Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Eligibility Dispute topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owner and reviewers spar over dilapidation finding for 412 Broadway PACE grant request
Summary
At the July 15 PACE review meeting, owner David Fishmer and committee reviewers disagreed about whether renovations already started removed the property's "dilapidated" status; the project scored below the committee's minimum for that grant category.
David Fishmer, owner of 412 Broadway, told the PACE Review Committee on July 15 that he has owned and been renovating the property since 2012 and had already completed major structural, masonry and electrical repairs before applying for a dilapidated-structure grant.
"I have owned the house since 02/2012," Fishmer said, and described extensive interior damage uncovered during renovation: "there was crumbling masonry all over the place... cracked and crumbling concrete floor... broken and missing window panes..." (first presented at 00:27:38). Fishmer and his contractor explained they had completed primary infrastructure repairs in an earlier phase and were seeking funds to finish interior and finishing work.
Reviewers pushed back, saying the dilapidated-structure grant is meant for work that has not yet begun. A committee member asked directly whether the building remained dilapidated after months of work; Fishmer replied, "Not now after 4 months of work." Another reviewer who inspected the property in the field said parts of the repair work were already completed before their review and that, based on what they saw, they did not classify it as dilapidated.
Staff read the committee's scoring results aloud: 412 Broadway was assigned a score of 34.33 against a stated minimum of 36 for the dilapidated-structure grant category, leaving it below the threshold for eligibility.
Fishmer asked the committee to consider the full project context and noted he had already invested significant funds; reviewers said they were bound by program guidelines that generally require grant funds for work that has not already been completed. Committee members indicated the target zones and grant categories are set administratively and may change next year, and they emphasized adherence to current guidelines when determining eligibility and awards.
The committee did not award PACE funding at the meeting; staff will include the project's score and the committee's notes in the recommendation packet to the Board of Public Works, which makes final funding decisions.
Ending: Fishmer said he would be disappointed to miss funding for a project he called "worthy"; committee members said they must follow program rules when applying grant funds to work already completed.
