The primary focus of the meeting was the revised framework for the CRA’s commercial exterior improvement matching grant program. The City Manager presented key changes, emphasizing the need to focus exclusively on exterior, visible improvements rather than interior renovations. This shift aligns with the CRA’s goals of addressing slum and blight in Port Richey. The City Manager expressed a vision for potentially including interior projects in future programs but clarified the current necessity of concentrating on exterior enhancements.

Adjustmentsdjustments to the grant program included eliminating funding for interior improvements and narrowing the focus to projects visible from the exterior. The City Manager proposed that if grantees fail to meet their commitments, the CRA should reclaim the awarded funds. This stipulation would apply not only if the project is incomplete but also if the property is sold. Any new owner would be required to accept the responsibilities associated with the grant before the sale.

The maximum grant amount for each property was set at $40,000 over a five-year period, with provisions for cumulative applications. This means a property could apply for multiple grants in successive years, provided the total amount does not exceed $40,000. The grant program operates on a matching basis, meaning for every dollar provided by the CRA, the property owner must contribute an equal amount.

The City Manager also outlined the grant application process, emphasizing the need for a signed grant agreement to formalize recipients’ obligations. Board members discussed the importance of mandatory meetings between applicants and staff to clarify obligations and expectations, which they believe could lead to more successful project proposals.

Board members also debated the scope of eligible projects, particularly signage and fencing. There was a consensus to initially focus on building improvements while potentially expanding to include other enhancements, such as aesthetic upgrades to signs and fences. Discussions on fencing included considerations of acceptable types, distinguishing between repairing existing fencing and installing new fencing. The board hesitated to fund new chain link fences, as they may not align with the CRA’s objective of improving the area’s aesthetic quality.

Further clarifications were sought on the guidelines for non-visible improvements. The phrase “nonvisible improvements” was scrutinized, with a need to define what this entails. An example cited involved marine-related improvements like docks and seawalls, which, while not visible from the street, are accessible and visible from the water. The board acknowledged potential contradictory wording in the guidelines and suggested adding clarifying statements to avoid future confusion.

The reimbursement timeline and the authority of inspections were also discussed. It was suggested that designating a “CRA Coordinator” could alleviate any ambiguity. Discussions on the application wording recommended ensuring alignment with previous documentation on eligible expenditure types, including presenting both qualified and non-qualified costs within project proposals for a clearer financial picture.

The necessity of obtaining permits for grant applications was also clarified. While permits might be required for certain projects, they do not need to be secured before grant approval. This led to a broader discussion about the timing of obtaining permits and its impact on applicants’ willingness to proceed with projects.

The conversation also covered residential improvement guidelines, emphasizing the need for clearer definitions of eligible and ineligible improvements, particularly those enhancing curb appeal. Specific projects, such as patio work not visible from the street, raised questions about public perception and the intent of funding such improvements. Discussions also included the eligibility of projects like painting and replacing windows and doors. The consensus was that painting could be part of a larger project but should not qualify as a standalone request. Some members suggested that window and door improvements should not be limited to the front of the house, considering safety and structural integrity.

Hurricane preparedness was another topic, specifically the inclusion of hurricane-rated windows and alternative safety measures like hurricane shutters in the grant funding guidelines. The board emphasized maintaining safety standards without imposing undue financial burdens on residents.