HomeMy Public PortalAboutPlan Amendment Commission Meeting Minutes 8-26-2019MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
1
Meeting Minutes
MSD Plan Amendment Commission 2020
Date: Monday, August 26, 2019
Location: MSD, Room 109, 2350 Market Street, St. Louis, MO, 63103
Attendees
MSD Staff:
Brian Hoelscher
Tamara Minley-Clinton
Tim Snoke
Susan Myers
Rich Unverferth
Sean Stone
Danielle Dailey
Plan Amendment Commissioners:
John J. Stiffler (Chairman)
Ellen Nangle Borowiak
Darnetta Clinkscale
Linda Goldstein
Jake Hummel
Matthew B. Leppert
Gerry Welch
Members of the Public:
No members of the public were present
Comments from the Public
No comments from the public
Overview and Objectives of the Meeting | Mr. John Stiffler, Chairman of the Commission
Roll Call
Oath of Office Taken
o MSD’s Secretary Treasurer Tim Snoke presented and issued the Commissioner
Borowiak with her Oath of Office.
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
2
Public Comment
o No members of the Public were present to provide the Commission with
comments
o Danielle Dailey presented the Commission with a handout of the written rules
adopted at the July 29, 209 meeting.
o Commissioner Welch suggested that in Paragraph No. 2 of The Metropolitan St.
Louis Sewer District Plan Amendment Commission 2020 Rules for Public
comment, the Commission add “Upon being recognized, during the public
comment period on the Agenda, the party wishing to address the Commission
shall come to the designated speaking area, identify themselves by name and
representative of a recognized community or public group.”
o The attending members agreed to the change, however the Commission needs 8
attendees in order to pass changes by a vote, so Ms. Dailey will draft the proposed
changes to be voted on at the September Commission meeting.
Review of Proposed Amendment to Article II
o At the July PAC meeting, the Commission discussed a proposed amendment to
Section 2.020 of the MSD Charter.
o Ms. Dailey did not receive any draft proposals for the amendment.
o Ms. Dailey drafted a proposed amendment to Article 2.020 based on the
conversation of the Commission, and presented the Commission with the drafted
amendment at the August PAC meeting.
o The Commission agreed to the change and Commissioner Welch moved to accept
the amendment, which was seconded, however the Commission did not have
enough attending commissioners in order to pass the Amendment.
o The drafted amendment to Section 2.020 will up for vote by the Commission at
its’ September meeting.
o Chairman Stiffler would like to emphasize to the Commission his expectations in
Commissioners attending meetings, as he would like to move forward with the
process and be able to have discussions and enact changes at each meeting.
Review of Article IV of MSD’s Charter
o Article IV is titled “Enforcement of District Ordinances”
o There are currently no staff recommended amendments to Article IV of MSD’s
Charter.
o Commissioner Leppert directed the Commission’s attention to Section 4.010 and
brought up that there is discussion of the “city workhouse” being closed and it is
currently cited as the detention facility in MSD’s Charter. Commissioner Leppert
suggested updating that language to say “imprisonment in the city or the county
jail” instead of the current “imprisonment in the city workhouse or the county
jail”
o Sean Stone of MSD Public Affairs also mentioned to Ms. Dailey the option of
using “jail or detention facility” instead of “jail”
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
3
o Ms. Dailey will draft sample amendments for the Commission to consider and
discuss at its September meeting.
o The Commission did not have any further recommended amendments to Article
IV of MSD’s Charter
Review of Article V of MSD’s Charter
o Article V is titled, “Board of Trustees”
o There are currently four staff recommended amendments to Article V of MSD’s
Charter, including: Section 5.010, Section 5.040, Section 5.070, and Section
5.100.
o Section 5.010
Brian Hoelscher explained MSD’s recommendations for 5.010, explaining
that MSD would like to make the proposed language change from
“affiliated with” to “member of” because it is a more concrete definition
that is easier to enforce.
Mr. Hoelscher explained the definition of “affiliated with” to the
Commission and explained that in order to show someone’s
affiliation there is more involved and it requires showing
circumstantial evidence, whereas using the term “member”
eliminates the extensive process of proving someone’s affiliation
and simply requires showing if someone is a card holding member
of a political party.
Commissioner Welch asked why the phrase was in the Charter at all? Why
does it matter someone’s political affiliations or membership to be a Board
member?
Mr. Hoelscher explains that from his interactions with the Board, he has
found that the Board is comfortable with a limit on political membership
in order to provide a balance in representation of the District, and that the
Board has not discussed removing the clause.
Commissioner Leppert states that the clause limits potential perceived
partisanship
Commissioner Hummel asked for the definition of a member.
Ms. Dailey will provide the Commission with both the definitions of
“affiliated with” and “member of”
Commissioner Borowiak stated that being a “member” of a political party
is an antiquated idea and many people are no longer members of political
parties
The Commission then asks if requiring people to be members of political
parties will limit the people eligible to be Board members?
Susan Myers then explained that Board appointees are not required to be
members of a political party; the clause simply puts a limit on Board
members of the same political party
For example: If there are two appointed Board members from the
County who are card-holding members of the same political party,
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
4
then the third appointee can be a card-holding member of a
different political party or it can be someone with no membership
to a political party.
It is a limit on membership rather than a requirement for
membership.
After engaging in discussion, the Commissioners did not have any
suggested changes to MSD’s proposed amendment to Section 5.010.
MSD’s proposed amendment to Section 5.010 will be up for vote by the
Commission at its September meeting.
o Section 5.020
Commissioner Welch had a question on Section 5.020 of MSD’s Charter.
Commissioner Welch directed the Commission to the section of 5.020
which states, “No person holding an office of profit under the United
States or any state or local government shall be appointed to the Board,
members of the organized militia or of the reserve corps and notaries
public excepted. No person who shall have been convicted of a felony,
malfeasance in office, bribery, or other corrupt practice, or of a
misdemeanor involving moral turpitude shall be appointed to the Board,
and if any Trustee shall be so convicted, he/she shall thereby forfeit
his/her office.”
Commissioner Welch requested definitions of:
“Organized Militia”
“Office of Profit”
“moral turpitude”
Commissioner Goldstein asked if the clause regarding an “Office of
Profit” meant that an elected official and/or employee could not be a
trustee?
Mr. Hoelscher responded and stated “yes, that is how MSD has
interpreted it.”
Commissioner Goldstein then recommended adding language to
this section to clarify that.
Commissioner Hummel added that the Mayor and the County know who
they can and cannot appoint.
Mr. Hoelscher added that this section’s language has not created any
problems in the past.
Ms. Dailey will provide the Commission with a list of questions and
responses before the September meeting. This will be included on that list.
Additionally, the Commission will discuss possibly modernizing or
updating this section’s language at its’ next meeting.
If Commissioners have questions regarding the Charter, including
language used, please feel free to email Ms. Dailey and she will include
them on the running list of questions and responses.
o Section 5.040
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
5
Mr. Hoelscher explained MSD’s recommendations for 5.040, explaining
that MSD would like to increase the pay for Board member’s attendance at
Board Meetings. Mr. Hoelscher explains that the pay rate is currently
“Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) for each day a Trustee attends a regular or
special meeting of the Board” and that rate of pay has not been updated
since MSD was enacted in 1954.
Mr. Hoelscher explains that MSD’s recommendation is to amend the
Charter to state “$50 per public meeting” which ultimately would have the
effect of doubling the Commissioners’ pay, something that may not be
favorable to ratepayers.
Commissioner Hummel expressed dissatisfaction and stated that it was
embarrassing that the pay rate for Trustees has remained the same since
1954. Commissioner Hummel did a conversion and stated that $25 in 1954
would be equivalent to $254 in 2019.
Commissioner Hummel stated that Commissioners should be paid $50 per
public meeting (which would have the effect of tripling what they are
currently paid)
Chairman Stiffler shared Commissioner Hummel’s sentiments and agreed
that it was ridiculous that the Trustees’ pay has remained the same since
1954, adding that the Trustees give up valuable family time to prepare and
to attend these meetings and should be compensated fairly.
Commissioner Hummel added that he understood that there can
sometimes be bad public perceptions of increasing pay especially when
there is a rate increase, but this amendment could be explained.
Commissioner Clinkscale added that while she agreed there needs to be an
increase in pay, the Commission should tread with caution in going from
one extreme to another and be understanding that this amendment puts
MSD and the Board in a position to have to explain and justify the
increase and engage in public discussion.
Chairman Stiffler and Commissioner Stiffler both agreed with
Commissioner Clinkscale.
Commissioner Hummel requested that Ms. Dailey draft a few different
amendment options for the Commission to discuss and consider at the
September meeting, including: an option for $50 per public meeting, and
option for $35 per public meeting, and an option for $25 per public
meeting.
Ms. Dailey will include an explanation of the meetings the Board attends,
the different options for pay, and total increase each proposed option
would have. This will be provided to the Commission with the Agenda
before the next Commission meeting, and as a handout at the September
Commission meeting.
o Section 5.070
Mr. Hoelscher explained MSD’s recommendations for 5.070, explaining
that MSD would like to make the proposed language amendment here in
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
6
order to improve efficiency. Currently, there are 6 Trustees, and in order
to pass any ordinances, resolutions, regulations, rules, etc, the Board must
have 2 trustees from the County and 2 Trustees from the City
affirmatively vote.
MSD is proposing to change the language to simply 4 Trustees must
affirmatively vote. This would keep the same number of trustees and
would also make sure that representatives from both the City and County
are present to vote, however it is a less stringent requirement that allows
for more efficiency in moving business forward.
Chairman Stiffler asked if the prior Commission in 2010 had considered
this proposed amendment? Mr. Hoelscher stated that this proposed
amendment has not been brought up.
There were no further comments on this proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
o Section 5.100
Ms. Myers explained MSD’s recommendations for 5.100, explaining that
MSD would like to streamline the ordinance process by having all
ordinances take effect immediately upon enactment. She further explained
that currently some MSD ordinances take effect immediately
(appropriation and emergency ordinances) while others do not, which can
cause confusion and impede efficiency, whereas this amendment would
align all ordinances on the same schedule.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding this
proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
Review of Article VI of MSD’s Charter
o Article VI is titled, “Executive Director”
o There are currently no staff recommended amendments to Article VI of MSD’s
Charter
o Commissioner Welch stated that she had two questions under Article 6.
o First, Commissioner Welch directed the Commission’s attention to subsection (1)
under Section 6.010, and asked if this subsection meant that Mr. Hoelscher
approves every employee at MSD? Mr. Hoelscher responded, yes, except for Tim
Snoke and the five employees who work for Tim Snoke.
o Second, Commissioner Welch directed the Commission’s attention to subsection
(7) under Section 6.010, and stated that she didn’t understand how MSD
integrated schools. Mr. Hoelscher explained that he has interpreted subsection (7)
to include his responsibility of engaging education and training for District
personnel. Mr. Hoelscher includes participating with educational entities
(including schools, training associations, technical schools, professional
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
7
associations, etc) as well as providing training and educational opportunities to
District personnel.
o There were no recommended amendments to Article VI of MSD’s Charter at this
time.
Review of Article VII of MSD’s Charter
o Article VII is titled, “Finance and Taxation”
o There are currently six staff recommended amendments to Article VII of MSD’s
Charter, including: Section 7.070, Section 7.080, Section 7.230(b), and Section
7.280(b), 7.280(f), and 7.300(c).
o Commissioner Welch had a question regarding subsection (4) of Section 7.010,
and asked if MSD had a dollar cap or dollar amount it could spend before needing
Board approval. Mr. Hoelscher explained that under Article 9, spending is
separated into 3 categories and Article 7 covers everything else not under Article
9.
o 7.070
Mr. Hoelscher explained MSD’s recommendations for 7.070, explaining
that MSD does not typically do a report as mandated by this section of the
Charter and it has not been requested, therefore it would like to align the
Charter with its general practices and change the language from a default
mandate for a report to a request for a report.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding this
proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
o 7.080
Mr. Snoke explained MSD’s recommendations for 7.080, explaining that
there are a limited amount of auditing firms in St. Louis (about 3) and the
Charter currently requires MSD to changes audit firms every five years.
The proposed amendment would allow MSD to retain an auditing firm –
after a competitive bid – but would require the firm to switch partners in
order to keep the intent of having new eyes on the audit process.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding this
proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
o 7.230(b)
Ms. Myers explained MSD’s recommendations for 7.230(b), explaining
that the proposed amendment is a clarification to the language. MSD’s
Rate Commission has encountered situations in which representatives who
have difficulty attending meetings have tried to have two delegates who
they switch their responsibilities between, which up a concern involving
voting rights.
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
8
An organization may replace a delegate, however MSD wants to make it
clear that two different people from an organization cannot have voting
rights.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding this
proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
o 7.280(b)
Mr. Snoke explained MSD’s recommendations for 7.280(b), explaining
that MSD currently publishes notice in the paper which can cost more than
seventy thousand dollars. The proposed language would allow for MSD to
notify more people, keep up with modern technology, and would cost less
money.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding this
proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
o 7.280(f)
Mr. Hoelscher explained MSD’s recommendations for 7.280(f),
explaining that this proposed amendment has been requested by MSD’s
Rate Commission. The Rate Commission would like to eliminate the 45
day optional extension period and just make the timeframe for the
recommendation report 165 days. The Rate Commission has requested the
45 day extension every time and at this point believes the process takes the
full 165 days and should be the given time frame.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding
this proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
o 7.300 (c)
Ms. Myers explained MSD’s recommendations for 7.300(c), explaining
that MSD is attempting to clarify the language that the Board action to
accept/reject is by resolution rather than an ordinance. This will also
address the Charter Commission's concern from 2010 regarding what the
word "consideration" that appears in section 7.300 (c) means.
There were no comments or questions from the Commission regarding this
proposed amendment.
This proposed amendment will be up for discussion and consideration at
the September Commission meeting.
Questions
o MSD staff received several questions about language used in MSD’s Charter as
well as authority MSD has by virtue of its Charter.
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
9
o Ms. Dailey will provide a list of questions and responses from MSD for each
meeting organized by Article to send by email and handout before the following
meeting.
o Please feel free to email Ms. Dailey at ddailey@stlmsd.com or at
PAC@stlmsd.com with questions pertaining to the Charter at any time between
meetings.
Proposed Amendments to be Discussed and Considered at September PAC Meeting
o 2.020 - to be drafted/edited by Danielle Dailey
o 4.010 - to be drafted/edited by Danielle Dailey
o 5.010 – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 5.040 – drafted by MSD Staff, to be edited by Danielle Dailey
o 5.070 – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 5.100 – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 7.070– drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 7.080– drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 7.230(b) – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 7.280(b) – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 7.280(f) – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
o 7.300(c) – drafted by MSD Staff, leave as is
Actions to be Accomplished By Next Meeting
o The Commission will review and discuss the above proposed amendments from
Articles 2, 4, 5, and 7, and potentially vote on the proposed amendments.
o The Commission agreed to review Articles 8, 9, and 10 by the next meeting to
discuss.
Danielle Dailey emailed the Commissioners an electronic copy of the
Redlined Charter and Staff Briefing Notes on 7/8/2019. Please contact
Danielle if you did not receive this or need another copy.
o MSD Staff has recommended amendments to Articles 8 and 9 of the MSD
Charter for the Staff to review and discuss in its next meeting.
o The Commission should come prepared with entities it would like to solicit
comment from. Commissioners are welcome to send Ms. Dailey any suggestions
of entities to solicit.
Scheduling of Next Meeting
o The next meeting will occur on Monday September 23, 2019 at 8:00 A.M. at
MSD in Room 109.
To-Do Items
Next Meeting: September 23, 8:00 A.M., MSD, Room 109
Articles of the Charter to Review: 8, 9, and 10
MSD PLAN AMENDMENT COMMISSION 2020
OFFICIAL PUBLIC MEETING MINUTES
10
Tasks
o Danielle Dailey:
Send Commission the Meeting Minutes for the July 29, 2019 Meeting by
September 6, 2019.
Draft proposed language for Section 2.020, 4.010, and 5.040 for the
Commissioners to consider at their September meeting
Edit the document with the Plan Amendment Commission’s adopted rules
for public comment. This document will be sent with the next agenda
(9/16/2019) as well as available as a hard copy at the September meeting.
Draft and send proposed Agenda to Chairman Stiffler by September 9,
2019
Send out the Agenda to the Commissioners by September 16, 2019
Send out proposed language changes to amendments to Commissioners
with the Agenda for discussion at the September meeting.
o Tamara Clinton:
Update PAC website as needed
o Brian Hoelscher
Answer Commission questions as needed
Review drafted agenda for the September meeting
o Chairman Stiffler:
Send Danielle any Agenda changes by September 16, 2019
Commissioner duties (below)
o Commissioners
Send Danielle proposed language changes to proposed amendments if you
have any
Send Danielle or Brian Hoelscher any questions about the Charter
Review Articles 8, 9, and 10 of MSD’s Charter to discuss at the
September 23, 2019 meeting
Review MSD’s recommended amendments in Articles 8 and 9 (they are
redlined) as well as MSD’s Briefing Notes
Be prepared to discuss entities that the Commission will want to solicit for
comment – ideas will be presented at the September meeting.
Please notify MSD staff several days in advance of Commission meetings
if you are not able to attend. The Commission requires a caucus of 7
Commissioners, and requires 8 Commissioners present to vote. If there are
not enough Commissioners present then it prevents tasks from moving
forward and puts the Commission behind schedule.
Miscellaneous