Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

After debate over FEMA penalties, New Port Richey council cuts one homeowner's hurricane permit fees in half

New Port Richey City Council · April 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The council voted to reduce building permit fees by 50% for a homeowner who said Hurricane Helene severely damaged his house; city staff said an earlier fee‑waiver program cost the city $136,416 in lost fees and prompted FEMA to reduce reimbursements.

The New Port Richey City Council voted on April 15 to reduce by 50% the building permit fees for a resident who said Hurricane Helene severely damaged his home, after a lengthy public exchange over the city’s earlier temporary fee‑waiver program and FEMA reimbursement penalties.

Richard Miller, who gave his address as 6129 Lafayette Drive, asked the council to waive permit fees for repairs after the storm. In his remarks, Miller said he had been told by his FEMA adjuster and insurer that certain reimbursements were limited and urged council sympathy for homeowners recovering from storm damage: “They do not reimburse for fees, I was told,” he said.

City staff explained that the city had offered a temporary permit‑fee waiver from Sept. 26, 2024 through Jan. 15, 2025 to help homeowners after the storm but later ended it after being penalized by FEMA. Staff told the council that the city’s reimbursable disaster costs were reduced by $136,416 because FEMA considered the waived fees in its calculations. A staff speaker also said 57 other property owners had paid permit fees after the program ended.

Councilors raised two concerns: fairness to property owners who paid fees after the program ended, and the risk that granting a waiver could prompt many similar requests. One councilor proposed cutting Miller’s fees by half as a compromise. After a motion, the council voted in favor of a 50% fee reduction for Miller’s permit application; the decision was characterized by council members as a single‑case accommodation rather than a reinstatement of the citywide waiver program.

Council members asked staff to place the decision on the public record and to ensure any similar future requests follow a clear administrative appeal process. The council did not reinstate the prior temporary waiver and emphasized that the earlier program’s penalty from FEMA was the principal reason it had been discontinued.