National Park Service Baseline Questionnaire for CLGs

OMB Control Number 1024-0038

Expiration Date: XX/XX2014

USE THIS FORM: 1) IF YOU HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED A BASELINE FORM, 2) IF YOUR PRIOR BASELINE FORM NEEDS CORRECTIONS, OR 3) IF YOU DID NOT SUBMIT AN ANNUAL FORM FOR EACH OF THE YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR MOST RECENTLY SUBMITTED BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE.

National Park Service

Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs

Historic Preservation Grants Division

National Park Service Baseline Questionnaire for CLGs

Hard Copy Version

CLG NAME: ____________________ STATE: ____________________

CONTACT FOR THIS FORM: ____________________ TELEPHONE: ____________________

E-MAIL: ____________________

Please read Guidance for Completing the National Park Service Baseline Questionnaire for CLGs. This guidance defines terms, explains what to count, answers frequently-asked questions, etc.

1. CLG Inventory Program

What is the net cumulative number (or your best estimate of the number) of historic

properties in your CLG inventory as of September 30, 20XX? ____________

2. Local Register (i.e., Local Landmarks and Historic Districts) Program

1. As of September 30, 20XX, did your local government have a local register program

to create local landmarks/local historic districts (or a similar list of designations

created by local law)? Yes No 

b. If the answer to question 2.a. is “No,” please leave the blank empty and proceed

to question 3a. If the answer is “Yes,” what is the net cumulative number (or your

best estimate of the number) of historic properties (i.e., contributing properties) locally registered/designated as of September 30, 20XX? ____________

3. Local Tax Incentives Program

a. As of September 30, 20XX, did your local government have a local historic

preservation tax incentives program? Yes  No 

b. If the answer is “No,” please leave the blank empty and proceed to question 4a.

If the answer is “Yes,” what is the cumulative number (or your best estimate of

the number) of historic properties whose owners have taken advantage of those

incentives as of September 30, 20XX? ____________

(Continued on next page)

CLG NAME: _________________________ STATE: _________________________

(Baseline Questionnaire -- Continued from the previous page)

4. Local “Bricks and Mortar” Grants/Loans Program

1. As of September 30, 20XX, did your local government have a locally-funded,

historic preservation grants/loans program for rehabilitating/restoring historic

properties? Yes  No 

b. If the answer is “No,” please leave the blank empty and proceed to question 5a.

If the answer is “Yes,” what is the cumulative number (or your best estimate

of the number) of historic properties assisted by these grants or loans as of

September 30, 20XX? ____________

5. Local Design Review/Regulatory Program

1. As of September 30, 20XX, did your local government have a historic preservation

regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance requiring Commission/staff review of 1) local

government undertakings and/or 2) changes to or impacts on properties within a

historic district)? Yes  No 

b. If the answer is “No,” please leave the blank empty and proceed to question 6a.

If the answer is “Yes,” what is the cumulative number (or your best estimate

of the number) of historic properties that your local government has reviewed

under that process as of September 30, 20XX? ____________

6. Local Property Acquisition Program

1. As of September 30, 20XX, did your local government by purchase, donation,

condemnation, or other means help to acquire or acquire itself some degree of

title (e.g., fee simple interest or an easement) in historic properties? Yes  No 

b. If the answer is “No,” please leave the blank empty. You have finished the

questionnaire. If the answer is “Yes,” what is the cumulative number (or your

best estimate of the number) of historic properties with a property interest

acquisition assisted or carried out by your local government as of

September 30, 20XX? ____________

Notes/Comments:

Thank you for filling out this form. For maximum benefit, please send it, no later than January XX, 20XX, to:

Historic Preservation Grants Division Attention: John Renaud

Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs

National Park Service

1201 Eye Street NW (Organization Code 2256),

Washington, DC 20005.

Alternatively, feel free to send the report to John Renaud by fax at 202-371-1794 or at [email protected] by e-mail. If you want an electronic (Word) version of this format and accompanying guidance, please contact John by e-mail. There is also an on-line data entry option that is available for State CLG Program Coordinators. If you have any questions, please contact John by telephone at 202-354-2066, by fax, or by e-mail. Because of its long-term uses, it will never be too late to provide this report’s information.

Paperwork Reduction Act Statement. The National Park Service collects the information as part of the process for reviewing the procedures and programs of State, tribal, and local governments participating in the national historic preservation program and the Historic Preservation Fund grant program. The information will be used to evaluate those programs and procedures for consistency with the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and compliance with governmentwide grant requirements. Your response is required to obtain or retain a benefit. A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has approved this information collection and assigned control number 1024-0038.

NPS provides no assurance of confidentiality to respondents with the exception of some location information concerning some properties included in government historic preservation property inventories. Pursuant to Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, release of information is tightly controlled when such release could have the potential of damaging those qualities that make a property historic.

The public reporting burden for the collection of this information is estimated to average just over 35 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Chief, Historic Preservation Grants (Org. Code 2256), National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240.

OMB Control Number 1024-0038

Expiration Date: XX/XX/2014

National Park Service

Heritage Preservation Assistance Programs

Historic Preservation Grants Division

GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (CLGs)

1. What is the purpose of this report?

The data that you provide contribute to establishing and maintaining a baseline on those achievements of the national historic preservation partnership that CLGs accomplish. The data that we request all relate to key program elements for every CLG; i.e., the designation and protection of historic and prehistoric properties. Except for the CLG inventory (which is a Federal requirement), this report focuses on CLG accomplishments under local laws and programs. We have information from other sources concerning CLG contributions to historic preservation under Federal and State law and programs. This report's data provide critical information and documentation for the Administration’s and the Congress’ budgetary decision-making process under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). On a long-term basis, we plan to post on the web the results from the questionnaire and the annual report. For your use and perusal, we have posted on our web site (http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/clg/index.htm -- click on the “CLG Contacts and Statistics” button) results from FY 1997 through FY 2009. We will post this year's results as soon as possible. For data entered on-line, the posting should be almost instantaneous once the system is fully updated for the current year. In this way, we can share information about your program and achievements with your colleagues and with the public. We also expect that this information will be useful to you and to your colleagues in your State Historic Preservation Office. This information can be helpful in explaining to your local and State government decision-makers what you have accomplished for historic preservation during the year.

2. In each year’s set of two forms, why is the Baseline Questionnaire designed for the year prior to the year that the Annual Report covers (e.g., the FY 2010 Annual Report form is issued with the FY 2009 Baseline Questionnaire)?

By issuing the Annual Report and the Baseline Questionnaire for successive years, NPS has ensured that no State or CLG is required to report the same information twice; i.e., as a part of cumulative totals in the Baseline Questionnaire and by itself in the Annual Report. To obtain cumulative figures for the current year, all that an individual has to do is add the numbers from the most recently completed Baseline Questionnaire to the figures from each of the successive Annual Reports.

3. In the categories that you ask about, we have done nothing (or very little). Do you want us to send you a report with such low numbers? We only just became a CLG. Do you still want us to send you a Baseline Questionnaire?

Your report is valuable to us no matter how little you have to report. The Baseline Questionnaire only asks six questions involving numbers. Many CLGs respond to the questions by answering "0" or "1." We make no judgments of the quality of your historic preservation program based upon the numbers that you supply in your questionnaires. Don't worry about not having much to report for a given year or questionnaire. We think that it is a big deal for any local government to commit in writing to historic preservation by enforcing appropriate laws for the designation and protection of historic and prehistoric properties. We also recognize that the categories that we ask about do not cover all of the CLG’s activities.

Small CLGs with not much action in the categories that the National Park Service asks about are just as important as big CLGs with a lot of action. Each year, approximately 750 (out of more than 1,700) CLGs respond to the annual report. We then extrapolate the figures from the reporting CLGs to produce national estimates for all CLGs. Thus, the more CLGs that report, the more accurate the projections will be. Given that there are more small CLGs than big ones, it is important that as many small CLGs as possible report; otherwise our national projections will be too high. The same rationale applies to Baseline Questionnaires.

If your local government only recently became a CLG, and thus was not a CLG during the reporting period for the Baseline Questionnaire, you have options. Let’s take as an example a local government that became a CLG during FY 2010. You may wait a year to submit the FY 2010 Baseline Questionnaire during its normal schedule, you may submit a partial FY 2009 Baseline Questionnaire, or you may submit a FY 2010 Baseline Questionnaire ahead of schedule. Except for questions 1, 2, and 6, the Baseline Questionnaire asks for data on activities that occurred subsequent to a local government becoming a CLG (see the definition of “Cumulative” in guidance question 8 below). Thus, for most of the Baseline Questionnaire, there is nothing to report until a full year after the local government becomes a CLG (i.e., FY 2010 in our example). If despite this situation, you wish to submit a partial questionnaire (for FY 2009 in our example), please feel free to do so, but please understand that we will ask for a complete Baseline Questionnaire for the following year. If you choose to submit a complete Baseline Questionnaire ahead of schedule (i.e., for FY 2010 in our example), please change the dates on the form or otherwise make clear what you are doing. Otherwise, we might inappropriately include your (FY 2010) cumulative data with the Baseline Questionnaires for the wrong year (e.g., FY 2009).

4. Who can use the on-line data entry option for submitting this report?

Right now, other than National Park Service staff, only each State’s CLG Program Coordinator has the option of using the on-line data entry option for this reporting. We will be testing the system for the next few years. There is a data security issue at play. With NPS’ limited staffing available for this purpose, it is a lot easier to assign and administer passwords for 50 State CLG Coordinators than it would be to handle passwords for more than 1,700 CLGs. As the technology gets better and we gain more experience with the use of the system, we will reexamine the issue of on-line data entry.

5. The on-line form has a different appearance than the hard-copy form or the form used in past years. Why is that?

The differences are due to creating an on-line data entry option and how that system works. A hard copy or e-mail version of the form needs instructions on where to send the completed form; guidance that is clearly not needed for the on-line version. The fringe benefit of these revisions is that a CLG no longer needs to send in a new Baseline Questionnaire merely to report a change in its local government historic preservation-related program area offerings. To preserve the ability to add a narrative note, on the on-line version of the form we have added a narrative box that State CLG Coordinator or the NPS Program Coordinator can use.

6. Do we have to use the form that NPS has provided?

For the on-line version of the form, the answer is “Yes.” For the hard copy, down-loaded, or e-mailed version of the form, the answer is “No.” We care more about the content of the data that you provide than we care about the format in which you provide it or the medium by which you transmit it to us. As long as NPS can clearly tell which data relate to which question on the form and you provide information corresponding to every blank on the form, we are satisfied. E-mail messages, spread sheets, State report pages, etc. are all acceptable.

If you do choose to report to NPS using a different format, please be explicit about which parts of your format match with each of the NPS form’s questions. Also, please ensure that the guidance for completing the alternative form is consistent with the guidance in this document.

7. Will I have to fill out the Baseline Questionnaire every year?

No. Once you have provided us with the cumulative baseline figures, we will update the cumulative figures based on the information on each year’s annual report that you send us. After you complete the baseline questionnaire, you only will need to revise it 1) if you discover an error in a previous questionnaire/report or 2) if (subsequent to your last completed baseline questionnaire) you miss an annual report.

8. Are there any definitions or special instructions that I need to know to properly complete this form?

“Historic Property” means a property that, regardless of government action (i.e., whether it is listed or not), meets the eligibility criteria for listing in your local register (i.e., as a local landmark or local historic district) or for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. A historic property can include archeological as well as above-ground resources. Other properties are outside the purview of this questionnaire. In some communities, this term is equivalent to “historic resource,” “historic landmark,” or some other similar term.

“Designation” as used in this document means that the local government has officially identified the property as historic. Most CLGs have two levels of designation. That is, one level of designation is an evaluation of significance that carries no consequences. CLGs often refer to this as “the inventory” or “the survey.” The other level of designation carries consequences such as eligibility for benefits or being subject to design review for proposed changes. CLGs often refer to this level of designation as “the local register,” “the landmarks list,” “local historic districts,” etc.

“Protection” as used in this document means that because of government action, a historic property retains those elements that make the property historic. A good example in many communities is the authority to create historic districts.

“Program” means the authorization/authority (created by legislation or by administrative action) to conduct a series of activities. As long as the authorization/authority exists, the program exists; regardless of whether or not the authorization/authority has been exercised during the reporting period.

“Cumulative” means since your local government historic preservation program began. For the CLG inventory question (question 1), the local register question (question 2b), and the acquisition question (question 6b), this includes the time before your local government became a CLG. For the CLG inventory question and the local register question, this also means the net number of properties in the category as of September 30 of the baseline year. For example, the local register figure would be the sum of all contributing properties ever added to the register minus the sum of all properties ever removed from the register because of demolition, etc. The cumulative baseline is a snapshot of what is in your CLG inventory and local register as of September 30. Properties formerly but not currently on the CLG inventory or your local register are useful to know about for historical reasons but not as a historic preservation baseline. For the local tax incentives question (question 3b), the local grant or loan program question (question 4b), and the local regulatory laws question (question 5b), include only those properties protected since your government became a CLG. This baseline questionnaire and the accompanying annual report aim to gather data on CLG accomplishments. Prior successes, though important for historic preservation, are not a part of CLG accomplishments or workload.

For questions 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, and 6a, please fill in each blank with a “Yes” or a “No.” If the program existed at any time during the reporting period (i.e., the Federal fiscal year ending September 30^th), please answer “Yes,” even if the program no longer existed by September 30^th.

Sometimes, a “No” answer means that the CLG has never offered (since certification) the local historic preservation program type in question. In this kind of situation, for questions 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, and 6b, if the subject matter does not apply to your local government’s historic preservation programs (i.e., you answered “No” to the “did you have the program” question), leave the related “historic properties” question’s blank empty. For example, you should leave the blank empty for question 3b if your government did not have a local government preservation tax incentives program and thus you answered “No” for question 3a. Generally, for every local program for which you entered a “No” in question 2a, 3a, 4a, 5a, or 6a, we would expect to see an empty blank in question 2b, 3b, 4b, 5b, or 6b. Conversely, if you entered a “Yes” for any “did you have a program” question, we would expect to see a number in the corresponding “how many properties” question. For the “how many properties” questions, do not use a check, an “X”, or words such as “same as last year,” “several,” or “unknown.”

If, since your local government’s certification, it once offered a program but no longer does so and the information on the cumulative number of historic properties protected by that program is readily available, then, 1) answer “No” to the “do you offer the program” question (e.g., question 3a), 2) provide a number in the “how many properties protected” question blank (e.g., question 3b), and 3) enter a note in the “Comments/Notes” box explaining the situation (e.g., “the Tax Abatement ordinance sunset in 2006”).

If you wish to, please feel free to use the “Comments/Notes” section to explain your answers, paradoxes, or anomalies. For example, it would be very unusual for a CLG to have a design review program without also having a local register (local landmark/local historic district) program. Similarly, it would be very unusual for a CLG’s accomplishments to merit identical, large numbers as the answer for multiple questions. Finally, if a very large number is the answer for a question, it would be a good idea to explain the accomplishment in the “Comments/Notes” section. Thus, NPS will feel confident that the large number is not a typo and, more importantly, such information might merit explicit mention in a State/NPS narrative report. Also feel free to use the “Comments/Notes” section to identify noteworthy accomplishments even if they are not large.

From a cumulative baseline perspective, it is impossible to have more historic properties locally registered than are present on the CLG inventory. There are other relationships between questions. For example, generally speaking, it would not make sense to show a “0” for the CLG inventory and a number larger than “0” for any of the “protection” questions.

9. How do I report on historic properties whose protection is not carried out or monitored by my office?

You don’t have to. For the purposes of this questionnaire, report only on those historic properties whose designation or protection has involved your local government’s historic preservation office/commission in some way; e.g., through review, approval, project administration, covenant or easement oversight, etc. or for which your office has the data.

10. How should I count historic districts?

Do not count a district as a single property. Count the total number of buildings, structures, sites, or objects that contribute to the significance of the district. If you do not know the number of contributing properties, please provide your best estimate of the number.

11. We don’t use the same terminology that appears on the form and in this guidance. Do we have to change how we refer to things?

That decision is between you and your State Historic Preservation Office. A national report needs to use national terms that follow Federal statutes and policy. For your own purposes, you should use terms that make sense to you. All we ask is that you know how your terms relate to the national terms because we won’t understand the relationship. Therefore, for this questionnaire please make the conversion from your terminology to the national terminology.

12. What is the difference between a “CLG inventory” and a “local register”?

As a CLG, under Federal law, you already have a CLG inventory, but you might not have a local register. You have a “local register” only if your State’s CLG procedures require it and/or your local government has created a registration/designation process under local law. Your community may have given your local register some other name that means a list of locally registered historic properties. Another way of putting it is that your “local register” is the sum of all contributing properties in all of your local landmarks and in all of your local historic districts. In most situations, you can think of historic properties that are listed on your local register as a subset of the historic properties that are included in your CLG inventory. Because of the consequences under local law that usually attend being added to the local register, normally a CLG will have more historic properties in its CLG inventory than it has on its local register. The annual additions to each will vary.

If your CLG has a design review program, it most likely also has a “local register” program, even if no local designation has taken place for a while.

A CLG inventory encompasses everything that you know about the historic resources within the jurisdiction of the local government regardless of how you got the information. It doesn’t matter, for example, if the inventory information was gathered as a part of a State or federally-funded survey. For question 1 on the form, we are interested in the number of CLG inventory properties that are historic properties. Under Federal law, there are no legal consequences when you add property to your CLG inventory. Your local register (or whatever name you give it), on the other hand, usually has consequences under local law. In fact, if your State’s CLG procedures require a local registration/designation ordinance, there must be local consequences under local law for properties newly added to the local register. Usually, when a historic property is added to a local register, the property becomes subject to some kind of review process and/or becomes eligible for some kind of local benefits. In other words, every historic property that is on the local register is also on the CLG inventory, but not every historic property on the CLG inventory is on the local register.

13. We don’t have anything called a “local inventory” or a “local register,” but we do have other lists and overlay zones that identify historic properties. Should I count those?

Yes, as long as you can count the number of historic properties that those lists or overlays include. Don’t worry about the titles given to the information that you have about historic properties. Use the guidance in the answer to question 12 above, to help you determine where in the report to include the number of historic properties. In some cases, you should report the number in both the blanks for question 1 and question 2b on the form and in some cases just in the blank for question 1 about CLG inventories.

14. From time to time, due to demolition, we have had to remove some properties from both our CLG inventory and our local register. Do you want us to adjust our cumulative figures for the CLG inventory and local register to reflect those losses?

Yes, if you have that information readily available. The cumulative baseline is a snapshot of what is in your CLG inventory and local register as of September 30. Properties formerly but not currently on the CLG inventory or your local register are useful to know about for historical reasons but not as a historic preservation baseline.

15. Why do you have separate questions on “designated” and “protected” historic properties throughout this questionnaire? Why not just ask for the number of properties in our CLG inventory? In that way, with one question, you could account for all historic properties that have been designated and protected. All of our locally “listed” properties are included on our CLG inventory. All of our properties that have been “protected” in one way or another are also “designated” properties.

Reporting separately on “designated” historic properties and “protected” properties better represents the historic preservation work that you do. Each time the local government designates a property or (for example) provides financial assistance to a property, that action adds to the protection inherent in being part of your CLG inventory. We wish to give you full credit.

Also, this is the kind of information that citizens in your CLG and your colleagues in other CLGs or local governments want to know. Folks living in a CLG or thinking about moving there may want to know what kinds of historic preservation opportunities exist. Communities that are considering whether to create historic preservation programs want to know who else has the programs so that wheels don’t have to be re-invented. We will make this information available on the Web and upon request. For your use and perusal, we have posted on our web site (http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/clg/index.htm) results from FY 1997 through FY 2009. We will post this year's results as soon as possible. For data entered on-line, the posting should be instantaneous. We are seeking this information because it is not available anywhere else on a national basis.

16. Some historic properties are protected more than once (e.g., tax benefits achieved and permits reviewed). Should I count a property only once or each time that it is reviewed, receives a grant, etc.?

Count a property each time that it is reviewed, receives a grant, etc. This approach gives you credit for all the protection that you give to a historic property, not just the initial instance. Note that for this reporting you do not have to know or provide a list of what happened to each historic property. What you need to know for this questionnaire are total figures for each category; i.e., the total number of properties designated, receiving tax benefits, etc.

17. For some of our local programs, the main purpose is not historic preservation, but the programs protect historic properties as an incidental consequence. Housing programs are a good example. Should I count those?

Yes. As long as historic properties are protected and your office is involved or has the data, count those programs and the properties that they protect.

18. Our historic preservation financial assistance programs (grants, loans, etc.) are not funded every year. Should I report that we have the program or not?

Answer “Yes” to question 4a, if the ordinance authorizing the financial assistance was still in effect during some portion of the baseline year. If the authorizing ordinance was no longer in effect, but the protective agreements resulting from the financial assistance were still in effect after certification as a CLG, answer “No,” but include those properties in answering question 4b.

If no authorizing ordinance was involved in the financial assistance program, answer “Yes” to question 4a if the financial assistance program was either in effect during the baseline year or any protective agreements resulting from the program were still in effect during the baseline year. If no authorizing ordinance was involved in the financial assistance program, answer “No” to question 4a but enter property numbers for question 4b in the following circumstances. Follow this approach if the financial assistance program was not in effect for the baseline year but either was in effect since certification as a CLG or any protective agreements resulting from the program were still in effect after certification.

Please use the Comments/Notes section to explain any situation that merits entering “No” for question 4a and a number for question 4b.

For the purposes of the local historic preservation grants/loans blank, count a historic property if rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, etc. work (a.k.a. “bricks and mortar”) is involved. Report elsewhere (e.g., under Acquisition) those properties that your local grants or loans assisted in other ways (e.g., to help a nonprofit organization purchase a preservation easement).

19. We administer some grants from the State and the staff of the State Historic Preservation Office helps us with some of our locally-funded programs. How should I treat these situations in responding to question 4 on grants and loans?

Count only properties protected through grants supported by funds coming from local government sources. Do not count: 1) grants from Federal (or matching) funds administered by State or local agencies or 2) State government grants. For example, don’t count historic properties that you protect through Historic Preservation Fund CLG subgrants. These are counted elsewhere on State or Federal Government forms. However, if the funds are local, count the benefiting properties in this questionnaire even if you receive technical assistance from other sources.

20. Many of the historic preservation accomplishments in our community are achieved through the financial support of the private sector or through non-profit organizations such as the National Trust’s Main Street program. Should we include these achievements in our reporting on the number of historic properties that we protect through grants or loans?

No. Although we recognize that a large percentage of current historic preservation would not take place without the financial support of non-profit organizations and the private sector, this questionnaire is focusing on the achievements of local government historic preservation programs.

21. What should I count in the “Design Review/Local Regulatory Program” blank for question 5b? What does “review and compliance” mean?

For the purposes of the “Design Review/Local Regulatory Program” blanks, include only those activities for which local laws have provided protection in a regulatory setting; e.g., through a review, permitting, or certificate of appropriateness process. This type of program is often referred to as "review and compliance." “Review and compliance” refers to the review of permits, plans, applications, etc. to help ensure compliance with local regulatory laws related to the protection of historic properties. In many communities, there is a review of proposed changes to locally-designated landmarks and properties within locally-designated historic districts. In some communities, the CLG Commission also reviews local government undertakings that might have an effect on historic properties. This is sometimes called a “local Section 106” after the parallel provision (for Federal agency undertakings) in the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended.

Do not count (in this blank) historic properties that local laws have protected through financial incentives (e.g., tax laws) or financial assistance (e.g., bricks and mortar grant programs). Report that information elsewhere on the form.

22. Sometimes we approve requests for demolition or make other decisions that do not result in the protection of properties. These reviews are a legitimate part of our workload. Should we count these for question 5b?

No. If it is easy for you to separate out those reviews/recommendations that are likely to result in a historic property's destruction or loss of significance, don't include them in this baseline questionnaire. We are trying to get an estimate of the number of historic property reviews where preservation is a likely result. If it is difficult to separate your regulatory reviews by result, don't worry -- just give us your total figures.

23. What does “Acquisition” include?

“Acquisition” refers to any legally-binding, title-related interest in the historic property that the local government has obtained (or has helped others to obtain) thereby making the property subject to your local historic preservation laws and policies. The interest in the property’s title could be anything ranging from fee simple absolute (i.e., complete title) to an easement (e.g., façade or preservation easements). The method of acquisition is not important here. Include in the count any historic property that comes into local government ownership.

24. Where do I report on publications, brochures, public education, site interpretation, historic plaques and markers, and other historic preservation accomplishments that we have achieved?

These are not part of this questionnaire. While important, for purposes of this report we have limited the questions to products that more directly affect specific historic properties. This reduces the burden in gathering and reporting this data. However, you may include your other accomplishments as part of your periodic reporting to your State Historic Preservation Office (in some States this is required) or, if you wish, directly to us by use of the Comments/Notes section.

25. The questions that you ask relate primarily to CLG workload. Wouldn't it be better to ask how many of our historic properties are still in good condition? In the final analysis, preserving our irreplaceable resources is the true test of our success as historic preservationists.

If funding and staffing were no object, we would want both workload information and data on the condition of historic resources. One of the aims of this questionnaire is to make use of readily available information rather than to create a new workload in gathering and tracking data. Especially for larger CLGs, data on the condition of historic and prehistoric properties often are not readily available. Another purpose of this questionnaire is to gauge the contribution that CLGs make to historic preservation. In assessing a property's condition, without asking the property owner it is difficult to distinguish which parts (if any) of a property's good condition are due to local, State, and/or Federal historic preservation program efforts. CLG workload data on the other hand usually is readily available, readily assignable to CLG efforts, and can be used to draw reasonable inferences about the condition of properties.

26. What should I do if my office missed a report or if, in retrospect, we discover that we made a mistake in an earlier report?

Because of the long-term uses for this information, it will never be too late to provide this questionnaire’s information. We hope that you take advantage of opportunities to update the information that we have about your program. You have a choice as to how to accomplish this. You may either provide/correct the earlier report or you may prepare a new cumulative baseline report for a more recent year. For example, if your local government was a CLG during FY 1998 but your office has not responded to any of the subsequent requests for information, you would have the following options. Your first option is to prepare and send us a FY 1997 cumulative baseline response plus an annual report for FY 1998, FY 1999, FY 2000, FY 2001, FY 2002, FY 2003, FY 2004, FY 2005, FY 2006, FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009, and FY 2010. You can use this year’s forms by changing the dates. Your second option is to provide questionnaire answers and baseline data through FY 2009 plus a FY 2010 annual report. We have prepared the baseline form for data cumulative through FY 2009. Other combinations of baseline questionnaires and annual reports are also possible.

When using the Baseline Questionnaire to update previous submittals, you only need to fill out those questions that you are updating. We will assume that your answers to the other questions are unchanged.