Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDTS-05-007 - Designated Heritage Property Grant Program - By-law-Admin Procedures-Operating Guidelines ) ~ Development & Technical Services ~ Report To: Date of Meeting: Submitted By: Prepared By: Ward(s) Involved: Date of Report: Report No.: Subject: Development & Technical Services Committee June 27, 2005 Jeff Willmer, Director of Planning (741-2325) Leon Bensason, Heritage Planner (741-2306) All June 15, 2005 DTS 05-007 DESIGNATED HERITAGE PROPERTY GRANT PROGRAM- NEW IMPLEMENTING BY-LAW AND PROGRAM ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES AND OPERATING GUIDELINES RECOMMENDATION: 1. That by-law 2002-134 be repealed and a new by-law be approved in the form shown in the attached by-law dated June 13, 2005 to re-establish the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program and update the program administrative procedures and operating guidelines. 2. That for the current year 2005, the deadline for receipt of Designated Heritage Property Grant applications be extended to December 31, 2005 and that the deadline to complete work conditionally approved for a grant application made in 2005 be extended to October 31, 2006; and accordingly that monies allocated for the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program in the year 2005 be carried forward and made available in the year 2006 for grant applications made in 2005. BACKGROUND: On July 2, 2002 Council passed By-law 2002-134, which established the City's Designated Heritage Property Grant Program. The Program provides grants to designated heritage property owners covering half the cost of eligible restoration work up to a maximum $3000. The Conditions and Administrative Procedures for the grant program formed part of the by-law. To date, twenty designated heritage properties in Kitchener have been the subject of restoration work under the program guidelines. Though the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program has proven to be successful, staff have identified several changes that could be made to further improve the program. REPORT: Most of the changes staff are recommending be made to the program's administrative procedures and operating guidelines are minor in nature or are housekeeping measures, for example further clarifying what is eligible restoration work; allowing deadlines to be extended under certain situations; and formalizing Council's previous direction to delegate approvals to staff. However, some recommended changes are worth highlighting for Council's information and consideration. Establishina Minimum Grant Amount of $500 Currently, the grant program guidelines specify that the maximum grant amount is $3000, but no minimum grant has been established. Staff have encountered situations where because of the lesser priority of the application (for example the work is not structural in nature or less urgent compared with other eligible applications), the remaining funds made available for distribution to the applicant provided little financial assistance. Formally establishing a minimum grant amount of $500 will provide a reasonable minimum level of funding to assist with the cost of restoration work, and will also serve to put applicants on notice that depending on the priority of the application and the availability of remaining funds, grant amounts may range from $500 to $3000. When remaining funds equal less than $500, grant monies will be carried over to the next year of funding. Establishina Notification Reauirements & Penalties As noted above, grant applications are considered with priority given to structural need, urgency, and the order in which applications are received. In the past, some applicants who have received approval for a grant that is equal to less than what they expected (the maximum grant allowable) have not proceeded with their restoration work and failed to notify the City, thus effectively withholding monies that could have been awarded to other applicants. In order to address this problem, staff propose that the grant administrative procedures be amended to: 1. Advise applicants if they are approved to receive a grant that amounts to less than the maximum grant allowable (i.e. half the cost of the eligible restoration work to a maximum $3,000) and require such applicants to confirm if they still intend to proceed with their restoration; 2. Allow applicants who confirm they do not intend to proceed, to make an application for the same work the following year without having to pay a grant application fee; and 3. Establish a penalty for applicants who have confirmed that they still intend to proceed with their project but fail to complete the work or receive an extension prior to the deadline, by denying them the grant and prohibiting them from being eligible to receive a grant for the same work the following year. Similarly, applicants who are approved to receive the maximum grant allowable and who fail to complete their restoration work or receive an extension prior to the deadline, would also be assessed the same penalty. Asohalt Shinale Reoair Reolacement or Installation is Ineliaible The current program guidelines state that the repair and replacement of original roofing materials is considered eligible work for a heritage property grant. The guidelines do not reference specific roofing materials however. The typical scenario anticipated by staff with regard to funding historic roofing occurred in 2002 when an application was made for a property located in the Victoria Park Heritage Conservation District, seeking a grant to replace an existing asphalt shingle roof with a historically accurate cedar shingle roof. However in 2003 and 2004, City staff received applications seeking grants for roof restoration for properties located in the St. Mary's Heritage Conservation District. The St. Mary's District features historic wartime housing with roofs which were originally constructed with asphalt shingles. In accordance with the grant guidelines, an application to reshingle an existing asphalt shingle roof on a designated wartime house would be considered eligible restoration work. City staff believe the basis and intent of the grant program is to assist designated heritage property owners with the typically greater cost involved in conducting authentic restoration. Providing a grant to offset the higher cost (in materials and labour) of installing a cedar shingle roof compared with an asphalt shingle roof is consistent with the intent of the program. However, an asphalt shingle roof though historically accurate on a wartime house, is still typically the most common and least costly roofing material of choice locally. Providing a grant to fund the repair, replacement or installation of an asphalt shingle roof does not meet the intent of the grant program. Consequently, staff recommend that the guidelines identify such work as being ineligible for a heritage grant. Extension of Deadlines for Applications made in 2005 and Carrying Forward Grant Monies to 2006 The deadline for making a Designated Heritage Property Grant application is typically March 3151 of the calendar year for which the Grant is requested; and the deadline to submit invoices verifying the cost of work conditionally approved for a grant is typically December 3151 of the same calendar year. As part of the proposed amendments to the grant program administrative procedures and operating guidelines, such deadlines may be extended for all applicants. Grant application forms have yet to be distributed for the 2005 calendar year, and it is staff's recommendation that the deadline to make a Designated Heritage Property Grant application this year be extended to December 31, 2005 and that the deadline to submit invoices verifying the cost of work conditionally approved for a grant in 2005 be extended to October 31, 2006. Accordingly, staff request Council's approval to carry forward monies originally allocated for the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program in the year 2005 to 2006, for use in funding grant applications made in 2005. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No new or additional capital budget requests are associated with the recommendations made in this report. Council has previously approved funding for this program as part of its budget deliberations. However, Staff are requesting that Council approve carrying forward monies allocated to the Designated Heritage Property Grant program in 2005 to 2006. CONCLUSION: City staff are of the opinion that the changes recommended to be made to the Designated Heritage Property Grant Program Administrative Procedures and Operating Guidelines will add greater clarity, fairness and flexibility to the grant program, and will serve to further improve the City's heritage incentive program. Leon R. Bensason, MCIP, RPP Heritage Planner Jeff Will mer, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning ATTACHMENTS: Appendix 'A' - Implementing By-law dated June 13, 2005 Appendix 'B' - New Designated Heritage Property Grant Program Administrative Procedures and Operating Guidelines