Laserfiche WebLink
Historic Preservation Commission <br />Meeting Minutes <br />15 March 2021 <br />Page 5 of 8 <br />Zuccaro stated that the Commission had discussed requiring multiple bids in an "extraordinary <br />circumstances" request. He cautioned that numbers in an assessment could eventually become <br />dated but a grant request could require multiple bids. <br />Haley replied that a structural engineer would serve to have an expert evaluating what work <br />would need to be done for the assessment. She thought having multiple bids on "extraordinary <br />circumstances" cases made sense. Haley stated that not all structures needed a structural <br />assessment, but if the assessments were going up to $4,000 then that cost could be covered. <br />Dunlap stated that there wasn't much downside to always including a structural assessment due <br />to the age of the structures. For the cost covered it would be very easy and appropriate to <br />include the structural engineer. He asked staff if the requests had been coming in below the <br />maximum amount offered. <br />Zuccaro replied that most people were charging the whole amount and staff would have to do <br />some additional research on what the actual cost should be. There was a lot of discussion when <br />the assessment grant had been increased about that higher amount allowing for a structural <br />assessment. There was a disconnect between raising the amount in the hopes of including a <br />structural assessment, while at the same time not requiring it. <br />Haley stated that they wanted to give a fair market price for an assessment but they also <br />wanted to get their money's worth. Requiring a structural engineer would be a way of saying we <br />are giving you more money for more work. <br />Zuccaro replied that they could do some direct contact with people in the field on the different <br />options and costs. He stated that staff had conducted a survey but had gotten very little <br />feedback. He asked if a structural analysis was typical to bring into an HSA according to state <br />standards. His memory was that there were no structural engineers required by the state. <br />Bauer responded that typically the State of Colorado allowed a structural engineer to lead a <br />project, as long as there was an architect on the team as well. She stated that staff could look <br />into the structural engineer requirement. <br />Klemme shared that she was shocked that people just submit for the full $4,000 and asked if <br />people submitted an itemized bill. <br />Zuccaro replied that staff reviewed the assessments and the invoices said that they were paid to <br />a qualified consultant, but staff did not check hours by consultant type and rate. <br />Bauer noted that staff did review the assessment itself for missing pieces and underdeveloped <br />sections. <br />Klemme stated that she would appreciate if we dug down a little deeper to see what it took to <br />conduct a survey and make the report, acknowledging that there would be variety property to <br />property. For example, How much was the billable rate? How much did it cost to add a structural <br />engineer? Klemme noted that she didn't want to be writing a check for $4,000 for projects that <br />were just getting landmarked versus someone doing a full structural assessment for the same <br />amount. <br />5 <br />