Alexander City reviews feasibility of taking over neighboring water authority; staff project modest net gain

Alexander City councilors spent the bulk of their work session discussing a proposed acquisition of a neighboring water authority and a feasibility study prepared at the authority's request.

Drew, a city staff member, told the council the small authority has cash on hand and that the transition would require about $150,000 in immediate capital work — principally automating water towers and tank maintenance — and about $40,000 a year in ongoing maintenance. "We we don't think there's any way we will lose in this," Drew said, summarizing the city's conservative financial outlook.

Drew said the authority serves roughly 500 customers. Under the plan presented, those customers would remain on their current rate for the first three years; after three years the customers would be moved onto Alexander City's municipal ("PJ") base rate. Drew said the city would not impose capital improvement or tap fees during the initial three‑year period and that the initial three years would carry the existing rates.

Councilors asked for clarification on several numbers and operations issues. The presentation included inconsistent cash and asset figures in the transcript record — in one exchange the authority's cash was described as about $350,000–$400,000, while a later line lists about $230,000 in cash; equipment valuations also vary across remarks. The city also noted differences in meter types and said it would acquire the authority's meter‑reading equipment and transition meters into the city's system, though some trailer and equipment work was acknowledged as likely.

Council members raised operational questions tied to staffing and certification. The transcript references a retiring operator, named Danny Sanford, and councilors discussed whether certified operators and repair capacity exist locally. Drew said the city does not expect to need a dedicated new full‑time hire and that technicians could be shared among existing customers and the new service area.

No formal action or vote to approve the acquisition appears in the transcript. Council members asked staff to circulate follow‑up answers on billing logistics, a definitive asset inventory and other clarifying details before any decision. Drew closed by inviting council members to email any additional questions so staff could provide further information at a future meeting.

The council did not set a final date for an approval vote; next procedural steps were limited to additional information requests and further staff follow‑up.