Know
St. Pete utility bills could rise 7% just to maintain services
City officials said holding rates flat would come with its own consequences.
St. Petersburg residents could see their monthly utility bills climb by nearly 7% next year, an increase city officials say is needed largely to maintain existing services and keep planned infrastructure work moving as costs rise.
The proposed rates, outlined in a presentation to the St. Petersburg City Council Aug. 6, would increase the monthly bill for what the city considers a typical residential customer by 6.86%. Customers who also receive reclaimed water, treated wastewater reused for lawn irrigation, would see a 7.71% increase.
The city’s estimate is based on a household using 3,500 gallons of water per month. The actual increase would vary based on water use and the services a household receives.
Utility bills cover several city services, and their rates would not all rise by the same amount. Drinking water would increase 7.5%, wastewater 6.5%, garbage and recycling 6% and stormwater 8.5%. Each increase applies only to that service’s share of the bill. Reclaimed water would increase 9.75%.
The increases come as the city’s own affordability review shows rising utility costs are beginning to put more pressure on household budgets. While several measures still indicate bills are generally affordable, others show growing strain, particularly for lower-income residents. The city’s analysis warns that continued rate increases could make affordability a greater concern.
Council Member Richie Floyd questioned whether looking at the rates one year at a time understates what residents have been asked to absorb over the past decade.
He also raised a broader issue: whether today’s ratepayers are being asked to shoulder the cost of infrastructure investments that the city did not make years ago.
“We feel like we’re more than making up for maybe a lack of investment in the past,” Floyd said. “And I thought that that was a fair analysis if we look at it cumulatively.”
City officials said holding rates flat would come with its own consequences.
Public Works Administrator Claude Tankersley said the proposal does not add employees or new services. The additional revenue is needed to cover rising costs while maintaining current operations and projects already in the city’s plans.
“So if we did a zero rate increase this year, we would have to look at how we would reduce those operation costs, and I don’t know how we would do that without having to cut staff, to be honest with you,” Tankersley said.
The utility increase also comes as St. Petersburg prepares to ask voters to pay for another major infrastructure investment.
In November, voters will decide whether to allow the city to borrow up to $600 million to accelerate projects addressing flooding and the city’s water and sewer systems. The debt would be repaid through property taxes.
Council Member Brandi Gabbard brought a resident’s question about the two proposals to the council discussion.
“City Council is going to ask us in November to tax ourselves, but why would we want to do that whenever we’re already getting increases every single year?” Gabbard said.
City officials said the two would pay for different things. Higher utility rates would maintain existing services and keep already-planned projects moving. The November proposal would provide money for additional infrastructure work.
Gabbard said she wanted the distinction discussed publicly so residents could understand why the city says both are necessary.
“At the end of the day, we at least have to maintain what we’re doing today because, to not do this, would mean we would be going backwards,” Gabbard said.
The city has already scaled back one of the proposed increases. Stormwater rates were previously projected to rise 15% next year. The current proposal calls for an 8.5% increase, in part because the city would borrow more for stormwater projects instead of collecting as much money upfront from current customers.
The council did not vote on the rates. The presentation was an update before the proposal returns for a first reading this Thursday (Aug. 13), followed by the public hearing process.
Floyd wants the city to revisit how utility costs are divided before next year’s rate discussion. He has advocated for changes that could benefit residents who conserve water, and for examining whether property taxes could pay for more infrastructure costs, which he said could spread the burden more evenly.
He said the larger concern is what years of increases have collectively required residents to absorb.
“With the amount of increases we’ve had over the last decade, if we looked at that cumulatively, it does look like a really large burden being placed on one generation,” Floyd said.
JAMES GILLESPIE
August 10, 2026at8:15 pm
I oppose the size of the utility increases at a time the city emphasizes affordable and workforce housing. couple this with the major “affordability’ problem affecting workers whose wage increases are eaten up by such higher rates.lower or drop the rates and level of services in say garbage. tired of such increases unless they serve high level and essential public needs. Note what is already spent on law enforcement and fire rescue. can any local government ever deliver public services without annual tax increases?
Bill Herrmann
August 10, 2026at5:50 pm
WOW! Where do we start. First, how do costs go up about twice the inflation rate? Second, perhaps if staff knew where they were spending money it would help. In a series of emails I asked about the ‘Payment In Lieu of Taxes’ that each of the utilities pay to the General Fund. To be clear, there is the utility tax users see on the bill, a hidden Payment in Lieu of Taxes that is a line-item in the budget, and hidden in the last item is a Payment in Lieu of Franchise Fee (it is not a line item in the budget).
Seeking clarification of the Payment in Lieu of Taxes on March 23 I asked : “Please provide a copy of the schedule of the properties that paid PILOT and the basis for the PILOT assessment.” When that did not get a straight answer, on June 11 I asked for: “The schedule or listing of parcels or accounts included in PILOT revenues, including amounts assessed and paid per parcel/account, if maintained.” On June 16 I was told, “We do not have the schedule or listing as described.”.
I then confirmed this by asking “Your response appears to state that the official position is that The City of St Petersburg does not have a schedule of parcels it charges the various enterprise funds a PILOT.”
Looking at the dollar amounts, it would appear that the General Fund is taxing the Utility Fund for fire hydrants! But we will never know, since I was told they do not have a listing.
Finally, drive past- or more accurately over- the utility fleet parking area. Almost every day there are 2 or more sewer cleaning trucks. Each of these vehicles cost $400,000 or more. Having them parked is a misuse of assets. Further, every day they are parked, sewer and stormwater lines do not get cleaned. Lines that are clogged cannot move wastewater or stormwater efficiently. This results in backups and overflows.
We need a mayor and commission that are skilled managers.
Danny White
August 10, 2026at3:38 pm
I think Council Member Floyd has the right train of thought. In the past 17 years, there has been little to no rethinking about the ever-increasing costs for utilities in St. Petersburg; the rates are proposed, accepted, and put on the back shelf until the next year. We are still paying for years and years of infrastructure neglect that somehow keeps getting kicked down the road. These increases may seem small to some residents who can absorb them without missing a beat, however, those residents are likely not the majority, especially our seniors who rely on fixed incomes. The SPAR plan sounds promising to finally put a significant dent into modernizing critical services.