Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grants Restoration topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Property owner tells commission grant category left mansion with only 20% window aid; commission discusses classification and possible changes
Summary
A property owner at the meeting said a historic mansion received only a 20% rebate for window work while other downtown projects qualified for 50%; commissioners said grant percentages are tied to property classification and element type and agreed to explore whether higher rates can be tied to 'outstanding' classifications and routed through redevelopment and council review.
A property owner asked the Mishawaka Historic Preservation Commission on Tuesday why their historic mansion received only a 20% grant rebate for window work while other downtown projects received higher percentages.
"I've worked on [the mansion] for literally 37 years...instead of getting the 50%, I only get 20% rebate," the participant said, asking whether the commission could expand eligibility or increase the percentage for certain historic classifications. The speaker said urgent window repairs would cost roughly $90,000.
Staff and commissioners explained the grant program structure: percentages are tied to property classifications (for example, 'historic core,' 'outstanding/notable,' and neighborhood classifications) and to eligible elements (façade, outdoor seating, upper-floor restoration, windows). "The window category is 20%" for neighborhood commercial classifications, staff said, and some elements—such as full window replacement or certain restoration work—have different eligibility rules depending on the classification.
Commissioners and staff discussed options to better support significant historic assets. Ideas included adjusting percentages tied to the commission's local inventory classification (raising the rebate for properties classified as 'outstanding') or proposing a modification to the redevelopment-commission program so the council could consider a broader amendment. Commissioners noted practical constraints, including a limited grant fund and difficulty locating qualified restorers for historic windows; one member emphasized the commission has precedent approving new windows when they meet visual standards.
Because the applicant faces an urgent repair timeline, commissioners said they could review application materials via email to expedite a recommendation, but stressed the application must be submitted before work begins. "You have to apply for it before you commit to the fund," staff said; retroactive reimbursement is not permitted.
The commission agreed to meet with the property owner, explore whether a higher percentage tied to the 'outstanding' classification is feasible, and, if warranted, draft a modification for consideration by the redevelopment commission and city council. Commissioners cautioned that any change would need to specify which elements (windows, restoration vs. replacement, façade work) would receive higher support and that limited funds mean any increase would be targeted rather than universal.
The commission did not adopt any immediate changes at the meeting and recommended the owner prepare a complete application for the August cycle and pursue restoration quotes and documentation to support an expedited review.
