Audit finds about $229,000 in potential wastewater overcharges for Harvest customers; council sets refund process

A consultant hired by the town found that customers in the Harvest development were billed wastewater rates inconsistently between inside‑city and outside‑city rates at various times since 2018, producing an estimated $229,000 in potential refunds for affected customers.

Raftelis presented a GIS and billing analysis during the March 17 council meeting. The firm reviewed 79 months of billing data (2018–2024), compared billed rates to the town’s wastewater ordinances, and matched customer accounts to the appropriate service area. Raftelis reported that the bulk of the misbilling occurred beginning in 2021 and identified roughly 1,000+ affected billing instances across several years. The consultant’s time‑series breakout estimated refunds for Harvest customers by year and summed to approximately $229,000.

Raftelis’ Angie Flores and Christopher (surname provided in packet) walked council through the methodology: mapping the Harvest buildout, checking each account’s billed fixed and volumetric charges, and comparing those charges to the rate the customer should have been billed. Staff and Raftelis emphasized that the presented dollar amount is the consultant’s calculated amount owed, but an administrative verification and resident claim process must confirm who is entitled to refunds—especially where residences changed occupants.

Town staff said Argyle Water Supply Corporation provides metering and billing services for many customers and that a miscommunication to Argyle Water Supply about rate changes led to the discrepant billing that went undetected for more than a year. Staff also said Belmont Freshwater Supply District had prepared a refundable claim form and had collected notarized attestation forms from residents; as of the meeting staff reported receiving 49 completed forms.

Council discussed how refunds should be issued and by whom; staff said the town would issue refunds because revenue received from Argyle Water Supply is held by the town. Council members asked staff to set an end date for residents to submit refund claims. Council consensus was to allow a relatively long filing window; staff said they can accommodate a calendar‑year window and bring closures into the town’s fiscal planning. Council directed staff to coordinate with Belmont Freshwater and Argyle Water Supply to verify claimants and to implement administrative controls to prevent similar miscommunications in the future.

Next steps included staff and Raftelis continuing a system‑wide evaluation for other potential discrepancies, finalizing the claim verification process, determining the final refund list, and issuing payments (town checks) after verification. Raftelis and staff also will recommend operational checks and communication steps to avoid repeating the problem.