St. Petersburg Legal Update: Duke Energy, Utility Rates, HOA Foreclosure, Property Taxes & Veterans Benefits
August 10, 2026 Legal Update
A 30-year energy agreement in St. Petersburg has now expired. City utility rates may increase this fall. St. Petersburg voters are being asked to consider up to $600 million in infrastructure borrowing. A new Florida appellate decision addresses whether a homeowners’ association can both foreclose and pursue a money judgment for unpaid assessments. A judge has ordered Florida to rewrite the ballot language for a major property-tax amendment. Florida’s Supreme Court has changed what lawyers represent when they sign court filings. And a veterans-benefits bill attracting national attention could increase benefits for some severely disabled veterans—but it has not become law.
That is a lot happening at once.
But there is also a common thread.
At The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A., we have repeatedly emphasized that law does not exist in a vacuum. Laws, contracts, court decisions, elections, government budgets and development agreements eventually affect real people. Sometimes that happens through a monthly utility bill. Sometimes it happens through a property-tax bill, an HOA assessment, a business expense, a veterans disability payment, or a dispute that ultimately reaches a courtroom.
As a St. Petersburg-based community law firm, we believe part of our role is helping people understand those connections.
Several stories we have been following have now materially changed. Here is where they stand as of August 10, 2026.
At a Glance
- St. Petersburg’s approximately 30-year franchise agreement with Duke Energy has expired, although electric service continues.
- Duke has raised questions about approximately $2 million per month in City franchise-fee revenue, public rights-of-way and certain contractual protections.
- St. Petersburg City Council will take up proposed utility rates on August 13. Typical residential bills could rise roughly 6.86% to 7.71%, depending on reclaimed-water service.
- St. Petersburg voters are expected to decide in November whether the City may issue up to $600 million in general-obligation bonds for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure.
- The Burg Bid continues to build out its Historic Gas Plant redevelopment team, now adding St. Petersburg-based Power Design as a workforce-development partner.
- Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal has issued an important new HOA decision concerning foreclosure and money judgments for unpaid assessments.
- A Leon County judge has ordered Florida to rewrite the ballot title and summary for proposed Amendment 3, but the proposed property-tax amendment itself remains headed toward voters.
- Florida lawyers and self-represented litigants now represent, simply by signing and filing a document, that the legal authorities cited in it actually exist and are accurately cited.
- H.R. 6047 could substantially increase certain veterans benefits, but it has passed only the House and is not currently law.
- Todd Blanche has been confirmed as United States Attorney General, while the Department of Justice is also considering a Senate committee’s contempt referral involving Dr. Anthony Fauci.
Here is why each development matters.
St. Petersburg’s Duke Energy Franchise Has Now Actually Expired
For months, St. Petersburg has debated what might happen when its long-standing franchise agreement with Duke Energy expired.
Now we know at least the first part of the answer: the agreement expired July 31 without a replacement.
That does not mean Duke Energy stopped providing electricity. Duke has said service will continue. The franchise agreement governed the legal and financial relationship between Duke and the City—not whether a resident could turn on the lights.
We discussed that distinction in our recent article, St. Pete Beach Sign Lawsuit, Duke Energy, and Election Law: Why Government Decisions Matter Close to Home.
But expiration has now created some very real legal and financial questions.
According to the St. Pete Catalyst, Duke sent Mayor Ken Welch an August 7 letter raising questions concerning the continued collection of the franchise fee, Duke’s use of City rights-of-way, permitting and construction coordination, and contractual protections such as indemnification provisions. The franchise fee has generated roughly $2 million per month for the City.
Those issues illustrate why the expiration of a contract matters even when everybody continues performing some of the same day-to-day functions.
Contracts allocate rights, responsibilities, risk and money. When a contract expires without a replacement, the question is no longer merely, “Will everyone keep doing what they were doing?”
It also becomes:
Under what legal authority? On what terms? Who bears which risks? And who gets paid?
Those are familiar questions in business law, commercial relationships and litigation. Here, they are playing out on a municipal scale.
What Happens Next With Duke?
St. Petersburg is simultaneously spending up to approximately $590,000 for NewGen Strategies and Solutions to study whether the City could acquire Duke’s local infrastructure and operate a publicly owned electric utility.
Municipalization is far from a foregone conclusion, and the legal, financial, regulatory and practical hurdles could be substantial.
There are also alternatives.
The City could negotiate a new long-term franchise. It could negotiate a shorter agreement. It could potentially pursue an interim arrangement while the feasibility study proceeds. It could seek different financial or community commitments from Duke.
The important point is that the expiration itself is not the end of the story. It is the beginning of a different legal phase.
For St. Petersburg residents and businesses, the issues worth watching include electric rates, City revenue, infrastructure investment, public rights-of-way, potential acquisition costs and whether any new agreement alters the relationship between Duke and the community.
St. Pete Utility Rates Could Increase This Fall
At almost the same time that St. Petersburg is deciding its future relationship with Duke, the City is considering increases in its own utility rates.
The City of St. Petersburg has scheduled a first reading for August 13, followed by a public hearing on August 27. If approved, the new rates would take effect October 1.
According to the City’s current utility-rate proposal, a typical residential customer using 3,500 gallons of water could see:
- An average monthly increase of approximately 6.86% without reclaimed water; or
- An average monthly increase of approximately 7.71% with reclaimed water.
Depending upon the customer’s stormwater tier, the City estimates a typical monthly bill could increase approximately $10.18 to $13.82.
The proposed increases affect sanitation, potable water, wastewater, stormwater and reclaimed water charges. The City says the increased revenue is needed for operations, maintenance, replacement of aging infrastructure and resilience improvements.
For many households, $10 or $14 per month may be manageable.
For others, particularly people on fixed incomes, it is another increase alongside insurance, food, electricity, rent or mortgage payments and other expenses.
And for a business, the calculation can be very different.
A restaurant, apartment complex, commercial building, HOA or other high-volume utility customer can experience operating-cost increases very differently from a single-family residence.
That is one reason we encourage business owners to understand not only their revenue, but also how external costs can affect their margins. Our business-law practice routinely looks at legal and contractual issues as part of the larger business picture.
Commercial tenants should also pay particular attention to how leases allocate operating expenses. In a triple-net lease, for example, increases in taxes, insurance and property-related expenses may ultimately be borne by the tenant depending upon the specific lease terms.
We have previously discussed those risks in The Dangers of a Triple Net Lease in Florida.
The $600 Million St. Pete Bond Is Separate—but Connected
There is another major infrastructure issue heading toward St. Petersburg voters.
The City Council has approved ballot language asking voters whether St. Petersburg should be authorized to issue up to $600 million in general-obligation bonds for stormwater, wastewater and potable-water infrastructure.
According to the City’s official 2026 General Obligation Bond page, the bonds could mature over periods of up to 30 years and would be backed by the City’s full faith, credit and ad valorem taxing power.
The City currently estimates the property-tax impact at approximately 0.96 mills—or roughly $96 per year for each $100,000 of taxable assessed value.
The question is expected to appear on the November 3, 2026 general-election ballot.
The utility-rate proposal and the bond referendum are legally different.
Utility charges are paid through utility bills. General-obligation bonds are debt obligations ultimately supported through property-tax authority.
But as a policy matter, the two subjects are connected.
St. Petersburg has substantial infrastructure needs. The underlying question is not simply whether those needs exist, but how quickly improvements should occur, how they should be financed, who should bear the cost, and what safeguards should accompany the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars.
The City argues that bond financing could accelerate projects that otherwise would be completed more slowly through utility-fee funding. The City also says more than half of the proposed bond funding is planned for protecting water and wastewater systems against storm surge.
Reasonable people can disagree about the best financing method.
Our purpose is not to tell voters how to vote. It is to encourage voters to understand what they are voting on.
That principle—understand before you decide—is especially important this election year.
We discussed these issues in greater detail in our August 6 Legal Update and our earlier July 29 St. Petersburg and Florida Legal Update.
The Burg Bid Adds Power Design—and the Gas Plant Story Becomes a Workforce Story
The Historic Gas Plant District remains one of the largest development stories in St. Petersburg.
Mayor Ken Welch previously selected both the Pinellas County Housing Authority proposal and The Burg Bid for redevelopment efforts involving the Historic Gas Plant District. The City identifies jobs, housing, economic opportunity and honoring commitments made to the historically displaced community as priorities in the continuing process.
The City maintains official Historic Gas Plant project information here.
A new development adds another dimension.
The Burg Bid recently announced that Power Design, the St. Petersburg-based multi-trade contractor, has joined its team as a skilled-trades and workforce-development partner. The announced goal includes apprenticeships, training and construction-career pathways connected with the redevelopment.
The Burg Bid’s announcement can be read here.
That matters because redevelopment is not only about what gets built.
It is also about who gets the opportunity to build it, who receives training, which local businesses participate, where jobs are created, how contracts are awarded, and whether economic opportunity spreads beyond the project boundaries.
Those questions will become increasingly important as negotiations continue.
We previously examined the next stages in The Burg Bid Was Selected: What Happens Next for St. Pete Residents?.
For local contractors and small businesses, the appropriate time to prepare for future opportunities is usually before bid packages and contracts start appearing.
Business formation, insurance, licensing, employment practices, contract systems and financial readiness can all matter when a small company attempts to participate in a project of this scale.
A New Florida HOA Decision: Can an Association Foreclose and Also Pursue Money Damages?
One of the most important new Florida decisions for property owners and homeowners’ associations came from our own Second District Court of Appeal on August 7.
In Haught and Whitburn, LLC v. Eagle Palms Homeowners Association, Inc., Case No. 2D2025-1403, the court considered whether an HOA could pursue both foreclosure of its assessment lien and an action for money damages relating to unpaid assessments.
The majority held that it could under the governing documents at issue and section 720.3085(1)(c), Florida Statutes.
The complete Second District Court of Appeal opinion is available here.
Florida’s HOA statute provides that an association may foreclose its assessment lien in the manner of a mortgage foreclosure and may also pursue a money judgment for unpaid assessments without waiving its lien.
Section 720.3085, Florida Statutes, can be reviewed through the Florida Legislature here.
The dispute was complicated, however, because the declaration itself stated that the association could bring an action against the owner “or” foreclose the lien.
The property owners argued that the word “or” required the association to choose one remedy.
The majority disagreed after reading the declaration as a whole together with the statute. It concluded that the declaration did not prohibit the association from pursuing the damages action and affirmed the judgment.
But there was a dissent.
Judge Atkinson concluded that the declaration’s choice of the word “or” should matter and would have held that the association was required to elect between the remedies described in that provision.
That disagreement is important.
Why This HOA Case Matters
This should not be reduced to “HOAs can always foreclose and sue for money.”
The more useful lesson is that both Florida statutes and the governing documents matter.
Declarations, covenants and restrictions function as contracts within community-association law. Specific wording can materially affect the parties’ rights.
Boards should therefore understand their own governing documents before beginning enforcement actions, and homeowners should not assume that the conclusion of one collection remedy necessarily resolves every potential financial obligation.
The case also highlights another important feature of Florida law: under section 720.3085, a subsequent parcel owner can in many circumstances become jointly and severally liable with a prior owner for unpaid assessments existing at the time of transfer.
That makes HOA estoppel information, title review and due diligence particularly important in real-estate transactions.
Our firm handles civil litigation, real-estate disputes and community-association matters from multiple perspectives.
Sometimes we represent owners. Sometimes the legal issues involve associations.
The important first question is not, “Whose side are HOAs on?”
It is what do the governing documents and Florida law actually provide in the particular dispute?
Florida’s Property-Tax Amendment Survives—but Its Ballot Language Does Not
Another case we have been closely following also moved forward last week.
Florida voters are currently expected to consider Amendment 3, a proposed constitutional amendment involving homestead property taxes.
But they will not read the ballot title and summary originally approved by the Legislature.
Leon County Circuit Judge David Frank ruled that the existing title and summary were defective and ordered Attorney General James Uthmeier to rewrite them. Among other concerns, the court concluded that the title “Save Our Homes From Excessive Property Taxes” functioned more like political advocacy than the neutral description required for ballot language.
An important distinction has sometimes been lost in discussions about the decision:
The court did not remove Amendment 3 from the ballot.
The lawsuit challenged what voters would be told about the amendment, not whether voters could consider the amendment at all.
The Attorney General was ordered to produce legally sufficient replacement language.
That distinction illustrates something fundamental about election law.
The words appearing on a ballot matter because many voters will never read the full text of a constitutional amendment. The ballot title and summary may be the principal information they see before voting.
Florida courts therefore require ballot descriptions to fairly inform voters of the proposal’s chief purpose rather than function as campaign advertising.
We discussed both the litigation and the underlying amendment in our August 6 Legal Update and our July 30 Florida Legal Update.
We will continue following the matter when replacement ballot language is released.
Florida Lawyers Now Make a Significant Representation Simply by Signing a Filing
Florida attorneys should also pay attention to tomorrow.
The Florida Supreme Court amended Rule of General Practice and Judicial Administration 2.515 earlier this year. The amendment became effective June 15, 2026, and the deadline for public comments is August 11, 2026.
The Florida Supreme Court’s opinion can be read here.
The new language is straightforward but significant.
By signing and filing a document, the signer now represents that:
- the signer has read the document;
- there are good grounds supporting it to the best of the signer’s knowledge, information and belief;
- the document is not being filed merely for delay; and
- the legal authorities identified in the filing exist and are accurately cited.
The rule expressly authorizes sanctions after notice and an opportunity to be heard. Potential sanctions may include reprimand, contempt, striking a filing, dismissal, costs, attorneys’ fees or other sanctions.
The Florida Supreme Court explained that the amendment was prompted in significant part by concerns involving generative artificial intelligence and fabricated or inaccurate authorities. The statewide rule was also designed to replace varying local-circuit AI certification requirements with a more uniform approach.
But the rule is broader than AI.
It does not merely say that a lawyer must verify cases generated by ChatGPT.
It says that when someone signs a filing, the cited legal authorities must exist and be accurately cited—regardless of whether the authorities came from artificial intelligence, a research database, a law clerk, another attorney, an old brief or traditional legal research.
That is probably the better way to think about the rule.
Technology may change.
Professional responsibility does not disappear merely because technology made the mistake easier to make.
Veterans Alert: H.R. 6047 Could Increase Benefits—but It Is Not Law
A veterans-benefits proposal is also receiving considerable attention online, including headlines suggesting that some veterans could receive an additional $833.33 per month.
There is substance behind the story—but veterans should understand the legislative status.
H.R. 6047, the Sharri Briley and Eric Edmundson Veterans Benefits Expansion Act of 2026, has passed the U.S. House of Representatives. It has not passed the Senate and has not become law.
The House passed the measure in May. On June 2, it was received in the Senate, read twice and referred to the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, where its status remains pending.
The official Senate-referred version of H.R. 6047 is available through GovInfo here.
The legislation would expand several benefits.
Among its provisions, H.R. 6047 would establish a supplemental monthly allowance of $833.33 for certain severely disabled veterans already qualifying for specified aid-and-attendance benefits, increase Dependency and Indemnity Compensation in stages, make certain changes to VA home-loan eligibility and modify certain VA loan fees.
The Congressional Budget Office has published its analysis of the legislation here.
Those potential increases could be extremely meaningful for qualifying veterans and surviving families.
But they are only potential benefits today.
Veterans should be cautious about social-media posts, advertisements or websites presenting proposed legislation as though Congress has already created a new entitlement.
That distinction matters in veterans disability law because decisions about claims, evidence, employment and household finances should be based on benefits that actually exist—not benefits that Congress might create later.
Our firm has represented veterans for many years in VA disability claims and appeals, and we will continue monitoring H.R. 6047 as it proceeds through the Senate.
For now, the appropriate headline is:
Important veterans legislation has passed the House. It could provide substantial additional benefits to some veterans and survivors. But it is not yet law.
The Justice Department Has a New Attorney General—and the Fauci Contempt Dispute Is Now Before DOJ
Two national legal stories also intersect this week.
First, the Senate confirmed Todd Blanche as Attorney General.
The confirmation drew debate about Justice Department independence and Blanche’s prior relationship with President Donald Trump. Supporters emphasized his prosecutorial and defense experience.
The institutional question matters because the Attorney General does not simply act as the President’s personal attorney.
The Attorney General leads the United States Department of Justice, which exercises enormous federal prosecutorial and law-enforcement authority.
That distinction makes the next story particularly interesting.
On August 6, the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted to hold Dr. Anthony Fauci in contempt of Congress following his refusal to answer questions after invoking the Fifth Amendment. The matter was referred to the Department of Justice for consideration.
A contempt referral is not a criminal conviction, and it is not itself a determination that Fauci improperly asserted the Fifth Amendment.
Those legal questions are complicated by the scope of the presidential pardon Fauci previously received, potential exposure outside the pardon, questions concerning waiver, and the unusual procedural path used by the Senate committee.
We have addressed those issues in much greater depth in Fauci Invokes the Fifth After a Presidential Pardon: What Congress Can Compel—and What It Cannot and followed the contempt vote in our August 6 Legal Update.
The broader legal principle is worth repeating:
Invoking the Fifth Amendment is not an admission of guilt.
The privilege exists because our constitutional system generally requires the government to prove criminal wrongdoing rather than compel a person to supply testimonial evidence against himself or herself.
What happens next will depend in significant part on what the Department of Justice does with the referral.
A Respectful Update on the Steven Cozzi Case
There is also an important development in a case that remains especially significant to St. Petersburg’s legal community.
Dr. Tomasz Kosowski is charged with first-degree murder in the 2023 disappearance and alleged killing of St. Petersburg attorney Steven Cozzi.
At a hearing last week, Kosowski informed Pinellas Circuit Judge Joseph Bulone that he intends to represent himself at trial. The court found him competent to do so.
Trial is presently scheduled to begin September 14, 2026.
The Pinellas County Clerk maintains the public case docket here.
Self-representation in a first-degree murder prosecution can create extraordinary procedural challenges. A criminal defendant has constitutional rights concerning counsel and, under certain conditions, self-representation, but exercising one constitutional right does not make the underlying legal task simple.
Because Steve was a member of our local legal community, we will continue to follow this case respectfully as it approaches trial.
Why All of This Matters: Local Government Is Not “Small” Government
It is easy to focus almost entirely on Washington.
But consider how many of the issues discussed in this update originate much closer to home.
Whether St. Petersburg signs a new Duke Energy agreement can affect City revenue and potentially electric policy.
Utility-rate decisions can change monthly household and business expenses.
A City bond referendum could affect property taxes for decades.
The Historic Gas Plant redevelopment can shape housing, contracting, employment, transportation and development opportunities across downtown St. Petersburg.
A homeowners’ association dispute has now produced appellate precedent that can affect associations and property owners throughout Florida’s Second District.
A state constitutional amendment could materially reshape property taxation.
These are not abstract political questions.
They involve contracts, property rights, taxes, debt, businesses, infrastructure, constitutional rights and the courts.
That is why local elections matter.
That is why City Council meetings matter.
That is why people should read beyond a headline before deciding whether they support or oppose a proposal.
And that is why we believe a community law firm should pay attention to more than what happens inside a courthouse.
What We Are Watching Next
Several of these stories could change again quickly.
In St. Petersburg, we will be watching the August 13 first reading on utility rates, the August 27 public hearing, negotiations or other developments following expiration of the Duke Energy franchise, and continued movement on the Historic Gas Plant redevelopment.
At the state level, we will watch for the Attorney General’s replacement language for Amendment 3 and any further litigation concerning what Florida voters will see in November.
For Florida lawyers, the August 11 comment deadline for Rule 2.515 arrives tomorrow.
For veterans, we will continue tracking H.R. 6047 through the Senate and will update our readers if it passes, changes materially or becomes law.
Nationally, we will watch what the Department of Justice does with the Fauci contempt referral and how the Department operates under newly confirmed Attorney General Todd Blanche.
And locally, we will continue following the Kosowski/Cozzi case as its September trial date approaches.
The details will change.
The larger lesson probably will not:
The law surrounds everyday life more than most people realize.
At The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A., we believe good legal counsel should help people not only respond when a crisis arrives, but also understand the systems, risks and opportunities around them before a problem becomes a crisis.
That is part of what it means to serve as First Counsel—a relationship-based legal resource for individuals, families, veterans, property owners and businesses as they move from crisis, through stability and growth, toward legacy.
If you have questions about a legal matter affecting you, your family or your business, you can contact The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A. or call 1-800-704-6045.
The Law Firm of Douglas G. Jackson, P.A.
St. Petersburg, Florida
1-800-704-6045
www.GetYourLegalAction.com
This article is provided for general educational and informational purposes only. Laws, proposed legislation, pending litigation and governmental proposals can change rapidly. Nothing in this article creates an attorney-client relationship or constitutes legal advice regarding any particular situation. Court decisions may depend upon specific facts, statutes and governing documents. Anyone facing a legal issue should obtain advice concerning his or her particular circumstances.
