Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Utility Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges excessive water‑billing charges; council says data justify charges
Summary
A resident told the Brielle council on May 26 that the borough may have collected roughly $1 million in excess reservoir fees and that many multi‑unit properties are underbilled; Councilman Nolan said data support current charges and that fees help defray debt service and fund system improvements.
At the public‑comment portion of the Brielle Mayor and Council meeting on May 26, resident Dan Burke raised detailed concerns about the borough’s water billing practices and certain fees tied to the Manasquan River reservoir.
Burke told the council he had reviewed records obtained through OPRA and estimated, based on a 2,071‑customer figure, that the borough had collected what he calculated as about $1 million in excess reservoir charges. He also said he found roughly 200 multi‑unit structures served by a single meter and raised concerns that those units pay only one meter minimum rather than individual usage. Burke said the Fire Official had been unable to provide totals for fire‑service calls, which he said hindered accurate billing, and he suggested that customers might seek refunds or pursue a class action if the issue is not resolved.
Councilman Nolan said he had provided Burke with the requested data and that the charges were intended to defray debt service on the borough’s water tanks and to support planned improvements to the system and sewer pump stations. According to the minutes, Burke responded that debt service currently runs at a low interest rate and is roughly $130,000 per year, and he noted one loan may include principal forgiveness at term end. The exchange did not result in a formal motion or vote; the minutes record the discussion and the council’s commitment to review the documentation already provided.
The matter remains an outstanding public concern: Burke pressed for further clarification and suggested potential legal remedies; the council did not take immediate action at the May 26 meeting beyond the data sharing already noted.
