COVINGTON, Ga. — A discussion of how to ensure the city still gets what it’s owed by senior residents, and some on disability, who don’t pay their bills on time turned heated at a recent Covington City Council meeting.
During the discussion over creating a flat rate utility for seniors who miss their payments and are over the age of 65, council members failed to come to an agreement on how to proceed, with the exception of tabling the agenda item for later.
At issue is the number of Covington residents 65 or older who are not paying all of their bills.
[DOWNLOAD: Free WSB-TV News app for alerts as news breaks]
Right out of the gate for the discussion, Councilmember Anthony Henderson said the issue with the current late fee process is that it hits different residents in different ways.
The current city policy is to charge a 10% late fee. That’s what Henderson said was a concern.
“The issue is that with that 10% late fee, you’re paying based on your amount of your bill,” Henderson said. “So meaning that if I have a $1,000 bill right now, let’s say my utility bill is $1,000, I pay a $100 late fee. Let’s say my bill is $100, I pay a $10 late fee. Well, it’s the same, we both are late. What’s different?”
TRENDING STORIES:
- Metro Atlanta city testing fire hydrants, says resident water may be discolored
- Fire department lieutenant accused of stalking, arrested, to be placed on leave
- She earned a mother’s trust. Then, police say, she kidnapped her baby
In the framing of Henderson’s hypothetical, he said those with higher bills that are not paid on time face harsher penalties as a result, so he proposed making changes, especially if lack of payment could lead to disconnections, and disconnection fees.
“I saw how narrow it came down to,” Henderson said about a proposal for changes to disconnections. “I wanted to focus on the seniors because I realized a lot of seniors, a lot of people that are on disability, have fixed incomes. So, obviously, being at any given moment, something could change their lives. Their revenue don’t change, but their expense may change.”
Of particular concern about how seniors make payments was their reliance on Social Security, because the payments from the government don’t always come on time, meaning it can force payments made to be late, in addition to being on a fixed, once-a-month income with it.
Henderson proposed setting a single, flat $10 fee for late payments from seniors or the disabled, though he also said he’d prefer no late fees for them.
In terms of function, Mayor Fleeta Baggett asked how that type of change to policy would be managed, suggesting the city would have to hire a finance person to administer the changes.
As Henderson tried to discuss it, the conversation grew heated.
Baggett said someone might need to be hired to maintain a record of when someone’s checks drop to ensure that they’re not charged before funds from Social Security benefits are available.
Henderson asked for the mayor to clarify, and while trying to clear up what he was suggesting, Baggett interrupted the tense exchange, saying “Well what the hell are you saying then?”
The conversation turned into a discussion of respecting and disrespecting each other before getting back on track to explain the situation, in his view.
“Utility bills are usually due in the middle of the month,” Henderson said. “Let’s say, I’m going to say Nov. 12, and their Social Security check comes Nov. 25, they automatically get the [late] fee because they’re waiting for their Social Security check.”
Baggett said it may be necessary for the city to hire someone to verify those processes, such as date of SSA payment versus bill being due, in response to Henderson suggesting waiving the fees for those residents.
Councilmember Travis Moore said he went to city staff about how difficult it would be to implement a program of this type.
Moore said he was told that it was mostly a matter of verification, and ability to verify while calculating different rates based on age, residence and income.
The council continued their back-and-forth, with more members joining the conversation, and disagreements focused on concept more than just dollar amounts for late fees. Some members in council disagreed over responsibility for consumption and size of fee, with a few arguing 10% made sense while others were saying a flat fee was better because it wasn’t directly related to the amount that went unpaid.
The council ended up tabling further discussion, without any other consensus, and moved on to another agenda item.
It’ll be up for discussion again on Aug. 17.
[SIGN UP: WSB-TV Daily Headlines Newsletter]
©2026 Cox Media Group
