Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Meters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Little Falls council rejects purchase of 50 remote water meters
Summary
The Little Falls City Council voted against buying 50 remote on/off water meters and associated network service after extended debate about cost, budget timing and enforcement alternatives.
The Little Falls City Council on Jan. 1, 2025, voted against a staff recommendation to buy 50 remote on/off water meters and enroll them in a networked service intended to allow remote shutoffs.
The proposal, presented by Greg (staff member), called for purchasing 50 meters at $535.72 each (total $33,488.15) and paying an ongoing network fee of $3,000 per year to enable remote on/off capability. Councilmember Myers moved to approve the purchase; Councilmember Lundberg seconded. After discussion the motion failed.
Why it mattered: Council members debated whether the upfront and recurring costs were appropriate immediately after approving the city budget. Supporters emphasized staff safety and the operational convenience of remotely shutting off service for problem accounts in winter. Opponents said the purchase was not in the recently adopted budget and that alternatives — increased police presence during shutoffs, phased implementation, or placing meters on targeted problem accounts only — merited further study.
Greg told the council the meters include a solenoid to enable remote shutoff and a tamper alarm; he also said the payback period on reduced field visits would be about 20 years. "It's about 20 years out before we get the payback," Greg said, noting staff-safety benefits and the ability to avoid confrontational in-person shutoffs in cold weather.
Council questions focused on cost details, phasing and whether the water equipment fund had contingency to cover the purchase. Councilmembers raised that many accounts on the shutoff list were a small number of customers who nonetheless impose recurring costs on the utility and suggested enforcement alternatives, including police presence during field shutoffs and social-service referrals.
Outcome and next steps: The motion to purchase 50 remote meters failed. Council asked staff to revisit the idea and report back in roughly six months with updated options, including phased purchases or targeting the highest-frequency accounts.
Votes and procedural: Motion to approve purchase — moved by Councilmember Myers, seconded by Councilmember Lundberg; outcome — failed (final roll-call tallies not specified in the transcript).
Ending: Staff was directed to return with more information and possible phased approaches; no purchase was authorized at this meeting.
