Pinellas County TDC approves capital awards for five projects; Marina amended to full $10 million

The Pinellas County Tourist Development Council on Feb. 19 approved recommended capital grants for five projects that staff and consultants had scored under new capital funding guidelines, adopting a mix of staff-recommended amounts and one board amendment.

The awards package covered projects in Clearwater and St. Petersburg that staff said would produce incremental room nights, visitor spending and tourist development tax (TDT) revenue over a 10-year horizon. The council voted individually on each project and passed the motions during the meeting.

Why this matters: The council’s decisions direct county hotel-tax money toward capital projects that county staff and a hired consultant analyzed for expected tourism impact. The allocation process is the first full cycle under funding guidelines adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2023 and will determine which public and nonprofit visitor facilities receive TDT-backed capital support.

The projects and formal actions

- Eddie Seymour (EDC Moore) complex — Motion to approve staff’s recommended funding of $7,750,000. Mover: Mr. Yurtis; second: Mr. Cerakie. Outcome: approved. Staff and the applicant described the project as a two-story building and field improvements to support large softball tournaments; the economic analysis in the packet estimated incremental attendees and room nights over 10 years associated with keeping and growing national events in Clearwater. Quote: “We just really hope, that you will fund the project to the full amount, the $10,000,000,” said Michelle Smith, a sports adviser consultant representing the City of Clearwater, during public comment. (Motion text and vote record: motion moved and seconded at the Feb. 19 meeting; specific roll-call vote counts were not recorded in the public transcript.)

- Clearwater Beach Municipal Marina — The council moved to accept the staff recommendation and then amended that motion on the floor to increase the award to the full $10,000,000 the applicant requested; the amended motion passed. Board member Phil disclosed that he would not vote on the marina due to a perceived conflict (he said he is an owner or officer of companies that operate commercial vessels from the marina) and recused himself from voting on that item. The marina project is a roughly $46.3 million redevelopment; staff materials said about $15.4 million of that budget funds commercial operations and the applicant requested $10,000,000 in TDT support. In public comment Dan Slaughter, assistant city manager for the City of Clearwater, described keeping commercial slips available during construction and requested council consideration. Note: the transcript records the recusal and the amendment to full funding; it does not print a roll-call vote tally.

- Palladium Theater renovation — Motion to approve staff’s recommended award (mover and seconder noted in the meeting). Outcome: approved. Paul Wilborn, executive director of the Palladium Theater, told the council the project has raised other public and private support and is continuing toward construction.

- Clearwater Marine Aquarium (CMA) habitat improvements — Motion to approve staff recommendation. Outcome: approved. Kelly Martin, vice president of zoological care for Clearwater Marine Aquarium, described a proposed sea‑lion and sea‑otter habitat and said the aquarium would reinvest admissions, memberships and philanthropy to support the facility. Quote: “We are committed to making a lasting impact,” Martin said during public comment.

- Morean Arts Center/Chihuly collection integration — Motion to approve. Outcome: approved. Howaida Afton (executive director of the Art Center Association/Morean Arts Center) said the full project is a $30,000,000 transformation and that the group had requested $15,000,000 in funding; staff recommended an award as part of the five-project package and the motion passed in the meeting.

Ineligible or deferred applications

Staff and the consultant reported eight applications in the capital cycle. Two — the Dunedin History Museum and the Florida Orchestra’s Mahaffey-related request — were treated as ineligible under staff’s legal interpretation of the state statute or because the city (a required applicant for a leaseholder project) had not confirmed support. The Woodson Museum was eligible but fell short of a threshold for annual room nights; staff said that board would seek the Board of County Commissioners’ permission for inclusion if the BCC elects to allow it.

How projects were scored

Visit St. Pete Clearwater staff and Crossroads Consulting reviewed applicants’ economic-impact studies and applied a five‑category scoring matrix (tourism economic benefits, projected incremental room nights/visitors, marketing and sponsorship value, alignment with the Visit St. Pete Clearwater strategic plan, and geographic distribution). Brian Bridal (Visit St. Pete Clearwater staff) explained the methodology: the top-scoring project served as a funding ceiling; other project recommendations were scaled proportionally to that top score. Bridal said the panel would revisit the guidelines and weights after this first run of the process.

Board discussion

Members praised the new, evidence-based scoring approach but also debated the weights assigned to marketing/sponsorship and whether the top-ranked project should have been funded to its full ask. One member said past cycles relied on in-person presentations and on-the-spot scoring; several said the new process is more defensible and transparent. Public commenters representing the City of Clearwater and for-profit operators urged the council to consider the marina’s high daily passenger counts and economic activity tied to commercial operations.

What’s next

Staff said final agreements will be negotiated with each awardee and returned to the Board of County Commissioners for execution where required. The Woodson Museum’s request will be considered separately if the BCC authorizes inclusion.

Ending note: The meeting transcript shows motions moved, seconded and passed for each item described above; where the transcript did not provide an explicit roll-call tally the article notes that the specific numeric vote was not recorded in the public transcript.