12/12/2005 WORK SESSION ONLY ITEMS
Work Session Agenda
learwater City Council Work Session - Monday, December 12, 2005 1 :00 PM
Presentations
1. Service Awards
2. Presentation by Mayor to Laboratory Manager
3. PPC Presentation - Code Analysis
Purchasing
1. Medtronic Physio-Control, Redmont, Washington - Purchase seven (7) LP12
Defibrillators/monitors with printers and carrying cases at a cost of $144,999.46.
2. Jeffry Knight Incorporated, d.b.a.Knight Enterprises, Clearwater, Florida - Installation of
gas mains and services lines in Pinellas and Pasco Counties at a cost not to exceed
$995,000 during the period January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006.
Economic Development and Housing
1. Approve the City of Clearwater FY2004-2005 Consolidated Annual Performance and
Evaluation Report (CAPER).
Finance
1. Approve contract with Bank of America for Purchasing Card services and authorize the
appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
2. Approve updating the pooled cash investment policy and pass Ordinance 7569-06 on
first reading.
Public Communications
1. Streaming Video Demonst~8tion.
Engineering
1. Approve the applicant's request to vacate the 30-foot utility easement retained over the
vacated street right-of-way of State Street located between Lots 9 and 20 of E. A.
Marshall's, (a.k.a. 1390 Sunset Point Road), and pass Ordinance 7570-06 on first
reading, (VAC2005-20 Pathways Community Church). (Withdrawn by Applicant)
2. Approve a 5-year renewal of the Lease Agreement with Head Start Child Development
and Family Services, inc. ("Head Start or Lessee") for Lot 5, PENNSYLVANIA
SUBDIVISION, commencing February 1,2006 and terminating January 31,2011, in
consideration of receipt of $1.00 and Lessee compliance with the promises and
covenants contained therein, and authorize appropriate officials to execute same.
(consent)
3. Accept a Sovereign Submerged Lands Easement from the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, for the Stevenson Creek Water Main Replacement project
(04-0037-UT) and the appropriate officials be authorized to execute same. (consent)
4. Award a contract for the Traffic Operations Storage Building (05-001 O-EN) to Grosz &
Stamper Construction, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for the sum of $305,632.80 which is the
lowest responsible bid received in accordance with the plans and specifications and
authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
Work Session Agenda 12-12-2005 - Rev 1
Page 1 of 4
5. Approve the applicant's request to vacate portions of Second Avenue South and Third
Avenue South more particularly described in the ordinance, for property located 2695
Chautauqua Boulevard, and pass Ordinance 7574-06 on first reading, (VAC2005-21
Rottlund Homes of Florida, Inc.),
6. Approve the applicant's request to vacate the 15-foot storm sewer easement lying in
part on property located at 18860 U.S. Highway 19 and more particularly described in
the ordinance and pass Ordinance 7572-06 on first reading, (VAC2005-18 Bay Park
Executive Center, LLC.).
7. Award a contract to Westra Construction, Inc. of Palmetto, Florida for construction of
the Coronado Drive Improvements (03-0079-ED) in the amount of $9,850,253.22 which
is the lowest responsive bid received in accordance with the plans and specifications;
and approve a work order to Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. for construction
engineering and inspection services in the amount of $469,789.75. (consent)
Public Utilities
1. Approve modifying Chapter 32 and Appendix A as related to water: reclaimed water
and wastewater collection systems to support new regulatory requirements, initiatives
and operational procedures, to redefine passages that identify prior
organizational/operational responsibilities and titles, and to comply with the Interlocal
Agreement with Pinellas County approved September 15, 2005 and pass Ordinance
7573-06 on first reading.
2. Approve a five-year lease agreement, with three five-year renewal options, to Metro
PCS, allowing Metro PCS to install six cellular telephone antennas on the city's north
elevated water tower located at 1580 Weston Drive, for an initial year fee of $30,000
and authorize the appropriate officials to execute same. (consent)
Planning
1. Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residentiai District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1304 Springdale S1. (Lot 11,
Block C, Pine Ridge Subdivision in Section 10, Township 29 South and Range 15
East); and Pass Ordinances 7549-06, 7550-06 & 7551-06 on first reading.
2. Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1321 Lynn Avenue (Lot 2,
Block 21, Fourth Addition to Highland Subdivision in Section 11, Township 29 South
and Range 15 East); and Pass Ordinances 7552-06, 7553-06 & 7554-06 on first
reading.
3. Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1830 Carlton Drive (Lot 7,
Block A, Carlton Terrace Subdivision in Section 5, Township 29 South and Range 16
East); and Pass Ordinances 7555-06,7556-06 & 7557-06 on first reading.
4. Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for 1836 Carlton Drive (Lot 6,
Block A, Carlton Terrace Subdivision in Section 5, Township 29 South and Range 16
East); and Pass Ordinances 7558-06, 7559-06 & 7560-06 on first reading.
Work Session Agenda 12-12-2005 - Rev 1
Page 2 of 4
I
I
5. Approve the Petition for Annexation, Future Land Use Plan Amendment from the
County Residential Low (RL) Category to the City Residential Low (RL) Category and
Zoning Atlas Amendment from the County R-3, Single-Family Residential District to the
City Low Medium Density Residential (LMDR) District for '1842 Carlton Drive (Lot 5,
Biock A, Carlton Terrace Subdivision in Section 5, Township 29 South and Range 16
East); and Pass Ordinances 7561-06,7562-06 & 7563-06 on first reading.
City Attorney
1. Adopt Ordinance 7543-05 on second reading, amending Sections 6.21 and 6.31 (4),
Code of Ordinances, relating to alcoholic beverages and open alcohol containers.
2. Adopt Ordinance 7388-05 on third reading, amending the comprehensive plan of the
city by amending the Future Land Use Element by adding the Resort Facilities Overlay
(RFO) future land use as a land use map classification; replacing references to the
1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan with the 2004 Clearwater Downtown
Redevelopment Plan; and by deleting policies regarding the mixed-use zoning district.
3. Adopt Ordinance 7459-05 on second reading, amending the future land use plan
element of the comprehensive plan of the city, to change the land use designation for
certain real property whose post office address is 137 Fernwood Avenue, from
Institutional to Residential Medium.
4. Adopt Ordinance 7460-05 on second reading, amending the Zoning Atlas of the city by
rezoning certain real property whose post office address is 137 Fernwood Avenue,
from Institutional (I) to Medium Density Residential (MDR).
5. Adopt Ordinance NO.7 449-05 0(1 ;3econd ft3ading, amending the Community
Development Code by amending Article 2, Zoning Districts; and amending Article 3,
Development Standards.
6. Adopt Ordinance 7541-05 on second reading, vacating the alleyway lying north of Lots
1 through 6, inclusive, and south of Lots 7 and 8, Earl and Tate's subdivision, together
with a five-foot alley lying along the west property line of Lot 11 of Earl and Tate's
subdivision, subject to a drainage and utility easement which is retained over the full
width of the five-foot alley.
7. Adopt Ordinance 7544-05 on second reading, vacating the utility easement retained
over the vacated portion of Northeast Cleveland Street lying between Lots 15 through
22, Block B, Bassedena Subdivision, and Lots 1 through 14, Block A, Bassedena
Subdivision.
8. Adopt Ordinance 7564-05 en second reading, amending Ordinance 7515-05, which
established the Clearwater Cay Community Development District pursuant to Chapter
190, Florida Statutes, to COirect Exhibit A., legal description.
9. Adopt Ordinance 7571-05 en second reading, vacating the fifteen-foot sanitary sewer
easement lying within the west platted fifteen feet of Lots 11 through 14, inclusive,
Block C, Replat of Coachman Heights, and extended north through the south one-half
of vacated Haven Street.
Other City Attorney Items
City Manager Verbal Reports
Work Session Agenda 12-12-2005 - Rev 1
Page 3 of 4
Council Discussion Items
1. Council Policies and Rules on Internet (Jonson).
2. Sister City Scholarships (Petersen).
3. Concerts in Coachman Park (HibbaidJ.
4. How to Recognize Trickles 60 years in Business (Jonson).
5. Scheduling Additional Visioning WorkSession.
6. Billboard Legislation.
Other Council Action
Adjourn
Presentation(s) for Council Meeting
1. Proclamation - Prosperity Campaign
Work Session Agenda 12-12-2005 - Rev 1
Page 4 of 4
To:
From:
CC:
Date:
RE:
u.
o
>-
>-
u
~Interoffice Correspondence Sheet
Mayor and Councilmembers / .' ;'.~) ,
CJ\~~
Cyndie Goudeau, City Cler U'
Bill Horne, City Manager; Garry Brumback, Asst. City Manager; Rod Irwin, Asst. City
Manager; Pam Akin, City Attorney
December 9, 2005
Revisions to Agenda Packet for December 12, 2005
.
Revised Work Session Aqenda: Rev 1 -12-12-05. Revised agenda provided.
Presentation Items 2 & 3 switched places: No paperwork.
ED-1: Approve the City of Clearwater FY2004-2005 Consolidated Annual Performance
and Evaluation Report (CAPER). Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
FIN-1: Approve contract wi Bank of America for Purchasing Card services and authorize
the appropriate officials to execute same. Item added to agenda and paperwork
provided.
FIN-2: Approve updating the pooled cash investment policy and pass ORD #7569-06 on
1 st reading. Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
PC-1: Streaming Video Demonstration. Item added to agenda and paperwork
provided.
ENG-1: Approve the applicant's request to vacate the 30-foot utility easement of 1390
Sunset Point Rd & pass ORD # 7570-06 on 1st reading. Memo revised and provided
stating that it was withdrawn by the applicant.
ENG-5: Approve the applicant's request to vacate portions of 2nd Ave S & 3rd Ave S
(2695 Chautauqua Blvd) and pass ORD # 7574-06 on 1st reading. Item added to
agenda and paperwork provided.
ENG-6: Approve the applicant's request to vacate the 15-foot storm sewer easement
(18860 US Hwy 19) and pass ORD # 7572-06 on 1st reading. Item added to agenda
and paperwork provided.
ENG-7: Award a contract to Westra Construction, Inc. of Palmetto, FL for construction
of the Coronado Dr Improvements (03-0079-ED). Item added to agenda and
paperwork provided.
PU-2: Approve a 5-yr lease agreement, with three 5-year renewal options, to Metro
PCS, allowing Metro PCS to install 6 cellular telephone antennas on the city's north
elevated water tower located at 1580 Weston Dr. Item added to agenda and
paperwork provided.
CDI-2: Sister City Scholarships (Petersen). Paperwork provided.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Memo to Council for 12-12-05 Work Session - revisions.doc
1 of 2
. CDI-4: How to Recognize Trickles 60 years in Business (Jonson). Item added to
agenda and paperwork provided.
. CDI-5: Scheduling Additional Visioning Work Session. Item added to agenda and
paperwork provided.
. CDI-6: Billboard Legislation. Item added to agenda and paperwork provided.
Memo to Council for 12-12-05 Work Session - revisions.doc
2of2
Analysis of Community
Development Code
City of Clearwater
l..l..
rwater
o
>-
I-
u
DRAFT - Prepared by:
the Pinellas Planning Council Staff
December 2005
Analysis of Community
Development Code
City Council
Mayor Frank Hibbard
Vice-Mayor Bill Jonson
Hoyt Hamilton
Carlen A. Petersen
John Doran
Community Development Board
David Gildersleeve - Chair
Alex Plisko - Vice-Chair
Kathy Milam
Daniel Dennehy
J. B. Johnson
Dana K. Tallman
Thomas Coates
Nicholas C. Fritsch
Michael Delk, Planning Director
Prepared by the Pinellas Planning Council Staff
~-
Analysis of Community
Development Code
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 1
I. Introduction.................................................. ....................................................... 3
II. Code Analysis ..................................................................................................... 5
A. The Code's Development Review Process........................................... 6
1. Development Approval Steps .......................................................... 6
2. Concurrent Review of Applications................................................ 8
B. The Code' s Requirements....................................................................... 8
1. Development Application Requirements....................................... 8
2. Requirements for Subdivision Plats ................................................ 9
C. The Code's Format and Organization ................................................ 10
1. Uses Permitted, Standards, and Approval Processes................. 10
2. Organization of the Requirements in Article 3............................ 19
3 . Cross-Referencing............................................................................ 20
4. References to Approving Entity..................................................... 20
D. Other Code Issues.................................................................................. 21
1. Miscellaneous Minor Issues Affecting the Flow of the Code.... 21
III. Survey of Frequent Users ................................................................................ 25
Analysis of Community Development Code
1
City of Clearwater
IV. Comparison with Other Communities.......................................................... 35
A. Gainesville, Florida................................................................................ 35
B. Sarasota, Florida..................................................................................... 39
C. Portage, Michigan.................................................................................. 42
D. Clark County, Washington .................................................................. 43
E. Pinellas County, Florida ....................................................................... 47
V. Summary and Recommendations .................................................................. 53
VI. Illustrative Implementation Schedule ........................................................... 59
Appendix - F requen t User's Survey......................................................................... 61
Analysis of Community Development Code
11
City of Clearwater
Executive Summary
The study included an assessment of the City of Clearwater's Community
Development Code (Code), a survey of frequent users, and a comparison
of the City's development review process with other jurisdictions in the
state and across the country. The analysis of the overall development
review process for Clearwater suggests that it is designed as a relatively
streamlined process, as compared to other codes examined, involving few
steps between submission and approval. It relies heavily on staff to review
and approve many development applications, and on the Community
Development Board (COB) to review more complex applications.
However, while streamlined in terms of the number of steps involved, the
Code does not do a good job of explaining how the City's review process
works or what the various requirements are for each development
application. Also, this streamlined process causes the applicant to expend
considerable time and effort on detailed design aspects of a project prior to
determining whether the use requested will be approved or not. Lastly,
there were numerous terminology issues and other minor issues
discovered that affect the general flow and understandability of the Code.
The study did not include a review of how the Code is applied and makes
no judgment about the qualitative aspects of the Code's standards or the
decisions made based on these standards. It also did not include an
assessment of staffing levels.
The major conclusions in the report include:
. Code Process:
o Shift some of the requirements for fully engineered site plans
to the construction drawing/building permit stage and allow
conceptual or schematic plans to be submitted at
Development Review Committee or COB approval instead.
Analysis of Community Development Code
1
City of Clearwater
. Code Requirements:
o Review development application requirements to eliminate
redundant or repetitive requirements, clarify requirements
that are not specific, and eliminate unnecessary items;
o Reorganize Article 3 so that exact requirements can be located
easily; and
o Add more specific and consistent cross-referencing.
. Code Terminology:
o Replace the variety of terms used to describe uses allowed,
associated standards and criteria, and approval processes;
o Use only "Levels 1, 2, and 3" to describe Minimum Standard,
Flexible Standard, and Flexible Development; and
o Eliminate current use of term "Level Three Approval" and
replace with "Legislative Actions."
. Code Management:
o Evaluate development review process applications relative to
timing and staffing levels - i.e., application submission
overlap;
o Ensure staff comments are received in a timely manner and
reduce secondary comments after resubmission;
o Coordinate comments and responses to reduce visits to City
Hall, including "walk-ins"; and
o Consider posting of Code as PDF online.
. Other Items
o Correct miscellaneous minor issues affecting flow of and
ability to understand the Code;
o Implement best practices from other communities; and
o Consider changes to website that will better inform users.
It should be noted that, with minor exception, during our analysis there
were positive statements provided concerning the process itself and staff's
handling of the development review process. Also, some of the exceptions
noted have been addressed by staff since the start of this analysis.
Analysis of Community Development Code
2
City of Clearwater
I. Introduction
The purpose of this project is to assist the City of Clearwater in assessing
their development review process, as set forth in the Community
Development Code (Code). A review of the Code was conducted to assess
its clarity, user-friendliness, complexity, organization, and general flow
relative to the development approval process. This review is not intended
to result in minimizing necessary review or in reducing development
standards, but rather to identify problematic procedural issues and
recommend changes that may mitigate those problems that are identified.
The Pinellas Planning Council (PPC) was asked to assist in this assessment
of the development review process within the Code itself, including a
survey of frequent users, and comparisons with other jurisdictions to
identify the best practices employed by other communities that might be
relevant to Clearwater. The study also touches on the various ways that
the City has contact with the public that enter the development review
process.
The study did not include a review of how the Code is applied and makes
no judgment about the qualitative aspects of the Code's standards or the
decisions based on these standards.
Hopefully, the recommendations in this report will help the City further
improve their existing development review process.
Analysis of Community Development Code
3
City of Clearwater
1..\
II. Code Analysis
The analysis of the overall development review process for Clearwater
suggests that it is designed as a relatively streamlined process, involving
few steps between submission and approval. It relies heavily on staff to
review and approve many development applications, and on the
Community Development Board to review more complex applications.
Once approval of the requested use is received from either the staff or the
Community Development Board, the final step involves obtaining
building permits, including construction drawing approval. Also, even
though they are referenced in the Code relative to "Level 3" approval, the
City Council is not involved with development review applications, only
legislative actions including rezonings or Future Land Use map
amendments.
However, while streamlined in terms of the number of steps involved, the
Code does not do a good job of explaining how the City's review process
works or what the various requirements are for each development
application. Also, this streamlined process causes the applicant to expend
considerable time and effort on detailed design aspects of the project prior
to determining whether the use requested will be approved or not.
The following section of this report will outline and discuss issues with the
clarity and complexity of the development review/approval process, the
Code's requirements, the Code in its written form, and minor issues that
were discovered during the analysis.
Analysis of Community Development Code
5
City of Clearwater
A. The Code's Development Review Process
1. Development Approval Steps
Article 4 of the Code outlines the requirements for development
review and relies on the "levels" of approval discussed in Section
I.C.l of this report. The development approval process is designed
to have as few steps as possible, and has even eliminated the need
for application to a Board of Adjustment for variances to the Code
by allowing these to be granted by the Development Review
Committee (DRC) and Community Development Board (COB)
during the overall approval process!. Also, unlike many local
governments there is no requirement that uses receive final approval
from the City Council.
The development review process provides for either
review/approval from the DRC that is made up of staff members, or
the DRC (with recommendation by the Community Development
Coordinator) coupled with review/approval by the COB. For most
applications reviewed by the DRC, and all applications reviewed by
the COB, a fully engineered site plan is required2. The next step
involves applying for a building permit, which includes a final
"construction drawing" approval, whereby very detailed drawings
are developed and reviewed by the technical staff of the City.
The one, or in some cases, two-step use review/approval process,
that often includes an engineered site plan, is a simple process to
follow, however the City may wish to reconsider the requirements
that are needed on, or that go along with, fully engineered site plans
that are needed for some development applications.
Since the City's development approval process doubles as a process
to approve particular uses allowed in each zoning category, it is
I Applications that meet certain criteria are "granted" more flexibility in meeting requirements for such
things as setbacks and height limitations.
2 A "fully engineered site plan" includes 31 items as required by Section 4-202.A.11 and 12, such as a
stormwater drainage plan, tree survey, landscaping plans, elevations, utilities, etc.
Analysis of Community Development Code
6
City of Clearwater
possible that a site plan will be completed for a use that is ultimately
not approved. Or that because so much time, effort, and cost has
been expended by the applicant, decision makers may feel pressured
to approve a use or particular use configuration (buildings, parking
areas, etc.). The applicant will have gone through considerable time
and effort to produce engineered plans that would be used to
construct the buildings, alter the site, and tie such improvements
into the public utility systems. Instead of requiring all items to be
submitted on the first site plan during the initial approval process,
the review/approval of a fully engineered site plan can be conducted
by the DRC after the initial approval process is completed. This can
be prior to application for building permit or as part of the
"construction drawing" review that is a current requirement. In the
place of a fully engineered site plan, a conceptual, or in some
instances a schematic, site plan can be submitted.
Further, with all due respect to the members of the Community
Development Board, much of the information included with a fully
engineered site plan is not needed to determine whether or not a
particular use should be approved for a given parcel, or even for the
approval of "variances" to particular Code requirements (e.g.,
flexibility with respect to setbacks, parking spaces, height, etc.).
Recommendations
o Allow the submission of a more conceptual or schematic site
plan for the items that are normally included in a fully
engineered site plan.
o Delay fully engineered site plan submission until after
approval by the DRC or CDB is received (prior to applying for
building permit). The fully engineered site plan can be
reviewed/approved by staff after initial approval.
Analysis of Community Development Code
7
City of Clearwater
2. Concurrent Review of Applications
The City has established specific time periods for each type of
review process (as required by Section 4-207), has included them in
a development review handbook, but they should also be made
available on the City's website. However, what should be taken into
consideration with these time frames is the fact that staff can at times
be handling three months worth of submissions, all at the same time.
The submission deadline for new development applications
overlaps the same period of time used for staff preparation of
applications to be reviewed by the DRC, and the same time that
other development applications are being prepared for review by
the CDB. This places a great deal of strain on the staff and can lead
to applications not receiving the proper amount of review (it should
be noted that we did not observe this, nor was this problem reported
to us during this analysis, and according to Community
Development staff, 98% of the applications submitted to the City are
reviewed and approved within the described one or two-step
process ).
Recommendation
l:l For each development application it is important to
understand how the established time frames for
review/approval impact the potential for overlap with other
applications.
B. The Code's Requirements
1. Development Application Requirements
Section 4-202 starting on page CD4:5 includes numerous
requirements for different types of development in the city.
However, some of these requirements may not be needed, especially
for the less involved or less complex development applications. For
Analysis of Community Development Code
8
City of Clearwater
example, in order to obtain an approval for a home occupation an
applicant is required to submit, among other items, a signed and
sealed survey of the property prepared by a registered land
surveyor.
Additionally, the outline and numbering system is not correct for
this section. Section 4-202.A. reads "basic information required for all
applications" and then includes items 1 through 25 and subsets in
lower case letters under some of these 25 items. This statement
makes it appear as though all applications must address all 25 items;
however it appears as though the intent of the Code is to provide a
break between each type of development application and their
requisite submission requirements. Without a clear break, and if the
section were read literally, each and every requirement listed in this
section would apply to each and every application for development
approval.
Recommendations
D Eliminate all application requirements that are not necessary
and that do not correspond with the level of development
intensity or use.
D Rewrite the section to include clearer breaks describing the
requirements for each development application. It will be
necessary to repeat some of the requirements, however this
will allow the user to go only to the section they are
interested in, as opposed to having to read the entire
division to determine what is required.
2. Requirements for Subdivision Plats
Section 4-702 on page CD4:33 is titled "Required Approvals," but
starts out by stating "if plat approval is required," which gives the
impression that an approval may not be required in some instances.
It should be clearly stated here, or another section referenced, so that
Analysis of Community Development Code
9
City of Clearwater
the need for a plat approval is clear and the requirements that apply
are clear.
The section referenced above also states "the approval process is
ministerial." The term "ministerial" is not defined in the Code and it
would appear that the intent is to relate that the approval process
instead is "perfunctory" in nature. In addition, this same paragraph
uses the term "City Code" when other sections reference the
"Community Development Code" (note: some sections of the Code
use the shortened term "Development Code").
Lastly, there is no reference from this section to Division 19 in
Article 3 containing the requirements for "Subdivision Design
Standards." Also, this same division in Article 3 is not cross-
referenced to the approval requirements of this section.
Recommendations
D It should be clearly stated in this section, or another section
referenced, that the need for a plat approval is required and
the requirements that apply are clear.
D The reference to a "ministerial" approval should be changed
or eliminated.
D Consistently use the term "Community Development Code"
throughout the Code.
D Division 7 in Article 4 and Division 19 in Article 3 should be
cross-referenced.
C. The Code's Format and Organization
1. Uses Permitted, Standards, and Approval Processes
Many zoning codes typically provide for a list of uses under the
"permitted use" or "conditional use" headings, and then describe
the standards that apply to them in a separate code section, and
finally the required approval steps (Le., staff, planning board,
Analysis of Community Development Code
10
City of Clearwater
commission, board of adjustment or other board) in another separate
section. In contrast, the City's Code was amended in 1999 to
provide for simplified terms and review/approval processes,
combining:
. Uses allowed;
. Their minimum and maximum requirements;
. The standards they must meet before approval (requiring the
submission of a site plan for many uses); and
. Their review/approval processes - all combined into a few
new terms or concepts (shown in the table on page 10).
Second, a number of review/approval steps were eliminated by
requiring approval for development-related applications by only the
DRC (i.e., staff) and/or the COB. However, this new treatment of the
uses allowed and their related development review/approval
processes is confusing, as it can be difficult to determine what the
requirements are for a particular use and what the required steps to
obtain approval are.
In the Code, the uses permitted in each zoning district, and their
various requirements, standards and criteria, and approval
processes are combined into use categories, or what are actually
three different levels of uses and their corresponding approval
processes:
. Minimum Standard Development;
. Flexible Standard Development; and
. Flexible Development.
Analysis of Community Development Code
11
City of Clearwater
Terms and Processes for Uses, Criteria and Standards, and
Develo ment Review/ A roval
Term used to describe:
uses allowed, their
corresponding criteria and
standards, and their final
a rovin entity
Term used to describe:
uses allowed and their
corresponding criteria
and standards
Minimum Standard
Develo ment
Flexible Standard
Develo ment
Flexible Development
None
Permitted Uses: Level One
Permitted Uses: Level One
Permitted Uses: Level Two
Level Three A rovals
What results in confusion is that:
Final Approving
Entity
Staff (for
Buildin Permit)
DRC (Staff)
Community
Development
Board
Ci Council
· Some of the six terms shown in the first two columns are often
used interchangeably in the Code and by staff (e.g., Flexible
Standard Development and Permitted Uses: Level One);
· Both "Minimum Standard" and "Flexible Standard
Development" are referred to with the same level of approval
in the Code: "Permitted Uses: Level One," and even though
these two terms are for permitted uses they follow different
approval processes; and
· The term "Level Three Approvals," that pertains to legislative
actions involving the passing of an ordinance (i.e., zoning text
amendments, annexations, historic designations, etc.), does
not actually involve a development application.
Again, the intent of creating these new terms and processes was to
simplify development approval and to break away from old and
outdated processes and terminology. This simplification has not
Analysis of Community Development Code
12
City of Clearwater
occurred in the written Code, but with some revision may result in
successfully improving the development approval process.
To illustrate the mixed and interchanged or improper use of terms,
Article 2. Zoning Districts, uses the terms pertaining to the three
development types, their associated standards and criteria, and their
corresponding approval processes interchangeably. The terms in
the list are used frequently throughout the Code, and are of course
used by the staff in their communications with the public. However,
those unfamiliar with the City's review processes are often left
confused. Also, the inconsistent treatment of capitalization further
confuses the public, and possibly some staff (note: capitalization is
as it appears in the Code and may just be errors attributable to
Municipal Code Corporation). The terms in the example are given
only for the "Level One" uses, but the same confusion basically
holds true for the Level Two and Level Three terms used.
Terms Used to Refer to "Permitted Uses: Level One"
. Minimum standard development (Section 2-102, page CD2:7)
. Level One permitted uses (Section 2-102, CD2:7)
. Minimum development (Table 2-102, page CD2:7)
. Flexible standard development (Section 2-103, page2:9)
. Flexible development standards (Table 2-104, CD2:10)
. Level One (flexible standard development) approval (Section 3-
201.B.8., page CD3:8)
. Level One-Flexible Standard (Section 3-201.C.2.a., page CD3:9)
. Level One flexible standard development (Section 3-903.H.2., page
CD3:30)
· Level One (minimum standard development) (Section 4-202.C.2.,
page 4:9)
. Level One (standard) approval (Section 6-106.B., page CD6:5)
. level one (flexible standard) approval (Section 6-106.B., page CD6:5)
Analysis of Community Development Code
13
City of Clearwater
The confusion that is apparent in the list above is also evident on the
City's website3 that describes the development review process
(clearwater-fl. com/ gov / depts/planning/ divisions/ devreview /
index.asp ):
"Three levels of review are provided in each district, outlining permitted
land uses, dimensional requirements and specific criteria that must be
met."
This excerpt above shows where part of the confusion stems from,
that is that the sentence refers to "three levels of review" and at the
-
same time says, "outlining permitted land uses." The levels of review
don't in fact outline permitted land uses. Rather, the Minimum
Standard, Flexible Standard, and Flexible Development include lists
of uses, and that each use included in these development groups
must undergo one of three levels of review: 1) Minimum Standard =
3 The additional excerpts listed from the City's website below show more of the
confusing mixing of terms that describe the three development types and allowed uses,
standards and criteria associated with them, and the review processes associated with
them.
Confusing Use of Terms on the City's Web site (underlining added for emphasis)
"The first level of review, Minimum Standard Development (also called Level One
development)... "
"The second level of review is called Flexible Standard Development (also considered Level One
development). "
"The third level of review, called Flexible Development, is also known as Level Two development. "
As can be seen, the second sentence starts by stating "the second level of review is called
Flexible Standard Development," when this term (Le., Flexible Standard Development)
actually pertains to a second tier of uses in that zoning district and the various standards
they must meet, and not simply a "review" process. Even more confusing is that this
"second level of review" is then called "Level One development." Further, the last sentence
refers to a "third level of review" which is not the same as, but could easily be confused
with, the Level Three legislative approval process before the City Council, but then says
that this third level of review "is also known as Level Two development."
Analysis of Community Development Code
14
City of Clearwater
staff/Building Permit application; 2) Flexible Standard = DRC (staff);
and 3) Flexible = DRC then CDB.
A recommended solution to this problem lies in the creation of new
terms that will encompass all the terms in the table on page 10. As
can be seen in that table, the term "Level Three" used to describe the
legislative actions reviewed by the City Council is not
recommended. That process should simply be referred to as
"Legislative Actions" to help separate and differentiate those actions
from the development approval process.
Terms as Recommended for the Code
Existing Terms (to be replaced)
Term used to
describe:
uses allowed
and their
corresponding
criteria and
standards
Minimum
Standard
Develo ment
Flexible
Standard
Develo ment
Flexible
Develo ment
None
Term used to
describe:
uses allowed,
their
corresponding
criteria and
standards, and
their final
approving entity
Permitted Uses:
Level One
Permitted Uses:
Level One
Permitted Uses:
Level Two
Level Three
A rovals
Final
Approving
Entity (no
change)
Staff (for
Building
Permit)
DRC (Staff)
CDB
City
Council
A "Level One Use" would hereafter refer to the most basic uses
listed in the Code, and their standards and review/approval
Analysis of Community Development Code
15
City of Clearwater
-U-l
processes. "Level Two" would involve the next, more "involved"
level of uses, and "Level Three Uses" would include uses with the
highest level of intensity/density and the most complexity, the
standards and criteria they must meet, and their review/approval
processes and steps. "Legislative Actions" would no longer be
confused with the processes involving an application for
development review/approval.
One final note: further complicating this issue is that the terms that
have been discussed in this section are not described or explained
until much later in the Code.
Recommendations
D Use the recommended terms in the previous table to replace
the current terms used in the Code.
D Use consistent capitalization of all terms throughout the
Code (note: this may be the result of codification by
Municipal Code Corporation and corrections may need to be
coordinated with them).
D The following section, as well as other sections written
similarly, should be reworded to help eliminate confusion
in the Code relative to review levels and permitted uses:
To illustrate as written (shading added for emphasis)
Section 2-102.
The following uses are uses in the LDR
District subject to the set out in this
Section and other applicable provisions of Article 3.
Shown with removed and added text:
Section 2-102. Level One Uses 2'.1.inimum standard development.
Analysis of Community Development Code
16
City of Clearwater
The following uses are Level One permitted uses in the LDR
District subject to the minimum standards set out in this
Section and other in Table 1-102 below and the applicable
provisions of Article 3.
As recommended
Section 2-102. Level One Uses.
The following uses are permitted subject to the minimum standards
in Table 1-102 below and to the applicable provisions in Article 3.
o Add the following table after Chart 2-100 on page CD2:4
(using the LOR Zoning District as an example):
Analysis of Community Development Code
17
City of Clearwater
Low Density
Residential
"Level One Uses"
(note: will replace the current
terms "Minimum Standard
Development" and
"Permitted Uses: Level One")
"Level Two Uses"
(note: will replace the current
terms Flexible Standard
Development" and
"Permitted Uses: Level One")
"Level Three Uses"
(note: will replace the current
terms "Flexible
Development" and
"Permitted Uses: Level Two")
. Community
Residential Homes
. Detached Dwellings
. Detached Dwellings
. Residential Infill
Projects
. Utili ty jlnfrastructure
Facilities
. Attached Dwellings
. Overnight
Accommodations
. Parks and Recreation
Facilities
. Residential Infill
. Schools
Staff (for
Building
Permit)
DRC (Staff)
Community
Development
Board
I:l Article 2 refers to the three groups of uses and three levels of
approval (Minimum Standard Development - Permitted Uses:
Level One; Flexible Standard Development - Permitted Uses:
Level One; and Flexible Development - Permitted Uses: Level
Two), but they are not described or explained until much
later in the Code. It is recommended that the three groups
of uses and their associated criteria, standards, and review
processes be briefly explained at the beginning of each
zoning district section.
Analysis of Community Development Code
18
City of Clearwater
2. Organization of the Requirements in Article 3
For each of the three groups of uses in each of the zoning districts
included in Article 2 there is a further reference to "other applicable
provisions of Article 3." These "other applicable provisions" pertain to
additional requirements for the uses that may apply above and
beyond the requirements included in Article 2.
The problem that arises in this case is that the reader is not directed
to specific or applicable provisions included in Article 3. The phrase
"other applicable provisions" is nebulous. Article 3 is 90 pages long,
contains 23 Divisions, and 121 Sections ranging from Access
Management Standards to Residential Rentals. This vast section full
of standards and requirements pertaining to a variety of uses, and
the unclear reference to it from Article 2 not only confuses the
reader, but places undue pressure on staff to interpret what is
applicable to a particular use and what is not.
In a best-case scenario, this requires frequent coordination among
staff in order to ensure that the various interpretations made are
consistent from week to week and project to project. However, in a
worst-case scenario when staff is required to make such judgment
calls, inconsistent use of the Code and inconsistent application of the
requirements can lead to complaints from applicants about arbitrary
decisions, and staff frustration in their attempts to be consistent and
apply common sense.
In summary, large sections of the Code left to an interpretation by
the public and more than one staff person does three things: 1)
leaves staff with no clear direction; 2) can be abused, and at a
minimum will lead to inconsistent outcomes; and 3) does not offer
or provide the applicant with clear direction or predictability.
Analysis of Community Development Code
19
City of Clearwater
Recommendation
o Determine the specific requirements in Article 3 that apply
to each use in each zoning district. It can be accomplished
by:
o Citing in Article 2 the specific portions of Article 3 that
apply;
o Including in Article 2 the specific requirements for each
zoning category and use; and/or
o By reorganizing Article 3 altogether.
The reorganization can exchange the existing alphabetical
listing of requirements in Article 3 with requirements
grouped with the uses they apply to from Article 2. This
regrouping may lead to some provisions being repeated in
the Code, however, in return it will provide much improved
clarity and ease of use.
3. Cross-Referencing
The Code, especially Article 3, is inconsistent in cross-referencing
other parts of the Code. Occasionally, the reference is to an entire
"article" or "division," while other times a more specific reference is
made to a "section."
Recommendation
o Change all cross-references to be as specific as possible in
order to direct the user to the specific requirement or
information.
4. References to Approving Entity
Section 4-302 states that the "community development coordinator"
approves applications when both the flow chart on the previous
page and the diagram on page CD4:5 state the DRC. At a minimum,
Analysis of Community Development Code
20
City of Clearwater
this should be clarified, and if appropriate, given this lowest level of
development application, not require that these applications be
reviewed by the DRC. This will reduce time, cost, and complexity
for these items. It should also be noted that the organizational chart
of City staff does not include a "Community Development
Coordinator," even though one is referenced in the Code.
Recommendations
o The approval process and the appropriate reviewing entity
should be clarified, and if appropriate, given this lowest
level of development application, not require that these
applications be reviewed by the DRC.
D. Other Code Issues
1. Miscellaneous Minor Issues Affecting the Flow of the Code
There are a significant number of less important issues that were
discovered while reviewing the Code that do not warrant a separate
discussion on each, but taken as a whole serve to confuse the reader.
Correction of these issues will improve the Code's readability and
flow. They are provided in the list on the next page:
Corrections and Modifications
All Articles
o Page numbers should be added to the directory of divisions
and sections that appear at the beginning of each article. At
present, the reader is required to search for an article or
section page by page.
Article 2. Zoning Districts
o The title of Chart 2-100 on page CD2:4 is incorrectly titled
"Permitted Uses." No such term exists in the article that
Analysis of Community Development Code
21
City of Clearwater
follows. It is suggested that the title be changed to "Use
Matrix."
D The numbering used to refer to the notes following Table 2-
103 on page CD2:9 for "Residential Infill Projects" and
"Utility/Infrastructure Facilities" are reversed.
D The term "Residential Infill" in table 2-104 on page CD2:10
should read "Residential Infill Project" to be consistent with
other sections of the Code and the notes included after the
table.
D The note after Table 2-702 on page CD2:47 says "land use plan
map amendment to institutional" when it should correctly read
"future land use map amendment to Institutional. "
D Notes 1 and 2 appearing after Table 2-703 on page CD2:48 can
be combined.
D The term "Flexibility standards" used on page CD2:84 should
read "Flexibility criteria."
Article 3. Development Standards
D Section 3-1401.B.3.a. references a "minor amendment," but does
not explain what would constitute such an amendment.
Conversely, no other part of this section references a "major
amendment." This section should cross-reference Section 4-
406.A.
D The chart on page CD3:51 does not include a chart number as
is the case in other sections.
D Section 3-1404.0. uses a lower case letter for the term
"division," where Section 3-1404.E. uses upper case. This
inconsistency occurs frequently and can confuse the reader.
D The table on page CD3:53 is not numbered or labeled.
Additionally, the text in Section 3-1405 appears on page
CD3:53 and states "uses which are listed below" and "listed in the
Table below" when the table is actually on the previous page
(CD3:52).
D The term "minimum sign standards" is used in Section 3-
1807.A.2. on page CD3:70.6 and later in the same section the
term "minimum standard signage" is used (on page CD3:70.7).
Analysis of Community Development Code
22
City of Clearwater
1:1 The illustrations in this section are not numbered, nor are they
included in the Table of Contents.
1:1 Section 3-1806 references a "development review," but it is not
clear what that review entails. Also, in Section 3-1806.A.1.a. it
is stated "unless otherwise approved by the community
development coordinator," but there is no reference to where the
community development coordinator might have authority to
approve such a sign.
1:1 Section 3-1806.B. uses the phrase "comprehensive sign program
application," but does not reference the section where a
description of this process can be found.
1:1 Section 3-1807.C.1.a. and CA. uses inconsistent capitalization
for the term" comprehensive sign program" (page CD3:70.7).
1:1 Section 3-1904.A. on page CD3:70.9 references a "thoroughfare
element" of the comprehensive plan, however the City's plan
only has a Transportation element.
1:1 The Table on page CD3:70.10 continues onto to the next page,
but should remain on page CD3:70.10.
1:1 Section 3-2101 on page CD3:80 uses the phrase "to ensure that
such uses are compatible with adjacent land uses and consistent
with the city's goals and objectives." The term "adjacent land
uses" should be amended to either "adjacent existing uses of
land" or "adjacent future land use designations," whichever is
the intent. Additionally, a specific reference should be added
that will indicate where one can find the "city's goals and
objectives" referenced in this section.
1:1 The Code uses a number of terms that are either unexplained
in Section 3-1807 or that does not include a cross-reference.
The terms include: "Comprehensive sign program" (Section 3-
1807, page CD3:70.6); "Minimum sign standards and minimum
standard signage" (Section 3-1807.A.2., page CD3:70.6); "subject
to flexibility criteria" (Section 3-1807.A.3., page CD3:70.7); "A
comprehensive sign program shall be approved as part of a Level
One or Level Two approval, as the case may be" ((Section 3-
1807B.1., page CD3:70.7); and "an integrated architectural
vocabulary" ((Section 3-1807.C.1.a., page CD3:70.7).
Analysis of Community Development Code
23
City of Clearwater
o Include a description or explanation of items such as
"comprehensive sign program" and "integrated architectural
vocabulary."
o Instead of stating "as the case may be" (in Section 3-1807.B.1.),
be more specific with reference to the approval required for
the comprehensive sign program.
o Use consistent terms to describe sign standards.
Article 4. Development Review and Other Procedures
o Section 4-207.A. on page CD4:15 capitalizes "Community
Development Coordinator" while Section 4-207.C. does not.
o The chart on page 4:16 should provide a clear separation of
the process on the left (i.e., staff/building permit review and
approval) from the process on the right (Development Review
Committee review and approval). Two separate charts may
be necessary.
o The second box on the flow-chart on page CD4:21 includes the
phrase "Application for Development Approval." A more
accurate phrase would be "Requested Action" since many of
the items reviewed by the City Council are not submitted
exclusively by an "applicant" and instead involve zoning and
comprehensive plan text amendments, as well as Zoning Atlas
and Future Land Use Plan map amendments initiated by the
City.
o The phrase "Level One Approvals" appears with the flow-chart
on page CD4:16 and the phrase "Level Two Approvals" appears
on page CD4:19 twice. The phrase "Level Three Approvals"
appears on page CD4:21 three times. After these terms are
amended as recommended in the previous discussions in this
report, all repetitive and excessive use of these phrases should
be eliminated.
o The flow charts referenced in the previous bullets are helpful
in explaining the process involved in each level of review.
However, they should be preceded by a written explanation,
especially given that they appear immediately following the
division title.
Analysis of Community Development Code
24
City of Clearwater
III. Survey of Frequent Users
To help in identifying what procedures work well and which are thought
to be unnecessarily complex, burdensome, or time-consuming, a survey of
frequent users, including the development industry and City staff, was
conducted. This survey was also employed to help determine which
development review approvals and procedures they use or are familiar
with, as well as to garner suggestions for improvement if the development
review process was perceived to be problematic.
A copy of the survey is attached to this report (see Appendix) and was
responded to by six of the thirty-three persons or firms that were sent a
survey. Once the survey response deadline passed, PPC staff called or
contacted each of the remaining persons listed in an attempt to improve
the response rate. It should be noted that although this response rate
represents a high percentage, the total number of responses should not be
deemed statistically significant. In other words, although the responses
may be helpful and accurate, the results may not represent the opinions of
all the Code's users.
The questions and their summarized responses are as follows:
Ql. Rate each process you have used for how well you feel each
is working to meet your overall development needs.
The survey respondents rated the "Minimum Standard"
development approval higher than both the "Flexible Standard" and
the "Flexible Development" approval. Of course this is expected
since these processes gradually become more complex moving from
Minimum Standard up to Flexible Development. City Council
approval (Level 3 approval for rezonings, annexations, development
agreements, etc.) was rated very well, with "excellent" to "good"
responses only. Also, a respondent stated that the process for
approval of development agreements (Level 3 approval) was
excellent.
Analysis of Community Development Code
25
City of Clearwater
It can be concluded from the responses to this question that the more
complex processes involving site plan approval are where problems
arise. Comments such as "too many engineering issues "bog down" the
process" and "too much paper work." It was also stated that "many
questions on [the] application are repetitive and lengthy" and that
". . . multiple planners reviewing the case and making additional comments
after initial and sometimes second comments have been addressed" is a
problem and that "although the flex. process works well for large-scale
developments, such as Clearwater Beach development, it is too cumbersome
(and expensive) for small business owners. For example, requiring full
landscape plans, drainage, survey, etc. is overkill for a change in use of a
small business which may need a 2' setback variance or a reduction of 2
parking spaces."
Q2. Rate each process you have used for its ease of
understanding, relative to obtaining final development approval,
including understanding the necessary steps between submission
and final approval.
The survey respondents rated the "Minimum Standard"
development approval higher than both the "Flexible Standard" and
the "Flexible Development" approval. Again, City Council approval
was rated very high, with only "excellent" to "good" responses
received. Also, a respondent stated that the process for approval of
development agreements (City Council approval) was excellent.
The comments gleaned from the respondents to this question
include that the process is "very complicated and convoluted [and] too
many steps including completeness review and sufficiency review at DRC
[resulting in] continuances of CDB meeting based on DRC comments."
On the other hand, one respondent stated that the "steps of processing
[are] very easy to understand." A middle-ground comment was that
"we now have "ease of understanding" due to familiarity with the Code
and experience. For newcomers to Clearwater, it is too difficult to
understand."
Analysis of Community Development Code
26
City of Clearwater
Q3. Rate each process you have used with respect to the
appropriate level of submission requirements (e.g., applications,
affidavits, surveys, site plans, studies, etc).
The survey respondents rated the level of submission requirements
for the "Minimum Standard" development approval higher than
both the "Flexible Standard" and the "Flexible Development"
approval. Again, City Council approval was rated very high, with
mostly" excellent" and two "good" responses received.
However, some of the written comments received from the
respondents rating this item in the "fair" to "poor" columns were
that" too much information [is needed] on plans - full construction plans,
arborist report, parking study, etc." This respondent went on to say
"15 copies of everything with each submittal is ridiculous." They felt that
schematics would meet the need. Another respondent said that
there was "too much information required - too many sets." A similar
comment from the previous question was written regarding the
Flexible Development approval process in that the submission
requirements were" appropriate for large-scale redevelopment, [but that)
too much is required for smaller projects."
Q4. Rate each approval process you have used with respect to
the timeliness of development approval.
The survey respondents did not appear to be as satisfied with the
timeliness of the development approval process. Even though one
respondent was very happy with the City Council approval process,
there were many more responses in the "fair" category for all three
types of approval, with one "poor" for the Flexible Development
process.
The written comments received for this question are helpful in
explaining the responses discussed above. One respondent stated
that "the submission/DRC/CDB timeline is appropriate; however we have
in the past had problems with not receiving all comments at one time or had
Analysis of Community Development Code
27
City of Clearwater
advertising problems that resulted in delays. As for flex. standard, the
process takes too long because it does not adhere to the regular schedule
since there are no precise deadlines."
Q5. Provide an estimation of the number of staff persons and
departments you are in contact with for each process, as well as
how many meetings (both with the staff and various boards) you
or your development team must attend, and the number of
required visits to City Hall.
As expected for this question, the responses were that more staff
was interacted with for the more complex Flexible Standard and
Flexible Development applications, from as few as four to as many
as ten. This was in conjunction with what seemed to be an excessive
number of six to eight visits by one respondent, including 2 or 3
meetings on each application at the staff level before going to the
COB meeting.
Some good written comments were received such as "the submittal
process has been improved by bringing in the applications and giving
approximately one week to complete them if incomplete." Also, another
stated, "it is great having staff available." The last written response
was that "[too] many individuals [are] involved in DRC process."
Q6. If you answered Q5, rate the quality of the service or
assistance you received.
Staff responsiveness, accuracy, professionalism, knowledge, and
helpfulness were rated "excellent" to "good" by the majority of
respondents to this question. Only one "poor" was registered for
responsIveness.
Only one written comment was received and that was that "they
[staffJ are always in meetings. Some tend to be obstructionist with their
interpretation of the Code." This same respondent rated staff for their
"helpfulness" as "fair" and their "responsiveness" as "poor."
Analysis of Community Development Code
28
City of Clearwater
Q7. Rate each approval process application for its overall level of
complexity.
This question required that the respondent write in the type of
application form they were familiar with. From the responses it
appeared as though the Flexible Standard, and Comprehensive Infill
applications were the most complex with them being rated no better
than "fair." Annexations, comprehensive plan amendments, and
rezonings (all reviewed by the City Council) were rated at "excellent
(easy to understand)."
Written comments received state that the "applications are too lengthy
and require too much information" that "some of the questions are too
convoluted and are not specific as to details" and that there are "too many
different application forms [and that] they are all similar and all require too
much information."
Q8. List the title of the article or section of the Community
Development Code that you use most often and then rate its
complexity.
Only three of the surveys received showed responses to this
question. Article 2 and 3 of the Code were rated as "fair" relative to
their complexity. One respondent stated that they used the whole
Code and that "the lay-out... is easy to use. The specific
requirements/categories of each district - minimum/standardlflex - are
difficult for most people to understand. Even after Code review, we often
need staff's interpretation."
Q9. Next to the form of contact below, please give the percentage
of time you use each and then rate the response you received (i.e.,
how well each of these forms of contact met your needs or
answered your questions). Use N/A if this does not apply to you.
The responses to this question ranged from "good" for walk-ins,
telephone, and email contact to three "excellent" marks for the
Analysis of Community Development Code
29
City of Clearwater
website. Telephone contact did however receive two "fairs" and one
"poor."
Written comments included that "the wait is sometimes long on walk-in
visits. Phone response has improved in the last few months. Phone
response is excellent by the planners. Zoning desk call-back usually takes
too long."
QI0. Rate the timeliness of the response using each form of
contact. Use N/A if this does not apply to you.
Most responses to this question rated the City's timeliness of
response as "good", however three were in the "poor (extensive
delay)" category for telephone contact.
Written comments further emphasize the problem with telephone
response: "mostly engineering and sometimes planners not returning
phone calls (sometimes at all)" and "they are in meetings too often and
short of staff"
Qll. Have you ever accessed the MyClearwater.com web site?
Q12. If you answered "yes" to Qll, rate the characteristics of the
.
web site relative to development approval (e.g., obtaining
development approval information and Code requirements).
All survey respondents said that they have accessed the City's
website and they rated the site "good," with five responses in the
"excellent" column, and two "fair" responses, one rating how
helpful the links are and one the site's ease of navigation.
The only written comment was that the site was "one of the best - have
used many city webs - this site contains all the right information."
Analysis of Community Development Code
30
City of Clearwater
Q13. Are there different ways to communicate with you
concerning development approval processes, development status,
and other information that would be more beneficial or
convenient to you?
There were only two responses to this question. One stated, "Posting
everything on-line is great [and that they] love the e-mails." The second
suggested that an e-mail or letter response would be beneficial.
Q14. Are there any suggestions that you have concerning how the
process can be improved with respect to clarity, ease of use,
process steps, level of complexity or any other areas that you may
feel would benefit the development approval process (attach extra
sheets if necessary)?
Suggestions to benefit the development approval process included:
"Reduce the number of copies, redevelop the applications [since they are]
too long, [add] more planners to answer questions, [and there is a need for
a] longer turn-around time for resubmittals;"
"Streamline the required items on the applications (particularly for CDB
items). They do not need (nor understand) full engineering drawings to
approve a height variance, or parking variance. After CDB approval the
applicant can submit full construction drawings if the variance was
d "
approve ....
"With any process, people make it happen. Making sure people return
phone calls in a timely manner; are qualified to give you answers the first
time and not go back to change their minds; understand the Code top to
bottom; give each meeting (BPRC, DRC, CDB, etc.) the equal amount of
attention - don't push people out of a BPRC (Building Plans Review
Committee) meeting just because their 15 minutes are up (this process
needs the most improvement and attention)."
Analysis of Community Development Code
31
City of Clearwater
~-
"Downloadable PDF files of [the] Code would suit me better than
Municode.com. Submittal of PDF drawings in lieu of paper would be nice.
(My credentials are available on the state website, and checking there may
be better than relying on signing and sealing) Review comments could be
posted as PDF too."
"Revise the Code to allow for administrative review of minor "variances"
so that small business owners or homeowners do not have to go through the
Compo Infill process. Assign one staff member to Compo Sign applications
and separate that process from Compo Infill development review process.
More planning staff are needed to accommodate the current volume of
applications. "
Q15. Please let us know what parts of the development approval
process work well, or that need small adjustments to work well, so
as to ultimately meet your needs (attach extra sheets if necessary).
Identification of which parts of the process work well, as well as
additional comments that would benefit the development approval
process included:
"BPRC meetings are great, but should be longer. DRC meetings should
have all appropriate staff members attend. "
"Get staff comments to applicant two days prior to DRC so we could
respond at DRC while everyone is at the meeting."
"Assigning one planner to a project and having that planner review the
application for completeness, then notifying the applicant and giving an
opportunity to complete the application is working well. However, some of
the requirements are too inflexible and should be judged on a case-by-case
basis. "
These responses are informative, and used by themselves, can in fact be
considered recommendations that the City can consider, where
appropriate. The study conducted does not determine whether or not the
Analysis of Community Development Code
32
City of Clearwater
problems identified are valid, but they do provide, in combination with
the other components of this evaluation, a sense of where and how the
review process can be improved.
Analysis of Community Development Code
33
City of Clearwater
3LJ
IV. Comparison with Other Communities
As part of the assessment of Clearwater's development review process we
were tasked with conducting a comparison of the process with others in
the area and around the country. The local governments that we studied
include:
. Gainesville, FL
. Sarasota, FL
. Pinellas County, FL
. Portage, MI
. Clark County, W A
We will briefly discuss each of these communities' processes in the
sections to follow, with the intent of identifying the best practices
employed by other communities and their potential application to
Clearwater.
A. Gainesville, Florida
Their Process - The length and steps involved in City of
Gainesville's development review process varies according to the
proposed development's intensity or amount of the parcel proposed
to be improved. Regardless of the level of review, the process
requires that the applicant attend a "pre-application conference,"
also referred to on the City's web site as the "First Step." The First
Step Center is set up as a "convenient, one-stop location where business
owners, developers, and other interested person receive development and
permitting information from several city departments at one time."
The second stage of the review process involves a determination of
the level of review that will be applied to the development request,
based on criteria in the Code. This determination will result in an
application being subject to one of the following:
Analysis of Community Development Code
35
City of Clearwater
. Rapid Review;
. Minor Review;
. Intermediate Review; or
. Major Review.
Rapid and Minor Review applications are reviewed and approved
by staff and do not require neighborhood meetings or notice to the
public. Again, they do require a First Step Center appointment (pre-
application conference).
An optional "Concept Plan Review" fits in-between the second stage
and third in the process. This is "provided in order for the applicant to
receive public input and staff comments on a concept for development prior
to the preparation of detailed plans and data." Major Reviews are
encouraged to go through this step, while "Intermediate developments
need not be submitted to concept review, but... may be used at the option of
the developer." Further, both the staff and the Development Review
Board are designated to comment at this Concept Review.
The higher-level Intermediate and Major Reviews require both a
"Preliminary" and a "Final" development plan approval. The
Preliminary approval must be reviewed by the "Technical Review
Committee" made of various members of the city staff, and then
must be heard by the "Development Review Board," which
conducts a quasi-judicial style hearing. Only a subdivision plat goes
on to the City Council after this step.
The following flow charts summarize the City of Gainesville's
development review process. It should be noted that staff review in
Step 2 of the Rapid Review process does not appear in the City's
Code, but is assumed to be the approval stage. Also, the
neighborhood workshop listed in Step 2 for the Intermediate and
Major Review was included on the City's web site, but does not
appear as a requirement in their Code.
Analysis of Community Development Code
36
City of Clearwater
Ra id and Minor Reviews
Step 1
"First Step"
lication Conference)
I
Step 2
Staff Review
fOri/wi stnff npprovnl/dcninl
. n
Intermediate and Ma' or Reviews
Step 1
"First Step"
lication Conference)
I
Step 2
hborhood W orksho
I
Step 3
Staff Review
forlllnl, stnff rccollllllclldntiolls
I
Step 5
Staff Review
(Final Oevelo ment Plan)
What's Useful - The City of Gainesville's "First Step Process" may
benefit Clearwater's development community, especially those that
are new to the process. This step allows all applicants to garner
important information from knowledgeable staff members at one
place and time, as opposed to attempting to contact each affected
department individually to obtain necessary information on nearby
utilities, drainage issues, or other issues that may affect the
proposed development. As seen later in this report, Pinellas County
offers a similar (optional) service that has proven beneficial to the
public.
Analysis of Community Development Code
37
City of Clearwater
The City of Clearwater has a similar process called the Building
Plans Review Committee, or BPRC, but this is not a required step,
nor is it web site oriented or tied to web site information as is the case
for Gainesville.
Second, Gainesville's process has a preliminary and final site plan
approval process whereby Clearwater does not. As suggested in
section A.I of this report the City may benefit from bifurcating the
site plan submission requirements, with some of the more detailed
plan items being submitted to the building permit or construction
drawing stage of the process as opposed to the Development Review
Committee or Community Development Board approval stages.
Other items from the City of Gainesville's process that could benefit
the City of Clearwater are not necessarily found in their Code, but
are informational items that are based on their Code and that appear
on the City's web site at http://cityofgainesville.org/comdev/plan/
currplan.shtml. These include easily accessed development process
information ("Guide to the Development Review Process"), contact
information ("Contact the Current Planning Staff"), a flow chart for
the steps involved ("Flow chart"), and application forms ("Online
Forms") via the web.
Otherwise, a comparison of the two processes reveals that the City
of Clearwater's has fewer steps involved. The City of Clearwater
requires many uses to be reviewed only by staff, and under a worst-
case scenario (most number of steps) a review could involve staff
and the Community Development Board, with two steps total. Also,
the City of Clearwater bases the level of review on the nature of the
use involved rather than intensity of development or the amount of
improvements proposed on the parcel.
Analysis of Community Development Code
38
City of Clearwater
B. Sarasota, Florida
Their Process - Similar to the City of Gainesville, the length and
steps involved in City's development review process varies
according to the type of application involved. Regardless of the
level of review, the process recommends that the applicant attend a
"pre-application conference." For the purposes of this report we
concentrate on site plans, conditional use approvals, and variances,
all of which are covered in the City of Clearwater's Level One and
Level Two approval processes and the three tiers of uses allowed in
each zoning category.
The Development Review Committee, made up of staff members,
reviews each application (with the exception of certain site plans
and variances), and makes a recommendation to the Planning Board.
Then, either the Planning Board makes a final decision, or the City
Council makes a final decision based upon the Planning Board's
recommendation, depending on the type of development requested.
The Board of Adjustment reviews variance applications, and site
plans in the downtown district are approved by the Planning and
Redevelopment Department.
Analysis of Community Development Code
39
City of Clearwater
run
I
The process for the listed development applications is as follows:
Minor Conditional Uses
Site Plan
Step 1
"D I t R' C "ttee"
.
reco lJ/ lJ/ end at ion pre pa red .fiJI'
Planning Board
I
Step 2
for Minor Conditional Uses
hborhood W orksho "
I
Step 2 for Site Plans
Step 3 for Minor Conditional Uses
"PI B d"
.
.
Qllasi-jlldiciallzearing, approval or
den ial
Major Conditional Uses
Site Plan (G Zone)
Step 1
"D I t R C . tt "
.
recoil 1 lJ/e n d a t ion p repa red for
Planning Boord
I
Step 2
for Major Conditional Uses
"Nei hborhood Worksho "
I
Step 2 for Site Plans (G Zone)
Step 3 for Major Conditional Uses
"PI B d"
.
.
Qllosi-jlldiciallzl'aring and
reco lJ/ lJ/en do t io n
I
Step 3 for Site Plans
Step 4 for Major Conditional Uses
"Ci Commission"
I
Step 4 for Site Plans
Step 5 for Major Conditional Uses
Construction Drawin s
Similar to the City of Clearwater, the City of Sarasota's Code allows
administrative approval of site plans for a number of items, some of
which could be deemed minor in nature. The City of Clearwater
also allows administrative approval of certain site plans that are
significant in nature.
Analysis of Community Development Code
40
City of Clearwater
What's Useful - The City of Sarasota's Codebook sections
pertaining to development review procedures are geared to the
particular use requested or the type of approval required. This
format could be used in the reorganization of Article 3 in
Clearwater's Code. Additionally, although a minor feature,
Sarasota's Codebook includes the starting section number in a
header on left hand pages and the final section on the page in the
header on the right hand page. This is similar to what might be
found in a dictionary and helps the reader locate sections easier.
Otherwise, a comparison of the two processes reveals that the City
of Clearwater's has fewer steps involved, requiring many uses to be
reviewed only by staff, and under a worst-case scenario a review
could involve staff and the Community Development Board, with
two steps total. Also, the City of Clearwater has eliminated the
process for variances before a Board of Adjustment, with the
Flexible Standard Development and Flexible Development
applications having to meet performance based criteria, or specific
guidelines, to earn flexibility with respect to setbacks, height, etc., as
opposed to having to prove "hardship" with variance applications.
Other items from the City of Sarasota's process that could benefit the
City of Clearwater4 are not necessarily found in their Code, but are
informational items that are based on their Code and that appear on
the City's web site at www.sarasotagov.com/Planning/Planning
Home/PlanningHP.html. These include:
. Contacting staff
· Organizational chart
. Planning Department description
. Advisory Boards
· Downtown Code
. Zoning Information
· Development Review
4 Note that some of these items can be found on the City of Clearwater's website, but are not at all easy to
find.
Analysis of Community Development Code
41
City of Clearwater
This list does not fully represent what is available on their website,
which includes many more resources. What is especially helpful is
the link called "Front Counter" that accesses all needed information
- no need to open numerous pages in the hope of getting the
information you need.
C. Portage, Michigan
An International City Manager's Association (lCMA) study
"Streamlining Development and Building Permitting" included the
City of Portage, Michigan, as a case study. The ICMA study stated:
"when government permitting takes too long or is too cumbersome and
complex, the developers and builders predictably lodge complaints with
elected officials on city councils or county boards, who, in turn, pressure
professional staffs to reform and restructure the process." It reviewed the
processes employed in nine communities across the country with
successful track records in reforming their permitting processes.
Their Process - It was concluded that the City of Portage's
development review process, relative to the steps and reviewing
entities involved, is not remarkable, however they receive praise for
their "one-stop system." This revised process focused all
applications and communications on one office, as opposed to the
former system of requiring the developer to obtain approvals from
various separate departments. Portage is also praised for adding a
pre-application meeting available to all developers. They found that
these meetings helped cut down on wasted time and effort.
Although the ICMA study cites Portage's web site as featuring online
information about permits covering electrical, plumbing,
mechanical, and residential and commercial buildings, a review of
the site finds that much of the information is hard to find and
somewhat incomplete. They do have a "permits" page, but no
information regarding their review process, boards, or types of
approvals needed for residential or non-residential development.
Analysis of Community Development Code
42
City of Clearwater
It's only inadvertently, through a review of their fee schedule, that
one can determine what types of applications are necessary.
These comments are not intended as a criticism of Portage, but
rather to highlight the differences between the City of Clearwater's
process, including information available to the public, and the
processes of other communities.
What's Useful - Portage has installed an online system for making
building permit payments by credit card
(http://www.portagemi.com/govemment/online payments.asp).
This has eased time pressures on city staff and would appear to
make it much easier for the development community to pay for
permits by not requiring them to appear at City Hall to carry out
this task. Although this system is for building permits as opposed to
development applications, there may be some use of this service
with development applications.
Also, as stated previously, their "one-stop system" of development
review is of note and deserves merit.
D. Clark County, Washington
Their Process - Clark County's code was not available for purchase
or review on-line as it was in the process of re-codification. The only
available on-line version was the former code that did not contain
new provisions that could benefit this study. However, a good
summary of their process is included in the lCMA report referenced
earlier. This summary has been used for this report on Clearwater's
development review process.
After a performance audit conducted by the Clark County
Department of Community Development, with the assistance a
private consultant, Citygate Associates, a list of ideas to improve
their development review process was developed. The program for
Analysis of Community Development Code
43
City of Clearwater
change "included several ideas that seemed in some instances to be simple,
but have proved to be highly effective:"
. Calls to be returned within 24 hours
. An end to file loss
. Analysis and change in the cost and fee structure
. Establishment of an ombudsman
. Increased use of appropriate technology
. Staff education about the needs of the private sector
. A point of sale permit system for small-scale applications
The work completed by the PPC for the City of Clearwater does not
delve into file management, costs or fee structures, or payment
systems, but the other four items are relevant and should be part of
the discussion in this report.
o Returning Calls - A strict policy of returning phone calls from
developers or permit applicants within 24 hours was put into
place in Clark County. Staff members were to keep detailed
phone logs so they could be held accountable. They
experienced 95% compliance within 1 year, and 97% by the
year 2005.
While problems with respect to returning phone calls was an
issue brought up in the Frequent Users Survey conducted as
part of this analysis, it's important to note that this report does
not make a recommendation regarding holding employees
"accountable" through the use of phone logs. Rather,
instituting the 24-hour returned phone call policy is a great
idea, but it should be coupled with the keeping of a log in
order to ensure that consistent information is offered to
applicants, and to recreate conversations at a later date, if
necessary.
o Ombudsman - While the City has one staff member from the
Community Development Department responsible for an
Analysis of Community Development Code
44
City of Clearwater
individual application for development approval, these
applications are still required to be reviewed by a number of
staff from various departments, as well as the Community
Development Board in some instances. During this complex
review process an ombudsman can prove helpful.
The City of Clearwater assigns one staff member from the
Community Development department to handle each case,
however they are not tasked with addressing questions or
relaying information that pertains to other departments (e.g.,
Engineering, Public Works, or Traffic Operations). If
problems arise from these other departments the applicant
must deal directly with the objecting department, as opposed
to contacting their designated Community Development staff
person to resolve the issue.
Clark County hired the ombudsman as a full time staff
member, working on behalf of permit applicants and, as it
later evolved, on behalf of neighborhoods. This person was
"given the power to intercede in the permitting process to help
rectify any specific problems, and if the ombudsman identified any
recurring pattern or problems over several cases" they were
authorized "to try to find a permanent solution."
The position of ombudsman may prove helpful to the City,
but it is cautioned that this position should not be created, nor
should it evolve to be a position that argues against standards
and requirements on behalf of the applicant. The direction
given to the person in this position should be very clear and
should include ensuring that the applicant understands the
review process, steps, and requirements, and also ensuring
that the application moves through the process as intended.
Any inadvertent breaks or disruptions in the schedule can be
identified quickly by the person in this position and resolved
well in advance of a major problem being created for the
applicant that would generate complaints.
Analysis of Community Development Code
45
City of Clearwater
"'I11III
o Technology Use - "Use of the Internet has probably had the most
impact [on Clark County], however, because a range of interested
parties - developers, realtors, attorneys, contractors, and title
companies - can now access vital information online. Any of these
parties can log on and find out exactly where applications are and
who is handling them at what stage. Not only is this a step forward
for the applicants and those who support them, but this use of
technology saves innumerable work hours for the department staff
since they no longer have to field call after call requiring them to
dispense the same information over and over."
As seen in the discussion regarding the cities of Gainesville,
Portage, and Sarasota, the web sites used offer a similar wide
array of information to the user. Even though one survey
respondent was pleased with Clearwater's site, the City of
Clearwater's web site does not offer enough information in an
organized and easily obtained manner.S Contact information
is hard to find and when it is discovered it is too general.
There is no way to track the status of an application for
development approval (note: one can access information
regarding individual building permits). A list of forms and
applications can be accessed, but without any explanation to
guide the user to the right one to use, this page is less useful.
5 The City of Clearwater's website offers email contact with staff, but due to a "contact error" that
continues to appear (note: this error has been present for the analysis period) you cannot
accomplish this. A "citizen's feedback form" is also offered, but no direct email contact with the
staff of the Community Development Department is offered here either. Also, there is not a list of
staff available on the website, either listing phone numbers or email addresses.
On the City of Clearwater's website there are almost 90 items that are available on the page that is
titled "Applications and Forms" however they are not organized in a way that guides the user.
Some of the items on this page are not in fact forms or applications, but rather include other
information that could be included in other website pages. Also, many building permit items are
included on this page mixed in with development approval application requirements and
information. Since there are so many available options and the building permit process is so
different than the development review process, these should be on a different page. In all cases, an
explanation of how to use each form or application or what they are used for should be included.
Analysis of Community Development Code
46
City of Clearwater
D Staff Education - Clark County found it beneficial to involve
staff members in regularly attending seminars taught by
residential builders, commercial developers, engineers,
bankers, and architects. "The people from the private side
explained their roles in detail to the departmental staff, with the goal
of sensitizing them to the concerns of private enterprise in the
permitting process."
This is not to say that the City's staff is insensitive to the needs of
their applicant's, but only to suggest that they may benefit from
regular interaction with them at a minimum. It may also help
them gain an appreciation and understanding of the needs and
concerns of the private sector.
E. Pinellas County, Florida
Their Process Pinellas County approves site plans
administratively, unless they are associated with a Special Exception
or Conditional Use, both of which involve the approval of a use that
requires more scrutiny or discussion by either the Board of
Adjustment or the Board of County Commissioners. It should be
noted however, that the site plans accompanying Special Exceptions
and Conditional Uses are not required to be as detailed as those that
are used to receive approval to commence actual site construction.
In other words, schematic or conceptual plans can be used to explain
to the respective boards what is proposed or to address concerns
that are associated with getting a particular use approved. More
detailed plans used to gain a final building permit, whether
associated with a Special Exception, Conditional Use, or not must be
approved by the County's technical staff, with final signature
received from the County Administrator.
In contrast, the City of Clearwater requires that very detailed and
fully engineered site plans be submitted for site development,
regardless of the use involved and regardless of the use being
approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC) or the
Analysis of Community Development Code
47
City of Clearwater
DRC and the Community Development Board. That being said, the
diagram on the page 50 shows the County's development approval
process for detailed, administratively approved site plans on the left,
and in the center and right, the processes used for Special Exceptions
and Conditional Uses, with administrative approval of detailed site
plans, if required, occurring at the end of the board approval
process.
There are two main reasons the County only requires a schematic or
conceptual site plan for these two use approval processes. First, the
boards involved require only enough information to ensure that the
impacts associated with the use will be addressed. They are not
tasked with ensuring compliance with site development regulations
such as stormwater drainage or sanitary sewage disposal
requirements, but must look at development in a broader manner by
ensuring for example that surrounding uses and areas are properly
buffered from the proposed use or that parking areas are adequately
provided and situated. Second, should the requested Special
Exception or Conditional Use be denied, the applicant has not
expended the considerable time, effort, and cost associated with the
completion of a site plan that is fully engineered and that addresses
all development regulations.
Analysis of Community Development Code
48
City of Clearwater
Site Plan A roval
Step 1
Pre-Application
Conference
(0 tional)
I
Step 2
Preliminary Site Plan
Review
( ti 1)
I
rfvifw llY staIf with
option to l1lodiflf
I
Step 3
Administrative
Direct Final Site Plan
Review
approval or dfnial (with
option to lI/od~f1f)
I
Step 4
Administrative
Construction Drawing
Review
approval or dOlial (with
option to lI/od~fy)
S ecial Exce tions
Step 1
(only step)
Board of Adjustment
Qunsi-judicial hfaring
and rfcol/lnlfndationji)}'
approvnl or dfninl
Conditional Uses
Step 1
Examiner's
Hearing
nd III ill ist I't] t iZ1f
staff's jimllnl review
I
Step 2
Board of County
Commissioners
approval or deninl
What's Useful - There are a number of features to the County's
process that could benefit the City of Clearwater. They have
completed an extensive evaluation of their development review
process, including peer and development industry input and the
Analysis of Community Development Code
49
City of Clearwater
practices put in place have been working well for a number of years
now, with adjustments being made as necessary.
o Process Evaluation - One of the important features of the
County's process is the constant evaluation of the
performance of their system. Regular reviews of data
regarding such things as average time of site plan approval
(25 days) are undertaken to ensure that the process is running
smoothly.
o Single Point of Contact - Another feature that the County
employs, similar to Clark County, W A, is to have one point of
contact for the development community. This staff person
handles all calls and follow-up comments from other
departments for development applications. It requires a staff
member familiar with all the various disciplines involved
from the County, and someone that can properly express the
comments from other departments to the applicant.
o Pre-Application Meeting - This feature of the County's
process appears to be very helpful to the development
community, but it is optional. Every Tuesday and Thursday
appointments at one-hour intervals are scheduled for
potential development approval applicants. At these
meetings, held in the Development Review Conference Room,
a representative from each department in the County involved
in site development review is in attendance. In addition, a
staff member from the Southwest Florida Water Management
District is in attendance to offer information and technical
assistance with respect to stormwater drainage requirements.
All County professional staff involved meets with applicants
to give input and guidance concerning the various specific
requirements of each department, and as the requirements
apply to the site in question. Also, available to and very
handy to all involved, is the County's graphic information
Analysis of Community Development Code
50
City of Clearwater
system, Property Appraiser's database, and other site and area
data - all displayed on a large screen in the conference room.
This process allows the developer to gather data and
preliminary comments early in the development process, may
help to avoid costly mistakes in engineering site plans, and
informs the applicant of other requirements that must be met
before they can move forward. For example, the desired
development might not be in the proper zoning category or it
may need a Special Exception or Conditional Use approval
before site plan approval.
o Schematic or Conceptual Site Plans - The County will accept
schematic or conceptual site plans as part of their Special
Exception or Conditional Use process. If the use is ultimately
approved by the Board of Adjustment (Special Exceptions) or
the Board of County Commissioners (Conditional Uses) then a
detailed site plan can be submitted and reviewed by staff (see
column one). This feature of their process allows applicants to
avoid costly investments in engineered site plans that may
eventually need major modification, or if the use were not
approved, that would have been a waste of time, money, and
effort.
Analysis of Community Development Code
51
City of Clearwater
Analysis of Community Development Code
52
City of Clearwater
v. Summary and Recommendations
The thorough analysis of the City of Clearwater's Code has not identified
any highly problematic issues, but has found a few significant problems, as
well as numerous issues that lack clarity and precision in the development
review process and can result in unnecessary confusion, delay, and cost.
Following the recommendations provided, coupled with the useful
techniques and provisions that are employed by the five other local
governments reviewed, the City may improve their process. Additionally,
the survey of frequent users was helpful in identifying areas in the Code as
well as processes surrounding the Code that could be improved upon.
This surveying process could be expanded to more individuals and
conducted on a regular basis to garner more input and to allow the
development community to express their ideas and concerns.
Finally, it should be noted that during our analysis, with minor exceptions,
there were positive statements provided concerning the City of Clearwater
staff's handling of the development review process, as well positive
comments on the process itself. Given the right tools, adequate staffing
levels, and improved processes, staff can be counted on to ensure that the
process runs smoothly, is efficient, and is administered fairly. One item
that is alluded to in the previous sentence, was written about in the
frequent user's survey, and was heard throughout our work with the City,
was that present staffing levels should be reviewed to assure that staffing
levels and expertise is adequate given the amount of development activity
in the city and the complexity of the development review process.
However, the scope of work for this study did not include the evaluation
of staffing levels.
A summary of the major conclusions is as follows. For additional
information on each item, please refer to three sections in the body of this
report.
Analysis of Community Development Code
53
City of Clearwater
o Code Process
o Reduce the requirement for fully engineered site plans be
submitted to gain approval from the Development Review
Committee and Community Development Board and defer
the submission of those more detailed site plan items to a step
that would occur after approval (either with the building
permit or construction drawing). In the place of a fully
engineered site plan consider allowing conceptual or
schematic plans to be submitted.
o Establish time frames for review/approval that consider the
potential for overlap with other applications.
o Code Requirements
o Organize Article 3 in a way that allows the development
community and staff to locate the exact requirements that
pertain to a particular development application.
o Provide cross-references that are more specific and that are
used in a consistent fashion throughout the Code.
o Reorganize Article 4 so that the requirements for development
applications are made clear.
o Eliminate unnecessary application requirements (both as
listed in the Code and on the attachments to development
application forms), especially those that are not matched to
the level of development intensity or use. Eliminate
redundant or repetitive requirements, clarify requirements
that are not specific, and eliminate unnecessary items.
o Review each use relative to where they fit in the three
development applications (Minimum Standard, Flexible
Standard, and Flexible) based on their level of intensity or
impact upon an area and determine if any of the uses can be
categorized into a lower level review process.
o Review the requirement that 15 sets of each submission
package be provided by the applicant at three separate stages
associated with most of the review/approval processes
Analysis of Community Development Code
54
City of Clearwater
(resulting in 45 copies of the submission package being
provided by the applicant).
a Clarify the requirements relative to subdivision platting.
D Code Terminology
a Replace the variety of terms that are used to refer to uses
allowed, their associated standards and criteria, and approval
processes (e.g., Flexible Standard Development and Permitted
Uses: Level One).
a Eliminate the current use of the term "Level Three Approvals"
to describe what are actually legislative actions by the City
Council and are distinct from the development approval
applications and processes.
a Clarify terminology and referencing to the proper approval
entity.
D Code Management
a Publish specific time periods for the reVIew and approval
process and place these in a development handbook available
on line.
a Evaluate the timing involved in development application
review periods relative to the burden this places on staff
workload.
a Ensure that all staff comments are received by the applicant in
a timely manner and attempt to reduce the number of
comments that are received after the applicant has addressed
initial or secondary comments.
a Attempt to coordinate staff comments and review processes in
such a way as to reduce the number of visits an applicant
must make to City Hall.
a Improve responses via telephone and email so that some visits
to City Hall, including "walk-ins," are less necessary.
a Consider posting the Code on line in PDF format, or other
easily used format, as opposed to having to rely on the more
Analysis of Community Development Code
55
City of Clearwater
difficult to use version of the Code available on Municode's
website.
o Other Items
o Correct the miscellaneous minor issues identified that have a
negative affect on the flow of the Code.
o Review the summary of responses and individual comments
in the Frequent User's Survey provided to determine which of
these can be acted upon (as summarized below):
· Reduce the number of engineering issues required for
initial approval;
· Eliminate repetitive application requirements and re-
evaluate the overall number of different applications;
· Review the "completeness" and "review" steps in the
ORC process to determine if two separate steps are
necessary;
· Re-evaluate the number of copies needed for
development application packages;
· Improve zoning desk call-back response and ensure that
all calls are returned in a timely manner;
· Continue using email to communicate with applicants;
· Evaluate the need for a longer turn-around time for
resubmissions;
· Consider allowing submission of some drawings/plans
as POFs via email to reduce the need for visits to City
Hall;
· Consider getting staff comments to the applicant prior
to ORC meetings; and
· Ensure that all appropriate ORC
attendance at BPRC meetings.
lengthening the BPRC meeting time.
members are in
Also, consider
Analysis of Community Development Code
56
City of Clearwater
o Continue the regular process by which to evaluate the Code
from the user's perspective (e.g., the City's Frequent Users
Group).
o Review the "What's Useful" sections of this report for each
community evaluated and implement them as appropriate (as
summarized below):
~ Gainesville
. "First Step Process"
. Highly informative and useful web site
~ Sarasota
. Organization of their development application
requirements that are geared towards a particular
use requested
. Page numbering and header format
. Excellent website with its link to their "Front
Counter"
~ Portage, Michigan
. Online payment system
~ Clark County, Washington
. Procedures adopted for return phone calls (can be
used for email too)
. Staff position of "ombudsman"
. Helpful and easy to navigate website
. Staff attendance at seminars given by the
development community, with interaction that
benefits all
~ Pinellas County
. Regular evaluation of the performance of their
development approval process
. Single point of contact for the
community (for individual
applications)
. Innovative way that they conduct their pre-
application meeting
. Acceptance of schematic or conceptual site plans
development
development
Analysis of Community Development Code
57
City of Clearwater
Analysis of Community Development Code
58
City of Clearwater
VI. Illustrative Implementation Schedule
A. Review Responses
and Comments in the
Frequent User's Survey
Re: Determine Which
Can Be Acted U on
B. Update Code
Education/Assistance
Tools
- Web site
- Handbook
- Code Posting Online
as PDF
Phase II
Major Tasks
C. Revise Application
(Submission)
Requirements
Consistent with Level
for I, 2, and 3 Uses,
Including Adjustment
of Site Plan Submission
Requirements, as
Determined
Appropriate
D. Differentiate
Between Plan
Requirements at DRC
and Construction
Drawing/Building
Permit Sta e
E. Miscellaneous
Edit/Format Revisions
F. Establish Regular
Process to Evaluate
Code From User's
Pers ective
Analysis of Community Development Code
59
Phase III
G. Clarify
Terminology
Re: Level 1/ 2/ and 3
Uses and Legislative
Actions
H. Organize Article 3
Requirements
Re: Specific
Applicability
I. Adjust Levell, 2,
and 3 Uses as
Determined
Appropriate
J. Implement Best
Code Management
Practices
- Ombudsman
- Tracking
- Phone/Email Contact
- Staff Education
City of Clearwater
Note that the items in Phase I, II, and III are each projected to take
approximately 6 months - 4 months to prepare/revise and 2 months to
effectuate. For example, Code amendments initiated in Phase II will
require public input and hearings that are projected to conclude by
December 2006, while Phase III would get underway during the same time
that the public hearing/adoption process for Phase II is being carried out.
Therefore, Phases II and III are expected to be initiated when the previous
Phase its being finalized.
Analysis of Community Development Code
60
City of Clearwater
Appendix
Frequent U ser' s Survey
Analysis of Community Development Code
61
City of Clearwater
(\...0~.~)') \ ;).I,J-cF-:) ~re~.~
Development Community Survey
RE: Clearwater's Development Review Processes
Q1. Rate each process you have used for how well you feel each is working to meet your
overall development needs.
Process Excellent Good Fair Poor
Level 1 (staff approval)
Minimum Standard
Flexible Standard
Level 2 (Community Development Board approval)
Flexible Development
Level 3 (City Commission approval)
Annexation
Future Land Use Plan Map amendment
Rezoning
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q2. Rate each process you have used for its ease of understanding, relative to obtaining final
development approval, including understanding the necessary steps between submission
and final approval.
Process (with final approval stage) Excellent Good Fair Poor
Level 1 (staff approval)
Minimum Standard
Flexible Standard
Level 2 (Community Development Board approval)
Flexible Development
Level 3 (City Commission approval)
Annexation
Future Land Use Plan Map amendment
Rezoning
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q3. Rate each process you have used with respect to the approoriate level of submission
requirements (e.g., applications, affidavits, surveys, site plans, studies, etc).
Process (with final approval stage) Excellent Good Fair Poor
Level 1 (staff approval)
Minimum Standard
Flexible Standard
Level 2 (Community Development Board approval)
Flexible Development
Level 3 (City Commission approval)
Annexation
Future Land Use Plan Map amendment
Rezoning
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q4. Rate each approval process you have used with respect to the timeliness of develooment
approval.
Process (with final approval stage) Excellent Good Fair Poor
Level 1 (staff approval)
Minimum Standard
Flexible Standard
Level 2 (Community Development Board approval)
Flexible Development
Level 3 (City Commission approval)
Annexation
Future Land Use Plan Map amendment
Rezoning
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q5. Provide an estimation of the number of staff persons and departments you are in contact
with for each process, as well as how many meetings (both with the staff and various
boards) you or your development team must attend, and the number of required visits to
City Hall.
Process (with final approval stage) Persons Meetings Visits
Level 1 (staff approval)
Minimum Standard
Flexible Standard
Level 2 (Community Development Board approval)
Flexible Development
Level 3 (City Commission approval)
Annexation
Future Land Use Plan Map amendment
Rezoning
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q6. If you answered Q5, rate the quality of the service or assistance you received.
Quality Excellent Good Fair Poor
Responsiveness
Accuracy
Professionalism
Staff knowledge
Helpfulness
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q7. Rate each approval process application for its overall level of complexity.
Excellent Poor
Application Form (easy to Good Fair (difficult to
understand) understand)
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q8. List the title of the article or section of the Community Development Code that you use
most often and then rate its complexity.
Excellent Poor
Article or Section (easy to Good Fair (difficult to
understand) understand)
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q9. Next to the form of contact below, please give the percentage of time you use each and
then rate the response you received (i.e., how well each of these forms of contact met
your needs or answered your questions). Use N/A if this does not apply to you.
Form of Contact Percentage Excellent Good Fair Poor
Walk-in
Telephone
Email
Fax
Web site
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Q 1 O. Rate the timeliness of the response using each form of contact. Use N/ A if this does not
apply to you.
Excellent Poor
Form of Contact (answered Good Fair (extensive
immediately) delay)
Walk-in
Telephone
Email
Fax
Other -
Please explain or provide any extra comments you may have:
Ql1. Have you ever accessed the MyClearwater.com web site? YesD NoD
Q12. If you answered "yes" to Qll, rate the characteristics of the web site relative to
development approval (e.g., obtaining development approval information and Code
requirements) .
Characteristics Excellent Good Fair Poor
Ease of use
Information usefulness
Content is up-to-date
Links are helpful
Ease of navigation
Your suggestions for web site improvements:
Q13. Are there different ways to communicate with you concerning development approval
processes, development status, and other information that would be more beneficial or
convenient to you?
Q14. Are there any suggestions that you have concerning how the process can be improved
with respect to clarity, ease of use, process steps, level of complexity or any other areas
that you may feel would benefit the development approval process (attach extra sheets if
necessary)?
Q15. Please let us know what parts of the development approval process work well, or that
need small adjustments to work well, so as to ultimately meet your needs (attach extra
sheets if necessary).
ANALYSIS OF COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT CODE
City of Clearwater
~Clearwater
0~
Draft
Prepared by the staff of the Pinellas Planning Council ]
Three Major Steps
. Assessment of the Code
- .!2RP in the Code
- Code Requirements
-It's Format and Organization
- Other Issues
. Conduct a survey of frequent users
. Comparison with other jurisdictions
General Observations
DRP is designed to be streamlined - few steps
~ More streamlined than vast majority
- Relies heavily on staff
- DRP not explained well in the Code
- Various requirements for development hard to
determine and repetitive
- Design requirements/time and energy investment
considerable early in process
- Numerous terminology issues and other general flow
issues
Our Task
. Assist the City in assessing their development
review process (DRP) for its:
- Clarity
- User-friendliness
- Complexity
- Organization
- General flow
We Didn't Include
Review ofthe Code's application (i.e., how
the Code is applied by staff and boards)
. Judgement of qualitative aspects of the
Code's standards
Assessment of staffing levels
Assessment ofDRP in Code
Included
. Thorough review of the written Code
Interviews with staff
Observation of DRC/CDB meetings
1
Survey of Frequent Users Included
. 15 questi ons asked of frequent users of the
Code - anonymous
6 of 33 responses
. Responses summarized in report
Major Conclusions
. Code Process
- Shift some of the requirements for fully
engineered site plans to the construction
drawinglbuilding permit stage
- Consider adjusting the levels ofreview required
for applications to CDB vs. staff - based on
their level of intensity or impact
Major Conclusions (cont.)
Code Terminology
- Replace variety ofterms used to describe:
. Uses allo\ved
. Associated standards and criteria
. Approval processes
- Use only "Levels L 2. and 3" to describe:
. Minimum Standard Development
. Flexible Standard Development
. Flexible Development
- Eliminate current use ofterm "Level Three Approval"
and replace with "Legislative Actions"
I!
Comparison with Other DRPs
. 5 Other Jurisdictions
- Gainesville. FL
- Sarasota, FL
- Pinellas County. FL
- Portage. MI
- Clark County, W A
Major Conclusions (cont.)
. Code Requirements
- Review development apphcation requirements
to eliminate redundant or repetitive
requirements. clarify requirements that are not
specific. and eliminate unnecessary items
~ Reorganize Article 3 so that exact requirements
can be located easily
- Add more specific and consistent cross-
referencing
10
Major Conclusions (cont.)
. Code Management
- Evaluate DRP apphcations relative to timing
and staffing levels - i.e., apphcation overlap
- Ensure staff comments are received in timely
manner and reduce secondary comments after
resubmission
- Coordinate comments and responses to reduce
visits to City Hall, including "walk-ins"
- Consider posting of Code as PDF
2
Major Conclusions (cont.)
. Other Items
- Correct miscellaneous minor issues affecting
flow ofthe Code
- Implement best practices from other
communities
- Consider changes to website that will better
inform users
D
Council Input
. What works for Council?
What doesn't?
. Suggestions on improving the DRP from
your perspective?
"
Positive Feedback
With minor exception:
- During our analysis there were positive
statements provided concerning staff's handling
of the DRP
- Also, positive comments on the DRP itself
- Some of the exceptions noted have been
addressed by staff since the start of this analysis
14
Final Steps
Revise Draft to include staff, CDB and
Council comments
. Finalize report and Present to City
16
3
.:,1...-
,
,
'I...
f' ,f~~ (~. ;:~~S; ~[ ~
.
granlcuS@
f~
~f
y~ -}
~ ~ t.
:\ 7" d '" .oj
hIl Ln-" .-to",e Lt
distributirl~i
local gave
(Jl
i .~
~~
~]
"'~
i'o "-
i!,..:?~
a:n:uno
"'_'1'
i,a~
r
~---, 1-
ii.."., ~"
Granicus improves local government's external and internal access to public meetings, training,
cable content, plus much more, Your streaming media files are made available live over the
Internet, and as searchable archives that can be used for efficient long-term record keeping,
Streaming with Granicus improves public access beyond the limitations of your cable broad-
cast The availability of searchable archives allows not only any meeting, but also any section
of a meeting to be retrieved at anytime using a simple keyword search, In addition, documents
like; staff reports, agenda's, and minutes can be synchronized and linked to your audio/video
archive, all of which will be available through the City's or County's web sik
Live Streaming 24/7
Scheduled archiving of meetings and programming
Automatic publishing of streaming to the Web
Automated indexing of meetings by agenda item
Web based search of audio/video records by keyword
Link documents to audio/video record by agenda item
Provides internal and hosted distribution of streaming content
User/Group access control and administration
Integrated minutes annotation tool for the Clerk's Office
Integrates well with your existing enterprise architecture
85% of requests are for archived streaming
media using indexing or search, Requests are
averaging 2,000/month.
- City of Cerritos, Population 55,000
40% compounded increase in Internet access
purchases for the next four years.
- Forbes.com
In today's saturated environment of information delivery, utilizing cable broadcast alone to
distribute your audio/video content is not enough. As competition from satellite television and
dish providers eats into to the local cable market, cities and counties are slowly loosing their
ability to engage their citizens and other stakeholders. However, with the increasing number of
households utilizing Internet access Public Information Officers can recapture their citizens and
stakeholders outside of the city or county limits.
!U~
.""n
'. .!l \V
t~
.r, .,.<,,:
t,::~ ;~:&
s
thne
r
1. t~
..
Our end-to-end solution provides substantial savings for your entire staff, expands access to
public meetings, and creates new possibilities in delivering audio/video content for internal
training and public education.
Improve Communications and Save Money
Make meetings available live over the Internet for citizens and
all government departments
Create searchable digital archives, saving research/access time
;" Workflow automation through software, saves staff time
... Synchronize and link documents to the audio and video record
Include staff reports, agendas, minutes, and more
Publish to public or internal web sites
Expand Government Media Delivery
fp Deliver public education content
... Public service announcements
!lie Training video, on-demand
Simple Technology Solution
Easy to integrate into existing infrastructures
Out-of-the-box software for ease of use
Centralized or shared infrastructure
Decentralized content management tools
Maximize cost savings through automation and flexibility
''" Intelligent routing to maximize bandwidth utility
XML based integrations
Supporting Success, creating man-hours
24/7 technical support
24/7 system monitoring
Onsite user training
9
($ a.ll
Web Access, Quick Searches
Granicus greatly improves external and internal access to your public
meetings. Our end-to-end solution makes meetings available live over
the Internet, and then saves them as searchable archives that can be
used for efficient long-term record keeping. Streaming with Granicus
improves public access beyond what can be provided through cable
broadcast. The availability of a searchable audio/video archive allows
users to select any meeting, at anytime, using a simple keyword
search. In addition, documents such as staff reports, agenda's, and
minutes can be synchronized and linked to your audio and video
archives, available through the public or internal web site.
Deliver More, Add Benefits
Granicus' systems added benefits improve internal knowledge
transfer and access of media for your staff and agency departments.
And improves public relationships, while ensuring a high level of
satisfaction and maximizing the return on investment. Other agencies
use the Granicus solution to deliver public education content, public
service announcements, and video on demand training.
Staff Time, Media Automation
The Granicus solution delivers usefulness for your agency and does
it in a way that minimizes your overall cost. Our solution integrates
easily with your current infrastructure and audio/video equipment
instead of replacing or duplicating it. Additionally, the storage and
distribution of your streaming content is offloaded to the Granicus
MediaCenter™ eliminating your need to invest in additional dedicated
bandwidth and servers, which are necessary to support streaming.
.~ r1
,..v. ~~
.c;:, ,;'
-""-.../
, 'v.,.
.1-1 ~
Lrl
By automating the process that would normally be done manually, the
Granicus MediaManager™ software minimizes the impact streaming
has on your staff's time, and eliminates the need for the IT staff to be
on hand during meetings. Agenda items can be indexed in real-time,
and archives are automatically published to the City's/County's web
site minimizing the involvement of your Webmaster. Because meeting
archives are readily available on the Internet, the need for the clerk's
office to retrieve and prepare meeting records will also diminish
over time.
At Granicus, we recognize that a great product is only part of what
keeps our clients satisfied. 24/7 technical support, onsite user train-
ing, and an end-to-end solution consolidate responsibility for the
solution's success in one organization, thus ensuring a high level of
satisfaction.
Opportunity with Functionality
A streaming media solution, which offers government agencies sub-
stantial and immediate returns on their investment, as well as
improving communications on all levels.
Peak Usage Innease
~
~
"
1;;
o
u
Nurn.het of Use-r~
~
.,..'~' i",'
;".:; ,,):
'LJ 0
anel.
'~ '~,'-:'
-,1<" ,tJ'
~i 11 ~B~{
fH. V
.,,/'
1'1
. 1 irJ.""" ot"Jl
"",.,, \:.
-,
~::r .#~
!,:)
S{~
Why many cities try streaming on their own to start:
Some cities have the expertise available in-house to deploy a basic streaming solution that
supports live broadcasting through their existing infrastructure and audio-video systems.
Additionally, many cities usually have the manpower available to manage the archived files
and publish them individually to the web. Introductory encoding software is free, and building
an encoding computer is fairly simple and inexpensive. Streaming technology is usually seen as
fun, or at least interesting, and most IT teams look forward to the opportunity to work with the
technology. To start, the outlook is optimistic.
Five reasons why the Granicus Solution becomes appealing:
1. End-user usage grows and network congestion becomes an issue. During the initial
launch of a streaming solution, most cities do not add additional bandwidth to their
network to support streaming. Because streaming uses considerable bandwidth, has large
peaks during live events, and has serious quality problems when the network is congested,
cities are forced to find a new content dElivery solution. Simple economies-of-scale
suggest that an outsourced solution would be beneficial. Because cities provide live event-
based streaming, they naturally experience peaks in usage during those events. Due to high
peak usage, dedicated bandwidth can cost four to five times what you would pay on a
gigabyte (GB) transfer rate through the Granicus Media Center. To save money and/or
improve quality cities with network congestion are moving towards outsourced hosting.
2. Server/Encoder reliability problems occur because of configuration. Most cities start by
utilizing one piece of hardware, an encoder. The encoder is used both to encode the analog
signal from the cable or camera feed, and to serve the streams to users. This is not the
ideal configuration, and as usage grows the single server will have difficulty handling both
the encoding and serving of media. The end result can be that the encoder/server locks up
during a popular event. This means that all of your live streams go down, and the archive
of the event you are saving on the encoder is lost or incomplete.
The ideal solution is to have one computer/server act as the encoder, and forward the
stream onto multiple streaming servers. The streaming servers handle the requests from
the users, and the encoder simply encodes and archives the event. With this setup, you
rarely if ever have a problem with your encoding server or your streaming servers. However,
this means that a city will have to build/buy additional servers and maintain them.
Additionally, the expertise of managing these servers and a
streaming infrastructure is less likely to be available in most
cities. Again, simple economics support outsourcing this service
to Granicus which provides shared servers in a managed
environment.
3. Manual processes for managing and publishing video become
extremely time consuming and difficult. Once the simple one-
server infrastructure has been replaced with a more fail-safe
solution, the administrative tasks of moving, organizing, and
publishing video content become non-trivial. To publish content,
an administrator usually has to log on to several servers, possibly
in multiple locations. Files are down loaded off the streaming
servers for minor editing like trimming or creating a video sub-
clip. HTML publishing to the web site consists of numerous
manual steps, most of which are very redundant and tedious.
The need for reliable and easy-to-use software, which provides
some central control and automation for these processes, becomes
apparent after a short period of time. The software development
skills required to link and automate these processes exist in-house
in only a handful of cities. Furthermore, in almost all cases, the
city has no desire to actually develop complex and custom
software solutions. This leads them to select a solution from a
qualified outside vendor like Granicus.
MULTIPLE
SOURCES
STREAMING
SERVERS
-t
.- ..,,~.
....'. ..
.-.*
."j;
". "'. it
.*
ENCODER
"".
4. Additional features, which almost always require third party
software, are in high demand. Every city wants its citizens to
have the most satisfying viewing experience possible. For those
cities that have dealt with or accepted the obstacles pointed out
above, the main reason for moving to the Granicus Solution is to
obtain additional features and functionality that improve the user
experience. Most compelling is the combination of indexing and
archived search, which allows users to gain quick and simple
access to the content they are looking for. The Granicus
MinutesMaker™ allows the Clerk to annotate minutes in
real-time, during a meeting instead of the Webmaster or IT team.
Finally, reporting tools allow city staff to quickly see how much
traffic is being generated, as well as the number of unique users,
unique requests, and a breakdown of internal versus external
viewership statistics.
5. The need for additional expertise and support. The final reason
that cities have decided to outsource part or all of their streaming
solution to Granicus is to acquire additional technical support
and/or expertise. Very quickly the IT team realizes that they really
don't want, or can't afford to be, experts in every aspect of main-
taining an end-to-end streaming solution. Logically, an outside
provider specializing in streaming video applications for local
governmental entities is better positioned to stay on the cutting
edge of advancements in technology, and create beneficial
upgrades. Cities feel more comfortable outsourcing part of the
responsibility to an outside provider who demonstrates skills
and solutions that benefit them and their citizens.
City of Berkeley
"Our implementation with Granicus is much more cost-effective and comprehensive than
in-house alternatives."
-Weldon Rucker, City Manager, City of Berkeley,
"We have saved staff time and improved customer service during a time of fiscal constraint by
giving website visitors 24x7 access to information. This is a great example of how technology
should be used to increase civic participation and make local government more effective."
- Donna LaSala, E-Government Manager, City of Berkeley
City of El Segundo
"This solution is working out great. Viewers can jump to a particular item immediately without
having to wade through the entire meeting. Indexing with a keyword search turns streaming
into a powerful and convenient information source."
"In addition, the Granicus solution includes features specifically designed with cities and coun-
ties in mind, such as closed-captioning support, and web applications that are American
Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant. The Granicus Enterprise solution also supports one of the
newer California mandates: Assembly Bill 1962 (AB 1962): the updated public records law,
which requires archival of electronic records for the same duration as other public records."
"We know that by partnering with Granicus, our streaming media solution will keep pace with
the needs of our staff, our elected officials and the public."
- Mayor Mike Gordon, City of EI Segundo
City of Cerritos
"Some of the other streaming media solutions we reviewed were three times more expensive
than Granicus, and didn't even offer the indexed video feature we wanted. Based on the time
saved on information management alone, the Granicus solution will pay for itself in very short
time."
- Mayor Gloria A. Kappe, City of Cerritos
County of Ventura
"By streaming with Granicus vs. cable broadcast, we have saved in the area of $300k-$400k,
and it's more convenient for our constituents."
"Because the Granicus solution automatically records and digitally archives the Board of
Supervisors meetings, Ventura County may soon eliminate the use of their current tape record-
ing system used to archive meetings."
- Supervisor Frank Shillo, County of Ventura
"By having our meetings archived and searchable on the Internet, staff and citizens can
retrieve the meeting records they need on their own. Helping to reduce the workload on the
clerk's office by up to 25%."
- Johnny Johnston, County CEO, County of Ventura
-.
If.lniaa
], laaUuC-:),fIWli.i...1Ju.im..l,S1o.o11...tnW -1
~(F'nltya"'~.-U_".,..,,"') I
f"""'CilyM....q~ '
R~<.._U,li..'" A"'p"'i:""~..ad<ng.i j
~~~;'...":'~~:/;;~o7~<~;~.~~~' !
Ml''''C1f'<>l c...t.. (BM:::) for !he PWPM:,,,r '_,' J
p~aM""'''Pol~Sl:u:ifoT';,li-;~'' "
Mix>:dU.d~hldusIlialMix.dU,. I
~:':7~~::'~~;:=.. I
~:~tO~~~';:;;~~9oJB~;~t~~ 1
AniGII.:_ Adopttd_C'rdm.>r,.eN< <iJ1E_N:: I
I!PE...L~!J!-,ElIi<ImJ.....19.2003
4. ~~.ill~~S!f':_Y!.!',d.n,
~Jr<tI'Pad"'i!-U~'UIl"''''''';
Fr.....'CilyMuq...
:.~:::"e;:::~~~:::~;~:..~ 0'- i
:.de I1!)JCi $<<no. 9,49 05S",Iario,o;,.rood I
'.........;goo..d.:....ollu
COflUct Fr.... [:...ci, F......". ~~\_'I]()r
:::~~.~'~:.~:::~:~':;~ "'" , i
,.n
". /1.\,(;1 ~';F.'~;'('!
: rn :-,,_'_" i~_ L;.o C; t_: ('(\ C r-j ~'~~
r, .
The City of Baldwin Park
The City of Berkeley
The City of Brentwood
The City of Calabasas
The City of Cerritos
The City of EI Segundo
The City of Gilroy
The City of Irvine
The City of Long Beach
The City of Milpitas
The City of Newport
The City of Pasadena
The City of Pinole
The City of Richmond
The City of Roseville
The City of Sacramento
The City of San Carlos
The City of Scottsdale
The City of San Diego
The City of Stockton
The County of Madera
The County of Monterey
The County of Sedgwick
The County of Ventura
California Public Utilities Commission
Pasadena Unified School District
~'}
.,1
K_
.~
f~
~
~ '.
CITY ~..
OF
~ ~ I I 0 ~ ~
.
granlcuS~
74 Tehama SI , San FranclsC'(), Ca!lfornia 94105 41.5 357 3618 IN vi.granlcus.com
11'"
[I
June 61", 2005
Updated Nov 2nd. 2005
To: City of Clearwater
Doug lvlatthews
Public Commurucations, Director
Via email
Doug Mathews,
Grarucus looks forward to developing a successful long-term relationship with the City of Clearwater. By
selecting Grarucus as your streaming media solution provider, you will greatly improve external and
internal access to your public meetings These meetings will be available live over the Internet, and as
searchable archives that can be used for efficient long-term record keeping Streaming with Grarucus
improves public access beyond what can be provided through cable broadcast. The availability of
searchable archives allows a section of any meeting to be retrieved at anytime using a simple keyword
search. In addition, documents like staff reports, agenda's, and minutes can be synchronized and linked
to your audio and video archive all of which will be available through the City's web site
\X!hi1e public meeting broadcasts are a compelling and popular use of your Grarucus solution, your
system can be used by all city departments to present video content internally or externally over the web.
Other cities use the Grarucus solution to deliver public education content, public service announcements,
and video on demand training.
The Grarucus solution delivers the functionality desired by the City of Clearwater, and does it in a way
that minimizes the overall cost. Our proposed solution integrates with your current infrastructure and
audio video equipment instead of replacing or duplicating it. ,-\dditionally, the storage and distribution of
your strea=g content is offloaded to the Grarucus Media Center eliminating your need to invest in
additional dedicated bandwidth and servers, which are necessary to support streaming. By automating
processes that would normally be done manually the Grarucus Media1\1anager™ software also mtninuzes
the impact streaming has on staff time, and eliminates the need for the IT staff to be on hand during
meetings. "-\genda items can be indexed in real time, and archives are automatically published to the
City's web site minimizing the involvement of your Webmaster. Because meeting archives are readily
available on the Internet, the need for the clerk's office to retneve and prepare meeting records will also
dirrumsh over .time.
At Grarucus, we recognize that a great product IS only part of what keeps our clients satisfied. For that
reason, Grarucus provides 24/7 techrucal support and onsite user training. \'V'e also take full
responsibility for maintaining and morutonng the technology that powers your solution, so that you can
avoid the cost of developing a team of streaming experts. \'V'hen you need us we will be there to help
If you have any questions about our services or this proposal plcasc do not hesitate to contact me.
1\los t Sincerely,
Tom Spengler
Chamnan and ClllCf Executlvc Officer
CranJClIs, I nc
Proposed Solution Pricing
Your Granicus soluuon was designed based on the CIty of Clearwater's speCIfic streamlllg needs. Our
pncing reflects our commitment to supply our customers with the highest value and utmost guality
Your solution consists of the components detailed below. Please note that computer hardware can be
supplied by the CIty's preferred vendor. In the event that computer hardware is supplied by the CIty of
Clearwater, Gral11cus IS not responsible for the maintenance of the hardware.
Granicus Media Manager
Hardware (Provided by City)
1 - Dell Server -Power Edge 750 Next Day Three Year Service
Single Processor Intel Xeon. 3.0 GHz Processor
36GB Hard Drive
1 GB SDR,4M 133 MHz, 4x128MB DIMMs
Windows XP Professional
Configuration
Hardware (Provided by City)
Software
Software
Basic (one encoder/parser)
$0.00
$000
$500.00
$6,500.00
Sales Tax 0.00% $0.00
Subtotal $7,000.00
Professional Services & Other Hardware
Other Hardware
Osprey 230 Encoder Card
Rack Mounted Input Panel
Audio Line Amp
Training
1 Day On site
Remote Installation
Web Site Integration
$350.00
$425.00
$37500
Sales Tax 0.00%
Subtotal
$1,600.00
$500.00
$4,500.00
$0.00
$7,750.00
Shipping
Managed Servies Nov 2005 to Sept 1 st 2006
Total Sales Tax 000%
$50
$5,700
$0.00
$20,500.00
Total
Total Monthly Managed Services After Sept 15t
2006
$950
Granicus Managed Services
:\11 managed services plans are billed on a monthly basIs, and requIre the fIrst month be paid durIng the
Initial setup of your Grarucus solution. J\ll plans include fulll\1anaged Services, complete monitorIng and
maintenance of your on-site hardware and 24/7 tcchrucal and user support for your complete solution.
Managed ServIces also includes all software upgrades and bug fL'{es for all of the City's Grarucus software
components. The goal of our Managed ServIces program IS to help the City realize the highest level of
value and satisfaction from Grarucus solution, without incurring additional or unexpected costs.
Grarucus l\'fanaged Services include the following:
Technical and User Support
Grarucus offers continuous customer support and is dedicated to ensurIng that the City is completely
satisfied with Grarucus products and services. Grarucus staff is available to the City 24hrs a day, 365
days a year, via the contact info below.
Direct (8:00am to 6:00pm Pacific time): 415-357-3618
Toll Free (8:00am to 6:00pm Pacific time): 877-889-5495
On-call Technical Support (available 24 hours, 7 dcry.r a week): 415-637-0520
Site: www.grarucus.com
Email: support@grarucus.com
Monitoring
As part of the City's 1\fanaged Services Grarucus will continually monitor, on a 24/7 basis, all the
software and hardware Included In your solution. Should any malfunction appear, Grarucus will
immediately notify the City and proceed to resolve the issue. Grarucus is committed to repair or replace
any non-functioning hardware, provided directly from Grarucus, within 24 hours for up to 3 years.
Software Upgrades
Grarucus provides its software as a "Lifetime License", and all software upgrades are included as part
of your l\Janaged Services program. This includes both the rights to use the upgraded software and any
servICes required as part of the upgrade process
Bandwidth and Storage
Through Grarucus Managed Services we will pro\'ide all of the bandwidth and storage necessary to utilize
your solution. Thc GraOlcus 1\fanaged Services plan includes "Unlimited Bandwidth" for streaming
the City's live and on-demand content over the Internet through the Grarucus i\fedla CenterTM
The Gra01cus 0.fanagecl SerVices plan also Includes 12 months of archiving for all public meetings and
20 hours or 3 Giga bytes of storage for addItional content at the Grarucus i\Ieclla Center™ :\dditional
storage beyond the 3 Gigabytes can be purchased at 5 cents per megabyte per month.
Project Implementation Timeline
Granicus is pleased to begin a promising and successful relationslup with the CIty of Clearwater. To
begIn the process, we have outlined a timeline to ensure the efficient and organized implementation of
your Granicus solution. Grarucus guarantees a 30-day implementation period, which begins the day the
servICe contract and initial fees are receIVed.
1. The City of Clearwater delivers signed proposal and servICe contract to Granicus
2. Full purchase order is issued by the City of Clearwater.
3. On site installation project plan completed by Grarucus & the City of Clearwater.
4. Hardware built, configured and tested by Granicus engineers
5. Granicus in conJunction with the City Webmaster will complete the Ciry of Clearwater's webslte
Integration
6. City of Clearwater completes on site installation and Grarucus provides on site training.
7. The City of Clearwater completes two-day solutlOn testing and final implementation Sign off
8. The City of Clearwater releases remaining project funds to Grarucus.
Unless otherwise stated in a program announcement or solicitation, this Signed and accepted proposal
must be received by Nov 5th, 2005.
Sign to Accept proposal.
Return to representative or;
Granicus, Inc.
28 2nd St. Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94105
The City of Clearwater
Granicus, Jne.
Client Signature:
Signature:
Date:
Date:
Professional Services Description
Configura tion:
Configuration of Grarucus hardware includes the assembly of all server and encoder components. Base
operating systems are installed on Granicus or client supplied hardware. The ~ardware and software is
optimized for strearrung media applications. Grarucus software IS then Installed "",d initial configuration
and testing is performed.
Web Site Integration:
Web site integration includes incorporating the public components of the Grankils Media
l'vfanagement™ software into the clients website, matching the look and feel, and integra::<:}g the
navigation. This service also includes the custom design of a client specific pop-up video player, or .S'h.", ,
and a custom agenda parser to Increase indexing quality and efficiency. In addition, our l\1inutes!\faker
feature can be customized to provide automatic generation of cross-linked meeting minutes to meet your
specific needs.
Onsite Installation & TrainiL1K:
Onsite Installation of hardware at client's location includes configuration of: analog audio and video
feeds to the encoder, Internet and LAN connectivity, configuration of fuewalls and proxies, all hardware
With power and backup power supplies, and final system configuration with the Granicus Media Center.
Once the system is up and running Granicus' engineers finish the setup by tuning the audio and video
remotely. .\ trainmg seSSIon concludes the onsite visit.
Once the system is installed, our engineers will remotely monitor your equipment to assure that it IS
continually operating to original specifications.
Granicus MediCJ,rranager™ Software
Granicus :\IediaJ'vIanager™ consIsts ,( propnetary \veb-based software tools designed to effiClently
organize and manage your streal'P"lg content. These tools put the control of broadcast aCtivIty, user
account management, live evenrmanagement, and usage reportlng 10 your hands,
The software has been br,tten up into for segments to meet the unique needs for a variety of Cities and
Counties, These thre/" components are: 1) MedIa I\1anager™ - Basic, 2) MediaManager™ ~ Enterpnse,
and 3) Mediaj'vfan~erTM, - MinutesI\hker. Each of these components are described in detail below,
MediaManagerT" - Basic is the foundation technology of every solution and IS required before adding the
Enterprise "" l\{inutesI\laker software modules,
!riediaMana2:er™ Basic
Public Site:
Our solution includes several pages for your Internet users to access on-demand media and live
broadcasts, Users will use these pre-built pages to search out specific footage, and jump to specific events
within your audio/vIdeo archive, The Granicus solution also allows for a key word search based on all of
the mdex points associated with the City's complete library of video archives, This functionality
substantially mcreases the convenience of access to and use of meeting archives, ,\round these core
pages you can instantly control user access us10g a registration and log ill system, "\ll public web pages
are seam]essly l11tegrated into your current website, so that the look and feel of your SHe remains
consistent, The Medial\fanager - BaslC software license allows for one custom build archiving listing
page, and one video skin, By addmg MediaManager™ - Enterprise you will the ability to create and
customize an unlimited number of public pages by utilizing our templates and views tools. See
MediaManager™ - Enterprise for more lllfonnation,
Protected Administration Site;
,\s a client of Granicus, you will have access to a web based administrative site that will allow you to
create and manage archives, schedule and index live events, link documents and minutes of meeting to
the video, view real time usage reporting, and configure content distribution, You will also have access to
a senes of video editing tools that can be used to enhance your on-demand content once it has been
broadcasted or encoded,
· Media Acquisition tools gIve you the ability to add audIO and video content to your content
library from a vanety of sources Utilizing the Grarucus Outcast™ encoder, live events can be
slffiultaneously broadcast and archived to the library easily and directly through the live event
manager During a broadcast you can add times stamped data, such as agenda Item tndices or
slides, allOWing you to create nch multimedia presentations, '{ ou are also given a slmple media
Import tool that can be Llsed to Import any pre-encoded content from your desktop Into your
archive listl11g Finally, the CralllCus Outcast™ encoder, wwch IS l11cluded with
i\fediai\lanager™ - BaslC, can be used to encode your analog VIdeo by replaCIng the live Signal
\vlth that of a standard video playback devlCe such as a standard VCR or D\'O player In thiS
scenano, the same capture tools for managtng a u\'e broadcast can be used to make YOLlr valued
oflline content available online Grarucus a/so offers ill house from encoding from VHS or
OVO as part of our profeSSional sernccs
· Automadc Live Event Scheduler and Archive Publishing - Live events, such as City
Supervisors meetings, can be easily scheduled to be both broadcast live and archive through the
Granicus Live Event Manager. By utilizing this tool, the City will not require staff time or
technical aSsIstance to start, stop or archive thell live events. Archives are automatically
transferred from the Granicus OutCast™ encoder to the Granicus 1\fediaCenter™ and
automatically published the City's web site. These features substantially decrease the need for
staff time to manage content creation and publishing to the City's web site.
· Media Clip Administration provides clients the tools to create, edit, delete, index, trim and
merge digital video clips. Once the media is in the archive library you can utilize indexing tools
that allow you to set multiple 'Jump To" pOilltS into the video, providing your end user the
ability to easily navigate your streaming content. Various other editing and organizational tools
allow you to modify your archives and add to the searchable Meta data associated with each
archive.
· Meedng Agenda Parser allows the City to index its video archives based on agenda item titles,
by automatically pulling the agenda item titles and descriptions from the City's agenda and
loading them into the Grarucus J'vfedial\hnager™ These agenda item titles are than loaded into
the live event manager, which allows you to index your video ill real time by simply clicking on
an agenda item title and pressing enter when the council or board begins discussing that issue.
Other solutions, if they offer illdexing, force you to manually retype and load the text for each
agenda item. The j\genda Parser feature assures quality lndexing and substantially decreases the
staff time need to create indices.
· Searchable Indexes - A.udio and Video archives, which are viewable over the Internet, can be
easily indexed with multiple Jump points through the Granicus ;\fediaManagcr™ software.
These indexes allow users to jump directly to the specific point in the City's audio/video archive.
The Granicus solution also allows for a key word search based on all of the index pOilltS
associated with the City's complete library of video archives. For example a key word search on
"Water" will return to the user a direct link to all of the audio/video archives, which discuss
water usage in the City. This functionality substantially increases the convenience of access to
meeting archives.
· Searchable Closed Capdoning- The Granicus solution supports the use of closed captioning,
and the association of the captlOlUng with the streamlng media. Captions are viewable during
live and archived streaming for full AD"-1- compliance. For archived meetings the captions can
also be searched by key words allowmg the user to jump to the appropriate point in the video
archive. In addition captions can also be used to create a transcript for a particular agenda item
through the Granicus :\Jediai\fanager ™ Software.
· Document Management enables documents to be manually loaded and linked to video
archives and directly assoClated to the appropnate agenda items, resulting ill a searchable archive
that includes both the audio/video record of your meetlflg and the staff reports or other
documents that were used dunng the meetlng Cross-linking documents and audlO/Vldeo
archives provide the most comprehenSive records arclllve system available To Improve the
effiCiency of lfltegratll1g and linking your meeting documents with your meeting audio / \-ideo
see the Document management Integrauon option Included with i\L.nutesLlnker™.
· CD Download with Indexing- .\UdlojVldeo .-\rchlves can be qwckly downloaded and burned
to CD by any adm1J11strator of the Crarucus solutlon. The CD download also mcluc.lt:s the
agenda item mdexmg mformation so users of the CD can still jump directly to the agenda items
they are mterested m Trus tool conveniently provides offline copies of your meetings for those
citizens without Internet access.
· Media Delivery subsystems, such as the Grarucus StreamReplicator™ and Media\'aultTM,
maxunize your existing infrastructure investment by allowing you to deliver content USl11g local
storage and bandwidth when appropnate. These systems function transparently as part of the
Grarucus solution, and complement the robust delivery arcrutecture at the Gral1lcus
MedlaCenter™ No speCIal training is required to operate these deVIces as they function
autonomously and are controlled by Grarucus l\JedlaManager™ software.
· Summary Reports provide you with detailed usage reports concerrung: streaming requests,
average user bandwidth, outbound bandwidth, content popularity, and media storage usage
Granicus MediaCenter™ - Content Management and Delivery
To deliver reliable, high-quality audIO and \'ideo content over the Internet you must have a secure and
scalable distribution facility able to support hundreds or thousands of concurrent users; with this as our
goal we created the Grarucus MediaCenter™ The Grarucus l\IediaCenter™ enables us to store and
di~tribute your content over the Internet to ensure your audience consistently receives a high quality
stream.
How it Works
The Grarucus MediaCenter™ is the core of all Grarucus Internet broadcast solutions. Tllis secure and
reliable facility stores and distributes rich-media events to the public over the Internet. Live streams are
encoded at your location and one stream is sent to our streanling servers at the Grarucus l\IediaCenterTM
J\rchive f.tles can also be uploaded directly to our servers. Your streanling content will be available
through your web site, but the Grarucus MediaCenter™ handles all requests for both live and archived
streams. The only streaming that will travel over your network is the one stream per source, you are
sending to the Grarucus MediaCenter ™
The Grarucus MediaCenter™ is well equipped to handle all of your strearrung needs. It has direct
redundant Internet connectivity at optlcal wavelength speeds to a variety of major Internet backbone
providers, illcluding Qwest Commurucations, SBC/Pacific Bell and others.
In addition to providing standard Internet Data Center power facilities the Grarucus lVlediaCenter™ has
the significant added benefit of being a Designated Block 50 facility. Allowing the facility to be exempt
from rolling blackouts.
MediaCenter™ Features:
· fleXIble Storage Programs
· Flexible Distribution Programs
· 24/7 System Support
· Redundant Storage
· Redundant Network Connections
"
Granicus OutcaseM Encoder - Feature Rich Encoding
The Grarucus Outcast encoder coupled with the Grarucus MedIaJ\Ianager™ Software makes live
strearrung and arcruvIng a simple and hands off process, Most encoders simply convert an auc/io video
SIgnal into a c/igttal format that can be used for streaming; the Grarucus Outcast™ does much more.
USIng the Gralllcus Outcast™ with your Grarucus solution allows for live event scheduling, automatic
web publishing, live indexing, slides, closed captiorung, and automatic ardl.1ving and file transfer to
dIstribution servers
How it Works
The Outcast™ Encoder integrates with the web-based Grarucus Medial\1anager™ software and transfers
live broadcasts to the Granicus MediaCenter™ in real time. The Grarucus MediaCenter™ then
duplicates and distributes your rugh quality audio and video content to the auc/ience requesting the
content.
\'Vhi.le broadcasting a live event, the on-site Gralllcus Outcast™ Encoder can also archive your
broadcasts for on-demand viewing later. Once your broadcast IS complete, the encoded event is
automatically transferred to the Grarucus i\'1ediaCenter™ where our suite of streaming media tools are
accessible for editing, management and publishing functions,
Outcast™ Encoder Features:
· Live & Scheduled Broadcast Control
· ,'\utomatic .'\rchiving
· Multiple Bit Rate Support
· .'\utomated Broadcast and ,'\rchive Publishing
· Live event management: IndeXIng, Slides, and Closed CaptIon
To:
Councilmember Petersen
From:
Margo Walbolt
Date:
12/8/2005
~D-L - d
u..
o
>-
J'-
o
Interoffice Memorandum
Attached is the following information:
Clearwater Nagano Exchange Program - Background
Letter from International Relations - City of Nagano
Sample of Scholarship Guidelines for Parks & Recreation Programs
'.
Clearwater Nagano Exchange Program
Background:
The Clearwater Nagano Exchange Program has been in existence for 46 years. Annually,
there are exchanges ofteachers and students. The City of Nagano has recently proposed
changes to the structure of two of the exchange programs.
Pinellas County Exchange Teachers
Nagano has proposed that the two Pinellas County school teachers who have previously
spent ten months teaching English and American culture in Nagano schools, now spend a
one month term teaching in Nagano elementary and junior high schools. Previously, the
city of Nagano paid the teachers' salaries and all travel expenses. The current proposal
requests that the airfare and travel expenses to Japan no longer be covered by Nagano.
Nagano will bear the costs of travel within Japan, provide a home stay, and give a
monetary gift to the teachers at the end of the month.
Jan Rouse, Pinellas County Schools Associate Superintendent, Curriculum Studies, has
reviewed the proposal and concurs that if the City of Clearwater is unable to identify a
funding source for the teachers' airfare, it is reasonable to expect the teachers to assume
responsibility for this expense. Pinellas County Schools will continue to post
information, meet with interested teachers, provide teacher component points, and
preparatory training for the teachers selected. The County has stipulated that the month
long residency can only be scheduled during the summer break. There is speculation that
the reduction in time spent in Nagano may result in more applications from teachers who
are unable to commit to a year's residency.
Clearwater Exchange Students
Since 1991,52 high school students from Clearwater have had the opportunity to receive
a one-month residence scholarship. In 2004, the four students who were selected as
guests of Nagano, spent two weeks residing with home stay families and visiting middle
and high school classes. Last year's selection process was highly competitive with
twenty outstanding students submitting applications.
For the high school exchange program, Nagano has previously borne all costs for our
four students and a teacher chaperone. The proposed change requests that airfare, travel
insurance and all transportation expenses within Japan be taken care of on our end.
Nagano will continue to arrange for homestays, study tours and visits to local attractions f
or the two week visit.
Advisory Board Recommendation
The City's Sister City Advisory Board reviewed the proposal from Nagano and
recommends complying with the requests. While the Pinellas County teacher applicants
may be willing to pay their travel costs, there was concern that the high school student
exchange might be limited to only students who could afford to travel. The advisory
board has suggested setting up a scholarship fund.
i
ESTIMATED STUDENT EXPENSES FOR 2005
Estimated cost of trip per student:
Estimate includes:
Roundtrip Airfare from Tampa to Narita:
Japan Rail Pass: 14 day
Hotellhostel stay in Tokyo
Sightseeing in Tokyo
Luggage transport, food, miscellanous
~ cost of chaperone
$2500.
$1200 - $1500.
$375.
$50. - $150.
$150.
$225.
$500.
Transportation within Nagano, accommodations and food provided by homestays.
Students should budget approximately $600 for other incidental spending such as snacks,
souvenirs. Students are also expected to provide gifts for their homestay families and
small token souvenir gifts for schools.
The City will provide gifts to Nagano City and School Board officials as well as Principal
and School gifts.
Clearwater Nagano High School Student Exchange Program
To be eligible to apply:
· Student must be a resident of Clearwater, or attend a school located in Clearwater.
· Student must be presently enrolled in a high school world language class.
· Student must be currently enrolled in Grade 9, 10 or 11.
The City will offer a matching grant up to $1250. for all students who meet the following
criteria:
· Student has been selected by a committee through an application and interview
process.
· Student agrees to participate in at least one designated Nagano Student Exchange
Scholarship fundraiser prior to the trip.
· Student agrees to volunteer at Clearwater Nagano Exchange events or other
activities designated by the City of Clearwater.
Additional need-based finance assistance is available for eligible students and is based
on income eligibility standards adopted by the State Board of Education in connection
with the free and reduced lunch program. Students will not need to indicate need for
financial assistance until after the selection process.
October 28, 2005
.r
Dear Ms. Walbolt,
Almost all the rice has been harvested in Nagano and the fall colors are starting to appear.
Allow me to offer my best wishes for your health.
Thank you for your valuable assistance with the recent junior high school, student visit.
Our students came home safely with hearts filled with wonderful memories such as the
Clearwater students' active participation in class and the warm hospitality of the host
families. At home and at school, the students will pass on the moving stories of their trip
to many residents.
We extend our appreciation to the past mayors and to all those involved in the wonderful
education-focused exchanges we've built up with Clearwater, as sister cities.
Nagano City wishes to carry on the friendly relations we've built over several long years.
However, due to various changes in circumstance, I believe it is time to reexamine the
structure of our sister city exchange programs.
With the future exchange program arrangements in mind, I would like you to review the
points outlined below. Thank you for your cooperation.
1. The Clearwater Exchange Teachers
Currently, you generously send over two teachers for 10 months to teach native English
and American culture. I understand that compared to the early days of this program, it
has become harder to secure Clearwater teachers due to family-related circumstances and
career development.
For Nagano, the challenges include the full utilization of the strengths of the Clearwater
teachers who have come all this way to our schools, and the growing ease with which we
can secure English teachers, through means such as the JET Programme, who will stay on
for several years. Another issue is the long homestay period and the problems that have
come up with the host families.
I
What do you think about taking the emphasis on being a goodwill ambassador from the
lO-month AET contracts in the past, and having your teachers come for a l-month term to
teach in elementary and junior high schools about Clearwater and the US, and returning
~
;:
.e.~ " d/
Nagano City Hall
1613 Midori-cho, Nagano City
Japan 380-8512
TEL +81-26-224-5447 FAX. +81-26-224-5121
E-mail kokusai@city.nagano.nagano.jp
!HHIH9: pJT
=r380-8512 !HH~!Hlrm*JRIIIT1613
TEL. +81-26-224-5447 FAX. +81-26-224-5121
home to teach about Nagano and Japan?
As for the expenses, as in the past, we would pay for transportation costs within Japan (i.e.
between Narita and Nagano, and travel expenses within Nagano, etc) and provide a
monetary thank you gift to the teachers. Would it be possible for the airfare to and from
Japan be taken care of on your end?
2. The Clearwater Exchange Students
At present, we host high school and middle school delegations from Clearwater. For the
past few years, we have only been responsible for the costs incurred during the middle
school student group's stay in Nagano City. However, for the high school student group,
we have borne all costs including airfare, travel insurance and all transportation expenses
in Japan.
I
We would appreciate if you would consider assigning the high school student trip expenses
in the same way as the middle school student trip expenses. Could the airfare, travel
insurance, and travel expenses within Japan be taken care of on your end?
We would continue to arrange for homestays, study tours and visits to local attractions.
3. The Nagano Junior High School Students, High School Students and Teachers
We would like to send the Nagano City junior high school students, high school students
and teachers as we have in the past. Please let us know of any problems or concerns you
may have with these programs.
For many, our exchanges spanning over 45 years are precious and irreplaceable. We hope
you will kindly work with us to continue our exchanges for years to come. These proposals
are a rough draft of administrative issues open for discussion and are based on various
budgetary and human resources-related conditions. I sincerely hope we can share
information with each other to improve our exchange programs. Thank you for your kind
consideration.
Sincerely,
~
Hiroshi Miyazawa
Manager, International Relations Office
HiV'os. f,J 11,;,,\ z'\. w-"'-
.."'"
If{,:/., ,,/ .//in...m".,
Nagano City Hall
1613 Midori-cho, Nagano City
Japan 380-8512
TEL. +81-26-224-5447 FAX. +81'26-224-5121
E-mail kokusai@city.nagano.nagano.jp
:fUr rl1i~ pff
=;= 380-8512 :lHH~~lIW$*JRIIIT 1613
TEL. +81-26-224-5447 FAX. +81-26-224-5121
o
(
s.1'V\pi.e. of SChol Q~bhl P p~'DC~.t\..\.",-
Ctt-( { V'l-t ~ L.< S e&' {i:;,{"
"PC,-dl S l' l<a c. (" c. VV' p P {fX~'(l"1f\^ ~..I
"
>-
J
o~
Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department
Resident Scholarship Program - Year 2004
1/2004
The Clearwater Parks and Recreation Department is committed to making its programs as accessible to all
segments of the population as possible. The Florida Income Eligibility Guidelines for Free & Reduced Price
Meals, from the Pinellas County School Board are the guidelines utilized by the Parks and Recreation
Department for awarding scholarships. To be given due consideration for scholarship assistance, applicants
must meet the following guidelines.
Scholarship GuidelineslEligibility:
~ The scholarship program is limited to City of Clearwater Residents only. Parent,legal guardian, or
custodian must provide two proofs of identification that verify they reside in the City of Clearwater.
~ The scholarship program is primarily intended for youth participants. Adult requests will be reviewed
on a case-ta-case basis.
~ All scholarship applicants need to purchase a 'Photo ID Card'. No scholarships for 'Photo ill Cards'.
a Applicant completes a Resident Scholarship Application form; if the applicant qualifies it is
noted on the participant card (lower left hand comer) that the card holder is a scholarship resident,
as follows:
· Note "25%/5" for Free Meal qualifier - participant pays 25% of program cost.
· Note "50%/S for Reduced Meal qualifier - participant pays 50% of program cost.
Note: With this process, the applicant would produce his participant card at future registrations; staff
would recognize the applicant card as an approved scholarship patron, and process accordingly, requiring
less paperwork and staff time.
a Option: Applicant completes a Resident Scholarship Application form at a program of their choice,
each time they are interested in an activity/program (minimum of 2- weeks prior to program
registration/ start).
~ The existing matrix from the Pinellas County School System (Florida Income Eligibility Guidelines for
Free or Reduced Meals) will be used to determine applicant eligibility.
a Letter from school or meal card confirming participation must be provided; if not available,
applicant must provide proof of family income in the form of a recent check stub or W-2 form.
a Supporting documents must accompany applications for them to be considered; incomplete
applications will be denied and returned; unreadable applications will delay scholarship process.
~ Requests are on a first-come, first-served basis. Number of available scholarships is limited.
~ Scholarship approval does not guarantee enrollment into the program of the applicant's choice -
applicant must attend and follow the registration procedure for each specific program.
~ Scholarship applications are to be completed and submitted annually.
Levels of Financial Assistance
~ Everyone will pay a percentage of the cost of the program. The income categories of the Pinellas County
School System Free/Reduced Meals Program will be followed:
a Free Meals ("25%/S") - applicant pays 25% of the program/registration fee.
a Reduced Meals ("50%/S") - applicant pays 50% of the progTam/registration fee.
~ Scholarship Funding
Every effort should be made to secure funds to cover the costs of offered scholarships. It is anticipated that
there will be some level of subsidy by the City to cover scholarship costs. Parks and Recreation absorbs the
subsidy cost of the program (from approved Department FY budgeted funds). However, a continuous goal
will be to reduce this level to the lowest level attainable, staff should seek alternative funding options to offset
the impact to City funds. Options to consider in concert with program development are:
1. Generate funding - seek donations and funds from the private sector (businesses,
corporations, service organizations) to cover scholarship costs, create a scholarship fund for a
specific facility or program.
2. Fund Raise - take an existing special event, athletic or tennis tournament, with a percentage
of the net revenue going into a specified scholarship fund.
3. Program Sponsorships - Offer sponsorship credits or naming rights for specified programs,
consult with your Coordinator prior to establishing this type of opportunity.
NOTE: Staff should remain conscious of any net revenue initiatives that are components of any
respective business plan. Annually, management will review the Donations/Specified Activities
Code to identify funds to assist in the reduction of the scholarship costs subsidy. These identified
funding revenues will be transferred into General Fund revenue at the conclusion of each fiscal year.
Scholarship Opportunities (Implementing the above level of financial assistance)
~ Passes: (Youth & Adult) Play Passes, Seasonal pool passes, Long Center Membership, etc:
o Participants pay their approved percentage of the pass fee.
o Daily admissions are not eligible for scholarship.
~ Camps: (Youths) 'Staff-led' camp programs:
o Participants pay their approved percentage of the camp fee.
o Scholarship enrollment should not exceed 10% of the camps enrollment.
NOTE: MLK, North Greenwood and Ross Norton are exempt from the 10% maximum.
~ City Sponsored Leagues: (Youth)
o Participant pays their approved percentage of the program cost; remaining monies come from the
league or organization (league has the flexibility to generate money by approaching community
businesses / civic clubs for funds, in turn placing sponsor name on league shirts & marketing tools.
o If the cost to the league is not met by sponsorship, Parks and Recreation absorbs the remaining cost.
~ Contract Instructor Programs: (Youth)
o The contractor has the choice as to whether to scholarship participants into their program.
o Participant pays their approved percentage of the program cost; Contractor and City split these fees
per contract percentages or remaining costs funded from a specified scholarship fund.
~ Other Staff Led Programs: Reviewed on a case-to-case basis with submittal of Program Projection Form.
Confidentiality/Record Retention
~ Staff must remain sensitive to scholarship participants and treat such in a confidential manner.
~ Applications are kept under the category of Registration, Records, and Events. Retention period is (4) four
fiscal years. All record retention policies and procedures should be followed and the record treated as
confidential.
Scholarship Approvals
~ The Facility or Program Supervisor can approve scholarship Applications. Any approval questions or
guidance should be sought through the respective Recreation Coordinator.
eonfidential
o
>-
u~
Parks and Recreation Department
Resident Scholarship Application
Please complete the following (please print):
(Scholarships available to Clearwater residents only.)
Participant's Name:
Date of Birth:
Card #:
Address:
Phone #:
Program Applying For:
(Name of specific program/activity)
Parents/Guardian Name:
Day Phone:
Address:
Evening/Cell Phone:
Total Family Income: Please (..J) 0 Yearly 0 Monthly 0 Bi-Weekly 0 Weekly
(Total income must be reported before taxes, social security, health benefits, union dues, or other deductions are made.)
How many living in your household?
Is/ Are your child(ren) currently receiving free/reduced lunches in school? YES NO
(Letter from school or meal card confirming applicants' enrollment must be provided.)
Are you currently receiving food stamps? If yes, write current case number. YES # NO
Are you currently receiving assistance from welfare? Temporary Assistance
For Needy Families (TANF) if yes write current case number. YES # NO
I understand I will be required to provide proof of the above information (e.g., pay check stub, tax
statement). I, the undersigned, certify the above information is accurate and true and misrepresentation
will void the scholarship. Approval does not guarantee enrollment in the program of your choice.
(Signature of Parent, Guardian, or Custodian)
(Date)
For additional information, please contact the recreation facility supervisor or Jan Harrison, Recreation
Specialist - Phone # 462-6036.
******************* For Office Use **********************
Application Approved: Yes
No
Rate Assessed
(Signature of Program Supervisor Confirming Application)
(Date)
Upon completion, please file at program site/recreation center as an official record according to City of Clearwater
Records Management Program. S: \Forms \ 1800-0193 Resident Scholarship Application Form.doc. Revised 12/7/05
\l-Ji.... .
(~'J ~~. - .~
(U.::f:.:,C.,j
Manni, Diane
To:
Subject:
CLEARWATER 1 OO@AOLCOM
RE: CONCERTS IN COACHMAN PARK.
Dear Mr. Badtke:
Your e-mail has been received and distribGted to (he Mayor, City Council and City
Management. Thank you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Internet_Comment_Card [mailto:Internet_Comment_Card]
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:43 PM
To: Manni, Diane
Subject: CONCERTS IN COACHMAN PARK.
Sender's Name: DON BADTKE
Date sent: 12/15/2005 3:42:54 PM
Comments:
ANY PROFANITIES IN THAT PARK BY ANYONE ONE STAGE IS GONE FOR EVER. NO MORE. WE ARE TIRED
OF THAT STUFF. I I LL BET YOU, THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE THAT GO TO "NEXT BIG THING"
CONCERTS ARE NOT FROM CLEARWATER. SEND THEM UP TO THE FAIR GROUNDS. WE DON'T NEED THEM
ANYWHERE NEAR HEAR. I WAS VERY SUPRISED BY COMM. JONSON, LIKING THE NOISE AND PROFANITY.
I GUESS I KNOW WHO NOT TO VOTE FOR NEXT TIME AROUND.
Sender Email:
CLEARWATERIOO@AOL.COM
Mailing Address:
Phone:
COPIES TO
CITY COUNCIL
DEe 15 2005
PRESS
CLERK/ATTORNEY