Notes:  (12/18/02 none for now.)


Present:  RH, EM, TW, JW, DC, DS, JKB (new member John Brust, 1st mtg), DM, RW, CLM, BL, JZ. 


Also Present: Jim Mitas of Congressman Akin's office, Andy McCord of PG Purdy.  At about:  5:10 Pam Kettler arrived;  5:25 RC arrived;  5:50 RW left;   5:55 JM (Jim McMullen) & another man arrived.


Absent:  RS, JH, BW (Bob Walls), James Probert.



12/16/02 Levee - Section 1 of  6


DC: (does roll call)  I'd like to introduce John Brust.  He is the new flood plain member for the Levee Cmsn.  He's been a resident of VP for a long time.  (applause)  MM:  Welcome, John, be sure to speak up.  DC:  Does anybody know this fellow Probert?  JW:  Ain't that the school bd rep?  DM:  Yeah & he lives on Val P_ _ _  .  I've called - JW:  We sure can't keep nobody interested.  RW:  In Ward 1, John's about number 1100.  DM:  I'll make a note to call Jim.  BL:  I thought he'd come to one of these mtgs;  one's better than none.  (DC finishes roll call.) 


DC:  Has everybody been gettin' a ah, do you get a  thing?  John, you should've got one, but maybe Terry - RW:  Levee pack?  DC:  Levee packet, you get one, don't you?  JMitas:  I think I got some of the info, but I think it looks like maybe I didn't get all of it, or the  _ _ _  mins from the last mtg?   DC:  Did you get like the mins of the mtg & everything, an agenda?  JMitas:  I got the bid.  JW:  I didn't get no business.  DM:  There were no business. (some laugh)   DC:  Did you get an agenda?  JMitas:  No.  Oh no, I did;  it's in the back;  I'm sorry.  DC:  Ok, if anybody doesn't have theirs, I have some extra ones.  (Everyone pledges allegiance.)


DC:  Does anybody have any additions or deletions to the agenda?  I have one, Maureen Morris.  We'll make that 7 (Bor D?), the levee.  MM:  Dave, can I be added to the list to receive a packet?  DC:  That's up to the Levee Cmsn if they want me to send you one, I'll have you on it.  MM:  Can you vote on that tonight?  JW: She attends as much as anybody;  what's one more packet!  (DC agrees & I give him my address.)  DC: There's no more additions or deletions.  I need a motion to approve the agenda.   JW:  So move.  (someone 2nds)  DC:  I have a motion & a second to approve the agenda.   All in favor (a few say aye). 


We don't have any minutes to approve this time because we didn't have a quorum the last mtg.  RW:  Uh also, on the mins here, I don't think we've had any June mins, July mins or August mins either, that need approved yet -  haven't been submitted to the cmsn yet, not to my recollection.  EM:  We haven't had quorums for any of those periods.  DC:  We haven't had a quorum for maybe -  RW:  Well I know we did in June & July.  DC:  I'll have to check back & see if we have some for July or something.  I'll make some copies & make sure you get 'em.  I think we had some for July & maybe August.  I can't remember.  JW:  It's been so hit & miss.   DC:  No kiddin'!  We had some last, last time, ok. 


Discussion items for this mtg, Item 4B update, uh Jim, do you have anything? JZ:  Yeah, I've got several things.  DC:  Ok, take off.  JZ:  First of all, this tree clearing contract that was discussed in the attachment here to your agenda, we awarded that contract last Fri on the 13th of Dec. to the low bidder which is Incasol Env'l Svcs uh, out of Arlington, TX.  Uh, cost price is $189,820.  It's on the last page of the attachmt to the agenda.  & uh, just to compare that with the um gov't estimate which is shown in the 2nd to last line really, without profit estimate of $283,760.  So it's around $100,000 less than the gov't estimate.  


JW: I'm glad he did, but how'd he come up with that bid.  JZ: Our, our people check out these bids & talk to the contractor before we award, & they felt that the contractor was uh, bid was appropriate & their background & so forth was ok.  JW:  'cause he didn't even have a representative here or walk thru or - I was wondering how he knew how to bid that price.  I mean I'm glad he did;  he was cheatin' but I was gonna say if he didn't come down & even look at it.  Maybe he's got a friend -  BL?: gotta close.  We need a close.   JZ:  Yeah, there were other bids that were also you know, low, uh numbers 2 & 3.  (others talk at once) Several are, I think there are 4 of 'em that are below the gov't estimate all together.  DC:  Yeah, that Power, Power was here from Coumbia, Illinois.  JW:  He actually showed up.  DC:  Yeah, he showed up.  #2 bidder, Powers, he was here.  _ _ _ _  he was the 2nd lowest.  JZ:  Arch Ringenberg, our contracting officer, has been talking to these people & made sure they're aware of the berm requirements & the berm permit & all those things.  So anyway, it's been awarded.  Um _  _ _ _ is coming up;   I'm not quite sure what it was, usually about 2 wks after award & - ?: They start that quick?


JZ:  Well, they have a contract that runs 180 days but they have to finish knocking the trees down before April 1st.  We want to find out soon as we meet with them, you know, what exactly their construction schedule & plan is.  Our hope is that they will do the work in the winter time.  DC:  Let me know when you have that mtg with them.  Are you gonna have it at your office or are you gonna have it here?  JZ:  Well, usually uh, I mean that's handled by construction division.  If you would just coordinate with Vic James, they'll - DC: I'll call Vic;  they may want to have it here.  JZ:  They usually set that up completely you know independent from me & _ _ _ _ _ between them & the contracting officer & the contractor as far as - DC:  It'll probably be after the 1st of the yr because most them people - JZ: Any other ques about, or any discussion about this tree clearing contract?  You know we think it's a step in the right direction at a low cost.  Hopefully it'll work out that we'll stay a low cost as we go thru the contract. 


TW: They are aware, the contractor _ _ _ _ _ _ _ regardless_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?  JZ:  Yes, if that's in - TW:  Even tho they have 100 days - JZ:  They don't have to complete the entire job.  It says they have to have the trees down by April & they could follow-up with other, other work, burning & so forth afterwards.  CLM:  Trees down _ _ _ Indiana bats.  TW:  So that's what they'll be doing is to knock the trees down?  JZ:  Well, it depends;  they'll develop their own plan & plan of action & they have to meet with the minimum requirements of having the trees down by April 1st.  They may have 'em down well before then for all we know.  DC: It'll come up before, a scope of work really with the construction, when the construction guys meet, they'll have like a scope of work, how they're gonna proceeed with things. 


12/16/02 Levee - Section 2 of  6


JZ:  The um, ok, a couple of more, a couple more things I need to talk about, uh, we had ROW requiremts that we provided to the city back in uh summer of 2001.  & the ROW requiremts in Arnold's Landing uh were based on ponding elevations.  If you recall the plan, & these new people made - need a, could use a visual aid (holds up a drawing) - plan that's described in the ROW drawing, has a pipe connecting our Fishpot detention area here, under this RR, you're welcome to sit wherever you'd like, but there's a pipe under this RR here, connecting the Fishpot detention area with the AL area.  & the concept involved the drainage from AL going thru this pipe into the Fishpot detention area.  Ok, now since, subsequent to that, you probably recall that we had talked with MSD about the potential of a pump being more uh cost effective.  So we were looking at this pump option & this pipe under the RR option, comparing those 2. 


Our hydraulics engineer discovered a mistake, or a couple of mistakes, in his analysis for this option here.  & the, the elevation of the ponding at the 100-yr ele, 100-yr frequency ah study, would be higher than the ex, than they had anticipated by about 2 feet, a little bit more than 2 feet actually.  That means the water in AL would be a little bit more than 2 feet higher than he had anticipated with this other design.  That impacts properties in AL.  So we have been looking at 3 alternatives in this area for the last couple of weeks, knowing this new info.  & the reason why his, his um elevations were off is because in his first analysis, he did not take into account, main reason is he did not take into account underseepage inflow.  During a flood, water is going to flow under this, this levee, this engineered fill & come up on the landward side.  & he didn't take that water into account in his analysis.


& the other reason is that he had gone back to a previous analysis of the Fishpot detention area that showed this uh original design;  & he didn't account for the fact that during construction, there was some dump material out there that had to be left in place, or was left in place in the Fishpot ponding area.  So that reduced the volume available for the storage of flood water.  So those 2, those 2 factors are the main reasons I think for the increase in the flood heights of Fish, Fishpot detention area & if it's connected by a pipe of AL.  This raise in flood heights im, impacts properties & it also, ah it means the ponding elevation would be you know, that much higher & closer to other existing buildings in the AL area, homes &, & businesses.  & so the COE felt that we've kind of reduced our factor of safety considerably of any, any changes that take place in this watershed that drains into the Fishpot Creek detention area in the future.  If anybody connects a sewer or if there's uh, sedimentation in the uh ponding area, things that remove uh storage or add flow to this area, there could be a, there could be a difference in the elevations in this, in this area here.  & if it's connected to AL, AL is generally lower than these buildings over north of the RR & these would be impacted.  So it would kind of, we've reduced the fator of safety & with this new elevation, we're ah concerned about that. 


CLM: It became unacceptable really.  JZ:  Um, it depends on, you know, how, how land would be acquired & so forth, but generally its, it's not a very, a very good option, or very good alternative.  CLM:  Well, you know there's going to be future development  _ _ _ - JZ:  Well, that's supposed to be taken into account already, future development should've been taken into account in the hydraulics analysis.  But as I started to say, we, we have looked at 3 alternatives for handling this underseepage inflow & any rainfall in AL.  The one, the one alternative is the original alternative which has the pipe under the RR & with new real estate requirements, a rough cost of that alternative is $510,000DM:  Is that just for the pipe itself, or does that include land acquisition?  JZ:  That's kind of a comparative number where we compare, see we're comparing the pump station & other things so, I mean I've got the, I've got a lot of detail, but uh so, the pump station option has a pump station in this location here, whereas the other options have a gravity drain.  So the gravity drain & pump station are included in this cost comparison.  Pipes are included in the cost comparison, real estate rating, all those kinds of things. 


DM:  When you mention real estate, I get a bit nervous 'cause seems like that's been the driving factor all along.  So if there's any additional real estate finds - there, there's a possibility of buying more real estate?  JZ:  Yes there is a possibility & we're gonna get to that point in just a minute here.  The pump station alternative cost estimate is $780,000. & that includes you know, the cost of the pump station, the mechanical lectual parts, & the grading, the real estate associated with the pump station.  Um, it includes the cost of preparing operation & maintenance manual for the pump station which isn't required for the other alternatives.  & it includes the plans & specifications, the extra plan & cost of specifications for the pump station & um, & engineering during construction, construction managmt, you know extra things because we've got a different kind of ah, a feature here.  CLM: Would not include the future continuing cost of operation.  JZ:  Well, we didn't really have it in our built into the estimate at this point, the fact that there would be some extra costs in the future for operation & maintenance of a pump station.  CLM:  Which would be a city cost.  JZ: & then for repair & replacemt of parts over the yrs, ok, which is an operation & maintenance responsibility of the sponsor. 


The 3rd option we examined is the detention area in AL.  I'm gonna show you a drawing in just a minute here, but basically, that eliminates a pipe under the RR.  So this is no longer connected with, this AL area is no longer connected with the area north of this RR, at least by way of a pipe - no longer connected directly with the Fishpot ponding area.  It also does not have a pump obviously & so there's a, there's a requiremt for a detention area that involves land, ok, & excavation of the detention area & basically, a pipe from that detention area over to the um, 48" pipe that's going along Hwy 141 & then thru our gravity drain.  & the cost of that option is $440,000., the cost estimate, this is a comparison again, comparing those things that uh (pause)   DM:  The additional cost of doing that over something else, there's certain things you have to do no matter what.  JZ:  Well, it, it's the cost - DM: Whether to do this over the pump station - 


JZ:  It allows you to compare the pump station with the detention area.  You know, the detention area includes the gravity drain that still has to go under the, you know, for those people who are not aware, there's a 48" pipe that comes along Hwy 141 & right now it goes straight out to the Meramec River.  & when we build our levee, we have to um, have a closure structure here.  We still have water that's going to need to flow thru this pipe.  It goes thru the pipe when the river's low & just discharges directly into the Meramec.  But when the river is flooding, we have to be able to close the gate to keep the water from backing up that 48" pipe, there's a gate well & a sluice gate, close the gate & then you know water from the Meramec is gonna be up on this levee, up, up toward the top of the levee when we have a design flood, & what we have inside has to be -  the water, if it's rainfall, it comes in this area, or underseepage has to be handled in some fashion;  either pumped, taken to a detention area over here or included in a detention area right in the same location, in AL. 


So um, we have discussed this at the COE, including the cost & the real estate needs.  We've discussed this with sponsor, at least in terms of talking with EM & CLM about it, who represent the sponsor, & feel that the detention option is the best option for the project because of the lower costs, #1.  Uh, it doesn't have the problem of, of a factor of safety concern because we're not connecting Fishpot detention area with AL area so it's kind of a, it's still a free-standing area.  Now, just it has to take into account its own rainfall & underseepage in this area.  & it, you know, it's less expensive than the pump station considerably & doesn't have the long term technical problem of ah operation & maintenance of the pump station.  CLM:  & costs. 


JW:  Jim, what would happen if we went back to the original option of filling that up completely level with 141?  You wouldn't need any of those options then, would ya?  JZ:  Oh there's, there's more, there's more options or more alternatives if we want to get into it, but uh, this we think is the best.  EM: The problem with that option would be if you fill, you've still got Env'l Landscaping & the commercial uh out there, Economy Radiator & all the rest & those had a land cost factor that means you have to get rid of them - JW:  Right.  EM:  Otherwise you're just pushing water further up, upstream or up, up the lower - CLM:  You still have to deal with the underseepage & the runoff.  RW:  Right, & store it.  JZ:  So I guess I'm inviting people to comment on these 3 alternatives &, & we feel that the detention option is the best for the project, for the reasons I've just discussed. 


EM:  The detention option means that we'd have to acquire one more property &, & unfortunately uh, we were in condemnation &, & reached an agreement with one of the property owners.  His name is McGhee.  Uh &, & we had reached an agreemt where we were just taking a slice of his property, but the detention basin option - JZ:  Let me open this up (a drawing).  I should've done that earlier.  EM: would be to take his property completely, um together with a little bit of property to the uh east, which would be Env'l Landscaping which really is -  JZ:  This is uh - EM: grading purposes. 


JZ: Let's just hold it up a little higher here.   Everybody's welcome to take a look at this here.  This is the levee already called the eng'd fill because it's got a 70' crown & it's made, a lot of it's made from material from the glass plant that's crushed & compacted in place.  But anyway, this is the, this is the top, this is the toe of that fill, ok, along here, right here & so the detention option because of the need for a certain amt of volume of storage, we start at a low area to the, to the west here, we want to go to 415, no, no deeper than 415 uh elevation because of um, underseepage concerns with the  water coming under the levee.  & then um, gradually gets up to about 420.5 at the high point which is the elevation needed for the 100-yr design of this detention area.  & so it takes Mrs. Morris' property, the remainder of it, a lot of property was required simply for the levee & the drainage in the original plan, but it takes the remainder of that property,  & it takes the remainder of the Harrawood property, & it takes a big part of, & essentially the need for the McGhee property as Eric is pointing out.  So that's, that's what we're impacting here & this, this is a preliminary drawing of, & this is the drawing that we showed Eric & the colonel when they were in the office.  & uh, it's not final, but uh, it would require you know, some land next to this for, for access & for the sponsor to, to operate & maintain this detention area, to get into the detention area & do whatever work they need.  It just has to be able to get up & work in the detention area. 


EM:  & the problem with the first option that was presented was, is this pipe is gonna be 2' above uh the existing property.  So you're gonna have a ponding effect of 2' & that really wasn't factored in the original um real estate requirements.  But it's, you can't live in flooded property with a 2 feet pond basically uh, on the property.  Uh &, &  there could've been problems with the RR too.  They don't like borings & there's settlement possibilities.  TW:  Does that _ _ cost of pipe under the  RR include a RR _ _  license fee?  EM:  We, we didn't count that in our real estate - JZ:  Uh, no, I mean not really, but, but you know our experience has been so far, on other projects, that when we deal with a RR, the land cost isn't a very great cost.  They're, they're generally not too concerned about what they get paid for you to put the, have the right to put a pipe under your property or to put a levee up against their embankment.  They want, they want an agreemt that uh, you know, that covers uh them for any liability.  While you're constructing, they want flagmen on site;   they want to know what you're doing;  they want to have an engineering review of this.  So reaching the agreemt, is some difficulty, but actually what you end up paying them is, is small change. 


TW: _ _  my experience is 5 or $10,000.  JZ:  Yeah.  EM:  Then you have an insurance policy too.  JZ:  Right, there's an insurance poli, but they'll be, they'll be insured, we'll have to deal with the RR anyway.  We have an embankmt against their RR embankmt, we have a pipe on the north side that goes probably on their property, uh, you know, the one that has to go around that building over by the, the new restaurant area.  So we're gonna have to deal with the RR & there'll be these costs anyway, whether there's a pipe or not.  TW:  Under the 100-yr storm, you're saying roughtly that there's about a 5-ft deep pond where water would be released in that area.  JZ:  Yeah, right, roughly.


CLM: If I could just _ _ _ _.  In our mtg, after Jim laid out the data,  that, you know, the  new elevation requiremts & we went thru in some great detail in length, all of the aspects of the 3 alternatives, it was clear to me that the only really logical choice was to go with the detention pond;  not just for, from a uh cost viewpoint, but from the practicality viewpoint & also in particular of course uh future, to maintain that degree of safety you would not have if you didn't go with _ _ _ _ _ _ .  The safety mode is what really drives the basic requiremt to make a change.  & then when you look at the changes & the impact on the various property owners in the area concerned & what the future cost would be, there's no doubt in my mind that the detention pond is the only way to go. 


12/16/02 Levee - Section 3 of  6


DM:  On that detention pond, is there a gravity drain or does that water just stay until it evaporates?  JZ:  No, no, the pond was more of a, it'd be a little more, you know, in the, in the bottom of the detention area elevation, uh 415.  Right over here - DM: _ _ _  _ pump station, how is this different than - why don't you need a pump station under - JZ:  You don't need a pump station because this is connected by way of a pipe to the 48".  DM:  That runs along the new 141 - JZ:  Hwy 141 & then it goes you know, into a, goes out to the river - DM:  The drain - JZ: & with this gravity drain in between, it'd be closed off when the river floods.  So that the way it's different is that, you know, this handles inflow from underseepage & it handles rainfall, but it just takes it over here to this detention area & holds it;  just like the other detention areas along the glass plant & along the Simpson Lake.  It's the same concept as we have for the rest of the project. 


DM:  Is that gonna be big enough that everything to the, between that & 141 won't flood then?  The water only runs into that?  (someone coughs) _ _ landscape _ _  JZ:  Right, this would _ _, we have what's called a hundred-yr coincident frequency study where they look at, they have to look at actual rainfall over, over a period of record & what happens, you know, what's the chance of you getting a certain rain while the river is flooding, & the river doesn't flood for a real long period, it's only like 3 days for a 100-yr event.  But there is a chance of flooding & so there is a fairly sophisticated uh computer comparison & then they've come up with the number, amt of rainfall you're, you're gonna have for the 100 yr, & that's included.  & then the underseepage is actually a larger factor than the rainfall as far as how much volume you'd have.  You compare the underseepage when you have the 100-yr event, as compared with the lowest elevation inside, behind the levee.  & so what is, what are all the forces & what, how much water flows under the levee in this whole AL area & comes up & has to be stored. 


DM:  & has the seepage been accounted for down, like along the glass works there, all the way down there?  JZ:  Yes, yes, I asked that question too.  It had already been accounted for.   DC:  Jim, how many acres is that detention pond, do you know?  JZ:  Well, it's, it's uh I believe it's 3.3 acre feet.  I, I don't know the exact # of acres in this surface.  It's 5 feet deep, so, I don't know.  I could,  I don't know what it is exactly;  it's less than an acre I believe.  CLM:  9/10ths of an acre I believe _ _eyeballed it the other day. 


JW:  I'm not doubting the colonel or Eric's capabilities of making this the best decision, but the reason why we had our engineer on this cmte, is to make suggestions like this to the cmte & the bd & - JZ:  Well, actually one of his representatives was at the mtg too;  I forgot to say that.  Kirk Carson was there. (they talk at once)  JW: He would probably want to be involved, you know, in some of this.   EM: _ _ were there.  TW:  Kirk was there.  CLM:  You're right, we would've been remiss if we had not included him.  JZ:  I should've said that.  (exchange tapes)


TW: Is the 48 gonna be tied into the new detention, or -  JZ:  Let me say that the 48" pipe has, part of the, part of the plan is that there is a junction box in the 48" pipe on the north side of this RR here, that will have a gate that closes & diverts all the flow from the 48" pipe over to the Fishpot det area.  So it will go there & then, you know, this pipe is going to be basic, basically, basically empty ok.  Um & this area only has to handle the rainfall & the run, underseepage into this area.  TW:  That was my concern because a less than one acre pond is not a very big det pond.  JZ:  Well, the Fishpot is sized to handle that.  TW: That's what I was hoping.  JZ:  It's much deeper.  It's a good point, good point.  I should've -  CLM:  This really accommodates the difference _ _ _ good point.  TW:  Because a 48" going into that pond, would basically flood that pond, that particular pond.


EM: There, there were a couple of other factors that, I mean you talked about the economics, some of the economics included not providing uh relocations for the existing property owners which were substantial.  You don't have to redo electricity, water, sewer, all that, & that went to some degree, altho I think with McGhee we didn't even do any figures on that because we didn't have any available to us at the time.  (a few talk at once) JZ: _ _ you compare one option to another, Eric, you know, the pump station option um, pumped down the water pretty much so that it's handled by the pump & so the property owners, say Maureen Morris, with, with some grading on her property, could have the house & the garage could've stayed ok.  EM:  & we factored in relocations.  JZ:  & so we put the cost in for bringing in an access road & you know, the things that would have to be done to have that property um occupied with water, sewer, gas, electric, uh sanitary & a road into the area.   All those were built into the cost of the pump station option;  so that's how we made the comparison. 


TW:  Just out of curiosity, Jim, approximately how big was that pump station horsepower?  JZ:  Uh, it was 32 cfs, cubic feet/sec.  TW:  That's fairly significant.  JZ:  I can't, we did a fairly thorough design, or at least to get a cost comparison of the pump & all the facilities that would have to go with it, the pump tube & the electrical equipmt.  The size of the pump station was substantially larger as far as concrete & that kind of thing, than having a simpler gravity drain.  TW:  Well, 32 cfs is a lot of water to pump.  JZ:  & we had an option that we, that was generally the lowest cost option in our experience, I think I've said this before, of not having a pipe over the levee for the pump discharge, but having the water come into a structure that has 2 chambers to it, & the pump sits in there & pumps water up into the second chamber that's on the river side.  So we did look at uh what's going the lowest cost way of pumping in our experience, based on the use of new electric uh submersible pumps that are available now. 


DC:  I got a question here.  That pump would be going, would be used all the time.  It would be set to run no matter what, you got rain or anything, or just when you have a flood?  JZ:  No, only during a flood.  So the operation & maintenance, the actual electrical use & so forth would be relatively small I think because it would only be used when you have a flood high enough for this gate to be closed.  Then you have to pump out the - DM:  A flood with rain, right?  So if you got flooding from the west, it wouldn't even have to run - only when the rain inside the floods, right?   JZ:  Only when you have rain on the uh, inside the area of the levee.  DM:  I mean normally when it rains, it's gonna flood, but sometimes we've gotten flooding -  JZ:   It has to be used sometimes - DM:  when water's actually in it. 


TW:  But the seepage numbers I thought were a significant part of your - JZ:  That's very true, the seepage was more than - TW: so the pump might have to run more than we - JZ:  During a, that's true, a good point, during a 100-yr flood, there would be an awful lot of seepage, but any other flood there would be some seepage & the pump would have to be running, probably during any flood.  TW:  Probably more maintenance required than _ _ _ & electricity costs. 


CLM:  We've had, we've got new pump stations in Chesterfield Valley on the levee project out there & I think some were built by the city early on & our operating & maintenance costs when taken over by the levee district, have been much higher than what you might anticipate.  DC:  It's something, a pump station, you have to maintain.  I mean it's - CLM:  Even if it doesn't run, you gotta maintain it.  DC:  Right.  JZ:  You have to test it every yr.  (EM & TW are having a private conversation & now a few speak rather inaudibly at once.)  RW: what we need to do - DM: That's not the time to find out - JZ: Now you test every year & - RW:  a detention pond in.  JZ: there'll be a whole maintenance program that you have to comply with & you have to test it every yr so you know it's - RW: $60,000 cheaper, it don't make  - TW:  Well, I just wanted to flush out this scenario - ?:  60,000 - RW:  Well, if you compared it to the pipe under the RR, 60,000 _ _-


EM:  Well, see with the pipe under the RR, you still have to buy more property than what we had currently valued it at.  RW:  If they want a recommendation from the cmsn, I'll make a motion that we go with the detention pond. 


DC:  When we put this pipe along the RR by Mr. Young's property & everything, do we need to increase the size of the det pond at Fishpot?  JZ:  No.  DC:  You don't need to?  JZ:  No, the pipe that goes to, takes the water from the 48" pipe over to Fishpot det area, that analysis still stands _ _ _, the analysis that - DC:  All the other water that's coming into it - JZ:  I mean that was taken into acct when Fishpot was sized in the first place.  You know the fact that it bends a little bit around the Young's new bldg addition really makes no difference as far as the amt of water coming into the pond area.  DC:  This gated thing between Young, will that have the same kind of a sluice gate on it that we have by the other areas?  JZ:  Generally, yes.  DC:  What size is that gonna be, is that bigger? JZ:  It's being designed right now.  I mean it has to close off the 48" pipe & people have talked about the fact that you would want the same mechanisms to operate, you know, in all the places - DC:  & you would close that uh, & leave it open during a flood, right?  So the water would go into the det pond in the Fishpot area & also in the det pond at AL? 


JZ:  Let me see if I can describe kind of, the scenario.  Say you have a flood coming up, the Meramec River is rising.  It's gonna back up Fishpot Creek, the water will.  & then it'll reach a certain elevation where we have to close the Fishpot gate because the Fishpot gate is much, is, is lower than the, the gate on the Meramec River at the 48" pipe.  So you close the Fishpot.  DC:  Right.  JZ:  Meanwhile, the 48" pipe still flows along Hwy 141, straight out into the Meramec River, up until you have about a 10-yr flood.  So flows are heading right out to the Meramec River w/o having to be detained.  DC:  Ok.  JZ:  or pumped or anything, you know.  & then when you have a flood on the Meramec reach a 10-yr elevation, you have to close that gate or you're gonna be, you know, the city's soaked.  Basically, I would say right before you close the gate at the Meramec, uh at the levee at the Meramec River, you close the gate of the junction box up just north of the Union Pacific tracks;  & you now have diverted any flow coming into the Fishpot det area. 


DC:  Then it would all go into the AL?  JZ:  The only thing that's left is really, I mean no more water's coming into AL thru this 48" pipe.  It's all going to Fishpot ponding area, so what's coming in AL is the underseepage which is the most, the largest factor & then any rainfall.  CLM:  a big factor.


BL:  Dave, you can remember this sequence now?  (most talk & laugh at once)  DC:  I'm concerned with the operation of this thing after it's done.  But you're sayin' we're gonna keep the det pond gate closed, uh to Fishpot from the 40" comin' down by Young's?  We're gonna have that closed all the time?  JZ:  Oh, ok, yeah.  DC:  All the time?  JZ:  Right.  DC:  Until we have a 10-yr - JZ:  Yeah, there's 2 gates there in that junction.  DC:  We'll have a - JZ:  You have to clo, you have to open the gate that goes down toward Fishpot ponding area.  In the junction box, you open the gate that you know, opens up the pipe that goes down - DC:  Right.  JZ:  toward the ponding area & you close the gate that's heading toward where the water, where the stormdrain is heading toward the Meramec River.  DC:  & open that or close it? 


We close the one here, open the one going to the Fishpot into the drain that's going to the Fishpot behind on the north side of the RR.  JZ:  Yes, right.  DC:  I'm just tryin' to get this in sequence.  This one would be closed here because it's on the south end of the junction box?  JZ:  During normal, when the river is not flooding, there's a gate that closes off that pipe going to Fishpot det area.  It's always closed, so the water just flowing down the 48" pipe doesn't even think about going over to Fishpot det area.  DC:  It just goes all the way to the river?  JZ:  Just goes to the river. 


DC:  Ok.  So when we have the 10-yr flood, we'd come up & we'd shut the one on the south end of the junction box - JZ:  Probably the first thing you'd do would be open the pipe going to Fishpot det area.  DC:  Well, yeah, but I mean we close the Fishpot Creek sluice gate before we close anything.  That's #1.  (JW & others talk & laugh.)  JZ:  You've done that a while ago because we don't want the river to threaten that area.  DC:  The #2 sequence goes down to Simpson's, down here the #2.  & the sequence of this thing, the #3 gate that we were gonna close if we had a det pond at AL to begin with, was gonna be AL, was gonna be on the west side of the hiway.  That was the #3 gate that would be closed. 


JZ:  I, I can't tell you about all of the elevations of all the gravity drains around.  You're, you're, you know more about that than I do at this point in time.  DC:  But that's what I'm trying to establish here, when we're, so we get some kind of idea when we're gonna close these gates, but that'll be some - CLM:  That'll all be spelled out in the - JZ:  It has to do with elevations & that situation in Grand Glaize Creek in Fishpot Creek & you could have a headwater flood in Fishpot Creek - CLM:  You'll have different conditions - DC: Oh yeah, we have different - we've been doing it now - we just go down & as soon as - JZ:  I guess uh - DC: water that backs up, we start closing the sluice gate because it's a - CLM:  Rick had a motion. 


Andy:  Jim, the underseepage would be discharged thru some additional relief wells?  JZ:  No, not in that area.  There are no relief wells added to the AL area.  It's just flowing in thru the, thru the soil.   Andy:  There's no additional discharges to the river - just close it off? _ _ _ valve _ _ ?  JZ:  There'll be water coming out of that same location in the gravity drain at Hwy 141.  CLM:  There'll be no changes far as equipment.  Andy:  In terms of the stormwater permit _ _ _ - JZ:  There's no additional discharge points.  The way the water gets there might be a little different. 


JW:  Is the COE going to pay for this since you miscalculated this?  JZ:  We're, we're partners on this.  (they laugh) This thing is shared the way the law requires.  JW:  I'll 2nd Rick's motion.  DC:  We have a motion on the, & a 2nd, to take the detention pond option #3 in the Al - DM:  For $440,000.  BL:  To buy that property & build a retention.  DC:  I think that's a better option than going under the RR into the Fishpot Creek area.  CLM:  Savin' money, save a lot of future _ _ - DC:  All in favor of the motion?  (some say aye)  Against the motion?  (none heard)  The ayes have it. 


JZ:  What we plan on doing is providing a ROW, a changed ROW drawing to Eric within the next few days.  That's our next step.  DC:  The chairman of this cmte, which is the mayor at this time, I guess will present that to the bd tonight.  Would you do that?  DM:  If I need some help, feel free to - DC:  Yeah, I'll be there.  Any other updates on 4B?


12/16/02 Levee - Section 4 of  6


JZ:  Yes, sir.  Um, we've been working on an env'l mitigation plan for several months with the city & with Andy McCord of PG Purdy & uh with our own biologists & our own regulatory people who handles the Section 404 Permit for the COE & with a lot of other agencies that are part of the picture here.  The Section 404 Permit for the overall project has been extended several times, but the current extension expires at the end of Dec, in just a couple wks.  Um, then there's a long complicated history about mitigation on this project.  Basically, we've developed together with a lot of coordination with the city, we finally came up with a draft, a mitigation plan that everybody seems to have bought off on, including I've got a letter now from Eric on this.  What's going to happen, is that our 404 Permit is going to be extended & modified & it'll include this mitigation plan as a condition of the permit so we're going to be locked into doing the work that we say we're gonna do in the mitigation plan ok. 


CLM:  The COE has been _ _ _ _ _ at the mtgs with the other env'l agencies, US Fish & Wildlife, State DNR & DOC.  Those agencies have really been very critical of the COE, way over the top of what I think they should be.  They're claiming that the COE has not done things that they should've done, based upon requiremt for permits & env'l regulations & so forth.  The problem is, they're accusing the COE & the city of not doing things years ago when those things weren't required under the existing regulations, env'l laws & what have you.  & they just tend to gloss over that & say well you should've done it you know.  It's very, very important that we're at the point where the COE is trying to reuse the permit.  We issued the permit which originally issued yrs ago, based upon the conditions that were required then, under the current conditions that are required;  & that's why we're at this point.  We've been wrestling with these agencies & talking about various alternatives, & the other agencies have been very, very uh hard to get along with.  Not because of the details what was being discussed, but because they felt that for yrs, the COE had done all these things wrong, when in effect, the COE had been doing exactly what, & the city, what was required under what was required at that time.  & as things change & the requirements change, & regulations change, we've been trying to bring everything into compliance.  & that's the _ _ _ of the problem where we are now that the COE's faced with -


EM:  God knows we want to preserve the indigenous mussels.  Without doing a survey, what was that called?  JZ:  The Pink Mucket Pearly Mussel.  JW:  Oh, I've seen those.  (they laugh)  CLM: That's one of the changes.  When we started this business, you didn't have to do that.  Now, if the COE has to go out in the public _ _ to renuse a permit, like a new permit, then we have to go into great detail on things like mussels in the Meramec River.  What we have to do is, because someone says the Fish & Wildlife, the EPA or DNR, there may be that endangered species, pearly mucket mussel out there, we have to go in a do a survey & pay thousands of dollars to have somebody go survey, come back & say there's none out there.  So we're in effect doing, & that's typical now;  we're guilty until we can prove we're innocent.  JZ:  I think they they pretty much think they are out there.  EM:  & to do a survey of the mussels would cost a lot of money.  CLM:  They think they are out there, but they think that our project, the way it's working out, will not really impact the mussels.  So that's - CLM:  You have to prove where they are, so you can prove you don't impact.  & the other thing is that would delay the project several months because my experience has been you can't find anybody that does that kind of survey work to jump in the Meramec this time of yr because it's colder than hell out there in the water. 


JZ:  Let me just tell you the main components of the mitigation plan.  One thing we've done with the project is we've taken out 2 sections of stream, that were the natural, or what the proposal, semi-natural uh Fishpot Creek & semi-natural Grand Glaize Creek & channelized those.  So there's a need for stream mitigation & it's just the stream, plus 50' I think on either side on the top of bank that you have to deal with as it used to meander thru & you figure out the acreage involved.  & after a lot of discussion & a lot of looking at options with the city, we really, or what the final plan is to go to a mitigation bank & purchase the right to mitigate the bank, this mitigation bank which is in another location in the Meramec watershed.  We'll do some stream restoration basically at a cost & the project gets the benefit of that as a mitigation.  We pay for it & it takes care of our stream damages. 


EM:  & we have gone, I mean this is at first blush, & it's sick to do this, but because you want to spend local money on site, on your site & improve your own streams & try to get credits, that's why we hired Purdy, one of the reasons to begin with,  & we've gone thru this for the last really, close to 9 mos, & have met with Fish & Wildlife, all sorts of all the commenting agencies on this - CLM:  & the consulting firm that's doing that study.  EM:  Precisely, & it, it's just, this is the quickest & the lowest cost alternative.  It would be just an absolute fortune & these guys are so critical of any on-site improvemts that were proposed, it would be that the credit was just minimal to, to, to uh, speak of & the time is just incredible.  The, the, the cost on this mitigation bank is a per acreage cost & it's approved by the COE.  JZ:  We have a letter that says they will charge, well the less the 16,000 per acre - CLM:  We're going to negotiate on that.  EM:  & it's just not a happy, it's not a happy alternative, but it looks like it's the best, at least in cost;  that, that's for sure.  & we're on a schedule;  we want everything in hand by at least April or May & this is all part of that.  & I guess it goes with the 404.  JZ:  It goes with the 404 Permit. 


CLM:  There's another very important factor.  Once the decision is made & you agree to buy the stream mitigation bank, it's a done deal.  Your mitigation requiremt, the city's mitigation requiremt is over;  you have no future requiremt to maintain or have an annual inspection _ _ _ _ & in the 5 yrs or so satisfy all  the agencies that it still is, you know, developed like what it would be _ _ mitigation requiremt.  It's like buying a done deal when you buy the mit bank.   As Eric said, we've all looked at many, many different possibilities, alternatives, trying to find something we could do that was cost effective & made sense within the local area.  We just got turned down; they were _ _  & the costs kept going up to do anything at all.


DC: Where would this mitigation area be?  CLM:  It's Fox Creek.  EM:  Which unfortunately, is the ONLY one in at least a 2 or 3-state area, isn't it?  JZ:  That has the stream mitigation, right.  EM:  It's not exactly a competitive - (a few talk at once)  ?:  Fox Creek.  ?: Out there by the prison, The Legends.  DC:  The Legends is tearing all the trees down & doing all the work out there, but they got a mitigation Fox Creek & they don't want to _ _ _ .  So they've got everybody in their back pocket so everybody has to pay for it.  & I mean it's the only alternative we have.  They've got Fish & Wildlife, Conservation Cmsn all on their side.  The Legends got 'em all on their side & they can go out & actually rape all of the property they want.  CLM:  Unfortunately, even tho this is the only bank in town, so to speak -  DC:  That's right.  CLM:  the market has not developed yet so in effect, it's really not a complete sellers' market;  it's kind of a buyers' market right now.  We'll take advantage of that. 


DC: They were smart & got this work in on Fox Creek.  EM:  My, my understanding is they haven't even done anything at Fox Creek & this will at least, this water will tip the scales where they're gonna have to do some work.  CLM:  Not only that, but it also gives them the wherewithall to initiate the work too, which they're under the gun to start doing something.   But the really effective part of this condition is the cost being better 'cause we're done with it.  We have no future maintenance requiremts.  TW?:  Again, Jim, how many acres do you have to mitigate?  JZ/CLM:  16.8.  CLM:  That's arrived at by taking the avg width of the streams to have to be mitigated, having a 50' buffer stretch for habitat on each side, multiply that by stream length & come up with the sq footage.  DC:  How much an acre did that cost?  CLM:  They've offered 15,900.  to the COE;  they've offered to the COE that #.  That's come down from about 25,000 about a yr ago.  DC:  & how much is it?  CLM:  16.8 acres.  JZ:  It's like $280,000.  DC:  for 16 acres?  JZ:  At that price, yeah.  EM:  I'm gonna give it a shot, see if I can't do better by obviously saying _ _ _ the city _ _ _ _ _ .  JZ:  270,000 if you multiply the 2 things.  CLM:  Yeah, we think we have a better shot at negotiating _ _ the COE _ _ _ _ _ - 


JZ:  Um that's, that's, that's probably the best one component;  then we have some trees to plant for bottomland hardwoods mitigation.  We have some rock to put in along Grand Glaize Creek where they have an erosion problem.  There's a plan to put some kind of a line of rock near the toe of that slope & that's gonna theoretically allow for sediment to build up;  actually in between the toe of the slope & the rock, & some trees to be planted in that area to stablize that.  So there's an env'l mitigation contract coming up & we've got a very rough estimate of what that might cost.  & then we have the real estate costs associated with any of these things.  There's a need for a conservation easmt once we do the bottomland hardwoods or there's no real estate associated with this stream mitigation, but any kind of bottomland hardwoods, or any place where we're doing mitigation in the project area, the agencies require a conservation easmt so that there's something on the books that says it's gonna stay, stay, won't go anywhere in the future. There's a cost associated with that, either the acquisition of the, you know, the surveys & the so forth to set up the conservation easmt or if there's a value to the property, then there's a cost for that.  So that's a very brief description of what's involved in the mitigation plan. 


12/16/02 Levee - Section 5 of  6


I want to talk about the schedule very briefly.  In working with Eric & discussing the things that need to be accomplished for land acquisition, including uh condemnations, potential condemnations, uh working with the RR to get the RR agreemts & so forth, uh finalizing uh the small # of parcels that you still have to get surveys & appraisals for & those kinds of things, all that together, we're looking at end of May timeframe for the complete pkg to be put together.  & we said that you know that we put in our schedule, anticipated certification by the COE that all this stuff is available, that has to be done before we issue the plans & specs to perspective bidders, you know, in the first part of June is when we would be doing that based on the latest thoughts on real estate schedule. 


DM:  June is when you would issue the specs you're sayin'?  JZ:  Right.  Middle of June, issue the plans & specs to perspective bidders;  middle of July, open the bids;  middle of Aug, award the contract.  DM:  So last month, I believe we said June is when you'd award the contract, now we're saying Aug?  JZ:  Really said I think the 27th of May was the date was in the previous schedule.  Andy:  _ _ _ ?  JZ:  Pardon me.  Andy:  For which option? 


JZ:  For award of the contract.  We should talk real briefly about this.  For a contract that basically goes the rest of this flood protection system, I will say that there's uh, some controversy about keeping the relief wells in this contract.  Our anticipation was that this, the relief wells that are associated with this levee, uh would be part of this contract.  & there's some discussion about whether they'll be kept in or not.  so just be aware of that.  If they're separated out, they could be used as a small business type contract.  DM:  Could they be done independent of the levee itself so that we're not sliding any further - JZ:  Well, what we really want is that the relief wells to be built right at the time the levee is completed so that, I mean the levee needs the relief wells to function properly. If you have a flood, you want the relief wells there;  you don't want the levee without the relief wells.  DM:  If one company is doing the wells  somebody else is hauling dirt, they can be doin' 'em - one doesn't have to wait for the other, is that - JZ:  It can be done physically independently, yes, but there's other concerns.


DM:  I think you said something like 580 days was the time from the award to a completion.  Is that still, or is that gonna - because we're gettin' into winter, we lose the whole summer now.  JZ:  What we had is an 18-month period, whatever that works out to be in # of days, of contract period, but then you add to that any weather delays.  That's the way contracts work;  you have total # of days & then any weather delay gets added to the contract & completion automatically if it's a, you know, a month of really cold weather or a month of really wet weather.  I mean the contractor can't work, they get day for day, if they can't work based on the weather.  In every case, the contract goes longer than the # of days that are in the original contract, unless it's a really small contract, or depending on the kind of work.  This kind of earth moving work - CLM:  But the relief well work, if the day you start relief well work, till you finish, it won't take as long as the levee.  JZ:  Oh no, if we ever handle the relief wells as a separate contract, we wouldn't be awarded until later.  But that's part of the problem 'cause we don't know for sure about what's gonna happen budget wise, federally, or whatever as far as the future is concerned. 


DM:  Is this delay because of the water we're looking at here, the detention pond instead of the 2' seepage?  JZ:  I think there's really 2 reasons for this delay.  Uh, our design schedule has slipped because we were looking at these options, these alternatives that we talked about, you know, the pump, the pipe & the detention, the pump station.  & we're also spending quite a bit of time, our engineer spent quite a bit of time helping with the mitigation plan, figuring out areas that are impacted by, bottomland hardwood areas that are impacted by our contracts over the yrs.  I mean there's been a lot of, a lot of engineering discussion that goes along with the mit plan.  Just for example, the mit plan does include the creation of, & I've talked about this once before, of a wooded wetland up here in Simpson Lake.  Well, we had to coordinate that to this geotech - where can we actually excavate some area to have a wooded wetland & can put our geotech requiremts.  & the design of it has to be done by our civil eng'g people.  Anyway, those 2 things uh have delayed our design effort.  I think, you know, we also have, I'd say, a fresh look at the, at the land uh acquisition time table that also has impacted this schedule.  It ends up with an early June date for the COE to certify all the lands are available, is our best esitmate.  & we're working with the city on that estimate.  CLM:  That was the main thing.  JZ:  That's the main thing, but & that's all tied together too with the COE really, because we're involved in the real estate needs for the RR, you know, we're changing the real estate needs for the RR because we don't have a pipe under there, so we're involved with the real estate acquisition process ourselves, obviously.


DM:  You said mid Aug is the schedule right now if everything goes as planned, at least _ _ - JZ:  Those provisals, because of things, even things like the federal budget, you know, we're not, we're under, the federal budget is operating under a continuing resolution situation now.  We don't know, there's no budget passed for FY 2003.  DM:  Still was part of the 4.2M, is that what - JZ:  We, we don't have that money at this point.  CLM:  You need to discuss that - JZ:  We don't have that & you know, some money would be needed for this contract ok.  Um, so there's several things that could impact this schedule, but we, we do have a schedule that we all want to push forward & work to stay on this schedule for design & real estate acquisition. 


I have another item under city's cost share with is Item 7B, believe it or not on the agenda.  It says city cost share for the project & total project cost.  I'll, I'll just tell you that we're updating uh, the project cost estimate & you know, we're updating it based on these mit costs that we were just showing.  We're, we're updating it based on a lot of uh LERRDS, land, easmts, ROW's, relocations ledger sheets that have come to us from Eric that show actual costs that the city has incurred.  There's 2 of those that have been approved now & then there's other phases, 3 & 4, that have not been approved, but there's an awful lot of #'s that have been provided.   There's only a few things that are outstanding issues that have to be rectified.  Our real estate office is saying that they're comfortable updating their own real estate estimate that goes with the project.  Eric, I'll have to say that I would want to talk to you about, I want to, when I get this estimate in a good shape, I'll want to come & see you & talk about remaining, I had an estimate for remaining real estate & relocations costs.  I want to discuss that with you. 


Ok, but anyway, that updated cost estimate looks like um, for one thing, the cost estimate's gone up because of higher real estate costs & higher mit costs & so forth.  The 2nd thing is uh, this share of cash contributions will be, will be lower, because the real estate costs we're seeing are gonna be a lot higher.  So, we will recompute the cash contribution requiremt for as soon as we have the final estimate finished & approved, which we want to do rapidly;  uh, recompute the cash contribution requiremt & it looks very much like that we would not need as much as we've already asked for, for FY 02 & 03, ok.  So those are the kinds of things that we're running into on this increase in the cost estimate, or this update of the cost estimate.  Again, I'll see Eric & we'll talk about the estimate as soon as I have all my other #'s in pretty good shape & we can talk about the land costs. 


12/16/02 Levee - Section 6 of  6


EM:  & by going into land costs, I'll update the bd on land.  Um, we've negotiated with an outfit called Rondal, which is actually the land holding entity for Kirshner, which is a brick company off of Marshall.  We've reached an agreemt & it's going to be subject to the bd's approval tonight to acquire 778 &, & call it three-qtrs of an acre of both temporary & permanent easmts.  & just this afternoon, I spent most of the afternoon with Simpson Sand & Gravel, talking with their atty & I think we've got an agreemt with them.  That's for 1.5 acres & it's again for temp & perm easmt. 


We got eng'g from Weis for our outfall down on 5th St & the 5th St outfall runs pretty close to the city park system down here.  & there's 4 contiguous parcels at the Universal Subdivision on the Merck, there's parcel 1, 2, 3 & 4.  Parcel 1 is owned by St. Louis County;  parcel 2 is owned by City of VP, which is great;  parcel 3 is owned by Hallibut Investmts, which is one of these person that goes to tax sales & gets the property for nothing & wants a fortune when they sell it.  But um, & parcel 4 is St. Louis County


So I've written to the director of St. L County Park & Recreation & indicated that we need at least one of the four Universal Subdivision properties.  & I thought it would be neat to acquire the other one anyway because it'll be contiguous to our city, River Park & then we'll have a contiguous area of the only thing is we'll have an outfall & the outfall structure, Jim, will that be a ablt to be crossed at any point?  It will I means obviously at River Rd anyway.  JZ:   At the road;  that's basically it.   EM:  & I guess we'll probably have to fence it - JZ:  I mean the outfall is gonna be a ditch that's full of rip rap.   EM:  Right.  But at any rate, it'll expand the park, albeit not a heck of a lot, but it'll make a nice addition to the linear park system! 


The other property that I'm working on, concentrating on this wk will be property that's currently owned by uh the Wallace family & it's being leased on a long-term lease purchase agreemt with Rideout, a it's still Rideout, who in turn sold the property to D&L Rideout who bought him out, & he's got it under lease for a storage lot.  So there's 3 parties that you have to deal with for condemnation purposes & you have to provide not only, basically all we need is a temporary construction easmt for grading there, but you got all these stored vehicles & these are insurance company wrecked vehicles for salvage down there, or for insurance purposes before they total it out & send it to a scrap yard.  So you got cars coninually coming in & out & you do have a business & the uh Relocation Act that we've adopted, which is a federal requiremt for the project anyway, says that we have to accommodate that party, so what we're gonna have to do is go out & contract out with a 3rd party for a secured storage lot because this is other people's property.  & it needs to be monitored by somebody while, for the period;  & we have been taking temp const easmts per the COE's request for, I guess you've reduced it from 4 to 3 yrs I think at our mtg.  So that's what I'm quoting these people;  even tho it's like a 600-day contract, nobody knows when you're going to get in on your property.  I mean we're not there to stage when the const work's gonna be & so you take a temp const for the whole thing & you gotta pay 'em for that.  There's a formula to, to work out that stuff. 


& on the other end of it, for Arnold's Grove, we, we had a tentative viewing set for 12/3.  We cancelled that;  I dismissed Mrs. Morris out, & I already dismissed Mr. McGhee out, so we're gonna lump them in.  It's obvious to me we're gonna have to go after the shopping ctr & a Lillian DeWitt;  & I'm crossing my fingers with the Hallibut.  I talked to their atty Thurs & really, that's about it.  We've got a bunch of temp const easmts on Pharoah that we'd already, I'm sorry on Pyramid, we'd already bought the properties, but the COE changed their requiremts because of some, I think hydraulic, calculations, so we had to go out & do a little more there. 


& Jim, maybe you can explain this to me 'cause I don't mean to sound dense, but I'm still not sure if I understand the cotton company;  & it's this, the city got property from the cotton co back in '99 & we've got, it's been surveyed & eng'd by Tom's firm & we've got new drawings on it, & I was getting ready to present that to the cotton co & then, now that the cotton co's going out of production, I'm not sure if we want more or if we want less, but I know we've got a mtg set up with these guys, with Pat & Greg, but kind of - JZ:  My understanding is that before they went out of business, we'd put a berm around the outside to hold our ponding water so it wouldn't be back on their property.  But I think it has a pipe thru it & things like that with a flap gate.  & if um, they really are out of business & they're cooperative, just a few facilities there that could be moved, the way I understand it, Eric.  EM:  Ok, so that's where the savings comes from?  JZ:  & you could do something with costs less from a const standpoint & with a little bit more land if they are satisfied with it.  You have to basically, work with the - EM:  Ok, we take a const easmt then, & just fill in those low areas, & then you don't need a berm anyway.  JZ:  Right.  EM:  Ok, & I know they also have an outflow themselves with a discharge for stormwater, don't they?  JZ:  Maybe one of those that was for cooling water, I'm not sure.  EM:  I thought they had something where they hit the bottom of the, they just tappped into it?  JZ:  I don't think it's for stormwater.  It think it was for some kind of process water.  EM:  I'm sorry, ok, it's for that treatmt.  Alright, then we obviously wouldn't have to provide a structure for that either.  Gotch ya! 


DM:  Eric, If we have to condemn behind Meramec Valley, how long is that gonna take?  Behind Meramec Valley Plaza.  EM:  No, it's not that big a deal, um, all I'm waiting for frankly, is the title.  I ordered that a month & a half ago;  & evidently it's a very complex title.  It was just retitled within the last 2 wks to a Diamond something, Diamond Holdings, LLC.  It's got a whole bunch of layers of stuff.  It's a mess simply because if you condemn a shopping ctr, you have to name all the tenants as party defendants & that's a pain in the ass.  Because then you've got, I don't know how many spaces he's got up there, but you got a lot of people, you got a lot of unhappy people.  This guy is, he wants the COE to give him eng'd drawings, well not eng'd, he wants stamped drawings was one of his demands;  he wants - CLM:  like a PE stamp.  EM:  Yeah, PE stamp, & he wants to know exactly when we're going to get out there &, & do it, so he's not, he doesn't want a long-term temp const easmt;  he's not happy with a proposal that was made to make instruction to the contractor;  he's got some, I think bizarre, estimates of his damages.  He's saying he can't live with the levee as planned because 19' isn't wide enough for him back there;  & it's, it's just a mess!


DM:  Well, being a mess, you think a couple months?  6 mos?  EM:  Oh no.  DM:  6 weeks?  EM:  It's in the May-time table that, that we outlined.  We're getting down to really a handful here, especially with these 2, uh & then the other 2 that we know in Arnold's Grove.  We're probably within 3 wks from having, & in a condemnation's first stage, we'll have the property in hand & we litigate value later in, in court if they're not happy - if either side is unhappy, but that has nothing to do with our ... (exchange tapes)


TW:  ...submission, some good news for the fact that this project over there at Simpson's detention area, we have a bid out, really I guess to be the first part of the stormwater improvemts in the lower area along 9th St, _ _ _ _  the storm _ _  contains grant money from MSD... 



NOTES:  At about 6:22 pm, the tape jammed.  So unfortunately, nothing more of this mtg was taped & the mtg ended at about 6:28 pm.  I decided not to speak at the mtg.





The VP Levee Cmsn mtg was held on Mon, 12/16/02, at 5:00 pm.  Present were DS, RH, JKB, DM, RW, CLM, BL, JW, JZ, DC, TW & EM.  Also present were - James Midas{sic}, Cgsm Akin, - Andy McCord, DG Purdy & Assoc, & RC.


Mtg called to order at 5:00 pm.  JZ announced the award of a tree-clearing contract to be completed by 4/1/03.  JZ presented Arnold's Grove alternatives & the decision of the Corps to provide new ROW requiremts to the city.  Moved by RW to approve the Arnold's Grove detention basin.  Unanimously approved. 


JZ outlined the draft mit plan for the extension of the existing 404 Permit.  16.8 acres mit will be done at the Fox Creek Mit Bank.  JZ outlined the schedule calls for acquisition at end of May;  contract award in August.


TW announced the receipt of bids for const of the 9th St drainage system for N.E. portion of VP Subdiv.  CLM indicated a public works resolution will be forthcoming with the new Congress in 03, with the hope of $4.2M aprop for 02-03.  EM outlined the property acquisition status.  The mtg adjourned at 6:20 pm.