HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit RC 50 - Rate Commission's Fourth Discovery Request to MSD May 21, 2018BEFORE THE RATE COMMISSION OF THE
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
FOURTH DISCOVERY REQUEST
ISSUE: STORMWATER RATE CHANGE PROCEEDING
WITNESS: METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
SPONSORING PARTY: RATE COMMISSION
DATE PREPARED: MAY 21, 2018
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
2
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 )
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
FOURTH DISCOVERY REQUEST
1. Of the projects listed in the stormwater CIRP (MSD Ex. 41F), how may projects
(and what percentage of the total number of projects) would be located entirely on private
property?
RESPONSE:
2. Does the District’s Stormwater Policy (MSD Ex. 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:
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:
4. Has the District considered seeking authority to partially bond-finance projects in
the stormwater CIRP (MSD Ex. 41F), that would result in an asset which would be owned by the
District? Why or why not?
RESPONSE:
5. Please explain in detail the process for which projects were included and
prioritized within the stormwater CIRP (MSD Ex. 41F).
RESPONSE:
6. Has the District’s prioritization system (MSD Exhibits 30J and 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:
4
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:
8. Please explain in detail how the District’s prioritization system (MSD Exhibits
30J and 30K) was developed. Please include when it was developed and what revisions have
been made since that time.
RESPONSE:
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:
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:
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:
12. Please explain why the District’s prioritization system is a fair and equitable
method of prioritization.
RESPONSE:
5
13. Please explain when a point-spread in the list of prioritized projects would
become meaningful.
RESPONSE:
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Brian J. Malone
Lisa O. Stump
Brian J. Malone
LASHLY & BAER, P.C.
714 Locust Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
Tel: (314) 621-2939
Fax: (314) 621-6844
lostump@lashlybaer.com
bmalone@lashlybaer.com
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing was sent by electronic transmission
to Janice Fenton, Office Associate Senior, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; Susan Myers,
Counsel for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; and Brandon Neuschafer, Counsel for the
Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers, on this 21st day of May, 2018.
Ms. Janice Fenton
Office Associate Senior
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
JFENTON@stlmsd.com
Ms. Susan Myers
General Counsel
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
2350 Market Street
St. Louis, MO 63103
smyers@stlmsd.com
Counsel for the Metropolitan St. Louis
Sewer District
Brandon Neuschafer
Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner LLP
One Metropolitan Square, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102-2750
bwneuschafer@bclplaw.com
Counsel for Intervenor Missouri Industrial
Energy Consumers
/s/ Brian J. Malone
Brian J. Malone