Plans to alter utility's setup attract critics

Officials: Maumelle lacks oversight on water authority

A proposal by Maumelle Water Management to change its governing structure is drawing critics who say the difference from the utility's present setup won't do enough to remove a lack of oversight of an independent Board of Commissioners.

The Maumelle water utility's three-member Board of Commissioners isn't appointed by the City Council or elected by residents. Commissioners, who don't have term limits, advertise for and select their replacements when needed, set utility policies, approve budgets and decide rate increases for water and wastewater services.

The utility's intended changeover from its original status as a Suburban Improvement District to a Public Water Authority would increase the Board of Commissioners to five voting members and also require term limits. The Maumelle City Council would appoint two of the five commissioners, leaving the three current members in place. The commission would choose the other three positions when terms end.

Attorneys for Maumelle Water Management submitted a request for the utility to change to a Public Water Authority in May to the Arkansas Natural Resources Commission and is awaiting approval. The Maumelle City Council, which has had tension with the water utility in the past regarding rate increases and management's responses to ratepayer complaints, backed the utility's proposal with a 7-1 vote this spring.

If the changeover is approved, City Aldermen Burch Johnson and Preston Lewis will be the council's appointees to the commission until the council can create a selection process. While the commission will have the right to reject the council's nominations, commissioners cannot choose those replacements, leaving the City Council to nominate new appointees. The City Council already appoints two city liaisons to the commission, but they don't vote on commission business.

State Rep. Mark Lowery, R-Maumelle, said last week that he believes the new arrangement still doesn't give Maumelle residents enough of a say in who oversees their water.

"I have significant problems with the proposal Maumelle Water Management put forward that says that once two members nominated by the City Council become part of the five, that it [the utility] still will have another self-perpetuating board and three of them never even have to come before the City Council for nomination," Lowery said. "Whether it is a suburban improvement district or a public water authority, there is the same lack of accountability.

"I think if the entire board is accountable to the council, there's at least some indirect voter input into who is on that board of commissioners. If a voter is not happy with the commissioners being appointed by the council, they at least would have someone who is accountable to them come election time."

George Ritter, an attorney in Maumelle, expressed similar concerns in speaking before a joint discussion session of the legislative committees on city, county and local affairs last month. Ritter said that there is "no oversight" of how a public water authority board manages its revenues or sets water rates and won't be accountable to the public because commissioners aren't elected.

"Maumelle Water Management either expressly or by implication claims it has no legal obligation to answer to the city of Maumelle or its ratepayers with respect to its water supplies or the rates paid," Ritter said.

Barry Heller, the utility's general manager, said the "biggest selling point" in the proposed change to being a Public Water Authority is expansion of the water commission and its members being term-limited to six years each. The two actions were among requests by the City Council and residents, and worked out in a compromise with the water commissioners, he said.

The water commission was established as part of the Maumelle Suburban Improvement District even before the city was incorporated in 1985 and its structure has remained the same since then.

"One of the things the city wanted was to have more of a say in the decisions that were made, especially as far as rates go," Heller said of the proposed change. "What the city wanted was for all board members to be elected by the general public. That injects a lot of politics into a board that doesn't need to have the political influence that you would have in that situation.

"The commissioners didn't agree with the city's desire for a general election. So we compromised and we set it up so the city council gets to pick two of the board members."

Maumelle Water Management came under a deluge of complaints two years ago during the severe drought and record heat in the summer of 2012. With one of the wells that supplies residents' water nearing failure, the utility shut off all sprinkler meters overnight on July 1, 2012, without any notice to customers. It later imposed water rationing rules for the remainder of that summer, all on top of a 5 percent rate increase and new fees that had been added to water bills by that spring.

The outcry from residents, especially with a city election coming in the fall of 2012, helped lead the way for the current proposed changes.

"I think that was the thing that kind of raised the issue to the forefront for most citizens of Maumelle," Lowery said of the utility's problems in 2012. "As long as the residents' water wasn't brown coming out of the tap and they had plenty of it, there wasn't a problem. I think that summer really brought to the forefront some of the issues and some of the concerns."

Maumelle Mayor Mike Watson said last week that he hasn't "found a negative against it myself," referring to the Public Water Authority proposal.

"Maybe it would be better if the council was able to nominate three members and have a majority appointed on there," Watson said. "I don't think there's any process that allows for them to be democratically elected. I think this is a positive step that Maumelle Water Management is going to do to help enhance its relationship with us."

As far as the city overseeing rate increases, Watson added, the City Council never had legal authority to deny water rate increases, though the council always has voted on rate issues.

"There is a city ordinance in place that says all rate increases have to be approved by the city council, but that's never been tested in court," Watson said. "I don't know if we have that right to do that now."

Because of the previous tensions between the utility and the City Council and the problems from 2012, Heller said the utility will always have its critics.

"I'm quite sure there are opponents to us changing to a Public Water Authority out there," Heller said. "But we have opponents out there to who it doesn't make any difference what we do, they're not going to be happy. Even if we turned the utility over to the city tomorrow, they wouldn't be happy."

Metro on 07/07/2014

Upcoming Events