City Manager Wants to Renegotiate Terms With NPS

Michigan is my home state. While others revile Detroit and the state, I still am proud to refer to myself as a Michigander. On the one hand, the state supports and cherishes their lighthouses. Emmett County even went so far as to buy a private lighthouse and return it to its original state and relight it. But on the other hand, there are certain clueless city managers that refuse and obstruct the transfer of one of the most historic lighthouses in the state to their care. That manager is Bruce Brown, City manager of Port Huron, Michigan, pictured at left. An article in the Port Huron Times Herald appeared today that completely shocked me. If my calling Brown clueless sounds harsh, it’s because I’m privy to certain knowledge about what has been going on behind the scenes. And there is absolutely NO excuse for Brown wanting to send back the deed for “further negotiation.” Let me explain…

But first, if you haven’t read the previous stories about Fort Gratiot posted here, or you want to refresh your memory, you might want to check these stories out:

• Legal Issues Harm Michigan’s Lighthouse Restoration (July 2006)
• Bricks Fall While Fort Gratiot Lighthouse Awaits Transfer To City (August 2007)
• Fort Gratiot Lighthouse Tower Closes (August 2008)
• Fort Gratiot Lighthouse in Limbo (December 2008)
• Port Huron Gets Deed To Fort Gratiot Lighthouse (February 2009)

All sounds good in the last story, after six years the deed is finally transferred to the city. But no, this is where the council and city manager apparently take their first look at it, and suddenly balk at the terms. It was indicated in the Times Herald story that they didn’t like this deed, and wanted to send it back with what they wanted.

Fort Gratiot Lighthouse in March 2009. Photo By MDProvost. Some Rights Reserved.

Anyone familiar with the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act of 2000 knows that the terms require restoration. But no where in the deed does it say that they have to be done by a certain time. It also requires that the lighthouse and buildings be used for public education, and be as accessible to as many people as possible.

Lighthouse News Contacted For Help

It was shortly after this story was published that I was contacted by a member of the Port Huron City Council, who was supportive of the lighthouse transfer. But he had questions, which were understandable. So when I indicated I would help, I received the following email outlining their concerns.

The main issue is continuing money supporting the lighthouse. The transfer deed states that no commercial enterprises can be run on the site. Well, the Museum needs to run gift shops and more to generate funds to keep this viable. Also, this is not just a lighthouse, it will come with 7 buildings that all need restoration. The Museum has plans on running a quasi Bed & Breakfast with lighthouse keeper experiences, etc. This would not be allowed in the current deed.

The deed also stated that all structures will comply with the ADA and that all renovations meet US DOI standards. These are mutually exclusive. There is no way a lighthouse can be altered to allow wheelchair access.

All problem points:

1. The unrestricted right of access by USCG and NOAA for almost any reason they can think of.

2. The requirement that we correct lead based base and asbestos violations.

3. The proposed use restrictions that would likely eliminate any involvement with the Museum or any commercial activity on the property.

4. The requirement that improvements and materials used for routine alterations be approved in advance by the Department of Interior.

5. Our ability to comply with the restoration of the property and meet the requirements of handicapped persons to enter and use the facilities.

I was also forwarded an email from Brown that spoke to these concerns and others. My comments addressing these in my reply follow. I indicated I would answer these questions as much as I could, and also enlist the help of two of the biggest players in lighthouse preservation.

1. On Page 2 there is a reference to Exhibit 2. We don’t accept that the site is free of lead based paint as the Exhibit seem to refer to activity related to the painting of the buildings on the site. There may be other instances of lead based paint on the site for which we cannot accept responsibility.
2. On Page 3 reference is made to unrestricted right of access to the site by USCG, NOAA etc. Purposes for entering the site in an unrestricted manner are “environmental, remediation, items related to navigation systems (keep, locate, service, maintain, operate, repair and replace), items related to data collection (operation and maintenance), and any other corrective action”. These intrusions seem to be excessive and uncontrollable. We need to know what equipment and devices will be left on the site and what has been required historically to maintain them
3. On Pages 3 and 4, we are required to provide indemnification for lead based paint and asbestos violations. The USCG has had staff occupying these buildings for some time and they very likely have been exposed to these health hazards these conditions pose. Why would we agree to take on the liability for these people?
4. On Page 7 reference is made prohibiting “commercial” activities on the site. The City has proposed charging entrance fees, selling lighthouse related and general products, and perhaps renting the residential buildings for bed and breakfast use. This appears to violate the provision banning “commercial” use of the facility. Also on this page is a requirement that the City apply for a National Register designation of the property. When granted, a series of covenants are required. Of concern are:
   • a. What is the required timetable for restoring all of the non-lighthouse buildings and what are our responsibilities related to the buildings during the interim?
   • b. What is involved in the “review and approval” process related to the Secretary of Interior? If it is simply a telephone or electronic communication with a staff person, that’s one thing. But a lengthy process getting through Washington is another.
   • c. We are not aware of any archeological resources on the property…are you aware of any?
   • d. Reference is made to the SHPO but no explanation is offered concerning what is meant by the designation.
5. On Page 8, reference is made to “other laws” with which we would be expected to comply. We do not see how it is possible to restore the buildings and provide access as required under the Architectural barriers Act and the Americans With Disabilities Act.
6. The City has discussed the possibility of entering into an agreement with the museum to operate the facility. It does not appear that we are able to accomplish this as we would in effect, be conveying, assigning and encumbering” the property.

My Reply:

1. This will apply when painting is done, which will be soon. The paint cannot be scraped off and left on the ground. There will need to be proper removal and disposal procedures in place.
2. The Coast Guard maintains ownership of the optic. And by NOAA’s involvement, there is weather collecting instruments at the site. They need access to repair and maintain their equipment. If the light goes out in the middle of the night, they need to be able to get there to change it. ALL non-profits and municipalities have to agree to this. No option. And as I indicated, it’s rare that they show up. Once a year seems to be the norm, unless there are problems.
3. You will not be taking on liability for previous occupants. This is for the protection of visitors. As I explained earlier, removal of asbestos and lead based paint has to be done in the proper manner. And any firm you hire that has experience in dealing with historical buildings will be able to deal with this. And you will need to be hiring the proper companies. It’s not something that can be done with volunteer labor. Expensive, yes, but there are grants.
4. Switch to a donation model. You need to make the lighthouse and grounds available to the most people. Again, it’s the law under the NHLPA of 2000. Forget a set fee, unless you own property surrounding the newly deeded land. Beds and breakfasts to raise money are certainly doable. Little River Light in Maine has been transferred to the ALF, and runs as a Bed and Breakfast. It may require an exception, but working with the NPS isn’t that difficult. Gift shop items, can be sold at the regular museum. Or you can do the “donation gift” I referred to in a previous email.
5. I can’t help you on the state application timetable, because that is who you will be applying to, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Which in Michigan would be the www.michigan.gov/shpo The light is already listed in the National Historic register: Reference #76001975
   Once the light is on the State Historical Properties list, you will be working directly with them, as will all your contractors. And it’s not different than anyone else. If you make any modifications to the lighthouse or historic buildings on the site, you WILL need the approval of the state. But they are generally easy to work with. It’s of a need to maintain historic accuracy. Even regular homeowners in a state designated historic district has to go through them. Trust me, I know. Been there, done that, got the hat, gave it back. Generally the State Office will take over from the DOI, they work together closely. If the State approves, the DOI will certainly rubberstamp it. About how long you have for repairs, it isn’t written in stone. You will need to repair the lighthouse first, as that seems to be the one with the most issues. The other buildings can wait until funds become available.
6. Archaeological resources usually refer to graves, particlularly of the native peoples. Or maybe Civil War era. Probably not applicable.
7. Because of the nature of historic properties, you will not be expected to make the lighthouse ADA compliant. The SHPO will not allow changes like that anyway. Other buildings, they might have to be. Without knowing which buildings you have inherited, I doubt that there would be any real major renovations to comply.
8. Let me give you a little history on your concern about conveyance. That rule was added because of a case in Maine. A gentleman formed a non-profit corporation for the sole purpose of acquiring Squirrel Point Lighthouse under the NHLPA of 2000. Same way as you’re getting it: free. After a couple of years, he never repaired it, never opened it to the public, and never had any money coming in. So he put it on the market, listing it with a local real estate company for $250,000 (I believe). Well, the NPS was informed, and it took court action to stop him from selling it. Finally it was reverted back to the government (which they have since deeded to the Chewonki Foundation after offering it once more), and they added that clause to prevent anything like that from happening again. What that means is you cannot sell it on the open market. It does NOT mean that you can’t turn it over to the museum for management. Trust me. It’s okay to do. You can also form a Friends of Fort Gratiot Lighthouse non-profit subgroup and turn management over to them.

Help From Others

On the assumption my response wouldn’t be enough, I also enlisted two acquaintances, from the American Lighthouse Foundation and the Great lakes Lighthouse Keepers Association. Both were extremely helpful, in that the Executive Director of GLLKA, Terry Pepper, and I talked on the phone, and he personally called the Councilman and advised him on the issues. He even went so far to help set up a face to face meeting with the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office.

The Executive Director of the ALF, Bob Trapani, emailed me, offering more advice on the issues, with a suggestion he call for more help. For others that may be interested in his extremely helpful advice, I quote from that email below.

The deed contains all the buildings from the Coast Guard, and I assume those are the ones that need to be made ADA compliant. The lighthouse cannot be and maintain its historical integrity. However, Mr. ******’s interpretation is that the lighthouse is included in it. I believe the lighthouse itself would be exempt from this requirement…at least that is how I’ve seen it with other lights around the country. One way groups try to overcome the fact that the lighthouse cannot be modified to accommodate this ADA requirement is by developing a mobile interpretive program (such as a flip-book) that can be brought to a person unable to access the tower. This kind of initiative generally contains photos of the interior and exterior close-ups of the lantern, etc., while also containing historical info and pictures of keepers, their families, etc. Hereford Inlet Lighthouse in NJ has created a real nice program like this, which satisfies the situation the best way possible.

I have seen historic keeper’s houses discretely install ADA compliant ramps that permit access to the dwelling, but only for the first floor. It would be historically inaccurate to install an elevator in a keeper’s house, thus lighthouse projects provide the physically challenged individuals with additional interpretation of the remainder of the building that cannot be accessed.

Sidewalks or ramps are a great way for individuals with wheel chairs or walkers to have liberty to roam the grounds of the light station, have looks inside outbuildings such as oil houses, fog whistle buildings, etc.

I do believe some type of gift shop would be allowed, although since it’s a land transfer also Gift shops that are directly related to the mission, offering logo type merchandise related to the lighthouse, or gift items that people can buy such as postcards, books, etc. is acceptable. The general rule of thumb is all the funding received from such sales go back into the mission / preservation of the historic site (except that revenue necessary to maintain inventory, etc.) Lighthouses should have this revenue option to lean on, especially in economic trying times where every dollar raised matters big-time. Besides, gift sales is a great way to allow people to take their experience home with them…and it can be educational to boot. (I believe, but am not certain), and definitely a bed and breakfast is probably okay, since Little River and Race Point both are sleepover places. A B & B operation is an acceptable adaptive re-use of a light station…something that can create a unique recreational opportunity and serve as an educational platform all in one. This also creates an additional revenue stream that can go back into the lighthouse. I’m not sure this would be the best fit for Port Huron project since the site will no doubt have a chance to welcome a good amount of visitors. A living history operation might be a better situation.

My thoughts are that unless the asbestos is disturbed during renovation, it’s best to leave it in place. This is something that can require labeling if asbestos does exist, but I do agree that if the asbestos is in the walls, or around piping that is out of the public eye, or non-friable floor tiles exist, etc., it might be viewed as not posing an unacceptable risk. Obviously if friable asbestos exists within a building, especially in areas that the public will have access to, its best to remove it before public access. The lead paint, well, it’s merely a case of mitigation when it’s done. The lead paint issue is a sensitive one. There is a good chance the lead paint would have to be removed before public access…at least in areas where the public will have access to. A government owned project — in this case the City, will probably want to accomplish this to avoid any possible litigation should a visitor do something out of the ordinary with lead paint.

Yes, all restoration work or modifications must be approved prior by the State Historic Preservation Office, in this case Michigan’s. The SHPO would be a great resource too when it comes to restoration options, and even possible funding. And of course, the ATOn and weather equipment remains the property of the US. Yes, the ATON does remain in Coast Guard hands, and naturally they must have access to it any time necessary.

So Why the Reluctance?

With all of this help coming their way, why does it seem the City Manager is still stuck in a “we can’t do this all at once” mode? That’s totally asinine. No one expects it to be finished all at once. The priority would be the lighthouse. And it’s also my understanding the Port Huron Museum states the Coast Guard crew would be allowed to continue to use the buildings as housing for the time being. And every concern has been addressed with the help of two great lighthouse restoration experts.

A $400,000 grant has probably already been lost due to the waffling by the Council and Manager. And what about the recent lighthouse fundraiser sponsored by the Port Huron Museum? That raised $27,000 just in one night. There is support for the lighthouse in the city, Mr. Brown. And there is also money available even in these tough economic times. Don’t believe me? Just look to the money raised to protect lighthouses elsewhere. Even look as close as Emmett County in your own state.

To those reading this, please send this story to as many people you know to let them know how clueless one city can be in a state that has such great appreciation and support for their lighthouses. Look no further than Michigan’s recent tourism advertising campaign for proof of that.

 

 

And please feel free to email Bruce Brown and let him know his argument has no merit. Email brownb@porthuron.org and voice your opinion.

Keep up with Lighthouse News. Get articles by Email or in a Reader.