Property tax increase could fund St. Pete stormwater upgrades
St. Petersburg’s mayoral administration accelerated $614 million in stormwater improvement projects in the aftermath of a devastating hurricane season without a clear plan to pay for the projects.
Utility revenues only cover typical operations, and many residents already struggle to afford recent rate hikes. Some officials believe a new property tax could help solve a complex conundrum.
Voters, through a referendum in 2026, would ultimately decide whether the administration issues general obligation bonds to fund St. Pete Agile Resiliency (SPAR) initiatives. Multiple city council members advocated for the voted debt, which would spread the cost across all property owners rather than just residents, at a committee meeting Thursday.
“The rate increases by themselves, without this program, are starting to become unsustainable,” said Councilmember Mike Harting. “The idea of using no debt and just raising the rates and getting to a 75% increase in a year is – I don’t think they would burn me in effigy, they would just burn me. And I wouldn’t disagree with them.”
St. Petersburg utility bills will increase by an average of roughly 9% in fiscal year 2026, which begins Oct. 1. However, the administration recommends a 17.5% hike on stormwater rates.
Some officials prefer the established 50-50 model, equally funding SPAR through debt financing and utility fees. Stormwater rates would soar by 75% in 2027 before a modest 7.5% increase in 2028.
SPAR, an aspirational initiative to rapidly address evolving climate threats, is just one piece of the city’s environmental resiliency puzzle. The Stormwater Master Plan calls for $1 billion in projects over the next 20 years.
Councilmember Brandi Gabbard frequently refers to SPAR presentations as an “unfunded list.” She noted that, contrary to what many voters will believe, 30 years of increased property taxes will not cover a bill that will inevitably surpass $1 billion before the debt issuance sunsets.
“I don’t want this to be some panacea – that this is going to fix everything,” Gabbard added. “It isn’t going to.”
She suggested issuing a limited amount of debt now, without a voter referendum, to finance the total cost of select stormwater projects. Stakeholders could wait until November just for the proposition to fail and send the city back to the drawing board.
If the referendum passes, the city would not see any bond revenue until the spring of 2027, at the earliest. “Well, for me, that’s not good enough,” Gabbard said.
City Administrator Rob Gerdes said officials would use the impending rate increases to fund some SPAR projects, including an AquaFence flood prevention barrier around a downtown sewage lift station. The city anticipates spending roughly $10 million on SPAR “pre-planning work” in 2026.
“We think it’s productive to let property owners have a vote on what they want to do,” Gerdes said. “If the referendum failed, I think that would send a message that they want to stay the course with the current CIP (capital improvement projects) program that we have.”
Local governments issue general obligation (GO) bonds to finance large capital improvement projects. The city would essentially use its property tax revenue as collateral for the amount borrowed.
St. Petersburg last issued GO bonds in 1980 to acquire and renovate the Coliseum. Andy Burnham, a consultant with Stantec, said the funding mechanism offers the “lowest cost of capital of any type of debt you can issue.”
While Council Chair Copley Gerdes is reluctant to forgo the 50-50 funding model the city recently achieved, he is “certainly open to the conversation” of financing more of SPAR’s cost “if it’s short-term.” He also reiterated that he is “very hesitant.”
Gerdes said the bond issuance would provide flexibility. Administrators could use less than the voter-approved monetary limit, which would decrease the tax rate, if they received grants or other funding sources.
Conversely, Harting noted that rate increases “never go away.” Gerdes also said the GO bonds would “spread the burden out to not just the resident, but to the owner of the property.”
Assistant City Administrator Tom Greene explained that while 58% of St. Petersburg’s 107,988 properties are homesteaded residences, non-homesteaded properties – commercial and multi-family buildings – account for 60% of the $33.8 billion taxable value.
Council members will continue discussing potential paths to pay for critical stormwater projects in August. Administrators will present a prioritized list of SPAR projects and research state requirements for the bond referendum process.
Councilmember Lisset Hanewicz said residents educated on the matter will, “if it’s important to them,” approve the new tax. “But clarity, I think, is of the utmost importance.”
Hal FREEDMAN
July 14, 2025at4:10 pm
The work has to be done. In fact, the City outlined $5 Billion in infrastructure work that’s needed over the next 5-10 years. There will be tax increases to pay for these projects…as several of us pointed out while the City wasted 2 years and many dollars on a doomed stadium effort. If we could pull together the more-than-a-Billion dollars we would need as our share of the stadium effort, why did we ignore the really important needs? This administration and some of our Council members have a seriously misaligned view of priorities.
Bradley Cochran
July 14, 2025at3:38 pm
I’m all for fixing the problem, but show us it’s actually going somewhere
Alyssa Haley
July 14, 2025at2:20 pm
If this helps prevent flooding, I’m open to it, but it’s already hard enough keeping up with everything as a family. I just really hope this isn’t another added cost with no results.
Jane Van Barricklow
July 12, 2025at11:01 pm
Property tax is municipal government slush fund. All these people know how to do is raise taxes, they never take into consideration the impact it has on the average person, while they turn our beautiful city into a place for the very poor and the very rich and no one in between. I have seen this before in the northeast and it is invaded this beautiful city. I hope they’ll stop doing it before it’s too late. Just remember Mayor and City Council, every dollar I have to send to you is a dollar I cannot spend on a local business.
Ryan Todd
July 12, 2025at5:03 pm
This discussion reminds me that St. Pete approved increasing density in the Coastal High-Hazard Overlay while Liz Abernathy was the Planning Director. Many of us voiced opposition but it fell on deaf ears, so developers can increase density in the most flood-prone areas of the city. We must relook that decision. How will increased density in the Coastal High-Hazard impact the planned infrastructure improvements.
Will Michaels
July 12, 2025at12:40 pm
Some 15,000 homes were flooded in last year’s hurricanes throughout the city. Property damage exceeded $2.4 Billion. Recent history of record-breaking temperatures and hot Gulf water is not going away. The probability of intense storms, hurricanes, and surge is significantly greater than it was a decade or two ago. Our city must adapt quickly to deal with this crisis. The clock is ticking. We have a good $960M 20-year Stormwater Master Plan addressing intense rainfall (not surge). The St. Pete Agility and Resiliency Plan proposes to accelerate $545M in funding for stormwater and other related flood-control and resiliency projects over the next 5 years. Now we need a funding plan to implement that. The proposed “GO” bonds is one solution but that does not kick-in until 2027 or later. We need to fund and implement as many projects as feasible in 2026. If projects are not shovel-ready at least the engineer planning needs to get underway now.
John Simeone
July 12, 2025at6:28 am
Two common sense replies as you state are necessary not to be rejected from getting posted are ; stop rubber stamping high rise approvals. Obviously they are burdening the infrastructure or make these developers pay a large portion of the bill. Second would be to find out what counsel person is in favor of this tax increase and vote them out. They to quick to spend other people’s hard earn money. They obvious have no idea what it means to be fiscally responsible
Zach Smith
July 11, 2025at10:45 pm
Oh look, Ken Welch’s wants to raise our property taxes…. Again. That’s all this guy knows how to do, raise our property taxes while we’re surrounded by crime, homeless and trash everywhere. This administration can’t be gone fast enough
JAMES GILLESPIE
July 11, 2025at8:20 pm
SPAR will not spare anyone if it comes to that. Any property tax increase reflects the inaction of previous administrations as well. The stormwater and utility increases are fierce. However, our weather has shown that residents need more climate-protective measures from the city. The mayor and council must clearly prove the resiliency needs, the real monetary costs, and the timelines for completion. The article suggests we are in a box, and voters must be convinced by clear plans and actions.
Velva Heraty
July 11, 2025at4:39 pm
There are consequences for poor stewardship by this administration that the victims (residents) should not be responsible for.
Pat O'Brien
July 11, 2025at4:34 pm
Time for the City to cut back on nice to do projects and instead focus on the infrastructure improvements without big tax increases.
Ryan Todd
July 11, 2025at4:20 pm
The only thing Ken Welch can do is spend taxpayer money like a drunken sailor. “No” to ALL of these ridiculous unfounded SPAR projects.