HomeMy Public PortalAboutAnnual Wage Order 18-100 JOURNAL OF THE SPECIAL MEETING (1356TH) OF THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
JULY 9, 2001 - 5:00 P.M.
The Trustees of the District met in the Board Room at 2000 Hampton
Avenue on the above date. Present at meeting:
Board of Trustees Staff Members
M. G. Reichert, Chair (by conf. call)W. R. Horton, Executive Director
C. D. Seward, Vice Chair C. M. Etwert, Assistant Executive Director
T. W. Purcell R. E. Hayman, General Counsel
A. J. Soukenik (by conf. call)K. J. Tyminski, Secretary-Treasurer
J. W. Siscel J. M. Zimmerman, Director of Finance
M. C. Williams
Also present were Tom Sullivan, 35 N. Central Avenue; Joe Fiala, Sverdrup; Diana
Vuylsteke, MIEC; Phil Sutin, St. Louis Post-Dispatch; Don Moschenross, Director of Administration;
Terry Briggs, Director of Public Affairs; Terry Follmer, Internal Auditor; Larry Carpenter, Director of
Information Systems; Helen Williams, Secretary to the Executive Director; and Sheri Nackley,
Secretary to Board of Trustees.
- - - -
Ms. Reichert opened the meeting pursuant to notice and call.
- - - -
Mr. Horton called upon Mr. Hayman who indicated that this meeting is being held to
appropriate monies for the refund associated with the District’s 1992 rate settlement case.
Mr. Hayman emphasized the need that this appropriation be made at this time to
allow for disbursement as soon as possible after the filing date of July 24, 2001. He explained that
the plaintiff has until the 24th of July to appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court. The District is
considering one of two options to refund these monies. Issuing checks to its customers or
crediting customers’ accounts.
Ms. Reichert suggested a combination of these options whereby the District would
issue checks to those customers receiving more than $1,000 and credit those accounts receiving
less than $1,000.
Mr. Hayman responded that after discussions with the District’s counsel, Dowd &
Dowd, that using a bifurcated approach could not be possible because there is no authority in a
settlement agreement.
Ms. Reichert opened the floor for comments.
Mr. Siscel indicated that he favors a credit to the customers’ accounts because this
is what was initially agreed upon at the time of the settlement, and it is the most cost justified.
Ms. Seward indicated that we had discussed both methods during the settlement
agreement, and at this point in time we need to decide which of these two approaches would be
best for the District.
2
She indicated that she was open to either approach and understood the good will
created through disbursement by check.
Mr. Williams agreed with Ms. Seward’s position and favors the issuance of checks.
He felt that all classes should be treated equally.
There was a discussion between Ms. Reichert and Mr. Tyminski regarding the
uniformity of the credit issue to the customers.
Mr. Tyminski pointed out that the credits would be used up within a three-month
period for both commercial and residential customers. The only situation where someone would
use up the credit in a longer period of time, would be a situation where a company’s or household’s
water usage pattern changed significantly from the 1992 average rate of usage.
Ms. Zimmerman pointed out that the use of a check would be more easily
understood.
Mr. Purcell commented that he did not see the additional cost for issuing checks as
a major obstacle, but rather viewed it as an offset against the interest earned during the time the
District had the money.
Ms. Reichert indicated that the District needs to be mindful of its capital spending
shortfall and should save money wherever possible.
Ms. Zimmerman indicated that the cost differential between the two methods of
refund is approximately $145,000.00.
Mr. Tyminski pointed out that for record keeping purposes, it would be more
efficient to issue checks because the residual balance at the end of the process would revert back
to the District. Consequently, the District would be better able to justify this balance if it was
segregated in a separate bank account. Based on his calculations, the forfeitures from this
process would outweigh the additional cost of going with the checks.
Mr. Horton and Mr. Williams concurred with Mr. Tyminski’s assessment.
There was a discussion about the tax treatment of this refund where it was agreed
that the District would get an opinion regarding what type of forms we would need to provide to our
customers from the District’s auditor Rubin Brown Gornstein.
There was a discussion between Mr. Siscel and Mr. Tyminski regarding the
projected amount of unclaimed funds at the end of the process where, based on historical
averages, Mr. Tyminski felt it would be in the $300,000.00 range.
Mr. Siscel agreed with the issuance of checks based on Mr. Tyminski’s analysis.
INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION OF PROPOSED ORD. NO. 13-02 APPROPRIATING
$30,500,000.00 FROM THE SANITARY REPLACEMENT FUND OF THE DISTRICT TO PAY THE
SETTLEMENT AND RELATED COSTS FOR THE DISTRICT’S 1992 USER RATE CLASS ACTION
LITIGATION.
Proposed Ord. No. 13-02 was presented and read. It allows for the appropriation of
monies needed to fund the disbursement of customer refunds, related processing costs and court
ordered legal fees per the class action settlement of the 1992-93 Rate Case.
3
Motion made by Mr. Soukenik, seconded by Mr. Purcell, that proposed Ord. No. 13-
02 be introduced.
Motion passed - 6 ayes, no nays.
Poll taken:T. W. Purcell aye M. G. Reichert aye
M. C. Williams aye A. J. Soukenik aye
J. W. Siscel aye C. D. Seward aye
Motion made, seconded and unanimously adopted, to suspend the rules to allow for
adoption of proposed Ordinance No. 13-02.
Motion made by Ms. Seward, seconded by Mr. Purcell, that proposed Ordinance
No. 13-02 be adopted.
Motion passed - 6 ayes, no nays.
Poll taken:T. W. Purcell aye M. G. Reichert aye
M. C. Williams aye A. J. Soukenik aye
J. W. Siscel aye C. D. Seward aye
The Chair declared proposed Ordinance No. 13-02 adopted, and it was assigned Ordinance No.
11005.
- - - -
There was a discussion about going into Closed Session regarding personnel
issues, where it was decided to defer this issue to the July 12, 2001 Board meeting.
- - - -
Upon motion made by Mr. Siscel, seconded by Ms. Seward, and unanimously
passed, the meeting adjourned at 5:35 P.M.
Secretary-Treasurer