Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Billing Customer Complaint topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beverly resident tells council meter issue left him with a high bill; says city delayed inspection
Summary
Elliot Margolis told the Beverly City Council that a $420 water bill—far above his typical charge—was not investigated promptly and that city staff refused immediate meter testing. He said he paid only his usual amounts while contesting the charge and provided the council copies of his correspondence.
A Beverly resident told the City Council Monday he received a significantly higher water bill and said the city delayed investigating the meter.
Elliot Margolis of 6 Cobblers Lane addressed the council during the public comment period, saying he received a bill for about $420 approximately a year ago while his typical total bills had been about $150. “If I had a leak of that much money flowing around, I’d know it,” Margolis said, adding that he had been told by city staff the higher reading was likely due to a leak or a running toilet. He said staff refused his requests for an immediate meter check and that it took about five months for someone to come out and test the meter.
Margolis said his subsequent bills returned to their previous levels and that his household now has much lower usage (he described the most recent two bills as being about $60 including trash and sewer). He told the council he was not trying to avoid payment but sought fair treatment: “I’m not here to cheat the city out of money, but, you know, what’s fair is fair,” he said.
The council timekeeper stopped Margolis after three minutes to keep to the public-comment time limit; Margolis said he had provided written materials and handed copies to the clerk.
Councilors did not take action during the public-comment period. The council president invited Margolis to provide his written materials to the City Clerk so they could be reviewed. No immediate staff response was recorded on the council floor during the meeting.
Margolis’ remarks were in the public-comment portion of the Oct. 6 meeting; the matter was not listed on the agenda as a formal dispute or administrative appeal in the meeting record.
