Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County staff propose 7% surface-water assessment increase after new state inspection rules
Summary
Pinellas County budget staff recommended raising the surface-water assessment from a 5% to a 7% annual increase to fund newly tightened state inspection and maintenance requirements for canals, swales and outfalls; commissioners signaled support to include the change in the budget.
Pinellas County budget staff on Aug. 28 proposed increasing the annual surface-water assessment by 7% for the coming year to cover new inspection and maintenance requirements that county staff said were added to state permits this summer.
Chris Rose, the county’s budget director, said the Department of Environmental Protection and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) implementation have changed inspection cadences: channels and canals move from five‑year to annual inspections; ditches and swales shift from 10‑year to five‑year cycles; and many non-major outfalls now require inspections every five years. The county’s staff recommendation added a 2% surcharge to a previously discussed 5% increase — producing a 7% increase (about $2.49 per parcel) for the next year.
Why it matters: County staff described the change as an unfunded state mandate that will require more frequent maintenance and either additional county staff or outside contractors. Public-works staff told commissioners they will try internal reorganization but expect to use contract services to meet the new inspection workload.
Costs and implementation: County staff said the county already maintains thousands of ponds and outfalls; a department asset‑management review produced an estimate of roughly $2.5 million to meet the new maintenance schedule. Staff said contractors may be needed given the scale: ‘‘There’s no way for us to get there in a year,’’ Public Works leaders told commissioners, and they will ask the state for a phased implementation where possible.
Commission response: Commissioners expressed concern about the speed of the rule change and asked staff to seek flexibility from the state. Several commissioners said they were inclined to include the 7% increase in the proposed budget, noting they had little choice because permit compliance is required.
Ending: Staff said they would include the recommended increase in the budget documents and continue to press the state for phased implementation, while reallocating internal resources and planning for contracted services where necessary.
