Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hillsborough County receives updated stormwater rate study, staff recommends options to close a $41.8 million funding gap
Summary
County staff and consultant Raftelis presented a 2026 stormwater rate study recommending $61.6M in annual capital funding, offset by ~$19.8M from other sources and leaving a $41.8M annual need; staff said any rate change requires a noticed summer public hearing and mailed notices to property owners.
Josh Bellotti, engineering and operations lead for Hillsborough County, presented the 2026 stormwater rate study and explained how consultant Raftelis incorporated Black & Veatch’s recommendations and projected CDBG-DR and other funding to size capital needs.
The study identified culvert replacement as the largest program need across the unincorporated county and proposed $61.6 million in annual capital funding. After accounting for projected revenue sources (including CDBG-DR and other grants) estimated at about $19.8 million annually, Raftelis calculated a remaining capital requirement of $41.8 million per year. Bellotti said the study also recommended increasing routine maintenance activity, estimating an additional $1.8 million annually to raise maintenance by 10% countywide.
The county’s stormwater fee is levied as a non-ad valorem assessment on property tax bills; Bellotti said operations and maintenance cannot be paid from CDBG-DR or certain grant funds and rely on the stormwater assessment and supplemental general-fund support. He described existing rate-relief measures, including multifamily and condominium assessments at one-third and a hardship program for qualifying low-income property owners.
In follow-up questions, commissioners pressed staff on timing and notice requirements. Staff said the board must set any rate change in time for tax-roll updates and that a summer public hearing—typically in August—with mailed notices in late June or early July would be required if rates are adjusted. No rate change was adopted at the meeting; the board accepted the study and staff sought direction on a rate range to inform public notices and the hearing schedule.
The board did not vote on a rate increase during the meeting; staff said it could defer or partially implement study recommendations and will return with draft ordinance language and public-notice timelines if the board provides a direction range.
