[MassHistPres] New CPA proposed legislation and do we need changes to the Historic category

[Tucker, Jonathan]

Sally:

This is a common problem of interpretation with CPA, because the drafters did not understand the process of historic preservation, nor do those charged with interpretation of the CPA Act—DOR (whose chart you show below, and which the CPA Coalition prints without comment) could care less about how historic preservation occurs, it just wants to not have to spend a lot of time and energy dealing with the nuances of a discipline that is not its own, so it instructs its lawyers to provide the simplest, least useful interpretations possible.  The CPA Coalition has to work with DOR, so they don’t argue about it, either.  And as near as I can tell, MHC is content to sit on its hands and refuses to enter the fray.

Many physical historic resources cannot be preserved unless studies have been conducted.  To be known at all, an historic resource has to be identified through research and inventories.   To be understood as a priority for a community, the community must be made aware of existing historic resources (NHR nominations, historic district signs, historic interpretive signs at historic sites, etc.).  This is why so many communities appropriate their CPA funds for studies and for physical improvements which are not themselves historic resources.  Because historic preservation cannot take place without the development of information about those resources.

It is also the case that even historic preservation projects whose completion will result in the direct physical conservation and preservation of known historic resources require study and often the preparation of plans in order to accomplish the project—the conduct of an historic structures report, the preparation of architectural renderings, written plans for the conduct of the conservation of artifacts, the use of ground-penetrating radar and the preparation of a resulting report in advance of doing an archeological dig, and on and on.  There is also the normal due diligence required in order to acquire a property interest in a physical historic resource—title searches, development of easements and deed restrictions, etc.  There is no historic preservation without study and planning.

It is in fact grossly inequitable and basically the result of a combination of ignorance and institutional inertia that the CPA language itself and DOR and the Coalition’s interpretations of that language do not cover the research, studies, and plans that are essential to the preservation of community historic resources.  What many—perhaps most—CPA communities do is to simply ignore the conundrum and appropriate and use their CPA funding in the ways that will most effectively result in the preservation of their own historic resources.  That is what CPA is for.

Options to improve matters include communicating the need to change the Act language to your legislators.  Communities could also tell the CPA Coalition that if it wants their help in shoring up the source of CPA funding (funding that pays for their jobs), then the Coalition needs to push for and support amending the language of the Act to allow research, studies, planning, and due diligence for historic preservation.  Communities could also contact MHC and ask it to do its job and weigh in, as well.

Jonathan Tucker
Senior Planner
Amherst Planning Department
4 Boltwood Avenue, Town Hall
Amherst, MA  01002
(413) 259-3040
tuckerj at amherstma.gov<mailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov>


From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of sally urbano
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2017 10:17 AM
To: masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] New CPA proposed legislation and do we need changes to the Historic category

Greetings,
   Apparently the CPA trust fund has some financial difficulties and legislation is being proposed to raise funds through an increase in fees attached to deeds. You can see the wording on the CPC coalition website.
    My concern is that at least in my town, we are having a much harder time getting approvals for Historic categories. Is there a way to make our cases for funding more easily understood and approved.

Below is the chart for Allowable projects through CPA and note that Historic is the most restricted. This may be by design, i have no knowledge . But here is the conundrum.
  Our housing committee can use CPA funds to produce a housing production plan which of course is a plan and does not concretely produce a house.
Our request for funds to hire a consultant to submit for  National Recognition Status was refused because nothing was actually being preserved even thought it is a tool used in preservation.
If others have run up against this I would like to hear about it, or it may just be a problem in my town.
Is anyone looking into the historic category to evaluate the strength of support given to us as we try to obtain these funds?
 Best to you all
Sally Urbano
Harwich

The chart below demonstrates the allowable uses of CPA funds in each of the CPA project categories: open space, recreation, housing, and historic preservation. This chart is critical for determining whether a proposed project is eligible for CPA funding. View a .pdf version of the official Department of Revenue allowable uses chart.<http://communitypreservation.org/DOR-Allowable-Uses-2012.pdf>
Projects are only eligible for CPA funding if they fit in a green box below.


Open Space

Historic

Recreation

Housing

Acquire

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Create

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Preserve

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Support

No

No

No

Yes

Rehabilitate and/or Restore

Yes, if acquired or created with CPA funds

Yes

Yes (new 7/8/2012)

Yes, if acquired or created with CPA funds

Chart adapted from “Recent Developments in Municipal Law”, Massachusetts Department of Revenue, October 2012.




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20170202/1622dcd7/attachment-0001.htm>