Good afternoon.

I'm calling the Public Infrastructure and Utilities Committee meeting to order.

It is Wednesday, June 3rd, 3 31 p.m.

Madam Cork, please call roll.

Alderwoman Boyd We can hear you, Alderwoman Boy.

Audible McClark Hubbert.

Vice Chair Sweitzer.

Present.

Present.

Audible McCock Santa.

Present.

Chair Browning.

Present.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Audible McClark Hubbard.

We have four present.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

With that, we'll move to the next item on our agenda, which is the approval of the minutes.

I'll accept a motion to approve the minutes from Wednesday, May 27th, 2026.

So moved.

Second.

Moved by the other woman from the first, seconded by the Alder Woman from the eighth.

Madam Cork, please call roll.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alderwoman McClark Hubbard.

Vice Chair Sweitzer.

Aye.

Altamin Devote.

Aye.

Alder Woman Coxantwee.

Aye.

Chair Browning.

All right.

Alder Woman Boyd.

Alder Woman McClark Hubbard.

We have four eye votes.

With that, the minutes are approved.

We'll move on to the next item, which is board bills for review.

We have four board bills for review today.

We're going to go a little out of order because we do have people who have other commitments and we want to keep everything together.

So we're going to start with Board Bill 25, which is my bill.

So I will hand the chairmanship over to Alderwoman Schweitzer at this time.

Thank you, Chairman Browning.

With that, you are recognized on board bill number 25.

Thank you.

And good afternoon, and thank you to the committee for your continued support and time on the issue of our St.

Louis water.

This bill is the result of a rate sufficiency study that was conducted in close coordination with our water division.

The result of this study is a map toward financial solvency for our publicly owned department that delivers our water.

As an enterprise fund, ratepayers fund the water division from their bills and what they use.

They pay for what they use, but the rates have not really kept up with the costs over the years.

The issues that brought the water division to the point of near bankruptcy this year are manifold.

But the driver of the deficit was the rising cost of running the water division.

From treatment chemicals to the increase in the use of emergency contractors to address a record number of breaks in a system, costs have gone up.

That is what has depleted the contingency fund that we are now trying to refill, along with addressing long-deferred capital improvement needs, such as the replacement of pipes at the end of their lifespan and pumps that have served us well, but are now in need of anyone who has taken a tour of our water treatment plants knows that the last time substantial investment was made in them was several decades ago.

While the mid-century theming of the buildings is charming, the million gallons of water that leaks from our ancient equipment is not.

Now we know that this rate increase is coming at a time of increasing costs for everyone.

It is common sense that in a more expensive world, it is also more expensive to run the water division.

But that doesn't mean the cost can be shouldered by everyone equally, and that's not what equity means.

In response to justify concerns about the affordability of rate increases, an affordable rate has been introduced for the first time, helping mitigate the impact of higher rates for customers with lower incomes.

The cost of service study is also on the way, which will address disparities in how different customers are charged.

We have some amendments to make to this bill that will not change the substance of it, but only clarify some of the tables, changing units of measurement to be consistent.

We can take those up after the presentations.

The run of the show we have planned today is to start with the water division, and then we'll show that we're confident in our approach by having the consumer council present.

The consumer council of Missouri is here, and uh we're excited to hear from them as well.

Uh after which we'll be happy to take questions and uh from the committee and and the public.

So thank you all to those of you who engage on this vitally important issue in our city.

Uh, we want to protect our publicly owned water division and ensure the future of it for all of St.

Louis.

Whether you attended the town halls hosted by the water division at O'Fallon Rec Center, Bouder Library, and Archwell Health, or the first, third, ninth, and 14th ward town halls, or the public infrastructure and utility committee meetings on January 14th, March 4th, May 13th, May 27th, and today.

And we know that when a pipe breaks, whether it is four in the morning or 10 at night, our do our water division is there too, doing the work to bring us the one thing that we cannot live without.

Now it is our turn to be there for them.

So with that, I'll hand it over to Director Patel to explain this bill and uh address uh any uh new concerns that have come up.

Thank you.

Please proceed, Director Patel.

All right, good afternoon.

Uh yeah, thank you, Chair Browning, Vice Chair Schweitzer, uh, rest of the members of the committee.

Uh yes, we have been trying to get out in the community and uh engage the community.

Uh this is, you know, a very important time for the water division.

Uh, you know, a time when the culmination of the rate sufficiency study, uh, you know, really in-depth analysis of the assets that the water division is responsible for and controls through the water master plan are all really coming together to make this picture very clear, make this plan very clear, and we do have a proposal that is backed by those studies.

Um, you know, board bill number 25 addresses a multitude of you know challenges that the water division is facing, but also uh, you know, things that we want to solve and address head on.

Uh, and so I've got uh, you know, my uh deputy commissioner there, Spencer Gould.

He's gonna be advancing the slides from today as well.

Uh, but we do have a short presentation, just uh kind of uh, you know, addition to all of the previous data that we put together, uh, you know, in response to some of the questions that we have received from the community, from you know, uh experts in the space.

Uh, you know, we've certainly engaged with consumer council a number of times as well.

I think this bill is better for all of that engagement.

We have integrated a lot of the comments uh that you know needed to be addressed uh into the bill to improve it.

And I think the affordability rate uh, you know, is a prime example of that, making sure we protect uh those who are vulnerable at risk, uh, you know, due to income, age or natural disaster, uh, and then also uh, you know, address affordability at the bottom of the income bracket.

Uh so uh go ahead and advance to the next slide, Spencer.

Um, you know, the rate sufficiency study I mentioned, uh, you know, has been a many months-long effort.

Uh, you know, we kicked it off in December.

Um, you know, it is an independent and objective financial analysis.

Uh, you know, there's lots of financial data, all of which can be found on our water rate review page on our new website.

Um, you know, we encourage residents to continue to engage through that water rate review page where they can provide direct comment through a comment box.

Um, you know, we've reviewed all of those comments and again made this bill better for the engagement that we've received through multiple modes of communication with the public.

Um, you know, it's a structured process that was followed by our consultant, Black and Beach, guided by the principles of the AWWA M1 manual on principles of water rates, fees, and charges.

Uh, you know, it really does address these three buckets that we're looking at solvency, stability, and capital renewal.

Uh, it rebuilds a reserve that will allow us to go after bond issuances, uh, to draw those uh payments, you know, out over time so that this long-standing infrastructure can be paid for, uh, you know, out into the future, 20, 30 years.

It's a balanced and pragmatic financial plan.

And there were a lot of assumptions that had to be made.

Um, you know, this is a one-time study that takes a snapshot look at the division today, um, you know, the past revenues that we have experienced, uh, the past expenses that we have experienced and projects out based on cost indices, uh, you know, looking out ahead five or six years, uh, we did make an assumption of 60 million dollars in Rams funds.

You know, that assumption obviously is putting a stress or a strain on the financial model that was built if that 60 million dollars doesn't show up.

And so that actually uh pressures against the the rates being diminished further.

Uh, you know, the study recommended an initial increase of 40%.

We knew that was a big number.

So we made a concession to break it down into two smaller increments of 18% and 18%.

That is an additional pressure again on the tables and the plan.

The plan was not altered, but again, some of these assumptions too, uh, you know, could be eased.

We will take a look at the term of the bonds.

Uh the study assumed a 20-year term.

Uh, you know, when you go out for debt, um, you always do a thorough uh, you know, review, uh due diligence uh with your financial advisor and your your bonding team to take a look at the debt that you're gonna acquire.

We may end up with 30 year bonds that could ease some of the pressure of those first two items I mentioned.

Um, but again, the affordability rate was you know something that we knew we had to bring in.

It was not considered as far as the expense that it would add.

Um, it is another pressure, but I think a necessary one.

And we did bring that in.

Um, and then of course, we've been talking about the special rates being phased out, uh, the zoo rate, the hospital rate, the museum rate, all of the engagement that we've had directly with those stakeholders has been very positive.

Uh, they know that they want to support the community that um, you know, they live in.

And and you know the they've shown that support in those meetings to say that they're willing to pay to make sure that this water system is safe, reliable, economical, affordable for for generations to come.

Um, you know, the the concept of the rate sufficiency study, it's built on the principle of full cost pricing.

You know, the water division is an enterprise fund.

It relies on the revenues that it receives to pay for the OM, the debt, the depreciation, the CIP, and build and maintain a reserve fund.

Uh, these are all important aspects of good utility management.

And we want to solve these problems, these long-standing issues that we've been facing, uh, you know, challenged with uh, you know, reactive rate increases of the past with a proactive plan, a proactive proposal.

And that's exactly what this is.

This is comprehensive.

There was a lot of compromise that was brought in, uh, give and take to make sure that we solve a lot of these challenges, but also make uh, you know, some uh concessions to make sure that we address affordability, um, you know, address uh issues that are going to be pressures on the division moving forward.

Next slide, please.

So, you know, we mentioned all of the meetings.

Uh, you know, the the top of the slide here.

We planned to try to overcommunicate here, to engage the community directly out in the wards, out where people live, uh, you know, certainly at City Hall as well with the elected officials.

Uh, it it feels like it was several hundred meetings, but it it was a lot of meetings, but again, with the purpose to make this plan the best that it could be.

Um, you know, you can see this is a long timeline that we have been going through here.

Uh, there's been lots of engagement with the public infrastructure and utilities committee.

This is, you know, the fifth meeting.

If you're only counting the ones talking about the increases uh and the challenges we've been facing, uh, you know, but we've also been there uh at different committees talking about the Rams funds, talking about our budget, uh, doing our annual updates, uh, you know, talking about these issues that we're trying to solve, uh, you know, comprehensively at the water division.

Uh, you know, I mentioned we've had ward meetings, we've had town halls, uh, and then you know, we've been directly communicating, engaging with consumer council of Missouri, uh, you know, who who aims to assist us in making sure that this bill addresses affordability concerns with the studies that they've done, uh, you know, the community engagement that they have, uh, you know, and I do think that this bill is better for that engagement.

Um, you know, it directly made the affordability rate uh one of the better outcomes in this board bill.

Um, you know, here's just a little bit of a snapshot.

We've been utilizing the media and our social media, um, you know, traditional print media, news, radio, uh, to get the word out to the community about uh, you know, we want to hear from you about what the challenges you're facing.

Um, you know, what impacts the water system, you know, aging infrastructure, uh, utility bills, uh, pressures on utility bills, including the water bill itself.

So, you know, from that, I really think that this bill has become, you know, one of the better versions of uh a rate increase bill.

And nobody likes these bills, but uh again, we've built in a lot of positive uh, you know, things into this bill to solve longstanding issues.

Next slide, please.

Um, just a reminder.

Back in March, we talked about the timeline that we were going to go through with this uh at the PIUC, uh, you know, at a committee hearing.

Um, and largely we're on track here.

Um, you know, we have fallen behind maybe a couple of weeks, but uh, you know, we planned in late May to be talking about the Board of Alderman reviewing a water uh rate increase bill if it was necessary as a result of that study.

And I think that, you know, we weren't saying it at the time because we didn't want to drive an outcome.

The study was independent and was going to stand on its own, but internally, the water division leadership with the water division.

I think that, you know, the alders who have been engaging with us know about the pressures we've been facing financially because of seven years of you know upside down operations as far as revenues versus expenses, seven years of borrowing from the contingent fund and pressures due to inflation, due to aging infrastructure, emergency work.

Um, you know, this just shows us that we did have several triggers that we uh look at, monitor for financial uh, you know, solvency and stability that were met and kicked off the study, kicked off the work to make this bill uh, you know, the bill that it is today.

So I want to talk about some of the alternatives that we considered.

Um, you know, we looked at a lot of different things.

I mentioned, you know, many meetings with the consultant, but also with consumer council, uh, with the alders, uh, you know, presenting some of the work that was coming out of that study.

We looked at smaller increases initially and larger increases later.

Um, you know, but we saw that as a huge risk, uh, a risk to our financial uh ability to address emergencies and water main breaks, you know.

Uh, we've been talking about the seasons that we have for water main breaks and also the the very high number, more than two times the national average.

Um, you know, our ability to repair those breaks, those emergency events directly relies on the funding that we have, and that reserve fund is dwindling down.

It is not going to last uh, you know, more than a couple of months here.

And it is going to be a challenging summer if we do not get an increase.

It's going to be uh hot, dry, and a lot of main breaks.

Um, we looked at uh alteration of assumptions.

Um we've heard about, well, what if we tweak this parameter or make this slider go up or down a little bit?

Uh, you know, take a look at 20-year bonds versus 30-year bonds, uh, take a look at playing with the numbers a little bit.

And, you know, what we found is that the compromise with a single assumption uh is just that, a compromise.

It doesn't prioritize what we as utility leaders uh, you know, prioritize first.

It is safety, public safety, public health, delivering essential water service is number one.

It is not about the one or two dollars that we can affect on the bills this year versus next year.

Um, overall, I think that we know we have all of this capital need that we have to address.

If we are gonna slide the slider to save one or two dollars a month this year uh and put it on years four or five, but the water system fails, that is a risk that I, as a leader of the utility am not willing to take.

Um, you know, we already took a lot of compromise in the bill by adjusting down with the 40% down to the 218s, um, including the affordability rate.

Um, you know, we put in a conservative high assumption of the RAM settlement funds, knowing that there was potential for uh, you know, an amount up to 60 million dollars, but there's a lot of need in the city.

And so uh not knowing what that was, but knowing that we had to include something, uh we aimed high.

Um again, relying on one-time funding like Rams and ARPA reallocation are not sustainable.

Um, we are an enterprise, our rates must sustain our operation.

Uh, it is part of the covenants in the bonds that we have, uh, the debt that we owe, that we must remain solvent, uh, that we must maintain a coverage ratio, that we must maintain OM reserves.

Uh, it is part of the covenants in the bonds that we have, uh, the debt that we owe, that we must remain solvent, uh, that we must maintain a coverage ratio, that we must maintain OM reserves, and we are risking our credibility as a water utility to take on debt to issue bonds uh so that we don't have to pay for $700 million worth of work all at once.

Those increases would not be on the order of 18 or 40%.

They would be on the order of a hundred percent or 200%, or maybe even a thousand percent if we had to cash finance all of this work on the ratepayers of today.

And so we have to make sure that we are credible to be able to be lendable uh so that we can bond this out to minimize the impact on the ratepayers of today.

Um, you know, delaying and deferring, we've all heard kicking the can.

Um, you know, delaying and deferring the buildup of our reserve funds is the same thing.

It's delaying our access to debt, bonds.

Um, it's delaying the risks of the terms that we get on the bonds.

Um, we may pay it pay a higher interest rate if we can even get bonds if we delay building the OM reserve fund, which um, you know, frankly, a lot of lenders will not look at you if you do not have 90 days of cash on hand.

Uh, we have uh a poor history of setting rates adequate for the cost to operate the division.

Uh, I don't think that we can assume that the bond market, the private bond market, uh, is going to accept that risk and ignore our past to set rates adequate.

Um, you know, the last thing here is is changing the schedule of the CIP to smooth the rates.

We have prioritized the capital improvement plan based on the highest risk project, based on the highest reward projects uh to achieve savings.

Um, you know, and and saving soon on water main breaks, saving soon on chemical costs.

Um, I do think that the longer we delay, the higher cost these projects uh, you know, will will put on the water utility and therefore the ratepayers of today.

Next slide, please.

So, you know, I mentioned we've achieved a lot of goals.

Um, you know, we've gotten to solvency, full cost pricing is is factored in.

Um, you know, this is a strong plan to get our financials in order, um, to get fiscally solid to be able to go for bond issues.

Um, you know, we have spread this rate increase out over time.

We have heard before that you can't just lump sum it into one year.

And so we've built this out into six years of increases that get smaller and smaller, uh, down to 5% out in 2032.

Um, and we've done a lot of work to engage stakeholders to say that special rates um, you know, should be going to residential users, uh, you know, not large users.

And so we did get positive feedback there to say that uh, you know, these partners in our community support us.

Um, you know, some of the larger users of water pay the most for water, uh, especially the ones that do not receive a special rate.

Um, you know, they are supporting the water division, um, but we need to support the residents who are at risk.

And so that affordability rate was a huge win for us.

Uh, the work with consumer council was critical to make sure that we were addressing affordability, uh, the data that we were looking through of income and you know, uh qualified census tracts in St.

Louis, um, you know, making sure that we're addressing affordability uh before it becomes a problem as defined by the EPA or the federal government.

Um, but building that in now as a permanent rate is a huge win again.

Um, you know, addressing the the large meters uh that are data centers or you know, other large new customers who have not paid for water.

Um, you know, there's language in this bill that allows us to negotiate rates.

Uh, we've already been having conversations about what that might look like with some of the resolutions and uh, you know, orders through the mayor's office.

Uh, you know, we have a lot of framework in place about negotiating higher rates, you know, due to impact, due to uh, you know, high volume, uh, you know, demand costs that are going on uh, you know, with some of these newer types of customers.

And again, all of these goals were achieved by comprehensively looking at all of these goals and the financials and the data uh to have a balanced and pragmatic approach.

Next slide, please.

So, you know, I want to make clear that we can't solve every problem the water division is facing with this bill.

This is a rate bill, a water rate bill, you know, uh cannot do everything.

And we do have other goals that we are pursuing.

Um, you know, again, these are prioritized, you know, based on uh the the level of impact to service, the risk to public health and safety.

Uh, you know, we are working through our water master plan.

It is a very important project that we will complete uh towards the back end of summer this year, or maybe uh if we slip a little bit just to make that product really uh, you know, comprehensive and have that report uh be the best product it can be.

Uh it will be done this fiscal year.

Um, you know, the cost of service study, that's in our near term.

Um, you know, we are looking at that as the next rate study that we're going to be doing.

Um, you know, we have to go through a process to scope that, uh, to go through an RFQ process, to do a selection.

Um, you know, we're taking a look at at uh codifying the water rate review requirements uh so that in the future this process is made even better.

Again, we've done a lot of engagement, but we want to make this process better.

Um water meters keep coming up, and we know that that is a problem for us to solve.

Uh it does come with a huge expense on our CIP if we do include it there, but there are other ways that we are looking to do this.

Um, you know, uh, we are going to be discussing a board bill today, uh, you know, that is being sponsored uh that will take a look at starting to address this problem where it is most pragmatic, um, where it makes sense.

Um, you know, all of these improvements are in our sites.

Uh, but the the bill we're talking about right now is Board Bill 25 and the water rates.

Uh, we will take a look at going forward prioritizing new goals.

Uh solvency is is essential.

It's our immediate concern.

It is what is risking public health and safety and our ability to repair water mains this summer, uh, if we do not get something uh, you know, taken care of uh with the water rates.

Next slide, please.

Uh just to show again, you know, the the series of increases.

Uh we have an initial 18%.

Um, you know, based on our typical bills, uh, you know, 35 to 45 dollars, we're looking at a seven to nine dollar a month impact uh, you know, for each of those 18% increases and then down to six percent for the next three years.

And then because of the effects of compounding, uh, three to four dollars on those five percent increases on the back end as well.

Next slide.

So I I really do want to hone in on this affordability rate.

It is, you know, again, one of the better outcomes that has been introduced in this board bill.

Um, you know, it is establishing a permanent customer assistance program.

It is for city residents only.

Um, it is, you know, to help people who are at risk of losing essential water service due to income, due to age, due to natural disaster effects.

Uh, we have some immediate eligibility in there.

And then we do have a 50% subsidy for those who will qualify for the affordability rate.

Um, you know, it's made possible by some of these other things that we've done, the comprehensive approach uh, you know, in the study uh that we have taken to phase out special rates of subsidies for hospital zoo and museums.

Again, we received a lot of positive support from those stakeholders when we engage them to say that they are wanting to support the city, uh, the community.

Um, we are committed to supporting our community all together.

Um, and that goes for the elected officials that we've spoken uh to as well.

Everybody is on board of tackling this issue today and tackling this issue directly.

Um, and we have made a lot of progress uh to solve a lot of our goals in this bill.

The affordability rate, it's important to note, will immediately save customers as that first 18% increase goes into effect.

Those customers who are eligible for that immediate affordability rate due to those criteria that we mentioned will save 24 a month on average.

Um, that is enough to cover some of the increases of other utility bills that are causing pressures on households too.

This is an immediate savings for those who are eligible for this affordability rate.

Um, you know, we think that is a great thing.

By the end of the increases after 2032, uh, you know, those customers in that rate um will be paying less than they are today before this affordability rate is a rate that we can offer.

Um so again, it's it's really essential that we get this long-standing program in place as the ARPA program, the temporary assistance program um is about to phase out sunset out because of the ARPA uh, you know, deadline.

Next slide, please.

So I I do think that you know it's essential, right?

If we lose water, we lose everything.

It is the lifeblood of the city.

You have heard time and time again about the impacts that um you know we hear about daily when we are at these town halls, when we are receiving calls, uh, that people have lost water service because of a main break, an outage.

Um, and it it halts their lives.

Um, you know, our community needs access, it must be provided to safe, reliable and affordable drinking water.

Um, it drives everything that is a great city, and St.

Louis is a great city.

It promotes health, food, uh economic growth, education, it's everything.

And uh that's pretty much it for the presentation.

Um, you know, I will take questions now.

Or uh if we want to move on to the uh next presentation, I guess I will take questions later.

Thank you so much, Dr.

Patel.

Uh, if Alderman Browning agrees, I think we'll move on to the presentation from the consumers council now.

Madam Clerk, do you have everything you need, or are you all providing?

Okay, great.

We'll just have them move it over.

And if you all want to approach whoever's going to give the presentation.

Thank you for being here.

Thank you very much.

I just want to make sure to introduce yourself.

Um, and just for sake of the meeting elsewhere, you win, uh, if you don't mind raising your right hand, you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I do.

Okay, great.

Uh so the um we'll have you state your name for the record uh and where you live in the city of St.

Louis, or if you don't live in the city of St.

Louis, who you're representing.

Um, and we just appreciate your your time and look forward to the presentation whenever you're ready to begin.

Thank you very much.

My name is Michael Gorman.

I'm managing principal of a firm Brew Baker and Associates, BAI Inc.

We are regulatory and economic consultants that work in with regulated utility companies across North America.

We've been involved in both electric gas, water, wastewater utilities on rate case proceedings, integrated resource planning, regulatory mechanisms, um, and other factors uh that underline the provision of air compensation to the utilities, just in reasonable rates to customers, and the ability for utilities to provide reliable, high quality utility service.

Um in this case, I'm representing the consumer council.

And in most cases, uh the process that we go through is to interact with the utility management and respond to their proposals in a rate case on how much they want to change rates.

Um, that process generally involves an interaction between buyer and seller negotiate uh rates, which reasonably reflect the value and the benefit of those utility services to the customers, along with the financial integrity and the need for full cost recovery on behalf of the utilities.

From that sense, uh the interaction with utility management is a buyer and seller negotiating terms and conditions for the product that's being provided to the seller from the buyer.

To the extent though, buyer and seller cannot reach agreement on those terms.

Often those unresolved issues will go to the decision-making board, regulatory commissions, or in this case the Alderman Board, uh, to resolve the issues which the utility and their customer groups could not come to agreement on.

And that's where we pick up here, because most of the proposals from your water utility we are not opposed to.

Rather, our simple concern with the utilities' revenue sufficiency is whether or not they truly did measure a revenue requirement for the utility that allows them to accomplish the stated goals that they've included, primarily included in the capital improvement plan, the restoration and modernization of the utility infrastructure system, and to do so at the lowest possible rates to the customers.

It's from that standpoint that we have found uh issues that we do not support in the water utilities proposal.

Most specifically on their six-year rate plan, the utilities proposing around an 83% increase.

We think that's overstated in supporting uh the amount of rate revenue necessary to fund those capital improvement programs included over the next six years.

We think an increase is more line 75%.

Now that doesn't seem like a big difference, but it is different in terms of annual cost to customers.

For example, the first increases proposed by the water utilities in 2026 and 2027 is proposed to be around 40% by utility management.

We think that should be closer to 30%.

We give back some of that savings over the remaining five years of the plan by giving an increase somewhat higher than what the utility has proposed.

At the end of it, there's still savings to customers in our proposed rate plan relative to that proposed by your water utility and the savings to customers would be a little more than $5.5 million per year.

The issues that we identified within the revenue sufficiency study include the following.

But there's assumptions made by the staff and actually some federal grant money that are provided to the utility which do not appear to be included in the in the study.

Could improve the cash position of the utility and improve that cash coverage of OM expenses necessary to maintain strong financial integrity.

And the reason we have concern with that is because the infrastructure investments being made will be providing service to customers of this utility for periods from 30 to 50 years.

Municipal utility companies are issuing bonds in excess of 20 years, 30 years, and there has been, from our perspective, a vibrant market for those types of bonds.

Changing the term of those revenue bonds would lower the annual debt service cost of those bonds and reduce the revenue increase necessary to fund those capital improvement programs as budgeted by this water utility.

If you pay for that infrastructure investment on a relatively accelerated basis, then customers over the short term pay higher rates to subsidize infrastructure plant investment that will later be used to provide to future generations of customers.

We say that's rate generational ratepayer inequity.

The cost of that infrastructure should be spread over all customer generations that receive the benefit of getting service from that infrastructure investment.

We also found just just some smaller issues that deal with the acceleration or the escalation assumed in some of the factors.

With this reduced rate increase, uh we believe the utility, based on our projections, the utility can fund its roughly 440 million dollars, yeah, 440 million dollars of capital improvements over this six-year period.

Um can do so by increasing the net revenue, uh, the amount of cash flow available to fund capital improvements over this plan from approximately $4 million at the end of 2027 or throughout 2027, up to over $35 million six years down the road.

And that comes at the as a result of the significant increase in rates that are proposed over the six-year period.

Uh, once the revenues are producing that kind of net revenue margin, uh, the city utility is in a much stronger position to either pay debt service cost or to fund some of those capital improvements through rate revenue in this case, you know, based on what's being earned on a year-to-year basis.

In fact, in the model, the company is or the city assumes that they're going to increase rate revenue funding from 2027 of a little less than $4 million up to over $18 million a year.

Under our proposal, they go from about $4 million up to about $13 million a year.

The difference in that amount of money that's available for funding capital improvement programs, we believe can be supplemented by increasing the amount of revenue bond issuance by the water utility by right around $16 million.

And that compares to around $235 million of revenue bonds that's included in the city's forecast.

So it's it's a plan that does not overly stretch the financial viability of the utility.

It moderates the increase in rates necessary to fund the capital improvement plan, and it achieves the financial metrics that indicate a very strong and financially viable utility company by maintaining a financial metric referred to as a debt service coverage ratio that is never below 1.5 times.

That means the amount of revenue you're generating that it's available to pay debt service is always at least 150% of that debt service.

And with recognizing the amount of cash proceeds from the federal grant money and the potential RAN settlement contribution, uh the operating reserve or the liquidity of the company will have adequate revenues to cover OM expenses, uh, maintain a 90-day coverage.

That's certainly through the end of the forecasted six-year period.

But more importantly, those cash contributions up front will improve liquidity positions as this utility initially will make the utility much stronger in its ability to go to the capital market to fund these capital improvement projects.

So, from that standpoint, I want to want to emphasize that to the extent this water utility can get proceeds from the litigation settlement on the rams, it can help reduce the rate increase the city utilities requesting in this case, which will provide benefits to customers now, and those same benefits will be provided to future generations of customers because the utilities rates will be lower than they otherwise would be.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

Um we'll move to public comment in just a moment.

So if you're interested in speaking as a member of the public, make sure you've signed in.

I just want to take a moment of a personal privilege to thank the consumers council for all of the support and work throughout this process.

Um you have given a lot of us um lots to think about about you know affordable rates and about how to do this as in a professional way.

Now the city hasn't done rate increases except the one Jaferi recently for a number of years, and that caused some problems.

So, you know, I think we're relearning how to, or learning for the first time how to do this well.

So thank you for guiding us so much.

Um, all right, with that, um, we'll have public testimony.

I'll have everyone who's planning on speaking just raise their right hand now.

Wonderful.

Uh, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Wonderful.

Uh, Madam Clerk, we'll call you up one by one at that time.

Please introduce yourself, share your address or at least your ward at start uh your three-minute timer.

Um, thank you so much again for being here.

And Madam Clerk, if you could please start uh with the first speaker.

The speakers are for board bill number 25.

Yes, ma'am.

Yes.

I've got Mike Gorman.

Okay.

John Kaufman.

Um good afternoon, uh, members of the committee, Chair Browning.

Uh again, uh, the consumers council is in in large agreement with this proposal.

There are many things that we like about it, including the affordability rate.

Uh, we do uh very much appreciate the current management, Commissioner Patel, Mr.

Gould, uh, they're always uh willing to sp to talk with us.

And um uh I'd say this process that we've been through is certainly better than the one that happened three years ago.

Uh and yet um we we still have a couple of issues.

One is is what you just heard that we think that it the proposal is a little bit except by 10% excessive, in our opinion, and would would ask that you consider that.

The other thing that we would like you to consider is uh committing in the future in a couple of years from now in doing a full rate review that looks at the rate design of the utility.

And so just so that everyone's clear, what we're what we're looking at today is a rate sufficiency study.

That is how big is the revenue, how big is the pie that this that the water division has to work with.

And uh, that's obviously what they're most concerned about, and they want to get the work done.

We think that the pie could be a little bit smaller and still accomplish all of the improvements that are needed.

So we are making no suggestions about any of the investments.

We don't think they should be delayed.

We think it can be done at a 75% plan rather than an 86% plan.

But regardless of whether you um agree with us on that point, we would uh like to see a commitment to doing a class cost of service step, which is that's the study that looks at all the different rates and all the different rate components to make sure that everyone's rates are fair.

In other words, it includes looking at whether Anheuser Busch and big industrial customers are paying their fair share compared to residential customers.

You would also look at whether or not unmetered customers are paying their fair share compared to metered customers and all of these assumptions that go into all the little, you know, how you how you take the pie and slice it up.

You know, and when I um when I talk talk to people about this two-step process, how big is the pie, and then how do you slice it up?

I sometimes talk about pie, but you know, pie is a good thing, and sometimes I talk about it as a broccoli pie, right?

You don't, it's a pie you don't want to eat, you want a smaller piece of pie, right?

If you don't like broccoli.

But um we we uh you know we were told three years ago that there wasn't time to do that kind of a study.

And uh and uh you know we've had many meetings since, but you know, unfortunately, we're in a situation where the the city didn't feel like there was time to do it this time around, and so we're only looking at how big the pie is.

But we think that there could be a thoughtful data-driven process, but we would like the city to commit to it.

We're worried that there's you know it's gonna be three or six years down the road in the city gonna have another emergency have time to do those kind of fairness.

We want to make sure that the rates are fair.

Now, these are we're talking about changes in the class cost of survey that'll make someone's rates go up and someone's rates go down, but we think that you could do that in the middle of this six-year rate plan.

Uh, but that there needs to be sufficient time to let everyone participate and to negotiate and to work together, and that's what we're committed to doing.

Uh and uh, you know, there are some issues with the meters that we like to, and we're not asking.

Thank you.

But that if you could just um commit to it and put it in writing.

Thank you, Mr.

Kaufman.

Thank you.

Cheryl Glass.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Um I've had this process figured out a little bit better now, I think.

So thank you for allowing me and other members of the public to speak here today.

Really appreciate the opportunity.

As many of you know, I also entered public comments at the May 13th.

Since then, my physical and mental health have improved, and I'm prepared to more directly address my concerns.

That said, I ask you to please understand.

I have been working to rectify the problem of our outrageous email for over two years, and has been by my side.

I have poured hours of research into this matter and have reached out to everyone from MSCD's executive management team to two city administration.

I present well researched information.

My suitcase is full of all of my research.

I brought it here with me today.

And I present what I believe are reasonable concerns, well researched, well presented, and always possible solutions.

I don't come to the table to whine.

I bring solutions.

I'm gonna talk fast, but I get really breathless, so I'm gonna do my best.

Um I feel like I'm what I'm trying to say is still falling on deaf ears, and I really don't hope that I'm not forced to start screaming in the rotunda.

That's what I'm trying to avoid.

Um I consider myself the city's foremost expert on this topic.

I know more about it than Director Patel.

I know more about it than I argue some other than maybe Alder Woman Schweitzer and now maybe Alter Woman Cox Antwin know about it.

I am here as the proxy for the unmetered users of the city of St.

Louis.

You see, there's low turnout today.

People in the city work, they don't get paid if they take time off.

They can't be at these meetings, so they need an opportunity to hear this information.

Also, please trust that I understand that the water division's financial situation is dire.

I think it's a treasure that's well worth saving.

I just think we're going about it the wrong way.

Um I made a lot of notes about Director Patel's comments.

I won't take time here to address them.

I'll put them in writing and send them in.

Um I've tried my best as a one-woman show to create public awareness and drive people to submit written comments into the public record and show up to here today.

I've grown a significant filing on night following on next door and grew a private group from zero to over 70 members in four days.

I've had over 4,000 views on my post.

There's a lot of public comments on next door, and I would be interested in knowing how we might possibly retrieve that and get it entered into the public record.

Ms.

Glass, that's your time.

Thank you.

Yeah, that's that's too bad.

That's really too bad.

Unfortunate.

I'll submit it into the public record.

Thank you.

Miss Elaine Laura.

Hello, everybody.

It's good seeing you.

Elaine Laura, uh Sharon Thais Ward.

Is that the 12?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Well, do you smell that?

That's the stench of the water department.

Not providing water meters to accurately measure consumption.

I like paying my bills.

I like paying for what I consume.

And one of the presenters said that we should consider a data-driven process.

And we are looking for high quality utility service.

I think that was from Dr.

Patel.

It's not high quality utility service if we are not metered water.

Metered water.

I like calling myself, in addition to a water and sewer community advocate as a great recycler.

I believe in sustainability.

Metered water encourages conservation.

It also is gives you a strong sense of accomplishment.

Meter water is what 90% of the United States is working under.

And I said, what does unmetered water mean?

It meant primitive.

Undeveloped.

Underdeveloped.

Third world country.

Primitive.

St.

Louis has a lot of problems.

Protecting unmetered water fixed rate, flat rate billing is not fair.

It's inadequate.

It is unjust.

And understanding that there might be affordability rates.

I hate to say it, but you have to be dirt poor to get that.

And I'm happy to be able to pay my water bill.

So I like to say to people, the sewer company owes me money because I pay ahead to how much to be determined.

That's your time, Miss Laura.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is that everyone signed up as public speakers?

That concludes the public speaking.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you all for coming.

Alderman Browning, I'll have you come back up to the stand.

Okay.

Would you like to make any comments before I move into questions from the committee?

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd just like to address a couple of the things that have been brought up because I do want to get correct information on the record.

And I understand the concern and care from people today.

This is a vitally important resource our city has.

And it's true that we are still unmetered.

The majority of users are still unmetered, but uh meters are something that people have to privately purchase and install uh on their line.

Uh so it is something that we need to get caught up on.

It's it's certainly something we're interested in doing.

I appreciate Alderman Devotee for bringing a bill to make sure that new construction requires meters.

That's something we should have done a long time ago.

Uh, but uh we're gonna continue to try to work on that issue.

It's not one that can be necessarily addressed today with this bill.

Um, another thing I wanted to bring up is that uh the idea that we didn't include cash infusions in the city model.

Oh, we did.

In fact, the model assumed 60 million dollars from the RAM settlement funds.

Right now, the bill that's been introduced but not passed yet, only has 30 million dollars.

So we're actually a little short on that end.

And if we could get more, that'd be great, but nothing's a guarantee in life.

Uh there's other assumptions that are made that I think uh really just assume things that may not happen in the future.

And we're trying to make a decision today about how to get our water division on a path to financial solvency.

So whether it's uh 20 year bonds versus 30 year bonds, uh really the advantage over using a 20-year bond is that you pay West Interest, it's a better deal if you can do it.

Uh recognizing that ARPA money is already allocated.

Uh, we don't really have any extra ARPA money to allocate at this time.

What may end up getting pushed over, the the money that may not get spent this year will likely be very limited.

Uh so we're not talking anything that really moves these numbers.

Uh, but overall, I think the suggested approach, um, you know, like I said, makes some assumptions that aren't correct, but other things that we can't predict.

So we know how we got to this point with the water division on the verge of bankruptcy.

It was a policy of kicking the can down the road, deferring maintenance, and putting off what wasn't necessary at the time, making it really financially irresponsible decisions like leaving the moratorium on shutoffs and point, and only giving the water division enough to subsist on day to day as everything else got worse.

We cannot continue that approach of weaving today's problem for tomorrow.

We've reached the end of the road.

There is no more room to kick the can.

This approach is responsible, spends ratepayer money responsibly, and it makes no assumptions about the future.

So, with that, um would love to take any questions from the committee.

Do you want to save your amendments until after questions?

Can do that, yeah.

Okay.

Wonderful.

Uh Alderman Floyd, are you with us?

Wonderful.

Any questions, Alderman?

I don't have a question.

I just have a comment.

Uh, I want to thank Alderman Browning because we had a long conversation.

But first, I'm gonna apologize to the residents of St.

Louis.

This has been 20 years too long.

This should have been done 20 years ago.

So as kicking the can.

This is 20 years late.

And so I don't want to mispronounce the young man's name that's over the water department.

But I apologize to you because you walked into craziness and trying to correct the 20-year that we did not take care of this.

So I applaud you because you've been very determined and you've taken a lot of slack to try to correct this.

But this is gonna be the hardest yes I'll ever have whenever we do the vote because at the end of the day, as Alderman Browning said, we cannot kick the road anymore.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alderman Clark Hubbard.

Thank you.

Uh, before I make my comments, I also publicly thank the consumer council for the continued work, the persistence, the way you all show up.

I see you showing up in community all the time and getting this information out.

And for the record, I would absolutely be in support of that two-year full rate review.

So anyway, I can support that effort.

Please let me not.

I think um it goes without saying that we continue to get uh over shares and understatement of information.

So I thank the director, uh Mr.

Gould and the work that you all continue to do to get this out and supportive.

I spoke on this last week.

I was asked, um, I'm sorry, I requested to be a coast monster, so I'll repeat that again that I become a post monster today.

And I just want to reiterate the part about assumptions, right?

And so when we are down here, we have and we are responsible to legislate and make decisions that are sometimes hard, and we cannot legislate off of assumptions.

We just can't, because we understand that when assumptions either don't come true or you know they're thrown around the misinformation and create confusion when they fail, then they immediately become the risk, the risk that director Petals say we cannot afford to take.

That he is the leadership is not in position to take, and that means that we as in leadership did not should not be in position to take, shouldn't want to take, right?

And so um again, I continue to thank you all for the app for the efforts.

The communication, the ongoing communication and consideration, the affordability rate is real.

And I heard in a comment earlier that it might happen.

It is happening, it is in this legislation, and thanks again to the customer council for their work on that in Ottawa Browning.

Um that's not an assumption.

That's real.

That's the fight that we will continue that we had and will continue to support.

Thank you for your continued efforts.

And again, I want to repeat.

May I please be added as a co-sponsor support Bill 25?

So noted.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alderman Devotee.

Uh I would uh I would start by joining the comments.

Uh alder women uh Boyd and Clark Hubbard uh in their entirety.

I think they were very well stated.

I'd also like to uh thank uh Alderman Browning, Director Patel, uh the consumer council for the work on this particular bill.

Uh and Mr.

Gorman, thank you for coming and uh lending your perspective this afternoon too.

It was uh it's well received.

So thank you, sir.

Uh I do want to uh start my and and I have two questions.

I'll try to be brief.

Uh start my initial question, uh piggybacking on one of the comments that was just made with respect to assumptions.

Um when I was listening to Mr.

Gorman, we were there there was there seemed to be a mention of assumptions and uh financial integrity and funds that were present.

Uh Director Patel, uh I I can see you, I know you're still with us.

Um if I heard you correctly, with respect to this particular bill, it actually has an assumption that with respect to the Rams principle, there will be a $60 million allocation.

Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So then I heard uh Alderman Browning speak, and and I know the information he provided was accurate with respect to the current status of the principal bill, and that is as it stands today, there is discussion about $30 million allocation toward the water division.

Um your perspective, Director.

Uh I think I know there are discussions going on.

Uh I know that folks are trading information, but but how important is it with respect to the issue we're talking today about Board Bill 25 that we move off of that $30 million allocation from Rams Rams principal.

Sure.

So, you know, the the Rams piece uh really protects ratepayers.

Uh, you know, every dollar that comes in in one-time funding uh, you know, shields ratepayers from having to shoulder those dollars.

Um, and you know, one of the unique things about the Rams Fund is that there are no strings attached.

Um, you know, our intention is to utilize any dollars that come in in the form of Rams funds, uh, you know, to grow uh to bear interest while we use it to pay down lower interest subsidized debt service uh in the form of state revolving funds.

Um, you know, the difference between 30 million and 40 million in Rams is uh, you know, more years of coverage, more years of shield um to the ratepayers, uh, but also more interest earned.

Um, these are funds that we would set aside for water infrastructure work.

Um, you know, we've taken a look at how much interest will be earned for 30 million dollars in Rams um, you know, over the the period that it would support debt service payments.

Um, and it's around six million dollars.

Um, you know, 40 million in Rams would yield 10 million dollars in interest um and cover for an additional two years uh those debt service payments of approximately six point five million dollars.

Um, you know, 60 million that we did assume.

Uh and again, you know, the study kicked off in December of last year, uh ahead of any knowledge of the amounts that were being discussed.

And so uh we did assume high.

Um, that is the conservative way to you know make sure that um we are protecting ratepayers uh with the proposal.

And you know, the fact that it it may be less will be more pressure on the financial model, uh, but it yielded 20 million dollars in interest earned and uh paid those debt service payments through 2042.

Um so you know, six years longer of coverage out of that fund, uh, you know, approximately 14 million more dollars in interest earned uh while that fund uh remained uh you know uh able to support debt service payments.

Um and again, these are six and a half million dollar, you know, annual estimates going towards 130 million dollars in SRF debt um that we plan to issue.

And so uh the impact is shielding ratepayers from from that amount.

Uh I I appreciate that.

That that helps.

Uh so thank you for the explanation.

Uh I want to ask about the uh about section seven that talks about a special rate applicable to hospitals and and museum uh uh entities.

Um educate me.

I I drive south on Grand Avenue towards St.

Louis University.

I see a tremendous amount of building at St.

Louis University's hospital complex.

Um I um uh I'm I'm I I drive around North King's Highway.

I see a tremendous amount of building around the Barnes Jewish hospital complex.

Why in 2026 with two major hospitals in the city that seemed to be doing having no issue generating funds?

What why are we today much less talking about a phase out?

Talking about a special rate for for either one of those two hospitals.

Uh, that's a great question.

And you know, I don't have the full history on, you know, when that rate may have gone into effect.

I think that, you know, what we were interested in doing is, you know, solving a lot of goals, uh, you know, with this this study, uh, but also the the board bill, uh, you know, that is this board bill 25 for the rate increases.

And I think the affordability rate, you know, is a burden um, you know, on our finances.

And so we took a hard look at the existing rates uh to say what can we do here?

Um, you know, and again, we reached out to those stakeholders uh, you know, that are paying those special rates, um, you know, had discussion with them about um, you know, their water service and what is important to them.

Um, you know, I think reliability is very important to a hospital.

Uh, you know, if they lose water, they are in a big problem.

Um, we have seen this uh in the news when other cities have lost water, that they have to relocate all of the patients out of those hospitals.

Um, you know, we do not have small hospital systems, we have world-class hospital systems uh and people travel here for that.

Um reliability is the number one thing they uh you know resonated with.

And the plan that we put together, um, you know, I think they were appreciative of the fact that we are trying to improve reliability and resilience of the water system, uh, you know, minimize the impact of outages due to man breaks.

Um, and they did again support that they are willing to support the community um with this phase out.

Um, and I don't exactly again know the history of it, but uh, you know, we are aiming to solve you know that problem with this bill.

Again, I promised two short questions.

So I'm gonna violate my uh my my promise.

But with respect to that phase out, as I look at section seven, and maybe I'm looking right over, it's underneath my nose.

I don't see a mention of that.

Uh where in the bill is the phase out addressed, and if it's not, how will we address it in the future?

Sure, it's it's actually addressed in the tables.

Um, and so, you know, the reason for the phase out is that you know, any large institution uh, you know, wants to know what is is coming.

Um stability in rates is something that you know we have built into the study um and stability in rates is something we have built into this proposal.

Um the rate stabilization fund allows us to ensure that we can address small uh deficiencies in revenue or increases in expenses uh without spiking rates.

And I think that um, you know, the hospital systems, the zoo, the museums that get the special rate, um, you know, if they were to lose the special rate and start seeing the the increases, um, it puts a lot of short-term uh stress by double dipping uh effectively.

I mean, it's it's a double whammy that you know, we wanted to say that these rates have been in place for decades.

Um, and so we wait until January 1st of 2027 uh to actually phase the rate out.

Uh they do see an 18% increase on the existing uh subsidized rate July 1 of 2026.

Um, you know, initially an 18%, and then it is kind of that double whammy of losing these special rate and having an 18% um that goes into effect January 1.

We're working again with those stakeholders to uh lay out what that's gonna look like so they can budget for it, plan for it, um, not have to move around their work that they do, um, the important work that they do to support the community with, you know, uh some again of the world-class healthcare service that we enjoy in the city of St.

Louis, the research that they do, the benefit they provide to uh, you know, the education community um and St.

Louis as a whole.

Thank you, Director, for the explanation.

Uh, I will point out uh Alderman that the outreach continues.

Uh Director Patel and Mr.

Gould are scheduled to come to the fifth ward on Tuesday, July 14.

So the outreach hasn't stopped.

In fact, they're on the calendar to folks in in the fifth coming up.

And uh, Madam Clerk, if you would also add me as a co-sponsor to this bill.

Thank you, sir.

So noted.

Thank you, Alderman.

Alderman Cox Antwe.

All right.

Thank you, Madam Vice Chair.

Um, I want to start by echoing all the remarks from my colleagues.

I think they were thorough, and I'll agree with the Alderman from the fifth very well said.

Um, I'd also like to thank the water department for all their continuous effort in these conversations.

They did not start today or even last month.

You all have been committed to talking with all residents and answering all of our questions for a very long time.

And I thank you for your commitment.

I also want to thank the consumers council for showing up and for putting together your presentation today on what we know is a very short time horizon.

But I think hearing from you is very important, not only from all of us, but also from all the constituents.

Um I agree with my colleagues that I think it's important to clarify assumptions and nuances because this is a very, very difficult topic for all of us to have.

Um and I think it's important that we recognize certainly there are a lot of nuances happening outside of this room with the discussion of RAMs and things of that nature.

Uh, but we know is what we know for sure is that the water department does need this, and we do cannot have any further delay.

And they need us to do this and for these rates to be effective July 1st for numerous reasons.

So I do agree uh with what Alderwoman Boyd said, which is that this has been delayed for far too long and delays are how we got into the situation in the first place.

Um, and so certainly I don't want to uh hesitate on that moment because I agree we cannot wait for all the repairs that we know we need to do any longer.

That being said, I want to highlight something that I think the consumer council said, which is also very important, which is that we know we got into the situation, but what can we learn from the situation and how can we make the corrections we know we need to in the future so that we don't get into the situation again?

Um I agree wholeheartedly that we need to do a cost of service study.

We need a full commitment to that cost of service study.

And I know the water department has verbally expressed their commitment to do that, knowing that's something that's going to be very important.

I also know um a lot of my colleagues share the sentiment that we also need some sort of time horizon so that we don't delay rate sufficiency studies in the future.

That is something that the consumer council also shared.

And I want to express my agreement to that.

If we can get these processes in writing, if we can understand the nuances that we need to make, we can learn from this situation, and we can hopefully prevent the situation from happening in the future.

And I think that is something that we can all take from having to be in this process.

Um, I agree that this is a hard conversation.

I know this is a hard thing to ask the people of St.

Louis to do, but I think for many reasons, having a municipally owned water department is one thing that makes our city extremely strong, and we don't want to lose that.

Um so I agree with my colleagues.

I would also like to be added as a co-sponsor to this bill.

I think it's very important.

Um I know it's going to be a hard and challenging vote today, but I think many St.

Louisans understand we can't lose our water.

And I appreciate all the work that has gone into uh putting this together.

And I'd like to thank the sponsoring Alderman as well for his efforts.

Thank you.

Uh I have uh one more question for Director Patel.

Um a lot of my questions have been answered uh or asked by my colleagues and uh my last question is just you know, the biggest thing that we saw in different different today um with the consumers council presentation, and they they presented that you know, they agree with the um improvements that need to be made.

They agree with the investments that you all talk about.

And I know you considered, you know, various rate increased schedules when presenting this information when you know when when deciding what you were gonna do.

So can you just one more time go over the reason why this proposal that's in front of us is on the board bill today um was chosen instead of something more similar to what the consumers councils presented.

Sure.

Yeah, so you know, we did consider um, you know, the CIP and uh, you know, the plan uh in a multiple workshops.

So, you know, we did consider um, you know, the CIP and uh, you know, the plan uh in a multiple workshops.

And I think that you know, time and time again, so many of those projects that are on that CIP are well past due.

Um, they are all, you know, uh a higher criticality than we would like to see.

And so many of those that are in the 440 million dollars in planned uh, you know, issuances of of uh, you know, bonds and cash financing and and uh you know SRF loans and some portion of grant funding too that we hope to get um you know are critical.

Uh we saw fit to include them as they sit in the CIP.

Um reducing, you know, the the early years of increases, uh, you know, smoothing the rates, um, you know, going for uh, you know, even different terms on the bonds, all of that risked going after that CIP that is so critical and so fragile uh, you know, and really does impact potentially public health and public safety.

Um there was no way that I could support it.

There was no way that the uh engineering consulting firm um, you know, that has water professionals uh, you know, that are sitting alongside financial experts uh looking at the CIP and the finances together, uh, you know, were recommending or supporting it.

And you know, any any lower level plan uh was really just that.

It was something that we needed to look at.

It's something that in these rate sufficiency studies we always talk about, you know, what do we uh you know need to do and what can we defer.

And in our situation, there was nothing that we all felt comfortable to defer.

But again, um, you know, it's typical to put a lower level plan out there.

Um, and so, you know, we saw it.

Um it it you know did not it left out revenue bonding.

It it attacked the SRF bonds, 130 million dollars worth of it, and it left out all 200 million dollars worth of revenue bonds.

Um you know, that was cutting out a significant portion of the CIP.

Um, and you know, any minor manipulations that we were trying to do were just that minor.

Um, you know, and again, we do feel that we will take a look at the bond terms, but right now we have very low rate and very low debt.

Um, you know, in fact, the the debt that we have is less than $600,000 a year.

Um, you know, it is uh almost you know uh inequal right now that the ratepayers of today are getting a tremendous deal on their water uh because they are not shouldering the cost of the debt.

Um, you know, and in fact, the longer the terms are on the bonds, uh, you know, the longer uh we extend out that debt.

And by the end of you know, six years, um, you know, we have a whole lot more debt that we're building as we journey into our CIP early on that our debt to equity ratios are challenged in out years.

Um and again, that is something that we will still look at to maybe you know balance the the approach when we do a detailed financial analysis on the bond market and uh you know the the best approach there.

Uh but again, that is really putting the burden on the future generation rather than the ratepayers of uh you know today to shoulder some of that uh you know deferred action uh that we've all been talking about.

Um, you know, there will be debt on our our children, our children's children, uh, you know, as we seek to do the rest of the 700 million dollars worth of the CIP uh, you know, that isn't addressed with uh, you know, the the next 10 years of work that we'll be doing.

Uh and it will fall on you know the ratepayers of the future uh to make sure they keep uh you know supporting the increases uh you know in 10 years and 20 years and in 40 years, uh, you know, and and that is an ongoing thing.

Again, the water system is needed now and tomorrow.

Uh it's needed forever for the city.

Thank you.

I I appreciate um that answer.

I think a lot about how we've talked about many times that the rates hadn't gone up for such a long time that the people who are using water now and in the past uh you know weren't paying for the investments that were needed.

And it has really come due now.

Um and I um have been saying for a long time, and we've had these conversations multiple times about uh the water division needs debt.

It should have much more than $600,000 of debt every year.

It should be have should have tens of millions of dollars, if not hundreds of millions of dollars worth of debt, um, so that we can get the work done so that my son can continue to have drinking water as as he gets older and not um be in a situation where you know the city failed to provide its most basic, most basic um and necessary resource.

So um, you know, and and and that helps stabilize rates today to have that debt um and to pay it in a in a fair way.

So I appreciate everything you've you've um explained and and how uh and how this came to be.

Um I do believe there's one more question from Alderman Clark Hubbard, so I'll pass it back to her.

Thank you so much.

I just wanted to, I guess add some additional context to some comments that might have been misunderstood about the affordability rate.

First of all, that program is still being developed.

So if you're hearing that you might not be eligible, that's not true because they are working hard to make sure that it is as open as possible.

As a matter of fact, when I just talked to Mr.

Gould, he confirmed that the eligibility criteria that they worked on with the ARPA funds that they continue to open, that they will do the same and have the same work and effort in that um for this affordable rate.

And and Mr.

Lane, you know, I wish I was in the blessing space that you ought to be able to pay bills ahead, like you said, and having worked and having the responsibility to pay um and being proud about the responsibility to pay.

And I just want to share for my constituents that have texts me and watching, they have that same pride about wanting to do whatever they need to do collectively uh to be able to make sure that this water stays in the world-class um reputation that it has.

And this is again, this is a hard part.

Um, I know there was years that they said that this has been kicked down the can, but I know none of us sitting here were here for the amount of years that was mentioned.

And and I know for the seven years that I've been here that this is the real, the the real rather solution and a step that we can do to make that effort.

And I know want to make sure that you, Ms.

Elaine, because I remember you've been being here that you connect about the bill that pertains to your your immediate concerns that Alderman Devotee is carrying.

And so again, I wanted to give the opportunity for Director Patel and Mr.

Gould or who it's to give a little more context on that on the record so that nobody watches a tidbit, you know, a snippet of this and says they're doing this, but it's not a real thing, or they're not gonna be eligible when that's not even the case, and you all are taking information and opportunities like this to correct it.

Yeah, no, thank you.

Uh you know, we have to be real careful to correct, you know, uh misstatements and uh, you know, uh I will correct one right now, just uh off the bat, I am not a doctor.

Uh I've heard it a couple of times here.

I know it's uh close director, but um no, the affordability rate is real.

Um it is put into effect in the bill.

We have outlined uh, you know, some immediate uh eligibility criteria.

If you have applied for and received our ARPA funded temporary assistance program, uh you would be eligible for that affordability rate.

If you are in a customer assistance program uh by another utility um that has, you know, uh, you know, uh provided you a letter saying that you are receiving a customer assistance benefit, whether that be your electric bill with Amran, your your natural gas bill will expire, or your sewer bill with MSD, um, you know, you will be eligible immediately for our affordability rate.

Um, you know, as we work to build that program out, we will work uh with you know other departments.

Um, you know, we will coordinate with uh, you know, with DHS um, you know, to make sure that we're addressing the senior citizen um, you know, population that is at risk to make sure that we are, you know, addressing the um income, you know, uh challenge at the lower end of the bracket.

We will continue to work with CCM Consumer Council of Missouri uh to make sure that we are making this affordability rate open um and eligible to those who are at real risk of having to make these tough decisions between paying this bill or that bill.

Um they are behind on their bills.

Um, you know, they are having to make tough choices on groceries and tough choices on their medication.

Um, you know, I know that's a real issue in the senior population.

Um we can't have that as a public utility, we have the ability to help our community.

We have the ability to uh, you know, uh not focus on investors, not focus on profits, but focus on our people.

Our people are the owners of our utility, our citizens, um, our community.

And that is what we want to do is to make sure that we are addressing, you know, affordability challenges with the affordability rate with the best information, the best collaboration, um, you know, to make sure that it is addressing that challenge.

Uh, and that's why we we will continue to make sure that those criteria are developed to open up that rate to those who need it the most.

Thank you so much.

Um, for taking that out soon to see, and I want to piggyback off of Alderman Devotee for the continued opportunity of information sharing.

So let uh remind everybody that the water department will be in the 10th ward on the uh 29th to continue this conversation publicly.

I know the 10th ward probably has one of the bigger balances of uh people that will absolutely um need that affordability rate, which is why I'm wanna be at the table for that, is compared to people that are like, hey, what what can we do?

Can we do more to be able to sustain this water department?

So thank you all.

Like I said, the six, seven years I've been here.

This is the closest I think we've been.

I don't want to miss this mark.

Um, and if I'm the same, you're and knowing that uh that my colleagues here um haven't even been here that long.

I applaud you all for taking this bold um step, you know, and and continuing to legislate this and that with been said earlier.

Kick this can down the row.

Thank you.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Unless there are further questions or comments from members of the committee.

Okay, I'll pass it back to Alderman Browning.

Um Alderman Browning, we should move through your amendments, which I know you explained are regarding basically a um unit of measurement, stating sure that unit of measurement is stated correctly.

We'll move through each one individually.

So we'll start with amendment number one.

That's correct.

And we'll try to do these quickly because these are all just addressing the tables in the bill.

Um, so what we're doing is it did say um cubic feet per billing, but really we're doing these measurements in what's called CCF, which stands for centum cubic feet, meaning centum meaning hundred, so it's per hundred cubic feet of water.

Uh so we're just making this measurement consistent, which it wasn't before, so it got a little confusing, and we're trying to make this as clear as possible.

Uh so amendment number one uh to board bill number 25 does exactly that, it changes the words uh quantity charge cubic feet for billing and inserts the words quantity charge per CCF per billing cycle.

Thank you.

I'll entertain a um motion to adopt amendment number one.

Summold.

Second.

All those in favor signify saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Seeing none, we have adopted amendment number one.

So now it is board bill number 25 as amended.

Please continue with amendment number two.

Thank you.

So amendment number two to board bill number 25 as amended is going through the table now, changing the wording uh from first 25,000 per CCF to make the accurate CCF measurement first 250.

Uh, because remember, these are units of 100.

Uh so with that, um, I guess I'm on the committee.

So I can move to uh adopt amendment number two to board bill number 25 as amended.

So move second previous rule.

Been moved by the alderman from the ninth, seconded by the alderman from the 10th.

There's been a call previous role from the alderman from the fifth.

Any objection?

Hearing none, we've adopted amendment number two to board bill 25 as amended.

Alderman, you're recognizing amendment number three.

Continuing the theme, amendment number three addresses another table.

Um the same table, and just again where it says quantity charge cubic feet per billing.

We're changing it to quantity charge per CCF.

Okay, I'll entertain an motion to adopt amendment number three to board bill 25 as amended.

So move.

So moved.

Second previous rule.

Previous role.

You all are making me choose.

Uh it's a motion uh by the alderman from the 10th uh to adopt amendment number three to uh board bill number five 25 as amended.

It was seconded by the alder woman from the 13th, a call for previous role from the alderman from the fifth.

Any objection?

Hearing no objection, we've adopted amendment number three to board bill 25 as amended.

Amendment number four, Alderman Browning, you're recognized.

Thank you.

Now we're moving down to a different table.

Uh this one's on page eight.

Uh, and uh again, we're striking out the words quantity charge cubic feet per billing and inserting quantity charge per CCF per billing cycle.

Thank you.

Um, I will entertain a motion to adopt amendment number four to board bill number 25 as amended.

So moved.

I mean so it's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderman 13th.

Previous row.

There's a bit of call for previous roll from the alder woman from the 10th.

Any objection?

Hearing none, we've adopted an amendment number four to board bill twenty-five as amended.

Alderman number amendment amendment number five, please.

Thank you.

Uh you'll find the rest of the amendments on the back of the page that had the amendment paper.

Uh so amendment number five is continuing this trend where we were uh changing the words from first 25,000 per CCF to first 250 CCF and so on.

Thank you.

With that, I'll entertain a motion to adopt amendment number five.

So moved.

Second.

Previous rule.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded from by the alder woman from the thirteenth, that we adopt amendment number five to board bill number twenty-five.

There's been a call from previous for previous role from the alderman from the fifth.

Any objection.

Hearing none, we've adopted amendment number five to board bill number twenty-five as amended.

Amendment number six, alderman Browning, you're recognized.

Thank you all.

Only two more to go.

Uh so the amendment number six changes uh the boarding again, and then one of the tables from quantity charge cubic feet for billing uh to quantity charge per CCF per billing cycle.

Thank you.

Um I would entertain a motion to adopt amendment number six to board bill number twenty-five as amended.

So moved.

Second previous roll.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderwoman from the eighth, uh call for previous role from the alderman from the fifth to adopt amendment number six to board bill number twenty-five.

Any objection to previous roll.

Hearing none, we've adopted amendment number six to board bill number twenty-five as amended.

We are moving on to amendment number seven, our final amendment.

Alderman Browning, you're recognized.

Amendment number seven again is addressing the table on page eight, or sorry, section eight, page ten.

Uh, that's uh crossing out uh first twenty-five thousand per CCF and replacing it with first 250 CCF and so on.

Uh just cracking the measurement.

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh with that, I will entertain a motion to adopt amendment number seven to board bill number twenty-five as amended.

So moved.

Second.

Previous roll.

It's been moved by the alderman from the fifth, seconded by the alderwoman from the thirteenth, the call for previous role from the alderman from the fifth to adopt amendment number seven to board bill twenty-five as amended.

Any objection to previous roll.

Hearing none, we've adopted amendment number seven to board bill number twenty-five as amended.

Um, and with that, madam clerk, if you could also add me as a co-sponsor to board bill number twenty-five.

So noted.

Alderman Browning, uh, you are recognized to close.

Thank you all.

Um, thank you to the consumer council.

Uh, we will continue to work with you on an amendment that we will um most likely do on the floor uh to add some language about when we can expect that cost of service study to be done.

Uh we all think that's important.

Yeah.

Um thank you to the the water division.

Uh I cannot emphasize enough how much they've been out there, not just fixing our pipes, but also talking to the people and making sure that they know that they're gonna show up for them over and over again.

Uh it's good to see that my colleagues are continuing to host them at town halls.

That's where really where the conversation happens.

And as I mentioned in my opening, we've done extensive outreach.

Uh so I really think this has been one of the most better better communicated bills uh when it comes to uh our public outreach.

And uh we really look forward to taking this historic step towards fixing our water system.

Uh, this is the board that's gonna put us on the path towards financial solvency.

Yeah.

So with that, um, I close and ask for your favorable consideration.

Thank you, Alderman.

I appreciate those those words.

Um with that, I will entertain a motion for a due pass recommendation of board bill twenty-five as amended.

So move.

Second.

Previous role.

Previous row.

It's been moved by the alder woman from the 10th, seconded by the alder woman from the 13th, and a call from previous roll by the alderman from the fifth that we pass board bill number 25 as amended with the due pass recommendation.

Any objection to previous roll.

Hearing no objection, we have passed board bill 25 as amended with the pass recommendation.

Uh, congratulations, alderman Browning, and thank you.

I'll turn the chairmanship back over to you.

Okay.

With that, we're gonna move uh on in the agenda to uh board bill number 28 because this also involves the water division, and uh we want to make sure that they can still be here to speak on that.

So uh Alderman Devotee, you are recognized on board bill number 28.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Board bill number twenty eight introduced by Alderman Matt Devotee, an ordinance requiring the installation of water meters on certain services connections in the city of St.

Louis, providing mechanisms for enforcement, including providing authority to deny or withhold service for noncompliance, and delegating authority to the water division to administer implement and set technical standards for the meter installation.

The requirement applies prospectively to new service connections and mandates the installation of meters over only on certain existing service connections.

The ordinance also includes a servability clause.

So, Chair and members of the committee, this is continuing on with the theme of the day.

And this is a small chip uh at one of the issues that we have, uh, which is general unmetered water in the city of St.

Louis.

I do have Mr.

Gould here from the water division.

I think he has something to say, and of course, we're both available to answer any questions you might have.

Mr.

Gould.

Or Mr.

Patel.

Or Mr.

Patel.

Sure, yeah, I can uh speak on the topic.

So uh I uh want to thank Alderman Devoty uh, you know, for his ongoing efforts to uh you know stay in touch with the work going on at the water division, um, you know, as we try to tackle all of the issues that we face.

Uh, you know, uh, and again, we are you know working on all of these uh you know at different paces based on the priority, but we know that the unmetered water issue um you know is a longstanding issue.

Um it is an issue that will not get addressed uh you know by one uh solution.

It will take many solutions, and I think this uh is a solution that is the right step.

Um, you know, it addresses it uh when it makes the most sense.

Um, you know, when there is development, uh new construction, a new connection to the water system, uh, you know, that requires uh a developer or a property owner to install a new water line uh that they also have to install uh water meter receiving infrastructure, uh, so the water division can set their account up as a metered account.

Um, you know, this again is the appropriate time to do it because it is a new connection uh to the water system.

There is a plumber involved who is uh you know obtaining a plumbing permit and excavating to install this service line that the property owner in you know uh needs for water service.

Um you know, it also covers uh extensive rehabilitation of uh uh a home or a property, a building.

Um, you know, the plumbing division requires uh a new water service be installed when there is a complete overhaul of the the building, a rehab uh that is overhauling the plumbing system.

Uh, you know, no longer can that be tied back into a lead service line or an older service line.

Um, you know, it has to be replaced.

And so that is another appropriate time uh again to convert uh a flat rate account um you know service that was there uh when the new service connection of the water main is being installed uh you know to a metered service.

Um, you know, the last case that we've considered and included for is when there is a uh a leak in the the system um you know that is the responsibility of the property owner, but um you know, requires a new tap into the water main.

Um, and that is when we would again uh say that it needs to be a metered service conversion.

Um, you know, these are gonna make an impact over time to start to address the issue when it makes the most sense.

Um, and we will continue to work this issue of unmetered water in the city of St.

Louis so that we can uh align ourselves with best practices, uh modernize the the structure of the the division, uh modernize the utility to um you know bill on metered water, um not unmetered water.

And so again, we are in support, uh, you know, we appreciate the collaboration and the work uh with the Alderman, uh Alderman Devotee on the the issue.

Uh you know, we think this will start to make uh you know improvements to make sure that we are doing it when it makes the most sense and getting you know these conversions to happen.

Um and again, the water division will come out and install the water meter that it owns um into that uh appropriate uh you know meter receiving uh box outside where it will you know serve to measure the water consumed and also have information provided to the division on the use of water uh by these these properties in the city of St.

Louis.

Thank you, Director.

I appreciate those comments.

Um Alderman Devotee, do you have any more comments before we move to public testimony?

I do not, no, sir.

Madam Cork, do we have anyone signed up to testify on this?

Yes, we have two individuals for board bill number 28.

Elaine Laura.

She just stepped out.

I think she might be doing an interview.

Let me go try to catch.

I'll go with uh Don Kaufman.

Yeah.

Um good afternoon, John Kaufman again, consumers counsel just here to support the amendment.

We're uh we're in favor of uh anything that um you know requires meters to be um installed into the future.

I I think that this problem has just seemed too big for too long, and you just can't tackle it at once.

But I think requiring uh we were we're also in favor of requiring all new customers to have meters if if if if at all possible.

I think you know, journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, and the more meters we can get, the closer we are to getting down that road.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh while we're waiting for Miss Wara will um I'll just take a moment to say really appreciate again the consumer council uh and Alderman Devotee for bringing this bill.

I think uh it's a journey of a thousand miles because of the first step is a great way to describe it.

And I want to make sure that our public can testify.

So we'll hold on just a second here.

We know that there's many forces pulling at people.

Oh, yeah, the hallway is always busy.

That's city hall for you.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, Elaine Laura.

Uh you know, I think we're too busy thinking of how not to do this.

MSD is our collaborative partner.

The city of St.

Louis recommends three people to the board of MSD.

MSD under a consent decree has to give the city of St.

Louis a loan over two million dollars because of past inequities.

I would like to encourage you to ask MSD to assist with the installation of water meters by doing something very simple.

MSD has a long list of things that they will grant rain gardens are you can have a rain garden that MSD pays for, and they have a price between three thousand and five thousand for that rain garden.

It's a long list of projects that they will finance, but they refuse to add water meters to that list.

You could encourage MSD to help finance finally installing water meters.

You could also ask this the state who devised MSD without thinking because it created two systems of pavement metered and unmetered.

MSD service area is over five hundred miles.

Think about that.

St.

Louis City, barely sixty-six square miles, is the atlas of MSD.

We are the highest residential rate payers.

And that's wrong.

Mr.

You didn't answer on next door whether you were going to the American Waterworks Association.

Uh international meeting later on this month.

I'm sorry, Miss Laura that's your time.

Are you going?

Thank you.

Do we have any more members of the public signed up?

No, that'll be all.

Okay.

With that, we'll go to the committee for questions.

Uh Alder Woman Boyd, do you have any questions?

No questions.

Thank you.

Uh Alderman for your uh bill.

Alder Woman Clark Hubbard.

Thank you.

Thank you all for allowing Missy Lang to run in and do her testimony.

So Alderman Devody, I just have a what maybe one question.

And if it's the no, then I wouldn't have any follow-up questions.

But as it relates to us in the tornado recovery area, and if we have properties, I know I heard the term significant rebuild or significant final.

And I know that um a lot a lot of the homes that might have to have some updates done or rebuilding or remodeling, um do not want water meters, right?

What is that look like for those residents that are in a position where they did not choose to have to rebuild or choose to have to build in this process?

And as a um again, I also speak for some of my big um larger homes in the southwest end of the ward as well that were not on meters prior to, but are having to absolutely rebuild um from the May 16th tornado.

What does it look like for them?

And is there any way that I can make sure that we protect them in this process?

I'm gonna let Director Patel answer that question because I think that goes to the major rehabilitation aspect that you're referencing.

Yes, ma'am.

Yeah, no, thank you for the question.

I I think that you know, our intent with this bill, our goal with this bill was to address an issue, a long-standing issue in the city of St.

Louis with uh, you know, uh an account base that is unmetered.

And you know, it is a big challenge.

Uh, you know, fiscally, uh, it is going to be a challenge for you know, uh paying for that conversion uh to metered service.

And a lot of that burden falls on the property owners uh to have a appropriate uh you know uh you know meter receiving pit that you know uh aligns with the water division specifications for a metered service.

Um, you know, it has to be somewhere where we can install the meter where it is protected, uh, where it can be uh you know accessed safely in the future.

Um, and that cost is you know, uh getting higher and higher.

I think you know, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, um, it was certainly less than half of what it is today.

Um, you know, the time of of uh doing this conversion is what we're taking a look at.

When is it most appropriate?

And I think it's most appropriate when there is a certified plumber who is out to uh you know connect a private uh you know residence, uh a property um to the water system, and that water service line is owned by the property owner, uh, you know, the tenant, um, you know, or their designee, uh, you know, and I think that the time to install the water meter would be the time when um you know there is an excavation, there's the plumber, um, there's a new connection to the water meter.

I understand that you know, many people in the city of St.

Louis uh like their flat rates, they like that they can use um, you know, uh water as they please without affecting their bill.

Uh, you know, it effectively acts kind of like a budget billing.

Um, but um, you know, we hear a lot from people who uh also uh oppose it.

Uh, you know, they have a lot of components um that are billed and they feel like they don't use that amount of water.

Um, the only way to solve the issue of unmetered water in the city of St.

Louis is installing water meters, but there's a huge cost to it.

And so I think the goal of this bill was to address it at the time that it's most appropriate, and that is when there is a new connection to the water system.

Um, and so over the years, this will have an impact.

Um, I do uh really appreciate uh, you know, uh John Kaufman's con uh you know comments.

Uh, you know, I think his analogy is as perfect for for uh you know the intent of this bill.

We have a problem to solve.

And down the road, when we do solve that problem, it will be benefit to the water division because if we can measure the water that is being consumed in totality, and we can measure the water that is being treated and pumped in totality, then we can start having vision into water loss.

And that's another efficiency that we can solve better down the road when we have that measured approach of a mass balance of water in minus water out equals the loss.

But this is a problem that to be comprehensive to solve non-revenue water leakage in the water system, which will result in savings of energy and chemicals.

And that is the appropriate time to solve this problem.

And so eligibility criteria may change.

But again, this is to stall solve a long-standing problem of unmetered water in the city of St.

Louis.

More and more it's becoming very uncommon that this is how residential water services are billed in an unmetered fashion.

Thank you.

And I'm glad we'll be able to continue this conversation.

Okay, period, if you're new building, and this is what this requirement will be.

But again, I just have concerns for some of my residents who were thrown into this and will have to make a decision.

And I would like to know what is there a threshold for what a um remodeling or rebuild looks like as compared to when the tornado impacted areas or not or any kind of way that we can work together to protect those residents.

That they had no control over.

Understood.

And I think as far as a layperson goes, a regular person goes.

The question would be does the does the building division does the plumbing division require the replacement of a water service line.

So if that is triggered, if the plumbing division says yes, and that person would need a plumber on site to do the work to do the line replacement, then at that point under this ordinance, the meter would need to be installed.

But again, the thought is that the labor, the professional labor of plumber is already going to be incurred.

Absolutely.

Because of the requirement of the plumbing division.

So the labor aspect of the job is something that's going to be incurred no matter what.

That's the thought.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for answering.

But it is careful to allow for future change at the water division with connection regulations that we may have.

Um, you know, there are uh you know it it does not say all service connections, it says certain.

And so there is the ability uh in the future as things change for uh water division policy to dictate um you know when if and when there are uh you know circumstances where um you know this this is not appropriate um you know, either due to detriment to the water division, um and it will be considered uh you know and discussed, I think, in an ongoing fashion there.

Great, thank you.

And just I want to make sure that I'm clear that my questions were for residents.

Homeowners, and again, uh reiterate for the West and Southwest ends in the war that I know are rebuilding fearlessly and tirelessly um and didn't want didn't expect this now.

And they might not even go into you know their project, but just for future ones, I want to have those protections that I'm not talking about for commercial bills or even commercial uh development bills.

I'm strictly asking this protection for our residents um in the tornado impact areas.

I I understood that thank you.

Thank you.

Alderwoman Cox and we alderman, Alderman Devotee.

Thank you for bringing this bill forward.

Um, as we saw, obviously, water meters are a huge interest to a number of uh constituents and residents, and and I agree with some of the things that you shared um in terms of the necessity for this approach.

I also agree with Director Patel, um, given what we've seen from the environmental benefits and also just case studies from other areas that use them.

I think there is a huge benefit of installing water meters.

Um, and I think it's appropriate to consider at the time that we're doing new construction uh an opportunity to take to help some of the homes in the city of St.

Louis make that transition.

So I think this bill is not only timely um but appropriate as we're having these conversations about ways we can improve the cost efficiency of the water department.

Um that said, I do only have one question uh similar to Alderwoman Clark Hubbard about the major rehabilitation projects definition.

Um, because as we know, there are a lot of homes in the city of St.

Louis, not only that have to repair due to necessity from the tornado, but are also in um major uh conditions that do need to make immediate repairs.

Um I see in the bill that there is a provision in terms of who's covering the cost of that installation, uh, that there are certain water department policy carve outs that may allow the water department policy to assist with the cost.

So could you all clarify or maybe provide an example of what that would mean in terms of water department policy?

Sure.

So um you know, uh it's not always going to be the case that uh the water division is uh you know uh paying for uh any of this work, but there is uh a certain you know ordinance that covers leaks in the public right of way.

Um and you know, we envision that when a service line is being uh you know replaced as a part of that fund.

Um, you know, these are our uh citizens, these are residents only that are paying into this uh line repair fund, um, that this ordinance would cover that case.

Um it is a new connection to the water system, um, you know, due to an eligible uh repair out of that fund that is paid into by residents.

Um and in that instance, when there is a new service connection to the water system, it would require conversion to a water meter when that leak is being repaired out of that program.

Um, you know, it is still a certified plumber who is going out, and uh we do receive bids on those jobs, and they do uh, you know, adhere to all of our our regulations internally.

Um and so you know, water division policy uh does change.

It doesn't change all the time, but um you know it will change to change with the plumbing code requirements uh with best practices.

Um and I do think that is uh you know one of those conditions where uh you know we want to make sure that we are addressing uh conversion to a metered account from a flat account.

Um I hope that's uh addressing what you were you were referring to.

Yes, director, I appreciate that.

And and yes, that does answer my question.

And in the eighth ward, I I get a lot of uh emails about let's say lateral questions and young ladies' comments about our collaboration with MSD just in my layperson's understanding, those two are next to each other but function separately.

Um, and so I think it's important to have on the record the water department's policy and definition of that case would come up just so the community understands what policy currently exists.

So you answered my question.

Thank you.

And Alderman, thank you for bringing this bill again.

I'm happy to support.

Thank you.

All the one choice here.

Thank you.

I appreciate the spell a lot.

And I am uh asked to be a co-sponsor as well.

Um this is uh really important and something that is a very thoughtful way to get meters installed uh at the right time.

I want to just also say that you know, I know that the water division is likely not paying for the installation of the of the meter.

I'd be very un, but the meter itself is paid for by the water division.

So the point of, you know, someone is doing work on a property that requires a pretty extensive change.

The water division is still the one actually paying for the meter piece.

Um so hopefully that's very negligible to have the the rest of the installation occur.

Um that's my understanding of how that would go based on the answers that you've just shared and and what you know I'm familiar with.

I just want to clarify that, Director Patel.

You're nodding, so I assume.

Yes.

So the water division owns the meters.

Um they install the meters, they maintain the meters, um, and then of course we bill off of that.

Um, and then you know, once that service life uh is nearing an end, uh, we upgrade the meter um either to a newer technology that's out there, that's what we're doing right now.

Um, you know, we've changed over approximately 12,000 of the 16,000 water meters that are out there to a cellular read technology.

Um, you know, this benefits the the residents, the customers, uh, the commercial customers uh that have water metered service to actually be able to access that information.

Um, and it also benefits the water division to reduce the cost to have to roll a truck uh to go read a water meter um because that information is coming through over cellular read.

Uh so again, this is just a modernization effort that we're going through.

We have to replace these meters anyway once they're past their useful service life.

And so uh, you know, this is uh a step in the right direction to offer, you know, uh another advancement of converting from flat rate service to water metered service.

Uh, but there is a cost to the division.

We know we're gonna have to stock more water meters, purchase more water meters, um, install more water meters.

And then as that cost of service study uh is performed, uh, you know, it will be important to evaluate the cost to provide that metered service uh today.

Um, you know, again, the costs were studied previously uh to provide that metered service, and that includes the cost of of us purchasing and installing um that meter and you know the labor uh involved in uh you know additionally servicing a metered account.

Um and so I think that that cost of service study will factor in the current costs of providing metered service versus flat rate service, where you know there's other costs to consider inspections of the components, um, reinspections when you know someone's done work to their house to change the number of uh you know, toilets, showers, baths, um, you know, rooms potentially even with additions.

So uh, you know, again, I think that cost of service study is going to be doing a lot uh of data uh driven approach to quantify the cost to serve each of these types of customers.

Uh, but it is you're right, a cost to the water division to purchase them and install them.

Thank you.

Uh those are all my questions.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Um my question is simple.

This is also the public infrastructure committee and not just the public utilities committee.

Uh so my question is about sidewalks.

Um the water meters are the bane of sidewalks, and they often cause crack sidewalks, uneven sidewalks that become inaccessible.

And um, I often talk about how accessibility is important because disability is a when and not an if for all of us, uh, not to mention the use of strollers.

So my question is can we make sure these water meters are not installed in the sidewalk in a way that will cause them to become uneven?

Yeah, I I uh I hear you and I fully agree that that is one of the worst places you can install one.

Um I think that in the past uh that was done out of, you know, uh not just uh uh a necessity.

I think it was felt a necessity, but uh, you know, the the most practical place is in the tree lawn, um, you know, in the uh you know, area where there's uh a grass or or you know, it's not hard escaped.

Um, you know, there's uh an option, uh, an approach that could install it uh, you know, past the property line.

Um, you know, we install the water meters into uh a piece of equipment, um, you know, infrastructure that is owned by the property owner.

Um, you know, that receiving pit, uh, that meter setter.

Um, you know, the place where we install the water meter is not a water division owned uh, you know, uh pertinence uh to the water system.

It is on a private service line.

And so we're already putting our meter on a piece of privately owned infrastructure.

Um, you know, where it's appropriate, maybe we could set them, you know, inside the property line where it's still accessible outside.

We can still uh you know inspect it, replace it, service it, uh, and then also, you know, there is no risk that this is now inside of a house, um, you know, that it can be tampered with to try to uh you know uh affect our ability to read it um and have to to come now access it in the home to service it or inspect it.

Um, you know, there are real challenges to having a water meter owned by the utility inside of a home.

Um and so I do think that there's better places than the sidewalk, though, to answer your question.

Um and even then, um, you know, that meter pit is the property of the private owner.

Um it sits, you know, in the tree lawn in the right-of-way, but it's theirs to maintain, it's theirs to um you know, install.

And when it's installed in a sidewalk, uh, you know, that plumber, that contractor who is ripping out that old slab, installing the new uh vault and setter inside of it, uh, you know, uh does a workman-like job to install that, but over the years, um, if there's a leak on the service line and that slab settles and it breaks away, I think that does cause a backlog of issues.

Um, and you know, the city certainly has approaches to try to have the property owner address uh, you know, an issue they've caused in the sidewalk uh, you know, with an asset that they own uh and are responsible to maintain, but there's challenge there, as we all know.

So uh yeah, as a you know uh a comment back, I I do think that is the worst place to put a water meter.

Thank you, Director.

I appreciate that answer.

I'm certainly satisfied with it.

Um and uh we are gonna keep working on sidewalks as well, because we know it's it's not just uh issue with the water meters, it's tree roots and all sorts of just issues and everyone deserves accessible sidewalks.

Uh Alderman Devotee, uh, that's the end of my question.

You're recognized to close.

Uh my ask is simple, is and that is that the committee passes board bill uh 28 out of committee with a do pass uh uh recommendation.

Thank you.

Uh I will at this time, well, before I do this, uh, I'd like to be out as a co-sponsor, Clerk.

So noted.

And at this time I'll accept a motion to pass board bill number 28 out of committee with a due pass recommendation.

One second, Mr.

Chairman.

I would also like to be added as a co-sponsor.

So noted.

I move that we pass board bill 28 with a due pass recommendation.

So moved.

Previous role.

As moved by the other one from the first, uh seconded by the other one from the uh 13th.

Call for previous role from the other one from the eighth.

Hearing no objection.

And Alderman Devote, you should stay up there because the next two are yours as well.

Well, let's see.

These should be a little more um easier, let's say.

Uh if we could start with board bill uh 18 chair, if that's all right.

Absolutely.

Uh Madam Clerk, if you'd please read the summary for Board Bill 18.

Board Bill 18 introduced by Alderman Matt Devodey.

An ordinance authorizing the honorary street name, Sister Felicieta Cola Avenue, pursuant to ordinance number 68604, which shall begin at the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Macklin Avenue and run east on Wilson Avenue to the intersection of Wilson Avenue and Edwards Street.

So that is it in a nutshell.

This is the naming of uh an honorary street in the Hill neighborhood.

Uh, this is in connection with the Sisters of the Sacred Heart, who have operated the villa for uh over 85 years.

Uh we do uh go through a petition process consistent with ordinance.

Um my legislative assistant, Vivian Walter verified all signatures on the petition.

So we're confident that we stepped on those bases.

Uh and this is being done at the request of the sisters.

And who am I to say no to the sisters?

Thank you, Alderman.

Uh Madam Court, do we have any public testimony on this bill?

We have none.

And uh I'm gonna just speed this up.

Does any members of the committee have any questions on this bill?

I'd like to be out as a co-sponsor because as I research uh the sister, I can see that she had a really good pasta and uh as a fan of hosta and uh and as you said who could say no to the sisters.

This is a really nice gesture.

Thank you all.

And note that you're recognized to close.

Uh again, I'll keep this simple.

I would uh ask the committee to uh pass board bill eighteen out of committee with a due pass recommendation.

With that, I'll accept a due pass recommendation for board bill number eighteen.

It's moved by the other one from the thirteenth.

Second, seconded by the other one from the first, with their call for previous roll.

Hearing no objection, congratulations, alderman.

Board bill eighteen is passed.

Uh with that, you're recognized on board bill number 23.

Well, here I'm gonna take uh in my afternoon with a layup.

And this uh board bill 23 has to do with the installation of four speed humps throughout the fifth board.

Uh they're identified in the board bill.

Once again, we have a petition process that we use.

Uh petitions were solicited and turned in by the residents on these streets.

And again, my legislative assistant, Vivian Walter, verified signatures.

Excellent.

Uh Madam Cork, any poet testimony on this?

We have none.

And any questions from the committee.

Seeing none, uh, you're recognized to close.

Uh again, I would ask that the committee move board bill 23 out of committee with a due pass recommendation.

It's time I'll accept uh recommendation of due pass for board bill number 23.

So moved.

Second previous roll.

Moved by the other one from the eighth.

Call for um seconded by the all from the first and a call for previous roll from the other one from the first.

Hearing no objection, board bill number 23 has passed.

With that, that is the end of board bills for review.

We have no resolutions for review.

Uh we don't have any committee discussions for today.

Uh Madam Cork, was there any written testimony submitted?

We have none.

And do any members of the committee have any announcements?

I do.

Uh Alderman Boyd.

Uh uh the water department will be at our quarterly town hall on July the 11th.

All right, add the 13th to the water uh water division town hall tour.

Excellent.

Thank you, Alderwoman.

Uh, with that, uh, all members who are present today, no need to excuse any.

And uh with that, I will accept a motion to adjourn.

Second previous roll.

Moved by the Alderman from the first, seconded by the alderman from the fifth.

Call for previous roll by the other one from the first.

Hearing no objection, we are adjourned.

We do.