Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Meters topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Louis board perfects water‑meter mandate after debate over $10,000 lead‑pipe cost and $2,000 meter‑set fee
Summary
After hours of debate about lead‑service replacement costs and a failed exemption for tornado‑impacted homeowners, the Board perfected Board Bill 28 requiring meters on certain new or major‑rehab water service connections. The Water Division will supply meters; members disputed whether homeowners must still pay roughly $2,000 to set meter pits when replacing lead lines.
The St. Louis Board of Aldermen on the floor perfected Board Bill 28, an ordinance requiring installation of water meters on certain new service connections and on properties undergoing major rehabilitation, after heated discussion about costs for lead service‑line replacement and a narrowly defeated exemption for tornado‑impacted residents.
Alderman from the fifth, sponsor of the bill, framed the measure as a narrow modernization step "limited in scope" and said the Water Division will cover the cost of residential water meters. "Board Bill 28 does not require all residents of the city of St. Louis to install a meter on their home," the alderman said, adding that the ordinance applies prospectively to new connections and major rehabilitation projects and is designed to bill customers for water they actually use.
Opponents and questioning members pressed a different point: several constituents who already received city notices to replace lead service lines told aldermen that replacing a lead line can cost about $10,000 and that, in addition, the city’s utility staff and contractors described an added expense (described in the record as a meter 'set' and pit) of roughly $2,000 to install and connect a meter when lead service replacement is required. "When you tell me the meter is free but then there's an additional $2,000 charge to set it, that's not the full truth," said the Alderwoman from the 12th in explaining a narrow amendment she offered to exempt a small class of tornado‑impacted owner‑occupants from the meter requirement. Her amendment to carve out tornado‑impacted homeowners failed on a roll call (four aye, 11 no).
Sponsor and other supporters repeatedly said the most opportune time to install a meter is when major work is already being done on a service line and that, in those cases, meter installation imposes no incremental work beyond the required replacement. The sponsor also said the Water Division provides and owns the meters and "furnish[es] all valve box and meter box frames and covers at no cost," citing city code during discussion.
The transcript includes back‑and‑forth with city utilities staff. Committee questioning referenced emails and a written reply from Public Utilities Director Mr. Patel that described: replacement of a lead service line is the property owner's expense (estimated about $10,000) and an estimated additional expense to add a water meter setter and pit of about $2,000. Members said that difference — meter supplied by the city versus costs to have a meter set while replacing a lead pipe — was the main cause of confusion among residents and among some members of the board.
After the vote on the exemption amendment failed, the board proceeded and perfected Board Bill 28 as amended on the floor (sustaining the sponsor's motion). The record shows the motion to perfect carried on roll call after discussion.
What happens next: the ordinance was perfected on the floor and will move forward in the process as provided by board rules (the clerk recorded the perfection vote and the bill will continue toward final consideration). The debate highlighted continuing questions about the city's approach to lead‑service replacement, the timing of meter installs and financial supports for households that must replace lead lines.
