Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Billing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press council for fuller answers after anomalous high water bills; Stantec report criticized as incomplete
Summary
Several residents told the council they received unexpectedly high water bills that officials's analyses have not explained; speakers asked for a more detailed investigation beyond the Stantec measurement report.
Several St. Petersburg residents raised persistent complaints about unexplained, unusually large water bills during the council's open forum on July 23 and urged the city to produce clearer explanations and remedies.
Why it matters: At least a dozen residents described bills many times higher than normal — in some reports, a single-family home was billed for tens of thousands of gallons in one billing cycle — and said the city's recent Stantec study measured anomalies without explaining causes or offering fixes. Several speakers said the financial harm has been significant and asked the council to prioritize a deeper investigation and better customer assistance.
What residents said - James Locosio said his bill showed "10 times my normal volume" for a period when he was not occupying the residence and that Stantec's $65,000 addendum only "measured the anomaly" rather than explaining it. - Dalton Ray and others said testing of meters, review of meter removal testing procedures, and more disclosure about adjusted accounts were needed. - Tina Yackel said she was billed $1,000 while her house was unusable after a flood and said she felt the city had not communicated effectively about the review of disputed bills.
City response in meeting City staff acknowledged the complaints and said the Stantec engagement produced a technical measurement report. City staff and council members said the report showed the scale and frequency of anomalous bills but did not always identify mechanical causes or the root of every account-level anomaly. City officials told the council they had asked departments to look at process improvements: making review procedures more transparent; establishing contracts ahead of storms for additional plan reviewers, inspectors and damage-assessment personnel; and improving mobile permitting and post-disaster processes.
Follow-ups requested by residents Speakers requested a written, itemized explanation that: explains why specific bills were not adjusted or the technical basis for adjustments; makes public the basis for the 6,000 account adjustments and the Stantec "over read" numbers referenced in previous briefings; and describes practical steps residents should take (meter testing, plumber documentation, appeal processes) and what the city will do proactively to identify meter or billing errors.
Ending: Council members agreed more information was needed and several asked staff to return with clearer summaries of the Stantec analysis, the criteria used to adjust accounts, and a timetable for further work. Residents asked for an ongoing case review and improved customer outreach to prevent future financial harm.
