Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutIR 6943 d-. INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6943 �,P TER 10 June 5, 1984 .: 4 4oar�o To the Mayor and Members of the City Council �a10 rexA`'S Subject: HISTORIC SURVEY Background The Historic Preservation' Council for Tarrant County (HPCTC) has been working with a professional consultant to perform a historic survey of Tarrant County, proceeding in phases as funds and the work pace of the survey team petirtlt, Tfita City has sap1X)rted the survey effort by funding a portion of the sure conduoted in Speaial tznphaais Areaa (B ). Last year (CDBG Year IX), $20,000 in Cc iru mity Develognent Block Grant funds were expended to survey the Mid-South and Near Southeast SEAS. For the upcoming survey phase, the HPCI'C has requested an additional $44,000 of CDBG funds to survey the Polytechnic, Stop Six, and Riverside SEAs. Additionally, HPCPC requested $12,500 for an implementation pro- gram in the Mid-South and Near Southeast SEAS. Over the next several years, the HPCPC anticipates submitting additional requests for CDBG support as the survey moves forward to cover the remainder of the County. Based upon discussions between persons interested in historic preserva- tion and City staff there are three major phases or steps that are essential to preserve historic properties. Phase One is the Historic survey, which only identifies those properties that qualify for historic designation. Phase Two includes the Development and Coordination of an implementation plan. This plan would detail what work is to be accom- plished and identify resources needed. The Final step in the preserva- tion process is the Project Renovation/Construction phase. The City staff is concerned about the piecemeal approach being used to fund the various Historic Preservation projects because they prohibit our ability to make long-range plans in this area. Management Issues In view of the ongoing nature of the FIE'CTC's effort and the likelihood of its extension in the future, several questions need to be addressed in connection with the city's continued involvement in the survey and in historic preservation. o If the City supports the survey, should there be a blanket commitment expressed covering future phases, or shall we con- tinue to address each annual request piecemeal? t J ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER -- FORT WORTH, TEXAS cINFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6943 - D.2 _ �^pT(gFO June 5, 1984 yoE rOkl,0 To the Mayor and Members of the City Council rExA`'� Subject: HISTORIC SURVEY o If such a long-term cormitment is contemplated, should guide- lines be set ligiting and defining the extent of the City's role in seeing the survey through and in promoting historic preservation generally? In discussion of these questions, City staff reached a consensus that the historic survey is a worthwhile undertaking of considerable present and future value to the City, meriting a longterm ccardtment. However, staff is also of the opinion that three constraints should be placed upon the City's participation: 1. In view of the limited nature of available resources amid many competing priorities, it is necessary to limit the City's financial participation. Staff recommends the City's contri- bution for the survey be limited to $10,000 per SEA. 2. It is also advisable that City funding for historic preserva- tion be limited to those activities which City staff is not able to perform because of time constraints or lack of special expertise. The historic survey would fall into this category. 3. It is recommended that the City make a formal commitment to support future phases of the survey which involve work within the remaining SEAS. The Ccnyrmity Development Council (CDC) has considered HPCPC's requests for $44,000 to conduct the survey in the Polytechnic, Stop Six and Riverside SEAS and $12,500 for an implementation program in the Mid- South and Near Southeast SEAS. CDC concurred with the staff's reccrrr mendation not to fund the implementation program. CDC voted to recom- mend that the $44,000 for the survey in the next three SEAS be funded. Staff recommended that the City's CDBG contribution be limited to $10,000 for the survey in each SEA. Staff requests guidance from the City Council on the issue of future funding of the historical survey and other related activities. The City Council may consider one of the following options: Option I: a. Commit to fund a portion of the cost of the survey in each of the eight remaining SEAs. b. Limit the City's funding to $10,000 per SEA. c. Restrict the City's funding of historical preser- vation activities to those activities which the City staff is not able to conduct. Option II: a. Commit to fund a portion of the cost of the survey in each of the eight remaining SEAS. ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER — FORT WORTH, TEXAS INFORMAL REPORT TO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS No. 6943 - p, 3 �,,HT(A[O June S, 1984 �o�FOer�A To the Mayor and Members of the City Council u � i y rExA`' Subject: HISTORIC SURVEY b. Place no limit on the amount of the City's contri.- but ion for the survey in each SEA. c. Restrict the City's funding of historical preser- vation activities to those activities which the City staff is not able to conduct. option III. a. Consider each request from HPC.TC when it is sub- mitted, without any specific guidance at this time. * * * * * * * * * * If additional information is needed, it will be provided upon request. Robert L. Herchert City Manager RLH:jc ISSUED BY THE CITY MANAGER — FORT WORTH, TEXAS