Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Water Bill Appeal topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Saint Helena council denies Maryvale Vineyards water-bill appeal; leaves door open for more evidence
Summary
The City Council denied an appeal by Maryvale Vineyards disputing $35,773.29 in water and wastewater charges, but the denial was without prejudice so the vineyard may return with additional evidence, including smart-valve logs, for staff review.
The Saint Helena City Council voted unanimously April 8 to deny an appeal by Maryvale Vineyards challenging $35,773.29 in water and sewer charges for June 26–Nov. 19, 2024, but left the decision open “without prejudice” so the vineyard may bring additional evidence for staff review.
Assistant City Manager April Mitts told the council staff’s analysis found an anomalous spike in billed usage for the winery in July through October 2024 and that the city’s tests showed the existing meter was under-registering flow before it was replaced on Nov. 19. “When we did the accuracy test, it actually showed that the meter was under reporting water usage,” Mitts said. She said staff could not obtain a detailed meter data profile earlier because that older meter could not produce the high-resolution readouts used for leak diagnosis.
Kevin Bersofsky, chief operating officer of Maryvale Vineyards, said the vineyard called a professional leak specialist as soon as it noticed the high bills and that the company found no observable leak. “As soon as the meter was replaced, our water readings have returned to normal or below normal,” Bersofsky said, adding the winery had not changed operations and did not have plumbing or irrigation failures that would explain the spike.
The appeal covered 721.24 HCF (hundred cubic feet) of disputed use. Staff’s billing breakdown listed $10,061.24 in water charges and $25,712.05 in wastewater charges, for a total appealed amount of $35,773.29. City staff noted an American Leak Detection (ALD) report that ALD observed a running fountain fill valve and that meter movement stopped once the valve was isolated; staff said that finding aligns with a remediation action on Oct. 30, 2024.
During deliberations council members said they wanted a clearer log-based record from the vineyard’s fail-safe valve system showing when the valve and its alarms operated. Councilmember comments repeatedly sought the device logs that track whether automatic shutoffs were triggered. The council’s motion denied the appeal but explicitly allowed the appellant to return with additional evidence for review and possible re-opening.
The vote was recorded as: Mayor Dorey — yes; Councilmember Barrick — yes; Councilmember Spatarotto — yes; Vice Mayor Deasy — yes. The motion was recorded as a denial without prejudice and did not specify a fixed deadline for submission of additional evidence; staff said the vineyard should coordinate with city staff to provide the logs for verification.
Council and staff did not find evidence in the record that the vineyard used city water for irrigation (Bersofsky said the site uses a well and holding tank for irrigation) and noted that some meter failures can cause under-registration, not over-registration. Staff said the city’s forthcoming meter replacement program will give the utility more comprehensive diagnostic data to reduce similar disputes.
The council asked staff to work with the appellant to obtain and review any existing device logs (the vineyard’s automatic fill-valve or “smart” valve) and additional site documentation; further review will be handled administratively unless new facts require council reconsideration.
