Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Port Richey CRA leaves $25,000 Main Street build‑out grant intact, calls for rule review
Summary
The New Port Richey Community Redevelopment Agency declined to reopen its earlier approval of a $25,000 grant application for an interior build‑out at 5743 Main Street but directors asked staff to review program rules that allow separate build‑out grants for multiple addresses within one building.
The New Port Richey Community Redevelopment Agency board declined to reconsider a prior approval of a $25,000 grant application for an interior build‑out at 5743 Main Street, and members asked staff to review whether the CRA should continue allowing separate build‑out grants for multiple addresses within the same building.
During discussion, a director (speaker S5) asked to be excused and said they would abstain from the upcoming votes “for the look of impropriety,” telling the board they had learned that “not my company, but a feral company” would be doing the work. The director requested to be excused from items 3a–c and said they were not connected to the company but wanted to avoid the appearance of conflict.
CRA staff (speaker S7) told the board the item before them was approval of a grant application, not authorization of payment. “At this point we’re just approving the application and they have not had the work conducted or are requesting reimbursement at this point,” staff said, adding that backup documentation and reimbursement requests would go to the finance department later.
Board members reiterated concerns raised by a resident about application completeness, including whether multiple bids were solicited and whether the second floor was for residential use. Staff responded that the tenants are zoned for commercial use and that applicants present in the room could provide more specifics. The primary policy issue that surfaced was whether the CRA should allow separate build‑out grants for multiple addresses at one property; staff said that rule dated to earlier Main Street development projects and is included in the packet.
The chair and clerk explained the procedural option to move to reconsider: only a member who voted for the original motion may make such a motion. No motion to reconsider was made; the chair declared that, without a motion to reopen the matter, the prior approval stands.
Directors asked staff to bring the broader question of the program rule back to a future meeting so the board can determine whether to change the rule going forward and avoid placing applicants in a difficult procedural position. The matter concluded without reopening the prior decision.
