Dear editor,
The former Chairman’s letter last week (The Messenger, March 2, 2023) speaks loudly of his lack of involvement and willful acceptance of hearsay as opposed to facts. Over the last three years, the EPWSA board has undergone a transformation to become a body whose purpose is to guide and oversee long-term fiscal health, prudent system expansion, and capital investment.
Gone are the days of myopic arguing over whether our hardworking employees deserve a 1.6% or a 1.7% raise. (I kid you not; in my very first meeting there was literally an argument about this). Meetings now are both productive and professional, focused on allocating capital to benefit all Putnam County citizens and EPWSA customers, as opposed to micro-managing operations. We no longer distinguish between “city” and “county” customers because they are all equal stakeholders.
I will address the differential to which Mr. Webster refers thusly: When EPWSA was created an agreement was struck that the water customers of the city of Eatonton would contribute the water and sewer assets they owned to the newly formed authority. In exchange, those customers would pay a lesser rate for water, relative to the water customers in the county, for a period certain, after which the rates will equalize.
This was agreed upon, signed, dated, and formalized in a contract. For whatever reason, there are some members of our community who do not like this historical fact and wish to breach the contract. Perhaps they simply do not understand the realities of a binding contract. I strongly suspect there were days Napoleon might have second-guessed his selling of 530 million acres for 2.8 cents per; however, I can find no documentation of his renegotiation with Mr. Monroe or President Jefferson.
EPWSA currently has over $15 million in accumulated depreciation on its balance sheet and less than $5 million in unrestricted reserves. Some might consider accumulated depreciation a “non-cash item.” (i.e., If it doesn’t come out of the checking account it isn’t a real expense.) This doctrine isn’t only misguided, it's fiscally ignorant. EPWSA has an aging system that desperately needs updating.
We have increased costs to operate in terms of labor, chemicals, and materials. We, as a board, thoughtfully took the time and effort to carefully consider all these factors and quickly determined there was no way we could affect an increase that would address the entirety of our needs at once.
Additionally, we employed logic, acknowledging the existence of lower-income customers who are disproportionately affected by rate increases. Collectively we made a very conscious, thoughtful, and educated decision to increase rates by an amount that would begin to address our capital needs while also considering how it might affect our most at-risk customers.
Being far from capricious, the rate increase was based on a multitude of factors. This would surprise absolutely no one who had made any effort to attend EPWSA meetings over the last couple of years and observed how much we have matured as an Authority.
Warmly, Judson S. Doster
(Ed. Note: Mr. Doster is an EPWSA board member.)