Middleburg council approves $5,000 grant to reimburse Museum of Hounds and Hunting for security system

The Middleburg Town Council voted to approve a $5,000 infrastructure grant to the Museum of Hounds and Hunting to reimburse the nonprofit for a security system already installed at 11 West Washington Street.

Council discussion centered on whether movable electronic equipment — surveillance cameras and associated systems — fits the town’s definition of “infrastructure.” Danny Davis, Middleburg town manager, told the council the application had been submitted more than a year earlier and said the policy is unclear about whether equipment that might move with a tenant qualifies. “There’s not clear definition in our policy about what infrastructure might mean or not mean,” Davis said.

Katrina Ryan, director of operations for the museum, told the council the security system is essential to operate and to secure donor loans. “Without the security system, we would not be able to operate our museum,” Ryan said, and added that the museum “is not planning to go anywhere else for the foreseeable future.” She said the museum seeks reimbursement for incurred expenses and that the $5,000 cost is substantial for the organization.

Several council members said the town’s infrastructure-grant program historically covered improvements that remain with a building — roofs, HVAC, permanently affixed fixtures — and expressed concern that approving movable electronics could create a precedent. One council member said the current ordinance was written with a different intention and called the language “a little bit of a gray area.” Another council member argued the grant should be approved now and the ordinance clarified later so applicants are not penalized for ambiguous rules.

Council members emphasized fairness: if the town broadens its interpretation of infrastructure it must apply consistently to all nonprofits. Town staff said the existing policy allows awards up to $10,000 per year and up to three times in a 10-year period per nonprofit, but that the town has discretion to interpret the policy.

The motion to approve the $5,000 grant included language that the ordinance be reviewed; the council also instructed staff to update and clarify the town’s infrastructure-grant definition for future applicants.

The motion passed by voice vote; individual council members recorded their aye votes on the record.

The council did not change the grant program’s dollar limits at the meeting. Staff and the town attorney were asked to return with clearer ordinance language and implementation guidance so the town applies the policy consistently.