Notes:  This mtg was taped from 5pm until I had to leave at 6 in order to return by 7:30 for the BOA mtg.  I don't know when the levee mtg ended.  On 4/2/02  Dan Michel was elected VP Mayor.  Re Sec 2 below, I was told that EM's resignation as city aty would automatically include his levee & prosecuting atty positions.  Whether that's correct, I don't know.  New abbrev:  uno = u know.  Ref  EM's LEV20020415 hand-out - Drawing #ME-VP-6/RW-2, dated 7/01  in addition to the one in Sec 5 below.


8/9/05 Revision:  While simply updating the format of these mins, including improving bold emphasis & punctuation, curiosity won, substantially revising Sec 3.  On this tape's 1st rewind it had seemed that (parag) p3's very good friend was just in CLM's Mumblings & Room-noise Sec'ys ofc, but more rewinds revealed as 1st posted, the ASA's sec'ys ofc.  But after today's umpteenth rewind, s/he was discovered in (Revision #1) the Administrative Assistant's Sec'ys office.  I apologize for the confusion while cursing the effectiveness of intentional mumbling.  Other noteworthy revisions are:  2)  CLM & JZ's now-italicized cmts in Sec 8p1&2;  3)  in 10p1, it wasn't JZ, but CLM whispering that he's not so sure;  & 4) in 11's last p, is new info deciphered re Aprops Subcmte Members paid to not award projects.  


Present:  DC, DM, JK, RS, JH, DS, CLM, JZ, EM, BL & TH.  Also RC & DA.


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  1 of 14


DC:  We'll bring this, call this mtg to order about 5:05.  (roll call - see above) (Pledge Allegiance) Um, I have some additions to the uh, agenda.  Uh, we'll change the order of 'em a little bit here.  Uh, the first off, at 7A, will be EM;  uh Item uh, B, B will be Item 4B update;  uh C will be the city cost share for the project & TPC;  D, the fed & sponsor funding for the FY 2000, is this still 2002, or should I change that to 2003? 


CLM:  2002 till Oc, on Oct 1st _ _ _.  DC:  Ok.  DC:  Uh, we'll also have uh E is Rob Stuart.  CLM:  Altho u may want to - DC:  & 2003?  CLM:  Yeah.  DC:  Ok, next time we'll have it as 2002 & 2003.  TH:  Dave, this yr's budget that we're workin' on is 2003, but we're still in FY 2002.  DC:  Ok.  Next time it'll be 2002 & 2003.  Uh, E'll be Rob Stuart;  & F will be Dan Michels. 


Does anybody else have anything else that they would like to add to the agenda or delete from the agenda?  Hearing none, I'd like to have a motion to approve the agenda.  RS?: Motion.  ?: 2nd.  DC:  I have a motion & a 2nd to approve the agenda.  All in favor? (some, possibly all aye)  Aye's have it.  Item 6 is approve the mins of the 3/18/02 mtg.  JK:  I'll make the motion.  DC:  Motion & a 2nd?  ?: 2nd.  DC:  I have a motion & a 2nd to approve the mins of the 3/18/02 mtg.  Uh, all in favor?  (some or all aye)  Aye's have it.  Ok, discussion items uh, for this mtg.  Uh, first off we'll have Item A, EM.


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  2 of 14


EM:  Thank u, Mr. Cusack.  Um, this morning the mayor-elect asked for my resignation, uh, as city atty.  So to the extent that this might be my swan song, I wanted to um, recap where we've been, uh, where we're goin', & uh hopefully, how long we're gonna get there & how we're gonna get there. 


Um, to-date, the city for its 5% cash contribution, has given the COE $1,462K.  JK:  How much?  EM: $1,462,000.  What this means is, is that if the city's lands, esmts & ROW's are 20%, uh, &, & there's a - get credit for that full amt,  5% of the total cash contributions, at the FULLY AUTHORIZED LEVELS FOR THE COE, of $35M is $2.33M.  What this means is over the next 3 yrs, we'll be expected to give the COE about $900K in cash.


For remaining properties, we need to acquire only a small portion of 1007 Pyramid Ave.  Uh, & that depends on whether or not MSD seeks to use the whole parcel for a lift sta or not.  Uh, & we are currently in the design phase of the sta itself & have solicited MSD for their opinion on where the left, the, the, the best location, together with a maintenance emphasis, would be. 


Um, we need 3 lots owned by Mr. Ed Harrawood in ALWe need one lot, which is reduced from 4 lots under the old levee realignmt, from Venita Brown.


Uh, a, a very recent survey uh within the last 10 days, has indicated that we need no prop from uh, the uh, VP Shpg Ctr, or the Meramec Shpg Ctr.  Uh, it was absolutely tremendous news.  The uh survey that we had had done by Zambrana, evidently took a, a false point where the city owned its property;  & uh, rather than needing a strip, we actually go right up to the uh, south side of their pkg lot.  We will need a uh temp const esmt & we're gonna need a drainage esmt because we're bldg a large bi-wall in that area & that's going to requal, require a reconfiguration of their drainage.  Therefore, for the 10 or 15 feet between the side of their bldg &, & their pkg lot, we're gonna have to be able to get in there & completely redrain them & redirect that drainage, uh over to the det basin to the east. 


Um, let's see, we do need some prop from the Halamicek uh, living trust property.  Um, there's, there's some sort of problem with survey coordinates & my understanding is that & the abutting property um - are in the process of being surveyed.  I think we should have something on that within the next 2 wks.


Umm, we do need temp const esmts for Rondal Investmts which is located at 801 Marshall, uh, &, & that's simply next to the um, Sports Complex to the north.  There's quite a steep grade in there & there's going to be some regrading of that area.  We expect to use some of that for some disposal material, um as well as some drainage esmts going to be in there.  & that applies to its neighbor, & that's prop by uh Mark & Peggy Simpson at 701 Marshall. 


Um, we also need a portion of Maureen Morris' property in AL & a portion of Michael McGhee's property, uh also in AL. 


I have uh, rcv'd prop appraisals on all of AL props.  Uh, the appraisals are dated 3/25.  I rcv'd them I think on the 27th.  I've reviewed them & they'll be going to our review appraiser uh earlier this wk, um Tim Nelson with the COE, for his review.  Um, yet to be done on, on those appraisals are figuring in um, sewage & drainage & storm water esmts;  but that's simply an eng'g feat, uh, &, & calls for some more calculations by the appraiser due to the realignmt. 


Um, we also need a temp const esmt from Absorbent Cotton Co where our drainage ditch, or our det basin goes into what, what is a former um, det basin for them or drainage area;  it's lower than our det basin.  Um, &, & the thought is is that we'll just go in & fill that up to grade for 'em um, & that way, we, we really wouldn't have to do a berm around their area uh so as to seal off our det basin, & they've agreed to that uh, uh in theory.  They're, they're just simply looking for some uh, specific design eng'g or whatever.  


Uh, we continue to work on the MSD lift staSWBT has performed Phase 1 of their utility relocation;  uh the city has given them, uh by deed, uh, in uh, I think it was in Nov of last yr, uh, an esmt so they could relocate their uh, uh fiber optic connectors.  Um, much of the UE work uh will probably be done this Summer.  A lot of Laclede Gas uh will be done early on &, & some during the const as will much of Mo Am Water Co.  These guys are all going to be going up & kind of thru or over the levee.  Um, that's about where we are in a nutshell. 


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  3 of 14


As everybody knows uh, uh, until uh, the 11th of uh April, the Army COE had ex, or had met its authorized level of expense of $20M.  Um, they were precluded from spending any more money, uh, even if they had all kinds of aprops, as a matter of law.  Uh, & I think, think we had some good news in that accord.  Is, is it official?  JZ:  Not official yet.  EM:  Ok, we, we don't have some official good news.  CLM:  The letter has been signed by the (Assistant?) SA  _ _ (JZ flipping papers noise) _ _ _ is what will make it official once we get back from Washington, Chief (of Eng's?) office _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. 


EM:  Ok, so we have some unofficial good news & that is, despite the COE mtg its ceiling of $20M uh, it has now been auth'd to expend an, an add'l $15M, uh subject to annual aprops for the levee project.  So that's certainly a, a watermark for this uh project & it was just done Friday. 


CLM:  Friday nite about quarter to six.  & I'll tell ya, several people deserve a lot of credit for makin' this happen.  We came from a real difficult time because of the turmoil involved in the previous ASA who normally signs it, has been forced to resign.  & _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ everything that that office was doing.  At at one point, it looked like they were just gonna have to (appoint?) a new one & _ needed approval (within or which takes?) 6 to12 months, normally, sometimes longer.  & thanks to uh, efforts by the St Louis Dist, Jim, Eric, Tom Horgan in particular, & a very good friend we have over in (room noise)  Administrative Assistant's Secretary''s ofc.  (He?)'s still currently assigned to the StL Dist ofc, but it's been agreed to in the Washington area - (obviously, he won't move till February?) _ _ _ _ previously I stole his line.   


DM:  Does that mean more money's gonna be released now that their cap's been raised or is there, or is there anything in the budget to - CLM:  Yeah, this means that the StL Dist can NOW be the ultimate appropriate for this yr - spend that money that was appropriated.  (I talked to 'em up at?) -  DM:  The cap kept 'em from spending it?  CLM: The cap kept 'em from spending it.  DM:  Do uno about how much there is?  


CLM:  What'd u end up with after (the city?) - JZ:  We have - CLM: _ - JZ:  more than we need.  Uh - CLM:  More, actually more than you'll be able to use this yr.  JZ:  Right.  TH:  U got  l.2 - JZ:  We got one  - TH:  Million last yr.  JZ:  point 2M, yeah.   CLM:  Yeah, but then they'll take 4M_ _ -  JZ:  We don't really need that, that much.  We have all the money we need in federal $ this FY, even takes up thru the end of Sept. 


TH: Jim, can u award the contract uh, what's the last one, 4B?  Can u award that with uh, that money u have?  I mean can u start the award on that, or do u require -  JZ:  We, well, there's other reasons, it's not money, but there's other reasons why we won't be able to. 


CLM:  Because the President's budget request for FY 2003 not only cut the money for the COE, for the - JZ:  (No or Well?) - CLM:  COE's capability & it also puts language in it, saying there's no new contracts could be awarded in FY 03.   TH:  No new STARTS tho, isn't it?  CLM: _ _ _ _ _. 


TH:  Well, how, how are, how, how are they gonna finish levee projects then across the country?  CLM:  That's for the (month-retreat or money tree?), but u gotta go to Congress for that  (loud room noise again) they don't do that stuff over there.  (someone exhales into the recorder!) (start?) THEIR work on this.  As uno, up at your office & at Kit Bond's office, Congress tried to get the aprops subcmtes 'n the House & Senate's version to add money to the President's budget request - _ Congress (man?) (more room noises) (makes or takes?) more than they know what to do with?) - & they also put together language (_ _ _ recorder noise, finally moving it closer to CLM _ _ ) _ _ _ _ _money that can be used to award const contracts (because nobody knows where it came from?). 


TH:  So am I clear that the debt ceiling passed in Legislation 'n  (& word of?) 1999, it was officially, oh, we have some unofficial good news that it was signed today - CLM:  Yeah, (White?) - TH:  We've seen - CLM:  (White rcv'd it?) - TH:  some movemt on that.  Am I - CLM: Language says, uno, Tom, that the, the authority didn't - to raise it 20 to 35M - did not become effective till after the SA signed the letter - TH:  Right.  CLM: certifying it was eng'g.  (U?) could probably (continue to?) award (even tho?)  -


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  4 of  14


TH:  So now, if we would get - work has been suspended on the project for what, how many days now, about 10?  JZ:  Uh, well, it was suspended because of lack of funds for - TH:  Well, because _ - JZ:  a couple wks - TH:  U ran out, right?  JZ: That's - TH:  That's seasonal - JZ:  of the city's funds.  We've been using the city's funds since Oct.  TH:  Right, so it's been suspended for what, about 10 days?  5 days?  JZ:  More than that.  It's been a couple of wks - TH:  couple wks, ok.  JZ: with no money whatsoever, but  - TH: Ok, so - JZ:  But I'll be talkin' about that in a min.  TH:  Ok, alright, well why don't I just wait;  I got, I got uh some questions.  (someone sneezes, coughs like on the recorder)


EM:  The, the, the, the, uh, $20M uh, ceiling was I, I believe met in late Nov, uh or early Dec of last yr, if I'm not mistaken.  JZ:  It, it was late Oct that _ - EM:  ok, late Oct.  Since that time, the city had, had been giving incremts of $150K monthly to support the COE, uh, in its quest.  Prepared a -


JZ:  a hundred, a hundred thousand one time & then 50 & then another _ _, a total of 200 (Gee?) -  EM:  Um, actually, it's 250 uh, but w, we did we au, authorized $50K on March the uh 18th.  JZ:  Yeah, we counted that.  EM: Ok. 


CLM:  That, that's money the city would HAVE to pay to, to do it anyway.  JZorEM:  Right.  CLM:  _ _ _ - DM:   We did  paid it early, right?  CLM:  Oh, yeah _ _ _ - JK?: _ -  JZ:  Really, u had to pay it even (pause) when u were paying it.  JK:  'Cause I think we were behind.   DM:  We (even?) paid early, so we paid it on time.  ?: Ok.  EM?:  No, we're not puttin on - CLM:  So they're actually ahead on it.  JZ:  Not really (he chuckles).   EM:  Um, ou, our, our calculations were totaled as 150, plus the uh, other benefit  -  we'll, we'll get together on that.


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  5 of 14


Uh, prepared an event timeline (4/15/02 EM's Levee Event Timeline).  Uh, I, I have rcv'd, both from the Mayor-Elect &, & from a number of sources, some indications that, 'Gee, this levee should've been done eons ago'.  Uh &, & so I wanted to step backwards & just look where we were. 


Back in 1981, this um, project was actually authorized by the deauthorization of the Meramec Dam in Sullivan.  In 87, uh a General Design Memorandum (GDM) was completed, which was one of the steps necessary before const-start funding would be achieved.  Um, that happened in FY 91, um, &, & the COE started to design, uh, this levee. 


Uh, as, as everybody here knows or should know, this levee is sponsored by the COE;  it's designed, engineered, uh they're responsible for all contracts.  Uh, all contracts are done in conformance with uh, federal rules & regs.  They do the award with very minimal input from the city.  The city's responsibility is to acquire lands, esmts, R'sOW's & disposal areas.  Uh, & provide uh 5% of the TPC in cash & another 20% in uh, value.  


Um, in, in 9/91, following uh design, uh land acquisition commenced.  Uh, in 92 the total project -  JZ?:  Want that?  EM:  Yeah, absolutely, sorry - In 92, the TPC was estimated at $15.4M.  Here we are 10 yrs later & we have a total project (TPC) estimate of $43M. 


Um, uh, uh, a lot of reasons for that, that low figure back in 92, that 92 estimate, in,in large part, probably used um real estate values that were maybe 5, 6 yrs old;  they were all estimates;  uh, wasn't the uh, uh result of any intense survey, or, or uh, uh, detailed estimates. 


Uh, in order to fund the city's acquisitions uh for real estate, we had a $2.86M bond issue as, as u will recall, just the, the funding, was no mean feat on the city's part itself was - it's initiated.  Um, settlemt agreemts occurred with school & fire districts, uh, & we were able to bond that. 


& finally in, in uh, 93, uh Phase 1, which was the StL Ave closure structure, commenced.  Uh &, uh in the Fall of 94, uh, the Vance Rd closure structure which uh, actually started in - JK:  Started & now - EM: started - JK:  u've delayed it.   EM:  started in the Fall of 94, that's correct, as opposed to being completed.  Um, it completed in late 95 I believe. 


In 95, 2 bond issues were uh, floated &, & those were series A & B;  they totaled $1.65M.  All these bond issues had maximum pay-outs &, & that is, uh, uh, the, the TIF had a 23-yr life, commencing in 88 & therefore, uh, it goes until the yr 2011.  Um, 8/95, the COE increased it's total cost (TPC) est to 20 - call it $22M, uh, it went up by incremts. 


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  6 of 14


Uh in 95 thru 98, the city was very, very fortunate to be the beneficiary of a land acquisition that was commenced by uh, virture of being flooded in 94 & 95, the fed gov't started a land acquistion program that was voluntary;  um it was uh for FEMA, uh funds & also Cmty Dev Block Grant 'n two forms of funds the city contracted with StL Cnty a flood mgmt cmsn managed those buy-outs & from 95 thru 98, nearly ALL of the uh property uh, in uh Phases uh 3 & uh a large portion of Phase 4 were, were bought out by virture of this voluntary buy-out. 


Um, those properties that were NOT uh purchased, uh the city initiated a 2nd review program with that uh entity &, & we had a series of hearings with that program & we were able to uh, still benefit from fed money to uh, clear up the, the, the bulk of those props.  & uh, in 98, issued our 3rd bond issue & that was for $2.81M


Um, Phase 4 uh, was uh, commenced & completed, uh in the yrs 88 thru 99.  Um, in 99 the uh, bill that we were just talking about, increasing the ceiling from $20M to $35M, uh was uh approved by Congress.  & uh, gotta give all the credit it in the world to, to uh the, the gentleman to my right & to the gentleman to my left, Mr Horgan & Col. McKinney, uh for, for incredible work on, on that particular legislation. 


As we all recall, uh in the Fall of 2000, uh, Phase 4B was completed.  JZ:  These are really 3A & 3B, Eric.  EM:  Uh just - I'm sorry, you're right 3A & 3B.  Um & in the uh 10/01, the uh COE est jumped to where we are today, call if $43M.  Um, we've completed the uh BN RR closure structure & um, that, that pretty well brings us up to date.  The COE's spent their 20M Bucks & uh, as of today, unofficially, uh they're authorized to expend an add'l $15M, subject of course to annual aprops.  Um, I think that pretty well brings u up to date. 


Uh, I don't wanna to minimize some other issues &, & those are we've gotta get over the city's bond issue;  um, we, we, we do need to hire a financial advisor.  I've made some suggestions to the bd for their consideration this evening. 


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  7 of 14


Um, we have some, some pretty substantial uh, env'l issues with the levee.  & as u will recall from our mtg last wk, uh month, that includes the uh, uh eligibility for the uh, g/f to be a uh a national historic landmark.  It's uh, it's eligible for the, the register, uh according to uh, uh, the State, I believe Archivist, or State Historian.  CLM:  State Historic Cmsn(r?) _ _ _. 


EM:  Uh, also, uh we, we have uh, some permitting issues with uh, MDNR.  Uh, we are, uh discharging some contaminated ground water as a result of uh, 2 Operating Units in, in the city or, or, uh, ac, actually what could be 3 Op'g Units once they get up & going;  it's Geldbach, Wainwright & the uh, Valley Heat Treat. 


Uh, because we have relief wells in the det basins, these uh relief wells will, will percolate ground water that has contaminated water in it.  & uh, by law, would be - uh have to do something;  we can't discharge that directly into the Meramec River.  Uh, bear in mind that that water is currently discharged directly into the Meramec River by uh, the industrial waste users now, which is Absorbent Cotton Co & by uh, the uh, the Reichhold Industries. 


However, we, we've, we've got issues & we're hoping to work with those industries, MDNR, um, as well as uh Purdy, who is our uh, env'l eng'g co, in order to resolve those issues.  CLM:  St. L Cnty _ _ _ _ - EM:  Uh, absolutely;  it's StL Cnty who's, I guess is really the lead agencyCLM:  Most important(ly?)  (that I hear or outta here?) - EM:  Uh, right, um, they have required that, uh we discharge uh, no less than uh drinking water standards uh when that goes into the Meramec River.


Uuuum, we, we've got some other, I guess uh equally as important (!!!!) uh to the project, env'l isshles {sic} in ba-& those would include a Phase 2 Study needs to be completed in AL.  We have yet to have permission from property owner, uh, to, to enter on those props, & it's obviously going to take litigation, uh to uh, uh, have that on-site uh survey with borings that, that would be necessary. (?)


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  8 of 14


Uh, Lee, can u think of any other uh (pause) - CLM:  Work on this board at this time.  Just - makin' payments - the most they'll pay (us?).  JZ:  Probably the only uh -  Make it a hundred & pick up sequentials.  They uh, they need to get permission from uh UP to get their - EM:  Oh absolutely!  CLM:  Full board.  EM:  Yeah.  CLM:  Yeah, be specific.


EM:  uh &, & my suggestion is, is that, that we once again contract with the COEWe've contracted with them on at least 2 occasions to get ROW uh, or, or connection uh esmts what I've have u with the RR. (!) We actually want to use the uh, uh old MOPAC line embankmt as, as a tie-in with our levee uh, in the AL area & we need their permission to do so.  We have to of course give them assurances that we will in no way weaken their structures. 


Um, we have to uh, provide proof of insurance &, & uh, uh, maint & a few other things that the COE is very ably & successfully concluded uh, these & uh, the uh Phase 2 uh over on Vance Rd where they tied into MOPAC on the other side, uh as well as uh with Phase 3B when they'd tied into uh, uh the  BN tracks &, & where we uh had to get ROW for our mitigation area.  So uh that, that is a rather lengthy process &, & uh requires some, some high degree of eng'g &, & so (forth?), so contacts that the COE's already developed & refined.


DC:  Does that include that esmt?  Does that include that they're gonna bore underneath the ROW?  JZ:  It, it would have to include that as well as  - DC:  It'll be included in the- JZ:  Right.  DC:  the tie-in & the boring underneath the track?  JZ:  Right.  EM:  &, & what David just referred to, we are diverting the storm water that WOULD HAVE flowed in AL, into a different direction & we're diverting that underneath the RR tracks to the det basin.  Uh, it's a boring underneath the uh RR tracks that's gonna need an esmt. 


DC:  Are we gonna increase the uh, uh det pond on Fishpot Creek any?  Are we going to make it  - JZ:  No (he starts tapping pen on table by recorder), it's - DC: _ _ - JZ:  adequate - DC:  _ this time or - JZ:  right to - our hydraulics is adequate the way it is for that extra water.  DC:  To handle this other amt of water?  JZ: Right.  EM:  Yeah, there's no need to - my understanding, no need to increase, increase the amt of det basin at all.  JZ:  Right. 


DC:  I'm sure they'll look into that, uh, if we DO need to increase that det - JZ:  Well,  they've already, I mean he's done quite a bit of looking at it to make sure that'll work.  DC:  Then they have decided they probably won't need to increase the size of the det basin?  JZ:  Right. 


EM:  That concludes my report.  I'm open for any questions that anybody has.  DC:  Does anybody have any questions on his report? 


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  9 of  14


We'll go to Item 4B, uh Item D, Item (Phase) 4B update;  do u have anything on that, Jim?  JZ:  I uh, I have a little bit to say about this uh 4B.  I guess the main point that I need to make is that I, we had SOME delay in our uh, design effort because of lack of funds.  There was kind of a wind-down (phone rings), uh uno & uh before we ran out of money.  Um, & there's 2 other factors that are really part of it.  Uh, I'm gonna tell ya about a delay in our schedule here.


One is that we have been working because of env'l issues, er our civil engrs & others have been involved in trying to help resolve env'l issues, so some of the time is spent on that.  & uh, the other one is we look basically at priorities within the dist.  Uh so with that, I'm gonna have to say, unfortunately, that we have a delay in our schedule even with uh, even with all the funds that are becoming available now, uh about a 3-month delay, perhaps more. 


CLM?:  _ _ - JZ:  & that would be a, a delay in getting our design finished & then we - to start the uh - basically, we have what's called the uh Vitability Review;  uh, a review of our plans & specs that was originally scheduled for May, middle of May, & now I'm saying it's gonna be 3 months later, which would be Aug.  & uh, the advertisemt of the const contract which uh was originally scheduled for Aug, would now be Nov. 


Again, that, that particular activity not only depends on our design, that's one thing it depends on;  but the other thing it depends on is getting all the land completely assembled & approved by the COE as far as, have we verified all the land needed for the contract is in, is in-hand. 


Um, then, so that also delays - we go thru the next process after we advertise, we, we give out copies of the P&S to all prospective bidders;  we open the bids a month after that & then we, a month after that, we award the contract.  So what would - had been scheduled for Nov, is now Feb & that's at the earliest. 


& I, I had talked with our, 2 of our key designers today;  both, one of them has been gone for the last 2 wks & just got back today & so this is kind of fresh, fresh news & the fresh look at what, what remains to be done in our design effort.  DM:  U said earliest we could release the contract is Feb of 03?  JZ:  AWARD the contract.  DM:  Award, oh award.  JZ:  Award.   CLM:  Based on the CURRENT schedule. 


What, just out of curiosity, what uh, took priority within the const?  JZ:  Well, um, a variety of things.  I mean people, when, when it looks like there's no - when we may have a funding problem, then they get assigned to other projects & so they're kind of on those tracks too.  I mean, I & I personally, was assigned to another project that's taking a big part of my time.  & uh, there's, there's probably 3 or 4 projects that are involved & they're looking for different people. 


4/15/02 LEV - Sec 10 of 14


CLM:  Was there a conscious decision from the front office to change priorities - JZ:  Well, it's - CLM:  'cause of lack of funding _ - JZ:  Ummm - CLM:  _ u have to go where the money's at.  JZ:  I don't think it's a constant decision from the front office - CLM:  I'm not so sure.  JZ:  it's just people, uh individuals being assigned work.  So um, no, it's definitely not a con-conscious decision on the part of our front office.  ?: _ -


But that's, that's basically, my news as far as the schedule goes, which I'm sure is not good news, but I will, uno, I just want to point out that I, u know, I know that this is a high priority project.  I know that uh, we have to, a town here who is uh, subject to flooding from the Meramec River that could happen any time.  We got a project that's 60% complete & you're still open to flooding & it's been a long part of the process to get to where we are.  So, um uno, & I have, I have reiterated that, those points many times to, to our dist people. 


DM:  What's the latest we can get the lands in-hand & not further push this out past Feb?  I mean if we don't get the land till Oct - JZ:  Well, then it gets pushed back.  DM:  I mean, how, how long do we have before - JZ:  Basically I mean, on this schedule, if u, if u would have the lands & uh, we advertise in uh Nov, ok, the lands are in-hand in Nov - DM:  So we got till Nov without further - JZ:  all of the agreemts, all the, uno, RR agreemts & the whole, whole package, that's all done by Nov & then we're kind of, kind of even as far as the design matching the -


EM: U gotta look utility.  JZ:  the utility relocations, all that has to be - utility relocations either have to be completed or else there has to be a, a firm plan on how that's gonna be done along with const.  ?:  Right.  EM:  (They've or Dave?), in the past, what we have done for some utility relocations & frankly, this may make no perfect sense for, for it as well, would be uh, take it together with the const contract for the MSD lift sta.  Uh, in some respects - JZ:  Yeah.  EM:  it may be absolutely perfect for that.  So that's, those aren't delayers, uh, uh - CLM?:  (Is Jim holding some more money?) _ - ?: _ -


CLM:  Jim, just off the record, would it be helpful if somebody from the front office were to kind of redirect people's attention to the fact that this is a prioity project?  Uno sometimes these things, one project we've established to be top priority, like this award - JZ:  There are a lot of - CLM:  that can - DM:  (rights?) here tonight.   CLM:  be kept alive - TH:  They know - DM: _ - TH:  it's a high priority project.  DM: _ have it?  JZ:  Um - CLM:  Believe this is the sort of thing u can take care of with a telephone call _ _ (_more room noises)


JZ:  Um, never hurts to have a cmty show their interest in - CLM: (Gettin' up?) - JZ:  the importance of - CLM:  If this could happen - JZ: _ _ - CLM: (it's from?) - no one deliberately says, ok, we'll downgrade this project's priority - DM:  'Cause the squeak, squeaky wheel getting the oil?  CLM:  Well - DM:  maybe we can squeak a little more & we'll  - JK:  No, this is every project's a priority.  DM:  I mean everybody's fightin' at the trough -  CLM:  Different individuals in, in positions of authority, who have different ideas about things that they have people working on then the -


JZ:  I mean I have - CLM:  history is like it's slipping - JZ:  a project that's, personally, a different project that's very high priority & we've gotta get something done within - DM:  So we gotta be sure ours - JZ:  within a month, & it's one of my key people in VP that's working on the other project with me alsoIt's, it's just - TH?:  Where was the - JZ:  there are a lot of - DM?:  Lot of out & dirty out there I guess.


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  11 of  14


TH:  What was the original - CLM:  Projects.  TH:  How - a delay date that we were going to award the contract - DM?: I know.  TH:  before this delay?  ?:  _ _ (cost or cause?) (movemt?) _ - JZ:  We had - DM: _ - JZ:  We had been saying Nov - DM?: _ - JZ:  till now we've been saying Nov. DM?: _ -  CLM:  That's about the (crap to get at?).  They've probably had a big, big - JZ:  of this yr.  ?:  (billing in specs?).


DC:  Wherever the cost - CLM?: _ - DC:  of money is, that's where you're gonna - CLM:  See, every - DC:  that's where you're gonna put all your people.  I mean if u don't have any money on the (cost go then they?) - DM:  They have money here & (none or down or now?) there (obviously?) -  DMorDC?:  right there you're gonna work on the one where the pot is. 


CLM:  If they all have to charge their time, every, every hour - JZ:  Well - CLM:  See that the uh specific costs goes for each, each project.   If there's no money in that project, they can't work on that project.  So - DM?: (U don't think?) - CLM:  everything's kind of slide within that direction _ _. 


JH:  _ he's been talkin' the talk of uh - CLM:  Go-between - JH:  _ contracts in 03, if u push this into 03 - JZ:  Well, it's already in 03 - DM?:  03 starts - JZ:  FY 03 starts on Oct 1st.  ?:  I don't think so.  JZ:  We had already, yeah, we had already been in FY 03 with an award date.  CLM:  Yeah, I - JZ:  That's still, that's another issue that's out there.  ?:  Shh, shh.  CLM:  With all the - ?:  What happened to _ - CLM:  other problems that we're overcoming, working to overcome, but, but this is not a, a disconcerted don't - it doesn't slip any further - ?:  _ _ _ - 


TH:  Um, I got, I got a question.  & so even with the current funds we have right now, we're, we're talking push back um, to awarding the contract FY 03;  that's not even counting the fact that the President has stuck in a no-new-starts clause in 03.  So we could get to 03, have our money & if that holds, we're not, we're gonna be on delay again?  CLM:  Delay the contract.  JZ: That's right.  TH:  Uh, yeah.  


CLM:  Why we're workin' to get not only the extra money, but also to get language put in the appropriation packet that specifies this money is needed or else it'll hold the project up.  I can get it! 


We've done this before, not for this particular project, but it takes some doin' to, to get it done.  I, I think, basically - ?:  _ (exact hump?) - CLM:  that there's a general feeling among the Congress - because it's not really an election yr - but there are other reasons too, I think as Jim told u once before, there was a public example of the Democrats in the House, that they would attempt to add money to the Pres's budget in an attempt to reduce the COE's own resources.  They took the money out & reduce the eng's money each yr. 


Tom & his, his boss & staff in Washington (someone tapping table again) investmt in ea one of these authy's & they speak to a lot of these people, members of Congress all over the country that are going to the aprops subcmte members _ _ _ who would be the best.  He'll pay 'em a portion of the money not to award his project _ budget go down, but see after he - last Friday, (which?) he was in the uh House & he said that he (would be talking?) to aprops subcmte, see what he had.  ?:  (Alright?) -


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  12 of 14


DC:  Uh, I have a couple things here on uh 4B.  I'll be mtg in uh, I'm waiting to hear from Purdy, uh we're going to go over the levee, uh, the whole levee & look at the mitigations;  they're gonna, they're workin' on.  I talked to the fella last wk.  I'm waitin' to hear from him & I'm gonna set up a mtg & they want to come out & uh, check over all the mitigation area that they can come up with & everything.  


CLM:  So they didn't coordinate.  DC:  Huh?  CLM:  The man with the COE that's comin' out (_ _someone coughs_ _) _ -  DC:  No, it's just Purdy & - CLM?: _ _ _ - DC:  one of his people & they want to go over the, they want to look at the whole thing.  They want to just look at - I, I really don't know how much we're gonna look at over there, but -


CLM:  Way I understand it, I think uh Andy McCord uh is one of Purdy's - DC:  That's who I'm - CLM:  Jim's goin' up over the area with the COE & he said that - DC:  Right, yeah, he did;  that's the same fella & then he said he came, he wanted to go over it with me & everything else.  But I think, did he talk to u, Jim, or -


JZ:  Yes, he's also been talkin' to, I hope anyway, uh Ken Dalrymple.  CLM: Yeah, he has.  They, he & the COE had somewhat a mtg of the minds on the fact that uh, apparently the city DOES have a copy of that mitigation agreemt.  JZ:  Right.  CLM:  Rather than havin' to go out & buy mitigation land, buy land & do it ourselves.  


DC:  So we'll be probably, I'm waitin' to hear from him when we're gonna set up this mtg & get together.  & this wk, Thurs, I'll meet with the COE & inspect the levee, our Spring inspection;  there's supposed to be a new fella takin' over for the VP Dist.  & uh, so I'll be meetin' with him.  They're just goin' over & look at the levee, but let the new fella know where it's at & everything else like that, so - CLM:  This is the const guy or guy that's gonna (_ _room noise) - DC:  No, this is - CLM:  _ (wasn't he in the?) emerg maint?  DC:  Emerg people that's coming out here. 


CLM:  Yeah, I don't know whether this has really been brought up or not before, but the fed projects, they're automatically grouped in along with what the COE calls the PO99 Project.  DC:  We did the last, we did it last Fall with uh, Stevens & Jerry Camp & Jerry called me this last wk, & he's gonna retire in, in the Fall.  & there's a new fella by the name of Joe Beckman, I think is gonna take over VP. 


CLM:  The levee's PO99 is if the levee is(n't?) damaged by a flood event, the COE has the authy to confirm it;  to come in & have the design work done for repairs, (towards or to award) the contract - JZ:  That doesn't happen until the levee is completed tho, accepted & completed.  CLM:  No, but I mean just gettin'_ - DC:  But they inspect it - CLM:  (the COE to work with them?) -


DC:   they inspect the levee twice a yr just to make sure that - go over & look at it - CLM:  It's gotta be kept, be kept up by the local sponsor to, of course, stay in, stay in the program.  DC:  Right.   I'll be doin' that this Thurs.  CLM:  There is pending uh action right NOW that changed that cost share from 80% fed to 75%, to appropriate your 20% _ _ _ _spend this money.  


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  13 of  14


DC:  & as soon as we can put a, get a mtg with the uh,Nat'l Weather Bureau & the COE & myself, we'll be looking at uh installing a new uh river guage (thing?), automated system to read the river.


CLM:  Where u gonna put that?  DC:  Well, we have a place that we're going to look at.  It's an old uh, uh, well house on River Dr that sits about, oh, I don't know, what would u say, Don?  DS:  20 ft.  DC:  20 ft in the air, completely made of concrete blocks, only accessible by ladder, which is a bear if u have to get into it.  & I talked to Don Coleman at the COE & he, he sort of remembers this, but he wants to bring the fella from the uh, Nat'l Weather Bureau out & make sure that this would be a suitable location for this hook that we been put up. 


CLM:  They have, weather svc (guy?) has responsibility to (handle it?).  DC: Right.  CLM:  So does the COE.  DC:  & there, like I say, there may be grant money for this.  Maybe we have to meet some kind of uh, uh, monies, but uh, the way Don talked, that there's probably money available for to put this thing in, between the COE & the Nat'l_ _. 


As u might know, they, they changed the reading of the guage.  They, uh the person agreed to, can't read if off of the Meramec Bridge any more.  So they put it on our boat ramp down in the Meramec uh Landing area.  They put a new, uh - JK?:  guage.  DC:  guages on the boat ramp & such.  & uh, well, when we do have the high water, I kinda go down & check it.  &


Don Coleman & I've been tryin' to keep an eye on if it's really accurate with what it is on the bridge or it wasn't, but we haven't had a really enough high water to really tell which was...(exchange tapes)... DC: ...we'll be working on that at the end of the month, but the end of April & the 1st of May, gettin' that, gettin' that (on there?) (someone coughs).  Ok, has anybody else got anything on Item uh B, Item 4B update? 


4/15/02 LEV - Sec  14 of  14


Ok. Item C, the city cost share for the project & TPC.  Did we kind of cover that on the other part?  Then the federal sponsor funding;  I think we covered that.  TH:  Dave, if I could just uh - DC: Ok, on the - TH: on that.  DC:  On that, either one, whichever.  TH:  Well, whatever one's first.  I was gonna add on the federal.  DC:  OK.


TH:  Um, in terms of FY 03 funding for this project, um, the funding has been just drastically cut under the admin's proposal.  Um, last yr we were able to get the COE's full, full capability, meaning what they could spend on a particular, what they could spend in a given yr & that was $1.2M.  This yr, the COE's capability is about 5.2M.  Uh &, Jim, correct me if I'm wrong here.  Um, & it's, a part of that would be the final phase of the levee;  I guess - JZ:  Right - TH:  it would be Phase 4.  JZ:  & then most, a big part of it would be that. 


TH:  The Pres's budget includes 600K for VP.  So u can see, it basically guts the project.  Um, so the full capa, Cgsm Akin has submitted a request to the cmte, Subcmte on Energy & Water that was due 3/22 for an add'l  4.6M in funds for full capability.  Um, I can tell u this;  it is Cgsm Akin's #1 priority in terms of flood control projects & probably all infrastructure projects in general. 


Um, hopefully, we're gonna try to get as much as possible that, God willing, all of it restored, but um, a cut that severe, I don't want to hold up - we're gonna try to get as much as possible restored.  Um, the situation with uh, the, the COE at headqtrs & the ASA, there's been a lot of turmoil up there.  Um, the, they've been under fire for the past couple yrs for, from env'lists under a variety of different issues.


& um, their new ASA who's a former Cgsm from Mississippi, um, got in & took the job as basically, ASA/CW.  Uh, he's basically, the top guy, uh, who approves everything & uh, he was, well, his appointmt was well rcv'd by people who are uh, rely on the COE's uh, who even, uno, who rely on the COE's full mission including flood control.  & um, he rcv'd his budget from OMB & it was, uh the budget that included the drastic cuts & he went to Congress uh, about a month ago;  & basically, kind of blew up & said, I need - I'm 2 Billion shy of a $ short just to get what I need done needed.


Uh, it was not rcv'd well & he was fired.  So it's a state of turmoil up there right now. & uh, um, Congress is, everybody in Congress is pretty much reeling uh from these budget cuts.  & I think they'll be successful in getting a lot of it restored;  the ques is how much.  Um, & that's where we are.  We intend to fight for the full 4.6M.  When a project is 60% complete, uh, to gut it like that, uno just doesn't make much sense to us, but uh, we're, we're going to try;  that's where we are. 


& uh, there may be things down the line, Mayor, as u said that uh, the Cgsm may be asking the City VP, the fire dist & supporting ofc'ls, uh, help him in submitting documentation & things uh, as we go up there.  & um, one of the things that they um, Mr McKinney, who's been at this a long time, they used to have local hearings so that locals could come up & testify about the support or the need for their project.  They haven't done that in the last 5 or 6 yrs, so they didn't have that option available, uh but -


CLM:  This yr they leave that up to the members to come up & tell somebody (that?).  TH:  (sigh) No, they really didn't.  Um & um, so there may be documentation from the school dist.  We've already submitted quite a bit of documentation with the VP, the City VP, Eric & Lee & everyone that's provided, & the school dist & uh it's just gonna take a little, a lot of work & um uno I think uh we're very aware;  like I said, it is our #1 priority.  & um, um, I, I believe both the Dist & the Div COE know that it's a very important priority to this Dist & to Cgsm Akin.  So that's where we are on that.   I wish I had better news.


DM:  Did Congress say, part of that, Cgsm Akin's gonna ask for a lifting of the restriction of no new contracts?  _ _ _ said we want this much money plus be able to start - TH:  Right, because that's GOTTTA happen because - ?: _ _ - TH:  if we could get the, if u get the 4.6M, we could get all of it back & we can't do anything.  


Um, normallly, what they have, that policy that they've had & I guess the ques I need to ask, they've had a pol- Congress has actually had a policy over the last 3 or 4 yrs where they've had no new starts.  What they mean by STARTS, they mean PROJECT STARTS, like as in STARTING CONST ON A NEW project & ANY STUDY THAT WOULD STUDY THE POSSIBILITY OF INITIATING A NEW project.


Now the Pres' language I saw this yr, I thought was no new STARTS, uh which means that new projects couldn't come into being or be studied, BUT our project under, under that definition, would be exempted & we COULD award 4B.  But, or, uh what I'm hearing tho, is they're saying no new contract, (seems correcting himself) no new starts.  The Pres -


DM:  No new contracts period - CLM:  We had BOTH.  DM:  rather than - CLM:  & no new const starts which means the project has NOT begun const.  TH:  Right, feasibility, reconnaissance - DM: _ _ - TH:  studies - DM:  the whole levee thing?  CLM:  No new const starts!  ?:  No new - CLM:  Our, our project has always gone on with const start.  U got that?  TH:  Lee, are we sure about that?  Because I've only seen, I thought that  - (as I prepare to leave at 6pm, someone asks me, 'Did u get that part?') -  language said only no new, no new const starts.  CLM: _ _ _ - (end taping)