Madison City PACE review committee recommends forwarding multiple historic-repair grant applications to Board of Public Works

Madison City's PACE review committee on March 11 reviewed more than a dozen grant applications for historic-rehabilitation work and voted to recommend that applications meeting the committee's qualifying scores be forwarded to the Board of Public Works for approval.

The committee chair, Jim Bartlett, said the review committee does not itself approve grants. "The PACE review committee does not actually approve the grants. We hear your proposals and review the proposal. We use a score sheet to score each proposal," Bartlett said, explaining that the committee averages four score sheets and forwards recommendations to the Board of Public Works.

Why it matters: The committee's recommendations are the step that begins city approval; the Board of Public Works takes the final action. Several applications seek work on visible downtown buildings and carriage houses; many involve masonry and original-window restoration, work that applicants and committee members said is costly but aimed at preserving historic character.

Key points

- The committee reviewed and heard from applicants or their representatives for multiple properties across downtown Madison, including 1 West Sixth Street (West Sixth Law), 515 Jefferson Street (carriage house windows), 418 East Second Street (fa'cade and brick repair), 403 West Second (window restoration with leaded glass), 311 East Street (front door, windows and steps), 135'' 1/2 East Main / Mulberry Street (window refurbishment and return from vinyl to wood), 142 East Fountain Alley (carriage-house door and windows), 917 West First (addition and siding removal to expose original detail), 200 Ferry Street (window replacement), and 805 East Second (multiple windows; recent HVAC work).

- Applicants described scope and historic constraints. Miss Sage, representing 1 West Sixth LLC, said her firm is undertaking an extensive tuck-pointing and brick-repair project and that "we are spending about $300,000 for this project on our building," work that includes replacing thousands of historic bricks on a large chimney.

- One caller representing 215 East Street requested an amendment to their previously approved grant request: an additional $1,137.50 to cover unforeseen porch and rafter repairs. "That is correct, sir," the caller said when the additional amount was confirmed.

- The committee read final averaged scores for each application at the close of the meeting. Committee members said two applications did not meet the committee's qualifying score threshold, but the transcript did not identify which two applications failed to qualify. The committee moved and seconded a recommendation that qualifying applications be forwarded to the Board of Public Works; members present voted in favor.

Votes at a glance (scores read by the committee at meeting close)

- 1 West Sixth St. (1 Sixth LLC / West Sixth Law): 42 - 515 Jefferson St. (carriage house windows): 37 - 418 East Second St. (owner application): 42.5 - 403 West Second St. (window restoration): 44.75 - 311 East St. (door, windows, steps/retaining wall): 39.25 - 135 1/2 East Main / Mulberry St. (window refurbish): 37.25 - 142 East Fountain Alley (carriage-house door/windows): 35.75 - 917 West First (addition and siding work): 47 - 200 Ferry St. (window replacement): 32.75 - 805 East Second St. (multiple windows): 41.25

(Committee stated two applications did not meet qualifying scores; the transcript did not specify which two.)

Discussion and context

Committee members repeatedly emphasized that the city splits PACE funds into two buckets: a 25% "city-at-large" pool and a 75% target-area pool for properties in designated areas or for dangerous/dilapidated structures. Bartlett explained that nearly all of the applications that month fell into the 25% bucket; if demand exceeds available funds in that bucket, the committee's process is to fund the highest scores first and stop when funds are exhausted.

Several applicants described work that would preserve visible historic fabric: custom matching brick, replacing rotten sash with thermally-modified ash or proper old-growth species, removing vinyl siding to reveal stone or original trim, and stabilizing large carriage-house doors. Applicants and representatives described using historic-appropriate mortars and working with local contractors experienced in restoration.

Formal action

The committee made a motion and seconded a recommendation to forward the applications that met the committee's qualifying score to the Board of Public Works for final approval. The transcript records committee members voting "Aye," but individual roll-call votes were not read aloud in the record. The committee also recorded that two applications failed to reach the qualifying score; the record does not specify which applications those were.

What happens next

The Board of Public Works will consider the committee's recommendations at its next meeting. Applicants were told they do not need to attend the Board of Public Works meeting; successful applicants will be notified afterward. Committee chair Bartlett said staff will notify applicants once the Board of Public Works acts.

Ending

The committee adjourned after the vote. Several applicants stressed the high cost of historically appropriate materials and the safety issues that motivated some requests (for example, nonfunctional windows and a failing carriage-house door); committee members expressed support for preserving historic downtown fabric but noted budget and scoring limits would determine which projects receive funding.