MOPR'S 5/17/04 VP LEVEE CMSN MTG MINS

 

Notes:  Mtg time:  5:07 to 6:13 pm.  No quorum. 

 

Present:  JKB,  DM,  DS,  JW,  CLM,  EM,  JZ,  TW,  DC,  RW,  KT (arrived 5:30).  (Excused:  TB & BW)

 

Also present:  Jim Mitas of Cgsm Akin's office (left 5:50);  Vivian Blackman, VP Resident & Business Owner;  JEM;   Andy McCord of DG Purdy.


 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  1  of  20

 

DC: Call this mtg to order. (roll call - see above)  JW:  Mr. TB asked to be excused;  he's workin' tonight.  I don't think he's gonna make the Bd mtg either.  DC:  BW, he's excused;  he's gone.  We've got 1, 2, 3, 4;  we can't have another mtg tonight.  CLM:  Jim Mitas & Andy McCord are here too.  DC:  Yeah, well I _ _ _ _ _ _.  (Pledge Allegiance) 

 

Uh does anybody have any additions or deletions to the agenda?  I have one;  I'll put it under 7D;  it's MM, #8 Arnold's Dr.  JW:  That's _ _ _ _ -  DC:  You need one of them?  (agenda)  JW:  I got one mailed to me but I didn't go home.  MM:  Is there a quorum?  DC:  No, ma'am, we don't CLM:  Since I did that last time, I'm not gonna make that salami no more.  JW:  (chuckles)  Always cuts back on the odds of gettin' done. 

 

DC:  We'll have a little bit of a mtg here.  We don't have a quorum here so we'll just uh go with the agenda.  Uhh, we didn't have a mtg last, a quorum last mtg & we didn't have one;  so we'll just hold the March mins over again to the 15th.  Everybody hang onto 'em;  bring 'em to ya the next time. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  2  of  20

 

Ok, discussion items - Item 4B Update - JZ, let's start with you.  Got anything?  JZ:  Yeah, I got a few things.  DC:  Ok.  JZ:  During the month of April, uh ESI gave us an invoice for a little bit over, well, almost uh $785,000 & so we paid the contractor all the money we had left in the till which was $187,000 & some change.  & so um we are now out of money to pay the contractor as of uno their April paymt.  We owe them uh about $598,000.  Uh we owe interest - we owe them that much money & we're starting to accrue interest on $598,000 uh for their April bill.

 

CLM:  Jim, What - do you know what the interest rate is?  JZ:  Uhh I think it's 4%.  CLM:  The reason I asked is I wondered  _ - JW: (background) _ oughta get in on that.  CLM: _ consideration _ _ - JZ:  Well, no, it, it's, it's, it's specified in a, in the contract.  Uno it's some, some federal rate that's described in the contract, but uno - CLM:  Yeah, it's fixed by - JZ:  No - CLM:  with a discount.  JZ:  I believe that that point in time, it's about 4%.  EM:  I guess we cost-share that too, don't we?  JZ:  Yes.  - ?: Ha, ha, ha! 

 

CLM:  That's why I asked the question.  JZ:  Right.  EM:  So we pay 1% kind of, sort of.  JZ:  Yep, it's kind of, sort of;  right.  CLM:  I'm just wonderin' if the city has the wherewithal that would deem better, best from the city's funds to pay the contractor & use subordinate - JZ:  No, you - it's really not something that we can do uh legally without going thru the Committees of Congress to get their permission to, to have  the sponsor pay it ahead of what they normally would owe - CLM:  Yeah, but that - JZ:  based on ahead of what the federal gov't is paying.   CLM:   That would not be difficult to do, but -

 

TW:  Yeah, but wouldn't the uh - pretty soon that's gonna start addin' up quite a bit probably beyond what the city's resources are - CLM:  No, that's what - TW:  under TIF.  CLM:  I'm sayin';  depending upon the city's resources _ - JZ:  Next month -  TW:  WELL BEYOND the - CLM:  If the interest rates - what I'm sayin' is, if the interest rates make it worthwhile, anything the city paid, even just a small amount, they will save money even if the - JZ:  We talked about this before. JMitas:  Like in February. 

 

JZ:  Um generally, they, we've been advised that uno you have to go thru the 2 channels, thru the Chief' office, thru the Sec'y of the Army's & the answer is generally NO ! (chuckle) uno we're not gonna do this.  So it's - CLM:  Only then the COE will make - JZ&CLM:  this work - JZ: that uh doesn't really get you what you, what you'd wanna do;  um that's what we've heard. 

 

CLM:  'cause I know of instances where unless - JZ:  I know - CLM:  the sponsor has advanced funds in order to expedite - JZ:  I'm just gonna give you a # off the top of my head;  uh something that, that uh const, I mean for this job, Mike Feldman prepared uh an est & there would be like $45,000 worth of interest earned if the contractor continues to earn on his low projected, on the lower of the 2 projected earnings uh schedules that the contractor prepared, by uh 12/1, we will have paid, but we will owe about $45,000 worth of interests;  just to give you uh some framework of, of the cost. 

 

TW:  That's the total amount owed?  JZ:  That's based - TW:  & the city is a 4th _ - JZ:  on this model - CLM:  be 12/1.  JZ:  That's the total interest owed.  TW:  & so the city would be about $10,000. 

 

JZ:  Well, the city doesn't really owe uh 25%.  The city's cost share is more complex than that.  It takes into account the plans & relocations &, & uh - CLM:  Uno that raises an interesting point.  I've never come across this before, but from a rational viewpoint,  I don't know about the legal viewpoint, Eric, but in the rational viewpoint, this has, this has occurred thru no fault of the local sponsor.  JZ:  Yeah, I know it.  CLM:  So you really have to wonder whether the local sponsor, under the Local Coop Agreemt, LCA, really should there, could legally be held accountable for that? 

 

JZ:  I think that ques has been asked in other projects also & the answer is that it's just part of the project cost uno & that's unfortunate, but uh - MM:  Does it say that in the LCA?  JZ:  It just talks about all, all costs of the project;  all costs incurred for the project.  CLM:  Well, no need to take up more time.  That's, that's somethin' that maybe we need to legally discuss that soon.  If you just send a request up thru, they oughta consider our viewpoint happenin', but if you send a request up thru & you have an inquiry made thru the -

 

JZ:  Uno I think we could always, we can always um go that route if, if the sponsor really wants us to uno.  CLM:  Can we - we need to talk about that later.  JZ:  We can certainly uh prepare, prepare whatever we need to prepare & go that route.  CLM:  Why don't we - JZ:  We finally got, arrived at the point where nex ya are accummulating interest now.  CLM:  Yeah, let's, let's discuss it later.  JZ:  & uh - CLM:  (I just got some or we'll discuss some?) ideals on the Missourians. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  3 of  20

 

JZ:  Just, just as a projection, we, we project that uhm contractor's gonna earn about $900,000 during the month of May.  So that'll be another chunck of money & we, we've projected by the time we get to the end of the FY, we will be short about 6.7 Million. 

 

TW:  & the FY ends?  JZ:  End of Sept.  CLM:  9/30.  ?: Another month!  JZ:  Um - TW:  That's the good news!  (they chuckle)  JZ:  Yeah, I mean that's, that, that's, that's also the good news is right;  uno the contractor's still working;  the contractor's still making progress.  CLM:  Every bout has a surround.  JZ:  Yeah.   JW:  Might  change the name of City Hall to ESI.  (they laugh.)  JZ:  Um - CLM:  Put their name on it, then maybe they'll pay for it.  JZ:  So, Eric, here, here's a copy of the email with the exact $'s on there;  what we - for, for the April invoice.  Um - JW:  Write 'em a check, Donny, write 'em a check.  DS:  (chuckle) Ok. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section   4 of  20

 

JZ:  There's an awful lot goin' on with, with the uh const effort & I'm sure Dave & others - Eric's been heavily involved.  Um I don't know if I should go into - I don't think I WILL go into ALL the details, but um one, one of the things that we've been talking about for quite a while, Eric, is the, is this uh new pipe that we're gonna build between Hwy 141 drain & Fishpot Det Pond & we do finally have the uh contractor's proposal back.  I just got this today.  Uh there's a lot of work involved with that particular modification. 

 

Only a portion of that is the city's & that was the sanitary sewer relocation of those 2 manholes & pipe & so forth & the # of, in the proposal is uh $22,800.  ?:  Which was cheaper than what we thought - JZ:  So we know that we had - ?:  It's just a backhoe!  JZ:  that's a little bit lower than the gov't est that I remember.  ?: (whisper) It's a crime.  JZ:  That's what they negotiated.  & I'm gonna be uh sending you a uno a letter, requesting that money uh some time in the next few days.  EM:  Oquay.  JZ:  Ok. 

 

TW:  &, mayor, just so uno, we've looked at that with Jim & that does seem like a waste for that;  'cause, 'cause with it wasn't going to be reasonable.  We were going to consider using an outside contractor;  it's probably not prudent to do that in this particular case.  DM?: (Ok?).  TW:  But I was concerned - JZ:  Yeah.  TW:  as well as uno the rest of the city uh representation that uh we, we've been looking at those issues;  so just so uno it doesn't seem reasonable 'cause there's quite a bit of relocaction & shoring & things goin' on.  Apparently that sanitary sewer line is in a little different location;  comes out a different direction than what everybody (agreed?) (that or than?) the COE had anticipated, so

 

CLM:  I think it's good that the contractor's aware that (you're arguing or you are doing ?) it.  JZ:  Yeah, I think so too.  I, I think those _ - TW:  I expressed my concern in one of the levee mtgs & so as well did Eric, so.  CLM:  Yeah, Eric mentioned it too. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  5  of  20

 

JZ:  Um another thing that's been discussed an awful lot since we met last time, the Levee Cmsn met, is the amount of flow coming uh basically out of the ground water & into the 3rd St gravity drain;  the existing uh 3rd St - I'm sorry, the storm sewer;  the city storm sewer.  Um when we talked last time, people were kind of wondering what happens if uh, uh the Cotton plant is ever sold & they start using their pumps again.  & decided that, well, if that ever happens, we, we need to really think about  whether that's wise or not;  if the city needs to consult with the COE. 

 

But um they're, they're are not, they're fully aware of 2 on-going operations where water's pumped into this 3rd St drain right now.  & so there's a continuous flow coming down the pipe that our contractor has to deal with that, that was not really discussed in the contract.  We, we, the contract is written as if it's a storm & then periodically you got storm events & water comes down the pipe & the contractor has to deal with that!  But this continuous flow, one of 'em's coming from Reichold Chemical Co;  uh who, who's pumping water out of the ground water & using it in their cooling process & then discharging into the 3rd St drain.  & the flows for that um evidently vary from like 25 gal/min to 400 gal/min & the avg flow is something like 75 gal/min coming out of Reichold Chemical Co. 

 

& then besides that, there's the clean-up operation over at Wainwright Industries;  the Superfund site.  & they have been working on this Superfund clean-up um for some time now & just last wk, they increased their discharge;  they increased the amt of water that are pumping out & treating & discharging.  Uh it, it now is  about 75 gal/min, but it can be max'd at like 100 gal/min from what I understand from, from uh Wainwright as well as from the MDNR. 

 

So, we are, we are trying - we are struggling really, to come up with a solution of how they, we can build out 3rd St gravity drain system with this water comin' down the pipe.  & we're looking at 3 options.  One option is to, to handle both the uh Reichold Chemical discharge & the Wainwright Industries' discharge by having them get re-routed to a sanitary system & pumped over to MSD for 3 or 4 wks while our contractor is doin' this work, ok

 

& Reichold has developed a cost est for that & they put it in, presented it to the COE & the contractor & the city.  It involves about $20,000 of uh, approx $20,000 worth of physical work including contingencies & another $5,000 of fees to MSD for takin' the water.  So uh 25,000 roughly, counting 25% contingencies.

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  6  of  20

 

& uh the, the Wainwright flow, uno, we, we've been struggling to find out whether it's feasible to take that to a sanitary sewer pipe & what the cost would be with that.  & I think uh I've talked with them several times & also, I talked with JM today & um there seems to be a couple of options where they could connect it to sanitary system;  & JM is gonna talk with you & city officials tonight & see if he can get permission to go over there, uh meet with the Env'l Compliance Mgr for Wainwright & uno understand the whole system;  understand the sanitary sewers & come & develop a plan for connecting to the sanitary system. 

 

& again I assume it's - if it goes to the sanitary system, MSD has to accept it & there will be a fee to go to MS, uno to pay to MSD again.  Um I, I've coordinated with MSD;  they say they've approved getting the water from  Reichold.  They gave us the name of the person who, who people need to coordinate with at MSD to see if they can accept this water from Wainwright which, for, for env'l reasons, there's no problem that I know;  there's just a matter of, of getting it accepted by MSD.

 

 Anyway, so that's one, that's one option.  We need to get the cost for the Wainwright operation, okBoth, both uh, both these discharges from, from Reichold & Wainwright, they're a problem for const, for our const effort, but they're also a problem that needs to be considered during operation of the project when we're finished;  uno when we, when the COE's finished & the levee' s built & the city's operating the project, we've got a det reservoir that is, is gonna be accepting water from storm run-off & from, from underseepage &, & also this water from these 2 discharges.  Uh from what I understand from MDNR, the Wainwright discharges can be stopped during any flood emerg.  So they just stop clean-up ops.  I mean there has to be some coordination about that, but they could stop their clean-up op & not discharge into the det area, & fill up that volume.  Ok? 

 

TW:  Uh when is the Wainwright clean-up supposed to be finished?  JZ:  Uno all I've heard is it's gonna be yrs;  it's gonna be YRS from now before they're finished.  I don't really have anything more accurate than that.  Andy:  I don't think anybody knows _ _  the city to have to -  They're  basically unpredictable.  JZ:  Yeah, so I think people are forecasting it's gonna take yrs _ - CLM:  We have to assume - JZ:  I think it's not gonna be uno 100 yrs (chuckle), but it's gonna be enough yrs that it may certainly be still operating when, with some flood event (someone coughs) _. 

 

EM:  I, I'm assuming they have a target level on the, their quantity of PC_ uh the ground water;  & once it reaches that, then they can cease.  TW:  I've assumed it.  JZ:  Andy probably knows more about that than - Andy:  If, if it - JZ:  I mean than I do.  Andy:  _ves out here, - JZ:  that's for sure.  Andy:  I'd (agree?) with - TW:  That may affect how we - Andy:  based on a lot of telephone data & when they reach a certain point, they'll be able to predict a bit better & then close it down at some points they feel they're on top of it. 

 

TW:  Yeah, 'cause if there WAS a predictable time, then that WOULD affect our decision, potentially.  JZ:  Yeah.  I guess uno again, my, my point is that um they can close down during a flood event so maybe we don't have to worry about Wainwright uno - CLM:  See 'em knock the other one down.  JZ:  But Reichold uno they like to operate at um at capacity so they can make a profit.  & so they, they certainly wanna keep operating as long as they can & uh they have closed down in the past from flooding & they have slowed down in the past because of flooding, but uh uno -

 

CLM:  Don't you think that uh something could be ready into the ops manual that would give the city the hammer to tell them to cease & desist under certain conditions?  JZ:  Yeah, or uno again, that's a possibility I guess.  I mean uno it's probably a legal ques.  Um - CLM:  Well, I'm thinkin' that you could - DC:  There's no legal ques with Reichold.  I sit in on the mtg & Reichold more or less told us if we don't solve the problem, they'll leave VP.  DM:  Then that solves the problem.  JW:  Oh, I'd miss that smell.  DM:  Really!  (they laugh) & all the (slug?).  I think we'd help 'em pack.

 

DC:  Basically, we had a mtg, what was it, Fri & that's basically what they said.  JZ:  I don't like to worry about that 1st (chuckle).   DC:  If we don't do what they - if they don't wanna do - we don't do what they want us to do or give us this, that they will consider closin' the plant because they work on a, whatever a level & that was - EM:  I, I'm not sure - Ken May was there acting on behlaf of, what, a mgr & a vice-mgr?  He was pretty far down the totem pole - but yeah, I, I think he said a lot of things that maybe -

 

DM:  We could run that new street right thru the middle of Reichold & - CLM:  Aw, hey! (they chuckle)  DM:  & solve all kinds of problems.  (DC chuckles)  EM:  Be quite an urban renewal, but uh - DM:  Yes, it would.  (train whistling by)  EM:  But uh, I, I suspect that, that what we're going to do is end up with an agreemt with Reichold;  it's not gonna be for $25,000 in my est.  We're not gonna buy them new pumps &, & not have ownership of, of the property uh &, & just give them a long-term enhancemt over there.  But uh basically what they're looking for is a system to hook - they, they indicated that they have uh 100% of their cooling water is used in the, in - 100% of all water is used in cooling & 10% of this water is discharged because they're not efficient enough to recirculate it.  & this 10% is the discharge that we're interested in solving & in the short-term, they said it would be about $25,000 to buy them a pump to do the design &, & uh do the uh couplings to the MSD & pay for uh disposal fees with MSD to operate it for a month.  CLM:  & the one-wk cruise to the CEO & his wife.  EM:  (chuckle) Yeah, probably!  Uh from, from there -

 

TW:  Actually there's more than one pump;  there's several places that they pump off  their bids.  EM:  I, I'm sorry.  TW:  There's at least 3 pumps probably _ - EM: & they wanted to buy a - DM:  _ _ _ 25,000 per pump or per - TW:  No.  DM:  total?  JZ:  Total.  TW:  total for all.  They're, they're talkin' about usin' a relatively inexpensive type pump;  it's called an air-diaphram pump.  It's used for - uh apparently that's what they're familiar with usin'.   

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  7  of  20

 

CLM:  What legal responsibility does the city have to keep them in op under all conditions?  EM:  I, I don't think we do & I don't think it's a utility relocation.  CLM:  I don't think so - EM:  However, Jim with the COE, has said Legal has concluded that it's a, uh utility relocation & I'm, I'm in discussions with MSD right now to see if our police power together, our police power being MSD's & the city's collectively, can just say, cease during the op or divert your water supply to MSD.  TW:  Yeah.  EM:  They haven't gotten back to me yet on that. 

 

TW:  The kicker on all this is we read thru their - Eric has researched it - that they do have a Permitted Use for this;  to do this with DNR.  CLM:  Yeah, but - DM:  To dump their stuff into the river?   TW&CLM?:  Yeah.   CLM:  Well, what - TW:  & when they say dump stuff, it, it, it's - DM: I mean it's the black- TW:  it's, it's - DM:  stuff that was makin' people sick from what I understand.  TW:  I knooow!  EM:  That wasn't in the permit (chuckling), but uh - (JW laughs)

 

CLM:  What permit do they have from the city to do that?  Do they have a written permit or something?  TW:  Well, the - CLM:  None,  right?  TW:  the city really doesn't really control the sewer system.  DC:  MSD. TW: MSD has control.  CLM:  But wait a min;  they're, now they're pumping into storm water sewer - TW:  & apparently the - & DNR actually has more jurisdiction than MSD does.  CLM:  Yeah.  TW:  & they do have a Permitted Use from DNR. 

 

DC:  & MSD likes it or not the - DNR likes - TW:  MSD really doesn't WANT it.   DC:  They like the idea that they're doin' this water pumpin' outta the plume underneath the City of VP.  TW:  That's an EPA thing.  DC:  Huh?  TW:  That's an EPA thing.  DC:  Sure.  JW:  Anything's good.  TW:  & we, believe me, our 1st - ?: _ _ - TW:  our 1st train of thought was - ?:  _ when they pump that up _ - TW:  if it's not a Permitted Use, then they - ?: _ dump it _ - TW:  HAVE to go to MSD & then they gotta do their own thing.  ?:  Yes.  TW:  It's not even our responsibility, but they actually DO have a Permitted Use & um & Andy's been involved in it also. 

 

Andy:  Yeah, I've talked to several people from DNR & they're all, informally, they're sayin', well, wait a min, they have a permit to discharge to the Mer River;  that permit does not give them any rights about any sewer line or anything else.  CLM:  That's what I - that's what I'm - Andy:  They simply have have a - CLM: Yeah!  Andy: right to discharge into a river.  CLM:  Yeah, DNR doesn't say they have a right to - JZ:  That's true - CLM:  thru how they get there.  JZ:  with Wainwright as well & - Andy:  That's true for Wainwright, exactly.  JZ:   They would have to - to go anywhere else, they have to get a modification to their permit.  CLM:  Which seems to me like that's their problem.  JZ:  But either one of them 2 places I assume. 

 

Andy:  So the DNR people I've spoken to, say, well, uno they can't see how Reichold or Wainwright have any rights whatsoever to use a uno ANY demands to use a uh a sanitary sewer er, er a storm sewer.  They have a right to discharge to the river, but they don't have a right - CLM:  That's right.  Andy:  As far as they can save & save - they all say, well, this is another env'l issue.  & now we're gettin' the legal end of things, but they were really surprised that anybody, anybody could put the amt of pressure in the city into 'em;  A portion of it (was?) to allow it into their, into their storm;  but 2ndly, if there is a flood, forcing the city to allow it into their det basin. 

 

EM:  &, & the 2nd part is there, there's an obligation under MO law that you have to use your neighbor's property in a reasonable manner for your discharge of storm water.  & I don't know, this isn't really storm water, but it's damn close to it;  uh uno it's an artificial discharge of well water, but um I mean they can't obviously, as, as we know, they can't flood their neighbors if we shut off the storm water.  So - CLM:  When, when it becomes an industrial discharge once they've used it for cooling purposes.  ?: storm water -  EM: Um, yeah - DM:  They're pullin' water up outta the ground;  this isn't anything caused by rain.  CLM: What, Joe?  DM:  I mean they're pumpin' it up & causin' the water to be there.  It's not because it rained & they've got this water sittin' there at the press.  CLM:  Yeah! 

 

TW:  I was really surprised that they had a Permitted Use because - I mean - but it's there!  CLM:  But again, just a permit to them to discharge into the river.  DM:  Does it say WHAT they can?  Because as I understand, this black stuff was causin' the workers to be sick.  (If?) that doesn't warrant _ _ - TW:  Andy could probably speak more specifically to ALL of this.  DM:  What is that stuff?  Now I forget what it's called, Andy.   _ _ _ _ had a black stuff that was - Andy:  Are you talkin' about the natural - this is in, in the dirt, in the dirt?  This is in the sedimt by the river?   JZ:  I think he's talkin' about that, yeah.  DM:  Something at Reichold.  I thought Reichold -  

 

Andy:  I don't think there's any reason to believe that Reichold was discharging anything in _ - DM:  So it was - Andy: _ _ - DM:  in the ground?  Comin' up by disturbing the ground?  Is that what - Andy:  Yeah, it was, it was just that muck that was - DM:  Oh.  Andy: in the soil by the river & it was kind of stagnant;  & basically just a sulfur smell in it pretty bad.  But nothing - I don't think anything in particular pumps _ - DM:  Nothing has Reichold's discharge in it?  Andy:  No, but Reichold, they did determine there was some PCD's in that, in the strong discharge from the 3rds, 3rd St drain. 

 

CLM:  Well, both for the temp discharge for const purposes, the temp fix, & for the perm discharge, their op & maint of the project, the COE, & uno I'm talkin' out loud, the COE - DM?: Reichold 's (#?) is gone - CLM: looks to the local sponsor, at least in part, to resolve these issues.  JW:  They ain't goin' nowhere;  no other town - DM:  I know.  CLM:  But the COE has - JW: give a hoot - CLM:  a responsibility because of them bldg the project - JW:  they're doin' - CLM:  it's a federal project. 

 

DM:  They can go on top of that hill over there.  JZ:  Yeah, there's more alternatives than, than -   DM?:  (There's 3?).  JZ:  I've only mentioned the one alternative - DC: Well, the one alternative - TW: Well, Yeah &, &, & I think we need to get a new _ - DC: is relocate the (3rd?) St pipe uh storm water - TW:  & tell us a little bit more about it.  DC: from the design that we got right now.  CLM:  Well - TW:  Jim was workin' on - I think we were told that your staff was working on some alternataives. 

 

JZ:  Yeah, now I, I just had one alternative which is Wainwright & Reichold send their stuff to MSD;  uno during const.  & then Wainwright doesn't need to send it after const.   But Reichold probably still wants to send it - CLM:  But they're taking the position that the city's gotta pay for it!  JZ:  Yeah, right.  CLM:  Any costs incurred.  EM:  Reichold is.  JZ:  Well, as a relocation, Reichold, yes.  CLM:  Now I'm not talkin' about the carwash. 

 

JZ:  He's takin' a position that, that if Reichold does these changes, it's a relocation.  Ok?  & so it's the city's responsibility.  CLM:  Now Reichold is takin' the position that the city's gotta pay for anything that they inccur that it costs.  JZ:  Or so they agreed (chuckle). -  We'll just give you credit for it!  We'll give you credit as a relocation.  Ok?  ?: _ _ _ _ -

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  8 of  20

 

JZ:  Now, there's another little, another possible option with, with Wainwright & that is that they could theoretically, physically, just shut down their clean-up op for 3 or 4 wks or whatever it takes.  However, uno they, I mean the Wainwright people say that's certainly physically pennies;  easily done, uno stop, clean-up, start again 3 to 4 wks later.  But basically MDNR & EPA DO NOT wanna do that because they, they've finally got this clean-up op going & they wanna continue with it.  So that's just another piece of info. 

 

JW:  What consists of the clean-up?  What'll it actually do?  Just aerate the water?   Is that thru the clean-up?  JZ:  It's in a 7-step air percolator;  whichever, whatever that is.  EM:  It goes thru a carbon filter - JZ: Andy, you can probably - CLM:  Well, Jim, if their equipmt - Andy:  PC(B?)'s_ kind of evaporates off to a TCE, etc - CLM:  Yeah, if - Andy:  _ _  - CLM:  they had an equipmt break-down, they'd shut down till they got the equipmt _ - JZ:  Well, they shut down when it rains,  automatically because when it rains & the storm sewers fill, there's a float in the storm sewer & it shuts down the pump.  CLM:  Well, this is a once of a kind-type requiremt shut down.  I don't think EPA gives a reser -

 

JZ:  The problem is, we've got these options & we need to get resolution.  CLM: Yeah.  JZ:  Ok?  Each one seems to have certain advantages.  Uh - Andy:  I think the issue there remains, if I can take you back briefly, is, is that the DNR & the USEPA have fought for an awful long time, turning some court cases into battles to get this thing going &, & later, I'm getting from Joe Brust at the DNR is that to shut it down, might be able to have, certainly have to go thru their own attys;  & uno & it might bring out the Wainwright attys & the whole thing might start churning. 

 

EM:  They, they hadn't pumped for about 2 yrs - Andy:  Yeah.  EM:  uh because of the Geldback stuff that was going on & uh I, I guess that clean-up is now done;  &, & so they've resumed pumping, but evidently not without 'em, a long battle with Wainwright (again?).

 

JEM:  Decision was there to use the flow rate of Wainwright clean-up so that they would stop pullin' the MPBG's from Geldback;  over in Geldback district, the soils that they haven't done the rest of the clean-up.  You have to review the flow rate since they're not pullin' MPBG's up.  JZ:  Ok, so those, those, that option handles these 2 discharges.   Uno whether there's any other unknown discharges into this pipe?  Can't say for sure! 

 

JEM:  Tom, When you talked to MSD, whoever talked to MSD & found that they'd already approved the discharge from Reichold, is that a temp discharge or permanent?  JZ:   It's temp.  TW:  Temp.  JEM:  What will it take to get the permanent?  EM:  They don't want it!  JEM: They won't take it?  DC:  They don't want it.  TW:  They don't want the add'l flow....(exchange tapes)...

 

JW:...const area & takes it around the const area, gathers into a flow as it comes into our const, before it gets there, uh & just takes it around, discharges into the Mer River;  probably in the same outfall area that we've already const'd.  & there's a preliminary est by the subcontractor to ESI of like $53,000.  & that # did not include any - it's just a preliminary #;  it did not include anything from ESI so the # probably - the real # is probably higher than that from what I've been told.  CLM:  101 with no sweat?  JW:  (No sh_t?)!  JZ:  Ok? 

 

JEM:  Is that a temp bypass?  JZ:  Yep, temp bypass.  ?: Yes, _ -  DM?: No, it's not!  _ - EM:  & that's a new project, Forest.  JZ:  It's a - DM?: _ _ _ _ - JZ:  Um, no, not really !   ?:  _ _ with a (quorum?).  JZ:  (laughs) (any more?).   If it's a - ?:  Not with the Cotton factory 'cause then you got the lawyers, _ _ _ some sh_t. 

 

JZ:  Any relocation of a facility for, for const - CLM: project _ - JZ: for const purposes, OR for op & maint purposes, it's all relocation.  ?: Ok.  JZ:  Ok.  JW:  (background) Anything it costs?  JZ:  Now, the oth - so then - DS: (background) Not according to Wilken.  JZ:  there's an option.  Uh there's certain advantages to that;  one is that um it handles storm drainage as well as these uh continuing flows to take it around the const area.  So if there's a storm that happens, uno it's not gonna cause a big delay itself;  uh there's no extra water coming down that has to be, has to be dealt with by the contractor.

 

Ok, the 3rd option is - EM:  But, but it doesn't provide a long-term solution - JZ: No - EM:  to the det basin problem.  JZ:  Right, it doesn't - that's right.  There's, there's pluses & minuses.  I've only mentioned a FEW things;  there's probably half a dozen more pluses & minuses for each alternative. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  9 of  20

 

The 3rd option is that we've looked at, is physically, uno changing the physical location of our gravity drain system.  Now right now, we've got a, we've got an alignmt that runs right along 3rd St existing sewer;  we move it over like 25' to the west.  We can just move over the gravity drain, move over the junction box, move over the, all the pipes & then connect back into the uh the pipe upstream of the junction box & then at the downstream side by the river, we tie back in on an angle to our uh outfall area.  & that alternative um is being just designed uh by the COE, a uno preliminary design to get a preliminary cost est right now. 

 

EM:  & THAT'S a project cost!  JZ:  That is a project cost.  CLM: Did, did you _ - ?: _ - JZ: Uhhh, except uh for, in my mind, except for the alterations to the existing pipe, they have to, that goes under the footprint of the levee & we have to engrout that shutter, remove it or something.  ?: (background)  Sheer off the pipe.   EM:  & that's still not a, a long-term solution to the other problem.  JZ:  It's not a - that's, that's right. 

 

DC:  Well, the answer to that problem is if we DO do this & let 'em discharge the water into - bein' that this water is pure & everything like they can dump it in the river, then what we'd expect, VP, is that DNR & the EPA would give us the same permit that they gave Reichold & Wainwright & everybody to use that det pond for that use.  That would be one of the stipulations that'd have to come to the City of VP from the COE & the DNR before we'd accept the levee.  Because we're not gonna be, later on, if we dump this water in the det pond & we close the sluice gate structure & collect all this water, uh that we're gonna be responsible, having contaminated water in that det pond. They have to give us a permit saying we can accept that water -

 

EM:  Well, we have a permit.  I mean & I don't know if it's - DC:  To accept - EM:  within that scope.  DC:  Well, I don't know whether - EM:  Yeah.  DC:  that covers the whole thing, but we have to be assured that we could hold that water - JZ:  Well, we don't really want the water anyway.  Just the - we don't want the volume of waterYou're mentioning -

 

Andy:  I, I can add 3-visit info from the DNR.  #1, talked to 3 people at different levels, from locals here to, to, to Jeff City.  None of them is concerned, for the moment at least, about the discharge into the det basin.  So in terms of the current permit, it doesn't matter to them whether it's detained in the basin & then discharged a couple wks later, or whether it goes right thru the 3rd St drain.  That's what they tell me;  that they don't care!  The only thing the permit counts for is the quality of the water as it leaves Reichold's property & as it leaves the Wainwright location.  What happens to it further down the pipe is of NO concern to them in terms of that permit.

 

DC:   Well, if we could get that in writing & everything & say that we're not gonna be responsible for this water later on, holdin' it in the det ponds, is fine because Reichold has to shut their op down at a certain level when the water gets high.  They've GOT to pull their pumps;  that's it!  That does - they're not flooded out by the river;  their pumps are flooded out by the water comin' up in the plume in their wells & they have to pull it down & they shut it down.  So when we start havin' water, this plume or this wells are going to increase.  So Reichold has to shut their op down;  that's it!  They have to pull their pumps & that's it! 

 

& possibly, once the water gets high over here at Wainwright, they're gonna shut their pumps down too because they have to;  that flow, the water will be too high in the storm sewers or in their - JZ: Well, as long as they - DC:  wells that they're pumpin' these out.  JZ: do it out on cooperation I think. 

 

(over the next few mins, CLM, EM & TW chat in the background)  DC:  & the op, all those ops wouldn't shut down;  so we wouldn't be getting a big discharge of water thru - CLM: _ _ _ _(foam?) - DC: Reichold or from Wainwright a - JZ:  Well, - DC: certain period - CLM: _ _ - DC: of time of when the high water is.  CLM: _ somethin' into doin' something.  JZ:  But uno, uh - CLM:  Timmy Dorn _ - Andy:  I was gonna mention one more thing & that's that the - EM: (laughing) I guess we could.   CLM:  Why not?! -

 

Andy: In terms of the - CLM: _ _ - Andy: um the Reichold permit, it expires in Nov of - EM: They gonna arrest him?  Andy: next yr & - ?: You gonna arrest who they id?  Andy: that's probably fairly - EM: Yeah!  Andy: decent timing in terms of when uno the levee const - TW:  Right, we didn't know - Andy: & - CLM:  He's gonna say that (right or write?) off _ - Andy: & the DNR has said that, that they need to make it the same type of permit as Wainwright.  As of the moment, there's absolutely NOTHING in the Reichold permit that restricts the amt of TCE or DCE or anything else they can push out of that drain;  &, & they do accept that was a little - EM: easily there a while - Andy: they were remiss in doing that - EM: even on campground.  Andy: which, but they - CLM: _ _ _ - Andy: would like to wait until then to - CLM: Did they? - Andy:  to assert that permit. 

 

So in other words, what I'm sayin' is - CLM:  How long does that trial usually take?  3 wks?  - Andy: the water would then go to the det basin - EM:  Umhuh.  Andy: would therefore be - CLM: _ time they figure out what the hell's goin' on _ - Andy: completely terminated with Wainwright & Reichold;  & they would only have to achieve the uh the (near-upper valleys?) in the permit;  which by the way, are about 10 times lighter than, than we have been told when we were tryin' to submit out permit application.  They softened up on Wainwright & even with the 10-fold decrease in, in the limits uno (the lingry?), they allowed 'em to - ?: _ _ -  Andy:  discharge 10 times more;  um because I think they're realizing it just was not feasible to achieve these tiny, 7-part/billion levels for TCE, etc;   it just wasn't gonna work.  DM:  Andy, Are you sayin' - Andy:  So permit-wise, there shouldn't be a problem. 

 

DM:  You say Reichold right now could dump DCE & DCP into the river because of the way the permit was written?  Andy:  Well, technically, the DNR could, if, if they had data, they could clamp down on them, but there's nothing in that permit that requires them to limit their, their discharge, there's certain levels of TCE or DCE;  there's no, no mention whatsoever.  

 

EM: What, what did we see in there?  They can actually pump so much phenal uh - DC?: Right.  EM:  outta there - TW:  It's uh was - EM:  A pound & a half?  TW:  about 25, 25 lbs/day.  EM:  Yeah, I think that - 1.5 lbs/hr or something like that.  DM:  Again, Andy, you're thinkin' they're gonna cut down on the amt of TCP & TCE that Reichold can dump in the river?  ?: Well - DM:  _ permitted parts _ _ part? 

 

Andy:  My suspicion is that they have - I mean I, I've only seen 2 sets of data for Reichold discharge;  one that the COE just took recently - well, it would be unfair to say it was Reichold;  it was Reichold + Wainwright - JZ:  It was, it was water.  Andy:  & the other set of data I saw actually came out of the 3rd St, supposedly the Reichold discharge into the 3rd St drain back, what, 5 yrs ago somethin' like that?  Both of those which failed what the city had been told we would have to limit our discharge to, but both were passed what Wainwright was allowed.  & the DNR assures me that they will not make the  Wainwright discharge any tighter & they would make sure that Reichold had the same level, so.  So in fact from what I can see is likely that Reichold would probably, most of the time - DM:  Be allowed to - Andy:  be within permit.  DM:  do as much as Wainwright, permanently?  EM: &, & their permit expires in Nov of '05.  Andy:  Oh, '05, yeah. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  10 of  20

 

TW:  Which leads me to one point that we were hoping to convince or talk with Reichold about, & that is recirculation.  ?: (whisper) Of what?  TW:  & ultimately, we need to figure out a way to convince them to do that & I don't know how to do it because of their permitted uses now.  DM:  Do you have any idea how much that would cost them or us?  _ - TW:  Yeah, they threw out a # of about $140,000 & - Andy:  Per annum or - TW:  No, no one time;  &, & uh they would have to install certain part piping & certain pumps permanently to be able to recirculate that water. 

 

DM:  Would that mean no dumping would be required then? _ _ - TW:  Or, or at the very least, very minimal during a flush cycle or somethin' when they had to recharge their water which in other words, you probably can't continue to recycle the same water over & -

 

JZ:  _ _  pumpin', you're usin' the plume very much then.  ?: _ _ - (they chuckle)  TW:  Well see, that's the other thing & that would solve - because uno when you look at the long-term det storage problem which is what I'M lookin' at, & I understand about the chemicals & all that;  it's a concern.  But there's also a concern - everybody that met with Reichold expressed the same concern & that's loss of storage.  So that when you're pumpin' 120,000 gal/day !  into a det facility & without me knowin' the percolation loss uh, uh into the soil of the det pond, which is probably pretty - JZ:  Won't be - TW:  'cause you got a - JZ:  during a flood, (chuckling) it won't be percolating, so.  TW:  Yeah!  You won't have any loss & you & their evaporation rate is gonna be such that, in other words, we're gonna have water in that pond & when it rains in VP! where's the storm water gonna go?  JEM:  Take it out by a diesels-powered jump pump that sit on top of the levee & pump -

 

TW:  Well, I think that there's some, some real uno real issues that we need to figure out.  I know Eric is looking at ways that we can figure - uno even if we consider an offer to Reichold & say look, the portion that we were going to contribute to this relocation if we're forced into that, we would consider applying THAT money to YOUR capital, changing this over so you can recirculate & your rate of return can be such - I think he said a 2-yr rate of return - IF they were forced to go to MSD & pay sewer rates.  ?: Certainly.   EM:  & then they have no downtime either is the other thing in the event of a flood.  TW: Right. 

 

EM:  Well, I guess they still do tho 'cause - ?: They shut down - ?: percolate up - EM:  Yeah.  DC: _ gotta pull those pumps - EM:  Yeah.  DC:  because these pumps are down in that - JZ: Well, we got 2 other - DC: & they gotta pull 'em out.  JZ: 2 other things, uno timing of all this - we have to make a decision & the timing is a part of it because our contractor is - TW:  I understand that.  JZ:  is, is wanting to build the 3rd St gravity drain.  TW:  I understand.  JZ:  & so uno what is a, how long does it take to build a recycling sytem?  Get that on line? 

 

TW:  & the kicker here is, is that we thought that we could convince them if, if when their permit expires, that they would potentially be forced to go to MSD.  Well, then Eric called MSD - I gave him - we, we, we talked to their Compliance people;  the problem with that is they don't WANT IT!   'cause then we'd have 'em!  We'd have 'em;  we'd say, hey!, you have to - probably next yr, you're gonna have to start pumpin' to MSD. 

 

EM:  Said they didn't have the capacity & - TW:  Right.  EM:  & it's, it's water that doesn't need to be treated.  TW:  So now we don't have - JZ:  But why would - TW:  anything to say to them - JZ: I think I had the impression from MSD that they would probably be accepted during a flood, uno - TW:  Well, sure they would!  EM:  They would & - TW:  Well, we're tryin' to look at a way to make them do the capital cost improvemt for recirculation - CLM:  Yeah.  TW:  that would force them - JZ:  Most, most - TW:  to make the capital improvemts. 

 

JZ:  Most of the yr it wouldn't matter if it goes down the 3rd St drain;  really!  TW:  Well, yeah.  JZ:  Ya just gotta go down & out the gravity drain.  TW:  The springtime is - JZ:  Most of the yr, they could - TW:  Right.  JZ:  send it to the river instead of sending it to MSD.  TW:  Other than the springtime maybe.  JZ:  Even, even most of this Spring.  The river's down & - DC:  Or you can't it in the springtime because we've had floods in the wintertime.  I mean you can have flood anytime during the yr that you - JZ:  Yeah, I think there's a lot of time, uno if you look at the calendar & you go over 10 or 15 yrs, you're gonna have, what, 90% of the time you could discharge to the river at least.  ?:  Are you gonna have to go to 44? _ _ -

 

TW:  I guess it depends on det capacity & all that.  JZ:  Well, most of the time, the det pond's not gonna be used.  Uno when, when the gate's open, the det pond's not gonna be used.  TW:  Well, I understand.  I understand.  JZ:  Don't close the gate until - DC:  Well, it will be used.  ?:  _ couldn't you also use - DC:  It will be used.  That, that det WILL be used if you're dischargin' water from Reichold.  JZ:  Well, except when the gate's open - when the river's low & the gate's - TW: It's gonna flow thru.  JZ: open, the water's just gonna flow right thru.  DC:  Well, yeah.  JZ:  Only use the det pond when you have to close the gate.  ?:  For storage. 

 

Andy:  Jim, I can remember, I thought I could remember talking to uh Pat & Dennis in your office, that they had ALLOWED for (some nother?).  JZ:  They have allowed - Andy:  20, 24/7 discharge.  DC:  Yeah.  JZ:  They have allowed for some of it, but not enough from what I understand. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  11 of  20

 

DM:  Do we have the legal power to tell 'em to shut down en during a flood?  Uno if it's that the det pond's gettin' full because of raining, & we'll say Reichold, shut down.  JZ:  I don't know.  DM: _ you're sayin' they'd have to shut down anyway 'cause they can't suck water up outta the ground.  DC:  Right, at a certain elevation _ - DM:  If it gets to a certain level, we just say shut down, Reichold, or we're gonna (pause) -

 

EM:  Yeah, we, a city has Police Powers it's called & that's not, as opposed to writing traffic tickets - DM:  Right.   EM:  but Police Powers in order to maintain the health, safety & welfare - CLM:  Yeah, public safety.  EM:  & certainly, we'd be able to, to go in &, & if they wouldn't voluntarily comply, we, we'd have to get an injunction - DM:  We don't want to endanger - EM:  in order to do it.  DM: the health because of the water, then we can say shut down while that situation occurred.

 

JZ:  The COE's contractor - I think you've heard this probably in mtgs, Eric, 'cause you've been - I haven't, wasn't there, but I understand that they are in favor of tryin' to get Reichold & Wainwright taken care of & not have their water come down the pipe for a period of time & they'll just build a, build the system like we have in our current const drawings.  That's what, that's what they would like to see;  they think that'd be the most expeditious solution. 

 

EM:  They're, they're looking at de s i g n,  d e l a y s  & all kinds of things & they wanna get in & out;  there's no ques about it.  &, & it looks like the cheapest is gonna be this, but uh (pause) - JZ:  Uno it may work out - EM:  We're just, we're just - JZ: we'll, we'll, we're, we're still, unfortunately, we're still gathering some data, some costs & we'll know  m o r e   in a few days.  But I'm just saying, I'm just pointing out to you, we've got this dilemma we're dealing with & we'll work with the city & share all the info & come to the, the, hopefully, the best solution uno for both uh const;  uno not causing a delay which might lead to a plain &, & uh take into acct the future op & maint.

 

CLM:  What would happen if the city just decided for project purposes, to TELL 'em to shut down?  JZ:  Um, if you can do it!   CLM:  What, what recourse, what recourse will they have?  JZ: I would say (chuckle) - EM:  Well, they, they'd say no;  &, & we'd have to go to cork.  TW: Right.  CLM:  The same as would in case of a flood _ - EM:  Sure. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  12 of  20

 

Andy:  What about timing in _ _ _ _ - DM: Jim, How much more money would it be to go until you get a little bit west & dump the water out there?  JZ:  Well, we're workin' on that cost est right now, Mayor;  we, we don't have that.  DM: Then maybe get - DC: The idea is - DM: _ easy way.  DC: we have to replace that pipe anyway.  DM:  Right.  DC:  We'll have to take the old pipe out underneath the footprint of the levee - ?:  under witness - DC:  & take it all out because - & so we're all - actually all we're doin' is movin' it over & puttin' the same pipe in, only at a - DM?: _ _ _ _ _ - DC: different location. 

 

CLM:  So sounds like we're only requiremt we have is to solve the temp problem for const purposes.  JZ:  Yeah.  CLM:  The perm problem for flooding, flooding conditions, the city has the Police Powers as Eric said, to say, shut down.  See, that eliminates that problem.  DC:  & that would become, that would come AFTER the const is done, the levee is - CLM: Yeah, yeah - DC: done & - CLM:  I'm talkin' - yeah - DC:  that would be we, we done;  then it would be the city's thing to go to Reichold & say or whatever & say - CLM:  Yeah.  DC:  we're gonna, you're gonna have to do, change some things here. 

 

EM:  Sure, &, & again with what Dave's point is, is that they can't operate during a flood anyway.  DC:  Right!  I'm, I'm sayin' that they have to pull their pumps at a certain elevation!  JZ:  Dave, Dave, gotta let, gotta be more specific.  They tell me & Ken May told me that uno they have operated up at the certain levels.  DC:  Right.  JZ:  Ok, & I think that actually our det area is lower - DC:  It's just that they shut down.  JZ: than the levels that they've operated at uno.  DC:  Because - JZ:  So they will be shutted down more often than - DC:  Because them - JZ:  in the past.  DC:  submersible pumps can, you can't, you can't use 'em.  They're - when they get the water up to a certain point, they can't use 'em, so they gotta pull them submersibles outta there.

 

CLM:  Well, there's a way to solve that problem too that I mentioned to Eric that we can be - DC: Well, I mean - CLM: _ _ - DC: uno they're - after this whole const business is done, we may have to go into this process of whatever, suin' 'em or whatever, get 'em off, dump the water in there, but like I say, right now, to get to keep the const goin', it looks like the very simplest thing is, they have a permit to dump the water into the river;  we, we gotta put a new pipe in alongside the other one & let them do & then put it right in thru the pipe & let it go in the river.  I mean if DNR don't care, the EPA doesn't care, fine!  The only problem we got is when we shut the sluice gate & we keep, we puttin' this water into our det pond.  CLM:  You're talkin' about after const?  DC: After the const is done.

 

CLM:  What I'm sayin' is, after const, I think the city has the opp to exercise its Police Powers 'cause that eliminates that problem.  JZ:  There's another - DC:  Because we can get - JZ: _ can mail their - DC:  Reichold I'm sure - JZ: permits - DC: & Wainwright to cut down - ?: Maybe.  DC:  that flow  for a period of time until - CLM: _ _ _ - DC:  the contractor can cut this pipe in & from the 3rd St into a new pipe & get it in.  We can have him say, hey, don't do his flow for maybe 2 or 3 days until they get their connections between the new pipe & the old pipe;  & then we can go back & let the flow go.  I mean it's been goin' that way for yrs;  so I mean what - the problem we got is after the flood.

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  13 of  20

 

Andy:  I did wanna - remember, I said a while ago, there were 3 things I've learned from DNR.  One thing they reminded me of is that be reminded, the relief wells will also be pumping ground water.  DC:  Well, that's, that - Andy: &, & the point they made was, you might just wanna  re-think how hard you wanna push Reichold because you're gonna be pumping that same water too (chuckle) into the det  basin. 

 

So I think & I think Lee may have it there;  I think MAYBE just kind of go along &, & then if there's an exertion of Police Powers of the city, issue them a fine, but bear in mind that there's gonna be, how many, how many wells?  26 wells or something, relief wells.  DC:  Right.  Andy:  pumping the contaminated ground water;  altho they're probably not that contaminated because of the clean river water;  (quite awards?) _ _ _ _ - CLM:  That pushes it out - Andy: _ _ _  - CLM: assures it. 

 

Andy:  But nevertheless - JZ:  Well, they're not pumping - Andy:  it's something to bear in mind that - JZ:  they're just flowing (chuckle).  Andy:  Pumping, yeah;  just something to bear in mind that uno (chuckle) exercise a little caution here on how strict anybody wants to be with anything.  TW?:  Right.  (someone chuckles)  But Reichold certainly should be forced to, to go the same way as Wainwright in temp discharge next to (my bruning?) uno.  I think the DNR will do that.  I don't see any ques. 

 

CLM:  So right now, we're waitin' for you to get an est on the - DM:  So now, what if Wainwright wanted to start - I mean Reichold wanted to start pumpin' water from St L County, or American Water whatever they call themselves todays, to keep it pumpin'?  EM:  They, they don't (chuckle).  DC:  They don't!  EM:  Believe me, (chuckle) they don't.  DM:  They don't - EM:  It's free!  I mean they pay for electricity uno.

 

DM:  But I mean if they wanna, during a flood - JW: Keep -can't, can't affect it?  DM:  would they be able allowed to use - TW:  Well, I, I was under the impression too with - EM: Probably.  TW:  the installation of the levee - ?: _ - TW:  that Reichold's under the impression too - DS:  Yrs ago, I know one of - TW:  they're probably gonna be able to operate at a higher level of flood.   DS: _ might be married.   I don't know if the city owns it, the fire owns it.   DC:  That's - would Shepley think you're - DS: I still don't think -

 

TW:  Obviously, one of the purposes of the levee, more people are gonna operate their businesses - JW:  I was told we couldn't - TW:  when a flood comes.  DM: Yeah.  DS:  The one on the river, (if?) the city - TW:  So that is one of the purposes of the levee - DS: that's why you got suds on 'em.  TW:  other than public safe & uh health & safety.  So -

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  14  of  20

 

JZ:  The other, the other thing that we - one other piece of info that, that I think JM will help us get together, is to go look at the Wainwright op & he must help determine how they could connect to the sanitary system & what the cost would be & so on.  & he's volunteered to do that as long as the city allows him, allows him to do that, soThat's another piece of info that will be helpful to us, ok.  

 

DC: Yeah, he's lookin' at pumpin' & takin' & puttin' the water in the sanitary sewer somewhere next, over there by where the boat co gets - (beginning to whisper) there's a manhole or somethin' over there.  He's - I don't know whether you guys wanna go thru that;  if you do, get with Jim.  EMorTW?:  Not yet.  (now back to normal) DC:  He was supposed to talk to Wainwright.  He was supposed to talk to uh Ray's Tree Svc & see if there was some way they could temporary take that water & put it in there. 

 

But uno it all depends on what, what the COE comes up with this relocation rather than even shuttin' anything down & just let the flow go.  I mean until a certain time that once we got the levee in & we got it accepted, DNR approves, say, you can let the water go, then we go & say, hey, get it out of our det pool or we're gonna say legally, that you can't put it into our det pool & that you'll have to do something else & whatever it is.

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  15  of  20

 

JEM:  Is the COE aware of the fact that EPA is currently deciding the second TCP's dripping ops for the city in the vicinity of Valley Heat Treat?   DC:  They are.  JEM:  & they intend at this moment, to discharge that to storm?  JZ:  I'm, I'm not aware of it.  DC:  That's down at 5th St.  EM:  That's 5th St.  DC:  5th & Marshall;  yes, that's -  JW:  That's by the Old Meramec.  JZ:  So anybody have any prediction of the flow coming in?  DC: That would be, that would be discharged in probably into the 5th St det pond (chuckle) JZ:  Ok, well - DC:  They inquired it. 

 

JEM:  In my discussions, they're in their preliminary stages of U.S. schedule.  ?:  Again?  JEM:  They haven't gotten the U-pump into it yet.  JZ:  Well, I think, I'm just guessing that that's not gonna be a problem 'cause they could close it down during a flood.  JEM:  Well - JZ:  Close, close down the clean-up ops during a flood;  just like they would at Wainwright.  ?: Bitched.  DC:  Got anything else, Jim? 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  16  of  20

 

EM:  Got water problems, water hauling.  JZ:  (chuckle) Well, why don't you go over that with him?  EM:  Ok, well, not wanting to, to share ALL our woes with you, but we, we have a few other problems.  The uh water dept abandoned a water line on River Dr &, & the city demanded that they cease op & production;  & they did!   Uh wh, which is fine. 

 

Uh but there's another line that's in the middle of the LEVEE ROW & that's a line that goes from Front St & it used to connect to that River Dr line.  & we requested that the area where the levee's going to be on top of that line, be abandoned.  Well, the water co said no, they're not gonna do that;  that rather, what they did, was cap that line.  So they made it a dead-end line about 10' from the River Dr old junction.  So right now, we're sitting there with a dead-end line that runs from Marshall Rd all the way down to the, the RR tracks to 10' from River Dr & naturally the levee's gonna be right on top of that. 

 

Um we're trying to work out an agreemt.  What we wanted them to do was simply cap their line at the svc junction where the shopping ctr has tapped in.  ?: (background) They were supposed to piggy-back.  EM:  They're saying that it's 17' deep & it's on RR ROW & they don't wanna be responsible if the thing springs a leak & uh erodes the track & causes a train wreck. 

 

JZ:  They also said they can't find it 'cause - EM: Well & that's - JZ: (the meter?) - EM:  that's 2nd part, but they can't find it!  (they laugh)  CLM:  Details.  EM:  Details, details.  So we've basically made demand that they do this & they do that.  & uh I, I don't know - Jim probably hasn't even heard this, but at our, at the Thrus mtg with the COE, ESI suggested & I, & I think your design eng said, what the hell!  we'll build the levee on top of the water line & if the water line fails, by God, they got a REAL natural disaster;  er, er, uh, uh not a natural disaster, but an unnatural disaster on their hands.   So we're, we're kind of tryin' to put the kabosh on 'em that way.  Uh we're, we're -

 

JZ:  If it fails due to extra weight?  EM: Right, right.  We're also working on them legally.  They, they - it, it's in their General Counsel's office &, & uh hopefully we'll get a resolution on that uh within this wk, but they, they, they have not been very helpful WHATSOEVER on this.  Um they have a bunch of policy issues where they don't want - JW:  Better get Reichold, while they're down there.  ?:  OOPS!  EM:  Yeah.  JW:  We (caught?) it.  WE  FOUND IT!  DS:  I don't want it. 

 

EM:  They, they, they don't want water lines on RR ROW;  they want water lines, if they're going to only serve private people, to be on those private persons' property.  ?: Sure.  JZ:  &, & the private person won't accept it.  TW:  Right!  There's the other kicker.  DS:  They had to find that water main to tap for Maurer's fire lane!  DC?:  For whose fire lane?  EM:  Say, say that again.  They had to tap from Maurer's - DS:  They had to find that water main (according?) - EM:  Well, Maurer tapped -  DS:  to Maurer is tapped on to it.  EM:  Yeah - DC:  Maurer's gonna tap on it.   EM:  Yeah, Maurer tapped onto it in '92.  &, & we s, I mean we know where the valve's at &, & we just gotta trace the line.  DS:  Then why didn't they do it up there?  EM: Fine.  JW?:  & they said _ - EM:  Because Mid Am Water found out. 

 

DC:  We DON'T have an esmt (chuckle).  EM:  Yeah, & we don't have an esmt.  CLM:  How'd they ever get a water line underneath the RR ROW?  That, that amazes me!  EM:  They just did it. JZ: It's down on the edge of it.  TW:  Yeah & that, that was the uno - probably done in conjunction with the RR back then.  DS:  That was probably done in nineteen four.  TW:  Right.  JZ:  That was done by the City of VP.  CLM:  RR was just as mean back then as they are now.  TW: Well.  CLM: _ _ _ rocks at people - TW:  They may have wanted the water to service their steam locomotives, so. DS: _ they tapped that.  CLM:  That's a good - probably right, right there.

 

DC:  We have another water line down there to locate.  EM:  Well, &, & we're gonna take it.  We've got a, what, a 8" down there - DC:  The 8".  EM:  that we're gonna grout that.  Ok, then, so, so we've got that issue;  then we've got the issue with the property.   JZ:  So right now, that's just, just - EM:  Yeah.  JZ:  at MO - EM:  It's at MO Am Water - CLM:  Office of Counsel.  EM:  Umhuh.

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  17 of  20

 

 Alright, so the, the next issue is, today, crops up, I get a call that uh Union Electric is on my, is on my client's premises;  I wannem the hell off!  & uh UE, pursuant to an agreemt with the city to relocate 4 power poles, went on the property & they were starting to auger-in a, it's like a 55' pole I believe - TW:  Right.  EM:  4' from his bldg.  & unfortunately, UE doesn't have an esmt to do that;  nor do they have the landowner's permission to do so;  so he kicked them off.  CLM:  (chuckling) They talked to that guy from Paris, that Kerry runs into in a restaurant in NY City & he said they could do, huh? 

 

EM:  So, so now the problem is, is that, that unfortunately, the design eng was sick today;  Maurer says that this is going to constrict his fire lane or his delivery lane because it's 4' from the rear of his bldg - ?: (background)  He was throwin' 'em all around.  EM:  it's down to a 10' ingress & egress in that area.  & uh he's demanding that it be redesigned.  He's, he's not demanding an esmt!  Yet! (chuckling) Uno, it's probably the next thing he'd want in Arabic.  DC?: Yeah! 

 

EM:  Uh, uh that's, that's where we're at with that one, so.  There's a bunch of power poles down there now where UE left the power poles!!  Uh they're kind of sittin' over his driveway back there, but uh that's another mess that, that we have, we have to resolve &, & of course the contractor wants it done yesterday & we're working on it. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  18  of  20

 

Um, &, & I guess the only other thing that I've got is that um it, it came to my attn that um during uh, uh, a high-flood situation, the Chesterfield Monarch Levee Protection Dist - no, I gotta take that back - the Ste Genevieve Levee Protection Dist or the city or both of 'em made a claim against FEMA for some op & maint expenses dealing with the flood. 

 

Uh it was, what, $35,000 worth of electricity for op'g pumps?  CLM:  It's under PL- 89.  EM:  Ok.  CLM:  Reimbursemt.  EM:  Um FEMA turned down the request for reimbursemt - CLM:  Yeah.  EM:  even tho uh, an emerg was declared!  CLM:  That's right.  EM:  Because of the language in the LCA which says that once the gov't ceases const, the gov't's responsible for - CLM:  that's right.  EM: nothing to do with O & M. 

 

So Chesterfield Monarch has requested some language change in THEIR PCA, & if they get it, I'm hopin' that - I mean we'll make a formal request, now where that's gonna go, I don't know, but I mean it seems only fair to me that, that we shouldn't be precluded from - JZ:  Uno you wouldn't, you wouldn't have the opportunity, IF they've changed it. 

 

Now, uno my email, for some reason in my email, when I send copies furnished to you & to Andy, it doesn't seem to go, but when I send it to you directly, it seems to go & I don't - anyway, I don't think - maybe you didn't get what I sent today (chuckle) I got -

 

EM:  I DID!  I, I mean you guys - JZ:  Oh, did you work for my employ_?   EM:  were criticizing FEMA, yeah - JZ: Yes!  EM:  for your decision, but I mean what the hell, it's been done uno!  & -

 

JZ: Well, uno my point, one of my points in today's email was - uh it's from Division - a guy cmt'd on the back that people were saying that, that the word Gov't is defined in the PCA as meaning Dept of the Army.  EM:  Right. 

 

JZ:  So FEMA shouldn't use that to say they can't pay because the gov't is not supposed to pay it.  It's the Dept of the Army, but - EM:  But uno & I understand Ste Gen went as high as up as, as they could in all other case!  So - ?: _ _ _ _ -

 

CLM:  Yeah, let - ?: _ _ - CLM: let me, let me throw a little light on that.  Uh God was involved in helping write the language to correct that probably.  ?: _ _ - CLM:  Basically, FEMA, as I understand it, doesn't object to it being changed.  They simply, their, their atty said, look, that's what the language says;  we think - ?:  wasn't Pat Pillow _ - CLM:  it means everybody in the gov't;  therefore, we can't do anything;  we can't reimburse.  ?: Why didn't _ _ - CLM: So you guys go get it changed - ?: That's a character.  CLM:  we won't argue with it.  So it's really just a matter of it getting changed within the COE uno

 

EM:  But, but it's important to us because - CLM:  We've - ?:  _ _ _ _   CLM:  uh, we've asked a friend of ours - ?: _ _  - CLM:  to help get it thru.  EM:  Sure.  It's important to us because if an emerg's - CLM:  Absolutely.  EM:  declared when we - &, &, & we have some disaster, uh basically, the, the way the language is, NOW, we couldn't take advantage of a, of a, an emerg -

 

CLM:  In emerg, FEMA pays for 75% of the cost of responding.  EM:  Yeah.  CLM:  & I hadn't mentioned before 'cause I'm pretty well convinced we're gonna get it resolved before it becomes a problem for our 1st flood event.  

 

JZ:  Yeah, before you even start to operate in Mesopotamia.  CLM:  Yeah, but it wouldn't even - see just - JZ:  Yeah, whatever, whatever language is acceptable to anybody else - CLM:  Yeah, I think the COE - JZ:  you need an amendmt that says the same thing.  CLM:  the COE was very responsive to - ?: _ _ _ - CLM:  to supporting this change.  ?: _ _ _ - -  EM:  So anyway, I, I mean I, I think that's pretty well some of THE problems. 

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  19  of  20

 

CLM:  You guys are just - DC: I wanna bring up one - CLM:  You guys are barrels of life tonight (laughing)!  ?:  I know.   DC:  that I'm going to bring up at the uh - DM:  goin' to a funeral.  DC: uh ald mtg tonight.  I'm going to request that we have our city eng survey the property in back of Rideout,  Simpson, the uh concrete plant;  from the concrete plant all the way to uh Pharoah uh because we have work we have to do down there & it seems that um those people down there have been encroaching on our property. 

 

From the time the surveys were made yrs ago & plan uh photos were taken uh, uh const esmts were - uh looks like they've been encroaching & putting more crap on our, on our property.  & we don't have any - so I'm gonna ask that uh the Weis Eng'g do a survey down there to find out exactly where our property line is & how much work we have to do to uh whatever.  If they're on our property, then we'll  - can go to them & say, move your crap off of our ground.

 

CLM:  You're gonna have 'em stake it so you can demonstrate.  DC:  We can - because Rideout has moved - well it isn't ri - he owns the property, but the other fella - they keep moving their pkg lots & that.  & if we, if we have to - if we're on his property & takin' his property, we have to take his cars & locate 'em on a piece of property or something that is secure with lights on it & everything else until we're done with that work down there.  But if he's on our property, then we're not gonna relocate his automobiles.  I mean -

 

CLM:  Makes a helluva difference!  DC: We'll let him say, ok, you relocate your automobiles - JW: Start chargin' him rent.  CLM:  Exactly!  DC:  & get 'em off of there, or anything that's - that's definitely on our, on your property, we will do, but I think he keeps movin' his blocks back further & I don't know where the property line is for the uh Sportsplex that we bought;  where they are & everything else there.  ?:  Better respect that.  DC:  There's some stakes down there.  That centerline goes to the const esmts & everything, but it looks like there's a lot of crap further over.

 

EM:  & I, & I've got a '98 survey that we'll - DC:  Right.  EM:  that we had done & I'll get that to Tom.  DC:  So I'm gonna request that we - JZ:  You probably want our - DC: expend that money - JZ:  not only for - DC:  to get this survey done - JZ:  the city's property - DC:  it may save us some money on - JZ:  Where the city's property line is uno that you own, but you probably wanna know what you bought 'cause it was used in a perm esmt - CLM:  Yeah.  DM:  I'm not sure Valley Material - JZ:  not a temp esmt or so I'm told.  DM:  I think it's, it's well advised -

 

DC:  Well yeah, we were off on _ that - I don't know who did that survey, whether Zambrana did it & we were off up at the Valley Materials, so we wanna get it straightened out.  EM:  Off?  DC:  At Valley Material uno, they said we were one place & - EM:  Oh, oh, yeah - ?:  (twice or Weis?) - EM:  it didn't close.  DM&DC: _ _ _ _ - DM: Go ahead. _ _ -  DC:  _ _ _  got _ _ _into more concrete than we were anticipating of.  JW:  Did you find the real property line?  TW?:  I think so.  JW:  Did we gain property?  TW:  It was off I think by about 35', from what I remember. 

 

JW: If that same trend ends up all the way down thru there - DC:  35' is a lotta, lotta property that we, we won't have to move cars off of & pay these people to uno whatever.  JW:  They might be payin' us.  DC:  _ definitely, they're not interested in that.  (they laugh)  DM:  I don't know.  DM:  City don't know if that would really hurt.  DC:  That's legal;  I won't, I won't get into that situation. 

 

Uh I think we've uh - the city cost share of the project - has that been - do we need to go over that or that's pretty well - JW:  I heard enough (chuckle)!   JZ:  I think we're ok - ?: (Ha?)!  JZ:  & we have contingencies built in our est.  DC:  Of all the things we've heard, they're negative things.  JZ:  (chuckling)  If it'd cost more, it'd help.

 

5/17/04 LEV - Section  20 of  20

 

DC:  We are - the contractor, with my report here, the contractor is movin' along very good.  I mean they're, they're makin' things work.  The 5th St, if they don't get held up on the 5th St, the river, we've had problems with water.  The river comes up & then it rains & then the river goes down, it rains some more.  So the guys can't get in there & do their work & it's muddy & everything else. 

 

So it's been uno - uh other than these things that are goin' on with the Meramec Plaza & the utility companies or somethin' - in any of the other phases, we didn't have all this utility work that we've got here & everything kinda went, but now we've got all, all this goin' on & the people uno - it's - CLM:  We're in the tough part. 

 

DC: It seems that every piece of property now in VP in the way of the levee is turned to gold.  That all they want is the money!  I mean you, if you want this, you're gonna have to pay for it;  uno, NOT for the good of the cmty or their business or anything, it's how much it's gonna benefit, how much the city's gonna pay ME - JW: Tell ya, that's the American way.  DC:  to not be hindered - JW:  & that's if they're in the way.  (he & CLM chuckle)  DC: or not whatever has to be any, anything;  uno just whatever.  It's over!  CLM: That plays on (FTR or FDR?) (he laughs).  DC:  That's just the way, that's my feeling & that's what it is.  Uh we'll dump, jump down to D uh Maureen Morris - CLM: Thomas Dooley _ - DC:  #8 Arnold Dr.

 

MM: Yeah, I just wanted to ask, um the 100-yr levee is not gonna protect ALL of VP, right?  DC:  Uh everything that's in the flood plain.  MM: Everything that's in the floodplain (pause) - DC:  Will be protected;  yes ma'am.  MM:  Because in a couple of mtgs, it was said that it wouldn't protect certain portions.  So I just wanted to get clarification. 

 

DC:  Well, it's - DM:  Everything east I guess would be flooded, but other than that, I think it'll all be protected.  DC:  Everything in VP uh - DM: east of the - DC: anything inside the levee dist - lie inside the levee will be protected.  I mean it's - there are portions of areas outside the levee that won't be protected, will be in the city & it's in VP, but it just - ?:  No.  DC:  at the time where - CLM:  You couldn't - DC:  we lay the levee out - CLM:  Well, you couldn't - DC:  it wasn't feasible - CLM:  It wasn't economically justified to - DC:  to put them - CLM: (weesly mtgs?) - DC: in there.  I mean if uno they're  -

 

?:  _ end up with some big handfuls.  (someone laughs) I think we're all eventually down to just a g_ddamn bunch of storm (holes?).  DC:  Ok,  next Levee Cmsn mtg be 6/21, same place, same time.  ?: Make a motion to adjourn.  ?:  2nd it.  DC:  We do not know - JW:  Cut. We're not - DC:  We got no thing - JW: not doin' none of that.  DC: so we could just - ?:  Yeah, we're gone.  DC:  you could leave any time you want.  ?:  Why didn't you tell us a 1/2 an hr ago?  DC:  Well, I told you we didn't have a quorum.  I mean uno - (people disburse)