We can save a lot of money by eliminating that dual access.

We are very glad the bill was paid. The whole issue's been financial all along. To get the bill current and a deposit for some future payments is reassuring to the city from a financial standpoint.

In terms of the stance of the payment of the bill, the owner does have to pay the bill, and that's indeed what it'll take to get the water back on.

I think it represents a city that cares about the citizens that are out there.

This is one of the few years where they have not had more money. As a survivor, I think we would be better spending money on an illness like cancer,

A lot of them were very specific requests, like what grant money was used for rather than what recipient got how much money.