TOWN OF DUCK
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMITTEE
INITIAL MEETING
March 22, 2005
The Community Improvement Committee for the Town of Duck convened at the Duck Municipal Offices at 9:00 a.m. on Tuesday, March 22, 2005.
MEMBERS PRESENT: George Grinnan, Allen Lehew and Lisa Mann.
OTHERS PRESENT: Town Manager and Town Clerk Christopher J. Layton, Planning & Zoning Administrator Suzanne Cotellessa and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady.
The meeting was called to order at 9:05 a.m.
Planning & Zoning Administrator Sue Cotellessa explained that the Town Council has approved the Village Improvement Program and the Community Appearance Awards Program and the members of this Committee are charged with implementing these programs and moving forward.
ESTABLISHMENT OF STANDARD MEETING TIME
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the Committee needed to establish a standard meeting time that would then be advertised and published on the website. Ms. Cotellessa envisioned the Committee would need to meet every couple of months however that could vary depending on the program.
Member Grinnan stated he was flexible with regard to a meeting time.
Member Lehew and Member Mann both indicated they could make morning meetings.
Member Grinnan also indicated that mornings were fine.
Ms. Cotellessa suggested a 9:00 a.m. meeting on Tuesday.
Town Manager Layton suggested the end of the month.
Ms. Cotellessa suggested they meet on the 4th Tuesday of the month at 9:00 a.m. in the Town Office with April 26th being their first regularly scheduled meeting.
Town Manager Layton thanked the members for volunteering their time and excused himself from the meeting.
REVIEW OF DRAFT VILLAGE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
Planning Director Cotellessa explained to the Committee that they have two programs to administer; the first is the Village Improvement Program which is a grant program. Council wanted to make sure there was money available to both businesses and community associations to do a number of things, including but not limited to replacement lighting and signage. Ms. Cotellessa further explained that there are two levels of matching; either funding or volunteer work for community associations. The funding is to be decided by this committee. She further commented that if they do not feel the draft level of funding is adequate, or if they feel it is too high to start, they can make a recommendation to Council.
Member Mann suggested that allowing for a $500.00 minimum allows for fairly small projects.
Ms. Cotellessa further noted that allowing for any amounts smaller than $500.00 would likely result in a large number of applications with little impact.
There was some discussion regarding the percentage of contribution as suggested in the draft program as well as the initial proposed budget. It was noted that the draft currently allowed for up to $2500.00 for businesses and up to $1500.00 for community associations; the idea being to fund 10 projects with a budget of $40,000.00 to start.
Member Lehew indicated that he did some research online and the amounts detailed in the draft program were reasonable and in line with what other communities have implemented.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated she was looking to refine this program so it was no longer a draft; so it can be posted on the website with an application form. On that note, she commented that perhaps under landscaping, they may want to encourage native plantings as suggested by Member Lehew.
Member Mann questioned whether that needed to be in the language of the program parameters or whether that language should be a part of the program description that they are trying to encourage.
Member Lehew suggested that the Committee take a pro-active approach instead of waiting for nominations in terms of the Awards program.
Member Mann indicated that she has been telling business owners that a grant program was in the works; she further commented that the application should be easily completed by the applicant without the necessity for an architect or engineer.
Member Grinnan indicated that he has not really discussed these programs with anyone at this point so he has not gotten any feedback. He indicated that he would start spreading the word, and questioned the best way to notify individuals and home owner associations.
Member Mann suggested a direct mail effort to the home owners.
Member Grinnan noted that the subdivisions in Duck have varying levels of involvement and funding. Member Mann suggested that they could rank the applications based upon need.
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that the need issue is addressed in the matching options; i.e. funds or volunteer hours in the case of community associations.
Ms. Cotellessa stated she was concerned that the communities may attempt to apply for grants for road resurfacing projects because there are a large number of private roads that are in need of repair; she did not feel funding that type of project was the intent of these programs.
Member Mann indicated she did not see anything in the program that would be an encouragement for road resurfacing.
Member Grinnan agreed that road resurfacing should not be eligible for funding.
Member Lehew concurred.
There was some discussion regarding private and public roads in Duck.
Member Mann noted that under the commercial guidelines it states that the project must be visible from the road, enhancing the public’s view. She questioned whether that should also be the case in the private; that it has to be true public land open to the public? If that were the case, would private land in the middle of a private subdivision be eligible for grants, she questioned?
Planning Director Cotellessa indicated that her sense was that Council wanted to be able to give back to both the business and the residential community. She felt they wanted to be flexible because each individual community is different.
Member Mann suggested that they leave the program wide open; let common sense reign and make decisions as they go along. She went back to the commercial parameters that indicate the project should be visible from the road and suggested that should be changed to visible to the public, thereby allowing more flexibility.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that perhaps the opening statement should clarify that these are the types of projects applicants may want to submit but that the Committee will consider all submissions within the context of the ability to improve the appearance of the village. Ms. Cotellessa went on to ask the Committee whether they wanted to lay out ineligible projects; she suggested listing ineligible projects seemed negative.
It was agreed that the ineligible items would be deleted, and encouragement of creativity would be added. Ms. Cotellessa stated that the Committee should add a firm statement explaining that approval of all grants are at the sole discretion of the Committee, and funding is at the discretion of Council.
Member Mann added that applicants should be allowed to reapply if a grant is denied.
Ms. Cotellessa questioned whether they should simply keep denied applications for the next round of funding.
Member Mann suggested that one of their goals should be to spread the funds throughout the community.
The question of how often the funding should be made available was raised and Member Mann stated from the perspective of a business owner, most merchants are going to take care of their improvements between the months of January and April.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested disbursements twice a year for the grant program; perhaps in February and October. That would allow for two rounds of review and would eliminate the need to meet every month. With regard to the Appearance Awards, Ms. Cotellessa suggested they may want to meet sometime during the summer when everyone is at their best.
Member Mann noted that nominations may be for different things when speaking of the appearance awards; there could be a nomination for best Christmas display.
Planning Director Cotellessa tried to obtain a consensus on the Village Improvement Program. Did the Committee want to issue grants twice a year and did they want to disburse equal funds each time, or leave the disbursements open depending on the applications.
Following some additional comments from the members, Ms. Cotellessa suggested that they leave it open; plan to meet every two month, at which time they can act on any applications received at that time.
All members of the Committee agreed to leave the application process open at least for this first year.
Planning Director Cotellessa advised the Committee that one of the questions that Council had was whether this program would need funding before the next fiscal year which begins in July. She stated that since the season was just about upon them, that she felt the Committee, at this point, needed to focus on education and getting the word out. By the time applications are received and the Committee meets to review them, it was her feeling that they would most probably be into the next budget year and have funding available.
There was some discussion on the best ways to educate the businesses and community regarding the programs that Duck was implementing.
The use of email lists, newspaper articles and flyers were recommended, along with the website.
Member Grinnan commented that it is important that guidelines are established before going public.
Member Lehew questioned whether applications that may have other outstanding zoning issues, unrelated to the project they have submitted for, would be ineligible for funding. Planning Director Cotellessa again noted that this can be at the sole discretion of the Committee. Ms. Cotellessa commented that there is a fine line that must be dealt with delicately.
Ms. Cotellessa advised the Committee that she would prepare reports for the members regarding the applications and their status in terms of zoning compliance, date of receipt, etc. and Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady would be taking minutes so they can refer to previous meetings.
Member Mann asked if staff had any sample applications the Committee could review.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that she could pull some, and Member Lehew indicated that he had found some in his research. Ms. Cotellessa suggested that Mr. Lehew provide her with the samples he has so she can circulate them among the Committee for their comments; she would then bring forward a draft application for their next meeting.
Planning Director Cotellessa discussed the eligibility criteria as it was detailed in the draft. She noted that one of the requirements was that the properties must comply with state and local code requirements. This meant that a compliance assessment would need to be completed in order to determine eligibility. The members were in agreement that in order to obtain a grant, an applicant must first be up to code.
With regard to the program process, it was decided that the applicant would not be required to meet with staff and/or members of the VIP Committee, but rather the language would be changed to reflect that they “may” meet… It was also noted under #4 that the Application is reviewed “and approved” should be added.
Member Mann was concerned with the payment process; if the applicant was willing to start their project before the funding was in place, she felt they should be allowed. She indicated that once the application is received by the Town of Duck, and has been stamped as received, then the applicant should be permitted to proceed if they so choose.
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that the applicant would be taking a chance because until the Committee approves their application for funding there is no guaranty they will receive a grant. She further noted that the project parameters would need to be changed.
Member Mann suggested that acceptance of the application and approval to move forward should first be contingent on zoning compliance. Member Mann and Member Grinnan further suggested some kind of statement that receipt of an application does not guaranty funding.
Planning Director Cotellessa went on to explain that this is a reimbursement program so funding does not actually occur, even if the grant is approved, until the project has been completed as approved.
Member Mann suggested that the Committee allow for lien holder statements so that payment may be made directly to vendors responsible for the work being performed related to the project.
Ms. Cotellessa said she would make the changes discussed; she would see that some application drafts are circulated; and Sandy would prepare the web page. She asked if each of the Committee members would take the lead on some issues discussed today.
Member Mann agreed to work on a newspaper article and an actual letter that can be mailed, emailed or delivered to the business owners.
Member Grinnan agreed to work on the home owners’ notification.
Member Lehew agreed to work on application forms for both the grant program and the awards program.
REVIEW OF DRAFT COMMUNITY APPEARANCE AWARDS PROGRAM
Planning Director Cotellessa explained that this program is a feel good thing. It has two aspects; commercial and residential. The Committee can decide on whatever award categories they think may be good, and she listed numerous different category types. Ms. Cotellessa explained that the committee should first decide on the categories and then how often they want to award; annually or every two years.
It was suggested that the award should be a small sign that can be posted on the property that receives the award; perhaps a sand blasted sign.
Member Grinnan commented on how he has seen this kind of project work in Virginia.
Member Mann commented that seasonal displays may be too much, but it would be nice if they could do one for each season. She also suggested a Most Improved award.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested a Best Of Award and noted that if it were timed correctly, the businesses and the communities that win could benefit twofold. Ms. Cotellessa asked Ms. Mann about the timing for the Annual Duck Newspaper that is issued for the tourist season.
Member Mann indicated that a business owner would usually sign their contract in the fall for advertising and the paper goes to press in February.
Ms. Cotellessa indicated that if the Committee wanted to issue an award for the year 2005, it would need to done at the end of 2005 and then the award notification could be advertised the following spring. She indicated that perhaps the awards should simply be the Best Of and should only be done once per year.
Member Grinnan commented that if awards were issued more than once per year, the program would lose its integrity.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested for this pilot year 2005 that they start with just a few commercial and residential awards and she threw out some ideas such as best landscaping and best architectural features.
Member Mann stated she would like to encourage best seasonal display for both commercial and residential.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested that in accepting nominations, the Committee should require photographs to assist in their review process.
Member Mann also suggested an award for exemplary public space, but noted she did not care for the wording.
Member Lehew suggested best use of public space.
Planning Director Cotellessa confirmed that the Committee would be awarding for best landscaping, best seasonal display and best use of public space both commercially and residentially. She indicated that the Committee can always add more.
Member Lehew commented that they did not have to award for all either and Ms. Cotellessa agreed.
Planning Director Cotellessa asked for suggestions on timing. She indicated that there was discussion of recognizing the award winners at a Council meeting which she agreed would be a good idea. She threw out the idea of nomination boxes around Town, perhaps at the rental companies.
Member Grinnan indicated that would not be fair; however after further discussion, it was agreed that this could be a useful means to obtain nominations.
Planning Director Cotellessa suggested accepting nominations through March 1, 2006 and then at their meeting in March, the Committee would make the award determinations. It was decided the award would be for 2005-2006.
DISCUSSION OF PROGRAM PARAMETERS, IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE & BUDGET
It was clarified that the Committee, as it had already discussed, would stick with the initial budget of $40,000.00.
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC OUTREACH EFFORTS
It was noted that the outreach efforts had been discussed.
Details regarding the Committee members’ information were discussed. Administrative Assistant Sandy Cady requested clarification regarding what information the members would like on the website.
Member Mann indicated that if she receives an email from someone she does not know they must include something in the subject matter to notify her it relates to the Community Improvement Program.
Member Grinnan noted his address should be 106 rather than 108. His work and cell number should not be listed nor should his Virginia address.
Member Mann suggested deleting the actual address for Beach Essentials and just putting Wee Winks Square as the address. She did not want her home number listed.
Member Lehew wanted his business address used, and it was suggested that Duck’s Cottage be added to the address. Mr. Lehew did not want his home number listed either.
All of the members agreed to use their own email address rather than a Town email.
Member Mann and Member Lehew both suggested a note on the website to include Community Improvement Program in the email when contacting members.
Planning Director Cotellessa provided a brief recap, noting Ms. Mann would be working on a newspaper article, Mr. Grinnan would be working on a notice to the homeowners associations, Mr. Lehew would work on the application forms, Ms. Cady would work on the webpage and Ms. Cotellessa noted she would also look into signs and getting some prices so they can determine how they should be funded.
The meeting adjourned at 10:35 a.m. The next meeting is scheduled for April 26, 2005 at 9:00 a.m.