Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 260035

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 260035

File Type: Ordinance

Status: In Committee

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Pending BCC Assignment

File Name: RELATING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BCC

Introduced: 1/8/2026

Requester: NONE

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date:

Agenda Item Number: 7

Notes:

SEE 260724; BCC RULES

Title:

ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AMENDING SECTION 2-1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUIRING PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR HOUSING PROJECTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

Indexes:

RULES OF PROCEDURE

Sponsors:

Sen. Rene Garcia, Prime Sponsor

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Housing Committee	4/14/2026	2A	Amended
REPORT:	See Agenda Item 2A Amended, Legislative File No. 260724 for the amended version.

Housing Committee	3/10/2026	1G1	Deferred		4/14/2026
REPORT:	ACA Smith read title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Chairwoman Bastien opened the public hearing; and the following persons appeared before the Committee: Ms. Erica Scott, Miami Homes for All, appearing as a member of the Greater Miami Housing Alliance, 3250 Southwest 3rd Avenue, Miami, Florida, described the Alliance as a coalition of local organizations working together to promote affordable housing. She commended the item sponsor for prioritizing public engagement and offered several recommendations to strengthen the ordinance. Ms. Scott suggested that it specify a minimum of three community meetings, that those meetings be adequately advertised to neighborhood residents, that they be scheduled at times accessible to working people and include hybrid options, and that they be facilitated by a trusted community partner. She further recommended that the statement of community benefits include information on the number of housing units that would be affordable to neighborhood residents earning the area median income, which she said would help the public evaluate whether and how a proposed development addressed the housing needs of the surrounding neighborhood. Reverend Chirlane Stevens, Senior Pastor of Ebenezer United Methodist Church, 789 Northwest 153rd Street, Miami, Florida, spoke in support of the item and explained that members of her congregation had lived in Liberty Square and had not received the benefits promised to them. She emphasized the importance of allowing community residents to participate in public meetings affecting their quality of life and the decisions made about where they live, and she requested that meetings be held in the afternoons and offer virtual and hybrid options. Reverend Stevens stated that developers should be held accountable to support residents and provide the benefits they were due. Ms. Jenneva Clauss, Senior Organizer for People Acting for Community Together (PACT), 3558 Southwest 26th Street, Miami, Florida, stated that PACT had worked for over a year to establish a meeting requirement tied to the ordinance's statement of community benefits. She supported the item and recommended a minimum number of required meetings, ideally the number necessary to reach agreement between the community and the developer. She requested that residents be notified of meeting times, that any advertising costs be borne by the developer, and that meetings be scheduled at accessible times with a hybrid option. Ms. Khalilah Abdullah, a member of PACT, 1411 Northeast 159th Street, North Miami Beach, Florida, requested a minimum of three meetings with at least one held in a hybrid format, held at times accessible to working people, clearly posted, and with developers responsible for any associated costs. Ms. Bianca Montenegro, 13710 Southwest 272nd Street, Naranja, Florida, spoke in support of the item and stated that the community should be involved in community benefits agreements. She requested a minimum of three meetings, hybrid or virtual options, clear accountability for developers to meet community goals, and developer responsibility for the costs associated with the meetings and other community benefits. Mr. Phillip Cordella, 3230 Southwest 94th Court, Miami, Florida, spoke in support of the item and the community benefits amendment. He recommended three or more meetings accessible to the affected communities, clear communication of those meetings, preferably on the county website, and developer responsibility for the meeting costs. He added that developers should be fully engaged as transparent partners with the affected residents. Ms. Arlette Adams, appearing on behalf of the Annie Coleman 14 Resident Council, 2455 Northwest 46th Street, Miami, Florida, spoke in support and requested a minimum number of meetings and that, once a community benefits agreement was drafted and agreed upon, appropriate oversight and accountability be in place to ensure residents received the promised benefits. Ms. Paula Saltzman and Ms. Madeline Maynard waived in support of Agenda Item 1G1, and additional attendees stood to be recognized in support of the item. There being no one else appearing wishing to speak, the public hearing was closed. Vice Chairwoman Lopez explained that she had pulled the item because the ordinance was vague and that a single meeting, or even two, would not be sufficient for residents to reach agreement with developers. She proposed amending the item to require a minimum of three meetings, or such number as required by federal law, noting that some federal housing laws required five or more. She added that meetings should be clearly noticed so residents were aware of them and held at times that allowed a reasonable number of people to participate. Commissioner Regalado described her experience incorporating public meetings into housing Requests for Proposals (RFPs). She explained that staff had initially advised that holding public meetings during an open RFP would violate the cone of silence, but that it was later determined such meetings could be held if they were publicly noticed. She reported that she had built virtual meetings into every phase of two RFPs, holding sessions before the RFP was released, while it was on the street, during the selection process, and after selection, when the recommended firms presented before the matter advanced to the Board. She noted that the virtual meetings were held from approximately 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. to improve access, and she cautioned that coordinating such meetings required significant effort. Commissioner Regalado further explained that, separately, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) already required a series of in-person and hybrid meetings whenever a housing project directly affected existing residents, with notice provided by the department by email and at residents' doors and a caseworker assigned to facilitate the transition. She stated that HUD did not permit the County to limit who could apply or to whom meeting notice was provided, and that her district office addressed outreach by engaging local organizations to serve as facilitators. Commissioner Regalado added that she had been working at the national level to create an exception allowing residents displaced by government action to return to their communities, noting that the matter involved significant litigation, including a case before the U.S. Supreme Court, and that HUD was reconsidering the rule. She recommended that virtual meetings be added to the ordinance and that notice follow existing HUD requirements, which already addressed access, notice, accessible meeting times, and a virtual component. She also stated that the focus should be on the timing of meetings across the phases of the process rather than solely on the number of meetings. Vice Chairwoman Lopez thanked Commissioner Regalado and agreed with the use of virtual meetings and the phasing of a minimum of three meetings, stating that the proposed amendment would not change the item dramatically. Chairwoman Bastien supported both amendments. She referenced her prior work as a community organizer and stated that residents had the right to participate at every phase of development in their neighborhoods. She indicated that a minimum of three meetings was acceptable, that more meetings were acceptable if needed, and that, although she personally preferred in-person meetings, she was amenable to virtual meetings so that every voice could be heard. ACA Smith confirmed that the Committee had the authority to amend an item before it. Commissioner Regalado acknowledged that authority but noted that the item's maker was not present and that the maker should be notified of the proposed changes so the amendment would not be perceived as unfriendly. She also asked whether the department would require additional staff or budget to support the meeting requirement and stated that the department, not developers, should host the meetings. Mr. Kogan stated that the department had a resident outreach team and was already required to hold five meetings for Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) redevelopment, and that staffing would need to be reviewed if a minimum of three additional meetings were required. He agreed that developers should subsidize certain costs, such as notice and room expenses, while clarifying that HCD, not the developer, would conduct the meetings. Commissioner Regalado stated that the amendment should also address the fiscal impact, that staff should coordinate the meetings, and that notice should be issued by staff to ensure accountability. For comparison, Mr. Kogan noted that the County conducted meetings for zoning applications, with the costs covered by application fees. At the request of Vice Chairwoman Lopez, ACA Smith read the proposed amendment into the record, to be added as new paragraphs on pages MDC006 and MDC008. The amendment provided that the County Mayor or the County Mayor's designee would hold a minimum of three meetings, or such other number as required by federal laws, regulations, or HUD directives; that such meetings would be held at a time, place, or manner, including through virtual meetings, to allow greater participation by residents and the community; that such meetings would be phased over the life of the development of the project, including but not limited to the development of the solicitation or RFP; and that the costs of such meetings would be borne by the selected developer. During discussion of the amendment, Commissioner Regalado requested that the language mirror the department's existing requirements and specify that meetings occur at defined phases, including before the RFP was released, while it was on the street, and during the selection process, rather than referring generally to phases. She emphasized that community input was most valuable before the RFP was issued and that meeting costs should be reimbursed to the department by the selected developer through the RFP and resulting contract so the costs would not be drawn from the general fund. ACA Smith recapped that the amendment increased the number of meetings beyond those required under the disposition regulations, which required the County, as a public housing agency disposing of property, to hold a meeting with the community prior to the Board's adoption of a resolution, and that RAD requirements were already encompassed. Chairwoman Bastien agreed with the amendment as written but cautioned that it should not be overly specific, as the item would proceed to the full Board. Mr. Kogan stated that he had no issue with the concept of the amendment but identified several nuances that he wanted to examine before adoption. He explained that the department received unsolicited applications and bids, which could not be anticipated, and that a meeting therefore could not be held in advance of such a submittal. He cautioned that the amendment language should not conflict with that process and recommended that the nuances be reviewed as the item moved from this reading to adoption. Mr. Kogan noted that a beneficial feature of the ordinance was its requirement that the district commissioner be consulted, and he suggested that, where a district commissioner did not wish to hold the three meetings, the matter be left to that commissioner's discretion, since a commissioner observing the meetings might determine that holding a meeting for its own sake served no purpose. He added that the amendment was being considered on the assumption that the community would offer constructive feedback to improve a project, but he cautioned that, as he had observed in the zoning context, some communities sought to obstruct affordable or workforce housing projects once those uses were identified. Mr. Kogan reiterated that the department welcomed the additional meetings, which made its work easier, and suggested that district commissioners be permitted to adjust how the meetings were conducted as they observed them. Chairwoman Bastien disagreed with the suggestion that a district commissioner be given discretion to alter how the meetings were conducted, stating that time spent gathering resident input on neighborhood developments was never wasted. Vice Chairwoman Lopez agreed with Commissioner Regalado that public input was needed before the RFP was completed, as there was no remedy once the RFP was issued, and indicated support for adding that specific language. ACA Smith confirmed with Vice Chairwoman Lopez that the costs of the meetings were to be borne by the developer rather than by the County or the public, and that the obligation would be incorporated into the RFP so that the selected developer would reimburse the County for those costs once selected. He then read the revised amendment into the record in full. As read, the amendment provided that the County Mayor or the County Mayor's designee would hold a minimum of three meetings, or such other number as required by federal laws, regulations, or other HUD directives; that such meetings would be held at a time, place, or manner, including through virtual meetings, to allow greater participation by residents and the community; that such meetings would be phased over the life of the development of the project, including but not limited to the development of the solicitation or RFP; and that the costs of such meetings would be borne by the selected developer. After the item was moved and seconded, Chairwoman Bastien advised that she had received notification that the sponsoring commissioner, Senator Garcia, did not accept the Committee's amendments. In light of the sponsor’s position, she indicated the item would be deferred to the next committee meeting. Hearing no other questions or comments, by motion duly made and seconded, the Committee voted to defer the foregoing proposed ordinance to the April 14, 2026 HC meeting. Commissioner Regalado recommended that Senator Garcia meet with Mr. Kogan to consider the amendments discussed. Commissioner Bermudez requested that Mr. Kogan provide a report on the cost of hosting the meetings, regardless of which party would bear the cost, before the next committee meeting.

Board of County Commissioners	2/18/2026	4A	Adopted on first reading		3/10/2026		P
REPORT:	CA Bonzon-Keenan read the title of the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. The foregoing proposed ordinance was adopted on first reading and will be scheduled for a public hearing before the Housing Committee (HC) on Tuesday, March 10, 2026, at 12:30 p.m.

Board of County Commissioners	2/18/2026		Tentatively scheduled for a public hearing	Housing Committee	3/10/2026

County Attorney	2/17/2026		Referred	Housing Committee		3/10/2026

County Attorney	1/8/2026		Assigned	Terrence A. Smith		1/9/2026

Legislative Text

TITLE
ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE RULES OF PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; AMENDING SECTION 2-1 OF THE CODE OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA; REQUIRING PUBLIC MEETINGS FOR HOUSING PROJECTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC HOUSING AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY
WHEREAS, this Board�s Rules of Procedure (�Board�s Rules�) are codified in section 2-1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida; and
WHEREAS, on February 19, 2020, this Board adopted Ordinance No. 20-24, which amended the Board�s Rules to require the County Mayor to provide a written public outreach statement summarizing the public engagement process that was undertaken, prior to this Board�s consideration of any ordinance or resolution related to planning activities, implementation of any policies or procedures, or major development or redevelopment activities, including, but not limited to, demolition, disposition, construction and rehabilitation of public housing developments that impact the County�s public housing program and public housing residents (�Public Engagement Requirement�); and
WHEREAS, the Public Engagement Requirement is presently codified in Rule 5.11 of the Board�s Rules; and

WHEREAS, on April 2, 2024, this Board adopted Ordinance No. 24-30, which amended the Board�s Rules to require the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee to provide a written statement of community benefits prior to the placement of an item on an agenda of a regularly scheduled or special meeting of this Board which seeks the approval of (a) a contract for the sale, lease, sub-lease, management, or operation of County-owned real property that will be used for the development, redevelopment or construction of capital improvements that are estimated by the County to cost no less than $15,000,000.00 and which include the development of housing; or (b) a contract providing a monetary grant or other in-kind financial incentives to a private entity for the development, redevelopment, or construction of capital improvements to real property in Miami-Dade County in an amount estimated by the County to be no less than $15,000,000.00 and which include the development of housing (�Community Benefits Requirement�); and
WHEREAS, the Community Benefits Requirement is presently codified in Rule 5.12 of the Board�s Rules; and
WHEREAS, the federal laws and regulations that govern the public housing program, including, but not limited to, those that govern the demolition or disposition of a public housing development in accordance with Section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, as amended, the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, and the implementing regulations promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, require the County, as a public housing agency, to hold public meetings with the residents and other community stakeholders (�Federal Requirements�); and

WHEREAS, the Federal Requirements do not apply to other non-public housing properties owned by the County, and which are being developed or redeveloped with affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, this Board believes that the public should be allowed to participate and provide comments related to large scale housing projects, i.e. housing projects that have an estimated cost of $15,000,000.00 or more, that are being developed or redeveloped on County-owned land; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, this Board wishes to amend Rules 5.11 and 5.12 of the Board�s Rules to require that public meetings be held prior to this Board�s consideration of any resolution or ordinance that relates to the development or redevelopment of housing projects as described herein,
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The above recitals are incorporated in this ordinance.
Section 2. Section 2-1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida, is hereby amended to read as follows:1

Sec. 2-1. Rules of Procedure of County Commission

* * *

Rule 5.11. STATEMENT OF PUBLIC OUTREACH FOR [[PUBLIC]] >> AFFORDABLE<< HOUSING [[PROGRAM]]>>DEVELOPMENT<< ITEMS

(1) Prior to Board consideration of any ordinance or resolution related to planning activities, implementation of any policies or procedures, or major development and redevelopment activities >>associated with any affordable housing project on County-owned land<< , including, but not limited to, demolition, disposition, construction and rehabilitation of housing developments that impact the County�s public housing >>or other affordable housing<< [[program]] >>programs<< and [[public housing]] residents, the >>County<< Mayor >>or County Mayor�s designee<< shall include in the memorandum accompanying the item or otherwise provide a written public outreach statement detailing the public outreach efforts undertaken to collect and apply public input or comments, including, but not limited to, public input or comments from public housing residents, public housing resident councils, the jurisdiction-wide resident council known as the Overall Tenant Advisory Council, Inc. or its successor entity, and community advisory councils, if applicable. >>The County Mayor or the County Mayor�s designee shall hold public meetings prior to this Board�s consideration of any ordinance or resolution, and the memorandum or public outreach statement shall describe the number of meetings held and the location of such meetings. Where applicable, such public meetings shall be held in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and directives, including, but not limited to, those promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development. Such meetings shall be held in such a manner that does not cause significant delays to the County�s, including the Board�s, process of approving housing developments and programs. Notice shall be posted on the County calendar and the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee shall coordinate the scheduling of such meetings with the commissioner of the district in which the proposed major development or redevelopment activities is located.<< No ordinance or resolution shall be considered by the Board or a committee of the Board, if the public outreach statement has not been provided.

(2) The public outreach statement shall be based on information that is currently available and known. If the >>County<< Mayor or >>County<< Mayor�s designee initially determines that an ordinance or resolution does not require a public engagement process, but later determines that the ordinance or resolution does require such process, then the >>County<< Mayor or >>County<< Mayor�s designee shall so advise the Board in a memorandum.

Rule 5.12. STATEMENT OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS RELATING TO HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
* * *
(B) The statement of community benefits shall indicate, as applicable:

(1) binding obligations and non-binding commitments to provide amenities, benefits, urban revitalization, cash incentives, or improvements to the community where the Housing Development Project is located, as well as any indicated benefits to adjacent or other communities affected by the Housing Development Project;

(2) the amount of funds that are contractually required to be invested into the Housing Development Project and the community;

(3) the number and type of direct and indirect jobs, both temporary and permanent, anticipated to be created by the Housing Development Project, the wage benefit levels of each, and any apprentice or job training programs;

(4) neighborhood amenities and infrastructure that will be created as part of the Housing Development Project, including streetscape improvements, green space, and parks;

(5) compliance, reporting, and monitoring of contractual requirements related to any of the foregoing; [[and]]

(6) the consequences for failure to meet any contractual requirements related to any of the foregoing, and the County�s remedies; and

(7) a statement detailing any community meetings >>required by subsection (E) of this Rule<<.

* * *

>>(E) The County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee shall hold public meetings regarding any Housing Development Project in such a manner that does not cause significant delays to the County�s, including the Board�s, process of approving Housing Development Projects. The community benefits statement required by this rule shall describe the number of meetings held and the location of such meetings. Notice shall be posted on the County calendar and the County Mayor or County Mayor�s designee shall coordinate the scheduling of such meetings with the commissioner of the district in which the proposed major development or redevelopment activities is located. Where applicable, such public meetings shall be held in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and directives, including, but not limited to, those promulgated by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.<<

* * *

Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intention, and the word �ordinance� may be changed to �section,� �article,� or other appropriate word.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.

1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.