St. Petersburg City Council Meeting Summary: June 4, 2026

The St. Petersburg City Council met on June 4, 2026, at 6:30 PM. The meeting began with an invocation, Pledge of Allegiance, and approval of the agenda and consent calendar. The agenda included public comments, reports on a Pier events management contract (F1) and a municipal electric utility feasibility study (F2), and new business items. After extensive public testimony and council debate, the feasibility study was approved on a 4-3 vote, the Pier contract was deferred, and two new business items were referred to committees.

Consent Calendar

• The consent agenda was approved unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

Open Forum (Prior to F1)

• Elizabeth Winter, Dominic Medina, Susan Glickman, Haley Osterhoff, and Jorge Vasquez urged funding a feasibility study for public power, citing high Duke Energy rates, lack of accountability, and benefits seen in other Florida cities. Multiple speakers shared personal stories of high bills and poor customer service.
• Chris Steinnacker (CEO, St. Petersburg Area Chamber of Commerce) spoke against a proposed residential parking permit ordinance, warning it could harm local businesses.
• Brianna Good Gutierrez (college student) supported the feasibility study as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to assess energy options.
• Brandy Stark and Ali Abdelkader voiced strong support for municipal power, citing affordability and local control.
• Kelsey Powell and Alexis Ballish recounted negative experiences with Duke Energy, including lost deposits and property encroachment.

Public Comment on F2 (Feasibility Study)

• Todd Fountain, Crystal Pruitt, Michael Gordon, Bob Romel, and David Herlocker (Duke Energy representatives and union officials) opposed the study, emphasizing Duke's storm response, community investments, rate reductions, and the risks of municipalization.
• Pamela O'Connor, Alicia Esperson, Sarah Lancaster, and others argued for the study, citing lower rates in cities with public power (e.g., Winter Park, Tallahassee) and the need for due diligence before a new franchise agreement.
• Jason Mathis (St. Petersburg Downtown Partnership) questioned the $590,000 cost and suggested using funds for direct aid, affordable housing, or flood planning.
• Nancy Ferretti, Derek Godshaw, Chelsea Grice, Thomas Gross, and additional residents shared personal financial struggles and skepticism of Duke's profit motive.
• Wesley Collette (16-year-old) supported the study, emphasizing long-term climate and affordability impacts on younger generations.
• Chris Steinnacker (again) proposed immediate negotiation with Duke instead of a study, noting the city's 10% franchise fee on Duke bills.

Discussion Items

F1: Pier Events Management Contract

• Beth Herendine (Managing Director, City Development) presented a three-year agreement with Peer Events LLC at $250,000/year for events at the St. Pete Pier. She noted the city would receive approximately $165,000 annually in revenue from pier use fees and ticket surcharges, and cited offsetting savings from bringing marketing in-house.
• Council members debated the 167% increase from the prior $90,000 contract. Councilmember Driscoll opposed over-programming and suggested a return to basic park use. Councilmember Harding questioned the value for for-profit events. Councilmember Gervis supported activation for economic spillover. Councilmember Floyd expressed openness to future in-house options. Councilmember Fig Sanders cited concerns about professionalism but supported the contract after clarifications.
• Councilmember Luman (Chair Hanowitz) criticized the subsidy, arguing the city should negotiate better terms. A motion to defer was made and passed, sending the item back for further negotiation.

F2: Municipal Electric Utility Feasibility Study

• Claude Tankersley (Public Works) presented the resolution accepting a proposal from New Gen Strategies and Solutions LLC for a feasibility study not to exceed $590,000. The study would assess financial, technical, regulatory, and legal implications of transitioning to a city-owned electric utility. The process included an RFP with six respondents, shortlisting four, and interviewing teams. The scope includes stakeholder engagement, three community meetings, and an online survey.
• Council discussion centered on cost, fiscal timing, and the city's capacity. Councilmember Gervis opposed, citing high acquisition and startup costs. Councilmember Driscoll preferred focusing on water utility improvements and negotiating with Duke. Councilmember Floyd and Gabbard argued for due diligence to inform franchise negotiations. Councilmember Harding detailed the eminent domain process and bond costs, seeing no clear net benefit. Councilmember Fig Sanders supported the study as essential for informed decision-making. Council Chair Hanowitz noted the city requested the study and the administration had no position, then voted in favor after weighing the need for data.
• The vote was 4-3 in favor (Councilmembers Fig Sanders, Floyd, Gabbard, Hanowitz yes; Councilmembers Driscoll, Gervis, Harding no; Councilmember Givens absent).

G1 and G2: New Business Items

• G1 (Councilmember Harding): A referral to the Public Services & Infrastructure Committee to discuss replacement of the Municipal Services Center. Passed unanimously.
• G2 (Councilmember Driscoll): A referral to the Economic & Workforce Development Committee to discuss expansion of the St. Pete Pier Marketplace kiosks. Passed unanimously.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Agenda: Approved.
• F1 (Pier Events Contract): Deferred to allow further negotiations.
• F2 (Feasibility Study): Approved 4-3; contract awarded to New Gen Strategies and Solutions LLC for up to $590,000.
• G1: Referred to PSI committee.
• G2: Referred to EWD committee.
• Meeting adjourned after announcements and a birthday song for staff.