County Commissioners Approve Five‑Year Water Utility Rate Adjustments
by James Coulter
To help pay for expected costs to operate, maintain, and improve the county’s water system over the next five years, county commissioners approved a plan to increase water rates and other utility fees gradually.
At their regular meeting in late Summer, the Polk County Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) voted unanimously to adopt a resolution revising the Utilities Division Schedule of Rates, Charges, and Fees.
In July 2024, the BoCC approved a five‑year Utilities Rate Plan intended to keep the county’s water system financially stable by aligning rates with projected capital and operating costs. But a new rate study indicates the plan may fall short.
Current utility rates are considered “insufficient to fund the aggregate costs of utility operating expenses, required debt service payments, and the capital improvement costs supported by utility rates and surcharges,” according to Tamara Richardson, Utilities Division Director.
To ensure the water system has enough funding for operations and upcoming projects, county staff outlined several proposed rate and fee changes:
1. Extend the current $0.25 PWRI/AWS surcharge for two additional years, through 2029 and 2030.
2. Continue the annual six‑percent increase to potable water and wastewater rates through 2029 and 2030.
3. Raise reclaimed water service charges in three steps:
• Increase base and usage rates to 1.5 times the current amount by Oct. 1, 2026.
• Add another 33 percent increase on April 1, 2027.
• Apply six‑percent annual increases from 2027 through 2030.
4. Create a new septage processing fee of $0.15 per gallon.
5. Increase connection charges beginning Jan. 1, 2027:
• Water connection fees would rise by $951 per Equivalent Residential Connection (ERC).
• Wastewater connection fees would rise by $1,291 per ERC.
These changes are expected to generate enough revenue to cover the water system’s capital needs and ongoing maintenance over the next five years.
“An additional $135 million in bond proceeds may be required after Fiscal Year 2031 to complete projects started at the end of the 5-year rate plan, which may necessitate the need for additional rate increase beyond what is proposed,” Richardson wrote.
Commissioner Mike Scott asked for clarification on reclaimed water, claiming that while many communities struggle to generate demand for it, the county is facing the opposite problem: it needs more reclaimed water than it can currently produce.
Richardson said reclaimed water plays a key role in conservation because it’s used for irrigation instead of drawing additional water from the aquifer, creating a “one‑to‑one” offset with potable water.
She emphasized that reclaimed water is a valuable resource, and an expensive one, as it costs more to treat and produce than potable water. As such, if the county needs an additional irrigation supply, it must rely on its alternative water supply project, which is even more costly, she said.
“So, this makes sense to bring it up to make sure we are conserving, and [that] we are getting an even playing field for all of our residents, and [that] we are actually conserving a very valuable resource,” she said.
Commissioner Bill Braswell asked about the proposed project to move reclaimed water from the northwest service area to Haines City. Richardson said the project is still in the design phase and has not yet received construction funding. The county has money to complete the design, she noted, and the project will advance once funding is secured.
When built, the project would install roughly 18 miles of 24‑ to 36‑inch piping to carry reclaimed water from the northwest, where no in‑ground irrigation system currently exists, and where excess water is stored in an aquifer storage and recovery well.
Commissioner Rick Wilson cast the lone vote against the proposed revisions. While he understood the need to conserve water, with it being one of their “more important natural resources,” he did not feel raising rates on consumers was the appropriate solution.
“I’m just telling this board right now, I am not for raising our rates,” he said. “When it comes to raising our rates, I know we did not raise rates for quite a while to keep our costs down and to our public, and then when we had to raise, because we are not in the business to raise money.”
