Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Richey CRA approves two demolition purchase orders to remove blighted structures
Summary
The Port Richey City Community Redevelopment Agency board voted to award demolition contracts for two properties after owners failed to appeal notices of blight. One contract was awarded at $7,200; the other bid amount was not specified in the meeting record.
The Port Richey City Community Redevelopment Agency Board voted to award demolition contracts for two blighted properties after owners did not file appeals following notice and due-process steps.
City manager Matthew Coppler told the board that 5121 Beams Court “went through the city's settlement of life process in the fall of 2024 after due process” and that the city received three bids for demolition and debris removal. “SC Signature Construction submitted the lowest responsible quote at $7,200,” Coppler said, and the board approved the purchase order by voice vote.
Coppler said the second property, 4841 Limestone Drive, followed a similar process; the city again received three quotes and selected SC Signature Construction as the lowest, most responsible bidder. The meeting record did not specify the dollar amount for the Limestone Drive contract. The board approved that purchase order by voice vote.
Board members discussed recordkeeping and public-facing portals that track storm damage and slum-and-blight proceedings. A council member noted an apparent gap between the city's portal and the slum-and-blight timeline and suggested adding a note in the portal explaining the property's status during the appeal process to avoid confusion for outside reviewers.
The board conducted no public comment on either item during the meeting. Both motions passed by voice vote; no roll-call tallies were recorded in the meeting transcript.
The bids include standard demolition services such as removal of debris, capping of sewer and water, disconnection of electricity, adherence to environmental precautions and securing necessary permits, Coppler said. The record says the owner did not file for appeal in both cases and the structures remained in “deteriorated and unsafe condition,” prompting the city to proceed with demolition following the local process.
Copies of the demolition contracts and bid tabulations were not read into the record at the meeting. The board did not set follow-up dates for site remediation or reuse planning during the discussion.
