St. Pete approves utility rate hikes

St. Petersburg residents will pay more for water, wastewater, stormwater, sanitation and reclaimed water beginning Oct. 1 after City Council approved three utility-rate ordinances Thursday.

The sanitation and stormwater increases each passed 6-2, with Councilmembers Gina Driscoll and Corey Givens opposed. The ordinance covering water, wastewater and reclaimed water passed 5-3, with Vice Chair Richie Floyd joining Driscoll and Givens in opposition.

Water rates will increase 7.5%, wastewater 6.5%, reclaimed water 9.75%, stormwater 8.5% and sanitation 6%. The city estimates an overall 6.9% increase for a customer using 3,500 gallons of water with a Tier 2 stormwater property.

The increases are part of the city’s annual utility rate study, which examines how much revenue is needed to cover operating and capital expenses. City staff identified inflation, aging infrastructure, equipment costs, regulatory requirements and borrowing costs among the factors affecting the systems.

The city has hundreds of millions of dollars in utility work planned over the next years. That includes water and wastewater infrastructure.

The stormwater increase is lower than projected (the city anticipated a 15% increase before bringing the FY27 proposal down to 8.5%).

Councilmember Lisset Hanewicz passionately stated: “We are trying to do the best we can and maintain rates, especially after the storms, the hurricanes.”

The city had planned to split costs evenly between cash and debt. Beginning in FY27, it will temporarily use 30% cash and 70% debt. The cash share is scheduled to increase five percentage points each year until returning to 50% in FY31.

Council increased the wastewater capacity fee paid for new connections. The fee, previously referred to as the water closet fee, will increase from $1,000 to $1,700. The city had increased it from $600 to $1,000 in FY26.

That change became part of a broader discussion over how much of the utility system’s costs should fall on existing customers compared with new development.

Floyd has pushed the city to reconsider that balance. He has also proposed reducing Payment in Lieu of Taxes transfers from utility funds into the city’s general fund, which would leave more utility revenue within those systems.

Doing so would reduce revenue available for general government services unless the city replaced the money elsewhere. Floyd has previously suggested looking at property taxes and utility rates together when deciding how residents should pay for city services.

The PILOT proposal was not part of the utility-rate ordinances. The city is separately preparing to ask voters for authority to borrow up to $600 million for additional water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure. The general obligation bond referendum will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot and, if approved, would be repaid through property taxes rather than utility rates.

Thursday’s rates fund the city’s existing utility operating and capital plans. The proposed bonds would provide additional money for infrastructure projects beyond those plans.

The utility ordinances take effect Oct. 1. Under the water, wastewater and reclaimed-water ordinance, the new rates will begin being used to calculate bills Nov. 1 for water consumed during the preceding month.