St. Charles residents are likely to see higher utility bills starting in June, after City Council members on Monday approved rate hikes they say are needed to pay for lead water service line replacements and infrastructure improvements.
Residents can expect to see a roughly 17% increase in their overall utility charges beginning in June, with subsequent increases expected annually through 2029.
In justifying the hikes, the city has pointed to a need to replace lead service lines in advance of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency deadline, and also the need to make other improvements.
The replacement of lead service lines is required by the EPA and must be completed within 10 years, under a rule approved by former President Joe Biden’s administration meant to reduce lead in drinking water. President Donald Trump’s administration recently indicated that it is backing the 10-year deadline, according to the Associated Press.
Lead, a heavy metal once common in products like pipes and paints, is a neurotoxin that can stunt children’s development, lower IQ scores and increase blood pressure in adults, according to the Associated Press. Lead pipes can corrode and contaminate drinking water.
St. Charles has said it is not receiving any state or federal funding to comply with the EPA rule, so it must implement the replacements using its own funds. The City Council approved a lead line replacement policy in 2024, according to a news release from the city.
The city is looking to replace lead service line connections that exist for around 3,400 water users within the city, a memo from the city said. That is expected to cost about $8.4 million annually and must begin in 2026. Once the lead line replacements are completed, water rates can be decreased, the city has indicated.
But the EPA-required replacement is not the only project St. Charles is seeking to fund by way of the recently-passed utility rate hikes.
Citing a doubling of the average number of water main breaks over the past three years, St. Charles is also looking to replace some aging infrastructure, the recent city news release said. And, in response to growth in the city and more development expected in the future, the city is also looking to improve its water and wastewater system capacity.
Over the past three years, the city says it has used $11 million from its reserves to support water-related projects, and is continuing to look at grant and loan options to pay for the improvements. But the recently-passed utility hikes are meant to provide a major source of funds for the city to complete these projects.
The changes to residents’ rates include hikes for water and wastewater, coupled with a 5% reduction in electric rates to help offset the other increases, per the city.
Water base rates for most customers would see an increase of about $13 to $16 on the average monthly bill in 2026, followed by a $9 to $12 increase in 2027 and lower increases in the years following, per the city. Water usage rates are set to increase from $6 to $11.70 per one thousand gallons in June and to $16.38 in 2027, with smaller increases in the years after.
As for the wastewater utility, customers can expect to see 10% increases in sewer charges and rates for the next three years, followed by an 8% increase for 2029.
The 5% decrease in electric charges is set to go into effect in June
More Top Picks Sound System
, with no future adjustments to it planned.Giving a sample utility bill for comparison, the city is projecting that residents’ overall charges could increase by nearly 50% between now and 2029.
The actual percentage, however, will vary depending on each customer’s usage, the city has said, and it is planning for the portion of the water rate hike meant to pay for the lead service line replacements to be temporary until the project is completed.
The rates are set to go into effect for utility bills issued after June 1.
At Monday’s meeting, at which the matter was officially approved by the City Council, a few residents spoke critically about the rate increases.
Some concern was expressed by council members too, namely about whether there are alternate ways the city can fund these improvements.
“I understand that this is such an important project, and I’m supportive of the need to do this,” Ald. Jayme Muenz said at the meeting. “What my objection here is that there was not more time taken to look at alternate funding sources … that was offered to us as an option.”
Muenz emphasized that, while the lead pipe replacement project itself is mandatory, how it’s funded is the city’s call. And she suggested that the city hasn’t fully considered all of its options to potentially reduce the impact the projects would have on utility customers.
“Had we looked at this two years ago or three years ago when we knew this was coming down the line and …started looking at some of the services we do provide to our community and determining if these were things that maybe we could pare back and utilize those funds in a different way to ease that burden,” Muenz said, “perhaps we could take some of that off of our ratepayers.”
Ald. Vicki Spellman, too, said she would have preferred the city use other revenue sources besides just utility rates to pay for these projects.
Muenz emphasized that the city needs to educate the community on why the improvements are necessary, and suggested the council could explore alternate options for next year to potentially ease the costs to ratepayers in future years.
The measure was ultimately approved on Monday, with only Muenz and Ald. Ryan Bongard voting against it.
Following the vote, however, St. Charles Mayor Clint Hull defended the city’s situation, but suggested that the conversation is not necessarily over.
“I know that I sound like every other elected official in the city when I talk about unfunded mandates,” Hull said, referring to the EPA lead service line replacement requirement. “But at least $84 million of this was something that no city council before us could have planned for or this city council could’ve planned for.”
He said the city has applied for grants — and has been told it doesn’t qualify for them because of “the resources that (St. Charles has)” — but noted the possibility of continued work on the city’s part to find additional funding.
“To council member Muenz, I agree,” Hull said. “Let’s keep digging. And just because it’s passed today doesn’t mean that we don’t start tomorrow and (try) to figure out what we can do.”
The Associated Press contributed.