Opinion

Two stormwater storms

County commissioners are facing two storms that could blow them away: how to pay for and prevent another 2024 and dumping stormwater on the city.

By Matt Walsh
| 5:00 a.m. May 29, 2025

Sarasota
Opinion

Talk about storms. Sarasota County commissioners are fighting two storms — before the 2025 hurricane season even begins, and, if not handled well, these storms could blow the commissioners away.

Storm 1: Stormwater management, specifically, figuring out what to do; how much to do; how to do it; how much money it’s going to take; and how much more everyone is going to pay to avoid a repeat of the 2024 flooding. It could grow to an electoral Category 4.

Storm 2: A proposal by the county to end its 34-year agreement with the city of Sarasota to manage the city’s stormwater and cause the city to create and fund its own stormwater utility operation. This one could become a Cat 5 war between the city and county.

And we thought Hurricanes Helene and Milton were bad. Ha.

1) Stormwater management

Judging from last week’s County Commission workshop on stormwater management, large swaths of unincorporated county residents along and near the banks of the county’s creeks (e.g. Phillippi and South Creeks) and between Clark Road and Venice, as well as east of Interstate 75, remain quite agitated over last fall’s flooding and the county’s stormwater management. They’re demanding action before the 2025 storm season begins.

One testy comment repeated to commissioners during the public portion of the meeting: “We are not going away.”

After an hour of mostly terse public comments (and a few compliments) and three hours of discussions with Sarasota County Public Works Director Spencer Anderson on how to address stormwater flowing through the county’s waterways, Anderson gave commissioners three funding scenarios to address the dredging and maintenance of the county’s waterways:

Raise the county’s base stormwater fee 33.5% in fiscal 2026 to $67.35 from $50.44
Create a new countywide ad valorem tax of 0.1312 mills
Issue bonds and assess affected residents in specific watersheds on a per project basis

Commissioners all agreed the county first must commit to raising its level of stormwater service to avoid a repeat of 2024. As Commissioner Teresa Mast noted: Make the commitment to manage and maintain the county’s waterways in perpetuity (e.g. keep them dredged and free of debris) and figure out later how to pay for it.

Another workshop is yet to come. And count on this: The county’s fees for stormwater management, inevitably, are going to increase.

2) Transfer stormwater to city

The county administration dropped this bomb on the city last April.

Not much progressed publicly since then, until last week. County commissioners were expected to address the matter at their May 21 stormwater meeting. But after four-and-a-half hours of debating how to manage stormwater in the county’s waterways, they decided to go home and address the issue another day.

To be blunt: If county commissioners vote to disengage from the three-decade interlocal agreement, that would be an unbelievable cost to city taxpayers and, to be sure, a future management mess.

City officials have been preparing for the worst. And it is the worst.

The city is estimating taking on responsibility for the city’s portion of stormwater management (and the infrastructure) would require an upfront cost to the city of between $14 million to $20 million. Of that, an estimated $5 million would go toward equipment and $1.7 million to $2.2 million in the first year to hire 20 utilities staffers.

Those are just the upfront costs.

Here are the responsibilities the city would have to take on and be ready to manage:

Operate and maintain 2,831 storm inlets, 67 miles of pipes, swales and ponds and six pump stations
Maintain and upgrade infrastructure, dredging, tide gates and water quality
Procure, operate and maintain a new fleet of vehicles and machinery for ditching, excavation and digital inspections

It’s not as if the county’s current utilities staff would just switch to becoming city staffers and change the logos on their shirts.

To a degree, it’s akin to starting a new utility business. Things always go wrong in startups.

What’s more, there are larger consequences to this. Instead of a consolidated stormwater utility managing all of Sarasota County, the county’s divestiture would create two separate systems that would have to be coordinated every step of the way. You can envision the inevitable conflicts, blame games and mismanagement.

Indeed, this is such a bad idea it compelled the Argus Foundation to send a letter to county commissioners urging them to scrap it. We have reprinted the guts of the letter, in which Argus Executive Director Christine Robinson, a former county commissioner, makes a compelling argument against divestiture.

The saying is “timing is everything.” Given all that the county must confront with stormwater management countywide; all that the county and city are still doing to recover from 2024; preparing budgets for 2026; and all the city is confronting on other fronts (hiring a city manager; figuring out what to do with the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall and a new performing arts center), and on the eve of the 2025 hurricane season, the timing for this could not be more wrongheaded. And to do it would be even worse.

Argus: Stormwater transfer defies logic, fiscal responsibility

First, stormwater flows transcend political boundaries. Consolidated management under a single entity, particularly in the northern county region, represents the most logical approach. This principle was acknowledged in the original 1990 agreement, which stated:

“WHEREAS, drainage basins overlap political boundaries, and intergovernmental cooperation is required to effectively manage stormwater runoff;”

The agreement further recognized:

“WHEREAS, it is the mutual desire of the COUNTY and CITY to establish relationships and responsibilities for planning, control, operation, maintenance and improvements to identified stormwater systems within the limits of the CITY in order to more efficiently and economically manage and coordinate the planning, operation, maintenance and improvements to such systems.”

The Argus Foundation has consistently advocated for government consolidation to enhance efficient service delivery to taxpayers. Our community has successfully implemented this approach through the integration of 911 services and fire departments.

Creating duplicate stormwater management departments divided by political boundaries defies operational logic and fiscal responsibility.

While we acknowledge certain challenges within the current agreement, these issues can and should be resolved collaboratively to benefit all residents, recognizing that city residents are also county citizens.

We recommend directing county administration to address these concerns prior to considering agreement termination, with commission intervention if administrative efforts prove insufficient.

We recognize that the aging infrastructure and impervious surface challenges within the city differ significantly from those in the unincorporated county. Should city-specific challenges necessitate a separate stormwater district with adjusted fee structures, we would support such an approach. This would undoubtedly prove more cost-effective than establishing an entirely new department that duplicates county resources, personnel, equipment and expertise.

We also recognize the development planning challenges that exist. These issues warrant thoughtful collaboration and formal documentation of solutions within the interlocal agreement. Termination should represent the absolute last resort rather than the initial response to these challenges.

We understand that dissolving the agreement might ease administrative burdens for staff still addressing maintenance backlogs following the 2024 storm events. However, the commission’s primary obligation must be to the residents and businesses of both city and county, rather than to administrative convenience.

County government serves as the representative entity for the entire area, and the integrated management of water flowing between jurisdictions should remain a county responsibility to ensure comprehensive protection for all constituents.

The commission represents taxpayers, not government itself, and should prioritize resolving these issues rather than transferring responsibility during challenging periods.

Finally, the timing of this proposal presents significant concerns for both city taxpayers and administration. Implementing substantial fee increases to fund a new department would undermine the city’s impressive affordable housing initiatives recently codified in their comprehensive plan and zoning regulations.

According to the Sarasota Observer, approximately 900 housing units are currently under development through combined public and private efforts within city limits. While any fee increase presents challenges, establishing funding for an entirely new department would significantly impede housing affordability progress.

Additionally, with city government undergoing administrative transition and unlikely to secure permanent leadership until early 2026, the City Commission faces unavoidable delays in its management search process. Imposing the creation or planning of a new department upon the city during this period when county support is most critical demonstrates neither responsible governance nor cooperative partnership. We must collectively aspire to better serve our shared constituency.

In conclusion, we strongly urge the removal of this item from the agenda without presentation or action …

As our community continues storm recovery efforts, transferring stormwater responsibilities back to the city — along with unresolved city issues in areas like St. Armands and Harbor Acres — constitutes an abdication of responsibility to residents and businesses, particularly during the city’s administrative transition.

Stormwater will inevitably cross our jurisdictional boundaries. We respectfully request that you honor the collaborative spirit of the original 1990 consolidation agreement by pursuing constructive solutions rather than disengaging from this shared challenge.