Community Benefits Agreements. The ICA requires all entities or contractors contracting with or receiving grants from the CRA for new commercial and residential developments to be constructed within the CRA Redevelopment Area in an amount of $200,000 or more, or such other amount as may be established by the Board of County Commissioners, to enter into a community benefits agreement with the CRA which will benefit primarily the residents of the CRA Redevelopment Area. To the extent allowed by law, a community benefits agreement shall include provisions for hiring the labor workforce for the project financed by the grant or agreement from residents of the CRA Redevelopment Area that are unemployed or underemployed. Depending on the worker or employee to be hired, the CRA is required to ensure that such entity or contractor complies with wage requirements, as applicable, established by the County’s Living Wage or Responsible Wage Ordinances, pursuant to Section 2-8.9 and 2-11.16, respectively, of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida (the “Code”) or pay higher wages and benefits, as are feasible. Grantee and the CRA acknowledge and agree that (a) this Agreement is intended to constitute the community benefits agreement and (b) the Grantee is required to ensure compliance with wage requirements, as applicable, established by the County’s Living Wage or Responsible Wage Ordinances, pursuant to Code Section 2-8.9 and 2-11.16, respectively, or pay higher wages and benefits, as are feasible.
Community Benefits Agreements. 45 However, it is plainly legitimate for an elected official to make clear to a developer that he or she will consider the degree of community support for a project in deciding whether to grant discretionary project approvals; to encourage governmental staff to require certain developer commitments through the accepted land use approval process; to inform the developer, governmental staffers, and the public of factors that the elected official will consider relevant in voting on discretionary approvals for the project; to keep apprised of the status of private CBA negotiations; and to facilitate CBA negotiations by keeping the developer, coalition members, and the public informed as to project parameters and community benefits that that the government is demanding. When elected officials respect these roles, community groups benefit be- cause they are free to make their views known to the public and all relevant elected officials, they have good information about the project, and they can negotiate in good faith with an amenable developer. Developers ben- efit in their negotiations with local government because all such negotia- tions occur through well-established land use approval processes and staff contacts; developers also benefit in their community engagement because they can choose to negotiate freely with community-based organizations in order to obtain broad community support where a deal is possible—or to decline to do so if they feel they do not need community support. Local government benefits because projects with CBAs can go forward with broad public support, enforceable community benefits, and a minimal risk of litigation. This is not to say that every attempted CBA negotiation will result in an agreement. However, all parties in land use development can benefit from the CBA process when roles are respected, the process is inclusive, and there is a shared goal of legitimate commitments on all sides. Past CBAs that met the definition set forth above advanced the values of inclusiveness and accountability; the recent New York City agreements stand in sharp contrast.
Community Benefits Agreements. 37 During a CBA negotiation, many issues arise that would benefit from additional analysis and attention. These include: whether a CBA coalition should have an official structure;4 best approaches to drafting language binding contractors, subcontractors, tenants, and successor landowners in a development project;5 optimal monitoring, dispute resolution, and enforce- ment techniques;6 and procedural changes to the development process that will increase inclusiveness and accountability.7 Perhaps future commenta- tors will build on the scholarship contained in this special issue to explore these and other aspects of CBAs and the development process.
Community Benefits Agreements. It is worth noting that if community advocates had confidence that pub- lic officials and their staff would more strongly consider community input in imposing community benefits requirements on developers, and would then enforce those requirements, we would not have seen the widespread interest in negotiation of private CBAs. In that sense, the interest in CBAs can only be taken as a criticism of urban land use development as practiced by local government to date. Hopefully, the issues raised by advocates of CBAs, their arguments as to what types of development projects should receive public support, and the newly engaged, positive attitude of low-income communities toward these projects, will lead to improved development processes and end results across the board, making CBAs less and less necessary over time.
Community Benefits Agreements. The power,
Community Benefits Agreements. Lender shall have received an executed community benefits agreement (the “Community Benefits Agreement”).
Community Benefits Agreements. The parties hereby declare their support of Community Benefit Agreements that incorporate the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Community Benefits and the Inclusion (the MoU) memorialized on February 26, 2013.
Community Benefits Agreements. Community Agreement
Community Benefits Agreements. Design: Encourage interaction and connection between new development and the surrounding neighborhood, create safe environments, reflect and build on architectural characteristics of the community, and consider industrial influences. Public Spaces and Benefits: Improve safety and include public outdoor and indoor space, art, and green space. Use public space to connect development with the community. Access, Circulation and Connectivity: Create a safer crossing at Hiawatha, create a development that is pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly, and reduce traffic congestion. CBA HELPS TRANSLATE COMMUNITY’S ASPIRATIONS The task force welcomed the Alliance for Metropolitan Stability to meetings to help the community learn more about CBAs. Using their “Principles and Priorities” as a starting point, task force members began work on a preliminary CBA, including quantifying the community’s goals and priorities. Task force members convened a Community Benefits Committee (CBC) to guide the research and writing of a CBA that would be specific to the site south of 38th Street, under purchase option by the developer. The CBC, comprised of more than 15 volunteers, was aided by staff at LCC and Seward Redesign. The CBC reviewed other CBAs, met with experts, and wrote drafts of the CBA. Detailed outlines of recommended content for the CBA were presented to the community in the fall of 2006, and the negotiation process with the developer began. Xxxx Xxxx was enthusiastic about entering into a CBA with LCC, often mentioning it in his discussions with elected officials and local media. Throughout this process, LCC sought to facilitate clear and ongoing communi- cation between participants, community stakeholders and elected officials about task force activities and CBA efforts, including: regular features in the neighbor- hood newspaper; posting information and updates to the LCC website (xxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxx) and e-mail list serves; and hosting community forums every few months at locations ranging from parks to a neighborhood coffee shop. The forums drew scores of people curious about what’s in store for the grain mill sites and how the community is involved. Following several negotiating sessions between Xxxx Xxxx and the task force negotiating team, language for a CBA was accepted by task force members in the summer of 2007. The negotiating team moved toward finalizing CBA lan- guage with Xxxx Xxxx in the fall of 2007.
Community Benefits Agreements. A Community Benefit Agreements (CBA) movement has been growing in parallel to the sustainable food procurement movement in North America. As previously mentioned, CBAs are legally binding agreements to support local community development that are typically negotiated between a variety of stakeholders, including major project developers, multiple levels of government and local non‐ governmental organisations. In a number of cases across North America, they have been used as an effective way to leverage private and government funds. Thus far, CBAs have not included food procurement commitments. The following section explores how the scope and nature of the institutional sustainable food procurement movement dovetails well the typical characteristics of CBAs. An overview of defining features of CBAs is provided, are three case studies which provide further insight into the potential relevance such agreements have to institutional food procurement policy.
