Council presses for improved utility communications after customer waited 48 hours to be reconnected

Councilors spent substantial time on Nov. 10 examining the town’s utility reconnection and deposit practices after a customer, identified in the meeting as Amber Dietz, reported waiting about 48 hours for service to be restored following an online payment.

Council members pressed clerk and utility staff for a clear explanation of why the reconnection was delayed. Staff said the customer had been on a payment arrangement, had missed the original agreement and later paid a settlement amount (reported in the meeting as roughly $300). The clerk and utilities staff said the reconnection should have occurred after the confirmed payment but that the office’s single phone line and heavy volume of scam calls may have led to missed notifications. Utility staff confirmed they received confirmation later and that no one had notified field crews promptly.

Members asked whether the town should refund the reconnection fee and sought changes to internal communication and procedural checklists to avoid future delays. One councilor argued that if a customer paid the amount she was told to pay, the delay was not the customer’s fault and the reconnection fee should be refunded; staff noted the customer still owed a larger outstanding balance under the original arrangement and that reconnection policy requires payment terms to be honored.

Separately, the council reviewed landlord-deposit practices after a resident (Jeanie/Jeanne Reed) asked to recover deposit funds dating from 2004 and other years. Councilors noted the town’s old Keystone records should show whether a $100 landlord deposit exists; clerk staff said hookup and nonrecurring fees (about $41) are nonrefundable, while deposit balances can be refunded if proven in the account record. Council asked staff to research ordinance language, historic Keystone records and the statutory authority underlying landlord-deposit policy and to bring recommended procedural changes back to council.

Council did not adopt immediate refunds at the meeting but directed staff to review the customer’s account records, consider refunding reconnection fees when delays are caused by internal miscommunication and provide recommended ordinance or policy changes at a future meeting.