Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
East Ocala advisory committee staff proposes tighter attendance rule and faster grant review
Loading...
Summary
Staff proposed a change to advisory-committee procedures that would issue notice after two missed meetings and vacate a seat after a third missed meeting; staff also proposed rolling grant applications and a process to move eligible grants directly to the CRA board after site review.
East Ocala — City staff on Jan. 27 presented proposed changes to how Community Redevelopment Area (CRA) advisory committees operate, seeking to tighten attendance rules and speed the grant-review pipeline.
Robert Ellis, economic development manager, told the advisory group he and staff have prepared a template of policies and procedures to standardize membership, terms, roles, meeting conduct and conflict-of-interest guidance for all CRA advisory committees. "We've moved to put together a document stating our policies and procedures," Ellis said, adding the changes aim "to streamline our processes, ensure that we are operating efficiently" and reduce project delays tied to canceled or postponed advisory meetings.
Ellis proposed altering the committee-removal rule that currently triggers after three consecutive unexcused absences. "The proposal is currently to after 2 instances where you are absent from a meeting, you'll be issued a notice that, hey, if you missed the third meeting, then you you'll be giving up your position on the committee," he said, characterizing the change as encouraging attendance because advisory meetings are held every other month.
The staff recommendations also would modify grant review steps. Ellis said staff is considering rolling application intake instead of fixed deadlines and keeping site visits involving advisory committee members, but then — when eligibility and basic checks are complete — taking applications "directly to the CRA board at the next available meeting" to move projects faster. He emphasized that catalytic grants with scoring requirements would still need an advisory-committee recommendation.
Committee members pressed for transparency and feedback when the board’s decision diverges from an advisory recommendation. One member asked whether the advisory group would receive information about the criteria used by the CRA board when it approves a project despite an advisory denial; Ellis said he would make note of the request and that staff includes both committee recommendations and staff recommendations in the board packet. "The staff recommend recommendation was approval," Ellis said when asked about a recent hotel project behind a CVS store; he additionally noted some items receive little discussion at the board meeting itself but were provided in advance in the staff report.
Ellis said staff will circulate the draft policies to advisory committees for comment and then bring finalized recommendations to the CRA board. No formal vote was taken at the Jan. 27 meeting; Ellis described the presentation as an initial discussion and asked for committee feedback.
Next steps: staff will revise the draft policy based on committee input, circulate the document for review, and return with a formal recommendation to the CRA board for any policy changes.
