Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Meter Testing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs paid meter-testing service and addresses lead-service-line notification misstep
Summary
Staff proposed a mobile meter-testing contract (Advanced Meter Services) priced at roughly $11-12k to audit a sampling of commercial and residential meters; the committee discussed opt-in vs. random sampling and whether testing should be budgeted. Staff also confirmed the city missed a 30‑day lead-service-line notification requirement (notifications went out in 60 days), posted the required notice and said there was no contamination reported.
Staff told the committee that Advanced Meter Services provided a quote to perform an on-site, mobile meter-auditing campaign covering commercial CT meters and a sample of residential (self-contained) meters. The quoted scope listed 25 commercial meters at a higher per-unit rate and 285 residential-style meters at a lower per-unit rate, with a total near $12,000 under the October quote.
"This would be an additional cost not currently in the budget," staff said; staff also said the amount had been plugged into the draft electric budget for planning. Committee members discussed whether to allow customers to opt in (people with concerns about their own meters) or to run a random sample or street-by-street approach to build public confidence. Operations staff described how the mobile test works: a truck-mounted metrology rig tests meters live at the service without disconnecting service and provides a written report. Operations staff cautioned that meter failures are typically stoppages or physical damage rather than a pattern of wildly inaccurate meters.
The committee asked whether individual customers would receive results; staff said they would discuss that with the vendor. Staff suggested offering an initial pilot or opt-in round to assess demand and public responsiveness before committing to a recurring program.
On lead-service-line compliance, staff said the city completed hydrovac investigations on schedule but failed to notify affected residents within the 30-day regulatory window; notifications were mailed within 60 days, which the staff characterized as a procedural violation. "We missed that 30-day requirement...They were notified within 60 days...Because we didn't meet the 30 days, it's considered a violation," staff said. Staff said the remedy was publishing the notice in the newspaper, posting it on the office bulletin board and adding it to the city website; the water quality report itself showed no contamination.
Staff will return with a budgeted option if the committee wants a meter-testing pilot and will report back on vendor details and customer-notification procedures.
