A formal challenge to the City of Mineral Wells’ 2023 water rate increase for out-of-city residents has been officially dismissed by the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH), concluding the case brought on behalf of customers living in the city’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ).
Terri Glidewell, a city resident, filed the petition with the Public Utility Commission of Texas on December 12, 2023, representing a group of ETJ ratepayers who receive city water service but live outside city limits. Under state law, only 10 percent of affected ratepayers must sign on to initiate such an appeal. In this case, 37 signatures were submitted, exceeding the requirement for the approximately 200 affected residents.
The city’s water rate increase—implemented November 1, 2023—raised charges by approximately 146% for both retail and wholesale customers. The case was transferred to SOAH for hearings in April 2024, but attempts at mediation and a proposed procedural schedule failed to produce a resolution. A hearing on the merits had been set for April 2025.
On July 25, Glidewell informed the city’s legal counsel that she intended to withdraw the case, citing escalating legal costs and the risk of further financial strain on ETJ residents. She filed a motion to withdraw the appeal “with prejudice,” meaning the case is permanently closed and cannot be refiled.
On July 31, Administrative Law Judge Christian Siano signed SOAH Order No. 9, officially dismissing the matter with prejudice. The order states that no direct case had been presented and that the motion to withdraw was unopposed.
At this time, Mineral Wells Area News has not received clarification on the total legal fees incurred by the City of Mineral Wells in connection with the PUC case, which was organized and filed by Glidewell on behalf of ETJ residents. (UPDATE: City releases statement indicating legal fees were $218,000 and will be paid for from the City Water Fund.
Notably, several of the original petition signers later submitted statements to the case record requesting their names be withdrawn, saying they felt misled about the purpose and potential consequences of the filing and did not wish for Glidewell to represent the ETJ in the matter. Many ETJ residents also voiced concern that if the city prevailed, the roughly 200 out-of-city customers could be left responsible for paying the city’s legal costs—potentially splitting a significant bill that could drive their water rates even higher.