“I want to make a motion that, whether we do it on payment plan as previously set up as previously set up as a 10-year payout, of which we are three years behind in, we as a city get our money back, get caught up on the 10-year payout and continue with that payment on a yearly basis,” Wood said. “Not to overburden the water system by paying it all at once but to get caught up and continue to make payments. I think it’s a reasonable request on behalf of the city.”
About $17,000 a year should have been transferred to the general fund the past three years, council member Bruce Moore noted.
“To answer the question, I would have to go back in and look at our finances on the enterprise system,” Moore said, noting that Sheridan said last week that the city couldn’t afford a city public works manager.
“So based on his comment, why we can’t afford it, that’s what I want to find out,” Moore said. “If we can’t afford it, then obviously the water system can’t pay us back. If we can afford it, then maybe the water system can pay us back. That’s what I’m trying to figure out now.”
Moore asked if the water system was standing on its own or in debt.
It is at least somewhat operational, other council members said, noting that the city borrowed money to make improvements to the system, including the three additional wells.
“The water advisory committee gave a very thorough report and they were unanimous in their responses,” Mayor Bruce Pinckard said. “What they stated ... get the improvements in so we’ll sell more water and then we’ll know. And until those improvements are in, we don’t know exactly what those they will cost. I mean we’ve already had one dry hole – unanticipated but it can happen. You can have acquisition costs and things like that.”