MOPR 9/15/03 VP LEVEE CMSN MTG MINS
Notes: New abbrev: recon = reconnaissance.
Present: DC, JLB, DS, TW, JZ, CLM, EM, JW, DM arrived 5:15, JKB, BW, TB arrived 5:10.
Also present: Andy McCord of DG Purdy; Jim Mitas of Cgsm Akin's ofice; JEM; a man wearing a shirt labeled Accurate Electric; Vivian Blackman arrived at 5:20.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 1 of 20
DC: (Roll call - see above) Ok, we got enough to have a mtg I think; we got 5 here, so. CLM: Got Jim Mitas from Cgsm Akin's office? DC: I don't have him on the list, but I know he's here. (Pledge Allegiance) Does anybody have any additions or deletions to the agenda?
(a few talk simultaneously; JW & EM talk to each other) EM: (as JW chuckles) They _ _ ones _ _ - DC: DM, uh - ?: authorized that uh _ _ survey down there _ _ _ _ last wk? JW: _change? - EM: _ change _ talk _ _ bd. JW: _ _ we just filed a statemt. EM?: _ _ - JW: Hell, yeah. JLB?: Authorized the survey of that uh land down - DC: Yes, they did. EM: (except or accept?) the (bid or bill?) - JW: _ _ citizens_ - DC: Pass that down; if somebody doesn't have one of these, I - JW: I think that's what the law _ _ - (to DC) No, I don't have one.
DC: Jim, you probably got - DS: Andy doesn't have one either. I need another one. JW: I don't think it does me no good; I can't read it (laughing). JZ: I've got a copy that's easier to read than that one. DC: _ _ back of the bids. ?: _ _ - JW: What's that top one? What's that (Purdy?) bid say (laughing)? DC: $19,639,668.43. JW: That's a lot better (copy). ?: 43 cents _ - (they chuckle) DC: The other one is uh, 08._ _ - (more chuckles)
DC: No additions or deletions. Ok, uh, need a motion to approve the agenda. ?: I'll make a motion. JW?: 2nd. DC: I have a motion with a 2nd to approve the agenda; all in favor. (2 ayes heard) Ok.
Do we have the mins for the 8/18 mtg? DS: He's askin' you. EM: Oh, I wasn't here. DC: Oh, the mayor took them. JW: (chuckling) & he ain't here. DC: & he's not here today; so ok, we'll just go on. JW: (chuckling) Hold 'em over to the next mtg. ?: _ _ - ?: _ _ - DC: _ _ get him the next time, I'll - JZ: _ _ _ - JW: Hey, he's got that hidden gun in here already, so be careful.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 2 of 20
DC: Uh, discussion items for this mtg, uh - before we get here, I will tell you that the completion of uh, the tree clearing has, was done last wk. Uh, & uh I guess all the equipmt is gone. He called me & uh, uh, said they were gonna be leavin' outta there probably this wk, & gettin' all the equipmt outta there. So that, that contract is, is done. & uh, he did a very nice job.
I was very happy the way he cleaned it up & he got, he got all the stuff removed outta there that he should've. It was a pretty, pretty rough deal there; being there with all the undergrowth that we had there, to deal with down there. After we cleared it all off the one time, & then everything growed up. It was quite a, quite a mess & he had a lot of rain to fool around with & bad weather; floods & everything else.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 3 of 20
Ok, we'll go to Item 4B. Need an update on that? JZ: Yeah, I've got some things to tell 'em, tell people about. DC: Ok, you've got the floor. JZ: You already know that we had a Bid Opening on 8/25 & we had only 2 bids; & the figures you see are on the sheets - uh, 19.6M from Env'l Specialists out of Kansas City, MO; & then $16.8M out of Kozeny & Wagner, as compared with the gov't est of 10.8M; & a maximum allowable from the gov't of 13.5M.
Um, people have asked why, why did we get so few bids & I called the uh, all the prime contractors who did not bid on the job. & so I'm just, a quick summary of what they said - I, I only talked to 4 out of 'em. Uno, several, several of 'em were not available at the, at the time I called. But by talking to 4 of the contractors, I, I have quite a bit of info.
Um, the, the main problem was the g/p & too many unknown quantities; uno, you can't see what you're getting into. They'd rather, of course, know more about what, what they're getting into on any const job. & then too many variables - uno, there's 3 different kinds of materials at the g/p: there's concrete & brick, that's one; cinders & slag, that's another; & then there's asbestos, er, not asbestos, uhm, uh, what's the name of the Cotton Co? DC: Absorbent Cotton Co. JZ: Pardon me? DC & others: Absorbent Cotton Co. JZ: Absorbent Cotton, & their, their material is uh, has to be excavated, placed in the eng'd fill as well; that's a gypsum-type material - anyway, knowing those quantities & how they mix together & so forth.
Uh, one of the contractors said it's really not their type of work. Uno, besides the fact that there was too many questions; it's really not their type of work. Another contractor mentioned that their, as a secondary item, they were concerned about possible delays associated with utility relocations from what they've seen out there.
So those are the kind of reasons that the uh, prime contractors didn't bid. Um, when we had the bids & Eric was a the Bid Opening, uh, our Contracting Office said that they would uh, look at the gov't est & if, if none of the bidders qualified under what's called an Invitation for Bids, which is what we had, they would change the type of procuremt from Invitation to Bids, to uh, to a Negotiation & a Request for Proposals, ok. & uh, so if, since that time, we've been negotiating with the 2 contractors who did bid, & we've uh, we've, we've answered a lot of questions. We had uno, a mtg with each one & then follow-up mtgs with the 2nd, one, one of the contractors who wanted to meet & phone calls, uh, to answer questions.
Uh, we revised the P&S & put out an Amendmt #6 which uh, simplified certain things & still will give us the product we need. For example, this cushed, crushed concrete, in the previous specs, we had a maximum size of 3" & now it's 9". & uh, we had all 3 having been, be mixed together at a few stockpiles, but now we're saying that they could take the crushed concrete & mix it together with the cinders & slag at one spot; & then they could take that to the eng'd fill & bring the uh, Absorbent cotton material, which is a small percentage of the grand total, & put that on top & disc it together, uh, which will be a more efficient operation.
Uh, we also got some data on, from uh, going out to Simpson Sand & Gravel & uh, & doing some test, test pits out there &, & put that info into the, to the Amendmt, so that's available. We also of course put the total agreemt between the city & Simpson Sand & Gravel into the uh, into the Amendmt, as an attachmt to the amendmt.
So there's certain things that uno, we discussed with these contractors that uh, uno they, they showed us their reasoning & we showed 'em our reasoning; & sometimes there was things that our, our cost estimator thought that, yeah, he needs to revise his est upward for, for certain reasons. & other things where we, we agreed with them that there's a way to do it more simply.
& one set of P&S that revised uh, specs went out to the 2 contractors. & they're uh, & it says in the 1st page of it that their best & final offers are due no later than 2pm on 9/19, this Friday. So that's when we'll know where we stand with those 2 contractors.
EM: Did the gov't revise its est? JZ: The gov't is in the process of revising its est, yeah. Then we'll give the revised gov't est _ _ - EM: & you won't release that until a commitment's - JZ: Right, _ until -
9/15/03 Levee - Section 4 of 20
BW: Are you gonna stick with the same, these 2 contractors, or _ _? JZ: If we can reach an agreemt with one of these 2 contractors, we, that's the way we're goin'. CLM: That's the way the contract was written. JZ: Uh -
BW: You're not gonna resolicit _ - JZ: Well, if, only if we cannot reach an agreemt with a fair & reasonable price, then we would have to go out again for a - TW: & it would have to be within that range, between 13-1/2 & - JZ: Well, there's gonna be a revised gov't est. TW: I see; so it's gonna go up a little bit - CLM: Still has to be within 25% of that. JZ: Uno the, I'm not absolutely sure that that's even correct, that they have to be within 25%; but somehow, we have to determine that it's best, & it's fair & reasonable. CLM: You could go up & get an exception to that & adjust it.
JZ: So uno - ?: so the moral of the story - JZ: we're gonna know a lot better, a lot more of course by Fri. We haven't given up hope that we'll be able to Award the contract. & if they can, if they get a best & final offer, uno, for 2 of 'em, that, that are fair & reasonable, we take the lowest, best & final offer & uh, our Contracting Office thinks we can Award by 9/30, ON 9/30, actually.
BW: Is that our really due date, when we really gotta get something goin'? Or _ _ - JZ: Uh, it's, it's a date that, that uh, after that date, there's a lot of unknowns about what rules there will be on the, in the budget for FY 04 that starts 10/1. BW: So it would be really a big advantage to havin' it _ _ - JZ: I just think, we think uh, that it's an advantage to award this FY.
CLM: If I could add to that - Jim said there are some unknowns out there. We've got some ideas about how to address those unknowns if we have to. This decision, this falls in the category of you can nail it down _ _ having to face some uncertainties & just nail it down now. Jim will have to figure out how to go about _ - BW: Yeah, oh yeah. CLM: _ _ push comes to shove, _'ll be able to figure out how to come down to it, but if you can avoid havin' to do that, _ _ _ _ _. But everybody knows & it doesn't have to go to the (push or Bush?); plus, when you have to go that extra route, you can get into some other areas too that would require a lot of commitmt, willing to justify. I think it can be done, but whether or not, they have to do what they can. The COE's goin' all out to try to justify. The bid is in Sept - I guess at midnight - isn't it, 9/30?
BW: Are you optimistic, Jim? CLM: At midnight, _ _ - JZ: Uh, somewhat optimistic. CLM: _ _ the meantime & we'll - JZ: Uno, but we can get a bid that's fair & reasonable, or get a price that's fair & reasonable I should say; but uno, I, I have no idea really. Let's see what they come up with.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 5 of 20
CLM: It's pretty clear what's happened here, is basically, the COE, I'm not just saying the system, _ _ _ _ _ _ has never been involved in const jobs of this type, where they have to (fair play?) inspections in 2 different glass factories _ _ _ _. So they were a lot bigger - breakin' a lot of new ground & uh, so are the contractors. They, I think that scared off a lot of the contractors. JZ: Yeah, I think that's right. CLM: But this is the way the system works. & the contractor knows that the decisions - is it in the gov't's best interest to reissue bids? Or is it better to negotiate with the 2 bidders that we know are interested in the job - BW: Yeah. CLM: & the others didn't even come in? & I want to wait & say _ _ _ contractor.
TW: Typically, you don't get better bids when you bid it the 2nd time, historically. CLM: That's exactly right. JZ: Well, you would certainly have, you have a revised P&S that goes out - TW: Unless you actually change something drastically. JZ: We would be changing things, but - CLM: What you really are doing by talking to these 2 prospective bidders (someone coughs)_, you're finding out why their bids were - TW: Why - CLM: higher than you thought they should be; & they found out why you didn't think it should be that high. TW: Then if you can compromise & change, then you do; & some things you can't compromise & change. CLM: Which we've always figured that the contractor bidding on a job, is gonna add money to his bid & the things that are agreeable to him; & uh - TW: My experience has shown that if you bid it again, a lot of times the price goes up; unless yous drastically change something.
JZ: Well, we're going thru this process right now & uno, the negotiations &, & the best & final offer is coming in on Fri. Uhm, I didn't know much about why all the (led?) ones, what either contractor bid, but I know that one of the contractors said that they had done a lot of work for Kansas City District. & so we asked our const people to call Kansas City & get their impression; & they said that, uno, they have done several jobs & one of those recent jobs, they got an outstanding rating, uno, is a good sign. Um, that's, that's -
CLM: Is that Env'l Specialists? JZ: That's Env'l Specialists. Um, but they both, both contractors were uh, impressivie as far as uno, discussing the contract, & how to do the job, & their ideas & so on & so forth. So -
TW: Just your impression, Jim, why, why aren't you uh, uh, just required to negotiate with the low bidder? JZ: Well, both bids actually got thrown out because they're not, neither one - CLM: _ _ - JZ: were within the 25% in, in the Invitation for Bids route, so - CLM: The Contractors' Officer COULD use his, his _ _ _ negotiate _ _, but he'd be taking a chance on, if he did that; the other one could file a complaint & that could stretch the whole thing out _ _. & I think it's a smart move to - JZ: I think they also think it's probably good to have competition between the 2 of them. CLM: Exactly.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 6 of 20
JZ: Yeah, so, but I think it's clear; the picture is clear to me & should be to everybody now, that that this project & this contract is gonna be higher than you might have thought, uno, 6 months ago, or a few months ago. Once we (polled or pulled?) the bids, no matter what, when we negotiate, we're gonna be at some higher figure in my mind anyway. & so um...(exchange tapes)..JZ: ...short on money, federal dollars & just _ _.
So there'll be a need for the COE to be looking for money to be transferred in & so forth in order to, uno, to pay a contractor. So we know the Pres's budget is only $2M & uno, the House & Senate uh, conference & conference versions were - the maximum of all of 'em is $3M. There's no, far as I know, there's no actual budget passed yet, so uno, we don't know what we're gonna get, but we know it's not gonna be enough if this contract is awarded. & uh, both contractors talked in terms of - they want to move out. Uno, they're, they're in business to get the job done as quickly & efficiently as possible, so that's what _ _ - CLM: Yeah, they got equipmt & people that's costin' 'em money _ _ _ the job -
JZ: So that's just something to be aware of. Um, uno, when we asked for the sponsor funds for FY 04, our letter to, to the mayor, we, we were, we have to tip the tack that what's in the Pres's budget & so & that's what we asked for; & we've already, I think, put that money in the escrow acct. But if we are fortunate & have a contract & start making progress & get more federal dollars, uno, we'll be readjusting the need for sponsor money as well, which I think you're all aware of, which I understand you have the money available. So that's not really a problem, it's just a, just a fact.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 7 of 20
Uh, the other, the other major funding problem besides getting money in FY 04 as we need it, is that it looks clear to me that uh, the maximum, there's a federal maximum, by law, there's uh, a maximum of federal expenditures, $35M on this project. & uh, that is gonna be exceeded because the previous uh, project cost est had 11.6M I believe as the est for this contract. & uh, I can see that, that's probably gonna be exceeded, looks like to me.
So um, there's a need to do something about that federal maximum otherwise the sponsor's gonna pay all the excess over the federal maximum, so.
CLM: Uh, Jim & I have discussed this, mostly discussed it with the new Deputy Dist Eng & I have called on, literally, Jim Mitas who works with uh, Cgsm Akin & also, I have discussed it with Sen Talent's staff; got a very positive response from Jim _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Talent's staff. We are working now to provide in-depth language to uh, Cgsm Akin's office & Senator Talent's office.
I advised them (in order to rake in an?) attempt to get this language added to an existing bill that is germane; means that it, the bill will have something to do with water resources _ _ _ _ _ the House (has a rule that remains?) & (the recorder is moved towards him) that would be if there is no Water Resources Dev Act this yr, & we move fwd in the House to - actually just in the (past moon?), everything I hear from the Senate, says there may not be one. & normally _ _ _ _ _ _ that Water Resources Developmt Act, which is what we did when we raised the federal authority cap from $20M, the original cap back in 82 or 83, to 35M which is the law now; & so soon as we get this language put together & satisfactory, it would be good to get it to Cgsm Akin's office, to Jim, & to Senator Talent's office. & the sooner we do that, they can try to get uh, some language added to award it to this one; if not, try to find a pending piece of legislation that's being passed in the near future; one that's non-controversial that everybody supports on both sides of the aisle, so we'll be asssured about the price. That sort of thing hasn't been done before.
I should explain that this federal cap is a very nebulous thing, in that it does not authorize aprops. It's simply uh, an in-going piece of paper that says the federal gov't cannot exceed this amt of money in fed $ for this particular project. It's not unusual for that # to be exceeded primarily because when the original # is conceived, & the project as it sits in any stage & no one has a really good idea what it's gonna cost, sometimes it costs less than that; sometimes & usually costs more, & in particular, because COE projects don't get done in 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 yrs because of all the checks & balances involved; over a period of time, const costs go up. So it's not unusual for them to have to be uh raised once or even twice & in some cases, up to about 3 times _ _ _ _ _ each yr.
I'm working on that now & I've only got a very positive response from Cgsm Akin's office & thru Jim & thru uh, Senator Talent's office & tell 'em do everything they can to try to develop if possible, ASAP; & I feel confident that _ _ _ _.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 8 of 20
DM: Lee, what's the point of puttin' that cap there if you say 5 yrs out, they don't know what it's gonna be? Like this project's gone every yr, so it has to be raised, but as Jim was sayin', or else the sponsor, being the City of VP, has to pay that difference? I mean I'm glad we're all confident it's gonna go up, but what's the point in havin' it if it's gonna go up a 2nd time?
CLM: Because the Congressional System, the aprops & authorization system - the appropriators require the authorizers to give them a # whenever they authorize a project; whether it be to buy F15's that your company produces; or whether it be to support like tobacco crops, every authorization, or something that the federal gov't does that costs money, has to have a federal cap on it; it's all part of the authorization language. & just as in COE water projects, (GBA?) project or emission water projects, tobacco support #'s, they're all #'s that uh somebody comes up with, the best est at that time.
In some cases, I don't know of any COE projects happen; in some cases I am familiar with, other gov't agencies, they come up with a deliberately low # in order to get it authorized, knowing full well that within 6 mos to 12 mos, they're probably gonna go back & try to get it raised. That's NOT the case within the COE projects. They do come up with their very best est & usually add to it, because they know it's gonna take several yrs before they end up, uno, completing the project with all the checks & balances involved.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 9 of 20
DM: Jim, I apologize for bein' late, but when I walked in, I think you were talkin' about, are we gonna be able to meet with, or is one of these 2 companies gonna be able to meet the costs or come to an agreemt on - JZ: Uh, we have to, we have to, uh, we're gonna get the best & final offer this Fri at 2:00 or before 2:00. & we have to determine whether or not that, whatever - we think both contractors are qualified, so uh, uno, we would take the lowest figure. But we have to determine that that figure is uh, what we call fair & reasonable to the, to the gov't.
DM: I guess the COE's goin' back to reevaluate each of their lines, just like - JZ: Yeah, we are. DM: 2 companies _ - JZ: We're, we're completely revising, er we're revising whatever needs to be revised in our gov't cost est. CLM: They did issue an Amendmt #6. JZ: Yeah. CLM: to _ -
JZ: There's changes in the way the job is to be constructed. I mean some of 'em are fairly significant, but uno, we (someone coughs) (could?) come up with some, some costs, significant cost savings. DM: If you're allowed to say at this time, what you think the chances are? Or maybe you don't want to tip your - JZ: Well, they asked me if I'm optimistic (chuckle). Uh, uno, I'm somewhat optimistic that we'll have a price that we can accept. DM: Be able to turn 'em on by the last day of Sept? _ - JZ: We want to award it by the last day of Sept. That's our, that's our schedule, assuming we get the price we can agree is fair & reasonable.
CLM: Did you tell both contractors that if one of 'em doesn't come in with as good a price, the other's gonna get shot? Did you _ _ _? (BW laughs) JZ: We haven't said that yet. JMitas: Mayor Michel. CLM: That's what WE used to do, uno!
9/15/03 Levee - Section 10 of 20
JMitas: That question you had about why a cap, uh, well, it's a matter of controls _ _ _ _ _ _ _ but with, where there's a possibility, it probably happened some time in the past, (with a?) contract (point?) & the local uh, const firm that won the contract with no cap, they dragged the project on & dragged the project on; it comes as the primary means of revenue-burning & it just goes on forever. (someone whispers inaudibly)
With a cap, watch how hard you all worked over last yr to stay within that cap. CLM: _ _ - JMitas: Um, in this case, it reportedly saved you 3M, hopefully in using g/p fill versus needing to be brought in elsewhere. Uh, I'm sure that's um, like a wash perhaps; but uh, sounds like a good idea. (JZ chuckles)
DM: How far apart are we (about?) the COE asked for & what the gov't authorized? _ _ 2M _ _ _ the budget _ _ - JZ: Oh, as far as fiscal 04? DM: Right. JZ: Um, well we had set a capability of $7M, uno, for FY 04 that we, that we anticipated we would need. So we're, uno, the Pres's budget was 2M, so we were off that.
CLM: That's very important that they did ask for that higher amt because this is what the dist did, they laid the groundwork to notify the Div Hdqtrs & the hdqtrs in Washington, that hey, guys, we've told you we need, we need more money. & if the Congress ends up aprop'g less money, then the St L Dist has a good, a better leg to stand on when it's goes to Div & asks for funds to be transferred in.
As we discussed I think at the last mtg,uh, thruout the COE, there's always, there are always some projects that are not able to expend the amt of monies that were aprop'd; whether it was bad weather, new starts, uno, changed conditions, & those districts are looking to transfer that money out to some other dist. Fortunately, St. Louis is in a very large div that has the New Orleans Dist as part of the Div Hdqtrs; & the New Orleans Dist almost NEVER is able to use all of their funds because it's such a large dist with so many const projects, that uh, they're hard (for this?) dist to keep up with.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 11 of 20
DC: Anybody have any ques on 4B or you got some more? JZ: No, I've got something that's const related, but it's not really 4B. Uh, just for info here. Uh, we, we been, as you may remember, we developed a uh, env'l mit plan back in Dec of last yr, 02, with a lot of input from the city, uh, the city consultants &, & so forth. & we had this all laid out & it includes certain work. Like it includes some work on Grand Glaize Creek, ok, to uh solve an erosion problem & just fix that up as far as the env'l agencies are concerned. & after we prepared this env'l mit plan, then our own office updated or renewed in a sense, our Section 404 Permit again in Dec.
& to go with that, there's something called a 401 Water Quality Certification & the MDNR sent a letter back on 2/27/03, uno, reissuing or updating their 401 Water Quality Certification ok. So since then, we've done quite a bit in my mind, for the env't. We've done a lot of planning; we've, we've done the uh, the purchase of the credits for the stream mit bank which was over, over $200,000. & uh, & the contract that we're talkin' about, this Item 4B, includes certain work that has to be done for env'tl reasons.
Like, uh as an example, the uh, Simpson Lake Det Area is gonna eventually become a Wooded Wetland Mit Site, ok. But right now, there's a stockpile in there & uh, we have, in fact there's 2 stockpiles in there & then we want to grade that actually lower & create a lower area, uh kind of benched area that, lower, that uh, we will plant trees in which will become a wetland, a Wooded Wetland. But you have to do the excavation before you plant the trees obviously. So, so this is - it has some env'tl work in it.
Anyway, we recently got a letter dated 9/9 from MDNR & they're, they discuss several things here, but the main thing they're really concerned about is Grand Glaize Creek. There's an erosion on GG Creek & they're concerned that we could be working on our Item 4B contract for a couple of yrs & nothing would be done to alleviate this erosion problem. & that's something that they're, they have some heartburn with that, ok. So they want us to try to solve that erosion problem on GG Creek, uno, right, right away basically, or uno, soon.
DC: Where is the erosion at? JZ: It's, uno, it um, those kind of berms between the lake & the creek channel that's been constructed. & then there's, there's 3 um entrances for the water from the creek channel to get over to that lake that was created between the RR track. There's some erosion on the downstream end, a couple of those. So that's something that they would like us to address.
& what they've asked us in the letter is to provide a written plan & a schedule of how you intend to #1 control streambank erosion & sloughing on GG Creek, ok. #2, meet the mit requiremts contained in the certification. I think we can handle the mit requiremts by uno, there's things like planting trees; well, we can't do that until after we've done the excavation. & they know that. Uno, we talked about - this has been discussed prior to a letter coming to us.
But uh, what I'm getting to is that the streambank erosion work, we, we're starting, we, we've started planning, we've got a plan now for that, our env'tl team &, & our uh, hydraulics eng & civil eng & so forth. We've got a concept plan that we developed uh & now we're starting to uh, put that into P&S, ok.
& um, we don't know where the money's coming from to construct this (chuckle), if necessary. We, we were gonna be short on money to do Item 4B next FY. But on the other hand, MDNR is saying it's really important to get this going at the same time. So right now, the plan is to develop a set of P&S, develop a cost est so we have an idea of what this little job is gonna cost. & then see what we can do about getting money to build it.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 12 of 20
CLM: I believe they even suggested that if you, they say we know you're short of funds & so are we; & I think they suggest that you ought to stop work on the project if you can't find the funds that we were lookin' for mitigation.
I might add that we had a mtg; I think you were there, weren't you, Dave? Don Boos, the DNR guy that was a total certi - DC: I think I was. CLM: jerk. DC: That's been a while ago, wasn't it? CLM: Yeah, it was back before the Feb issuance & he blew off all kinds of steam; raved & ranted because the COE had done this & the COE didn't do that & destroyed this. & he was totally out in left field & out of line.
But after I asked him if his boss was aware he was quotin' those positions, he kind of backed off a little bit. & this letter, I'm sure, was written by the same jerk. It's totally uh, (JW chuckles) I mean it's, it's a disgrace for a state employee to write a letter like that; he should be fired 'cause it totally uh, quotes things out of context, cites proofs & in some cases, no proofs. They sent it to the Chief Eng as if they think that's gonna cause some problems with the Dist Eng.
JZ: I think they just had the wrong name (chuckle). They sent it to our office, 1222 Spruce. CLM: _ _ _ Don Boos - JZ: They don't have the colonel's name; they have the general's name. CLM: That's, that's discouraging. I mean that really scares it. But bottom line is the COE has gone WAY OVER beyond the call of duty to try to respond to their complaints. & they backed off of the more recent ones, but now he's coming back & claiming that the COE agreed to do some things, the COE didn't even agree to, & (couldn't find?) things they claimed. I think what Jim, I think what the COE has done here is what should be done, & -
DC: Didn't we have a plan to begin with when we put them, those in there & that was redone by the DNR & everything like that? CLM: Absolutely. Now they're claiming that they - JZ: Yeah, we, we were planning on doing this, but I mean we were planning on doing it after, after we build the levee. CLM: They're claiming now that they require this stuff to be done DURING const_ _ _ _ _ -
JZ: Here's what they say exactly: I, I, I have to ques the appropriateness of continuing the project & its impact on the state's aquatic resources when funding is not available to mitigate for those impacts. So they just kind of - they're not really saying we're gonna stop the project, they just saying - CLM: They're suggesting that. JZ: Uh, you gotta think about doing this job sometime.
CLM: The other thing is, they're talking like this is some natural resource that's only found here in VP. & uno, the GG Creek has been torn up for many, many, many yrs. It has nothing to do with the project. & part of what they want done, is they want it naturally alleviated uh, as part of the project const when we first met with 'em.
DM: Who is this guy with, that wrote that letter, Jim? JZ: Well, the letter is signed by um, Jim Hall, who's the Dir of the Water Pollution Control Program. CLM: But the guy that wrote the letter, I'm sure, is Don Boos (spells it), who is the guy that was so far out of line at that mtg we had that that dumb ass.
DM: How is Don related to this guy here? CLM: He works for him. DM: Don works for this guy? CLM: Yeah, but the boss I was asking if he knew about it, was this guy's boss, the head of DNR. DM: This guy, this group have enough clout to stop it or can they just be like a gnat to a - CLM: This is typical. They've been, they've been pinging the COE & other things that - there's a major disagreemt going on right now between DNR in MO & all 5 COE Districts, over the COE issue - new nationwide permit regulations almost 2 yrs ago.
Uno DNR normally, just automatically issues the 401 for nationwide permits here. That means (you & the revised?) regulation, DNR submitted back to the COE, saying we want to change all the conditions that we agreed to earlier for your other nationwide permits & they put in conditions earlier so stringent, the COE could not accept it. So they refused to, to reach an agreemt. & DNR has been bent out of shape with the COE ever since. They're about to reach an agreemt now, I think on that; but uh, in this case, DNR is CLEARLY out of line & I don't think that the Dir of DNR is aware of this sort of circus _ _ -
EM: Well, in this instance too, the permit was issued uh, &, & it was supposed to be completed a yr from date of issuance, which was in 2/03. & Boos came out here in Aug & saw nothing was done & that's the jerk who _ _. & I'm sure that's what happened; he writes this alarming (back?) situation to his boss & his boss comes up with this. But I, it seems to me that we need to get the permit extended uh, at the time, for one thing, uh, clearly, it's not gonna be done by 2/04. JZ: Well, certainly not everything will be, but it's possible to get this erosion protection. It's possible to get that done.
CLM: I think all that's needed really, is just to make list of - JZ: We have a plan - CLM: what to do & things that can be done. JZ: & I think that's the main thing. I think if uh, I'm just have to think that they will be reasonable once we have a, we have to show some, something that uh - CLM: That's right. JZ: to solve the erosion problem enough to have to -
CLM: We have WAYS of helping them to be reasonable. EM: & that was their demand; I mean it was not, it was not a request in the permit itself. It was not requested that we would do the work in a yr, was never promised. JZ: No, that was not in the mit plan, no. EM: That was their condition - JZ: We didn't have a timeframe on it; that's true.
CLM: I think what you guys are doing is all that's necessary & let the rest of us take care of the other stuff.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 13 of 20
DC: You have a ques there? TW: Well, just a comment. Um, the uh, rock road, Kena rock road will be completed probably by tomorrow at the close of business.
& an update on the pump station relocation, we have a, a size of pumps that we've tentatively agreed upon with MSD & we're going with a duplex uh, 10-horsepower pumps. Uh, & we're in the process of getting the drawings complete; we did the survey. The biggest part of our task to this point, has been to determine how many houses are served by that pump sta. If you look at the sanitary sewer maps of VP, uh, pretty interesting stuff! (JZ chuckles) uh, & uh, we've got lines going in 360 degrees that don't even come in the pump sta. We had to rule out that they weren't going to the pump sta before we could size the pump. So now we've got that whittled down, we think, to where we need to be. & we're in the final, uno, getting the drawings complete & getting the pumps uh, sized.
& we've been coordinating with MSD to try to get that finished, altho they don't, they've actualy got pumps in there now that are WAY OVER what they need to be. & actually, you're only runnin' at about 5 to 10% of capacity which we don't feel we should put back in there. Uh, we will slightly have some capacity, uh, but we don't anticipate having THAT MUCH capacity. Uh, it's not in the city's best interest, nor is it in the interest of a pump sta that would have a tendancy to stagnate if it's not turned over; the water is not turned over in those pumps into the forced main. So it's been kind of a long ordeal tryin' to even get the info uh, from MSD & uh, get it squared away, but we're at that point.
Uh, but the rock road is, is priced out & it's constructed. Uh, like I said, even as of today, they're about 90% complete. By the end of tomorrow, they should be 100%.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 14 of 20
EM: Uh, as far as the city's uh property interests, we continue to work with the uh, tenants & property owners on uh, benefits under the Uniform Relocation Act. I know DRG met with 2 property owners yesterday & um, they con, they continue to work. They, they have to by law provide real estate relocation svcs & then establish uh, a paymt schedule & relocation schedule for all of them. & uh, but they're continuing the process of doing that.
Um & as far as litigation goies, unfortunately, ALL the property is in litigation. Um, we do have some settlemt discussions, they're on-going with the shpg ctr. Um & it, it does not involve money, but involves parking spaces of all things. So uh, we continue to work with that.
DC: Ok, I guess we've covered the city cost share for the project & total cost for the project I would imagine within that discussion. & the federal & sponsor funding for 04, I think we more or less went over that. Ok, you have a ques.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 15 of 20
JLB: Yes, for the uh bldg cmsnr. After the last mtg, we went down to uh Valley Material. Uh, did you get it surveyed the next day? JEM: The property was surveyed & uh, after the survey, uh JM & I went out & basically connected the dots with more spray paint. & uh, the owner of Valley Material has put some (bollards?) up to the fence to keep trucks from driving back there & dumping any more material on the property; there's a (skivigan?).
JLB: What was the estimated depth? JEM: Unless we get a truck out there to, a drill rig out there to punch a hole in it, I can't tell you; it could be 15, 20' thick. Judging from the lay of the land - DC: The boundaries are a lot further up into the material, Valley Material than _ _ _ _ _.
JEM: You remember when we went up there & the pile of dirt that you saw - JLB: Yeah. JEM: the excavation? Well, a large of that dirt's on our property. So if you take that, where the pile of dirt was, then it angles back off that pile, back towards Marshall Rd & that knoll that we were on, is ALL our property. JLB: So he put the post up to stop 'em from dumpin', or did you do a legal step & - JEM: I notified him that he had to stop immediately, uh in writing. & he took the big bollard, the big concrete cubes that they're pourin' with their waste concrete, & drug some over there so the trucks couldn't go up there. That was, that was before we even had it surveyed. They - JLB: Are they dumpin' any more on their property that may potentially come on ours again? JEM: No, it's, they'd have to pump it over the top; it's uphill from where they're at.
BW: All this material's gotta get removed? JEM: It's my understanding - JZ: A lot of it, yeah. We - JEM: that most of it does. There's a large area that, that is weathered on the creek, excuse me, on the surface; it appears to be broken down mostly gravel, uh, & sand exponents; however, they're probably concrete underneath it, was shoveled up, but hasn't weathered, uh & it projects a large area. It's my understanding in talking to Eric that the COE was aware of this material. JW: Huhumm!
JLB: All of that material or just what was there when we bought the property? JEM: That, I can't answer. Uh, the only way we - JLB: Are they gonna absorb some of the cost since they kept doin' it even after VP bought the property?
EM: Yeah, I, I don't know; I mean I just - JLB: _ _ legal _ _ - EM: I, I, I'm just in this issue, just starting to get into it. We, we closed on that property I think in Dec of 99 & so obviously, the issue's gonna be, what did they build after that, or what did they encroach on after that. & we gotta figure out HOW we're gonna, HOW we're gonna figure that out as well. When we bought it, we didn't go back &, uh, it, it, the property was surveyed, but as far as I know, no one went out &, & photographed, or did any sort of, of memorialization of it; um, probably 'cause it was in the winter & uno, we had no idea that this kind of stuff was gonna occur.
Uh, & I don't know; I mean there could've been NO concrete dumped on there between 99 & now, altho it certainly doesn't sound that way. Um, - JEM: The only method that we have of determining anything, would be use of aerial maps; & aerial maps generally aren't scaleable. & uh, even if they are, you're only gonna know that there's a patch of concrete there & you're not gonna know whether it's 3" thick or 3' thick. So -
EM: We, we do knew there was a considerable amt of concrete there. JEM: Yeah. EM: Uno, & we didn't really BUY the property. It was, we, we bought one section of property & that's the property NEXT to the Valley Material's; the area behind there from the Halamiceks. The property directly behind Valley Material was, was done kind of on pressure where he came in & wanted some things zoned; & the city said, yeah, well, fine, we'll let your zoning go thru, but we need you to donate this property to the city. So uno, I don't know. We, we've got our work cut out for us to, to proving up some things, but there certainly might be something (workable?).
JLB: But we're not gonna try & eat the whole cost ourself. We're gonna try & get, make _ a little bit - EM: Well, when you say WE, it, this is a gov't expense. JLB: Right. EM: Uh, so it, it's all cost shared anyway. Uh, but yeah, I mean it's something that the gov't & the city are both gonna be looking into to see if this guy's been trespassing on our property & created damages to the city, I think we need to be reimbursed for it; absolutely. Andy?: You say federal, _ _ _ _ _federal gov't? EM: Yeah.
DC: Any other ques? JW: Yeah. Did the mayor bring the mins of the 18th? DC: Eric wasn't here; did you bring _ _ - ?: _ _ _ - DC: Oh, ok, _ _ _ he didn't _ _ _ - JW: That's fine. DC: Ok, we'll just draw some up. Ok, nobody has any ques or anything to add, we'll have the next Levee Cmsn mtg -
9/15/03 Levee - Section 16 of 20
EM: Oh, oh, I, I do have one more thing. DC: Ok. EM: Um, I, I've met off & on thru the life of this project with developers. Um, they've either come to me or I've uno, called them to see what, what's shaking out in the area. &, & I guess the most recent one was the former head of the CCDC which is the uh - CLM: Chesterfield Cmty Dev Corp. EM: Yeah, it's the Industrial Dev Corp of Chesterfield & he's now in private enterprise. But um, I, I know CLM & I have talked often. We thought by now, we'd see a lot of property flips; we'd see a lot of holding; we'd see a lot of activity down in the valley. We really haven't seen that much.
I mean the most recent one, you've got a 14 acre uh, Cotton Co that's been for sale now for close to a yr. I know they're askin' an arm & a leg for it & it's got, it's got a LOT of problems. ?: That's what's gonna be hard to sell. EM: Yeah. ?: They've gotta bring that so far up to code. EM: Right. It probably, probably needs to be razed. There's env'tl problems, more than likely; we discussed the gypsum problems & all that.
But e, e, a, according to, to this fella, his name is John Langa, uh, who's, he's a pretty savvy guy, & he, he was influential with I guess the THF project & a few - CLM: Oh, yeah! I worked very closely with him - EM: He's the guy that brought him in. CLM: I mentioned to THF that they were gonna have flood protection. EM: THF would not move into the Chesterfield Valley unless there was 500-yr flood protection.
Um, I think it's worth a shot on the city's end to request Congress to cmsn or authorize a recon study to bring us up to 500 yrs. It's free on the city's part & it's either, I, I mean, it's, it's not a cost-shared effort. Uh, it's either a yea or nay; either the cost benefits are there or they're not. & if it's not 500, maybe it's 400, maybe it's 300, maybe it's 200; I don't know.
CLM: That's, that's what the COE did & the way this would work is if the Congress passed a resolution & I've discussed it with Jim & also with JZ & also with the Deputy Dist Eng of the St L Dist; & the St L Dist could be tasked, authorized by the Congress thru the Chief Eng's office, to do this recon study.
But that's how the Monarch Chesterfield Levee, which was a 100-yr levee, that's how it began to be study & looked at by the COE & now they built it. & in fact it uh, the 500-yr earthwork, work is almost completed; _ _ (just drop?) the flood gates, that's the only thing that's never been done. But that's the way the system works. If the COE does the recon study, they determine that there IS a federal interest in providing add'l flood protection.
They not only look at the 500-yr level of protection, they analyze it out, break it out in _ _ _ the cost & _ _ _ _, but also look at 400, 300, 200, what-have-you. That was what was done in Monarch Chesterfield & that was the case; the, the uh, recommended project or the alternative that offered the most national, economic benefits, was the 500-yr level. But it doesn't have to be that; it could come out to be something else, since you're in a different area.
& when Eric uh, suggested this, uh, I thought it was a great idea & discussed it informally with Jim & uh, Jim Mitas & also with Sen Talent's office. & I think that if _ _ _ _ _ _ the congressional office would be happy to request a resolution like that. & the way it works is once Congress, Pub Works Cmte out of either the House or Senate _ _ _ _ _ _ _ passes the resolution; & that goes to the COE; & then the study gets some wide funding.
The Congress appropriates a lump sum each yr to the Chief of Eng's office & they dole out that money for recon reports based upon priorities involved & _ _ _, that sort of thing. It's a beginning & uh -
9/15/03 Levee - Section 17 of 20
JW: Does your levee have to be complete? CLM: I feel that - ?: Is it the same costs that are -JW: Does your levee have to be complete before you can apply? CLM: No, no; you, you would assume that the project is authorized under const, that it would be in place at any - what you have to do is you determine the various levels of add'l flood protection. Let's say 200 yrs, ok?
& you see what area would be protected by that, of that. & then you determine what, what properties are in there & what is KNOWN to be planned, zoned, built in the future. You cannot, the COE cannot take credit for saying well, we think if this were protected for 200 yrs, you'd have a lot more bldg taking place than is taking place now; they can't do that.
But they can take credit for things that are on the books or in the planning stage, that applied for zoning, for ords, uno, devrs sign, that sort of thing. You can also take uh credit for protecting uh, Hwy 141, for example, because there's a cost that we incur there.
What they do is they determine what's there inside the area that will be protected with this add'l flood protection level. Determine what the damages would be if you put, provide that extra protection. That's just the difference in damages between the 100-yr protection & X # protection; 200, 300, whatever it is. & then they determine what - the damages are then converted to benefits, & determine what the est'd cost is.
& if the est'd costs, which are annualized out over a 50-yr budget life, at the current discount rate, to see if they had to borrow the money at a discount rate instead of from Congress, they come up with an annualized benefit-to-cost ratio. & if the benefits exceed the cost or equal the cost & if the Dist determines that the project is engineeringly feasible, env'tly feasible, then they'll recommend a favorable report to the Congress.
& if Congress is in, just as they did in Monarch Chesterfield, then take that & would authorize a Feasibility Study, which then the COE would have to get aprops from the Congress to pay for it, not out of the joint cost. If we go back & ask our delegation to get monies appropriated, & THAT particular study, the Feasibility Study, which is a more detailed study, will take a couple of yrs, it has to be cost-shared 50/50 by the sponsor, which we assume would be the city.
So we're talkin' about a period of time here, but I think in my mind uh, when Eric mentioned it to me, it looked to me like now is the appropriate time to start the ball rolling toward this. EM: We, we've got, I, I think, the potential for a lot of land. &, & clearly, you look on the south side of Marshall, all the way from uh, uh well First St I guess, all the way down to uh Pharoah, that's pretty underutilized land. I mean let's look at what you got there. You got like a warehouse structure, the old Watling Ladder &, & uh Cotton Co is vacant, uh, with 14 acres. & you move on down & you've got uh, uh Valley Material & that storage area.
You got a lot of land out there that, that it seems to me that if a del, a devr is confident that he's flood protected, it may not be a bad retail area; & that's what this city has always needed is some commercial retail base. Um, & I'm not sayin' we're gonna get a Wal-Mart or anything else like that; but I do know that, that since the 93 flood in Chesterfield, uh where it was not a COE levee, but the Monarch Levee was a 100-yr levee. Uh, it scared the bejesus outta anybody & until they had that commitmt to take that up to 500 yrs, nothing happend in Chesterfield. &, & there's not that much difference, man, in location between VP & Chesterfield, if, if you look at where we're at. Uh -
9/15/03 Levee - Section 18 of 20
JW: What's the first step of action? The, the Levee Cmte to make a motion in that direction? Or adopt a resolution? Have Eric prepare a resolution? CLM: I would let this group uh, recommend to the bd of ald at the mtg tonight that uh, they authorize the city atty to prepare a letter for the mayor's signature to go to the Dist Eng with copies to the Congressional Delegation, requesting that uh, the uh, that the Congress report the resolution authorizing cgsm be requested - JW: Just to make it official, I'll move in that direction in this mtg & the bd can consider it tonight also.
BW: This is gonna cost the city money. EM: No. CLM: No. BW: You workin' for free, Eric? EM: I don't do recon reports. BW: Well, you, you have to prepare, prepare a report, don't you? JW: Only draft a letter I think. EM: Oh for God sakes! CLM: Well there's no cost sharing involved in the Recon Report.
The Feasibility Study, the Comp report which will take at least 12 to 18 months; if it's a positive report, it goes fwd, then the Congress authorizes a Feasibility Study. Then the COE will come to the city & ask for a Letter of Cooperation Agreemt whereby the city, just as the Monarch Chester Levee Dist did for Monarch Chesterfield, agrees to pay 50% of the cost of the Feasibility Study. Of course the COE will give you an est of what that cost will be.
BW: Now in the, in the, if the, if, theoretically, uno, it gets changed to a 500-yr levee, is it the same sponsor & federal uh percentage then, as the initial project is? CLM: Probably not in this case because the current cost sharing is 35%, instead of 25%. See we got this project grandfathered even tho the law had changed before const started, uh, we were able, thru our Congressional Delegation, to direct the COE to - BW: But it would be a shared-cost project? CLM: Oh, yes, certainly.
DM: You're saying if we started today, it'd be 35% instead of 25 for the sponsor? CLM: Yeah. Well, there's a stretch that we might be able, because this, the original project was authorized before they changed the cost share. We'd TRY to get it done, Dan, but frankly - DM: Extension of the grandfather? CLM: Yeah, frankly, I doubt if, I doubt if we'd be successful. & I'm an optimist; uno that. I always see the glass half full. I don't think we, we could do that.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 19 of 20
EM: &, & there would be another possibility in that a local sponsor could be - we, we could, we could do a separate levee dist if that, if it came, & hey, it may be pie in the sky. I mean it simply may be that the cost benefits don't authorize it. JW: Right, but it don't cost a lot to try. EM: That's the way I'm lookin' at it.
CLM: I'll tell you after the flood in 93, there were a lot of people, businesses, in Chesterfield Valley that thought people were doin' davoo, talkin' about a 500-yr levee & getting it done. & that was a problem when THF - THF did a Marketing Study & that, that was a hot area as far as the marketing svc was concerned. They wanted to come in there, but they really were leary. JW: What's THF stand for? CLM: & basically - EM: (background) To Have Fun. (JW cracks up) CLM: they made the commitmt to come in before the COE had an authorized project & the COE was _ _ _ (JW still laughing) TW: It's Stan Crocky.
CLM: In my view, Dan, I think that - EM: _ _ _ - CLM: at this point in time, I think it just makes a lot of sense for the city to make that, that step. The cost report will give you further info to, on which you can base a decision as to go fwd or not. I think timewise, it would've been premature to just a yr ago. But I cannot believe that once this project nears completion, that you aren't gonna start to see land prices go up & dev opportunities become real issues & take place.
You've got a great location here. As uno, you've got I-44; 141 which uno pretty soon is gonna be 6 lanes from up north, down south; you're not that far from uh - JW: Got RR tracks. CLM: major residential areas. Bet you're gonna see people lining up to come in here. Like I said, Eric mentioned John Langa; John Langa is a very savvy guy & he's actually, he's mentioned this to Eric some time. DM: Who's this? CLM: John Langa; he's with a very large uh, real estate brokerage firm now. He used to be the Executive Dir of the Chesterfield Cmty Dev Corp. He's played a major role in helping get the businesses in Chesterfield Valley organized & brought 'em together & started thinkin' about a 500-yr levee. JW: Tell him to come on in with his Plan of Intent, would ya?
DM: _ 18 months for this recon work by the COE? CLM: I think if the Congress - if you got a resolution in the next 30 to 60 days, since we're well in - we'll be getting into the new FY, uh, it wouldn't be very difficult to, to get uh, the Chief Eng's office to fund the recon report during this yr because they've already probably committed the limited funds that Congress gives them for recon reports for people that have had resolutions authorized & recon reports for the past 3, 4, 5 yrs.
DM: Would this take away any of the money for the levee itself? CLM: No, totally, totally separate. It's a win, win deal for the city. JW: _ _ - CLM: I just think that, that we'd be remiss now if we didn't seriously consider doing this because I think uh, it's got an awful lot of promise.
The thing you gotta remember is the difference between the 100-yr protection, at 200 or 250, or even 500 in some cases, put back 2' or 3' or 4'. So we're not talkin' about where you got an existing levee, you're not talking about a lot of add'l manure; you gotta broaden the base of it of course, but uh, depending upon the topography & the river bottom. Till you get into it, you won't really know.
That's basically what we were doin' earlier, is asking the Congress to authorize the COE to investigate & see if it looks like it's feasible to proceed. I think by the time they get funded & get into the study, you'll see dev starting to take place here which will generate property that would be damaged by the higher floods, that will be protected, but its damage is prevented & becomes benefits. That's generally - that's what generates benefits.
Hwy 141, we, we got a lot of benefits out of the fact that I-64 goes right thru Chesterfield Valley, as well as the airport out there. These are things that uh traditionally the COE had not taken credit for protecting. But when we had that flood in 93, we went to the hwy dept & said, what did it cost you guys to uh, reopen the hwy? (JW chuckles) What would it cost you to raise it to the 500-yr elevation? You're talkin' about big bucks!
DC: I have a motion, do I hear a 2nd on Jeff's? ?: What was it he's saying? DC: I have a motion & a 2nd to authorize whatever you said there, Jeff. ?: I guess that's a letter - JW: EM to draft the appropriate - EM: Letter from the mayor to the colonel for a Recon Report. ?: With the approval of the bd? JW: Yeah. DC: All in favor (ayes heard). Ok.
9/15/03 Levee - Section 20 of 20
I have one question on that. Who's gonna determine what the 500-yr flood plan is? CLM: Oh, the COE knows that. DC: What?! That's arbitrary figure; uno that. (chuckling) We all sit here, know that 500-yr is an arbitrary; 300-yr is arbitrary figure. I mean it - CLM: It's, it's all statistics. DC: Right; I mean, uno, but uno, what is, uno - CLM: You may - it's like the 100-yr flood; you can have a 100-yr flood twice in the same month; then you might not have it again for 3000 yrs. DC: Right. CLM: But statistically, over a zillion yrs, it'll happen once every 100 yrs. The same is true of the 500-yr flood; it goes every 500 yrs.
The, the important thing is - a couple things: One is it radically affects your insurance rates for homeowners & businesses. That's a very positive plus when you're talkin' about getting devrs to come in. The second thing it does, it's a psychological, it's a very positive psychological impact that encourages people to come in.
TB: CLM, how many of your levees around, are 500 yr & how many are 100? CLM: Well, in this area, for example - TB: _ _ 500-yr _ _ _ now? DC: No. CLM: No. In this area, the 500-yr is referred to as an over-initiative; it's a little over-protection. ?: _ - CLM: 500-yr levees are Monarch Chesterfield is authorized, under const; therefore it could be finished this Fall; that'll be a 500-yr levee. Uh, Earth City is a 500-yr levee. ?: What about like St. John? What would that be? JZ: 500-yr. 500. CLM: Yeah. EM?: What about the city? ?: _ _ - JZ: 500 yr. CLM: The city, the St. Louis Flood Control Project is a 500-yr flood - JZ: East St. Louis - CLM: control project. JZ: 500. CLM: Um, Howard-Bend Levee Dist is raising its levee using Maryland Hts money which came from casinos, to build, to raise their levee from about a 40 or 50-yr levee, to the 500-yr elevation. So you -
TB: Ok, so what levees are 100 yrs? You said - I just asked about - how many of 'em are 500, you said not many. So I mean with the 100-yr levee in VP _ _- ?: _ _ _ - JZ: St. Peters. CLM: Yeah, I think it's St Peters. JMitas?: Old Town? ?: St. Peters. CLM: Yeah, that's 100-yr levee.
DC: We're somewhat over the 100 yr according to the - CLM: Well, when the COE builds a 100-yr flood protection project, flood wall or levee, you have a combination in St. Louis. They build to the 500-yr elevation, plus 3 or 4' of freeboard. So you really - the 100-yr levee for example in, in Chesterfield Valley, that was there before, built by private interests, actually had 3' of freeboard on top of it you're wasting. That's why it withstood & was not overtopped for several wks by a 250-yr...(exchange tapes)...CLM:...rise higher with that flood water as you have _ _ build that safety factor. They still call it freeboard.
DM: So it's possible then that a 100-yr flood here on the Meramec could punch thru? CLM: No; a 100-yr flood, uh, you're protected - DM: I mean it's punched thru out there, but it - so how would it - isn't it possible this could punch thru as well? CLM: That wasn't a 100-yr flood. That was a 250-yr flood that, that breached Chesterfield Valley.
DM: So if it'd been a 100-yr flood out there for a wk, do you think it would not have punched thru? ?: _ what, 2 months? CLM: Oh, yeah, 8 or 9 wks, we had that level of water up almost to the top of the levee; just too much pressure pushin'; probably had uh, varmit holes thru the levee that the water trickled thru between the sand boils inside. That's what polluted the levee about 10:45, the night of June, July 30th.
(much mumbling) DC: Next levee mtg 10/20/03 at 5 pm. Uh, I need a motion to adjourn. ?: I'll make a motion. ?: 2nd. DC: I have a motion & a 2nd to adjourn the mtg. All in favor. (mumbling continues) Ayes have it. (many ayes are heard) (6:10pm)