Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Meters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bluff City aldermen fail to pass ordinance requiring water meters be moved to roadside easements
Summary
The Bluff City Board debated Ordinance 2026-001 to require water meters be placed on the town utility easement; staff said town crews would move meters and generally absorb meter-move costs but homeowners would be responsible for service lines. The ordinance failed after abstentions left it without enough affirmative votes.
Bluff City aldermen voted on Ordinance 2026-001, an amendment to the municipal code to require water meters be located on the town utility easement along the roadway, and the motion failed after a split roll-call vote.
Town staff presented the change as an alignment of the code with the public works manual. “The location of the meter shall be on the town utility easement along the roadway,” said Mr. Fry, who introduced the ordinance, explaining the amendment is intended to standardize meter placement and reduce the need for staff to work on private property.
During an extended Q&A residents and board members pressed staff on implementation details. Board members asked how many meters would need moving (staff estimated “somewhere in the 20 range”), whether moving long-standing meters would damage houses, and who would pay for reconnecting service lines. Town staff said the town would set a new meter at the easement and, to avoid property damage, would absorb the meter-move cost; homeowners would be responsible for the service line from the meter to their houses.
Board members also raised liability and fairness concerns. Several speakers said moving meters on older homes could create costly repairs for homeowners if service lines needed work; staff repeatedly emphasized the town intends a slow, methodical implementation and to avoid damaging property.
A motion to pass the ordinance was made by Alderman Johnson and seconded by Alderman Malone. Recorded votes: Alderwoman Payne — abstain; Alderman Malone — yes; Alderwoman Key — abstain; Alderman Johnson — yes. With only two recorded yes votes and two abstentions, the ordinance did not carry.
The board did not adopt a revised requirement at the meeting. Members said staff will continue discussing implementation details and that the subject could return to a future agenda once clarifications about costs, homeowner notifications and easement/legal language are available.
