Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />February 18, 2019 <br />Page 3 of 13 <br />funding for 36 months from when a property is declared a landmark. Selvoski explained <br />staff's logic on the timeline cap, stating that without putting a cap on the timeline it was <br />difficult to plan for the future of the Fund. For matching grants, staff recommended that <br />$40,000 of the total $50,000 grant be matched for residential grants and $125,000 of <br />the total $200,000 grant be matched for commercial grants. On the new construction <br />criteria, staff recommended changing the language to ensure that the original property <br />be landmarked and aligning the new construction and alteration certificate language. <br />For allowable work, staff used the Secretary of the Interior to define three categories of <br />work that focused on preservation, rehabilitation, and restoration. For the revolving loan <br />fund, staff recommended that interest rates be equal to 1 % below the Wall Street <br />Journal Prime Rate as reported on the date of city acceptance of a complete <br />application. Staff planned to come back with a final resolution in March. <br />Selvoski asked for discussion on the following questions: <br />1. What timeframe should be applied to the new grant process? <br />2. Will there be residential new construction grants to encourage homeowners to <br />landmark their properties? If so, what grant amount would be reasonable? <br />3. Will the revolving loan interest rate be changed to 1 % below the WSJ Prime <br />Rate? <br />4. Are there additional changes or adjustments that need to be made? <br />Klemme asked about the original landmarking incentive. <br />Haley replied that successful applicants received $1000 for the effort of applying. <br />Klemme asked why the assessment grants had been increased from $900 to $5,000. <br />Haley replied that staff had sent out a survey for the average cost of an assessment and <br />$900 was not covering it. <br />Selvoski added that $900 was not covering it, especially for a thorough assessment. <br />She clarified that the $5,000 was a cap amount. <br />Haley added that staff and the Commission had a pre -approved list of assessors, as <br />well. <br />Dickinson asked about the new construction grant changes. <br />Selvoski replied that staff was suggesting that it was something someone could access <br />by landmarking. <br />Zuccaro added that the new construction grants helped make properties more viable in <br />the long term. He noted that people generally landmark and do their projects all at once, <br />