Residents press Sugar Grove board on high summer sewer bills; staff to study irrigation and pool credits

A resident’s public comment and a lengthy board discussion on Aug. 19 drew attention to high summer water and sewer bills and how the village should handle credits for pools and irrigation systems. The board directed staff to analyze irrigation accounts and the fiscal effect of any sewer credits and return with options. Why it matters: Several residents said they pay substantially more for sewer service in summer months because water used for lawn irrigation or pool filling does not reach the sanitary sewer but is nonetheless billed for sewer transport and maintenance. Trustees said the village should consider equitable options without undermining water-conservation goals. Public comment: Dan, a resident, told the board his two summer bills included a village sewer charge of $335 and a Fox Metro charge of $401 for the same period. “If I call Fox Metro and say that I have a sprinkler system and a pool, they send me a new bill and the new bill is credited to me,” Dan said. He said Fox Metro reduced a $401 bill to $113 by crediting roughly $280; he asked why the village could not offer a similar credit. Staff response and next steps: Finance director Amanda Anastasia explained current village practice: pool-fill requests are handled as a one-time annual sewer credit based on historical winter usage, and the village does not yet track irrigation use centrally. Public Works staff said irrigation systems are identified by RPZ/backflow device certification but that adding separate temporary meters or a second permanent meter carries maintenance and administrative costs. Amanda said she will compile counts of certified irrigation (RPZ) accounts, historical pool-fill credits and an estimate of revenue impact from credits; she told the board she expects to return with findings and options at the next board meeting. Technical context: Village staff noted two separate sewer charges appear on bills: a flat sewer-maintenance fee (for village-owned pipes and lift stations) that applies even if a home is unused, and a usage-based sewer charge that reflects flows the village transports toward the regional treatment agency. Fox Metro treats and charges for sewer volume downstream; the village maintains pipes leading to Fox Metro and charges for those services. Trustee discussion: Trustees asked staff whether a separate hydrant/temporary meter (as used by some neighboring communities) or an RPZ-based credit could be implemented. Several trustees said any credit should not encourage wasteful watering and should be balanced against the village’s water-conservation code. Anastasia said she would quantify the number of RPZ-registered irrigation systems and model the revenue impact of several credit formulas. No vote was taken. Staff will return with a data-driven recommendation, including estimated revenue effects, possible program mechanics (RPZ verification, temporary meter use), and wording changes to the utility bill to clarify flat vs. usage sewer charges.