Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities Sewer Adjustment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Martinsville board discounts Hardee's sewer charge after dispute over notification and repairs

3318814 · May 13, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Martinsville officials reviewed a $10,895.17 sewer adjustment for a Hardee's restaurant, heard timeline discrepancies about when the restaurant and its corporate office were notified, and approved a 70% bill discount while directing improved notification tracking.

Martinsville Board of Works members reviewed a $10,895.17 sewer adjustment for a local Hardee’s restaurant and voted to discount the charge by 70% after hearing conflicting accounts about when the company was notified and when repairs were completed.

City staff told board members the amount of the sewer adjustment was $10,895.17 and said the leak was first noticed at the back door on March 4. Pamela Larissa, representing Hardee’s, described a sequence of calls and visits: she said the wire company visited March 4 and told the restaurant the issue was on their side, that Gordon Plumbing came March 6 and later provided a repair quote, and that the plumbing work was completed by March 17. She also said corporate (“home office in Texas”) handles billing and that the restaurant received mixed messages about what had been paid and what remained outstanding.

Board members pressed staff for clearer records about who was notified and when. Kelly (staff member) said there was a “breakdown of communication” and that the council lacked a representative from the water department in the meeting. City questions included why the restaurant’s bills spiked in January and February before the March repair and whether notices sent to the restaurant’s home office were received locally.

Legal counsel (Dale) was asked whether the city had authority to split the difference on the bill. After discussion, a council member moved to discount the bill by 70%; another member seconded the motion. The motion was adopted and the board directed staff to adopt a new practice for tracking water-notification attempts, including documenting who was contacted and when.

Clarifying details provided to the Board included: city staff saying the leak was visible March 4; Gordon Plumbing’s visit March 6 and a follow-up repair completed by March 17; the restaurant reporting it was asked to pay $2,196.15 during recent communications; and the restaurant’s assertion that some notices may have been sent to its Texas home office rather than to local managers. The board recorded the action and asked staff to improve notification logs.

The board’s action addressed the immediate billing dispute and assigned staff responsibility for procedural changes; no change to the city’s billing authority or ordinance was cited during the discussion.