Historic Preservation Commission Minutes 2020 12 21

Home Browse Search

Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes 21 December 2020 Page 11 of 14 Dunlap asked about the preservation costs in the 2018 Historic Preservation Assessment versus the costs in the current application. He wondered if this would be an appropriate opportunity to have outside contractors bid on an Extraordinary Circumstances request. He noted that $.5 million was a lot of money. Johnson replied that Commissioner Dunlap's observation was spot-on and stated that a contractor should be required to be involved in commercial developments for the preservation program. He noted that Historic Structure Assessments were done by "rapid visual screening," which involved making best estimates on costs, and this exercise proved that there were definitely some shortcomings on the cost estimation part of those assessments. He observed, as well, that architects were not the ones hiring the subcontractors, so it was important to involve the people who are in the day-to-day know about commodity fluctuations. Dunlap shared discomfort with the high cost to preserve 25 feet. Johnson replied that the cost estimate process had been a long one and they had worked on bringing the cost down from an initial million -dollar estimate. He stated that they were feeling good about where they were on the pricing and noted the 7% contingency amount in the application. Dunlap stated that the contingency material in the application was very helpful and he thought the percentages sounded reasonable. Dana Busa of Tebo Properties asked if the HSA had a contractor's perspective and included the preservation costs. Dunlap replied that it assessed the preservation and was done by an architect and a structural engineer, but he thought it did not have the perspective of construction. Busa added that in the last nine months costs had gone up 40-50% due to COVID and other issues. Arnold added that they had spent time over the last couple of months bringing the costs down to the proposed amounts. He stated that the contractor perspective added information about practices and procedures for protecting the historic portion of the structure while the rest of the building was being built. For example, the project required shoring and other temporary structures that would need to be put in place multiple times and moved around to allow for the ongoing construction process. He suggested that the Commission consider that many little parts add up to the bottom line total, and noted that they had squeezed out what wasn't entirely necessary. Lee Scriggins, 728 LaFarge, stated that she lived one block to the south of the project and one block off of Main Street. She stated that she loved Mr. Johnson's work and thought the project made sense. She also stated that she had lived in Louisville for 18 years and she had seen how Louisville had changed, and it felt wrong to think of all this money going to a single project to make money for a single property owner. As a social worker, she knew so many struggling people, and she was not sure it was taxpayers' responsibility to help someone make money. Scriggins wondered if this was the time to do this kind of work and stated that she was uncomfortable watching the proceedings. 11