City of Madison
Legislative File ID   06836
Type:   Ordinance    Status:   Passed
Enactment Date:   8/23/2007    Enactment No.:   ORD-07-00099
Title:  
AMENDED - Amending Sections 13.01, 13.02, and 13.03 of the Madison General Ordinances to restructure the Board of Water Commissioners in compliance with state statutes and to add two additional voting members.
Controlling Body:   WATER UTILITY BOARD
Introduced:   6/26/2007    Version:   2
Final Action:   8/7/2007    Contact:   Janice Pena 608-261-9159
Name:  
restructure Board of Water Commissioners
Extra Date 1:   8/23/2007
Requester:   WATER UTILITY BOARD
Sponsors:  
David J. Cieslewicz, Satya V. Rhodes-Conway
Legislative History
DateActing BodyAction TakenMotion
6/26/2007Attorney's Office/Approval GroupApproved As To Form
6/26/2007Attorney's OfficeFiscal Note Required / Approval to the Comptroller's Office/Approval Group due on 6/27/2007. Completed on 6/27/2007
6/27/2007Comptroller's Office/Approval GroupApproved Fiscal Note By The Comptroller's Office to the Attorney's Office Completed on 6/27/2007
Notes: Knepp
6/27/2007Attorney's OfficeReferred for Introduction
Notes: Board of Water Commissioners, Common Council Organizational Committee
7/3/2007COMMON COUNCILRefer to the WATER UTILITY BOARD
Notes: Additional Referral(s): Common Council Organizational Committee
7/3/2007WATER UTILITY BOARDRefer to the COMMON COUNCIL ORGANIZATIONAL COMMITTEE due on 8/7/2007.
7/10/2007WATER UTILITY BOARD Attorney Michael May said one of the changes he made was that at least one but not more than two of the board members would be alderpersons. The changes to the ordinance are to maintain the relationship between the Board of Water Commissioners, the general manager, the mayor and the Common Council and to move it on to a level that is more legally defensible if someone asked questions about who has the authority for what. Jon said he understands that there would be a shared responsibility for the governing of the Water Utility by the Mayor, the council and the water board. If we follow the state statutes, which we've sort of adopted, the board is solely responsible for the water utility. Attorney May said the mayor and council would appoint water board members. Their role would be to appoint the commissioners and make some changes in the ordinance to tell you how you operate but only within what State law allows. That alternative is a strong commission form of managing the utility. That is not what is being proposed. Jon said the Mayor sponsored this so he'd like this view Okayed and get the State Statute out of the picture. Attorney May said he thinks the Mayor is doing what the council tried to do in the past, clean it up so there are no questions. If you have that independent commission, the Mayor would feel his power was taken away. Jon said some citizens are promoting the idea that the citizens board is the way to really have public representation, that sharing it is giving away some of the responsibility that the board has and there are strong arguments for that. Jon said he is still on the fence. He thinks it would have been useful to have requested another ordinance drafted by Attorney May that would reflect the other view, where we really adopt the State Statute and fix the Ordinance. Let us read what it would look like to have an autonomous board. Jon thinks we should refer this item and request a version B of what it would actually look like with a citizen's board and make a comparison. Lauren said she doesn't' know that would be helpful. Perhaps they could be given an example of, under one ordinance, the board would do one thing and the other form of governing would give us this outcome. Attorney May said if you went strictly with the State Stat, the Council and Mayor would not be involved in the hiring of the utility manager. The Commission may appoint and establish the compensation for the manager so the Mayor and Council would have no say in that either, nor would they be involved in any discipline of the manager. This commission would be involved in hiring and setting the rates of pay for the employees and would not be ruled by the City's rules and HR Department. The BWC would in most cases, by its decision, be able to enter into contracts on behalf of the City as long as Utility funds were being used and not general funds. There would have to be changes in how budgeting is done. Those are a few of the ways that a strong board operates. Attorney May said he doesn't think this would get strong support from the Mayor or the Council. Lauren asked how many strong boards there are in Wisconsin. May said it's relatively common for municipalities that own electric utilities. Some of the water utilities are under the Board of Public Works. Dave said he suspects many operate the way we do, with the combination of authority operating it. Lauren said we'd have to hire an HR professional for the Water Utility. We'd have to meet daily, and that is a huge responsibility. Dave said he'd imagine we'd have to negotiate our own union contracts. Attorney May said it wouldn't be a citywide contract so those are the things you'd run in to. You would have to meet more often because of the additional responsibilities. Lauren asked how board members would be appointed and May said that would remain the same. You could get into problems with how many alders you want on the board. Lauren asked how this board would protect itself legally if they made a poor contract with an employee. Attorney May said they could use the City Attorney or hire their own attorney. Jon said with the concept the board can be regulated by ordinance, couldn't an ordinance be passed where the board would delegate some responsibilities back to the Council/City such as union negotiations or HR responsibilities. Attorney May said ultimately the responsibility lies with this board. You would have to tell City HR that you want them to negotiate the same deal as other city employees get. Attorney May said if the purpose in setting up that strong commission is to get independence from the Council and some of the politicking that goes on. If you start delegating it back to the City, you're going to have to look at if you are defeating your purpose. Alder Sayta Rhodes-Conway for District 12 asked Attorney May if the board were to move to a strong commission and redelegated some duties back to City departments, is there some arrangement in terms of paying for the portion of HR work that gets done by the City, or would there need to be such an arrangement? Attorney May said if the Utility wanted to use the balance of City employees that would be a question that would have to be reviewed. She said she is very much in favor of this proposal, with all due respect to the Board. Water was one of the top three issues that came up when she was campaigning and continues to come up. At this time she thinks the council has little that can be done so she is looking for ways we can strengthen the connection between the Board and the Utility and the Common Council in terms of accountability and the flow of information. She asked if there are ways that alders can get the word out on some of the initiatives. She thinks we should add numbers to the Board to get more expertise on the board and avoid quorum problems. She would support appointing another alder to the board. She supports the language that is before you tonight. Jon said regarding the shared responsibility between the Mayor, Council and the Board, if the Board wants to pay the manager X number of dollars, do you have to reach a consensus or does the Mayor win? May said on the new ordinance it is made clear that the manager is subject to being filled in accordance with the rates of pay that other managers are. This board can weigh in but ultimately it is approved in a contract by the Common Council who sets the rate of pay - that is how it works under the current ordinance. Dr. Schlenker said last week at the Council there was quite a debate over the consulting contract. A point that was brought up had to do with the City's sole source contracting policy. Attorney May said under the existing ordinance, one question with regard to EMA is, does it have to be approved if the Water Board has approved it. We don't know if the Water Board has this authority. The Utility would be subject to state laws regarding bidding, but not clear if it would go through the Board of Public Works. You have to look very closely at areas to see what power the Council has. Attorney May said this document would make it clear that the Council has to approve contracts. He drafted it to take the existing practice and codify it in a way that made it more legally defensble. He said let's get this cleaned up and then look at it again at another date. Jon said Tom called it his proposal and he is still on the fence here. He wants to think clearly about what we're doing. The proposal is very clear but we need to air the proposal for a strong board. In the future we could go that direction if we want. Attorney May said he'd be happy to draft an ordinance as to what it would look like, but clear this up first. Percy asked if adoption of the proposal will change how the Utility does its contracting. Attorney May said he doesn't think so. It makes it clear that the same rules that require departments to come to the Council for approval, but not always. Dave said he thinks this is a matter for the Water Board - the policy board should make the decision and the Board should make that decision. He agrees with Attorney May about recreating the way we operate now. He often looks at the working in the State Statutes and the Ordinances in trying to figure out which to go with. Dave said he thinks its a matter for the Board to decide Percy said over time we have moved closer to working with the city including HR and financial and it's working well. This is a legal cleanup for the process we are already using. She doesn't know that we'd provide benefit to the water customers if we were to establish independence and it would just lead to some sort of conflict. Lauren said there is huge benefit from collaboration, that the average citizen thinks we're a city organization. She says we are too big of a business entity to go it alone. She would like to hear from employees on this also. She would be comfortable proceeding as usual. She hasn't heard from anyone saying they want a strong board. She asked Robin what he thought of this. Robin said we already have service level agreements with the City. When they do things for us, we are charged for it. He doesn't think there would be a lot of difference financially from this. Greg asked if it would be possible for the City to pass ordinances to dip into our money. Robin said that already can happen, that we are protected somewhat by the PSC. Sanja said Dean Brasser assured her that that wouldn't happen. Greg said he'd like to see it referred to the next meeting. He'd like to see some legal interpretation of the PSC Stats that allow for it--what part of the Stats actually say that. He'd like to see what an ordinance would look like with a strong board option. Greg moved that we refer this issue to the next meeting and ask Attorney May draft an ordinance looking at the strong board option and provide us with an analysis with the PSC statute that requires separation of Utility finances from the City General Fund. Jon Standridge seconded; unanimously passed.
Notes: Rerefer to Common Council Organizational Committee.
8/7/2007COMMON COUNCILas follows: strike the following language in Section 13.03 (2): "subject to such regulation and to employ the services and labor necessary for such work" and replace with: "shall purchase materials and supplies for such work pursuant to City ordinances, including Section 4.26 of the Madison General Ordinances". Pass
Notes: 1 Registrant(s) in support wishing to speak; 1 Registrant(s) in support not wishing to speak.
8/9/2007Attorney's Office/Approval GroupApproved As To Form

  powered by Daystar Computer Systems, Inc.