Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Master Meter Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Prince George’s County committee holds bill to allow master meters in duplex‑to‑condo conversions
Summary
A county General Assembly Committee voted to hold MCPG11525 after members raised concerns about shared utility billing, long‑term costs for condo associations and gaps in data about impacts on residents.
The Prince George’s County General Assembly Committee voted Jan. 21 to hold MCPG11525, a bill that would allow master water meters for duplexes constructed or converted to condominium or cooperative ownership in the county.
The bill’s sponsor, Delegate Marvin Holmes, asked the committee to consider an exemption for certain duplexes from existing prohibitions on master meters. Lorenzo Bellamy of Bellamy Gen Group briefed the committee, saying the proposal would let buildings that become condominiums use a single master meter for the building water system rather than individual unit meters.
The matter drew immediate questions about how shared meters would affect residents’ bills and condo associations’ finances. “When you have a master meter, that’s a shared meter, meaning everyone pays into it,” Council member Sydney Harrison said. Harrison added a concern about maintenance: “Individuals that aren’t utilizing proper maintenance inside their unit could be costly to another individual.”
Council member De Nogue described experience in his district with older condo associations that sought to replace master meters with individual meters because shared billing left a shrinking pool of paying residents to absorb others’ unpaid bills. “By putting more condo units into master meters, it’s just gonna create a downstream problem,” he said, describing past county investments to help associations convert to individual metering.
Acting County Executive Tara Jackson told the committee the administration “has no position on PG C11525.” Committee members moved to hold the bill so staff could gather more information, particularly about how the measure would affect household billing and development costs. Vice Chair Fisher moved to hold; Council member Harrison seconded; the roll call vote was unanimous and the motion to hold carried.
The committee did not set a new date for reconsideration. The bill remains in an informational hold while committee staff and members seek further technical and fiscal details, including how a master‑meter approach would be implemented and whether regulators or utilities would need to change billing practices.
