Loading...
11/12/2014 - Special MeetingWednesday, November 12, 2014 6:00 PM City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Council Chambers Council Work Session Special Work Session November 12, 2014Council Work Session Special Work Session Special Work Session on Urban Land Institute Panel Report 6:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. 1. Call to Order 2. New Business Introduction and Overview - William B. Horne II, City Manager2.1 Review Draft Implementation Matrix and Approach - Rod Irwin, Assistant City Manager 2.2 3. Council Discussion 4. Public Comment 5. Establish Date for Next Special Work Session. 6. Adjourn Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 11/7/2014 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#14-681 Agenda Date: 11/12/2014 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: ReportIn Control: Council Work Session Agenda Number: 2.1 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Introduction and Overview - William B. Horne II, City Manager SUMMARY: N/A APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT: N/A USE OF RESERVE FUNDS: N/A Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 1/7/2015 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#14-671 Agenda Date: 11/12/2014 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: ReportIn Control: Council Work Session Agenda Number: 2.2 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Review Draft Implementation Matrix and Approach - Rod Irwin, Assistant City Manager SUMMARY: At the September 29, 2014 Council Work Session, staff and Council had an initial discussion of the results of the recent ULI Advisory Panel Report (Report) concerning redevelopment opportunities in the Downtown and East Gateway areas. The discussion was informed by a preliminary staff analysis, outlining the major issue areas within the Report and recommending a process/schedule for moving forward in developing an implementation strategy to address the multiple conclusions/recommendations in the Report. As a result of that discussion, the following staff take-aways were noted: ·Council concurred with the staff recommendation that the scope, importance and detail of the Report conclusions/recommendations warranted a Special Work Session, held in the evening to allow maximum public attendance; ·Staff was requested to develop a more detailed, item-by-item staff analysis of the conclusions/recommendations in the Report, including costs, timeframe and Work Program impact, to inform and guide the Council discussion and direction to staff on Report implementation at the Special Work Session. ·There was not a consensus to move forward with the significant Bluff/Waterfront Master Plan effort at this time, pending clarification of the CMA (Clearwater Marine Aquarium) and Greenlight projects affects on the planning effort; ·There was consensus to move forward at this time with development of the North Marina Special Area Plan; ·There was consensus to move forward with the Boating Master Plan; ·There was a consensus that the Implementation Matrix developed for council consideration at the Special Work Session identify those items in the Report that lend themselves to early implementation, within existing legislative authority and resources (low hanging fruit). The Implementation Matrix was developed within these Council-indicated parameters. Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 11/7/2014 File Number: ID#14-671 However, the scope, cost and staff work program impact of addressing the 48 individual action items in the report simultaneously would be extremely costly and disruptive of the overall work program of the City. Therefore, staff believes a more feasible approach to implementation may be to identify 10-15 initiatives, balanced across the implementing departments, which could reasonably be commenced within the first 90 days of implementation. Those items recommended are indicated by a bold (P) next to the item on the Implementation Matrix. They would be, of course, in addition to those items indicated to be underway or ongoing in the matrix. A number of the items have TBD (To Be Determined) annotations on the Matrix, primarily due to three factors: 1) work items that are not determinable at this point, because they are impacted by events not within the city control (i.e., CMA); 2) items that are not sufficiently scoped as to work program to allow staff to provide valid work cost estimate (i.e., the Mercado in East Gateway); and 3) items where legal or charter considerations need research or voter approval in order to determine the true scope of options (i.e., providing recreational boating options at Clearwater Harbor Marina). The Matrix will be revised and updated as these processes clarify. Staff looks forward to council direction whether the proposed priority projects meet council expectations, or whether modifications/additions/deletions are desired. Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 11/7/2014 ULI REPORT IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX (P): Staff recommended initiatives to begin within 1st 90 days; reflects Council discussion deferring Bluff/Waterfront Master Plan until after CMA and Greenlight clarifications. *Timeframe begins once Council or City Manager provide direction/approval Month/years represent time to completion from commencement Staff Recommendation Timeframe*Work Program Impacts Cost 1)Create a Comprehensive Boating Plan (P) M&A ED&H, P&R, Library Support: Consultant needed; Report to include market analysis, survey; description of desired activities; locations for ferry service, etc.180 days M&A: Minimal, consultant needed $35k 1a) Provide recreational boating experiences at downtown marina M&A Legal Support: Recommendations for activities that need referendum approval will be part of the Comprehensive Boating Plan (above). Referendum: March 2016 Legal: Once activities and locations are identified, Legal can define charter changes needed to reflect desired activities. TBD 2) Ensure environmental Integrity of Clearwater Harbor M&A Engineering Support: 1) Marina to investigate benefit of upgrading its certification from "Clean Marina" to "Clean and Resilient Marina" designation; 2) Engineering will continue to implement stormwater and mitigation activities; (3) Ongoing implementation of Stevenson Creek Watershed Management Plan and future update of Plan. (1) TBD; (2) Ongoing; (3) Begin in 2015, 18 months (1) M&A would need work program modification; (2) and (3) Part of work programs (1) TBD; (2) n/a; (3) $400k 3)Ensure future connections to the waterfront P&D P&R, Legal, Engineering Support: (1) Current connections include maintaining 14 access points; (2) Future connections (path along water) is a long-term implementation item to be considered as part of Bluff Master Plan and Comprehensive Boating Plan process; 3) goals and objectives to be included in the revision to the Downtown Redevelopment Plan and N. Marina Master Plan (1) Ongoing; (2) long-term and TBD, per 1.2; 3) long-term , per 1.2 TBD TBD STRATEGY 1.1: Waterfront District--Promote and grow the boating culture; instill activity along the waterfront. ACTIONS Lead Department FOCUS AREA 1: STRATEGY Planning, Development and Design Strategies Page 1 4)Create a water taxi or ferry service M&A Legal Support alternative transporation modes and encourage as public-private partnership. (1) For water taxi service, regulatory framework needs to be created to allow the taxis, define locations for stops, rules, etc. (2) For ferry service, public subsidy is needed to run on a schedule. Council to determine how much public subsidy, if any, to allocate; RFP can be prepared and contractor selected. (1) 6 months for water taxi regulations; (2) 6 months for contractor selection; additional 8-9 months for dock permits Legal: Significant work on the regulations; M&A: Signficant staff time to prepare RFP; design needed by Engineering; and time for dock permitting and construction (2) TBD (subsidy needed for contractor plus est. $50k for beach landing/floating dock) 5) Create comprehensive North Marina Master Plan (Small Area Plan) (P) P&D M&A Support: Priority to provide framework for pending decisions on facility siting and development applications. 1 year (including consultant selection) Consultant needed for Master Plan; Minimal staff impact if US 19 Plan is largely completed; regulatory changes to be done by staff, if needed, after Plan is completed. $75k+/- (subject to change based on final scope) 6)Attract waterfront restaurants ED&H CRA Support: Activity is subject to referendum and part of Bluff Master Plan TBD, per 1.2 TBD TBD 7) Capitalize and grow Old Clearwater Bay housing stock ED&H P&D Support: (1) ED&H--Research grant or low-interest loan rehabilitation programs not associated with affordable housing and determine if program is feasible; (2) P&D--Research policy and regulatory incentives to encourage housing improvements 1 year ED&H--could be incorporated as part of FY14-15 work program with a consultant TBD--Incentives needed for Rehab program funding; $15k for consultant 8) Master Plan the Bluff/Waterfront: -Appoint Steering Committee -Engage Development Consultant -RFP for Master Plan Consultant (Public Engagement) P&D ED&H ACM Support: Commencement subject to Council authorization vis-à-vis clarification of CMA Downtown Project . The Plan could include addressing market analysis and development strategy/financial feasibility; access and parking; park design (what activities could be accommodated and where and how they might occur and be designed); and public engagement. Consultant selection: 4 months; Plan completion 12- 15 months TBD: Substantial multi-department work program impacts $200-300k (depends on scope) 8a) Define Referendum process after Bluff Master Plan (added for timeline purposes) ACM, Legal Clerk, PC Support:Charter review begins January 2015. Ballot language is needed 3 months prior to election.The next regular election is March 1, 2016. If we miss that date, then a special election will have to be called ($100k+). Next election is November 8, 2016. Historically, 9-12 months (following completion of Bluff/Waterfront Master Plan)Significant time from Clerk, Legal, PC TBD: Election schedule chosen will be major determinant of cost STRATEGY 1.2: Bluff/Waterfront Page 2 8b) Following Master Plan process, conduct RFP process for "horizontal or master" developer (to develop opportunity sites along the Bluff) ACM ED&H Support: to be implemented after Bluff Master Plan 4 months for selection Work Program addition for ED&H n/a 8c)Expand Coachman Park P&R Support: to be implemented after Bluff Master Plan TBD, per 1.2 TBD TBD 8d)Identify opportunity sites along the Bluff ACM Support as part of Bluff Master Plan TBD, per 1.2 TBD TBD 8e)Attract and promote a large draw on City Hall site ACM Support as part of Bluff Master Plan TBD, per 1.2 TBD TBD 8f) Make attractive locations across the Bluff and to the water (Cleveland street connection) P&R Engineering Support as part of Bluff Master Plan and Expand Coachman Park process TBD, per 1.2 TBD TBD 9)Boost the Library (P) Library P&R ED&H Support: Some charter restrictions limit recommendations: (1) Research partnership opportunities to develop the Main Library as an Arts & Culture destination space. (2) Engage STEM organizations in the downtown area to identify educational and creative opportunities. (3) Determine space, buildout/materials, and resources needed. Research: 3 months; Planning 3 months; Implmentation: TBD Major impact: the most efficient and effective way is to increase one PT position to FT (cost about $17,000 a year). Also will need to add hours to increase access. $17,000 to upgrade PT to FT; $50,000 for evening hours, $50,000 for Fri & Sat morning, general fund next budget. $30,000 to reconfigure space for partnerships. 10)Use Bridge as Gateway (P) P&R Legal Engineering Support as public art project: (1) Engineering to research FDOT requirment; (2) Legal to research Pierce 100 issues; (3) P&R to Manage Public Art Process/Call for Artists (1) and (2) DOT and Legal --6 months; (3) 6-9 month public art process Work program: Engineering: research. Legal: Research Restrictions P&R: Public Art Process after above. $350-400k (based on Tampa's project--Could be opportunity for corporate sponsorship) 11)Make downtown more navigable Engineering CRA Support changes to Wayfinding signs after Community Branding project and facility siting is completed (i.e. garage, City Hall, Intermodal hub, CMA, etc.); In short-term: Research flexible sign faces, and identify funding sources.TBD Could be incorporated into Engineering and CRA work programs after branding & facilities determined. TBD, based upon system selected 12) Reconsider design guidelines and signage regulations (P)P&D Support Depends on Council direction/ prioritiesP&D: Changes to sign code can be done in-house n/a STRATEGY 1.3: Central Business District: Make downtown more attractive; bring people to the streets; make downtown more navigable Page 3 13) Consider application of Form-based Code (in the Downtown Redevelopment Plan area) P&D Legal Support Depends on Council direction/ priorities P&D: Depending upon the extent of these changes, this may be doable in-house or if more extensive, require outside assistance.Est. $75-100k 14) Create a Streetscape Toolkit (for secondary/arterial streets) Engineering ED&H Support: (1) As part of current strategy, streetscape improvements are encouraged as part of private redevelopment. (2) Streetscape elements are already incorporated into Downtown Redevelopment Plan: Cleveland Streetscape Phase 2 design palette/spec sheets are used as general guide for "side" streets. (3) Support Cleveland Streetscape Phase 3. (1) Ongoing (2)Completed (3)FY 17-20 Part of existing work programs (3) $6m in Penny 3 allocated for Cleveland Streetscape Phase 3 15)Attract an Incubator (P) ED&H CRA Support as part of private sector (and not solely publicly-funded) initiative: (1) model already underway focusing on tech entrepreneurship; staff exploring CRA financial participation; (2) Explore feasibility of a "Resource Center" or "One Stop" concept with other partners (1) 3 months (2) 12-18 months Part of ED&H/CRA work program (1) TBD--Potential CRA financial participation; (2) TBD 16)Consider City Hall with Intermodal Hub CM/ACM Engineering Support: Preliminary siting analysis is underway; Final decision depends on CMA and Greenlight referendum results. TBD Significant staff impacts after CMA & Greenlight resolved. TBD ($7.5m for City Hall only as part of the CMA proposal); $5.5M in Penny 2017 for Intermodal Center/City Hall 17) Create a secondary service-based retail environment along Fort Harrison CRA Support as part of private redevelopment opportunities. Given that majority of property ownership is Church of Scientology and Pinellas County, there is little likelihood of added retail space.Long-term TBD TBD 18) Attract additional retail/restaurants (i.e. Find the next Starbucks)CRA Support as private sector initiative: Church of Scientology and downtown property owners working on identifying market demand and matching potential businesses with appropriate locations. Once impediments are defined, City will work with this group to explore potential programs and solutions.TBD Can be incorporated as part of existing work program TBD Page 4 19) Attract another cultural or entertainment venue to the area (i.e. Find the next Capitol Theatre)ACM Support as part of Bluff Master Plan process TBD, per 1.2 TBD TBD 20) Enhance Gateways (to include: five points intersection; Cleveland and Myrtle, lntermodal hub, Pinellas Trail; Fort Harrison & Court) (P) Engineering ED&H, CRA Support: Five points intersection is completed. Other locations need ROW and feasibility investigation and funding identification (some after facility siting)TBD Minimal staff impacts for ROW identification of other locations. Need to identify design and construction costs if able to proceed.TBD 21) Promote downtown brand through signage, public art, architectural elements, and green space P&D, P&R PC, CRA, Engineering Support: 1) Community Branding Project underway; 2) Identify opportunities after Community Branding project is completed TBD TBD TBD 22)Build a garage near or adjacent to intermodal hub ACM Engineering Support: Needs feasibility investigation and funding identification after the Greenlight referendum 3-5 years for south location, 4-6 years for north location. Appears to assume 2 downtown garages, one south & one north. Significant staff impacts on each. $7 M - $8 M per garage; Source of Funds TBD 23) Create bike/walk loop to connect Downtown with North Greenwood and East Gateway Engineering P&R CRA Support:1) Major portions complete; 2) North Connector location unresolved; 3) Needs ROW, feasibility and funding identification.5+ years Moderate staff time to coordinate w/CSX RR for northern loop.est. $500k 24)Connect Jolley Trolley to East Gateway ED&H CRA Support: Part of East Gateway Vision Plan. However, feasibility is dependent on available funding and market demand from riders 5+ years Part of existing work programs TBD 25) Evaluate highest and best use of the existing golf course and enhance Glen Oaks Park P&R Do not support: (1) Clearwater Golf Course: Long- term lease agreement would need to be terminated with a significant financial impact to the city; (2) Glen Oaks Park: Currently at maximum use with stormwater and parks facility combined n/a n/a n/a 26) Connect Glen Oaks to East Gateway via a Stevenson Creek Trail CRA Engineering P&R Support as part of East Gateway Vision Plan 5+ years Preliminary layout complete. Ready to contact property owners for possible easements. Minimal staff impacts. Est. $400k not including land acquisition 27)Commmunity Market (P) CRA ED&H Support: (1) Feasibility of Festival Core part of East Gateway Vision Plan; (2) Investigation of "Mercado" as it needs a fixed location and feasibility and cost analysis (1) 3 years (2) TBD (1) Part of ED&H/CRA/Engineering work program (2) Significant impact to work program if conducted in FY14-15 (1) TBD (2) TBD 28)Promote Healthy Food CRA ED&H P&R Support: Farmers Market part of East Gateway Vision Plan; underway with feasbility TBD Part of ED&H/CRA work program TBD STRATEGY 1.4: Community Gateways and Connections Page 5 Staff Recommendation Timeframe*Work Program Impacts Cost 29)Conduct community branding effort (P)PC Support: Contract awarded and work underway-- North Star hired 12 months Part of existing work program $100k 30) Communicate the real estate market and potential for expansion of real estate activity (P) ED&H PC Support: Prepare a marketing piece that highlights housing, retail, and office demand for web-based and social media distribution 4 months To be completed in house with existing staff $5k 31) Create a forum for the discussion of issues with the city, development partners, and community stakeholders (P)ACM Support: Create Communications Stakeholder Group (CSG); Define goals Subject to Council Concurrence n/a n/a Staff Recommendation Timeframe*Work Program Impacts Cost 32)Identify Lead Responsibility CM Support: ACM appointed; ULI Implimentation Team (aka "Brain Trust") appointed Completed No impact n/a 33)Revise Downtown Redevelopment Plan P&D CRA Support: Begin after TIF extension is approved by Pinellas County; Bluff/Waterfront Master Plan and North Marina Special Area Plan will be addressed once completed. 12-18 months from County Commission direction on TIF extension; TBD to make changes from Bluff and N. Marina Master Plans TBD: Multi-phase effort depending on recommendations of Bluff Master Plan and N. Marina Master Plan, Form-based code analysis, etc. TBD if consultant is needed 34) Investigate the use of TIF bonds to leverage redevelopment (P) ACM Finance Support: Needs cost/benefit analysis; Opinion letter from Financial Advisor has been requested 4 months Incorporated as part of existing work program TBD FOCUS AREA 3: ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY AND IMPLEMENTATION ITEM 3.1: Implementation FOCUS AREA 2: COMMUNICATION/PARTNERSHIPS Item 2.1: Clearwater must begin to actively tell its story Item 2.2: ACTIONS Lead Department ACTIONS Lead Department Page 6 35) Add Clean and Safe Program to Downtown Redevelopment Plan CRA Police Support: Needs further investigation and definition TBD, part of DT plan above TBD TBD 36)Support Special Events CRA, DDB P&R Support events (Blast Friday and Star Spectacular, etc.) that are better integrated into redevelopment activities, engaging public and creating awareness for Downtown activities Underway & Ongoing Part of existing work program Recommend FY14-15 CRA funding: $75k Blast Friday and $15k Star Spec; DDB is funding $17.5k for Blast Friday and $20k for Star Spec 37)Create framework for engaging partners CM/ACM Support: Create specific plan/deliverables for affected Departments Underway & Ongoing Part of existing work program n/a 38)Pinellas County CM/ACM Engineering ED&H Support: Work together on funding opportunities, CRA TIF extension, and PSTA and MPO/transportation/parking needs Underway & Ongoing Part of existing work program n/a 39)Business Leadership ED&H Support: Attend meetings with umbrella organization Underway & Ongoing Can be incorporated as part of existing work program n/a 40)Church of Scientology ACM, ED&H PC, P&D Others? Support: Establish and maintain regular communication with Church, determine long-term plan for properties; etc. Underway & Ongoing Can be incorporated as part of existing work program n/a 41)Community Leaders ACM Support: Create Communication Stakeholder Group (CSG) (see Item 2.2) 3 months: Subject to Council Concurence with Direction TBD n/a ITEM 3.2: Engage Partners Page 7 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Seek Council Direction RegardingProcess and DiscussionMaterials for ULI ReportSpecial Work Session. DISCUSSION: The recently-completed ULI Study of the Downtown/East Gateway / Old Clearwater Bay areas presents a comprehensive, far-reaching and, in some instances, very different (fromthe norm in Clearwater) set of processand policy recommendations to achieve the successful redevelopment of the study area. Interest in the study recommendations has been high, and many stakeholders have queried Council and Staff on plans to consider and/or begin implementation of the various Study recommendations. However, due to the importance, breadth and complexity of the set of recommendations in the Study, staff believes a Special Council Work Session is indicated to allow the Council to consider and inform staff of the direction Council wishes to take with respect to implementation of the multiple recommendations in the Study. Staff further believes this important discussion needs to be proceeded by the necessary analysis and consideration of the ramifications, timing and related issues Council needs to have before it in deciding and directing staff on Report implementation. To that end,Staff will develop a Discussion Paper to inform thediscussion and decision-making at the Special Work Session. It is anticipated that a full consideration and preparation of materials will take 30days, leading to a Special Work Sessiontowards the end of October. An evening meeting is recommendedby the City Managerto allow maximum interested public attendance/viewing. To assure that staff is proceeding in a way that Council seeks in “framing” the Study issues/recommendations to facilitate Council consideration and direction to Staff, the attached “coarse grain” issueidentification and preliminary staff response outline is attached below. In so doing, three “overarching” considerations have informed the staff preliminary analysis, which we wish to call to Council attention: 1)The decision timeline for the CMADowntown project under the MOU means any master planning or facility siting in Coachman Park and/or the Bluff would have to be conditional on a final decision from CMA whether they intend to proceed with the project; this would also affect facility decisions in the CBD/Downtown, as parking garage, City Hall and multi-modal siting, timing and funding need to be coordinated with the CMA project. 2)Many of the ULI recommendations,i.e. activation of the waterfront, restaurant placement in Coachman Park, are subject to the considerations in #1 above,as well as subject to public referendum requirements. 3)Depending on the breadth and aggressivenessof the Council direction on Study recommendation, significant Work Program adjustments and/or outsourcing of work will be required. These parameters can more specificallybe identified/quantified for the SpecialWorkSession materials. Within the confines of these factors, Staff seeks Council feedback as to the proposedSpecial Work Session process, as well as whether the preliminary outlinebelow identifies the major recommendations/issues Council would like to address in greater detail in the Special Work Session. Staff will then utilize the results of the feedback, as well as staff analysis, to develop a formal Discussion/ Decision Paper. The ULI organizestheir recommendations into three broad categories: 1) Strategy: 2) Communications; and 3) Partnerships/Organizational Capacity and Implementation. The following outlines the major concepts in each of these keyareas for Council direction and discussion to assist staff prepare for the Special Work Session: I. Strategy: The Report concludes that the City must “bridge the gap between the Beach and the Mainland” to be successful in it’s redevelopment efforts by: identifying complimentary mainland activities that build upon the existing tourism base; reaching out to the waterfront to create activities in and on the water; develop an identity and improve the Downtown “in and of itself” to attract both residents andtourists;andfocus on residential development as an anchor to generate support for retail and activities. 1)Bluff/Waterfront Master Plan—The ULI report recommends creating a vision and Master Plan for a) the Bluff and b) the Waterfront(extending from Pierce 100 to the Seminole Boat Ramps), as well as implementing programs to activate the waterfront district. While the Bluff and the waterfront are discussed separately in the report, staff feels that a holistic approach is needed to address the bluff and waterfront together. The interactions functionally, spatially and programmatically seem to indicate one process. Secondly, the ULI report—which is focused upon realizing the development potential of the Bluff and waterfront, not the traditional park /waterfront master planning objectives— has suggested a process whereby the City ACM/“Brain Trust” of Department heads select a “development partner”(based upon an RFP/RFQ),and, together, based upon “a robust community engagement process,” develop the vision and master plan for the areas. Subsequently, the City would issue a second RFP/RFQ toselect a “horizontal” developer to work with the City in effectuating the vision and master plans.While not called out in the ULI report, the retention of a master plan consultant to develop the plan documents and facilitate the community process wouldbe necessary. This is a very different process from that used heretofore by the City, with a strong emphasis on the “development component” of the master plan process. It may/may not meet stakeholder perceptions for Coachman Park and the waterfront. If so, and as an alternative, staff feels a “hybrid”process with a more traditional public input process—combined with a strong component of development consultants “at the table” to provide guidance and “reality checks” to a broad-based community Steering Committee perhaps could be consideredas follows: Appoint broad-based Bluff Master Plan Steering Committee to work witha retainedMaster Plan firm and the City Staff to developa vision and Master Plan (MP); Process to include a robust public engagement process (i.e. charettes, focus groups, etc.) Retain an independent “DeveloperConsultant”to“be at the table” during discussions and assist the Steering Committeewith the economic realities affecting Master Plan accomplishment: Subsequently, City issue RFP/RFQ for“horizontal” developer to work with City in effectuating build outof Master Plan. Council discussion Is a consolidated Bluff/Waterfront visionand master plan effort supported at this time? If so, Is Council supportive of the Vision/Master Plan/”Horizontal” build outprocess suggested by ULI? If not, what process should be utilized? Timeframe When should this process begin? Cost TBD, based on process selected. Lead ACM/Planning/Parks/Marine and Aviation/ED 2)Comprehensive Boating Plan—ULI report recommends promoting and growing the boating culture and establish Clearwater, specifically Downtown, as a major boating center. Areas of focus could include: anevaluation of opportunities for redistribution of boat-related enterprises from Clearwater Beach to the downtown marina; on-shore commercial activities that could attract boaters and bring them to downtown; and, ideas for maintaining healthy marine environment. The report recommends completing this activity before major decisions are made regarding boat-related infrastructure at the North Marina area i.e. High and Dry facility, etc. Conduct RFP process to select consultant toassist City in the creation ofa Comprehensive Boating Plan Council discussion Is this the desired approach? Timeframe When should this process begin? Cost TBD Lead Marine and Aviation Department, with consultant support 3)North Marina (Seminole) Plan—ULI report recommends development of a comprehensive North Marina Plan for the Seminole Boat Ramp and surrounding area to appropriately “balance the needs of the boating community, area residents and development community.” Staff believes that a planning effort in this area is timely and needed at this juncture to provide the necessary planning and regulatory framework to assist in evaluating existing development proposals and maximize the development potential of the areaas follows: Conduct RFP process to select master planningconsultant Develop comprehensive Steering Committee to include Marina,developer, community and stakeholder representatives. Develop North Marina(Seminole) Special Area Plan Council discussion Is this the desired approach? Timeframe When should this process begin? Cost TBD Lead Planning & Development (Marine & Aviation in support) 4)Central Business District—ULI report recommends focusing activities in this area on beautification of streets, attracting people to the streets, making downtown more navigable, and reconsidering design guidelines and signage regulations. Staff believes that many of these items are underway and can be evaluated further as part of the implementation and departmental work program discussion, i.e.discussions with PSTA on the intermodal Hub; site analysis for a new City Hall; facility locational discussions with the CMA. Other recommendations, such as a “tool kit” for secondary and arterials streetscape design and lighting of the Memorial Causeway Bridge, would be analyzed for cost and timing. Certain recommendations, such as Way findingand Gateway definitions, are subject to other facility siting decisions and would be programmed accordingly.“low hanging fruit” can be addressed for early implementation In the more detailed analysis of the ULI recommendations for the Special Work Session, staff will create a matrix of proposed new projects/programs for Council evaluation of priorities. [See implementation section below] Finally, although not a part of the ULI recommendations, staff believes thatas part of a larger Downtown Strategy discussion, anoverall Concept Plan(and “spatial” delineation) is needed to anticipate future development and/or build out of the downtown core as way to plan projects and market/attract future investment. This couldinform the discussion raised by the ULI Panel of where future residential, office, civic and hotel projects should be located to facilitate maximumimpact on redevelopment strategy achievement? 5)Community Gateways and Connections—ULI report recommends a focus on strengthening connections between the Downtown, Beach, East Gateway, and surrounding neighborhoods through transportation, welcoming gateways, and other healthy activities. These items will be addressed as part of the implementation/work program discussion (see below). Some of these items are already underway, such as the evaluation of the community market and festival location in the East Gateway. II. Communication ULI report recommends a more robust branding effort for the City to communicate its strengths. This effort is already underway with City staff and North Star. A derivative, more “tailored” branding and marketing effort for the ED business recruitment effort, as well as the Cleveland Street District, is anticipated as “follow-on” to the North Star effort. ED/CRA staff intends to utilize the Market Analysis data on housing, office, hotel and retail absorption to more actively engage the development and brokerage communities tovalidate absorption and market availability to encourage investment. In addition, the ULI report concludes that community organizations and flow of information is highly fragmented in downtown. They identify primary roles for the major stakeholder groups to fulfill the Report objectives and implementation is to be realized. They conclude that the City “create a forum for the discussion of issues with the City and their development partners that involves a cross section of community interests.” One way to address this would becreation ofa Communications Stakeholder Group to meet quarterly(or more often if appropriate) to:1) report on activities within their areas of activity/concern as they relate to theULI Downtown/East Gateway; and2) coordinate activities specific to the implementation of the ULI report. Semi-annual reports to the Council at a public meeting could assure communication/coordination with the governing body. Any number/form of alternate structures could be appropriate to provide this coordination mechanism. The key community groups/organizations could include, as a base: Downtown Development Board: Clearwater Downtown Partnership: Merchants Alliance; Clearwater Technology Alliance; Pinellas County; Church of Scientology; East Gateway Business and Neighbors Association; Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce, Clearwater Neighborhoods Coalition, business leadership group, etc. Council discussion Is there a need to create an“umbrella advisorygroup”? If so, what form and structure should be established? Timeframe When should this process begin? Who should be included? Cost Staff time Lead TBD III. Organizational Capacity and Implementation The report concludes that, while the City/CRA Plans and redevelopment strategy are largely appropriate for the redevelopment effort, “the lead responsibility (for implementation) is much too fragmented to be effective. The authority and responsibility, according to the Panel,should be assigned to an Assistant City Manager who would establish a “Brain Trust” ofkey department heads and other government agenciesto assist him and guide implementation of the Downtown/ East Gateway strategies. It recommends that the City take the lead responsibility for implementation and to harness the collective resources of business, institutions, government and the community. In that regard, the City Manager has appointed the Assistant City Manager for Economic Development, Rod Irwin, as the City “lead”for overall implementation of the ULI initiatives the Council supports.In addition, he’ll be supported by a “Brain Trust”to include the department heads of Planning and Development;Economic Development and Housing;Parks and Recreation;Marine and Aviation;Library;Engineering;Finance/Budget;and Public Communications. Expansion to include Countyand other governmental representatives/liaisons is anticipatedby the ULI. The ACM/Brain Trust will create an implementation matrix once Council direction is received on the specific action items identified in the report. Many activities are already underway such as discussions with PSTA on the intermodal hub, location of City Hall, and Clearwater Marine Aquarium among others. Other action items need to be evaluated as to cost and timeframe for Council discussion and direction on their level of priority. Staff would propose the following: Create ULI implementation matrix that includes timeframe, cost, and departmental work program impacts for Council discussion, direction, and prioritization of projects. Council discussion Is creation of the implementation matrixthe desired approachto track implementation? Timeframe If so, when/how often/in what form doesCouncilwish to receive progress reports? Cost TBD Lead ACM/Brain Trust Staff will be prepared to discuss the above recommendations/issues at the Work Sessionon Monday under “City Manager-Verbal.”