HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-80-0456DA
NT;-."'. 7.kA �Nr,L''N1
Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
Dena Spillman, Director
Department of Community Development
June 13, 1980
Citizen Participation
City Commission Agenda 6/26/80
Citizen Participation Report
/?Y80
• On May 8, 1980, the City Commission requested that staff return with a plan for
implementing the Chairperson/Vice Chairperson Forum structure for citizen parti-
cipation in the Community Development target areas.
In view of recent events impacting the residents of our target areas and the
differing points of view expressed by Board members and residents with respect
to citizen participation, it is recommended that the City Commission approve
two (2) alternate systems:
1. The Chairperson/Vice Chairperson Forum structure; and
2. An Elected/Appointed Board that assures the geographic, ethnic
and economic mix not guaranteed by the current•syster: - 10
members to be elected; 5 members to be appointed by the City
Commission after the election to balance the representation on
the Board as required by HUD.
Each neighborhood would be allowed to choose which system would work best in
their target area.
The election of a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson or the 10 Board members as
well as the type of citizen participation structure could be accomplished in
the same election. The results of the type of system preferred by the neigh-
borhood would determine the election results. If the Chairperson/Vice Chairperson
system is selected, the top two candidates would be elected Chairperson and
Vice Chairperson; if a Board system is selected, the top ten candidates would
become members of the Board. There would be a sufficient number of nominations
taken prior to the election and each voter would vote for ten candidates.
It is recommended that the joint CAA/CD Board in Coconut Grove and the ad -hoc
appointed committee in Downtown continue and be excluded from this process as
in the previous year.
The U.S. Department of HUD has recently indicated that our written guidelines
must also include a city-wide citizen participation process.
Should the City Commission approve the alternate systems, staff will prepare
written guidelines for Commission review and approval including a recommendation
for a City-wide advisory committee and an election schedule.
80-456
Joseph R. Grassie - 2 - June 13, 1980
City Manager
In view of problems we had last year attracting the participation of elderly
and handicapped persons, we recommend that the registration site and the polling
place in each target area be located at a Senior Citizen Center or housing
project site that is easily assessible to this population.
Staff further requests Commission support in approving written guidelines that
will eliminate problems staff encountered this year that have made it difficult
to meet our application deadline and delayed implementation of Community
Development projects.
DS:vp
<►-455
• t:;'v OF �nnnu, ALUR10A
iNTER•OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Joseph R. Grassie
City Manager
4 t-)�A-'jo f--16 ,, a,.,)
Dena Spillman, Director
Department of Community Development
J A TF April 21, 1980 ".9
Report on Citizen Participation
RfFcIENCES (5)
e D!C�OSURE3
When the City Commission adopted the Citizen Participation Guidelines in
April, 1979, it was requested that an evaluation by staff be completed on
the program after a one-year trial period.
In accordance with that request, attached is a report on citizen partici-
pation including the following:
- Federal Requirements for Citizen Participation
- Review of City of Miami Citizen Participation Guidelines
- Evaluation of Trial Year Program
- Alternate Models of Citizen Participation
On April 15 and 16, 1980, staff conducted meetings with Community Development
Advisory Board members and the community to solicit their input and comments
on citizen participation and the current Board system.
At the community meeting on April 16, 1980, it was recommended that a public
meeting be held in each target area so the community could determine what type
of structure is best for their neighborhood.
Board members, however, felt that the current system was working well, with
minor adjustments in the citizen participation guidelines required. Further,
it would be extremely complicated for such neighborhood meetings to be conducted.
Based on staff experience this past year and comments by Advisory Board i"embers,
the Board structure has been an effective model in most target areas. The
major problem has begin a lack of geographic representation on some Boards.
In order to support the recommendations of the community end in order to - sure
a geographic and economic mix of Board members, it is hereby recommended that
the City of Miami Community Development Advisory Boards consist of 10 members
elected by the target areas and 5 members to be appointed by the City Commission
after, the elections are held. All Board members shall serve a 2 year term.
Should the City Commission approve this concept, staff will proceed to prepare
revised Citizen Participation guidelines for Cor;mission review in May and a
schedule of elections to begin in July.
OR
Federal Requirements for Citizen Participation
The Federal Regulations governing the Community Development Block Grant Program
require that the City of Miami, as applicant, provide an adequate opportunity for
citizens to participate in an advisory capacity in the planning, implementation
and assessment of the Community Development Block Grant Program, although the
responsibility and authority for the application and execution of the Community
Development program rests with the City of Miami.
In order to ensure citizen participation, the Federal Regulations require that a
written citizen participation plan be prepared which outlines procedures for
citizen involvement in the Community Development process. The plan is to remain
in effect until all Community Development activities are completed or a new
citizen participation plan is adopted.
In accordance with the regulations, citizens shall be involved in an advisory
capacity in developing the citizen participation plan, the Community Development
application, selection of local option activities, and amendments to the applica-
tion which require approval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Since the population of the City of Miami exceeds 50,000, the regulations require
a process for citizen participation at the neighborhood level in addition to
city-wide.
Neighborhood participation, if in the form of recognized neighborhood advisory
committees, must insure substantial representation of low and moderate income
persons and minority groups. Residents of high impact areas, the elderly and
handicapped, the business community and civic groups who are concerned about
the programs, shall also be involved in the process.
The City's written plan must provide procedures to involve citizens in the program,
encourage submission of vievis and proposals, and give opportunity to assess and
comment upon program performance throughout all stages of the program. The plan
should specify how the City will respond to proposals and complaints, and outline
the technical assistance the City determines appropriate.
The regulations require that the City of Pliami provide information to the community
regarding available funds, the range of activities that can be funded, the planning
process and the schedule for the approval of the application. The regulations
further indicate the types of record keeping the City shall maintain with reference
to the citizen participation plan, nei,hborhood meetings, and key documents relating
to the application and implementation of projects.
While the written plan should provide for a sufficient number of public hearings to
obtain views at different stages of'the program, the following meetings meet the
minirnum requirements. It is not required that these be held before the Cit., Commissf0
Two public hearings are required prior to submitting the application:
One hearing to obtain views and proposals on community
development and housing needs and priorities.
A second hearing to obtain views on the proposed appli-
cation, prior to submission for clearinghouse review.
A third public hearing is required to provide an oppor-
tunity for review of program progress and performance of
the Community Development program. This hearing must be
held within three months before or three months after the
beginning of the program year.
The City of Miami conducts two public hearings in the neighborhoods; one to
obtain views and proposals and the other for the community to comment on the
performance of the program. We additionally hold two public hearings before
the City Commission prior to submitting the application. In some cities, the
City Commission authorizes the City Manager or designee to conduct all public
hearings and the community is not afforded the opportunity to formally appear
before the City Commission.
Notices of the public hearings are required to be published 10 days prior to
a public hearing and additional efforts should be made to publicize the hearings.
The notices of public hearings, and summaries of basic information shall be bi-
lingual. Also, bilingual opportunities shall be offered at the required public
hearings.
City of Miami Citizen Participation Guidelines
In compliance with Federal regulations requiring the City of Miami to prepare a
written citizen participation plan outlining procedures for involving citizens in
an advisory capacity in the Community Development Program, the City Commission,
on April 30, 1979, conducted a public hearing to obtain feedback on citizen parti-
cipation. During that hearing, Resolution 79-317 was adopted providing guidelines
to be incorporated in a written plan, which was subsequently adopted by the City
Commission on May 22, 1979.
Prior to that time, the City of Miami participated in Metropolitan Dade County's
Citizen Participation Program.
The decision to create an independent City of Miami Citizen Participation Program
resulted from feedback at the April 30, 1979 public hearing, but basically be-
cause the City's entitlement grant has increased and the County's decreased.
While not required by Federal regulations, the City of Miami Citizen Participation
Guidelines recognize neighborhood advisory committees by creating elected 15-member
Community Development Advisory Boards in six of Miami's Community Development target
areas: Allapattah, Edison Little River, Little Havana, Model City, Overtown and
Wynwood. Downtown, by resolution, was to be an Ad Hoc appointed Board; Coconut
Grove was to maintain the joint CAA/CD Board since that was the preference of the
neighborhood.
The purpose of the Board is to advise the City Commission on target area needs and
priorities.
The City Commission stated at the public hearing of April 30, 1979, that this new
process would undergo a one year trial period, after which time the process would
be evaluated.
The City's Guidelines state that each Board should meet at least once quarterly,
exceeding the minimum requirements of the Federal regulations. However, the Boards
have convened public meetings on the average of one meeting per month per area.
Staff, at the request of the Boards or in order to facilitate understanding of
citizen participation, the Community Development Program and process,and housing,
conducted several workshops for all Boards. Other specialized workshops were
conducted with individual target area Boards.
Furthermore, the City Commission held an additional public hearing prior to sub-
mitting the Community Development application to obtain views and comments from
the Boards and residents.
In bilingual communities, notices, flyers, agendas, correspondence, documents and
proceedings of meetings were written in Spanish and English, and the meetings were
conducted in English, Spanish and Patua when necessary.
. r r
Evaluation of Trial Year Program
On April 15, and April 16, 1980, staff conducted two meetings to solicit recommen-
dation and comment with respect to the current citizen participation system and
citizen participation in general. The first meeting was held with the Community
Development Advisory Board members; the second was opened to the public.
The following comments were made during the two meetings. Some of these
comments are followed by staff comment.
1) Some Board members'felt that they did not have sufficient decision making
authority with respect to the Community Development plan in their res-
pective areas and felt that they were used to "rubber stamp" an existing
6th Year Plan.
Staff Comment:
Prior to the creation of the new Citizen Participation Guidelines and the
election of the Advisory Boards, the City Commision, as required by HUD,
approved a three year plan which outlined those activities to be undertaken
with Community Development funds in each target area from 1919-1902. This
plan was also approved by HUD prior to the creation of a new citizen
participation system. The three year plan was developed with target area
groups under the old citizen participation system. Because the Boards
started in the second year of the three year plan, many misunderstandings
resulted during the trial year of the new citizen participation process.
Board members became frustrated when City staff presented the existing
strategy for their target area, even though the planning process wai
explained to them on several occasions. Board members generally were not
satisfied with their role of amending the existing 6th Year Plan.
Their input did, however, result in substantial changes to the 6th Year
Plan, application and amendments to the three year plan. Some major
accomplishments of the Boards were:
1. Identified need for economic development at the neighborhood level
which resulted in the allocation of 6th Year funds for a local
development program in each area.
2. Recommended expansion of boundaries of two NSA's which was later
approved by the City Cotimi ssi on.
3. Recommended that money generated from sale of land acgUired with
Community Development funds return to the -respective target area.
This was also approved by the City Commission.
4. Recommended that certain projects be funded or deleted from 6th Year
Plan which resulted in changes to the Plan.
5. Provided input into neighborhood redevelopment plans.
6. Provided input and reccim-endations for specific infill housing sites.
7. Provided input and recommendations on park design and location.
B. Provided recommendations on particular streets to be included in
street improvement programs.
9. Recommended the name change of a target area which was approved by
the City Commission.
2) Board members felt that staff did not respond to the desires of the community.
Furthermore, they do not understand how serious their recommendations are
taken.
Staff Comment:
Board members expected City staff to recommend to the City Commission for
approval all of those projects that the Boards felt were a high priority,
without professional review. The process followed this year, as well as
in previous years, has always been the same - community groups make
recommendations to staff; staff reviews these recommendations in light
of federal and local policies and makes a final recommendation to the
City Commission. At the same time, community priorities are submitted
to the City Commission for review. The City Commission then, at two
public hearings, reviews staff recommendations and allows residents the
opportunity to again present their point of view. Final funding decisions
are always made by the City Commission. Some Board members have threatened
legal action against the City because on some occasions the City Commission
agreed with staff recommendations.
3) Some Board members feel City services in the neighborhood need to be
improved in order to have more effective citizen participation.
4) Some Board members feel that terms should be staggered and terms should
be more than one year since they feel it takes almost one year to under-
stand the Community Development Program and process. In general, the
Boards feel they have been educated by this process and have been able
to educate the community. This system has also substantially increased
citizen participation.
5) Boards feel that they son;etimes need to meet prior to Board meetings to
have a better understanding of agenda items. They feel that all business
cannot be conducted in open advertised public meetings. Guidelines need to
be amended to alloy this.
Staff Comment:
Staff feels that Boards, through sub -committees and specialized workshops
can acccmplish this. In many areas, upon Board request, staff has
conducted workshops with individual Board members and all Community
Development Advisory Board mer!bers.
6) Some Board members feel their Board does not represent the total target area
and possible geographic distribution of representation should be required or
reconsideration should be given to the current method of electing the Boards
to ensure balanced representation.
c
r
r
Staff Comment•
Federal guidelines suggest that all segments of the community take part in
the Community Development process. Representatives from low and moderate
income groups, the elderly and handicapped, and civic and business asso-
ciations are all to be involved. The current system does not insure that
this will occur. Further, the system does not guarantee proper geographic
and ethnic representation on the Boards.
7) Some Board members feel that all neighborhood issues should be brought be-
fore the Board before the City takes action.
Staff Comment:
When the new citizen participation process was adopted by the City Commission,
the Boards understood that all issues affecting the neighborhoods under City
jurisdiction would be brought before the Boards for comment and recommendations.
During this trial year, so much time was dedicated towards orienting and
familiarizing the Boards with Community Development activities that there
was not sufficient time to bring other issues before the Boards prior to the
time they were addressed by the City Commission. This tended to frustrate
the Boards because they felt staff should ensure that they were the recognized
neighborhood body. If the Boards are to address all issues affecting their
respective neighborhoods, a more coordinated process needs to be implemented
to discourage other neighborhood meetings and public hearings from being
conducted independent of the Boards.
8) Non -Board members expressed concern that the current system almost precludes
their participation since they cannot vote on recommendations.
Staff Comment:
This issue has been expressed to staff on many occasions by non -Board members.
While the Guidelines state that voting should not take place prior to the
community being given the opportunity to express their opinions, in some
instances, the Board's vote has not fully reflected the will of those who
took the tir:e to attend meetings. The Guidelines do not guarantee that a
Board's vote will reflect the will of the public.
9) Non -Board members feel that Board members require more training, particularly
in the areas of economic development, parliamentary procedures, board skills
and board dynamics.
10) Non -Board mer•bers feel that Guidelines require clarification with respect to
role of Boards and role of staff.
Staff Comment:
The citizen participation guidelines developed by City staff do not address
issues such as the role of the staff in the planning process, the right of
the City Commission to change or amend the process when necessary, and
specific responsibilities of the Board. 'While this lack of clarity has
resulted in sore confusion on the part of the Boards, most of these issues
have been explained to residents on several occasions.
6
It was generally indicated at the meeting with Community Development Advisory
Boards members that they are pleased with the current elected Board system and
would like to see it continued.
While they feel that improvements can be made with respect to staff/Board
communications and the manner of publicizing and involving citizens in neigh-
borhood meetings, they feel the elected Board system works well in their
respective target areas.
Non -Board members feel that based on concerns expressed by attendees of the
meeting, each neighborhood should be allowed to decide on what type of citizen
participation model they want through a public meeting in each target area
specifically for that purpose.
7
r
0%.
Alternate Models of Citizen Participation
The current citizen participation model recognized in most of our target areas this
first trial year has been the elected Board system.
There are alternate models of citizen participation which are briefly described,
including the elected Board system. In our current system and for clarification
of what is meant by eligible participant, voter, or person in the Board models,
eligibility is defined as:
A person 18 years of age and a resident of the target area,
or owns property in the target area, or is the director of
a non-profit organization not receiving Community Development
funds located in the target area, or is the owner and operator
of a business in the target area.
1) Neighborhood Forum:
The neighborhood forum is an open, highly participatory structure. Participation is
at the neighborhood level through open meetings. Any person attending an advertised
public meeting may participate in the discussion and agenda of that meeting. Parti-
cipation is thus open to all persons who attend meetings. The forum is conducted by
City staff, and meetings are scheduled by staff in compliance with the required
neighborhood meetings to solicit citizen input and recommendations throughout all
stages of the Community Development Program.
Advantages of This Model
1. Potential for broader participation.
2. Least costly system of citizen
participation, requires less
administrative costs.
Disadvantages of This 'Model
1. Potential resentment by the
community that City staff is
conducting and calling meetings.
2. Potential for less rapport between
staff and community.
3. No ensurance of continuity of
involvement.
4. Since majority vote rules, there
is no guarantee that minority
interests will be represented.
5. It would be very difficult to
insure that participants are from
the coi,imuni ty and represent interests
of community.
8
I R
2) Chairperson/Forum:
This structure, like the Neighborhood Forum, is an open, highly participatory
structure also allowing any person attending an advertised public meeting to
participate in discussion of and voting on the agenda of that meeting. Parti-
cipation is thus open to all persons who attend each meeting. The Neighborhood
Forum is headed by a Chairperson elected at a public election by registered,
eligible voters. The Chairperson presides over all meetings and assists staff
in coordinating meetings and agendas. This person would represent the community
before the City Commission. Continuous involvement in the process could be
assured through the establishment of standing and ad hoc committees which study
and make recommendations -an various issues.
Advantaaes of This Model
1. Potential for broader participation
2. Ensures adherence to necessary
planning schedules and agendas.
3. Community selection of leadership.
Disadvantages of This Model
1. Since majority vote rules, there
is no guarantee that minority
interests will be represented.
2. Tendency of neighborhood to confuse
role of Chairperson with that of the
City Commission.
4. Provides direct link betvieen community
and staff, and community and Commission 3.
through the Chairperson.
5. Cormunication facilitated when you are
dealing with one person. 4.
9
Potential perception by minority
interests that they are not re-
presented by one person.
It would be difficult to insure
that participants are from the
community and represent the
interests of the community.
r-
3) Elected Boards:
This would be the current citizen participation system. This structure allows pre-
registered, eligible voters to elect a Board to serve in an advisory capacity to the
City Commission on target area needs and priorities. The board would have 15 members
of which 3 officers, Chairperson, Vice -Chairperson and Secretary, are selected on a
cumulative vote basis (highest tally of votes).
Once the election is held, the community gives up their right to vote on recommen-
dations but could participate in neighborhood meetings. Voting power is reserved
to the board. The boards vote, however, would not be taken prior to allowing
participants to express their opinions. All meetings would be advertised and open
to the public.
Advantages of This Model
1. Democratic selection of representation
by the neighborhood.
2. Boards tend to
communi ty and
neighborhood.
3. Familiarity
promote a sense of
interest in the
4. Continuity of involvement throughout
term of Board.
Disadvantaaes of This Model
1. No assurance that Federal guide-
lines are met with respect to a
recognized advisory committee
that is representative of low and
moderate income, handicapped,
elderly, minority interests,
financial and business community
and civic community. *(If an
elected board is to have balanced
representation, each post would
have to be designated for a
particular category based on the
characteristics of the neighborhood
and geographic districting. This
possibly could help ensure balanced
representation. Nominations would
be accepted for individuals who are
eligible by the category of a pre-
determined characteristic).
2. While there is more continuity of
i nvol veirent throughout the term of
the Board, staggered terms may be
necessary to eliininate the orienta-
tion process each time an election
is held.
3. Boards tend to want more decision
making authority rather than accept
advisory role.
4. Tendency of Boards to meet privately
and make decisions thereby precludin•;
community participation prior to vo,,,•
5. Community cannot vote on recommendat,
6. No assurance that Boards' vote will
reflect minority interests.
OLI
OOR
3) Elected Boards Cont.
7. Tendency of Boards to want to
deal with issues beyond their
jurisdiction thereby confusing
their role with that of elected
officials.
4) Appointed/Elected Boards:
This would allow for a democratic, target area -wide election of a defined number of
members to an Advisory Board, as is currently done by pre -registered, eligible voters.
Subsequent to the election, those interests that are not represented by the elected
members and required by HUD, would be appointed by the City Commission. This could
be done by soliciting applications and resumes of interested individuals who re-
present the particular characteristics of the Board that are not represented by
the elected members.
The total Board would then select their own three officers: Chairperson, Vice -
Chairperson and Secretary..
The Board would advise the City Commission on target area needs and priorities.
All meetings would be advertised and open for the public to make their recommendations
prior to the Board taking a vote.
Advantaces of This Model
1. Democratic selection of representation
by the neighborhood.
2. Boards tend to promote a sense of
cor-munity and interest in the
neighborhood.
3. Boards would have balanced repre-
sentation of the neighborhood
characteristics as required by
HUD.
4. Continuity of involvement throughout
the term of the Board.
Disadvantages of This Model
1. Tendency of Boards to meet privately
and make decisions thereby precludir:
community participation prior to
voting.
2. Community cannot vote on recommenda.'
3. Tendency of Boards to want iu deal
with issues beyond their jurisdictic•.
thereby confusing their role ►•pith
that of elected officials.
4. Potential conflict between elected
and appointed members.
5) Appointed Board:
Depending on the characteristics of the neighborhood, resumes and applications would
be solicited from interested, eligible individuals. The City Commission would then
appoint a Board in each target area to advise the Commission on target area needs
and priorities. The Boards would be balanced and representative of the particular
neighborhood. The Board or City Commission would appoint officers. Open meetings
would be held, and prior to voting, all interested persons would be allowed to
express their opinions.
Advantaves of This Model
1. Boards tend to promote a sense of
community and interest in the
neighborhood.
2. Board would have balanced repre-
sentation of the neighborhood
characteristics as required by
HUD.
3. Continuity of involvement through-
out term of the Board.
Disadvantages of This (Model
1. Potential perception by community
that they could not participate
in selection of their Board.
2. Potential perception by community
that appointees do not represent
their interests.
3. Boards tend to want more decision
making authority rather than accept
advisory role.
4. Tendency of Boards to meet privately
and make decisions thereby precluding
community participation prior to
voting.
5. Cormuni ty cannot vote on recorrmendati grs
6. Tendency of Boards to want to deal
with issues beyound their jurisdiction
thereby confusing their role with
that of elected officials.
CO" FTNITY DEVELOPOENT ADVISORY BOAPT FIRST ELECTIONS
Target Areas
Wynwood
Little Havana
Allapattah
Model City
Overtown
Edison Little River
Election Dates
July 23, 1979
July 30, 1979
August 16, 1979
August 13, 1979
September 27, 1979
October 4, 1979
In accordance with the current guidelines, the tern of the
Board is one year from the election date.
Estimated Yearly Budget for Citizen Participation
Salaries
Assistant Director $22350 75'1 of time
Administrative Assistant $16000
Typist Clerk II $11200
Typist Clerk II $11200
Typist Clerk I $ 9819
Community Involvement Specialists (6) $8d600
Ne:vspaper Advertising $29000 (average 3 ads per meeting oer target
Printing $12000 (.flyers, agendas, guidelines etc,)
Office Supplies S 2000
Postage S15�OC
Travel Reimbursement $ 2000
Telephones S 5760 (5430.00;mo)
Miscellaneous $ 1300
Citizen relating to
special workshops)
Total $222329
This includes resnonsihility for Citizen Participation in 5 target areas;
3 Great %eighborhood Program areas; the Citizen Response Center and Over -
to,. -in Response Center.
f^
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF
TARGET AREA BOARD MEMBERS
9
L;r V
I .4� rR
__..�--k....... —..C�u,� N.E. 73 ST.
w
>
a
N
w
a
41
a
i
Q
N
Z
`
Z
w
ri S1.
b S T.
ST.
AIRPOR f EXPRESMAY
t
I.�lii j �•��
V 1
R;,.. _56
w AI?PCZT E;:PRESSI•lAY
a
m
1
Z
11111 1" ( 7n
0' ' 1,
80- 455'
ILI
Q
y
N
W
IL
N IN. I i ST.
I w N AV. 5 ST. > a:
a a C`
ti N
0Iz0'
NAV. 36 ST
I!
u;
AIRPORT EXpacc
-
w
7
JULIA
0 C= ---I L— TUTTLE
-"R - -CAUSEWAY
7— F--
jo Zr. C3 U
IN E. 2 9 ST.
r
C-- -M L-:.;
w, 7j,
UJ
ul)
C=
'n
r7 7.
N. E. 15 ST.
VENETIA%.
CAUSEWAY
AN y 11111 1 �i�.
06
WEST FLQGLER
S.W. s sS
UI
t- 0'tTt'r--
`, ST-
!,I rip,
I 119HOMI -� --- r- I; 77 r i '- t
C 1 t-
I��L-]f-1(�,I�JL-i(_---..
w .4.
U
i• ?
210 ST.
L0
U;. I1. C_lJ J I
ALLAPATTAi--:,'..
a/79
REscLlzlo:r V0. 7 J- 3 1 7
A PX- SOUrrION r,"7#,i3LI5IFII:G GUIDCLI::CS rOR CITIZEN
PART ICIPATIO:: IN CC:,:.UR1ITY DLVCLOPt4F.1IT TARGj.'T
AREAS AS RE: UIRCD HY TIFF. HOUSING AND COMMu-NITY
DF:VCLOPf•1C:T ACT OF 1974, AS AMENDrD, AVD AUTH0RIZIF1r
TIFS'' CITY WO:AGER TO SAID GUIDELINE;.:.
1}
WHERMS, the City of Miami is a recipient of Community
Development Block Grant entitlement funds; and
WiiEIZAS, the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,
as amended, requires citizen participation in the planning, imple-
mentation and evaluation of Community Development Block Grant.
Activities undertaken by the City ofMiami with entitlement fv..nds;
and
WftiR;n,S, the City of Miami Commission, in response to requestc,
frc:n Target Area residents to develop an equitable and responsive
citizen participation sy::tem, convened a'public hearing which
confirmed the boundaries of eight designated residential nei.ghbor-
hcad area:,, commonly referred to as Target Areas, as follows:
A? larattah, Coconut Grove, Culmer, Downto%n, Edison Park/Little
River, Little Havana, Model City, and Wynwood, as reflected in the
attached maps; and
tdiIrrF.,3. certain guidelines reflected herein were adopted
at said public hearing, insuring a system of citizen participation;
MOST, TllERErOPZ- , I3$ IT RESOLVED BY THE =21ISS IO:I 07,
THE, CITY OI:' MIAMI, rLOI:ID:%:
Section 1. As generally required under the provisions of
the Iiou::ing and Community Develup:ncnl Act of 1974, as amended, a
fifteen mci::ber. Community UcvvLopment ,advisory Board shall be .lorthwit.',,
•
(b) ro eligible ,•otnr ,Iiall exercin(! Isis or liar vr)r_:
in inorc Lhaii un^ Community 0'11,rr!lopmenl_ 'Target Arr! a elccti,.;n.
section S. Proacdurco.
(a) Regi:,tration
(i) .T.n each C:asrmunity Development Target Arr:7
thrro shall be a throe week pre -election registration period vO.Lh
hours established to provide maximwn opportunity for regi3trati.or,
for all interested par Lies.
(ii) All registrants must prove eligibility i:, acco? c'•.
ance with the criteria outlined in Section 3 herein, at" the t*-sie of,
registration.
(a) nomination of Candi;:ates for Advisory Boar's
(i) A nomination meeting will be held in each
Conr;.unity Development Target Area subsequent to the registration
period. •
(ii) All nc:ninees for Advisory Board membership
shall be present at the nomination meeting unless written notifica-
tion is provided at least five (5) da, s in advance of the meeting.
(n) Elections
,(i) .Clectioris shall he held with the assizL•:ince of
the Darie County Community Action Agency and the Dade Count, Blaot? ons
Depart tent.
(ii) 'thQ City of t•liami staff shall exercise super-
vi:;ory ran ponsihility over the election procedures.
Section 6. Advisory board Operating Procedures.
(a) tj.rigo. Community llpvolor-ment Advisory Vo.irds
Shall tnee l: at lea -,t quartc rly.
-3-
p�velop:aent rcalated tray:^r5 .^hall ba r.e^pun:;iL1. for accurately
reflecting tare majority opinion of the roar•':..
rAS5CD ArlD Awi,,'= this, 30 day of APR T1,1
MAU^ICE A. FE,?PL
11NURICE; A. FEP.IZE
Mr Y O R
ATTEST:
Ft1L?G. Csi:GIS, CITY CLEc ii
PF 'P' IRED r.LIE APPROVED BY:
d4J �, 1jr,
RO3E:�T F. C1,10.K
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPRO'e'.=,D AS TO CORPLECT_ ES.13. k"I'D FORM:
GEURGE j� iCC�O :, JP.. , t..I'TY r;rl-oa.,i. Y
V
(b) ro ctirlible .•othr nhall exercirc hi3 or her votq
in ino_e Lhan une Community D--!vr!1op-ner:'_ Target Ar'eU etccti,.;n.
�ecti�n S. El.-�cti-)n Proccdurco.
(a) Regi7Lration
(i) .T.n tact► CormuniL•;• Development 7'Z!''jct Arc-
there shall be a three ,,reek pre -election registration period VO.th
hour, established to provide maximLLn opportunitl for regiotriti.on
for all interested parL•ies.
(ii) All registrants must prove eligibility i., accoy f'.
ance with the criteria ou.1%nod in Section 3 herein, ark the t;;,e ok
registration.
(a) 17omination of Candic:a.tes for Advisory Boars
(i) A nomination meeting will be held in each
Co --=..unity Development Target Area subsequent to the registration
period. •
(ii) All ncminees for Advisory Board membership
aliall be present tit thf: nomination meeting unless written'n�ti£ica-
tion is provided at least Five (5) days in advance of Ile meeting.
(n) Elections
•(i) Elections shall he held with the assistance of
the Dade County Community Action Agency and the Dade County Elections
Department.
(ii) Tlvi..- City of Miami staff- shall exerci ne super-
visory rer.punsibility over the election procedures.
Dcctiort 6. Advisory Board Operating Procedures.
(a) Community Dovolo_-mont Advisory Do.irds
shall meet: at lea -,t cjtiartarly.
-3-
s
(h) ►lot ificatier: of :Jueting-,. The CLL'y of i:%a!ai.
staff shall provide proper notice for all Cormlinity D�rvelopr;lnt
Advisory Board tieetin;;.
(c) Quorum. ror the purpose of transacting Advisory
Board business, a quorum �.s' 507, of the rajard membership plus one.
(d) Minutes. rroceediny:. of all Advi.sory 13' ,rd .•meting:.
shall be recorded by City • Hiatni staff, and distributed to a].1
Board members and members of the City Comumizsion as soon after such
meeting as practicable.
Section 7. Removal of Advisory'Board Members.
(a) Advisory Board members who are absent from two con-
secutive meetin;s or two meetings per year unless for reasons of
illness, shall be automatically dismissed and shall no longer• serve
as members of the Board. -The City Co=ission shall appoint a
replacement for the remainder of the term of the dismissed Board
member.
(b) Should any Advisory Board member in office fail to
contin,.;e to meet the established eligibility requirements, his/her •
membership shall automatically expire. -Tile City Commission 61,all
appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term of the dismissed
Board member.
Section 8. Con=unity•Development Advisory Board Act-on3.
(a) All reco=endations on Community Development related
matters shall be considered by the appropriate Cor_nunity Development
Advisory Board prior to consideration of those matters by the City
Co—_.niasion.
(b) The chairmen of the Co=unity Development Advisory
Board3, in cnakino recommendations Lo th.2 City Commission on Coz.--munity
-4-
r
D^velopment rc-Lated mut'.r�rn, chill bpi for accu;atily
reflecting the majority opinion of the roardn.
PASSED Attu ADOPTED this 30 day of APRTTl _ 1►►1,�
t•AWItICE A. FCQPC
11NURICE A. MIRE
1•1 A Y O R
ATTEST:
Rc1L? G. Ci• ;GIE, CIT'�' CLCR ii
PREPARED AIM APPROVED BY:
RO-'Z.lT F. CLARK
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORMEY
APPRO'i=:1 AS TO CORRECT: ES-S. '1[ID FORM:
KNO , JR. , LzTY r;r'^O.'t:IEY
-5-