The City of Venice Historic and Architectural Preservation Board on an unspecified 2025 meeting discussed the 2025 Legacy Award after staff reported the board had received a single nomination.

“For this year's legacy award program, we received 1 nomination,” said Harry Klinkhammer, historical resources manager for the City of Venice. Klinkhammer said the nomination and one supporting story had been circulated to board members.

Board members raised concerns about eligibility because the sole nomination — from the Venice Area Historic Society — had previously received the award in February 2006. “If we were to start giving out the same award again ... it should probably be for their most recent work that they've done since receiving the award last time and that was not how the application was written,” a board member said.

Board members discussed several options: accept the single nomination, reopen the application period to solicit additional public nominations, or revise the application language to clarify whether past recipients may receive the award again and what timeframe of work should be considered. The board’s original timetable had sought nominations December through March, review in March–April, and presentation during Preservation Month in May. Staff and several board members noted the current calendar makes a May presentation unlikely if the nomination period is reopened.

Klinkhammer offered to prepare two things for the next meeting: (1) to accept any new nominations submitted via the city’s online form (the nomination form is set to deliver submissions directly to him) and (2) “a little snippet” listing individuals and projects that have not yet received the legacy award as possible nominees. Board members asked that staff also work with the city’s public information office to remarket the program and the (reopened) nomination period.

On timing, staff said the earliest realistic period for a reopened public nomination drive would be “at least a month and a half,” which likely moves consideration past May and toward a June meeting. Several board members favored reopening the program to ensure the award has more than a single applicant and to broaden outreach, including a possible new award category recognizing historic architects and designers.

The board did not vote to select a winner at this meeting; instead members directed staff to re-advertise the nomination period, return a list of suggested past-unrecognized individuals and projects, and bring any new nominations to the next HAPB meeting.