The URL can be used to link to this page

02/18/2016Thursday, February 18, 2016 6:00 PM City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Council Chambers City Council Meeting Agenda February 18, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda Welcome. We are glad to have you join us. If you wish to speak, please wait to be recognized, then state your name and address. Persons speaking before the City Council shall be limited to three (3) minutes unless otherwise noted under Public Hearings. For other than Citizens to be heard regarding items not on the Agenda, a spokesperson for a group may speak for three (3) minutes plus an additional minute for each person in the audience that waives their right to speak, up to a maximum of ten (10) minutes. Prior to the item being presented, please obtain the needed form to designate a spokesperson from the City Clerk (right-hand side of dais). Up to thirty minutes of public comment will be allowed for an agenda item. No person shall speak more than once on the same subject unless granted permission by the City Council. The City of Clearwater strongly supports and fully complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Please advise us at least 48 hours prior to the meeting if you require special accommodations at 727-562-4090. Assisted Listening Devices are available . Kindly refrain from using beepers, cellular telephones and other distracting devices during the meeting. 1. Call to Order 2. Invocation 3. Pledge of Allegiance 4. Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by governmental agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) 4.1 THC Education Day Proclamation - David Aden, Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay 4.2 Outback Bowl - Mike Schulze, Director of Communications and Sponsorships 4.3 2016 Nacra 17, 49er & 49er FX World Championship - John Craig, CEO Sail Life 4.4 Federal Legislative Session Update - Greg Burns, Van Scoyoc Associates 4.5 Legislative request for a BRT TIA to the Beach premium service - Brad Miller, PSTA 5. Approval of Minutes 5.1 Approve the minutes of the February 4, 2016 City Council Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. 6. Citizens to be heard re items not on the agenda Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 February 18, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda 7. Consent Agenda The Consent Agenda contains normal, routine business items that are very likely to be approved by the City Council by a single motion. These items are not discussed, and may all be approved as recommended on the staff reports. Council questions on these items were answered prior to the meeting. The Mayor will provide an opportunity for a Councilmember or a member of the public to ask that an item be pulled from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Items pulled will receive separate action. All items not removed from the Consent Agenda will be approved by a single motion of the council. 7.1 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) 7.2 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) 7.3 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) 7.4 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) 7.5 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) 7.6 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) Page 3 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 February 18, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda 7.7 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) 7.8 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) 7.9 Approve the 2016 Federal Legislative Agenda. (consent) Public Hearings - Not before 6:00 PM 8. Administrative Public Hearings - Presentation of issues by City staff - Statement of case by applicant or representative (5 min.) - Council questions - Comments in support or opposition (3 min. per speaker or 10 min maximum as spokesperson for others that have waived their time) - Council questions - Final rebuttal by applicant or representative (5 min.) - Council disposition 8.1 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) 8.2 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) Page 4 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 February 18, 2016City Council Meeting Agenda 8.3 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) 9. City Manager Reports 9.1 Provide direction regarding scheduling special council meetings as listed. 9.2 Appoint one member to the Community Development Board with a term to expire February 28, 2020. 9.3 Jolley Trolley and Clearwater Ferry - Beach Transit 10. City Attorney Reports 10.1 Direct staff to request the Metropolitan Planning Organization to prioritize funds to update the evaluation of the transit alternatives study from 2010 to address the need for enhanced multimodal access to Clearwater Beach and adopt Resolution 16-06. 11. Closing comments by Councilmembers (limited to 3 minutes) 12. Closing Comments by Mayor 13. Adjourn Page 5 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 PRAYER OF INVOCATION FOR THE CLEARWA'I ER CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF February 18, 2016 offered by Rev. Dr. John R. Thompson, Associate Pastor of the Countryside Christian Center of Clearwater, Florida Our Father who art in Heaven, we acknowledge that You do govern in the affairs of men, and if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without Your notice, help us to understand that we cannot be indifferent to what we say and what we do here in this chamber. If this day You want these representatives of the people to do or not to do any particular act, we pray that You will make it plain for us, that this day's work may be well pleasing to You. Give all here courage, and faith, and a peaceful mind. Give life to our good intentions and actions, and clearly illuminate wrong decisions, before they are made. Help us all to do the right, as You have given us a vision for the right. For this we ask Your help and mercy in the Name of Jesus. Amen Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2096 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by government agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) In Control: City Council Agenda Number: 4.1 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 2/18/2016 THC Education Day Contest (DRAFT OF CONTEST RULES) February 29, 2016 Dear Tampa Bay Schools and Students: You are invited to participate in the THC Education Day Contest sponsored by the Concerned Businessmen's Association (CBA) of Tampa Bay. CBA of Tampa Bay is a 501(c)(3) non - profit public betterment organization. The message you, as a school, and individual students send to their peers is an important one. Marijuana is not a harmless drug and there's a lot to know about the THC content of today's marijuana, marijuana concentrates, and edibles. It's all about the THC! This contest is a great opportunity for students to depict, in a creative way, their understanding of the harmful effects of THC on Youth; and for schools to put their best foot forward with the adoption of an effective Drug Education program. Please read the enclosed guidelines outlining specifications and rules for the contests. Students may submit entries in all three categories (or just one) for their school level (Elementary, Middle School, High School). The submitting artists retain ownership of their work but grant Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay the right to use all submissions in promotional literature, share the work on the internet, social media and with other like- minded organizations. For any original work a submitting artist wants to retain, a high quality copy or photograph of the original can be submitted. No submissions will be returned. All entries for pardcipatin6 schools and students MUST RE RECEIVED by Wednesday, October 14, 2016. Submissions can be emailed to PJCloudenPgmail.com or mailed to: Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay 1255 Cleveland Street Suite 400 Clearwater, FL 33755 We invite all Elementary, Middle Schools, and High Schools in Pasco, Pinellas, and Hillsborough Counties (both private schools and public schools) to participate in these contests. THE MOST EFFECTIVE DRUG EDUCATION PROGRAM SCHOOL CONTEST 1. Elementary Schools will compete against Elementary Schools. 2. Middle Schools will compete against Middle Schools. 3. High Schools will compete against High Schools. 4. Each level of schools will be competing for their own $7,500 cash prize, judged by the Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay. 5. Each participating school will provide their physical address. They will be sent the Contest Rules, a set of Truth About Drugs materials, and the THC Fact Sheet. 6. CBA of Tampa Bay suggests you use an established drug education program, such as the Drug Free World Foundation's Truth About Drugs materials. This foundation provides a free Educator's Kit that makes it \ bveryeasytoimplementaneffectivedrugeducationprogram. These can be ordered online at c http: / /www.drugfreeworld.org/ request - info /drug- free - world- portfolio.html. CBA of Tampa Bay will provide participating schools one free Educators Kit. Schools are, however, free to use another drug education program of their choice; the above is just a suggestion. 7. The drug education program must include education about the dangers and effects of THC. Many programs do not yet have this information included (for instance, Truth About Drugs does not address THC directly so this would have to be researched and added to the program.) 8. Each school must submit a 20 minute video showing drug education happening in the school. 9. There must be evidence of the program's effectiveness over time. This is done by creating a questionnaire that would be done BEFORE and AFTER the drug education. The questionnaire must include questions that ask about the student's current (BEFORE) ideas about drugs and what their attitudes are towards them. Then an AFTER questionnaire that asks about their new ideas, or how their ideas have changed about drugs and what their new attitudes are towards drugs. It must also inquire about what the student has learned about THC through the drug education program. (Sample questionnaires are included.) 10. There must be documentation of the percentage of students in the school who have attended and completed the drug education program. 11. There must be testimonials from students (teachers and parents testimonials are welcome as well). These are actual written (or they can be videoed) testimonials describing how the school's drug education program has in some way impacted the student to decide to stay away from drugs. Any written or videoed testimonials become the property of CBA of Tampa Bay. They must be accompanied by a release form stating that it is okay to publish. (Sample release form included.) These testimonials could be used in promotional materials and on social media to show the effectiveness of this contest and encourage others to implement drug education programs. 12. All documentation of the school's submission must be sent by US Mail to: Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay 1255 Cleveland Street Suite 400 Clearwater, FL 33755 The documentation must be received at the above address by Friday, October 21, 2016. 13. An Elementary School winner, a Middle School winner, and a High School winner will be chosen by CBA of Tampa Bay and announced in a press release on Friday, October 28, 2016. All winning school principals will be notified prior to the press release announcement in writing by email and by mailed fetter. 14. Winners will be presented with their $7,500 checks at an announced location on Friday, October 28, 2016. luncheon ?) THC EDUCATION DAY STUDENT CONTESTS 1. Whether the student's school participates in the Drug Education Program Contest or not, all individual students of every Elementary School, Middle School, and High School (both private and public) in Pasco, Pinellas and Hillsborough Counties is eligible to participate in any of the THC Education Day Student Contests for their level. 2. Elementary School students will compete against Elementary School students. 3. Middle School students will compete against Middle School students. 4. High School students will compete against High School students. 5. At each level of school, there are three separate contests the student can enter. They are free to enter each contest if they choose or just one. 6. The three contests are: They can write a short story or poem that expresses the author's understanding of the dangers and effect of THC on Youth. They can write a song, record an audio of it, and submit it. The words to the song should be submitted in writing accompanying an audio recording of it. The song should express the songwriter's understanding of the dangers and effects of THC on Youth. The song itself will be judged —not the quality of the recording of it. They can draw or paint a picture, create graphics or take photos (any kind of two - dimensional visual arts). The submission should express the artist's understanding of the dangers and effects of THC on Youth. 7. Students will be responsible for their own research on the subject of THC and its harmful effects on Youth. They must include a separate list of Source References that they based their project on. They may get others to help them with this. In fact it's encouraged that families participate and encourage the student with research and the submission. 8. All submissions must be emailed by June 15, 2016 to PJClouden @gmail.com or mailed so they are received by June 15, 2016 to: Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay 1255 Cleveland Street Suite 400 Clearwater, FL 33755 9. The submitting artists retain ownership of their work but grant Concerned Businessmen's Association of Tampa Bay the right to use all submissions in promotional literature, share the work on the Internet, social media and with other Tike- minded organizations. For any original work a submitting artist wants to retain, a high quality copy or photograph of the original can be submitted. No submissions will be returned. 10. Each level of school (Elementary, Middle and High) will have a 1st, 2nd, and 3`d place winner in each of the three categories of the contest. So that means there are a total of 27 possible winners! First place winners will receive $500. Second place winners will receive $250. Third place winners will receive $100. 11. Winners will be chosen by judges from the community. They will include City Officials and Business People. 12. Winners will be notified by email and mailed a letter prior to October 28, 2016. 13. Winners will be presented with their prize at on October 28, 2016 (luncheon ?) Blueberry" Use For: Pain Relief Stress, Anxiety NOT FOR SALE Medical Use Only ORS 475.300- 475.346 Medical marijuana could be legal in Florida as early as 2016. As that reality approaches, concern is growing over what that will mean for users, their families and employers — as well as the state's economy. Those pushing for the legislation maintain that pot is harmless and non - addictive. Those against legalization point to evidence that says otherwise. The marijuana plant has more than 70 cannabinoids (a chemical that is unique to marijuana), most of which have been the subject of very little research. The two that are the most well known are tetrahydrocannabinol THC) and cannabidiol (CBD). THC is what causes the high" when marijuana is ingested. CBD is believed to lessen the psychoactive effects of THC (and therefore the 17 potency of the plant). Until the late 20th century, THC and CBD almost always occurred with a ratio of 1:1. But in the last 30 years, growers have cross -bred and genetically modified strains of marijuana to contain less CBD and more THC. In the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana contained 1 % -3% THC. Today's plants average 15% THC some as much as 32 %. This isn't your daddy's pot. In the 1960s and 1970s, marijuana addiction was virtually nonexistent. Treatment facilities didn't start seeing people suffering from addiction until the 1980s, when THC levels rose to about 5 %. NEW PRDDVCTS, I THE CDST TO NEW g15TOMEAS EMPLDYERS Today's marijuana users aren't just rolling joints anymore. Marijuana concentrates — also called cannabis extracts are rapidly growing in popularity. These wax -like substances can have THC levels as high as 98 %. The extracts — known as butane hash oil (BHO), honey oil, wax, shatter or budder — are created by pouring butane through the plant, which extracts its chemical compounds. The resulting product is almost pure THC. The process is extremely dangerous, and has resulted in several explosions across the country the likes of which were once only associated with methamphetamine production. This wax or oil is then "dabbed," or put into a pipe and inhaled. It can also be used in vape pens, where, with no fire, smoke or water, use can go virtually undetected. According to a Buzzfeed article entitled "Wax is Weed's Next Big Thing and No One Knows if it's Safe," these concentrates account for 40% of sales in pot dispensaries in California, where medical marijuana is legal. Incidentally, the sale and use of "vape" pens is legal in all 50 states. Dabbing and vaping aren't the only way to get "high." These concentrates are also being infused into edibles like cookies, brownies, gummy bears, soda and more. Parents' groups worry that this marijuana, with its bright- colored cartoon packaging, is not being marketed to the sick and dying — but to children. Remember Joe Camel? There's a good reason for this: Studies show most pot users have developed the habit by their mid -20s. If a person doesn't regularly ingest marijuana by that time, they are extremely unlikely to ever become a user. You've got to get 'em while they're young. Medical marijuana also poses significant challenges for employers. Asking employees whether they use medical marijuana could be seen as a question about whether they have an impairment — which could violate the Americans with Disabilities Act," wrote the South Florida Business Journal. Business owners are wondering: Will they have to allow employees to take leave so they can manage pain during the work week? Are they expected to let them work while high? Will they have to offer workers' compensation to employees who have an on -the- job accident while under the influence of medical marijuana? The potential for litigation is enormous. Take a recent case in Colorado: Dish Network fired Brandon Coats, who tested positive for THC in 2010. Even though he had a registered medical marijuana card, he failed a drug test, which was against company policy. Coats sued for wrongful termination in 2010, and the litigation went on for five full years. On July 15, 2015, the Colorado Supreme Court finally ruled in favor of Dish Network because according to federal law, possession of marijuana is still an illegal act. While Dish Network eventually won the case, smaller business owners are worried about the cost associated with spending year after year in court. It's not just private employers who will pay for medical marijuana. The state of Florida will be on the hook for millions after setting up a control board and regulatory and enforcement measures. Concerned groups are asking for more research. While legalizing medical marijuana might make sense in the future, they say, right now there are just too many dangerous unknowns. 18 1. Which drug are more Americans addicted to? T>'an)uona A. / Heroin C. ns B. Cocaine D. Haikrinoge haveboenshowntnpern permanently lVVh\chof the Toom~.y lower a child's IQ? C TobaccoC. Lead B. T Hc/Ma'ijuana D. Heroin 3. Which f th products below have been sold as "medical" marijuana and have been distributed widely in "medical" marijuana hop marijuana 4 mu n ar e "medical" 4. gummY bear could get your chtd intoxicated? ersiimarawa Concerned Businessmen Association of Tampa Bay 1255 Cleveland St., Ste. 400 Clearwater, FL 33755 ANSWERS 1. THC /marijuana. A 2014 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SAMHSA) study showed that more than 2.5 million Americans were addicted to THC /marijuana which was more than were addicted to heroin, cocaine and hallucinogens combined. 2. Lead and THC /Marijuana. We've known for years that lead poisoning can cause permanent brain damage. Now we know marijuana can too. A 2012 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that persistent cannabis use lowered IQs permanently for those who began using as adolescents. 3. Every single one of these food products are laced with potentially toxic levels of THC and have been sold as "medical" marijuana. There are now nearly 300 THC- infused food products designed to look like everyday foods and snacks. If you can't tell the difference, how can infants and children? 4. An ear! In some cases just one ear has enough THC packed within it to make a child intoxicated. Have you ever eaten just one ear and put the gummy bear down? For that matter, have you ever eaten just one gummy bear? Neither will a child! THC FACTS 1. Today's marijuana is not the marijuana of the 1960s and 1970s because THC levels are 10 to 14 times greater thanks to 30 years of "advances" in cultivation. Today's marijuana is addictive. 2. THC is powerful. Less than 1 /1000th of an ounce (10 mg) is the suggested amount to make a person very high or intoxicated. Pot is no longer just smoked in joints. High THC concentrates are extracted to form waxes or oils that are mixed into drinks, hidden in foods and baked into otherwise common products which are called "edibles." 3. THC /marijuana is big business, backed by big companies with powerful marketing machines. The pictures of common foods infused with THC make it clear who is targeted — and it is not 70- year old cancer patients receiving end -of -life care. 4. Today's high -THC /marijuana concentrates are being used in e- cigarettes and vaporizing pens. They generate no smoke and no discernable smell. THC /marijuana is being undetectably abused in schools, on the job and at home. For current information: Nampusa.org I contact: info @nampusa.org Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2155 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by government agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) In Control: City Council Agenda Number: 4.2 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 2/18/2016 OUTBACK BOWL 2016 OUTBACK BOWL 2016 OUTSA ar °.r:fi E TM JANUARY 1, 2016 2016 OUTBACK BOWL HIGHLIGHTS O. Celebrated the 30th Anniversary of the Outback Bowl. International Telecast via ESPN TV networks to more than 140 foreign countries. Estimated $90 - $100 million national media exposure for the Outback Bowl and the Tampa Bay Community. Estimated Economic Impact of this year's game was $35+ million (excluding exposure) for Tampa Bay Economy. Cumulative impact of more than $lbillion over history of bowl. More than 39,000 out -of- market visitors from 45 states traveled to the Tampa Bay market for the game. No Other Annual Event/Conference Brings More Visitors and Generates More Hotel Room Nights for the Tampa Bay Area. The Outback Bowl has now contributed $130 million to universities over the history of the game. 440 Media Credentialed from 89 outlets Outback Bowl Game Broadcast on 197 Radio Affiliates Nationwide O. Record social media exposure for the Outback Bowl generating more than 13 million impressions The Bowls half -hour TV special aired nationally three times on ESPN TV networks promoting the Tampa Bay area. The show highlighted area amenities such as Clearwater Beach, Skysurfing over the beaches and the St Petersburg Urban Murals. Benefiting Clearwater & Pinellas County The 2016 Outback Bowl once again benefited the region and Pinellas County through a variety of ways: Generated thousands of room nights throughout Pinellas County. No other annual event generates more hotel room - nights throughout the Tampa Bay Area market. Produced a major Bowl Week event, Clearwater Beach Day, which drew thousands of fans and coverage by dozens of media outlets throughout the region and outside the market. Generated vast exposure for Clearwater through commercial spots and bumper shots in the international telecast of the Outback Bowl, visiting media, bowl marketing efforts and social media. National TV Viewership of the Outback Bowl is higher than any other annual televised sporting event in the region. Featured segments on Pinellas beaches and St Petersburg, in addition to commercial spots, which appeared in an Outback Bowl produced half -hour TV special aired nationally multiple times on ESPN networks. value of Pinellas County media exposure alone, excluding coverage by visiting media outlets, equates to well over $ 1 million National TV Exposure 1. One (1) 30- second commercial in the ESPN2 TV national broadcast of the Outback Bowl game on January 1, 2016. (These spots typically sell for $90,000 each). 2. In addition to the original airing of the game, your spot was run in the re- airing of the game on ESPN2. ST. PETERSBURG CLEARWATER LiveAmplified Sponsored by the St. Petersburg/Clearwater Area Convention 8 Visitors Bureau 3. Two (2) 30- second commercials in each of three airings of the Outback Bowl TV Preview Special aired nationally on ESPN2 and ESPNU in late December. (Estimated media value 40,000) 440.4 vie RECRUIT FOOTBALL Serra) verbally commits to USC. Betiku also had offers from Florid. ST.PETERSBURG CLEARWATER LiveAmplified Sponsored by the Si Peters burgiCle rwater Area Convention & visitors Bureau RECRUIT FOOTBALL m Florida State in Novnmber also had offers from Arkansas. Auburn 4. Multiple segments of the Outback Bowl Preview TV Special shot on location in Pinellas County at sites determined by the Visitors Bureau. The show included features on Skysurfing over the coastline, Clearwater Beach and St Petersburg's Urban Murals. The show aired nationally three times. Estimated media value $218,000 INJURIES IORINN i4$4 EAGLES GUEST. CB on Maxwell {sfiou Get) Outback Bowl officials worked with ESPN TV network to encourage "bumper" spots and mentions of Pinellas County during the international broadcast of bowl game (aired in 144 countries). This resulted in numerous mentions and bumper shots with an ad equivalency value of at least $190,000. 06. The Visit St Pete / Clearwater Logo appeared on the stadium wall banner wrap in view of tens -of- thousands of fans at the game and network TV cameras. The logo was seen dozens of times during the games international telecast as well as multiple re- airings of game on ESPN networks, Big Ten or SEC networks, live streaming online telecast of game, and picked up on national networks or TV affiliates across the country showing game highlights. Initial telecast alone valued at more than $400,000. to N Rush Yds Mowed Season: 117.8 Yds /Gm Today: 56 Additional Exposure: 1. Visit St. Petersburg - Clearwater and the Clearwater Chamber received multiple banners on the Outback Bowl Web Site to include 760 x100px Top -of -Page banner appearing on at least three pages of the site, and 195x 120 px Right Column ads appearing on at least four pages of the site. All ads linked directly to VSPC site. These specific pages generated more than 462,000 page views and we tracked more than 5,000 click thrus from the bowl site to the VSPC site and those of Pinellas County hotel partners & attractions. 3l'''._ 4 Ble About Us Tickets Visitor Guido StedJLm Events nN2 0 NEW 'YEAR'S DAY The Offieid 5tte of the Outback Bowl Sponsors News Media Contact Us RSVP Jl; 23' OOO,OOOO®TBAC Outback Bowl Contribution to. Education E CHES ST. PE TE R SBU Rd CLEARWATER Official Merchandise Otitb ti kRo.v /Gene, Teams and Fans Enjoy Fun and Sun at Clearwater Beach Northwestern and Tennessee fans, on hand to support their :gams, enjoyed Outback Bond Beach Day Wednesday at Clearwater Beach. The weather could not have been better, as the day featured performances by both school bands, a cheerleader tug ofwar, won by the Volunteers, and a key lime pie eating contest Check out ourphoto satiety to see all the fun on Clearwater Beach! We also featured Pinellas County attractions and hotel partners in multiple pages on the site, along with a dedicated page for Clearwater & St Petersburg. OUTBACK to a w i_ 0 0 Football in Paradise" NEW YEAR'S DAY The Official Site of the Outback Bowl About Us Tickets Visitor Guide Stadium Events Sponsors News Media Contact Us RSVP ST-PETERSBURG C LE AR WAT E R Welcome to Clearwater & St Petersburg Clearwater and its island beaches are one of Florida's most popular vacation spots - featunng award winning beaches. warm tropical breezes. breathtaking sunsets. a temperate and mild climate and a safer. more affordable. quieter and calmer destination. Clearwater offers extensive water recreation and both nature -based and land -based attractions. a wide- vanety of special events. a unique history and culture. and accommodations for everyone's style and budget. Pick the perfect place to stay! Clearwaters dccommodationg fit every lifestyle and budget from historical registered resorts to brand name properties to Superior Small Lodgings. cottages and efficiency apartments to cozy. wooded campgrounds s Whin minutes Wine beach. From value to upscale elegance. you have your pick (Om cream of the Crop. Too Ranked Beaches Clearwater Beach has been named the 'Best City Beach On The Gulf Of Mexico' by experts. Caladesi Island and Sand Key beaches have Seen named among the best natural beaches in the United States. Caladesi Island State Park is currently ranked #1 and previously placed second. primarily for its water quality. rustic charm, clean beaches. on -site amenities and its emphasis on wildlife. USATCDAY.com readers ranked Clearwater Beach in their Top 1 0 list of best beaches from Maine to Hawaii. Cord Nast Traveler has also recognized Clearwater Beach as the best city beach on the Gulf of Mexico, Sunsets at Pier 60 Every evening the place to be is Pier 60 in the heart of Clearwater Beach. For two hours before sunset and two hours after, artisans, street performers. musicians and more take over the activity center of Clearwater Beach. Beach Walk is a winding beachside promenade with lush landscaping. artistic touches and clear views to Clearwaters award - winning beach and the water beyond. a place where bicyclists, roilerbladers and pedestrians all have safe and convenient access and where visitors and locals can socialize. dine. play games, or simply enjoy the spectacular sun and surf. Nature Unspoiled and protected, our beautiful and natural parks are refuges for birds. mammals and humans alike. Brooker Creek Preserve's 8.500 acres are home to more than 160 bird species. 20 amphibians. 50 reptiles and 40 mammals, many of them rare or listed as protected in Florida andfor the nation. Weedon Island Preserve's 500 island acres offers 9 mdes of hiking trails. 4 miles of canoe and kayak trails. a fishing pier. observation platforms and an elevated boardwalk providing an intimate view of the flora and fauna of Florida. The Gulf of Mexico and our rivers offer watchable wildlife. Approximately 2.600 manatees inhabit our spnngs. bays and canals. feeding on aquatic plants. Everyone's favorite. the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin. can be seen cavorting with beauty and grace. Alligators can be found in some freshwater areas Wine county. And over 300 species ofSSh swim in our waters. ABOUT US About the Bowl Outback Bowl History Outback Baal Records da.corn MetLife VISITOR GUIDE STADIUM SPONSORS About Tampa About The Stadium Bowi Sponsors About Clearwater & St Petersburg Stadium Diagram Sponsorship Beners Hotel Partners Directions & Parking Sponsorship Information FOLLOW US HERE! Football in Paradlao" 57' About Us Tickets Visitor Guide Stadium Events NEW YEAR'S DAY The Off trial Site of the Outback Bowl Sponsors News Media Contact Us RSVP AMERICA'S BEST BEACHE Gulf Beaches and Clearwater ST. PETE RSBURG CLEARWATER Hotels Hilton Clearnater Beach IBeach Day Headquarters; Sandoean Resort . Strata Beach Resort d Conference Center, Ba'k M Hotel Locabons H'i att Reoenc y Clearwater Beacn Resort 8 Spa Sheraton Sand Re, Hilton Clearwater Beach (Beach Day Headquarters) 400 Mandalay Ave Clearwater Beach. FL 33767 727)461 -3222 8001753-3954 Spanning 10 acres along the Gudof Mexicos shimrnenng coastline, we invite you to discoverthe Hilton Clearwater Beach and indulge in a modern, vibrantsewng for your nextvacaSon. Enjoy enchanting accommodations overlooking one of the worlds most bnlliant white -sand beaches. Recline in a beach chair and gaze out at the magnhlcent blue skies. Curl your toes in tine sot sand. and let the gut breezes nor your soul Hilton Clearwater Beach is the home to she Outback Bowl Clearwater Beach Day event on December 30 feaanng. the teams. cheerleaders and bane clew marching bands) Baer to T -g Hyatt Regency Clearwater Beach Resort & Spa 301 South Gulfview Blvd Clearwater Beach, FL 33767 727) 373 -1234 yr'ebshe • Steps from the powder white sands of Clearwater Beach. a new resort is bonging world-class style and amerates to the west coast of Fronde. Balanced between the turquoise blue waters of the Gulf of Mexico and Ore picturesque Intra-coastal Waterway. Hyatt Regency Clearwater Beach Resort & Spa delivers an idyllic location along with me sophistication. style. comfort and convenience ofa luxury resort All guest rooms are oversized suites with fully equipped kitchens. walkout balconies and Gulf of Mexico views, The hotel offers a full service spa and illness center. Camp Hyatt resort pool and 20 air-conditioned pool cabanas. We are a proud sponsor of tore Outback Bowl. Outback Bowl Room Rates View Resort Photos . Back B Trg) Sandpeari Resort 500 Mandalay Ave Clearwater Beach. FL 33767 1727) 441 -2425 877)726-3m Website Sandpeari Resort is the newest beachfront resort and only 20 miles from Raymond James Stadium, (tome to the Outback Bowl. Sandpeari Resort adorns 700 feet of Clear eaters pristine beachfrort and offers sue highest caliber ofguest experience. The first new resort to be built on Clearwater Beach in 25 years. This is a reheat unlike any other offering luxunous accommodations. a worltltlass spa and signature cuisine. all accentuated by a unique culture of unparalleled service set on the beach. Groups please contact Larry Eddy at 727-674-4104. Enjoy the Darnel Espy the Beach! Back to TOo Sheraton Sand Key 160 Gulf BM Clearwate4 Beach, FL 34830 727) 595 -1611 800)456 -7263 Website The Sheraton Sand Key Resort Is nested on 10 acres ofwhite sandy beach between the warm waters of tie Gulf ot Mexico and the sparkling bay. Journey to Florida, west coast to Sand Key Island and experience the pleasures of this tropical paradise we call home. For the third consecutive year the Sheraton Sand Key Resort has received the Successful Meetings Pinnacle Award foretell commitment to hospitality excellence and customer satisfaction. Dark to TOg Strata Beach Resort ai Conference Center 5300 Gulf Blvd St Pete Beach, FL 33706 866)643-7942 727)363 -5100 Website . Call for the best available rates between December28rtend January 3rd if you book directly at 866-643-7542 and menton'OUTBACK1 With 12 tropical acres along the tranquil Guest Mexico. Strata prondes a relaxing resort experience with a sun-drenched Mediterranean same This full service resort and meetrrg center offers may recreational opportunities, friendly professional service and 360 suites and guest rooms. most with balconies overlooking the beach and Intracoastal waters. alleglant Travel is our deal. aBagiatt.coan Pe7( c- mational 48er' IMF Easy av Football In Pnesdiss" NEW YEAR'S DAY The Official Site of the Outback flow About Us Tickets Visitor Guide Stadium Events Sponsors News Media ST.PETERSBURG CLEARWATER Contact Us RSVP Clearwater /St. Petersburg Places To Go Pea^h Walk, Clearwater Beach Clearwater Hance : W uanum Fort DeSoto Pad.. Salvador Dali Museum Tarpon Sonnos • Back to Ltabons Caladesi Island State Park. Clearwater Community Sailing Center Fishina Johns Pass Village . Sunsets at Pier 60 . Beach Walk Clearwater Beach chebsite r A hall -mile long winding beachside promenade unique amenities and pudic areas, was comple Clearwater Beach north to Pier 60 park. Back to Tog artistic. whimsical touches. landscaping. n the summer of 2008. It travels along south Caladesi Island State Park Clearwater 1727)734 -1501 Website Ranked the No. t Beach in the U.S by Dr. Beach "Caladesl Island State Park is one of the few completely natural islands along Pandas Gulf Coast Beach lovers can enjoy swimming. sunbathing, and beachcombing. Saltwater anglers can fish from their boats or throw a line out into the surf Nature enthusiass watch wildlife while hiking the three mile nature trail through the islands interior or paddling a three mile kayak trail through the mangroves and bay. Picnic tables and shelters are located near the beach: picnic pavilions can be reserved for a tee. The park has a manna with electric and water hookups for boaters. The park also has a snack tar and gift shop. For ferry information call 17 27) 734-1501. Located one mile west of Dunedin off the Gulf Coast Come visit the best beaches in America. Back to Top Clearwater Beach Clearwater Beach Websde • Clearwater Beach - has teen named Test City Beach on the Gulf of Mexico" by experts and by Cond Nast Traveler readers. USATODAY.cam readers also ranked Clearwater Beach in their Top 0 list of best beaches from Maine to Hawaii. Back to Too Clearwater Community Sail ng Center Official Merchandise OutbackSow/Gearcom 2. The Clearwater Chamber received a full -page color advertisement in the Outback Bowls Official Souvenir Game Program along with a feature on the area. learwater REGIONAL CHAMBER Discover why Clearwater and its island beaches are America's favorite pastime for all seasons. We boast a distinctive highlight reel of titles: Number 1 Activity Beach in the Nation" and Best Family and Overall Beach" by Travel Channel One of the "Best Beaches" and Best Place to Watch the Sunset" by USA Today Readers One of the "Best Family Beaches" by Fodor's Travel Publications Best City Beach" by Conde Nast Traveler and Dr. Beach Trade in your frozen fingers and toes for a frozen drink on our powdery white sand beaches. With recreation for everyone, culture to enjoy and even wildlife you can touch, we invite you to get in the game in the most awesome arena in Florida. Consider Clearwater as your home field advantage! www.ClearwaterFlorida.org 888.425.3279 TEAM - Clearwater Cbamber.imld I tt/27/12 231 PM 0000000000000000000000000011000000110000000000 Welcome To Clearwater & St. Peters You know how it goes. You work all year and save your money so you can hake that big vacation. Leave your job behind, get away from it ail. See things you've never seen and do things you've never done. But where to go? Well millions of people from around the world head to Clearwater or St Petersburg, Florida each year for their escape. And for good reason. Caladesi Island, Sand Key and Ft DeSoto Park beaches have been consis- tently named among the best natural beaches in the United States. USATODAY readers have ranked Clearwater Beach "Best Beach Town In Florida' and In their Top 10 list of best beaches from Maine to Hawaii. Conde Nast Traveler has also recognized Clearwater Beach as the best c;ty beach on the Gulf of Mebco. And TripAdvisor named Clearwater Beach as one of the Top 10 beach- es in the U.S. It's also home of the popular Outback Bavl Beach Day each year featuring the college marching bands, cheerleaders, skydivers and more. Along with its award winning beaches come warm tropical breezes, breath- taking sunsets, a temperate and mild climate and a affordable, quieter and calmer destination. N Every evening the place to be in Clearwater is Pier 60 in the heart of Clear- N. water Beach. For two hours before sunset and two hours atter, artisans, street performers, musicians and more take over the activity center of Clearwater Beach. Beach Walk is a winding beachside promenade with lush landscaping, ar- tistic touches and clear views to Clearwater's award - winning beach and the water beyond, a place where bicyclists, rollerbladers and pedestrians all have safe and convenient access and where visitors and locals can socialize, dine, ST.PETERSBURG C LEARWATE R play :.:mes, or simply enjoy the sptacular sun and surf. Unspoiled and protected, our beautiful and natural parks are refuges for birds, mammals and humans alike. The Gulf of Matico and our rivers offer watchable wildlife. Approad- mately 2,600 manatees Inhabit our springs, bays and canals, feeding on aquatic plants. Everyone's favorite, the Atlantic bottlenose dolphin, can be seen cavorting with beauty and grace. Alligators can be found in some freshwater areas of the county. Of course there's more to Clearwater and St Petersburg than beaches and nattre. Along with extensive water recreation, the area offers a wide-varier of special events, a unique history and culture, and accommodations for every- one's style and budget. Experience numerous cultural exhibits during your stay with visits to a variety of museums in St Petersburg, including the amazing Salvador Dali Museum. Tour the beautiful downtown St Petersburg waterfront on a Segway. Visit the sponge docks of Tarpon Springs. Or visit the Environmental Educational Center at the Clearwater Marine Aquarium, home to "Winter' the dolphin featured in the feature films "Dolphin Tale' and "Dolphin Tale 2' to see how they rescue and rehabilitate marine wildlife. You can also get a glimpse behind the scenes 01 how the onginal movie was made by visiting "Winters Dolphin Tale Adven- ture' in downtown Clearwater. The area Is also home to the Dolphin Trail where you can vlew 125 six foot tall uniquely decorated dolphin staties on display throughout the area. Find them at: www. click2map .com /v2 /clearwaterchamber /Ddphin Visitors can also rent wave runners, take dolphin sight- seeing cruises or explore the excitement of parasaiting. Md what would Florida be without fishing? Anglers can be seen an every bridge, pier, and waterway reeling in a variety of catches from over300 species of fish that swim in our waters. Visitors can also take charter boats for deep sea fishing excursions. Cap it all off with a quiet dinner at a beach -side restaurant as you hear the waves of the Gulf of Melco. It's all in Clearwater and St Petersburg - from breathtaking sunsets to bot- tlenose dolphins and sand between your toes. Vacation never felt so good For more information on Clearwater and St Petersburg go to www.visitstpeteclearwater.com 3. Visit St Petersburg - Clearwater and the Clearwater Chamber each received a full -page color advertisement in the Outback Bowl Official Fan Guide publication distributed directly to 12,000 fans who purchase tickets from the participating schools. The publication also highlighted numerous attractions from Pinellas County. cover of Fan Guide shown) ZXa. a t More Than $123 Million Contributions to Educa 01100011000000•••••00000011000011011111101101100001100 THINGS TO SEE AND DO Web Links Available On Our Web Site At WWW.OUTBACKBOWL.COM CLEARWATER & ST. PETERSBURG AREA Beach Walk A half -mile long winding beachside promenade with artistic touches, lush 1cmdsscapang unique and modern amenities and a true beachside experience " Walk, bike or rollerblade along Clearwater Beach. Clearwater Beach Clearwater each Named bast city beach on the Gulf of Mextca as well as Best Beach Town in Florida" by USA Today and 'Top 10 Beach in the U.S." by IlipAdvisor. Gulf Blvd & .SR 60 Clearwater Beach 727) 442 -3604 Caladesi Island State Park Ranked as the No.1 Beach in the U.S. One of the few completely natural iskmds along Florida's Gulf Coast. Caladesi Island State Park 727) 734-1501 Chihuly Collection A stunning, permanent collection of world-renowned artist Dale Chihuly's unique artwork. 400 Beach Drive Downtown St Petersburg 727)822-7872 v .a Clearwater Marine Aquarium Marine life rescue and environmental education center. Home to "Winter" and "Hope," stars of the recently released movie Dolphin Rile 249 Windward Passage Clearwater 727)44 1-1790 Clearwater Community Sailing Center The CCSC has a fleet of over 40 boats from kayaks to sloops available foe public rental. 1001 Gulf Blvd Clearwater 727)517-7776 Clearwater Dolphin Trail A public cut i oject featuring 125 uniquely decorated 6 ft. tall bottlenose dolphin statues located throughout Tampa Bay. Follow the trail at www.click2map.comalv2/ clearwatercham berIDolphin Fishing More than 300 varieties of fish swim in the Gulf of Mexico and Tampa Bay. The Clearwater Marina is home to the largest fishing fleet on the West Coast of Florida with both party and charter boats available. Clearwater Beach's Fier 60 offers a full service bait house with gear rental and live bait. cmtmued m page 13 1 1 V 21 1ANUi xg4 • r&CI3OW.cO* 22 THINGS TO SEEAHD DO Clearwater & St. Petersburg Area Continued Fort De Soto Park Voted #1 Beach in the U.S. in 2006 and America's Best Family Beach by Palen is Magazine in 2011. It covers 900 acres and features 7 miles of beaches, 3500 Pinellas Baywaay Tierra Verde 727) 582 -2267 St Pete Beach Voted TripAdvisor`s 1 Beach in the US. and 5 in the world in 2012. 4700 Gulf Blvd. St Pete Beach, FL 33706 727) 360.6957 Salvador Dali Museum World's most comprehensive collection of original works by Salvador Dali 1000 3rd Street S., Downtown St. Petersburg 727) 823 -3767 StPte— G' eamater Culture cartm edonpoge25 Wildlife No matter what yo re looking tor in a Florida vacation, you can find it in sunny Clearwater. Indulge in our renowned white sand beaches and stunning weather. Enjoy world dass sports, . recreation, dining, altural attractions, nature, shopping and festivals: Clearwater ha sit all! From luxurious resorts and spas to charming boutique accommodations, yoUll find the perfect fit. Right here in Clearwater, discover our award winning beadles and somuch more. 0 ERRECICM. www. dearvuaterflorida_org • 888.425.3279 201$ 611112LCK iii THINGS TO SEE AND DO Clearwater & St. Petersburg Area Continued Sunsets at Pier 60 Watching the sunset on the Gulf of Mexico is a must and one of the best places to do it is Pier 8) on Clearwater Beach, a 1,080 ft. fishing per and observation deck and adjacent park where a nightly sunset celebration takes place from 2 hrs. before sunset to 2 hrs. after featuring artisrams, crafters, street performers and lire music. 10 Pier 601 1 Causeway Blvd. Clearwater Beach 727) 4494036 Sunshine Skyway Bridge Florida's first suspension bridge, it's 4.1 miles long and soars 183 feet crime Tampa Bay Modeled after the Brotonne Bridge over the Seine River in France. Tarpon Springs A small village of Greek residents featuring sponge docks and authentic Greek restaurants & shops. Dodecanese Blvd. Tarpon Springs 727) 937-6109 ST.PETERSaURG CLEARWATER Outback Bowl fares, have afield day on Clearwater Beach, named one of USATODAY's'Best Florida Beaches" Join us for Beach Day, December 30, as the teams, marching bands and cheerleaders cut loose for sun - drenched, pregame fun. LiiveAmplifiedomn 4. Clearwater Chamber and Visit St Petersburg- Clearwater logos appeared on the video scoreboard in the stadium numerous times during the Outback Bowl game. liveAmplifi<d.com CAR TROUBLE? CALL 313,44111411101 FOR A99)STANC! 1frr r/er Sc swot 1.1A ISSUE A to5Aroc F1*3R11)A HOSPITAL aler JAN 19 V FEB 9 SIEGE DAY SIEGE n DAY MIMS Q i 7 31 210- 2 The Outback Bowl worked closely with Visit St Pete - Clearwater, the Clearwater Chamber, the teams and other partners to promote Pinellas County on social media platforms. 0 ck Bowl Non -Profit Organization Timeline About Photos Likes More • 313 people visited thts week V£rift It tot tee CJ attract more visitors. 42% response rate. 47 -rains responsetime Respond fasterto turn on the icon 14k likes -968thisweek 82.224 postreach View PagesFeed See posts fromOther Pages ABOUT Boost Your Page for St0 Reach even more people in United States Promote Pape 813) 874 -2695 hap :flownouthackhowl. conv APPS YOUTUBE TAB Merest YouTube Boost Weusite 13 Status Photo l Video QOffer. Event ' vim e Scheduled Posts Next post scheduled for toga 4 48pm See posts. Outback Bowl Published 0r CFA Marketing Group ', 20 n,s e+ Its not too late to get your special Tennessee Football or Northwestern football fan a gift they will never forget! Get tickets to the 30th anniversary ofthe Outback Bowl here! =FootballlnParadise 4 =J 2016 Outback Bowl The perfectgirt for theholidays! C95 people reached tki Boosted OMNI THISWEEK 960 Page ties 82,224 PostReeve 14 Book Now 4 Websie MI,' 43% Response Rate 47 minutes Response Tine Recent 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 Outback Bowl Published by CEA Marketing Group 14 hrs Attention Fans! Its Clearwater Beach Day! Come out to the Hilton Clearwater Beach from 1 1 am-4pm for a fun day of games and events! Learn what other attractions you can visit here: FiLoveFL #FootballInParadise Clearwater Beach Day is Here! 1.5.1TFLORIDA.COM 3. 887 people reached Boosted Outback Bowl Le Th:s Page ,,s Add a description Tag Photo 9 Add Location / Edit Like 05 Comment #0 Share i••••••• Outback Bowl added 4 new photos Published by CEA Marketing Group [ ?l 6 hrs THE UNIVERSiiv or TENNESSEE 11.891 people reached Boost Post autbackbowi 198 likes outbackbowi Stay en extra day in the beautiful Tampa Bay areal #LovoFL htbl /www.visitfl and e.com/en- us'artides/15/freelan ce/stay- and -play- tempahtml Colleg eFootbell .$'f empaBey #BigTen CFB #BIGCats Outbeck8owl #FootballinParedise horthwesternU /Wildcats TempaBay taVisitFL jade spiveyl3 we have the best fen beset go vols chasehlcks_65 Who do you think will wten 65outbackbowl chasehicks_65 Go VOLS co.nnorsexton Go vols e ferg1970 The ones wearing mii Go Volsi brock_bear3 Go vols 11000111101100001100110000011110000110110000000011000011 Outback Bowl Cacege roomae He. Vera oar cum cinem Tampa 5. «tettaWng ea30th Yep maragt. bp ten rs SEC eraaoa. Cl wmx Jemea equft 2009 Pe 411 photo,ano .4.1S Trials T»eera a whits Photos a oleos r e, w ee.ee cwwm'. are met, a good she n rump Loss Bran 2 *asks at tstFTmlAeut Ewe Page Messages Notifications ® Insights Publishing Tools vow - .et!,epeta tam rews+aet c0 :re MI WON ot. !up'aecK NM: to Inks. n:rex •.a r Faee. ra.. 1 cw,apr Marne s kale. Unite* States Tren5s . ,. back Bo Non - Profit Organization TlmNine About Photos Likes More • 66% response rate, 19- mins response time El status jj phoo rig Q offer , Evek. Respond faster Is Jt¢ orr ors 'son 13k likes .657 this week 72.055 post reach View Pages Feed See posts from other Pages Invite friends to like this Page ABOUT Boost Your Page for $10 Reach even more people in United States Promote Page 913) 874 -2695 Add Price Range http :tAwew.outbackbowl. c omt APPS II Save Boost webske Outback Bowl The week leading up to the big game will be an unforgettable one for the thousands of dedicated fans that came to support their team! Don't miss a single event. Check out our agenda here: http: (Mnkw. outbackbowl.com/events FootballlnParadise #LoveFL Settings Help • THIS WEEK 72,066 Post Reach 4,068 Post Engagement 57 Book Now 30 Websie Clocks 67% Respwtse Rate 19 minutes Response Time Recent 25115 014 2013 2:;12 3011 2010 2009 Promote See Your Ad Here Boosted Outback Bowl The Outback Bowl is celebrating is 30th yew h Taepe, FL end vol be played at 1200 PM... b Like Page r Promote Page The Outback Bowl worked with the Clearwater Chamber to do a Social Media promotional giveaway which reached more than 30,000 people and had over 600 entries. Page teessages NotfKations 0 Insights Publishing Tools ack Bo Non -Profit Organization Timeline About Photos Likes More • 286 people visited this week. refit; 1 °or free to 3toact more os 42% response rate. 3 -hours response time Respond faster to tam on the icon 15k likes • 1173 this week 85208 post reach View Pages Feed See posts from other Pages V Boost Your Page for 510 Reach even more people in United States Promote Page ABOUT Tampa Ronda 16131674 -2695 httpJMtww.outbackbowl.comf APPS YOUTUBE TAB Competition PHOTOS PYHerest YouTube Borst Webslte Dolphit Contest Status J Photo I Video Q Offer, Event • 7 Scheduled Posts See posts. rilj Outback Bowl no CEA Marketing Group i?i 3 tin v4 Vote for Tennessee Football or Northwestern football and enter to win one of these limited edition 12" tall dolphin statues that represents your teaml httpsi/gleam_wMbtTeW Vm FootballinParadise #LoveFL 2170 people reached vie Like Comment s;. Share Boosted as- Ketc Santos. Mava Becker. Bruno Kelton Martins and 162 others Too Comments- Settings Help • Promote THIS WEEK 1,173 Pepe Lies 85,208 Post Rear h 16 ONk How 4 Aebste Cricks 43% Response Rate 3 hours Response Tire Recent 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2006 7. Visit St Pete Clearwater logo appear on Bowl event calendar in each issue of the Official Outback Bowl Newsletter along with listing of Clearwater Beach Day and photo of Clearwater Beach in the masthead. Note: Ali esertts, locations, Sate and times are sufiisst to chimge. 'a• (mitres stmt open to general puH n tt& others axe intihttien -only) DECEMBER 26 TEAM WELCOME CEREMONY OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE TEAM DINNER Bowl ofdab, city tidal: and media greet the participating teams a they enjoy a private welcome dinner from Outback Steakhouse at A La Cane Pavilion. (by imitation coin) DECEMBER 27 LADIES LUNCHEON Spates of both team.: aodoe will enjoy a special lunchcan baited by Bonefish Crill Reaa(1nmt (pric:ve event) PLAYERS NIGHT AT SPIJTSVILLE•• join the teams as they enjoy the fan at Splinsville at Clhatvdnk. Wan: h the teams compere off the field in a ling challenge Terms only (tom &..00.7: IS PM. Dom . open to public r 7:15 P.M. DECEMBER 28 PLAYERS HOSPITAL VISITS flaycrs and toadies hem both trams will btit;tten the Jay fa dtildren at Tampa General Hospital (no fans pleased TEAM NIGHT AT TAMPA BAY LIGHTNING•• Both ream will attend the Tampa Bay Lightning NI IL hockey wane against the Monet/ Canoitav It to Amalie Arena in downtown Tampa Game time is 7:30 p.m Tickets no availabe at Tckanuea.x the Arena box office. DECEMBER 30 CLEARWATER BEACH DAY•• oin the school matching bads and cheerleaders as they enjoy the on and beaches at the Hilton Cleatwaet Beach Eryoy this fun day which will also femme live music. rkyrfvers. a tmpof war and other contests halt l /tit) am to •k0) p.m Sponsored by Visit St Pete-Clearwater. The Cieawan Regional Clamber of Commerce. the Hilton, tieawrter Gar System, Ailegiana St Pete aestivates International Airport. 95.7 the Beat and 93.JH.2 Radio METUFE/MERCEDES -BENZ GRIDIRON GALA Motlik& Meraoie -Berm host this pretigiote evening for bowl VIPs and the collage aiexm ttranors at A La Cate Pmilirm Caralila's Italian Grill, Hemingi Prime Steaklwee & Wine Bet, Bonefish Grill Cutback Steakhouse puvde a deleeroHe menu (by invitation only/. DECEMBER 31 BATTLE OF THE BANDS AT BUSCH GARDENS** loin the two college machmg bands at Botch Gardens as they aquae off for a special 'Battle of the Bads- Perfoemance. Admission to park requrni Time TBD NEW YEAR'S EVE PARADE & PEP RALLY PRESENTED BY TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL.. Eclectic Thor City is the site of Chit festive old: ration featuring the Oralwck Bowl New Yea's Eve Parade and a pep wily by the college making hands & cheerleaders. The peak will feature downs and about twenty matching bmend& from around the ootmnyt This free family event is spa nsoced by Bud Light. 933R2 Radio, 970 WTLA and 620 WDAE Radio and the Ciro of Tops Be there ak The Parade start at 5:317 p.m_ d. ..,..'d. ..., DECEMBER 31 LIGHT UP TAMPA BAY AT CHANNELSIDE•• Chamehade will "Wu Up Tampa Bay" cn New Yea's Eve with live entertainment and a midnight Fireworks Shwa and Ball Drop along thedowtaown Tampa watetkont Enjoy the uumctcu• te:aauanta and fit spots a Chamrdsndc. Fart mote tnksmwton call Chumehside at 913)223 -4250. FLORIDA AQUARIUM AQUA EVE PARTY" You an also dtooee to delaae the night at the Honda Aquatints New Yen's "Aqua Eve piny featuring food bidet, beer. wine and live entertainment for one price. Buy tickets at www.FLA.lttariumwg JANUARY I MERCEDES -BENZ CORPORATE TENT VILLAGE Mote than 2.000 Bowl spawn and VIPs will enjoy a festive pregame t rm-up at the Mercedes-Benz Corporate Tent Village with a pvate brunch and entertainment near Raymond James Stadium by invitation only). PREGAME BOWL BASH" Bowl fans can warnsup for the big game with live music and a pep rallp, spins. and by Bight Home Networks. Coke Zero, The Tang Tribune. Newrrdw 970AM and 620 WDAERadha Food & refiatr saw will be available for p rchae The fun begins at 9th) am on the south plaza between gate C & D. no come our early TAMPA GENERAL HOSPITAL PREGAME SHOW** Enjoy a colorful pregame dhow featuring the pageantry of high school and college bands doing with numerous special activities including skydivers. A popJnOutbaok Bc&l tro..eton you won't want to miss. Show time begins at 11:15 am OUTBACK BOWL 2016•• The Outback bowl matching two of-college football's bet teams hoot the SEC and Big Tea Conference, Kickoff is scheduled lot 12:00 pm Gates open 10:30 am ). DECEMBER 29 BUSCH GARDENS TEAM OUTING** Both teams and their faro will enjoy the unique blend of thnillutt rides, live shows and a premier zoo Admission tickets me available at buw:hgadam.ce.m or at the front gate. etas TAMPABAY Mercedes -Benz COCA -COLA ZERO HALFTIME SHOW Wait until you see this colorful showy fairing mote than 3,5)22 performers! Official Game Sponsors OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE' C: Cl Bank - `"` Clientsist. Conwnurritylst .. azero ST.PETERSBURG CLEARWATER ON Tampa Bay Bowl Association Official Newsletter Clearwater Beach Day Sponsorship: 1. The Outback Bowl produced an event named Clearwater Beach Day held December 30, 2015. The bowl included the event on its official calendar and held the event on Clearwater Beach, behind the Hilton Clearwater Beach. Both school's marching bands and cheerleaders attended the event along with approximately 100 media and numerous players from each university. 2. The event was referred to as "Clearwater Beach Day" on publications and promotion of the event by the bowl including the Calendar of Events in Bowl Online Newsletters, Visitor/Fan Guide Brochures, Beach Day feature article in December issue of Online Newsletter and on the Outback Bowl web site. 110000000011001100000000000011100110111100111100000110011 3. The bowl encouraged visiting and local media to attend the event and recommended visiting radio and TV crews do live remotes from Clearwater Beach. 4. A tent was provided for Visit St Pete - Clearwater and the Clearwater Chamber at Beach Day to distribute brochures and/or premium items and information to fans attending the Beach Day activities. 000110000001111 5. VSPC & Clearwater were promoted on extensive banner signage at the Beach Day event. ST.PETER.5 CLEARWATER RI 0000000000000000000000000000011000410011000001111 1 CP.f tvatC't1[tl?R kccaONA1. Cif .ulst-;k r fJjkIBIUVA!_CH.ARiI *k water L WaterCiiLrc ij RP(ilt1N.V.(t4Ab1Pt:RA t f}t. \tiv t, Gi Ql rtr REcI r \t fl K10, t , ° ctCf" .: Aatlst, r'ii,e;. .., 1-R Wye Ar.ut.M 8 • OVM X110 _ - LrF r%aa ^ tEw,av,v n,ar.:,ttt 11 c °11 14' UC YyU bVCLEARWATFRFLp ‘1, CI l/ CIIERFL0 i InAQRG RFGIONAI.CI'AMER RI;CIII\`11,C1IArIB3ER teanuater v VV..CLEARWATFRFt.oRIDA.ORG WWW.CLEARWATERFLORIDA.ORGIII Jnn vnav i, 2016 • RAYJVIONa V 1988 -2018 eteClearwater.com ST.PE TER, CLEARWAT Visit St PeteClearwater.com C SPORTS COMMISSION RWP SPORTS SPORTS COMMISSION MMISSION SE C© RTS ISSION RS ATI vl s f t s t p,t ,, c. s•••••••••••• 6. VSPC & Clearwater were mentioned in Clearwater Beach Day radio promotions on local stations for two weeks in advance of the event valued at $22,800. 7. The Clearwater Chamber decorated two dolphins in the team colors providing a great photo opportunity throughout the week. The dolphins were displayed at the band hotels during the week and at Beach Day. They were then transported to the stadium for more fans to get their pictures with them at the Fan Fest on game day. Each of the coaches was presented mini - dolphin statues at Beach Day. it kMBER uvi • Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2156 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by government agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) In Control: City Council Agenda Number: 4.3 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 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2117 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by government agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) In Control: City Council Agenda Number: 4.4 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 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2139 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by government agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) In Control: City Council Agenda Number: 4.5 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 2/18/2016 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#16-2145 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: MinutesIn Control: City Council Agenda Number: 5.1 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the February 4, 2016 City Council Meeting as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. SUMMARY: APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT: USE OF RESERVE FUNDS: Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 Meeting Minutes Thursday, February 4, 2016 6:00 PM Council Chambers City Council Page 1 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 Roll Call Present: 5 - Mayor George N. Cretekos, Councilmember Doreen Hock-DiPolito (Departed 6:21 p.m.), Councilmember Bill Jonson, Councilmember Hoyt Hamilton and Vice Mayor Jay E. Polglaze Also Present: William B. Horne II – City Manager, Pamela K. Akin - City Attorney, and Rosemarie Call - City Clerk and Nicole Sprague – Official Records and Legislative Services Coordinator To provide continuity for research, items are listed in agenda order although not necessarily discussed in that order. Unapproved 1. Call to Order – Mayor Cretekos The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. at City Hall. 2. Invocation – Vice Mayor Polglaze 3. Pledge of Allegiance – Councilmember Polglaze 4. Special recognitions and Presentations (Proclamations, service awards, or other special recognitions. Presentations by governmental agencies or groups providing formal updates to Council will be limited to ten minutes.) – None. 5. Approval of Minutes 5.1 Approve the minutes of the January 21, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. Councilmember Jonson moved to approve the minutes of the January 21, 2016 City Council Meeting Minutes as submitted in written summation by the City Clerk. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 6. Citizens to be heard re items not on the agenda Mike Colby, Clearwater Marine Association President, said members of the Clearwater fishing fleet will begin an electronic log book data collection test beginning March 2016 for two years. The log will provide real-time fisheries catch data for fishery managers and decision Page 2 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 makers. Zack Thorn, Don Ewing, Rosemary Windsor, and Bob Clifford supported a proposal submitted by the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce regarding a Park and Ride system to the beach that can be implemented for Spring Break this year. There are six parking garages in downtown that are not necessarily used during peak periods. The Jolley Trolley has the capacity to add two to four additional trolleys for a dedicated lane. The proposal is primarily about educating the public regarding the available transportation options. The suggested plan will take some vehicles off the road and provide a service to day trippers, beach residents, and beach employees. The trolley would run from 10:00 am to 8:00 pm, phasing in trolleys to accommodate riders. Trisha Rodriguez, Clearwater Ferry, said the ferry could assist with the suggested Park and Ride plan and supported a special council meeting to discuss the proposal. 7. Consent Agenda – Approved as submitted. 7.1 Approve settlement of workers’ compensation claim 14000145, for payment of $80,000.00 inclusive and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) 7.2 Approve contracts (blanket purchase orders) for palm trimming to Blades of Green Inc. of Tampa, FL, in the annual amount of $65,000 (Bid 06-16), Tree Barber of Clearwater, FL, in the annual amount of $65,000, FL (Bid 06-16) and Tucker Enterprise Services Inc. of Clearwater, FL, in the annual amount of $65,000 (Bid 06-16) and two one-year renewal terms at the City's option and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) 7.3 Approve increasing Blanket Purchase Order (BPO 511036) to Ruth Eckerd Hall, Inc. (REH) by $150,000, from $419,400 to $569,400, to reimburse REH for entertainment for concerts in Coachman Park. (consent) 7.4 Approve co-sponsorship and waiver of requested city fees and service charges for 2016 Nacra 17, 49er and 49erFx World Championships to be held in Clearwater, February 6, 2016 through February 15, 2016, at an estimated in-kind General Fund cost of $3,000 and Parking Fund cost of $1,118. (consent) 7.5 Approve a work order to King Engineering Associates, Inc. Engineer of Record (EOR) in the amount of $472,848 to provide design, permitting and bidding services related to the Northeast Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) Grit Removal, Salsnes Filter and Equalization Project (15-0045-UT); and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) Page 3 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 7.6 Approve the agreement between Phillies Florida LLC and the City of Clearwater Fire and Rescue Department to provide emergency medical services at Bright House Field for 2016 baseball events as outlined in the agreement, and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent) 7.7 Request authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Kearney Companies, LLC, to recover $1,660.04 for damages to city property. (consent) 7.8 Request authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Capital Fiber and Underground Utility Construction, Inc. to recover $698.62 for damages to city property. (consent) 7.9 Request authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Charmer’s Asset Holdings, LLC, to recover $7,909.00 for damages to city property. (consent) 7.10 Request authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Big Tree, Inc. of Central Florida to recover $3,327.98 for damages to city property. (consent) 7.11 Request authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Ramjack Foundation Solutions to recover $698.83 for damages to city property. (consent) 7.12 Request authority to institute a civil action on behalf of the City against Future Works Communications, Inc. to recover $6,698.07 for damages to city property. (consent) Councilmember Hamilton moved to approve the Consent Agenda and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Public Hearings - Not before 6:00 PM 8. Second Readings - Public Hearing 8.1 Adopt Ordinance 8811-16 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post office address is 2161 Burnice Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33764 into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. Ordinance 8811-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jonson moved to adopt Ordinance 8811-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Page 4 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.2 Adopt Ordinance 8812-16 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post office address is 2161 Burnice Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33764, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Residential Low (RL). Ordinance 8812-16 was presented and read by title only. Vice Mayor Polglaze moved to adopt Ordinance 8812-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.3 Adopt Ordinance 8813-16 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post office address is 2161 Burnice Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33764, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). Ordinance 8813-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Hamilton moved to adopt Ordinance 8813-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.4 Adopt Ordinance 8814-16 on second reading, annexing certain real property whose post office address is 1234 Carol Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33755 into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. Ordinance 8814-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jonson moved to adopt Ordinance 8814-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.5 Adopt Ordinance 8815-16 on second reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post office address is 1234 Carol Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33755, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Residential Low (RL). Page 5 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 Ordinance 8815-16 was presented and read by title only. Vice Mayor Polglaze moved to adopt Ordinance 8815-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.6 Adopt Ordinance 8816-16 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1234 Carol Drive, Clearwater, Florida 33755, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). Ordinance 8816-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Hamilton moved to adopt Ordinance 8816-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.7 Adopt Ordinance 8824-16 on second reading, vacating that certain drainage and utility easement lying within the vacated 10-foot alley lying adjacent to the east property lines of Lots 9 through 13, inclusive, Block 2, J.H. Rouse’s Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 90, Official Records of Hillsborough County, of which Pinellas County was formerly a part. Ordinance 8824-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jonson moved to adopt Ordinance 8824-16 on second and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.8 Adopt Ordinance 8825-16 on third reading, annexing certain real property whose post office address is 1807 Skyland Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759 into the corporate limits of the city and redefining the boundary lines of the city to include said addition. Ordinance 8825-16 was presented and read by title only. Vice Mayor Polglaze moved to adopt Ordinance 8825-16 on third and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Page 6 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.9 Adopt Ordinance 8826-16 on third reading, amending the future land use plan element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city to designate the land use for certain real property whose post office address is 1807 Skyland Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Residential Low (RL). Ordinance 8826-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Hamilton moved to adopt Ordinance 8826-16 on third and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 8.10 Adopt Ordinance 8827-16 on third reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by zoning certain real property whose post office address is 1807 Skyland Drive, Clearwater, FL 33759, upon annexation into the City of Clearwater, as Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR). Ordinance 8827-16 was presented and read by title only. Councilmember Jonson moved to adopt Ordinance 8827-16 on third and final reading. The motion was duly seconded and upon roll call, the vote was: Ayes: 4 - Mayor Cretekos, Councilmember Jonson, Councilmember Hamilton and Vice Mayor Polglaze 9. City Manager Reports 9.1 Ratify and confirm an increase to the original contract (purchase order) ST112387 to JAM 5:20 of Largo, Florida in the amount of $24,895 for a revised authorization of $137,110 for improvements to the Clearwater beach Recreation Center (CBRC). The Council approved the original purchase order in the amount of $112,215 for CBRC during the November 30, 2015 council meeting. The construction process in the main hall of CBRC revealed that the existing substrate beneath the vinyl tile removed was in worse shape than anticipated. The scarification process to remove the existing underlayment proved unsuccessful and the manufacturer of the vapor seal would not warranty the moisture barrier seal to be applied under these conditions. The only option to permanently fix the floor is to remove the existing concrete floor and re-pour a new concrete floor. This will allow the required vapor barrier to be installed between the soil and new concrete floor. Authority was given to move forward with the project to adhere to the established construction schedule to allow the CBRC facility to be reopened in Page 7 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 time for an event scheduled for March 5, 2016. APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT: 315-94519-530300-519 $12,447.50 315-93634-530300-519 $12,447.50 In response to questions, Building and Maintenance Superintendent Thomas Wojtkiw said the original scope of work was to remove the top layer of concrete after removing the tile. The vapor seal must be installed on virgin concrete in order for the seal to work. The floor had over 2 in. of underlayment material that could not be removed to get to the virgin concrete without compromising the foundation. The recreation center was remodeled ten years ago; the facility is at least thirty years old. Mr. Wojtkiw said there was no vapor seal installed; staff found felt paper in certain areas. Vice Mayor Polglaze moved to ratify and confirm an increase to the original contract (purchase order) ST112387 to JAM 5:20 of Largo, Florida in the amount of $24,895 for a revised authorization of $137,110 for improvements to the Clearwater beach Recreation Center (CBRC). The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. 9.2 Pedestrian Overpass at US 19 and Harn Boulevard Traffic Operations Paul Bertels said staff received notice from the Department of Transportation (DOT) regarding funding for a pedestrian overpass on US Hwy 19, south of Harn Boulevard. DOT will utilize lands on both sides that were offered by the City. Mr. Bertels said there is not enough land for ADA ramping, requiring elevators on both sides. DOT wants the City to operate and maintain the elevators. There is a similar structure at MOSI/USF campus on Fowler Avenue and Bull Run Drive, which are maintained and operated by Hillsborough County. DOT has requested a resolution stating the City is willing to maintain and operate the elevators. Councilmember Jonson said he was involved when accommodations for bus riders were being considered by the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority. The pedestrian traffic at the intersection was not considered and not built into the design. Mr. Bertels said it is not known if the pedestrians in the area have adapted to the change. DOT is putting the scope together to design the Page 8 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 elevators. Discussion ensued with concerns expressed with cost to maintain the elevators and to implement security measures. Staff was directed to provide pedestrian count information and estimates for elevator maintenance and security monitor. In response to a question, Mr. Bertels said a pedestrian tunnel is not possible due to the two big water mains that are located under the roadway. It was suggested that staff provide information regarding the sequencing of the MOSI/USF pedestrian overpass facility. 9.3 Schedule a special council meeting on Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing beach traffic. At the February 1, 2016 work session, Council directed staff to schedule a special council meeting to discuss beach traffic. Staff was directed to request PSTA and Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce representatives to attend the meeting. In response to a suggestion, the City Clerk said a presentation regarding PSTA's proposed express service from Tampa International Airport to the beach is scheduled for the February 18, 2016 council meeting. One individual spoke in support and suggested that Tom Nocera be allowed to present information on the Skytran? Discussion ensued with support expressed that the purpose of the special council meeting is to discuss plans that can be implemented for the upcoming Spring Break. It was suggested that the MPO provide an update on the 2010 traffic study. The City Manager said at the end of the meeting, Council will be able to determine the next steps; long term plans may come into play. Councilmember Hamilton moved to schedule a special council meeting on Friday, February 12, 2016 at 1:30 p.m. for the purpose of discussing beach traffic. The motion was duly seconded and carried unanimously. Page 9 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 10. City Attorney Reports – None. 11. Other Council Action 11.1 Council Policy regarding public access to Community Development Board documents - Councilmember Jonson Councilmember Jonson said after discussing his proposed policy with the City Attorney, additional work is needed. Planning and Development Director Michael Delk reviewed and demonstrated the current process to access the Community Development Board agenda and associated documents via MyClearwater.com. 12. Closing comments by Councilmembers (limited to 3 minutes) Councilmember Jonson expressed a desire to have a designated scenic highway through Clearwater that connects the Courtney Campbell and Memorial Causeways. He commented that there were streetlights in the downtown area in disrepair. He thanked Pinellas County Commissioner Charlie Justice for his letter of support to the Florida Department of Transportation for a PSTA Tampa International Airport to Clearwater beach express transit. Councilmember Hamilton complimented Pinellas County on the paving of Belcher Rd. and performing the work at night and wished the State would also consider doing roadwork at night as not to close Chestnut and Court Streets during the day. He thanked Emeril Lagasse for his visit to the Palm Pavilion a couple months ago. 13. Closing Comments by Mayor Mayor Cretekos reviewed recent and upcoming events and congratulated Clearwater Officer Jason Moore for receiving the Joseph F. Cornelius Foundation’s Outstanding Officer of the Year Award, Light of Christ of Christ Catholic Church for its 50th Anniversary, and Sarah Dobes for receiving the 2016 Outstanding Educator of the Year Award. Page 10 City of Clearwater Draft City Council Meeting Minutes February 4, 2016 14. Adjourn The meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m. Mayor City of Clearwater Attest City Clerk Page 11 City of Clearwater Draft Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2138 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Finance Agenda Number: 7.1 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 G4049 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 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2127 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Gas System Agenda Number: 7.2 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 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2129 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Gas System Agenda Number: 7.3 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 2/18/2016 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 2/18/2016 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. 062619312518072619052619322518042619112616042518332518182619122618342518302619092518192618312619102518202517192619142516352615332417052519052517052518222618132618292519332418152618182517012516202519362615292517072618182618352617322417232617282516202618212618232618262617062517362617022516042519012517262517102618262516012518302518032518032517212617242618352518082617192517112618062519322616042517352417072519312616112516172517232517362518252516282617332516362516122617162517042516072517352416082619012618322519082518302618092619152617062518152518332519142618162516262616272616282517232516082517302517112617282618172518192519162618222517152616142517222616212516292518332616272618082519242616142617362618362418162518322418242516342417302519202617102617352516302616332419032516292618172618352517282519172616072518252618272518362517192616182519022517132517312417312519202616132516312517272517152517292619232616282616112518172617132616342616172516362417322419122516362416252517282619252615162617022518142616212616342516102616252518342416152516212519252616122517352616242517362616082618352418292616342517092617202619132617092616282518342418212517322516172519162616322619132518212619092618172619092516332517182616312419122518272516082616182518242615102516312617222617292617272617322517222516162619262618342617332617262615092517302617242518032618162519312418142518112517192617242617332619322617262518222518102517092519252617182617022618332618072617322618042618342618352618232518122616052618212518062618202518292516192518312618022617012617032617042617052617062617032616022616012616042616202516052616082516062616072616312516342615332416292419 282419302419252418272418262418282418292418252417262417262416302418252416282417272416272417292417302417132615232615122615302516272615052516282416072616342619272619222619152619032519342519342419102619102519032619272519152519222519012615272615192516182516122615272419322416132615332615322416012615182516132615222615122615332416132615332615192516222615012615192516302516342615302516192516302516182516132615182516SR 52SR 54SUNCOAST PKWYLANDOLAKESBLVDEHRENCUTOFFUS41MOONLAKERDTOWER RDDREXELRDP A R K W AYB L V D COLLIERPKWYRIDGERDHALERDLAKEVIEWDRO A K S B L VD HAYSRDPUMPSTATIONRD PINTO DRDECUBELLISRDLAKEPATIENCERDLEONARDRDCOUNTY LINERDATLEE STEAGLELNBELLLAKERDCASEYDRWEEKSBLVDCAUSEWAYBLVDNONELACEYDRLOCKETAVNIKKILNDOVERDWILSONRDLOYSTWISTERIALPHUNTRDBA HIA LP SHALIMARSTDALEMABRYHWYCITA TION RD ROSELANDDRMORGANRDCHIPLNPASCOTR A ILS BLVD EAGLEBLVDASBELRDCENTRALBLVDHAVANAAVHIDEOUTT R DUPREEDRKEYLIMEDRGLENOAKAVCALIENTEBLVDAIRWAYBLVDSMOKEYDRWILSKYRDSOUTHSHOREDRIVYLAKEDRNON E NONEN O NESUNCOASTPKWYDUSTYLASTARTRLITTLE RDPATST 7THAVANCLOTEBLVDNONEUS19G R O VEDRTIKIDRSR 54SR52PLATHERDDECUBELLISRDSR 54SR 54NONENONESR 54US19SR54NONEUS19SR 54US19NONESR54NONELITTLE RDSR54SR52US19NONESR54SR54SR54NONENONENONE NONENONENONE NONESR 54SR54US19NONESR 5 4 SR 52Second Revised Exhibit "A"Clearwater Gas System/Peoples Gas System Pasco County Territorial MapClearwater Gas SystemPasco County Service Area2004 Added TerritoryClearwater Gas SystemPasco County Service Area2005 Added TerritoryClearwater Gas SystemPasco County Service Area1995 Original TerritoryClearwater Gas SystemPasco County Service Area2004 Added TerritoryPasco CountyHillsborough CountyPinellas CountyCGS/BexleyCorridorSerenovaBoundarySR 52SR 52US 41Peoples Gas SystemPasco County Service Area1995 Original TerritoryPeoples Gas SystemPasco County Service Area1995 Original Territory THIRD REVISED EXHIBIT A See EXHIBIT C Asturia Subdivision12-28-2015 142517Serenova Boundary (See Exhibit B)Pinellas County(POB)(POE) Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2128 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Human Resources Agenda Number: 7.4 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 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2126 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Parks & Recreation Agenda Number: 7.5 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 2/18/2016 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 2/18/2016 GULF-TO-BAY BLVD BAYSHOREBLVDCOURTNEY CAMPBELL CSWY LOCATION MAP ²Prepared by:Engineering DepartmentGeographic Technology Division100 S. Myrtle Ave, Clearwater, FL 33756Ph: (727)562-4750, Fax: (727)526-4755www.MyClearwater.com 3158 Gulf to Bay Blvd CRM JB N.T.S.292A 16-29s-16e01/27/2016Map Gen By:Reviewed By:S-T-R:Grid #:Date:Scale: Proposed Acquisition3158 Gulf to Bay Boulevard Proposed Acquisition Document Path: V:\GIS\_Staff\Chris\Projects\City\Location-Maps\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: ID#16-2123 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Public Utilities Agenda Number: 7.6 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 2/18/2016 File Number: ID#16-2123 Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2130 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Solid Waste/General Services Agenda Number: 7.7 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 2/18/2016 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. September 30, 2015 Earl Gloster Director of General Services 1900 Grand Ave Clearwater 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 equipment is proprietary and is only manufactured by Harris Corporation. Communications International, a certified Harris Network Service Provider, is the sole authorized service provider in for your account. In June 2002 the City of Clearwater signed a twenty year contract with Harris Corporation to provide radio system services and equipment. Communications International is the Authorized Harris Network Service Provider for our account and has provided a letter certifying such Harris trunked public safety radio equipment can only be purchased indirectly from the authorized Harris service provider Communications International, or directly from Harris Corporation. If you have any further questions or concerns I encourage you to call me at my office. Thank you again for choosing Harris for your communications needs. Sincerely Piroscka Ventura Manager, Indirect Channel Harris Corporation Public Safety & Public Service Division Email: pventu01@harris.com Phone: (305) 775-0714 From:MacDonald, Scot To:Call, Rosemarie Cc:Gloster, Earl; Pittman, John Subject:Question Response Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2016 12:56:01 PM Good Afternoon, Councilman Jonson asked for a brief explanation of the P25 system and the reason why we are upgrading our system. He also wanted a dollar figure for the entire upgrade. Please forward my response below. City of Clearwater P25 Project Project 25 (P25) Is a FCC Guideline to improve interoperability and to make the Land Mobile Radio (LMR) marketplace more competitive. Currently All surrounding agencies have implemented a P25 systems or are in the process of doing so. This allows our units to seamlessly communicate with all surrounding agencies for both day to day operations and during a major storm/events. This will drastically improve the City’s ability to respond to emergencies large and small. Although this system ties into the LTE network, it is also operated completely independently if the LTE network fails. The LTE network does not have the necessary infrastructure in place to support emergency operations after a catastrophic storm. Below Please find a breakdown of the Cost for Clearwater’s City-Wide Upgrade 2012 – Police RNC Purchase of radios was refunded through RNC Grants. No Cost to City 2014 – $1,989,496.00 Initial City Infrastructure 2015 – $1,076,812.00 PD Terminal Gear 2015 – $73,889.00 PD Recorder Upgrade 2016 - $499,942.00 Terminal Upgrade for Engineering, Utilities, Gas, Parks and Rec, Marine & Aviation, General Services 2017 – $1,000,000.00 Solid Waste Terminals and Final Infrastructure Build-out Total Expenditure - $4,640,139.00 If he has any other questions please let me know. Thank You, Scot Macdonald Radio Manager City of Clearwater Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2125 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Parks & Recreation Agenda Number: 7.8 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 2/18/2016 File Number: ID#16-2125 N/A Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2116 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Consent AgendaVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Official Records & Legislative Services Agenda Number: 7.9 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 2/18/2016 City of Clearwater, Florida 2016 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: ANX2015-12034 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Public HearingVersion: 1 File Type: Planning CaseIn Control: Planning & Development Agenda Number: 8.1 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 2/18/2016 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 2/18/2016 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 606060 50 4 3 4 5 6 88103 104 130 131 132 133 87 86 85 84 83 138 137 136 135 134 105 106 107 108 109 110 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 50 2 3 4 50 801001 2 3 4 201 60 60 50 6060 606060 60 60 50 80 6072144 064080642606444 310504 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13141516 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 1 2 332198765 4 32 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 654 3 2 17 12 15 16 17 1 2 6 7 8 8 16 11/01 11/04 4.76 11/0911/0811/0511/03 AC 1 BURNICE DR S BELCHER RD BELL CHEER DR S UNIVERSITY DR DORADO PL WOODLEY RD BELL DR PLEASANT PKWY UNI VER SI T Y C T 78356421290 2210213121912112217321722165213221102173212521172147215521352149209921671200 1276210921982152211721382123210921472155217921392185213011002107219721252106210121062195215721192125211521732191212421742149216721091110 2111 214321432161218121261105 218721171250 2195217821852091213021912188121 21542 16 4 04 08 120 219221811101 2127214321121009 211021602 1 214821762122220621991242184214121251231216120 1006 2116213012421402199216621601107 123 125218721182190215621401005 8 21662180219812221862142 212421182141213508 210000 21571220 1111 21331010 219221331222214821722100219104 211812822134 -Not to Scale--Not a Survey-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 606060 50 4 3 4 5 6 88103 104 130 131 132 133 87 86 85 84 83 138 137 136 135 134 105 106 107 108 109 110 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 50 2 3 4 50 801001 2 3 4 201 60 60 50 6060 606060 60 60 50 80 6072144 064080642606444 310504 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13141516 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 1 2 332198765 4 32 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 654 3 2 17 12 15 16 17 1 2 6 7 8 8 16 11/01 11/04 4.76 11/0911/0811/0511/03 AC 1 BURNICE DR S BELCHER RD BELL CHEER DR S UNIVERSITY DR DORADO PL WOODLEY RD BELL DR PLEASANT PKWY UNI VER SI T Y C T RL RL P RL RU R/OS RU WATER RU I RURU RU RU 78356421290 2210213121912112217321722165213221432173212521172135214921671200 1276210921982152211721382123210921842147215521252179213921852130110021072197212512162106210121062195215721602190211921252166217321912124217421352149216712202143 2143216121261105 2100218721171250 2195217821852091213021912188121 21542 1 6 404 08 120 219221811101 2127211021121009 211021602 1 21472148215520992176212222062199124 2 1 4 1 123 120 1006 211621301242140219921661107 123 12521872118215621401005 8 2115 2180219812221862142 21242118214108 210000 215721091 1 1 0 2111 1111 218121331010 21922133122221482172219104 211812822134 -Not to Scale--Not a Survey-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 606060 50 4 3 4 5 6 88103 104 130 131 132 133 87 86 85 84 83 138 137 136 135 134 105 106 107 108 109 110 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 50 2 3 4 50 801001 2 3 4 201 60 60 50 6060 606060 60 60 50 80 6072144 064080642606444 310504 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13141516 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 1 2 332198765 4 32 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 654 3 2 17 12 15 16 17 1 2 6 7 8 8 16 11/01 11/04 4.76 11/0911/0811/0511/03 AC 1 BURNICE DR S BELCHER RD BELL CHEER DR S UNIVERSITY DR DORADO PL WOODLEY RD BELL DR PLEASANT PKWY UNI VER SI T Y C T LMDR P OS/R I P 78356421290 22102131219121122173217221652132214321102173212521172147215521352149209921671200 12762109219821522117213821232109218421472155212521792139218521301100210721972125121621062101210621952157216021902119212521662115217321912124217421352149216721091110 2111 1220 214321432161218121261105 2100218721171250 2195217821852091213021912188121 21542 1 6 404 08 120 219221811101 212721121009 211021602 1 21482176212222062199124 2 1 4 1 123 120 1006 211621301242140219921661107 123 12521872118215621401005 8 2180219812221862142 21242118214108 210000 21571111 21331010 21922133122221482172219104 211812822134 -Not to Scale--Not a Survey-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 ^^^BELCHER RD-Not to Scale--Not a Survey-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 BELCHER RD S BELCHER RD BELL CHEER DR BELL CHEER DR S UNIVERSITY DR S UNIVERSITY DR DORADO PL DORADO PL WOODLEY RD WOODLEY RD PLEASANT PKWY PLEASANT PKWY BELL DR BELL DR GROVE AVE (trail only)GROVE AVE (trail only)-Not to Scale--Not a Survey-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 606060 50 4 3 4 5 6 88103 104 130 131 132 133 87 86 85 84 83 138 137 136 135 134 105 106 107 108 109 110 128 127 126 125 124 123 122 121 120 119 118 117 116 115 114 113 112 111 50 2 3 4 50 801001 2 3 4 201 60 60 50 6060 606060 60 60 50 80 6072144 064080642606444 310504 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13141516 11 12 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 1 2 332198765 4 32 1 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 654 3 2 17 12 15 16 17 1 2 6 7 8 8 16 11/01 11/04 4.76 11/0911/0811/0511/03 AC 1 BURNICE DR S BELCHER RD BELL CHEER DR S UNIVERSITY DR DORADO PL WOODLEY RD BELL DR PLEASANT PKWY UNI VER SI T Y C T 78356421290 2210213121912112217321722165213221102173212521172147215521352149209921671200 1276210921982152211721382123210921472155217921392185213011002107219721252106210121062195215721192125211521732191212421742149216721091110 2111 214321432161218121261105 218721171250 2195217821852091213021912188121 21542 16 4 04 08 120 219221811101 2127214321121009 211021602 1 214821762122220621991242184214121251231216120 1006 2116213012421402199216621601107 123 125218721182190215621401005 8 21662180219812221862142 212421182141213508 210000 21571220 1111 21331010 219221331222214821722100219104 211812822134 -Not to Scale--Not a Survey-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 Drive East of the subject property West of the subject property Across the street, to the south of the subject property ANX2015-12034 Alejandro and Isbelia Rios 2118 Bell Cheer Drive View looking easterly along Bell Cheer Drive View looking westerly along Bell Cheer Drive View looking north at the subject property, 2142 Bell Cheer Drive East of the subject property West of the subject property Across the street, to the south of the subject property ANX2015-12034 Diana Gloria Mendez 2142 Bell Cheer Drive View looking easterly along Bell Cheer Drive View looking westerly along Bell Cheer Drive View looking north at the subject property, 2166 Bell Cheer Drive East of the subject property West of the subject property Across 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 Drive View looking westerly along Bell Cheer Drive Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: CPA2015-04001 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Public HearingVersion: 1 File Type: Planning CaseIn Control: Planning & Development Agenda Number: 8.2 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 2/18/2016 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 2/18/2016 ` 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 AND REPEALING 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 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 Metropolitan Planning 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 desires to 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 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1.That Policy A.2.2.6 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, page A-10, be amended to read as follows: ***** A.2.2.6 The Community Development Code shall provide for safe on-site traffic circulation and connections to adjacent arterial and collector streets consistent with Florida Department of Transportation and, Institute of Traffic Engineers design guidelines, and other applicable roadway design standards, policies, and guidelines. ***** Section 2.That Goal A.4 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, and its Objective and Policies, pages A-11 through A-12, be amended to read as 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.4.1 Objective - 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 part of 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.4.1.1 No 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 modified consistent with provisions of the concurrency management system to allow services to be upgraded concurrently with the impacts of development. The Concurrency Management System shall ensure proposed development is in 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.4.1.2 The City’s Concurrency Management System shall include, at minimum, level of service standards for parkland, potable water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and stormwater. A.4.1.3 The 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.4.1.24 The 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. Section 3.That Policy A.5.4.8 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, page A-14, be amended to read as follows: ***** A.5.4.8 Study the establishment of transportation concurrency alternatives Implement a Mobility Management System as detailed in 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 Plan Future Land Use Element, page A-24, be amended to read as 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 System Expansion Feasibility Study Update completed in 2002 2011; ***** Section 5.That a new Policy A.7.2.4 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Future 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.7.2.4 Allow voluntary annexations for noncontiguous properties that are within an enclave as defined by Section 171.032(13)(a), Florida Statutes (“Type A” enclaves). A.7.2.45 Promote economic development programs and activities to businesses within the unincorporated areas of the Clearwater Planning Area. A.7.2.56 Continue 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 Plan Transportation 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, pedestrians and 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 renamed as follows: TRAFFIC CIRCULATION & MOBILITY Section 8.That Goal B.1 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, page B-3, be amended and a new Objective B.1.1 and its Policies be added to read as follows, with subsequent Objectives and Policies renumbered: B.1 GOAL - THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION SYSTEM THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE FOR THEA SAFE, CONVENIENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENT DELIVERY OF PEOPLE AND GOODS BY A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT 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.1.1 Objective – 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.1.1.1 The City shall implement the Mobility 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 new peak 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 reducing demand 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.1.1.2 The City shall continue to use roadway levels of service for planning purposes. B.1.1.3 The Capital Improvements Element shall 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.1.1.4 The 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.1.1.5 The 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.1.1.6 The City shall continue to work with the Pinellas Suncoast Transit 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.That Objective B.1.2 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation 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.1.12 Objective – 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 the planned land use vision. B.1.12.1 The City shall continue to administer access management and right-of-way requirements through the Community Development Code. B.1.12.2 The 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.1.2.3 The City will operate, maintain, and improve the City transportation system consistent with the Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT) Complete Streets Policy. B.1.2.4 The 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.1.2.5 The City shall require land development projects to make adequate provisions for bicycle parking and storage as appropriate. ` 7 Ordinance No. 8805-16 B.1.2.6 The City shall include sidewalks where feasible alongside roadways scheduled for resurfacing. B.1.2.7 The City shall install landscaping along sidewalks using tree canopy, where feasible, to provide shaded areas for pedestrians. B.1.2.8 The City shall incorporate livable community requirements such as Objective A.6.8 and its Policies to proposed developments or redevelopments. ***** Section 10.That Objective B.1.3 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, pages B-3 and B-4, and its Policies be amended as follows, with subsequent Objectives and Policies renumbered: B.1.34 Objective - The City will continue to monitor traffic counts, accidents, and road improvements, to provide timely status evaluation of level of service conditions for issuance of development approvals. Policies B.1.34.1 The City will continue to review potential trips generated by Rrequests for amendment to the Future Land Use Map will have an analysis of traffic impacts. B.1.3.2 The 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.1.34.32 The concurrency Mobility mManagement sSystem will be enhanced applied through improved departmental coordination. and the proactive identification and resolution of level of service concerns. Section 11.That Policies B.1.4.1 through B.1.4.7 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, pages B-4 and B-5, be amended to read as follows, with subsequent Objectives and Policies renumbered: Policies B.1.45.1 The City shall continue to review trips generated by land development projects through the Traffic Concurrency Management Program Mobility Management System. B.1.45.2 For those roads which are not currently operating at an acceptable LOS, or which do not have programmed improvements to upgrade service to an acceptable level a mitigating improvement scheduled for construction within three years, the concurrency Mobility mManagement sSystem shall 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.1.4.3 The 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.1.4.4 The 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.1.45.53 If 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.1.4.6 When 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.1.45.74 The City shall cooperate with the MPO to ensure consistency between comprehensive plan amendments and the Pinellas MPO Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) 2025 2040. Section 12.That Objective B.1.5 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, page B-5, and its Policies be deleted: B.1.5 Objective - 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.1.5.1 Acceptable peak-hour Levels-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.1.5.2 The 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. B.1.5.3 Due 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.1.5.4 The 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.1.5.5 The 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.1.5.6 Recognize 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 Plan Transportation Element, page B-6, be amended, and Policy B.2.1.2 be added to read as follows: B.2.1 Objective - 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.T FDOT. B.2.1.1 The 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.2.1.2 The 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.2.3 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, page B-8, be amended, and that Policy B.2.3.2 be deleted as follows: B.2.3 Objective - The City of Clearwater shall annually update the City’s Transportation Improvement Program to include projects that increase the capacity of roadways, and coordinate 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.2.3.1 Road 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.2.3.2 When 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.4.4 Objective – The City shall participate and cooperate with agencies and committees to enhance and promote the use of mass transit public transportation system. B.4.4.1 Clearwater shall coordinate with PSTA and the MPO in the continued adoption development of the Five-Year Transit Development Program Plan to address transit needs consistent with adopted lever-of-service policies and transit planning guidelines. identify and include transit improvements that benefit the City. B.4.4.2 Clearwater 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 Plan Coastal Management Element, page E-5, be amended to read as follows: E.1.5 Objective - 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.1.6 Objective - Development and Rredevelopment areas established in the coastal storm area should address the needs and opportunities unique to those locations. E.1.6.1 Redevelopment 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.1.6.2 New development or redevelopment is encouraged to 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 due to flooding and claims made under flood insurance policies issued in this state. E.1.6.3 New 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 Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element, page H-1, be amended to read as follows: Intergovernmental Coordination Needs Summary The following summarizes the Intergovernmental Coordination Element: ***** Road improvements, and backlogged facilities, and levels of service need 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) planning process. ***** Section 19.That Objective H.2.2 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Intergovernmental Coordination Element, page H-4, and its Policies be amended, and Policy H.2.2.3 be added to read as follows: H.2.2 Objective - The City shall adopt the F.D.O.T. FDOT level 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 management of roads in Clearwater. Policies H.2.2.1 The 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.2.2.2 Clearwater shall provide F.D.O.T. FDOT with annual reports that document efforts at concurrency management on State roads. H.2.2.3 The 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 Comprehensive Plan 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 adopted annually in light of the needs addressed in various elements of the Comprehensive Plan including the fifth year needs of each subsequent adoption.***** I.1.1.2 The Aannual Uupdate to the Five-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements Capital Improvements Element is hereby incorporated by reference and is located following pPolicy I.1.6.3. ***** ` 13 Ordinance No. 8805-16 I.1.1.5 Capital improvements projects 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 indebtedness of the City of Clearwater, which for the purpose of this limitation shall include revenue, refunding and improvement bonds, of the City of Clearwater shall 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.1.1.11 The City hereby adopts by reference the Florida Department of 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 Schedule of Capital Improvements. I.1.1.12 The 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 Plan Capital 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 Plan Capital 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.1.3.5 An 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.1.3.7 of 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 developments using the rational design method for street drainage, storm systems, and culverts 25 – year storm frequency with 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 a pressure 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 Policy I.1.4.8 of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital 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 Plan Capital 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, with Policies 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.1.5.21 The 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.1.5.32 In 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.1.5.43 In 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.1.5.54 The City will require developers development to provide necessary documentation as applicable for tracking purposes to assure that the de minimis transportation impact threshold has been met be 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-10 through I-14, be amended to read as follows: FY20105/116 ANNUAL 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, and parkland and 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 – FY2019/20 indicates 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 (2008 2015 estimate):110,831 110,679 Projected 2018 populations (per Future Land use Element): 120,028 SOLID WASTE: Current Capacity: 7.12 lbs per capita per day Current demand: 5.19 4.89 lbs 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:5.19 4.89 *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 vendors for waste disposal. The majority (80-85%) of all sSolid waste is disposed of at the Pinellas County Solid Waste 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: 25 23.5 MGD Current demand: 12.2 11.4 MGD 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:25,000,000 23,500,000 (25.0 23.5 MGD) Gallons available per capita per day:225.56 Current demand: Total potable water consumption per day in gallons:12,000,000 11,400,000 (12.0 11.4 MGD) 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 the City. 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: 127 113 gallons per capita per day Fiscal Year Projected Demand (Maximum) Projected Capacity (Minimum) Surplus (Deficit) 2009/10 2015/16 14.1 12.5 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.4 16.0 MGD 2010/11 2016/17 14.2 12.5 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.3 16.0 MGD 2011/12 2017/18 14.2 12.5 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.3 16.0 MGD 2012/13 2018/19 14.3 12.5 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.2 16.0 MGD 2013/14 2019/20 14.3 12.6 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.2 15.9 MGD Totals (2013/14 2019/20) 14.3 MGD 28.5 MGD 14.2 15.9 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 257.14 257.50 Current demand:14,100,000 12,500,000 Gallons available per capita per day 127.22 112.94 PARKLAND: Current capacity: 13.31 acres per 1,000 persons Current parkland acres: 1,711 Current parkland acres per 1,000 persons:15.46 Current demand: 4 acres per 1,000 persons Minimum parkland acres to meet adopted LOS: 442.72 Fiscal Year Projected Demand Adopted Level of Service (Maximum) Projected Capacity (Minimum) Surplus (Deficit) 2009/10 2015/16 4 per 1,000 13.31 15.46 per 1,000 9.31 11.46 per 1,000 2010/11 2016/17 4 per 1,000 13.31 15.46 per 9.31 11.46 per ` 20 Ordinance No. 8805-16 1,000 1,000 2011/12 2017/18 4 per 1,000 13.31 15.46 per 1,000 9.31 11.46 per 1,000 2012/13 2018/19 4 per 1,000 13.31 15.46 per 1,000 9.31 11.46 per 1,000 2013/14 2019/20 4 per 1,000 13.31 15.46 per 1,000 9.31 11.46 per 1,000 Totals 4 per 1,000 13.31 15.46 per 1,000 9.31 11.46 per 1,000 Parkland LOS standard:4 acres per 1,000 people Current capacity (parkland acres as of 05/13/0911/30/15):1,475 1,711 acres @ 13.31 15.89 per 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:440 430.74 acres @ 4 per 1,000 persons Total (acres/per thousand persons):1,475 1,711 acres @ 13.31 15.89 per 1,000 persons ROADS: Roadway LOS standard:C Average Daily, D Peak Hour Arterial and collector roadways currently operating below the adopted peak hour LOS 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. 2025 level 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 2025 are listed below. Note: The Pinellas MPO does not calculate interim year LOS projections (e.g., 2015), therefore, 2025 data 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 2035 Pinellas County Long Range Transportation Plan or Clearwater Comprehensive Plan. Source: Year 2025 AADT Traffic Forecast and PM Peak Level Of Service, Pinellas County MPO, 2009. ` 23 Ordinance No. 8805-16 Section 29.That the Capital Improvement Program Revenue Summary of the Clearwater Comprehensive Plan Capital Improvements Element, page I-15 through I-17, be repealed and replaced to read as follows: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUE SUMMARYFY 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 200,000 100,000 300,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 900,000Subtotal 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 96,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 396,000Subtotal 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 ` 24 Ordinance No. 8805-16 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM REVENUE SUMMARYFY 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 RevenueSubtotal 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 4,918,500Subtotal 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 2,430,000Subtotal 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. ` 25 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 Stormwater Utility 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 ` 26 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 ` 27 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 FUNCTIONFY 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, September 2010. ` 28 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 ` 29 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 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 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: 2/18/2016 Status: Public HearingVersion: 1 File Type: Planning CaseIn Control: Planning & Development Agenda Number: 8.3 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 2/18/2016 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 2/18/2016 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, ESTABLISHING A MOBILITY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND MULTI-MODAL IMPACT FEE; AMENDING ARTICLE 8, DEFINITIONS AND RULES OF CONSTRUCTION, SECTION 8-102, ADDING AND DELETING TERMS CONSISTENT 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 the Community 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 to Multi-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 County is 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 implement the Mobility 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 Code needs clarification and revision to 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. TRANSPORTATION MULTI-MODAL IMPACT FEE: Pinellas County Ordinance No. 86-43 Land 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 commission council setting 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 commission council review/decision. Upon receipt of the recommended order of the community development board, the city commission council shall conduct a public hearing in accordance with the provisions of Section 4-20 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 commission council finds that such amendment complies with the following standards: * * * * * * * * * * 5. The amendment will not adversely burden public facilities, including the traffic- carrying capacities of streets, in an unreasonably or disproportionate manner. * * * * * * * * * * Section 3.That Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Division 9, Concurrency Management, Community Development Code be renamed as follows: DIVISION 9. – CONCURRENCY AND MOBILITY MANAGEMENT * * * * * * * * * * Section 4.That Article 4, 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 Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4-903.A.6, Standards for certificate of concurrency/capacity, Community Development Code be deleted as 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 Article 4, 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 Article 4, Development Review and Other Procedures, Section 4-904, Proportionate Fair Share Program, Community Development Code be repealed and replaced to 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 improvements for 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 determined to 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 plan or 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 of the 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 Transportation for 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 locally adopted 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 no expense 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 4-904 D.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 other requirements 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 the impacts 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 application is 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 local government 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 ties development 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 are defined as: 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 the most recent Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization’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 implemented for Tier 2 projects may be applied as credit toward the project’s multi-modal impact fee assessment or payment of the fee could be included as part of a transportation management plan. 6. Development projects that generate more than 50 new 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 reduces the 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 is required. 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 is required 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 the deficient 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 in accordance 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 proposal characterized 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, or the 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 implementing flexible 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, trail improvements 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 as orienting 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 the Community 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.C shall 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 adoption of Ord. No. 8806- 16 shall 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 formula shall 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 to construct 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 of the Pinellas Land Development Code. 3. In the case of a new use, 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 adoption of 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 not have 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 occupancy or 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 engineering studies: 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 occupancy or building 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 ordinance shall 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 is off-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 his or her designee 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.4 and 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 his or her designee. 5. Multi-modal impact fees collected on the state road network within the City may 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 his or 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 that the 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 occupancy or land 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 this Ordinance. 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: ID#16-2115 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: City Manager ReportVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: Official Records & Legislative Services Agenda Number: 9.1 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 2/18/2016 File Number: ID#16-2115 Page 2 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2144 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: City Manager ReportVersion: 1 File Type: AppointmentIn Control: Official Records & Legislative Services Agenda Number: 9.2 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 2/18/2016 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 2/18/2016 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, tFallties 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 ofthe Parking, Traffic, and Infrastructure Committee. This role as Co -Chair of the PTI Committee has given me a great understanding ofthe 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 ofthe Phillies since their World Championship, and much more. I believe one ofthe 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 ofCommerce Executive Officer 8 /11- Present 2019 Vice Chairman, Co -Chair Parking Traffic Infrastructure Committee 2013 Treasurer, Membership Committee Chair 2012 Board ofDirectors 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 ofCommerce 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 ofthe 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 limitsJAN 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#16-2179 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: City Council Agenda Number: 9.3 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Jolley Trolley and Clearwater Ferry - Beach Transit SUMMARY: At the February 12, 2016 council meeting, Council directed staff to meet with the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce, Jolley Trolley, and the Clearwater Ferry regarding beach transit during the 2016 Spring Break period. Staff will review recommendations discussed during the meeting. APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT: N/A USE OF RESERVE FUNDS: N/A Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William Horne, City Manager DATE: February 16, 2016 RE: Trolley and Ferry – Beach Transit BACKGROUND: On Friday, February 12, 2016, having heard from the Clearwater Regional Chamber of Commerce (Chamber), Jolley Trolley and the Clearwater Ferry, City Council asked staff to meet with the interested parties and provide recommendations for beach transit during the 2016 spring break period. The City Attorney and Assistant City Manager met with representatives of the three parties on Tuesday, February 16, 2016 and offer the following information and recommendations. DISCUSSION: Jolley Trolley After further review of available resources and scheduled commitments, Jolley Trolley has pulled their proposal to provide a spring break looper service (looper) for this year. There are 13 days within the 8-week spring break period for which they have committed charters that would preclude their ability to run the looper as proposed last week. Instead, Jolley Trolley proposes a pilot looper service for the 6-week summer peak season running from May 28, 2016 (Memorial Day) to July 4, 2016 (Independence Day). The pilot would operate the same schedule, 10 am – 8 pm, daily, and route as reflected in last week’s backup materials. Based on the proposed service duration of 6 weeks, After discussion with Jolley Trolley, they have agreed to collect a $1 fare per passenger over age of 6 for the summer looper. Passes will be honored with no additional fare and the City will receive no credit for pass riders. Jolley Trolley will operate a minimum of 2 trolleys with the ability to add a third if ridership demands. At the end of each day, the $1 fares will be accounted and credited toward the $60.75 hourly rate per trolley. Because they will be collecting a fare, Jolley Trolley is requesting a weekly administrative fee of $50. 1 | Page Including the administrative fee, the maximum not to exceed cost to the City will be $77,760, comprised of $77,460 ($25,820/trolley for 3 trolleys/42 days) and $300 ($50/week/6 weeks). Clearwater Ferry The Clearwater Ferry (Ferry) remains available to support spring break and/or a 6-week pilot summer service. Either consideration has an estimated not-to-exceed cost based upon a maximum of 65 passengers/30 minutes from 10 am – 8 pm. If the City were to subsidize the $3 fare by $1 per fare ($1,300/day) the not-to-exceed amount for the 8-week spring break period would be $79,300 and for the 6-week pilot summer service would be $54,600. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. Negotiate an amendment to the City of Clearwater/Jolley Trolley Agreement for a not-to-exceed cost subsidy of $77,760 with Jolley Trolley for a 6-week summer pilot, beginning May 28, 2016 and ending July 4, 2016. 2. Negotiate an agreement with Clearwater Ferry for a not-to-exceed subsidy of $54,600, equal to $1 per fare or $1,300/day for a 6-week summer pilot, beginning May 28, 2016 and ending July 4, 2016. If City Council concurs with Recommendations #1 and #2, staff will return with the agreements for approval and a recommended budget amendment to fund the subsidies. 3. Authorize an agreement with Clearwater Ferry for a not-to-exceed subsidy of $79,300, equal to $1 per fare or $1,300/day for the 8-week spring break period, beginning March 1, 2016 and ending April 30, 2016; and authorize the appropriate officials to execute an agreement on behalf of the City. If approved, authorize budget amendment in the amount of $79,300 from General Fund Reserves to fund the subsidy. If City Council concurs with Recommendation #3, staff will bring the agreement back to ratify and confirm the action. 4. As proposed by the Chamber, if Council approves these recommendations, staff will use our variable message boards to encourage visitors to park and ride the Ferry during spring break and both the Jolley Trolley and Ferry during the summer pilot. Staff will also provide promotion of both the spring and summer park and ride alternatives through our normal public communications. 2 | Page Cover Memo City of Clearwater City Hall 112 S. Osceola Avenue Clearwater, FL 33756 File Number: ID#16-2180 Agenda Date: 2/18/2016 Status: Agenda ReadyVersion: 1 File Type: Action ItemIn Control: City Council Agenda Number: 10.1 SUBJECT/RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to request the Metropolitan Planning Organization to prioritize funds to update the evaluation of the transit alternatives study from 2010 to address the need for enhanced multimodal access to Clearwater Beach and adopt Resolution 16-06. SUMMARY: APPROPRIATION CODE AND AMOUNT: N/A USE OF RESERVE FUNDS: N/A Page 1 City of Clearwater Printed on 2/18/2016 Resolution No. 16-06 RESOLUTION NO. 16-06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA, REQUESTING THAT THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION PRIORITIZE FUNDS TO UPDATE THE EVALUATION OF TRANSIT ALTERNATIVES STUDY FROM 2010 TO ADDRESS THE NEED FOR ENHANCED MULTIMODAL ACCESS TO CLEARWATER BEACH AND TO FULFILL THE LOCAL FUNDING SOURCE REQUIREMENTS TO RECEIVE FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Clearwater Beach is a major destination for tourists, seasonal residents and college and high students during spring break; and, WHEREAS, demand for access to Clearwater Beach extends beyond the tourist/spring break time period and is becoming more of a year round issue; and, WHEREAS, the City of Clearwater believes there is a need for enhanced multimodal access to Clearwater Beach; and, WHEREAS, in 2010 the Metropolitan Planning Organization completed a Downtown Clearwater to Clearwater Beach Evaluation of Transit Alternatives Study; and, WHEREAS, the Evaluation of Transit Alternatives Study recommended Bus Rapid Transit as the Locally Preferred Alternative for providing enhanced transit service between Downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach; and, WHEREAS, the study assumed the project would be funded through a combination of federal, state and local funds; and, WHEREAS, the receipt of federal and state funds is contingent upon having local funding sources for both capital and operating expenses; and, WHEREAS, in 2010 the study recommendations were not advanced due to the lack of a dedicated source of local funding; and, WHEREAS, there is a need to update the 2010 study data; and, WHEREAS, the MPO and the Pinellas Planning Council Board (the Board) has identified beach access as a priority emphasis area; and, WHEREAS, the MPO Board is responsible for establishing project priorities for the expenditure of federal transportation funds; and Resolution No. 16-062 WHEREAS, implementation of multimodal access improvements between Downtown Clearwater and Clearwater Beach is a high priority of the City; and, WHEREAS, in addition to the Downtown Clearwater to Clearwater Beach transit alternatives, the City would like to work with the MPO and its partners including the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority on other multi-modal access projects including the planned SR60 Express Bus Service from Tampa International Airport to Clearwater Beach and the Regional Premium Transit Study for Pinellas Hillsborough and Pasco Counties; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLEARWATER, FLORIDA: Section 1. That the City of Clearwater hereby requests that the MPO prioritize funding to update the Evaluation of Transit Alternatives Study to meet the requirements for federal and state funds. Section 2. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of _____________, 2016. ____________________________ George N. Cretekos Mayor Approved as to form: Attest: _______________________________________________________ Pamela K. Akin Rosemarie Call City Attorney City Clerk