Residents press council on water bill spikes as board reviews $72M wastewater bond and AMI meter plan

Residents and council members pressed Georgetown Municipal Water and Sewer Service about recurring water-quality incidents and unexplained spikes in household water bills during the City Council meeting on Oct. 27.

At public comment, resident Bill Abernathy said an August water event produced a strong odor and taste that left visitors unable to drink tap water and said such events occur about once a year. He also described ‘‘large, unexplained jumps’’ in water bills and criticized what he called an opaque complaint and appeals process, urging council to require public accounting and a transparent appeals mechanism; he also asked that a previously closed-door water department meeting on Oct. 7 be disclosed to the public. Dan Holman of Georgetown echoed those concerns and said requests for historical reports on rate spikes had produced conflicting replies from water-board staff.

Council then heard a detailed first reading from Georgetown Municipal Water and Sewer Service on a Series 2025A water and sewer revenue bond package that would refund outstanding bond anticipation notes, redeem prior series and provide capital for plant upgrades. The bond presentation described a par amount of $72,030,000 and estimated total proceeds — including premium — just under $74 million; staff said the bond-sale date is targeted for Nov. 18 with closing in early December and cautioned some figures are estimates until the sale.

Officials said other funding sources include a $5 million federal grant for a South Side storage tank and roughly $13.9 million in cash applied from system reserves, reducing the amount to be borrowed compared with earlier plans. The plan also includes a $3 million allocation for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) replacements intended to provide more frequent reads and a customer app that could alert residents to usage spikes.

Council members repeatedly pressed staff on consumer impacts. One asked whether the smaller borrowing amount would keep rates lower; staff said there are no immediate plans to lower rates and that the revised financing creates roughly $1–1.5 million per year of system savings compared with earlier projections, which could fund additional capital projects over time. Staff also described required bond issuance items including a debt service reserve fund (about $4.6 million estimated) and estimated issuance costs (about $2 million). Municipal advisor Chip Sullivan clarified the bonds are water revenue bonds and do not count against the city’s general-obligation debt capacity, though rating agencies consider community-level debt burden when evaluating credit.

Council asked the water utility for follow-up materials. Members specifically requested: counts of consumer complaints about billing spikes, current meter inspection schedules, the utility’s complaint-handling and appeals process, and a project list tied to the borrowings; staff agreed to provide additional details at the second reading and requested reports be distributed to council ahead of the Nov. 10 meeting.

Next procedural steps: the ordinance received a first reading Oct. 27; staff said they expect a second reading and a possible approval vote at the Nov. 10 council meeting, bond sale Nov. 18, and closing Dec. 9.