MORGANTOWN – Morgantown Utility Board said Thursday evening that it opposes a proposed amendment to city code that would give City Council more direct involvement in and oversight of its actions.
The proposal disenfranchises the majority of MUB’s ratepayers, adds needless bureaucratic delays to projects, makes an apolitical body political and poses other problems, MUB’s board said in a statement released after its regular meeting.
“MUB’s board believes that the ordinance is both unnecessary and contrary to the apolitical and autonomous nature of MUB as reflected in the original ordinance that created MUB in 1987 and as further reflected in the documents on which our bondholders relied in purchasing our bonds over the years,” MUB said.
“MUB’s Board of Directors strongly opposes the passage of the proposed ordinance,” MUB said. “However, it is MUB’s sincere hope that the City Council will withdraw the proposed ordinance and engage in communications with MUB’s Board of Directors and senior management to cooperatively find reasonable solutions to the purported communication issues rather than continue with the antagonistic process created as the result of the proposed ordinance.”
The proposed change to Article 169 of city code would, among other things, put a city council member in one of the five MUB board seats and add the city manager to the board as a nonvoting member; make property acquired by the utility property of the city; and give city council veto power over MUB projects over $1 million or deemed by council to be “outside the ordinary course of business.”
Currently, the board is made up of five residential customers, no more than two of whom can live outside the city. The proposed change would still allow up to two customers from outside city limits to serve on the board.
Before the board took up the proposed ordinance Thursday evening, MUB customer Katie Switzer, who lives outside city limits, addressed the board during the public comment portion of the meeting.
“It seems a bit unfair” for City Council to have such close oversight over MUB when more than half of its customers live outside the city and have no voice in electing council members, she said.
City Council, she said, struggles with working with others and with effective communication. It faces legal challenges over various matters. “I don’t want the utility board … to be involved in that drama.”
Switzer said she is an engineer and is concerned that City Council has no engineers or anyone with any expertise in environmental permitting or other technical matters, and worries what Council interference might cost the ratepayers.
“I would like to see your board be more independent of the city, not less,” she said.
Morgantown Mayor Jenny Selin followed Switzer and said Council appreciates the concerns.
Council, she said, has always approved items that comes before it from MUB, and the proposed new makeup of the board would provide a closer connection, as someone on Council would serve on the board and be familiar with MUB activities. This won’t make the board more political.
Representation of county customers will remain, she said, as the proposal still allows up to two board members to live outside city limits.
Under current code, Council has to sign off on MUB rate changes and bond issues, and property acquired by the MUB Board is acquired for the city acting by and through MUB.
“We’re trying to work on clarity, work on communication, work on coordination … and better alignment,” Selin said.
When the board arrived at the proposed ordinance amendment on its agenda, it immediately went into executive session, citing discussion of legal matters. After the executive session, it immediately adjourned without taking any action, but released the statement.
The statement continued, “MUB’s Board of Directors is deeply disappointed that the proposed ordinance is purportedly designed to improve communications between MUB and the city but was drafted in secret with zero communication with, or input from, MUB. That fact in and of itself demonstrates that the goal is not better communication, but rather, to improperly and unnecessarily exercise more power over MUB.
“Because MUB’s interests and the city’s interests do not always align, placing a member of City Council on MUB’s Board of Directors creates a clear conflict of interest for that councilperson since MUB Board Members owe a fiduciary duty to MUB and its ratepayers.”
MUB staid in the statement that the city’s proposal is contrary to MUB’s bondholder documents which state that “MUB operates as an independent and autonomous agency of the city, funded entirely from the gross revenues of the Combined Utility System.”
Those bond documents say MUB’s structure is designed to provide professional, apolitical, oversight and management of the system, MUB said.
“The City’s intent to create veto power over all MUB projects that exceed $1 million is arbitrary and capricious. MUB has operated successfully and efficiently for 35 years without any such bureaucratic hurdle to overcome. Often times, water and sewer projects are time sensitive for public health and economic development reasons. Adding a lengthy ordinance process for project approval serves no purpose but may jeopardize public health and economic development.”
MUB regards the proposal to make MUB property city property as “confiscation,” it said. Because 62% of MUB’s water customers and 55% of its sewer customers reside outside city limits, the majority of the ratepayer funds used to acquire real estate comes from ratepayers who live outside the city.
“MUB’s Board of Directors believes the proposed ordinance disenfranchises the ratepayers who live outside of the city limits. Obviously, this provision in no way, shape or form has any impact on improving communications between MUB and the city and simply acts as a form of annexation.”
Council meets on Tuesday. Its agenda is not yet posted.
Tweet David Beard @dbeardtdp Email dbeard@dominionpost.com
