Higher county stormwater assessments proposed by county Public Works staff to make up for loss of city stormwater revenue
Editor’s note: This article was updated late in the morning of June 17 with new information from the Office of the County Administrator.
With the director of the Sarasota County Public Works Department appearing to have caught Sarasota city commissioners by surprise with the proposal in late March, the County Commission has directed County Administrator Jonathan Lewis to talk with the city’s new interim manager about the county’s proposal to return the city’s stormwater responsibilities to the city.
Commissioner Teresa Mast raised the issued during her board’s regular meeting on June 3.
In late May, the City Commission unanimously hired former Longboat Key Town Manager Dave Bullock, a former deputy county administrator, to succeed interim City Manager Doug Jeffcoat, as the search for a new city manager likely will continue through most of this year.
When Jeffcoat offered last fall to serve in the interim role, following the October 2024 retirement of Marlon Brown, the expectation was that a new city manager would be on board by April or soon thereafter.
Bullock began work on May 27. However, he had informed the city commissioners that he had made plans to be away for the first two weeks of June. He will be back in the office on June 16, he said.
On March 28, as The Sarasota News Leader has reported, during a joint meeting of the city and county commissioners, Spencer Anderson, director of Public Works, told the city commissioners that the county commissioners had agreed in December to ask county staff to undertake a thorough analysis of the 1990 interlocal agreement between the two governmental bodies that put the county in charge of city as well as county stormwater work.
In 2022, Anderson explained to the city commissioners, the county added 87 square miles of unincorporated areas to its stormwater service area; that represented a 40% increase.
Following the flooding damage that occurred in many county communities during the 2024 storm season, Anderson added, the County Commission directed staff to focus on making the county more storm-resilient. Moreover, he said, with more developments being constructed in the eastern part of the county, new residents expect stormwater service, as well.
When city Commissioner Jen Ahearn-Koch asked Anderson whether he had more details that he could share that day, he told her he did not.
Ahearn-Koch did express her anticipation that the city’s taking over its stormwater responsibilities would be “quite large in dollars,” with the likelihood that more city staff members would be needed.
Anderson responded that the annual stormwater assessments city residents have been paying to the county add up to about $4 million a year.
On June 3, during Mast’s report to her colleagues, she said that, if such communications were not happening already, “I’d like to strongly encourage our county administrator and the new interim city [manager] to have conversations” regarding Anderson’s March 28 presentation.
As County Administrator Lewis has been asking the commissioners over the past year, especially, to make motions when they have specific directions for him, Mast put her suggestion into the form of a motion. Commissioner Mark Smith seconded it, and it passed 5-0.
Lewis did not offer any comment that the News Leader heard in regard to whether he had made any effort to contact Bullock.
In response to a News Leader public records request filed on June 10, city staff found no email exchanges between Lewis and interim City Manager Bullock regarding the stormwater issue.
On June 11, when the News Leader contacted Jan Thornburg, general manager of the city’s Communications Department, to ask whether any telephone records existed, showing contact between Lewis and Bullock, Thornburg replied, “Mr. Bullock’s executive assistant also is on vacation,” adding that many city employees are taking their vacations this month while the City Commission is on its annual break.
However, in response to a News Leader inquiry of county staff, Public Information officer Amanda Morales provided the following information in a June 12 email: “Assistant County Administrator Mark Cunningham and Public Works Director Spencer Anderson met with City of Sarasota [Deputy] Manager Patrick Robinson and City Engineer Nikesh Patel on May 14.” County staff had added, she wrote, “We’re planning to continue future conversations with our partners in the city.”
On June 17, Morales let the News Leader know that she had just learned that County Administrator Lewis indeed had communicated with interim City Manager Dave Bullock; that took place on May 21, she wrote in an email. Bullock emailed him first, according to a document that Morales sent the News Leader, and Lewis responded at 11:42 a.m.:
Argus Foundation decries timeline for proposed shift of responsibilities
Before Mast raised the city stormwater issue on June 3, county staff had published the following item on the agenda for the County Commission’s third stormwater workshop this year, which was conducted on May 21: “To consider Board policy guidance on notification to the City of Sarasota on the intent to terminate the Interlocal Agreement for Stormwater Management with the City of Sarasota, Contract 98-357 and subsequent amendments.”
A county staff memo related to that item said, “No formal outreach has been completed for the information to be presented,” indicating that none of the details had been shared with city leaders.
The inclusion of that item on the stormwater workshop agenda prompted Christine Robinson, a former county commissioner who is the executive director of the Argus Foundation, to send a letter to the county commissioners, on behalf of her board, urging them not to take time to deal with the city stormwater issue on May 21.
She also addressed the commissioners during the Open to the Public comment period at the outset of that workshop.
In her letter, Robinson characterized the Foundation response to the inclusion of the discussion on the May 21 agenda as a “strong objection.” She pointed out, “The commission specifically requested this workshop to address stormwater maintenance concerns. You clearly articulated your intention that this workshop focus exclusively on maintenance issues.”
The city-county stormwater issue, Robinson continued, “extends well beyond the scope of maintenance to encompass comprehensive stormwater management, including capital planning, programs, basin planning, and numerous other considerations beyond the intended focus of this [stormwater workshop].”
Moreover, she wrote, “[W]e must also emphasize our position against terminating the stormwater management agreement with the City of Sarasota, for several compelling reasons:
Public Works staff proposes options, including higher county assessments
The county staff memo included in the May 21 stormwater workshop agenda packet in regard to the city-county stormwater discussion was provided by Public Works Director Anderson, through County Administrator Lewis, to the commissioners.
The memo explained, “Since the adoption of [the county-city stormwater interlocal agreement] almost 25 years ago on September 25, 1990, the scope of the County’s stormwater duties and responsibilities within the unincorporated section of the County have increased tremendously, and at a pace that is incongruent with available resources. With the growth of the County and limited resources to perform these services, this is a prudent time to reevaluate the need and effectiveness for the Agreement, and how the County can best utilize our resources to address the Board’s priorities and other stormwater needs within the unincorporated County. Therefore, in accordance with Section 9 of the Agreement … the Public Works Department recommends termination of the Agreements, and all amendments thereto. As such, the following two potential options for separating County stormwater management from the City are provided for [the County Commission’s] consideration and feedback. Other options may be evaluated if desired.”
Option 1 called for the separation of the city and county stormwater responsibilities during the 2028 fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1, 2027.
Explaining details of that proposal, the memo said, “This approach allows the City two fiscal years to determine the revenue required to fund the transition and the initial setup of new processes, personnel and equipment needed to adequately support the City’s stormwater management.
“The annual County SEU [Stormwater Environmental Utility] revenue will be impacted by approximately 4.3% when City assessments cease,” the memo continued. “Therefore, the County could include an assessment rate increase of an additional approximately 1.4% annually in [fiscal years 2026, 2027 and 2028] to accommodate the reduced revenue from the City (in addition to normal escalation) when the transition occurs.”
The memo added, “This approach also allows the County sufficient time to plan how to best utilize Field Services Stormwater resources in the unincorporated County. The SEU service area increased by 40% in 2022; however, the City is only 12% of the pre-2022 service area,” the memo said. Thus, it noted, “current staff and equipment are anticipated to be reallocated to maintain levels of service in the portions of unincorporated County that previously did not benefit from stormwater maintenance services. If, following separation from the City, actual expenses are less than current expenses, annual SEU assessments will be adjusted appropriately.”
Option 2 called for the separation of the stormwater responsibilities over a three-year period, concluding in FY 2029:
“For this approach,” the memo explained, “it is suggested that the City be divided into three approximately equal annual non-ad valorem assessment revenue-generating areas (by zip codes). The County will release one of these areas to the City for stormwater management in each of the three fiscal years, beginning in FY27.
“A phased transition will impact the annual County SEU revenue by approximately 1.4% in each of the three years,” the memo continued. “Therefore, the County could include an assessment rate increase of an additional approximately 1.4% annually in FY27-29 to accommodate the reduced revenue from the City (in addition to normal escalation). As previously stated for Option 1, since the SEU service area increased
by 40% in 2022 and the City is only 12% of the pre-2022 service area, current staff and equipment are anticipated to be utilized to maintain levels of service in the portions of unincorporated County that
previously did not benefit from stormwater maintenance services. If, following separation from the City, actual expenses are less than current expenses, annual SEU assessments will be adjusted appropriately.”
Finally, that option noted, “The City will need to obtain funding for personnel and equipment to support the first year of the
transition and develop or revise a non-ad valorem assessment methodology and rate to support subsequent years of stormwater management. The City will need to develop the necessary resources
(personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, contracted services, etc.) to adequately support the City’s stormwater management services during the transition and thereafter.”
As the commissioners already had spent about three hours that morning discussing budget matters for the next fiscal year, and they did not conclude the primary focus of their stormwater workshop until close to 5:30 p.m., Chair Joe Neunder informed staff that the city-county stormwater issue would have to wait for another day.
Neunder also noted that he had not had an opportunity to discuss the topic with any of the city commissioners, which he indicated he wanted to do before he and his fellow county commissioners talked about it.