Pinellas County staff: surface‑water fees won’t cover rising costs; board previously approved general‑fund supplement and scheduled increases

Pinellas County public works staff told the Board of County Commissioners on April 3 that the county’s surface‑water utility has met several program goals since the fee was adopted in 2013, but that current revenues will not keep up with rising costs and aging infrastructure unless rates are indexed or additional funding is provided.

The nut graf: Stantec’s consultant review and county program audits show improved asset management, watershed planning and permit compliance work since the fee’s adoption, but even with grants, interlocal agreements and past efficiencies the surface‑water fund’s forecast was described as “not sustainable” without significant adjustments to revenue or additional general‑fund support.

Public works director Kelly reviewed program history and outcomes. Staff and outside reviewers documented progress on watershed master planning, condition assessment of corrugated metal pipe (CMP) assets, an asset profile available through CityWorks, and revised inspection and maintenance practices. Kelly said 18 of 26 miles of old corrugated metal pipe have been addressed through lining or replacement and the county now maintains an online asset profile and water‑quality dashboard shared with cities and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

But Stantec’s financial analysis showed operating revenues have not kept pace with inflation and rising personnel, fuel and supply costs. Kelly summarized recent rate history: a 1.5% increase in 2018 and two 3% increases in 2024 and 2025. The board had previously decided to supplement the stormwater fund with general‑fund transfers and to adopt a 3% increase in 2025; Stantec recommended a 5% indexing thereafter to preserve fiscal stability unless other revenue sources are identified.

Kelly summarized the board’s prior action (from last year): the general fund will supplement the surface‑water fund by $4,100,000 over fiscal years 2024–2025, the board adopted a 3% increase for 2025, and Stantec recommended moving to a 5% annual indexing thereafter to offset inflationary pressures. Kelly said the current rate resolution allows only a 3% automatic increase up to a specified maximum and that the resolution must be updated to allow a 5% indexing.

Staff highlighted key financial drivers: roughly 95% of fee revenue supports personnel, benefits, operating supplies and maintenance; the county’s urban storm‑water infrastructure is largely pre‑1981 and many buried assets are reaching the end of their service life; and state‑level water‑quality standards and permit cycles (NPDES monitoring and DEP impaired waters lists) require ongoing program investments.

Commissioners asked about how penny‑for‑Pinellas capital funds intersect with the surface‑water program. Staff noted the county historically uses penny funds for large stormwater capital projects while the surface‑water utility pays for operations, maintenance and minor capital. Kelly showed comparative rates across jurisdictions and noted jurisdictions use stormwater revenues differently — some for capital, some for operations. She also said the county’s unincorporated revenue base is flat (or may decline) because growth in the unincorporated area is limited and annexation removes parcels from the fund’s base.

Cities and county staff have been exchanging data about major drainage channels that cross jurisdictional lines; Kelly described a recent survey and follow‑up meetings with Clearwater, Dunedin, Largo, Safety Harbor and Tarpon Springs. Participants identified ditch maintenance, sediment removal, sump maintenance and street sweeping as priorities, but most cities said current capacity is limited and large cross‑jurisdictional maintenance would require additional resources and planning.

Kelly also noted the recent reissuance of model permit language in other counties and potential new state requirements that could increase inspection frequencies or require annual inspections for certain systems; she said those requirements were not fully accounted for in the current financial plan and could increase future maintenance demands.

Commissioners pressed for more detail on penny allocations and capital spending. County staff provided an estimate of the penny allocation historically assigned to water quality/flood prevention (about 18–20 percent range depending on accounting approach) and said they would provide a detailed breakdown on request.

Next steps staff recommended: revise the rate resolution so the county can adopt a 5% indexing beginning in FY 2026, bring the change into the FY 2026 budget process for formal adoption, and continue to update the financial plan annually. Kelly said the county will continue watershed planning, aggressive asset management through CityWorks and targeted condition assessments (camera inspections of underground pipes) to prioritize repairs before failures occur.

Ending: Commissioners asked staff for additional data on penny spending, the county’s general‑fund contribution for countywide roads and stormwater, and mapped major drainage channels; staff agreed to provide the requested breakdowns and to return in the budget process with options to address the fund’s shortfall.