March 28, 2010
Hon. Joseph N. DiVincenzo, Jr.
Essex County Executive
Hall of Records, Room 405
465 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd.
Newark, NJ, 07102
Re: OPRA Request
Citizen Participation Plan
Dear Mr. DiVincenzo:
Please be advised that CWA Local 1081 has submitted the attached OPRA request of this date to the County of Essex for the following information, as per § 91.105 Citizen Participation Plan; Local Governments of 24 CFR Subtitle (4-1-03 Edition) of Title 24--Housing and Urban Development, Subtitle B--Regulations Relating to Housing and Urban Development:
- A copy of the “citizen participation plan that sets forth the jurisdiction’s polices and procedures for citizen participation”, as originally constituted and/or amended, that provides for the following as required by the regulation:
a) That the County’s citizen participation plan did require the County to publish the proposed consolidated plan in a manner that affords citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties a reasonable opportunity to examine its contents and to submit comments and that the citizen participation plan set forth how the County will publish the proposed consolidated plan and give reasonable opportunity to examine the contents of the proposed consolidated plan.
b) That the County’s citizen participation plan “provided a period, not less than 30 days, to receive comments from citizens on the consolidated plan”. Within the attached email message of March 24, 2010 written our Union by Essex County OPRA Officer Al Fusco he asserts, “The public notice states that the 5 year plan will be made available at the public hearing. Citizens have 15 days to comment on that plan before the submission to HUD. So in essence any concerned citizen has 15 days to digest the material and comment on it”. Our Union questions how then the County may appropriately solicit public comment regarding the consolidated plan at its March 31, 2010 public hearing and receive comments from citizens on the consolidated plan before April 15, 2010 for its review which is fifteen days fewer than required by HUD.
c) That the County’s citizen participation plan did “specify the criteria the jurisdiction will use for determining what changes in the jurisdiction's planned or actual activities constitute a substantial amendment to the consolidated plan” and that it did “include among the criteria for a substantial amendment changes in the use of CDBG funds from one eligible activity to another”.
d) That the County’s citizen participation plan did “provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on substantial amendments”. Inasmuch as “The citizen participation plan must state how reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment will be given” and “The citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less than 30 days, to receive comments on the substantial amendment before the amendment is implemented” our Union questions how then the County may solicit public comment at its March 31, 2010 public hearing, allow the public thirty days in which to comment on substantial amendments and then possibly incorporate those amendments into its consolidated plan to be submitted to HUD by April 15, 2010 for review by the federal government.
e) That the County’s citizen participation plan did require the County to consider any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings, if any, in preparing the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan. Inasmuch as “A summary of these comments or views, and a summary of any comments or views not accepted and the reasons therefore, shall be attached to the substantial amendment of the consolidated plan”, our Union questions how then the County may accomplish these requirements by April 15, 2010.
f) That the County’s citizen participation plan did provide citizens with reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment on performance reports and did state how reasonable notice and an opportunity to comment will be given. Inasmuch as “The citizen participation plan must provide a period, not less than 15 days, to receive comments on the performance report that is to be submitted to HUD before its submission”, our Union questions how then the County may accomplish these requirements by April 15, 2010 since the County will not provide the public the access to the consolidated plan until March 31, 2010.
g) That the County’s citizen participation plan did result in the County considering any comments or views of citizens received in writing, or orally at public hearings in preparing the performance report and attaching a summary of these comments or views to the performance report. Our Union questions how then the County may accomplish these requirements by April 15, 2010.
h) That the County’s citizen participation plan did provide for at least two public hearings per year to obtain citizens' views and to respond to proposals and questions, to be conducted at a minimum of two different stages of the program year, that together, the hearings were to address housing and community development needs, development of proposed activities, and review of program performance and that to obtain the views of citizens on housing and community development needs, including priority non-housing community development needs, and proof that the citizen participation plan did provide that at least one of these hearings was to be held before the proposed consolidated plan was to be published for comment.
i) That the County’s citizen participation plan did state how and when adequate advance notice would be given to citizens of each hearing, with sufficient information published about the subject of the hearing to permit informed comment.
j) Inasmuch as “Publishing small print notices in the newspaper a few days before the hearing does not constitute adequate notice” and “Although HUD is not specifying the length of notice required, it would consider two weeks adequate”, our Union requests documented proof that two weeks notice was given the public regarding the March 31, 2010 public hearing regarding the consolidated plan since the County apparently first advertised the consolidated plan within the press on March 18, 2010.
k) That the County’s citizen participation plan did “provide citizens, public agencies, and other interested parties with reasonable and timely access to information and records relating to the jurisdiction's consolidated plan and the jurisdiction's use of assistance under the programs covered by this part during the preceding five years”.
l) That the County’s citizen participation plan did “provide for technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low- and moderate-income that request such assistance in developing proposals for funding assistance under any of the programs covered by the consolidated plan, with the level and type of assistance determined by the jurisdiction”.
m) That the County’s citizen participation plan did “describe the jurisdiction's appropriate and practicable procedures to handle complaints from citizens related to the consolidated plan, amendments, and performance report” and that at a minimum the citizen participation plan did “require that the jurisdiction must provide a timely, substantive written response to every written citizen complaint, within an established period of time (within 15 working days, where practicable, if the jurisdiction is a CDBG grant recipient)”.
n) That the County did follow its citizen participation plan when developing its consolidated plan.
- A copy of all notices, letters, fliers and other documentation delineating proof that the County of Essex did “provide for and encourage citizens to participate in the development of the consolidated plan, any substantive amendments to the consolidated plan, and the performance report”.
- A copy of all notices, letters, fliers and other documentation delineating proof that the County of Essex did “encourage participation by low- and moderate-income persons, particularly those living in slum and blighted areas and in areas where CDBG funds are proposed to be used, and by residents of predominantly low- and moderate-income neighborhoods, as defined by the jurisdiction”.
- A copy of all notices, letters, fliers and other documentation delineating proof that the County of Essex did encourage “the participation of all its citizens, including minorities and non-English speaking persons, as well as persons with disabilities” in the development of its consolidated plan.
- A copy of all notices, letters, fliers and other documentation delineating proof that the County of Essex did “encourage, in conjunction with consultation with public housing authorities, the participation of residents of public and assisted housing developments, in the process of developing and implementing the consolidated plan, along with other low-income residents of targeted revitalization areas in which the developments are located” and that the County of Essex did “make an effort to provide information to the housing agency about consolidated plan activities related to its developments and surrounding communities so that the housing agency can make this information available at the annual public hearing required under the Comprehensive Grant program”.
- A copy of all notices, letters, fliers and other documentation delineating proof that the County of Essex did “provide citizens with a reasonable opportunity to comment on the original citizen participation plan and on substantial amendments to the citizen participation plan” and that the County of Essex did make the citizen participation plan public “in a format accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request”.
- A copy of all notices, letters, fliers and other documentation delineating proof that the County of Essex did “include the following minimum requirements for the development of the consolidated plan”:
Sincerely,
David H. Weiner, President
CWA Local 1081