In recent days, I have seen Facebook posts, Ridgeview News reader feedback, and articles in the Calhoun Chronicle regarding the ongoing consolidation of the Town of Grantsville, Mount Zion, and Pleasant Hill Public Service Districts into one entity that will provide water to residents of Calhoun County. From this information, it is apparent to me that there is significant confusion about this process. From the perspective of a former County Commissioner involved in these efforts, I will attempt to clarify the confusion.
A. The topic of water consolidation is not something new. It has been explored in the past, but because of insufficientfunds to launch the startup, some preliminary plans were developed but not followed through on.
B. During the Covid Pandemic, the County Commission was awarded $ 1.2 million to use as needed for a myriad of purposes for the duration of the pandemic. The Commission at that time deemed securing high-speed internet in the county to be the top priority for the funds and voted to allocate the entire amount to that purpose. Because of untimely planning at the state and federal levels, it became apparent that the deadline for committing these funds to an actual project would not be met before having to return the entire amount to the federal government.
C. The Commission that I served on then began discussions on how best to commit the funds prior to the deadline of losing them. Those discussions led us to the conclusion that no need was more important in Calhoun County than providing water to our citizens. Since some groundwork had been laid for water consolidation in the past, discussions to revive that effort, involving the Boards of Pleasant Hill and Mt. Zion, and the Mayor and Town Council of Grantsville, began in earnest.
D. The County Commission informed the three entities that it was prepared to allocate the major portion of the 1.2 million dollars as start-up funds for the eventual official consolidation into one entity. In the meantime, working together as one by signing an Operation and Maintenance (O&M) Agreement would be the starting point. The offer was met with enthusiasm by the folks at the meeting.
E. It is vitally important for everyone to understand that funds being allocated for the project must be used to purchase vehicles, equipment, spare parts inventory, large, costly replacement pumps, and other expensive equipment, a building to house the combined agency, and funds to finance the first year’s salary and benefits of an Operations Manager.
F. The mechanism for the Commission to use in granting funds to these three entities is spelled out in federal legislation (AARPA). Since the original $1.2 million grant was awarded to the County Commission, it was necessary to issue sub-grant awards to the Town, PHPSD, and MZPSD. In a prior meeting, the committee discussed and agreed on how the funds would be allocated to each entity for specific expenditures.
G. Each of the sub-grantee agreements included the specific expenditures for which they were to use the funds. All expenditures of funds would be allocated to the consolidated O&M entity. None of these funds was to be used for any purpose other than what was listed in each sub-grant. It should also be noted that all equipment and supplies purchased with these funds do not belong to a specific location (i.e., Town, MZPSD, or PHPSD), but rather to the consolidated unit. These sub-grantees’ applications for funds, as noted in the documents approved by their governing bodies, were subsequently approved unanimously by the County Commission. Each district and the Town were to provide monthly updates on their grant expenditures.
H. It is vitally important to note that each of these three sub-grants included the funds awarded, and for what purpose, including the salary and benefits for the Operations Manager. Each grant application was approved by the PSDs and the Town of Grantsville Council as submitted. The County Commission unanimously approved each of these applications. In my opinion, the PSDs and the Town are obligated to spend the funds as agreed in their sub-grant applications.
I. Documents alluded to in this chronology should be available at the County Commission, the town of Grantsville, Pleasant Hill PSD, and Mt. Zion PSD.
Thanks for clarifying Roger. I was not aware that the board had looked at an O&M in the past. I vividly remember Mayor Bob sketching out the basis of what came into being then Craig Arthur coming in a bit later. Then, as things progressed the entire commission got involved and because, if memory serves, if the commission was not able to allocate that money quickly, they would lose it. So Ari White was given the task to divide the money as evenly as he could among the 3 water boards. Then I quit following the progression from there. Correct me if I am missing something. My only question is, as I understand it, Grantsville would pay the managers salary and Pleasant Hill would pay his benefits. Would that be a permanent obligation? If the managers salary is $80,000 a year and benefits are I heard between $20,000 and $40,00 per year ( again these are numbers being tossed around, you can give the exact numbers) and there is only the one grant, what is in place for those 2 entities to fund that salary for the long haul? There is also the question of the council members of Grantsville voting to hire a manager, and some confusion on that. Having the minutes made available confirming that vote would out that to rest . Lots of us still are not sure what a manager will do that the city already does not. It would relieve the city of the overall day to day management – I guess,it comes down to where and how much you want to spend. I will say though that because the commissioners at the time acted quickly and we’re able to acquire the money before it was lost. Thanks again for clarification . Firsthand knowledge stops misinformation and rumors.