Boulder’s City Council is doubling down on its water regulations, reiterating last week that residents bear the cost of water meter fixes and replacements.
“It is clearly spelled out in the rules and regulations that the owner is responsible,” Mayor Rusty Guilio said at the Aug. 18 council meeting.
For some, the issue is not so cut and dried. Boulder resident Greg Hughes has been battling the city over water meters for months, and after the Council meeting threatened to involve his attorney.
Soon after his meter started leaking, Hughes argued at the June 16 Council meeting against city ordinance 55.07, which states that residents are barred from interfering with their water meter. Hughes saw the rule as illogical given that the city is responsible for caring for the meter.
“I can’t service it and I can’t maintain it,” Hughes said. “But if it fails, I have to pay for it? That’s not right.”
The few Boulder residents who have had to replace their meters paid for it themselves, Hughes later added, at about $350 a pop, not including labor.
“We have 500+ of these things out there and they’re not cheap,” City Administrator Brian Bullock said at the June 16 meeting, making clear the city could not afford to replace every broken meter. “We’re exposing ourselves to hundreds of thousands of dollars. All the meters in the city are over 10 years old; it’s going to happen in a lot of places over the next five to 10 years.”
The city installed Hughes’ meter along with the rest of Boulder’s in 2014, enabling the city to receive federal funds for its new waste water treatment plant. The city does not bill residents for their water usage based on the meter readings, according to Public Works Director Dennis Wortman.
However, the meters may be used in that capacity in the near future with the completion of the upgraded water system, according to the Council.
In mid-July, the city loaned Hughes a meter while his broken meter was sent to the manufacturer to determine the cause of damage. Hughes said he hired a plumber to drain and winterize the meter last fall to prevent freezing, but the manufacturer said the meter had been damaged through freezing.
At the latest Council meeting, Hughes argued that the city failed to properly protect his meter from freezing, thus he should not be liable for its replacement. After Bullock read city ordinance 55.07 – which states “the meter must be protected from freezing and other damage” – Hughes seemed to believe he had a case against the city, arguing that city rules state that it is responsible for protecting the water meters from freezing during installation.
“Everyone tells me – three plumbing companies – when they put a meter in a crawlspace, [the city] should wrap it, insulate it, protect it,” Hughes said. “None of that was done.”
City Councilwoman Pat Lewis suggested any decision on the matter be delayed until the completion of water system improvements, after which water prices are expected to increase. The higher bill from the city, the suggested, could include funds for water meter repair/replacement, but the council did not discuss the idea.
Hughes may or may not file suit against the city, but he said he was willing to pay his lawyer a retainer fee of $2,500 to battle his case against the city for the $395 meter. As he walked out of the Council meeting he warned: “You’ll lose again.”
