Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee Meeting - May 14, 2026

Note: The transcript indicates the meeting was called to order on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 at 3:30 p.m. The user-provided date is May 14, 2026. This summary uses the provided date.

The committee met to approve minutes, consider two board bills, and receive a detailed presentation from the Water Division on its annual update and a proposed rate sufficiency study. The meeting included public testimony on the rate proposal.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Minutes: The minutes from the March 18, 2026 meeting were approved by a vote of 4-0.
• Board Bill No. 2: An ordinance allowing the city to accept and appropriate funds for community water fluoridation equipment repair and replacement. Received a do pass recommendation unanimously (4-0).
• Board Bill No. 11: An ordinance authorizing additional speed humps on a block in the 10th Ward. Received a do pass recommendation unanimously (4-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• John Kaufman (Consumers Council of Missouri): Thanked the committee for transparency. Announced that the Consumers Council has hired independent rate expert Mike Gorman and requested at least 60 days to review the Black & Veatch study. Stated that they will not recommend zero increase but may suggest a different approach. Expressed support for a cost-of-service study and emphasized the need for a permanent income-based assistance program, noting the current ARPA-funded program is temporary.
• Claude Breckwold (Benton Park homeowner): Expressed horror at the condition of the infrastructure, noting that cast iron pipes are failing and that water and gas lines should be replaced together as Spire did. Criticized past band-aid fixes and called for a complete rebuild.
• Cheryl Glass (resident): Strongly criticized the rate structure, alleging that Black & Veatch has controlled the water division since 1958 and created a billing system that unfairly burdens unmetered residential customers. Claimed that large commercial users (e.g., Anheuser-Busch) and MSD (as a major customer) contribute little to infrastructure costs. Called for a comprehensive audit and removal of Black & Veatch. Questioned the lack of metering and argued that the proposed rate increase would further harm residents.

Discussion Items

• Water Division Annual Update (Director Niraj Patel and Deputy Commissioner Spencer Gould):

  • Presented the annual update required by Ordinance 17168, covering projects completed and in progress. Highlighted that the water division is in an "existential crisis" with revenues insufficient to cover expenses for seven years. The system is reactive, with $12 million in emergency projects. Emphasized the need to shift from reactive to proactive capital renewal.
  • Key statistics: 47 billion gallons of water produced annually; 80,000 unmetered residential accounts, 12,000 metered accounts; about 40% of water is non-revenue (leaks, city use). The current rate is less than 1% of median household income (EPA threshold: 2.5%).
  • Addressed misinformation: rate increases go to infrastructure and operations, not salaries; residential customers are not subsidizing large users; unmetered customers pay about $6 more per month for unlimited water.
  • Warning of consequences of inaction: examples of system failures in other cities (Michigan, Jackson, Mississippi, Great Lakes Water Authority).
  • Alderwoman Clark Hubbard noted the aged infrastructure (Chain of Rocks plant built 1894, filter plant 1913) and the risk of state or federal takeover if standards are not met.
  • Alderman Devoty asked about the term "CCF" (hundreds of cubic feet, ~748 gallons).
  • Alderwoman Cox and Twee asked about metered vs. unmetered conversion costs: the property owner must pay for plumbing to install a meter box; the water division installs the meter at no cost.

• Rate Sufficiency Study Presentation (Black & Veatch consultants Prabakumar and Alberto Morales):

  • Presented a six-year financial plan (FY2027-2032) to address a $442 million capital improvement program (CIP). Key cost drivers: significant capital needs (treatment plants, transmission/distribution), rising O&M costs (3.2% annual increase), establishment of an O&M reserve (90 days of operating expenses), and a rate stabilization reserve to smooth future rate increases.
  • Proposed rate increases: 40% in FY2027, then 6% in FY2028, 6% in FY2029, 6% in FY2030, 5% in FY2031, and 5% in FY2032. This would raise the average unmetered residential bill from $42.65 to $59.17 in FY2027, reaching $77.27 by FY2032.
  • Financing strategy: combination of revenue bonds (majority), state revolving fund loans, and cash financing. Debt service would rise from $2.4 million to $23.2 million over the period.
  • Reserves: O&M reserve would build from $0 to 90 days (about $19-22 million). Rate stabilization reserve would grow to $19.8 million by FY2030, then be drawn down to $7 million by FY2032 to avoid double-digit rate spikes.
  • Key performance metrics: debt service coverage ratio targeted at 1.5x, achieved in all years.
  • In response to Alderman Devoty's question, Director Patel noted that the study assumes $60 million in RAMS funding; if less, the impact would be beyond the six-year horizon.
  • Alderwoman Cox and Twee asked about the reason for the 40% front-loading: to build reserves, maintain coverage, and start the capital program. The alternative of spreading increases would leave the system at risk of failure.
  • The committee discussed the upcoming cost-of-service study (not done since 1958), which will examine class allocation and rate fairness.
  • Alderwoman Schweitzer questioned the jump from a 4% recommended increase in 2020 to 40% now. Director Patel explained that the previous study was based on pre-COVID data and a smaller CIP; inflationary pressures (chemical costs tripled from $5M to $15M) and accumulated deferred maintenance led to the larger need.

Key Outcomes

• Board Bill No. 2 and Board Bill No. 11 received do pass recommendations and will proceed to the full Board of Aldermen.
• The committee heard the Water Division's annual update and the rate sufficiency study. No formal vote was taken on the rate proposal.
• The committee acknowledged that a board bill for the rate increase will be introduced later, providing additional opportunities for public comment.
• Public testimony was received; the committee will consider written testimony and further input.
• The next steps include potential independent review by the Consumers Council of Missouri and continued community engagement.