HomeMy Public PortalAboutExhibit MSD 108- Transcript of Prehearing Conference- August 1, 2023Page 1
·1
·2
·3
·4
·5
·6
·7· · · · · · · · · · · ·AUDIO RECORDING
·8· · · · · · ·RATE COMMISSION PRE-HEARING CONFERENCE
·9· · · · · · · · · · · ·AUGUST 1, 2023
10
11
12
13
14
15· (Due to the quality of the recorded media, portions
16· were unable to be transcribed and include inaudible
17· portions.· The transcript may also include
18· misinterpreted words and/or unidentified speakers.
19· The transcriber was not present at the time of the
20· recording; therefore, this transcript should not be
21· considered verbatim.)
22
23· TRANSCRIBED BY: MELISSA LANE
24
25
Exhibit MSD 108
Page 2
·1· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Two minutes to start.
·2· Two minutes to start.
·3· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· All right.· Being 1:00 p.m., we
·4· will call the August 1, 2023 meeting of the rate
·5· commission of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
·6· District to order.· Mr. Clark, please call the roll.
·7· · · · · · · MR. CLARK:· Okay.· Leonard Tengens
·8· (phonetic).
·9· · · · · · · LEONARD TENGENS:· Present.
10· · · · · · · MR. CLARK:· Lou Jerres (phonetic), Lloyd
11· Palens (phonetic), Paul Zeegler (phonetic).· Patrick
12· Monahan (phonetic).· Brad Gaas (phonetic),
13· (inaudible), Jack Stine, Mark Perkins, Brian Berry,
14· McKee Coyle, Matt Muran (phonetic), Jim Faul.
15· · · · · · · JIM FAUL:· Yes.
16· · · · · · · MR. CLARK:· And Bill Clark, I'm here.· We
17· have a quorum.
18· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I
19· also like for Mr. Holsher (phonetic) to report on a
20· change in the composition of the rate commission.
21· · · · · · · MR. HOLSHER:· Yeah, Mt. City Bar, about
22· three weeks ago, they indicated they're -- three
23· weeks, I believe, they're going to change rep
24· delegates, and therefore, the -- they indicated the
25· position to become vacant.· Yesterday, we were
Page 3
·1· informed Celeste Dotson will now be their
·2· representative and that became official yesterday.
·3· The only thing I'd like to point out is, if she does
·4· attend the meeting today, we probably do need to make
·5· sure we swear her in before she participates in any
·6· official business.
·7· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you, Mr. Holsher. I
·8· appreciate that.· Item 2, approval of minutes from
·9· July 10th, 2023.· Any comments or discussion on the
10· minutes?
11· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Motion to approve.
12· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Motion made and seconded to
13· approve the minutes as presented.· All in favor
14· signify by saying aye.
15· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Aye.
16· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Opposed?· Abstain?· Motion
17· carries.· Item 3, (inaudible) water, wastewater
18· proceedings.· My name is Leonard Tengens, and I'm a
19· commissioner of the rate commission of the
20· Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and will serve
21· as chair of this proceeding.· The charter plan of the
22· district was approved by the voters of St. Louis and
23· St. Louis County at a special election on
24· February 9th, 1954 and amended at a general election
25· on November 7th, 2000, at a special election on
Page 4
·1· June 5th, 2012, and again, at a special election on
·2· Tuesday, April 6th, 2021.· The amendment to the
·3· charter plan in 2000 established the rate commission
·4· to review and make recommendations to the district
·5· regarding changes in wastewater rates, storm water
·6· rates, and tax rates proposed by the district.· The
·7· charter plan requires the board of trustees of the
·8· district to select organizations, to name delegates to
·9· the rate commission, to ensure a fair representation
10· of all users of the district's services.· The rate
11· commission representative organizations are to
12· represent commercial industrial users, residential
13· users, and other organizations interested in the
14· operation of the district including organizations
15· focusing on environmental issue, labor issues,
16· socioeconomic issues, community neighborhood
17· organizations, and other nonprofit organizations.· The
18· rate commission currently consists of representatives
19· of associated general contractors of Missouri,
20· St. Louis Realtors, the City of Florissant, St. Louis
21· Council of Construction Consumers, Greater St. Louis
22· Labor Counsel, North American's Building Trade Unions,
23· Mt. City Bar Association, the Legal Women Voters of
24· Metro St. Louis, Home Builders Association of
25· St. Louis, the Municipal League of Metro St. Louis,
Page 5
·1· Missouri Coalition for the Environment, the City of
·2· Ladue, the Engineers Club of St. Louis, Missouri
·3· Industrial Energy Consumers, and Education Plus.· Upon
·4· recredit of a rate change notice from the district,
·5· the rate commission is to recommend to the board of
·6· trustees pages in a wastewater, storm water or tax
·7· rate necessary to pay interest in principal falling
·8· due on bonds issued to finance assets of the district,
·9· cost of operation, and maintenance, and such amounts
10· as may be required to cover emergencies and
11· anticipated delinquencies.· Further, any change in a
12· rate recommended to the board of trustees by the rate
13· commission is to be accompanied by a statement that
14· the proposed rate change is consistent with
15· constitutional statutory or common law as amended from
16· time to time enhances the district's ability to
17· provide adequate sewer and drainage systems, and
18· facilities or related services is consistent with and
19· not in violation of any covenant or provision relating
20· to any outstanding bonds or indebtedness of the
21· district, does not impair the ability of the district
22· to comply with applicable federal or state laws or
23· regulations as amended from time to time, and
24· considers the financial impact on all classes of
25· ratepayers in determining a fair and reasonable
Page 6
·1· burden.· The rate commission received a rate change
·2· notice from the district on March 4th -- March 24th,
·3· 2023.· Under the district's charter plan, the rate
·4· commission must on or before September 5th, 2023,
·5· issue its report on the proposed rate change notice to
·6· the board of trustees of the district.· Under
·7· procedural rules adopted by the rate commission, on
·8· March 24th, 2023, any person affected by the rate
·9· change proposal had an opportunity to submit an
10· application to intervene in these proceedings no later
11· than April 14th, 2023.· The rate commission received
12· no applications to intervene by this deadline,
13· however, it did receive an application to intervene
14· out of time by the Missouri Industrial Engineer
15· Consumers on May 10th, 2023.· On May 30th, 2023, the
16· rate commission heard arguments in support and against
17· MIEC's application to intervene out of time.· After
18· discussion, the commission approved the application to
19· intervene with the condition that MIEC shall not be
20· permitted to submit testimony or make discovery
21· requests.· Since March 24th, 2023, the rate commission
22· has received testimony from district staff and the
23· rate consultant.· The parties have also engaged in
24· discovery requests.· Technical conferences were held
25· on April 26th, 2023, May 30th, 2023, and July 10th,
Page 7
·1· 2023, where the participants and the rate commission
·2· were given an opportunity to ask questions of those
·3· submitting testimony.· The charter plan of the
·4· Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, and the
·5· operational rules and procedural schedule of the rate
·6· commission of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
·7· District provide for a prehearing conference to
·8· identify, define, resolve or settle the issues raised
·9· by the prepared testimony and to ensure orderly and
10· expeditious proceedings.· In the event participants
11· are able to resolve or settle any issue or issues
12· raised in the prepared testimony, such participants
13· shall also include as part of the prehearing
14· conference report a joint recommendation describing
15· each issue, the recommended resolution of the issue,
16· and the rationale, therefore.· The rate commission is
17· interested in the views of participants to the extent
18· to which the district's rate change proposal or any
19· alternative proposed by the participants meet or fails
20· to meet the criteria or factors for recommendation
21· contained in the charter plan.· To that end, and
22· without requiring any participant to act in a
23· particular manner, each participant has requested to
24· make a short oral presentation of the participant's
25· respective position.· The parties may also submit a
Page 8
·1· short written summary of the presentation if desired.
·2· The commission's procedural schedule provides that
·3· each participant of the prehearing conference shall
·4· submit a prehearing conference report describing the
·5· issues raised by the prepared testimony together with
·6· a brief description of such participants' position, if
·7· any, on each issue and the rationale, therefore.· The
·8· rate commission has established a public hearing
·9· session for the participants to be held on August 7th,
10· 2023, at 9:00 a.m. at the district offices.· The
11· purpose of this public hearing session will include
12· permitting ratepayers to testify, receiving into
13· evidence any prepared testimony previously submitted
14· to the commission, subject to any valid objections
15· together with discovery requests, discovery responses,
16· and transcripts of the technical conferences,
17· permitting the commission members to ask questions
18· regarding any issue addressed by the prepared
19· testimony or any other element of the proposed rate
20· change and permitting closing statements by the
21· district and legal counsel for the rate commission.
22· In preparation for the August 7th, 2023 hearing, the
23· district will distribute the current list of exhibits
24· to all parties by August 4th, 2023.· Who is here on
25· behalf of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District.
Page 9
·1· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· Susan Meyers.
·2· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Also present are Pamela Moyan
·3· (phonetic) of Burns & McDonnell.· And Anna White of
·4· Black and Veech Consultants to the rate commission.
·5· And Lisa Stump and Brian Malone of Lashly and Baer,
·6· legal counsel to the rate commission.· Are there any
·7· procedural matters?· Hearing none, Ms. Meyers --
·8· pardon, Mr. -- Mr. Palens?
·9· · · · · · · (Inaudible conversation.)
10· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Mr. Gaas.
11· · · · · · · MR. GAAS:· It's August 1st, performance.
12· We've been through that this morning, so.
13· · · · · · · (Inaudible conversation.)
14· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· And you do win an award for
15· being the first one to catch that.· Any other
16· procedural matters?· There being no further procedural
17· matters, Ms. Meyers, would you like to address the
18· rate commission on behalf of the district?
19· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· Yes, I would.
20· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· I would assume --
21· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· Do you want me to come --
22· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Yeah, why don't you come up to
23· the front here.
24· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· (Inaudible) my body.
25· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· All (inaudible).
Page 10
·1· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· This on?· Good afternoon,
·2· everyone.· My name is Susan Meyers, and I am the
·3· general counsel for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer
·4· District.· I will provide the district summary
·5· statement regarding the proceedings to date.· The
·6· district's rate change proposal submitted to you on
·7· March 24th, 2023, proposes wastewater rates for fiscal
·8· year 2025 through fiscal year 2028, and a proposed
·9· plan to fund storm water capital improvements to help
10· mitigate flooding and erosion within our district.
11· The district developed the proposal to meet all five
12· criteria outlined in Section 7.270 of the MSD charter
13· plan.· You will see that this is supported by the
14· record including the testimony of district witnesses,
15· rate commission witnesses, and exhibits.· Without
16· reiterating all five criteria, I'd like to use this
17· opportunity to remind the commission that the fifth
18· criteria requires the financial impact on all classes
19· of ratepayers be considered in determining a fair and
20· reasonable burden.· The proposal before you does just
21· that.· The rate commission is tasked with providing a
22· statement -- no.· Excuse me.· The rate commission is
23· tasked with providing a recommendation to the board of
24· trustees.· This recommendation must be accompanied by
25· a statement that the proposed rate change meets all
Page 11
·1· the criteria.· We feel you have all the evidence
·2· needed to support such a statement.· Based upon the
·3· evidence previously presented, there seems to be a few
·4· topics that warrant further discussion.· Topic number
·5· one, extra strength surcharge rates.· Extra strength
·6· surcharge rates are the rates applied to monitored
·7· nonresidential customers to generate extra strength
·8· pollution.· This extra strength pollution requires
·9· additional resources and costs to treat to safe
10· levels.· To account for these extra costs, the
11· district applies an extra strength surcharge rate to
12· those nonresidential entities that produce such a
13· waste.· The rates proposed by the district are based
14· on what it will cost the district to treat such a
15· waste.· Ms. Lamoy, the rate commission consultant
16· proposes phasing in the proposed increases to the
17· extra strength surcharge rates over a period of at
18· least two years.· If the rate commission were to
19· recommend such a phased approach, it will cause other
20· customers not subject to those extra strength
21· surcharges including residential customers to pay more
22· and subsidize those customers actually generating the
23· extra strength pollution.· The impact of the proposed
24· phase in would shift approximately $1.2 million in
25· total over two years from extra strength surcharges to
Page 12
·1· all customers of which $750,000 would be charged to
·2· residential customers.· Topic 2.· Storm water grant
·3· program.· We've heard a lot of discussion regarding
·4· the storm water grant program.· The storm water grant
·5· program is part of the overall expenditure model
·6· proposed in the storm water capital portion of the
·7· rate proposal.· That model consists of 50 percent of
·8· all revenues being used by MSD, district wide, on a
·9· benefit cost prioritization model, 10 percent being
10· used by MSD only in environmental justice areas on a
11· benefit cost prioritization model, 10 percent being
12· reserved for any important storm water initiative, not
13· addressed in the previous funding pots and 30 percent
14· being available to the municipalities as storm water
15· grants based on the relative populations of the
16· municipalities.· The allocation and methodology was a
17· policy directive by MSD's direct -- MSD's executive
18· director, developed with input by senior staff, to be
19· used as a basis for the storm water capital portion of
20· the rate proposal.· The 30 percent grant program is
21· proposed to distribute by population with a minimum
22· distribution of $30,000 per year to any individual
23· municipality.· MSD's experienced through the OMCI
24· municipal grant program demonstrates that $30,000 per
25· year is the needed amount to perform even the smallest
Page 13
·1· storm water initiative.· Municipalities will have the
·2· opportunity to notify MSD in they desire to accumulate
·3· funds over a couple of years to fund a larger project
·4· in the future.· Municipalities will also have the
·5· opportunity to pull funds for a storm water project
·6· that multiple municipalities find beneficial. A
·7· suggestion has been made that the amount of impervious
·8· area in a municipality also be a positive factor in
·9· determining the amount of grant per municipality.
10· We'd like to make two points here.· First, as MSD has
11· testified, population is a common method of
12· determining fund distribution for a program such as
13· this.· It also accomplishes MSD's goal to make the
14· funds available as directly as possible to the public
15· through their local elected officials.· Second, the
16· concept of providing additional funding to a
17· municipality because it has decided to allow more
18· impervious area than another municipality seems
19· contrary to the purpose of the program. A
20· municipality should not be allowed to obtain a larger
21· grant through the construction of more impervious
22· area.· There was also some discussion on the municipal
23· grant allocation chart provided by MSD in the rate
24· proposal.· MSD's development of that chart was based
25· on three objectives.· One, the distribution be driven
Page 14
·1· by population.· Two, a minimum annual grant of $30,000
·2· be made available to all municipalities regardless of
·3· population.· And three, annual grant amounts should
·4· not be determined by the ever changing exact
·5· calculation by exact population.· But municipalities
·6· should be grouped with other municipalities of similar
·7· populations to accommodate the management of the
·8· program.· In discussions with some rate commissioners,
·9· MSD has indicated that they are very open to any
10· proposed changes in the municipal grant allocation
11· chart as long as the three objectives are stated -- as
12· stated above are met.· Exhibit 91 has been provided to
13· you in an e-mail yesterday afternoon as an example for
14· your review.· It indicates how Appendix 8.18 of the
15· rate change proposal document, Exhibit MSD 1, may be
16· revised and still meet the three objectives discussed
17· earlier.· Exhibit MSD 91 provides a maximum annual
18· grant and a more refined distribution range grouping.
19· As I previously stated, Exhibit MSD 91 is being
20· provided as an example.· And MSD staff will continue
21· to be open to any proposed changes provided our
22· initial objectives are met.· Another idea brought
23· forward through the rate commission was to make the
24· grant awards based on a -- on a competitive selection
25· process.· While MSD's position is that the grant
Page 15
·1· program coming from the 30 percent municipal grant pot
·2· needs to be equally distributed by population, we do
·3· see an opportunity to add additional municipal grant
·4· awards through a competitive grant program using part
·5· of the 10 percent pot for regional initiatives.· Using
·6· the example of the municipal league serving as the
·7· partner to provide community feedback on how these
·8· funds are spent, they could easily be used to help
·9· determine if a competitive awards process was desired
10· by the municipal community as a whole, the desired
11· level of funding for that program and the perimeters
12· to be used in a competitive selection process.· MSD
13· will -- would commit to making sure this idea is
14· presented for consideration.· Finally, MSD would like
15· to address the status and plans for the seven active
16· OMCI taxing subdistricts.· These subdistricts have
17· been in existence for 50 to 60 years depending on the
18· subdistrict.· As a result of the negative storm water
19· capital vote in 2019, MSD developed a plan to allow
20· 50 percent of the revenues collected within each
21· subdistrict to be available to the individual
22· municipalities, based on their financial contribution
23· to annual revenues.· MSD staff believed this was a
24· fair way to distribute funds since municipalities
25· within an individual subdistrict are often financially
Page 16
·1· and economically very similar to each other.· That
·2· would no longer apply with the proposed district wide
·3· program.· A rate commissioner calculated the 19
·4· municipalities would have smaller annual grants
·5· available to them under the current proposal.· If that
·6· number is correct, then 33 municipalities will have a
·7· greater distribution.· The point is that these are
·8· simply two different programs with different goals and
·9· different overall benefit.· That being said, MSD does
10· plan on setting the taxes on the active subdistricts
11· to zero per calendar year 2025 when the new proposed
12· program would go into effect if approved.· As part of
13· the process, MSD is a -- is again willing to poll the
14· elected municipal officials in the active subdistricts
15· to see if a large majority of those municipalities in
16· any of the subdistricts would like to propose some
17· level of continued OMCI taxing.· The proposal could be
18· for any amount of taxing up to the regulatory limit
19· and for any purpose could be municipal grants or MSD
20· capital projects or both.· Any proposal with
21· sufficient support would be brought by staff to the
22· MSD board of trustees for consideration.· To summarize
23· the storm water rate, the allocation and the
24· methodology being proposed by the district is fair and
25· reasonable across the district for all classes of
Page 17
·1· ratepayers.· Topic 3.· Storm water credit program.· We
·2· have had several discussions regarding the district's
·3· initial decision not to propose credits for storm
·4· water best management practices with its storm water
·5· proposal.· Several factors were considered when making
·6· this decision.· Those factors are specifically
·7· outlined in the surrebuttal testimony of Rich
·8· Underford, Exhibit MSD 84-A.· MSD realizes that
·9· there's public support for storm water quality and
10· storm water best management practices as -- as an
11· approach to introduce nature into the built
12· environment to assist in storm water management.· This
13· may justify the implementation of a credit program for
14· storm water best management practices when not,
15· otherwise, required by regulations.· Therefore, MSD
16· supports a recommendation of a 50 percent credit
17· program of captured impervious area, 40 retention
18· basins managing storm water quality when size for the
19· MSD regulatory volume criteria.· This program would
20· apply to nonresidential customers only.· The
21· 50 percent credit is appropriate in that the
22· impervious area still exists and will impact
23· downstream drainage but with the benefit of detention.
24· We would also like to reiterate other ways that MSD
25· currently provides incentives to implement green
Page 18
·1· practices.· For residential customers, the district
·2· has available a small grant landscaping program that
·3· allows for the reimbursement of up to $3,000 for
·4· constructed green infrastructure improvements or best
·5· management practices.· Detailed information on the
·6· small grant program is available on the project MSD
·7· project clear website.· Although not part of the
·8· current small grant program or of this rate proposal,
·9· the district will adjust this program to allow for
10· multiple homes to pull grants for a more regional best
11· management practice approach.· Again, providing that
12· the small grant proposal is not required to meet
13· current regulations.· For nonresidential customers
14· constructed, green infrastructure or best management
15· practices that are designed and constructed to be
16· pervious will be 100 percent excluded from the
17· billable impervious area.· Examples of this include
18· green roofs and pervious payment.· This concludes the
19· district's official summary statement.· A copy of this
20· statement will be filed as Exhibit MSD 90.· Thank you
21· very much.
22· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you, Ms. Meyers.
23· Questions from any of the rate commissioners?
24· Mr. Perkins.
25· · · · · · · MR. PERKINS:· (Inaudible) municipalities
Page 19
·1· (inaudible) percent of the (inaudible).
·2· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· So the process would be
·3· the same as before, so we would take recommendations
·4· and whether or not the individual municipalities, OMCI
·5· was willing to do that, and what their ideas were for
·6· expenditure.· MSD would not be looking to necessarily
·7· spend projects on MSD projects.· If the municipalities
·8· as an example all said, we'd like for you to bill a 3¢
·9· property tax, maintain that, and make it all municipal
10· grants, we would be -- staff would be accepting to the
11· idea of recommending that for board of trustees.· It
12· can be any mix of the two expenditures either
13· (inaudible) projects or grants.· Staff would be -- and
14· this is all -- this is all assuming that this passes
15· in April, and if that does, then we'd be open to
16· either of those.
17· · · · · · · (Inaudible conversation.)
18· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· And the assessed value for tax
19· purposes, yes.
20· · · · · · · (Inaudible conversation.)
21· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· (Inaudible) St. Louis
22· county (inaudible) based on (inaudible).
23· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Yeah.· So some of the
24· thoughts we put into it, understand those changes also
25· affect the two taxes that are in place as well as all
Page 20
·1· OMCI taxes, and so the only thing I think I place on
·2· that -- I don't know if you're concerned about the
·3· amount of money being collected, because of that
·4· difference, obviously, we can't find the average sale
·5· price.· We can't use that, but we go through the
·6· process every year that we set taxes.· We have to
·7· submit or every two years, one or two years, we have
·8· to submit taxes to the state, and there is a Hancock
·9· control how much of that can go up.· These would
10· obviously be governed by that.· If your concern is,
11· are we all of a sudden going to be collecting lots of
12· money while, obviously, the amount, you know, we're
13· starting at 7.45 cents, I don't doubt the two years
14· later will be well below 7.45 cents because of a
15· Hancock restriction on increased property values.· So
16· it'll still be governed by that, Mark, if that's
17· answering your question.· Other than -- you're right,
18· the communication needs to be -- it's on your property
19· tax bill, take a look at that, it's the assessed value
20· of your property.· I agree, we need to do that.
21· Fortunately, there is some comparisons since we show
22· up at least once and sometimes twice on property tax
23· bills, now we can make a little bit of a comparison
24· there, but yeah, I agree that is something we need to
25· make sure we communicate.
Page 21
·1· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· Anyone needs copies, I have
·2· (inaudible).
·3· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· My first question is to
·4· clarify that if the city grows in population to the
·5· next grouping -- and first of all, I'm going to assume
·6· this is based on -- on the -- the census completed
·7· every 10 years, city grows into the next, it will
·8· be -- it'll receive that higher allocation on the next
·9· census; is that correct?
10· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Yes, we would have to
11· do it 10 years from now.
12· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Okay.
13· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· If there was a
14· significant change.
15· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· And I appreciate the
16· additional groupings.· I think this is an improvement,
17· to provide more and more equitable distribution of the
18· funds, and I -- I do agree with the need to have a --
19· a cap, but also a floor because of the -- the reasons
20· that Ms. Meyers stated about having enough for a --
21· for a basic storm water project.· I think my concern,
22· though, is that I believe that the proposed allocation
23· for the very small cities of under 2,000 population
24· could be reviewed further, and that's because while
25· you -- let's take an example.· Crystal Lake Park City
Page 22
·1· of, you know, 500 population, it's going to receive
·2· $60 per capita every single year.· I'm not sure that a
·3· city of that size is going to have -- is necessarily
·4· going to have the need for projects or projects every
·5· single year and -- and that also is a pretty
·6· significant per capita rate.· So my thought on the
·7· very small cities would be to consider a scaling those
·8· grants back to every two or three years while keeping
·9· that minimum amount of -- of $30,000.· (Inaudible)
10· also sure that those funds can be spread around to the
11· other municipalities.
12· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Mr. (Inaudible) can I
13· just brief comment on that?
14· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Yeah.
15· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· If the rate commission
16· wants to propose something to MSD -- and I'm talking
17· to one rate commissioner, you want to propose
18· something different, we can be very flexible on what
19· this is.· Good point.· We'd like to see what it is,
20· though.· We did this just as an example.
21· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Uh-huh.
22· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· To -- if I read the
23· process of procedure right, kind of this discussion
24· through the next meeting is to see if we can work
25· differences out.· That's one of the reasons we
Page 23
·1· provided the sample document.· If there's something
·2· else the rate commission wants to propose, that in
·3· general stays within the lines of the thought that was
·4· laid out by Ms. Meyers, we certainly would be very
·5· receptive to discussing and see if we can come to a
·6· final conclusion.· So there have been no commitments
·7· made outside of what we've gotten from public input.
·8· So that's the reason we offer this as kind of a draft
·9· alternative as another example to do it.· So MSD
10· staff, I don't know if the process allows for it, but
11· if there's some kind of discussion about, hey, can we
12· get to an agreement point, it doesn't have to be
13· either one of the two we've shown.· It can be
14· something different.
15· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Thank you.
16· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you, Mr. Perkins.· Other
17· questions?· Mr. Gaas?
18· · · · · · · MR. GAAS:· Question on Exhibit 91, you have
19· steps where the funding goes up first three
20· categories.· I think it's like $10,000, it's
21· increasing, and then the next several, it's 20,000,
22· and then you -- when you're in the communities
23· of 10,000 to 15,000, it's $150,000 annually, and then
24· the next segment jumps 50,000 to 200,000, so I just --
25· what was the thinking behind the increase in funding
Page 24
·1· in the different categories?· I mean, it's constant
·2· for A certain set, then it goes up.· It seems like the
·3· steps increase, you know, more as you get up in
·4· population, was -- and so I want to know what the
·5· thinking was as to why you chose those funding levels
·6· as you went up, because that'll help us as we talk
·7· about this example, and if I heard -- maybe I misheard
·8· this, but I thought there was some comment about the
·9· 30,000 was chosen as a minimum because that's a -- a
10· difficult storm water amount funding for funding a
11· storm water project.· You need at least 30,000 to
12· really do any good; is that fair?
13· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· So in general, from
14· what our experience is, if you want to do a storm
15· water study, if you want to take care of eliminating
16· the -- the bird baths in a curb, if you want to add
17· some inlets somewhere, it seems like that's about the
18· money, about the time you design, and build it, and go
19· through everything else, that's an approximate number
20· we use.· If there's a suggestion, it would be
21· something less.· We'll consider that.· That's been our
22· experience.· There's not -- there's not a eight-page
23· study to say, therefore, it's $30,000.· And somewhat
24· the same the way it was broken down.· It was, you
25· know, a little bit of consideration, but kind of the
Page 25
·1· eye test of, hey, where's some reasonable places to
·2· cut these amounts off based on population, so that's
·3· about -- Rich, I'm right, that is about as much as
·4· detail as we went in.· So that's how it was laid out,
·5· and again, I just expressed we're open to other
·6· cut-off points, other ways of doing it, short of
·7· calculating how much each person should get and
·8· therefore, giving each city the amount based on the
·9· number of people they have in the city.· We don't want
10· to do that.
11· · · · · · · MR. GAAS:· Right.· But if I'm out
12· (inaudible) 15 people can tell you that (inaudible)
13· $50,000, so I -- is there -- if -- this may not be
14· practical either, but if there's a -- if $30,000 is
15· kind of like you need that for a storm water project,
16· would it make more sense instead of having these, you
17· know, you go for 100 to 150 to 200, that you do it by,
18· you know, 30,000 to 60 -- next 160,000, because that's
19· two projects, and so you -- you make the adjustments
20· based on what you think a typical storm water might
21· cost.· Would that be sensible or not?
22· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Well, a typical storm
23· water -- I -- it may be and I -- I don't mean to push
24· back, but I think if you guys have a better idea,
25· we're willing to hear it.
Page 26
·1· · · · · · · MR. GAAS:· No.· It's a question.
·2· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Yeah.
·3· · · · · · · MR. GAAS:· I'm not criticizing --
·4· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· So my answer is, yeah,
·5· that is another way of doing it.· I agree with you.
·6· · · · · · · MR. GAAS:· Okay.· That's all.
·7· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you, Mr. Gaas.· Other
·8· questions?· Mr. Perkins?
·9· · · · · · · MR. PERKINS:· I have a follow up actually
10· on that.· Mr. Alser (phonetic) you just said a minute
11· ago that you -- you wouldn't want to simply distribute
12· the funds based on per capita.· I think it absolutely
13· makes sense to have a cap and a floor as we talked
14· about, but I guess I'm not sure why you don't just
15· distribute the funds other than that cap and the floor
16· based on a per capita rate.· And so, you know, you got
17· a situation like Ellisville which is 15 citizens
18· under -- under, you know, a threshold, you eliminate
19· that.· I'm just thinking about also from the public
20· standpoint or -- or other municipalities in looking at
21· the chart, and there's going to be winners and losers,
22· you know, as it -- as it currently is.· Some are going
23· to finish high (inaudible) and some are going to
24· finish low.· I'm just thinking about also public
25· acceptance.
Page 27
·1· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· So if the rate
·2· commission believes that there's a reasonably
·3· manageable way of doing that, we'd be willing to hear
·4· the proposal after you decided it's reasonably
·5· manageable.
·6· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· And these numbers are based on
·7· the most current census.
·8· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Yeah.· It's the 2020
·9· census.· The idea of -- I mean, our broad take at
10· this, it can always be adjusted is, we would
11· definitely adjust them every 10 years based on
12· whatever census numbers were.
13· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Any other questions for
14· Mr. Meyers or Mr. Holster?· Thank you.
15· · · · · · · SUSAN MEYERS:· Thank you.
16· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Mr. Malone, would you like to
17· address the rate commission as the rate commission's
18· legal counsel?
19· · · · · · · MR. MALONE:· Good afternoon.· As the rate
20· commission's legal counsel, our role is primarily to
21· assist you with preparing a report on the district's
22· rate change proposals for storm water and wastewater.
23· The purpose of this report is to provide the district
24· board of trustees with a report as to whether the rate
25· change proposal complies with the three criteria and
Page 28
·1· the five factors in the charter for consideration of
·2· rate change proposals.· The operational rules and
·3· procedural schedule that you have adopted provide that
·4· the purpose of this conference is to identify issues
·5· that have been raised in the prepared testimony.· We
·6· intend to address the topics we discussed today in
·7· greater depth in the report that will be filing next
·8· week.· So we've identified certain issues that affect
·9· the charter criteria and factors and the prepared
10· testimony and technical conferences thus far, some of
11· which have already been addressed by Ms. Meyers
12· earlier today.· With regard to wastewater, the first
13· issue that we identified related to the extra strength
14· surcharge whether it's appropriate to phase those in
15· or go directly to cost of service, as you know, the
16· rate commission's consultant has opined that there is
17· a risk of rate shock to -- if those were not to be
18· phased in, the commission will need to consider
19· whether that's outweighed by the -- I guess for you to
20· not phase them in, that would result in other classes
21· of customers subsidizing the people to whom extra
22· strength surcharges are applicable.· Regarding
23· wastewater, the next topic we identified relates to
24· the fluidized bed incinerator projects whether the
25· cost of those projects is appropriate in light of the
Page 29
·1· fact that those are not necessarily required under the
·2· consent decree, whether the timing is appropriate for
·3· this rate cycle, whether the timeline for construction
·4· of those projects is appropriate, and whether there
·5· may be additional methods to address biosolids such as
·6· thermal hydrolysis or some other method.· Moving onto
·7· storm water, first issue identified was specific storm
·8· water had to do with the adequacy of the municipal
·9· grant funding program, which we've already discussed
10· in some depth earlier today.· One of the -- this will
11· come up particularly in the charter criteria about
12· whether or not the municipal grant program results in
13· a fair and reasonable burden or whether it considers
14· all classes of ratepayers in determining a fair and
15· reasonable burden especially with regard to the OMCI
16· districts which may be presently receiving more
17· revenue than they would receive under the proposed
18· grant program.· The next topic we identified is the
19· credit program which, again, Ms. Meyers discussed
20· earlier.· Mr. (Inaudible) in his prepared testimony
21· stated that the district would support a 50 percent
22· credit for captured impervious area for retention
23· basins on nonresidential property.· There had been
24· discussion in a previous technical conference about
25· whether it would be appropriate to have a similar
Page 30
·1· credit program for subdivisions and other large
·2· residential developments that now have outdated --
·3· outdated infrastructure that need to be updated.
·4· Another issue under storm water that came up in the
·5· testimony and technical conferences related to the
·6· assessment of a storm water impervious area charge to
·7· vacant nonresidential property, there was discussion
·8· about whether the equitable concerns associated with
·9· not assessing vacant, nonresidential property are
10· outweighed by the administrative burdens that would be
11· associated with assessing such a charge.· And the
12· remaining topics really relate to storm water and
13· wastewater.· We expect to write in our report about
14· the -- with regard to the charter criteria about
15· whether the rate change proposal is consistent with
16· constitutional statutory and common law, the legality
17· of the proposed rate structure, the way -- under the
18· wastewater side, this is fairly clear cut.· The
19· district is not proposing to change the methodology
20· for wastewater rates that they've used since the
21· Missouri growth case which found that the agencies
22· method of setting rates was appropriate and
23· permissible.· The charter gives the district pretty
24· clear authority to charge rates, rentals, and other
25· charges.· Similarly, on residential storm water, the
Page 31
·1· charter is pretty clear that they can assess an ad
·2· valorem property tax to support the district's
·3· purposes and that the district has the authority to
·4· regulate storm water within the district.· When you
·5· get to the nonresidential storm water side, there is,
·6· I guess, a legality and fairness issue with the
·7· nonresidential impervious area charge.· As we know,
·8· the district doesn't presently assess an impervious
·9· area charge.· This would be something new.· Although,
10· it has been a topic of recent rate change proposals
11· that the commission has considered in previous years,
12· the district is proposing to seek voter approval for
13· this impervious area charge for nonresidential
14· property which removes the issue that resulted in the
15· adverse judgment in this wide case.· The -- the --
16· impervious area charge on nonresidential property
17· would be subject to -- it would be charged on
18· government property as well as nonprofit property.· If
19· there was -- if the impervious area charge were
20· challenged as being a tax, rather than a charge, there
21· is a risk that governmental entities or non-profits
22· would be exempt from the impervious area charge for
23· nonresidential property.· The impervious areas -- the
24· impervious area charge also raises some fairness and
25· legal issues, first of all, for having a different
Page 32
·1· mechanism for raising revenue for storm water based on
·2· residential or nonresidential properties, for
·3· instance, vacant residential properties going to pay
·4· the tax making non-vacant residential would not.
·5· Residential properties with large amounts of
·6· impervious area will pay the tax but -- or they're
·7· going to pay -- based on their assessed value rather
·8· than their impervious area of nonresidential property
·9· with less impervious area may end up paying more than
10· a large residential property with a lot of impervious
11· area.· Nonprofit residential properties is not going
12· to pay the tax but nonprofit commercial property is
13· going to be subject to the impervious area charge as
14· proposed.· We also discussed during the testimony the
15· Missouri Statute 204.700.· This has been discussed in
16· previous rate change proposals that -- just to
17· paraphrase it, it basically says that the district
18· shall not assess a storm water charge to district --
19· or to residential property that's not connected to the
20· public sewer system.· The district has raised several
21· arguments that the statute is invalid on a couple of
22· different grounds, and those have been considered in
23· previous rate change proposals as well.· We'll plan to
24· discuss that in greater depth in our report, so those
25· are the main issues we intend to focus on in the
Page 33
·1· prehearing conference that we'll be filing next week.
·2· I will be happy to answer any questions you might
·3· have.
·4· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you, Mr. Malone.
·5· Questions?· Comments?· Thank you, Mr. Malone.
·6· · · · · · · MR. MALONE:· Thank you.
·7· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· I have one other matter before
·8· we adjourn.· I see that Celestine Dotson has joined us
·9· online.· Celestine, just like to welcome you to the
10· rate commission.· Appreciate your willingness to
11· serve.· I know that at some point soon you'll need to
12· be sworn in.· I believe that needs -- needs to occur
13· in person; am I correct, that we probably need to
14· (inaudible) in person or what am I hearing?
15· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· We have done it -- we
16· have done it like this before, remotely, if you prefer
17· it in person, we can --
18· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Well, if Celestine is willing to
19· be sworn in remotely, then -- is that acceptable with
20· you, Ms. Dotson.
21· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· It is.· That's fine.
22· Whenever, you know, you would prefer in terms of your
23· rules and requirements, I can -- I'm not too far from
24· MSD, my office location, so I can do either in person
25· or I'm certainly sitting here right now so we can do
Page 34
·1· it online.
·2· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· I think we'll proceed right now,
·3· so that we (inaudible) so let's go ahead.
·4· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Okay.· Ms. Dotson, I
·5· know that you received the e-mail that I sent you just
·6· a little bit ago.· You want to pull that up.· It'll be
·7· a little bit easier.· Okay.
·8· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· You need to unmute.· There you
·9· go.· Can you unmute her?
10· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· I think when you
11· unplugged your phone, we lost your voice.
12· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· Do you have me?
13· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Yes.
14· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Yes.· There you go.
15· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· Okay.
16· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· All right.· So let's do
17· it this way.· If you will raise your right hand, I
18· will go through the oath, that you just repeat after
19· me.· Easiest if you just read off with what we have;
20· okay?· Thank you.
21· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· Okay.
22· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· I, state your name.
23· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· I, Celeste Dotson.
24· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Being duly sworn upon
25· my oath.
Page 35
·1· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· Being duly sworn upon my
·2· oath.
·3· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· State that I have all
·4· the qualifications, and I'm not subject to any of the
·5· disqualifications.
·6· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· State that I have all
·7· the qualifications, and I'm not subject to any of the
·8· disqualifications.
·9· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Named in the plan of
10· the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District.
11· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· Named in the plan of the
12· Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District.
13· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Of rate commission
14· delegate of said district.
15· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· For rate commission
16· delegate of said district.
17· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· That I will support the
18· Constitution of the United States and of this state.
19· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· That I will support the
20· Constitution of the United States and this state.
21· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· And the plan and
22· ordinances of said district.
23· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· And the plan and
24· ordinances of said district.
25· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· And that I do not and
Page 36
·1· will not belong to any organization that seeks to
·2· overthrow the government of the United States.
·3· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· And that I --
·4· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Ms. Dotson.
·5· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· -- overthrow the
·6· government of the United States.
·7· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· That I will be
·8· influenced only by the consideration of fitness in the
·9· appointment, promotion, demotion, suspension or
10· discharge of officers or employees.
11· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· That -- in the
12· appointment, promotion, demotion, suspension or
13· discharge of officers or employees.
14· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· And that I will demean
15· myself faithfully in office.
16· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· And that I will --
17· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· All right.· Thank you,
18· Ms. Dotson, for joining us today and for taking the
19· oath.· If you will sign that form and e-mail it back
20· to me, you will be official.
21· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· All right.· I certainly
22· will.
23· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Congratulations.
24· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· Do you --
25· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Welcome aboard, Ms. Dotson.· Go
Page 37
·1· ahead.· I'm sorry, you're cutting out a little bit on
·2· your sound.· Go ahead.
·3· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· So.
·4· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· I'm sorry, your voice keeps
·5· cutting out.
·6· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· We keep losing you.
·7· Okay.· You can e-mail me with questions or give me a
·8· call.· I'll send you my phone number in -- in -- and
·9· we'll work it out.
10· · · · · · · CELESTINE DOTSON:· All right.
11· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Thank you.
12· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you.· I think there's one
13· other matter before we adjourn.· Mr. (Inaudible).
14· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Yes.· There is a
15· modification to the budget of the communications
16· committee.· I think that has been disseminated to
17· other members of the commission.· We -- it does not
18· involve a change in overall budget to communications,
19· it's just a -- a rearrangement of where the funds are
20· going to be spent.· That has been recommended by the
21· members of the communications committee.
22· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Ms. (Inaudible) do you have any
23· comments on that as far as what the details of that
24· are or how that's going to happen?
25· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· We're doing the --
Page 38
·1· the communication consultants because of principal
·2· spending and outreach have been able to significantly
·3· save costs in terms of the -- their budgetary items
·4· for expenses, and so they would like to -- and we
·5· support it completely use up to $7,500 of the direct
·6· expenses be used for advertisement of the public
·7· hearing on Monday so that we can, perhaps, get some
·8· more radio and get a larger turnout.
·9· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· And just to clarify, this is not
10· an additional expense.
11· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· No.
12· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· This is a reallocation.
13· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· Right.
14· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· That was previously approved.
15· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· Yeah, yeah.· They
16· were able -- they didn't have any rental costs for the
17· rooms because of their good nature.· And no one really
18· took them up on the transportation services that they
19· were offering for people to get to the meetings so
20· that money which was allocated was no longer -- is not
21· being used, and we thought it would be better to try
22· to get some better outreach and get more people at the
23· meeting.
24· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you.
25· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· And we've discussed
Page 39
·1· it, and the committee all approved it, and it's not --
·2· there's no change in the money.· There won't be no
·3· differences.
·4· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Thank you.· Are there any other
·5· matters before we adjourn?· Mr. Palens.
·6· · · · · · · MR. PALENS:· Chairman, just so we all
·7· understand the schedule, what (inaudible) need to be
·8· doing (inaudible) I'm a little unclear.
·9· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Excellent suggestion,
10· Mr. Palens.
11· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· So on Monday morning
12· at 9:00 a.m. in this room, there will be the final
13· public hearing at which time you'll start with the
14· public like your other public hearings, and after that
15· part is completed, we will be submitting all the
16· exhibits that have been -- that are currently on the
17· website into evidence.· We will be giving -- each
18· party will be able to give a closing argument then and
19· that will be your final time to ask any questions of
20· the district or the intervenors during that time.· So
21· just keep that in mind, that that -- after Monday,
22· really, you will enter into a phase of deliberations,
23· which I believe starts on Monday, the 18th.· I'm
24· sorry, the 14th, and those meetings are scheduled to
25· start at 8:00 a.m., and I believe Monday, the 14th,
Page 40
·1· starts -- it's scheduled from 8:00 to 12:00, and then
·2· Tuesday, the 15th, it's scheduled from 12:00 to
·3· 5:00 -- 1:00 to 5:00.· Thank you.· And if it helps,
·4· I'm happy to send out -- do you want me to send out a
·5· separate -- an e-mail with just the deliberation
·6· meetings?· Okay.· Because, as you know, there's about
·7· two -- a week and sometimes a third, if needed, in
·8· order to get the report done by the end of the month.
·9· It's due September 5th.· For those of you that are
10· new, generally, we will start with -- kind of flush
11· out the issues first, start with what the report will
12· kind of look like on the basic three criteria and five
13· factors for wastewater and storm water, and so we'll
14· address those one by one.· The commission will make
15· its decision in substance.· Brian and I will go back
16· and write a section to support that.· That comes back
17· to you usually the next week for approval, so you will
18· see it all, and then ultimately, we'll have decisions
19· made by the commission on all the factors and
20· criteria, and then there will be a final report that
21· you all will review and give final approval before
22· September 5th.
23· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Questions for Ms. (Inaudible).
24· I believe that to further elaborate on that, our legal
25· counsel does prepare a series of questions.
Page 41
·1· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· Uh-huh.
·2· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· And a series of votes to be
·3· taken on each of the factors, and each of the five
·4· criteria related to each component of the rate
·5· proposal, so there will be a series of opportunities
·6· to vote on all the different (inaudible).
·7· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· And those meetings,
·8· for those of you, those are important because we do
·9· need to have a quorum for -- for each of the
10· deliberation meetings even though everyone will be --
11· eventually vote on the final report, it's important
12· that a quorum be present, and you all be present in
13· person or online for as many of the deliberation
14· meetings as you possibly (inaudible) and I will --
15· when I get back to the office, I'll send those out.
16· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· And again, for those of you who
17· are first timers, we have had minority reports
18· submitted in the past as part of our final report for
19· individual components of the final decision.· Any
20· other questions or comments?· Mr. G.
21· · · · · · · MR. G:· Mr. Chair, thank you.· Just to -- I
22· want to verify the time of the meeting on the 7th.· We
23· have that on the schedule as being at 9:30.
24· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· I saw that, and I --
25· I spoke with Stephanie about this earlier.· I think
Page 42
·1· it -- I don't know which was right, but I think we
·2· need to have it at 9:00, because that is -- in looking
·3· at what the communications people have put out for the
·4· public hearing, they put out 9:00 a.m., starting at
·5· (inaudible) so if that's okay, regardless, we should
·6· have it at 9:00.
·7· · · · · · · MR. G:· I think that works for us.· We just
·8· had a different schedule.
·9· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· I believe that the invitation
10· that was sent to the rate commissioners will need to
11· be modified because that does show up on my calendar
12· as 9:30.
13· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE:· Can we do 9:00
14· because that's what --
15· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· 9:00 o'clock is fine.· We will
16· make a special call to Mr. Mafood (phonetic)
17· (inaudible) okay.· Yeah.· Hopefully (inaudible) any
18· other matters before we adjourn?· That being the case,
19· we will adjourn until 9:00 a.m. on August 7th, 2023,
20· for the final public hearing session.· Please
21· remember, rate commissioners, that this is your final
22· opportunity to ask questions of the parties including
23· the district prior to deliberations.· Motion to
24· adjourn is in order.
25· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· So moved.
Page 43
·1· · · · · · · UNIDENTIFIED MALE:· Second.
·2· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Motion made and seconded.· All
·3· in favor signify by saying aye.
·4· · · · · · · (All said aye.)
·5· · · · · · · CHAIRMAN:· Opposed?· Thank you.
·6· · · · · · · (Inaudible conversation.)
·7· · · · · · · (Audio ended.)
·8
·9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Page 44
·1· · · · · · · · · CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
·2
·3· · · · · · · I, Melissa J. Lane, Certified Court
·4· Reporter of Missouri, Certified Shorthand Reporter of
·5· Illinois and Registered Professional Reporter, do
·6· hereby certify that I was asked to prepare a
·7· transcript of proceedings had in the above-mentioned
·8· case, which proceedings were held with no court
·9· reporter present utilizing an open microphone system
10· of preserving the record.
11· · · · · · · I further certify that the foregoing pages
12· constitute a true and accurate reproduction of the
13· proceedings as transcribed by me to the best of my
14· ability and may include inaudible sections or
15· misidentified speakers of said open microphone
16· recording.
17
18
19· · · · · · · · Melissa J. Lane, CCR, CSR, RPR
20
21
22
23
24· Date: August 9, 2023
25
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'
LEXITAS'