1875 Airport Drive (The Landings) Public-Private Partnership FAQ
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens to the existing golf course while the proposal is under review?
The Landings Golf Course continues to be open for play. It is currently operated by Clearwater Golf Associates under a lease that runs through Feb. 28, 2029.
Has the city approved construction of the proposed sports complex?
No. On Oct. 14, 2026, City Council voted 4-0 to authorize staff to negotiate an interim agreement with Sunshine Recreational and Entertainment LLC. This action does not approve construction, a final site plan or a comprehensive development agreement. It allows the city to continue evaluating the project's feasibility, potential impacts and proposed terms before deciding whether to move forward.
Why isn't the proposed development being decided by another referendum?
The property currently has an Open Space/Recreation zoning designation and a Recreation/Open Space future land use designation. During its preliminary review, the city's Planning and Development Department determined that the proposed primary recreational uses, along with supporting accessory uses, were consistent with the property's existing land use designation and Comprehensive Plan policies. The 2020 referendum concerned a proposed industrial use, while the current proposal is being evaluated as a recreational use.
Why did the city select Sunshine Recreational and Entertainment instead of the existing golf course operator?
The city received two proposals through RFP 56-26: one from Sunshine Recreational and Entertainment LLC, submitted through Porter Development LLC, and another from Clearwater Golf Associates, the current golf course operator. An evaluation committee reviewed the proposals using criteria published in the solicitation: experience and qualifications, project approach, and compensation. Sunshine received the highest overall ranking. Based on the evaluation committee's recommendation and staff's review, City Council authorized negotiations with Sunshine. This did not constitute final approval of the development.
Why did the city allow approximately 30 days for competing proposals instead of the maximum 120 days?
Florida Statute 255.065 allows public agencies to establish a proposal submission period of 21 to 120 days, depending on the complexity of the project and other considerations. Submission periods of approximately 30 days are used in government procurement, and the city's timeline fell within the range permitted by state law. The city advertised the solicitation Aug. 19, 2026, with proposals due Sept. 21, 2026, providing 33 calendar days for interested parties to respond. The city also held a virtual pre-submittal meeting Sept. 15 to answer questions and clarify the submission process.
Can the city decide not to move forward with the project?
Yes. Florida Statute 255.065 allows public agencies to end unsuccessful negotiations, consider the next-ranked proposer or reject all proposals before a contract is executed. If the city and developer cannot reach terms that adequately address the city's requirements and protect the public interest, the city is not required to enter into a comprehensive agreement.
What studies have already been completed?
The developer submitted preliminary environmental information, a transportation analysis and a market study as part of its proposal. From January through May 2026, city departments also conducted a preliminary evaluation of the proposal, examining public benefits, infrastructure needs, land use compatibility and other potential impacts. The city engaged Public Resources Advisory Group (PRAG), an independent municipal financial advisory firm, to review the proposed financial structure and identify potential financial risks.
What additional studies are needed, and who will conduct them?
Additional work may include detailed environmental testing, traffic and parking analysis, stormwater engineering, aviation compatibility reviews, construction cost validation and financial feasibility analysis. The scope and timing of this work would be established as negotiations advance. No comprehensive schedule for all additional studies has been finalized.
Florida's public-private partnership statute allows developers to conduct certain planning, environmental and technical studies as part of an interim agreement. As it did during the initial evaluation, the city intends to retain and pay for independent consultants to review the project's financial and technical feasibility. These independent reviews will help the city evaluate the developer's findings, identify potential risks and make informed decisions that protect the city's interests. The scope, timing and cost of additional studies will be determined as negotiations progress.
Will the studies be available to residents and City Council before a final decision?
The city's preliminary evaluation and independent financial review were included with the Aug. 6, 2026, City Council agenda materials. The city will provide information about completed studies and opportunities for public review as the project advances. Specific dates for council consideration have not been established.
When could construction begin, and what approvals are still required?
Construction has not been authorized, and no construction start date has been established. The developer's original proposal anticipated approximately 36 months of construction in two phases. The schedule could change based on environmental findings, financing, design revisions, negotiations, permitting and other required approvals.
Approval of a comprehensive agreement would not eliminate applicable development regulations or permitting requirements.
What is known about the property's environmental conditions?
Approximately 20 acres of The Landings property have been identified as containing a historic landfill. The developer's preliminary environmental information identifies areas of historical fill containing debris such as glass, metal and wood, as well as localized soil impacts involving metals and legacy pesticides. The developer has reported that no groundwater contamination has been confirmed to date. However, additional soil and groundwater investigation is needed to fully evaluate conditions and determine the requirements for redevelopment. The city's preliminary review identified landfill remediation as a necessary component of any redevelopment.
Who would be responsible for cleaning up the former landfill?
Environmental remediation requirements would depend on the findings of additional investigations and applicable regulatory standards. The developer has expressed a willingness to pursue a brownfield designation and coordinate with environmental regulators to address historic environmental conditions.
How would redevelopment affect flooding, stormwater drainage and surrounding waterways? How would the project affect Stevenson Creek?
Residents have raised concerns about replacing portions of the existing golf course with buildings, parking areas, synthetic athletic surfaces and other improvements. The developer has proposed a modern stormwater management system intended to increase on-site water storage and treatment capacity. According to the developer, these improvements could reduce runoff and improve drainage compared with existing conditions.These projected benefits have not yet been independently verified through a final engineering review.
Stormwater from the property ultimately affects downstream waterways, including Stevenson Creek. The developer has proposed replacing aging drainage infrastructure with systems intended to capture sediments, nutrients and other pollutants before stormwater leaves the property. The developer has also expressed interest in working with environmental organizations to explore native landscaping, habitat enhancement and additional water quality improvements.
Would the project affect Clearwater Airpark?
The Landings property is adjacent to Clearwater Airpark, making aviation safety an important part of the city's review. The city's Marine and Aviation staff identified several federal aviation considerations, including building heights, airspace protection, lighting, wildlife hazards and compatibility with airport operations. The developer has indicated that coordination with Clearwater Airpark is underway.
Has a traffic study been completed, and what did it find? How would the project affect traffic in nearby residential neighborhoods?
Residents have expressed concerns about increased congestion, particularly during tournaments and large events, along Keene Road, Palmetto Street, Airport Drive and surrounding neighborhood streets.The developer has proposed access changes and potential roadway improvements intended to direct most event traffic to Keene Road and reduce traffic through nearby neighborhoods.
The developer submitted a preliminary transportation analysis prepared by Palm Traffic LLC.The analysis concluded that Keene Road and nearby intersections could continue operating at acceptable levels of service with the proposed development. It also recommended turn-lane improvements at the proposed entrances along Keene Road.
During the city's initial evaluation, Public Works staff noted that additional traffic is expected and identified parking, pedestrian safety and bicycle access as matters requiring further evaluation.
How many parking spaces and entrances are proposed?
The original concept included approximately 1,944 parking spaces and three proposed access points, including two along Keene Road and one along Airport Drive. The developer has since presented a revised conceptual plan with approximately 2,075 parking spaces and modifications to the proposed access arrangement. The revised concept contemplates limiting regular vehicle access from Airport Drive while retaining appropriate emergency access. Final parking requirements, entrances and potential roadway improvements remain subject to review.
How would nearby residents be protected from noise, lighting and activity during evening and weekend hours?
Residents have raised concerns about athletic field lighting, pickleball noise, public announcements, traffic, operating hours and the effects of activity on nearby homes. The developer has proposed design modifications, including landscaping, privacy walls, enclosed pickleball facilities and changes to site circulation. The city will need to evaluate whether additional measures are necessary, including possible limits on operating hours, lighting standards, noise restrictions and other neighborhood protections.
Why consider additional recreation facilities when Clearwater and Pinellas County already have sports complexes? How could the proposed Toy Town development or other regional sports facilities affect this project?
The developer's March 2026 market study examined existing athletic fields, pickleball facilities, volleyball courts and other recreation and entertainment venues throughout the region. The study found that while numerous recreational facilities exist, relatively few nearby locations provide large groupings of full-size multipurpose athletic fields suitable for regional tournaments. The study also identified existing competitors throughout the Tampa Bay region and Florida. PRAG noted that the study was prepared by a member of the development team and did not independently validate all proposed revenue assumptions.
What facilities would be available to Clearwater residents, and what would they cost?
The developer's proposal includes recreational facilities intended for residents as well as regional tournament visitors. The operating model anticipates paid memberships, leagues, facility rentals, programming, admission fees and certain parking charges. The proposed perimeter trail would be free and open to the public.
The city's independent financial review found that the submitted operating forecasts did not establish discounts, special rates or guaranteed access opportunities for Clearwater residents. Specific provisions for resident affordability and public access would need to be addressed during negotiations.
Would Clearwater sports organizations have priority over visiting tournament teams?
The developer's July 2026 presentation described an operating concept intended to serve approximately 50% local and 50% nonlocal users. The proposal anticipates local recreation and programming during weekdays, with regional tournaments contributing to weekend activity. However, no binding scheduling priorities or guaranteed access provisions for Clearwater sports organizations have been established.
How much would the development cost, and where would the money come from? Would Clearwater taxpayers be financially responsible for the project?
The project is currently estimated to be an investment of $300M with $80M in proposed Pinellas County Tourism Development Council (TDC) funding and $220M in private investment. The city is not being asked to contribute any funding and there are no ad valorem taxes going to pay for the project.
PRAG's May 2026 review noted that commitments for the proposed construction loan and county funding had not been obtained. The city has not approved a final financing plan or established its financial obligations, if any.
Has the city completed an independent financial review, and what risks did it identify?
Yes. The city engaged PRAG to conduct an independent preliminary financial review of the proposal. Its May 7, 2026, report examined the proposed financing structure, project costs, operating projections, lease terms and potential financial risks. The review identified several matters requiring further evaluation, including the ability to secure financing, the financial performance of proposed restaurants and entertainment venues, the length and financial terms of the lease and protections for city-owned property.
Would the city receive rent or other revenue from the development?
The developer's original proposal included a base lease payment of $20,000 per month with reduced payments during the following 15 years.
The proposed lease did not include revenue sharing with the city.
PRAG identified lease payments, the length of the lease, rent reductions and potential revenue sharing as important matters for negotiation.
Would the city continue to own the property, and how long would the lease last?
The proposed public-private partnership contemplates a long-term ground lease rather than an outright sale of city-owned land. The developer's has proposed a lease term of 65 years with one 30 year option to extend for a potential total of 99 years.