Notes:  Mtg time: 5 - 6 pm.  See updated Abbrevs Page. 


Present:  TB, RW,  DS, BW,  CLM, JW,  KT, JZ,  EM,  TW, JKB. 


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



6/21/04 LEV - Section  1  of  16 


JW: ...this mtg to order, 5:00.  Roll call - it's gonna be hard for me to do roll call 'cause _ - RW?: Here. ?: _ - ?: _ - JW: _ - ?: Yes. ?:  Here.  JW:  Announce yourself & go around the table.  Right here are the mins. JZ: Let me know if you want another one.  JW: _ _ _ announce your name & we'll go around the table & that way -  JZ:  Yeah let's start - (see "Present" above) (Pledge Allegiance) 


Any additions or deletions to the agenda?  I have one speaker's request card from MM.  What item do we wanna make that?  How 'bout if we let her talk after the agenda is approved, 5A.  We don't wanna hold up any speaker's request.  MM:  Tku.  JW:  Do I have a motion to approve the agenda?  DS?: I'll make that motion.  JKB:  2nd it.  JW:  All in favor, say - (none heard opposed). ?:  Want one of these?   EM:  Hey, that'd be _ - JW: Motion carries. 


We have extra uh mins & everything if anybody - BW:  I got _ _, tku.  ?: _ - BW:  Oh, I'm fine.  ?: Your not supposed to _ _ _ _ - BW:  I'm ok, I just - ?: How come you got & I didn't get one?  That's not fair.  JW:  MM.  CLM:  Discrimination.  MM: _ can wait till the end.  (BW laughing like with CLM)  ?:  Huh?  CLM: _ _ _ whose rifle point?  ?: _ _ _ - BW:  There he is right there. CLM: Where's _ _ - BW:  He's the one that can file a suit for you.  JW: That might cut you short then - CLM: _ _ - JW: but that's fine. ?: Ok.  JW: Alright we'll hold her till the end.  Is that AFTER we adjourn?  ?: _ _ - (they chuckle)  At the end;  ok, tks. 


Eric, Do we have mins to approve.  EM:  Ummm, uno I don't know!  March - ?:  Yeah, 3/15 _ _ - EM:  15th, yeah. ?:  3/15.  JW: What's the Bd's pleasure?  ?:  Move approval.  JW:  Is there a 2nd?  ?: 2nd.  JW:  All in favor, say - (none heard opposed).  Motion carries. 


6/21/04 LEV - Section  2  of  16 


Item 4B update - who's responsible for that one?  ?: Uhhh - JZ: I can give some update & I'm sure others can probably - TW:  Yeah.  JW: have something to say too.  TW: We'll all dive in.  


JZ:  Here, let me hand this - this is a listing here of earnings from the Item 4B contractor & projected interest;  & let me, after this gets around I'll exlain to you what you're looking at.  The, the main thing is the 2nd line from the bottom, it says unpaid, of the amt unpaid, 2nd line from the bottom, & the 2nd column to the right says for April & you can see the $597,000, ok.  Basically, uh prior to the middle of April, we paid the contractor $1,300,000 which is all the money we had, uno counting fed & sponsor money.  So for the remainder of April, they earned about $597,000 that was unpaid. 


Ok, for the month of May, next column over, they made approx 5 well, $533,000;  so as of the end of May, they were about $1,100,000 (about 597,000 + probably about 533,000 = about 1,130,000) uno down as far as having earned money but didn't get paid, okThe projected earnings for June - &, & by the way, May was slower than we expected because of all the rain.  We had an awful lot of rain in May & that slowed the contractor down.  Ok.  Expected earnings or projected earnings for June, $750,000;  for July $1,000,000;  $1,170,000 in Aug;  & $1,300,000 in Sept.  That's our current, latest projected earnings, ok.  CLM:  What was our total layout?  JZ:  Well, it totals up to uh about $5,300,000 - CLM:  Oh!  JZ:  uh, uno, unpaid bills by the end of the FY.  (above #'s = $5,350,000 earned & projected earnings Apr thru Sept)


TW:  So, so, Jim, with, with good weather, it appears the contractor's clickin' about 1.1 or 1.2M per month.  JZ:  Yeah, they really haven't got to that point yet.  TW: Right, with what the projection is in - JZ:  Right.  TW:  July, so that's what - JZ:  Yeah.  TW:  So with a completion of - JZ:  Yeah.  TW:  uno 15 mos or so, that puts you right at your 15 - JZ:  Yeah, & this is really the only um, the only const season we have.  It's based on our contract because he should be finishing up by next June which is in a sense that we gave him - TW:  The only FULL - JZ:  instructions - TW: season. JZ:  Only FULL, uno summertime, fall, good const season available to the contractor & - TW:  I know he's makin' some headway 'cause I was - JZ:  I understand he, he's bringing in more equipmt uno & um, more work is, is being initiated.


TW:  I was standing in the middle of the levee last wk with Jim Solarium & they're, they're gettin' it.  JZ:  Yeah, so I mean I think it's, it's good news here that um - CLM:  Absolutely.  JZ:  that they're continuing to work.  It's good news that um - TW:  'cause they could be gone.  JZ:  Far as I know they're planning on continuing to work even tho they're not being paid. 


Now this other, the other info on this sheet is the interest that they're earning, ok.  KT: & that's probably bad.  JZ:  Yeah, the, the right-hand column here shows by month, their cumulative interest that they've earned.  & basically, this interest keeps getting added into their, uno the total that we owe them & then we pay interest on the interest eventually.  TB:  So it gets compounded.  JZ:  Yeah, but so 300, so the interest, there's a hand-written note on here at the top;  it says interest actually started accruing on 5/26 by the terms of the contract. 


TB:  Did you ever find out what the interest rate was?  JZ:  It's 4%, but it's, it, it's gonna change - TW:  & that's to be paid by Mr. Akin's office, right?  JZ:  By, by the US Gov't;  all of us together.  JW:  Take the check.  JZ:  Umm -


6/21/04 LEV - Section  3  of  16 


CLM:  Quick ques on that;  uh this is the 1st time I've seen this happen (recorder got knocked over momentarily) & _ _ got a hold & checked out to see what happens when other districts did this far as the local share of the condition of TIF agreemts - JZ:  Yeah, it just be, it just becomes part of the project costs (chuckle)


CLM:  I know that that's what, that would be the initial reaction, but I think we want to challenge that, Jim, & I'd appreciate if you'd raise it up in your Office of Counsel.  JZ:  Ok.  CLM:  & of course the rationale opposite is that uh the local sponsor had nothin' to do with that!  JZ:  Ok.  CLM:  & it's uh uno it's Congress & that, we may lose that, but uno we won't be soreheads about it but I just thought it'd be well worth the effort.  BW: Legitimate effort.  CLM: _ - KT: _ -


JMitas: _ _ didn't get to come over - KT:  May I - JMitas:  (telaco?) in conference _ _ July & I believe it was answered that uh there would be a cost-share to both the, the levee dist as well as uno add'l - JZ: That's - JMitas:  interest accruing is what - JZ:  Yeah, that's true.  JMitas: _ if it was - JZ:  It's still, still - that's why I said when it's part of the project cost, that means -


CLM: Right.  JZ:  it's cost-shared & he's - CLM:  I just - JZ:  he's, he's saying he doesn't think the chity, city _ - CLM:  I'm just - JZ: should _ _ - CLM:  thinking if we get the, if we get the LCA out & read it very carefully, maybe we'll find that the COE lawyers in Washington that wrote that, this loophole (pause) - JZ:  Maybe;  I, I think you'll find it's feasibly silent on that.  CLM:  That may even be better.  (they chuckle) 


JZ:  It says we owe, you owe us interest (chuckle) under certain circumstances, but I don't think it ever says - CLM: Yeah, I - KT: _ _ - CLM:  I don't think - I've never - I don't recollect it saying in the case of the gov't not having funds aprop'd to pay the contractor, the local sponsor shall share any add'l interest cost for the contractor.  & in fact that, that I'm almost positive that the sign-alonging on that thing gives us a case to - certainly we have grounds to challenge it.  JZ:  I will ask Counsel about uno - CLM: _ - JZ:  does the city have to pay their share - CLM: Yeah, I - JZ: of interest cost.  CLM:  & uh, I'd create a - they - I've done a thing where they could put a meter.  JZ:  Well, I think, I think we're dealing with it in some other projects & it's been asked - CLM:  I know you are effective this yr - JZ:  Either this yr, this year may be the 1st time anybody's had to deal with it if they uno -


TW:  Are there any other projects where the contractor has decided not to take a risk & pull out?  JZ:  Umm, I think there - TW:  There's obviously - JZ:  I don't think it's actually happened yet, but there's - TW:  obviously - JZ:  maybe one.  TW: the contractor's banker is the one paying the bill.  Is that correct?  I mean he's - ?: _ _ - TW: paying his payroll - ?: _ _ - TW: thru his own banker.  JZ:  Yeah, he's gotta have money from some place.  TW:  Right.  So I mean - JZ:  & there are, there are firms that I think, uno I'm just hearing from other, at mtgs & so forth, that there are some companies that simply cannot afford to - TW:  Well, sure!  CLM: Oh, _ - ?:  _ - TW:  I mean unless a contractor can bankroll 15M bucks!  JZ:  Well, this, this is an unusual - TW:  Or 6M bucks, really - JZ:  borrowing case (chuckle).  TW: up to this point.  JZ: Most of 'em are much smaller - TW: That's a - JZ:  than this.  TW:  lotta money!  JZ:  But even for the smaller ones it may not be possible.


CLM:  If you look at the contractor - (now?) I'm sure that's how this contractor looked at it - ?: Right.  CLM: he's got people & equipmt on the job that are committed to thathe doesn't have a job right now for them 'cause he hadn't planned on them not being built, being available for another job - ?: Right.  CLM:  so on the 1st point.  2nd point is, he is making more interest because of the interest rate being set at 4% 'cause it always lags what the outcome will be;  it's more than common sense for this purpose.  He's making more return on his, just on the money, than he would be if he had that money in the bank!  If he's got the money to burn, it'd be sitting in the bank some place.  TW: But what was gonna - KT:  Right.  CLM: or a CD. 


TW: goin' thru my head - & it's neither here nor there;  just a point of info - I doubt - I betcha (whispering) his banker's probably chargin' him a lot more than 4% tho!  JZ:  I don't know if his - CLM: In his case - JZ:  I don't know if he HAS a banker.   CLM:  I think the company has the cash - RW:  Supposedly his company is - CLM:  I think they have the money.  RW: a Billion $ business!  CLM:  They have the cash reserves.  TW: Well, yeah, but - CLM:  If it'd been the local company that was started with his family business, yeah, they'd be goin' to the bank every month but I don't think that's the case tho I'll cut it uh twice.  TW:  The man has courage;  that's all.  JZ:  Yeah, it's - TW:  Then move on.  CLM:  Plus the fact - KT:  May I - CLM:  he earns a lotta goodwill with the COE out in (Walich?), with a reputation like that. 


KT:  May I ask a ques?  Is it in the contract that he's only supposed to get paid on November, at the end of Nov?  JZ:  No, no he, he is - the contract says he's paid every, every month.  Uno, when he submits an invoice, he has to be paid within a certain # of days after he submits the invoice.  KT:  Ok, then - JZ:  So every, every month - KT: so then what my next ques there's so much interest.  CLM:  'cause it's in the contract - if he agrees to keep working without being paid, he gets - JZ:  This is - CLM: paid interest. 


KT:  WITHOUT being paid.  CLM:  Yeah.  KT:  But he IS being paid.  CLM:  No.  JZ:  No.  ?:  No. ?: No.  JZ:  He's NOT being paid.  CLM:  He's not - JZ:  As of - CLM:  This is money that, that, he, every month we owe him more money.  KT:  Well I know  that's why - CLM:  He's not being paid.  KT:  Why can't we pay him - CLM:  We don't have the money!  Congress did not aprop _ - KT:  Oh, this is, this is - ok!  Tku.  CLM:  Good ques.  JZ: Um - CLM:  Wish we had it.  KT?: _ _ _ -


6/21/04 LEV - Section   4 of  16


JZ: As you look at the right-hand column here, uno that, that small amt of money, $300, was due in, for the, a few days in May when we owed them money, ok.  JW:  At least we can pay that one.  (they chuckle)  JZ:  Yeah, I think we're ok.  CLM:  We'll pay that one _ - (they laugh) - JZ:  I'm gonna say something that you might not like in just a min here. 


But if you, uno if you add up all the amts of money thru, thru Sept - CLM:  57,674.  JZ:  Well, no, I'm just goin' down thru the end of Sept, there's a # over to the right of the box which says 24,814, that's, that's the amt of interest we owe thru Sept, ok.  CLM:  How'd we get to the 57,674?  JZ:  That includes an Oct paymt & a Nov paymt. 


CLM: Oh.  JZ: So, so thru Sept is $24,800.  Um it's a lotta money, but on the other hand (chuckle) - TW:  That's not much - JZ:  it's not very much money - TW: to keep this project - JZ: compared to a mod or anything else - TW:  of this magnitude, gettin' - JZ: we're doin' with this contract.  TW:  that levee built.  KT:  Right.  TW:  That's pretty big pay to put out.  JW: _ - JZ:  So I mean -


JW:  They only bill when they have something completed, right?  They don't do - JZ:  It's earned - JW:  projected earnings?   TW: _ _ - ?: _ - JZ:  Oh, no, it's  - ?: _ _ - JZ:  They, they say we've put - ?: _ _ - JZ:  this much in place in accordance with the contract which you said you're gonna pay us by cubic yard - CLM:  Whatever - JZ:  or whatever it is that they're buildin' -


JW:  So some of these #'s could fluctuate a little bit on this chart?  JZ:  Yeah!  but I mean this gives - JW:  I mean - JZ:  you a pretty good idea - JW:  that logic, it's gettin' pretty close.  JZ:  pretty good idea of what the interest is, will be thru Sept.  & then if we don't pay 'em in Oct, uno then it - JW:  Right.  JZ:  it'll keep accumulating.  In fact this does not - there's a sum, there's an assumption made here;  this does not even discuss not paying him in FY 05. This assumes that uno, this only addresses the earnings thru FY 04, thru the end of Sept & -


CLM:  Incidentally, if you add up the, the interest #'s for just total interest for just the months' info for pavin' (not typo) us from Sept, that comes to 57,674;  that's why I asked the ques about - JZ:  Yeah.  CLM:  24,814 - JZ:  Like on 12/1, we'll hole, we'll owe him - if we haven't paid him anything yet, we'll owe him $57,000 worth of interest.


CLM:  No, I'm - based on this chart, 57,674 is the total of those #'s - TW:  But, Lee - CLM:  thru Sept.  TW:  if you look up there, it says interest for 11/04;  on the left corner.  JZ:  Yeah.  TW:  See where, on the very far left column - right over there, keep scrolling down;  it's got a projected interest - CLM:  Oh, I'm sorry.  TW:  for Nov _ - CLM:  that you're at, ok.  TW:  That's a projected interest;  (next barely audible) no federal.  


CLM:  This is from a (school or screwed?) jerk.  TW:  Yeah.  JZ:  Well - TW: It's a little different.  JZ:  Yeah it is.  (KT chuckles)  It's actually a - this is a highly - CLM: Accountant - JZ: sophisticated - CLM:  Some accountants (they laugh heartily) - JW:  Gotta have a CPA to figure out - JZ:  I think - CLM: _ _ -


JZ:  I think that I'm not even sure about this, but I think like this April column, the column that has paymt est over 5, it says April in it - CLM:  Yeah.  JZ:  I think the money that we owed him in April which was $597,000, uno, the interest paymt on that would've been $331 in May, ok;  & then in June that amt of interest on that $597,000 would be $1900 in, in June;  & then it adds up.  That amt of money adds up to $12,000 by the time you get to uh Nov (laugh) if you wanna study the chart, ok. 


This is a chart that uh the contractor & the COE uno have, have built to keep track of interest that's earned, ok& again, I, at the end of June, I think, I know they have heard the interest rate changes by law & so it'll, it'll change a little bit.  I assume it will go up a little bit, but I don't really know for sure.  Um main point is the contractor's continuing to work & there's some interest being earned.


6/21/04 LEV - Section  5  of  16 


Um I guess, talkin' about specifics, I understand that they're starting to work on the, the drain going to Fishpot Creek now & I know that uh they were relo - that includes the relocations piece that you gave us the check for, ok, umm, relocations in AL, I understand is gonna be done by Bommarito & I was gonna ask Tom or Eric to -


TW:  They're, well, today they had trouble;  uh they're probably not gonna come back tomorrow because it's so wet still from all the rain.  JZ: But they're - TW:  They're on the job;  they started last Fri. 


& just to let everybody know what we decided to do as the city, uh ESI, the local, the, the contractor on the site, gave us a price to do some utility relocations in AL;  we've got an alternate price from Bom & we, we're pretty sure we're gonna save about $15,000 from pullin' out some old sewer lines, in lieu of using ESI.  & wherever we see the opp to do that, we're going to if there's a significant amt of savings.  If it was only a couple of thousand $'s, we probably would not have messed with it, ok, because -


JW:  Does that guy wait on his money too tho?  Is Bom waitin'?  JZ&TW:  No.  JZ:  The city can pay it.  EM:  We, we pay that - TW: No - EM: in a sense.  TW: No, we - EM?:  City won't go shortcut.  TW:  They're a small con - TB:  It all covers interest according to this thing - (a couple chuckle) TB?:  8000.


TW: Well, anyway so - ?: Yeah.  TW:  we are saving money where it's appropriate;  where it's not gonna hold up ESI or so we don't jeopardize the uh late, the TIME DELAY project - JZ&?:  Yeah.  TW:  that part of the project.  CLM:  That's always a - TW: So in this particular case, we decided, BOOM, let's do it!  & so we're, uno where we can, we're gonna save a little bit of money, but it may not be prudent to do that all the time.  CLM:  No, 'cause you are, as you well know, Tom, uh do you really runna risk of the contractor sayin' well, you've delayed me without bond - TW:  Right.  CLM:  bring another contractor in. 


6/21/04 LEV - Section  6 of  16 


TW:  & we met & we, & I go to the Thurs mtgs, just so everybody knows.  I go to the Thurs trailer mtgs;  JM goes, uh, &, &, & Dave goes & we discuss all these issues, aside from this mtg.  JW:  Is that once a month, that mtg?  TW:  No, once a wk, every Thurs morning, 10:00.  CLM: 10:00.  TW: &, & we go thru all the intimate details of delays & who's - there's so much goin' on behind the scenes;  it's, it's really kind of crazy but um utility relocates are a big issue STILL;  just so you all know that.  Uh we're still dealin' with water-line issues;  we're still dealin' with sewer-line relocates um all the way till still right now.  So um but we're gettin' close on some of these but haven't hit a spot where we're delayed the contractor YET, so. 


JW:  If a newspaper reporter wanted to take a tour of what we've accomplished so far, would that Thurs mtg be a place or no?  JZ:  No, that's the business mtg & should really make an appointmt with - TW:  Yeah.  JZ:  Mike Feldmann - TW:  I, I would say - JZ: depends on - TW: I would say - JZ:  what site they want.  TW:  that'd be a good time to try to make the appointmt.  JW:  Is Mike the uh - TW:  Mike Feldmann - JW:  ESI Coordinator?  TW:  No, no he's the COE, Mike Feldmann.  JZ: Vicman, Mike Feldmann or Vic James with the COE. 


JW:  Ok, 'cause Mary Shapiro was talkin' to me a little bit about that & I said well, I'll find out.  I didn't know where to send her with her - CLM:  the COE, they're takin' the controls - JW:  Uno, I said I don't know what type of transportation they'd - KT: _ - JW: have to get you around - TW:  Yeah, they're into - JW:  in that - TW:  hard hats - JW: cold rain.  TW:  safety glasses - JW:  Yeah.  TW: vest. 


CLM: It would probably won't hurt to meet AT the trailer whenever she comes in.  TW: Right, but they all have to have - & I don't know if they got guest helmets - JZ:  Well, they would - TW: trailer.  JZ:  they would work that out.  JW:  Ok, that's fine.  JZ:  _ they would have a - TW:  That'd be a good idea because they ARE rollin'.  KT:  Yeah. 


JW:  It'd be nice for the surrounding cmtys & VP, where there's a - KT: _ - JW:  lot of people don't know - KT:  Right.  JW:  believe it or not, don't know what that dirt pile is goin' down thru there.  CLM:  Be good for the COE & good for the contractor to have that info out.  JW:  Right.  TW:  Matter of fact, it might be a good time even for some nice pictures.  KT:  There you said it;  it's - JW:  Yeah, & uno it might - politicians that are in the higher up might see a little - TW:  Oh yeah I mean - JW:  pressure from other residents & say, hey, let's - TW: There's some great photos - JW: let's get that - TW:  that could be taken _ - JW: funding down there to them people. 


KT:  What are the names (if?) we've got 'em?  JZ:  Umm, Vic James is the uh Resident Eng;  he's the guy who's on-site & responsible.  Then was that name Mike?  That's Vic James & then Mike Feldmann (he spells it) 'cause the area, he's aware of these - (indec bkgd talkers) - he covers the whole, the (whole zone?) area of uh const jobs, but he's also at this job for the (office?) -


6/21/04 LEV - Section  7 of  16 


JW:  Is there any other 4B update items from anybody else?  Are you _ _ to him to him or is you still got more?  JZ:  Um I think I'm finished.  Um I don't know if Tom or - EM:  Well, lemme, lemme throw throw some in.  I - RW?: usually it's till 5, there's no big _ -


EM:  Tom's not tootin' his horn really enough on this one - ?: _ _ - EM: but this, this uh deal with Bommarito & ESI.  Uh ESI uh per COE specs, was going to grout-in this Arnold's Area & uh TOM!  thought that it would be cheaper frankly to just go in & rip out the pipes & it's a lot more sturdy um uh to the integrity of the levee anyway!  CLM:  Oh, you bet!  EM:  & so that's what happened & uh, not only did he save 15,000 bucks, but uh, uh it's, it's a better for the project.  So HATS OFF to TOM here today!


TB:  How deep were those pipes?  CLM:  That IS a good move.  TW:  Uh, well, they start out about 8 to 10 ft down by the old uh MSD pump sta right by the RR tracks there & then it progressively gets a little bit shallower up to - TB:  Were they all concrete pipes down there?  TW:  No, they're, they're clay pipes & then we found, believe it or not, we found some other pipes! 


BW:  Surprise!  TW:  Surprise!  Here's another pipe runnin' this direction & we've had, we have - so they actually, the original est for Bom may be a little higher;  not too bad, but a little bit higher because we found some extra stuff!  I mean there's - & you can't let uh the integrity of your levee - BW:  Be dependent on - TW: be dependent on one little 4" pipe that you said, well, uno, that wasn't in our contract;  we better just leave it there.  CLM:  No way!  TW:  You can't do that.  EM:  Sure.  TW:  So!


 6/21/04 LEV - Section  8  of  16


EM:  Another thing that's been goin' on at least as far as what I'VE been doing in, in conjunction with Tom & everybody uh with the ESI, is that um the, the COE wants to get on MAURER'S property, the uh SHOPPING CTR! area  & start const of a storm water drain in the back of his premises.  & he's not the easiest guy to work with.


But uh, we had to relocate a water line that is parallel to the RR tracks because the water co didn't want the existing water line which was in the RR ROW to be part of their system;  um matter of fact, they just blatently refused to, to uh go fwd with any abandonmts until that was done.  So the city uh approached Maurer with it & it's actually his wife that owns a parcel of property.  &, & we provided licenses & esmts for him & uh he hemmed & hawed & finally, we sent Kokesh over & they finished the job.  & he sent me a letter back saying that uh before he signs the license to allow 'em on the job, he wants his pkg lot paved in the back, repaved!


& uh it, it's a little too late now uh for him to hold up our, our license on that, but that's something, it, it appears we're going to, to have to look at down the road & once the storm water line gets in, we'll see if the area settles & if the backfill holds or whatever.  & uh I, I did reassure him in writing that we would return his pkg lot in the same condition uh that it was before the const started. 


Um we, we had one MINOR problem & that is um that 4 utility poles had to be relocated & unfortunately, one had to be relocated in the rear of his shopping ctr & the electric co went out & painted a spot where it was to be.  Then they came out with their auger & started drilling there & he came running out & kicked 'em off the property, uh indicating that he didn't want a utility pole in the back of his pkg area that was 5' from the rear of his bldg. 


So we got uh together with the supervisor for UE.  The supervisor for UE conferred with him;  they established where the footings were & they said ok, we'll move it back.  & uh everybody was in agreemt & harmony, so they sent the auger truck back out.  Well, the auger truck put in the pole but he put in the pole in the same exact spot where - (they laugh) - ?:  he wasn't sposta.  EM:  he wasn't sposta, yeah.


So they got a, a BIG, BIG pole there uh that's not connected.  Uh it's, it's what a 75, 80' pole in the back of his pkg lot & they'd indicated that they are going to come back out the 28th &, & it was their fault;  they're admitting it & uh, uh they will have everything connected up & have the tra uh, what do they call those big, transformers - there's a big transformer hanging on the pole outside of his pkg lot & they're moving that & doing all the, the wiring uh by the 28th, which will not impede the contractor.  The contractor's in agreemt that, that he'll be able to start.  Currently the pole IS in the middle of where the storm water drain would be & I, I don't think it's gonna preclude him from back-filling & commencing excavations of everything wise.


TW:  Well, considering they've had some of these weather problems & _ so.  EM:  Yeah.  TW:  But what that also does, that gives you a little flavor for how this utility stuff has been - CLM:  People wonder why - TW:  goin' on a -  CLM:  it takes so long to - TW:  wk, wkly basis.  I mean that's a SMALL sample of how EVERY ONE of these (chuckling) projects -


BW:  What happened - TW: has gone.  BW: to the uh, uh grease pit or the grease - TW:  We pulled that out.  EM:  &, & we are gonna have to relocate it.  TW: It was, it was abandoned & it was dead;  it was not active.  BW:  Oh really!  EM:  &, & it's something he by law has to have.  He had it hooked up - it was actually hooked up to an area that wasn't servicing automobiles!  It was where the Airco Co is I think, or I'm not sure, whatever.  We - TW:  We - EM:  we are gonna have to relocate it.  Unfortunately -


BW: Did he put it in on not his property?  EM:  Eh, it's, it's CLOSE;  kinda half & half;  um & - TW:  The other thing is tho, the powersport place, they haven't used it.  EM:  Well, because it's not hooked up to 'em!  TW&EM:  Yeah.  TW:  Jim, Jim & I verified that it's not been used.  EM:  Um unfortunately, once we took the pit out, um it fell off a truck;  & it's a pre-fabbed pit & it broke in half (a few chuckle) & so it's of no value or use.  ?: _ _ _ - EM:  I, I think the bottom line is I, I, I did talk to Counsel with the COE about it;  um we're gonna have to relocate it & put it smack-dab in the middle of the, the uh drive, um & it's gonna be his responsibility to hook it back up;  but we're just gonna dig a pit, put it in, he'll hook it up & that's that.


TW: & it's not gonna ever service it.  TB:  What's, this get pumped out or somethin'?  EM&TW:  Yeah.  TW:  But it's a trap.  I mean it's like well, uno it's the - RW:  It was put in for the motorcycle shop;  Hilton class!  TW:  Right.  TB:  It's just for - RW:  The St L County requires 'em to be put in.  EM:  Yeah, &, & what happened, the motorcyclye shop constricted & uh it got hooked up or it remained hooked up to the bay that the motorcycle shop used to use, but  then they sub-leased that area - ?: Right.  TB: The old - EM:  uno to one - TB:  area they used to have?  EM:  Yeah - RW:  But somebody went in & abandoned it is what they did. 


EM:  Right & so as a matter of course - ?:  One of the tenants - EM:  the motorcycle shop's been op'g illegally without it, uh because I, I think the thing is, the, the idea is when you hose down the floor - CLM:  That's right.  EM:  it takes the oil & separates the oil - ?: _ - ?: _ - RW:  From the water, yeah.  EM:  Yeah, so that's - ?:  TB:  Then another truck comes & pumps it out probably & takes the oil.  EM:  Theoretically, yeah.  TW:  It hasn't for a long time (chuckle).   EM:  Yeah.  It was full of oil I think when they pulled it.  RW:  Well, it's empty now;  it split in half. (they laugh)  EM: That's very true!


TW:  But there, there wasn't any sign of it being used.  I mean & there wasn't really any sign that - ?: _ to me _ - TW:  uh the power sports people were - ?:  It's concrete & metal.  TW:  It's not like - it didn't appear to Jim & I that they were dumpin' oil & into their sewer.  EM:  & I don't think they - yeah - TW:  I think they're recy - they got a recycler.  EM:  Well the only time they do - I mean this is supposed to be the, the oil, the film on the floor I think - TW:  Right.  EM:  is where you're - TW:  Right, that's where you're supposed to have it.  RW:  Supposed to have 'em in all garages.  JKB:  Well, when they wash the engines off - RW: Yeah.  JKB: probably gets on the floor & have to wash it down _. 


6/21/04 LEV - Section  9  of  16 



EM:  Uhhh & I, I think the only other utility stuff we have, we're waiting for would be the gas co & they've been pretty good to work with; & then the water co who hasn't been so good to work with, were messing around in,on Pharoah I thiinnkkk -


TW:  Yeah & just a quick note on that, we're gonna, when we get thru the AL area, we're gonna go talk to uh Bom about potentially, instead of grouting lines, we may decide to rip-out depending on what price we get;  if we've got a price from 'em for grouting, & then see if we can get -?: _ _ - TW:  a price _ -  JZ:  He hadn't gotten one _ - BW:  Is - ?: _ _ -


BW:  there any process that can determine - ?: _ _ - BW: unknown lines, pipes or drains or whatever underground that - TW:  It's pretty difficult because typically they're made out of vitrified clay which is an inert material - BW:  So you can't reuse - TW: & it's not likely - BW:  any residence _ - TW:  unless it's cast iron lines, you can hook up & trace it.  But if it's clay, there's no metal detector or nothing really that - BW:  Even residences - TW: It's tough - BW:  electric - TW:  & It's dark.  EM:  We even - BW:  _ seismic tester.  EM:  kind of lost one of our own pipes - TW:  Even plastic pipe is hard to locate. 


EM:  Um we, we had this pipe down - ?: _ _ - EM:  the RR ROW that we don't know where it is or where it ends or - we know where it begins!  But I guess - do we know where it ends?  No , we don't really;  uh &, & it's there!  DS: It used to end at the aerator at the water plant!  TW:  Jim, Jim - EM:  Ok.  TW:  I think Jim knows.  Jim knows where it ends.  DS:  (chuckle) Don't ask a man that (knows?)  ?: _ - TW:  Talkin' about the pipe that was put in a few yrs back?  EM:  The, the one we're tryin' to, to grout & figure out how to grout it because we don't know where the end is with the stamped pipe end. 


TB:  They say you can locate pipe on it, but don't, when they put plastic pipe, don't they put a bar on top of it?  ?: _ - ?:  they think - TW?: Not now.  ?: _ put a bar - ?: _ - TW:  Latterals _ - EM:  I GUESS that's the aerator pipe;  I, I don't know.  ?: Yeah, why not _ - ?: _ - DS:  Yeah, it used to go to the aerator wherever that's at now;  I don't know.  EM:  Yeah, I, it's probably buried under a (fence?) _ - TW:  Anyway, the util, uno, the utility thing's been a - but we've been meeting weekly with the contractor, ESI, the COE;  everybody's been real good, been - JW?: Right.  TW:  been cooperating very well, so;  but it's been a struggle.


JMitas:  Supposedly there is a technique that you can hear grout & I don't know if its uses only go up with the emergency brake on, but it senses ground-penetrating _ _ _ _ _ _ uh, & I don't know how expensive it is.  TW:  It's REAL expensive & I've used it for locatin' voids under streets.  It's called Ground-Penetration Radar & it's a GPS & we've used it on several large uh concrete street projects.  But it's very difficult & they're VERY expensive & uh especially when you're in this area, small areas.  But if, if we absolutely have something that we can't find, that's when our doable file, it opens.


JMitas:  Of course if your integrity of area behind the levee is dependent upon - TW: OH YEAH!  JMitas:  (any size quite fall?) - TW:  if there is any doubt on that, we're gonna - JMitas:  Now, you know that they wouldn't ALLOW - ?: can't - (someone coughs) - JMitas: before you put the borrow - TW:  OH abs - JMitas:  up again.  TW:  & we're not gonna do THAT!  ?: (background) & then they own it _ - TW:  We're not gonna leave any pipe that we know about (chuckling);  that's for certain.  (BW chuckles)  JMitas: _ _ -


6/21/04 LEV - Section  10  of  16 


JW: Any other 4B - ?: No.  JW:  updates?  JZ:  Yeah, um Andy asked me to mention the 3rd St drain;  uno that's the drain, the pipe, city storm drain that has this continuing flow from Reichhold Chemical Co & the Wainwright clean-up.  & the latest thing I don't know if you knew about it, Andy, is that the contractor asked us to give him any technical advice we can about the possibility of putting a ditch that connects, connects uh the 3rd St pipe at the junction box with our 5th St junction box. 


& there's about a 2' drop in elevation between those 2 points.  & uh we talked about it;  I've talked to MDNR about it.  I sent them a letter asking for their cmts on the possibility of a ditch going across 2 of 2 pipes temporarily.  TW:  Yeah, 'cause we only need that 30-day - JZ:  for about a month.  TW: about a 30-day window.  JZ:  Yeah.


Andy:  How long will it be?  TW:  About 1500 - JZ:  Uh about 13 to 1500 ft.  TW:  Right.  JZ:  Yeah, it's very flat.  JW:  (chuckles) _ - TW:  Well, it beats the alternative of havin' a well.  JZ:  Well, it'll, it'll, uno - TW:  It's only for 30 days.  JZ:  But on that hand, the other hand, the velocity would be slow & so there'd be less erosion (chuckle).  TW:  It's actually a pretty good idea within the contract - JZ:  Yeah, well I haven't - TW:  we came up with.  JZ:  heard back from MDNR.  I mean we talked to 'em on the phone.  I talked to uh Dave Mosby about it mainly & Jill Bruss & they wanted me to send a letter to Tom Siegel, which I did.  I copied Jill & I guess I copied Eric & Tom on it too;  they got it thru the, their email. 


EM:  Does everybody remember that there's ground water flowing out from these mitigation  areas?  Wainwright has one & then Reichhold uses it, water in their cooling of, of their industrial facilities.  & this is water that just continuously flows & it's pretty large quantities!  - ?:  Yeah.  EM:  The problem is the contractor's gotta get in there & redivert, or well, REWORK the drains & uh he can't while this water flows & we can't shut it off.  DNR won't shut it off & uh evidently Rei's uh could shut it off, but it's - TW:  But its user fees to, to have to it taken to MSD - EM:  Right.


JZ:  Yeah, we have other options we've already, still already considered;  uno taking it to MSD, tem - TW:  Right.  JZ:  temporarily, in both places - EM:  & it was just in the thousands & - JZ: This uno this - TW: 40's - JZ: 30.  TW: 40,000 - JZ:  No.  TW:  dollars.


JZ:  The other option is to move our 3rd St drain over;  uno build it in a new location & let the water continue to flow down the existing pipe.  Uno the contractor prefers the ditch effect if it'll work & everybody agrees to it - Andy: _ - JZ:  he thinks. Andy:  You're going with the very 1st option - JZ:  Yeah.  Andy:  now that you have in mind all of a sudden?  JZ: Yeaahh;  I don't know.  The contractor actually got a proposal from this drain-layer to put a PIPE around, uno to pipe around it to the, to the river.  That was real expensive;  it was like $50,000.  That's the only one I've seen a # on.  I never saw a # on the ditch idea.  Uh so (pause) -


TW:  Do you have an idea - JZ:  we're still - TW:  of getting one that's completely sodded?  JZ:  Well, um, I guess it's time for me to follow-up.  I sent that letter probably about Thurs or so of last wk & I did ask them for a fast - TW:  'cause I know a Hal & Jim.  JZ:  cmts.  TW:  Just the more places we can allow them to work that diverts from an area that maybe gets stopped by some other reason.  JZ:  Yeah. 


?:  Reckon the - KT: _ - ?:  parts come from them.  JZ:  Well, it goes - the ditch has to go thru an area where we got this material from Absorbent Cotton.  TW:  They're worried about siltation. JZ:  So, so we're - Andy?: _ _ - now we have to  think about uno TW:  Sedimentation - JZ: over-excavating that  - ?: _ _ - JZ:  material off the top of where the ditch is gonna be & there's actually a 2nd set of correspondence that's gone to Solid Waste Dept of MDNR about takin' that Absorbent Cotton material & putting it in where we already had planned to put eng'd fill under, but on the berm, under the berm on the river side;  there's a section of the levee that's just there to have it, have the water drain away from the levee;  it's not there for structural -


TW:  The problem with that - we discussed that last Thurs - the problem of gettin' into a whole buncha doin' that, we're gonna not save that much money if we gotta put all this clay lining & all this material on there by hour & then to have the contractor's gonna - if we gotta do all that, might as well (chuckle) move the pipe. JZ:  Yeah, & maybe that's (pause) - TW:  I mean the only thing that's gonna work that's gonna be clean & green is if, (if or with?) DNR approval, cut the ditch, try to protect the banks' investmt cap & get in & get out.  Otherwise, we're not gonna save any money.  I mean that's kind of - & I agree with the contractor;  uno if you gotta do all this slope protection & put clay liner on this & all, you're back to relocatin' or movin' the design over.


JZ:  Well, either one would be ok;  whatever is the best uno.  Andy:  It probably wouldn't cost that much for a mix of Curlex to escape that hole.  CLM:  Put in what?  TW: When there's an open channel's all they're hopin' thru.  JZ:  What's Curlex?  Andy:  It's a kind of a, it's kind of a little glue-holder with fiber that's a - it's for liner for protectin' some good size - JW:  That's what I use.  Andy:  bank erosion.  It - CLM:  Yeah, I would - Andy: comes in a mat.  JW: was weird - CLM: I wouldn't think you _ - Andy:  & I think there's a statemt on there - it's real cheap. 


CLM:  once you - once erosion's taking place where - BW: _ _ _ - CLM:  there's no grade drops - JZ:  Well, the problem - TW:  They're worried about the Absorbent Cotton materials rollin' - CLM:  Who?  JZ:  They don't want the Absorbent Cotton to go - TW:  Bill Solsa.  JZ:  that's erosive.  TW: Soltea.  JZ:  Plus, uno, if, if they divert, they're gonna also divert the storm;  so there's a - uno there could certainly be a thunderstorm.  TW:  Yeah, gulley washer.  JZ:  Yeah - CLM:  Have a gulley washer.  JZ:  It'll have more water than just their continued flows. 


EM:  & then the final thing for Item 4 is, I talked...(exchange tapes - Regrettably not noticing exactly when required, instead of a few seconds, mins were missed.  I had noted that Andy chuckled that it's just _ _ of the water...1st option that came up...Kevin & I talked about it...DNR is comfortable with that...EM said now may be good time talk 500-yr levee...only certain areas would require 3' more.)


6/21/04 LEV - Section  11 of  16 from the COE for a 500-yr levee, but um to, to that extent, I think Tom's gonna be doing some ROUGH #'s on how many more cubic yds it would take to bring it up 3' & maintain the 10' crown.  Um &, & we also have to bear in mind all this has to be approved by the COE as well but um, we're just seeing if it's feasible at this point.  Uh maybe with the lag in the contractor paymts, he might like to see some money anyway &, & we might get a great deal;  but at the same time we might not, but uh dudn't hurt to see what's going on. 


TB:  Why would it be uh 3' in some areas?  I mean the levee should be the same height all the way around shouldn't it?  EM:  Uh well, I, I - CLM:  Uno what happens is if the river falls & elevation of the flood falls as it falls, is you start at the upstream part, you have a difference in the required elevation from the (east?) or plus the fact, the part at the center, if you have a low area, you - TW:  might require - CLM: _ - TW:  a little bit more.  CLM:  _ _.  It's a combination -


TW:  But, but in general, if it in fact is an average of 3', you still have a situation that you're gonna have to do something about that.  TB:  You're gonna have to have a bigger base then.  TW:  More than li - &, & again, that's something that I really haven't spent a lot of time yet with the COE, but I imagine we're gonna have to talk about this _ -


JKB:  How many more yrs would that take?  EM:  Well, I mean it, it would, it would be pretty inconsiderate - TW:  Incrementally, not much more - EM: Yeah.  ?:  co-hoing -  BW:  I guess the big question I would have, uh how long would it take the COE to come up with a new design for that?  Is that something really simple?  Or is it -


CLM:  Well, (no or now?), what we'd be doin' here is, is simp, much similar to what's been goin' on in CV where the Levee Dist, using TIF funds & bond funds, uh advance fundin' & const, the raising of the earthen levee, while even before the Congress auth'd the funding & while the COE was studying it & even after-thoughts while they continue to do that & using their own funds.  There's a vehicle within the Legi, within the law, that you meet certain requiremts before the, the local sponsor for the project CAN get issued, you can get CREDIT, towards its eventual local share of the project. 


So what we're talkin' about here is we've got - in fact (if?) we got like 2 projects, one project is auth'd by the Congress under const & has a cost;  the city has a local share of, of 25%, 5% in cash incremt.  This would be something that the city would do on its own in ADVANCE of Congress'l authn for a fed project hoping that the law would allow us to somehow rcv credit.  & it would be very tricky to do that because it's been required to do the law, to see if the city would get CREDIT for the money it spent to raise it once the Congress auth'd the project & made it a fed project that's been funded by the _ _ (levy or levee?).


6/21/04 LEV - Section  12 of  16 


JW:  Would you ever do that - make an official 500-yr levee without reconst'g the flood gates that we've already got?     EM:  Huhuh, I, I don't think so.  Well, maybe the flood gates, but it's - well, well, I'll let Jim answer that(JZ chuckles)  JW: I mean - ?:  There's a lot more to it than uno - JW:  The dirt part's out.  JZ:  at the end of the part -  EM:  Yeah.  JW:  The easy - I think that would be simple, but - EM:  You're, you're, you're right _ - JW:  gettin' to that structure - EM:  You're right.   


JKB:  Will they have to purchase any more ground?  EM:  Ummm, I dunno!  I - JKB:  If they make it wider, I'm sure they'd have to purchase more ground.  Wouldn't they?  EM:  May, maybe not!  Because you, at least on the river side, we own by-&-large both sides except maybe those areas where there's a det basin.  But most, uno all thru the uh Sportsmen's Park &, & thru uh the old glass works, we own both sides of that. 


RW:  Yeah but I thought that had a lot to do with that wetland (someone coughs) just can't go over in that area.  EM:  Well, I don't know that we're talkin' about a CONSIDERABLE AMT of base expansion!  CLM:  You can replace - RW:  It's right at the edge of the wetlands the last time 'cause - EM:  Yeah - RW: _ - CLM:  You can extend - EM:  in some places we are;  I mean there's no ques about it.


JZ:  There's some places - I mean I, I - 1st of all, the whole idea needs to be ree, needs to be examined in some detail.  CLM:  Oh yeah & Eric _ - JZ:  & Eric knows that.  But uno the idea of bringing the levee from 100-yr to 500-yr, there's, there's a variety of things that have to be considered, ok. I'll say one, one thing, there are, there are places right now where we have this eng'd fill in our design that if we have a crown that's 70' wide in AL, well it'd be easy to bring that up 3' higher, you'd get just from the crown;  you don't have to - CLM:  Right.  JZ:  uno increase the base. 


We have a section of eng'd fill in along the g/p that has the crown of 30'.  So you'd think you could bring that up somewhat.  CLM:  Then you don't have to widen & use add'l ROW.  JZ:  But the rest of it, uno it gets to be more complicated.  EM:  But we just gotta figure - ?: _ _ - EM:  figure costs & figure benefits just like - ?: _ _ - EM:  there are more, wouldn't be, if they do it -  I guess the point is - ?: _ _ - EM:  is that uno you have the equipmt there;  you have the DIRT in-hand - there obviously is a fee for raising it from 20 to 23' or whatever it is, but uh (pause) if you uh (pause) -


6/21/04 LEV - Section  13 of  16 


CLM:  & what we'd be doin' in effect is something similar to what HAS been done in CV & that is doing the work in advance of the time when the COE needs to follow this normal Congressional authn & our corporation would have been able to do it.  There, we left the flood gates deliberately.  From the very beginning we planned on only raising the earthen levee with levee dist funds & leaving the, the uh closure structures for the COE to do 'cause they're much more expensive per linear ft of protection. 


In effect, we'd be doing something similar to that here.  So you're lookin' at - what, what Eric is suggesting is there's really a great idea, is, if it, it's feasible to do so from an eng'g viewpoint & a funding viewpoint for the city to do that earthen work & then we could get the Congress later on to let the COE do the Study which we're workin' on now & goin' to have those (least or leases?) recorded in Recon Report.  If they determine that it's ec'ly feasible, eng'g feasible, env'ly feasible for a 500-yr level protection, then it will become a fed project & then the COE would have the authn to get the funding to meet the NEEDS.  So what we're doing really, is we're, we're advancing the work just like it is being done in CV. 


JKB:  So the gates would have to come plummeting down?  EM:  Oh maybe not!  JKB:  for the others to be put up?   CLM:  Well, I don't know.  Uh it depends on how the current gates are designed & what the COE standards are for - I mean what the existing ga, how they're designed;  what the current gate structure & design & criteria are;  whether there's some sort of an add-on thing (someone coughs) -


TB:  I don't know if there's a - CLM:  where they have to replace the gates - TB: an eng but I know it - KT: May I ask - TB: worked down on the riverfront, but I don't - KT:  how much - TB:  know whether they put - KT:  levees cost - TB:  they poured  5' of concrete above that - KT:  to install?  TB:  gate.  I know It's got a - RW?:  that was ro_ - EM:  It's in between - TB:  extend the flood gates - MM: speak one at a time? - KT:  approximate - EM:  where the gate is -


MM:  One at a time, Please?  EM:  HEY!  CLM:  the flood gate closes a 40' gate - EM:  You're, you're not takin' the mins, I am!  CLM:  it's almost impossible for anybody to place a 40' - MM:  ONE AT A TIME, PLEASE!  I would -  EM:  Where the gates are - MM:  appreciate that.  EM:  between the top of the structure, there's a void.  Isn't there?  Uh - JZ:  I don't think, I don't think there would be a - EM:  &, & there's - I mean - JZ:  _'ve gotta - EM:  we've got a work - JZ:  gate hanging from - EM:  at that some.  JZ:  a trolley uno &, & there's, there's gotta be a, a void above that that -


CLM:  Again, it's something has to be examined as an eng'g problem;  a lot of eng'g problems can be solved.  KT:  I see Vance, Vance Rd - ?:  There's no doubt there.  KT:  has a flood gate needs to be widened ALREADY.  EM:  Well, that, that's - she's got a point that, that, that widen with a cost;  those aren't cheap.  RW:  Well, we talked about that prior to them ever puttin' that gate in there.  It should've been wider & nobody moved on it!  KT:  Right.  RW:  I mean it, it's something which isn't minimum.  That was discussed back when he was gettin' ready to put it in but went ahead & put it in the way they designed it! 


JW:  Hopefully Eric & the COE & Tom can come back with some, some costs 'cause we're just - I think we're beatin' around somethin' (imaginary?).  CLM:  Yeah.  KT:  Yeah, right now.  JW:  It's kind of a pipe-dream - KT: Yeah.  JW:  & we really, we might be unrealistic or #'s we can't get & until we get to that point - JZ:  That's correct. 


6/21/04 LEV - Section  14 of  16 


RW:  Is the COE currently doin' any studyin' at all with this?  Or is it just the - CLM:  No, what we - RW:  local sponsor - CLM:  what we have now & I wanted to bring that up, is we have a Congress'l Resolution which has been sent to the Chief of Engs auth'g the COE to undertake a Recon Report which is a Prel Study - takes about a yr, a yr & a half, 100% federally funded to do a Prel Study with a "Comps" Report to determine if there, the language is, if there is a fed interest in providing add'l flood protection to the City VP;  that means flood protection greater than the 100-yr levee.  Now the COE, it's gotta be all congress'l funds & aprops.  


Right now the COE always has a backlog of, of those auth'ys, resolutions to do those type studies.  & I'm been working with the StL Dist & I'm beginning to develop a game-plan whereby we can try to get the COE Hdqtrs in Wash to make the funds available to the StL Dist as soon as we know how much they'll need for the 1st yr to get that started AGAIN & where it normally would be if it just has to wait in line & gets flooded.


We had the same thing in CV for example.  We got the funding for that uh much sooner than we would have if we'dve had to wait in line, but, but when (down to whisper) it got in my office (stopped short) -   so their way of, or they explained it, the COE Initial Report with the Recon Report, basically they determine whether there is a fed interest i.e. is it eng'gly feasible, env'ly feasible & ec'ly;  these being the benefits exceed the costs or equal the costs to provide more than 100-yr protection;  (they or think?) was up to the 200-yr level, 250, maybe 300 & even 500.  If they determine that, that more than one of those levels was feasible, then they would have to recommend, under the law, they'd have to recommend the one that returns the greatest nat'l & ec benefits. 


So if you're, in my view, I think where the dev has taken place & it's going to take place, I think by the time they get the money to start the Recon Report & do the Study, I think that you WILL find there is an ec justification for add'l flood protection.  & the reason that we didn't really push it for to get a resolution before NOW, is that I didn't think that there WAS ec justification in YOUR view. 


RW:  I'm not sure there would be any even NOW!  CLM:  Well, I think with what has taken place & is GOING to take place - RW:  If they think they're gonna turn this, this  - CLM:  Well, 1st of all - RW: area down here into a CV! - CLM:  No, no we're just - RW:  THAT IS NOT gonna happen! 


CLM:  That's a totally different situation.  The only reason I mention CV is there are some similarities in as far as how the le, levee dist out there went AHEAD of the COE to do the earth work, to what the city is thinking might be feasible to raise the levee further.  The COE won't look at just raising the existing levee.  They'll look at realigning the levee for example & considering that they have to determine which is the most ec'ly - which one returns the most ec, national & ec benefits.


EM:  & remember, since the time they did the 1st Feasibility Study, we've got a Hwy 141 that is - ?:  (bkgd)  Hold me down!  EM:  I guess it's above hundred-yr - it has to be up above - RW:  It's not above the 500-yr.  EM:  But that's right;  but, but there'll be some incremt in there & that's an ECONOMIC incremt just to the hwys!   RW:  'cause 141, technically, 141 & Marshall's not out of it - CLM:  No, 141 & Marshall - RW:  the 100-yr.  EM:  That's right. 


CLM: 141 is, was built to the 100-yr level & it's just like Interstate 64 goin' thru CV, part of the ec benefits the COE derived from the 500-yr project out there is the fact that for the 500-yr flood, that levee was too high;  we'll all be flooded.  & there are grave ec ulcers from the traffic diverted, extra time to travel, fare costs & that's according to the hwy dept. 


In fact as a matter of interest to you a levee dist, BILL the hwy dept a tax because for protecting their property.  The MO State Hwy Dept had never paid levee taxes for hwys goin' thru a Levee-Protected Dist & the court ruled that they have to start paying now because we ARE protecting their property.  So just like any property owner, they have to pay taxes to the levee dist. 


But it's, this is something that uh is gonna take some doin' but it's something, certainly something worth pursuing & putting forth.  At the same time, we're working to get advance funding or get the funding ap, approved & made available EARLIER than normal for the St L Dist so we can start the Recon Report for this add'l flood protection.


6/21/04 LEV - Section  15 of  16


TW:  One last cmt on that, I, I think what a lot of it comes down to is how is this area gonna redev -  RW:  Well, that's exactly right.  TW:  or IS this area gonna be dev'd & if it looks like it's potentially gonna be redev'd & whether that means mixed use or WHATEVER that means, that the dev or the devrs or whoever's gonna do that is going to probably come to the city & say this will NOT take place UNLESS this happens.  & that may be the, the fighting - CLM:  Yeah _ - TW:  force.  At that time there may be a - CLM:  Well it - TW: separate TIF Dist that has to be -


CLM:  The COE has a real tough set of criteria.  Devrs have no - they cannot take credit for ec dev & project it into the future that hasn't somehow STARTED.  If a devr has applied to the city for example for zoning, or for any permit, THEN they can take credit for that dev being const'd & levee protected.  They can't take dev for, take credit, ec credit for benefits that would be generated for flood-protecting something that is not always positive, but in somebody's eye like that. 


JKB:  Did the gov't pay for the CV op?  CLM:  It's a Congressionally-auth'd project uh where the gov't is paying 65% & the local sponsor, which is the levee dist, is paying 35%.  JKB:  I thought I heard something about the fact, this is CV, it was on their land, they got their money back. 


CLM:  No.  No, what, what happened is the levee dist, using TIF levies & bond monies for the levee dist issue, they issued bonds, they const'd & raised the earthen levee to the 500-yr level, getting the plans approved by the COE, at the Sec'y of Army level BEFOREHAND so they could get CREDIT for it, so that  what they've done is they spent that money to get this protection YRS ahead of time when the COE would've provided it & then they don't have to pay that money at the end in cash for their 35% share.


EM:  John's right in, in some regard.  I mean some of that TIF was used to construct Boone Crossing & the infrastructure in there.  CLM:  Oh well infrastructure, yeah.  EM:  Yeah.  CLM:  The TIF, TIF monies can be used to provide infras that directly related to ec dev;  not for A specific law for devrs, but to serve the AREA that, that's in the TIF - TW:  & that's - CLM:  (catepillars?) - TW:  where there's sewers - CLM:  bridges, pilings - TW:  water lines or - EM:  Yeah &, & I think - TW:  bridges - EM: to the extent that sales tax $'s came in MUCH more heavy than - CLM:  Oh yeah!  EM:  were anticipated - CLM:  Yeah - EM:  that they have reduced the, the life of that TIF because - CLM:  Yeah this, it was - RW:  It was down a whole, but almost UP - EM:  Yeah - RW:  now.  EM:  That, that's right.


CLM:  It was a 23-yr life TIF & they, they started 3 yrs ago, paying extra money to fire protection dist & the school was stowin' above - RW:  When we gonna get that, Col?!  (BW chuckles)  CLM:  I guess that's - TW:  When we get some businesses.  CLM:  it's taxes, TAXES, Chief!  (KT chuckles)  BW:  Just tell it dev to property.  TW:  Right.  BW: Get your 500 -


6/21/04 LEV - Section  16 of  16


JW:  We need to move on to B, city cost share & a project - I think a lot of that's been covered under your nice - RW:  Pretty much explains it there, Jeff, there ain't no money!  (they laugh heartily)  TW:  Same way with C?  JW:  Yeah, I wanted to move on when I heard you were talkin' about - TW:  Same way with C. 


JW: Yeah I mean uh I guess next will be MM, D.  MM:  Where is DC?  JW:  He uh asked to be excused.   I don't know if he's on vacation & the mayor - MM:  Oh, he'll be here next wk?  JW:  Mayor asked - EM:  No, he won't be.  He's, he's in Texas;  he's gone for 3 wks I think.  ?:  Ok, tku.  MM:  Oh, ok;  so he won't be here next, next mtg?  TW&JW:  He'll probably be here at the next levee mtg.  MM: Ok, I'll hold off on what I wanted to say.  JW:  Ok, tku.  Alright, next levee mtg 7/19/04, 5pm.  RW:  I make a motion to adjourn.  JKB&?: 2nd.  JW:  All in favor, say aye - (none heard;  they begin disbursing).






Mtg was called to order by JW, Pres of the BOA at 5 pm.  Present were TB, KT, TW, JKB, CLM, EM, RW, DS, JW, JZ, BW, James Midas{sic} & Andrew McCord were also present.  March mins were unanimously approved.


JZ provided contractor earnings & est'd interest on unpaid earnings thru the end of fed FY 04.  While earnings have been somewhat lower due to weather, it is projected earnings will be over $1M per month in July to the end of FY 04.  The current interest is 4%, which commenced on 5/26/04.  JZ indicated he felt this was a cost shared item but would seek a legal opinion.


EM gave a utility update.  A discussion re 500-yr protection or other feasible enhanced flood protection was held.  The COE responded it would produce what data it could to the City.  CLM discussed the resolution authorizing further recon & the fed aprops process.  Mtg adjourned at 6 pm.