National Park Service Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire

OMB Control Number 1024-0038
Expiration Date: Ootober 31,2017

USE THIS

FORM:

1) IF YOU

HAVE NOT PREVIOUSLY COMPLETED A BASELINE FORM' 2) IF YOUR

PRIOR BASELINE FORM NEEDS CORRECTIONS, OR 3) rF YOU DID NOT SUBMIT AN ANNUAL FORM FOR
EACH OF THE YEARS SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR MOST RECENTLY SUBMITTED CUMULATIVE BASELINE

QUESTIONNAIRE.

lll:iJ;:'.

*,

r,"u..
He rita g e *X:'."Jiï""f
State, Tribal, and Local Plans and Grants Division

National Park Service Multi-Year Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire for CLGs
LOCAL GOVERNMENT NAME:
PERSON \ryHO CAN ANS\ilER QUESTIONS
ABOUT RESPONSES TO THIS THIS FORM:BASELINE FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR:
Please read Guidance

20

STATE:
TELEPHONE:

E,MAIL:

for Completing the National Park Service Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire for

CLGs. This guidance defines termso explains what to count, answers frequently-asked questions, etc.; e.8., a) the
definition of "cumulative" for each question below and b), the "Baseline Federal Fiscal Year" usually is the year
before the most recently completed Federal Fiscal Year

1.

CLG Inventorv Program
What is the net multi:year cumulative number (or your best estimate of the number) of
historic properties in your CLG inventory as of September 30tl' of the Baseline Year?

2.

Local Landmarks and/or Historic Districts (a.k.ar. Local Resisted Prosram

a. During

the Baseline Year, did your local government have the legal authority to
create/amend local landmarks/local historic districts (or a similar list of
designations created by local law)?

b.

Yes[ No ¡

If the answer to question 2a is "No,o' please leave question 2b's blank empty and
proceed to question 3a. If the answer is "Yes," what is the net multi-year eumulative
number (or your best estimate of the number) of historic properties.(i.e., contributing
properties) in local historic districts/landmarks as of September 30th of the
Baseline Year?

3.

Local Tax Incentives Prosram

a.
b.

During the Baseline Year, did your local community have a tax incentives
program/process under local law that could be used to benefit (directly or indirectly)
historic properties?

If the answer to question 3a is o'Noo?' please leave question 3bos blank empty and
proceed to question 4a. If the answer is "Yes," what is the multi-year cumulative
number (or your best estimate of the number) of historic properties that the local
government assisted through those incentives as of September 30'n of the
Baseline Year?

(Continued on next page)

YesE No n

1F

STATE:
(Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire -- Continued from the previous page)

LOCALGOVERNMENT NAME:

4,

Local'rBricks and Mortar" Grants/Loans Prosram

a.
b.

During the Baseline Year, did your community have a local government-funded
grantJloans program that couid be used for rehabilitating/restoring/preserving
historic properties?

Yesú No E

ooNo," please leave question 4b's blank empty and
If the answer to question 4a is
proceed to question 5a. If the answer is'oYes," what is the multi-year cumulative

number 1or your best estimate of.the number) of historic properties assisted by these
Grants/loans as of September 30tl' of the Baseline Year?

5.

Local Desisn RevieøResulatorY Comnliance Prosram

a.

b.

During the Baseline Year, did your local government have a historic preservation
regulatory law(s) (e.g., an ordinance requiring Commissior/staff review of 1) local
government urìiuiii"i and/or 2) changes to or impacts on properties within a local
historic district)?

YesE No E

ooNo,o'
please leave question 5b's blank empty and
If the answer to question 5a is
proceed to question 6a. If the answer is 'oYes," what is the multi-year cumulative

number (or your best estimate of the number)'of historic properties that y_our local
gou"¡¡..nihas reviewed under that process as of September 30th of the Baseline Year?

6.

Local Propertv Acquisition Prosram

a.

b.

During the Baseline Year, aside from eminent domain, did your local government
have a program that could be used to acquire (and/or help others to acquire) historic
properties in whole or in part through purchase, donation, or other means?

YesE No n

6b's blank empty'
If the answer to question 6a is 'oNo," please leave question
ooYes," what is the multi-year
you have finisheã the questionnaire. If the answer is
cumulative number (or your best estimate of the number) of historic properties
that your local government acquired and/or helped other to acquire aÀ of September
of the Baseline Year?

30th

Notes/Comments:

Thank you for filling out this form. For maximum benefit, please send it, no later

than

. to

state, Tribal, and Local Plans & Grants Division Attention: John Renaud
Preservation Assistance Programs
National Park Service
l20l Eye Street NW (OrganizationCode2256)

Washington, DC 20005.
by e-mail' If
Alternatively, feel free to send the report to John Renaud by fax at 202-371-1794 or at John [email protected]
please
John by e'
contact
guidance,
accompanying
format
and
you want an électronic (word) o, oth., available version oithis
forms
Google
and
a
Coordinators
Program
State
CLG
for
mail. There is also an oi-line'data entry option that is available
by fax, or by eoption that is available to you. If you havé any questions, please contact John by telephone at 202-354'2066,
collection
information
For
information'
provide
report's
this
laie
to
be
too
neiei
it
will
mail. Because of its long-ierm usås,
questionnaire'
the
guidance
for
completing
burden language, see the

OMB Control Number 1024-0038
Expiration Date: Ootober 3 l, 20 17
H e ri ta

State,

ge'x':Jåi Jf llÌ:iJi::

Pro gra ms

Tribal, and Local Plans & Grants Division

GUIDANCE FOR COMPLETING
TIIE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CUMULATIVE BASELINE QUESTIONNAIRE
FOR CERTIFIED LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (CLGs)

I

What is the purnose of this questionnaire?
The data that you provide contribute to establishing and maintaining a multi-year cumulative baseline on
those achieve.enis of the national historic preservation partnership that CLGs accomplish. The data that we
request all relate to key program elements fôr every CLG; i.e., the designation and protection of historic and
préhistoric properties. Éxcept for the CLG inventory (which is a Federal requirement), this questionnaire
accomplishments under local laws and programs. We have information from other sources
io"ur., on
concerning CLG contributions to historic preservation under Federal and State law and programs. The
..rpon.rrio this questionnaire provide critical information and documentation for the Administration's and
the Congress' budgetary decisiõn-making process. For your use and perusal, we will post on the web the
results from the quistionnaire and the annual report (http://www.nps.gov/history/clg -- click on the 'oFind a
CLG (CLG Dataùase)" button on the right hand column). For data entered on-line, the posting should be
almost instantaneous once the system is fully updated for the curent 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 informatión wil'l 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 your
program has accomplished for historic preservation over the years. We are seeking this information because

blc

it is not available anywhere else on a national basis.
2.

Will I

have to

fÏll out the Cumulativé Baseline Ouestionnaire everv vear?

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 eror in a previous questionnaite/teport,2)
ii(subsequent io youriast completed Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire) you miss an annual report, or 3)
changes in your historic preservation program authorities mean that an answer needs revision.

No. Once you have provided

if

3.

In the catesories that vou ask about (even over multinle vears). we have done nothins (or verv littlel.
Do vou want us to send I'ou a response to the Baseline Ouestionnaire with such low numbers?
yes. Your

response to the multi-year cumulative Baseline Questionnaire is valuable to us no matter how
little you haveìo report. The muiti-year cumulative Baseline Questionnaire only asks six questions seeking
,rurb"rr. Many CLGs respond to the questions by answering "0" or "1" because 1) one of their programs is

just getting stañed, 2) theyhad other historic preservation priorities over the years, 3) the level of public
judgements of the
äemãnd wãs low for ihe prog.u-, or 4) because of a myriad of other reasons. We make no
your
multi-year
you
in
supply
that
numbers
upon
the
quality of your historic piesãrvation program based
We
given
category.
for
a
report
to
much
cumuiative Baseline euestionnaire. Don't worry about not having
enforcing
preservation
by
think that it is a big deàl for any local government to commit in writing to historic
appropriate laws fõr the designation and protection of historic and prehistoric properties. We recognize that
thã ca-tegories that we ask about do not cover all of the CLG's activities.
Finally, it is useful to know which kinds of historic preservation programs your community has the legal
authoiity to carry out. This helps NPS to describe the national CLG program as a whole

,l

'1¡

2
4.

We onlv iust became a

CLG. Do vou still want

If your local government only recently became

us to send vou a Baseline Ouestionnaire?

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 2014. You may wait a year to
submit the Fy 2014 Baseline Questionnaire during ïts normal schedule, you may submit a partial FY 2013 Baseline euestionnaire, or you may submit aFY 2014 Baseline Questionnaire ahead of schedule. Except for
questions 1,2, and6, the multi-year cumulative Baseline Questionnaire asks for data on activities that
occuned subsequent to a local government becoming a CLG (see the definition of 'oCumulative" in guidance
question 10 belôw). 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 2014 inour example). If despite this situation, you wish
to submit u puttiul questionnaire (for FY 2013 in our example), please feel free to do so, but please
understand ihut *" 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 2014 in our example), please
change the "Baseline Year" dates on the form or otherwise make clear what you are doing. Otherwise, we
mighT inappropriately include your (FY 2014) cumulative data with the Baseline Questionnaires for the
wrong year (e.g., FY 2013).

In each vear's set of two forms. whv is the Baseline OuestioJrnaire desisned for the vear prior to the
vear that the Annual Renort covers (e.s.. the FY 2014 Annúal Renort form was issued with the FY
2013 Baseline Ouestionnaire)?

By issuing the Annual Report and the Baseline Questionnaire for successive yearso NPS has ensured that no
Siate or Ct C is required tò report the same information twice; i.e., as a part of multi-year cumulative totals in
the Baseline Questionnaire anã by itself in the Annual Report. To obtain multi-year cumulative figures as of
the current year, all that an individual has to do is add the numbers from the most recently-completed
Baseline Questionnaire to the fîgures from each of the successive Annual Reports.
6

who can use the on-line data entrv ontion for submittins 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 reexamine this policy within the next few
years. Thrrr is a data security issue at play. With NPS' limited staffing available for this purpose, it is a lot
êasier to assign and administer passwords for 50 State CLG Coordinators than it would be to handle
passwords foi more than 1,900 CLGs. As the technology gets better and we gain more experience withthe
use of the system, we will reexamine the issue of on-line data entry. Any State CLG Coordinator or official
CLG contact can use the Google forms option because that information does not go automatically into our
secure database.

7

The on-line form has a different anpearance than the hard-copv form which looks different than the
Gooele Forms version. Whv 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 or the Google forms version. The fringe benefit of these revisions is that a
CLG no longer needs to send in a ne\il Cumulative 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 all versions of the form we have included a notes/comments box.

For similar structural reasons, the Google forms version looks different than the other versions.

3

8.

Do we have to use the form that NPS has provided?
For the on-line version and the Google forms 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.'o We care more about the content of the
you
data that you provide than we care about the format in which you provide it or the. medium by which
transmit it to ur. As long as NPS can clearly tell which data relate to which question on the form and you
provide information con:esponding to every blank on the form, we are satisfied. E-mail messages' spread
sheets, State report pages, etc. are all acceptable.
be explicit about which parts of your
foimat (e.g., in your State-required report) match with each of the NPS form's questions. Also, please ensure

If you do choose to report to NPS using a different format, please

that the griidance for completing the alternative form is consistent with the guidance in this document.
9

What definitions or snecial instructions do I need to know to nroperlv comDlete this questionnaire?
..Baseline

year"

multiple years contributing to
the cumulative information reported in the Baseline Questionnaire. For example, the FY 2013 Baseline
ooBaseline
(or as of) September 30,2014.
Questionnaire seeks multi-year cumulative information through
Yeay''usually refers to the fiscal year immediately before to the most recently-completed fiscal year. For
example, in i4arch 2015, the Baseline Year normally would be Federal FY 2013 because FY 2013 was the
year before the most recently-completed fiscal year (FY 2014) which ended on Septembet 30,2014.
as used in this document means the last year inclusive of the

,,Baseline year" can also refer to any year for which the respondent chooses to provide multi-year cumulative
data to NpS. This usually happens when there are missing Annual Reports or effors have been discovered in
prior Baseline Questionnaires or Annual Reports.

..Cumulative" means, depending upon the question either a) since your local government historic
preservation program began or b) since the community became a CLG. For the CLG inventory question
(question 1), iheìocal lañdmarks/historic districts question (question 2b), and the acquisition question
a CLG. For the CLG
iquestion 66¡, "cumulative" includes the time before your local government became
means
the net multi-year
question,
also
this
districts
landmarks/historic
local
question
the
and
ùïentory
year.
For example, the
baseline
of
the
30
September
as
of
category
properties
in
the
cumulative number of
properties
ever
added to your
of
all
contributing
sum
local landmarks/historii districts figure would be the
from the list of
removed
properties
ever
community's list of landmarks/histôric districts minus the sum of all
is
landmarkVhistoric districts because of demolition, etc. The multi-year cumulative baseline a snapshot of
what is in your CLG inventory and your community's list of local landmarks/historic districts as of
Septembei 30. Properties formerly but not currently on the CLG inventory or your list of local
landmarks/historic àistricts 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 grants/loans program question (question 4b), and
the local design review/reguiatory compliance 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.

,,I)esignation" 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
otier level of designation caries consequences such as eligibility for benefits or some level of
protection/restriction such as being subject to design review for proposed changes. CLGs often refer to this
iecond level of designation as "the local register,"'othe landmarks list," "local historic districts," etc.

4

The..Federal Fiscal year" extends from October l't of one year through September 30ü'of the following
year. For example, FY 2014 lasted from October 7,2013,through September 30,2014'
.,Historic property" means a property that, regardless of government action (i.e., whether it is listed or not),
meets the etigibitity criteria l)-foicreàting a local landmark and/or local historic district (a.k.a., "Local
Register") oíz¡ roí listing in ihe NationafRegister of Historic Places. A historic property can include
arc-heological ás well ur u=bou"-ground resources. Other properties are outside the purview of this
questioniaire. In some ro1¡-uniti.s, this term is equivalent to "historic resource," "historic landmark," or
some other similar term.
Notes, paradoxes, and Anomalies. If you wish to, please feel free to use the "Notes/Commentso' section to
explain your answers, paradoxes, or anomalies. For example, it would be very unusual for a CLG to have a
grants/loans program
Oesign rãview program or a local tax incentives program ol a "bricks and mortar" local
withãut also having the legal authority to create/amend a local landmark/local historic district. In most
communities, a locãl desifnation is a prerequisite for a historic property to be eligible for/subject to the other
local programs.

Similarly, it would be very unusual for a CLG's accomplishments to produce identical, large numbers as the
answer for multiple questions. Finally, if a very large number is the answer to a question, it would be a good
idea to explain the accomplishment in the "Notes/Comments" section. Thus, NPS will feel confident that the
large num-ber is not a typó and, more importantly, such information might merit explicit mention in a
State¡{pS narrative t"põrt. Also, feel frèe to use the "Notes/Comments" section to identify noteworthy
accomplishments even if they are not large.
From a multi-year 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.
Thlere are other relãtionships between questions. For example, reporting azeto ("0") for the CLG inventory
and a number larger than iero ("0") for any of the 'oprotection" questions generally would not make sense.
o'how many properties" questions, do not use a check, ar "X", or
Number Blanks - Numbers Onty. For the
oosame
as last yearl"'several," or'ounknown." If your local government offered the program
words such as
phur" insert "0'o if the subject matter applies, but there was no activity during the
period,
during the reporting
last cõmplete¿ fe¿érat fiscaf year. If you are not sure what the corect ânswer is, please make your best

estimate.

If, since your local government's certification, iqonce 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'oNo" to the'odo 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
,.Notes/Comr*ntr'i bo* explaining the situation (e.g., "the Tax Abatement ordinance sunset in 2006").
66Yes" and
'rNo" Boxes. Sometimes in the
Number Blanks - When to Complete/Relationship to
Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire, 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
Zb,3b, 4b, ib,and 6b, if the subject matter does not apply to your local government's historic preservation
ooNo"
to the "did you have the program" question),
programs/legal authoritiesþrocesses (i.e., you answered
i.u* ttrr related "historic properties" question's blank empty. For example, you should leave the blank
empty for question 3b if yõur governmênt did not have a local government tax incentives program that could
program
Ueneirt histãric propertiei and thus you answered "No" to question 3a. Generally, for every local
question to whi¿h you entered a "No" in question 2a,3a,4a, 5a, or 6a, we would expect to see an empty
blank in question ib,3b,4b, 5b, or 6b. Conversely, if you entered a "Yes" for any "did you have a program"
question,ïe would expect to see a number in the corresponding "how many properties" question.

-,11

't

5

'oProgram" means the legal authorization/authority (created by legislation or by administrative action) to
condùct a series of activities. As long as the authorizationlauthority exists, the program exists regardless of
whether or not the authorization/authority has been exercised during the baseline year. A good example in
many communities is the authority to create/amend historic districts. Often, the legal authority to
create/amend local historic districts exists but has not been used in a number of years.

this document means that because of government action, a historic property retains
those elements that make the property historic.

"Protection"

as used in

i,Yes, and ,,Nott Boxes. For question s 2a,3a, 4a,5a, and îa,please mark or circle the "Yes" or "No" box as
appropriate. If the program existed at any time during the reporting period, please answer "Yes," even if the
piåg.å- no longer èxisled by Seþtember 30th. If you are not sure what to answer, please consult your State
CLG Coordinator.

10. We dontt use the same terminolosv that annears on the form and in this suidance. Do we have to
chanse how we refer to thinss?
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 usè 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.

11.

The fiscal vear in mv State and communitv does not match the Federal Fiscal Year. What should

I do

in prenarins this questionnaire?
Our first preference is that you convert your frscal year's results to the Federal fiscal year. This is because we
are prepaiing information for Federal decision makers about accomplishments that coincide with the Federal
frscàl yèar. ln the Baseline Questionnaire context because we are dealing with multi-year cumulative figures,
converting from your fiscal year to the Federal fiscal year probably means just adding three months of data to
the multi-year cumulative results as of the end of your last completed fiscal year. For example, if your Fiscal
Year FY 2013 ended on June 30,2014,and you are reporting on a program that has been in existence for five
years, your data for the Federal FY 2013 Baseline Questionnaire would be the annual totals for your fiscal
years FY 2009, FY 2010, FY 201 1, FY 2012, and FY 2013 plus the first three months of your FY 2014.
please pro-rate/estimate your fiscal year's results for
\4/as accomplished over the years adjusted to the
of
what
year.
An
estimate
conversion to the Federal fiscal
Federal fiscal year structure is better than no response at all.

If our first preference is not readily achievable for you,

Ifneither our first not our second preferences are readily achievable for you, provide the results in accordance
with your fiscal year. We would rather have data that is partially from the wrong fiscal year than have no
response at all.

12.

How do I report on historic nronerties whose nrotection is not carried out or monitored by mv
office/the Commission?
You don't have to. For the purposes of this inquiry, 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.

13.

66local resister." but we do have other lists and
We don't have anvthins called a r'local inventorv" or a
overlay zones that identifr historic nronerties. Should I count those? Should I Ínclude local

sovernment-owned pronerties?

1l

6

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 15 (below), to help you determine where in the report to include the number of historic
properties. In Áome cases, you should report the number in both the blanks for question I and question 2b
and in some cases just in the blank for question I about CLG inventories.

With regard to local government-owned properties, you should count them in the answer to question 2b only
if they aìe subject to local government historic preservation laws/policies. For the purposes of this
questionnaireo ownership of the property does not matter.
14.

Is there a relationship between the local landmarks/local historic districts questions and the other
ouestions in this ouestionnaire?

Yes. If your CLG has a design review program, a local tax incentives program, and/or a local "bricks and
mortar" grants/loans program, it most likely also has the legal authority to create/modify local historic
districts/landmarks, even if no local designation has taken place for a while. This relationship is due to the
fact that most communities have a mechanism through which historic properties are made eligible for local
benefits and/or made subject to local restrictions.

In most situations, you can think of historic properties that are on your list of local landmarks/historic
districts as a subset of the historic properties that are included in your CLG inventory. Because of the
consequences under local law that often attend being added to a list of local landmarks/historic districts, in
the multi-yearo cumulative baseline context, a CLG will always have at least as many historic properties in its
CLG inventory than it has on its list of local landmarks/historic districts. The annual additions to each will
vary.
15.

What is the difference between a 66CLG inventorv" and a list of local landmarks/historic districts

W

As a CLG, under Federal law, you already have a CLG inventory, but you might not have locally-created
local landmarks/historic districts which we will refer to collectively as 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 conhibuting 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 inveritory.

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 I 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 wordso 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.

If your local government has the legal authority to createlamend local landmarks/local historic districts,
ooYes"
to question 2a even if that authorþ wasn't exercised during the baseline year.
answer

-,

1¡

7

16.

How should I count local 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 significañce òf itt" distrirt. If you do not know the number of contributing properties,
please provide your best estimate of the number. NPS takes this position because historic preservation
ãecisions tend io affect individual properties within a dishict rather than the district as a whole'

17.

From time to t¡me. due tq demolition (or other reasonsì. we have had to remove some DroDerties from
our list of local landmarks/historic districts la.k.a. "local resister"). Do vou
ffir
cumulative lisures for the CLG inventorv and local resister to reflect thgse
m
Iosses?

yes, if you have that information readily available. The multi-year cumulative baseline is a snapshot of what
is in your CLG inventory and local regiiter as of September 30. Properties formerly but not cuffently on the
CLG inventory or your iocal register are useful to know about for historical reasons but not as a historic
preservation bãseline. In such ã situation, it would also be helpful to provide updated multiyear cumulative
Laseline figures in the following year. For example, the impact of properties demolished during FY 2014
would be rãflected in adjusted multlyear cumulative baseline flgures in the FY 2014 cumulative Baseline
Questionnaire.

lB.

For some of our local prosrams. the main puroose is not historic preservation. but the DroÊrams
p,ro,tect hisúoric propeities as an incidental consequence. Housing nrosrams are a good examDle.
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.

19.

Some historic properties are nrotected more than once (e.s.. tax benefÏts achieved and nermits
¿ ñronertv onlv once or each time that it is reviewed. receives a grant. etc.?

ffint

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

20,

There are some State laws that require local sovernment lesislative action le.s.. Dassin9 an ordinancel
fou. the law to so into efiôct. This sometimes occurs with reeard to Tax Incentives and sometimes with
resard oúher proerams. Would this situation count as a local nrosram for the purnoses of this
questionnaire?
It depends. See the analysis below.
The Situation. There is a State law that provides direct and/or indirect protection to historic properties. The
State taw a) rewards historic property owners for the historic significance of their properties, b) help_s them to
correct pto|þ.r threateningihe properties' significance, and/or c) requires the owners to maintain the
properties for a specified period of time. The State law requires some degree of local government
also require lauthorize some level of
þariicipation to implement the State legal authority. The State law might
the law.
(SHPO)
implement
to
Office
Preservation
Historic
State
particiþation by the
The Ouestion. The National Park Service (l.[PS) asks States to report on accomplishments under State law
and asks Certified Local Governments (CLGs) (either directly or through the SFIPO) to report on
accomplishments under local law. Should a State ladprogram that requires local action for the protection of
historic properties be reported in the State Report, the CLG Report, or both?

1¡

.,

'1Í

I
purposes and principles. Some of the purposes for and principles behind the State and CLG reports
answer the question.

will help

a.

Both the State and the CLG reports are designed to help measure the success of the national historic
preservation partnership. As official partners, both States and CLGs carry out historic preservation
àctivities thai are not pàid for by Històric Preservation Fund ([IPF) and matching funds. We want to give
full credit to the histoiic preservation work that our partners do and avoid (where possible) the underreporting of accomplishments.

b.

The partnership work camied out outside of the HPF grant program is not reported on a national basis
anywhere else. Therefore, the answer to the question must be one that does not lose the ability to get
credit for the protection mâde possible by such a hybrid State law.

c.

NPS asks only for information that is (or should be) readily available. No record-keeping should be done
solely for the purposes of these two NPS reports.

d.

Although the unit of measure for both the State and the CLG reports is the number of historic properties,
what *ã ut" really counting is the number of times a historic property is protected. For example, if
during the reporting perioda historic property both is awarded a Certificate of Appropriateness and a
local iax incéntive, that situation counts as "two" (one in the Design Review category and one in the local
tax incentives category). Thus, if the answer to the question is to count the properties protected in both
the State and CLG reports, that would not be double counting.

e.

Often in historic preservation, there is not a clear division of responsibility for the result of an owner of a
historic property receiving a local berrefilprotection under a State authorization/mandate. For example,
to obtain u to"ui protection, a sign-off on étigiUitity could be required from both the SHPO and the CLG
Cornmission.

f.

Nationwide (and sometime within a single State) there can be a great deal of variability in the role of the
State and the local historic preservation offices in the implementation of such a State hybrid law. It
would be overly cumbersome and nearly impossible for NPS to try to describe a¡d.provide an answer to
every possible fact pattern. Consequently, it makes sense to provide the range of possible answers and
the õriteria that should be applied in arriving at the appropriate answer for the particular situation.

The Answer. In the case of a hybrid law -- that is, a State law requiring some measure of local government
participation to confer a historic preservation benefît -- depending upon the situation, it could be appropriate
to report the resultant number of historic properties protected just in the CLG Report, just in the State Report,
or inboth reports. Apply the criteria below to help determine the appropriate response in a given situation.
The Criteria.

1)

Whose tax coffers are affected? For example, in a tax incentive situation, if the owner of a historic
property receives only a local tax benefit, then it could be appropriate to report the protection in the CLG
report.

2)

Does the local government have any options in whether or not (or how) to take advantage of the State
law? For exarnple, if local govemment participation is mandatory and thus is acting solely as an agent
the State government, it could be reasonable to treat the program as a State program.

3)

Which level of government is best able to keep ffack of the number of historic properties that take
advantage of the property tax incentive? If only the SHPO or only the CLG has easy access to the
informaiion, that is where the program should be reported. One of the principles behind the NPS reports
is that we are asking only for information that is (or should be) readily available. No record-keeping

of

9

should be done solely for the purposes of these two NPS reports. The flip side of this criterion is that
SHPO and/or CLG possession of the data is a good rationale to include the data in the State and/or CLG
Report. We don't want to miss out on the data altogether.

4)

Which level of government has to review the application to determine the property's eligibility to take
advantage of thð historic preseruation benefit? A reasonable argument could be made that whichever
level of-govemment's hisioric preservation office makes the final decision regarding a historic property's
eligibility for the benefit should get credit for the protection. On the other hand, if both the State and
Ct C trisioric preservation bodies are involved in the process, an equally good argument could be made
thatthe final protection/benefit would not take place without the participation of both the State and the
CLG and therefore the number of historic properties protected should be reported in both the State and
the CLG repofts.
Depending upon the particular situation, there may be other criteria that would aid in the
decision of whether to report the number of historic properties protected in the State Report, the CLG
Report, or both.

5) Other criteria?
6)
21.

How does your State CLG Program Coordinator recommend solving this issue? Please check with
her/him. Wittrin every State, similar program questions should be resolved in a parallel fashion.

Our historic presenation financial assistance prosrams (srants. loans. etc.) are not funded everv vear.
Should I renort that we have the proeram. or not?
It is helpful to think of this question in terms of legal authorization for funding being separate from the actual
provision of funds.
Answer ooYes" to question 4a, if the ordinance authorizing the fînancial 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 certiflrcation as a CLG, answer
'oNoo" but include those properties in answering question 4b.
assistance program, answer "Yes'o to question 4a
the financial assistance program was either in effect during the baseline year or any protective agreements

If no authorizing ordinance was involved in the fïnancial

if

resulting from the program were still in effect during the Baseline Year. If no authorizing ordinance was
o'No" to question 4abut enter property numbers for
involveã in the finàncial assistance program, answer
question 4b in the following circumstances. Follow this approach if the financial assistance proglam 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
o'No" for question 4a and a number
"Ñotes/Comments" section to explain any situation that merits entering

for question 4b.
For the purposes of the local historic preservation grants/loans blank, count a historic property if
rehabiliiatión, restoration, preservationo etc. work (a.k.a. 'obricks 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).
22,

\¡l¡e administer some srants from the State and the staff of the State Historic Preservation OffÏce helDs
us with some of our locallv-funded prosrams. Similarlv. in some Federal financial assistance

nroerams. the Federal funds are lesallv transformed into local government funds. How should I treat
these situations in resnondins to question 4 on srants and loans?

Count only historic 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

1¡

l0
Preservation Fund CLG subgrants. These are counted elsewhere on State or Federal Government forms.

However, if the funds are local, count the benefîting properties in this questionnaire even if you receive
technical assistance from other sources. See question 13 above for additional guidance in related situations.
Count in this report those few Federal (or State) proglams that award funds to local governments and for
which, as a matter of Federal (or State) law, those funds legally become transformed from Federal (or State)
to local funds. This is a rare situation. The best known Federal example is the Community Development

Block Grant program.
23.

Many of the historic preservation accomplishments in our communitv are achieved throush the
finanõiàl support of the private sector or throueh non-profit orsanizations such as the National Main
Street prosram. Should we include these achievements in our renortins on the number of historic
nroperties that we protect throusþ grants or loans?
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. However, action by one of these
organizations does not prevent the counting of a property/protection if it simultaneously receives a local
government benefît. One example would be a simultaneous Main Street and local historic district

No. Although we recognize that a large

designation.

24.

What should I count in the 66local Desisn Review/Resulatorv Compliance Prosram" blanks? What
does útreview and compliancett mean?
For the purposes of the "Local Design Review/Regulatory Compliance Program" blanks, include only those
activities for which local laws have provided protection in a regulatory setting; e.g., through a review,
permitting, or certifîcate of appropriatenoss process. This type of program is often referred to as "review and
õompliance." "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. ln some communities, the CLG Commission also reviews local
government activities 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.

Do not count (in these blanks) 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 in the questionnaire answers.

25.

Sometimes we review/approve requests f,or demolition or make other decisions/recommendations that
do not result in the nrotection of properties. These reviews are a lesitimate 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 multi-year cumulative baseline
questionnaire. We are trying to get an estimate of the multi-year cumulative 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 the multi-year cumulative total figures.

26.

What does r6Acquisitiontt include? What about eminent domain? Doesn't every seneral-nurnose unit
of sovernment have this power?
'oAcquisition" 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

1l

11

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). With the
exception of eminent domain, the method of acquisition is not important here.
Do not consider eminent domain in your answer to question 6a. Because every general-purpose local
government (with few exceptions) has the power of eminent domain, to include it in answering question 6a
would obscure the presence or absence of other kinds of acquisition programs. For answering question 6b,
include in your count any historic property that has come into local government ownership (even through
eminent domain) as long as local government ownership made the historic property subject to local
government historic preservation laws/policies.
27

Where do I report on nublications. brochures. public education. site interpretation. historic
preservation plans. historic nlaques and markers. and other historic nreservation accomnlishments?
These are not part of the Cumulative Baseline Questionnaire. While important, for purposes of this

questionnaire we have limited the questions to products that more directly affect individual historic
properties. This reduces the burden in gathering and reporting this data. However, you may include your
òther accomplishments as part of your periodic reporting to your State Historic Preservation Office (in some
ooNotes/Comments" section.
States this is required) or, if you wish, report directly to us by use of the

28.

Whv do vou have senarate questions on '6desisnated" and 'úprotected" hÍstoric pronerties throushout
this questionnaire? Whv not iust ask for the number of properties in our CLG inventorv? In that
wav. with one question. vou could account for all histqric properties that have been desisnated and
nrotected. All of our locallv 66listed" nronerties are included on our CLG inventorv. AII of our
nronerties that have been 66protected" in one way or another are also "designated" properties.
Reporting separately on'odesignated" 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 new
historic preservation programs/legal authorities 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.

29.

The questions that vou ask relate primarilv to CLG workload. Wouldnrt it be better to ask how manv
of our historic properties are still in eood condition? In the fÏnal analvsis. preservins our irrenlaceable
resources is the true test ofour success as historic preservationists.
on the condition
Baseline
Cumulative
of historic resources. One of the aims of this multi-year
Questionnaire is to make use of
gathering
and tracking data. Especially
readily available information rather than to create a new workload in
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
(ifany) ofa property's good condition are due to local, State, and/or Federal historic preservation program
efforts. CLG workload data on the other hand usually are readily available, readily assignable to CLG
efforts, and can be used to draw reasonable inferences about the condition ofhistoric properties.

If funding and staffing were no object, we would want both workload information and data

30.

t2
What should I do if mv offïce missed a report or if. in retrosnect. we discover that we made a mistake
in an earlier renort?
will never

be too late to provide the Curnulative
Baseline 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
Because of the long-term uses for this information, it

either provide/correct the earlier report or you may prepare a new multi-year cumulative baseline report for a
more recent year. For example, if your local government became a CLG during FY 2010 but your office had
not responded to any of the subsequent requests for information as of the end of FY 2014, you would have
had the following options. Your first option would have been to prepare and send us a FY 2010 cumulative
baseline rèsponse plus an annual report for FY 2011, FY 2072,FY 2013 and FY 2014. You could have used
the current year's forms by changing the dates. Your second option would have been to provide
questionnaire answers and baseline data through FY 2013 plus the annual report for FY 2014. Other
combinations of baseline questionnaires and annual reports are also possible.

The National Park Service has sought fiom OMB clearance for the collection of information associated with the implementation of 36 CFR 61, "Procedures for
State, Tribal, and Local Govemment Historic Preservation Programs." OMB hæ given its clearanoe (OMB Control Number 1024-0038) for this set of
information colleotions. NPS and OMB oarried out clearance procedures pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, as amended, (44 U.S.C. 3507 et
ggg.) and the Ofüce of Management and Budget's (OMB's) procedures (5 CFR 1320). This OMB Approval (which expires on October 31, 2017) specifically
covers the Bæeline Questionnaires for CLGs.
NPS colleots the information æ part ofthe process for reviewing the procedures and programs ofState, Tribal, and local govemments 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 54 U.S.C. 300101 et seq. (commonly known as the National Historic Preservation Act) and compliance with golernment-wide
grant requirements. Note that 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. NPS provides no assurance of confrdentiality to respondents with the exception of some location information
concerning some properties included in govemment historic preservation property inventories. Pursuant to 54 U.S.C. 307103 (commonly known æ Section
304 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act), release of information is tightly controlled when such releæe could have the potential ofdamaging those
qualities that make a property historic.
The publio reporting burden for the collection ofthis information is estimated to average six hours 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 ofthis colleotion of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Chief, State, Tribal, and Local Plans &
Grants Division (Org. Code 2256), National Park Service, 1201 Eye Street NW, Wæhinglon, DC 20005