Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chair declines to approve Indiana Landmarks contract as preservation supporters urge renewal
Summary
Public commenters and the Preservation Commission urged the New Castle Board of Works to renew a contract with Indiana Landmarks to support its Historic Preservation Commission, citing grant access and a high COA approval rate; the chair said budget pressures tied to Senate Bill 1 prevented a motion and the item died on the table.
Emily Hurst, director of Newcastle Main Street, told the New Castle Board of Works on July 6 that renewing the city’s contract with Indiana Landmarks has strengthened the Historic Preservation Commission and helped the city secure grant funding.
“Our historic preservation commission has had over 95% approval of all of the COAs that have been issued,” Hurst said, adding that the contract reduces workload for local volunteers, helps the city qualify as a certified local government and improves access to grant funding and training.
Dave Nance, president of the Preservation Commission, and downtown property owner Sebastian Bridal echoed Hurst’s remarks. Nance said professional preservation guidelines help protect irreplaceable buildings and support economic development through heritage tourism and neighborhood revitalization. Bridal said the contract improves the city’s competitiveness for larger grants and helps maintain expensive historic structures.
Despite those endorsements, the chair of the Board of Works said he would not move to approve the Indiana Landmarks contract because of looming budget pressures. The chair said the city is facing reductions in tax draws tied to “Senate Bill 1” and that paying for the contract amid upcoming employee raise requests was not feasible at this time. “I am not gonna make a motion to approve it,” the chair said; no other member moved the item, and it died on the table.
No formal action was recorded to approve the contract at this meeting. Preservation supporters urged the board to reconsider when finances allow; board members did not set a new date for further consideration.
The board heard public comments and formal testimony in favor of the contract but took no vote. The item’s next procedural step was not specified at the meeting.
