The city of Princeton issued $1 million in wastewater refunds last month to residents — but the city may owe residents even more money.
Princeton residents have long complained about high water and sewer charges. Madelyn Awalt said her monthly wastewater bill gets up to $250 — but Awalt said her usage is usually under $100.
The rest of the bill, Awalt said, covers water she doesn’t use — including runoff from rain that ends up in sewers.
“We all like to joke around that you’re getting charged for using the rain,” she said. “The rain is not free.”
The Princeton city council postponed making a decision on whether or not to implement winter quarter averaging for wastewater charges, which sets wastewater rates based on how much water was used during winter months when usage rates are usually lower.
The council passed a similar ordinance in April 2023, but it wasn’t implemented. No one knows why, according to a July memo from Princeton’s Director of Public Works, Tommy Mapp.
The city issued refunds totaling $1 million for overcharges from December 2023 to February 2024, when the ordinance was in effect before winter quarter averaging was repealed in a September 2024 vote to increase water and sewer rates.
But some council members say that vote wasn’t done legally, which would mean the first ordinance would still be in effect.
If that’s the case, the city owes residents another year of wastewater refunds, Mayor Eugene Escobar Jr. said.
‘I did what I was told’
The Princeton city council voted unanimously in favor of winter quarter averaging in April 2023 — but staff were told to not enforce it.
“I don't know why,” Williams Rosales, the city’s utility billing revenue manager, told council members at a July 2025 meeting. “I was just told ‘don't do anything with yet,’ so I did what I was told.”
The city staff had a lot of turnover that year, Rosales said. Derek Borg, Princeton’s longtime city manager, resigned in October 2023.
In Sep. 2024, the Princeton city council passed an ordinance increasing in the city’s water and sewages rates, with one member voting against the increase. The section on winter quarter averaging that was added to the city code after April 2023 was crossed out in the new ordinance.
The city council at the time didn’t publicly discuss getting rid of winter quarter averaging or the fact that it hadn’t been implemented.
Last month, the city issued residents a refund totaling $1 million for wastewater overcharges from December 2023 to February 2024, the time period winter quarter averaging was in effect before it was repealed in September 2024.
Council member Cristina Todd, who was elected in Nov. 2024, said the repeal wasn’t done legally. The ordinance was presented as a rate increase, Todd said, but the only change was removing the winter quarter averaging.
There was also no information on winter quarter averaging in a presentation given to council at the September 2024 meeting.
“The only place you would find that information is if you clicked the ordinance and went all the way down to where it was struck down,” Todd said.
Escobar asked Princeton’s city attorney, Grant Lowry, if was common practice — or legal — to add or change language to a city ordinance after a vote.
Lowry said the change should’ve been discussed more openly, but it was approved by council and done legally. He also pointed to previous votes where items were approved but not discussed.
If winter quarter averaging wasn’t repealed legally, then the city has violated the original ordinance, which includes a criminal penalty of a $500 daily fine for failing to comply, more than $200,000 in fines, Todd said.
Whoever issued the direction to present the September 2024 ordinance in the way it was presented would be responsible for those fines, she said.
Lowry said he couldn’t recall who made that call.
“I feel like I keep saying the same thing,” he said. “It was approved by council.”
Todd and Escobar weren’t in office when the ordinances were voted on. When asked if they remembered if they voted on winter quarter averaging in September 2024, the council members who were in office at the time said they couldn’t remember.
Council member Carolyn David-Graves said the city should focus on if it should implement winter quarter averaging in the future, not the previous ordinance.
“I think rather than trying to go back and rehash the past that we cannot do anything about, that we put a stick, a line in the sand, and move forward,” David-Graves said.
Got a tip? Email Caroline Love at clove@kera.org.
KERA News is made possible through the generosity of our members. If you find this reporting valuable, consider making a tax-deductible gift today. Thank you.
