June 5th Special Election: Metropolitan Sewer District
Four weeks from today voters in St. Louis City & St. Louis County have identical June 5th special election ballots. They contain the same nine items, each to be approved or rejected. Eight of the items are changes to MSD’s charter:
The Charter Plan of the Metropolitan St Louis Sewer District is a blueprint for how MSD is operated. The plan was created when MSD was formed in 1954 and was amended and approved by voters in 2000. These amendments provided MSD with the necessary tools to continue providing quality service and to address additional water quality and stormwater needs that exist or may develop in the years ahead. (Source w/link to actual charter)
The first proposition is related to a recent settlement:
A judge approved the settlement of federal lawsuit against the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, paving the way for $4.7 billion of work over the next 23 years to help clean up local rivers and streams and prevent backups into basements and yards.
The Environmental Protection Agency, state and Missouri Coalition for the Environment filed the lawsuit almost five years ago , citing more than 500 million gallons of raw sewage discharged into local rivers and streams between 2000 and 2006 in violation of the federal Clean Water Act. (stltoday.com — recommended reading)
The following are the ballot items:
PROPOSITION Y
To comply with federal and state clean water requirements, shall The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District (MSD) issue its sewer revenue bonds in the amount of Nine Hundred Forty-Five Million Dollars ($945,000,000) for the purpose of designing, constructing, improving, renovating, repairing, replacing and equipping new and existing MSD sewer and drainage facilities and systems, including sewage treatment and disposal plants, sanitary sewers, and acquisition of easements and real property related thereto, the cost of operation and maintenance of said facilities and systems and the principal of and interest on said revenue bonds to be payable solely from the revenues derived by MSD from the operation of its wastewater sewer system, including all future extensions and improvements thereto?
PROPOSITION 1
Shall Article 2 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to provide that the portion of the boundaries of the District that are located within St. Louis County shall be as described in records kept in the office of the Secretary-Treasurer of the District and no longer required to be contained in the text of the plan?
PROPOSITION 2
Shall Articles 3 and 9 of Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to (a) establish procedural requirements relating to the formation of subdistricts within the District and the design, construction and funding of improvements in such subdistricts, and (b) establish the method for levying special benefit assessments, all subject to a vote of the property owners in the affected subdistricts?
PROPOSITION 3
Shall Article 3 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District relating to powers of the District be amended to (a) permit the District to establish environmentally sustainable standards and practices, and (b) clarify the existing authority of the District to enter into contracts pertaining to stormwater facilities?
PROPOSITION 4
Shall Articles 5, 7 and 10 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to provide that notice of the expiration of the term of office of a Director, notice of tax levy hearings, notice of proposed rate changes, and notice of elections under the Plan (Charter) shall be given by mail, publication or electronic media, or such other form of communication as may be permitted by Missouri law?
PROPOSITION 5
Shall Articles 7 and 9 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District relating to budget and finance be amended to (a) require the budget of the District to include a list of capital projects, (b) require a public hearing at least 21 days prior to adoption of the budget, and (c) provide that proceedings to make certain improvements shall be initiated by approval of a list of capital projects and a general appropriation ordinance rather than by resolution?
PROPOSITION 6
Shall Article 9 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to permit the District to use design-build and other alternative delivery methods to make improvements, as permitted by Missouri law?
PROPOSITION 7
Shall Article 11 of the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to provide that a District Plan Amendment Commission shall be appointed on or before July 1, 2019 and every ten years thereafter?
PROPOSITION 8
Shall the Plan (Charter) of The Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District be amended to (a) make various typographical, grammatical and stylistic revisions to the text thereof, (b) correct outdated statutory citations and references, (c) change gender specific language to gender neutral language, and (d) eliminate the requirement that records of the Board of Trustees maintained by the Secretary-Treasurer be kept in bound or book form?
I’m just now starting the process to research these before election day so I’ll be curious to hear your thoughts.
– Steve Patterson
Y – this is gonna be expensive – how much are our rates going up?
1 – no big deal*
2 – serious red flags! any part of the district with old systems (the city) or serious drainage challenges (flat or low parts) could (and likely will) be “cut out of the herd” and subjected to even higher rates!
3 – likely a good thing, but could contain pitfalls – I’m in favor of “best” practices, which likely includes sustainable ones; the second part implies looking at privatizing services
4 – don’t like the “or”, prefer an “and”; the reality is the media will be watching this*
5 – no big deal*
6 – good idea
7 – no big deal*
8 – good idea*
*these all sound like technical changes, allowing MSD to operate more efficiently in the 21st century
As to Prop Y
If the prop is passed all rates go up 52%. If the prop isn’t, all rates go up 112%.
Per KDHX last night, they had the head of MSD on for a segment.
Rates will be going up. Either the upcoming bond issue is passed or they raise rates. And we can thank the taxpayer that thought it would be smarter to sue them when they tried to implement the flowoff rate per square foot cost basis. While it may not have been implemented correctly, the idea behind it was correct….everyone pays their fair share for water treatment based on runoff and sewage use. But I digress.
1) technical…no big deal
2) this will be their way of developing special taxing districts. Could be good in the industrial parts, could be very bad in the residential areas.
3)Well duh….but why do they need permission to follow environmental and sustainable practices? This should be common sense.
4) agree with JZ…don’t like the or…..prefer to have them specify at least two methods of communication. Too many groups get away with barely making notice so they have low turnouts.
5) Absolutly yes. Again….any business budget includes a capital budget. They should be no different
6) Design build seems the way to go, but it will result in layoffs.
7) no big deal
8) no big deal…just cleaning house.
Wouldn’t it be more economical to have this vote coupled with the August primary?
I’ve been listed on several teams of design professionals and contractors in response to design-build RFPs, and in general I would rate the approach as only potentially cost-saving, and the resultant overall design as only sometimes superior to the conventional approach. Design-build is not always successful. But to be successful, the design-build RFP must be well-written, critiqued by experienced engineers of several disciplines, architects with proven design and design-development experience, and grammarians with building design and construction-related backgrounds. Otherwise, the results can be disasterous (spelled COSTLY).
I would think MSD has such professionals on staff already.
If so, then they’re ready to go!
I doubt MSD will go beyond the minimal green requirement as per consent decree (about $100 million of $4.0 billion promised, about 2.5% of budget). They are pursuing the latest and greatest idea of boring a big storage tunnel for excess runoff during rain events and then even out your treatment on a constant flow using the stored runoff. In other words, storage over replacing pipes or even trying to reduce the number of pipes. It’s a solution in that it resolves untreated discharges. However, it does little to resolve your underlying problem. An older combined system (collects Sewer & Storm water together) with a lot of pipe for MSD’s population density.
Philly is one of the only cities that seem to be tackling the issue of to many old pipes in a combined system (Sewer & Stormwater collected together). They are truly taking the sustainable approach by getting as much storm water out of the system/pipes as possible via green approaches. This reduces untreated discharges from the sewer system, reduces the amount treatment needed thus saving resources, energy over the long term, and reduces your physical infrastructure under the ground – the costly partly. There is no reason why MSD shouldn’t incorporate and invest in the region’s greenways as a means of getting storm water out of the sewer system first and foremost.
Prop 2 is definitely bad. Economically speaking, all users (business, agriculture, residential) should all be charged the same rates in an efficient allocation of resources. Not only is the current MSD set up totally inefficient already because they don’t meter water usage, Prop 2 could basically amount to charging the masses for businesses’ water usage.
I live next to a creek that has a sewage dicharge terminal. I was told when I bought this house that the terminal never discharged. I’ve seen it discharge 4 times in the last year. Hope this terminal will go away along with others in the area. Lots of kids want to play in these creeks!
On Proposition 2 “formation of subdistricts”. I can’t imagine when it would not be a good idea to spread costs over the entire area. Hope you find out what reasoning is behind this proposition.
Vote NO. Then, let us sort this out step by step. Storms will overflow ANY possible system at times. Only parts of the city which are over 150 years old can have 150 yo sewers. The MSD brochure is a “scare” document.
Rates are going up regardless. You want to pay more now, like $65 a month vs. $28 then vote NO to Prop Y. If you want rates to slowly go up to $80+ a month then vote YES to Prop Y.
Prop Y finances almost $1Billion, but it costs the taxpayers another $1Billion in interest for that financing. We end up paying twice as much to finance. Seems foolish to pay $1Billion more in order to save $15 a month now.
Just pay the $65 or so now, don’t be fooled into thinking you’re going to “save” or lower your costs by lowering the initial “rate” increase. (BTW, MSD doesn’t care if you vote Yes or No on Prop Y.) This is no time to float a $1Billion bond issue. Pay as we go. Be smart. Vote NO on Prop Y.