Dear editor:
Sorry Mr. Foster, I’m not misrepresenting anything, but you are obviously unfamiliar with the events. There were actually three separate issues involving Mr. Hersey’s misguided decisions in this particular matter.
First Mr. Hersey did in fact attempt to sell EPWSA water BELOW Cost. Those increased sales @ $0.80/1,000 gals. would NEVER have made up for losing $1 on every 1,000 gals. When you’re talking millions of gals., it adds up quickly.
Second, the $1,000,000 North Putnam line was funded by the County after the EPWSA Board majority rejected the idea. This line would have been the source for selling water at a loss to a third party. The line continues to be under utilized, but selling at a loss is not a smart way to justify the expense. Additionally, there was NEVER any agreement by your referenced water company to pay for anything & they didn’t.
Third, the $50,000 engineering fee to obtain a loan for a water line to Mr. Hersey’s neighborhood DID NOT involve any binding agreement with another water company. The expense was to be all on EPWSA existing customers and they did in fact pay the $50,000. Could have been much, much more if the project had not been stopped.
In my opinion, blindly defending a cohort is something one would not expect a BOC candidate to do. Of course with no opponent you can afford to do that.
Tommy Jefferson Eatonton