Aldermen agreed Tuesday night to take a look at policies ondeposits for water service inside the city after a request by onealderman to transfer deposit credits from one location toanother.

Ward Four Alderman Shirley Estes said she had a constituent whohad recently moved from a rental home, where he had paid a $75deposit, into a home he had bought. The new deposit was $125, andEstes asked if there was anything to say that since he was in goodstanding, his initial $75 deposit could not be transferred andapplied to the new location.

“When we set the policy, we didn’t address that,” she said. “Itseems to make sense that if we have someone in good standing theircurrent deposit should be adequate.”

Ward Five Alderman D.W. Maxwell agreed with Estes.

“I’m sure the policy is refund the old one and pay the new one,in other words refund the old one and do a new deposit for the newhome. That’s how it’s been for new customers as well as existingcustomers,” he said. “Shirley is saying we should have a specialdeal for existing customers and I agree.”

The board discussed the fact that the deposit was raised inrecent years because of the bad debt accrued by the city frompeople who left outstanding water bills when they relocate.Aldermen pointed out that people who own homes are a lot lesslikely to leave behind a bill than renters.

“Someone who buys their own home is less likely to leave in themiddle of the night,” Ward One Alderman Dorsey Cameron said.

City Attorney Joe Fernald said part of the deposit also goestoward the cost.

“It’s not just for protection, there’s a cost factor,” he said.”The cost to do all the work that is necessary has gone upexponentially.”

Estes said she’d just like city officials to take a look at thepolicy and clarify it further.

The board also briefly discussed the city’s recent audit for theyear ending in September 2008.

By law, the city has to have an audit every year, and in recentyears it has been conducted by Pat Lowery and Associates, CityClerk Mike Jinks said.

“The counties are done by the state, but the city contracts anauditor to do the audit every year,” Jinks said.

The audit reported no deficiencies or disclosures ofnoncompliance, Jinks told the board, saying there were no findingsagainst the city in the audit.

“Basically it was a really good audit,” said Mayor LesBumgarner.

The mayor also told the board a citizen had suggested the emptylot at the corner of Monticello Street and Whitworth Avenue be usedas a two-story parking garage. Bumgarner said in his experience, hehas seen parking garages used by people who park there for workeach day and pay in bulk, but not as much by shoppers and one-timeparkers.

“This was just a suggestion this person made, and I’m passing italong,” he said.

Maxwell pointed out that it might not be a bad idea for land thecity already owns.

“It seems better to put a second floor over the railroad parkinglot,” he said. “It makes much more sense.”

Bumgarner said the citizen was concerned about parking spotstaken up by employees of downtown businesses parking in front ofthe stores and filling up parking spots.

“Let’s hope parking does become a problem,” Ward Six AldermanDavid Phillips said with a laugh.