Council discusses tenant utility accounts, Tyler Tech billing, and phasing out 90‑day suspension

Council and staff held an extended workshop on whether utility accounts should be in tenants’ or owners’ names, the city’s billing and lien authority, and whether to keep a 90‑day suspension that allows customers to suspend water, sewer and garbage charges while remaining liable for stormwater.

Riley, city utilities staff, explained the city’s current policy: owners are on accounts by default and owners can add tenants as authorized payers. When an owner's name is on the account the city can place a lien or disconnect service to recover unpaid balances; if the account is only in a tenant’s name, the city loses its standard lien remedy against the property and recovery becomes harder. Riley said the city currently sets a $200 disconnection threshold for past‑due accounts and that the city uses robo‑calls to notify delinquencies.

Council members expressed support for tenant access to online payment options and for putting both tenant and owner on bills, but several also cited the city’s need to protect ratepayer funds and infrastructure. Riley said the city plans to implement a Tyler Tech billing module within the year; staff estimated a seven‑ to eight‑month timeline for that upgrade and said the new system can show both owner and tenant information on bills.

On disconnect and deposit policy, staff described a $100 service charge for a physical meter shutoff (a $50 disconnect fee and a $50 reconnect fee). Staff also explained that even when meters are physically shut off by city crews, base infrastructure charges for water and sewer still apply; stormwater is not suspended under current code. Riley warned that irrigation-only meters pose a special issue: if customers suspend base charges on irrigation meters, capital‑project funding tied to those base charges would be undercut.

The council also reviewed ordinance 1469, which currently allows a 90‑day suspension of water, wastewater and garbage services; staff said the ordinance is vague about whether suspensions may be extended or re‑applied consecutively and that the policy can be misused. Lilac Gardens representatives told council they had previously benefited from seasonal irrigation suspensions and said year‑round base charges imposed a financial burden. Council discussed the competing goals of protecting city infrastructure revenue and accommodating wintering residents or nonprofit irrigation needs.

There was general direction from council to staff to draft revisions eliminating the open-ended 90‑day suspension and to consider a narrowly defined exception for nonprofits (Lilac Gardens was mentioned as an example). Council member Friend explicitly supported removing the 90‑day suspension while allowing nonprofit exceptions; Council member Reynolds asked staff to return with ordinance language and fiscal scenarios for further council review. No ordinance vote was taken at the meeting; staff will return with a workshop and potential action item after drafting revisions and providing financial analyses.