0 gO

HISTORIC ST. AUGUSTINE PRESERVATION BOARD
May 3, 1973


Memorandum to: John W. Griffin
From: Robert H. Steinbach
Subject: Possibility of State or Federal Aid for Restoration of
Montgomery House


As per our recent discussion with Mr. John Bailey in regards to the availability
of funds to assist in the restoration of the Montgomery House, I called Mr.
Randy Nimnicht, Chief, Bureau of Historic Sites and Properties, as to availabil-
ity, procedure, etc.
There will be approximately $960,000 in Federal funds and quite possibly $400,000
in State funds available after July 1, 1973, for restoration projects state wide.
These. are generally 50% matching funds, with the balance coming from local
sources.
He advtsed me that the most acceptable approach from his viewpoint would be to:
ceasider an acquisition and development project, with the bulk of the local funds
being the appraised value of the land and structure. He felt that a life tenancy
clause in the deed would not be objectionable. The additional $15,000, which is
available, would also help toward acceptance of the project.
If the total of the appraised value and the cash available were $45,000, then
theoretically there would be $45,000 available in matching funds, or a tatal of
$90,000 for a complete project cost. Nimnicht's feeling was, however, that we
probably would not get the full amount, particularly in the first year.
The first step, in any case,. wil be tpwrt eMr. ;Nimnplcht a letter requesting
that the project be ineled in-the 7 73-74 funding program. This letter should
contain the following information:
1) Cost es imate, broken dowh ihto categories.
2) Source of .matchtlngifurds'. ,
3) Statement to.the effect that the Preservation Board would maintain
the structure.
4), Adaptive use.
A final note of encouragement from Mr. Nimnicht was the fact that St. Augustine
has yet to receive any Federal assistance, which was to be disbursed on a some-
what regional basis.








Comments on Towers Property Proposed Agreement:
1. The Historic St. Augustine Preservation ,tand will be -tfte agency responsible
for planning. Of course, Mrs. Towers should approve the plahs. I would as-
sume deeding. would occur prior to planning. Reason: planning to be funded
through the federal grant, and deed must be in hand before expenditure made.
Otherwise this cost item would be disallowed. Plans must also be approved by
the National ,Park Service (Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation)
before construction can begin.
2. Property would be deeded to the Historic St. Augustine Preservation Board. -We
must then transfer title to Trustees of Internal Improvement and receive a
lease-back from them.
(a) I assume the reverter clause would be acceptable to the state inasmuch
as the grant money is available.
(b) The life estate is, I feel, a matter completely at the discretion of
the Board, as is also any continuation of the heirs. The only possible
problem might be the long time during which the house would not be able to be
used for permanent residence if this becomes economically necessary.
State carries its own insurance for fire. Privately owned contents are
anoth matter.
Taxes would be no problem on a state-owned property.
(c) If possible I would prefer that the house be designated as a memorial to
Mrs. Towers. An historic house should bear the name of its first docu-
mented owner as its official name. The memorial designation should be
kept separate.
3. This is between the Corporation and Mrs. Towers.




V11