Middletown council faces questions after ARPA‑funded 428 Main Street shifts from grocery plan to proposed dispensary

Mayor Benjamin D. Florsheim told the Middletown Common Council on Monday that the ARPA subrecipient agreement the city executed for downtown redevelopment was written to fund rehabilitation of buildings and did not specify the exact retail tenant that must occupy 428 Main Street. "The contract itself ... did not stipulate the retail or commercial use, just that there be retail and commercial use," he said.

Multiple residents urged the council to block a proposed recreational dispensary at 428 Main Street because the American Rescue Plan Act funding used to support the project was awarded on the grounds that the site would include a grocery store to address food‑access needs. "Voting in favor of a dispensary over a grocery store would do neither," Erica Thompson, a 99 Grand Street resident, told the council. She said the ARPA application emphasized a grocery store and asked the council to require transparency and evidence before allowing a change.

Anne McKinney, a downtown resident, said she supported revitalization but opposed a recreational dispensary in the downtown business district near stores and places where students gather. "Why would you wanna take the heart of the city and change your zoning?" she asked, citing concerns about proximity to minors and downtown retail character.

Council members pressed for documents and a fuller explanation. Councilwoman Blackwell said the council had unanimously voted in support of the project when it was presented as a grocery development and asked why subsequent changes had not been returned to the full council. "The application that was submitted laid out a plan for a grocery store," she said.

General Counsel Greg Smith, who answered council questions with the mayor, said the city’s executed subrecipient agreement was more general and that UHY, the city’s ARPA consultant, had advised the city the ARPA guideline applicable to the project (section 2.31) supports rehabilitation of commercial properties irrespective of the eventual tenant: "The ARPA funding is for the building rehabilitation, irrespective of whatever goes in there." Smith also explained that the standard executed agreement contains a merger clause and that, unlike some contracts, the application itself was not incorporated as an enforceable exhibit.

Council members from across the dais requested copies of the executed contract, the ARPA task‑force meeting minutes and recordings, and any documents showing the timeline on when the developer’s tenant plans changed. Mayor Florsheim and staff agreed to circulate the materials and said the ARPA task force had discussed the item but took no action at its recent meeting.

No formal council vote was taken Monday on the 428 Main Street use. The mayor reminded the public that land‑use decisions about whether a dispensary may operate at the site are a separate process before the Planning and Zoning Commission. "Nothing that's said tonight or discussed tonight should have any bearing on approval or denial by the Planning & Zoning Commission," he said.

What happens next: council members said they will review the contracts and task‑force records the city will provide; the Planning & Zoning Commission will consider any zone change or special permit required for a dispensary. For residents seeking a written record, council members requested that staff circulate the executed subrecipient agreement and relevant ARPA task‑force materials.

Ending: The council did not take action on funding or approvals related to the project at the May 5 meeting; the issue is expected to remain active as members review documents and as the Planning & Zoning process continues.