Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />April 27, 2015 <br />Page 7 of 9 <br />Watson believed it could be. <br />Trice stated the state structures the funding for the assessments are in <br />different components, not just one lump sum. <br />Stewart stated he felt our current assessment process is not strong enough <br />and we need more information garnered through this process. He says the <br />current assessments are more like a building inspection report. <br />Watson recommended to keep this item on the agenda. <br />Stewart asked if this would give staff enough time to vet out this item. <br />Trice stated it should but she reiterated the next agenda is dedicated to the <br />preservation master plan. <br />Watson stated the packet needs to be sent to us weeks in advance to allow <br />us time to review all that is included in the packet. <br />Fahey asked if there should be a committee to look at what is given to the <br />applicant, the process, everything. <br />Trice stated these are items included in the preservation master plan and <br />listed as a high priority. <br />Fahey stated she would be interested in acting on the subcommittee to <br />review this information. <br />Echohawk stated she would be interested as well. She stated she believes <br />architectural firms do all of the mechanical and electrical components as <br />well. <br />Watson recommended the subcommittee could review Stewart's information <br />and bring back a report. <br />Discussion — Mission Statement <br />Koertje asked why we need a mission statement since we are quasi - judicial <br />and our mission is defined by code sections. He did not believe we needed <br />a mission statement to guide us. <br />Stewart stated this came out of discussions of outreach and how we inform <br />citizens. <br />Watson stated this also came out of our preservation master plan <br />discussions. <br />