The URL can be used to link to this page

03/03/2014 WORK SESSION AGENDA Council Chambers - City Hall 3/3/2014 - 1:00 PM 1. Economic Development and Housing 1.1Approve the Business Maintenance and Continued Performance Agreement with Instrument Transformers, Inc., which establishes certain conditions including capital investment, new job creation, annual average wage thresholds for new employees, and other considerations as required by the City’s Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption enactment authority, and authorize appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Attachments 1.2Approve an agreement with Instrument Transformers, Inc. to provide certain economic incentives as an inducement to encourage the company to invest approximately $46 million in new construction, machinery and equipment for the expansion in Clearwater resulting in the creation of 263 new manufacturing jobs and approximately 212,000 sq. ft. of new construction creating a GE Manufacturing Center of Excellence, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Attachments 2. Human Resources 2.1Approve the Agreements between the City and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company providing Administrative Services and Stop Loss Insurance for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 at a total cost of approximately $1.8 million in accordance with the funding authorized by City Council on October 14, 2013, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Attachments 3. Parks and Recreation 3.1Approve Concession Operations Agreement from March 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014 with Edward Bates, individually d/b/a Kinney’s Kitchen (Kinney's), to provide food concession services for programs and activities held at the EC Moore Softball Complex, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Attachments 3.2Update on Parks and Recreation Master Plan (WSO) Attachments 4. Police 4.1Approve acceptance of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Award in the amount of $29,036.80 for police overtime and related fringe benefits and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Attachments 4.2Approve acceptance of Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Justice Assistance Grant – Countywide (JAG), in the amount of $17,735, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Attachments 5. Engineering 5.1Accept a Drainage Easement conveyed by Westchester Lake Condominium Association, Inc. encompassing city-owned drainage facilities at two locations. (consent) Attachments 5.2Accept two Traffic Signal Utility Easements conveyed by property owners at Westfield Mall and Countryside Centre. (consent) Attachments 6. Official Records and Legislative Services 6.1Appoint Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to fill the remainder of an unexpired term through October 31, 2014. Attachments 6.2Work Session for Public Records and Sunshine Law Review Attachments 7. Legal 7.1Adopt Ordinance 8533-14 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to change the land use designation for certain real property whose post office addres is 2730 Curlew Road, from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Low Medium (RLM). Attachments 7.2Adopt Ordinance 8537-14 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post office addresses are 1238 Palm Street, 1215 Palm Street, 1349 Union Street, 1329 State Street and 1230 Aloha Lane into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. Attachments 7.3Adopt Ordinance 8538-14 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post office addresses are 1238 Palm Street, 1215 Palm Street, 1349 Union Street, 1329 State Street and 1230 Aloha Lane, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Residential Urban (RU). Attachments 7.4Adopt Ordinance 8539-14 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post office addresses are 1238 Palm Street, 1215 Palm Street, 1349 Union Street, 1329 State Street and 1230 Aloha Lane, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). Attachments 7.5Approve the Release and Termination of restrictions upon certain privately owned land executed by Bay Park Center, Inc., located in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 19-29-16, known as 18820 U.S. Highway 19, which were originally accepted by the Clearwater City Commission on July 5, 1973, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. Attachments 8. City Manager Verbal Reports 8.1Pinellas County Noise Abatement Task Force Appointment Attachments 8.2CMA Update Attachments 9. Council Discussion Items 9.1Greenlight Pinellas Resolution and Presentation Process for Council Meeting. Attachments 10. Closing Comments by Mayor 11. Adjourn 12. Presentation(s) for Council Meeting 12.1Youth Arts Month Proclamation - Colin Bissett, President Clearwater Arts Alliance Attachments 12.2American Red Cross Month Proclamation - Janet McGuire, Florida’s West Coast Region - Regional Communications Officer Attachments 12.3CFY Scholarships - Dawn Daugherty, Clearwater for Youth Scholarship Committee Chairperson Attachments Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Business Maintenance and Continued Performance Agreement with Instrument Transformers, Inc., which establishes certain conditions including capital investment, new job creation, annual average wage thresholds for new employees, and other considerations as required by the City’s Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption enactment authority, and authorize appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: On December 19, 2013, City Council approved for Instrument Transformers, Inc. (ITI) Ordinance 8524-13 providing Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (ED AVTE) of 75% for a period of 10 years. The ED AVTE applies to the increase in real and tangible personal property taxes that will result from ITI’s expansion at their facility located at 1907 Calumet St in Clearwater (also known as 1925 Calumet Street, Clearwater). All businesses approved for ED AVTE must execute a Business Maintenance and Continued Performance Agreement, which establishes the performance criteria in effect during the term of the exemption (10 yrs). The Agreement outlines the conditions and terms for Instrument Transformers, Inc. and includes performance measures of job creation, wage verification and evidence of capital investment including purchases or leases of machinery and equipment and construction of the expanded facility. The Company is also required to submit an annual report for staff verification of maintenance and performance requirements and includes conditions for Council revocation should the Company fail to meet the obligations of the agreement, which include the following: Tangible Personal Property and Real Property Capital Investment: · The company will purchase or lease approximately $20.6 million in machinery and equipment · The budget for construction of +/- 212,000 sq. ft. is approximately $25.4 million Job Creation and Wages: · The company will create at least 143 new jobs, that together, will pay an annual average wage of at least $42,000, which is at least 100% of the Pinellas County Average Annual Wage as published by Enterprise Florida, Inc. on January 1, 2013 Sales Factor: · The Company is to certify annually that greater than 50% of the company’s goods are sold outside of the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater MSA. The agreement terminates in 2023. Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager ED 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 8 Item # 1 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 8 Item # 1 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve an agreement with Instrument Transformers, Inc. to provide certain economic incentives as an inducement to encourage the company to invest approximately $46 million in new construction, machinery and equipment for the expansion in Clearwater resulting in the creation of 263 new manufacturing jobs and approximately 212,000 sq. ft. of new construction creating a GE Manufacturing Center of Excellence, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: In November 2011, the City of Clearwater approved a citywide Economic Development Strategic Plan that calls for the use of incentives and other tools to encourage desired development. On August 14, 2013, City Council approved Resolution 13-18 providing commitment of QTI Local Match for Project Banner ($42,900). (Project Banner is the alias name given to the project in accordance with Florida Statutes, s.288.075, regarding request for confidentiality). On the same date, the City Council approved Resolution 13-21 providing authorization for the Economic Development and Housing Director to negotiate possible incentives including tax refunds and exemptions, and cash and non-cash incentives as an inducement to expand Project Banner’s operations in the City of Clearwater. Subsequent to the Director’s transmittal of the City’s proposed incentives and the Company’s acceptance of the same, the Council approved for Instrument Transformers, Inc., the following: Economic Development Ad Valorem Tax Exemption (12/19/2013; estimated value of $1,486,141); Public Service Utility Tax Exemption (12/19/2013; estimated value $186,400). This agreement provides for cash reimbursement and non-cash commitments to the project as follows: Cash Reimbursement of Fees (Not to exceed $262,500) Reimbursement of necessary, required and reasonable fees, charges, and surcharges, which may include, but are not limited to Application, Permit, Impact, Inspection, Reinspection, Utility, Special, Amendment, Examination, Service, Connection, or other fees, charges and surcharges paid to the City of Clearwater during the development review, site planning and construction, and building planning and construction phases up to and including the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy by the City of Clearwater. Reimbursement of fees identified above are to be made after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued and copies of all paid receipts are received by the Director of the Economic Development and Housing Department. Non-Cash Fast-Track Permitting ($9,000 Value) The City of Clearwater will provide fast-track permitting assistance to ensure prompt and timely response to permit review. Gas Main/Service Line Extension and Meter Installation ($2,500 Value) Cover Memo Item # 2 Clearwater Gas System (CGS) will extend natural gas piping/facilities and install a meter at no charge to the customer. Any gas piping installed beyond the outlet of CGS’s meter shall be paid for and owned by the customer. In addition, all pipe installation services beyond the meter shall be performed by a licensed natural gas contractor and will be the customer’s responsibility to maintain such gas pipe. Road Improvements ($1,000 Value) In order to address the potential need for a northbound to westbound left turn lane on Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street, the City will install approximately 1,600 lineal feet of double-yellow center line and a traditional striped island between Calumet Street on the north end and a point 800 lineal feet to the south which will effectively create a 120 lineal foot northbound left turn lane which will accommodate six to eight vehicles. Such road improvements are based upon the recommendations made by RAYSOR Transportation Consulting, LLC., Traffic Study dated July 8, 2013, and revised September 12, 2013. The agreement terminates when the company has completed construction, received its Certificate of Occupancy and the City has met the terms of the agreement which is estimated to be by December 31, 2015. Source of Funding Funding for this item will be provided by a mid-year budget amendment allocating General Fund reserves in the amount of $262,500 to 181-99744, Economic Development Incentives. This amount is for the reimbursement of fees for this project. The balance in General Fund reserves is approximately $19.8 million, or 17.3% of the 2013/14 General Fund operating budget. Inclusive of the $1.4 million used to fund the current operating budget, a total of $2,460,415 of General Fund reserves has been used to date to fund expenditures in the 2013/14 operating budget. Appropriation Code Amount Appropriation Comment 181-99744 262,500 from General Fund Reserves Review Approval: 1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Economic Development and Housing 3) Office of Management and Budget 4) Legal 5) Clerk 6) Assistant City Manager ED 7) City Manager 8) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 2 EXHIBIT A Instrument Transformers, Inc., A General Electric Company fka Project Banner COMPANY OVERVIEW I. Instrument Transformers, Inc, (ITI) is a subsidiary of the General Electric Company. The business currently manufactures instrument transformers for use by utilities and industrial customers to protect their equipment and ensure the safe and reliable operation of electrical systems. These products include current and voltage transformers, test switches, control switches, lockout relays, three phase voltage monitors, ground fault detection systems, and power control components. GE’s expansion of the ITI facility in Clearwater will accommodate the manufacturing of additional instrument transformers and capacitors. This equipment is currently manufactured at other GE facilities outside of Florida. PROPOSED PROJECTi II. The company plans to invest $47.3 million in the proposed expansion a. $20.6 million in manufacturing machinery & equipment b. $25.4 million in new construction i. 212,000 SF new construction ii. 15,000SF demolition of existing facility iii. 197,000 SF net new construction c. $1.3 million in land acquisition of property adjacent to the current facility III. The Community Development Board approved the proposed site plan with conditions on October 15, 2013. [CASE # FLD2013-04017] i All figures related to capital investment and square footage are approximate. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 2 G-188 PROJECT BANNER TRAFFIC STUDY Prepared For: Long & Associates, Inc. 4525 South Manhattan Avenue Tampa, Florida 33611 Prepared By: RAYSOR Transportation Consulting, LLC. 19046 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, Suite 308 Tampa, Florida 33647 (813) 625-1699 | (813) 413-7432 fx ENB No. 27789 September 12, 2013 Revision No. 1 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 79 Item # 2 PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that I am a registered professional engineer in the State of Florida, practicing with Raysor Transportation Consulting, LLC., a corporation authorized to operate as an engineering business (ENB No. 27789), by the State of Florida Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, and I have prepared or approved the evaluation, findings, opinions, conclusions, or technical advice hereby reported for: PROJECT: G-188 Project Banner LOCATION: Clearwater, Florida REPORT DATE: September 12, 2013 (Revision No. 1) PREPARED FOR: Long & Associates, Inc. I acknowledge that the procedures and references used to develop the results contained in this report are standard to the professional practice of transportation engineering as applied through professional judgment and experience. NAME: P.E. NO.: DATE: SIGNATURE: Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - i - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 G-188 PROJECT BANNER TRAFFIC STUDY CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1 SECTION 2.0 Project Site Trip Generation ......................................................................................... 1 SECTION 3.0 Project Site Trip Distribution ........................................................................................ 3 SECTION 4.0 Study Area .................................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 5.0 Traffic Volumes ............................................................................................................ 8 SECTION 6.0 Analysis Scenarios ........................................................................................................ 8 SECTION 7.0 Intersection Analysis .................................................................................................... 8 SECTION 8.0 Roadway Segment Analysis .......................................................................................... 17 SECTION 9.0 Site Access Analysis ...................................................................................................... 17 SECTION 10.0 Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 18 TABLES TABLE 1.0 Trip Generation Summary ............................................................................................... 3 TABLE 2.0 Intersection Analysis Summary ........................................................................................ 15 TABLE 3.0 Roadway Segment Analysis .............................................................................................. 17 FIGURES FIGURE 1.0 Project Site Location ...................................................................................................... 2 FIGURE 2.0 Project Traffic Distribution & Assignment (AM Peak Hour) ........................................... 4 FIGURE 3.0 Project Traffic Distribution & Assignment (PM Peak Hour) ........................................... 6 FIGURE 4.0 Traffic Volumes - Existing ............................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 5.0 Traffic Volumes - Background ........................................................................................ 11 FIGURE 6.0 Traffic Volumes - Total (with Current Project Entitlements) .......................................... 13 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Methodology APPENDIX E: Intersection Analysis APPENDIX B: Trip Generation APPENDIX F Segment Analysis APPENDIX C: Traffic Count Data APPENDIX G: Turn Lane Warrants APPENDIX D: Historical Growth Trend Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 1 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 G-188 PROJECT BANNER TRAFFIC STUDY SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report documents a traffic study to evaluate the proposed expansion of the GE site located at 1925 Calumet Street. The project site is located on the west side of Hercules Avenue, generally between Calumet Street (to the north) and the rail line to the south, at 1925 Calumet Street, in the City of Clearwater, Florida (refer to Figure 1.0). The project site currently consists of 196,572 square feet of manufacturing facilities, and is proposed to be expanded by 179,931 square feet to a total of 376,503 square feet of manufacturing facilities. Access to the site is currently provided via Calumet Street and two direct connections to Hercules Avenue, as discussed below. Upon expansion, these connections are proposed to remain, whereas the southern direct connection to Hercules Avenue will be improved. • The site access connection via Calumet Street will provide for both project ingress and egress. • The central project driveway currently provides for truck traffic (egress only), and is not anticipated to accommodate additional traffic during AM and PM peak periods upon site expansion. It is noted that this driveway is covered by an ingress/egress easement and its use is shared with adjacent property owners. • The southern project driveway will provide for project egress only; however, it is noted that this driveway is covered by an ingress/egress easement and its use is shared with adjacent property owners. The analysis documented herein was prepared in accordance with methodology discussions held with City staff, as agreed to at a meeting that occurred on May 29, 2013, and memorialized in a methodology statement, as provided in Appendix A; whereas the resulting analysis was subsequently revised on September 12, 2013 to reflect revisions to the project's square footage. SECTION 2.0 PROJECT SITE TRIP GENERATION The daily and peak hour trip generation of the project site was estimated using trip characteristic data in accordance with Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 9th edition, 2012), as summarized in Table 1.0 and further documented in Appendix B. The project site is currently estimated to generate 742 daily trips, with 134 trips during the AM peak hour and 137 trips during the PM peak hour. Upon expansion, the project site is estimated to generate 1,440 daily trips, with 283 trips during the AM peak hour and 278 trips during the PM peak hour. The resulting differential increase in project traffic generation that is estimated to occur as a result of the proposed site expansion is identified as 698 additional daily trips, with 149 additional trips during the AM peak hour and 141 additional trips during the PM peak hour. Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 2 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 FIGURE 1.0 PROJECT SITE LOCATION NORTH PROJECT SITE LOCATION Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 3 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 TotalInboundOutboundTotalInboundOutbound Existing Development 196,572 sf742134104301374889 Total Development Upon Expansion 376,503 sf1,44028322162278100178 Differential179,931 sf698149117321415289 PM Peak Hour TripsAM Peak Hour Trips Size Daily TripsScenario TABLE 1.0 TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY SECTION 3.0 PROJECT SITE TRIP DISTRIBUTION The distribution of project generated trips was estimated using engineering judgment based on existing traffic patterns. The resulting project traffic distribution and assignment is illustrated in Figures 2.0 and 3.0, including the reassignment of existing project generated traffic that is anticipated to result from improvements to, and restriction at, the southern site access connection (i.e., the connection will be improved to increase the utilization of this driveway for project egress, and will be restricted to eliminate project ingress at this location). SECTION 4.0 STUDY AREA The study area was determined in conjunction with City staff, as those roadway segments and intersections which are anticipated to have the most potential for project impacts, and includes the following: Roadway Segments Hercules Avenue from Drew Street to Sunset Point Road Intersections Hercules Avenue at Sunset Point Road Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West) Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (East) Hercules Avenue at Site Access Connection (central) Hercules Avenue at Site Access Connection (south) Hercules Avenue at Drew Street Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 4 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 5 3 7 0 12 0 0 0 18 0 0 23 NORTHNTS 65 5 53 0 10 6 0 59 0 5 0 0 0 53 0 5 6 10 0 18 0 3 5 7 12 0 0 23 0 0 58 1 5 1 12 0Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street 15%20% 10% 15% 10%20% 45% 45% He r c u l e s A v e n u e 10% FIGURE 2.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT (AM PEAK HOUR - NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC) Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 5 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 +6 +2 -2 -6 -10 0 +9 0 -1 1 0 0 -2 +2 -2 -9 +7 +9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +8 +1 -1 1 -1 0 0Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 2.2 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT (AM PEAK HOUR - REDISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC) Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 6 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 13 9 18 0 5 0 0 0 8 0 0 10 29 13 23 0 27 18 0 40 0 13 0 0 0 23 0 13 17 27 0 8 0 9 13 18 5 0 0 10 0 0 36 4 13 5 6 0Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street 15%20% 10% 15% 10%20% 45% 45% He r c u l e s A v e n u e 10% NORTHNTS FIGURE 3.1 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT (PM PEAK HOUR - NEW PROJECT TRAFFIC) Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 7 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +1 3 0 0 -13 -32 0 +1 9 0 -2 7 0 0 -1 +1 0 -2 7 +18 +27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 4 +5 -2 7 -5 0 0Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 3.2 PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT (PM PEAK HOUR - REDISTRIBUTION OF EXISTING TRAFFIC) Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 8 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 SECTION 5.0 TRAFFIC VOLUMES Existing traffic volumes were identified from manual intersection turning movement counts performed in June 2013 during AM and PM peak periods, and were subsequently adjusted to reflect peak season conditions using FDOT seasonal factors. Traffic count data is provided in Appendix C. Background traffic conditions (for the 2014/2015 buildout year) for study area roads and intersections were identified to be equivalent to existing traffic volumes (i.e., zero growth). This determination was made based on an evaluation of historical traffic volumes in the vicinity of the project site, where it was found that traffic volumes have either decreased or remained stable since 2008, as shown in Appendix D. Project generated traffic (differential) was added to the background traffic volumes to estimate future year total traffic. Figures 4.0 through 6.0 illustrate the traffic volumes used in this analysis. SECTION 6.0 ANALYSIS SCENARIOS Two scenarios were evaluated for AM & PM peak hour conditions as follows: (1) existing 2013 traffic conditions (which are the same as 2015 background conditions), and (2) future 2015 total traffic conditions. The peak hours analyzed were identified as the peak traffic hours for the subject project site, as follows: AM peak hour from 7:30 am to 8:30 am, and PM peak hour from 3:00 pm to 4:00 pm. SECTION 7.0 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS Operational analyses of the study area intersections were undertaken for each of the two analysis scenarios using Highway Capacity Manual methods calculated by Synchro software, in consideration of existing signal timings. Table 2.0 summarizes the intersection analysis, as further documented in Appendix E. The results of the analysis indicate that all study area intersections currently operate acceptably, and are anticipated to continue to operate acceptably for future conditions, in consideration of both existing and proposed project development quantities. Furthermore, the impacts of the subject project were found to be negligible to the operation of the study intersections in terms of level-of-service, delays, and capacity utilization. Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 9 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 99 12 7 11 7 84 49 9 21 9 61 705 265 59 603 178 49 33 5 57 80 7 16 14 0 41 4 1 78 1 0 1 2 41 0 2 78 0 4 1 25 27 0 64 19 5 35 7 14 4 171 816 42 70 964 90 34 9 66 75 8 63 35 24Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 4.1 2013 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AM PEAK HOUR) Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 10 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 21 8 31 0 29 9 74 19 8 12 1 68 657 149 130 746 135 52 61 3 48 39 8 82 99 2 62 8 0 47 9 0 5 1 62 9 0 48 4 1 0 38 28 1 65 15 1 24 0 16 6 173 1003 36 94 954 89 59 5 33 45 1 46 70 29Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 4.2 2013 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PM PEAK HOUR) Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 11 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 99 12 7 11 7 84 49 9 21 9 61 705 265 59 603 178 49 33 5 57 80 7 16 14 0 41 4 1 78 1 0 1 2 41 0 2 78 0 4 1 25 27 0 64 19 5 35 7 14 4 171 816 42 70 964 90 34 9 66 75 8 63 35 24Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 5.1 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AM PEAK HOUR) Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 12 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 21 8 31 0 29 9 74 19 8 12 1 68 657 149 130 746 135 52 61 3 48 39 8 82 99 2 62 8 0 47 9 0 5 1 62 9 0 48 4 1 0 38 28 1 65 15 1 24 0 16 6 173 1003 36 94 954 89 59 5 33 45 1 46 70 29Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 5.2 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PM PEAK HOUR) Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 13 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 10 4 13 0 12 4 84 51 1 21 9 61 705 283 59 603 201 11 6 34 6 11 2 80 5 20 10 0 48 2 1 77 5 0 1 0 46 5 0 77 6 17 20 25 28 8 64 19 8 36 2 15 1 183 816 42 93 964 90 41 5 68 75 2 63 47 24Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 6.1 2015 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (AM PEAK HOUR) Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 14 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 23 1 31 9 31 7 74 20 3 12 1 68 657 157 130 746 145 82 63 9 71 39 8 96 85 2 68 7 0 46 5 0 5 0 65 3 0 47 0 36 54 38 28 9 65 16 0 25 3 18 4 178 1003 36 104 954 89 64 5 42 43 7 46 76 29Project Site Sunset Point Road Calumet Street West Central Project Driveway Calumet Street East Southern Project Driveway Drew Street He r c u l e s A v e n u e NORTHNTS FIGURE 6.2 2015 TOTAL TRAFFIC VOLUMES (PM PEAK HOUR) Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 15 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 LOSD Delay42.3 sec V/C0.64 LOSD Delay44.6 sec V/C0.53 LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOSA Delay6.0 sec V/C0.35 LOSA Delay5.5 sec V/C0.26 LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOSD Delay39.8 sec V/C0.87 LOSD Delay35.4 sec V/C0.82 Not Applicable Max LOS @ "C" Not Applicable Max LOS @ "C" Hercules Avenue at Central Project Driveway AM Not Applicable Max LOS @ "B" PM Not Applicable Max LOS @ "A" Not Applicable Max LOS @ "C" Not Applicable Max LOS @ "C"NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo NoNo Location Peak Hour NoNo Overall Intersection Movements with V/C > 1.00 DeficientMetric Hercules Avenue at Drew Street AM PM PM Hercules Avenue at Sunset Point Road PM AM Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (East) PM Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West) AM PM AM Hercules Avenue at Southern Project Driveway AM TABLE 2.1 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY (2013 EXISTING / 2015 BACKGROUND TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 16 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 LOSD Delay43.3 sec V/C0.65 LOSD Delay45.5 sec V/C0.54 LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOSA Delay6.4 sec V/C0.35 LOSA Delay5.6 sec V/C0.28 LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOS Delay V/C LOSD Delay41.4 sec V/C0.90 LOSD Delay36.4 sec V/C0.86 Deficient AM PM AM NoNo NoNo NoNoNot Applicable Max LOS @ "D" Location Peak Hour Metric Overall Intersection Movements with V/C > 1.00 Hercules Avenue at Sunset Point Road Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West) AM PM PM AM PM AM PM Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (East) Hercules Avenue at Central Project Driveway Hercules Avenue at Drew Street Hercules Avenue at Southern Project Driveway AM PM No NoNo NoNo No NoNo NoNo NoNo No No Not Applicable Max LOS @ "D" Not Applicable Max LOS @ "B" Not Applicable Max LOS @ "A" No Not Applicable Max LOS @ "C"No Not Applicable Max LOS @ "C"No No TABLE 2.2 INTERSECTION ANALYSIS SUMMARY (2015 TOTAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS) Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 17 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 Existing (2013) / Background (2015) Traffic Future (2018) Total Traffic NBBB SBBB NBCC SBBB D Hercules Ave Drew Road to Sunset Point Road AM PM LOS Std. Scenario Roadway Segment Peak Hour Direction SECTION 8.0 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS Operational analyses of the study area roadway segment were undertaken for each of the two analysis scenarios using Highway Capacity Manual methods calculated by Synchro software. Table 3.0 summarizes the roadway segment analysis, as further documented in Appendix F. The results of the analysis indicate that the study area roadway segment currently operates acceptably, and is anticipated to continue to operate acceptably for future conditions in consideration of the proposed project site expansion. Furthermore, the impacts of the subject project were found to be negligible to the operation of the study roadway segments in terms of level-of-service and travel speeds. TABLE 3.0 ROADWAY SEGMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY SECTION 9.0 SITE ACCESS ANALYSIS Access to the site is currently provided via Calumet Street and two direct connections to Hercules Avenue, as discussed below. Upon expansion, these connections are proposed to remain, whereas the southern direct connection to Hercules Avenue will be improved. • The site access connection via Calumet Street will provide for both project ingress and egress. • The central project driveway currently provides for truck traffic (egress only), and is not anticipated to accommodate additional traffic during AM and PM peak periods upon site expansion. It is noted that this driveway is covered by an ingress/egress easement and its use is shared with adjacent property owners. • The southern project driveway will provide for project egress only; however, it is noted that this driveway is covered by an ingress/egress easement and its use is shared with adjacent property owners. Pursuant to Section 7.0 of this report, all study intersections including the site driveway connections were found to operate acceptably. Based on the traffic volume estimates documented herein, an evaluation of site access turn lane warrants identified the potential need for a northbound-to-westbound left-turn lane on Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West), as documented in Appendix G. Therefore, subsequent discussions will be held with City staff to determine the need and feasibility of implementing a left-turn lane at this location. Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting G-188 Project Banner - 18 - Project No. 267010 Traffic Study (Revision No. 1) September 12, 2013 SECTION 10.0 CONCLUSION Based on the data, analyses and findings contained herein, the following is concluded in consideration of the proposed 179,931 square foot expansion of the GE site located at 1925 Calumet Street.  Acceptable operating conditions are anticipated for roadway segments and intersections surrounding the project site in consideration of existing and future traffic conditions.  The impacts of the proposed project site expansion were found to be negligible to the operation of the surrounding intersections in terms of level-of-service, delays, and capacity utilization.  The impacts of the proposed project site expansion were found to be negligible to the operation of the surrounding roadway segments in terms of level-of-service and travel speeds.  An evaluation of site access turn lane warrants identified the potential need for a northbound-to- westbound left-turn lane on Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West); therefore, subsequent discussions will be held with City staff to determine the need and feasibility of implementing a left- turn lane at this location. Attachment number 2 \nPage 21 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX A Methodology Attachment number 2 \nPage 22 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM 19046 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Suite 308 Tampa, FL 33647 (813) 625-1699 (813) 413-7432fx Trip Eq.Trips Trip Eq.TripsEnterExit Trip Eq.TripsEnterExit Existing140Manufacturing204,053sf 3.88(X) -20.70 772 0.83(X) -29.52 14010931 0.78(X) -15.97 1435192 Proposed140Manufacturing349,664sf 3.88(X) -20.70 1,336 0.83(X) -29.52 26120457 0.78(X) -15.97 25793164 145,611sf--564--1219526--1144272Increase Scenario Land Use Description Size WeekdayPM Peak HourAM Peak Hour ITE LUC TO: City of Clearwater VIA E-MAIL FROM: Michael D. Raysor, P.E., PTOE RAYSOR Transportation Consulting, LLC. DATE: May 28, 2013 SUBJECT: Traffic Analysis Methodology GE Site - 1925 Calumet Street This memorandum documents the proposed methodology for performing a traffic study to evaluate the proposed expansion of the GE site located at 1925 Calumet Street. Project Description The project site is located on the west side of Hercules Avenue, generally between Calument Street (to the north) and the rail line to the south, at 1925 Calumet Street, in the City of Clearwater, Florida. The project site currently consists of 204,053 square feet of manufacturing facilities, and is proposed to be expanded to a total of 349,664 square feet of manufacturing facilities. Access to the site is currently provided via Calumet Street and two direct connections to Hercules Avenue. Upon expansion, these connections are proposed to remain, whereas the southern direct connection to Hercules Avenue will be improved. Project Site Trip Generation The daily and peak hour trip generation of the project site was estimated based on trip characteristic data, as identified in Trip Generation (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE], 9th edition, 2012), as summarized in the table below. TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY Trip Distribution The distribution of project generated trips will be estimated based on existing traffic patterns as determined by the traffic counts to be collected at existing site driveways. For off-site locations, the distribution will be estimated based on engineering judgment. APPENDIX A - 1 of 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 23 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting 19046 Bruce B. Downs Blvd, Suite 308 Tampa, FL 33647 (813) 625-1699 (813) 413-7432fx PAGE2of 2 Study Area The study area is proposed to consist of the following roadway segments and intersections, noting that the trips estimated to be generated by the subject expansion consume less than 5% of the service volume of the adjacent segment of Hercules Avenue: Roadway Segments Hercules Avenue from Drew Street to Sunset Point Road Intersections Hercules Avenue at Sunset Point Road Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West) Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (East) Hercules Avenue at Drew Street Hercules Avenue at Site Access Connections Analysis Scenarios Three scenarios will be evaluated for AM & PM peak hour conditions as follows: (1) existing traffic conditions, (2) future (buildout year) background traffic conditions, and (3) future (buildout year) total traffic conditions. Traffic Volumes Existing traffic volumes to be used in the study will be obtained from intersection turning movement counts to be performed in June/July 2013 during peak hour conditions (7am to 9am & 4pm to 6pm) at the study intersections. The traffic volumes obtained from these counts will be adjusted using FDOT peak season factors. Roadway segment volumes will be calculated from the counted intersection volumes. Background traffic conditions (buildout year conditions) for study area roads and intersections will be estimated through the application of a growth rate to existing traffic volumes. A minimum 1% per year growth rate is typically used for traffic studies within the City; however, it was found that traffic volumes within the study area have consistently decreased since 2008 (refer to Attachment "A"). Thus, background traffic conditions for the study are proposed to be calculated based on zero growth. Project traffic estimated to be generated by the subject expansion will be added to the background traffic volumes to estimate future year total traffic conditions. Analysis Methods Intersection analyses will be undertaken using Synchro software in consideration of existing signal timings. If signal timing revisions are identified to be necessary to obtain acceptable operating conditions, this will be documented in the traffic study report. Roadway segment analyses will be undertaken using the results of the intersection (Synchro) analyses. Study Findings The results of the analyses will be evaluated to identify existing and future operating conditions including deficiencies, and to identify and evaluate potential impacts associated with the subject project. Documentation A report documenting the methodologies, data, analysis, and findings of the traffic study will be prepared. The report will be signed and sealed by a Florida registered professional engineer. APPENDIX A - 2 of 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 24 of 79 Item # 2 GE Site - 1925 Calumet Street Study Area Growth Rate Evaluation Roadway Segment AADT Type2011201020092008 Growth Rate Count Value13,80614,07915,02915,816 Linear Trend13,63614,33415,03215,730 AADT SOURCE: Pinellas County MPO Hercules Avenue Drew Street to Sunset Point Road -4.40% RAYSOR Transportation Consulting ATTACHMENT "A" ATTACHMENT A - 1 of 1 APPENDIX A - 3 of 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 25 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX B Trip Generation Attachment number 2 \nPage 26 of 79 Item # 2 GE Site - Clearwater Trip Generation Estimate Trip Eq.Trips Trip Eq.TripsEnterExit Trip Eq.TripsEnterExit Existing140Manufacturing196,572sf 3.88(X) -20.70 742 0.83(X) -29.52 13410430 0.78(X) -15.97 1374889 Proposed140Manufacturing376,503sf 3.88(X) -20.70 1,440 0.83(X) -29.52 28322162 0.78(X) -15.97 278100178 179,931sf--698--14911732--1415289 PM Peak HourAM Peak Hour ITE LUC Increase Scenario Land Use Description Size Weekday RAYSOR Transportation Consulting APPENDIX B - 1 of 1 Attachment number 2 \nPage 27 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX C Traffic Count Data Attachment number 2 \nPage 28 of 79 Item # 2 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 6/12/2013 3:11 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N Hercules Ave -- Drew St QC JOB #:10975801 CITY/STATE:Clearwater, FL DATE:Wed, Jun 05 2013 15-Min Count Period Beginning At N Hercules Ave (Northbound) N Hercules Ave (Southbound) Drew St (Eastbound) Drew St (Westbound) TotalHourly Totals LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR* 7:00 AM24010032545120122614670111139601486 7:15 AM5467022367200123817360023180911613 7:30 AM76580322853809431541211242141601703 7:45 AM772140332953701452228002224115038172619 8:00 AM1691105358542062817010011219618016902823 8:15 AM949140247724308442248002625812108173027 8:30 AM8361308256445013482176001921615107343058 8:45 AM3701006233430010572126001425516027482989 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR* All Vehicles28288560121283801480418088832008896460012 3268 Heavy Trucks404 122028 8124 0408 140 Pedestrians 0 0 0 4 4 Bicycles000 000 010 000 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: R* = RTOR Peak-Hour: 7:45 AM -- 8:45 AM Peak 15-Min: 7:45 AM -- 8:00 AM 2522670 139316195 165 833 33 81 911 64 321 650 1031 1056 455 428 1044 1131 0.94 16.01.31.4 10.82.812.3 7.3 2.9 3.0 0.0 4.2 10.9 2.5 7.4 3.6 4.3 4.8 2.3 3.8 5.8 0 1 2 6 000 000 0 1 0 0 0 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA APPENDIX C - 1 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 29 of 79 Item # 2 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 6/12/2013 3:11 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N Hercules Ave -- Drew St QC JOB #:10975802 CITY/STATE:Clearwater, FL DATE:Tue, Jun 04 2013 15-Min Count Period Beginning At N Hercules Ave (Northbound) N Hercules Ave (Southbound) Drew St (Eastbound) Drew St (Westbound) TotalHourly Totals LeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU 3:00 PM135415046563903822710121220251766 3:15 PM67719029492404426413018202182765 3:30 PM4621404875560432317024229241818 3:45 PM137213034462303622441152492227543103 4:00 PM136116026552902520130161972606683005 4:15 PM8619037562404922980151871516992939 4:30 PM106218048805102825030192221618082929 4:45 PM149514035563403127171102141818012976 5:00 PM128230031915004227433172431318923200 5:15 PM1511328029582704328090182421808803381 5:30 PM99925028573303829341172101208263399 5:45 PM69921027533005023330121791917333331 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightULeftThruRightU All Vehicles48328120012436420001681096121268972524 3568 Heavy Trucks084 848 8160 0200 76 Pedestrians 4 8 8 8 28 Bicycles000 000 000 000 0 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM 5038997 123262144 159 1118 23 64 909 61 536 529 1300 1034 604 347 1340 1108 0.95 0.01.52.1 6.51.52.8 4.4 2.1 0.0 0.0 1.8 3.3 1.5 3.0 2.4 1.7 2.5 1.2 2.5 1.8 6 9 4 7 000 000 0 0 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA APPENDIX C - 2 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 30 of 79 Item # 2 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 6/12/2013 3:11 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N Hercules Ave -- Sunset Point Rd QC JOB #:10975803 CITY/STATE:Clearwater, FL DATE:Wed, Jun 05 2013 15-Min Count Period Beginning At N Hercules Ave (Northbound) N Hercules Ave (Southbound) Sunset Point Rd (Eastbound) Sunset Point Rd (Westbound) TotalHourly Totals LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR* 7:00 AM2011708427713031011930291799803478 7:15 AM21241021046908101313026312281261502567 7:30 AM17231216481241302914731333331421214661 7:45 AM1629801258146150110140341354915912017262432 8:00 AM2637202224911920061319029229431299047492703 8:15 AM3031111195182161615188455144213913017102846 8:30 AM193563264492210211149363122213125056422827 8:45 AM3733132204256140108160394155314422046762777 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR* All Vehicles104148808881964768002452760116811617251636016 2996 Heavy Trucks81224 8244 8320 8240 152 Pedestrians 4 0 8 0 12 Bicycles000 000 010 000 1 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: R* = RTOR Peak-Hour: 7:30 AM -- 8:30 AM Peak 15-Min: 8:00 AM -- 8:15 AM 93120110 20747179 58 665 250 168 569 56 323 757 973 793 224 892 982 748 0.95 12.99.213.6 1.92.56.3 8.6 3.6 2.0 4.2 3.9 5.4 11.8 2.8 3.5 4.0 8.5 2.7 4.4 5.2 2 0 6 1 000 000 0 3 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA APPENDIX C - 3 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 31 of 79 Item # 2 Type of peak hour being reported: Intersection Peak Method for determining peak hour: Total Entering Volume Report generated on 6/12/2013 3:11 PM SOURCE: Quality Counts, LLC (http://www.qualitycounts.net) 1-877-580-2212 LOCATION:N Hercules Ave -- Sunset Point Rd QC JOB #:10975804 CITY/STATE:Clearwater, FL DATE:Tue, Jun 04 2013 15-Min Count Period Beginning At N Hercules Ave (Northbound) N Hercules Ave (Southbound) Sunset Point Rd (Eastbound) Sunset Point Rd (Westbound) TotalHourly Totals LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR* 3:00 PM50732933729459061013310330351953503735 3:15 PM39501504539451315717415219271803003709 3:30 PM50874323814401016181882556371782503776 3:45 PM6182411342957171414125215152815122027102930 4:00 PM50702212719358171315032262017423146652860 4:15 PM397322238234812021216126363118024017032854 4:30 PM60115484321745112611155266102318527067892867 4:45 PM647038028242811251619726453116026047392896 5:00 PM103133521372636112715143176102719427088553086 5:15 PM5812157223334310091017821452322432018543237 5:30 PM721083814519308071318214543321426078263274 5:45 PM598824139242515031012014183417640056863221 Peak 15-Min Northbound Southbound Eastbound Westbound TotalFlowratesLeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR*LeftThruRightUR* All Vehicles41253220841481041444482860572682440108776108032 3420 Heavy Trucks1680 0160 0120 0160 68 Pedestrians 0 0 4 0 4 Bicycles000 002 010 000 3 Railroad Stopped Buses Comments: R* = RTOR Peak-Hour: 4:45 PM -- 5:45 PM Peak 15-Min: 5:00 PM -- 5:15 PM 301432318 10613768 73 700 102 114 792 131 1051 311 875 1037 621 357 1120 1176 0.96 2.72.10.9 0.05.82.9 0.0 1.7 2.0 1.8 1.3 0.0 1.9 3.2 1.6 1.2 1.4 3.4 1.3 1.7 0 2 1 3 000 002 0 1 0 0 1 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA APPENDIX C - 4 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 32 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West) Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 7:00 AM15101011600000404443069169 7:15 AM9129013800000567631034205 7:30 AM111920203000006112732035281 7:45 AM191890208000007319921045305 Total5461106650000023042272701623960 8:00 AM142060220000009239570512327 8:15 AM1017401840000090121023036292 8:30 AM101470157000008569180311259 8:45 AM1112801390000097510270714255 Total456550700000003642639025018431133 Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 7:30 AM547610815000003164636213015281205 Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 7:30 AM578070864000003354938414016301278 Peak Hour Factor:0.92 HlA Start Time Hercules Avenue N/A Hercules Avenue Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Calumet Street Hercules Avenue N 0 0 0 N/A Calumet Street 16 0 14 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume1100110000014115002228 Percent2%1%0%1%0%0%0%0%0%4%2%4%0%0%13%7%2% Total 57 80 7 0 From North From East From South From West 049 33 5 APPENDIX C - 5 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 33 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (West) Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 3:00 PM188601040000015624180801422306 3:15 PM16990115000001221313560713263 3:30 PM58609100000151415564039103349 3:45 PM610401100000014981571501732299 Total4537504200000057849627930771701217 4:00 PM10960106000001385143150621270 4:15 PM310801110000015061561001121288 4:30 PM11040105000001953198801523326 4:45 PM5780830000017841821501227292 Total193860405000006611867948044921176 5:00 PM5920970000023252371102132366 5:15 PM4900940000021162172057318 5:30 PM1920930000018951943002959346 5:45 PM471075000001792181100717273 Total1434503590000081118829530621151303 Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 3:00 PM4537504200000057849627930771701217 Start Time Hercules Avenue N/A Hercules Avenue Calumet Street Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 3:00 PM4839804460000061352665990821811292 Peak Hour Factor:0.87 Hercules Avenue N 0 0 0 N/A Calumet Street 82 0 99 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume214016000008513403736 Percent4%4%0%4%0%0%0%0%0%1%10%2%4%0%4%4%3% From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom West Total 0 48 39 8 0 52 61 3 APPENDIX C - 6 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 34 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (East) Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM018212194405917690860000289 7:45 AM0174161907051214850990000301 Total 8:00 AM01951821310061614850990000328 8:15 AM016413177120719179001070000303 8:30 AM 8:45 AM Total Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 7:30 AM071559774330235662329039100001221 Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 7:30 AM075863821350245966349041500001295 Peak Hour Factor:0.93 HlA Start Time Hercules Avenue Calumet Street Hercules Avenue N/A Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Hercules Avenue N 35 0 24 Calumet Street N/A 0 0 0 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume0100103047112013000030 Percent0%1%0%1%9%0%17%13%2%4%0%3%0%0%0%0%2% From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom West Total 0 34 9 66 0 75 8 63 APPENDIX C - 7 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 35 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street (East) Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 3:00 PM0841094210526615901650000285 3:15 PM09411105190827811601240000256 3:30 PM013713150110920614401500000320 3:45 PM011091191505201114201530000292 Total042543468660279331561059200001153 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM Total 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Total Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 3:00 PM042543468660279331561059200001153 Start Time Hercules Avenue Calumet Street Hercules Avenue N/A Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 3:00 PM045146497700299933595062800001224 Peak Hour Factor:0.90 Hercules Avenue N 70 0 29 Calumet Street N/A 0 0 0 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume0135182013011011000032 Percent0%3%12%4%3%0%4%3%0%2%0%2%0%0%0%0%3% From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom West Total 0 59 5 33 0 45 1 46 APPENDIX C - 8 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 36 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at Central Project Driveway Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM1186018700000860860000273 7:45 AM0179017900000990990000278 Total 8:00 AM0201020100000990990000300 8:15 AM017101710000010701071001279 8:30 AM 8:45 AM Total Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 7:30 AM1737073800000391039110011130 Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 7:30 AM1781078200000414041410011197 Peak Hour Factor:0.94 HlA Inter- section Total From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom WestStart Time Hercules Avenue N/A Hercules AvenueCentral Project Driveway Hercules Avenue N 0 0 0 N/A Central Project Driveway 0 0 1 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume0140140000013013000027 Percent0%2%0%2%0%0%0%0%0%3%0%3%0%0%0%0%2% Total 0 41 4 0 From North From East From South From West 1 78 1 0 APPENDIX C - 9 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 37 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at Central Project Driveway Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 3:00 PM0890890000016501650000254 3:15 PM010201020000012421260000228 3:30 PM014601460000015001505005301 3:45 PM011501150000015301530000268 Total0452045200000592259450051051 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM Total 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Total Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 3:00 PM0452045200000592259450051051 Start Time Hercules Avenue N/A Hercules AvenueCentral Project Driveway Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 3:00 PM0479047900000628263050051114 Peak Hour Factor:0.87 Hercules Avenue N 0 0 0 N/A Central Project Driveway 0 0 5 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume0140140000011011000025 Percent0%3%0%3%0%0%0%0%0%2%0%2%0%0%0%0%2% From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom West Total 2 62 8 0 0 47 9 0 APPENDIX C - 10 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 38 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at South Project Driveway Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 7:00 AM 7:15 AM 7:30 AM0186018600000860860000272 7:45 AM1178017900000990990000278 Total 8:00 AM0201020100000971980022301 8:15 AM117101720000010511061023281 8:30 AM 8:45 AM Total Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 7:30 AM2736073800000387238910451132 Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 7:30 AM2780078200000410241210451199 Peak Hour Factor:0.94 HlA Start Time Hercules Avenue N/A Hercules AvenueSouth Project Driveway Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Hercules Avenue N 0 0 0 N/A South Project Driveway 4 0 1 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume0140140000013013000027 Percent0%2%0%2%0%0%0%0%0%3%0%3%0%0%0%0%2% From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom West Total 2 41 0 0 2 78 0 0 APPENDIX C - 11 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 39 of 79 Item # 2 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Count Location: Hercules Avenue at South Project Driveway Intersection Count Worksheet Count Date: 06/04/13 TOTAL VEHICLES RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal 3:00 PM0890890000016501650000254 3:15 PM010201020000012611270000229 3:30 PM015101510000014901490011301 3:45 PM011501150000015301530000268 Total0457045700000593159400111052 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM Total 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM Total Peak Hour Volume (peak hour of project traffic) 3:00 PM0457045700000593159400111052 Start Time Hercules Avenue N/A Hercules AvenueMiddle Project Driveway Inter- section Total From North From East From South From West Peak Hour, Peak Season Volume (PSCF: 1.06) 3:00 PM0484048400000629163000111115 Peak Hour Factor:0.87 Hercules Avenue N 0 0 0 N/A Middle Project Driveway 1 0 0 Hercules Avenue Peak Hour Heavy Vehicles RightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotalRightThruLeftTotal Volume0140140000011011000025 Percent0%3%0%3%0%0%0%0%0%2%0%2%0%0%0%0%2% From NorthFrom EastFrom SouthFrom West Total 1 62 9 0 0 48 4 0 APPENDIX C - 12 of 12 Attachment number 2 \nPage 40 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX D Historical Growth Trend Attachment number 2 \nPage 41 of 79 Item # 2 GE Site - 1925 Calumet Street Study Area Growth Rate Evaluation Roadway Segment AADT Type20122011201020092008 Growth Rate Count Value1414113,80614,07915,02915,816 Linear Trend13,66014,11714,57415,03115,489 AADT SOURCE: Pinellas County MPO Hercules Avenue Drew Street to Sunset Point Road -3.00% APPENDIX D - 1 of 1 Attachment number 2 \nPage 42 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX E Operational Analysis Intersections Attachment number 2 \nPage 43 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 1: Sunset Point Road & Hercules Ave AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)61705265178603599912711721949984 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.951.000.970.95 1.000.951.001.000.95 Frt 1.001.000.851.000.99 1.001.000.851.000.98 Flt Protected 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1656347115833367342215973312141717703415 Flt Permitted 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.251.001.000.541.00 Satd. Flow (perm)16563471158333673422 4243312141710003415 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)647422791876356210413412323152588 RTOR Reduction (vph)00157 04000102090 Lane Group Flow (vph)647421221876930104134212316040 Heavy Vehicles (%)9%4%2%4%4%5%13%9%14%2%3%6% Turn Type ProtPermProt pm+ptPermpm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2 8 84 Actuated Green, G (s)9.865.765.713.669.5 37.125.225.250.932.9 Effective Green, g (s)9.865.765.713.669.5 37.125.225.250.932.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.070.440.440.090.46 0.250.170.170.340.22 Clearance Time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.0 3.03.03.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)10815206933051586 198556238440749 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04c0.21c0.06c0.20 0.040.04c0.07c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.09 0.010.11 v/c Ratio 0.590.490.180.610.44 0.530.240.090.530.81 Uniform Delay, d1 68.230.125.765.727.1 45.854.152.737.855.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 1.000.971.151.001.00 Incremental Delay, d28.41.10.63.60.9 2.50.20.21.16.4 Delay (s)76.631.326.269.328.0 48.152.960.638.961.9 Level of Service ECCEC DDEDE Approach Delay (s)32.6 36.7 54.2 55.6 Approach LOS C D D E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 42.3HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.64 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0Sum of lost time (s)32.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 68.1%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 1 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 44 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 3: Calumet Street (East) & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement WBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24353496663758 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.92 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15263399 3563 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.88 Satd. Flow (perm)15263399 3149 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)26383757168815 RTOR Reduction (vph)35011000 Lane Group Flow (vph)29043500883 Heavy Vehicles (%)17%9%4%2%0%1% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)5.0 59.0 59.0 Effective Green, g (s)5.0 59.0 59.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.07 0.79 0.79 Clearance Time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1022674 2477 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.13 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.16 0.36 Uniform Delay, d1 33.3 2.0 2.4 Progression Factor1.00 1.00 2.34 Incremental Delay, d21.5 0.1 0.3 Delay (s)34.8 2.1 5.9 Level of Service C A A Approach Delay (s)34.8 2.1 5.9 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.0HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 2 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 45 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 6: Drew Street & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1718164290964702527064144357195 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 Frt 1.000.99 1.000.99 1.000.97 1.000.95 Flt Protected 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)16873479180534211556347216263220 Flt Permitted 0.091.00 0.201.00 0.351.00 0.381.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1523479 3753421 5753472 6553220 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)18286845961026742728768153380207 RTOR Reduction (vph)02004001900630 Lane Group Flow (vph)182911096109602733601535240 Heavy Vehicles (%)7%3%3%0%4%11%16%1%1%11%3%12% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s)59.446.751.842.929.725.141.531.0 Effective Green, g (s)59.446.7 51.842.9 29.725.1 41.531.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.490.39 0.430.36 0.250.21 0.350.26 Clearance Time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2381354 2681223 180726 311832 v/s Ratio Prot c0.080.26 0.03c0.32 0.010.10c0.04c0.16 v/s Ratio Perm c0.30 0.13 0.03 0.13 v/c Ratio 0.760.67 0.360.90 0.150.46 0.490.63 Uniform Delay, d1 28.430.3 21.736.4 34.741.5 28.739.4 Progression Factor1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 Incremental Delay, d213.62.7 0.810.4 0.40.5 1.21.5 Delay (s)42.033.0 22.546.8 35.142.0 30.040.9 Level of Service DC CD DD CD Approach Delay (s)34.5 44.9 41.5 38.7 Approach LOS CDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 39.8HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.87 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0Sum of lost time (s)35.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 84.3%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 3 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 46 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 2: Calumet Street (West) & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)16144933580757 Sign Control Stop FreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)17155336487762 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)265 pX, platoon unblocked1.00 vC, conflicting volume1197470939 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol1195470939 tC, single (s)7.16.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.63.32.2 p0 queue free %899793 cM capacity (veh/h)152546725 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 33175243585354 Volume Left 1753000 Volume Right 1500062 cSH 229725170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.140.070.140.340.21 Queue Length 95th (ft)12 6000 Control Delay (s)23.33.70.00.00.0 Lane LOSCA Approach Delay (s)23.31.6 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 48.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 4 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 47 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 4: Central Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0104147811 Sign ControlStopFreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)0104408311 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)350 pX, platoon unblocked0.940.940.94 vC, conflicting volume1052416832 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol934260701 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %100100100 cM capacity (veh/h)253702854 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 1147294554278 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 10001 cSH702854170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.000.000.170.330.16 Queue Length 95th (ft)00000 Control Delay (s)10.10.00.00.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)10.10.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 5 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 48 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 5: Southern Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)4124107802 Sign ControlStopFreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)4124368302 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)960 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume1053416832 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol1053416832 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %98100100 cM capacity (veh/h)224591809 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 5148291553279 Volume Left 42000 Volume Right 10002 cSH256809170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.020.000.170.330.16 Queue Length 95th (ft)20000 Control Delay (s)19.40.20.00.00.0 Lane LOSCA Approach Delay (s)19.40.1 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 6 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 49 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 1: Sunset Point Road & Hercules Ave AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)617052832016035910413012421951184 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.951.000.970.95 1.000.951.001.000.95 Frt 1.001.000.851.000.99 1.001.000.851.000.98 Flt Protected 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1656347115833367342215973312141717703417 Flt Permitted 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.231.001.000.541.00 Satd. Flow (perm)16563471158333673422 3923312141710013417 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)647422982126356210913713123153888 RTOR Reduction (vph)00170 04000109090 Lane Group Flow (vph)647421282126930109137222316170 Heavy Vehicles (%)9%4%2%4%4%5%13%9%14%2%3%6% Turn Type ProtPermProt pm+ptPermpm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2 8 84 Actuated Green, G (s)9.864.364.314.769.2 37.925.725.751.232.9 Effective Green, g (s)9.864.364.314.769.2 37.925.725.751.232.9 Actuated g/C Ratio0.070.430.430.100.46 0.250.170.170.340.22 Clearance Time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.0 3.03.03.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)10814886793301579 197567243441749 v/s Ratio Prot 0.04c0.21c0.06c0.20 0.040.04c0.07c0.18 v/s Ratio Perm 0.08 0.09 0.020.11 v/c Ratio 0.590.500.190.640.44 0.550.240.090.520.82 Uniform Delay, d1 68.231.126.665.127.3 45.553.752.337.655.8 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 0.990.971.211.001.00 Incremental Delay, d28.41.20.64.20.9 3.30.20.21.17.3 Delay (s)76.632.327.269.428.2 48.552.363.338.763.1 Level of Service ECCEC DDEDE Approach Delay (s)33.5 37.8 55.0 56.6 Approach LOS C D E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 43.3HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.65 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 150.0Sum of lost time (s)32.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 69.4%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 7 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 50 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 3: Calumet Street (East) & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement WBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)24474156863752 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.91 0.98 1.00 Flt Protected 0.98 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)15233407 3563 Flt Permitted 0.98 1.00 0.87 Satd. Flow (perm)15233407 3111 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.930.930.930.930.930.93 Adj. Flow (vph)26514467368809 RTOR Reduction (vph)47010000 Lane Group Flow (vph)30050900877 Heavy Vehicles (%)17%9%4%2%0%1% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)6.2 57.8 57.8 Effective Green, g (s)6.2 57.8 57.8 Actuated g/C Ratio0.08 0.77 0.77 Clearance Time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1262626 2398 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02 0.15 v/s Ratio Perm c0.28 v/c Ratio 0.24 0.19 0.37 Uniform Delay, d1 32.2 2.3 2.7 Progression Factor1.00 1.00 2.22 Incremental Delay, d21.0 0.2 0.4 Delay (s)33.2 2.5 6.4 Level of Service C A A Approach Delay (s)33.2 2.5 6.4 Approach LOS C A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 6.4HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.35 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 75.0Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 54.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 8 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 51 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 6: Drew Street & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)1838164290964932528864151362198 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 Frt 1.000.99 1.000.99 1.000.97 1.000.95 Flt Protected 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)16873479180534051556347716263219 Flt Permitted 0.081.00 0.211.00 0.341.00 0.361.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1493479 3963405 5523477 6093219 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.940.94 Adj. Flow (vph)19586845961026992730668161385211 RTOR Reduction (vph)02005001800640 Lane Group Flow (vph)195911096112002735601615320 Heavy Vehicles (%)7%3%3%0%4%11%16%1%1%11%3%12% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s)61.647.651.442.528.724.140.730.1 Effective Green, g (s)61.647.6 51.442.5 28.724.1 40.730.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.510.40 0.430.35 0.240.20 0.340.25 Clearance Time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2561380 2741206 171698 296807 v/s Ratio Prot c0.09c0.26 0.03c0.33 0.010.10c0.05c0.17 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.12 0.03 0.14 v/c Ratio 0.760.66 0.350.93 0.160.51 0.540.66 Uniform Delay, d1 30.029.6 21.737.3 35.542.7 29.640.3 Progression Factor1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 Incremental Delay, d212.62.5 0.813.6 0.40.6 2.02.0 Delay (s)42.532.1 22.550.9 35.943.3 31.642.3 Level of Service DC CD DD CD Approach Delay (s)33.9 48.7 42.8 40.0 Approach LOS CDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 41.4HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.90 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0Sum of lost time (s)35.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 85.9%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 9 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 52 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 2: Calumet Street (West) & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)2010116346805112 Sign Control Stop FreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.920.920.920.920.920.92 Hourly flow rate (vph)2211126376875122 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)265 pX, platoon unblocked0.98 vC, conflicting volume1376498997 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol1349498997 tC, single (s)6.96.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %819882 cM capacity (veh/h)113523690 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 33251251583413 Volume Left 22126000 Volume Right 11000122 cSH 153690170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.210.180.150.340.24 Queue Length 95th (ft)1917000 Control Delay (s)34.86.80.00.00.0 Lane LOSDA Approach Delay (s)34.83.4 0.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.9 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 10 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 53 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 4: Central Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0104827751 Sign ControlStopFreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)0105138241 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)350 pX, platoon unblocked0.940.940.94 vC, conflicting volume1081413826 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol954242682 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %100100100 cM capacity (veh/h)244718863 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 1171342550276 Volume Left 00000 Volume Right 10001 cSH718863170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.000.000.200.320.16 Queue Length 95th (ft)00000 Control Delay (s)10.00.00.00.00.0 Lane LOSB Approach Delay (s)10.00.0 0.0 Approach LOS B Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 11 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 54 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 5: Southern Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)172004657760 Sign Control Stop FreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.940.940.940.940.940.94 Hourly flow rate (vph)182104958260 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)960 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume1073413826 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol1073413826 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %9296100 cM capacity (veh/h)218594814 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 39165330550275 Volume Left 18 0000 Volume Right 21 0000 cSH 332814170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.120.000.190.320.16 Queue Length 95th (ft)10 0000 Control Delay (s)17.30.00.00.00.0 Lane LOSC Approach Delay (s)17.30.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.5 Intersection Capacity Utilization 31.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 12 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 55 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 1: Sunset Point Road & Hercules Ave PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)6865714913574613021831029912119874 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.951.000.970.95 1.000.951.001.000.95 Frt 1.001.000.851.000.98 1.001.000.851.000.96 Flt Protected 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805353915833433350017523539159918053292 Flt Permitted 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.311.001.000.561.00 Satd. Flow (perm)18053539158334333500 5673539159910573292 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)7168415514177713522732331112620677 RTOR Reduction (vph)0075 070002610270 Lane Group Flow (vph)71684801419050227323501262560 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%2%2%2%1%0%3%2%1%0%6%3% Turn Type ProtPermProt pm+ptPermpm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2 8 84 Actuated Green, G (s)11.682.882.811.983.1 45.525.625.631.517.7 Effective Green, g (s)11.682.882.811.983.1 45.525.625.631.517.7 Actuated g/C Ratio0.070.520.520.070.52 0.280.160.160.200.11 Clearance Time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.0 3.03.03.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)13118318192551818 322566256273364 v/s Ratio Prot 0.040.19c0.04c0.26c0.100.09 0.040.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.10 0.030.05 v/c Ratio 0.540.370.100.550.50 0.700.570.190.460.70 Uniform Delay, d1 71.623.119.671.524.9 47.662.158.355.568.6 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 0.970.971.391.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.50.60.22.61.0 6.81.40.41.26.1 Delay (s)76.223.719.974.125.9 52.861.981.456.774.7 Level of Service ECBEC DEFEE Approach Delay (s)27.1 32.4 66.5 69.2 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 44.6HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.53 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0Sum of lost time (s)11.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 70.4%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 13 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 56 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 3: Calumet Street (East) & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement WBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)29705953346451 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.90 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)16403515 3461 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.84 Satd. Flow (perm)16403515 2932 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.90 Adj. Flow (vph)32786613751501 RTOR Reduction (vph)72 03000 Lane Group Flow (vph)38069500552 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%2%0%12%3% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)6.6 62.4 62.4 Effective Green, g (s)6.6 62.4 62.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.08 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1352742 2287 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02c0.20 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.28 0.25 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 2.4 2.4 Progression Factor1.00 1.00 1.25 Incremental Delay, d21.2 0.2 0.2 Delay (s)35.6 2.6 3.2 Level of Service D A A Approach Delay (s)35.6 2.6 3.2 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.5HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.26 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 50.9%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 14 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 57 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 6: Drew Street & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)17310033689954943828165166240151 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 Frt 1.000.99 1.000.99 1.000.97 1.000.94 Flt Protected 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17363523180534881805344016873322 Flt Permitted 0.111.00 0.151.00 0.481.00 0.341.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1963523 2903488 9153440 6023322 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)182105638941004994029668175253159 RTOR Reduction (vph)02005001900930 Lane Group Flow (vph)1821092094109804034501753190 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%0%0%2%3%0%2%2%7%2%3% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s)65.953.057.548.825.218.833.823.1 Effective Green, g (s)65.953.0 57.548.8 25.218.8 33.823.1 Actuated g/C Ratio0.550.44 0.480.41 0.210.16 0.280.19 Clearance Time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2731556 2491418 240539 266639 v/s Ratio Prot c0.07c0.31 0.03c0.31 0.010.10c0.060.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.29 0.15 0.03 c0.13 v/c Ratio 0.670.70 0.380.77 0.170.64 0.660.50 Uniform Delay, d1 20.127.1 19.330.8 38.347.4 34.943.3 Progression Factor1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 Incremental Delay, d26.02.7 1.04.2 0.32.5 5.80.6 Delay (s)26.229.8 20.235.0 38.649.9 40.743.9 Level of Service CC CD DD DD Approach Delay (s)29.3 33.8 48.8 42.9 Approach LOS CCDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 35.4HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.82 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0Sum of lost time (s)35.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 82.0%ICU Level of Service D Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 15 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 58 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 2: Calumet Street (West) & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)82995261339848 Sign Control Stop FreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.870.870.870.870.870.87 Hourly flow rate (vph)941146070545755 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)265 pX, platoon unblocked0.95 vC, conflicting volume957256513 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol860256513 tC, single (s)6.97.04.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.3 p0 queue free %648594 cM capacity (veh/h)261737995 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 208295470305208 Volume Left 9460000 Volume Right 11400055 cSH404995170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.510.060.280.180.12 Queue Length 95th (ft)71 5000 Control Delay (s)23.02.30.00.00.0 Lane LOSCA Approach Delay (s)23.00.9 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 3.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 51.6%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 16 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 59 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 4: Central Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0526284790 Sign ControlStopFreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.870.870.870.870.870.87 Hourly flow rate (vph)0627225510 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)350 pX, platoon unblocked0.980.980.98 vC, conflicting volume916275551 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol881229509 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10099100 cM capacity (veh/h)2857671049 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 6243481367184 Volume Left 02000 Volume Right 60000 cSH7671049170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.010.000.280.220.11 Queue Length 95th (ft)10000 Control Delay (s)9.70.10.00.00.0 Lane LOS AA Approach Delay (s)9.70.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 17 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 60 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 5: Southern Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)1016294840 Sign ControlStopFreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.870.870.870.870.870.87 Hourly flow rate (vph)1017235560 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)960 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume920278556 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol920278556 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %100100100 cM capacity (veh/h)2737251024 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 1242482371185 Volume Left 11000 Volume Right 00000 cSH2731024170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.000.000.280.220.11 Queue Length 95th (ft)00000 Control Delay (s)18.20.10.00.00.0 Lane LOSCA Approach Delay (s)18.20.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 28.1%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 18 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 61 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 1: Sunset Point Road & Hercules Ave PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)6865715714574613023131931712120374 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.951.000.970.95 1.000.951.001.000.95 Frt 1.001.000.851.000.98 1.001.000.851.000.96 Flt Protected 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.951.001.000.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)1805353915833433350017523539159918053294 Flt Permitted 0.951.001.000.951.00 0.301.001.000.551.00 Satd. Flow (perm)18053539158334333500 5613539159910483294 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.960.96 Adj. Flow (vph)7168416415177713524133233012621177 RTOR Reduction (vph)0081 070002740260 Lane Group Flow (vph)71684831519050241332561262620 Heavy Vehicles (%)0%2%2%2%1%0%3%2%1%0%6%3% Turn Type ProtPermProt pm+ptPermpm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2 8 84 Actuated Green, G (s)11.681.081.012.481.8 46.827.027.031.718.0 Effective Green, g (s)11.681.081.012.481.8 46.827.027.031.718.0 Actuated g/C Ratio0.070.510.510.080.51 0.290.170.170.200.11 Clearance Time (s)5.66.46.45.66.4 6.17.87.86.17.8 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.03.03.03.0 3.03.03.03.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)13117928012661789 333597270272371 v/s Ratio Prot 0.040.19c0.04c0.26c0.100.09 0.040.08 v/s Ratio Perm 0.05 c0.11 0.030.05 v/c Ratio 0.540.380.100.570.51 0.720.560.210.460.71 Uniform Delay, d1 71.624.220.671.225.8 47.061.057.355.368.5 Progression Factor1.001.001.001.001.00 0.970.971.431.001.00 Incremental Delay, d24.50.60.32.81.0 7.51.10.41.26.0 Delay (s)76.224.820.874.026.8 52.960.582.356.674.5 Level of Service ECCEC DEFEE Approach Delay (s)28.1 33.5 66.4 69.0 Approach LOS C C E E Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 45.5HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.54 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 160.0Sum of lost time (s)11.7 Intersection Capacity Utilization 71.3%ICU Level of Service C Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 19 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 62 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 3: Calumet Street (East) & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement WBLWBRNBTNBRSBLSBT Lane Configurations Volume (vph)29766454246437 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Lane Util. Factor 1.00 0.95 0.95 Frt 0.90 0.99 1.00 Flt Protected 0.99 1.00 1.00 Satd. Flow (prot)16373511 3460 Flt Permitted 0.99 1.00 0.83 Satd. Flow (perm)16373511 2892 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.900.900.900.900.900.90 Adj. Flow (vph)32847174751486 RTOR Reduction (vph)77 04000 Lane Group Flow (vph)39076000537 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%3%2%0%12%3% Turn Type Perm Protected Phases 8 2 6 Permitted Phases 6 Actuated Green, G (s)6.6 62.4 62.4 Effective Green, g (s)6.6 62.4 62.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.08 0.78 0.78 Clearance Time (s)5.6 5.4 5.4 Vehicle Extension (s)3.0 3.0 3.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)1352739 2256 v/s Ratio Prot c0.02c0.22 v/s Ratio Perm 0.19 v/c Ratio 0.29 0.28 0.24 Uniform Delay, d1 34.5 2.5 2.4 Progression Factor1.00 1.00 1.20 Incremental Delay, d21.2 0.3 0.2 Delay (s)35.7 2.7 3.1 Level of Service D A A Approach Delay (s)35.7 2.7 3.1 Approach LOS D A A Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 5.6HCM Level of Service A HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.28 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 80.0Sum of lost time (s)11.0 Intersection Capacity Utilization 52.5%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 20 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 63 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Signalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 6: Drew Street & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBTEBRWBLWBTWBRNBLNBTNBRSBLSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (vph)178100336899541043828965184253160 Ideal Flow (vphpl)190019001900190019001900190019001900190019001900 Total Lost time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Lane Util. Factor 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 1.000.95 Frt 1.000.99 1.000.99 1.000.97 1.000.94 Flt Protected 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 0.951.00 Satd. Flow (prot)17363523180534841805344216873321 Flt Permitted 0.101.00 0.151.00 0.451.00 0.331.00 Satd. Flow (perm)1823523 2903484 8583442 5913321 Peak-hour factor, PHF0.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.950.95 Adj. Flow (vph)1871056389410041094030468194266168 RTOR Reduction (vph)02006001800940 Lane Group Flow (vph)1871092094110704035401943400 Heavy Vehicles (%)4%2%0%0%2%3%0%2%2%7%2%3% Turn Type pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt pm+pt Protected Phases 52 16 38 74 Permitted Phases 2684 Actuated Green, G (s)66.052.756.848.125.519.134.123.4 Effective Green, g (s)66.052.7 56.848.1 25.519.1 34.123.4 Actuated g/C Ratio0.550.44 0.470.40 0.210.16 0.280.19 Clearance Time (s)6.57.1 6.57.1 7.37.9 7.37.9 Vehicle Extension (s)3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 3.03.0 Lane Grp Cap (vph)2721547 2471397 233548 266648 v/s Ratio Prot c0.08c0.31 0.03c0.32 0.010.10c0.070.10 v/s Ratio Perm 0.30 0.15 0.03 c0.14 v/c Ratio 0.690.71 0.380.79 0.170.65 0.730.52 Uniform Delay, d1 21.527.4 19.631.6 38.147.3 35.543.3 Progression Factor1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 1.001.00 Incremental Delay, d27.02.7 1.04.7 0.42.6 9.60.8 Delay (s)28.530.1 20.636.3 38.449.9 45.144.1 Level of Service CC CD DD DD Approach Delay (s)29.9 35.0 48.8 44.4 Approach LOS CDDD Intersection Summary HCM Average Control Delay 36.4HCM Level of Service D HCM Volume to Capacity ratio 0.86 Actuated Cycle Length (s) 120.0Sum of lost time (s)35.3 Intersection Capacity Utilization 83.8%ICU Level of Service E Analysis Period (min)15 c Critical Lane Group APPENDIX E - 21 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 64 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 2: Calumet Street (West) & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)96858263939871 Sign Control Stop FreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.870.870.870.870.870.87 Hourly flow rate (vph)110989473445782 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)265 pX, platoon unblocked0.95 vC, conflicting volume1054270539 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol946270539 tC, single (s)6.97.04.3 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.3 p0 queue free %508690 cM capacity (veh/h)219722972 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 208339490305234 Volume Left 11094000 Volume Right 9800082 cSH 326972170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.640.100.290.180.14 Queue Length 95th (ft)103 8000 Control Delay (s)33.73.30.00.00.0 Lane LOSDA Approach Delay (s)33.71.3 0.0 Approach LOS D Intersection Summary Average Delay 5.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 53.8%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 22 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 65 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 4: Central Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)0526874650 Sign ControlStopFreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.870.870.870.870.870.87 Hourly flow rate (vph)0627905340 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)350 pX, platoon unblocked0.990.990.99 vC, conflicting volume934267534 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol904227499 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %10099100 cM capacity (veh/h)2767701060 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 6266526356178 Volume Left 02000 Volume Right 60000 cSH7701060170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.010.000.310.210.10 Queue Length 95th (ft)10000 Control Delay (s)9.70.10.00.00.0 Lane LOS AA Approach Delay (s)9.70.0 0.0 Approach LOS A Intersection Summary Average Delay 0.1 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.4%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 23 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 66 of 79 Item # 2 HCM Unsignalized Intersection Capacity AnalysisManufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" 5: Southern Project Driveway & Hercules Avenue PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Movement EBLEBRNBLNBTSBTSBR Lane Configurations Volume (veh/h)365406534700 Sign Control Stop FreeFree Grade 0%0%0% Peak Hour Factor 0.870.870.870.870.870.87 Hourly flow rate (vph)416207515400 Pedestrians Lane Width (ft) Walking Speed (ft/s) Percent Blockage Right turn flare (veh) Median type NoneNone Median storage veh) Upstream signal (ft)960 pX, platoon unblocked vC, conflicting volume916270540 vC1, stage 1 conf vol vC2, stage 2 conf vol vCu, unblocked vol916270540 tC, single (s)6.86.94.1 tC, 2 stage (s) tF (s)3.53.32.2 p0 queue free %8592100 cM capacity (veh/h)2767341038 Direction, Lane #EB 1NB 1NB 2SB 1SB 2 Volume Total 103250500360180 Volume Left 41 0000 Volume Right 62 0000 cSH 4411038170017001700 Volume to Capacity0.230.000.290.210.11 Queue Length 95th (ft)23 0000 Control Delay (s)15.70.00.00.00.0 Lane LOSC Approach Delay (s)15.70.0 0.0 Approach LOS C Intersection Summary Average Delay 1.2 Intersection Capacity Utilization 30.0%ICU Level of Service A Analysis Period (min)15 APPENDIX E - 24 of 24 Attachment number 2 \nPage 67 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX F Operational Analysis Roadway Segments Attachment number 2 \nPage 68 of 79 Item # 2 Arterial Level of Service Manufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" AM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Arterial Level of Service: NB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 40106.72.1108.81.1939.2A Sunset Point RoadII 4033.152.885.90.3314.0E Total II 139.854.9194.71.5228.1B Arterial Level of Service: SB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 4033.16.039.10.3330.8B Drew Street II 40106.737.5144.21.1929.6B Total II 139.843.5183.31.5229.9B APPENDIX F - 1 of 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 69 of 79 Item # 2 Arterial Level of Service Manufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" AM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Arterial Level of Service: NB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 40106.72.6109.31.1939.1A Sunset Point RoadII 4033.152.385.40.3314.1E Total II 139.854.9194.71.5228.1B Arterial Level of Service: SB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 4033.16.940.00.3330.1B Drew Street II 40106.739.1145.81.1929.3B Total II 139.846.0185.81.5229.4B APPENDIX F - 2 of 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 70 of 79 Item # 2 Arterial Level of Service Manufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" PM Peak Hour Existing Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Arterial Level of Service: NB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 40106.72.9109.61.1938.9A Sunset Point RoadII 4033.163.896.90.3312.4F Total II 139.866.7206.51.5226.5C Arterial Level of Service: SB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 4033.13.536.60.3332.9B Drew Street II 40106.735.0141.71.1930.1B Total II 139.838.5178.31.5230.7B APPENDIX F - 3 of 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 71 of 79 Item # 2 Arterial Level of Service Manufacturing Facility G-188 "Project Banner" PM Peak Hour Total Traffic Conditions RAYSOR Transportation Consulting Synchro 7 - Light: Report Arterial Level of Service: NB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 40106.73.0109.71.1938.9A Sunset Point RoadII 4033.162.295.30.3312.6F Total II 139.865.2205.01.5226.7C Arterial Level of Service: SB Hercules Avenue Arterial FlowRunningSignalTravelDistArterialArterial Cross Street Class SpeedTimeDelayTime (s)(mi)SpeedLOS Calumet Street (EastII 4033.13.436.50.3333.0B Drew Street II 40106.735.7142.41.1930.0B Total II 139.839.1178.91.5230.6B APPENDIX F - 4 of 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 72 of 79 Item # 2 APPENDIX G Turn Lane Warrants Attachment number 2 \nPage 73 of 79 Item # 2 Location: Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street West (Southbound Right-Turn Lane) AM Peak Hour Right-Turn Volume: 112 WThhld125 PM Peak Hour Right-Turn Volume: 71 WThhld125Warrant Threshold: 125 Warrant Threshold: 125 SOURCE: FDOT Driveway Handbook (March 2005) RESULT: Not Warranted MANUFACTURING FACILITY G-188 "PROJECT BANNER" Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation RAYSOR Transportation Consulting APPENDIX G - 1 of 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 74 of 79 Item # 2 Location: Hercules Avenue at Central Project Driveway (Southbound Right-Turn Lane) AM Peak Hour Right-Turn Volume: 1 WThhld125 PM Peak Hour Right-Turn Volume: 0 WThhld125Warrant Threshold: 125 Warrant Threshold: 125 SOURCE: FDOT Driveway Handbook (March 2005) RESULT: Not Warranted MANUFACTURING FACILITY G-188 "PROJECT BANNER" Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation RAYSOR Transportation Consulting APPENDIX G - 2 of 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 75 of 79 Item # 2 Location: Hercules Avenue at South Project Driveway (Southbound Right-Turn Lane) AM Peak Hour Right-Turn Volume: 0 WThhld125 PM Peak Hour Right-Turn Volume: 0 WThhld125Warrant Threshold: 125 Warrant Threshold: 125 SOURCE: FDOT Driveway Handbook (March 2005) RESULT: Not Warranted MANUFACTURING FACILITY G-188 "PROJECT BANNER" Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation RAYSOR Transportation Consulting APPENDIX G - 3 of 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 76 of 79 Item # 2 (1) AM Peak Hour Opposing Volume: 917 Lf TVl 116 (2) PM Peak Hour Opposing Volume: 469 Lf TVl 82 Location: Hercules Avenue at Calumet Street West (Northbound Left-Turn Lane) Left-Turn Volume: 116 Left-Turn Volume: 82 1 2 RESULT: Warranted SOURCE: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report #279 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting MANUFACTURING FACILITY G-188 "PROJECT BANNER" Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation APPENDIX G - 4 of 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 77 of 79 Item # 2 (1) AM Peak Hour Opposing Volume: 776 Lf TVl0 (2) PM Peak Hour Opposing Volume: 465 Lf TVl2 Location: Hercules Avenue at Central Project Driveway (Northbound Left-Turn Lane) Left-Turn Volume: 0 Left-Turn Volume: 2 1 2 RESULT: Not Warranted SOURCE: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report #279 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting MANUFACTURING FACILITY G-188 "PROJECT BANNER" Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation APPENDIX G - 5 of 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 78 of 79 Item # 2 (1) AM Peak Hour Opposing Volume: 776 Lf TVl0 (2) PM Peak Hour Opposing Volume: 470 Lf TVl0 Location: Hercules Avenue at South Project Driveway (Northbound Left-Turn Lane) Left-Turn Volume: 0 Left-Turn Volume: 0 1 2 RESULT: Not Warranted SOURCE: National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report #279 RAYSOR Transportation Consulting MANUFACTURING FACILITY G-188 "PROJECT BANNER" Right Turn Lane Warrant Evaluation APPENDIX G - 6 of 6 Attachment number 2 \nPage 79 of 79 Item # 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # 2 Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # 2 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Agreements between the City and Cigna Health and Life Insurance Company providing Administrative Services and Stop Loss Insurance for the period from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2014 at a total cost of approximately $1.8 million in accordance with the funding authorized by City Council on October 14, 2013, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: On October 14, 2013, City Council authorized the funding for City medical insurance under a partial self-insured arrangement with a one-year contract for third-party administrative services including stop loss insurance to be provided by Cigna. This request is for approval of the contracts between the City and Cigna for the provision of administrative services and for stop loss insurance projected to keep the City’s total medical insurance costs below the $15.8 million authorized by Council. The total cost of the Stop Loss Agreement is approximately $86,000 lower than initially estimated due to the recommended elimination of Aggregate Stop Loss coverage, as it is not anticipated that the City’s claims will approach the projected Minimum Attachment Point of $17.367 million, at which point the stop loss carrier would begin providing aggregate coverage. Appropriation Code Amount Appropriation Comment 0-590-07000-545600-519 $1.8M Included in $15.8M app'd by Council Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 26 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 4 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 5 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 6 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 7 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 8 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 9 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 10 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 11 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 12 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 13 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 14 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 15 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 16 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 17 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 18 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 19 of 20 Item # 3 Attachment number 2 \nPage 20 of 20 Item # 3 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve Concession Operations Agreement from March 1, 2014 through June 30, 2014 with Edward Bates, individually d/b/a Kinney’s Kitchen (Kinney's), to provide food concession services for programs and activities held at the EC Moore Softball Complex, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: On January 19, 2011, a Request for Bids for the operation of food concession services at EC Moore Softball Complex was issued and Kinney’s was the successful bidder. Kinney's has been providing concession services for the City sporting events primarily held at EC Moore Complex for the past several years. During this time, Kinney's has provided excellent service to users and visitors to the Complex. The current agreement with Kinney's ends in March of this year. In order to continue concession operations at EC Moore staff is requesting approval of this interim agreement from March 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014 in order to give staff sufficient time to prepare a new Request for Proposals (RFP) for concession services in accordance with purchasing guidelines. Kinney's will provide food concession services at EC Moore Softball Complex for City sponsored league games, special events and tournaments as well as providing portable concessions services at other athletic sites and facilities as needed and approved by Parks and Recreation Department Director. Under the Operations Agreement, Kinney's will pay a license fee of equal to $9,000 for the four months of operations. Staff is recommending shifting from a percent of gross sales to a flat monthly license fee since the financial oversight and reporting of the percent basis is difficult to manage and this assures the City of a set amount of revenue that can be budgeted in the general fund. Staff will bring a new Concessions Operations agreement back to the council in late May or early June once the RFP process is completed and a new contract negotiated. Fees received from Kinney’s in Fiscal Year 2010/11 were $20,706 and in 2011/12 was $ 23,796. Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Purchasing 5) Assistant City Manager 6) City Manager 7) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7 Item # 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 3 Item # 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 2 of 3 Item # 4 Attachment number 2 \nPage 3 of 3 Item # 4 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Update on Parks and Recreation Master Plan (WSO) SUMMARY: Review Approval:1) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 5 City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update 2013 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 64 Item # 5 2 Executive Summary The City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department completed a Master Plan in 2002 that proposed projects and programs for a twenty year time frame, until 2022. During the last eleven years, the City faced many changes not predicted in the original Master Plan, including unforeseen economic challenges. Additionally, Penny for Pinellas funding will be available in the next several years, prompting a review of priorities and impacts identified in the 2002 Master Plan. The City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation system is robust, providing important parks and programs to Clearwater’s residents and visitors. The City of Clearwater provides integral programs through both direct service delivery and its many partnerships. This facilitator model allows the City of Clearwater to deliver a large volume of programs efficiently and effectively. The Master Plan update approach contained both detailed analysis and a robust community engagement process. To create a systematic framework for reviewing and updating the 2002 Master Plan, the following items were evaluated and considered: • Benefits of Parks and Recreation • Demographic Trend Analysis • Community Engagement • Existing Conditions Analysis & Prioritization Using the results of this analysis and process, a Mission, Vision, Guiding Principles and Action Plan were created. These items will guide the programs and projects of the Parks and Recreation Department for the next 10 years. Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 64 Item # 5 3 Acknowledgements The City of Clearwater’s 2013 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update is a City of Clearwater document. It has been prepared by the City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department, in coordination with members of the community. The City of Clearwater would like to thank the individuals who participated in the 2013 Parks and Recreation Master Plan Stakeholder Advisory Committee for their assistance in the development of this plan. Additional thanks goes to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board as well as to all of the people of Clearwater who participated in surveys, meetings, and provided their comments during the plan development. Clearwater City Council George N. Cretekos , Mayor Paul F. Gibson, Vice-Mayor Doreen Hock-DiPolito Jay Polglaze Bill Jonson City of Clearwater Senior Administration William S. Horne,II City Manager Jill Silverboard, Assistant City Manager Rod Irwin, Assistant City Manager City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Staff Kevin Dunbar, Director Art Kader, Assistant Director Project Manager Felicia Leonard AICP Associate Project Managers Juanita Ferrer and Robert Eastman Johnson Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 64 Item # 5 4 Stakeholder Advisory Committee Anne Garris, The Friends of Clearwater Beach Recreation Paul Cozzie, Pinellas County Parks and Conservation Resources Bob Clifford, Clearwater Chamber of Commerce Darlene Kole, Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce JoAnna Siskin, Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition Lynn Sumerson, Environmental Services Advisory Board Judy Warren, Juvenile Welfare Board Joann Nesbitt, MLK Neighborhood Family Center John Timberlake, Philadelphia Phillies and Clearwater Threshers Scott Goyer, Suncoast YMCA Jean Ann Hughes, Clearwater for Youth Jason Mastropietro, Moccasin Lake Master Plan Advisory Committee Jack Colgan, Clearwater Volunteers Paul Goldman, Clearwater Volunteers Dan Wood, Presidents’ Council of Co-Sponsor Groups Rachel Walters, Presidents’ Council of Co-Sponsor Groups Brad Adams, Presidents’ Council of Co-Sponsor Groups Jim Appelt, Presidents’ Council of Co-Sponsor Groups Candace Gardner, Park & Recreation Advisory Board Brooks Hammac, Park & Recreation Advisory Board Norene Marlow, Park & Recreation Advisory Board Ric Ortega, Park & Recreation Advisory Board Ray Shaw, Park & Recreation Advisory Board Jerry Thompson , Park & Recreation Advisory Board Allen Weatherilt, Park & Recreation Advisory Board Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 64 Item # 5 5 Table of Contents Executive Summary ......................................................... 2 Acknowledgements ......................................................... 3 Benefits of Parks and Recreation .................................... 8 Clearwater Demographics............................................. 14 Community Engagement .............................................. 17 Vision and Mission ........................................................ 23 Guiding Principles ......................................................... 24 Existing Conditions ........................................................ 26 Action Items .................................................................. 42 Appendices .................................................................... 64 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 64 Item # 5 6 List of Figures Figure 1: Benefits of Human Health (Pictures) Figure 2: Environmental Benefits (Pictures) Figure 3: Social Capital (Pictures) Figure 4: Projected Clearwater Population Percentage by Age (2012- 2040) Figure 5: Clearwater Population Percentages, 2012 vs 2040 Figure 6: Clearwater Demographic Map by Median Age (2012) Figure 7: Neighborhood Parks Coverage Area Figure 8: Community Parks Coverage Area (3 mile radius) Figure 9: Community Parks Coverage Area (2.5 mile radius) Figure 10: Clearwater Basketball Courts Figure 11: Clearwater Recreational Centers Figure 12: Clearwater Diamond Fields (Softball/ Baseball) Figure 13: Clearwater Dog Parks Figure 14: Clearwater Golf Courses Figure 15: Clearwater Multipurpose Square Fields (Soccer/ Football/ Lacrosse) Figure 16: Clearwater Playgrounds Figure 17: Clearwater Pool Facilities Figure 18: Clearwater Tennis Courts Figure 19: Clearwater Volleyball Courts Figure 20: Clearwater Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 64 Item # 5 7 List of Tables Table 1: How do we compare to National and State Guidelines? Table 2: Population Criteria for Community Parks Table 3: Population Criteria for Neighborhood Parks Table 4: Age of Facilities Criteria Table 5: Comfort Criteria Table 6: Criteria for Usability and Improvements in Community Parks Table 7: Criteria for Usability and Improvements in Neighborhood Parks Table 8: Prioritization list of Community Parks Table 9: Prioritization list of Neighborhood Parks Table 10: Capital Improvement Project Priorities Table 11: Future Penny for Pinellas (IV) Candidate Projects Table 12: Program Priorities Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 64 Item # 5 8 Benefits of Parks and Recreation For master planning purposes and community engagement, it is important to generally recognize the benefits of parks and recreation. Park and recreation systems provide many benefits to a community. Some of these benefits are intuitive such as providing green space for outdoor activities, sports activities, leisure activities and cultural events. Others, such as the financial benefits are more difficult to understand. Several studies have analyzed how these seemingly qualitative benefits can be quantitatively measured in order to be understood as socioeconomic factors. This section will discuss these factors divided in four main categories: • Human Health • Environmental • Financial Benefits • Social Capital Perhaps one of the best sources for understanding the benefits associated with parks are the reports by The Trust for Public Land (TPL). TPL is the only national conservation association dedicated to protecting land in and near cities for people to enjoy as parks, playgrounds and other public spaces. Their reports provide a comprehensive review and synthesis of the most current research associated with parks and recreation. This section will provide a summary of some of the TPL reports as well as current research relevant to local conditions and specific to the City of Clearwater. Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 64 Item # 5 9 Benefits to Human Health Figure 1: Benefits to Human Health. Top: North Greenwood Recreation Center. Bottom Left: Countryside Recreation Center. Bottom Right: The Long Center Volumes of research have been conducted on the benefits to human health from accessibility to parks and recreational facilities. Access to recreation and sports opportunities promotes physical and mental health for both adults and children. Studies indicate that almost half of Americans do not get the recommended minimum amount of daily physical activity, which can lead to complications such as obesity or a propensity for chronic illnesses. According to the Pinellas County Health Department, 65.6% of the adult population in the county is either overweight or obese. Additionally, the leading causes of death in Pinellas in 2011 were cancer and heart disease. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (CLRD) and diabetes are also among the top ten leading causes of death in the county. As illnesses like diabetes are aggravated by unhealthy lifestyles, Clearwater Parks and Recreation can, and should, play a role in improving the levels of physical activity in the community, which can have positive impacts on the overall health of the population. Having better health also translates into medical savings for the individual and community. In addition to physical health, several studies have analyzed the impacts of green space access to mental health. These studies have determined that contact with nature can play a role in relieving symptoms of depression, anxiety, and can increase feelings of peacefulness, tranquility and relaxation. Based on community surveys conducted by the Pinellas County Health Department, over 50% of the population considers addiction (including alcohol and drug abuse) as the top behavior of concern in the community. From 2009-2011, suicide rates in Pinellas County exceeded the state average. Promoting access to natural space in Clearwater could become part of comprehensive addiction and mental health treatment initiatives. Considering the average median age of 43.8 years of the City of Clearwater, it is essential for the City to provide spaces for recreation for seniors. Some studies, such as The Creativity and Aging Study conducted by Dr. Gene Cohen, have analyzed the impact that cultural programs have on the physical and mental health and social activities of persons aged 65 and older. The results from this study indicate that individuals involved in regular arts and cultural activities had better health, fewer doctor visits, less medication use, better mental health and more social involvement. Cultural activities were found to have direct impacts on health promotion and disease prevention, as well as reducing several risk factors that drive the need for long term care. Attachment number 1 \nPage 9 of 64 Item # 5 10 Environmental Benefits Figure 2: Environmental Benefits. Top: Crest Lake Park. Bottom: Moccasin Lake Nature Park There are many environmental benefits provided by natural parks and green spaces within a city. Some of the most important benefits include stormwater retention/ flood mitigation, air pollution control and habitat and biodiversity conservation. Stormwater Retention Green spaces play a significant role in reducing stormwater management costs by capturing rain and reducing urban runoff. Natural green areas are pervious allowing rainfall able to permeate the ground and recharge the groundwater. In contrast, much of the built landscape is impervious. Precipitation does not infiltrate to the ground, so there is a need for stormwater infrastructure (pipes, sewers, holding tanks) to avoid flooding conditions or accumulation of runoff. Because of the high level of urbanization in the city (over 98.1%), parks and open space help mitigate runoff by providing the space to capture rainwater. The open green space within the City of Clearwater is estimated to comprise around 5% of the total area. In addition, the Parks and Recreation Department plays a role in reducing water consumption in the City by using native and Florida Friendly landscaping within its properties wherever practicable. Air Quality Trees and green spaces in parks help improve air quality within urban environments. Trees remove pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and ozone. In addition, some trees can store over 100 pounds of carbon dioxide in a year, helping to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and reducing urban heat island effects. Clearwater maintains approximately 40,000 hardwood trees just in city-owned lands. Habitat and Biodiversity Natural parks and water bodies within the City of Clearwater provide much needed habitat to some of the region’s native fauna and flora. In addition, environmental parks like Moccasin Lake Nature Park provide educational opportunities such as nature camps, bird- watching tours and butterfly gardens. Providing spaces for natural habitats contributes to the biodiversity of the region, which increases the overall ecosystem health and has a positive impact on the region’s water sources quality. Attachment number 1 \nPage 10 of 64 Item # 5 11 Social Capital Figure 3: Social Capital. Top: Clearwater Beach. Bottom Left: The Long Center. Bottom Right: North Greenwood Recreation Center. Parks and park facilities offer communities ideal places to gather, meet neighbors and build relationships. Several studies demonstrate that communities with strong community ties are safer, more resilient and successful. Community Building Diverse sports, recreation and cultural activities are available throughout the City. Recreation centers provide a safe haven for children and teens through athletic and educational programs. Seniors can also take advantage of fitness centers, art classes and recreation activities. In addition, annual events supported by the City of Clearwater, such as Clearwater Celebrates America, provide affordable opportunities for families in addition to strengthening the City’s cultural identity. Volunteerism The City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provides ample opportunities for adult and youth volunteers. Over 3,000 volunteers participate in activities such as beautification projects, event organization and logistics and educational activities like summer camps and after-school tutoring. Participating in volunteer activities is important for building a sense of community. Volunteer opportunities develop citizenship and can provide valuable experience applicable. In 2012, volunteers contributed a total of 40,221 hours to parks and recreation initiatives in Clearwater. Public Safety Natural parks that are well maintained and have high levels of activity can positively impact crime. In addition, providing youth with opportunities for safe recreation can help to reduce crime activity. By improving the quality of parks and recreation amenities in Clearwater, especially in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods, the Parks and Recreation Department can have a positive impact on crime rates, and thus improve the overall quality of life of the City. Developing Partnership Resources The City of Clearwater is a leader in the industry in developing appropriate partnerships to facilitate the provision of services. Parks and recreation offers several recreation opportunities and programs that are accessible to the public through its many partnerships with public and non-public organizations, such as Ruth Eckerd Hall, Philadelphia Phillies, Baycare Health system, Juvenile Welfare Board, MLK Jr Neighborhood Family Center, Clearwater for Youth, and many others. Attachment number 1 \nPage 11 of 64 Item # 5 12 Financial Benefits The quality of life and health benefits of parks are easily justified and, for most people, they are intuitive and self-evident. Less obvious however, are the economic benefits that parks and recreation bring to a community. Due to the fiscal constraints of many municipalities, the cost of operating and maintaining parks and recreational facilities may seem like an unworthy investment with low economic return. However, based on several studies, this is far from the truth, as there are a series of attributes of parks that provide quantifiable economic benefits to a city. In 2003, The Trust for Public Land (TPL) published a report summarizing the many financial benefits of parks. These benefits include among others, increased property tax revenues, increased tourism and direct use savings. Property Tax Revenues Several studies have analyzed the impact that natural parks have on property values. These studies have found that in general, proximity to parks and open spaces leads to higher property values, and thus to higher property tax revenues for cities. The main factors associated to parks that influence property values are distance from the park and quality of the park. Environmental parks rich in trees, water features, trails and gardens have the greatest affect on property values. In contrast, parks that are poorly maintained, or that are perceived as unsafe, can reduce nearby property values, highlighting the importance of park maintenance. The TPL estimates that in average, proximity within 500 feet of high quality parks increases the assessed value of a property by 5%. In Clearwater, this is most evident by the impact that the beach, maintained by Parks and Recreation, has on adjacent property values. For Clearwater Beach (zip code 33767), the average single-home residential parcel value is $565,416.47, while the average value for single-home properties within 500 ft of the beach is $912,491.06. Tourism The City of Clearwater, where most tourism occurs mainly because of the city’s recreation amenities, benefits directly from increased sale and tourism-related taxes. According to a St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention & Visitors Bureau 2011 report, over 13.7 million visitors visited the St. Pete/ Clearwater area. Based on visitor surveys, the overwhelming reasons for visiting the area are the weather (89% of respondents) and the award-winning beaches (87.4%). Tourism is the driving force of Clearwater’s/St. Pete’s economy, and it is also the top employer. There are 84,400 tourism- related jobs in the area. Annual visitor spending is estimated at $6,755,432,714, which represents $3,302,085,200 in visitor-generated wages. In addition, the State, County and local municipalities benefit from Hotel Bed Tax collections which generate over $26 million in taxes annually. Parks and Recreation plays a decisive role in fostering the tourism industry by organizing events and partnering with local industry interests. For instance, the 2013 Bright House Clearwater Super Boat National Championship, which took place on September 27-29 2013, was attended by 180,000 people and is estimated to have had a total economic impact of $17,868,000. Attachment number 1 \nPage 12 of 64 Item # 5 13 Direct Use Savings Another important economic benefit of parks is not related to municipal revenues, but rather to the savings provided to residents due to the free or low-cost access to recreation amenities. If public parks were not accessible, residents willing to participate in recreation activities would need to spend additional money to purchase these services. Although it is likely that many recreation activities (like going for a casual walk in the park) would not take place if they were not free, economists calculate “direct use savings” by focusing on the concept of “how much would a person be willing to pay for a certain benefit” to better approximate the real savings of accessibility to parkland. For instance, the Clearwater Country Club daily rates for public access range from $25 to $33. In contrast, private golf clubs in the county rely on annual memberships and don’t allow public access on a day-to-day basis. In the event purchasing such a membership was prohibitively expensive, the individual would not be able to enjoy their recreation activity of choice, negatively affecting their perception of quality of life. Another example is Clearwater’s Play Pass. For an annual rate of $110, a resident can enjoy unlimited access to the City’s fitness centers, open gyms and pools, as compared to joining a private fitness center which can cost anywhere from $20-$60 per month, and up to $460+ annually. For further reading on the many benefits associated with access to parks and recreation, please refer to the studies referenced in Appendix A. Attachment number 1 \nPage 13 of 64 Item # 5 14 Clearwater Demographics In order to propose appropriate programs and projects within the parks and recreation system, it is extremely important to analyze the City’s present and future demographics. Based on the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR), as of 2013, the City of Clearwater has an estimated population of 109,065, which represents an increase of 1,159 from the population estimates for 2012 of 108,732. Although these estimates indicate a small increase in population during the last couple of years, population projections for upcoming decades indicate the population is expected to decline to around 104,255 residents by the year 2040. Age According to the US World and News Report, the City of Clearwater is second only to Scottsdale, AZ among the top cities in the nation with the oldest median ages. The estimated median age for Clearwater is 43.8, which is much higher than the national average of 37.2 years. Several sources, including the Pinellas County Department of Economic Development, estimate that the median age in Clearwater will continue to rise, and it is expected to be 45.5 years by 2017. The rising median age trend is usually attributed to older residents relocating to local communities that cater to seniors, and that have low state and local tax rates, and no State income tax. Based on the population estimates for 2012, the current population distribution reflects the high median age of the city with 31.5% of residents aged 60 and above, and 21.4% between the ages of 45-59. Only 14.6% of the population are children under the age of 14. Based on population projections, the current age distribution will remain fairly consistent in the upcoming decades: by 2040, 32% of the population will be 60 and up, 17% will be between 45-59, and a slightly larger percent than current estimates (16%) will be children under the age of 14 (Figures 4 &5). Figure 4: Projected Population Percentage 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 2012 2020 2030 2040 Pe r c e n t Year Projected Clearwater Population Percentages by Age (2012-2040) 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Age 14.6% 16.3% 16.3%21.4% 31.5% 2012 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 Age Group Attachment number 1 \nPage 14 of 64 Item # 5 15 Figure 5: Population Percentages 2012 vs 2040 The Clearwater Demographic Map, Figure 6 (on the next page) illustrates the median age by census track as defined by the US Census Bureau. As demonstrated by the map, the area with the lowest median age is bordered by Drew and Maple Streets, in between Missouri and Myrtle Avenue. The areas with an older demographic include the beach and retirement communities, while younger demographics are found along SR-60 (Gulf-to-Bay) and US Highway 19. Race, Poverty and other Demographics According to the US Census Bureau, the City of Clearwater has a population that is overwhelmingly white, comprising 79.8% of the total population. African Americans comprise 10.9%, with smaller percentages of Asians, American Indians, and people of mixed descent. Individuals identified as Hispanic of Latino, regardless of race, comprise 14.2% of the population. The median household income as of 2011 is estimated as $41,986, which is lower than the national median income of $50,502. 15.5% of the population in the City is estimated to live below the poverty line. Sources: Estimates and projections by Shimberg Center for Housing Studies, based on 2000, 2010 U.S. Census data & 2011 American Community Survey; population projections by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research, University of Florida. 16% 18% 17%17% 32% 2040 0-14 15-29 30-44 45-59 60+ Age Group Attachment number 1 \nPage 15 of 64 Item # 5 16 Figure 6: Clearwater Demographic Map by Median Age Attachment number 1 \nPage 16 of 64 Item # 5 17 Community Engagement The City of Clearwater is deeply committed to creating a comprehensive and open community process to ensure residents, user groups, associations and other stakeholders provide helpful input toward the development of their city’s parks and recreation system. The information gathered as part of the Community Engagement process was used in the formulation of recommendations of this Master Plan. During the planning process, Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department targeted a minimum participation level of 383 residents; an adequate sample size calculated using the National Statistical Society’s Calculator and the 2013 US Census Bureau population estimate of 108,732. In order to reach the sample size goal, the following community participation strategies were implemented: • Established a Stakeholder Advisory Committee • Established an Internal Stakeholder Committee • Hosted five Community Workshops • Conducted a Mail Survey Using these strategies, the target sample size was not only reached but surpassed, with a total of 625 people participating through at least one the community engagement formats. The sample size of 625 ensures a confidence level of over 95%. 1. Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) Four meetings were held with the SAC in order to discuss ideas, action plans and implementation. The following organizations were represented on the SAC: • Presidents’ Council of co-sponsor groups • Clearwater for Youth • Clearwater Volunteers • Juvenile Welfare Board • Clearwater Chamber of Commerce • Park & Recreation Advisory Board • Suncoast YMCA • Philadelphia Phillies • Friends of Clearwater Beach Recreation Center • Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce • Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition • Pinellas County Parks and Recreation • MLK Neighborhood Family Center • Moccasin Lake Master Plan Advisory Committee • Environmental Services Advisory Board 2. Internal Stakeholder Review An internal stakeholder review was conducted in order to review the plan’s recommendations. The plan was reviewed by the following departments: Attachment number 1 \nPage 17 of 64 Item # 5 18 • Planning • Police • Library • Office of Management and Budget • Economic Development • Information Technology • General Services • Engineering 3. Community Workshops In addition to the SAC meetings, five community workshops were hosted in order to allow residents throughout Clearwater to participate in person. The community workshops were held on the following dates and locations: • August 21: Ross Norton Recreation and Aquatic Complex, 1426 S. MLK, Jr. Avenue • August 22: North Greenwood Recreation and Aquatic Complex, 900 N. MLK, Jr. Avenue • August 28: Clearwater Beach Recreation Center, 69 Bay Esplanade • September 3: Countryside Recreation Center, 2640 Sabal Springs Drive • September 4: Aging Well Center at the Long Center, 1501 N. Belcher Road A station format was utilized for each workshop allowing time for questions and the collection of data at each station. The stations included the presentation of: • Proposed Park Classifications • Level of Service for Outdoor Facilities • Neighborhood Park Prioritization • General Comments • Testimonies Participants had the opportunity to understand the importance of parks and recreation in context to our greater community, while commenting and assessing current conditions. Staff members at each station explained the topic information, answered questions and encouraged comments. Approximately 110 individuals participated in the community workshops. Of these, an estimated 80% are direct residents of Clearwater (based on zip-code information) with most of the remaining participants coming from the adjacent areas of Dunedin, Palm Harbor, Safety Harbor and East Lake. The majority of participants (56%) were in the age range 60+. 29% of participants were between the ages of 30-50, and 15% were under the age of 30. The complete report of results for the Community Workshops can be found in Appendix B. 4. Mail Survey To achieve a truly random sample, a mail survey was also conducted. The survey asked a variety of questions such as: what kind of parks or facilities participants prefer, what amenities they liked to see, and what facilities in their area need renovations and upgrades. A total of 3,000 households located in Clearwater were randomly selected to receive the survey. About 17% (~500) of the 3,000 Attachment number 1 \nPage 18 of 64 Item # 5 19 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the approximately 2,500 households presumed to have received a survey, 490 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 20%. The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) was ±4 percentage points. Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender and type of housing situation (presence or absence of children in the household) were represented in the proportions reflective of the Clearwater adult population. The complete report for the mail survey results can be found in Appendix C. Summary of Community Workshop and Mail Survey Results For the most part, the results from the mail survey mirrored the results obtained during the community workshops. The percentages showing support vary slightly, but the majority of the top responses remain consistent. The greatest difference between both surveys appears to be the increased support for senior related activities in the workshop versus the mail survey. This may be explained by the skewed median age of the participants of the workshops, as 56% of these participants were citizens older than 60, which is much higher than Clearwater’s percentage of senior citizens (31.5%). Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation The top two mission statements for parks and recreation that most resonated with residents were “to provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve physical health” and “to provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger)”. Both of these mission statements were considered essential by over 68% of respondents of both surveys. “Providing green and natural spaces within the community” was also a mission statement showing a majority of support on both surveys (over 58%). The main difference between the surveys was that in the workshop survey the mission “to provide recreational, social and health opportunities for older adults” was among the top three choices. In contrast, the mail survey response was “to promote a more beautiful community and greater sense of place” was a mission of higher importance. The surveys asked which population group was the most important to be served by recreational programming. The top choices on both surveys were Children, Teenagers, Families as a group, Adults, Senior Residents, and People with Disabilities. On the workshop survey, the highest priority was given to senior adults (54% of participants considered it essential), while in the mail survey the highest priority was given to Teenagers (ages 13-19) (49% “essential”) and Children (ages 6-12) (43% “essential”). The target population given the lowest importance on both surveys was non-residents (<10%). In both surveys, the recreation activities regarded as most important for the City of Clearwater to provide were community events, wellness/fitness programs, aquatics and sports teams and lessons (>25% considered essential). The activity considered the least important to provide was gymnastics (<10% support on both surveys). The surveys asked about the importance of some of the specific community events sponsored by the Clearwater Parks and Attachment number 1 \nPage 19 of 64 Item # 5 20 Recreation Department. The top events considered “essential” or “very important” by a majority (58%+) of the respondents of both surveys are: Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training, Clearwater Threshers, Turkey Trot, Jazz Holiday, Clearwater Celebrates America, and Clearwater Fun N' Sun Festival Weekend. In both surveys, the event that was considered of the lowest importance is “Tri Rock”. The respondents were given a series of paired statements from which they were to choose the one that best represented how they felt. For all questions except for one, the selected choice is the same for the mail and the workshop surveys (with varying degrees of support). The selected choices are as follows: • Parks and recreation should be run based on a human-services model as opposed to a business-oriented one. • Recreation programs should be offered at all levels (beginner to advanced) as opposed to only at beginner and intermediate levels. • Landscaping should be beautifully maintained as opposed to landscapes that require minimal or no maintenance. • Playgrounds are preferred to be larger in size serving the entire community as opposed to smaller serving only neighborhoods. • There should be diversity in recreational offerings (arts, yoga, etc), as opposed to focusing only on popular sports and fitness. • Facilities should be available for drop- in use as opposed to being scheduled around planned activities. • When facing budget cuts, it is preferred to lower the levels of service than to eliminate programs and facilities completely. • The City should serve our current and projected demographic, instead of trying to attract younger families. • Courts should be lit at both special use facilities and neighborhood parks, as opposed to exclusively at special facilities or exclusively at neighborhood parks. • It is preferred to have restrooms only at high-use facilities vs. at all neighborhood and special use parks. • Events at Coachman Park should be large events that attract visitors, instead of smaller events serving primarily residents, or the idea of completely eliminating the events. The only difference between the mail survey and the workshop survey results was a question inquiring on whether the City should provide activities that complement community offerings but not duplicate them, versus providing activities as requested by residents, regardless of whether other agencies within the community provide them. In the mail survey, not duplicating activities showed majority support, while in the workshop survey meeting the residents’ requests had stronger support. Attachment number 1 \nPage 20 of 64 Item # 5 21 Purpose of Parks and Recreation Both surveys asked participants to rank the purposes of parks and recreation. “Providing places for children to play on playground equipment” and “providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat” were identified as two of the most essential purposes of Clearwater’s parks in both surveys. The mail survey identified “Providing a place to walk or jog” among the top three more important purposes, while the workshop survey identified instead “providing visual green spaces within the city” as highly important. The least important purpose was found to be “providing annual flower plantings” (considered essential by less than 12% of respondents in both surveys). Parks and Recreation Use The surveys were also used to assess resident use of a variety of parks and recreation offerings. For each activity or facility, respondents indicated whether, in the last year, they or anyone in their household had participated in any of the listed activities. The activities that had the highest participation rates were walking, running or jogging in a park, swimming, fishing, relaxing or having a social event at the beach, attending an event at Bright House Networks Field or Ruth Eckerd Hall, attending a community event and using the Pinellas or Ream Wilson trails. In the workshop survey, “dropping-in for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc)” had a high participation rate, while in the mail survey “relaxing in a park” was one of the highest ranked activities. The activities that the least number of respondents had participated in included shuffleboard (mail survey) and using a skate park (workshop survey). The surveys also inquired on the importance of providing various activities and facilities within the City. For the most part, the rating of importance reflected participation levels with providing beach facilities for swimming and recreation being the most highly ranked in both surveys. Interestingly, in both the mail and workshop surveys, “playing at a playground” was not among the activities with the highest participation levels, but it was considered as one of the most important facilities to offer. In the workshop survey, providing “parks and nature parks” and providing community events, were considered of high importance. The mail survey responses proved more specific, as they indicated Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail and Bright House Networks Field, as very important amenities. The activities considered the least important were shuffleboard (mail survey) and skate parks (workshop survey). Residents’ Perspectives on Funding When asked whether the funding for operating the costs of facilities and programs should come primarily through fees or taxes, the majority of respondents (62%+) from both surveys indicated that taxes should pay for the majority, with user fees funding the remaining costs. Funding operating costs exclusively through fees was opposed by an overwhelming majority (less than 5% support in both surveys). Alternative funding strategies such as supplementing operating costs via different revenue sources such as grants, donation and taxes showed overwhelming support from the Attachment number 1 \nPage 21 of 64 Item # 5 22 community (over 86% in both surveys).Other alternatives such as using profitable programs such as sports leagues to help pay for less profitable ones, and higher fees for non- residents participating in recreation programs also received strong support with over 72% of respondents of both surveys agreeing with these premises. Preferences for Options to Reduce the Parks and Recreation Budget When making tough budget choices, respondents from both surveys supported eliminating some community events, reducing recreation facility operating hours, and eliminating some athletic fields (Although the support did not reflect an overwhelming majority, ranging from 42%- 56%). In the mail survey, reducing cultural programs was also shown relative support, while in the workshop survey greater support was indicated for reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians. The budget reductions most opposed by respondents include reducing beach maintenance (mail survey) and reducing programs that serve senior adults (workshop survey, again reflecting the workshops’ demographics). Attachment number 1 \nPage 22 of 64 Item # 5 23 Vision and Mission The following Mission and Vision statements were articulated for the purposes of this 2013 Master Plan Update, and were created by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee based on the results of the Community Engagement process. The purpose of these statements is to provide a framework by which the Parks and Recreation Department will provide programs and services. The statements are as follows: Mission Clearwater Parks and Recreation creates diverse and outstanding recreational, natural and cultural experiences within our community to enrich the quality of life for all of our current residents and for future generations. We preserve, enhance and protect our open spaces as safe and secure environments. Vision The Parks and Recreation Department pledges to: • Provide stewardship of our city’s natural, cultural, and historical resources. • Provide recreational opportunities in a leisure environment. • Provide the highest standard of excellence in public service through cooperative partnership with our diverse community. • Equitably distribute resources throughout the City. Attachment number 1 \nPage 23 of 64 Item # 5 24 Guiding Principles The Stakeholder Advisory Committee established the following principles to provide guidance for the vision for the future of each park in terms of its design, development, programming, maintenance and operations. These guidelines are to be considered in each phase of project development and operation. 1. Understand and Enhance the Character of the Park Sense of Place Sense of place describes an emotional connection with the landscape. It is important to understand what makes each park unique and how it integrates into the character of the surrounding community. Resident Needs Each park should meet local recreation needs, enhance public health by promoting regular exercise, and strengthen the social fabric of the local community by providing places to gather with family and friends. Current Infrastructure Before adding site improvements, current recreational facilities and the communities being served by those facilities will be considered, and current resources will be maximized (if practicable). 2. Create, Preserve and Maintain Natural Communities Ecological Support Parks provide critical ecological support to Clearwater’s environment, including water and air quality, flood protection, pollination and nutrient recycling. Natural Lands Management Management of natural lands should focus first on the integrity of natural communities and landscape connectivity. Volunteer Stewardship Volunteers gain a sense of personal ownership in the natural communities in the park and surrounding community and provide valuable labor that reduces operational costs. 3. Help People Become Healthier Provide a Variety of Park Activities and Programming A diverse variety of programs will foster new skills and a feeling of safety and social support that will encourage people to increase their physical activity. Ensure that the Park is Easily Accessible A park can benefit people if they are aware of the park’s offerings and understand how to use them. The park should be easy to find. Develop and Maximize Partnerships Development of a park that promotes physical activity and produces measureable results requires a diverse set of skills and resources. Partnering with hospitals, private foundations and other governmental entities is invaluable in creating and maintaining a healthy population. Attachment number 1 \nPage 24 of 64 Item # 5 25 4. Develop Facilities that Protect and Improve the Environment Incorporate Sustainable Design Practices The objectives of sustainable design practices are to reduce consumption of non-renewable resources, minimize waste and create healthy, productive environments. Incorporate Operational Practices that Protect the Environment Design site facilities to help conserve energy where possible. Understand the Environmental History of the Site Review of environmental reports and any environmental contamination history will help guide facility development that creates safe recreational use and prevents release of contaminants. 5. Improve Access to Recreation Welcome Everyone Clearwater residents vary in ethnic diversity, socioeconomic status, age, interest and physical ability. Diversity of the people who use and enjoy our parks should be valued. Residents should be first priority, and that should be reflected in any user fee structure. Principles of Universal Design Consider the quality of the park experience and convenience of use to provide benefit to all people, regardless of age or ability. Maximize Access within the Park Establish a safe, clearly-marked, high-quality circulation network within the park to accommodate pedestrians, vehicular drivers, cyclists and other non-motorized vehicle users and those with special needs. Promote Local and Regional Connections Trails and non-motorized access to the park should be integrated into both regional and local plans for trail connectivity. Be a Regional Recreational Destination and support Sports Tourism Identify and enhance park features that are unique on a regional level to increase the number of visitors to sports-related events. Attachment number 1 \nPage 25 of 64 Item # 5 26 Existing Conditions Analysis Part of the master planning process is to examine the existing facilities to ascertain where gaps and/or surpluses may be evident. This master plan update examined the level of service of our park system in regards to the classification and geographic coverage of parks in Clearwater as well as the type and number of outdoor recreation facilities that are provided. This section details the results of these two analyses. Level of Service Analysis – Classification and Geographic Coverage In order to assess whether the number and type of parks within the current system is adequate, Clearwater’s park system was evaluated using state and federal guidelines. The National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) and the Florida Statewide Outdoor Comprehensive Recreation Plan (SCORP) have both developed guidelines for the appropriate classification of parks and recreational facilities in a city. These guidelines help define the type of park, size and recommended population served. Using the guidelines, the following classifications were defined for the City of Clearwater: • Open Space Parks: Spaces that are generally open land with natural or aesthetic landscaping and no amenities. Open spaces are often designed to help mitigate water runoff and provide a visual and psychological relief from urban development. These spaces serve the residents of the entire city. • Neighborhood Parks: These parks have a design that may include playgrounds, outdoor courts, picnic areas, open space and landscaping. Neighborhood parks are intended to serve a geographic area of a one mile radius. • Community Parks: Community parks offer amenities that cater to an entire community. These parks are typically large in geographic area, include amenities found in a neighborhood park, but also include a staffed recreation center. They may include swimming pools and facilities for cultural activities. These parks are intended to serve a geographic area within a three mile radius. • Environmental Parks: Environmental parks are important because they provide a balance of ecological diversity and wildlife. These parks support nature, cultural and history programs, and nature watching. Typically trails, educational programs and facilities are included. Environmental Parks are intended to serve the entire community. • Special Use Facilities: These facilities provide large scale user-orientated recreational activities such as sports complexes, tennis complexes, golf courses, docks, stadiums, beaches and performing arts venues. Based on these guidelines, the City of Clearwater conducted an inventory of the City’s parks and recreational facilities and classified each facility appropriately. This inventory identified a total of 110 facilities of which there are: • 23 Open Space Parks • 26 Neighborhood Parks • 5 Community Parks Attachment number 1 \nPage 26 of 64 Item # 5 27 • 29 Environmental Parks • 27 Special Facilities For a full list of the Park facilities please refer to Appendix D. Park Coverage After the classification of each of the park facilities, the NRPA and SCORP guidelines were again used to conduct a geographic analysis of the service area of the Neighborhood and Community parks in order to identify how well the population is being served. Figure 7: Neighborhood Parks Coverage Area (1 mile) For the Neighborhood parks, the service area was defined as a one-mile buffer around the park’s perimeter. As can be seen in Figure 7, the level of service for Neighborhood parks comprises a large percentage of the city’s extent with only small areas in Clearwater’s service area not included. The area south of Lakeview Road (in between Highland and Eastfield Avenues) is unincorporated leaving only a small service gap north of SR-580. Attachment number 1 \nPage 27 of 64 Item # 5 When evaluating the Community Parks, the service area per the guidelines is defined as a three mile buffer around each park. The geographic analysis demonstrated that the entire city was serviced using a three mile buffer from each of the parks (Figure 8). A second analysis was done using a smaller 2.5 mile buffer, which also determined that the overwhelming majority of the City is within this distance from any of the existing community parks (Figure 9). The level of service regarding the number of parks and their geographic coverage within the City of Clearwater’s population is excellent. A very large majority of the residents are within 1 mile of a neighborhood park and 2.5 miles of a community park. Figure 8: Community Parks Coverage Area (3 miles) Attachment number 1 \nPage 28 of 64 Item # 5 29 Figure 9: Community Parks Coverage Area (2.5 miles) Attachment number 1 \nPage 29 of 64 Item # 5 30 Level of Service Analysis - Outdoor Facilities In addition to the Level-of Service guidelines for the type and number of park facilities, the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) also provides a series of guidelines specific to the recommended number and type of outdoor facilities. These guidelines use population size as the parameter on which to base the number of outdoor recreational facilities, such as basketball courts and playgrounds, that should be available within a City. For instance, the NRPA recommends that cities should provide one basketball court per every 7,340 residents*. In a similar way, the Florida Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) also outlines a series of guidelines for natural, bike and equestrian trail mileage, based on the number of users. For example, SCORP guidelines indicate that there should be 1 mile of bike trails for every 2,000 trail users within a municipality. In an effort to determine how the City of Clearwater measures to these national and state guidelines, an analysis was conducted of the number and type of outdoor facilities and trails throughout the City. This analysis, combined with specific demographic and socio- economic profile of the City of Clearwater, along with the Community Engagement results served to identify potential service gaps and surpluses in the recreation offerings. Table 1: Clearwater Outdoor Recreational Facilities, How We Compare To National And State Guidelines? TYPE OF FACILITY GUIDELINES RECOMMENDED CLEARWATER SERVICE GAP/ SURPLUS Basketball Courts 1 court per 7,340 15 22 7 Recreation Centers 1 center per 24,683* 4 7 3 Diamond fields (Baseball/Softball) 1 field per 2,900* 37 34 -3 Dog Parks 1 park per 43,333 3 3 0 Golf course (9 hole) 1 course per 24,952* 4 6 2 Multipurpose Fields (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse) 1 field per 3,783* 29 18 -11 Playgrounds 1 per 3,364 [Ages 0- 14]* 5 27 22 Swimming Pools Indoor 1 pool per 47,800* 2 1 -1 Swimming Pools Outdoor 1 pool per 33,128* 3 4 1 Tennis Courts 1 court per 4,375* 41 49 8 Volleyball courts 1 court per 5,000 22 4 -18 Bike Trails 1 mile per 2000 54.37 14.77 -39.6 Nature Trails .26 mile per 1000 users** 8.20 16.45 8.25 Equestrian Trails 0.4 miles per 1000 users** 2.6 1.2 -1.4 Estimates based on population of the City of Clearwater (2010 US Census): Total Population 108, 732 Total Population age range 0-14: 15,850 * Parks and Recreation National 2013 Database Report (Median jurisdiction population per facility) ** 2013 State of Florida Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Study Attachment number 1 \nPage 30 of 64 Item # 5 31 Basketball Courts National guidelines recommend a total of 15 basketball courts for a city with the population size of Clearwater. The City currently has a total of 22 basketball courts, of which 15 are outdoor courts, and 7 are indoor. In addition, there are 9 basketball courts at three different schools (Clearwater High School, Countryside High School and Oak Grove Middle School), which are open to the public depending on availability. Based on the feedback from community workshops and the mail survey, there is reasonable support among city residents for accessibility to basketball courts, with 58% (community workshops) and 56% (mail survey) of respondents indicating that this is essential or very important. Based on the national guidelines, there are currently, an adequate number of basketball courts available throughout the City. Survey respondents indicated moderate support for accessibility to basketball courts. Taking both of these factors into account, there does not appear to be any evident service gaps regarding basketball court accessibility in the City of Clearwater. There was also strong support to light the courts at night in both neighborhood and special use facilities with 57% of the mail respondents and 54% of the workshop respondents responding favorably. Note: For larger-scale maps of all outdoor facilities please refer to Appendix D. Figure 10: Clearwater Basketball Courts Attachment number 1 \nPage 31 of 64 Item # 5 32 Recreation Centers National guidelines recommend that for a city with the population of Clearwater, there should be at least four recreation centers. There currently are seven recreation centers owned by the City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department. All seven recreation centers are open to the public, however, two are leased to other organizations and not managed directly by the City. Based on the input from the community workshops and the mail survey, the community feels very strongly that one of the main roles of the city is to provide recreation centers, with 78% of workshop participants and 73% mail survey respondents agreeing that this is Very Important or Essential. According to the guidelines, there is a sufficient level of service with regards to recreation centers in the City. Additionally, a large majority of residents are within 2.5 miles of a recreation center. Figure 11: Clearwater Recreation Centers Attachment number 1 \nPage 32 of 64 Item # 5 33 Diamond Fields (Baseball/ Softball) National guidelines for cities with the population of Clearwater recommend accessibility to a total of 37 public diamond fields (baseball or softball). Currently, there are 34 diamond fields throughout the city. In addition, two additional fields are open to the public on a limited basis (depending on availability) at Countryside High School and Oak Grove Middle School. Based on the feedback from the community workshops and the mail survey, the majority of respondents, 58% of workshop participants and 61% of mail survey respondents, agreed with the premise that it is very important or essential for the city to provide access to baseball and softball fields. Based on the national estimates, there appears to be a small service gap in the number of diamond fields. Considering there is moderate support from the public for access to these kinds of fields, it is recommended that the City develop additional baseball/softball fields. Figure 12: Clearwater Diamond Fields Attachment number 1 \nPage 33 of 64 Item # 5 34 Dog Parks According to the national guidelines, the recommended number of dog parks for the City of Clearwater is three, which is the current number of parks available, indicating an adequate level of service. Based on the input provided through the community workshops and the mail survey, 43% of community workshop participants and 54% of mail survey respondents consider providing Dog Parks as Very Important or Essential to be provided by the City. As such, it does not appear to be a priority to build additional dog parks considering the level of service and the community’s feedback. Figure 13: Clearwater Dog Parks Attachment number 1 \nPage 34 of 64 Item # 5 35 Golf Courses Based on the population of Clearwater, national guidelines recommend a total of four 9-hole golf courses accessible to the public. There currently are three 18-hole golf Courses in Clearwater (which can be counted as six “9- hole” courses). Based on the input provided through the community workshops and the mail survey, only 26% of community workshop and 31% of mail survey respondents indicated that it is Very Important or Essential for the City to provide access to golf courses. Taking into account that there is not a service level gap, and that community support for public golf courses does not appear to be strong, it appears that it is not necessary to build any additional golf courses. Figure 14: Clearwater Golf Courses Attachment number 1 \nPage 35 of 64 Item # 5 36 Multipurpose Fields (Soccer/ Football / Lacrosse) National guidelines recommend that for the population of Clearwater a total of 29 multipurpose fields are recommended. Multipurpose fields are square fields that can be used to play soccer, football, lacrosse, ultimate Frisbee or similar sports. There currently are 18 publicly owned multipurpose fields in the City. There are four additional fields that are located in two different high schools (Clearwater and Countryside), that are open to the public on a limited basis, depending on availability. Based on the national guidelines, there are an insufficient number of multipurpose fields throughout the city, with an estimated service gap of approximately 11 fields. Based on the community workshop and mail survey results, 63% of community workshop participants and 68% of mail survey respondents indicated that it is Very Important or Essential to provide these kinds of multipurpose fields in the city. There is both a service gap and evident support from the community for the development of additional multipurpose fields. Figure 15: Clearwater Multipurpose Fields Attachment number 1 \nPage 36 of 64 Item # 5 37 Playgrounds Based on national guidelines, the recommended number of playgrounds that should be provided by a city is one for every 3,364 residents. For the current population of Clearwater of 15,850 residents under the age of 14, this would mean that a total of 5 playgrounds are recommended. However, this only considers resident population and not visitors to the area. Currently, there are a total of 27 playground facilities throughout the City. It appears that there are no significant service gaps with regards to playgrounds in the City, and that rather, considering the city’s demographics, there is a surplus. Based on input from the community engagement process, a large majority (90% of mail survey respondents and 77% of community workshop participants) consider access to playgrounds as Very Important or Essential. However, only 45% of mail respondents and 41% of workshop participants used a playground within the past year. Also, 58% of workshop participants and 69% of mail survey respondents indicated that playgrounds should serve the entire community, have more play equipment, have diverse options for all ages (6 months to 2, 2-5 and 5-12), be larger in scale and be within driving distance. Figure 16: Clearwater Playgrounds Attachment number 1 \nPage 37 of 64 Item # 5 38 Swimming Pools Based on the population of Clearwater, the recommended number of public pools is 5 pools: 2 indoor and 3 outdoor. There are currently are five pool facilities within the City; only one of those is an indoor pool. Based on the standard, there is a service gap in indoor pools and it would be recommended to build an additional indoor pool facility. When considering national guidelines, it is necessary to take into account the local climate. Most of the cities in the country do not enjoy the year round comfortable outdoor weather conditions of Clearwater, so the construction of an indoor pool may not be necessary. The results of the community engagement indicate that a majority of respondents feel that providing both indoor (57% of workshop participant and 54% of mail survey respondents) and outdoor (60% of workshop participants and 60% of mail survey respondents) pools is Very Important/ Essential for the City. Figure 17: Clearwater Pool Facilities Attachment number 1 \nPage 38 of 64 Item # 5 39 Tennis Courts For a city with the population of Clearwater, it is recommended to have a total of 41 tennis courts accessible to the public. The City of Clearwater currently has a total of 49 tennis courts, thus there is a surplus of Tennis courts in the city. Although tennis is a traditionally popular sport, the results from the community engagement process indicated that only 42% of workshop participants and 54% of mail survey respondents feel that it is Very Important or Essential for the City to provide tennis courts. Given the current surplus, perhaps it would be adequate to repurpose some of the courts, or alternatively to adapt some of these courts to become multipurpose and available for use for a range of sports. Given the demographics of the City, and based on local advocacy groups, it may be adequate to adapt some of these courts for “pickleball”. Pickleball is a sport of growing popularity among senior citizens. It is a sport that combines elements of tennis, badminton and ping-pong, and that is played with a paddle and a wiffle ball in a court slightly smaller than a tennis court. There are multiple sources indicating how to adapt tennis courts for pickleball. Figure 18: Clearwater Tennis Courts Attachment number 1 \nPage 39 of 64 Item # 5 40 Volleyball Courts Based on the recommended guidelines, within the City of Clearwater there should be a total of 22 volleyball courts accessible to the public. There are currently only 4 beach volleyball courts owned and managed by the City. Based on these guidelines, there is a sizable service gap regarding the accessibility to public volleyball courts. However, based on the community survey, only a small percentage of participants (30% of mail survey respondents) consider access to these types of courts as either Very Important or Essential. In addition to the limited public support, although there are only 4 permanent volleyball courts, the City regularly erects temporary volleyball courts for special events or tournaments. Figure 19: Clearwater Volleyball Courts Attachment number 1 \nPage 40 of 64 Item # 5 41 Pedestrian, Bicycle and Equestrian Trails Statewide guidelines for accessibility and mileage of trails within a city vary depending on the type of trail. For a city like Clearwater, the recommended mileage for bike trails is 54.37 miles, for nature trails is 8.20 miles and for equestrian trails 2.6 miles. The existing bike trails within the City of Clearwater extend over a total of 14.77 miles, indicating there is a service gap of close to 40 miles. With regards to natural trails, there currently are 16.45 miles of natural (pedestrian) trails located within the various parks throughout the City. Based on the standard, there is no current service gap with regards to natural trails. There are no current equestrian trails within the City, however, one is currently under construction. Based on the community engagement input, a strong majority of participants indicate that providing trails is an Essential or Very Important purpose of the Parks and Recreation Department, with 83% of workshop participants and 85% of mail survey respondents supporting bike trails and 71% of workshop participants and 66% of mail survey respondents supporting nature trails. In contrast, the support for the importance of accessibility to equestrian trails was only of 6% (community workshop participants) 18% (mail survey respondents). Based on these percentages, it appears to be a priority for the city to develop additional trails in the City as illustrated in Appendix F and in the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Figure 20: Pedestrian and Bicycle Trails Attachment number 1 \nPage 41 of 64 Item # 5 42 Action Items The final step of the Master Plan is to identify Action Items based on the results from both previous Level of Service Analysis and Community Engagement process. The action items are provided in three different parts for this Master Plan Update. The sections are: • Prioritized List of Parks • Capital Improvement Projects • Program Priorities Prioritized Park Listing It is important to determine and prioritize the improvements that may be needed at each individual park throughout the City. In order to accomplish this, a scoring method was developed that seeks to evaluate and rank the parks based on two separate factors: a Park Factor (P) and a Community Engagement (CE) factor. Parks Factor (P) The Parks Factor (P) comprises the following categories: Population Served, Age of Facilities and Comfort (amenities provided for Participant Comfort). Within each category, points were assigned according to appropriate factors. • Population Served: The total population served was scored so that parks serving the most amount of people would be given priority according to the following criteria: Possible Points Community Parks Criteria: Population served within a 3 mile radius 1 less than 19,999 2 20,000 to 39,999 3 40,000 to 59,999 4 60,000 to 79,999 5 80,000 or more Table 2: Community Parks Population Criteria Possible Points Neighborhood Parks Criteria: Population served within a 1 mile radius 1 less than 2,999 2 3,000to 5,999 3 6,000 to 8,999 4 9,000 to 11,999 5 12,000 or more Table 3: Neighborhood Parks Population Criteria Conversely, a park serving a smaller population obtained a lower ranking score, indicating a lesser priority for improvements. • Age of Facilities: The age of the facilities was classified as follows : Possible Points Age Criteria 1 less than 10 years 3 5-10 years 5 Older than 10 years Table 4: Age of Facilities Criteria The older facilities obtained a higher score, indicating they have a higher priority for improvements. • Comfort: The category “comfort” comprises all the amenities such as restrooms, shade, seating, view sheds, water fountains, lighting, bike racks and parking, which are intended to increase the comfort or quality of experience at the parks. Comfort was scored based on the following criteria: Possible Points Comfort Criteria 1 The park has more than enough amenities for comfort 3 The park has an adequate number of amenities for comfort 5 The park is lacking in basic amenities that make it an unattractive destination Table 5: Comfort Criteria Attachment number 1 \nPage 42 of 64 Item # 5 43 The parks with a lesser number of comfort facilities obtained a higher score, indicating they are prioritized for improvements. Population + Age of Facility + Comfort = Parks (P) Factor The points assigned to each category were aggregated to give us an overall score (Park factor (P)) that indicates the accessibility, age and comfort levels of each park. As each of the categories has a maximum value of 5, the highest overall score possible was 15. The parks that obtained a score approaching 15 are the parks that require a higher need for improvements, as they are older parks, serving a large population and lacking in basic facilities. Based on this scoring system, the community park that obtained the highest score, and thus the highest priority, was North Greenwood Recreation & Aquatic Complex (score 12), followed by: The Long Center, Countryside Community Park and Ross Norton Recreation Complex (all with a score of 11). Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex obtained the lower score (8). For the neighborhood parks, six parks obtained the highest score (13), indicating the highest priority. These parks are Charter Oaks Park, Station Square Park, Belmont Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center, Marymont Park and Wood Valley Recreation Center. For the full list and scores for all the parks, please refer to Appendix E. Community Engagement (CE) Factor For the final priority list, the scoring also takes into account a Community Engagement factor. The Community Engagement Factor was determined based on the results from a series of community workshops. The Community Engagement factor is divided in two categories: • Usability: Percentage of respondents that indicate that the selected park is the park they frequent the most. • Improvements: Percentage of respondents that indicate the selected park needs some specific improvement The score assigned to each park was based on the following criteria: Community Parks Possible Points Criteria for Usability (as % of respondents) Criteria for Improvement (as % of respondents) 1 0% 0% 2 1-5% 1-5% 3 5% or more 5% or more Table 6: Community Parks CE factor Neighborhood Parks Possible Points Criteria for Usability (as % of respondents) Criteria for Improvement (as % of respondents) 1 0% 0% 2 1-3% 1-3% 3 4-9% 4-9% 4 10-14% 10-14% 5 15% or more 15% or more Table 7: Neighborhood Parks CE factor Thus, the parks that are frequented the most obtained a higher score (and higher priority) than those less utilized. Similarly, the parks that a larger number of respondents indicate need to be improved, obtained a higher score. Usability + Improvements = Community Engagement (CE) Factor Attachment number 1 \nPage 43 of 64 Item # 5 44 The overall Community Engagement score was calculated by aggregating the usability and the improvement score, with a maximum possible value of 10 points. Based on the CE scoring system, the community park with the highest priority for improvements is Countryside Community Park (Score 8). Second in priority are Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex and Ross Norton Recreation Complex (both with 4 points). The lowest priority parks per the community feedback are the Long Center and North Greenwood Recreation and Aquatic Complex (2 points each). For the neighborhood parks, the park that received the highest, and maximum score of 10 points was Crest Lake Park, indicating the community strongly supports a series of improvements at this park. Second in priority were Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center and Morningside Park, both with a total of 9 points. For the full list of parks and ranking based on community feedback, please refer to Appendix E. In addition, for the specific improvement suggestions that were provided during the community workshops, please refer to Appendix E. Prioritization Parks (P) factor + Community Engagement (CE) factor= Final Score In order to calculate the total priority score, the results from both the Park Factor and the Community Engagement Factor were aggregated. To ensure that each factor was given equal importance, the factors were weighted based on the maximum score possible (15 for the Parks Factor, 10 for the Community Engagement Factor). Thus the highest number that could be assigned to each factor was 1, with a maximum aggregate score of 2. For instance, if a park had a (P) factor of 12, and a (CE) factor of 8, the calculation would be as follows: (12/15) + (8/10) = 0.8 + 0.8 = 1.6 score Based on this scoring system, the final ranking for the community parks identified Countryside Community Park as the highest priority park for improvements (Score 1.43). Second in Priority was Ross Norton Recreation Complex with 1.14 points, followed by North Greenwood Recreation and Aquatic Complex with 1.10 points and The Long Center with 1.03 points. Clearwater Beach Recreation Complex had the lowest priority for improvements, with only 0.736 points. For the neighborhood parks, the park that was identified as the highest priority for improvements was Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center with 1.77 points, followed closely by Crest Lake Park with 1.73 points. Third in priority for improvements was Morningside Park with 1.37 points. For the full ranking list of all the parks please refer to tables 8 and 9 on the following page. Conclusion Using a systematic ranking method, the priority lists contained in this master plan update identify the parks within the City of Clearwater that need to be prioritized for the upgrade and improvement of facilities and amenities available. The ranking takes into account both the physical characteristics of the facilities (e.g. age) as well as the community’s desire for improvements. The parks identified as highest priority for improvements include Countryside Community Park, Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center, Crest Lake Park and Morningside Park. Attachment number 1 \nPage 44 of 64 Item # 5 45 Table 8. Community Parks RANK Name of Park OVERALL TOTAL 1 Countryside Community Park 1.43 2 Ross Norton Rec. & Aquatic Cmplx. & Extreme Park + Ed Wright Park Complex 1.14 3 N. Greenwood Rec. & Aquatic Cmplx 1.10 4 The Long Center 1.03 5 Clearwater Beach Rec. Complex 0.73 Table 9. Neighborhood Parks RANK Name of Park OVERALL TOTAL 1 Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 1.77 2 Crest Lake Park 1.73 3 Morningside Park 1.37 4 Cherry Harris Park 1.23 5 Marymont Park 1.17 6 Wood Valley Recreation Center 1.17 7 Coachman Ridge Park 1.13 8 Del Oro Park 1.13 9 Country Hollow Park 1.10 10 Northwood Park 1.10 11 Woodgate Park 1.10 12 Charter Oaks Park 1.07 13 Station Square Park 1.07 14 Belmont Park 1.07 15 Forest Run Park 1.07 16 Garden Avenue Park 1.03 17 Charles Park 0.93 18 Montclair Park 0.93 19 Soule Road Park 0.93 20 Valencia Park 0.93 21 Plaza Park 0.90 22 Edgewater Dr. Park 0.90 23 Mandalay Park 0.90 24 Sunset Sam Park at Island Est. 0.77 25 McKay Playfield 0.77 26 Bay Park on Sand Key 0.67 Attachment number 1 \nPage 45 of 64 Item # 5 46 Capital Improvement Projects and Program Priorities The second and third sections of the Action Plan detail Capital Improvement Projects and Program Priorities. The proposed projects and programs were identified based on the priorities of the community, the feedback from the Stakeholder Advisory Committee, and the results of the level of service analysis. In addition, some of the projects were included as they are legacy projects from the 2002 Master Plan, or because they are projects approved for funding through current Penny for Pinellas. Ultimately, these projects and programs are the concrete representation of the goals, mission and objectives outlined in the current master plan. The following tables present the list of proposed capital improvement projects (table 10), a separate list of candidate projects for future Penny for Pinellas funding (table 11), and a listing of program priorities (table 12). Please note that table 10 is in priority order as recommended by the Stakeholder Advisory Committee. Table 10 also estimates a legacy cost that will be needed for on-going operation and maintenance of the given item. Table 11 extracts and presents the possible candidates for future Penny for Pinellas funding. Table 12 presents a listing of recommended programs to be implemented over the next ten years of the Master Plan. Attachment number 1 \nPage 46 of 64 Item # 5 47 Table 10: Capital Improvement Project Priorities Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 1 Redevelop Coachman Park area Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $5,000,000 $75,000 includes 1 FTE $5,000,000 earmarked using Penny III funding in 2019/20 Community Support: Workshop participants identified the park as one of the most frequently visited giving it one of the higher Community Engagement factor scores. 2 Construct a Neighborhood Center at Morningside Park Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $2,600,000 $175,000 includes 3.75 FTE $2,600,000 allocated in 2007/08 Community Support: Identified as one of the top three parks identified by the community in the workshops that need renovations and improvements. 3 Resurface Ream Wilson Trail Identified Maintenance Need. $250,000 0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: A strong majority of survey respondents indicate that providing trails is an essential or very important purpose of the Parks and Recreation Department. Attachment number 1 \nPage 47 of 64 Item # 5 48 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 4 Perform major renovation of the community parks including Clearwater Beach Recreation Center, Long Center, Ross Norton Recreation Complex, Countryside Community Park and North Greenwood Recreation Center and Aquatic Complex Staff identified based on the current capacity levels and at the complex. $8,000,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: There was strong support for improvements of facilities and activities specific to community parks such as additional access to swimming pools & basketball courts. In addition, there were requests for sport-related lessons. These recreation facilities receive high volume of use and will be in need of major renovation in the next 10 years. 5 Aquatic facility renovations and replacement at the 5 aquatic facilities Normal routine maintenance items such as pumps and machinery has been completed through the current CIP program. However, in addition, there is a need to renovate all pools and amenities primarily at the Long Center, Ross Norton, & NGRAC. $750,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: There is strong support for extending access to aquatic facilities especially at Morningside and the Long Center. Attachment number 1 \nPage 48 of 64 Item # 5 49 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 6 Complete Trail Projects (For proposed Trail Map please refer to Appendix F) Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $3,000,000 $60,000 includes 1 FTE Funding is provided in the CIP through Penny for Pinellas for $750,000 annually for four years for a total of $3,000,000 LOS Gap - According to guidelines, the City of Clearwater is 40 miles deficient in this area. Community Support: A strong majority of survey respondents indicate that providing trails is an essential or very important purpose of the Parks and Recreation Department, with >80% supporting bike trails and >70% supporting nature trails. 7 Redevelop Crest Lake Park Community Support: There is strong support for redevelopment of this park, including improving exercise equipment, lighting, playgrounds, grassed areas, water fountains, restrooms and improving security. $1,500,000 $65,000 includes 1.5 FTE’s $1,250,000 allocated in 2017/18, and $250,000 in 2018/19 Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. 8 Expand McMullen Tennis Complex to include 8 additional clay courts, 8 new Pickelball/10 and under courts, a new club house, permanent parking, and a renovated tennis stadium area Staff identified based on the current capacity levels at the complex. $1,600,000 $80,000 includes 1.5 FTE’s $200,000 from Grant; $200,000 allocated from CIP; remaining Penny 4 Community Support: Workshop participants identified support for the construction of pickleball courts. 65% of survey respondents identified offering tennis courts and complexes as very important. Incomplete item from the 2002 Master Plan. Attachment number 1 \nPage 49 of 64 Item # 5 50 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 9 Replace basketball, tennis and racquetball courts due to deterioration, cracks and aging at various community and neighborhood parks in the City where normal resurfacing will no longer suffice. The CIP to resurface and reline various play courts in the City has been very successful and extended the life of these courts. However, many are reaching an age where total replacement is needed. The initial cost to replace the most deteriorated courts by 2020 is $500,000 with $100,000 each year thereafter for 10 years. $500,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: 70 % of respondents indicate it is important to provide amenities for court sports like basketball. 10 Complete Items identified in Moccasin Lake Nature Park Master Plan including the interpretive center, Environmental Explorer's Zone, and interpretive trail There was strong community support during the development of the Master Plan in 2013. $400,000 $0 $400,000 allocated in the 2015/16 CIP budget Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. Item identified as a Penny III project. 11 Renovate Cooper's Bayou Park including the expansion of parking, and provision of trailhead facilities. Expand access to Cooper's Point through the construction of a boardwalk system and look-out tower Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $5,000,000 $25,000 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: There was support for improving the parks' facilities such as providing picnic tables, restrooms and installing a kayak rack. In addition, the importance of trails as one of the main purposes of parks and recreation is supported by a majority of survey respondents. Attachment number 1 \nPage 50 of 64 Item # 5 51 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 12 Expand Enterprise Road Dog Park Due to overwhelming support from the public and the popularity of the existing dog park, a second phase enlarging the park and adding areas for smaller dogs is needed. $400,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate 13 Jack Russell Stadium demolition and renovation Jack Russell Stadium is currently under lease. However, in the future, the City may have a need to renovate the area by demolishing some of the structures and making the field more accessible for public use. $350,000 $ 60,000 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate 14 Open pools longer Community workshop participants demonstrated strong support for extending hours of operation as well as opening season for swimming pools at Morningside and the Long Center. $0 $36,000 includes 1.2 FTE’s Operating funds 15 Acquire property adjacent to Moccasin Lake Nature Park There was strong community support during the development of the plan in 2013. In addition, using trails and having been to a nature park is the activity that the most community engagement participants acknowledge doing over the past year, which would be the kind of activities available at this park. $200,000 $10,000 Impact fees Attachment number 1 \nPage 51 of 64 Item # 5 52 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 16 BeachWalk Rehabilitation Identified maintenance need. Beachwalk is well used and opened in 2008. $3,000,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: A majority of respondents (54%) of the community workshops indicated having been to the beach during the past year. 70% of participants consider very important to offer beach facilities, and they strongly oppose reducing beach maintenance, indicating it is important to maintain the beach, as well as the Beachwalk as an attractive destination. 17 Improved parking at NE Coachman Park This park has one of two disc golf courses in the City and there is a need for improved parking facilities. Currently patrons are parking in a dirt parking lot. $250,000 $2,000 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate 18 Redevelop Lake Chautauqua Park Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $500,000 $3,000 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: A majority of survey respondents indicate providing trails is one of the main purposes of parks and recreation. Attachment number 1 \nPage 52 of 64 Item # 5 53 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 19 Develop a Parks and Recreation Environmental Section to address needs of undeveloped parklands and environmental preserves. Staff has identified a need to manage and maintain undeveloped park property and environmental sensitive lands within the park system. $500,000 $150,000 includes 1 FTE Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: Survey respondents indicated interest in the City taking an active role in "working with the environment" and being ecologically responsible. 20 Joe DiMaggio expansion to include 4 new multipurpose fields, a new press box and storage building Item identified as a Penny III project. $2,230,000 $50,000 $480,000 allocated 2015/16, and $1,750,000 in 2018/19 LOS Gap - According to guidelines, the City of Clearwater is deficient in this area by 11 fields. Community Support - Based on the survey results, a majority of respondents (>60%) indicated that it is very important or essential to provide these types of multipurpose fields. Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. 21 Install interpretive trail facilities in Lake Chautauqua Park, Lake Chautuaqua Equestrian and Nature Preserve, Bayview Park, Cliff Stephens and Kapok Park Community Support: Using trails and having been to a nature park is the activity that the most participants acknowledge having done within the past year. In addition, >80% of survey respondents agree it is important to offer educational programs, and >49% agree it is important to provide nature programs. $400,000 $1,000 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Attachment number 1 \nPage 53 of 64 Item # 5 54 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possbile Funding 22 Increase funding for the various maintenance CIP budgets including, fitness equipment, swimming pools, parking lot/bike trails, boardwalk & docks, sidewalks, park amenity, tennis courts, playgrounds and fencing by 25%. Over the years, the City has attempted to address the repair and replacement needs of various park components by establishing annual maintenance CIPs. These CIPs have not been increased for over 10 years and the regular maintenance requirements of the park system are falling behind. In order to maintain the system, it is recommended to provide additional annual funding of approximately $203,750. This represents at 25% increase in current funding. $205,000 $ 205,000 General fund 23 Design and develop stormwater projects as environmental park lands at Crest Lake Park, Clearwater Mitigation/Del Oro, the northwest shore of Alligator Lake, and Lake Chautauqua Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. TBD 0 Stormwater funds Community Support: Some respondents indicated interest in the city taking an active role in "working with the environment" and being ecologically responsible. 24 Address the need for additional parking at the Long Center as well as creating a new entrance to the Center. Staff has identified a need to create a more user friendly entrance to the center as well as additional parking to serve the many events and activities conducted at the center. $2,000,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: There is strong support within the community for further accessibility to swimming facilities such as those available at the Long Center. Attachment number 1 \nPage 54 of 64 Item # 5 55 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 25 Develop a right of refusal for Camp Soule Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $0 $0 Community Support: Using trails and having been to a nature park is the activity that the most survey respondents acknowledge doing over the past year, which would be the kind of facility envisioned at this location. 26 Expand Countryside Sports Complex including the addition of a concession facility and improved parking Staff identified based on the current capacity levels at the complex. $1,000,000 $3,000 $656,500 provided for building in 2015/16; Concession- Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Identified as a Penny III project. Community Support: Workshop participants identified the park as one of the most frequently visited, and the community park identified as needing the most improvement giving it one of the highest community engagement factor scores. 27 Renovation of Bright House Networks Field Identified maintenance need. The stadium is well used and opened in 2005. $10,000,000 - $12,000,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate, grants, assistance from county and state Community Support: Over 50% of survey respondents indicated having attended an event at the stadium within the past year, and over 70% of respondents indicated it is important for the City to offer this facility. Attachment number 1 \nPage 55 of 64 Item # 5 56 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 28 Renovate Woodgate Park to include parking, 2 new basketball courts and 2 multipurpose fields Staff identified based on the current capacity levels at the complex. $800,000 $15,000 $500,000 allocated in 2017/2018, balance Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support for improvements specific to this park demonstrated through the Community Workshops. Overall community engagement factor among the top five within all of the neighborhood parks. 29 Acquire land adjacent to the parking lot for Crest Lake Park Community support for improvements at this park was very strong. $500,000 $6,000 Impact fees 30 Renovate Frank Tack Park including new parking Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan. $400,000 $4,000 $399,500 allocated in 2016/17 for new parking Community Support: 69% of survey respondents indicate it is important to provide fields for sports like baseball and softball. Staff identified based on the current capacity levels at the complex. 31 Renovate Ed Wright Park by removing circular drive, installing adequate parking for park users and shuffleboard patrons and provide restroom/storage. This park is one of the oldest parks in the City and in need of renovation to accommodate the neighborhood use and horseshoe club members. Renovations will include removing outdated facilities and constructing more user friendly amenities. $500,000 $0 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Attachment number 1 \nPage 56 of 64 Item # 5 57 Rank Proposed Projects Rationale Estimated Initial Cost Estimated Legacy Cost Possible Funding 32 Renovate Eddie C. Moore to include a new concession building and press box Identified as a Penny III project. $300,000 $3,000 $175,000 allocated in 2015/16, balance Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community support: Over 60% of survey respondents indicate it is important to provide fields for sports like baseball and softball, which are the kind of amenities available at this park. 33 Provide pickleball courts through the repurposing of and the creation of dual- purpose tennis courts. Staff identified based on the current capacity levels at the complex. $60,000 0 Existing funds in tennis court maintenance CIP Community Support: Workshop participants indicated there is growing interest in this sport among seniors. 34 Increase parking at Phillip Jones Park Staff identified based on the current capacity levels at the complex. $250,000 $2,500 Penny for Pinellas IV Candidate Community Support: Over 60% of survey respondents indicate it is important to provide multipurpose fields in the City, which is the kind of facility available at this park. Attachment number 1 \nPage 57 of 64 Item # 5 58 Table 11: Future Penny for Pinellas (IV) Candidate Projects Item Estimated Initial Cost Resurface Ream Wilson Trail $250,000 Perform major renovation of the Community Parks including Clearwater Beach Recreation Center, Long Center, Ross Norton Recreation Complex, Countryside Community Park, and North Greenwood Recreation Center and Aquatic Complex $8,000,000 Aquatic facility renovations and replacement at the 5 aquatic facilities in the City. $750,000 Expand McMullen Tennis Complex to include 8 more clay courts, 8 new pickelball/10 and under courts, a new club house, permanent parking and a renovated tennis stadium area. $1,200,000 Replace basketball, tennis and racquetball courts due to deterioration, cracks and aging at various community and neighborhood parks in the City where normal resurfacing will no longer suffice. $500,000 Renovate Cooper's Bayou Park including the expansion of parking, and provision of trailhead facilities. Expand access to Cooper's Point through the construction of a boardwalk system and look-out tower $5,000,000 Expand Enterprise Road Dog Park $400,000 Jack Russell Stadium demolition and renovation $350,000 BeachWalk rehabilitation $3,000,000 Improved parking at Northeast Coachman Park $250,000 Redevelop Lake Chautauqua Park $500,000 Attachment number 1 \nPage 58 of 64 Item # 5 59 Item Estimated Initial Cost Install interpretive trail facilities in Lake Chautauqua Park, Lake Chautuaqua Equestrian and Nature Preserve, Bayview Park, Cliff Stephens and Kapok Park $400,000 Address the need for additional parking at the Long Center as well as creating a new entrance to the Center. $2,000,000 Expand Countryside Sports Complex including the addition of a concession facility and improved parking $343,500 Renovation of Bright House Networks Field $10,000,000 - $12,000,000 Renovate Woodgate Park to include parking, 2 new basketball courts and 2 multipurpose fields $300,000 Renovate Ed Wright Park by removing circular drive, installing adequate parking for park users and shuffleboard patrons and provide restroom/storage building. $500,000 Renovate Eddie C. Moore to include a new concession building and press box $125,000 Increase parking at Phillip Jones Park $250,000 Attachment number 1 \nPage 59 of 64 Item # 5 60 Table 12: Program Priorities # Item Rationale 1 Reinstitute outdoor lighting of courts $50,000 estimate of infrastructure repair, and $25,000 annual operating budget. The Community Engagement participants strongly supports this item. 2 Create management plans for all City-owned natural lands Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan 3 Continue to establish partnerships with schools and community organizations On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Workshops: During open question sessions, some participants indicated interest in community and MPO involvement with the City 4 Expand partnerships with the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Club, and other similar social/recreation-orientated agencies On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Support: Survey respondents demonstrated support for additional recreation activities for both children and adults, which are the kind of activities these partnerships are able to sponsor 5 Continue to aggressively participate in regional planning through the County/Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) On-going item from 2002 Master Plan 6 Continue to partner with the Ruth Eckerd Hall, Inc. to expand cultural/performing arts opportunities On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Support: A majority (54%) of respondents indicated having attended an event at Ruth Eckerd Hall during the past year. The high degree of participation by the community makes the partnership a worthy endeavor. 7 Continue to partner with the Clearwater Arts Alliance to refine and implement the Clearwater Arts and Cultural Plan On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Attachment number 1 \nPage 60 of 64 Item # 5 61 Item Rationale 8 Create a monitoring program to assess how programs can be changed or improved Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan 9 Continue to partner with healthcare providers On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Support: Over 90% of survey respondents indicate that one of the most important roles of parks and recreation is to provide opportunities for residents to maintain or improve physical health. 10 Continue to conduct an annual fee/market study of user fees and charges On-going item from 2002 Master Plan 11 Aggressively promote Parks and Recreation opportunities Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan Community Support: Some participants of the community workshops indicated during an open-question session that they would like to see more information on the kind of recreation activities available to the public. Greater awareness is needed. 12 Improve marketing of nature parks and resource-based facilities Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan Community Support: Some participants of the community workshops indicated during an open-question session that they would like to see more information on the kind of recreation activities available to the public. 13 Utilize new technologies in the delivery methods of the parks and programs On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Attachment number 1 \nPage 61 of 64 Item # 5 62 Item Rationale 14 Determine location for the infrastructure facility approved in Pennies for Pinellas Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan 15 Develop a Citywide signage program to tie parks facilities into neighborhoods Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan 16 Provide additional support for repair and replacement CIP budgets On-going item from 2002 Master Plan 17 Pursue the continuation of the Pennies for Pinellas program On-going item from 2002 Master Plan 18 Continue/Expand use of business partnerships and corporate sponsorships On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Survey indicated majority (>86%)support for supplementing the operating costs of Parks via different revenue sources including sponsorships and donations 19 Continue aggressive pursuit of grant dollars On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Survey indicated majority (>86%)support for supplementing the operating costs of Parks via different revenue sources including grants 20 Adopt the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan Update; include projects in CIP Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan Attachment number 1 \nPage 62 of 64 Item # 5 63 Item Rationale 21 Promote the passage of a thirty million-dollar general obligation bond issue to construct parks and recreation projects identified in this plan Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan 22 Partner with Pinellas County to offer recreation services for county residents On-going item from 2002 Master Plan Community Support: 64% of respondents indicate that it is important for the City to plan special events that attract visitors and the entire community in order to increase revenue 23 Include 2% to 2.5% to bond funding and penny funding for construction and administrative management Incomplete item from 2002 Master Plan 24 Update, revise and modify where needed the Open Space and Recreation Facility Fee Ordinance to reflect the impacts of the Master Plan On-going item from 2002 Master Plan 25 Reassess the zoning and land use regulations for all park lands Staff identified 26 Conduct annual tree Inventory, so that entire City is inventoried every 3 years. Staff identified 27 Create a Blueways Plan Staff identified Request at Community Workshop for additional kayak ramps Attachment number 1 \nPage 63 of 64 Item # 5 64 Appendices Appendix A: Park Benefits, Sources and Further Reading Appendix B: Community Workshops Report of Results Appendix C: Mail Survey Report of Results Appendix D: Level of Service Analysis Report (Park Inventory, Outdoor Facilities Survey, Outdoor Facility Maps) Appendix E: Park Factor and Community Factor Tables Appendix F: Proposed Trail Map Attachment number 1 \nPage 64 of 64 Item # 5 Appendix A: Park Benefits: Sources/ Further Reading Bedimo-Rung, Ariane L., Andrew J. Mowen, and Deborah A. Cohen. "The significance of parks to physical activity and public health: a conceptual model." American journal of preventive medicine 28.2 (2005): 159-168. Chiesura, Anna. "The role of urban parks for the sustainable city." Landscape and urban planning 68.1 (2004): 129-138. Crompton, John L. "The impact of parks on property values: A review of the empirical evidence." Journal of Leisure Research 33.1 (2001): 1-31. Cohen, Deborah A., et al. "Contribution of public parks to physical activity." American Journal of Public Health 97.3 (2007): 509-514. Cohen, Gene D. "Research on creativity and aging: The positive impact of the arts on health and illness." Generations 30.1 (2006): 7-15. Harnik, Peter. "The Excellent City Park System What Makes It Great and How to Get There." The Human Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st-Century City [full book] (2006): 47. Harnik, Peter and Laura Yaffe. “Who is Going to Pay for This Park? The Role of Developer Expectations in the Creation of New City Parks”. Center for City Park Excellence, Trust for Public Land: 1-15. Harnik, Peter, Ryan Donahue and Linden Weiswerda. “2012 City Parks Facts Report”. Center for City Park Excellence, Trust for Public Land (2012): 1-36. Harnik, Peter, Ben Welle and Linda S. Keenan. “Measuring the Economic value of a City Park System”. The trust for Public Land (2009): 1-28. Harnik, Peter and Ben Welle. “From Fitness Zones to the Medical Mile: How Urban Park Systems can Best Oromote Health and Wellness”. The trust for Public Land (2011): 1-40. “Healthy Parks Healthy People: The health benefits of contact with nature in a park context”. Deakin University and Parks Victoria, 2008. Lopez, Russell P., and H. Patricia Hynes. "Obesity, physical activity, and the urban environment: public health research needs." Environmental Health 5.1 (2006): 25. McCormack, Gavin R., et al. "Characteristics of urban parks associated with park use and physical activity: a review of qualitative research." Health & place 16.4 (2010): 712-726. Pinellas County Community health assessment 2012, Executive Summary. Available at: www.pinellashealth.com Walker, Chris. “The public value of urban parks”. Urban Institute, (2004): 1-8. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 5 APPENDIX B City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Master Plan Community Workshops Report of Results September 2013 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013) TABLE OF CONTENTS Community Open House Workshops ...................................................................................... 3 Appendix A: Workshop Participation ........................................................................................ 8 Appendix B: Survey Results ....................................................................................................... 9 Appendix C: Specific Area Comments...................................................................................... 50 Appendix D: Park Memories .................................................................................................... 52 Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 3 COMMUNITY OPEN HOUSE WORKSHOPS Summary This report presents the results of the Community Open House Workshops held for the creation of the update of the 2002 Parks and Recreation Master Plan. The workshops were held between 4:30 and 7:30pm to allow flexibility for the participants. The Community Open Houses were held on the following dates and locations: ♦ August 21: Ross Norton Recreation and Aquatic Complex, 1426 S. MLK, Jr. Avenue ♦ August 22: North Greenwood Recreation and Aquatic Complex, 900 N. MLK, Jr. Avenue ♦ August 28: Clearwater Beach Recreation Center, 69 Bay Esplanade ♦ September 3: Countryside Recreation Center, 2640 Sabal Springs Drive ♦ September 4: Aging Well Center at the Long Center, 1501 N. Belcher Road A station format was utilized for the Workshops allowing time for questions and the collection of data at each station. The stations included the presentation of: ♦ Proposed Park Classifications ♦ Cloud-Storming ♦ Level of Service for Outdoor Facilities ♦ Neighborhood Park Prioritization ♦ General Comments ♦ Testimonies Participants had the opportunity to understand the importance of Parks and Recreation in context to our greater community, while commenting and assessing current conditions. Staff members at each station explained the topic information, answered questions and encouraged comments. Demographics Approximately 110 individuals participated in the community workshops. Of these, an estimated 80% are direct residents of Clearwater (based on Zip-code information) with most of the remaining participants coming from the adjacent areas of Dunedin, Palm Harbor, Safety Harbor and East Lake (See Appendix A) . The majority of participants (56%) were in the age range 60+. 29% of participants were between the ages of 30-50, and 15% were under the age of 30. Station 1: Welcome The first station provided an introduction to the Community Workshop. It included registration and a brief presentation by a staff member describing how Parks and Recreation is working on updating the 2002 Master Plan and is welcoming public input. The participants were described the opportunities at each station and were asked to provide input in all of them (in order). Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 4 Station 2: Clearwater Parks and Recreation 101 This station provided an exhibit of various facts about Clearwater’s Park and Recreation system such as the 2002 Master Plan elements, system inventory and the Park classification definitions. Several maps were on display portraying the city’s demographics, the system-wide map of facilities, the park listing by classification, and park coverage maps. The participants were asked to fill out a form regarding their agreement/disagreement with the proposed park classifications. The majority of respondents (75%) either “strongly agree” or “agree” with the current classification. 15% of respondents had a neutral position and only 10% “disagreed” or “strongly disagreed with the current park classification standards. This station also distributed a user survey to gather participant’s perspectives and preferences with regards to parks and recreation. This survey will serve as the model for a mail-in survey of Clearwater households that will be commissioned during the last trimester of 2013. The results from this survey are summarized in Appendix B. Station 3: Cloud Storming This station displayed a series of posters with empty “cloud” diagrams. The participants were asked to write in these “clouds” what they liked the most about Clearwater Parks and Recreation, either with just a word or a listing of a couple of items. Common comments from this activity include Healthy living/Fun/ Green Space/ Outdoors/ Nature/ Beach/ Sports/Exercise/ Events. Station 4: How do we Measure to National and State Standards This station displayed a series of posters with information on the National Standards and Guidelines for Parks and Recreation facilities, and compared them with the facilities that are currently provided in Clearwater. The participants were informed of these guidelines and were asked to provide information on what facilities they considered to be the more important, being mindful of what is relevant and specific to the community. This information was gathered in order to understand whether there are any gaps or surpluses. The facilities selected as the most important to be provided by Clearwater Parks and 34% 41% 15% 5%5% Figure 1. Respondents attitudes toward current Park Classifications Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 5 Recreation, were Community Centers, Playgrounds, and Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails. The facilities selected as least important by a majority of respondents were Golf courses and Equestrian Trails (See Figure 2 on page 7). Station 5: Neighborhood Parks Participants were provided the opportunity to indicate which two neighborhood parks they frequent the most by identifying them in a map. They were also asked to indicate which of all the neighborhood parks in the city they think need to be given priority for improvements. The most frequented parks were: ♦ Crest Lake Park (24%) ♦ Martin Luther King Jr Community Center (19%) ♦ Morningside Park (11%) ♦ Mandalay Park (8%) ♦ Countryside Community Park (8%) ♦ Coachman Ridge Park (5%) ♦ Cherry Harris Park (4%) ♦ Del Oro Park (4%) ♦ Sunset Sam Park at Island Estates (3%) ♦ Plaza Park (3%)\ The parks that should be given priority for improvements were: ♦ Crestlake Park (49%) ♦ Morningside Park (21%) Martin Luther King Jr Community Center (13%) ♦ Woodgate Park (5%) ♦ Countryside Community Park (3%) ♦ Cherry Harris Park\(3%) ♦ Forest Run Park (3%) ♦ Bayside Park on Sand Key (3%) ♦ Wood Valley Rec Center (3%) Afterwards, the participants were given a brief survey on what specific improvements they thought were needed in specific neighborhood parks. All the respondents in this station identified themselves as residents of Clearwater (According to their zip-codes). Based on this survey the improvements that were identified are as follows: Crest Lake Park: ♦ Restrooms ♦ Exercise Equipment ♦ Working Fountains ♦ Splash Park ♦ Improved Security and better lighting ♦ Install tables and benches ♦ Better playgrounds ♦ Removal of alligators/ Improve fishing ♦ Better grassed areas Morningside Pool: ♦ Longer hours ♦ Extended Season (April to October) ♦ Lighted Tennis Courts ♦ Restrooms Morningside Recreation Center: ♦ New Complex Marymount Park: ♦ Provide Water Fountains Martin Luther King: ♦ Better playground and green space Boys & Girls Club: ♦ Needs Basketball court and outside playground All parks: Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 6 ♦ Splash parks and water pads for kids ♦ Restrooms ♦ Maintain cleanliness of Parks ♦ Provide alternate location for homeless Station 6: Specific Area Comments At this station, the participants were asked for comments regarding specific areas or programs that they would like to see included or that they don’t like about the existing facilities and programs. The participants were asked to write their comments under different categories. The categories and a summary of the most common comments are as follows: Athletics (Youth/ Adult Sports: ♦ Strong support for Basketball lessons, and some support for other popular sports like Baseball, Football, Soccer and Track. ♦ Support for the development of Pickleball courts, a sport of growing popularity among the senior community. Aquatics: ♦ Strong support for extending indoor/ outdoor pool hours at various locations, as well as extending the season (if possible year-round). Some support for heated pools. ♦ Strong support for senior exercise aquatics. Aging Well Center: ♦ Strong support for Tai-Chi for seniors. Recreation Programs: ♦ Strong support for Bowling Teams for both Youth and Adults. ♦ Strong support for Pickleball leagues ♦ Support for “more field trips”. Parks Maintenance: ♦ Strong support for cutting the grass more often. Environmental Programs: ♦ Strong support for involvement of the community in park clean-up projects. Special Use Facilities: ♦ Some support for further development at Coachman Park. Park Amenities (Development) – What the would like to see in the parks: ♦ Strong support for a new recreational center at Morningside, together with restoration of restrooms and additional lighting. ♦ Some support for additional community events and activities at the parks (Eg. Market days, bake sales, garage sales) The complete listing of individual comments can be found on Appendix C. Station 7: Park Memories At the last station, each participant was asked to indicate their favorite parks and recreation memory. The participants were asked if they agreed with the possible inclusion of this information in the City of Clearwater’s website, at public meetings or in the Master Plan. Their comments are included in Appendix D. The participants were thanked for the participation in the Master Planning efforts. Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 7 3% 5% 3% 32% 11% 25% 17% 34% 22% 26% 34% 28% 45% 45% 60% 0% 0% 6% 6% 8% 8% 9% 9% 11% 12% 12% 18% 42% 45% 46% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Equestrian Trails Golf Course Volleyball Courts Swimming Pools -indoor Tennis Courts Picnic Tables Dog Parks Swimming Pools-outdoor Softball and Baseball fields Basketball Courts Multipurpose fields (Soccer/ Football/ Lacrosse) Nature Trails Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Playgrounds Community Centers Percent of Respondents Figure 2: Top Choices for importance of Facilities provided by Parks and Recreation Selected as most Important activity Essential Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Community Action September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 8 Appendix A: Workshop Participation Attachment number 3 \nPage 8 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 9 Appendix B: Survey Results – Community workshops TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary.............................................................................................................. 10 Report of Results ................................................................................................................. 15 Survey Background .................................................................................................................. 15 Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation ...................................................................... 16 Purpose of Clearwater Parks and Recreation .................................................................... 16 Resident Perspectives on Recreation Programs ................................................................ 19 Resident Perspectives on Community Events ................................................................... 22 Resident Perspectives on Parks ......................................................................................... 24 Residents’ Use and Importance Ratings of Recreational Facilities and Programs ............ 28 Residents’ Perspectives on Funding Options for Parks and Recreation .................................. 32 Support for or Opposition to Funding Options ................................................................. 32 Preferences for Options to Reduce the Parks and Recreation Budget ............................. 34 Tables: Responses to Survey Questions ................................................................................ 37 Attachment number 3 \nPage 9 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 10 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Workshop Survey Background Parks and recreation facilities, programs and services are an important part of Clearwater’s quality of life. As part of the 2013 strategic planning process, five community workshops were conducted on August 21, 22, 28, September 3 and 4, 2013 at each recreation center in the city. During these workshops, the participants were asked to complete a survey to understand their perspectives and preferences with regards to parks and recreation. A total of 104 individuals participated in the survey. The results from the survey are summarized in this report. Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation Those completing the survey were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about possible overarching goals for the City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department. The percent strongly agreeing that each statement should be an objective of parks and recreation in Clearwater was: (Top Three) ♦ To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health, 80% ♦ To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger), 68% ♦ To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older), 63% ♦ To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space, 58% ♦ To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events that draw visitors from inside and outside the community, 54% ♦ To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities, 54% ♦ To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non- motorized transportation, 54% ♦ To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents, 53% ♦ To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric, 52% ♦ To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, economic revitalization, education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations, 10% ♦ To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination, 40% ♦ To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination, 38% Attachment number 3 \nPage 10 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 11 In addition to providing feedback about the broad purposes of parks and recreation, those completing the survey were asked which population groups they thought should be given the highest priority in recreation programming. ♦ Senior adults were deemed an “essential” group to serve by over half of the survey respondents, with 81% considering them at least “very important”. ♦ Teenagers were also deemed an “essential” group to serve by over half of survey respondents, with 88% considering them at least “very important.” ♦ Children aged 6 to 12 years, people with disabilities, adults and families together as a group were the populations considered the next most important, with over 70% of respondents feeling these groups were at least very important to serve. ♦ Children 0-5 years were considered at least “very important” by only 47% of respondents ♦ Non-residents do not appear to be a priority as only 27% of respondents considered the at least “very Important” ♦ Beginner (60%) and intermediate level programming (58%) was considered somewhat more important than was advanced or elite programming (44%). The questionnaire asked about the importance placed on some of the specific community events sponsored by the Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department. The top five events considered “essential” or very important to a majority of the respondents are: ♦ Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training (65%) ♦ Turkey Trot (62%) ♦ Jazz Holiday (61%) ♦ Clearwater Celebrates America (60%) ♦ Clearwater Fun N' Sun Festival Weekend (59%) The importance of various benefits provided by Clearwater’s parks were rated by respondents. The proportion rating each as “very important” or “essential” was: (Top three) ♦ Providing places for children to play on playground equipment, 78% ♦ Providing a place for rest and relaxation, 74% ♦ Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.), 74% ♦ Providing visual "green spaces" within the city, 73% ♦ Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball), 70% ♦ Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, lacrosse), 68% ♦ Providing a place to walk or jog within the city, 68% Attachment number 3 \nPage 11 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 12 ♦ Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat within the city, 63% ♦ Providing places for group gathering, 62% Those participating in the survey were given a series of pairs of statements from which they were to choose the one that best represented how they felt. ♦ There was great support for parks and recreation to be run following a human services model, which was chosen by 91% of respondents, over a business model choice in which parks and recreation would serve people who can afford to pay for the services through user fees. ♦ Three quarters of respondents felt that program offerings should be offered at many different levels from beginner through advanced, as opposed to being concentrated at the beginning and intermediate levels. ♦ Over half of the respondents considered it more important to make facilities mostly available for drop-in use, while about 38% thought facilities should mostly be programmed with leagues and other pre-planned activities. ♦ Over half of the respondents believed the recreational programs provided by the City should include some diverse offerings while about 38% believed they should focus mostly on popular sports and fitness. ♦ Close to one half (49%) of respondents thought the city should provide facilities and programs identified as needed by residents, even if they are provided by other agencies. However, a large percentage (44%) thinks it is better to provide facilities that only compliment other community offerings, not duplicate them (even if requested by residents). ♦ When considering budget reductions, almost half of respondents preferred that the City maintain all existing facilities and programs while reducing levels of service, instead of eliminating some programs and facilities while keeping the remaining programs and facilities at existing service levels. ♦ A majority (63%) of respondents thought that the landscaping in public spaces should be beautifully maintained ♦ A majority of respondents (58%) believe in order to ensure a high quality of life, as opposed to landscaped in a way that requires minimally maintenance. playgrounds should serve the entire community ♦ Over half of the respondents believe lighting of courts should be at , have more play equipment, and diverse options for all ages, as opposed to playgrounds serving a neighborhood, with limited equipment and focus on serving ages 2-5. both neighborhoods and special use facilities ♦ 68% of respondents believe special events at Coachman Park should be , instead of just in neighborhood parks (10%) or recreational centers (28%). larger events ♦ Over half of respondents believe programs and facilities should serve that bring in economic development instead of smaller events that serve primarily residents (20%), or eliminating all special events at the park (4%). our current demographic profile (large majority of older residents), as opposed to focusing on attracting younger families (24%). Attachment number 3 \nPage 12 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 13 The survey was used to assess resident use of a variety of parks and recreation offerings. For each activity or facility, respondents indicated whether, in the last year, they or anyone in their household had participated in the activity at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another facility. There were five activities in which a majority of respondent households had participated in at a City of Clearwater park or facility in the past year. These were: ♦ Participated in a community event ♦ Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park ♦ Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach ♦ Attended an event at a Ruth Eckerd Hall. ♦ Attended an event at Brighthouse Networks Field In addition, respondents rated how important they thought it was that the City of Clearwater provide various parks and facilities. In general, the participation levels for the various activities mirrored the importance ratings. There were a few notable exceptions; while a relatively smaller percent of respondents had participated in Adult/ Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs (~24%), around three quarters of respondent considered at least “very important” that the city provides these programs. Residents’ Perspectives on Funding Parks and Recreation in Clearwater Several question sets were included on the questionnaire to determine the community’s support for or opposition to a variety of funding options for parks and recreation offerings by the City. When asked to what extent they agreed that the City of Clearwater should pursue a variety of funding strategies, the percent who “somewhat” or “strongly” agreed the City of Clearwater should pursue such strategies was: ♦ The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities or recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes, (86% and 83% respectively) ♦ Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs, 79% ♦ Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs), 72% The idea that recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees, did not show strong support (Only 44%). Preferences for Options to Reduce the Parks and Recreation Budget A section of the questionnaire informed recipients that the City of Clearwater, due to global economics and the passage of Amendment 1 to lower property taxes in the State of Florida, is facing tough economic challenges and will have to make difficult budget decisions. A set of options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget were presented, for which survey respondents indicated their level of support for or opposition to each. Of the 11 budget reduction options, only “Reducing Attachment number 3 \nPage 13 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 14 landscape maintenance in areas such as medians Other reductions showing some support from at least 40% of respondents are: ” showed support by a majority of respondents (51%). ♦ Eliminating some community events ♦ Reducing the operating hours of recreational facilities ♦ Eliminating some athletic fields ♦ Reducing cultural programs The options opposed by over 70% of respondents included: ♦ Reducing programs that serve senior adults ♦ Closing one of the recreational facilities, ♦ Reducing beach maintenance. ♦ Allowing other entities to operate city facilities ♦ Reducing park maintenance Attachment number 3 \nPage 14 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 15 REPORT OF RESULTS Survey Background Parks and recreation facilities, programs and services are an important part of Clearwater’s quality of life. As part of the 2013 strategic planning process, five community workshops were conducted on August 21, 22, 28, September 3 and 4, 2013 at each recreation center in the city. During these workshops, the participants were asked to complete a survey to understand their perspectives and preferences with regards to parks and recreation. A total of 104 individuals participated in the survey. The survey contains similar questions that were administered in a mail-in survey commissioned by the city of Clearwater in 2009, and will serve as the model for another mail-in survey of Clearwater households that will be commissioned during the last trimester of 2013. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could answer, “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in the Appendix. The percentage of questions left blank or with invalid responses are also included in the Appendix. When a table for a question does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. Attachment number 3 \nPage 15 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 16 Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation Purpose of Clearwater Parks and Recreation A variety of purposes can be served by parks and recreation offerings. Those completing the survey were asked to what extent they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about possible overarching goals for the City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department. There was strong agreement with most of the objectives presented (see Figure 1 on the next page), but the two statements with the most support were to provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health” and “to provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger)”. Over 58% of respondents strongly agreed with the statements that Clearwater Parks and Recreation should exist “to provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older)”, and “to provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space”. Over half of the respondents agree the Clearwater Parks and Recreation should “enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments”, “to provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents” and “to provide greater mobility with trails and paths to use for exercise and non-motorized transportation”. Providing a beautiful community and a sense of place, and providing opportunities for residents to make social connections also received high affirmation, with about 5 in 10 respondents “strongly” agreeing with these purposes for parks and recreation offerings. Maintaining the community’s image as a beach resort destination, as an athletic sports town destination and providing greater cultural opportunities to increase the city’s livability were positively viewed as purposes for Clearwater’s parks and recreation, but the support was less strong than for other purposes. After rating their agreement with the twelve purpose statements, respondents were asked to indicate which two statements they felt were the most important. Figure 2 displays the percent of respondents indicating which statements they felt were the most important alongside the percent of respondents who had strongly agreed with each statement. In general, the rank order was fairly similar, although a few discrepancies were noted when respondents were only allowed to choose two statements as the most important. The three statements chosen most often as one of their top choices by respondents were “to provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health,” “to provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger),” and “to provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older)”. Attachment number 3 \nPage 16 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 17 Figure 1: Community Priorities for Recreation 38% 40% 45% 52% 53% 54% 54% 54% 58% 63% 68% 80% 39% 26% 36% 38% 37% 34% 35% 37% 34% 30% 23% 19% 77% 66% 81% 90% 89% 88% 88% 90% 91% 92% 91% 99% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors inside and outside the community To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health Percent of Respondents Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Attachment number 3 \nPage 17 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 18 Figure 2: Highest Priorities for Recreation 54% 45% 40% 52% 54% 54% 38% 58% 53% 63% 68% 80% 2% 6% 7% 8% 10% 10% 10% 13% 14% 17% 20% 41% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and … To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors inside and outside … To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people … To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health Percent of Respondents Percent Ranking as Highest Priority Percent Strongly Agree Attachment number 3 \nPage 18 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 19 Resident Perspectives on Recreation Programs In addition to providing feedback about the overarching purposes of parks and recreation, those completing the survey were asked which population groups they thought should be given the highest priority in terms of recreational programming. Senior adults and teenagers were deemed an “essential” group to serve by over half of survey respondents, with over 80% considering them at least “very important.” Children aged 6 to 12 years, adults, people with disabilities and families together as a group were the populations considered the next most important, with over 70% of respondents feeling these groups were at least very important to serve. Pre-school children were given a lower importance rating than were other groups. Very few respondents (27%) deemed non- residents an important group to consider when planning recreational programs. Beginner (60%) and intermediate level programming (58%) was considered somewhat more important than was advanced or elite programming (44%). Figure 3: Rating of Importance of Serving Various Population Groups 10% 16% 20% 22% 23% 31% 38% 39% 43% 53% 54% 17% 28% 38% 25% 37% 39% 42% 38% 37% 36% 27% 27% 44% 58% 47% 60% 70% 80% 77% 80% 88% 81% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Non-residents Advanced or elite levels Intermediate levels Children 0 to 5 years old Beginner levels Families together as a group People with disabilities Adults Children 6 to 12 years old Teenagers 13 to 17 years old Senior adults (60 years old or more) Percent of Respondents Essential Very Important Attachment number 3 \nPage 19 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 20 The importance of various types of recreational activities that should be programmed were rated by those completing the questionnaire. Wellness and Fitness programs were considered “very important” or “essential” by over 80% of respondents (see Figure 4 below). Community events, Sports teams and lessons and Aquatics were also given high priority, with over two thirds rating them as “very important” or “essential.” The activities considered least important gymnastics and golf , both with only 32% of respondents considering them “very important” or essential. When asked to indicate which two activities they would give the highest priority, a similar pattern was observed (see Figure 5 on the next page). Wellness/ fitness were chosen as a one of their top two choices by 53% of respondents, with 35% choosing community events. Sports and aquatics were chosen by over 21% of respondents. Figure 4: Rating of Importance to Provide Various Types of Activities 8% 11% 13% 13% 17% 27% 33% 35% 38% 24% 21% 24% 25% 36% 45% 36% 29% 42% 32% 32% 37% 38% 53% 72% 68% 63% 81% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Gymnastics Golf Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) Tennis Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) Percent of Respondents Essential Very Important Attachment number 3 \nPage 20 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 21 Figure 5: Top Priorities for Various Types of Activities 8% 11% 13% 13% 17% 27% 33% 35% 38% 1% 1% 4% 4% 4% 21% 21% 35% 53% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Gymnastics Golf Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) Tennis Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) Percent of Respondents Percent Ranking as Highest Priority Percent Essential Attachment number 3 \nPage 21 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 22 Resident Perspectives on Community Events The City of Clearwater coordinates a number of community events. As noted above, these events are deemed important by a large proportion of residents. The questionnaire asked about the importance placed on some of the specific events sponsored by the Parks and Recreation Department. Six events were considered “very important” or “essential” by over half of those completing the survey (see Figure 6); they included Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training, Clearwater Threshers, Turkey Trot, Jazz Holiday, the Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Weekend and Clearwater Celebrates America. Most other events received moderate support ( 38%-51% considering them at least “very important”). The event receiving the least support was “Trirocks” which was considered important by less than 25% of the respondents. When asked to choose which three events they thought were most important, the three most commonly selected were the Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Weekend, Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training and the Turkey Trot. None of the respondents considered TriRocks as amongst the three most important events (see Figure 7 on the next page). Figure 6: Rating of Importance of Various Community Events 7% 12% 13% 13% 16% 17% 19% 23% 24% 29% 30% 31% 36% 17% 29% 25% 27% 35% 32% 26% 36% 36% 32% 32% 27% 30% 24% 40% 38% 39% 51% 49% 45% 59% 60% 61% 62% 58% 65% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% TriRocks Make A Difference Fishing Tournament Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend Outback Beach Day Martin Luther King Day March Clearwater Sea Blues Festival Blast Friday Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend Clearwater Celebrates America Jazz Holiday Turkey Trot Clearwater Threshers Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training Percent of Respondents Essential Very Important Attachment number 3 \nPage 22 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 23 Figure 7: Top Priorities for Various Community Events 7% 13% 12% 13% 19% 16% 31% 17% 24% 29% 30% 36% 23% 0% 4% 6% 6% 9% 13% 14% 16% 18% 20% 22% 23% 26% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% TriRocks Outback Beach Day Make A Difference Fishing Tournament Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend Blast Friday Martin Luther King Day March Clearwater Threshers Clearwater Sea Blues Festival Clearwater Celebrates America Jazz Holiday Turkey Trot Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend Percent of Respondents Percent Ranking as Highest Priority Essential Attachment number 3 \nPage 23 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 24 Resident Perspectives on Parks City parks serve a variety of roles in a community, and have different meaning to different people. Various benefits provided by Clearwater’s parks were presented to those completing the questionnaire; the importance of each to the respondent household was rated. The purposes deemed most important to respondents were to provide a place for children to play on playground equipment (78% rated this as at least “very important, see Figure 8); to provide a place for rest and relaxation and to provide open lawn/play space (74% each). More than 65% considered parks important for providing visual “green spaces” within the city, providing places to walk or jog, , and providing developed spaces for field sports. Court sports and group gatherings were deemed at least very important by over 50% of respondents. The two items considered not as important were to provide places to exercise pets (39%) and to provide annual flower plantings (35%). Figure 8: Rating of Importance of Park Purposes 11% 14% 24% 19% 36% 29% 32% 27% 39% 23% 30% 38% 24% 25% 27% 42% 28% 39% 37% 43% 34% 51% 44% 39% 35% 39% 51% 62% 63% 68% 68% 70% 73% 74% 74% 78% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Providing annual flower plantings Providing places to exercise pets Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings Providing places for group gatherings Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat Providing a place to walk or jog Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, , lacrosse) Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) Providing visual “green spaces” within the city Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.) Providing a place for rest and relaxation Providing places for children to play on playground equipment Percent of Respondents Essential Very Important Attachment number 3 \nPage 24 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 25 City staff and officials are often faced with competing interests when planning parks and recreational offerings with limited resources. Those participating in the survey were given a series of pairs of statements from which they were to choose the one that best represented how they felt. The first pair of statements dealt with the overarching philosophy of the parks and recreation department, and whether it should be considered a human service (and therefore offer limited services funded primarily through tax dollars) or whether it should be considered a business (and therefore offer more services funded primarily through fees). There was overwhelming support for the human (see Figure 9 on the next page). Three-fourths of respondents felt that program should be offered at many different levels from beginner to very advanced, as opposed to being concentrated at the beginning and intermediate levels. About 54% considered it more important to make facilities more available for drop-in use, while about 38% thought facilities should mostly be programmed with leagues and other pre-planned activities. About 56% believed the recreational programs provided by the City should include some diverse offerings while about 39% believed they should be more focused on popular sports and fitness. Nearly one half of respondents thought the city should provide the facilities and programs identified as needed by residents even if they are provided by other agencies. When considering budget reductions, there is slight preference (49%) for maintaining all existing facilities and programs while reducing levels of service, compared to eliminating some programs and facilities (38%) while keeping the remaining programs and facilities at existing service levels. A majority (63%) of respondents thought that the landscaping in public spaces should be “beautifully maintained” in order to ensure a high quality of life, as opposed to landscaped in a way that requires minimal maintenance. In general, respondents believe it is important for playgrounds to serve the entire community, have more play equipment and diverse options for children of all ages. Similarly, respondents believe Recreation Centers should serve the entire community, be large in size and have a wide range of activities. Most respondents believe restrooms should be located mostly at special use facilities and athletic sports complexes, instead of being expanded to all neighborhoods and parks. However the support is not overwhelmingly strong (only 48%). Over half of respondents believe it is important to lit courts at night at both Recreational Centers and Neighborhood Parks. With regards to Coachman Park, a substantial majority (67%) of respondents would like to see larger events that attract visitors and bring in economic development, as opposed to smaller events serving residents or eliminating all events in efforts to save money. Over half of respondents consider it is more important to offer programs and facilities to our current demographic profile (2nd highest median age in the United States) as opposed to programs that attract younger families. Attachment number 3 \nPage 25 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 26 Figure 9: Trade-Off Preferences Consider Parks and Recreation a human service that contributes to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole community offering limited services funded primarily through tax dollars. 91% Consider Parks and Recreation a business that serves people who can afford to pay for the services through user fees.3% Parks and recreation programs should be offered at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced.74% Parks and recreation programs should be offered at the beginner and intermediate levels.22% Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly be available for public drop-in use with some active programming likely earning lesser revenues.54% Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly be programmed with leagues and other pre- planned activities or events, with some drop in use, likely earning greater revenues.38% Parks and recreation program offerings should offer some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many 56% Parks and recreation program offerings should focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g. aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people.38% The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that are requested by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in our community.49.0% The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that complement other community offerings but not duplicate them (even if the duplicated city programs are less expensive). 44.2% Programs and Facilities should be offered and constructed to our present and projected demographic profile. (we have the second highest median age in the United States) 52% Programs and Facilities should be offered and constructed to attract younger families 24% When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should maintain all existing programs and facilities but at a lower level of service (e.g. park maintenance on fewer days per week; reduced hours at recreation facilities). 49% When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should eliminate some programs and facilities, but keep the remaining programs and facilities at current levels of service (e.g. close some facilities but keep all others on current schedules). 38% * White: Other ( Both, neither or blank) Attachment number 3 \nPage 26 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 27 Figure 10: Trade-Off Preferences (Continued) Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should be beautifully maintained in our community to ensure our high quality of life.63% Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should require minimal or no maintenance.24% Playgrounds should serve the entire community, have more play equipment, have diverse options for all ages (6 months to 2, 2-5 and 5-12), be larger in scale and be within driving distance 58% Playgrounds should serve a neighborhood, have limited play equipment, primarily serve ages 2-5, and be within walking distance.35% Recreation centers should serve the entire community, be large in size, and have lots of activities (such as the Long Center)64% Recreation centers should serve a neighborhood and be smaller in size (such as Ross Norton)28% Lighting of Courts (Basketball and Tennis) at Night should be both a Neighborhood and Special Use Facility 54% Lighting of Courts (Basketball and Tennis) at Night should be in a Special Use facility (such as McMullen Tennis Complex) or Recreation Center 28% Lighting of Courts (Basketball and Tennis) at Night should be in a Neighborhood park 10% Special Events in Coachman Park should be larger events that bring in economic development by attracting visitors.67% Special Events in Coachman Park should serve primarily residents 20% Special Events in Coachman Park should be eliminated to save money 4% Restrooms be only a high volume special use facilities such as Clearwater Beach, and athletic sports complexes where we have them today.48% Restrooms should be expanded to all neighborhood and special use parks (approximately 50 parks). This would have a substantial cost impact both initially and for maintenance. This will mean that other parks and recreation elements would need to be eliminated to fund this endeavor 38% * White: Other ( Both, neither or blank) Attachment number 3 \nPage 27 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 28 Residents’ Use and Importance Ratings of Recreational Facilities and Programs The survey was used to assess resident use of a variety of parks and recreation offerings. Respondents indicated whether, in the last year, they or anyone in their household had participated in any of the indicated activities at a City of Clearwater facility, or at facility outside the City. Figure 10 displays the proportion of respondents whose households had participated in the activity in the previous year. After indicating their participation in the various activities, respondents evaluated the importance of offering each to the community through the City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department. These ratings are displayed in Figure 11 on page 21. There were five activities in which a majority of respondent households had participated in within the City of Clearwater. These were: participating in a community event; walking, running or jogging in a park or nature park; swimming, fishing, relaxing or having a social event at a beach; and attending an event at a Ruth Eckerd Hall or at BrightHouse Network Field. In general, the participation levels for the various activities mirrored the importance ratings. The areas given the highest importance ratings were also the sites of the most popular activities. Some exceptions include Playgrounds, which were used by only 41% of respondents, but were rated as very important or essential by over 70% of respondents. Other notable exceptions include Adult/ Senior exercise fitness or wellness programs which are rated as important by over 75% but which show participation rates of under 25%. Attachment number 3 \nPage 28 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 29 Figure 10: Participation in Parks and Recreation Activities 7% 9% 5% 9% 5% 8% 15% 8% 14% 13% 16% 14% 16% 0% 17% 5% 7% 18% 23% 16% 24% 24% 25% 25% 26% 27% 31% 35% 35% 38% 38% 39% 41% 44% 44% 53% 54% 54% 57% 67% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program Participated in an adult sports program or team Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) Used an indoor swimming pool for “open swim” (drop- in) Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program Used an outdoor swimming pool for “open swim” (drop-in) Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park Played at a playground Used the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail “Dropped-in” for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) Attended an event at BrightHouse Networks Field Attended an event at a Ruth Eckerd Hall Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park Participated in a community event Percent of Respondents Done at City of Clearwater Park or Facility Done Somewhere else Attachment number 3 \nPage 29 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 30 Figure 10: Participation in Parks and Recreation Activities (continued) 5% 6% 1% 3% 4% 7% 8% 3% 9% 2% 4% 6% 9% 5% 11% 10% 11% 7% 7% 9% 11% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 16% 19% 19% 20% 20% 21% 21% 22% 22% 23% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Used a skate park Played shuffleboard Participated in a therapeutic recreation program Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team Played baseball Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park Went non-motorized boating at a marina Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program Participated in a nature program Participated in a senior arts or recreation program Participated in a children’s (age 0-12) sports program or team Played softball Played golf or took golf lessons Participated in children’s (age 0-12) arts or recreation program Went motorized boating at a marina Played tennis or took tennis lessons Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake Participated in an adult arts or recreation program Percent of Respondents Done at City of Clearwater Park or Facility Done Somewhere else Attachment number 3 \nPage 30 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 31 Figure 11: Rating of Importance of Various Activities and Facilities 5% 10% 17% 19% 21% 22% 22% 25% 25% 25% 26% 26% 28% 28% 29% 31% 32% 32% 32% 33% 33% 34% 34% 34% 35% 36% 38% 38% 40% 40% 41% 45% 22% 25% 25% 28% 40% 27% 38% 35% 37% 38% 39% 39% 37% 41% 32% 32% 33% 37% 42% 28% 32% 32% 33% 37% 42% 40% 33% 33% 31% 34% 39% 25% 27% 35% 42% 47% 62% 49% 60% 60% 62% 63% 65% 65% 64% 69% 61% 63% 64% 68% 74% 61% 64% 65% 66% 70% 77% 76% 70% 70% 71% 74% 81% 70% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% A skate park Shuffleboard courts Golf courses Places to exercise pet(s) in a park or nature park Indoor swimming pool Nature programs Therapeutic recreation programs Adult arts or recreation programs Outdoor swimming pools Adult sports programs or teams A group shelter or picnic area (for group event) Tennis courts and complexes Gymnasiums for court sports Fitness classes Beach facilities for boating (Marina) Baseball and softball fields Senior arts or recreation programs Children’s (age 0-12) sports programs or teams Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail Field sports fields Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs Children’s (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs Exercise facilities (weights, exercise machines, etc.) Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs Adult exercise, fitness or wellness programs Ruth Eckerd Hall BrightHouse Networks Field Playgrounds Community events Parks and nature parks Beach facilities for swimming and recreation Percent of Respondents Essential Very Important Attachment number 3 \nPage 31 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 32 Residents’ Perspectives on Funding Options for Parks and Recreation Support for or Opposition to Funding Options Several question sets were included to determine the community’s support for, or opposition to, a variety of funding options for parks and recreation offerings by the City. A large majority of respondents supported the idea of the City supplementing the cost of operating facilities and recreational programs by using different revenue sources such as grants, donations and taxes (80%<) (Figure 12). Over 70% of respondents support the idea of charging higher fees to individuals living outside Clearwater for participating in recreation programs, as well as using profitable programs such as sports leagues, to pay for less profitable ones. In addition, when asked what proportion of funding for operating costs of facilities and programs should come from taxes versus fees, most of those completing the survey felt that taxes should pay for the majority of the operating costs (63%). Few respondents (10%) felt that taxes should pay for 100% of the operating costs. Little support was shown for the idea that recreation programs must pay for themselves exclusively through user fees (2%). (Figure 13). Figure 12: Agreement with Funding Strategies 9% 25% 41% 44% 45% 36% 47% 38% 38% 40% 44% 72% 79% 83% 86% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes. The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes. Percent of Respondents Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Attachment number 3 \nPage 32 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 33 Figure 13: Resident Opinion on Taxes versus Fees to Fund Operating Costs 100% through taxes 10% Taxes should pay the majority of costs and fees from users the remaining costs 63% 100% through fees 2% Fees from users should pay the majority of costs and taxes should pay the remaining costs 14% No response 11% Attachment number 3 \nPage 33 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 34 Preferences for Options to Reduce the Parks and Recreation Budget A section of the questionnaire informed recipients that the City of Clearwater, due to global economics and the passage of Amendment 1 to lower property taxes in the State of Florida, is facing tough economic challenges and will have to make difficult budget decisions. A set of options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget were presented, for which survey respondents indicated their level of support for or opposition to each. They were then asked to indicate what their top two choices would be for budget reductions. The preferences for budget reductions obtained in this survey parallel the results from the 2009 mail in survey. In general, there is a lack of support for any budget reduction. Of the 11 budget reduction options, only “Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians” was supported by the majority of respondents (51%).Other options supported by over 40% of the respondents include eliminating some athletic fields, reducing cultural programs, eliminating some community events, and reducing the operating hours of recreational facilities (see Figure 14).These options were also the ones most likely to be chosen when asked for the top two choices for reductions (see Figure 15 on the next page). The majority of respondents are opposed to reductions such as allowing other entities to operate city facilities, closing one of the recreational facilities, reducing park maintenance and reducing beach maintenance. Over 40% oppose reducing programs that serve senior adults. Figure 14: Support for Options to Reduce the Parks and Recreation Budget Attachment number 3 \nPage 34 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 35 Figure 15: Top Choices for Reducing the Parks and Recreation Budget 5% 5% 5% 8% 9% 10% 12% 12% 13% 14% 20% 15% 19% 25% 21% 19% 29% 32% 36% 27% 28% 31% 20% 24% 30% 29% 28% 38% 43% 47% 40% 42% 51% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Reducing programs that serve senior adults Closing a recreational facility Reducing park maintenance Allow other entities to operate city facilities even if the programs are more expensive Reducing beach maintenance Reducing athletic fields maintenance Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities Eliminating some community events Reducing cultural programs Eliminating some athletic fields Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians Percent of Respondents Strongly Support Somewhat Support Attachment number 3 \nPage 35 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 36 5% 5% 9% 10% 5% 8% 13% 12% 12% 14% 20% 3% 5% 6% 8% 8% 10% 13% 14% 14% 18% 22% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Reducing park maintenance Reducing programs that serve senior adults Reducing beach maintenance Reducing athletic fields maintenance Closing a recreational facility Allow other entities to operate city facilities even if the programs are more expensive Reducing cultural programs Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities Eliminating some community events Eliminating some athletic fields Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians Percent of Respondents Percent choosing as top choice for reduction Strongly Support Attachment number 3 \nPage 36 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 37 TABLES: RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. Question #1 Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should offer recreation facilities & programs through parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. St r o n g l y A g r e e So m e w h a t A g r e e So m e w h a t D i s a g r e e St r o n g l y D i s a g r e e Bl a n k To t a l Most Important (check TWO only) To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health 80% 19% 0% 0% 1% 100% 41% To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric 52% 38% 6% 0% 4% 100% 8% To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors inside and outside the community 54% 37% 7% 1% 2% 100% 10% To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 54% 35% 6% 5% 1% 100% 10% To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) 68% 23% 4% 0% 5% 100% 20% To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) 63% 30% 4% 0% 4% 100% 17% To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents 53% 37% 8% 1% 2% 100% 14% To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations 45% 36% 12% 7% 1% 100% 6% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation 54% 34% 7% 3% 3% 100% 2% To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space 58% 34% 4% 2% 3% 100% 13% To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination 40% 26% 22% 9% 2% 99% 7% To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination 38% 39% 15% 7% 0% 99% 10% Attachment number 3 \nPage 37 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 38 Question #2 Please rate how important you think it is for the City to provide recreation programs for each of the population groups below. Es s e n t i a l Ve r y Im p o r t a n t So m e w h a t Im p o r t a n t No t a t a l l Im p o r t a n t Do n ' t k n o w Bl a n k To t a l Children 0 to 5 years old 22% 25% 34% 12% 3% 5% 100% Children 6 to 12 years old 43% 37% 13% 2% 1% 4% 100% Teenagers 13 to 17 years old 53% 36% 9% 1% 0% 2% 100% Adults 39% 38% 14% 3% 3% 3% 100% Senior adults (60 years old or more) 54% 27% 13% 3% 2% 1% 100% Families together as a group 31% 39% 19% 2% 3% 5% 99% People with disabilities 38% 42% 13% 3% 1% 4% 100% Non-residents 10% 17% 43% 21% 6% 3% 100% Beginner levels 23% 37% 22% 5% 8% 4% 98% Intermediate levels 20% 38% 25% 4% 9% 3% 98% Advanced or elite levels 16% 28% 30% 9% 12% 4% 98% Question #3a The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. I consider parks and recreation . . . Percent of Respondents A human service that contributes to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole community offering limited s 91% A business that serves people who can afford to pay for the services through user fees 3% Total 94% Question #3b The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Parks and recreation programs should be offered . . . Percent of Respondents At many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced. 74% At the beginner and intermediate levels 22% Total 96% Attachment number 3 \nPage 38 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 39 Question #3c The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly . . . Percent of Respondents Programmed with leagues and other pre-planned activities or events, with some drop in use, likely earning greater revenue 38% Available for public drop-in use with some active programming likely earning lesser revenues 54% Total 92% Question #3d The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Parks and recreation program offerings should . . . Percent of Respondents Focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g. aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people 39% Offer some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many 56% Total 95% Question #3e The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that . . . Percent of Respondents Complement other community offerings but not duplicate them (even if the duplicated city programs are less expensive) 44% Are requested by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in our community 49% Total 93% Attachment number 3 \nPage 39 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 40 Question #3f The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should . . . Percent of Respondents Maintain all existing programs and facilities but at a lower level of service (e.g. park maintenance on fewer days per week; reduced hours at recreation facilities; fewer recreation program offerings within each category). 49% Eliminate some programs and facilities, but keep the remaining programs and facilities at current levels of service (e.g close some facilities but keep all others on current schedules; cut some types of recreation programs) 38% Total 87% Question #3g The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should be . . . Percent of Respondents Beautifully maintained in our community to ensure our high quality of life 63% Require minimal or no maintenance 24% Total 87% Question #3h The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Playgrounds should… Percent of Respondents serve the entire community, have more play equipment, have diverse options for all ages (6 months to 2, 2-5 and 5-12), be larger in scale and be within driving distance 58% serve a neighborhood, have limited play equipment, primarily serve ages 2-5, and be within walking distance. 35% Total 93% Attachment number 3 \nPage 40 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 41 Question #3i The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Recreation Centers should… Percent of Respondents serve the entire community, be large in size, and have lots of activities (such as the Long Center) 64% serve a neighborhood and be smaller in size (such as Ross Norton) 28% Total 92% Question #3j The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Restrooms should… Percent of Respondents be expanded to all neighborhood and special use parks (approximately 50 parks). This would have a substantial cost impact both initially and for maintenance. This will mean that other parks and recreation elements would need to be eliminated to fund this endeavor 38% be only a high volume special use facilities such as Clearwater Beach, and athletic sports complexes where we have them today. 48% Total 96% Question #3k The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Lighting of Courts (Basketball and Tennis) at Night should be… Percent of Respondents in a Neighborhood park 10% in a Special Use facility (such as McMullen Tennis Complex) or Recreation Center 28% both a Neighborhood and Special Use Facility 54% Total 92% Attachment number 3 \nPage 41 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 42 Question #3l The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Special Events in Coachman Park should… Percent of Respondents serve primarily residents 20% be larger events that bring in economic development by attracting visitors. 67% be eliminated to save money 4% Total 91% Question #3m The city of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Programs and Facilities should… Percent of Respondents be offered and constructed to our present and projected demographic profile. (we have the second highest median age in the United States) 52% be offered and constructed to attract younger families 24% Total 76% Attachment number 3 \nPage 42 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 43 Question 4 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following activities. Then indicate which you think are the two MOST IMPORTANT activities. Es s e n t i a l Ve r y I m p o r t a n t So m e w h at I m p o r t a n t No t a t a l l I m p o r t a n t Bl a n k To t a l Most Impo rtant (chec k TWO only) Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) 38% 42% 11% 0% 9% 100% 53% Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) 13% 24% 45% 7% 11% 99% 4% Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) 13% 25% 39% 7% 14% 99% 4% Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) 35% 29% 24% 3% 9% 99% 35% Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) 33% 36% 16% 4% 12% 100% 21% Golf 11% 21% 39% 17% 11% 99% 1% Gymnastics 8% 24% 45% 11% 12% 99% 1% Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) 27% 45% 16% 2% 9% 99% 21% Tennis 17% 36% 31% 6% 10% 99% 4% Attachment number 3 \nPage 43 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 44 Question #5 City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. Es s e n t i a l Ve r y I m p o r t a n t So m e w h a t I m p o r t a n t No t a t a l l I m p o r t a n t Do n ' t k n o w Bl a n k To t a l Providing visual “green spaces” within the city 39% 34% 19% 2% 1% 5% 100% Providing a place for rest and relaxation 30% 44% 18% 2% 1% 5% 100% Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, , lacrosse) 32% 37% 21% 7% 1% 3% 100% Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.) 23% 51% 16% 4% 1% 5% 100% Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) 27% 43% 23% 5% 0% 2% 100% Providing places for group gatherings 19% 42% 30% 4% 1% 4% 100% Providing places for children to play on playground equipment 38% 39% 13% 3% 0% 6% 100% Providing places to exercise pets 14% 25% 39% 14% 3% 4% 100% Providing a place to walk or jog 29% 39% 23% 3% 2% 4% 100% Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat 36% 28% 24% 7% 1% 5% 100% Providing annual flower plantings 11% 24% 38% 23% 1% 4% 100% Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings 24% 27% 33% 9% 4% 4% 100% Attachment number 3 \nPage 44 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 45 Question #6 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. Es s e n t i a l Ve r y I m p o r t a n t So m e w h a t I m p o r t a n t No t A t A l l I m p o r t a n t Bl a n k To t a l Most Important (check up to THREE) Clearwater Celebrates America 24% 36% 14% 8% 18% 100% 18% Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend 23% 36% 22% 6% 13% 100% 26% Clearwater Sea Blues Festival 17% 32% 27% 5% 19% 100% 16% Blast Friday 19% 26% 27% 14% 13% 100% 9% Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend 13% 25% 29% 18% 15% 100% 6% TriRocks 7% 17% 34% 19% 23% 100% 0% Jazz Holiday 29% 32% 19% 5% 15% 100% 20% Make A Difference Fishing Tournament 12% 29% 37% 9% 14% 100% 6% Martin Luther King Day March 16% 35% 20% 14% 14% 100% 13% Outback Beach Day 13% 27% 36% 9% 16% 100% 4% Turkey Trot 30% 32% 15% 8% 15% 100% 22% Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training 36% 30% 12% 9% 14% 100% 23% Clearwater Threshers 31% 27% 20% 8% 14% 100% 14% Attachment number 3 \nPage 45 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 46 Question #7 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has done any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Done at a City of Clearwater park or facility Done somewhere else Used the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 44% N/A Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 57% 23% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 39% 14% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 14% 7% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 31% 15% Used a skate park 7% 5% Played at a playground 41% 16% Participated in a nature program 16% 9% Played baseball 13% 4% Played softball 20% 6% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 25% 9% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 22% 10% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 27% 8% Played golf or took golf lessons 20% 9% Played shuffleboard 9% 6% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 35% 8% Used an outdoor swimming pool for “open swim” (drop-in) 38% 16% Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 25% 5% Used an indoor swimming pool for “open swim” (drop-in) 26% 5% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 22% 11% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 54% 18% Went motorized boating at a marina 21% 11% Went non-motorized boating at a marina 15% 8% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 35% 14% “Dropped-in” for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 44% 17% Participated in children’s (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 21% 5% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 16% 3% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 23% 7% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 19% 2% Participated in a children’s (age 0-12) sports program or team 19% 4% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 13% 3% Participated in an adult sports program or team 24% 9% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 38% 13% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 24% 7% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 11% 1% Participated in a community event 67% 16% Attended an event at a Ruth Eckerd Hall 54% 7% Attended an event at BrightHouse Networks Field 53% 5% Attachment number 3 \nPage 46 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 47 Question #8 How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Es s e n t i a l Ve r y I m p o r t a n t So m e w h a t Im p o r t a n t No t A t A l l I m p o r t a n t Do n ’ t K n o w Bl a n k To t a l The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 33% 28% 20% 5% 5% 10% 100% Parks and nature parks 41% 39% 9% 3% 1% 7% 100% Places to exercise pet(s) in a park or nature park 19% 28% 38% 5% 2% 8% 99% A group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 26% 39% 20% 4% 1% 10% 100% A skate park 5% 22% 46% 18% 0% 9% 100% Playgrounds 40% 31% 18% 3% 0% 8% 100% Nature programs 22% 27% 36% 6% 1% 9% 100% Baseball and softball fields 31% 32% 26% 4% 0% 8% 100% Field sports fields (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 33% 32% 23% 5% 0% 8% 100% Tennis courts and complexes 26% 39% 22% 6% 0% 7% 100% Gymnasiums for court sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 28% 37% 24% 5% 1% 6% 100% Golf courses 17% 25% 35% 14% 1% 8% 100% Shuffleboard courts 10% 25% 38% 18% 1% 9% 100% Outdoor swimming pools 25% 37% 26% 3% 1% 9% 100% Indoor swimming pool 21% 40% 30% 0% 0% 9% 100% Beach facilities for swimming and recreation 45% 25% 13% 7% 3% 7% 100% Beach facilities for boating (Marina 29% 32% 24% 7% 0% 9% 100% Fitness classes (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 28% 41% 19% 4% 1% 7% 100% Exercise facilities (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 34% 37% 19% 1% 1% 8% 99% Children’s (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs 34% 33% 23% 2% 2% 7% 100% Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs 34% 32% 21% 2% 3% 9% 100% Adult arts or recreation programs 25% 35% 30% 3% 1% 7% 100% Senior arts or recreation programs 32% 33% 23% 5% 1% 7% 100% Children’s (age 0-12) sports programs or teams 32% 37% 22% 2% 1% 7% 100% Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams 32% 42% 15% 2% 1% 8% 100% Adult sports programs or teams 25% 38% 25% 5% 1% 7% 100% Adult exercise, fitness or wellness programs 36% 40% 13% 2% 0% 9% 100% Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs 35% 42% 13% 3% 0% 8% 100% Therapeutic recreation programs 22% 38% 27% 3% 1% 9% 99% Community events 40% 34% 14% 2% 2% 7% 99% Ruth Eckerd Hall 38% 33% 15% 6% 2% 7% 100% BrightHouse Networks Field 38% 33% 13% 7% 3% 7% 100% Attachment number 3 \nPage 47 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 48 Question #9 Please indicate which of the following statements best represents how you feel the cost for operating recreation facilities and offering recreational programs should be paid. Percent of Respondents 100% through taxes 10% Taxes should pay the majority of costs and fees from users the remaining costs 63% 100% through fees 2% Fees from users should pay the majority of costs and taxes should pay the remaining costs 14% Total 100% Question #10 The City of Clearwater is exploring ways to fund parks and recreation in the future. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding options. St r o n g l y A g r e e So m e w h a t A g r e e So m e w h a t D i s a g r e e St r o n g l y D i s a g r e e Do n ' t k n o w Bl a n k To t a l Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 9% 36% 29% 19% 3% 5% 100% Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) 25% 47% 12% 8% 3% 6% 100% The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes. 44% 38% 6% 1% 3% 7% 99% The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes. 45% 40% 5% 1% 1% 8% 100% Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs 41% 38% 6% 9% 2% 5% 100% Attachment number 3 \nPage 48 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 49 Question #11 The City of Clearwater, due to global economics and the passage of Amendment 1 to lower property taxes in the State of Florida, like the rest of the nation, is facing tough economic challenges and will have to make difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget. Then indicate which two options you would most support, if budget cuts were necessary. St r o n g l y S u p p o r t So m e w h a t S u p p o r t So m e w h a t O p p o s e St r o n g l y O p p o s e Bl a n k To t a l Top Choices for Reductions (check TWO only) Reducing beach maintenance 9% 19% 22% 36% 13% 99% 6% Reducing park maintenance 5% 25% 31% 27% 12% 99% 3% Reducing athletic fields maintenance 10% 29% 23% 22% 15% 99% 8% Eliminating some athletic fields 14% 28% 21% 25% 12% 100% 18% Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities 12% 32% 22% 22% 12% 99% 14% Closing a recreational facility 5% 19% 29% 34% 13% 99% 8% Eliminating some community events 12% 36% 21% 18% 13% 99% 14% Reducing programs that serve senior adults 5% 15% 28% 39% 12% 99% 5% Reducing cultural programs 13% 27% 30% 18% 11% 99% 13% Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians 20% 31% 19% 17% 12% 99% 22% Allow other entities to operate city facilities even if the programs are more expensive 8% 21% 25% 33% 12% 98% 10% Attachment number 3 \nPage 49 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 50 Appendix C: Specific Area Comments Comments regarding specific areas or programs that participants would like to see included or that they don’t like about the existing facilities and programs. (Underlined indicates support by four or more individuals) Athletics (Youth/ Adult Sports): ♦ Golf lessons ♦ Football lessons ♦ Basketball lessons ♦ Baseball ♦ Softball for children ♦ Tennis lessons for all ages ♦ Kickball lessons ♦ Soccer for kids and adults ♦ Track ♦ Pickleball lessons Aquatics: ♦ Keep all heated pools open all year round for use ♦ Senior exercise aquatics ♦ More field trips ♦ Water Park ♦ We need a year-round outdoor pool ♦ Keep pool open on weekends longer ♦ Beach pool needs to be open longer, more months, and heated ♦ Staff at beach pool is fantastic ♦ Keep Morningside pool open longer ♦ Library needs to open longer ♦ Better access to Long Center Pool – non sport ♦ Long Center- wonderful facility Recreation Programs: ♦ Kayak Kids Cemp (Summer) ♦ Table tennis ♦ Bowling Teams (Youth + Adults) ♦ Volleyball/ Handball clinics for beginners ♦ Dancing ♦ Art Classes ♦ Music (Chorus/ Band) ♦ Basketball courts (Outdoor/Indoor) ♦ There should be more advertising for facilities and programs ♦ Pickleball leagues ♦ 5k’s, triathlons, running and kayaking, obstacle courses ♦ Recumbent biking for older population ♦ Butts + gluts/ Zumba Aging Well Center: ♦ Tai-Chi senior level ♦ Better access for Seniors (Rear door) ♦ Good Programs / Love the versatile programs ♦ Directional signs at eye level ♦ Change the name of the aging well center Parks Maintenance (Landscaping upgrades and improvements): ♦ Only Florida-friendly or native landscaping, work with the environment, be ecological responsible ♦ Grass! No vehicles riding around ♦ Trash Cans ♦ Working fountains ♦ Light replacement (Shelters) ♦ More restrooms ♦ Cut grass more often ♦ Use less annuals Attachment number 3 \nPage 50 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 51 ♦ Clean beach less to save money, No need for cleaning once and day. ♦ Clearwater spends too much on sprucing up EC Moore Complex ♦ Shaded Playgrounds ♦ Misters and water fountains – If not wasted water Park amenities- What do you want to see? ♦ Replace Rockaway Pier ♦ A new recreational center in Morningside ♦ Restrooms in Morningside ♦ Restrooms restored in Crest Lake Park ♦ Lights at Morningside Tennis ♦ Longer hours at Morningside pool, ex: from 5 -7 pm, and additional months of service ♦ Coopers Bayou: Picnic Tables, Restroom, kayak rinse rack ♦ Pull-up Bars ♦ Community garage sales at the parks ♦ Community and MPO involvement (Scouts, shcools, churches, neighborhood groups engaging in activities and events) ♦ Fire pits ♦ Fishing tournament ♦ Bake sales, garage or market days at the parks ♦ Music at coachman ♦ More pickleball courts availability ♦ Crest Lake: Please improve- bring back the people with better security and bathrooms ♦ Build Track and Field for the public ♦ Fitness court ♦ Lights on Tennis courts Special Use Facilities: ♦ Coachman Park – Great ♦ Develop Coachman Park as a Park ♦ Shuffle board Club: Kayak launch area to Stephens Creek ♦ Disk Golf Environmental Programs: ♦ Park Clean-up: Get the community involved ♦ Beautification/ Tree Planting Attachment number 3 \nPage 51 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 52 Appendix D: Park Memories ♦ Clearwater Beach swimming pool. Aug/Sept-pool opened 5 days a week ♦ Although grandchildren live in cities well supplied with recreational opportunities, they love to come to Grannie Camp and play tennis ♦ Walk every morning from Gardenia to end of the beachwalk 340 days a year ♦ Great friends at Clearwater Beach pool ♦ Pleased with the pool staff. Very attentive to detail and being a quadriplegic, feel very secure in their care ♦ Made many new friends at the CL Beach Recreation Center fitness class. There is such a diversity of programs. The library is a tremendous asset, but should be open mornings too. Exercise area well maintained. ♦ Clearwater Beach sunsets ♦ When first moved here was able to take kids to Country Hollow park. ♦ Climbing on huge sand pile at Sugar Sand Festival ♦ Florida Orchestra in Coachman Park ♦ Walking to Forest Run on the nature walk in evening ♦ Son played at Clearwater Beach Rec Center since 1975. Many memories playing soccer, swimming, and on beach. He is now with teenager and she swims at pool ♦ Best memories is spending time with friends ♦ Clearwater Beachwalk – watching being built and now enjoy walking it ♦ Sunsets at the beach every night ♦ Enjoy Martin Luther King Park. Would like more child friendly opportunities- water play areas ♦ Gym equipment in the parks ♦ Recreation teams compete with other recreation teams, i.e. basketball ♦ Nature walks; need touch football and disk golf ♦ Annual church picnics in the park ♦ Would like water slide and fast rides ♦ Family days in park. Some parks need more basketball courts ♦ More basketball courts ♦ See kids in North Greenwood use the Clearwater Parks and Recreation facilities. Great resources ♦ After-school programs ♦ Summer school and field trips ♦ Park needs more hand-ball courts, basketball, football, volleyball, kickball ♦ Playing on swings and monkey bars ♦ Safe place for children to attend after schools and summer school ♦ Family gatherings, birthday parties and water days ♦ Monday night league basketball ♦ North Greenwood. Good memories and very nice trips ♦ Swings ♦ Just sit in park and enjoy sunsets ♦ Walking dog at Crest Lake Park ♦ Playground at Crest Lake Park. Make the park a happy place for kids ♦ Ross Norton Park for community meetings. Staff friendly ♦ Little League at Countryside Attachment number 3 \nPage 52 of 53 Item # 5 Parks and Recreation Survey September 2013 Report of Results (2013-09) Page 53 ♦ Community picnics at Lake Bellevue, early morning workouts ♦ Played basketball, football and in parks. Started swimming ♦ Birthday parties in park ♦ Playing basketball and meeting new people ♦ Surprise retirement party at MLK ♦ Senior splash (Silver Sneakers) ♦ Open forums for political and community activities ♦ Long Center table tennis. Use Countryside Center for pickleball and gym ♦ Pickleball. Would like Countryside to set up area for that, with lights ♦ Pickleball. City needs to transition some tennis courts ♦ Playgrounds. Needs one like Largo ♦ Pickleball, repaint tennis court for its use ♦ Lighted courts ♦ Countryside Center – made a lot of friends. ♦ Long Center - Pickleball ♦ Coachman Park concerts ♦ Use Long Center and Countryside Center, even though live in Safety Harbor ♦ Home for Sunrise Pickleball Club ♦ Pickleball rocks! ♦ As a senior with health issues, the recreation programs help to stay fit ♦ Good Life games ♦ Long Center – Pickleball. People nice there ♦ Many life changing experiences in Clearwater. Great people! ♦ Wonderful employees at Senior Center ♦ Wonderful seminars ♦ Crest Lake Park – walking, jogging. Safe due to police watch ♦ Morningside Recreation Center – community lost all the annual events ♦ Crest lake Park – walking and dog park ♦ Aging Well Center – programs ♦ Watching sons learn to swim at Morningside Attachment number 3 \nPage 53 of 53 Item # 5 2955 Valmont Rd., Suite 300 • Boulder, Colorado 80301 t: 303-444-7863 • f: 303-444-1145 • www.n-r-c.com APPENDIX C CITY OF CLEARWATER PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN MAIL SURVEY REPORT OF RESULTS December 2013 Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 Survey Background ................................................................................................................ 5 Survey Results ....................................................................................................................... 6 Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation ....................................................................... 6 Purpose of Clearwater Parks and Recreation ..................................................................... 6 Resident Perspectives on Recreation Programs ............................................................... 12 Resident Perspectives on Community Events .................................................................. 14 Resident Perspectives on Parks ........................................................................................ 16 Residents’ Use and Importance Ratings of Recreational Facilities and Programs ........... 17 Residents’ Perspectives on Funding Options for Parks and Recreation ................................. 21 Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses ....................................................................... 25 Appendix B: 2013 Survey Responses Compared to 2009 Responses ...................................... 40 Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area ........................... 51 Appendix D: Selected Survey Results by Respondent Characteristics .................................... 69 Appendix E: Survey Methodology ........................................................................................ 83 Appendix F: Survey Materials .............................................................................................. 87 Attachment number 4 \nPage 2 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) FIGURES Figure 1: Community Vision for Parks and Recreation, 2013 compared to 2009 .......................... 7 Figure 2: Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation, 2013 compared to 2009 ..................... 8 Figure 3: Trade-Off Preferences, 2013 compared to 2009* ......................................................... 10 Figure 4: Additional Trade-off Preferences .................................................................................. 11 Figure 5: Importance Placed on Serving Various Population Groups, 2013 compared to 2009 ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 6: Importance Placed on Various Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 ............ 13 Figure 7: Importance Placed on Various Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 ............ 13 Figure 8: Importance of Community Events, 2013 compared to 2009 ........................................ 14 Figure 9: Most Important Community Events, 2013 compared to 2009 ..................................... 15 Figure 10: Resident Views of Purposes of City Parks, 2013 compared to 2009 ........................... 16 Figure 11: Participation in Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 .................................. 18 Figure 12: Importance of the City of Clearwater Offering Various Activities/Facilities, 2013 compared to 2009 ........................................................................................................ 20 Figure 13: Support for Funding Options, 2013 compared to 2009 .............................................. 21 Figure 14: Fees versus Taxes for Operating Facilities and Operating Programs, 2013 compared to 2009 ................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 15: Support for Options to REDUCE the Parks and Recreation Budget, 2013 compared to 2009 ................................................................................................................. 23 Figure 16: Options Chosen to REDUCE the Parks and Recreation Budget, 2013 compared to 2009 ................................................................................................................................... 24 Attachment number 4 \nPage 3 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Survey Background Parks and recreation facilities, programs and services are an important part of Clearwater’s quality of life. As a part of the process to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department commissioned a scientific survey of Clearwater residents to understand the public’s perspectives and preferences. A similar survey was conducted in 2009 and comparisons to results from the previous survey are shown wherever possible. A total of 3,000 households located in Clearwater were randomly selected to receive the survey. About 17% (~500) of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the approximately 2,500 households presumed to have received a survey, 490 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 20%. The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) was ±4 percentage points. Survey results were weighted so that respondent age, gender and type of housing situation (presence or absence of children in the household) were represented in the proportions reflective of the Clearwater adult population. Highlights of Survey Results  The “mission statement” for parks and recreation in Clearwater that most resonated with residents was to provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health. A series of 12 statements about possible overarching goals for parks and recreation in Clearwater was presented to survey respondents, who were asked to rate the importance of each of these potential purposes. There were four potential “missions” that resonated most strongly with residents, with which more than 90% of respondents at least somewhat agreed, and more than 60% strongly agreed. These were: ♦ To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) ♦ To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health ♦ To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space ♦ To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents When forced to choose just two of the statements as the most important ones for parks and recreation in Clearwater, providing opportunities to maintain and improve physical health was the “clear winner,” with 45% of respondents. The next closest, providing positive activities for youth and providing green and natural spaces within the community, were chosen by 28% and 27% respectively. Attachment number 4 \nPage 4 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 2  Residents greatly preferred (9 to 1) that the Parks and Recreation Department operate with a “human services” orientation (offering limited services funded primarily through tax dollars) versus a business model choice (offering more services funded primarily through fees). City staff and officials are often faced with competing interests when planning parks and recreational offerings with limited resources. Those participating in the survey were given a series of pairs of statements from which they were to choose the one that best represented how they felt. Overwhelming support was given to the human services model of service delivery, chosen by 90% of respondents, compared to a business model, selected by 10% of respondents.  Those completing the survey felt that the City’s parks and recreation programs should offer a lot of diversity. Seven in 10 felt programs should be offered at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced, while 3 in 10 thought programs should be concentrated at the beginner and intermediate levels. About 6 in 10 thought parks and recreation program offerings should include some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many, while 4 in 10 thought the City should concentrate primarily on popular sports and activities because those would serve the largest number of people. Residents were somewhat more likely to prefer that parks and recreation facilities have greater availability for public drop-in use (60%) rather than be mostly programmed with leagues and other planned activities (40%), even though drop-in use would likely result in lower revenues.  About 7 in 10 respondents gave preference to fewer larger playgrounds with more equipment over smaller playgrounds serving neighborhoods.  About two-thirds felt that restrooms should be only at high volume special use facilities such as Clearwater Beach and athletic sports complexes, while about one-third believed that restrooms should be expanded to all neighborhood and special use parks in spite of the substantial cost.  Seven in 10 respondents favored beautifully maintained landscaping in public spaces to ensure a high quality of life, while 3 in 10 would choose landscaping that requires little or no maintenance. This trade-off was also included in the 2009 survey, where a majority of respondents also preferred beautifully maintained landscaping, but the majority was not as strong as in 2013.  Children and teenagers were considered the highest priority target population group to be served by recreational programming. Attachment number 4 \nPage 5 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 3 Those completing the survey were asked which population groups they thought should be given the highest priority in terms of recreational programming. Over 40% of respondents considered it essential to serve teenagers and children. Families together as a group and people with disabilities were the populations considered the next most important, with about 4 in 10 respondents feeling these groups were essential to serve. About a third of respondents considered recreational programs for senior adults and adults essential.  Community events and wellness/fitness programs were the recreational activities regarded as most important for Clearwater. When asked to rate the importance of various recreational activities, community events and wellness/fitness programs were the ones that the greatest proportion of respondents considered essential, followed by aquatics and sports teams and fitness. Visual arts and performing arts were given lower priority, with gymnastics given the least priority. Ratings were similar to those observed in 2009, with wellness and fitness being given even greater priority in 2013 than in 2009.  The three events deemed most vital to the community were the Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training, Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend and Clearwater Threshers. The Phillies Spring Training was seen as particularly valuable, with 43% of respondents rating it essential. All three of these events were considered very important or essential by over 70% of respondents. Three additional events were considered essential or very important by over 60% of respondents: the Turkey Trot, Clearwater Celebrates America and Jazz Holiday.  While parks serve a variety of roles in a community, the one considered most important to Clearwater residents was providing places for children to play on playground equipment. Other important functions were providing places to walk or jog, followed closely by providing natural open lands, visual “green spaces” within the city, and places for rest and relaxation.  There were seven activities in which a majority of respondent households had participated at a City of Clearwater park or facility in the past year. These were: ♦ walking, running or jogging in a park or nature park ♦ swimming, fishing, relaxing or having a social event at a beach ♦ relaxing in a park ♦ using the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail ♦ attending an event at Bright House Networks Field ♦ attending an event at a Ruth Eckerd Hall, and ♦ participating in a community event. These were also the activities with the greatest participation in 2009 (with the exception of Bright House Networks Field, which was not included on the 2009 survey). In general, participation levels in 2013 were higher than in 2009. Attachment number 4 \nPage 6 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 4 In general, the participation levels for the various activities mirrored the importance ratings. The areas given the highest importance ratings were also the sites of the most popular activities. The exception was for playgrounds, which had slightly lower participation (but still high at 45% of respondent households), but which were considered “essential” by 55% of respondents. By and large, respondents were more likely to consider the offerings of the department “essential” in 2013 than they had been in 2009, although the rank order of the items was similar.  When asked whether the funding for operating costs of facilities and programs should come primarily through fees or through taxes, 6 in 10 of those completing the survey felt that taxes should pay for the majority of the operating costs of facilities and programs with user fees funding the remaining costs. About 1 in 10 believed that taxes should pay for 100% of the operating costs. About 2 in 10 respondents felt that the majority of the costs should be paid by fees with the remaining coming from taxes. Few respondents (5%) thought that fees should be the sole source of funding for operating costs. Compared to 2009, funding from taxes was viewed somewhat more favorably in 2013.  When having to make tough budget choices, a majority of respondents supported eliminating some community events, reducing recreation facility operating hours, eliminating some athletic fields and reducing cultural programs if necessary. Options that a majority of respondents opposed in order to reduce the budget included reducing beach maintenance, reducing park maintenance, closing a recreational facility, allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive, reducing programs that serve senior adults, reducing athletic fields maintenance and reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians. In general, respondents gave a bit less support to service reductions in 2013 than they did in 2009, perhaps reflecting the improved national economy. Attachment number 4 \nPage 7 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 5 SURVEY BACKGROUND Parks and recreation facilities, programs and services are an important part of Clearwater’s quality of life. As a part of the process to update the Parks and Recreation Master Plan, the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department commissioned a scientific survey of Clearwater residents to understand the public’s perspectives and preferences. A total of 3,000 households located in Clearwater were randomly selected to receive the survey. Each selected household was contacted three times. First, a prenotification announcement was sent, informing the household members that they had been selected to participate in the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Survey. Approximately one week after mailing the prenotification, each household was mailed a survey containing a cover letter signed by the city manager enlisting participation. The packet also contained a postage paid return envelope in which the survey recipients could return the completed questionnaire directly to NRC. A reminder letter and survey, scheduled to arrive one week after the first survey was the final contact. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The mailings were sent in October 2013. Completed surveys were collected over the following weeks. About 17% (~500) of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the approximately 2,500 households who received a survey, 490 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 20%. The demographic characteristics of the survey sample were compared to those found in the most recent U.S. Census Bureau estimates for adults in the city. Survey results were weighted using the population norms to reflect the appropriate percent of those residents in the city. The variables used for weighting were respondent gender, age and housing situation. Additional details on the survey administration and analysis can be found in Appendix E: Survey Methodology. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could answer, “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses. However, for the most part, these responses have been removed from the analyses presented in the body of the report. In other words, the tables and graphs display the responses from respondents who had an opinion about a specific item. When a table for a question does not total to exactly 100%, it is due to the customary practice of percentages being rounded to the nearest whole number. A similar survey was conducted in 2009 and comparisons to results from the previous survey are shown wherever possible. Attachment number 4 \nPage 8 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 6 SURVEY RESULTS Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation Purpose of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Parks and recreation services can provide a number of valuable contributions to a community. A series of statements about possible overarching goals for parks and recreation was presented to survey respondents, who were asked to rate the importance of each of these potential purposes. Two-thirds or more of respondents at least somewhat agreed that each of the purposes presented through the survey were important for Clearwater (see Table 1 in Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses), and most purposes were considered at least somewhat important by more than 80% of respondents. There were four potential “missions” of parks and recreation in Clearwater that resonated most strongly with residents, with which more than 90% of respondents at least somewhat agreed, and more than 60% strongly agreed (see Figure 1 on the next page); these were: ♦ To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) ♦ To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health ♦ To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space ♦ To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents The first 3 purposes in the list were also considered the most vital purposes of parks and recreation when residents were surveyed in 2009; however, fostering a more beautiful community with a greater sense of place was not considered nearly as important in 2009 as it was in 2013. After rating the to which extent they agreed or disagreed with the twelve purpose statements, respondents were asked which two statements they felt were the most important. Figure 2 on page 8 displays these results. In general, the rank order was fairly similar to that seen when looking at the proportion of respondents strongly agreeing with each statement, although a few discrepancies were noted when respondents were only allowed to choose two statements as the most important. When forced to choose only two statements from the 12, the one garnering the most “votes” was to provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health. The rank order of these priorities was similar in 2013 compared to 2009. Attachment number 4 \nPage 9 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 7 Figure 1: Community Vision for Parks and Recreation, 2013 compared to 2009 Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should use parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 21% 32% 37% 43% 43% 40% 47% 51% 49% 63% 66% 69% 23% 31% 40% 41% 47% 47% 48% 57% 64% 66% 68% 69% 0%25%50%75%100% To maintain the community's image as an athletic "sports town" destination To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community's social fabric To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city's livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations To enhance the community's economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) To maintain the community's image as a beach resort destination* To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation* To promote a more beautiful community and a greater "sense of place" for residents* To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) Percent of respondents who "strongly agree" 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 10 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 8 Figure 2: Community Priorities for Parks and Recreation, 2013 compared to 2009 Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should use parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. Then please tell us which two you think are the MOST IMPORTANT reasons for Parks and Recreation in Clearwater. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 6% 10% 9% 13% 9% 14% 11% 13% 14% 27% 35% 46% 4% 7% 8% 8% 12% 13% 18% 18% 21% 27% 28% 45% 0%25%50%75%100% To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community* To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation* To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination* To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents* To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger)* To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health Percent of respondents rating as one of most important reasons 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 11 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 9 City staff and officials are often faced with competing interests when planning parks and recreational offerings with limited resources. Those participating in the survey were given a series of pairs of statements from which they were to choose the one that best represented how they felt. The first pair of statements dealt with the overarching philosophy of the parks and recreation department, and whether it should be considered a human service (and therefore offer limited services funded primarily through tax dollars) or whether it should be considered a business (and therefore offer more services funded primarily through fees). There was great support for the human services model, which was chosen 9 to 1 over the business model choice (see Figure 3 on the next page). Those completing the survey felt that the City’s parks and recreation programs should offer a lot of diversity. Seven in 10 felt programs should be offered at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced, while 3 in 10 thought programs should be concentrated at the beginner and intermediate levels. About 6 in 10 thought parks and recreation program offerings should include some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many, while 4 in 10 thought the City should concentrate primarily on popular sports and activities because those would serve the largest number of people. Residents were somewhat more likely to prefer that parks and recreation facilities have greater availability for public drop-in use (60%) rather than mostly programmed with leagues and other planned activities (40%), even though that would likely result in lower revenues. A bare majority (56%) preferred that the City provide facilities and programs that complement other community offerings but not duplicate them (even if the duplicated city programs were less expensive) rather than provide facilities and programs that are requested by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in the community. Residents were nearly evenly split (within the 5% margin of error) about whether programs and facilities should be offered and constructed to serve the present and projected demographic profile of Clearwater, which has the second highest median age in the United States, or be offered and constructed to attract younger families. About 7 in 10 respondents preferred larger playgrounds with more equipment, serving more diverse ages, even though there would be fewer of them and might require driving to them compared to smaller playgrounds serving neighborhoods and within walking distance.About two-thirds felt that restrooms should be only at high volume special use facilities such as Clearwater Beach and athletic sports complexes, while about one-third believed that restrooms should be expanded to all neighborhood and special use parks in spite of the substantial cost.About 7 in 10 respondents favored beautifully maintained landscaping in public spaces to ensure a high quality of life while 3 in 10 would choose landscaping that requires little or no maintenance. This trade-off was also included in the 2009 survey, where a majority of respondents preferred beautifully maintained landscaping, but the majority was not as strong as in 2013. For the other trade-off questions also tested in the 2009 survey, fairly similar results were observed in 2013 as had been seen previously. Attachment number 4 \nPage 12 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 10 Figure 3: Trade-Off Preferences, 2013 compared to 2009* *Note: Where data exist for 2 rows for a particular trade-off, the top row represents the opinions of respondents in 2013, the bottom row in 2009. Where data exist for only one row, it represents opinions from 2013. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 90%10% 85%15% 72%28% 66%34% 72%28% 58%42% 69%31% 65%35% 59%41% 65%35% 60%40% 60%40% 60%40% 59%41% 56%44% 63%37% 55%45% Playgrounds should serve the entire community, have more play equipment, have diverse options for all ages (6 months to 2, 2-5 and 5-12), be larger in scale and be within driving distance. Playgrounds should serve a neighborhood, have limited play equipment, primarily serve ages 2-5, and be within walking distance. Restrooms should be only at high volume special use facilities such as Clearwater Beach, and athletic sports complexes where they exist today. Restrooms should be expanded to all neighborhood and special use parks (approximately 50 parks). This would have a substantial cost impact both initially and for maintenance, and would require elimination of other parks and recreation elements to fund this endeavor. Programs and facilities should be offered and constructed to serve our present and projected demographic profile. (Clearwater has the second highest median age in the United States.) Programs and facilities should be offered and constructed to attract younger families. Parks and recreation program offerings should offer some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many* Parks and recreation facilities should focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g. aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people* Consider parks and recreation a human service that contributes to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole community offering limited services funded primarily through tax dollars* Consider parks and recreation a business that serves people who can afford to pay for the services through user fees.* Parks and recreation programs should be offered at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced* Parks and recreation programs should be offered at the beginner and intermediate levels* Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly programmed with leagues and other pre-planned activities or events, with some drop in use, likely earning greater revenue Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly available for public drop-in use with some active programming likely earning lesser revenues When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should eliminate some programs and facilities, but keep the remaining programs and facilities at current levels of service When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should maintain all existing programs and facilities but at a lower level of service The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that complement other community offerings but not duplicate them (even if the duplicated city programs are less expensive)* The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that are requested by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in our community* Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should require minimal or no maintenance* Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should be beautifully maintained in our community to ensure our high quality of life* Attachment number 4 \nPage 13 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 11 In 2013, a couple of additional trade-off questions were asked that had three options rather than just two. When asked about night lighting of basketball and tennis courts, a majority (57%) thought that should happen in both neighborhood parks and special use facilities (see Figure 4 below). About a third thought night lighting should only occur in special use facilities, while just 6% thought it should happen in neighborhood parks only. On the topic of special events in Coachman Park, three-quarters of respondents felt these should be larger events that attract visitors and contribute to the economy, while about a fifth felt that should primarily serve residents. A few (6%) of those completing the survey felt that such events should be eliminated to save money. Figure 4: Additional Trade-off Preferences Lighting of courts (basketball and tennis) Special events in Coachman Park at night should be . . . should . . . 6% 37% 57% in both a neighborhood and special use facilityin a neighborhood park in a special use facility (such as McMullen Tennis Complex) or recreation center 19% 75% 6% be larger events that bring in economic development by attracting visitorsserve primarily residents be eliminated to save money Attachment number 4 \nPage 14 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 12 Resident Perspectives on Recreation Programs Those completing the survey were asked which population groups they thought should be given the highest priority in terms of recreational programming. Children and teenagers were given the highest priority by respondents, with teenagers deemed an essential group to serve by over half of survey respondents, followed closely by children age 6 to 12 years old, considered an essential group to serve by over 40% of respondents (see Figure 5). Families together as a group and people with disabilities were the populations considered the next most important, with about 40% of respondents feeling these groups were essential to serve. About a third of respondents considered recreational programs for senior adults and adults essential. Pre-school children were given a slightly lower importance rating than were other groups. Very few respondents (8%) deemed non-residents an essential group to consider when planning recreational programs. Beginner level programming (26%) was considered somewhat more important than was intermediate (22%) or advanced or elite programming (20%). Ratings in 2013 were fairly similar to those observed in 2009 and produced about the same rank order of importance both survey years, although serving families together as a group was given somewhat higher priority in 2013 than it had been in 2009. Figure 5: Importance Placed on Serving Various Population Groups, 2013 compared to 2009 Please rate how important you think it is for the City to provide recreation programs for each of the population groups below. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 7% 14% 20% 24% 22% 24% 27% 30% 29% 40% 52% 8% 20% 22% 26% 27% 32% 32% 38% 42% 43% 49% 0%25%50%75%100% Non-residents Advanced or elite levels* Intermediate levels Beginner levels Children 0 to 5 years old Adults* Senior adults (60 years old or more) People with disabilities* Families together as a group* Children 6 to 12 years old Teenagers 13 to 17 years old Percent of respondents rating as "essential" 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 15 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 13 When asked to rate the importance of various recreational activities, community events and wellness/fitness programs were the ones that the greatest proportion of respondents considered essential, followed by aquatics and sports teams and fitness (see Figure 6 and Figure 7 below). Visual arts and performing arts were given lower priority, with gymnastics given the least priority. Ratings were similar to those observed in 2009, with wellness and fitness being given even greater priority in 2013 than in 2009. Figure 6: Importance Placed on Various Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following activities. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. Figure 7: Most Important Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following activities. 8% 14% 12% 32% 29% 32% 38% 10% 14% 17% 28% 28% 37% 38% 0%25%50%75%100% Gymnastics lessons and training Performing arts Visual arts* Sports teams and lessons Aquatics Wellness/fitness Community events Percent of respondents rating as "essential" 2013 2009 3% 9% 9% 31% 36% 49% 56% 2% 12% 16% 25% 37% 56% 57% 0%25%50%75%100% Gymnastics lessons and training Performing arts Visual arts* Aquatics Sports teams and lessons Wellness/fitness* Community events Percent of respondents choosing each as one of two most important activities 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 16 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 14 Resident Perspectives on Community Events As observed on the previous page, Clearwater residents place a high priority on community events. Those completing the survey were asked to rate the importance of several of the specific events sponsored by the Parks and Recreation Department. Three events were considered very important or essential by 70% or more of respondents: Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend, Clearwater Threshers and the Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training (see Table 18 in Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses). As can be seen in Figure 8 below, the Phillies Spring Training was seen as particularly valuable, with 43% of respondents deeming it essential. Three additional events were considered essential or very important by over 60% of respondents: the Turkey Trot, Clearwater Celebrates America and Jazz Holiday. The six events considered essential or very important by 60% or more of respondents were also considered essential by more than 25% of respondents. These six events were also the events most likely to be chosen as one of the three most important events by respondents (see Figure 9 on the next page). Blast Friday and TriRocks were given lower importance ratings in 2013 compared to 2009. These events were given different names in 2013, and it may be that residents are not yet familiar with these terms. Figure 8: Importance of Community Events, 2013 compared to 2009 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. 22% 9% 28% 9% 8% 13% 18% 25% 28% 24% 26% 9% 11% 12% 12% 13% 16% 17% 27% 28% 29% 29% 29% 43% 0%25%50%75%100% TriRocks**† Martin Luther King Day March Blast Friday*† Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend Make A Difference Fishing Tournament† Outback Beach Day Clearwater Sea Blues Festival Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend Jazz Holiday Clearwater Celebrates America Turkey Trot Clearwater Threshers Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training Percent of respondents rating as "essential 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 17 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 15 Figure 9: Most Important Community Events, 2013 compared to 2009 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. Then indicate which you think are the three MOST IMPORTANT events. Note: * Blast Friday was Downtown Concerts in 2009. ** TriRocks was Ironman in 2009. † Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 28% 8% 45% 6% 9% 10% 17% 33% 36% 42% 42% 3% 7% 8% 8% 9% 10% 14% 28% 28% 33% 34% 34% 42% 0%25%50%75%100% TriRocks **† Outback Beach Day Blast Friday*† Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend Martin Luther King Day March Make A Difference Fishing Tournament Clearwater Sea Blues Festival Clearwater Celebrates America Clearwater Threshers Turkey Trot Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend† Jazz Holiday† Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training Percent of respondents choosing each as one of 3 most important events 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 18 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 16 Resident Perspectives on Parks City parks serve a variety of roles in a community, and have different meaning to different people. Various benefits provided by Clearwater’s parks were presented to those completing the questionnaire; the importance of each to the respondent household was rated. The parks function given the highest priority was providing places for children to play on playground equipment, considered essential by half of respondents (see Figure 10 below), and very important or essential by 81% of respondents (see Table 17 in Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses). The purpose considered next most important was providing a place to walk or jog, followed closely by providing natural open lands, visual “green spaces” within the city, and places for rest and relaxation. In comparing results to 2009, the rank order of the importance of the various park functions remained fairly stable. However, it was notable that park purposes considered of greater importance were considered essential by a larger proportion of respondents in 2013 than in 2009. Figure 10: Resident Views of Purposes of City Parks, 2013 compared to 2009 City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 13% 21% 19% 18% 25% 27% 31% 29% 35% 34% 32% 40% 12% 18% 20% 23% 26% 30% 34% 40% 43% 43% 46% 50% 0%25%50%75%100% Providing annual flower plantings Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) Providing places for group gatherings Providing places to exercise pets* Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, lacrosse) Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, … Providing a place for rest and relaxation* Providing visual “green spaces” within the city* Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat* Providing a place to walk or jog* Providing places for children to play on playground equipment* Percent of respondents rating as "essential 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 19 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 17 Residents’ Use and Importance Ratings of Recreational Facilities and Programs The survey was used to assess resident use of a variety of parks and recreation offerings. For each activity or facility, respondents indicated whether, in the last year, they or anyone in their household had participated in the activity at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another facility. Figure 11 (on the next two pages) displays the proportion of respondents whose households had participated in the activity in the previous year. After indicating their participation in the various activities, respondents evaluated the importance of offering each to the community through the City of Clearwater’s Parks and Recreation Department. The ratings for the activities and facilities on which the highest importance was placed are displayed in Figure 12 on page 20. Importance ratings for all the items included on the survey can be found in Table 20 in Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses. There were seven activities in which a majority of respondent households had participated at a City of Clearwater park or facility in the past year. These were: walking, running or jogging in a park or nature park; swimming, fishing, relaxing or having a social event at a beach; relaxing in a park, using the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail; attending an event at Bright House Networks Field, attending an event at a Ruth Eckerd Hall and participating in a community event. These were also the activities with the greatest participation in 2009 (with the exception of Bright House Networks Field, which was not included on the 2009 survey). In general, participation levels in 2013 were higher than in 2009. In general, the participation levels for the various activities mirrored the importance ratings. The areas given the highest importance ratings were also the sites of the most popular activities. The exception was for playgrounds, which had slightly lower participation (but still high at 45% of respondent households), but which was considered “essential” by 55% of respondents (see Figure 12). In general, respondents were more likely to consider the offerings of the department “essential” in 2013 than they had been in 2009, although the rank order of the items was generally similar. Attachment number 4 \nPage 20 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 18 Figure 11: Participation in Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 28% 25% 32% 30% 36% 31% 34% 27% 31% 25% 37% 52% 54% 22% 30% 34% 28% 41% 30% 35% 30% 41% 44% 46% 52% 50% 55% 59% 25% 34% 26% 28% 30% 35% 46% 40% 48% 53% 60% 54% 67% 71% 26% 28% 29% 30% 34% 40% 43% 45% 55% 57% 57% 62% 69% 75% 79% 0%25%50%75%100% Played golf or took golf lessons Went motorized boating at a marina Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) "Dropped-in" for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) Played at a playground Participated in a community event Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park Used a recreation trail such as the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park Percent of respondents using each City of Clearwater 2013 City of Clearwater 2009 Somewhere else 2013 Somewhere else 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 21 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 19 Figure 11: Participation in Recreation Activities, 2013 compared to 2009 (continued) Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). 8% 11% 8% 8% 11% 11% 7% 13% 10% 9% 14% 11% 13% 14% 18% 19% 14% 15% 13% 27% 22% 13% 33% 5% 5% 6% 13% 6% 8% 5% 13% 8% 11% 9% 10% 14% 14% 13% 23% 15% 24% 19% 23% 25% 12% 29% 6% 12% 12% 7% 10% 13% 8% 13% 14% 11% 14% 12% 18% 14% 21% 22% 18% 15% 20% 25% 27% 17% 25% 4% 8% 8% 8% 9% 9% 9% 9% 11% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 16% 20% 21% 21% 22% 23% 23% 24% 24% 0%25%50%75%100% Played shuffleboard Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team Participated in a therapeutic recreation program Used a skate park Played softball Participated in a senior arts or recreation program Participated in an adult sports program or team Participated in a children's (age 0-12) sports program or team Played baseball Participated in a children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation program Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program Participated in a nature program Participated in an adult arts or recreation program Played tennis or took tennis lessons Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) Used an indoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) Went non-motorized boating at a marina Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) Used an outdoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop- in) Percent of respondents using each City of Clearwater 2013 City of Clearwater 2009 Somewhere else 2013 Somewhere else 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 22 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 20 Figure 12: Importance of the City of Clearwater Offering Various Activities/Facilities, 2013 compared to 2009 How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 31% 35% 34% 37% 37% 38% 47% 42% 45% 55% 40% 40% 43% 43% 45% 46% 51% 53% 55% 58% 61% 0%25%50%75%100% Children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs* Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs Children's (age 0-12) sports programs or teams* Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams Beach facilities for boating (Marina)* Community events* Ruth Eckerd Hall Bright House Networks Field Playgrounds* The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail* Beach facilities for swimming and recreation Percent of respondents rating as "essential" 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 23 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 21 Residents’ Perspectives on Funding Options for Parks and Recreation A question set was included on the questionnaire to determine the community’s support for or opposition to several funding options for parks and recreation offerings by the City of Clearwater. About 9 in 10 respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that the City should supplement the costs of operating recreation facilities and programs by using different revenue sources, including grants, donations and taxes. (see Figure 13 below). Eight in 10 agreed that people who live outside of Clearwater should pay higher fees for recreation programs than those who live inside the city. Roughly three-quarters of respondents thought that profitable or popular programs could help to subsidize less profitable programs. Just over half of respondents believed that recreation programs must pay for themselves entirely through user fees. Figure 13: Support for Funding Options, 2013 compared to 2009 The City of Clearwater is exploring ways to fund parks and recreation in the future. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding options. 53% 73% 84% 86% 89% 52% 77% 80% 91% 92% 0%25%50%75%100% Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes Percent of respondents who "somewhat" or "strongly agree" 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 24 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 22 In fact, a specific question was asked of respondents about whether the funding for operating costs of facilities and programs should come primarily through fees or through taxes. While nearly half of respondents had at least somewhat agreed that recreation programs should be funded through fees, six in 10 of those completing the survey felt that taxes should pay for the majority of the operating costs of facilities and programs, with user fees funding the remaining costs (see Figure 14). About 2 in 10 respondents felt that the majority of the costs should be paid by fees with the remaining coming from taxes. Few respondents (5%) thought that fees should be the sole source of funding for operating costs. About 1 in 10 believed that taxes should pay for 100% of the operating costs. Compared to 2009, funding from taxes was viewed somewhat more favorably in 2013. Figure 14: Fees versus Taxes for Operating Facilities and Operating Programs, 2013 compared to 2009 Please indicate which of the following statements best represents how you feel the cost for operating recreation facilities and offering recreational programs should be paid. 2013 2009 100% through taxes, 12% Taxes should pay the majority of costs and fees from users the remaining costs, 62% 100% through fees, 5% Fees from users should pay the majority of costs and taxes should pay the remaining costs, 21% 100% through taxes, 7% Taxes should pay the majority of costs and fees from users the remaining costs, 59% 100% through fees, 6% Fees from users should pay the majority of costs and taxes should pay the remaining costs, 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 25 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 23 A set of questions was included to determine what choices the community would make if difficult budget decisions necessitated a budget reduction for the Parks and Recreation Department. Those completing the survey were presented a set of options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget, for which they were asked to indicate their level of support for or opposition to each item. They were then asked to indicate what their top two choices would be for budget reductions. When having to make tough budget choices, a majority of respondents supported eliminating some community events, reducing recreation facility operating hours, eliminating some athletic fields and reducing cultural programs if necessary (see Figure 15 below). The other options were not supported. Compared to 2009, these same options had also been supported by a majority of respondents. However, in 2009, a majority also supported reducing landscape maintenance, but this was opposed by a slight majority (52%) in 2013. In general, respondents gave a bit less support to service reductions than they did in 2009, perhaps reflecting the improved national economy. Figure 15: Support for Options to REDUCE the Parks and Recreation Budget, 2013 compared to 2009 The City of Clearwater, like the rest of the nation, is facing difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 32% 39% 37% 44% 35% 51% 60% 57% 58% 63% 65% 21% 25% 27% 35% 36% 45% 48% 52% 53% 56% 56% 0%25%50%75%100% Reducing beach maintenance* Reducing park maintenance* Closing a recreational facility* Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive* Reducing programs that serve senior adults Reducing athletic fields maintenance Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians* Reducing cultural programs Eliminating some athletic fields Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities* Eliminating some community events* Percent of respondents who "strongly" or "somewhat support" 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 26 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 24 When forced to choose only two options for reducing the parks and recreation budget, there was not a clear standout. About 30% of respondents chose reducing cultural programs or eliminating some community events as one of the top two options (see Figure 16 below). Roughly a quarter of respondents (between 22% and 26%) would choose to reduce landscape maintenance, reduce operating hours or eliminate some athletic fields. Figure 16: Options Chosen to REDUCE the Parks and Recreation Budget, 2013 compared to 2009 The City of Clearwater, like the rest of the nation, is facing difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget. Then indicate which two options you would most support, if budget cuts were necessary. * Differences between 2013 and 2009 are statistically significant, p<0.05. 7% 11% 10% 8% 10% 21% 23% 26% 27% 34% 25% 6% 7% 12% 12% 17% 20% 22% 23% 26% 29% 31% 0%25%50%75%100% Reducing park maintenance Closing a recreational facility* Reducing beach maintenance Reducing athletic fields maintenance Reducing programs that serve senior adults* Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive Eliminating some athletic fields Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians Eliminating some community events Reducing cultural programs Percent of respondents who chose as one of two options most supported 2013 2009 Attachment number 4 \nPage 27 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 25 APPENDIX A: FREQUENCY OF SURVEY RESPONSES The following pages contain a complete set of responses to each question on the survey. Table 1: Question #1 Cities offer recreation facilities and programs to their residents for a variety of reasons and purposes. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should offer recreation facilities and programs to its residents for each of the following purposes. Then please tell us which two you think are the MOST IMPORTANT reasons to use Parks and Recreation in Clearwater. Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Most Important (check TWO only) To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health 68% 29% 1% 1% 100% 45% To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric 31% 56% 12% 2% 100% 8% To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community 41% 45% 12% 2% 100% 8% To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 47% 35% 13% 5% 100% 13% To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) 69% 26% 3% 1% 100% 28% To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) 48% 42% 6% 3% 100% 12% To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents 64% 31% 4% 1% 100% 21% To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations 40% 39% 18% 4% 100% 7% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non- motorized transportation 57% 33% 7% 3% 100% 18% To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space 66% 28% 5% 1% 100% 27% To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination 23% 42% 27% 8% 100% 4% To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination 47% 35% 12% 5% 100% 18% Attachment number 4 \nPage 28 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 26 Table 2: Question #2 Please rate how important you think it is for the City to provide recreation programs for each of the population groups below. Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Don't Know Total Children 0 to 5 years old 26% 28% 32% 12% 2% 100% Children 6 to 12 years old 43% 40% 12% 3% 2% 100% Teenagers 13 to 17 years old 48% 38% 10% 3% 2% 100% Adults 31% 38% 28% 2% 1% 100% Senior adults (60 years old or more) 32% 38% 25% 4% 2% 100% Families together as a group 42% 37% 18% 2% 1% 100% People with disabilities 37% 40% 17% 3% 2% 100% Non-residents 7% 16% 39% 31% 7% 100% Beginner levels 25% 35% 28% 7% 6% 100% Intermediate levels 20% 39% 26% 8% 7% 100% Advanced or elite levels 18% 29% 35% 10% 7% 100% Question #3The City of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the two statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Table 3: Question #3a I consider parks and recreation . . . Percent of Respondents a human service that contributes to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole community offering limited services funded primarily through tax dollars. 90% a business that serves people who can afford to pay for the services through user fees. 10% Total 100% Table 4: Question #3b Parks and recreation programs should be offered . . . Percent of Respondents at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced. 72% at the beginner and intermediate levels. 28% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 29 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 27 Table 5: Question 3c Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly . . . Percent of Respondents programmed with leagues and other pre-planned activities or events, with some drop in use, likely earning greater revenues. 40% available for public drop-in use with some active programming likely earning lesser revenues. 60% Total 100% Table 6: Question #3d Parks and recreation program offerings should . . . Percent of Respondents focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g. aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people. 35% offer some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many. 65% Total 100% Table 7: Question #3e The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that . . . Percent of Respondents complement other community offerings but not duplicate them (even if the duplicated city programs are less expensive). 56% are requested by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in our community. 44% Total 100% Table 8: Question #3f When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should . . . Percent of Respondents maintain all existing programs and facilities but at a lower level of service (e.g. park maintenance on fewer days per week; reduced hours at recreation facilities; fewer recreation program offerings within each category 60% eliminate some programs and facilities, but keep the remaining programs and facilities at current levels of service (e.g. close some facilities but keep all others on current schedules; cut some types of recreation programs). 40% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 30 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 28 Table 9: Question #3g Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should be . . . Percent of Respondents beautifully maintained in our community to ensure our high quality of life. 72% require minimal or no maintenance. 28% Total 100% Table 10: Question #3h Playgrounds should . . . Percent of Respondents serve the entire community, have more play equipment, have diverse options for all ages (6 months to 2, 2-5 and 5-12), be larger in scale and be within driving distance. 69% serve a neighborhood, have limited play equipment, primarily serve ages 2-5, and be within walking distance. 31% Total 100% Table 11: Question #3i Restrooms should . . . Percent of Respondents be expanded to all neighborhood and special use parks (approximately 50 parks). This would have a substantial cost impact both initially and for maintenance, and would require elimination of other parks and recreation elements to fund this endeavor 35% be only at high volume special use facilities such as Clearwater Beach, and athletic sports complexes where they exist today. 65% Total 100% Table 12: Question #3j Lighting of courts (basketball and tennis) at night should be . . . Percent of Respondents in a neighborhood park 6% in a special use facility (such as McMullen Tennis Complex) or recreation center 37% in both a neighborhood and special use facility 57% Total 100% Table 13: Question #3k Special events in Coachman Park should . . . Percent of Respondents serve primarily residents. 19% be larger events that bring in economic development by attracting visitors. 75% be eliminated to save money. 6% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 31 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 29 Table 14: Question #3l Programs and facilities should . . . Percent of Respondents be offered and constructed to server our present and projected demographic profile. (Clearwater has the second highest median age in the United States.) 55% be offered and constructed to attract younger families. 45% Total 100% Table 15: Question #4 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following outdoor facilities. Then indicate which you think are the three MOST IMPORTANT activities. Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Total Most Important (check THREE only) Playgrounds 55% 35% 8% 2% 100% 64% Tennis courts 13% 25% 53% 10% 100% 5% Bicycle and pedestrian trails 57% 28% 13% 2% 100% 53% Equestrian trails 5% 13% 34% 48% 100% 2% Nature trails 28% 38% 28% 6% 100% 27% Golf courses 10% 21% 36% 33% 100% 6% Dog parks 23% 31% 32% 14% 100% 19% Volleyball courts 7% 23% 55% 15% 100% 1% Picnic areas 38% 39% 21% 2% 100% 32% Softball and baseball fields 17% 44% 35% 4% 100% 9% Basketball courts 20% 39% 35% 6% 100% 9% Swimming pools (outdoor) 23% 31% 37% 9% 100% 13% Swimming pools (indoor) 19% 29% 35% 16% 100% 11% Community centers 37% 36% 24% 2% 100% 29% Multipurpose fields (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse) 28% 40% 26% 6% 100% 20% Attachment number 4 \nPage 32 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 30 Table 16: Question #5 City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Total Most Important (check TWO only) Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) 37% 39% 19% 4% 100% 56% Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) 17% 29% 41% 13% 100% 16% Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) 14% 29% 41% 16% 100% 12% Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) 38% 37% 19% 5% 100% 57% Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) 28% 45% 24% 4% 100% 37% Gymnastics lessons and training 10% 30% 47% 12% 100% 2% Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) 28% 34% 33% 5% 100% 25% Attachment number 4 \nPage 33 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 31 Table 17: Question #6 City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Don't Know Total Providing visual “green spaces” within the city 43% 32% 20% 4% 2% 100% Providing a place for rest and relaxation 40% 35% 20% 5% 0% 100% Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, , lacrosse) 26% 38% 29% 7% 0% 100% Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.) 34% 39% 19% 8% 0% 100% Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) 18% 38% 35% 8% 0% 100% Providing places for group gatherings 20% 43% 29% 7% 0% 100% Providing places for children to play on playground equipment 49% 32% 12% 7% 0% 100% Providing places to exercise pets 23% 28% 30% 19% 1% 100% Providing a place to walk or jog 46% 34% 18% 2% 0% 100% Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat 43% 27% 23% 6% 1% 100% Providing annual flower plantings 12% 27% 37% 23% 1% 100% Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings 29% 34% 24% 10% 2% 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 34 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 32 Table 18: Question #7 Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. Then indicate which you think are the three MOST IMPORTANT events. Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Total Most Important (check up to THREE) Clearwater Celebrates America 29% 32% 30% 8% 100% 28% Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend 27% 44% 24% 5% 100% 34% Clearwater Sea Blues Festival 17% 34% 40% 9% 100% 14% Blast Friday 12% 28% 41% 19% 100% 8% Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend 12% 20% 38% 31% 100% 8% TriRocks 9% 18% 44% 29% 100% 3% Jazz Holiday 28% 36% 27% 9% 100% 34% Make A Difference Fishing Tournament 13% 29% 41% 16% 100% 10% Martin Luther King Day March 11% 27% 33% 28% 100% 9% Outback Beach Day 16% 33% 35% 16% 100% 7% Turkey Trot 29% 35% 27% 10% 100% 33% Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training 43% 27% 19% 12% 100% 42% Clearwater Threshers 29% 42% 20% 9% 100% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 35 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 33 Table 19: Question #8 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Done at a City of Clearwater park or facility Done somewhere else Used a recreation trail such as the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 69% 50% Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 79% 59% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 40% 30% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 62% 52% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 43% 35% Used a skate park 9% 6% Played at a playground 45% 30% Participated in a nature program 14% 14% Played baseball 12% 11% Played softball 9% 8% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 20% 23% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 16% 13% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 24% 12% Played golf or took golf lessons 26% 22% Played shuffleboard 4% 5% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise 23% 23% Used an outdoor swimming pool for “open swim” (drop-in) 24% 29% Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 22% 19% Used an indoor swimming pool for “open swim” (drop-in) 21% 15% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 34% 41% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 75% 55% Went motorized boating at a marina 28% 30% Went non-motorized boating at a marina 21% 24% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 29% 34% “Dropped-in” for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 30% 28% Participated in a children’s (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 13% 9% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 8% 5% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 15% 14% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 9% 5% Participated in a children’s (age 0-12) sports program or team 11% 8% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 8% 6% Participated in an adult sports program or team 9% 13% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 23% 25% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 13% 10% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 8% 13% Participated in a community event 55% 41% Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall 57% 44% Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field 1% 46% Attachment number 4 \nPage 36 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 34 Table 20: Question #9 How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Don't Know Total The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 56% 25% 13% 2% 4% 100% Parks and nature parks 61% 26% 12% 1% 1% 100% Places to exercise pet(s) in a park or nature park 33% 29% 26% 10% 2% 100% A group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 38% 39% 16% 6% 1% 100% A skate park 8% 23% 42% 25% 2% 100% Playgrounds 55% 31% 12% 1% 1% 100% Nature programs 24% 35% 33% 7% 2% 100% Baseball and softball fields 27% 44% 24% 4% 1% 100% Field sports fields (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 27% 37% 26% 8% 1% 100% Tennis courts and complexes 23% 31% 35% 9% 2% 100% Gymnasiums for court sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 24% 30% 33% 11% 2% 100% Golf courses 18% 24% 30% 25% 3% 100% Shuffleboard courts 7% 18% 41% 28% 6% 100% Outdoor swimming pools 24% 36% 29% 8% 2% 100% Indoor swimming pool 23% 31% 29% 14% 2% 100% Beach facilities for swimming and recreation 60% 26% 11% 2% 1% 100% Beach facilities for boating (Marina) 44% 29% 18% 7% 2% 100% Fitness classes (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 26% 35% 30% 7% 1% 100% Exercise facilities (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 26% 35% 29% 9% 2% 100% Children’s (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs 39% 34% 20% 6% 1% 100% Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs 39% 35% 19% 5% 2% 100% Adult arts or recreation programs 23% 38% 32% 5% 2% 100% Senior arts or recreation programs 28% 37% 28% 6% 1% 100% Children’s (age 0-12) sports programs or teams 43% 32% 19% 5% 1% 100% Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams 43% 32% 20% 4% 1% 100% Adult sports programs or teams 20% 36% 36% 7% 2% 100% Adult exercise, fitness or wellness programs 30% 38% 27% 4% 1% 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 37 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 35 How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Essential Very Important Somewhat Important Not at all Important Don't Know Total Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs 29% 38% 27% 5% 1% 100% Therapeutic recreation programs 20% 30% 35% 11% 4% 100% Community events 46% 35% 15% 3% 2% 100% Ruth Eckerd Hall 49% 30% 12% 5% 4% 100% Bright House Networks Field 52% 26% 14% 6% 3% 100% Table 21: Question #10 Please indicate which of the following statements best represents how you feel the cost for operating recreation facilities and offering recreational programs should be paid. Percent of Respondents 100% through taxes 12% Taxes should pay the majority of costs and fees from users the remaining costs 62% 100% through fees 5% Fees from users should pay the majority of costs and taxes should pay the remaining costs 21% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 38 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 36 Table 22: Question #11 The City of Clearwater is exploring ways to fund parks and recreation in the future. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding options. Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Don't Know Total Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 12% 39% 26% 21% 2% 100% Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) 29% 45% 14% 8% 3% 100% The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 45% 44% 6% 3% 3% 100% The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 50% 40% 6% 2% 3% 100% Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs 53% 25% 13% 6% 3% 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 39 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 37 Table 23: Question #12 The City of Clearwater, like the rest of the nation, is facing difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget. Then indicate which two options you would most support, if budget cuts were necessary. Then indicate which two options you would most support, if budget cuts were necessary. Strongly Support Somewhat Support Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Total Top Choices for Reductions (check TWO only) Reducing beach maintenance 3% 18% 26% 54% 100% 12% Reducing park maintenance 2% 23% 35% 40% 100% 6% Reducing athletic fields maintenance 6% 39% 31% 24% 100% 12% Eliminating some athletic fields 14% 39% 27% 20% 100% 22% Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities 13% 43% 28% 16% 100% 23% Closing a recreational facility 6% 22% 39% 34% 100% 7% Eliminating some community events 17% 39% 30% 14% 100% 29% Reducing programs that serve senior adults 8% 29% 41% 23% 100% 17% Reducing cultural programs 16% 35% 29% 19% 100% 31% Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians 18% 31% 28% 24% 100% 26% Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive 10% 25% 33% 32% 100% 20% Attachment number 4 \nPage 40 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 38 Table 24: Question #13 How many years have you lived in the Clearwater area? Percent of Respondents less than 5 years 26% 5 to 9 years 14% 10 to 14 years 11% 15 to 19 years 12% 20 or more years 37% Total 100% Table 25: Question #13 How many years have you lived in the Clearwater area? Mean Std. Dev. How many years have you lived in the Clearwater area? 17.4 15.4 Table 26: Question #14 What is your gender? Percent of Respondents Female 53% Male 47% Total 100% Table 27: Question #15 Which of the following best describes your age? Percent of Respondents 18-24 5% 25-34 21% 35-44 12% 45-54 21% 55-64 16% 65 years or older 25% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 41 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 39 Table 28: Question #16 Counting yourself how many people live in your household? Percent of Respondents 1 31% 2 38% 3 14% 4 9% 5 or more 7% Total 100% Table 29: Question #16 Counting yourself how many people live in your household? Mean Std. Dev. Counting yourself how many people live in your household? 2.3 1.4 Table 30: Questions #17 through #19 Presence of Children and Older Adults in the Household yes no Total Do any children under age 12 live in your household? 17% 83% 100% Do any teenagers ages 13 to 17 live in your household? 11% 89% 100% Are you or any other members of your household aged 65 or older? 29% 71% 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 42 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 40 APPENDIX B: 2013 SURVEY RESPONSES COMPARED TO 2009 RESPONSES The tables below present survey results from 2013 compared to 2009 results. Where differences between survey years are “statistically significant” (p<0.05), they are marked with grey shading. Table 31: Question #1 by Survey Year Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should use parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." 2013 2009 To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health 68% 66% To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community's social fabric 31% 32% To enhance the community's economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community 41% 43% To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 47% 43% To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) 69% 69% To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) 48% 47% To promote a more beautiful community and a greater "sense of place" for residents 64% 49% To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city's livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations 40% 37% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation 57% 51% To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space 66% 63% To maintain the community's image as an athletic "sports town" destination 23% 21% To maintain the community's image as a beach resort destination 47% 40% Attachment number 4 \nPage 43 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 41 Table 32: Question #1 Most Important by Survey Year Then please tell us which two you think are the MOST IMPORTANT reasons to use Parks and Recreation in Clearwater. Percent Choosing as #1 or #2 2013 2009 To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health 45% 46% To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community’s social fabric 8% 9% To enhance the community’s economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community 8% 13% To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 13% 14% To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) 28% 35% To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) 12% 9% To promote a more beautiful community and a greater “sense of place” for residents 21% 14% To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city’s livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations 7% 10% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation 18% 11% To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space 27% 27% To maintain the community’s image as an athletic “sports town” destination 4% 6% To maintain the community’s image as a beach resort destination 18% 13% Table 33: Question #2 by Survey Year Please rate how important you think it is for the City to provide recreation programs for each of the population groups below. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 2013 2009 Children 0 to 5 years old 27% 22% Children 6 to 12 years old 43% 40% Teenagers 13 to 17 years old 49% 52% Adults 32% 24% Senior adults (60 years old or more) 32% 27% Families together as a group 42% 29% People with disabilities 38% 30% Non-residents 8% 7% Beginner levels 26% 24% Intermediate levels 22% 20% Advanced or elite levels 20% 14% Attachment number 4 \nPage 44 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 42 Question #3: The City of Clearwater is determining important guiding principles for future parks and recreation programming. Recognizing that all the statements below may reflect values that are important to you, from each pair of statements below, please indicate which ONE of the statements you believe is more important for Clearwater. Table 34: Question #3a by Survey Year I consider parks and recreation . . . 2013 2009 a human service that contributes to the physical, emotional and social welfare of the whole community offering limited services funded primarily through tax dollars. 90% 85% a business that serves people who can afford to pay for the services through user fees. 10% 15% Total 100% 100% Table 35: Question #3b by Survey Year Parks and recreation programs should be offered . . . 2013 2009 at many different skill levels, i.e. beginner through advanced. 72% 66% at the beginner and intermediate levels. 28% 34% Total 100% 100% Table 36: Question #3c by Survey Year Parks and recreation facilities should be mostly . . . 2013 2009 programmed with leagues and other pre-planned activities or events, with some drop in use, likely earning greater revenues. 40% 41% available for public drop-in use with some active programming likely earning lesser revenues. 60% 59% Total 100% 100% Table 37: Question #3d by Survey Year Parks and recreation program offerings should . . . 2013 2009 focus mostly on popular sports and fitness (e.g. aerobics, yoga, softball, soccer, basketball, etc.) because those serve the most number of people. 35% 41% offer some popular sports and fitness activities, but also include diverse opportunities like arts and crafts, and classes (e.g. cooking, tai chi, etc.) that may not serve so many. 65% 59% Total 100% 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 45 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 43 Table 38: Question #3e by Survey Year The Parks and Recreation Department should provide facilities and programs that . . . 2013 2009 complement other community offerings but not duplicate them (even if the duplicated city programs are less expensive). 56% 63% are requested by residents, regardless of whether they are provided by other agencies in our community. 44% 37% Total 100% 100% Table 39: Question #3f by Survey Year When considering potential budget reductions, the Parks and Recreation Department should . . . 2013 2009 maintain all existing programs and facilities but at a lower level of service (e.g. park maintenance on fewer days per week; reduced hours at recreation facilities; fewer recreation program offerings within each category 60% 60% eliminate some programs and facilities, but keep the remaining programs and facilities at current levels of service (e.g. close some facilities but keep all others on current schedules; cut some types of recreation programs). 40% 40% Total 100% 100% Table 40: Question #3g by Survey Year Landscaping in public spaces (e.g. parks, medians, street right-of-ways) should be . . . 2013 2009 beautifully maintained in our community to ensure our high quality of life. 72% 58% require minimal or no maintenance. 28% 42% Total 100% 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 46 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 44 Table 41: Question #5 by Survey Year Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following activities. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 2013 2009 Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) 37% 32% Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) 17% 12% Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) 14% 14% Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) 38% 38% Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) 28% 32% Gymnastics lessons and training 10% 8% Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) 28% 29% Table 42: Question #5 Most Important by Survey Year Then indicate which you think are the two MOST IMPORTANT activities. 2013 2009 Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) 56% 49% Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) 16% 9% Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) 12% 9% Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) 57% 56% Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) 37% 36% Gymnastics lessons and training 2% 3% Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) 25% 31% Attachment number 4 \nPage 47 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 45 Table 43: Question #6 by Survey Year City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 2013 2009 Providing visual “green spaces” within the city 43% 35% Providing a place for rest and relaxation 40% 29% Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, , lacrosse) 26% 25% Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.) 34% 31% Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) 18% 21% Providing places for group gatherings 20% 19% Providing places for children to play on playground equipment 50% 40% Providing places to exercise pets 23% 18% Providing a place to walk or jog 46% 32% Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat 43% 34% Providing annual flower plantings 12% 13% Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings 30% 27% Attachment number 4 \nPage 48 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 46 Table 44: Question #7 by Survey Year Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 2013 2009 Clearwater Celebrates America 29% 24% Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend 27% 25% Clearwater Sea Blues Festival 17% 18% Blast Friday* 12% 28% Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend 12% 9% TriRocks** 9% 22% Jazz Holiday 28% 28% Make A Difference Fishing Tournament 13% 8% Martin Luther King Day March 11% 9% Outback Beach Day 16% 13% Turkey Trot 29% 26% Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training 43% --- Clearwater Threshers 29% --- * Note: Blast Friday was Downtown Concerts in 2009. ** TriRocks was Ironman in 2009. Table 45: Question #7 Most Important Then indicate which you think are the three MOST IMPORTANT events. 2013 2009 Clearwater Celebrates America 28% 33% Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend 34% 42% Clearwater Sea Blues Festival 14% 17% Blast Friday 8% 45% Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend 8% 6% TriRocks 3% 28% Jazz Holiday 34% 42% Make A Difference Fishing Tournament 10% 10% Martin Luther King Day March 9% 9% Outback Beach Day 7% 8% Turkey Trot 33% 36% Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training 42% --- Clearwater Threshers 28% --- * Note: Blast Friday was Downtown Concerts in 2009. ** TriRocks was Ironman in 2009. Attachment number 4 \nPage 49 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 47 Table 46: Question #8a by Survey Year Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing at a City of Clearwater park or facility Percent doing somewhere else 2013 2009 2013 2009 Used a recreation trail such as the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 69% 54% 50% --- Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 79% 71% 59% 54% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 40% 35% 30% 31% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 62% 60% 52% 37% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 43% 46% 35% 34% Used a skate park 9% 10% 6% 11% Played at a playground 45% 40% 30% 27% Participated in a nature program 14% 18% 14% 13% Played baseball 12% 11% 11% 9% Played softball 9% 13% 8% 11% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 20% 22% 23% 19% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 16% 21% 13% 18% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 24% 17% 12% 13% Played golf or took golf lessons 26% 25% 22% 28% Played shuffleboard 4% 6% 5% 8% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise 23% 25% 23% 27% Used an outdoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) 24% 25% 29% 33% Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 22% 20% 19% 13% Used an indoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) 21% 18% 15% 14% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 34% 30% 41% 36% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 75% 67% 55% 52% Went motorized boating at a marina 28% 34% 30% 25% Went non-motorized boating at a marina 21% 15% 24% 15% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 29% 26% 34% 32% "Dropped-in" for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 30% 28% 28% 30% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 13% 14% 9% 14% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 8% 12% 5% 11% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 15% 14% 14% 14% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 9% 8% 5% 7% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) sports program or team 11% 14% 8% 10% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 8% 12% 6% 8% Participated in an adult sports program or team 9% 13% 13% 13% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 23% 27% 25% 22% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 13% 12% 10% 11% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 8% 7% 13% 8% Participated in a community event 55% 48% 41% 31% Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall 57% 53% 44% 25% Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field 57% .% 46% --- Attachment number 4 \nPage 50 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 48 Table 47: Question #9 by Survey Year How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 2013 2009 The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 58% 45% Parks and nature parks 62% 55% Places to exercise pet(s) in a park or nature park 33% 25% A group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 38% 32% A skate park 8% 10% Playgrounds 55% 42% Nature programs 24% 22% Baseball and softball fields 27% 20% Field sports fields (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 27% 20% Tennis courts and complexes 24% 15% Gymnasiums for court sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 24% 16% Golf courses 18% 18% Shuffleboard courts 7% 6% Outdoor swimming pools 25% 29% Indoor swimming pool 24% 24% Beach facilities for swimming and recreation 61% 55% Beach facilities for boating (Marina) 45% 37% Fitness classes (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 26% 22% Exercise facilities (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 26% 28% Children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs 40% 31% Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs 40% 35% Adult arts or recreation programs 23% 19% Senior arts or recreation programs 28% 22% Children's (age 0-12) sports programs or teams 43% 34% Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams 43% 37% Adult sports programs or teams 20% 18% Adult exercise, fitness or wellness programs 30% 28% Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs 29% 25% Therapeutic recreation programs 21% 16% Community events 46% 38% Ruth Eckerd Hall 51% 47% Bright House Networks Field 53% .% Attachment number 4 \nPage 51 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 49 Table 48: Question #10 by Survey Year Please indicate which of the following statements best represents how you feel the cost for operating recreation facilities and offering recreational programs should be paid. 2013 2009 100% through taxes 12% 7% Taxes should pay the majority of costs and fees from users the remaining costs 62% 59% 100% through fees 5% 6% Fees from users should pay the majority of costs and taxes should pay the remaining costs 21% 28% Total 100% 100% Table 49: Question #11 by Survey Year The City of Clearwater is exploring ways to fund parks and recreation in the future. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding options. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." 2013 2009 Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 12% 20% Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) 30% 30% The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 46% 43% The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 51% 41% Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs 54% 60% Attachment number 4 \nPage 52 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 50 Table 50: Question #12 by Survey Year The City of Clearwater, like the rest of the nation, is facing difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget. Percent of respondents who somewhat or strongly support 2013 2009 Reducing beach maintenance 21% 32% Reducing park maintenance 25% 39% Reducing athletic fields maintenance 45% 51% Eliminating some athletic fields 53% 58% Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities 56% 63% Closing a recreational facility 27% 37% Eliminating some community events 56% 65% Reducing programs that serve senior adults 36% 35% Reducing cultural programs 52% 57% Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians 48% 60% Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive 35% 44% Table 51: Question #12 Top Choices by Survey Year Then indicate which two options you would most support, if budget cuts were necessary. 2013 2009 Reducing beach maintenance 12% 10% Reducing park maintenance 6% 7% Reducing athletic fields maintenance 12% 8% Eliminating some athletic fields 22% 23% Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities 23% 26% Closing a recreational facility 7% 11% Eliminating some community events 29% 34% Reducing programs that serve senior adults 17% 10% Reducing cultural programs 31% 25% Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians 26% 27% Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive 20% 21% Attachment number 4 \nPage 53 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 51 APPENDIX C: RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY QUESTIONS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA The table below displays the percent of respondents in each zip code. The remaining tables in this appendix present selected survey results by zip code. Where differences between zip codes are “statistically significant” (p<0.05), they are marked with grey shading. Table 52: Percent of respondents in each zip code Zip code Percent of Respondents 33755 18% 33756 13% 33759 12% 33761 14% 33763 7% 33764 13% 33765 11% 33767 14% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 54 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 52 Table 53: Question #1 by Geographic Area Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should use parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health 74% 76% 63% 81% 79% 66% 60% 49% 68% To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community's social fabric 38% 35% 35% 36% 22% 28% 35% 13% 31% To enhance the community's economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community 47% 39% 35% 35% 53% 31% 43% 46% 41% To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 59% 52% 43% 52% 40% 51% 48% 26% 47% To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) 75% 68% 63% 78% 74% 70% 70% 58% 69% To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) 62% 50% 48% 42% 54% 51% 43% 39% 48% To promote a more beautiful community and a greater "sense of place" for residents 75% 65% 66% 55% 59% 56% 75% 56% 64% Attachment number 4 \nPage 55 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 53 Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should use parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city's livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations 59% 40% 41% 42% 43% 39% 42% 16% 40% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation 63% 63% 54% 61% 68% 61% 59% 36% 57% To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space 66% 71% 71% 71% 55% 80% 60% 50% 66% To maintain the community's image as an athletic "sports town" destination 18% 29% 20% 21% 18% 30% 35% 17% 23% To maintain the community's image as a beach resort destination 45% 44% 41% 40% 58% 41% 66% 54% 47% Attachment number 4 \nPage 56 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 54 Table 54: Question #2 by Geographic Area Please rate how important you think it is for the City to provide recreation programs for each of the population groups below. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Children 0 to 5 years old 36% 36% 29% 21% 25% 26% 21% 18% 27% Children 6 to 12 years old 46% 56% 38% 39% 37% 63% 29% 35% 43% Teenagers 13 to 17 years old 51% 44% 49% 49% 51% 59% 32% 51% 49% Adults 29% 29% 22% 31% 33% 45% 37% 31% 32% Senior adults (60 years old or more) 38% 34% 35% 23% 29% 51% 16% 29% 32% Families together as a group 50% 47% 41% 48% 48% 40% 41% 23% 42% People with disabilities 47% 22% 45% 45% 29% 53% 31% 23% 38% Non-residents 13% 9% 8% 4% 8% 9% 9% 2% 8% Beginner levels 34% 38% 22% 19% 15% 44% 20% 11% 26% Intermediate levels 24% 37% 12% 16% 15% 36% 25% 8% 22% Advanced or elite levels 20% 23% 15% 14% 15% 30% 36% 8% 20% Attachment number 4 \nPage 57 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 55 Table 55: Question #4 by Geographic Area Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following outdoor facilities. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Playgrounds 50% 28% 69% 64% 51% 66% 57% 54% 55% Tennis courts 11% 7% 10% 18% 8% 21% 22% 4% 13% Bicycle and pedestrian trails 59% 63% 45% 57% 51% 62% 75% 40% 57% Equestrian trails 7% 2% 10% 2% 7% 6% 3% 1% 5% Nature trails 42% 23% 31% 16% 49% 26% 18% 22% 28% Golf courses 14% 4% 5% 8% 4% 28% 2% 12% 10% Dog parks 25% 22% 18% 27% 20% 37% 18% 16% 23% Volleyball courts 9% 3% 5% 5% 15% 13% 4% 3% 7% Picnic areas 48% 42% 62% 31% 41% 33% 34% 17% 38% Softball and baseball fields 15% 7% 16% 12% 18% 31% 11% 28% 17% Basketball courts 18% 8% 15% 20% 19% 28% 31% 17% 20% Swimming pools (outdoor) 20% 43% 15% 13% 13% 34% 31% 13% 23% Swimming pools (indoor) 28% 22% 12% 21% 13% 26% 21% 7% 19% Community centers 41% 34% 33% 41% 38% 43% 41% 27% 37% Multipurpose fields (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse) 28% 22% 16% 28% 38% 35% 23% 35% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 58 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 56 Table 56: Question #5 by Geographic Area Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following activities. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) 39% 31% 35% 48% 36% 52% 25% 28% 37% Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) 24% 15% 20% 12% 7% 11% 38% 8% 17% Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) 29% 16% 17% 6% 4% 18% 11% 6% 14% Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) 42% 40% 42% 44% 38% 37% 36% 26% 38% Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) 35% 20% 18% 24% 38% 47% 23% 16% 28% Gymnastics lessons and training 19% 4% 5% 7% 23% 19% 9% 1% 10% Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) 35% 38% 17% 31% 20% 38% 35% 9% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 59 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 57 Table 57: Question #6 by Geographic Area City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Providing visual “green spaces” within the city 59% 52% 51% 31% 38% 45% 26% 39% 43% Providing a place for rest and relaxation 51% 47% 56% 30% 26% 43% 41% 20% 40% Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, , lacrosse) 28% 28% 20% 27% 28% 28% 27% 21% 26% Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.) 35% 41% 29% 29% 36% 41% 35% 27% 34% Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) 19% 8% 10% 28% 22% 29% 20% 8% 18% Providing places for group gatherings 28% 25% 17% 19% 22% 20% 23% 7% 20% Providing places for children to play on playground equipment 48% 55% 46% 58% 55% 54% 42% 40% 50% Providing places to exercise pets 38% 23% 17% 24% 18% 17% 19% 19% 23% Providing a place to walk or jog 56% 53% 44% 49% 58% 41% 37% 31% 46% Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat 49% 36% 58% 30% 48% 46% 58% 28% 43% Providing annual flower plantings 22% 14% 13% 3% 29% 9% 5% 5% 12% Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings 50% 25% 25% 23% 48% 17% 38% 15% 30% Attachment number 4 \nPage 60 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 58 Table 58: Question #7 by Geographic Area Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Clearwater Celebrates America 34% 41% 30% 20% 23% 34% 32% 18% 29% Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend 31% 24% 36% 11% 41% 28% 38% 19% 27% Clearwater Sea Blues Festival 28% 12% 19% 15% 14% 10% 17% 19% 17% Blast Friday 18% 23% 6% 3% 19% 9% 16% 8% 12% Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend 25% 6% 16% 9% 11% 15% 9% 0% 12% TriRocks 17% 28% 2% 3% 6% 6% 1% 2% 9% Jazz Holiday 35% 19% 18% 28% 28% 28% 42% 24% 28% Make A Difference Fishing Tournament 14% 25% 7% 6% 9% 22% 16% 9% 13% Martin Luther King Day March 31% 7% 4% 6% 11% 5% 24% 0% 11% Outback Beach Day 28% 6% 16% 11% 13% 17% 22% 12% 16% Turkey Trot 34% 21% 26% 24% 42% 30% 40% 22% 29% Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training 38% 42% 23% 41% 59% 49% 56% 44% 43% Clearwater Threshers 28% 26% 15% 29% 49% 32% 30% 31% 29% Attachment number 4 \nPage 61 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 59 Table 59: Question #8a by Geographic Area Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing at a City of Clearwater park or facility. 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Used a recreation trail such as the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 82% 79% 74% 61% 44% 84% 65% 47% 69% Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 77% 87% 78% 76% 84% 89% 69% 71% 79% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 37% 55% 42% 49% 23% 39% 41% 29% 40% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 61% 62% 69% 52% 78% 63% 67% 57% 62% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 57% 46% 38% 39% 33% 46% 46% 29% 43% Used a skate park 14% 12% 9% 11% 0% 7% 3% 6% 9% Played at a playground 46% 38% 42% 42% 71% 52% 36% 43% 45% Participated in a nature program 21% 22% 15% 17% 18% 7% 3% 8% 14% Played baseball 24% 5% 2% 12% 15% 11% 1% 18% 12% Played softball 7% 3% 10% 6% 15% 15% 1% 15% 9% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 26% 11% 22% 20% 11% 23% 19% 23% 20% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 15% 7% 23% 13% 6% 17% 15% 28% 16% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 24% 21% 23% 28% 20% 24% 28% 24% 24% Played golf or took golf lessons 31% 15% 20% 26% 21% 43% 12% 28% 26% Played shuffleboard 7% 4% 6% 2% 2% 4% 6% 4% 4% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise 23% 33% 8% 24% 20% 33% 18% 20% 23% Attachment number 4 \nPage 62 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 60 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing at a City of Clearwater park or facility. 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Used an outdoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop- in) 37% 29% 19% 21% 11% 30% 20% 17% 24% Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 32% 30% 12% 24% 18% 23% 29% 6% 22% Used an indoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop- in) 28% 27% 19% 26% 6% 24% 20% 10% 21% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 33% 39% 40% 33% 49% 39% 20% 24% 34% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 69% 78% 74% 77% 62% 82% 56% 88% 75% Went motorized boating at a marina 27% 18% 13% 27% 7% 39% 17% 56% 28% Went non-motorized boating at a marina 28% 15% 23% 16% 21% 21% 8% 34% 21% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 32% 34% 16% 38% 25% 31% 26% 25% 29% "Dropped-in" for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 29% 30% 28% 37% 22% 33% 22% 32% 30% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 20% 12% 6% 22% 15% 8% 7% 6% 13% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 11% 8% 11% 7% 11% 2% 7% 6% 8% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 16% 26% 19% 14% 13% 5% 6% 21% 15% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 9% 14% 13% 5% 9% 9% 10% 8% 9% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) sports program or team 15% 9% 7% 16% 10% 11% 12% 2% 11% Attachment number 4 \nPage 63 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 61 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing at a City of Clearwater park or facility. 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 17% 2% 10% 7% 13% 5% 5% 4% 8% Participated in an adult sports program or team 12% 5% 12% 7% 13% 10% 0% 13% 9% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 21% 31% 20% 34% 17% 18% 18% 23% 23% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 11% 15% 16% 14% 17% 11% 10% 14% 13% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 7% 24% 5% 2% 11% 4% 6% 8% 8% Participated in a community event 61% 68% 63% 58% 65% 41% 38% 47% 55% Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall 57% 47% 76% 49% 62% 61% 36% 63% 57% Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field 52% 51% 51% 67% 61% 71% 61% 49% 57% Attachment number 4 \nPage 64 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 62 Table 60: Question #8b by Geographic Area Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing somewhere else. 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 47% 46% 71% 58% 73% 65% 65% 60% 59% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 41% 11% 27% 39% 6% 34% 34% 27% 30% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 43% 47% 62% 51% 64% 49% 67% 51% 52% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 24% 31% 52% 29% 59% 24% 48% 35% 35% Used a skate park 17% 0% 2% 7% 0% 0% 8% 6% 6% Played at a playground 32% 26% 37% 25% 32% 40% 29% 28% 30% Participated in a nature program 25% 26% 11% 7% 34% 3% 0% 7% 14% Played baseball 14% 0% 9% 12% 27% 4% 7% 17% 11% Played softball 5% 6% 9% 2% 7% 10% 3% 16% 8% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 26% 17% 42% 20% 0% 3% 26% 24% 23% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 10% 2% 29% 13% 13% 27% 7% 7% 13% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 7% 2% 30% 8% 22% 0% 3% 24% 12% Played golf or took golf lessons 18% 13% 9% 26% 7% 45% 3% 39% 22% Played shuffleboard 2% 2% 7% 3% 12% 0% 19% 6% 5% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise 22% 47% 11% 18% 0% 24% 38% 14% 23% Used an outdoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop- in) 31% 51% 31% 21% 29% 29% 36% 10% 29% Attachment number 4 \nPage 65 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 63 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing somewhere else. 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 23% 14% 13% 21% 7% 0% 36% 23% 19% Used an indoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop- in) 23% 19% 10% 17% 0% 0% 23% 9% 15% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 47% 36% 36% 35% 40% 51% 39% 42% 41% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 52% 51% 72% 47% 53% 61% 37% 60% 55% Went motorized boating at a marina 36% 15% 21% 36% 0% 51% 11% 39% 30% Went non-motorized boating at a marina 30% 26% 22% 13% 0% 34% 3% 36% 24% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 37% 61% 15% 29% 7% 23% 24% 44% 34% "Dropped-in" for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 24% 17% 30% 31% 14% 36% 21% 38% 28% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 14% 0% 5% 13% 8% 8% 19% 9% 9% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 11% 2% 2% 6% 8% 3% 3% 6% 5% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 5% 22% 27% 10% 7% 9% 0% 21% 14% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 5% 4% 8% 3% 14% 3% 10% 4% 5% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) sports program or team 11% 2% 6% 13% 8% 4% 5% 8% 8% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 5% 2% 11% 6% 8% 0% 13% 6% 6% Attachment number 4 \nPage 66 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 64 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing somewhere else. 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Participated in an adult sports program or team 11% 27% 14% 2% 34% 9% 0% 17% 13% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 8% 52% 27% 26% 15% 16% 4% 35% 25% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 7% 8% 17% 6% 21% 17% 4% 11% 10% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 16% 21% 25% 10% 13% 6% 4% 4% 13% Participated in a community event 26% 53% 48% 50% 58% 25% 46% 36% 41% Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall 55% 33% 59% 17% 55% 9% 50% 68% 44% Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field 44% 41% 59% 50% 39% 16% 37% 57% 46% Attachment number 4 \nPage 67 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 65 Table 61: Question #9 by Geographic Area How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 63% 62% 64% 54% 60% 57% 69% 40% 58% Parks and nature parks 67% 56% 76% 64% 58% 68% 59% 43% 62% Places to exercise pet(s) in a park or nature park 39% 33% 50% 36% 16% 34% 27% 23% 33% A group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 46% 36% 50% 33% 40% 40% 39% 23% 38% A skate park 18% 8% 4% 7% 9% 4% 9% 6% 8% Playgrounds 56% 48% 58% 58% 63% 63% 56% 42% 55% Nature programs 39% 32% 31% 20% 42% 10% 12% 8% 24% Baseball and softball fields 18% 15% 23% 31% 29% 37% 42% 30% 27% Field sports fields (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 27% 17% 26% 24% 36% 33% 35% 28% 27% Tennis courts and complexes 24% 10% 24% 35% 29% 33% 18% 19% 24% Gymnasiums for court sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 35% 8% 17% 30% 29% 32% 23% 15% 24% Golf courses 22% 10% 11% 12% 15% 28% 10% 29% 18% Shuffleboard courts 19% 3% 4% 6% 11% 1% 7% 3% 7% Outdoor swimming pools 23% 28% 25% 20% 19% 28% 29% 24% 25% Indoor swimming pool 33% 14% 19% 24% 19% 28% 29% 19% 24% Beach facilities for swimming and recreation 70% 61% 58% 54% 45% 61% 75% 58% 61% Beach facilities for boating (Marina) 49% 30% 40% 46% 42% 48% 58% 45% 45% Fitness classes (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 28% 23% 35% 33% 33% 29% 14% 16% 26% Exercise facilities (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 26% 17% 35% 40% 36% 29% 15% 13% 26% Children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs 38% 39% 46% 43% 48% 43% 35% 30% 40% Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs 41% 34% 45% 45% 44% 39% 35% 34% 40% Adult arts or recreation programs 33% 30% 19% 27% 19% 25% 12% 13% 23% Senior arts or recreation programs 36% 33% 27% 24% 25% 26% 22% 26% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 68 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 66 How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Percent of respondents rating as "essential." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Children's (age 0-12) sports programs or teams 34% 47% 44% 54% 46% 49% 29% 42% 43% Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams 37% 48% 41% 53% 53% 42% 29% 46% 43% Adult sports programs or teams 21% 28% 11% 19% 22% 26% 23% 14% 20% Adult exercise, fitness or wellness programs 38% 40% 18% 43% 25% 30% 28% 12% 30% Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs 35% 33% 20% 41% 29% 31% 24% 19% 29% Therapeutic recreation programs 33% 28% 13% 20% 36% 24% 9% 5% 21% Community events 55% 57% 61% 50% 49% 22% 45% 32% 46% Ruth Eckerd Hall 62% 47% 57% 47% 47% 48% 47% 47% 51% Bright House Networks Field 55% 50% 56% 53% 58% 63% 42% 48% 53% Attachment number 4 \nPage 69 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 67 Table 62: Question #11 by Geographic Area The City of Clearwater is exploring ways to fund parks and recreation in the future. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding options. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 16% 14% 7% 19% 10% 5% 17% 6% 12% Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) 35% 30% 40% 27% 24% 17% 26% 39% 30% The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 39% 59% 49% 30% 47% 43% 64% 44% 46% The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 57% 57% 56% 32% 49% 52% 65% 44% 51% Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs 53% 26% 61% 63% 43% 65% 50% 65% 54% Attachment number 4 \nPage 70 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 68 Table 63: Question #12 by Geographic Area The City of Clearwater, like the rest of the nation, is facing difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget Percent of respondents "strongly support"ing 33755 33756 33759 33761 33763 33764 33765 33767 Overall Reducing beach maintenance 5% 5% 1% 6% 0% 1% 1% 1% 3% Reducing park maintenance 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% Reducing athletic fields maintenance 8% 14% 4% 8% 2% 2% 5% 4% 6% Eliminating some athletic fields 19% 6% 5% 14% 10% 6% 22% 27% 14% Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities 22% 8% 13% 7% 19% 18% 8% 11% 13% Closing a recreational facility 13% 0% 4% 2% 5% 1% 5% 9% 6% Eliminating some community events 17% 14% 14% 16% 18% 10% 8% 36% 17% Reducing programs that serve senior adults 3% 14% 14% 3% 2% 10% 14% 5% 8% Reducing cultural programs 5% 16% 19% 17% 13% 15% 22% 27% 16% Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians 18% 20% 15% 21% 29% 8% 21% 15% 18% Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive 4% 5% 15% 5% 9% 22% 4% 14% 10% Attachment number 4 \nPage 71 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 69 APPENDIX D: SELECTED SURVEY RESULTS BY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS Selected survey results were examined by several respondent characteristics: ♦ Presence of children or teenagers in household ♦ Presence of older adults (age 65+) in household ♦ Gender of respondent The table below displays the percent of respondents in each of the categories above. The remaining tables in this appendix present selected survey results by these respondent subgroups. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant (p<0.05), they are shaded grey. Table 64: Percent of respondents in each sub group Percent of respondents in each sub group Percent of Respondents Presence of Children in Household Child(ren) in HH 23% NO child(ren) in HH 77% Total 100% Presence of Older Adults (age 65+) in Household Older adult(s) in HH 29% NO older adult(s) in HH 71% Total 100% Respondent Gender Female 53% Male 47% Total 100% Attachment number 4 \nPage 72 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 70 Table 65: Question #1 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Cities offer parks and recreation facilities and programs to their residents for various reasons. Please tell us how strongly you agree or disagree that the City of Clearwater should use parks and recreation funding for each of the following purposes. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." Child(ren) in HH NO child(ren) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall To provide opportunities for residents to maintain and improve their physical health 66% 69% 71% 67% 73% 62% 68% To provide opportunities for residents to make social connections which strengthen the community's social fabric 23% 33% 31% 31% 32% 29% 31% To enhance the community's economic vitality by offering special events and amateur athletic tournaments that draw visitors from inside and outside the community 36% 42% 37% 42% 41% 40% 41% To provide recreational opportunities to underserved residents who might not otherwise be able to participate in recreational activities (e.g., people with disabilities or people with low incomes) 47% 47% 47% 47% 54% 39% 47% To provide positive activities for children and teens (age 19 and younger) 74% 68% 69% 70% 77% 61% 69% To provide recreational, social and health strengthening opportunities for older adults (age 60 and older) 43% 50% 53% 46% 53% 42% 48% To promote a more beautiful community and a greater "sense of place" for residents 65% 63% 61% 65% 61% 67% 64% To provide greater cultural opportunities to increase our city's livability, stimulating economic revitalization, strengthening education, and creating an understanding of diverse populations 43% 39% 40% 40% 42% 37% 40% To provide greater mobility, with trails and paths for residents to use for exercise and for non-motorized transportation 50% 59% 46% 62% 60% 55% 57% To provide green and natural spaces within the community with park lands and open space 75% 64% 69% 65% 71% 60% 66% To maintain the community's image as an athletic "sports town" destination 9% 27% 22% 24% 19% 28% 23% To maintain the community's image as a beach resort destination 40% 50% 47% 48% 45% 52% 47% Attachment number 4 \nPage 73 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 71 Table 66: Question #2 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Please rate how important you think it is for the City to provide recreation programs for each of the population groups below. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(ren) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Children 0 to 5 years old 32% 25% 26% 27% 31% 22% 27% Children 6 to 12 years old 48% 42% 34% 47% 46% 40% 43% Teenagers 13 to 17 years old 45% 49% 45% 50% 52% 44% 49% Adults 20% 35% 27% 33% 30% 33% 32% Senior adults (60 years old or more) 24% 35% 36% 31% 34% 30% 32% Families together as a group 51% 39% 33% 46% 42% 43% 42% People with disabilities 45% 35% 37% 38% 41% 33% 38% Non-residents 8% 7% 6% 8% 9% 6% 8% Beginner levels 24% 26% 25% 26% 29% 22% 26% Intermediate levels 18% 22% 20% 22% 23% 20% 22% Advanced or elite levels 17% 20% 17% 20% 18% 21% 20% Attachment number 4 \nPage 74 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 72 Table 67: Question #4 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following outdoor facilities. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(ren) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Playgrounds 58% 54% 49% 57% 56% 53% 55% Tennis courts 14% 13% 14% 12% 11% 15% 13% Bicycle and pedestrian trails 57% 57% 38% 64% 57% 57% 57% Equestrian trails 6% 4% 6% 4% 4% 5% 5% Nature trails 38% 24% 22% 30% 28% 27% 28% Golf courses 5% 12% 8% 11% 8% 13% 10% Dog parks 24% 23% 16% 27% 24% 23% 23% Volleyball courts 8% 7% 8% 7% 9% 4% 7% Picnic areas 36% 39% 30% 41% 39% 37% 38% Softball and baseball fields 10% 19% 19% 17% 17% 18% 17% Basketball courts 16% 20% 17% 21% 15% 25% 20% Swimming pools (outdoor) 16% 25% 17% 25% 25% 21% 23% Swimming pools (indoor) 17% 20% 14% 21% 17% 22% 19% Community centers 35% 37% 35% 38% 40% 33% 37% Multipurpose fields (Soccer/Football/Lacrosse) 26% 29% 20% 31% 23% 34% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 75 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 73 Table 68: Question #5 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following activities. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(ren) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Wellness/fitness (e.g., weight training, aerobics, yoga, etc.) 33% 38% 30% 40% 34% 41% 37% Visual arts (e.g., pottery, painting, etc.) 27% 15% 13% 19% 15% 21% 17% Performing arts (e.g., dance, drama, etc.) 19% 13% 11% 16% 11% 18% 14% Community events (e.g., Jazz Holiday, Turkey Trot, Fun N’ Sun, Clearwater Sea Blues Festival) 42% 37% 23% 45% 38% 39% 38% Sports teams and lessons (e.g., softball, soccer, football, etc.) 28% 28% 18% 32% 24% 32% 28% Gymnastics lessons and training 21% 7% 7% 12% 13% 8% 10% Aquatics (e.g., lap swimming, water exercise classes, lessons, etc.) 35% 26% 25% 30% 32% 24% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 76 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 74 Table 69: Question #6 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender City parks serve various purposes within a community, some of which are listed below. Please rate how important, if at all, each purpose is to you and your household. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(ren) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Providing visual “green spaces” within the city 45% 43% 41% 45% 41% 46% 43% Providing a place for rest and relaxation 46% 38% 30% 44% 37% 44% 40% Providing developed spaces for field sports (e.g., soccer, football, softball, baseball, , lacrosse) 26% 26% 21% 28% 22% 29% 26% Providing open lawn/play space (for children or adults to play their own games like tag, frisbee, croquet, etc.) 43% 31% 21% 39% 29% 39% 34% Providing opportunities for court sports (e.g., tennis, basketball) 23% 16% 13% 20% 18% 18% 18% Providing places for group gatherings 30% 17% 20% 20% 24% 16% 20% Providing places for children to play on playground equipment 53% 48% 38% 54% 45% 54% 50% Providing places to exercise pets 14% 26% 13% 27% 23% 23% 23% Providing a place to walk or jog 45% 46% 35% 51% 42% 50% 46% Providing natural open lands or wildlife habitat 42% 44% 34% 47% 43% 44% 43% Providing annual flower plantings 16% 10% 16% 10% 13% 10% 12% Providing low-water perennial (bloom year after year) plantings 40% 26% 25% 31% 34% 25% 30% Attachment number 4 \nPage 77 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 75 Table 70: Question #7 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Please rate how important to the community, if at all, it is that the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department provide the following community events. Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Clearwater Celebrates America 26% 30% 22% 32% 27% 31% 29% Clearwater Fun N’ Sun Festival Weekend 27% 27% 17% 31% 24% 31% 27% Clearwater Sea Blues Festival 13% 18% 13% 18% 16% 17% 17% Blast Friday 13% 12% 7% 14% 10% 14% 12% Hispanic Heritage Fall Concert Weekend 14% 11% 10% 12% 9% 13% 12% TriRocks 10% 8% 5% 10% 7% 10% 9% Jazz Holiday 31% 27% 26% 28% 29% 26% 28% Make A Difference Fishing Tournament 16% 13% 8% 15% 14% 12% 13% Martin Luther King Day March 18% 9% 11% 11% 14% 7% 11% Outback Beach Day 16% 16% 9% 18% 12% 20% 16% Turkey Trot 30% 28% 22% 31% 30% 27% 29% Philadelphia Phillies Spring Training 40% 44% 34% 47% 40% 46% 43% Clearwater Threshers 32% 28% 26% 30% 29% 30% 29% Attachment number 4 \nPage 78 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 76 Table 71: Question #8a by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing at a City of Clearwater park or facility Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Used a recreation trail such as the Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 77% 66% 47% 77% 63% 75% 69% Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 90% 75% 59% 86% 77% 81% 79% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 46% 38% 25% 46% 41% 39% 40% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 73% 59% 50% 67% 64% 62% 62% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 55% 38% 36% 45% 44% 41% 43% Used a skate park 23% 4% 4% 10% 8% 10% 9% Played at a playground 84% 33% 27% 52% 50% 40% 45% Participated in a nature program 21% 12% 12% 15% 16% 12% 14% Played baseball 20% 9% 10% 13% 8% 17% 12% Played softball 9% 9% 6% 10% 6% 13% 9% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 34% 16% 9% 24% 18% 23% 20% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 25% 14% 14% 17% 13% 20% 16% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 33% 21% 9% 30% 17% 32% 24% Played golf or took golf lessons 29% 24% 18% 28% 17% 35% 26% Played shuffleboard 1% 5% 6% 4% 4% 5% 4% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise 36% 19% 18% 25% 24% 21% 23% Used an outdoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) 43% 19% 17% 27% 25% 24% 24% Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 42% 16% 22% 22% 28% 16% 22% Used an indoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) 36% 17% 17% 23% 23% 20% 21% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 33% 34% 24% 37% 33% 34% 34% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 79% 73% 62% 79% 76% 73% 75% Went motorized boating at a marina 28% 27% 24% 29% 26% 29% 28% Attachment number 4 \nPage 79 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 77 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing at a City of Clearwater park or facility Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Went non-motorized boating at a marina 21% 21% 16% 23% 17% 26% 21% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 29% 29% 30% 28% 34% 23% 29% "Dropped-in" for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 28% 31% 26% 32% 30% 30% 30% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 41% 4% 10% 14% 15% 10% 13% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 23% 3% 4% 9% 7% 9% 8% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 14% 16% 18% 14% 17% 14% 15% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 3% 11% 21% 4% 12% 7% 9% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) sports program or team 29% 5% 8% 12% 13% 8% 11% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 22% 4% 4% 10% 6% 10% 8% Participated in an adult sports program or team 3% 11% 8% 9% 6% 13% 9% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 17% 25% 30% 21% 26% 20% 23% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 3% 16% 32% 6% 16% 10% 13% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 5% 9% 10% 7% 9% 8% 8% Participated in a community event 65% 52% 47% 58% 60% 50% 55% Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall 52% 58% 59% 56% 52% 61% 57% Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field 59% 57% 44% 62% 55% 59% 57% Attachment number 4 \nPage 80 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 78 Table 72: Question #8b by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing somewhere else Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Walked, ran or jogged in a park or nature park 53% 61% 43% 63% 52% 64% 59% Exercised a pet(s) in a park or nature park 22% 33% 13% 36% 28% 32% 30% Relaxed (e.g., read a book, picnicked, played games or catch on the grass) in a park 50% 53% 36% 57% 46% 58% 52% Used a group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 44% 32% 30% 37% 31% 38% 35% Used a skate park 15% 3% 1% 8% 4% 8% 6% Played at a playground 50% 24% 18% 34% 23% 37% 30% Participated in a nature program 16% 13% 11% 15% 13% 15% 14% Played baseball 17% 9% 11% 11% 6% 14% 11% Played softball 4% 9% 3% 9% 1% 13% 8% Played field sports (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 23% 23% 3% 28% 6% 37% 23% Played tennis or took tennis lessons 17% 11% 14% 13% 9% 16% 13% Played court sports or took lessons (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 7% 14% 5% 15% 4% 20% 12% Played golf or took golf lessons 14% 25% 13% 25% 13% 30% 22% Played shuffleboard 3% 6% 9% 4% 7% 3% 5% Used an outdoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise 32% 20% 16% 25% 21% 25% 23% Used an outdoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) 42% 24% 28% 29% 29% 28% 29% Used an indoor swimming pool for swim lessons or water exercise classes 25% 17% 21% 19% 18% 20% 19% Used an indoor swimming pool for "open swim" (drop-in) 18% 14% 15% 15% 11% 18% 15% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a reservoir or lake 36% 42% 30% 44% 35% 46% 41% Swam, fished, relaxed or had a social event at a beach 49% 57% 44% 59% 48% 61% 55% Went motorized boating at a marina 29% 30% 26% 31% 26% 33% 30% Went non-motorized boating at a marina 14% 27% 16% 26% 12% 34% 24% Participated in a fitness class (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 44% 31% 41% 32% 39% 29% 34% Attachment number 4 \nPage 81 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 79 Please indicate whether you or anyone in your household has participated in any of these activities in the past 12 months at a City of Clearwater park or facility, or at another park or facility (either a private facility or one belonging to another jurisdiction). Percent doing somewhere else Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall "Dropped-in" for exercise (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 33% 26% 29% 28% 22% 33% 28% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation program 26% 4% 16% 7% 15% 4% 9% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation program 12% 3% 6% 5% 6% 4% 5% Participated in an adult arts or recreation program 8% 16% 14% 14% 13% 15% 14% Participated in a senior arts or recreation program 2% 7% 11% 4% 5% 6% 5% Participated in a children's (age 0-12) sports program or team 17% 5% 11% 7% 10% 6% 8% Participated in a youth (age 13-19) sports program or team 13% 4% 3% 7% 3% 8% 6% Participated in an adult sports program or team 0% 17% 7% 15% 3% 22% 13% Participated in an adult exercise, fitness or wellness program 12% 29% 29% 24% 23% 27% 25% Participated in senior exercise, fitness or wellness program 0% 14% 25% 6% 8% 12% 10% Participated in a therapeutic recreation program 12% 13% 24% 10% 11% 15% 13% Participated in a community event 41% 41% 33% 43% 35% 46% 41% Attended an event at a performing arts center such as Ruth Eckerd Hall 44% 44% 44% 44% 33% 55% 44% Attended an event at a major league stadium such as Bright House Networks Field 41% 48% 48% 46% 40% 52% 46% Attachment number 4 \nPage 82 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 80 Table 73: Question #9 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall The Pinellas or Ream Wilson Trail 47% 61% 38% 66% 58% 59% 58% Parks and nature parks 67% 60% 47% 67% 65% 58% 62% Places to exercise pet(s) in a park or nature park 28% 35% 24% 37% 32% 35% 33% A group shelter or picnic area (for group event) 42% 37% 33% 40% 41% 35% 38% A skate park 14% 7% 8% 9% 6% 10% 8% Playgrounds 68% 51% 40% 61% 55% 55% 55% Nature programs 27% 23% 22% 25% 27% 21% 24% Baseball and softball fields 23% 29% 28% 27% 27% 27% 27% Field sports fields (e.g., soccer, football, rugby, field hockey, lacrosse, Ultimate Frisbee) 28% 27% 22% 30% 27% 27% 27% Tennis courts and complexes 20% 25% 18% 26% 19% 29% 24% Gymnasiums for court sports (e.g., basketball, volleyball) 29% 23% 15% 28% 21% 28% 24% Golf courses 13% 20% 13% 20% 16% 21% 18% Shuffleboard courts 5% 8% 6% 8% 6% 8% 7% Outdoor swimming pools 25% 25% 19% 27% 27% 22% 25% Indoor swimming pool 24% 24% 18% 26% 23% 25% 24% Beach facilities for swimming and recreation 61% 61% 47% 66% 58% 65% 61% Beach facilities for boating (Marina) 37% 47% 36% 48% 43% 47% 45% Fitness classes (e.g., yoga, aerobics, pilates, weight training, etc.) 22% 28% 24% 27% 29% 24% 26% Exercise facilities (weights, exercise machines, etc.) 23% 27% 25% 27% 27% 25% 26% Children's (age 0-12) arts or recreation programs 48% 37% 30% 43% 41% 39% 40% Youth (age 13-19) arts or recreation programs 46% 37% 30% 43% 40% 39% 40% Adult arts or recreation programs 28% 22% 21% 24% 25% 22% 23% Senior arts or recreation programs 24% 29% 25% 29% 29% 26% 28% Children's (age 0-12) sports programs or teams 48% 42% 30% 49% 43% 44% 43% Youth (age 13-19) sports programs or teams 45% 43% 31% 48% 41% 46% 43% Adult sports programs or teams 15% 22% 15% 23% 18% 23% 20% Attachment number 4 \nPage 83 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 81 How important, if at all, do you believe it is that the City of Clearwater offer each of the following activities or facilities to the community? Percent of respondents rating as "essential." Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Adult exercise, fitness or wellness programs 27% 31% 29% 31% 30% 31% 30% Senior exercise, fitness or wellness programs 19% 33% 31% 29% 31% 29% 29% Therapeutic recreation programs 17% 22% 20% 22% 22% 20% 21% Community events 48% 46% 36% 50% 49% 44% 46% Ruth Eckerd Hall 49% 52% 48% 53% 49% 53% 51% Bright House Networks Field 47% 55% 40% 59% 50% 57% 53% Table 74: Question #11 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender The City of Clearwater is exploring ways to fund parks and recreation in the future. Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following funding options. Percent of respondents rating as "strongly agree." Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Recreation programs must pay for themselves through user fees 7% 13% 14% 11% 13% 11% 12% Profitable or popular programs (such as sports leagues and swimming lessons) can help pay for less profitable programs (such as therapeutic, senior and youth programs) 27% 32% 31% 30% 32% 28% 30% The City should supplement the costs of operating recreation programs by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 40% 47% 42% 47% 44% 48% 46% The City should supplement the costs of operating facilities by using different revenue sources, such as grants, donations, and taxes 47% 52% 45% 54% 48% 56% 51% Individuals living outside Clearwater should pay higher fees for participating in recreation programs 52% 55% 62% 51% 54% 55% 54% Attachment number 4 \nPage 84 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 82 Table 75: Question #12 by Presence of Children in Household, Presence of Older Adults in Household and Respondent Gender The City of Clearwater, like the rest of the nation, is facing difficult budget decisions. Please indicate your level of support for or opposition to each of the following options for reducing the Parks and Recreation budget. Percent of respondents "strongly support"ing Child(ren) in HH NO child(re n) in HH Older adult(s) in HH NO older adult(s) in HH Female Male Overall Reducing beach maintenance 5% 2% 5% 1% 2% 4% 3% Reducing park maintenance 1% 2% 3% 1% 2% 1% 2% Reducing athletic fields maintenance 4% 7% 6% 6% 6% 6% 6% Eliminating some athletic fields 16% 14% 15% 14% 10% 19% 14% Reducing operating hours of recreational facilities 10% 14% 11% 13% 10% 16% 13% Closing a recreational facility 6% 5% 6% 5% 3% 8% 6% Eliminating some community events 15% 17% 15% 18% 12% 23% 17% Reducing programs that serve senior adults 4% 9% 4% 9% 2% 14% 8% Reducing cultural programs 15% 17% 16% 17% 10% 24% 16% Reducing landscape maintenance in areas such as medians 15% 18% 13% 19% 16% 18% 18% Allowing other entities to operate City facilities even if the programs are more expensive 9% 10% 6% 11% 6% 13% 10% Attachment number 4 \nPage 85 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 83 APPENDIX E: SURVEY METHODOLOGY Developing the Questionnaire The questionnaire for the 2013 survey was largely based on the 2009 survey, with some additional questions added by the staff of the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department to obtain the information currently needed for the update of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Selecting Survey Recipients All households located in the City of Clearwater were eligible to receive the survey. Because local governments generally do not have inclusive lists of all the residences in the jurisdiction (tax assessor and utility billing databases often omit rental units), lists from the United States Postal Service (USPS), updated every three months, usually provide the best representation of all households in a specific geographic location. NRC used the USPS data to randomly select a sample of households within zip codes that serve the City of Clearwater. Attached units were over sampled as residents of this type of housing typically respond at lower rates to surveys than do those in detached housing units. This list was then geocoded to exclude those addresses outside the City of Clearwater city limits. From the remaining addresses, 3,000 were randomly selected to receive the survey. An individual within each household was randomly selected to complete the survey using the birthday method. The birthday method selects a person within the household by asking the “person whose birthday has most recently passed” to complete the questionnaire. The underlying assumption in this method is that day of birth has no relationship to the way people respond to surveys. This instruction was contained in the cover letter accompanying the questionnaire. Survey Administration and Response Each selected household was contacted three times. First, a prenotification announcement was sent, informing the household members that they had been selected to participate in the City of Clearwater Parks and Recreation Survey. Approximately one week after mailing the prenotification, each household was mailed a survey containing a cover letter signed by the city manager enlisting participation. The packet also contained a postage paid return envelope in which the survey recipients could return the completed questionnaire directly to NRC. A reminder letter and survey, scheduled to arrive one week after the first survey was the final contact. The second cover letter asked those who had not completed the survey to do so and those who have already done so to refrain from turning in another survey. The mailings were sent in October 2013. Completed surveys were collected over the following weeks. About 17% (~500) of the 3,000 surveys mailed were returned because the housing unit was vacant or the postal service was unable to deliver the survey as addressed. Of the approximately 2,500 households who received a survey, 490 completed the survey, providing a response rate of 20%. Attachment number 4 \nPage 86 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 84 The 95% confidence interval (or “margin of error”) quantifies the “sampling error” or precision of the estimates made from the survey results. A 95% confidence interval can be calculated for any sample size, and indicates that in 95 of 100 surveys conducted like this one, for a particular item, a result would be found that is within ±4 percentage points of the result that would be found if everyone in the population of interest was surveyed. The practical difficulties of conducting any resident survey may introduce other sources of error in addition to sampling error. Despite best efforts to boost participation and ensure potential inclusion of all households, some selected households will decline participation in the survey (referred to as non-response error) and some eligible households may be unintentionally excluded from the listed sources for the sample (referred to as coverage error). While the 95 percent confidence level for the survey is generally no greater than plus or minus 4 percentage points around any given percent reported for the entire sample, results for subgroups will have wider confidence intervals. For each subgroup from the survey, the margin of error rises to as much as plus or minus 17% for a sample size of 32 (in the smallest, zip code 33764) to plus or minus 5% for 375 completed surveys (in the largest, households without children). Survey Processing (Data Entry) Mailed surveys were returned to NRC directly via postage-paid business reply envelopes. Once received, staff assigned a unique identification number to each questionnaire. Additionally, each survey was reviewed and “cleaned” as necessary. For example, a question may have asked a respondent to pick two items out of a list of five, but the respondent checked three; NRC staff would choose randomly two of the three selected items to be coded in the dataset. Once all surveys were assigned a unique identification number, they were entered into an electronic dataset. This dataset is subject to a data entry protocol of “key and verify,” in which survey data were entered twice into an electronic dataset and then compared. Discrepancies were evaluated against the original survey form and corrected. Range checks as well as other forms of quality control were also performed. Survey Analysis Weighting the Data One of the first steps in the data analysis was to statistically adjust the survey results so that the demographic profile of the respondents mirrors that of the population as a whole. This process is known as “weighting” the data. The primary objective of weighting survey data is to make the survey sample reflective of the larger population of the community. This is done by: 1) reviewing the sample demographics and comparing them to the population norms from the most recent sources and 2) comparing the responses to different questions for demographic subgroups. The demographic characteristics that are least similar to the known demographic profile and yield the most different results are the best candidates for data weighting. The demographic characteristics of the survey respondents were compared to those found in the 2010 Census estimates for adults in the city. The variables used for weighting were respondent age, sex and whether or not household included children. The “raking” add-on to SPSS was used to create the weights. (Raking uses mathematical algorithms to calculate the Attachment number 4 \nPage 87 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 85 appropriate weights.) Other discrepancies between the whole population and the sample may also aided by the weighting due to the intercorrelation of many socioeconomic characteristics. Attachment number 4 \nPage 88 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 86 The results of the weighting scheme are presented in the table below. Characteristic Percent in Population Population Norm* Unweighted Data Weighted Data Age 18-34 years of age 25% 6% 25% 35-54 years of age 33% 27% 33% 55+ years of age 41% 66% 42% Sex Female 52% 61% 53% Male 48% 39% 47% Presence of Children in Household One or more children 23% 16% 23% No children 77% 84% 77% *Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 Census and 2011 American Community Survey Analyzing the Data The electronic dataset was analyzed by National Research Center, Inc. staff using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). For the most part, the percent positive (i.e., “excellent” or “good,” “strongly agree” or “somewhat agree,” “strongly support” and “somewhat support”) are presented in the body of the report. On many of the questions in the survey, respondents could give an answer of “don’t know.” The proportion of respondents giving this reply is shown in the full set of responses included in Appendix A: Frequency of Survey Responses. Also included are results by geographic subarea (Appendix C: Responses to Selected Survey Questions by Geographic Area) and other respondent characteristics (Appendix D: Selected Survey Results by Respondent Characteristics). Chi-square or ANOVA tests of significance were applied to these breakdowns of selected survey questions. A “p-value” of 0.05 or less indicates that there is less than a 5% probability that differences observed between groups are due to chance; or in other words, a greater than 95% probability that the differences observed in the selected categories of survey respondents represent “real” differences among those populations. Where differences between subgroups are statistically significant, they have been marked with grey shading in the appendices. Attachment number 4 \nPage 89 of 90 Item # 5 Clearwater, FL Parks and Recreation Survey • December 2013 Report of Results (12-09-2013) • 87 APPENDIX F: SURVEY MATERIALS The following pages display the questionnaire and other survey materials for the 2013 Clearwater Parks and Recreation Survey. Attachment number 4 \nPage 90 of 90 Item # 5 Park Inventory 1 Appendix D: Level of Service Contents Park Inventory……………………………………………...2 Outdoor Facility Workshop Survey……………….7 Outdoor Facility Maps…………………………………..8 Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 18 Item # 5 Park Inventory 2 Attachment number 5 \nPage 2 of 18 Item # 5 Outdoor Facility Maps 3 Attachment number 5 \nPage 3 of 18 Item # 5 4 Attachment number 5 \nPage 4 of 18 Item # 5 5 Attachment number 5 \nPage 5 of 18 Item # 5 6 Attachment number 5 \nPage 6 of 18 Item # 5 7 Outdoor Facility Workshop Survey 3% 3% 5% 11% 17% 22% 25% 26% 28% 32% 34% 34% 45% 45% 60% 3% 28% 22% 31% 26% 38% 31% 32% 43% 25% 26% 29% 32% 38% 18% 6% 31% 26% 42% 43% 60% 55% 58% 71% 57% 60% 63% 77% 83% 78% 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100% Equestrian Trails Volleyball Courts Golf Course Tennis Courts Dog Parks Softball and Baseball fields Picnic Tables Basketball Courts Nature Trails Swimming Pools -indoor Swimming Pools-outdoor Multipurpose fields (Soccer/ Football/ Lacrosse) Playgrounds Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails Community Centers Percent of Respondents Importance of Providing Recreational Activities Essential Important Attachment number 5 \nPage 7 of 18 Item # 5 Outdoor Facility Maps 8 Attachment number 5 \nPage 8 of 18 Item # 5 9 Attachment number 5 \nPage 9 of 18 Item # 5 10 Attachment number 5 \nPage 10 of 18 Item # 5 11 Attachment number 5 \nPage 11 of 18 Item # 5 12 Attachment number 5 \nPage 12 of 18 Item # 5 13 Attachment number 5 \nPage 13 of 18 Item # 5 14 Attachment number 5 \nPage 14 of 18 Item # 5 15 Attachment number 5 \nPage 15 of 18 Item # 5 16 Attachment number 5 \nPage 16 of 18 Item # 5 17 Attachment number 5 \nPage 17 of 18 Item # 5 18 Attachment number 5 \nPage 18 of 18 Item # 5 1 Appendix E: Park and Community Engagement Factor Tables Contents Park Factors………………………………………….2 Community Engagement Factors………….3 Improvement Suggestions…………………….5 Attachment number 6 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # 5 2 Park Factor (P) Community Parks Name of Park Population Served Age of Facilities Comfort P Score N. Greenwood Rec. & Aquatic Cmplx 4 5 3 12 The Long Center 5 3 3 11 Countryside Community Park 3 5 3 11 Ross Norton Rec. & Aquatic Cmplx. & Extreme Park + Ed Wright Park Complex 3 5 3 11 Clearwater Beach Rec. Complex 2 3 3 8 Park Factor (P) Neighborhood Parks Name of Park Population Served Age of Facilities Comfort P Score Charter Oaks Park 5 5 3 13 Station Square Park 5 5 3 13 Belmont Park 3 5 5 13 Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 5 5 3 13 Marymont Park 5 5 3 13 Wood Valley Recreation Center 5 5 3 13 Country Hollow Park 4 5 3 12 Northwood Park 4 5 3 12 Charles Park 3 5 3 11 Garden Avenue Park 5 5 1 11 Cherry Harris Park 5 5 1 11 Coachman Ridge Park 5 5 1 11 Crest Lake Park 5 5 1 11 Del Oro Park 5 3 3 11 Montclair Park 5 5 1 11 Soule Road Park 5 5 1 11 Valencia Park 5 3 3 11 Forest Run Park 4 5 1 10 Plaza Park 3 5 1 9 Edgewater Dr. Park 3 5 1 9 Mandalay Park 1 5 3 9 Woodgate Park 5 3 1 9 Sunset Sam Park at Island Est. 1 5 1 7 Bay Park on Sand Key 1 3 3 7 McKay Playfield 1 5 1 7 Morningside Park 5 1 1 7 Attachment number 6 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # 5 3 Community Engagement Factor (CE) Community Parks Name of Park % of respondents indicating park they frequent the most PO I N T S % of respondents that indicate improvement PO I N T S Total CE Points Countryside Community Park 7% 5 2% 3 8 Clearwater Beach Rec. Complex 1% 3 0% 1 4 Ross Norton Rec. & Aquatic Cmplx. & Extreme Park + Ed Wright Park Complex 1% 3 0% 1 4 The Long Center 0% 1 0% 1 2 N. Greenwood Rec. & Aquatic Cmplx 0% 1 0% 1 2 Attachment number 6 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # 5 4 Community Engagement Factor (CE) Neighborhood Parks Name of Park % of respondents indicating park they frequent the most PO I N T S % of respondents that indicate improvement PO I N T S Total CE Points Crest Lake Park 22% 5 47% 5 10 Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 17% 5 11% 4 9 Morningside Park 10% 4 28% 5 9 Cherry Harris Park 4% 3 2% 2 5 Woodgate Park 1% 2 4% 3 5 Del Oro Park 4% 3 0% 1 4 Coachman Ridge Park 5% 3 0% 1 4 Mandalay Park 7% 3 0% 1 4 Forest Run Park 1% 2 2% 2 4 Garden Avenue Park 1% 2 0% 1 3 Country Hollow Park 1% 2 0% 1 3 Edgewater Dr. Park 1% 2 0% 1 3 McKay Playfield 1% 2 0% 1 3 Northwood Park 1% 2 0% 1 3 Plaza Park 2% 2 0% 1 3 Sunset Sam Park at Island Est. 2% 2 0% 1 3 Marymont Park 0% 1 2% 2 3 Wood Valley Recreation Center 0% 1 2% 2 3 Charter Oaks Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Charles Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Station Square Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Bay Park on Sand Key 0% 1 0% 1 2 Belmont Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Montclair Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Soule Road Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Valencia Park 0% 1 0% 1 2 Attachment number 6 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # 5 5 Improvement Suggestions from the Community Workshop Are there any specific improvements you would like to see at one of the neighborhood parks? CrestLake Park: • Restrooms • Exercise Equipment • Working Fountains • Splash Park • Improved Security • Better lighting • Better playgrounds • Remove alligators/improve fishing • Better grassed areas Morningside Pool : • Longer Hours • Extended Season • Lighted Tennis Courts • Restrooms Morningside Recreation Center: • New Complex Marymount Park : • Provide Water Fountains Martin Luther King: • Better Play ground and green space Boys & Girls Club: • Needs Basketball Court & outside playground All Parks : • Splash parks and water pads for kids • Restrooms • Removal of homeless Attachment number 6 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # 5 Appendix F: Proposed Trail Map Attachment number 7 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 5 Attachment number 8 \nPage 1 of 17 Item # 5 Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Ac t i o n I t e m s Ac t i o n I t e m s Attachment number 8 \nPage 2 of 17 Item # 5 Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Ac t i o n I t e m s Ac t i o n I t e m s Attachment number 8 \nPage 3 of 17 Item # 5 62 5 T o t a l P a r t i c i p a n t s 11 0 C o m m u n i t y W o r k s h o p s 25 S t a k e h o l d e r A d v i s o r y 11 0 C o m m u n i t y W o r k s h o p s 25 S t a k e h o l d e r A d v i s o r y Co m m i t t e e M e m b e r s 49 0 M a i l S u r v e y P a r t i c i p a n t s Attachment number 8 \nPage 4 of 17 Item # 5 Mi r r o r e d R e s u l t s f r o m t h e Wo r k s h o p s P r i m a r i l y Sl i g h t D i f f e r e n c e i n S e r v i n g O l d e r Ad u l t s Attachment number 8 \nPage 5 of 17 Item # 5 Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Ac t i o n I t e m s Ac t i o n I t e m s Attachment number 8 \nPage 6 of 17 Item # 5 Cl e a r w a t e r P a r k s a n d R e c r e a t i o n cr e a t e s d i v e r s e a n d o u t s t a n d i n g r e c r e a t i o n a l , n a t u r a l a n d c u l t u r a l ex p e r i e n c e s w i t h i n o u r c o m m u n i t y t o en r i c h t h e q u a l i t y o f l i f e f o r a l l o f o u r cu r r e n t r e s i d e n t s a n d f o r f u t u r e cu r r e n t r e s i d e n t s a n d f o r f u t u r e ge n e r a t i o n s . We p r e s e r v e , e n h a n c e a n d p r o t e c t o u r op e n s p a c e s a s s a f e a n d s e c u r e en v i r o n m e n t s . Attachment number 8 \nPage 7 of 17 Item # 5 Pr o v i d e s t e w a r d s h i p o f o u r c i t y ’ s n a t u r a l , cu l t u r a l , a n d h i s t o r i c a l r e s o u r c e s . Pr o v i d e r e c r e a t i o n a l o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n a le i s u r e e n v i r o n m e n t . Pr o v i d e t h e h i g h e s t s t a n d a r d o f e x c e l l e n c e in p u b l i c s e r v i c e t h r o u g h c o o p e r a t i v e pa r t n e r s h i p w i t h o u r d i v e r s e c o m m u n i t y . Eq u i t a b l y d i s t r i b u t e r e s o u r c e s t h r o u g h o u t th e c i t y . Attachment number 8 \nPage 8 of 17 Item # 5 Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s Co m m u n i t y E n g a g e m e n t P r o g r e s s V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n V i s i o n a n d M i s s i o n Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Gu i d i n g P r i n c i p l e s Ac t i o n I t e m s Ac t i o n I t e m s Attachment number 8 \nPage 9 of 17 Item # 5 De v e l o p F a c i l i t i e s t h a t P r o t e c t a n d Im p r o v e t h e E n v i r o n m e n t In c o r p o r a t e S u s t a i n a b l e D e s i g n Pr a c t i c e s In c o r p o r a t e O p e r a t i o n a l P r a c t i c e s Pr a c t i c e s In c o r p o r a t e O p e r a t i o n a l P r a c t i c e s th a t P r o t e c t t h e E n v i r o n m e n t Un d e r s t a n d t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l Hi s t o r y o f t h e S i t e Attachment number 8 \nPage 10 of 17 Item # 5 Im p r o v e A c c e s s t o R e c r e a t i o n We l c o m e E v e r y o n e Pr i n c i p l e s o f U n i v e r s a l D e s i g n Ma x i m i z e A c c e s s w i t h i n t h e Pa r k Pa r k Pr o m o t e L o c a l a n d R e g i o n a l Co n n e c t i o n s Be a R e g i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n a l De s t i n a t i o n a n d S u p p o r t S p o r t s To u r i s m Attachment number 8 \nPage 11 of 17 Item # 5 Un d e r s t a n d & E n h a n c e P a r k C h a r a c t e r Se n s e o f P l a c e Re s i d e n t N e e d s Cu r r e n t I n f r a s t r u c t u r e Cu r r e n t I n f r a s t r u c t u r e Cr e a t e , P r e s e r v e a n d M a i n t a i n N a t u r a l Co m m u n i t i e s Ec o l o g i c a l S u p p o r t Na t u r a l L a n d s M a n a g e m e n t Vo l u n t e e r S t e w a r d s h i p Attachment number 8 \nPage 12 of 17 Item # 5 He l p P e o p l e B e c o m e H e a l t h i e r Pr o v i d e a V a r i e t y o f P a r k A c t i v i t i e s an d P r o g r a m m i n g En s u r e t h a t t h e P a r k i s E a s i l y Ac c e s s i b l e En s u r e t h a t t h e P a r k i s E a s i l y Ac c e s s i b l e De v e l o p a n d M a x i m i z e Pa r t n e r s h i p s Attachment number 8 \nPage 13 of 17 Item # 5 Pr i o r i t i z e d P a r k I m p r o v e m e n t s Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s Pr o g r a m P r i o r i t i e s Pr o g r a m P r i o r i t i e s Attachment number 8 \nPage 14 of 17 Item # 5 Ma r t i n L u t h e r K i n g J r . P a r k Cr e s t L a k e P a r k Mo r n i n g s i d e P a r k Mo r n i n g s i d e P a r k Ch e r r y H a r r i s P a r k Ma r y m o n t P a r k Wo o d V a l l e y R e c r e a t i o n C e n t e r Attachment number 8 \nPage 15 of 17 Item # 5 Pr i o r i t i z e d P a r k I m p r o v e m e n t s Ca p i t a l I m p r o v e m e n t P r o j e c t s Pr o g r a m P r i o r i t i e s Pr o g r a m P r i o r i t i e s Attachment number 8 \nPage 16 of 17 Item # 5 Attachment number 8 \nPage 17 of 17 Item # 5 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve acceptance of Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) High Visibility Enforcement (HVE) for Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Grant Award in the amount of $29,036.80 for police overtime and related fringe benefits and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: On December 4, 2013, Clearwater Police Department (CPD) was granted approval by the Resource Management Committee to submit a grant application in the amount of $29,036.80 under the state HVE program to create a pedestrian and bicycle safety project. The grant has been officially awarded and CPD now seeks approval to accept it. During October 1, 2012 through September 29, 2013, the Clearwater Police Department (CPD) saw 2 pedestrian fatalities; 50 pedestrian injuries; 5 bicycling fatalities; 46 bicycling injuries; and 190 total overall pedestrian/bicycle crashes. Many pedestrian-related crashes and fatalities are due to mistakes made by the pedestrian, not the motorist. Failure to cross at traffic signals or in designated crosswalks has been cited as one of the major causes of pedestrian fatalities. Other common causes of pedestrian-related crashes in Clearwater can be directly related to risky behavior and impaired judgment on the part of the pedestrian. Pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists all need to be better educated about the rules of the road and the importance of following them. Education of the public is essential if these issues are ever to be resolved and a reduction in pedestrian and bicycle crashes reduced. In order to address all of these challenges, CPD will create a comprehensive enforcement/education project aimed at changing the behavior of all who use Clearwater’s roadways. Additional funding from FDOT for overtime and fringe benefits to create the project will allow CPD to concentrate the necessary additional manpower for enforcement and education through the use of additional overtime. Throughout the six-month grant period, CPD will work closely with FDOT, City of Clearwater Traffic Engineering Division, Clearwater Americorps members, Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce, Clearwater Chamber of Commerce, Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Pinellas County Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA), and Jolley Trolley, to implement an effective and efficient Pedestrian/Bicycling Safety project utilizing approximately 15 patrol officers/sergeants who have demonstrated an interest and affinity for traffic, bicycle and pedestrian enforcement. The details will be worked by this select group of officers, focusing on the following target areas: Memorial Causeway Bridge Beach Roundabout and associated crosswalks 400 block of Mandalay Avenue 300-400 blocks of South Gulfview Boulevard 1100-1200 blocks of Gulf Boulevard South Missouri Avenue corridor Chestnut Street corridor Cover Memo Item # 6 Court Street corridor 400-800 Cleveland Street 1300-2400 blocks of Gulf to Bay Boulevard Gulf to Bay Boulevard-U.S. Highway 19 In aggregate, details will be scheduled twice per week, four hours per detail, utilizing an average of two officers per four-hour detail, throughout the project period of March 7 through August 15, 2014. Selected officers will receive specific training on traffic enforcement and educational opportunities with the public prior to implementation of the project. CPD will use a two-pronged approach to this project, with special emphasis on education at the beginning and throughout the grant period, coupled with enforcement activities, i.e. warnings and citations. CPD will also utilize many of the educational materials focusing on pedestrian and bicycle safety available from FDOT and the Pinellas MPO in order to educate the public about these issues. This will be supplemented by community/business presentations made by CPD officers, additional signage, and social media campaigns (such as the police department’s Facebook page). CPD will measure crash data in the target areas at the beginning and conclusion of the grant period and compare the figures to determine if the number of pedestrian/bicyclist crashes has been reduced. There will be no direct adverse impact to the Police Department annual operating budget nor is there a required match. Special project number 181-99201, 2014 HVE Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, will be established to account for the grant expenditures. Type:Other Current Year Budget?:None Budget Adjustment:None Budget Adjustment Comments: There will be no direct adverse impact to the Police Department annual operating budget nor is there a required match. Special project number 181-99201, 2014 HVE Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, will be established to account for the grant expenditures. Current Year Cost:Annual Operating Cost: Not to Exceed:Total Cost:$29,036.80 For Fiscal Year: to Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 6 Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 6 Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 6 Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 6 Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 6 Item # 6 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 6 Item # 6 VbT Ai WAP-1\111\16 wise Pedestrians must comply with State Laws. Motorists are not the only ones who can get tickets. Pinellas County pedestrian violation fines are $62.50 Florida State Laws: FSS 316.130 (2): Pedestrians must obey traffic signals (walk /don't walk). FSS 316.130 (3): Pedestrians must walk on the sidewalk, not the roadway. FSS 316.130 (7): When no traffic lights exist at a marked crosswalk, vehicles shall yield the right -of -way to pedestrians in the crosswalk. FSS 316.130 (11): Where signals are present, pedestrians shall not cross at any place other than at a cross walk. Take the Walk Wise Pledge at www.walkwisetampabay.com Brought to you by Your Community Traffic Safety Team 08 /10 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve acceptance of Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), Justice Assistance Grant – Countywide (JAG), in the amount of $17,735, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) SUMMARY: On February 6, 2014, Clearwater Police Department (CPD) was awarded a JAG funding in the amount of $17,735 by FDLE for the purchase of a new Tactical Headset System for SWAT Team use. The Liberator II BTH Tactical Headset System offers integrated two-way communication, sound-attenuation and user comfort. Originally designed for military Special Forces, the Liberator II BTH provides a new Behind-the-Head suspension system for exceptional comfort and digital sound processing for accurate replication of ambient sound. Progressive audio-compression technology supports hearing safety. Unlike other sound-attenuating headsets, the Liberator II BTH enhances the user's situational awareness by accurately replicating the audio properties, direction and magnitude of ambient sound sources in the headset. CPD has not previously had P-25 compliant noise-attenuating communications equipment. This product will represent an enhancement over the currently utilized rudimentary earpieces that provide no hearing protection for the user. The Tampa Bay Area Law Enforcement Community has been steadily migrating toward digital communications equipment that is interoperable. This migration required replacement of our handheld radios, making the rudimentary communications equipment utilized by the SWAT team obsolete. The nature of SWAT operations frequently exposes team members to extremely loud noise with the potential to exceed OSHA guidelines in certain circumstances. FEMA classifies all SWAT teams based on capability. A basic requirement for all SWAT teams is hearing protection, which CPD’s SWAT Team currently does not have. CPD’s SWAT team deploys 10-12 times per year and trains with firearms and distraction devices approximately 10 times per year. This enhanced equipment will be suitable for use during every deployment and firearms training while allowing the team members to maintain situational awareness and communications. Because a frequent issue cited in SWAT After-Action Reports are communication problems, this will greatly enhance officer safety and effectiveness of SWAT team operations. Purchase of the Tactical Headset System will be “Sole Source” as Tactical Command Industries is the only provider of the headsets and accessories. Sole Source certification letter is attached. Total cost of the tactical headsets and associated accessories will be $20,976. The difference between the amount of grant funding of $17,735 and total cost is $3,241, which CPD will fund from SLEF, Special Project 181- 99331. Special Project 181-99200 has been established to account for the grant expenditures. Appropriation Code Amount Appropriation Comment 181-99331 $3,241 Difference will be funded from Special Law Enforcement Trust Fund Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # 7 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # 7 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Accept a Drainage Easement conveyed by Westchester Lake Condominium Association, Inc. encompassing city-owned drainage facilities at two locations. (consent) SUMMARY: The City is planning improvements to drainage facilities on property owned by Westchester Lake Condominium Association, Inc. (WLCA). These city-owned drainage facilities receive stormwater from Countryside Boulevard and from privately owned property owned by WLCA. The proposed easement is being donated, and will allow the City to make the planned improvements and continue to maintain the facilities. Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 8 Item # 8 Attachment number 1 \nPage 8 of 8 Item # 8 C O U N T R Y SID E B L V D CLUBHOUSE D R S HAMMOCKPINEBLVD HAMMOCK C T HIDDEN PINES LN H I C K MAN C I R W E S T C HESTERDR N S AB AL SPRINGSDR Proposed EasementProposed Easement SR 580 SUMMERDALE DR EVANS RD W E ST C H E S T E R D R S PINE TREE LN HERDA DR US 1 9 LOCATION MAP JB TM 2/11/2014 Map Gen By:Reviewed By: Date: Prepared by:Engineering DepartmentGeographic Technology Division100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755www.MyClearwater.com DRAINAGE EASEMENTWESTCHESTER LAKE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ² N.T.S.Scale: Document Path: V:\GIS\Engineering\Location Maps\Drainage Easement_Westchester Lake.mxd Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 8 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Accept two Traffic Signal Utility Easements conveyed by property owners at Westfield Mall and Countryside Centre. (consent) SUMMARY: Staff is planning to replace the traffic signal system at the intersection of Countryside Boulevard and the Westfield Mall and Countryside Centre entrances. The facilities will be upgraded as industry standards require the installation of mast arms that are able to withstand certain level winds. There is insufficient area within the right-of-way for the installation of these facilities. Macy’s Florida Stores, LLC, owner of property to the north of the intersection, and Weingarten/Investments, Inc., owner of property to the south, have each agreed to donate an easement to the City. The proposed easements will allow the City to install and maintain the facilities and equipment as designed. Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 6 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 1 \nPage 7 of 7 Item # 9 C O U N T R Y SID E B L V D Proposed EasementProposed Easement US 19 SR 580 BELCHER RD ENTERPRISE RD LAURELWO O D D R VILLAGE DR 6th AVE MOOREHAVENDR W BIRCHBARK TRL M O O R E H AVEN DR E LOCATION MAP JB TM 2/11/2014 Map Gen By:Reviewed By: Date: Prepared by:Engineering DepartmentGeographic Technology Division100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755www.MyClearwater.com TRAFFIC SIGNAL UTILITY EASEMENTWESTFIELD MALL AND COUNTRYSIDE CENTRE ² N.T.S.Scale: Document Path: V:\GIS\Engineering\Location Maps\Traffic Utility Easement _ Westfield-Countryside.mxd Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 2 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 3 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 4 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 5 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 6 of 7 Item # 9 Attachment number 3 \nPage 7 of 7 Item # 9 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Appoint Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz to the Municipal Code Enforcement Board to fill the remainder of an unexpired term through October 31, 2014. SUMMARY: APPOINTMENT WORKSHEET BOARD: Municipal Code Enforcement Board TERM: 3 years APPOINTED BY: City Council FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Required RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: City of Clearwater SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: Whenever possible, this Board shall include an architect, engineer, businessperson, general contractor, sub-contractor & a realtor MEMBERS: 7 CHAIRPERSON: James E. Strickland MEETING DATES: 4th Wed., 1:30 p.m. Nov. and Dec. - TBA APPOINTMENTS NEEDED: 1 THE FOLLOWING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER WILL BE RESIGNING FROM THE MUNICIPAL CODE ENFORCEMENT BOARD AND NOW REQUIRES REPLACEMENT BY A NEW APPOINTEE: 1. Michael Boutzoukas – 2433 Bond Ave., 33759 – Attorney Original Appointment: 10/15/08 (was serving 2nd term (MCEB) to expire 10/31/14) Michael Boutzoukas is resigning from this board as he was appointed to the CDB at the February 20, 2014 council meeting. THE NAME BELOW IS BEING SUBMITTED FOR CONSIDERATION TO FILL THE ABOVE VACANCY. THERE ARE NO OTHER CURRENT APPLICANTS ON FILE. 1. Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz (ah-nis-ke-viks)– 1007 Mandalay Ave., 33767 Landscape Architect Zip codes of current members: 2 at 33755; 1 at 33759; 1 at 33764; 2 at 33767 Current Categories: 1 Ins. Claims Adjuster 1 Marketing and Graphics 1 Retired/BA Inst. Court Management 1 Retired/BA Political Science 1 Retail 1 Sales/Service – Pres. Carr A/C & Htg. Inc. Review Approval:1) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 10 4-Ar ir CITY OF CLEARWATER - APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY BWDSI ELP Name: Christopher J Anuszkiewicz must be Clearwater resident) FEB 2 1 2014 Home Address: Office Address: 1007 Mandalay Ave Clearwater, FL Telephone: 727-442-2731 Cell Phone: 239-272-7157 Zip 33767 07FICiAl FECORDS LECISLATHE SPICS DEFT 3000 Gulf to Bay Blvd. Suite 301 Clearwater, FL Zip 33759 Telephone: 727-726-6124 E-mail Address: chnsplacemakerdesignstudlo com How long a resident of Clearwater? First moved to Clearwater in 1997. Attended the University of Florida, was employed in another City, and returned to Clearwater in 2010. Occupation: Landscape Architect Employer: Place Maker Design Studio, LLC Field of Education: Other Work Experience: Master's in Business Administration (Univ FL) WilsonMiller,Florida Bachelor's Degree in Landscape Architecture Walt Disney World, FL If retired, former occupation: Community Activities: Air Potato Roundup Other Interests: Cycling, Running, Swimminq, Spending time with family Board Service (current and past): Board Preference: None Community Development Board Municipal Code Enforcement Board Additional Comments: I am a business owner in Clearwater. My wife and fare owners / landscape architects at PlaceMaker Design Studio, LLC. We established the company in Clearwater in 2010. Signature: Date: z0 See attached list for bo equire financial disclosure at time of appointment. Please return this application and board questionnaire to the Official Records & Legislative Services Department, P. 0. Box 4748, Clearwater, FL 33758-4748, or drop off your application at City Hall, 2nd Floor, 112 S. Osceola Avenue. Note: For boards requiring Clearwater residency, this application must be accompanied by a copy of one of the following: Current voter registration within city limits Valid current Florida Drivers' License issued to an address within city limits Declaration of Domicile filed with the city clerk affirming residency within city limits Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # 10 BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE 1. What is your understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities? _ It is my understanding the board's duties and responsibilities include the intention to promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents in the City of Clearwater. The board offers an effective, inexpensive way of enforcing codes within the City concerning fire, Business Tax Receipts, building, zoning, signs, and other City codes. 2. Have you ever observed a board meeting either in person or on C-View, the City's TV station? Yes. 3. What background and/or qualifications do you have that you feel would qualify you to serve on this Board? I've worked in the land development profession for over 10 years providing site planning, master planning, roadway design, landscape design, irrigation design, urban design, and external hardscape detailing for large scale projects encompassing thousands of acres to smaller residential sites of 1 acre or less. As part of my job, I regularly refer to City codes and prepare project permit plans for City and County review. 4. Why do you want to serve on this Board? I wish to be involved with the City of Clearwater and offer my time and expertise within a City I reside, work, and care for. I look forward to having the opportunity to be engaged with the City in efforts to promote, protect, and improve public health, safety, and welfare. Name: Christopher J. Anuszkiewicz Board Name: Municipal Code Enforcement Board Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # 10 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Work Session for Public Records and Sunshine Law Review SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 11 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance 8533-14 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to change the land use designation for certain real property whose post office addres is 2730 Curlew Road, from Residential Urban (RU) to Residential Low Medium (RLM). SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 12 Ordinance No.8533 -14 ORDINANCE NO. 8533-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF CURLEW ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 2010 FEET WEST OF COUNTRYSIDE BOULEVARD, CONSISTING OF METES & BOUNDS TRACT 31/03 IN SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 28 S, RANGE 16 E, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESS IS 2730 CURLEW ROAD, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33761 FROM RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU), TO RESIDENTIAL LOW MEDIUM (RLM); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described property as follows: Property Land Use Category See Exhibit A From: Residential Urban (RU) (LUP2013-11008) To: Residential Low Medium (RLM) The map attached as Exhibit B is hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, subject to the approval of the land use designation by the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners, and subject to a determination by the State of Florida, as appropriate, of compliance with the applicable requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, pursuant to § 163.3189, Florida Statutes. The Community Development Coordinator is authorized to transmit to the Pinellas Planning Council an application to amend the Countywide Plan in order to achieve consistency with the Future Land Use Plan Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as amended by this ordinance. Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # 12 Ordinance No.8533 -14 PASSED ON FIRST READING _____________________ PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL _____________________ READING AND ADOPTED ___________________________ George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: ____________________________ ___________________________ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # 12 Exhibit A Ordinance No. 8533-14 COMMENCE AT THE CENTER OF SECTION 17, TOWNSHIP 28 SOUTH, RANGE 16 EAST, PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA THENCE RUN S. 0°32’12” E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE NE ¼ OF THE NE ¼ OF THE SW ¼ OF SAID SECTION 17, FOR 50.00 FEET; THENCE N. 89°48’32” W., ALONG THE SOUTHERLY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF STATE ROAD 586 FOR 769.73 FEET; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE N. 89°48’32” W., FOR 125.47 FEET; THENCE S. 0°11'28" W FOR 10.00 FEET, THENCE N. 89°48'32" W. FOR 39.00 FEET FOR A POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM THIS POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTINUE N. 89°48'32" W. FOR 60.92 FEET; THENCE ALONG A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE NORTH, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1969.83 FEET, CENTRAL ANGLE = 00°23’35" FOR AN ARC DISTANCE OF 13.52 FEET, SAID ARC BEING SUBTENDED BY A CHORD OF N. 89°36'44" W FOR 13.52 FEET: THENCE S 0°28'44" E FOR 430.08 FEET: THENCE S. 89°48'32" E FOR 239.02 FEET; THENCE N.0°28'44" W. FOR 98.00 FEET; THENCE N. 68°49'00" W. FOR 89.31 FEET; THENCE N. 0°28'44" W. FOR 110.34 FEET; THENCE N. 73°00'00" W. FOR 101.14 FEET; THENCE N. 0°28'44" W. FOR 121.00 FEET,·THENCE N. 45°11'28" E. FOR 20.42 FEET, THENCE N. 0°11'28" E. FOR 25.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 12 Exhibit B IRU RU RU RU RU RU R/OS RU RU RU RM RU RU RU RU T/U RURU RL CURLEW RD BRATTLE LN MEADOW WOOD DR ME R L I N D R N O R T H R I D G E D R TASHA DR MERLIN WAY ZA R A W A Y FO X H I L L D R POPPYSEED CT MONTAG U E C T W 1 4 2 5 3 8386 93 82 78 92 8889 80 97 7995 96 94 87 76 84 91 77 98 85 8190 915 107 235 22 4 920 23 1 22 3 23 0 10 8 22 8 916 22 7 22 9 818 23 2 234 22 2 22 5 22 6 28 0 6 3 4 2 4 3416 28 0 4 2805 3394 28 1 3 2811 2815 2819 2823 3 4 2 8 2749 273 2 2 7 2 5 26 8 2 3380 26 9 1 3439 2 7 8 5 27 8 2 3475 27 8 1 1011 27 7 6 3463 2 7 0 5 34153422 27 7 8 27 3 8 26 7 8 27 0 1 3457 26 8 3 26 8 0 263 9 2744 27 1 2 26 7 1 27 6 7 3451 27 4 2 3378 27 6 6 348126 8 7 3417 3376 26 7 0 3382 27 4 1 27 6 4 3379 3416 27 8 3 2651 27 6 8 26 9 4 2 7 1 1 3444 3450 27 1 2 2 7 0 3 2 7 2 3 27 2 9 3421 27 7 6 27 3 1 26 6 7 2656 26 9 5 27 0 0 27 4 7 3475 27 8 2 2738 26 9 9 27 4 6 26 7 9 26 9 6 3463 3487 26 9 3 27 8 0 26 9 8 27 4 0 26 7 2 27 2 8 26 7 5 2662 27 8 0 26 8 8 340 9 27 5 2 27 5 0 3427 266 5 27 7 0 26 9 0 2737 2 7 0 9 26 9 2 2645 3469 3439 27 7 5 27 7 7 2 7 0 4 3486 2743 27 0 6 27 4 0 2657 27 5 2 26 8 0 27 1 9 3451 27 7 3 27 4 0 27 1 3 2 6 7 4 26 7 4 27 6 0 27 5 1 27 8 8 27 8 4 3386 27 1 2 27 4 8 3445 27 2 4 26 6 6 3492 3456 27 0 6 27 4 6 2 7 1 7 3433 27 3 7 27 5 4 34692650 27 7 2 3480 27 0 7 27 1 8 27 3 9 3403 3493 27 7 0 26 8 6 28 0 1 27 3 4 3428 3481 27 4 5 26 8 3 27 7 4 2731 26 8 6 27 4 4 3438 3445 WATER 74 7521 3 21 4 23 3 22 1 21 8 21 7 21 9 21 6 21121 2 22 0 21 5 2818 281 4281 0 28 0 2 3420 34 1 9 34 1 5 28 0 8 28 0 0 2801 28 0 9 34 2 3 27 6 9 27 7 9 27 6 2 27 5 7 3384 27 5 8 27 5 3 27 5 5 27 5 6 27 5 9 27 6 1 3440 3457 3387 26 7 3 3384 27 7 4 3377 27 5 5 27 1 0 27 4 9 27 4 3 3381 27 6 5 2 6 6 8 27 3 0 27 7 1 26 8 1 26 9 7 26 7 9 27 7 9 2750 27 6 7 3434 3385 3410 26 8 7 27 6 4 27 7 3 27 6 3 2644 26 8 9 33903383 2715 -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - RU FUTURE LAND USE MAP Owners: Bennett Retirement Communities, LLC Case: LUP2013-11008 Site: 2730 Curlew Road Property Size(Acres): 1.394 Land Use Zoning PIN: 17-28-16-00000-310-0300 From : To: RU MDR RLM MDR Atlas Page: 178A RLM Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 12 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance 8537-14 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post office addresses are 1238 Palm Street, 1215 Palm Street, 1349 Union Street, 1329 State Street and 1230 Aloha Lane into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 13 Ordinance No. 8537-14 ORDINANCE NO. 8537-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY EAST OF DOUGLAS AVENUE AND WEST OF KINGS HIGHWAY, NORTH OF SUNSET POINT ROAD AND SOUTH OF UNION STREET, CONSISTING OF PORTIONS OF SECTION 05 TOWNSHIP 29 N, RANGE 15 E, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESSES ARE 1238 PALM STREET, 1215 PALM STREET, 1349 UNION STREET, 1329 STATE STREET, 1230 ALOHA LANE, ALL IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 , INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO INCLUDE SAID ADDITION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the owners of the real property described herein and depicted on the maps attached hereto as Exhibit B, C and D have petitioned the City of Clearwater to annex the properties into the City pursuant to Section 171.044, Florida Statutes, and the City has complied with all applicable requirements of Florida law in connection with this ordinance; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The following-described properties are hereby annexed into the City of Clearwater and the boundary lines of the City are redefined accordingly: See attached legal descriptions, Exhibit A. (ANX2014-12034) The maps attached as Exhibit B, C and D are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The provisions of this ordinance are found and determined to be consistent with the City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. The City Council hereby accepts the dedication of all easements, parks, rights-of-way and other dedications to the public, which have heretofore been made by plat, deed or user within the annexed property. The City Engineer, the City Clerk and the Planning and Development Director are directed to include and show the property described herein upon the official maps and records of the City. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption. The City Clerk shall file certified copies of this ordinance, including the map attached hereto, with the Clerk of the Circuit Court and with the County Administrator of Pinellas County, Florida, within 7 days after adoption, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida Department of State within 30 days after adoption. PASSED ON FIRST READING Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # 13 2 Ordinance No. 8537-14 PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL READING AND ADOPTED George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Assistant City Attorney Attest: Rosemarie Call City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # 13 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ANX2013-12034 ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 1. 03-29-15-15840-001-0290 Block A, Lot 29 1238 Palm Street 2. 03-29-15-15840-002-0100 Block B, East 50feet of Lot 10 & West 20feet of Lot 11 1215 Palm Street All the above in CLEARDUN subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 47, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 3. 03-29-15-12060-004-0010 Block D, Lot 1 1349 Union Street The above in BROOKLAWN subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 59, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 4. 03-29-15-49986-000-0040 North 150feet of Lot 4 1329 State Street The above in LANGE’S REPLAT OF BROWN’S subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 74, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 5. 03-29-15-87912-003-0080 Block 3, Lot 8 1230 Aloha Lane The above in SUNSET KNOLL subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 26, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 13 Exhibit B Proposed Annexation Map 1 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-15840-001-0290 03-29-15-15840-002-0100 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B 50 60 66 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 15840 46998 80388 47 4 3 0 A B C A BD E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324252627282930313233343536 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324252627282930313233343536 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21222324 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151617181920 2122 23 24 25 26 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 60 60 63 30 E J 1 3 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 PALM ST UNION ST BE T T Y L N IDLEWILD D R BERMUDA ST DO U G L A S A V E WOODLAWN TER 12 4 4 12 7 1 12 6 3 12 7 3 2022 12 9 1 2020 2022 12 6 0 12 5 6 12 5 2 12 4 6 12 6 5 12 6 1 12 5 7 12 4 5 12 4 3 2020 2022 2024 12 1 2 12 9 0 12 8 4 12 8 0 12 7 2 12 6 6 12 2 6 12 2 2 12 2 0 2031 12 2 5 12 0 1 12 9 3 12 1 1 12 0 9 12 8 2 12 0 6 2077 2063 12 8 3 12 6 3 12 0 7 2016 12 5 5 12 5 9 12 9 5 12 9 1 12 8 7 12 8 3 12 7 7 12 7 1 12 6 7 12 6 5 12 6 1 12 5 3 12 4 9 12 4 5 12 4 1 12 3 5 12 3 1 12 2 5 12 1 3 12 0 9 2024 2028 2030 12 9 6 12 8 6 2021 20272026 12 6 6 12 6 2 12 3 2 12 3 4 12 3 5 12 2 3 2021 2017 12 0 7 2021 2029 12 9 2 12 6 0 12 5 4 12 5 0 12 4 6 12 4 2 12 1 0 12 3 1 2044 12 9 3 12 7 9 12 7 7 12 7 1 12 6 7 12 6 5 12 5 9 12 5 5 12 5 1 12 4 7 12 4 5 12 3 9 12 3 5 12 2 1 12 1 7 12 1 1 12 7 6 12 6 8 12 6 4 12 6 2 12 5 6 12 5 0 12 4 2 12 3 4 12 3 2 12 2 8 12 2 0 12 1 6 12 1 2 12 0 6 2049 2060 2064 2066 12 8 3 12 7 9 12 7 5 12 6 7 12 5 5 12 5 7 12 5 1 12 4 5 12 3 9 12 3 5 12 3 3 12 3 1 12 2 1 12 1 5 12 7 8 12 7 4 12 7 0 12 6 6 12 6 2 12 6 0 12 5 6 12 5 0 12 4 6 12 4 4 12 3 8 12 3 4 12 3 0 12 2 4 12 2 2 12 2 0 12 1 2 12 5 3 12 7 5 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 5 12 6 7 12 5 9 12 4 7 12 4 5 12 4 1 12 3 7 12 3 5 12 2 7 12 2 3 12 1 9 12 1 5 12 1 1 2061 201 5 2024½ 12 4 4 ½ 11 9 9 T r a f -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 13 Exhibit C Proposed Annexation Map 2 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-12060-004-0010 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B 33 30 3060606060 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 87.7 60 45 4 0 60 15 40 15 87.7 12060 98074 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18192021222324 (25) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 63 36 30 30 36 50 67 6869707172737475106107108109110111 *SEE PLAT FOR DIMENSIONS 1 1 UNION ST BE T T Y L N KI N G S H W Y ARBELIA ST TH E M A L L IDLEWILD DR PO I N S E T T A A V E EV E R G R E E N A V E LA N T A N A A V E MDR HDR MDR 13 3 1 13 2 1 13 2 5 13 1 7 13 4 1 13 3 7 2080 2066 13 3 0 13 2 2 2080 2084 13 4 5 2052 2098 2068 2070 2072 13 0 9 2083 13 1 0 13 0 0 2026 2028 13 1 0 13 0 0 2025 13 2 5 13 1 7 13 0 1 2060 13 3 3 2010 LMDR LMDR LMDR LMDR 2020 2067 2048 2050 2058 20252021 2088 2040 2044 2084 2014 2077 2076 2063 2049 2057 2071 2077 2081 2075 2079 2071 13 5 3 13 4 9 13 5 5 2000 2049 2053 2067 2060 20802001 2061 13 9 0 2080 2071 2079 2047 2048 2052 2063 2065 2069 2010 2019 2022 2024 2028 1999 2056 2064 2035 20392043 2017 2075 2031 -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 13 Exhibit D Proposed Annexation Map 3 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0040 03-29-15-87912-003-0080 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B LAKE 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 80 60 80 60 38 60 60 60 60 40 40 33 30 50 33 3330 60 38 60 60 45 45 60 30 3 0 28098 49986 83 9 7 0 87912 O O G 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38394041424344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920212223 1 2 3 4 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7891011 1213 1415 1617 1819 2021 2223 2425 2627 2829 3031 3233 3435 3637 3839 4041 4243 4445 4647 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 16 5 6 7 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 60 50 33 60 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 42/015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BE T T Y L N STATE ST SUNSET POINT RD SEDEEVA CIR N CH E N A N G O A V E CO L E S R D MA C O M B E R A V E BERTLAND WAY ALOHA LN 12 9 0 1950 1952 12 9 0 12 8 6 12 8 2 12 7 8 12 7 4 1942 1969 13 2 7 12 2 4 1971 1927 1925 1923 13 1 8 13 1 4 13 0 4 13 0 2 13 0 0 1901 1909 1913 1915 1917 12 1 3 12 1 9 12 1 5 1901 1903 12 4 6 12 4 8 1916 1918 1924 1926 1932 1938 1936 1940 19131908 1947 1949 1943 1946 1952 1954 1958 1960 1962 1964 12 8 8 12 8 4 12 8 0 12 7 6 12 7 4 12 8 7 12 7 9 12 7 5 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 7 196912 5 5 12 5 1 12 3 7 12 3 9 12 3 1 12 2 7 12 2 3 12 2 5 12 2 5 1904 1910 12 1 7 12 1 0 12 3 4 12 1 2 12 3 1 12 2 5 12 2 3 12 3 2 12 2 6 12 2 2 12 2 1 12 2 9 12 3 3 12 3 7 1936 1932 12 9 4 12 7 3 12 1 3 1938 1936 1930 1916 1914 1918 12 9 5 1940 19261928 12 9 5 12 5 1 1992 1979 13 2 9 12 5 6 1935 1921 1917 1920 1928 1915 1919 1927 1931 1933 1937 12 8 7 1918 1920 1940 1944 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1937 1941 12 8 9 12 8 5 12 8 1 12 7 7 1933 12 3 0 1978 1974 12 8 3 1961 1963 1245 1249 1251 1257 1261 12 7 8 12 7 6 12 7 4 12 7 2 12 7 0 12 6 8 12 6 6 12 6 4 12 6 0 12 5 8 12 5 6 12 4 4 12 4 0 12 3 6 12 3 4 12 3 0 12 2 2 1981 1987 1995 12 2 4 12 2 4 12 1 8 12 1 6 12 2 6 12 2 0 12 1 6 12 3 3 12 9 9 T r a f 13 0 1 T o w r -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 13 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance 8538-14 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post office addresses are 1238 Palm Street, 1215 Palm Street, 1349 Union Street, 1329 State Street and 1230 Aloha Lane, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Residential Urban (RU). SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 14 Ordinance No.8538 -14 ORDINANCE NO. 8538-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF THE CITY, TO DESIGNATE THE LAND USE FOR CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY EAST OF DOUGLAS AVENUE AND WEST OF KINGS HIGHWAY, NORTH OF SUNSET POINT ROAD AND SOUTH OF UNION STREET, CONSISTING OF PORTIONS OF SECTION 05 TOWNSHIP 29 N, RANGE 15 E, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESSES ARE 1238 PALM STREET, 1215 PALM STREET, 1349 UNION STREET, 1329 STATE STREET, 1230 ALOHA LANE, ALL IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755 , UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS RESIDENTIAL URBAN (RU); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the amendment to the future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The future land use plan element of the comprehensive plan of the City of Clearwater is amended by designating the land use category for the hereinafter described properties, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as follows: Property Land Use Category See attached Legal Descriptions Exhibit A Residential Urban (RU) (ANX2013-12034) The maps attached as Exhibits B, C and D are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The City Council does hereby certify that this ordinance is consistent with the City’s comprehensive plan. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8537-14. PASSED ON FIRST READING _____________________ PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL _____________________ READING AND ADOPTED __________________________ George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: __________________________ __________________________ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 14 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ANX2013-12034 ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 1. 03-29-15-15840-001-0290 Block A, Lot 29 1238 Palm Street 2. 03-29-15-15840-002-0100 Block B, East 50feet of Lot 10 & West 20feet of Lot 11 1215 Palm Street All the above in CLEARDUN subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 47, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 3. 03-29-15-12060-004-0010 Block D, Lot 1 1349 Union Street The above in BROOKLAWN subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 59, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 4. 03-29-15-49986-000-0040 North 150feet of Lot 4 1329 State Street The above in LANGE’S REPLAT OF BROWN’S subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 74, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 5. 03-29-15-87912-003-0080 Block 3, Lot 8 1230 Aloha Lane The above in SUNSET KNOLL subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 26, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 14 Exhibit B Future Land Use Map 1 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-15840-001-0290 03-29-15-15840-002-0100 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B 50 50 60 66 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 15840 46998 80388 47 4 3 0 A B C A BD E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324252627282930313233343536 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324252627282930313233343536 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21222324 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151617181920 2122 23 24 25 26 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 60 60 63 30 E J 1 3 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RU RURU RU PALM ST UNION ST BE T T Y L N IDLEWILD D R BERMUDA ST DO U G L A S A V E WOODLAWN TER 12 4 4 12 5 5 12 5 9 12 7 1 12 6 3 12 7 7 12 6 7 12 2 5 12 1 3 2022 2024 2030 12 9 1 12 9 6 12 8 6 2021 2027 2020 2022 2026 12 6 6 12 6 2 12 6 0 12 5 6 12 5 2 12 4 6 12 3 4 12 6 5 12 6 1 12 5 7 12 4 3 12 3 5 12 2 3 2021 2017 2020 2022 2024 12 1 2 2029 12 9 0 12 9 2 12 8 4 12 8 0 12 7 2 12 6 6 12 6 0 12 5 4 12 5 0 12 4 6 12 4 2 12 2 6 12 2 2 12 2 0 12 1 0 12 3 1 2044 12 9 3 12 7 9 12 7 7 12 7 1 12 6 7 12 6 5 12 5 9 12 5 5 12 5 1 12 4 7 12 4 5 12 3 9 12 3 5 12 2 5 12 2 1 12 1 7 12 1 1 12 0 1 12 6 8 12 6 4 12 6 2 12 5 6 12 5 0 12 4 2 12 3 4 12 2 8 12 2 0 12 1 6 12 1 2 12 0 6 2060 2064 2066 12 9 3 12 8 3 12 7 9 12 7 5 12 6 7 12 5 5 12 5 7 12 5 1 12 4 5 12 3 9 12 3 5 12 3 3 12 3 1 12 2 1 12 1 1 12 0 9 12 8 2 12 7 8 12 7 4 12 7 0 12 6 6 12 6 2 12 6 0 12 5 6 12 5 0 12 4 6 12 4 4 12 3 4 12 3 0 12 2 4 12 2 2 12 2 0 12 1 2 12 0 6 12 5 3 2077 2063 12 8 3 12 7 5 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 5 12 6 7 12 6 3 12 5 9 12 4 7 12 4 5 12 4 1 12 3 7 12 3 5 12 2 7 12 2 3 12 1 9 12 1 5 12 1 1 12 0 7 2061 20 1 5 12 4 4 ½ 2016 2012 12 9 5 12 9 1 12 8 7 12 8 3 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 5 12 6 1 12 5 3 12 4 9 12 4 5 12 4 1 12 3 5 12 3 1 12 0 9 2028 12 3 2 12 4 5 12 0 7 2021 2031 12 7 6 12 3 2 2049 12 1 5 12 3 8 2024½ 11 9 9 T r a f -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - RU RU Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 14 Exhibit C Future Land Use Map 2 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-12060-004-0010 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B 33 30 3060606060 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 87.7 60 45 4 0 60 15 40 15 87.7 12060 98074 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18192021222324 (25) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 63 36 30 30 36 50 67 6869707172737475106107108109110111 *SEE PLAT FOR DIMENSIONS 1 1 RH RM RU RU RU RU RU RM RU RU RM RU RU RU RU RM RM RH RU RU RU RU RM RU RM RU RU RU RM WATER RU RU RU RU RU UNION ST BE T T Y L N KI N G S H W Y ARBELIA ST TH E M A L L IDLEWILD DR PO I N S E T T A A V E EV E R G R E E N A V E LA N T A N A A V E 13 3 1 13 1 7 13 4 1 2080 2014 2066 13 3 0 13 2 2 2084 13 4 5 2052 2098 2068 2070 2072 2083 13 1 0 13 0 0 2026 2028 13 1 0 2025 13 2 5 13 0 1 2060 2010 13 2 1 13 2 5 2020 2067 13 3 7 2048 2050 2058 20252021 2088 2040 2044 2084 2077 2076 2063 2049 2057 20802071 2077 2081 2075 2079 2071 13 5 3 13 4 9 13 5 5 2000 2049 2053 2067 2060 20802001 2061 13 9 0 2080 13 0 9 2071 2079 2047 2048 2052 2063 2065 2069 2010 13 0 0 201913 1 7 1999 13 3 3 2056 2064 2035 20392043 2017 2075 2031 -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - RU Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 14 Exhibit D Future Land Use Map 3 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0040 03-29-15-87912-003-0080 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B LAKE 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 80 60 80 60 38 60 60 60 60 40 40 33 30 50 33 3330 60 38 60 60 45 45 60 30 3 0 28098 49986 83 9 7 0 87912 O O G 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38394041424344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920212223 1 2 3 4 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7891011 1213 1415 1617 1819 2021 2223 2425 2627 2829 3031 3233 3435 3637 3839 4041 4243 4445 4647 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 5 6 7 12 13 14 15 16 5 6 7 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 50 33 60 60 42/015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RU RU RU RU R/OS RU RU RU RU RU RU P RU RU RU I P P RM RU RU RM RU BE T T Y L N STATE ST SUNSET POINT RD SEDEEVA CIR N CH E N A N G O A V E CO L E S R D MA C O M B E R A V E BERTLAND WAY ALOHA LN 12 9 0 1950 1952 12 9 0 12 8 6 12 8 2 12 7 8 12 7 4 1942 1969 13 2 7 12 2 4 1971 1925 1923 13 1 8 13 1 4 13 0 2 13 0 0 1901 1909 1913 1915 1917 12 1 9 12 1 5 1901 1903 12 4 6 12 4 8 1916 1918 1924 1926 1932 1938 1936 1940 19131908 1949 1943 1946 1952 1954 1958 1960 1962 1964 12 8 8 12 8 4 12 8 0 12 7 6 12 7 4 12 8 7 12 7 9 12 7 5 12 7 3 12 5 5 12 5 1 12 3 7 12 3 9 1904 1910 12 1 0 12 3 4 12 3 1 12 2 5 12 2 3 12 3 2 12 2 6 12 2 2 12 2 1 12 2 9 12 3 3 12 3 7 1936 1932 12 9 4 12 7 3 12 1 3 1938 1936 1930 1916 1914 1918 12 9 5 1940 19261928 12 9 5 12 5 1 1992 1979 13 2 9 1927 13 0 4 12 1 3 12 5 6 1935 1921 1917 1920 1928 1915 1919 1927 1931 1933 1937 12 8 7 1918 1920 1940 1944 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1937 1941 12 8 9 12 8 5 12 8 1 12 7 7 1947 1933 12 3 0 1978 1974 12 8 3 12 7 1 12 6 7 1961 1963 1969 1245 1249 1251 1257 1261 12 7 8 12 7 6 12 7 4 12 7 2 12 7 0 12 6 8 12 6 6 12 6 4 12 6 0 12 5 8 12 5 6 12 4 4 12 4 0 12 3 6 12 3 4 12 3 0 12 2 2 1981 1987 1995 12 3 1 12 2 7 12 2 3 12 2 5 12 2 5 12 1 7 12 2 4 12 2 4 12 1 8 12 1 6 12 1 2 12 2 6 12 2 0 12 1 6 12 3 3 12 9 9 T r a f 13 0 1 T o w r -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - RU RU Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 14 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Ordinance 8539-14 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post office addresses are 1238 Palm Street, 1215 Palm Street, 1349 Union Street, 1329 State Street and 1230 Aloha Lane, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 15 2 Ordinance No. 8539-14 ORDINANCE NO. 8539-14 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY LOCATED GENERALLY EAST OF DOUGLAS AVENUE AND WEST OF KINGS HIGHWAY, NORTH OF SUNSET POINT ROAD AND SOUTH OF UNION STREET, CONSISTING OF PORTIONS OF SECTION 05 TOWNSHIP 29 N, RANGE 15 E, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESSES ARE 1238 PALM STREET, 1215 PALM STREET, 1349 UNION STREET, 1329 STATE STREET, 1230 ALOHA LANE, ALL IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33755, UPON ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS LOW MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LMDR); PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the assignment of a zoning district classification as set forth in this ordinance is found to be reasonable, proper and appropriate, and is consistent with the City's comprehensive plan; now, therefore, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The following described properties located in Pinellas County, Florida, are hereby zoned as indicated upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, and the zoning atlas of the City is amended, as follows: Property Zoning District See attached Legal Description Exhibit A Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) (ANX2013-12034) The maps attached as Exhibits B, C and D are hereby incorporated by reference. Section 2. The City Engineer is directed to revise the zoning atlas of the City in accordance with the foregoing amendment. Section 3. This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, contingent upon and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8537-14. PASSED ON FIRST READING ___________________________ PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL ___________________________ READING AND ADOPTED _______________________________ George N. Cretekos Mayor Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # 15 2 Ordinance No. 8539-14 Approved as to form: Attest: __________________________ ______________________________ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call Assistant City Attorney City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # 15 Exhibit A LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS ANX2013-12034 ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 1. 03-29-15-15840-001-0290 Block A, Lot 29 1238 Palm Street 2. 03-29-15-15840-002-0100 Block B, East 50feet of Lot 10 & West 20feet of Lot 11 1215 Palm Street All the above in CLEARDUN subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 13, PAGE 47, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 3. 03-29-15-12060-004-0010 Block D, Lot 1 1349 Union Street The above in BROOKLAWN subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 59, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida; ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 4. 03-29-15-49986-000-0040 North 150feet of Lot 4 1329 State Street The above in LANGE’S REPLAT OF BROWN’S subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 74, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address 5. 03-29-15-87912-003-0080 Block 3, Lot 8 1230 Aloha Lane The above in SUNSET KNOLL subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 24, PAGE 26, of the Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida. ========================================================================================= Attachment number 2 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 15 Exhibit B Zoning Map 1 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-15840-001-0290 03-29-15-15840-002-0100 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B 60 66 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 15840 46998 80388 47 4 3 0 A B C A BD E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324252627282930313233343536 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2324252627282930313233343536 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9101112 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21222324 25 26 27 28 29 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 151617181920 2122 23 24 25 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 18 60 60 63 30 E J 1 3 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 PALM ST UNION ST BE T T Y L N IDLEWILD D R BERMUDA ST DO U G L A S A V E WOODLAWN TER LMDR 12 4 4 12 7 1 12 6 3 2022 12 9 1 2020 2022 12 6 0 12 5 6 12 5 2 12 4 6 12 6 5 12 6 1 12 5 7 12 4 5 12 4 3 2020 2022 2024 12 1 2 12 9 0 12 8 4 12 8 0 12 7 2 12 6 6 12 2 0 2031 12 2 5 12 0 1 12 9 3 12 1 1 12 0 9 12 8 2 12 0 6 2077 2063 12 8 3 12 6 3 12 0 7 MDR 12 5 5 12 5 9 12 9 5 12 9 1 12 8 7 12 8 3 12 7 7 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 7 12 6 5 12 6 1 12 5 3 12 4 9 12 4 5 12 4 1 12 3 5 12 3 1 12 2 5 12 1 3 12 0 9 2024 2028 2030 12 9 6 12 8 6 2021 20272026 12 6 6 12 6 2 12 3 2 12 3 4 12 3 5 12 2 3 2021 2017 12 0 7 2021 2029 12 9 2 12 6 0 12 5 4 12 5 0 12 4 6 12 4 2 12 2 6 12 2 2 12 1 0 12 3 1 2044 12 9 3 12 7 9 12 7 7 12 7 1 12 6 7 12 6 5 12 5 9 12 5 5 12 5 1 12 4 7 12 4 5 12 3 9 12 3 5 12 2 1 12 1 7 12 1 1 12 7 6 12 6 8 12 6 4 12 6 2 12 5 6 12 5 0 12 4 2 12 3 4 12 3 2 12 2 8 12 2 0 12 1 6 12 1 2 12 0 6 2049 2060 2064 2066 12 8 3 12 7 9 12 7 5 12 6 7 12 5 5 12 5 7 12 5 1 12 4 5 12 3 9 12 3 5 12 3 3 12 3 1 12 2 1 12 1 5 12 7 8 12 7 4 12 7 0 12 6 6 12 6 2 12 6 0 12 5 6 12 5 0 12 4 6 12 4 4 12 3 8 12 3 4 12 3 0 12 2 4 12 2 2 12 2 0 12 1 2 12 5 3 12 7 5 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 5 12 6 7 12 5 9 12 4 7 12 4 5 12 4 1 12 3 7 12 3 5 12 2 7 12 2 3 12 1 9 12 1 5 12 1 1 2061 20 1 5 12 4 4 ½ -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - LMDR LMDR Attachment number 3 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 15 Exhibit C Zoning Map 2 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-12060-004-0010 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B 33 30 3060606060 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 87.7 60 45 4 0 60 15 40 15 87.7 12060 98074 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 8 15 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1314 15 16 17 18192021222324 (25) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 78 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 63 36 30 30 36 50 67 6869707172737475106107108109110111 *SEE PLAT FOR DIMENSIONS 1 1 UNION ST BE T T Y L N KI N G S H W Y ARBELIA ST TH E M A L L IDLEWILD DR PO I N S E T T A A V E EV E R G R E E N A V E LA N T A N A A V E MDR HDR MDR 13 3 1 13 2 1 13 2 5 13 1 7 13 4 1 13 3 7 2080 2066 13 3 0 13 2 2 2080 2084 13 4 5 2052 2098 2068 2070 2072 13 0 9 2083 13 1 0 13 0 0 2026 2028 13 1 0 13 0 0 2025 13 2 5 13 1 7 13 0 1 2060 13 3 3 2010 LMDR LMDR LMDR LMDR 2020 2067 2048 2050 2058 20252021 2088 2040 2044 2084 2014 2077 2076 2063 2049 2057 2071 2077 2081 2075 2079 2071 13 5 3 13 4 9 13 5 5 2000 2049 2053 2067 2060 20802001 2061 13 9 0 2080 2071 2079 2047 2048 2052 2063 2065 2069 2010 2019 2022 2024 2028 1999 2056 2064 2035 20392043 2017 2075 2031 -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - LMDR Attachment number 4 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 15 Exhibit D Zoning Map 3 of 3 Owner MULTIPLE OWNERS Case: ANX2013-12034 Site: Idlewild Septic-to-Sewer Project Area: Five lots south of Union Street, east of Douglas Avenue, north of Sunset Point Road (SR 576), and west of Kings Highway Total Property Size (Acres): 0.927 acres Land Use Zoning PIN: 03-29-15-49986-000-0040 03-29-15-87912-003-0080 From: To: RU (County) R-4 (County) RU (City) LMDR (City) Atlas Page: 251B LAKE 30 30 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 80 60 80 60 38 60 60 60 60 40 40 33 30 50 33 3330 60 38 60 60 45 45 60 30 3 0 28098 49986 83 9 7 0 87912 O O G 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 9 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38394041424344 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 13 14 15 16 17 18 1920212223 1 2 3 4 5 6789 10 11 12 13 14 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7891011 1213 1415 1617 1819 2021 2223 2425 2627 2829 3031 3233 3435 3637 3839 4041 4243 4445 4647 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 6 7 12 13 14 15 16 5 6 7 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 22 50 33 60 60 42/015 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 BE T T Y L N STATE ST SUNSET POINT RD SEDEEVA CIR N CH E N A N G O A V E CO L E S R D MA C O M B E R A V E BERTLAND WAY ALOHA LN I LMDR OS/R MDR LMDR 12 9 0 1950 1952 12 7 8 12 7 4 1942 1969 13 2 7 12 2 4 1971 1927 1925 1923 13 1 8 13 1 4 13 0 4 13 0 2 13 0 0 1901 1909 1913 1915 1917 12 1 3 12 1 9 12 1 5 1901 1903 12 4 6 12 4 8 1916 1918 1924 1926 1932 1938 1936 1940 19131908 1947 1949 1943 1946 1952 1954 1958 1960 1962 1964 12 8 8 12 8 4 12 8 0 12 7 6 12 7 4 12 8 7 12 7 9 12 7 5 12 7 3 12 7 1 12 6 7 196912 5 5 12 5 1 12 3 7 12 3 9 12 2 3 1904 1910 12 1 7 12 1 0 12 3 4 12 3 1 12 2 5 12 2 3 12 3 2 12 2 6 12 2 2 12 2 1 12 2 9 12 3 3 12 3 7 MDR LMDR LMDR 1936 1932 12 9 4 12 9 0 12 8 6 12 8 2 12 7 3 12 1 3 1938 1936 1930 1916 1914 1918 12 9 5 1940 19261928 12 9 5 12 5 1 1992 1979 13 2 9 12 5 6 1935 1921 1917 1920 1928 1915 1919 1927 1931 1933 1937 12 8 7 1918 1920 1940 1944 1919 1921 1923 1925 1927 1929 1937 1941 12 8 9 12 8 5 12 8 1 12 7 7 1933 12 3 0 1978 1974 12 8 3 1961 1963 1245 1249 1251 1257 1261 12 7 8 12 7 6 12 7 4 12 7 2 12 7 0 12 6 8 12 6 6 12 6 4 12 6 0 12 5 8 12 5 6 12 4 4 12 4 0 12 3 6 12 3 4 12 3 0 12 2 2 1981 1987 1995 12 3 1 12 2 7 12 2 5 12 2 5 12 2 4 12 2 4 12 1 8 12 1 6 12 1 2 12 2 6 12 2 0 12 1 6 12 3 3 12 9 9 T r a f 13 0 1 T o w r -N o t t o S c a l e - -N o t a S u r v e y - LMDR LMDR Attachment number 5 \nPage 1 of 1 Item # 15 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Release and Termination of restrictions upon certain privately owned land executed by Bay Park Center, Inc., located in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4, Section 19-29-16, known as 18820 U.S. Highway 19, which were originally accepted by the Clearwater City Commission on July 5, 1973, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. SUMMARY: As an apparent condition to approval for the development of certain real property, Bay Park Center entered into those certain restrictions dated June 27, 1973 and recorded in the official records of Pinellas County at O.R. Book 4051, page 1874 (Restrictions). The City accepted the Restrictions at a public hearing on July 5, 1973 and thereafter recorded the Restrictions. The Owner has applied for and received a land use plan amendment for the Property rendering the Restrictions in conflict with the future land use category, and the Owner and City have determined the Restrictions are no longer necessary to protect the Property. Paragraph 3 of the Restrictions requires written consent of the City, after a public hearing on the subject, for any exception, variation or termination of the Restrictions. The Owner is requesting a Release and Termination of the Restrictions and staff recommends approval. Type:Other Current Year Budget?:None Budget Adjustment:None Budget Adjustment Comments: Current Year Cost:Annual Operating Cost: Not to Exceed:Total Cost: For Fiscal Year: to Review Approval:1) Office of Management and Budget 2) Legal 3) Clerk 4) Assistant City Manager 5) City Manager 6) Clerk Cover Memo Item # 16 RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF RESTRICTIONS THIS RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF RESTRICTIONS (the “Release”) is made on February __, 2014, by BAY PARK EXECUTIVE CENTER, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, as successor in interest in Bay Park Center, Inc., a Florida corporation (“Owner”) and the CITY OF CLEARWATER, a municipal corporation (“City”). RECITALS WHEREAS, as an apparent condition to approval for the development of the real property described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (the “Property”), Bay Park Center entered into those certain restrictions dated June 27, 1973 and recorded in the official records of Pinellas County at O.R. Book 4051, page 1874 (the “Restrictions”); WHEREAS, the City accepted the Restrictions at a public hearing on July 5, 1973 and thereafter recorded the Restrictions; WHEREAS, the Owner has applied for and received a land use plan amendment for the Property rendering the Restrictions in conflict with the future land use category; WHEREAS, the Owner and City have determined the Restrictions are no longer necessary to protect the Property; WHEREAS, paragraph 3 of the Restrictions requires written consent of the City, after a public hearing on the subject, for any exception, variant or termination of the Restrictions; WHEREAS, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on February 20, 2014, at which it approved by motion the release and termination of the Restrictions; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals set forth above, which are incorporated herein by this reference, Ten Dollars ($10.00) in hand paid, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Owner hereby releases the Property described in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and made a part hereof (together with all buildings and improvements located thereon), from all terms, conditions, agreements and covenants contained in the Restrictions, including, without limitation, the use restriction contained in Paragraph 2. The City hereby affirms and agrees that: (a) no provision, term, covenant or condition in said Restriction remains in effect as of the date hereof; and (b) the City claims no right, title or interest of any kind or nature in said Property or the improvements Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 5 Item # 16 - 2 - located thereon. This Release is executed in favor of the Owner and may be relied on by the Owner and any successor to the Owner in title to the Property. THIS RELEASE has been executed as of the above-written date by the Owner and the City. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Blank] Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 5 Item # 16 - 3 - (SIGNATURE PAGE TO RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF RESTRICTION) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Holder has executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. Witnesses: Print Name: Print Name: OWNER: BAY PARK EXECUTIVE CENTER, LLC, a Florida limited liability company By: Print Name: Title: Executed: , 2014 STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF _________________ The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on _______________ 2014, by __________________, as Manager of Bay Park Executive Center, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, on behalf of such entity. Such person is personally known to me or has produced a valid driver’s license as identification. NOTARY PUBLIC – STATE OF FLORIDA My Commission Expires: Attachment number 1 \nPage 3 of 5 Item # 16 - 4 - (SIGNATURE PAGE TO RELEASE AND TERMINATION OF RESTRICTION) CONSENT TO RELEASE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA By: William B. Horne II, City Manager Approved as to Form: Attest: ___________________________ __________________________________ Leslie K. Dougall-Sides Rosemarie Call, City Clerk Assistant City Attorney Countersigned: __________________________________ George N. Cretekos, Mayor Attachment number 1 \nPage 4 of 5 Item # 16 5163230v1 EXHIBIT A Legal Description Attachment number 1 \nPage 5 of 5 Item # 16 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Pinellas County Noise Abatement Task Force Appointment SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 17 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: CMA Update SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 18 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Greenlight Pinellas Resolution and Presentation Process for Council Meeting. SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 19 Resolution No. 14-06 RESOLUTION NO. 14-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER IN SUPPORT OF THE GREENLIGHT PINELLAS PLAN; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Greenlight Pinellas Plan (the "Plan") presents a vision and an implementable program of projects for improving public transportation for all residents, businesses and visitors throughout Pinellas County through the multimodel elements of Rail and Bus, as well as Transit Supportive Land Use Concepts to be administered by local governments and through the countywide planning process; and WHEREAS, the Plan is designed to improve public transportation for all residents, businesses and visitors throughout Pinellas County to increase economic opportunities and jobs, improve growth potential in targeted areas of the county, support tourism, enhance transportation options for riders and non-riders, encourage property value recovery and resiliency, and protect our environment and air quality; and WHEREAS, the public, business leaders, community leaders and local jurisdictions have been extensively engaged in the development of the Plan for the benefit of Pinellas County; and WHEREAS, the Plan has incorporated PSTA's planning elements for the Bus, Rail, and Transit Supportive Land Use Concepts; and WHEREAS, the Plan is consistent with, been coordinated with, and is complementary to, the Pinellas Planning Council's ("PPC") efforts to update its Countywide Plan by integrating transportation and land use; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Rules were amended in 2010 to add to the Transportation Oriented Development category and Transit Station Area Plan provisions in anticipation of the provision of enhanced public transit within the county; and WHEREAS, the Advisory Committee for Pinellas Transportation ("ACPT") is comprised of the PPC, PSTA, Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC"), Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Tampa Bay Regional Transportation Authority; and WHEREAS, the ACPT has undertaken significant review, provided substantial comments on the development of the Plan , and approved the majority of the Plan on September 9, 2013, for further review through the Greenlight Pinellas Attachment number 1 \nPage 1 of 2 Item # 19 2 Resolution No. 14-06 Council, as well as to solicit further input from the public and support from its component agencies; and WHEREAS, at the ACPT’s meeting on November 4, 2013, the Plan was further endorsed; and WHEREAS, if the voters of Pinellas County approve the November 2014 referendum, the PSTA Board proposes to discontinue the collection of property taxes as of October 1, 2015, with the collection of sales tax beginning January 1, 2016; and WHEREAS, on November 20, 2013, PSTA approved the Plan and November 2014 referendum language; and WHEREAS, the BOCC held a final public hearing on December 10, 2013, to approve the ballot language. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. The City Council supports both the Greenlight Pinellas Plan and the continued efforts to finalize and implement the Plan. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. Section 3. The City Clerk is directed to submit a recorded copy of the Development Agreement to the state land planning agency no later than fourteen (14) days after the Development Agreement is recorded. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of _____________, 2014. ____________________________ George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: __________________________ _____________________________ Pamela K. Akin Rosemarie Call City Attorney City Clerk Attachment number 1 \nPage 2 of 2 Item # 19 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: Youth Arts Month Proclamation - Colin Bissett, President Clearwater Arts Alliance SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 20 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: American Red Cross Month Proclamation - Janet McGuire, Florida’s West Coast Region - Regional Communications Officer SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 21 Work Session Council Chambers - City Hall Meeting Date:3/3/2014 SUBJECT / RECOMMENDATION: CFY Scholarships - Dawn Daugherty, Clearwater for Youth Scholarship Committee Chairperson SUMMARY: Review Approval: Cover Memo Item # 22