Millville officials weigh final $5M phase of water‑meter upgrade after lengthy Q&A on costs, warranties and procurement

Millville City officials spent the bulk of their Jan. 16 work session poring over the citywide water‑meter upgrade project, as contractors and staff laid out installation progress, remaining material needs and contract‑and‑warranty questions ahead of a possible purchase‑order for the final phase.

The presentation, given to the Millville City Commission, said the program began in 2024 and that roughly 2,100 meters have been installed to date with about 3,600 meters ordered across commercial and residential accounts. Meter project staff said the city needs roughly 5,060 5/8‑inch meters and 188 one‑inch meters plus thousands of radios and in‑home touch pads to complete citywide coverage.

Why it matters: the project is financed by a municipal bond and, depending on procurement and additive repair costs, the city could exceed projected spending unless it locks price and supply now. Commissioners repeatedly pressed staff on the likelihood and scale of additional on‑site repairs — known in the project as “adders” — and on who bears storage and warranty risk for meters kept in containers on city property.

MeterTech and distributor representatives said resident nonresponse and aging plumbing are slowing installers and creating the need for adders — parts or limited plumbing work technicians must perform to complete some installs. “On an average, that $250 covers the cost of the repairs,” said Keith, a representative working with the distributor, describing the average cost the vendor used to estimate funding for adders. He and MeterTech representatives said adders occur unevenly but estimated they appear in the neighborhood of 10% of installations in the most challenging neighborhoods.

City staff and commissioners discussed whether the adders had been included in prior purchase orders. “The ordinance would have to be amended if you want to include a late [fee], because that’s not in the original ordinance,” said Mr. Russell during a different agenda item earlier in the meeting; during the meter discussion staff described that some earlier purchase orders omitted adder pricing and the parties negotiated reduced adder rates to avoid repeated return visits and to limit contractor markup.

Storage and warranty were frequent themes. Staff acknowledged meters are being stored in a container on city property and commissioners asked who is legally responsible for loss, damage, theft or weather‑related harm to the inventory while it is in storage. Meter project staff said the vendor typically warranties installed meters and that they would “warranty them” in the unlikely event a storage problem damaged units, but commissioners asked for clearer, written contractual liability language before authorizing further purchases. Staff offered a mitigation step: staging shipments in multiple deliveries to spread risk and to align ship dates with installation capacity.

The city’s recurring subscription fee for the hosting and software service that runs meter reads (a SaaS licensing cost) was discussed as an ongoing operating expense. Project staff estimated that once the city crosses 5,000 meters the annual hosting/license fee would be roughly $15,000 per year and that it would increase by about 3% annually thereafter.

Several commissioners asked for payoff projections and revenue estimates showing how faster, more accurate reads would affect city water revenue and bond payback timelines. Project staff said prior presentations estimated the bond might pay off within five to 10 years under certain assumptions, but they had not yet delivered a formal, written payback study for the current procurement and installation schedule.

Next steps: staff said they plan to place a purchase‑order resolution on the commissioners’ upcoming Tuesday agenda to authorize buying the remaining meters and locking special pricing. Commissioners asked for clarifying contract language on warranty, storage liability, the exact inclusions of adders, and a written estimate of revenue impact before finalizing the PO.

Key voices: Derek and Christina of the meter vendor answered technical and installation questions; Keith (distributor) discussed adder pricing and averages; Trish (city CFO) confirmed budget availability for the next purchase; and commissioners pressed for written contract terms and a formal payoff estimate.

The commission did not vote on the purchase order during the Jan. 16 session; staff said the matter would be on the next formal meeting agenda.