The most pressing topic of the meeting was the discussion of the fiscal year 2024 CRA budget, which emphasized the need for a balanced budget totaling $4,902,317. The budget includes significant allocations for roads, parks, sidewalks, and the hiring of a CRA coordinator. Amendments to the budget were anticipated, particularly regarding the general fund’s payment to the CRA, proposed to be reduced from $700,000 to approximately $687,000. This change aims to lower the mill rate for the general fund. Concerns were raised about the millage rate’s implications for homeowners, with one member expressing a desire to maintain the current rate to avoid larger financial burdens on residents in subsequent years. They provided data indicating that for a $100,000 home, maintaining the millage at 6.53 would result in a $15 tax increase, while for a $500,000 home, the increase would be around $76. The member emphasized the necessity of funding essential services like roads and water infrastructure.

Another member pointed out that the budget was balanced at a roll-back rate of 6.37 and questioned the wisdom of lowering the millage. They suggested that if the millage were lowered now, it could lead to larger increases in the future, particularly if economic conditions worsened. The conversation highlighted a broader concern about the economic climate, with members acknowledging rising costs for essential goods and services and potential budget constraints in the future.

The meeting also addressed the administrative functions of the CRA, including the anticipated hiring of a new position to manage these responsibilities. Questions were raised regarding labor availability for this position, with assurances given that this would not pose significant challenges. A member raised a point on the need to clarify the roles within the meeting.

Attention then turned to the management of properties undergoing demolition. It was noted that there were four properties currently in the demolition process, with a 30-day period for owners to correct any issues. The importance of recovering liens associated with these properties was emphasized.

Grant expenditures were another significant topic, with discussions on increasing funding for residential and commercial grant programs to $100,000 for each category. A board member expressed the desire to see commercial businesses participate more in the grant program, noting that while residential grants have been successful, the commercial grant component has not yet been fully operational. The suggestion was made to create a separate account to track commercial grants distinctly from residential grants to ensure clarity in reporting and financial management. There were no objections to the proposed increase in funding for both grant programs.

The conversation shifted to capital outlay, including $800,000 for land acquisition and various amounts for road improvements and park developments, totaling approximately $2.1 million. Questions arose regarding specific targets for land purchases, but it was clarified that no specific targets had yet been established.

During the review of the commercial grant program, members debated the stipulation that maintenance issues resulting from neglect would not qualify for grant funding. One member argued that this criterion might exclude many applicants who could benefit from the program. The suggestion was made to allow businesses to apply for grants annually rather than being restricted to a two-year waiting period, enabling them to access funds more readily for ongoing improvements. Another member expressed reservations about removing the two-year stipulation, highlighting the risk that funds could be exhausted too quickly if businesses were allowed to access grants annually without a cap.

The topic of the matching requirement for grants also arose, with concerns that the lack of a match could disproportionately benefit wealthier individuals able to undertake larger projects. It was noted that while a $5,000 grant might assist in covering some costs, it would not be sufficient for larger-scale improvements, such as replacing roofs. The need for a re-evaluation of the funding structure was highlighted, considering a focus on need-based assistance for blighted properties.

The meeting also delved into the eligibility criteria for grant funding related to property improvements, with specific attention given to permitting processes and contractor involvement. It was stated that for tenants to qualify for grant funding, they would need to hire a licensed contractor, as the property owner must be listed on the deed. Questions were raised about the interpretation of the rules, particularly concerning the timeline for project completion. The permit process stipulates that approved work must be completed within 60 days, which could be problematic for larger projects. Suggestions were made to extend the requirement to 120 days to account for unforeseen delays, with a consensus on the need for flexibility.

In considering marketing support for local businesses, a participant proposed a co-op advertising initiative involving partnerships with Florida Sports Coast to help promote Port Richey. Concerns were raised about the legality of using CRA funds for such initiatives, particularly if the marketing efforts extended beyond CRA boundaries. It was proposed that funding for broader marketing efforts could be sourced from the general fund instead.