Charlotte County weighs higher utility index, bond plans to pay for expansions

Murray Hamilton, vice president at Raftalis, told the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners that the utilities department can meet near‑term obligations under a modest indexing approach but would need bonds or sustained larger rate increases to fully fund postponed plant expansions and system upgrades.

In a 10‑year model presented to the board, Raftalis used the Florida Public Service Commission published index (2.23% for 2026) as the baseline. Hamilton said the county’s base case — which funds active and committed projects and Peace River purchase‑water obligations — is feasible under that approach, but funding a larger set of postponed projects would require additional borrowing or higher annual adjustments.

"One of the recommendations we're making here is for the commission to consider a minimum adjustment of not less than 2.5 percent," Hamilton said, explaining that a floor would reduce the risk of underfunding capital needs driven by plant expansions and debt service associated with the Peace River regional program. He showed three cases: a base case that fully funds committed work; a mid case that could fund roughly $489 million of postponed projects with roughly $60–80 million of near‑term bonds; and a full‑funding scenario that would require roughly $1 billion in additional bonds and much steeper annual rate steps.

Why it matters: the county participates in a Peace River expansion that carries dedicated debt service. Hamilton estimated Charlotte County’s Peace River payments would start at about $1.5 million in 2027, grow to roughly $3–5 million, and approach $6–9 million in later years depending on the bond plan. Under the index path shown, a typical residential combined water‑and‑wastewater bill (today about $125 for 4,000 gallons) would rise toward roughly $160 over 10 years; the full‑funding scenario could push a comparable bill toward $225 in the same period.

Commissioners said they want more detail before choosing an indexing policy. Commissioner Trex (chair) and others asked staff to run alternatives — including higher indexing (3–3.5%), revised connection‑fee assumptions, and different bond sizes — and to present them at a dedicated finance session in July. Rick Arthur in fiscal services said adjustments to connection fees or developer charges would materially change the scenarios.

What’s next: staff and consultants were asked to return with a deeper financial analysis that pairs rate paths, updated connection‑fee proposals, and project priority lists so the board can consider tradeoffs between rate pressure on existing customers and financing growth and resilience projects.