Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 144 - Transcript of July 10, 2015 Public Hearing PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 1 1 THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 3 4 FY17 TO 20 STORMWATER PROJECTS 5 PUBLIC HEARING 6 JULY 10, 2015 7 9:00 AM - 11:35 AM 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 2 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 Opening Remarks 6 4 Presentation 10 5 Public Comment 33 6 Closing by Ms. Myers 48 7 Closing by Mr. Burkhart 72 8 Closing by Mr. Neuschafer 94 9 Closing by Mr. Arnold 99 10 Meeting Adjourned 113 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 3 1 THE METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT 2 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT & REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 3 4 FY17 TO 20 STORMWATER PROJECTS 5 PUBLIC HEARING 6 JULY 10, 2015 7 9:00 AM - 11:35 AM 8 9 10 11 12 Kathleen Watson Brunsmann 13 CSR, CCR, CRR, RPR 14 Midwest Litigation Services 15 711 North 11th Street 16 St. Louis, Missouri 63101 17 314.644.2191 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 4 1 A P P E A R A N C E S 2 3 PRESIDING RATE COMMISSIONER: Mr. Leonard J. Toenjes 4 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Chan Mahanta 5 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Steve Mahfood 6 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Paul Brockmann 7 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Russell Hawes 8 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Ms. Nancy Bowser 9 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Eric Schneider 10 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Mike O'Connell 11 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Mark Schoedel 12 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Kennard Jones 13 RATE COMMISSIONER MEMBER: Mr. Otis Williams 14 15 16 METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT STAFF: 17 18 Mr. Brian L. Hoelscher - Executive Director 19 Ms. Susan Myers - General Counsel 20 Mr. Tim Snoke - Secretary Treasurer 21 Mr. Rich Unverferth - Director of Engineering 22 Mr. Jonathon Sprague - Director of Operations 23 Ms. Theresa Belleville - Associate Director of 24 Finance 25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 5 1 ATTORNEYS FOR THE COMMISSION: 2 Mr. John Fox Arnold 3 Ms. Lisa Stump 4 5 RATE CONSULTANT: 6 Ms. Pam Lemoine 7 8 ATTORNEY FOR HOME BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF ST. 9 LOUIS & EASTERN MISSOURI: 10 Mr. Nicholas Burkhart 11 12 ATTORNEY FOR MISSOURI INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS: 13 Mr. Brandon W. Neuschafer 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 6 1 (Wherein, the following proceedings 2 were had of record, to-wit:) 3 MR. TOENJES: Good morning, we will 4 call the meeting of the Rate Commission of the 5 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District to order. 6 My name is Leonard Toenjes, and I am 7 Chairman of the Rate Commission of the Metropolitan 8 St. Louis Sewer District and will serve as the Chair 9 of this proceeding. 10 I will ask each of the Rate 11 Commissioners from my left to right to identify 12 themselves and the agency they represent. 13 MR. BROCKMANN: Paul Brockmann, 14 Missouri Botanical Garden. 15 MR. SCHOEDEL: Mark Schoedel, Lutheran 16 Senior Services. 17 MR. HAWES: Russell Hawes, St. Louis 18 County Municipal League. 19 MR. SCHNEIDER: Eric Schneider, St. 20 Louis Regional Chamber. 21 MR. JONES: Kennard Jones, Mound City 22 Bar Association. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: Otis Williams, St. Louis 24 Council of Construction Consumers. 25 MR. O'CONNELL: Mike O'Connell, The PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 7 1 Greater St. Louis Labor Council. 2 MR. MAHANTA: Chan Mahanta, North 3 County Incorporated. 4 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. 5 The Charter Plan of the District was 6 approved by the voters of St. Louis and St. Louis 7 County at a special election on February 9th, 1954 8 and amended at a general election on November 7th, 9 2000. The amendment to the Charter Plan established 10 the Rate Commission to review and make 11 recommendations to the District regarding changes in 12 wastewater rates, stormwater rates, and tax rates 13 proposed by the District. 14 On February 26th, 2015, the Rate 15 Commission received a Rate Change Notice proposing 16 changes to the District's wastewater and stormwater 17 rates. The Rate Commission adopted operational 18 rules and a procedural schedule to govern the 19 proceedings on March 4th, 2015, and amended its 20 procedural schedule on May 20th, 2015. 21 Under the procedural schedule adopted 22 by the Rate Commission, as amended, the MSD Rate 23 Commission has until August 10th, 2015 to review and 24 make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees as to 25 whether the proposed rates should be approved, not PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 8 1 approved, or modified with suggested changes and 2 then approved. 3 Under procedural rules adopted by the 4 Rate Commission as amended, any person affected by 5 the Rate Change Proposal had an opportunity to 6 submit an application to intervene in these 7 proceedings. Applications to intervene have been 8 filed by the Home Builders Association of St. Louis 9 and Eastern Missouri, and Missouri Industrial Energy 10 Consumers. These applications have been granted. 11 A Prehearing Conference for the purpose 12 of identifying any issues raised by the Rate Setting 13 Documents and the prepared testimony previously 14 submitted was conducted on the record on June 26th, 15 2015. 16 Each participant in the Prehearing 17 Conference submitted on or before July 8th, 2015, a 18 Prehearing Conference report describing the issues 19 raised by the Rate Setting Documents and the 20 prepared testimony, together with a brief 21 description of such participant's position, if any, 22 on each issue and the rationale therefor. 23 Ratepayers who do not wish to intervene 24 are permitted to participate in on-the-record public 25 hearings conducted in several sessions beginning May PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 9 1 11th, 2015, and concluding today. 2 The Rate Commissions operational rules 3 provide that this public hearing session will be 4 held on the record to, number one, permit ratepayers 5 and taxpayers to testify regarding the proposed rate 6 change; number two, receive into evidence any 7 prepared testimony previously submitted to the 8 Commission subject to any valid objections, together 9 with discovery responses and transcripts of the 10 technical conferences; three, permit the Commission 11 members to ask questions regarding any issue 12 addressed by the prepared testimony or any other 13 element of the proposed rate change; and four, 14 permit closing statements by the District, the 15 intervenors, and legal counsel for the Rate 16 Commission. 17 Before proceeding to the other aspect 18 of this public hearing, we will begin with a public 19 comment period. Those wishing to speak should sign 20 in on the sheet provided just outside the door, and 21 will be called in the order of the names listed 22 thereon. Each ratepayer should identify themselves 23 and any organizations represented by such ratepayer. 24 Are there members of the public present 25 who wish to comment? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 10 1 (Showing of hand.) 2 MR. TOENJES: Yes, there are. So let 3 us -- first, before we start with the public hearing 4 portion of this, let's begin with the District 5 providing a brief summary of the Rate Change 6 Proposal. 7 MR. HOELSCHER: Okay. This will be a 8 duplicate of the presentations that have been given 9 at all other public hearings for the public. 10 So first of all, before I start, a 11 couple of things to remember, this is a summation of 12 MSD's staff submission to the Rate Commission for 13 our proposed -- our Rate Proposal, Rate Change 14 Proposal. 15 There's two things driving the program 16 that we're proposing. On the wastewater side, it is 17 mostly requirements through the consent decree based 18 on our agreement with the of Department of Justice, 19 EPA, and the Coalition of the Environment; but it is 20 also driven by other regulatory permit requirements 21 on the wastewater side, mostly -- mostly overseen by 22 the State of Missouri. 23 On the stormwater side, MSD is 24 proposing a District-wide ten cent tax and its 25 primary purpose is to provide funding for one half PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 11 1 of our public storm sewer system that currently has 2 no funding. It is ours to maintain, but we have no 3 funding to maintain it. 4 Those are the two drivers for the 5 proposal. 6 MSD consists -- remember, it consists 7 of two utilities. One, we provide a wastewater 8 service. There we collect and treat used water from 9 sinks, toilet, drains, bathrooms, bathtubs, washing 10 machines. It travels through pipes, and it's 11 treated before being returned to our waterways in 12 compliance with our permits. 13 The wastewater service is currently 14 funded by a monthly charge based on affordable water 15 usage. 16 We also provide a stormwater service. 17 Any water that is not absorbed into the ground or 18 goes directly to creeks and streams, MSD provides a 19 public storm sewer system to collect that water and 20 convey it to creeks and streams. 21 There are other things that we're 22 responsible for, such as the water quality of creeks 23 and streams and the impacts of high flows. Those 24 aren't currently being considered but those are 25 other services we provided. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 12 1 The stormwater service is currently 2 funded by a flat twenty-four cent per month fee that 3 all ratepayers who have wastewater service pay, but 4 primarily the funding is through ad valorem property 5 taxes, and those taxes vary throughout the District 6 depending on where you live in the District. 7 We cannot mix the two funding sources. 8 Whatever we collect for one service has to only be 9 spent on that service. 10 Let's skip that portion. Go on to page 11 five. 12 Quickly, on the current wastewater 13 rates. Under the current rate between 2013 and 14 2016, MSD identified to start nine hundred and 15 seventy one million dollars of capital work. Right 16 now we're projecting that we'll start eight hundred 17 and ninety million or approximately 95 percent of 18 the amount identified. 19 Those savings mostly come through good 20 prices we're getting through construction, as well 21 as some savings that we were able to obtain during 22 the design process. 23 For operation and maintenance, there 24 was seven hundred and sixteen million dollars that 25 was in the previous rate proposal for operation and PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 13 1 maintenance. It looks like now our totals will come 2 in at seven hundred million or approximately sixteen 3 million dollars under budget. 4 With a list of -- below that, we have a 5 list of accomplishments, probably the biggest one 6 being we believe that since we started these efforts 7 we've eliminated based on backups and overflows by 8 about two thirds, so we have had quite a gain in the 9 response of the system of rain events. 10 Proposed wastewater rates. I'm on 11 slide seven. MSD Project Clear is what we're using 12 to address the wastewater issue. It's driven by 13 regulatory requirements. 14 There's three things we're doing. One 15 is getting the rain out. When it is not raining, 16 MSD's wastewater system, all the waste is kept in 17 the pipes and all of the waste goes to the plants, 18 gets treated and properly discharged. 19 The only time we have issues is when we 20 have a pipe collapse, it's identified late in the 21 process or somebody flushes enough grease down the 22 system or roots that will cause a blockage in the 23 system. Outside of those, all the water gets to the 24 wastewater system. 25 The problem we have is when it rains. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 14 1 When it rains, stormwater, either too much or 2 stormwater that's not supposed to be in the system 3 gets in the system, uses up the capacity, causes 4 overflows to the environment or basement backups. 5 The cheapest way to take care of those 6 overflows caused by that is to keep the rain water 7 from getting in in the first place. That's the 8 majority of MSD's program. It's four to five times 9 cheaper to do that than to increase the size of the 10 system to accept all the overflows. 11 Also, we do have a comprehensive 12 program to repair and maintain the system to make 13 sure we maintain its integrity, and there are a few 14 places where we'll build system improvements because 15 it's most cost effective to address all our issues. 16 We're looking to -- what we submitted, 17 we believe we're looking to maintain the financial 18 stability and financial -- build projects in a 19 financially responsible manner. We're doing that 20 based on proposals to -- based on the parameters 21 that we know of as maintaining a Double A bond 22 rating for MSD. That's -- that's what we proposed. 23 We take a look over an eight year period, and that 24 information is completed -- included in the Rate 25 Proposal. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 15 1 Currently, MSD has a Triple A bond 2 rating of Standard & Poor's and a Double A1 and 3 Double A Plus with Fitch & Moody's. We're looking 4 to maintain the Double A bond rating. That is 5 pretty much the standard in the wastewater industry. 6 The next slide on slide eight. What is 7 in this Rate Proposal? One is the start of 1.5 8 billion dollars worth of capital work over the next 9 four years. Coming in four years, as shown on the 10 chart, seven hundred and thirty-six million dollars 11 in operation and maintenance costs, and assuming an 12 approval of bond authorization for the next four 13 years, four hundred and seventy-seven million of 14 debt service. 15 How will the debt be used? Right now 16 to fund the 1.5 billion dollar Capital Program, 17 where we are proposing four hundred and fifty 18 million -- 15 million dollars in cash financing, 19 total bond financing will be 1.1 billion dollars. 20 That would consist of two hundred million dollars of 21 bond authorization that's remaining from the current 22 rate cycle, and assuming the proposer -- voter 23 approval of nine hundred million dollars in 24 additional bond authority. 25 That would bring our total debt PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 16 1 authorization if that's approved to 2.62 billion 2 dollars. All bond monies are spent on capital 3 improvements, they are not used for operating costs. 4 Let's go to slide 11. This is a list 5 of the projects that are going to get done. Each 6 dot is a project. If you looked on a Rate Proposal, 7 within each one of those dots there is a number and 8 then inside our rate propose is a list of what those 9 projects are, what problem they resolve, how much 10 they cost and when they are going to get done. 11 For members of the public that's here, 12 after we're done with this presentation, we actually 13 have copies of those maps over here in the corner, 14 along with the spread sheets if anybody is 15 interested in the individual projects. 16 Let's go to slide 13. This is a 17 summation of the two options that we are proposing 18 that we have placed before the voters. 19 The first one on the left is what 20 happens with rates assuming the voters grant us 21 additional bonding authorization. If you go down 22 the list, this is assuming an additional nine 23 hundred million dollar bond authorization. We will 24 start 1.5 billion dollars worth of capital work over 25 the next four year period. And you'll see the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 17 1 impact on the average single family wastewater sewer 2 bill. 3 Currently, as of July, 1 the average 4 family is paying $40.72 a month. With bonding, that 5 would go up to about $60.82, or about a 50 percent 6 increase over the next four years. 7 That still places us somewhere in the 8 middle of cities nationally. They are paying 9 anywhere between 25 and a $135.00 a month for 10 wastewater service. 11 The voters will have to decide whether 12 or not to grant that authorization. There is a 13 possibility, and that's represented on the right 14 column, if voters don't authorizes bonding. If they 15 don't, and you have zero additional bonding, then 16 all 1.5 billion dollars of wastewater Capital 17 Program will be -- still have to be billed, but 18 we'll use cash as well as the remaining two hundred 19 million dollars of bond authorization to do that. 20 And below is the that chart reflects 21 what happens to the average single family wastewater 22 sewer bill. Again, fiscal '16, $40.72. You'll find 23 fiscal '17 under both scenarios is the same because 24 we're using the remaining two hundred million 25 dollars of bond authorization; and after that, by PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 18 1 fiscal '20, the rates will go up to $96.00 per 2 month. 3 Stormwater, and let's go to page 16. 4 There we go. 5 Stormwater, MSD services are different 6 throughout the District and are different depending 7 on where you live. It's based on the amount you 8 pay. 9 So if you take a look at this map, the 10 pink area is the area primarily outside of 270. It 11 represents the area that was annexed by MSD in 1977. 12 If you live in that area now -- I'm 13 switching to stormwater now. So I'm going to talk 14 about what the existing stormwater revenues look 15 like. 16 So for stormwater, if you live in that 17 red area, you pay a twenty-four cent per month fee. 18 If you have wastewater service, add a two cent 19 property tax. So based on the average resident, if 20 you live in the red area, you pay MSD $8.00 a year 21 for stormwater service. 22 And the service you receive is us -- 23 allowing us to meet all the regulatory requirements 24 regarding stormwater quality, as well as any kind of 25 emergency service, as well as data collection. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 19 1 There is no operation of maintenance to the public 2 storm sewer system, and there are no, to my 3 knowledge, any projects to resolve issues such as 4 flooding or erosion. 5 If you live in the yellow area, which 6 is the City of St. Louis and primarily the near 7 North, West, and South County adjacent to the city, 8 you pay a twenty-four cent per month fee on your 9 wastewater bill, two cent property tax, and a seven 10 cent property tax. The average customer -- for the 11 average customer, that relates to $26.00 per year 12 for stormwater service. 13 If you're in that area, we're able to 14 maintain -- take care of all the regulatory issues, 15 data collection, emergency response, and we do a 16 pretty good job of maintaining the public storm 17 sewer system in that area. A little bit lacking, 18 but we do a pretty good job of keeping up. There 19 are no monies to resolve other stormwater issues, 20 such as flooding or erosion. 21 If you live in the green area, you pay 22 a twenty-four cent per month -- and this is the area 23 between that yellow area near the city and our 24 original boundaries near 270. 25 If you're in that area, you pay a PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 20 1 twenty-four cent per month fee on your wastewater 2 bill, two cent property tax, seven cent property 3 tax, and another property tax up to ten cents. 4 With those revenues, we're able to 5 maintain all the regulatory requirements, do data 6 collection, emergency response, operate and maintain 7 the public storm sewer system in that area, as well 8 as we do have monies to do capital work. 9 And so if you ever hear of MSD 10 resolving flooding issues or MSD resolving erosion 11 issues, it is projects that are in that green area, 12 where we have funding available to do those 13 activities. 14 So 17, let's just go to the next page. 15 Now, if you notice what I mentioned 16 previously, the two cent property tax is paid 17 District-wide. That two cent property tax currently 18 meets all our local, state and federal stormwater 19 regulations, its plan review and permitting, billing 20 to meet our area's storm -- MS-4 stormwater permit, 21 meet all those requirements, complaint 22 investigation, and emergency response. 23 That is currently sufficiently funded 24 to maintain those operations on an annual basis. 25 MSD is not proposing any change on the regulatory PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 21 1 side. 2 What does that look like? In this next 3 map, what we've done is we've taken the yellow and 4 green areas the District -- original District and 5 made them gray. Everything outside of that was what 6 was the red area on the previous maps. This is a 7 representation of what the two cent property tax 8 pays for in the red area. 9 Those blue lines you see on the map is 10 1154 miles of creeks. The green dots are 22 -- 11 2,638 Best Management Practices. These are basins 12 or rain guards used to take care of volume or water 13 quality issues in the area. 14 All the work here is currently funded 15 in those creeks. We do sampling. We are required 16 to monitor and address issues having to do with 17 water quality caused by stormwater runoff in those 18 areas, and we're also -- then we police all the Best 19 Management Practices, such as basins and rain guards 20 to make sure they're properly operating as 21 originally designed and constructed. All that is 22 currently funded through the two cent. 23 The next map is a representation of the 24 part of the system that is not currently funded, 25 part of our service that's not funded, and it is the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 22 1 main reason -- it is the driver why MSD is seeking a 2 ten cent stormwater tax for the main -- Operation 3 and Maintenance of the public storm sewer system. 4 Every one of the dark lines you see there is part of 5 the public storm sewer system's 1363 miles worth of 6 sewer out there. 7 Operation and Maintenance of that sewer 8 is not currently funded. There is no regular 9 operation and maintenance. There's no monies to do 10 any kind of Operation and Maintenance for that. 11 There's two things we're looking to 12 resolve. One, we want to provide a funding source 13 so we can operate and maintain that public storm 14 sewer system. The lines you see out there represent 15 approximately one half of our public storm sewer 16 system. 17 In addition, anybody who lives in that 18 red area is not paying anything for the Operation 19 and Maintenance of the public storm system 20 throughout our area. That public storm sewer 21 system's primary service is to provide drainage off 22 local roads and streets. So if you drove here 23 today, you -- you benefited from MSD's public storm 24 sewers infrastructure in this area. 25 So we're looking to find a way to also PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 23 1 have those folks participate in the cost of the 2 stormwater -- the public stormwater system that's 3 located in District 1. 4 Let's go to 21. Yeah. 5 What will come out of our proposal is 6 approximately ninety million dollars of Operation 7 and Maintenance costs over the four year period from 8 2017 to 2020, and approximately a hundred million 9 dollars worth of capital work starting in the fiscal 10 year that just ended through 2020. 11 Again, what's driving our proposal is 12 the maintenance of the public storm sewer system 13 District-wide. We think that is the primary issue 14 we have, it affects most of our customers, the fact 15 that we're not able to maintain that system. 16 23. 17 Operation and Maintenance costs fiscal 18 '16. Our Operation and Maintenance costs primarily 19 for the public storm sewer system is about sixteen 20 million dollars per year. We're projecting that if 21 we double the size of the area that we have to 22 maintain, those costs go up to about twenty-two or 23 twenty-three million dollars a year, slightly less 24 than 50 percent increase. 25 Due to the economy, the scale, because PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 24 1 we're doubling the amount of the system we have to 2 operate and maintain doesn't mean we double our 3 costs. Our costs go up just a little under 50 4 percent in order to maintain the entire public storm 5 sewer system. 6 Next slide. 7 This also results in us being able to 8 do some projects. I'm going to start at the top of 9 the slide with the green area. We've identified 64 10 projects to be completed with approximately 11 twenty-five million dollars. These projects are 12 being funded from that extra OMCI tax, up to ten 13 cent tax that's being paid by folks in the green 14 area. 15 Probably we would have done all these 16 projects regardless of whether or not our proposal 17 was approved. Some of that OMCI money did have to 18 go towards Operation and Maintenance of the public 19 storm sewer system, so if not approved, we would do 20 slightly fewer projects, but most of those projects 21 would get done anyway as is our current practice. 22 If you look in the yellow area, we've 23 identified 47 projects for approximately seventeen 24 and a half billion dollars. Half those projects are 25 in the City of St. Louis, half of those in the near PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 25 1 North, West, and South County. 2 The ability to do these projects comes 3 from us being able to make an accounting chain of 4 the way we use the dollars. By putting in the ten 5 cent wide tax in order to pay for the Operation and 6 Maintenance public storm sewer system, we have some 7 balances that are remaining from the fund in that 8 area. We're able to use those funds to build 9 capital work. 10 So there's a seventeen and a half 11 million dollar balance in those funds. Once spent, 12 they're gone. There are no other dollars, but it 13 does allow us to take care of some of the large 14 issues in the yellow area. 15 And then finally in the red area, we've 16 identified 60 projects that costs about seven and a 17 half million dollars. This comes from whatever 18 balance is available on an annual basis from the new 19 ten cent tax that doesn't directly go towards 20 operation and maintenance of the public storm sewer 21 system. 22 Our proposal right now indicates that 23 just under nine cents would be getting -- would be 24 used for the Operation and Maintenance of the 25 system, but we want to make a commitment as to what PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 26 1 would happen with the balance of those dollars. 2 Right now, what they would go towards 3 is capital work in the red area, seven and a half 4 million dollars. The reason -- and then for this 5 four year cycle only, all those dollars are just 6 spent in the red area. The reason for that, MSD 7 prioritizes the stormwater projects it does based on 8 a cost benefit analysis. The benefit of the 9 improvement, you know, whether it's just eroding 10 part of the yard or whether it's ready to draw a 11 garage down into the creek, that's an example of the 12 priority difference, divided by the cost. 13 So we do that cost benefit analysis and 14 the one that had the highest priority, we simply do 15 those first. So once you take into account the 16 monies spent in the green and yellow area for 17 capital projects, the highest remaining priority for 18 the next four years is in the red area, therefore 19 all the additional funding gets spent in that red 20 area. 21 The next chart is a list of what 22 happens to all the current funding sources. There 23 we go. 24 I mentioned the ten cent OMCI tax, MSD 25 is proposing to set that rate at zero for the next PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 27 1 four years. We will no longer collect that tax. 2 The stormwater O&M tax, which is in the 3 yellow area, as well as the green area, that was 4 applied to the operation and maintenance of the 5 public storm sewer system, it will go away. It 6 would be replaced by the ten cent District-wide tax. 7 The two cent District-wide property tax 8 would remain in place, that pays for our regulatory 9 obligations, that's currently sufficiently funded, 10 and we're not proposing to make any changes in that. 11 And then finally, it would all be 12 replaced by a ten cent District-wide property tax 13 for the Operation and Maintenance of the public 14 storm sewer system. 15 Also, there is a twenty-four cent fee. 16 This is a monthly charge for all the wastewater 17 customers for stormwater that was voted in by the 18 residents for our District in 1987. That will also 19 be -- go away and be replaced by the proposed ten 20 cent property tax. 21 Impact to all the individual customers 22 in the proposed changes are equalized services 23 throughout the District. 24 We'll start first with the green area. 25 Based on an average property value of $184,500.00 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 28 1 for those in the green area, they're currently 2 paying about $60.00 per year. This proposal would 3 lower their annual property tax load to the District 4 by $20.00, bring it to about $40.00 per year, while 5 maintaining the same service level over the next 6 four years. 7 Their change in their total property 8 tax bill would be a decrease of one half of one 9 percent. MSD is a very small tax -- very small 10 portion of the property tax bill, so even though 11 we're decreasing the burden by one third, it's still 12 a very small impact on the overall property tax 13 bill. 14 The next map, those folks who live in 15 the yellow area, currently paying the two cent and 16 seven cent tax, the average property value in that 17 area is $70,800.00. Right now they're paying us 18 approximately $12.50 per year for stormwater 19 services on their annual property tax bill. With 20 our proposal, that would go up approximately $3.60, 21 so the average customer would be paying $16.10 per 22 year for the -- for stormwater services. 23 And they would see an increase in 24 services, complete Operation and Maintenance of the 25 public storm sewer system, as well as the seventeen PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 29 1 million dollars worth of projects I identified 2 earlier. 3 Change in their overall property tax 4 bill is an increase of three tenths of one percent, 5 or an increase of $3.00 for every thousand dollars 6 of taxes currently paid. 7 Finally, the change in the red area. 8 Remember, these folks were paying a small amount to 9 begin with and we're looking to extend services so 10 we can fund the public storm sewer system in this 11 area. 12 Currently, they're paying two cent tax 13 based on an average valuation of $266,700.00 per 14 property. Folks in that area are paying us just 15 over about $10.50 per year for stormwater services. 16 Our proposal is to raise that to $50.00 per year 17 resulting in an average burden of $60.00 per year on 18 your annual property tax bill to pay for stormwater 19 services. 20 That would be a change in the overall 21 property tax bill of approximately 1.2 percent, and 22 for this we would keep -- continue doing the 23 regulatory work but we would now be able to operate 24 and maintain the public storm sewer system in this 25 area, and at least up front, be able to do some PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 30 1 capital projects to address erosion and flooding in 2 the red area. 3 Let's go to slide 30. 4 This is a summation of the overall 5 impact to customers for MSD. We've rolled the 6 annual wastewater and stormwater costs in two 7 columns. 8 The one on the left is assuming the 9 voters approve nine hundred million dollars in 10 additional bond authorization. Fiscal '16, the 11 average customer pays MSD $522.00 a year for all 12 services that MSD provides. 13 If this proposal goes into place, along 14 with nine hundred million dollars bond 15 authorization, in 2020 the average customer will pay 16 MSD $770.00 per year annually for all services that 17 MSD provides. 18 The right-hand side is assuming the 19 ratepayers do not approve nine hundred million 20 dollars worth of bonding. Again, $522.00 per year 21 for all services. That's what currently exists. By 22 2020, because we're using cash instead of bonding to 23 pay for the Capital Program, by 2020 the average 24 annual cost for an individual living in the District 25 for all the services that MSD provides is PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 31 1 approximately $1200.00 per year. 2 The next chart is just showing the 3 impact on low income customers. I'm not going to 4 spend a lot of time on this, but on the wastewater 5 side low income individuals pay one half of the rate 6 that everybody else does, so if you compare this 7 chart to the previous chart, you'll find that the 8 average annual cost for low income customers will be 9 approximately one half of what everyone else is 10 paying from the previous chart. 11 The balance of the rate process, we're 12 in the middle of the Rate Commission process right 13 now, the Rate Commission's recommendations are due 14 to our Board of Trustees no later than August 10, 15 2015. 16 Our Board of Trustees, between October 17 and December, will kind of go through the same 18 considerations the Rate Commission is doing. They 19 will take the Rate Commission's recommendations and 20 run them through the same process and do the same 21 kind of valuation you are doing with our proposal, 22 and they will then come up with a plan. 23 After that plan, invariably there will 24 be two votes that will be required. One of those 25 will be for wastewater. And somewhere in 2016 we'll PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 32 1 ask the residents do you want us to approve an 2 additional nine hundred million dollars of bonding 3 authority for MSD to do wastewater capital 4 improvements. 5 If you say yes, your rate will go from 6 $40.00 a year approximately to about 60 -- $40.00 a 7 month to approximately $60.00 per month. If you 8 vote no, your rate will go from currently about 9 $40.00 a month to $96.00 per month. 10 It will be a decision that folks have 11 to make similar to any other kind of loan, if they 12 agree on additional bonding authority, they are 13 voting to keep rates lower now. For every dollar 14 they borrow though, they do have to pay $2.00 back 15 some time in the future. Or if they vote no, 16 they'll decide hey, we want -- we're going -- we're 17 okay with going ahead and absorbing a larger 18 increase now knowing that we won't have the debt 19 burden to pay back in the future. 20 That will be a decision the ratepayers 21 have to make. 22 There will be a second election some 23 time in 2016 that will have to do with stormwater. 24 It will be fairly simple. It will be a request to 25 put the ten cent property tax in and do away with PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 33 1 the twenty-four cent charge and the seven cent 2 property tax. 3 If they approve -- if they approve 4 that, we would have the new program you saw of 5 District-wide operation and maintenance of public 6 storm sewer system, as well as the resulting capital 7 projects that are being constructed over the next 8 four years. 9 If they say no, we will simply maintain 10 the current system, where the value or the amount of 11 service you attain is based on the amount you have 12 to pay. That's that red/yellow/green map, the 13 different levels of payment and levels of services. 14 Later on, I think the Chairman is going 15 to ask for any comments from the public. They can 16 give them here. We also have some addresses here or 17 locations you can submit comments for consideration 18 by the Rate Commission at a later date. 19 Mr. Chairman, that is the end of the 20 presentation. 21 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Hoelscher. 22 We do have a member of the public here 23 present to make a presentation, so Robert Sabatino, 24 you may -- there's a microphone there and a chair 25 for you, so please have a seat -- PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 34 1 MR. SABATINO: Can I use your easel? 2 MR. TOENJES: You may use whatever you 3 care to use, yes, sir. 4 MR. SABATINO: I have pictures with me, 5 I don't know if it's better to put them this way. 6 MR. TOENJES: Why don't you put them so 7 the Rate Commissioners can see them. 8 MR. SABATINO: Like that? 9 MR. TOENJES: Yeah. 10 MR. SABATINO: Cool. 11 MR. ARNOLD: I have two hands if you 12 want me to hold them. 13 MR. SABATINO: You want to hold them? 14 MR. TOENJES: This is fine. Why don't 15 we just pass -- 16 MR. SABATINO: Pass them around? 17 MR. TOENJES: Yeah, let's do that. 18 MR. SABATINO: Should I start off by 19 stating my name is Robert Sabatino. I live at 4328 20 Theiss Road in South County. I've lived there since 21 1974, have seen a lot of changes, also have seen a 22 lot of rate increases. By leaps and bounds, I must 23 say. Never seen utility rates go up as much as 24 MSD's in my life by any other utility. 25 But some words come to mind. Global PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 35 1 warming. The rains of Biblical proportions, which I 2 think we're all seeing worldwide. It's not 3 fictitious, it's a fact. It's happening everywhere. 4 And I don't blame MSD for any of it. 5 I'm not here to slam them. As a matter of fact, I'm 6 here to compliment them on the great work they've 7 done in the past. 8 But it's just -- the amount of flooding 9 that's going around, and I've talked to people from 10 Oakville, South County, Arnold, which I know doesn't 11 affect MSD, but just St. Louis in particular is 12 getting slammed. 13 On the news two nights ago, I think we 14 all saw at Texas -- and I have a picture of Texas 15 and Cherokee Street there, and we also saw a geyser 16 actually coming out of the street 20 feet high. I 17 don't know if everybody had the opportunity to see 18 that, but it's all from stormwater. 19 Naturally, the pipes can't handle it, 20 and like I said, storms and rains of inches and many 21 inches of rain cause things like that. And unless 22 you're there at the time it's occurring, you don't 23 know it's happening. Much like my back yard. 24 But there -- your cure now was welding 25 the grate shut and I took a picture of that. It's PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 36 1 not naturally going to fix anything, it may prevent 2 that grate from slamming into someone causing them 3 harm, but it's not a fix for the problem. Also, it 4 relates to my street. There's a sign that says 5 flooding occurs during heavy rains. 6 Well, this could be prevented a very 7 lot by MSD being able to accept the responsibility 8 of cleaning the creek. And I've only gotten them to 9 come out one time since 1974 to clean the channel in 10 the creek behind my house. 11 You can see in that creek there's more 12 concrete in it from people dumping, you know, which 13 may -- it may incur a fine for the person who's 14 dumping it, and it may get some tax money for the 15 county, but absolutely does nothing for cleaning the 16 creek. That creek is so full of concrete that it 17 outnumbers the stones and rocks that are in it. 18 You know, putting a sign up where a 19 road floods -- also in those pictures, there are 20 pictures of Theiss Road flooded. 21 When the creek comes up into my yard, 22 which yes, I confess I live in a flood plain, when 23 it comes up in my yard and gets into my yard like 20 24 feet or so, it's already on Theiss Road. I have to 25 call the third precinct to send the police out to PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 37 1 stop traffic because a couple of times we've had 2 cars float away. 3 And years ago, before I got them to 4 come out to clean the creek, they said well, we 5 don't have enough money to clean the creek because 6 you're only paying that twenty-four cents. 7 And I think you said from 1987 -- 8 MR. HOELSCHER: Yes. 9 MR. SABATINO: But there was years -- 10 not since then, there was years, like I think it 11 changed from twenty-four cents to the area of 12 roof -- the roof that you had on your house, your 13 asphalt or concrete in your yard, and they were 14 charging -- the twenty-four cent fee stopped, and 15 then we were paying dollars. My particular amount 16 was like $6.00 on my bill every month. 17 And I'm just wondering how many years 18 did you collect, and it wasn't something that we 19 voted on either, it was because they made you stop 20 collecting that money in that particular amount. 21 How many years did you collect that 22 amount of money? 23 MR. HOELSCHER: I believe it was about 24 nine months. 25 MR. SABATINO: Nine months? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 38 1 MR. HOELSCHER: Yes, it was right -- a 2 little less than a year, I believe. 3 MR. SABATINO: Oh, I can't agree with 4 that. Do you know how much money you gathered in 5 that timeframe? 6 MR. HOELSCHER: Yeah, I don't have that 7 information with me. I don't recall the exact 8 amount. 9 MR. SABATINO: Okay. That's like 10 pleading the Fifth. But anyway, what they told me 11 was they didn't have the money for it. In the 12 amount of time that we citizens, all of us, paid 13 that extra amount of money, I know they have enough 14 money accumulated to clean my creek, which could 15 possibly save people's lives. And there's pictures 16 of deer on there. If you don't -- if you don't care 17 about people's lives, save the deer. 18 I'm just saying we're in a situation 19 right now where the amount of rain we're getting is 20 just crazy. We've never seen these amounts of rain. 21 When Hurricane Ike hit in 2008 -- 22 that's what some of those pictures are that are 23 dated 2008. A tropical depression, we never heard 24 of it in St. Louis, I don't think, until then. And 25 then that same storm went up to Chicago. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 39 1 So these are times when -- when we're 2 seeing the most detrimental amounts of rain that 3 could possibly devastate people's lives. It's not 4 to be taken lightly. 5 I don't blame MSD for any of this, you 6 know, this is something that's just happening 7 natural. But I'm saying we could prevent a lot of 8 South County -- and these are people who live around 9 me who have all been talking about it, how dangerous 10 our road is. We could prevent this if MSD would 11 man-up, accept responsibility, and clean our creek. 12 Like I said, there's more concrete in 13 our creek than there is rocks. It's just crazy. 14 And the channel is so narrow -- and I could also 15 state this, I don't know how many square miles of 16 water runoff go passed my creek into those three box 17 culverts that go underneath Highway 55, but I know 18 it starts at Gravois and Lindbergh -- and this is 19 the old Fee Fee area, and I know it's probably more 20 than 20 square miles of runoff. 21 When 270, they got rid of the median in 22 the middle, which was grass, which absorbed the 23 rain -- well, there's another lane. That got rid of 24 that. That made a problem a lot worse than it is 25 now -- then. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 40 1 My big thing is let's make it safe, you 2 know. I know down there at Cherokee and Texas, you 3 can't do anything about it because the pipes 4 probably are not big enough to handle what they did. 5 I know -- I'm not talking about 6 stormwater right now, but in '93 I granted MSD the 7 right to come through my yard. They -- they 8 maintained a line for so long, it was 18 inch in 9 diameter, well they came and put a 36 inch line and 10 tunneled underneath 55, and I gave them, like I 11 said, permission to do that in my yard. Naturally, 12 it was for the benefit of everybody around us for 13 not stormwater, for the wastewater. 14 But even then, '93, you know how 15 flooding was then. It was terrible. And some of 16 their equipment even floated away that was in my 17 back yard when MSD was there. 18 It's -- it's just a problem. We need 19 to address it. And I hope -- and I don't think that 20 twenty-four cents was gathered up -- either I think 21 there was years where they gathered more money than 22 they needed to, which I don't know if it was done 23 legally or not, but the thing is we've got the money 24 to clean this stuff up, you know, we can do 25 something about it. We need to. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 41 1 You know, people probably wouldn't mind 2 paying a little extra on their stormwater if they 3 were not threatened so often of getting flooded or 4 their cars floating away driving down the street. 5 That's about it. Got any questions? 6 MR. HOELSCHER: I think, Mr. Chair, I 7 can correct some information I gave earlier -- 8 MR. TOENJES: Please do. 9 MR. HOELSCHER: -- that the gentleman 10 asked. 11 So the impervious fee that was approved 12 by the Rate Commission and the Board of Trustees 13 went into place, we collected for approximately two 14 years. Collected a total of eighty million dollars. 15 MR. SABATINO: Eighty million? 16 MR. HOELSCHER: And prior to the -- 17 prior to the ruling from the Missouri Supreme Court, 18 all of that money had been appropriated and spent on 19 Operation and Maintenance in District-wide capital 20 projects until we were told to stop collecting, and 21 so all that money had been spent during that two 22 year period as promised. 23 MR. SABATINO: So the monies -- the 24 monies acquired for stormwater were not, you know, 25 spent for stormwater? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 42 1 MR. HOELSCHER: They were for 2 stormwater District-wide and those monies during 3 that two year period was spent. 4 MR. SABATINO: Wasn't it true that most 5 stormwater systems were put in by private entities? 6 MR. HOELSCHER: Most of them are put in 7 by private entities under our rules and regulations. 8 MR. SABATINO: Right. 9 MR. HOELSCHER: Then once constructed, 10 they become MSD storm sewers. 11 MR. SABATINO: Right. 12 MR. HOELSCHER: For operation and 13 maintenance. 14 MR. SABATINO: Right. So as far as 15 maintaining, it's just keeping the lines open, 16 correct? 17 MR. HOELSCHER: Operation and 18 Maintenance would consist of keeping them open, they 19 deteriorate and those pipes collapse, joints open up 20 causing sink holes. Those are examples. Tree roots 21 will block storm sewers. Probably the biggest issue 22 we have out in your kind of area is some -- a lot of 23 storm sewers were built with corrugated metal pipe. 24 Those are reaching the end of their lives. They've 25 corroded, the top has corroded, we've seen PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 43 1 collapses. I think one was on TV a few nights ago. 2 Those are the types of problems we have 3 with the operation and maintenance of the public 4 storm sewer system. Your area isn't currently 5 funded, the operation and maintenance of that 6 system, I kind of explained during the presentation. 7 MR. SABATINO: In our area, we don't 8 have any storm sewers, you know, and I -- when they 9 first implemented that stormwater charge, I said I 10 don't have any storm -- I don't have any storm 11 sewers. I have a creek behind my house. 12 Well, yeah, but you drive on our 13 streets they said. Well, yeah. Well, so what? 14 With them millions of dollars, the money that you 15 guys collected illegally, I think we need to address 16 my creek. I really do. To make things safe down 17 there in South County. 18 That's one thing that could be done and 19 needs to be done. You can even see sewer pipe in 20 those pictures from when they replaced that 18 inch 21 sewer pipe and left debris. 22 I walked down in the creek and took 23 those pictures yesterday. Those pipes and debris 24 are still down there from 1993 when you guys came 25 through my yard and, like I said, I gave you PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 44 1 permission to do that. 2 You know, it's not just people who are 3 dumping, MSD is a little guilty too. You know, 4 maybe I throw something biodegradable in the creek, 5 but I don't throw anything like chunks of concrete. 6 So let's -- let's work together on this, kids. We 7 need to clean this creek. We need to address this 8 issue. 9 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Sabatino, I 10 appreciate your comments. Thank you so much for 11 taking your time to be here this morning and helping 12 us understand the issues that we're dealing with. I 13 truly appreciate it. 14 MR. SABATINO: Thank you. 15 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. 16 Now, we will proceed to the procedural 17 and evidentiary aspects of this public hearing 18 session. Who is here on behalf of the Metropolitan 19 St. Louis Sewer District? 20 MS. MYERS: Susan Myers. 21 MR. TOENJES: Who is here on behalf of 22 the Intervenor The Home Builders Association of St. 23 Louis and Eastern Missouri? 24 MR. BURKHART: Nick Burkhart. 25 MR. TOENJES: Who is here on behalf of PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 45 1 the Intervenor Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers? 2 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Brandon Neuschafer. 3 MR. TOENJES: Also present are John Fox 4 Arnold and Lisa O. Stump of Lashly and Baer who are 5 serving as legal counsel to the Rate Commission. 6 Are there any procedural matters that 7 need to be addressed? 8 Mr. Arnold? 9 MR. ARNOLD: Is the power point 10 presentation which Mr. Hoelscher went through an 11 exhibit in this proceeding? 12 MR. HOELSCHER: We're checking. 13 MS. MYERS: It currently is not an 14 exhibit. 15 MR. ARNOLD: May I request it be 16 assigned an exhibit number and put in the record? 17 MR. TOENJES: Yes. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, sir. 19 MR. TOENJES: Do we have an exhibit 20 number for that? 21 MS. MYERS: It will be Exhibit MSD 140. 22 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. Miss Stump. 23 MS. STUMP: Mr. Chair, there's two 24 other items that I would request have exhibit 25 numbers. The Rate Commission, as you heard Mr. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 46 1 Hoelscher comment, we did ask for comments to be 2 submitted by email or otherwise from the public. 3 There were two emails received directed 4 towards the Rate Commission commenting on the rate 5 increase, and I would ask that they be put into the 6 record also. 7 MS. MYERS: The numbers will be Rate 8 Commission 141 and Rate Commission 142. Lisa, you 9 want to identify which email will be which. 10 MS. STUMP: We'll put the email from 11 Mr. Poeling, P-O-E-L-I-N-G, as 141, and the email 12 from Mr. Strodtman as email -- as number 142. 13 MR. TOENJES: Are there any other 14 procedural matters at this time? 15 MS. MYERS: Yes, I have one. Per the 16 Rate Commission's direction provided on June 26th, 17 the District filed Exhibit MSD 139 on July 9th as a 18 response to evidence that had been admitted to the 19 record after June 22nd. So I just wanted to ask 20 that Exhibit 139 be accepted as part of the record. 21 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. It will be 22 done. It is done. 23 Any further procedural issues? 24 (No response.) 25 MR. TOENJES: On July 9th, 2015, the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 47 1 District transmitted a proposed list of exhibits to 2 the participants. Is the District prepared to 3 present that list to the members of the Rate 4 Commission? 5 MS. MYERS: Yes, we are. 6 MR. TOENJES: Does any participant wish 7 to add any additional exhibits? 8 (No response.) 9 MS. MYERS: Okay. That final exhibit 10 list will be made available later today on the 11 website and sent out to everyone. 12 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. Are there any 13 additional exhibits? 14 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I do have one 15 question, I assume the transcript today will be 16 assigned an exhibit number as well. 17 MS. MYERS: Yes, it will. 18 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Okay. 19 MR. TOENJES: All the documents 20 identified on the exhibit list then will be and are 21 admitted into evidence in this rate case proceeding 22 with the addition of the transcript of today's 23 meeting. 24 The District, each Intervenor and legal 25 counsel to the Rate Commission shall each present PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 48 1 closing statements. After each closing statement, 2 the members of the Rate Commission will have the 3 opportunity to ask questions. 4 I think I would remind the Rate 5 Commissioners that this will be our final 6 opportunity to ask questions of the District and the 7 Intervenors. 8 Is the District ready to present its 9 closing statement? 10 MS. MYERS: Yes, we are. 11 MR. TOENJES: Please proceed. 12 MS. MYERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 13 Good morning, Commission. My name is 14 Susan Myers and I'm the general counsel here at MSD. 15 On behalf of the District, I would like to thank 16 each and everyone of you for participating in this 17 rate setting process. 18 As I begin the District's closing 19 statement, I would like to remind you that the task 20 before you is to determine if the District's Rate 21 Change Proposal submitted on February 26th, 2015, 22 complies with Section 7.270 of the MSD Charter, 23 specifically, if the Rate Proposal is fair and 24 reasonable on all classes of ratepayers. 25 Both the Stormwater Rate Change and the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 49 1 Wastewater Rate Change Proposals are fair and 2 reasonable on all classes of ratepayers. This fact 3 has been substantiated many times during these 4 proceedings by both testimony and evidence. All of 5 this information is in the record for your 6 reference. 7 MSD has spent a substantial amount of 8 time during testimony and in written responses to 9 clarify the misconceptions being made by others and 10 provide a clear path of understanding for the Rate 11 Commission as to what is being proposed during these 12 proceedings. This Rate Change Proposal is proposing 13 the District use a ten cent ad valorem tax to pay 14 for Operation and Maintenance of the public 15 stormwater sewer system and a mixture of debt and 16 PAYGO to finance our wastewater needs. 17 As you proceed with deliberations and 18 are evaluating everyone's positions on stormwater 19 financing, please keep the following in mind: 20 MSD's concerns with the recent Supreme 21 Court Ruling in Zweig versus MSD centers around 22 asking the public to vote on an impervious fee 23 similar to the fee approved by the Rate Commission 24 in 2007. 25 MSD believes that if the 2007 fee PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 50 1 method is voted on that non-profit organizations 2 will not be subject to the fee, that the fee may not 3 be tax deductible, that current state law that 4 excludes approximately 35 customers could be 5 expanded to include more customers, and there will 6 be an additional cost to implement the fee versus an 7 ad valorem tax. In 2007 that additional cost was 8 one million dollars. 9 If you take all of these factors into 10 consideration, MSD does not have a fear of how Zweig 11 affects the implementation of an impervious fee, we 12 have a concern about the increase in cost to the 13 ratepayer. All of this is important in determining 14 what is fair and reasonable. 15 As the District has previously 16 testified, the ad valorem taxes for the Operation 17 and Maintenance of the public stormwater system is 18 the correct, fair and equitable mechanism to provide 19 these services. 20 Please keep in mind that protection and 21 restoration of water quality is not part of MSD's 22 Stormwater Rate Change Proposal. The Rate Proposal 23 being considered by the Rate Commission is only for 24 the Operation and Maintenance. Water quality issues 25 related to the stormwater program are currently PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 51 1 fully funded by an existing two cent ad valorem 2 property tax. No proposed change in the rate or 3 structure of this two cent tax is being considered 4 and, therefore, has not been presented to the Rate 5 Commission for consideration. 6 MSD does not believe that it would be 7 fair and equitable for some ratepayers to pay a 8 higher portion of the cost of Operation and 9 Maintenance of the public stormwater system by 10 awarding credits for a regulatory need that does not 11 exist and is not part of the services being paid 12 for. 13 Also, there most definitely is a nexus 14 between property value and stormwater services 15 received. It is the same nexus you consider in fire 16 protection. Charges are proportional to the value 17 of the property receiving the service. 18 The Intervenors have alleged that MSD's 19 expert witness testimony is at odds with an existing 20 stormwater utility survey and the founder of 21 Raftelis. This is not accurate. 22 The survey reference included 23 stormwater systems that are an enterprise fund based 24 operation of a municipality. It did not include the 25 majority of stormwater systems across the United PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 52 1 States that are funded through the taxing authority 2 of a government entity. 3 The Intervenors do not recognize the 4 difference between the services being proposed now 5 and those proposed in 2007. 6 Keep in mind, as suggested by the 7 Intervenors, MSD can implement a different type of 8 impervious fee method. That would be greatly 9 reduced by the one million dollars per year cost. 10 If you assume the best case scenario, 11 that there is no difference in cost in managing a 12 tax system versus an impervious method, the MSD 13 customers would still pay thirty-six percent more to 14 fund an impervious method of financing. MSD does 15 not think this is fair and equitable when we are 16 only funding Operation and Maintenance. An 17 impervious method may prove to be more fair and 18 equitable when funding of capital or regulatory work 19 is considered. 20 When considering credits to the 21 stormwater program, MSD has accurately testified 22 that if a credit was applied, it would not change 23 how much it cost MSD to perform the necessary 24 Operation and Maintenance of the public stormwater 25 system. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 53 1 MSD will never recommend that a new 2 development receive a credit for meeting regulatory 3 requirements that mitigate peek stormwater runoff 4 and the impact of stormwater pollutant runoff caused 5 by those redevelopments. 6 Secondly, the Intervenors claim that 7 credits are appropriate because they will enhance 8 the District's ability to provide service and reduce 9 costs, yet they have not provided any evidence of 10 what that enhancement would be or what costs would 11 be saved. 12 Regarding the information and documents 13 provided, MSD believes that it is extremely 14 important that the Rate Commission keep in mind what 15 service is being provided for in the proposed 16 Stormwater Rate Change Proposal. It is the 17 Operation and Maintenance of the public stormwater 18 system. 19 We also strongly urge the Rate 20 Commission to consider how a credit program, such as 21 proposed by the Intervenors with no relation to the 22 service being provided would result in a system that 23 is fair and reasonable for all classes of 24 ratepayers. 25 If MSD was submitting a Stormwater Rate PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 54 1 Change Proposal that addressed all of the services 2 we proposed in 2007, we did in the past and would 3 again in the future consider many of the ideas that 4 have been presented by the Intervenors, however that 5 is not the scope of services being considered in 6 this Rate Change Proposal. 7 When evaluating the District's 8 Wastewater Rate Change Proposal, please remember 9 that MSD has retained the same general methodology 10 used in the past. Our economic assumptions are 11 supported by factual data and the portions of St. 12 Louis County that are being factored in to the 13 Intervenors economic considerations are not within 14 MSD's municipal boundaries and have the fastest 15 growing population rate. 16 In conclusion, the MSD Charter does not 17 require the rate structure to be the most fair and 18 reasonable rate structure, what it does require is 19 that the rate structure being used must be fair and 20 reasonable on all classes of ratepayers. 21 All evidence and testimony provided by 22 MSD, including the expert testimony by Mr. William 23 Stannard and the policy information provided by Mr. 24 Brian Hoelscher, demonstrates that MSD's proposed 25 Stormwater Rate Change Proposal consisting of a PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 55 1 District-wide ten cent ad valorem property tax to 2 fund the Operation and Maintenance of the public 3 stormwater system, and the wastewater funding 4 methodology are both fair and reasonable on all 5 classes of ratepayers. 6 MSD believes that when considering all 7 of the information, MSD's proposal is the correct 8 one to recommend to the MSD Board of Trustees. 9 I again would like to thank you for 10 your time and efforts to put into this rate setting 11 process. The District believes we have fully 12 substantiated our Rate Proposal with sound, factual 13 evidence and testimony. The exhibits on file 14 provide detailed evidence to support the elements I 15 have just highlighted. 16 Thank you. 17 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Miss Myers. 18 Do any of the Rate Commissioners have 19 questions for Miss Myers at this point? Mr. 20 Mahanta. 21 MR. MAHANTA: Yes, I have a question 22 regarding the proposal for services presented now, 23 the Stormwater System Operation and Maintenance, 24 with the property tax to pay for it, is it to be 25 different from what is proposed under the impervious PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 56 1 system? What are the differences and why is there a 2 difference? 3 MR. HOELSCHER: In a very broad 4 category in 2007, the impervious rate was to pay for 5 all regulatory requirements, it was to pay for all 6 capital work that would address stormwater issues 7 outside of the public stormwater system -- storm 8 sewer system, and it would also pay for the 9 Operation and Maintenance of the public storm sewer 10 system. 11 The primary focus of the proposed ten 12 cent tax is just to address the Operation and 13 Maintenance of the public storm sewer system. It is 14 not to address capital work, to address issues, and 15 it's not to address regulatory issues. 16 MR. MAHANTA: Has that part been 17 addressed under a different program then? 18 MR. HOELSCHER: Yeah, the -- as we 19 explained, the two cent District-wide property tax 20 that we proposed would remain in place is currently 21 funding all of the regulatory issues, and we haven't 22 proposed a change in that. That's currently 23 sufficient to meet all our needs, we're not 24 proposing to change. 25 By the mechanics of the way the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 57 1 proposal comes through and balances left on existing 2 taxes, we're able to address to some degree 3 stormwater capital issues, such as flooding and 4 erosion District-wide. 5 And if you recall the map I showed you, 6 the red/yellow/green, again depending on where 7 you're at, but we're able to start addressing some 8 of those issues. 9 We don't -- that is not a long term 10 issue, the capital concern, it does address 11 immediately some of those. I have no doubt that at 12 some point MSD will be coming back to the Rate 13 Commission to find a way -- a different accounting 14 source, depending on the response we get from the 15 customers, our ratepayers, as to whether or not they 16 would like for us to consider additional rates or 17 additional capital work outside the work that's 18 demonstrated in the four year proposal. 19 MR. MAHANTA: Can I ask a couple of 20 other questions? 21 MR. TOENJES: Continue, yes. 22 MR. MAHANTA: This is something that 23 was raised by Mr. Sabatino today. Just for my 24 knowledge and understanding everything here that 25 were mentioned. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 58 1 First, Brian, do you know what part of 2 the red part, green part, or yellow part was Mr. 3 Sabatino talking about for the creek problems? 4 MR. HOELSCHER: Right. And if you 5 don't mind, I'll take the opportunity to discuss 6 both areas he mentioned, including the Cherokee 7 geyser that he mentioned. 8 So first of all, on the channel work, 9 he is in the red area, and MSD currently does not 10 address the -- any kind of Operation and Maintenance 11 with natural storm channels located throughout the 12 area. 13 And a lot of the flooding issues he's 14 mentioned and those kinds of things, I believe the 15 sign he mentioned is actually a county sign with 16 regard to the flooding, and I think a lot of that 17 generates from the county actually being in -- flood 18 plains throughout the area are not managed by MSD. 19 They're managed by individual municipalities and the 20 county, MSD does not have flood plain management 21 requirements. We work with them. 22 MR. TOENJES: Yeah, that was a St. 23 Louis County road sign. 24 MR. HOELSCHER: Yeah, I think it was 25 St. Louis County who put that up. So, you know, and PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 59 1 that is again part of the confusion. There's a lot 2 of overlap in authority. So it's a very difficult 3 issue to explain. 4 So I think with regard to that, in the 5 new -- I think what we do have in the proposal is 6 MSD has submitted if there are issues in creeks that 7 are going to cause significant flooding issues 8 outside of the flood plain flooding, MSD has 9 committed, once notified, to remove those. We have 10 been doing that in the past. Blockages across road 11 culverts for instance, and those types of things, 12 but we haven't taken on, or nor are we proposing to 13 take on the management of flood plains in general. 14 So that's the creek. 15 If you want to ask -- you had asked, I 16 can go to Cherokee Road. 17 MR. MAHANTA: Let me complete the creek 18 questions in my mind. 19 MR. HOELSCHER: Okay. 20 MR. MAHANTA: Okay. If we get the -- 21 or the MSD gets the rates that they're proposing 22 now, will that then allow MSD to address some 23 basins, the creek blocking and so forth? 24 MR. HOELSCHER: Right. I think if you 25 listened to what the Intervenor mentioned, and PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 60 1 again, I'm not familiar with that specific site, but 2 we've been through enough of these to know that 3 random pieces of material in a channel during rain 4 events that cause flooding to the flood plain, they 5 are not the cause of flood plain flooding, the cause 6 is flood plain flooding. It's not lack of the 7 capacity of the channel. I will give you that, but 8 I will tell you right now MSD is not proposing to 9 add that to its list of services other than the 10 major blockage issue I mentioned earlier. 11 MR. MAHANTA: I have one more question. 12 MR. TOENJES: Please. 13 MR. MAHANTA: Okay. This is about the 14 matter of privately built storm systems being handed 15 over or becoming MSD's responsibility for 16 maintenance and operation thereafter. 17 What happens if a private entity -- 18 entity's system is somehow -- what is -- what on -- 19 what happens to that system? 20 THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry, sir, I 21 can't hear you. 22 MR. MAHANTA: How does it get MSD's 23 attention or it is not MSD's problem, and that it's 24 nobody's problem any more. 25 MR. HOELSCHER: Very good question. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 61 1 And I'm addressing -- your addressing storm sewers, 2 right? 3 MR. MAHANTA: Right. 4 MR. HOELSCHER: Okay. So the way the 5 current -- and this is addressed in MSD's proposal. 6 I know the proposal is that thick, but I'll touch on 7 that piece. 8 Currently under the rules, nobody is 9 allowed to put a storm sewer system in the ground 10 without a permit from MSD. And we are required -- 11 We are allowed and in almost all cases required that 12 that be built as a public system, once completed to 13 be turned over to us. That's where we exist right 14 now. Very few things are put in private. MSD is 15 responsible for the Operation and Maintenance of all 16 of them. 17 So I think the question is does a 18 private entity build them. Almost all the storm 19 sewer systems everywhere is built by a private 20 entity, but it is built under our rules and 21 requirements, and we then take over operation and 22 maintenance. 23 One of the things we're proposing to 24 add that's not currently in our service level in 25 this proposal -- I don't have an exact page -- is we PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 62 1 are offering to those who do have private storm 2 systems -- and there are a lot of them that exist 3 and a lot of them under houses. It's not a good 4 situation. 5 But what we have offered is if folks 6 do -- if we do identify private storm sewer systems 7 that aren't currently operating, one of the service 8 levels that we put in here is to if the property 9 owners will convey title, easement title to us 10 around the existing system, we are committing under 11 the new proposal to clean the system so that it will 12 function as constructed. 13 We're not going to immediately bring it 14 up to code, but we will make sure that it operates 15 as functioned, but it will then go into the list of 16 as we're updating assets, it will -- and when its 17 turn comes up, we would then upgrade it. 18 So that's something we haven't done in 19 the past. Private storm systems have satisfied the 20 storm systems not being MSD's responsibility, we 21 have added that as a service level in this rate 22 proposal. 23 MR. MAHANTA: Thank you. 24 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Mahfood. 25 MR. MAHFOOD: Just kind of following up PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 63 1 here, maybe in a little bit more of a mercenary 2 approach. 3 In the -- in the red area, Mr. 4 Sabatino, and I don't know anything about those 5 particular issues, but I can tell you that I know, 6 you know, in that -- in the areas that are going to 7 see an increase, potential increase in their rates, 8 there are probably hundreds of small issues like 9 this all over that area which could very well affect 10 the District's ability to get this passed, whatever 11 we decide on, whatever the Board of Trustees. 12 What do you think -- what do you -- 13 what are you thinking -- is there a priority, is 14 there some template of how you're going to deal with 15 some of that, or how you will respond to that, 16 Brian? 17 Those are going to be the people that 18 are going to get up in arms no matter whether we 19 have something we all agree on as a system, you 20 know, it could really come back and that gets the 21 media attention, it's gets everybody's attention. 22 Anyway, what do you think about that? 23 I mean is there some way that you can -- that we 24 will be able to commit resources or be able to put 25 people's fears aside? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 64 1 MR. HOELSCHER: Yeah. I think I 2 touched on this in some earlier question in 3 testimony, so let me kind of go over it again. 4 I think MSD's thought process is with 5 the ruling for the Supreme Court, I think it's 6 pretty obvious that if we move forward with any kind 7 of change in stormwater funding, it's going to 8 require a vote of the people. 9 And so two things came to our mind as 10 we went through this. One, we need to make sure we 11 put in place a process where the voters as a whole 12 have an opportunity to say that's enough, that's all 13 I want to pay for. You know, they could ask us to 14 clean out their gutters I guess if they wanted, so 15 we want to put something like that in place. 16 The other part is we felt we had to put 17 out there in bite size pieces so that everybody can 18 understand the proposed change in service, and also 19 to the impact of those customers, so that was kind 20 of our thought process. 21 You're right, there are a lot of issues 22 out there. The primary one that we're addressing, 23 and quite honestly the primary issue we hear from 24 ratepayers in the red areas, the municipalities in 25 the red areas, is problems with our public storm PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 65 1 sewer system that we currently maintain. 2 Whether it's problems with inlets, 3 whether it's sink holes, with pipe, you know, I 4 didn't make that lady's pipe collapse Tuesday night 5 so you guys could see that on TV, but that's the 6 type of example of problems we have everywhere. 7 Even on a smaller scale, there's just a sink hole in 8 somebody's back yard. It is the majority of 9 problems that we see that are out there, just 10 couched around the fact that half our public's storm 11 sewer system doesn't get funding. 12 So that all landed us towards, along 13 with the way the Charter is written, certain 14 restrictions on O&M that we're proposing has the 15 largest, biggest impact on the most customers today 16 in the gross, addressing most of the issues in 17 number that we see. 18 Now, you're right, there's a lot of 19 other issues out there, and one of the ones that the 20 gentleman mentioned having to do with what do we do 21 with creeks and stuff, we did mention that it's not 22 a solution, but we felt it was important to make a 23 commitment for whatever we don't spend on O&M, 24 public storm sewer system O&M out in county, what 25 are we going to do with those monies? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 66 1 That's where some of that comes to 2 address the biggest issues that we see so far. So 3 that seven and a half million dollars is going to 4 address flooding and erosion and those types of 5 issues that we've already identified out in that red 6 area when you look at a map. It's a start to that. 7 I am -- we know what's coming. 8 Regulatory requirements on stormwater are going to 9 get bigger at some point in the future. I think as 10 we discussed earlier, we've currently been able to 11 use the idea of integrated planning to try and 12 modify -- to try and restrict those a little bit. 13 But also the question is going to come 14 up about doing more things outside of the public 15 storm sewer system. But when we say the public 16 storm sewer system, it does allow us to take care of 17 erosion caused by discharge of public storm sewer 18 system. So it's not just that, but we can address 19 some other issues. 20 Will this or any future proposal 21 address this quickly or everything that everybody 22 wants? No, it will not. But we think is it is the 23 right first step. The most important parts, the 24 part that can be understood, and it also I think 25 gives the voters a chance to say okay, that's the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 67 1 value of that service, and if they're going to vote 2 on something in the future, it kind of gives them a 3 base line to say what do I sense the value being and 4 do I believe that's worth paying for. 5 Hopefully -- it was a long speech. 6 MR. MAHFOOD: No, it wasn't long, that 7 was -- I would tell you that would be a good 8 preamble to any other discussion and that's good to 9 hear that, what you're thinking, and I think very 10 briefly a pretty good overview of what you're 11 thinking about, thinking about how you established 12 your priorities. 13 MR. HOELSCHER: Thank you. 14 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Mahfood. 15 Are there any -- yes, Mr. Jones. 16 MR. JONES: This is feedback of 17 non-profits and getting relief from, that's what I 18 want to talk about. 19 MR. TOENJES: Fee that non-profits -- 20 MR. JONES: It was at the beginning of 21 your summary. 22 MR. HOELSCHER: Oh. 23 MR. TOENJES: State law. 24 MR. HOELSCHER: State law, true. Okay. 25 MR. JONES: What was that fee? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 68 1 MR. HOELSCHER: Well, what our concern 2 is, and we mentioned this sometimes in testimony, is 3 if we vote on an impervious fee, prior -- the 4 results that came out of 2007 was that it was a rate 5 that was put in place with concurrence of this body 6 based on impervious area and we were charging 7 everyone because it's a rate, just like wastewater, 8 non-profits pay for wastewater. 9 The concern is it's not clear, and we 10 don't know where Supreme Court or anybody else would 11 go as to what is a voted on impervious something, 12 what is its current standing. In other words, is 13 it -- could one argue that it is like a tax of some 14 kind that not-for-profits would then not have to 15 pay. 16 That is, I will tell you, probably been 17 the concern of the discussions going on, I think 18 it's safe to say nationwide, amongst all the 19 municipalities. And probably the most obvious 20 example or result of that, I conveyed I think to 21 this Commission, was talking with Mr. Terry Leeds, 22 who is my equivalent in Kansas City, Kansas, who has 23 a voted on impervious fee. 24 Upon the ruling of the Supreme Court, 25 they decided to allow not-for-profits to opt out of PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 69 1 the payment of that fee. They're asking them to 2 voluntarily pay it, but the City of Kansas City is 3 asking that they be -- is allowing them to apply, 4 according to Mr. Leeds, there's some school 5 districts who immediately wanted to submit that 6 application because they didn't want to pay that 7 fee. 8 So our fear is that for a lot of the 9 right reasons that we put a fee in place for the way 10 we did the 2007, with the ruling from the Supreme 11 Court, a lot of those things go away, such as not 12 being able to charge the not-for-profits, cost of 13 the system, current legislation, state legislation, 14 that again, if you vote on a fee, it eliminates over 15 3500 people that we can still collect property tax 16 on, but we don't believe we can collect a voted on 17 impervious fee from. And, you know, could that 18 legislation continue rolling, excluding more folks. 19 So it's all wrapped around what your 20 interpretation of what the Supreme Court ruled on 21 our previous impervious fee. 22 MR. JONES: So, if the relief for 23 non-profits is an attempt to keep it legal -- 24 MR. HOELSCHER: Well, we're not sure 25 based on the -- go ahead, I think I'm going to let a PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 70 1 lawyer answer this. 2 MS. MYERS: I think our concern is, as 3 Brian has stated, we're trying to get stormwater 4 funding in place so we can store -- start operating 5 and maintaining the systems District-wide, and the 6 concern is if we would take an impervious fee to the 7 vote and consider it a fee and apply it to the 8 non-profits and ask them, you know, require them to 9 pay, that they may have a challenge against us, and 10 then we would be back in court fighting that 11 challenge and not be able to get the stormwater 12 funding mechanism in place. 13 MR. JONES: Okay. Thank you. 14 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Schneider. 15 MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Hoelscher, you just 16 mentioned your colleague, Mr. Leeds, you mentioned 17 he was director of Kansas City, Kansas. 18 MR. HOELSCHER: Oh, I'm sorry, Kansas 19 City, Missouri. 20 MR. SCHNEIDER: Kansas City, Missouri? 21 MR. HOELSCHER: Yes, I'm sorry. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: Thank you. 23 THE COURT: Mr. Mahanta? 24 MR. MAHANTA: I have one more question. 25 The Operation and Maintenance cost for someone who's PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 71 1 in these areas directly and so forth in the current 2 plan, they are much less than the million dollars 3 that you collected in 2006/2007 from the impervious 4 tax, why is there such a big difference? 5 MR. HOELSCHER: If I think I 6 understand, the eighty million dollars we collected 7 from the impervious tax paid for the Operation and 8 Maintenance of the public system, which if you look 9 at our numbers, was around twenty-five million 10 dollars, there was the cost of the regulatory 11 service, which is currently two cents, about five, a 12 total of about thirty, the balance of that went 13 towards capital projects, flooding, erosion control, 14 those types of things. 15 So the cost for the O&M, the system is 16 relatively -- that would be assigned to the O&M of 17 the public storm sewer system is the same in this 18 proposal as it was in 2007. We're not changing the 19 service levels. So that 20 -- under twenty-five 20 million dollar number you see in our proposal, that 21 was about the number for O&M and the public storm 22 sewer system was part of the eighty million dollars 23 that was collected. 24 MR. TOENJES: Further questions for the 25 District at this point? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 72 1 (No response.) 2 MR. TOENJES: Hearing none, is the Home 3 Builders Association ready to present its closing 4 statement? 5 MR. BURKHART: We are. Thank you, Mr. 6 Chair. 7 MR. TOENJES: Proceed. 8 MR. BURKHART: Commissioners, the 9 principle focus of the District's proposal as it 10 relates to stormwater is the use of the 11 District-wide tax structure to replace the 12 multi-layered sub-District taxes now assessed on the 13 real estate value of ratepayers' property to cover 14 the cost of stormwater, the operations and 15 maintenance. 16 We recognize that. 17 What is striking about the proposal, in 18 addition to its failure to enhance services in a 19 meaningful, innovative manner that would be 20 consistent with advancements made in other sewer 21 Districts around the country is that the proposal is 22 based on property taxes. Property taxes are based 23 on the assessed value of property. 24 The cost of stormwater service, 25 including Operations and Maintenance, to individual PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 73 1 properties bears no relationship to the assessed 2 value of the property. This is our concern. 3 We're also concerned that the proposal 4 as submitted provides tax relief for the wealthy 5 while imposing greater tax burdens on the poor. 6 Despite rejecting the use of a property 7 tax in favor of an impervious area, District-wide 8 proceedings, the District now believes that an ad 9 valorem property tax used to operate the maintenance 10 and operations of the public stormwater system 11 within its municipal boundaries is fair and 12 equitable. 13 They believe that because of the use of 14 property taxes to fund services and maintenance of 15 infrastructure is allowed under the constitution and 16 is used by other Districts for these types of 17 services that it is fair and equitable. Or fair and 18 reasonable. 19 They believe that the use of an 20 impervious area method would cost more to operate 21 and maintain than the property tax methodology. 22 They believe that the use of an 23 impervious area method may result in fewer people 24 participating in the funding of these services as 25 we've just discussed. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 74 1 The HBA disagrees. The HBA does not 2 believe that the ad valorem property tax as 3 currently proposed can be implemented in a way that 4 is fair and equitable. 5 We do not believe there is a nexus 6 between property value and stormwater services 7 provided by the District. 8 We believe that the proposed stormwater 9 rate change proposal fails to provide a mechanism to 10 credit those ratepayers who install stormwater 11 remediation and quality control devices, all of 12 which may reduce operations and maintenance costs of 13 the District and certainly further the objectives of 14 the EPA consent decree by reducing the quantity and 15 improving the quality of stormwater runoff within 16 the District. 17 The District, when asked directly to 18 supply the basis for this nexus between property 19 values and stormwater services, has thus avoided 20 answering the question directly. To date, the Rate 21 Commission and the Intervenors are still waiting for 22 the fundamental answers to the question of the 23 simple hypothetical as to how one property that 24 sheds no stormwater, but is valued the same as 25 another property that does, equally benefit from PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 75 1 MSD's stormwater service and should be taxed the 2 same. 3 The HBA's principle argument has been 4 the District's proposal to perform -- to impose a 5 uniform tax based on property value across its 6 District has no cost causation basis and, therefore, 7 does not equitably spread its proposed stormwater 8 costs across its customers within the service area. 9 It is for this reason that the HBA has 10 suggested alternative methodologies. 11 Taxing methodologies based on 12 impervious area have been widely accepted as fair 13 and more equitable to ratepayers. This has been 14 evidenced in the documents submitted by the HBA, 15 publications by the EPA. 16 Impervious area methodologies make 17 sense. Runoff volume, a cost causation factor, is 18 influenced by the size of the parcel and the 19 impervious area of that parcel, that portion of the 20 property where water cannot easily percolate into 21 the earth. These factors influence runoff and thus 22 the demand from the property. 23 Impervious areas structures have also 24 been widely accepted. Because impervious area basis 25 reflects cost drivers, it is very fair, and it is PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 76 1 easy to understand. 2 The HBA is not ignorant to the 3 underlying concerns of the District. While the HBA 4 and myself are certainly not constitutional 5 attorneys and will not speculate as to the future 6 decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court, I can 7 address the concerns the District has raised with 8 the impervious area charge, or tax. 9 The District asserts that the use of an 10 impervious fee would result in up to a 40 percent 11 increase, I believe it may have been changed to 36 12 percent, to MSD customer for the same level of 13 service when compared to the proposed ten cent ad 14 valorem tax. 15 This calculation is based on an 16 antiquated method of calculating impervious ground 17 by examining each parcel within the District. New 18 methodologies and innovations and technology, such 19 as the equivalent rate residential unit method, 20 could drastically reduce operation costs for the 21 District. 22 For more information on these 23 alternatives, I would direct the Commission to those 24 publications of the EPA that the HBA has submitted 25 as Exhibits HBA 132 and 133. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 77 1 The inequity inequality of the ad 2 valorem tax is further illustrated by the disparate 3 impact the proposed tax will have upon residential 4 District ratepayers. The current proposal raises 5 taxes in the City of St. Louis, the yellow zone, 6 whose population is least able to sustain a tax 7 increase while reducing taxes in those parts of the 8 county and city where communities are most able to 9 pay. These are areas like Ladue, Kirkwood, Webster 10 Groves, Des Peres. 11 It is for these reasons that the HBA 12 believes that without considering impervious area or 13 credit based program related to stormwater quality 14 and quantity, the District's stormwater proposal 15 cannot be implemented in a fair and equitable 16 manner. 17 To provide a solution to the fairness 18 issue, the HBA has suggested inclusion of a 19 stormwater credit or incentive. The inclusion of a 20 stormwater credit program, whatever it maybe, 21 whatever form it may take, is an important 22 consideration for the Commission as these programs 23 offer a variety of equitable and political 24 advantages. 25 Rather than reiterating every advantage PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 78 1 of these programs, I'd like to focus on responding 2 to the District's argument first. 3 In response to the HBA's proposal to 4 include a stormwater credit program as part of the 5 District's proposal, the District first argued that 6 BMPs have no impact on O&M and therefore are 7 inappropriate here, contending that the stormwater 8 infrastructure, stormwater system, operates by 9 gravity, and thus reducing the volume of water would 10 have no effect on the operation of the system or 11 associated maintenance costs. 12 The logical conclusion of this argument 13 would seem to militate any funds being required for 14 O&M because the system would maintain itself 15 regardless of the of the debris, the volume of 16 water, or the contaminates flowing through 17 potentially blocking the systems. The HBA 18 acknowledges and agrees that BMPs address regulatory 19 requirements and improve the quality of stormwater 20 runoff, thereby reducing treatment costs, a function 21 that the District has accurately stated is not part 22 of the proposed tax. 23 This argument by the District however 24 is a red herring. BMPs serve a greater purpose. 25 They also reduce the volume of stormwater runoff, PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 79 1 which does have a direct impact on operations and 2 maintenance costs. Less water entering the system, 3 equals less burden on infrastructure. 4 The District's second argument against 5 adopting the stormwater credit program is that any 6 credit used for the use of BMPs would merely 7 redistribute costs among the ratepayers. The 8 District is arguably already proposing a tax 9 structure that requires some ratepayers to subsidize 10 others. 11 By proposing an ad valorem property 12 tax, the District is in essence forcing some areas 13 of service territory, which already have modernized 14 stormwater systems, and have already incurred the 15 costs of those systems, to subsidize the District's 16 cost of providing the same service to other 17 customers where the infrastructure has yet to be 18 developed. 19 The District also mischaracterizes the 20 HBA's proposal as only being intended to provide a 21 credit for new development. Such is not the case. 22 The HBA contends that a fair rate would provide a 23 credit for any ratepayer that improves the 24 stormwater system by the installation of BMPs, 25 including existing property owners and subdivision PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 80 1 associations. 2 The HBA finds lacking in the District's 3 argument that these BMPs are not part of the 4 stormwater -- the public stormwater system and 5 therefore unworthy of any credit. These BMPs 6 clearly benefit the public system, or the District 7 would not be entitled to require them or regulate 8 them as part of the approval of stormwater 9 management for new developments. 10 Part of the problem with stormwater in 11 the St. Louis area is contending with, which the 12 District concedes in its proposal, arise from 13 existing developments that act -- that lack adequate 14 stormwater controls. 15 The credit system, as recognized by the 16 EPA in numerous Districts around the country, 17 including Kansas City, enhances the ability of a 18 sewer District to improve its stormwater system 19 because citizens are incentivized to improve the 20 stormwater conditions in their area. 21 In closing, I would note that the HBA 22 is not mandating a particular credit program or 23 methodology for implementing such a program, but 24 rather encouraging the Commission to consider the 25 benefits. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 81 1 By encouraging developers and 2 individual property owners to exceed current 3 regulations and take an active role in stormwater 4 management, the District is likely to see several 5 benefits, including reductions in volume, thereby 6 reducing the cost of Operation and Maintenance 7 costs, and increasing -- and increases in the 8 quality of runoff allowing the District to more 9 easily meet water quality standards. 10 This may be the most important factor. 11 Credit programs also enhance the perception of 12 charges to ratepayers. They afford customers the 13 opportunity to reduce the magnitude of the user fees 14 commensurate with the extent of onsite management. 15 Rather than settling for good enough, 16 this proposal may or may not be fair and equitable, 17 the HBA encourages the Commission to aim for 18 meaningful and innovative solutions to address the 19 stormwater needs of the District moving forward. 20 Thank you. 21 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Burkhart. 22 Do any of the Rate Commissioners have any questions 23 for Mr. Burkhart? 24 Mr. Mahfood, then Mr. Schneider. 25 MR. MAHFOOD: Just I'm very sympathetic PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 82 1 to your explanations and your testimony, however I'd 2 just like to get your thoughts on this Supreme 3 Court, this Zweig decision impact on what you're 4 recommending, and I have fears of us moving in a 5 certain direction and then having to go back and 6 start all over again from a legal standpoint, and 7 just in general, how do you feel about the 8 recommendation you've made, but yet having this 9 cloud over us of the Zweig decision that could very 10 well nullify any kind of movement? 11 MR. BURKHART: Yeah, and I suppose I'll 12 preface this with I'm certainly not a constitutional 13 attorney, and don't -- don't know that I have any 14 insight on what will happen. I certainly can't 15 speculate as to whether or not the decision would 16 make an impervious charge or tax, whatever it is 17 classified as, impossible to implement. 18 I think one of the big factors in that 19 case in general is that MSD during those proceedings 20 did not tie the charge to the service being 21 provided, and there was no cost causation, they 22 could not determine what a parcel output was. 23 It's a bit of a run-around, I guess the 24 answer is I don't know, and I don't think any of us 25 know until it's presented. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 83 1 One of the reasons that the HBA has 2 encouraged the adoption of a credit program is that 3 if property tax, if that is the methodology that is 4 safer, would offer an ability to make that system 5 fair and equitable, or fair and reasonable. It 6 would provide that element of cost causation. 7 If you're basing it on a property value 8 and this property has a BMP installed, you know that 9 they are reducing the burden on the system, then 10 that property should receive a credit as opposed to 11 one that does not. 12 So I don't know -- I don't know that 13 that answers the question. 14 MR. MAHFOOD: No, I appreciate your 15 answer, and I think that's what we're -- in my mind 16 that's what I'm facing. I like the -- some kind of 17 a hybrid approach, but then we don't want to be 18 spending all of our time in court again, and I feel 19 like the District, and although I may not agree or 20 may agree on certain things, has spent a lot of time 21 looking at that -- at that issue, and the fear of 22 the bigger picture of having to implement this thing 23 regardless, they've got -- they have to take into 24 consideration the Supreme Court decision. I mean 25 they have to think about it. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 84 1 MR. BURKHART: Absolutely. We don't 2 disagree with that at all, and I think as more 3 regulations and the laws are coming down, it's 4 really forcing Districts around the country to adopt 5 innovative approaches to this, and I think, you 6 know, fundamentally that is the basis of a credit 7 program, our suggestion for that is that that may 8 present an opportunity to address that issue. 9 MR. MAHFOOD: Thank you very much. 10 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Schneider. 11 MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Burkhart, my 12 question is did you submit a prehearing report? 13 MR. BURKHART: We did not submit a 14 prehearing report, no. We did submit a memorandum 15 that outlines the considerations for the Commission 16 that I think really addresses the HBA's stance on 17 this. 18 MR. SCHNEIDER: And that memorandum, 19 Mr. Goss [phonetic] presented at the last hearing? 20 MR. BURKHART: I believe that's 21 correct, yes. 22 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. Well, because 23 you didn't do a prehearing, I couldn't follow 24 everything you said very fast, so my question is you 25 talked a lot about the inequity I guess between the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 85 1 impervious service tax -- the ad valorem tax versus 2 an impervious fee. I kind of understand that 3 discussion. 4 But in your testimony today, you also 5 talked about inequality within a taxation system, 6 and I was wanting if you could kind of go back to 7 that part of your talk and kind of maybe clarify 8 what you meant by that. 9 I think you said -- I actually don't 10 remember it, I think you said low income people were 11 paying more than they should. If you could repeat 12 that part, I'd appreciate it. 13 MR. BURKHART: Sure. That part I 14 believe was addressing that the current proposal 15 submitted by the District would -- it would raise 16 taxes in the City of St. Louis, so that -- on MSD 17 Exhibit 1, I believe it's page 54, that area in 18 yellow, it's the St. Louis City and the Near North, 19 it would increase taxes in that area, which is a 20 population that historically has been lower income 21 and is less able to sustain a tax increase. 22 The area where taxes would be reduced 23 would be in the area lying east of 270, which would 24 be that -- I believe the green zone, which includes 25 those areas of Ladue, Des Peres, Kirkwood, Webster PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 86 1 Groves, in essence more affluent areas. 2 MR. SCHNEIDER: Got you. So I guess 3 the yellow, you got more poor people in the yellow 4 area, more people live in the yellow so you're 5 raising the tax, that's that whole inequity compared 6 to lowering the taxes in the green area where the 7 District -- 8 MR. BURKHART: Yes. Yes. 9 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. You don't 10 account for that and your argument doesn't have 11 anything to do with the red area, the income of the 12 red area where they're getting the ten cent. 13 MR. BURKHART: Right, I believe that 14 the red area sees the highest, but they're not being 15 provided that service, so you would expect that to 16 provide that service they'd see the most significant 17 increase. 18 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. TOENJES: Mr. Jones. 20 MR. JONES: I have a couple of 21 questions. Well, actually a question and a dialogue 22 I'd like to have. 23 MR. BURKHART: Sure. 24 MR. JONES: If there is no credit, will 25 those who would reduce runoff lack the incentive to PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 87 1 do so? 2 MR. BURKHART: That's I guess a mixed 3 answer, because developments are required by 4 regulations to install these. I think Mr. Hoelscher 5 commented that before, that through the permitting 6 process, new developments are required to install 7 BMPs. 8 MR. JONES: Right, you said BMPs? 9 MR. BURKHART: Yeah, Best Management 10 Practices. 11 MR. JONES: Okay. 12 MR. BURKHART: These are those 13 bio-detention basins, things of that nature. From a 14 private individual standpoint, if there was no 15 credit program, certainly I would say that 16 ratepayers would not be incentivized. 17 They might have some moral basis for 18 doing it. They may want to have a rainbarrel or a 19 rain garden for personal reason, but I wouldn't be 20 incentivized to do it without a credit program. 21 MR. JONES: New developers are required 22 to do that. 23 MR. BURKHART: That's correct. 24 MR. JONES: So when you say there would 25 be no incentive, you're speaking of me, for PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 88 1 instance? 2 MR. BURKHART: Sure, or existing 3 developments that were not previously required to 4 have these BMPs. 5 MR. JONES: Okay. And the dialogue I 6 want to have is that if there is a credit program, 7 there's a certain amount of water that's going to 8 fall on everyone, and there's a certain amount of 9 water that's going to runoff, right? 10 The same amount -- we have two 11 properties that are the exact same, different 12 amounts of water are going to probably runoff both 13 of those properties, right? 14 MR. BURKHART: I think that may be a 15 bit too general. If you have a property that is 16 entirely undeveloped, we'll say -- 17 MR. JONES: No, no, no, before you make 18 that assumption, let's just say two properties that 19 are already in existence that are the exact same 20 square footage, is it safe to say that different 21 amounts of water are going to runoff of both those 22 properties? One may have more runoff than the 23 other? 24 MR. BURKHART: Potentially yes. 25 MR. JONES: Okay. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 89 1 MR. BURKHART: I think that is where 2 the impervious ground comes in. You can see that 3 relationship if it -- if you have a parking lot, 4 arguably there's going to be more runoff than an 5 undeveloped grass lot. 6 MR. JONES: All right. Now, how is the 7 program implemented from a practical standpoint 8 between now and the time that these rates have to go 9 into effect to understand how to even apply credit? 10 MR. BURKHART: Well, that is one 11 element that is up for debate. I think the first 12 stage is to have a credit program considered. I 13 think that certainly there are tight timelines and 14 we don't -- we don't dispute the fact that MSD needs 15 the funding to address current issues. 16 I suppose the answer is that that is 17 undetermined at this stage. 18 MR. JONES: You said -- you 19 specifically said MSD would have to have the time to 20 address those issues. That's an additional cost 21 that would have to be incurred, studies, in order to 22 understand how to equitably apply a credit program. 23 MR. BURKHART: Absolutely. 24 MR. JONES: And those studies aren't in 25 place now? PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 90 1 MR. BURKHART: I can't comment whether 2 or not MSD has conducted any studies on that. 3 Obviously, other Districts throughout the country 4 have. There are numerous districts throughout the 5 United States that have implemented credit programs 6 and have done them equitably or cost effectively. 7 MR. JONES: And at the risk of sounding 8 ignorant, I'll ask, have you all submitted those 9 studies as examples? 10 MR. BURKHART: We have submitted case 11 studies of different districts that have implemented 12 credit programs, yes. 13 MR. JONES: Okay. Having -- I'm -- 14 let's assume that MSD says -- I mean the Commission 15 and ultimately Trustees say okay, yeah, let's have a 16 credit program, can you see it implemented by the 17 time these rates have to go into effect? 18 MR. BURKHART: I don't know at this 19 point. 20 MR. JONES: Okay. 21 MR. BURKHART: I can't answer that. 22 MR. JONES: All right. Thank you. 23 That's all I have. 24 MR. TOENJES: Let go to Mr. Schoedel 25 and Ms. Bowser. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 91 1 MR. SCHOEDEL: Following up on the 2 credit program, in any of those districts that have 3 implemented the credit program, have their rates 4 gone up? 5 MR. BURKHART: I have not reviewed the 6 individual rates. I would venture to guess that 7 nationwide rates have been going up. I don't know 8 if that has contributed to the introduction of 9 credit programs, though. 10 MR. SCHOEDEL: I understand the credit 11 program as an incentive to encourage homeowners to 12 implement those types of things, but is there an 13 potential inequality for those who can't afford to 14 implement a BMP to end up paying more in that type 15 of a system? 16 MR. BURKHART: I think the issue there 17 is that you're allowing someone to do it, they're 18 not mandated to do it. You know, I don't know that 19 you would create a situation of an equity between 20 those ratepayers. Certainly, that would be an issue 21 to -- that would need to be resolved. 22 MR. SCHOEDEL: The District in their 23 testimony seemed to indicate that a credit program 24 would cause rates to go up so the potential is there 25 for someone who couldn't afford to do an BMP to end PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 92 1 up paying more? 2 MR. BURKHART: Hypothetically, I 3 suppose that may be true. 4 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. Miss Bowser. 5 MS. BOWSER: I want to get in on this 6 discussion because it seems to me that the other 7 side of having a credit program would be have a 8 rebate or a grant to enable people to do whatever 9 they need to do in order to reduce the stormwater 10 system, and I think that this would be a greater 11 incentive because the money would be there to help 12 people make that initial cost, because in most cases 13 I think where people get rebate or get a credit, or 14 whatever, the amount is so small that it would take 15 a very long time for the initial investment to pay 16 off. 17 MR. BURKHART: Yes, ma'am, and that is 18 one of the reasons that the HBA is not proposing a 19 mandate that this is the credit program that we 20 believe is appropriate and this is the way that it 21 should be implemented. We're merely suggesting that 22 a credit program would provide a mechanism for 23 creating a system that would be more fair and more 24 reasonable to the ratepayers. 25 Grant programs are certainly one way to PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 93 1 achieve that. They have been implemented in other 2 areas. I believe that MSD has a grant program not 3 related to BMPs directly, but I don't know if Brian 4 wants to comment on that. There are -- also, a 5 credit program could in theory be implemented or 6 administered by a third party outside of the 7 District to limit the cost. 8 There are a myriad of options 9 available, and I think it is -- it is yet to be 10 determined which one of those would be best suited 11 for the District. 12 MS. BOWSER: And I guess what I'm 13 saying is if the ad valorem tax was chosen over the 14 impervious area, it would not mean that we would 15 have to give up all chance of having some sort of 16 incentive program for people? 17 MR. BURKHART: I believe that's an 18 accurate statement. Yes, ma'am. 19 MR. TOENJES: Other questions for Mr. 20 Burkhart? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. TOENJES: Hearing none, I'm going 23 to suggest we take a brief recess until 11:00. 24 (Short recess.) 25 MR. TOENJES: We will reconvene. It's PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 94 1 11:00. Is the Missouri Industrial Energy Consumers 2 ready to proceed its closing statement? 3 MR. NEUSCHAFER: We are. 4 MR. TOENJES: Please proceed. 5 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Thank you. 6 As you all are aware, I'm Brandon 7 Neuschafer and I'm here on behalf of the Missouri 8 Industrial Energy Consumers. 9 This rate proceeding has been a long 10 and arduous journey and a lot of information has 11 been dumped at your feet. I don't envy some of the 12 decisions that you all are going to have to make. 13 I also don't intend to rehash all the 14 arguments outlined in the Prehearing Conference or 15 in the Prehearing Conference Reports, in the 16 testimony and discovery introduced into this 17 proceeding, because I think you're all aware the of 18 MIEC's position. I do, however, want to stress the 19 importance of the decisions that you'll have to make 20 over the coming weeks. 21 You all are here to insure, among other 22 things, that the rates to be imposed by MSD are fair 23 and reasonable to the citizenry. This means first 24 and foremost scrutinizing MSD's proposal to insure 25 that the District's rates are not excessive. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 95 1 Certainly, the District is facing a 2 lengthy and costly task of complying with the EPA 3 consent decree. We all understand that. But it's 4 very concerning to MIEC and should be concerning to 5 the Rate Commission that MSD's basic philosophy 6 behind the wastewater portion of this rate proposal 7 is to forecast so conservatively that rates are 8 unnecessarily high. 9 MSD tells us not to worry though 10 because they'll put the extra money towards 11 accelerating other projects. This is no way to 12 justify a Rate Proposal. 13 Most importantly, it unreasonably 14 inflates rates that will already be experiencing a 15 significant increase. It also creates an inflated 16 baseline for the next time we all sit down together 17 in four years. The negative impact of artificially 18 high rates on consumers cannot be overstated. 19 Another crucial impact of artificially 20 high rates is that it will disincentivize MSD from 21 aggressively managing costs. 22 The past rate change proceeding is a 23 perfect example. Despite MSD's comments about 24 MIEC's projections and recommendations in the last 25 proceeding, the fact of the matter is that the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 96 1 ultimate rates recommended by the Rate Commission to 2 the Board of Trustees were closer to what MIEC 3 proposed than what MSD proposed. 4 Nonetheless, MSD has indicated that 5 since the last rate case, it's plugging ahead under 6 budget and ahead of schedule. In other words, the 7 reduced rates recommended by the Rate Commission 8 were sufficient and avoided an unwarranted 9 escalation of consumer costs. 10 This shows that MSD can and will make 11 it work and that they don't need the plush cushions 12 they seek. Aggressive and structured cost 13 management may be difficult, but it can be done. 14 However, that is MSD's duty, and it is much more 15 fair and equitable than burdening the consumer base 16 with excessive rates. 17 That's all I have to say today. This 18 concludes MIEC's remarks. Once again, MIEC and 19 other consumers of MSD's services appreciate your 20 time and your service and your patience. 21 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. 22 Neuschafer. Are there questions from the Rate 23 Commissioners? Mr. Schneider. 24 MR. SCHNEIDER: Mr. Neuschafer, you 25 mentioned in your prehearing report, I just had two PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 97 1 items on the Prehearing Conference report. 2 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Sure. 3 MR. SCHNEIDER: One is item one, the 4 waste hauler permit fees. MSD in their 5 preconference report kind of explained why they came 6 up with their conclusions. I wanted to get a sense 7 if you read their preconference report they filed a 8 couple of days ago? Do you have any comments on how 9 they -- new comments on how they determined the 10 waste hauler fee projections? 11 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I don't think we have 12 anything to add there. Some of that information was 13 new to us, so we didn't really have time or the 14 opportunity to dig into that new information that 15 was -- that was provided. 16 But nonetheless, you know, I think when 17 you look at the historical numbers, which is -- 18 which is what we've done, we recognize that, you 19 know, the waste hauler fees might not be as much as 20 they have been over some of the past few years, but 21 we think that the significant decreases proposed by 22 MSD in their projecting is too much of a decrease. 23 It's not consistent with historical numbers. 24 MR. SCHNEIDER: Just a follow-up. I 25 guess this would be on your -- I'm talking item PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 98 1 four, I guess, the header was MSD's PAYGO should be 2 modified during the start of its Capital Program 3 peek, that's the section I'm referring to here. 4 I guess, yeah, so I just want to make 5 sure I'm clear that you believe that -- your 6 estimates of your idea of the use of PAYGO funds and 7 more debt, I guess you're encouraging most debt in 8 this first couple of years, that's sufficient to 9 kind of meet the bond requirements going forward 10 just to maintain the Double A rating that MSD wants 11 to maintain? 12 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I think that's a 13 pretty accurate` restatement of our position. 14 There's such a significant peek of costs incurred 15 here at the beginning of the program that we think 16 there's opportunity to fund more of those costs with 17 debt as opposed to putting all of the burden on the 18 consumers at this point in time. And based on our 19 analysis, there's opportunity to do that and still 20 maintain bond ratings. 21 MR. SCHNEIDER: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. TOENJES: Any other questions at 23 this point? 24 (No response.) 25 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 99 1 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Thank you. 2 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. 3 Neuschafer. 4 Is the legal counsel for the Rate 5 Commission ready to present its closing statement? 6 MR. ARNOLD: Mr. Chairman, I am, if 7 someone who is not technically challenged can tell 8 me whether I'm on. 9 MS. MYERS: If it's green, you're on. 10 MR. ARNOLD: I'm on. 11 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board of 12 Commissioners, I want to join my colleagues in 13 expressing appreciation for your service, and it's 14 unique. The amendments to the Charter Plan in 2000 15 created an amalgam of a regulatory process with 16 which we've been involved since February, and 17 citizen oversight, which is the reason you have 18 attended a score of public hearings and technical 19 conferences to gather information, not as regulators 20 only, but also as consumers and representatives of 21 agencies which have a profound interest in clean 22 water among other things. 23 I mentioned I'm technologically 24 challenged. I can't type and I do don't well with a 25 computer, so each of the documents has to be printed PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 100 1 for me. I commend you for your diligence in reading 2 three and a half feet of documents to this point. 3 You can read faster than I can talk. 4 We filed a Prehearing Conference 5 report. It was filed by my colleagues, I believe, 6 rather focused on the issues for your consideration. 7 I'll keep the repetition to a minimum, but I did 8 want to make a number of observations. 9 The wastewater change, as Mr. 10 Neuschafer observed, continues the model which we've 11 been building, and we need to not get caught up in 12 the -- in the model simply proceeding down the 13 track. We need to pay attention to a couple of 14 issues. 15 We need to balance competing public 16 policies, clean water and fair and reasonable rates. 17 Now, the proposal, moving down the 18 track, dramatically increases debt to a level which 19 Fitch in its credit analysis associates with weaker 20 credits. 21 Each of the District's targets for debt 22 service coverage, cash on hand, working capital, 23 exceed the requirements of the 2004 Master Bond 24 Indenture and the requirements for Double A rating. 25 Mr. Neuschafer has commented about the PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 101 1 Operation and Maintenance expenses and I won't 2 recover that. 3 Let me use the residential bills as the 4 marker, but keep in mind that multi-family bills and 5 commercial-family bills also increase rather 6 dramatically. By 2020, from today the residential 7 bill will have doubled if the voters approve a 55 8 percent increase in debt. And if they don't, the 9 rate will triple in six short years. 10 Now, I mentioned to you when we were 11 last together, the immediate household income and 12 the two percent, if we get passed two percent, and 13 we're going passed two percent, the EPA says that 14 this is a utility which is heavily burdened. 15 Now, counsel for the District has 16 pointed out several times that we don't look at one 17 number. I agree with that. But we're talking about 18 more than one number which is driving this train 19 down the track. 20 And the District asks that you consider 21 that their credit metrics goals and their 22 conservative cost allocations are necessary to 23 provide for unanticipated expenses, emergencies, and 24 the present state of the economy, and the volatility 25 of the financial markets. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 102 1 The Intervenors are asking that you 2 consider whether this increased debt will affect the 3 ability to reduce cost if revenues decline. Whether 4 this will reduce the incentive to manage costs, and 5 whether it will make it more difficult to maintain 6 the very debt service coverages that are required by 7 this increased debt. 8 You need also, we believe, to consider 9 whether revenues may decline due to rate shock, 10 reduced volume by commercial ratepayers, because 11 they're in a position to manage their operations to 12 reduce the -- their requirements to deal with the 13 District's wastewater operations. And whether these 14 increased rates are going to increase delinquency. 15 Now, Mr. Neuschafer, forgive me, 16 Neuschafer. 17 MR. NEUSCHAFER: I'm fine either way. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 19 MR. NEUSCHAFER: Thanks. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Ask that we consider what 21 the District has had to say about how it's going to 22 manage its conservative Operation and Maintenance 23 proposals, and it's -- I don't want to use the word 24 excessive as a pejorative now, but they are asking 25 for more than the credit agencies require. PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 103 1 The District will insure that if actual 2 annual spending within a fiscal year is below the 3 projections, remaining funds will be used to 4 accelerate projects. Any remaining funds within a 5 given fiscal year are carried over to the following 6 year for future projects. 7 And this from counsel for the 8 District's presentation to you when we were last 9 together. In a broad view, given that no person can 10 precisely predict future economic trends, it is 11 likely that some mixture of conservative and 12 optimistic economic assumptions as discussed during 13 these proceedings will represent reality. 14 If in the aggregate, MSD collects 15 revenues in excess of its forecasts, the District 16 will move forward and expedite the Federal Consent 17 Decree compliance related work or continue the 18 stated program with reduced use of debt, which would 19 then allow additional debt to be available for other 20 projects in future years. 21 On the other hand, if the assumptions 22 prove to have overstated available revenues in the 23 aggregate, the District would have revenue 24 shortfalls leading to inabilities to meet regulatory 25 requirements and subjecting the District to PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 104 1 stipulated penalties, fines and other possible legal 2 action. 3 It sounds as though there's only one 4 element driving all of this, and that's the consent 5 decree. Overall, the ratepayer is better served if 6 the capital program is slightly over-funded as 7 opposed to under-funded. 8 Those aren't the only choices. Clean 9 water matters. Credit metrics matter. But 10 ratepayers matter. What if it's not slightly 11 over-funded? What if it's so excessive as to be 12 effectively unrelated to the service being provided? 13 This would be relevant to the fourth 14 Keller factor -- remember, the end contest -- of 15 whether a service is being provided for the fee. If 16 the fee is so exorbitant that it cannot be said to 17 bear a reasonable relationship to the services, at 18 least that excess amount cannot be said to be paid 19 for the service itself. 20 Now, you need to consider the size of 21 the increases, the size of the money being set 22 aside, the size of the projections, so that it is 23 not only a fair and reasonable fee, but it does not 24 run afoul of the Hancock amendment. 25 Now there's actually a way to do this, PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 105 1 but so far there's been no testimony, and that's 2 Section 7.050 of the Charter Plan. And it's part of 3 the budget process. And at the end of the fiscal 4 year, the unexpended and unencumbered parts of all 5 appropriations shall revert to the funds from which 6 appropriated. And they can be reallocated by the 7 Trustees upon the recommendation of the District so 8 that the rates do not increase beyond those 9 absolutely necessary, so that the rates are fair and 10 reasonable. 11 In order -- all the District needs to 12 do is manage the level of debt, manage the debt 13 service, manage the cash on hand, manage the 14 Operation and Maintenance expenses, so that these 15 rates do not increase unnecessarily. 16 So much for wastewater. 17 Stormwater. And I -- I'm going to cut 18 this really short. 19 The District objects to the impervious 20 area method which it approved in 2007 because of its 21 cost and it may result in fewer ratepayers based on 22 possible future legislation or possible future court 23 review. 24 And this morning we've talked about 25 non-profits. If it's a fee, the non-profits pay in; PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 106 1 if it's a tax, they don't. That's Chapter 136. We 2 don't need to worry about whether it's voted on or 3 whether it is simply appropriated. If it's a fee, 4 they pay it; if it's a tax, they don't. 5 Now, the rate process, the rate design 6 process has traditionally and nearly uniformly been 7 based on cost causation. That's impervious area. 8 It links the demand for service with the cost of 9 providing that service. 10 Now, the ad valorem tax is uniform for 11 all classes of taxpayers. It is cheaper to 12 administer, but it is not based on cost causation. 13 A word about the Black and Veatch 14 study. 79 percent of the people in the survey use 15 impervious area and they were not all enterprise 16 fund operations. The District was in that survey. 17 You've heard a lot about equal 18 values -- I'm sorry, equal property values and 19 unequal impervious area. That's pretty much 20 District-wide. 21 During the presentation this morning 22 there was further discussion on the yellow zone, the 23 green zone, and the red zone. The fact remains that 24 all new revenues from yellow and green and red -- 25 and remember, yellow and green have been paying for PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 107 1 these services for 35 years. Anything over the 2 Operation and Maintenance requirement will be used 3 for capital projects in the red zone. Consider 4 whether that's fair and equitable. 5 Now, the elephant in the room is the 6 Zweig case, and it produces for the Commission a 7 conundrum. If the court's footnote characterization 8 results in a stormwater charge being considered by a 9 future court as a property tax, then a stormwater 10 charge based on impervious area would not be based 11 on the value of the property as required by the 12 constitution. 13 So here you have it, Members of the 14 Commission. Can it be fair and reasonable? Can it 15 be consistent with law? That's why you are paid all 16 the big bucks. 17 Thank you very much. 18 MR. TOENJES: Thank you, Mr. Arnold. 19 Questions for Mr. Arnold. Mr. Schneider. 20 MR. SCHNEIDER: I've got one quick 21 question. On the preconference report, I'm 22 referring to page seven, it's regarding the debt 23 financing coverage, I'll just read the sentence out 24 loud. 25 It says: The Rate Consultant believes PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 108 1 the District's policy to maintain senior debt 2 service coverage of 2.5 times or greater, and total 3 debt service of 1.6 times or greater is a valid and 4 important metric, particularly in light of the 5 District's current and anticipated future debt 6 profile. 7 My question to the Rate Consultant is, 8 and I think MIEC mentioned debt service comes to 9 2.45 times, so is 2.5 times -- it's reasonable, but 10 is it like a big cushion, is that -- could they go a 11 little lower and still maintain that Double A 12 rating? What's your opinion? 13 MS. LEMOINE: There's no magic number 14 that the rating agencies use to determine a specific 15 compilation of everything. In general, the reason 16 that the District would want to have a higher 17 cushion is to provide down the road more cash 18 funding for the Capital Program, what that coverage 19 would allow, probably the next rate cycle. 20 It also helps provide some additional 21 assurance to the rating agencies given the high 22 level of debt that they would be incurring, so 23 there's no magic number. 24 The other -- the other thing that 25 rating agencies look at is change year over year and PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 109 1 what the plan is, so maintaining debt service 2 coverage relatively stable or if it's declining, 3 it's declining at a managed rate versus a 4 precipitous decline of something else. 5 MR. SCHNEIDER: I got you. So would 6 you say that there is some room perhaps to take out 7 additional debt in this rate cycle without impacting 8 their rate -- their rating? 9 MS. LEMOINE: It's possible. What you 10 would want to look at is not just this rate cycle, 11 but then what the impact would be the next time so 12 that you're managing over a longer period of time. 13 So in other words, if you're 14 increasing -- if you're making decisions in the next 15 four years, what does that mean in the subsequent 16 four years as far as rates and requirements and so 17 forth. 18 MR. SCHNEIDER: One other. There's 19 been some discussion about the unmetered -- the 20 water usage by unmetered, people in the unmetered 21 area, and water usage by the metered people, there 22 was a ten percent difference calculated between the 23 unmetered and the metered. Did you find that 24 analysis by the District acceptable or appropriate? 25 MS. LEMOINE: Yes, the approach that PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 110 1 was used for that analysis did seem appropriate. I 2 don't believe that St. Louis water division has 3 conducted a similar analysis for some time, which is 4 probably relating to some of the comments that have 5 been made in previous testimony leading to that 6 difference. 7 You know, there's a balance between 8 conducting a detailed analysis every year and making 9 those adjustments, versus time passing and then 10 making the adjustment. But I didn't see anything 11 alarming in that. 12 MR. TOENJES: Further questions for Mr. 13 Arnold? 14 (No response.) 15 MR. TOENJES: I have one question, Mr. 16 Arnold. You did mention the fee that is paid by 17 non-profit tax exempt organizations. 18 Miss Meyer in her testimony mentions 19 state legislation that has exempted these folks. 20 Could you sort of clarify for me how that -- how 21 that's working right now, that those particular 22 entities are exempt from paying debt fee? 23 MR. ARNOLD: The legislation, and I 24 cannot give you the citation, was the subject of 25 some testimony during these proceedings, and it PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 111 1 purports to exempt from the stormwater -- stormwater 2 service charges any enterprise which is not provided 3 wastewater service and whose stormwater does not 4 connect with the public sewer system. 5 And the legislation says that it cannot 6 be charged a fee or a tax. The constitution -- 7 again, I cannot give you the article -- but the 8 constitution provides that these people can 9 provide -- these -- these organizations may levy 10 taxes and the -- and no one can exempt anyone from a 11 tax beyond these organizations. 12 The result, and I believe the District 13 agrees with me on this, that the reference to tax in 14 that legislation is unconstitutional, and if 15 challenged, would fall. 16 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. Further 17 questions for Mr. Arnold? 18 (No response.) 19 MR. TOENJES: Thank you. On the 20 conclusion of this public hearing session, this 2015 21 Wastewater and Stormwater Rate Change proceeding 22 will be closed, and the Rate Commission will begin 23 its deliberation. 24 This is the final opportunity for the 25 Rate Commissioners to ask any questions. Do any PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 112 1 Rate Commissioners have any final questions for any 2 of the various parties regarding any issue or 3 element of the proposed rate change? 4 Mr. Mahfood. 5 MR. MAHFOOD: I'm going to ask the 6 stupid question here just to make sure in this 7 process -- in the process that we, of course, are 8 going to be able to have a discussion and question 9 our advisors as we move forward or not? Is that -- 10 will we -- will they be part of this discussion in 11 going forward? Because I don't know how that 12 process works. 13 MR. TOENJES: I will let Mr. Arnold 14 answer that question. 15 MR. ARNOLD: The Rate Commission has 16 scheduled a series of meetings beginning on Monday, 17 two sessions next week, Monday and Thursday, and 18 those proceedings will be conducted rather like 19 Executive Session and the General Assembly, anyone 20 is permitted to attend the meeting, but only members 21 of the Commission are permitted to speak. That 22 includes your ability to speak with Miss Lemoine, 23 Miss Stump, and me, about any questions which you 24 may have. 25 Miss Stump will present to you a PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 113 1 written examination and each of your meetings, it 2 will be a short summary of one of the criteria with 3 a series of questions about how you might reach your 4 decision; and as you respond to those, we will be 5 editing a document which we will submit to you later 6 on in the proceedings as a draft of your report, and 7 you get to edit that and return that to us for 8 preparation for a submittal to the Board of 9 Trustees. 10 MR. MAHFOOD: Very good. That helps 11 tremendously. Thank you. 12 MR. TOENJES: Hearing no other 13 questions, thank you, we will adjourn this public 14 hearing. 15 The Rate Commission will meet to begin 16 deliberations on Monday, July 13th, 2015, at nine 17 AM. 18 (WHEREIN, this proceedings was 19 concluded at 11:35 AM.) 20 21 22 23 24 25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Page 114 1 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 2 STATE OF MISSOURI ) 3 ) ss. 4 CITY OF ST. LOUIS ) 5 I, Kathleen Watson Brunsmann, a 6 Certified Court Reporter (MO), Certified Shorthand 7 Reporter (IL), Registered Professional Reporter, 8 Certified Realtime Reporter, do hereby certify that 9 the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing 10 deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony 11 of said witness was taken by me to the best of my 12 ability and thereafter reduced to typewriting under 13 my direction; that I am neither counsel for, related 14 to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action 15 in which this deposition was taken, and further that 16 I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or 17 counsel employed by the parties thereto, nor 18 financially or otherwise interested in the outcome 19 of the action. 20 21 ____________________________ 22 Kathleen Watson Brunsmann 23 RPR/CRR/CSR/CRR 24 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES A ability 25:2 53:8 63:10 80:17 83:4 102:3 112:22 114:12 able 12:21 19:13 20:4 23:15 24:7 25:3,8 29:23,25 36:7 57:2,7 63:24,24 66:10 69:12 70:11 77:6,8 85:21 112:8 absolutely 36:15 84:1 89:23 105:9 absorbed 11:17 39:22 absorbing 32:17 accelerate 103:4 accelerating 95:11 accept 14:10 36:7 39:11 acceptable 109:24 accepted 46:20 75:12,24 accomplishme... 13:5 account 26:15 86:10 accounting 25:3 57:13 accumulated 38:14 accurate 51:21 93:18 98:13 accurately 52:21 78:21 achieve 93:1 acknowledges 78:18 acquired 41:24 act 80:13 action 104:2 114:14,19 active 81:3 activities 20:13 actual 103:1 ad 12:4 49:13 50:7,16 51:1 55:1 73:8 74:2 76:13 77:1 79:11 85:1 93:13 106:10 add 18:18 47:7 60:9 61:24 97:12 added 62:21 addition 22:17 47:22 72:18 additional 15:24 16:21,22 17:15 26:19 30:10 32:2,12 47:7,13 50:6,7 57:16,17 89:20 103:19 108:20 109:7 address 13:12 14:15 21:16 30:1 40:19 43:15 44:7 56:6 56:12,14,14,15 57:2,10 58:10 59:22 66:2,4,18 66:21 76:7 78:18 81:18 84:8 89:15,20 addressed 9:12 45:7 54:1 56:17 61:5 addresses 33:16 84:16 addressing 57:7 61:1,1 64:22 65:16 85:14 adequate 80:13 adjacent 19:7 adjourn 113:13 Adjourned 2:10 adjustment 110:10 adjustments 110:9 administer 106:12 administered 93:6 admitted 46:18 47:21 adopt 84:4 adopted 7:17,21 8:3 adopting 79:5 adoption 83:2 advancements 72:20 advantage 77:25 advantages 77:24 advisors 112:9 affect 35:11 63:9 102:2 affluent 86:1 afford 81:12 91:13,25 affordable 11:14 afoul 104:24 agencies 99:21 102:25 108:14 108:21,25 agency 6:12 aggregate 103:14 103:23 Aggressive 96:12 aggressively 95:21 ago 35:13 37:3 43:1 97:8 agree 32:12 38:3 63:19 83:19,20 101:17 agreement 10:18 agrees 78:18 111:13 ahead 32:17 69:25 96:5,6 aim 81:17 alarming 110:11 alleged 51:18 allocations 101:22 allow 25:13 59:22 66:16 68:25 103:19 108:19 allowed 61:9,11 73:15 allowing 18:23 69:3 81:8 91:17 alternative 75:10 alternatives 76:23 amalgam 99:15 amended 7:8,19 7:22 8:4 amendment 7:9 104:24 amendments 99:14 amount 12:18 18:7 24:1 29:8 33:10,11 35:8 37:15,20,22 38:8,12,13,19 49:7 88:7,8,10 92:14 104:18 amounts 38:20 39:2 88:12,21 analysis 26:8,13 98:19 100:19 109:24 110:1,3 110:8 annexed 18:11 annual 20:24 25:18 28:3,19 29:18 30:6,24 31:8 103:2 annually 30:16 answer 70:1 82:24 83:15 87:3 89:16 90:21 112:14 answering 74:20 answers 74:22 83:13 anticipated 108:5 antiquated 76:16 anybody 16:14 22:17 68:10 anyway 24:21 38:10 63:22 appears 114:9 application 8:6 69:6 applications 8:7 8:10 applied 27:4 52:22 apply 69:3 70:7 89:9,22 appreciate 44:10 44:13 83:14 85:12 96:19 appreciation 99:13 approach 63:2 83:17 109:25 approaches 84:5 appropriate 53:7 92:20 109:24 110:1 appropriated 41:18 105:6 106:3 appropriations 105:5 approval 15:12 15:23 80:8 approve 30:9,19 32:1 33:3,3 101:7 approved 7:6,25 8:1,2 16:1 24:17,19 41:11 49:23 105:20 approximately 12:17 13:2 22:15 23:6,8 24:10,23 28:18 28:20 29:21 31:1,9 32:6,7 41:13 50:4 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES arduous 94:10 area 18:10,10,11 18:12,17,20 19:5,13,17,21 19:22,23,25 20:7,11 21:6,8 21:13 22:18,20 22:24 23:21 24:9,14,22 25:8 25:14,15 26:3,6 26:16,18,20 27:3,3,24 28:1 28:15,17 29:7 29:11,14,25 30:2 37:11 39:19 42:22 43:4,7 58:9,12 58:18 63:3,9 66:6 68:6 73:7 73:20,23 75:8 75:12,16,19,24 76:8 77:12 80:11,20 85:17 85:19,22,23 86:4,6,11,12,14 93:14 105:20 106:7,15,19 107:10 109:21 areas 21:4,18 58:6 63:6 64:24 64:25 71:1 75:23 77:9 79:12 85:25 86:1 93:2 area's 20:20 arguably 79:8 89:4 argue 68:13 argued 78:5 argument 75:3 78:2,12,23 79:4 80:3 86:10 arguments 94:14 arms 63:18 Arnold 2:9 5:2 34:11 35:10 45:4,8,9,15,18 99:6,10 102:18 102:20 107:18 107:19 110:13 110:16,23 111:17 112:13 112:15 article 111:7 artificially 95:17 95:19 aside 63:25 104:22 asked 41:10 59:15 74:17 asking 49:22 69:1,3 102:1,24 asks 101:20 aspect 9:17 aspects 44:17 asphalt 37:13 Assembly 112:19 asserts 76:9 assessed 72:12,23 73:1 assets 62:16 assigned 45:16 47:16 71:16 Associate 4:23 associated 78:11 associates 100:19 Association 5:8 6:22 8:8 44:22 72:3 associations 80:1 assume 47:15 52:10 90:14 assuming 15:11 15:22 16:20,22 30:8,18 assumption 88:18 assumptions 54:10 103:12 103:21 assurance 108:21 attain 33:11 attempt 69:23 attend 112:20 attended 99:18 attention 60:23 63:21,21 100:13 attorney 5:8,12 82:13 114:16 attorneys 5:1 76:5 August 7:23 31:14 authority 15:24 32:3,12 52:1 59:2 authorization 15:12,21 16:1 16:21,23 17:12 17:19,25 30:10 30:15 authorizes 17:14 available 20:12 25:18 47:10 93:9 103:19,22 average 17:1,3 17:21 18:19 19:10,11 27:25 28:16,21 29:13 29:17 30:11,15 30:23 31:8 avoided 74:19 96:8 awarding 51:10 aware 94:6,17 A1 15:2 B back 32:14,19 35:23 40:17 57:12 63:20 65:8 70:10 82:5 85:6 backups 13:7 14:4 Baer 45:4 balance 25:11,18 26:1 31:11 71:12 100:15 110:7 balances 25:7 57:1 Bar 6:22 base 67:3 96:15 based 10:17 11:14 13:7 14:20,20 18:7 18:19 26:7 27:25 29:13 33:11 51:23 68:6 69:25 72:22,22 75:5 75:11 76:15 77:13 98:18 105:21 106:7 106:12 107:10 107:10 baseline 95:16 basement 14:4 basic 95:5 basing 83:7 basins 21:11,19 59:23 87:13 basis 20:24 25:18 74:18 75:6,24 84:6 87:17 bathrooms 11:9 bathtubs 11:9 bear 104:17 bears 73:1 becoming 60:15 beginning 8:25 67:20 98:15 112:16 behalf 44:18,21 44:25 48:15 94:7 believe 13:6 14:17 37:23 38:2 51:6 58:14 67:4 69:16 73:13,19,22 74:2,5,8 76:11 84:20 85:14,17 85:24 86:13 92:20 93:2,17 98:5 100:5 102:8 110:2 111:12 believes 49:25 53:13 55:6,11 73:8 77:12 107:25 Belleville 4:23 benefit 26:8,8,13 40:12 74:25 80:6 benefited 22:23 benefits 80:25 81:5 best 21:11,18 52:10 87:9 93:10 114:11 better 34:5 104:5 beyond 105:8 111:11 Biblical 35:1 big 40:1,4 71:4 82:18 107:16 108:10 bigger 66:9 83:22 biggest 13:5 42:21 65:15 66:2 bill 17:2,22 19:9 20:2 28:8,10,13 28:19 29:4,18 29:21 37:16 101:7 billed 17:17 billing 20:19 billion 15:8,16,19 16:1,24 17:16 24:24 bills 101:3,4,5 biodegradable 44:4 bio-detention 87:13 bit 19:17 63:1 66:12 82:23 88:15 bite 64:17 Black 106:13 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES blame 35:4 39:5 block 42:21 blockage 13:22 60:10 Blockages 59:10 blocking 59:23 78:17 blue 21:9 BMP 83:8 91:14 91:25 BMPs 78:6,18,24 79:6,24 80:3,5 87:7,8 88:4 93:3 Board 7:24 31:14 31:16 41:12 55:8 63:11 96:2 99:11 113:8 body 68:5 bond 14:21 15:1 15:4,12,19,21 15:24 16:2,23 17:19,25 30:10 30:14 98:9,20 100:23 bonding 16:21 17:4,14,15 30:20,22 32:2 32:12 borrow 32:14 Botanical 6:14 boundaries 19:24 54:14 73:11 bounds 34:22 Bowser 4:8 90:25 92:4,5 93:12 box 39:16 Brandon 5:13 45:2 94:6 Brian 4:18 54:24 58:1 63:16 70:3 93:3 brief 8:20 10:5 93:23 briefly 67:10 bring 15:25 28:4 62:13 broad 56:3 103:9 Brockmann 4:6 6:13,13 Brunsmann 3:12 114:5,22 bucks 107:16 budget 13:3 96:6 105:3 build 14:14,18 25:8 61:18 Builders 5:8 8:8 44:22 72:3 building 100:11 built 42:23 60:14 61:12,19,20 burden 28:11 29:17 32:19 79:3 83:9 98:17 burdened 101:14 burdening 96:15 burdens 73:5 Burkhart 2:7 5:10 44:24,24 72:5,8 81:21,23 82:11 84:1,11 84:13,20 85:13 86:8,13,23 87:2 87:9,12,23 88:2 88:14,24 89:1 89:10,23 90:1 90:10,18,21 91:5,16 92:2,17 93:17,20 C C 4:1 calculated 109:22 calculating 76:16 calculation 76:15 call 6:4 36:25 called 9:21 capacity 14:3 60:7 capital 1:2 3:2 12:15 15:8,16 16:2,24 17:16 20:8 23:9 25:9 26:3,17 30:1,23 32:3 33:6 41:19 52:18 56:6,14 57:3,10,17 71:13 98:2 100:22 104:6 107:3 108:18 care 14:5 19:14 21:12 25:13 34:3 38:16 66:16 carried 103:5 cars 37:2 41:4 case 47:21 52:10 79:21 82:19 90:10 96:5 107:6 cases 61:11 92:12 cash 15:18 17:18 30:22 100:22 105:13 108:17 category 56:4 caught 100:11 causation 75:6 75:17 82:21 83:6 106:7,12 cause 13:22 35:21 59:7 60:4 60:5,5 91:24 caused 14:6 21:17 53:4 66:17 causes 14:3 causing 36:2 42:20 CCR 3:13 cent 10:24 12:2 18:17,18 19:8,9 19:10,22 20:1,2 20:2,16,17 21:7 21:22 22:2 24:13 25:5,19 26:24 27:6,7,12 27:15,20 28:15 28:16 29:12 32:25 33:1,1 37:14 49:13 51:1,3 55:1 56:12,19 76:13 86:12 centers 49:21 cents 20:3 25:23 37:6,11 40:20 71:11 certain 65:13 82:5 83:20 88:7 88:8 certainly 74:13 76:4 82:12,14 87:15 89:13 91:20 92:25 95:1 CERTIFICATE 114:1 Certified 114:6,6 114:8 certify 114:8 chain 25:3 chair 6:8 33:24 41:6 45:23 72:6 Chairman 6:7 33:14,19 48:12 99:6,11 challenge 70:9,11 challenged 99:7 99:24 111:15 Chamber 6:20 Chan 4:4 7:2 chance 66:25 93:15 change 7:15 8:5 9:6,13 10:5,13 20:25 28:7 29:3 29:7,20 48:21 48:25 49:1,12 50:22 51:2 52:22 53:16 54:1,6,8,25 56:22,24 64:7 64:18 74:9 95:22 100:9 108:25 111:21 112:3 changed 37:11 76:11 changes 7:11,16 8:1 27:10,22 34:21 changing 71:18 channel 36:9 39:14 58:8 60:3 60:7 channels 58:11 Chapter 106:1 characterization 107:7 charge 11:14 27:16 33:1 43:9 69:12 76:8 82:16,20 107:8 107:10 charged 111:6 charges 51:16 81:12 111:2 charging 37:14 68:6 chart 15:10 17:20 26:21 31:2,7,7,10 Charter 7:5,9 48:22 54:16 65:13 99:14 105:2 cheaper 14:9 106:11 cheapest 14:5 checking 45:12 Cherokee 35:15 40:2 58:6 59:16 Chicago 38:25 choices 104:8 chosen 93:13 chunks 44:5 citation 110:24 cities 17:8 citizen 99:17 citizenry 94:23 citizens 38:12 80:19 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES city 6:21 19:6,7 19:23 24:25 68:22 69:2,2 70:17,19,20 77:5,8 80:17 85:16,18 114:4 claim 53:6 clarify 49:9 85:7 110:20 classes 48:24 49:2 53:23 54:20 55:5 106:11 classified 82:17 clean 36:9 37:4,5 38:14 39:11 40:24 44:7 62:11 64:14 99:21 100:16 104:8 cleaning 36:8,15 clear 13:11 49:10 68:9 98:5 clearly 80:6 closed 111:22 closer 96:2 closing 2:6,7,8,9 9:14 48:1,1,9 48:18 72:3 80:21 94:2 99:5 cloud 82:9 Coalition 10:19 code 62:14 collapse 13:20 42:19 65:4 collapses 43:1 colleague 70:16 colleagues 99:12 100:5 collect 11:8,19 12:8 27:1 37:18 37:21 69:15,16 collected 41:13 41:14 43:15 71:3,6,23 collecting 37:20 41:20 collection 18:25 19:15 20:6 collects 103:14 column 17:14 columns 30:7 come 12:19 13:1 23:5 31:22 34:25 36:9 37:4 40:7 63:20 66:13 comes 25:2,17 36:21,23 57:1 62:17 66:1 89:2 108:8 coming 15:9 35:16 57:12 66:7 84:3 94:20 commend 100:1 commensurate 81:14 comment 2:5 9:19,25 46:1 90:1 93:4 commented 87:5 100:25 commenting 46:4 comments 33:15 33:17 44:10 46:1 95:23 97:8 97:9 110:4 commercial 102:10 commercial-fa... 101:5 Commission 5:1 6:4,7 7:10,15 7:17,22,23 8:4 9:8,10,16 10:12 31:12,18 33:18 41:12 45:5,25 46:4,8,8 47:4 47:25 48:2,13 49:11,23 50:23 51:5 53:14,20 57:13 68:21 74:21 76:23 77:22 80:24 81:17 84:15 90:14 95:5 96:1 96:7 99:5 107:6 107:14 111:22 112:15,21 113:15 COMMISSIO... 4:3,4,5,6,7,8,9 4:10,11,12,13 Commissioners 6:11 34:7 48:5 55:18 72:8 81:22 96:23 99:12 111:25 112:1 Commissions 9:2 Commission's 31:13,19 46:16 commit 63:24 commitment 25:25 65:23 committed 59:9 committing 62:10 communities 77:8 compare 31:6 compared 76:13 86:5 competing 100:15 compilation 108:15 complaint 20:21 complete 28:24 59:17 completed 14:24 24:10 61:12 compliance 11:12 103:17 complies 48:22 compliment 35:6 complying 95:2 comprehensive 14:11 computer 99:25 concedes 80:12 concern 50:12 57:10 68:1,9,17 70:2,6 73:2 concerned 73:3 concerning 95:4 95:4 concerns 49:20 76:3,7 concluded 113:19 concludes 96:18 concluding 9:1 conclusion 54:16 78:12 111:20 conclusions 97:6 concrete 36:12 36:16 37:13 39:12 44:5 concurrence 68:5 conditions 80:20 conducted 8:14 8:25 90:2 110:3 112:18 conducting 110:8 Conference 8:11 8:17,18 94:14 94:15 97:1 100:4 conferences 9:10 99:19 confess 36:22 confusion 59:1 connect 111:4 consent 10:17 74:14 95:3 103:16 104:4 conservative 101:22 102:22 103:11 conservatively 95:7 consider 51:15 53:20 54:3 57:16 70:7 80:24 101:20 102:2,8,20 104:20 107:3 consideration 33:17 50:10 51:5 77:22 83:24 100:6 considerations 31:18 54:13 84:15 considered 11:24 50:23 51:3 52:19 54:5 89:12 107:8 considering 52:20 55:6 77:12 consist 15:20 42:18 consistent 72:20 97:23 107:15 consisting 54:25 consists 11:6,6 constitution 73:15 107:12 111:6,8 constitutional 76:4 82:12 constructed 21:21 33:7 42:9 62:12 construction 6:24 12:20 Consultant 5:5 107:25 108:7 consumer 96:9 96:15 consumers 5:12 6:24 8:10 45:1 94:1,8 95:18 96:19 98:18 99:20 contaminates 78:16 contending 78:7 80:11 contends 79:22 contest 104:14 continue 29:22 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 57:21 69:18 103:17 continues 100:10 contributed 91:8 control 71:13 74:11 controls 80:14 conundrum 107:7 convey 11:20 62:9 conveyed 68:20 Cool 34:10 copies 16:13 corner 16:13 correct 41:7 42:16 50:18 55:7 84:21 87:23 corroded 42:25 42:25 corrugated 42:23 cost 14:15 16:10 23:1 26:8,12,13 30:24 31:8 50:6 50:7,12 51:8 52:9,11,23 69:12 70:25 71:10,15 72:14 72:24 73:20 75:6,17,25 79:16 81:6 82:21 83:6 89:20 90:6 92:12 93:7 96:12 101:22 102:3 105:21 106:7,8,12 costly 95:2 costs 15:11 16:3 23:7,17,18,22 24:3,3 25:16 30:6 53:9,10 74:12 75:8 76:20 78:11,20 79:2,7,15 81:7 95:21 96:9 98:14,16 102:4 couched 65:10 Council 6:24 7:1 counsel 4:19 9:15 45:5 47:25 48:14 99:4 101:15 103:7 114:13,17 country 72:21 80:16 84:4 90:3 county 6:18 7:3,7 19:7 25:1 34:20 35:10 36:15 39:8 43:17 54:12 58:15,17 58:20,23,25 65:24 77:8 couple 10:11 37:1 57:19 86:20 97:8 98:8 100:13 course 112:7 court 41:17 49:21 60:20 64:5 68:10,24 69:11,20 70:10 70:23 76:6 82:3 83:18,24 105:22 107:9 114:6 court's 107:7 cover 72:13 coverage 100:22 107:23 108:2 108:18 109:2 coverages 102:6 crazy 38:20 39:13 create 91:19 created 99:15 creates 95:15 creating 92:23 credit 52:22 53:2 53:20 74:10 77:13,19,20 78:4 79:5,6,21 79:23 80:5,15 80:22 81:11 83:2,10 84:6 86:24 87:15,20 88:6 89:9,12,22 90:5,12,16 91:2 91:3,9,10,23 92:7,13,19,22 93:5 100:19 101:21 102:25 104:9 credits 51:10 52:20 53:7 100:20 creek 26:11 36:8 36:10,11,16,16 36:21 37:4,5 38:14 39:11,13 39:16 43:11,16 43:22 44:4,7 58:3 59:14,17 59:23 creeks 11:18,20 11:22 21:10,15 59:6 65:21 criteria 113:2 CRR 3:13 crucial 95:19 CSR 3:13 culverts 39:17 59:11 cure 35:24 current 12:12,13 15:21 24:21 26:22 33:10 50:3 61:5 68:12 69:13 71:1 77:4 81:2 85:14 89:15 108:5 currently 11:1,13 11:24 12:1 15:1 17:3 20:17,23 21:14,22,24 22:8 27:9 28:1 28:15 29:6,12 30:21 32:8 43:4 45:13 50:25 56:20,22 58:9 61:8,24 62:7 65:1 66:10 71:11 74:3 cushion 108:10 108:17 cushions 96:11 customer 19:10 19:11 28:21 30:11,15 76:12 customers 23:14 27:17,21 30:5 31:3,8 50:4,5 52:13 57:15 64:19 65:15 75:8 79:17 81:12 cut 105:17 cycle 15:22 26:5 108:19 109:7 109:10 D D 2:1 dangerous 39:9 dark 22:4 data 18:25 19:15 20:5 54:11 date 33:18 74:20 dated 38:23 days 97:8 deal 63:14 102:12 dealing 44:12 debate 89:11 debris 43:21,23 78:15 debt 15:14,15,25 32:18 49:15 98:7,7,17 100:18,21 101:8 102:2,6,7 103:18,19 105:12,12 107:22 108:1,3 108:5,8,22 109:1,7 110:22 December 31:17 decide 17:11 32:16 63:11 decided 68:25 decision 32:10,20 82:3,9,15 83:24 113:4 decisions 76:6 94:12,19 109:14 decline 102:3,9 109:4 declining 109:2,3 decrease 28:8 97:22 decreases 97:21 decreasing 28:11 decree 10:17 74:14 95:3 103:17 104:5 deductible 50:3 deer 38:16,17 definitely 51:13 degree 57:2 deliberation 111:23 deliberations 49:17 113:16 delinquency 102:14 demand 75:22 106:8 demonstrated 57:18 demonstrates 54:24 Department 10:18 depending 12:6 18:6 57:6,14 deposition 114:10,15 depression 38:23 Des 77:10 85:25 describing 8:18 description 8:21 design 12:22 106:5 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES designed 21:21 Despite 73:6 95:23 detailed 55:14 110:8 deteriorate 42:19 determine 48:20 82:22 108:14 determined 93:10 97:9 determining 50:13 detrimental 39:2 devastate 39:3 developed 79:18 developers 81:1 87:21 development 53:2 79:21 developments 80:9,13 87:3,6 88:3 devices 74:11 dialogue 86:21 88:5 diameter 40:9 difference 26:12 52:4,11 56:2 71:4 109:22 110:6 differences 56:1 different 18:5,6 33:13 52:7 55:25 56:17 57:13 88:11,20 90:11 difficult 59:2 96:13 102:5 dig 97:14 diligence 100:1 direct 76:23 79:1 directed 46:3 direction 46:16 82:5 114:13 directly 11:18 25:19 71:1 74:17,20 93:3 director 4:18,21 4:22,23 70:17 disagree 84:2 disagrees 74:1 discharge 66:17 discharged 13:18 discovery 9:9 94:16 discuss 58:5 discussed 66:10 73:25 103:12 discussion 67:8 85:3 92:6 106:22 109:19 112:8,10 discussions 68:17 disincentivize 95:20 disparate 77:2 dispute 89:14 District 1:1 3:1 4:16 6:5,8 7:5 7:11,13 9:14 10:4 12:5,6 18:6 21:4,4 23:3 27:18,23 28:3 30:24 44:19 46:17 47:1,2,24 48:6 48:8,15 49:13 50:15 55:11 71:25 73:8 74:7 74:13,16,17 75:6 76:3,7,9 76:17,21 77:4 78:5,21,23 79:8 79:12,19 80:6 80:12,18 81:4,8 81:19 83:19 85:15 86:7 91:22 93:7,11 95:1 101:15,20 102:21 103:1 103:15,23,25 105:7,11,19 106:16 108:16 109:24 111:12 districts 69:5 72:21 73:16 80:16 84:4 90:3 90:4,11 91:2 District's 7:16 48:18,20 53:8 54:7 63:10 72:9 75:4 77:14 78:2 78:5 79:4,15 80:2 94:25 100:21 102:13 103:8 108:1,5 District-wide 10:24 20:17 23:13 27:6,7,12 33:5 41:19 42:2 55:1 56:19 57:4 70:5 72:11 73:7 106:20 divided 26:12 division 110:2 document 113:5 documents 8:13 8:19 47:19 53:12 75:14 99:25 100:2 doing 13:14 14:19 29:22 31:18,21 59:10 66:14 87:18 dollar 15:16 16:23 25:11 32:13 71:20 dollars 12:15,24 13:3 15:8,10,18 15:19,20,23 16:2,24 17:16 17:19,25 23:6,9 23:20,23 24:11 24:24 25:4,12 25:17 26:1,4,5 29:1,5 30:9,14 30:20 32:2 37:15 41:14 43:14 50:8 52:9 66:3 71:2,6,10 71:22 door 9:20 dot 16:6 dots 16:7 21:10 double 14:21 15:2,3,4 23:21 24:2 98:10 100:24 108:11 doubled 101:7 doubling 24:1 doubt 57:11 draft 113:6 drainage 22:21 drains 11:9 dramatically 100:18 101:6 drastically 76:20 draw 26:10 drive 43:12 driven 10:20 13:12 driver 22:1 drivers 11:4 75:25 driving 10:15 23:11 41:4 101:18 104:4 drove 22:22 due 23:25 31:13 102:9 duly 114:10 dumped 94:11 dumping 36:12 36:14 44:3 duplicate 10:8 duty 96:14 E E 2:1 4:1,1 earlier 29:2 41:7 60:10 64:2 66:10 earth 75:21 easel 34:1 easement 62:9 easily 75:20 81:9 east 85:23 Eastern 5:9 8:9 44:23 easy 76:1 economic 54:10 54:13 103:10 103:12 economy 23:25 101:24 edit 113:7 editing 113:5 effect 78:10 89:9 90:17 effective 14:15 effectively 90:6 104:12 efforts 13:6 55:10 eight 12:16 14:23 15:6 eighty 41:14,15 71:6,22 either 14:1 37:19 40:20 102:17 election 7:7,8 32:22 element 9:13 83:6 89:11 104:4 112:3 elements 55:14 elephant 107:5 eliminated 13:7 eliminates 69:14 email 46:2,9,10 46:11,12 emails 46:3 emergencies 101:23 emergency 18:25 19:15 20:6,22 employed 114:14 114:17 employee 114:16 enable 92:8 encourage 91:11 encouraged 83:2 encourages 81:17 encouraging PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 80:24 81:1 98:7 ended 23:10 Energy 5:12 8:9 45:1 94:1,8 Engineering 4:21 enhance 53:7 72:18 81:11 enhancement 53:10 enhances 80:17 entering 79:2 enterprise 51:23 106:15 111:2 entire 24:4 entirely 88:16 entities 42:5,7 110:22 entitled 80:7 entity 52:2 60:17 61:18,20 entity's 60:18 environment 10:19 14:4 envy 94:11 EPA 10:19 74:14 75:15 76:24 80:16 95:2 101:13 equal 106:17,18 equalized 27:22 equally 74:25 equals 79:3 equipment 40:16 equitable 50:18 51:7 52:15,18 73:12,17 74:4 75:13 77:15,23 81:16 83:5 96:15 107:4 equitably 75:7 89:22 90:6 equity 91:19 equivalent 68:22 76:19 Eric 4:9 6:19 eroding 26:9 erosion 19:4,20 20:10 30:1 57:4 66:4,17 71:13 escalation 96:9 essence 79:12 86:1 established 7:9 67:11 estate 72:13 estimates 98:6 evaluating 49:18 54:7 events 13:9 60:4 everybody 31:6 35:17 40:12 64:17 66:21 everybody's 63:21 everyone's 49:18 evidence 9:6 46:18 47:21 49:4 53:9 54:21 55:13,14 evidenced 75:14 evidentiary 44:17 exact 38:7 61:25 88:11,19 examination 113:1 examining 76:17 example 26:11 65:6 68:20 95:23 examples 42:20 90:9 exceed 81:2 100:23 excess 103:15 104:18 excessive 94:25 96:16 102:24 104:11 excludes 50:4 excluding 69:18 Executive 4:18 112:19 exempt 110:17 110:22 111:1 111:10 exempted 110:19 exhibit 45:11,14 45:16,19,21,24 46:17,20 47:9 47:16,20 85:17 exhibits 47:1,7 47:13 55:13 76:25 exist 51:11 61:13 62:2 existence 88:19 existing 18:14 51:1,19 57:1 62:10 79:25 80:13 88:2 exists 30:21 exorbitant 104:16 expanded 50:5 expect 86:15 expedite 103:16 expenses 101:1 101:23 105:14 experiencing 95:14 expert 51:19 54:22 explain 59:3 explained 43:6 56:19 97:5 explanations 82:1 expressing 99:13 extend 29:9 extent 81:14 extra 24:12 38:13 41:2 95:10 extremely 53:13 F facing 83:16 95:1 fact 23:14 35:3,5 49:2 65:10 89:14 95:25 106:23 factor 75:17 81:10 104:14 factored 54:12 factors 50:9 75:21 82:18 factual 54:11 55:12 fails 74:9 failure 72:18 fair 48:23 49:1 50:14,18 51:7 52:15,17 53:23 54:17,19 55:4 73:11,17,17 74:4 75:12,25 77:15 79:22 81:16 83:5,5 92:23 94:22 96:15 100:16 104:23 105:9 107:4,14 fairly 32:24 fairness 77:17 fall 88:8 111:15 familiar 60:1 family 17:1,4,21 far 42:14 66:2 105:1 109:16 fast 84:24 faster 100:3 fastest 54:14 favor 73:7 fear 50:10 69:8 83:21 fears 63:25 82:4 February 7:7,14 48:21 99:16 federal 20:18 103:16 fee 12:2 18:17 19:8 20:1 27:15 37:14 39:19,19 41:11 49:22,23 49:25 50:2,2,6 50:11 52:8 67:19,25 68:3 68:23 69:1,7,9 69:14,17,21 70:6,7 76:10 85:2 97:10 104:15,16,23 105:25 106:3 110:16,22 111:6 feedback 67:16 feel 82:7 83:18 fees 81:13 97:4 97:19 feet 35:16 36:24 94:11 100:2 felt 64:16 65:22 fewer 24:20 73:23 105:21 fictitious 35:3 Fifth 38:10 fifty 15:17 fighting 70:10 file 55:13 filed 8:8 46:17 97:7 100:4,5 final 47:9 48:5 111:24 112:1 finally 25:15 27:11 29:7 finance 4:24 49:16 financial 14:17 14:18 101:25 financially 14:19 114:18 financing 15:18 15:19 49:19 52:14 107:23 find 17:22 22:25 31:7 57:13 109:23 finds 80:2 fine 34:14 36:13 102:17 fines 104:1 fire 51:15 first 10:3,10 14:7 16:19 26:15 27:24 43:9 58:1 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 58:8 66:23 78:2 78:5 89:11 94:23 98:8 fiscal 17:22,23 18:1 23:9,17 30:10 103:2,5 105:3 Fitch 15:3 100:19 five 12:11 14:8 71:11 fix 36:1,3 flat 12:2 float 37:2 floated 40:16 floating 41:4 flood 36:22 58:17 58:20 59:8,13 60:4,5,6 flooded 36:20 41:3 flooding 19:4,20 20:10 30:1 35:8 36:5 40:15 57:3 58:13,16 59:7,8 60:4,5,6 66:4 71:13 floods 36:19 flowing 78:16 flows 11:23 flushes 13:21 focus 56:11 72:9 78:1 focused 100:6 folks 23:1 24:13 28:14 29:8,14 32:10 62:5 69:18 110:19 follow 84:23 following 6:1 49:19 62:25 91:1 103:5 follow-up 97:24 footage 88:20 footnote 107:7 forcing 79:12 84:4 forecast 95:7 forecasts 103:15 foregoing 114:9 foremost 94:24 forgive 102:15 form 77:21 forth 59:23 71:1 109:17 forward 64:6 81:19 98:9 103:16 112:9 112:11 founder 51:20 four 9:13 14:8 15:9,9,12,13,17 16:25 17:6 23:7 26:5,18 27:1 28:6 33:8 57:18 95:17 98:1 109:15,16 fourth 104:13 Fox 5:2 45:3 front 29:25 full 36:16 fully 51:1 55:11 function 62:12 78:20 functioned 62:15 fund 15:16 25:7 29:10 51:23 52:14 55:2 73:14 98:16 106:16 fundamental 74:22 fundamentally 84:6 funded 11:14 12:2 20:23 21:14,22,24,25 22:8 24:12 27:9 43:5 51:1 52:1 funding 10:25 11:2,3 12:4,7 20:12 22:12 26:19,22 52:16 52:18 55:3 56:21 64:7 65:11 70:4,12 73:24 89:15 108:18 funds 25:8,11 78:13 98:6 103:3,4 105:5 further 46:23 71:24 74:13 77:2 106:22 110:12 111:16 114:15 future 32:15,19 54:3 66:9,20 67:2 76:5 103:6 103:10,20 105:22,22 107:9 108:5 FY17 1:4 3:4 G gain 13:8 garage 26:11 garden 6:14 87:19 gather 99:19 gathered 38:4 40:20,21 general 4:19 7:8 48:14 54:9 59:13 82:7,19 88:15 108:15 112:19 generates 58:17 gentleman 41:9 65:20 getting 12:20 13:15 14:7 25:23 35:12 38:19 41:3 67:17 86:12 geyser 35:15 58:7 give 33:16 60:7 93:15 110:24 111:7 given 10:8 103:5 103:9 108:21 gives 66:25 67:2 Global 34:25 go 12:10 16:4,16 16:21 17:5 18:1 18:3,4 20:14 23:4,22 24:3,18 25:19 26:2,23 27:5,19 28:20 30:3 31:17 32:5 32:8 34:23 39:16,17 59:16 62:15 64:3 68:11 69:11,25 82:5 85:6 89:8 90:17,24 91:24 108:10 goals 101:21 goes 11:18 13:17 30:13 going 16:5,10 18:13 24:8 31:3 32:16,17 33:14 35:9 36:1 59:7 62:13 63:6,14 63:17,18 64:7 65:25 66:3,8,13 67:1 68:17 69:25 88:7,9,12 88:21 89:4 91:7 93:22 94:12 98:9 101:13 102:14,21 105:17 112:5,8 112:11 good 6:3 12:19 19:16,18 48:13 60:25 62:3 67:7 67:8,10 81:15 113:10 Goss 84:19 gotten 36:8 govern 7:18 government 52:2 grant 16:20 17:12 92:8,25 93:2 granted 8:10 40:6 grass 39:22 89:5 grate 35:25 36:2 gravity 78:9 Gravois 39:18 gray 21:5 grease 13:21 great 35:6 greater 7:1 73:5 78:24 92:10 108:2,3 greatly 52:8 green 19:21 20:11 21:4,10 24:9,13 26:16 27:3,24 28:1 58:2 85:24 86:6 99:9 106:23,24 106:25 gross 65:16 ground 11:17 61:9 76:16 89:2 Groves 77:10 86:1 growing 54:15 guards 21:12,19 guess 64:14 82:23 84:25 86:2 87:2 91:6 93:12 97:25 98:1,4,7 guilty 44:3 gutters 64:14 guys 43:15,24 65:5 H half 10:25 22:15 24:24,24,25 25:10,17 26:3 28:8 31:5,9 65:10 66:3 100:2 Hancock 104:24 hand 10:1 100:22 103:21 105:13 handed 60:14 handle 35:19 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 40:4 hands 34:11 happen 26:1 82:14 happening 35:3 35:23 39:6 happens 16:20 17:21 26:22 60:17,19 harm 36:3 hauler 97:4,10 97:19 Hawes 4:7 6:17 6:17 HBA 74:1,1 75:9 75:14 76:2,3,24 76:25 77:11,18 78:17 79:22 80:2,21 81:17 83:1 92:18 HBA's 75:3 78:3 79:20 84:16 header 98:1 hear 20:9 60:21 64:23 67:9 heard 38:23 45:25 106:17 hearing 1:5 3:5 9:3,18 10:3 44:17 72:2 84:19 93:22 111:20 113:12 113:14 hearings 8:25 10:9 99:18 heavily 101:14 heavy 36:5 held 9:4 help 92:11 helping 44:11 helps 108:20 113:10 herring 78:24 hey 32:16 high 11:23 35:16 95:8,18,20 108:21 higher 51:8 108:16 highest 26:14,17 86:14 highlighted 55:15 Highway 39:17 historical 97:17 97:23 historically 85:20 hit 38:21 Hoelscher 4:18 10:7 33:21 37:8 37:23 38:1,6 41:6,9,16 42:1 42:6,9,12,17 45:10,12 46:1 54:24 56:3,18 58:4,24 59:19 59:24 60:25 61:4 64:1 67:13 67:22,24 68:1 69:24 70:15,18 70:21 71:5 87:4 hold 34:12,13 hole 65:7 holes 42:20 65:3 Home 5:8 8:8 44:22 72:2 homeowners 91:11 honestly 64:23 hope 40:19 Hopefully 67:5 house 36:10 37:12 43:11 household 101:11 houses 62:3 hundred 12:14 12:16,24 13:2 15:10,13,17,20 15:23 16:23 17:18,24 23:8 30:9,14,19 32:2 hundreds 63:8 Hurricane 38:21 hybrid 83:17 hypothetical 74:23 Hypothetically 92:2 I idea 66:11 98:6 ideas 54:3 identified 12:14 12:18 13:20 24:9,23 25:16 29:1 47:20 66:5 identify 6:11 9:22 46:9 62:6 identifying 8:12 ignorant 76:2 90:8 Ike 38:21 IL 114:7 illegally 43:15 illustrated 77:2 immediate 101:11 immediately 57:11 62:13 69:5 impact 17:1 27:21 28:12 30:5 31:3 53:4 64:19 65:15 77:3 78:6 79:1 82:3 95:17,19 109:11 impacting 109:7 impacts 11:23 impervious 41:11 49:22 50:11 52:8,12 52:14,17 55:25 56:4 68:3,6,11 68:23 69:17,21 70:6 71:3,7 73:7,20,23 75:12,16,19,23 75:24 76:8,10 76:16 77:12 82:16 85:1,2 89:2 93:14 105:19 106:7 106:15,19 107:10 implement 50:6 52:7 82:17 83:22 91:12,14 implementation 50:11 implemented 43:9 74:3 77:15 89:7 90:5,11,16 91:3 92:21 93:1 93:5 implementing 80:23 importance 94:19 important 50:13 53:14 65:22 66:23 77:21 81:10 108:4 importantly 95:13 impose 75:4 imposed 94:22 imposing 73:5 impossible 82:17 improve 78:19 80:18,19 improvement 1:2 3:2 26:9 improvements 14:14 16:3 32:4 improves 79:23 improving 74:15 inabilities 103:24 inappropriate 78:7 incentive 77:19 86:25 87:25 91:11 92:11 93:16 102:4 incentivized 80:19 87:16,20 inch 40:8,9 43:20 inches 35:20,21 include 50:5 51:24 78:4 included 14:24 51:22 includes 85:24 112:22 including 54:22 58:6 72:25 79:25 80:17 81:5 inclusion 77:18 77:19 income 31:3,5,8 85:10,20 86:11 101:11 Incorporated 7:3 increase 14:9 17:6 23:24 28:23 29:4,5 32:18 46:5 50:12 63:7,7 76:11 77:7 85:19,21 86:17 95:15 101:5,8 102:14 105:8 105:15 increased 102:2 102:7,14 increases 34:22 81:7 100:18 104:21 increasing 81:7 109:14 incur 36:13 incurred 79:14 89:21 98:14 incurring 108:22 Indenture 100:24 indicate 91:23 indicated 96:4 indicates 25:22 individual 16:15 27:21 30:24 58:19 72:25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 81:2 87:14 91:6 individuals 31:5 Industrial 5:12 8:9 45:1 94:1,8 industry 15:5 inequality 77:1 85:5 91:13 inequity 77:1 84:25 86:5 inflated 95:15 inflates 95:14 influence 75:21 influenced 75:18 information 14:24 38:7 41:7 49:5 53:12 54:23 55:7 76:22 94:10 97:12,14 99:19 infrastructure 22:24 73:15 78:8 79:3,17 initial 92:12,15 inlets 65:2 innovations 76:18 innovative 72:19 81:18 84:5 inside 16:8 insight 82:14 install 74:10 87:4 87:6 installation 79:24 installed 83:8 instance 59:11 88:1 insure 94:21,24 103:1 integrated 66:11 integrity 14:13 intend 94:13 intended 79:20 interest 99:21 interested 16:15 114:18 interpretation 69:20 intervene 8:6,7 8:23 Intervenor 44:22 45:1 47:24 59:25 intervenors 9:15 48:7 51:18 52:3 52:7 53:6,21 54:4,13 74:21 102:1 introduced 94:16 introduction 91:8 invariably 31:23 investigation 20:22 investment 92:15 involved 99:16 issue 8:22 9:11 13:12 23:13 42:21 44:8 57:10 59:3 60:10 64:23 77:18 83:21 84:8 91:16,20 112:2 issues 8:12,18 13:19 14:15 19:3,14,19 20:10,11 21:13 21:16 25:14 44:12 46:23 50:24 56:6,14 56:15,21 57:3,8 58:13 59:6,7 63:5,8 64:21 65:16,19 66:2,5 66:19 89:15,20 100:6,14 item 97:3,25 items 45:24 97:1 J J 4:3 job 19:16,18 John 5:2 45:3 join 99:12 joints 42:19 Jonathon 4:22 Jones 4:12 6:21 6:21 67:15,16 67:20,25 69:22 70:13 86:19,20 86:24 87:8,11 87:21,24 88:5 88:17,25 89:6 89:18,24 90:7 90:13,20,22 journey 94:10 July 1:6 3:6 8:17 17:3 46:17,25 113:16 June 8:14 46:16 46:19 Justice 10:18 justify 95:12 K Kansas 68:22,22 69:2 70:17,17 70:18,20 80:17 Kathleen 3:12 114:5,22 keep 14:6 29:22 32:13 49:19 50:20 52:6 53:14 69:23 100:7 101:4 keeping 19:18 42:15,18 Keller 104:14 Kennard 4:12 6:21 kept 13:16 kids 44:6 kind 18:24 22:10 31:17,21 32:11 42:22 43:6 58:10 62:25 64:3,6,19 67:2 68:14 82:10 83:16 85:2,6,7 97:5 98:9 kinds 58:14 Kirkwood 77:9 85:25 know 14:21 26:9 34:5 35:10,17 35:23 36:12,18 38:4,13 39:6,15 39:17,19 40:2,2 40:5,14,22,24 41:1,24 43:8 44:2,3 58:1,25 60:2 61:6 63:4 63:5,6,20 64:13 65:3 66:7 68:10 69:17 70:8 82:13,24,25 83:8,12,12 84:6 90:18 91:7,18 91:18 93:3 97:16,19 110:7 112:11 knowing 32:18 knowledge 19:3 57:24 L L 4:18 Labor 7:1 lack 60:6 80:13 86:25 lacking 19:17 80:2 Ladue 77:9 85:25 lady's 65:4 landed 65:12 lane 39:23 large 25:13 larger 32:17 largest 65:15 Lashly 45:4 late 13:20 law 50:3 67:23 67:24 107:15 laws 84:3 lawyer 70:1 leading 103:24 110:5 League 6:18 leaps 34:22 Leeds 68:21 69:4 70:16 left 6:11 16:19 30:8 43:21 57:1 legal 9:15 45:5 47:24 69:23 82:6 99:4 104:1 legally 40:23 legislation 69:13 69:13,18 105:22 110:19 110:23 111:5 111:14 Lemoine 5:6 108:13 109:9 109:25 112:22 lengthy 95:2 Leonard 4:3 6:6 let's 10:4 12:10 16:4,16 18:3 20:14 23:4 30:3 34:17 40:1 44:6 44:6 88:18 90:14,15 level 28:5 61:24 62:21 76:12 100:18 105:12 108:22 levels 33:13,13 62:8 71:19 levy 111:9 life 34:24 light 108:4 lightly 39:4 limit 93:7 Lindbergh 39:18 line 40:8,9 67:3 lines 21:9 22:4,14 42:15 links 106:8 Lisa 5:3 45:4 46:8 list 13:4,5 16:4,8 16:22 26:21 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 47:1,3,10,20 60:9 62:15 listed 9:21 listened 59:25 Litigation 3:14 little 19:17 24:3 38:2 41:2 44:3 63:1 66:12 108:11 live 12:6 18:7,12 18:16,20 19:5 19:21 28:14 34:19 36:22 39:8 86:4 lived 34:20 lives 22:17 38:15 38:17 39:3 42:24 living 30:24 load 28:3 loan 32:11 local 20:18 22:22 located 23:3 58:11 locations 33:17 logical 78:12 long 40:8 57:9 67:5,6 92:15 94:9 longer 27:1 109:12 look 14:23 18:9 18:14 21:2 24:22 66:6 71:8 97:17 101:16 108:25 109:10 looked 16:6 looking 14:16,17 15:3 22:11,25 29:9 83:21 looks 13:1 lot 31:4 34:21,22 36:7 39:7,24 42:22 58:13,16 59:1 62:2,3 64:21 65:18 69:8,11 83:20 84:25 89:3,5 94:10 106:17 loud 107:24 Louis 1:1 3:1,16 4:16 5:9 6:5,8 6:17,20,23 7:1 7:6,6 8:8 19:6 24:25 35:11 38:24 44:19,23 54:12 58:23,25 77:5 80:11 85:16,18 110:2 114:4 low 31:3,5,8 85:10 lower 28:3 32:13 85:20 108:11 lowering 86:6 Lutheran 6:15 lying 85:23 M machines 11:10 magic 108:13,23 magnitude 81:13 Mahanta 4:4 7:2 7:2 55:20,21 56:16 57:19,22 59:17,20 60:11 60:13,22 61:3 62:23 70:23,24 Mahfood 4:5 62:24,25 67:6 67:14 81:24,25 83:14 84:9 112:4,5 113:10 main 22:1,2 maintain 11:2,3 14:12,13,17 15:4 19:14 20:5 20:6,24 22:13 23:15,22 24:2,4 29:24 33:9 65:1 73:21 78:14 98:10,11,20 102:5 108:1,11 maintained 40:8 maintaining 14:21 19:16 28:5 42:15 70:5 109:1 maintenance 12:23 13:1 15:11 19:1 22:3 22:7,9,10,19 23:7,12,17,18 24:18 25:6,20 25:24 27:4,13 28:24 33:5 41:19 42:13,18 43:3,5 49:14 50:17,24 51:9 52:16,24 53:17 55:2,23 56:9,13 58:10 60:16 61:15,22 70:25 71:8 72:15,25 73:9,14 74:12 78:11 79:2 81:6 101:1 102:22 105:14 107:2 major 60:10 majority 14:8 51:25 65:8 making 109:14 110:8,10 manage 102:4,11 102:22 105:12 105:12,13,13 managed 58:18 58:19 109:3 management 21:11,19 58:20 59:13 80:9 81:4 81:14 87:9 96:13 managing 52:11 95:21 109:12 mandate 92:19 mandated 91:18 mandating 80:22 manner 14:19 72:19 77:16 man-up 39:11 map 18:9 21:3,9 21:23 28:14 33:12 57:5 66:6 maps 16:13 21:6 March 7:19 Mark 4:11 6:15 marker 101:4 markets 101:25 Master 100:23 material 60:3 matter 35:5 60:14 63:18 95:25 104:9,10 matters 45:6 46:14 104:9 ma'am 92:17 93:18 mean 24:2 63:23 83:24 90:14 93:14 109:15 meaningful 72:19 81:18 means 94:23 meant 85:8 mechanics 56:25 mechanism 50:18 70:12 74:9 92:22 media 63:21 median 39:21 meet 18:23 20:20 20:21 56:23 81:9 98:9 103:24 113:15 meeting 2:10 6:4 47:23 53:2 112:20 meetings 112:16 113:1 meets 20:18 member 4:4,5,6 4:7,8,9,10,11 4:12,13 33:22 members 9:11,24 16:11 47:3 48:2 99:11 107:13 112:20 memorandum 84:14,18 mention 65:21 110:16 mentioned 20:15 26:24 57:25 58:6,7,14,15 59:25 60:10 65:20 68:2 70:16,16 96:25 99:23 101:10 108:8 mentions 110:18 mercenary 63:1 merely 79:6 92:21 metal 42:23 metered 109:21 109:23 method 50:1 52:8 52:12,14,17 73:20,23 76:16 76:19 105:20 methodologies 75:10,11,16 76:18 methodology 54:9 55:4 73:21 80:23 83:3 metric 108:4 metrics 101:21 104:9 Metropolitan 1:1 3:1 4:16 6:5,7 44:18 Meyer 110:18 microphone 33:24 middle 17:8 31:12 39:22 Midwest 3:14 MIEC 95:4 96:2 96:18 108:8 MIEC's 94:18 95:24 96:18 Mike 4:10 6:25 miles 21:10 22:5 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 39:15,20 militate 78:13 million 12:15,17 12:24 13:2,3 15:10,13,18,18 15:20,23 16:23 17:19,24 23:6,8 23:20,23 24:11 25:11,17 26:4 29:1 30:9,14,19 32:2 41:14,15 50:8 52:9 66:3 71:2,6,9,20,22 millions 43:14 mind 34:25 41:1 49:19 50:20 52:6 53:14 58:5 59:18 64:9 83:15 101:4 minimum 100:7 mischaracterizes 79:19 misconceptions 49:9 Missouri 3:16 5:9,12 6:14 8:9 8:9 10:22 41:17 44:23 45:1 70:19,20 76:6 94:1,7 114:2 mitigate 53:3 mix 12:7 mixed 87:2 mixture 49:15 103:11 MO 114:6 model 100:10,12 modernized 79:13 modified 8:1 98:2 modify 66:12 Monday 112:16 112:17 113:16 money 24:17 36:14 37:5,20 37:22 38:4,11 38:13,14 40:21 40:23 41:18,21 43:14 92:11 95:10 104:21 monies 16:2 19:19 20:8 22:9 26:16 41:23,24 42:2 65:25 monitor 21:16 month 12:2 17:4 17:9 18:2,17 19:8,22 20:1 32:7,7,9,9 37:16 monthly 11:14 27:16 months 37:24,25 Moody's 15:3 moral 87:17 morning 6:3 44:11 48:13 105:24 106:21 Mound 6:21 move 64:6 103:16 112:9 movement 82:10 moving 81:19 82:4 100:17 MSD 7:22 10:23 11:6,18 12:14 13:11 14:22 15:1 18:5,11,20 20:9,10,25 22:1 26:6,24 28:9 30:5,11,12,16 30:17,25 32:3 35:4,11 36:7 39:5,10 40:6,17 42:10 44:3 45:21 46:17 48:14,22 49:7 49:21,25 50:10 51:6 52:7,12,14 52:21,23 53:1 53:13,25 54:9 54:16,22 55:6,8 57:12 58:9,18 58:20 59:6,8,21 59:22 60:8 61:10,14 76:12 82:19 85:16 89:14,19 90:2 90:14 93:2 94:22 95:9,20 96:3,4,10 97:4 97:22 98:10 103:14 MSD's 10:12 13:16 14:8 22:23 34:24 49:20 50:21 51:18 54:14,24 55:7 60:15,22 60:23 61:5 62:20 64:4 75:1 94:24 95:5,23 96:14,19 98:1 MS-4 20:20 multi-family 101:4 multi-layered 72:12 municipal 6:18 54:14 73:11 municipalities 58:19 64:24 68:19 municipality 51:24 Myers 2:6 4:19 44:20,20 45:13 45:21 46:7,15 47:5,9,17 48:10 48:12,14 55:17 55:19 70:2 99:9 myriad 93:8 N N 2:1 4:1 name 6:6 34:19 48:13 names 9:21 Nancy 4:8 narrow 39:14 nationally 17:8 nationwide 68:18 91:7 natural 39:7 58:11 naturally 35:19 36:1 40:11 nature 87:13 near 19:6,23,24 24:25 85:18 nearly 106:6 necessary 52:23 101:22 105:9 need 40:18,25 43:15 44:7,7 45:7 51:10 64:10 91:21 92:9 96:11 100:11,13,15 102:8 104:20 106:2 needed 40:22 needs 43:19 49:16 56:23 81:19 89:14 105:11 negative 95:17 neither 114:13 Neuschafer 2:8 5:13 45:2,2 47:14,18 94:3,5 94:7 96:22,24 97:2,11 98:12 99:1,3 100:10 100:25 102:15 102:16,17,19 never 34:23 38:20,23 53:1 new 25:18 33:4 53:1 59:5 62:11 76:17 79:21 80:9 87:6,21 97:9,13,14 106:24 news 35:13 nexus 51:13,15 74:5,18 Nicholas 5:10 Nick 44:24 night 65:4 nights 35:13 43:1 nine 12:14 15:23 16:22 25:23 30:9,14,19 32:2 37:24,25 113:16 ninety 12:17 23:6 nobody's 60:24 non-profit 50:1 110:17 non-profits 67:17,19 68:8 69:23 70:8 105:25,25 North 3:15 7:2 19:7 25:1 85:18 note 80:21 notice 7:15 20:15 notified 59:9 not-for-profits 68:14,25 69:12 November 7:8 nullify 82:10 number 9:4,6 16:7 45:16,20 46:12 47:16 65:17 71:20,21 100:8 101:17 101:18 108:13 108:23 numbers 45:25 46:7 71:9 97:17 97:23 numerous 80:16 90:4 O O 45:4 Oakville 35:10 objections 9:8 objectives 74:13 objects 105:19 obligations 27:9 observations PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 100:8 observed 100:10 obtain 12:21 obvious 64:6 68:19 Obviously 90:3 occurring 35:22 occurs 36:5 October 31:16 odds 51:19 offer 77:23 83:4 offered 62:5 offering 62:1 Oh 38:3 67:22 70:18 okay 10:7 32:17 38:9 47:9,18 59:19,20 60:13 61:4 66:25 67:24 70:13 84:22 86:9,18 87:11 88:5,25 90:13,15,20 98:21 102:18 old 39:19 OMCI 24:12,17 26:24 once 25:11 26:15 42:9 59:9 61:12 96:18 ones 65:19 onsite 81:14 on-the-record 8:24 open 42:15,18,19 Opening 2:3 operate 20:6 22:13 24:2 29:23 73:9,20 operates 62:14 78:8 operating 16:3 21:20 62:7 70:4 operation 12:23 12:25 15:11 19:1 22:2,7,9 22:10,18 23:6 23:17,18 24:18 25:5,20,24 27:4 27:13 28:24 33:5 41:19 42:12,17 43:3,5 49:14 50:16,24 51:8,24 52:16 52:24 53:17 55:2,23 56:9,12 58:10 60:16 61:15,21 70:25 71:7 76:20 78:10 81:6 101:1 102:22 105:14 107:2 operational 7:17 9:2 operations 4:22 20:24 72:14,25 73:10 74:12 79:1 102:11,13 106:16 opinion 108:12 opportunity 8:5 35:17 48:3,6 58:5 64:12 81:13 84:8 97:14 98:16,19 111:24 opposed 83:10 98:17 104:7 opt 68:25 optimistic 103:12 options 16:17 93:8 order 6:5 9:21 24:4 25:5 89:21 92:9 105:11 organizations 9:23 50:1 110:17 111:9 111:11 original 19:24 21:4 originally 21:21 Otis 4:13 6:23 outcome 114:18 outlined 94:14 outlines 84:15 outnumbers 36:17 output 82:22 outside 9:20 13:23 18:10 21:5 56:7 57:17 59:8 66:14 93:6 overall 28:12 29:3,20 30:4 104:5 overflows 13:7 14:4,6,10 overlap 59:2 overseen 10:21 oversight 99:17 overstated 95:18 103:22 overview 67:10 over-funded 104:6,11 owners 62:9 79:25 81:2 O&M 27:2 65:14 65:23,24 71:15 71:16,21 78:6 78:14 O'Connell 4:10 6:25,25 P P 4:1,1 page 2:2 12:10 18:3 20:14 61:25 85:17 107:22 paid 20:16 24:13 29:6 38:12 51:11 71:7 104:18 107:15 110:16 Pam 5:6 parameters 14:20 parcel 75:18,19 76:17 82:22 parking 89:3 part 21:24,25 22:4 26:10 46:20 50:21 51:11 56:16 58:1,2,2,2 59:1 64:16 66:24 71:22 78:4,21 80:3,8,10 85:7 85:12,13 105:2 112:10 participant 8:16 47:6 participants 47:2 participant's 8:21 participate 8:24 23:1 participating 48:16 73:24 particular 35:11 37:15,20 63:5 80:22 110:21 particularly 108:4 parties 112:2 114:14,17 parts 66:23 77:7 105:4 party 93:6 pass 34:15,16 passed 39:16 63:10 101:12 101:13 passing 110:9 path 49:10 patience 96:20 Paul 4:6 6:13 pay 12:3 18:8,17 18:20 19:8,21 19:25 25:5 29:18 30:15,23 31:5 32:14,19 33:12 49:13 51:7 52:13 55:24 56:4,5,8 64:13 68:8,15 69:2,6 70:9 77:9 92:15 100:13 105:25 106:4 PAYGO 49:16 98:1,6 paying 17:4,8 22:18 28:2,15 28:17,21 29:8 29:12,14 31:10 37:6,15 41:2 67:4 85:11 91:14 92:1 106:25 110:22 payment 33:13 69:1 pays 21:8 27:8 30:11 peek 53:3 98:3 98:14 pejorative 102:24 penalties 104:1 people 35:9 36:12 39:8 41:1 44:2 63:17 64:8 69:15 73:23 85:10 86:3,4 92:8,12,13 93:16 106:14 109:20,21 111:8 people's 38:15,17 39:3 63:25 percent 12:17 17:5 23:24 24:4 28:9 29:4,21 52:13 76:10,12 101:8,12,12,13 106:14 109:22 perception 81:11 percolate 75:20 Peres 77:10 85:25 perfect 95:23 perform 52:23 75:4 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES period 9:19 14:23 16:25 23:7 41:22 42:3 109:12 permission 40:11 44:1 permit 9:4,10,14 10:20 20:20 61:10 97:4 permits 11:12 permitted 8:24 112:20,21 permitting 20:19 87:5 person 8:4 36:13 103:9 personal 87:19 philosophy 95:5 phonetic 84:19 picture 35:14,25 83:22 pictures 34:4 36:19,20 38:15 38:22 43:20,23 piece 61:7 pieces 60:3 64:17 pink 18:10 pipe 13:20 42:23 43:19,21 65:3,4 pipes 11:10 13:17 35:19 40:3 42:19 43:23 place 14:7 27:8 30:13 41:13 56:20 64:11,15 68:5 69:9 70:4 70:12 89:25 placed 16:18 places 14:14 17:7 plain 36:22 58:20 59:8 60:4,5,6 plains 58:18 59:13 plan 7:5,9 20:19 31:22,23 71:2 99:14 105:2 109:1 planning 66:11 plants 13:17 pleading 38:10 please 33:25 41:8 48:11 49:19 50:20 54:8 60:12 94:4 plugging 96:5 Plus 15:3 plush 96:11 Poeling 46:11 point 45:9 55:19 57:12 66:9 71:25 90:19 98:18,23 100:2 pointed 101:16 police 21:18 36:25 policies 100:16 policy 54:23 108:1 political 77:23 pollutant 53:4 poor 73:5 86:3 Poor's 15:2 population 54:15 77:6 85:20 portion 10:4 12:10 28:10 51:8 75:19 95:6 portions 54:11 position 8:21 94:18 98:13 102:11 positions 49:18 possibility 17:13 possible 104:1 105:22,22 109:9 possibly 38:15 39:3 potential 63:7 91:13,24 potentially 78:17 88:24 power 45:9 practical 89:7 practice 24:21 Practices 21:11 21:19 87:10 preamble 67:8 precinct 36:25 precipitous 109:4 precisely 103:10 preconference 97:5,7 107:21 predict 103:10 preface 82:12 prehearing 8:11 8:16,18 84:12 84:14,23 94:14 94:15 96:25 97:1 100:4 preparation 113:8 prepared 8:13,20 9:7,12 47:2 present 9:24 33:23 45:3 47:3 47:25 48:8 72:3 84:8 99:5 101:24 112:25 presentation 2:4 16:12 33:20,23 43:6 45:10 103:8 106:21 presentations 10:8 presented 51:4 54:4 55:22 82:25 84:19 PRESIDING 4:3 pretty 15:5 19:16 19:18 64:6 67:10 98:13 106:19 prevent 36:1 39:7,10 prevented 36:6 previous 12:25 21:6 31:7,10 69:21 110:5 previously 8:13 9:7 20:16 50:15 88:3 prices 12:20 primarily 12:4 18:10 19:6 23:18 primary 10:25 22:21 23:13 56:11 64:22,23 principle 72:9 75:3 printed 99:25 prior 41:16,17 68:3 priorities 67:12 prioritizes 26:7 priority 26:12,14 26:17 63:13 private 42:5,7 60:17 61:14,18 61:19 62:1,6,19 87:14 privately 60:14 probably 13:5 24:15 39:19 40:4 41:1 42:21 63:8 68:16,19 88:12 108:19 110:4 problem 13:25 16:9 36:3 39:24 40:18 60:23,24 80:10 problems 43:2 58:3 64:25 65:2 65:6,9 procedural 7:18 7:20,21 8:3 44:16 45:6 46:14,23 proceed 44:16 48:11 49:17 72:7 94:2,4 proceeding 6:9 9:17 45:11 47:21 94:9,17 95:22,25 100:12 111:21 proceedings 6:1 7:19 8:7 49:4 49:12 73:8 82:19 103:13 110:25 112:18 113:6,18 process 12:22 13:21 31:11,12 31:20 48:17 55:11 64:4,11 64:20 87:6 99:15 105:3 106:5,6 112:7,7 112:12 produces 107:6 Professional 114:7 profile 108:6 profound 99:21 program 1:2 3:2 10:15 14:8,12 15:16 17:17 30:23 33:4 50:25 52:21 53:20 56:17 77:13,20 78:4 79:5 80:22,23 83:2 84:7 87:15 87:20 88:6 89:7 89:12,22 90:16 91:2,3,11,23 92:7,19,22 93:2 93:5,16 98:2,15 103:18 104:6 108:18 programs 77:22 78:1 81:11 90:5 90:12 91:9 92:25 project 13:11 16:6 projecting 12:16 23:20 97:22 projections 95:24 97:10 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 103:3 104:22 projects 1:4 3:4 14:18 16:5,9,15 19:3 20:11 24:8 24:10,11,16,20 24:20,23,24 25:2,16 26:7,17 29:1 30:1 33:7 41:20 71:13 95:11 103:4,6 103:20 107:3 promised 41:22 properly 13:18 21:20 properties 73:1 88:11,13,18,22 property 12:4 18:19 19:9,10 20:2,2,3,16,17 21:7 27:7,12,20 27:25 28:3,7,10 28:12,16,19 29:3,14,18,21 32:25 33:2 51:2 51:14,17 55:1 55:24 56:19 62:8 69:15 72:13,22,22,23 73:2,6,9,14,21 74:2,6,18,23,25 75:5,20,22 79:11,25 81:2 83:3,7,8,10 88:15 106:18 107:9,11 proportional 51:16 proportions 35:1 proposal 8:5 10:6,13,14 11:5 12:25 14:25 15:7 16:6 23:5 23:11 24:16 25:22 28:2,20 29:16 30:13 31:21 48:21,23 49:12 50:22,22 53:16 54:1,6,8 54:25 55:7,12 55:22 57:1,18 59:5 61:5,6,25 62:11,22 66:20 71:18,20 72:9 72:17,21 73:3 74:9 75:4 77:4 77:14 78:3,5 79:20 80:12 81:16 85:14 94:24 95:6,12 100:17 proposals 14:20 49:1 102:23 propose 16:8 proposed 7:13,25 9:5,13 10:13 13:10 14:22 27:19,22 47:1 49:11 51:2 52:4 52:5 53:15,21 54:2,24 55:25 56:11,20,22 64:18 74:3,8 75:7 76:13 77:3 78:22 96:3,3 97:21 112:3 proposer 15:22 proposing 7:15 10:16,24 15:17 16:17 20:25 26:25 27:10 49:12 56:24 59:12,21 60:8 61:23 65:14 79:8,11 92:18 protection 50:20 51:16 prove 52:17 103:22 provide 9:3 10:25 11:7,16 22:12,21 49:10 50:18 53:8 55:14 74:9 77:17 79:20,22 83:6 86:16 92:22 101:23 108:17,20 111:9 provided 9:20 11:25 46:16 53:9,13,15,22 54:21,23 74:7 82:21 86:15 97:15 104:12 104:15 111:2 provides 11:18 30:12,17,25 73:4 111:8 providing 10:5 79:16 106:9 public 1:5 2:5 3:5 8:24 9:3,18,18 9:24 10:3,9,9 11:1,19 16:11 19:1,16 20:7 22:3,5,13,15,19 22:20,23 23:2 23:12,19 24:4 24:18 25:6,20 27:5,13 28:25 29:10,24 33:5 33:15,22 43:3 44:17 46:2 49:14,22 50:17 51:9 52:24 53:17 55:2 56:7 56:9,13 61:12 64:25 65:24 66:14,15,17 71:8,17,21 73:10 80:4,6 99:18 100:15 111:4,20 113:13 publications 75:15 76:24 public's 65:10 purports 111:1 purpose 8:11 10:25 78:24 put 32:25 34:5,6 40:9 42:5,6 45:16 46:5,10 55:10 58:25 61:9,14 62:8 63:24 64:11,15 64:16 68:5 69:9 95:10 putting 25:4 36:18 98:17 P-O-E-L-I-N-G 46:11 Q quality 11:22 18:24 21:13,17 50:21,24 74:11 74:15 77:13 78:19 81:8,9 quantity 74:14 77:14 question 47:15 55:21 60:11,25 61:17 64:2 66:13 70:24 74:20,22 83:13 84:12,24 86:21 107:21 108:7 110:15 112:6,8 112:14 questions 9:11 41:5 48:3,6 55:19 57:20 59:18 71:24 81:22 86:21 93:19 96:22 98:22 107:19 110:12 111:17 111:25 112:1 112:23 113:3 113:13 quick 107:20 quickly 12:12 66:21 quite 13:8 64:23 R R 4:1 Raftelis 51:21 rain 13:9,15 14:6 21:12,19 35:21 38:19,20 39:2 39:23 60:3 87:19 rainbarrel 87:18 raining 13:15 rains 13:25 14:1 35:1,20 36:5 raise 29:16 85:15 raised 8:12,19 57:23 76:7 raises 77:4 raising 86:5 random 60:3 rate 4:3,4,5,6,7,8 4:9,10,11,12,13 5:5 6:4,7,10 7:10,14,15,17 7:22,22 8:4,5 8:12,19 9:2,5 9:13,15 10:5,12 10:13,13 12:13 12:25 14:24 15:7,22 16:6,8 26:25 31:5,11 31:12,13,18,19 32:5,8 33:18 34:7,22 41:12 45:5,25 46:4,4 46:7,8,16 47:3 47:21,25 48:2,4 48:17,20,23,25 49:1,10,12,23 50:22,22,23 51:2,4 53:14,16 53:19,25 54:6,8 54:15,17,18,19 54:25 55:10,12 55:18 56:4 57:12 62:21 68:4,7 74:9,20 76:19 79:22 81:22 94:9 95:5 95:6,12,22 96:1 96:5,7,22 99:4 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 101:9 102:9 106:5,5 107:25 108:7,19 109:3 109:7,8,10 111:21,22,25 112:1,3,15 113:15 ratepayer 9:22 9:23 50:13 79:23 104:5 ratepayers 8:23 9:4 12:3 30:19 32:20 48:24 49:2 51:7 53:24 54:20 55:5 57:15 64:24 72:13 74:10 75:13 77:4 79:7 79:9 81:12 87:16 91:20 92:24 102:10 104:10 105:21 rates 7:12,12,12 7:17,25 12:13 13:10 16:20 18:1 32:13 34:23 57:16 59:21 63:7 89:8 90:17 91:3,6,7 91:24 94:22,25 95:7,14,18,20 96:1,7,16 100:16 102:14 105:8,9,15 109:16 rating 14:22 15:2 15:4 98:10 100:24 108:12 108:14,21,25 109:8 ratings 98:20 rationale 8:22 reach 113:3 reaching 42:24 read 97:7 100:3 107:23 reading 100:1 ready 26:10 48:8 72:3 94:2 99:5 real 72:13 reality 103:13 reallocated 105:6 really 43:16 63:20 84:4,16 97:13 105:18 Realtime 114:8 reason 22:1 26:4 26:6 75:9 87:19 99:17 108:15 reasonable 48:24 49:2 50:14 53:23 54:18,20 55:4 73:18 83:5 92:24 94:23 100:16 104:17 104:23 105:10 107:14 108:9 reasons 69:9 77:11 83:1 92:18 rebate 92:8,13 recall 38:7 57:5 receive 9:6 18:22 53:2 83:10 received 7:15 46:3 51:15 receiving 51:17 recess 93:23,24 recognize 52:3 72:16 97:18 recognized 80:15 recommend 53:1 55:8 recommendation 7:24 82:8 105:7 recommendati... 7:11 31:13,19 95:24 recommended 96:1,7 recommending 82:4 reconvene 93:25 record 6:2 8:14 9:4 45:16 46:6 46:19,20 49:5 recover 101:2 red 18:17,20 21:6 21:8 22:18 25:15 26:3,6,18 26:19 29:7 30:2 58:2,9 63:3 64:24,25 66:5 78:24 86:11,12 86:14 106:23 106:24 107:3 redevelopments 53:5 redistribute 79:7 reduce 53:8 74:12 76:20 78:25 81:13 86:25 92:9 102:3,4,12 reduced 52:9 85:22 96:7 102:10 103:18 114:12 reducing 74:14 77:7 78:9,20 81:6 83:9 reductions 81:5 red/yellow/green 33:12 57:6 reference 49:6 51:22 111:13 referring 98:3 107:22 reflects 17:20 75:25 regard 58:16 59:4 regarding 7:11 9:5,11 18:24 53:12 55:22 107:22 112:2 regardless 24:16 78:15 83:23 Regional 6:20 Registered 114:7 regular 22:8 regulate 80:7 regulations 20:19 42:7 81:3 84:3 87:4 regulators 99:19 regulatory 10:20 13:13 18:23 19:14 20:5,25 27:8 29:23 51:10 52:18 53:2 56:5,15,21 66:8 71:10 78:18 99:15 103:24 rehash 94:13 reiterating 77:25 rejecting 73:6 related 50:25 77:13 93:3 103:17 114:13 relates 19:11 36:4 72:10 relating 110:4 relation 53:21 relationship 73:1 89:3 104:17 relative 114:16 relatively 71:16 109:2 relevant 104:13 relief 67:17 69:22 73:4 remain 27:8 56:20 remaining 15:21 17:18,24 25:7 26:17 103:3,4 remains 106:23 remarks 2:3 96:18 remediation 74:11 remember 10:11 11:6 29:8 54:8 85:10 104:14 106:25 remind 48:4,19 remove 59:9 repair 14:12 repeat 85:11 repetition 100:7 replace 72:11 replaced 27:6,12 27:19 43:20 REPLACEME... 1:2 3:2 report 8:18 84:12 84:14 96:25 97:1,5,7 100:5 107:21 113:6 Reporter 60:20 114:1,6,7,7,8 Reports 94:15 represent 6:12 22:14 103:13 representation 21:7,23 representatives 99:20 represented 9:23 17:13 represents 18:11 request 32:24 45:15,24 require 54:17,18 64:8 70:8 80:7 102:25 required 21:15 31:24 61:10,11 78:13 87:3,6,21 88:3 102:6 107:11 requirement 107:2 requirements 10:17,20 13:13 18:23 20:5,21 53:3 56:5 58:21 61:21 66:8 78:19 98:9 100:23,24 102:12 103:25 109:16 requires 79:9 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES resident 18:19 residential 76:19 77:3 101:3,6 residents 27:18 32:1 resolve 16:9 19:3 19:19 22:12 resolved 91:21 resolving 20:10 20:10 resources 63:24 respond 63:15 113:4 responding 78:1 response 13:9 19:15 20:6,22 46:18,24 47:8 57:14 72:1 78:3 93:21 98:24 110:14 111:18 responses 9:9 49:8 responsibility 36:7 39:11 60:15 62:20 responsible 11:22 14:19 61:15 restatement 98:13 restoration 50:21 restrict 66:12 restrictions 65:14 result 53:22 68:20 73:23 76:10 105:21 111:12 resulting 29:17 33:6 results 24:7 68:4 107:8 retained 54:9 return 113:7 returned 11:11 revenue 103:23 revenues 18:14 20:4 102:3,9 103:15,22 106:24 revert 105:5 review 7:10,23 20:19 105:23 reviewed 91:5 Rich 4:21 rid 39:21,23 right 6:11 12:15 15:15 17:13 25:22 26:2 28:17 31:12 38:1,19 40:6,7 42:8,11,14 58:4 59:24 60:8 61:2 61:3,13 64:21 65:18 66:23 69:9 86:13 87:8 88:9,13 89:6 90:22 110:21 right-hand 30:18 risk 90:7 road 34:20 36:19 36:20,24 39:10 58:23 59:10,16 108:17 roads 22:22 Robert 33:23 34:19 rocks 36:17 39:13 role 81:3 rolled 30:5 rolling 69:18 roof 37:12,12 room 107:5 109:6 roots 13:22 42:20 RPR 3:13 RPR/CRR/CS... 114:23 ruled 69:20 rules 7:18 8:3 9:2 42:7 61:8,20 ruling 41:17 49:21 64:5 68:24 69:10 run 31:20 104:24 runoff 21:17 39:16,20 53:3,4 74:15 75:17,21 78:20,25 81:8 86:25 88:9,12 88:21,22 89:4 run-around 82:23 Russell 4:7 6:17 S S 4:1 Sabatino 33:23 34:1,4,8,10,13 34:16,18,19 37:9,25 38:3,9 41:15,23 42:4,8 42:11,14 43:7 44:9,14 57:23 58:3 63:4 safe 40:1 43:16 68:18 88:20 safer 83:4 sampling 21:15 satisfied 62:19 save 38:15,17 saved 53:11 savings 12:19,21 saw 33:4 35:14 35:15 saying 38:18 39:7 93:13 says 36:4 90:14 101:13 107:25 111:5 scale 23:25 65:7 scenario 52:10 scenarios 17:23 schedule 7:18,20 7:21 96:6 scheduled 112:16 Schneider 4:9 6:19,19 70:14 70:15,20,22 81:24 84:10,11 84:18,22 86:2,9 86:18 96:23,24 97:3,24 98:21 107:19,20 109:5,18 Schoedel 4:11 6:15,15 90:24 91:1,10,22 school 69:4 scope 54:5 score 99:18 scrutinizing 94:24 seat 33:25 second 32:22 79:4 Secondly 53:6 Secretary 4:20 section 48:22 98:3 105:2 see 16:25 21:9 22:4,14 28:23 34:7 35:17 36:11 43:19 63:7 65:5,9,17 66:2 71:20 81:4 86:16 89:2 90:16 110:10 seeing 35:2 39:2 seek 96:12 seeking 22:1 seen 34:21,21,23 38:20 42:25 sees 86:14 send 36:25 senior 6:16 108:1 sense 67:3 75:17 97:6 sent 47:11 sentence 107:23 series 112:16 113:3 serve 6:8 78:24 served 104:5 service 11:8,13 11:16 12:1,3,8 12:9 15:14 17:10 18:18,21 18:22,25 19:12 21:25 22:21 28:5 33:11 51:17 53:8,15 53:22 61:24 62:7,21 64:18 67:1 71:11,19 72:24 75:1,8 76:13 79:13,16 82:20 85:1 86:15,16 96:20 99:13 100:22 102:6 104:12 104:15,19 105:13 106:8,9 108:2,3,8 109:1 111:2,3 services 3:14 6:16 11:25 18:5 27:22 28:19,22 28:24 29:9,15 29:19 30:12,16 30:21,25 33:13 50:19 51:11,14 52:4 54:1,5 55:22 60:9 72:18 73:14,17 73:24 74:6,19 96:19 104:17 107:1 serving 45:5 session 9:3 44:18 111:20 112:19 sessions 8:25 112:17 set 26:25 104:21 setting 8:12,19 48:17 55:10 settling 81:15 seven 12:24 13:2 13:11 15:10 19:9 20:2 25:16 26:3 28:16 33:1 66:3 107:22 seventeen 24:23 25:10 28:25 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES seventy 12:15 seventy-seven 15:13 sewer 1:1 3:1 4:16 6:5,8 11:1 11:19 17:1,22 19:2,17 20:7 22:3,5,6,7,14 22:15,20 23:12 23:19 24:5,19 25:6,20 27:5,14 28:25 29:10,24 33:6 43:4,19,21 44:19 49:15 56:8,9,13 61:9 61:19 62:6 65:1 65:11,24 66:15 66:16,17 71:17 71:22 72:20 80:18 111:4 sewers 22:24 42:10,21,23 43:8,11 61:1 sheds 74:24 sheet 9:20 sheets 16:14 shock 102:9 short 93:24 101:9 105:18 113:2 shortfalls 103:24 Shorthand 114:6 showed 57:5 showing 10:1 31:2 shown 15:9 shows 96:10 shut 35:25 side 10:16,21,23 21:1 30:18 31:5 92:7 sign 9:19 36:4,18 58:15,15,23 significant 59:7 86:16 95:15 97:21 98:14 similar 32:11 49:23 110:3 simple 32:24 74:23 simply 26:14 33:9 100:12 106:3 single 17:1,21 sink 42:20 65:3,7 sinks 11:9 sir 34:3 45:18 60:20 sit 95:16 site 60:1 situation 38:18 62:4 91:19 six 101:9 sixteen 12:24 13:2 23:19 size 14:9 23:21 64:17 75:18 104:20,21,22 skip 12:10 slam 35:5 slammed 35:12 slamming 36:2 slide 13:11 15:6,6 16:4,16 24:6,9 30:3 slightly 23:23 24:20 104:6,10 small 28:9,9,12 29:8 63:8 92:14 smaller 65:7 Snoke 4:20 solution 65:22 77:17 solutions 81:18 somebody 13:21 somebody's 65:8 sorry 60:20 70:18,21 106:18 sort 93:15 110:20 sound 55:12 sounding 90:7 sounds 104:3 source 22:12 57:14 sources 12:7 26:22 South 19:7 25:1 34:20 35:10 39:8 43:17 speak 9:19 112:21,22 speaking 87:25 special 7:7 specific 60:1 108:14 specifically 48:23 89:19 speculate 76:5 82:15 speech 67:5 spend 31:4 65:23 spending 83:18 103:2 spent 12:9 16:2 25:11 26:6,16 26:19 41:18,21 41:25 42:3 49:7 83:20 Sprague 4:22 spread 16:14 75:7 square 39:15,20 88:20 ss 114:3 St 1:1 3:1,16 4:16 5:8 6:5,8,17,19 6:23 7:1,6,6 8:8 19:6 24:25 35:11 38:24 44:19,22 54:11 58:22,25 77:5 80:11 85:16,18 110:2 114:4 stability 14:18 stable 109:2 staff 4:16 10:12 stage 89:12,17 stance 84:16 standard 15:2,5 standards 81:9 standing 68:12 standpoint 82:6 87:14 89:7 Stannard 54:23 start 10:3,10 12:14,16 15:7 16:24 24:8 27:24 34:18 57:7 66:6 70:4 82:6 98:2 started 13:6 starting 23:9 starts 39:18 state 10:22 20:18 39:15 50:3 67:23,24 69:13 101:24 110:19 114:2 stated 70:3 78:21 103:18 statement 48:1,9 48:19 72:4 93:18 94:2 99:5 statements 9:14 48:1 States 52:1 90:5 stating 34:19 step 66:23 Steve 4:5 stipulated 104:1 stones 36:17 stop 37:1,19 41:20 stopped 37:14 store 70:4 storm 11:1,19 19:2,16 20:7,20 22:3,5,13,15,19 22:20,23 23:12 23:19 24:4,19 25:6,20 27:5,14 28:25 29:10,24 33:6 38:25 42:10,21,23 43:4,8,10,10 56:7,9,13 58:11 60:14 61:1,9,18 62:1,6,19,20 64:25 65:10,24 66:15,16,17 71:17,21 storms 35:20 stormwater 1:4 3:4 7:12,16 10:23 11:16 12:1 14:1,2 18:3,5,13,14,16 18:21,24 19:12 19:19 20:18,20 21:17 22:2 23:2 23:2 26:7 27:2 27:17 28:18,22 29:15,18 30:6 32:23 35:18 40:6,13 41:2,24 41:25 42:2,5 43:9 48:25 49:15,18 50:17 50:22,25 51:9 51:14,20,23,25 52:21,24 53:3,4 53:16,17,25 54:25 55:3,23 56:6,7 57:3 64:7 66:8 70:3 70:11 72:10,14 72:24 73:10 74:6,8,10,15,19 74:24 75:1,7 77:13,14,19,20 78:4,7,8,19,25 79:5,14,24 80:4 80:4,8,10,14,18 80:20 81:3,19 92:9 105:17 107:8,9 111:1,1 111:3,21 streams 11:18,20 11:23 street 3:15 35:15 35:16 36:4 41:4 streets 22:22 43:13 stress 94:18 striking 72:17 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Strodtman 46:12 strongly 53:19 structure 51:3 54:17,18,19 72:11 79:9 structured 96:12 structures 75:23 studies 89:21,24 90:2,9,11 study 106:14 stuff 40:24 65:21 Stump 5:3 45:4 45:22,23 46:10 112:23,25 stupid 112:6 subdivision 79:25 subject 9:8 50:2 110:24 subjecting 103:25 submission 10:12 submit 8:6 33:17 69:5 84:12,13 84:14 113:5 submittal 113:8 submitted 8:14 8:17 9:7 14:16 46:2 48:21 59:6 73:4 75:14 76:24 85:15 90:8,10 submitting 53:25 subsequent 109:15 subsidize 79:9,15 substantial 49:7 substantiated 49:3 55:12 sub-District 72:12 sufficient 56:23 96:8 98:8 sufficiently 20:23 27:9 suggest 93:23 suggested 8:1 52:6 75:10 77:18 suggesting 92:21 suggestion 84:7 suited 93:10 summary 10:5 67:21 113:2 summation 10:11 16:17 30:4 supply 74:18 support 55:14 supported 54:11 suppose 82:11 89:16 92:3 supposed 14:2 Supreme 41:17 49:20 64:5 68:10,24 69:10 69:20 76:6 82:2 83:24 sure 14:13 21:20 62:14 64:10 69:24 85:13 86:23 88:2 97:2 98:5 112:6 survey 51:20,22 106:14,16 Susan 4:19 44:20 48:14 sustain 77:6 85:21 switching 18:13 sworn 114:10 sympathetic 81:25 system 11:1,19 13:9,16,22,23 13:24 14:2,3,10 14:12,14 19:2 19:17 20:7 21:24 22:3,14 22:16,19 23:2 23:12,15,19 24:1,5,19 25:6 25:21,25 27:5 27:14 28:25 29:10,24 33:6 33:10 43:4,6 49:15 50:17 51:9 52:12,25 53:18,22 55:3 55:23 56:1,7,8 56:10,13 60:18 60:19 61:9,12 62:10,11 63:19 65:1,11,24 66:15,16,18 69:13 71:8,15 71:17,22 73:10 78:8,10,14 79:2 79:24 80:4,6,15 80:18 83:4,9 85:5 91:15 92:10,23 111:4 systems 42:5 51:23,25 60:14 61:19 62:2,6,19 62:20 70:5 78:17 79:14,15 system's 22:5,21 T take 14:5,23 18:9 19:14 21:12 25:13 26:15 31:19 50:9 58:5 59:13 61:21 66:16 70:6 77:21 81:3 83:23 92:14 93:23 109:6 taken 21:3 39:4 59:12 114:11 114:15 talk 18:13 67:18 85:7 100:3 talked 35:9 84:25 85:5 105:24 talking 39:9 40:5 58:3 68:21 97:25 101:17 targets 100:21 task 48:19 95:2 tax 7:12 10:24 18:19 19:9,10 20:2,3,3,16,17 21:7 22:2 24:12 24:13 25:5,19 26:24 27:1,2,6 27:7,12,20 28:3 28:8,9,10,12,16 28:19 29:3,12 29:18,21 32:25 33:2 36:14 49:13 50:3,7 51:2,3 52:12 55:1,24 56:12 56:19 68:13 69:15 71:4,7 72:11 73:4,5,7 73:9,21 74:2 75:5 76:8,14 77:2,3,6 78:22 79:8,12 82:16 83:3 85:1,1,21 86:5 93:13 106:1,4,10 107:9 110:17 111:6,11,13 taxation 85:5 taxed 75:1 taxes 12:5,5 29:6 50:16 57:2 72:12,22,22 73:14 77:5,7 85:16,19,22 86:6 111:10 taxing 52:1 75:11 taxpayers 9:5 106:11 technical 9:10 99:18 technically 99:7 technologically 99:23 technology 76:18 tell 60:8 63:5 67:7 68:16 99:7 tells 95:9 template 63:14 ten 10:24 20:3 22:2 24:12 25:4 25:19 26:24 27:6,12,19 32:25 49:13 55:1 56:11 76:13 86:12 109:22 tenths 29:4 term 57:9 terrible 40:15 territory 79:13 Terry 68:21 testified 50:16 52:21 testify 9:5 testimony 8:13 8:20 9:7,12 49:4,8 51:19 54:21,22 55:13 64:3 68:2 82:1 85:4 91:23 94:16 105:1 110:5,18,25 114:9,10 Texas 35:14,14 40:2 thank 7:4 33:21 44:10,14,15 45:18,22 46:21 47:12 48:12,15 55:9,16,17 62:23 67:13,14 70:13,22 72:5 81:20,21 84:9 86:18 90:22 92:4 94:5 96:21 98:21,25 99:1,2 107:17,18 111:16,19 113:11,13 Thanks 102:19 Theiss 34:20 36:20,24 theory 93:5 therefor 8:22 thereon 9:22 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES Theresa 4:23 thereto 114:17 they'd 86:16 thick 61:6 thing 40:1,23 43:18 83:22 108:24 things 10:11,15 11:21 13:14 22:11 35:21 43:16 58:14 59:11 61:14,23 64:9 66:14 69:11 71:14 83:20 87:13 91:12 94:22 99:22 think 23:13 33:14 35:2,13 37:7,10 38:24 40:19,20 41:6 43:1,15 48:4 52:15 58:16,24 59:4,5,24 61:17 63:12,22 64:1,4 64:5 66:9,22,24 67:9 68:17,20 69:25 70:2 71:5 82:18,24 83:15 83:25 84:2,5,16 85:9,10 87:4 88:14 89:1,11 89:13 91:16 92:10,13 93:9 94:17 97:11,16 97:21 98:12,15 108:8 thinking 63:13 67:9,11,11 third 28:11 36:25 93:6 thirds 13:8 thirty 71:12 thirty-six 15:10 52:13 thought 64:4,20 thoughts 82:2 thousand 29:5 threatened 41:3 three 9:10 13:14 29:4 39:16 100:2 throw 44:4,5 Thursday 112:17 tie 82:20 tight 89:13 Tim 4:20 time 13:19 31:4 32:15,23 35:22 36:9 38:12 44:11 46:14 49:8 55:10 83:18,20 89:8 89:19 90:17 92:15 95:16 96:20 97:13 98:18 109:11 109:12 110:3,9 timeframe 38:5 timelines 89:13 times 14:8 37:1 39:1 49:3 101:16 108:2,3 108:9,9 title 62:9,9 today 9:1 22:23 47:10,15 57:23 65:15 85:4 96:17 101:6 today's 47:22 Toenjes 4:3 6:3,6 7:4 10:2 33:21 34:2,6,9,14,17 41:8 44:9,15,21 44:25 45:3,17 45:19,22 46:13 46:21,25 47:6 47:12,19 48:11 55:17 57:21 58:22 60:12 62:24 67:14,19 67:23 70:14 71:24 72:2,7 81:21 84:10 86:19 90:24 92:4 93:19,22 93:25 94:4 96:21 98:22,25 99:2 107:18 110:12,15 111:16,19 112:13 113:12 toilet 11:9 told 38:10 41:20 top 24:8 42:25 total 15:19,25 28:7 41:14 71:12 108:2 totals 13:1 touch 61:6 touched 64:2 to-wit 6:2 track 100:13,18 101:19 traditionally 106:6 traffic 37:1 train 101:18 transcript 47:15 47:22 transcripts 9:9 transmitted 47:1 travels 11:10 Treasurer 4:20 treat 11:8 treated 11:11 13:18 treatment 78:20 Tree 42:20 tremendously 113:11 trends 103:10 triple 15:1 101:9 tropical 38:23 true 42:4 67:24 92:3 truly 44:13 Trustees 7:24 31:14,16 41:12 55:8 63:11 90:15 96:2 105:7 113:9 try 66:11,12 trying 70:3 Tuesday 65:4 tunneled 40:10 turn 62:17 turned 61:13 TV 43:1 65:5 twenty-five 24:11 71:9,19 twenty-four 12:2 18:17 19:8,22 20:1 27:15 33:1 37:6,11,14 40:20 twenty-three 23:23 twenty-two 23:22 two 9:6 10:15 11:4,7 12:7 13:8 15:20 16:17 17:18,24 18:18 19:9 20:2 20:16,17 21:7 21:22 22:11 27:7 28:15 29:12 30:6 31:24 34:11 35:13 41:13,21 42:3 45:23 46:3 51:1,3 56:19 64:9 71:11 88:10,18 96:25 101:12,12,13 112:17 type 52:7 65:6 91:14 99:24 types 43:2 59:11 66:4 71:14 73:16 91:12 typewriting 114:12 U ultimate 96:1 ultimately 90:15 unanticipated 101:23 unconstitutional 111:14 underlying 76:3 underneath 39:17 40:10 understand 44:12 64:18 71:6 76:1 85:2 89:9,22 91:10 95:3 understanding 49:10 57:24 understood 66:24 under-funded 104:7 undetermined 89:17 undeveloped 88:16 89:5 unencumbered 105:4 unequal 106:19 unexpended 105:4 uniform 75:5 106:10 uniformly 106:6 unique 99:14 unit 76:19 United 51:25 90:5 unmetered 109:19,20,20 109:23 unnecessarily 95:8 105:15 unreasonably 95:13 unrelated 104:12 Unverferth 4:21 unwarranted 96:8 unworthy 80:5 updating 62:16 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES upgrade 62:17 urge 53:19 usage 11:15 109:20,21 use 17:18 25:4,8 34:1,2,3 49:13 66:11 72:10 73:6,13,19,22 76:9 79:6 98:6 101:3 102:23 103:18 106:14 108:14 user 81:13 uses 14:3 utilities 11:7 utility 34:23,24 51:20 101:14 V valid 9:8 108:3 valorem 12:4 49:13 50:7,16 51:1 55:1 73:9 74:2 76:14 77:2 79:11 85:1 93:13 106:10 valuation 29:13 31:21 value 27:25 28:16 33:10 51:14,16 67:1,3 72:13,23 73:2 74:6 75:5 83:7 107:11 valued 74:24 values 74:19 106:18,18 variety 77:23 various 112:2 vary 12:5 Veatch 106:13 venture 91:6 versus 49:21 50:6 52:12 85:1 109:3 110:9 view 103:9 volatility 101:24 volume 21:12 75:17 78:9,15 78:25 81:5 102:10 voluntarily 69:2 vote 32:8,15 49:22 64:8 67:1 68:3 69:14 70:7 voted 27:17 37:19 50:1 68:11,23 69:16 106:2 voter 15:22 voters 7:6 16:18 16:20 17:11,14 30:9 64:11 66:25 101:7 votes 31:24 voting 32:13 W W 5:13 waiting 74:21 walked 43:22 want 22:12 25:25 32:1,16 34:12 34:13 46:9 59:15 64:13,15 67:18 69:6 83:17 87:18 88:6 92:5 94:18 98:4 99:12 100:8 102:23 108:16 109:10 wanted 46:19 64:14 69:5 97:6 wanting 85:6 wants 66:22 93:4 98:10 warming 35:1 washing 11:9 wasn't 37:18 42:4 67:6 waste 13:16,17 97:4,10,19 wastewater 7:12 7:16 10:16,21 11:7,13 12:3,12 13:10,12,16,24 15:5 17:1,10,16 17:21 18:18 19:9 20:1 27:16 30:6 31:4,25 32:3 40:13 49:1 49:16 54:8 55:3 68:7,8 95:6 100:9 102:13 105:16 111:3 111:21 water 11:8,14,17 11:19,22 13:23 14:6 21:12,17 39:16 50:21,24 75:20 78:9,16 79:2 81:9 88:7 88:9,12,21 99:22 100:16 104:9 109:20 109:21 110:2 waterways 11:11 Watson 3:12 114:5,22 way 14:5 22:25 25:4 34:5 56:25 57:13 61:4 63:23 65:13 69:9 74:3 92:20 92:25 95:11 102:17 104:25 weaker 100:19 wealthy 73:4 website 47:11 Webster 77:9 85:25 week 112:17 weeks 94:20 welding 35:24 went 38:25 41:13 45:10 64:10 71:12 West 19:7 25:1 we'll 12:16 14:14 17:18 27:24 31:25 46:10 88:16 we're 10:16 11:21 12:16,20 13:11,14 14:16 14:17,19 15:3 16:12 17:24 19:13 20:4 21:18 22:11,25 23:15,20 24:1 25:8 27:10 28:11 29:9 30:22 31:11 32:16,16 35:2 38:18,19 39:1 44:12 45:12 56:23 57:2,7 61:23 62:13,16 64:22 65:14 69:24 70:3 71:18 73:3 83:15 92:21 101:13,17 we've 13:7 21:3,3 24:9,22 25:15 30:5 37:1 38:20 40:23 42:25 60:2 66:5,10 73:25 97:18 99:16 100:10 105:24 wide 25:5 widely 75:12,24 William 54:22 Williams 4:13 6:23,23 wish 8:23 9:25 47:6 wishing 9:19 witness 51:19 114:9,11 wondering 37:17 word 102:23 106:13 words 34:25 68:12 96:6 109:13 work 12:15 15:8 16:24 20:8 21:14 23:9 25:9 26:3 29:23 35:6 44:6 52:18 56:6 56:14 57:17,17 58:8,21 96:11 103:17 working 100:22 110:21 works 112:12 worldwide 35:2 worry 95:9 106:2 worse 39:24 worth 15:8 16:24 22:5 23:9 29:1 30:20 67:4 wouldn't 41:1 87:19 wrapped 69:19 written 49:8 65:13 113:1 X X 2:1 Y yard 26:10 35:23 36:21,23,23 37:13 40:7,11 40:17 43:25 65:8 yeah 23:4 34:9 34:17 38:6 43:12,13 56:18 58:22,24 64:1 82:11 87:9 90:15 98:4 year 14:23 16:25 18:20 19:11 23:7,10,20,23 26:5 28:2,4,18 28:22 29:15,16 29:17 30:11,16 30:20 31:1 32:6 38:2 41:22 42:3 52:9 57:18 103:2,5,6 105:4 PUBLIC HEARING 7/10/2015 www.midwestlitigation.com Phone: 1.800.280.3376 Fax: 314.644.1334 MIDWEST LITIGATION SERVICES 108:25,25 110:8 years 15:9,9,13 17:6 26:18 27:1 28:6 33:8 37:3 37:9,10,17,21 40:21 41:14 95:17 97:20 98:8 101:9 103:20 107:1 109:15,16 yellow 19:5,23 21:3 24:22 25:14 26:16 27:3 28:15 58:2 77:5 85:18 86:3 86:3,4 106:22 106:24,25 yesterday 43:23 Z zero 17:15 26:25 zone 77:5 85:24 106:22,23,23 107:3 Zweig 49:21 50:10 82:3,9 107:6 $ $10.50 29:15 $12.50 28:18 $1200.00 31:1 $135.00 17:9 $16.10 28:21 $184,500.00 27:25 $2.00 32:14 $20.00 28:4 $26.00 19:11 $266,700.00 29:13 $3.00 29:5 $3.60 28:20 $40.00 28:4 32:6 32:6,9 $40.72 17:4,22 $50.00 29:16 $522.00 30:11,20 $6.00 37:16 $60.00 28:2 29:17 32:7 $60.82 17:5 $70,800.00 28:17 $770.00 30:16 $8.00 18:20 $96.00 18:1 32:9 1 1 17:3 23:3 85:17 1.1 15:19 1.2 29:21 1.5 15:7,16 16:24 17:16 1.6 108:3 10 1:6 2:4 3:6 31:14 10th 7:23 11 16:4 11th 3:15 9:1 11:00 93:23 94:1 11:35 1:7 3:7 113:19 113 2:10 1154 21:10 13 16:16 13th 113:16 132 76:25 133 76:25 136 106:1 1363 22:5 139 46:17,20 140 45:21 141 46:8,11 142 46:8,12 15 15:18 16 17:22 18:3 23:18 30:10 17 17:23 20:14 18 40:8 43:20 1954 7:7 1974 34:21 36:9 1977 18:11 1987 27:18 37:7 1993 43:24 2 2,638 21:11 2.45 108:9 2.5 108:2,9 2.62 16:1 20 1:4 3:4 18:1 35:16 36:23 39:20 71:19 20th 7:20 2000 7:9 99:14 2004 100:23 2006/2007 71:3 2007 49:24,25 50:7 52:5 54:2 56:4 68:4 69:10 71:18 105:20 2008 38:21,23 2013 12:13 2015 1:6 3:6 7:14 7:19,20,23 8:15 8:17 9:1 31:15 46:25 48:21 111:20 113:16 2016 12:14 31:25 32:23 2017 23:8 2020 23:8,10 30:15,22,23 101:6 21 23:4 22 21:10 22nd 46:19 23 23:16 25 17:9 26th 7:14 8:14 46:16 48:21 270 18:10 19:24 39:21 85:23 3 30 30:3 314.644.2191 3:17 33 2:5 35 50:4 107:1 3500 69:15 36 40:9 76:11 4 4th 7:19 40 76:10 4328 34:19 47 24:23 48 2:6 5 50 17:5 23:24 24:3 54 85:17 55 39:17 40:10 101:7 6 6 2:3 60 25:16 32:6 63101 3:16 64 24:9 7 7th 7:8 7.050 105:2 7.270 48:22 711 3:15 72 2:7 79 106:14 8 8th 8:17 9 9th 7:7 46:17,25 9:00 1:7 3:7 93 40:6,14 94 2:8 95 12:17 99 2:9