Results on HB2083 and 2169(continued)
out of committee. Of interest to those properties located near military installation, HB2169 also did not move forward though it was also made exempt. Sources have reported to Kansas of Olde that much credit goes to concerned voters who trained a bright light on these bills. While we can celebrate a brief victory, we can not become complacent. Both issues are already slated to be on next session’s agenda. In the mean time, we all must take advantage of opportunities to thank our legislators and speak with them about historic preservation.
Kansas of Olde will continue monitoring this and other legislative issues of concern to historic property owners, other preservationists, and those who support heritage tourism. We will continue emailing advance notice to our subscribers, and posting info on our website. (For more info, see Background on Issues)
Congratulations on your success thus far.
For more information see Background on Issues
RESULTS...so far!
Historic Buildings Would be Eligible for a 20% Boost in Energy-saving Awards ... (Continued)
program included in the bill by Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT).
REEP would fund state and municipal investments of up to half the cost of retrofitting the nation's existing homes and buildings. Homeowners could qualify for $1,000-$3,000 in financial incentives for achieving a 10 to 20 percent increase in efficiency, with another $150 for every additional percentage point of energy savings achieved. Historic buildings on the National Register of Historic Places would be eligible for a twenty percent boost in these same awards because of the special needs and higher costs associated with retrofitting historic buildings. In addition REEP would give businesses up to $2.50 per square foot for making major energy reductions and historic buildings would get the same 20 percent boost available to historic homes. Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), has included REEP provisions in the Senate version of the energy bill to be considered later this summer.
An AP report in the Washington Post noted that the bill, if it became law, would lead to vast changes in the ways energy is made, sold and used in the United States -- putting new costs over time on electricity from fossil fuels and directing new billions to "clean" power from sources such as the wind and the sun.
Kansas Members of Congress voted:
Rep Jerry Moran (R-Ks 1st Dist) NO
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-Ks 2nd Dist) NO
Rep. Dennis Moore (D-K. 3rd Dist) YES
Rep. Todd Tiahrt (R-K. 4th Dist) NO
index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=422
AR2009062600444_pf.html
Clay Center Carnegie (continued)
restoration of features modified previously as part of
their approval of a project. All they can do is keep inappropriate new modifications from happening.
Another subscriber wrote that the article implied that the SHPO (State Historic Preservation Officer) has some enforcement authority, which is another fallacy.
You can access the Dispatch article in question through this link, http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=20295621&BRD=1160&PAG=461&dept_id=
190958&rfi=6 and then read, below, an expert’s clarification of facts regarding the Library Heritage Fund Grants and the official environs review process.
From the Inside, Clearing up Common Misconceptions
By Katrina Ringler,
There do seem to be a lot of misconceptions and incorrect statements in the Clay Center Dispatch article. For example, "Fischer said he doesn't know how that happened, because by then two additions had "ruined" the original exterior look of the library, which is what the Registry is intended to preserve."
In fact, properties do not have to be in their original, pristine condition to be eligible or listed to the National Register. Additions and changes that were done historically add to the history of that property and help us understand its story. Modern additions that do not obscure or detract from the overall character of the building are also perfectly acceptable. This building in particular was listed to the Register not only for its architectural significance, but also because of the association it has with the program implemented by Andrew Carnegie to provide public libraries across the country. For anyone interested, you can read the entire nomination of the Clay Center Library on our website at http://www.kshs.org/resource/national_register
/index.php. Just search for the property name and then click on the link to the PDF copy of the nomination form.
The Grant
The Heritage Trust Fund grant does provide 80% of project costs up to $90,000. The remaining 20% is match provided by the applicant. The applicants can also apply for the state rehabilitation tax credits on their match giving them 25% of their match back in the form of state income tax credits. Local governments and non-profits such as libraries are able to transfer or sell such credits to realize a benefit from them since they do not pay state income taxes. This grant and the tax credit program would not fund an addition to the building, but would assist with rehabilitation of the originally listed portion.
The Official Environs Review Process
The last official review we conducted on the Clay Center library was in 2004 for the installation of some sinks and painting of murals. It is my understanding that the comment we provided recently on the proposed addition was just a preliminary opinion and suggestions, not an official review. I also understand that various people involved with the project have contacted other staff in our office to discuss options for rehabilitation as well as what listing in the National Register of Historic Places means. Apparently two staff members are scheduled to visit the site on May 13th.
As a side note, the Clay Center Carnegie Library received a Heritage Trust Fund grant in 2000 totalling $23,604 for the concrete front entry steps and brick/stone balustrades. The Clay County Courthouse also received an HTF grant in 1994 of $75,000.
We only review projects in the following circumstances: 1) a property owner is applying for funding though one of our tax incentive or grant program, 2) the project requires review under federal or state law, or 3) a property owner or concerned citizen asks for our recommendation. All of our reviews and recommendations utilize the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. Restoration of specific features can be included in an overall rehabilitation project, but it is never required. Property owners are always welcome to leave features 'as-is'. Typically, we only request restoration of a feature if and when the applicant is proposing a change to that feature. For example, if a property owner was wanting to remove and replace an existing dropped ceiling with a new form of dropped ceiling, our recommendation would be to either leave in place the existing ceiling (a possibly make repairs) or restore/repair the original ceiling above. If for some reason, such as the presence of existing mechanical systems above the dropped ceiling, restoration of the original ceiling was not possible or feasible, we would look at other options such as installing a dropped ceiling that is more compatible with the overall character of the building.
SHPO’s Influence
It is true too that we have limited enforcement authority. Of course there are requirements when a property owner is applying for one of our funding sources. No one can expect free money with no strings attached. The funding programs are provided as an incentive to do the work correctly and to help offset additional costs. We find, however, that most recommendations we make save the property owner money.
The Law
The state preservation law is the most commonly misunderstood aspect of preservation in Kansas that we encounter. It is true that the law requires local governments to request our consultation on projects affecting historic properties (or their environs) before a permit is issued for such projects. We are required to comment upon the project and determine if the proposed work will "encroach upon, damage, or destroy" the historic property or its environs. If we determine that the project has no adverse impacts on the property then the permit can be issued. If we determine that the project will cause adverse impacts to the property or environs then a very clear process follows. The local governing body must hold a hearing to determine if there are any "feasible and prudent" alternatives to the proposed project. This gives the public a chance to voice their opinions and present any ideas they may have for alternatives. If the local governing body finds that there are no feasible and prudent alternatives then they can make the decision to proceed with the permitting. We cannot stop a property owner from altering or demolishing a historic property. The state law only allows us to comment on the project using our professional knowledge and experience to try to help the property owner and the public consider alternatives. The law's purpose is to create a process whereby the property owner gets a professional opinion on the project and the public gets an opportunity to comment on projects that have an impact on their community.
These are, unfortunately, common misconceptions that we struggle to correct everyday.
---Katrina L. Ringler is the Grants Manager / CLG Coordinator in theCultural Resources Division of the Kansas State Historical Society, Topeka, KS