Saint Petersburg council debates how to pay for accelerated SPAR infrastructure program

Council member Floyd pressed city staff on whether recent reductions in penny funding and other shifts would change how quickly the city can complete stormwater and water-resources projects.

The SPAR (Saint Pete Agile Resilience) plan would accelerate long‑planned water, wastewater and stormwater projects into a shorter window. "I just like to continue to have the conversation around how, the change in sort of a... policy is affecting things," Council member Floyd said during the Committee of the Whole budget review.

Staff described two near‑term tools: aligning more cash in the utility rate setting process and examining a general obligation bond that would go to voters. A finance staffer described the city's fiscal policy goal of a roughly 50/50 split of debt to cash for capital programs and said that a general obligation bond would require a referendum and, if approved, typically would not generate net revenue for budgeting until the levy appears on the roll (the administration estimated potential revenue collection beginning in the 2028 budget if a 2026 referendum passed).

City staff emphasized that accelerating SPAR work strictly through utility rates alone would place "a significant increase" on rates for FY 2026, particularly for stormwater, and that staff were developing a blended approach that could include borrowing, rate adjustments and grant funding. "For rates to handle SPAR alone is not practical," said a city staff presenter during the discussion.

Several council members said they want the conversation moved forward now rather than later. "There is a reality around that: how do we fund that. And the residents are looking at us to make those tough decisions," Council member Gavin said, urging an earlier briefing on a bond approach than staff had suggested.

Vice Chair Hanlon and others cautioned that residents face rising living costs and that voter approval for a GO bond is not guaranteed. Hanlon said voters ultimately decide whether they want to increase ad valorem tax levies to pay for major infrastructure programs.

Council members and staff also discussed program delivery questions: the FY26 budget includes start‑up funding for SPAR program management and staff said the plan relies on hiring consultant program managers and staff augmentation to deliver the volume of projects rather than adding permanent city positions. "When we're talking about having program managers and outsourcing some of this stuff... we anticipate that this accelerated program... is not going to be a permanent program," a staff presenter said.

Council members requested follow‑up briefings that would: (1) show the detailed rate impacts on utility customers, (2) lay out a timeline and options for a potential general obligation bond and what borrowing prior to levy receipts would look like, and (3) present the operating‑budget implications of accelerating capital work (maintenance, staffing and ongoing operating costs tied to the projects).

Staff said the SPAR funds in the CIP are temporary placeholders, that SPAR projects will be budgeted in FY26 in the related utility capital funds and that later years in the proposed 5‑year plan show hundreds of millions of dollars in proposed water and stormwater SPAR projects (staff cited roughly $343 million in water resources SPAR projects and about $258 million in stormwater SPAR projects for FY27–30 in the workbook). City council members asked staff to return with a summer workplan that includes a bond‑feasibility discussion and clearer grant and rate scenarios.

Ending note: Council members agreed to more detailed, project‑level briefings and asked staff to provide district‑oriented project descriptions and GIS project fact sheets so council members can answer residents' questions about timing, funding and neighborhood impacts.