Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Leak Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hurricane water board approves leak-billing relief for resident after two service-line breaks
Summary
The Hurricane Water Board approved a leak adjustment for resident Sharon Summers after hearing that Summers paid $11,000 to replace a failed service line; the board cited its past practice of moving affected accounts to a lower usage tier and cutting the bill roughly in half.
The Hurricane Water Board voted to approve a leak adjustment for resident Sharon Summers after a neighbor and water engineer described two major service-line breaks and a full-line replacement that cost about $11,000.
Rod Mills, a water engineer who said he was speaking on Summers’ behalf, told the board that Summers “had a couple of really significant breaks on her side of the meter in the last 3 years” and that the most recent repair required replacing the line from the meter into the house. Mills said the replacement cost was “$11,000.”
Board members reviewed the city’s leak-adjustment ordinance during the discussion. One board member read the ordinance aloud, saying in part: “If a water leak is detected by the customer and brought to the attention of the city and then repaired immediately by the customer at her own expense, the city may split the additional water usage above the minimum charge if requested by the customer.” The board noted that the formal ordinance allows the city to split excess usage but that the board has an established practice of going beyond the code in individual cases.
Board members and staff reviewed Summers’ billing history. Staff reported the leak alarm on Summers’ account began in June and that the line was repaired in September; the bill at issue was due Sept. 15. Staff also identified surcharge charges on the account of $95 and $85 and said Summers had received a prior leak adjustment in December 2023. The water-usage portion of the bill under review was listed in the meeting materials as $302.59.
Several board members said the board’s past practice when customers have made a documented permanent repair is to move the usage into the lower tier and to cut the excess portion roughly in half. Karianne Lisonbee, speaking in support of following past practice, said that using the same approach “gets her to about her average bill.” Board discussion included a proposal to set Summers’ billed amount at her average bill level so the adjustment would approximate her typical seasonal usage.
A board member motioned to “configure what her average bill is and just go with that” as the basis for the adjustment; another board member seconded the motion. The motion carried by voice vote. (The transcript records a unanimous “aye” on the voice vote but does not provide a roll-call tally.)
After the vote staff told Summers’ representative that city staff would prepare the paperwork and that Summers would need to come to city offices to sign the adjustment forms.
The action the board approved was procedural relief on Summers’ account rather than a change to the city ordinance; board members said any broader change to the leak-adjustment policy would require a later ordinance amendment and additional discussion.
