Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Totals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
New Port Richey reviews draft $22M capital plan, flags $2.57M revenue shortfall
Summary
At a second public hearing on the five‑year Capital Improvement Program, council and staff reviewed fund‑level changes and a reported $2,572,310 reduction in CIP funding compared with last year; staff will return with follow‑up analyses including a paving needs assessment and reserve use options.
The City of New Port Richey held a second public hearing on its draft Capital Improvement Program covering fiscal years 2026–2031, where staff presented updated fund totals and councilors asked for follow‑up analysis.
"The current planning is for a budget in its totality of $22,000,974," Mayor Davis (S1) said as staff reviewed the draft. The presentation broke the plan into several funds, with figures discussed in the hearing including a General Fund item of $350,000, a Stormwater Fund of $2,385,000, a Capital Improvements allocation of $5,004,000, Water & Sewer at $3,555,000, a Redevelopment Fund at $9,115,000, and Street Improvements at $2,565,000.
Council members pressed staff about a year‑over‑year funding reduction identified in the draft. "The change from the previous years is that we're working with, a loss over last year of $2,572,310," S1 said, prompting clarifying questions about whether the figure reflected revenue declines or planned cuts. Staff confirmed the figure represents a reduction in funding appropriated to support capital expenditures.
Councilmember Altman (S3) reminded the meeting that next year’s budget process will include a statutory 10% reduction exercise and asked how grant‑funded or partner‑funded capital items would be treated during that process. "We have to do that exercise of 10% reductions in budget," S3 said; staff and council agreed operational items are the primary focus for that specific requirement, and capital projects tied to external grant sources may be handled differently.
Staff also noted several moving parts that could change the draft numbers: a pending paving needs assessment, uncertain local option gas tax receipts, and the possible use of prior reserves to balance near‑term years. No formal votes were taken at the hearing; council directed staff to return with more detailed analyses of reserves, funding sources, and the paving assessment before final adoption.
