08/31/2009
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA
Location: Council Chambers - City Hall
Date: 8/31/2009- 9:00 AM
1. Call to Order
2. Approval of Minutes
2.1 Approve the minutes of the June 15, 2009 CRA Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City
Clerk.
Attachments
3. CRA Items
3.1 Accept the review of the 2002 Downtown Parking Study - Final Report dated August 19, 2009, completed
by Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc.
Attachments
3.2 Approve the FY 2009-2010 Community Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Budget and Adopt CRA
Resolution 09-01
Attachments
3.3 Approve an Interlocal Agreement between the CRA and the City of Clearwater to provide CRA funding
in FY 2009/2010 in the amount of $130,376.59 to underwrite the cost of additional Community Policing
Services by the Clearwater Police Department in the East Gateway CRA District, pursuant to the East
Gateway District Five-Year Action Plan and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same.
Attachments
4. Other Business
5. Adjourn
Community Redevelopment
Agency Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
Meeting Date:8/31/2009
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the minutes of the June 15, 2009 CRA Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk.
SUMMARY:
Review Approval:1) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 1
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 3
Item # 1
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 3
Item # 1
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 3
Item # 1
Community Redevelopment
Agency Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
Meeting Date:8/31/2009
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Accept the review of the 2002 Downtown Parking Study - Final Report dated August 19, 2009, completed by Timothy Haahs and
Associates, Inc.
SUMMARY:
In 2002 a detailed Clearwater Downtown Parking Needs Assessment and Feasibility Study was completed. At the time, the 2002
findings suggested the current available parking capacity during normal weekday conditions meets or exceeds demand with the
exception of one defined area and during special events at Coachman Park.
Since completion of that Assessment,: 1) the CRA in 2008 adopted and is in the process of implementing the recommendations of
Cleveland Street District Retail Strategy, which projects increased retail/restaurant occupancies and use over a 2, 5 and 10 year time
horizon; 2) the City Council has entered into a joint venture with Ruth Eckerd Hall to acquire, renovate and re-open the Capitol Theater
as a 665 seat performing arts venue; 3) the City Council has expressed their intent to close, demolish and remove the surface parking at
the Harborview Center in the immediate future; 4) Temporary surface parking on the so-called “super block” is likely to disappear as
the economy improves and landowners again contemplate redevelopment opportunities; and, 5) CRA/ED staff have increasingly
focused on recruitment of new tenants into Downtown office properties, thus reducing vacancy rates and impacting parking capacity.
In light of these changes—all of which hold the potential of impacting the Downtown parking system—CRA and Parking staff felt an
updated capacity analysis was timely. The subject Review was commissioned to evaluate the impact on the existing parking system for
2, 5 and 10 year projections from the proposed Cleveland Street District restaurant / retail strategy, future office space demand, the
Royalty Theater demand and office space occupancy impacts. The City’s parking consultant, Haahs and Associates, conducted the
analysis in conjunction with staff from Parking and Economic Development.
A conservative approach to availability was used, including no assumption of availability of private lots not already available, and
anticipating the loss of current public spaces, such as the Harborview lot, where City actions are imminent that would eliminate the
availability and the imminent loss of temporary parking on sites slated for future development (i.e. the Superblock) .
Finally, the study did not consider the parking demand likely to be generated by a Intermodal Beach Rapid Transit (BRT) initiative
under consideration for the Downtown. A parking component associated with such a center by definition requires a directly proximate
mode shift capability and would need to be serviced by its own parking, not by dispersed lots competing with other use categories.
Conclusion:
The Study suggests that the current parking system can support the anticipated future growth over the 10-year study period of
retail/restaurant, theater and entertainment categories during typical weekdays and weekends.
The exception is in the office category, where building parking limits and competitive tenant recruitment pressures on parking supply in
the immediate area surrounding the “cluster“ of offices near Cleveland and Garden Streets. In the short term (over the next 5 years), the
City/CRA will need to continue to provide incentives for additional parking spaces to meet demand as the buildings approach full
occupancy as currently provided under the parking assistance program by Economic Development. Over the long-term (next 10 years),
the study concludes that if full occupancy of the office buildings is reached, there is a deficit of parking spaces to meet the office
demand.
It is also expected that availability in all categories would continue to be impacted by large events at Coachman Park, but would remain
manageable using ancillary parking strategies already in place.
Additional directional/wayfinding signage is recommended, as well as implementation of an “ambassador” program to assist with
parking management during large demand periods in the future. An initiative to obtain public use of private lots is also recommended as
a cost effective means of expanding availability.
Cover Memo
Item # 2
Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager ED 5) Clerk 6) City Manager 7) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 2
10305 NW 41st Street
Suite 201
Miami, FL 33178
T. 305.592.7123
F. 305.592.7113
www.timhaahs.com
Review of 2002 Downtown Parking Study
City of Clearwater
Final Report
August 19, 2009
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 27
Item # 2
P L A N N I N G E N G I N E E R I N G A R C H I T E C T U R E P A R K I N G
10305 NW 41st STREET, SUITE 201
MIAMI, FL 33178
T. 305.592.7123 F. 305.592.7113
August 19, 2009
Mrs. Tracey Bruch
Parking Manager
City of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Avenue, Suite 220
Clearwater, Florida 33758
RE: Review of 2002 Downtown Parking Study – Final Report
Clearwater, Florida
Dear Tracey:
Timothy Haahs and Associates (TimHaahs) has reviewed the 2002 Downtown Parking Study. We
have also reviewed the changes to the downtown parking inventory and compared the changes
with the anticipated increase of retail, restaurant, and office use. We understand that downtown
Clearwater has an exciting vision for the future with a pedestrian friendly environment for all
types of visitors to enjoy. As a result, it is necessary to understand if the existing parking system
can accommodate the additional/future parking demand. Our attached final report provides our
findings and recommendations as well as your comments from the first and second draft report.
If there are any further comments, we would like to discuss them at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for allowing us to work with you on this important project as Clearwater grows and
changes over the next several years. Please don’t hesitate to call with any questions.
Very truly yours,
Vicky Gagliano, MBA
Parking Specialist
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Scope of Services...........................................................................................................................................................2
Study Area.......................................................................................................................................................................3
2009 Parking Inventory...................................................................................................................................................5
Demand Projections.......................................................................................................................................................9
Retail Parking Adequacy – “Gap” ..............................................................................................................................12
Demand Projections.....................................................................................................................................................13
Office Parking Adequacy – “Gap” .............................................................................................................................16
Level of Service A.........................................................................................................................................................20
Level of Service B .........................................................................................................................................................21
Level of Service C.........................................................................................................................................................22
Figure 1: Aerial Map of the Study Area.......................................................................................................................3
Figure 2: Parking Inventory Map..................................................................................................................................7
Figure 3: Shared Parking Demand Graphs (Weekday and Weekend) – 2 Year ....................................................11
Figure 4: Walking Distance Map (Los A: 2-3 minute walk) ......................................................................................20
Figure 5: Walking Distance Map (Los B: 3-4 minute walk).......................................................................................21
Figure 6: Walking Distance Map (Los C: 4-5 minute walk)......................................................................................22
Table 1: 2002 versus 2009 Parking Inventory Comparison (Public)...........................................................................5
Table 2: 2002 versus 2009 Parking Inventory Comparison (Private) .........................................................................6
Table 3: Public and Private Parking Inventory Summary...........................................................................................6
Table 4: Supportable Retail and Restaurant Use .......................................................................................................8
Table 5: Future Retail/Restaurant Square Footage....................................................................................................9
Table 6: Retail/Restaurant Parking Demand.............................................................................................................10
Table 7: Estimated Future Parking Demand for Office ...........................................................................................14
Table 8: Class A Office Parking Summary.................................................................................................................14
Table 9: Future Estimated Weekday Demand .........................................................................................................18
Table 10: Future Estimated Weekend Demand.......................................................................................................19
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
1
Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc (TimHaahs) has been retained by the City of Clearwater (the City) to
evaluate the impact of the anticipated improvements to the Downtown Cleveland Street District and the
effects on the parking system. After reviewing the anticipated growth in downtown Clearwater, we have
made the following conclusions with regard to the parking system:
x The current parking system can support the anticipated future retail and restaurant growth both
during typical weekdays and weekends.
x The current parking system is not expected to be able to support the anticipated future office
demand based on higher occupancy rates for Class A office buildings located downtown (see Table
9). In order to accommodate the office demand in the short term, the City should continue to
support the use of public facilities to meet the gap.
x The estimated future demand from the Royalty Theater can be absorbed into the current parking
system assuming that most events will be held during evening or weekend hours and that any events
during the weekday will utilize a bus, shuttle, or similar high occupancy vehicle(s).
x Large events at Coachman Park will significantly impact the downtown parking system but since those
events do not occur more than 36 days per year (10 percent), we do not recommend building
additional parking.
x Almost the entire Cleveland Street corridor is within a 2 to 3 minute walk of a large public parking
facility and almost the entire downtown study area is within a 4 to 5 minute walk to one of four public
parking facilities.
We have also made the following recommendations with regard to the overall management and operation of
the parking system:
x Signage improvements including additional “P” trail blazing/wayfinding should be considered for the
area as growth continues.
x During special events, we encourage the continued use of a comprehensive temporary wayfinding
program which may include the use of portable variable message signs.
x We recommend an annual evaluation and assessment of occupancy, turnover, meter rates, and time
limits for all on-street spaces.
We appreciate the fact that the City understands how a true urban environment promotes pedestrian activity
and in turn, pedestrian activity generates retail and restaurant sales. Even more, the City understands the
critical role parking plays as a cornerstone for all pedestrian activity. We are confident that with these
proactive measures, downtown Clearwater will continue to thrive and reach its full potential.
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
2
The City of Clearwater (the City) has retained Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. (TimHaahs) to review and
update the 2002 City of Clearwater Downtown Parking Needs Assessments and Feasibility Study (2002 Study)
prepared by Urbitran Associates, Inc. The primary purpose of this study is to evaluate the anticipated
improvements to the Downtown Cleveland Street District and the effects on the parking system. Included in
the aforementioned proposed improvements are increased retail and restaurant establishments as well as a
higher office occupancy rate. We have reviewed the 2008 Downtown Retail Recruitment Strategy Report as it
outlines the desired retail mix for downtown.
In order to minimize costs for the study, the
City has provided TimHaahs with the
updated public and private parking
inventory figures as well as the total number
of occupied and vacant office square
footage statistics.
We understand that the City desires a more
pedestrian friendly downtown environment
and has taken significant steps to improve
the walkability including a major streetscape
renovation, roadway improvements, a
uniform wayfinding and signage program,
and even a new branding effort with the
Cleveland Street District signage and logo.
The City and CRA (Community
Redevelopment Agency) have also made a
concerted effort to work to reinvigorate the downtown area through a formalized façade improvement
program. Finally, a Downtown Redevelopment Plan was created to assist the City in making the downtown
the “center and heart of the City.” We believe that the vision for downtown Clearwater will make the area
more attractive to businesses, visitors, and residents alike.
With all of the proposed changes and desired outcome, there is a need to confirm the ability for the existing
parking system to support the increased occupancy and new retail mix. This analysis will address both issues
and determine the extent of opportunities for weekday and daytime users to share parking resources with
weekend and evening users.
This study has been divided into four sections as per the tasks defined in our scope of services including:
1. Summary of changes from the 2002 Parking Study.
2. Estimated parking demand based on the 2008 Downtown Retail Recruitment Strategy Report.
3. Identify the potential “gap” between the available parking supply and:
a. The retail/restaurant parking needs,
b. The Class A office parking needs, and
c. The Theater parking needs.
4. Walking Distance Analysis
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
3
The study area is located in downtown Clearwater which is located directly east of well known Clearwater
Beach. The downtown area is connected to the beach via the Clearwater Memorial Causeway. The study
area is defined by Drew Street to the north, South Myrtle Avenue to the east, Rogers Street/Chestnut Street
to the south, and Clearwater Harbor to the west. Downtown Clearwater is comprised of several municipal
buildings, the Pinellas County Courthouse, Coachman Park, various office buildings, and retail and restaurant
establishments.
We will compare our findings in a similar fashion as the 2002 report by using four zones as follows:
Zone I: East of Fort Harrison Avenue, North of Cleveland Street
Zone II: East of Fort Harrison Avenue, South of Cleveland Street
Zone III: West of Fort Harrison Avenue, South of Cleveland Street
Zone IV: West of Fort Harrison Avenue, North of Cleveland Street
An aerial photograph of downtown Clearwater with the study area highlighted is included below:
Source: Timothy Haahs and Associates and Google Maps, 2009
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
4
Since a parking study was conducted six years ago,
we have extrapolated the previous data as some of
the previous facilities have remained unchanged.
However, working with the City, we have updated
the changes to the parking supply (inventory) and
examined the projected new land uses in the area.
Upon completing field observations and then
familiarizing ourselves with the current land use mix,
we have estimated that the typical peak hour
demand for parking would occur on a weekday
morning around 10am. This is due to the large
number of municipal, court, and office buildings in
the area as weekday mornings are when those land
uses experience their highest use. Our estimate is
further validated after reviewing the findings of the
2002 Study which state a similar peak hour.
While some parking areas are heavily utilized during the weekday daytime hours, those same parking areas
may not be heavily utilized during weekend and evening hours (with the exception of special events and
holidays). Our analysis addresses some advantages of the current uneven mixture of land uses and the
opportunities it will provide downtown Clearwater as the land use mix shifts with more retail and restaurant
use.
In 2002 only three public lots experienced a peak hour
parking occupancy exceeding 90% on a typical
weekday (Lot 1, 13, and 19). Only 4 public lots
experienced a peak hour occupancy exceeding 75%
on a typical weekday (Lot 10, 18, 22, and 24). Finally,
the remaining off-street public lots all experienced a
peak hour occupancy of less than 70%.
On-street parking occupancy counts were similar to
the public lots in 2002. The only on-street area which
was consistently utilized was Cleveland Street where
the occupancy reached 89%. South Garden Avenue
and Park Street both averaged a 60% parking
occupancy while the remaining areas all had a parking
occupancy of only 33%.
The Garden Avenue Garage parking occupancy did
not exceed 60% on a typical weekday in the 2002 Study. Likewise, the privately owned Tower Garage and
Atrium Garage were only utilized at 72% and 50%, respectively. Private parking lots in Zone III experienced
an 85% occupancy while those in Zone IV were at 35%. Zones I and II were only at a peak occupancy of 46%.
Based on the 2002 Study, the parking conditions in downtown as a whole were sufficient to accommodate all
vehicles on a typical busy day.
Attachment number 1
Page 7 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
5
With City assistance, we have updated the parking inventory figures from 2,246 public spaces in 2002 to 2,930
spaces today. This reflects a net increase of 684 additional publicly owned parking spaces or almost a 30
percent increase from the recorded 2002 study. Of the 684 new spaces, 657 of the spaces are reserved for
employee use only during the weekday, daytime hours (Lot 10, 1C, Garage B, and the County Parking
Garage). We understand that there is an opportunity to accommodate approximately 10 additional permits
in Lot 10 but that the other facilities are at capacity. A summary of the changes to the public inventory are
summarized in the following table.
Lot # Lot Location/Description 2002 Study 2009 Update Change
1 SteinMart/Main Library 161 135 (26)
2 Harborview Center 168 168 0
3 Rooftop of Harborview Center 67 0 (67)
4 Watterson Street 9 9 0
5 Coachman Park 248 261 13
7 Drew Street/North Fort Harrison 17 0 (17)
10 City Hall 1, 2 51 117 66
11 Pierce Boulevard (Bayfront) 59 45 (14)
13 Courthouse (Oak Avenue/Chestnut Street) 48 36 (12)
14 Drew Street Extension 22 13 (9)
15 City Hall Overflow 2 06363
16 South Garden Avenue/Court Street 7 7 0
17 South Fort Harrison/Court Street 20 20 0
19 South Osceola Avenue/Court Street 39 39 0
22 Oak Avenue 104 124 20
23 Pierce Street 18 18 0
24 Chestnut Street 36 37 1
29 South Fort Harrison/Court Street 43 26 (17)
1C Pinellas County Lot (Pierce/Ft. Harrison) 1, 2 0 105 105
Total 1,117 1,223 106
Location/Description 2002 Study 2009 Update Change
A Garden Avenue Garage 271 253 (18)
B Municipal Services Garage 1, 2 0 475 475
C Station Square 74 100 26
21 County Parking Garage 1, 2 500 511 11
Total 845 1,339 494
Total On-street Parking 2002 Study 2009 Update Change
Total On-Street (Metered/Unmetered) 284 368 84
1 Spaces are reserved for City/County employees with permits M-F, 8am - 5pm
2 The 2002 study did not include these space in the inventory
*Not shown on map as the facility is not available to the public
Total Spaces
Total Spaces
Total Spaces
Source: Urbitran, City of Clearwater, and Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
Attachment number 1
Page 8 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
6
Similarly, we have updated the private parking inventory from 3,136 spaces in 2002 to 3,755 spaces today
which reflects a net increase of 619 spaces, almost a 19 percent increase. While the increase in the private
supply is significant, it is not necessarily open or available to the general public at all times. A summary of the
changes to the private inventory are summarized in the table on the following page.
#Description 2002 Study 2009 Update Change
P1 Tower South 373 373 0
P2 Atrium 405 405 0
P3 Church of Scientology Garage 0 581 581
P4 Bank of America Building 0 180 180
P5 AmSouth Building 0 236 236
* Fort Harrison Hotel 144 0 (144)
* Courthouse Garage 234 0 (234)
Total 1,156 1,775 619
Description 2002 Study 2009 Update Change
Zone 1 566 566 0
Zone 2 599 599 0
Zone 3 434 434 0
Zone 4 381 381 0
Total 1,980 1,980 0
*Not shown on map as the facility is not available to the public
Total Spaces
Total Spaces
Source: Urbitran, City of Clearwater, and Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
In total, the number of parking spaces has grown from 5,382 spaces in 2002 to 6,685 spaces in 2009, a net
gain of 1,303 spaces, or just over a 24 percent increase. We also understand that a minimum of 657 of the
new spaces are reserved Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm and that some of the new private parking
facilities may also have a similar policy. The following table summarizes the distribution of parking.
2002 Study 2009 Update Change
Public Parking Spaces 2,246 2,930 684
Private Parking Spaces 3,136 3,755 619
Total Spaces
Source: Urbitran, City of Clearwater, and Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
We have included a map on the following page which was provided by the City that depicts the location of
various public and private parking facilities. The reference numbers in Table 1and Table 2 correspond to the
locations identified on the map. Please note, there are also smaller “pocket” lots which are privately owned
but not included on the map. Many of these pocket lots contain less than 20 spaces and serve a specific
business or use.
Attachment number 1
Page 9 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
7
Source: City of Clearwater, 2009
Fortunately for the City, parking facilities are well distributed throughout the study
area. In addition, the area anticipated to experience the largest change over the
next several years is the Cleveland Street District. As per the Figure 2: Parking
Inventory Map, many parking facilities are located within one to two blocks of the
district. In addition, a large surface lot is adjacent to Coachman Park. While the
spaces located along the waterway may be somewhat distanced from the main
retail corridor, they are within a reasonable walking distance due to the fact that
the City has invested a large amount of money in streetscape improvements along
Cleveland Street. Because of those improvements, the walk to and from those
surface lots is pleasant and takes less than five minutes from most areas along the
retail corridor.
We believe that the current parking resources as a whole can sufficiently satisfy the
current parking demand. Any areas experiencing a higher parking occupancy, can
and should work with adjacent facilities to ease any over crowding.
Attachment number 1
Page 10 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
8
In an effort to create a more pedestrian friendly environment and attract more businesses to the area, the City
retained a retail consultant to assist with a marketing recruitment strategy which includes a desired and
optimal merchandise mix. It was determined that downtown could support a combined total of 53,362 to
174,705 square feet of retail and restaurant space. A summary of the supportable square footage is listed
below.
Type Low High
Retail 18,719 57,463
Restaurant 34,643 117,242
Total 53,362 174,705
Supportable Square Footage
Source: ERA Downtown Works, 2008
Based on the desired type of retail and restaurants stated in the marketing recruitment strategy, we feel that
the City would not only benefit from having a diverse
mixture of establishments but also a higher number of
users which would patronize more than one
establishment (i.e. a visitor who goes to multiple retail
shops, enjoys dinner at a restaurant, stops at some
additional retail shops, then has some coffee or
dessert at another eatery before departing). When a
patron makes multiple stops during one trip, the
amount of pedestrian and street activity is increased
exponentially. What this means for parking is that one
space is serving multiple uses which, in turn, also
reduces the total number of spaces needed to support
an area.
Another advantage to shifting the amount of retail and
restaurant use in downtown Clearwater is the number
of existing parking spaces. Due to the existing land use mix, many of those spaces are utilized Monday
through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM. During the evening and weekends, many of those spaces are vacant (with the
exception of special events and holidays). The vast amount of vacant spaces provides an opportunity for
increased retail and restaurant use with minimal changes to the parking system as a parking supply is already
in place and available. In addition, the streetscape improvements tie in the proposed new retail and
restaurant uses within close proximity to a parking facility (many within a one block walk from Cleveland
Street). A walking distance analysis is included later in this study.
It will, however, be necessary to direct visitors to available parking facilities through the use of signage/way-
finding. Some signage currently exists for the larger parking facilities but additional signage may be needed
in the future as demand increases. We recommend the use of either permanent fixed signage like the type
currently in place or the use of variable message signage which can direct motorists to available parking
facilities. An advantage of this type of signage is the ability to direct patrons to a parking facility closest to
their point of entry in downtown. It can also be helpful during special events and holidays as certain parking
facilities may fill to capacity. Using variable message signage would allow the City to direct motorists directly
to an available facility, thereby reducing stress for the motorist and roadway congestion.
Attachment number 1
Page 11 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
9
Based on the type of retail businesses desired, we estimate a peak parking demand ratio between 4.0 to 5.0
per thousand square feet (KSF) for retail. This will allow for a mix of retail, accessory, beauty, gifts, and jewelry
shops. In addition, we estimate a peak
parking demand ratio between 10.0 to 20.0
per KSF for restaurant. This will allow for a
mixture of high end, moderate, and family
oriented restaurants as well as counter service,
cafes and specialty eateries. For our analysis,
we have assumed that all retail space would
have an average ratio of 4.5 spaces per KSF
and restaurant would have an average ratio of
15.0 spaces per KSF during the weekend peak.
Based on the information provided in Table 4
we have made several assumptions for
occupied square feet over the next two (2),
five (5) and ten (10) years. Included in our
assumptions is an estimated percentage of
actual retail/restaurant when compared to the
total supportable amount (higher range). We
have assumed that the 2, 5, and 10-year occupancy percentage for retail and restaurant space would increase
from 17% currently to 40%, 50%, and 60%, respectively. While our assumptions may appear conservative, we
feel that it is both realistic and obtainable. The following table summarizes our assumptions for occupied
retail and restaurant space within the study area.
2-year 5-year 10-year
Current 2011 2014 2019
Total Retail % 17% 40% 50% 60%
Total Retail SF 9,755 22,985 28,732 34,478
Add'l Retail SF 13,230 18,976 24,722
Total Restaurant % 16% 40% 50% 60%
Total Restaurant SF 18,427 46,897 58,621 70,345
Add'l Restaurant SF 28,470 40,194 51,918
Source: Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
Based on nationally accepted parking ratios and the assumed retail and restaurant occupancy listed above we
estimated the peak hour parking demand for restaurant and retail without any reduction for shared parking as
well as the demand after considering a shared parking environment. Since retail and restaurant use is
complimentary there is a small reduction in the total demand when considering both uses. We estimate a
peak weekend parking demand of 472, 667, and 862 spaces for two (2), five (5), and ten (10) year projections,
respectively. We estimate the peak hour for retail and restaurant uses to occur on a weekend during the
afternoon and dinner hours. The following table summarizes the additional parking demand (beyond the
current demand) for retail and restaurant use.
Attachment number 1
Page 12 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
10
2-year 5-year 10-year
Current 2011 2014 2019
Total Retail % 17% 40% 50% 60%
Total Retail SF 9,755 22,985 28,732 34,478
Add'l Retail SF 13,230 18,976 24,722
Total Restaurant % 16% 40% 50% 60%
Total Restaurant SF 18,427 46,897 58,621 70,345
Add'l Restaurant SF 28,470 40,194 51,918
2-year 5-year 10-year
Current 2010 2013 2018
Retail Parking Ratio 4.5
Add'l Retail Parking Demand 60 26 26
Total Retail Parking Demand 60 85 111
Restaurant Parking Ratio 15
Add'l Restaurant Parking Demand 427 176 176
Total Restaurant Parking Demand 427 603 779
Total Retail/Restaurant Demand (Independent) 487 688 890
W
W
Source: Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
It should be noted that while the parking demand reaches over 850 spaces during the weekend, it is
expected to be much lower during weekday hours due to the decrease in customers during weekday,
daytime hours. In order to calculate the weekday peak parking demand it was necessary to calibrate the
original weekend ratios down to a more appropriate level. It is common that retail and restaurant
establishments are busiest during the weekend hours and as such, the parking ratios reflect the increased
activity. During the weekday, the peak ratios used for retail and restaurant were 4.0 and 10.5 spaces per KSF,
respectively. In addition, captive adjustments were made to the retail and restaurant customers to reflect the
existing downtown office workers who have already parked downtown and would walk to their destination.
Using our comprehensive shared parking model, we have estimated that the demand will reach 132, 187, and
241 spaces during the weekday lunch hour, respectively. Since many of the downtown parking facilities are
vacant during weekend and evening hours, we have focused our calculations on the additional weekday
daytime demand as the weekend and evening demand can be easily absorbed within the existing parking
system. In the 2002 study, there were in excess of 1,000 vacant private parking spaces as such, only 25
percent of those spaces would be needed to support the projected weekday daytime peak demand.
We have included graphics on the following page depicting the estimated demand curve for retail and
restaurant use on both a weekday and weekend for the 2-Year scenario. The 5 and 10-year scenario have
identical demand curves to the one illustrated but would consist of the higher parking demand. The upper
graph in Table 6 on the following page depicts the peak weekday hour demand of 132 spaces at the noon
hour while the lower graph depicts the peak weekend demand of 472 spaces also at the noon hour.
Attachment number 1
Page 13 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
11
Retail 1 1 4 8 11 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 12 9 5 2 0
Restaurant 40 70 83 95 106 110 118 114 80 66 66 79 91 95 95 87 65 65 34
0
50
100
1506:00AM7:00AM8:00AM9:00AM10:00AM11:00AM12:00PM1:00PM2:00PM3:00PM4:00PM5:00PM6:00PM7:00PM8:00PM9:00PM10:00PM11:00PM12:00AMHour
Retail Service Food and Beverage Total
Retail 1 3 7 1624303639424241383432282216 6 0
Restaurant 69 141 225 318 399 399 436 380 306 197 215 284 340 380 380 312 228 97 60
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5006:00AM7:00AM8:00AM9:00AM10:00AM11:00AM12:00PM1:00PM2:00PM3:00PM4:00PM5:00PM6:00PM7:00PM8:00PM9:00PM10:00PM11:00PM12:00AMHour
Retail Service Food and Beverage Total
Source: Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
Attachment number 1
Page 14 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
12
We estimate an increased weekday daytime demand of 241 parking spaces over the next 10 years for retail
and restaurant customers/patrons. In addition, we estimate an increase of approximately 20 public spaces
(684 total minus 664 reserved for employees) and 619 private spaces. With the data provided in the 2002
Study, we are not able to precisely determine if the current parking facilities would be able to accommodate
all of the additional demand as the parking demand figures were collected six years ago. However, in 2002
many of the surface parking lots were not fully occupied and after field observations, it appears as if many of
the downtown parking facilities may be able to absorb the additional needs of the retail and restaurant uses.
The City has provided updated parking occupancy counts for the downtown public parking facilities during
the evening and weekend hours. At the peak hour, on Saturday, December 13, 2008 between 1 and 2PM only
527 vehicles occupied the 2,318 parking spaces which were surveyed. This represents a 1,791 space parking
surplus, more than sufficient to accommodate the anticipated additional 862-space retail and restaurant
demand as projected over the next 10 years.
Further, an additional 619 privately owned parking
spaces have been added to the area over the past
six years. While counts were not performed on
these new facilities, we anticipate that at least a
portion of those spaces would be available for
public use in the event the public facilities are fully
utilized. In order to maximize the use of all
available downtown parking spaces, we
recommend that the City work with private
parking facility owners to maximize use of all
available parking spaces. A partnership between
the City and private sector is mutually beneficial
as public parking needs are satisfied, the City can
preserve land for the best and highest use, the
City will not have to use capital funds to build new
parking facilities, and the private facility owners
will benefit from increased parking revenues.
We recommend that the City further assist with
making the parking environment as friendly as possible with ample signage and wayfinding. A program
which allows the private sector to integrate their parking facility into the public supply would also be
beneficial as retail and restaurant use increases. We recommend the implementation of additional “P” trail
blazing/wayfinding static signage in order to help visitors locate parking areas. In addition, on-street parking
rates and time limits should be closely monitored to maximize use of valuable on-street parking spaces.
Attachment number 1
Page 15 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
13
There are currently 3 Class A Office Buildings within the downtown study area including Clearwater Tower,
The Atrium, and the Bank of America Building. The former AmSouth building is classified as Class B office
space and is an anticipated redevelopment site. All Class C employees are being accommodated with
private on-site parking.
There are 368,181 total square feet of Class A
office space with 138,405 vacant square feet.
This results in an occupancy rate of
approximately 62 percent, or a 38 percent
vacancy rate. The high vacancy rate is of some
concern for the City, in particular when the
downtown is competing with many nearby
suburban office markets. One common
complaint and drawback on locating to the
downtown office environment is the amount of
available parking spaces for employees and
visitors. Therefore, our study has analyzed
those concerns specifically in order to address
whether this is a perceived or actual shortage of
parking and provide recommendations on how
to improve the conditions or perception.
As per the Urban Land Institute (ULI), Class A
office space can be characterized as “buildings that have excellent location and access, attract high quality
tenants, and are managed professionally. Building materials are high quality and rents are competitive with
other new buildings.” Due to the higher rents and nicer office space, Class A office tenants tend to be more
professional in nature (i.e. lawyers, accountants, architects, etc). Those types of tenants typically utilize
individual office space with large conference rooms, waiting areas, and common space. Due to the lower
density of employees per square foot, the parking demand may also be slightly lower than a general office
building where density is higher. However, some Class A tenants may expect a higher level of service with
regard to the available parking and often desire reserved spaces. Often tenants requesting reserved or
highly desired parking spaces are charged a premium for the privilege of use. For the purpose of this study,
we have assumed that few, if any, of these tenants will utilize reserved or nested parking areas.
For this study, we have assumed the current downtown Class A office occupancy would increase from 62% in
2009 to 75% in 2011, 90% in 2014, and 95% in 2019. This provides a basis for our two (2), five (5), and ten (10)
year projections. Using a ULI base ratio for an office environment with 100,000 to 500,000 square feet we
have calculated a base employee parking demand ratio of 3.15 per thousand square feet (KSF) and a visitor
parking demand ratio of 0.25 per KSF. This results in an overall parking demand ratio of 3.40 for office space.
We feel that while providing 3.4 spaces per KSF is commonly accepted by the Urban Land Institute (ULI), it is
not acceptable in downtown Clearwater. Based on discussions with City representatives and the competitive
market conditions, 4.0 to 5.0 spaces per KSF are often requested and required before tenants will consider
leasing downtown office space. In order to address specific requests by potential office tenants, we have also
calculated the total additional office parking demand using a base ratio of 4.0 and 5.0 spaces per KSF.
The table on the following page outlines our estimated parking demand over the next ten years as office
occupancy increases.
Attachment number 1
Page 16 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
14
C
Existing Occupied SF 229,776
Existing Vacant SF 138,405
Total Office SF 368,181
2-year 5-year 10-year
Year Current 2011 2015 2019
Total Occupancy % 62% 75% 90% 95%
Total Occupied Office SF 229,776 276,136 331,363 349,772
Total Additional Office SF - 46,360 55,227 18,409
Office Parking Ratio 3.40 (3.15 Employee; 0.25 Visitor)
Add'l Office Demand (3.40) 158 188 63
Total Add'l Office Demand (3.4) 158 345 408 Based on ULI Average Ratio
Total Add'l Office Demand (4.0) 185 406 480 Based on Actual
Downtown Clearwater
Total Add'l Office Demand (5.0) 232 508 600 Market Conditions
Source: Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
As seen from the previous table and using the lower base ratio of 3.4 spaces
per KSF, we estimate an additional office parking demand of 408 spaces
over the next ten years, assuming that within ten years the office occupancy
will stabilize at 95 percent. Ideally, we would be able to compare the 2002
Parking Demand with the 2002 office occupancy but the 2002 office
occupancy data was not documented as part of the 2002 Study. Further, it is
unclear if some private surface lots were leased or owned by the various
office buildings.
Since potential office tenants desire and utilize a higher parking demand
ratio, as many as 480 to 600 additional spaces are likely needed to
accommodate office employees. It should be noted, tenants who may
require a lower parking demand ratio are typically highly professional in
nature such as attorneys and corporate head quarters with a lower density
of employees per square foot.
Since we do not have all of the data to do a comprehensive analysis, we have analyzed the provided parking
demand ratios for each office building, their 2002 occupancy, and the proximity of each to other public and
private parking facilities. We have summarized the number of spaces provided by each of the Class A office
buildings as well as the 2002 peak occupancy in the following table:
Building SF Parking Spaces Parking Ratio 2002 Parking Occupancy
Clearwater Tower 100,500 373 3.71 72%
The Atrium 133,375 405 3.04 50%
Bank of America 134,306 2691 2.00 not documented
Total 368,181 778 2.11
1Includes 4 surface lots consisting of 174, 17, 20, and 58 spaces
Source: Timothy Haahs and Associates, Inc. 2009
Attachment number 1
Page 17 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
15
:
The Clearwater Tower provides approximately 3.71 spaces per KSF which we
estimate to be satisfactory for Class A tenants. Further, in 2002 the
occupancy in the Tower Garage was only 72% resulting in 104 vacant spaces
during the peak hour. Should additional parking spaces be needed, there
may be some capacity in the Garden Avenue Garage as the peak daytime
occupancy in 2002 was only 60% or approximately 100 vacant spaces.
The Atrium provides approximately 3.04 spaces per KSF which is
significantly lower than a typical Class A office building. With that said, the
Atrium claims to cater to executive suites which do in fact have a much
lower parking demand ratio. In 2002 the parking occupancy in the Atrium
Garage was only 50%. This may be due to a low tenant occupancy rate, current tenant mix, or a combination
of both. In order to make this office more attractive, it may be necessary to team with the City to provide
parking in the public facilities as many surrounding facilities were less than
75% occupied in 2002. Recent discussions with City representatives confirms
that the tenant mix at the Atrium is more professional in nature and does, in
fact, have a lower parking demand ratio. As such, we have assumed that the
Atrium Garage can accommodate most, if not all, of their parking demand at
100 percent occupancy.
According to the parking information provided, the Bank of America Building
only controls 269 parking spaces consisting of a large 174-space surface lot
and 3 smaller surface lots with 17, 20, and 58 spaces. We understand that
the parking requirements for this building may have been relaxed at the time
of construction due to a large number of public surface lots in the
surrounding area. In 2002, many of the parking lots adjacent to the Bank of
America building were only occupied between 50 and 75 percent, with a few
lots filled below 25 percent. Like the Clearwater Tower, this building is within
close proximity to the Garden Avenue Garage and Station Square.
We understand that Class A office tenants expect a high level of service with the quality of their office space
and the location/quality of their parking space. This may include
their expectation of having on-site, covered parking which is
directly attached to their building. Unfortunately, we have
estimated that under conditions of 95 percent occupancy, only one
of the three office buildings can easily provide on-site, covered
parking for all of its tenants, the Clearwater Tower. The Atrium
may be able to accommodate all tenants pending the type of
tenant mix and their ability to maintain the executive suite market.
The Bank of America Tower will likely experience pushback from
the market as they cannot accommodate all tenant vehicles on-site.
As a result, it may be necessary, in the short term, for the Bank of
America Building to provide incentives such as reduced parking
fees or rents for tenants who wish to park remotely. The City
should continue to support the use of the Garden Avenue Garage and Station Square as a means to provide
the additional spaces needed to meet the demand in the short-term. In the long-term, the demand created
by this building will likely exceed the availability of the public supply.
We anticipate that as downtown Clearwater grows and becomes revitalized, businesses will seek office space
in the newly activated and vibrant downtown. The retail and restaurant strategy will play a critical role in the
popularity of downtown and the desire for businesses to want to be located in the heart of the City. Likewise,
the office strategy will help support the retail and restaurant business and create a win-win situation for
everyone. One of the biggest advantages of office and retail/restaurant land uses is their complementary
nature and natural ability to share parking resources effectively.
Attachment number 1
Page 18 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
16
We estimate an increased demand between 480 and 600 parking spaces over the next 10 years using a base
ratio of 4.0 to 5.0 spaces per KSF. With the data provided, we are not able to precisely determine if the
current parking facilities would be able to accommodate all of the additional demand. However, based on
the 2002 parking demand levels, it would appear as if many of the downtown parking facilities will be able to
absorb the additional needs, except for the Bank of America Building tenants. We recommend that in the
short-term, the City provide assistance as needed to the owners of the building and tenants who wish to
obtain parking in the public facilities in order to help increase the office occupancy rate. For the long-term,
the City may need to begin discussing options to meet the future parking needs of the Bank of America
building.
The City is working with Ruth Eckerd Hall for a possible
partnership to purchase the Royalty Theater located in the 400
block of Cleveland Street. The theater currently seats 533 but
after renovations that number is expected to increase to 665-
seats. The theater is the oldest theater still in operation in the
state, and has a unique upper and lower stage. Renovations are
expected to be completed after 2011, once all funds have been
acquired.
Once open, we estimate the theater will peak during evening
hours, particularly on the weekend as that is when most theater
events take place. A ratio of 0.40 spaces per seat were used to
determine the peak number of vehicles present during a sold out performance. This represents an average
occupancy of 2.5 persons per vehicle which is typical for a theater of this nature. Some more mature
performances, such as operas, may experience a lower vehicle occupancy ratio as the majority of attendees
consist of two adults attending the performance. Likewise, children-related performances may experience
higher vehicle occupancy, as high as 4 to 5 persons per vehicle as parents and children all arrive in one
vehicle. We would not expect any major performances to occur during the weekday, daytime hours. In
addition, we have assumed that any performances during business hours would be school or tour related
events where most of the attendees arrive via bus, shuttle, or a similar mode of transportation.
We estimate the peak weekend demand of 219 spaces which can easily be accommodated by using several
public parking facilities including the 475-space Municipal Services Garage (Garage B), the 100-space Station
Square Garage, and the 253-space Garden Avenue Garage (Garage A). Again, under normal weekend
activity, the parking supply is expected to accommodate the theater parking demand. Further, many theater
patrons tend to spend additional time in the area as they may dine before or after a performance, shop in
retail stores, have dessert or cocktails, or even just to walk around the area. When those patrons visit more
than one establishment they are not occupying more than one parking space as they are walking from
destination to destination. This results in an overall lower parking demand for the area as a whole.
Attachment number 1
Page 19 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
17
However, should a large event at Coachman Park occur at the same time as a theater performance, there may
be a challenge to service all motorists. Coachman Park contains the Charles Wharton Pavilion and a 20-acre
landscaped park. We understand that large events
at Coachman Park can, and do, tax all of the
adjacent parking areas. Concerts, The Annual
Clearwater Jazz Holiday, Clearwater Celebrates
America, and Christmas under the Oaks are just
some of the regular events which take place at this
venue. Attendance figures may range from 500
visitors up to 60,000 visitors a common occurrence
during the 4-day Jazz Holiday event (roughly 15,000
visitors per day).
It is easy to understand how a major event at
Coachman Park would not only affect a theater
event, but also normal retail and restaurant activities.
This does not mean that events negatively affect the
downtown area as visitors are drawn to the charm
and beautifully landscaped Cleveland Street District. While parking facilities may be filled to capacity, local
merchants reap the rewards of dollars spent before, during, and after the event at eating establishments and
retail shops. Further, downtown events allow visitors to experience all of the changes which have recently
taken place including streetscape improvements, new eating establishments, and retail shops. Those positive
experiences may drive visitors to revisit the area later during a non-event.
Therefore, while events at the Royalty Theater and Coachman Park may cause some parking congestion
(during overlapped schedules), we feel that the benefit outweighs the additional time and effort to manage
the parking system during those times. As downtown continues to grow, we recommend the implementation
of appropriate signage (permanent variable message signage if not cost prohibitive), traffic and circulation
officers, and ambassadors which can serve to help direct visitors to parking, events, restaurants, and other
destinations. While the cost to run such operations may not completely fall within the parking department’s
budget, those components do enhance the overall visitor perception of the area which is key to growing
downtown Clearwater into a vibrant destination.
Two tables summarizing the estimated future parking conditions for weekdays and weekends are included
below. The weekday and weekend scenarios summarize the projected additional parking demand by land
use and the resulting affect on the public parking inventory. The assumptions used to calculate the projected
future parking adequacy were conservative and included:
x Total inventory figures excluded certain locations for the weekday demand calculations (i.e.,
Bluff parking adjacent to Harborview Center, Coachman Park, Library, etc.) given the
unknown future of this property and other reasons.
x A ratio of 4.0 parking spaces per thousand sq. ft. was used for calculating office space use as
Clearwater has experienced demands for a higher ratio than the current level.
Attachment number 1
Page 20 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
18
Total Parking Inventory # Spaces
Public Supply - Office(1)352
Public Supply - Rest/Retail (2)1640
Private Supply(3)0
Est. Add'l. NET Est. Add''l. NET Est. Add'l. NET
Parking Current Demand Inventory Demand Inventory Demand Inventory
Use Supply Demand 2 yr.(Available)5 yr.(Available)10 yr.(Available)
Office (Add'l Demand) @ 4.0 352 (36%) 126 (53%) 185 41 (+63%) 406 -180 (+21%) 480 -254
Rest/Retail (Shared) - Weekday (4)1,640 (60%) 984 ( 8%) 132 524 (+ 3%) 187 469 (+ 3%) 241 415
Entertainment N/A N/A N/A N/A
Assumptions:
(1) Includes only garage spaces (352) w/i the Cleveland St. District: Garden Garage @ 50% current availability (126 sp.);
St. Square @ 100% current availability (100 sp.).
(2) Decreased total public inventory to 1,640 spaces (see Public Fac. Chart below).
(3) Excludes all private facilities totaling 3,755 spaces.
(4) Assumes an average of 40% current weekday availability.
Weekday office demand @ 4.0 & assuming the private office towers cannot accommodate the projected add'l. demand.
Add'l. demand figures for Weekday Rest/Retail - Shared Use.
Percentages shown are representative of "% of Supply" .
Percentages shown as "+ %" represent the increase in estimated additional demand from 2 Yr. to 5 Yr. and from 5Yr. to Yr. 10.
Total Public Inventory 2,930 Private Facilities:
Excludes:P1 (Tower So)373
Lot # 1 (Library/SteinMart) 135 P2 (Atrium)405
Lot # 2 (Harborview Center) 168 P3 (CoS)581
Lot #5 (Coachman) 261 P4 (BOA)180
Lot #21 (Cty. Garage) 500 P5 (AmSouth)236
St. Square/Garden Ave. Garage 226 Zone 1-4 1,980
Total 1,640 Total 3755
Source: City of Clearwater, 2009
For each land use identified, the current public parking supply meets all projected future demand scenarios
with the exception of the designated office category. According to the projected 5 year and 10 year
scenarios there is a public parking deficit of 180 and 254 spaces, respectively.
Attachment number 1
Page 21 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
19
Parking Inventory # Spaces
Public Supply(1)2,127
Private Supply(2) 2 Yr & 5 Yr. Scenarios 0
Private Supply(2) 10 Yr. Scenario 0
Est. Add'l. NET Est. Add'l. NET Est. Add'l. NET
Parking Current Demand Inventory Demand Inventory Demand Inventory
Use Supply Demand 2 yr.(Available)5 yr.(Available)10 yr.(Available)
Rest/Retail (Shared) - Weekend 2,127 (20%) 425 (11%) 472 1230 (+41%) 667 1035 (+29%) 862 840
Entertainment(3)N/A ( 0%) 219 1011 (+21%) 266 988 (+ 0%) 266 793
Office N/A N/A N/A N/A
TOTAL DEMAND 425 691 933 1128
NET PARKING AVAILABLE 1011 988 793
Assumptions:
(1) Decreased total public inventory to 2,127 spaces (see Chart below).
(2) Assumes no private facilities are available. If a partnership is established most likely lot # P2 would become available.
(3) Net Inventory figures calculated by subtracting the Est. Add'l. Demand figure from the Final Net Inventory for Rest/Retail.
Assumes an average of 80% current weekend availability.
Percentages shown are representative of "% of Supply" .
Percentages shown as "+ %" represent the increase in estimated additional demand from 2 Yr. to 5 Yr. and from 5 Yr. to 10 Yr.
Total Public Inventory 2,930 Private Facilities:
Excludes:P1 (Tower So)373
Lot # 1 (Library/SteinMart) -135 P2 (Atrium)405
Lot # 2 (Harborview Center) -168 P3 (CoS)581
Lot #21 (Cty. Garage) -500 P4 (BOA)180
Total 2,127 P5 (AmSouth)236
Zone 1-4 1,980
TOTAL 3755
Source: City of Clearwater, 2009
The weekend scenario suggests an ample supply of parking that exceeds all future projections for all uses
including Restaurant / Retail and Entertainment by several hundred spaces.
As part of our study, we analyzed walking distances as
they relate to the four large public parking areas:
Coachman Park Lots (Lots 1, 2, and 5), Garden Avenue
Garage, Station Square, and Municipal Services Garage.
We have used a level of service (LOS) approach in order to
quantify the areas serviced by each primary parking facility.
We concentrated our analysis along Cleveland Street
since the southern portion of the study area is comprised
a lot of city, county, and court services. We estimate a
LOS A (excellent) to consist of a walking distance of 500
feet or less, LOS B (Good) to include a walking distance
between 500 and 750 feet, and a LOS C (Average) to
include a walking distance between 750 and 1,000 feet.
Attachment number 1
Page 22 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
20
As a point of reference, LOS A would equate to a total walking time of 2 to 3 minutes, LOS B would equate to
a total walking time of 3 to 4 minutes, and LOS C would equate to a total walking time of 4 to 5 minutes. In
the maps on the following page, we have superimposed walking distance indicators for each of the three
primary public parking areas listed above. The first map represents the area within a 2 to 3 minute walk, (LOS
A), the second map represents the area within a 3 to 4 minute walk (LOS B), the third map represents the area
within a 4 to 5 minute walk. As you can see, the corridor between Osceola Avenue and Prospect Avenue
along Cleveland Street is within a short walking distance from multiple parking facilities. Another benefit for
the area is the connectivity between establishments and the pleasant environment along Cleveland Street.
Because pedestrian activity along Cleveland is enjoyable, most visitors will consider their actual walking
distance from their vehicle to any point of the retail corridor, including the outer east and west limits.
Figure 4 below represents a 2 to 3 minute walk from the three main public parking areas. When signed
properly, visitors will perceive parking as close and easy to access as the walk directly to Cleveland Street is
within a 1 minute walk from two of the facilities.
Source: Microsoft Streets and Trips and TimHaahs. 2009
Attachment number 1
Page 23 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
21
As you can see in the illustration below, every portion of the Cleveland Street Corridor is within a 3 to 4
minute walk of one of the public parking areas. In addition, one entire block on each side of Cleveland Street
is also within that short walking distance. Figure 5 below represents the walking distances for a Level of
Service B, or a 3 to 4 minute walk.
Source: Microsoft Streets and Trips and TimHaahs. 2009
THIS SPACE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Attachment number 1
Page 24 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
22
Figure 6 below represents a 4 to 5 minute walk from the three primary public parking facilities. Practically all
of the study area, with exception of the block with county and court services, is within a short walk of a
parking area. Further, the shaded areas of overlap represent sections of downtown that can be easily
serviced by more than one facility.
Source: Microsoft Streets and Trips and TimHaahs. 2009
The desired Level of Service provided to visitors is directly correlated to the quality of the streetscape
environment, their destination, and the length of stay. A visitor planning a 2-3 hour trip is more willing to park
3-4 minutes away and walk to their destination. Likewise, a visitor planning to attend a 5-6 hour event is
willing to parking more than 5 minutes away from their destination. However, there are short-term visitors
who will want the convenience of front door parking and those users will be willing to pay for such
convenience at the meters located along Cleveland Street. As the area develops and grows, meter rates
along Cleveland Street should be evaluated to ensure that they are properly priced above the off-street rates
in order to encourage turnover.
Attachment number 1
Page 25 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
23
After reviewing the anticipated growth in downtown Clearwater, we have made the following conclusions with
regard to the parking system:
x The current parking system can support the anticipated future retail and restaurant growth both
during typical weekdays and weekends. In 10 years we anticipate an additional demand for 241
spaces during the weekday and 862 spaces during the weekend. The existing parking system can
support this demand as long as the current parking facilities in place are not displaced or removed
from use. Further, any new or additional parking demand generators not considered in this study
may affect the ability for the parking system to adequately accommodate all vehicles.
x The current parking system is not expected to be able to support the anticipated future office
demand based on higher occupancy rates in the Class A office buildings located downtown pending
the use of public parking facilities and a market driven parking demand ratio of at least 4.0 spaces per
KSF. With the recent economic downturn, it may be more challenging for property owners to fill
vacant office space. We anticipate that of the three buildings, the Bank of America building will be
the one to experience a shortage of parking for its tenants if and when occupancy increases (up to a
total of 160 spaces over the next ten years and assuming a 95 percent occupancy rate). The City does
own public parking areas within a reasonable distance to the office tower and is expected to be able
to accommodate the demand during a typical weekday in the short-term. We recommend the use of
M-F, 8AM – 5PM permits only for such employee usage of public facilities. The City should provide
assistance in these cases in order to increase the office occupancy rate. The City should also
encourage partnerships or agreements between property owners that have a surplus capacity of
parking to provide parking options for those who need additional spaces (which may be subsidized
by office building owners if desired).
x The estimated future demand from the Royalty Theater can be absorbed into the current parking
system assuming that most events will be held during evening or weekend hours and that any events
during the weekday will utilize a bus, shuttle, or similar high occupancy vehicle(s).
x Large events at Coachman Park will significantly impact the downtown parking system. Since those
events do not occur more than 36 days per year (10 percent), we do not recommend building
additional parking to service a few days of high activity. Instead, we recommend the use of
management tools to direct, park, and assist visitors with finding their destination (and hopefully
encouraging a longer visit to other merchants in the area). This includes the use of a comprehensive
traffic and parking signage program which may be temporary in nature and targeted for a specific
event.
x Almost the entire Cleveland Street corridor is within a 2 to 3 minute walk of a large public parking
facility. In addition, a large portion of the corridor is within a 3 to 4 minute walk of more than one
large public parking facility. Finally, almost the entire downtown study area is within a 4 to 5 minute
walk to one of the four mentioned public parking facilities.
x We recommend that the City should continuously monitor the parking occupancy within the study
area. We did not perform additional weekday, daytime parking occupancy counts as part of this
study and since the downtown environment is expected to significantly change, it is beneficial to wait
until some of the change has occurred before conducting updated occupancy counts. If the area
maintains a consistent level of growth, there may not be a need to add additional parking. However,
if significant changes occur outside of those included in this study, it may be necessary to re-evaluate
the conditions and consider building additional parking. Since parking is not the best and highest
use of valuable land, we recommend that all management techniques and the use of private parking
facilities be a first option before the construction of additional public facilities.
Attachment number 1
Page 26 of 27
Item # 2
City of Clearwater
August 19, 2009
24
We have also made the following recommendations with regard to the overall management and operation of
the parking system:
x Signage improvements including additional “P” trail blazing/wayfinding should be considered for the
area as growth continues. Signage is critical to moving motorists to parking facilities as quickly and
easily as possible. Effective signage eases motorist stress, reduces roadway congestion, and
ultimately creates a more user friendly environment. During special events, we encourage the
continued use of a comprehensive temporary wayfinding program which may include the use of
portable variable message signs.
x The City should consider a scheduled and regular evaluation of parking meter rates and time limits,
especially along Cleveland Street area (including side streets). We recommend an annual evaluation
and assessment of occupancy and turnover of on-street spaces. Once the occupancy reaches 85
percent, the on-street parking system may appear full and not convenient to short term parkers. In
addition, the City may want to consider congestion pricing once the area has reached its full potential
in order to maximize use of on-street spaces while also encouraging turnover. Congestion pricing
allows a system to increase parking rates during the busiest hours and decrease the parking rates at
hours of low demand. As such, this practice aims to maintain a consistent level of occupancy for all
on-street spaces (typically around 70 percent).
x The City should consider the use of ambassadors during special events. These ambassadors can be
coordinated through several internal departments and the cost to run such a program will pay off
through more repeat visitors, a better visitor experience, more money spent in the downtown area,
and finally, more successful businesses.
x We encourage the City to work with private parking facility owners to integrate the private supply into
the public domain as appropriate. A signage program which they can opt to participate in can
provide a consistent message to visitors with regard to available parking locations. Such a program
maintains the aesthetic appearance desired in the downtown area and can be offered at cost to the
private facility owners. Private facility owners will benefit from increased parking revenues due to
higher use of their facilities.
x Maximize use of employee only facilities by offering permits to office workers as appropriate. For
example, a part-time clerical worker may be able to utilize spaces in the MSB garage if their shift
begins and ends before the peak hour when the police department shift change occurs.
We appreciate the fact that the City understands how a true urban environment promotes pedestrian activity
and in turn, pedestrian activity generates retail and restaurant sales. Even more, the City understands the
critical role parking plays as a cornerstone for all pedestrian activity. We are confident that with these
proactive measures, downtown Clearwater will continue to thrive and reach its full potential.
Attachment number 1
Page 27 of 27
Item # 2
Downtown Parking Downtown Parking
Study UpdateStudy Update
Downtown Parking Downtown Parking
Study UpdateStudy Update
Item # 2
Purpose for the StudyPurpose for the StudyPurpose for the StudyPurpose for the Study
••Evaluate the effect on the Evaluate the effect on the
downtown parking system from downtown parking system from
the anticipated improvements to the anticipated improvements to
••Evaluate the effect on the Evaluate the effect on the
downtown parking system from downtown parking system from
the anticipated improvements to the anticipated improvements to the anticipated improvements to the anticipated improvements to
the Cleveland Street Districtthe Cleveland Street District
––2, 5, and 10 Year Projections2, 5, and 10 Year Projections
the anticipated improvements to the anticipated improvements to
the Cleveland Street Districtthe Cleveland Street District
––2, 5, and 10 Year Projections2, 5, and 10 Year Projections
Item # 2
TasksTasksTasksTasks
••Update 2002 Parking StudyUpdate 2002 Parking Study
••Incorporate 2008 Downtown Incorporate 2008 Downtown
Retail Recruitment Strategy Retail Recruitment Strategy
Report ProjectionsReport Projections
••Update 2002 Parking StudyUpdate 2002 Parking Study
••Incorporate 2008 Downtown Incorporate 2008 Downtown
Retail Recruitment Strategy Retail Recruitment Strategy
Report ProjectionsReport ProjectionsReport ProjectionsReport Projections
••Identify future parking needsIdentify future parking needs
––Retail/RestaurantRetail/Restaurant
––Office TenantsOffice Tenants
––Special Events/ Theater Special Events/ Theater
Report ProjectionsReport Projections
••Identify future parking needsIdentify future parking needs
––Retail/RestaurantRetail/Restaurant
––Office TenantsOffice Tenants
––Special Events/ Theater Special Events/ Theater
Item # 2
Study AreaStudy AreaStudy AreaStudy Area
Downtown Core:Downtown Core:
••Drew StreetDrew Street
••South Myrtle AvenueSouth Myrtle Avenue
Downtown Core:Downtown Core:
••Drew StreetDrew Street
••South Myrtle AvenueSouth Myrtle Avenue••South Myrtle AvenueSouth Myrtle Avenue
••Rogers Street/Chestnut StreetRogers Street/Chestnut Street
••Clearwater HarborClearwater Harbor
••South Myrtle AvenueSouth Myrtle Avenue
••Rogers Street/Chestnut StreetRogers Street/Chestnut Street
••Clearwater HarborClearwater Harbor
Item # 2
Public Parking SupplyPublic Parking SupplyPublic Parking SupplyPublic Parking Supply
••2,246 in 20022,246 in 2002
••2,930 in 2009 2,930 in 2009
••2,246 in 20022,246 in 2002
••2,930 in 2009 2,930 in 2009
••Additional 684 spacesAdditional 684 spaces
••BUTBUT 657 of those are reserved 657 of those are reserved
for employee use during the for employee use during the
daytimedaytime
••Additional 684 spacesAdditional 684 spaces
••BUTBUT 657 of those are reserved 657 of those are reserved
for employee use during the for employee use during the
daytimedaytime
Item # 2
Private Parking SupplyPrivate Parking SupplyPrivate Parking SupplyPrivate Parking Supply
••3,136 in 20023,136 in 2002
••3,755 in 2009 (includes COS 3,755 in 2009 (includes COS
Garage)Garage)
••3,136 in 20023,136 in 2002
••3,755 in 2009 (includes COS 3,755 in 2009 (includes COS
Garage)Garage)Garage)Garage)
••Additional 619 spacesAdditional 619 spaces
••BUTBUT those are privately owned those are privately owned
and may not be available for and may not be available for
public usepublic use
Garage)Garage)
••Additional 619 spacesAdditional 619 spaces
••BUTBUT those are privately owned those are privately owned
and may not be available for and may not be available for
public usepublic use
Item # 2
Retail/Restaurant StrategyRetail/Restaurant StrategyRetail/Restaurant StrategyRetail/Restaurant Strategy
••1010--Year DemandYear Demand
––Weekday: 241 spacesWeekday: 241 spaces
––Weekend: 862 spacesWeekend: 862 spaces
••1010--Year DemandYear Demand
––Weekday: 241 spacesWeekday: 241 spaces
––Weekend: 862 spacesWeekend: 862 spaces––Weekend: 862 spacesWeekend: 862 spaces
••SufficientSufficient parking to support parking to support
future desired retail and future desired retail and
restaurant densityrestaurant density
––Weekend: 862 spacesWeekend: 862 spaces
••SufficientSufficient parking to support parking to support
future desired retail and future desired retail and
restaurant densityrestaurant density
Item # 2
Entertainment/Theater UseEntertainment/Theater UseEntertainment/Theater UseEntertainment/Theater Use
••1010--Year DemandYear Demand
––Theater Event: 266 spacesTheater Event: 266 spaces
••SufficientSufficient parking to support parking to support
future theater usefuture theater use
••1010--Year DemandYear Demand
––Theater Event: 266 spacesTheater Event: 266 spaces
••SufficientSufficient parking to support parking to support
future theater usefuture theater usefuture theater usefuture theater use
••Major downtown events will Major downtown events will
utilize all available DT spacesutilize all available DT spaces
––Utilize parking mgmt toolsUtilize parking mgmt tools
future theater usefuture theater use
••Major downtown events will Major downtown events will
utilize all available DT spacesutilize all available DT spaces
––Utilize parking mgmt toolsUtilize parking mgmt tools
Item # 2
Office UseOffice UseOffice UseOffice Use
••1010--Year Demand Year Demand
––480 to 600 spaces480 to 600 spaces
••InsufficientInsufficient parking to support parking to support
future office use assuming a future office use assuming a
••1010--Year Demand Year Demand
––480 to 600 spaces480 to 600 spaces
••InsufficientInsufficient parking to support parking to support
future office use assuming a future office use assuming a future office use assuming a future office use assuming a
higher occupancy ratehigher occupancy rate
••Estimated shortage of ~250 Estimated shortage of ~250
spaces during the weekdayspaces during the weekday
future office use assuming a future office use assuming a
higher occupancy ratehigher occupancy rate
••Estimated shortage of ~250 Estimated shortage of ~250
spaces during the weekdayspaces during the weekday
Item # 2
SummarySummarySummarySummary
••The parking system is sufficient The parking system is sufficient
during the weekend and evening during the weekend and evening
hours for retail/restaurant and hours for retail/restaurant and
entertainment/theaterentertainment/theater
••The parking system is sufficient The parking system is sufficient
during the weekend and evening during the weekend and evening
hours for retail/restaurant and hours for retail/restaurant and
entertainment/theaterentertainment/theaterentertainment/theaterentertainment/theater
••The parking system may not be The parking system may not be
able to absorb the weekday, able to absorb the weekday,
daytime demand with higher daytime demand with higher
office occupancy ratesoffice occupancy rates
entertainment/theaterentertainment/theater
••The parking system may not be The parking system may not be
able to absorb the weekday, able to absorb the weekday,
daytime demand with higher daytime demand with higher
office occupancy ratesoffice occupancy rates
Item # 2
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
••Signage Improvements/Trail Signage Improvements/Trail
BlazingBlazing
••Coordinate efforts with the Coordinate efforts with the
••Signage Improvements/Trail Signage Improvements/Trail
BlazingBlazing
••Coordinate efforts with the Coordinate efforts with the ••Coordinate efforts with the Coordinate efforts with the
private sector to integrate their private sector to integrate their
assets for public use (winassets for public use (win--win)win)
••Utilize ambassadors during Utilize ambassadors during
special events to help facilitate a special events to help facilitate a
positive visitor experiencepositive visitor experience
••Coordinate efforts with the Coordinate efforts with the
private sector to integrate their private sector to integrate their
assets for public use (winassets for public use (win--win)win)
••Utilize ambassadors during Utilize ambassadors during
special events to help facilitate a special events to help facilitate a
positive visitor experiencepositive visitor experience
Item # 2
RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations
••Continue incentives for office Continue incentives for office
tenant parking in Garden Avenue tenant parking in Garden Avenue
Garage and Station Square to Garage and Station Square to
meet gap in short termmeet gap in short term
••Continue incentives for office Continue incentives for office
tenant parking in Garden Avenue tenant parking in Garden Avenue
Garage and Station Square to Garage and Station Square to
meet gap in short termmeet gap in short termmeet gap in short termmeet gap in short term
••Discuss options for additional Discuss options for additional
spaces to meet office demand in spaces to meet office demand in
long termlong term
meet gap in short termmeet gap in short term
••Discuss options for additional Discuss options for additional
spaces to meet office demand in spaces to meet office demand in
long termlong term
Item # 2
Downtown Parking Downtown Parking
Study UpdateStudy Update
Downtown Parking Downtown Parking
Study UpdateStudy Update
Item # 2
Community Redevelopment
Agency Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
Meeting Date:8/31/2009
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the FY 2009-2010 Community Redevelopment Agency Preliminary Budget and Adopt CRA Resolution 09-01
SUMMARY:
The major changes in the FY 2009-2010 budget are as follows:
Tax increment revenues increased by 20.8% or $530,492 due to a 10.7% increase in assessed values (+23.7% old CRA; -13.23% new
CRA) attributable to the addition of several major development projects in and around the downtown core (i.e. Water’s Edge; Station
Square; Marriott Residence Inn, etc.).
Operating expenditures increased by $39,682, largely due to the increase in “pass through” funds for the DDB as a result of higher
assessed values. Net of the DDB “pass through,” the operating expenditures are decreased by $14,056.
This year, the Administration portion reflects the transfer of 33% of the cost of a Senior Staff Assistant to the CRA, which was
previously funded by the Housing Division of Economic Development, to reflect actual staff support to the CRA and DDB. The
reorganization of duties within the Economic Development and Housing Department identified the need to prioritize assignments and
reassign the work to the appropriate cost center.
Transfers Out to various projects are listed as designated in the CRA Six Year Plan.
The Preliminary FY 2009-2010 budget is consistent with the Six Year Plan for the CRA.
Review
Approval:
1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) Clerk 6) Assistant City Manager
ED 7) Clerk 8) City Manager 9) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 3
Resolution No. 09-01
RESOLUTION NO 09-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE CRA
FY2009/10 ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET; PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) annual budget
requirements have been clarified and Section 189.418(3), of the Florida Statutes
require that CRA’s adopt their annual budgets by resolution; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMUNITY
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1. Adopt the FY2009/10 CRA Operating Budget as outlined on Exhibit
A.
Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 31st day of August, 2009.
____________________________
Frank V. Hibbard
Chairman
Approved as to form: Attest:
__________________________ _____________________________
Pamela K. Akin Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Attorney City Clerk
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 1
Item # 3
EXHIBIT A
2008/09 2009/2010
Amended Proposed Difference
Budget Budget
Revenues & Transfers In
Tax Increment Financing Revenues
338930 Pinellas County 961,161 1,150,952 189,791
381115 City of Clearwater 930,594 1,217,557 286,963
381116 Downtown Development Board 148,029 201,767 53,738
Total TIF Revenues 2,039,784 2,570,276 530,492
Other Revenues
361101 Interest Earnings 100,000 30,000 -70,000
369901 Other General Revenue 4,998 0 -4,998
Transfers In
381782 DDB Administration 57,480 59,779 2,299
381782 Loan Payment From DDB 7,848 7,848 0
Total Revenues & Transfers In 2,210,110 2,667,903 457,793
Expenditures & Transfers Out
Operating Expenditures
530100 Professional Services 76,900 60,000 -16,900
540200 Document Reproduction 10,000 10,000 0
540300 Telephone Service Variable 1,500 1,500 0
540700 Postal Service 2,000 2,000 0
541500 Garage Services - Variable 3,600 3,600 0
542300 Gs, Water, Sanitation 656 0 -656
542500 Postage 50 50 0
543100 Advertising 14,000 10,000 -4,000
543200 Other Promotional Activities 2,500 10,000 7,500
543400 Printing & Binding (Outside) 500 500 0
547100 Uniforms 150 150 0
547200 Employee Expense-Travel 6,500 6,500 0
548000 Other Services 2,200 2,200 0
550100 Office Supplies 1,000 1,000 0
550400 Operating Supplies 3,000 3,000 0
557100 Memberships and Subscriptions 4,000 4,000 0
557300 Training and Reference 4,000 4,000 0
581000 Payments to Other Agencies-DDB 148,029 201,767 53,738
582000 Aid to Private Organizations 6,000 6,000 0
Total Operating Expenditures 286,585 326,267 39,682
Transfers Out
590200 General Fund- Administrative 295,067 309,599 14,532
590800 East Gateway Project (94849) 142,000 136,785 -5,215
590800 Cleveland Street Maintenance (99968) 20,000 22,000 2,000
590800 Cleveland Streetscape Phase II 173,487 0 -173,487
590800 Water's Edge Opus 0 148,241 148,241
590800 Station Square DA 0 230,000 230,000
590800 Marriott Residence Inn (94856) 0 34,539 34,539
590800 Restricted County TIF Funds 962,644 1,150,952 188,308 1
590800 Façade Improvement Grant Fund 50,000 50,000 0
590800 Downtown Redevelopment Fund 140,327 34,520 -105,807
590800 Affordable Housing Projects (94851) 25,000 25,000 0
590800 Retail Attraction/Assistance (94852) 100,000 100,000 0
590800 Cleveland District Branding (94853) 15,000 100,000 85,000
Total Transfers Out 1,923,525 2,341,636 418,111
Total Expenditures & Transfers Out 2,210,110 2,667,903 457,793
Excess of Revenues & Transfers In Over
Expenditures & Transfers Out -$ -$
1. County Restricted TIF - breakdown of transfers to projects: $510,820 Cleveland Streetscape Phase II (92269),
$500,000 Downtown Boat Slips (93405), $140,132 Water's Edge/Opus (need code)
For the Period of October 1, 2009 - September 30, 2010
Community Redevelopment Agency
FY09/10 Budget
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 1
Item # 3
County Portion 0.004873 4.873
City Portion 0.005155 5.155
DDB Portion 0.000965 0.9651
Water's Edge (OPUS)
Year 1 -5%
Year 2 0%
Year 3 0%
Year 4 3%
Year 5 3%Growth Factors $ 57,513,492
Discussion Draft
$ 46,113,997
Millage Rate
Project Value
$ 6,700,000
$ 30,877,295
CRA - TIF PROJECTION TOOL
Millage Rate AdjustmentMarriott Residence Inn
Station Square Condiminiums
Project Value Adjustment $ -
Clearwater Centre
PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls Page 1 of 8 Revised 5/17/07
Attachment number 3
Page 1 of 8
Item # 3
Revenue Source
6/30/09 Est.
Balance 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total
County Portion (Growth) Growth TIF (1)1,150,952 1,042,572 1,042,572 1,087,804 1,144,450 1,202,795 5,468,350
City Portion (Growth) Growth TIF 1,217,557 1,102,905 1,102,905 1,150,755 1,210,679 1,272,400 5,784,802
DDB Portion (Growth) Growth TIF 201,767 187,797 187,797 195,760 203,961 212,409 977,083
Total Projected TIF (Growth Only)2,570,276 2,333,275 2,333,275 2,434,320 2,559,090 2,687,604 14,917,839
Project TIF (New & Proposed Projects) (2)
Clearwater Centre County TIF 0
City TIF 0
DDB TIF 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0
Marriott Residence Inn County TIF 0
City TIF 0
DDB TIF 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Station Square Condominiums County TIF 0
City TIF 0
DDB TIF 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Water's Edge (Opus) County TIF 0
City TIF 0
DDB TIF 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total Projected New Project TIF*0 0 0 0 0 0
*New projects included in Base Above
CRA - SIX YEAR PLAN*
DRAFT FY 09-10 Revised 8-14-09
Other Revenue Interest 30,000 30,000 40,000 40,000 50,000 50,000 240,000
DDB Admin and Loan 59,779 62,170 64,657 67,243 69,933 72,730 396,513
DDB Loan 7,848 7,848 7,848 7,848 7,848 0 39,240
Land Sales (3)
Total Other 97,627 100,018 112,505 115,091 127,781 122,730 675,753
Total Available 3,396,564 2,667,903 2,433,293 2,445,780 2,549,411 2,686,871 2,810,334 18,990,155
Less DDB TIF Portion (4)201,767 187,797 187,797 195,760 203,961 212,409 1,189,491
Less CRA Operating and Administration 434,099 451,463 469,521 488,302 507,834 528,148 2,879,368
Total Projected TIF available for projects/dev. agreements 3,396,564 2,032,037 1,794,032 1,788,461 1,865,349 1,975,076 2,069,778 14,921,296
Page 1 of 8 PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls
Attachment number 3
Page 2 of 8
Item # 3
CRA - SIX YEAR PLAN*
DRAFT FY 09-10 Revised 8-14-09
Commitments/City Projects Source
6/30/09 Est.
Balance 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total
94714 Downtown Redevelopment County TIF 0
City TIF 0
Other (CRA) 1,538,951 97,627 100,018 112,505 115,091 127,781 122,730 2,214,704
1,538,951 97,627 100,018 112,505 115,091 127,781 122,730 2,214,704
94765 IMR/Crum Environmental (5)CRA 94,611 94,611
99881 Clearwater Auto General (6) County TIF 0
City TIF 0
CRA 186,399 186,399
Total 186,399 0 0 0 0 0 0 186,399
99963 Economic Development Incentives CRA 131,586 131,586
99968 Cleveland Street Maintenance County TIF 0
City TIF 22,000 12,101 22,315 21,948 22,607 23,285 124,256
CRA 40,863 40,863
Total 40,863 22,000 12,101 22,315 21,948 22,607 23,285 165,119
99979 Façade Program (7)County TIF 0
City TIF 50,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 170,000
CRA 182,087 182,087
Total 182,087 50,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 352,087
99986 Town Lake Property (Med Village) CRA 216,394 216,394
94855 Clearwater Auto-EPA Loan#2 (6) 3,086 3,086
92269 Cleveland Streetscape II (5) County TIF 510,820 402,440 374,000 1,287,260
City TIF 0 0
Acct.0 0
Total 0 510,820 402,440 374,000 0 0 0 1,287,260
94849 East Gateway Projects (9)County TIF 28,440 258,199 100,000 100,000 486,63994849East Gateway Projects (9)County TIF 28,440 258,199 100,000 100,000 486,639
City TIF 136,785 141,562 146,507 151,635 576,488
Other 113,175 113,175
Total 113,175 136,785 141,562 174,947 409,834 100,000 100,000 1,176,302
Clearwater Auto/Aamco (8)County TIF 0
City TIF 0
Other 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93405 Downtown Boat Slips County TIF 500,000 500,000 1,000,000
Royalty Theater (10)County TIF 500,000 500,000 1,000,000
City TIF 0
CRA 0
Total 0 0 0 500,000 500,000 0 0 1,000,000
94851 Affordable Housing Projects (11)County TIF 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 750,000
City TIF 25,000 25,000
CRA 225,000 225,000
Total 225,000 25,000 0 0 250,000 250,000 250,000 1,000,000
94852 Retail Attraction/Assistance County TIF 0
City TIF 100,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 300,000
Other Revenue 58,000 58,000
Total 58,000 100,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 0 0 358,000
94853 Cleveland District Branding (12)County TIF 0
City TIF 36,894 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 111,894
CRA 72,329 63,106 135,435
Total 72,329 100,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 247,329
Total City Project Commitments 2,862,481 1,542,232 1,241,121 1,298,767 1,461,873 515,388 511,015 8,432,877
Page 2 of 8 PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls
Attachment number 3
Page 3 of 8
Item # 3
CRA - SIX YEAR PLAN*
DRAFT FY 09-10 Revised 8-14-09
Commitments/Dev. Agreements Source
6/30/09 Est.
Balance 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total
94847 Clearwater Centre (13)94847 Acct. 534,083 534,083
94856 Marriott Residence Inn (14)County TIF 0
City TIF 34,539 34,539 34,884 35,930 37,008 37,378 176,900
94856 Acct. 0 0
Total 0 34,539 34,539 34,884 35,930 37,008 37,378 214,278
Station Square Development County TIF 0
City TIF 230,000 230,000 460,000
Other 0
Total 230,000 230,000 0 0 0 0 460,000
Water's Edge (Opus) (15)County TIF 140,132 140,132 140,132 79,606 500,000
City TIF 148,241 148,241 148,241 90,277 535,000
Other 0
Total 288,373 288,373 288,373 169,883 0 1,035,001
Total Dev. Agr. Commitments 534,083 552,911 552,911 323,257 205,813 37,008 37,378 2,243,362
Total Commitments 3,396,564 2,731,008 2,433,293 2,279,342 2,351,749 1,264,192 1,288,950 14,745,098
Page 3 of 8 PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls
Attachment number 3
Page 4 of 8
Item # 3
CRA - SIX YEAR PLAN*
DRAFT FY 09-10 Revised 8-14-09
Summary Source 6/30/09 Est.
Balance 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Total
Funds Available
County TIF 1,150,952 1,042,572 1,042,572 1,087,804 1,144,450 1,202,795 6,671,144
City TIF 1,217,557 1,102,905 1,102,905 1,150,755 1,210,679 1,272,400 7,057,203
DDB TIF 201,767 187,797 187,797 195,760 203,961 212,409 1,189,491
Other Revenues 3,396,564 97,627 100,018 112,505 115,091 127,781 122,730 4,072,317
Total 3,396,564 2,667,903 2,433,293 2,445,780 2,549,411 2,686,871 2,810,334 18,990,155
Total Commitments
County TIF 0 1,150,952 1,042,572 1,042,572 1,087,805 350,000 350,000 5,023,899
City TIF 0 1,217,557 1,102,906 936,468 953,093 582,450 603,811 5,396,285
DDB TIF 0 201,767 187,797 187,797 195,760 203,961 212,409 1,189,491
From Other Acct./Revenue 3,396,564 63,106 0 0 0 0 0 3,459,670
Total 3,396,564 2,633,381 2,333,275 2,166,837 2,236,657 1,136,411 1,166,220 15,069,346
Unallocated Funds
County TIF 0 0 0 0 0 794,450 852,795 1,647,245
City TIF 0 0 0 166,437 197,663 628,229 668,589 1,660,918
DDB TIF 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Downtown Redevelopmen 1,538,951 34,521 100,018 112,505 115,091 127,781 122,730 2,151,598
Total 1,538,951 34,521 100,018 278,942 312,753 1,550,460 1,644,114 5,459,761
BALANCE OF UNCOMMITTED REVENUES REMAINING AFTER CURRENT COMMITMENTS
Cummulative Available 1,573,472 1,673,490 1,952,432 2,265,186 3,815,646 5,459,761
Cummulative County TIF (Restricted)(16) 0 0 1 0 794,450 1,647,245
Cummulative Unrestricted Available 1,573,472 1,673,490 1,952,432 2,265,186 3,021,196 3,812,516
Notes:
*Six Year Plan includes proposed capital projects for the next five years and current funding commitments through Development Agreements,
and other program fund projects. The revenues combine the Old and New (Expanded) CRA.
(1) The tax base of the original CRA experienced a 24% increase from last year (FY08-09). The tax base of the expanded CRA experienced a 13% decrease from last year.
Tax base projections for future years is estimated at -5% FY 10-11; 0% FY11-12; 0% FY 12-13; 3% FY 13-14; and 3% FY 14-15. No new projects are estimated to come online.
(2) Marriott Residence Inn, Station Square Condominiums, and Water's Edge were all added to the tax base this year. (2) Marriott Residence Inn, Station Square Condominiums, and Water's Edge were all added to the tax base this year.
Pinellas County Property Appraiser's Office does not have the tax increment breakout of each of the projects. Estimates were created for actual taxes to be paid.
(3) May include future land sales of Clearwater Auto and Prospect (Town) Lake property.
(4) Current Interlocal Agreement (approved yearly) between CRA and DDB reimburses DDB its portion of the tax increment.
(5) Cleveland Streetscape Phase 2 is from Myrtle to Missouri. $4,028,925 is the project budget approved by CRA/Council on 11/3/08. The Central Insurance Fund loaned the project $1,622
to be replaced by CRA funds as they become available in three fiscal years. $1,574,000 in CRA funds are currently in the project account.
We have received $335,500 in HUD EDI grants for this project that will directly reduce the amount needed for this project. Total for CRA to repay is $1,287,425.
The environmental for IMR/Crum has been completed (SRCO in 2008). We anticipate moving the $94,611 remainder in this project code to the streetscape once all Legal questions are a
(6) Environmental remediation is complete--received SRCO July 2009. Reviewing current funds in this project for other project needs.
Clearwater Auto has an outstanding loan of $700,000 ($350k in FY06 and $350k in FY08) that is owed to the City's Brownfields Cleanup Revolving Loan Fund estimated to be repaid once p
Due to government accounting procedures, $700,000 was taken out of the Redevelopment Fund (94714) to avoid a negative cash balance and will be returned to this account once loa
(7) Façade Program is for the implementation of the Sidewalk Café District revised façade program guidelines.
(8)This is a placeholder for potential land acquisition surrounding the Clearwater Auto property. We could use CDBG funds for acquisition if there is a low-mod benefit.
(9) East Gateway 5-year Action Plan--FY09-10 budget is $128,777 plus $1,600 in gas and $6,408 for miscellaneous Action Plan activities.
Out years include police officer salary and gasoline (with an escalation factor of 3.5% per year for salaries) and marketing materials and events per East Gateway 5-Year Action Plan.
(10) Royalty Theater renovation contribution to be advanced from City Central Insurance Fund. First payment of $500,000 made in FY08-09.
(11) Affordable housing projects in the CRA--potential Development Agreement with Country Club Homes.
(12) For the implementation of Retail Recruitment Strategy and Vaughn Wedeen's report recommendations commissioned by the DDB.
FY 09-10 includes development of dedicated website for Cleveland Street District by CRA.
(13) Clearwater Centre Development Agreement--Utility, Streetscape and Impact fee payment not to exceed $1,041,000. First year commitment paid.
(14) Marriott Residence Inn Development Agreement --$178,000 impact fees paid in FY08-09. Remainder of incentive: 50% of total TIF generated to be reimbursed by City portion,
up to $400,000 over 6 years. Taxes are estimates only; actuals not available from County Property Appraiser's Office.
(15) Water's Edge Development Agreement -- 50% of TIF generated to be reimbursed up to $1,035,000 for streetscape($500k) and impact fees ($535k).
Taxes are estimates only; actuals not available from County Property Appraiser's Office.
(16) County TIF funds are restricted to the following expenditures (County Ordinance 04-10):
Capital improvements, land acquisition, and environmental remediation. Per County, affordable housing is also an allowed expenditure.
These funds must be appropriated on a yearly basis to a project.
Page 4 of 8 PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls
Attachment number 3
Page 5 of 8
Item # 3
Clearwater Centre
Growth in Base Value of Property County TIF City TIF DDB TIF Total
2006
2007
2008
2009 -$ -$ -$ -$
2010 0%46,113,997$ -$
2011 0%46,113,997$ -$
2012 0%46,113,997$ -$
2013 1%46,575,137$ 226,961$ 240,095$ 44,950$ 512,005$
2014 1%47,040,888$ 229,230$ 242,496$ 45,399$ 517,125$
2015 3%48,452,115$ 236,107$ 249,771$ 46,761$ 532,639$
2016 4%50,390,200$ 245,551$ 259,761$ 48,632$ 553,945$
2017 1%50,894,102$ 248,007$ 262,359$ 49,118$ 559,484$
2018 1%51,403,043$ 250,487$ 264,983$ 49,609$ 565,079$
2019 1%51,917,073$ 252,992$ 267,633$ 50,105$ 570,730$
1,689,335$ 1,787,097$ 334,574$ 3,811,006$
Marriott Residence Inn
Growth in Base Value of Property County TIF City TIF DDB TIF Total
2006
2007
2008
2009 6,700,000$ 32,649$ 34,539$ 6,466$ 73,654$
2010 0%6,700,000$ 32,649$ 34,539$ 6,466$ 73,654$
2011 1%6,767,000$ 32,976$ 34,884$ 6,531$ 74,390$
2012 3%6,970,010$ 33,965$ 35,930$ 6,727$ 76,622$
2013 3%7,179,110$ 34,984$ 37,008$ 6,929$ 78,921$
2014 1%7,250,901$ 35,334$ 37,378$ 6,998$ 79,710$
2015 3%7,468,428$ 36,394$ 38,500$ 7,208$ 82,101$
2016 4%7,767,166$ 37,849$ 40,040$ 7,496$ 85,385$
2017 1%7,844,837$ 38,228$ 40,440$ 7,571$ 86,239$
2018 1%7,923,286$ 38,610$ 40,845$ 7,647$ 87,101$
2019 1%8,002,518$ 38,996$ 41,253$ 7,723$ 87,972$
392,633$ 415,355$ 77,761$ 885,750$
Station Square Development
Growth in Base Value of Property County TIF City TIF DDB TIF Total
2006
2007
2008
2009 30,877,295$ 150,465$ 159,172$ 29,800$ 339,437$
2010 0%30,877,295$ 150,465$ 159,172$ 29,800$ 339,437$
2011 0%30,877,295$ 150,465$ 159,172$ 29,800$ 339,437$
2012 0%30,877,295$ 150,465$ 159,172$ 29,800$ 339,437$
2013 1%31,186,068$ 151,970$ 160,764$ 30,098$ 342,832$
2014 1%31,497,929$ 153,489$ 162,372$ 30,399$ 346,260$
2015 3%32,442,866$ 158,094$ 167,243$ 31,311$ 356,648$
2016 4%33,740,581$ 164,418$ 173,933$ 32,563$ 370,914$
2017 1%34,077,987$ 166,062$ 175,672$ 32,889$ 374,623$
2018 1%34,418,767$ 167,723$ 177,429$ 33,218$ 378,369$
2019 1%34,762,954$ 169,400$ 179,203$ 33,550$ 382,153$
1,733,016$ 1,833,305$ 343,225$ 3,909,546$
Water's Edge (OPUS)
Growth in Base Value of Property County TIF City TIF DDB TIF Total
2006
2007
2008
2009 57,513,492$ 280,263$ 296,482$ 55,506$ 632,252$
2010 0%57,513,492$ 280,263$ 296,482$ 55,506$ 632,252$
2011 0%57,513,492$ 280,263$ 296,482$ 55,506$ 632,252$
2012 0%57,513,492$ 280,263$ 296,482$ 55,506$ 632,252$
2013 1%58,088,627$ 283,066$ 299,447$ 56,061$ 638,574$
2014 1%58,669,513$ 285,897$ 302,441$ 56,622$ 644,960$
2015 3%60,429,599$ 294,473$ 311,515$ 58,321$ 664,309$
2016 4%62,846,783$ 306,252$ 323,975$ 60,653$ 690,881$
2017 1%63,475,250$ 309,315$ 327,215$ 61,260$ 697,790$
2018 1%64,110,003$ 312,408$ 330,487$ 61,873$ 704,768$
2019 1%64,751,103$ 315,532$ 333,792$ 62,491$ 711,815$
3,227,996$ 3,414,800$ 639,306$ 7,282,103$
CRA - Cumulative TIF by Project
PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls B - Cumulative TIF by ProjectPage 5 of 8 Revised 5/17/07
Attachment number 3
Page 6 of 8
Item # 3
Growth in Base Value of Property County TIF City TIF DDB TIF Total
2011
2012
2013 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
2014 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
2015 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
2016 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
2017 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
2018 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
2019 $ - -$ -$ -$ $ -
$ - $ - $ - $ -
Miles Development Cumulative TIF
PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls B - Cumulative TIF by ProjectPage 6 of 8 Revised 5/17/07
Attachment number 3
Page 7 of 8
Item # 3
58,483,896 (17,806,909) 0.237506829 -0.132299159Projections--Assumes percent growth in tax roll only with no added projects (Conservative Estimate)Old CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAOld CRANew CRAFinal Fiscal 05/06 Final Fiscal 05/06 Fiscal 06/07 Fiscal 06/07 Fiscal 07/08 Fiscal 07/08 Fiscal 08/09 Fiscal 08/09 Prelim Fiscal 09/10 Prelim Fiscal 09/10 Projection Fiscal 10/11 Projection Fiscal 10/11 Projection Fiscal 11/12 Projection Fiscal 11/12 Projection Fiscal 12/13 Projection Fiscal 12/13 Projection Fiscal 13/14 Projection Fiscal 13/14 Projection Fiscal 14/15 Projection Fiscal 14/15Valuation 1/01/05Valuation 1/01/05Valuation 1/01/06Valuation 1/01/06Valuation 1/01/07Valuation 1/01/07Valuation 1/01/08Valuation 1-01-08CRA Base Year84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ 84,658,490$ 88,234,600$ Current Tax Roll Valuation205,127,400 102,228,700 257,673,512 129,860,940 257,803,624 143,451,973 246,240,903 134,595,784 304,724,799 116,788,875 289,488,559 108,613,654 289,488,559 108,613,654 298,173,216 109,699,790 307,118,412 112,990,784 316,331,965 116,380,508 (1/01/07 for fiscal 07/08)Taxable Value Increment (Current less Base Year)120,468,910 13,994,100 173,015,022 41,626,340 173,145,134 55,217,373 161,582,413 46,361,184 220,066,309 28,554,275 204,830,069 20,379,054 204,830,069 20,379,054 213,514,726 21,465,190 222,459,922 24,756,184 231,673,475 28,145,908 County Share - Millage Rate6.1410 6.1410 5.4700 5.4700 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 4.8730 Estimated County amount due CRA @ 95%702,809.60$ 81,640.88$ 899,072.56$ 216,311.28$ 801,549.43$ 255,620.55$ 748,021.54$ 214,622.15$ 1,018,763.97$ 132,187.73$ 948,230.08$ 94,341.77$ 948,230.08$ 94,341.77$ 988,434.40$ 99,369.88$ 1,029,844.84$ 114,605.04$ 1,072,497.60$ 130,297.26$ Current Tax Roll Valuation - adj. for senior exemptions (1)257778624 143146902 246,215,903 134,346,315 304,724,799116,788,875 289,488,559 108,613,654 289,488,559 108,613,654 298,173,216 109,699,790 307,118,412 112,990,784 316,331,965 116,380,508Taxable Value Increment 173,120,134 54,912,302 161,557,413 46,111,715 220,066,309 28,554,275 204,830,069 20,379,054 204,830,069 20,379,054 213,514,726 21,465,190 222,459,922 24,756,184 231,673,475 28,145,908City Share - Millage Rate 5.7530 5.7530 5.2088 5.2088 4.6777 4.6777 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 5.1550 Estimated City amount due CRA @ 95%658,404.76$ 76,482.65$ 856,140.61$ 205,982.12$ 769,313.85$ 244,020.11$ 791,187.04$ 225,820.60$ 1,077,719.73$ 139,837.42$ 1,003,104.06$ 99,801.32$ 1,003,104.06$ 99,801.32$ 1,045,634.99$ 105,120.40$ 1,089,441.85$ 121,237.22$ 1,134,562.92$ 137,837.55$ DDB Share - Millage Rate1.0000 n/a 1.0000 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/a0.9651 n/aEstimated DDB amount due CRA @ 95%114,445.46$ -$ 164,364.27$ -$ 158,747.25$ -$ 148,146.03$ -$ 201,766.70$ -$ 187,797.42$ -$ 187,797.42$ -$ 195,759.91$ -$ 203,961.27$ -$ 212,408.67$ -$ Total Increment Revenue (County, City, & DDB)1,475,659.82$ 158,123.53$ 1,919,577.45$ 422,293.39$ 1,729,610.52$ 499,640.66$ 1,687,354.61$ 440,442.74$ 2,298,250.39$ 272,025.16$ 2,139,131.56$ 194,143.09$ 2,139,131.56$ 194,143.09$ 2,229,829.30$ 204,490.28$ 2,323,247.96$ 235,842.26$ 2,419,469.19$ 268,134.80$ Percentage Increase / (Decrease) from Prior Year28.3% 30.1% 167.1% -9.9% 18.3% -2.4% -11.8% 36.2% -38.2% -6.9% -28.6% 0.0% 0.0% 4.2% 5.3% 4.2% 15.3% 4.1% 13.7%TOTAL TIF1,633,783.35$ 2,341,870.84$ 2,229,251.18$ 2,127,797.36$ 2,570,275.55$ 2,333,274.65$ 2,333,274.65$ 2,434,319.58$ 2,559,090.23$ 2,687,603.99$ % Increase from Previous Year43.3% -4.8%-4.6%20.8%-9.2%0.0%4.3%5.1%5.0%* Actual numbers changed from preliminary amounts from Jim Smith, Property Appraiser, per 5/23/06 (prelim) and 12/15/06 (final)(1) The current tax roll valuation for City share differs from County and DDB valuations due to senior property tax exemption that is applicableClearwater Community Redevelopment AgencyTax Increment ProjectionsFiscal 2005 thru Prelim 2013PDFConvertPROD.9925.1.CRA_6-Yr_Plan_FY09-10_8-14-09.xls C - Increment History Page 7 of 8Revised 5/17/07Attachment number 3
Page 8 of 8
Item # 3
East Gateway District Five-Year Action Program
Revised: August 31, 2009 Page 13
Schedule of Capital & Operational Costs (FY 07/08 - FY 11/12)*
East Gateway District Five-Year Action Program
Emphasis Area
/ Action Item Short Description
Cost by Fiscal Year
(Escalated by 0.05 per year) Total
Existing or
Planned Revenue
Source FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 11/12
S
S.1 New Officers (2) - $127,444 $128,777 $133,284 $137,949 $527,454 CRA
S.3 Park St Solutions - - - - - - TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
S.4 Street Lights/Bury Cable $25,623 $43,552 $6,880 $6,224 $7,585 $89,864 CDBG / ENG Budget
S.9 Sidewalk Projects - - $146,395 - - $146,395 CDBG-R/ENG Budget
B B.2 Sign Regs Guide $500 - - - - $500 CRA
B.5 Seminar Flyer - $1,050 - - - $1,050 EDH Budget
N
N.1 SW Awareness Flyer $1,000 - - - $1,000 SW Budget
N.2 Façade Program - - $200,000 - - $200,000 CRA / CDBG/CDBG-R
N.5 Trash Receptacles $600 - - - - $600 PSTA / SW Budget
N.6 “Gateway” Feature - - $1,000,000 - - $1,000,000 Penny “2”
N.9 Add Green Elements - - - - - -TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
N.11 Problematic Motels - - - - - -TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
N.13 Cleveland Streetscape - - - - - -Penny “3” (FY 16/17)
N.14 Bus Shelter - - - - - -TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
E
E.3 Business Brochure - - $500 - - $500 EDH Budget
E.4 Outreach (Flyers) $1,000 $1,050 $1,103 $1,158 $1,216 $5,527 CRA
E.9 Parking Strategy - - - - - $0 TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
E.10 Apartment Rehab - - $128,198 - - $128,198 Pinellas Hou Trust Fund
E.11 Low Interest Loans - $704,024 - - - $704,024 CDBG
E.14 Marketable Image - - - - - -TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
E.15 Market Analysis - - - - - -TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
H H.7 Community Events $5,000 $5,150 $5,305 $5,464 $5,628 $26,547 CRA
H.10 Information Kiosk - - - - - -TBD (FY 09/10-11/12)
Total $33,723 $882,270 $1,617,158 $146,130 $152,378 $2,831,659
Emphasis Areas:
S – Safety & Security
B – Business Environment
N – Neighborhood Appearance
E – Economic Development & Housing
H – Hispanic Community Integration
Action Item Legend:
Programmed FY 07/08-FY 08/09 action item
FY 07/08-FY 08/09 action item not yet programmed
FY 09/10- FY 11/12 action item to be addressed in
future budget year (cost & funding source).
* Notes:
- Schedule does not list action items that will be implemented using
existing staff resources.
- Schedule reflects costs for FY 07/08-FY 08/09 action items and
subsequent year costs identified to-date. Costs not yet identified will
be vetted by the City/CRA for programming during FY 09/10-FY 11/12.
Item # 3
Community Redevelopment
Agency Agenda
Council Chambers - City Hall
Meeting Date:8/31/2009
SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an Interlocal Agreement between the CRA and the City of Clearwater to provide CRA funding in FY 2009/2010 in the amount
of $130,376.59 to underwrite the cost of additional Community Policing Services by the Clearwater Police Department in the East
Gateway CRA District, pursuant to the East Gateway District Five-Year Action Plan and authorize the appropriate officials to execute
same.
SUMMARY:
The CRA approved the East Gateway District Five-Year Action Program on May 13, 2008. The Action Program responded to public
input on the issues of drug dealing, prostitution and street crime by including an action item for increased police presence and crime
reduction within the East Gateway District.
An allowable funding source of this action item is the use of CRA Tax Increment Financing (TIF) funds. Florida Statues allows for the
use of TIF funds for "community policing innovations" in Community Redevelopment Areas.
CRA and Police Department staff have reached agreement on a proposed scope of services and terms as delineated in the attached
Interlocal Agreement. Included in that scope is the delineation of specific, measurable crime reduction targets by which to monitor the
success of the initiative as well as providing clear language required by statute assuring that the resources are applied to the CRA/East
Gateway area.
Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement. Funding will be from the CRA East Gateway Project account (388-94849).
Type:Other
Current Year Budget?:No Budget Adjustment:None
Budget Adjustment Comments:
Current Year Cost:0 Annual Operating Cost:
Not to Exceed:Total Cost:$130,376.59
For Fiscal Year:2009 to 2010
Appropration Code Amount Appropriation Comment
388-94849 $130,376.59
Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager ED 5) Clerk 6) City Manager 7) Clerk
Cover Memo
Item # 4
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
This Interlocal Agreement is made and entered into this ________ day of
_____________, 2009 by and between the Community Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Clearwater, Florida (CRA), a redevelopment agency established
pursuant to law, and the City of Clearwater (CITY), a municipal corporation of the
State of Florida.
WHEREAS, this Agreement is made and entered between the parties
pursuant to Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, the “Florida Interlocal Cooperation
Act of 1969”; and
WHEREAS, Section 163.361(1) of the Florida Statutes allows for the use
of Tax Increment Funding (TIF) funds for community policing innovations in
Community Redevelopment Areas; and
WHEREAS, the CRA has established a Five Year Plan that contains an
East Gateway Character District Strategy, which includes the element to "provide
a more visible community policing presence within the East Gateway
neighborhood"; and
WHEREAS, the CRA has ascertained that the East Gateway area
continues to experience a critical need for an enhanced community policing
presence in order to specifically reduce drug dealing, prostitution, and street
crimes in the target area; and
WHEREAS, the CRA and the CITY entered into an Interlocal Agreement
during the Fiscal Year 2008/2009 in order to provide for the CRA's financial
contribution to an additional community policing presence by the CITY in the East
Gateway area above and beyond the current activity levels; and
WHEREAS, the CRA has funded two police officers for Fiscal Year
2008/2009 and wants to continue the use of TIF funds to fund the program; and
WHEREAS, the CRA and the CITY want to enter into another Interlocal
Agreement during the Fiscal Year 2009/2010, outlining the scope of services and
responsibilities of the parties.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants made by each
party to the other and of the mutual advantages to be realized by the parties
hereto, the CRA and the CITY agree as follows:
Section 1. Term. The term of this Interlocal Agreement will be October
1, 2009 through September 30, 2010.
Attachment number 1
Page 1 of 6
Item # 4
2
Section 2. Intent. It is the intent of the parties that the TIF funds paid to
the CITY by the CRA pursuant to Section 163.361(1), Florida Statutes, be used
to provide a more visible community policing presence within the East Gateway
neighborhood.
Section 3. Responsibilities of the CRA
Function:
A. Provide TIF funding in the total amount of $130,376.59 for
the contract year, said funds to be utilized by the Clearwater
Police Department (CPD) to provide the community policing
presence, to be allocated in the following manner:
B. $128,776.59 to pay for the salaries, and benefits for two (2)
police officers for the contract year. Exhibit "A," Position
Enhancement Fact Sheet, attached hereto and incorporated
by reference, contains detailed specifications on salary and
benefits.
C. $1,600, the estimated fuel cost for the contract year for a
police vehicle used by the two (2) police officers within the
East Gateway Area.
Section 4. Responsibilities of the CITY
Scope of Duties. The services that the CITY will provide will be
carried out the CPD. These services are:
A) Implementation of a Law Enforcement Strategy in the East
Gateway area as follows:
Goal: Reduce drug dealing, prostitution, and street crimes.
1. Objective 1: Remove identified dealers and career criminals
from the area.
Tasks:
a) Identify the drug dealers and gang members in the
area
b) Gather intelligence information utilizing undercover
techniques and surveillance equipment.
c) Develop confidential informants to assist in furthering
criminal investigations of the "worst of the worst"
offenders.
Outcome Measures:
Attachment number 1
Page 2 of 6
Item # 4
3
a) Develop two (2) confidential informants in the target
area.
b) Increase by 25% the number of criminal charges filed
against drug dealers in the target area.
c) Increase by 25% the number of FIR’s/Reports
identifying suspected gang members in the target
area.
2. Objective 2: Reduce incidence of prostitution and
solicitations by "Johns" in the target area.
Tasks:
a) Conduct reverse prostitution "stings" utilizing police
officers as decoys.
b) Utilize directed patrol to discourage prostitutes and
"Johns" from frequenting the area.
c) Impound vehicles of "Johns) who are arrested for
soliciting prostitutes or police decoys in the area.
d) Coordinate with the City's Community Response
Team to enhance code enforcement in the target area
relative to properties that are in disrepair and
negatively impact the quality of life in the East
Gateway.
Outcome measures:
a) Conduct minimum of three (3) reverse sting
operations annually.
b) Conduct quarterly inspections in conjunction with
Community Response Team of properties that are in
disrepair and negatively impact the quality of life in
the East Gateway.
3. Objective 3: Reduce crimes committed by and against
homeless individuals in the target area.
Tasks:
a) Utilize directed patrol in areas known to be frequented
by homeless individuals.
b) Enforce "Rules of Conduct" as set forth by the
Clearwater Homeless Intervention Project (including
prohibitions against panhandling, public drinking,
public urination, loitering, etc.)
Outcome Measures:
a) Increase arrests and citations for violations of criminal
law or ordinances by 25% over a five-year period.
b) Increase trespass warnings within the East Gateway
area by 25% over a five-year period.
Attachment number 1
Page 3 of 6
Item # 4
4
B) In order to carry out the Law Enforcement Strategy above,
the CDP will provide the following:
1. Two (2) fully equipped police officers to provide law
enforcement services to the target area defined as the East
Gateway for a minimum of eight (8) hours per day, five (5)
days per week.
2. Specific duties, activities, and responsibilities:
a) The officers will be assigned to a Community Policing
Team with geographical responsibility for the East
Gateway.
b) The Team assignment will always ensure coverage
by two (2) officers.
c) Schedules of the officers will vary, but coverage will
be predominately during evening hours.
d) Officers will patrol by both vehicles and bicycles.
e) A report of police activities and statistical information
will be provided to the CRA on a scheduled basis.
f) The officers selected will be experienced, current
member of the CPD.
3. An existing, fully-equipped Crown Victoria Police Car.
C) All CRA funds pursuant to this agreement will be kept in the
CPD's departmental account.
D) No charges to the CRA account will be made for activities or
hours worked by the two (2) officers outside the CRA area or
for equipment used outside the CRA area.
E) Other administrative duties as mutually agreed.
Section 5. Notice. Sixty (60) days notice by either party to the
other pursuant to the Interlocal Agreement shall be given in writing and hand-
delivered or mailed as follows:
Chairperson, Board of Trustees
Community Redevelopment Agency
112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
City of Clearwater
Attn: Rod Irwin, Asst City Mgr. for Econ. Development
112 South Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, Florida 33756
Telephone: (727) 562-4040
Attachment number 1
Page 4 of 6
Item # 4
5
Section 6. Entire Agreement. This document embodies the whole
Agreement of the parties. There are no promises, terms, conditions or
allegations other than those contained herein. This Agreement shall be binding
on the parties, their successors, assigns and legal representatives.
Section 7. Indemnification. The CRA and the CITY agree to be fully
responsible for their own acts of negligence, or their respective agents’ acts of
negligence when acting within the scope of their employment, and agree to be
liable for any damages resulting from said negligence only to the extent permitted
by Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. Nothing herein is intended to nor shall it be
construed as a waiver of any immunity from or limitation from liability that the
CRA and the CITY are entitled to under the doctrine of sovereign immunity
(Section 768.28, Florida Statutes). Nothing herein shall be construed as consent
by the CRA or the CITY to be sued by third parties in any manner arising out of
this Agreement.
Section 8. Maintenance of Effort. The expenditures authorized by this
Agreement are solely and exclusively to increase community policing activity and
resources. The City agrees that no diminishment of existing police efforts in the
East Gateway will occur as a result of this agreement.
Section 9. Filing Effective Date. As required by Section
163.01(11), Florida Statutes, the Interlocal Agreement shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County after execution by the parties, and
shall take effect upon the date of filing.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, or their law representatives,
have executed this agreement as the date first above written.
COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
By: ______________________________
Frank Hibbard, Chairperson
ATTEST:
By:______________________________
Cynthia E. Goudeau, City Clerk
Attachment number 1
Page 5 of 6
Item # 4
6
Countersigned: CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
___________________________ By:_____________________________
Frank V. Hibbard William B. Horne II
Mayor City Manager
Approved as to form: Attest:
____________________________ _______________________________
Pamela K. Akin Cynthia E. Goudeau
City Attorney City Clerk
Attachment number 1
Page 6 of 6
Item # 4
8/14/2009-12:49 PM
CRA Officers
1 Officer 2 Officers
Step 2 Step 2
Base Salary 46,694.70 93,389.40
-
Pension (20%) 9,338.94 18,677.88
-
Social Security (1.45%) 677.07 1,354.15
-
Major Medical 6,200.00 12,400.00
-
Life Insurance 10.00 20.00
-
Workers Compensation 1,467.58 2,935.16
-
64,388.29 128,776.59
Police Department
For FY 2009/10
EXHIBIT A
Position Enhancement Fact Sheet
Attachment number 2
Page 1 of 1
Item # 4