Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Monroe council hears proposed changes to utility leak-adjustment policy, delays vote to next week
Summary
City staff proposed limiting leak adjustments to non-readily apparent leaks, excluding irrigation, toilets and faucets; setting a $2,500 cap; and requiring proof of repair within 30 days. Council asked for another week to review public comments and the draft; vote postponed.
City finance staff presented a proposed update to Monroe’s utility bill adjustment policy (Resolution 2026009) on May 12, recommending the city keep a leak-adjustment program but narrow eligibility to non-readily apparent leaks and tighten documentation and frequency rules. After discussion, the council agreed to return the item to the finance and human resources committee next week for further review rather than voting on the resolution that evening.
Liam Mccoral, who presented the draft, summarized the rationale: the city’s existing policy (adopted in 1986 and last revised in 2008) had language and practices staff now consider outdated. He said staff recommends maintaining an adjustment program but “adjusting to only allow non-readily apparent leaks,” meaning leaks not reasonably visible to a customer—such as underground or in-wall leaks—while explicitly excluding irrigation, toilet and faucet leaks from eligibility.
Mccoral described other proposed changes: allow adjustments to span two billing cycles (instead of only one), increase the frequency of allowable adjustments to once every three years (the prior practice adjusted only once in an account’s lifetime), clarify irrigation and normal-usage definitions, require proof of repair before an adjustment (repair within 30 days of detection and a form submitted within 60 days), and set a maximum adjustment of $2,500.
Council members raised concerns and asked for more time to review the staff memo and prior public comments. Council Member Blair asked to defer action so members could double-check that earlier public-comment recommendations were incorporated; Council Member Fulture said he was “totally okay with us moving it a week so we can all have time to dive in deeply.” The council directed staff to bring the item back at the next business meeting. Staff noted Mccoral will not be present next week but other staff (Ben or Deborah) can attend to answer questions.
Because no final motion or vote was taken on Resolution 2026009 on May 12, the council has not adopted any of the proposed changes. The item remains under committee review and will return to the council for further consideration.
