Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2019 03 18

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes February 18, 2019 Page 8 of 13 Dickinson referred to the emailed public comment and asked if there was any money that an applicant could get for someone who had gotten a grant before the reauthorization of the Fund. He did not think that it made sense to block landmarked structures from ever getting money again. If the City ran out of money, they would run out of money. He also noted that the Commission could always say no if they did not think the application met the criteria. He suggested changing the language to frame the three-year window as an encouragement rather than a requirement. At a bare minimum, he recommended grandfathering-in the people who had already landmarked under the old timeline. Ulm thought the timeframe was a good idea from a budget -management perspective, but suggested having another pathway for additional grants beyond the timeline subject to availability of funds. Dickinson asked what the worry was with the budget issue was. Thomas stated that he thought it was more of a management issue than a budget issue from a staff perspective for a single project. Funding an additional amount in the future was a separate issue. The Commission could ask for a timeframe in which the assessment would still be valid. Years down the road, a new problem may have occurred, like a foundation issue, and that could be dealt with at that point. Selvoski noted that there was nothing that addressed applicants who needed more money for preservation in the future. Under the current language, applicants could come back for more money if they had not used all the original money from their maximum grant amounts. Thomas replied that they were evolving the system now. Dickinson wanted to make sure there was some vehicle for someone to come back and get additional funds. Zuccaro replied that the applicant would have to show extraordinary circumstances and provide matching funds. Haley asked what would happen if someone landmarked their property without accessing the grant funds and then eight years later wanted money for preservation. Zuccaro replied that generally people wanted the money when they applied for landmarking. Staff wanted to control and understand the fund and have equity in the value of what applicants get whether they're eight years ago or eight years from now. He stated that currently applicants could come back with extraordinary circumstances.