META — At their March 12 meeting, Meta aldermen signaled they may delay participation in the Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) State Revolving Fund (SRF) program, citing concerns about long-term debt obligations, engineering costs, and the city’s ability to sustain the project financially.

City Clerk Deidra Buechter said DNR is requiring a decision in the near term.

“The SRF money, they want us to decide what we want to do by April,” she said.

The SRF program would provide a combination of grant and loan funding for water system improvements, but participation would require the city to match a portion of the funding and cover engineering costs.

Clerk Buechter told aldermen that Bartlett & West Engineer Blake Wilbers suggested they select a priority area and use SRF funds for repairs.

“It’s up to you guys,” said Clerk Buechter. “I see it a couple of ways. If you fix a distribution area, you will be using your SRF money, so you will have a portion of the grant. You will have to match that with the 37 percent loan, and you’ll have to match the engineering cost. So as it stands, if we take all the money, we get $2.5 million in grant funding, and we would have $990,000 in a loan. They have approved us for a $510,000 loan for engineering design, so ultimately $1.5 million. What really is frustrating to me is the fact that they provided us with a professional engineering report.”

“I’m sorry, who’s they?” City Attorney James Klahr of Lauber Municipal Law asked.

“Bartlett & West provided us with a professional engineering report,” Clerk Buechter replied, offering the water tower as an example. “Say we choose Maguire Iron to build our new tower. They have engineers on hand to design these towers. Well, we’re paying Bartlett & West $510,000 to design this tower when Maguire Iron has an engineer on staff to design the same tower. So I guess I’m just frustrated at the fact that we have to pay Bartlett & West another $510,000 after they’ve already completed the professional engineering report, when Maguire Iron has an engineer on staff who is going to build the water tower to what we need.”

“I don’t have much to add to that,” Klahr said. “It doesn’t make a lot of sense.”

“That’s kind of like double jeopardy there, is it not?” said Alderman Otto Wankum.

“Yeah, if there’s a company that specializes in water towers, it seems like they’d be the ones to design it,” Klahr answered.

Clerk Buechter noted that Bartlett & West provided dimensions for a new tower.

“So we should be able to give that to the company, and the company goes, ‘Yep, we pay an engineer to design water towers like this all day long. It’s wrapped up in our water tower cost,’” she said. “They ship it out here, put the sucker up, and there we go. But apparently that’s not the way it works.”

Klahr said there may be trademark or design limitations, but added he did not know why that would apply in this case.

Treasurer Karla Buechter asked whether Maguire Iron would accept or use a design from Bartlett & West.

“Well, it has to be their drawing for DNR to approve it,” Clerk Buechter replied.

“And we’ve got to have an engineer on hand all the time?” Alderman Austin Buechter asked.

“It does sound like it might be a follow-up with DNR, just to say, ‘Here’s the question we have, can you walk us through this?’” Klahr said.

Clerk Buechter agreed. “I genuinely want to know why we have to be fiscally responsible for all of that amount when we already have a professional engineering report,” she said. “It makes no sense to do that.”

“That’s paying for the same thing twice,” said Mayor Ivie Helton. “We’re using taxpayer money to do it, so they’ve got to provide us with some kind of solid reason behind it.”

Clerk Buechter asked whether aldermen wanted to move forward with a priority area or wait.

“That’s the decision that you guys need to make,” she said, noting that committing to one project could limit eligibility for other funding opportunities.

“Well, I think we need an explanation in person from Blake,” Wankum said. “Bring him down.”

Treasurer Buechter and Alderman Buechter agreed that hearing directly from DNR would be preferable.

“Bartlett & West is just going to be one-sided,” said Alderman Buechter.

“We need to know what the requirements are going to be,” Helton added.

Clerk Buechter noted that DNR typically requires an engineer on such projects.

“I don’t get that, but that’s the way it’s always been,” Helton said. “If they want to give you a million dollars, they want you to spend $750,000 of it on engineering and then not get anything with the rest of the money. That’s just the way it works, but they need to explain to us how we can go without paying for the same thing twice.”

Clerk Buechter reviewed the city’s application history, noting Meta first applied in October 2023 and was approved for a 50-50 grant and loan split. In 2024, the city reapplied and received a 63-37 split along with $510,000 in engineering costs.

“You could do the same thing again, submit it in October, and wait and see what the IUP comes up with again,” she said. “Worst case scenario, we would get nothing, but if we get something and it’s unattainable because we can’t afford it …”

“What’s the use?” Helton asked.

Klahr asked about the condition of the city’s water tower.

“It was never meant to be for potable water,” Clerk Buechter said. “It was built for steam engines. It’s too short and fat, so it doesn’t provide adequate pressure.”

“Bartlett & West has been really pushing for us to get a water tower, but that’s a pretty penny in their pocket, too,” Helton said.

“I guess I have a question — why is Blake pressuring this?” Wankum asked.

“DNR wants an answer, whether we’re going to move forward or not,” Clerk Buechter replied.

“Then we’ve got a whole new question,” Alderman Buechter said. “Where do we think our priority spot is? The tower? That’s probably not happening, so we’d have to find the worst area.”

Clerk Buechter said that could be determined through historical repairs or additional analysis.

“Honestly, the cheapest thing to do is to make improvements to the pump house,” she said.

Aldermen agreed that approach could address some of the system’s water loss.

Helton noted the city’s reported water loss may not fully reflect actual conditions until improvements are made. “Maybe we’re not really losing half a million gallons of water every month,” she said.

“I’d say Diamond (Pet Foods) would start floating here soon if we did,” Alderman Buechter added.

Clerk Buechter said the city could potentially fund pump house improvements without taking on debt.

“Since we have no debt in our water system right now, maybe that’s where we start, and we do that without loans,” she said, adding that costs have likely increased since 2022 estimates.

Aldermen discussed declining the current SRF package and reapplying in October.

“They’re not going to say you’re not getting anything, but we have no option to use it,” Alderman Buechter said.

“There’s always a chance they could,” Clerk Buechter replied.

“Well, they’ve got to see our side of the story, too,” Alderman Buechter said. “We’ve got 87 customers.”

“As it stands now, it’s just not fiscally possible to use the money,” Clerk Buechter said.

Mayor Helton said the grant portion is appealing, but the loan repayment is not sustainable.

“Well, that’s all great until they start getting their water bills and they go up,” she said. “Then all of a sudden it’s not going to be okay anymore.”

“Right, and they don’t understand that they’ll be getting a $3,000-a-month water bill,” Clerk Buechter said.

Clerk Buechter said a 2022 estimate placed pump house improvements at $162,000, and even with increases, the project remains within reach.

Helton noted the city must maintain its system without operating for profit. “But we have to make enough to maintain the system,” she said.

Clerk Buechter said a Missouri Rural Water rate study expected in May will provide additional guidance, including options for financing improvements versus continuing annual rate increases.

Alderman Wankum said the city ultimately faces three major needs: the water tower, the pump house, and distribution lines.

“You can have the nicest tower and a brand-new pump house, but if it’s all leaking out as it comes down the hill, you’re still in trouble,” he said.

“That’s what I’m afraid is going to happen,” Alderman Buechter said. “We’re not going to have any option one of these days.”

“In a perfect world, we’d replace it all,” Helton said. “But with less than 100 customers, that’s not feasible.”

Clerk Buechter recommended focusing on smaller, manageable improvements.

“If you guys want to do something so people can see progress, I would suggest starting with the pump house,” she said.

“I think that’s a wonderful idea,” Alderman Buechter said.

Clerk Buechter said she would contact DNR to explain the city’s position if the board chooses to decline the current offer.

WATER UPDATE

* A total of $7,032.89 in water sales was recorded in January, with $1,845 charged for trash, $280 in late fees, and $247.16 in sales tax. Total charges were $8,675.42 with a previous surplus of $1,591.24 and payments received in the amount of $9,405.05, leaving a positive balance of $1,444.45.

* Meta’s water loss was 41.29%, with 569,774 gallons pumped, 328,413 gallons sold, 1,000 gallons flushed, 5,100 gallons used by the fire department, and 235,261 gallons unaccounted for.

* The next meeting will be held on April 16 at 6:30 p.m.