MOPR'S 3/17/03 VP LEVEE CMSN MTG MINUTES
Notes: Ref 2 thru 5/03 TW's ROW & Esmts List.
Present: DC, BW, DS, JKB, EM arrived at 5:10, TW, CLM, JW, JZ, James Probert, DM, RW, RS until 5:45. Also Jim Mitas of Cgsm Akin's office. Tom Bolte, Andy McCord of DG Purdy & Vivian Blackman arrived by 5:15. Just before the mtg started, DC mentioned that BL had to pick his boy up at school or something.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 1 of 22
DC: Ok, call the mtg to order at 5 or 5:03. Uh, I'll call the roll here (see above) (Pledge Allegiance). Anybody have any additions or deletions to the uh, agenda for tonight? DM: Do you need to be added time or you got something _ _ _ - ?: No, that's fine _ _ _ _. DC: I have one, uh added under 7B, uh Maureen Morris about the levee. I'd lke to have a motion to approve the agenda. RW: Motion. DC: Do I hear a 2nd? RS: 2nd. DC: I got a motion & a 2nd to approve the agenda; all in favor? (some or all aye) Approved. Uh, Eric's not here so we don't have the mins for the mtg. I guess we'll get 'em next time _ _ _ _ _. (someone chuckles)
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 2 of 22
Uh, discussion items for this mtg is Item (Phase) 4B update. Uh, Jim, have you got any - JZ: Yes, I, I have some things for discussion. Um, main thing is that we have completed a preliminary set of plans & specs for the final flood control contract. Umm, the date on these is 3/10; they actually got back from the printer on the 11th & we hand delivered them to uh, Valley Park officials & other, uno, within the COE. What it is is a set of plans, uno, drawings for the, for the contractor & um, specs on how he does everything.
& I'm sure there'll be uno, cmts & improvemts that'll made when this gets reviewed. It's being reviewed right now by all of our district uh, eng'g elemts & real estate & env'l, etc. Uh, copies were sent to 4 places within the city, uh, to the city eng, to Dave, & to uh the atty, as well as to uh PG Purdy's, their, their env'l uh, coordinate, er coordinator. & uh, I also sent it to um, um, MDNR for their review of the eng'd fill part of the job & also St. Louis County Health Dept. MSD's got copies of this as well.
Dave, I, I have a kind of a header sheet to give to you that uh, you can just stick with your set of the plans & specs. This describes the fact that uh, these are draft plans & specs. Um, they uh, there's a vitability, constructa - there's, there's a review mtg on 4/1 in the St. Louis District office, & it's on here; I'll just hand this to you. DC: Ok. JZ: Uh, at 8:30 in the morning on the 7th floor. Uh, we're asking that people who make cmts on these plans & specs, use a, a new system called Dr. Checks, which is uh, you get on the internet & you, & you go into the system & you make your cmts on the, on the section of the specs or on the drawing that you have, uno, just write in the cmt. This way, they, they can uh, more easily keep track of all the cmts they receive.
CLM: Jim, is this an in-house COE review you're talkin' about? JZ: No, it's, it's both; most, mainly, it's an in-house COE review by, by both our project team as well as an independent - CLM: _ _ _ques & cmts _ _? JZ: No, it's comment; I want cmts from our partner - CLM: Yeah - JZ: That's the sponsor. CLM: that's what I meant by internal COE. JZ: Yeah. CLM: included _ _ _ _ -
JZ: No, it's not by the, no, it's not, it's not going out to contractors till we get, get their improvemts made; then it'll go out formally. Uh, we point out that uh, we're scheduled to provide uh, our fi, our FINAL plans & specs to our contracting office on 4/21. So we've got like 3 wks before the review mtg to get cmts in, make changes. Then at, at the mtg, there'll be cmts & then there'll be another 3 wks after that to get all the cmts incorporated into the docs. Uh at that point on 4/21, it's scheduled to go to our contracting office for them to process the job.
Now um, we're scheduled to uh, advertise this job in the Federal Business Opportunities Publication on 5/16. But that depends on uh, sponsor having acquired the remaining properties uh, to the point that the COE feels there's no real doubt that this is gonna be done by the end of May, ok. & then uh, again, we're scheduled to award the contract on 8/11 & that also depends on real estate acquistion & then the utility relocations part of the job, which is the sponsor's responsibility.
So anyway, here's, here's this - DC: Ok. JZ: & there's some, Dave, there's uh 2 sheets in the back here. One has to be - I'll talk to you a little bit later, about how, how to uh, make cmts on the specs & then the other is how to make cmts on the plans & what to refer to & that kind of thing. DC: Ok. DM: You say this mtg's on 10/21? That's when the cmts have to be in? JZ: No, the mtg is on, the review mtg is on 4/1 - DM: Ok. JZ: That's, that mtg is set & um - MM: Is that open to the public? JZ: No, it's really a working mtg. It's, it's really the engs & the, & the uh sponsor that just comes in & goes over all this stuff in, in detail about any changes to make to the plans & specs.
BW: Now does this cover, is that the whole levee or is it just this last phase? JZ: Well, it's the remaining, the remaining part of the levee - BW: Ok. JZ: The part that runs from uh, UP over in AL, all the way around along the river, up where it ties into St. Louis Ave closure structure. BW: Didn't you have something like that for the other - JZ: They were already constructed; everything else is constructed. DM: We've had mtgs like this before tho, right? JZ: This is the remainder of the flood control part of the project. BW: Ok.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 3 of 22
JZ: At, at, at this point, the uh, relief wells are in this contract; ok, the relief wells, there's 40, 41 relief wells that are in this contract. DM: Was there a possibility of either a law, not necessarily a lawsuit, or some kind of complaint that they shouldn't be all on one? Is that still a possibility? JZ: Um, actually our own contracting officen hasn't, our own contracting office hasn't finally ruled on whether or not we're gonna leave those in there or not. But they're in there as of this point in time. DM: Alright.
JZ: & I guess it's always a possibility of a protest, what they call a protest by a contractor. Um, which would delay the uh, the uh the acquisition process. DM: We would be able to go ahead & do the other work & then just let that be negotiated at the same time so we don't get further behind - doesn't hold this part of it up? JZ: I think it, uno, I think it, if there's a protest, it would hold the entire job up. DM: Oh, it's gonna hold it up. CLM: Dave, could you fax me a copy of that? DC: I'll, I'll fax a copy of this & I'll get it on our next, uh on our next _ _ when we have a mtg, I'll have this; of course it'll all be over with.
BW: So this is the report you were talkin' about earlier of feasibility & constructability & - JZ: Um, it's, it's, there's a mtg - this is what they call a review to see if - this is, this is - Eric - this is uh, really directions to a const contractor; how you build this job. &, & based on these 2 things, the con, contractor has to go out & build all the work, ok. So he has drawings to show him where to put things - BW: It's for the contractor. JZ: This is for the contractor - BW: I see. JZ: Plans & specs for a contractor to build this work.
CLM: They looked at this & decide first of all, will they, uno, bid on it. Secondly, they have to prepare their bid, break it down & let you know, bid, charge each item. JZ: Uno this - CLM: open bid, the COE opens those up & decides who's the apparent low responsive bidder. JZ: Right. BW: So it really isn't for anybody to complain against or uh, for or whatever. It's for the - CLM: No, no, no. BW: contractors - JZ: Well, the - BW: to bid against - CLM: Of potential contractors, I'd say it's not fair to wrap up the relief wells in that big contract; I could do the relief wells, but I can't do everything. (someone is whispering in the background) BW: Right, ok, yeah.
CLM: It's not for somebody that - BW: Or if he finds something in there that - CLM: _ Indiana Bats or is unhappy about the property deal. That's not - BW: This is impossible to be done & you gotta redo it because for some reason it was overlooked that - JZ: Well, it - BW: Like was the levee upside down or something.
JZ: Generally, with the process, I mean first of all, the sections in there are standard sections of COE specs; uno, site work, concrete, uh uno - BW: So it's really, it's, it's for - JZ: masonry. BW: contractors, is what it's for. CLM: Yeah. JZ: Yeah. BW: Ok.
JZ: &, &, & when you, & the process is that, that once we get these revised & in final shape, um, we prepare um, actually this is, uh now it's a CD, uno, a compact disc, &, & send this out to the, all the contractors who are interested in bidding on the job, & maybe, like we sent it out to - we sent out an advertisemt to hundreds of people; & then we get the indication of whether they're interested in bidding on the job; & then we send that off to maybe, uno, 40, 50, I don't know how many are interested in bidding on the job, ok. CLM: This is the same thing that's done whenever _ - BW: Yeah, yeah, I know.
JZ: & then, then they have the all the info & they have, there's even direction in here about how to bid & the bid schedule & everything. &, & there is a possibility that some contractor could say, well, I don't like the way this is put together & so I'm gonna protest. But, & that's really what your ques was. ?: Right. BW: Yeah, yeah.
JZ: So the uh, plans & specs have gone out. Uh, Eric, here's a copy of a memo that goes on top of the plans & specs pkg. Um, do you have any, any more ques about these plans & specs? ?: _ _ _ _. JZ: Other than property? (no response is heard)
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 4 of 22
The next topic that deals with Item 4B would be, uno, the uh land acquisition & the uh, relocations work that is being, is, is being worked on by the sponsor & the COE is very much involved in it. Um, Mayor, uno we've had 2 mtgs um, what they called In-Progress Review mtgs, with uh the COE & the sponsor & the city eng; & other, other people have been involved in these, & the last mtg most recently was last Tues, 3/11. & uno, I sent you, or I fax'd here to the city hall, a copy of our, kind of a summary of what happened. DM: Yeah, I appreciate you doin' that. JZ: So um, I was thinking about maybe going thru it a little bit if you want me to. Uh, I don't know (chuckle), it's up to you. ?: Well, it's up to you. JZ: I mean there's, there's some things that are, uno, that are happening & uh, might be of interest to the group.
& uh, the first thing we talked about was relocations of utilities. & Ameren UE, uno, Ameren UE was the first group that we had a mtg with on 1/29. & we really haven't got, at least I haven't had any real success in talkin' to them since, since that mtg. EM: I, I sent a letter this date to Christine Goonwald; um, it's the same letter that I drafted that the group agreed, that just indicated utility relocations had to be done on or before Sept - JZ: There's cmts on that letter just _ _, but that's alright. CLM: Eric, is this to their Office of Counsel? (EM & JZ laugh) Is this their Office of Counsel or Real Estate?
EM: Uhhhhhh, their, their uhh, eng'g division. Uh, uh to, to Christine Goonwald Square or tower; I figured she'll pass it on up to _ _ - CLM: _ _ _ _ _. EM?: Ok, good, good. ?: _ _ _ - JZ: The only, the only little cmt, Eric, _ _ _ _ was I think they thought that it shouldn't say, 'on behalf of the COE' because it's really your project just as much as it is ours, but no big deal. That was the only cmt, ok. At least it'll have your _ _ _ you've coordinated - EM: That's, that's sent to her & I've asked her to review it &, & sign it, & it's addressed to the mayor. Uh, so & it's in this form _ _ _ _ _.
Uh, &, & I've done the same thing with um AT&T, uh, out in Kansas City, Bob something, uh Miller, I believe. JZ: Oh, Bob Miller, yeah. EM: & uh, hand delivered the plans & I'll, I'll hand deliver the uh, uh, MODOT legal descriptions tomorrow morning to uh, their new Chief of Real Estate who's a former person that I, I know in their office & _ knows me, so, they, they, they've taken an expedited review on that.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 5 of 22
Eh, eh they're nervous about levees. Just so uno, uh, we are not a Levee District & I pointed that out to her; however, Chesterfield Levee Monarch, Chesterfield Levee, uh has uh, assessed benefits as to Hiway 40 in the St of MO & have walloped them that - I don't know how it's - CLM: Well, (I've?) been involved in that. That was the first time - EM: It's a HECK of a lot of money!
CLM: Yeah, that's the first time the Hiway Dept of Mo has lost their battle to keep Levee Dists from assessing any benefits that they do. The reason they fought this is they never had to do that before & they know now that every Levee Dist in the St of MO's gonna line up, assess for every road runs thru their property. It really is fair because if you, if a hiway is levee protected, it means that uh, it saves the MODOT money to have to make repairs. They never had to pay before, so they would've fought this to the bitter end & lost. JZ: Yeah.
EM: Well, at any rate, I, I, I've reassured their Office of Legal Counsel & by the way & everything else that we are a 4th class city &, & we have no legal right to create a Levee Dist anyway, to our knowledge of levee districts, & we do not assess or assess benefits _ _ _. Hopefully - EMorCLM: that should nail it. CLM: You got their (intent?) _ _.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 6 of 22
JZ: Huh. Ok, um, uh we met with SWB on 3/7 & uh, went thru the whole project with them at their facilities & that was a very productive mtg & field trip. So um, I don't think I need to go thru all these relocations. Uh, the real, the real estate acquisition mentioned uh, coordinating with the hiway dept. Uh, I guess the one thing I was thinking about bringing up is the change of the pipe location, Fishpot Creek, that we met with uh, the city. & they basically, the city recommended that we move a pipe that's planned to go from Mer Sta Rd is a, is a 48" pipe that runs on the western side, the west side of Mer Sta Rd, runs on out, empties into the Mer River.
& we've always had a plan to put in a kind of a junction box there at that, in that pipe & then when there's a flood on the Mer River or over to our Fishpot Creek det area. & uh basically, the city has said that they think that this is a better route, we agreed with them that it's a better route to go thru Beckett Plaza rather than by the chicken restaurant. So that's, that's a change that uh, has been, uno, design is being developed, has been developed really in the ROW drawings & so forth for that. So that's -
EM: & just for we, briefly, that a couple of reasons for the change, Dave & I were there &, & we explained to 'em that this restaurant had just opened up; all their pkg is in the rear & there's a small drive that's probably about 12' between the corner of their bldg & the uh MOPAC ROW. Um, with a, a 10' esmt uh, &, & uh at, at least with the pipe's six uh de 4 inches (64"), then we're ok - JZ: you mean the with the pipe itself? EM: Yeah, & you, you, you've got a vault you're sinking, you're shutting down for some period of time because there's ingress & egress, at least for pkg that's in the back; all the spaces in the front are dedicated. & then we had to go thru - JZ: to a different real estate. EM: Right.
& then we had to go thru uh MODOT because they still own the front part of that parcel from the old RR uh location that they had. So we talked to him about uh, a unified property approach where it would go pretty much down the side of the uh, the Fly-By-Night Liquor store or, or whatever it's called. Um, in case - (JW cracks up.) What Fly-By, that's - CLM: They may change their name, uno. EM: Fly-By Liquors, I'm sorry. CLM: a lot more catchier. EM: &, & it goes right in front of the sssecond row of pkg I believe, in front of the shpg ctr pretty much; & it's a 562' long by 10' pretty much. &, & it's, it's -
JZ: I've got, this hasn't been turned over to you because it's, it's in real estate & I haven't gotten it with the letter to send the est (his abbrev for estimate?) in general words, where it's going with the 2, uno, a permanent esmt for the narrower part & a perma, a temp esmt for const purposes outside of that.
EM: I met my, with my appraiser today on this & he said, I can't make heads or tails (chuckle) out of the picture, &, & I take it this'll be sufficient since it's my propo. JZ: Ok. EM: Then we'll get it surveyed & - JZ: You, you I think you might already have this data in the works & everything. EM: _ _ _ _ _ - JZ: So correct.
Uh, I mean there's other real estate issues, but I'll, I'll just defer to you, Eric, on anything else to discuss. I think we made quite a bit of progress this last month on that, on my work.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 7 of 22
DC: One thing on this new location of this storm water pipe, it's gonna eliminate a lot of storm water problems that they have in the, in the Spencer Plaza. Uh, it'll be able to uh, take that water out of there where most the time when we have a heavy rain, we have a lakes back there & everything & this'll be gettin' that water into the, into these uh, where it should be goin' into the det pond rather than layin' in that pkg lot. I think it, uno, I think it's a good idea to go down thru there.
RW: Well, what's the difference in costs goin' one direction vs the other? DC: Well, I think - RW: I mean are we gonna pay a lot more money goin' thru the plaza than we are the other way?
EM: Uno, they're both commercial uses. Um one, one's really a plaza, the Young's, uh be because it would've impacted both, uh Brewers' Carpet & uh the restaurant. Uh, so, so you're really looking at the same (pause) - RW: Is it the same amt of money? EM: measure of damages. RW: I mean has the survey been done on the parts where they originally was gonna go thru? EM: No, no, no, no. RW: Now we gotta go back & do that again? EM: No, no, no, no. RW: What's the difference in cost then? Has anybody ever checked that out? Is it cheaper to go past Young's than it is down the middle of the plaza?
DC: Well, the only problem we got when we go past - RW: (shouting) I don't care about storm water in the plaza! DC: No, but Mr. Young - EM: No, we're, we're, we're more concerned about cost to the, to the restaurant owner. DC: Mr. Young has a - EM: We may pay out the yazoo - DC: has a forced, forced main sewer that he put in - EM: uh for his damages because he wouldn't, he wouldn't be able to have customers basically.
RW: Well, what about the other 9 businesses in Beckett's Plaza? EM: Well there's plenty of ingress & egress that way. RW: If you're goin' down the middle of that plaza, you're gonna affect them just as much. EM: It'll, it'll be done in 50' increments. RW: But I mean don't you think there ought to be a feasibility study there on the cost to see which direction's cheaper? EM: Uh, I don't think we have time & I think a feasibility study might cost more than, uno, deciding on where to put the (conduit?).
DC: The only thing, the problem there in that thing is Bud had to put in a forced main. EM: Right. DC: & we got a big, & we're goin' in there with a 54" diameter pipe. I mean & it's gonna have to go down in the ground & I, I really don't know whether, where we got room enough in there to really work with that.
RW: 'cause I know this issue was brought up in this levee mtg 8 mos ago, the same thing. DC: Oh yeah. EM: Absolutely not. RW: We talked about this pipe goin' down past Young's & thru the middle of the plaza 8 mos ago at least. EM: Boy, I, I - DC: They were always goin' down the thing was it gonna be down in the uh - EM: They were shootin' it down thru underneath the RR tracks. DC: Right, punchin' it thru underneath the RR tracks. JZ: No, that's a different pipe - RW: No, that was a different main there.
JZ: I think, I think at least in my, in my mind, what became apparent when we were out there was the fact that you're closing off the back pkg lot; anyway that's where the access once was, the pkg is for the restaurant. & evidently - I mean, I have, from the city I understand, it's hi, potential high cost real estate, absolutely, damages to the property.
DS: _ _ _ _ _ _ _problem - EM: Yeah, & we couldn't figure out how they're gonna ingress & egress either, uh, because there's no back way in or out. RW: Yeah, there is; you can go around the plaza, put a rock driveway in. Or is that the (urinal?)? EM: He had, he had a curb - I mean we looked at it & there's some barricade set. RW: That's been there for - EM: I don't know, uno - RW: 25 yrs. BW?: What's that? EM: Whatever! I - RW: Where you park & egress out in the back of that bldg; behind Jerry's Automotive. DC: You have to go up that alley & then you have to uh - RW: That's how Brewers' gets their carpet delivered.
EM: Well, frankly there were some other, other thoughts on the matter. You condemned the Young's - DC: _ _ pkg lot all blacktop - EM: condemned the Youngs twice in the last 5 or 6 yrs. Uh - RW: They wasnt', they wasn't very nice to the City of VP. EM: Well - RW: Back over the sewer deal. EM: Whatever! Uh, uh, uh - RW: That's an old different issue, but uno, my, my concern is what's the cost?
EM: I, I don't think there's gonna be any cost difference. I think your length is about the same & uh, uh I, I think there's a LOT less impact to the property on this, of whether or not the property has to be taken _ _ as one unit.
MM: Where is Spencer Plaza? DC: What? RW: Same as Beckett's Plaza. MM: Oh, you said Spencer Plaza. DC: Spencer's Plaza, that's - MM: the same as Beckett's? DC: Yeah, Beckett's or whatever. MM: Ok. DC: What is it? Beckett's? RW: Yeah. MM: That was 7/15/02 when you talked about that. RW: Yeah, I knew we talked about it before.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 8 of 22
DC: Tom, you got somethin' on 4B? TW: Well, I just wanted to hand out the uh, status of properties, acquisition & the info in there. (Ref Link in Top Notes) There's 2 pages, this is just a continuation of last _ _. Uh, the 2nd sheet is the uh, the one that - ?: I need one. TW: There's 2nd, or there's add'l copies can be made probably at any time. Vivian: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ going to affect the carwash property? EM: Not, not at all; it's gonna go way behind the carwash. Vivian: On the side _ _ _ _? EM: To the det basin. Vivian: Oh, so it's not even gonna come up that far. Ok, so when you were talking about _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
EM: Um, on, on, on the uh land acquisitions, I'll just take it from the top & go thru. &, & I apologize for being late by the way; I was in front of Judge Wallace in Division 13, getting a setting on the City of VP vs Diamond Group, et al, which is our condemnation action. Uh, it is set 4/17 at 9:00 am & that's on a hearing on the petition & we're asking of course thitch appoint 3 cmsnrs to appraise the property. Uh, 6 Mer Valley Plaza, that pretty much sums up that, set 4/17.
Uh, Halamicek property, uh, on 101 Marshall Rd has been purchased & closed on.
Um, 8 Arnold Dr. is the subject of the same condemnation as Mer Venture.
7 Arnold Dr, uh, 1 Arnold Dr, 4 Arnold Dr, 18 Arnold Dr are all uh, we, we, I paid the money into court uh, Friday. & the clock starts ticking uh today with the clerk sends notice to the property owners that the money has been paid in that was assessed by the cmsnrs. & we will seek uh, a Possessory Writ; uh, we have to give at least 10 days time for the property owners to retrieve their money.
Um, 8 Mer Sta Rd, that was acquired.
Um, 401 Marshall Rd (US Cotton), we've reached agreemts uh with the property owner; we've got uh, a title uh search (someone coughs). I think I ordered the money in, in this next packet.
Uh, & I - there, there were some contract issues that, that uh the COE &, & uh myself are trying to work out with US Cotton & I - it shouldn't be any problems. (The only other US Cotton on the list is 501 Marshall Rd.)
Um, 639 & 701 Marshall Rd, um, sent deeds out today, um for Subordination Agreemts from their mortgage co, the Bank of America. Uh, & they've, everybody's agreed on everything; it's just getting uh, all, all the signatures on those.
Rondal Investmts, same thing; uh sent the deed, I sent the deed out last wk & it's been circulated to the uh 4 partners.
Uh, Wallace Investmts, we have uh, an agreemt with the Wallace Family: um, they're, they're awaiting uh, a doc from me that, that uh, I'm generating.
Uh, Illig was acquired at 9 Arnold Dr.
Uh, Halibut Properties has been closed on at the bottom.
Uh, Kneip, Frederick, Darnell, Pace, Myers, Fowler, Richardson, uh I've ord, ordered money in, in this packet on that; those are all temp const esmts. Um, I had an agreemt with Mrs. Richardson, uh & unfortunately, she died about 10 days ago, uh before I got my title work back. & if anybody can help me, she's got a brother that's assisting in the property & I haven't been able to run him down. If anybody knows of that person, if you can put me in touch with him, I'd appreciate that. ?: _ _ _ _? EM: It's uh, Mildred Richardson's brother. Gary knows him? Ok. ?: Gary Adams knows _ _ _ _.
EM: I, I've left msgs with the police, &, & Ken Fowler um, &, & I do have an agreemt with Fowler's uh in place & it just shouldn't be any problems.
Uh, Valley Plaza Associates, uh it's the bottom, I think I - we touched on the RR's & MODOT & where they're at.
& Valley Plaza Associates, I did meet with the property owner some time last wk, Th or Fri, uh, or the president of it. & I, I gave him the photograph of the pipeline & uh, I, I, I don't think there's gonna be a problem. I indicated what the process is (& the light's on?).
TW: & the, the last items that we added on that 2nd sheet are items that we was working on (MODOT 1.29 ac.perm.esmt). & then we've got uh, the very last one (Valley Plaza) is probably a 1 to 2 arrangemt & we have to do our thing. Is that right? (no response heard) & the rest of the survey, legal descriptions, (which?) are pretty much completed.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 9 of 22
CLM: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. EM: Oop, I appreciate that, Lee. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ comments, but we, we did, we did well. CLM: I think with all the _ _ _ _ the claim was _ _ _ _. EM: Yeah, I, I didn't bring the, the uh, the data, but we, we pretty well uh, I think we appraised the properties out at 76 cents a sq ft, um, for raw land & so that of course was our approved offer that we made to the COE, or we made to the property owners, that was approved by the COE.
Um, &, &, & pretty much down the line, the, the cmsnrs gave us what we, what we asked for with uh, uh, Mr. Harrawood. He was at, at a little bit over a half a Million $; the city was somewhat uh, a hundred & some odd thousand. Uh, I think he was awarded maybe $20,000 more, $15 or $20,000 more than what he asked for. He asked for $5.75 a sq ft. (Click on "Offers & Settlements" based on hardcopy info.)
Um, & the same thing on the Brown property, altho for some reason, the cmsnrs gave them a $ a sq ft, as opposed to 76 cents a sq ft. They did have the same lawyer & uh, he wanted $5.35 a sq ft on that. & she also wanted a, a little bit uh over I think a half a Million $ when you add up all the sq footage, so _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
We paid in some, somewhere around 220,000 I think; uh, & they asked for about a $1.1 Million $, uh I believe. So I, uno, I think all in all, we, we, the cmsnrs pretty well saw the way that, that we wanted them to see it & that is the fair market value of the property is, what WE appraised, it was the only fair & correct way to do it I think.
Um, both parties have filed what's called Exceptions, uh on those reports which means that uh, uh, they didn't like it & they're appealing that. Um, we get possession of their property, but they're entitled to a jury trial on those issues. So that'll be coming in the future.
CLM: _ _ _ let me add if I may, Dave, Eric showed me those basis of the claims & docs that were submitted by the attys of the, the other, the landowners. & those are all smoking mirrors & bombs & very cleverly done. They usually have convinced the cmsnrs & they came out & became familiar. & uh, if Eric had not gone back & reputed some of those #'s & simplified some of their statemts that they alleged as a fact; the fact that (if?) there had been a lift sta _ _ _ _, it's a piece of cake; I'm paraphrasing, it's a piece of cake to develop on floodplain because it's done by the Army COE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
They just kind of whooshed away all the real-world problems involved in bldg in the floodplain in the first place. Plus, they had some very uh, suspicious #'s as far as all new (furniture?) & what it requires. It really requires a lot of detailed analysis, examination of the #'s that they put forth, claim to establish that 1.2 Million bucks total, whatever it was. The problem is that he was extremely (wanesasase?) obviously from his position. They couldn't, they had not good #'s; I'm here to tell ya. _ _ (Senator Curdy got?) awarded way outside of Chesterfield Valley _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _awarded _ _ _ _.
EM: Well, I appreciate your help. & Tom's help, & Jim Zerega's help in getting the matter refuted & uh, taken care of.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 10 of 22
DM: Eric, is Diamond Properties the same as Meramec Valley? EM: It is; he just changed his name _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. DM: Are we still needing to sue them? I thought we had something from '98, he, that you were about to - I thought you had something from him that said that, the back part we need or _ _ _ _ _ _? EM: Wh, what, what's at issue here is umm, the temp const esmt - did, did, you talk to him about the pipeline stuff? JZ: No, I didn't; did not mention it.
EM: Ok, let, lemme clue you in: Um, the, the proooperty um, from the, the bldg line to the edge of the pkg lot, at one point had a, a drainage pipeline that was um, designed to go back there. & the COE indicated that they wanted a temp const esmt. Um, ROW indicated, gee, I don't think you can get by with a temp const esmt for the COE. & they felt that perhaps we would needed a per, permanent esmt; we never decided that issue.
JZ: Can I, can I get into it a little bit? EM: Yeah, sure. JZ: Um, I mean the plans had been, uno, the back of that bldg, there is a certain, what 20' or so of asphalt behind his back wall of the bldg to the, to the curb line. DM: Ok. JZ: & our plans had a uh, storm sewer coming right down, basically, down the middle of that 20'; &, & bringing the drainage from the, from the west side over to the east side & tying it into a pipe that goes under the RR, BN RR, & goes into our det pond, the g/p det pond. That was the plan.
&, & at time, at that time, the thought was, this, we're really taking drainage on this property & uh, & provide, & providing a storm drain that this guy could continue to own; he, & he wouldn't, would not need a permanent esmt for that storm drain 'cause he would continue to own it & have, have the responsibility of keeping it clean, ok.
We've moved that pipe now so, so it's mostly off his asphalt altogether, it's just at the very edge of the asphalt. DM: Pretty much the southern edge I guess, towards the river. JZ: & when we moved it, most, almost completely into what's our permanent esmt area where we already had a permanent esmt required. TW: Moved it as far as you could without interrupting const. JZ: Yeah, & we've got, we've got a little concrete flood wall on top of the levee & we (haven't stayed or have it staid?), uno, uh, on the landward side of that flood wall with this pipe. DM: Ok.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 11 of 22
JZ: So, so anyway, now, now we're considering the pipe to be a project feature, & it's on our permanent ROW; & the, & the water's gonna have, it's gonna have to be maintained by the city. &, but, in order to tie it into the pipe over by the RR, we cut across a little bit of what used to be temp esmt land & now we're making it permanent esmt land. But we think - EM: It's where it takes the bend _ _ _. JZ: At the very corner of that, of that - DM: the SE corner, roughly where he stores all that stuff in chain-link fenced-in area. JZ: Right. DM: Ok. JZ: & so we think this new design is... (exchange tapes)...JZ:...we still have to build this levee, &, &, & this uh, concrete wall & so there'll be some, some need to have access to that while we're const'g it, ok. So, but there's a change in the permanent esmt; it's like, uno, one corner.
EM: &, &, & as far as, well, it, it does a couple of things. I, I, I believe the suit would've been liable had that pipe backed up or clogged; uh, because I, i, it was basically ours. & I, & I think, real estate pretty much agreed with me on that & that's why they - but, whatever! Um, we're way far apart; uh, the city offered $20,000 & he wants $150,000. DM: That's the temp esmt you're talkin' about the pipe goin' down the middle? Or is that the permanent on the very back?
EM: It's, the only temp esmt that we will have is really for rights of ingress & egress so that the QWOR (Corps/COE) can get on the back of his alllley there, in order to, to, to work on the levee itself! DM: So's juspute over putting a pipe in under the fire lane? Or is it part of the temp esmt for us to go in there, for the COE that is, to go in & - EM: (chuckling) The dispute's over money. DM: I mean I know it's over the money, but I mean the money is to gain us what? The - DM&EM): The temp const esmt. DM: Ok.
Mitas: Eric - TW: for the sewers to drain his property line. DM: So we're draining some of his property, huh? DM: He's payin' us - Mitas: _ or have you _ - DM: we're payin' him to drain his water. Mitas: He has 2" of asphalt _ _ handle & - EM: I'll, I'll have to throw that to Jim. JZ: Um, whatever, whatever damages there is, the, the contractor's responsible for repairs. JimMitas: Ok, so - JZ: & I, I don't know that, uno, I don't know exactly what the contractor is gonna do on that property, but we want to them to be able to come in &, &, & do work from that side; have the right to be on that side of the property without trying to work completely from the opposite side.
EM: I would think you'd have concrete trucks obviously. JZ: Yeah, could have concrete trucks, uh, to mix pours &, & uh, put, uno, could have some equipmt _ _ - TW: Well, you might need it to build that wall. CLM: Well, did you say the contractor _ _ _ bidder _ _ - JZ: But they, but they - CLM: _ _ took _ - JZ: but they take, they go out & take photographs of every place they're gonna be - CLM: Sure. JZ: & then have to, they have to put it back the way it was. CLM: They can't _ _ - JZ: That's part of the, it's part of the const contract. TW: I would suspect that your gonna, that someone's gonna have to hold that up back there. JZ: Uno, I don't think I can tell you for sure that it will or not, will not be damaged by the contractor. TW: Just a suspicion.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 12 of 22
JW: Eric, what every happened to the city's position on that guy dumpin' all that old asphalt all over? & I don't think we was gonna do anything because we was negotiatin' with him on this esmt & now - EM: I, I asked the police to, to commence an investigation on it & uh, I was told by the police that it, it was up to the city; not me. JW: Right. EM: But the city, to ask for that investigation because the city was the property owner & I guess I gotta defer to Dan because he's the mayor, uh, Michel.
DM: So should we go ahead & have him investigate that? EM: Well, he told me that, that you said no (chuckle), but uno, I, I didn't get into after (JW cracks up) that. DM: A while back there was a big stink over who put the asphalt there, & JB, I can't, & I were talkin' to uh Tom Maurer; & he had 2 piles of asphalt; one he said was his & one he said wasn't. & John said, talkin' to you, that, go ahead &, we were tryin' to do a Stop Work Order on there & he said, based on your opinion, we cannot issue a Stop Work Order. So I guess, I'll have to talk to him.
JW: I just think we need to go in & make that guy clean it up. That looks terrible. DM: _ _ _ Lt. Mowery then, what was goin' on - EM: Yeah, that's, that wasn't, I, uno I was talking about uh, uh, a uh, I, I, I - JW: He's usin' it for a, a landfill back there. EM: I, I, I, I felt that - BW: Right. EM: I mean we, we had had evidence from, from uh, a tenant up there that it was him doing it, or his contractor. & uh, I asked to police to do it & then & that's, I mean I'm just tellin' ya that's what they told me.
DM: John said, so you had JB & I out there & said the guy kind of hinted like first he knew who did it & then he just clammed up so we - EM: I, I just felt it should be - DM: We had no evidence; that's why I lifted the Stop Work Order, based on what JB had told me. EM: Well, I sh, I thought it should be in the hands of the police &, & that's why I - JW: Could the city cite the guy now? I mean - EM: Well, yeah, but I, uno I think we need - JW: even tho we don't know who dumped it; we know it's, it's his property -
EM: That's, that's what police are for. DC?: _ _on our property. CLM: _ _ have the city investigate & find out who dumped it. JW: Yeah, ok, if it's on our property, well, he REALLY needs to clean it up then. DC: It's on our property. EM: Maybe you can talk to the Lt tomorrow & maybe you can straighten it out. CLM: What the mayor said is they have to have evidence, who did it. DM: Right, JB said he didn't know of any evidence after talkin' to the tenants back there.
CLM: But the police of course will investigate to determine if there is any. JW: So if somebody dumps a load of logs in my front yard, I can leave 'em sit there because I can say I didn't do it. DC: I don't know who did it. JW: Anybody I fear near?
BW: Property owner is responsible for whatever's on that property! JW: Well, that's what I would be thinkin' here. EM: Well, unfortunately, it's our property, so - BW: Well, that's right! CLM: It's the reason the city has to have this investigation now.
DS: Send the city trucks out (chuckle). ?: All over (wood?). BW: That'd probably be a helluva lot cheaper to do that - JW: I'd rather do that than let it set there & see it the way it looks. DC: on city property. JZ: It'd be nice to have it gone before October/June contractor gets there. BW: 5 yrs to get to it. EM: Well, we do nneed to maintain our own property, but I uno, I, I would just urge YOU to talk to the police about it if you think it's warranted; I DID!
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 13 of 22
BW: How much - TW: Can I, I just want to ask a ques & see if _ _ _ _ . If, in fact, there is no agreemt reached, reasonably on that acquisition of the TS(EorC?)L, temp license & easmt, & there is sewers in his pkg lot, I mean - JZ: We're gonna put a levee behind that property - TW: I mean - JZ: & block - TW: what obligation - JZ: block the flow. TW: Well, but what obligation JZ: I'm not a lawyer. TW: in the (future?)? EM: I, I spent a lot of time arguing what you (laughing) - TW: I'm just asking a question.
EM: Yeah, & I did a lot of legal research. &, & it, uno, 7 yrs ago, we, we would've been right & we could've walked away from it. Um &, & the, the law changed; it, it used to be that uh, you had the right to discharge surface waters on your neighbor's property to his detriment. & uh, it, it, it was just called connum, Common Enemy uh Doctrine.
&, & it changed about 7 yrs ago in MO; & where it's called the Reasonable roos Use uh Doctrine now. CLM: Makes a big difference. EM: &, & it is; it's a huge difference. & uh, the COE recognizes that, &, & uh, I went round & round with your legal dept &, & Craig. &, & uh, I mean, the law's what it is; we have an obligation. CLM: Yeah, they changed the law; not to take care of things like this, but to take care of surface _ _ _ _ _ - EM: Right. CLM: _ _ he's dumpin' on somebody's property. EM: Well, & it, it actually, the law was changed over a levee district down in uh, the New Madrid area. CLM: Yeah, because the flood, surface water. EM: That's right.
DM: So when are we goin' to court with Diamond? _ _ _ today you got a court - EM: 4/17, so 9:00. DM: Once that's completed, we'll have everything we need from Meramec Valley, er Diamond, whatever they call themseleves _ _? EM: Well, it's Diamond; there's several defendants. There's 20 defendants actually. Um - DM: But if we get the judgemt for X # of dollars then we can go ahead & have the right to - EM: Yeah, it, it includes uh, Lillian DeWitt, Maureen Morris, Michael McGhee, uh, &, & it's all the tenants of the property up there too.
So, & by the way, in case some ald gets a call from an angry tenant, just explain to 'em; they're necessary parties. DM: So this lawsuit is Diamond & every, all the people in Arnold we haven't settled with? EM: Yeah, & all the tenants.
CLM: We're sitting here only because (dollars?). ?: _ _ _ (CLM, JZ & BW chuckle).
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 14 of 22
DC: I had a question was approached me today. With the const that they're doing in AL right now with the relocation; is that a relocation of Bell Telephone, or is that? JZ: That's SBC Developers. DC: Is that bein' done by us or is that bein' done by them? EM: Yeah, we gave them the ROW, uh maybe a yr & a half ago when the uh city purchased property. ?: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - DC: 'cause they, uh, the contractor uh, down here that's cuttin' trees, he had to go up there & have 'em move some equipmt to remove some trees. & I told 'em uno, that's, I thought that the Bell Telephone was doin' it. Uh, & they haven't been able to catch a contractor up there; so they been at work a day out AGAIN.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 15 of 22
I DID receive the drawings for the uh, specs, plans & specs for the 4B area. They're at the city; I have to pick 'em up, & I probably won't go to that mtg & I'll probably go over 'em & if anybody that wants - how many, did we just get one set here? JZ: You have 1 set here. DC: Ok, & um, I'm gonna take a look at it & if anybody's interested, we'll get - did you get a copy, Tom, of the plans & specs for 4B? TW: Kirk - JZ: Kirk got a copy; Kirk Carson, & Eric got a copy, &, & uh Purdy & Assoc got a copy.
DC: Maybe before 4/1, maybe we'll get together, maybe we can get together & uh kind of go over 'em so we're not repeatin' the same thing & maybe have a little coordination mtg here at the city or somethin' & go over - TW: Yeah, give us about a wk & that way, we can have a chance to review _ _ _ - DC: Ok.
JZ: They, they, I mean there's this Dr. Checks System that, uno, they'd like to have you make the cmts - you get on the internet & basically, you're registered as, as uno, your company would be one registration, & Dave, you could be another - DC: That's the thing you were talkin' to me on the internet, last wk about, when you - JZ: Yeah. I was into today; it's pretty nice once you get in there & - CLM: Are the instructions in there, Jim? _ _ _ _ - JZ: Uh, the instructions are - DC: I'll come down & talk to - JZ: Yeah, you, their instructions are in there, but you could probably use a little bit more help. (Several laugh)
CLM: I wouldn't do it, I know damn well I - JZ: I know I got some help today & it was great. DC: Mr. Mayor, can I use your secretary to get on the internet & make any needed cmts _ _ _ _? DM: Yes, yes you may. DC: Ok, I'll come down there & talk to her; I'll come down & talk to her. JW: Stick that CD in there. CLM: _ _ thing so she can take care of him.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 16 of 22
DC: Uh, as you see in the report, I gave you here on the uh levee, uh for Item 4B, um & the Phase 2, uh referring & going, uh, anybody that sits down there in the drive, you can see that they been knockin' trees down & logging, uh, doin' a little logging. & uh, we now have the DNR uh, part of the DNR Permit for the burning. So maybe we can, maybe a wk, we should have that in. Uh RW got a copy of it today; I got a copy of it, but they have not applied for a burning permit as such. & supposedly today, they were fwd'g it by air, by air to DNR. In this permit, the DNR says that they can only burn from 10 in the morning until 4 in the afternoons. But uh, but the way I understand it is, the Chief here, can let 'em burn; start at 7:00 & burn till 4:00. Because if we don't, if we burn from 10 to 4, it's gonna take us, it'll take us forever to get all them trees burned up down there & all that brush. Because -
BW: What's the reason for limiting it to - DC: I have no idea. RW: Air - way the air - DC: Where the air - RW: _ the air pollutes_ _ _ time of the day & stuff. CLM: # of hours. DC: But this is such a, uno, sort of a off the beaten path of everything else. I mean, we - ?: _ _ _ - I don't think there'll be any problem, do you? RW: No, DNR's got, it has not received the application yet which they have to come out & do a site survey before they'll do anything to move it fwd _ _ _. DC: Right. RW: You're lookin' a probably a couple wks yet. DC: But, uh, they have to come out; they were gonna go to - I think Len said today, that they were going to look at the layout where the burn pits are gonna go. & that'll be one thing, the DNR, they'll have to mark out them burn pits & where they're gonna be at. & then they'll have to approve of the locations because they have certain minimum distances they have to have from whatever.
CLM: Of course the, the dealine is just to get the trees down. DC: Yeah, the trees'll be down; I mean all the trees'll be down. I would imagine that, I imagine that we got just about all the trees down from uh, River, from the RR tracks, all the way down to uh Pharoah. (CLM, JW & others talk indecipherably) & they were workin' in the selective cutting last wk, uh movin' trees down there so I would imagine they're, they're pretty much along. Len said they were movin' right along with it, so I would imagine most of the trees are down. But the burning, we don't want it to last, uno, any longer than they have to. Ok, if anybody has anything on 4B?
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 17 of 22
BW: I got a question; Jim, we were talkin' about, uh last mo, about the end of May bein' secured on properties & we were due for an August contract award. Is that pretty good yet? JZ: Yeah, that's, well, I mean that's really the, what Eric's been talkin' about, the land acquisition & the relocations. So that's, that's the schedule right now; to have it all done at the end of May. BW: Is that looking feasible, Eric? EM: Well we have a hearing on 4/17 & uh, I, I would certainly anticipate the judge would appoint cmsnrs & they would get their business done by that uh deadline; sure. BW: So the condemnation is the process we're in right now, &, & as soon as that's approved or awarded, or whatever you want to call it, then we can get possession of the property? EM: That's correct. BW: Ok.
DM: Are there any other properties other than what's gonna be there on 4/17 that we still need to buy, or? EM: Other than the ones I haven't closed on (. or ?) DM: So we're just either about to close or they're gonna be in court?
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 18 of 22
JZ: The RR's are still out there, we still need RR agreemts with uh, UP & BN. BW: In what areas? EM: &, &, & MODOT. JZ: & MODOT.
But, but specifically, on the UP RR, uh, we, we have given the RR, uno, the plans so they can, so their engs can review our plans. & we gave them the um, a, a draft agreemt; it's really a 3-party agreemt signed by the RR, the city of VP, &, & the COE. & uh, that's, that's there & hasn't, I don't, I don't know of any uh, any cmts back yet from UP, ok.
The uh, the BN RR, uno, we already have the closure structure built that we have to tie into on both sides with the levee. & we provided the, on, on 5/6, er 3/6, the COE provided our eng'g plans to BN. & um, we still have not given the city our BN agreemt, draft agreemt, but it's very close to coming together. & uh, soon as we have that, uh Craig Donns is gonna fax, I mean, e-mail to you so you'll have a, a Microsoft Word copy of it & also to, to the RR. So that should happen within the next few days.
But, but those - ?: _ _ - JZ: those have to, I'm, I'm just pointing out, they have to go thru the process of actually, uh uno, of getting reviewed by the RR's; any changes made; & then actually executed & signed, to uh, to get on their property. & there's uh, there's probably some relatively small amt of cost for the actual esmts on their property, the permanent esmts so that they'll have the levee up on top of their uh, on their ROW.
EM: &, & that's outside of our, our normal process, it's no, we don't have appraisals done &, & there's no review appraisal of course, &, & the COE'S told me NOT TO CONDEMN THE RR'S. JZ: Yeah. (Others laugh) JZ: Well, there's, there's no reason to condemn 'em. We've already built - BW: Why not?
JZ: We're doing something just like we've already done. Like on UP, we, uno, yrs ago, we built Item 2 & we got on their embankmt with, with the levee that runs along uh, Fishpot Creek. We're just gonna be on the opposite side putting the levee on that side of the, of the RR embankmt. Same thing is true at other places; well, we already got, had an agreemt with BN to build the closure structure, which was a fairly complicated thing to do. Uno, we had to - BW: The tough part I would think. JZ: & now we're just gonna tie into each side of that so uno, hopefully, everything will go &, & they'll sign the agreemts. There's no real controversy involved with those things. BW: I think the closure structure was the hardest nut to crack.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 19 of 22
JZ: & the same thing is true for, as Eric mentioned, with uh MO Hiway Dept, Hiway 141, we have to tie into that embankmt. So he needs to talk to you about, about their reaction to that. DC: Ok, we'll move on -
DM: Gonna have a problem with it? Or why would they not - why would MODOT not wanna? EM: Well, the only, the only reason, as I indicated to you, they (chuckle) don't want to get whacked for uh taxes. DM: As long as we're not gonna assess them, then that's the only deal.
EM: Uh, I, I mean they, they obviously have engs that are gonna review this & make sure that we're not compromising uh, uno, I, I'm sure they have some sort of guidelines because this is probably a 9010 Federally Funded Project out there & you have to maintain certain safety -
JZ: Their pipe that - EM: standards. & - JZ: We're tying into their pipe. We're putting their pipe into a - EM: Yeah. - JZ: a gravity drain. & uno they're, we're doing work with their facilities. EM: It's more of a technical thing. DM So we should be done by the end of May so we meet our - EM: Oh, I, I would think so.
CLM: What else could work _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ as long as you're not gonna tax 'em? MM: I'm sorry, what? CLM: as long as you don't tax 'em.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 20 of 22
DM: The RR's still look like they're gonna all be completed by May so, so we can get that - JZ: Uhh - DM: 'cause June's the date everything has to be bundled up so we can leave some August. JZ: Right, right. I think we, we still need to get, uno, receive word back from the RR's on where they stand basically. EM: It's still in eng'g as far as I understand. JZ: We still need to keep, keep pressing on RR's for sure on, on the other things; that's what we're, that's what we're doing.
BW: Is the RR aware of, of our schedule _ _ _? JW: They probably don't care (laugh). JZ: Uhh, I think that the letter that sent the plans there, discussed the schedule, but I don't really have a copy of that with me to verify it. BW: Invariably, they'll wait until the last minute. JZ: Yeah, that needs, if it hasn't been brought out, it needs to be brought out; you're, you're reason, you're right; uno, we need this by a certain date. BW: Yeah, I think it's a formality really, after the, the, the _ _ (others start talking indec/sim) we need has all been done.
DC: We had a pretty good working relationship with the BN when we put the closure structure up _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _scheduling. & I don't think we're going to have to close the tracks down like we for the uh, uh track for the closure structure there on that because we just, uno, we'll be workin' on the other side there.
JZ: We'll, they'll need a flagman there. DC: Well, the RR will definitely - JZ: It's gonna be close enough to - DC: have their people - JZ: need a flagman. DC: there. That's like they did - they'll have to have a man there at all times & everything like that. JZ: Right. DC: So, but they were very, they worked very good with the contractors & the COE & the City of VP & everything else with the closure structure. So I don't think we'll have any complaints or problems or anything else.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 21 of 22
Ok, let's go to Item 7B, this cost share of the project & TPC. Is there anything, anything on that, uh, or is that? JZ: Nothing new; I mean we've had the same cost est that we've had for several months. DC: Nothing new, ok.
How about fed sponsor & funding for FY 03, 04; nothing new yet? JZ: Well, I mean I was talkin' to CLM & uno, the budget has passed for fiscal 03, the fed budget's passed. We, we don't actually have our, the COE hasn't received our, what they call a Work Allowance yet for the remainder of the yr. But, but they've provided money as needed on an incremental basis so it hasn't slowed us down. & uh, we, (a cell phone rings) we have a tentative budg (another ring), Work Allowance of $2,460,000 total, which is more than enough, for this FY. DC: Ok.
CLM: For F, for FY 04, we know what's the Pres's budget request, but the COE has not gotten approved capability back yet. Jim checked on that tonight just before we came up here. It was aprop'd, but uno, it's in Washington & you talk with senators, & still haven't gotten approved capabiltiy. As we discussed before (a cell phone rings again), if the COE's capability is greater than what's the Pres's asked for in his budget request, then we would go to our friends Jim Mitas & Cgsm Akin, & Senator Bond's & in Congress, & ask them to (bill?) 'cause we have to know what the COE's capability is. Because in Congress, you almost NEVER _ _ have more money to the Pres's budget request than the COE's capabilities.
& there's no gettin' around that because if we ask - let's say the capa - let's say the budget has $100 in it, & the COE says we could use $150. Well, if we go to, to the Congress & they'd go to the Aprops Subcmte & ask for more than $150, Aprops Cmte staff will check with the COE in Washington & will say, you can't use more than $150. The Aprops staff says, that's it; we're not gonna give you $150, unless you do your (current?) figures, _ probably won't give you any more problem. You REALLY have to work within that timeframe. We have plenty of time to do that job.
3/17/03 LEV - Sec 22 of 22
DC: Ok, 7D, Maureen on the levee. MM: My questions have been answered. DC: Ok, fine. Un, next Levee Cmsn mtg will be on 4/21, at 5:00. RW: Motion to adjourn. (two 2nd it) ?: 3rd. DC: I have a motion & a 2nd to adjourn; all in favor? (some or all do) Very good. CLM: Uno, I've never heard a nay vote on that. ?: _ _ _- CLM: All these, all these yrs, I've never heard a nay vote. JW: Stick around in the bd of ald mtgs, you'll hear _ _ _ _. (they laugh) (End of taping, about 6:05 pm)
The following CQA (coments, questions, answers) are also listed on MOPR'S CQA Page:
[CQA numbering for reference to particular mtgs & sections: Mtg type (3 letters), LEV (levee), BOA (bd of ald), SBA (special bd ald), PBH (public hearing); Year (4 digits); Month (2 digits); Day (2 digits); Dash; Section # (2 digits - zeros if not applicable); Specific cqa designator (1 letter)]
CQA# LEV 20030317-02A) A very rough estimate of apparently the plans, is about a 1/2 to 3/4" stack of legal size papers, & apparently the specs, is about a 1 to 1-1/2" stack of letter size, plus other folded drawings. B) Mainly, it's an in-house COE review by their project team & "an independent" what/who?
CQA# LEV 20030317-03A) Are there any other aspects of the 4B contract that should be separated out to avoid a possible contractor protest? B) Why just the relief wells? C) Shouldn't the VCOE mtg be open to the public? D) What about people who suspect that gov'tl officials are enriching their friends & associates with taxpayers' money; would the VCOE mtg be for them? E) Should JZ inform prospective bidders that info on their levee involvement will be posted on mopr.org? F) What's the URL/web address for We The People to view the draft plans, specs & even the comments? G) Should there have been previous VCOE mtgs on the other levee sections before they were constructed?
CQA# LEV 20030317-04A) Who or what is a Christine Goonwald? B) 'On behalf of the COE' sounds like a powerful statement. T or F? C) "Because it's really your project just as much as it is ours"; what's the real answer? D) May I please have a copy of that annotated letter? E) Did EM hand-deliver the plans to Kansas City & is that where he's going tomorrow; & if so, what's that TPC? F) What kind of former person is MODOT's Chief of Real Estate?
CQA# LEV 20030317-05A) What percent of MODOT's repairs are due to floods? B) What has to happen for VP to be a Levee District?
CQA# LEV20030317-06A) WHO the city thinks going thru Mr. Hedrick's Plaza is better than by Mr. Young's property? B) Is it a sixedee four (64) or fiftedee four (54)-inch pipe that is actually going in? C) Is that vault something special? D) Is it or is it not 562 x 10? E) When JZ gets it from real estate, & the letter to send the est in general words, where's it going? F) What will be sufficient that's his propo? G) How about a better picture in lieu of EM's propo?
CQA# LEV20030317-07A) Why worry about Mr. Young's cost, if he's paid from the yazoo? B) What's the deal with that forced main & federal property agreements mentioned in LEV20020715-12? C) Does Quik Trip want to locate at Beckett's Plaza or Arnold's Landing?
CQA# LEV20030317-08A) What are all the details on all the offers, agreements, conditions & settlements for ROW's & esmts? B) In the 2/10/01 Lev Mtg, EM said the city reached an agremt to purchase #8 Meramec Sta Rd in the AL area; when did it close? C) Didn't US Cotton change their name, & if so, what is it now? D) Was the 401 Marshall, US Cotton, money ordered in the next packet or not? E) The only other US Cotton on TW's 3/17/03 list is 501 Marshall Rd; exactly what contract issues are EM & the COE trying to work out with US Cotton? F) Mike Illig's #9 Arnold was acquired in 10/00; why is it on TW's 3/17/03 list? G) Is the picture that EM showed to, was it Larry Hedrick, the same one that, evidently Ernest Demba, couldn't make heads or tails of? H) What's the 1 to 2 arrangement & our thing?
CQA# LEV20030317-09A) Mr. Harrawood's atty told him the jury trial should be final in about 6 to 8 months; check MOPR's Offers & Settlements for updates. B) I'm here to tell everyone that simply proclaiming accurate & complete info on EVERYONE'S acquisitions would promote justice for all. C) How much money has EM made on levee property acquisitions so far? D) How much has TW made? E) How much more money will EM be paid by the time the lawsuits are all settled? F) How much money have the condemnation attys made? G) How much timonity have the landowners spent? H) Have any landowners been overly reimbursed for their timonity? I) How much money are you paying for annual flood insurance, & how long have you been paying it?
CQA# LEV20030317-10&11A) Let's have a public debate, or at least hear the landowner's side; then we could all vote. B) I hope those contractors get better pictures than that other one.
CQA# LEV20030317-12A) Are the police for investigating the levee project & those in charge of it?
CQA# LEV 20030317-13A) Thanks for asking & speaking up, TW!
CQA# LEV 20030317-14A) The police probably could've found the contractor. T or F?
CQA# LEV 20030317-15A) Nice job on coordinating, DC!
CQA# LEV 20030317-16A) When did they decide to do selective cutting?
CQA# LEV 20030317-17A) Should BW work with DM on forming better questions & getting better answers?
CQA# LEV 20030317-18A) Why is there no real controversy with the RR's, but there is with other landowners? B) May I please have a copy of all the RR/COE/City agreements?
CQA# LEV 20030317-19A) What's the bottom line on MODOT paying Levee Dist taxes? C) Is it or is it not a 9010 Federally Funded Project; & if so, what's the deal & how long might this ride last? D) Do most people just shy away from technical things?
CQA# LEV 20030317-20A) May I please have a copy of the letter that sent the plans to the RR? B) If RH works for BN, can he be the flagman?
CQA# LEV 20030317-21A) Does the COE remind you of a spoiled brat?