02/16/2016Tuesday, February 16, 2016
9:00 AM
City of Clearwater
City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
Council Chambers
Council Work Session
Work Session Agenda
February 16, 2016Council Work Session Work Session Agenda
1. Call to Order
2. Presentations
February Service Awards2.1
3. Finance
Approve settlement of the physical damage claim of the City of
Clearwater for payment not to exceed $60,918.00 and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
3.1
4. Gas System
Approve the extension of Purchase Order 510558, to April 30, 2016 and
increase funding in the amount of $90,000, with Heath Consultants, Inc.,
to provide natural gas line locating services, and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
4.1
Approve the Third Amendment to Pasco Territorial Agreement; approve
the Natural Gas Redefined Territory Financial Agreement in the amount
of $659,600; approve the Amended and Restated Natural Gas Service
Agreement all with Peoples Gas System; direct Clearwater Gas System,
through its legal counsel, to pursue approval of a Joint Petition to the
Florida Public Service Commission requesting an amendment to the
natural gas territorial agreement between Peoples Gas System and the
City of Clearwater, transferring certain natural gas territory in Pasco
County to Clearwater Gas, allowing Clearwater Gas to service same,
and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
4.2
5. Human Resources
Approve the settlement agreement between the City of Clearwater and
Karen Sowada for payment of $81,500.00 and authorize the appropriate
officials to execute same. (consent)
5.1
6. Parks and Recreation
Approve Vehicle Use Agreement between the School Board of Pinellas
County, Florida and the City of Clearwater through August 23, 2016 for
the City to utilize Pinellas County School buses at a cost of $1.50 per
mile plus $29.00 per hour, for a total estimated cost of $40,000 and
authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
6.1
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
February 16, 2016Council Work Session Work Session Agenda
Approve the Purchase Contract for the City purchase of real property
located at 3158 Gulf to Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, with a purchase
price of $250,000 and total expenditures not to exceed $252,600
including closing costs; authorize appropriate officials to execute same,
together with all other instruments required to affect closing; and
approve the transfer of $252,600 from general fund reserves at midyear
to cover the cost of purchase. (consent)
6.2
7. Planning
Approve amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future
Land Use, Transportation, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental
Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements goals, objectives and
policies regarding numerous provisions, including: repealing
transportation concurrency and establishing a new Mobility Management
System; allowing for non-contiguous annexations; encouraging
strategies to reduce flood risk in coastal areas; and updating the Capital
Improvements Revenue and Expenditures Summaries, consistent with
State Statutes; and pass Ordinance 8805-16 on first reading.
(CPA2015-04001)
7.1
Approve an amendment to the Clearwater Code of Ordinances
renaming Transportation Impact Fee to Multi-Modal Impact Fee in
Appendix A - Schedule of Fees; amending the Clearwater Community
Development Code by repealing proportionate fair-share and
establishing a new mobility management system and a multi-modal
impact fee; amending review criteria; providing for and modifying various
definitions; and replacing various City Commission references with City
Council; and pass Ordinance 8806-16 on first reading. (TA2015-10006)
7.2
Approve the annexation, initial Future Land Use Map designation of
Residential Low (RL) and initial Zoning Atlas designation of Low Medium
Density Residential (LMDR) District for 2118, 2142, and 2166 Bell Cheer
Drive; and pass Ordinances 8821-16, 8822-16, and 8823-16 on first
reading. (ANX2015-12034)
7.3
8. Public Utilities
Approve an annual blanket purchase order (contract) to Univar USA Inc.
(Univar) of Morrisville, PA, in the annual amount of $150,000.00, with
the option for two, one-year term extensions for the purchase of
Polyphosphate (ITB 03-16), and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
8.1
9. Solid Waste
Page 3 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
February 16, 2016Council Work Session Work Session Agenda
Approve a Contract (Purchase Order) to Communications International
of Vero Beach, FL in the amount of $499,942.08 for the Project 25
(P-25) city terminal upgrade for the citywide two-way radio P-25
communication system in accordance with Sec. 2.564(1)(b), Code of
Ordinances - Sole Source; authorize lease purchase under the City's
Master Lease Purchase Agreement, or internal financing via an
interfund loan from the Capital Improvement Fund, whichever is deemed
to be in the City's best interest; and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
9.1
10. Official Records and Legislative Services
Provide direction regarding scheduling special council meetings as
listed.
10.1
Approve the 2016 Federal Legislative Agenda. (consent)10.2
Appoint one member to the Community Development Board with a term
to expire February 28, 2020.
10.3
11. City Manager Verbal Reports
12. City Attorney Verbal Reports
13. Council Discussion Item
Update on fluoridation of Clearwater locally sourced drinking water -
Councilmember Jonson
13.1
14. New Business (items not on the agenda may be brought up asking they be
scheduled for subsequent meetings or work sessions in accordance with Rule 1,
Paragraph 2).
15. Closing Comments by Mayor
16. Adjourn
17. Presentation(s) for Council Meeting
THC Education Day Proclamation - David Aden, Concerned
Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay
17.1
Federal Legislative Session Update - Greg Burns, Van Scoyoc
Associates
17.2
Legislative request for a BRT TIA to the Beach premium service - Brad
Miller, PSTA
17.3
Page 4 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
February 16, 2016Council Work Session Work Session Agenda
Outback Bowl - Mike Schulze, Director of Communications and
Sponsorships
17.4
2016 Nacra 17, 49er & 49er FX World Championship - John Craig, CEO
Sail Life
17.5
Page 5 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2084
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: PresentationIn Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 2.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
February Service Awards
SUMMARY:
5 Years of Service
Ricky Taylor Public Utilities
Jean Louis Information Technology
Christopher Perrin Solid Waste
William Howard Public Utilities
10 Years of Service
David Storck General Services
Lan-Anh Nguyen Engineering
Himanshu Patni Engineering
William Andrews Public Utilities
Kerry Marsalek Parks and Recreation
15 Years of Service
Julian Johnson Solid Waste
Antonis Magganas Gas
John McQueeney Gas
Jennifer Rush Library
Marvalyn Malcolm-Smith Economic Development & Housing
Timothy Coleman Engineering
20 Years of Service
John Fellenbaum Police
Kenneth Smith Engineering/Stormwater
Timothy Chaplinsky Parks and Recreation
25 Years of Service
Michael Olesh Public Utilities
Gregory Klamo Engineering/Stormwater
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2084
35 Years of Service
Dennis Keegan Parks and Recreation
Donald Melone Engineering
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2138
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Finance
Agenda Number: 3.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve settlement of the physical damage claim of the City of Clearwater for payment not to
exceed $60,918.00 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
The City Fire Department pickup truck G 4049 was traveling west on East Bay Drive in
emergency mode when it was struck in the side by a vehicle traveling south on Missouri
Avenue. G4049 was extensively damaged and is a total loss.
The truck chassis is valued at $40,918.00 and additional costs will be necessary to transfer
and replace equipment on the replacement Fire Marshall vehicle and that is the basis for this
claim.
This claim cost will be an amount not to exceed $60,918.00.
Funding for the payment of this settlement is available in the budget for claims expense in the
Central Insurance Fund.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
Funds are available in cost code 590-07000-545900-519-000 to fund this settlement.
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2127
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Gas System
Agenda Number: 4.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the extension of Purchase Order 510558, to April 30, 2016 and increase funding in
the amount of $90,000, with Heath Consultants, Inc., to provide natural gas line locating
services, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
Heath was selected in 2013 based on their response to RFP 04-13, Natural Gas Distribution
Main and Service Line Locating. Clearwater Gas System (CGS) is requesting a two-month
extension of their existing Purchase Order and increase funding by $90,000 to cover
expenses as staff bids out a new line locating contract. Heath has agreed in writing to hold
their contract prices the same during this time extension. CGS has been very pleased with
Heath's work during the past three years. The City Manager approved a 10% increase
($37,500) on the original PO amount in January 2016. With the $90,000 increase, the new
PO total will be $502,500.
Heath Consultants performs all CGS utility line locating during business hours. Once the
locate ticket is electronically received from FL Sunshine One-Call, a Line Spotter goes out to
the site and marks the approximate location of our gas lines, usually with flags and spray
paint. This will inform the contractor/excavator of the approximate location of our facilities once
they commence excavation.
Florida law requires anyone who plans to dig and/or perform excavation activities in the right
of way or on private property to call the FL Sunshine One-Call center and place a ticket 48
hours prior to performing the excavation.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
CGS has funds budgeted and available in account codes 423-02066-530300 (Contractual
Services) for $67,500 in Pinellas Gas Maintenance, and 423-02173-530300 (Contractual
Services) for $22,500 in Pasco Gas Maintenance.
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2129
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Gas System
Agenda Number: 4.2
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Third Amendment to Pasco Territorial Agreement; approve the Natural Gas
Redefined Territory Financial Agreement in the amount of $659,600; approve the Amended
and Restated Natural Gas Service Agreement all with Peoples Gas System; direct Clearwater
Gas System, through its legal counsel, to pursue approval of a Joint Petition to the Florida
Public Service Commission requesting an amendment to the natural gas territorial agreement
between Peoples Gas System and the City of Clearwater, transferring certain natural gas
territory in Pasco County to Clearwater Gas, allowing Clearwater Gas to service same, and
authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
The following agreements are required to allow Clearwater Gas System (CGS) to serve new
residential customers in Pasco County outside of its current territory boundary with Peoples
Gas System (PGS). This involves revising CGS’ existing territory boundary with PGS and
ultimately having the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) approve the territory change.
Third Amendment to Pasco Territorial Agreement: This agreement will expand CGS’s
Pasco territory boundary to serve all residential homes within the newly developed “Asturia”
subdivision, just north of State Road 54 in Pasco County. After a detailed review, it was
discovered that 388 residential lots were officially in PGS territory, which is approximately half
of the Asturia subdivision (total of 677 residential lots plus commercial/multi-family parcels).
This agreement will expand CGS territory to include the 388 lots that are within the original
PGS territory.
Natural Gas Territory Financial Agreement: Since CGS initially had discussions with the
builder/developer, PGS agreed that CGS should buy out the residential lots within PGS
territory since it was not practical to have two gas utilities serve the same subdivision. CGS
has agreed to pay $1,700 per residential lot, which totals $659,600. The agreement also
authorizes the construction of an Interconnect with PGS’s distribution gas lines, along State
Road 54, for backup supply in the event of a gas outage. This interconnect will have the
ability to flow gas in both directions to serve either CGS or PGS.
Amended and Restated Natural Gas Service Agreement: This agreement identifies all
existing Interconnects between CGS and PGS, and allows for future interconnects for system
reliability. This adds the new interconnect on SR54 at Asturia. It also sets the rate schedule
for billing purposes for all interconnects. This agreement allows future interconnects to be
added and approved by the CGS Managing Director.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2129
CGS has budgeted funds available in project code 315-96386 (Expanded Energy
Conservation).
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Exhibit A
Natural Gas Service Agreement Between
Clearwater Gas System & Peoples Gas System
Largo Connection Point
Peoples Gas System (PGS) installed, owns, operates and is responsible for maintaining this
facility, which is depicted on the attached diagram.
The facility includes a meter assembly, which permits PGS to access gas from Clearwater Gas
System (CGS) to maintain service reliability to its customers. Valves at this meter can also be
adjusted to provide a backup feed to CGS from PGS, even though this was
not the primary reason for the interconnect.
This facility is located on the northwest comer of Ulmerton Road and Starkey Road in the City
of Largo.
Exhibit B
Natural Gas Service Agreement Between Clearwater Gas System & Peoples Gas System U.S. 19/Stone Road Pasco Connection Point
The purpose of this transfer station is to provide for an automatic interconnect
site on U.S. 19 and Stone Road in Pasco County where our systems meet with
capability to automatically transfer gas to each company's system in the event
there is a reduction in pressure due to various unforeseen reasons.
Clearwater Gas System (CGS) ran 180 feet of 4-inch PE (polyethylene) pipe on
the east side of U.S. 19 to the north to connect with the transfer station.
Peoples Gas System (PGS) had existing 4-inch steel main located at the northeast
intersection of Stone Road and U.S. 19. PGS provided an approximate 30-foot
stub out to the east to connect with the transfer station.
The transfer station is a joint venture of both companies. The pipe each company
has installed on "their side" will be owned and maintained by that respective
company as indicated on the attached diagram. CGS and PGS will each install
and maintain their own 16m rotary displacement meters on each side of the
apparatus.
Exhibit C
Natural Gas Service Agreement Between
Clearwater Gas System & Peoples Gas System
Redington Beach/Madeira Beach Connection Point
The purpose of this transfer station is to provide for an automatic interconnect site
located west off of Gulf Boulevard along the north right-of-way of 155th Avenue at the
Redington Beach and Madeira Beach boundary where our systems meet with capability
to automatically transfer gas to each company's system in the event there is a reduction
in pressure due to various unforeseen reasons.
hClearwater Gas System (CGS) ran 222 feet of 4-inch PE (polyethylene) pipe on
the north side of 155th Avenue to the west to connect with the transfer station.
Peoples Gas System (PGS) ran 222 feet of 4-inch PE (polyethylene) pipe on the
north side of 155t Avenue to the west to connect with the transfer station.
The transfer station is a joint venture of both companies. The pipe each company has
installed on "their side" will be owned and maintained by that respective company as
indicated on the attached diagram. CGS and PGS will each install and maintain their
own 11m rotary displacement meters on each side of the apparatus.
Exhibit D
Natural Gas Service Agreement Between
Clearwater Gas System & Peoples Gas
System
Little Road Connection Point
The initial purpose of this connection point is to provide transportation gas from
Peoples Gas System (PGS) to a Clearwater Gas System (CGS) customer, Empire
Distillery & Winery located at 11807 Little Road. This customer is in the CGS
service territory but is closer to the PGS main lines. PGS will provide the gas
under this agreement and CGS will bill the customer. In the future, additional
CGS customers may be served off this connection point.
PGS installed one six-inch turbine meter to measure consumption of natural gas
thru the connection point. This meter is connected to their existing 2" PE
(polyethylene) pipe and PGS maintains this meter.
CGS installed 300 feet of 6" PE pipe located on the west side of Little Road,
south from State Road 52. CGS also installed 380 feet of2" PE service line west
from 165 feet south of Teak Road as shown on Exhibit D diagram.
"D
"
Exhibit E
Natural Gas Service Agreement Between
Clearwater Gas System & Peoples Gas
System
Central Pasco Connection Point
The purpose of this connection point is to provide a continuous gas supply feed
from Peoples’ gate/distribution station located on Hayes Rd, North of State Road
52. Gas supplied from this connection point will serve CGS’s customers
generally located east of the Suncoast Parkway in Central Pasco.
Exhibit F
Natural Gas Service Agreement Between
Clearwater Gas System & Peoples Gas
System
Asturia Connection Point
The purpose of this transfer station is to provide for an automatic interconnect
site located in the right-of-way on the north side of State Road 54 in Pasco
County, where CGS and PGS distributions systems meet, with capability to
automatically transfer gas to each company's system in the event there is a
reduction in pressure due to various unforeseen reasons.
Peoples Gas System (PGS) extended a 6-inch polyethelyne (PE) main up to the
CGS/PGS territory boundary on State Road 54. PGS provided an approximate
10-foot stub out to connect to the transfer station.
The transfer station is a joint venture of both companies. The pipe each company
has installed on "their side" will be owned and maintained by that respective
company as indicated on the attached diagram. CGS and PGS will each install
and maintain their own meters on each side of the apparatus.
06
2
6
1
9
31
2
5
1
8
07
2
6
1
9
05
2
6
1
9
32
2
5
1
8
04
2
6
1
9
11
2
6
1
6
04
2
5
1
8
33
2
5
1
8
18
2
6
1
9
12
2
6
1
8
34
2
5
1
8
30
2
6
1
9
09
2
5
1
8
19
2
6
1
8
31
2
6
1
9
10
2
5
1
8
20
2
5
1
7
19
2
6
1
9
14
2
5
1
6
35
2
6
1
5
33
2
4
1
7
05
2
5
1
9
05
2
5
1
7
05
2
5
1
8
22
2
6
1
8
13
2
6
1
8
29
2
5
1
9
33
2
4
1
8
15
2
6
1
8
18
2
5
1
7
01
2
5
1
6
20
2
5
1
9
36
2
6
1
5
29
2
5
1
7
07
2
6
1
8
18
2
6
1
8
35
2
6
1
7
32
2
4
1
7
23
2
6
1
7
28
2
5
1
6
20
2
6
1
8
21
2
6
1
8
23
2
6
1
8
26
2
6
1
7
06
2
5
1
7
36
2
6
1
7
02
2
5
1
6
04
2
5
1
9
01
2
5
1
7
26
2
5
1
7
10
2
6
1
8
26
2
5
1
6
01
2
5
1
8
30
2
5
1
8
03
2
5
1
8
03
2
5
1
7
21
2
6
1
7
24
2
6
1
8
35
2
5
1
8
08
2
6
1
7
19
2
5
1
7
11
2
6
1
8
06
2
5
1
9
32
2
6
1
6
04
2
5
1
7
35
2
4
1
7
07
2
5
1
9
31
2
6
1
6
11
2
5
1
6
17
2
5
1
7
23
2
5
1
7
36
2
5
1
8
25
2
5
1
6
28
2
6
1
7
33
2
5
1
6
36
2
5
1
6
12
2
6
1
7
16
2
5
1
7
04
2
5
1
6
07
2
5
1
7
35
2
4
1
6
08
2
6
1
9
01
2
6
1
8
32
2
5
1
9
08
2
5
1
8
30
2
6
1
8
09
2
6
1
9
15
2
6
1
7
06
2
5
1
8
15
2
5
1
8
33
2
5
1
9
14
2
6
1
8
16
2
5
1
6
26
2
6
1
6
27
2
6
1
6
28
2
5
1
7
23
2
5
1
6
08
2
5
1
7
30
2
5
1
7
11
2
6
1
7
28
2
6
1
8
17
2
5
1
8
19
2
5
1
9
16
2
6
1
8
22
2
5
1
7
15
2
6
1
6
14
2
5
1
7
22
2
6
1
6
21
2
5
1
6
29
2
5
1
8
33
2
6
1
6
27
2
6
1
8
08
2
5
1
9
24
2
6
1
6
14
2
6
1
7
36
2
6
1
8
36
2
4
1
8
16
2
5
1
8
32
2
4
1
8
24
2
5
1
6
34
2
4
1
7
30
2
5
1
9
20
2
6
1
7
10
2
6
1
7
35
2
5
1
6
30
2
6
1
6
33
2
4
1
9
03
2
5
1
6
29
2
6
1
8
17
2
6
1
8
35
2
5
1
7
28
2
5
1
9
17
2
6
1
6
07
2
5
1
8
25
2
6
1
8
27
2
5
1
8
36
2
5
1
7
19
2
6
1
6
18
2
5
1
9
02
2
5
1
7
13
2
5
1
7
31
2
4
1
7
31
2
5
1
9
20
2
6
1
6
13
2
5
1
6
31
2
5
1
7
27
2
5
1
7
15
2
5
1
7
29
2
6
1
9
23
2
6
1
6
28
2
6
1
6
11
2
5
1
8
17
2
6
1
7
13
2
6
1
6
34
2
6
1
6
17
2
5
1
6
36
2
4
1
7
32
2
4
1
9
12
2
5
1
6
36
2
4
1
6
25
2
5
1
7
28
2
6
1
9
25
2
6
1
5
16
2
6
1
7
02
2
5
1
8
14
2
6
1
6
21
2
6
1
6
34
2
5
1
6
10
2
6
1
6
25
2
5
1
8
34
2
4
1
6
15
2
5
1
6
21
2
5
1
9
25
2
6
1
6
12
2
5
1
7
35
2
6
1
6
24
2
5
1
7
36
2
6
1
6
08
2
6
1
8
35
2
4
1
8
29
2
6
1
6
34
2
5
1
7
09
2
6
1
7
20
2
6
1
9
13
2
6
1
7
09
2
6
1
6
28
2
5
1
8
34
2
4
1
8
21
2
5
1
7
32
2
5
1
6
17
2
5
1
9
16
2
6
1
6
32
2
6
1
9
13
2
5
1
8
21
2
6
1
9
09
2
6
1
8
17
2
6
1
9
09
2
5
1
6
33
2
5
1
7
18
2
6
1
6
31
2
4
1
9
12
2
5
1
8
27
2
5
1
6
08
2
6
1
6
18
2
5
1
8
24
2
6
1
5
10
2
5
1
6
31
2
6
1
7
22
2
6
1
7
29
2
6
1
7
27
2
6
1
7
32
2
5
1
7
22
2
5
1
6
16
2
6
1
9
26
2
6
1
8
34
2
6
1
7
33
2
6
1
7
26
2
6
1
5
09
2
5
1
7
30
2
6
1
7
24
2
5
1
8
03
2
6
1
8
16
2
5
1
9
31
2
4
1
8
14
2
5
1
8
11
2
5
1
7
19
2
6
1
7
24
2
6
1
7
33
2
6
1
9
32
2
6
1
7
26
2
5
1
8
22
2
5
1
8
10
2
5
1
7
09
2
5
1
9
25
2
6
1
7
18
2
6
1
7
02
2
6
1
8
33
2
6
1
8
07
2
6
1
7
32
2
6
1
8
04
2
6
1
8
34
2
6
1
8
35
2
6
1
8
23
2
5
1
8
12
2
6
1
6
05
2
6
1
8
21
2
5
1
8
06
2
6
1
8
20
2
5
1
8
29
2
5
1
6
19
2
5
1
8
31
2
6
1
8
02
2
6
1
7
01
2
6
1
7
03
2
6
1
7
04
2
6
1
7
05
2
6
1
7
06
2
6
1
7
03
2
6
1
6
02
2
6
1
6
01
2
6
1
6
04
2
6
1
6
20
2
5
1
6
05
2
6
1
6
08
2
5
1
6
06
2
6
1
6
07
2
6
1
6
31
2
5
1
6
34
2
6
1
5
33
2
4
1
6
29
2
4
1
9
2
8
2
4
1
9
30
2
4
1
9
25
2
4
1
8
27
2
4
1
8
26
2
4
1
8
28
2
4
1
8
29
2
4
1
8
25
2
4
1
7
26
2
4
1
7
26
2
4
1
6
30
2
4
1
8
25
2
4
1
6
28
2
4
1
7
27
2
4
1
6
27
2
4
1
7
29
2
4
1
7
30
2
4
1
7
13
2
6
1
5
23
2
6
1
5
12
2
6
1
5
30
2
5
1
6
27
2
6
1
5
05
2
5
1
6
28
2
4
1
6
07
2
6
1
6
34
2
6
1
9
27
2
6
1
9
22
2
6
1
9
15
2
6
1
9
03
2
5
1
9
34
2
5
1
9
34
2
4
1
9
10
2
6
1
9
10
2
5
1
9
03
2
6
1
9
27
2
5
1
9
15
2
5
1
9
22
2
5
1
9
01
2
6
1
5
27
2
6
1
5
19
2
5
1
6
18
2
5
1
6
12
2
6
1
5
27
2
4
1
9
32
2
4
1
6
13
2
6
1
5
33
2
6
1
5
32
2
4
1
6
01
2
6
1
5
18
2
5
1
6
13
2
6
1
5
22
2
6
1
5
12
2
6
1
5
33
2
4
1
6
13
2
6
1
5
33
2
6
1
5
19
2
5
1
6
22
2
6
1
5
01
2
6
1
5
19
2
5
1
6
30
2
5
1
6
34
2
6
1
5
30
2
5
1
6
19
2
5
1
6
30
2
5
1
6
18
2
5
1
6
13
2
6
1
5
18
2
5
1
6
SR
5
2
SR
5
4
SUNCOASTPKWY
LANDOLAKESBLVD
EHRENCUTOFF
US41
M
O
O
N
L
A
K
E
R
D
T
O
W
E
R
R
D
DREX
E
L
R
D
P A R K W A Y B L V D
COLLIERPKWY
RIDGE
RD
H
A
L
E
R
D
LAKEVIEWD
R
O A K S B L V D
HAYSRD
P
U
M
P
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
R D
PI
N
T
O
D
R
D
E
C
U
B
EL
L
I
S
R
D
LAK
E
PATIENCE
RD
LE
O
N
A
R
DR
D
CO
UN
T
Y
L
I
NER
D
ATLEEST
E
A
GLE
LN
BELL
LAKE
R
D
CAS
E
Y
D
R
W E E K S BLVD
CAU
S
E
W
A
Y
B
L
V
D
NO
N
E
LACE
Y
D
R
LOCK
E
T
AV
NIKK
I
L
N
D
O
V
E
RD
WILSONRD
LOYST
WISTE
R
I
A
L
P
HUNTRD
B A HI A L P
SHALIMARST
DALEMABRYHWY
CIT A T I O N R D
ROSELAND
DR
M
OR
G
AN
RD
CHIP
LN
PA
S
C
O
T R A I L S B L V D
E
A
G
L
E
B
LVD
A
S
B
E
L
R
D C
E
N
T
R
A
L
B
L
V
D
H
A
V
A
N
A
A
V
H
I
DE O UT T R
DUPRE
E
DR
K
E
Y
LIMEDR
GLEN
O
A
K
AV
C
A
LIE
N
T
E
B
L
V
D
AIRW
A
Y
B
L
V
D
SMOK
E
Y
D
R
WILSKY
RD
S
O
U
T
HSHOREDR
IVY
LAKEDR
N O N E
N
ON E
N O NE
SUNCOASTPKWY
DUSTY
LA
S
T
A
R
T
R
LITTLE RD
PAT
ST
7TH
AV
ANCLOTE
BLVD
N
O
N
E
US19
G R O VEDR
TIKI
DR
S
R
5
4
SR
52
PLAT
H
E
R
D
DECUBELLIS
RD
SR
5
4
SR
5
4
NO
N
E
N
O
NE
SR
5
4
US19
SR
5
4
NONE
US19
SR
5
4
US19
NO
N
E
SR54
NONE
LITTLERD
S
R
5
4
SR
5
2
US19
NONE
S
R
5
4
S
R
5
4
S
R
5
4
N
O
N
E
N
O
NE
NO N E
NO
NE NO N E
N
ON E
N
ONE
SR
5
4
SR54
US19
NO
N
E
SR54
SR
5
2
Se
c
o
n
d
R
e
v
i
s
e
d
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
"
A
"
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
/
P
e
o
p
l
e
s
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
a
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
i
a
l
M
a
p
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
20
0
4
A
d
d
e
d
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
20
0
5
A
d
d
e
d
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
19
9
5
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
Cl
e
a
r
w
a
t
e
r
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
20
0
4
A
d
d
e
d
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
Hi
l
l
s
b
o
r
o
u
g
h
C
o
u
n
t
y
Pi
n
e
l
l
a
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
CG
S
/
B
e
x
l
e
y
Co
r
r
i
d
o
r
Se
r
e
n
o
v
a
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
SR
5
2
SR
5
2
US
4
1
Pe
o
p
l
e
s
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
19
9
5
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
Pe
o
p
l
e
s
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
Pa
s
c
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
19
9
5
O
r
i
g
i
n
a
l
T
e
r
r
i
t
o
r
y
T
H
I
R
D
R
E
V
I
S
E
D
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
A
Se
e
E
X
H
I
B
I
T
C
Ast
u
r
i
a
S
u
b
d
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
12
-
2
8
-
2
0
1
5
14
2
5
1
7
Se
r
e
n
o
v
a
Bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
(S
e
e
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
)
Pi
n
e
l
l
a
s
C
o
u
n
t
y
(P
O
B
)
(P
O
E
)
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2128
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Human Resources
Agenda Number: 5.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the settlement agreement between the City of Clearwater and Karen Sowada for
payment of $81,500.00 and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
Ms. Sowada was terminated as an employee with the City of Clearwater on April 8, 2015, for
substandard performance. The City followed the appropriate disciplinary process and the
termination was justified.
Ms. Sowada filed a charge with the Florida Commission of Human Relations alleging
discrimination based on disability and sex. She also alleged retaliation. This agreement will
settle all existing or future claims regarding this action. Ms. Sowada has signed a settlement
agreement and general release.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
A first quarter budget amendment will increase cost code 010-07000-534000 (Legal
Settlements) funded by an allocation of General Fund Reserves.
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Funding for this agreement will be provided by a first quarter budget amendment allocating
General Fund reserves in the amount of $81,500 to cost code 010-07000-534000 (Legal
Settlements). Inclusive of this item if approved, a net total of $756,966 of General Fund
reserves has been appropriated by Council to fund expenditures in the 2015/16 operating
budget. The remaining balance in General Fund reserves is approximately $27.3 million, or
21.9% of the current General Fund operating budget.
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2125
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Parks & Recreation
Agenda Number: 6.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Vehicle Use Agreement between the School Board of Pinellas County, Florida and
the City of Clearwater through August 23, 2016 for the City to utilize Pinellas County School
buses at a cost of $1.50 per mile plus $29.00 per hour, for a total estimated cost of $40,000
and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
The Parks and Recreation Department organizes field trips requiring bus transportation for
participants.
The Pinellas County School System (PCSS) allows municipalities to utilize their fleet of buses
and drivers for $1.50 per mile plus $29.00 per hour for driver with a five -hour booking
minimum.
During the summer of 2016, the department will organize approximately 110 field trips that
may utilize school bus transportation.
Comparing a sampling cost of school buses for these trips against the use of private bus lines
indicates school buses are generally a less costly mode of transportation. During the past
year the City utilized school buses for field trips at a cost of approximately $20,000.
Approval of this Agreement will provide staff with a larger number of options when determining
the most cost effective source of transportation for participants.
The Agreement is similar to Agreements between the Pinellas County School Board and other
Pinellas County municipalities that utilize school bus transportation.
The Recreation Programming Division ’s Operating Budget contains sufficient funds to cover
the costs associated with this Agreement.
This item supports the City's Strategic Plan by partnering with other public organizations to be
more efficient in providing services and programs to the youth of our community.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
N/A
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2125
N/A
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2126
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Parks & Recreation
Agenda Number: 6.2
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Purchase Contract for the City purchase of real property located at 3158 Gulf to
Bay Boulevard, Clearwater, with a purchase price of $250,000 and total expenditures not to
exceed $252,600 including closing costs; authorize appropriate officials to execute same,
together with all other instruments required to affect closing; and approve the transfer of
$252,600 from general fund reserves at midyear to cover the cost of purchase. (consent)
SUMMARY:
The subject property is a part of a tract of land located at 3158 Gulf to Bay Boulevard and is
owned by Mary Custis Lee, Chapter 1451 of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Inc.
(Seller). Seller’s property includes a small building and a total land area of approximately
65,340 square feet on the northwest corner of Gulf to Bay and Bay Shore Boulevard. The
small building is located on the eastern portion of the property. The Seller has divided the
property into two parcels and is offering the western portion of the property, approximately
20,433 sq. ft. to the City for $250,000. With the exception of a chain link fence with Service
Organization signs attached and one small freestanding sign, the western property is vacant.
Under the purchase contract, the City will have the right of first refusal (ROFR) on Seller’s
remaining property. The ROFR provides for the City to have the future option to purchase
Seller’s remaining property at terms and conditions offered by a third party buyer.
Due to its strategic location of this property, staff is recommending the acquisition of this
property to be preserved and used as a gateway/entrance into Clearwater. This property is
just west of the property purchased last year at 3198 Gulf to Bay which is a park and terminus
of the Bayshore Recreation Trail. Together these properties will offer a beautiful and inviting
landscape into Clearwater as well as give the City the opportunity to provide landscaping and
signage on City owned land.
Jim Millspaugh and Associates, Inc. performed an independent appraisal on the property. The
appraisal provided a value conclusion of $275,000 with a valuation date of October 6, 2015.
Acquisition Costs for the purchase of the subject property:
Purchase price $250,000
Closing costs $500
Survey $2,100
TOTAL $252,600
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2126
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Funding for this contract will be provided by a first quarter budget amendment allocating
General Fund reserves in the amount of $252,600 to capital improvement project 315-93133,
Park Land Acquisition. A net total of $675,466 General Fund reserves has been used to date
to fund expenditures in the 2015/16 operating budget. The remaining balance in General
Fund reserves is approximately $27.3 million or 22% of the current General Fund operating
budget.
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
GULF-TO-BAY BLV D
BAYSHOREBLVD
CO URT N E Y CAM P BEL L CSW Y
LOCATION MAP
²Prepare d b y:Eng ineer ing De p ar tm en tGeographic T echno lo gy Division100 S . M yrtle Ave, Clear water, FL 33756Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755www.MyClea r wa ter .co m
3158 Gulf to Bay Blvd
CRM JB N.T.S.292A 16-29s -16 e01/2 7/2016Map Gen By:Reviewed By:S-T-R:Grid #:Date:Sca le:
Propo sed Acquisitio n3158 Gulf to B ay Boul evard
Proposed Acquisition
Documen t Path: V:\GIS\_Staff\Chris \Projects\City \Lo cation-Ma ps\Jim_B\3158 Gulf-to-Bay_Prop _Acq .mxd
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: CPA2015-04001
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Planning CaseIn Control: Planning & Development
Agenda Number: 7.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use,
Transportation, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental Coordination, and Capital
Improvements Elements goals, objectives and policies regarding numerous provisions,
including: repealing transportation concurrency and establishing a new Mobility Management
System; allowing for non-contiguous annexations; encouraging strategies to reduce flood risk
in coastal areas; and updating the Capital Improvements Revenue and Expenditures
Summaries, consistent with State Statutes; and pass Ordinance 8805-16 on first reading.
(CPA2015-04001)
SUMMARY:
This proposed ordinance contains numerous amendments to the goals, objectives and
policies of the Future Land Use, Transportation, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental
Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
The most substantial topic addressed is the proposed deletion of the transportation
concurrency requirement and the creation of a Mobility Management System based on the
Pinellas County Mobility Plan.
The proposed amendments address changes made to the Community Planning Act in 2011,
which amended 163.3180, Florida Statutes, by repealing certain state mandated concurrency
requirements, including transportation concurrency. To address this change in the state
statutes, the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) coordinated with the
various local governments to develop an alternative approach to transportation concurrency
which would also further the development of a countywide multi-modal transportation system
that could better accommodate travel options other than the personal automobile. This work
resulted in the Pinellas County Mobility Plan which was approved by the MPO in 2013. The
proposed amendments will ensure that the City’s Comprehensive Plan and concurrency
management system is consistent with the countywide approach to mobility management and
the Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (TIFO), which is currently being
renamed to the Multi-Modal Impact Fee Ordinance as part of Pinellas County’s various
amendments. The County’s amendments are anticipated to be adopted on March 29, 2016,
and as such Ordinance 8805-16 will be amended on second reading to update the Pinellas
County ordinance number as the County does not assign ordinance numbers until after
adoption.
In addition to the above, staff is also proposing the following:
·Coastal Management Element: Add development and redevelopment strategies and
policies to help reduce the risk of flood for coastal properties;
·Capital Improvements Element: Reflect updated data for level of service standards;
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: CPA2015-04001
update the Capital Improvement Program Revenue Summary and the Capital
Improvement Program Expenditure Summary
·Future Land Use Element: Update outdated language; add new policy regarding
non-contiguous Type A Enclave annexations; and
·Minor formatting changes to bring consistency between all of the Elements.
The Community Development Board (CDB) reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting
on December 15, 2015 and unanimously recommended the amendment for approval.
As this is a text amendment to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, review and approval by
the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity is required. As part of the state review, the
proposed amendments will be transmitted to the various State agencies and Pinellas County
for review prior to second reading (adoption) by City Council, which is anticipated to occur in
April.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
N/A
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
`
1 Ordinance No. 8805-16
ORDINANCE NO. 8805-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER (THE CITY),
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT UPDATING THE
CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND ALLOWING FOR
NON-CONTIGUOUS ANNEXATIONS; BY AMENDING THE
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ESTABLISHING A MOBILITY
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ANDREPEALING TRANSPORTATION
CONCURRENCY, ESTABLISHING MULTI-MODAL DESIGN
FEATURES, AND ENSURING THE CITY’S COORDINATION WITH
THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION AND THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; BY AMENDING
THE COASTAL MANGEMENT ELEMENT BY REMOVING TRAFFIC
FROM LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND ADDING POLICIES
ENCOURAGING STRATEGIES AND ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS
THAT REDUCE FLOOD RISK IN COASTAL AREAS; BY AMENDING
THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT
REMOVING REFERENCE TO ROAD LEVEL OF SERVICE; BY
AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT REMOVING
TRANSPORTATION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS AND
UPDATING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENDITURE AND
REVENUE SUMMARIES; UPDATING VARIOUS TERMS AND
REFERENCES; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING
AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development
Regulation Act of Florida empowers and requires the City Council of the City of Clearwater to plan
for the future development and growth of the City, and to adopt and periodically amend the
Comprehensive Plan, including elements and portions thereof; and
WHEREAS, Florida House Bill 7207, also known as the Community Planning Act, was
signed into law in 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Actremoved State requirements for local
government implementation of transportation concurrency management systems; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater participated ina multi-jurisdictional Mobility Plan Task
Force, facilitated by the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization,to develop a
framework for a countywide approach to implementation of a mobility management system in
place of transportation concurrency; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas County MetropolitanPlanning Organization created the Pinellas
County Mobility Plan to replace transportation concurrency; and
WHEREAS, The Pinellas County Mobility Plan is applicable countywide; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desiresto replace transportation concurrency with a
mobility management system approach that is multi-modal, and designed to better support
redevelopment and associated transportation, land use,intergovernmental, and capital
improvement goals; and
`
2 Ordinance No. 8805-16
WHEREAS, additional amendments are proposed to address an Interlocal Service
Boundary Agreement(ISBA)the city and Pinellas County entered into which allows voluntary
annexations of noncontiguous properties within “Type A” enclaves, as defined in the ISBA; and
WHEREAS, such ISBA should be recognized in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds it necessary, desirable and proper to adopt the
amendments to the objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan in order to reflect
changing conditions; now, therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THECITY COUNCILOF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA:
Section 1.That Policy A.2.2.6 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanFuture Land
Use Element, page A-10,be amended to read as follows:
*****
A.2.2.6The Community Development Code shall provide for safe on-site traffic circulation
and connections to adjacent arterial and collector streets consistent with Florida
Department of Transportationand, Institute of Traffic Engineers design guidelines,
and other applicable roadway design standards, policies, and guidelines.
*****
Section 2.That Goal A.4of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanFuture Land Use
Element, and its Objective and Policies,pages A-11 through A-12,be amendedto readas
follows:
A.4 GOAL –THE CITY SHALL NOT PERMIT DEVELOPMENT TO OCCUR UNLESS AN
ADEQUATE LEVEL OF SERVICE IS AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE IMPACTS
OF DEVELOPMENT. AREAS IN WHICH THE IMPACT OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
EXCEEDS THE DESIRED LEVELS OF SERVICE WILL BE UPGRADED CONSISTENT
WITH THE TARGET DATES FOR INIFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDED
IN THE APPLICABLE FUNCTIONAL PLAN ELEMENTWORK TOWARD A LAND USE
PATTERN THAT CAN BE SUPPORTED BY THE AVAILABLE COMMUNITY AND
PUBLIC FACILITIES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE THE DEVELOPMENT.
A.4.1Objective -The City shall examine and upgrade the Concurrency Management and
information system as appropriate for granting development permits. This system
shall continue to consider the current, interim, and ultimately desired Levels of
Service for roads, transit, water, sewer, garbage collection, and drainage systems and
shall provide data on sub-sectors of the City in which service deficiencies exist or in
which services are adequate to serve existing and planned new development. This
level of service status will be considered and made partof the staff recommendation
at the time of zoning, site plan, or plat approval. The level of service monitoring
system shall be adjusted, at a minimum, annually to determine adequacy of service
capacity. The City’s Concurrency Management System will ensure the compatibility
of all proposed development with the capacities of the existing and planned support
facilities for which a level of service has been adopted.
Should a requested development permit result in approvals which would burden
service systems above adopted levels, permission to proceed with the development
will not be granted until the City has assured that adequate services will be available
concurrent with the impacts of development.
`
3 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Policies
A.4.1.1No new development or redevelopment will be permitted which causes the level of
City services (roads, recreation and open space, water, sewage treatment,
garbage collection, and drainage) to fall below minimum acceptable levels.
However, development orders may be phased or otherwise modifiedconsistent
with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be
upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development.The Concurrency
Management System shallensure proposed development isin conformance with
existing and planned support facilities for which a level of service standard has
been adopted and that such facilities and services are available, at the adopted
level of service standards, concurrent with the impacts of development.
A.4.1.2The City’s Concurrency Management System shall include, atminimum, level of
service standards for parkland, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and
stormwater.
A.4.1.3The City, when making decisions on requests to amend the Future Land Use Map
or the Zoning Atlas (other than decisions on appropriate locations for mixed-use or
transit oriented development), shall review the potential impact on the
transportation system by considering the following:
a.Ability of the surrounding existing and planned transportation network to meet
the mobility objectives of the Comprehensive Plan;
b.Capacity of the surrounding existing and planned transportation network to
accommodate any projected additional demand; and
c.Extent to which the proposed Future Land Use Map amendment or rezoning
furthers the intent of the Comprehensive Plan to improve mobility.
A.4.1.24The City shall recognize the overriding Constitutional principle that private property
shall not be taken without due process of law and the payment ofjust
compensation, which principle is restated in Section 163.3194 (4) (a), Florida
Statutes.
Section 3.That Policy A.5.4.8 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanFuture Land Use
Element,page A-14,be amended to read as follows:
*****
A.5.4.8Study the establishment of transportation concurrency alternativesImplement a
Mobility Management Systemas detailedin the City’s Community Development
Code,to support higher densities along redevelopment corridors and in activity
centers.
*****
Section 4.That Policy A.7.1.2 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanFuture Land Use
Element, page A-24,be amendedto readas follows:
*****
`
4 Ordinance No. 8805-16
A.7.1.2 When evaluating and prioritizing areas to annex, consideration should be given to the
following:
*****
Whether property was given high priority in the City’s Sewer SystemExpansion
Feasibility StudyUpdate completed in 20022011;
*****
Section 5.That a new Policy A.7.2.4 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanFuture
Land Use Element, page A-25,be added,with subsequent Policies renumbered,and that Policy
A.7.2.6, as renumbered, be amended to fix a typographical error:
*****
A.7.2.4Allow voluntary annexations for noncontiguous properties that are within an enclave
as defined by Section 171.032(13)(a), Florida Statutes(“Type A” enclaves).
A.7.2.45Promote economic development programs and activities to businesses within the
unincorporated areas of the Clearwater Planning Area.
A.7.2.56Continue to work with property owners and Pinellas County to permit development
activities in the County prior to the effective date of annexation provided the
proposed development complies with the provisions of the City of Clearwater
Development Code.
Section 6.That the Transportation Needs Summary section of the Clearwater
Comprehensive PlanTransportation Element,page B-1,be amended to read as follows:
*****
Traffic Circulation& Mobility
Multi-modal transportation improvements to Clearwater Beach should continue to be
planned and/or utilized to alleviate traffic congestion and parking demands on the
Memorial Causeway and the beach.
Access management to improve traffic flow will continue to be an important issue in
development reviews, with particular emphasis on congested links.
The traffic concurrency system will continue to monitor vehicle trips on the roadway
system.
Belleair Road (CR462) and Clearwater Memorial Causeway (SR60)are physically
and/or environmentally constrained and will continue to operate below the
acceptable levels-of-service.
The City will continue to work with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Tampa Bay Area Regional
Transportation Authority (TBARTA), Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) and
other agencies to promote transportation alternatives and demand management.
create and maintain a multi-modal transportation system that is safe and efficient for
all users, including bicyclists, pedestriansand transit users, as well as motorists.
`
5 Ordinance No. 8805-16
*****
Section 7.That the Traffic Circulation section of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element, page B-3,be renamedas follows:
TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & MOBILITY
Section 8.That Goal B.1 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanTransportation
Element, page B-3, be amended anda new Objective B.1.1 and its Policiesbe addedtoread as
follows, withsubsequent Objectives and Policies renumbered:
B.1 GOAL -THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SYSTEMTHE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THE
A SAFE,CONVENIENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF PEOPLE AND
GOODS BY A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMTHAT SERVES TO
INCREASE MOBILITY, EFFICIENTLY UTILIZE ROADWAY CAPACITY, REDUCE THE
INCIDENCE OF SINGLE-OCCUPANT VEHICLE TRAVEL, REDUCE THE
CONTRIBUTION TO AIR POLLUTION FROM MOTOR VEHICLES, AND IMPROVE THE
QUALITY OF LIFE TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER.
B.1.1Objective –Maintain the major road network performance within the City while
furthering development of a multi-modal transportation system that increases
mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users as well as for motorists.
Policies
B.1.1.1The City shall implement theMobility Management System within the City’s
Community Development Code.The impacts of land development projects shall be
managed through the application of Transportation Element policies, through
requirements of the Community Development Code, and through the site plan review
process. The Mobility Management System shall address the following:
a.All development projects generating new peak hour trips shall be subject to
payment of a multi-modal impact fee.
b.Development projects that generate between 51 and 300 newpeak hour trips of
deficient roads shall be classified as tier 1 and required to submit a transportation
management plan (TMP) designed to address their impacts while increasing
mobility and reducingdemand for single occupant vehicle travel.
c.Development projects that generate more than 300 new peak hour trips on
deficient roads shall be classified as tier 2, required to conduct a traffic impact
study, and submit an accompanying report and TMP based on the report
findings.
d.Multi-modal impact fee assessments may be applied as credit toward the cost of
a TMP.
e.A traffic study and/or TMP for a development project not impacting a deficient
road corridor shall be required if necessary to address the impact of additional
trips generated by the project on the surrounding traffic circulation system.
`
6 Ordinance No. 8805-16
B.1.1.2The City shall continue to use roadway levels of service for planning purposes.
B.1.1.3The Capital Improvements Elementshall include reference to“deficient” roadways,
as identified through the most recent version of the annual Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) Level of Service Report, including facilities operating at peak
hour level of service (LOS) E and F and/or volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio 0.9 or
greater without a mitigating improvement scheduled for construction within three
years.
B.1.1.4The City shall utilize multi-modal impact fee revenue to fund multi-modal
improvements to local, county, or state facilities that are consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan as well as the MPO Long Range Transportation Plan 2040.
B.1.1.5The City shall work cooperatively with the MPO and other local governments to
complete the biennial update of the Multi-modal Impact Fee Ordinance through the
MPO planning process.
B.1.1.6The City shall continue to work with the Pinellas SuncoastTransit Authority (PSTA)
to increase the efficiency of the fixed-route system by encouraging mass transit use
through the application of the Mobility Management System and the City’s site plan
review process.
Section 9.ThatObjective B.1.2 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanTransportation
Element, as renumbered by this ordinance, page B-3, and its Policies be amended, and Policies
B.1.2.3 through B.1.2.8 be added to read as follows, with subsequent Objectives and Policies
renumbered:
B.1.12Objective –Every expansion or extension of arterial and collector streets shall be
constructed consistent with Florida Department of Transportation engineering
standards. Future improvements to arterial and collector streets shall include, where,
possible, enhanced design to accommodate bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Future
improvements to arterial and collector streets shall be context-sensitive by planning
and designing the roadway based on the existing context of the surrounding built
environment and theplanned land use vision.
B.1.12.1The City shall continue to administer access management and right-of-way
requirements through the Community Development Code.
B.1.12.2The City will promote programs that ensure physical safety of non-motorized
transportation users in accordance with the City’s Shifting Gears: Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan.
B.1.2.3The City will operate, maintain, and improve the City transportation system
consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation’s(FDOT)Complete Streets
Policy.
B.1.2.4The City shall coordinate efforts with FDOT to incorporate bicycle and pedestrian-
friendly provisions in the design and construction of expansion and resurfacing
projects on State roads, where feasible.
B.1.2.5The City shall require land development projects to make adequate provisions for
bicycle parking and storage as appropriate.
`
7 Ordinance No. 8805-16
B.1.2.6The City shall includesidewalks where feasible alongside roadways scheduled for
resurfacing.
B.1.2.7The City shall install landscaping along sidewalks using tree canopy, where
feasible, to provide shaded areas for pedestrians.
B.1.2.8The City shall incorporate livable community requirementssuch as Objective A.6.8
and its Policiesto proposed developments or redevelopments.
*****
Section 10.That Objective B.1.3 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanTransportation
Element,pages B-3 and B-4,and its Policies be amendedas follows, with subsequent Objectives
and Policies renumbered:
B.1.34Objective -The City will continue to monitor traffic counts, accidents, and road
improvements, to provide timely status evaluation of level of service conditionsfor
issuance of development approvals.
Policies
B.1.34.1The City will continue to review potential trips generated by Rrequests for
amendment to the Future Land Use Mapwill have an analysis of traffic impacts.
B.1.3.2The City’s Traffic Concurrency Management System will continue to monitor
roadways’ level-of-service (LOS) consistent with specific procedures and
requirements in the Community Development Code, to issue and track certificates of
concurrency/capacity, along with required traffic impact studies and mitigation
strategies for any development which may degrade the acceptable level of service of
an affected transportation facility, and required documentation of the 110% de
minimis transportation impact threshold as per 163.3180, F.S.
B.1.34.32The concurrencyMobilitymManagement sSystem will be enhancedapplied
through improved departmental coordination.and the proactive identification and
resolution of level of serviceconcerns.
Section 11.That Policies B.1.4.1through B.1.4.7of the Clearwater Comprehensive
PlanTransportation Element, pages B-4 and B-5,be amended to read as follows, with
subsequent Objectives and Policies renumbered:
Policies
B.1.45.1The City shall continue to review trips generated by land development projects
through the Traffic Concurrency Management ProgramMobility Management
System.
B.1.45.2For those roads which are not currently operating at an acceptable LOS, or which do
not have programmed improvements to upgrade service to an acceptable levela
mitigating improvement scheduled for construction within three years, the
concurrencyMobilitymManagement sSystemshall be used to monitor traffic growth,
`
8 Ordinance No. 8805-16
with the dual intent of maintaining average operating speeds and restricting the
aggregate and individual trips generated by development in the City limits.
B.1.4.3The concurrency management system shall address thresholds in applying the
standards for determining concurrency, and shall consider mitigation of impacts and
alternative means to maintain acceptable traffic flows as alternatives to denying a
development permit.
B.1.4.4The City shall explore transportation concurrency alternatives, such as Multimodal
Transportation Districts (MMTD’s), for downtown, Clearwater Beach and/or other
potential redevelopment areas or activity centers, to incorporate community design
features that reduce vehicular usage while supporting an integrated multimodal
transportation system.
B.1.45.53If an alternative to transportation concurrency is being considered for a designated
redevelopment and/or revitalization area that requires approval by the State, it
Redevelopment and/or revitalization projects shall be coordinated with the FDOT
and the Department of Community Affairs (DCA)Department of Economic
Opportunity (DEO) to assess impacts on US 19.
B.1.4.6When a development results in traffic generation volumes causing a degradation of
service below D in the pm peak hour, the City shall require transportation facilities to
be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after issuance of a building
permit, in accordance with the City’s Proportionate Fair Share Program.
B.1.45.74The City shall cooperate with the MPO to ensure consistency between
comprehensive plan amendments and the Pinellas MPO Long Range Transportation
Plan (LRTP) 20252040.
Section 12.That Objective B.1.5 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanTransportation
Element, page B-5, and its Policiesbe deleted:
B.1.5Objective -All County roadways in Clearwater, except those identified as backlogged
or constrained by the Pinellas County MPO, shall operate at level C average daily/D peak
hour.
Policies
B.1.5.1Acceptable peak-hourLevels-of-Service for arterial and collector streets as listed in
the MPO’s current “Level-of-Service Inventory Report” are the desired minimum
levels.
B.1.5.2The City shall provide the MPO with available up-to-date traffic data, such as signal
timingsand traffic counts to assist with level-of-service monitoring and development
of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan.
B.1.5.3Due to unique conditions of the natural and built environments, and/or seasonal
traffic demand, Belleair Road and Clearwater Memorial Causeway shall be
considered environmentally constrained facilities.
`
9 Ordinance No. 8805-16
B.1.5.4The City shall ensure that comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the
Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) statewide minimum levels of service
standards for roadway facilities.
B.1.5.5The City shall continue to participate with the MPO and/or its Technical Coordinating
Committee (TCC) to ensure that the level of service standard for US Highway 19, a
Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) facility is consistent with FDOT’s LOS designation
of D for this road.
B.1.5.6Recognize the LOS standard of C average daily/D peak hour and volume/capacity
ratio of 0.9 on roads under county jurisdiction, in accordance with the MPO’s
countywide concurrency management standards.
Section 13.That Objective B.2.1 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanTransportation
Element, page B-6,be amended,and PolicyB.2.1.2 be addedto read as follows:
B.2.1Objective -Roadway improvements to obtain desired Levels of Service must be
included in State, County, and City capital budgets. The City shall actively
participate, on a continuing basis, with both the staff and elected official support, in
the preparation, adoption and implementation of transportation plans and
expenditure programs of the M.P.O.MPO, P.S.T.A.PSTA, Board of County
Commissioners, and the F.D.O.TFDOT.
B.2.1.1The City shall review and comment on the proposed capital improvement programs
and provide input to the adopting agencies relative to consistency with Clearwater's
Comprehensive Plan.
B.2.1.2The City shall provide the MPO with available up-to-date traffic data, such as signal
timings and traffic counts to assist with level-of-service monitoring and development
of the MPO’s Long Range Transportation Plan.
Section 14.That Objective B.2.3of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanTransportation
Element, page B-8,be amended, and that Policy B.2.3.2 be deletedas follows:
B.2.3Objective -The City of Clearwater shall annually update the City’s Transportation
Improvement Program to include projects that increase the capacity of roadways,
andcoordinate with and provide input in the update of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization’s (MPO) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) involving County
and State roads. The following transportation improvement projects that will
enhance road capacity are scheduled for construction within City, County and State
work programs for FY2008/09-2012/13:
Sunset Point Road US 19A to Keene Road County
Summary: Construct to a 2 lane divided urban arterial roadway
McMullen Booth Road at Drew Street County
Summary: Construct southbound right turn lane and extend left turn lanes
McMullen Booth Road at Enterprise Road County
Summary: Construct northbound to eastbound right turn lane and receiving lane
`
10 Ordinance No. 8805-16
US Highway 19 From: N of Whitney Rd. to S of Seville Blvd.State
Summary: Construct northbound to eastbound right turn lane and receiving lane
US Highway 19 From: S of Seville Blvd. to N of SR 60 State
Summary: Reconstruct US 19 w/Frontage Rd., Seville Interchange
Policies
B.2.3.1Road improvements which are currently programmed for construction should be
continued in the Capital Improvement Element of the jurisdiction having operational
responsibility for those roads.
B.2.3.2When designing roadway improvements, the City will consider incorporating
pedestrian and bicycle facilities if physically and financially feasible.
Section 15.That Objective B.4.4 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation
Element, page B-14, and Policies B.4.4.1 and B.4.4.2 be amended to read as follows:
B.4.4Objective –The City shall participate and cooperate with agencies and committees to
enhance andpromote the use of mass transitpublic transportation system.
B.4.4.1Clearwater shall coordinate with PSTA and the MPO in the continued adoption
developmentof the Five-Year Transit Development ProgramPlanto address transit
needs consistent with adopted lever-of-service policies and transit planning
guidelines.identify and include transit improvements that benefit the City.
B.4.4.2Clearwater will cooperate with PSTA and the MPO to improve the transit system to
coincide with the improvement detailed in the year 2010 and 2015 most current
version of the Long Range Mass Transit Plans.identify transit improvements that
could be incorporated as part of corridor plans or development projects.
*****
Section 16.That Objective E.1.5 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanCoastal
Management Element, page E-5, be amended to read as follows:
E.1.5Objective-Llevel of service standards as defined in the functional elements of the
Comprehensive Plan (traffic,public utilities, recreation and open space), are
established and are recognized as applicable to the coastal storm area.
Section 17.That Objective E.1.6 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Coastal
Management Element, page E-5, be amended to read as follows, and that new Policies E.1.6.2 and
E.1.6.3 be added to read as follows, with subsequent Policies renumbered:
E.1.6Objective -Development and Rredevelopmentareas established in the coastal storm
area should address the needs and opportunities unique to those locations.
E.1.6.1Redevelopment proposals and plans shall be reviewed for compliance with the
goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and other appropriate
plans including Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach and
Design Guidelines and the City’s NFIP Community Rating System Floodplain
Management Plan.
`
11 Ordinance No. 8805-16
E.1.6.2New development or redevelopment is encouragedto include principles, strategies,
or engineering solutions that:
a.reduce the flood risk in the coastal areas which results from high-tide events,
storm surge, flash floods, stormwater runoff, and the related impacts of sea-level
rise;
b.may reduce losses dueto flooding and claims made under flood insurance
policies issued in this state.
E.1.6.3New development or redevelopment shall be consistent with, or more stringent than,
the flood-resistant construction requirements in the Florida Building Code and
applicable flood plain management regulations set forth in 44 C.F.R. part 60.
*****
Section 18.That the Intergovernmental Coordination Needs Summary of the Clearwater
Comprehensive PlanIntergovernmental Coordination Element, page H-1,be amended to read as
follows:
Intergovernmental Coordination Needs Summary
The following summarizes the Intergovernmental Coordination Element:
*****
Road improvements,andbacklogged facilities, and levels of serviceneed the coordination
of all jurisdictions along the corridor in establishing and maintaining appropriate land use
and traffic policies. Coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)is
also a major issue to be addressed by continued participation in the M.P.O.process. In
addition, Clearwater should continue to be involved with the Tampa Bay Area Regional
Transportation Authority (TBARTA) planningprocess.
*****
Section 19.That Objective H.2.2 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan
Intergovernmental Coordination Element, page H-4, anditsPoliciesbe amended,and Policy
H.2.2.3 be added to read as follows:
H.2.2Objective -The City shall adopt the F.D.O.T.FDOTlevel of service standards for State
primary and secondary arterials as they may be modified by additional service
designations (special transportation areas, etc.) approved by F.D.O.T.FDOT and shall
use intergovernmental coordination agreements to secure maximum City control
over access and managementof roads in Clearwater.
Policies
H.2.2.1The City shall continue to cooperate with F.D.O.T.FDOT in all matters of traffic
signal access requests that affect the State highway system.
H.2.2.2Clearwater shall provide F.D.O.T.FDOT with annual reports that document efforts at
concurrency management on State roads.
H.2.2.3The City will consult with FDOT with regard to the access onto State facilities for new
land development projects.
`
12 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Section 20.That the Capital Improvements Element Needs Summary of the Clearwater
Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element, page I-1, be deleted as follows:
Capital Improvements Element Needs Summary
The following section highlights several current capital improvement projects and their respective
funding sources supported in the other ComprehensivePlan elements and specified in the City’s
six-year schedule of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The CIP is updated and adopted
annually by the City Council:
The $2.5 million Bayshore Boulevard Realignment Project is planned in FY2012/13. This project
will eliminate a dangerous curve just north of Drew Street on heavily traveled Bayshore
Boulevard. Funding is Penny for Pinellas III.
The City’s Streets and Sidewalks Program is currently budgeted for $11.165 million in the six-
year CIP schedule with a funding source of road millage.
The City proposes a total of $29.709 million of improvements within the City’s Stormwater
Infrastructure Program over the six-year CIP period. The funding sources for this project are the
Stormwater Fund and a future bond issue.
The $1.620 million Commercial Container Acquisition CIP project is planned through Solid
Waste funds.
The $1.2 million Reclaimed Water Distribution System CIP project is being funded through water
funds.
The $9.885 million Sanitary Sewer Extensions CIP project is being funded through: $1.642
million from Sewer Impact, $4.101 million through Utility Renewal and Replacement, and $4.142
through Sewer Revenue.
The $23.883 million Parks Development projects over the six-year CIP period are being funded
through Penny III funds, General Fund, various grants, FDOT reimbursement, and Sports
Events Revenue.
Section 21.That Objective I.1.1 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital
Improvements Element, page I-2, and Policies I.1.1.2, I.1.1.5, I.1.1.9, I.1.1.11, and I.1.1.12 be
amended to read as follows:
I.1.1 Objective –The Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the Comprehensive Plan of
the City of Clearwater shall be reviewed and adoptedannually in light of the needs
addressed in various elements of the Comprehensive Plan including the fifth year
needsof each subsequent adoption.
*****
I.1.1.2 The Aannual Uupdateto the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Capital
Improvements Elementis hereby incorporated by reference and is located following
pPolicy I.1.6.3.
*****
`
13 Ordinance No. 8805-16
I.1.1.5 Capital improvementsprojects proposed for inclusion in the schedule of capital
improvements should be evaluated on the following criteria and considered in the
priority listed below:
*****
I.1.1.9 As stated in the City Charter, the total indebtednessof the City of Clearwater, which
for the purpose of this limitation shall include revenue, refunding and improvement
bonds, of the City of Clearwatershall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the current
assessed valuation of all real property located in the City; and the. Ttotal budgeted
expenditures in any fiscal year shall not exceed the total estimated revenue plus any
unencumbered funds carried forward from a prior fiscal year.
*****
I.1.1.11The City hereby adopts by reference the Florida Departmentof Transportation Five-
Year Work Program, 2011 –2015, adopted on July 1, 2010.The City will coordinate
with the FDOT and the Pinellas County MPO to promote the inclusion of projects in
the plans and programs of these agencies into the Five-Year Scheduleof Capital
Improvements.
I.1.1.12The City hereby adopts by reference the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning
Organization Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2010/11 –2014/15, adopted
on June 9, 2010.
Section 22.That Policy I.1.3.1 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanCapital
Improvements Element, page I-5,be amended to read as follows:
I.1.3.1 Essential public facilities as defined in this plan include and are limited to those
facilities relating to sanitary sewer, solid waste, stormwater, potable water,
transportation, and parks and recreation systems.
*****
Section 23.That Policy I.1.3.3 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanCapital
Improvements Element, page I-5,be amended to read as follows:
I.1.3.3 If it is determined that sufficient capacity of essential public facilities will be available
concurrent with the impacts of a proposed development, a final development order
may be issued in accordance with the following schedule:
*****
3. For roads and mass transit, transportation facilities needed to serve new development
shall be in place or under actual construction within 3 years after the City approves a building permit
that results in traffic generation.
Section 24.That Policy I.1.3.5 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements
Element, page I-6, be amended to read as follows:
I.1.3.5An applicant for a development order may request a determination of the capacity of the
essential public facilities as part of the review and approval of the development order
provided that:
*****
`
14 Ordinance No. 8805-16
(c)Whenever an applicant’s pro rata share of a public facility is less than the full cost of
the facility; the City shall do one of the following:
i.contract with the applicant for the full cost of the facility including terms regarding
reimbursement of the applicant for costs in excess of the applicant’s pro rata
share; or
ii.obtain assurances similar to those in subsection (b) above from other sources; or
iii.amend this comprehensive plan to modify the adopted standard for the level of
service so as to reduce the required facility to equal the applican’ts needs,
exluding Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), Gederal Intrastate Highway System
(FIHS), and Transportation Regional Impact Project (TRIP) funded state roads.
Section 25.That Table: Summary of Level of Service Standards in Policy I.1.3.7of the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element, page I-7, be amended to read as
follows:
Table: Summary of Level of Service Standards
Facilities Element LOS Standard
Transportation Transportation LOS C daily and LOS D pm peak for all roads
in the City.
Sanitary Sewer Utilities Average of 127gallons per person per day
(GPCD)
Solid Waste Utilities Average Solid Waste Generator Rate of 7.12
pounds per capita per day
Stormwater Utilities Design storm:
10 –year storm frequency for all new street
developmentsusing the rational design method
for street drainage, storm systems, and
culverts
25 –yearstormfrequencywith positive outfall
for major storm systems with basin time of
intensities controlling the duration.*for all new
developments for channels and detention
areas with outfalls
50 –year storm frequency when no outfall and
discharge is to street right-of-way.*for all new
developments for detention areas without
outfalls
100 –year storm frequency when no outfall
and discharge is across private property.*for all
new developments for detention areas without
outfalls which overflow onto private property
when capacity is exceeded
* Design standards for stormwater quality
treatment/storage quantity shall conform to the
current SWFWMD requirement [Presently
being the SCS Unit Hydrograph design
method, using the design storm frequency and
a twenty-four (24) hour duration for sites ten
`
15 Ordinance No. 8805-16
(10) acres or more, and the rational design
method for sites under ten (10) acres].
Potable Water
and Natural
Ground Water
Aquifer
Recharge
Utilities Average Water Consumption Rate
120 gallons per capita per day at apressure of
40-45 psi.*
*Continue to maintain water consumption of
one hundred twenty (120) GPCPD or less as
per the conditions set forth by Clearwater’s
Water Use Permit.
Hurricane
Evacuation
Coastal
Management
16 hours (out of county for a category 5-storm
event as measured on the Saffir-Simpson
scale)
Parks Recreation
and Open
Space
4 acres of parkland per one thousand (1,000)
persons for Citywide application
Section 26.That a new PolicyI.1.4.8of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanCapital
Improvements Element,page I-8,be added to read as follows:
Policies
*****
I.1.4.8 The City will continue to use roadway level of service for planning purposes.
Section 27.That Policy I.1.5.1 of the Clearwater Comprehensive PlanCapital
Improvements Element, page I-8,be deleted as follows,and that Policy I.1.5.4, page I-9, be
amended to read as follows, withPolicies renumbered:
Policies
I.1.5.1 In 1990, the City instituted a concurrency management ordinance for the
thoroughfare system, which states that sufficient capacity exists prior to certificate of
occupancy. The City shall continue to work with Pinellas County MPO on updates to
the LOS report to ensure the continued monitoring of the LOS using data available
from the computerized traffic signal system. This system shall continue to include
access management considerations such as: requiring issuance of applicable
driveway permits from the FDOT as a condition for final site plan approval, inclusion
of access points on non-residential collector streets wherever possible, and may
require grouping of driveways, restriction of curb cuts or restrictions or phasing of
development as a condition of approval.
I.1.5.21The City shall recognize the overriding Constitutional principle that private property
shall not be taken without due process of law and the payment of just compensation,
which principle is restated in Section 163.3194 (4) (a) Florida Statutes.
I.1.5.32In the planning of capital improvements, the City shall consider the effect of such
improvement on local resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places
with the intent to preserve the integrity of such places.
I.1.5.43In the planning of capital improvements, the City shall consider the effects of
controversial public facilities, such as landfills, prisons, and power lines, with the
intent of locating them in areas where they may best serve their purpose and have
the fewest negative impacts.
`
16 Ordinance No. 8805-16
I.1.5.54The City will require developersdevelopmenttoprovide necessary documentation
as applicable for tracking purposes to assure that the de minimis transportation
impact threshold has been metbe consistent with the provisions of the Mobility
Management System established in Goal B.1 of the Transportation Element.
Section 28.That the Annual Update to the Capital Improvements Element of the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element, page I-10through I-14, be
amended to read as follows:
FY20105/116ANNUAL UPDATE TO THE SCHEDULE OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT
*****
In the following, the concurrency-related public facilities (i.e., solid waste, potable water, stormwater,
sanitary sewer,andparklandand roads)are evaluated to determine that the City’s adopted level of
service (LOS) standards are currently being met and will be adequate to serve approved and
planned development over the next five years. The adopted Clearwater Capital Improvement
Program, FY2010/11 –FY2015-16–FY2019/20indicates the timing, location and funding of capital
projects needed to meet future public facilities’demands and demonstrate that the Comprehensive
Plan is financially feasible.
*****
Current populations (20082015estimate):110,831110,679
Projected 2018 populations (per Future Land use Element):120,028
SOLID WASTE:
Current Capacity: 7.12 lbs per capita per day
Current demand: 5.194.89lbs per capita per day
Fiscal Year Projected
Demand (lbs per
capita per day)
Projected
Capacity (lbs per
capita per day)
Surplus
(deficit)
2009/10 5.19 7.12 1.93
2010/11 5.19 7.12 1.93
2011/12 5.19 7.12 1.93
2012/13 5.19 7.12 1.93
2013/14 5.19 7.12 1.93
Totals (2013/14)5.19 7.12 1.93
Fiscal Year Projected
Demand (lbs per
capita per day)
Projected
Capacity (lbs per
capita per day)
Surplus
(Deficit)
2015/16 4.89 7.12 2.23
2016/17 4.89 7.12 2.23
2017/18 4.89 7.12 2.23
2018/19 4.89 7.12 2.23
2019/20 4.89 7.12 2.23
Totals (2019/20)4.89 7.12 2.23
*****
Total solid waste generated by the City in 2008 (in tons):104,898
`
17 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Current pounds of solid waste per capita per day:5.194.89
*The current capacity is based on the City’s solid waste LOS standard. Capacity is actually greater
since the City’s Solid Waste Department is able to dispose of all waste produced within the City, as
it coordinates with Pinellas County and other private facilities and vendorsfor waste disposal. The
majority (80-85%) of all sSolid waste is disposed of at the Pinellas County SolidWaste to Energy
Plant where most is incinerated and any remaining material is landfilled. According to the Pinellas
County Technical Management Committee, the most recent projections take the life of the county
landfill to year 2065.
POTABLE WATER:
Current capacity: 2523.5MGD
Current demand: 12.211.4MGD
Fiscal Year Projected
Demand
(Maximum)
Projected
Capacity
(Minimum)
Surplus
(Deficit)
2009/10 12.0 MGD 25.0 MGD 13.0 MGD
2010/11 12.1 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.9 MGD
2011/12 12.1 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.9 MGD
2012/13 12.2 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.8 MGD
2013/14 12.2 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.8 MGD
Totals (2013/14)12.2 MGD 25.0 MGD 12.8 MGD
Fiscal Year Projected
Demand
(Maximum)
Projected
Capacity
(Minimum)
Surplus
(Deficit)
2015/16 11.4 20.75 9.36
2016/17 11.4 20.75 9.36
2017/18 11.5 20.75 9.35
2018/19 11.5 20.75 9.35
2019/20 11.6 20.75 9.34
Totals (2019/20)11.6 20.75 9.34
MGD = million gallons per day; Projections as per the City’s Water Master Plan.
Potable water LOS standard:120 gallons per capita per day
Current capacity:
Total potable water available per day in gallons:25,000,00023,500,000(25.023.5MGD)
Gallons available per capita per day:225.56
Current demand:
Total potable water consumption per day in gallons:12,000,00011,400,000(12.011.4MGD)
Gallons consumed per capita per day:108.27
STORMWATER:
Current capacity: 10-year LOS standard
Current demand: 10-year LOS standard
`
18 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Fiscal Year Projected
Demand
(Minimum)
Projected
Capacity
(Minimum)
Surplus
(Deficit)
2009/10 10-Year LOS 10-Year LOS N/A*
2010/11 10-Year LOS 10-Year LOS N/A*
2011/12 10-Year LOS 10-Year LOS N/A*
2012/13 10-Year LOS 10-Year LOS N/A*
2013/14 10-Year LOS 10-Year LOS N/A*
Totals (2013/14)10-Year LOS 10-Year LOS N/A*
Stormwater LOS standard:Design storm –10-year storm frequency for
all new street development using the rational
design method.
Current capacity:10-year LOS standard (Min.)*
Current demand 10-year LOS standard (Min.)*
Total:10-year LOS standard (Min.)*
*Stormwater management is reviewed on a permit-by-permit basis. The City only approves if a
proposed development meets the LOS standards for stormwater management facilities listed
above.
Stormwater LOS Standard:No adverse impacts to existing floodplain elevations and no
increase in stormwater flow rate leaving a site.
Notes:
1.The City of Clearwater Drainage Design Criteria was updated in September 2015 which
specifies the design storms for new development in theCity.
Design Storm
10-year storm frequency for all new developments for street drainage, storm systems,
and culverts
25-year storm frequency for all new developments for channels and detention areas
with outfalls
50-year storm frequency for all new developments for detention areas without outfalls
100-year storm frequency for all new developments for detention areas without outfalls
which overflow onto private property when capacity is exceeded
Design standards for stormwater quality treatment/storage quantity shall conform to
the current SWFWMD requirement [Presently being the SCS Unit Hydrograph design
method, using the design storm frequency and a twenty-four (24) hour duration for
sites ten (10) acres or more, and the rational design method for sites under ten (10)
acres].
2.Development plans are reviewed for stormwater on a permit-by-permit basis.The City only
approves a development if it meets the LOS standards per the City’s design criteria.
`
19 Ordinance No. 8805-16
3.Major watersheds within the City Limits with Watershed Master Plans are Alligator Creek,
Allen’s Creek, and Stevenson Creek. The City also includes Coastal Zones 1-4 , the Beach
Zone and to a lesser extent, Curlew Creek, Possum Creek, Bishop Creek, and Mullet Creek.
4.In establishing Capital Improvement Projects for City projects, projects are determined
through the number of structures removed from the 100-year floodplain and improvements in
roadway level of service with consideration for regional needs and cost benefit.
SANITARY SEWER:
Current capacity: 257 gallons per capita per day
Current demand: 127113gallons per capita per day
Fiscal Year Projected
Demand
(Maximum)
Projected
Capacity
(Minimum)
Surplus
(Deficit)
2009/102015/16 14.112.5MGD 28.5 MGD 14.416.0
MGD
2010/112016/17 14.212.5MGD 28.5 MGD 14.316.0
MGD
2011/122017/18 14.212.5MGD 28.5 MGD 14.316.0
MGD
2012/132018/19 14.312.5MGD 28.5 MGD 14.216.0
MGD
2013/142019/20 14.312.6MGD 28.5 MGD 14.215.9
MGD
Totals (2013/14
2019/20)
14.3 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.215.9
MGD
MGD = million gallons per day; Projections as per the City’s Water Pollution Control (WPC)
Master Plan.
Sanitary sewer LOS standard:127 gallons per capita per day
Current capacity (in gallons):28,500,000
Gallons available per capita per day 257.14257.50
Current demand:14,100,00012,500,000
Gallons available per capita per day 127.22112.94
PARKLAND:
Current capacity: 13.31acres per 1,000 personsCurrent parkland acres: 1,711
Current parkland acres per 1,000 persons:15.46
Current demand: 4 acres per 1,000 personsMinimum parkland acresto meet adopted LOS:
442.72
Fiscal Year Projected
DemandAdopted
Level of Service
(Maximum)
Projected
Capacity
(Minimum)
Surplus
(Deficit)
2009/102015/16 4 per 1,000 13.3115.46per
1,000
9.3111.46per
1,000
2010/112016/17 4 per 1,000 13.3115.46per 9.3111.46per
`
20 Ordinance No. 8805-16
1,000 1,000
2011/122017/18 4 per 1,000 13.3115.46per
1,000
9.3111.46per
1,000
2012/132018/19 4 per 1,000 13.3115.46per
1,000
9.3111.46per
1,000
2013/142019/20 4per 1,000 13.3115.46per
1,000
9.3111.46per
1,000
Totals 4 per 1,000 13.3115.46per
1,000
9.3111.46per
1,000
Parkland LOS standard:4 acres per 1,000 people
Current capacity (parkland acres as of 05/13/0911/30/15):1,4751,711acres @ 13.31
15.89per 1,000 persons.
Note: Parkland is calculated using parklands that are within City boundaries that are owned
and/or operated by the City.
Current demand:440 430.74acres @ 4 per 1,000
persons
Total (acres/per thousand persons):1,4751,711acres @ 13.3115.89per
1,000 persons
ROADS:
Roadway LOS standard:C Average Daily, D Peak Hour
Arterial and collector roadways currently operating below the adopted peak hourLOS standard
include:The most current edition of the Pinellas County MPO Level of Service Report identifies
roadways operating with deficient levels of service. Deficient facilities are those roads operating
at a peak hour level of service of E or F, and/or a volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.9 or greater
with no mitigating improvements scheduled within three years.
#Roadway Segment Juris1 Road
Type
Length
(mi)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
2009 Level
of Service
590 Belleair Rd (US 19 to Keene)2 3 CR 2U 1.969 0.86 E
800 Ft Harrison Ave (Belleair to Chestnut)3 CL 2D 1.551 1.24 F
802 Ft Harrison Ave (Chestnut to Drew)3 CL 2D 0.498 1.18 F
985 McMullen Booth Rd (Gulf to Bay to
Main)2 3 CR 6D 2.267 1.24 F
986 McMullen Booth Rd (Main to SR 580) 2 3 CR 6D 2.042 1.27 F
987 McMullen Booth Rd (SR 580 to SR 586)
2 CR 6D 1.768 1.09 F
1025 NE Coachman Rd (Drew to US 19)SR 2U 1.741 1.14 F
672 SR 60 (Hillsborough CL to Bayshore) 3 SR 4D 5.235 1.46 F
844 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd(Highland to
Keene)3 SR 6D 0.756 0.97 E5
845 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd (Keene to
Belcher)3 SR 6D 1.026 1.15 F
846 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd (Bayshore to
US19)3 SR 6D 1.512 1.21 F
`
21 Ordinance No. 8805-16
#Roadway Segment Juris1 Road
Type
Length
(mi)
Volume/
Capacity
Ratio
2009 Level
of Service
847 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd (US 19 to
Belcher)3 SR 6D 0.986 1.15 F
1253 US 19 (Belleair to Druid/Seville)4 SR 6D 1.210 1.73 F5
1256 US 19 (Sunset Point to Enterprise)4 SR 6D 1.333 1.66 F5
Notes:
1.CR –County road; CL –City of Clearwater; SR –State road.
2.Policy constrained roadway per the 2035 Pinellas County Long Range Transportation Plan.
3.Related capacity improvement identified in the Pinellas County Transportation Improvement
Program, FY 2010–FY 2015.
4.Related capacity improvement identified in the Florida Department of Transportation Five-
Year Work Program, FY 2011-2015.
5.2025level of service projections indicate improvement to LOS D.
Source: Facility Level of Service Analysis, Pinellas County MPO, 2009
Arterial and collector roadways projected to operate below the adopted LOS standard in 2025are
listed below. Note: The Pinellas MPO does not calculate interim year LOS projections (e.g.,
2015), therefore, 2025data is used.
#Roadway Segment Juris1 Road
Type
Length
(mi)
Year
2025
AADT2
2025 Level
of Service
515 US Alt 19/Edgewater (Myrtle to
Broadway SR 2U 2.091 24712 F
582 Belcher Rd (Gulf to Bay to NE
Coachman)CR 4U 0.805 33477 F
590 Belleair Rd (US 19 to Keene) 3 CR 2U 1.969 19000 E
634 Chestnut St (Court St Conn. to Ft
Harrison)SR 2O 0.225 23000 F
635 Chestnut St (Ft Harrison to Myrtle)SR 4O 0.252 23000 F
643 Cleveland St (Ft Harrison to Myrtle)CL 2D 0.247 10186 E
669 Court St (Missouri to Highland)SR 4D 0.755 32256 F
670 Court St (Ft Harrison to Oak)SR 3O 0.105 24164 F
671 Court St (Oak to Chestnut St
Connection)SR 3O 0.048 29025 F
736 Drew St (Missouri to Highland)SR 4U 0.794 14248 E
749 Druid Rd ( Keene to Highland)CL 2U 0.774 14248 E
800 Ft Harrison Ave (Belleair to Chestnut)CL 2D 1.551 33000 F
802 Ft Harrison Ave (Chestnut to Drew)CL 2D 0.498 28666 F
866 Highland Ave (Druid to Belleair)CR 2U 0.253 16795 F
867 Highland Ave (Druid to Gulf to Bay)CR 4U 0.253 17882 F
912 Keene Rd (Drew to Sunset Point)CR 6D 1.518 38000 F
913 Keene Rd (Sunset Point to SR 580)CR 6D 2.032 38000 F
`
22 Ordinance No. 8805-16
#Roadway Segment Juris1 Road
Type
Length
(mi)
Year
2025
AADT2
2025 Level
of Service
985 McMullen Booth Rd (Gulf to Bay to
Main) 3 CR 6D 2.267 82466 F
986 McMullen Booth Rd (Main to SR 580) 3 CR 6D 2.042 83112 F
987 McMullen Booth Rd (SR 580 to SR 586)
3 CR 6D 1.768 73631 F
995 Memorial Cswy (Rnd-about to Island
Way) 3 SR 4D 0.447 52000 F
997/8 Memorial Cswy (Court to Cleveland) 3 SR 4D 1.28 52000 F
1025 NE Coachman Rd (Drew to US 19)SR 2U 1.741 23244 F
1026 NE Coachman Rd (US 19 to McMullen
Bth)SR 2U 1.267 19992 F
1036 Nursery Rd (US 19 to Belcher)CR 2U 0.916 15000 F
1037 Nursery Rd (Belcher to Keene)CR 2U 1.008 12000 F
1038 Nursery Rd (Keene to Highland)CR 2U 0.773 12000 F
1216 Sunset Point Rd (Keene to Belcher)CR 4D 1.098 44321 F
1217 Sunset Point Rd (Belcher to US 19)CR 4D 0.959 37549 F
672 SR 60 (Hillsborough CL to Bayshore)SR 4D 5.235 68616 F
845 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd (Keene to
Belcher)SR 6D 1.026 63237 F
846 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd (Bayshore to US
19)SR 6D 1.512 65846 F
847 SR 60/Gulf to Bay Blvd (US 19 to
Belcher)SR 6D 0.986 60500 F
1258 US 19 (SR 580 to Curlew)SR 6D 2.035 95502 F
Notes:
1.CR –County road; CL –City of Clearwater; SR –State road.
2.AADT –Annual Average Daily Traffic.
3.Policy constrained roadway per the 2035Pinellas County Long Range Transportation Plan or
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Source: Year 2025AADT Traffic Forecast and PM Peak Level Of Service, Pinellas County MPO,
2009.
`
24 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Section 29.That the Capital Improvement Program Revenue Summary of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital
Improvements Element, page I-15through I-17, be repealed andreplaced to read as follows:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUE SUMMARY
FY 2010-2011 THROUGH FY 2015-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CITY OF CLEARWATER
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total
GENERAL SOURCES
General Revenue 1,630,040 1,832,340 1,932,030 1,840,110 1,867,760 1,887,120 10,989,400
General Revenue/County Co-op 635,310 635,310 639,740 665,310 685,270 705,830 3,966,770
Road Millage 2,092,430 1,983,280 1,839,790 1,839,790 1,839,790 1,839,790 11,434,870
Penny for Pinellas 11,850,000 15,544,320 8,648,000 13,724,590 8,770,000 11,390,280 69,927,190
Transportation Impact Fees 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 290,000 1,740,000
Local Option Gas Tax 1,389,190 1,396,030 1,396,030 1,409,990 1,424,090 1,438,330 8,453,660
Special Program Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000
Grants - Other Agencies 200,000 100,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 900,000
Subtotal General Sources 18,111,970 21,806,280 15,070,590 19,894,790 15,001,910 17,676,350 107,561,890
SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS
Marine Revenue 80,000 140,000 160,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 800,000
Downtown Boat Slips Revenue 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 90,000
Aviation Revenue 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000
Parking Revenue 310,000 235,000 210,000 235,000 235,000 235,000 1,460,000
Water Revenue 6,020,070 875,000 1,967,580 2,576,000 375,000 375,000 12,188,650
Sewer Revenue 2,666,600 4,719,170 4,100,000 4,696,870 5,468,080 4,997,630 26,648,350
Water Impact Fees 250,000 87,570 22,540 20,210 29,010 27,780 437,110
Sewer Impact Fees 500,000 1,072,350 28,900 10,820 15,070 14,420 1,641,560
Utility R & R 2,677,600 2,740,460 2,709,130 2,736,590 2,724,640 2,707,280 16,295,700
Stormwater Utility Revenue 4,331,450 3,884,700 3,837,700 3,912,320 3,726,690 3,844,070 23,536,930
Gas Revenue 2,700,000 2,710,000 2,755,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 16,415,000
Solid Waste Revenue 415,000 415,000 460,000 545,000 546,000 530,000 2,911,000
Recycling Revenue 0 0 96,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 396,000
Subtotal Self-Supporting
Funds 19,975,720 16,904,250 16,371,850 17,747,810 16,134,490 15,746,180 102,880,300
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Garage Fund Revenue 40,000 110,760 114,080 117,500 121,030 124,660 628,030
Administrative Services
Revenue 350,000 150,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,000 1,200,000
General Services Fund 0 0 0 0 15,000 0 15,000
`
25 Ordinance No. 8805-16
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUE SUMMARY
FY 2010-2011 THROUGH FY 2015-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CITY OF CLEARWATER
2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 Total
Revenue
Subtotal Internal Service
Funds 390,000 260,760 289,080 292,500 311,030 299,660 1,843,030
BORROWING
GENERAL SOURCES
Lease Purchase -General Fund 645,750 361,520 1,979,160 610,760 942,660 378,650 4,918,500
Subtotal Borrowing/General
Sources 645,750 361,520 1,979,160 610,760 942,660 378,650 4,918,500
SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS
Lease Purchase -Water 94,770 0 0 40,000 0 0 134,770
Lease Purchase -Stormwater 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 300,000
Future Bond Issue -Water &
Sewer 10,219,800 5,844,590 15,184,410 6,296,510 10,167,570 16,402,650 64,115,530
Future Bond Issue -Stormwater 0 1,369,300 262,300 519,680 2,273,310 1,455,930 5,880,520
Subtotal Borrowing/Self
Supporting Funds 10,614,570 7,213,890 15,446,710 6,856,190 12,440,880 17,858,580 70,430,820
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Lease Purchase -Garage 2,611,600 2,663,830 2,717,110 2,771,450 2,826,880 2,883,420 16,474,290
Lease Purchase -Administrative
Services 400,000 400,000 425,000 400,000 400,000 405,000 2,430,000
Subtotal Borrowing/Internal
Service Funds 3,011,600 3,063,830 3,142,110 3,171,450 3,226,880 3,288,420 18,904,290
TOTAL: ALL FUNDING
SOURCES 52,749,610 49,610,530 52,299,500 48,573,500 48,057,850 55,247,840 306,538,830
Source: City of Clearwater, FY 2010-2011-FY 2015-2016 Capital Improvement Fund, September 2010.
`
26 Ordinance No. 8805-16
CAPITAL EMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUE SUMMARY
FY 2015-16 THROUGH FY 2020/21 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CITY OF CLEARWATER
2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total
GENERAL SOURCES
General Revenue 2,836,150 3,003,140 3,256,980 3,129,530 6,981,480 3,043,560 22,250,840
Road Millage 2,060,100 2,060,100 2,060,100 2,060,100 2,060,100 2,060,100 12,360,600
Penny for Pinellas 6,021,820 14,980,060 5,439,840 10,263,460 9,555,250 0 46,260,430
Transportation Impact Fees 190,000 190,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 940,000
Local Option Gas Tax 1,438,330 1,450,000 0 0 0 0 2,888,330
Special Program Fund 935,000 530,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 1,585,000
Grants -Other Agencies 1,485,000 560,000 80,000 960,000 3,040,000 0 6,125,000
Donations 100,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 150,000
To Be Determined 0 22,397,000 1,483,740 1,929,880 2,227,150 2,223,390 30,261,160
Subtotal General Sources 15,066,400 45,220,300 12,490,660 18,512,970 24,033,980 7,497,050 122,821,360
SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS
Marine Revenue 95,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 445,000
Clearwater Harbor Marina Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000
Aviation Revenue 25,000 155,000 35,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 260,000
Parking Revenue 2,409,000 410,500 406,000 407,500 409,000 409,000 4,451,000
Water Revenue 2,586,000 2,240,470 3,071,000 4,651,000 4,271,000 4,251,000 21,070,470
Sewer Revenue 8,412,830 7,879,280 5,200,960 4,853,500 6,161,480 7,040,510 39,548,560
Water Impact Fees 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 24,000 144,000
Sewer Impact Fees 82,130 12,460 12,460 12,460 12,460 12,460 144,430
Utility R&R 8,667,170 9,205,680 3,939,040 4,030,390 4,030,390 4,367,030 34,239,700
StormwaterUtility Revenue 5,498,550 5,825,100 5,831,860 6,348,450 6,729,430 6,294,000 36,527,390
Gas Revenue 6,050,000 4,050,000 13,850,000 4,050,000 4,050,000 4,050,000 36,100,000
Solid Waste Revenue 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 535,000 3,210,000
Recycling Revenue 90,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 590,000
Subtotal Self-Supporting Funds 34,499,680 30,532,490 33,100,320 25,122,300 26,432,760 27,193,000 176,880,550
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Garage Fund Revenue 77,400 79,720 82,110 84,580 87,110 89,730 500,650
Administrative Service Revenue 1,710,000 1,350,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,706,860 1,475,000 8,541,860
Subtotal Internal Services Fund 1,787,400 1,429,720 1,232,110 1,234,580 1,793,970 1,564,730 9,042,510
BORROWING
`
27 Ordinance No. 8805-16
GENERAL SOURCES
Lease Purchase -General Fund 246,000 608,000 2,550,820 643,220 976,950 1,832,800 6,857,790
Subtotal Borrowing/General Sources 246,000 608,000 2,550,820 643,220 976,950 1,832,800 6,857,790
SELF-SUPPORTING FUNDS
Lease Purchase -Stormwater 320,000 0 0 0 0 0 320,000
Lease Purchase -Gas 161,000 0 0 0 0 0 161,000
Lease Purchase -Water 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 60,000
Lease Purchase -Sewer 109,000 0 700,000 0 0 0 809,000
Future Bond Issue -Water & Sewer 11,867,870 11,378,110 20,987,540 4,433,650 5,365,670 0 54,032,840
Subtotal Borrowing/Self Supporting
Funds 12,517,870 11,378,110 21,687,540 4,433,650 5,365,670 0 55,382,840
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Lease Purchase -Garage 5,441,000 5,520,440 5,620,850 5,223,270 5,327,730 5,434,290 32,567,580
Lease Purchase -Administrative Services 405,000 405,000 405,000 410,000 410,000 500,000 2,535,000
Subtotal Borrowing/Internal Service
Funds 5,846,000 5,925,440 6,025,850 5,633,270 5,737,730 5,934,290 35,102,580
TOTAL: ALL FUNDING SOURCES 69,963,350 95,094,060 77,087,300 55,579,990 64,341,060 44,021,870 406,087,630
Source: 2015 –2016 Annual Operating Budget and Capital Improvement Budget
`
28 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Section 30.That the Capital Improvement Program Expenditure Summary by Function of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan Capital Improvements Element, page I-17, be repealed as replaced to read as follows:
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUNCTION
FY 2010-2011 THROUGH FY 2015-2016 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CITY OF CLEARWATER
FUNCTION 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 TOTAL
Fire Protection 1,020,790 5,280,580 2,807,630 4,749,820 1,668,570 5,084,300 20,611,690
New Street Construction 2,500,000 2,500,000
Major Street Maintenance 3,316,620 3,794,310 3,650,820 3,664,780 3,678,880 5,693,120 23,798,530
Sidewalk and Bike Trails 472,000 472,000 944,000
Intersections 435,000 435,000 435,000 435,000 435,000 435,000 2,610,000
Parking 300,000 225,000 200,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 1,400,000
Miscellaneous Engineering 8,035,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 8,210,000
Parks Development 4,605,500 1,042,500 1,282,500 10,102,500 1,112,500 4,862,500 23,008,000
Marine Facilities 220,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 423,000 2,335,000
Airpark Facilities 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000
Libraries 635,310 10,635,310 639,740 665,310 685,270 705,830 13,966,770
Garage 2,951,600 3,074,590 3,131,190 3,088,950 3,147,910 3,108,080 18,502,320
Maintenance of Buildings 204,500 370,100 346,060 325,140 344,350 339,250 1,929,400
Gen Public City Bldg & Equip 7,000,000 7,000,000
Miscellaneous 840,000 620,000 5,420,000 645,000 645,000 650,000 8,820,000
Stormwater Utility 4,629,450 5,250,000 4,100,000 4,430,000 6,000,000 5,300,000 29,709,450
Gas System 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 2,750,000 16,400,000
Solid Waste 415,000 415,000 460,000 545,000 546,000 530,000 2,911,000
Utilities Miscellaneous 24,000 20,000 20,000 24,000 20,000 20,000 128,000
Sewer System 6,207,000 9,137,000 7,832,310 8,240,000 13,234,370 21,522,170 66,172,850
Water System 16,199,840 6,143,140 16,160,250 8,115,000 5,525,000 2,982,590 55,125,820
Recycling 96,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 396,000
52,749,610 49,610,530 52,299,500 48,573,500 48,057,850 55,247,840 306,538,830
Source: City of Clearwater, FY 2010-2011-FY 2015-2016 Capital Improvement Fund, September2010.
`
29 Ordinance No. 8805-16
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM EXPENDITURE SUMMARY BY FUNCTION
FY 2015/16 THROUGH FY 2020/21 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
CITY OF CLEARWATER
Schedule of Planned Expenditures
Function 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 Total
Police Protection 200,000 3,305,000 0 0 0 0 3,505,000
Fire Protection 1,476,390 4,857,920 3,275,470 4,778,060 1,391,340 2,195,710 17,974,890
Major Street Maintenance 3,656,430 5,668,100 5,654,850 5,654,850 3,658,850 3,484,850 27,777,930
Sidewalk and Bike Trails 472,000 472,000 472,000 472,000 473,250 473,250 2,834,500
Intersections 335,000 335,000 331,990 315,410 315,400 315,390 1,948,190
Parking 2,389,000 19,482,500 381,000 382,500 384,000 384,000 23,403,000
Miscellaneous Engineering 935,000 535,000 35,000 35,000 2,460,000 35,000 4,035,000
Parks Development 6,735,000 5,037,000 3,564,840 3,325,000 7,125,000 1,440,000 27,226,840
Marine Facilities 410,000 385,000 390,000 390,000 390,000 390,000 2,355,000
Airpark Facilities 65,000 715,000 115,000 1,215,000 3,815,000 15,000 5,940,000
Libraries 115,580 387,350 27,340 462,720 35,000 0 1,027,990
Garage 5,639,400 5,700,160 5,702,960 5,307,850 5,414,840 5,524,020 33,289,230
Maintenance of Buildings 902,000 881,850 794,070 2,161,630 1,084,590 1,045,650 6,869,790
General Public City
Building 110,000 522,800 4,646,630 985,650 10,289,100 0 16,554,180
Miscellaneous 2,125,000 5,995,000 1,625,000 1,630,000 1,955,000 2,045,000 15,375,000
Stormwater Utility 5,802,550 5,714,380 4,751,150 6,174,320 4,999,690 6,294,000 33,736,090
Gas System 6,211,000 4,050,000 13,850,000 4,050,000 4,050,000 4,050,000 36,261,000
Solid Waste & Recycling 625,000 635,000 635,000 635,000 635,000 635,000 3,800,000
Utilities Miscellaneous 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 120,000
Sewer System 24,469,000 23,260,000 16,260,000 11,400,000 10,200,000 10,150,000 95,739,000
Water System 7,270,000 7,135,000 14,555,000 6,185,000 5,645,000 5,525,000 46,315,000
69,963,350 95,094,060 77,087,300 55,579,990 64,341,060 44,021,870 406,087,630
Source: City of Clearwater Ordinance 8768-15, Exhibit B
`
30 Ordinance No. 8805-16
Section 31.Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the sameshall not affect the validity of the Ordinance as a
whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 32.This ordinance shall become effective when the Department of Economic
Opportunity issues a final order determining the adopted amendment to be in compliance, or the
Administration Commission issues a final order determining the adopted amendments to be in
compliance, in accordance with Section 163.3184, F.S., as amended.
PASSED ON FIRST READING _____________________
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL _____________________
READING AND ADOPTED
___________________________
George N. Cretekos
Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
________________________________________________________
Camilo Soto Rosemarie Call
Assistant City Attorney City Clerk
** AMENDED FOR CITY COUNCIL **
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 15, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: F.1
CASE: CPA2015-04001
ORDINANCE NO.: 8805-16
REQUEST: Review and recommendation to the City Council, of amendments to the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan repealing transportation concurrency,
establishing a Mobility Management System, allowing for non-contiguous
annexations, amending certain provisions of the Capital Improvements
Element for consistency with State Statutes, and updating various terms
and references.
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department
BACKGROUND:
The City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan includes several policies addressing concurrency management
in the Future Land Use, Transportation, Coastal Management, and Capital Improvements Elements. The
application of concurrency management requirements through the local site plan review process, including
the assessment of transportation impact fees, is the primary tool the City and other municipalities in Pinellas
County use to manage the traffic impacts of development projects. Concurrency management requirements
are imposed to ensure that permits are not issued for a development project without the public facilities and
services necessary to handle its impacts being in place. Concurrency management rules also require local
governments to adopt level of service standards for public services and facilities that must be maintained as a
condition of development approval. The City has adopted levels of service for transportation, solid waste,
sanitary sewer, stormwater, potable water, hurricane evacuation, and parks. Most impact fees are established
within the Code of Ordinances, but transportation impact fees are established by the Pinellas County Code
Chapter 150-40 (the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance, or TIFO), and are applied countywide.
The 2011 Community Planning Act made substantial amendments to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes,
including repealing state mandated transportation concurrency. To address these changes, the Pinellas
County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) coordinated with the various local governments to
develop an alternative approach to transportation concurrency which would also further the development of a
countywide multi-modal transportation system that could better accommodate travel options other than the
personal automobile. The Pinellas County Mobility Plan was approved by the MPO in 2013, and model
policies were adopted in 2014. The Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved on
first reading amendments to their impact fee ordinance, changing the name to Multi-Modal Impact Fee
Ordinance and creating a Mobility Management System within its land development regulations, in October
2014. It is anticipated that the Pinellas County BOCC’s amendments will be adopted on March 29, 2016.
The City, along with municipalities throughout the County, is amending its Comprehensive Plan and land
development regulations to remain consistent with the countywide approach to mobility management and the
TIFO.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
CPA2015-04001 – Page 2
Comprehensive Plan Amendment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
The Mobility Management System that is envisioned through the new policies within this amendment would
be a more flexible approach to manage the traffic impacts of development projects while increasing mobility
for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users and motor vehicles. The Mobility Management System, which is
proposed to be established within the Community Development Code (see concurrent case TA2015-10006),
will be a tiered development review approach requiring larger scale projects adding trips to the surrounding
road network to implement transportation management strategies in-lieu of or as credit toward their impact
fee assessment. These strategies could include, but are not limited to, trail, sidewalk, bus stop and
intersection improvements or trip reduction programs such as carpooling or telecommuting. Smaller scale
projects with limited impact on the transportation system would only be required to pay an impact fee
commensurate with the number of new trips they generate.
The main purpose of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments is to repeal transportation concurrency
and set up the policy framework necessary to establish a Mobility Management System, and to remove
references to transportation concurrency throughout the Comprehensive Plan. Other amendments are
proposed to recognize the 2014 Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement (ISBA) between Pinellas County
and municipalities, which allows voluntary annexation of non-contiguous parcels located in an enclave
surrounded by city property on all sides (“Type A” Enclaves). Additionally, the Coastal Management
Element is updated to address new statutory requirements by adding policies that encourage new
development to find solutions to help reduce the flood risk or flood losses and that require new development
or redevelopment be consistent with or more stringent than Florida Building Code requirements. These
policies add to existing policies addressing reduction of flood risk, as required by Chapter 163.
Lastly, the proposed amendments include updates to the Capital Improvements Element. Many changes are
minor, including updates to reflect the most recent studies and capital improvements programs established by
the MPO, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), and the City. The Schedule of Capital
Improvements is being replaced to reflect the current five-year projections and updated Revenue Summary
and Program Expenditure tables for Fiscal Years 2015-2020.
ANALYSIS:
Substantial changes are being made to the Transportation Element, including the addition of policies
pertaining to the establishment of a Mobility Management System, and the removal of language pertaining to
transportation concurrency. Amendments to the Future Land Use, Coastal Management, Intergovernmental
Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements include removing obsolete language, updating language
to be consistent with the proposed Mobility Management System, and adding policies regarding
noncontiguous annexations and flood risk and loss prevention as previously stated. Formatting changes are
also being made to bring consistency among all of the elements.
The proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are summarized below:
1. Future Land Use Element [pages 2-4 of ordinance]:
Simplifies the goal and objective for the Concurrency Management System; revises policies to
remove transportation from concurrency requirements; updates the services for which levels of
service have been adopted; adds review criteria for Future Land Use Map and/or Zoning Atlas
amendments; and adds a policy to allow voluntary annexations of non-contiguous properties within
“Type A” Enclaves.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
CPA2015-04001 – Page 3
Comprehensive Plan Amendment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
2. Transportation Element [pages 4-10 of ordinance]:
Establishes the new Mobility Management System and related policies; adds a policy that includes
transportation analysis for planning purposes; revises Objective B.1.2 and its policies to provide
direction to use complete street policies when making improvements to the road network; removes
references to transportation concurrency and replaces with references to the Mobility Management
System; adds more policies regarding coordination with the MPO and FDOT; simplifies policies
related to coordination with PSTA to identify public transit improvements; and updates various terms
and plan years to most current editions.
3. Coastal Management Element [pages 10-11 of ordinance]:
Removes reference to “traffic” as a required level of service objective and adds policies that aim to
reduce flood risk and flood losses.
4. Intergovernmental Coordination Element [page 11 of ordinance]:
Removes level of service requirement for road improvements; and adds a policy addressing
coordination with FDOT with regards to access on State facilities for new development projects.
5. Capital Improvements Element [pages 11-28 of ordinance]:
Removes the outdated Needs Summary; removes transportation from concurrency requirements and
level of service requirements; adds reference to the Mobility Management System; updates the
Schedule of Capital Improvements to the most recent five-year projections; updates the Revenue
Summary and the Program Expenditures tables to the most recent five-year projections; and updates
various terms and references.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
Pursuant to Community Development Code Section 4-603.F., no amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1. The amendment will further implementation of the Comprehensive Plan consistent with the goals,
policies, and objectives contained in the plan.
The proposed amendments to the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan are consistent with the following
Objectives and Policy in the Plan:
Policy A.6.5.3 All proposed development/redevelopment initiatives shall be reviewed for
opportunities to improve pedestrian and bicycle access and consider the integration of
bicycle and pedestrian transportation modes in all phases of transportation planning,
new roadway design, roadway construction, roadway resurfacing, and other capital
projects consistent with the City’s Shifting Gears Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
2006. On Clearwater Beach, pedestrian and bicycle improvements should adhere to
the policies and design guidelines set forth in Beach by Design: A preliminary Design
for Clearwater Beach and Design Guidlelines.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
CPA2015-04001 – Page 4
Comprehensive Plan Amendment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
Objective A.6.8 Identify those areas of the City that are appropriate for redevelopment as livable
communities and require that specific sustainable elements to be used in the
redevelopment of these areas.
Objective H.3.1 The City shall continue to work with the PPC, the State, and the County in the orderly
annexation of the City’s existing enclaves.
The Mobility Management System proposed within new Objective B.1.1 and its associated policies
looks to improve the transportation network for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, and public
transit. Proposed Objective B.1.2 includes a policy that references Objective A.6.8, as well as other
policies that further Objective A.6.8 related to Complete Streets, sidewalks, and other livable community
improvements. The addition of voluntary non-contiguous “Type A” annexations allows those properties
in “Type A” enclaves to not have to wait until they become contiguous to City limits to annex into the
City. As such, the proposed amendments will further implementation of the Clearwater Comprehensive
Plan.
2. The amendment is not inconsistent with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed amendments are not in conflict with other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bring
further consistency between the goals, objectives, and policies and the map series. The proposed
amendment will add several new objectives and policies to the Comprehensive Plan, while also
simplifying other sections of the Plan. Proposed Objective B.1.1 and related policies expand the ways the
city is addressing the impacts of new development on its transportation system that increases mobility for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users as well as for motorists. The new Mobility Management System
objective and policies tie in with various Future Land Use Element policies, specifically the livable
communities objective and policies which are captured in Objective A.6.8. Several proposed
amendments address intergovernmental coordination between the City and other entities such as the
MPO and PSTA.
3. The available uses, if applicable, to which the property may be put are appropriate to the property
in question and compatible with existing and planned uses in the area.
This is not applicable to the proposed amendments as they do not relate to a specific property or
properties.
4. Sufficient public facilities are available to serve the property.
The adequacy of available public facilities will need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis as
development proposals are received. The proposed amendments repeal transportation concurrency,
however, new policies are being created that will maintain level of service as a planning tool that will be
used to evaluate potential development proposals at the time of site plan review. Therefore, this is not
applicable as the proposed amendments do not relate to a specific property or properties.
5. The amendment will not adversely affect the natural environment.
This is not applicable to the proposed amendments. The amendments reflect updates to the state statutes
and to recently approved local ordinances. Any proposed development will have to comply with
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
CPA2015-04001 – Page 5
Comprehensive Plan Amendment PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DIVISION
impervious surface ratio standards, tree preservation and landscaping requirements, and drainage and
water quality requirements, which is evaluated at the time of site plan review.
6. The amendment will not adversely impact the use of property in the immediate area.
This is not applicable to the proposed amendments as they do not relate to a specific property or
properties. Any impacts would be determined at the time of site plan review, and would need to be
mitigated before any development can proceed.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The purpose of this amendment is to update the Future Land Use, Transportation, Intergovernmental
Coordination, and Capital Improvements Elements to reflect changes to the state statutes; to establish an
objective and policies for the Mobility Management System; and to recognize the 2014 Interlocal Service
Boundary Agreement between the City, Pinellas County, and other municipalities, all of which have been
adopted since the last major update to the Comprehensive Plan in 2008. The proposed amendment is
consistent with and will further the goals, objectives, and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan,
will not result in inappropriate or incompatible uses, will not adversely affect the natural environment or
impact the use of property in the immediate area, and sufficient public facilities exist to implement the
proposed amendment.
Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends APPROVAL of Ordinance
No. 8805-16 that amends the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff:
Kyle Brotherton,
Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Resume
Ordinance No. 8805-16
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: TA2015-10006
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Planning CaseIn Control: Planning & Development
Agenda Number: 7.2
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an amendment to the Clearwater Code of Ordinances renaming Transportation
Impact Fee to Multi-Modal Impact Fee in Appendix A - Schedule of Fees; amending the
Clearwater Community Development Code by repealing proportionate fair-share and
establishing a new mobility management system and a multi-modal impact fee; amending
review criteria; providing for and modifying various definitions; and replacing various City
Commission references with City Council; and pass Ordinance 8806-16 on first reading.
(TA2015-10006)
SUMMARY:
The 2011 Community Planning Act repealed certain concurrency requirements, including
transportation concurrency. To address this change in state statutes, the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) created the Pinellas County Mobility Plan, which
was endorsed by the MPO on September 11, 2013. Model code amendments were later
provided to municipalities to integrate into their local ordinances. The Pinellas County Board of
County Commissioners approved on first reading amendments to the County ’s land
development regulations in October 2014, with the adoption of their amendments anticipated
to occur on March 29, 2016.
Substantial amendments are proposed within the Concurrency Management provisions of the
Community Development Code (Article 4, Division 9) to be consistent with the 2011 Act and
the County’s approach. Section 4-904, Proportionate Fair-Share Program is proposed to be
repealed and replaced with a newly created Mobility Management System intended to be more
flexible and focused on facilitating multi -modal transportation solutions. A new Section 4-905
is proposed to establish the multi -modal impact fee consistent with the County ’s ordinance,
which was renamed from the transportation impact fee. This fee provides for a tiered project
review approach, where proposed projects that create a large number of new peak hour trips
will have to provide a traffic study and /or a transportation management plan, whereas smaller
scale projects that create fewer new peak hour trips will only have to pay the multi -modal
impact fee.
In addition to the above, staff is also proposing the following:
·Code of Ordinances, Appendix A: Change the name of Transportation Impact Fee to
Multi-modal Impact Fee and update the reference ordinance;
·Community Development Code Division 6: Revise review procedures relating to public
facility impacts for Zoning Atlas amendments consistent with the mobility management
system and change “City Commission” to “City Council” throughout ; and
·Community Development Code Article 8: Update definitions to reflect the proposed
Mobility Management System.
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: TA2015-10006
The Planning and Development Department has determined that the proposed text
amendment to the Code of Ordinances and the Community Development Code is consistent
with and furthers the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the
Community Development Code as outlined in the staff report. The Community Development
Board (CDB) unanimously approved the proposed amendment at its regularly scheduled
meeting on December 15, 2015. Second reading of proposed Ordinance 8806-16 will need to
be delayed until after the county ordinance is adopted to incorporate the Pinellas County
ordinance number, as the County does not provide an ordinance number until adoption.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
N/A
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Ordinance No. 8806-16
ORDINANCE NO. 8806-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY
AMENDING APPENDIX A -SCHEDULE OF FEES, RATES AND
CHARGES, XXII, TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE, RENAMING
THIS SECTION MULTI-MODAL IMPACT FEE AND UPDATING THE
PINELLAS COUNTY ORDINANCE REFERENCE; AMENDING THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, DIVISION 6, LEVEL THREE
APPROVALS, REPLACING VARIOUS “CITY COMMISSION”
REFERENCES WITH “CITY COUNCIL” THROUGHOUT THIS
DIVISION; AMENDING SECTION 4-602, ZONING ATLAS
AMENDMENTS, UPDATING THE REVIEW CRITERIA;AMENDING
DIVISION 9, CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT, ESTABLISHINGA
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND MULTI-MODAL IMPACT
FEE; AMENDING ARTICLE 8, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF
CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 8-102, ADDING AND DELETING TERMS
CONSITENT WITH THE MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND
MULTI-MODAL IMPACT FEES; CERTIFYING CONSISTENCY WITH
THE CITY’S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PROPER
ADVERTISEMENT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Florida House Bill 7207, also known as theCommunity Planning Act,
was signed into law in 2011; and
WHEREAS, the Community Planning Act removed State requirements for local
government implementation of transportation concurrency management systems; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater participated in a multi-jurisdictional Mobility
Plan Task Force, facilitated by the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization, to
develop a framework for a countywide approach to implementation of a mobility
management system in place of transportation concurrency; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners established the
Pinellas County Mobility Plan to replace the repealed requirement of transportation
concurrency; and
WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Mobility Plan provides a more flexible and
efficient alternative to the traditional form of concurrency management, which tied
development approvals to maintaining adopted roadway level of services standards,
while facilitating multi-modal transportation solutions; and
2 Ordinance No.8806-16
WHEREAS, the Pinellas County Mobility Plan calls for the renaming the
Transportation Impact Fee toMulti-Modal Impact Fee to better reflect the purpose of this
Ordinance to improve the capacity of the countywide transportation system for all users;
and
WHEREAS, Pinellas Countyis amending their development code to be effective
March 2016; and
WHEREAS, Pinellas County Land Development Code Chapter 150, Article II
establishes that the Multi-Modal Impact Fee and Mobility Management System is
applicable countywide; and
WHEREAS, amendments are needed to the Clearwater Development Code to
implementtheMobility Management System; and
WHEREAS, the Mobility Management System will replace the proportionate fair
share program which was required under transportation concurrency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater desires for the Community Development Code
to function effectively and equitably throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater has determined where the Community
Development Codeneeds clarification and revisionto achieve consistency with the
Pinellas County Mobility Plan and Impact Fee Ordinance; now therefore,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA:
Section 1.That Appendix A, Schedule of Fees, Rate and Charges, of the
Code of Ordinances, be amended to read as follows:
XXII. TRANSPORTATIONMULTI-MODAL IMPACT FEE:
Pinellas County Ordinance No. 86-43Land Development Code Chapter 150,
Article II,administered by the city, assesses a fee on new land development or a change
in land use. This fee is based upon the increase in vehicular traffic generated by a new
development or land use.
Section 2.That Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Section 4-602, Zoning Atlas Amendments, Community Development Code be amended
as follows:
* * * * * * * * *
3 Ordinance No.8806-16
D.Community development board review/recommendation. Upon receipt of the
recommendation of the community development coordinator, the community
development board shall conduct a public hearing on the application in accordance
with the requirements of Section 4-206 and issue a recommended order to the city
commissioncouncilsetting forth the board’s findings in regard to whether the
proposed amendment will satisfy the standards set forth in Section 4-602(F) and may
include any proposed modifications or conditions to the proposed amendment.
E.City commissioncouncilreview/decision. Upon receipt of the recommended order of
the community development board, the city commissioncouncilshall conduct a public
hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section4-20 and shall approve, approve
with conditions, or deny the amendment. Upon adoption of an ordinance amending
the Zoning Atlas, the Zoning Atlas shall be deemed amended as of the effective date
of the ordinance. The community development coordinator shall revise and may
republish from time to time the Zoning Atlas or portions thereof as amended, but a
failure to revise or republish shall not affect the validity of any ordinance amending the
Zoning Atlas.
F. Standards for review. No amendment to the Zoning Atlas shall be approved unless
the city commissioncouncilfinds that such amendment complies with the following
standards:
* * * * * * * * * *
5.The amendment will not adversely burden public facilities, including the traffic-
carrying capacitiesofstreets,in an unreasonably or disproportionate manner.
* * * * * * * * * *
Section 3.That Article4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Division 9, Concurrency Management, Community Development Codebe renamedas
follows:
DIVISION 9. –CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT
* * * * * * * * * *
Section 4.That Article4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Section 4-901.B, Authority and applicability, Community Development Code be amended
as follows:
B. Exception.No certificate of concurrency/capacity is required for the following:
* * * * * * * * * *
12.Roads
4 Ordinance No.8806-16
Section 5.That Article4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Section 4-903.A.6,Standards for certificate of concurrency/capacity, Community
Development Code be deletedas follows:
A.In determining whether a certificate of concurrency/capacity may be issued, the
community development coordinator shall apply the level of service standards in the
comprehensive plan according to the following measures for each public facility:
* * * * * * * * * *
6.Roads: Section 4-803(C) Standards for Traffic Impact Study, and Section
4-904 Proportionate Fair-Share Program.
Section 6.That Article4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Section 4-903.C.4, Standards for certificate of concurrency/capacity, Community
Development Code be deleted as follows:
C.If the capacity of available public facilities is less than the capacity required to
maintain the level of service standard for the impact of the development, the applicant
may:
* * * * * * * * *
4.Make a proportionate fair-share contribution, pursuant to Section 4-904.
Section 7.That Article4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Section 4-904, Proportionate Fair Share Program, Community Development Code be
repealed and replacedto read as follows:
Section 4-904. -Proportionate Fair-Share Program.
A.Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish a method whereby
the impacts of development on transportation facilities can be mitigated by the
cooperative efforts of the public and private sectors, to be known as the
proportionate fair-share program, as required by and in a manner consistent with
F.S. § 163.3180(16).
B.Findings. The city council finds and determines that transportation capacity is a
commodity that has a value to both the public and private sectors and that the city
proportionate fair-share program:
1.Provides a method by which the impacts of development on transportation
facilities can be mitigated by the cooperative efforts of the public and
private sectors;
2.Allows developers to proceed under certain conditions, notwithstanding the
failure of transportation concurrency, by contributing their proportionate fair
share of the cost of a transportation facility;
5 Ordinance No.8806-16
3.Contributes to the provision of adequate public facilities for future growth
and promotes a strong commitment to comprehensive facilities planning,
thereby reducing the potential for moratoria or unacceptable levels of
traffic congestion;
4.Maximizes the use of public funds for adequate transportation facilities to
serve future growth, and may, in certain circumstances, allow the city to
expedite transportation improvements by supplementing funds currently
allocated for transportation improvements in the Capital Improvements
Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan;
5.Is consistent with F.S. § 163.3180(16), and supports the following policies
in the City's Comprehensive Plan:
Policies 7.3.1; 7.3.2; 7.4.1; 7.4.3; 8.1.1; 8.2.1; 8.3.1; 8.6.1; 8.6.2; 8.6.3; 9.2.1;
10.1.1; 10.3.1.
C.Applicability. The proportionate fair-share program shall apply to all developments
in the City of Clearwater, that have been notified of a lack of capacity to satisfy
transportation concurrency on a transportation facility in the city's concurrency
management system,including transportation facilities maintained by Florida
Department of Transportation (FDOT) or another jurisdiction that are relied upon
for concurrency determinations, pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-904.D.
The Proportionate Fair-Share Program does not apply to developments of
regional impact (DRIs) using proportionate fair-share under F.S. § 163.3180(12),
or to developments exempted from concurrency as provided in F.S. § 163.3180,
regarding exceptions and de minimis impacts.
D.General requirements.
1.An applicant may choose to satisfy the transportation concurrency
requirements of the city by making a proportionate fair-share contribution,
pursuant to the following requirements:
a.The proposed development is consistent with the comprehensive plan
and applicable land development regulations.
b.The five-year schedule of capital improvements in the city capital
improvement element includes a transportation improvement(s) that,
upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of the city transportation
concurrency management system. The provisions of Section 4-904.D.2
below may apply if a project or projects needed to satisfy concurrency
are not presently contained within the city's capital improvement
element or an adopted long-term schedule of capital improvements.
2.The city may choose to allow an applicant to satisfy transportation
concurrency through the proportionate fair-share program by contributing
to an improvement that, upon completion, will satisfy the requirements of
the city transportation concurrency management system, but is not
contained in the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the capital
improvement element or a long-term schedule of capital improvementsfor
6 Ordinance No.8806-16
an adopted long-term concurrency management system, where the
following apply:
a.The city adopts, by resolution or ordinance, a commitment to add the
improvement to the five-year schedule of capital improvements in the
capital improvement element or long-term schedule of capital
improvements for an adopted long-term concurrency management
system no later than the next regularly scheduled update. To qualify for
consideration under this section, the proposed improvement must be
reviewed and determinedto be financially feasible pursuant to F.S. §
163.3180(16)(b)1., consistent with the comprehensive plan, and in
compliance with the provisions of this section. Financial feasibility for
this section means that additional contributions, payments or funding
sources are reasonably anticipated during a period not to exceed ten
years to fully mitigate impacts on the transportation facilities.
b.If the funds allocated for the five-year schedule of capital
improvements in the city capital improvement element are insufficient
to fully fund construction of a transportation improvement required by
the concurrency management system, the city may still enter into a
binding proportionate fair-share agreement with the applicant
authorizing construction of that amount of development on which the
proportionate fair-share is calculated if the proportionate fair-share
amount in such agreement is sufficient to pay for one or more
improvements which will, in the opinion of the governmental entity or
entities maintaining the transportation facilities, significantly benefit the
impacted transportation system. The improvement or improvements
funded by the proportionate fair-share component must be adopted
into the five-year capital improvements schedule of the comprehensive
planor the long-term schedule of capital improvements for an adopted
long-term concurrency management system at the next annual capital
improvement element update.
3.Any improvement project proposed to meet the developer's fair-share
obligation must meet design standards of the city for locally maintained
roadways and those of the Florida Department of Transportation for the
state highway system.
E.Intergovernmental coordination. Pursuant to policies in the intergovernmental
coordination element of the city comprehensive plan and applicable policies in the
regional plan, the city shall coordinate with affected jurisdictions, including the
Florida Department of Transportation, regarding mitigation to impacted facilities
not under the jurisdiction of the city receiving the application for proportionate fair-
share mitigation. An interlocal agreement may be established with other affected
jurisdictions for this purpose.
F.Application process.
1.Upon notification of a lack of capacity to satisfy transportation concurrency
where the applicant is eligible to participate in the proportionate fair share
program, the applicant shall also be notified in writing of the opportunity to
7 Ordinance No.8806-16
satisfy transportation concurrency through the proportionate fair-share
program pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-904.D above.
2.Prior to submitting an application for a proportionate fair-share agreement,
a pre-application meeting shall be held to discuss eligibility, application
submittal requirements, potential mitigation options, and related issues. If
the impacted facility has cross jurisdictional impacts per Section 4-904.K
then the affected jurisdictions will be notified and invited to participate in
the pre-application meeting.
3.Eligible applicants shall submit an application to the city that includes an
application fee of $235.00 and the following:
a.Name, address and phone number of owner(s), developer and agent;
b.Property location, including parcel identification numbers;
c.Legal description and survey of property;
d.Project description, including type, intensity and amount of
development;
e.Phasing schedule, if applicable;
f.Description of requested proportionate fair-share mitigation method(s);
and
g.Copy of concurrency application.
4.The community development coordinator shall review the application and
certify that the application is complete and eligible within seven working
days of submission of the application. If an application is determined to be
incomplete or inconsistent with the general requirements of the
proportionate fair-share program as indicated in Section 4-904.D, then the
applicant will be notified in writing of the reasons for such deficiencies
within ten working days of submittal of the application. If such deficiencies
are not remedied by the applicant within 30 working days of receipt ofthe
written notification, then the application will be deemed withdrawn and no
further consideration shall be taken by the community development
coordinator.
5.Pursuant to F.S. § 163.3180(16)(e), proposed proportionate fair-share
mitigation for development impacts to facilities on the Strategic Intermodal
System (SIS) requires the concurrence of the Florida Department of
Transportation. The applicant shall submit evidence of an agreement
between the applicant and the Florida Department of Transportationfor
inclusion in the proportionate fair-share agreement.
6.When an application is deemed complete and eligible, the applicant shall
be advised in writing and a proposed proportionate fair-share obligation
and binding agreement will be prepared by the city or the applicant with
direction from the city and delivered to the appropriate parties for review,
including a copy to all affected jurisdictions for any proposed proportionate
fair-share mitigation that has multi-jurisdictional impacts, no later than 60
working days from the date at which the applicant received the notification
of a complete and eligible application and no fewer than 14 working days
prior to the city council meeting when the agreement will be considered.
The city and applicant may mutually agree to extend the 60 working day
8 Ordinance No.8806-16
time frame for development of the agreement for the purpose of evaluating
information and/or collecting additional information to complete the
agreement
7.The city shall notify the applicant regarding the date of the city council
meeting when the agreement will be considered for final approval. No
proportionate fair-share agreement will be effective until approved by the
city council. In instances where the proportionate fair-share obligation is
determined to be $100,000.00 or less, the community development
coordinator shall have the authority to approve, on the part of the city, any
agreement to satisfy that obligation.
G.Determining proportionate fair-share obligation.
1.The proportionate fair-share obligation shall be based on the impact a
development has on a transportation facility as determined by a traffic
impact analysis that assesses the distribution and volume of traffic
generated by the proposed development.
2.A facility shall be considered impacted when the net trips generated by the
proposed development meets or exceeds five percent of the facility's peak
hour capacity.
3.Should the impacted facility be operating at a level of service that meets
the locallyadopted level of service standard, it would not be eligible for the
application of proportionate fair share provisions.
4.Should the impacted facility be operating at a substandard level of service
based on existing conditions or as a result of the impacts of a proposed
development, the facility would be identified as eligible for proportionate
fair share provisions and the applicant would be notified as such.
5.Proportionate fair-share mitigation for concurrency impacts may include,
without limitation, separately or collectively, private funds, contributions of
land, and construction and contribution of facilities.
6.A development shall not be required to pay more than its proportionate
fair-share. The fair market value of the proportionate fair-share mitigation
for the impacted facilities shall not differ regardless of the method of
mitigation.
7.The methodology used to calculate an applicant's proportionate fair-share
obligation shall be as provided for in F.S. § 163.3180(12), as follows:
a.The cumulative number of trips from the proposed development
expected to reach roadways during peak hours from the complete build
out of a stage or phase being approved, divided by the change in the
peak hour maximum service volume (MSV) of roadways resulting from
construction of an improvement necessary to maintain the adopted
level of service, multiplied by the construction cost, at the time of
developer payment, of the improvement necessary to maintain the
adopted Level of Service. or
9 Ordinance No.8806-16
b.Proportionate Fair-Share = σ[[(Development Trips;sub .....sub;) / (SV
Increase;sub
8.For the purposes of determining proportionate fair-share obligations, the
city shall determine improvement costs based upon the actual cost of the
improvement as obtained from the Capital Improvement Element, the
Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Improvement Plan or
the Florida Department of Transportation Work Program. Where such
information is not available or outdated, improvement cost shall be
determined using one of the following methods:
a.An analysis by the city of costs by unit price that incorporates data
from recent projects and is updated annually. In order to accommodate
increases in construction material costs, project costs shall be adjusted
by the method specified in Section 4-904(M) or
b.The most recent issue of the Florida Department of Transportation's
Transportation Costs, as adjusted based upon the unit price (urban or
rural); locally available data from recent projects on acquisition,
drainage and utility costs; and significant changes in the cost of
materials due to unforeseeable events. Cost estimates for state road
improvements not included in the adopted Florida Department of
Transportation Work Program shall be determined using this method in
coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation District.
9.If the city has accepted an improvement project proposed by the applicant,
then the value of the improvement shall be determined using one of the
methods provided in this section.
10.If the city has accepted right-of-way dedication for the proportionate fair-
share payment, credit for the dedication of the non-site related right-of-way
shall be valued on the date of the dedication at 118 percent of the most
recent assessed value by the Pinellas County Property Appraiser or, at the
option of the applicant, by fair market value established by an independent
appraisal approved by the city and at no expense to the city. The applicant
shall supply a drawing and legal description of the land and a certificate of
title or title search of the land to the city at noexpense to the city. If the
estimated value of the right-of-way dedication proposed by the applicant is
less than the city estimated total proportionate fair-share obligation for that
development, then the applicant must also pay the difference. Prior to
purchase or acquisition of any real estate or acceptance of donations of
real estate intended to be used for the proportionate fair-share, public or
private partners should contact the Florida Department of Transportation
for essential information about compliance with federal law and
regulations.
11.Where the comprehensive plan supports mixed-use, infill, redevelopment,
and expanding roadway capacity to serve this development is inconsistent
with community goals, the city may establish one or more multimodal
districts for the purpose of transportation concurrency. In the event that
such districts are established:
10 Ordinance No.8806-16
a.The boundaries of each district shall be described, and for each
district, standards shall be adopted for street connectivity and transit,
bicycle and pedestrian levels of service, consistent with Florida
Department of Transportation Model Regulations and Plan
Amendments for Multimodal Transportation Districts.
b.For each district, the city shall adopt a five-year or long-term schedule
of capital and service improvements to achieve and maintain the
adopted levels of service. Any transit improvements to be included in
this schedule will be identified in consultation with the transit agency.
c.When a development is proposed in a district where the multimodal
level of service standards are not being met, the applicant may pay a
proportionate fair-share amount towards meeting the standards and
then proceed with the development.
12.At the discretion of the city, the development's overall trips may be
reduced by up to five percent, with a developer commitment to the
implementation of trip reduction measures, to include: an agreed-on set of
capital and/or operational contributions; record-keeping and annual
reporting by implementers of operational programs; and penalties for
failure to implement and maintain the measures for an agreed upon time
period. Appropriate capital and operational contributions towards trip
reduction may include, but are not limited to, vanpool vehicles, preferential
parking and other facilities for carpools and vanpools, covered and secure
bicycle storage, shower and change facilities available to bicycle
commuters, office work-stations available for use by teleworkers, and
support for and active promotion of rideshare matching programs.
H.Impact fee credit for proportionate fair-share mitigation.
1.Proportionate fair-share contributions shall be applied as a credit against
transportation impact fees to the extent that all or a portion of the
proportionate fair-share mitigation is used to address the same capital
infrastructure improvements contemplated by the county's impact fee
ordinance.
2.Transportation impact fee credits for the proportionate fair-share
contribution will be determined when the transportation impact fee
obligation is calculated for the proposed development. Transportation
impact fees owed by the applicant will be reduced per the proportionate
fair-share agreement as they become due per the Pinellas County
Countywide Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance. If the applicant's
proportionate fair-share obligation is less than the development's
anticipated transportation impact fee for the specific stage or phase of
development under review, then the applicant or its successor must pay
the remaining impact fee amount to the city pursuant to the requirements
of the county impact fee ordinance.
3.Major transportation impact fee-funded projects not identified within the
appropriate county transportation impact fee district nor created under
11 Ordinance No.8806-16
Section 4-904D.2.a. nor Section 4-904 D.2.b. which can demonstrate a
significant benefit to the impacted transportation system may be eligible for
impact fee credits in accordance with the provisions of the county
transportation impact fee ordinance.
4.The proportionate fair-share obligation is intended to mitigate the
transportation impacts of a proposed development at a specific location.
As a result, any transportation impact fee credit based upon proportionate
fair-share contributions for a proposed development cannot be transferred
to any other location unless provided for within the county impact fee
ordinance.
I.Proportionate fair-share agreement.
1.Upon execution of a proportionate fair-share agreement (agreement), and
upon meeting all otherrequirements of Section 4-903, the applicant shall
receive a certificate of concurrency. In the event that the certificate of
concurrency expires, the agreement shall be considered null and void, and
the applicant shall be required to reapply.
2.Payment of the proportionate fair-share contribution is due in full prior to
issuance of the development order or recording of the final plat and shall
be non-refundable. If the payment is submitted more than 12 months from
the date of execution of the agreement, then the proportionate fair-share
cost shall be recalculated at the time of payment based on the best
estimate of the construction cost of the required improvement at the time
of payment, pursuant to Section 4-904.G. and adjusted accordingly.
3.All developer improvements authorized under this section must be
completed prior to issuance of a building permit, or as otherwise
established in a binding agreement that is accompanied by a security
instrument that is sufficient to ensure the completion of all required
improvements. It is the intent of this section that any required
improvements be completed before issuance of building permits or
certificates of occupancy.
4.Dedication of necessary right-of-way for facility improvements pursuant to
a proportionate fair-share agreement must be completed prior to issuance
of the final development order or recording of the final plat.
5.Any requested change to a development project subsequent to a
development order may be subject to additional proportionate fair-share
contributions to the extent the change would generate additional traffic that
would require mitigation.
6.Applicants may submit a letter to withdraw from the proportionate fair-
share agreement at any time prior to the execution of the agreement. The
application fee and any associated advertising costs to the city will be non
refundable.
12 Ordinance No.8806-16
7.The city may enter into proportionate fair-share agreements for selected
corridor improvements to facilitate collaboration among multiple applicants
on improvements to a shared transportation facility.
J.Appropriation of fair-share revenues.
1.Proportionate fair-share revenues shall be placed in the appropriate
project account for funding of scheduled improvements in the city capital
improvement element, or as otherwise established in the terms of the
proportionate fair-share agreement. At the discretion of the city,
proportionate fair-share revenues may be used for operational
improvements prior to construction of the capacity project from which the
proportionate fair-share revenues were derived. Proportionate fair-share
revenues may also be used as the 50 percent local match for funding
under the Florida Department of Transportation's Transportation Regional
Incentive Program (FDOT TRIP).
2.In the event a scheduled facility improvement is removed from the capital
improvement element, then the revenues collected for its construction may
be applied toward the construction of another improvement within that
same corridor or sector that would mitigate theimpacts of development
pursuant to the requirements of Section 4-904.D.2.b.
3.Where an impacted regional facility has been designated as a regionally
significant transportation facility in an adopted regional transportation plan
as provided in F.S. § 339.155, and then the city may coordinate with other
impacted jurisdictions and agencies to apply proportionate fair-share
contributions and public contributions to seek funding for improving the
impacted regional facility under the Florida Department of Transportation's
Transportation Regional Incentive Program (FDOT TRIP). Such
coordination shall be ratified by the city through an interlocal agreement
that establishes a procedure for earmarking of the developer contributions
for this purpose.
4.Where an applicant constructs a transportation facility that exceeds the
applicant's proportionate fair-share obligation calculated under Section 4-
904.H, the city shall reimburse the applicant for the excess contribution
using one or more of the following methods:
a.An impact fee credit account may be established for the applicant in
the amount of the excess contribution, a portion or all of which may be
assigned and reassigned under the terms and conditions acceptable to
the city.
b.An account may be established for the applicant for the purpose of
reimbursing the applicant for the excess contribution with proportionate
fair-share payments from future applicants on the facility.
c.The city may compensate the applicant for the excess contribution
through payment or some combination of means acceptable to the city
and the applicant.
13 Ordinance No.8806-16
K.Cross jurisdictional impacts.
1.In the interest of intergovernmental coordination and to reflect the shared
responsibilities for managing development and concurrency, the city may
enter an agreement with one or more adjacent local governments to
address cross jurisdictional impacts of development on cross jurisdictional
transportation facilities. The agreement shall provide for application of the
methodology in this section to address the cross jurisdictional
transportation impacts of development.
2.A development application submitted to the city subject to a transportation
concurrency determination meeting all of the following criteria shall be
subject to this section:
a.All or part of the proposed development is located within one-half mile
of the area which is under the jurisdiction, for transportation
concurrency, of an adjacent local government; and
b.If the additional traffic from the proposed development would use five
percent or more of the adopted peak hour level of service maximum
service volume of a cross jurisdictional transportation facility within the
concurrency jurisdiction of the adjacent local government (impacted
cross jurisdictional facility); and
c.The impacted cross jurisdictional facility is projected to be operating
below the level of service standard, adopted by the adjacent local
government, when the traffic from the proposed development is
included.
3.Upon identification of an impacted cross jurisdictional facility pursuant to
Section 4-904.K.2.a.—c. The city shall notify the applicant and the affected
adjacent local government in writing of the opportunity to derive an
additional proportionate fair-share contribution, based on the projected
impacts of the proposed development on the impacted adjacent facility.
4.The adjacent local government shall have up to 90 days in which to notify
the city of a proposed specific proportionate fair-share obligation, and the
intended use of the funds when received. The adjacent local government
must provide reasonable justification that both the amount of the payment
and its intended use comply with the requirements of F.S. § 163.3180(16).
Should the adjacent local government decline proportionate fair-share
mitigation under this section, then the provisions of this section would not
apply and the applicant would be subject only to the proportionate fair
share requirements of the city.
5.If the subject applicationis subsequently approved by the city, the
approval shall include a condition that the applicant provides, prior to the
issuance of any building permit covered by that application, evidence that
the proportionate fair-share obligation to the adjacent localgovernment
has been satisfied. The city may place as a condition of approval that the
14 Ordinance No.8806-16
adjacent local government declare in a resolution, ordinance, or equivalent
document, its intent for the use of the concurrency funds to be paid by the
applicant.
L.Proportionate Share Program for Transportation Concurrency Exception Areas
(TCEA's), Transportation Concurrency Management Areas (TCMA's) and
Multimodal Transportation Districts (MMTD's). Within the local TCMA's, MMTD's,
and/or TCEA's, the city may establish a proportionate fair-share assessment,
based on the expected costs and transportation benefits of all the programmed
improvements within that district, and based on the expected trip generation of the
proposed development.
M.Method for cost escalation. This section contains a method to estimate growth in
costs, through the computation of a three-year average of the actual cost growth
rates. This will provide a growth rate that should be smoothed to avoid
overcompensating for major fluctuations in costs that have occurred due to short-
term material shortages.
Costn = [(1 + t) × (Cost0)] × [1 + Cost growth3yr]n
Where:
Costn =The cost of the improvements in year n;
t =Contingency factor -Will only be applied to projects that have not been
adjusted for present day costs using a comparable contingency factor.
Cost0 =The cost of the improvement in the current year;
Cost growth3yr =The growth rate of costs over the last three years;
n =The number of years until the improvement is constructed.
The three-year growth rate is determined by the following formula:
Cost growth3yr = [Cost growth-1 + Cost growth-2 + Cost growth-3]/3
Where:
Cost growth3yr =The growth rate of costs over the last three years;
Cost growth-1 =The growth rate of costs in the previous year;
Cost growth-2 =The growth rate of costs two years prior;
Cost growth-3 =The growth rate of costs three years prior.
(Ord. No. 7718-06, § 2, 11-15-06)
Section 4-904. -Mobility Management System.
A.Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to provide a more flexible and
efficient alternative to the traditional form of transportation concurrency management,
which tiesdevelopment approvals to maintaining adopted roadway level of service
standards, while facilitating multi-modal transportation solutions.
B.Applicability. The mobility management system shall apply to all developments in the
City of Clearwater, pursuant to the requirements of 4-904.C.
C.General requirements. All development projects within the City of Clearwater that
generate new peak hour trips are subject to the provisions of this section to address
their development impacts. Determination of trip generation associated with an
application for development shall be based on Schedule A or B in Section 150-40 of
15 Ordinance No.8806-16
Pinellas County Land Development Code, or the latest edition of the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. As an alternative to the fee
schedule and Trip Generation Manual, the applicant may submit a trip generation
study in accordance with Section 4-905.C.4.a.and b.
1.Deficient road corridors include parcels, all or a portion of which lie within a
corridor, and aredefinedas:
a.Sole direct access. A condition where the only means of site ingress/egress is
directly onto the road facility, regardless of the distance of that site from the
facility;
b.Direct access. A condition in which one or more existing or potential site
ingress/egress points makes a direct connection to the road facility and the
site is within one-half mile of the road facility; and
c.Sole indirect access. A condition where the only point of site ingress/egress is
onto a public non-arterial roadway which makes its first and shortest arterial
level connection onto a road facility regardless of the distance of that site from
the facility.
2.Deficient road corridors are listed within themost recentPinellas County
Metropolitan PlanningOrganization’s annual Level of Service Report.
3.Development projects that generate less than 51 new peak hour trips are required
to pay a multi-modal impact fee in accordance with Section 4-905. They are not
required to submit a transportation management plan or study.
4.Tier 1 projects. Tier 1 projects are development projects that generate between
51 and 300 new peak hour trips.
a.Developers of Tier 1 projects located within deficient road corridors are
required to submit a transportation management plan designed to address
their impacts while increasing mobility and reducing the demand for single
occupant vehicle travel.
b.The cost of transportation management strategies implemented for Tier 1
projects are creditable toward their multi-modal impact fee assessment. If the
cost of the improvement exceeds the assessment, the development project
would not be subject to payment of the fee.
5.Tier 2 projects. Tier 2 projects are development projects that generate more than
300 new peak hour trips.
a.Developers of Tier 2 projects within deficient road corridors are required to
conduct a traffic study and submit an accompanying report. The report shall
16 Ordinance No.8806-16
include the results of the traffic study and a transportation management plan
identifying improvements necessary to mitigate the impacts of the project.
b.The cost of transportation management strategies implementedfor Tier 2
projects may be applied as credit toward the project’s multi-modal impact fee
assessment or payment of the fee could be includedas part of a
transportation management plan.
6.Development projects that generate more than 50new peak hour trips on non-
deficient road corridors shall be reviewed by the City to determine if the impacts of
the project adversely affect the level of service of the surrounding road network. If
it is determined that approval of the development project reducesthe level of
service of the adjacent road(s) to peak hour level of service E or F or would cause
the volume-to-capacity ratio to reach or exceed 0.9, a transportation management
plan isrequired. The applicant may submit a traffic study to verify whether their
project would affect the level of service of adjacent road(s). A transportation
management plan isrequired if the results of the traffic study confirm the finding of
the City, and the transportation management plan for such developments shall
comply with the requirements of Tier 1 or Tier 2 projects,as described in Sections
4-904.C.2.and 3.
7.Transportation management plans. At the time of site plan review, the City shall
analyze the development impacts of a project. A transportation management plan
is required for development applications subject to sections 4-904C.3, 4, and 5,
utilizing transportation management strategies/improvements to address their
development impacts. The extent of the strategies/improvements included in an
approved transportation management plan in terms of the scale of the project(s)
and roadway capacity and/or mobility benefits provided shall be based primarily
on the project(s)impact on the surrounding traffic circulation system. Specific
conditions of thedeficient road corridor impacted by the development shall also
be considered.
Transportation management plans must be developed by the applicant and
accepted by the City. If the project impacts a State road, the applicant shall also
submit the transportation management plan to the Florida Department of
Transportation District 7 Office. Transportation management plans seeking to
implement strategies that do not involve structural improvements, such as ride
sharing and transit incentive programs, must include a monitoring program to
ensure the strategies are carried out inaccordance with the plan. Site-related
improvements are not eligible for inclusion in transportation management plans.
Transportation management plan strategies/improvements include, but are not
limited to, those listed below:
a.Intensity reduction. The intensity of the proposal may be reduced through an
across-the-board reduction of the permitted floor area ratio, as it would
17 Ordinance No.8806-16
otherwise normally apply to the proposal. Other such corrective actions that
would reduce the intensity of the proposal may also apply.
b.Density reduction. The density of the proposal may be decreased by a
reduction in the number of units per acre below that which would otherwise
normally apply to the proposal.
c.Project phasing. A project may be divided into logical phases of development
by area, with later phases of the development proposal’s approval withheld
until the needed facilities are available.
d.Outparcel deletion. Those portions of the proposalcharacterized as
outparcels that create separate and unique impacts may be deleted from the
total proposal.
e.Physical highway improvements. A project may construct link capacity
improvements, acceleration/deceleration lanes, intersection improvements, or
frontage roads.
f.Operational improvements (signal). This includes efforts involving signal
removal or signal timing improvements.
g.Access management strategies. These include access management controls
such as the preclusion of a direct connection to a level of service deficient
facility, right-in/right-out driveways, alternative driveway locations, reduction of
a driveway, single point access, shared access, orthe implementation of
median controls.
h.Mass transit initiatives. A project may implement a plan to encourage transit
(e.g., employer-issued bus passes). Other mass transit initiatives may
include, but are not limited to, the construction of bus stop amenities, bus pull-
off areas, and dedication of park and ride parking spaces.
i.Demand management/commuter assistance. These include efforts to
encourage ride-sharing (e.g., designated parking spaces for carpools,
employer-sponsored carpool programs, participation in transportation
management organization/initiative programs), and implementingflexible work
hour and telecommuting programs.
j.Bicycle/pedestrian improvements. These would involve structural
improvements or construction of a bikeway or sidewalk connecting an existing
bikeway/sidewalk network or providing access to a school, park, shopping
center, etc. These improvements may also include pedestrian treatments in
parking areas, sidewalks connecting developments with adjacent land uses,
trailimprovements and bicycle rack and on-street bicycle lane installations,
and the planting of trees to provide shade canopy along sidewalks.
18 Ordinance No.8806-16
k.Intelligent transportation system improvements. This includes improvements
pertaining to computerized traffic signal systems that automatically adjust to
maximize traffic flow and to permit emergency vehicles to pass through
intersections quickly. It also includes freeway management systems, such as
electronic message signs, and electronic fare payment on public buses that
reduce passenger boarding time.
l.Livable community site design features. These include, but are not limited to,
implementation of pedestrian friendly site design features such asorienting
buildings toward the street and parking lots to the side or rear of buildings.
Section 8.That Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures,
Section 4-905, Reserved,of theCommunity Development Code be amended to read as
follows:
Section 4-905. –Reserved.Multi-modal impact fee.
A.Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to establish the required payment
of multi-modal impact fees, the computation of those fees, fee credits, disposition of
funds, refunding of fees, and exemptions of fees.
B.Fee required. The payment of a multi-modal impact fee shall be required in the
manner and amount set forth in this section.
1.Any person who seeks a certificate of occupancy for any land development
activity or seeks to change a use by applying for issuance of a building permit
which will generate additional traffic shall be required to pay a multi-modal impact
fee.
2.No certificate of occupancy or building permit requiring payment of a multi-modal
impact fee pursuant to section 4-905.Cshall be issued unless and until the multi-
modal impact fee has been paid.
3.Any person who has submitted a site plan or building permit application in
accordance with land development codes prior to the adoptionof Ord. No. 8806-
16shall be subject to the terms of the ordinance that was in effect at the time the
site plan or building permit application was submitted.
C.Computation of amount. The amount of the multi-modal impact fees imposed under
this section will depend on a number of factors, including the type of land
development activity, and several fixed elements, such as the average cost to
construct one lane-mile of roadway ($2,216,466) and the average capacity of one
lane-mile of roadway (6,900 vehicles per day).
1.The following formulashall be used by the City to determine the impact fee per
unit of development:
19 Ordinance No.8806-16
TGR x %NT x TL x CST (RF)
CAP x 2
WHERE:
TGR = Trip generation rate, as per fee schedule
%NT = percent new trips
TL = Average trip length, varies by land use
CST = The cost toconstruct one lane-mile of roadway ($2,216,466)
CAP = The capacity of one lane-mile of roadway (6,900 vehicles per lane, per
day)
2 = Allocation of one-half the impact to the origin and one-half to the
destination
RF = Reduction factor (0.268)
2.At the option of the feepayer, the amount of the multi-modal impact fee may be
determined by the Impact Fee Schedule A or B in Section 150-40 ofthePinellas
Land Development Code.
3.In the case ofa newuse, redevelopment, or modification of an existing use, the
impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee for the new use
as compared to the impact fee for the highest previous use in existence on or
after the adoptionof the ordinance from which this section derives. The City shall
be guided in this determination by the County’s transportation impact fee study
(February 1990), independent study trip generation data, or the Institute of
Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, sixth (or successor) edition.
4.If a feepayer opts to nothave the impact fee determined according to subsections
1 or 2 of this section, then the feepayer shall prepare and submit to the City for
approval of an independent fee calculation study for the land development activity
for which a certificate of occupancyor building permit is sought. The traffic
engineering and/or economic documentation submitted, which will require a pre-
application meeting with the City, shall show the basis upon which the
independent fee calculation was made, including, but not limited to the following:
a.Traffic engineeringstudies:
1.Documentation of trip generation rates appropriate for the proposed land
development activity.
2.Documentation of trip length appropriate for the proposed land
development activity.
3.Documentation of the cost per land mile for roadway construction for the
proposed land development activity.
b.Economic documentation studies:
20 Ordinance No.8806-16
1.Documentation of the cost per lane per mile for roadway construction for
the proposed land development activity.
2.Documentation of credits attributable to the proposed land development
activity which the feepayer will make available to replace the portion of the
service volume used by the traffic generated by the proposed land
development activity.
5.Trip generation documentation other than traffic engineering or economic
documentation studies, as described in Section 4-905.C.4.a and b may be
submitted by the applicant in consideration of an independent fee calculation.
D.Payment of fees and credits. The person applying for the issuance of a certificate of
occupancyorbuilding permit shall pay the multi-modal impact fee to the City prior to
the issuance of such permit. Fees for mobile homes shall be payable prior to
issuance of the permits which allow the mobile home to move on to a lot. Fees shall
be collected as part of the normal permitting process of the City. The City Manager or
his designee shall have full collection authority as well as full discretion for approval of
alternative methods for calculation of impact fees on a case-by-case basis. All funds
collected under this section shall be promptly transferred for deposit into the
appropriate impact fee trust account.
E.Fee credits. The following improvements to the transportation system may be eligible
for credit against the multi-modal impact fee or an impact fee adjustment or reduction.
Certain site related improvements or land dedicated for related right-of-way shall not
be given any credit towards the impact fee.
1.Construction of on-site trail, pedestrian, or bicycle facility if part of a trail, bicycle,
or pedestrian network identified in Metropolitan Planning Organization Long
Range Transportation Plan or the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan is eligible for
credit against impact fee assessment.
2.All transportation improvements required under a City approved development
order issued for a new development or a development of regional impact
approved prior to the adoption date of this ordinanceshall be credited against
multi-modal impact fees up to the total amount of the impact fee.Those
improvements deemed as site-related or on-site, shall not be credited against the
multi-modal impact fee.
3.Mixed-use developments consisting of complementary land uses that are
designed with connectivity to allow for a reduction in trip lengths and/or percent
new trips are eligible for an impact fee rate adjustment based on trip generation
data for similar uses.
4.Commuter assistance programs with long-term contract(s)facilitating ride sharing
activity are eligible for an impact fee rate reduction based on the reduction in the
21 Ordinance No.8806-16
number of single-occupant vehicle trips that would otherwise be associated with
the project.
5.Bus stop shelters, including pads, are eligible for a credit against the impact fee
assessment in an amount equal to the cost of the improvement or 1 percent of the
fee, whichever is greater.
6.Construction of shared driveway(s) between adjacent properties is eligible for a
credit against the impact fee assessment in the amount that is 50 percent of the
construction cost for the portion of the driveway that is located off-site.
7.Construction of shared inter-connecting parking lots is eligible for a credit against
the impact fee assessment in an amount that is 50 percent of the construction
cost for the portion of the parking area located off-site.
8.Sidewalks constructed for credit against impact fee assessments must provide
connection between the site and surrounding sidewalk network and/or major
destination point such as a park, shopping center,school, community center, etc.
9.Pedestrian and bicycle facilities connecting neighboring properties may be eligible
for credit against impact fees for the portion of the construction that isoff-site.
10.Off-site crosswalk enhancements, including curb bulb-out at intersection,
pavement marking, or raised crossings are eligible for credit against impact fee
assessment.
11.The City Manager or hisor herdesignee may accept an offer by the feepayer to
implement all or part of a transportation improvement project consistent with the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan or the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Long
Range Transportation Plan. The project(s) may be for any mode of transportation,
including rail, transit, pedestrian, or bicycle, providing that it serves to add to the
capacity of the surrounding transportation circulation system or to increase
mobility and reduce the dependence on automobile travel. This offer shall not
include site-related or on-site improvements. These transportation improvements
must be in accordance with City, County, or State requirements, whichever are
applicable. The feepayer shall provide the following to the City Manager or his
designee to determine consistency with City requirements:
a.Submit an offer to make improvements in lieu of a fee payment; and
b.A letter detailing the improvements to be made, improvement plans, and a
construction cost estimate in sufficient detail.
If the City Manager or his designee accepts such an offer, the cost of the
improvement project, except for the improvements identified in Sections 4-
905.E.5, 6, and 7, shall be credited against the multi-modal impact fee assessed
on the proposed development. Upon satisfactory completion and construction
22 Ordinance No.8806-16
approval of the transportation improvement made in lieu of all or a portion of the
impact fee due, the improvement shall be accepted by the City for future
maintenance. If the certificate of occupancy is requested prior to the completion
of the approved project, then a performance bond shall be provided to the City
manager or his designee to cover the balance of all work required following
issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
12.Sections 4-905.E.1 through 11 do not apply to development projects that are
subject to the requirements of Sections 4-904.C.4and 5.
F.Disposition of funds. Funds collected from multi-modal impact fees shall be used
exclusively for the purpose of projects that improve the capacity of the surrounding
traffic circulation system. These projects may involve improvements to transportation
modes such as transit, pedestrian, and bicycle travel as well as roadway expansion.
Such improvements shall be of the type as are made necessary by the new
development. Specific projects to receive funds from impact fees collected shall be
determined by City Council. Priorities for impact fee funded transportation
improvements shall be established by City Council in compliance with adopted plans
and the transportation improvement program of the Metropolitan Planning
Organization.
1.No funds collected under this article shall be used for periodic maintenance, as
defined in F.S. Chapter 334, as amended.
2.Fees collected within a community development or tax increment financing district
shall be expended within such district. If the project(s) benefit the district from
where the fees were collected, the fees can be expended in a neighboring district.
Parking garages for general public purposes shall be considered eligible
transportation improvements within such areas or districts.
3.Multi-modal impact fees collected by the City shall be held by the City until the end
of the fiscal year in which collected. At the beginning of each new fiscal year,
one-half of all fees collected, and the accrued interest thereon, less the four
percent retained from the total fee collected for administrative costs, shall be
forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for placement in the appropriate
trust account. The remaining one-half shall be deposited in the City’s multi-modal
impact fee trust account. All fees must be disbursed, encumbered, or refunded by
the City in a manner consistent with this section.
4.If the City wishes to expend the portion of the fees which are due to the County,
the City may do so with the approval of the county administrator and the City
Manager or hisor herdesignee.
5.Multi-modal impact fees collected on the state road network within the Citymay be
made available for construction of improvements on the state road network within
the City.
23 Ordinance No.8806-16
6.Multi-modal impact fee funds shall be administered as an independent component
of the Capital Improvement Element of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan, as
required by F.S. Chapter 163. Each fiscal year, the City Manager or hisor her
designee shall present to City Council the district improvement programs for
transportation expenditures. These programs shall assign transportation
improvement costs and related expenses to the trust account for specific
transportation improvement projects. Monies, including any accrued interest not
assigned in any fiscal year, shall be retained in the same impact fee trust account
until the next fiscal year, except as provided by the refund provisions of this
section. The City shall retain four percent of the fees collected for administrative
costs.
G.Refund of fee paid. Any funds not expended or encumbered by the end of the
calendar quarter immediately following ten years from the date thatthe multi-modal
impact fee was paid, upon application of the feepayer, within 180 days of that date, be
returned to the feepayer with interest at a yearly rate to be determined by the
Consumer Price Index effective January 1, which is to be applied to the preceding
year for each year the deposit is held.
H.Exemptions. The following shall be exempted from payment of the multi-modal
impact fee:
1.Alteration or expansion of an existing building where no additional units or floor
area are created, use is not changed, and where no additional vehicular trips will
be produced over and above that produced by the existing use;
2.The construction of accessory buildings or structures which will not produce
additional vehicular trips over and above that produced by the principal building or
use of the land;
3.The replacement of a building or structure with a new building or structure of the
same use provided that no additional trips will be produced over and above those
produced by the original building or structure; and
4.The construction of publicly-owned facilities used primarily for traditional
government uses.
Section 9.That Article 8, Definitions and Rules of Construction, Section 8-
102, of the Community Development Code, be amended to read as follows:
* * * * * * * * * *
Credits means the impact fee deductions allowed a feepayer for eligible off-site
transportation improvements funded by the feepayer.
* * * * * * * * * *
24 Ordinance No.8806-16
Deficient facility means a road operating at peak hour level of service E or F, and/or a
volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio of 0.9 or higher with no mitigating improvements scheduled
within three years.
* * * * * * * * * *
Feepayer means a person commencing a land development activity which generates
traffic and which requires the issuance of a certificate of occupancyorland use permit
* * * * * * * * * *
Mobility management system means the process utilized by the City to implement the
City’s mobility plan. This includes the process of managing the transportation impacts of
development projects and assessment, collection, and expenditure of multi-modal impact
fees.
Mobility plan means the approach to managing the transportation impacts of development
projects and increasing the mobility for pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor
vehicles utilizing the multi-modal impact fee and local site plan review processes.
* * * * * ** * * *
New peak hour trip means a vehicle trip added to the major road network from and to a
developed parcel of land during the weekday peak hour. This excludes passer-by or
diverted trips, whereby the site is accessed as a secondary trip.
* * * * * ** * *
Pre-existing use means the land use that had occupied a parcel of land prior to the
submittal of a permit/site plan application.
* * * * * * * * *
Transportation concurrency management area means a compact geographic area with
existing or proposed multiple viable alternative travel paths or modes for common trips.
An area-wide level of service standard may be established for specified facilities, and
must be maintained, as a basis for the issuance of development orders and permits
within one or more designated concurrency management areas.
Transportation management plan means a plan, submitted by a development applicant,
which seeks to utilize transportation management strategies to address development
impacts, improve the efficiency and safety of the transportation system, and increase the
mobility for all users.
Transportation management plan strategies means any strategies intended to increase
mobility while addressing the transportation impacts of development projects. Strategies
include, but are not limited to, density/intensity reductions, project phasing, access
controls, capital improvements and/or initiatives encouraging mass transit, bicycle, or
25 Ordinance No.8806-16
pedestrian travel, ride-sharing,or roadway improvements. They do not include standard
requirements necessary for site plan approval or operational improvements.
* * * * * * * * *
Volume-to-capacity (v/c) ratio means the rate of traffic flow of an intersection approach or
group of lanes during a specific time interval divided by the capacity of the approach or
group of lanes.
* * * * * * * * *
Section 10.Amendments to the Community Development Code of the City of
Clearwater (as originally adopted by Ordinance No. 6348-99 and subsequently amended)
are hereby adopted to read as set forth in thisOrdinance.
Section 11.The City of Clearwater does hereby certify that the amendments
contained herein, as well as the provisions of this Ordinance, are consistent with and in
conformance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
Section 12.Should any part or provision of this Ordinance be declared by a
court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the same shall not affect the validity of the
Ordinance as a whole, or any part thereof other than the part declared to be invalid.
Section 13.Notice of the proposed enactment of this Ordinance has been
properly advertised in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with applicable
law.
Section 14.This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
PASSED ON FIRST READING ____________________________
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL ____________________________
READING AND ADOPTED
____________________________
George N. Cretekos
Mayor
Approved as to form: Attest:
________________________________________________________
Camilo Soto Rosemarie Call
Assistant City Attorney City Clerk
** REVISED FOR CITY COUNCIL **
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 15, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: F. 2.
CASE: TA2015-10006
ORDINANCE NO.: 8806-16
REQUEST: Review and recommendation to the City Council, of an amendment to the
Code of Ordinances renaming transportation impact fee to multi-modal
impact fee; and amending the Community Development Code to repeal and
replace proportionate fair-share with a mobility management system and
multi-modal impact fee, updating criteria accordingly, and updating
various references.
INITIATED BY: City of Clearwater, Planning and Development Department
BACKGROUND:
The 2011 Community Planning Act made substantial amendments to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, including
repealing state mandated transportation concurrency. In response to those changes, the Pinellas County
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) coordinated with the various local governments to develop an
alternative approach to transportation concurrency. The result of this collaborative effort, the Pinellas County
Mobility Plan, was endorsed by the MPO in 2013. Model code amendments were later provided to
municipalities to integrate into their local ordinances.
The City has adopted required levels of service for solid waste, sanitary sewer, stormwater, potable water,
hurricane evacuation, and parks. Transportation impact fees are established by the Pinellas County Code
Chapter 150-40 (the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance, or TIFO), and are applied countywide. Levels of
service are maintained through the application of the City’s concurrency management requirements, which are
imposed to ensure that permits are not issued for a development project without the public facilities and
services necessary to handle its impacts being in place. The proposed amendments described in this report are
associated with the proposed City of Clearwater Comprehensive Plan amendments being processed
concurrently with this case (see CPA2015-04001), which propose to repeal transportation concurrency and
establish the policy framework for a new Mobility Management System.
The purpose of the proposed Mobility Management System is to provide a tiered development review
approach requiring larger scale projects adding trips to the surrounding road network to implement
transportation management strategies in-lieu of or as credit toward their impact fee assessment. The goal is to
increase mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and public transit, while reducing the amount
of single-occupant vehicular trips.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
TA2015-10006 – Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Ordinance No. 8806-16 proposes to repeal transportation concurrency requirements and the proportionate fair-
share program, as allowed under Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. A new Mobility Management System would
be established and a multi-modal impact fee would replace the transportation impact fee, consistent with the
amended Pinellas County Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance.
The following is a brief analysis of each aspect of the proposed amendment.
1. Multi-Modal Impact Fee [pages 2, 18-23 of ordinance]
The proposed amendment updates the name of the fee from Transportation Impact Fee to Multi-
Modal Impact Fee in several locations, including within the Code of Ordinances. It also establishes
the multi-modal impact fee, fee credits, payment of fees, disposition of the funds, refund of fees, and
fee exemptions. This fee, which is part of the proposed Mobility Management System, replaces the
existing Proportionate Fair-Share program, and is consistent with the Pinellas County Transportation
Impact Fee Ordinance.
2. Repeal of Transportation Concurrency [pages 3 and 4 of ordinance]
The proposed amendment exempts roads from the list of facilities required to have a certificate of
concurrency/capacity.
3. Zoning Atlas Amendments [pages 2-3 of ordinance]
Updates the term “commission” to “council” throughout the section, and changes the review criteria
for roadways from “traffic carrying capacities” to “traffic operations”.
4. Repeal of Proportionate Fair Share [pages 4-14 of ordinance]
The proposed amendment repeals the requirement that a proportionate fair-share contribution must be
paid. The Mobility Management System replaces the Proportionate Fair-Share program.
5. Mobility Management System [pages 14-18 of ordinance]
Establishes the Mobility Management System, which is the tiered development review process that
requires larger scale projects adding trips to the surrounding road network to implement
transportation management strategies in-lieu of or as credit toward their multi-modal impact fee
assessment. Smaller scale projects which generate less than 51 new peak hour trips on deficient road
corridors will only be required to pay their multi-modal impact fee assessment; whereas projects that
generate a greater number of trips on deficient road corridors will be required to submit a
transportation management plan (Tier 1 projects, 51 – 300 new p.m. peak hour trips) or submit a
traffic study with an accompanying report and transportation management plan (Tier 2 projects,
greater than 300 new p.m. peak hour trips). Development projects that are not on a deficient road
corridor that generate less than 50 new peak hour trips will only have to pay the multi-modal impact
fee; whereas projects that generate more than 50 new peak hour trips will be reviewed by City staff,
and any significant impacts that are found will be required to follow the requirements of Tier 1 or
Tier 2 projects. The Mobility Management System also includes a variety of transportation
management plan strategies/improvements (pages 16 – 18 of ordinance) which, if implemented by the
developer, can be credited against their multi-modal impact fee assessment.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
TA2015-10006 – Page 3
6. Definitions [pages 23-25 of ordinance]
New definitions are added to explain various terms utilized in the Mobility Management System
section of the Code and removes terms that deal with transportation concurrency.
CRITERIA FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS:
Section 4-601, CDC, sets forth the procedures and criteria for reviewing text amendments. All text
amendments must comply with the following:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with and furthers the goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan.
A review of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan identified the following Objectives and Policies which
will be furthered by the proposed Code amendments:
Objective A.6.5 The City shall encourage improved land use compatibility through the evaluation of
traffic calming techniques, multi-modal transportation networks, and the use of transit
oriented development planning.
Policy A.6.5.3 All proposed development/redevelopment initiatives shall be reviewed for opportunities
to improve pedestrian and bicycle access and consider the integration of bicycle and
pedestrian transportation modes in all phases of transportation planning, new roadway
design, roadway construction, roadway resurfacing and other capital projects consistent
with the City’s Shifting Gears Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan 2006. On Clearwater
Beach, pedestrian and bicycle improvements should adhere to the policies and design
guidelines set forth in Beach by Design: A Preliminary Design for Clearwater Beach
and Design Guidelines.
Objective A.6.8 Identify those areas of the City that are appropriate for redevelopment as livable
communities and require that specific sustainable elements be used in the redevelopment
of these areas.
Policy A.6.8.9 Promote a variety of transportation modes such as walking, bicycling, ride sharing and
mass transit to increase transportation choices and decrease dependence on the single-
occupancy automobile.
Objective B.1.5 The City shall specifically consider the existing and planned LOS the road network
affected by a proposed development, when considering an amendment to the land use
map, rezoning, subdivision plat, or site plan approval.
The proposed amendments are being processed concurrently with CPA2015-04001, and will bring more
consistency between the Comprehensive Plan and the Community Development Code. The change from
transportation concurrency to the proposed Mobility Management System will require developers to
better mitigate their potential transportation impacts by utilizing strategies that increase mobility for
pedestrians, bicycles, and mass transit users and by utilizing livable communities techniques within
development proposals. As such, the above reference objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan
will be furthered.
Community Development Board – December 15, 2015
Revised for City Council – January 21, 2016
TA2015-10006 – Page 4
2. The proposed amendment furthers the purposes of the Community Development Code and other
City ordinances and actions designed to implement the Plan.
The proposed text amendment will further the purposes of the CDC in that it will be consistent with the
following purposes set forth in Section 1-103.
It is the purpose of this Development Code to implement the Comprehensive Plan of the city; to
promote the health, safety, general welfare and quality of life in the city; to guide the orderly growth
and development of the city; to establish rules of procedures for land development approvals; to
enhance the character of the city and the preservation of neighborhoods; and to enhance the quality of
life of all residents and property owners of the city (Section 1-103.1., CDC).
Provide the most beneficial relationship between the uses of land and buildings and the circulation of
traffic throughout the city, with particular regard for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian traffic
movement (Section 1-103.E.4., CDC).
The establishment of the Mobility Management System, which replaces transportation concurrency, will
continue to ensure efficient vehicular movement while also requiring developers to better accommodate
pedestrian, bicycle, and mass transit users on the road network system. The proposed amendments will
also update references to current State Statute requirements. As such, the proposed amendment furthers
the purposes of the Community Development Code as well as the actions designed to implement the
Clearwater Comprehensive Plan.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION:
The proposed amendment to the Community Development Code is not inconsistent with and will further the
goals, objectives and policies of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Community
Development Code. Based upon the above, the Planning and Development Department recommends
APPROVAL of Ordinance No. 8806-16 that amends the Code of Ordinances and the Community
Development Code.
Prepared by Planning and Development Department Staff: _____
Kyle Brotherton,
Planner
ATTACHMENTS: Resume
Ordinance No. 8806-16
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ANX2015-12034
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Planning CaseIn Control: Planning & Development
Agenda Number: 7.3
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the annexation, initial Future Land Use Map designation of Residential Low (RL) and
initial Zoning Atlas designation of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 2118,
2142, and 2166 Bell Cheer Drive; and pass Ordinances 8821-16, 8822-16, and 8823-16 on
first reading. (ANX2015-12034)
SUMMARY:
These voluntary annexation petitions involve three parcels of land totaling 0.711 acres. The
parcels are occupied by single -family dwellings and are located generally south of Druid Road,
east of South Hercules Avenue, north of Nursery road, and west of South Belcher Road . The
applicants are requesting annexation in order to receive solid waste service from the City, and
will be connected to city sewer as part of the Belcher Area Sewer Expansion Project. The
properties are contiguous to existing city limits along at least one property boundary. It is
proposed that the properties be assigned a Future Land Use Map designation of Residential
Low (RL) and the zoning category of Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR).
The Planning and Development Department determined that the proposed annexations are
consistent with the provisions of Clearwater Community Development Code Section 4-604.E
as follows:
·The properties currently receive water service from the County. Collection of solid
waste will be provided to the properties by the City. Two of the applicants have paid
the sewer impact fee in full, and will be connected once sewer is made available. The
third applicant has not paid the sewer impact fee, and is aware that the fee must be
paid in full in order to connect and of the financial incentives available. The properties
are located within Police District III and service will be administered through the district
headquarters located at 2851 McMullen Booth Road. Fire and emergency medical
services will be provided to the properties by Station 49 located at 565 Sky Harbor
Drive. The City has adequate capacity to serve the properties with sanitary sewer, solid
waste, police, fire and EMS service. The properties will continue to receive water from
Pinellas County. The proposed annexations will not have an adverse effect on public
facilities and their levels of service; and
·The proposed annexations are consistent with and promote the following objectives
and policy of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan:
Objective A.6.4 Due to the built-out character of the City of Clearwater,
compact urban development within the urban service area shall be promoted
through application of the Clearwater Community Development Code.
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ANX2015-12034
Objective A.7.2 Diversify and expand the City ’s tax base through the
annexation of a variety of land uses located within the Clearwater Planning
Area.
Policy A.7.2.3 Continue to process voluntary annexations for single -family
residential properties upon request.
·The proposed Residential Low (RL) Future Land Use Map category is consistent with
the current Countywide Plan designation of the properties. The Residential Low (RL)
designation primarily permits residential uses at a density of 5 units per acre. The
proposed zoning district to be assigned to the properties is the Low Medium Density
Residential (LMDR). The uses of the subject properties are consistent with the uses
allowed in the Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District and the properties
exceed the District ’s minimum dimensional requirements. The proposed annexations
are therefore consistent with the Countywide Plan and the City ’s Comprehensive Plan
and Community Development Code; and
·The properties proposed for annexation are contiguous to existing City limits to along
at least one property boundary; therefore, the annexation is consistent with Florida
Statutes Chapter 171.044.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
N/A
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Ordinance No. 8821-16
ORDINANCE NO. 8821-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, ANNEXING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES
LOCATED GENERALLY EAST OF SOUTH HERCULES
AVENUE, WEST OF SOUTH BELCHER ROAD, NORTH OF
NURSERY ROAD AND SOUTH OF DRUID ROAD, WHOSE
POST OFFICE ADDRESSES ARE 2118, 2142, AND 2166
BELL CHEER DRIVE, ALL IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
33764, INTO THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY, AND
REDEFINING THE BOUNDARY LINES OF THE CITY TO
INCLUDE SAID ADDITIONS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the owners of the real properties described herein and depicted on the
map attached hereto as Exhibit B 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 Exhibit A for legal descriptions
(ANX2015-12034)
The map attached as Exhibit B is 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 on March 16, 2016. 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 the effective date, and shall file a certified copy with the Florida
Department of State within 30 days after the effective date.
Ordinance No. 8821-16
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
George N. Cretekos
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Camilo A. Soto
Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Rosemarie Call
City Clerk
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ANX2015‐12034
=========================================================================================
No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address
1. 24-29-15-06426-000-0030 Lot 3 2118 Bell Cheer Drive
The above in FIRST ADDITION TO THE BELL CHEER subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 33, PAGE 54, of the
Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
=========================================================================================
No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address
2. 24-29-15-06408-000-0080 Lot 8 2142 Bell Cheer Drive
3. 24-29-15-06408-000-0040 Lot 4 2166 Bell Cheer Drive
The above in BELL-CHEER subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 60, of the Public Records of Pinellas
County, Florida.
Exhibit B
PROPOSED ANNEXATION MAP
Owner(s): Multiple Owners Case: ANX2015-12034
Site:
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
Property
Size(Acres):
ROW (Acres):
0.711
N/A
Land Use Zoning
PIN:
24-29-15-06426-000-0030
24-29-15-06408-000-0080
24-29-15-06408-000-0040 From : RL R-3
Atlas Page: 308B To: RL LMDR
60
60
60
6 0
50
4
3
4
5
6
88103
104
130 131 132133 87 86 85 8483
138 137 136 135 134 105106107 108 109 110
128
127
126
125
124 123 122 121120119118 117 116115114113112111
50
2
3
4
50
80
10
0
1
2
3
4
201
60
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
6
0
50
8
0
6
0
72144
064080642606444
310 504
3
4
5
6
7
9 10
11
12
13141516
1112 1314 15 18 19
20
21
1 2 332198765 4 32 1
18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
1716 15 14 131211 10
9 8
7 654 3 2 1
7
12
15
16 17
1 2
6 7 8
8
16
11/01
11/04
4.76
11/0911/0811/0511/03
A C
1
BURNICE DR
S
B
E
L
C
H
E
R
R
D
BELL CHEER DR
S UNIVERSITY DR
DORADO PL
WOODLEY RD
BELL DR
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
K
W
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
T
7 8
3
5 6
4 2
1290
22
1
0
21
3
1
21
9
1
2112
21
7
3
2172
21
6
5
2132
2110
21
7
3
21
2
5
21
1
7
21
4
7
21
5
5
21
3
5
21
4
9
20
9
9
21
6
7
1200
1276
21
0
9
21
9
8
2152
21
1
7
21
3
8
2 1 2 3
21
0
9
2147
21
5
5
21
7
9
21
3
9
21
8
5
2130
1100
21
0
7
21
9
7
21
2
5
2106
21
0
1
2106
21
9
5
21
5
7
2 1 1 9
21
2
5
2115
21
7
3
21
9
1
2124
21
7
4
21
4
9
21
6
7
21
0
9
1 1 1 0
2111
21
4
3
21
4
3
21
6
1
21
8
1
2126
1105
21
8
7
21
1
7
1250
21
9
5
2178
21
8
5
20
9
1
21
3
0
21
9
1
21
8
8
121
21
5
4
2 1 6 4
04
08
120
21
9
2
21
8
1
1101
21
2
7
21
4
3
2112
1009
21
1
0
2160
2 1
21
4
8
2176
2122
2206
21
9
9
124
2184
2 1 4 1
21
2
5
123
1
2
1
6
120
1006
2116
2130
124
2140
21
9
9
21
6
6
21
6
0
1107
123
125
21
8
7
2118
2190
2 1 5 6
2140
1005
8
2166
2180
2198
122
2186
21
4
2
21
2
4
21
1
8
21
4
1
21
3
5
08
2100
00
21
5
7
1220
1111
21
3
3
1010
2192
21
3
31222
2148
2172
2100
21
9
1
04
2118
1282
2134
-N
o
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
-
-N
o
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
Rev. 12/8/2015
Ordinance No. 8822-16
ORDINANCE NO. 8822-16
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
PROPERTIES LOCATED GENERALLY EAST OF SOUTH
HERCULES AVENUE, WEST OF SOUTH BELCHER
ROAD, NORTH OF NURSERY ROAD AND SOUTH OF
DRUID ROAD, WHOSE POST OFFICE ADDRESSES ARE
2118, 2142, AND 2166 BELL CHEER DRIVE, ALL IN
CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33764, UPON ANNEXATION
INTO THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, AS RESIDENTIAL LOW
(RL); 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 Exhibit A for legal descriptions Residential Low
(RL)
(ANX2015-12034)
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 on March 16, 2016, contingent upon and
subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8821-16.
Ordinance No. 8822-16
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
George N. Cretekos
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Camilo A. Soto
Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Rosemarie Call
City Clerk
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ANX2015‐12034
=========================================================================================
No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address
1. 24-29-15-06426-000-0030 Lot 3 2118 Bell Cheer Drive
The above in FIRST ADDITION TO THE BELL CHEER subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 33, PAGE 54, of the
Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
=========================================================================================
No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address
2. 24-29-15-06408-000-0080 Lot 8 2142 Bell Cheer Drive
3. 24-29-15-06408-000-0040 Lot 4 2166 Bell Cheer Drive
The above in BELL-CHEER subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 60, of the Public Records of Pinellas
County, Florida.
Exhibit B
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
Owner(s): Multiple Owners Case: ANX2015-12034
Site:
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
Property
Size(Acres):
ROW (Acres):
0.711
N/A
Land Use Zoning
PIN:
24-29-15-06426-000-0030
24-29-15-06408-000-0080
24-29-15-06408-000-0040 From : RL R-3
Atlas Page: 308B To: RL LMDR
60
60
60
6 0
50
4
3
4
5
6
88103
104
130 131 132133 87 86 85 8483
138 137 136 135 134 105106107 108 109 110
128
127
126
125
124 123 122 121120119118 117 116115114113112111
50
2
3
4
50
80
10
0
1
2
3
4
201
60
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
6
0
50
8
0
6
0
72144
064080642606444
310 504
3
4
5
6
7
9 10
11
12
13141516
1112 1314 15 18 19
20
21
1 2 332198765 4 32 1
18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
1716 15 14 131211 10
9 8
7 654 3 2 1
7
12
15
16 17
1 2
6 7 8
8
16
11/01
11/04
4.76
11/0911/0811/0511/03
A C
1
BURNICE DR
S
B
E
L
C
H
E
R
R
D
BELL CHEER DR
S UNIVERSITY DR
DORADO PL
WOODLEY RD
BELL DR
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
K
W
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
T
RL
RL
P
RL
RU
R/OS
RU
WATER
RU
I
RURU
RU
RU
7 8
3
5 6
4 2
1290
22
1
0
21
3
1
21
9
1
2112
21
7
3
2172
21
6
5
2132
21
4
3
21
7
3
21
2
5
21
1
7
21
3
5
21
4
9
21
6
7
1200
1276
21
0
9
21
9
8
2152
21
1
7
21
3
8212321
0
9
2184
2147
21
5
5
21
2
5
21
7
9
21
3
9
21
8
5
2130
1100
21
0
7
21
9
7
21
2
5
1
2
1
6
2106
21
0
1
2106
21
9
5
21
5
7
21
6
0
2190
2 1 1 9
21
2
5
2166
21
7
3
21
9
1
2124
21
7
4
21
3
5
21
4
9
21
6
7
1220
21
4
3
21
4
3
21
6
1
2126
1105
2100
21
8
7
21
1
7
1250
21
9
5
2178
21
8
5
20
9
1
21
3
0
21
9
1
21
8
8
121
21
5
4
2 1 6 4
04
08
120
21
9
2
21
8
1
1101
21
2
7
2110
2112
1009
21
1
0
2160
2 1
21
4
7
21
4
8
21
5
5
20
9
9
2176
2122
2206
21
9
9
124
2 1 4 1
123
120
1006
2116
2130
124
2140
21
9
9
21
6
6
1107
123
125
21
8
7
2118
2 1 5 6
2140
1005
8
2115
2180
2198
122
2186
21
4
2
21
2
4
21
1
8
21
4
1
08
2100
00
21
5
7
21
0
9
1 1 1 0
2111
1111
21
8
1
21
3
3
1010
2192
21
3
31222
2148
2172
21
9
1
04
2118
1282
2134
-N
o
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
-
-N
o
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
Rev. 12/8/2015
Ordinance No. 8823-16
ORDINANCE NO. 8823-16
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ATLAS OF THE CITY
BY ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTIES LOCATED
GENERALLY EAST OF SOUTH HERCULES AVENUE,
WEST OF SOUTH BELCHER ROAD, NORTH OF
NURSERY ROAD AND SOUTH OF DRUID ROAD, WHOSE
POST OFFICE ADDRESSES ARE 2118, 2142, AND 2166
BELL CHEER DRIVE, ALL IN CLEARWATER, FLORIDA
33764, 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:
The map attached as Exhibit B is 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 on March 16, 2016, contingent upon
and subject to the adoption of Ordinance No. 8821-16.
Property Zoning District
See attached Exhibit A for legal descriptions Low Medium Density Residential
(LMDR)
(ANX2015-12034)
Ordinance No. 8823-16
PASSED ON FIRST READING
PASSED ON SECOND AND FINAL
READING AND ADOPTED
George N. Cretekos
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Camilo A. Soto
Assistant City Attorney
Attest:
Rosemarie Call
City Clerk
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS
ANX2015‐12034
=========================================================================================
No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address
1. 24-29-15-06426-000-0030 Lot 3 2118 Bell Cheer Drive
The above in FIRST ADDITION TO THE BELL CHEER subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 33, PAGE 54, of the
Public Records of Pinellas County, Florida.
=========================================================================================
No. Parcel ID Legal Description Address
2. 24-29-15-06408-000-0080 Lot 8 2142 Bell Cheer Drive
3. 24-29-15-06408-000-0040 Lot 4 2166 Bell Cheer Drive
The above in BELL-CHEER subdivision, as recorded in PLAT BOOK 30, PAGE 60, of the Public Records of Pinellas
County, Florida.
Exhibit B
ZONING MAP
Owner(s): Multiple Owners Case: ANX2015-12034
Site:
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
Property
Size(Acres):
ROW (Acres):
0.711
N/A
Land Use Zoning
PIN:
24-29-15-06426-000-0030
24-29-15-06408-000-0080
24-29-15-06408-000-0040 From : RL R-3
Atlas Page: 308B To: RL LMDR
60
60
60
6 0
50
4
3
4
5
6
88103
104
130 131 132133 87 86 85 8483
138 137 136 135 134 105106107 108 109 110
128
127
126
125
124 123 122 121120119118 117 116115114113112111
50
2
3
4
50
80
10
0
1
2
3
4
201
60
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
6
0
50
8
0
6
0
72144
064080642606444
310 504
3
4
5
6
7
9 10
11
12
13141516
1112 1314 15 18 19
20
21
1 2 332198765 4 32 1
18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
1716 15 14 131211 10
9 8
7 654 3 2 1
7
12
15
16 17
1 2
6 7 8
8
16
11/01
11/04
4.76
11/0911/0811/0511/03
A C
1
BURNICE DR
S
B
E
L
C
H
E
R
R
D
BELL CHEER DR
S UNIVERSITY DR
DORADO PL
WOODLEY RD
BELL DR
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
K
W
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
T
LMDR
P
OS/R
I
P
7 8
3
5 6
4 2
1290
22
1
0
21
3
1
21
9
1
2112
21
7
3
2172
21
6
5
2132
21
4
3
2110
21
7
3
21
2
5
21
1
7
21
4
7
21
5
5
21
3
5
21
4
9
20
9
9
21
6
7
1200
1276
21
0
9
21
9
8
2152
21
1
7
21
3
8212321
0
9
2184
2147
21
5
5
21
2
5
21
7
9
21
3
9
21
8
5
2130
1100
21
0
7
21
9
7
21
2
5
1
2
1
6
2106
21
0
1
2106
21
9
5
21
5
7
21
6
0
2190
2 1 1 9
21
2
5
2166
2115
21
7
3
21
9
1
2124
21
7
4
21
3
5
21
4
9
21
6
7
21
0
9
1 1 1 0
2111
1220
21
4
3
21
4
3
21
6
1
21
8
1
2126
1105
2100
21
8
7
21
1
7
1250
21
9
5
2178
21
8
5
20
9
1
21
3
0
21
9
1
21
8
8
121
21
5
4
2 1 6 4
04
08
120
21
9
2
21
8
1
1101
21
2
7
2112
1009
21
1
0
2160
2 1
21
4
8
2176
2122
2206
21
9
9
124
2 1 4 1
123
120
1006
2116
2130
124
2140
21
9
9
21
6
6
1107
123
125
21
8
7
2118
2 1 5 6
2140
1005
8
2180
2198
122
2186
21
4
2
21
2
4
21
1
8
21
4
1
08
2100
00
21
5
7
1111
21
3
3
1010
2192
21
3
31222
2148
2172
21
9
1
04
2118
1282
2134
-N
o
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
-
-N
o
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
Rev. 12/8/2015
LOCATION MAP
Owner(s): Multiple Owners Case: ANX2015-12034
Site:
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
Property
Size(Acres):
ROW (Acres):
0.711
N/A
Land Use Zoning
PIN:
24-29-15-06426-000-0030
24-29-15-06408-000-0080
24-29-15-06408-000-0040 From : RL R-3
Atlas Page: 308B To: RL LMDR
^^^
BELCH
ER RD
-N
o
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
-
-N
o
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
Rev. 12/8/2015
DRUID RD
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Owner(s): Multiple Owners Case: ANX2015-12034
Site:
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
Property
Size(Acres):
ROW (Acres):
0.711
N/A
Land Use Zoning
PIN:
24-29-15-06426-000-0030
24-29-15-06408-000-0080
24-29-15-06408-000-0040 From : RL R-3
Atlas Page: 308B To: RL LMDR
RU
BURNICE DR BURNICE DR
S
B
E
L
C
H
E
R
R
D
S
B
E
L
C
H
E
R
R
D
BELL CHEER DR BELL CHEER DR
S UNIVERSITY DR S UNIVERSITY DR
DORADO PL DORADO PL
WOODLEY RD
WOODLEY RD
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
K
W
Y
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
K
W
Y
BELL DR
BELL DR
GROVE AVE (trail only)
GROVE AVE (trail only)
-N
o
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
-
-N
o
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
Rev. 12/8/2015
EXISTING SURROUNDING USES MAP
Owner(s): Multiple Owners Case: ANX2015-12034
Site:
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
Property
Size(Acres):
ROW (Acres):
0.711
N/A
Land Use Zoning
PIN:
24-29-15-06426-000-0030
24-29-15-06408-000-0080
24-29-15-06408-000-0040 From : RL R-3
Atlas Page: 308B To: RL LMDR
60
60
60
6 0
50
4
3
4
5
6
88103
104
130 131 132133 87 86 85 8483
138 137 136 135 134 105106107 108 109 110
128
127
126
125
124 123 122 121120119118 117 116115114113112111
50
2
3
4
50
80
10
0
1
2
3
4
201
60
60
50
60
60
60
60
60
60
6
0
50
8
0
6
0
72144
064080642606444
310 504
3
4
5
6
7
9 10
11
12
13141516
1112 1314 15 18 19
20
21
1 2 332198765 4 32 1
18 19 20 2122 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34
1716 15 14 131211 10
9 8
7 654 3 2 1
7
12
15
16 17
1 2
6 7 8
8
16
11/01
11/04
4.76
11/0911/0811/0511/03
A C
1
BURNICE DR
S
B
E
L
C
H
E
R
R
D
BELL CHEER DR
S UNIVERSITY DR
DORADO PL
WOODLEY RD
BELL DR
PL
E
A
S
A
N
T
P
K
W
Y
U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y
C
T
7 8
3
5 6
4 2
1290
22
1
0
21
3
1
21
9
1
2112
21
7
3
2172
21
6
5
2132
2110
21
7
3
21
2
5
21
1
7
21
4
7
21
5
5
21
3
5
21
4
9
20
9
9
21
6
7
1200
1276
21
0
9
21
9
8
2152
21
1
7
21
3
8
2 1 2 3
21
0
9
2147
21
5
5
21
7
9
21
3
9
21
8
5
2130
1100
21
0
7
21
9
7
21
2
5
2106
21
0
1
2106
21
9
5
21
5
7
2 1 1 9
21
2
5
2115
21
7
3
21
9
1
2124
21
7
4
21
4
9
21
6
7
21
0
9
1 1 1 0
2111
21
4
3
21
4
3
21
6
1
21
8
1
2126
1105
21
8
7
21
1
7
1250
21
9
5
2178
21
8
5
20
9
1
21
3
0
21
9
1
21
8
8
121
21
5
4
2 1 6 4
04
08
120
21
9
2
21
8
1
1101
21
2
7
21
4
3
2112
1009
21
1
0
2160
2 1
21
4
8
2176
2122
2206
21
9
9
124
2184
2 1 4 1
21
2
5
123
1
2
1
6
120
1006
2116
2130
124
2140
21
9
9
21
6
6
21
6
0
1107
123
125
21
8
7
2118
2190
2 1 5 6
2140
1005
8
2166
2180
2198
122
2186
21
4
2
21
2
4
21
1
8
21
4
1
21
3
5
08
2100
00
21
5
7
1220
1111
21
3
3
1010
2192
21
3
31222
2148
2172
2100
21
9
1
04
2118
1282
2134
-N
o
t
t
o
S
c
a
l
e
-
-N
o
t
a
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
Rev. 12/8/2015
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
Single Family
Residential
Water
View looking north at the subject property, 2118 Bell Cheer DriveEast of the subject property
West of the subject propertyAcross the street, to the south of the subject property
ANX2015-12034
Alejandro and IsbeliaRios
2118 Bell Cheer Drive
View looking easterly along Bell Cheer DriveView looking westerly along Bell Cheer Drive
View looking north at the subject property, 2142 Bell Cheer DriveEast of the subject property
West of the subject propertyAcross the street, to the south of the subject property
ANX2015-12034
Diana Gloria Mendez
2142 Bell Cheer Drive
View looking easterly along Bell Cheer DriveView looking westerly along Bell Cheer Drive
View looking north at the subject property, 2166 Bell Cheer DriveEast of the subject property
West of the subject propertyAcross the street, to the north of the subject property
ANX2015-12034
Ryan Scott and Erika E. Frazer
2166 Bell Cheer Drive
View looking easterly along Bell Cheer DriveView looking westerly along Bell Cheer Drive
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2123
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Public Utilities
Agenda Number: 8.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve an annual blanket purchase order (contract) to Univar USA Inc. (Univar) of
Morrisville, PA, in the annual amount of $150,000.00, with the option for two, one-year term
extensions for the purchase of Polyphosphate (ITB 03-16), and authorize the appropriate
officials to execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
Univar provides chemical products to the water treatment industry. Polyphosphate is a water
treatment chemical used to prevent lead and copper from leaking into the system and to
maintain water quality in the distribution system. Polyphosphate is utilized at the three Water
Treatment Plants for corrosion control.
On November 24, 2015, five bid submissions were received in response to Invitation to Bid
(03-16) for Polyphosphate. Univar USA Inc. is the lowest, most responsive bidder with the cost
of Polyphosphate at $1.45/lb.
The contract will be effective for an initial one -year period in the annual amount of
$150,000.00, with two, one-year renewal options. Years two and three allow for cost
increases based on the Producer Price Index (PPI), not to exceed 5% of the prior annual
amount; a maximum of $157,500 (year two) and $165,375 (year three).
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
0421-02053-551000-533-000-0000 $ 49,795.08 FY 15/16
0421-01351-551000-533-000-0000 $ 49,795.08 FY 15/16
0421-02053-551000-533-000-0000 $ 25,204.92 FY 16/17
0421-01351-551000-533-000-0000 $ 25,204.92 FY 16/17
Sufficient funding is available in the Water & Sewer Utility Fund operating cost centers
0421-02053, Water Supply, and 0421-01351, Wastewater Plant Operations, in equal amounts
of $49,795.08, respectively, to fund the current fiscal year’s cost of the contract. The funding
for the remaining balance of $50,409.84, along with the second and third contract years
occurring in fiscal years 2017 through 2019 will be included in the Water and Sewer
recommended operating budget from the Director.
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2123
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2130
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Solid Waste/General Services
Agenda Number: 9.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve a Contract (Purchase Order) to Communications International of Vero Beach, FL in
the amount of $499,942.08 for the Project 25 (P-25) city terminal upgrade for the citywide
two-way radio P-25 communication system in accordance with Sec. 2.564(1)(b), Code of
Ordinances - Sole Source; authorize lease purchase under the City's Master Lease Purchase
Agreement, or internal financing via an interfund loan from the Capital Improvement Fund,
whichever is deemed to be in the City's best interest; and authorize the appropriate officials to
execute same. (consent)
SUMMARY:
Currently the City of Clearwater is in the process of upgrading its citywide communications
system to a national P25 standard. This upgrade is laid out in 3 phases, with a multi-year
implementation schedule. The initial phase is comprised of upgrades required by the
Clearwater Police Department. The second phase is to upgrade the remaining city user
equipment. The third phase will complete the migration with the final build-out of the City’s
system infrastructure.
Phase 1, was approved by City Council on April 16, 2015, and completed in 2015.
This request is for Phase 2, Part 1, which is the purchase of 371 P-25 terminals for the
following departments: Engineering, Parks and Recreation, Utilities, Gas, General Services,
and Marine and Aviation. Part 2 of Phase 2 will include Solid Waste and is budgeted for Fiscal
Year 16/17.
Funds are available in capital improvement project 316-94243, Radio P25 Upgrade, to fund
this contract.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
316-94243-530300-519 Radio P25 Upgrade $499,942.08
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
QUOTATION
Page
Date
Quote Number
1/1
1/4/2016
QTE1600003
7792 Professional Place
Tampa, FL 33637
Voice: 813.887.1888 Fax: 813.887.3884
Bill To City of Clearwater
100 Myrtle Ave
PO Box 4748
Clearwater, FL, 33756-5520
USA
Site Clearwater, City of - Radio Communications
1900 Grand Avenue
Clearwater, FL, 33765
Voice:
Fax:
Contact
Phase II Mobile/PortableCLE110RC
ReferenceSalesperson Site Number Description
Harris XG-15P/XG25M Ioco, Joseph
Description Qty List Price TotalSale PriceDisc AmtDisc %
Harris XG-15P Portable Radio
458,802.00 XRPF78BTPH2 -
PORTABLE,XG-15P,SYS,P25 Trunking,TDMA
1,292.40 502.60 355 1,795.00 28.00 %
.
The XG-15P Portable package includes:
Antenna, Battery Charger, Li-Po Battery, Belt Clip
5,112.00 FM014712 - Cover, UDC Weather Proof, XG15P 14.40 5.60 355 20.00 28.00 %
.
2,511.00 TWC6M - Endura Six Unit Charger/External PS 418.50 139.50 6 558.00 25.00 %
1,036.80 MAEVNAE6A - Speaker Mic,Coiled 115.20 44.80 9 160.00 28.00 %
Harris XG-25M Mobile Radio NO EDACS
24,192.00 DMM78B - MOBILE,XG-25M,700/800 MHZ,35W 1,512.00 588.00 16 2,100.00 28.00 %
0.16 DMPL7Z - Feature,512 Systems/Groups 0.01 0.00 16 0.01 0.00 %
2,880.00 DMPL4F - Feature, P25 Phase 2, TDMA 180.00 70.00 16 250.00 28.00 %
0.12 DMPL4U - Feature, Single-Key DES Encryption 0.01 0.00 16 0.01 28.00 %
8,640.00 DMPKGPT - Feature Package,P25 Trunking 540.00 210.00 16 750.00 28.00 %
2,246.40 DMZN9X - Kit,Accessories,XG-25M 140.40 54.60 16 195.00 28.00 %
921.60 DMMC9R - Microphone,Standard,XG-25M 57.60 22.40 16 80.00 28.00 %
(6,400.00)Terminal Refresh Program (400.00) 0.00-16.00 (400.00) 0.00 %
499,942.08Subtotal:
0.00
499,942.08
Plus Tax
Total Due (USD)
Prices quoted are valid for ( 30 ) Days from Document Date.
Orders may be subject to shipping & handling charges.
All warranties are manufacture's warranties.
By signing this Quotation and/or submitting a purchase order pursuant to this Quotation you acknowledge that you have read and agree to be bound by
Communications Int'l. Inc.'s Terms and Conditions of Sale Service and Technical Support.
Septem ber 30, 2015
Earl Gloster
Director of General Services
1900 Grand Ave
Clear water FL, 33765
RE: Sole source for Harris 700/800 MHz sales and service
H A R R I S C O R P O R A T I O N
RF Communications Division
8323 N.W . 12 Street
Suite 200
Miami, FL USA 33126
www.harris.com
The City of Clearwater owned Harris EDACS 800 MHz and 800 MHz P25 radio equipm ent is proprietary
and is only m anufactured by Harris Corporation. Comm unications International, a certified Harris Network
Service Provider, is the sole authorized service provider in for your account.
In June 2002 the Cit y of Clearwater signed a twent y year contract with Harris Corporation to provide radio
s ystem services and equipm ent. Communications International is the Authorized Harris Network Service
Provider for our account and has provided a letter certif ying such
Harris trunk ed public safety radio equipm ent can only be purchased indirectly from the authorized Harris
service provider Comm unications International, or directly from Harris Corporation.
If you have any further que stions or concerns I encourage you to call m e at m y office. Thank you again
for choosing Harris for your communications needs.
Sincerel y
Pirosck a Ventura
Manager, Indirect Channel
Harris Corporation
Public Safety & Public Ser vice Division
Em ail: pventu01@harris.com
Phone: (305) 775-0714
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2115
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Official Records & Legislative Services
Agenda Number: 10.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Provide direction regarding scheduling special council meetings as listed.
SUMMARY:
1)Plan a Strategic Planning Session
Per City Council Policy M, the City Council shall meet in a “strategic planning session
to review the five-year financial forecast and update as necessary, the City's Mission,
Values and Vision Statements. From these documents a five-year strategic plan will
be developed. The five-year strategic plan will become the basis for the annual City
Manager and City Attorney Objectives, and the City's annual budget process for the
next fiscal year.”
Staff is recommending the following potential meeting dates/times:
Monday, April 11 1 p.m. - 5 p.m.
Friday, April 22 1 p.m. - 5 p.m.
2)Budget Hearing
The City’s first budget hearing is scheduled for September 15, 2016. The County’s
second budget hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 27.
Staff is recommending a special council meeting on September 29, 2016 at 6:00 p.m.
for the second budget hearing.
3)July Work Session
Council has scheduled a trip to Philadelphia to meet with the Phillies and the
Philadelphia Union from July 15 through July 18.
Staff is recommending that the July 18 work session be cancelled. Council has
scheduled a council meeting that week on Thursday, July 21.
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
N/A
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
N/A
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2115
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2116
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Official Records & Legislative Services
Agenda Number: 10.2
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the 2016 Federal Legislative Agenda. (consent)
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
City of Clearwater, Florida
201 6 Federal Legislative Agenda
Prepared by Van Scoyoc Associates for the
Clearwater City Council
Mayor George Cretekos
Vice Mayor Jay Polglaze
Councilmember Hoyt Hamilton
Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito
Councilmember Bill Jonson
Bill Horne, City Manager
Questions regarding the information in this book may be directed to:
Greg Burns Rosemarie Call
(202) 737-8162 (727) 562-4092
January 2016
Copyright 2016 Van Scoyoc Associates Inc.
City of Clearwater
2016 Federal Legislative Agenda
Water Resources
National Flood Insurance Program
Support efforts to improve the National Flood Insurance Program for the benefit of all participants.
Monitor FEMA’s implementation of the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act.
Waters of the United States
Monitor activity related to the implementation of the EPA’s proposed rule on waters of the U.S. Oppose
any aspects of the proposed rule that could lead to unrealistic and over-burdensome regulations that
would negatively affect local governments.
Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
Monitor the implementation of Executive Order 13690 and the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
for potential impacts to the City of Clearwater. Monitor Congressional activity related to the updating of
the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.
Water Conservation Financing
Monitor implementation of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA).Support any
applications submitted by the City for a WIFIA-backed loan.
Clearwater Pass Maintenance Dredging
Support adequate annual funding for the Corps of Engineers Operations & Maintenance account,
including additional funding for dredging not identified in the annual Administration budget. Support
additional funding specifically provided for “Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation” dredging
activities.
Local Government Issues
Tax-Exempt Bonds
Oppose legislation that would threaten the tax exemption on state and local bonds, including a 28 percent
cap on tax-exempt municipal bonds.
Remote Sales-Tax Legislation
Support legislation that requires companies making catalog and internet sales to collect and remit the
associated taxes.
Transient Occupancy Taxes
Oppose legislation that would exempt online travel brokers from paying taxes on the full room rate paid
by the consumer, thereby costing Pinellas County the opportunity to collect appropriate Transient
Occupancy Taxes from visitors to the region.
Excise Tax on High-Cost Health Insurance Plans
Support efforts to repeal the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans (a.k.a. the Cadillac tax) within
the Affordable Care Act.
Transportation
Transportation Authorization
Monitor changes to federal highway and transit programs.Support efforts to enhance federal
transportation revenue streams. Support adequate funding of transportation alternatives programs.
Oppose efforts that would allow heavier trucks on Interstates. Support any and all opportunities to secure
funding for the City of Clearwater’s priorities via the FAST Act or other means.
Alternative Fuels Tax Incentives
Support the extension of a $0.50 per gallon equivalent tax incentive for natural gas when used as a motor
fuel.
Public Safety
Public Safety Programs
Support continued adequate funding for a wide variety of Department of Justice and Department of
Homeland Security grants, e.g., Community Oriented Policing Services, Byrne Justice Assistance Grants,
Assistance to Firefighters Grants, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Grants, and the
Urban Area Security Initiative. Support any City of Clearwater applications for these funds. Support
the resumption of the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Program, including equitable sharing.
Economic Development & Social Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development Formula Programs (CDBG & HOME)
Support adequate funding for future fiscal years for both the Community Development Block Grant and
the HOME Investment Partnerships programs because of their critical role in the City’s overall efforts to
support those that are least fortunate.
Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Program
Support continued adequate annual funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s brownfields
program, including at least $90 million for the Section 104(k) competitive grant program. Support
legislation to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency’s brownfields program. Support any City
of Clearwater applications for brownfields funding assistance.
Supportive Housing for the Elderly and for Persons with Disabilities -Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s Section 202 and 811 Programs
Support continued adequate annual federal funding for the Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s Supportive Housing for the Elderly program (Section 202) and Supportive Housing for
Persons with Disabilities program (Section 811).
Homeless Assistance –Continuum of Care Program
Support continued adequate annual funding for Department of Housing and Urban Development
Homeless Assistance Grants, particularly for the Continuum of Care Program.
Economic Development Administration
Support continued funding of the Economic Development Administration. Support City of Clearwater
grant applications through EDA programs.
Energy & Environment
Offshore Energy Exploration
Monitor the potential expansion of offshore energy exploration in Florida’s federal waters.
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Support a $900 million annual appropriation from the Land and Water Conservation Fund, including at
least $100 million for the state grant program. Support legislation reauthorizing the Land and Water
Conservation Fund.
FEDERAL ISSUE: National Flood Insurance Program
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: In 1968, Congress
established the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to address the nation’s flood exposure and
challenges inherent in financing and managing flood risks in the private sector. Private insurance
companies at the time claimed that the flood peril was uninsurable and, therefore, could not be
underwritten in the private insurance market. A three-prong floodplain management and insurance
program was created to:(1) identify areas across the nation most at risk of flooding; (2) minimize the
economic impact of flooding events through floodplain management ordinances; and (3) provide flood
insurance to individuals and businesses.
Until 2005, the NFIP was self-supporting as policy premiums and fees covered expenses and claim
payments. Today, the program is in roughly $23 billion in debt due to a number of large storms, the most
recent being Hurricane Sandy.
In mid-2012, Congress passed, and the President signed, the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Act of 2012
(BW12), a 5-year reauthorization of the NFIP that attempted to restore the program to firmer financial
footing by making a number of changes to the program that impact the City’s residents. Then, in early
2014, the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act (HFIAA) was enacted in an attempt to address
some of the so-called unintended consequences of BW12.
While HFIAA delayed many of the premium increases implemented by BW12, in the long run, the only
real difference between rate increases envisioned by the two bills is that HFIAA reinstated
grandfathering. This provision originally, which was ended by BW12,allows property owners to pay
flood insurance rates based on original risk, not that which is determined by new community flood maps.
Authorization of the NFIP expires September 30, 2017.
HFIAA Implementation
While it is unclear if Congress can successfully address the shortcomings in HFIAA during the remainder
of the 114th Congress, FEMA will continue to spend significant time implementing the legislation. This
includes creating a Flood Insurance Advocate, allowing for option high-deductible policies for residential
properties, communicating full flood risk determinations to property owners regardless of whether their
premiums reflect such risk, implementing changes to how FEMA handles map revisions, completing a
study of community-based flood insurance options, attempting to secure reinsurance of coverage provided
by the NFIP from private markets, providing refunds to pre-FIRM primary homeowners who overpaid
due to BW12, providing guidelines for property owners describing alternative means of flood mitigation,
other than elevation, that can reduce flood risk and inform property owners about how mitigation can
lower premiums, completing an Affordability Study and a “Draft Affordability Framework,” allowing for
the monthly payment of flood insurance premiums, and reporting to Congress on the number of annual
policy premiums that exceed one percent of the total coverage provided by the policy.
In late 2014, FEMA announced the opening of the Interim Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate and
the appointment of an Interim Flood Insurance Advocate. The Acting Advocate and staff will focus on
assisting the public as they navigate through these new NFIP processes by leveraging FEMA resources to
address specific public inquiries or concerns. They will also develop a long-term regional mapping
outreach and education strategy. FEMA noted that additional funding would be needed in order to fully
install the permanent Office of the Flood Insurance Advocate and expand its role, but until then,it would
operate the office with existing resources.
Meanwhile, effective April 1, 2016, the first wave of NFIP rate increases resulting from HFIAA will be
instituted. As noted above, HFIAA called for the NFIP to limit rate increases to no more than 18 percent
for any one policy with exceptions. However, FEMA has interpreted HFIAA to allow for the total
amount charged to the policyholder to increase an average of 19.8 percent for all 5.5 million FEMA
policies and an increase of 37 percent for certain policies.
The most notable exception is that older non-primary residences and older business properties will
continue to see annual increases of up to 25 percent. However, because of a new mandatory $250
surcharge on certain properties, some may see a premium increase of 37 percent as of April 1, 2016.
This new mandatory surcharge and the Federal Policy fee found on every FEMA flood insurance policy
are not considered premiums by FEMA, and thus are not subject to the limitations described in HFIAA.
FEMA has admitted that as a result, the increase in the total amount charged to a policy may exceed 18
percent.
Affordability Study
In 2015, the National Academy of Sciences released two reports on Affordability of National Flood
Insurance Program Premiums. Overall the reports unfortunately left many questions unanswered,
indicating that many decisions must be made by policy makers (Congress, in this case) and that the
report’s specific and clear guidance is limited due to a lack of data.
The reports focus in a highly technical manner on examining options for providing premium assistance to
certain NFIP policyholders and suggest tying such assistance to mitigation grants or loans. Specifically,
the second report found that “linking mitigation with premium assistance can lead to property owners
having a cost effective combination of mitigation and insurance coverage.” The reports do not simply
suggest ways to arbitrarily lower flood insurance policy costs across the board.
Now that the affordability study is complete, FEMA is expected to propose an affordability framework to
Congress within 18 months (by the summer of 2017). Based on these reports, that framework will likely
include some form of premium assistance and mitigation efforts.
Interestingly, with regard to grandfathered policies, the study indicates “HFIAA 2014’s reinstatement of
grandfathering, which will perpetuate cross subsidies in the NFIP, will result in the program increasingly
violating actuarial pricing principles if flood risks increase in the future.”
Other Flood Insurance Legislation
Two bills have been introduced in the 114th Congress to try to improve upon HFIAA, particularly dealing
with rate increases for certain properties. For example, H.R. 2918, the Flood Insurance Fairness Act,
which was introduced by Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL),would extend the level of rate increases offered to
primary homeowners under HFIAA to all property owners, particularly addressing concerns with second
homeowners and business owners who may otherwise face exorbitant flood insurance rate increases. The
legislation is cosponsored by seven members of Congress.
Also, Rep. David Jolly (R-FL) introduced H.R. 14, which would further amend BW12 by extending the
rate relief provided in HFIAA to businesses and “owner-occupied” second homes. The difference
between this bill and the bill offered by Rep. Curbelo is the distinction made between so-called “owner-
occupied” second homes. H.R. 141 is cosponsored by six members of Congress.
Meanwhile, Reps. Dennis Ross (R-FL) and Patrick Murphy (D-FL) introduced H.R. 2901, the Flood
Insurance Market Parity and Modernization Act. This bill would clarify provisions in BW12 that private
flood insurance products would be regulated by individual states instead of the federal government, which
is perceived to be better for insurers and is expected to create more opportunity for private insurance to
proliferate. The House Financial Services Committee held a hearing on January 8, 2016 to discuss H.R.
2901, which has nineteen cosponsors.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support efforts to improve the National Flood Insurance Program for
the benefit of all participants. Monitor FEMA’s implementation of the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Waters of the United States
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: A series of decisions by
the U.S. Supreme Court over the past decade imposed restrictions on the scope of wetland regulation
governed by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) that regulate “dredge and fill” activities in
navigable waters and their adjacent wetlands. Opponents of these restrictions have urged Congress to
redefine waters of the U.S., and apply that definition to all aspects of the CWA.
As legislation along those lines failed to pass previous Congresses, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) over the past several years developed guidance first,
and now a final rule,to redefine waters of the U.S. There is concern that this effort significantly expands
the definition of WOTUS to include tributaries, ditches, canals, and other water bodies that can
potentially drain into navigable waters, interstate waters, or the territorial seas. These water bodies are
likely to be subject to new requirements, and some waters currently covered by a permit could be subject
to additional monitoring and regulation when those permits are renewed.
Despite a significant amount of opposition to the rule, Congress has thus far been unsuccessful in its
attempts to block or alter implementation of it. The House passed H.R. 1732 in May 2015, which would
withdraw the rule and call for a new rulemaking process that engages state and local governments. The
Senate failed to pass a similar bill, but did pass a resolution of disapproval against the rule. The House
also passed this resolution, but it was vetoed by the President.
Meanwhile, efforts to include a “policy rider” on the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bill that would ban
the use of federal funds to implement WOTUS during the fiscal year were unsuccessful. Omission of this
was part of the tradeoff between supporters of lifting the export ban on crude oil and environmentalists.
Ultimately, the Courts are likely to decide the fate of WOTUS. In August of 2015, a federal judge in
North Dakota found that 13 states suing to block implementation of the rule met the conditions for a
preliminary injunction, halting implementation of the rule in those states. Florida was not one of them.
Then, in October of 2015, the Sixth Circuit Court in Cincinnati issued a nationwide stay on WOTUS to
allow for a more deliberative determination of whether the rule is “proper under the dictates of law.” This
means all implementation of the rule is currently halted. It may take years for this to be fully resolved.
POSITION: Monitor activity related to the implementation of the EPA’s proposed rule on waters of the
U.S. Oppose any aspects of the proposed rule that could lead to unrealistic and over-burdensome
regulations that would negatively affect local governments.
FEDERAL ISSUE:Water Conservation Financing
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER:In an effort to respond to
the lack of federal funding opportunities for new water infrastructure projects, Congress created a five-
year pilot program called the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) in the Water
Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014 (H.R. 3080).WRRDA was signed into law
in June 2014.Under WIFIA, eligible entities, including local governments, may apply for a low-cost,
long-term secured loan from the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to finance eligible water infrastructure projects.Loans may be used for clean water and drinking
water projects through the EPA, as well as water resources projects (e.g., flood control and navigation)
through the Corps.Eligible activities include: planning, feasibility studies, environmental review,
permitting, engineering and design, construction, rehabilitation, and property acquisition.
WIFIA would access funds from the U.S. Treasury at long-term Treasury rates and use those funds to
provide loans or other credit support for water projects.Funds would flow from the Treasury, through
WIFIA, to larger water projects (projects must cost at least $20 million) or to State Revolving Funds
wishing to borrow to enlarge their pool of capital.By being able to access funds at Treasury rates,
communities receiving WIFIA loans can save up to 20 percent compared with current borrowing rates,
significantly accelerating water infrastructure investment.WIFIA backed-loans would have a 35-year
repayment period, with no payment obligations until five years after completion of the project.
When originally written, the law prohibited the use of tax-exempt bonds to pay for the non-federal
portions of the project, effectively taking away the most cost-effective tool for local governments that
might seek WIFIA loans.However, the FAST Act, the five-year surface transportation bill passed by
Congress in December 2015 includes a provision to lift the ban on using tax-exempt bonds for WIFIA
loans.This may provide the City with an attractive funding stream for future water resource efforts.
It is important to note that Congress has not funded WIFIA beyond $2.2 million in both the FY 2015 and
FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bills for implementation of the program.
RECOMMENDED POSITION:Monitor implementation of the Water Infrastructure Finance and
Innovation Act (WIFIA).Support any applications submitted by the City for a WIFIA-backed loan.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Federal Flood Risk Management Standard
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: In January 2015, the
Administration issued Executive Order (EO) 13690 to update the Federal Flood Risk Management
Standard (FFRMS), which helps define rules and regulations for federal activities in a floodplain.This
new FFRMS will require federal agencies to update their flood-risk reduction strategies for certain federal
actions that occur in the floodplain.Shortly after issuing the Executive Order (EO) and the new standard,
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued proposed guidelines for individual federal
agencies to follow when implementing the EO and standard.
This new EO and the accompanying FFRMS redefine the floodplain and provide new direction for federal
agencies to avoid or manage actions in the floodplain.Consistent with the President’s Climate Action
Plan, the new EO and FFRMS seek to improve the nation’s preparedness and resilience against flooding.
Federal regulations define the floodplain as the area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding
in any given year –the 100-year floodplain.FEMA identifies the floodplain on community maps where
federal flood insurance is required and building restrictions are imposed to minimize flood losses.All
levels of government rely on the maps to inform decisions about emergency response, land use, and
construction in the floodplain.
There were several concerns with the draft implementing guidelines (IG), mostly related to a lack of
clarity and apprehension that the FFRMS could have had much more significant impacts to local
governments than FEMA envisioned. When the final IG was released in October 2015, however, the
scope had been scaled down.
Most importantly, the final IG clearly differentiates between “actions” and “federally funded projects,”
the latter of which will only be subject to the new FFRMS. Federally funded projects are defined as
“actions where federal funds are used for new construction, substantial improvement, or to address
substantial damage to structures and facilities.” One of the most significant concerns with the FFRMS as
originally drafted was that it would apply to all federal actions. Federal actions in the 100-year floodplain
will continue to face floodplain reviews as they have in the past, but will not be subject to new FFRMS
standards.
In addition, the new IG clearly indicates that the FFRMS “is a resilience standard,” not an “elevation
standard,” the latter of which initially triggered concerns related to floodplain regulations, the National
Flood Insurance Program, and residual risk issues. However, the new IG still defines the “FFRMS
floodplain” as a typically larger area than the 100-year floodplain that will be measured in one of three
ways and be used when federal investments are made. Those three measurements are:
1)Climate-informed Science Approach (preferred by the IG);
2)Freeboard Value Approach, which adds two or three vertical feet (depending on the level of
criticality of the federal investment) to the base flood elevation and developing a corresponding
horizontal expansion of the floodplain; or
3)500-year flood elevation.
Some concerns related to the new FFRMS remain, however. For instance, the degree of federal
investment is not addressed in the final IG, and it is unclear whether a de minimis federal investment in a
project could trigger the new FFRMS. Ideally, FEMA would have placed limits on the amount of
investment needed to trigger review under the FFRMS. It makes sense to ensure that wholly federally-
funded projects,particularly after a major disaster, are constructed to levels of higher resilience.
However, that’s not exactly what the updated IG does. The new IG also does not address grandfathering,
so its impact on ongoing projects remains unknown.
Finally, concerns remain that each federal agency (potentially as many as 55) is now tasked with updating
their own procedures to implement the new FFRMS. There is no direction as to how, or when, they
should update their regulations and procedures, nor is there any central clearinghouse or other information
source on the status of each agency’s effort.
Meanwhile, Congress remains wary of the new FFRMS. Both the House and Senate included language in
their respective Fiscal Year 2016 appropriations bills to halt implementation of it, but the final language
included in the FY 2016 omnibus was significantly weakened. Rather than banning the use of FY 2016
funds for implementation of the new FFRMS, the omnibus included a provision that clarified what
programs will be affected by it, specifically as it relates to the Army Corps’ section 404 and 10 permits,
as well as the National Flood Insurance Program.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Monitor the implementation of Executive Order 13690 and the Federal
Flood Risk Management Standard for potential impacts to the City of Clearwater. Monitor Congressional
activity related to the updating of the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Clearwater Pass Maintenance Dredging
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: As a federal navigation
channel, the Army Corps of Engineers is supposed to be 100 percent responsible for the cost of
maintenance dredging of Clearwater Pass. The Pass requires maintenance dredging about every 5 years
due to shoaling, which cuts off an important navigation channel for local commercial fishermen, charter
boats,and other recreational vessels. However, due to budget constraints, this only occurs about every 10
years.
Clearwater Pass was last dredged and fully paid for by the Corps in 2001. The Pass was again dredged in
2012, but the City of Clearwater paid the entire $750,000 cost of the project, as it was uncertain when the
Corps may have funding available to complete the dredging. Eventually, the Corps did reimburse the
City for about a third of the cost of that dredging operation.
The dredging project has a double benefit, as the sand that is removed is then used to renourish North
Clearwater Beach.
To fund dredging projects that are not generally budgeted for by the Administration due to the difficult
competition for funds from the Army Corps of Engineers, Congress has adjusted their funding strategy in
the age of no-earmarks to add additional funding for what Congress terms “Additional Funding for
Ongoing Work.” Among these amounts, Congress in Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 provided $42.5 million in
additional funding to the Corps for “Small, Remote, or Subsistence Navigation” operations and
maintenance (O&M) activities. In FY 2016, Congress provided an increase in funding to $48 million.
This is the funding from which the Clearwater Pass must compete in the future to maintain the channel.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support adequate annual funding for the Corps of Engineers Operations
& Maintenance account, including additional funding for dredging not identified in the annual
Administration budget. Support additional funding specifically provided for “Small, Remote, or
Subsistence Navigation” dredging activities.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Tax-Exempt Bonds
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: Although municipal
bonds have been tax-exempt for almost 100 years, a number of recent federal proposals have been offered
over the past few years that target this exemption, particularly as part of the debate to end the sequester or
reduce federal spending. With local governments facing severe budget difficulties, any proposal to limit
the tax exemption would put more pressure on local finances by reducing demand for tax-exempt bonds
and increasing borrowing costs for state and local governments, ultimately leading to higher taxes or
reduced services.
It is estimated that the difference in the rate of earnings the City and other local governments would need
to offer prospective buyers of their taxable bonds would depend on the market, but typically would range
from 1.5 to 2 percent more for those offerings. On $1 million borrowed, this would likely cost $20,000
more in interest per year. Taking this further, if the City were to amortize a $100 million loan over 30
years at taxable bond rates 2 percent higher than if the bonds were tax-exempt, the additional cost to
taxpayers over the 30 years could be roughly $30 million. Should the City make significant investments
in future municipal facilities or infrastructure, a change to the tax exemption on municipal bonds could
add significant costs over the life of the project.
Following Paul Ryan’s promotion to Speaker of the House, Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has assumed the
chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee. It is currently unclear what Chairman Brady’s
position is on bonds; but if his beliefs on the issue match those of his predecessor, the tax exemption on
municipal bonds may be at risk in the future.
In the Senate, Ron Wyden (D-OR) sponsored legislation with Dan Coats (R-IN) during the 112th
Congress that proposed replacing tax-exempt bonds with taxable bonds and a tax credit. Although
Senator Wyden did not reintroduce the same legislation during the 113th Congress, he continued to
discuss the need for comprehensive tax reform when he became the Chair of the Senate Finance
Committee in 2014. Republicans now control the Senate in the 114th Congress, however, which means
Senator Wyden has become the Ranking Member and Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has assumed the
chairmanship. Like Senator Wyden, Senator Hatch has voiced his support for comprehensive tax reform.
However, his position on the tax exemption for municipal bonds is unclear.
As in previous years, the Administration proposed a 28 percent limit on all itemized deductions for high-
income individuals in its Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget. It is likely that this provision will also be
included in the Administration’s FY 2017 budget. If accepted by Congress, this would apply to all new
and outstanding municipal bonds. According to a study conducted by the National Association of
Counties, if this 28 percent cap had been in place over the past decade, borrowing costs to state and local
governments would have increased by over $173 billion, while a full repeal would cost nearly $500
billion over the same time period.
Congress has not undertaken any recent efforts to alter the tax-exempt status of municipal bonds. In
March 2015, over 100 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to congressional
leadership asking that the current tax exemption for municipal bonds remain in place.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose legislation that would threaten the tax exemption on state and
local bonds, including a 28 percent cap on tax-exempt municipal bonds.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Remote Sales-Tax Legislation
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: With some limited
exceptions, retailers only collect sales tax in states where they have brick-and-mortar stores. The burden
then falls to consumers to report to state tax departments any sales taxes they owe for online purchases.
Often,due to complex reporting requirements, consumers do not report those purchases when completing
their tax returns. As a result, local retailers can be at a competitive disadvantage because they must
collect sales taxes while out-of-state retailers, including many large online and catalog retailers, often
offer their customers a discount by collecting no state or local sales taxes.
Therefore, the current sales tax system is perceived as being unfair to brick-and-mortar retailers that
employ local residents, including local stores as well as national chains like Best Buy and Home Depot.
This lost revenue is also a drain on local government resources. In 2014, uncollected sales tax was
estimated to have cost local governments $23 billion nationwide. Legislation to correct this inequity has
the support of local, state, and national business groups, such as the National Governors Association, the
National Conference of State Legislators, the Council of State Governments, the National Association of
Counties, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Florida Chamber of Commerce, Associated Industries of
Florida, Florida TaxWatch, Florida Retail Federation, and Amazon.com, among others.
To create a level playing field, Congress introduced the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA) in both the
House and Senate in the 113th Congress. The bill would have created two systems from which states
could choose to facilitate the process of collecting these taxes. The first would have been the already-
established Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, which would have simplified state and local sales
and use tax laws. Twenty-four states have already signed this agreement. The second alternative would
have allowed for states to meet minimum requirements for their state tax laws and administration thereof.
To protect small, online retailers, this legislation also exempted sellers who make less than $1,000,000 in
total remote sales from the requirement to collect the tax.
In 2013, the Senate passed the Marketplace Fairness Act with bipartisan support by a vote of 70-24, with
Senator Nelson voting for the measure and Senator Rubio against it. In the House, companion legislation
was not considered, although it had 67 cosponsors, including Florida Representatives Deutch, Crenshaw,
Ross, Wilson, and Diaz-Balart.
The issue reemerged in the 114th Congress. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) and Rep.
Anna Eshoo (D-CA) circulated a discussion draft of remote sales tax legislation as an alternative to the
Marketplace Fairness Act. Under the draft, only states that join a multi-state clearinghouse would have
the authority to collect sales tax revenue on out-of-state purchases, and retailers would charge sales tax
based on their own state and local rules. The clearinghouse would then divide the sales tax revenue
among member states. The draft, however, did not gain much traction.
Meanwhile, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
introduced legislation in June 2015 –the Remote Transactions Parity Act (RTPA) (H.R. 2775) -that
attempts to bridge the gap between the two sides of the issue by addressing lingering concerns raised by
those who believe instituting a remote sales tax would be an increase in taxes.Under the Chaffetz
proposal, and similar to the MFA, the RTPA would create two options for states to collect remote sales
tax. The first would be for member states of the SSUTA, and the second would allow non-members to
require collection if they implement certain tax law simplification requirements that are similar to those
contained in the MFA. The largest difference between the RTPA and the MFA, however, is the definition
of a remote seller. Both define a remote seller as one that does not have a physical presence in the state,
but the RTPA goes further to include a definition of physical presence. In addition, the RTPA includes a
phase-out for the small seller exception. Rather than permanently exempting sellers with sales less than
$1 million annually, the RTPA would exempt sellers with less than $10 million in annual revenue the first
year, less than $5 million the second year, and less than $1 million the third year, with the small seller
exception completely eliminated after that. The RTPA currently has 55 bipartisan cosponsors, but has not
yet seen any action.
In the Senate, there has been some discussion of attaching a remote sales tax amendment to the House-
passed Permanent Internet Tax Freedom Act (PITFA).Similar efforts were attempted last year, but were
unsuccessful. PITFA, which is considered a non-controversial measure, would permanently extend the
ban on state and local taxation of the Internet, and was passed by the House in June 2015.Those plans
generally have bipartisan support, but some powerful members of the Senate, such as Senator Ron Wyden
(D-OR), the Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, have expressed concerns about attaching
the two issues, arguing they are contradictory. If PITFA is to be used as a vehicle for remote sales tax
legislation, an agreement must be reached prior to December 2016 when the current ban on internet taxes
expires. To further complicate this strategy, PITFA has been included in the customs bill, which has
already been passed by the House. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill in late January of 2016, but
the inclusion of PITFA remains a sticking point.
Meanwhile, the rise of Alibaba, the online Chinese retailer that has been compared to a combination of
Amazon, eBay,and PayPal, could perhaps sway opinions of those opposed to such legislation. In 2014,
Alibaba accounted for $420 billion in online sales and has emerged as a serious competitor to American
online retailers, with none of their revenue remaining in the U.S., nor taxed.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support legislation that requires companies making catalog and internet
sales to collect and remit the associated taxes.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Transient Occupancy Taxes
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: In the 111th and 113th
Congresses, attempts were made to insert language into various pieces of legislation that would have
exempted online travel brokers (Expedia, Travelocity, etc.) from remitting the full bed tax rate collected
from consumers to the appropriate local government. For instance,if an online travel broker were to pay
$60 for a room in the City of Clearwater and then sell that room to a consumer for $100, they would be
able to, under the proposal, only remit $6 dollars to the local government instead of $10 (using a 10
percent bed tax for illustrative purposes).
In late 2009, seventeen Florida counties, including Pinellas, filed an action against a number of online
travel companies (OTC’s) alleging that the companies have failed to collect and/or pay taxes under the
respective tourist development tax ordinances. Those 17 counties agreed to settle with the online travel
companies for $6.1 million in 2010. During 2012, there were several Florida State Circuit Court cases
that ruled in favor of the online travel brokers. Two cases,including the 17 county case, cited that Florida
law is not clear on the issue, while a Circuit Court Judge ruled more directly in July that the OTC’s only
owe local tourist taxes on the discounted rates they paid for the rooms.Then, in June of 2015, the Florida
Supreme Court affirmed the lower court rulings, stating that online travel companies are not hotels and,
therefore, do not have to pay occupancy fees.
Meanwhile, in 2012, the District of Columbia government won a suit where a judge ruled that online
travel firms should repay back taxes on the full retail price of hotel rooms they sold to consumers in the
years after the D.C. City Council passed legislation mandating they do so. In 2014, a conditional
settlement was reached in this case with six online travel firms. Although they have a right to appeal the
D.C Superior Court decision, they agreed to pay $60.9 million in back taxes to the D.C. government.
Between 1998 and 2010, the amount owed in the lawsuit was estimated to be over $200 million.
By 2015, local governments had reportedly filed 88 lawsuits against Expedia and others for tax
underpayment. The company won dismissal in 23 cases,while 35 remain active. The remainder of the
cases have been settled, put on hold, referred to administrative proceedings, or otherwise resolved. A
2011 estimate by the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities suggests that state and local governments
lose as much as $396 million a year due to such remittance practices by online hotel purveyors.
These examples demonstrate how courts across the country have ruled differently on this issue over the
past few years, which has led online travel purveyors to continue to seek federal legislation that would
codify their goal of not remitting taxes on the price of the hotel room paid by the consumer. In 2012,
several of these online discount travel brokers (including Expedia, Orbitz, and Priceline) organized and
registered to lobby under a new organization called the “Interactive Travel Services Association,” whose
purpose is to advocate on several issues, including “taxes and fees related to travel.”
In May 2013, Expedia and other online hotel room purveyors attempted to amend the Marketplace
Fairness Act to achieve their transient occupancy tax objectives.Ultimately, this effort was unsuccessful
and the bill was passed out of the Senate without this language.
In FY 2015, Pinellas County collected a record $39 million in transient occupancy taxes, a 12.8 percent
increase over the previous year. These taxes are used to support the tourism industry in the region. In
addition, Pinellas County is now the first county in Florida to reach an agreement with Airbnb to collect
and remit taxes on rentals. Meanwhile, officials with the Clearwater Marine Aquarium have suggested
using a portion of the transient occupancy tax that currently goes toward paying the debt on Tropicana
Field to rebuild and expand the aquarium’s current facility, once it sunsets in 2016. This “stadium tax”
alone generates nearly $5.5 million per year in revenue. The importance of this project to the City of
Clearwater, as well as this level of funding, underscores the significance of this revenue source and the
need to ensure it is not constrained by detrimental legislation.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Oppose legislation that would exempt online travel brokers from paying
taxes on the full room rate paid by the consumer, thereby costing Pinellas County the opportunity to
collect appropriate Transient Occupancy Taxes from visitors to the region.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Excise Tax on High-Cost Health Insurance Plans
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: The Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (PPACA), often referred to simply as the Affordable Care Act (ACA) or
“Obamacare,” was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2010. The primary goal of the ACA is to
increase the quality and affordability of health insurance, as well as lower the uninsured rate by
expanding public and private insurance coverage. The law includes a number of mechanisms, including
individual and employer mandates, insurance exchanges, minimum standards of care, and new taxes/fees
to accomplish these goals and reduce the cost of health care.
One such mechanism is the excise tax on high-cost health insurance plans, often referred to as the
“Cadillac tax.” Under the ACA, a Cadillac health plan is defined as a plan with annual premiums
exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for families. Beginning in 2020, a 40 percent excise tax
will be assessed on any dollar amount paid in premiums exceeding the aforementioned values, which,
after 2020, will adjust to inflation annually. For example, a $12,000 individual plan in 2020 would pay
an excise tax of $720 per covered employee (12,000 -10,200 = 1,800 x 40% = 720). However, the rate of
growth in healthcare costs often outpaces the rate of inflation, meaning employers are likely to pay
significantly more each year. The tax, which is estimated to generate nearly $90 billion over the first ten
years, is an offset to pay for the ACA.
Cadillac plans were targeted for taxation due to the idea that these benefit-rich plans (i.e. low, if any,
deductible, little cost-sharing by patients, wider provider networks, greater available health services, etc.)
often insulate workers from the high cost of their health care, thereby encouraging the overuse of care.
Excessive, and sometimes unnecessary, tests and hospital visits have been shown to raise the cost of U.S.
health care overall. Therefore, the tax was designed to discourage employers from choosing these types
of plans.
The Cadillac tax, however, is often hitting public sector employers and workers the hardest. Those who
work in the public sector have long-understood that strong health-care benefits are often granted in lieu of
higher pay. However, many employers must now choose whether to cut employees’ health plans so they
fall below the Cadillac threshold, pass the tax onto the workers, or pay the tax themselves and make
difficult budget cuts elsewhere. Many large employers, both public and private, have already begun
laying the groundwork to avoid the 40 percent surcharge by passing more costs down to employees.
Originally envisioned as a tool to reduce healthcare costs, the tax in practice looks increasingly like an
increase in out-of-pocket costs for workers.
The excise tax was originally slated to begin in 2013. However, due to strong concerns expressed by
labor groups and others, the ACA was amended by Congress to delay the tax until 2018. Most recently, a
provision was included in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bill that will delay the Cadillac tax for two
additional years, meaning implementation is now set to occur in 2020. The delay is expected to cost $35
million over two years.
The omnibus also requires the Comptroller General to complete a study within 18 months on making age
and gender adjustments to the Cadillac tax.This is one of the largest complaints about the tax, in that the
caps are hard limits and do not take issues such as age, gender, or location into account. Location was
notably omitted from the omnibus, but this provision implies that changes could be made in the future to
the tax.
Despite this, there are still calls for completely repealing the tax. Thus far in the 114th Congress, Reps.
Joe Courtney (D-CT) and Frank Guinta (R-NH) have both introduced legislation to repeal the Cadillac
Tax -H.R. 2050, the Middle Class Health Benefits Tax Repeal Act and H.R. 879, the Ax the Tax on
Middle Class Americans’ Health Plans Act, respectively. H.R. 2050 has 122 bipartisan cosponsors and
H.R. 879 has 71 Republican cosponsors. In addition, a group of pharmaceutical companies, insurance
plans, and unions –unlikely partners on most other issues -registered in early 2015 to lobby as a coalition
to fight the Cadillac tax.
Given the strong, bipartisan opposition to the Cadillac tax, it is likely that the tax will again be addressed
sometime before 2020, through either a full repeal or significant changes to the way it is currently
structured.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support efforts to repeal the excise tax on high-cost health insurance
plans (a.k.a. the Cadillac tax) within the Affordable Care Act.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Transportation Authorization
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: After the passage of
several short-term authorizations following the expiration of MAP-21 in 2014, Congress finally passed,
and the President signed,a five-year surface transportation authorization called the Fixing America’s
Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The FAST Act generally maintains many of MAP-21’s reforms, but
makes a few changes to existing surface transportation programs, as well as slightly increases funding for
those programs.
One of the most significant changes within the FAST Act is the conversion of the Surface Transportation
Program from its current form to a new Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program, which will
allow states greater flexibility in utilizing the funds. In addition, the bill increases the amount
suballocated to localities and MPOs by population by one percent annually, increasing from the current
50 percent to 55 percent by 2020. This means the Pinellas County MPO, and ultimately the City of
Clearwater, can expect to see an increase in formula highway funding beginning in FY 2016.
However, the FAST Act also includes a provision that rolls the Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP) into the newly created STBG Program. TAP projects include a variety of bicycle, pedestrian, and
environmental activities, but this change to the program could allow up to 50 percent of TAP funds to be
diverted to more traditional STBG-eligible projects, mainly highway initiatives. The FAST Act also caps
annual funding for TAP at $850 million and does not allow it to grow with inflation like most other
programs in the bill. The City Council recently adopted a citywide policy regarding brick streets in an
effort to both beautify the community and calm traffic. Funding for this initiative could come from TAP,
but there are concerns that this change to the program will result in a decrease in funding for alternative
transportation initiatives.
Positively, the FAST Act does not include language to increase weight or length limits for trucks
traveling on the National Highway System.
In developing the FAST Act, Congress did not address the need for a long-term, sustainable plan to
finance our nation’s transportation infrastructure. Fuel taxes, which provide most of the money for
surface transportation, do not provide a solid long-term foundation for generally desired transportation
funding growth, even if Congress were to raise them modestly. Instead, the FAST Act relies on various
budget gimmicks to fund surface transportation programs over the next five years, such as surplus money
from the Federal Reserve, reducing the amount of interest the Fed pays to banks, and selling off part of
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
Without the creation of a long-term, sustainable funding source, the Highway Trust Fund’s deficit will
continue to grow over the next five years, making future authorizations increasingly difficult. The choice
then becomes finding new sources of income for an expanded program, or alternately, to settle for a
smaller program that might look very different than the one currently in place. Less federal funding via a
future transportation reauthorization bill would mean significantly less funding available to FDOT, the
Pinellas MPO, and ultimately the City of Clearwater, to support both surface transportation and transit
projects and programs.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Monitor changes to federal highway and transit programs.Support
efforts to enhance federal transportation revenue streams. Support adequate funding of transportation
alternatives programs. Oppose efforts that would allow heavier trucks on Interstates. Support any and all
opportunities to secure funding for the City of Clearwater’s priorities via the FAST Act or other means.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Alternative Fuel Tax Incentives
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: An older transportation
authorization bill,known as SAFETEA-LU,provided a tax incentive for natural gas when used as a motor
vehicle fuel. The $0.50 per gallon equivalent incentive, which is provided to businesses, individuals, and
tax-exempt entities that sell the fuel, essentially serves as a rebate.
In the fall of 2011, the City of Clearwater opened the first public natural gas filling station in the Tampa
Bay area,and takes advantage of this tax incentive with every gallon of gas sold. In 2015, the rebate
provided $150,263 to the City, nearly double the previous year. In addition, the City recently dropped its
station full price to $1.17 per gasoline gallon equivalent (GGE) and $0.98 per GGE for government
vehicles, which is the lowest price in Florida and possibly the southeastern United States.
The $0.50 incentive originally expired at the end of Fiscal Year 2009, and has been extended five times,
most recently as part of a broad “tax extenders” package passed in December 2015. This extension is for
two years, including a retroactive extension for 2015. It will now expire on December 31, 2016.
It is important to note that some of the other tax provisions within the “tax extenders” package were made
permanent or extended for longer than two years. This may present a challenge to the alternative fuel tax
in the future.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support the extension of a $0.50 per gallon equivalent tax incentive for
natural gas when used as a motor fuel.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Public Safety Programs
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: Federal grant funding for
many Department of Justice (DOJ) and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) programs are provided
as block grants with each state receiving a certain amount of funding, generally linked to population.
That funding is then passed through to local jurisdictions to help support police, fire, emergency
management, and homeland security functions of government. The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)
is an example of this.
In other instances, funding from federal programs is made available to local governments via competitive
grant solicitations. Specifically, program funds can be used to hire police officers through Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS) or firefighters through Staffing for Adequate Fire & Emergency
Response Grants (SAFER), and purchase equipment through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG).
There is also another category of grants that are distributed to specific recipients based on certain criteria,
such as the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), which provides funds to eligible regions to help
communities prepare for, prevent, respond to and recover from potential attacks and other hazards.
The City of Clearwater benefits from both direct and indirect annual allocations from several of these
federal programs, while other programs offer competitive grant opportunities from which the City has
traditionally sought funds.
In FY 2015, Congress provided level funding for the COPS and JAG programs at $180 million and $376
million, respectively. Both the AFG and SAFER fire-related grants each received $340 million, and UASI
received $600 million.
For FY 2016, the Administration proposed increases for the COPS hiring program to $249.5 million and
the JAG program to $388 million. As in recent budget requests, the Administration recommended
lumping several DHS grant programs into one "National Preparedness Grant Program." These programs
included AFG, SAFER, and UASI. This is the first year the Administration included AFG and SAFER in
this bundle. For FY 2016, the Administration suggested funding the National Preparedness Grant
Program at $2.2 billion.
Congress, however, rejected this proposal and funded each program separately, providing $345 million
each for AFG and SAFER, and $600 million for UASI. COPS and JAG, meanwhile, were provided with
$187 million and $476 million, respectively.
Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program
Meanwhile, the Department of Justice (DOJ) in December 2015 suspended their Asset Forfeiture
Program, including equitable sharing, ostensibly due to Congressional rescissions of funding in FY 2016.
In practice, this means DOJ will defer all equitable sharing payments to our state, local, and tribal partners
and transfers of any items for official use. However, DOJ has maintained that they preserve their ability
to resume equitable sharing payments at a later date should the budget picture improve. In other words, if
additional receipts in cases without identifiable victims are deposited later in FY 2016, DOJ can resume
its sharing on some or all of the deferred payments if there are sufficient funds in the budget.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support continued adequate funding for a wide variety of Department of
Justice and Department of Homeland Security grants, e.g., Community Oriented Policing Services, Byrne
Justice Assistance Grants, Assistance to Firefighters Grants, Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency
Response Grants, and the Urban Area Security Initiative. Support any City of Clearwater applications
for these funds. Support the resumption of the Department of Justice’s Asset Forfeiture Program,
including equitable sharing.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Department of Housing and Urban Development Formula Programs (CDBG &
HOME)
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: The City of Clearwater
receives direct allocations of funding from two Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
formula programs: HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) and the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG)program.
HOME funds are designed to create affordable housing for low-income households and are awarded
annually as formula grants to participating jurisdictions, including the City of Clearwater. HUD
establishes HOME Investment Trust Funds for each grantee, providing a line of credit that the jurisdiction
may draw upon as needed. The program allows local governments to use HOME funds for grants, direct
loans, loan guarantees or other forms of credit enhancement, rental assistance,or security deposits.
Meanwhile, CDBG is a flexible grant program that provides communities with federal funding to address
a wide range of unique community development needs. The CDBG program provides annual grants on a
formula basis to units of local government and states, including the City of Clearwater.
Since Fiscal Year (FY) 2010, nationwide funding for the HOME and CDBG programs has been cut by 48
percent and 25 percent, respectively, with varying changes to individual recipients.The FY 2015
omnibus appropriations bill provided $3 billion for the CDBG program, which was a slight decrease from
FY 2014 funding. HOME, meanwhile, received a small decrease from $1 billion to $900 million. In FY
2015, Clearwater received $681,257 in CDBG funds and $265,110 in HOME funding.
For FY 2016, the Administration proposed in its budget a reduction for CDBG to $2.8 billion, but an
increase for the HOME program to $1 billion. In the end, Congress provided $3 billion for CDBG and
$950 million for HOME in the FY 2016 omnibus.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support adequate funding for future fiscal years for both the
Community Development Block Grant and the HOME Investment Partnerships programs because of their
critical role in the City’s overall efforts to support those that are least fortunate.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Environmental Protection Agency’s Brownfields Program
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) administers a cleanup program to provide financial assistance to state, local,
and tribal governmental entities for certain types of contaminated industrial sites, referred to as
“brownfields.” Sites eligible for this assistance tend to be where the known or suspected presence of
contamination may present an impediment to economic development,but where the risks generally are
not high enough for the site to be addressed under the Superfund program or other related cleanup
authorities. The brownfields program focuses on providing federal financial assistance for “orphan” sites
at which the potential need for cleanup remains unaddressed.
EPA’s brownfields program awards two different categories of grants: one competitive and one formula-
based. The City of Clearwater is only eligible for the former of the two. Within the competitive grant
program, the EPA offers assessment, cleanup, and revolving loan fund grants. An eligible entity may
apply for up to $200,000 for a site contaminated by hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants;
and up to $200,000 for a site contaminated by petroleum. However, applicants can seek a waiver and
request up to $350,000 for assessments in certain cases.
In the near future, Clearwater may have a need to obtain additional cleanup funding for various sites.
Unfortunately, the current limitation of $200,000 per project is extremely restrictive, as many site
cleanups exceed $1 million. To facilitate site remediation and reuse, the funding maximum should be
increased to allow for necessary resources to remediate orphan brownfield sites.
Clearwater’s Brownfields Area (CBA) covers 1,842 acres and includes over 250 regulatory listed sites in
over 7,000 properties.Over 125 of these sites have reported contamination. These sites range in size
from less than one acre to greater than 40 acres. The CBA economic development potential has greatly
decreased over the past 30 years. Private disinvestment combined with environmental decline has left an
indelible mark on the area, characterized by business and job loss,impacting the CBA by leaving a legacy
of abandoned lands tainted by former gas stations, dry cleaning facilities, print shops, and other similar
uses. As a result of crime, distress, and economic deterioration, the CBA was designated a U.S.
Department of Justice Operation Weed & Seed site in 1996, and a portion of the area has also been
designated a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) by the U.S. Small Business
Administration.
The City of Clearwater has implemented one of the most successful brownfields programs in the country,
having completed over 100 assessment projects. The City, however, continues to have significant health,
welfare, and environmental issues that need to be addressed. Clearwater has identified more than 125
additional contaminated sites in the CBA that may require environmental assessment. The City will need
federal funding for these and previously assessed sites to complete reuse planning and cleanup.
In January of 2013, the City applied for an FY 2014 EPA Brownfields Assessment Grant in the amount of
$400,000 ($200,000 each to assess potential hazardous substances and petroleum or petroleum product
impacted properties within the CBA).
In FY 2014, the Section 104(k) competitive grant program received $90 million, but saw a reduction in
funding to $80 million in FY 2015. Meanwhile, in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress
maintained funding for the Section 104(k) competitive grant program at $80 million.
In June 2015, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), along with five other bipartisan Senators, reintroduced the
Brownfields Utilization, Investment, and Local Development (BUILD) Act to reauthorize the brownfields
program through 2018. The bill would maintain the current authorization level of $250 million per year;
increase the previously mentioned $200,000 funding limit per project to $500,000, while giving the EPA
the discretion to raise the limit to $650,000 if necessary; and provide for the creation of multipurpose
grants, allowing local governments to obtain up to $950,000 to do site inventory, assessments, planning,
or remediation for one or more brownfields sites.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support continued adequate annual funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency’s brownfields program, including at least $90 million for the Section 104(k)
competitive grant program. Support legislation to reauthorize the Environmental Protection Agency’s
brownfields program. Support any City of Clearwater applications for brownfields funding assistance.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Supportive Housing for the Elderly and for Persons with Disabilities -Department of
Housing and Urban Development’s Section 202 and 811 Programs
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: The Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) Section 202 program helps expand the supply of affordable housing with supportive
services for the elderly by providing interest-free capital advances to private, nonprofit sponsors to
finance the development of housing. The capital advance does not have to be repaid as long as the project
serves very low-income elderly persons for 40 years.
The Section 202 program also provides project rental assistance funds to cover the difference between the
HUD-approved operating cost for the project and the tenants' contribution towards rent. Project rental
assistance contracts are approved initially for three years and are renewable based on the availability of
funds.
Meanwhile, the HUD Section 811 program is authorized to provide funding to develop and subsidize
rental housing with an availability of supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities.
Traditionally, the Section 811 program provided interest-free capital advances and operating subsidies to
nonprofit developers of affordable housing for persons with disabilities, in a similar manner to the Section
202 program. However, in Fiscal Year 2012, Congress chose not to fund these activities, and instead has
moved toward providing funding for rental assistance. These funds go to state housing agencies that have
entered into partnerships with state health and human services and Medicaid agencies, and are distributed
to multifamily housing complexes that provide a range of services for the disabled.
In Pinellas County, the non-profit Boley Centers, Inc. receives HUD Section 202 and 811 funding to
distribute to several housing complexes throughout the County, including the Jerry Howe Transitional
Apartments in Clearwater, which provides housing for disabled veterans.
In the FY 2015 omnibus appropriations bill, both the Supportive Housing for the Elderly program and the
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program received increases to $420 million and $135
million, respectively. For FY 2016, the Administration’s budget proposed an increase in funding for the
Section 202 and 811 programs to $455 million and $177 million, respectively. Congress, however,
appropriated $433 million for Section 202 and $151 for Section 811 in the FY 2016 omnibus.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support continued adequate annual federal funding for the Department
of Housing and Urban Development’s Supportive Housing for the Elderly program (Section 202)and
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities program (Section 811).
FEDERAL ISSUE: Homeless Assistance Competitive Grants –Continuum of Care Program
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: In 1987, Congress passed
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, as a response to the increase in homelessness in the
United States. It originally created several programs within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that focused on combating the root causes of homelessness. The McKinney-Vento
Act has been amended many times, most recently in 2009, when President Obama signed the Homeless
Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act, which updated and expanded
the definition of homelessness and made changes to existing programs under McKinney-Vento. Under
the HEARTH Act, three previously separate HUD homeless assistance programs,the Supportive Housing
Program (SHP),Shelter Plus Care program (S+C),and Single Room Occupancy (SRO)program,were
grouped under the single umbrella Continuum of Care (CoC) program.
The CoC program provides competitive grant funding to local governments and non-profits, and requires
communities seeking funds to develop a Continuum of Care system designed to address the critical
problem of homelessness through a coordinated community-based process of identifying needs and
building a system to address them. The approach is predicated on the understanding that homelessness is
not caused merely by a lack of shelter, but involves a variety of underlying, unmet needs, including
physical, economic, and social.
Under the CoC program, the SHP provides assistance to help the homeless transition from their current
state to a more stable living situation. The goals of the program are to provide assistance to help the
homeless achieve residential stability and foster independence through programs that increase their skill
and/or income levels.
The S+C program provides rental assistance that, when combined with social services, provides
supportive housing for homeless people with disabilities and their families. The program allows for a
variety of housing choices,such as group homes or individual units, coupled with a range of supportive
services.
The SRO was created to expand suitable residential opportunities for homeless individuals. This has been
accomplished through compensating owners of eligible SRO residences, for a period of 10 years, for
improvements made to kitchen and bathroom facilities in eligible SRO residences, as well as providing
rental assistance for the residents that occupy those units.
Under the HEARTH Act, HUD also added 12 new eligible activities for funding under the single CoC
program,which include the following: housing search mediation or outreach to property owners; credit
repair; provision of security or utility deposits; rental assistance for a final month at a location; assistance
with moving costs; and/or other activities that help homeless individuals move immediately into housing
or would benefit individuals who have moved into permanent housing in the last 6 months.In addition,
the HEARTH Act requires established CoC’s to rank their projects for funding into two categories: Tier I
new or renewal projects, which are most likely to receive funding;and Tier II new or renewal projects,
whose funding is dependent on the resources still available and the strength of the CoC’s application.
The Homeless Leadership Board (HLB) is the CoC for Pinellas County and is responsible for the annual
HUD CoC Program Combined Application on behalf of its member agencies.
The CoC competitive grants are funded in the Homeless Assistance Grants account for HUD, and in
Fiscal Year (FY) 2015, the program received $2.135 billion. Then, the Administration proposed an
increase to $2.480 billion for these grants in its FY 2016 budget request. Congress ultimately provided
$2.25 billion in the FY 2016 omnibus appropriations bill.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support continued adequate annual funding for Department of Housing
and Urban Development Homeless Assistance Grants, particularly for the Continuum of Care Program.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Economic Development Administration
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: The Economic
Development Administration (EDA) is primarily a granting agency that funds economic development
projects throughout the country. Local governments or non-profits, such as the City of Clearwater, are
local sponsors of the projects.
Funding from the EDA is used to support private investment and generally funds projects such as road
and water infrastructure improvements that can help reinvigorate areas and lead to additional
reinvestment in homes and businesses. Successful projects usually leverage roughly 200 new jobs and
$24 million in private investment for every $1 million of EDA investment.
The City of Clearwater has identified information technology and software as one of its industry clusters
with the highest growth potential. The City has been working to develop a coordinated approach to meet
the needs of pre-venture, start up, and small-to-medium sized business enterprises. Using the resources
and capabilities of local and regional partners,including public, private and non-profit organizations, the
initiative envisions the delivery of programs, services, and facilities to help foster and grow this
promising industry in Clearwater. Should this prove to be a successful endeavor, it may be possible for
the City to work with the EDA to fund a co-location space,and transition the City’s program to a “bricks
and mortar” center that allows all partners the opportunity to meet with clients in a centralized location.
The President’s Deficit Commission, as well as more recent Congressional proposals, have proposed the
elimination of the EDA, as its mission is seen as duplicative by some. In June 2012,the Senate failed to
pass the “Economic Development Revitalization Act,” which would have reauthorized the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) through 2015. EDA’s authorization expired in September 2008, but
funding via the appropriations process has kept it functioning without an authorization. In addition to
reauthorizing EDA, the Senate legislation proposed to increase the authorized funding for the program
from $300 to $500 million annually. Despite the failure to pass the legislation, the EDA will continue to
operate through the annual appropriations process if provided sufficient funding by Congress.
The FY 2015 omnibus appropriations bill provided a modest increase in funding for the EDA from $247
million in FY 2014 to $250 million. The Administration then proposed an additional increase in funding
for the EDA in its FY 2016 budget request to $273 million. Congress, however, provided $261 million in
the final FY 2016 omnibus.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support continued funding of the Economic Development
Administration. Support City of Clearwater grant applications through EDA programs.
FEDERAL ISSUE:Offshore Energy Exploration
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: Active energy drilling
currently occurs in both the western and central Gulf of Mexico. However, nearly the entire eastern Gulf
is protected from drilling until 2022 by the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (GOMESA).
State waters in the Gulf of Mexico extend 10.5 miles from shore. The federal government controls waters
beyond that point.
For many years, the federal government has developed five-year Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and
Gas Leasing programs to guide energy exploration activities in federal waters. The most recent plan,
developed for 2012-2017, did not propose to lease any areas in the Atlantic OCS for oil and gas drilling.
However, the Administration’s plan did indicate that it would allow seismic analyses to determine energy
resource potential in areas of the Atlantic OCS from Delaware to parts of Florida (approximately north of
Brevard County).
In 2014, the Department of Interior’s (DOI) Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) finalized a
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) on seismic air-gun testing for offshore oil and gas
exploration in the Atlantic Ocean, which opens the door for the first new oil and gas surveys in three
decades.Specifically, the plan allows for the deployment of high-volume air-guns in federal waters to
pinpoint the depth and size of oil and gas deposits. While it is viewed by many to include stringent
regulations to mitigate against the effects these air guns may have on wildlife, some argue that the testing
will still have devastating impacts on the affected areas.
The PEIS was accepted in July of 2014 and seismic testing is expected to begin this year.Should the
analysis of the seismic surveys be completed in time for potential inclusion in the next DOI OCS Oil and
Gas Leasing Program for 2017-2022, some believe that drilling could take place in areas identified as
having resource potential as early as 2020. Senator Nelson and 10 other members of the Florida
delegation sent a letter to President Obama expressing their disapproval of the decision, citing the effects
seismic testing could have on Florida’s wildlife and fisheries. Meanwhile, BOEM is currently preparing a
new OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program for 2017-2022; and, in January of 2015, released its Draft
Proposed Program. The draft recommends opening up part of the Atlantic OCS for one lease sale to
perform drilling off the coast between Virginia and Georgia in 2021.
While nearly the entire eastern Gulf is protected from drilling until 2022 by GOMESA, the law does not
prevent seismic testing from being included in the next five-year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program, nor
prohibit any future Administration from allowing such testing in the eastern Gulf. In addition, Senator
Bill Cassidy (R-LA) introduced S. 1276, the Offshore Energy and Jobs Act, with his colleagues Sens.
Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS), Cornyn (R-TX), and Cochran (R-MS). Among other things, the bill
would alter the section of GOMESA that blocks oil and gas drilling at least 125 miles from the west coast
of Florida until 2022. Instead, Sen. Cassidy’s legislation would allow drilling 50 miles off the west coast
of Florida. In response, Bill Nelson in the Senate and David Jolly in the House of Representatives, along
with Sen. Markey (D-MA) and Reps. Buchanan, Clawson, Graham, and Murphy (all Florida), introduced
legislation to extend the existing ban on drilling from 2022 to 2027 (S. 1430 and H.R. 2630, respectively).
Meanwhile, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee approved a bill titled the Offshore
Production and Energizing National Security (OPENS) Act, which is similar to the Cassidy bill in that it
would allow new energy production on the OCS in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the South Atlantic, and in
the waters off of Alaska. The OPENS Act would also expand offshore revenue sharing to Florida in 2017
for leases in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. Currently, only Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama
receive revenue from offshore drilling activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The bill would also direct the
Interior Department to hold lease sales in the eastern Gulf in 2018, 2019, 2020, and after 2022.
Unfortunately, momentum for expanded offshore energy development continues in both Congress and the
Administration. The OPENS Act, and other similar pieces of legislation, will face a considerable uphill
climb in Congress, but as the Administration becomes increasingly amenable to offshore energy
exploration and harvesting, we could see additional areas opened for leasing.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Monitor the potential expansion of offshore energy exploration in
Florida’s federal waters.
FEDERAL ISSUE: Land and Water Conservation Fund
BACKGROUND; HOW IT MAY AFFECT THE CITY OF CLEARWATER: The Land and Water
Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 was enacted to help preserve, develop, and insure access to
outdoor recreation facilities for our nation. The law created the Land and Water Conservation Fund
(LWCF) in the U.S. Treasury as a funding source to implement outdoor recreation goals. Revenues for
the fund are derived from oil and gas leasing proceeds in the Outer Continental Shelf.
The LWCF has been the principal source of monies for land acquisition for outdoor recreation by four
federal agencies—the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and Forest Service. The LWCF also funds a matching grant program via the National Park Service to
assist states (and local governments as sub-recipients) in acquiring recreational lands and developing
outdoor recreational facilities. A portion of the appropriation is divided equally among the states, with
the remainder apportioned based on need, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior. The states
award their grant money through a competitive selection process based on statewide recreation plans and
establish their own priorities and criteria. Finally, beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 1998, LWCF has been
used to fund other federal programs with related purposes.
The LWCF is authorized at $900 million annually. However, Congress determines the level of
appropriations each year, and yearly appropriations have fluctuated widely since the origin of the
program. Of the total revenues that have accrued throughout the history of the program ($33.5 billion),
less than half have been appropriated ($15.8 billion). FY 2001 marked the highest funding ever, with
appropriations exceeding the authorized level by reaching nearly $1 billion. In FY 2002, Congress
provided the most LWCF funding of the past twenty years for the state grant program: $144 million. For
FY 2016, the Administration requested $53.2 million for the state formula and competitive programs.
Congress, however, provided a huge boost to the state programs, funding them at $110 million in FY
2016.
In addition to yearly funding challenges, the current authorization for the LWCF is set to expire at the end
of 2018. While this is still roughly three years away, the previous authorization was allowed to lapse for
over two months when Congress failed to reauthorize the program after its expiration on October 1, 2015.
A three-year reauthorization was finally included in the FY 2016 omnibus.
Meanwhile, the Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, Rob Bishop (R-UT), unveiled
draft legislation called the Protecting America’s Recreation and Conservation (PARC) Act in November
2015, which would reauthorize the LWCF for seven years at $900 million annually, but would also
significantly reform the LWCF. The legislation would provide 45 percent of LWCF funds to the State
Assistance Grant Program, 15 percent to fully fund the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program, 20 percent to
fund offshore energy exploration,and 3.5 percent on federal land acquisition. The bill would also require
a certain amount of that 3.5 percent to be focused east of the 100th meridian (a north-south line running
through the Dakotas and into Texas) in order to prevent the purchase of much more land in the west.
There have also been some legislative attempts to permanently reauthorize the LWCF. In March of 2015,
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) introduced the Land and Water Conservation Authorization and Funding
Act of 2015, which would do the following: 1) Amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of
1965 to make permanent the LWCF’s authorization; 2) Make revenue into the LWCF available for
expenditure to carry out the purposes of the Act without further appropriation; and 3) Require that not less
than 1.5 percent of the annual authorized funding amount be made available for projects that secure
recreational public access to existing federal public land for hunting, fishing, and other recreational
purposes. This bill had 31 cosponsors (39D, 2R, 2I), including Senator Bill Nelson.
RECOMMENDED POSITION: Support a $900 million annual appropriation from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, including at least $100 million for the state grant program. Support legislation
reauthorizing the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2144
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: AppointmentIn Control: Official Records & Legislative Services
Agenda Number: 10.3
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Appoint one member to the Community Development Board with a term to expire February 28,
2020.
SUMMARY:
APPOINTMENT WORKSHEET
BOARD: Community Development Board
TERM: 4 years
APPOINTED BY: City Council
FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: Yes
RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT: City of Clearwater
MEMBERS: 7 & 1 alternate
CHAIRPERSON: Brian A. Barker
MEETING DATES: 3rd Tues., 1:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers APPTS. NEEDED: 1
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS: Board shall include members qualified and experienced in the
fields of architecture, planning, landscape architecture, engineering, construction, planning &
land use law and real estate
THE FOLLOWING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER HAS A TERM WHICH EXPIRES AND
NOW REQUIRES REAPPOINTMENT FOR A NEW TERM OR REPLACEMENT BY A NEW
APPOINTEE:
1. Richard Adelson - 2670 Red Oak Court, 33761 - Architect
Original Appointment: 2/7/08
(1 absence in the last year)
Interested in Reappointment : Yes
(2nd term expires 2/28/16)
THE FOLLOWING CITIZENS WISH TO REMAIN ON THE LIST FOR CONSIDERATION TO
SERVE ON THIS BOARD:
1. Sheila Cole - 670 Island Way #600, 33767 - Marketing & Graphics
2. Darrell Michael Flanery - 1836 Venetian Point Dr., 33755 - Engineer - Civil/Environmental
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
File Number: ID#16-2144
3. Jason Gibertoni - 430 E. Shore Drive Apt 4, 33767 - Shuttle Operator
4. David L. Jaye - 2856 Shady Oak Court, 33761 - Real Estate
(Currently serving on the Brownfields)
5. Michelle Thomann-Ramirez - 10 S. Keystone Dr., 33755 - Art Educator/Artist
Zip codes of current members:
1 at 33759
1 at 33761
1 at 33763
2 at 33764
3 at 33767
Current Categories:
1 Architect
2 Attorneys
1 Building Contractor
1 Civil Engineer
2 Real Estate Broker
1 Landscape Architect
Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
CITY OF CLEARWATER - APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY BOARDS
must be Clearwater resident)
Name: Sheila M. Cole
Home Address:
670 Island Way #600
Zip
Telephone: 727.441.1319
Cell Phone: 727.744.0151
How long a resident of Clearwater? 24 years
Office Address:
n/a
Zip
Telephone:
E -mail Address: shemail @tampabay.rr.com
Occupation: retired
Field of Education:
Art, Journalism, Behavioral Modification, etc.
If retired, former occupation: Exec. Dir. C of C.,
Employer: n/a
Other Work Experience:
C of C, Hospice,Newspaper columnist.
Marketing & Graphic Design, tri state Weight Loss Director
Community Activities: Past Pres: Civic Assoc. & CHOA; City Event Volunteer, t Fallties
Other Interests: Art, Boating,lnterior Design.
Board Service (current and past):
Beautification Board, Trolley Brd.,MCEB
Board Preference:
CDB
Additional Comments:
Date: c, 1O/-
See attached list for boards that require financial disclosure at time of appointment. Please return this
application and board questionnaire to the Official Records & Legislative Services Department, P. O. 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
BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is your understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities?
To hold hearings to consider what conditional uses and zoning changes to existing code requirements
should be permitted for a positive effect on the continued development of Clearwater
and to protect all areas, business and residential from negative impacts.
2. Have you ever observed a board meeting either in person or on C -View, the City's TV station?
Yes, several times.
3. What background and /or qualifications do you have that you feel would qualify you to serve on
this Board?
Beach Walk Planning committees, The Clearwater Arts Foundation,
City Development Planning meetings, working with City Staff on Traffic Advisory Com.,
and Code Revision participation, as well as many years volunteering with the MCEB.
4. Why do you want to serve on this Board?
While not an Architect, a Contractor or an Attorney,
I have a great awareness of the impact of this Board and I am a
strong proponent of long range planning to maintain Clearwater's
continued growth & quality of life.
Name: Sheila Cole
Board Name: CDB
CITY OF CLEARWATER - APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY BOARDS
must be Clearwater resident)
Please type or print clearly.
Name: Darrell Michael "Mike" Flanery
Home Address:
1836 Venetian Point Dr, Clearwater
Zip 33755
Telephone: 727-442 -3524
Cell Phone:727-215 -5267
How long a resident of Clearwater ?40 years
Occupation: Engineer - Civil / Environmental
Field of Education:
Engineering - Civil, Environmental
Office Address:
Zip 33755
Telephone:
Email Address: mike@flanery.org
Public Health - Environmental & Occupational health
Employer: Self Employed
Other Work Experience:
Chief Engineer, Pinellas Co. Water System
Director Environmental Health Pinellas County Health Dept
If retired, former occupation: Semi Retired
Community Activities: Member Environmental Advisory Board apx 2000- 2014
Served on Urban Land Institute community panel
Other Interests:
Board Service (current and past): Board Preference:
Member Environmental Advisory Board apx 2000- 2014 Community Development Board
Additional Comments: Florida Registered Professional Engineer #21280
Signature: Date: f
See attache list or boards that require financial disclosure at time of appointment. Please return this
application and board questionnaire to the Official Records & Legislative Services Department, P. O. 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
EB 1 0 2
krt Y ii e"tu„
attZ ANDLr'GiS 1ilk St:VcS DEPT
BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is your understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities?
Reviews planning and development matters. Design reviews, land use changes
and zoning changes. Evaluates historic site applications.
2. Have you ever observed a board meeting either in person or on the City's TV station C -View?
Yes, have served as chair of Environmental Advisory Board, given statements in my
official job duties (fluoride), and as citizen on Fracking.
3. What background and /or qualifications do you have that you feel would qualify you to serve on
this Board?
As Engineer for Water System, involved in land acquisition, condemnation, land use,
permitting, right -of -way utilization. Worked with fire depts re water supply and access,
tree removal, Water conservation, water reuse, backflow protection, septic and sewer
sysems, LEED builiding considerations.
4. Why do you want to serve on this Board?
As long time resident, I would like to give back to my City and Home. Desire to
help make Clearwater an even better place to live, visit, and enjoy.
Name: D. Michael Flanery
Board Name: Community Development Board
Name: 3 asor,
CITY OF CLEARWATER - APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY BOARDS
must be Clearwater resident)
7 b 2. r ro
Home Address:
3o r . t. 0,
C1
ri Q lS e„
Telephone:
Cell Phone: - Coo —`I qzZ
Ae +w
Zip 33761
Office Address:
1031 ve,,,,l
C Zip S6
Telephone:
E -mail Address: .\ 0-sot, . (j id e r} A „, (O n.•,o4.) cow.
How long a resident of Clearwater? 3 curs
Occupation:
Field of Education:
P 1 GA1 LI Q nGL
If retired, former occupation:
Community Activities: C I ? rJ\
t evN tr 4- U -P•P t 2 r
Other Interests: \ k; -k
Employer: F1mr7,4,- F ret
Other Work Experience:
O4'— cx Mr%.r et-,1aN,Qo y 13e1AG,P rybLs
r r c-f C rL.2
O v._A- P-( +tV i-i&
Board Preference:
v2 v e t a c),., t r,'t
Board Service (current and past):
CI ev.rvspcx)rk t' 13 Zcxc,4, CkArrb 4 -
31 {r Tru.r1 A Akr,scr1 Co'^-.r,.; \• tc
Additional Comments:
levar`a
RECEIVED
Signature: , Date: !J 6 j v`
SEP 2 6 2014
OFFICIAL RLCORDS AND
LEGISLATIVE SRVCS DEPT
See attached list for boards that require financial disclosure at time of appointment. Please return this
application and board questionnaire to the Official Records & Legislative Services Department, P. O. 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
BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE
What is your understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities?
ed re it t i- ` a.c,l-,c
2. Have you ever observed a board meeting either in person or on C -View, the City's TV station?
3. What background and /or qualifications do you have that you feel would qualify you to serve on
this Board?
4. Why do you want to serve on this Board?
Name: ck,) u.,, G i b e r
Board Name: C . ,,i--1 0 e v 0 r
1. The Community Development Board works with and advises the City Council and Staff on
proposed building developments and planning issues in Clearwater. It reviews planned land use
requests, zoning matters, building construction, and applicants with property seeking historic
status. The Community Development Board evaluates if proposed developments and new
construction fit within city code and meet the criteria of any specially designated areas of the
city, such as the Beach by Design code the city has implemented for Clearwater Beach's
Business District. When dealing with planning and code decisions outside the authority of city
staff the Board will hold a public hearing and take a formal vote to decide the issue based on the
legal merits of the city code.
2. Yes, I have observed several Community Development Board meetings in person, and
attended many more City Council Meetings, Work Sessions, and other Pinellas County
Government meetings including PSTA Board meetings and Tourism Development Council
Meetings.
3. I believe my number one qualification is that during my time in Clearwater I have shown a
clear and unwavering commitment to educating myself about our great city and strive to use that
knowledge to improve Clearwater by participating in community boards and committees. I am
currently the Vice Chairman of the Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce after previously
serving as both Secretary and Treasurer, and also serve as Co -Chair of the Parking, Traffic, and
Infrastructure Committee. This role as Co -Chair of the PTI Committee has given me a great
understanding of the planning challenges facing our city and allows me to hear first -hand
feedback from area businesses and residents. I am a Graduate of Clearwater's own Citizen's
Academy, giving me a deeper knowledge of our city's departments and how they function
internally. Serving on the PSTA Transit Advisory Committee has provided me knowledge of the
transit challenges facing Clearwater and Pinellas County.
4. This is an exciting time to live in Clearwater, with the upcoming hotel growth on Clearwater
Beach, the release of Dolphin Tale 2, the multi -year record breaking bed tax months, the rise of
regional sporting events such as Tampa Bay hosting the NCAA Woman's Final Four and
popularity of the Phillies since their World Championship, and much more. I believe one of the
integral keys to long term success in Clearwater is well thought out development and building
plans that improve the community and fit into the overall vision of growth for the future of
Clearwater as stipulated by our city planning codes. As a 28 year old business owner, I have a
personal and long term interest in improving our city. If selected I will work diligently with other
members of the CDB and members of the community to continue improving Clearwater as a
great place to live, work, and play.
Any consideration of appointment to the CDB by the City Council is greatly appreciated. I have
attached a resume of my volunteer positions which does not include my employment history.
Jason Gibertoni
430 East Shore Drive Apt. 4
Clearwater Beach FL, 33767
203 -500 -7822
Jason.Gibertoni@Yahoo.com
Volunteer & Community Experience
Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce Executive Officer 8 /11- Present
2019 Vice Chairman, Co -Chair Parking Traffic Infrastructure Committee
2013 Treasurer, Membership Committee Chair
2012 Board of Directors Secretary, Membership Committee Chair
Officer of the chamber, responsible for the financial health of the chamber &
Developing its long term business plan and growth strategies
Big Brothers/Big Sisters School Based Volunteer 2/12 -5/14
Mentor "Little Brother" at Sandy Lane Elementary, Clearwater
PSTA Transit Advisory Committee 9/12 -5/13
The TAC serves PSTA in an advisory capacity for providing feedback to
the Board of Directors and Administration on issues relating to the quantity
and quality of fixed route and paratransit service.
Clearwater Citizen's Academy Graduate Fall 2011
Ten week educational program on the inner workings of local government
Participated in a variety of onsite seminars in every department of the city
Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce Special Events Committee 5/08 -5 /11
Help plan & organize special events related programs for the TBBC
Visit St. Pete/Clearwater Marketing Intern Summer 2008
Prepared monthly internet statistics report for TDC presentation
Updated website, assist in publishing online newsletter
Students in Free Enterprise Regional Champion Spring 2008
Volunteer at various area businesses with other Eckerd College
Students in order to create practical & sustainable business plans
Tampa Bay Beaches Chamber of Commerce Student Synergist 12/06 -6/07
Organize files, research potential chamber members, assist the chamber
President, assist visitors in the welcome center
Awards
2012 Clearwater Beach Chamber of Commerce Board Member of the Year
CITY OF CLEARWATER - APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY BOARDS
must be Clearwater resident)
Please type or print clearly.
Name: David Lawrence Jaye
Home Address: Office Address:
2856 Shady Oak Court - Clearwater, FI. 33761 P.O. Box 61 - Safety Harbor, FI.
Zip 34695 Zip 34695
Telephone: 727- 791 -7878 Telephone: 727 - 723 -7878
Cell Phone: 727- 644 -6822 Email Address: davidandkathleen @aol.com
How long a resident of Clearwater? 49 Years
Occupation: Real Estate Employer: Self & United Airlines, Inc.
Field of Education:
Management and Organizational Leadership
Other Work Experience:
International Relations
Real Estate Purser - Pan American World Airways & United Airlines
If retired, former occupation:
Community Activities: East Gateway - Clearwater Revitalization (Real Estate), Countryside Country Club
Brownfield Redevelopment Investment,
Other Interests: Golf, Travel, Investing
Board Service (current and past): Board Preference:
Brownfield Economic Development Advisory Board Community Development Board
Countryside Country Club Dolphins Board Member
Additional Comments: Active Realtor, Landlord, Business Owner, Resident
Signature: David L Jaye Digitally signed by David L Jaye
Date: 2016.01.13 13:23:39 - 05'00' Date: January 13, 2016
See attached list for boards that require financial disclosure at time of appointment. Please return this
application and board questionnaire to the Official Records & Legislative Services Department, P. O. 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 dry®
Valid current Florida Drivers' License issued to an address within city limits 1
Declaration of Domicile filed with the city clerk affirming residency within city limits
JAN 1v..
OFFICIAL RECORDS AND
LEGISLATIVE SRVCS DEPT
BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is your understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities?
To help the City of Clearwater and developers / investors / builders reach decisions for development
of the City of Clearwater. Duties include to approve or dsapprove development agenda items that don't
conform to current guidelines by finding ways to make the process work for all parties.
2. Have you ever observed a board meeting either in person or on the City's TV station C -View?
Yes, and I have participated in numerous development projects for both the City of Clearwater
and with Pinellas County, both personally and professionally.
3. What background and /or qualifications do you have that you feel would qualify you to serve on
this Board?
Worked closely with the CDB on building several businesses in Clearwater.
Serve on Economic Development Advisory Board for the Brownfields. Currently own 10 properties
in the Greater Clearwater area. Extensive familiarity with the City's Development Code.
Strong, Solid working relationship with many departments within the City.
Business and real estate owner.
4. Why do you want to serve on this Board?
I want to serve on the Community Development Board to help Clearwater become
a world class city that is a highly desirable place to love, play and work.
Clearwater, FI. is a mixture of New and Old and requires someone with the ability
to think outside the box to make development decisions.
Name: David Jaye
Board Name: Community Development Board.
CITY OF CLEARWATER - APPLICATION FOR ADVISORY BOARDS
must be Clearwater resident)
Name: Michelle Thomann - Ramirez
Home Address: Office Address:
10 S. Keystone Dr
Zip 33755 Zip 33755
Telephone: Telephone:
Cell Phone: 727-507 -1207 E -mail Address: michelletramirez @gmail.com
How long a resident of Clearwater? 1.5 yrs
Occupation: Art Educator /Artist
Field of Education:
BFA
M.ED
Employer: Self
Other Work Experience:
Public schools as teacher, substitute and after school programs
with at risk youth, adults with disabilities. Fine art instructor for private programs.
If retired, former occupation:
Community Activities: Sugar sands volunteer, Second chance for strays volunteer 101 graduate.
Other Interests: arts and healing, community building through the arts, woman and girls at issues
Board Service (current and past): Board Preference:
Nuisance abatement
Parks and Recreation
Community development
Additional Comments:
Signature %
ri
Date: 7/11!15
See attached list for boards that require 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
JOL 13 ao(s
LEr IS? ,s";. ! f .
BOARD QUESTIONNAIRE
1. What is your understanding of the board's duties and responsibilities?
The roles of a board member varies on what the community seeks. It is to
give guidance and advice to businesses and Governments that is non-
binding.
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?
live in the Skycrest Lake community, I have a Master's in Education so I
understand that there are many different views culturally and environmentally we
need to deal with in our communities. I have taught and substituted in the
Clearwater school system. So the community is very important and I want to give
back in a way that is different and supportive. I am an artist who would like to see
more growth and cultural interest developed by the community and using cultural
festivals and events are a way to grow this and that is a world I am very familiar
with. I have lived in a variety of cities and communities to reflect on when I have
input._
4. Why do you want to serve on this Board?
I love the area I live in and see myself here long term. I want to become part of
something greater than myself and help where I can, by being a part of a board
will also give me a better idea of how decisions are made and why. I want to
serve my community._
Name: Michelle Thomann - Ramirez
Board Name: Community Development
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2161
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Council Discussion
Item
In Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 13.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Update on fluoridation of Clearwater locally sourced drinking water - Councilmember Jonson
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
ANNUAL
PRESENTED BY
waterQualityReport
REPORTING YEAR 2014
PWS ID#: FL6520336
Community Participation Is Welcome
You are invited to participate in our regularly scheduled
meetings. The City of Clearwater Council normally meets
at 6 p.m. on the first and third Thursdays of each month at City
Hall, 112 S. Osceola Ave., Clearwater, FL. The meeting agendas
are published on the City’s Web site at www.myclearwater.com.
For more information, call (727) 562-4090.
The Pinellas County Board of County Commissioners meets
typically twice a month, usually, but not always, on the first and
third Tuesdays of the month. The earlier meeting in the month
begins at 9:30 a.m. Meetings in the latter part of the month are
held in two parts. Agenda items are discussed with the Board at
2 p.m., after which there is a break and the Board reconvenes at
6 p.m. The public is invited to attend these meetings held in the
fifth floor Assembly Room of the Pinellas County Courthouse
located at 315 Court St., Clearwater, FL 33765. For more
information, call (727) 464-3485.
Tampa Bay Water’s Board of Directors meetings occur on the
third Monday of every other (even) month at 9 a.m. at Tampa
Bay Water, 2575 Enterprise Rd., Clearwater, FL 33763. For more
information, visit their Web site at www.tampabaywater.org or
call (727) 796-2355.
Where Does My Water Come From?
City of Clearwater residents use approximately 11.2 million
gallons of potable water every day. Approximately 60 percent
is pumped from City-owned and -operated groundwater wells;
the remaining daily demand is supplied by water purchased from
Pinellas County Utilities. The groundwater source for Clearwater
is the groundwater supply called the Floridan Aquifer. This aquifer
is one of the major sources of groundwater in the United States;
it underlies all of Florida, southern Georgia, and small parts of
adjacent Alabama and South Carolina.
Pinellas County Utilities receives drinking water from Tampa
Bay Water, a regional water supplier, which in turn becomes part
of the water supplied to the residents of Clearwater. The water
supplied by Tampa Bay Water is a blend of groundwater, treated
surface water, and desalinated seawater. Eleven regional wellfields,
pumping from the Floridan Aquifer, are the primary source for the
regional groundwater supply. The Alafia River, the Hillsborough
River, C.W. Bill Young Regional Reservoir, and the Tampa Bypass
Canal are the primary supplies for the regional treated surface water
supply. Hillsborough Bay is the primary supply of seawater for the
regional desalinated supply. For more information on the Tampa
Bay Water system, visit their Web site at www.tampabaywater.org.
Dear City of Clearwater Water Consumer
This report presents important information about the
City of Clearwater’s drinking water quality. It also
discusses our water supplies and methods used for producing
drinking water you can trust, delivered to your tap every day.
Included is information on how you can participate in water
system improvements and decision-making processes.
Our trained, licensed water professionals are committed to
producing high-quality drinking water that meets or exceeds
all regulatory standards. Our Engineering and Management
staff strive to maintain a modern and reliable water system
by employing a forward-thinking, proactive approach in
anticipating future community needs and regulations.
The City of Clearwater routinely monitors for contaminants
in your drinking water in accordance with Federal and State
laws, rules and regulations. This report is based in the results
of monitoring from January 1 through December 31, 2014.
Important Health Information
While your drinking water meets the U.S. EPA’s standard
for arsenic, it does contain low levels of arsenic. The EPA’s
standard balances the current understanding of arsenic’s possible
health effects against the costs of removing arsenic from drinking
water. The EPA continues to research the health effects of low levels
of arsenic, which is a mineral known to cause cancer in humans at
high concentrations and is linked to other health effects such as skin
damage and circulatory problems.
Some people may be more vulnerable to contaminants in drinking
water than the general population. Immunocompromised persons
such as those with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, those who
have undergone organ transplants, people with HIV/AIDS or other
immune system disorders, some elderly, and infants may be
particularly at risk from infections. These people should seek
advice about drinking water from their health care providers.
The U.S. EPA/CDC (Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention) guidelines on appropriate means to
lessen the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and
other microbial contaminants are available from the
Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791
or http://water.epa.gov/drink/hotline.
Bring Reclaimed Water into Your Neighborhood!
If your neighborhood does not currently have reclaimed water service and you would like it, it is easy to initiate a project.
Neighbors along the proposed pipeline route would need to sign a citizen-initiated petition form to express interest in getting
reclaimed service. More than 50 percent of property owners along the route are required for approval leading to construction.
To learn more, call (727) 562-4960 or visit myclearwater.com/reclaimed.
City Water Treatment Plants
The City of Clearwater has three water treatment plants, two of which are reverse-osmosis (RO) plants. The newly constructed RO
plant that treats brackish water is located at 21133 U.S. Highway 19 N. in Clearwater; a Grand Opening event will take place in June
2015. The City produces its own water and purchases the rest from Pinellas County Utilities to meet the water demand of city residents.
Substances That Could Be in Water
The sources of drinking water (both tap water
and bottled water) include rivers, lakes, streams,
ponds, reservoirs, springs, and wells. As water travels
over the surface of the land or through the ground,
it dissolves naturally occurring minerals and, in some
cases, radioactive material, and can pick up substances
resulting from the presence of animals or from human
activity.
Contaminants that may be present in source water
include:
Microbial Contaminants, such as viruses and bacteria,
which may come from sewage treatment plants, septic
systems, agricultural livestock operations, and wildlife.
Inorganic Contaminants, such as salts and metals,
which can be naturally occurring or result from urban
stormwater runoff, industrial or domestic wastewater
discharges, oil and gas production, mining, or farming.
Pesticides and Herbicides , which may come from a
variety of sources such as agriculture, urban stormwater
runoff, and residential uses.
Organic Chemical Contaminants, including synthetic
and volatile organic chemicals, which are by-products of
industrial processes and petroleum production and can
also come from gas stations, urban stormwater runoff,
and septic systems.
Radioactive Contaminants, which can be naturally
occurring or be the result of oil and gas production and
mining activities.
In order to ensure that tap water is safe to drink, the
U.S. EPA prescribes regulations that limit the amount
of certain contaminants in water provided by public
water systems. The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) regulations establish limits for contaminants in
bottled water that must provide the same protection for
public health.
Drinking water, including bottled water, may reasonably
be expected to contain at least small amounts of
some contaminants. The presence of contaminants
does not necessarily indicate that the water poses a
health risk. More information about contaminants
and potential health effects can be obtained by calling
the Environmental Protection Agency’s Safe Drinking
Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791.
Lead in Home Plumbing
If present, elevated levels of lead can cause serious health
problems, especially for pregnant women and young children.
Lead in drinking water is primarily from materials and components
associated with service lines and home plumbing. We are responsible
for providing high-quality drinking water, but we cannot control
the variety of materials used in plumbing components. When your
water has been sitting for several hours, you can minimize the
potential for lead exposure by flushing your tap for 30 seconds to
2 minutes before using water for drinking or cooking. If you are
concerned about lead in your water, you may wish to have your water
tested. Information on lead in drinking water, testing methods, and
steps you can take to minimize exposure is available from the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline or at www.epa.gov/safewater/lead.
Groundwater Replenishment
The City of Clearwater is looking at using purified water to
replenish local groundwater supplies, with the goal of helping
to ensure the availability of more drinking water in the future. This
project, if implemented, could potentially improve groundwater
levels within the City so more drinking water will be available. A
study is underway that will determine how much the groundwater
level can be improved by directly adding up to 3 million gallons
a day of purified water into a brackish water zone below the fresh
water zone of the Upper Florida Aquifer. A 2011 feasibility study
concluded this groundwater replenishment project to be safe and
economical.
The City has completed the pilot and demonstration phase of the
study. A small-scale pilot plant went online in June 2013. The
study is cooperatively funded by the Southwest Florida Water
Management District. Informational presentations are available for
neighborhood and civic associations by calling (727) 562-4960.
For project information, visit myclearwater.com/groundwater.
How Is My Water Treated?
Clearwater uses Best Available Treatment (BAT) technologies
to ensure that the drinking water delivered to our consumers
meets or exceeds all drinking water standards.
At RO Plant No. 1, water from wells in the Upper Floridan
Aquifer is filtered to remove suspended solids such as iron.
Then it is processed by reverse osmosis (RO) to remove selected
dissolved molecules, including hardness-causing salts. The water
is disinfected using monochloramines, stabilized to protect the
pipeline system, and then pumped to consumers.
At RO Plant No. 2, brackish water from deep wells
below the Upper Floridan Aquifer is treated by reverse
osmosis (RO) to remove selected dissolved molecules,
including hardness-causing salts. The water is then
treated with ozone to remove sulfide, disinfected using
monochloramines, stabilized to protect the pipeline
system, and pumped to consumers.
At Water Plant No. 3, raw water from the Upper
Floridan Aquifer is blended with water supplied
by Pinellas County Utilities, disinfected using
monochloramines, stabilized to protect the pipeline
system, and pumped to consumers.
QUESTIONS?
Please contact Glenn Daniel, Water Division
Manager, at (727) 562-4960 if you have questions
about this report.
TTHM MCL Violation
In November of 2014 the City of Clearwater was required by the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to issue a Tier II
Public Notice for a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) exceedance of
the Locational Running Annual Average (LRAA) for Total Trihalomethane
(TTHM) at one of the eight locations tested quarterly. The LRAA at
the location was 81 parts per billion (ppb) and the MCL is 80 ppb. The
disinfectant dosage at the water plant serving the location, combined with
water age in the distribution system are responsible for the formation of
TTHM in the distribution system. The City is working to minimize the
formation of TTHM by optimizing disinfectant dosage at the water plant
and increasing flushing to lower TTHM formation time. The City has also
retained the services of a registered engineer to provide the best available
treatment alternatives for TTHM control, which may include capital
improvement projects. The City will continue to monitor TTHM results
quarterly and report any exceedances as required by the FDEP.
Some people who drink water containing trihalomethanes in excess of the
MCL over many years may experience problems with their liver, kidneys, or
central nervous systems, and may have an increased risk of getting cancer.
Source Water Assessment
In 2014, the Department of Environmental Protection performed
a Source Water Assessment on the City of Clearwater, Tampa Bay
Water (TBW), and Pinellas County utility systems. The assessment
was conducted to provide information about any potential sources of
contamination in the vicinity of our wells. The well water source is
considered to be at low to moderate risk due to potential sources of
contamination such as gas stations and waste cleanup sites present in the
assessment area. The assessment of the Tampa Bay Water surface water
intakes are considered to be at high risk because of the many potential
sources of contamination present in their assessment area. The complete
assessment results are available on the FDEP Source Water Assessment and
Protection Program Web site at www.dep.state.fl.us/swapp, or they can be
obtained from Tampa Bay Water, 2575 Enterprise Road, Clearwater, FL
33763. Call them at (727) 796-2355.
Water Restrictions
Citywide watering restrictions change on a regular basis,
usually once or twice a year. Make sure your household
is following current watering restrictions while watering
lawns and landscaping. For your watering schedule, visit
myclearwater.com/watering or call the Water Conservation
Hotline at (727) 562-4WTR (4987).
PRIMARY REGULATED CONTAMINANTS
Microbiological Contaminants
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
MCL VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
HIGHEST MONTHLY
PERCENTAGE
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
HIGHEST MONTHLY
PERCENTAGE MCLG MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
Total Coliform Bacteria (% positive samples)No 01/2014; 11/2014 0.88 1/14–12/14 1.6 0 Presence of coliform bacteria in
5% of monthly samples
Naturally present in the
environment
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
MCL VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
TOTAL NUMBER OF POSITIVE
SAMPLES FOR THE YEAR
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
TOTAL NUMBER OF POSITIVE SAMPLES
FOR THE YEAR MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Fecal coliform and E.coli [in the
distribution system] (# positive samples)
No 11/03/2014 1 NA NA 0 0 Human and animal fecal waste
Radioactive Contaminants
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
MCL VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS MCLG MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
Alpha Emitters (pCi/L)No 02/13/2014 3 2.9–3 3/11 0.806 ND–0.806 NA NA NA 0 15 Erosion of
natural deposits
Radium 226 + 228 [Combined
Radium] (pCi/L)
No 02/13/2014 3.1 1.3–3.1 NA NA NA 4/2014 3.1 NA 0 5 Erosion of
natural deposits
Uranium (ppb)No 02/13/2014 0.092 0.076–0.092 NA NA NA 4/2014 1.4 NA 0 30 Erosion of
natural deposits
Inorganic Contaminants
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
MCL
VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Antimony (ppb)No NA NA NA NA NA NA 4/2014 0.026 NA 6 6 Discharge from petroleum refineries; fire
retardants; ceramics; electronics; solder
Arsenic (ppb)No 02/13/2014 8.5 4.9–8.5 3/14 0.3 0.1–0.3 NA NA NA NA 10 Erosion of natural deposits; runoff from orchards;
runoff from glass and electronics production wastes
Barium (ppm)No 02/13/2014 0.027 0.022–0.027 3/14 0.0172 0.0148–0.0172 NA NA NA 2 2 Discharge of drilling wastes; discharge from metal
refineries; erosion of natural deposits
Beryllium (ppb)No 02/13/2014 0.27 0.22–0.27 NA NA NA NA NA NA 4 4 Discharge from metal refineries and coal-burning
factories; discharge from electrical, aerospace, and
defense industries
Chromium (ppb)No 02/13/2014 4.9 4.6–4.9 3/14 4.6 4.0–4.6 NA NA NA 100 100 Discharge from steel and pulp mills; erosion of
natural deposits
Sampling Results
During the past year, we have taken hundreds of water samples in order to determine the presence of any radioactive, biological, inorganic, volatile organic, or synthetic organic
contaminants. The information in the tables shows only those contaminants that were detected in the water. Although all the substances listed here are under the Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL), we feel it is important that you know exactly what was detected and how much of the substance was present in the water. We are pleased to report that our
drinking water meets all Federal and State requirements.
The State requires us to monitor for certain substances less often than once per year because the concentrations of these substances do not change frequently. In these cases, the most
recent sample data are included, along with the year in which the sample was taken.
Inorganic Contaminants
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
MCL
VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Cyanide (ppb)No 02/13/2014 30 ND–30 3/14 33 ND–33 NA NA NA 200 200 Discharge from steel/metal factories; discharge
from plastic and fertilizer factories
Fluoride (ppm)No 02/13/2014 0.42 0.27–0.42 3/14 0.64 0.62–0.64 NA NA NA 4 4.0 Erosion of natural deposits; discharge from
fertilizer and aluminum factories; water additive
that promotes strong teeth when at optimum levels
between 0.7 and 1.3 ppm
Lead [point of entry] (ppb)No NA NA NA NA NA NA 1/2014; 4/2014;
7/2014; 10/2014
2 ND–2 NA 15 Residue from man-made pollution such as auto
emissions and paint; lead pipe, casing, and solder
Nickel (ppb)No 02/13/2014 2.9 2.8–2.9 3/14 3.7 2.6–3.7 NA NA NA NA 100 Pollution from mining and refining operations;
natural occurrence in soil
Nitrate [as Nitrogen] (ppm)No 02/13/2014 0.13 0.12–0.13 3/14 0.14 0.04–0.14 NA NA NA 10 10 Runoff from fertilizer use; leaching from septic
tanks, sewage; erosion of natural deposits
Selenium (ppb)No 02/13/2014 10 5.7–10 3/14 1 ND–1 NA NA NA 50 50 Discharge from petroleum and metal refineries;
erosion of natural deposits; discharge from mines
Sodium (ppm)No 02/13/2014 93 67–93 3/14 21.1 10.2–21.1 NA NA NA NA 160 Salt water intrusion; leaching from soil
Thallium (ppb)No NA NA NA NA NA NA 8/2014 0.37 NA 0.5 2 Leaching from ore-processing sites; discharge from
electronics, glass, and drug factories
Synthetic Organic Contaminants including Pesticides and Herbicides
Pinellas County Utilities
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF MEASUREMENT MCL VIOLATION (YES/NO)DATE OF SAMPLING (MO./YR.)LEVEL DETECTED RANGE OF RESULTS MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Dalapon (ppb)No 3/14, 6/14, 8/14, 10/14 1.8 ND–1.8 200 200 Runoff from herbicide used on rights of way
Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT
OF MEASUREMENT
MCL VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
MCLG OR
[MRDLG]
MCL OR
[MRDL]
LIKELY SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
Bromate (ppb)No NA NA NA NA NA NA 1/2014–12/2014 2.07 ND–2.07 0 10 By-product of drinking
water disinfection
Chloramines (ppm)No 01/2014-5/2014; 7/2014-
8/2014; 10/2014-12/2014
3.2 0.6–4.9 NA NA NA NA NA NA [4][4.0]Water additive used to
control microbes
Chlorine (ppm)No 6/2014; 9/2014 3.2 0.6–4.6 1/14–12/14 3.8 1.6–5.5 NA NA NA [4][4.0]Water additive used to
control microbes
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
ACUTE
VIOLATIONS
(YES/NO)
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
NON-ACUTE
VIOLATIONS
(YES/NO)
LEVEL
DETECTED
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
NON-ACUTE
VIOLATIONS
(YES/NO)
LEVEL
DETECTED
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
NON-ACUTE
VIOLATIONS
(YES/NO)
LEVEL
DETECTED MRDLG
MRDL (AT THE ENTRANCE TO
THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM)
LIKELY SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
Chlorine Dioxide (ppb)No NA NA NA NA NA NA 1/2014–6/2014;
12/2014
NA 696 800 800 Water additive used to
control microbes
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT
AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
MCL
VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
HIGHEST MONTHLY AVERAGE
(THREE SAMPLE SET COLLECTED
IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM)
DATE OF
SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
HIGHEST MONTHLY AVERAGE
(THREE SAMPLE SET COLLECTED
IN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
HIGHEST MONTHLY AVERAGE (THREE
SAMPLE SET COLLECTED IN THE
DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM)MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Chlorite (ppm)No NA NA NA NA 1/2014–12/2014 0.101 0.8 1.0 By-product of drinking water
disinfection
AL (Action Level): The concentration of a
contaminant which, if exceeded, triggers treatment
or other requirements that a water system must
follow.
IDSE (Initial Distribution System Evaluation):
An important part of the Stage 2 Disinfection
Byproducts Rule (DBPR). The IDSE is a one-
time study conducted by water systems to
identify distribution system locations with high
concentrations of trihalomethanes (THMs) and
haloacetic acids (HAAs). Water systems will use
results from the IDSE, in conjunction with their
Stage 1 DBPR compliance monitoring data, to select
compliance monitoring locations for the Stage 2
DBPR.
LRAA (Locational Running Annual Average):
The average of sample analytical results for samples
taken at a particular monitoring location during the
previous four calendar quarters.
MCL (Maximum Contaminant Level): The highest
level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking
water. MCLs are set as close to the MCLGs as
feasible using the best available treatment technology.
MCLG (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal):
The level of a contaminant in drinking water below
which there is no known or expected risk to health.
MCLGs allow for a margin of safety.
MRDL (Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level):
The highest level of a disinfectant allowed in
drinking water. There is convincing evidence that
addition of a disinfectant is necessary for control of
microbial contaminants.
MRDLG (Maximum Residual Disinfectant Level
Goal): The level of a drinking water disinfectant
below which there is no known or expected risk
to health. MRDLGs do not reflect the benefits
of the use of disinfectants to control microbial
contaminants.
NA: Not applicable
ND (Not detected): Indicates that the substance was
not found by laboratory analysis.
NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units):
Measurement of the clarity, or turbidity, of water.
Turbidity in excess of 5 NTU is just noticeable to
the average person.
pCi/L (picocuries per liter): A measure of
radioactivity.
ppb (parts per billion): One part substance per
billion parts water (or micrograms per liter).
ppm (parts per million): One part substance per
million parts water (or milligrams per liter).
Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
TT VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO/YR)
ANNUAL AVERAGE MONTHLY REMOVAL RATIO OR
LOWEST ANNUAL AVERAGE MONTHLY REMOVAL RATIO
RANGE OF MONTHLY
REMOVAL RATIOS MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Total Organic Carbon1 (ppm)No 1/2014–6/2014;
12/2014
4.0 3.86–6.67 NA TT Naturally present in the environment
Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products
City of Clearwater Pinellas County Utilities Tampa Bay Water
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
MCL VIOLATION
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
LEVEL
DETECTED
RANGE OF
RESULTS MCLG MCL
LIKELY SOURCE OF
CONTAMINATION
Haloacetic Acids (five) [HAA5]–
Stage 2 (ppb)
No 2014 37 9–54 1/14, 5/14, 8/14, 11/14 41.85 5.4–56.58 NA NA NA NA 60 By-product of drinking
water disinfection
TTHM [Total trihalomethanes]–
Stage 2 (ppb)
Yes 2014 81 34–109 1/14, 5/14, 8/14, 11/14 60.4 19.4–68.1 NA NA NA NA 80 By-product of drinking
water disinfection
Lead and Copper (Tap water samples were collected from sites throughout our community)
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
AL EXCEEDANCE
(YES/NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
90TH PERCENTILE
RESULT
NO. OF SAMPLING SITES
EXCEEDING THE AL MCLG
AL (ACTION
LEVEL)LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Copper [tap water] (ppm)No 06/2014–09/2014 0.496 0 1.3 1.3 Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits;
leaching from wood preservatives
Lead [tap water] (ppb)No 06/2014–09/2014 3 0 0 15 Corrosion of household plumbing systems; erosion of natural deposits
SECONDARY CONTAMINANTS - CITY OF CLEARWATER
CONTAMINANT AND UNIT OF
MEASUREMENT
MCL VIOLATION (YES/
NO)
DATE OF SAMPLING
(MO./YR.)
HIGHEST
RESULT
RANGE OF
RESULTS MCLG MCL LIKELY SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION
Odor2 (Units)Yes 02/13/2014 12 12–12 NA 3 Naturally occurring organics
Total Dissolved Solids3 (ppm)Yes 02/13/2014 520 420–520 NA 500 Natural occurrence from soil leaching
1 The monthly TOC removal ratio is
the ratio between the actual TOC
removal and the TOC rule removal
requirements.
2 Our water system was in violation
of Federal and State water quality
standards for Odor from 01/2014
to 12/2014. The levels of Odor
are shown in the Secondary
Contaminants table. Although
Odor only affects the aesthetics of
drinking water, we are continuing to
monitor to ensure the quality of the
water we provide.
3 Our water system was in violation
of Federal and State water quality
standards for Total Dissolved Solids
(TDS) in February of 2014. The levels
of TDS are shown in the Secondary
Contaminants table. At the time
of the sample collection, Reverse
Osmosis Plant #1 was undergoing
construction and the Reverse
Osmosis portion of the plant was
not in operation. The construction
is now completed and the plant is
functioning normally. Although TDS
generally only affects the aesthetics
of drinking water, we monitor TDS
on a daily basis to ensure the quality
of the water we provide.
Definitions
@BCL@5006811D 1 Printed 2/10/2016 3:44 PM
2016-02-08 Fluoride Investigation by Jonson
1.On 1/20, I discussed the response from Mr. Porter to my December 10 question to Mr. Horneon
fluoridation with a local dentist, Dr. Johnny Johnson, with the following results:
a.Dr. Johnson is a graduate of the Center for Disease Control’s Water Fluoridation Training
program.
b.He observed that the Clearwater 2014Annual Water Quality Report for the Reporting
Year of 2014 reports system fluoride at 0.42 “level detected”, and 0.27-0.42 “range of
results”. This is substantially different than two of the grab samples reported by Mr.
Porter of 0.09 and 0.16.
c.He reported that the Pinellas County Dentists are unaware that Clearwater water is not at
similar fluoride levels with Pinellas County.
d.He reported that Dunedin produces water using RO and adds fluoride
e.He reported that patients using water at the levels of 0.09 and 0.16 should be
supplementing fluoride for optimal dental health. However it would be difficult for
dentists to prescribe with the varying levels as reported in the Clearwater grab samples for
different parts of the City.
f.He reported that adults need fluoride to protect tooth root surfaces as gums recede.
g.I observe that on 5/6/2004 a group of citizens came before the City of Clearwater Council
speaking against fluoridating the County’s drinking water. The Council took no action to
forward these concerns to the County.
h.Dr. Johnson reported that typical fluoride injection technologies are capable of adjusting
levels as needed for changing water sources.
i.He didn’t understand why Clearwater did not design water treatment plants with fluoride
injection capabilities which he understands is standard practice for RO Plant design.
2.Log of inquiry of City Staff–extract from the following pages.
a.In response to a June 11, 2013 question, Ms. Mercer responded that “Public Utilities
would prefer to do city-wide fluoridation with the commissioning of RO2.”
b.In response to an October 21 2013 priority I received the response “Consideration of the
addition of fluoride is scheduled after completion of RO #2, scheduled for January
2015.”
c.In response to a November 18, 2015 question, Mr. Porter responded in part; “We
anticipate that the additional water sources will be coming on-line within the next 6 to 12
months and we will be able to conduct the necessary analysis and be in a position to make
recommendations on the fluoride addition question.”
d.In response to a December 10 question, Mr. Porter responded in part: “None of the values
were at the currently recognized therapeuticlevel of 0.7 mg/l.”
@BCL@5006811D 2 Printed 2/10/2016 3:44 PM
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
June 11, 2013 Extract
1.Questions
a.I recall you saying that the Council would be havingto approve the expenditure for the
installation of Fluoridation in the City’s Countryside well field area. I thought that was
going to be done in May, but I may not recall this correctly. What is our fluoride level in
Countryside? (Mercer) –The level offluoride leaving the Countryside Water Plant
entering the distribution system is in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 ppm. Public Utilities would
prefer to do city-wide fluoridation with the commissioning of RO2. If you would like
more frequent sampling data for fluoride, please let me know.
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
October 21, 2013 Extract
1.
2.Schedule Items of Importance:
a.Fluoride authorization for Clearwater produced water.-Consideration of the addition of
fluoride is scheduled after completion of RO #2, scheduled for January 2015.Once the
new facility is on line we can determine the level of fluoride occurring from our wells
and through blending throughout the system to gauge needed addition, if any.
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
November 05, 2013 Extract
1.Questions
a.I note that the fluoride decision will not be made until after the new plants are in
operation. Do we have results of sampling fluoride levels in various parts of the city that
were done recently? I wonder how these vary from the target optimal ranges. (Mercer) -
Public Utilities takes samples from the water treatment plants, as the water leaves the
plant, at the required times to perform our water regulatory compliance sampling, per
FDEP regulations.We do not routinely monitor fluoride levels in the distribution system
as we currently do not inject any fluoride at the plants.Naturally occurring fluoride is
found at levels of 0.3-0.6 mg/l in the water samples we have taken in the past.The
optimum level has now been established at 0.7 mg/l by regulatory agencies.
2.Schedule Items of Importance:
@BCL@5006811D 3 Printed 2/10/2016 3:44 PM
a.Fluoride authorization for Clearwater produced water.-Consideration of the addition of
fluoride is scheduled after completion of RO #2, scheduled for January 2015.Once the
new facility is on line we can determine the level of fluoride occurring from our wells
and through blending throughout the system to gauge needed addition, if any.
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
June 2, 2015 Extract
3.Schedule Items of Importance: Action (Silverboard) Provide dates of estimated completions as
we establish and review them –NOTE: These dates are subject to change based upon the
underlying assumptions and conditions noted.Staff can always update, as needed.
a.Fluoride authorization for Clearwater produced water. -Consideration of the addition of
fluoride is scheduled after completion of RO #2, scheduled for January 2015.Once the
new facility is on line we can determine the level of fluoride occurring from our wells and
through blending throughout the system to gauge needed addition, if any.
(Mercer 6/1/2015) -The estimated January 2015 completion date for RO2 slipped to the
end of April 2015 due to construction and startup optimization delays.At thistime, we
are fine-tuning the operation of the new facility.Once the operational optimization work
has been completed, we will undertake the Fluoride concentration evaluation we
previously envisioned.
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
November 18, 2015 Update 12/7/2015
1.Questions:
a.Update on Fluoride in the Clearwater distribution system. (Porter)-Ms. Mercer’s previous
comments to the Mayor and Council on this issue indicated that until the influence of the
new RO2 water plant (and the appurtenant reduction in the flow of Pinellas County water
into our water system) had on the concentration of fluoride found in our water we would
not be able to determine with any accuracy what the estimated costs to retrofit our water
plants, or what the annual operating costs would be, to supplement the background
fluoride concentration to bring it to the recommended therapeutic levels.
We put the new RO2 plant on-line approximately 7 months ago. It is operating well but at
reduced capacity. Until the supply of raw water is increased by the completion of
construction of a new pipeline that will carry raw water from two wells that are not
currently connected to the system and a concentrate line from RO1 to RO2 becomes
operational RO2 will continue to operate a reduced capacity. Therefore, we have not been
able to conduct the necessary analyses needed to assess the viability of implementing
fluoridation at our facilities as of yet.
We anticipate that the additional water sources will be coming on-line within the next 6 to
12 months and we will be able to conduct the necessary analyses and be in a position to
make recommendations on the fluoride addition question..
@BCL@5006811D 4 Printed 2/10/2016 3:44 PM
2.Schedule Items of Importance: Action (Silverboard) Provide dates of estimated completions as
we establish and review them –NOTE: These dates are subject to change based upon the
underlying assumptions and conditions noted.Staff can always update, as needed.
a.Fluoride authorization for Clearwater produced water. -Consideration of the addition of
fluoride is scheduled after completion of RO #2, scheduled for January 2015.Once the
new facility is on line we can determine the level of fluoride occurring from our wells and
through blending throughout the system to gauge needed addition, if any.(Mercer
6/1/2015) -The estimated January 2015 completion date for RO2 slipped to the end of
April 2015 due to construction and startup optimization delays.At this time, we are fine-
tuning the operation of the new facility.Once the operational optimization work has been
completed, we will undertake the Fluoride concentration evaluation we previously
envisioned.
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
November 18, 2015 Update 12/7/2015
1.Questions:
a.Update on Fluoride in the Clearwater distribution system. (Porter)-Ms. Mercer’s previous
comments to the Mayor and Council on this issue indicated that until the influence of the
new RO2 water plant (and the appurtenant reduction in the flow of Pinellas County water
into our water system) had on the concentration of fluoride found in our water we would
not be able to determine with any accuracy what the estimated costs to retrofit our water
plants, or what the annual operating costs would be, to supplement the background
fluoride concentration to bring it to the recommended therapeutic levels.
We put the new RO2 plant on-line approximately 7 months ago. It is operating well but at
reduced capacity. Until the supply of raw water is increased by the completion of
construction of a new pipeline that will carry raw water from two wells that are not
currently connected to the system and a concentrate line from RO1 to RO2 becomes
operational RO2 will continue to operate a reduced capacity. Therefore, we have not been
able to conduct the necessary analyses needed to assess the viability of implementing
fluoridation at our facilities as of yet.
We anticipate that the additional water sources will be coming on-line within the next 6 to
12 months and we will be able to conduct the necessary analyses and be in a position to
make recommendations on the fluoride addition question..
Jonson –Bill Horne Weekly One on One
November 18, 2015 Update 12/7/2015
1.Questions:
@BCL@5006811D 5 Printed 2/10/2016 3:44 PM
a.Update on Fluoride in the Clearwater distribution system. (Porter)-Ms. Mercer’s previous
comments to the Mayor and Council on this issue indicated that until the influence of the
new RO2 water plant (and the appurtenant reduction in the flow of Pinellas County water
into our water system) had on the concentration of fluoride found in our water we would
not be able to determine with any accuracy what the estimated costs to retrofit our water
plants, or what the annual operating costs would be, to supplement the background
fluoride concentration to bring it to the recommended therapeutic levels.
We put the new RO2 plant on-line approximately 7 months ago. It is operating well but at
reduced capacity. Until the supply of raw water is increased by the completion of
construction of a new pipeline that will carry raw water from two wells that are not
currently connected to the system anda concentrate line from RO1 to RO2 becomes
operational RO2 will continue to operate a reduced capacity. Therefore, we have not been
able to conduct the necessary analyses needed to assess the viability of implementing
fluoridation at our facilities as of yet.
We anticipate that the additional water sources will be coming on-line within the next 6 to
12 months and we will be able to conduct the necessary analyses and be in a position to
make recommendations on the fluoride addition question..
From:Horne, William
Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2016 5:00 PM
To:Jonson, Bill
Subject:RE: Clearwater Water Fluoride Levels
Cm Jonson,
The information below is what David Porter recommends in response to your
email:
Water plants 1, 2, and 3 have been in existence for many years as have system interconnects with Pinellas
County.Over the last ten years a number of water system upgrades and expansions have been completed.
Plant 1 was converted to R/O approximately 10 years ago. Plant 1 is located in west Clearwater between
Drew and Sunset Point Road near Keene.
Last Year (2015), Plant 2 was also converted to R/O and designed to utilize brackish water as its source
water.Plant 2 is located between Gulf to Bay and Drew Street on the US 19 service road.
Plant 3, which is located in the Countryside area on SR 580, is operating in essentially its original
configuration and is now the only water plant that still blends Pinellas County water directly at a plant.
This facility is scheduled for upgrade over the next few years.
All three water treatment plants discharge into an interconnected distribution system. Depending on water
demands and operational configuration of the valves throughout the system, water being served to a
particular part of the City can come from a mixture of any or all of our three plants.
@BCL@5006811D 6 Printed 2/10/2016 3:44 PM
Blending of Pinellas County water sources with City sources only occurs at one water plant directly as
described earlier (at Plant 3). However, we have several inter-connect points with Pinellas County
Utilities within thedistribution system itself. These interconnects provide a backup source of water
pressure and supply and are manually placed into operation by opening valves when needed. The inter-
connects also supply water to the southern end of Sand Key on a routine basis due to that area’s location.
None of Clearwater plants provide for supplemental fluoride at this time.
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2096
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Presentation(s) for
Council Meeting
In Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 17.1
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
THC Education Day Proclamation - David Aden, Concerned Businessmen's Association of
Tampa Bay
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2117
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Presentation(s) for
Council Meeting
In Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 17.2
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Federal Legislative Session Update - Greg Burns, Van Scoyoc Associates
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2139
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Presentation(s) for
Council Meeting
In Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 17.3
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Legislative request for a BRT TIA to the Beach premium service - Brad Miller, PSTA
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA)
St. Petersburg, Florida
Existing Options
•Trolley Buses: Suncoast
Beach Trolley, Jolley Trolley
–*Jolley Trolley requires
transfer at Island Estates
–300 Round-Trip Riders/Day
Multiple Initiatives
2/10/2016 1
•Ferry Boats: Clearwater Ferry –75 RT Riders/Day
•Increased Parking: Late 2016
New Proposals
•Express Bus to Tampa International Airport:
100K New Annual Riders
•Peak Season Trolley & Ferry Service: 30K New
Annual Riders
•Busway on Bridge: 2009 MPO Study Revisited:
$16M –300K New Annual Riders Projected
•Gondolas
Multiple Initiatives
2/10/2016 2
Visionary Service
2/10/2016 3
Visionary Service
2/10/2016 4
•Beach Transportation Center
•Eliminate Trolley Island Estates Transfer?
•Coordinated Land-side Parking & Public
Information
•Examine City vs. PSTA Funding
Arrangements
•Work with MPO to Analyze Major Capital
Investments
Coordination Required
2/10/2016 5
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA)
St. Petersburg, Florida
Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA)
St. Petersburg, Florida
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2155
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Presentation(s) for
Council Meeting
In Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 17.4
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
Outback Bowl - Mike Schulze, Director of Communications and Sponsorships
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016
Cover Memo
City of Clearwater City Hall
112 S. Osceola Avenue
Clearwater, FL 33756
File Number: ID#16-2156
Agenda Date: 2/16/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1
File Type: Presentation(s) for
Council Meeting
In Control: Council Work Session
Agenda Number: 17.5
SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION:
2016 Nacra 17, 49er & 49er FX World Championship - John Craig, CEO Sail Life
SUMMARY:
APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT:
USE OF RESERVE FUNDS:
Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/15/2016