility, we talked about this in the mtg, of putting a pipe thru here & it would've been, it would've been neat, you know, sluice gate on it & everything.  Um, you know, in general, we think this could, a good possibility it's cheaper to go with a mitigation bank.  See wooded wetlands, there's more mitigation banks available, uh & uh, than, than doing this alternative.

 

EM:  We, we did preliminarily too, explore the area across the levee.  Uh, I think you were involved, Dave.  JZ:  Yeah.  EM:  Uh, uh, on pass Napton, which is a paper street - JZ:  Up here - EM:  by the lagoons.  DC:  Right.  JZ:  Up 8th St, right in this area right in here actually.  EM:  Again, that was the problem that there's been such substantial degrading  - JZ:  The city owns that - EM: you can't get water - JZ:  The city owns this piece of ground, so they asked us, you know, take a look at this & see if we could make this into a wetland, ok. Well, we, we've looked at it & then, you know, a big part of the property is actually the creek itself.  So that's kind of out of the picuture.  & then the other big half of it is, there's a big hill that goes from the creek bank up toward the RR, you know.  It's just, you can't make a wetland on this thing;  it's like, like the Ozarks.

 

DC:  Well, how can, how can you not make a, a wetlands uh, do you have to have water in it all the time?  JZ:  You have to have enough water, you know, to establish the wetland species.  CLM:  You just have to establish - DC:  Well, the water not - CLM: _ _ _ _- DC: I mean - CLM: _ic soils.  DC:  I don't understand;  if you're gonna have a borrow area & you're gonna have a lake - JZ:  No, it's not gonna be a lake there any place.   DC:  What's it gonna be, a hole? 

 

CLM:  Well, Dave, what we're doin' is we, the COE's made some suggestions, which we appreciate it's alternatives, you know, about buying credits.  Well, what, what we want to do, is we want to analyze what we can do ourselves within the property that the city owns now, that would benefit the city itself.  See if we can do that for a better price than going out & buying the credits.  That's, that's what the alternatives are.

 

DC:  Do we own all that property down there by that borrow area?  EM:  Yes.  ?: Yeah.  DC:  From River Dr, all the way back?  EM:  Pre, pretty much.  Uh, uh there's a, a house or 2 I think in there, &, but, but by & large, we own most of the property.  DC:  I mean that thing only fills up with water when it rains.  Uh & - CLM:  You can change, you can change the topography so that it will - JZ:  No, we - CLM:  water flows - JZ:  can't put - CLM: in time.  JZ: anything out there, uh, in the floodway either;  can't put berms out there in the flood - that's another problem.  Everything outside here is the floodplain, so you just can't fill it with water;  you can't put berms under the whole thing of water.

 

CLM:  If it's in the floodway, you may not even need to put berms in. That's what we're lookin' at, see if we can make - DC: What we got - CLM: _ _ - DC: we got over there - JZ:  This, this - DC:  is mitigation  JZ:  whole area - DC:  (loudly) We've got the mitigation area on the other side of the levee, on the Grand Glaize Creek, which is in the floodplain;  it's in the floodway.  (louder) Now you're saying you can't put anything in the floodplain that's a mitigation area?  I don't understand that.  DM:  We can put a hole, but we can't put a berm, it sounds like. 

 

JZ: It's, it's this is - CLM:  Well, you can place material, but you have to show it doesn't cause an increase in the base flood elevation.  It's not an - DC:  I mean I, I can see makin' that area between Pharoah & down there towards the city uh, Simpson's Park, which that borders on, that area down there - I think that's an ideal place for a mitigation area;  it's low.  I mean nothin', I mean it's, it's full of crap now & if you clear it out & have some type of, put some kind of drainage in there, whatever it is, uh, you're gonna get water in that thing no matter what. 

 

CLM:  That's an area we're lookin' at as alternatives.  DC:  I think that, you know that's a pretty big area down there.  Whether we, if we borrow the ground or fill it back up & smooth it out or keep it, uh get it uh, graded off so it is a mitigation area, I don't see any difference between that than over here in the Grand Glaize mitigation area.  JZ:  Actually the Grand Glaize mitigation area, they're not real happy about that, the env'l story by the way.  DC:  (loudly, next few cmts)  Well, the only, they ain't happy with it, because they can't plant trees on it.  JZ:  Well, no they, they - DC: That's their big thing, Jim.  Now you might as well say that right now.  JZ:  Well - DC: I was at that mtg with them guys & - JZ: That's one thing.  DC:  that's all they can complain about is plantin' trees.  If you can't plant trees, then they don't even talk to you.  JZ:  The original plan, the thing is described in the uh, the permit shows this, that part of this area could be a marsh, ok.   & that's really what they're lookin' for is a marsh, or a, a wetland.  They say this is more like a pond & it should've  been more like a marsh, which that's all it is.  

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  9 of  19

 

RS:  Well, I know we'd like to have city-owned property to do this developmt, but the other side of the RR tracks there, we have nothin' but wetlands, um, at #40 Lakehill Speedway.  & I'm sure there's more than enough acreage there.  I think we need to be lookin' into that.  CLM:  You can't mitigate with the existing;  you have to create wetlands where there were no wetlands before.  Or you have to take low quality existing wetlands & enhance them & get credit  - RS:  Well, these, these are - CLM:  cost share.  RS:  these are somewhat wetlands, but I think they could be enhanced.  I mean that might be somethin' to look at.  I mean we've got about 47 acres over there & I think probably half of that is a partial wetland.  You know maybe, you know, 2 acres here & an acre here -  CLM:  That's an ideal area to go in & cleem wetlands when - RS: Sure, I mean - CLM: you've got (clean or green?) buckets - RS: you know, it's already started.  Let's not think about not, you know I mean, let's, let's promote maybe into enhancin' the rest of it.  We could - JZ: Maybe that's - RS: get all of it right there - JZ: the city's - RS: if we just look into it. 

 

EM: Well, that's why the city - w, we have hired someone - JZ: That's one of the - EM: to look - JZ: alternatives they're - EM: at it & they're - JZ: gonna look - EM:  they're lookin' at the whole city.  JZ: at also.  EM: Right.  CLM: Oh yeah.  JZ:  I know there's 2 lakes over there & you know, they could just do some regrading & make shallow, shallow - DC:  Oh, the whole end of it.  I mean that's privately owned.  I don't know how much these people would want for this property, but it's already in the floodplain. 

 

CLM:  Jim, before you get into it, we're also going to evaluate the uh g/p, whether it's a potential historic site or not, & what has to be - JZ:  Yeah, let me, well, I appreciate all the ideas & I think that Eric's listening & I'm listening.  So we, we know the city's got a consultant's gonna look into this & - EM:  Right.  JZ:  we will -

 

EM:  Just one further thing, just, & then I'll shut up.  The, the uh area that Rob talked about, uh, I have uh, a mtg scheduled with Ben Knox with St. Louis County Parks on that to see if it's gonna be eligible property for uh, what's called the uh, it's the St. Louis uh, uh Conservation District.  Uh, there's a sales tax that's been uh devoted to acquiring property to add to the linear trail system.  & we're looking into that for perhaps acquiring that entire area, uh by the county & then the county in turn, turning it over to the city of VP.  So that's, that's all - JZ:  The thing that - EM:  a possibility.  JZ:  we would really - I guess we're under the gun to get a plan, a plan has to be implemented.  EM: Right.  JZ:  We certainly need a plan by May 1st.  EM: Right.  We're workin' on it.  We're aware of your time schedule.  JZ:  Yeah.  Um, you know, you mentioned bottomland hardwoods.  You mentioned planting trees there & they're interested in doing that. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  10 of  19

 

 Um, the final thing I want to say a little bit more about is this uh, the g/p itself.  & we have a letter.  This was, you know, the whole ... (exchange tapes)  ...JZ: ...info office is coming back & saying that the g/p is uh eligible for inclusion in the (NRHP) National Register of Historic Places & that we've got to do some uh, mitigation work associaled with the g/p & we have to get approval from the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation in Washington before we can, can we do anything with the g/p.  (some of them laugh & make indecipherable cmts at once)  RS:  Anything else to throw in there besides - JZ:  What they're saying, what they're saying is - DM: it's a junkyard. 

 

JZ:  I mean they're not saying, you know, they're saying you need to uh, do a historic study & take some architectural photographs & maybe do some archeological digs in the g/p area.  EM:  Well, & there was a, there's a preliminary cost estimate of about $90,000 for that cataloguing, & - JZ:  Right.  EM:  uh photographs, etc.  We're, we're, we're - JZ:  We're working on that one too.  EM:  We're working on that.  JZ:  Ok.  Um, that's the env'l issues

 

DM:  Does that mean we can't even dig up the glass works to try to know how big it is until we do all this - JZ:  Right now, we're not supposed to - DM:  can't touch it at all.  RW: You can't even go over there & take a rock out of there!  CLM:  We think some of the requiremts that the (SHPO) State Historic Preservation Office has indicated will be required, are - (Ed & I whisper indecipherable comments to each other for a few seconds.)

 

JZ:  The other 2 things that I've got um, just to say - we've already talked about this, you know, at past mtgs, besides all the things I've mentioned so far, uh, uh, in order to award a contract in Nov, 2002, of course there has to be a completion of the land acquisition process, um, which includes an agreemt with the, this RR, have to tie the fill into the RR property here at UP& uh, then there has to be relocations that are either arranged or completed& then finally, um, there's 2 env'l studies that Purdy, the city's hired Purdy to be involved in.  One is the Phase 2, uh hazardous & toxic waste study of AL.  & then finally, uh, a relief well remediation plan because we plan to put relief wells in an area where there's some ground water contamination.  & so we are required by MDNR & St Louis County Health to have a relief well remediation plan & again the city's hired Purdy too, to develop that.  So that's the Item 4B.  JW:  Full of good news tonight (& he laughs).

 

EM: Let, let, leme continue on with what the city's actions are.  & again, we've hired Purdy.  Uh, CLM & I met with him Wed of last wk I believe.  City just found out about this on the, what was the 22nd, or whatever day, uh, of Feb.  Uh, we got all these bad memos fax'd to me.  Um, we, we immediately contacted Purdy.  Um  - RW?: Which memo you talkin' about now?  You didn't mention anything - EM:  This is, this is what he's talkin' about.  JZ:  The mtg with the env'l agency that we have our here.  & I gave Eric a, a memo that just summarized our mtg -  EM: Right, & then the letter regarding the historic thing.  JZ: Right. 

 

EM:  So at any rate, uh we're, we're aggressively uh, looking into the authority & the parameters of, uh the Historical Preservation Act & the Nat'l Register.  & what we DO have available to us now, as everyone's aware, uh, Eileen Cheryl with the school dist has done extensive cataloguing of uh the history of the uh g/p.  & we do have a, a lot, a lot of photographs, including aerials of, of the uh, foundations.  

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  11 of  19

 

Um, regarding the Section 404 Permits & the remediation, uh we, we have known about that for a while.  We've applied for a 404 Permit, uh, & I think we touched on it in this mtg in the past.  The prooblem is, is that when you dig relief wells, you will pump up or percolate up contaminated waters that are in the, it's called the operating units 1 & 2, um for the uh 2 contaminated areas we have in the city.  It's the Wainwright Industries is Operating Unit #1, & uh, Valley Technologies is uh, Operating Unit #2.  & they're both, they both drain, have plumes down in this area where we're going to be building the relief wells. 

 

In order to discharge water, the DNR & the other agencies that it represents, has mandated that we pump out or percolate out, water that is acceptable under MO drinking water standards.  Not that it be drinking water quality water, but it would be water that is eligible to be treated for & processed as drinking water.  Um, that is not to say that we have to do anything special to this water.  Um, it's, it, it has already of course been treated by rain, Wainwright, uh, all, altho it's in advance currently I believe. 

 

Uh, &, & it, hopefully something's going to get started pretty soon from the Operating Unit 2, uh where that mitigation plan's currently in effect.  But we're in the same boat so to speak as Absorbent Cotton Co & Valley Technologies because we were, we will all be using water um, that comes from the ground water that, that gets used in their industrial processes.  Um, they will be discharging this water into the uh, uh, storm water system, uh, just as we will

 

Uh, I, I think Purdy indicated that, that DNR's indicated there's no requiremts on the city's part whatsoever, to, to do any aeration currently.  &, & they're, they're looking, I, I mean if go next door to the library, there are books this thick of, of data on the discharge & quantities & - at any rate, they're going thru that & they're demonstrating to DNR that the simple fact that the city is sinking 18 relief wells, uh, &, & will periodically pump these, prime 'em whatever, will, will not produce any contaminents whatsoever.  It's, it's, & it's part of the 404 plan that's being submitted to these agencies for their approval.  So we expect that probably within the next 30 days.  Uh, we expect approval on that.

 

CLM:  I, I might add that, a lot of these areas, we're finding that some of the players, the other agencies, the county & state DNR, these many people will throw out an idea about, 'we think you ought to do such & such'.  & we've been keepin' a close eye on those, all those suggestions because many of them, 1, are very expensive, & 2, we look into, we find they're not really required.  So we're working with the COE to make sure that they things that the COE is requiring are things that really do have to be done;  & that we're doing them at the uh, least cost, at least the uh, least cost method that will suffice.  But there've been a lot of things that have popped out of the woodwork like that, that we've been able to _ _, workin' with the COE & the county, to shove aside so we don't have to do that any more.  This is what's required of other agencies.  I mean -

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  12 of  19

 

EM:  &, & finally, & I have just a real brief story to tell.  & that is, the fella who was getting ready, as I understand it, to actually sign the doc that would approve the cap from uh $20 Million on up to $35 Million was a gentleman named Mike Parker;  who was a, a presidential appointee.  & he felt strongly, evidently, that the President's budget request was unfair to the COE;  & expressed that opinion before the Senate uh Appropriations Cmte, uh what 2 wks ago.  Um, & this has been recorded in the paper, uh as soon as he finished his testimony in the heading, uh I believe the head of OMB had his testimony, which is recorded, fax'd over to the Presdent's office & uh that same day, the gentleman was given 5 mins to either resign or be fired.  Um, so that's what happened. 

 

Um, we have a biography of the new Under Secretary of the Army if anyone cares to see it.  Uh, we don't, we know who the people are.  Uh, CLM &, & JZ, uh, &, & I'm familiar with the lady, uh, Jennifer Watkins, is a friend of the  City of VP.  & she's uh, she, she worked here in VP, uh many yrs ago;  she did appraisals, uhh, back in '92, uh with me.  & uh, uh she is working for Congress out of the COE's office & she's been kind of our point lady I guess & is, uh helping uh, considerably.   

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  13 of  19

 

DM:  Since this Mike, I forget his last name, was asked to resign, does that mean our chance of getting more money or not, are slim, or - CLM:  No, he uh, Mike Parker was ASA, Civil Works, a surveyor that oversees the COE's water resources for civil works programs, & a former Congressman from  Mississippi,  _ _ Congress_ _ _ didn't run for election 2 yrs ago _ _ _ _ _ uh, basically, he, he just passes the budget request fwd & he did that.  & he went up with a prepared statemt, but he didn't read the prepared statemt.  It had been cleared by OMB, that was the party line, 'we're asking for all the money that we really need'.  He didn't believe that, so he said, 'well I'm not gonna read the prepared statemt', & he started to scrutinize.  It was kind of interesting because he didn't have to do that.  He could've always read the statemt _ _ _ ahead of time to several people of the cmte, asking questions like, 'you don't really think that's enough money, do you?'  & he'd have to answer the questions.   He wouldn't have got in trouble, but he chose to go ahead & get fired

 

But, the key to this is Congress & we are working both the Senate & the House.  Uh, & normally with our congressional situation, we're in a better position on the  Senate side as far as the individual elected officials _ _ _ _ _ corporation subcmte has been very, very supportive of the project.  However, we also uh are working on the House side, not just with Congressman Akin, who's our Congressman, _ _ _ first term _ _ _ _ _.  He's not on approps subcmte.  But uh, Eric has contacted the _ _ _ corporation _ _ _ _ _ corportion to Congressman Gebhardt, asking Congressman Gebhardt to contact the ranking democrat on the approps subcmte, for the developmt, & ask him to push ahead the money to _ _  budget _ _ _ push _ _ _ _  the House side & also the Senate side.  You do that in both, & it's a done deal.  _ it goes toward conference where you get at least _ _ _ _ _ _2 sides_ _ _ . 

 

DM:  How soon - CLM:  You also have to get the language in the appropriation bill saying, 'this money is being used to allow the COE to award a const contract da da da da da'.  That way, that eliminates discretions _ _district _ cause _ _ _ _ _ request _ _ . 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  14 of  19

 

DM: When was the cut off to get those letters in like saying, you know, citizens saying we request the, get the, say there's a certain date to get 'em in to be effective?  CLM:  Cut off date for submission of the written materials to the approps subcmtes in Washington _ _ _ _ _.  DM:  Oh, pretty quick.  CLM:  Whether they can still get copies of it _ _ _ accepted by the appropriate _ _ _ _ _ _ _ checking into that.  We are also checking to see if the Senate or the House approps subcmtes will _ _ _ _ _ for the local interest people from the various cmtys, in our case, ourselves, to go to Washington to testify before the approps subcmte in support of that issue. 

 

Secondly, if they won't, they haven't the last few yrs, just to save time.  ?:  Right.  CLM: _ _ ask Congressman Akin if he'd go to testify before the subcmte, I suppose he'd be available to have somebody _ _ _ _ _ _ with him, just to kind of reinforce his position to show the cmty is strongly supportive _ _  _ _ _ _ his office in Washington _ _ _ _.  We've got a lot of things going on.  I'm convinced that uh, we're going to get add'l money.  It's just a ques of _ _ _ not much work, uh just to get the language in the approps bill to overcome the restriction on letting the contract.  All of those things have to _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _explain 'em, but they are.  They're so restrictive, I don't know whether we _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _all the books &_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  15 of  19

 

JH: _ _ _ you're trying to get it awarded in Nov, but what is the cut off date that everything has to be in place?  I mean Oct 1st or are you talking Nov 1st?  I mean when everything has to - JZ:  Oh, there's a lot of cut off dates.  Uh, in order for us to advertise the contract - JH:  Right.  JZ:  Well, the land has to be acquired.  BLorRS?:  You have to have the land acquisition to start off things.  You have to have, you have to build it to go to the bldg to cover the contract.  

 

CLM:  This contract, we're talkin' about $5.2 Million;  that's just depending on FY 2003 costs.  The same contract will extend into 2004 & take another 6+ Million Bucks.  JH:  Right, that's why my question is, I mean you want to let the contract in Nov, correct?   JZ: Correct.  JH:  But when does you, when do you have to start advertising & _ _ - JZ:  Um, I, I don't have the schedule with me, but it's, I know we have to have a, uh we have to give our plans & specs to our contractor people in June I believe.  JH: June.  So you really - JZ: & I, I believe - JH: _ _ - JZ:   I believe July is the date that we have to have the real estate, you know, in hand, & certified that some - JH:  So you only have about 3 months to get every, all this - JZ:  It's tight - JH: in order.  JZ:  It's very tight.  EM:  Plus utility relocations have to be accomplished before your award is made.  JH:  It's a lot of work to do. 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  16 of  19

 

RW: Do you even foresee this even bein' awarded in Nov or is there just too many hurdles right now that you - I mean that's just - EM:  Well, the, the land end of it's doable - RW:  But we've been workin' on the land for 3 yrs now, you know.  EM:  Well - RW:  Since I've been sittin' here on this, this cmsn here for 4 yrs - EM:  We have a hand, we have a handful of land left.  RW:  I mean we've had this same handful of land for 2 yrs. 

 

EM:  Well, unfortunately it was re-eng'd, re-surveyed & re-designed, so - ?: The COE needs to change - EM:  So that's, that's why the land's not in hand.  RW:  When do you perceive you can have the land in hand now?  I mean, do you have it all in place?  Are you closin' on these properties? 

 

EM:  I'm waiting, I closed on one last wk.  I'm waiting for legal descriptions from our new engr who's got a mass of files to, to try to ferret thru.  Um, I met with uh, the uh Valley uh, uh Shopping Ctr, Tom Maurer, last wk along with the uh, designer, Greg Bertoglio, go over grades & impacts on the uh ROW;  made a fair market offer uh to Englanette & again, we're waiting for a legal description, as we are on uh, Jim's father's property.  We're, we're waiting for the detailed drawings on those from the eng.  They should be forthcoming.  I, I, I was called Fri & was told that the engr was sidetracked, brief with the ill, but he'll come thru.  & then, uh AL, I'm waiting for the real estate appraiser

 

RW: That reference to Jim's father's property over there, I know over the past 30 yrs, he's been spittin' concrete over there on that property.  Are you, is there any way the city's gonna absorb this cost of removin' that like they did - EM:  It'll be a const cost I'm sure.  RW:  So you're gonna buy their property, then spend a couple hundred thousand $ to haul away that waste concrete?  EM:  I just don't have any clue as to what the quantity is or cost or anything.   RW:  Well, you knew what it was down there!  EM:  Well, I, I've been there;  (RW laughs) I'm, I'm aware of it.  RW:  I mean you see where I'm comin' from?  I mean - EM:  I'm aware it's a problem.  Uh, it'll hopefully be used for the fuge inert fill & will be - I mean it's not rebarbed concrete, all, altho it's sssubstantial. 

 

Umm, that's, that's what - we, we can, we can accomplish the laand requiremts by July.  Uh utility relocations are, are being in place.  I mean there's obviously a const season to start, but the word's already uh, done;  SWB's, which was probably the merger.  Uh & the rest, will follow thru at the, it's a gas line, which is a big line.  Uh & the singleder's water, under a contract. Those, those are not -  RW: Not a lot of water there - EM: Not, not substantial, problems.  & then we've got the MSD pump & we've talked about that before. 

 

DC: The gas line.  EM:  Yeah, MSD pump & the gas line, but the gas line'll be done by Laclede.  Uh we'll, we'll do the pump & uh - DC:  But the gas line problably won't be done until after, probably after the levee is actually in const, while it's in const - EM:  It'll be an up & over & - DC:  up & over relocation of that thing.  EM:  Um, &, & the MSD lift sta, we are expected to design that & we are, our engrs are in the design process now & uh, I believe they tentatively  picked out a location as well for it.  RW:  Is that the one on Arnold or the one on Kena?  EM:  No, the one on Arnold will be abandoned, the one on Kena.  The one on Kena probably will be moved over to uh, 10001 uh Marshall.  What we're, actually The Lions Club was looking at that property.  Uh, & there may be room for both;  the, the lift sta isn't, doesn't require a huge amt of area.  We're, we're waiting for final design from our engr on that. 

 

RW:  & this is some hurdle here! (they mumble) There's a lot of, lot of work to be done.  DC:  I guess that covers Item A, B & C.

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  17 of 19

 

 I don't mind tellin' ya that I gave a tour uh, a fella for the, Vic James & I gave a tour to a guy by the name of Tom Sheldon.  I think he was from Vicksburg.  CLM:  He's the Branch Mgr for the St L Dist.  DC: St. Louis Dist, & the reah he wanted a tour is, a look at the levee is he said he's uh, always seen it on drawings, but he's never actuallly seen the layout & everything.  & he was very impressed with our levee & with what we've done & everything else. 

 

CLM:  Tommy's been very helpful down at the _ _  & - DC:  I don't know whether this was a, ah help to us or anything else, but I was kind of surprised that somebody from Vicksburg would come up & take, take a look at this.  JZ:  He, he was in town looking at it several items.  DC:  He was looking at several things, but he did include VP.  JZ:  He wanted to see VP.  DC:  He wanted to see VP.  RW:  One thing about it, didn't hurt us.  DC:  Oh no!  JZ:  He's a, he's _ _ _ _ (crowd shakers?).   CM:  He's been a big help.   

 

3/18/02  Levee - Section  18 of  19

 

DC: Ok, we have a speaker card here for Maureen Morris on the levee.  You want to speak 1st, Mrs. Morris?  MM:  Oh, I just wanted to ask Eric if he has those copies for me of the 4 or 5 footprints. 

 

EM:  Uh, I, I just got it given to me, uh Maureen.  Uh, uh & I don't, to answer your question, no I don't.  Uh -  MM:  When will you be able to give me the copies?  EM:  Uuhhhhhhhh, well by next mtg, I, I would think;  uh, I'll, I'll have it uh, I can have a copy for ya.  MM:  Ok.  Are there 4 or 5 footprints for AL?  (someone chuckles) EM:  This is, this is the final footprint;  I think there has been 1, 2, 3, 4, this is probably the 4th or 5th;  I don't, I'm not sure which one.  Hopefully, it's the final one!  (someone laughs)  MM:  Jim, do you know how many?  JZ:  HOPEFULLY it's the final one?  MM: 4 or 5?  JZ:  Best footprint was before I was involved!  CLM:  Oh, you bet!  EM:  Oh, yeah.  JZ:  I know that worked.  No, I can't tell ya.

 

MM:  Ok, well, you'll get me copies of at least 4 of 'em?  EM:  OH!  I don't know about that!  I, I mean I can give you a copy of the final one, but uh, uh, as far as predecessors, I, I, I gotta tell ya, I, I usually, when they come in my office, I toss 'em if they've been superceeded (someone chuckles), uh, because otherwise it gets too confusing.  MM:  You throw 'em away!  EM:  You bet!  MM:  (chuckle) Are you serious?   EM:  I'm serious. 

 

Uh - MM:  Does anybody else have any copies?  ?: Of what?  MM: Of the 4 or 5 proposed footprints.  ?: Ok, there's 2 here.  DC:  4 or 5 what?  MM:  Proposed footprints for AL.  EM:  They're all -  RW: (looking thru EM's papers on the table) This is probably _ _ my ward.  They're up in the area.   EM:  Well, th, those are just print-outs.  RW:  Yeah.  EM:  I mean these are COE products.  I, I guess I can - ?:  DM:  Is this pretty much it, Jim, or -  JH:  Are the properties identified on there?  DM:  what are the chances of this being it?  RW:  This is Sept 99.  You probably got a newer one than that.  EM:  No, this is uh August, the, the phase was Sept 99.  I think the final drawing was April of 2000 & 1. 

 

DC:  Well, early on, in the very, when we first started this, we had a what they called a, ALONG one & a short one & I don't really know what the wording was & how it went.  One was, I don't really know if I have any of those, any of those.   RW?: (in the background) That's a federal __.  EM:  You know I, I may have that, but frankly, it was not an eng'd drawing;  it was just, it was hand-drawn by an engr.   DC:  Right.  EM:  I mean this is - DC: I don't  - EM: this is the final plan & I guess - DC: I can't tell ya if I have anything;  I may have a uh, like out here on the drawing, out here on the big bd out here that's covered up, there may be some uh whatever that is;  I really don't know what, what direction that is.  There may be one over here.  I don't know what preliminary design over here, what, how that went, but I really, other than that, I don't really, I, really, I, I couldn't tell ya.  I'd have to look & see if I have any prints of it.

 

MM:  Jim, what about this (on the table), do you have any copies of that?  JZ:  Probably the best thing - that's, that's the same levee that's on the uh, ROW drawings.  I would think that's probably the best thing  -  Ed:   That's almost the same as the first one, right?  Not too much difference.  JZ:  Well, I'm, I'm, it's hard to say.  Ed:  Except it's too wide here (pointing to AL levee), but just move it over - JZ:  It's wide because that's an eng'd fill over there instead of bein' a levee.  It's really 70' wide crown. 

 

DC: That footprint, I don't think that footprint there is probably the last, the last footprint it was, except for the width.  Ed:  Do you need to have that?  JZ:  We need the space to put all the stuff from the g/p.  DC: what they called the - Ed: Can't you take that some place else?  JZ: Well, we've got 2 p -

 

DC: when we decided to move it in one, one direction & that was before my, a long time ago.   DC:  There was one that was supposed to come out & go ALONG the river - Ed: This problem is  -  DC: ALONG the river, closer to the river.  Ed: need to move it over a few feet to  -  DC:  It was the very first.  MM: Do you have a copy of that? DC:  & that was where it was going to take in most of the property, all the homes in the city, would put them inside the leveeBut then there was a point to what they said when they came in here, that the levee was too close to the river.  There wasn't enough room between the river & the levee;  there wasn't enough floodway in there.  Ed:  Where?  DC:  Where it flows.  Ed:  Up here you mean?  DC: Up there, right.  Ed:  Well, this here's closer than that is.  DC:  It was closer than that.  Ed: Yeah.  Are you gonna tear some of this out? 

 

(Others are talking together in the background.)  DC: & then, there was a, then the, then they changed that & brought it around & moved it & there was a det area in there.  & I don't know whether they've changed it now from what, when they moved the det area or not.  I'd have to look.  I'd have to look at this to make a - Ed:  Well, the original footprint was just hunky-dory with everybody down there in AL.  DC:  Yeah, because everything was inside the levee.  Ed:  Right, exactly, & you got, you had your extension, you had your det pond & the whole works.  But you changed it to make a dump. 

 

DC:  There was no, there was no way that you could build a levee that close to the river.  JZ:  Yeah, they had to be move it over because there was, it was in a floodway.   DC:  It's in the floodway.  There wasn't enough area  - JZ:  Part of it was in the floodway.  DC: The river banks & that in the floodway with their levee.  So they moved it back & then they changed it.  Then they brought it in where they weren't takin' any, any, most of the homes were gonna be outside the levee on the, in the thing.  But I, I'd have to look back & see.  I have some old drawings in rolls-up downstairs that I may go over & look at 'em.  But I can't really tell ya.

 

 Ed:  My question was a (personal or positional?) question.  This here, is it out of the floodway?  Right there.  JZ:  I think it is from what I understand.  I think that's, maybe - Ed:  Well, then, this here's WAY out of the floodway.  JZ:  No, it's, umm, I, I  understand - DM:  crosses at the head of the floodway, maybe.  JZ:  The floodway is the, partly defined because of the, the fill on each of those 2 bridges, you know, the uh RR bridge & hiway fif - Ed:  Well, now on the other side of the river, we don't have no floodway at all 'cause that bank's right up against the river.  Now I don't know - EM was workin' for uh, for uh Peer, Peerless Park & he, how did he get that one done?  He can get the same thing done for us

 

JZ:  From what I understand, the floodway is right along that, basically along the levee there.  Ed:  Right, that's where, well, right here.  & if they put this levee where, or just not use it for a trash dump.  You just put a levee there, then we'd all be happy down there.  DM:  I think Ed's maybe alluding to, is that auto dealership;  he filled in all kinds of dirt.  Ed:  Yeah.  DM:  Did he have to follow FEMA & we di, er he didn't have to & we do, or what's the - DC:  Right.  JZ:  I don't know, I - DC:  He didn't have to because he snuck it in.  (Others are talking together in the background.)  DM:  Oh, ok.  DC:  He snuck it in before anybody had a - DM:  We can't make him take it back out?   DC: Can't take it back now.  DM:  We can't sneak it either, huh?  DC: (chuckling) No, you can't snake it in now.  (DM laughs)  They started fillin' that up, & they got their permits to do that from the EPA & the DNR way back when. 

 

Ed:  Well, my, my next thing is, we don't even have to use this for a trash dump.  You could shorten that levee a little bit & keep our properties intact & Arnold Dr intact.  DC:  Shorten what?  Ed:  The levee don't have to be as wide here 'cause you're usin' it for a trash dump.  You're not usin' it for a levee;  you're usin' it for a trash dump.  This side is the levee & that's the levee;  this side's trash dump.  DC: No, we're not usin' it for a trash dump.  Ed:  Well, you are, you're movin' this dirt here, down here.  DC:  No we're not.  No we're not.  We're puttin' eng'd fill in there, sir;  we're not usin' trash.  Ed:  Alright.  DC:  Because whenever you dump trash over in the landfill, would you like to pay the extra cost for it?  Ed:  It's an eng'd - DC:  You make a lot of money, Mr. Harrawood. 

 

Ed: It's an engr's fill that could be put up along here any place.  (The background conversation ends.)  DC:  Where?  Ed:  Any place along that;  you can widen this levee any place down thru there.  DC:  We're gonna use it there.  We're gonna use it there too.  Ed:  Well, anyway.  DC:  We're gonna use it there.  It's not trash.  MM:  We'll call it, ok, eng'd fill.  Ed:  Eng'd fill, we can put it the way you want, eng'd fill.  MM: Ok.  DC:  Eng'd fill.   Ed:  You don't need to put the eng'd fill here;  you can put it some place else.  DC:  Oh yes we do.  MM:  Why?  Why, Dave?  DC:  Why?  MM:  Why do you have to put it there? 

 

DC:  Because we're mak, we're doing a thing here for the fire dept too & makin' this levee wider so the fire dept has an access on this River Rd to get over this levee.  They don't have, which they don't  -  Ed:  Well, nobody's arguing about you goin' River Rd & make it longer there.  I don't, we don't care about River Rd.  DC: Make what longer?  Ed:  You can make 'em a ramp right there to get up on & over  -  DC:  We can't.  We'd have to have it so high  -  RW: Dave.  -  DC:  & we'd have to have it so wide because of the fact we need to get a fire truck over it.  Ed:  Well, that's what I'm sayin'.  You can, right there, you -

 

RW:  Dave, can we make the motion to adjourn & you can dicuss that - DC:  I'm not gonna discuss it.  I'm, I'm not gonna discuss it any more because (chuckle)  that's they way it's gonna be & that, you know, that's - ok.  Is that all the questions you have, Maureen? 

 

3/18/02 Levee - Section  19 of 19

 

MM:  So excuse me, Eric (He's talking privately with others again.)  DC:  Eric.  MM:  Eric, so you'll get me a copy of that at the next mtg?  EM: I'll get you a copy of, of yeah, this uh - MM: The one you have there.  (he nodded yes)  Ok.  ?: _ _ -

 

Um, you know, I checked with LaVonne Brown & it was 3 months ago that you were in court with her.  & 3 other people heard you tell Officer Lane that you, you didn't want her house, you just wanted her property.  So I guess you forgot that you did say that.  But I'm still just curious why you would want her property when it's gonna be on the outside of the levee.

 

EM:  When you're talkin' about court, we're talkin' about - MM:  VP Court 3 months ago.  EM:  I've never been in court as far as I know, with, with  LaVonne Brown in circuit court.  MM:  LaVonne Brown was in court here in VP.  EM:  LaVonne Brown is, is that the daughter or the mother, I don't know.  I thought that was the, the mother.  MM:  Well, it was Officer Lane that you were talkin' to here.  EM:  Ok, but there's - MM: In front of LaVonne & 3 other people.  EM: Ok, well, there were a daughter & a son - MM:  Why is it that you would want her property? 

 

EM:  Listen to me. There was a daughter & a son & LaVonne Brown, who were charged with trespassing because it's a burned out & condemned house.  MM:  Well, I don't want to talk about her personal charges in court.  EM:  Part of the levee ROW goes on their property;  to that extent, the City of VP can & will acquire their property that's impacted by the ROW of the levee.  We don't need, nor will we get credit, nor do we want property that's not going to be impacted by the ROW.  MM:  Hmm.  EM:  Ok?  MM: Ok. 

 

EM: & that's the status.  She is, her property is, is being reappraised because of the new design, just like your property is.  Mr. Harrawood's property is NOT impacted.  Uh &  -  MM:  It's not?  You're takin' his own house.  EM:  Well,  it's not impacted by the new design.  It's, it's the same - JZ:  No, we're takin' everything. 

 

Ed:  This, this design right here impacts the, the north side of Arnold Dr.  EM:  Oh, absolutely.  Ed:  Which takes, well, & before, it, it only came to Arnold Dr.  Now it's takin' - JZ:  There was a det pond - EM:  Well, that's not true.  JZ:  there before.  Ed:  You're right.  EM:  Your property would've been underwater & would've been taken anyway.  Ed:  No, no, it was south of Arnold Dr was a det pond;  north of Arnold Dr, there was nothin' goin' on there. 

 

MM:  But you say you've contacted all of the uh people on Arnold Dr as far as uh gettin' appraisals?  EM:  For those people that that's needed.  I, I think you've met with the appraiser; um, & so has Mr. McGhee, to the extent that he'll meet with people.  MM:  & LaVonne & Ed?   EM:  &, & the  Brown's & Harrawood are both rep'd by Mr. Denlow & -

 

Ed:  Nobody's contacted him.  EM:  Well, Mr., yes they have.  Mr. Denlow's been contacted.   Ed:  Well, I talked to him a couple wks ago & he says nobody's talked to him.  EM:  He knows about it.  MM:  Hmm.  EM:  I've talked to, I, I talked to his associate, frankly.  DC:  I'm gonna set -  Ed:  'cause I called him & he said nobody's made an offer & nobody's talked to him.  MM:  Ok, tku. 

 

DC:  I think these are questions that's are beyond the levee cmsn that we shouldn't be discussing here.  I mean this is - we don't make any decision on land acquisition;  the BOAdo & if you want to bring these questions up to the BOA, fine. 

 

EM:  Mr. Wilken made a motion to adjourn, he said.  DC:  I'd like to just say the next mtg will be 4/15 at the same time.  I have a motion to adjourn.  Do I hear a 2nd?   ?: __.  DC:  I have a motion & a 2nd.  All in favor of adjourn (a few say, "aye" & I turned the tape off.)

______________________________________________________________

 

Notes:  After this 3/18/02 levee mtg, I mentioned to EM that I couldn't see how he's going to fashion a new access to my #8 garage (4/16/01 Levee Mtg).  He said my garage would probably just have to go!  When I exclaimed that it's a 4-car garage, he reciprocated with, "Oh well!" 

 

A few minutes later, I talked with RC by his car in the parking lot.  A few wks ago, RC had told me that when he was on P&Z between 4/98 & 4/00, he had seen a blueprint of Quik Trip at AL.  Today now, he took a, blueprint I presume, out of his trunk, unrolled it & quickly showed it to me.  It had a letter attached, & the letterhead was that of Rucci &/or Meramec Development Co.  The blueprint depicted Quik Trip located about where Ecomony Radiator, Katy Computer & Env'l Landscaping are now;  a strip mall along the Arnold's Landing RR tracks;  & a restaurant in about the center of a parking area there also. 

 

RC rushed to put it back into his truck; said he thought it was the only one around;  & that he didn't want to show it to anyone else until after the 4/02 election. 

 


CITY'S 3/18/02 VP LEVEE CMSN MTG MINS

The VP Levee Cmsn held its monthly mtg at 5:00 pm on 3/18/02.  Present were RW, DC, JZ, DM, RS, JH, EM, JW, RH, TB, CLM. 

 

JZ discussed on-going efforts to administratively approve the certification provided within the 1998 amendmt to the levee authorization acts which would allow an increased federal expenditure from $20M to $30M.  He also indicated the COE had requested an add'l $50,000 for the month of March for continued planning & design.

 

CLM brought up issues pertaining to MDNR permitting for relief wells;  the declaration of the State Historian that the glass works apeared eligible for inclusion in the National Historic Register & some steps needed to be taken to catalog & characterize the site;  there were some other issues regarding a Phase 2 Study & lack of access by the landowners to AL properties.

 

CLM discussed funding efforts & the fact of strong congressional support for the project.  EM discussed the bonding process & local funds together with property acquisitions.  The mtg adjourned at 6:30 pm.