Loading...
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