Orange Park leaders weigh multiyear water and sewer rate increases as residents press for accounting

Town Manager (Town Manager) proposed a multi‑year plan March 3 that would raise residential base water rates immediately and over the next two years to rebuild reserves and cover sharply higher operating costs.

The manager told the council that system operating costs have risen dramatically since the last rate change — staff cited a 174% increase in water operations, a 192% rise for sewer operations and a more than 300% jump in chlorine costs — and recommended an initial 8% increase for the current fiscal year followed by 7% increases in the next two years. Under staff’s schedule 1 example, the residential base charge would rise from $16.96 to $18.32 on adoption and move to about $20.97 after the projected increases in later years. For multifamily accounts (schedule 2) staff showed a progression from $14.42 to $15.57, then $16.66 and roughly $17.83 in the subsequent years.

"We have to increase rates to operate this business and avoid subsidizing operations with property tax dollars," the Town Manager said, asking council to balance rate adjustments with cost‑cutting measures. Staff also proposed $1 million in near‑term cuts — including $500,000 from the water‑main upgrade program and another $500,000 related to septic‑to‑sewer conversion funding — to reduce the size of the immediate lift.

Why it matters: the utility is run as an enterprise fund, meaning rate revenue must cover operations, capital and debt. Without adjustments, staff warned, the town risks drawing on general revenues or failing to maintain reserves at its policy level.

Public reaction: during a public hearing that the council opened as part of a three‑hearing process, residents pressed for more transparency about where utility revenues have gone in recent years. Eugene Nicks pressed staff and council on transfers he said have shifted water‑fund revenue into the general fund and asked the council to detail the $1 million cited in the budget as transfers. Another commenter asked that staff break down the administration charge, the portion of utility revenues allocated to general fund costs, and whether those allocations could be trimmed instead of raising rates.

Staff response and next steps: finance staff (Finance Director Villanueva) and public works (Public Works Director Todd Crocey) said they will produce clearer graphics and line‑item explanations for the next hearing. The council scheduled additional public hearings and directed staff to return with a clearer depiction of the water and sewer fund cashflow, the historic transfers to the general fund and a justification for the recommended cuts and timing. No rate ordinance vote was taken on March 3; the matter will return for further hearings and a later council decision.

What remains uncertain: residents asked whether the 8% proposal is additive to budgeted items already in the current year, and staff confirmed they will show whether the budget included previous rate assumptions when they return. Council members also asked for an accounting of how much incremental revenue is needed (e.g., $300,000 vs. $1 million) and for greater clarity on the admin charge and the $1,000,000 figure cited by commenters.

The council kept the public hearing record open and asked staff to provide the follow‑up materials requested for the next meeting.