Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Redevelopment Incentives topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Port Richey officials propose temporary incentive boost, assignability and ‘catalytic project’ designation to spur large developments
Summary
Council leadership proposed making redevelopment incentives assignable, adding a ‘catalytic project’ designation with criteria (e.g., waterfront or mixed-use, $20 million+ investment, documented financing gap) and temporarily increasing incentive caps so projects can be financeable before the CRA sunsets; staff was asked to model fiscal impacts and return with options.
Chair opened a discussion of the city’s redevelopment incentive program, proposing three principal changes intended to make the program bankable for large, transformational projects: allow incentives to be assigned to a lender, create a narrowly defined “catalytic project” category with objective criteria, and temporarily raise incentive caps during the current CRA window.
The chair said the assignability change would “take out the developer middleman” so banks could be repaid directly, which he argued would make the incentives easier to finance. He described example catalytic criteria that a project would have to meet at least two of: a large total investment (a figure the presentation used as a placeholder of $20,000,000), location in a priority corridor such as US‑19 or the waterfront district, inclusion of a mixed‑use or housing component (workforce or affordable), provision of public infrastructure or waterfront access, and a documented financing gap.
The chair compared Port Richey’s backloaded, performance-based tax-increment approach to New Port Richey’s more cash-upfront reimbursements and Pasco County’s job‑creation grants, noting tradeoffs in developer perception and fiscal risk. He said that under the current structure a developer would typically receive only a few years of payments before the CRA sunset, which can make large projects unfinanceable.
City Manager Don King confirmed staff had begun contacting county partners and outside experts about whether a CRA extension might be feasible and said he would follow up with council members. "We spoke about potential extension with the county," King said, and he expected to share more details with council later in the week.
Using a hypothetical developer example discussed in the meeting, the chair walked through how current limits and a short CRA runway can leave a substantial funding shortfall for a project; he said doubling certain caps for the limited CRA life, or allowing assignability plus a modest post‑CRA bonus percentage, could bridge that gap without committing ongoing general‑fund dollars.
Council members asked for fiscal detail. One member requested staff model several scenarios, including staged rebates (for example, 100% first year then reduced percentages), and another cautioned the council not to conflate different funding streams. The chair said staff should return with modeled options and that, if the council agreed with the concepts, staff should prepare draft policy language and a resolution for formal action.
By the end of the discussion the chair asked whether there were objections to directing staff to prepare materials; no members objected and staff said they would try to return with analyses in roughly two weeks for further consideration.
What’s next: Staff will run fiscal models and draft policy language reflecting the assignability option, catalytic‑project criteria, and temporary cap changes; the council requested those analyses and potential resolution language to be returned for review and possible formal vote.
