BACKGROUND
The Pier serves as a focal point for tourism in the area and is open 365 days a year, rain or shine.   It welcomes over 1.2 million visitors a year and its attractions include restaurants, retail shops, an aquarium, community meeting space and other similar facilities.

In April 2005 the City of St Petersburg approved an amendment to the Intown Redevelopment Plan that provides $50 million for future renovation of the Pier.   (Funding availability and the construction phase will not be until 2012).  

On December 11, 2008, City Council met at a Pier Visioning Workshop and recommended the establishment of the Pier Advisory Task Force.   On March 19, 2009 City Council formally approved the creation of the Task Force, to be comprised of 20 members.  The Task Force is charged with providing multiple re-development alternatives, reviewing the status of the Pier, to consult with the citizens, persons with experience in architectural/development matters, and such other persons as the Task Force deems appropriate, and to submit their recommendations to the City Council no later than February 25, 2010. 

MISSION                                                                                                
The Mission of the Task Force is to provide multiple redevelopment alternatives for the Pier, identify the estimated operating subsidy projected for each alternative, coordinate the alternatives with the City's waterfront plan, and identify funding estimates for alternatives, including best case scenarios utilizing only the amount of monies currently allocated for the Pier improvement project.   The Task Force shall provide opportunities for community input through the evaluation process, and create a recommended action plan that takes into consideration the pier visioning project data, community input, and other information compiled by the Task Force.

OBJECTIVES

• Create action plan to take project from community vision to design process.
• Provide multiple redevelopment alternatives including construction costs and business proformas associated with each scenario.
• Evaluate economic viability and feasibility of design alternatives for each business model including base case scenario utilizing existing funding available.
• Utilize current community input and solicit additional community feedback during evaluation process.
• Identify funding concepts for each design alternative.
• Coordinate with City's Waterfront Plan.
• Minimize Operating subsidy.

COMMITTEES

It was determined to have stakeholder, or business, categories to make up the Pier Advisory Task Force.   Members were identified by the Mayor and Members of City Council for a total of twenty (20) Task Force members. The Pier Advisory Task Force was comprised of the following members:

• Mr. Randy Wedding (Chairman)
• Mr. Ed Montanari (Vice Chair)
• Mr. Johnny Bardine
• Mr. Bradley Bell
• Mr. Paul Hsu
• Mr. Robby Thompson
• Mr. Will Michaels
• Mr. Roy Binger
• Mr. Tim Bogott
• Mr. Mark Chmielewski
• Mr. Sidney Morgan
• Ms. Leslie Curran
• Mr. Mark Stroud
• Mr. Russ Bond
• Ms. Marilyn Olsen
• Mr. Mike Meidel
• Mr. Bob Churuti
• Mr. Kevin Smith
• Mr. Richard Gonzmart
• Ms. Susan Reiter

SUBCOMMITTEES
The Task Force was further broken out into four areas of concentration or subcommittees, to provide focus and efficiency to the process. The committee concentrations include Design Subcommittee, Finance Subcommittee, Land Use & Environmental Subcommittee & Economic Impact Subcommittee.

DESIGN

Responsible for creating multiple design alternatives for the Pier.

•         Pier layout, tenant mix, upland vs. over-water based retail space
•         Connectivity to Beach Drive, Central Avenue, Baywalk
•         Ability to compliment park system, pedestrian accessibility and Waterfront Plan
•         Transportation & Parking
•         Park and Spa Beach integration
•         Office/Restaurant/Retail/Adventure space
•         Dock Facilities, public access
•         Miscellaneous facilities

 FINANCE

Responsible for all issues related to finance and economic development.

•         Sample proformas for various alternatives – upland based design with fishing pier    alternatives, current pier location with rehabilitated superstructure and substructure, causeway creation (approach/head fill) etc…
•         Funding sources for each design alternative
•         Financial/maintenance costs of maintaining status quo
•         Identify ways to minimize or eliminate the Pier's operating subsidy
•         Funding sources including TIF funds, private partnership/joint venture alternatives, returning to public for additional funding support

 LAND USE & ENVIRONMENTAL

Responsible for all issues related to land use and environmental concerns.

•         Spa Beach Park
•         Zoning and airport zoning map (height restrictions)
•         Surveys/submerged lands
•         Land use plans for the Pier and surrounding areas
•         Environmental concerns, contaminated sites, submerged lands
•         Coordination with City's Waterfront Plan

 ECONOMIC IMPACT

Responsible for all issues related to re-developing the Pier and surrounding area.

•         Current economic impact of the Pier to the City of St Petersburg
•         Evaluate economic viability and feasibility of potential design alternatives/business models including base case scenario utilizing existing funding available
•         Evaluate economic viability and feasibility of potential design alternatives/business models including base case scenario allowing for additional funding to supplement TIF funding
•         Attracting businesses to the Pier to increase the economic vitality and tourist versus local resident mix
•         Cost benefit analysis of various amenities to the Pier including tenant mix
•         Feasibility and marketing studies

 MEETING SCHEDULE

DELIVERABLES
Under Florida's Public Records Law, documents used and requested by the Task Force Committee were made available for public viewing.

PUBLIC INPUT
Public input and interaction was a valuable part of the process. As stated above, all meetings were open for public attendance. The Committee elected to have a fifteen-minute (15 min) period at the ending of each General Meeting to allow members of the Public to speak. In the interest of time and efficiency, each speaker was allowed 3 minutes of speaking time.    Subjects were limited to the issues surrounding the future development of the Pier.