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

Thu Feb 2 16:43:01 EST 2017

Hi,

While the CPA use chart does not specifically say "studies", our understanding is that studies as part of a funded project are okay, such as for a park rehabilitation where Phase 1 is a study and bid docs and Phase 2 is the construction, provided that the study is not part of the normal city responsibility.  For instance a Preservation Master Plan (previously done by the historical commission) would not be eligible, but a conditions assessment of the historic public library would be okay as phase 1 prior to doing the phase 2 restoration work.  The Open Space Plan (previously done by the Park & Rec Commission) would not be eligible, but a study to create a new park on city owned property would be eligible as phase 1 of the park creation.  These two examples might be conditional that phase 2 of these project also use CPA funding for construction.  If the studies are for work that would not be funded with CPA, these plans might be considered "support", which is only allowed under Housing.  However, for a historic property, you could fund the study and the restoration work as one project, not two.  This may require a leap of faith on the initial cost, but many of our projects have come back for additional funding after bids were received.

We asked the Coalition about the eligibility of a tree study (not worth giving the whole backstory here) and among their other comments the Coalition stated, "Clearly any tree work (or studies/assessments of trees) on property that wasn't dedicated full-time to recreation (or perhaps historic cemeteries) would not be allowed with CPA funds."  There was nothing in the response that said studies are ineligible just because they are studies.

I also asked the Coalition, "If the CPC funds a study to explore the creation of new bike paths, would the study be funded through Recreation Land: Creation"  I got the response "Yes, that's probably the right category, but it would depend on where the bike paths were going.  It could be Recreation: Rehabilitation too. Can you tell me about the land the bike path will be crossing and then I can explain the difference? "  Again, no mention that studies were taboo.

Of course, all their responses reaffirm that they are not attorneys and we should check with our legal counsel.  Still, we find their guidance invaluable.

Also, CPC admin costs allow for studies.  A slide from the Coalition's training on implementing the CPA provided the following Administrative Account Common Uses:

*         Hire contract administrative help

*         Professional help: appraisals, consultants, legal assistance, general studies

*         Due diligence on project recommendations

*         Newspaper ads for public hearing

*         Misc. expenses

Therefore, IMO, it is within the CPC's authority to utilize their admin funds to engage a professional to do a study of an historic resource as a way to encourage that the resource be preserved/restored.

My 2 cents :)

Jane A. Guy
Assistant Community Development Director
City of Salem
Department of Planning & Community Development
120 Washington St., 3rd Floor
Salem, MA  01970
978-619-5685
(F) 978-740-0404
jguy at salem.com<mailto:jguy at salem.com>
www.salem.com<http://www.salem.com>

Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 17:06:24 +0000

From: Elizabeth Ware <eware at dracutma.gov<mailto:eware at dracutma.gov>>

Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] New CPA proposed legislation and do we

                need changes    to the Historic category

To: "Tucker, Jonathan" <tuckerj at amherstma.gov<mailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov>>, "'sally urbano'"

                <urbanosally at yahoo.com<mailto:urbanosally at yahoo.com>>, masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>

Message-ID: <352ddebc071e403b8dbf17db76feeb95 at DEMAIL.dracut.local<mailto:352ddebc071e403b8dbf17db76feeb95 at DEMAIL.dracut.local>>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Jonathan,

In addition to the MHC, the partner organizations of the Community Preservation Coalition are Preservation Massachusetts and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who should also lobby for changes so that historical studies can be approved and conducted without local Community Preservation Committees having to beg or be turned down for study funds.  If Massachusetts communities can use CPA funds to pay an entity, such as Historic New England or Preservation Massachusetts, for holding an historic restriction on a property, funds should certainly be able to be used for examination of that property to determine its historic value.

Betsy Ware

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Tucker, Jonathan

Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 11:31 AM

To: 'sally urbano' <urbanosally at yahoo.com<mailto:urbanosally at yahoo.com>>; masshistpres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>>

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

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<mailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov%3cmailto:tuckerj at amherstma.gov>>

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu%3cmailto: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<mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu%3cmailto: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.

________________________________
Please note the Massachusetts Secretary of State's office has determined that most emails to and from municipal officials are public records. FMI please refer to: http://www.sec.state.ma.us/pre/preidx.htm.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20170202/cdfc76c8/attachment-0001.htm>