Board reviews proposed facade improvement program pilot; staff outlines $50,000 budget, application options

Town staff presented a draft facade improvement program and sought board input on program size, eligibility and administration, describing a $50,000 pilot fund and multiple options for how awards would be distributed.

“The total budget is 50 k,” a Board member said during the discussion; staff confirmed the working figure and described a likely per‑project cap of $15,000 under current thinking, with staff exploring tiered funding or higher match percentages (staff raised 30% currently and suggested up to 50% as a discussion point).

Why it matters: staff said the program is intended to help undercapitalized local property owners make exterior improvements that boost retail vitality and public appearance, and that the town may be able to fund private façades because the target area is a designated redevelopment area. Staff emphasized the program’s goal is revitalization — improving retail sales tax base, restoring building character, addressing public‑facing health and ADA issues, and encouraging reinvestment.

Key program points discussed: - Budget and awards: staff described $50,000 total for the pilot, with a common example of a $15,000 maximum per project. Board members suggested options including awarding fewer larger projects (one or up to three pilot projects) or dividing funds across multiple small projects. Staff said they will explore tiers and spoke with legal counsel about the mechanics of staff approvals versus council approvals for per‑project limits. - Matching and percent share: staff proposed a percentage match (previously 30%) and discussed raising that to up to 50% for certain project types while noting the goal is to assist smaller owners where $15,000 makes a difference. - Application timing: board members preferred either a rolling application process or a short initial application window (for example a multi‑week intake period before moving to rolling awards), rather than a single one‑time round. - Eligible scope: staff said the program intentionally focuses on exterior improvements but recommended clarifying that “facade” may be interpreted broadly to include courtyards, alleys and other public‑facing areas — while still excluding interior renovations. “We’re not giving money to venues to redo the interior of the restaurant,” Staff member said. - Decision process and legal risk: staff warned the board to document award criteria to avoid claims of arbitrariness. Board members asked that staff check with attorneys about appealability and whether the board’s or staff’s design decisions could be challenged; staff said they will confirm the legal review and return with language limiting appealability where appropriate. - Multi‑owner projects and stacking: staff said the program would be flexible enough to allow multiple property owners to combine resources on a single consolidated project and to permit per‑owner maximums to apply across owners when a shared project creates efficiencies.

Board members suggested prioritizing small, high-visibility projects (examples included removing low‑cost eyesores such as pegboard or tacky storefronts) and reserving the pilot year to demonstrate demand and refine program rules. Staff proposed returning to the board with a near‑final draft (a 90–95% complete document) after legal review and after follow‑up calls to other jurisdictions that run similar programs.

Ending: staff said it will incorporate property‑owner feedback, consult the town attorney on decision‑making authority and bring a near‑final program document back to the board for approval. The board did not take a vote; the item was a direction/request for staff to return with a revised program.