Lessons From The Field · 1/18/2016 · CONTACTNAPC AT: tel (757) 802-4141 fax (757) 923-0076 [email protected] 208 E. Plume St. Suite 327, Norfolk, VA 23510

Establishing a Demolition by Neglect Ordinance

Should all Standards be Met for a Preservation Project?

NAPC-L Users’ Top Preservation Resource Links

26

A Quarterly Journal of the National Alliance of Preservation CommissionsWinter 2016

10 4

Staff Profile

14

24

What Activities Should a Preservation Commission Review?

CRSurveyor: Mobile Technology Tool for Cultural Resource Surveys

18

Lessons From The Field

Heads Up 31 State News 34

Follow us

https://twitter.com/NAPC

https://twitter.com/NAPC

http://www.facebook.com/NationalAllianceforPreservationCommissions

CONTACT NAPC AT:

tel (757) 802-4141

fax (757) 923-0076

[email protected]

www.napcommissions.org

208 E. Plume St. Suite 327,Norfolk, VA 23510

NAPC is seeking volunteers to help advance its missionof providing education and technical assistance to localpreservationists, particularly those involved in the work of localpreservation commissions. Volunteers may serve on a variety ofcommittees and in other capacities that take advantage of theirindividual skills and experiences. Editorial and production work

on The Alliance Review, membership recruitment and retention, resources develop-ment, education programs and technical assistance are just a few of the possibilities.Join us today to make a difference in the future of preservation by contacting NAPCat 757-802-4141 or [email protected].

A quarterly journal withnews, technical assistance,and case studies relevant tolocal historic preservation

commissions and their staff.

NAPC STAFF:EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Paige Pollard [email protected]

PROJECT COORDINATORStephanie Paul

[email protected]

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANTDaniel Harris

[email protected]

COVER IMAGECREDITS:

Learning the ropes with

the CRSurveyor Appat a National Trust forHistoric Preservation

field sessionPhoto by J. Todd Scott

Old Town AlexandriaPhoto by J. Todd Scott

t h e

All current NAPC members whoserve as city staff to preservation

commissions are encouraged todistribute articles in The Alliance

Review to commission membersand other staff and electedofficials within your member

organization.

NAPC can provide additionaldigital copies of The Alliance

Review to members of yourcommission. Simply email us [email protected]

with your commission member’sname and email address.

2015-16 BOARD OF DIRECTORS:

Upd

ated

: 1.1

8.16

KATHERINE ADAMSWashington Architectural FoundationDistrict of Columbia

TROY AINSWORTHCamino Real de Tierra Adentro TrailAssociationNew Mexico

DEBORAH ANDREWSCity of PortlandMaine

CLAUDIA CARRCity of Edina Planning CommissionMinnesota

LISA CRAIGMainStreets Annapolis PartnershipMaryland

MELINDA CRAWFORDPreservation PennsylvaniaPennsylvania

AMANDA DECORTTulsa Foundation for ArchitectureOklahoma

TIM FRYESan Francisco Planning DepartmentCalifornia

JAMES HEWATCity of BoulderColorado

ALISON HINCHMANNational Trust for Historic PreservationDistrict of Columbia

JACQUELINE JOHNSONNational Trust for Historic PreservationDistrict of Columbia

CORY KEGERISEPennsylvania Historical and MuseumCommissionPennsylvania

MICHAEL KOOPMinnesota Historical Society (SHPO)Minnesota

CAROLINE LABINERHarvard Heights Historic Preservation and Windsor Square Overlay Zone BoardsCalifornia

SAM NEWTONDothanAlabama

BRIANA PAXTONPlaceEconomicsIndiana

J. TODD SCOTTKing County Historic Preservation ProgramWashington

TED STROSSERStrosser Architecture & ConservationPennsylvania

MATT SYNATSCHKCity of GeorgetownTexas

PHIL THOMASONThomason and AssociatesTennessee

ESTHER HALLRaleigh Historic Development CommissionNorth Carolina | Chair

MATTHEW HALITSKYCity of BoiseIdaho | Chair-Elect

PATRICIA BLICKArkansas Historic Preservation ProgramArkansas | Secretary

RAY SCRIBERLouisiana Main StreetLouisiana | Treasurer

The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is governed by aboard of directors composed of current and former members and staff of localpreservation commissions and Main Street organizations, state historic preserva-tion office staff, and other preservation and planning professionals, with the Chair,Chair-Elect, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chairs of the board committees serving asthe Board’s Executive Committee.

OFFICERS

BOARD MEMBERS

In this IssueBY J. TODD SCOTT, THE ALLIANCE REVIEW EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

In this IssueNAPC’s online discussion group, NAPC-L, has become increasingly popular over the last couple of

years. More and more of our members are joining in on the conversation and sharing the experi-

ences of their local preservation commissions; it’s likely many of us can benefit from these discussions.

For this issue we’re focusing on a few of the more prevalent discussion topics in the last year. Dan

Becker wrote an article for us in 1999 on demolition-by-neglect, and because of the interest, we’ve

asked him to update it. We’ve included a couple of good questions related to design review and the

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards which prompted comprehensive responses from our colleagues

at the National Park Service. They remind us their opinions are not official NPS policy, but we think

everyone can benefit from understanding these issues from their point of view. Historic resource

survey and inventory projects often come up in discussions so we felt it fitting to give an overview of

a new online application being developed, in part by NAPC, to simplify survey work and encourage

involvement by more volunteers. Finally, we wanted to share a variety of other online links provided

by users of NAPC-L; we think they’re the best source of local information from across the country.

If you’re a regular reader of The Alliance Review you’ll also notice that we’ve moved to quarterly

rather than bimonthly issues. A variety of factors influenced this decision, and as a non-profit organi-

zation, cost of printing and delivery was a major one. We remain committed to keeping each issue

filled with good information for all of our readers.

We hope you find this issue helpful and informative, and hope it encourages you to join our online

discussion group!

P a g e 3T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | W i n t e r 2 0 1 6 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

While demolition by neglect is a serious problemfor many communities, it is a challenge that canbe met. Meeting it requires understanding thefundamental legal principles required for adefensible demolition by neglect ordinance,incorporating the key components required for auseful demolition by neglect ordinance, andselecting effective strategies for the adoption (orimprovement) and implementation of a successfuldemolition by neglect program in your community.

FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL PRINCIPLESThe first step toward a demolition by neglectprogram is determining your community’s authorityto adopt an ordinance. In most cases, suchauthority is dependent upon state enablinglegislation; however, some local governments

have “home rule” powers that permit them toadopt ordinances without specific enabling legis-lation. This is a critical determination as home rulegovernments can directly adopt their own demo-lition by neglect ordinance. If your communitydoes not have home rule, then you must establishwhether your enabling legislation has provisionsthat authorize minimum maintenance provisions.

A number of states have specific language intheir enabling legislation regarding demolition byneglect of historic structures, including Alabama,North Carolina, Rhode Island, Virginia, andWisconsin. This is the best case scenario. Lackingsuch specific language, in some cases authoritycan be inferred from statutes that allow localjurisdictions to create preservation programs to

Establishing a Demolition by NeglectOrdinance

Many historic resources are demolished each year due to a lack of maintenancethat leads to deterioration. When deterioration reaches the extent that it createshealth and safety violations, building officials are obligated to act in the publicinterest to abate the hazard; the frequent result is demolition that circumvents localhistoric preservation ordinances. Whether such lack of maintenance is intentionalin order to avoid preservation ordinance controls on demolition, or unintentionaldue to a lack of awareness or financial resources, the result is the same: loss of acommunity asset.

By Dan Becker

DanBecker served as Executive Director of the Raleigh HistoricDistricts Commission, Raleigh, NC, from 1986 – 2011. He is now

a free agent for historic preservation, having recently retiredfrom public service as Manager of the Long Range Planning

Division for the Raleigh Department of City Planning.

P a g e 4 T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | W i n t e r 2 0 1 6 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

protect historic resources, or from general enablinglegislation that gives local authorities power toprotect or promote the public health, safety, andwelfare from substandard housing or unsafebuildings. In these cases, consult your local

East Third Street Park, Frederick, MD. This small city park in the Frederick Historic District was dedicated in 2001, after a successfulcitizen initiative to upgrade the park with a new playground, plant materials, walks, and fencing. Even small green spaces add to aneighborhood in many ways.

Phot

o cr

edit:

Dan

Bec

ker

Phot

o cr

edit:

Ral

eigh

Hist

oric

Dev

elop

men

t Com

miss

ion

The first full window on the north elevation is out of plumb due toextensive settling. The window sash is sagging as a result of brokensash cords or rotten support.

This historic house in Raleigh, North Carolina, after repairs were made as a result of their demolition by neglect ordinance.

202 LINDEN AVENUERALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA

Located at the edge of the now prestigious

Oakwood Historic District, this deteriorated property had

been purchased decades earlier as a rental investment

property for the owner’s children’s inheritance. The local

commission worked with the elderly owner to reposition

it in the marketplace from entry level to market-rate in

order to generate improved cash flow. They were able

to use pro-bono design services and brokered a major

tax credit rehab (20% state, 20% federal) with private

financing.


government’s attorney for guidance; perhaps evenseek an opinion from your state’s attorney general.

Your ordinance must ensure due process. It mustbe clearly related to the governmental goal of pre-serving historic resources, and it must be designedto be reasonable, fair, and of general applicabil-ity to the community. The issue of regulatory takingalso has great bearing upon demolition by neglectordinances, especially as it relates to economichardship. Further information on these principlescan be found in the reading list at the end of thisarticle.

KEY COMPONENTS OF ANORDINANCEAn effective ordinance will contain specificelements: standards, petition and action proce-dures, economic hardship provisions, appeals,and enforcement.

You must be able to define deterioration in orderto abate it. Standards are required to provide abenchmark for evaluation. A general statementrequiring that a building be kept in good repair

will prove to be difficult to enforce because judge-ments of “good repair” can be challenged as ar-bitrary. Precise language in your ordinance shouldclearly define what is considered to be deteriora-tion. Petitions that allege demolition by neglectshould list specific defects that reference thesestandards, so that a reasonable person viewingthe petition and the deterioration can recognizethe violation(s) of the ordinance.

Detailed procedures are necessary to ensure thateach case is handled in the same way, and thatproperty owners are assured of due process.Provisions should be included in the ordinance forthe submittal of petitions alleging demolition byneglect, the process for notification of the propertyowner, procedures for conducting hearings, andtime frames for actions. Raleigh chose to authorizeonly the preservation commission to submit peti-tions; this was to avoid spurious claims. Individualsand organizations bring their concerns to the com-mission, which then provides an initial assessmentabout whether to proceed. Also necessary arecriteria for evaluating and making findings regard-ing economic hardship, the manner for filing of

Phot

o cr

edit:

Ral

eigh

Hist

oric

Dev

elop

men

t Com

miss

ion

▲ The soffit and eaves on the porch above this column shows rot and damaged woodwork.

The column at the right corner of the porch has shifted to the south as a result of a damaged or undermined base.

▲


appeals, and modes of enforcement by remedy,abatement, and/or penalty. Again, state lawprovisions may dictate what kind of enforcementtools you have at your disposal.

Particular attention should be paid to criteriafor evaluating economic hardship. This is anecessary safeguard that protects the localgovernment and property owners from claims ofregulatory takings. Your ordinance should itemizethe specific financial information that the prop-erty owner must provide in order to demonstratea claim of economic hardship, and ensure thatfindings are made with regard to the claim. In theevent that the evidence proves that such a claimis valid, then the ordinance should also provideguidance in the preparation of a plan to relievethe hardship.

STRATEGIES FOR ADOPTING ANORDINANCEEach community has its own personality when itcomes to the kinds of ordinances that are appro-priate for its citizens, and no one strategy will fitall. It will not advance your preservation causeif a proposed demolition by neglect ordinancebecomes controversial, so it will pay dividendsto carefully consider whether such an ordinanceis right for your community, and how to establishsupport for its adoption.

Several lessons can be learned from Raleigh’sexperience. Enabling legislation authorizing localdemolition by neglect ordinances was adopted bythe North Carolina legislature in 1989 as part ofa general re-write of the statutes governing pres-ervation in the state. In 1992, the city completelyreorganized its preservation program as part ofa successful effort by the preservation communityto establish a county preservation program. Thejustification for the city’s ordinance revisions wasto ensure that the two programs were well coordi-nated, as well as to incorporate the state legisla-tion changes. Demolition by neglect became partof a routine updating of the ordinance, rather thanthe sole focus of a “sales effort” that might attractundue attention and controversy.

Because the city’s ordinance was the first in thestate to take advantage of the new enablingauthority, we modeled many of its procedures afterstate statutory prescriptions for enforcement of mini-mum housing standards. Our plan if challengedwas to avoid the position that it was somethingentirely new to be defended. We would treatdemolition by neglect as an extension of powersthe state had already granted: by doing this, wewould take advantage of a familiar process thathad been on the books a long time, was a mat-ter of general course, and was recognized as aprocess for affirmative enforcement of deficiencies.A case can be made for equal treatment under thelaw; properties with deficiencies (minimum hous-ing standards, demolition by neglect standards)are handled the same way. Happily, we werenot required to make these arguments, and theordinance was adopted after routine review.

USING THE ORDINANCEA demolition by neglect ordinance is not for thefaint of heart. It is aggressive, pro-active preser-vation. Recognize that such a program is staff-resource intensive and requires great precision inthe application of due process. It is important tobuild cooperative partnerships both with neighbor-hoods and downtown associations and with localgovernment agencies charged with enforcement.

Phot

o cr

edit:

Ral

eigh

Hist

oric

Dev

elop

men

t Com

miss

ion

Missing and rotted wood shingles around front second levelwindows.


The Raleigh Historic Development Commissionrequested that neighborhood groups prioritizeproperties they wish to have considered underthe ordinance’s provisions, and to keep the listshort. Commission staff assist inspections depart-ment staff with monitoring and evaluating propertycompliance.

Knowing when to use the ordinance is important.Be sure that deterioration is substantial enough towarrant the application of the ordinance, but notso severe that the expense of repair exceeds themarket value of the property, which could lead to afinding of economic hardship.

DETERMINING ECONOMIC HARDSHIPAND CREATING PRESERVATION PLANSWhen the City of Raleigh adopted a newUnified Development Ordinance in 2013,significant improvements to the initial demolitionby neglect ordinance were made, most particu-larly in its economic hardship provisions. Notablescholarship on economic hardship has occurredduring the past 15 years. A literature search forbest practices revealed a body of impressive workstrengthening local government program tech-niques to assess and accommodate hardship.

Highlights of these improvements include establish-ing a “Hardship Review Panel” to review financialinformation related to determining hardship; listingstandards for determination of hardship in additionto standards for determination of deterioration; amore thorough list of financial information to beprovided for hardship assessment; supplementingeconomic return to include the concept of “reason-ably beneficial use” for non-income producingproperties and those owned by non-profit organi-zations; and more guidance in the preparation bythe commission of a “Plan for Relief of EconomicHardship.”

The use of a hardship review panel ensures thatreal estate and financial experts are judging theeconomic profile of the property, rather than thecommission, whose expertise is directed towarddesign review not financial considerations. It also

avoids the appearance of a conflict of interestwith the commission acting as judge and jury.Standards for determination of hardship makeclear that the determination is based on the char-acteristics of the property, not the ownership, aswell as assigning to the owner the burden of prooffor hardship tests.

A novel concept not observed elsewhere isintroduced in Raleigh’s ordinance relating tothe Hardship Review Panel’s work. If the panelreaches a conclusion that a hardship does exist,the ordinance requires the panel to “establish amonetary value of capital expenditure on the prop-erty that the panel believes would yield a return onthe investment without economic hardship.” Thisbecomes the level of investment that is expectedfrom the owner toward financing the preserva-tion plan for stabilization/repair of the property.The commission then works to develop additional“gap” resources and strategies necessary to elimi-nate the hardship and complete remedial work.The preservation plan for saving the resource thusbecomes an investment partnership recognizingthe individual owner’s financial or beneficial useinterests and the public’s architectural, heritageand cultural interests.

USEFUL SOURCESThe City of Raleigh’s demolition by neglect ordinance canbe accessed on-line at http://www.raleighnc.gov/content/extra/Books/PlanDev/UnifiedDevelopmentOrdinance/#425

For further guidance regarding legal issues related todemolition by neglect, the following resources arerecommended:

Duerksen, Christopher J. and Richard J. Roddewig. TakingsLaw in Plain English, 4th ed. (Washington, DC: NationalTrust for Historic Preservation, 2010)

Roddewig, Richard J. and Christopher J. Duerksen.“Responding to the Takings Challenge: A Guide for Officialsand Planners,” Planning Advisory Service Report #416,May 1989. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.White, Bradford J. and Paul W. Edmondson. ProceduralDue Process in Plain English: A Guide for PreservationCommissions, 3rd ed. (Washington, DC: National Trust forHistoric Preservation, 2008)


Pratt CassityScholarship

[email protected]

757-802-4141

If you would like to donate to the

Pratt Cassity Scholarship Fund

to support student participation

in FORUM, please contact NAPC

for more information at

FORUM 2016

JULY 27-31, 2016

Hip. Happening. Historic. Preservation@50Mobile, Alabama

Registration OpensApril 1st.

https://napcommissions.org/forum/


Recently the online discussion group NAPC-L hada good discussion in response to a question aboutwhether ALL of the Standards needed to be met.It’s been generally accepted by most commissionsthat all of the Standards applicable to a particularsituation or project should be met, but our col-leagues at the National Park Service have offereda more in-depth discussion of the matter.

Q: I’m trying to help a CLG (Certified LocalGovernment) with a complicated design reviewcase where the local legal counsel is interpretingthe preservation law much differently from thestaffer for the preservation commission. In writing

up his staff report for the preservation commission,the staffer explained that the proposed projectmust meet ALL of the Secretary of the Interior’sStandards for Rehabilitation. The attorney con-tends that because the law doesn’t say “meet allthe Standards”, just meeting a majority of themshould be good enough for approval.

I’ve reviewed projects for 14 years under stateand federal tax credit programs, grant programs,and our state preservation law and I have neverheard this before. “Meets the Standards” hasalways meant “meets all the Standards” to me andmy co-workers. However I cannot find this in writ-

Should All Standards Be Met For APreservation Project?

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology andHistoric Preservation are generally accepted as the baseline standard for evaluatinghistoric preservation activities throughout the country. In most instances, local historicpreservation commissions have adopted these standards to guide them in makingdecisions related to local landmarks or for contributing buildings in local historicdistricts. The most commonly used set of Standards are for Rehabilitation, becausemany of the buildings reviewed are being rehabilitated in a way that alters theiroriginal or historic fabric.

By John W. Renaud and Megan Brown

Response prepared by JohnW.Renaud and MeganBrown, with State, Tribal, and Local Plans & Grants,National Park Service. The views expressed here are

their own and do not necessarily represent the officialopinion of the CLG program, the National Park Service,

or the Department of the Interior.

P a g e 1 0 T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | W i n t e r 2 0 1 6 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

• Federal agency personnel responsible forcultural resource management pursuantto Section 110 of the National HistoricPreservation Act, as amended, in areasunder federal jurisdiction. A separateseries of guidelines advising federalagencies on their specific historic preser-vation activities under Section 110 is inpreparation.

• State Historic Preservation Officesresponsible under the National HistoricPreservation Act, as amended, by makingdecisions about the preservation of historicproperties in their states in accordance with

ing anywhere. Can anyone direct me to legisla-tion, regulations, guidance, etc. where it definesthat “meet the Standards” mean all the Standards?

A: What we say in this note applies to allof the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards forArcheology and Historic Preservation; not justthe Rehabilitation Standards which are one ofthe groups of the Treatment Standards. By them-selves, “the Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsand Guidelines for Archeology and HistoricPreservation” are advisory only. That is, they arethe Secretary’s best advice on how to deal witha range of historic preservation issues. We hopethat everyone uses them all. That said, it takesa separate administrative action (e.g., a regula-tion, agreement, grant condition, binding policy,etc.) to make the Standards mandatory. What thismeans is that, for local commissions that are notCertified Local Governments (CLGs), state autho-rizing statutes, local ordinances, and implementingregulations, guidelines, and policy control whatthe local commission should do with regard to useof the Secretary’s Rehabilitation Standards -- orany other set of the Secretary’s Standards that thelocal government has adopted. This all depends

on the wording of the specific local preservationordinance, regulations, etc., in how the Secretary’sStandards have been adopted, and whether theStandards have been adopted for decision-makingas criteria or simply as guidelines.

For CLGs or for any other local activity with aFederal connection, the situation is different. Forexample, 36 CFR 61.4, (a section of the Codeof Federal Regulation that governs historic preser-vation activities) states that “NPS (National ParkService) will use the Standards as technical perfor-mance standards for matters covered by this part[i.e., regulation]”. 36 CFR 61.2(d) states in partthat “the Secretary’s Standards means only the‘Standards’ portions and not the ‘Guidelines’ por-tions of ‘the Secretary of the Interior’s Standardsand Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preser-vation’”. That means that activities must be consis-tent with the Standards for state, tribal, and localgovernments that have become official historicpreservation partners with NPS; in other words,SHPOs, THPOs, and CLGs. Other regulationshave also given force to all or selected parts of theSecretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelinesfor Archeology and Historic Preservation.

appropriate regulations and the HistoricPreservation Fund Grants Management Manual.The state historic preservation offices serve asthe focal point for preservation planning and actas a central state-wide repository of collectedinformation.

• Local governments wishing to establish acomprehensive approach to the identification,evaluation, registration and treatment of historicproperties within their jurisdictions.

• Other individuals and organizations needingbasic technical standards and guidelines forhistoric preservation activities.

Who Should Use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards forArcheology and Historic Preservation?

P a g e 1 1T h e A l l i a n c e R e v i e w | W i n t e r 2 0 1 6 | N a t i o n a l A l l i a n c e o f P r e s e r v a t i o n C o m m i s s i o n s

Where there is a federal connection, the applica-ble federal statutes and implementing regulationsand policy set the parameters within which ourlocal partners must act with regard to the Secre-tary’s Standards. For CLGs, this means that theNational Historic Preservation Act, NPS imple-menting regulations and policy, state CLGprocedures, and individual certification agree-ments set the parameters within which CLGcommissions use the Secretary’s Standards.

It is our position that in any historic preservation-re-lated situation, a historic preservation commission(or any other user of the Standards) first shoulddetermine which set(s) of the Secretary’s Standards(e.g., Planning, Identification, Rehabilitation,

Documentation, etc.) are applicable. Once theuser has determined the applicable set, theyshould apply all of the Standards within each setto the decision-making process. Within the set,no individual Standard may be ignored unless itclearly does not apply (e.g., the new constructionStandard for Rehabilitation if the project involvesno new construction). Within any set of Standards,no one gets to pick and choose which Standardsto use. It is in the interpretation/application ofeach Standard to each situation where there isroom for flexibility. This is where the Guidelines,local policy, and experience come into play.Programs or projects where there is a federalconnection must use the applicable set of Stan-dards and the interpretation must be consistent

1. A property will be used as it was historicallyor be given a new use that requires minimalchange to its distinctive materials, features,spaces, and spatial relationships.

2. The historic character of a property will beretained and preserved. The removal ofdistinctive materials or alteration offeatures, spaces, and spatial relationshipsthat characterize a property will beavoided.

3. Each property will be recognized as aphysical record of its time, place, and use.Changes that create a false sense ofhistorical development, such as addingconjectural features or elements from otherhistoric properties, will not be undertaken.

4. Changes to a property that have acquiredhistoric significance in their own right willbe retained and preserved.

5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes,and construction techniques or examples ofcraftsmanship that characterize a propertywill be preserved.

6. Deteriorated historic features will berepaired rather than replaced. Wherethe severity of deterioration requires

Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitationreplacement of a distinctive feature, the newfeature will match the old in design, color,texture, and, where possible, materials.Replacement of missing features will besubstantiated by documentary and physicalevidence.

7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate,will be undertaken using the gentlest meanspossible. Treatments that cause damage tohistoric materials will not be used.

8. Archeological resources will be protected andpreserved in place. If such resources must bedisturbed, mitigation measures will beundertaken.

9. New additions, exterior alterations, or relatednew construction will not destroy historicmaterials, features, and spatial relationshipsthat characterize the property. The new workwill be differentiated from the old and will becompatible with the historic materials, features,size, scale and proportion, and massing toprotect the integrity of the property and itsenvironment.

10. New additions and adjacent or relatednew construction will be undertaken in such amanner that, if removed in the future, theessential


with NPS and state guidance. For example, ifan owner of a commercial property is seekingCLG, state, and federal tax incentives, we wantthe application of the Secretary’s RehabilitationStandards to produce parallel results at each levelof review.

NPS’ interpretation has long been that thestatutory, regulatory, and policy language refers tothe use of all of the Standards within each set. Ifwe had meant less than “all”, we would have saidso and provided guidance on how to select and

The Standards are a series of concepts aboutmaintaining, repairing, and replacing historicmaterials, as well as designing new additionsor making alterations. The Guidelines offergeneral design and technical recommendationsto assist in applying the Standards to a specificproperty. Together, they provide a frameworkand guidance for decision-making aboutwork or changes to a historic property. TheStandards and Guidelines can be appliedto historic properties of all types, materials,construction, sizes, and use. They include boththe exterior and the interior and extend to aproperty’s landscape features, site, environment,as well as related new construction. Federalagencies use the Standards and Guidelinesin carrying out their historic preservationresponsibilities. State and local officials usethem in reviewing both Federal and nonfederalrehabilitation proposals. Historic district andplanning commissions across the country usethe Standards and Guidelines to guide theirdesign review processes.

The Standards offer four distinct approachesto the treatment of historic properties—preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, andreconstruction with Guidelines for each.

Preservation – When the property’sdistinctive materials, features, and spacesare essentially intact and thus convey thehistoric significance without extensive repairor replacement; when depiction at a particular

period of time is not appropriate; and when acontinuing or new use does not require additionsor extensive alterations, Preservation may beconsidered as a treatment.

Rehabilitation – When repair and replacementof deteriorated features are necessary; whenalterations or additions to the property are plannedfor a new or continued use; and when its depictionat a particular period of time is not appropriate,Rehabilitation may be considered as a treatment.

Restoration – When the property’s design,architectural, or historical significance during aparticular period of time outweighs the potentialloss of extant materials, features, spaces, andfinishes that characterize other historical periods;when there is substantial physical and documentaryevidence for the work; and when contemporaryalterations and additions are not planned,Restoration may be considered as a treatment. Priorto undertaking work, a particular period of time,i.e., the restoration period, should be selected andjustified, and a documentation plan for Restorationdeveloped.

Reconstruction – When a contemporarydepiction is required to understand and interpret aproperty’s historic value (including the re-creationof missing components in a historic district or site);when no other property with the same associativevalue has survived; and when sufficient historicaldocumentation exists to ensure an accuratereproduction, Reconstruction may be considered asa treatment.

The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

use a subset of each group of Standards. It is afundamental principle of federal administrative lawthat in the absence of explicit language to the con-trary, the department, bureau, or office responsiblefor administering the program gets to interpretthe meaning of applicable statutes, regulations,standards, policy, etc. As long as that interpreta-tion is a reasonable interpretation -- even if it is notthe only possible reasonable interpretation -- theinterpretation will be upheld if challenged. Wehope that this provides a little more clarity on thesubject.


A: There is no formal National Park Service(NPS) policy on this subject. Thus, this response isjust the informal advice that we give to folks whenwe are asked this kind of question. One size doesnot fit all. Thus, any and all guidance should becustomized for the individual local governmenthistoric preservation program.

Q: As part of the revisions proposed for ourhistoric preservation code, some of the public issuggesting we clearly state in the ordinance whatresidents can do without obtaining a COA ormore appropriately what the Commission does notreview. Anyone have in their ordinance this typeof language?

What Activities Should a PreservationCommission Review?By John W. Renaud, Megan Brown, and Paul Lusignan

Response prepared by JohnW.Renaud and MeganBrown, with State, Tribal,and Local Plans & Grants, National Park Service and PaulLusignan, with theNational Register of Historic Places. The views expressed here are their own

and do not necessarily represent the official opinion of the CLG program, theNational Park Service, or the Department of the Interior.

It’s not unusual for owners of properties in historic districts or individual landmarks,to wonder exactly what kinds of projects should be reviewed by local historic pres-ervation commissions. Do I need a certificate of appropriateness to paint my house;to add a satellite dish; to put up a back yard fence? Unfortunately there’s no oneanswer for each type of historic preservation project. The impact of a satellite dishon the integrity of a colonial-era neighborhood may be much different than it is in a1920s downtown. But it’s always good for the local jurisdiction to educate the publicand to provide as much guidance as possible, preferably guidance that is availablein a variety of formats. We want black and white answers to every circumstance,but as many of us know, most historic preservation projects generate answers thatare varying shades of gray. In response to a question about how specific a localpreservation ordinance should be, our colleagues at the National Park Service haveprovided some great food for thought. Here’s the discussion:


Your question combines two different, but related,topics:1. How should a local government historic

preservation program determine what kinds ofactivities are subject to various kinds of review?

2. Once the decision is made regarding whatis subject to review, how should the localgovernment build this information into its legaland organizational framework and make itavailable to the public?

Generally speaking (and there are exceptions),we think it is too risky to the irreplaceable historicand prehistoric resources to put extensive technicaldetails in a local ordinance/statute or to try toassemble an exhaustive list of activities that areeither subject to or not subject to review.

WHAT ACTIVITIES TO REVIEW ORNOT REVIEWIn any information provided by a jurisdiction,explain the rationale for inclusion. Rather than justlisting activities that are subject to or not subjectto review, list the criteria that you use to determinewhat activities are subject to review. Such criteriashould clearly tie to the purpose language in theordinance that explains what the review process isintended to accomplish. You might include criteriasuch as:

• The effect that a proposed activity could haveon those elements that make a property ordistrict significant in the first place.

• Activities that relate to topics covered byguidance that NPS has issued to explain thevarious sets of the Secretary’s TreatmentStandards.

• Activities that relate to topics covered by thelocal government’s design guidance.

No list can be exhaustive or universally appli-cable. Something will be left off the list that shouldbe included and other things will be on the list thatshouldn’t always be. We recommend that any

local government that provides a list of activitiesexplicitly state that the list is not exclusive and issubject to change in accordance to whateversystem is in place for revisions. Along these lines,if the list applies to more than one district orlandmark, we would state explicitly that the useof the list may vary depending upon what makeseach district or landmark historically important.

WHERE DOES INFORMATIONREGARDING ACTIVITIES SUBJECT/NOT SUBJECT TO REVIEW FIT IN THELEGAL STRUCTURE OF THE LOCALHISTORIC PRESERVATIONPROGRAM?

I think the answer to this question is that it dependson the circumstances of the local government’shistoric preservation program. State authorizinglaws and preferred legal practice can indicate amandate or preference for what topics and levelof detail appear in local statutes or ordinancesversus implementing regulations or rules and guid-ance. For Certified Local Governments (CLGs),the state’s CLG procedures and federal statutoryrequirements (including the definitions of “desig-nation” and “protection” in the CLG context) willspecify provisions that must appear in local historicpreservation ordinances.

Generally speaking, the following statements aretrue:• Statutes and ordinances are harder to change

than regulations or rules which in turn areharder to change than administrative guid-ance.

• The people who pass statutes and ordinanceshave less technical historic preservation exper-tise than the people who create implementingregulations and administrative guidance.

• Members of local legislative bodies tend to have expertise in the law-making process

rather than having subject matter expertise.• Finally, statutes and ordinances tend to give


more general direction while rules, regulationsand technical guidance tend to provideprogressively more detailed information.

For politically sensitive or controversial issues,we could see the advantages of including evenvery-detailed information in a statute or ordinance.There is a certain political commitment that goesalong with passing an ordinance. Politicians canbe more reluctant to overturn a provision that theypassed than they would a regulation or guidancethat they had nothing to do with. There is also thepossibility of bad publicity that could result fromoverturning a historic preservation ordinance. Thatsaid, all things being equal, we think it is betternot to put in the statute or ordinance a list of whatactivities are or aren’t subject to review.

If the purpose portions of an ordinance are writtentightly enough, regulations and guidance basedon those purposes will be more easily defendedboth legally and politically. Legally, an administra-tive decision (i.e., via regulation or technical guid-ance) to review or not review a type of activity willbe upheld if it is a reasonable interpretation of thepurpose in the ordinance or statute even if it is notthe only possible reasonable interpretation.

What kinds of activities are safe (for the historicresource) to review or not review in order tomaintain the resource’s significance is a technicalmatter which should be left to historic preserva-tion technical experts to determine. That said,irreplaceable historic and prehistoric resourcesbelong to the people who live and work in thecommunity. Therefore, it is perfectly reasonableand appropriate that the politicians who representthe community should pass an ordinance thatdirects the appropriate folks in the local preserva-tion program to create (with appropriate publicinput), maintain, and appropriately post the list inaccordance with the purposes expressed in theordinance.

One of the reasons for relying on experts involvesthe risks and consequences of making a mistake.Once a property’s integrity is lost, it is gone foreverand cannot be replaced. In establishing or modify-ing a local historic preservation program structure,ask yourself who is most likely to design a processthat appropriately protects the resources. There arelots of ways — other than passing an ordinancewith extensive specificity -— to get politicians onthe public record in support of historic preservationin the community. Resolutions of support duringPreservation Month, media interviews, and partici-pation in historic preservation celebratory eventsare just a few ideas that pop to mind.

Generally, we think it is too risky to the historicresources to put extensive technical details in alocal ordinance or statute because of the generallack of expertise of the lawmakers and the relativedifficulty in changing statutes and ordinances ascompared to administratively-derived procedures.

Property owners of locally-designated historicproperties need to be able to plan, make informeddecisions, and be protected from arbitrary andcapricious decisions regarding proposed changesto their properties. Well-drafted ordinances andadministrative procedures should address these is-sues. Every statute or ordinance should include thefollowing elements:• A purpose section that not only describes the

purpose of the local historic preservationprogram as a whole but also the variouselements of the program. For example, whatis the Certificate of Appropriateness processdesigned to accomplish?

• An enforcement section and a section thatdescribes the range of consequences forviolating the requirements.

• An appeals section with a discussion of theallowable grounds for appeal and the criteriafor determining that the grounds have beenmet.


• A waiver provision with clear language aboutthe rarity of its use and criteria for granting itthat relate to the preservation of the resources.

• Provision for periodic assessment of the historicpreservation program’s compliance withapplicable laws and historic preservation

Geneva COA Matrix

best practices. We think that a sunset provision isnot a good idea. Failure to take legislativeaction should never be the reason for ending alocal government’s historic preservationprogram.


CRSurveyor: Mobile Technology Toolfor Cultural Resource Surveys

DeidreMcCarthy, GISP, is Chief, Cultural Resource GIS Facility with theNational Park Service and Michele Oaks is an Urban Planner in the

Department of Planning and Zoning, and Historic Preservationwith the City of Alexandria, VA.

By Deidre McCarthy and Michele Oaks

Cre

dit:

J. To

dd S

cott

Volunteers testing the application in Old Town Alexandria.


Like a census, cultural resource inventories delivera snapshot of the universe of cultural resources inany given area. The accuracy and completenessof the inventory, including resource locations andsignificance, determines its utility, identifying whatexists on the landscape. Applications, like geo-graphic information systems (GIS), provide accessto this data, ways to visualize trends, means to coordinate activities and tools to analyze, leadingto better decision making as well as resource man-agement. Importantly, the value of any analysisproduced depends entirely on the quality of theunderlying data.

Typically, these critical inventories are created atstate and local levels through cultural resourcesurveys conducted for the purposes of meetingstate and federal laws, such as the NationalHistoric Preservation Act, and may greatly varyin data utility as well as scope of survey, makingthem difficult to combine into a single inventoryin some cases. These historic resource surveys re-quire significant hours in the field collecting data,often using paper survey forms, hand-drawn mapsand photos. Completing the transfer into state orlocal inventories can similarly take significant timein the office. Today’s budget restrictions and mini-mal staffing make it difficult for cultural resourceprofessionals to carry out these traditional surveys,particularly with large survey areas containingpotentially thousands of resources. Several jurisdic-tions have developed proprietary survey softwarefor their individual needs, but a standardizedmodel has not been created to enable unifieddata collection and sharing among agencies atlocal, state and federal levels.

THE CITY OF ALEXANDRIA’S SOLUTIONWith the advancement of GIS and more sophisti-cated mobile devices, the city of Alexandria,VA, saw an opportunity to streamline the fieldsurvey workflow and create a new system withthe intention to provide local, state, and nationalagencies, as well as preservation organizations,with a tool to share information quickly with eachother and the public. The project’s main objectivewas the development of a new historic resource

survey methodology that reduced field time, cultivat-ed volunteer participation and generated a creativesolution using modern technology to gather valuablecultural resource data.

Alexandria’s Old and Historic District is the thirdoldest locally-designated district in the country, itsordinance adopted by the city council in 1946.Included within the local district boundaries are theAlexandria National Historic Landmark District andthe Alexandria National Register District, which con-tain one of the largest intact collections of late 18thand early 19th century structures in the United States.However, the city preservation staff lacks the surveyand inventory documentation for most of the historicresources that they must manage. Alexandria’s Oldand Historic District then makes a perfect location topilot a mobile survey application designed to gener-ate a dynamic database for its architectural resourc-es that will be linked to the city’s existing publicwebsites, as well as integrate with the city’s GIS andpermitting systems, in addition to sharing that inven-tory information with state and national agencies.

ENABLING DATA SHARING ANDBUILDING A MOBILE SURVEYAPPLICATIONThis spatially-enabled, mobile, tablet-based surveystrategy is being developed through a partnershipwith the City of Alexandria and the National ParkService’s Cultural Resource GIS Facility (CRGIS) andits Certified Local Government (CLG) programs. Us-ing funds from the CLG program and data standardscreated by CRGIS, Alexandria can build a moreflexible, portable and user-friendly survey tool to helpassist their own city planning, as well as providevaluable information for state and national inventories.

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the FederalEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) askedCRGIS to develop a digital tool to help them complywith National Historic Preservation Act requirements.Katrina highlighted deficiencies in our existing inven-tories, survey methods and response strategies, aswell as data sharing capabilities. CRGIS created amethodology to help identify and evaluate damagedproperties with global positioning systems (GPS), in


addition to providing a means to determine theintegrity and significance of each property throughGIS. Incorporating cultural resource spatial datatransfer standards imposed structure on the data,allowing the GIS to further serve as a manage-ment tool and promoted the critical exchangeof cultural resource data throughout the disasterrecovery.

Born out of adversity, the data standards created,and the database template produced in parallel,now in use throughout the NPS, enable datasharing between the many cultural resources data-bases that the NPS maintains. The Alexandria andNPS staff believe that this NPS database templatemakes a perfect foundation for a cultural resourcefield collector application. Ten years after Katrina,the basic survey methodology, the standards andthe template remain relevant and useful, but theGIS tools they work in tandem with have greatlyimproved, opening up many new possibilities forfield data collection and integration of that datawith existing local systems.

Alexandria leveraged its CLG status and obtainedCLG and Cost Share grants from the VirginiaState Historic Preservation Office (SHPO); ESRI,a GIS software company; the Historic AlexandriaFoundation; and the Office of Historic Alexandria.With these grants, Alexandria selected a consul-tant, GIS Inc., to assist in the development of aprototype application, using the CRGIS standardsand database template as a starting point. Theapplication, later named CRSurveyor, is a web-based, architectural survey form, designed tobe used on a tablet. The database and applica-tion contain fields that satisfy either an intensiveor reconnaissance level field survey, along withNational Register and National Historic Landmarkinformation.

Spatially enabled, CRSurveyor relies on adynamic map containing building footprints andparcel boundaries to select and track the build-ings being surveyed or having completed surveys.Using color-coding, surveyors select the individualbuilding to be surveyed on screen and answer

How the application appears on a hand-held device.


questions organized around standard architecturalsurvey practice, from foundation to roof, usingeasy-to-use menus. As the surveyor completes andsaves the data collected, the building footprintchanges color, updating live to other surveyorsworking in the vicinity, as well as staff back in theoffice monitoring the data collection process. Sur-veyors may also use the tablet to take photographsof the resource being surveyed, or upload historicphotographs, to attach to the descriptive information.

Data collected by surveyors in the field is trans-mitted via wifi connection to a central databaseholding tank. Here, historic preservation staff cancheck the data for accuracy and completeness,selectively or comprehensively, comparing thedescriptive information to the photos transmitted.Once accepted, the data can be incorporated into

Phot

o cr

edit:

Mic

hele

Oak

s

Volunteer field training in Old Town Alexandria.

the final live GIS database for the City, updating,correcting and adding to the inventory informationalready on hand.

THE FUTURE OF CRSurveyorDuring the summer of 2014 following a two-daytraining class, Alexandria historic preservation staffand trained volunteers researched and surveyedmore than 400 buildings in 4 weeks withinAlexandria’s Old and Historic district to test theprototype application. City staff received positivefeedback from the volunteer surveyors and continuesto work to refine and develop the application. Thegoal of the project is to create a standards-based,spatially enabled, mobile survey tool that can beadapted to other jurisdictions, resource types andcircumstances, such as disaster response. Ultimately,the project partners hope to provide the web-based


application without any initial cost, allowingjurisdictions too spend their scarce funding oncustomizing rather than recreating the survey tool.

Currently, Alexandria, NAPC and the NPS areworking to complete the building survey portionof CRSurveyor with additional funding from partner-ships with SHPOs, CLGs, and other preservationorganizations. Later phases of developmentfor CRSurveyor will expand the tool to use withother cultural resource types (archaeological sites,structures, objects, landscapes, etc.). Tasks to beaddressed in these phases include:

• Merging existing cultural resource survey databases and adding descriptive data fields for theremaining cultural resource types;

• Enhancing the application by creating customiz-able data fields based on resource type or style;

• Illustrated pop-up guides to describe architecturalfeatures for volunteer surveyors;

• Developing an offline function to allow users tobe disconnected from wifi and cell phone signalsduring survey which is critical in remote commu-nities or locations with poor cell coverage;

• Integrating a post-disaster response function toactivate if a quick damage assessment needs tobe deployed on existing resources.

As a web-based application, CRSurveyor will pro-vide flexibility for a range of users. Small organiza-tions with limited funding could use the applicationand upload data to the cloud, or a large municipal-ity with a staffed GIS departmen could host it onits local server. Because the tool is easy to use,volunteers,students and trained historic preservationprofessionals can quickly be incorporated into anysurvey project. Further, the potential danger of unin-tentionally releasing incorrect information with sucha “crowd-sourced” data collection technique is al-leviated by insuring quality controls are imposedbefore releasing or sharing data with partners andthe public.

As new components of the CRSurveyor emerge,they will be made available to current partnersuntil the application is ready to release to StateHistoric Preservation Office and Tribal HistoricPreservation Office partners for use in surveyingtheir communities. If your organization is interestedin more information, or assisting in the design/development of the application, contact the NPS,NAPC or Alexandria partners. Each new partnerhelps us to improve CRSurveyor and make it aneven more useful tool for the future of culturalresource survey.

Volunteers testing the application in Old Town Alexandria.

Phot

o cr

edit:

Mic

hele

Oak

s


ONLINE DESIGN GUIDELINES COLLECTION

e d u c a t i o n + a d v o c a c y + t r a i n i n g

VISIT https://napcommissions.org/online-design-guidelines/Don’t see your district’s guidelines?Send the link to [email protected]

The staff and board of direc-tors at NAPC is saddened bythe recent passing of Dr. LarryCort, a former board member.Cort recently retired as cityadministrator for Oak Harbor, Washington,and died at his Coupeville, Washington homeOct. 28. He was only 60.

Cort grew up on Whidbey Island, Washingtonand graduated from the University of Washingtonin 1977, going to work as a cartographer.After being awarded a Master’s Degree inhistorical geography from Exeter University inEngland, he continued his career as a cartogra-pher, but eventually moved into city planning asthe town planner for Steilacoom, Washington.Much of the rest of his career was spent onWhidbey Island, as Town Planner for Coupe-ville, Senior Planner for Oak Harbor, CommunityPlanning Director for Langley and finally City Ad-ministrator for Oak Harbor. Larry also served his

community as an active memberof the Coupeville Lions,CoupevilleArts Center board member, IslandCounty Historical Society tour lead-er, Washington Trust for Historic

Preservation board member, and on the CoupevilleTown Council.

In 2003 he married Lisbeth Henning, anaccomplished historic preservationist in her ownright, and they spent the next 12 years travelingfrequently and enjoying many champagne toasts.In his recent obituary, published in the WhidbeyNews-Times, she wrote ”He was a happy manwho truly lived life to the fullest, did not wait untilretirement to realize his dreams and never let aminute of vacation leave go to waste.” A wiserecommendation for us all. He will be missedby so many in the communities he served, andthroughout the profession.

Loss of a Great Public Servant


Tell us about your agency.A committee of the Kansas Editors’ and Publishers’Association formed the Kansas Historical Society in 1875to collect newspapers and manuscripts on the territorialperiod of Kansas (pre-1861). Today, the Kansas StateHistorical Society is a state agency housing the KansasMuseum of History and the State Archives. The CulturalResources Division includes the State Archeology Office,the State Historic Preservation Office, and the StateHistoric Sites Office (to oversee historic propertiesowned and managed by the state). I am the supervisorof the Historic Preservation Office as well as the stateCertified Local Governments (CLG) coordinator andGrants Manager (for both our federal Historic Preserva-tion Funds grants and a state grant program that weadminister). While KSHS is a state agency, we do partnerwith a non-profit foundation called the Kansas HistoricalFoundation. We also work closely with the Kansas Pres-ervation Alliance, the statewide preservation advocacyand non-profit organization. They present an annualconference and highlight success stories through anannual awards program.

How did you first get into the field?I grew up in the Ozarks of southwest Missouri andduring high school I knew that I wanted to do somethingwith history, my favorite subject. I just wasn’t sure what Icould do other than teaching. I received a brochure fromthe Historic Preservation program at Southeast Mis-souri State University in Cape Girardeau and it openedmy eyes to all the possibilities available. I graduatedfrom SEMO in 1998 with a Bachelor of Science degree inHistoric Preservation. Being still a little unsure of what I

wanted to do, I started taking graduate level classes atSEMO before moving to the University of Alabama atBirmingham to complete my M.A. in History in 2000. Iwas looking for employment opportunities that wouldbring me closer to my family in Missouri when I spottedan opening at KSHS in early 2001. Kansas had just en-acted a new state rehabilitation tax credit program andthe Kansas SHPO was looking for a tax credit reviewer. Iapplied for the job and even though my experience withtax credits was limited, I started work in August 2001. Iworked with both the state and federal tax credit pro-grams exclusively until taking over as Grants Managerand CLG Coordinator in 2008.

Give us some background on CLGactivity in the state.Kansas has 17 wonderful CLGs! Two are county-wideCLGs, which is a great way to get preservationinformation to some of our rural communities. The restare mid-sized to larger cities and their activities cover awide range. Some are focused on survey work andeducating residents about preserving their community’sheritage; others are busy with design review. Kansashas a unique state preservation law that requires SHPOreview of any project undertaken by the state or anysubdivision of the state. This includes permits issued bycities and counties where the work will impact a state orNational Register-listed property. We have agreementswith 11 CLGs to conduct those state law design reviewsat the local level through their preservation commis-sions. Most of the CLGs are doing a lot of work toreview cases under both state law and their local preser-vation ordinances and working to educate their com-munity members about the benefits of preservation inbetween.

What are some notable successes ofyour program recently?One of the biggest successes comes from a CLG that isliterally near and dear to my heart, the City of Topeka.Being a state agency, our offices are in the capital cityand it has been my home for over 14 years. The city hasbeen a CLG since 2003, but there had been a hesitancyto designate any commercial buildings in the city aslocal, state, or National Register properties. In recentyears, however, city staff and the Topeka LandmarksCommission have made a concerted effort to dispelmyths and answer questions about listing. Using an HPFgrant a city-wide preservation plan was developed, andthat work plus renewed interest in revitalizing down-town has resulted in a new downtown National Registerhistoric district. The city is currently using HPF grantmonies to develop design guidelines for downtown andconduct surveys of various neighborhoods across thecity. It has been a major shift for the better in howpreservation is perceived.

Katrina Ringler,Preservation Office SupervisorKansas State Historical Society,Topeka


I am also very proud of Kansas CLGs for adapting tosome changes we have had to implement in recentyears due to staffing reductions. I once had the time tovisit each of the CLGs at least once per year to providein-person training and direct guidance to preservationcommissions and their staff. But in 2014 we determinedthat increasing workloads would not allow that to con-tinue. Having learned so much from NAPC FORUMS inthe past, I proposed the idea of a single annual trainingfor all CLG staff and commissioners where participantscould hear from each other. The first annual CLG train-ing was held in conjunction with the statewide preser-vation conference and was very successful. Attendeescould meet their counterparts from other communitiesand discuss what was and was not working for them.

In August 2015, the SHPO hosted a one day CAMPthat served as this year’s annual training. We had 70people register, representing 16 of our 17 CLGs. Most ofthe participants had never attended NAPC-sponsoredtrainings and conferences before. The day was packedwith information as trainers Friederike Mittner, WadeBroadhead, and Adam Thomas covered everything fromlegal issues to incentives and how to meet the Secretaryof the Interior’s Standards. We discussed ways to garnerpublic support for preservation and how local commis-sions can assist with planning in their communities. Weeven had time for a design review exercise at the end ofthe day to bring everything home.

What are the biggest challengescurrently facing your program?One of the biggest challenges for me in recent yearshas been helping the CLGs add more properties totheir local landmark lists. The Kansas state preserva-tion law has been the primary “protection” for historicproperties in Kansas since 1977 along with the NationalHistoric Preservation Act and Section 106. Once thestate rehabilitation tax credit was offered in 2001, wesaw an exponential increase in the number of individualproperties and historic districts seeking nomination tothe state and National Register of Historic Places. Thoseproperty owners, for the most part, accept the reviewrequirements of the state law as a balance for the op-portunity of tax credits and grant funds. It’s a “carrotand stick” approach that has worked well. But localpreservation ordinances provide protections for historicresources beyond what the state law can provide. Myconcern is that a single legislative action could wipeaway the state protection for the majority of historicresources in the state leaving them vulnerable with nolocal designation as back up. With few incentives forlocal designation, property owners have little reason tochoose local landmark status. It has been tough for lo-cal preservation advocates to tout the benefits of locallisting.

How is your program equipped to dealwith these challenges?We are encouraging Kansas CLGs to reach out to theircounterparts in neighboring states, attend NAPC FORUMand other preservation conferences nationwide, andparticipate in online discussions with others in the field toget creative with ways to incentivize local landmarkdesignations. Got any ideas? Send them my way!

Have there been recent changes tofunding/staffing with your program?Not directly, but state government overall has been hit hardin recent years with budget reductions. We are definitelyworking with fewer staff than we had several years ago.Cross training staff members so that everyone knows a littlebit about all of the programs (i.e. Section 106, state law,National Register, tax incentives, CLGs, grants) helps fill thegaps. The Kansas SHPO has a combined staff of 8 peopleincluding administrative staff so it is relatively easy to com-municate amongst ourselves about projects that overlapbetween programs.

Are there innovative or unique featuresabout your program, or innovative localprograms? The Kansas state rehabilitation tax credit is unique in that itprovides a state income tax credit equal to 25% of eligibleexpenses for most property owner and a credit equal to 30%for 501c3 organizations. The unusual aspect of the programis that the state credit is transferable to anyone, even if theyhave no connection to the project. This means even historicproperties owned by non-profits, local governments, andschools can utilize the credits to help offset rehabilitationcosts. Locally, Newton/North Newton, just north of Wichita,has a strong local preservation program. They have adopteddesign guidelines for their downtown National RegisterHistoric Districts, the city has hired a staffer exclusively forthe program who is systematically surveying and resurveyingneighborhoods, and they are investigating ways to createa mini-grant program to benefit property owners in theircommercial and residential historic districts. This January,they are hosting a preservation incentives workshop to helpeducate owners of historic properties and the general publicabout the benefits of preservation.

Anything else you’d like to tell our readers?I encourage everyone to keep sharing their experiences andquestions. I’ve found NAPC to be extremely helpful in thatway. Hearing what does and does not work for others is in-credibly valuable. Just having colleagues from different back-grounds and in different settings sharing their experiencesis so constructive. Share what you know and ask questionswhen you don’t. You are part of a wide community and youdon’t have to come up with all the answers on your own.


Compiled by The Alliance Review Editorial Committee.

HISTORIC RESOURCE NEWSLETTERAND BLOGSSeveral of our readers pointed out some goodexamples of newsletters by local and stateagencies; you can sign up for several of them.

Melita Juresa-McDonald shared the City of LosAngeles’s Office of Historic Resources quarterlynewsletter: http://preservation.lacity.org/sites/default/files/October_2015_Newsletter.pdf

Kim Gant shared Washington’s state blog: http://www.dahp.wa.gov/blog/

Laurie Mitchell shared North Carolina’s monthlye-newsletter for commissions and CLGs: http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/commhome.htm#Newsletter.

FACEBOOK GROUP FORPRESERVATION PROFESSIONALSAdrienne Burke, Community DevelopmentDirector in Fernandina Beach, Florida, has starteda Facebook group for HP professionals. It’s aspace to share items of interest to historic preserva-tion professionals: events, job postings, research,photos, videos, etc. She encourages members toadd others who work or have worked in the field,are emerging professionals, and even studentslooking to jump in. https://www.facebook.com/groups/PreservationProfessionals/

HELP THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICECELEBRATE 50 YEARS OF THE NHPAOur colleague, Megan Brown, reminded usthat the National Park Service is celebratingthe 50th anniversary of the National Historic

NAPC-L Users’ Top PreservationResource Links

The NAPC online discussion group, NAPC-L, is a place to share ideas, ask questions,and learn first-hand what others are up to in the industry. Those who utilize it havesome helpful online resources to share. They’ve connected us to everything fromnewsletters and guidelines to flow charts showing the approval process forcertificates of appropriateness. The following are some of the more easily accessibleonline sites from 2015.


Preservation Act and the Centennial of the ParkService with a social media campaign highlight-ing the great preservation work that has takenplace in all 50 states for the last 50 years. FromNovember 2015 to November 2016, NPS Cul-tural Resources will share preservation success sto-ries from across the nation focusing on a state orterritory each week. Using the hashtag #50for50in conjunction with #Preservation50 we can tietogether all the good work that the NHPA hasinspired and accomplished through partnerships in50 states over the last 50 years. The website hasdetailed information including a calendar for post-ings by location. http://www.nps.gov/subjects/historicpreserv-ation/50for50.htm

HISTORIC DISTRICT ANDNEIGHBORHOOD INCENTIVESSeveral communities offer a variety of incentivesfor rehabilitation of locally designated land-marks or properties in historic districts, as wellas programs intended to improve neighborhoodstreetscapes and parks, or for special projects.

Jackie Connor recommends this zoning incentivefrom Louisville, Colorado: http://louisvilleco.gov/home/showdocument?id=786

Dan Miller recommends Seattle’s NeighborhoodMatching Program for issues such as signage,newsletters, tree planting, block parties, pocketparks and landscaping on public rights of way:http://www.seattle.gov/neighborhoods/neighborhood-matching-fund

Matt Halitsky in Boise, Idaho, recommendstheir neighborhood reinvestment program.Past projects have included public art, walkingpaths, firewise readiness programming, andcommunity gardens. http://pds.cityofboise.org/planning/comp/neighborhood/neighborhood-reinvestment/

DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR UTILITYMETERSBruce Yarnall told us that the District ofColumbia Historic Preservation Review Boardadopted design guidelines for utility meters in

2012. While their primary issue is with electricmeter boxes, the guide also addresses gas meterplacement. The document is posted on their web-site at: http://planning.dc.gov/node/594322

HISTORIC PRESERVATION IN LOCALCOMPREHENSIVE PLANSJohn Smoley recommends Minneapolis’ heritagepreservation chapter, within the context of its remain-ing comprehensive plan chapters (click on chapter 8to get to the heritage preservation chapter): http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/cped/planning/cped_comp_plan_update_draft_plan

He also recommends California’s Office ofHistoric Preservation for numerous samplesposted, and he particularly likes the goal/policy/action item format, which creates clearlinks between city and comprehensive/generalplan goals, heritage preservation policies, and,most importantly, the positive preservation actionsthat the community is committing itself to throughthe creation of the plan. http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=25898

District of Columbia Historic Preservation Review Boardadopted design guidelines for utility meters in 2012.


VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF THEDESIGN REVIEW PROCESS FORLOCAL COMMISSIONSIt’s always extremely helpful for property or busi-ness owners and their contractors to understandthe process for obtaining a certificate of appropri-ateness, and how long the process might take. Afew good examples from around the country areshown on this page and next.

APPROPRIATE RENOVATIONS/REHABILITATIONSIn response to developing a catalog of inap-propriate renovations and rehabs, NAPC hasstarted a Flickr group page to share all of yourgreat examples. Go to https://www.flickr.com/groups/2784612@N20/ to sign-in and share.

Houston’s example posted by Steph McDougal


Join NAPC-LNAPC-L is the onlynational listserv for localpreservation commissions.

NAPC-L gives you accessto local commissionmembers, staff and othersacross the United States.

PRESERVATION-BY-TOPIC INDEXThe Technical Preservation Services (TPS) divisionof the National Park Service has re-established aweb-based version of its printed index. The index isa finding aid for online and printed TPS informationthat has been developed on the subjects of historicpreservation, cultural landscapes, and the rehabili-tation of historic buildings. The index is arranged

Knoxville’s example posted by Kaye Graybeal

alphabetically, with topics cross-referenced, and thenew electronic format allows the index to be linkeddirectly to the specific documents and guidance,making finding that information even easier. It isreached from the “How to Preserve” tab on the TPSwebsite, or directly at: http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/by-topic.htm


The National Alliance of Preservation Commissions (NAPC) is pleased to offer scholarship support to qualifiedstudents of undergraduate and graduate-level preservation programs to attend and participate in FORUM2016 in Mobile, AL July 27-31, 2016.

FORUM is the only national conference focused around the needs and issues of preservation commissions andcommission staff. The interactive conference blends traditional educational sessions, discussion panels, mobileworkshops and tours, providing participants with essential training and networking opportunities. FORUM isheld every other year in interesting destination cities and brings local commission members from across thecountry together with representatives from local, state and national organizations, governments and federalagencies. It is supported by the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the National Trustfor Historic Preservation, Preservation Action and the National Park Service.

NAPC is committed to investing a portion of its resources to introduce students of preservation programs to theNAPC through financial support and attendance at its programs and events.

To learn more about FORUM 2016, please visit our website at http://bit.ly/20qJdb5

NAPC’s scholarships provide:• Registration to FORUM• Reimbursement for qualified travel and lodging expenses (up to $400)• Individual Membership for one year to the NAPC ($20 for students) which includes:

– The Alliance Review, our quarterly newsletter filled with timely articles on best practices and informativecase studies in preservation

– Access to NAPC-L, our organization’s member Listserv– Technical seminars, special events, meetings, and workshops held in conjunction with the National

Trust’s annual National reservation Conference– Access to a resource library of technical information related to historic preservation commissions– A voice for preservation in Washington, DC with our national partners: National Park Service

(NPS), National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP), Preservation Action (PA), the Advisory Councilfor Historic Preservation (ACHP), and the National Conference of State Historic PreservationOfficers (NCSHPO)

Recipients will be asked to volunteer a minimum of four (4) hours at the conference. The NAPC, with its all-volunteer Board of Directors fines that volunteering with the organization provides a unique and valuableopportunity to engage with membership and to learn more about the NAPC. Volunteer activities may includeassisting registration, acting as a liaison or facilitating tours.

To qualify for consideration of a NAPC scholarship award, please submit your application by March 15,2016, with notification from NAPC of the recipients on April 15, 2016.

Details for applying follow. All applications are to be sent electronically to [email protected]

FORUM 2016 | Mobile, AL | July 27-31, 2016

FORUM 2016

2016FORUM

Student ScholarshipsAVAILABLE



HEADS UPProvided in partnership with Preservation Actionhttp://www.preservationaction.org/

President Obama Signs Omnibus Spending Bill- MixedBag for Historic PreservationBefore the holidays, President Obama signed the Omni-bus Spending Bill, titled the Consolidated AppropriationsAct of 2015, into law; averting a government shutdown.This bill includes spending levels for all 12 appropria-tions bills. The agreement includes $2.3 billion for theNational Park Service (NPS), an increase of $236 millionover FY15 enacted levels ($135 million of which is forthe Centennial Initiative). While less than the President’srequest, the bill makes a significant investment as the NPSprepares for their 100th anniversary.

For historic preservation programs there was good newsand bad news. Overall the bill funds the Historic Preser-vation Fund at $65.41 million, an increase of $9 millionover FY15 enacted levels. The total breakdown for Stateand Tribal Historic Preservation Offices is below.

$46.925 million for SHPOs (equal to FY15 enacted levelsand the President’s request)

$9.985 million for THPOs ($1 million above FY15enacted levels and equal to the President’s request)

$8 million in grants to preserve the sites and stories of theCivil Rights Movement (Not included in FY15 levels, and

$22 million less than the President’s request)

$500,000 in grants for underrepresented communi-ties (equal to FY15 enacted levels and the President’srequest)

The bill also restored funding for the Heritage Partner-ship Program, funding the program at $19.821 millionfor FY16. The President’s request called for $9.92 millionfor the National Heritage Area program, roughly half ofFY15 enacted levels. Overall, given it was another toughbudget year, historic preservation fared well.

Now for the bad news. As you probably know the billdid not include the reauthorization of the Historic Pres-ervation Fund (HPF), which expired on September 30th.Preservation Action along with our partners will be kick-ing off the new year hard at work lobbying legislatorsto pass the bi-partisan H.R 2817 (which provides a 10year renewal of the HPF) and/or make sure HPF renewalis part of any energy reform bill. Legislators also need tocontinue to hear from you!

For details go to http://www.preservationaction.org/action-alert-reauthorize-hpf/

Legislation Introduced to Create First National ParkSite Dedicated to LGBT HistorySenators Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY) and Charles Schumer(D-NY) in the Senate and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) inthe House, have introduced legislation to establish theStonewall Inn in New York a unit of the National ParkService. The Stonewall National Historic Site Establish-ment Act, would establish the area around the StonewallInn in Greenwich Village, New York, a National HistoricSite. The area is often considered the birthplace of themodern LGBT equal rights movement, and was the site ofStonewall Rebellion in 1969. If signed into law, the sitewould become the first unit of the National Park Servicededicated to LGBT history.

To learn more about the Stonewall site and to sign a peti-tion urging President Obama to use his powers under theAntiquities Act to establish the Stonewall Inn as a NationalHistoric Site, check out the following link: https://www.change.org/p/president-obama-create-a-national-park-for-stonewall

Proposed Legislation in Wisconsin Would SeverelyThreaten Historic PreservationProposed legislation introduced in the Wisconsin State-house by two Republican lawmakers could have dev-astating impact on historic preservation. The bill wouldprohibit municipalities from designating properties ashistoric landmarks without the owner’s consent and wouldban municipalities from requiring or prohibiting actionsby owners on the basis of historic preservation, withoutthe owners consent. Preservationists argue that this couldlead to privately owned historic landmarks being irre-versibly altered or demolished without any kind of publicprocess or public input.

The proposed legislation, AB 568, is part of larger pack-age of bills aimed at expanding property rights. Whileprotecting individual property rights is important, theproposed legislation would restrict municipalities from en-gaging in any kind of successful historic preservation pro-gram. Current statutes already allow for property ownersto appeal landmark designations and allow for publicinput. The Milwaukee Preservation Alliance is spearhead-ing the efforts against the the bill and are urging Wiscon-sinites to contact their state representatives, and ask themto oppose the language in AB 568 that prevents com-munities from protecting their heritage. Check out the fol-lowing link for more information: http://bit.ly/1lazGBv

www.napcommissions.org

FORUM 2016

JULY 27-31, 2016


208 E. Plume Street | Suite 327 | Norfolk, VA 23510 | [email protected]

For more information on becoming a sponsor of FORUM 2016 contactNAPC at [email protected] or 757-802-4141.



$10,000 Presenting Sponsor• Full-page ad in six issues of The Alliance Review and in the

FORUM 2016 conference program• Listing with logo and link on FORUM 2016 website and in all

e-publicity and printed materials• Recognition in media advisory prior to event• Recognition with logo on signage and display space in the

registration area• Promotional materials in conference packets• Tickets for six people to Opening Reception• Complimentary registration OR sponsored scholarships for six

$5,000 Sponsor• 1/2 page ad in three issues of The Alliance Review and

in the FORUM 2016 conference program• Listing with logo and link on FORUM 2016 website and in all

e-publicity and printed materials• Recognition on signage and display space in the registration area• Promotional materials in conference packets• Tickets for four people to Opening Reception• One event/recognition opportunity (options listed below)• Complimentary registration OR sponsored scholarships for four

$2,500 Sponsor• 1/4 ad in three issues of The Alliance Review and in the

FORUM 2016 conference program• Listing with logo and link on FORUM 2016 website and in all

e-publicity and printed materials• Recognition on signage in registration area• Promotional materials in conference packets• Tickets for three people to Opening Reception• Complimentary registration OR sponsored scholarships for three

$1,000 Sponsor• Business-card advertisement in an issue of The Alliance

Review and in the FORUM 2016 conference program• Listing with logo and link on FORUM 2016 website and

in all e-publicity and printed materials• Recognition on signage in registration area• Promotional materials in conference packets• Tickets for two people to Opening Reception• Complimentary registration OR sponsored scholarship for two

$500 Sponsor• Business-card ad in an issue of The Alliance Review and in

the FORUM 2016 conference program• Listing with logo and link on FORUM 2016 website and

in all e-publicity and printed materials• Recognition on signage in registration area• Promotional materials in conference packets• Ticket for one person to Opening Reception• Complimentary registration OR sponsored scholarship for one

Sponsorship Levels and Benefits Welcoming ReceptionAn opening night gathering for attendees and firstglimpse at festive Mobile, AL.

—or—

Hip. Happening. Historic. PartyThe signature gathering for FORUM attendees tocelebrate in Mobile, AL.

$10,000 Sponsor• Signage at event• Opportunity to offer welcome remarks at reception• Four guest tickets to reception• Four complimentary conference registrations or sponsored scholarships• Full page ad in final program• Full page ad in three issues of The Alliance Review• Logo & link on conference website• Logo on registration area signage

—or—$5,000 Sponsor• Signage at event• Three guest tickets to reception• Three complimentary conference registrations or sponsored scholarships• 1/2 page ad in final program• 1/2 page ad in three issues of The Alliance Review• Logo & link on conference website• Logo on registration area signage

FORUM Awards Event$2,500 Sponsor• Signage at event• Listing in awards program• Three guest tickets to reception• Three complimentary conference registrations or sponsored scholarships• 1/2 page ad in final program• 1/2 page ad in three issues of The Alliance Review• Logo & link on conference website• Logo on registration area signage

Sustainability Luncheon Sponsor – Exclusive$2,500 Sponsor• Signage at event• Eight tickets to luncheon• Two complimentary conference registrations or sponsored scholarships• 1/4 page ad in final program• 1/4 page ad in an issue of The Alliance Review• Logo & link on conference website• Logo on registration area signage

Advertising and Program OpportunitiesConference Tote Bag – Exclusive$2,500 Sponsor• Logo on FORUM 2016 tote bag OR use of sponsor-provided tote bag• Two complimentary conference registrations or sponsored scholarships• 1/4 page ad in final program• 1/4 page ad in an issue of The Alliance Review• Logo & link on conference website• Logo on registration area signage

$750• Back cover full-page ad in final program• Listing on FORUM website with link

• Back cover inside full-page ad in final program• Listing on FORUM website with link

$250• 1/4 page ad in final program• Listing on FORUM website with link

Lanyard Sponsor – Exclusive$1,000 Sponsor• Logo on FORUM 2016 lanyard/badge• One complimentary conference registration or sponsored scholarship• 1/8 page ad in final program• 1/8 page ad in three issues of The Alliance Review• Logo & link on conference website• Logo on registration area signage$500• Full-page ad in final program• Listing on FORUM website with link$150• 1/4 page ad in final program• Listing on FORUM website with link$100• Business card ad in final program• Listing on FORUM website with link

SOLD

SOLD

—or—


VIRGINIA

Virginia Department of Historic Resources to

Partner with Northern Neck, Tidewater & Eastern

Shore Localities to Conduct Surveys of Historic

Resources

The Virginia Department of Historic Resources has

awarded funding for nine projects that will survey

historic architectural or archaeological resources

in seven counties and three towns in the Tidewater

and Eastern Shore that were impacted by Hurricane

Sandy in 2012. The pass-through project funds

derive from a $1.5 million Hurricane Sandy Disaster

Relief Assistance Grant for Historic Properties that

the National Park Service awarded in 2014 to the

Commonwealth of Virginia by way of the Department

of Historic Resources (DHR). The grant allows DHR

and jurisdictions to fund projects that support

disaster planning by increasing knowledge about

storm-related damages to known historic properties,

districts, and archeological sites, and further plans

to make them better able to rebound from adverse

impacts arising from future storms and sea surges or

events related to climate change. The jurisdictions

receiving the project awards—specifically the

counties of Accomack, Lancaster, Mathews, Middlesex,

Northampton, Northumberland, and Westmoreland

— are among a list of Virginia counties the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) identified as

eligible for the federal relief funds in the aftermath

of the massive 2012 hurricane. Virginia was one of

12 eastern states in addition to Washington, D.C.,

where Hurricane Sandy left a path of damage

and destruction in late October of 2012. To read

more about the nine funded projects: http://1.usa.

gov/1ZxJhW6

MARYLAND

Rosenwald Schools: A Great Partnership for

Education

The Rosenwald School building program played a

prominent and pivotal role in the education of African

Americans in the early 20th century.

A result of a partnership between Booker T. Washington

of Tuskegee Institute and Julius Rosenwald, President

of Sears, Roebuck and Company, the Rosenwald Fund

providing matching grants for more than 5,000 schools,

shops and teacher’s residences built in 15 southern

states, between 1917 and 1931.The schools became

obsolete in 1954 with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling

that outlawed segregation in public education. Many

of the schools we abandoned or demolished and their

invaluable contributions forgotten.

Despite their critical role in the education of a large

portion of the southern populations, Rosenwald

Schools are a largely unfamiliar component of

the educational history of the United state. As a

consequence the National Trust for Historic preservation

named Rosenwald Schools to its 2002 list of Most

Endangered sites. More recently, Rosenwald Schools

were designated as one of the first of the Trust’s

National Treasures continuing their commitment to their

preservation.

Rosenwald Schools in Maryland

Of the more than 5,000 Rosenwald program buildings

constructed, 156 of the school and ancillary structure

were built in Maryland – and 53 of those structures

remain.

This excerpt is from the Preservation Maryland

blog: Read more about the Rosenwald Schools and

Preservation Maryland’s Six-to-Fix program: http://

preservationmaryland.org/rosenwald-schools/


Deadline for applications is March 15, 2016.To download an application form and for more information

please visit our website at:http://bit.ly/20qJdb5

Please contact NAPC at [email protected] 757-802-4141.

Has there been an exemplary preservation project in your community that your fellowpreservationists need to know about? NAPC is now accepting applications for our 2016Commission Excellence Awards to recognize and honor outstanding efforts and achievementsby local historic preservation commissions and boards of architectural review. Awardcategories include Best Practices — identification and protection of historic resources, publicoutreach, and technology — and Commission of the Year.

Recognition as part of the Commission Excellence Awards is an effective way to build publicsupport for preservation in your community. Past award recipients have included collaborativevideo projects, free tax credit workshops, house fairs, and innovation in design guidelinesand historic resource surveys. Nominations are encouraged from small and large communitiesalike.

The awards ceremony will be held at FORUM 2016 in Mobile, AL July 27-31. Awardrecipients will receive one complimentary registration to FORUM 2016, a mounted awardcertificate, and will be featured in the NAPC newsletter, The Alliance Review.

Call for Nominations

2016 NAPC

EXCELLENCEAWARDS

COMMISSION


The Alliance ReviewNational Alliance of Preservation Commissions208 E. Plume Street, Suite 327Norfolk, VA 23510

Name

Commission/Organization

Address

City State Z Zip

Phone/Fax E-mail

How did you hear about NAPC?

Become part of the national network of lo-cal preservation, historic district, and landmarkcommissions and boards of architectural review.Organized to help local preservation programssucceed through education, advocacy, andtraining, the National Alliance of PreservationCommissions is the only national nonprofit or-ganization dedicated to local preservationcommissions and their work. NAPC is a sourceof information and support for local commissionsand serves as a unifying body giving them anational voice. As a member of NAPC, you willbenefit from the experience and ideas of com-munities throughout the United States working toprotect historic districts and landmarks throughlocal legislation, education, and advocacy.

You can also join online at http://napcommissions.org/join

JOINNAPCTODAY

MEM

BERSHIP C

ATEG

ORIES

$20.00• Student

$35.00• Individual Membership

$50.00• Commissions: Municipal/county population

less than 5,000*• Local nonprofit organizations

$100• Commissions: Municipal/county population

of 5,000 to 50,000*• Regional or statewide nonprofit organizations

$150• Commissions: Municipal/county population

greater than 50,000*• State Historic Preservation Offices• Federal Agencies• National nonprofit organizations

PROFESSIO

NA

L NETW

ORK

$150 PROFESSIONAL NETWORK• Consultants /Consulting Firms• Businesses/Companies• Other Professional Services

In addition to receiving all NAPC membership benefits,Professional members are listed in the NAPC ProfessionalNetwork Directory athttp://napcommissions.org/directory.

* Membership includes all commission members and staff.Please provide complete list of members with names,phone numbers and email address for additional digi-tal copies. (Each commission membership receives oneprint copy with unlimited additional digital copies.)

Half of all premium membership dues supportNAPC’s student internship andForum scholarship programs

$250 CHAIRS CIRCLE

$500 FOUNDERS CIRCLE

PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP

Please return this form with payment to NAPC: 208 E. Plume St., Ste. 327, Norfolk VA, 23510 or Fax to 757-923-0076

I PREFER MY NEWSLETTER:

Hard copy | in the mail

Digital | via email

PRESORTED First Class MAILUS Postage Paid

Norfolk, VA Permit 25

Documents

Lessons From The Field · 1/18/2016 · CONTACTNAPC AT: tel (757) 802-4141 fax (757) 923-0076 [email protected] 208 E. Plume St. Suite 327, Norfolk, VA 23510