Livingston delays smart‑meter purchase after residents raise health, privacy and billing concerns

The Livingston City Commission paused a consent‑item purchase of 250 new water meters on Tuesday after multiple residents raised health, privacy and billing concerns and asked the city to provide more information about opt‑out options.

Why it matters: The city is updating aging meter infrastructure for remote reads and operational efficiency across roughly 4,000 utility accounts, but several residents told the commission they fear radio‑frequency health effects, increased surveillance of household energy use and billing errors. Commissioners directed staff to return with a report on technical details, health and safety information and the feasibility of an opt‑out program before the commission acts on the purchase order.

At public comment, Linda Marr of 113 South Dem Speak told the commission she was opposed to the Ferguson smart meters under consideration and cited a decades‑old compilation of studies: "As early as 1971, the US Naval Medical Research Institute viewed 2,300 scientific studies on biological and health effects of low intensity EMR signals ... and found 132 different biological effects, symptoms, and diseases." Anne Fuller, a Livingston resident, said she would refuse a smart meter on her house and called the devices intrusive: "It spies on you. It's not necessary." Arlene Romer DeFeltreya and others added examples and cited news reports and testimony they said raised concerns about over‑recording and battery and fire risks.

City staff described the meters and the purchase timeline. "The city of Livingston has embarked upon this replacement of the meters and associated infrastructure so that these can be remotely read from a tower," said City Manager Gager. He said the new system is an industry standard and that the city previously bought base‑station equipment; the current purchase order covers 250 meters of the roughly 4,000 utility accounts and represents the start of a multi‑year conversion. Gager told the commission staff would investigate an opt‑out program "if that's something that is of interest to the commission." He added staff would report back with technical and policy details.

Commissioners and staff discussed next steps. Some commissioners indicated they wanted more information before approving the purchase. One commissioner said they were "comfortable hearing more information from staff about what we have now," and another recommended delaying action so the public's concerns could be addressed. After discussion, the commission agreed not to act on the purchase order at this meeting and to ask staff to prepare a report that covers health and safety literature, billing/audit experience, opt‑out feasibility and the technical design of the proposed system.

The commission did not adopt or reject the meter purchase; the item was held for further review.

What happens next: Staff will gather technical documentation from the manufacturer, describe current read methods and the planned communications architecture, and return to the commission with options for opt‑out or alternative installations and responses to the public's questions. The commission explicitly asked staff to include feasible timelines for rollout and clarification about notice and replacement procedures for customers whose meters reach end of life.

Community context: Callers said alternatives such as continued drive‑by reads or retaining manual dials — which staff said are still in limited use — are of interest to some customers. The city manager noted the staged purchase (250 meters now) means full conversion will take several years, which creates an operational window to consider opt‑out policies.