My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 03 15
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION
>
2005-2019 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
2010 Historic Preservation Commission Agendas and Packets
>
Historic Preservation Commission Agenda and Packet 2010 03 15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 3:08:14 PM
Creation date
3/26/2010 3:10:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
HPCPKT 2010 03 15
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
12
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
<br />I.. C. Planning Department <br />- Lol~!....!11 <br />UbiVWe <br />749 Main Street I Louisville CO 80027 I 303.335.4592 I www.LouisvilleCO.gov <br /> <br />COLORADO .SlNCB 1881 <br /> <br />MEMORANDuM <br /> <br />To: <br /> <br />Historic Preservation Commission Members <br /> <br />From: <br /> <br />Planning Division <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Architectural Survey <br /> <br />Date: <br /> <br />March 15,2010 <br /> <br />There are two SHF grant deadlines annually: April 1 and October 1. If we are <br />targeting the April 1 deadline (and hoping to take advantage of the fact there will <br />be fewer applicants), we need to finalize our application ASAP. Meredyth Muth <br />and I will be tag teaming this application so that we can get it finished. If the <br />survey area/ goals from the previous application still apply, it might be worthwhile <br />reading the reviewers comments and attempting to improve our existing <br />application. <br /> <br />There are several major differences between the CLG grant and the SHF grant. <br />First, the CLG program does not require a cash match due to a generous internal <br />grant from the SHF; a pledge of either cash or in-kind match always makes a <br />CLG application more competitive. The normal required minimum cash match <br />for SHF grants is 25 percent, however, one of the reasons the state is not seeing <br />as many applications is because local communities are struggling to come up <br />with this type of money. For that reason, the SHF may be more open to a waiver <br />of cash match, letting applicants come in with less cash match for this round <br />only. <br /> <br />Second, the size of project which is feasible during the grant period marks <br />another difference between the two programs. CLG grants usually have a <br />contract period of 18 months and there are NO extensions. For SHF grants, the <br />standard contract is 24 months with one extension of a single year granted as <br />long as the project is making progress. For this reason, municipalities can <br />usually hire a consultant to complete a larger project as part of the SHF program. <br />The SHF program also has a bigger allotment of funds. In the past the annual <br />available funds for SHF has been measured in the millions while the CLG <br />allotment (federal money passed through the states) usually hovers around <br />$125,000 - $140,000. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.