Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Committee Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City staff outlines bylaws, attendance rules and rolling grant-review proposal for West Ocala advisory committees
Summary
City staff presented a draft advisory-committee bylaw document recommending standardized procedures, attendance rules (written notice after two absences; removal after a third consecutive absence), sunshine-law guidance for subcommittees and a two‑step grant-review change that would move smaller improvement grants directly to the CRA board while reserving review of projects over $1,000,000 for the advisory committee.
Roberta Ellis, the City of Ocala economic development manager, presented a draft set of bylaws and procedures that would formalize how CRA advisory committees operate, set expectations for members, and address attendance, conflict‑of‑interest safeguards and grant review timelines.
Ellis said the bylaws are intended to "establish a uniform set of policies and procedures" and to support the city council’s strategic goal of operational excellence. She told members the draft addresses Sunshine Law requirements: meetings where a decision will be taken must be properly noticed and provide the public an opportunity to participate; informal site‑visit or observation meetings that do not take votes would not require the same notice.
On attendance, staff proposed written notice after two absences and removal after a third consecutive absence; Ellis said three consecutive missed meetings equates to being out of board operations for a year because the advisory committees meet every other month. "Based on this, we'll be issued a written notice after 2 absences. And then at the third absence, you can be relieved of your position," Ellis said.
Ellis also proposed two changes to the grant review process to reduce delays: for routine improvement grants (residential and commercial), the advisory committee would continue to do rotating site visits but staff would forward completed applications to the CRA board for action; catalytic and larger projects would still follow a committee review. Staff said projects over $1,000,000 (renovation or new construction) will continue to be reviewed and scored by the advisory committee.
Staff asked committee members for feedback and said the draft will be circulated for markups before being forwarded to the CRA board. Committee members raised procedural questions about substitutes or reserves and how the scoring step would work; staff responded that the scoring process would be the same as in prior cycles. Ellis asked members to send comments prior to staff taking the draft to the CRA board.
