Notes:  Mtg time 5:05 - 6 pm.  Hopefully by 3/23, levee info from the 3/15/04 BOA mtg will be transcribed & posted. 


Present:  JLB, DM, DS, DC, CLM, EM, JZ, Jim Probert, JW, RW, KT, TB arrived 5:10, TW. 


Also present:  Pam Kettler, VP Parks Coordr;  JEM;  Vivian Blackman, VP Resident & Business owner arrived with a companion at about 5:15;  Andy McCord of DG Purdy arrived at about 5:45. 



3/15/04 LEV Section  1 of  16


DC:...Roll call here (see above). Jim Halamicek - he said he's too busy to be here.  Bob Walls told me he wouldn't be here;  he's outta town.  We got enough for a quorum.  (Pledge)  Any additions or deletions to the agenda tonight?  CLM:  I have one item to bring up on behalf of Jim Mitas & Cgsm Akin.  DC:  Is this under the cost share or is this just a uh funding or anything like that?  CLM:  _ _ _ _ _.  DC:  Ok, let's make it uh D.  DM: Can I take a guess or - since he told me, I'll _ _ _ - CLM: Yeah, I bet you don't.  JZ: Take a guess.  CLM:  I wanted him to make the announcement 'cause I thought he'd - I want him to get all the credit for it.  DM: Yeah.  He had to leave unfortunately. 


DC: Any other additions?  JLB:  AL.  DC:  We'll put that under Item 4B1.  Ok, any other?  Need a motion to approve the agenda. JW: So moved.  RW: 2nd.  DC: I have a motion & a 2nd to approve the agenda;  all in favor (ayes are heard).  Approve the mins of 2/17/20000 mtg;  we had a mtg on 1/20, but it wasn't a quorum & EM has got some notes on there that we got.  Has everybody had time to look over the mins for the 17th?  JW:  Move approval of the 2/17/04 mins.  RW:  2nd.  DC:  I have a motion to approve & a 2nd;  all in favor.  (ayes are heard)  Ok. 


3/15/04 LEV Section  2 of  16


Discussion items for this mtg, Item 4B.  I'll start off here & say that uh last wk due to some hard work by 3 members of the City VP, that's JEM, TW & JM & his PW crew, we've got uh AL uh completely uh demolished & hauled off;  all the utilities are uh done. 


We have one uh little item yet to work out & that is the removal of the uh lift sta, uh foundations & there in AL & it will be done.  Uh JEM uh worked very hard last 2 or 3 wks, getting this all lined up & getting it to a final stage & it was brought in.  Uh Tom & Jim worked at relocating uh sewer lines that were a complete uh I guess a complete mess in AL & we finally got it figured out.


& they have uh put in a temp lift sta.  Once the work is all done up there, we'll probably put in a uh, a canned operation.  In about 4 wks we'll have a grinder pump & everything up there to take the sewage & put it in to where it goes & everybody will be hooked up on that;  from Env'l Landscaping thru the T-shirt shop, Sportsworld Screenprinting. 


The water co I think has everything capped off.  Did they get it done today, Joe? JEM: The water line was abandoned on Friday at AL which just includes to - there's some discussion about whether the line needs to be grouted or whether the contractor's gonna chase it out over the Arnold's levee.  DC:  Ok, that'll be problems that we'll work out with the contractor at our Progress Mtg on Thurs. 


3/15/04 LEV Section  3 of  16


Also, Beckett's Plaza has been uh worked out.  TW & JM worked out how they're gonna relocate some manholes up there with the COE.  & also we've located all the sewer lines hopefully, in the const area in Beckett's Plaza & that work will probably be proceeding in the next month;  they'll start working in Beckett's Plaza & hookin' all that up. 


EM:  He also capped the main behind Meramec Valley Plaza.  DC: Ok.  EM:  Or at least they're in the process of doing it.  DC: That was surveyed last wk or a wk before & we've located the water lines.  I was there last Fri with Jim when he was talkin' to Kokesh & they're gonna hook the lines up & everything.  So there's been a lot of work goin' on with the people in VP, gettin' this sort of lot of loose ends tied up so the contractor can continue on with this contract.  Tom, have you got -


3/15/04 LEV Section  4 of  16


TW: The lift sta will have 24-hrs of storage & it will have a cell phone that will call the PW Dept, but we will have enough storage.  It's gonna be a duplex lift sta, grinder pump sta.  We convinced MSD NOT to go with the full-scale lift sta that they wanted to the point where the Kena pump sta was costing the city about 250 to $270,000.  This one will cost, which when final, it will be about $50,000. 


So the difference tho between Kena's sta & AL's will be that AL will have to be maintained by the city vs Kena is gonna be turned over to MSD.  Now, that's the latest discussion.  At some point, MSD may take that over I suspect;  if not, they _ _ _ it still has been designed in accordance with their blessing;  but for right now, the pre-conditions, we will have to maintain it. 


Now, as part of the temp pump that's in place now, that same pump could be utilized to replace a pump that may fail in the future.  So in essence, we'll have 3 pumps;  one of 'em will be held in sha.  So the two will be installed;  the one will be as a replacemt if another pump goes bad.  So that's kind of what (the thing?) that we don't want. 


Now, on Kena, uh Kena, the base for the new lift sta was set today.  So the excavation was opened up & the new base was excavated.  So that part of the project is also progressing.  Jim & I were down there today.  Bommarito was installing the base uh the base of that uh set the _ _ (& pack?). 


So that's a little bit of background about AL.  & that will have a 24-hr storage within the lift sta which would give Jim time to replace a pump or any loss being on the flood by cell phone technology.  So that gives us plenty of time to do something. 


CLM:  That's a good job gettin' that worked out & gettin' MSD in agreemt.  TW:  It's been interesting.  DC:  I was gone for about 2 wks & it's all sort of comin' together. TW: So really, the only remaining issue that we have on utilities that we are aware of now, is the part comin' (in a van?).  Most of that I think has been finalized over the last couple days with Jim. 


DC: They were supposed to have some mtg.  I don't know whether the contractor or whoever had a mtg with the Am Water Co this wk.  Or are they plannin' on this wk?  Or is it gonna be Thurs at our mtg?  TW: We talked about it in one of our Progress Mtgs in the const trailer about setting up a mtg, but I think as of what I know right now, that maybe it will be avoided.  Jim & I & I think Joe & it's been dealing directly with the people at the water co & Eric.  & so right now, I'm not sure we need that big mtg. 


We talked that if we needed some more horsepower & the water co wasn't cooperating the way we would like, we would then bring them before the COE at the const trailer again.  I can't say if that's gonna be necessary right now or not.  If we run into another glitch with the water co, I believe we'll pull them on the COE & make them explain directly to the COE why things aren't progressing if we don't make some more progress this wk;  'cause that's always a nice threat.  DC:  Right.  TW:  But we have held off on that threat, but we will use it if we need that. 


DM:  Tom, you said it has a cell phone if it shuts down & lets PW Director know that something is _ - TW:  Yes, or whoever may be on call for that particular & I think Jim was in the process of getting the lowest possible service plan thru Nextel.  It may never go down with that phone call,  however, you probably will have to spend 20 or $25/mo for that service for that particular pump. 


3/15/04 LEV Section  5 of  16


TB:  The water co, you said if you want 'em, what was that bit they were really gonna build the uh main for the (brow?), the (expanded or abandoned?) ones for _ _ _ _ _.  TW:  That's gone back & forth.  Actually, probably, maybe JM can talk about the problems within the bd mtg tonight.  Uh the latest version I obviously do not know because they've gone back & forth so many times.  Actually, I think the latest version, I talked to Jim about it today was, they had actually put a hybrid right in the toe of the levee! 


JEM: They were gonna install it.  I had a conversation Friday with him.  & I couldn't talk 'em out of it, but they were talkin' about _ _ _ _ - DC:  Right.  RW:  Is that the one on Meramec Sta Rd?  JEM:  On River Rd, right where you go underneath the RR tracks er the hwy.  They were gonna abandon the old hydrant & put another one in 10' away from it. 


RW:  They wanted to remove that one completely.  (DC chuckles)  & I gave 'em our position to remove that one.  JEM:  No, you're talkin' about the one on the other side - ?:  on the other side.  JEM: river by the houses.  Yeah, we're still negotiatin' that one. DM: You're talkin' the west side of 141, aren't you?  JEM:  We're talkin' on the west side of 141. 


RW:  They were supposed to move that one north;  not south. (DC chuckles) JEM:  They were gonna move it north, like 10' of its current location & install another one towards up by Env'l Landscaping.  RW:  Right, that's the one I told 'em to set there.  JEM:  The one by Env'l, but they were gonna put another one 10' north of the existing one on River, practically _ - DC:  Right there where there's another one down there on the corner. 


RW:  I was shocked they would even do that because they won't do that without a resolution.  JEM: They were gonna retire the one - RW: Right.  JEM:  & replace it with a new one.  RW:  They won't do that without a resolution from me & the city passin' a like resolution.  JEM:  Right, but I think it was _ - RW:  Somebody didn't know what they was doin' there. JEM: _ _ _ - RW:  Yeah.  DC: (chuckling) Am Water Co, I mean - JW: Maybe they're bein' greedy.  RW: Most of those people are very easy to deal with.  I'm shocked to hear that news that you're puttin' out there.  CLM: _ restore the water system.  TW:  It's a fact;  it's been a rollercoaster.  DC: It is!  RW:  Who you dealin' with over there?  TW:  Lisa Wright & Ripples.  RW:  Wow!  DC: It has been one raha, yes;  I mean these guys -


TW:  Originally the line that served Meramec Plaza was supposed to - Eric & I met with them at their office a month ago - was going to go on the west side of their facility, parallel to 141.  That's what we agreed because they had a relation with MODOT.  They were gonna put that line parallel to 141.  The next thing we know, we get a call;  they're sawcutting thru the middle of Meramec Plaza's parking;  right up from that _ _, right, almost bisecting parallel to the entrance (drawing?).  Then, we had to stop 'em from doing that;  now, they're on the east side, paralleling the road.  It's been a rollercoaster. 


We think that the reason why they don't want to put it in just an esmt or ROW is because of maintenance issues regarding whether it's going to be maintained by them as public or a grinding unit as a service cmsn so that the property owners maintain it.  So it's contradictory to all the things that we've discussed.  But we understand we have to work with 'em so we're kind of, uno, cut our nose off to spite our face;  but it's been difficult.  DC: It has. TW: Really by all the _ _. 


DC:  The one I thought we'd have more trouble with was AmerenUE & we've had very little - TW: _ they've bent over backwards.  DC:  They're bent over backwards & - JEM: same cooperation on AL from Ameren, SWB, Lac Gas.  TW: & MSD _ - JEM:  Once we got over the lift sta, it's been very _ _.  DC:  Well, ok, anybody else?


3/15/04 LEV Section  6 of  16


JZ: Yeah, lemme just say a few things.  The main thing is that we really appreciate all the support the city's been giving to the project & the contractor in this last month.  We always _ _ I don't want to reiterate everything, but uno, the buildings, the sanitary sewers, the water & so forth - tremendous amt of support & it's been very helpful & a lot of progress has been made.  I think we're compliant of course in opening up AL & we're making good progress on the overall project in part because of help from the city.  In general, Item 4B, I know the contractor is making great progress as far as we're concerned. _ _ _ -  DC: Oh, yes, I mean it's - every time I go thru there I'm amazed at how much they're actually gettin' done & what it looks like. JZ: _ _ take the opportunity to drive along River Rd & see what's happening from one little of the project to another, it's _ _. 


Uh I think we might still want to have that mtg with uh the water co just because there's so many "ques" & points uh that, that we would just, just be to try to understand & uh they have an understanding of what's gonna be done & when it's gonna be done - that kind of thing.  TW: I'll talk to Jim tonight & let's see if we can get it up the coming Thurs.  JZ:  That would be good. 


3/15/04 LEV - Section  7 of  16


I'm not sure everybody - I know the mayor's aware of this as some people are, but the COE's Contractor notified us in late Fed that they will be running out of funds;  they will have earnings that exceed the amt of funds that are in our const contract by the end of March.  So we have nothing left to pay the contractor at the end of March.  CLM:  That's for the rest of the FY, Sept 30th.  JZ:  & we wrote a letter back to the contractor saying at this point in time, we have zero funds available for the remainder of the FY.  So that's, that's a problem! 


Now the contractor is saying that they plan to keep working & that's, that's the good thing uno;  as far as we know, they're gonna keep working.  We don't know if they're gonna keep working thru the rest of the contract or just what, but at least at this point _ - DC: (chuckles) They say - JZ: there's no indication that - DC:  they're gonna keep working.  JZ:  that they're gonna stop working.


So in that case, we'll see progress in the field & our only problem will be that we'll have to pay interest thru the contract.  Interest is at 4% just for info _ _ _ _  just a rate we were paying contractors _ _ make our payments (to or too?).  So they're interest will build up. 


3/15/04 LEV Section  8 of  16


Uh, regarding, uno, the problem with getting funds, the COE had a mtg last wk on Tues with uh the city & uh our entire top mgmt group;  & we're havin' a (find?) with Mr. Jim Mitas (in there or & they're?) _ came out & he was on the phone with us also, but & the mayor, but _ _ _ _ _ the mtg with us & talked about, uno, our strategy for trying to get funds for the project.  Basically, our strategy in general is to ask for funds that we need every opportunity we get!


At this point in time, it's time to be asking for the FY 05 funds so we're letting people know that if we get no add'l funds in FY 04, we'll need enough money in FY 05 to pay the contractor for FY 04 & to pay the contractor to finish the job in FY 05.  So there's a large # that's been put out there for& we've asked for that money


Meanwhile, we're asking for money to be transferred into the project for FY 04.  We're asking the cgsm if there's any possibility of transferring funds into the project in FY 04.  But even in the summertime, we'll be asking for FY 06 money to have.  At that point in time we'll ask for uh everything that is not in the budget officially.  We'll be asking for that to be in the FY 06 budget so that - we're trying to get the funds to pay the contractor as quickly as possible & not have the interest build up;  not have the contractor get discouraged & decide to uh to complete the job. 


3/15/04 LEV Section  9 of  16


CLM:  If I could, Jim, we have contacted the delegation & uh they know _ _ _dition to Cgsm Akin _ _ _ Jim Mitas - I've had following discussions with Jim Mitas.  See Jim Mitas was here tonight, wantin' to leave because his father's had some very serious surgery a couple wks ago & _ _ back from the Florida reunion;  be over at the end of May & he's havin' emergency surgery right now.  & Jim had to get back to the phone to be available to him;  do what he could for his dad.


But we've also talked with the other, with staff of the other, his delegation. They're fully aware of the contractor's relations;  we need funds to fill in, the fact that _ _ _ _ _ the contractor & that the contractor's formally indicated he would continue working but we need money.  Working in consent under the contract that uh the supplemental aprops for 04 _ _ _ _ know there'll be a Supplemental  Aprops Bill from the Water Cmte.  & every indication of that would go in his budget & not only be - the money is considered an EMERGENCY requiremt.  See this is not considered an emergency, but that they would be considering supplemental aprops of for projects that are short of funds like for this budget. 


In addition, uh they're well aware of the fact that there could be funds becoming available from within the COE that could be - budget system during this FY. They're all aware of the fact that we'd appreciate any assistance that we can get.  We've known that the Chief of Eng' people in Washington - how important it is for whatever funds available, being available for transfer into the St L Dist for this project.  We've also given them a capability figure that uno will get us thru  '05 & _ _ _.


So we're working & I'd like to add that uh I thought it was a very good move that the district had this mtg & all the key people were in that, the mtg between both the city, reps of the city.  & I think it was a very good session.  They're all well aware of what is being done & that must be done & I think we got everything working that can be worked to try to get as much money into the contract this CURRENT FY as possible.  & also assuming that we get no more money in this FY, we're going to the delegation & asking them to ask the Congress to aprop the FULL amt of money that the COE  would need to finish paying the contractor if they get no more money this yr. 


Sounds like we're kind of working at odds against each other, against each one, but we're not.  We're pushing all 3 buttons:  supplemental aprops for this to get more money from the Congress in this FY & (taking?) the Chief of Eng' office in Wash to transfer funds to St Louis as they become available from outside the dist.  The dist is gonna get the money in, some money inside the dist;  at the same time, letting the Congress know what - asking them to push for getting the full amt aprop'd in 05 to pay the contractor, assuming that no more money is being develable this yr. (silence)  Does anybody have any ques about that confusing situation (chuckle)?


DM:  How soon will we know when monies can be transfers?  Like I think August is what I heard.  CLM:  Yeah, they were talkin' about July, August as when the project mgrs thruout for the rest of the COE Districts begin to realize that they can't use all their funds.  But actually, my experience has been that as early as May, there are indications for some projects, that they're going to be STUCK with the money. 


The reason that - the way the system works is if you ask for more money than you end up being able to use, that reflects upon the dist's overall performance rating within the div & reflects upon the div's overall rating as far as Wash's concerned.  So everybody is encouraged, once they feel like they're definitely gonna have more money than they can end of up using for their project, to report it as Surplus.  & once it is reported to the dist office, then the dist program people look at the other projects that the dist sees if they can transfer from one of their own projects.  Once they realize that they can't use the money at all, then they'll report it to div hdqtrs.  The div hdqtrs then looks at ALL the dists in their div, other than that dist, to see if the other dists is what I'm saying, & any monies that they feel like they can't use, they don't wanna get stuck with at the div level to be a blank porch if they report it to Wash;  & then that's when it becomes to the larger clock. 


What we're tryin' to do is encourage both the Div Hdqtrs & Wash Hdqtrs that as funds become available that they can use to apply to other projects, that #1 is fully aware of the fact that we have a project that's very deserving, any monies that are available should be transferred in when it's prudent.  As Jim said, the city & the COE are working very closely together _ that _ _ _.  This is certainly going to give us the end towards making things happen one way or the other & maybe all 3 ways. (silence)


3/15/04 LEV Section  10 of  16


JZ:  The city also wrote a letter to the - CLM:  Yes, in fact I thought the mayor might wanna mention that.  DM:  Yeah, it would help if EM talked with 'em.  JZ, the letter went out askin' each of our Senators plus Cgsm Akin that if anything they could do to get more money to us;  appreciate everybody's support & get it together. CLM:  The letter from the mayor basically said, uno, here are the problems & here are ways that we need help;  this is the situation;  we appreciate all the help you've given us in the past;  we're on the last part of this project now & we could have a flood at any time;  so please do what you can to figure out various ways to approve it.


DM: See a flood in the last yr if it's within - seein' if any (flyin'?) there in the distance & water come right thru (someone coughs) - CLM:  Uno, & that letter included this photograph that you're all looking at, the flood of 94, flood of 94.  DM:  I think people don't realize it was actually higher in 94 than 93.  So I'm glad this letter did go out to help demonstrate that - worse than what the Missouri & Mississippi backing up did to us prior.  


3/15/04 LEV Section  11 of  16


DC:  Anthing else, Jim?  Anybody else on Item A, 4B Update?  Ok, Item A1, JLB on AL. JLB: What's a _ _ to demolition up there on AL?  JEM:  Yesterday 3:00, er Saturday at 3:00.  CLM: More or less (chuckle).  JLB:  What did the bid specs say - DM:  Jim was still there that they could finish it up.  So appreciate you bein' down there.  JLB:  Who wrote the bid specs on that?  JEM:  I did.  JLB: What was the completion date on the bid specs?  JEM: They had a push-fwd time in it due to asbestos testing. 


JLB:  How much asbestos did we find up there?  JEM:  We had to abate about $7000 worth of asbestos.  I'd have to get the sheet out of my office to tell you exactly what it was by the time I talk various houses (& stuck gravel?) some of it was linoleum, sheet goods that had asbestos-containing materials on the backing of it.  Uh, there was no drywall to go in compound abate it. 


CLM:  Joe, Isn't it true that uh the cost of our env'l consultant was directly in use for it even tho it's much more than the cost?  JEM:  Uh I spoke - CLM: Working with, work, but not about you, working very closely with Joe & Joe deserves a lot of credit _ -


JEM:  I spoke with Andy about it. The uh the difficulty of this demolition is that we gained ownership of the last piece of property the same day that the bid specs went out to bid.  We didn't have time to do the asbestos audit prior to sending it out to bid because of the tight timeframe for completion of the time of ownership


Um the contractor that was doing the asbestos testing was the subcontractor doin' asbestos abatemt contractor who was the subcontractor to demolition contractor.  If you follow that line (CLM chuckles), the asbestos abatemt contractor doesn't make any money unless he takes asbestos out. So his objective is to have the least amt of testing done & the most amt of asbestos removed.  Um it required significant argumts on the telephone to get the testing done in order to be able to reduce the abatemt to the level that was required by law which is supposed to be abated. 


CLM:  Even tho we got it all for 7000 bucks.  JEM:  7000 & change.  JLB: So who's cost is that?  JEM:  The city's.  JLB:  So the actual total cost for that went up to what now?  JEM:  Total cost of demolition, uh there was a modified demolition method that had to be utilized um to comply with OSHA requiremts & the total cost of demolition is less than $50,000.  The final #'s not determined because we have to get (an anewstee vested?) up.  It will not be anywhere - it will be less than $47,000. 


3/15/04 LEV - Section  12 of  16


JLB:  Alright.  Back to my 2nd ques on that uh bid spec that went out, what was the completion date on that was supposed to be?  JEM:  I'd have to refer to it to determine that date based upon no asbestos.  Once asbestos is found, you have to give a 10-day notice to St L County before you can even begin to abate it.  So the completion date's gone at that point because St L County can allow you to go in 10 days or they can hold it for as long as they want it.  It's an env'l condition caused by St L County Air Polution Control.  CLM:  So the contractor's really off the hook. 


JEM:  The contractor at that point is giving hands low.  One gentleman in St L County who answers to no one.  DM:  Isn't it because we found it to be less than 1% is why we're able to proceed as quickly as we could?  Otherwise if it'd been 5 or 6%, we'd probably still be looking at the (pause) - JEM:  If we had not been able to get the add'l lab testing done & we had to remove material that initially they wanted to remove, the project would not be (funion?) because we would - DM:  (One's or what's) more expensive - JEM: have to remove every piece of drywall in every house.  CLM: It would cost a considerable amt.  DC:  Right.  DM:  Cost more to take it all.  JEM: It would've cost $6/sq ft for drywall.  CLM: Speak of the devil, Andy McCord just came in. 


JEM: & the est for that demolition, when I rcv'd that est, was $250,000 in abatemt, plus the demolition costs.  So instead of being a $280,000 demolition project, the project is right now at 47 & change & will be less than that when it's done.  MM:  47 for all - JEM:  47 for all of AL.  It took out also approx 2300 cubic yds of material.  So the demolition contract was for a whole lot more than just the houses.  In fact we need(ed?) an awful lot of other material. 


JLB:  Yeah, I know that when the contract came in that they put in a bid, we washed our hands with it & it should've been done.  I'm assuming that's what we bid out;  demolition to tear it down completely & be gone.  I didn't know we was gonna jump back in there & bail somebody out by throwin' more money into it. 


JEM:  Any time you have a demolition where you don't have the asbestos survey results, you don't know what you're getting into.  JLB: I thought that's why they had their asbestos people come out - JEM: We couldn't do the asbestos survey 'cause we didn't own the last property until the day the specs went out;  that's why they had to be written for the contractor to do the asbestos surveys. 


Normally, if we were takin' down a house that we own now, like let's say what is it Pharoah?  EM?: Pharoah.  JEM: What we'll do on that house when it's time to tear it down, is we'll have plenty of time;  we'll get our own survey;  we'll know what needs to be pulled;  we'll be the one directing the testing lab, how we want the test performed, & then if we don't tear it down ourselves if we have to have things taken out of it by an asbestos abatemt contractor, we can write a spec, directing them how to do it & what methods will be used. 


But when you're doing it the way we had to do AL, you're telling them they need to get the testing & there's ways in which you can test drywall that will make it seem to be an asbestos-containing material when it's not.  Drywall is an assembly from finish coat thru the bottom of the drywall assembly & the first test they always do is a layered test.  A lot of joint compound has asbestos in it & nobody takes just joint compound off.  So if they find more than 1% asbestos in the joint compound, they immediately say we have to take every piece of drywall out of this house. 


The other test is, you test the whole composite sample from finishing to the back side of the drywall, put it in a Quisinart for lack of a better description, mix it up & then do a percentage on that entire composite,  & if that entire composite is less than 1%, you don't have to do anything, which is what indeed happened on these houses.  In order to get them to order those tests, uh I had to convince the demolition contractors that, at $250,000, there would be no contract. 


DM:  When you say don't do anything, there's still some requiremts when they're taking it down.  As I recall when you were explaining it, they have to wear white suits & the fancy little packs to do the testing.  JEM:  They have air monitoring that has to be done for OSHA for the employees & - DM:  So that's part of the add'l cost - JEM: workers.  They have to use water to control dust & that's it.  DM:  So that's part of the add'l cost 'cause they had to go do that testing. 


JEM:  You have to have asbestos-trained & certified people on-site, doing the demolition, so that runs your man-hr costs up & requires you to have different people on-site.  You have to have air monitoring being done during cold periods, creates worker & those air-monitoring samples have to be tested after the fact.  & then you have employees maintain records on each employee for 30 yrs.  Which is not our problem, it's the contractor's problem & of course because of that increased cost, your price is gonna go up.


JLB:  So we didn't exclude that - we didn't put an insurance thing in there for anything like that, in the bid specs or anything?  JEM:  I don't what you mean by insurance.  JLB:  Because I specifically asked that ques out in the hallway.  EM was present I believe.  I didn't ask him specifically, but I don't know if you came in afterwards.  It was when they called you on the Nextel & said someone was over there askin' about asbestos & stuff & that was me.  & it was explained to me that all this was gonna be in the bid specs & they were gonna have to take care of everything.  Now to my understanding last mtg, the bids were approved prior to comin' to the cmte. So I assumed that all these ques were asked & answered & into the bid.


JEM:  Well, I guess I have to ask you a reciprocal ques 'cause I'm not understanding it.  The bid specs as you were well aware, required you to do asbestos testing.  So how can our bid specs possibly include the cost of removing asbestos when you don't know it's there?  JLB:  I thought we put specs out for demolition.  JEM:  We did.  JLB: Demolition. 


JEM: & the demolition spec says, if you bid on it & you got the job & it's Brust Demolition - JLB:  I have to test the asbestos.  JEM:  You have to test for asbestos & it also required that you were then gonna submit me a price 'cause your base price isn't gonna include your asbestos.  Your base price is gonna include demolition & the haul.  You're gonna submit me another price based upon asbestos removal. 


Each contractor was instructed to give me a unit cost for removal of asbestos.  Each contractor that bid on the project;  pick up the bid specs & bid.  So each one had an attached unit cost of X # of $/sq ft for drywall, X # of $/sq ft for linoleum, etc;  that was all included in the bid spec.  JLB:  That's what I'm tryin' to say, we never did see none of the bids that actually came in.  We just got mean-bidded so much;  this co bidded so much & we really didn't know how it all broke down & how much more it would cost the project.  Uno, that's, that's all I'm sayin'. 


DM:  We knew it'd be the $6/sq ft if it would've been worst case asbestos completely thruout the drywall, but fortunately it was just in the tape.  JLB:  Who knew that?  DM:  I think it was mentioned last mtg.  JEM:  It was all part of the public bid opening process when we opened the bids & it was all in the info that was given to the - DC:  Contractor.  JEM:  uh mayor - DC:  Right.  JEM: & it was time to send, they had to sign the contract & move fwd.


MM:  What was Purdy paid?  JEM: Nothing.  Mr McCord was holdin' to me on the telephone & if I get a bill for it, I'll be happy to pay it.  CLM:  Should've gone for a percentage on the money saved on that.  JEM:  I should've gone for a percentage on money saved.  (CLM chuckles) DC:  Ok, does that answer your ques, Jim?  JLB:  Pretty much. 


3/15/04 LEV - Section  13 of  16


DC:  Ok, city cost share of the project & TPC - have we already covered that?  JZ:  Eric has that, the tape that showed the federal to Oct share at this point in time;  best estimates.  EM:  Yeah, I'll put those in the packet.  I, I just rcv'd them today.  DC: Ok, next mtg, ok.  


I think we've already talked about the federal/sponsor funding for 04 & 05;  we've covered that.  I just wanna say that the fellas in the City VP I thank 'em very much for handlin' the way they did it;  Eric, Tom, Joe, Jim.  & I plan to thank 'em again at the ald mtg to make everybody aware that they worked, they worked awful hard to get these couple projects & get 'em goin' by the 15th & get everything runnin' so the contractor's - I think we're pretty much in the line with what the contractor has to do.  There are some little things that will be ironed out that are not any really major things.  I think they're just sort of things that we'll have to work out in our Progress mtgs on Thursday.  So I guess the next Levee Cmsn mtg will be 4/19/04.  CLM: _ _ - DC: Oh, D, CLM. 


3/15/04 LEV - Section  14 of  16


CLM:  You may remember some time ago when we talked about the possibility of seeking the congressional resolution which the city strongly supported (?) asking the Congress to pass a resolution that we authorize the COE to initiate a study to determine that there were several interests to providing add'l flood protection over & above the 100-yr level project currently under const for VP. 


You have in front of you, a 2-sided copy of 2 letters, both signed by Don Young, the Chairman of the House Cmte that oversees these type of resolutions.  (See Docs - 2/25/04 US House of Reps Resolution & Letter)  The uh resolution itself appears to be written in Greek, but that's the format that the Congress works with. 


What that really means is it tells the St Louis Dist, which will aventures at the word for the Chief of Engineers Office Hdqtrs in Washington that they're authorized to initiate a reconnaisance report to determine that there's a federal interest in providing flood protection over & above the 100-yr level for the City of VP.


The way it works is the recon study - incidentally, this project that's currently under const, did NOT go this route.  There was never a recon study done or a feasibility report because the project was authorized in part - it was deauthorized in legislation in the Meramec Parkway Basin. 


So this will trigger a letter from the Chief of Engs, citing funds, also legal & the funds are available, for the St L Dist Directors Dist to initiate a recon study.  The recon study, which usually takes 12-18 months, is paid at 100% fed funds.  The dist concludes, & their recommendation includes up thru the COE's channels, then we're supposed to go to the House Cmte that helps administrative leaders, recommending that the Congress authorize a feasibility study. 


The determination that has to be made by the St L Dist _ add'l purpose has to be in as feasible from an economic viewpoint, env'l viewpoint & eng'g viewpoint, & if all 3 of those requiremts are met, then it would be in the federal interest for 5 yrs for flood protection.  They would typically look at a 200-yr level, 250-yr level, 500-yr level (like Times Beach?).


The COE's under a lot of restrictions as far as how they arrive at economic benefits.  Basically, when you have dev that has taken place since the last month at the project, that provides more property to protect, that's generally flood protection benefits.  The benefits essentially come from flood damages prohibited.  So we were very pleased. 


& I would like to, at this time, speak with Jim Mitas who deserves all the credit for working with his counterpart in Washington, a fella that Eric & I met with back in January thru Cgsm Akin's office.  & Cgsm Akin deserves all the credit for pushing this to get the uh House Cmte to adopt this resolution. 


The next step is for funds to be made available.  Generally, the Chief of Engs office has a pot of funds made available each yr to fund these type of cgsm's perks.  We'll be working now to try to move the St L Dist up on the priority level to get funds sooner than usual at the time that max's, from the time the resolution is adopted, once the bidder goes to 4 days or 6 figures.  Does anybody have any ques about the -


3/15/04 LEV - Section  15 of  16


DM:  Yeah, Lee, as much as we've had difficulty getting the money the last, last, next fiscal yrs I guess for the - will it be that hard to get money if this is approved - or hopefully it will be approved for a 500-yr study - is to try to get those monies in?  CLM:  Well, it's for the initial, the recon study, that'll be 100% federal. 


DM:  But once that is completed, I assume there's a positive result saying, yes, it's worth doing, would those monies, to do the project itself then, be each yr pullin' teeth again?  CLM:  Yeah, because getting money for feasibility studies is not as difficult as getting money to start const because the amt of monies are small. 


DM:  When they do the study, will they take into acct all this dirt that's been filled along 44 that used to take some of the water?  Because 100-yr before, say it was 400', might be 410 because of the areas that the water used to expand out to.  Will they look at all that, do uno?  CLM:  I'm gettin' into Jim's area, but basically, the study will look at the existing conditions & determine if - they will assume the 100-yr protection levee is complete & in place. Then they will look at what would be the flood damages when there are several floods of greater severity, 200-yr, 250;  used to be 100, 400 & maybe 500 depending on what the economics requiremt justified. 


Basically, you can't take credit - it's gets kind of tricky.  We went thru this in Monarch Chesterfield Valley.  You can't say, well, if we build the levee, we'll have a lot more dev take place.  The COE cannot take credit for protecting devs that would take place maybe in the future if the project was completed.  It can only take credit for devs that have been completed or are in the middle.  For example, if the devr was building for a house or a shopping ctr or what-have-you, bowling alley, if he submitted plans to the city asking for approval of his const plans, or ANY STUFF of that nature, that can be considered as being something that is in the bean;  they're not particular. 


3/15/04 LEV - Section  16 of  16


& the other thing that makes it kind of tricky is, the COE can't take credit for flood damage benefits for the 100-yr levee that's in place.  They can only take credit for the flood damages that would occur for a flood greater than the 100-yr flood, up to the level of protection that they study.  & they'll come up with several alternatives during the recon report. 


DM: Jim, just not big long description of it, but in a nutshell, would these gates have to be redone to raise 'em up?  Is there a way to - or can they be - something attached to 'em?  JZ:  I don't, I don't really know the answer to thatUno the structural engs would have to decide that.  It seems like they would have to be redone, but I don't really that as a fact. 


DM:  I hope this can all be done, but I'm just hearing the worst when they say, oh, yeah, these gates have to be this & this & that drives the cost up (someone is chuckling)  & (everything or we think?) that offsets the - against the credit.  EM:  Well, but to give you an example tho of how the project's changed, I think back in 82 when the recon was done, uh the school was probably worth about $2.5M.  I'm just pointing out the school.  Uh...(exchange tapes, during which EM said that the school's current value is $35,478,000.)


...EM:...cost benefits & it all flooded _ _- DM:  So the more businesses we get in now, the better our chances of getting _  - CLM:  That's right & it doesn't have to be just the structures & property within the existing levee. They can actually look at moving the levee out.  For example, this was done in Chesterfield Valley.  There, you couldn't really realistically move it further towards the river because it's the floodway.  In this case, you can't move it towards the river more because then you get, interferes with the floodway, but you could move the levee to the east, to the west, & to the north. 


So there's a lot of variables that the COE will be looking at.  Essentially, a recon study looks at all of these variables, but they don't go into as much detail as they would if they get approval to do a feasibility study.  Then they go back & look at the same things they looked at in the recon study, but in more detail.  They do some actual preliminary design work to further refine the costs involved.


KT:  At the same time, there is uh building going on outside the levee.  CLM:  That's right.  KT:  & it's businesses & businesses have had to uh raise their base & existing homes that are there right now, are reeling in the effort of being flooded.  CLM:  That's right, & these properties would be, they could be considered in the area that the COE could study.  But even the properties that have - because they were in the 100-yr floodplain, had to uno elevate the level of the dirt to get them to meet the requiremt to building in the floodplain, those properties are only protected from the 100-yr flood. 


So when the COE looks at the 200-yr flood, those properties would also be flooded;  so they would be protected by a 200-yr levee & therefore, that would generate flood damage benefits, flood damage costs saved which becomes the benefits.   The costs, the COE can crank that out pretty well;  uno then what est'd const costs & attach an interest rate to it that Congress specifies;  amortize it over a 50-yr life, a 100-yr life, the study kit comes out, it would cost so much per yr. 


KT: & at the same time, they were looking at to see that those businesses have generated uh enough traffic on certain roads that the gates need to be bigger.  CLM:  That could be that Jim said it would really depend upon what the current design is & what the study by the structural engs would have.  Theoretically, you could add to the gates, but realistically, you might not be able to;  you might have to replace 'em.  That's what we're having to do in Chesterfield Valley.


But there, you're going from 100-yr to 500-yr protection.  It might turn out that the degree of protection could be justified economically or this area might be 250 yrs.  Bottom line is, any add'l protection you can get is going to lead to greater protection & greater redev, dev & add jobs.  & more problems for this yr too to worry about. 


JProbert?:  Collecting taxes too.  JW:  That's the main thing;  you left out the main thing.  DM:  A month. (they laugh)  Those trucks aren't cheap.  CLM: &, & I would say that uh, I would recommend that the city publicize this resolution because it's the sort of thing that can generate a lot of positive reaction on the part of people within the area & of businesses & devrs who might be lookin' at the area & thinkin' about comin' in.  We certainly saw this in uh Chesterfield Valley.  Well before the COE completed it's recon study, uno, we didn't know whether anything else was Chesterfield Valley.  Just the fact there was this commitmt to doing something.  It certainly attracted people with businesses & they're still coming in & of course the project's not till this June. 


RW:  Motion to adjourn!  DC:  Next mtg is 4/19, 5pm, same place.  ?: I won't miss it.  (many talk at once, preparing to leave)  DC:  2nd?   ?: 2nd  _ -  RW:  Nobody wants to make - DC:  All in favor.  JW: Aye. CLM: There we go.  (Mtg is apparently over.) 





3/15/04 - To:  Mayor, VP Levee Cmsn, City Atty & BOA

Subj:  Progress/Coordination Report on Item IV-B (Phase III):


The wk of 2/9/04: Contractor ESI continues to remove washout concrete debris & Glass Plant foundation & brick debris.  The clearing & grubbing continue at the 3rd & 5th Streets gravity drain locations.  Work is progressing very rapidly even with the nasty weather conditions.  


The wk of 2/16/04:  Contractor ESI has completed the removal of the major portion of washout concrete debris.  Minor cleanup remains.  They continue to remove & crush Glass Plant foundation & brick debris & stockpile.  They continue to stockpile special waste (tires, metal & clearing debris) in Sportplex.  Clearing contractor is clearing & grubbing the area East of Pharoah & South of Pyramid Properties, & has installed project safety fencing along construction limits south of Pyramid.  Snow & ice have caused some delays this wk.