Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council flags dozens of water meters not reading; city discusses replacement and tiered rates
Summary
During the May 7 budget work session the council discussed non‑reading water meters, potential costs to replace meters, impact on revenue collection and a possible move to tiered water rates. Staff and council also discussed using impact‑fee or restricted funds to pay for replacements.
EUREKA, Utah — Eureka City Council members spent part of their May 7 budget work session discussing water‑system issues, including multiple recently installed meters that are not reporting reads, how that affects revenue, and options for funding repairs or replacements.
Patricia, the staff member presenting financials, and council members discussed that some new meters ‘‘are not reading’’ and that manual reads are sometimes necessary. Council members and staff estimated costs: at one point participants calculated about 30 meters at $500 each — roughly $15,000 — as a replacement estimate for discussion.
Why it matters: Council members said meters that do not transmit readings reduce the city’s ability to bill accurately and to capture revenue from large users. Several council members also argued that known large users — including school properties tied to local water use — may not be on properly metered accounts, which lowers revenue the city could collect and complicates proposals to adjust water rates.
Details and discussion
- Meter functionality and revenue: Council members said multiple newly installed meters are not reporting. Patricia and others told council the city could manually read some meters but that the lack of automated reads means lost or delayed revenue and less reliable billing data.
- Replacement cost discussion: Participants discussed a sample calculation of about 30 meters at $500 each (total roughly $15,000) as an order‑of‑magnitude cost to replace non‑reporting meters. The figure was presented as a meeting estimate; the council did not adopt a procurement action during the session.
- Funding options and use of restricted funds: Council members discussed whether impact‑fee funds or CDs earmarked for water could be used to pay for meter replacements. Patricia said the city’s impact‑fee ordinance and restricted accounts allow certain water‑related expenditures but the council would need to confirm eligibility and account balances before authorizing transfers.
- Tiered water rates: The council discussed revisiting a tiered water‑rate structure so large users would pay more than low‑use residential customers. Members said they would like staff to model tiered scenarios and to include the water modeling in the same package as the general‑fund tax scenarios.
Ending
Council members asked staff to compile a clearer inventory of meters not reporting, firm replacement cost estimates, and proposed funding options (including whether impact‑fee or restricted water accounts could be used). They requested modeling on tiered water‑rate options and the household and large‑user impacts for consideration at a future meeting. No purchase or rate change was approved on May 7.
