Times Argus
This is a printer friendly version of an article from www.timesargus.com
To print this article open the file menu and choose Print.
Back
Article published Dec 23, 2008 Historic sites: Benefit or burden?
By Louis Porter Vermont Press Bureau
MONTPELIER – Administration officials and lawmakers are deep into consideration of what to cut in the state budget, and one possibility is worrying preservationists in Vermont: The idea of closing or even selling some of the state's historic sites – as well as perhaps completely revising the way historic preservation is done by the state.
More than a dozen sites — including the Calvin Coolidge house, the Bennington Battle Monument and Mount Independence and other less well known places — are owned or maintained by the state.
In October, Deputy Secretary of Agency of Commerce and Community Development Jim Saudade wrote a memo about the future of the sites.
"And while some like the Coolidge Homestead are integral to the very identity of Vermont, some are hard to find, have little historical significance but for their age and architecture. Should the state really be preserving, maintaining and improving properties with little likelihood of its citizenry every visiting them, let alone using them?" Saudade wondered.
The memo lays out several possible approaches, starting with trying to reduce the cost of maintaining the sites, transferring their management to the Department of Buildings and General Services and studying the sites. Some of those suggestions are already under way, but the most radical idea – selling, leasing or closing some sites – is also on the table. Saudade summarized that option as "close sites, sell or lease sites that are appropriate and are not used now, redeploy the proceeds and revenue across the other sites. Continue to contract operations; stop all new expansion, major improvement activity."
"A better balance of passion and prudence needs to be established and maintained" in the handling of the historic sites, Saudade concluded.
Those options are still being considered, Saudade said by telephone recently.
"All around state government there are memorandums like this," he said. "We are examining all costs."
But some wonder how much money is at stake out of the state's $1.2 billion General Fund annual budget.
The sites cost about $460,000 in capital funds, which come out of the state's borrowing for long-term projects and buildings. The sites also cost about $540,000 in General Fund appropriation.
"Simply put," the taxpayers underwrite about $1 million a year, Saudade wrote in his memo. But the sites also collectively bring in about $400,000 in admission revenue and sales.
That means the sites cost a little less than $600,000 a year, mostly in capital money.
"I know the state has to look in every corner," said Paul Bruhn, Executive Director of The Preservation Trust of Vermont. "But my guess is, in the end, it would not save very much."
That is because the sites – unless they were sold – would still have to carry insurance, caretaking and so on.
In any case it would be a blow to Vermont to have them closed or sold, Bruhn added.
"It would be a huge loss and a huge disappointment if that were to happen," Bruhn said. "Those sites, along with the wide range of other historic resources we have here are a really important attraction and the foundation of our tourism economy."
The memo does not designate which sites could be considered if some were to be closed or sold, but some possibilities seem more likely than others.
The Theron Boyd House overlooking the Ottauquechee River near Quechee Village stands much as it did 200 years ago, but is closed. The brick Kent Tavern Museum in Calais is a former stagecoach stop between Montpelier and Canada. Both are closed for the most part, and both have had or are slated for extensive renovation projects, according to Saudade's memo.
Only one site, the Bennington Monument, operates in the black, according to Saudade.
"Visitor numbers are down generally … cultural heritage tourism is not growing but has suffered a decline in recent years," he wrote.
All of that is against a background of a historic preservation plan that is not very realistic, according to Saudade's memo.
"As funds are raised or appropriated, the expansion continues with no ceiling or border, no overall plan or articulated and agreed upon goal. There is a vision and that vision is to provide a very rich historic resource system with many and diverse representations of period life, products and events," Saudade wrote. "And while this is a very noble and worthwhile vision, we must question, at what cost, who are the beneficiaries and how will it be sustained?"
But historian and author Howard Coffin of Montpelier said the state needs to move very cautiously as it considers changing how it handles the historic sites.
"These are our treasures. They very much define who we are and what we are as a state," he said. And "they are products of years and years of monumental effort to preserve and protect them."
"Some of these sites are of national and worldwide importance," he added, and were "key elements in the story of how America won its independence."
"Coolidge and (Chester A.) Arthur (houses) define the American dream, that every person in this country is able to have the chance to rise as far as their talents can take them."
Simply making decisions about government based on what is least expensive should not be how government is run, said Coffin, who added that one time he lived in New Hampshire when Gov. Meldrim Thomson ran it.
"All there was to governing was taking a no tax pledge," Coffin said. "Is that the state we are getting to in Vermont?"
It is not clear what will happen during the re-evaluation of the historic sites. The only firm recommendation made in Saudade's memo is that management of the sites should be transferred to the Department of Buildings and General Services – which already has relationships with vendors and workers who specialize in site and building maintenance.
"They are buildings and grounds experts," Saudade said. "The mission of the sites would be better served there."