Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utility Rates topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
St. Petersburg council debates utility-rate hikes and options to accelerate stormwater fixes
Summary
Saint Petersburg city staff proposed combining anticipated federal CDBG‑DR dollars and utility bonds to accelerate a multi-year stormwater capital plan, while council members pressed on affordability, staffing and project timing.
Saint Petersburg — The City Council spent more than two hours on the fiscal mechanics of a multi-year stormwater and resilience program, debating how to spread costs between ratepayers, bonds and anticipated federal grants.
Administration presented three financing scenarios for the SPAR stormwater program and an updated FY26 utility package that would raise the average customer bill about 8.6 percent. Scenario A assumes larger borrowing tied to utility bonds. Scenario E would add $1 per month to the Tier 2 stormwater charge to generate roughly $2.1 million a year and support about $32 million in 30-year utility bonds. Scenario F would pair the city's planned borrowing with an expected $25 million CDBG‑Disaster Recovery (CDBG‑DR) award to move $57 million of stormwater projects into FY26.
Claude (Utilities) told council the administration recommends scenario F if the CDBG‑DR funds are available sooner than initially expected; the city has been told by HUD and peer jurisdictions the money may arrive earlier than projected. Brijesh (Engineering) said staff and recently engaged design consultants have a prioritized list of projects and shapefile data aligned to LMI (low‑to‑moderate income) overlays that could be advanced using the CDBG‑DR funds.
Council members pushed administration on affordability, timing and staff bandwidth. Council members repeatedly stressed that many households are on fixed incomes and that large, sudden rate jumps are politically and socially difficult. Vice Chair Hanowitz and others warned that a scenario pushing a stormwater rate increase from about $23.24 to $31.07 for Tier 2 customers would be hard to accept without clear phasing or mitigation for vulnerable households.
Administration said it is not proposing substantial new staffing this year (two net positions across utilities), and noted most of the FY26 contribution would fund planning and design that enable construction in subsequent years. Council also explored program details — irrigation‑only metering, reclaimed‑water cost recovery, and higher connection fees (water-closet/impact fee proposed to reach $1,000) — as ways to better align new development with system costs.
Next steps: council asked administration to refine the recommended scenario, provide clearer project lists tied to CDBG‑DR eligibility and LMI targeting, and present comparative data (rate trajectory vs. CPI) to show the cumulative impact of prior rate deferral. No final ordinance was adopted in the meeting; first readings are scheduled and public hearings are set in August and September.
