St. Petersburg council presses administration to publish notice on unsolicited AMI proposal; 30‑day response proposed

Council member Brandy Gabbard brought forward an update April 2 on an unsolicited public‑private partnership (P3) proposal the city received Jan. 14 for an advanced metering infrastructure (AMI) program intended to replace legacy water meters across St. Petersburg.

"This is simply about process and making sure that city council has a voice in that process," Gabbard said, introducing the item and asking the administration and outside counsel to outline options.

Fred Springer of Bryant Miller Olive, the city’s outside counsel for the matter, told the council Florida’s P3 statute permits unsolicited proposals and lays out several procedural paths — including a public‑notice competitive solicitation, an optional two‑public‑hearing route to document findings if the city elects to proceed without competition, or direct negotiations with an unsolicited proposer. "The statute authorizes unsolicited proposals," Springer said, adding the 2013 law gives local governments broad discretion about whether and how to solicit competing offers.

Administration staff said the mayor has directed them to expedite a transition to digital meters where feasible and that they intend to publish a public notice to solicit competing proposals. The administration said it was drafting the notice and hoped to publish it within about a week, proposing a 30‑day response window under the statute.

"We're proposing 30 [days]," the administration said when asked how long vendors would have to respond; staff cautioned the statutory range permits 21–120 days and that practical advertisement timing can add a few days.

Council members pressed staff for specific technical and financial context. Staff and outside counsel confirmed the city has roughly 97,000 water meters citywide and has installed about 24,000–25,000 digital meters so far; at the current in‑house pace the remaining work could take roughly five more years. Staff explained digital meters and the AMI overlay would make near‑real‑time consumption data available to customers and allow alerting for leaks, which could reduce unbilled water.

Councilmember Mike Harding pressed on delivery options and pacing. "The most expeditious way would be for us to hire an outside company that has experience in doing these kind of installations on a fast track basis," a utilities official said, noting in‑house teams can install meters but would be limited by staffing. Several members discussed hybrid approaches such as expanded self‑performance combined with contractor support.

On finance, councilmember Curtis and others sought clarity about the unsolicited proposal’s financing terms. The presentation cited a range of options including a meters‑as‑a‑service structure with an estimated $4–$5 monthly charge for customers and a 20‑year term. The proposal includes an end‑of‑term fair‑market‑value estimate (disclosed on a page of the submission as $2,200,000) and, council members noted, an aggregated payment profile that was described in discussion as roughly $77,000,000 over the term with a 3% annual escalator. Administration staff said some figures in the proposal reflected the proposer’s estimates and that definitive pricing would come back with competitive responses.

Several council members expressed urgency because inaccurate meter reads and high bills continue to be a problem for residents; others cautioned about long‑term fiscal implications and lifecycle replacement timing. Staff noted the digital meter warranties are presented as 20 years (prorated after year 10), implying the city could face a large cohort replacement if all meters are replaced simultaneously.

Council members asked for frequent public updates. The administration committed to a near‑term notice and to return with proposals and an evaluation timeline: publish the notice quickly, accept responses for 30 days, then evaluate submissions and return to council with recommendations — a timeline staff said could produce preliminary results by late May to early June depending on advertisement and submission dates.

Council did not take a vote on contract authority or on any specific financing option at the April 2 meeting; the discussion was framed as a process decision and a request for additional information. The administration said it will finalize the notice and make it available on OpenGov when ready, and council members asked for a brief status update on April 16 if the notice or other developments are available.

What’s next: the administration aims to publish the public notice in the coming week, with a proposed 30‑day response window; council expects to see evaluation results and potential negotiation steps in the weeks afterward.