[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6612728,"mediaKeyId","2888857-1027ea48266c0b817a93f9f0764a4fdb","parentId",2888857,"title","Rhode Island preservation office details how federal and state reviews affect housing projects","audioSeconds",968,"startMs",119000,"endMs",1087000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2888857-1027ea48266c0b817a93f9f0764a4fdb&start=119&end=1087","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2888857-1027ea48266c0b817a93f9f0764a4fdb/thumbnail_119000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6612728/Rhode-Island/Rhode-Island-preservation-office-details-how-federal-and-state-reviews-affect-housing-projects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612728-9f2e4e6e0c0237bec95373680a8174b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1770801206&Signature=aDgCshnkMlMt~g~WKtIUMFMf8vCki~kbDO3P1dh-ERVaDjmG2fSFvgj~kwCv16KDNz87hKyf36loeEN5oE47FJ1bfgK7H~3KZvbT-TeU64t9QluRntPFeASvdhH1NDnImAzHcCIUwtzuuSKQ1nM0OMrQY0SpsJsUS-VIL1UITCf6cAG4qqaJc7URctvZDcC7OL9bVEZ5UHZURF7Us9C9TCAHTvrRFhKle1blxa8RrEpk-bG4OoJmdxqNgJgqLa5T8QPzE2T2WwRmidaMieQ3mrW17~93kCYEM4gW9bUIpu1kCekj176Q4SIyB123XCv8E1B4ohQqYKu6FMMK3WZN~w__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","State of Rhode Island","date","2025-04-03T00:00:00Z","article","Jeff Emmity, executive director of the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission and the state historic preservation officer, told the commission for the study of the entire area of land use that federal and state preservation reviews are triggered when housing projects use federal or state funding, require federal or state permits, or occur on federal or state property. \"Historic preservation and development, particularly housing development, are not mutually exclusive pursuits,\" Emmity said.

Emmity described the standard review sequence under the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) and the comparable state review called for under Rhode Island law: notification by the lead federal or state agency, identification of historic resources within an area of potential effect, a determination of effect (no historic resources, no effect, no adverse effect, or adverse effect), and consultation toward avoidance, minimization or mitigation when an adverse effect is identified. He emphasized that an adverse effect does not automatically stop a project: it triggers further consultation and, if needed, mitigation measures.

Why it matters: many housing projects receive federal or state support, which brings them into the preservation review process. Emmity gave a recent example in Lincoln, where HUD-funded rehabilitation of mill housing in Manville required a determination that led to listing the Manville Worker Housing historic district on the National Register and allowed the housing project to proceed.

Under Section 106, federal funding or licensing draws the federal review; under state law, the review is triggered for projects undertaken by the state or municipality. Emmity cited the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the state statute establishing the preservation office, and referenced the Rhode Island Code of Regulations that sets out procedural steps. \"Any of your housing project money that comes from the federal government triggers a Section 106 review,\" he said.

Emmity walked the commission through typical outcomes:

- If no historic resources are found within the area of potential effect, the office issues a letter and the project proceeds.

- If historic resources are present but a project will not affect their character-defining features, the office will concur with a \"no adverse effect\" determination and the review ends.

- If a proposed change would harm character-defining features or introduce visually incongruous elements, the office may find an adverse effect and staff will continue consultation to explore feasible and prudent alternatives and mitigation.

Mitigation options Emmity described include redesign to avoid the adverse effect, salvaging and reusing building materials, documentation (reports, interpretive panels, websites or apps), moving structures where feasible, and funding preservation work on affected or other historic properties. He cited an airport terminal exhibit as an example of mitigation that documented a lost hangar.

Emmity said the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards guide decisions in federal and tax-credit reviews, but noted the standards are intentionally general and sometimes feel subjective in application. \"The standards... are intentionally designed to be vague. And, kind of subjective,\" he said, adding that experienced project teams and the commission’s long-tenured architects usually help find acceptable compromises.

Questions from commission members and others addressed common developer concerns: whether clearer, prescriptive lists of acceptable materials (for example, windows) might speed approvals; how local historic district commissions (HDCs) vary in capacity; the relationship of preservation review to environmental review under NEPA; and the role of tribal historic preservation offices. Emmity advised project proponents to seek early consultation with the preservation office to reduce delay.

Ending: Emmity closed by reminding developers and local officials that preservation reviews take time and work but—if engaged early—can often accommodate housing development while protecting historic resources. \"If project proponents plan accordingly and are prepared to work together and creatively, we should all be able to meet our goals, get housing developed, and preserve historic properties at the same time,\" he said.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Special Legislative Committee on Land Use: 4-3-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Jeff Emmity, executive director of the Rhode Island Historic Preservation and Heritage Commission and the state historic preservation officer, told the commission for the study of the entire area of land use that federal Section 106 and comparable state review are triggered when housing projects use federal or state funds, require federal or state permits, or occur on federal or state property.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature RI, Rhode Island","taxId",77689,"location","Rhode Island","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6612724,"Advocates urge reforms to Rhode Island historic tax credit as program faces funding and administrative strains",1345,2355000,3700000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2888857-1027ea48266c0b817a93f9f0764a4fdb&start=2355&end=3700","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2888857-1027ea48266c0b817a93f9f0764a4fdb/thumbnail_2355000.jpg","/articles/6612724/Rhode-Island/Advocates-urge-reforms-to-Rhode-Island-historic-tax-credit-as-program-faces-funding-and-administrative-strains","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6612724-a49d9af417aa2d3d2f7a8d7f1769b471/orig.mp4?Expires=1770801206&Signature=C~DI9TYTa0qoy22YW7PwC45AFiAq64iUcep4X82ejHEyqYkkd-4dn98SGz27NgxybCH0WNE5wjB2IebBh9NZbJ7s5Kb0VIxTX6Q7m3MpzaAfxYj0gbD8thJbrkEezEPAjy3a7hgQ1tQ9~a0Wl8oLtd3pDGPPPKahVrX~Z2VKkiNai3HDZi3tDIFkMjljhpScDSK2mtWUdBYrqF01ljwt1Ak8DSlesph2s3-OmH~Owdiu2CroWqVZP4VdC9jkZLVFdi9lIWSCPKGAFS2-Ae5BtQ1ohLl8JIKAGi8iH5N-qm0tI7bE8VvM1IWRfuHM1NZhWq3CP5-WpkUAlNPKh3nSGQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Scott Wolf, executive director of GoSmart Rhode Island, told the commission that the Rhode Island state historic tax credit has been a major engine of economic and housing development since its creation in 2002, but that the program is financially strained and needs administrative reform. \"This program has been the single best community economic development and, in many ways, housing incentive the state ever put out there,\" Wolf said.

Wolf summarized program results and concerns: since 2002 the state program supported more than 300 historic rehabilitation projects, produced roughly $2 billion in investment, and has financed projects in 24 of the state’s 39 municipalities. He said the program catalyzes housing production — Wolf estimated roughly 20% of housing units built in recent years were associated with projects using the state credit — and has spurred brownfield cleanup, downtown revitalization and larger municipal tax bases.

Key administrative and policy problems Wolf identified:

- Processing fees: the program currently charges a 3% nonrefundable processing fee on qualified rehabilitation expenses (QREs). Wolf said that makes a $10 million project pay roughly $300,000 up front and is far higher than processing fees in neighboring states.

- Credit structure: the state offers a lower credit (20%) for projects that are primarily residential and a higher credit (25%) for projects with stronger commercial components. Wolf called the lower residential credit counterproductive to current housing needs and noted other states often favor residential projects.

- Prevailing wage threshold: prevailing-wage requirements apply to projects above a $10 million threshold; Wolf and allies propose raising that threshold to $20 million to keep more projects financially feasible while retaining prevailing-wage protections for very large projects.

- Program predictability and waiting list: Wolf said the credit has operated with short sunsets and limited funding windows that make planning difficult; he reported a waiting list of 54 projects seeking roughly $90 million in state credits and projecting nearly $467 million in private investment.

Wolf proposed a package of reforms: reduce the processing-fee burden, adjust the prevailing-wage threshold, reconfigure the credit to better support residential rehabs, increase transparency of the waiting list, and pursue renewed funding once administrative fixes are in place. He said state-level investment would likely yield larger municipal and private returns and that making the program more competitive with neighboring states is important because capital and developer talent are mobile.

Commission members asked about potential downsides, including displacement and gentrification. Wolf responded that rehabilitated properties typically include a mix of price points and that community development corporations use the tax credit for affordable units; he also clarified that projects generally increase municipal property tax revenue, which can reduce fiscal pressure and create options such as homeowner exemptions or rate adjustments.

Wolf and others discussed prior changes to the program: caps introduced after the program’s initial uncapped period, a per‑project cap previously set at $5 million, and a prior pause that restricted new applicants. He said a bill incorporating many of the proposed reforms was expected to be introduced in the legislature soon.

Ending: Wolf urged lawmakers and agency staff to treat the credit as a strategic state tool for housing, downtown revitalization and brownfield cleanup and to pursue reforms and funding to restore the program’s competitiveness. \"We need to play to our strengths and advantages,\" he said.","Scott Wolf, executive director of GoSmart Rhode Island, told the commission the state historic tax credit has produced hundreds of rehabilitations and roughly $2 billion in investment since 2002 but is now \"operating on fumes\" and needs administrative and funding reforms.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Rhode Island preservation office details how federal and state reviews affect housing projects

Advocates urge reforms to Rhode Island historic tax credit as program faces funding and administrative strains