Re: SHFGrants

Your're right, Kerry Ann. I guess I misread what is a difficult web site to negotiate.
The Breckenridge grant request would have been reviewed by several independent "readers," people from around the state who are involved in historic preservation in one way or another. To see why the grant was not awarded would most likely be found in these reviews, as they are public information, once the grants have been awarded. I suspect that the engine fails to meet the historic requirements for a Colorado preservation grant would be the primary reason the grant failed, at least in the first attempt. The Leavenworth report refers to reader's assessments in a number of places, specifically when the final CHS decision over ruled the findings of the various readers. These people's identities are protected and each is assigned a number, and that's why the Leavenworth report mentions the readers by number only. The readers are volunteers and are not paid for their services. Who ever writes a grant application has the benefit of grant work shops given by CHS and a courtesy pre-submittal review by CHS staff to assist in coming up with a good application--the reader's reviews are a key element in securing funding.