A Proposal for a St. Petersburg Advisory Council

Why I Am Making This Suggestion

I have attended many City Council meetings and I have spoken with Council members over the last few  years.  I’ve reached the conclusion that if I were a Council member, when I would be asked to vote on important isssues, I would benefit from additional information beyond what I could gather.    

Therefore, I think the creation of a St. Petersburg Advisory Council would really help.

I want to make one thing clear.  I am not making this suggestion because I believe City Council members lack the ability to make good decisions.  I trust that voters elect officials based on qualities that include good judgment, integrity, experience, and their ability to consider competing interests and make difficult choices.   

The reason I am making this suggestion comes from my own experience.

An Example from My Experience

For more than 40 years, I was responsible for helping oversee investment decisions involving other people’s money. One lesson I learned is that important decisions rarely benefit from relying solely on the knowledge and experience of the people in the room.

At Raymond James, when major investments were being considered, we routinely sought outside expertise. We brought in independent appraisers, consulted legal and environmental experts, engaged outside specialists, and relied on structured review processes designed to challenge assumptions and identify risks.

That wasn’t because we lacked confidence in our own judgment. It was because we recognized that complex decisions are usually better when informed by a broader range of information and perspectives.

I believe the same principle applies to major public decisions. City Council members and mayors are asked to make decisions involving public land, public finances, infrastructure, housing, and long-term planning. Access to additional expertise, analysis, and public input can help provide a more complete picture of the issues being considered.

This has led me to think about whether there might be a way to provide a broader source of expertise, analysis, and public input on major city decisions.

A Challenge Created by the Sunshine Law

Because of Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law, City Council members generally cannot discuss matters that may come before the Council outside of properly noticed public meetings.

As a result, Council members often gather information individually rather than through the kind of informal discussions that occur in many private-sector organizations.

That reality led me to think about whether there might be a way to provide a broader source of expertise, analysis, and public input on major city decisions.

The result is the idea outlined below.

Why This Matters

St. Petersburg faces increasingly complex decisions involving public land, housing, infrastructure, economic development, and long-term public finances.  These decisions often require specialized technical expertise, extensive public input, and careful evaluation of long-term consequences.

One question is whether there are ways to strengthen the process used to evaluate these major decisions.

Its purpose is to provide both the Mayor and City Council with independent, expert, and public input on the major issues that will shape our city.

It would be structured to be balanced, transparent, and representative of the community, with clear safeguards to ensure independence.  It would be advisory only.

Major City Decisions Are Increasingly Complex

St. Petersburg regularly faces decisions involving public land, housing, transportation, infrastructure, economic development, and long-term public finances.

Many of these decisions involve technical, financial, legal, and community considerations that extend well beyond a single discipline or area of expertise.

As these decisions become larger and more complex, cities across the country increasingly rely on structured processes that bring together expertise, public input, and independent analysis before major actions are taken.

The proposal outlined here is intended to provide one possible framework for doing that in St. Petersburg.

An Example from the Private Sector 

During my time at Raymond James, I was involved in a business that invested substantial capital in affordable housing.

When major decisions were being considered, we often sought input from a variety of sources and perspectives before making significant commitments.  For example, we would:

• bring in independent appraisers
• consult legal and environmental experts
• engage outside specialists
• hold structured investment committee discussions

The goal was to better understand the risks and assumptions before making a decision.

This helped shape my thinking about how cities might approach some of their most significant decisions.    

Government Works Differently

City government operates under a different set of rules.

In particular, Florida’s Government in the Sunshine Law impacts the decision making process for City Council Members.  

They can’t gather informally to discuss issues, explore ideas, or work through complex decisions outside of publicly noticed meetings.

And while that transparency is important, it creates a practical challenge:

Outside of occasional Committee of the Whole Meetings, Council members often have limited opportunities to explore complex issues together before formal public meetings.

As a result, information gathering frequently occurs through multiple channels and at different times.

An Advisory Council could provide a structured public forum where expertise, analysis, and community perspectives are assembled and discussed in a consistent manner.

City Council and Major Decisions

When major proposals come before the city, City Council appropriately hears from department heads and staff. Those professionals bring valuable expertise and play an essential role in developing and explaining the administration’s recommendations.

An Advisory Council would not replace that expertise. Instead, it would complement it by providing an additional source of analysis, outside perspective, and public discussion.

The goal is to ensure that major decisions benefit from a broad range of expertise and viewpoints before final decisions are made.

An Advisory Council would add an additional source of information, perspective, and public discussion while preserving the authority of both the Mayor and City Council.

The Mayor and Major Decisions

In addition to the Mayor’s access to staff and department heads with experience in a wide variety of issues, an Advisory Council would also provide the Mayor with an additional source of expertise, public input, and perspective on major decisions facing the city.

A Suggested Solution: A St. Petersburg Advisory Council

In an earlier post, I suggested that a mayor might establish a small advisory council to provide perspective on major issues.

On further thought—and based on observing how decisions are actually made across both the administration and City Council—I believe a more formal, structured approach is worth considering.

Rather than a small, mayor-only group, this proposal reflects a broader advisory structure designed to serve both the Mayor and City Council, provide consistent input, and operate in a transparent, public setting – and span election cycles.  

Not as a political body or a decision-making authority.  But as a structured, independent resource that both the Mayor and the City Council can rely on.

What This Council Would Do:

• Conduct independent review of major issues
• Provide informed, big-picture perspective
• Help identify key questions and tradeoffs
• Bring relevant expertise to complex decisions
• Report its findings publicly.

One Possible Structure

• Formally established by ordinance
• Designed to serve both the Mayor and City Council
• Transparent in its work and reporting
• Advisory only—no decision-making authority

Possible Membership and Organization

• 9 to 11 members
• Appointed jointly by the Mayor and City Council

Representing a mix of:

• land use and development experience
• finance and real estate
• community and neighborhood perspectives
• business and civic leadership

With:

• Staggered terms (for continuity and independence)
• The ability to form subgroups for specific issues
• Clear expectations around scope and transparency

How This Would Work in Practice

The goal is not to add complexity, but to bring structure and consistency to decisions that, in practice, are already complex and often handled differently from one situation to another.

This is not about reviewing every issue that comes before the city.

It is about ensuring that the most significant decisions—those with long-term impact—are informed by structured, independent analysis before action is taken.

And to be effective, it must operate under clear, predictable rules.

Defined Categories — With Clear Thresholds

Certain categories of decisions would be subject to Advisory Council review, including:

• Disposition or long-term lease of City-owned land
• Projects involving public financial commitment or exposure
• Major land use, zoning, or density decisions
• Issues with substantial long-term impact on the city

To ensure consistency, these categories would not be interpreted case by case.

Instead:

The mayor and the City Council, working together, would establish clear, objective thresholds—by resolution—that determine when review is required.

For example, those thresholds might include:

• Public land transactions involving 3 or more acres, $5 million or more in value, or leases of 15 years or longer
• Public financial commitments of $15 million or more, or total exposure of $30 million or more, or obligations extending beyond 20 years
• Zoning or land use changes affecting 5 or more acres, or increasing allowable density or height by 20–25% or more
• Projects involving 10 or more acres, multi-phase development over 10+ years, or significant long-term public obligations

These thresholds would apply consistently and could be updated over time.

What This Would Capture — and What It Would Not

Under a structure like this:

Examples that would trigger Advisory Council review:

• The redevelopment of the Historic Gas Plant site
• Any large-scale public-private development involving significant public investment
• A convention center project involving substantial public funding or long-term obligations
• Major zoning changes that reshape downtown scale, density, or character

Examples that would not trigger Advisory Council review:

• Small parcel land sales
• Routine zoning adjustments
• Minor incentives or grants
• Standard capital projects

This ensures that the Advisory Council is focused where it adds the most value.

Discretionary Referral Authority

In addition to defined thresholds:

• The Mayor may refer any issue for Advisory Council review
• The City Council, by majority vote, may require independent review of any matter

To ensure accessibility, a small number of Council members may request that an item be placed on a future agenda for consideration of referral.

How the Process Would Work 

• A major issue is identified
• It is evaluated against established thresholds
• If triggered—or referred—the Advisory Council conducts its review
• Findings are presented publicly
• The Mayor and City Council proceed with decision-making

Ordinance and Resolution — How the Structure Is Established

This structure would be implemented in two steps:

• An ordinance would establish the Advisory Council, define its role, and identify the categories of decisions subject to review
• A separate resolution, adopted by City Council, would establish the specific thresholds that trigger review

This approach provides both stability and flexibility:

The structure remains consistent, while the thresholds can be refined over time as conditions change.

Time Discipline

To ensure the process remains efficient:

• Reviews would occur within defined timeframes
• Work may proceed in parallel where appropriate
• Expedited review may be used when necessary

Potential Benefits

For the Mayor

An Advisory Council could provide the Mayor with an additional source of expertise, public input, and independent perspective when evaluating major issues facing the city.

For City Council

An Advisory Council would provide an additional source of information, analysis, and public discussion while preserving the authority of elected officials to make final decisions.

What If Leaders Don’t Agree with an Advisory Council Recommendation?

There will be times when the Advisory Council reaches a conclusion—or even recommends a particular course of action—and the Mayor or City Council chooses a different path.

That is entirely appropriate.  The Advisory Council’s role is to identify options, evaluate tradeoffs, and provide analysis and public input. It does not make decisions.

Elected officials would continue to consider many factors, including community priorities, timing, financial considerations, and other information that may not be fully reflected in the Advisory Council’s review.

Nothing in this proposal changes who is responsible for making decisions. The Advisory Council cannot approve projects, block projects, set policy, or direct staff. The Mayor would continue to lead the administration, and the City Council would continue to establish policy and exercise oversight.

The Advisory Council’s role is simply to provide an additional source of information, analysis, and public discussion as part of the decision-making process.

Conclusion

This proposal is intended as a starting point for discussion.

The specific structure, membership, thresholds, and procedures could be refined over time. But the underlying idea is straightforward: when major decisions involve significant public assets, public resources, or long-term consequences, there may be value in a structured process that brings together expertise, public input, and independent analysis before decisions are made.

Whether or not this specific approach is adopted, the broader goal is to ensure that St. Petersburg continues to make thoughtful, informed decisions about issues that will shape the city’s future.

Appendix: Possible Implementation Details

The proposal described above focuses on the concept of an Advisory Council. The following appendix outlines one possible approach to implementation and is offered as a starting point for discussion.