Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutM-79-0201CITY OF MIAMI. FLORIDA INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO Joseph R. Crassie DATE March 15, 1979 �. City Manager P. SUBJECT City Wide Citizen Participation Plan John Bond III - fROA'.REiERENCES Assistant City Manager ENCL0E, RE. Pursuant to the request by the City Commission at the February 22, 1979 meeting, staff in the Citizen Participation Division, Citizen Services Department, researched citizen participation programs in Birmingham, Alabama; Portland, Oregon; Washington, D.C.; and Dayton, Ohio, cities which have comparable populations to that of the City of Miami. The attached report on the above mentioned cities includes the following: - citizen participation models and their history - methods of authorizing a citizen participation plan - administrative patterns, staffing and budgets - city-wide functions of the models studied - establishing and organizing districts - implementing a citizen participation plan - methods of communications Attached to this memorandum is a staff and budget comparison of the City's Citizen Participation Division and that of the four cities studied. While citizen participation in the cities studied are recognized as 'model" programs, their methodology and implementation varied with the degree of ex- isting neighborhood associations that were existent at the time the plan be- came operational. However, the most noteworthy similarity the four models is that each city's administration attempted to bring a stafan for citizen participation to the cammunity for approval. These plans received caustic criticism by the community for lack of citizen participation in their development. The processes were subsequently modified to allow citizen input in developing and formalizing a citizen participation plan. In view of the preceding, the Citizen Services Department, Planning Department, and Community Development staff recommend that, to maximize citizen participation in our planning process, a series of six neighborhood forums (utilizing the existing six Planning Districts) be conducted to obtain citizen recommendations for a citizen participation plan. At the conclusion of the six meetings, which can be accomplished in a three-month period (two meetings per month), the staff will develop a citizen participation plan incorporating feedback obtained from the community for Commission review and approval. Joseph R. Grassie -2- March 15, 1979 The Citizen Participation Division, Citizen Services Department will organize the forums within each district, publicize meetings through local media and by contacting existing neighborhood and civic organizations, and record all recommendations obtained at the forums. Since successful citizen involvement in the government process requires a strong commitment by City staff, citizens and elected officials, it may be advantageous that the individual Commissioners attend the forums. Community Development and Housing Agencies Other Public Agencies No Agency ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERNS AND BUDGETS Locality (a) Administrative Unit for (population x 1000) Neighborhood Program Department or Office Birmingham (296) Dayton (214) Portland (378) MIAMI (350) District of Columbia (734) Community Resources Division Neighborhood Affairs Division Office of Neighborhood Associations Community Development Department Department of Mousing and Neighborhood Affairs Department of Public Affairs Citizen Participation Citizen Services Division Department (a) Population in thousands for 1973 `er cities. frra . 7.nsus data (b) Budget for fiscal year ending in lo7u (c) Five staff members are CETA Titles II . VI Community -r:ers (narti€inants) (d) Budget represents ;40,21P. for non-CETA salaries and -1 salary supplements only. (e) Funds allocated to advisory neighborhood commission. a-t they may hire sta" (f) Current budget request Neighborhood Program Number of Staff (non- 1979 (b) clerical) Budget 8 S300.000. C.D. and General Revenue S 22 S898,000. C.D. and General Revenue S 10 S245,000. C.D. and General Revenue S 7.5(c) S64.688.(d) C.D. only 9(e) 51,600,000.(f) General revenue S CITIZEN PARTICIPATION MODELS AND THEIR HISTORICAL BACKGROUNDS Model 1: Charter Created Boards The voters of the District of Columbia (734,000) approved a May 1974 referendum on a home rule charter written by the U.S. Congress. At the same time the Congress placed this referendum on the ballot, the City Council brought forth a separate measure providing for the establishment of advisory neighborhood commissions. In some places existing homeowners associations and other neighborhood groups opposed setting up officially recognized neighborhood councils, maintaining that they al- ready represent the neighborhood. A federation of such groups on the District of Columbia, were unsuccessful in using this argument to oopose the ballot proposition on advisory neighborhood commissions. The incumbent members of the City Council, then presidential appointees, were leery about this new form of representation. Later, newly elected council members, who had responsibility to get the new system going, were also a little concerned, but then they appointed Citizen Task Forces to help work out details. Ultimately, the City Council forged ahead, though it did place limits on the role of these advisory neighborhood commissions. Duriny 1975, the City Council followed through by delineating neighborhood boundaries and specifying the organizing procedures. The latter included a requitement that at least five (5) percent of the registered voters of each neighborhood must sign petitions requesting establishment of its advisory neighborhood commission. Thirty (30) out of thirty six (36) designated neighborhoods so responded by the deadline of early November 1975, and neighborhood elections were held on February 3, 1976. Subsequently, the City Council passed a bill allowing an additional opportunity for the other areas to petition and to have neighborhood elections. These desig- nated neighborhoods fall into eight (8) larger geographical districts called Wards. Mod I r ity-wido Network, Organized Simultaneously The City of Birmingham, Alabama (296,000) was under pressure from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to improve citizen participation into a "workable program". This prompted the City, in 1973, to embark upon a year- long effort. Staff from the Community Development Department worked out some ideas, which emerged as the "Mayor's Plan". The City staff then spent six weeks explaining their ideas to neighborhood groups around the City, but residents strenuously ob- jected to the lack of citizen input into drawing up the plan and to specific aspects, such as inclusion of representatives appointed by the Mayor. At a City Council hearing not one of the thirty (30) witnesses spoke in favor of the "Mayor's Plan". Tryinn to start again, the Community Development staff listened to and analyzed tape recording of the hearing and defined the key issues. The Mayor invited one hundred (100) citizens to an all -day workshop where these major issues formed the agenda. The staff incorporated the workshop recommendations into the revised plan and gave it wide circulation throughout the City. Several months later when City Council held a new hearing, witnesses spoke overwhelmingly in favor of the plan which had tneir input and reflected their desires. Two weeks later, the Council passed a resolution adopting this revised citizen participation plan. This plan set up a network of eighty six (86) neighborhood citizen committees (later increased to ninety two (92), and they formed the building blocks for nineteen (19) community citizen committees,(later increased to twenty one (21) and a city-wide Citizen Advisory Board. All of these committees were formed in a period of several months following the election of neighborhood officers in November 1974, The City of Dayton, Ohio (214,000) has seven (7) neighborhood priority boards en- compassing the entire City. The first one started as the Model Cities Planning Council in 1969, established under an "equal partnership" agreement which neigh- borhood leaders negotiated with the City Commission. The oldest existent neighborhood councils functioning with city blessing are Kansas City, where during the 1940's they were proposed by City Manager, L.P. Cookingham and organized by staff working under his overall direction. Twenty five(25) years later, James Kunde held an administrative position in Kansas City and was exposed to the community council approach. After he became Manager of Dayton in 1971, Kunde proposed to the City Commission the establishment of neighborhood priority boards to cover all the City, except that part where the Model Cities Program already had a neighborhood council. The Commission assented, and a staff unit in the Manager's Office handled the initial organizing. Once organized, these boards allocated S200,000. from a City fund for special projects in their neighborhoods, and later they played a major role in deciding how to spend over $5 million in federal money for Planned Variations to Model Cities. As this program came to an end, all six (6) boards began to serve in an advisory capacity in the new federal Community Development Programs, and they also have a role in local governmental affairs. Model 3: Association with DeFacto Recognition In 1971, the Portland Planning Commission proposed the creation of district planning organizations. In response, the Mayor appointed a citizen task force to study this matter. The task force completed its work towards the end of 1972, not long before a new Mayor was elected. The winner has based his campaign upon neighborhood support, so he was eager to get something going. Portland is governed by a City Council consisting of the Mayor and four Commissioners, each with administrative as well as legislative responsibilities. The Mayor assigns functions to the other Commissioners, and he placed the neighborhood program under the Commissioners of Public Affairs, rather than making tt a part of his own office (so as to broaden the base of support). A coordinator was appointed to work with neighborhood trouts to develop acceptance for the plan of operation. Some neighborhoods disliked the two -tiered arrangements of both neighborhood assocations and district committees proposed by the previous task force because they did not want a layer between them and City Hall, so the district committees were dropped. in February 1974, the City Council of Portland (37C,000) passed an ordinance creating an Office of Neighborhood Associations. This law contained standards that were fairly rigid and would have re:!uired some existing organizations to change their by-laws. This produced resistance and disputes with a couple of neighborhood associations that refused to chance their by-laws in order to meet the City's recognition criteria. As a result of the controversy, the City Council dropped the recognition process altogether in 1975. Instead, the revised ordinance specifies some performance standards: - willing to record and report minority points of view - have a grievance procedure - membership qualifications are not discriminatory (by Equal Employment Opportunity Commission standards) - by -lawn on file with the Office of Neighborhood Association, f•Iglil'nluwd dw,H iations meeting such standards can qualify for staff servit t dnl other forms of assistance from the Office of Neighborhood Associations. In March 1979, sixty (60) groups had such defacto recognition. 2 est METHODS OF AUTHORIZING A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Ordinances and Policy Resolutions A method for authorizing a citizen participation plan is through action by the City Commission. In some places they have enacted an ordinance (i.e., Portland and Dayton). In localities where neighborhood planning is a major thrust, the planning commission has adopted a resolution approving the procedures for setting up neigh- borhood councils prior to the city council's action, as was the case in Portland. In other locales the governing body has adopted a resolution (i.e., Birmingham). in the District of Columbia, the City Council has passed local bills and resolutions to amplify the legislation on advisory neighborhood commissions originally enacted by Congress and approved by the voters. Theoretically an ordinance carries more weight than a resolution because an ordinance is a law and a resolution only a statement of policy. Typical content of local ordinances and resolutions can be illustrated by the following outlines from three cities: - Three Guideline Policies (separately adopted) 1. Establishing neighborhood planning organizations, recognition ah.1 responsibility of neighborhood and city. 2. Procedures for notifying affected residents, property owners and businesses. 3. Procedur s for adopting neighborhood plans. - Nw ighhorhood Organization Policy I. Purpose 2. Minimum requirements for recognition of neighborhood organizations. 3. Function and responsibilities of neighborhood organizations. 4. Function and responsibilities of the city. 5. Recommended procedures for establishing r•:cognized neighborhood organizations. - An Ordinance Relating to Neighborhood Associations (Portland) 1. Purpose 2. Definitions 3. Neighborhood Associations a. t'enbership b. Boundaries c. Funding d. Recognition e. Functions f. Accountability 4. Mutual Responsibility a. Notice and public information b. Planning c. Administrative functions 5. Office of Neighborhood Association 6. Appeals 3 • t:EIGHRIRHpnD ASSOCIATIONS E% Number of Local ionty Local Name for Neighborhoods 197397 (population x 1000) astastatistics Form of Government Neighborhood Unit Identified Organized Group 1: District of Columbia Strong Mayor Advisory Neighborhood 36 30 Chartered -Created (734) Commission Boards Neighborhood Citizen 92 90 Strong Mayor Group 2: Birmingham (296) y Committee Citywide Network Organized Simultaneously Dayton (214) Council -Manager Neighborhood Priority 7 7Board Group 3: Portland (378) City Commission Neighborhood Association 63 60 Associations with DeFacto Recognition ADMINISTRATIVE PATTERNS, STAFFIN( AND FINANCE. Since neighborhood associations are related to local government in some official or quasi -official manner, the City requires some kind of administrative unit to maintain contacts with them and perhaps to provide technical assistance. Examples of such administrative agencies are: Community Development and Housing Agencies The City of Birmingham's Community Development Department's main job is to admi- nister the federal program, and it has a Community Resources Division to work with neighborhood groups. This Division did the staff work to produce the citizen participation plan, and it is in charge of implementing this plan. The original staff assignment,need not necessarily be the final one. There are cases (i.e., Dayton) where the Manager's office took staff responsibility at first and then transferred it to another agency. Originally staff assistance to Dayton's Neighborhood Priority Boards came from a unit in the Manager's Office, and later on it gained a connection with the planned variations funding of the Model Cities Program. In 1975, the City of Dayton reassigned the priority boards to a new Department of Housing and Neighborhood Affairs, with two major divisions, one for Citizen Involvement and the other for Housing Conservation and Code Enforcement. A separate, Urban Development Department deals with redevelopmer!, and the manager's Office retains responsibility for planning the use of Community Development funds. Office of Chief Executive or Administrator Thy oily of Portland's Office of Neighhorhnnd A;,sociatinns, under nor fnrrtissionrr w, uIII IIn FLiy t ,tnI otIn•r fnnnnl.,Inner'.. No A•,Iency The City Council of the District of Columbia used its Office of General Counsel to draw un bills and resolutions to get neighborhood advisory commissions underway. Although many of the individual Council Members had staff working on the matter, the G.C. Council has no staff unit for this specific purpose. Within the executive branch of District government, the Officer of Community Services for several years Nas staffed service area cabinets, and each of these has had citizen advisory groups; but neither this office nor any other administrative agency has direct responsibility for helping Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ACNs) organize and operate. However, several offices are involved in fiscal relationships, for the ACNs are allotted funds for operating expenses. Staffing Patterns and Finances Some cities try to come up with a neighborhood plan for utilization of Community Development funds, but they also get involved in basic community organization efforts. The Community Resources Division staff of the City of Birmingham Community Development Department, are the facilitators for communication to and from city agencies. In Birmingham, the neighborhood and planning district committees are tied to citywide advisory bodies, and the seven (7) Community Resource Officers (staff) help residents develop and carry out their ideas at that level. Portland has eigtt (3) Office of Neighborhood Associations Field Representatives who have quite broad assignment. Several places use both local and federal funds for their efforts (i.e., Birmingham and Portland). Dayton and Portland have also utilized personnel hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) to supplement their regular staff. Many localities utilize only general funds to pay for staff and other expenses connected with neighborhood associations (i.e., District of Columbia). In contrast, some cities fund their programs entirely with federal Community Develop- ment money. The largest staff unit is in the City of Dayton where the staff works out of neighborhood offices, typically staffed by a Neighborhood Affairs Coordinator, a Community Services Advisor, a Community Involvement Advisor, and a Stenographer. The City of Dayton, which has had a very large federal grant under the "hold harmless" philosophy, faces a reduction in the years ahead and intends to shift some of the staff working with Neighborhood Priority Boards to the regular City budget. 5 /t The executive branch of local government should have an administrative agency assigned to keep in contact with neighborhood associations and to assist them. The District of Columbia does not have such a unit. The City Council should assign staff to assist it in its dealings with neighborhood associations, parti- cularly where the Council is called upon to make decisions about neighborhood boundaries and official recognition of particular grouos. Although most Council Committees will be affected in some way or other by neighborhood associations, it would be desirable to have one Committee with primary jurisdiction and proper staff. An important consideration is which city agency can best work with neighborhood associations on issues involving many different departments. Assignments close to the chief executive or administrator is the clearest solution. In public administration jargon, this would make the administrative body a staff agency rather than a line department. Nevertheless, a line department can also handle the task if the Mayor, Manager, Executive, Council, or noverning Board makes clear the intent that the neighborhood associations and the agency assisting them are supposed to have program interests broader than the administrative agency's ordinary responsibilities. To play their advisory role properly, neighborhood associations reouire staff assistance. Staff helps them obtain information, get out meeting notices. send communications, and follow up to determine what happens after they offer their advice or register a complaint. In most cities this kind of staff assistance comes from personnel working for local government. Two of the four field offices of the City of Portland's Office of Neighborhood Associations are handled through contracts with citizen organizations, each of which run,. an officc and hires a neighborhood coordinator and clerical help, tut HP ulhor two JI•.triti offices, staff are city employees chosen with utigh- hnrhnA participation and guided in their work by the neinhborhood associations. In d fifth district, the Portland Development Commission uses Federal Community Develoa4ent and local bond issue funds to enable another organization to maintain staff and an office, and the community action agency services a sixth area. In a few localities, the city contracts with neighborhood associations and thereby gives then money to hire staff and pay other expenses. The basic law setting up advisory neighborhood commissions in the District of folunbia, authorizes a sum of at least one cent per S100. of assessed valuation for the whole city to be used to pay their expenses. Upon this basis the 1976 aggregate assessment yielded an annualized amount of $565,000. for the thirty (3D) organized ANCs. The allocation based upon 000ulation produced a range frcw S2,803. for the smallest neighborhood to S37,500. for the largest with a median allocation of S17,500. 6 rD•:INTSTPATtlz F,TTCDrS A•:' Neighborhood Program Number of Locality (a) Administrative Unit for Staff (non- 1979 (b) (population x 1000) Neighborhood Program Department or Office clerical) Budget Community Development Birmingham (?96) Community Resources Community Development 8 S300,000. and Housing Agencies Division Department C.D. and General Revenue S Dayton (214) Neighborhood Affairs Department of Housing 22 S893,000. Division and Neighborhood Affairs C.D. and General Revenue S Other Public Agencies Portland (378) Office of Neiohborhord Department of Public 10 S245,000. Associations Affairs C.D. and General Revenue S MIAMI (350) Citizen Participation Citizen Services 7.5(c) $64,688.(d) Division Department C.D. only No Agency District of 9(e) 51,600,000.(f) Columbia (734) General Revenue `. (a) Population in thousands for 1973 for cities, from U.S. Census data (b) Budget for fiscal year ending in 1979 (c) Five staff members are CETA Titles 11 b VI Community Workers (oarticinants) (d) Budget represents 540,23P. for non-CETA salaries and CETA salary supplements only. (e) Funds allocated to advisory neighborhood commission, and they may hire sta" (f) Current budget request CITY-WIDE FUNCTIONS Advisory The City Council of the District of Columbia adopted a local law giving the advisory neighborhood commissions an advisory role "with respect to all proposed matters of District government policy including decisions regardinn planning, streets, recreation, social service programs, education, health, safety and sanitation which affect that commission area". The district agencies are required to give thirty (30) days written notice of their proposed actions except where shorter notice is necessary for good cause. Citizen Involvement in the Budget -Making Process (all funding sources) in a few places neighborhood councils get involved with the local budget making process. Most often this is the capital budget because it deals with specific projects that neighborhoods want, but in a few locales the onerating budget is also a focus of interest. In 1970, the District of Columbia divided the city into nine service area, and the 1•'ayor appointed administrative personnel to service area committees. 11ree years later these committees started holding public workshops in order to gain citiztr input into the capital budget for each service area. Each workshop group indicated its priorities, and this was influential in overall budget decisions. How the thirty (30) newly established advisory neighborhood commissions will fit into this arrangement hasn't been permanently worked out. In 19/4, 1u gain broader citizen participation In budget making, the City of Portland began using nine (9) citizen task forces composed of persons from both citywide, civic organizations and neighborhood associations. The task forces lnuk nr both capital items and operating expenses for the agencies they are assiuned, dnd the public may make input to the task forces. The first time around fifteen (15) neighborhoods sent in one hundred five (105) budget requests, and in 1975. the number increased to twenty five (25) neighborhoods outting in one hundred thirty one (131) requests. As a result of this experience, neighborhoods are beginning to realize that if they have projects requiring public funds they must get thorn into the budget process or the project won't be implemented. As mentioned briefly before, Neighborhood Priority Boards in the City of Dayton began by allocating a total of $200,000 in city funds for special projects in their area. This was followed a year later by participation in deciding how to spend S2.1 million for neighborhood projects and $2.1 million for citywide projects under model Cities Planned Variation. Now the Priority Boards play a major role in allocating Dayton's Community Development funds. Among the numerous citywide and neighborhood programs to come out of this approach are a citywide developr•rer,t corporation, a community health center, detached youth workers program, community schools, senior citizen center, and assistance to small minority businesses. Other City -Wide Committees The City of Birmingham's key citizen organization in the allocation of Community Development funds is a city-wide committee, called the Citizens Advisory Board, which is made up of twenty one (21) residents of community citizens committees. The staff (from city government) developed the basic proposal for the first year Community Development Program and took it to the city-wide advisory body. This group debated the proposal and made its recommendations. Neighborhoods had their say through their representatives on the city-wide, Citizen Advisory Board and as individuals testifying at City Council hearings, Much of the money was allocated to the major agencies for their projects, but some was also set aside for small-scale projects which the neighborhood associa- tions would decide upon. The City of Birmingham chose three (3) neighborhoods for large-scale improvement programs and allotted smaller amounts to the other eighty one (81) neighborhoods on a formula basis related to population and the number of lower -income households. In the City of Portland, about one third of the organized neighborhoods have some form of comprehensive planning underway. One neighborhood plan has passed the City Council and others are moving toward the public hearing phase. All neighborhood associations are notified of zoning and specific planning proposals - 8 - affecting their areas. Community Development funds are being used in thirteen (13) neighborhoods with emphasis upon stabilization of the inner city through cooperation with lending institutions, rehabilitation loans, parks, improvements to existing community centers, street and sewer improvements, and small neigh- borhood projects. As indicated earlier, neighborhood residents are also serving on budget task forces along with citizens from city-wide organizations, and these task forces influence the budget in its formative stare. Neighborhood associations submit requests for projects they want funded. A few of the neighborhood associations and district community councils are into social services. And throughout the City, neighborhood associations run their own self-help programs. When the City of Dayton was awarded its Planned Variations Program under Model Cities, one hundred and seventy (170) citizens from Neighborhood Priority Boards were to have an official role in planning decisions. To prepare the citizens for this task, the City Manager's staff with help from industrial training personnel from a prominent local firm, develooed and conducted a two-day session at the firm s nearby training facility. This nrepared the neighborhood leaders to make decisions for determining priorities. 9- ESTABLISHING AND ORGANIZING THE DISTRICTS Drawing Up and Adopting the Citizen Participation Plan In setting up a citizen participation plan, somebody has to draw uo and adopt boundary and organizational plans. Staff of the planning department usually have the capacity to work out a neighborhood boundary plan, quite a few planning departments have already done so as part of the comprehensive nlan or the community renewal program. Individual residents on citizen task foces should be enlisted to advise local government. There might be one task force for the city as a whole or individual task forces for sub -areas, such as city council districts, as occurred in the District of Columbia. To obtain resident input into the boundary plan and try out regional districts concepts, arrangements were made for several neighborhoods to come together in community districts which cover only part of the city or county. The City of Birmingham plan evolved into ninety two (92) neighborhood citizens committees serving areas which average 3,500 inhabitants (but range from 200 to 10,000). Each of these has a president, vice-president, and secretary, and the neighborhood president, in consultation with the other two officers, forms an advisory group widely representative of various interests in the neighborhood. At the next level there are twenty one (21) community citizens committees, which consist of the three officers from the two to seven neighborhoods within the defined community. The community committees examine problems going beyond neighborhood capability to solve. The twenty one (21) community presidents make up the Citizens Advisory Board, which deals with city-wide matters. However, the City of Birmingham asked citizens to identify neighborhood boundaries and names, and annually these are open to review and possible revision. Wlupn th city of Dayton first set up its Neighborhood Priority Boards, the City Corr1i0,0on divided the City into five (5) areas plus the Model Cities area, The City Manager's staff then worked with leaders in each area to devise a method for organizing. At first membership came mostly from representatives recommended by local organizations, but the following year city government required that they all be elected and set a common election day. Each Neighborhood Priority Board, however, could still decide the number to be chosen (they ranged from twenty one (21) to forty four (44) members), the electoral subdistricts, and who could vote. Adoption of a neighborhood boundary and organizational plans for the whole city could be done by City Council or the County Government Board, by the Mayor or County Executive by the planning commission, or by the administrative aoency handling the neighborhood associations. However, whatever governmental unit, agency, or institution ultimately takes responsibility for facilitating citizen participation, there must be a full commitment to the process. It is most wise to let residents decide how they choose to organize and interact inside and outside of the neighborhood boundaries. The facilitating agent from local government must be prepared to respond as a creative source, pull together resideht initiated ideas and then formulate the plan which when implemented will satisfy the entire partnership. A city or county may not wish to adopt an overall boundary and organizational plans and instead let groups seeking recognition propose their own. Then, the City Council or County Governing Board will decide whether these are appro- priate as part of the recognition process, and if not, the neighborhood association will be required to modify them. An important consideration will be the boundaries claimed by other neighborhood councils and conflicting by- laws, and this may lead to readjustments from time to time. Another matter is what to do with subareas that don't fall naturally into a compact neighbor- hood, or subareas with undesirable features that the nearest neighborhood association wants to avoid. In other words, letting the residents propose doesn't eliminate all the tough questions. If some neighborhoods boundaries and concerns are not distinct residents place their community identity in different directions. Cities cope with this situation by not sharply defining the recognition process as it applies to community associations and leaving it up to individual residents to decide which community association they want to participate in. Most places approve only one neighborhood association for each neighborhood. An exception is the City of Portland where a clause prohibiting overlapoinq boundaries was removed from the neighborhood associations ordinance following several disputes. Now, any group which meets certain performance standards - 10 - may be recognized, even if two or more groups overlap in the territory claimed. Several sections of Portland have district coalitions of neighborhood associa- tions; two of them each involve seven (7) neighborhoods, one has eight M. another eleven (11), and the largest fifteen (15) neighborhoods; there has been preliminary discussion of a Congress of Neighborhoods, and other cross -city communications, beginning to occur. The chairpersons of the City of Dayton's Neighborhood Priority Boards have an effective working alliance or coalition, which is a strong force in local decision making. Another issue that arose in a few cities has been whether the neighborhood associations, coalitions.or community districts should be contained within the City Council districts. This occurred in the District of Columbia, where council members were in charge of setting neighborhood boundaries and wanted to keep an eye on the advisory neighborhood commissions. But, in other cities (i.e., Atlanta) heavy bargaining occurred among council members, the City administration and neighborhood organizations, and the twenty four (24) agreed upon planning districts deliberately crossed council district lines so as to keep the committees from becoming too political. IMPLEMENTING A CiTIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN Once legislation is adopted and the neighborhood councils are officially recognized, there are several other organizing steps prior to moving into full operation. Holding Elections Members of representative councils and representative assemblies are chosen by elections. The method for election will be stated in the authorizing legislation or in the individual by-laws of the neighborhood organizations. One issue to decide is whether to have a separate election for each neighborhood, a common election day for all neighborhoods but separate from other local elections, or neighborhood elections coinciding with other elections. Cities granting the greatest latitude to neighborhood associations in determining of other places. Birmingham and Dayton are examples of cities that have a soecial neighborhood election day. The mode of voting might also vary. If the city's voting machines are to be utilized at some other time, the scheduled use will be determined by their availability between other elections. A neighborhood association can also ere - pare its own ballots, find voting places and set a day for individuals to rove and vote. Or, voting might occur at a neighborhood meetinm by ballot or a of hands. if there are elections, first there must be nominations. This means nominating petitions, requirements for number of signatures (usually not many, fur examr,lf, tn.itty five (75), and procedures for certifying nominations and placing names on Ih, h i l lot . 101. eler lion,. al neiyhhnrhnud ou r ttuq'„ nnriinat Ingo, can r rn,, 1 ru , I1n The by-laws or basic ordinance will establish who is eligible to vote. The simplest method is to rely upon the regular voter list of the locality. To encourage citizen participation beyond the usual processes, so the neighborhood associations have their own supplementary system for registration or simply letting anyone (who can show proof of residence in the neighborhood at the time of the election) vote. Somebndi has to conduct the election and court the votes. This might he tt,_ regular Board of Elections or an impartial group, such as the League of WOrlen Voter;. The neighborhood association could administer its own election as an additional alternative. A variation of the election process is to randomly select members of the neigh- borhood association through a lottery. The names of whoever the groun defines are placed in a box and a clerk draws out the names one by one until the requisite number are produced, as members and alternates. Those selected are then notified and permitted to accept or reject service on the association. - 12 _ 11111 11N1 IN NI METHODS OF COMMUNICATIONS A major purpose of citizen participation is to facilitate communication between local officials and citizens. Legal notices in newspapers let the public know about proposed ordinances, regu- lations and other actions before they actually occur so that people can voice their opinions and possibly change what officials have in mind. Publication of documents and presentations at public hearings provide additional information. A planning commission and other boards can hold informal workshops on program proposals prior to the formal public hearing. in Portland, city staff prepare a summary of the agenda of forthcoming City Council meetings, and citizens can read this in the daily newspapers. The recognition of neighborhood councils as official representatives of their areas has led cities and counties to develop new methods for giving there regular n !ifi- cation of public activities. In some cities, one of the benefits of official recognition is being on this mailing list. This can take the form of a newsletter or bulletin. The City of Birmingiia-'s Community Development Department mails to neighborhood citizens committees a weekly packet containing the City Council agenda and other pertinent informatior,. It also distributes the agenda of the Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment and lets the neighborhood committees know about vacancies on all City boards and commissions so that they can make nominations. ?Inin'I ldw usually requires that all adjacent property owners be notified about el ii; r' I /utl ltlo I h,lll�lr'. ,11111 v.iriantes, A number of ( i) h.., have 1', J turthlt by notifying neighborhood associations (i.e., Portland). the Portljni1 b'utt•au 01 Planning notifies neighborhood associations about prosnectivr' zoning t.hano, wild• the Office of Neighborhood Associations deals with broader philters irl its monthly newsletter. Po rtlandSComrission refers all proposed zoning changes to the Neighborhood Priority Boards for their comments. One year, the Commission asked them to help work out which streets could be opened for truck routes. After their initial efforts of project planning, the Boards got involved in the capital improvement progra- process and the annual capital budget, and this led to an opportunity to partici- pate in development of the operating budget. in the summer of 1976, the Priority Boards participated in planning for implementation of an upcoming school busing program aimed at achieving greater racial integration, and they helped nrorsote harmonious relations after schools opened. To facilitate interchange between Priority Board Members and City officials, the City "anagt.'r has set up administrative councils for each area consisting of riddle management personnel from six (6) major City departments, and other service providers also meet with this groups. They gather together monthly to discuss citizen complaints and issues which adversely affect the service pattern in the neighborhoods, ":Feting Attendance Attendance at neighborhood meetings is a fundamental method for City staff to communicate with residents. In fact, this is a way of life for community organizers, neighborhood planners, community service counselors, or whatever the staff title is. To provide residents with more detailed knowledge, citizen participation staff can involve other people from their own agency and from other departments, a frequent occurrence with neighborhood planners who bring in comprehensive planners, traffic engineers, park officials, and others, in response to specific issues. The communications role isn't an isolated task but usually occurs as part of a broader assignment which includes providing problem -solving assistance to neighborhood associations and community councils. Citizen Participation staff works with them in analyzing problems and defining solutions, and in that context they serve as an ombudsman between the groups and City Hall. They also help the groups get out their flyers and newsletters. - 13 - Responsive Methods The communication methods of cities and counties are designed to produce a two- way flow of information and opinion, citizens can respond in these forums. Public hearings are a major opportunity for this, and they occur with great frequency and on a wide variety of issues. Participation in advisory committees and on boards and commissions is another way neighborhood views can be communicated. Many cities tend to have the more affluent neighborhoods overrepresented on these boards and committees, persons from low and moderate income neighborhoods should push for their fair share of membership. Citizen Initiated Communication Neighborhood councils can also initiate the communications process. This can be done through letters to particular officials requesting information, asking for or demanding certain actions, and voicing opinions on specific matters under their jurisdiction. Another approach is the circulation of petitions in order to show that the neighborhood association has many supporters for a particular position. However, the requirement to have twenty (20) percent of the registered voters sign a petition before a neighborhood area council can bring to the Association any issue requiring a decision, was adopted by one city in order to establish credibility for a neighborhood position. Face-to-face meetings are also desirable. This can occur when public officials come to neighborhood meetings, and neighborhoods should request them to appear regularly, even to hold commission meetings and city council hearings in different neighborhoods around the city. it also should happen in the official's offices ,II Cif' II,r11; thi i.hows them the seriousness of citizen cnncerns, and it lets, IIn 4 II inAr, •.,.,. Ih,' working environment of elected and appointed offal ills as w,11 d, ulhi1r city employees. Protest tactics is a mode of communication that can be avoided if the neighbor- hood association has gained status through the recognition process and has established methodologies to pursue answers to their neighborhood concerns. One way neighborhood residents can push for solutions is by banding together with other neighborhoods into a coalition (i.e., Portland). This also helps to achieve communication between neighborhoods - en important task in order to share rtiutuel concerns, counteract neighborhood parochialism, set the framework for resolving competing demands, and develop a greater sense of community for the city as a whole. Communications as a Tool for Encouraging Greater Participation Citizen participation doesn't end with organizing and granting recognition to neighborhood associations, for these neighborhood bodies themselves should assure widespread resident involvement in their activities. If a neighborhood association has as many as twenty one (21) or even thirty (30) members (some are as small as five (5)) and another thirty (30) to fifty (50) peonle on committees; that is still only a small fraction of the neighborhood (but of course it is far more participation than before). So the neighborhood associa- tion needs to find ways to facilitate two-way communication with residents. Meetings For one thing, meetings of the neighborhood council should be announced in advance and open to the public. Each community advisory board shall hold public meetings, after reasonable public notice within the district, not less than four times each year to afford opportunity to persons within the district to make known their views and needs. This continues to be the official city policy in Portland. It started at th;; formation meetings and later as the groups move into operations. At a minimum, "open" means letting citizens come and observe the proceedings, and many neighborhood associations carry this further by letting persons in the audience join in the discussion or speak at a certain point on the agenda. - 14 - i Smaller representative associations can also schedule periodic general meeting; for all residents. Such gatherings can y ring people together to hear outside speakers, consider specific project proposals, and receive reports from the neighborhood officers and committees. Those in attendance can give quick feed- back on their reaction to the topics under consideration. Fairs, dinners, and other social events foster communication among residents es well as between them and invited quests from outside the neighborhood. They can promote unity and feelings of goodwill, and this will establish a strong foundatirn so that more decisive matters can be taken up at meetings and resolved harmoniously. Personal Contacts and Block Clubs Person -to -person contacts are indispensable part of the communications prrres;. Where members of a neighborhood association are elected from subdistricts, they should be expected to keep in close touch with their constituency, to tell th.-, what the association is doing, and to get their views, which can then be brci-lt to the attention of the whole association. The neighborhood association can sponsor opinion surveys, oerhaos scientifically structured though even informal ones would be helpful. Where there are block clubs within a neighborhood, they are excellent points cr communication through their leaders to the residents end back from them to thr neighborhood council. In addition, contacts among block clubs can be promote+ in order to develop a fuller sense of neighborhood community. Printed Communications Several different forms of printed communications can be utilized to get informa- tion in the hands of residents. Flyers announcing the organizational meetings and, later on, general meetings, should be widely distributed. A regular neigh- borhood newsletter can be sent out, too. Some local governments provide funds for neighborhood associations to use in printing flyers and newsletters, and in other places a city or county agency prints the material. Program staff in Portland helps embryonic community councils get out announcements, particularly during the first six months. The Portland's Office of Neighborhood Associations is willing to pay for twelve (12) legal -size pages of printing per neighborhood annually, and a neighborhnnct can use its printing allowance for a one -page monthly newsletter, a two -pan'• bi-monthly bulletin, or whatever it chooses. Neighborhood associations can and do use their own funds for this purpose. Tn the material printed by the city, the content must be factual and objective, and the Division has the right to review and edit the material, or to refuse printing services. This reouirem,nt came about because a few newsletters were becoming highly partisan and in a ft: instances personally offensive. In practice, though, this standby authority is, rarely invoked. An alternative approach is for the city to make funds available to a neiahborh-+n,i association for its basic operations, which might consist of staff, office expenses, and also printina. Very few locales have this arrangement and so f-ir it isn't a widely accepted pattern. Meeting announcements can be posted in public places and sent home with school children. Other volunteers can take flyers and newsletters door-to-door. Printed material can also be mailed. Some associations use the door-to-door approach, while others rely on mail to persons who have attended meetings or otherwise indicated an interest. In Portland. the city pays the cost of permit mailing for incorporated neighborhood associations with non-profit status. - 15 -