Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Utility Billing Sewer topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Local business complains of $1,000 monthly sewer charge; board asks staff to study metering and billing options

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

A business representative told the Hartford Prowser Water Security Board it was charged more than $1,000 monthly for sewer service that does not appear to be used; staff were directed to analyze meter and billing options and report back next month.

A business representative told the Hartford Prowser Water Security Board that the company’s last sewer bill exceeded $1,000 despite not being connected to a sewer return and asked the board to consider alternate metering or rate approaches.

“Over a thousand dollars just for sewer,” the commenter said when describing the most recent bill and pressed the board to consider a smaller meter or an alternative monthly charge. The commenter identified himself during public comment as Gary with Freddie Mix.

Board members and staff discussed options and regulatory constraints. A staff member said that an ordinance provides for availability charges when sewer service is available even if a customer uses little or none. The commenter said most of the water they buy is sold off-site and does not return to the sewer system, and asked whether a smaller meter or special meter class could lower the charge.

Evan White (engineering) and a staff member identified as Emily were asked to run scenarios and return to the board with options. A board speaker asked staff to ensure any change would not violate state regulatory requirements: “I just wanna make sure we don't get in trouble with any regulatory agencies,” the speaker said. Board members agreed to have staff prepare scenarios for the next meeting and to consider whether a three-quarter-inch meter or low-pressure meter would be appropriate for the site.

No formal vote was recorded; the board directed staff to analyze meter-sizing and billing scenarios and to report back at the next regular meeting. The board clerk noted the meeting is typically the fourth Tuesday of the month and asked staff to return next month with findings.

The commenter said the business expects increased water usage in the coming year because of an upcoming state project at the site and asked for a timely staff response. Staff agreed to prepare rate and meter-sizing scenarios and to check regulatory obligations before implementing any billing change.