- Local Business
- Health Department Scores
- Sports
- Local
- UT
- Outdoors
- Auto Racing
- Local Columnists
- Lifestyles
- Local Features
- Local Columnists
- Local Events
- Entertainment
- Food
- Faith
County complaints irk BOMA; panel responds during workshop to accusations about water contract
Staff Writer
SEVIERVILLE — The Board of Mayor and Aldermen hopes to talk with county commissioners soon regarding their complaints about the city water system, especially after learning the county notified city employees Monday about plans to build two new water lines that would presumably use city water.
Monday’s BOMA workshop was the first time the board has publicly discussed the county’s threat to file a lawsuit to regain revenues the county believes Sevierville owes for water service the city extended into the county. The County Commission discussed the issue at a regular meeting earlier this year.
Under the terms of a 1997 contract, the Sevierville water department — previously an independent water board — has extended more than 17 miles of water lines into the county to serve about 370 customers, City Administrator Steve Hendrix said. That contract calls for the city to split any net revenues from those lines with the county; it doesn’t address whether the county should help defray the costs if expenses exceed revenues, city officials said.
“Early on, no one was really concerned with this,” Hendrix said. “I think it was understood it wasn’t going to be profitable.”
Now, as the contract nears the end of its 15-year term, the county has begun asking the city for figures showing how much money the water system is making.
Actually, county officials have said they began asking several years ago. Hendrix said that’s not true.
“With this letter, I have heard that the County has requested the information for two to three years,” Hendrix said in correspondence with County Mayor Larry Waters dated Oct. 4. “I have also heard when the County was approached during the first several years of the contract, county officials informed the water department not to worry about providing the revenues and expenses.”
He said the topic came up with county engineer Gary McGill earlier this year, and McGill said, “He did not believe this was a big deal if we continued communication and progress due to the fact that the county was more interested in moving forward with creating their own water department.”
The letter also makes it clear Hendrix’s position is the city has met its obligations. “Based on the documentation presented herein, it is clearly evident that the city has conducted itself and exactly as promised.
“I am concerned that the comments provided in the recent Mountain Press article and subsequent correspondences do not accurately reflect city actions. I would appreciate your leadership and efforts to clarify these facts to restore trust and public confidence.”
During Monday’s workshop, Hendrix also noted that the figure of $326,436 in revenues discussed at a county meeting represents the gross revenues over the life of the contract so far.
Hendrix has hired a CPA to review the figures for the areas where the city provides water to the county. He gave the board two examples so far: In 2005, the city lost $1,000 overall on providing water to the county and in the just-ended fiscal year it lost $29,000. Those figures, he said, were based on conservative calculations that didn’t take into account the sparse population along the lines or the distance — both of which increase the cost of maintenance.
“They were calculated as though they were right next door to us and there was still no profit,” he said.
The CPA will have the figures ready to return to the county before a Nov. 23 deadline stipulated in the county’s letters to the city, he said. Aldermen hope to meet with county commissioners about the issue once that is done.
They are especially concerned, they said, after hearing that the county presented plans for two new water lines that would apparently use city water — one near Creek Bend Cares and another near Holiday Lane. The county is already building a line along Jay-El Road that is expected to use city water.
“It’s hard to reconcile that the County has apparently dissatisfaction with the disagreement ... but they want to do more business at the same time,” Alderman Jerry Loveday said.
jfarrell@themountainpress.com

this is business as usual.