Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pinellas Park resident disputes new master‑meter water charge after ordinance notice
Summary
A Pinellas Park small property owner told the City Council she received a notice saying a recently passed ordinance would change how her building’s water is billed, increasing her monthly charge from about $200 to $867.92; she asked the city for a fair solution and said she had not been informed earlier.
Sharon Zimring, a Pinellas Park property owner, told the City Council on April 10 that she received a city notice saying a water ordinance passed last year would change how her 12‑unit building is billed and that the new calculation would sharply raise her monthly bill.
Zimring said the building is on a master meter and that she monitors usage closely. “I use between around averaging 4,800 units,” she told the council. “And the city wants to charge me for 36,000 units.” She said she normally pays about $200 a month and that the notice lists a new monthly charge of $867.92. Zimring asked the council to “find a solution to make it fair for the small business who are struggling.”
The council did not take immediate action on the item during the meeting. City staff collected Zimring’s contact information and indicated they would follow up after reviewing the ordinance and billing process. No city speaker at the meeting provided a specific timeline or the ordinance number for the billing change.
Why it matters: Zimring said the change would more than quadruple her monthly costs and that she received the notice on April 1 with the billing change set to begin in about three months. For small landlords with master meters, a change in billing methodology could materially alter operating costs and tenant affordability.
Details she provided: Zimring said she has six units regularly occupied, monitors for leaks using dye testing, and has managed the property for 14 years. She said the notice said the ordinance was passed “last year,” but she said she had not been informed when it passed and only received the billing notice this month.
Council and staff response: The mayor and council invited Zimring to provide contact details and city staff said they would review the case and respond. No formal motion or vote occurred on this matter at the meeting.
Next steps and open questions: The transcript does not record an ordinance number, the precise legal text authorizing the billing change, the staff office assigned to review this complaint, or the exact effective date beyond Zimring’s statement that billing would start in about three months. Zimring asked the council for guidance and alternatives; the city said it would follow up but gave no schedule at the meeting.
Ending: The council meeting moved on after staff collected Zimring’s information; city staff will need to confirm which ordinance is the legal basis, clarify how master‑metered multiunit properties are billed under current code, and communicate next steps to Zimring.
