Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Utilities topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Waterville schedules hearing on proposed mandatory city-water hookup for indoor use; minutes note voting discrepancy

Waterville City Council · May 6, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Council set a public hearing for June 3 on a proposed ordinance (51.020-2025) to require residents to connect to city water for indoor use and impose a $10 monthly surcharge for those remaining on wells; minutes record that a first-reading motion to approve the ordinance and surcharge was not voted on (audio discrepancy).

The Waterville City Council scheduled a public hearing for June 3 on proposed Ordinance 51.020-2025, which would require properties to connect to the city water system for indoor use and impose a $10-per-month surcharge on properties that remain on private wells for administrative and metering costs.

Administrator Teresa Hill said the ordinance would affect fewer than 10 properties and that exceptions would apply where connection is not feasible. The proposed rule would allow well water for outdoor watering but require city water for indoor use because of metering and sewer-billing issues Hill described.

Minutes note there was a motion by Councilmember Tim Smith "to approve the first reading of the proposed ordinance 51.020-2025 and set the surcharge of $10 per month" but include an editor’s parenthetical that this vote "WAS NEVER VOTED ON" according to the meeting audio. Regardless of that discrepancy, council subsequently voted to set a public hearing on the ordinance for the June 3 regular meeting at 6 p.m.; that motion passed 4-0.

If the ordinance advances, the surcharge and the mandatory connection provisions would be subject to public comment at the June hearing. Hill said residents would not be required to connect when connection is infeasible, and the surcharge is intended to cover administrative costs and metering for nonconnected properties.