08/09/1976 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Of concern is the changing of any EWEB powers. Throughout their 60-year history, they have had a fine working relationship with the financial community. He is concerned that the Council not upset this relationship; an upset could e be very costly both to EWEB and the City. A drop in confidence in EWEB could relate to a drop in their bond rating. The EWEB counsel has reviewed the charter draft, said Mr. Tiffany, and they find it entirely acceptable. EWEB does, however, take issue with the appointment process. The Board members have been elected over the years, with appointments to fill vacancies being made by them. They would like to continue that procedure. As Mr. Tiffany sees it, there are three options - continue on the same basis, adopt the new charter as drafted, or put the issue before the people. He would hope Council chooses to continue the present practice as covered by the proposed revision. Mayor Anderson commented that he hoped Council would realize the importance of the gains made in negotiations that have taken place. He doubts the constituency would stand for too great a change at this point. Mr. Haws said the only real issue is whether to change the original wording on the filling of vacancies. Assistant City Manager noted that staff has tried via the memo to resolve ambiguities about which both agencies had reservations. EWEB has given up some of its power over the water utility and has asked the city to continue its original practice on appointments. Mr. Haws felt then that the items in the memo should be accepted, with the appointment provision being a separate ballot item. Mayor Anderson said that, if it were voted on separately, then it would follow that all changes to the charter should be voted on separately. All that is being attempted here, he said, is to align practice and procedure with the charter revision. Mr. Haws commented that any compromise the city makes with EWEB is one thing, but a compromise - made with voter rights is something else. If there is a substantial change in those rights, it should be voted on by the people. Mr. Keller moved seconded by Mr. Williams to accept the language as submitted in the July 28 charter draft relative to filling EWEB Board vacancies. Mr. Williams felt the question is whether Council should control another elected entity. If they desire to do so, that issue clearly is the one to be presented to the voters. Mrs. Beal felt the simplest thing to do would be to return to the voter the original wording under which the city has operated, with no changes made in the existing language unless and until Council chooses to undo what it did 60 years ago. Vote was taken on the motion which failed, Mrs. Shirey, Mr. Williams and Mr. Keller voting aye and Mr. Haws, Mr. Murray, Mr. Bradley and Mrs. Beal voting no. Mr. Bradley wondered if there was any sentiment that the EWEB Board be elected, with the vacancies handled by appointment by Councilor by the Council and EWEB Board. As Mr. Haws understands it, Council should accept Chapter 10 on Public utilities - as a reasonable compromise and then come back with a concept of how EWEB board members should be selected. Mr. Williams stated that, if the previous language is used, it necessitates putting into the charter all the bond issue language. That language bears specifically on the question of whether EWEB operates under the charter or under ordinance. J-j/3 8/9/76 - 27