Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Downtown Beautification topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Main Street Wilmington, Swindlers Florist present Downtown Flowers 2025 plan; council takes no vote
Summary
Main Street Wilmington and Swindlers Florist outlined a floral plan for downtown featuring concentrated plantings at seven intersections, new tall pots, and options for city or vendor maintenance; funding was identified from the hotel/lodging tax and the council deferred action to the administration.
Trevor Shoemaker, executive director of Main Street Wilmington, and Kristen Andulik of Swindlers Florist presented a Downtown Flowers 2025 proposal to City Council that would concentrate plantings at seven key intersections, add 46 large pots, and reduce the number of hanging baskets but increase visible plantings downtown.
The presenters showed images and sketches of proposed plantings and discussed timing, maintenance and costs. Swindlers proposed to handle watering and routine upkeep as a paid service; the presentation listed three columns of costs: 2024 city costs, the proposed 2025 change (42 hanging baskets and 46 pots) and the vendor-maintenance option. According to the presentation, adding pots and additional flowers would raise city water costs by about $2,000; hiring Swindlers to maintain watering and fertilization was quoted at an additional $5,000. A cited “bottom line” figure of about $12,000 for 2025 appeared in the discussion, although council members asked for additional clarification on budget lines and hourly cost assumptions.
Council members asked implementation questions: when plantings would be installed (May 15 was cited as the typical start), where city crews would store pots over winter (administration said the city has storage), and which budget line would pay for the flowers. The presenters and an administration representative said the hotel/lodging discretionary tax has historically funded downtown beautification; the administration indicated that this appropriation typically is available for the mayor and administration to spend at their discretion and that no immediate council appropriation vote was required.
Council did not take a formal vote on the proposal. Council members said they were supportive and encouraged the partnership approach, but deferred any action to follow-up discussion with the administration. Swindlers said they could provide more precise comparisons between current city maintenance costs and the vendor proposal on request.
