HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 127 - Transcript of Third Technical Conference June 17, 2015 Surrebuttal TestimonyPage 1
1
2
3
4
5
6 MEETING OF THE RATE COMMISSION
7 OF THE
8 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
9
10
11 2015 WASTEWATER & STORMWATER RATE CHANGE PROCEEDING
12
13
14
15 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE
16 JUNE 17, 2015
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 2
1 I N D E X
2 WITNESSES: PAGE
3 Mr. Michael Boerding 28
4 Mr. Brian Hoelscher 29
5 Mr. Richard Unverferth 57
6 Mr. Jonathan Sprague 84
7 Mr. Tim Snoke 86
8 Ms. Theresa Bellville 91
9 Mr. William Stannard 104
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 3
1 TECHNICAL CONFERENCE FOR THE METROPOLITAN ST.
2 LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT, produced and examined on June
3 17, 2015, between the hours of 9:00 in the forenoon
4 and 12:16 in the afternoon of that day, at the
5 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District Offices, 2350
6 Market Street, Room 109, St. Louis, Missouri, before
7 Suzanne M. Zes, a Certified Court Reporter of the
8 State of Missouri.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 4
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2 The Chairman:
3 Mr. Russell Hawes
4
The Rate Commission:
5
Mr. Mark Schoedel, Ms. Nancy
6 Bowser, Mr. Chan Mahanta, Mr. George Tomazi,
Mr. Paul Brockmann, Mr. John Stein,
7 Mr. Kennard Jones, Mr. Steve Chodes, Mr.
Steve Mahfood.
8
9 For the Rate Commission:
10 Ms. Lisa O. Stump and Mr. John Fox Arnold
Lashly & Baer, P.C.
11 714 Locust Street
St. Louis, Missouri 63101
12 314.621.2939
314.621.6844 Fax
13 lostump@lashlybaer.com
jfarnold@lashlybaer.com
14
15 For the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers:
16 Mr. Brandon Neuschafer
BRYAN CAVE, LLP
17 211 North Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, Missouri 63102
18 314.259.2317
314.552.8317 Fax
19 bwneuschafer@bryancave.com
20
For MSD:
21
Ms. Susan Myers
22
23 For the Home Builders Association:
24 Mr. Brad Goss
25
Page 5
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to call this
3 meeting of the Rate Commission of the Metropolitan
4 St. Louis Sewer District Wastewater and Stormwater
5 Rate Change Proceeding to order.
6 First of all, I would like to do roll call.
7 Nancy Bowser?
8 MS. BOWSER: Present.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Paul Brockmann?
10 MR. BROCKMANN: Present.
11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Steve Chodes?
12 MR. CHODES: Here.
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Lori Kelling? John
14 Stein?
15 MR. STEIN: Present.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Eric Schneider? Leonard
17 Toenjes? George Tomazi?
18 MR. TOMAZI: Here.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mike O'Connell? Mark
20 Schoedel? Kennard Jones?
21 MR. JONES: Here.
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Steve Mahfood?
23 MR. MAHFOOD: Here.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Otis Williams? Chan
25 Mahanta?
Page 6
1 MR. MAHANTA: Here.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you.
3 First of all, we have on the agenda
4 procedural matters. I'm going to start by reading a
5 statement for the Technical Conference June 17
6 through 18, 2015.
7 My name is Russ Hawes and I'm the chairman of
8 the -- vice chairman of the Rate Commission of the
9 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and will serve
10 as chair of this proceeding.
11 Present are Nancy Bowser, Paul Brockmann,
12 Steve Chodes, Jack Stein, George Tomazi, Kennard
13 Jones, Steve Mahfood Chan Mahanta, delegates of the
14 Rate Commission.
15 The Charter Plan of the District was approved
16 by the voters of St. Louis and St. Louis County in a
17 special election on February 9th, 1954 and amended
18 at a general election on November 7th, 2000. The
19 amendment of the Charter Plan established the Rate
20 Commission to review and make recommendations to the
21 District regarding changes in wastewater rates,
22 stormwater rates and tax rates proposed by the
23 District.
24 The Charter Plan requires the Board of
25 Trustees of the District to select organizations to
Page 7
1 name delegates to the Rate Commission to ensure a
2 fair representation of all users of the District's
3 services. The Rate Commission representative
4 organizations are to represent commercial-industrial
5 users, residential users and other organizations
6 interested in the operation of the District
7 including organizations focusing on environmental
8 issues, labor issues, socio-economic issues,
9 community-neighborhood organizations and other
10 nonprofit organizations.
11 The Rate Commission currently consists of
12 representatives of Associated General Contractors of
13 St. Louis, St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth
14 Association, the Engineers' Club of St. Louis,
15 League of Women Voters, Missouri Botanical Garden,
16 Education Plus, Missouri Industrial Energy
17 Consumers, Mound City Bar Association, the St. Louis
18 County Municipal League, the St. Louis Council of
19 Construction Consumers, Lutheran Senior Services,
20 West St. Louis County Chamber of Commerce, North
21 County Incorporated, Greater St. Louis Labor Council
22 and Missouri Coalition for the Environment.
23 Upon receipt of a Rate Change Notice from the
24 District, the Rate Commission is to recommend to the
25 Board of Trustees changes in wastewater, stormwater
Page 8
1 or tax rates necessary to pay, one, interest and
2 principal falling due on bonds issued to finance
3 assets of the District; two, the cost of operation
4 and maintenance; and three, such amounts as may be
5 required to cover emergencies and anticipated
6 delinquencies.
7 Further, any change in the rate recommended
8 to the Board of Trustees by the Rate Commission is
9 to be accompanied by a statement that the proposed
10 Rate Change is consistent with constitutional,
11 statutory or common law as amended from time to time
12 and enhances the District's ability to provide
13 adequate sewer and drainage systems and facilities
14 or related services and is consistent with and not
15 in violation of any covenant or provision relating
16 to any outstanding bonds or indebtedness of the
17 District, does not impair the ability of the
18 District to comply with applicable federal and state
19 laws or regulations as amended from time to time and
20 imposes a fair and reasonable burden on all classes
21 of ratepayers.
22 The Rate Commission received a Rate Change
23 Notice from the District on February 26, 2015.
24 Under the Procedural Schedule adopted by the Rate
25 Commission any person affected by the Rate Change
Page 9
1 Proposal had an opportunity to submit an application
2 to intervene in these proceedings.
3 Applications to intervene have been filed by
4 the Home Builders Association of St. Louis and
5 Eastern Missouri and Missouri Industrial Energy
6 Consumers. These applications have been granted.
7 The Rate Commission originally had until
8 June 26, 2015 to issue its report on the proposed
9 Rate Change Notice to the Board of Trustees of the
10 District. The Rate Commission requested an
11 additional 45 days to issue its report and on May
12 14, 2015 the District Board of Trustees granted the
13 Rate Commission's request. The Rate Commission must
14 now issue its report on or before August 10, 2015.
15 On February 26, 2015 the District submitted
16 to the Rate Commission prepared direct testimony of
17 Brian L. Hoelscher, Susan M. Myers, Richard
18 Unverferth, Jonathan Sprague, Tim Snoke, Bethany
19 Pugh, Theresa Bellville, and William Stannard.
20 On March 17, 2015 the Rate Commission
21 submitted its first discovery request to the
22 District. On March 27, 2015 the District filed its
23 responses.
24 On March 30, 2015 the Rate Commission
25 submitted its second discovery request to the
Page 10
1 District, which the District responded to on
2 April 7, 2015.
3 On April 3rd, 2015 the Rate Commission
4 submitted its third discovery request to the
5 District to which the District responded on
6 April 13th, 2015.
7 On April 8th, 2015 a Technical Conference was
8 held on the record regarding the Rate Setting
9 Documents and the direct testimony filed with the
10 Rate Commission by the District. The purpose of the
11 Technical Conference was to provide the District an
12 opportunity to answer questions propounded by the
13 members of the Rate Commission, then by any
14 intervener and, finally, by Lashly & Baer, legal
15 counsel to the Rate Commission.
16 On April 10th, 2015 intervener Missouri
17 Industrial Energy Consumers submitted its first
18 discovery request to the District to which the
19 District responded on April 20th, 2015.
20 On April 27, 2015, the Rate Commission
21 submitted its fourth discovery request to the
22 District to which the District responded to on May
23 7th, 2015.
24 On April 27, 2015 intervener Missouri
25 Industrial Energy Consumers submitted its second
Page 11
1 discovery request to the District, which the
2 District responded to on May 27, 2015.
3 On May 1st, 2015 intervener Home Builders
4 Association submitted its first discovery request to
5 the District to which the District responded on May
6 13th, 2015.
7 On May 12th, 2015 the Rate Commission
8 consultant and intervener Missouri Industrial Energy
9 Consumers submitted rebuttal testimony. On May
10 13th, 2015 the intervener Home Builders Association
11 submitted rebuttal testimony.
12 On May 18th, 2015 the District submitted its
13 first discovery request to intervener Missouri
14 Industrial Energy Consumers and on May 28th, 2015
15 intervener Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers
16 submitted its response.
17 On May 21st, 2015 the District submitted its
18 first discovery request to intervener Home Builders
19 Association and on June 2nd, 2015 intervener Home
20 Builders Association submitted its response.
21 On June 3rd, 2015 the Rate Commission
22 submitted its fifth discovery request to the
23 District and on June 15th, 2015 the District
24 submitted its response.
25 On June 5th, 2015 the District submitted
Page 12
1 surrebuttal testimony.
2 The Technical Conference will be held on the
3 record regarding the rebuttal testimony of Michael
4 Boerding and then the surrebuttal testimony of
5 representatives of the District.
6 Each person submitting surrebuttal testimony
7 shall answer questions propounded by the members of
8 the Rate Commission, the interveners and finally by
9 our legal counsel.
10 Ratepayers who do not wish to intervene are
11 permitted to participate in a series of
12 on-the-record public hearing sessions which began on
13 May 18th.
14 Who is here on behalf of the Metropolitan St.
15 Louis Sewer District?
16 MS. MYERS: Susan Myers.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: And who is on here on
18 behalf of the Home Builders Association?
19 MR. GOSS: Brad Goss.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is here on behalf of
21 the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers?
22 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Brandon Neuschafer.
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Also present is Pamela
24 Lemoine of Black & Veatch, consultant to the Rate
25 Commission and John Fox Arnold and Lisa Stump of
Page 13
1 Lashly & Baer, legal counsel to the Rate Commission.
2 Under the Rate Commission's Operational
3 Rules, no person shall be required to answer
4 questions for a total period of more than three
5 hours and the time shall by evenly divided among all
6 the participants desiring to ask questions.
7 Following questions by members of the Rate
8 Commission, I will attempt to allocate the time
9 equally among the participants and our legal
10 counsel. To the extent the District, one of the
11 interveners or legal counsel has not completed the
12 questions at the expiration of that person's
13 allotted time and to the extent that time remains,
14 such person will be permitted to propound additional
15 questions until the three hours has expired.
16 Are there any procedural matters?
17 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if I may?
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
19 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, members of
20 the Commission, good morning. Following our last
21 proceeding Mr. Goss, as counsel for the Home
22 Builders Association, contacted me and inquired
23 about the procedure for providing some additional
24 information to the Commission. This was following
25 the filing of the rebuttal testimony of Mr. Boerding
Page 14
1 and following the receipt and response of a
2 discovery request propounded to the Home Builders by
3 the District.
4 I advised Mr. Goss that the application
5 should be addressed to the Commission and, following
6 some discussions with Mr. Goss and Ms. Myers, you
7 have before you an application by the Home Builders
8 to permit the introduction into the record of the
9 affidavit of Emily Schwartze Post. Perhaps if you
10 could hear from Mr. Goss and Ms. Myers. As your
11 counsel we have no objection to the addition of this
12 material.
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do I hear a motion to
14 that effect?
15 MR. TOMAZI: So moved.
16 MR. BROCKMANN: Second.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Let's hear
18 from Mr. Goss.
19 MR. GOSS: Mr. Chairman, members of the
20 Commission, thank you for considering our motion.
21 We have asked that we be allowed to introduce some
22 additional information to the Commission for
23 consideration in their deliberations on the proposed
24 rate related to the stormwater tax.
25 The questions that were asked of -- or the
Page 15
1 questions that were asked of Mr. Boerding in
2 rebuttal from the District went to whether he had
3 administered a stormwater tax credit program or not,
4 which made us believe that he will be asked to
5 provide some information regarding how stormwater
6 tax credit programs work.
7 As you know, it has been our position that a
8 stormwater tax credit program would be beneficial
9 and, in fact, necessary in order to make this a fair
10 and equitable rate and, in fact, help further the
11 purposes of the District in implementing better
12 stormwater quality control and reduction of
13 stormwater volume.
14 So, to that end, we are asking that Emily
15 Schwartze Post be allowed to introduce or offer her
16 testimony, which we submitted an affidavit to you.
17 You have that at your desk. We have also submitted
18 that electronically and also some examples of some
19 stormwater credit programs that have been
20 implemented around the United States from places as
21 varied as Fernandina (ph) Beach, Florida; Baltimore,
22 Maryland; Seattle, Washington; Richmond, Virginia;
23 Lynchburg, Virginia, and Minneapolis, Minnesota.
24 Those are just a few of the stormwater taxing credit
25 programs that have been implemented around the
Page 16
1 country and we thought that that information would
2 be useful to the Commission in its consideration of
3 this rate and, in particular, whether it be a fair
4 and equitable rate.
5 Ms. Schwartze Post is here today in order
6 that you might ask her any questions that you might
7 have or the District might ask her any questions.
8 So I would ask that the Commission please favorably
9 consider the introduction of that testimony.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any comments? Well, a
11 motion first I guess.
12 MR. MAHANTA: I think this is very good
13 material that you have submitted. I wish to
14 consider it.
15 MR. GOSS: Thank you.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further comments?
17 Comments from the District?
18 MS. MYERS: Thank you, Commission. The
19 District would like to take this opportunity to
20 oppose the motion by HBA based upon the grounds that
21 HBA did not file any surrebuttal testimony. The
22 Procedural Schedule, which was adopted by this
23 Commission, has laid out a very fair and efficient
24 schedule of providing testimony and then making
25 those witnesses available for -- to testify in
Page 17
1 person.
2 The District received HBA's motion this past
3 Monday, which was June 15. The discovery that
4 Mr. Goss has spoke about was delivered to the HBA on
5 May 21st. The District received their response on
6 June 1st -- well, no, actually we received their
7 response on June 2nd, which was a day after it was
8 due on June 1st. So it's the District's position
9 that the HBA then had ample opportunity to submit
10 surrebuttal testimony on June 5th, which would have
11 been in compliance with the Procedural Schedule that
12 has been set out.
13 With just receiving the motion on Monday, the
14 District has not had time to research or adequately
15 prepare to respond to the information. The District
16 has not seen the examples that I understand Mr. Goss
17 has passed out to you all today. We received the
18 motion and we received the affidavit but we did not
19 receive any of the other information.
20 By granting this motion the District feels
21 that it really compromises the integrity of the fair
22 process that you all have worked so hard to set out
23 throughout this process. So we are in opposition of
24 you granting the motion.
25 If the Commission does feel that it's in the
Page 18
1 best interest of the Commission to grant the motion
2 the District requests that the other parties be
3 allowed to submit written evidence to refute the
4 information that's being provided with the motion
5 and I would ask to get a copy of the information
6 that has been provided with the motion.
7 The District also requests direction from the
8 Rate Commission as to the future procedure and rules
9 for submitting additional or supplemental
10 information and responses. I think we're kind of
11 going off the rails here of our Procedural Schedule
12 that has been outlined, so we would like to have
13 some direction on, you know, how you all would like
14 to proceed from here on out. I know we have a
15 couple more meetings and a Prehearing Conference and
16 submission of evidence and a few other things left
17 procedurally to take care of in this process.
18 So, with that being said, I would support the
19 Commission opposing the motion. If not, then please
20 provide us direction going forward. Thank you.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further discussion?
22 MR. BROCKMANN: Mr. Goss, why was the
23 material not submitted previous to this time period?
24 MR. GOSS: Because we had no idea that
25 the District was asking us to have Mr. Boerding
Page 19
1 supply evidence regarding whether he had
2 administered a tax credit program. The District,
3 back in 2007, had actually proposed a credit program
4 as part of the then proposed stormwater tax
5 proposal, so the idea that the District doesn't
6 understand what credits are and how they would be
7 administered was surprising to us. We didn't think
8 that was something that we were going to need to
9 supply to them to educate them but once we received
10 their inquiry, realized they would like us to supply
11 that information, so we did so. But it wasn't
12 something initially we felt we were going to have to
13 supply.
14 We -- in terms of our approach to this
15 credit, we haven't tried to dictate or suggest
16 there's any one way this credit needs to be
17 administered by the District. We just believe that
18 a credit that allows people to offset the stormwater
19 tax for the BMPs that they're putting in, that the
20 stormwater tax is designed to pay for, is a fair and
21 reasonable thing to do.
22 And what we are offering now is information
23 that we think is useful for the District, as well as
24 useful for the Commission in considering how a
25 credit program may work. So we really were trying
Page 20
1 to pull this together fairly quickly once we saw the
2 question that was directed to us and so we -- that's
3 the reason really. We were trying to get the
4 information as quickly as possible to the District
5 and trying to put together a fairly representative
6 sample of the various programs that were out there.
7 MR. BROCKMANN: Thank you.
8 MR. TOMAZI: I would like to direct a
9 question to our legal counsel. Does the Rate
10 Commission have the authority to get involved with
11 things like tax credits, et cetera, is that within
12 our purview?
13 MR. ARNOLD: Commissioner, the answer is
14 probably yes. Keep in mind, that the roll of the
15 Rate Commission, with respect to the three criteria
16 which the Chairman identified earlier this morning,
17 is to review that material and make recommendations
18 to the trustees about the administration of a Rate
19 Change Proposal and then you have the five factors
20 upon which you must deliberate and make a
21 determination that the Rate Proposal, either as
22 submitted or as you adjust, meets each of those five
23 criteria.
24 MR. TOMAZI: Okay. Thank you.
25 MR. ARNOLD: You have a really rather
Page 21
1 broad role.
2 MR. MAHANTA: I appreciate Ms. Myers'
3 comments regarding procedures and submittal in a
4 timely manner and so forth, but considering the
5 material that is submitted I think these are very
6 beneficial and progressive measures and it is good
7 for the public to actively participate in this
8 process of stormwater management and practicing
9 sustainable ways of dealing with it. And,
10 considering that, I submit that we should consider
11 this package carefully and accept it.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?
13 MR. MAHFOOD: Yes.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Mahfood?
15 MR. MAHFOOD: I tend to agree with Chan.
16 I think that the -- I respect the legal timelines
17 and I know what we're under, I know it's under a lot
18 of pressure on all sides, but given the long-term
19 impact of these rate changes I think it's really
20 necessary to consider all options. It will be up to
21 us to determine how we're going to go forward
22 because it's very fair to say we need to give MSD
23 guidance if we're going to accept this new
24 information. It might not be easy to do that but I
25 think it's worth the effort. Thanks.
Page 22
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir?
2 MR. SCHOEDEL: Mr. Chairman, not having
3 a chance to look at this real closely but it starts
4 bringing up some issues, just looking at it briefly,
5 back to the impervious area question. It's not just
6 about credits but as you look at the examples it
7 gets into that impervious question, which is
8 something we've all had something about and it
9 sounds like it may be a more fair and equitable way
10 to have stormwater charges and things like that.
11 Within our current mandate and what we have
12 to do to comply with the Consent Decree is there
13 potential that this is going to push off any rate
14 change at this point and could put us in jeopardy
15 with complying with the Clean Water Act and the
16 Consent Decree? Because this really injures the
17 whole back to the discussion of the impervious fee.
18 It's not just providing credits because it gets down
19 to how you're going to track that and how you're
20 going to monitor that and is there time enough to
21 come up with the analysis for that in our current
22 process and rates that we need to do to comply with
23 the Consent Decree.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: John?
25 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, if I may,
Page 23
1 members of the Commission, with respect to Ms.
2 Myers' observation about the timeline and all, she
3 and I had discussed this yesterday afternoon and I
4 suggested for her consideration and I will suggest
5 it for your consideration, that if the Commission
6 undertakes to permit the admission of this exhibit
7 that any response by the District be submitted prior
8 to the date of the Prehearing Conference.
9 And, further, with response to the question
10 Ms. Myers raised a few moments ago, any other
11 material by any other intervener or the District or
12 your counsel, be admitted -- or be submitted with
13 the same time frame so that by the time of the
14 Prehearing Conference we will have before you all of
15 the issues that when we meet to permit the
16 introduction of all the exhibits and for final
17 argument you will have had a chance to consider, in
18 some length, the issues which need to be resolved.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: The Prehearing
20 Conference, as I remember, is the 26th of this
21 month, so it's nine days from today. Is there
22 sufficient time, do you feel, for those types of
23 responses and so forth? Is nine days sufficient?
24 MR. ARNOLD: My first job was in the
25 Army. That's a lifetime.
Page 24
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Do you feel that's
2 appropriate, Ms. Myers?
3 MS. MYERS: I do feel that is
4 appropriate and I would like to take the opportunity
5 to clarify one thing. The discovery requests that
6 the District sent to HBA on May 21st was asking only
7 about their expert's experience and whom he had done
8 that work for. We did not ask for any examples of
9 credits or any of I'm guessing the information that
10 you all have in front of you because I haven't seen
11 it yet.
12 The other thing I would like to clarify is in
13 terms of the stormwater proposal, that the District
14 is making in this rate process, is about taxes. The
15 one back in 2007 was about an impervious fee.
16 There's a difference there and I know a lot of you
17 already know that but I'm not sure everybody in this
18 room is clear on that.
19 So I just wanted to take the opportunity to
20 clarify those two points and the District would be
21 happy to submit a written refute to the HBA's
22 material by prior to the Prehearing Conference, if
23 that's what the Rate Commission wishes.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you, Ms.
25 Myers.
Page 25
1 Yes, sir?
2 MR. JONES: Ms. Myers, you're using the
3 word "refute." Do you anticipate opposing the
4 stormwater proposal or you may even agree with it?
5 MS. MYERS: Well, from what little
6 information the District has seen about the
7 stormwater credit proposal being proposed by HBA,
8 we -- that is the plan we are proposing to take at
9 this time. Like I said, we have not seen all of the
10 information so that may change things but based upon
11 what we've seen to date, yes.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tomazi?
13 MR. TOMAZI: At the risk of doing
14 something out of a line I would like to propose that
15 we accept the information as presented today, take
16 no action on it, that we give the District a chance
17 until June the 26th to respond and give you an
18 opportunity, Mr. Goss, to -- for 30 minutes or so to
19 make your case on the 26th. If that presses you on
20 time, I'm sorry but, you know, we are getting late
21 in the cycle now and we have an obligation to get a
22 report to the Board of Trustees on a certain date.
23 So that would be my suggestion.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnold, is it
25 possible to take it as information only and not
Page 26
1 admit it as evidence?
2 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I believe it
3 would be appropriate to accept it, assign an exhibit
4 number so that it may be considered by the members
5 of the Commission between now and the 26th so that
6 you have that as well as the District's information
7 and any subsequent information which may be
8 provided.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
10 MR. MAHFOOD: Do you need a motion for
11 that? Did you move, George?
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I think that was a
13 motion.
14 MR. TOMAZI: So moved.
15 MR. MAHFOOD: Second.
16 MR. SCHOEDEL: Is there a previous
17 motion?
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I don't think a
19 motion ever came up. We went directly into
20 discussion. Did anybody move anything prior? I
21 don't think so. So this is the only motion on the
22 table.
23 MR. SCHOEDEL: Would you repeat the
24 motion, please?
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it --
Page 27
1 MR. TOMAZI: I'll repeat.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: I'll let Mr. Tomazi.
3 MR. TOMAZI: I move that we accept the
4 affidavit from the Home Builders Association as
5 presented this morning, take no action on it and put
6 it on our agenda for the June 26th meeting, which
7 hopefully will give the District an opportunity to
8 respond to it. That's my motion.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a second?
10 MR. MAHFOOD: I second.
11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion?
12 MR. BROCKMANN: Does this affidavit, I
13 haven't read this particular one here, does this
14 specifically refer to all the attachments so we can
15 include the attachments in the exhibit?
16 MR. GOSS: Yes, it does.
17 MR. BROCKMANN: Okay. Thank you.
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further discussion?
19 All those in favor?
20 RATE COMMISSION: Aye.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: All opposed? Hearing
22 none, it passes.
23 All right. That being no further procedural
24 matters, Mr. Goss, are you ready to present persons
25 for whom you have filed rebuttal testimony on behalf
Page 28
1 of the Home Builders Association?
2 MR. GOSS: Yes, I am.
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Thank you.
4 Please proceed.
5 MR. GOSS: Mr. Chairman, members of the
6 Commission, I would present Michael Boerding to
7 respond to the questions from the District in his
8 rebuttal testimony. We have answered the District's
9 question in terms of his experience and submitted
10 that in writing and Mr. Boerding is here to answer
11 any questions that may be asked.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Boerding,
13 please, take a seat up here.
14 Mr. Boerding, is the testimony you're about
15 to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
16 the truth?
17 MR. BOERDING: Yes.
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Does any
19 member of the Rate Commission have any questions for
20 Mr. Boerding? No? All right.
21 Ms. Myers, do you have any questions for
22 Mr. Boerding on behalf of the District?
23 MS. MYERS: We do not.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Neuschafer, do
25 you have any questions for Mr. Boerding on behalf of
Page 29
1 Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers?
2 MR. NEUSCHAFER: We do not.
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnold, do you have
4 any questions for Mr. Boerding?
5 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Goss, do
7 you have any questions for Mr. Boerding?
8 MR. GOSS: Unfortunately I don't, no.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Hearing no questions, I
10 think you're relieved, Mr. Boerding. Thank you very
11 much.
12 Ms. Myers, are you ready to present those
13 persons for whom you have filed surrebuttal
14 testimony on behalf of the District?
15 MS. MYERS: We are.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Please
17 proceed.
18 MS. MYERS: Our first witness will be
19 Brian Hoelscher.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hoelscher, is the
21 testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole
22 truth, and nothing but the truth?
23 MR. HOELSCHER: Yes, it is.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Does any member of the
25 Rate Commission have any questions for Mr. Hoelscher
Page 30
1 right now?
2 Mr. Neuschafer, do you have any questions on
3 behalf of the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers
4 for Mr. Hoelscher?
5 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I do.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please come forward.
7 BRIAN HOELSCHER, having been duly sworn,
8 testified as follows:
9 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER:
10 Q. Thank you, Mr. Hoelscher. I'm going to
11 apologize in advance for paper shuffling but I've
12 got a number of things I'm looking at here. I would
13 like to start by looking at the surrebuttal
14 testimony that you filed, particularly Page 2,
15 approximately Lines 13 through 19 where you state
16 that MSD is required to update its estimate of
17 volume projections for unmetered customers; is that
18 correct?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. Can you can describe the efforts
21 that MSD undertook to document or verify volumes
22 used by unmetered customers?
23 A. The information is included primarily --
24 well, there's an appendix within our Rate Proposal
25 that gives a full description of the process to
Page 31
1 determine the appropriate adjustments and I believe
2 there's testimony by Mr. William Stannard that
3 addresses the issue directly.
4 Q. I'm going to see if I can find that
5 appendix real quick.
6 MEMBER OF MSD STAFF: 7.1.4.
7 Q. (MR. NEUSCHAFER) 7.1.4. Okay. There
8 it is. Unmetered calibration.
9 Would you agree that generally unmetered
10 customers don't have the same economic incentive to
11 install water conservation devices as metered
12 customers?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And that's because metered customers can
15 get economic savings, bill reductions when their
16 volume is reduced but unmetered customers don't get
17 those same savings?
18 A. Primarily, yes.
19 Q. Has MSD measured an actual change in the
20 amount of wastewater pumping over the last several
21 years?
22 A. Yes, we have information on the changes
23 in pumping volumes, yes.
24 Q. Do you know is that in the Rate Proposal
25 or elsewhere in the record, do you know?
Page 32
1 A. It's in the record somewhere as
2 information.
3 Q. Has MSD made an effort to measure actual
4 volume waste for unmetered customers?
5 A. Not volume waste for unmetered
6 customers, other than the comparison in the analysis
7 that was done in the Rate Proposal.
8 Q. And so I believe MSD estimated that the
9 wastewater for unmetered customers would drop by
10 over 9 percent between -- or in Fiscal Year 17 over
11 Fiscal Year 16. Do you know the basis for that, for
12 that assumption?
13 A. That was not MSD's position. I think
14 MSD's position was since the flows per attribute
15 were first accrued by the court in 1992 and
16 originally calculated in 1956 there has been a
17 reduction and we're reflecting that reduction in
18 this Rate Proposal.
19 Q. Okay. I would like to talk about volume
20 just a bit here.
21 So I have got some copies of portions -- so
22 these are exhibits that are in the record already.
23 These are MSD's annual financial reports and I
24 believe they're Exhibits 22, 23, 24 and 25. So
25 that's what I have got to show you here because I
Page 33
1 want to look at some numbers.
2 The first one that I have, I have a few extra
3 copies, is fiscal year -- for Fiscal Year 2011.
4 This should be Exhibit 22 in the record. Take a
5 look, I've just got a couple pages to show you but
6 most importantly I'm looking at the average flow for
7 Fiscal Year 2011 and that is reflected as
8 370.6 million gallons a day; is that right?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. I'm going to go through just kind of the
11 same reports for the subsequent years.
12 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Susan, I have extra
13 copies here if you want.
14 MS. MYERS: Okay.
15 MR. NEUSCHAFER: It's exactly what I'm
16 handing Brian. This is for 2012. There's one for
17 you, one for Susan.
18 MR. HOELSCHER: Okay.
19 Q. (MR. NEUSCHAFER) Feel free to look at
20 it as long as you need but the table I'm looking at
21 there in the second page of the handout shows the
22 average flow for Fiscal 2012 is 300.05 million
23 gallons a day; is that correct?
24 A. Yes, sir.
25 Q. Okay. For Fiscal Year 13, one for you,
Page 34
1 one for Susan, second page there shows the average
2 flow for Fiscal Year 2013 at 326.7 million gallons a
3 day?
4 A. Yes, sir.
5 Q. Reflects not quite a 10 percent increase
6 over the prior year?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And the last one, which reflects the
9 average flow for Fiscal Year 2014, at 273.8 million
10 gallons a day, correct?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. This last one for Fiscal Year 2014, we
13 understand from the Rate Proposal that this number
14 could be an anomaly because of some modifications
15 that Missouri American Water Company made to its
16 practices; is that correct?
17 A. That would a very minor part of the
18 reason for differences.
19 Q. Can you help me understand how minor?
20 A. Very minor. You have given us the
21 average daily flows for all of the treatment plants
22 located throughout the District. The unmetered
23 customer issue only has to do with those folks who
24 are in our combined sewer system, primarily within
25 the City of St. Louis. They flow just to our
Page 35
1 combined sewer plants, be it the Bissell treatment
2 plant or the Lemay treatment plant.
3 The primary drivers of any differences in the
4 average flow of those plants are inflow during dry
5 or wet weather through groundwater or other
6 instances. River stage has a huge impact on that as
7 far as infiltration coming into the system depending
8 on what the river stages in the Mississippi River
9 are or the River Des Peres.
10 There are also incidences of recycled potable
11 water that's continuously entering our system off
12 and on through lakes and stuff like that. Those
13 have a -- are a much larger driver, as far as the
14 impact of flows, than any changes from Missouri
15 American Water.
16 Matter of fact, the water bill for those
17 folks who are in those treatments plants actually
18 comes from the City of St. Louis and not Missouri
19 American Water.
20 Q. Okay. So if we were to try to
21 account -- let me -- so you have the Rate Proposal
22 there in front of you. Turn to Page 4 dash 8. The
23 top paragraph there, the last two sentences are
24 where MSD references discontinuities in data
25 experienced by Missouri American Water. You have
Page 36
1 suggested to me just now that those discontinuities
2 in data are minor. Can you quantify how minor those
3 are?
4 A. It was a one-time -- understand I'm
5 going off the top of my head, it was a one-time dip
6 of approximately $9 million worth of billing for
7 those entities that are serviced by Missouri
8 American Water. MSD is in the process of, now that
9 we have actual data, trying to go back and recover
10 some of those costs. With the actual numbers we're
11 going through the process of recovering those costs
12 from those who received the service.
13 Q. So the 273.8 million gallons a day that
14 were treated in 2014, how does that compare to
15 future projections?
16 A. I'm not sure we put a projection
17 anywhere since, again, some of the primary drivers
18 are -- the major drivers are river level, other
19 inflow sources. There are things we're taking care
20 of such as stormwater connections in the separate
21 sanitary system that do go to our other plants like
22 the Bissell and Lemay but the driver of that number
23 is primarily river stage and other inflow sources
24 that aren't necessarily controlled by MSD.
25 As far as what those projections are, I'm
Page 37
1 sure we made some projection I would just have to go
2 through the documents. I'm not, off the top of my
3 head, familiar with what the projections are for
4 flows.
5 Q. Okay. If there was an anomaly in
6 billing in 2014 associated with changes made by
7 American Water Company, does that also indicate or
8 does that suggest that the volume numbers are
9 incorrect as well?
10 A. It would -- it indicated -- I'm not sure
11 what the magnitude of it was. I would have to check
12 with Theresa Bellville. But I believe we resolved
13 the issue after we submitted the Rate Proposal, so
14 the actual usage numbers might be slightly less than
15 what they actually were I believe. Again, I'm
16 mentioning whether we had -- I don't know that we
17 had time to do that before the Rate Proposal. I
18 would have to check with staff.
19 Q. Okay. These annual reports that I
20 showed you, there is one other thing I would like to
21 look at in those and if we begin on the 2011 report,
22 we go to the second page -- let's see, I'm sorry,
23 third page. Again, my apologies for the shuffling
24 of paper.
25 What I'm looking at is the number of
Page 38
1 connection permits, so that is Page 5 and it shows
2 the number of connection permits issued being 1,883;
3 is that correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. So if we go to '12, 2012 --
6 A. Okay.
7 Q. -- number of connection permits issued
8 is 802?
9 A. It's showing how many?
10 Q. 802 for the number of connection permits
11 issued.
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Okay. And '13, number of connection
14 permits issues is 1345?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. You see that. And in '14 connection
17 permits issued are 1764?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. So other than a dip in the year 2012,
20 those connection permits that have been issued -- or
21 the number of connection permits issued has been
22 increasing from 1183 in 2011 to 1764 in 2014?
23 A. Correct.
24 Q. Okay. And in the Rate Proposal, if you
25 look at Table 4 dash 2 on Page 4 dash 4, Line 13
Page 39
1 shows the percent change in total customer accounts.
2 If you look at Fiscal Year 2014 you see that there
3 was actually an increase by about .33 percent in the
4 total number of customer accounts over the prior
5 year?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. So we've got increasingly more
8 connection permits issued year over year for the
9 most part?
10 A. Well, only one year, Fiscal 14.
11 Previous years it shows a decrease.
12 Q. Right. So I'm going back to connection
13 permits.
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. Okay. So just the connection permits,
16 based on the numbers we looked at in the annual
17 reports, the trend is that those are increasing year
18 over year?
19 A. Well, in construction permits -- and
20 permits don't mean new customers necessarily. They
21 could mean connect/reconnect I believe of existing
22 customers or a decrease of homes where two homes are
23 torn down to be replaced by one there's actually a
24 decrease in the customer base. So that would be a
25 combination of all those numbers.
Page 40
1 Q. How often does that latter happen?
2 A. Now, as many folks here know, infill
3 building happens a lot right now. There's not a
4 whole lot of new redevelopment land and a lot of the
5 work we're seeing is where one or two homes are torn
6 down, put a larger home in.
7 I will tell you it is a large number. I
8 don't have the exact number off the top of my head.
9 Q. Okay. So, nonetheless, there are more
10 connection permits being issued now?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. The trend is increasing or has been
13 increasing?
14 A. And along with what you point out with
15 the customer accounts, in fact, the customer
16 accounts, except for one year, have been going down
17 is kind of reflective of the issue I was presenting.
18 Q. But you also anticipate, looking at the
19 projected years 2015 to 2020, year over year it
20 remains relatively flat?
21 A. I think we're projecting a decrease of
22 .1 percent in customers, yes.
23 Q. And then going back just a little bit,
24 13, Fiscal Year 13 there was a .19 percent decrease
25 but that is significantly less, roughly half of the
Page 41
1 prior year?
2 A. And more than 2008, 2009, yeah.
3 Q. We're looking at the more recent trends
4 here, is what I'm considering.
5 A. Okay. So, yeah, it goes up and down
6 with the economy and, you know, whatever type of
7 infill or whenever people see economic opportunity
8 it will go up and down every year.
9 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I think that's all I
10 have. Thank you.
11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
12 Mr. Neuschafer.
13 Mr. Goss, do you have any questions on behalf
14 of the Home Builders?
15 MR. GOSS: I do not have any questions
16 of this witness.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Very good.
18 Mr. Arnold, do you have any questions on
19 behalf of the Rate Commission?
20 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir, I do.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please come forward.
22 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. ARNOLD:
24 Q. Good morning, sir.
25 A. Good morning.
Page 42
1 Q. If I may touch briefly on two other
2 issues. Initially calling your attention to your
3 testimony on Page 4.
4 A. The surrebuttal, sir?
5 Q. Yes, sir. I'm sorry. I would love to
6 go back to the other but Susan won't let me.
7 A. We spent enough time on that previously.
8 Q. And in this page you're trying to point
9 out four reasons, four differences to support a tax
10 system rather than an impervious system. And in
11 Paragraph No. 1 particularly Line 7 beginning, the
12 right-hand column, "With," could you read the
13 balance of that paragraph for me?
14 A. "With the recent ruling by the Missouri
15 Supreme Court in Zweig versus MSD," with cites,
16 "regarding MSD's proposed impervious fee, MSD is
17 unsure that not-for-profits entities would
18 participate in a voted on impervious fee."
19 Q. Mr. Hoelscher, what's the basis for your
20 unease?
21 A. I guess the one that we've always had is
22 the wording in the Supreme Court decision and I hope
23 I'm getting this right and I'll be very high level
24 with this, they indicated the impervious fee needed
25 to be voted on, not that it is a tax. I think that
Page 43
1 wording is primarily our biggest concern.
2 Probably -- since then, you know, looking at
3 what's going on through the rest of the industry, in
4 a meeting recently a month ago with Mr. Terry Leeds,
5 who is my equivalent in Kansas City, Missouri, based
6 on that ruling they have started offering
7 not-for-profits to opt out of their voted-on fee.
8 They're asking them to voluntarily pay it but they
9 are allowing those entities to opt out and no longer
10 pay a voted on impervious fee primarily as a result
11 of the ruling by the Supreme Court.
12 Q. Same page, Line 16, this is Paragraph
13 No. 4.
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. If you could read your testimony for me
16 at the bottom of the page.
17 A. Sure. "Finally, after the passage of
18 the previous impervious fee, the Missouri General
19 Assembly passed a law, known as House Bill 661 which
20 exempted approximately 3500 customers from
21 participating in the fee because they were residents
22 not receiving wastewater service and their
23 stormwater run-off did not enter any part of MSD's
24 public storm sewer system. This law went into
25 effect on August 28, 2009, and was codified," per
Page 44
1 the cite. "There is nothing to prevent further
2 legislation being passed that exempts even more
3 residents for similar reasons. The property tax
4 method would be protected from such legislation by
5 the Missouri Constitution."
6 Q. If I may, already in the record MSD
7 Exhibit 84L.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right, sir, and this is Missouri
10 Revised Statute 204.700. Is this the statute to
11 which you just referred?
12 A. Yes, it is.
13 Q. All right. May I call your attention to
14 Line 3, but essentially, "No person be assessed" --
15 and I'm going skip some words here -- "be assessed
16 any fee, charge, or tax for stormwater management
17 services if the district does not provide sanitary
18 sewer services and if the stormwater runoff for such
19 person's property does not flow, or is not otherwise
20 conveyed, to a sewer maintained by such district."
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. That presupposes that you do not provide
23 wastewater services?
24 A. This particular legislation, yes.
25 Q. That presupposes that any stormwater is
Page 45
1 not connected to the system administered by MSD?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. What's the problem?
4 A. If anybody in this situation were to
5 attend this meeting today they would benefit from
6 the maintenance of the stormwater infrastructure we
7 maintain within our municipal boundaries. The
8 primary purpose of that municipal stormwater system
9 is to take water off of roads, take water off of
10 properties, prevent flooding, those types of things.
11 The folks who are currently in this situation
12 are taking advantage and benefiting from the
13 infrastructure provided within our municipal
14 boundaries and are not taking part in paying for it.
15 That is the problem with this legislation.
16 Q. Even if, as the statute requires, the
17 stormwater runoff does not flow or is not otherwise
18 conveyed to a sewer maintained by the District?
19 A. In the same way that somebody didn't
20 call the fire department this year or the police
21 this year or any other tax-supported information. I
22 don't think we want to get in a place of trying to
23 measure exactly when somebody benefits or uses an
24 internal infrastructure. It makes more sense to
25 make the stormwater a tax-based revenue source and
Page 46
1 that's why we have that.
2 Q. Then you say there is nothing to prevent
3 future legislation from being adopted that exempts
4 even more residents?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Now, in your testimony you also
7 refer to the Missouri Constitution and identify
8 Section 30A --
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. -- which is the authorization for the
11 creation of the District?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Now, I have got two more pieces of
14 paper.
15 A. Three of the same thing? I just want to
16 make sure we didn't miss something.
17 Q. Now, I have marked what I believe are
18 the provisions to which you refer the people of the
19 County of St. Louis have the power to establish a
20 metropolitan district and the power so given be
21 exercised by the vote of the people; is that
22 correct?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. All right. If I may return to Section
25 204.700, the limitation is for any fee, charge or
Page 47
1 tax for stormwater; is that correct?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. All right. Have you been advised about
4 the provision in the Missouri Constitution which
5 effectively makes that statute an anomaly?
6 A. For the tax related to property taxes,
7 yes.
8 Q. All right. And, again, the paper
9 shuffling continues.
10 All right. Article 10 Section 6.1 of the
11 Constitution provides for property which may be
12 exempted property -- property which is exempt from
13 taxation and I've marked the not-for-profit section.
14 So those entities are clearly exempt but nowhere
15 does it describe any exemption from tax for someone
16 who pays for wastewater, stormwater; is that
17 correct?
18 A. It's just exemption for property
19 taxation.
20 Q. And further down I've marked in yellow
21 beginning "All laws exempting." Would you read that
22 for me?
23 A. "All laws exempting from taxation
24 property other than the property enumerated in this
25 article, shall be void."
Page 48
1 Q. So this statute, to the extent it
2 relates to the payment of stormwater services by
3 tax, is void; is that correct?
4 A. Restate the question.
5 MR. ARNOLD: Could you read that back
6 for me?
7 (The requested portion of the record was
8 read back by the court reporter.)
9 THE WITNESS: Could you read it back one
10 more time?
11 (The requested portion of the record was
12 read back by the court reporter.)
13 THE WITNESS: To make sure I understand
14 the question, my answer would be we believe a
15 stormwater property tax to pay for the
16 maintenance -- operation and maintenance of the
17 public storm sewer system is allowable under this
18 Article.
19 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: And I guess I would add,
21 which is one of the reasons why the 2-cent-wide
22 property tax has been in place. Even upon passage
23 of this law we maintain that property tax
24 District-wide under that provision.
25 Q. (MR. ARNOLD) And to date no one has
Page 49
1 challenged that?
2 A. No, they haven't.
3 Q. And to date you have not challenged
4 Section 204.7?
5 A. Correct, we have not challenged it.
6 Q. Now, changing subjects, if I may,
7 referring to your testimony on Page 5, Question 4,
8 Line 5, what type of revenue collection method do
9 you see in the future, could you read your response,
10 just Line 6 through 8?
11 A. "If in the future MSD's ratepayers
12 decide that they wish to consider paying for
13 additional services beyond what is being considered
14 in this rate cycle, I would consider it appropriate
15 at that time to consider all potential methods of
16 raising the needed revenue."
17 Q. As far as with your permission, I do not
18 believe the other documents -- the questions I'm
19 about to put to Mr. Hoelscher deal with what Charter
20 provisions and the Charter is already in the --
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Okay. So let's go through the laundry
23 list of the powers granted to the District under the
24 Charter Plan for raising revenue.
25 All right. And under Section 3.020 Section
Page 50
1 14 -- and I'm going to shorthand this, please if I
2 overstep let me know.
3 A. Okay.
4 Q. "To provide for the borrowing of money
5 in anticipation of the collection of taxes and
6 revenues for the fiscal year," so called tax
7 anticipation obligations?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Have you been advised of any legal
10 impediment to implementing this provision growing
11 out of the Zweig decision?
12 A. No, we have not.
13 Q. Section 15, "To meet the cost of
14 acquiring, constructing, improving, or extending all
15 or any part of the sewer or drainage facilities,"
16 first, through the issuance of bonds for that
17 purpose.
18 Have you been advised of any legal impediment
19 to the implementation of this provision growing out
20 of the Zweig decision?
21 A. No, we have not.
22 Q. Then, same section, this is C, "Through
23 the issuance of bonds for that purpose, payable from
24 special benefit assessments."
25 Have you been advised of any legal impediment
Page 51
1 to the implementation of this provision growing out
2 of the Zweig decision?
3 A. No. Were you going to ask me about D,
4 because I was going to wait for a summation. I
5 would tell you internally our processes are as
6 stated here, however, we have taken into account the
7 requirements of the Hancock Amendment after 1980.
8 So we do require voting in addition to the
9 requirements that you've listed here. We do require
10 a vote for those.
11 Q. Thank you, sir. Next, again Section
12 3.020 Section 20, "To levy, assess, and collect
13 taxes."
14 There's no impediment there so long as it's
15 submitted to a vote of the people under Hancock?
16 A. Correct. And there is one addition to
17 that in 20, in that taxation for the purpose of
18 operation and maintenance cannot exceed 10 cents on
19 the hundred dollars assessed valuation.
20 Q. We talked about that last time.
21 A. True. Yes, I'm sorry. I agree.
22 Q. Section 21, "To fix, levy, and collect
23 special benefit assessments for the construction and
24 improvement."
25 Have you been advised of any legal impediment
Page 52
1 to the implementation of this growing out of the
2 Zweig decision?
3 A. No, we have not.
4 Q. Finally, Section 9.020 authorizes the
5 improvements in subdistricts if the owners within
6 the boundaries of the subdistrict granted the
7 opportunity to vote, design and construct
8 improvements paid for through the issuance of
9 special tax bills.
10 Have you been advised of any impediment to
11 the implementation of this provision growing out of
12 the Zweig decision?
13 A. No, we have not.
14 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir. And I hope
15 I don't see you again for another four years.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
17 Does any Commission member have any further
18 questions for this witness?
19 Yes, Ms. Bowser?
20 MS. BOWSER: I'm unclear on one point.
21 The Zweig decision said that -- invalidated the
22 impervious rate because it was not voted on; is that
23 correct?
24 MR. HOELSCHER: And, again, as long as
25 I'm not getting it wrong, it was invalidated and I
Page 53
1 think the question was: Did the Zweig case
2 invalidate the previous impervious rate because it
3 wasn't voted on? And, yes, I believe that's the
4 statement that was made by the Supreme Court. They
5 wouldn't go further in describing other than a need
6 to be voted on.
7 MS. BOWSER: In other words, it did not
8 go into the question of tax versus fee?
9 MR. HOELSCHER: No. In layman's terms
10 it even made it a little fuzzier, kind of the
11 existing case law that was in place as to how you
12 would determine that.
13 MS. BOWSER: Thank you.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir?
15 MR. MAHFOOD: Just brought up a point to
16 over simplification, Brian, but in your mind and in
17 the District's thinking, could you have an
18 impervious surface fee tax, however you want to
19 define it under Zweig, if it was voted on do you
20 feel that is possible?
21 MR. HOELSCHER: Yes, we believe it's
22 possible. I think the question becomes, as in the
23 rest of my testimony, what are the additional costs
24 and made reference to what it is exactly we're
25 providing as to how you would pay for it. I know
Page 54
1 there's, for instance, in the last motion that there
2 was a statement that the only purpose of the
3 stormwater tax is to promote water quality in the
4 St. Louis Region. That is not the purpose of the
5 tax. The purpose is solely for the operation and
6 maintenance of the public storm sewer system. Water
7 quality issues are funded in a different tax that
8 hasn't been presented to the Rate Commission.
9 So, in the future, as things get different,
10 I'll kind of quote the policy statement here, we
11 have a need to be -- I, in my mind, as a policy
12 decision make sure it is crystal clear that we
13 establish something to take care of this issue today
14 without legal entanglements of whatever kind.
15 In the future, if we do other things, if
16 regulatory requirements become larger, if we want to
17 actually dedicate a revenue towards addressing other
18 stormwater issues outside of the public storm sewer
19 system such as erosion, flooding, all of the kind of
20 things that are going on, I would be willing to
21 consider any other kind of possible system that
22 might equitably represent the appropriate
23 contribution for those improvements. Just for the
24 very specific, narrow surface we're discussing here
25 I don't think taking that chance is appropriate for
Page 55
1 what we're proposing.
2 MR. MAHFOOD: I appreciate your
3 response.
4 MR. HOELSCHER: Thank you.
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir, Mr. Tomazi?
6 MR. TOMAZI: I just -- pulling back on
7 my memory here, Mr. Hoelscher, about the
8 responsibility that you have through the United
9 States Environmental Protection Agency as to the
10 quality of water in our navigable riverways and, in
11 particular, no matter how it gets there whether it's
12 a stormwater discharge that picks up pollutants even
13 though it does not go through your system, yet you
14 can -- you're required, I believe, to monitor those
15 waterways and indirectly may be responsible for
16 stormwater runoff that carries pollutants into,
17 let's say, the Missouri or Mississippi Rivers; is
18 that correct?
19 MR. HOELSCHER: Yeah, it's kind of the
20 whole crux of what we have here. The system is
21 viewed as two parts, both for a legal purpose as
22 well as for funding. The contributions of our
23 wastewater system and how it reacts to the
24 environment, those issues are being addressed in the
25 Consent Decree and they're being paid for through
Page 56
1 the wastewater rates.
2 As far as the impact on local creeks and
3 streams with regard to pollutant load that comes
4 from stormwater runoff, MSD is a -- we have a permit
5 that addresses that part of the Clean Water Act.
6 It's called our MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
7 System permit. It is not MSD's permit. It's the
8 area's permit.
9 Us, MSD, and 60 other municipal entities
10 throughout our municipal boundaries are a part of
11 that permit and there are -- I'm going to get this
12 wrong -- six actions I think that have to be taken.
13 MSD is responsible for a portion of those, various
14 municipalities are a responsible for a portion such
15 as not oversalting roads and putting in animal --
16 domestic animal waste pickup for when they do their
17 business, those types of things.
18 So that plan, in cooperation with all
19 permittees, that is submitted to MDNR. It is
20 currently under what you call "Best Management
21 Practices," that is implementing those to see what
22 kind of impact that has on the water quality.
23 So MSD is a part of that and I will tell you
24 right now we are able to use 60 other co-permittees.
25 What future permits may look like, I will guarantee
Page 57
1 you MSD will always be responsible for a large
2 portion of it, probably a major portion of any of
3 the future costs for any changes in what's
4 acceptable to meet those regulations.
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions? Ms.
6 Myers?
7 MS. MYERS: I don't have any questions.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Hoelscher.
9 MR. HOELSCHER: Thank you.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like to entertain
11 to take a little break here maybe for six minutes or
12 so.
13 (A break was taken.)
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We're going
15 to continue with surrebuttal testimony. I see
16 Richard Unverferth is directly in front of me here
17 and I would like to administer the oath.
18 Is the testimony you are about to give the
19 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
20 MR. UNVERFERTH: Yes, it is.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
22 Mr. Unverferth.
23 MS. MYERS: Could we take care of a
24 procedural matter first?
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.
Page 58
1 MS. MYERS: Okay. The two exhibits that
2 the Rate Commission used in Brian Hoelscher's
3 testimony need to have an exhibit number assigned to
4 them. So upon the granting of the Home Builders
5 Association's motion earlier in the meeting, that
6 motion along with the information that's attached to
7 it will be given a permanent exhibit number. It was
8 given a temporary exhibit number upon your all's
9 action today.
10 So the motion will be given HBA Exhibit No.
11 124 and then the Rate Commission -- the first
12 exhibit will be Rate Commission No. 125 and that
13 will be Article 6 of the Constitution and then
14 Article 10 of the Constitution will be given Rate
15 Commission Exhibit No. 126.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Myers. I
17 appreciate that.
18 MR. GOSS: Mr. Chairman?
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, sir.
20 MR. GOSS: The Exhibit 124, that will
21 include the various credit programs as part of that
22 exhibit along with the affidavit, is that right,
23 those will not be given a separate --
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: As I understand it, yes.
25 MR. GOSS: Okay.
Page 59
1 MS. MYERS: Correct. But the District
2 needs to get a copy of that.
3 MR. GOSS: We understand that.
4 MS. MYERS: Okay.
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you.
6 Mr. Unverferth -- does any Rate Commission member
7 have any questions for Mr. Unverferth?
8 Okay. Mr. Neuschafer, do you have any
9 questions for Mr. Unverferth?
10 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes.
11 RICH UNVERFERTH, having been duly sworn,
12 testified as follows:
13 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER:
14 Q. Okay. Thank you. I hope to make this
15 brief with a little less paper shuffling than with
16 Mr. Hoelscher.
17 You have your surrebuttal testimony there in
18 front of you?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. If you could look at Page 2. You
21 disagree here in your testimony with the adjustment
22 Mr. Gorman made to waste hauler revenues in Fiscal
23 Year 17 to Fiscal Year 20 period; is that correct?
24 A. That is correct.
25 Q. And you state that -- on Lines 6 through
Page 60
1 10, I believe it is, that MSD experienced a
2 significant decline in waste hauler revenues because
3 of a private waste hauling station was installed in
4 the St. Louis area?
5 A. Yes, that is correct.
6 Q. Okay. And because of this alternative
7 waste hauling station you state that MSD's other
8 revenues would decrease from around 1.4 million
9 actually realized in Fiscal Years 10 and 11 down to
10 about 660,000 during the forecast period?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 Q. Okay. I'm going to show you, this is a
13 portion of the 2014 Fiscal Year Financial Report. I
14 believe it's MSD Exhibit 25 already in the record.
15 MS. MYERS: Is it the same portion?
16 MR. NEUSCHAFER: It's a different
17 portion than what I had earlier but I have an extra
18 copy here for you. Here is one for you and one for
19 Susan.
20 Q. (MR. NEUSCHAFER) If you look at the
21 second page, which is actually Page 9 of the entire
22 report and we've got a paragraph that's highlighted
23 there, could you read that into the record for me,
24 please?
25 A. "Total revenue increased by 27.2 million
Page 61
1 or 10.1 percent. Sewer service charges increased
2 11.5 million or 4.8 percent and the provision for
3 doubtful accounts decreased by 9.9 million or
4 371.6 percent as explained above. Licenses, permits
5 and other fees increased 3.8 million or
6 140.3 percent due primarily to an increase in waste
7 haul permits."
8 Q. So there it states that MSD's license
9 permits and other fees increased by 140 percent or
10 3.8 million due to an increase in the waste haul
11 permits in Fiscal Year 13 over 14; is that correct?
12 A. Yes, that's what it says.
13 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Okay. That's all I've
14 got. Thank you.
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you,
16 Mr. Unverferth.
17 Mr. Goss, do you have any questions on behalf
18 of the Home Builders Association?
19 MR. GOSS: I do.
20 QUESTIONS BY MR. GOSS:
21 Q. Good morning.
22 A. Good morning.
23 Q. I had just one set of questions. If you
24 look at your surrebuttal testimony relating to
25 impervious fees, which is on Page 3, Lines 5 through
Page 62
1 24 and then continues over through Page 4 and a
2 small carryover onto Page 5, do you see that?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. In that testimony you described in great
5 length the cost to maintain and charge an impervious
6 fee and various engineering and finance department
7 functions; is that correct?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. So isn't it correct that the District is
10 calculating impervious surfaces and runoff with
11 respect to various parcels throughout the District
12 as part of its functions?
13 A. We do that to utilize for our own
14 engineering staff, we fly, but we do not update the
15 data we get from our flyovers and things like that
16 to the extent that's required for impervious
17 calculations.
18 Q. Well, if I look at your testimony you've
19 testified that there's a significant amount of labor
20 expended to assign and then maintain that impervious
21 area for approximately all of their 500,000
22 stormwater accounts. That's an accurate statement
23 in your testimony, isn't it?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. And then you go on to say that MSD makes
Page 63
1 adjustments to customer impervious information for
2 billing purposes based on customer petitions,
3 correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And as part of that you also do GIS
6 updates, correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And you're also going out and doing
9 field visits as well?
10 A. Not without -- right now we do not.
11 Well, in the advent of an impervious rate that was
12 part of our process at that time when we were doing
13 an impervious rate because we had to have that kind
14 of accuracy. As it is now, you do flyovers and you
15 end up with impervious data that is just
16 generalized. In other words, it doesn't -- it
17 doesn't stop at a property line or anything like
18 that or doesn't stop at the right-of-way or things
19 like that. Those are the things, the added work
20 that needs to be done for the impervious area.
21 Q. Right. So when a project comes to the
22 District there's a runoff calculated for that
23 particular project so that you know how much
24 stormwater that project will generate, correct?
25 A. Right, but it's throughout a watershed.
Page 64
1 It doesn't get down to the minutia of 435,000
2 accounts.
3 Q. But that particular project you're going
4 to analyze the stormwater flow from that project in
5 order to determine the stormwater needs of that
6 project, are you not?
7 A. Yes. Pervious versus impervious.
8 Q. So you're going to know on any given
9 project what the stormwater burden is associated
10 with that project so that you can appropriately deal
11 with it, isn't that true?
12 A. Right, to utilize for the design of the
13 project.
14 Q. And also to design BMPs for that
15 project, correct?
16 A. Well, if it includes BMPs.
17 Q. Well, isn't that a part of the
18 District's regulations now or do you not know that?
19 A. I do know that. And the question is:
20 Do we utilize that? Yes, that data is utilized.
21 Any kind of impervious area data or any kind of data
22 that -- for future development you indicate what's
23 going to be impervious at that time and you design
24 storm sewers, BMPs, quantity detention basins and
25 whatnot.
Page 65
1 Q. And the District has a set of
2 specifications with respect to BMPs that developers
3 are required to use, is that not true?
4 A. Yes, that is correct.
5 Q. And the District approves those BMP
6 systems before they're installed, is that not true?
7 A. That is correct.
8 Q. And the District also inspects those
9 after they are installed in order to ensure they
10 meet the requirements of MSD?
11 A. Right, the requirements of MSD and our
12 MS4 permit, as Mr. Hoelscher indicated. The
13 District -- that is one or our major
14 responsibilities is to enforce the water quality
15 regulations as part of that MS4 permit since we are
16 the regulating agency for the St. Louis area.
17 Rather than pass that all into the individual
18 municipalities MSD takes on that task as part of our
19 services.
20 Q. And to the extent that the BMPs are
21 reducing the stormwater flow off of a parcel of
22 property then the burden on the overall system is
23 reduced, is that not true?
24 MS. MYERS: I would like to object to
25 this line of questioning. I mean, this is outside
Page 66
1 of the surrebuttal testimony that Mr. Unverferth has
2 provided. His testimony was about the cost required
3 for the implementation of an impervious fee.
4 MR. GOSS: Mr. Chairman?
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes?
6 MR. GOSS: Will you direct the witness
7 to answer or are you going to sustain that
8 objection?
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I'm trying to
10 determine whether you're out of bounds with what
11 we're trying to consider here.
12 MR. GOSS: I think it's my last question
13 as far as that goes, if that helps.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Just keep the line
15 of questioning within his purview.
16 MR. GOSS: Sounds like you can answer.
17 MR. UNVERFERTH: Well, you'll have to
18 repeat the question.
19 MR. GOSS: Could you read it back,
20 please?
21 (The requested portion of the record was
22 read back by the court reporter.)
23 MR. UNVERFERTH: No, that is not
24 necessarily true.
25 Q. (MR. GOSS) Is it true in any instance?
Page 67
1 A. Yes, water quality features do have a
2 component of flow reduction depending on the type of
3 BMP that's constructed.
4 MR. GOSS: Thank you. I have nothing
5 further.
6 MR. STEIN: Can I ask a question?
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.
8 MR. STEIN: Mr. Unverferth, I would like
9 to ask just a couple questions about this private
10 waste hauling station that you mentioned in your
11 testimony.
12 Can you tell me who operates it, where it is
13 and what's the ultimate fate of the material that
14 goes there?
15 MR. UNVERFERTH: Well, generally it's
16 used for reuse. In other words, there's some form
17 of reuse that that company gets out of that whether
18 it's through burning it or combusting it and using
19 the energy from it, I don't know the specifics. I
20 can't -- and I don't necessarily know the name. I
21 do know it came into existence in the 2011 time
22 frame. We were aware that it reduced our burden to
23 the District. I could get those. I just don't know
24 those off the top of my head.
25 MR. STEIN: Is it liquid waste?
Page 68
1 MR. UNVERFERTH: It's primarily septic
2 tank waste and grease waste from grease traps and
3 when you get into the grease waste and the ability
4 to do things with that, that's the use. In other
5 words, there's some benefit to that company by
6 having that.
7 MR. STEIN: So this station turns this,
8 let's take septic tank waste, which is largely
9 fluid, does all the water go up into the air, is it
10 evaporated, does nothing go into MSD's system?
11 MR. UNVERFERTH: I don't really know to
12 comment on what their -- the process is at that haul
13 waste station but, I mean, obviously it's regulated
14 just like the District is.
15 MR. STEIN: My point is if it were a
16 pretreatment station and they were let's say
17 removing some of the solids or metals --
18 MR. UNVERFERTH: It would send it back
19 to us?
20 MR. STEIN: -- you would still be
21 getting all of the residual liquid after it had been
22 purified and treated.
23 MR. UNVERFERTH: Again, I don't know
24 enough details about that process to answer the
25 question about that specific haul waste station.
Page 69
1 MR. STEIN: So how -- again, help me,
2 how is the existence of this station impacting MSD?
3 MR. UNVERFERTH: It gives the waste
4 haulers another option to dispose of their waste.
5 In other words, where they all came to us
6 previously, now they can go to this station and
7 based on the amount that it costs them, their fee
8 could be equal to or less than, it may be more
9 convenient to them, but it reduced the amount of
10 flow that was coming to our hauled waste, in other
11 words, by the haulers.
12 MR. STEIN: Do you regulate it?
13 MR. UNVERFERTH: Not that I'm aware of.
14 MR. STEIN: Is it within the District's
15 boundaries?
16 MR. UNVERFERTH: It's within the
17 District boundaries.
18 MR. STEIN: My long ago study of the MSD
19 ordinances said that if anyone treats waste within
20 the District's boundaries they can only do so as a
21 pretreatment facility. Anything that discharges to
22 the streams or anything of that nature is
23 prohibited. In other words, if you treat waste
24 within MSD's boundaries, the affluent has to go to
25 MSD ultimately or --
Page 70
1 MR. UNVERFERTH: And, again, I'm not
2 sure -- I'm not sure of the process for this
3 particular one. I mean, I could get that and
4 provide that information with regard -- and I said
5 we don't regulate it but my guess is -- and, again,
6 I'm not our pretreatment, I don't handle -- it's
7 underneath me but I'm not totally familiar with it
8 but my guess is it's probably part of our industrial
9 pretreatment, so I would have to discuss that with
10 them and find out the specifics on it. I apologize.
11 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Stein.
13 Further questions?
14 MR. TOMAZI: Just one quick question. I
15 realize we're probably getting a little off the
16 subject here but do you know who licensed this
17 landfill, this pretreatment facility? Is this
18 licensed by the state, the county, or federal
19 government?
20 MR. UNVERFERTH: I cannot answer that.
21 I don't know.
22 MR. TOMAZI: I have more than a passing
23 interest in that whole landfill operation.
24 MR. UNVERFERTH: I can get you that
25 information. I did not prepare for that question.
Page 71
1 MR. TOMAZI: Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions?
3 MR. SCHOEDEL: Yeah, several follow-up
4 for both of those with respect to this waste now
5 that is going outside of the MSD District then you
6 would not have control over it even though it might
7 have been produced within the MSD District, if it
8 goes to one of these collection stations and hauled
9 into another area then you would not have control
10 over it and thus your hauling fees would have
11 reduced; is that correct a statement?
12 MR. UNVERFERTH: Could you repeat that?
13 Our fees, our collection was reduced when that came
14 into service.
15 MR. SCHOEDEL: Correct.
16 MR. UNVERFERTH: Yes.
17 MR. SCHOEDEL: And so I think there was
18 a comment of do you still have control over that
19 waste and you would not if it's hauled outside of
20 your District, is that correct?
21 MR. UNVERFERTH: Right, if it leaves the
22 District boundaries we would not have control over
23 it.
24 MR. SCHOEDEL: Even though it was
25 produced in your boundaries?
Page 72
1 MR. UNVERFERTH: Yes.
2 MR. SCHOEDEL: Okay. And a follow-up
3 question on the impervious fees. Currently MSD
4 requires all new development to have some type of
5 BMPs, which does include some hard impervious area.
6 Has MSD started a database of that, in case we ever
7 would go to an impervious fee, that could be
8 included in any type of credits as part of the
9 overall impervious fee and not just using aerial
10 photography or something along those lines?
11 MR. UNVERFERTH: Yes, we have an entire
12 database. There's a maintenance agreement that's
13 signed with every BMP that's constructed. We have
14 that. We've kept that. It's actually part of our
15 MS4 permit to do that, to follow up, inspect on
16 annual or over a certain period of time to
17 inspect that.
18 But, keep in mind, the basins that are
19 actually constructed are water quality features to
20 deal with the increase in runoff caused by that
21 development, so with regard to some type of a credit
22 program you would take that and the fact that
23 they're meeting the requirements of the development.
24 About anything above and beyond that may be
25 something we would consider for a credit.
Page 73
1 MR. SCHOEDEL: My specific question is
2 related to more of the hard impervious areas, that
3 if you're using aerial photography to determine
4 pervious and impervious area you have a way to
5 account for that?
6 MR. UNVERFERTH: Yes, we do.
7 MR. SCHOEDEL: Okay. Thank you.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from
9 the Commission? Hearing none, thank you,
10 Mr. Unverferth.
11 Oh, Ms. Myers. I'm sorry. Ms. Myers, do you
12 have any questions?
13 MS. MYERS: I don't have any questions.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr.
15 Unverferth. And Mr. Arnold. Mr. Arnold, I'm sorry.
16 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir.
17 QUESTIONS BY MR. ARNOLD:
18 Q. Good morning, sir.
19 A. Good morning. How are you?
20 Q. I'm fine. Thank you. And you?
21 A. Good.
22 Q. You have your testimony, how about Page
23 5 on Line 6 you have a question and on Pages 5 and 6
24 you provide some information about the O&M and OMCI
25 and subdistricts and I would like to inquire a
Page 74
1 little bit about that.
2 I'm going to hand you, and forgive me,
3 Ms. Myers, I only have one copy of Ordinance 13856,
4 which is MSD Exhibit 86E, which is an ordinance
5 which the District trustees consider annually to set
6 the regulatory tax and the O&M.
7 Mr. Unverferth, my understanding is Section 2
8 sets the regulatory tax and that is paid into the
9 District's stormwater fund and that tax is leveed
10 against every property owner within the District; is
11 that correct?
12 A. Yes, that is correct.
13 Q. All right. Now, there's also the O&M or
14 operation and maintenance and that's Section 3. And
15 that tax is paid into the operations and maintenance
16 fund and am I correct that this area is largely the
17 City of St. Louis?
18 A. It is actually the original MSD
19 boundaries, which is the City of St. Louis and what
20 we refer to as the near St. Louis County or within
21 the 270, so it meanders. If you recall the map it's
22 -- we call it the "yellow area" if you seen it in
23 the public hearings and the presentation, so it
24 actually extends beyond that. So it overlaps the --
25 what you're going to talk about next, the OMCI.
Page 75
1 Q. Got it. All right. We're on the same
2 track. But the yellow area pays the regulatory tax
3 and also pays the O&M tax?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. And there are OMCI subdistricts in that
6 Section 4 and there are about 20 of them?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. All right. And these subdistricts pay
9 not only the regulatory tax, they pay O&M and they
10 pay for capital improvements?
11 A. Yes, that is correct.
12 Q. All right. Now, each year when the
13 trustees consider this, does each subdistrict get a
14 levee?
15 A. Yes, it does individually.
16 Q. All right.
17 A. I believe they're all set at the same --
18 or no, it's based on the maximum that's allowed.
19 Q. Okay. All right. Now, in a response to
20 a discovery request, I believe you or one of your
21 colleagues said all of these subdistricts were
22 organized prior to 1980?
23 A. I believe so.
24 Q. So this is pre-Hancock, so no vote is
25 required for this annual levee of the tax.
Page 76
1 Now I want to refer to a conversation we had
2 before when we talked about operation and
3 maintenance sometimes including what you called
4 "asset management projects."
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. Okay. Now, remind us what is an asset
7 management project?
8 A. It's maintaining the existing sewer
9 system to provide excess life to it. In other
10 words, maintaining that asset to provide greater
11 life.
12 Q. All right. You're not building
13 something new but you're expending capital funds to
14 maintain, as you just said, the life of a particular
15 facility?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. Okay. Now, in the Rate Change Proposal
18 there was a map and in the response to the last set
19 of discovery requests, which was MSD Exhibit 114B,
20 you also added that. This is the same map that's in
21 --
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Yes, it is.
25 Q. All right. Now, in your testimony,
Page 77
1 Lines 10 through 15, you describe what happens to
2 the OMCI taxing districts. Could you read your
3 testimony from Lines 10 through 16?
4 A. "In that portion of the district covered
5 by the existing OMCI taxing districts (the "Green
6 Area"), taxing revenue from the OMCIs (both existing
7 balances and revenue to be collected in FY16) shall
8 be used to fund the capital improvements noted in
9 the project list. Tax revenue generated in a given
10 OMCI, must be spent only on work within that OMCI.
11 Of the total project list, 64 projects constituting
12 24 million in capital work is to be funded in the
13 Green Area from existing OMCI taxing district
14 revenue during the rate period."
15 Q. Okay. Now, when you refer to the
16 "project list," that's the capital improvements list
17 which you've provided as an exhibit both in the Rate
18 Change Proposal and in your response to this last
19 discovery request?
20 A. That is correct. The original list
21 provides the details of the project. We expanded on
22 that list in the last discovery list that actually
23 identifies which of the three areas that the project
24 falls in, whether it's red, yellow or green.
25 Q. All right. Then your testimony, Line 17
Page 78
1 through the end of the page and going forward to
2 Page 6, refers to the yellow area. Now, the yellow
3 area you've described as the original District?
4 A. That is correct.
5 Q. All right. And in the yellow area the
6 tax levees have paid for operation and maintenance
7 and these asset management projects?
8 A. That is correct.
9 Q. All right. Now could you on Page 6 at
10 Line 5 beginning, "Of the total project list," read
11 to the end of the paragraph?
12 A. "Of the total project list, 47 projects
13 constituting 17 million in capital work is to be
14 funded in the Yellow Area from this offset during
15 the rate period."
16 Q. All right. What does "from this offset"
17 mean?
18 A. The yellow area we collect -- or we have
19 collected and then at the end, as part of the Rate
20 Proposal, that tax will be zero.
21 Q. All right.
22 A. And there's a balance remaining in that
23 account or that fund to fund operation and
24 maintenance. In our proposal we're proposing to
25 continue to use that for operation and maintenance
Page 79
1 and take the 10 cent tax to operate and maintain
2 that area to perform some capital work that has been
3 neglected in this area. Did that make sense?
4 Q. Well, I believe so. There will be a
5 balance in the yellow area fund, when the 10 cent
6 levee begins, the balance in that fund can be used
7 for operation and maintenance and capital
8 improvements?
9 A. It's specific for operation and
10 maintenance.
11 Q. So it could just be for operation and
12 maintenance, which would be asset management
13 practices?
14 A. Correct.
15 Q. But no new capital improvements?
16 A. The way I understand that tax, that is
17 correct.
18 Q. All right. So that the $17 million has
19 to come from the new tax levee?
20 A. That is correct.
21 Q. Okay. Now, we then talk about the red
22 area and the red area pays only the regulatory tax,
23 they didn't pay any O&M, they didn't pay any asset
24 management, they didn't pay any capital improvement;
25 is that correct?
Page 80
1 A. That is correct.
2 Q. All right. And so there has been no
3 previous funding for these capital projects and you
4 refer, Lines 12 through 13, to 59 projects
5 constituting $7 million in capital work?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. All right. I will hand your counsel a
8 document which I represent to be Page 8 from the
9 third discovery response of the District, which is
10 Exhibit MSD 86A, and I have marked at the bottom of
11 the page Paragraph B, your response to describe the
12 improvements in the public stormwater system.
13 A. What is the question? I'm sorry.
14 Q. I'm going to ask you to read it.
15 A. Oh, okay. "Stormwater improvements to
16 the public system would consist of asset renewal
17 and/or small additions that would improve the life
18 and/or functionality of a stormwater system.
19 Examples would include such things as storm sewer
20 rehabilitation or adding an additional inlet and/or
21 piping to improve drainage within a system. In
22 addition, improvements can be made to the stormwater
23 system as a whole to protect structures and property
24 from flooding or erosion. Examples would include
25 such things as the construction of new storm sewer
Page 81
1 systems, providing increased capacity to storm sewer
2 systems, channel rehabilitation, and channel
3 stabilization to provide erosion protection."
4 Q. Thank you. Now I'm going to ask you to
5 read your testimony on Page 6 beginning at Line 15,
6 the word "because."
7 A. "Because there are existing funds in the
8 yellow and green areas to address the highest
9 priority projects in those areas, the red area
10 projects generally have the highest remaining
11 priority thus resulting in all new revenues
12 available for capital projects being spent in the
13 red area for Fiscal Years 2017 through 20. In the
14 future, the entire District will be considered for
15 projects funded from any remaining revenues
16 available to be used for capital projects."
17 Q. All right. The red area projects have
18 the highest remaining priority and all new revenues
19 available will be spent in the red area during the
20 rate period?
21 A. And by "all new revenues" it's the
22 revenues that are generated by the new 10 cent tax
23 above and beyond our operational and maintenance
24 needs.
25 Q. Okay. So the green area has paid for
Page 82
1 capital, regulatory and O&M for 35 years, the yellow
2 has paid for regulatory and operation and
3 maintenance, including asset management, for 35
4 years, the red area hasn't paid anything and all new
5 revenues will be spent in the red area for Fiscal
6 Year 2017 to 2020, is that your testimony?
7 A. Yes.
8 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you. I appreciate
9 it.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions of members?
11 Members of the Commission? Ms. Myers?
12 MS. MYERS: Yeah, I believe we have a
13 question. Kind of a follow-up to the last question
14 that was asked.
15 Rich, would you please explain what
16 percentage -- or what level of the new tax rate
17 would be used in the red area for capital projects?
18 MR. UNVERFERTH: It is a follow-up to
19 what Mr. Arnold just asked, the funds that will be
20 utilized in the red area for capital improvements
21 are the remaining funds minus the operation and
22 maintenance funds that are being used throughout the
23 District.
24 The District -- this is an area where we have
25 a lot of issues that are identified problem areas.
Page 83
1 Again, throughout the District because there have
2 been no projects done there similar to the area, the
3 yellow area where there have not been projects done,
4 right now the District, being responsible to address
5 those issues, has chosen as part of their proposal
6 to address those issues with those remaining funds
7 over that four-year period.
8 Once the funding has been spent down, even
9 throughout the next rate cycle, there may not be any
10 funds available to do that depending on where
11 operation and maintenance costs go. At that point,
12 we're essentially at a clean slate to address
13 stormwater issues throughout the District and
14 obviously we want to address the highest priority
15 issues.
16 We prioritize our projects based on cost
17 benefit. They have benefits based on flooding,
18 homes flooding, erosion issues where homes are in
19 danger and then we look at the cost for that
20 solution and we weigh those across. And
21 fortunately, for those in the green area, because
22 there is funding available, we have been able to
23 address those. And from a District standpoint to go
24 and continue to do less projects that have less
25 impact on our customers as a whole and neglecting
Page 84
1 where we do have projects, that's why we proposed
2 the funding that we did.
3 MR. MAHANTA: In the red area here, the
4 ones that you get with the taxing, after O&M,
5 whatever is left over would be used for capital,
6 however, that may or may not be adequate to take
7 care of all the projects that are necessary in the
8 red area?
9 MR. UNVERFERTH: It will not come close.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Further questions from
11 the Commission? Thank you, Mr. Unverferth.
12 MS. MYERS: The District would like to
13 call our next witness as Jonathan Sprague.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Sprague, is the
15 testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole
16 truth, and nothing but the truth?
17 MR. SPRAGUE: Yes, it is.
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Does any
19 member of the Rate Commission have questions at this
20 time of Mr. Sprague?
21 Mr. Neuschafer, do you have any questions on
22 behalf of the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers?
23 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I do not.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goss, any questions
25 on behalf of the Home Builders Association?
Page 85
1 MR. GOSS: No questions.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnold, questions on
3 behalf of the Rate Commission?
4 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Myers, do you have
6 any questions?
7 MS. MYERS: No, sir, I do not.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Sprague.
9 MR. TOMAZI: May I ask a question? In
10 Mr. Unverferth's testimony we heard about these two
11 private treatment centers that opened up in and
12 around the Richmond area landfill and apparently one
13 of these, according to this, does some pretreatment
14 from some of the leaching from the landfill, which
15 then whatever material comes out of there is
16 transferred to the Bissell Point treatment plant for
17 further treatment.
18 Do you monitor that leaching for any
19 radioactive activity?
20 MR. SPRAGUE: The monitoring is done by
21 our division of environmental compliance, which
22 falls under Rich, so that's -- I'm not responsible
23 for the monitoring but I do know that when they do
24 do the tests they do do some radioactive testing,
25 yes.
Page 86
1 MR. TOMAZI: Thank you.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything further? Thank
3 you, Mr. Sprague. Ms. Myers?
4 MS. MYERS: The District's next witness
5 is Tim Snoke.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Snoke, is the
7 testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole
8 truth, and nothing but the truth?
9 MR. SNOKE: Yes, it is.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any members
11 of the Rate Commission have questions for Mr. Snoke?
12 Mr. Neuschafer, do you have any questions on
13 behalf of Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers?
14 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes.
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please come forward.
16 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Thank you.
17 TIM SNOKE, having been duly sworn,
18 testified as follows:
19 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER:
20 Q. Good morning, Mr. Snoke.
21 Just a few questions, if you could pull out
22 your surrebuttal testimony. As you can see we got a
23 copy there.
24 On Page 2 I'm going to start out, Question 1
25 you take issue with some of the conclusions made by
Page 87
1 Mr. Gorman in his rebuttal testimony, so I want to
2 look at Lines 8 and 9 first. Mr. Gorman stated
3 that, "Ameren Missouri's projected growth in its
4 cost of service is largely tied to its rate base
5 investments."
6 Do you disagree with that premise?
7 A. I think based on the analysis we did we
8 saw that the costs that we are being charged were
9 roughly almost double of how we saw the rate base
10 increase for Ameren Missouri.
11 Q. Okay. That is reflected in the Exhibit
12 MSD 115D1 that you submitted?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And, in particular, that's the numbers
15 in the bottom right-hand of that exhibit as far as
16 what MSD is being charged, the 37.1 percent and then
17 4 percent, is that -- am I looking at the right
18 numbers?
19 A. That's one factor. So there's a list of
20 factors throughout the exhibit. They range from
21 four to four and a half percent average annual
22 increases since June 2007 versus -- so that four to
23 four and a half percent range, there's a range of
24 factors versus what we saw the rate base growth of
25 about 2.3 percent.
Page 88
1 Q. Okay. And those are historical numbers?
2 A. Those are historical numbers.
3 Q. As opposed to projections?
4 A. Correct.
5 Q. So getting back to the statement of --
6 with respect to projected growth, do you disagree
7 that Ameren Missouri's projected growth and its cost
8 of service is largely tied to its rate base
9 investments?
10 A. I would expect -- I don't have any
11 reason to expect that future increases would not
12 move at least similarly to how they have done in the
13 past.
14 Q. Let's look at the next clause in that
15 same sentence where it says, "Ameren projects to
16 grow at a CAGR of 2 percent from Fiscal Year 14 to
17 Fiscal Year 19." That's what that says right there?
18 A. Yes, correct.
19 Q. Do you disagree with that statement?
20 A. I do not disagree that that is what
21 Ameren says they project growing.
22 Q. Okay. So based upon what evidence does
23 MSD disagree with Ameren's own projections?
24 A. I disagree with utility expense
25 escalation factor of 3 percent every other year,
Page 89
1 which would actually be less than an annual
2 2 percent increase when history shows that our --
3 that the increase in rates that we experience is
4 actually higher by almost double what Ameren's
5 historic rate increase -- rate base increases have
6 been.
7 Q. Okay. So that's Mr. Gorman's proposal?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. And what I'm asking about is Ameren's
10 projections of a 2 percent increase over Fiscal Year
11 14 to Fiscal Year 19.
12 A. I have no basis to disagree that
13 Ameren's projecting their rate base to increase by
14 2 percent a year from 14 through 19.
15 Q. Okay. So let's talk about Mr. Gorman's
16 proposal, which is 3 percent every other year.
17 Looking at just the time period covered by
18 this Rate Proposal, do you think there's a
19 significant difference between 3 percent growth
20 every other year versus 2 percent every year?
21 A. I think it's less than 2 percent every
22 other year.
23 Q. Do you think it's significantly less
24 than 2 percent?
25 A. It's a little bit less. I mean, I'm
Page 90
1 basing this on historically our increases have been
2 almost double the increase. His proposal is to
3 actually factor in that increase that's less than
4 Ameren's projected growth.
5 Q. And I understand the historical numbers.
6 I think we're -- we're trying to work with Ameren's
7 own projections here, is what we're looking at.
8 So does MSD have a -- you know, other than
9 historical numbers, you know, historical amounts
10 that MSD has been paying, is there any other
11 evidence that you have to support that Ameren's
12 2 percent projection is not accurate?
13 A. No, we did not analyze whether or not
14 their projection of their rate base growth was
15 accurate.
16 Q. Okay. Do you know, as far as MSD's
17 overall utility expense, what percentage of that is
18 tied to electrical costs?
19 A. It's most of it but I'd have to ask
20 operations probably. I don't know exactly.
21 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Okay. All right.
22 That's all I've got. Thank you.
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr.
24 Neuschafer.
25 Mr. Goss, do you have any questions on behalf
Page 91
1 of the Home Builders Association?
2 MR. GOSS: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnold, any questions
4 on behalf of the Rate Commission?
5 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions from the
7 Commission itself?
8 Ms. Myers, any questions?
9 MS. MYERS: I don't have any.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Snoke.
11 Ms. Myers?
12 MS. MYERS: The District's next witness
13 is Theresa Bellville.
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Bellville, is the
15 testimony you are about to give the truth, the whole
16 truth and nothing but the truth?
17 MS. BELLVILLE: Yes, it is.
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions
19 from the Rate Commission to start?
20 Mr. Neuschafer?
21 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Yes.
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Once again.
23 THERESA BELLVILLE, having been duly
24 sworn, testified as follows:
25 QUESTIONS BY MR. NEUSCHAFER:
Page 92
1 Q. Good morning, Ms. Bellville. How are
2 you?
3 A. Just fine.
4 Q. Good. You have your surrebuttal
5 testimony in front of you there. Let me get myself
6 organized here.
7 I would like to look at the table on Page 4
8 on your surrebuttal testimony. And in the bottom
9 right-hand corner you indicate a running average, so
10 this is related to bad debt?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. A running average beginning in Fiscal
13 Year 11 that's reduced by 1.1 percent. Can you
14 explain how you reached this number?
15 A. The one marked in red, the very last
16 one?
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. That is starting with Fiscal 11 and
19 taking the cumulative total of the bad debt
20 provision for each year and the total bad debt
21 balance and taking the total provision divided by
22 the balance.
23 Q. Okay. So if we go then -- let's look at
24 that same table. If we compare the year over year
25 decrease in bad debt as a percentage of the SSC --
Page 93
1 first off, can you -- what is SSC?
2 A. Wastewater sewer charge.
3 Q. SSC is the wastewater sewer charge?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. We're seeing a significant
6 year-over-year decrease in bad debt as a percentage
7 of SSC when you compare Fiscal Year 10 to 13. Do we
8 expect that to continue?
9 A. Can you repeat that? I'm sorry.
10 Q. Sure. When you're comparing the bad
11 debt as a percentage of SSC, I believe that's the
12 third from last line, and particularly when you
13 compare Fiscal Year 10 and then scroll over to
14 Fiscal Year 13 we're seeing significant decreases
15 year over year. Do you expect that to continue?
16 A. As in my testimony, we do expect it to
17 decrease slightly as we continue with our collection
18 procedures. A part of the analysis here is in 14 we
19 had an adjustment to our bad debt calculation that
20 created an adjustment of 9.8 million and when you
21 take the effect of that adjustment out, the
22 adjustment -- the bad debt provision for FY14 would
23 have been 2.9 million.
24 And so in my testimony, as I said, when you
25 remove that, the effect of that, the average over
Page 94
1 that period, the time period of the Rate Proposal
2 from 11 to 14, was actually 2 percent. So taking
3 into account what we're doing with collections,
4 that's why we reduced it in the Rate Proposal down
5 to one and a half percent versus the 2 percent
6 average that we've been experiencing.
7 Q. You just referenced if you "take into
8 account what we're doing with collections." Are
9 these new programs designed to improve your
10 collections or is this a continuation of old
11 programs or what -- you know, how does what you're
12 going to be doing under the Rate Proposal compare to
13 what you're currently doing?
14 A. We're going to continue with the process
15 that we put into place in 2011, which was to
16 continue a more aggressive approach in that we
17 institute a pre-collect program where we do our
18 automatic dialing program and then it phases through
19 to different collection agencies, first placement
20 agency, second placement agency and then to law
21 firms to pursue them through judgments because we
22 don't have the ability to shutoff. So that is our
23 only means to try to collect and we've been having
24 success in that arena.
25 Q. And so you're continuing that program.
Page 95
1 Are you investing more in that program?
2 A. We're continuing with that program and
3 just really pressing and trying to continue as much
4 as we can to collect the delinquencies.
5 Q. Is MSD devoting additional resources,
6 either more people or more money?
7 A. Not additional resources, no. It's the
8 continuation of the program. We try to look at it
9 and revamp it as far as we might start collecting at
10 different periods or reassigning at different
11 periods, adjusting the program to try to increase
12 collections.
13 Q. But nonetheless MSD feels it has been
14 very effective?
15 A. Yes, it has to the extent that we can.
16 Q. Okay. If we go to Page 5 of your
17 testimony, Lines 12 and 13 in particular I believe,
18 you suggest that it's contradictory for Mr. Gorman
19 to assume that the bad debt provision would increase
20 one half percent down to one percent of the same
21 time assuming that the late charge credit fees would
22 increase; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, that's correct.
24 Q. Okay. Is it true that whatever late
25 charge fees you collect will be based on a
Page 96
1 percentage of outstanding principal balance of the
2 bills that have not yet been paid?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. So late charge fees could increase with
5 increases in the customer bills, which haven't been
6 paid?
7 A. Yes, they could.
8 Q. Okay. And you indicated Mr. Gorman
9 assumed a 1 percent bad debt provision in the
10 forecast period 17 through 20, Fiscal Year 17
11 through Fiscal Year 20?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Okay. I want to look at Page 2. Flip
14 back a bit to Page 2 of your testimony. This is
15 with respect to volume projections.
16 You take issue with the projections of
17 wastewater volumes during the forecast period,
18 right?
19 A. Correct.
20 Q. Okay. And this is done in part with
21 taking a look at the projections that were made in
22 the last rate case as compared to MSD's projections
23 and then comparing them to actuals; is that right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Okay. And you state that if the
Page 97
1 District had followed Mr. Gorman's recommendations
2 in the last case the District would have suffered a
3 $7.3 million greater deficit than was actually
4 experienced?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. How did you reach the 7.3
7 million number, can you explain that for us?
8 A. It's using Exhibit MSD 115. What we did
9 is we took Mr. Gorman's projections in his testimony
10 from FY11 and he had projected them to remain stable
11 for that entire period, so we multiplied that by
12 four and we compare that to our four-year
13 projections or looking at the actuals for that same
14 four-year period and then we compare that with the
15 volumes it would have been compared to the actuals.
16 If we would have used Mr. Gorman's projections we
17 would have been under sewer service revenue by
18 17.2 million. And when we compare it to our --
19 projections to our actuals we were under 9.9 million
20 and that's the difference.
21 Q. Okay. This --
22 A. I'll clarify that it's MSD 115E1.
23 Q. Yes. Thank you. And this takes into
24 account -- the actual numbers take into account the
25 metered customers from the year 2014; is that
Page 98
1 correct?
2 A. Correct.
3 Q. Now, in 2014, wasn't that the year that
4 American Water Company, there were I guess some
5 changes to their methodology that impacted the
6 actual numbers on the volume for metered customers?
7 A. Yes, it was and in my testimony I do
8 indicate that if you take into account that
9 adjustment, which we did bill in FY15 so it was
10 outside of that rate period, if you adjust that,
11 that 7.9 million, we would have been within
12 2 million. And if you look at Mr. Gorman's numbers
13 then it would have been 9.2 million, so this
14 difference still would have been the same, that
15 $7 million.
16 Q. Okay. But thinking just about volumes,
17 the volume, not the collections or billings, I'm
18 going to show you here, this is -- actually, if you
19 got the Rate Proposal in front of you, this is part
20 of the Rate Proposal, Page 4 dash 7, which is Table
21 4 dash 3. If you look at Line 4, which is subtotal
22 metered customers, Fiscal Year 14 it's about
23 51.8 million, that's right?
24 A. Yes.
25 Q. Down significantly from the 56.2 million
Page 99
1 in Fiscal Year 13?
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. So for the volumes, if you account for
4 the discrepancies in Missouri American Water
5 Company's numbers, what is a more appropriate volume
6 for Fiscal Year 14?
7 A. What we did there you can see that in
8 FY15 in our projections, before we did the rest of
9 the rate model, we adjusted for that one time -- for
10 that one time anomaly in 2014, so in FY15 you see a
11 more accurate usage number at 55,053,889.
12 Q. So you're suggesting that 55 -- the
13 55 million in Fiscal Year 15 is perhaps a more
14 reflective number of what was actually happening in
15 Fiscal Year 14 or the actual volumes from Fiscal
16 Year 14?
17 A. It includes the adjustment. It has been
18 adjusted for that -- the lack of usage in 2014. It
19 has been corrected in 2015.
20 Q. Where -- help explain to me that
21 correction and how much of that volume reflects
22 correction?
23 A. I don't have the exact volume number but
24 the number has been adjusted from 2014. The
25 51,867,679 is the number that has -- without the
Page 100
1 usage error from Missouri American Water and in
2 2015, with the corrections that were made, that
3 number is the adjusted usage number including the
4 corrected usage at 55,053,889.
5 Q. So, in other words, the number here for
6 Fiscal Year 14, 51,867,679, doesn't actually reflect
7 actual volumes for Fiscal Year 14?
8 A. Correct.
9 Q. Okay. And if we had an actual number
10 for Fiscal Year 14 alone, do you know what that more
11 appropriate number would be?
12 A. I don't have that number with me.
13 Q. Do you know if it would be closer to the
14 56.2 million in 2013 or the 55 million that was in
15 2015 than it is to the 51.8 million in '14?
16 A. I don't know that.
17 Q. Okay. So then get back to my question,
18 I guess the original question about projections,
19 you've taken issue with Mr. Gorman's total volume,
20 yet part of your total actual volume calculation is
21 Fiscal Year 14, which is not an accurate number?
22 A. We corrected it in 2015, so the volumes
23 going forward into the Rate Proposal have been
24 corrected and have been adjusted.
25 Q. But you're saying Mr. Gorman's
Page 101
1 projections years ago for the Fiscal Years 11
2 through 14 time period were off from actuals but
3 you're also telling me your actuals were incorrect
4 when you're looking at just that time period?
5 A. We corrected that adjustment. Again, as
6 I stated, when we looked at the projections if we
7 take into account the 7.9 million that we did
8 back-bill all of our customers in 2015 and you add
9 that to either Mr. Gorman's number or MSD's
10 projections, Mr. Gorman's numbers, if we adjust for
11 that, we would still be under 9.2 million and for
12 MSD's projections we would be under 2 million.
13 Q. I understand that. My concern is that
14 it appears that when you're trying to take issue
15 with Mr. Gorman's calculations on actual volumes,
16 you haven't given Mr. Gorman the benefit of that
17 back calculation but when you're trying to
18 demonstrate to us how MSD's calculations or
19 projections were accurate, you are giving yourselves
20 the benefit of that number?
21 A. I did give him the benefit. I think his
22 number, again --
23 Q. For total volume?
24 A. For total volume, if I add that -- the
25 adjustment to that, he would still be off
Page 102
1 9.2 million versus our 2 million.
2 Q. I'm looking at the volume, the CCF
3 number.
4 A. But that's how I would have come up
5 with -- using the volumes is how I came up with the
6 revenue.
7 Q. I understand that but I'm not looking at
8 the revenue right now. I'm looking at volumes.
9 Okay. And what your testimony is, is that the
10 actual volumes for Fiscal Years 11 through 14 did
11 not compare to Mr. Gorman's projections, Mr. Gorman
12 was off in his projections?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. But you're also telling me that the
15 actual number -- the actual volume that you used in
16 Fiscal Year 14 is not accurate because of the issue
17 with Missouri American Water Company?
18 A. Yes, but it's also the actual volumes
19 that we billed, so comparing actuals to actuals.
20 Q. But you didn't bill them until 2015?
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. So they count in the 2015 number on this
23 table, not in the 2014 number?
24 A. Correct.
25 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Okay. Thank you.
Page 103
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions from the
2 Commission? Mr. Stein?
3 MR. STEIN: Ms. Bellville, has the
4 District ever pursued enabling the legislation to
5 allow you to work with the city water division and
6 Missouri American to shutoff water for nonpayment of
7 sewer bills?
8 MS. BELLVILLE: I believe the statutes
9 say that we have the -- they have the ability to
10 make -- to enter into agreements with either of the
11 water providers.
12 MR. STEIN: Have you done so?
13 MS. BELLVILLE: We have had discussions
14 with both.
15 MR. STEIN: But it's not gone anywhere?
16 MS. BELLVILLE: No, sir.
17 MR. STEIN: Are those discussions
18 ongoing?
19 MS. BELLVILLE: Yes, they are.
20 MR. STEIN: Thank you.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
22 Mr. Goss, do you have any questions on behalf
23 of the Home Builders Assocation?
24 MR. GOSS: I do not, Mr. Chairman.
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Arnold?
Page 104
1 MR. ARNOLD: No, sir.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Myers, any further
3 questions?
4 MS. MYERS: No, sir.
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you
6 very much, Ms. Bellville.
7 MS. MYERS: The District calls its last
8 witness as William Stannard.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stannard, is the
10 testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole
11 truth and nothing but the truth?
12 MR. STANNARD: It is.
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Any
14 questions from the Rate Commission to start?
15 All right. Mr. Neuschafer, any questions?
16 MR. NEUSCHAFER: No.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Goss, any questions
18 on behalf of Home Builders Association?
19 MR. GOSS: Yes, Mr. Chair.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please come forward.
21 WILLIAM STANNARD, having been duly
22 sworn, testified as follows:
23 QUESTIONS BY MR. GOSS:
24 Q. Good morning.
25 A. Good morning.
Page 105
1 Q. It's getting late, I'll try and make
2 this brief. Mr. Stannard, you have in front of you
3 your surrebuttal testimony, correct?
4 A. Yes, I do.
5 Q. In your surrebuttal testimony you stated
6 two reasons why you supported the proposed use of a
7 property tax based charge off of funding a new
8 stormwater tax and I refer you to Page 2 of your
9 testimony and ask if you would read the first
10 sentence after "yes" in Lines 5 and 6 into the
11 record.
12 A. "First the use of property taxes funding
13 the costs of stormwater systems is a common method
14 used by cities and counties throughout the United
15 States."
16 Q. In follow up to this first point, can
17 you tell me a percentage of how many cities or
18 counties use a property tax for funding stormwater
19 services versus another method such as an impervious
20 surface or otherwise?
21 A. I don't have the percentage but there is
22 some data with regard to the number of cities that
23 have an impervious fee structure, which is a growing
24 mechanism to use by cities around the country but
25 it's not uniformly applied throughout -- for all
Page 106
1 cities and counties throughout the United States.
2 So I can't -- so we can probably find the number of
3 ones that have impervious area fee structures and
4 then divide by the number of cities and counties and
5 that would give us that percentage but I think it's
6 still -- it's a minority percentage, I believe.
7 Q. But it's a growing percentage?
8 A. It is a growing trend across the United
9 States.
10 Q. And do you have the source of that data
11 you just referred to?
12 A. There are a number of surveys that are
13 conducted. One is Kentucky State University and
14 then Black & Veatch Stormwater Survey that they
15 produce every year or so and that was included as an
16 exhibit to my direct testimony.
17 Q. Okay. And do you have any sense or a
18 percentage of the major metropolitan areas that are
19 using a property tax for funding their stormwater
20 tax as opposed to some other charge?
21 A. There are some major metropolitan areas
22 that use property taxes. One that comes to mind is
23 the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board that uses
24 property taxes for their funding of all their
25 stormwater drainage activities in the city.
Page 107
1 Q. I think my question was: Do you have
2 any information regarding other -- what other major
3 metropolitan areas are using in terms of impervious
4 surface charges?
5 A. I don't have anything with me but yet I
6 think based on the survey data that determination
7 can be made.
8 Q. Okay. And given that this is a growing
9 trend, as you just noted, for cities to use the
10 impervious surface charge, is there a reason why the
11 District is not proposing to use that kind of
12 methodology in its current tax proposal?
13 A. Based on my discussions with the
14 District during our studies there were a couple
15 things. One, of course, was the Supreme Court
16 decision after the challenge of the proposed
17 impervious area fee and then examining the -- there
18 are studies in order to determine the levels of
19 service that would be provided and the focus of
20 providing operation and maintenance of the existing
21 public stormwater sewers, as opposed to major
22 capital upgrades, that their proposed methodology to
23 continue to use a property tax, to continue with a
24 property tax structure provided a reasonable link
25 with the value of the properties that are being
Page 108
1 protected.
2 Q. Okay. And I think that was your second
3 point in your surrebuttal, where you reference the
4 relationship between the use of property tax
5 assessment charges and the value of the property
6 itself, is that not correct?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Okay. And, if I may, I'll just -- if
9 you look back at your surrebuttal testimony on Page
10 2, Lines 6 through 9, could you read that second
11 sentence into the record?
12 A. "Second, in terms of the value of the
13 service provided expressed in terms of protection of
14 property, the use of property taxes assesses charges
15 in proportion to the value of the property receiving
16 the service and achieves a nexus between the amount
17 paid and the benefit received."
18 Q. Okay. So in follow up to that second
19 point, in the Zweig case the Supreme Court in its
20 opinion states that -- Page 227 of the opinion, and
21 I'll quote it, "The District insisted that a tax
22 based on the assessed valuation of a property has no
23 relation to stormwater services but a stormwater
24 user charge directed at the landowners who
25 collectively created the need for stormwater
Page 109
1 services was much fairer and more easily
2 understood."
3 Now, that seems to be at odds with your
4 opinions and those of the District under the current
5 proposal, which is a property tax proposal. Can you
6 explain how given this conflict the District now
7 contends that tax based on assessed valuation of
8 property is fair and equitable?
9 A. I guess first would be the level of the
10 stormwater management program that was proposed at
11 the time of the prior case with the proposed
12 impervious area charge, which was a much more
13 expansive program than the limited operation and
14 maintenance of existing storm sewer systems as
15 proposed in this Rate Change Proposal.
16 One of the issues that was discussed
17 previously was the anticipation that the -- when you
18 think of tax-exempt properties who also benefit from
19 the stormwater system, as well as other services
20 provided by cities and counties but they do not pay
21 property taxes but they would pay an impervious area
22 charge, you know, it is my understanding that there
23 is still some concern, you know, it hasn't been
24 tested yet but there is concern that the Zweig case
25 may open the door for tax-exempt properties to
Page 110
1 challenge a voter-approved stormwater impervious
2 area fee.
3 Q. And I think that's -- I think that's
4 something Mr. Arnold was exploring with
5 Mr. Hoelscher, if I recall, and that's certainly
6 outside the scope of your testimony, so I don't want
7 to get into that because I already had a chance to
8 ask that once, so I will not go there again.
9 A. Some people like to chastise.
10 Q. I'm just teasing you. It's all right.
11 Let me just take you through a real quick
12 hypothetical. I have two properties that are
13 equally valued and one of the properties has no
14 impervious surface, it's absorbing all of its
15 stormwater and the other property is entirely
16 consisting of impervious surface, so all of its
17 stormwater is running off.
18 So under this tax proposal they're both going
19 to pay the same tax, isn't that true, because
20 they're both valued equally?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. And so isn't it true that the
23 property that consists entirely of impervious
24 surface, has a lot of runoff going into the system,
25 is directly benefiting from this tax, whereas the
Page 111
1 other property that is absorbing all of its
2 stormwater isn't directly benefiting from that tax
3 that it's paying?
4 A. I think we have to go beyond that
5 relationship of the runoff that is created by that
6 property to along to the benefits provided by having
7 the properly operated maintained public storm sewer
8 system and the protection that that provides by
9 eliminating or at least mitigating flooding and
10 flooding of streets so that emergency vehicles can
11 actually go to places where they're needed.
12 I think your hypothetical of a developed
13 property that absorbs a hundred percent of its
14 runoff, certainly it's theoretically possible and
15 certainly many systems require now new development
16 to not increase the volume of runoff from that
17 property after development than existed prior to
18 development.
19 Q. Right. And isn't it true that actually
20 the regulations require over-detention by new
21 development so that not only do they detain for
22 their project but they're correcting existing
23 problems around them so they're over-detained, isn't
24 that true?
25 A. As far as the specifics here with the
Page 112
1 MSD system, that's -- I don't have knowledge on
2 those, that level of detail, but there are some
3 systems out there that do require that.
4 Q. And so you don't know whether MSD is, in
5 fact, requiring some developments to over-detain to
6 correct problems in the general area that exist,
7 you're unaware of that?
8 A. I'm not aware of that.
9 Q. Okay. Are you aware that the District
10 previously included a credit-based program in its
11 proposed stormwater user charge based on impervious
12 surface?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. All right. Well, if the District is
15 able to implement a credit-based program in that
16 structure, why hasn't the District considered a
17 credit-based program in this current proposal or
18 even reviewed a credit program?
19 A. I was not involved in any detailed
20 discussions or general discussions on the topic of
21 credit programs as part of our work for this Rate
22 Change Proposal. But certainly one of the questions
23 that I would have would be just the administrative
24 process how if such a credit could be supported, how
25 it could be done with the District's ability and
Page 113
1 their linkage with the county in doing the tax
2 bills.
3 Q. Well, presumably the District figured
4 that out in the prior program because they were
5 offering a credit as part of that, isn't that true?
6 MS. MYERS: I would chastise you again.
7 I think you're getting outside of the surrebuttal
8 testimony of Mr. Stannard.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Sustained.
10 Q. (MR. GOSS) Do you know who would have
11 knowledge of the consideration of a credit-based
12 program in the District?
13 A. I think the executive director as well
14 as Ms. Myers. Brian Hoelscher and Susan Myers.
15 MR. GOSS: I understand. Thank you. I
16 have nothing further. Thank you.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Goss.
18 Mr. Arnold, any questions on behalf of the
19 Rate Commission?
20 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir.
21 QUESTIONS BY MR. ARNOLD:
22 Q. Good morning, Mr. Stannard.
23 A. Good morning, Mr. Arnold.
24 Q. Mr. Stannard, with respect to your
25 surrebuttal testimony I'm going to call your
Page 114
1 attention to Page 3, Lines 9 through 11, where
2 you're referring to a critical step in the rate
3 development process. Could you read that sentence
4 for us?
5 A. Which line?
6 Q. I'm sorry. Lines 9 through 11.
7 A. "However, a critical step in the rate
8 development process is to use the cost of service
9 process to allocate the total revenue requirements
10 and calculate fair and equitable rates."
11 Q. Okay. Now, this response is in
12 connection with the wastewater proposal?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is this analysis sometimes called
15 "causation"?
16 A. Yes. So --
17 Q. Go ahead.
18 A. That's a terminology that is sometimes
19 used.
20 Q. All right. So that the cost of service
21 or causation is calculated at a fair and equitable
22 rate.
23 Now, let's take a look at your testimony on
24 Page 2 and this is in response to a question about
25 property tax used for the public stormwater system
Page 115
1 and I would like for you to read your testimony
2 Lines 10 through 15.
3 A. "Considering fire protection as an
4 analogy, the costs of fire protection are recovered
5 through property taxes with those taxes directly
6 proportional to the assessed valuation of the
7 property receiving this service. As with many cost
8 recovery structures the property tax approach is not
9 perfect, but given the level of stormwater service
10 provided by MSD at this time and anticipated during
11 the period covered by the Rate Change Proposal, it
12 is my opinion that the proposed property tax-based
13 funding is equitable."
14 Q. All right. Now, I understand your
15 analogy is we can do stormwater because we do fire
16 protection. I understand fire protection being
17 based on an assessed valuation because if it burns
18 down you've lost value. I don't understand the cost
19 causation if stormwater runs by the house.
20 A. It's probably more from a flooding
21 protection. Property flooding is an issue that can
22 be affected within improperly maintained storm sewer
23 system, as well as the ability of the streets to
24 remain clear so that when a fire does occur that the
25 fire trucks can get to the property that needs the
Page 116
1 service as well as handle that service.
2 Q. Thank you. I hand you what has been
3 previously marked as MSD -- I'm sorry -- Exhibit MSD
4 84G. And I'm asking the other side of the question,
5 which Mr. Goss put to you earlier, and it has to do
6 with the number of Districts who use a user fee
7 based on impervious area.
8 Now, I grant you this is a survey. This does
9 not include every storm sewer system in the country
10 but I would ask you to turn to Page 13.
11 A. I have it.
12 Q. Okay. And at the top of the page, the
13 left-hand column Figure 19, "Is your stormwater user
14 fee based on some form of parcel area such as gross
15 and/or impervious area?" What's the response?
16 A. Ninety percent of the respondents
17 indicated yes and 10 percent indicated no.
18 Q. All right. Right below that, Figure 20,
19 "What is the basis for calculating your parcel area
20 based stormwater user fees? (Select all that
21 apply)."
22 And what is the response?
23 A. Seventy-nine percent of the respondents
24 indicated that they use impervious area for the
25 determination of the fee structure and the charges.
Page 117
1 Fourteen percent used gross area with some runoff
2 factor. Thirteen percent used -- indicated they
3 used gross area with intensity of development
4 factor, which is somewhat similar to the runoff
5 factor. Ten percent used gross area only and
6 3 percent indicated they had some other way of doing
7 it.
8 Q. All right, sir. I'm going to hand you a
9 book. I'm going to ask if you can identify the
10 book?
11 A. Yes, I can.
12 Q. Would you, please?
13 A. This is a book published by my firm,
14 Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: The
15 Changing Landscape, Fourth Edition.
16 Q. All right. And I took a peek at -- it's
17 an unnumbered page but it was published in 2015?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. All right. And the book contains pieces
20 from -- I'll call them contributing editors. If you
21 go to Romanette 18, Mr. Beckley contributed to the
22 book and he is sitting right here?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. And if you go to Romanette 26 you
25 contributed?
Page 118
1 A. I did.
2 Q. All right. But neither of you talked
3 about cost causation and I want to get to that right
4 now. If you go to Romanette 25, Keith Reding --
5 A. Readling.
6 Q. Readling, I'm sorry. Was a contributor?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And Romanette 22, Henrietta Locklear was
9 a contributor?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. And they both wrote Chapter 23,
12 "Expanding Financing And Pricing Concepts into
13 Stormwater." I want to ask you to turn to Page 474.
14 A. I have it.
15 Q. Got it. All right section 23.5,
16 "Developing a Rate Structure." And I would like for
17 you to go to Section 23.5.2, "Choosing a Rate
18 Structure Based on Cost Causation," and I would like
19 you to read that paragraph.
20 A. "The most appropriate rate structure
21 links demand for service to the rate structure.
22 Total runoff volume, a cost causation factor, is
23 influenced by a number of variables on a given
24 parcel: size of the parcel, vegetation, slope,
25 soils, and the amount of roof top and pavement
Page 119
1 (impervious area where water cannot readily
2 percolate into the earth, closed parentheses. All
3 of these influences -- all these influence the
4 estimable runoff volume and thus the demand from the
5 property. Among these variables, some of them are
6 major variables, with the paramount variable being
7 the amount of the impervious area. On the other
8 hand, other variables are minor, such as the health
9 of the vegetation on the parcel. Rate structure
10 choices usually reflect the primacy of some
11 variables in determining demand."
12 Q. All right. And the next Section 23.5.3,
13 "Balancing Fairness with Ease of Understanding and
14 Simplicity." Could you read that paragraph, please?
15 A. "Rate structure choices also reflect
16 other equity, practical and efficiency-related
17 concerns. A number of variables contribute to the
18 demand for service. Some are major and some are
19 minor and the fairer process would take all of these
20 variables into account. However, a rate structure
21 that did so would be very complex. It would be the
22 fairest rate structure, but it would also be
23 difficult to implement because of the effort
24 involved in measuring the attributes, maintaining
25 the data, and explaining the rate structure to
Page 120
1 customers. On the other end of the spectrum, the
2 simple rate structure would be a -- the simplest
3 rate structure would be a flat rate. For example,
4 meter size has been used in some jurisdictions, and
5 a pure land use classification has been used in
6 others. Flat fees are not very fair as a means for
7 equitably recovering or allocating cost among
8 ratepayers. However, they are relatively easy to
9 implement and maintain. These can be easier to
10 explain to ratepayers than a complex rate
11 structure."
12 Q. Thank you, sir. Now, the next page and
13 this is the last sentence of that paragraph.
14 A. "Impervious area rate structures have
15 been used very frequently to date by jurisdictions
16 because an impervious area basis reflects cost
17 drivers. It is very fair and is relatively easy to
18 understand."
19 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir.
20 MR. STANNARD: You're welcome.
21 MR. ARNOLD: I have no further
22 questions.
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr. Arnold.
24 Questions from the Commission?
25 MR. BROCKMANN: Mr. Stannard, of all the
Page 121
1 municipalities that enacted a property tax have any
2 of them been under criteria that the Rate Commission
3 is under as far as fair and equitable?
4 MR. STANNARD: They're usually under the
5 criteria of a state constitution in the
6 determination of property taxes and I took a look at
7 the Missouri Constitution -- excuse me for talking
8 Kansas Citian -- but in some states the
9 constitutions will require taxes to be just and
10 equitable, which can provide some direction as to
11 how the property tax rate should be established.
12 But those that have -- for example, New
13 Orleans, their taxes, their ability to levee taxes
14 for stormwater are established by the state
15 legislature and they have limitations on the amount
16 of -- the tax rate that can be applied.
17 MR. BROCKMANN: So currently the
18 stormwater rate is two different -- I'm sorry -- our
19 stormwater rate is two different parts right now,
20 part of it being the 24 cents that's fixed for every
21 property, it's a minuscule amount, but yet that's
22 consistent with every property owner paying that
23 amount?
24 MR. STANNARD: Yes.
25 MR. BROCKMANN: And so we're saying --
Page 122
1 you're recommending we eliminate that and go to a
2 variable amount per property owner on the property
3 tax?
4 MR. STANNARD: That is the proposal.
5 MR. MAHANTA: I have a question.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mahanta?
7 MR. MAHANTA: Yes, the reason that we're
8 not considering the impervious area primarily, would
9 it be reasonable for me to suggest that it's
10 primarily because of the complexity of the
11 implementation?
12 MR. STANNARD: That is a factor that was
13 considered by the District but then, again, I think
14 just as relevant was the level of service that is
15 included in the financial plan for the stormwater
16 program incorporated into this Rate Change Proposal,
17 so focusing just on operation and maintenance of the
18 existing storm sewer system.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Bowser?
20 MS. BOWSER: I just wanted to clarify
21 one point. The tax that is paid in those
22 subdistricts that exists now is based on assessed
23 valuation of the particular properties, am I
24 correct?
25 MR. STANNARD: Yes.
Page 123
1 MS. BOWSER: And if we had -- the
2 previous impervious area was a fee, so therefore, it
3 did not go through the county, am I correct, it was
4 strictly a billing from the District?
5 MR. STANNARD: That is correct.
6 MR. MAHFOOD: Have you seen any, in your
7 experiences and I have not seen the book that was
8 referred to, any kind of hybrid where there's an ad
9 valorem tax with credits that are integrated in
10 there, have you seen anything like that?
11 MR. STANNARD: I've not seen any systems
12 that use property tax, an ad valorem tax for funding
13 the stormwater management activities that have
14 implemented a credit program.
15 MR. MAHFOOD: Okay.
16 MR. MAHANTA: Would it be considered,
17 would it be fair or practical to consider that?
18 MR. STANNARD: I think practicality has
19 a big component of how that could be accomplished.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Schoedel?
21 MR. SCHOEDEL: If there's a great number
22 of municipalities that are using the area as part of
23 the fee structure, how do they take into account the
24 nonprofits, do they provide credit for those or
25 payment in lieu of taxes?
Page 124
1 MR. STANNARD: The ones that are using
2 impervious area charges generally will assess those
3 fees to all properties subject to some modifications
4 that might be part of the enabling ordinances
5 established by their governing bodies.
6 A project that we, my firm, did was for the
7 City of Baltimore for their stormwater impervious
8 area fee structure and they -- the city council
9 determined that it would be appropriate to apply
10 credits to a variety of institutions including
11 places of worship but then limited it to just the
12 worship area of a parcel, so if there was other
13 activities going on, broader-based, then they would
14 adjust -- those would be charged the fee.
15 The State of Maryland actually exempted
16 through their state statute establishing stormwater
17 fees as the desired result in the state, throughout
18 the state, that state-owned properties and
19 municipal-owned properties would not be subject to
20 those fees. So they exempted themselves and then
21 gave the municipalities a break too, so they gave
22 them a break too.
23 MR. SCHOEDEL: But there's no particular
24 thing specifically for non-for-profit organizations?
25 MR. STANNARD: No, usually not unless --
Page 125
1 again, unless they come to a conclusion that they
2 want to just have a reduced rate for nonprofits.
3 MR. SCHOEDEL: Thank you.
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Myers, do you have
5 any questions?
6 MS. MYERS: Could I have just a minute?
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.
8 MS. MYERS: I don't have anything.
9 Thank you.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Ms. Myers.
11 Are there any further matters before we
12 adjourn? Mr. Stannard, you're free to go. Any
13 further matters? Mr. Arnold?
14 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chair, members of the
15 Commission, may I urge my colleagues of the bar to
16 file, produce, whatever material which they request
17 the Commission to review on the 26th as early as
18 conveniently possible. One, for consideration by
19 the Commission; and two, for consideration by
20 counsel so that we are in a position to honestly
21 wrap things up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
22 MR. MAHFOOD: I don't know if this is
23 appropriate or the right time or whatever, but do we
24 have any background information on this previously
25 talked about or talked about this previous credit
Page 126
1 program that MSD had considered in the past? Just
2 curious to see if we might -- along with this other
3 information we might have something that could be
4 available to the Rate Commission.
5 MR. HOELSCHER: Yeah, I think there's
6 two sources in the information they asked to be
7 provided. There was initially what was provided to
8 the Rate Commission during those previous
9 proceedings, of course that's not on the internet.
10 But what we can do --
11 MR. MAHFOOD: Sorry.
12 MR. HOELSCHER: No, that's fine. I
13 think what we can do is we can lay out what the
14 ordinance was that laid out that along with the
15 credit policy as to what we laid out previously for
16 the impervious. We can provide that with the
17 additional information.
18 MR. MAHFOOD: Thank you very much.
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any further questions
20 before we adjourn? Ms. Myers?
21 MS. MYERS: Could I ask the Rate
22 Commission that we set a date by which you want to
23 see this additional information prior to the
24 pre-conference hearing?
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: As soon as reasonably
Page 127
1 possible. It's the 26th. I would say give us at
2 least three days to review it.
3 MR. BROCKMANN: Five p.m. on the 23rd?
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Five p.m. on the 23rd.
5 That actually gives us only two.
6 MR. BROCKMANN: That's true.
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: How about 5 p.m. on the
8 22nd?
9 MS. MYERS: June 22nd by 5 p.m.?
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
11 MS. MYERS: Thank you.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Very good. Thank you.
13 Having no further matters we are adjourned. Oh, we
14 need a motion.
15 MR. STEIN: Motion to adjourn.
16 MR. JONES: Second.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: All in favor say aye.
18 RATE COMMISSION: Aye.
19 - - - - -
20 (Whereupon, the Technical Conference
21 adjourned at 12:16 p.m.)
22
23
24
25
Page 128
1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
2 I, Suzanne Zes, within and for the State
3 of Missouri, do hereby certify that the witness
4 whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition
5 was duly sworn by me; the testimony of said witness
6 was taken by me to the best of my ability and
7 thereafter reduced to typewriting under my
8 direction; that I am neither counsel for, related
9 to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action
10 in which this deposition was taken, and further that
11 I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or
12 counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor
13 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome
14 of the action.
15
16 ______________________________
17 Certified Court Reporter
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 129
A
ability 8:12,17 68:3
94:22 103:9
112:25 115:23
121:13 128:6
able 56:24 83:22
112:15
absorbing 110:14
111:1
absorbs 111:13
accept 21:11,23
25:15 26:3 27:3
acceptable 57:4
accompanied 8:9
accomplished
123:19
account 35:21 51:6
73:5 78:23 94:3,8
97:24,24 98:8
99:3 101:7 119:20
123:23
accounts 39:1,4
40:15,16 61:3
62:22 64:2
accrued 32:15
accuracy 63:14
accurate 62:22
90:12,15 99:11
100:21 101:19
102:16
achieves 108:16
acquiring 50:14
Act 22:15 56:5
action 25:16 27:5
58:9 128:9,14
actions 56:12
actively 21:7
activities 106:25
123:13 124:13
activity 85:19
actual 31:19 32:3
36:9,10 37:14
97:24 98:6 99:15
100:7,9,20 101:15
102:10,15,15,18
actuals 96:23 97:13
97:15,19 101:2,3
102:19,19
ad 123:8,12
add 48:20 101:8,24
added 63:19 76:20
adding 80:20
addition 14:11 51:8
51:16 80:22
additional 9:11
13:14,23 14:22
18:9 49:13 53:23
80:20 95:5,7
126:17,23
additions 80:17
address 81:8 83:4,6
83:12,14,23
addressed 14:5
55:24
addresses 31:3 56:5
addressing 54:17
adequate 8:13 84:6
adequately 17:14
adjourn 125:12
126:20 127:15
adjourned 127:13
127:21
adjust 20:22 98:10
101:10 124:14
adjusted 99:9,18
99:24 100:3,24
adjusting 95:11
adjustment 59:21
93:19,20,21,22
98:9 99:17 101:5
101:25
adjustments 31:1
63:1
administer 57:17
administered 15:3
19:2,7,17 45:1
administration
20:18
administrative
112:23
admission 23:6
admit 26:1
admitted 23:12
adopted 8:24 16:22
46:3
advance 30:11
advantage 45:12
advent 63:11
advised 14:4 47:3
50:9,18,25 51:25
52:10
aerial 72:9 73:3
affidavit 14:9
15:16 17:18 27:4
27:12 58:22
affluent 69:24
afternoon 3:4 23:3
agencies 94:19
agency 55:9 65:16
94:20,20
agenda 6:3 27:6
aggressive 94:16
ago 23:10 43:4
69:18 101:1
agree 21:15 25:4
31:9 51:21
agreement 72:12
agreements 103:10
ahead 114:17
air 68:9
allocate 13:8 114:9
allocating 120:7
allotted 13:13
allow 103:5
allowable 48:17
allowed 14:21
15:15 18:3 75:18
allowing 43:9
allows 19:18
all's 58:8
alternative 60:6
amended 6:17 8:11
8:19
amendment 6:19
51:7
Ameren 87:3,10
88:7,15,21
Ameren's 88:23
89:4,9,13 90:4,6
90:11
American 34:15
35:15,19,25 36:8
37:7 98:4 99:4
100:1 102:17
103:6
amount 31:20
62:19 69:7,9
108:16 118:25
119:7 121:15,21
121:23 122:2
amounts 8:4 90:9
ample 17:9
analogy 115:4,15
analysis 22:21 32:6
87:7 93:18 114:14
analyze 64:4 90:13
and/or 80:17,18,20
116:15
animal 56:15,16
annual 32:23 37:19
39:16 72:16 75:25
87:21 89:1
annually 74:5
anomaly 34:14
37:5 47:5 99:10
answer 10:12 12:7
13:3 20:13 28:10
48:14 66:7,16
68:24 70:20
answered 28:8
anticipate 25:3
40:18
anticipated 8:5
115:10
anticipation 50:5,7
109:17
anybody 26:20
45:4
apologies 37:23
apologize 30:11
70:10
apparently 85:12
appears 101:14
128:4
appendix 30:24
31:5
applicable 8:18
application 9:1
14:4,7
applications 9:3,6
applied 105:25
121:16
apply 116:21 124:9
appreciate 21:2
55:2 58:17 82:8
approach 19:14
94:16 115:8
appropriate 24:2,4
26:3 31:1 49:14
54:22,25 99:5
100:11 118:20
124:9 125:23
appropriately
64:10
approved 6:15
approves 65:5
approximately
30:15 36:6 43:20
62:21
April 10:2,3,6,7,16
10:19,20,24
area 22:5 60:4
62:21 63:20 64:21
65:16 71:9 72:5
73:4 74:16,22
75:2 77:6,13 78:2
78:3,5,14,18 79:2
79:3,5,22,22 81:9
81:13,17,19,25
82:4,5,17,20,24
83:2,3,21 84:3,8
85:12 106:3
107:17 109:12,21
110:2 112:6 116:7
116:14,15,19,24
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 130
117:1,3,5 119:1,7
120:14,16 122:8
123:2,22 124:2,8
124:12
areas 73:2 77:23
81:8,9 82:25
106:18,21 107:3
area's 56:8
arena 94:24
argument 23:17
Army 23:25
Arnold 4:10 12:25
13:17,19 20:13,25
22:25 23:24 25:24
26:2 29:3,5 41:18
41:20,22,23 48:5
48:19,25 52:14,16
73:15,15,16,17
82:8,19 85:2,4
91:3,5 103:25
104:1 110:4
113:18,20,21,23
120:19,21,23
125:13,14
article 47:10,25
48:18 58:13,14
asked 14:21,25
15:1,4 28:11
82:14,19 126:6
asking 15:14 18:25
24:6 43:8 89:9
116:4
Assembly 43:19
assess 51:12 124:2
assessed 44:14,15
51:19 108:22
109:7 115:6,17
122:22
assesses 108:14
assessment 108:5
assessments 50:24
51:23
asset 76:4,6,10 78:7
79:12,23 80:16
82:3
assets 8:3
assign 26:3 62:20
assigned 58:3
Assocation 103:23
associated 7:12
37:6 64:9
Association 4:23
7:14,17 9:4 11:4
11:10,19,20 12:18
13:22 27:4 28:1
61:18 84:25 91:1
104:18
Association's 58:5
assume 95:19
assumed 96:9
assuming 95:21
assumption 32:12
attached 58:6
attachments 27:14
27:15
attempt 13:8
attend 45:5
attention 42:2
44:13 114:1
attorney 128:11
attribute 32:14
attributes 119:24
August 9:14 43:25
authority 20:10
authorization
46:10
authorizes 52:4
automatic 94:18
available 16:25
81:12,16,19 83:10
83:22 126:4
average 33:6,22
34:1,9,21 35:4
87:21 92:9,12
93:25 94:6
aware 67:22 69:13
112:8,9
aye 27:20 127:17
127:18
B
B 80:11
back 19:3 22:5,17
24:15 36:9 39:12
40:23 42:6 48:5,8
48:9,12 55:6
66:19,22 68:18
88:5 96:14 100:17
101:17 108:9
background
125:24
back-bill 101:8
bad 92:10,19,20,25
93:6,10,19,22
95:19 96:9
Baer 4:10 10:14
13:1
balance 42:13
78:22 79:5,6
92:21,22 96:1
balances 77:7
Balancing 119:13
Baltimore 15:21
124:7
bar 7:17 125:15
base 39:24 87:4,9
87:24 88:8 89:5
89:13 90:14
based 16:20 25:10
39:16 43:5 63:2
69:7 75:18 83:16
83:17 87:7 88:22
95:25 105:7 107:6
107:13 108:22
109:7 112:11
115:17 116:7,14
116:20 118:18
122:22
basing 90:1
basins 64:24 72:18
basis 32:11 42:19
89:12 116:19
120:16
Beach 15:21
Beckley 117:21
began 12:12
beginning 42:11
47:21 78:10 81:5
92:12
begins 79:6
behalf 12:14,18,20
27:25 28:22,25
29:14 30:3 41:13
41:19 61:17 84:22
84:25 85:3 86:13
90:25 91:4 103:22
104:18 113:18
believe 15:4 19:17
26:2 31:1 32:8,24
37:12,15 39:21
46:17 48:14 49:18
53:3,21 55:14
60:1,14 75:17,20
75:23 79:4 82:12
93:11 95:17 103:8
106:6
Bellville 2:8 9:19
37:12 91:13,14,17
91:23 92:1 103:3
103:8,13,16,19
104:6
beneficial 15:8 21:6
benefit 45:5 50:24
51:23 68:5 83:17
101:16,20,21
108:17 109:18
benefiting 45:12
110:25 111:2
benefits 45:23
83:17 111:6
best 18:1 56:20
128:6
Bethany 9:18
better 15:11
beyond 49:13 72:24
74:24 81:23 111:4
big 123:19
biggest 43:1
bill 31:15 35:16
43:19 98:9 102:20
billed 102:19
billing 36:6 37:6
63:2 123:4
billings 98:17
bills 52:9 96:2,5
103:7 113:2
Bissell 35:1 36:22
85:16
bit 32:20 40:23
74:1 89:25 96:14
Black 12:24 106:14
BMP 65:5 67:3
72:13
BMPs 19:19 64:14
64:16,24 65:2,20
72:5
Board 6:24 7:25
8:8 9:9,12 25:22
106:23
bodies 124:5
Boerding 2:3 12:4
13:25 15:1 18:25
28:6,10,12,14,17
28:20,22,25 29:4
29:7,10
bonds 8:2,16 50:16
50:23
book 117:9,10,13
117:19,22 123:7
borrowing 50:4
Botanical 7:15
bottom 43:16 80:10
87:15 92:8
boundaries 45:7,14
52:6 56:10 69:15
69:17,20,24 71:22
71:25 74:19
bounds 66:10
Bowser 4:6 5:7,8
6:11 52:19,20
53:7,13 122:19,20
123:1
Brad 4:24 12:19
Brandon 4:16
12:22
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 131
break 57:11,13
124:21,22
Brian 2:4 9:17
29:19 30:7 33:16
53:16 58:2 113:14
brief 59:15 105:2
briefly 22:4 42:1
bringing 22:4
broad 21:1
broader-based
124:13
Broadway 4:17
Brockmann 4:6 5:9
5:10 6:11 14:16
18:22 20:7 27:12
27:17 120:25
121:17,25 127:3,6
brought 53:15
BRYAN 4:16
Builders 4:23 9:4
11:3,10,18,20
12:18 13:22 14:2
14:7 27:4 28:1
41:14 58:4 61:18
84:25 91:1 103:23
104:18
building 40:3 76:12
burden 8:20 64:9
65:22 67:22
burning 67:18
burns 115:17
business 56:17
bwneuschafer@...
4:19
C
C 4:1 5:1 50:22
CAGR 88:16
calculate 114:10
calculated 32:16
63:22 114:21
calculating 62:10
116:19
calculation 93:19
100:20 101:17
calculations 62:17
101:15,18
calibration 31:8
call 5:2,6 44:13
45:20 56:20 74:22
84:13 113:25
117:20
called 50:6 56:6
76:3 114:14
calling 42:2
calls 104:7
capacity 81:1
capital 75:10 76:13
77:8,12,16 78:13
79:2,7,15,24 80:3
80:5 81:12,16
82:1,17,20 84:5
107:22
care 18:17 36:19
54:13 57:23 84:7
carefully 21:11
carries 55:16
carryover 62:2
case 25:19 53:1,11
72:6 96:22 97:2
108:19 109:11,24
causation 114:15
114:21 115:19
118:3,18,22
caused 72:20
CAVE 4:16
CCF 102:2
cent 79:1,5 81:22
centers 85:11
cents 51:18 121:20
certain 25:22 72:16
certainly 110:5
111:14,15 112:22
CERTIFICATE
128:1
Certified 3:7
128:17
certify 128:3
cetera 20:11
chair 6:10 104:19
125:14,21
chairman 4:2 5:2,9
5:11,13,16,19,22
5:24 6:2,7,8 12:17
12:20,23 13:17,18
13:19 14:13,17,19
16:10,16 18:21
20:16 21:12,14
22:1,2,24,25
23:19 24:1,24
25:12,24 26:2,9
26:12,18,25 27:2
27:9,11,18,21
28:3,5,12,18,24
29:3,6,9,16,20,24
30:6 41:11,17,21
52:16 53:14 55:5
57:5,8,10,14,21
57:25 58:16,18,19
58:24 59:5 61:15
66:4,5,9,14 67:7
70:12 71:2 73:8
73:14 82:10 84:10
84:14,18,24 85:2
85:5,8 86:2,6,10
86:15 90:23 91:2
91:3,6,10,14,18
91:22 103:1,21,24
103:25 104:2,5,9
104:13,17,20
113:9,17 120:23
122:6,19 123:20
125:4,7,10 126:19
126:25 127:4,7,10
127:12,17
challenge 107:16
110:1
challenged 49:1,3,5
Chamber 7:13,20
Chan 4:6 5:24 6:13
21:15
chance 22:3 23:17
25:16 54:25 110:7
change 1:11 5:5
7:23 8:7,10,22,25
9:9 20:19 22:14
25:10 31:19 39:1
76:17 77:18
109:15 112:22
115:11 122:16
changes 6:21 7:25
21:19 31:22 35:14
37:6 57:3 98:5
changing 49:6
117:15
channel 81:2,2
Chapter 118:11
charge 44:16 46:25
62:5 93:2,3 95:21
95:25 96:4 105:7
106:20 107:10
108:24 109:12,22
112:11
charged 87:8,16
124:14
charges 22:10 61:1
107:4 108:5,14
116:25 124:2
Charter 6:15,19,24
49:19,20,24
chastise 110:9
113:6
check 37:11,18
Chodes 4:7 5:11,12
6:12
choices 119:10,15
Choosing 118:17
chosen 83:5
cite 44:1
cites 42:15
Citian 121:8
cities 105:14,17,22
105:24 106:1,4
107:9 109:20
city 7:17 34:25
35:18 43:5 74:17
74:19 103:5
106:25 124:7,8
clarify 24:5,12,20
97:22 122:20
classes 8:20
classification 120:5
clause 88:14
clean 22:15 56:5
83:12
clear 24:18 54:12
115:24
clearly 47:14
close 84:9
closed 119:2
closely 22:3
closer 100:13
Club 7:14
Coalition 7:22
codified 43:25
colleagues 75:21
125:15
collect 51:12,22
78:18 94:23 95:4
95:25
collected 77:7
78:19
collecting 95:9
collection 49:8 50:5
71:8,13 93:17
94:19
collections 94:3,8
94:10 95:12 98:17
collectively 108:25
column 42:12
116:13
combination 39:25
combined 34:24
35:1
combusting 67:18
come 22:21 30:6
41:21 79:19 84:9
86:15 102:4
104:20 125:1
comes 35:18 56:3
63:21 85:15
106:22
coming 35:7 69:10
comment 68:12
71:18
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 132
comments 16:10,16
16:17 21:3
Commerce 7:20
commercial-indu...
7:4
Commission 1:6
4:4,9 5:3 6:8,14
6:20 7:1,3,11,24
8:8,22,25 9:7,10
9:13,16,20,24
10:3,10,13,15,20
11:7,21 12:8,25
13:1,8,20,24 14:5
14:20,22 16:2,8
16:18,23 17:25
18:1,8,19 19:24
20:10,15 23:1,5
24:23 26:5 27:20
28:6,19 29:25
41:19 52:17 54:8
58:2,11,12,15
59:6 73:9 82:11
84:11,19 85:3
86:11 91:4,7,19
103:2 104:14
113:19 120:24
121:2 125:15,17
125:19 126:4,8,22
127:18
Commissioner
20:13
Commission's 9:13
13:2
common 8:11
105:13
community-neig...
7:9
company 34:15
37:7 67:17 68:5
98:4 102:17
Company's 99:5
compare 36:14
92:24 93:7,13
94:12 97:12,14,18
102:11
compared 96:22
97:15
comparing 93:10
96:23 102:19
comparison 32:6
completed 13:11
complex 119:21
120:10
complexity 122:10
compliance 17:11
85:21
comply 8:18 22:12
22:22
complying 22:15
component 67:2
123:19
compromises 17:21
Concepts 118:12
concern 43:1
101:13 109:23,24
concerns 119:17
conclusion 125:1
conclusions 86:25
conducted 106:13
Conference 1:15
3:1 6:5 10:7,11
12:2 18:15 23:8
23:14,20 24:22
127:20
conflict 109:6
connected 45:1
connection 38:1,2,7
38:10,13,16,20,21
39:8,12,15 40:10
114:12
connections 36:20
connect/reconnect
39:21
Consent 22:12,16
22:23 55:25
conservation 31:11
consider 16:9,14
21:10,20 23:17
49:12,14,15 54:21
66:11 72:25 74:5
75:13 123:17
consideration
14:23 16:2 23:4,5
113:11 125:18,19
considered 26:4
49:13 81:14
112:16 122:13
123:16 126:1
considering 14:20
19:24 21:4,10
41:4 115:3 122:8
consist 80:16
consistent 8:10,14
121:22
consisting 110:16
consists 7:11
110:23
constituting 77:11
78:13 80:5
constitution 44:5
46:7 47:4,11
58:13,14 121:5,7
constitutional 8:10
constitutions 121:9
construct 52:7
constructed 67:3
72:13,19
constructing 50:14
construction 7:19
39:19 51:23 80:25
consultant 11:8
12:24
Consumers 4:15
7:17,19 9:6 10:17
10:25 11:9,14,15
12:21 29:1 30:3
84:22 86:13
contacted 13:22
contains 117:19
contends 109:7
continuation 94:10
95:8
continue 57:15
78:25 83:24 93:8
93:15,17 94:14,16
95:3 107:23,23
continues 47:9 62:1
continuing 94:25
95:2
continuously 35:11
Contractors 7:12
contradictory
95:18
contribute 119:17
contributed 117:21
117:25
contributing
117:20
contribution 54:23
contributions
55:22
contributor 118:6
118:9
control 15:12 71:6
71:9,18,22
controlled 36:24
convenient 69:9
conveniently
125:18
conversation 76:1
conveyed 44:20
45:18
cooperation 56:18
copies 32:21 33:3
33:13
copy 18:5 59:2
60:18 74:3 86:23
corner 92:9
correct 30:18 33:23
34:10,16 38:3,12
38:23 39:14 45:2
46:22 47:1,17
48:3 49:5 51:16
52:23 55:18 59:1
59:23,24 60:5,11
61:11 62:7,8,9
63:3,6,24 64:15
65:4,7 71:11,15
71:20 74:11,12,16
75:4,11 76:5
77:20 78:4,8
79:14,17,20,25
80:1 88:4,18 89:8
95:22,23 96:19
97:5 98:1,2 99:2
100:8 102:13,21
102:24 105:3
108:6 110:21
112:6 122:24
123:3,5
corrected 99:19
100:4,22,24 101:5
correcting 111:22
correction 99:21,22
corrections 100:2
cost 8:3 50:13 62:5
66:2 83:16,19
87:4 88:7 114:8
114:20 115:7,18
118:3,18,22 120:7
120:16
costs 36:10,11
53:23 57:3 69:7
83:11 87:8 90:18
105:13 115:4
council 7:18,21
124:8
counsel 10:15 12:9
13:1,10,11,21
14:11 20:9 23:12
80:7 125:20 128:8
128:12
count 102:22
counties 105:14,18
106:1,4 109:20
country 16:1
105:24 116:9
county 6:16 7:18
7:20,21 46:19
70:18 74:20 113:1
123:3
couple 18:15 33:5
67:9 107:14
course 107:15
126:9
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 133
court 3:7 32:15
42:15,22 43:11
48:8,12 53:4
66:22 107:15
108:19 128:17
covenant 8:15
cover 8:5
covered 77:4 89:17
115:11
co-permittees
56:24
created 93:20
108:25 111:5
creation 46:11
credit 15:3,6,8,19
15:24 19:2,3,15
19:16,18,25 25:7
58:21 72:21,25
95:21 112:18,21
112:24 113:5
123:14,24 125:25
126:15
credits 19:6 20:11
22:6,18 24:9 72:8
123:9 124:10
credit-based
112:10,15,17
113:11
creeks 56:2
criteria 20:15,23
121:2,5
critical 114:2,7
crux 55:20
crystal 54:12
cumulative 92:19
curious 126:2
current 22:11,21
107:12 109:4
112:17
currently 7:11
45:11 56:20 72:3
94:13 121:17
customer 34:23
39:1,4,24 40:15
40:15 63:1,2 96:5
customers 30:17,22
31:10,12,14,16
32:4,6,9 39:20,22
40:22 43:20 83:25
97:25 98:6,22
101:8 120:1
cycle 25:21 49:14
83:9
D
D 2:1 5:1 51:3
daily 34:21
danger 83:19
dash 35:22 38:25
38:25 98:20,21
data 35:24 36:2,9
62:15 63:15 64:20
64:21,21 105:22
106:10 107:6
119:25
database 72:6,12
date 23:8 25:11,22
48:25 49:3 120:15
126:22
day 3:4 17:7 33:8
33:23 34:3,10
36:13
days 9:11 23:21,23
127:2
deal 49:19 64:10
72:20
dealing 21:9
debt 92:10,19,20,25
93:6,11,19,22
95:19 96:9
decide 49:12
decision 42:22
50:11,20 51:2
52:2,12,21 54:12
107:16
decline 60:2
decrease 39:11,22
39:24 40:21,24
60:8 92:25 93:6
93:17
decreased 61:3
decreases 93:14
Decree 22:12,16,23
55:25
dedicate 54:17
deficit 97:3
define 53:19
delegates 6:13 7:1
deliberate 20:20
deliberations 14:23
delinquencies 8:6
95:4
delivered 17:4
demand 118:21
119:4,11,18
demonstrate
101:18
department 45:20
62:6
depending 35:7
67:2 83:10
deposition 128:4,10
Des 35:9
describe 30:20
47:15 77:1 80:11
described 62:4 78:3
describing 53:5
description 30:25
design 52:7 64:12
64:14,23
designed 19:20
94:9
desired 124:17
desiring 13:6
desk 15:17
detail 112:2
detailed 112:19
details 68:24 77:21
detain 111:21
detention 64:24
determination
20:21 107:6
116:25 121:6
determine 21:21
31:1 53:12 64:5
66:10 73:3 107:18
determined 124:9
determining
119:11
developed 111:12
developers 65:2
Developing 118:16
development 64:22
72:4,21,23 111:15
111:17,18,21
114:3,8 117:3
developments
112:5
devices 31:11
devoting 95:5
dialing 94:18
dictate 19:15
difference 24:16
89:19 97:20 98:14
differences 34:18
35:3 42:9
different 54:7,9
60:16 94:19 95:10
95:10 121:18,19
difficult 119:23
dip 36:5 38:19
direct 9:16 10:9
20:8 66:6 106:16
directed 20:2
108:24
direction 18:7,13
18:20 121:10
128:8
directly 26:19 31:3
57:16 110:25
111:2 115:5
director 113:13
disagree 59:21 87:6
88:6,19,20,23,24
89:12
discharge 55:12
discharges 69:21
discontinuities
35:24 36:1
discovery 9:21,25
10:4,18,21 11:1,4
11:13,18,22 14:2
17:3 24:5 75:20
76:19 77:19,22
80:9
discrepancies 99:4
discuss 70:9
discussed 23:3
109:16
discussing 54:24
discussion 18:21
21:12 22:17 26:20
27:11,18
discussions 14:6
103:13,17 107:13
112:20,20
dispose 69:4
district 1:8 3:2,5
5:4 6:9,15,21,23
6:25 7:6,24 8:3,17
8:18,23 9:10,12
9:15,22,22 10:1,1
10:5,5,10,11,18
10:19,22,22 11:1
11:2,5,5,12,17,23
11:23,25 12:5,15
13:10 14:3 15:2
15:11 16:7,17,19
17:2,5,14,15,20
18:2,7,25 19:2,5
19:17,23 20:4
23:7,11 24:6,13
24:20 25:6,16
27:7 28:7,22
29:14 34:22 44:17
44:20 45:18 46:11
46:20 49:23 59:1
62:9,11 63:22
65:1,5,8,13 67:23
68:14 69:17 71:5
71:7,20,22 74:5
74:10 77:4,13
78:3 80:9 81:14
82:23,24 83:1,4
83:13,23 84:12
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 134
97:1,2 103:4
104:7 107:11,14
108:21 109:4,6
112:9,14,16 113:3
113:12 122:13
123:4
districts 77:2,5
116:6
District's 7:2 8:12
17:8 26:6 28:8
53:17 64:18 69:14
69:20 74:9 86:4
91:12 112:25
District-wide 48:24
divide 106:4
divided 13:5 92:21
division 85:21
103:5
document 30:21
80:8
documents 10:9
37:2 49:18
doing 25:13 63:8
63:12 94:3,8,12
94:13 113:1 117:6
dollars 51:19
domestic 56:16
door 109:25
double 87:9 89:4
90:2
doubtful 61:3
drainage 8:13
50:15 80:21
106:25
driver 35:13 36:22
drivers 35:3 36:17
36:18 120:17
drop 32:9
dry 35:4
due 8:2 17:8 61:6
61:10
duly 30:7 59:11
86:17 91:23
104:21 128:5
E
E 2:1 4:1,1 5:1,1
earlier 20:16 58:5
60:17 116:5
early 125:17
earth 119:2
Ease 119:13
easier 120:9
easily 109:1
Eastern 9:5
easy 21:24 120:8,17
economic 31:10,15
41:7
economy 41:6
Edition 117:15
editors 117:20
educate 19:9
Education 7:16
effect 14:14 43:25
93:21,25
effective 95:14
effectively 47:5
efficiency-related
119:16
efficient 16:23
effort 21:25 32:3
119:23
efforts 30:20
either 20:21 95:6
101:9 103:10
election 6:17,18
electrical 90:18
electronically
15:18
eliminate 122:1
eliminating 111:9
emergencies 8:5
emergency 111:10
Emily 14:9 15:14
employed 128:9,12
employee 128:11
enabling 103:4
124:4
enacted 121:1
energy 4:15 7:16
9:5 10:17,25 11:8
11:14,15 12:21
29:1 30:3 67:19
84:22 86:13
enforce 65:14
engineering 62:6
62:14
Engineers 7:14
enhances 8:12
ensure 7:1 65:9
entanglements
54:14
enter 43:23 103:10
entering 35:11
entertain 57:10
entire 60:21 72:11
81:14 97:11
entirely 110:15,23
entities 36:7 42:17
43:9 47:14 56:9
enumerated 47:24
environment 7:22
55:24
environmental 7:7
55:9 85:21
equal 69:8
equally 13:9 110:13
110:20
equitable 15:10
16:4 22:9 109:8
114:10,21 115:13
121:3,10
equitably 54:22
120:7
equity 119:16
equivalent 43:5
Eric 5:16
erosion 54:19 80:24
81:3 83:18
error 100:1
escalation 88:25
essentially 44:14
83:12
establish 46:19
54:13
established 6:19
121:11,14 124:5
establishing 124:16
estimable 119:4
estimate 30:16
estimated 32:8
et 20:11
evaporated 68:10
evenly 13:5
everybody 24:17
evidence 18:3,16
19:1 26:1 88:22
90:11
exact 40:8 99:23
exactly 33:15 45:23
53:24 90:20
examined 3:2
examining 107:17
example 120:3
121:12
examples 15:18
17:16 22:6 24:8
80:19,24
exceed 51:18
excess 76:9
excuse 121:7
executive 113:13
exempt 47:12,14
exempted 43:20
47:12 124:15,20
exempting 47:21
47:23
exemption 47:15
47:18
exempts 44:2 46:3
exercised 46:21
exhibit 23:6 26:3
27:15 33:4 44:7
58:3,7,8,10,12,15
58:20,22 60:14
74:4 76:19 77:17
80:10 87:11,15,20
97:8 106:16 116:3
exhibits 23:16
32:22,24 58:1
exist 112:6
existed 111:17
existence 67:21
69:2
existing 39:21
53:11 76:8 77:5,6
77:13 81:7 107:20
109:14 111:22
122:18
exists 122:22
expanded 77:21
Expanding 118:12
expansive 109:13
expect 88:10,11
93:8,15,16
expended 62:20
expending 76:13
expense 88:24
90:17
experience 24:7
28:9 89:3
experienced 35:25
60:1 97:4
experiences 123:7
experiencing 94:6
expert's 24:7
expiration 13:12
expired 13:15
explain 82:15 92:14
97:7 99:20 109:6
120:10
explained 61:4
explaining 119:25
exploring 110:4
expressed 108:13
extending 50:14
extends 74:24
extent 13:10,13
48:1 62:16 65:20
95:15
extra 33:2,12 60:17
F
facilities 8:13 50:15
facility 69:21 70:17
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 135
76:15
fact 15:9,10 35:16
40:15 72:22 112:5
factor 87:19 88:25
90:3 117:2,4,5
118:22 122:12
factors 20:19 87:20
87:24
fair 7:2 8:20 15:9
16:3,23 17:21
19:20 21:22 22:9
109:8 114:10,21
120:6,17 121:3
123:17
fairer 109:1 119:19
fairest 119:22
fairly 20:1,5
Fairness 119:13
falling 8:2
falls 77:24 85:22
familiar 37:3 70:7
far 35:7,13 36:25
49:17 56:2 66:13
87:15 90:16 95:9
111:25 121:3
fate 67:13
favor 27:19 127:17
favorably 16:8
Fax 4:12,18
features 67:1 72:19
February 6:17 8:23
9:15
federal 8:18 70:18
fee 22:17 24:15
42:16,18,24 43:7
43:10,18,21 44:16
46:25 53:8,18
62:6 66:3 69:7
72:7,9 105:23
106:3 107:17
110:2 116:6,14,25
123:2,23 124:8,14
feel 17:25 23:22
24:1,3 33:19
53:20
feels 17:20 95:13
fees 61:5,9,25 71:10
71:13 72:3 95:21
95:25 96:4 116:20
120:6 124:3,17,20
felt 19:12
Fernandina 15:21
field 63:9
fifth 11:22
Figure 116:13,18
figured 113:3
file 16:21 125:16
filed 9:3,22 10:9
27:25 29:13 30:14
filing 13:25
final 23:16
finally 10:14 12:8
43:17 52:4
finance 8:2 62:6
117:14
financial 32:23
60:13 122:15
financially 128:13
Financing 118:12
find 31:4 70:10
106:2
fine 73:20 92:3
126:12
fire 45:20 115:3,4
115:15,16,24,25
firm 117:13 124:6
firms 94:21
first 5:6 6:3 9:21
10:17 11:4,13,18
16:11 23:24 29:18
32:15 33:2 50:16
57:24 58:11 87:2
93:1 94:19 105:9
105:12,16 109:9
fiscal 32:10,11 33:3
33:3,7,22,25 34:2
34:9,12 39:2,10
40:24 50:6 59:22
59:23 60:9,13
61:11 81:13 82:5
88:16,17 89:10,11
92:12,18 93:7,13
93:14 96:10,11
98:22 99:1,6,13
99:15,15 100:6,7
100:10,21 101:1
102:10,16
five 20:19,22 127:3
127:4
fix 51:22
fixed 121:20
flat 40:20 120:3,6
Flip 96:13
flooding 45:10
54:19 80:24 83:17
83:18 111:9,10
115:20,21
Florida 15:21
flow 33:6,22 34:2,9
34:25 35:4 44:19
45:17 64:4 65:21
67:2 69:10
flows 32:14 34:21
35:14 37:4
fluid 68:9
fly 62:14
flyovers 62:15
63:14
focus 107:19
focusing 7:7 122:17
folks 34:23 35:17
40:2 45:11
follow 72:15
105:16 108:18
followed 97:1
following 13:7,20
13:24 14:1,5
follows 30:8 59:12
86:18 91:24
104:22
follow-up 71:3 72:2
82:13,18
forecast 60:10
96:10,17
foregoing 128:4
forenoon 3:3
forgive 74:2
form 67:16 116:14
forth 21:4 23:23
fortunately 83:21
forward 18:20
21:21 30:6 41:21
78:1 86:15 100:23
104:20
four 42:9,9 52:15
87:21,21,22,23
97:12
Fourteen 117:1
fourth 10:21
117:15
four-year 83:7
97:12,14
Fox 4:10 12:25
frame 23:13 67:22
free 33:19 125:12
frequently 120:15
front 24:10 35:22
57:16 59:18 92:5
98:19 105:2
full 30:25
functionality 80:18
functions 62:7,12
fund 74:9,16 77:8
78:23,23 79:5,6
funded 54:7 77:12
78:14 81:15
funding 55:22 80:3
83:8,22 84:2
105:7,12,18
106:19,24 115:13
123:12
funds 76:13 81:7
82:19,21,22 83:6
83:10
further 8:7 15:10
16:16 18:21 21:12
23:9 27:18,23
44:1 47:20 52:17
53:5 57:5 67:5
70:13 71:2 73:8
84:10 85:17 86:2
104:2 113:16
120:21 125:11,13
126:19 127:13
128:10
future 18:8 36:15
46:3 49:9,11 54:9
54:15 56:25 57:3
64:22 81:14 88:11
fuzzier 53:10
FY11 97:10
FY14 93:22
FY15 98:9 99:8,10
FY16 77:7
G
G 5:1
gallons 33:8,23
34:2,10 36:13
Garden 7:15
general 6:18 7:12
43:18 112:6,20
generalized 63:16
generally 31:9
67:15 81:10 124:2
generate 63:24
generated 77:9
81:22
George 4:6 5:17
6:12 26:11
getting 25:20 42:23
52:25 68:21 70:15
88:5 105:1 113:7
GIS 63:5
give 21:22 25:16,17
27:7 28:15 29:21
57:18 84:15 86:7
91:15 101:21
104:10 106:5
127:1
given 21:18 34:20
46:20 58:7,8,10
58:14,23 64:8
77:9 101:16 107:8
109:6 115:9
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 136
118:23
gives 30:25 69:3
127:5
giving 101:19
go 21:21 33:10 36:9
36:21 37:1,22
38:5 41:8 42:6
49:22 53:5,8
55:13 62:25 68:9
68:10 69:6,24
72:7 83:11,23
92:23 95:16 110:8
111:4,11 114:17
117:21,24 118:4
118:17 122:1
123:3 125:12
goes 41:5 66:13
67:14 71:8
going 6:4 18:11,20
19:8,12 21:21,23
22:13,19,20 30:10
31:4 33:10 36:5
36:11 39:12 40:16
40:23 43:3 44:15
50:1 51:3,4 54:20
56:11 57:14 60:12
63:8 64:3,8,23
66:7 71:5 74:2,25
78:1 80:14 81:4
86:24 94:12,14
98:18 100:23
110:18,24 113:25
117:8,9 124:13
good 6:2 13:20
16:12 21:6 41:17
41:24,25 59:5
61:21,22 73:18,19
73:21 86:20 92:1
92:4 104:24,25
113:22,23 127:12
Gorman 59:22 87:1
87:2 95:18 96:8
101:16 102:11
Gorman's 89:7,15
97:1,9,16 98:12
100:19,25 101:9
101:10,15 102:11
Goss 4:24 12:19,19
13:21 14:4,6,10
14:18,19 16:15
17:4,16 18:22,24
25:18 27:16,24
28:2,5 29:6,8
41:13,15 58:18,20
58:25 59:3 61:17
61:19,20 66:4,6
66:12,16,19,25
67:4 84:24 85:1
90:25 91:2 103:22
103:24 104:17,19
104:23 113:10,15
113:17 116:5
governing 124:5
government 70:19
grant 18:1 116:8
granted 9:6,12
49:23 52:6
granting 17:20,24
58:4
grease 68:2,2,3
great 62:4 123:21
greater 7:21 76:10
97:3
green 77:5,13,24
81:8,25 83:21
gross 116:14 117:1
117:3,5
grounds 16:20
groundwater 35:5
grow 88:16
growing 50:10,19
51:1 52:1,11
88:21 105:23
106:7,8 107:8
growth 7:13 87:3
87:24 88:6,7
89:19 90:4,14
guarantee 56:25
guess 16:11 42:21
48:20 70:5,8 98:4
100:18 109:9
guessing 24:9
guidance 21:23
H
half 40:25 87:21,23
94:5 95:20
Hancock 51:7,15
hand 74:2 80:7
116:2 117:8 119:8
handing 33:16
handle 70:6 116:1
handout 33:21
happen 40:1
happening 99:14
happens 40:3 77:1
happy 24:21
hard 17:22 72:5
73:2
haul 61:7,10 68:12
68:25
hauled 69:10 71:8
71:19
hauler 59:22 60:2
haulers 69:4,11
hauling 60:3,7
67:10 71:10
Hawes 4:3 6:7
HBA 16:20,21 17:4
17:9 24:6 25:7
58:10
HBA's 17:2 24:21
head 36:5 37:3 40:8
67:24
health 119:8
hear 14:10,13,17
heard 85:10
hearing 12:12
27:21 29:9 73:9
126:24
hearings 74:23
held 10:8 12:2
help 15:10 34:19
69:1 99:20
helps 66:13
Henrietta 118:8
high 42:23
higher 89:4
highest 81:8,10,18
83:14
highlighted 60:22
historic 89:5
historical 88:1,2
90:5,9,9
historically 90:1
history 89:2
Hoelscher 2:4 9:17
29:19,20,23,25
30:4,7,10 33:18
42:19 49:19 52:24
53:9,21 55:4,7,19
57:8,9 59:16
65:12 110:5
113:14 126:5,12
Hoelscher's 58:2
home 4:23 9:4 11:3
11:10,18,19 12:18
13:21 14:2,7 27:4
28:1 40:6 41:14
58:4 61:18 84:25
91:1 103:23
104:18
homes 39:22,22
40:5 83:18,18
honestly 125:20
hope 42:22 52:14
59:14
hopefully 27:7
hours 3:3 13:5,15
house 43:19 115:19
huge 35:6
hundred 51:19
111:13
hybrid 123:8
hypothetical
110:12 111:12
I
idea 18:24 19:5
identified 20:16
82:25
identifies 77:23
identify 46:7 117:9
impact 21:19 35:6
35:14 56:2,22
83:25
impacted 98:5
impacting 69:2
impair 8:17
impediment 50:10
50:18,25 51:14,25
52:10
impervious 22:5,7
22:17 24:15 42:10
42:16,18,24 43:10
43:18 52:22 53:2
53:18 61:25 62:5
62:10,16,20 63:1
63:11,13,15,20
64:7,21,23 66:3
72:3,5,7,9 73:2,4
105:19,23 106:3
107:3,10,17
109:12,21 110:1
110:14,16,23
112:11 116:7,15
116:24 119:1,7
120:14,16 122:8
123:2 124:2,7
126:16
implement 112:15
119:23 120:9
implementation
50:19 51:1 52:1
52:11 66:3 122:11
implemented 15:20
15:25 123:14
implementing
15:11 50:10 56:21
importantly 33:6
imposes 8:20
improperly 115:22
improve 80:17,21
94:9
improvement
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 137
51:24 79:24
improvements 52:5
52:8 54:23 75:10
77:8,16 79:8,15
80:12,15,22 82:20
improving 50:14
incentive 31:10
incidences 35:10
include 27:15 58:21
72:5 80:19,24
116:9
included 30:23
72:8 106:15
112:10 122:15
includes 64:16
99:17
including 7:7 76:3
82:3 100:3 124:10
incorporated 7:21
122:16
incorrect 37:9
101:3
increase 34:5 39:3
61:6,10 72:20
87:10 89:2,3,5,10
89:13 90:2,3
95:11,19,22 96:4
111:16
increased 60:25
61:1,5,9 81:1
increases 87:22
88:11 89:5 90:1
96:5
increasing 38:22
39:17 40:12,13
increasingly 39:7
indebtedness 8:16
indicate 37:7 64:22
92:9 98:8
indicated 37:10
42:24 65:12 96:8
116:17,17,24
117:2,6
indirectly 55:15
individual 65:17
individually 75:15
industrial 4:15
7:16 9:5 10:17,25
11:8,14,15 12:21
29:1 30:3 70:8
84:22 86:13
industry 43:3
infill 40:2 41:7
infiltration 35:7
inflow 35:4 36:19
36:23
influence 119:3
influenced 118:23
influences 119:3
information 13:24
14:22 15:5 16:1
17:15,19 18:4,5
18:10 19:11,22
20:4 21:24 24:9
25:6,10,15,25
26:6,7 30:23
31:22 32:2 45:21
58:6 63:1 70:4,25
73:24 107:2
125:24 126:3,6,17
126:23
infrastructure 45:6
45:13,24
initially 19:12 42:2
126:7
injures 22:16
inlet 80:20
inquire 73:25
inquired 13:22
inquiry 19:10
insisted 108:21
inspect 72:15,17
inspects 65:8
install 31:11
installed 60:3 65:6
65:9
instance 54:1 66:25
instances 35:6
institute 94:17
institutions 124:10
integrated 123:9
integrity 17:21
intensity 117:3
interest 8:1 18:1
70:23
interested 7:6
128:13
internal 45:24
internally 51:5
internet 126:9
intervene 9:2,3
12:10
intervener 10:14
10:16,24 11:3,8
11:10,13,15,18,19
23:11
interveners 12:8
13:11
introduce 14:21
15:15
introduction 14:8
16:9 23:16
invalidate 53:2
invalidated 52:21
52:25
investing 95:1
investments 87:5
88:9
involved 20:10
112:19 119:24
issuance 50:16,23
52:8
issue 9:8,11,14 31:3
34:23 37:13 40:17
54:13 86:25 96:16
100:19 101:14
102:16 115:21
issued 8:2 38:2,7,11
38:17,20,21 39:8
40:10
issues 7:8,8,8 22:4
23:15,18 38:14
42:2 54:7,18
55:24 82:25 83:5
83:6,13,15,18
109:16
J
Jack 6:12
jeopardy 22:14
jfarnold@lashly...
4:13
job 23:24
John 4:6,10 5:13
12:25 22:24
Jonathan 2:6 9:18
84:13
Jones 4:7 5:20,21
6:13 25:2 127:16
judgments 94:21
June 1:16 3:2 6:5
9:8 11:19,21,23
11:25 17:3,6,7,8
17:10 25:17 27:6
87:22 127:9
jurisdictions 120:4
120:15
K
Kansas 43:5 121:8
keep 20:14 66:14
72:18
Keith 118:4
Kelling 5:13
Kennard 4:7 5:20
6:12
Kentucky 106:13
kept 72:14
kind 18:10 33:10
40:17 53:10 54:10
54:14,19,21 55:19
56:22 63:13 64:21
64:21 82:13
107:11 123:8
know 15:7 18:13,14
21:17,17 24:16,17
25:20 31:24,25
32:11 37:16 40:2
41:6 43:2 50:2
53:25 63:23 64:8
64:18,19 67:19,20
67:21,23 68:11,23
70:16,21 85:23
90:8,9,16,20
94:11 100:10,13
100:16 109:22,23
112:4 113:10
125:22
knowledge 112:1
113:11
known 43:19
L
L 9:17
labor 7:8,21 62:19
lack 99:18
laid 16:23 126:14
126:15
lakes 35:12
land 40:4 120:5
landfill 70:17,23
85:12,14
landowners 108:24
Landscape 117:15
large 40:7 57:1
largely 68:8 74:16
87:4 88:8
larger 35:13 40:6
54:16
Lashly 4:10 10:14
13:1
late 25:20 95:21,24
96:4 105:1
laundry 49:22
law 8:11 43:19,24
48:23 53:11 94:20
laws 8:19 47:21,23
lay 126:13
layman's 53:9
leaching 85:14,18
League 7:15,18
leaves 71:21
Leeds 43:4
left 18:16 84:5
left-hand 116:13
legal 10:14 12:9
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 138
13:1,9,11 20:9
21:16 50:9,18,25
51:25 54:14 55:21
legislation 44:2,4
44:24 45:15 46:3
103:4
legislature 121:15
Lemay 35:2 36:22
Lemoine 12:24
length 23:18 62:5
Leonard 5:16
let's 14:17 37:22
49:22 55:17 68:8
68:16 88:14 89:15
92:23 114:23
levee 75:14,25 79:6
79:19 121:13
leveed 74:9
levees 78:6
level 36:18 42:23
82:16 109:9 112:2
115:9 122:14
levels 107:18
levy 51:12,22
license 61:8
licensed 70:16,18
Licenses 61:4
lieu 123:25
life 76:9,11,14
80:17
lifetime 23:25
limitation 46:25
limitations 121:15
limited 109:13
124:11
line 25:14 38:25
42:11 43:12 44:14
49:8,10 63:17
65:25 66:14 73:23
77:25 78:10 81:5
93:12 98:21 114:5
lines 30:15 59:25
61:25 72:10 77:1
77:3 80:4 87:2
95:17 105:10
108:10 114:1,6
115:2
link 107:24
linkage 113:1
links 118:21
liquid 67:25 68:21
Lisa 4:10 12:25
list 49:23 77:9,11
77:16,16,20,22,22
78:10,12 87:19
listed 51:9
little 25:5 40:23
53:10 57:11 59:15
70:15 74:1 89:25
LLP 4:16
load 56:3
local 56:2
located 34:22
Locklear 118:8
Locust 4:11
long 33:20 51:14
52:24 69:18
longer 43:9
long-term 21:18
look 22:3,6 33:1,5
33:19 37:21 38:25
39:2 56:25 59:20
60:20 61:24 62:18
83:19 87:2 88:14
92:7,23 95:8
96:13,21 98:12,21
108:9 114:23
121:6
looked 39:16 101:6
looking 22:4 30:12
30:13 33:6,20
37:25 40:18 41:3
43:2 87:17 89:17
90:7 97:13 101:4
102:2,7,8
Lori 5:13
lost 115:18
lostump@lashly...
4:13
lot 21:17 24:16
40:3,4,4 82:25
110:24
Louis 1:8 3:2,5,6
4:11,17 5:4 6:9,16
6:16 7:13,13,14
7:17,18,20,21 9:4
12:15 34:25 35:18
46:19 54:4 60:4
65:16 74:17,19,20
love 42:5
Lutheran 7:19
Lynchburg 15:23
M
M 3:7 9:17
magnitude 37:11
Mahanta 4:6 5:25
6:1,13 16:12 21:2
84:3 122:5,6,7
123:16
Mahfood 4:7 5:22
5:23 6:13 21:13
21:14,15 26:10,15
27:10 53:15 55:2
123:6,15 125:22
126:11,18
maintain 45:7
48:23 62:5,20
76:14 79:1 120:9
maintained 44:20
45:18 111:7
115:22
maintaining 76:8
76:10 119:24
maintenance 8:4
45:6 48:16,16
51:18 54:6 72:12
74:14,15 76:3
78:6,24,25 79:7
79:10,12 81:23
82:3,22 83:11
107:20 109:14
122:17
major 36:18 57:2
65:13 106:18,21
107:2,21 119:6,18
making 16:24
24:14
management 21:8
44:16 56:20 76:4
76:7 78:7 79:12
79:24 82:3 109:10
123:13
mandate 22:11
manner 21:4
map 74:21 76:18
76:20
March 9:20,22,24
Mark 4:5 5:19
marked 46:17
47:13,20 80:10
92:15 116:3
Market 3:6
Maryland 15:22
124:15
material 14:12
16:13 18:23 20:17
21:5 23:11 24:22
67:13 85:15
125:16
matter 35:16 55:11
57:24
matters 6:4 13:16
27:24 125:11,13
127:13
maximum 75:18
MDNR 56:19
mean 39:20,21
65:25 68:13 70:3
78:17 89:25
meanders 74:21
means 94:23 120:6
measure 32:3 45:23
measured 31:19
measures 21:6
measuring 119:24
mechanism 105:24
meet 23:15 50:13
57:4 65:10
meeting 1:6 5:3
27:6 43:4 45:5
58:5 72:23
meetings 18:15
meets 20:22
member 28:19
29:24 31:6 52:17
59:6 84:19
members 10:13
12:7 13:7,19
14:19 23:1 26:4
28:5 82:10,11
86:10 125:14
memory 55:7
mentioned 67:10
mentioning 37:16
metals 68:17
meter 120:4
metered 31:11,14
97:25 98:6,22
method 44:4 49:8
105:13,19
methodology 98:5
107:12,22
methods 49:15
metropolitan 1:8
3:1,5 5:3 6:9
12:14 46:20
106:18,21 107:3
Michael 2:3 12:3
28:6
Mike 5:19
million 33:8,22
34:2,9 36:6,13
60:8,25 61:2,3,5
61:10 77:12 78:13
79:18 80:5 93:20
93:23 97:3,7,18
97:19 98:11,12,13
98:15,23,25 99:13
100:14,14,15
101:7,11,12 102:1
102:1
mind 20:14 53:16
54:11 72:18
106:22
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 139
Minneapolis 15:23
Minnesota 15:23
minor 34:17,19,20
36:2,2 119:8,19
minority 106:6
minus 82:21
minuscule 121:21
minute 125:6
minutes 25:18
57:11
minutia 64:1
Mississippi 35:8
55:17
Missouri 3:6,8 4:11
4:15,17 7:15,16
7:22 9:5,5 10:16
10:24 11:8,13,15
12:21 29:1 30:3
34:15 35:14,18,25
36:7 42:14 43:5
43:18 44:5,9 46:7
47:4 55:17 84:22
86:13 87:10 99:4
100:1 102:17
103:6 121:7 128:3
Missouri's 87:3
88:7
mitigating 111:9
model 99:9
modifications
34:14 124:3
moments 23:10
Monday 17:3,13
money 50:4 95:6
monitor 22:20
55:14 85:18
monitoring 85:20
85:23
month 23:21 43:4
morning 13:20
20:16 27:5 41:24
41:25 61:21,22
73:18,19 86:20
92:1 104:24,25
113:22,23
motion 14:13,20
16:11,20 17:2,13
17:18,20,24 18:1
18:4,6,19 26:10
26:13,17,19,21,24
27:8 54:1 58:5,6
58:10 127:14,15
Mound 7:17
move 26:11,20 27:3
88:12
moved 14:15 26:14
MSD 4:20 21:22
30:16,21 31:6,19
32:3,8 35:24 36:8
36:24 42:15,16
44:6 45:1 56:4,9
56:13,23 57:1
60:1,14 62:25
65:10,11,18 69:2
69:18,25 71:5,7
72:3,6 74:4,18
76:19 80:10 87:12
87:16 88:23 90:8
90:10 95:5,13
97:8,22 112:1,4
115:10 116:3,3
126:1
MSD's 32:13,14,23
42:16 43:23 49:11
56:7 60:7 61:8
68:10 69:24 90:16
96:22 101:9,12,18
MS4 56:6 65:12,15
72:15
multiplied 97:11
municipal 7:18
45:7,8,13 56:6,9
56:10
municipalities
56:14 65:18 121:1
123:22 124:21
municipal-owned
124:19
Myers 4:21 9:17
12:16,16 14:6,10
16:18 21:2 23:2
23:10 24:2,3,25
25:2,5 28:21,23
29:12,15,18 33:14
57:6,7,23 58:1,16
59:1,4 60:15
65:24 73:11,11,13
74:3 82:11,12
84:12 85:5,7 86:3
86:4 91:8,9,11,12
104:2,4,7 113:6
113:14,14 125:4,6
125:8,10 126:20
126:21 127:9,11
N
N 2:1 4:1 5:1
name 6:7 7:1 67:20
Nancy 4:5 5:7 6:11
narrow 54:24
nature 69:22
navigable 55:10
near 74:20
necessarily 36:24
39:20 66:24 67:20
necessary 8:1 15:9
21:20 84:7
need 19:8 21:22
22:22 23:18 26:10
33:20 53:5 54:11
58:3 108:25
127:14
needed 42:24 49:16
111:11
needs 19:16 59:2
63:20 64:5 81:24
115:25
neglected 79:3
neglecting 83:25
neither 118:2 128:8
Neuschafer 4:16
12:22,22 28:24
29:2 30:2,5,9 31:7
33:12,15,19 41:9
41:12 59:8,10,13
60:16,20 61:13
84:21,23 86:12,14
86:16,19 90:21,24
91:20,21,25
102:25 104:15,16
new 21:23 39:20
40:4 72:4 76:13
79:15,19 80:25
81:11,18,21,22
82:4,16 94:9
105:7 106:23
111:15,20 121:12
nexus 108:16
nine 23:21,23
Ninety 116:16
nonpayment 103:6
nonprofit 7:10
nonprofits 123:24
125:2
non-for-profit
124:24
North 4:17 7:20
noted 77:8 107:9
Notice 7:23 8:23
9:9
not-for-profit
47:13
not-for-profits
42:17 43:7
November 6:18
number 26:4 30:12
34:13 36:22 37:25
38:2,7,10,13,21
39:4 40:7,8 58:3,7
58:8 92:14 97:7
99:11,14,23,24,25
100:3,3,5,9,11,12
100:21 101:9,20
101:22 102:3,15
102:22,23 105:22
106:2,4,12 116:6
118:23 119:17
123:21
numbers 33:1
36:10 37:8,14
39:16,25 87:14,18
88:1,2 90:5,9
97:24 98:6,12
99:5 101:10
O
O 4:10 5:1
oath 57:17
object 65:24
objection 14:11
66:8
obligation 25:21
obligations 50:7
observation 23:2
obviously 68:13
83:14
occur 115:24
odds 109:3
offer 15:15
offering 19:22 43:6
113:5
Offices 3:5
offset 19:18 78:14
78:16
Oh 73:11 80:15
127:13
okay 20:24 24:1,24
26:9 27:17 28:24
30:20 31:7 32:19
33:14,18,25 35:20
37:5,19 38:6,13
38:24 39:15 40:9
41:5 46:6 49:22
50:3 58:1,25 59:4
59:8,14 60:6,12
61:13 66:14 71:1
72:2 73:7 75:19
76:6,17,23 77:15
79:21 80:15 81:25
87:11 88:1,22
89:7,15 90:16,21
92:23 93:5 95:16
95:24 96:8,13,20
96:25 97:21 98:16
100:9,17 102:9,25
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 140
106:17 107:8
108:2,8,18 110:22
112:9 114:11
116:12 123:15
old 94:10
OMCI 73:24 74:25
75:5 77:2,5,10,10
77:13
OMCIs 77:6
once 19:9 20:1 83:8
91:22 110:8
ones 84:4 106:3
124:1
one-time 36:4,5
ongoing 103:18
on-the-record
12:12
open 109:25
opened 85:11
operate 79:1
operated 111:7
operates 67:12
operation 7:6 8:3
48:16 51:18 54:5
70:23 74:14 76:2
78:6,23,25 79:7,9
79:11 82:2,21
83:11 107:20
109:13 122:17
operational 13:2
81:23
operations 74:15
90:20
opinion 108:20,20
115:12
opinions 109:4
opportunity 9:1
10:12 16:19 17:9
24:4,19 25:18
27:7 41:7 52:7
oppose 16:20
opposed 27:21 88:3
106:20 107:21
opposing 18:19
25:3
opposition 17:23
opt 43:7,9
option 69:4
options 21:20
order 5:5 15:9 16:5
64:5 65:9 107:18
ordinance 74:3,4
126:14
ordinances 69:19
124:4
organizations 6:25
7:4,5,7,9,10
124:24
organized 75:22
92:6
original 74:18
77:20 78:3 100:18
originally 9:7 32:16
Orleans 106:23
121:13
Otis 5:24
outcome 128:13
outlined 18:12
outside 54:18 65:25
71:5,19 98:10
110:6 113:7
outstanding 8:16
96:1
overall 65:22 72:9
90:17
overlaps 74:24
oversalting 56:15
overstep 50:2
over-detain 112:5
over-detained
111:23
over-detention
111:20
owner 74:10
121:22 122:2
owners 52:5
O&M 73:24 74:6
74:13 75:3,9
79:23 82:1 84:4
O'Connell 5:19
P
P 4:1,1 5:1
package 21:11
page 2:2 30:14
33:21 34:1 35:22
37:22,23 38:1,25
42:3,8 43:12,16
49:7 59:20 60:21
60:21 61:25 62:1
62:2 73:22 78:1,2
78:9 80:8,11 81:5
86:24 92:7 95:16
96:13,14 98:20
105:8 108:9,20
114:1,24 116:10
116:12 117:17
118:13 120:12
pages 33:5 73:23
paid 52:8 55:25
74:8,15 78:6
81:25 82:2,4 96:2
96:6 108:17
122:21
Pamela 12:23
paper 30:11 37:24
46:14 47:8 59:15
paragraph 35:23
42:11,13 43:12
60:22 78:11 80:11
118:19 119:14
120:13
paramount 119:6
parcel 65:21
116:14,19 118:24
118:24 119:9
124:12
parcels 62:11
parentheses 119:2
part 19:4 34:17
39:9 43:23 45:14
50:15 56:5,10,23
58:21 62:12 63:5
63:12 64:17 65:15
65:18 70:8 72:8
72:14 78:19 83:5
93:18 96:20 98:19
100:20 112:21
113:5 121:20
123:22 124:4
participants 13:6,9
participate 12:11
21:7 42:18
participating 43:21
particular 16:3
27:13 44:24 55:11
63:23 64:3 70:3
76:14 87:14 95:17
122:23 124:23
particularly 30:14
42:11 93:12
parties 18:2 128:9
128:12
parts 55:21 121:19
pass 65:17
passage 43:17
48:22
passed 17:17 43:19
44:2
passes 27:22
passing 70:22
Paul 4:6 5:9 6:11
pavement 118:25
pay 8:1 19:20 43:8
43:10 48:15 53:25
75:8,9,10 79:23
79:23,24 109:20
109:21 110:19
payable 50:23
paying 45:14 49:12
90:10 111:3
121:22
payment 48:2
123:25
pays 47:16 75:2,3
79:22
peek 117:16
people 19:18 41:7
46:18,21 51:15
95:6 110:9
percent 32:10 34:5
39:1,3 40:22,24
61:1,2,4,6,9 87:16
87:17,21,23,25
88:16,25 89:2,10
89:14,16,19,20,21
89:24 90:12 92:13
94:2,5,5 95:20,20
96:9 111:13
116:16,17,23
117:1,2,5,6
percentage 82:16
90:17 92:25 93:6
93:11 96:1 105:17
105:21 106:5,6,7
106:18
percolate 119:2
Peres 35:9
perfect 115:9
perform 79:2
period 13:4 18:23
59:23 60:10 72:16
77:14 78:15 81:20
83:7 89:17 94:1,1
96:10,17 97:11,14
98:10 101:2,4
115:11
periods 95:10,11
permanent 58:7
permission 49:17
permit 14:8 23:6,15
56:4,7,7,8,11
65:12,15 72:15
permits 38:1,2,7,10
38:14,17,20,21
39:8,13,15,19,20
40:10 56:25 61:4
61:7,9,11
permitted 12:11
13:14
permittees 56:19
person 8:25 12:6
13:3,14 17:1
44:14
persons 27:24
29:13
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 141
person's 13:12
44:19
pervious 64:7 73:4
petitions 63:2
ph 15:21
phases 94:18
photography 72:10
73:3
picks 55:12
pickup 56:16
pieces 46:13 117:19
piping 80:21
place 45:22 48:22
53:11 94:15
placement 94:19,20
places 15:20 111:11
124:11
plan 6:15,19,24
25:8 49:24 56:18
122:15
plant 35:2,2 85:16
plants 34:21 35:1,4
35:17 36:21
please 16:8 18:19
26:24 28:4,13
29:16 30:6 41:21
50:1 57:25 60:24
66:20 67:7 82:15
86:15 104:20
117:12 119:14
125:7
Plus 7:16
point 22:14 40:14
42:8 52:20 53:15
68:15 83:11 85:16
105:16 108:3,19
122:21
points 24:20
police 45:20
policy 54:10,11
126:15
pollutant 56:3
pollutants 55:12,16
portion 48:7,11
56:13,14 57:2,2
60:13,15,17 66:21
77:4
portions 32:21
position 15:7 17:8
32:13,14 125:20
possible 20:4 25:25
53:20,22 54:21
111:14 125:18
127:1
Post 14:9 15:15
16:5
potable 35:10
potential 22:13
49:15
power 46:19,20
powers 49:23
practical 119:16
123:17
practicality 123:18
practices 34:16
56:21 79:13
practicing 21:8
Prehearing 18:15
23:8,14,19 24:22
premise 87:6
prepare 17:15
70:25
prepared 9:16
present 5:8,10,15
6:11 12:23 27:24
28:6 29:12
presentation 74:23
presented 25:15
27:5 54:8
presenting 40:17
presses 25:19
pressing 95:3
pressure 21:18
presumably 113:3
presupposes 44:22
44:25
pretreatment 68:16
69:21 70:6,9,17
85:13
prevent 44:1 45:10
46:2
previous 18:23
26:16 39:11 43:18
53:2 80:3 123:2
125:25 126:8
previously 42:7
69:6 109:17
112:10 116:3
125:24 126:15
pre-collect 94:17
pre-conference
126:24
pre-Hancock 75:24
Pricing 117:14
118:12
primacy 119:10
primarily 30:23
31:18 34:24 36:23
43:1,10 61:6 68:1
122:8,10
primary 35:3 36:17
45:8
principal 8:2 96:1
prior 23:7 24:22
26:20 34:6 39:4
41:1 75:22 109:11
111:17 113:4
126:23
prioritize 83:16
priority 81:9,11,18
83:14
private 60:3 67:9
85:11
probably 20:14
43:2 57:2 70:8,15
90:20 106:2
115:20
problem 45:3,15
82:25
problems 111:23
112:6
procedural 6:4
8:24 13:16 16:22
17:11 18:11 27:23
57:24
procedurally 18:17
procedure 13:23
18:8
procedures 21:3
93:18
proceed 18:14 28:4
29:17
proceeding 1:11
5:5 6:10 13:21
proceedings 9:2
126:9
process 17:22,23
18:17 21:8 22:22
24:14 30:25 36:8
36:11 63:12 68:12
68:24 70:2 94:14
112:24 114:3,8,9
119:19
processes 51:5
produce 106:15
125:16
produced 3:2 71:7
71:25
program 15:3,8
19:2,3,25 72:22
94:17,18,25 95:1
95:2,8,11 109:10
109:13 112:10,15
112:17,18 113:4
113:12 122:16
123:14 126:1
programs 15:6,19
15:25 20:6 58:21
94:9,11 112:21
progressive 21:6
prohibited 69:23
project 63:21,23,24
64:3,4,6,9,10,13
64:15 76:7 77:9
77:11,16,21,23
78:10,12 88:21
111:22 124:6
projected 40:19
87:3 88:6,7 90:4
97:10
projecting 40:21
89:13
projection 36:16
37:1 90:12,14
projections 30:17
36:15,25 37:3
88:3,23 89:10
90:7 96:15,16,21
96:22 97:9,13,16
97:19 99:8 100:18
101:1,6,10,12,19
102:11,12
projects 76:4 77:11
78:7,12 80:3,4
81:9,10,12,15,16
81:17 82:17 83:2
83:3,16,24 84:1,7
88:15
promote 54:3
properly 111:7
properties 45:10
107:25 109:18,25
110:12,13 122:23
124:3,18,19
property 44:3,19
47:6,11,12,12,18
47:24,24 48:15,22
48:23 63:17 65:22
74:10 80:23 105:7
105:12,18 106:19
106:22,24 107:23
107:24 108:4,5,14
108:14,15,22
109:5,8,21 110:15
110:23 111:1,6,13
111:17 114:25
115:5,7,8,12,21
115:25 119:5
121:1,6,11,21,22
122:2,2 123:12
proportion 108:15
proportional 115:6
proposal 9:1 19:5
20:19,21 24:13
25:4,7 30:24
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 142
31:24 32:7,18
34:13 35:21 37:13
37:17 38:24 76:17
77:18 78:20,24
83:5 89:7,16,18
90:2 94:1,4,12
98:19,20 100:23
107:12 109:5,5,15
110:18 112:17,22
114:12 115:11
122:4,16
propose 25:14
proposed 6:22 8:9
9:8 14:23 19:3,4
25:7 42:16 84:1
105:6 107:16,22
109:10,11,15
112:11 115:12
proposing 25:8
55:1 78:24 107:11
propound 13:14
propounded 10:12
12:7 14:2
protect 80:23
protected 44:4
108:1
protection 55:9
81:3 108:13 111:8
115:3,4,16,16,21
provide 8:12 10:11
15:5 18:20 44:17
44:22 50:4 70:4
73:24 76:9,10
81:3 121:10
123:24 126:16
provided 18:4,6
26:8 45:13 66:2
77:17 107:19,24
108:13 109:20
111:6 115:10
126:7,7
providers 103:11
provides 47:11
77:21 111:8
providing 13:23
16:24 22:18 53:25
81:1 107:20
provision 8:15 47:4
48:24 50:10,19
51:1 52:11 61:2
92:20,21 93:22
95:19 96:9
provisions 46:18
49:20
public 12:12 21:7
43:24 48:17 54:6
54:18 74:23 80:12
80:16 107:21
111:7 114:25
published 117:13
117:17
Pugh 9:19
pull 20:1 86:21
pulling 55:6
pumping 31:20,23
pure 120:5
purified 68:22
purpose 10:10 45:8
50:17,23 51:17
54:2,4,5 55:21
purposes 15:11
63:2
pursue 94:21
pursued 103:4
purview 20:12
66:15
push 22:13
put 20:5 22:14 27:5
36:16 40:6 49:19
94:15 116:5
putting 19:19 56:15
P.C 4:10
p.m 127:3,4,7,9,21
Q
quality 15:12 54:3
54:7 55:10 56:22
65:14 67:1 72:19
quantify 36:2
quantity 64:24
question 20:2,9
22:5,7 23:9 28:9
48:4,14 49:7 53:1
53:8,22 64:19
66:12,18 67:6
68:25 70:14,25
72:3 73:1,23
80:13 82:13,13
85:9 86:24 100:17
100:18 107:1
114:24 116:4
122:5
questioning 65:25
66:15
questions 10:12
12:7 13:4,6,7,12
13:15 14:25 15:1
16:6,7 28:7,11,19
28:21,25 29:4,7,9
29:25 30:2,9
41:13,15,18,23
49:18 52:18 57:5
57:7 59:7,9,13
61:17,20,23 67:9
70:13 71:2 73:8
73:12,13,17 82:10
84:10,19,21,24
85:1,2,6 86:11,12
86:19,21 90:25
91:3,6,8,18,25
103:1,21,22 104:3
104:14,15,17,23
112:22 113:18,21
120:22,24 125:5
126:19
quick 31:5 70:14
110:11
quickly 20:1,4
quite 34:5
quote 54:10 108:21
R
R 4:1 5:1
radioactive 85:19
85:24
rails 18:11
raised 23:10
raising 49:16,24
range 87:20,23,23
rate 1:6,11 4:4,9
5:3,5 6:8,14,19
7:1,3,11,23,24 8:7
8:8,10,22,22,24
8:25 9:7,9,10,13
9:13,16,20,24
10:3,8,10,13,15
10:20 11:7,21
12:8,24 13:1,2,7
14:24 15:10 16:3
16:4 18:8 20:9,15
20:18,21 21:19
22:13 24:14,23
27:20 28:19 29:25
30:24 31:24 32:7
32:18 34:13 35:21
37:13,17 38:24
41:19 49:14 52:22
53:2 54:8 58:2,11
58:12,14 59:6
63:11,13 76:17
77:14,17 78:15,19
81:20 82:16 83:9
84:19 85:3 86:11
87:4,9,24 88:8
89:5,5,13,18
90:14 91:4,19
94:1,4,12 96:22
98:10,19,20 99:9
100:23 104:14
109:15 112:21
113:19 114:2,7,22
115:11 118:16,17
118:20,21 119:9
119:15,20,22,25
120:2,3,3,10,14
121:2,11,16,18,19
122:16 125:2
126:4,8,21 127:18
ratepayers 8:21
12:10 49:11 120:8
120:10
rates 6:21,22,22 8:1
22:22 56:1 89:3
114:10
reach 97:6
reached 92:14
reacts 55:23
read 27:13 42:12
43:15 47:21 48:5
48:8,9,12 49:9
60:23 66:19,22
77:2 78:10 80:14
81:5 105:9 108:10
114:3 115:1
118:19 119:14
readily 119:1
reading 6:4
Readling 118:5,6
ready 27:24 29:12
real 22:3 31:5
110:11
realize 70:15
realized 19:10 60:9
really 17:21 19:25
20:3,25 21:19
22:16 68:11 95:3
reason 20:3 34:18
88:11 107:10
122:7
reasonable 8:20
19:21 107:24
122:9
reasonably 126:25
reasons 42:9 44:3
48:21 105:6
reassigning 95:10
rebuttal 11:9,11
12:3 13:25 15:2
27:25 28:8 87:1
recall 74:21 110:5
receipt 7:23 14:1
receive 17:19
received 8:22 17:2
17:5,6,17,18 19:9
36:12 108:17
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 143
receiving 17:13
43:22 108:15
115:7
recommend 7:24
recommendations
6:20 20:17 97:1
recommended 8:7
recommending
122:1
record 10:8 12:3
14:8 31:25 32:1
32:22 33:4 44:6
48:7,11 60:14,23
66:21 105:11
108:11
recover 36:9
recovered 115:4
recovering 36:11
120:7
recovery 115:8
recycled 35:10
red 77:24 79:21,22
81:9,13,17,19
82:4,5,17,20 84:3
84:8 92:15
redevelopment
40:4
Reding 118:4
reduced 31:16
65:23 67:22 69:9
71:11,13 92:13
94:4 125:2 128:7
reducing 65:21
reduction 15:12
32:17,17 67:2
reductions 31:15
refer 27:14 46:7,18
74:20 76:1 77:15
80:4 105:8
reference 53:24
108:3
referenced 94:7
references 35:24
referred 44:11
106:11 123:8
referring 49:7
114:2
refers 78:2
reflect 100:6
119:10,15
reflected 33:7
87:11
reflecting 32:17
reflective 40:17
99:14
reflects 34:5,8
99:21 120:16
refute 18:3 24:21
25:3
regard 56:3 70:4
72:21 105:22
regarding 6:21
10:8 12:3 15:5
19:1 21:3 42:16
107:2
Region 54:4
Regional 7:13
regulate 69:12 70:5
regulated 68:13
regulating 65:16
regulations 8:19
57:4 64:18 65:15
111:20
regulatory 54:16
74:6,8 75:2,9
79:22 82:1,2
rehabilitation
80:20 81:2
related 8:14 14:24
47:6 73:2 92:10
128:8
relates 48:2
relating 8:15 61:24
relation 108:23
relationship 108:4
111:5
relative 128:11
relatively 40:20
120:8,17
relevant 122:14
relieved 29:10
remain 97:10
115:24
remaining 78:22
81:10,15,18 82:21
83:6
remains 13:13
40:20
remember 23:20
remind 76:6
remove 93:25
removing 68:17
renewal 80:16
repeat 26:23 27:1
66:18 71:12 93:9
replaced 39:23
report 9:8,11,14
25:22 37:21 60:13
60:22
reporter 3:7 48:8
48:12 66:22 128:1
128:17
reports 32:23 33:11
37:19 39:17
represent 7:4 54:22
80:8
representation 7:2
representative 7:3
20:5
representatives
7:12 12:5
request 9:13,21,25
10:4,18,21 11:1,4
11:13,18,22 14:2
75:20 77:19
125:16
requested 9:10
48:7,11 66:21
requests 18:2,7
24:5 76:19
require 51:8,9
111:15,20 112:3
121:9
required 8:5 13:3
30:16 55:14 62:16
65:3 66:2 75:25
requirements 51:7
51:9 54:16 65:10
65:11 72:23 114:9
requires 6:24 45:16
72:4
requiring 112:5
research 17:14
residential 7:5
residents 43:21
44:3 46:4
residual 68:21
resolved 23:18
37:12
resources 95:5,7
respect 20:15 21:16
23:1 62:11 65:2
71:4 88:6 96:15
113:24
respond 17:15
25:17 27:8 28:7
responded 10:1,5
10:19,22 11:2,5
respondents
116:16,23
response 11:16,20
11:24 14:1 17:5,7
23:7,9 49:9 55:3
75:19 76:18 77:18
80:9,11 114:11,24
116:15,22
responses 9:23
18:10 23:23
responsibilities
65:14
responsibility 55:8
responsible 55:15
56:13,14 57:1
83:4 85:22
rest 43:3 53:23
99:8
Restate 48:4
result 43:10 124:17
resulting 81:11
return 46:24
reuse 67:16,17
revamp 95:9
revenue 45:25 49:8
49:16,24 54:17
60:25 77:6,7,9,14
97:17 102:6,8
114:9
revenues 50:6
59:22 60:2,8
81:11,15,18,21,22
82:5
review 6:20 20:17
125:17 127:2
reviewed 112:18
Revised 44:10
Rich 59:11 82:15
85:22
Richard 2:5 9:17
57:16
Richmond 15:22
85:12
right 14:17 27:23
28:3,12,18,20
29:6,16 30:1 33:8
39:12 40:3 41:17
42:23 44:9,13
46:24 47:3,8,10
49:25 56:24 57:14
58:22 63:10,21,25
64:12 65:11 71:21
74:13 75:1,8,12
75:16,19 76:12,25
77:25 78:5,9,16
78:21 79:18 80:2
80:7 81:17 83:4
87:17 88:17 90:21
96:18,23 98:23
102:8 104:15
110:10 111:19
112:14 114:20
115:14 116:18,18
117:8,16,19,22
118:2,3,15 119:12
121:19 125:23
right-hand 42:12
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 144
87:15 92:9
right-of-way 63:18
risk 25:13
river 35:6,8,8,9
36:18,23
Rivers 55:17
riverways 55:10
roads 45:9 56:15
role 21:1
roll 5:6 20:14
Romanette 117:21
117:24 118:4,8
roof 118:25
room 3:6 24:18
roughly 40:25 87:9
rules 13:3 18:8
ruling 42:14 43:6
43:11
running 92:9,12
110:17
runoff 44:18 45:17
55:16 56:4 62:10
63:22 72:20
110:24 111:5,14
111:16 117:1,4
118:22 119:4
runs 115:19
run-off 43:23
Russ 6:7
Russell 4:3
S
S 4:1 5:1
sample 20:6
sanitary 36:21
44:17
savings 31:15,17
saw 20:1 87:8,9,24
saying 100:25
121:25
says 61:12 88:15,17
88:21
schedule 8:24
16:22,24 17:11
18:11
Schneider 5:16
Schoedel 4:5 5:20
22:2 26:16,23
71:3,15,17,24
72:2 73:1,7
123:20,21 124:23
125:3
Schwartze 14:9
15:15 16:5
scope 110:6
scroll 93:13
seat 28:13
Seattle 15:22
second 9:25 10:25
14:16 26:15 27:9
27:10 33:21 34:1
37:22 60:21 94:20
108:2,10,12,18
127:16
section 46:8,24
47:10,13 49:4,25
49:25 50:13,22
51:11,12,22 52:4
74:7,14 75:6
118:15,17 119:12
see 31:4 37:22
38:16 39:2 41:7
49:9 52:15 56:21
57:15 62:2 86:22
99:7,10 126:2,23
seeing 40:5 93:5,14
seen 17:16 24:10
25:6,9,11 74:22
123:6,7,10,11
select 6:25 116:20
send 68:18
Senior 7:19
sense 45:24 79:3
106:17
sent 24:6
sentence 88:15
105:10 108:11
114:3 120:13
sentences 35:23
separate 36:20 56:6
58:23
septic 68:1,8
series 12:11
serve 6:9
service 36:12 43:22
61:1 71:14 87:4
88:8 97:17 107:19
108:13,16 114:8
114:20 115:7,9
116:1,1 118:21
119:18 122:14
serviced 36:7
services 7:3,19 8:14
44:17,18,23 48:2
49:13 65:19
105:19 108:23
109:1,19
sessions 12:12
set 17:12,22 61:23
65:1 74:5 75:17
76:18 126:22
sets 74:8
Setting 10:8
Seventy-nine
116:23
sewer 1:8 3:2,5 5:4
6:9 8:13 12:15
34:24 35:1 43:24
44:18,20 45:18
48:17 50:15 54:6
54:18 56:6 61:1
76:8 80:19,25
81:1 93:2,3 97:17
103:7 109:14
111:7 115:22
116:9 122:18
Sewerage 106:23
sewers 64:24
107:21
shorthand 50:1
show 32:25 33:5
60:12 98:18
showed 37:20
showing 38:9
shows 33:21 34:1
38:1 39:1,11 89:2
shuffling 30:11
37:23 47:9 59:15
shutoff 94:22 103:6
side 116:4
sides 21:18
signed 72:13
significant 60:2
62:19 89:19 93:5
93:14
significantly 40:25
89:23 98:25
similar 44:3 83:2
117:4
similarly 88:12
simple 120:2
simplest 120:2
Simplicity 119:14
simplification
53:16
sir 13:18 21:14
22:1 25:1 29:5
33:24 34:4 41:20
41:24 42:4,5 44:9
51:11 52:14 53:14
55:5 58:19 73:16
73:18 85:4,7 91:5
103:16 104:1,4,13
113:20 117:8
120:12,19
sitting 117:22
situation 45:4,11
six 56:12 57:11
size 118:24 120:4
skip 44:15
slate 83:12
slightly 37:14 93:17
slope 118:24
small 62:2 80:17
Snoke 2:7 9:18
86:5,6,9,11,17,20
91:10
socio-economic 7:8
soils 118:25
solely 54:5
solids 68:17
solution 83:20
somebody 45:19,23
somewhat 117:4
soon 126:25
sorry 25:20 37:22
42:5 51:21 73:11
73:15 80:13 93:9
114:6 116:3 118:6
121:18 126:11
sounds 22:9 66:16
source 45:25
106:10
sources 36:19,23
126:6
special 6:17 50:24
51:23 52:9
specific 54:24
68:25 73:1 79:9
specifically 27:14
124:24
specifications 65:2
specifics 67:19
70:10 111:25
spectrum 120:1
spent 42:7 77:10
81:12,19 82:5
83:8
spoke 17:4
Sprague 2:6 9:18
84:13,14,17,20
85:8,20 86:3
SSC 92:25 93:1,3,7
93:11
St 1:8 3:1,5,6 4:11
4:17 5:4 6:9,16,16
7:13,13,14,17,18
7:20,21 9:4 12:14
34:25 35:18 46:19
54:4 60:4 65:16
74:17,19,20
stabilization 81:3
stable 97:10
staff 31:6 37:18
62:14
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 145
stage 35:6 36:23
stages 35:8
standpoint 83:23
Stannard 2:9 9:19
31:2 104:8,9,12
104:21 105:2
113:8,22,24
120:20,25 121:4
121:24 122:4,12
122:25 123:5,11
123:18 124:1,25
125:12
start 6:4 30:13
86:24 91:19 95:9
104:14
started 43:6 72:6
starting 92:18
starts 22:3
state 3:8 8:18 30:15
59:25 60:7 70:18
96:25 106:13
121:5,14 124:15
124:16,17,18
128:2
stated 51:6 87:2
101:6 105:5
statement 6:5 8:9
53:4 54:2,10
62:22 71:11 88:5
88:19
states 15:20 55:9
61:8 105:15 106:1
106:9 108:20
121:8
state-owned 124:18
station 60:3,7
67:10 68:7,13,16
68:25 69:2,6
stations 71:8
statute 44:10,10
45:16 47:5 48:1
124:16
statutes 103:8
statutory 8:11
Stein 4:6 5:14,15
6:12 67:6,8,25
68:7,15,20 69:1
69:12,14,18 70:11
70:12 103:2,3,12
103:15,17,20
127:15
step 114:2,7
Steve 4:7,7 5:11,22
6:12,13
stop 63:17,18
storm 43:24 48:17
54:6,18 56:6
64:24 80:19,25
81:1 109:14 111:7
115:22 116:9
122:18
stormwater 1:11
5:4 6:22 7:25
14:24 15:3,5,8,12
15:13,19,24 19:4
19:18,20 21:8
22:10 24:13 25:4
25:7 36:20 43:23
44:16,18,25 45:6
45:8,17,25 47:1
47:16 48:2,15
54:3,18 55:12,16
56:4 62:22 63:24
64:4,5,9 65:21
74:9 80:12,15,18
80:22 83:13 105:8
105:13,18 106:14
106:19,25 107:21
108:23,23,25
109:10,19 110:1
110:15,17 111:2
112:11 114:25
115:9,15,19
116:13,20 118:13
121:14,18,19
122:15 123:13
124:7,16
streams 56:3 69:22
Street 3:6 4:11
streets 111:10
115:23
strictly 123:4
structure 105:23
107:24 112:16
116:25 118:16,18
118:20,21 119:9
119:15,20,22,25
120:2,3,11 123:23
124:8
structures 80:23
106:3 115:8
120:14
studies 107:14,18
study 69:18
stuff 35:12
Stump 4:10 12:25
subdistrict 52:6
75:13
subdistricts 52:5
73:25 75:5,8,21
122:22
subject 70:16 124:3
124:19
subjects 49:6
submission 18:16
submit 9:1 17:9
18:3 21:10 24:21
submittal 21:3
submitted 9:15,21
9:25 10:4,17,21
10:25 11:4,9,11
11:12,16,17,20,22
11:24,25 15:16,17
16:13 18:23 20:22
21:5 23:7,12 28:9
37:13 51:15 56:19
87:12
submitting 12:6
18:9
subsequent 26:7
33:11
subtotal 98:21
success 94:24
suffered 97:2
sufficient 23:22,23
suggest 19:15 23:4
37:8 95:18 122:9
suggested 23:4 36:1
suggesting 99:12
suggestion 25:23
Suite 4:17
summation 51:4
supplemental 18:9
supply 19:1,9,10,13
support 18:18 42:9
90:11
supported 105:6
112:24
Supreme 42:15,22
43:11 53:4 107:15
108:19
sure 24:17 36:16
37:1,10 43:17
46:16 48:13 54:12
70:2,2 93:10
surface 53:18 54:24
105:20 107:4,10
110:14,16,24
112:12
surfaces 62:10
surprising 19:7
surrebuttal 12:1,4
12:6 16:21 17:10
29:13 30:13 42:4
57:15 59:17 61:24
66:1 86:22 92:4,8
105:3,5 108:3,9
113:7,25
survey 106:14
107:6 116:8
surveys 106:12
Susan 4:21 9:17
12:16 33:12,17
34:1 42:6 60:19
113:14
sustain 66:7
sustainable 21:9
Sustained 113:9
Suzanne 3:7 128:2
sworn 30:7 59:11
86:17 91:24
104:22 128:5
system 34:24 35:7
35:11 36:21 42:10
42:10 43:24 45:1
45:8 48:17 54:6
54:19,21 55:13,20
55:23 56:7 65:22
68:10 76:9 80:12
80:16,18,21,23
109:19 110:24
111:8 112:1
114:25 115:23
116:9 122:18
systems 8:13 65:6
81:1,2 105:13
109:14 111:15
112:3 123:11
T
table 26:22 33:20
38:25 92:7,24
98:20 102:23
take 16:19 18:17
24:4,19 25:8,15
25:25 27:5 28:13
33:4 45:9,9 54:13
57:11,23 68:8
72:22 79:1 84:6
86:25 93:21 94:7
96:16 97:24 98:8
101:7,14 110:11
114:23 119:19
123:23
taken 51:6 56:12
57:13 100:19
128:6,10
takes 65:18 97:23
talk 32:19 74:25
79:21 89:15
talked 51:20 76:2
118:2 125:25,25
talking 121:7
tank 68:2,8
task 65:18
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 146
tax 6:22 8:1 14:24
15:3,6,8 19:2,4,19
19:20 20:11 42:9
42:25 44:3,16
47:1,6,15 48:3,15
48:22,23 50:6
52:9 53:8,18 54:3
54:5,7 74:6,8,9,15
75:2,3,9,25 77:9
78:6,20 79:1,16
79:19,22 81:22
82:16 105:7,8,18
106:19,20 107:12
107:23,24 108:4
108:21 109:5,7
110:18,19,25
111:2 113:1
114:25 115:8
121:1,11,16 122:3
122:21 123:9,12
123:12
taxation 47:13,19
47:23 51:17
taxes 24:14 47:6
50:5 51:13 105:12
106:22,24 108:14
109:21 115:5,5
121:6,9,13,13
123:25
taxing 15:24 77:2,5
77:6,13 84:4
tax-based 45:25
115:12
tax-exempt 109:18
109:25
tax-supported
45:21
teasing 110:10
Technical 1:15 3:1
6:5 10:7,11 12:2
127:20
tell 40:7 51:5 56:23
67:12 105:17
telling 101:3
102:14
temporary 58:8
Ten 117:5
tend 21:15
terminology 114:18
terms 19:14 24:13
28:9 53:9 107:3
108:12,13
Terry 43:4
tested 109:24
testified 30:8 59:12
62:19 86:18 91:24
104:22
testify 16:25
testimony 9:16
10:9 11:9,11 12:1
12:3,4,6 13:25
15:16 16:9,21,24
17:10 27:25 28:8
28:14 29:14,21
30:14 31:2 42:3
43:15 46:6 49:7
53:23 57:15,18
58:3 59:17,21
61:24 62:4,18,23
66:1,2 67:11
73:22 76:25 77:3
77:25 81:5 82:6
84:15 85:10 86:7
86:22 87:1 91:15
92:5,8 93:16,24
95:17 96:14 97:9
98:7 102:9 104:10
105:3,5,9 106:16
108:9 110:6 113:8
113:25 114:23
115:1 128:4,5
testing 85:24
tests 85:24
thank 6:2 14:20
16:15,18 18:20
20:7,24 24:24
27:17 28:3 29:10
30:10 41:10,11,22
48:19 51:11 52:14
52:16 53:13 55:4
57:8,9,21 58:16
59:5,14 61:14,15
67:4 70:11,12
71:1 73:7,9,14,16
73:20 81:4 82:8
84:11,18 85:8
86:1,2,10,16
90:22,23 91:10,18
97:23 102:25
103:20 104:5,5,13
113:15,16,17
116:2 120:12,19
120:23 125:3,9,10
125:21 126:18
127:11,12
Thanks 21:25
theoretically
111:14
Theresa 2:8 9:19
37:12 91:13,23
thereto 128:12
thing 19:21 24:5,12
37:20 46:15
124:24
things 18:16 20:11
22:10 25:10 30:12
36:19 45:10 54:9
54:15,20 56:17
62:15 63:18,19
68:4 80:19,25
107:15 125:21
think 16:12 18:10
19:7,23 21:5,16
21:19,25 26:12,18
26:21 29:10 32:13
40:21 41:9 42:25
45:22 53:1,22
54:25 56:12 66:12
71:17 87:7 89:18
89:21,23 90:6
101:21 106:5
107:1,6 108:2
109:18 110:3,3
111:4,12 113:7,13
122:13 123:18
126:5,13
thinking 53:17
98:16
third 10:4 37:23
80:9 93:12
Thirteen 117:2
thought 16:1
three 8:4 13:4,15
20:15 46:15 77:23
127:2
tied 87:4 88:8
90:18
Tim 2:7 9:18 86:5
86:17
time 8:11,11,19,19
13:5,8,13,13
17:14 18:23 22:20
23:13,13,22 25:9
25:20 37:17 42:7
48:10 49:15 51:20
63:12 64:23 67:21
72:16 84:20 89:17
94:1 95:21 99:9
99:10 101:2,4
109:11 115:10
125:23
timeline 23:2
timelines 21:16
timely 21:4
today 16:5 17:17
23:21 25:15 45:5
54:13 58:9
Toenjes 5:17
Tomazi 4:6 5:17,18
6:12 14:15 20:8
20:24 25:12,13
26:14 27:1,2,3
55:5,6 70:14,22
71:1 85:9 86:1
top 35:23 36:5 37:2
40:8 67:24 116:12
118:25
topic 112:20
torn 39:23 40:5
total 13:4 39:1,4
60:25 77:11 78:10
78:12 92:19,20,21
100:19,20 101:23
101:24 114:9
118:22
totally 70:7
touch 42:1
track 22:19 75:2
transferred 85:16
traps 68:2
treat 69:23
treated 36:14 68:22
treatment 34:21
35:1,2 85:11,16
85:17
treatments 35:17
treats 69:19
trend 39:17 40:12
106:8 107:9
trends 41:3
tried 19:15
trucks 115:25
true 51:21 64:11
65:3,6,23 66:24
66:25 95:24
110:19,22 111:19
111:24 113:5
127:6
trustees 6:25 7:25
8:8 9:9,12 20:18
25:22 74:5 75:13
truth 28:15,15,16
29:21,22,22 57:19
57:19,19 84:15,16
84:16 86:7,8,8
91:15,16,16
104:10,11,11
try 35:20 94:23
95:8,11 105:1
trying 19:25 20:3,5
36:9 42:8 45:22
66:9,11 90:6 95:3
101:14,17
turn 35:22 116:10
118:13
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 147
turns 68:7
two 8:3 24:20 35:23
39:22 40:5 42:1
46:13 55:21 58:1
85:10 105:6
110:12 121:18,19
125:19 126:6
127:5
type 41:6 49:8 67:2
72:4,8,21
types 23:22 45:10
56:17
typewriting 128:7
U
ultimate 67:13
ultimately 69:25
unaware 112:7
unclear 52:20
underneath 70:7
understand 17:16
19:6 26:25 34:13
34:19 36:4 48:13
58:24 59:3 79:16
90:5 101:13 102:7
113:15 115:14,16
115:18 120:18
understanding
74:7 109:22
119:13
understood 109:2
undertakes 23:6
undertook 30:21
unease 42:20
Unfortunately 29:8
uniformly 105:25
United 15:20 55:8
105:14 106:1,8
University 106:13
unmetered 30:17
30:22 31:8,9,16
32:4,5,9 34:22
unnumbered
117:17
unsure 42:17
Unverferth 2:5
9:18 57:16,20,22
59:6,7,9,11 61:16
66:1,17,23 67:8
67:15 68:1,11,18
68:23 69:3,13,16
70:1,20,24 71:12
71:16,21 72:1,11
73:6,10,15 74:7
82:18 84:9,11
Unverferth's 85:10
update 30:16 62:14
updates 63:6
upgrades 107:22
urge 125:15
usage 37:14 99:11
99:18 100:1,3,4
use 56:24 65:3 68:4
78:25 105:6,12,18
105:24 106:22
107:9,11,23 108:4
108:14 114:8
116:6,24 120:5
123:12
useful 16:2 19:23
19:24
user 108:24 112:11
116:6,13,20
users 7:2,5,5
uses 45:23 106:23
usually 119:10
121:4 124:25
utility 88:24 90:17
utilize 62:13 64:12
64:20
utilized 64:20
82:20
V
valorem 123:9,12
valuation 51:19
108:22 109:7
115:6,17 122:23
value 107:25 108:5
108:12,15 115:18
valued 110:13,20
variable 119:6
122:2
variables 118:23
119:5,6,8,11,17
119:20
varied 15:21
variety 124:10
various 20:6 56:13
58:21 62:6,11
Veatch 12:24
106:14
vegetation 118:24
119:9
vehicles 111:10
verify 30:21
versus 42:15 53:8
64:7 87:22,24
89:20 94:5 102:1
105:19
vice 6:8
viewed 55:21
violation 8:15
Virginia 15:22,23
visits 63:9
void 47:25 48:3
volume 15:13 30:17
31:16 32:4,5,19
37:8 96:15 98:6
98:17 99:5,21,23
100:19,20 101:23
101:24 102:2,15
111:16 118:22
119:4
volumes 30:21
31:23 96:17 97:15
98:16 99:3,15
100:7,22 101:15
102:5,8,10,18
voluntarily 43:8
vote 46:21 51:10,15
52:7 75:24
voted 42:18,25
43:10 52:22 53:3
53:6,19
voted-on 43:7
voters 6:16 7:15
voter-approved
110:1
voting 51:8
W
wait 51:4
want 33:1,13 45:22
46:15 53:18 54:16
76:1 83:14 87:1
96:13 110:6 118:3
118:13 125:2
126:22
wanted 24:19
122:20
Washington 15:22
wasn't 19:11 53:3
98:3
waste 32:4,5 56:16
59:22 60:2,3,7
61:6,10 67:10,25
68:2,2,3,8,13,25
69:3,4,10,19,23
71:4,19
wastewater 1:11
5:4 6:21 7:25
31:20 32:9 43:22
44:23 47:16 55:23
56:1 93:2,3 96:17
114:12 117:14
water 22:15 31:11
34:15 35:11,15,16
35:19,25 36:8
37:7 45:9,9 54:3,6
55:10 56:5,22
65:14 67:1 68:9
72:19 98:4 99:4
100:1 102:17
103:5,6,11 106:23
117:14 119:1
watershed 63:25
waterways 55:15
way 19:16 22:9
45:19 73:4 79:16
117:6
ways 21:9
weather 35:5
weigh 83:20
welcome 120:20
went 15:2 26:19
43:24
West 7:20
wet 35:5
we're 18:10 21:17
21:21,23 32:17
36:10,19 40:5,21
41:3 53:24 54:24
55:1 57:14 66:11
70:15 75:1 78:24
83:12 90:6,6,7
93:5,14 94:3,8,14
95:2 121:25 122:7
we've 22:8 25:11
39:7 42:21 60:22
72:14 94:6,23
whatnot 64:25
William 2:9 9:19
31:2 104:8,21
Williams 5:24
willing 54:20
wish 12:10 16:13
49:12
wishes 24:23
witness 29:18 41:16
48:9,13,20 52:18
66:6 84:13 86:4
91:12 104:8 128:3
128:5
witnesses 2:2 16:25
Women 7:15
word 25:3 81:6
wording 42:22 43:1
words 44:15 53:7
63:16 67:16 68:5
69:5,11,23 76:10
100:5
work 15:6 19:25
24:8 40:5 63:19
77:10,12 78:13
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 148
79:2 80:5 90:6
103:5 112:21
worked 17:22
worship 124:11,12
worth 21:25 36:6
wouldn't 53:5
wrap 125:21
writing 28:10
written 18:3 24:21
wrong 52:25 56:12
wrote 118:11
X
X 2:1
Y
yeah 26:12 41:2,5
55:19 71:3 82:12
126:5
year 32:10,11 33:3
33:3,7,25 34:2,6,9
34:12 38:19 39:2
39:5,8,8,10,17,18
40:16,19,19,24
41:1,8 45:20,21
50:6 59:23,23
60:13 61:11 75:12
82:6 88:16,17,25
89:10,11,14,16,20
89:20,22 92:13,20
92:24,24 93:7,13
93:14,15,15 96:10
96:11 97:25 98:3
98:22 99:1,6,13
99:15,16 100:6,7
100:10,21 102:16
106:15
years 31:21 33:11
39:11 40:19 52:15
60:9 81:13 82:1,4
101:1,1 102:10
year-over-year
93:6
yellow 47:20 74:22
75:2 77:24 78:2,2
78:5,14,18 79:5
81:8 82:1 83:3
yesterday 23:3
Z
zero 78:20
Zes 3:7 128:2
Zweig 42:15 50:11
50:20 51:2 52:2
52:12,21 53:1,19
108:19 109:24
$
$17 79:18
$7 80:5 98:15
$7.3 97:3
$9 36:6
1
1 40:22 42:11 86:24
96:9
1st 11:3 17:6,8
1,883 38:2
1.1 92:13
1.4 60:8
10 9:14 34:5 47:10
51:18 58:14 60:1
60:9 77:1,3 79:1,5
81:22 93:7,13
115:2 116:17
10th 10:16
10.1 61:1
104 2:9
109 3:6
11 60:9 92:13,18
94:2 101:1 102:10
114:1,6
11.5 61:2
114B 76:19
115 97:8
115D1 87:12
115E1 97:22
1183 38:22
12 38:5 80:4 95:17
12th 11:7
12:16 3:4 127:21
124 58:11,20
125 58:12
126 58:15
13 30:15 33:25
38:13,25 40:24,24
61:11 80:4 93:7
93:14 95:17 99:1
116:10
13th 10:6 11:6,10
1345 38:14
13856 74:3
14 9:12 38:16 39:10
50:1 61:11 88:16
89:11,14 93:18
94:2 98:22 99:6
99:15,16 100:6,7
100:10,15,21
101:2 102:10,16
140 61:9
140.3 61:6
15 17:3 50:13 77:1
81:5 99:13 115:2
15th 11:23
16 32:11 43:12 77:3
17 1:16 3:3 6:5 9:20
32:10 59:23 77:25
78:13 96:10,10
17.2 97:18
1764 38:17,22
18 6:6 117:21
18th 11:12 12:13
19 30:15 40:24
88:17 89:11,14
116:13
1954 6:17
1956 32:16
1980 51:7 75:22
1992 32:15
2
2 30:14 38:25 59:20
74:7 86:24 88:16
89:2,10,14,20,21
89:24 90:12 94:2
94:5 96:13,14
98:12 101:12
102:1 105:8
108:10 114:24
2nd 11:19 17:7
2-cent-wide 48:21
2.3 87:25
2.9 93:23
20 51:12,17 59:23
75:6 81:13 96:10
96:11 116:18
20th 10:19
2000 6:18
2007 19:3 24:15
87:22
2008 41:2
2009 41:2 43:25
2011 33:3,7 37:21
38:22 67:21 94:15
2012 33:16,22 38:5
38:19
2013 34:2 100:14
2014 34:9,12 36:14
37:6 38:22 39:2
60:13 97:25 98:3
99:10,18,24
102:23
2015 1:11,16 3:3
6:6 8:23 9:8,12,14
9:15,20,22,24
10:2,3,6,7,16,19
10:20,23,24 11:2
11:3,6,7,10,12,14
11:17,19,21,23,25
40:19 99:19 100:2
100:15,22 101:8
102:20,22 117:17
2017 81:13 82:6
2020 40:19 82:6
204.7 49:4
204.700 44:10
46:25
21 51:22
21st 11:17 17:5
24:6
211 4:17
22 32:24 33:4 118:8
22nd 127:8,9
227 108:20
23 32:24 118:11
23rd 127:3,4
23.5 118:15
23.5.2 118:17
23.5.3 119:12
2350 3:5
24 32:24 62:1 77:12
121:20
25 32:24 60:14
118:4
26 8:23 9:8,15
117:24
26th 23:20 25:17
25:19 26:5 27:6
125:17 127:1
27 9:22 10:20,24
11:2
27.2 60:25
270 74:21
273.8 34:9 36:13
28 2:3 43:25
28th 11:14
29 2:4
3
3 44:14 61:25 74:14
88:25 89:16,19
98:21 114:1 117:6
3rd 10:3 11:21
3.020 49:25 51:12
3.8 61:5,10
30 9:24 25:18
30A 46:8
300.05 33:22
314.259.2317 4:18
314.552.8317 4:18
314.621.2939 4:12
314.621.6844 4:12
326.7 34:2
33 39:3
35 82:1,3
3500 43:20
3600 4:17
TECHNICAL CONFERENCE 6/17/2015
www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334
MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES
Page 149
37.1 87:16
370.6 33:8
371.6 61:4
4
4 35:22 38:25,25,25
42:3 43:13 49:7
62:1 75:6 87:17
92:7 98:20,21,21
4.8 61:2
435,000 64:1
45 9:11
47 78:12
474 118:13
5
5 38:1 49:7,8 61:25
62:2 73:23,23
78:10 95:16
105:10 127:7,9
5th 11:25 17:10
500,000 62:21
51,867,679 99:25
100:6
51.8 98:23 100:15
55 99:12,13 100:14
55,053,889 99:11
100:4
56.2 98:25 100:14
57 2:5
59 80:4
6
6 49:10 58:13 59:25
73:23,23 78:2,9
81:5 105:10
108:10
6.1 47:10
60 56:9,24
63101 4:11
63102 4:17
64 77:11
660,000 60:10
661 43:19
7
7 10:2 42:11 98:20
7th 6:18 10:23
7.1.4 31:6,7
7.3 97:6
7.9 98:11 101:7
714 4:11
8
8 35:22 49:10 80:8
87:2
8th 10:7
802 38:8,10
84 2:6
84G 116:4
84L 44:7
86 2:7
86A 80:10
86E 74:4
9
9 32:10 60:21 87:2
108:10 114:1,6
9th 6:17
9.020 52:4
9.2 98:13 101:11
102:1
9.8 93:20
9.9 61:3 97:19
9:00 3:3
91 2:8