HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 50A - MSD's Response to Fourth Discovery Request of the Rate CommissionExhibit MSD 50A
BEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION OF THE
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
MSD'S RESPONSE TO FOURTH DISCOVERY REQUEST
OF THE RATE COMMISSION
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Response
ISSUE: STORMWATER RATE CHANGE PROCEEDING
WITNESS: THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
SPONSORING PARTY: RATE COMMISSION
DATE PREPARED: MAY 31, 2018
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Exhibit MSD 50A
BEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION
OF THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
For Consideration of a )
Stormwater Rate Change Proposal by )
The Rate Commission of The Metropolitan )
St. Louis Sewer District )
MAY 31, 2018 FOURTH DISCOVERY REQUEST
OF THE RATE COMMISSION
The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
Pursuant to § 7.280 and § 7.290 of the Charter Plan of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
(the "Charter Plan"), Operational Rule 3(5) and Procedural Schedule § 17 and § 18 of the Rate
Commission of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ("Rate Commission"), The
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ("District") hereby responds to the May 21, 2018 Fourth
Discovery Request of The Rate Commission for additional information and answers regarding
the Rate Change Notice dated February 26, 2018 (the "Rate Change Notice").
Exhibit MSD 50A
BEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION
OF THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
For Consideration of a )
Stormwater Rate Change Proposal by )
The Rate Commission of The Metropolitan )
St. Louis Sewer District )
FOURTH DISCOVERY REQUEST
OF THE RATE COMMISSION
Pursuant to §§ 7.280 and 7.290 of the Charter Plan of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
District (the "Charter Plan"), Operational Rule 3(5) and Procedural Schedule §§ 1, 17 and 18 of
the Rate Commission of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District ("Rate Commission"), the
Rate Commission requests additional information and answers from the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District ("District") regarding the Rate Change Proposal dated February 26, 2018 (the
"Rate Change Proposal").
The District is requested to amend or supplement the responses to this Discovery
Request, if the District obtains information upon the basis of which (a) the District knows that a
response was incorrect when made, or (b) the District knows that the response, though correct
when made, is no longer correct.
The following Discovery Requests are deemed continuing so as to require the District to
serve timely supplemental answers if the District obtains further information pertinent thereto
between the time the answers are served and the time of the Prehearing Conference.
3
Exhibit MSD 50A
FOURTH DISCOVERY REOUEST
1. Of the projects listed in the stormwater CIRP (Exhibit MSD 41F), how may
projects (and what percentage of the total number of projects) would be located entirely on
private property?
RESPONSE: According to MSD GIS data analysis of the project conceptual alignments,
145 projects (30%) would be located entirely on private parcels. Only 11 projects (2%) do not
touch private parcels at all.
2. Does the District's Stormwater Policy (Exhibit MSD 23) or any other policy
prohibit/limit the District's authority to construct improvements or repairs entirely on private
property? If the District is authorized to construct improvements or repairs entirely on private
property, does the District have a mechanism or procedure to determine whether such
improvements/repairs would provide a benefit to the public?
RESPONSE: MSD is not prohibited by any policy from constructing improvements or
repairs on private property provided easement or property rights exist. The District believes as
stated in previous discovery response, see Exhibit MSD 41A, that construction improvements and
repairs to address stormwater flooding and erosion provide added value to the community
overall. The District prioritization system and prioritization worksheet, see Exhibit MSD 301( is
the mechanism used to consider benefits to the public. It offers benefit points for the proposed
solution as well as benefit points for regional and environmental benefits to the public we serve.
3. Would the District undertake a stormwater project on private property if the
District would not be able to obtain an easement to maintain or improve the project? Please
explain why or why not.
RESPONSE: No, the District requires the appropriate property rights to perform
stormwater work on private properties. If the fi trict would be unable to obtain those rights the
District would not undertake the project.
4. Has the District considered seeking authority to partially bond -finance projects in
the stormwater CIRP (Exhibit MSD 41F), that would result in an asset which would be owned by
the District? Why or why not?
RESPONSE: No. Please see the response to question 1 of the surrebuttal testimony
(Exhibit MSD 55) of Marion Gee which provides the District's rationale for not issuing bonds to
finance the projects.
4
Exhibit MSD 5OA
5. Please explain in detail the process for which projects were included and
prioritized within the stormwater CIRP (Exhibit MSD 41F).
RESPONSE: The process for prioritization was provided in MSD's Response to First
Discovery Request of the Rate Commission, Exhibit MSD 30B - See Questions #2, #12, and #13.
The process for scheduling or programming within the annual CIRP is an iterative process
impacted by a number of factors. Projects are generally placed in the annual CIRP according to
the benefit cost ratio, scheduling higher priority projects sooner in the program. The annual
CIRP typically includes a five year rolling block of projects. The factors that can impact the
exact timing of the design and construction are: funding availability, project phasing (needing
to perform a downstream project prior to an upstream to avoid causing additional problems),
project design requirements, grouping of project types, internal staffing capacity, coordination
with other entities, coordination with Wastewater CIRP, regionalization of projects, and
additional project analysis or validation. These factors and this programming process can
require the movement of projects both higher in priority to be delayed or projects of lesser
priority to be expedited in the program, but as stated earlier it is always the intent to address the
highest priority issues.
6. Has the District's prioritization system (Exhibit MSD 30J and MSD 30K) been
peer -reviewed or reviewed by any experts? If the answer is yes, please identify the
persons/entities which have reviewed the prioritization system and produce any reports or
analysis by such persons/entities.
RESPONSE: Yes. The District's prioritization system has been written and reviewed by
experts. The Stormwater System Master Improvement Plan (SSMIP) was written by national and
local experts at Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), Homer and Shin, CH2M-Hill and
Montgomery Watson. This team won out over five other consultant teams due to their experience
in stormwater planning. Leading experts involved in the process include: CDM's Jim Hagerty
and Dan Lau, Shifrin's Gene Rovak and Bill Clarke, CH2MHill's Carey Brand and Montgomery
Watson's Ed Tharp and Ron Krusie. This entire process involved oversight by a Public Advisory
Committee with fourteen members, and a Technical Advisory Committee with nine members.
The Technical Advisory Committee was selected due to their stormwater management expertise
and included: a Professor of Hydraulics, the Chief of Hydrologic Engineering for the US Army
Corps of Engineers, four local government representatives including two Public Works
Directors, a Vice President of an engineering consulting firm, and Associated General
Contractor representation.
5
Exhibit MSD 50A
The prioritization system was upgraded by MSD and Parsons in 2006 to better reflect the
various problem categories with severity refinements plus points were added to encourage
regional and environmentally beneficial solutions. Parsons won the contract over other
consultants due to their approach, experience and expertise. Parsons ' project manager was Ed
Sweet, and the team contained numerous national and local experts (see Exhibit MSD 50B
Project Proposal). The internal MSD project manager was Gary Moore, who is also an expert
in the water environment field (see Exhibit MSD 50C Moore Resume).
7. Did the District consult or review any scientific or professional journals in
crafting its prioritization and scoring systems? If the answer is yes, please identify the materials
the District consulted or reviewed.
RESPONSE: The District relied upon the experience and expertise of staff and its
consultants, who were all involved in water industry trend setting activities, and active in
professional organizations. Per the SSMIP Policy Report Section 2.5.1, "Various methods of
prioritization from other urban areas were reviewed and applicable points for the SSMIP
prioritization program are presented in the following sections. Many approaches have been
utilized to rank stormwater related projects that together comprise a continuum of complexity
and detail. " The approach taken by federal agencies, for example, was evaluated and rejected
as an overly complex and time-consuming approach. The majority of city and county -wide
stormwater prioritization procedures fell into a weighted benefit point system with cost
comparison approach, which was selected as the most appropriate method. The benefit to cost
ratio was modeled after the approach in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The Parsons team further
contributed to the effort with leading experts all having personal experience and were selected
due to their expertise. The team led the District in developing a prioritization system most
appropriate for the District's needs. See Exhibits under response to Q6.
8. Please explain in detail how the District's prioritization system (Exhibit MSD 30.1
and MSD 30K) was developed. Please include when it was developed and what revisions have
been made since that time.
RESPONSE: This information is provided in Section 2.5 of the SSMIP 1995 Policy and
Standards Report provided as Exhibits MSD 37F and Section 1.2 of the MSD Stormwater
Facility Planning Final Report 2010 provided as Exhibit MSD 37G. The prioritization system
provided as Exhibit MSD 30J and MSD 30K was established as part of the 2010 Report and is
the system currently in use.
6
Exhibit MSD 50A
9. Please explain how the contribution of private financing would affect a project's
score in the District's prioritization system. For example, if a project's score projects a cost to the
District of $15 million, and a third party proposed to provide $10 million to reduce the District's
cost to $5 million, how would the project's priority be affected?
RESPONSE: See Surrebuttal of Brian L. Hoelscher, Exhibit MSD 54
10. Please explain how the District's prioritization system accounts for costs assessed
to the District by the Missouri Department of Transportation ("MoDOT"), a public utility, or a
municipality. For instance, if MoDOT bills the District for the costs associated with closing a
road for the District to complete a project, how would such costs be factored into a project's
priority or score?
RESPONSE: All known and anticipated costs for design and construction are factored
into a project's priority or score, regardless offunding source (MoDOT), and are included in the
prioritization calculation. Generally there are a number of project costs, such as coordination
costs, utility costs, and/or permitting costs that are unknown during the conceptual or
preliminary design of a project. These costs are typically added to the overall project costs as
contingency costs based on factors known at that time. This is standard engineering practice in
cost estimating.
11. Does the District prioritize or coordinate projects based on their watershed or
region? If so, please explain how a project's location in a particular watershed/region would
affect its priority. If the District does not prioritize or coordinate projects based on watershed or
region, please explain why not.
RESPONSE: This information was provided in MSD 's Response to First Discovery
Request of the Rate Commission, see Exhibit MSD 30B - Question #2. Additionally, as provided
by the prioritization worksheet, see Exhibit MSD 30K, additional benefit points are provided for
regional based solutions.
12. Please explain why the District's prioritization system is a fair and equitable
method of prioritization.
RESPONSE: The District's prioritization is fair and equitable because it is an
established, written procedure consistently implemented for all stormwater projects within the
District. The prioritization system is intended to provide the greatest benefit for the cost. The
prioritization system was developed by qualified experts in the field of stormwater engineering
and consistent with industry practice. This is further validated in rebuttal testimony provided by
the Rate Commission technical expert Ms. Nicole Young (see Exhibit RC 44 — Question 11).
7
Exhibit MSD 50A
13. Please explain when a point -spread in the list of prioritized projects would
become meaningful.
RESPONSE: Projects are given a benefit to cost ratio score, and this priority score is
stored in the MSD database to the hundredth decimal point. Therefore, a 0.01 difference in
benefit to cost ratio will provide a meaningful difference in priority ranking.
Respectfully submitted,
u
an . Myers, General C unsel
THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
smyers@stlmsd.com
Tel: (314) 768-6366
Fax: (314) 768-6279
8
i
Exhibit MSD 50A
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was sent by electronic transmission
to Lisa O. Stump, Lashly & Baer, P.C., Brian J. Malone, Lashly & Baer, P.C. and Brandon W.
Neuschafer, Brian Cave, LLP, on this 31st day of May, 2018.
Lisa O. Stump, Esq.
Brian J. Malone, Esq.
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, MO 63101
lostump@lashlybaer.com
Brandon W. Neuschafer
Bryan Cave, LLP
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
bwneuschafer@bc1plaw.com
k7i2zk /n /),j/;-
san M. Myers, General Counse
THE METROPOLITAN ST. LO
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63103
smyers@stlmsd.com
Tel: (314) 768-6366
Fax: (314) 768-6279
S SEWER DISTRICT
9