Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Commercial Beautification Grant topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Titusville CRA declines beautification grant for proposed medical marijuana dispensary at 1220 S. Washington Ave.
Summary
The Titusville Community Redevelopment Agency voted down a $49,381.05 commercial beautification grant for 1220 South Washington Avenue, a proposed medical marijuana dispensing facility. Board members cited concerns about business‑specific improvements (signage, security, permitting) and asked staff to revisit grant guidelines.
The City of Titusville Community Redevelopment Agency on Aug. 11 rejected a staff‑recommended commercial beautification grant of $49,381.05 for 1220 South Washington Avenue, a property proposed to become a medical marijuana dispensing facility. Member Nelson moved to approve the grant; Vice Chair Cole seconded, but the motion failed on a roll‑call vote.
Brad Parrish, filling in for staff, told the board the applicant sought reimbursement equal to 50% of a low bid of about $98,000 for exterior improvements. Parrish said the eligible scope on the packet’s page 19 included “exterior site appearance work, including pressure washing, exterior painting, parking lot striping, fixture removal and signage,” and that staff found the items consistent with the beautification facade procedures manual. He also noted that permits are listed separately as generally ineligible expenses in the program’s guidance.
Board members repeatedly questioned whether some requested items—particularly signage and security elements—primarily benefit a single business rather than address downtown blight that transfers to future tenants. Member Moscoso said the board has denied requests in the past for routine maintenance items such as termite treatment. Member Mutter said she favored funding work that is transferable, such as roof or structural repairs, and said she would vote no.
Applicant Jasmine Johnson described the business concept and timeline, saying the company has invested substantial private funds in the building and that exterior work would begin only after grant approval and permits. “We’ve already put about $300,000 into the space,” Johnson said, and she offered renderings and a signage mockup for board members to review if desired.
During roll call the clerk recorded votes as follows: Member Carnes — No; Member Moscoso — No; Member Nelson — Yes; Chairman Connors — No; Vice Chair Cole — Yes; Member Mutter — No; Member Sockle — No. With two yes votes and five no votes, the motion to approve the grant failed and the grant was not awarded.
After the vote several members suggested staff return with clearer guidance on eligible categories and asked for an updated grant framework to ensure the program targets blight‑remediation priorities. City Attorney guidance noted the board could either deny the application or send it back to staff and the applicant with directions; the board asked staff to bring the grant guidelines back for review rather than immediately approve a revised dollar amount.
The board’s decision leaves the applicant able to reapply or to work with staff to reformat the request; no alternative motion carrying a partial award was adopted at the meeting.
