The Board of Aldermen of the City of Willard voted to decline entering an agreement to purchase relocated water storage space in Stockton Lake after extended discussion of costs, financing and infrastructure needs. The motion not to enter the agreement passed at the meeting.

The board discussed two payment approaches presented by staff: a one-time full payment or an annual payment plan. Staff reported an annual payment option of $26,638 per year for 30 years and said the city would nonetheless have to encumber the full project amount in its reserves. Board members repeatedly emphasized that the total 30‑year commitment would be approximately $800,000, a figure several aldermen said is significant for the city’s budget and potentially burdensome for future councils.

Board members and the water advisory committee described tradeoffs between securing additional surface‑water storage and the city’s existing water and wastewater infrastructure needs. A water advisory committee representative noted there is a possibility of funding support from a state resource (referred to in the meeting as DNR) that could reduce the net cost, but staff said the precise details of any support were not broken out during the discussion and remained “not specified.” Several aldermen said uncertainty about how any grant or support would be applied, combined with the obligation to encumber the full amount, made the agreement unpalatable at this time.

The decision not to sign on was framed as respecting the water advisory committee’s recommendation while also protecting the city’s short‑term fiscal capacity. After the motion, aldermen asked staff to relay the board’s concerns and the reasons for the decision back to the water advisory committee for further discussion.

Background provided during the meeting noted that Stockton Lake storage had been discussed in prior meetings and that the water advisory committee had recommended consideration of signing on; the board’s action leaves that recommendation on record but stops short of committing the city to the purchase.

The board did not adopt a direction to pursue alternatives at this meeting beyond conveying their concerns to the advisory committee and continuing internal evaluation of the city’s water and sewer capital needs.