|
 |
| Search |
|
|
Observer Classifieds
Place a Classified Ad
Send a Letter to
the Editor
Send a Press Release
Staff Directory
Archives / Search 2003
Community Links
|
|
Top Stories
By MELODY JAMESON
mj@observernews.net
SUN CITY CENTER — Hillsborough’s leading water utility ranks high among peers for its billing accuracy, but it’s finding room for improvement here.
Mixed up meters with incorrect readings, one household’s usage charges possibly posted to a neighbor’s monthly statement, a mistaken rate charged a customer for more than two years, unexplained spikes in water consumption – these are some of the problems being encountered by retirees in different parts of the community as they examine their bills from Water Resources Services (WRS), Hillsborough County’s primary water purveyor.
WRS, an enterprise utility meaning it is supported by its own revenues rather than depending on the county’s general operating funds, for example makes far fewer billing errors compared with similarly-sized utilities, according to Becky Garland, group manager in the service and accounting section. Among water utilities around the country serving 100,000 to a half million accounts, Hillsborough’s WRS, with a total customer base of 153,000, is calculated to make just seven billing errors per 10,000 accounts while other such water departments average 45 mistakes per 10,000, Garland noted.
Such figures are small comfort, however, to WRS customer Karen Ryan, a homeowner in the St. Andrews section of SCC. Her recent billings from the utility indicate several issues, including a meter reading from last month that is greater than one taken this week, implication of an estimated rather than read meter total and possibly payment expected by the utility for water really used by a neighbor.
Ryan’s home, a typical two-bedroom, two bath, one-story dwelling of about 1600 square feet built in 1987 at the end of a cul-de-sac, is served by two water meters in two different meter vaults flush with the ground surface in the street right-of-way in front of her house. According to the meter numbers on her WRS monthly statement, one meter in one vault reads the potable water being piped into the house, the second in the second vault apparently was intended to read the potable water made available for irrigation use at her house.
Similarly, the water being used by her neighbors, Robert and Jean Pratt, is flowing through another set of two meters, each of them also located in the two side-by-side vaults. The arrangement sends the Pratt’s drinking water for their house through a line that appears to cross the pipe carrying Ryan’s irrigation water to her property.
Neither homeowner, each occupying houses originally built by other owners, understands why the two vaults are being shared, rather than each of their homes receiving water through drinking and irrigation meters located in a single vault.
Nor does WRS’ Garland, a 30-year veteran in water utility services. While it is common in SCC for two houses receiving only drinking water to be metered through two separate mechanisms sharing one meter vault, the Ryan-Pratt situation involving the added irrigation meters and two vaults struck the group manager as “unusual.” She initiated a field investigation early this week, she told The Observer.
For Ryan, though, the problems multiply. She points to her September WRS statement which charges her for 400 gallons of water passing through her irrigation meter. The statement describes the meter reading as “actual,” meaning it is not an estimated consumption amount. But, Ryan emphasized, the statement reports the irrigation meter reading on September 21 as 729400. The meter reading on October 26, more than a month later, was 729300, 100 gallons less, and verified by two witnesses. What’s more, Ryan added, she does not irrigate her lawn and has not activated her sprinkler system for more than a year.
Then, there’s the matter of extreme highs and lows in irrigation water consumption charged to Ryan’s WRS bill. In May, the utility reported 2,200 gallons of water flowing through her irrigation meter – another “actual” reading – while in June the meter reading reflected zero water use. This was the time during which the last owner of the house now occupied by Pratts vacated the property, Ryan noted.
“I think there’s good reason to believe I may be paying for water being used at the neighboring home through no fault of theirs or mine,” Ryan said this week. And, she added, “I also think this confusing placement of meters may exist along other streets in St. Andrews. I definitely know the irrigation meter is not being read accurately.”
Dave Brown, another SCC resident and longtime community advocate on water services issues, agreed that Ryan may be paying for another’s water consumption. Water meter readers move very rapidly down a street, he pointed out, with limited time to get each reading. “I can see how the reader could take readings of the two meters in one vault, not comparing the meter numbers with Ryan’s account number, and assume both meters are monitoring the flow of water to her property when, in fact, one meter in that vault is hers and the other is the neighbor’s .”
Garland, however, was not ready to go that far this week, stating she’d wait for results of the field evaluation. She did, however, acknowledge that meter readers record between 500 and 600 meter readings in a work day. She also noted that switched meters are not a very common occurrence but “can it happen? Yes, it can.”
There is no such uncertainty about the problem that arose at Gary Morris’ SCC home. When Morris and his wife moved into their Rimini Vista Way house in 2007, their irrigation water use was recorded at WRS as reclaimed water or treated wastewater provided in some areas of the county for irrigation purposes at a considerably reduced rate. Reclaimed water is not yet available in SCC. Morris unknowingly was irrigating with potable water monitored through their irrigation meter.
Late last summer, an audit disclosed the error and WRS billed Morris for the years of potable water used for irrigation, less payments made at the reclaimed water rate. The total due came to $1,770, Garland said. Morris protested it was a WRS mistake, registered complaints with other departments and, ultimately, a negotiated settlement arrangement was reached. WRS reduced the bill by more than $1,000 and Morris agreed to pay $760, Garland said. While Morris’ did receive and irrigated with the potable water, she added, “the mistake was ours.”
On the other hand, when an unusually high spike in water consumption is recorded as it was on Bob Black’s September billing, WRS is more inclined to suspect a leak or forgotten use. Black, a homeowner in the Greenbriar section, had been averaging around 3500 gallons used a month for the last six months when his water use suddenly shot up to 11500 gallons, according to the utility.
 |
| Melody Jameson photo
These typical water meters, located in an in-ground vault in the street right-of-way between two SCC homes, reflect the potable water consumed at each house. The small red triangle (denoted by the arrows) below the red hand turns constantly when a leak exists in the household plumbing. |
Inspection of his meter vault showed the mechanism is not reflecting any sort of leak and the only out-of-the-ordinary event during the month covered by the billing was pressure washing the small deck around his pool, Black said this week. “I didn’t even top off the pool during the month,” he added.
He has disputed the billing with WRS but Garland told The Observer the utility’s range of possible responses is limited in such circumstances. Customers don’t realize how fast water is lost through an overlooked garden hose attached to a faucet left open, she noted, suggesting the pressure washing consumed more water than realized. The best she might be able to offer is a small reduction in the bill, she indicated.
Such a credit finally resolved an eight-month dispute with the utility pressed by Diane Martis, a resident on the north side of SCC. Martis, president of her homeowners’ association, began questioning monthly water bills coming to her co-op shortly after the utility switched to a new billing system in February.
Martis and her neighbors in the Council Drive co-op each have individual water meters but WRS bills from a master meter. The individual meter and master meter readings did not coincide and Martis at one point asserted her HOA was being charged for 5500 gallons of water not used. The dispute was resolved when the HOA accepted a $177 credit for its alleged overcharges during the half year.
She also questioned whether the largely automated WRS billing process might be part of the problem. Meter information taken by meter readers is transmitted to WRS offices where it is examined for any necessary corrections during a four-day window before it is then transmitted to a vendor, AB Data in Milwaukee, WI, for printing on customers’ bills. The system allows for adjusting a customer’s meter reading and therefore his billing if the computers detect numbers appearing to be inconsistent. Martis wondered aloud if the computer programming to build in the automation or the distance between the utility and its out-of-state vendor could play a role in generating billing mistakes.
Actually, however, the opposite is true, Garland said. The new billing system instituted in February has helped reduce billing errors and the service provided by the Milwaukee-based vendor is considered excellent. It is expected that AB Data’s $400,000 annual contract to print Hillsborough’s water bills will be renewed.
Copyright 2009 Melody Jameson
What follows is a public comments section. This is not from the Observer News staff - it comes from other people and contains their opinions and theirs alone. The Observer News does not control the material that follows. We do, however, reserve the right to remove objectionable material at our discretion. By that we mean that we will edit or delete any content that we deem is inappropriate. By posting your comments, you are stating that you agree to these terms.
Click here to report a comment.
Comments
Disgusted
02 Nov 2009, 10:50
It's always ths customer's fault!
© Copyright 2008 by The
Observer
News Publications and M&M Printing Company, Inc.
Top of Page
|
|
|
Top Stories
Latest Headlines
|
|
