By Roger Jimenez, Interning Correspondent for The Apopka Voice
Apopka residents will soon face a 15% increase in their water utility bills for the next two years after the City Council approved a rate hike at its September 17th meeting. The decision follows weeks of debate, including an earlier vote to table the resolution in hopes of finding alternative solutions, and just days after the Council approved a 15% increase to sanitation rates.
Resolution 2025-38 was reintroduced at the Council's most recent meeting with a more favorable outcome after financial consultants from Raftelis presented updated findings. The analysis appeared to reassure some commissioners who previously had concerns.
"The reason why I had the change of heart was because I listened to the professionals and understood that it is essential to the health of the City and for the long-term benefit of essential services. There was really no way to trim that budget out," said Commissioner Nadia Anderson. "I do understand the impact and increase that every dollar counts, and I definitely recommend that anyone who has issues with the increase... there are a lot of different nonprofit agencies that can assist if you need help with the water bill or light bill… but understand this decision was extremely hard for me to make, but understanding that, it would have been irresponsible and reckless of me not to agree with the increase, because it's essential."
But residents who spoke during public comment continued to voice strong opposition, pointing to water meter problems as a major issue that should be resolved before rates are raised.
"What bothers me is, can anyone tell me how many water meters are not working properly? Apopka resident Ace Woodham asked. "No one can answer that question? How do you justify raising the water bill by 15% when you don't even know how many gallons are being used? If we can't read the meters, does it make sense to charge more money for it?"
Rod Olsen, another Apopka resident, echoed Woodham's concerns.
"A year and a half ago, 30% of all our pump station equipment was past its normal life span," he said. "There's no excuse. No one would be complaining if it were a 1% or 2% rate increase since that's what inflation is doing. Until you fix the blessed meters, you should use your reserves and not increase [the rate] for those people that have the challenges they do."
Leroy Bell recalled earlier issues with meter malfunctions.
"I think it was about two years or three years ago that we started talking about these meters. If you remember, there was a malfunction in the meters, and the meters were purchased by the City with no manufacturer warranty, and we were talking about purchasing new meters. But the problem is, the 4,000 meters that you are projecting from is on the north side of Apopka. There's no bad reading on the South side of Apopka… and when you raise the rate over here, you're raising the rates over there. And the slap in the face here that you're raising rates on all the citizens of Apopka."
Commissioner Nick Nesta noted that the City had approximately 6,600 broken meters last year, while Finance Director Blanche Sherman clarified that the number has been reduced to around 4,000.
Interim City Administrator Radley Williams highlighted that the City's targets include reducing broken meters to 5–10%, creating faster ways to detect failures, and maintaining a steady supply of replacement parts. Williams emphasized that staff are actively working to address the issue.
"I set some pretty lofty goals on the meter replacement and meter repair program, and they've been at it nonstop, trying to knock those numbers down. So they've been putting in the work, and it is showing. Obviously, it still takes time, but the staff have been moving well," said Williams.
Nesta also pressed for clarity on indirect costs and general fund transfers, suggesting the City could have explored cost-cutting alternatives before approving a rate increase. He pointed to $1.2 million in potential reductions and $900,000 in vehicle replacements that could be reallocated instead. Sherman responded that while those measures may be feasible, they would be impossible to implement until the next budget cycle.
The resolution passed 4-1, with Nesta casting the dissenting vote. He explained his opposition by saying he believed the Council should have returned the matter to the drawing board.
