By Roger Jimenez, Interning Correspondent for The Apopka Voice
In Summary:
During a November 19 meeting, the Apopka City Council tabled a vote on amendments to its newly approved water utility rate ordinance following public concerns over a proposed meter tampering fine. Residents questioned how the city would determine intent, secure meter boxes, and avoid penalizing homeowners facing emergencies or third-party interference. The council directed staff to revise the language for clarity before bringing the ordinance back for consideration.
*****
The Apopka City Council delayed a vote on proposed updates to water utility fees— including a new fine for water meter tampering—after residents raised concerns about how the city would prove malicious intent and whether homeowners could be wrongly penalized.
Related: Apopka sees steady progress in reducing estimated water utility bills
During its Wednesday meeting, the Council discussed amendments to the recently approved utility rate increase ordinance. The proposed changes included a series of fee adjustments and the creation of new provisions related to water system maintenance and payment processing.
Key updates in the ordinance included:
- Portable water tap fees: Increased for multiple meter sizes
- Sewer tap fees: Raised from $860 to $1,006.80 (for up to 25 feet)
- Backflow replacement fees: Increased across various meter sizes
- Credit card processing fees: Set at 3% for Visa and 4% for MasterCard and Discover
The ordinance also proposed new measures, such as establishing a formal fine for meter tampering and allowing the city to pass credit card processing fees directly to customers.
Finance Director Blanche Sherman explained that the updates are necessary to help the city keep pace with rising operational costs and avoid steeper rate increases in the future. She added that tampering violations would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Commissioner Nick Nesta questioned whether residents could face penalties for taking emergency action to stop water damage, prompting Sherman to reiterate that each situation would be judged on its circumstances.
During public comment, resident Ken Barlow urged the council to strengthen the ordinance to protect homeowners from unfair penalties.
“While I understand the concept of a case-by-case basis, I see abuses on a daily basis,” Barlow said. “If you're going to adopt some kind of a fee like this, it needs to be explicit… that it requires malicious conduct, that it requires a specific intent to damage property or vandalize. And it should specifically exclude somebody who is reacting to a water emergency, because it takes a matter of seconds for a busted pipe to do thousands of dollars of damage. That’s a legitimate concern.”
Resident Rebecca Sellers raised similar doubts, focusing on how the city will determine who actually tampered with a water meter.
“How are you going to secure those boxes? Because we can’t,” Sellers said. “If somebody else opens my box, why is it my fault? If stealing the utilities is criminal, how are you going to prove who tampered with it? You're just simply going to charge me. It's not mine to secure, it’s the water company or the city’s job to secure it.”
Mayor Bryan Nelson expressed concern about builders who manipulate flex nets—devices used to remotely read meters—resulting in lost revenue for the City.
“We’ve got builders out there flipping flexible nets around, and we don’t get caught up,” Nelson said. “We’re losing a lot of money based on builders moving flex nets around and not doing the adjustment to match the meter with the flex net.”
Sherman emphasized that public works and utility maintenance staff investigate each case before determining whether tampering occurred. Still, residents argued the ordinance’s language provided too much room for interpretation.
Commissioner Diane Velazquez recommended delaying the matter until the language is clearer about malicious intent.
“I believe the residents are having some concern regarding the language around the fines,” Velazquez said. “Maybe we can go back in and be specific with the language.”
Commissioner Nadia Anderson agreed, noting that residents' feedback made it clear that further revisions were necessary.
“I think we’re all on the same page,” Anderson said. “The language has to be made very clear, because right now the residents have spoken and they’re concerned that it could be misused.”
The council voted to table the resolution until staff revise the ordinance to clarify how intent and responsibility will be determined.
Key Points:
-
Proposed water utility updates included higher tap fees, increased backflow replacement fees, new credit card processing charges, and a formal fine for water meter tampering.
-
Residents expressed concern that the ordinance did not clearly define malicious intent, potentially exposing homeowners to unfair penalties.
-
Financial Director Blanche Sherman said each tampering case would be evaluated individually, but public commenters argued the language left too much room for interpretation.
-
Commissioners Nick Nesta, Diane Velazquez, and Nadia Anderson all urged clearer definitions and safeguards, agreeing that resident feedback highlighted the need for revisions.
-
The council voted to delay the decision, directing city staff to refine the ordinance language to better address responsibility, security concerns, and emergency situations.
