Pinellas County Commissioner Vince Nowicki is asking Attorney General James Uthmeier to clarify how St. Petersburg could spend proceeds from its proposed $600 million storm resilience bond.
Nowicki is asking Uthmeier to weigh in on what would legally constrain the city’s use of the money if voters approve the referendum Nov. 3, citing concerns that the ballot language could leave city officials wide discretion over how the money is ultimately used.
The referendum would authorize St. Petersburg to issue up to $600 million in general obligation bonds to accelerate storm resilience and utility infrastructure projects. The bonds could be repaid over as many as 30 years and would be backed by the city’s full faith, credit and unlimited ad valorem taxing power.
Nowicki, whose County Commission district includes the city, said his concern is not whether those infrastructure needs are legitimate but how much discretion the city would retain once voters authorize the debt.
He pointed to a January review by Florida Chief Financial Officer Blaise Ingoglia’s Office that characterized $49 million in St. Petersburg’s 2025-26 General Fund budget as excessive or wasteful. The city disputed the state’s characterization and methodology.
“I oppose asking residents to approve this referendum in its current form unless the legal limits on spending are clear and enforceable. Taxpayers are being asked to accept decades of debt and an unlimited ad valorem pledge. With the City’s fiscal record in dispute, they deserve a precise answer about what the ballot authorizes, what the City may change after approval, and what accountability applies,” Nowicki wrote.
Nowicki’s request raises concerns focused largely on the breadth of the ballot language, which asks voters to authorize storm resilience improvements “including but not limited to” floodwater protection, stormwater pump stations, drainage infrastructure, wastewater facilities and drinking water infrastructure.
He wants to know how far that language extends and whether the city could add, substitute or materially change projects after voters approve the borrowing without returning to the ballot.
“What legally limits the City’s authority to spend the bond proceeds? Is the City bound by the ballot question’s stated purpose and the three named systems, or also by the City’s adopted resolution, project list, maps, bond documents, or other binding instruments?” Nowicki asked Uthmeier.
He also asked whether the city would be bound only by the ballot question or whether its adopted resolution, project list, maps, bond documents or other agreements could impose additional restrictions.
Other questions focus on what qualifies as “storm resilience,” including whether bond proceeds could pay for routine repairs, replacement, system expansion or other utility work that is not primarily intended to address storm impacts.
Nowicki also asked what accounting, auditing and public disclosure requirements would apply to the proceeds and what remedies would be available if the money were spent outside the purpose voters authorized.
The proposed bond is intended to accelerate projects under the city’s St. Pete Agile Resilience program, an infrastructure initiative developed in response to flooding and other vulnerabilities exposed by recent storms. City officials have argued that borrowing the money upfront would allow St. Petersburg to complete needed projects faster rather than relying solely on a pay-as-you-go approach.
He stressed, however, that he is not asking Uthmeier to take a position on whether voters should approve the bond.
“I am not asking your office to recommend how voters should vote,” Nowicki wrote. “I am asking for a clear legal interpretation so St. Petersburg voters can make an informed decision about the obligation being placed on them.”