Madison Meter Madness -- Fence Ordinance Gets First Reading

How many times would any of us have to be bitten by a dog before we could better understand what Russ goes through on a daily basis?

Our meter reader also handles animal control, so he gets to know the neighborhoods. People may forget we have some aggressive dogs around town, many of which are behind fenced areas. I live close to what I consider dangerous dogs that are a hazard. Would you like to enter their territory and get mauled? How about giving the guy a break? He should be able to do his job with minimal risk and headaches, and we should work to accommodate him as best we can. After multiple conversations I find him to be pleasant and helpful, and a city employee we should appreciate.

PS: Russ does use the spotting scope, but it's not possible to do so everywhere. He told me they will look at each situation to find a workable solution. He did not know the word "maintain" was part of the ordinance. They just don't want the situation to grow, which I think is reasonable.

Here is City Government's latest discriminatory ordinance. Each person who erected a fence in Madison that encloses the City Electric or Water Meter will be required to tear it down, modify it or move their electric meter, even though those fences were constructed according to City Building Codes. Why? Because Russ Klosterman claims he can't get his meter reading done when he has to open gates to enter fenced yards.

Do we need another city ordinance when most of the other recent ordinances are unenforced? How many times do we see dogs pooping in other people's yards while being walked and nobody picks it up. Anyone been charged with failure to grab the poop? Anyone been charged with discharging sump pump water into the Sanitary Sewer System? Anyone been charged with watering their lawn outside the odd-even watering rules? Of course not, but our City Commissioners continue to pat themselves on the back for creating ordinances to protect the public.

Unfortunately, asking existing homeowners to modify or tear down their fences just so the meter reader doesn't have to open a gate is a discriminatory city mandate that unfairly causes expense to a small segment of utility holder/taxpayers, rather than spread the cost of adding more staff to read meters across the entire utility base. It would be no different than if the City decided everyone should have at least a three-bedroom home. Those with two-bedroom homes would be required to add on another bedroom. It unfairly discriminates against those who built or purchased a home with a fenced yard.

The City has not publicly discussed this issue prior to taking First Reading on Ordinance 1468 this past Monday. Second Reading will be held on Monday, November 10th and if it passes, it becomes law, so I hope those with fenced yards and those who wish to have a fenced yard in the future will contact the City Commissioners and attend that meeting.

If Madison is growing to the point our meter reader cannot get his work done, then let's add a part-time assistant, or better yet, let's go wireless like the rural electrics are doing and eliminate the job and its benefits completely. How about a good spotting scope, binoculars and a flashlight for about $300 so the meter reader can read meters from outside the fence. Or better yet, simply place a stamped postcard on our front door and ask the homeowner to write down the readings and mail it in. How simple is that?

I remember Roger Stanford reading meters all those years before he retired, opening the fence gates and never complaining about his job. He got his work done too and we haven't grown that much in the past few years. Either the City is asking Russ Klosterman to do too many other duties along with reading meters, or we need a time-management course. If the City takes out the word "maintain" in their ordinance so that existing fences are not included, I would have no problem with future homes making sure their meters are outside any fences that are erected, but to ask existing homeowners to modify or remove their fences, which were installed for safety, security and privacy, is an unfair burden.

Cory, Cory ------- first of all, your last paragraph is the most correct and filled with the most factual information --- you were not at the meeting. Anything that you know is probably hearsay. Am I not correct?
Secondly, your analogy between rural systems and urban systems is not entirely correct. At present, we cannot afford the same type of reading system for electricity that you have through Sioux Valley------- cost prohibitive. If we do introduce that system, the cost to consumers would increase even more than it already has. By the way, before you start on the cost to consumers of urban elctricity, check on the cost of electricity from our suppliers, WAPA and Heartland ------ much higher than the charge we place on consumers.
On another note ----- not all gates are accessible and many fences also control animals that our meter reader does not or cannot confront without exposing himself to danger. The emergence of this ordinance was based on our reader's (and he is a good guy, with good common sense) reports and some of our own first-hand observation----neither of which you have been party to.
In my estimation, I don't believe that all existing fences, etc. need changing. I would like to leave that decision up to the reader's good common sense. My main concern is that no further construction takes place to increase the present problem. That type of ordinance is more of a preventative measure than anything else.
I'm glad that you wrote your article so that you prompted me enough to write mine. As a teacher, I oftentimes did that with my students. The action generated excitement and discourse. I think that you have done the same ---good job!