JUSTIN PARKER NICHOLS

1905 Moore Drive (972) 312-0911 phone

Plano, Texas 75074 (800) 761-5782 facsimile
www.JustinNichols.net Justin@justinnichols.net

July 21, 2010

Heritage Commission
c/o Mrs. Liz Casso Hersch
Heritage Preservation Officer
City of Plano
1520 Avenue K
Plano, Texas 75074
Via Email

Re: Public Comment on FY 2011 Heritage Preservation Grants

Dear Chairman Chaput, Vice Chairwoman Quaintance-Howard, and Commissioners:

I am writing to submit my comments to the Commission on the FY2011 Heritage

Preservation Grant applications which you will consider on July 20-21, 2010. I regret that I
cannot appear before you in person, but I hope you’ll consider my comments and concerns.

As a former member and chair of the Commission, I know that a difficult task lies before
you. Indeed hundreds of thousands of public dollars, and best way in which to use those dollars
to promote heritage tourism in Plano, rests upon your discretion and judgment. So, first, I want
to thank you for your service to the city and for your dedication to this difficult process.

I am writing specifically about the application for more than $245,000 from the Plano
African American Museum (“PAAM”). As a Plano taxpayer I have significant concerns about
PAAM’s requests, and I have outlined my concerns below:

Repeated Failure to Abide by Heritage Preservation Ordinances

On November 30, 2004, at my first meeting to sit on the Commission, we considered an

application by PAAM for a certificate of appropriateness (“CA”) for a new roof on the Thornton
House. Notably, the roof was already installed before PAAM applied for a CA. The
Commission and staff chastised PAAM for its disregard for the CA process, and PAAM’s
leadership assured the Commission that it would comply in the future.

It’s important to note that, while the membership of the Commission has changed since
2004, the leadership of PAAM has not changed since that time.

And recently, as you are likely aware, in October 2009 the Commission was again asked
to approve an after-the-fact CA for a granite sign which had already been installed. The
leadership of PAAM, alleging an oversight, blatantly failed to comply with the CA requirements
Plano Heritage Commission
July 21, 2010
Page 2
_________________________

– again. It is hard for me to believe that one can “accidentally” forget about the CA process
twice in a five year period, particularly with such large projects as a roof and a granite sign.

It is my opinion that the leadership of PAAM either refuses to learn, or more likely,
refuses to comply with the basic Commission procedures which are imposed upon every other
business, resident, and organization in a historic district or historically designated structure.
PAAM’s persistent disregard of heritage preservation ordinances should be taken into account
when making this year’s grant funding recommendations; especially since the other applicants
consistently adhere to basic rules and ought to be rewarded for their strict compliance with same.

Failure to Meet the Objective of Promoting Heritage Tourism

I’d ask the Commission to keep in mind that the heritage preservation grants have a
primary goal – to increase heritage tourism in the city of Plano, thereby sustaining our city’s tax
base. And, while there are other objectives ancillary to the tourism mandate, the main objective
should be the promotion of heritage tourism. PAAM fails to meet this goal.

First, PAAM doesn’t provide any substantive information to the public or to prospective
visitors. For example, its Website is defunct. There isn’t as much as a phone number on
PAAM’s Website. The “Gallery” page consists of a single picture of the Thornton House, and
other pictures from the Douglass Community Art Wall, which was not a project associated with
PAAM. The “Events” page lists only a November 2009 “Holiday Fun Run,” which was not
funded through heritage grants and doesn’t relate to the museum or the Thornton House. Its
“Community” page is listed as being under construction. The “Exhibits” isn’t functional, and the
“Home Page” provides only basic narrative. PAAM’s Website does not list any hours of
operation, directions to the museum, or even a phone number or address. In this sense, PAAM is
failing to take even basic, and free, steps to promote tourism.

Secondly, PAAM has failed to carry out even non-Thornton House events which would
promote tourism. You’ll note that for FY2011 PAAM has requested $20,000 for an
“Underground Railroad Symposium.” However, also note that for FY2010, this body granted
$10,000 for the exact same symposium, which was supposed to occur in the spring of 2010, but
never happened! And now, PAAM is asking for twice the money for an event it failed to host
when it was funded last year, and has provided no evidence as to why the symposium would now
cost twice as much as its previous request or how the previously granted funds were spent.

It seems to me like PAAM consistently bites off more than it can chew. You’ll hear
sound bites like “a museum without walls,” an “all volunteer board,” and being “open for
business,” but the fact of the matter is that other organizations in Plano are holding truly regular
hours of operation, providing ample information for an interested public, and have a clear scope
of their mission and function – all for equal or less than the money PAAM seeks!
Plano Heritage Commission
July 21, 2010
Page 3
_________________________

PAAM Continues to Increase Funding Requests Without Increasing Return

In recent years PAAM’s funding requests have begun to rival those of the Heritage
Farmstead Museum and the Plano Conservancy. But, as I’m sure you’ll note, PAAM hasn’t
nearly the public presence or reputation as the other two largest heritage organizations in Plano.
And, while I’m not asserting that Plano’s heritage should be limited to only two main
organizations, I would argue that if an organization is going to ask for the similar amounts of
money as the “big boys,” then it should plan on providing the same level of service. PAAM
doesn’t. While much younger than the Heritage Farmstead, PAAM’s only a year younger than
the Interurban Railway Museum, and both the Farmstead and the Interurban have concrete,
established, and functioning programs which absolutely dwarf, in size and scope, the much
smaller PAAM – but who is requesting the same dollars.

In 2007 PAAM asked this body for $79,000 dollars and suggested that it would do
everything in its power to open its doors soon, but no dates were given. Out of frustration with
the history of slow progress by PAAM, this body recommended a funding level of $20,000. It
was my job then, as it will be Chairman Chaput’s job, to present the Commission’s
recommendations to City Council. PAAM showed up at the budget hearing to complain, but this
time, just two months after the Commission had met, PAAM had refined its budget request to a
more modest $49,000 for the same projects and PAAM promised a firm open date of October 1,
2008. That date came and went, and PAAM still wasn’t open for business.

Plano is facing extraordinary budget challenges. And while I realize that, per the
ordinance, hotel/motel tax revenue cannot be diverted to the general fund, it is essential that the
Commission do its part to ensure that every dollar being spent on for heritage preservation is
likely to bring folks to Plano to shop, eat, visit, and stay. It is my opinion that, of all the
applicants, PAAM is in the furthest position to positively affect tourism in Plano – especially
given its exorbitant monetary requests which have not yielded any proportional return in the past.

PAAM’s Historical and Continued Lack of Fiscal Responsibility

PAAM typically fails to meet quarterly reporting deadlines at least once per year. These
reports may be cumbersome upon recipients, but they are a necessary step to ensure the
Commission’s goals are being met and that recipients are doing as they promised. Much can be
inferred about PAAM’s respect for the grant process by its regular failure to make timely reports.

Also, as the minutes reflect, many Commission members, past and present, have
repeatedly exhibited frustration with the lack of timeliness in completing funded projects. It
seems that, while commissioners consistently request more timely completion of funded projects,
PAAM only offers endless explanations and excuses, which at the end of the day, doesn’t change
the long history of not completing projects on time, if at all.

Thirdly, PAAM has failed to provide the Commission with a certified audit which is
required of all other grant applicants. While PAAM has offered unrelated memos from city staff,
Plano Heritage Commission
July 21, 2010
Page 4
_________________________

the requirement for applicants is clear – a certified audit must be submitted – period. Yet again,
PAAM appears to be asking for special treatment and, in effect a waiver, from the Commission
on important financial control procedures. I would urge the Commission not to excuse PAAM.

Fourthly, I continue to be disappointed by the lack of non-city funds procured by PAAM.

While we can talk about the cancellation of past debts (i.e. mortgages), the Heritage Commission
has never been asked to service debts used for the purchase of land. PAAM’s funding requests
continue to increase and are not offset by sources outside city funds. As you’re likely aware, a
key element of each application is how much of an applicant’s funding comes from the, as well
as the length of time on which an applicant has relied on city funds. The trend suggest that the
newer an organization, the more likely the Commission is willing to accept more reliance on city
funds. But the expectation has always been clear: as they age, applicants need to become less
sufficient on city monies. This has categorically not been the case for PAAM, and I feel that
continued funding by the city only perpetuates PAAM’s reliance on same.

Finally, the projects for which PAAM has applied for funding this year lack any
specificity, and it appears that PAAM’s leadership is content with explaining tens of thousands
of dollars of requests under the broad descriptions of “operational” and “service specific.”
Surely PAAM could have provided more details to aid the Commission in making a more
educated decision. PAAM’s lack of transparency in this grant application, like its other
applications, raises many concerns about exactly how money has and will be spent.

Conclusion

Commissioners, I want to assure you that this was a difficult and unpleasant letter to
write. I take no pleasure in highlighting the shortcomings of an organization that started with a
well-intentioned and ambitious mission. But, these are tough times, and no application should
receive a less stringent review, be granted an unwarranted exception, or served with an uneven
hand when dolling out public funds.

I urge the Commission to refrain from recommending funding for anything except what
is necessary to keep the power and water on at the Thornton House, and to ensure its security. I
feel that any additional funds sought by PAAM should be pursued directly from City Council,
and should be made to compete with the rest of the city’s budget challenges.

I thank you for your service to our city, and for your consideration of my thoughts.

Sincerely yours,

JUSTIN P. NICHOLS