MOPR's 10/20/03 VP LEVEE CMSN MTG MINUTES
Present: TB, BW, DS, JKB, CLM, Paul Spotanski of PH Weis, JZ, EM, DC, DM, RW.
Also Present: John Tom Sloan, one of the 2 tenants still residing at #8 Arnold Dr; State Senator Gibbons' Dist Dir, Renee Kirkiewicz; JEM; Andy McCord of DG Purdy.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 1 of 19
DC: Call this mtg to order. (roll call - see above) JW's absent. ?: Excused. DC: Excused, whatever. DM: Karen's excused too. DS: She home yet? DM: _ no, she's still in the hospital. Karen Thorson, she had a stroke. DS?: Oh, Karen did? DM: Yeah, _ _ _ _ _. (Pledge Allegiance)
DC: Has anyone got any additions or deletions to the agenda? If not, I have 2; they'll go under 7D, Maureen Morris; & uh, 7E, will be John Sloan. Need a motion to approve the agenda. ?: Motion to approve. JKB: 2nd it. DC: I have a motion & a 2nd to approve the agenda; all in favor? (ayes)
I have a, the mins of the 9/15/03 mtg; I need a motion to approve. BW: Was I at this mtg, Sept? (he laughs) DC: Sept, Sept, you sure were. EM: It says Jim Wall! Who's Jim Wall? ?: I don't know. EM: I guess that's Jim _ _. DC: That one should be Bob. EM: I'm sorry. DC: Let's amend that to Bob. BW: (laughing) _ gettin' _ late? DC: I haven't even read this, Bob. Ok, Bob. DM?: You want a copy of those mins? BW: (spells Walls). DC: You want a copy? BW: I thought I was there. TB: _ _ come in late on that one _ - DC: You came in late, TB. You weren't that late, I think maybe 15 mins or so. TB: I know I was _ _ _.
DC: Do I have a motion to approve the mins with the uh, amendmt there to change Jim to Bob Walls, not Wall? BW: Right, right. EM: Let's add that TB & (Ted?). DC: (chuckles) Ok, I have a motion to approve the mins? ?: I'll make one. DC: 2nd it? ?: 2nd. DC: I have a motion to approve, & a 2nd, uh the mins for 9/15/03 mtg. All in favor? (ayes) Ok, we'll go to 7 discussion items. Item 4B; Jim, you wanna take off on it?
10/20/03 Levee - Section 2 of 19
JZ: Ok, well, we have a major breakthru since the last mtg. The uh COE Awarded the Item 4B Contract to Env'l Specialists, Inc out of Kansas City, MO, at a price of uh $14,018,927.12. & uh, that was after uh, a period of negotiations between the COE & Kozeny Wagner, & the COE & Env'l Specialists. They each came back with their best & final offer, &, & we accepted Env'l Specialists best & final offer. The gov't, during this negotiation, uno, we, we had several days of, of uh discussions with these 2 contractors & we learned some things, & they learned some things about the contract. They brought their bid way down from 19M to 14M.
Uh, we revised the gov't est upward because we saw some things that, that we were incorrect with before. So I, I don't remember the exact gov't est, but it was a little bit over 13M & so the uh, the price that we paid this contractor, or that we plan to pay this contractor is uh, about 8% higher than the gov't est. It was deemed to be a fair & reasonable price, by the uh, by the COE.
BW: What's the 12 cents for? JZ: I'm not sure. (BW laughs) Um, so we, uno, we have Awarded the contract. Uh, we got to know the contractor quite a bit during the negotiation period. We had uh, several engs & others, cost estimators, involved in our negotiation. Um, we had a pre-const conference here in the city hall, uh last Thurs on the uh,16th...(exchange tapes, during which I noted that JZ said: it was a COE mtg.)
CLM:...first class job of running that mtg & he had a difficult time. & I was also very impressed by the contractor. Those guys, uh, they have experience in this type of work & in levee const; has experience in handling special materials; eng'd fill. & uh, these guys look like a really good outfit. I think that uh we got a really first-class contractor on the job.
JZ: We, we certainly have a good impression uh, ourselves, uno, of this contractor. Um, it remains to be seen of course until we get into const. But uh, they uh, they talk about they typically finish their work early & uh, they would like to uh, uno, they're hoping to produce 65 to 75% of the const in the first uh FY; so starting 10/1, so by, by, by this time next yr, have 65 to 75% of the const finished for this contract.
Uno, we have a yr & a half contract, 18-month contract, but we expect there to be weather delays, so we're thinking in terms of a 2-yr total timeframe. They're talking about potentially completing the const by Christma, Christmas of next yr, 2004; this is (someone coughs) 2004. DM: Darn good Christmas present. JZ: So, that, that remains to be seen. We don't know any kind of problems they're gonna run into, but that's, that's their objective. Um, we intend to issue Notice to Proceed on 11/15; that's the plan.
Uh, 2nd mtg of, of last Thrus, we had, we had a mtg in the afternoon also that was uh, had to do with utilities. We had uh, EM arranged uh, a large mtg. We had AmerenUE had 2 people there; uh, PHWeis was there; uh, MO Am Water Co had 2 people there; uh, Lac Gas had someone there; Bell Telephone had someone there. So uh, we had a very, very informative mtg & I, & our contractor, the COE & our contractor was there as well, ok.
Um, I'm hoping that people uh, the utilities come thru with the schedules, that there's no more slip in their schedules uno for relocations because, I mean the last time we met with the utilities, Ameren had said they were gonna finish their part by the end of Aug, uno; & now they're saying by the end of Dec.
Uno, so at least now they know there's a contractor sitting there waiting for, for their work to be done & they should have all the incentive to uh, to do their, to do their relocation of power poles & raising the power lines to go over the levee & those kinds of things. Uh, but I mean all of our, the whole team, including uno, obviously, the city, all of us uh, need to be uh, supportive as, as we can of this contractor so, to make sure that he can move as quickly as possible & not be delayed by any, by anything. That's my news on uh Item 4B.
DC: Col, do you have anything to add on 4B? CLM: Uh, just that the work that they are doing right now, for example, is (Howard or Power?) Bend Levee, it's a 500-yr levee project over on the other side of Kansas, north side of MO which is uh, uh obviously gaming on that north side over there; an extensive project & which has pretty interesting complications involved far as flood walls & having material. They've had a really good experience which is directly applicable to this job. & as Jim said, they're track record is finishing ahead of schedule.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 3 of 19
DC: I'd like to make a couple cmts. I was very impressed with the contractor, the way he presented the whole thing & went thru the - I'm very impressed with him. Uh, there's a couple things that I'd like for the Levee Cmsn possibly to recommend me tonight to present to the BOA.
Uh, I would like to recommend our, have the city seek bids on the demolition of the remaining, all the remaining structures in AL. We don't have to remove the foundations; we just have to have the bldgs removed or demo'd. & uh, I think we should seek bids from uh some uh, uh wrecking companies; & to have this ready to go when everything proceeds & we can put the bldgs under (someone coughs) & get rid of 'em.
CLM: I might add that Dave uh, brought up some very good points at that mtg which created some very constructive discussion leading to this particular aspect right here. DC: & uh, I would like for to - I'm gonna present this to the BOA if you'll approve my recommendation here tonight, that we seek bids & I'd like to have JM work with me uh, to uh, uh work up some bids & specs on how to get the bldgs tore down. Jim's done some of this work on, the city has (got?), but I think we should go out for bids bein' this is part of the const & the demolition is part of our uh, our - BW: the city's responsibility. DC: our responsibility for this. So, if you wanna make a motion or recommendation or something that I present this to the BOA, or you want me to just go ahead & do it tonight?
Andy: _ _ _ just, just add that, add that tho, don't forget uh, you need to do the asbestos inspections before the demolition. DC: Oh yes, I mean - Andy: & any removal is (guaranteed?) - DC: I think that's uh, that'll be, we'll have to take it up with the contractor & everything like that. That'll be part of this thing that we get all this right.
So if you don't have any disagreemt, I'll go ahead & present that to the BOA tonight & have them make some recommendation whether we do it or not. OK? JZ?: Sure. CLM: Dave, save the city some money by getting it clarified that the contractor has to remove the concrete foundations, not the city.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 4 of 19
DC: Uh, the other thing is uh, the city will be responsible to remove all the backstop fences, chain link fence & wooden, any wooden fentonces, dugouts, lights & standards at the Sports Complex uh that'll be within the footprint of the levee. & uh, I guess we'll use the PW people unless the Parks Dept comes in & gets somebody to remove the poles, take the poles down & with the lights or whatever that is; but I think we'll be responsible for taking down the uh all the rest of the stuff in there. & I don't really think there's, inside the footprint of the levee, I don't think there's that much that has to be taken down.
& uh, with the utility uh conference, AmerenUE will be shutting off the electric in the Sports Complex this wk. That was their, they, they told me that they would shut it off. & then uh, that's uh, they'll remove the electric lines & the poles to the, to the transformers at some later date, whenever we get to the point, they've got a schedule where they're gonna, where to shut uh, uh Pharoah off & then they'll start removin' the lines.
Uh, when they remove, I don't think that down there we've got any problem with that, but the telephone poles I think on Pharoah into the Sports Complex, are owned by AmerenUE; on other places, they're owned by SWB. & what they do is, when they take any line down off of the pole, UE takes the pole, takes the line down & cuts the pole off to the next utility, which is either the telephone, cable or whoever it is. Then when the next utility comes in, they take their line off & cut it down to the next utility. There could be 3 to 4 utilities actually using this pole. & then Bell Telephone will come back once all the utilities are off the pole, then they'll come back & pull the poles & remove 'em.
So I don't think there's any other electric, uh any other utility on the poles going into the Sports Complex. So when AmerenU take, takes the electric off, they'll pull the poles & everything will come down. But right now they're just gonna shut it off at the uh, at the breakers down at the entrance to the uno thing & come back later & remove the poles. & also, we're gonna work with 'em probably to leave, cut everything off to the transformers that are located on the upper part in the Sports Complex where the transformers are, possibly & leave them.
But that'll have to be worked out with the, with the Parks Dept when we get to that, the electric will be gone; they'll be doin' this & if they'll leave the transformers in there; they may do that because they actually own the transformers. BW?: UE does. DC: AmerenUE, they own the transformers.
But the ladies that were here said that they could possibly work out that they could leave the transformers on the poles. They wouldn't take the transformers & put 'em on the ground or store 'em in a bldg or anything; but if we were gonna leave it on the poles where they're at, uh they would probably leave 'em there, but we'd have to work that out because in the future-use by the Parks for the Sports Complex. So that's, that's really all I have & I'll be, I'll be bringin' this item up to the BOA tonight at, at the mtg.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 5 of 19
BW: Is there a salts to reach facility in the Sports Complex area? DC: Yes, there is. BW: Where is that gonna be relocated? DC: Well, right now, it was relocated to, up on the uh storage area over here at the uh Grand Glaize Creek. They built that storage area up there, the salt for to keep it out of the flood. I don't know whether they're gonna move it back down there. I think they're possibly, you're working with maybe Jim or trying to find a place to remove that salt, but it's outside the footprint of the levee. BW: Oh, it is? DC: It, the levee is, that's outside the footprint of the levee. BW: So you won't have to mess with it? DC: Well, we won't really have to mess with it, but the only thing is, we need to get it someplace located other than in the Sports Complex so we don't have to keep movin' it around. Uh, that's all I have right now.
JZ: It'd be good to get it moved quickly because that's - DC: Huh? JZ: that material there is available to this contractor; course uno that, Dave. DC: Right. JZ: So it'd be good to get the salt moved away from our, it's present site quickly. DC: So it looks like we gonna, we're moving pretty much ahead down there once we get that fences down & everything; that'll be, it'll have to work that in the schedule & remove the fences & all that kind of business & everything. So we'll be doin' no, we'll do no clearing; it's just remove the fences & get that outta there. Ok, that's all I have.
BW: Now are the fences _ & property of the city _ _ _ _ _ ? DC: They'll be the property of the city, yeah; they'll be, whatever they're gonna do with 'em, I don't know; I have no idea. That'll be - TB: But you say _ _ remove the fences? DC: Huh? TB: Our workers are gonna remove the fences or is Valley - DM: City. TB: contract it out? DC: The city workers. Some of 'em, I think maybe the guy, the fella that did some tree clearing, I think he maybe tore some of 'em down; I really don't know because, but there's not really that, that many that has to be done. There are several light poles that have to be, the lights & standards have to be taken down; they're within the (pause).
Ok, if nobody has anything on 4B, do you, uh doesTom Weis have anything on 4B that - ?: _ - DC: Ok, I think it was pretty well discussed (someone coughs) lift station, sewers lift station at the mtg that Kirk, const mtg, that, that was pretty well covered. Kena's already finished.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 6 of 19
So ok, we'll jump to Item 7B, city cost share for the project & TPC, any cmts on that? JZ: Yeah, I, I have a cmt. DC: Ok. JZ: Just to make sure everybody's aware of, when we, when we awarded this contract for 4B, of course that, that cost est goes, gets folded into our overall project cost est. & I, I only have a preliminary est at this point in time, but uh, I added 10% contingencies because things certainly can happen, uno even after you Award a contract, they could run into things that would cost, that certainly can be higher than the Award amt when you're finished. & um, this of course increases the overall project cost est.
We don't, do not have an update on the uh real estate part of the est at this point in time.
But um, just with that, with that major change in the uh cost of Item 4B, we are at the point if we are, our cost est is at the point where what should've been federal costs exceed the $35M federal cap, ok.
Now this federal cap is a, is a cap on federal expenditures & funds (we don't know?). So we haven't expended anything uno close to our $35M cap yet, but uh, the overall cost est, uh if we proceed with this const as we're, as we're planning to, there will come a time when we cannot expend any more federal $ unless we get that federal cap raised. Uno, so something like $2.6M over the federal cap is an approximate uh, cost right now. That, that is not final; that, that doesn't include uno the changes that may be coming into the, to the lands & relocations cost estimates, so.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 7 of 19
CLM: & of course EM & I have uno been working with our congressional obligation. We have provided them with 2 sets of language. & 1 language uh would be applicable uh, compatible with inclusion in the Water Resources Dev Act which is the, the authorization bill that Congress normally passes every 2 yrs, election yr, authorizing new water resource according to their water resource projects; & that's the way we raised the cap last time from 20M to 35M was in a Water Resources Dev. That's the normal, easiest way to do it.
Uh, the current status of that legislation right now is the House, (if?) we met last month, the House has passed the Water Resources Dev Act for '03; they sent it to the cmte; & the cmte, they sent it to the Senate; the Senate uh has referred it to the Senate, Senate Cmte of Env'tl of Public Works; then it (reads?) referred to a subcmte for extensive hearings & consideration. That subcmte is chaired uh by Senator Kit Bond & the word I have from his office is that they do not see uh any possibility of that particular legislation passing the Senate this yr. That, of course, could change.
& so anticipate - knowing that up front, when Jim first was aware of the possiblity of having to increase the cap several months ago, we also pro, provided language to the congressional delegation till we, which would be appropriate to certain approps bill, current FY (2000?) COE Water Aprops Bill for COE projects. That is not normally the way authorization, actually it's (been?) accomplished & it has been done in the past & could be in the future.
We don't know right now what the status is as far as getting that included in the approps bill for this FY. Knowing that this is the case, we've apprised our cong'l delegation of this situation; they're aware of it. It does not appear that the COE is about to reach the 35M cap on federal expenditures in the next few months. So we have time to accomplish this, but we're still pressing to get it done this yr, this calendar, if at all possible.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 8 of 19
& along those lines, I think that it would be appropriate for EM & myself to go to Wash sometime in Nov & meet face-to-face with people in our cong'l offices to discuss the details; give a better understanding of exactly where we are & see if we can get it thru this yr; & if we can't, to lay the groundwork to make sure that it does get thru early in the next uh calendar yr, cong'l action. At this point in time, uh, I'm not particularly concerned about getting it done in time to meet the requiremt for the COE to (tenure?) expended funds. It is something that has to be done; as I said, we did it once, we think we can get it again.
The language, incidentally, calls for raising the cap from 35M to $50M. That is not normally a problem; it doesn't entail having to get the Congress to appropriate monies; it simply is a paper # that doesn't attract a lot of attn so normally it goes thru without any problem; we're anticipating it will this time too. You simply have to have a piece of legislation that we can put it on that will pass thru & by the Congress.
RW: Yeah, 'cause it was, what, a yr ago, they raised the cap. It hasn't been too long ago. CLM: Well, it was actually in the last Water Resources Dev Act. I'm surprised that we was _ _ - RW: 'cause I knew it took a long time to get 'em to raise the cap. CLM: Well, again, we just have to wait for the bill to pass & uh, I think it's been over 2 yrs. It doesn't seem like it, but it's been over 2 yrs. RW: I don't think it has, Col. EM: But, but the length of time took - it, it, it was for the COE's certification process. JZ: Right, there, there was some language - CLM: Oh yeah! JZ: that said that the Sec'y of the Army had to make a determination so that's what was the - caused the - RW: the holdup. JZ: the hold up; right, exactly. CLM: The language, & this is normal - JZ: It took time for that to happen.
CLM: the language that Congress adopts, says subject to the Sec'y of the Army's certifying that this does not cause env'l problems, it's eng'gly feasible & there's no objections to it. & it was just an administrative problem because we lost the Assistant SA of Civil Work who was replaced by the Undersec'y who was the Acting Assistant Sec'y; & he was getting organized at the time & finding out what the COE does. So nothing was going on in his office that, in the way of signatures; that's what caused the delay. But again, I was talking with people in his office; they were aware of the requiremt & said, uno, see if we get them aboard & briefed & everything, it'll be done; & that's what happened. Your memory is very, very good as far as the final approval. Does anybody have any ques on that?
10/20/03 Levee - Section 9 of 19
RW: What's this gonna do to the city's cost share? EM: Uh, we're responsible for 25% of the TPC. RW: & how's our (bunch?) current we gonna handle that? EM: Uh, we, we've got ample funds to handle it at this point. Uh, we, we've got credits in of $9.6M I think & our projected would be $11.6M would be, at the $35M cap, &, & it's just simple math; & this isn't the way to figure it, but if you're looking at a $2.6M uh, uh excess over the $35M, it would only be uh another $550,000? ?: Yeah. EM: We got. RW: You got that much in the bonds yet? EM: Umhuh.
TB: I know we borrowed excess bond; part of that went to the school dist too tho, didn't it? RW: $100,000 a yr for the next 10 yrs. EM: Yeah, but that comes outta surplus &, & we have, we borrowed a Million extra $ as uh, as a contingency; &, & that's over & above what the - ?: _ _ - EM: Yeah, what the school dist has. 'cause we anticipated, we anticipated that it would reach the cap, uh 'cause at, at the time we bonded, I think it was at 33M, um & we were just kind of figuring, yeah, it's gonna go up uh, uh, a tad more; so we did.
RW: But you're positive the city's got the money to - EM: Yeah! I mean under, under current - RW: estimates. EM: estimates. I mean you never know what's gonna happen with the lawsuits that we've got goin' on now, but uh (pause).
RW: & what about the concrete over here, the concrete plant? I wasn't at last month's mtg. I know I questioned you about that when you were in negotiations with that property over there; & you said the concrete wasn't a problem. But DC brought it up that night & it was gonna be a problem. EM: That's a, uh - RW: Is that included in that bid currently right now? ?: Yeah. RW: To have it removed? EM: Umhuh. JZ: Right. RW: What did that shoot the cost up, may I ask? JZ: Um, I, I really don't have the #'s. They made an est of what, what the amt & quantity is. The COE had made an est of what the quantity is; it's in their, it's in their contract. RW: Well, that's a good thing; long as (chuckle) it's in their contract. (silence)
10/20/03 Levee - Section 10 of 19
EM: Um as far as what I'm doing, I, I didn't jump in quick enough it sounds like. Um, back to 4B, uh, the city has a responsibility of, of obviously relocating utilities & we will pay some of the utility relocations. Some will be done as a matter of course because the city will be abandoning some public streets where the utilities are; really at our pleasure.
Um, we're also uh, negotiating with a 3rd party that's uh, uh DRG Co who uh administer uh benefits under the Uniform Relocation Act. Um, so far out of the 5 properties, they've reached agreemts with 3 of the 5 property holders. Um, I'm, I'm to meet uh tomorrow &, & disburse some funds out & uh, get original docs on, on 3 of those. There's 2 remaining & that would be the, uh Mr Michael McGhee &, & Mr. Sloan; who, who I think is here tonight.
Um, the, the other remaining issue would be uh what to do with 1100 & 1101 Pyramids. Uh, 11 & 1101 are both on city sewer, MSD sewer service. Um, the way the plan is now is to have their service continue from the new pumping station or the new lift station; um, but you gotta get the stuff there; so it would have to be pumped back over the levee to the new lift station which would require the installation of grinder pumps. Um, we're est'g that the installation of grinder pumps & the infrastructure to get it there, uh is going to be in excess of $30,000 per unit over there.
Um, I've talked to a landowner, um, &, & I have not talked to the other landowner, but I'm, I'm kind of hopeful that, that I can get the bd to, to, to give me some authority on maybe taking those houses out and abandoning those sewer uh lines. There's only one other unit over there at 110something Pyramid, but that appears to be on a septic field so it's not gonna be affected. But uh, I did talk to the COE about uh, uh getting credit for that in lieu of utility relocations & they indicated that's fine.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 11 of 19
Um, & then the other matter would be, you will recall back in May or June, the city was approached by um, an outfit, uh, I can't even remember their name, they have just recently changed it; I believe it's called the Greater Greenways or Meramec Greenways or somebody like that, uh about purchasing properties along River Dr. Um, that would include the 2 resi or 3 residences that are on River Dr which would also uh help the city, uh in the levee project inasmuch as we wouldn't have to provide utility service to those uh, houses.
Uh, I checked last wk with the status of an agreemt with them was, they, they initially indicated that they would be willing to pay the city uh, to uh acquire that property & we in turn would uh turn it back over to them & we would then lease it back. Um, they indicated that um, they're not yet ready to make an offer to the city; that they want to enter into an agreemt with St Louis County first & that uh, they're at least 30 to 45 days from consumating that deal. So, uh it's nothing the offing.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 12 of 19
CLM: What's the county involved with in that? EM: Um, I, I guess the county also has property um - CLM: Oh, to connect the greenway? EM: Yeah, in unincorporated St L County & they would avail themselves of their services & might as well. CLM: Would the, would the City Parks Dept be involved in the, in the coordinating with _ _ _ - EM: Yeah, the City's Parks Dept's already uh, uh proposed & the city has acted on a resolution to approve a master plan down there.
CLM: That's what I thought. EM: Um, it's just - CLM: Well, this would be a real plus for the city if - EM: Yeah, it's just executing the proper agreemt with this entity & uh, uh getting them to fork over the bucks. BW: What, is it just a parkway that they want to put in? EM: Yeah, it's a, it's a trail system that would connect uh, really all the way to Arnold I believe, & uh go, go to uh Castlewood? ?: Yes. EM: On, on both sides actually, I mean obviously! BW: Continuous? EM: Oh yeah! CLM: Oh yeah, biking & hiking.
JKB: There's 4 properties down there, aren't there? EM: Umhuh. BW: Would the outlying ballfields be involved in that? EM: No.
BW: It's just the immediate - EM: Yeah, it's - BW: Between River Rd & the river? EM: Yeah, it, it - DM: It's gonna offshoot a little bit. They're talkin' to American Legion right there, possibly buyin' them out & make a little park area & Lions Club. So it would be a little bit away from the river; not just uno - EM: &, & they'd connect into the, the trail system that goes up to Simpson too. Uno, those would all eventually empty into it; Simpson Lake Park. BW: Yeah, yeah; seems like to me, it would be A+ development for a variance; bring people in. CLM: Sure would. EM: Oh, absolutely fantastic!
CLM: It'll extend the area on down. If you remember back when Simpson wanted to get a permit to use a (quoring out?) (someone coughs) the city, part of the deal for the county with (Sam Oakland?) was that Simpson had to make the100-ft ROW for being able to get along the Meramec, that they would not touch, to be left for the greenway; which at the time they were tryin' to acquire sections one at a time, uno put 'em together. Simpson may have gotten quite a good package put together; but they're still filling in the gaps & this, this would fill in a very key gap requirmt. CLM: Is it 4 or 3, Jim?
BW: Where does Greenway get their money or - DM: Sales tax; one-tenth of a penny I think. ?: Is it 4 or 3? DS: They got 4 houses down there. BW: It's a county entity or state _ _ now? CLM: No, that's state, state conservation land. BW: It's part of state conservation? DM: I think it's more than - CLM: Yeah, a tenth of a penny sales tax. _ _ _ _ - BW: It's not a private adventure at all?
DM: Right, it's a gov't. CLM: They get it from DOC actually is what the conservation _ _ it may be - DM: _ fair amt of money, they need to start spending it or else they _ _ _ _ _ _ - CLM: As a matter of fact, Mr Mayor, I think that's the only uh tax fund accumulating in the state (level?) that they've had trouble spending because it's restricted - DM: _ represents here, so they need to start spending or else they're gonna get yelled at. ?: Well, we'll help ya.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 13 of 19
BW: We're here for access that's currently down there now, who developed that? EM: Uh, that was put in by Dept of Consversation, Conservation I believe. DM: Dept of Conservation. BW: The city didn't have anything to do with that? DM: City (curbs?) it, but it's state actually.
EM: Well, yeah, we, we - DM: We were the sponsor. DC: We had the property, but they put in the - EM: I think we ran electricity to it; didn't we? DM: Yeah, I think we did. It was a joint effort _ _ _ - BW: But that would be an area that would be included into this greenway?
EM: Well, it'd go right BY it, yeah. DM: Go right THRU there, yes; & then west of that'll be just a trail. BW: & it would, that, that bank launch ramp area there would, that would remain? EM: Umhuh, right. DM: There'll be a road leading up to it from the east & then west of that would be just the biking/hiking trail; _ _ _ west of there.
BW: Sounds like a win-win situation. EM: Oh, it is! DM: It is; it's gonna be real nice. EM: Phenomenal if we can get it up. BW: Yeah. DM: Help bring some more (or less?) positive things here that'll flourish a long time. DC: Oh yeah. DM: I'd like to see a couple bed & breakfast come in; I think that's be a really good plus & _ _ _ _. _ _ said he wants to run that.
BW: I wanna run around; I wanna bring a gamblin' boat out there - (laughter) ?: Boat in a mote. DM: That's all we need. (laughter) ?: Yeah. ?: We'll put in the mote. DS: Look what happened _ generation where _ - (BW laughing) ?: I'm gettin' with the headaches on the traffic. CLM: Let me know when you _ _ _ game was ever used. (BW laughing) DC: You'd have a big borrow pit down there; you could throw in smoke_ _. ?: Boat in a mote. (laughter)
EM: (First only?) you gotta change the MO Constitution; it's, it's only the Mississippi & MO, not the tributaries thereof. BW: Technicality. JEM: We could pipe Mississippi River water _ _ _. (they laugh) DM: Could make the Meramec a tributary of the Mississippi. BW?: We could pipe over Mississippi River water. DC: I think we've covered 7A, B & C now.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 14 of 19
RW: I got a ques on, to, to Eric, again on this property that's in ques at 1100, 1101 Pyramid. EM: Right, uhuh. RW: Did, did I take that you're gonna pursue purchasing the property? EM: Well, I dunno; I've gotta got to my bd &, & see what they wanna do. RW: Right. Is that property owner occupied or rental occupied? EM: I think they're all rental occupied. I think there's, there's 2 properties; I know Ed Sidwell owns one of 'em & I'm not sure who owns the other one across the street.
RW: In the event the city would move on that which might be smart for doin' it thata way, is the city gonna be responsible for the, movin' these renters out or can the owners that own the property get 'em out before the city enters into an agreemt with 'em?
EM: Well, I think - RW: It's all about savin' money. EM: Yeah, I think the answer is that if, if the city - well yeah, I guess (laugh) that's a good maybe - it de, it depends on who initiates & what's initiated. RW: If they own the property, it oughta be vacant when you purchase it. _ _ _- EM: You, you understand & that, that is, that has been discussed with the - ?: _ _ _ - BW: Yeah. RW: 'cause there's been a lot of 'em we've had to move. EM: I, I understand. CLM: But the city - RW: I think it's time to not do that any more. EM: Well, we, we, I've talked to one landowner about that already.
CLM: Well, they're gonna keep _ even if the city does acquire it, as the agent for the greenway org, you're not acquiring it for the federal project; therefore, you don't - RW: Yeah, this is the Pyramid property. You got it confused with the River Rd properties. EM: Yeah, the, the, this would be for the - ?: We're back up on Pyramid now. CLM: Oh, you're talkin' about Pyramid. I'm sorry, I thought you meant over here.
EM: Yeah, this would be for a (someone coughs) ?: (connection?). EM: Yeah. RW: But I'd like the, if the city goes ahead with it, I'd like to redress that issue to keep us from bein' - spending money uselessly. I mean if they can get 'em out before _ _ _ - EM: It's probably something WE SHOULN'T TALK ABOUT RIGHT NOW, UH any further. RW: Oh, I agree. I just had that ques. EM: Yeah. CLM: Good ques. DC: Anything else on 7A, B or C?
10/10/03 Levee - Section 15 of 19
JZ: I have something on 7C. DC: Ok. JZ: Federal funding for FY 04; at this, at this moment in time, there, there has been no federal budget passed for FY 04; we're operating under the Continuing Resolution Authority; & that, that takes us thru the end of Oct. BW: Of 04? JZ: This, this, the, the month we're in. BW: Oh, ok. JZ: We have, we have money to take us thru this month. BW: You got a couple more wks.
CLM: You can expend funds at the rate which you had the yr before, TECHNICALLY. JZ: We can expend, technically, I think we can expend what we need to expend, but (chuckle) - CLM: Well, you're not gonna stick to those old rules! JZ: Yeah! Um, but the point is, that uh, the budget for, for, for the ENTIRE FY 04, there was, there was the uh Pres' budget which was $2M, ok. & there was a House version & then there's a Senate version. CLM: Right. JZ: I believe the House was $2.5M & the Senate was $3M.
Now we don't know what's gonna be passed by the Congress or when really, but one thing is clear that it won't be enough money to pay our contrator for the entire FY, if it's any one of those 3 #'s. 'cause if we have a $14M Contract, & he's gonna earn 65 to 75% of the Under-Contract amt, he thinks this FY, we'll be well short of, of the money we need, we need for, for FY 04. & we've talked about this before; & I'm just tellin' you again, uno we, we don't really, at this point, have the money & we don't really know if we're gonna have the money to pay this contractor.
& according to the contract, he can either stop work - he has to notify the COE based, based on words in the contract, something like 45 days prior to running out of funds; we, we tell 'em this much money is available; he knows what his schedule is; & he has to notify, I'm gonna run outta money in 45 days, &, & then uno, he has the option of continuing to work or NOT continuing to work. If he continues to work, he's gonna earn some interest on - he's gonna be paying his own way so to speak; he's not gonna get paid & he's gonna earn interest on the money, on his earnings that he, uno that he hasn't been paid, ok.
CLM: Did I understand that he sort of indicated _ _ _ _ that he might _ - JZ: Well, he sort of indicated that they've done that in the past; but again, it's, uno, you don't really know. You don't really know &, & this is a, a large contract, so you just don't know yet; but uh, he has, this contractor has in the past, done work & then gotten paid later &, & gotten some interest on that.
In, in general, it has to be the most efficient way to get this job done, is to do it as fast as possible. It's not only whether there's a little bit of interest involved, whateve; the faster he does the work, the less administrative cost on the COE's part; everything is, is gonna have to happen in the most efficient way if we can move quickly; that's my feeling about it.
RW: Is there an interest clause in the contract? JZ: Yes. RW: What is it? May I ask? JZ: I don't know the exact amt of interest, but it's a small, relatively small, it's based on certain treasury bills & uno, there's some, there's some language in there.
CLM: Usually, when a, you have a good contractor on a job that's a good job, he's working for the federal gov't, particularly the COE, & he's experiened working with the COE & this contractor is, they generally _ everything else _ _ _ will continue workin' 'cause: 1) he's already mobilized to do the job, he doesn't have to argue with the COE about demob & the mob (long o) cost to, if he leaves the job & comes back; 2) it creates good will & as far as his reputation with the COE for future work, & _ -
RW: Put it in a nutshell, Jim's just sayin' this thing could be stopped because of no funds. CLM: Oh yeah! JZ: Yeah. RW: & I understand; & he's just coverin' himself so that he can - CLM: Oh, no - JZ: I'm just tellin' you - CLM: That's no doubt about it. JZ: It's only the facts. CLM: & that's another item on our agenda, to meet with members of the delegation to talk about - RW: _ _ _ be the reason people are askin' - CLM: We've apprised - RW: _ _ -
CLM: We've apprised the delegation of the funding situation that the House & Senate have both marked up, so there's no, there's no possibility of getting more money out of the fiscal 04 aprops, which I think it 2.8M; the most likely figure right now. But the delegation for the House & Senate are aware of the fact that the capability of the COE was far greater than that & that we will need more money during 04.
& this is the 2nd item on the punch list of things we need to talk with them about in Wash. There's various assistance in the future of other ways they can assist in add'l funds being made available; uh, supplemental aprops as far as cong'l action' but more likely, there's funds being found within the COE that've transferred in; either the St L Dist found the extra funds that they have they couldn't use, they transfer 'em to this project, or from the Div, or from the Chief's office in Wash.
& my experience has been is when you have cong'l interest expressed for a particular project & you've got a good track record on the fact that it was made clear up front the project needed more money, the Congress simply didn't find its way clear to aprop'g more money that yr, then the Congress can express its interest to the COE that they think it'd be very, very good if funds were transferred in for that project.
10/10/03 Levee - Section 16 of 19
Uh, the 3rd item we want to talk with 'em about is the uh resolution authorizing the COE to determine the feasibility of providing add'l flood protection over & above the 100-yr level for the project that's currently under const. The Congress delegation also has language to accomplish that too. We've got our work cut out for us to work with the Dist & the COE & the Congress to get add'l monies made available during FY 04 on this project to keep, to keep it going.
10/10/03 Levee - Section 17 of 19
DM: So this next FY that we're in right now, started 10/1, you're saying 2.8M is the max that's gonna be in there from the federal gov't, not counting money that could possibly be transferred? JZ: The Senate side had $3M in, in the budget. DM: Ok. JZ: Ok, every time you get aprop'd money, they, they subtract off; you don't really get $3M, you get $3M less like 14% or some - DM: Call it 3 now, just for my uh, I mean 3M or 2, so it's around 3M to get us till 9/30/04, right? JZ: Right. DM: & there's a possible - how much money is possible out there that would be brought in from other - BW: It, within the dist, bring in more money in - DM: Until somebody sits down & really goes thru the #'s, I guess there's no way to know that.
JZ: Uh, I - CLM: That amt of monies - JZ: _ _ dist is short on money - CLM: That amt of money is always out, out there available for transfer in - DM: Ok. CLM: because in the overall picture thruout the COE, that's not too large of an amt of money that some of the districts thruout the COE simply can't use all the money they have aprop'd for const general properties because of bad weather, union problems, all kinds of things come up; uh, they miscalculated what they thought they could use & they get more money than they thought they could use.
There's always money available. There's no - we don't know how much it's gonna be, but I'm here to tell ya that it'll be more than what, what the dist will (either?). But the ques is, is how much of that money out there will be floating around. Sometimes starting in April or May of next yr, we can get transferred into St L. What I'm saying, really, is that we've got a lot of things working for us in our favor to getting the maximum amt of money transferred in, either from the St L Dist's other projects or from outside the dist to the dist for this project.
DM: So if we go thru this whole 3M, say by April of next Spring & there's still another $3M worth of work since it's, say 65% of 14M, then does this co said they would consider working to the end of the yr, knowing _ _ be paid? JZ: They, they uno, they haven't made any commitmt. It's - DM: I mean _ _ I didn't say when; I mean to say they would consider working on - JZ: They would consider it, right. DM: with interest paymts, whatever, to get them thru because of the good will with the COE & the work _ _ - JZ: It's in their, I mean it's in their interest to - DM: to get it done - JZ: done, themselves.
DM: _ _ _ _ to do the mobilization _ & back & forth & _ _ - JZ: _ _ - CLM: See he doesn't, right now he's, he's committed that equipment & people to this project, this location. If all of a sudden he's, he says, oh gee, you're gonna be outta money, I'm gonna be out in another 45 days, if he quits, he's gotta move that equipmt some place else to work - DM: So it's 2 moves, out - CLM: He probably doesn't have a job lined up to do that if he hadn't planned on it; he hadn't bid on a job. So everything is working towards encouraging the contractor to stay on the job. DM: Ok.
CLM: But in the meantime, we need to, to do everything we can - DM: Get as much - CLM: to get the money in. JZ: Yeah, the contractors definitely wants to be paid (chuckle). DM: I realize that. CLM: We're not - DM: We're not expecting 'em to work for free just because he's a nice guy. CLM: We're not sittin' back on our duffs counting on him being willing to work. We're gonna get the money - DM: _ as much pulled in - CLM: Absolutely! DM: from whatever sources we can.
CLM: As an example, uh, when I was _, the Dist, the (entities?) never has enough money for operations & maintenance, & you've got a backlog of 10 & 15 yrs workin' on that & we used to get about 10 to $12M a year transferred into St Louis Dist, just for ops & maint from other districts that had that money aprop'd to 'em; they couldn't use it. The districts don't want to get caught with the money at the end of the FY, 'cause if they do, that's one of the, one of their measuring yardsticks; is did you meet the goal of expending & aprop'g 95 or 96% of the money that you said you could use if you got. If you don't use that, that's a black mark against the dist engs.
DM: But if they transfer it, does that take, that means that prevents a blank mark from gettin' - CLM: That's right; you transfer it out, then they don't get zapped. DM: We're ready to help 'em. CLM: You bet! BW: Yeah (laughs). CLM: We're lookin' for people in trouble. DC: There usually is a few of 'em thruout the COE that - CLM: There are always people out there. New Orleans Dist is always, was always a big contributor no matter what they're doin'. DM: So it can be outside the St L Dist you say? We can go -
CLM: Oh yeah! What happens is the dist looks around within its own capability. If they see they got a shortfall, they can only transfer part of it in, they go to division. Division then goes to the other districts in the div. In this case, we got a big division; like when you go to St Paul & Rock Island & New Orleans which has about 25% of the COE's civil works budget, they NEVER can use all the money they've got 'cause they always get so much.
& then if div can't find the money, they go to Wash, to the Chief Engs' office & they go to the other divisions thruout the country. DM: So they can go outside the dist & even outside the divisions, like you say San Francisco, New York _ - CLM: That's where our friends in Congress have a chance to tell the Chief Eng, we think it'd be very nice if you want to find us money. (they laugh) DM: Very nice. Hopefully, Nov of next yr.
DC: You'd like to have some money next yr, wouldn't ya? (he chuckles) CLM: Yeah. JZ?: Yeah. CLM: It's a, it's an interesting system, but uh we understand the system. DM: Ok, tku.
DC: Any more ques? We'll go to 7D & Maureen Morris on the levee. MM: I'll let Tom go first. DC: John. (John Tom Sloan)
10/20/03 Levee - Section 18 of 19
Tom: Yeah, tku. I just wanna know who uh answers - DC: (quietly) I'm not (dances?) with you. CLM?: That's right. Tom: Who receives the objections & appeals on the Uniform Relocation Acts not being followed by the city? When what you said, you didn't wanna pay for someone to get outta those houses, which I'm one of 'em, who do we appeal to? You can't appeal back to VP; that's the first ques.
Secondly, uh uno, I made a good faith effort to settle with the, the thing & they told me, this other gentleman did earlier, that you had to go to the bd to get - the levee has to recommend that the money be paid to these homeowners. I didn't hear that get done tonight, yet he said he has 3, 3 homeowners ready to go. So I'm confused & I can't get an answer; & I've tried to get one out of VP. & since I haven't, um - I'm within $2000 of settling with uh, EM, but he's now sued me in a motion to court, to go back to court because he says I won't give up the property.
The same property that he sent me a letter & said do not move from it. So I don't understand what VP's trying to do. We're, but you're bouncin' us around. I'm ready to leave. I try to make a good faith effort, but the gentleman just hangs, uno, forget it, I'm sendin' ya back to DRG. Well, I'm at DRG one minute, I'm back with him the next; I'm back to DRG. Nobody has an answer & when I ask 'em, none of 'em have the correct answer.
So he's filed a motion in court with a bunch of things that are absolutely, positively not true! I have it in my hand here & I wish it would stop. I don't think it's fair; I don't think it's right & all I'm askin' - I'm ready to leave. We're $2000 away & uh, uno, forget it. I don't think that's fair to me; it's not adequate. The money being - but, my original ques is: Who decides all that? & I called my ald, JKB over there, & he said he didn't know. I thought that this gentleman here who's the head of the levee cmte; he didn't know. Yet this bd makes the recommendations to make the payments; I'm lost on this!
It seems to me EM has a free hand to do as he pleases on this & if he doesn't like ya & doesn't care about, uno, & he thinks you're causin' trouble, he can just mash you to the ground & say, well, take me to court. So you get these malicious lawsuits that cost the city money; that are FALSE, but it's gonna take somebody like me, a lot of money & a lawyer to fight it. Why? It doesn't make any sense! If you don't want the city plan to get these people out, I'm ready to go!
I cut my price way down from what I asked for; yet I'm not gettin' an allocation of what my neighbor across the street got, who A, didn't turn in a bid; A, doesn't have a lease for the property; never got a moving est, but said he was told, EM told me himself that he got those. I know for a fact that he doesn't have one, nothin'!
You can't slam these people out & expect - uno, I'm just askin' what's fair & he's not wanting to FOLLOW THE LAW! It says I have a 90-day notice to vacate the premises once I have been shown a piece of property. Here's one from EM saying I failed to give up the property. Here's one, July, sayin' DO NOT MOVE BY HIS AGENT, DRG! What is the answer? Where can a man get an answer?
I live in this city; I don't want to cause a VP trouble. I realize they've had a lot of trouble with 8 Arnold Dr already & I'm sorry about that. I've had a little trouble with 8 Arnold Dr myself with the own, the former owner. But as strictly law goes, he has not done it to even charge me rent. He's tryin' to charge me rent &, & MO Revised Statutes states he has to send me a copy of the deed showin' he owns it. That's never been done! When is this all gonna stop? When can you just pay me & can't we just shake hands on a deal, work it out like gentlemen & walk away? I'm not tryin' to hold VP up. I think they owe me a lot more money than what they, what they wanna pay me!
He said he would like the people to be out by 11/30; I said I'll be more than happy to do it. But I mean then, here it comes a letter, slammin' me that I am not doin' this. Now I have to go to court trip. I don't think that's fair. I don't think that that is what this bd is set up to do. & if you gentlemen don't know anything about this Uniform Relocation Act, which I'm sure it's probably not, not of your highest interest, but it says, the first thing, the purpose is to minimize litigation & relieve acquisition & the courts & to TREAT FAIRLY, CONSISTENTLY & EQUITABLY. It's just absolutely, positively not bein' done!
So it takes a person like myself who doesn't have any law experience. I tried to call, I hate to call these gentlemen at their home. I've called the mayor; I haven't returned, got a return from his call 'cause he just got my phone call today. & I, & uh I, uno, I'm askin' for fair & equitable so I can get out so you gentlemen can go along with your project & get it done. But you don't want - let me rephrase this - he doesn't want to follow the law; he wants a bully tactic to do it his way & be dammed whoever lived in that house. I think that needs to stop. I don't think it's fair to me; I don't think it's fair to you all.
& I'll go back to the same thing with OK Vacuum with $100,000 worth of concrete back there
(exchange tapes - during which I noted that, amazingly, Tom had stated: I like Eric Martin.) It's just very, very simple. He called me 3, 4 days in a row & then he quits callin'. I tell him what I want & he doesn't wanna do - he'll pay the guy across the street money, not even lookin' at a doc! I don't think that's fair; I have a little home-based business. I'm handicapped & my wife has a home-based, er girlfriend has the home-based business. So now he's gonna try to evict me outta that property so he doesn't have to pay me a penny! But you can't do that under the relocation law. So I'm askin' this bd, WHO do I go to?
Kit Bond, when I called his office, he had a very big interest in this & I did call Wash, DC. He wants to know why this would be goin' on too; & so does the Atty General for the State of MO. They don't understand why this could happen. HUD, whom he sent me - I got it right here - he sent me an info from HUD; they said you can't do that; they have to follow strict guidelines; but he doesn't want to do that. I'm just askin' for simple remedy to this, uno. He said here's my final offer; next day, it's a little bit more; next day it's a little bit, uno. & he never did say anything; then he just hung up on me.
Now he represents you all. I don't think it's fair to us. I think you'd have a lot less litigation if this was handled a lot differently & in a straight-forward manner; not it's been at your house that you live in's been uh, condemned on 5/15; not according to the court. But that's what he wrote me in a letter right here that the court rcv'd on file Oct 14th. IT'S JUST NOT TRUE! It's gotta stop & I think if you gentlemen can't do it or the mayor can't, I'm gonna go to this ald mtg tonight.
I don't wanna be here. I wanna move & go on, but he won't allow me to do that. & I'm sorry that you have uh all these troubles with this stuff, but I can definitely see why you do. It's a dog & pony show as far as helpin' these people out. & I don't see how the average person - luckily I have a little time to be able to read them - I don't see how the average person could get thru this. It gives VP a pretty bad name.
& the people who fund this money wanna know about this stuff; & uno, is that a bully tactic on my part? No! Nobody will tell me who's in charge of this; the Army COE, Mr. Hewlett or whoever, Greg Donus; I don't know these gentlemen. My neighbor thinks - but uno, they're either just left at 3:00 or we can't get back. But uno, (sigh), I, I would love to be gone & I think that's what you want. As you said, get the bulldozer right behind those people when they go out. (chuckle) I don't blame you one bit! But I'm tryin' to help ya & all your doin' is takin' me to court! Uno, you're gonna keep me there another 420 days, charge me rent that by law, you can't charge 'cause you see, everything's got a law. But we dont know that 'cause we're stupid down here & we don't know how to read a book & haven't been to law school.
I'm askin' this bd & I'm gonna ask the ald tonight, help me just get outta the property. I'm sorry that I'm in there causing trouble, but I am there. I didn't rent it knowin' that a levee was gonna be there. I thought it'd be much farther down the line. & I like VP; I like the citizens; I like the people, but I'm just askin' to be treated fair. & if EM won't do it & he can shake his head over there like that & roll his eyes. I've seen him in court; I know exactly what goes on. It's just not fair & I think, I want, I'm askin' this, who do I appeal to? I asked him; he says you appeal to me, the agency. Well, he can't police his own work. I just would like some answers; that's all; but there is no answers down here.
RW: Well, the cmsn here, this part of the cmsn, the Levee Cmsn here, doesn't have any - ?: _ _ _ - RW: Yeah, say over the property & litigation _ - Tom: However, this gentleman over here, JKB, my ald, told me tonight that they do; that they recommend that they go ahead & pay that & then it goes to the - RW: Well, we don't recommend what the _ _- Tom: Ok! Well, I missed the point; again, I, I'm sorry. RW: Just like the ones that he just brought up earlier about AL, DC made a cmt about takin' _ _ the city to demo. We won't have any say-so on what costs the city _ _ _ _, nor do we have, this cmsn, have any say-so, uno, relocation money funds & stuff; that's up the, the BOA to _ _ _ _ _. Tom: Ok, that's fine. So if you're tellin' me - RW: That's a straight answer. Am I correct? CLM?: That is correct. RW: We don't deal with that. Tom: So this bd has nothing to do with - RW: No, _ _ -
Tom: Then, that's fine! I was told to come to this mtg & I've - but, still in the same impact, I, uh, for your slow down & your speed-up of the levee, it sure has - if, if you wanna know for a little bitty guy like myself, look at all this junk (displaying many papers & envelopes) for a guy who lives in a one little rented house. Look! I mean come on! Letters comin' every other day. I don't know half of this stuff; filing petitions. Now he's tellin' me to get out by 12/8. That's been filed in court. Get out! Now how can you do that? If you guys can't answer for that, I, I, I apologize, but I was told to come; I have; I'll take whatever answer I can get & I'll go on to the next mtg & ask others the same ques. I appreciate your time. DC?: Tku.
10/20/03 Levee - Section 19 of 19
DC: Maureen, you got anything to (pause). MM: Um, well, my ques that I really had were answered during the mtg. Uh, I'm sorry that Tom's havin' so much trouble & I commend him for coming here & speaking up; but the only thing I want to say is that he DID KNOW that the levee was comin' in the minute he saw the property. Tku.
DC: Ok, next levee cmsn mtg will be 11/17/03, same time. RW: Make a motion to adjourn. JKB: 2nd. DC: I have a motion & 2nd to adjourn; all in favor. (one aye is heard) Ayes have it. (end of 10/20/03 mtg, 6:05pm)
CITY'S 10/20/03 VP LEVEE CMSN MTG MINS
(altho the hardcopy shows the date as 11/17/03)
The mtg was called to order by DC at 5 pm at VP City Hall. Present were: DS, JKB, BW, JZ, EM, CLM, TB, RW, DM. Item 4B was discussed by JZ who indicated the contract was officially awarded to the low bidder for the sum of $14,018,927.12 to Env'l Specialists, Inc, (ESI) effective 9/25/03. A pre-const conference was held 10/16/03 & a notice to proceed is expected 11/15/03 to the contractor by the COE.
A utility relocation mtg was held in the afternoon on 10/16/03 & relocation schedules were presented to the contractor. DC recommended that the city seek bids for the removal of AL properties & also announced the city would be responsible for the removal of internal utilities to the Sports Complex with Amren removing the transformer.
Because of a revised cost est it will be necessary to have a commitmt by the city to fund an add'l $2.6M if the current federal cap of $35M is not raised. Further, no money for FY 04 has been aprop'd as the gov't is currently op'g under a continuing budget resolution. Aprop'd monies will run out at the end of this month.
John Sloan appeared & complained of unfair treatmt by the city atty regarding his occupancy at 8 Arnold Dr. Speaking in support was the property owner, MM. The mtg adjourned at 6:20 pm.
Eric Martin, Acting Secretary.