Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alma commissioners weigh $100 fee, escalation and enforcement to complete SRF-funded meter and service-line replacements
Summary
City staff proposed a $100 monthly fee for properties that refuse contractor access to replace water meters and galvanized service lines under a state SRF grant; commissioners debated outreach, escalators and the risk of future higher costs and potential shutoffs if compliance fails.
Alma City staff briefed the City Commission on plans to use state Drinking Water Revolving Fund (DWSRF) grant money to replace aging water meters and private galvanized service lines, and proposed a draft resolution to add a monthly fee for properties that decline contractor access.
The proposal, described by a staff member (Unidentified Speaker 4), would assess a monthly charge — suggested at $100 — on water bills for properties that refuse to allow contractors to complete SRF-funded replacements. "We're not gonna force our way in … we'll just assess a fee if you if we do pass a resolution," the staff member told commissioners, noting staff preference for outreach and voluntary cooperation before assessing charges.
Why it matters: the city needs access to private connections to meet state timelines attached to the SRF funds and to replace meters that staff say are decades old. Staff said recent rate increases cover bond payments for the SRF loan and will help build capital savings, but incomplete access could force the city to use staff time or higher-cost interventions later.
Commissioners pressed for clearer escalation rules, caps and outreach. "After a year, that's still not doing it. Maybe it should be what that cost would be to us if we have to do this," one commissioner (Unidentified Speaker 2) said, urging a data-driven fee tied to the city's actual replacement cost. Another commissioner asked whether the city could ultimately shut off service for noncompliance; a different commissioner cautioned against shutoffs but acknowledged the city faces state mandates and potential grant repayment risks if the work is not completed.
Unidentified Speaker 1, speaking during the discussion, said the law limits early charging to individual property owners and the city must follow state rules: "It has to be charged to the city as a whole, according to the state rules," they said, noting legal constraints about attaching upfront replacement costs to individual owners.
Staff proposed returning with drafted resolution language that would include an escalator or review point after a year and that staff would consult state officials and the city attorney on enforcement and legal compliance. Several commissioners asked staff to prepare a clearer cost estimate for noncompliance (contractor cost vs. in-house work) and to strengthen outreach (letters, door tags, community notices) before implementing any fee.
Next steps: staff said they would draft specific language (including possible escalation terms), consult with state and legal counsel, and return to the commission in a future meeting for formal consideration. The commission received the report and took no immediate vote on a fee at the session.
