Stick to the Facts On MoWASA Issue
In “Sewage Upgrade Approved” (Oct. 7), Tim Lea is quoted as saying, “We needed to go back and correct a wrong.”
Earlier in the article, Lea reminded everyone that “A legal commitment to improve the Vass utilities was made in the early 1990s, by MoWASA.” He said that the town donated its water system to MoWASA.
Let me correct Mr. Lea about two important matters. Vass did not donate its water system to MoWASA. MoWASA paid Vass $1,135,000 for the system. They borrowed the money from BB&T, collateralized by deed of trust.
The commissioners did away with MoWASA because of corruption and had the county attorney investigate whether the county had any further legal obligations to Vass shortly after MoWASA was disbanded. The county attorney determined there was no further legal obligation owed by the county to Vass.
According to county financial records, Vass has never been profitable and has been subsidized by profits earned by the county utility system since it was purchased by the county. It has always cost more than the county charges Vass to provide the services.
The editorial “About Time Vass Got a Fair Shake” (Oct. 12) used the same justification, that Vass donated its system, and further stated MoWASA paid a heaping sum to acquire the Pinehurst system. The county didn’t pay a single penny from the general fund for the Pinehurst system. They borrowed $5,900,000 from BB&T, collateralized by a deed of trust, just like Vass.
The difference in Pinehurst and Vass on paying off the loans from BB&T is that Pinehurst rate payers paid every penny of both the Pinehurst and the Vass loans. They also subsidized every Vass rate payer in the system because it still cost more to bring water and sewer to Vass than the county charges Vass rate payers.
More like this story