My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2009 01 26
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2009 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2009 01 26
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:23 PM
Creation date
5/11/2009 10:40:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCMIN 2009 01 26
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />January 26, 2009 <br />Page 3 of 6 <br />Koertje noted that draft includes language to fund additional preservation staff. <br />Muth stated that the City is already collecting job descriptions for a Preservation <br />Planner and hope to have someone hired in the next few months. <br />Members had a conversation about how best to use the fund. Highlights of the <br />conversation include: <br />Lewis asked how there can be enough specificity to guide the program while still <br />leaving enough flexibility to deal with issues as they arise. <br />Muth suggested they HPC do an annual budget recommendation to the City <br />Council. It could be done in conjunction with the annual budget process and <br />based on projected revenue from the tax. Budget allocations can then be altered <br />if projects arise that need additional money. <br />Whiteman asked if interest on the Fund would be reinvested in the HPF. <br />Muth stated that yes; interest will be reinvested in the HPF. <br />Lewis asked how the HPC feels about dividing the funds into sections for <br />residential use and commercial use. Most members were in favor of this. It could <br />be divided annually based on need and expected upcoming projects. <br />Lewis also noted her concern that the Fund not be drained by one large project. <br />Members were in agreement that their needs to be enough flexibility in the <br />process to allow for the unexpected projects but also make sure no large projects <br />take everything. <br />Koertje noted his draft includes language to put 20% of the Fund into a <br />contingency fund for use on projects that come up unexpectedly. <br />Stewart recommended that "historic resources" be used in place of "historic <br />buildings" to encompass all historic sites that may be of interest. Members <br />agreed. <br />Koertje will make changes to the draft based on this conversation and bring a <br />new version for review to the February meeting. <br />Survey Request for Proposals <br />Muth noted she is working on an RFP that would be sent to some surveyors to <br />help get some better numbers for a State Historic Fund Grant application. She <br />noted the RFP will include language stating that the contractor is to complete the <br />architectural survey and complete the State survey forms, but that the social <br />history with be provided by the museum coordinator. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.