OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

Water and Light Advisory Board Public Input Meeting - October 29, 2025

Video Archive — Wednesday, October 29, 2025
BodyColumbia, Missouri
SessionVideo Archive
DateWednesday, October 29, 2025
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 1:13:54

Transcript — Verbatim
0:52

We're gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order.

0:54

It's a public input meeting for the water and light advisory board.

0:58

Uh my name is Jennifer Coleman.

1:00

I am the chair of the board, and I'm gonna kick off with introductions for the rest of the board members.

1:06

Philip Rosika, board.

1:09

Tom Jensen board.

1:10

David Switzer, board member.

1:14

All right.

1:14

We're gonna go ahead and get started.

1:16

In terms of format for this meeting, I wanted to address a few items.

1:20

We have several topics on the agenda, which you can see after each topic.

1:25

If you would like to speak, you are able to for a total of three minutes.

1:29

Then at the end of the meeting, there will be an open call for comments, and you would also have three minutes to address any items that you would like to at that time.

1:39

All right.

1:40

And for our agenda today, I'll go over that quickly.

1:43

We're gonna talk about the utility customer service results, a pay Como update, the community solar and energy efficiency programs, then we're gonna talk a little bit about the revenue and rate increases on the water and electric side, and then public input opportunities.

2:01

I'm gonna now turn it over to um oh, and the next slide had the introductions.

2:06

I guess I took it a little uh too quickly.

2:10

And we're gonna turn it over to Tom for updates pertaining to the customer survey.

2:17

Okay, so um how do I control the slides?

2:21

Are you some?

2:22

Erin?

2:23

Okay, thanks.

2:24

Um I thought we would uh just go through this uh very quickly.

2:28

It won't take long.

2:29

Uh just to kind of I don't know if anyone show of hands, anyone seen the results or found them online.

2:35

Uh okay.

2:37

Uh then it'll it'll uh it should be helpful.

2:42

Um the the survey was designed by ETC Institute um and we had a lot of uh you know we we talked about this for quite a while within our within the board and we finally got it out.

2:55

There was a lot of input from from the board and uh from staff.

2:59

Uh and ETC kind of uh crafted the questions in a way that allows for them to subject the results to an evaluation for accuracy and how reliable it is as a reflection of of the community.

3:15

The goal was to understand what uh how people feel about issues that we've selected for them to consider.

3:23

Um, but also to have a feature in the in the survey that allowed people to say, well, here's what's on my mind.

3:30

So that uh there was there was no risk of people being stripped of their voice just because we weren't asking the right questions.

3:39

Um the goal was to uh get 800 completed surveys.

3:44

And we ended up with like 800 four, I think.

3:48

So that was very close.

3:50

Uh which allows them to establish a level of confidence of 95 percent uh as a reflection of of the community.

4:01

So on drinking water.

4:03

Uh and and I think the survey was circulated when a lot of the the discussion of the water treatment facility expansion was topical.

4:14

71% of of uh the respondents believe that we have safe and quality uh drinking water.

4:21

26 uh don't, and three percent said had no response.

4:25

When we say 71 percent, we're combining the uh strongly believe with the firmly believe kind of the the the two extremes of of the spectrum and then the 26 percent believe somewhat agree or somewhat disagree and firmly disagree.

4:42

On the water service, 58 percent thought it was excellent or good, 25 percent average.

4:48

Um 11 percent below average or poor.

4:52

And we'll see when we switch to electric the numbers in terms of the public perception of the performance of the utility are a little stronger.

5:00

But on water conservation, uh 84 percent are very willing or somewhat willing to change lawn watering or otherwise engage in conservation, and that was part of that's gonna be part of our goal with the new water rates per pertaining to uh irrigation.

5:17

Um the on other actions, the sprinkler heads, 73 percent willing to replace uh sprinkler heads and and install rain sensors.

5:28

Anyone who who's been through a neighborhood that has a bunch of uh houses and businesses with sprinklers will see uh sometimes they're on when it's raining, um so which is just you know waste.

5:40

Or uh another problem that that is prevalent in my neighborhood, uh the sprinkler heads get bumped by mowers and they'll just shoot into the street.

5:50

You know, the the water stream will go directly onto the pavement, gets washed away, that's wasted uh potable drinking water that we use on lawns and we're not unfortunately in a situation where we have the a sophisticated system that allows us to have different gradation of water, where there's you know, gray water that might be suitable for lawns, but you know, we either have drinkable or storm, essentially, or waste.

6:20

Um moving on to the the next slide.

6:25

72 percent of respondents describe the electric utility as excellent or good.

6:30

Uh 12 percent say it's average, three percent rating it below average of poor.

6:35

And I I gotta believe that some of this is is testament to the the fact that we've had some pretty extreme heat days for suspended uh successive periods of of time uh successive days, and we still haven't had the the brownouts that have been part of the the prediction and fear that that you know we uh we understand our system's a little bit inadequate.

6:58

But somehow it's it's held up, and that's reflected in the public sentiment as well.

7:04

Uh community solar, uh 27 percent would sign up for community solar, which given the the history of the program, that's a huge, a huge number uh of the public relative to the people who have participated in the past.

7:20

And we'll see as we go through more of the results that it's possible that there's a there's a lot of uh untapped interest that isn't uh realized just because uh we have to do a better job of uh public outreach.

7:33

Um 30 percent would possibly sign up, 28 percent unlikely or wouldn't, uh 15 percent with no opinion.

7:40

Uh the positive there is that there just weren't people who were uh vocally opposed to community solar, particularly in the open comments where people were allowed to talk about what was important to them.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Energy Management█████████████████████████████████33%
Renewable Energy██████████████████████████26%
Public Engagement████████████████████20%
Water And Wastewater Management████████8%
Procedural██████6%
Public Health████4%
Technology and Innovation██2%
Fiscal Sustainability█1%
Summary of Proceedings

Water and Light Advisory Board Public Input Meeting - October 29, 2025

The Water and Light Advisory Board held a public input meeting focused on reviewing utility survey results, updating members on payment systems, discussing community solar and energy efficiency programs, and presenting proposed rate adjustments for Fiscal Year 2026. Board Chair Jennifer Coleman opened the session with board introductions and outlined the three-minute public comment format. The meeting featured detailed presentations by Tom Jensen (Customer Survey), Chelsea Miller (Pay Como system), Todd McVicar (Energy Programs), and David Switzer (Rate Adjustments), followed by extensive public input regarding affordability, renewable energy goals, and system transparency.

Consent Calendar

  • The meeting opened with the introduction of board members: Tom Jensen, David Switzer, and Chair Jennifer Coleman.
  • The board proceeded through the agenda items including survey results, payment updates, program overviews, and rate discussions without specific consent calendar motions recorded in the transcript.

Public Comments & Testimony

  • Carolyn Ompron (Mid-Missouri Sierra Club & individual resident):
    • Expressed full support for the implementation of affordability metrics and advocated for the rapid expansion of programs for low and middle-income families, specifically requesting a "pay-as-you-save" model to reduce upfront investment barriers.
    • Called for a faster replacement of the Sykston power plant with renewable energy and urged a higher 2035 renewable target (75-100%) rather than the current trajectory.
    • Requested the creation of an interested parties email list for special events and workshops.
  • Peter Schneeberger (Columbia Renewable Energy Coalition):
    • Recommended setting a specific board goal to replace the Sykston power plant by 2030.
    • Proposed adjusting the 2035 renewable energy target to 35% (aiming for a 5% annual increase) to ensure proactive growth beyond standard city expansion.
    • Expressed skepticism regarding the necessity of a 2% electric rate increase given the Fiscal Year 2024 debt service coverage ratio of 3.75.
  • Christine Dorgan (Resident, CERT):
    • Highlighted the health risks of rising temperatures and urged the board to prioritize 100% renewable energy to reduce air pollution and replace the Sykston plant.
    • Suggested the city install a single water regulator for neighborhoods with high water pressure rather than requiring individual household installations ($800 per house) to reduce water waste.
    • Questioned the utility's paper usage, suggesting reduced printing for board materials to save costs.
  • Public Commenter (Name Unstated):
    • Expressed frustration (gave a negative rating) regarding the integration of Pay Como, stating the system was confusing for viewing utility bills compared to the separate utility portal.
  • John Conway (Resident):
    • Asked about the security/liens placed on energy efficiency loans.
  • Other Attendees:
    • Christine Dorr: Suggested short video tutorials to explain electric rate fluctuations and bill tools.
    • Sarah: Clarified that recent personnel compensation increases were excluded from the original cost of service study, which informed the recommended rate adjustments.

Discussion Items

  • Customer Survey Results (Presentation by Tom Jensen):
    • Discussed a survey with 804 completed responses, establishing a 95% confidence level.
    • Key Findings: 71% of respondents believe drinking water is safe/quality. 84% are willing to engage in water conservation (lawn watering). 72% rate the electric utility as excellent or good.
    • Renewables: 64% support moving toward 100% renewable energy, but cost sensitivity remains high; only 5% are willing to pay 20% or more extra for clean energy. 30% would possibly sign up for community solar, with 27% likely to sign up.
    • Adoption: EV adoption was low at 4.8% among respondents, though 7.8% expressed likelihood to purchase one.
  • Pay Como System Update (Presentation by Chelsea Miller):
    • Clarified Pay Como is a finance department one-stop shop, while PayIT is the vendor.
    • Noted upcoming changes will redirect the "Pay Now" button on utility bills directly to Pay Como for 20,000-25,000 customers.
    • Discussed future phases including integration of EnerGov for permits and unbilled payments (specifically utility assistance).
  • Community Solar & Energy Efficiency (Presentation by Todd McVicar):
    • Community Solar: Explained the program allows customers to buy 1.5 KW blocks from existing fields (Truman and Bernadette). The average annual premium is approximately $5. Contracts run through December 2044 with automatic annual renewal.
    • Efficiency Programs: Detailed rebates for home performance (up to $1,200), attic insulation, heat pumps ($1,200-$1,400), EV chargers ($500), and smart thermostats ($50).
    • Commercial Programs: Discussed lighting upgrades, daylight harvesting, and HVAC rebates. Loans up to $30,000 are available for commercial efficiency with rates as low as 1%.
    • Affordability: Highlighted income-eligible programs offering doubled rebates and free weatherization for those at or below 200% of the poverty guidelines.
  • Rate Adjustments (Presentation by David Switzer):
    • Proposed a 12% increase in water revenue and a 2% increase in electric revenue for Fiscal Year 2026.
    • Water Structure: Eliminated summer/non-summer distinction; implemented year-round tiering. Reset Tier 1 maximum to 100% of winter average consumption. Recommended future consistent increases (3%) to avoid future large jumps (65% of customers expected to see bill decreases).
    • Electric: The 2% increase is proactive to maintain cash reserve targets through FY 29, avoiding larger future spikes.
    • Sykston Power Plant: Discussed the timeline (expected shutdown 2028-2029) and challenges regarding interconnection queues (currently ~4 years, expected to drop to 1 year by 2028) and the expiration of solar subsidies (July 4th next year).
    • Technology: Noted the potential for sodium-ion batteries to reduce reliance on lithium and improve storage economics within three years.

Key Outcomes

  • Public Input Process: The meeting concluded with an open floor for additional comments, during which the board agreed to consider the suggestion of creating an interested parties email list for special events.
  • Training: A board training session on cost of service analysis is scheduled for Tuesday, December 16th, from 1:00 PM to 4:30 PM.
  • Future Directives:
    • The Water and Light Advisory Board is tasked with reviewing the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) and cost of service study results to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the Sykston replacement and renewable energy targets.
    • Staff will continue to evaluate efficiency and water programs based on the recent cost of service study for Fiscal Year 27 re-evaluation.
    • The board will monitor the interconnection queue timeline and potential legislative changes regarding energy subsidies to inform future renewable energy strategies.

Meeting Transcript

We're gonna go ahead and call this meeting to order. It's a public input meeting for the water and light advisory board. Uh my name is Jennifer Coleman. I am the chair of the board, and I'm gonna kick off with introductions for the rest of the board members. Philip Rosika, board. Tom Jensen board. David Switzer, board member. All right. We're gonna go ahead and get started. In terms of format for this meeting, I wanted to address a few items. We have several topics on the agenda, which you can see after each topic. If you would like to speak, you are able to for a total of three minutes. Then at the end of the meeting, there will be an open call for comments, and you would also have three minutes to address any items that you would like to at that time. All right. And for our agenda today, I'll go over that quickly. We're gonna talk about the utility customer service results, a pay Como update, the community solar and energy efficiency programs, then we're gonna talk a little bit about the revenue and rate increases on the water and electric side, and then public input opportunities. I'm gonna now turn it over to um oh, and the next slide had the introductions. I guess I took it a little uh too quickly. And we're gonna turn it over to Tom for updates pertaining to the customer survey. Okay, so um how do I control the slides? Are you some? Erin? Okay, thanks. Um I thought we would uh just go through this uh very quickly. It won't take long. Uh just to kind of I don't know if anyone show of hands, anyone seen the results or found them online. Uh okay. Uh then it'll it'll uh it should be helpful. Um the the survey was designed by ETC Institute um and we had a lot of uh you know we we talked about this for quite a while within our within the board and we finally got it out. There was a lot of input from from the board and uh from staff. Uh and ETC kind of uh crafted the questions in a way that allows for them to subject the results to an evaluation for accuracy and how reliable it is as a reflection of of the community. The goal was to understand what uh how people feel about issues that we've selected for them to consider. Um, but also to have a feature in the in the survey that allowed people to say, well, here's what's on my mind. So that uh there was there was no risk of people being stripped of their voice just because we weren't asking the right questions. Um the goal was to uh get 800 completed surveys. And we ended up with like 800 four, I think. So that was very close. Uh which allows them to establish a level of confidence of 95 percent uh as a reflection of of the community. So on drinking water. Uh and and I think the survey was circulated when a lot of the the discussion of the water treatment facility expansion was topical. 71% of of uh the respondents believe that we have safe and quality uh drinking water. 26 uh don't, and three percent said had no response. When we say 71 percent, we're combining the uh strongly believe with the firmly believe kind of the the the two extremes of of the spectrum and then the 26 percent believe somewhat agree or somewhat disagree and firmly disagree. On the water service, 58 percent thought it was excellent or good, 25 percent average. Um 11 percent below average or poor. And we'll see when we switch to electric the numbers in terms of the public perception of the performance of the utility are a little stronger. But on water conservation, uh 84 percent are very willing or somewhat willing to change lawn watering or otherwise engage in conservation, and that was part of that's gonna be part of our goal with the new water rates per pertaining to uh irrigation. Um the on other actions, the sprinkler heads, 73 percent willing to replace uh sprinkler heads and and install rain sensors. Anyone who who's been through a neighborhood that has a bunch of uh houses and businesses with sprinklers will see uh sometimes they're on when it's raining, um so which is just you know waste. Or uh another problem that that is prevalent in my neighborhood, uh the sprinkler heads get bumped by mowers and they'll just shoot into the street.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com