Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2018 08 20

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes June 18, 2018 Page 4 of 9 Trice clarified that there were two questions at play. Can people come back for more money if the initial grant did not reach the maximum amount? And, can people who have maxed out their grants under the previous allotments come back for more money under the new program? Haley reminded the Commission that there was also a lending program the City could leverage. She added that the grant amounts for the new resolution would partially answer the fourth question. Cyndi Thomas asked if staff surveyed the people who got the grant to see if their amounts were enough. Trice stated on average the grants covered 46% of the eligible costs. Cyndi Thomas replied that it might be helpful to know the percentage of overall costs, not just of eligible costs for these projects. Chuck Thomas mused that there was a difference between providing maintenance and protecting the landmark as an investment. In general, the grant amounts are insufficient on the residential side especially in cases in which structural work is needed. He added that ongoing maintenance could be attached to specific structural and preservation issues to mitigate abuse of the fund for routine maintenance projects not specifically related to the preservation of the structure. Dickinson stated that the matching requirement was a saving grace for the program. He stated that tightening the strings was not the Commission's current issue. The problem lay more in incentivizing people to landmark and preserve their homes. He stated that being smart about what we're paying for is more important than how much we're paying. There needed to be enough money to change peoples' minds to decide to preserve their homes. Haley stated that the original fund numbers were largely made up, so one of the questions now was how to figure out the new amount. She asked the Commission to consider whether it was fair to use the old numbers as a baseline or to come up with new ones. Cyndi Thomas stated that if you believe that the original number was arbitrary, then increasing an arbitrary number for inflation did not make sense. She suggested interviewing people who have completed projects, possibly even in other communities in Lafayette and Boulder with preservation programs. Fahey asked if it was possible to tie the amounts into current property values, such as offering the grants as a percentage of the value of the structure. Chuck Thomas responded that the values would be based on new construction values, which were cheaper than historic homes. Dickinson asked why there was a maximum amount on a matching grant. Chuck Thomas replied that the fear was being seen as financially irresponsible.