Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner accepts council offer to split contested Clute water charge after council hearing
Summary
After a lengthy public appeal, the council offered a compromise to split a disputed water bill arising from unauthorized water use at a vacant commercial property; the property owner accepted the 50% settlement during the meeting.
A property owner who appealed a disputed water bill told the Clute City Council Thursday she would accept the council’s offer to pay half the amount owed after a lengthy public exchange over who should be responsible for water used when service was off.
The agenda listed the matter as a request by Eulan Wang concerning the water account for a property on Bradford South. At the meeting, a speaker identifying herself as Rachel said the owner had requested service be stopped in June 2022 and that no bills were received until a tenant reactivated service in January 2025. Rachel said the owner should not be responsible for the charges because the city’s valve had been tampered with after the shutoff request.
City staff and the city attorney said records show the city shut service off after the owner’s request but that an unknown party later re‑opened the meter. The city attorney told the council the city had already paid for the water when it flowed through the meter and that, under the city’s ordinance and practice, property owners are responsible for water that passes through their meter. He said the council had previously offered a compromise to split the bill and that accepting the 50 percent offer was the practical option; declining it would risk the council voting to require full payment and potentially result in service disconnection.
The transcript shows the owner accepted the compromise during the meeting: "Okay. Alright. We'll take the 50% then," she said. Council members and staff discussed that the meter box lid at the property was not bolted down, that a secondary shutoff inside the building existed but had not been used to isolate supply, and that the city had records of meter activity that matched staff work orders.
City staff indicated they had documentation showing the meter had been turned off and later showed activity when agents re‑read the meter as part of the tenant’s application for service. The city attorney cautioned that rescinding the council’s earlier offer would remove the compromise and could result in the city requiring full payment and shutting off water for nonpayment.
The council did not vote on a formal resolution; the owner accepted the council’s prior compromise on the record and staff will follow up administratively to execute the billing adjustment.
Speakers on the record included the owner’s representative and staff; no formal appeals process beyond council review was recorded in the meeting minutes.
