Hartman City Council Discusses Significant Water Department Deficit
PROTECTED CONTENT
If you’re a current subscriber, log in below. If you would like to subscribe, please click the subscribe tab above.
Username and Password Help
Please enter your email and we will send you a password reset link.
by Stephanie Baker
The Hartman City Council met on Monday, Jan. 12, and continued discussions regarding the financial standing of the Hartman Water Department.
According to the financial information provided, the Hartman Water Department showed a deficit of $18,768.51 in December, following a deficit of $10,825.45 in November.
Mayor Jackie Weathers, who currently serves as the sole member of the council’s water department committee, assured aldermen they would work together to address the issue. Under Act 605, the Council serves as the governing body of the water department.
According to Weathers, December’s concerning financials were due to multiple unusual expenses and an estimated 44% water loss. He contributed the deficit directly to a large water leak; repair of a hydrant hit by an uninsured driver (with the city paying up front for repairs not yet reimbursed); the replacement costs for a new water valve; Christmas bonuses for the department’s two staff members; new tires for a department truck; and the servicing of generators. He cautioned the Council against using December alone as proof of a long-term financial shortfall.
Alderman Earnest Tillery disagreed, arguing that December reflects a broader trend. He cited monthly balances from throughout 2025, stating the department was in a deficit for nine months of the year and is currently in its fifth consecutive month of increasing deficits.
Monthly reported balances for the Hartman Water Department’s operating budget are as follows:
January: -$5,258.88
February: $2,852.13
March: -$333.86
April: $907.59
May: -$875.30
June: -$13,114.75
July: $808.93
August: -$9,632.38
September: -$459.46
October: -$7,019.79
November: -$10,825.45
December: -$18,768.51
2025 total: -$61,719.73
(Editor’s note: These numbers were provided to The Graphic from Hartman Water through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The balances and deficits listed above are the monthly transactions of the department’s operating budget that were the main point of discussion. These balances represent the cash flow of the department each month, but do not show a complete picture of the department’s financial standing and do not include investment accounts or reserve funding. Act 605 mandates that 5% of water department funding be set aside for maintenance, upgrades, and future needs in a specialized account. Funds transferred into the designated account (approximately $2,000 monthly) for these purposes were repeatedly referred to as “losses” by aldermen in discussion, contributing to confusion among the Council over the department’s financial standing. The money was transferred out of the operating account but still remains with the department, although it cannot be used except in case of emergencies, as dictated by Act 605.)
“Why are we just now doing something about this?” asked Tillery, who stated the matter should have been brought to the Council’s attention much sooner, emphasizing the department is not generating enough revenue to cover basic expenses.
“That’s why we are going in the hole. We are not making enough money to even cover payroll. We aren’t making enough money to pay our bills,” he said.
Tillery said if the department continues with the current pattern of six-figure deficits, it will be out of funding and face potential shutdown within eight months to a year.
“If we keep going even like we did in November, we will be broke and shutting down in about eight months,” said Tillery.
Aldermen expressed frustration with the situation after following the suggestions of the recent Rural Water rate study and remaining on track with the recommended rate increases, the last of which is a 2% increase to take place this month.
Weathers stated the Spadra Goosecamp Water Association is not a contributing factor to the current deficit. He reported the association continues to pay its bill in full each month and contributes an additional $500 monthly toward its debt to the department. Due to a contractual agreement, the Council cannot raise Spadra’s water rate unless Clarksville Connected Utilities (CCU) raises its water rates.
Weathers said the best way to address the department’s financials was to make four changes he listed in order of importance, beginning with addressing extreme water loss, followed by matching the per-meter fee charged by CCU. The third, he said, should be collecting on unpaid customer bills, and the last on the list, raising the water rates.
He said stated the most important way to stop the department’s financial loss was to begin by addressing the water loss, caused mostly by leaks, which is the most significant challenge the department faces. A large leak, which was caused by rusted-through bolts in an otherwise stainless steel saddle tap, was found and repaired in December. More leaks from the same issue are expected, and the finding and repairing of all water leaks will be a priority of the department, he said.
Hartman Water currently charges customers a $1.50 per meter fee, compared to CCU’s $3 per meter fee. Weathers repeatedly stressed the need to match this fee immediately. Tillery argued that while the fee must be raised, it alone was not enough to make a dent in the department’s financial status, and raising water rates should be the Council’s main concern. After much discussion, the Council voted in favor of waiting to make the necessary change to customers’ bills until a water rate increase was decided, as they were in agreement it was better to make both changes to customers’ bills at the same time.
Other proposed increases include raising the tap installation fee from its current $750, which does not cover labor or parts, according to water staff. Water department employees were asked to prepare an itemized list of installation costs for a future meeting. The department typically installs one new tap per year but completed at least two in 2025. Raising the connection and reconnection fees was also discussed.
To support his third point of action, Weathers read an excerpt of a letter from Sue Wollenburg, CPA, with Jones and Lawson, who is familiar with the department’s finances.
“Even though Hartman Water has increased water rates, there are a couple of factors that have an impact on the cash flow and the negative $10,000 on the November report. While I know that there will be situations where the city does not want to turn off the water for some reason (death, major illness, loss of employment, normal situations where not trying to collect), the result can be these debts eventually becoming uncollectable.”
The letter was addressed to Water Secretary Sheri Holtzman, who was not present at the meeting.
“Rick, if Sheri gives you a list of the people who have not paid for two months, do you not go out and shut off their water then?” asked Alderman Larry Roberts.
“Sometimes we do,” responded Water Superintendent Richard Gregory.
“Sometimes? No, that is not the rule we made. The rule is that if you don’t pay your water bill for two months, the water gets shut off. We need to shut them off right then. This how we are getting these unpaid bills,” said Roberts.
“Sometimes they leave and never pay,” said Weathers, who agreed the rule needed to be enforced, and unpaid bills must be collected.
The total amount of debt from unpaid customer bills was not provided.
Again, Tillery, supported by other aldermen, was adamant a water rate increase was the best course of action.
In discussion, Weathers initially suggested a 3-5% water rate increase, but later stated a 10% or higher increase may be necessary.
Aldermen discussed while the Council was the governing body of the city-run utility and must vote on the matter, they did not have the information at the time of the meeting to make an informed decision on raising the water rate. Frustration was expressed among the aldermen about not having their questions from the November meeting answered.
Between Weathers and Tillery, conflict arose over the lack of information provided by Weathers. With the mayor being the only member of the water department committee, and the one providing the monthly reports, Tillery questioned why the issue had been prevalent so long without being brought to the Council.
“We aren’t the one running the water department,” Tillery said. Weathers countered by reminding Tillery the financial situation and the decision to raise the water rate was ultimately the Council’s responsibility, according to state law.
Alderman agreed they did not have enough information to determine the percentage of rate increase needed to keep the department from a deficit. Alderman Elleen Steele and Tillery requested Weathers present financial data and firm numbers, along with a recommended rate increase for a final decision to be made at a special meeting later this month. Weathers stated that while he would try, he could not promise to meet the request, due to his own lack of full understanding of the matter. The Council decided there was need to further discuss the financials before voting on a water rate increase, which must be a minimum of 2% per the state-mandated rate study.
A motion to table the matter until a special meeting was unanimously approved.
Other Water Department Matters
The Council approved the monthly water department financial report with a vote of 5-1, with Roberts opposed.
City hall and the water department were on their second day of a phone and internet service outage, according to Weathers, who complained the services provided had become increasingly unreliable, and a point of frustration for the water department.
At the beginning of the meeting, the committee assignments were renewed, with Weathers remaining the only member of the committee dedicated to the water department.
In a related matter, the Council voted to transfer $205,852 from the water department’s state-mandated reserve account to a CD with First Security Bank, drawing 3.5% interest for five months.
In another related matter, the Council entered into executive session for the purpose of discussing cost-of-living raises for the city’s two water department staff members. The water department staff was not included in the cost-of-living raises given to other city staff members in December, due to the financial situation of the department.
Upon its return to regular session, the Council approved “the action discussed in executive session,” without publicly stating what that action was. The motion was made by Tillery and unanimously approved.
Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, (Ark. Code § 25-19-106(c)(4) (2024)) any decision considered or arrived at in executive session has no legal effect unless the public body reconvenes in open session and presents and votes on the specific action in public. Because the matter was not identified, questions remain about whether the vote complied with Arkansas’ open-meetings law. The Council also failed to follow the correct procedure of publicly voting on a similar issue after returning to open session in its November meeting.
Other Matters
-Weathers reported the city park will be repainted, saying it is “much-needed” and had not been repainted in several years. The pickleball courts will also receive new paint. Although a more recent addition to the park, they are well-utilized and also in need of fresh paint, Weathers said.
-Weathers read a proclamation declaring Tuesday, Jan. 20, as the National Day of Racial Healing, which was signed by the aldermen.
Read this story and others in the Jan. 21 issue of The Graphic, available online and at businesses throughout Franklin and Johnson counties. Subscribe or donate here to support more hometown journalism.
