Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Urban Renewal Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Local business owner asks Urban Renewal Agency to consider exception for completed facade and roof repairs
Summary
Business owner Bruce Keiko told the Urban Renewal Agency on Nov. 4 that he completed roof and interior repairs after storm damage and asked the board whether the renewal grant program could be applied retroactively or made to allow an exception for his project, which he said did not meet preapproval bidding requirements.
Bruce Keiko, a local business owner who said he runs a Farmers Insurance agency on 3rd Street, asked the Urban Renewal Agency on Nov. 4 to consider making an exception or otherwise allowing retroactive grant support after he completed major roof and interior repairs.
Keiko told the board the roof failed and leaked, causing interior damage that required asbestos abatement and a significant interior remodel. “We replaced the roof…we replaced the drywall and everything on the inside that was affected and that led to a complete remodel of the inside as well,” he said, adding the work had been expensive and largely completed before he knew about the renewal grant program.
Keiko said program rules requiring pre‑approval steps — notably soliciting three bids and approval before work begins — effectively barred him from applying after doing the repairs and asked whether the board could consider his project as an exception so the agency’s funds could help offset costs and encourage similar downtown improvements. “One of the criteria I read through…if you gotta get three bids before and it has to be approved before you actually do the repairs, clearly that can’t happen,” he said.
Board members and staff responded with questions about documentation and legal constraints. A director asked whether Keiko had contractor estimates; Keiko said he had estimates for the roof, had used Foley Construction and had collected receipts and some documentation but not always three bids before work began. The Chair and other directors emphasized the need to review the program language and consult the city attorney to determine whether retroactive assistance or an exception is legally permissible. “We’ll take the time to review…as a board and as city and to kinda see what we’re able to do,” the Chair said.
Agency members noted the grant process can be cumbersome and that the program includes different components and reimbursement rules. Participants referenced a 40% reimbursement figure as an example of program limits, but directors said the exact percentage and caps vary by program component and would need confirmation from staff and program materials.
The board agreed to revisit Keiko’s request at the next renewal meeting, scheduled for roughly two weeks, and asked Keiko to provide documentation (estimates, receipts and contractor information) in advance. The agency did not commit to awarding funds at the meeting; members said next steps would be an internal legal and program review and a future vote if the board determines an exception or retroactive approval is allowable.
The consent agenda at the start of the meeting included approval of the minutes from the Aug. 19, 2025 meeting; a director moved to approve and the Chair called for the voice vote, which passed by voice consent.
What happens next: staff will review grant language and legal constraints, agency members will consult the attorney as needed and Keiko will be invited to submit documentation for consideration at the next renewal meeting.
