County launches RFN for downtown Clearwater parcels, seeks enforceable developer commitments

Pinellas County officials on Tuesday unveiled a plan to solicit redevelopment proposals for about 17 county parcels in downtown Clearwater and said they will require enforceable commitments from any successful developer.

Leanne Kors of CBRE told commissioners the county intends to issue a Request for Negotiations in mid‑April and allow 90 days for responses. The RFN is designed to vet developers’ financial capacity and comparable project experience, require phased development and occupancy timelines, and include deed restrictions and reverter clauses to protect long‑term uses and the county’s revenue interests, Kors said.

The county framed the process as a way to maximize public value while aligning with the City of Clearwater’s downtown vision. “We want to strengthen connectivity between Coachmen Park, Cleveland and Osceola and build on the city’s investment,” Kors said, adding the RFN approach gives staff flexibility to negotiate complex redevelopment terms.

Commissioners pressed staff on how the county will coordinate with city‑owned properties. Kors said the city’s CRA and city‑owned parcels were mapped alongside county holdings and would be noted in the solicitation; those city parcels are not included in the county RFN but may be accretive if a developer chooses to assemble them.

CBRE provided broker opinion value ranges for the county holdings of about $61.6 million on the low end to $83.4 million on the high end and reported estimated annual tax revenue from development density in the range of roughly $4.0 million to $6.7 million (estimate date noted in CBRE’s analysis). Staff said the ranges reflect buildable densities and market conditions and are intended only as a reference point for evaluation.

Several commissioners urged more public engagement before finalizing the process. A prepared statement from Commissioner Latvala — read into the record — called for listening sessions, insisted the commission retain final decision authority (rather than delegating to an unelected committee), and recommended excluding the county’s state lobbyist from representing any developer to avoid conflicts of interest during solicitation and negotiations.

County counsel and CBRE said many of the board’s policy goals can be embedded in transaction documents and that fee‑simple disposition generally yields broader competition than long term ground leases because fee simple is easier to finance. County counsel also cited the purchasing ordinance’s anti‑lobbying provision, which will disqualify respondents that lobby commissioners while the RFN is active.

Next steps: staff and CBRE will return April 2 for a workshop with additional commissioners present to consider process details, disclosure/conflict provisions and any direction on parcel packaging or community engagement. The commission stressed the RFN will return with finalists and any binding agreements will require subsequent board approval.

This item remains under review; no sale or binding agreement was approved at Tuesday’s meeting.