Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells council of $1,489 water bill; council orders meter test and to study an appeals process
Summary
Resident Matt Wagner told the Red Bud City Council he received a $1,489.77 water and sewer bill showing 136,000 gallons for one billing cycle and urged the council to address alleged incorrect meter reads and the absence of an appeals process. Councilors directed staff to test or replace the meter, consider waiving late fees while appeals proceed and return with options for more frequent reads and a formal appeal form.
A Red Bud resident urged the City Council on Oct. 6 to correct what he described as widespread and damaging errors in water-meter readings after receiving a water and sewer bill for $1,489.77 showing 136,000 gallons for a single billing cycle.
"My name is Matt Wagner. I reside at 1221 Flint Street," Wagner told the council during public comment, saying he has lived in Red Bud since 2005 and that social media shows "dozens" of other residents reporting unexpectedly high bills. He said the spike produced financial pressure for households on fixed incomes and that he could not find an appeals form or process after contacting city staff.
City utilities staff told the council they had rechecked Wagner’s meter and other recent high readings. A city utilities official said the meter readings rose dramatically over a roughly 55-day span and that the jump produced the high usage figure: "Over that 55 day period, it was a 141,000 gallons based on the meter readings," the official said. The official said staff offered to test or replace the meter and noted that meter testing is available under the city ordinance; a customer pays $25 if the meter tests within 3 percent of accuracy.
Council members pressed staff for options. One councilor proposed swapping in a new digital meter "as a show of good faith," and another asked whether the city could waive late fees for bills under appeal. Councilors agreed on several action items: staff will replace or test Wagner’s meter and report back, staff will verify whether late fees on disputed bills were (or should be) waived, and the council asked staff to draft a simple appeals form and a pros-and-cons memo on moving from the present every-other-month water-reading schedule to monthly reads.
City staff explained the difference between routine maintenance and a major, permit-triggering overhaul at the pool plant, to emphasize that some fixes (for example, full filter-room piping) would require longer permitting review and a prequalified contractor. That discussion accompanied council agreement to proceed with several other operational items (see separate story on votes and approvals).
The council did not adopt any immediate billing credit for Wagner at the meeting but agreed to follow up. The utilities official said they had offered testing and a meter swap; council members asked staff to return with the results, any recommended fee waivers, and options for changing meter-read frequency or replacing aging meters.
The council’s follow-up items, as announced at the meeting, were: (1) change or test the affected meter and report results to the council, (2) confirm whether late fees were applied while the matter was under review and recommend whether to waive them, (3) draft a written appeals process/form for disputed bills, and (4) prepare a pros-and-cons assessment of monthly meter reads and the costs of phased meter replacement.
