Charlotte County weighs 3.5% indexing, connection-fee increases as staff readies public hearing

Charlotte County commissioners on June 19 heard a consultant presentation and staff recommendations to index water and wastewater rates and raise connection fees as part of a multi-scenario rate model intended to fund a 10-year capital improvement program.

Murray Hamilton, project manager with consulting firm Raftelis, told the Board the county’s base case assumed a minimum 2.5% annual adjustment but that staff’s alternative (Scenario 2) pairs proposed connection-fee increases with a 3.5% minimum annual index. Under that alternative, Hamilton said the county’s modeled capital funding capacity would rise from roughly $1.0 billion to about $1.4 billion over the next decade and borrowing capacity would increase from about $181 million to $400 million. Hamilton said implementing the proposed connection fees alone would be worth roughly $100 million toward the 10-year program, and raising the index from 2.5% to 3.5% accounted for roughly $250 million of the additional capacity.

Hamilton gave example per-connection figures used in the scenarios: on the water side a hypothetical illustrative shift from $6,792 to $9,075 per connection and for wastewater from $11,201 to $14,802. He also noted another survey-based “typical equivalent residential connection” figure cited in the presentation of $5,746 survey average and a current combined charge of $2,900 used for some comparisons. Hamilton flagged that the county’s accrued guaranteed revenue fee (AGRF) is unique to Charlotte County and excluded from some peer comparisons.

Why it matters: Rick Arthur, Fiscal Services, framed the proposal as an attempt to avoid larger, later increases by “front-loading” modest, predictable adjustments. Arthur recommended applying a CPI adjustment (FBSC index) or 3.5% — whichever is higher — adjusting connection fees as if they had been indexed historically, updating miscellaneous fees and adding fees based on actual costs, and holding a public hearing (staff proposed Sept. 9) with any adopted rates and fees to take effect on Jan. 1, 2026.

Board reaction centered on trade-offs and timing. Commissioner Daugherty asked staff to prioritize narrow, capacity-only analyses tied to specific plant expansions (for example, the Peace River 3 MGD expansion and East Port work) so the county can better isolate the incremental cost of new capacity. “I’d like to see that number as a foe as opposed to a full CIP connection fee number,” Daugherty said, arguing a capacity focus would show what new growth should directly fund.

Commissioner Constance said moving the index immediately to 3.5% and increasing connection fees modestly could reduce future financing costs, citing an example savings figure discussed in the meeting: “Just by increasing from 2.23 to 3.5, you’re gonna save $27,000,000 on the back end,” Constance said. Hamilton responded that all modeled scenarios met bond-rating coverage and reserve policies but that the board retains discretion about index levels and phasing.

Legal and practical constraints: Hamilton and County Attorney Jeanette Knowlton warned that implementing benefit-zone (by-plant or by-geography) connection fees or different monthly service rates by legacy vs. new customers is legally and administratively complex. Hamilton said a full connection-fee update that satisfies case-law linkage requirements typically takes 90–120 days and reconstructing historical asset records by zone is difficult. Knowlton told the board timing, not legal authority, was the main constraint for preparing analyses before a hearing.

Next steps and staff direction: Arthur and staff will return with additional analyses and timelines. Arthur said miscellaneous fees will be brought to the Utility Board meeting on July 15 and recommended scheduling a public hearing in September to consider updates to the utility resolution that governs rates, fees and charges. Commissioners directed staff to produce targeted capacity-number breakdowns for projects such as Peace River and East Port, and to keep proposed hearing and index dates flexible while the county completes required studies.

What was not decided: The board did not adopt rate or fee changes at the June 19 meeting. A procedural motion to accept agenda changes passed unanimously earlier in the meeting, but no formal vote was taken on the indexing or connection-fee proposal; staff characterized the June 19 presentation as recommendations and asked for direction and additional data.

Provenance: The article summarizes the Raftelis presentation and subsequent commissioner discussion and staff recommendations delivered at the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners Utility Department meeting on June 19, 2025. Key source statements are attributable to Murray Hamilton (consultant), Rick Arthur (Fiscal Services) and multiple commissioners as noted above.

Ending: Staff will return with more granular project-capacity breakdowns and timelines; the county plans to present miscellaneous-fee updates on July 15 and may hold a public hearing on fee and rate changes in September before any effective date in January 2026.