-->
Search the ArchivesNavigationContact InformationThe Citizen Newspapers For Advertising Information Email us your news! For technical difficulties |
Dissension grips Water AuthorityMon, 06/18/2007 - 8:40am
By: Ben Nelms
It was one of those back and forth things with everyone standing their ground. The South Fulton Municipal Regional Water & Sewer Authority hit another impasse Tuesday over the question of what to do with the funds that will come from refinancing the authority’s $41.7 million bond. The 2003 bond is to be used to construct a reservoir and provide drinking water to Union City, Fairburn and Palmetto. A motion by Fairburn representatives to refinance the bond and use the additional funds to pay off the bond debt was defeated by a 4-3 vote. That motion was followed by another by Palmetto and Union City representatives to refinance the bond and utilize the new money for authority projects. That motion passed on a 4-3 vote. A brief discussion of the refinancing issue was held prior to the motions and the votes. Both sides stuck to their guns, with Palmetto Mayor Clark Boddie and Union City Mayor Ralph Moore noting the decision of their city councils to refinance the bonds and use the new money and Fairburn Mayor Betty Hannah reflecting the wishes of the Fairburn council to refinance and use the money to pay off the debt on the principal and interest about to come due. Beginning this summer, Union City will begin to repay $95,000 per month on the bond indebtedness, while Fairburn will repay $67,000 per month and Palmetto will repay $21,000. The ball is now in Fairburn’s hands, with the city council expected to take up the issue at a called meeting sometime later this month. The division among authority board members became evident earlier in 2007 when Fairburn questioned some of the expenditures since the $41.7 million bond was secured in 2003. Fairburn suggested that a significant portion of the $9.2 million already spent did not conform to the authority’s original position in 2003, with Hannah saying that, by agreement in 2003, only those funds necessary to secure the required permits would be spent. That agreement had not been honored, she said. login to post comments |