Board members tell new Stormwater Department director that if he finds he needs more money after Oct. 1 start of new fiscal year, they will consider specific requests
After hearing from a consultant who has been reviewing Sarasota County stormwater issues — including the level of revenue dedicated to projects — the County Commission agreed unanimously on Sept. 5 not to proceed with an increase in the annual assessments charged to taxpayers, which the board members had discussed earlier this year.
They formally followed through on that decision on Sept. 10, when they conducted their first budget hearing for the 2026 fiscal year, which will begin on Oct. 1. The stormwater assessment resolution that they approved unanimously that evening included the updated figures, County Administrator Jonathan Lewis advised them.
During their Sept. 5 stormwater workshop, Commissioner Ron Cutsinger was the first board member to point out that he would have “a hard time raising the fees this year, because the optics here are bad …”
He was referring to the testimony of residents that day, and over the preceding months, about repetitive flooding of their homes during the 2024 storm season, especially in the Phillippi Creek watershed, because of the buildup of sediment over decades as a result of the lack of county stormwater maintenance.
Cutsinger pointed out that the commissioners had agreed to allocate $75 million of a $210.1-million federal grant — which the county received in January — to the dredging of waterways, including Phillippi Creek.
Moreover, Cutsinger continued, Stephen Suau of Sarasota, a stormwater consultant who had been working under contract with the county to delve into a variety of facets of the county stormwater program, noted that $50 million of the revenue that the county is to receive through its Surtax — or, penny sales tax — program already has been dedicated to stormwater initiatives. (Those funds, Suau proposed, should be redirected to priorities with detailed benefits.)
Finally, Cutsinger referenced the $15.7 million that the commissioners allocated to stormwater projects this summer. Suau also recommended that that money be withheld for projects with defined benefits.
“It just seems that we have the dollars to move ahead,” Cutsinger continued, without raising the stormwater assessments that property owners pay the county each year.
Given the commissioners’ creation of a new Stormwater Department — with two unanimous votes having been taken on that point, in June and July — and concerns about overdue maintenance, the board members tentatively voted in July to increase the annual stormwater assessment by $17.83, for advertisement in the Truth in Millage (TRIM) notices that were to be mailed out in August. In July, Spencer Anderson, director of what was then the county’s Public Works Department, said that that uptick would give the county sufficient funds to ensure a sufficient level of service for waterway work countywide.
(Anderson identified himself during the Aug. 26 County Commission meeting as the Transportation Department director, with the stormwater program having been removed from Public Works.)
The total stormwater fee for the owner of a single-family home with an average of 2,700 square feet of impervious surface was $112.16 this fiscal year. Anderson proposed it rise to $171.81 for the 2026 fiscal year.
However, in late August, County Administrator Lewis informed the commissioners that he and Ben Quartermaine of Sarasota, the new Stormwater Department director, had agreed that the FY 2026 assessment should go no higher than $143.20 for that average homeowner.
On Sept. 5, Quartermaine recommended that increase because of all the work that he and his staff are undertaking, plus the need to fill the vacant county stormwater positions, which reflect 20% of his staff.
Yet, after each commissioner, in turn, concurred with Cutsinger during the workshop, Quartermaine said he understood their reasoning. He did not argue against their position.
Commissioner Tom Knight did tell Quartermaine, “Certainly, if it gets to the point later in the [2026] fiscal year that you see you need something more,” the board members will work with staff to provide the extra funds to the Stormwater Department.
“I’m just a little apprehensive,” Knight added, about approving an assessment increase until Quartermaine and his staff have a better idea of how much money will be needed for the work in the next fiscal year.
Prior to Cutsinger’s comments, Commissioner Mark Smith had asked whether Quartermaine felt the potential existed for a reduction in the assessments in the 2027 fiscal year, if the board approved the hike for 2026. Quartermaine had replied that he believed that would be possible, especially if the commissioners end up agreeing with consultant Suau’s suggestion that extra stormwater assessments could be imposed on property owners for improvement projects in specific areas.
Suau had explained the difference between what he called a “service assessment,” which is how he characterizes the stormwater fee charged of every property owner in the county, compared to an “improvement assessment.”
Based on his review of the 2022 stormwater ordinance approved by the County Commission seated at that time, Suau said the board members are able to charge separate assessments that would be tied to projects with defined benefits in delineated areas.
The service assessment fees, Suau further noted, should be used for planning purposes, mapping of waterways and routine maintenance. The problem, as he saw it, Suau added, was that county stormwater staff had been trying to pay for all stormwater work with the money from the service assessments.
Stormwater Director Quartermaine told Smith his view about the assessments level is “contingent on how we set up the sediment management plan for each basin …”
The heart of the waterway management program he and his staff are creating, Quartermaine said, “will be sediment management and abatement.”
“I don’t feel comfortable in moving forward with any increases [in assessments] until I have [a project] priority list,” Commissioner Teresa Mast told Quartermaine.
However, she concurred with Knight’s suggestion that Quartermaine could return to the board if he finds he needs extra money for specific purposes.
County Administrator Lewis did ask for a motion regarding what was listed as Option A on a chart with the proposed stormwater assessment increases.
Cutsinger made the motion, Mast seconded it, and it passed 5-0.
During the Sept. 10 budget hearing, Lewis reported that Quartermain would discuss his staffing needs with the board members at a later date. However, Lewis noted that the money Quartermaine will need will be available from other sources in the FY 2026 budget.
The two types of assessment, in more detail
During Suau’s Sept. 5 presentation, he made it clear that he and Quartermaine worked together as Suau pursued the tasks that County Administrator Lewis had assigned Suau.
In fact, Quartermaine told the commissioners during his opening remarks that morning that he had told Lewis that Lewis’ agreement in bringing Suau on board was “contingent to my taking this job.”
Quartermaine and Suau have been working together for many years, Quartermaine added, calling Suau his long-time mentor.
As Suau discussed the two types of assessments, Chair Joe Neunder told him, “It’s very important that this board [and county staff] has full understanding” of those funding mechanisms.
Suau noted that after the 2022 ordinance revision, which called for higher stormwater assessments, about $10 million to $15 million annually was coming into the county. As he understood it, he continued, all of that money was put into what is called “Fund 441,” which also was created in 2022 for stormwater construction projects. He speculates, he added, that staff decided against taking the initiative to look into the potential for improvement projects for specific areas.
Neunder noted that he had heard Fund 441 characterized as “a slush fund [without] definable or tangential objectives” for how the money would be used. “I don’t know that that was necessarily in the best interests of our taxpayers here,” Neunder added.
Suau responded that the use of Fund 441 probably was not as transparent as the process of charging stormwater improvements in specific areas would be. The latter would have to be approved during a public hearing, Suau explained, with clearly defined boundaries and details about issuance of a bond for the work, which would be paid back by the assessments.
Then he noted that staff had given him 40 stormwater project sheets, most of which had little detail. Only two, in fact, he said, contained information sufficient to show “a quantifiable benefit,” for flood protection or water quality, for examples.
“To be candid,” Suau told the commissioners, “it’s pretty fragmented, what’s going on.”
Having the benefit details “used to be standard operating procedure” in the county, he indicated. (Suau was a county stormwater employee years ago, he has pointed out.) “The public needs to have a return on that investment,” he continued. “The benefit is typically defined,” he added, as action that would prevent flood damage to a stated number of homes.
Moreover, Suau explained, “There’s a procedure for quantifying what that dollar value is.” If the value is greater or equal to the cost of the project, he continued, then it makes sense to pursue the project.
He did note that he and Quartermaine are “in sync” on much of what he was telling the commissioners.
“I’m just really glad that you brought that up,” Neunder replied of the cost-benefit issues.
He was looking at one of those 40 documents that Suau had referenced, Neunder continued, and he had found no language in it regarding a quantifiable benefit.
Yet, from the 2026 fiscal year through the 2030 fiscal year, Neunder said, staff had proposed spending more than $30 million on projects.
“Is this an opportunity to clean it up?” Neunder asked of the process.
“Yeah, exactly,” Suau responded.
The project list should be re-evaluated, Suau indicated, to make sediment removal and management the top priorities. He added that he believes the Stormwater Department members are excited about being able to “roll up their sleeves and do that …”
Then Suau noted that last year, when he undertook an in-depth analysis of the flooding in the county after Tropical Storm Debby dropped as much as 18 inches of rain in some areas, he found only three locations where that flooding would not have been anticipated. In each of those situations, he added, stormwater maintenance had not been taking place or operational issues were the problem.
The 2024 flooding, Suau pointed out, was the impetus for the County Commission to put the focus on stormwater maintenance.