St. Petersburg City Council Meeting – April 2, 2026

The St. Petersburg City Council met on April 2, 2026, at 2:00 PM. The meeting included an invocation, approval of the agenda and consent agenda, open forum, a major discussion on an unsolicited public-private partnership proposal for advanced metering infrastructure (AMI), and two public hearings. All votes during the meeting were unanimous.

Consent Calendar

• The agenda was approved unanimously.
• The consent agenda (routine approvals) was approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dr. Perry G. Washington (self-identified resident of St. Petersburg) addressed the council, criticizing the police chief, certain council members, and the requirement to state an address. He expressed frustration over an arrest related to a fence dispute and claimed council members had not responded to his concerns. His remarks were not related to a specific agenda item.

Discussion Items

• F1 – Update on Unsolicited Proposal for Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI)

  • Councilmember Gabbard introduced the item to discuss the process for the unsolicited P3 proposal received on January 14, 2026, and the role of outside legal counsel (Bryant Miller Olive).
  • Fred Springer (outside counsel) explained the Florida P3 statute, the unsolicited proposal process, and the options for advertising for competing proposals or proceeding directly to negotiations with two public hearings. He noted that the statute provides broad discretion to the city.
  • Rob (administration) stated that Mayor Welch directed staff to expedite the transition to digital meters. The administration intends to move forward with a public notice to solicit competitive offers, with a draft notice expected within two to three weeks.
  • Claude Tankersley (public works) answered questions about the current analog meter system (97,000 meters, 24,000–25,000 digital, self-installation at a pace of five years), the benefits of digital meters (near real-time data, leak detection, reduced unbilled water), and the need for a contractor to accelerate installation.
  • Council members expressed varying views on financing: Councilmember Harding supported bonding the project; Vice Chair Floyd emphasized financial prudence and suggested considering self-performance or hybrid models; Councilmember Curtis questioned the cost gap between the $77 million unsolicited proposal and the city's $25 million CIP budget; Councilmember Gabbard advocated for the two-public-hearing path to enable public input and expedite negotiations; Councilmember Driscoll stressed urgency and sought assurance that the administration would not delay; Councilmember Gibbons noted the importance of competitive processes for public benefit.
  • The administration committed to issuing the public notice by approximately April 17, 2026 (30-day response period), with responses expected by the end of May 2026. Councilmember Driscoll requested a brief update at the April 16 council meeting.

• E1 – Ordinance Amending Code of Silence (Section 2-209A) – No public comment. Approved unanimously.

• E2 – Ordinance Vacation of Alley at 1013 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. South – No public comment. Councilmember Driscoll and Gibbons praised the applicant's work in the area. Approved unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Agenda and consent agenda approved unanimously.
• Ordinance 632H (code of silence amendment) adopted unanimously.
• Ordinance authorizing alley vacation at 1013 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. South adopted unanimously.
• On F1, no formal vote was taken. The administration will proceed with issuing a public notice for competitive bids on the AMI project, with an update to council at the April 16, 2026 meeting. The timeline: notice by mid-April, 30-day response, evaluation by end of May. Council members expressed a shared sense of urgency but differed on the preferred financing mechanism.