2021 Preservation Utah Easement summary report

Preservation Utah, Utah's sole statewide historic preservation non-profit, annually produces an easement report that reviews in detail all of its 127 easement sites across the state. This project aims to create a micro and macro-level understanding of each easement region, the upkeep of individual properties, and how the easement the program can improve overall. The recommendations were based on the architectural easement inventory, easement contract template type, community spatial factors, and case studies on other easement programs in the United States. The recommendations within the report were shared with the University of Utah's: Master of City and Metropolitan Planning Program, Historic Preservation Committee, and Preservation Utah to improve and maintain the historic easement properties long-term.

• PRESERVATION UTAH• 2021 HISTORIC PRESERVATION EASEMENT SUMMARY REPORT WRITTEN AND RESEARCHED BY: RONNIE (SLOAN) PESSETTO Contents 1 Introduction, 5 2 Literature Review, 5 3 Summary Findings, 10 4 Case Studies and Recommendations, 21 5 Conclusion, 23 6 Appendix, 25 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 2 St aff David Amott, Executive Director Liz Joerger, Operations Manager Kelsey Maas, Associate Director Acknowledgements 2021 Easement Inspector Intern Ronnie (Sloan) Pessetto, University of Utah Graduate City and Metropolitan Planning Student (Class of 2022) Thank You! Special Thanks To 2021 Historic Preservation Committee Dr. Keith Bartholomew, Associate Dean of the College of Architecture + Planning at the University of Utah Raina Regan 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 3 Abstract Preservation Utah, Utah’s sole statewide historic preservation non-profit, annually produces an easement report that reviews in detail all of its 127 easement sites across the state. This project aims to create a micro and macro-level understanding of each easement region, the upkeep of individual properties, and how the easement the program can improve overall. The recommendations were based on the architectural easement inventory, easement contract template type, community spatial factors, and case studies on other easement programs in the United States. The recommendations within the report were shared with the University of Utah’s: Master of City and Metropolitan Planning Program, Historic Preservation Committee, and Preservation Utah to improve and maintain the historic easement properties long-term. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 4 Literature Review INTRODUCTION An easement is defined as “a legal agreement between a property owner and the holder of the easement which governs the current and future owners’ treatment of the property” (Watson, 1982). Easements have been used for centuries and evolved through court decisions regarding real property and contracts from the common law system. Specifically, easements were influenced by the legal concept of deed restrictions. Deed Restrictions were used to control land use and influence a fast-growing community’s growth pattern. It was a legal method that ensured that historical character was going to be maintained in cities. Formally, easement is defined as, “a nonpossessory interest in land of another” (Bruce, 1995). The key concept to obtain through the two definitions is that easements can maintain land use or design through legal enforcement. In more common terms it is a “variation of programs designed to preserve a space” (Katz, 1986). The oldest kind of easement is a land conservation easement. Preservation easements are the more recent easement type factored in to protect buildings, settings, and natural resources (Watson, 1982). Historical Preservation easements came about because there was a demand to not only protect the natural landscape, but also the cultural landscape (like historical sites and resources). Preservation easements began to be implanted more in the late 1970s and 80s because of community interest in historical preservation (Roddewig, 2011). This is the first large collection set of easement site donations. Developers took advantage of the tax reform and used the donation with the tax credit to rehabilitate the easement sites (Roddewig, 2011). Each Preservation easement contract is somewhat unique because the contract will tailor itself to the value and architectural aspects it intends on protecting. The unique attribute of an easement is its low cost to protect the site. Ellen Edge Katz noted “the search for less expensive alternatives is prudent especially since public or charitable ownership often leads to conversion to a museum, representing a financial burden that often has limited practicality” (Katz, 1986). Since easements are acquired by donation, it significantly decreases the cost and responsibility of the easement holder to obtain the property, yet it still allows an assurance of protection of the setting. There are some notable motivations for the property owner to have an easement on their property. Motivations for Creating a Preservation Easement There are four motivations that landowners have for creating a preservation easement with an organization. The first motivation is the financial tax benefits. Easements are initiated by current property owners that freely give away some of their “bundle of rights” to the contract holder (government or historic preservation non-profit) (Wright, 1993). To incentivize owners to give some of their bundle of rights away, the Internal Revenue Service identifies a historic property owner being eligible for tax deductions/benefits (Internal Revenue Services, 2021). The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program has been noted as one of the most successful federal government community revitalization plans. When the National Park Service administered the program with the Internal Revenue Service and State Historic Preservation Office in 1976, there was an induction of rehabilitation of building with various styles, sizes, and types (Auer, 2005). The rehabilitation of these historic properties made notable impact in the economy 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 5 Literature Review because it also generated jobs, enhanced property values, and created housing for low to moderate income families. 1998). Not trusting the public designation process for public spaces lessens the effectiveness of the local ordinance. The current tax incentives made by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 states that there are two type of tax credits given to property owners. The first type is a 20 percent tax credit for certified rehabilitation on certified historic structures (A building listed individually in the National Register of Historic Places or listed in the registered historic district and certified by the National Park Service) (Auer, 2005). The second is a 10 percent tax credit for the rehabilitation of a non-historic, non-residential building (i.e., a hotel) before 1936 (Auer, 2005). In addition, building rehabilitation undertaken for the 10 percent credit must have at least 50 percent of existing walls at the time the rehabilitation began must stay in place; 75 percent or more of the existing external façade must remain in place; and 75 percent or more of the buildings internal framework must remain in place (Auer, 2005). It is important to point out that both tax credits require that the rehabilitation must be significant and involve a historic building depreciating in value. The third motivation is that easements prevent future owners of a property from demolishing the current setting. Easements are effective at protecting the current setting of a property because it is a legal agreement that “runs with the land” (Walsh, 1946). An easement contract is legally binded to the land, not the owner(s). In other words, the contract does not end when the property switches ownership. Since the contract is legally enforceable, the easement on the land is not easily removed from the property. The final motivation is it can address concerns about the loss of demolition of historic properties in the area. Although historic buildings are noted for their historical significance, the historic significance does not prevent these spaces from being demolished. With that being said, the demolition review board does not prevent the demolition of historic buildings (Miller, 2006). Instead, the board reviews demolition permit applications and assess the buildings historical significance. If the building is worth The second motivation is that it improtecting due to historic significance, they can pedes on the sale of property to a non-family delay the demolition for a short period of time (Miller, 2006). A demolition heavily depends member buyer. Although zoning can prevent undesired populations and certain building use on the board members perception of historical types from being established in an area, easesignificance, and this can be somewhat dangerments can be used to protect the majority, if ous because historic significance is relative to the perceiver. not all, of historic building integrity in a community. Through proper strategy, easements can discourage land assembly for large mega To address this issue, a historic easement construction projects (like luxury apartments) can protect the property from demolition or because contractors require multiple parcels to modern updates. In fact, a typical easement construct their mega building project. If there states that facades cannot be torn down and is an easement on one property, it will be diffi- any improvements desired to the structure must cult to continue the mega project. It should be be approved by the Historic Preservation Comnoted that easements should only be used for mittee (HPC) (Watson, 1982). An exterior façade private spaces and not used as a “substitute for easement contract seeks to protect exterior public designation” because public spaces are features other than the walls of the structure. protected through other legal means (Miner Examples include fences, stonewalls, and view 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 6 Literature Review sheds. In simple terms, exterior façade easements give freedom for the property owner to decorate the interior as they please but are strict on what is visible to the public (this would exclude the rear facades). A noteworthy drawback of having a strong contract to prevent demolition or modern updates is that some owners feel like they are “living in a museum” where they cannot adjust the property to accommodate better living space for their family. Something as simple as a fence desired to be built must be reviewed (according to the easement contract template made by the department of interiors) by the historic preservation committee prior to constructing. EASEMENT COMPLIANCE/ ENFORCEMENT Although easements programs are effective in confronting the issue of how to obtain a historic property and legally protect the character of the buildings, the common issue with easement programs is it lacks addressing how to effectively confront problems of easement properties that are damaged either intentionally or unintentionally. In other words, easement contracts lack affirmative obligation. Organizations across the United States become holders of easement contracts at the local, state, and national levels. What makes an easement legally enforceable is throughout the state enabling law because it gives the easement holder organizations the legal authority to hold easement property owners accountable. All easements within the state of Utah have been governed and facilitated due to Utah State law code 57-18-1: Land Conservation Easement Act (Utah State Legislature, 2021). The organization easement holder is expected to commit to managing and enforc ing the requirements in the easement contract with current and future property owners because they have a duty to protect taxpayers’ investment. Property owners have the responsibility to maintain the property, provide limited public access, and stay current on property taxes because the property owner retains the title of the property. The main way that contract holders enforce the contracts is through legal yearly on-site inspections of the property (Phelps, 2012). Most inspections explicitly examine the external façade in effort to maintain the owner’s privacy. The inspector of an easement program will go onsite annually to take pictures as well as document the degradation of the building over time. After the easement site is inspected, a status report is created. Besides the date that the inspection was conducted, the report contains the condition of the protected features of the property and any other notable observations. Towards the end of the report, contains information on recommendations that the property owner needs to do to improve the site’s condition. The easement holding organization keeps a copy and the easement property receives a copy. Ideally, this procedure should be effective because the property owners and community are able to rely on the easement holding organization to protect the document. When the system is not as effective and more enforcement needs to apply to property owners, the contract, annual inspection reports, and pictures are used and allowed in court to demonstrate the owner is not obliged by easement contract (Phelps, 2012). John B. Wright wrote, “inadequate monitoring by an easement holding organization could have dire legal consequence” (Wright, 1993) Through pictures and documentation, displays the poor condition of the property and the need for enforcement by a judge’s order to uphold the contract. This enforcement may be in the form of the owner being removed from ownership 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 7 Literature Review or facing a fine until they get the property in a satisfactory condition. It would be ideal that these easement holders don’t have to go to court to enforce the easement agreement, but it happens more times than not. With that being said, the easement program has some notable drawbacks that make the program not the challenge is that the contracts are vaguely inflexible despite the changing circumstance of the property owners and the properties surrounding them (Ristino, 2016). The easement does a good job at keeping the property in the same condition despite the changing of times and circumstances because that is the overarching goal of an easement. Value is made by the surrounding context. Easement Property PRESERVATION EASEMENT owners are not allowed to change minor eleDRAWBACKS ments of the façade(s) or grounds of the house There are several notable downsides to without approval by the Historic Preservation the current nationwide preservation easement Committee. Property owners get frustrated program. The first drawback stems from strict because the surrounding circumstances and modern demand have changed making living scrutiny. The Economic Recovery Tax Act of in the property a major challenge (Ristino, 1986 contained amendments to the tax code 2016). This inflexibility to protect the land has that significantly decreased the tax benefits associated with the ownership of income-pro- also led (and may lead to more) property ownducing real estate. The rate of easement dona- ers leaving the building to self-demolish. Are we getting the outcome that we are trying to tion declined especially when the recession preserve? This inflexibility that protects the of 1987 and 1988 hit. The decline of easement sites may be too inflexible that the program donations really declined when the Internal may destroy itself. Revenue Service (IRS) enacted legal action against property owners. The scrutiny was so The final perpetual problem stems from intense that Historic Preservation made the the easements contract being too vague about IRS 2005 “Dirty Dozen” list of scams. the responsibilities of both properties. Lack of A special enforcement task was created communication and enforcement often leads to confrontation between the contract holder to attack the problem of enforcement agreements because wealthy property owners who and the property owner(s). Easements can be overlooked by current property owners. For an were abusing the tax-deductible charitable easement donations (Roddewig, 2011). It caught easement program to be successful, the easement holder must have the legal capacity to media attention and a large concern that emerged from the public was that the tax reve- understand the various easement agreement, nues were used on buildings that were hardly make clear communication with the property owner on the upkeep expectations, and enfacing threats of being demolished. The IRS scrutiny and media scrutiny led to tension for force it through proper monitoring. However, the easement holder and property owner. The it is difficult for the easement holder to properly do that with a vaguely written contract. If easement holder was under watch to make sure they were adopting easement that needed there is not a clear concise plan to uphold the easement, the taxpayer’s investment, the easeto be under the protection and the property ment holder, and property owners’ investment owners were under scrutiny that they were upholding their end of the contract agreement. into the property will be destroyed and lost. The second problem with Historic Preservation easements is that there is a limitation on the site perpetually. Specifically, With all of the variety in easement holder styles to uphold an easement, the 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 8 Literature Review easement site inspection is the only uniform basis to hold easement property owners accountable. This paper examines the easement program through this mandatory output. The Utah site inspection summary section examines and summarizes Preservation Utah’s 2021 easement site inspections and highlights trends to identify the program’s next steps to make the easement program more effective in enforcement and supporting property owners. A case study was conducted of other easement holders in the nation to find other models to adopt to build strong relationships with property owners, efficiently inspecting easement properties and establishing legal enforcement. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 9 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THE PRESERVATION UTAH EASEMENT REPORT? WHY THIS REPORT AND PROCESS? Preservation Utah, Utah’s sole statewide historic preservation non-profit, annually produces an easement report that reviews in detail all of its 100+ easement sites across the state. This report aims to create a micro and macro-level understanding of each easement region, the upkeep of individual properties, and how the easement program can improve overall. The findings and recommendations within the report are shared with site owners, the Historic Preservation Committee, and Preservation Utah with the aim of improving and maintaining the historic properties longterm. Preservation Utah continues to dedicate itself to the long-term preservation and integrity of all of its easement sites. For each property within the program, Preservation Utah has customized the report to grasp detailed information at every level to ensure an effective and successful implementation for all twelve regions. The report details the observations from the annual easement inspection process. Each year Preservation Utah completes an in-person inspection of all 126 easement sites. The purpose of the easement is to ensure the validity of the legal agreement is upheld. The inspection entails an in-depth examination of all the relevant historic architectural elements on each facade and in some cases interior inspections. From the inspection, each site receives a general and a detailed ranked score with a comment on opportunity areas for improvement. These in-person inspections have allowed Preservation Utah to continue to gather detailed information on the portions of the property covered by the easement, which can be compared to previous years, and show trends of the overall easement program and also how the individual sites are doing year to year. WHAT ARE THE TWELVE REGIONS? Preservation Utah has easement properties throughout Utah. To gain a better understanding of how geography plays a role in the preservation of the site, the easement sites have been divided into regions. There are currently twelve regions and are titled as the following: Region 1: Northern Utah Region 3: Salt Lake City-Marmalade Region 5: Salt Lake City-Avenues Region 7: Salt Lake City-East Region 9: Salt Lake County Region 11: Southern Utah Region 2: Salt Lake City-Northwest Region 4: Salt Lake City-Capitol Region 6: Salt Lake City-Central Region 8: Salt Lake City-Southeast Region 10: Central Utah Region 12: Western Utah 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 10 SUMMARY INTRODUCTION GLOSSARY EASEMENT INSPECTION RATINGS Adobes/Adobe Brick: Unfired, Sundried mud bricks that are laid up in courses with mud mortar and covered with a protective coating. Below are the ratings assigned to every site and its facade. Each rating depends on the on-site observation of the facade’s architectural elements. Cornice: The projection at the top of a wall. It is the top course serving as a crowning member. Dormers: Window projecting from the slope of a roof; providing its own roof on top. Downspouts: A pipe that carries water from the gutters to the ground/sewer. Eave: An extension of the roof that projects beyond the walls. Easement: The right to use someone else’s land in a particular, non-possessive way. Easements are perpetual and run with the land. Facade: The external wall of a building. Flashing: Pieces of noncorrosive metal used around the wall and roof junctions and angels as a means of preventing leaks. Mortar: A mixture that is applied to walls, ceilings to serve as a binder for stones or stone. Excellent: Facades and related elements are in near-perfect condition. No treatment recommendations are issued. Very Good: Facades and related elements are in near-perfect condition with the exception of one or two items that need attention. Good: Facades are in satisfactory condition. Several items need attention. However, the property isn’t at risk of any serious threat to its physical condition. Fair: Facades and related elements in average condition with some components in unsatisfactory condition. Poor: Facades and related elements in unsatisfactory condition. They need immediate treatment or they risk damage beyond repair. Porch: A covered entrance or semi-closed space from the wall of a building. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 11 SUMMARY During the summer of 2021, Preservation Utah conducted its annual site inspections on all 126 easement properties. 84 percent of the easement sites scored at or above good. Four regions had a site average score above 90 percent. The highest performing Utah easement regions are Salt Lake City: Southeast and Western Utah. 100 percent of the sites within this region had a score at or above good. The third highest performing region is Salt Lake City: Avenue’s region. 97 percent of the sites in Salt Lake City: Avenue’s region scored at or above good (refer to exhibit 2.0). The fourth highest performing region was Salt Lake City: East with 90 percent of their sites scoring at or above good. 16 percent of the easement sites scored below good. The lowest-performing region in Salt Lake County. 100 percent of their sites have received a score below good. The second-lowest performing region is Northern Utah (refer to exhibit 2.1). 29 percent of their sites have scored below good. The third low- est performing regions are Southern Utah and Salt Lake City: Central. 25 percent of sites in both regions have received a score below good. (Maybe highlight sites within these regions using the pop-out function). The drawback of these regional performance statistics is that the regions do not have an equal number of sites. This is important because a site with a fewer number of easements within the region can either score well or poorly. An example would be Western Utah. As stated earlier, this region had 100 percent of their sites score above good because this region only has one site in this region. On the flip side, in Salt Lake City, Avenue’s region has the largest collection of sites in the region, and they are the third-highest performing region. Examining the sites through this lens is still valuable because easily identifies trends. In addition, there may be a unique regional influence in how these sites are maintained. Easement Site Spotlight Exhibit 2.0: Wells House Name of Property: Wells House Name of Property: William O. Knudson Region: Salt Lake City Avenues Region: Northern Utah Year of Easement: 1993 Year of Easement: 1993 The Salt Lake City Avenues Region is the third-highest performing easement region within the state. This easement property exemplifies the above good condition that easements have within this region. This site has received above “very good” ratings in the last three years. Exhibit 2.1: William O. Knudson House The Northern Utah Region is the second lowest-performing easement region within the state. This easement property exemplifies the below good condition that easements have within this region. This site has received above “fair/poor” rating in the last four years. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 12 SUMMARY EASEMENT ARCHITECTURAL COLLECTION INVENTORY The easement architectural collection inventory was intended to assess if the sites that have received a below good rating are also a site with a rare architectural style in the easement collection. We found a number of sites that are rare in Preservation Utah’s architectural style collection and have received a below good condition rating. This is information is important because this foreshadows a number of sites being permanently damaged if not destroyed without proper intervention. These sites need the easements holder’s intervention first. EXHIBIT 2.2: PRESERVATION UTAH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE AND RATINGS SITES WITH SCORES BELOW GOOD TOTAL NUMBER OF SITES The easement architectural collection inventory graph takeaway is that sites that are rare in Preservation Utah’s easement collection typically do not have sites with the rating below good. There are three site exceptions with the following architectural styles: • Second Empire • Vernacular • Byzantine Empire 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 13 SUMMARY CONTRACT EASEMENT SITES RELATED TO PERFORMANCE The Historic Preservation Easement has experienced multiple rises and falls of donations over time as stated in the literature review. A major discrepancy is a variety in Easement Contract types. Since the easement types were adopted at various times, the legal contract has altered. Some easements are more strict than other easement contracts. Preservation Utah has a total of six easement contract templates. The most common easement template is Template A. This is the oldest template type and was formulated by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (refer to Appendix: Document A). Salt Lake City: Avenues region has the most sites and all of the sites have a contract Template A (refer to Exhibit 2.3). Although most Template A easement contracts scored above good (like the Salt Lake City-Avenues region), some sites with this template type also scored below good. For instance, all of the Southern Utah regions have a contract Template A but it is also the third-lowest performing region in that state (refer to Exhibit 2.3). Both examples indicate that there is a factor linked to the easement contract type. The factor is a site scoring poorly comes from a lack of communication between the contract holder and the property owner(s) on the terms and agreements of the contract. Since easements run with the land and not a property owner, new owners are not aware of the easement on the property. With that being said, they have not met with the easement holder to go over the terms of the easement, and they do not have a copy of the easement contract. This can lead to easements being overlooked by current property owners. TEMPLATE TYPE DESCRIPTION Template A: This easement is listed with a number proceeded by a lengthy description of the conditions. Template B: This easement is listed with a number AND a sub-title proceeded by a description. Sometimes the description will have a letter with sub-subtitle underneath it. Template C: This easement looks very similar to Type A because it has a number and a description, but it is VERY short (approx. 2 pages long). Template D: This easement is listed with a number proceeded by a description of the conditions. It is about 2 pages long. It is much more personalized (i.e., putting the owner’s name throughout the document). It also has a section discussing recitals, covenants, etc. This type is more often with buildings that are used commercially. An example of this type is 364 Quince Street. Template E: This easement is an amended easement. It has a number with a description, and it is broken down into lots. Template F: This easement has no numbers with the description. It just has a subtitle and a description following it. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 14 SUMMARY OVERALL EASEMENT TEMPLATE TYPES AND RATINGS EXHIBIT 2.3: OVERALL EASEMENT TEMPLATE TYPES AND RATINGS TEMPLATE A TEMPLATE B TEMPLATE C TEMPLATE D TEMPLATE E TEMPLATE F Since the easement template types were adopted at a variety of times, the legal contract has altered. The overall easement template type and rating exhibit was established to examine if property owners with a particular easement type were held to a higher standard indicating a difference in easement site maintenance. Template A is the most common easement type throughout all regions and the template has a spread of site ratings. This finding indicates that no property owners of a particular easement template are held to a higher standard of maintenance. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 15 SUMMARY SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF SITES RELATED TO PERFORMANCE There are other factors beyond a site’s easement contract type that impact a site’s physical upkeep. One factor is the level of community participation. If a site is placed in an environment where community members are active in the physical community’s upkeep and evolution, the easement property owner is more likely to have the easement property in good or better condition (refer to Exhibit 2.4 and 2.5). The second factor is the parcel size. This connects with the first point. If the easement property is placed in a community with a high level of community participation and the land parcels are small, the property owner is more likely to have the easement in a good or better condition because the community will put pressure on the easement property owner to keep their property in a satisfactory condition. In other words, neighbors will care because it impacts the look and value of their property (refer to Exhibit 2.4 and 2.5). An example to illustrate both points would be the easement property owner in Beverly, UT. The community surrounding the site had very large parcels and didn’t have a high level of community participation. As a result, the property owner didn’t have social pressure from neighbors to improve the condition of the property. This year and in previous inspection years the property is in poor condition. The final factor is property use. If an easement property houses a business or military, they are more likely to make sure the building is kept in good or better condition. The explanation for this is that curb appeal impacts their ability to attract customers. In addition, they may have pressures from the business district or the military, and they will hold them accountable to maintain a certain level of upkeep for efficiency (refer to Exhibit 2.4 and 2.5). An example would be a property on Main Street in Ogden, UT. This property is currently used to operate a massage business. To attract residents to use their service, they need to have curb appeal because it indicates a level of professionalism. Main Street in Ogden is a business district, and they have a code and a code enforcement officer that will enforce the upkeep of the buildings. As a result, the property was in good condition and was in previous inspections. A SITES RATING IS POSITIVELY CORRELATED TO: A site’s rating tends to be positively correlated to: • Level of Community Participation (Historic Landmark Districts) • Parcel Size • Property Use (Commercial, Military) 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 16 SUMMARY EXHIBIT 2.4: OVERALL EASEMENT TEMPLATE TYPES AND RATINGS TOP PERFORMING REGIONS WITH SITE SCORES ABOVE “GOOD” The Salt Lake City Southeast region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score of above “good.” All six properties had very minor maintenance recommendations. The Western Utah region is one of the top four regions that have properties recievinga score of above “good.” This region is rare because this region has only one site. This site is military owned and operated. As a result, they have very strict maintenance requirements that are enlign with the easement terms. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 17 SUMMARY EXHIBIT 2.4: OVERALL EASEMENT TEMPLATE TYPES AND RATINGS TOP PERFORMING REGIONS WITH SITE SCORES ABOVE “GOOD” The Salt Lake City Avenues region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score of above “good.” Twenty-Eight properties had very minor maintenance recommendations. One property recieved a score below “good” because it needed major repair. The Salt Lake City East region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score at or above “good.” Nine properties had very minor maintenance recommendations. One property recieved a score below “good” because it needed major repair. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 18 SUMMARY EXHIBIT 2.5: OVERALL EASEMENT TEMPLATE TYPES AND RATINGS TOP PERFORMING REGIONS WITH SITE SCORES BELOW “GOOD” The Northern Utah region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score of below “good.” Three out of four properties had very minor maintenance recommendations. One site recieved a “fair/poor” score because the property demanded serious repairs. The Salt Lake City Central region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score of below “good.” Nine properties had very minor maintenance recommendations and recieved a score at or above “good”. Three properties required major maintenance and recieved a score below good.” 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 19 SUMMARY EXHIBIT 2.5: OVERALL EASEMENT TEMPLATE TYPES AND RATINGS TOP PERFORMING REGIONS WITH SITE SCORES BELOW “GOOD” The Salt Lake County region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score of below “good.” This is one of the rare regions that have one site. This site recieved a score below “good” because it required major repairs. The Southern Utah region is one of the top four regions that have properties recieving a score of below “good.” Three sites scored at or above “good” and needs minor maintenance. One site in Beaver, UT recived a score below “good.” 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 20 CASE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS INTRODUCTION Three easement programs were selected to be a part of the case study. Historic New England, the L’enfand Trust, and the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission were selected due to a variation in the program’s number of easement sites and acquisition of sites. These features directly affected their mission and the program’s overall operation. HISTORIC NEW ENGLAND Historic New England (HNE) is one of the oldest and prestigous easement programs in the nation. HNE has a total collection of 107 sites (refer to Exhibit 2.6). Historic New England obtained its first easement in 1947 (Lea, 2003). However, the easement program was built on the foundation of the Society for Preservation of New England (SPNE) where the goal was to save buildings identified as architecturally beautiful, unique, or having special historical value (Lea, 2003). SPNE acquired these properties through purchasing them. Before selling the retored property, they put an easement on it (Lea, 2003). In other words, HNE older easements were acquired through restrictive resale methods. However, in 1981, they altered their method of acquisition to take advantage of the tax savings program. The organization has placed a greater emphasis on administering the easement and developing relationships with property owners. As a result, it has decreased the likelihood of legal enforcement. This is mostly due to HNE having one of the largest ratios of staff to easement properties (Lea, 2003). They can maintain a large staff through endowment contributions from easement donations. Since HNE holds interior, exterior, and landscape easements, all easements require an intensive meeting and inspection with the owner. After inspection season, a status report is filed and a copy is sent to the property owner (refer to Exhibit 2.6). The report contains the protected features of the property, observations, and recommendations (Lea, 2003). Since HNE values good standing relationships with property owners, they prefer notifying property owners of the poor condition and arranged a meeting with the Historic New England property care team on how to improve the property before pursuing legal action. THE L’ENFAND TRUST The L’Enfant Trust was established around the same time as Preservation Utah in 1978 within Washington D.C. Similar to Historic New England the program was created in response to several demolished historic properties within the city boundaries. This program is a holder to 1,130 properties (Conservation Easements, 2015). The program has acquired these properties through donation Despite that the program has a small ratio of staff to an easement site, they can successfully able to maintain their sites. The Trust has been focusing its efforts on keeping up with the maintenance of their collection and giving resources to property owners (Conservation Easements, 2015). They have launched 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 21 CASE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS MARYLAND NATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION a Historic Properties Development Revolving Fund Program that allows property owners to not only acquire a historic property but rehabilitate it (Conservation Easements, 2015). In addition, they have materials for the community outreach on historic preservation advocacy. The L’Enfant Trust is different from the other case studies in regards to monitoring sites. This program does not do on-site inspections. Instead, the program hires a photographer to take photos of all of their sites during January and February (Conservation Easements, 2015). Afterward, the staff review will the photos and compare the condition of the site in previous years. This method is heavily reliant on photographs. There are no inspection forms. A notice of inspection season is sent out to property owners but no annual report is shared with the property owners (Conservation Easements, 2015). If the owner is not compliant with the agreement of the contract, the organization with contact the property owner. If no progress is made, they pursue legal action. The Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) is a public county-level easement program made in 2009. There is a total of 41 easements in their collection. Some sites are gathered through donations but many sites have been acquired through the Historic Property Grants. The unique thing about the Historic Property Grant is that an easement is made on any property that accepts capital grants, bond bills, or loans. The purpose of this is to ensure that these sites are properly preserved to ensure proper tax dollar usage. This is significant because all sites have received at least one grant or funding source for the improvement of the site(s). Before visiting for the annual site inspection, the program staff contact the property owner to schedule a convenient time and review the easement file. This ensures a working relationship with the owner. All property owners are aware of the terms and conditions and what was expected of the property owner to improve on the previous year before the inspection. This gives property owners time to propose projects that should be brought to the attention of staff that is not about regular maintenance. After inspection season, every site receives a letter, a copy of the inspection form, Optional Owner Statement, photographs of problem areas, and recommendations as needed. As with all other easement programs, they notify property owners of violations and pursue legal action when required. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 22 CONCLUSION TAKEAWAY/CONCLUSION This report illustrates that Preservation Utah and other programs examined in the case study have various aspects of successful drafting, monitoring, and enforcing preservation easements. Based on the challenges shown by Preservation Utah and the case studies, there is room for improvement. There are two main layers of administering a more effective easement program: 1. DRAFTING EASEMENT DOCUMENTS Clear and concise language is important for both the easement holder and the property owner. Thus, future easements should not only have what is not allowed but what is allowed. Current easements should have addendums or amendments with what is allowed to the original easement document. Vague language can create miscommunication and result in damage to the property. This amendment and addendum will provide the transparency needed for better site upkeep. Preservation Utah should meet with all property owners every couple of years to ensure property owners have a copy of the easement and understand the terms and agreement of the contract. As a result, this meeting will build an effective partnership between Preservation Utah and the easement holder. 2. ENFORCING VIOLATIONS The case studies demonstrate that successful easement programs give property owners balanced independence to use their property without damaging the structure. T o enpower property owners, Preservation Utah needs to meet with them to express what is expected for maintenance and what freedoms they have. They should hire a historic property maintenance specialist to be a resource for property owners on how to maintain the property in a cost-effective way that falls in line with the terms of the easement. If the property is in not good condition, there needs to be a mandatory meeting between the property owner and the historic property maintenance specialist to formulate a plan of action to improve the condition of the site in a timely manner. In this meeting, they will go over the contract, the recommendations from the site inspection, and get detailed guidance on how to go about improving the site’s condition.. The advice could go from a particular brand that is in compliance with the easement contract to working on a grant to get funding. If the property owner fails to adhere to a maintenance schedule or does not act on the suggestions, Preservation Utah can use this as another layer of evidence against the property owner that they are neglecting the property after several attempts of Preservation Utah trying to coordinate with the owner. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 23 CASE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATIONS EXHIBIT 2.6: EASEMENT PROGRAM AND PROGRAM FEATURES TABLE: CASE STUDY OF EASEMENT PROGRAMS BY PROGRAM FEATURES EASEMENT PROGRAM ORGANIZATION TYPE NUMBER OF SITES ACQUISTION OF SITES MONITORING ENFORCEMENT PRESERVATION UTAH HISTORIC NEW ENGLAND THE L’ENFAND TRUST MARYLANDNATIONAL CAPITAL PARK AND PLANNING COMMISSION NON-PROFIT NON-PROFIT NON-PROFIT NON-PROFIT 127 107 1,130 41 DONATION DONATION AND PURCHASED AND RESOLD DONATION HISTORIC PROPERTY GRANTS ANNUAL SITE ANNUAL SITE ANNUAL SITE INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS INSPECTIONS ANNUAL SITE INSPECTIONS NOTICES AND LAWSUIT NOTICE AND LAWSUIT NOTICE AND LAWSUIT NOTICE AND LAWSUIT The case study of easement charts demonstrates that the organization type, aquistion of sites, monitoring, and enforcement are very similar to Preservation Utah. There is pattern within these sites that the current operations tend to be overall successful but have shortfalls in the relationship with porperty owners who have not been keeping their property above good. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 24 CITED SOURCES Auer, Michael (2005). Preservation Tax Incentives for Historic Buildings. Bowers, Christopher D. (1998) ‘‘Historic Preservation Law Concerning Private Property,” The Urban Lawyer 30, no. 2: 423. Bruce, John W. (1995) The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land (Boston: Warren, Gorham & Lamont, 1995): 1-2. “Conservation Easements (2015).” The L’Enfant Trust. http://www.lenfant.org/conservation-easement.html Internal Revenue Services (2021). Rehabilitation Credit (Historic Preservation.) https://www. irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/rehabilitation-credit-historic-preservation-faqs#:~:text=The%20term%20%E2%80%9Ccertified%20historic%20structure,or%20historic%20significance%20in%20the Katz, Ellen Edge (1986). “Conserving the Nation’s Heritage Using the Uniform Conservation Easement Act,” Washington and Lee Law Review 43 (1986) : 375. Lea, Diane (2003). “Introduction. Americas Preservation Ethos: A Tribute to Enduring Ideals.” In A Richer Heritage. (University of North Carolina Press, 2003). Miner, Dorothy (1998). Adjunct Professor of Historic Preservation, Columbia University, Interview by author, 7 July 1998, New York City. Miller, Julia (2006). Protecting Landmarks Through Demolition Review. https://www.denvergov. org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/646/documents/landmark/Ordinance_task_force/Protecting_Potential_Landmark_Demolition_Review.pdf The National Trust for Historic Preservation Preservation Leadership Forum (2021). Standard Operating Procedures for Easement-Holding Organizations. https://forum.savingplaces.org/blogs/ raina-regan/2021/10/25/standard-operating-procedures-easement-holding-org Phelps, J.R. (2012). Preserving Preservation Easements: Preservation Easements in an Uncertain Regulatory Future. Nebraska Law Review, 91(1, 121-169. https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/nebklr91&id=148&men_tab=srchresults# Utah State Legislature (2021). Land Conservation Easement Act. https://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title57/ Chapter18/57-18-S2.html Watson, Elizabeth (1982). Establishing an Easement Program to Protect Historic, Scenic, and Natural Resources. National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1-19 Walsh, W. F. (1946). Covenants running with the land. New York University Law Quarterly Review, 21(1), 28-60.https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/nylr21&div=5&g_ sent=1&casa_token=uuX4pOWC-j0AAAAA:m45yFo4x0HEMP1L4vdIn39w1znMPpQfnXTyqF9ZHu82G5N_d1QbnnK7I-v2Lh4qH2Ov2o3550A&collection=journals# Wright, John B. (1993) “Conservation Easements: An Analysis of Donated Development Rights.” 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 25 CITED SOURCES Wright, John B. (1993) “Conservation Easements: An Analysis of Donated Development Rights.” Journal of the American Planning Association 59, no. 4 (Autumn, 1993) : 487. 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 26 APPENDIX Document A: Sample Easement Document Template made by the National Trust for Historic Preservation (Watson, 1982). 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 27 APPENDIX 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 28 APPENDIX 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 29 APPENDIX 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 30 APPENDIX 2021 Preservation Utah Easement Summary Report 31 For more information, please go to: https:// preservationutah.org/ To view the 2021 detailed report on individual easement sites, Please copy this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mGqUdbeiW_4YqUoqThqWBGRwys2mmiTO/ view?usp=sharing GET IN TOUCH Ronnie (Sloan) Pessetto Email: [e-mail]