Preservation has been one of the key forces for economic development in Downtown Durham. But now City Council members are looking at tightening eligibility requirements for a tax-break program for historic landmarks, fearing revenue loses for the city. Council voted 6-0 last night to wait until May to decide whether to designate six properties as historic landmarks.
“The delay is supposed to buy time for city/county planners to come up with potential changes to the landmark program that could tighten eligibility requirements facing property owners," according to Ray Gronberg of the Herald-Sun.
In today's Durham paper Gronberg cited City Manager Tom Bonfield as saying that "it's possible the effort could take longer than six months, as there's ‘quite a bit of staff work’ facing officials in the City/County Planning Department.
“Council members signaled their intention to postpone debate on the applications before giving preservationists and downtown business leaders a chance during Monday night's meeting to speak on the idea.
“Once they did, it became apparent the move had opposition. Critics said the council shouldn't back away from a well-considered policy that has helped draw investment into troubled neighborhoods.
“Even downtown, ‘it's obvious that historic preservation has been the driving tool for economic development in this community,’ said John Compton, executive director of Preservation Durham.
“Another critic, Gary Kueber of Scientific Properties, noted that landmark-driven property tax breaks helped make his employer's renovation of the Golden Belt business center on East Main Street possible.
“Given that city officials tout the Golden Belt project as one of the signature efforts in the comeback of downtown and North-East Central Durham, it's ‘not consistent in my mind to damage the programs that have made [that] success possible,’ Kueber said.
“The delay came after council members and County Commissioners alike raised questions like month about the program, which gives owners of council-approved landmarks a 50 percent break on their property taxes.
“For both board, the worries about the program are financial. The six pending applications would cost the two governments a combined $41,902 in revenue each year.
“Some officials fret that given how many old homes still exist in Durham, the revenue loses could mount as more people take advantage of the program.
“But Compton noted that being a landmark isn't all benefit for a building's owner. The label in addition to a tax break means giving up some future redevelopment rights, and submitting plans for exterior renovations to a veto-wielding city/county Historic Preservation Commission.
“City Councilmen Mike Woodard and Howard Clement, who were among those who questioned the program last month, both said Monday they don't want to end it.
“Woodard agreed with preservationists that it's likely tax-break fueled repairs to some properties have actually boosted the local tax base. But he said he wants to see documentation of that, perhaps even as part of the process for reviewing applications.
“He also said the city's Office of Economic and Workforce Development perhaps deserves a role in the review process.
“The full council Monday. The vote went in the books as a 6-0 because Councilman Farad Ali abstained. Ali is co-owner of a house on North Mangum Street that's on one of the pending applications.”
Based on an article by Ray Gronberg
gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648
Showing posts with label Ray Gronberg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ray Gronberg. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Monday, October 26, 2009
County Reconsiders Historic Preservation Tax Break
Faced with potential revenue losses, Durham County Commissioners are taking a long-hard look at whether they wish to continue designating as many historic landmarks so owners will no longer be eligible for tax credits.
According to an article in today’s Durham Herald-Sun, County Commissioners said Monday “they'd like to see a tax break for the owners of designated historic landmarks pared back, by putting a cap on applications or by lowering the credit that owners receive.”
Durham County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow told the Herald’s Ray Gronberg that “local officials should enlist the help of statewide trade groups for city and county governments to perhaps convince the N.C. General Assembly to make changes to the state law underlying the program.”
"’What's so magic about 50 percent?’ she said, referring to the discount landmark owners receive on the taxes once the city or county governments approve their application.
“The comments from Reckhow and fellow commissioner Becky Heron came four days after City Council members, facing half a dozen new applications, also signaled that they'd like to see changes.
“City and county officials alike said they're worried about cumulative revenue losses from the program.
“Among City Council members, a cap on the number of applications the City/County Planning Department processes each year and a one-year suspension of considering new applications were the two options that received the loudest support.
“‘Your counterparts on the council are on the same wavelength,’ City/County Planning Director Steve Medlin assured Heron on Monday when she suggested an application cap.
“The six applications the council is considering would cost the two governments a combined $41,902 in annual revenue. The county's share of that is $23,773 annual.
“Reckhow noted that the tax break - offered, in theory, to offset the higher costs of maintaining older buildings -- lacks a sunset provision."‘Once they get this abatement, it's available, conceivably, forever -- unless you stop the program,’ she said.
“She added that it might make sense to lower the property tax break to 25 percent or 30 percent, depending on how much it generally costs to maintain an old building and a cost-benefit study of the program.
“The commissioners got a chance to wade into the issue because Medlin and his staff were asking them to join the City Council in approving some changes to the local law the governments use in judging the merit of landmark applications.
“The main change was to say that officials can only label a property a landmark if it passes one of three tests:
- It's on the National Register of Historic Places or a national register study list;
- It's judged by officials in the State Preservation Office to have statewide historic significance;
- It's in relative terms still in its original condition with regard to ‘location, design, setting, materials and workmanship,’ and represents events, people, characteristics or architecture important to the Durham community.”
“The change also says officials won't label as a landmark any property that's actively under renovation, except if its owner has received state or federal preservation tax credits.
“Commissioners agreed to the change unanimously, echoing a vote the previous week by the City Council.“Planners said the change came in response to similar questions about the program that came up as officials were considering a set of applications that went through the council last year.
From an article by Ray Gronberg
gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648
According to an article in today’s Durham Herald-Sun, County Commissioners said Monday “they'd like to see a tax break for the owners of designated historic landmarks pared back, by putting a cap on applications or by lowering the credit that owners receive.”
Durham County Commissioner Ellen Reckhow told the Herald’s Ray Gronberg that “local officials should enlist the help of statewide trade groups for city and county governments to perhaps convince the N.C. General Assembly to make changes to the state law underlying the program.”
"’What's so magic about 50 percent?’ she said, referring to the discount landmark owners receive on the taxes once the city or county governments approve their application.
“The comments from Reckhow and fellow commissioner Becky Heron came four days after City Council members, facing half a dozen new applications, also signaled that they'd like to see changes.
“City and county officials alike said they're worried about cumulative revenue losses from the program.
“Among City Council members, a cap on the number of applications the City/County Planning Department processes each year and a one-year suspension of considering new applications were the two options that received the loudest support.
“‘Your counterparts on the council are on the same wavelength,’ City/County Planning Director Steve Medlin assured Heron on Monday when she suggested an application cap.
“The six applications the council is considering would cost the two governments a combined $41,902 in annual revenue. The county's share of that is $23,773 annual.
“Reckhow noted that the tax break - offered, in theory, to offset the higher costs of maintaining older buildings -- lacks a sunset provision."‘Once they get this abatement, it's available, conceivably, forever -- unless you stop the program,’ she said.
“She added that it might make sense to lower the property tax break to 25 percent or 30 percent, depending on how much it generally costs to maintain an old building and a cost-benefit study of the program.
“The commissioners got a chance to wade into the issue because Medlin and his staff were asking them to join the City Council in approving some changes to the local law the governments use in judging the merit of landmark applications.
“The main change was to say that officials can only label a property a landmark if it passes one of three tests:
- It's on the National Register of Historic Places or a national register study list;
- It's judged by officials in the State Preservation Office to have statewide historic significance;
- It's in relative terms still in its original condition with regard to ‘location, design, setting, materials and workmanship,’ and represents events, people, characteristics or architecture important to the Durham community.”
“The change also says officials won't label as a landmark any property that's actively under renovation, except if its owner has received state or federal preservation tax credits.
“Commissioners agreed to the change unanimously, echoing a vote the previous week by the City Council.“Planners said the change came in response to similar questions about the program that came up as officials were considering a set of applications that went through the council last year.
From an article by Ray Gronberg
gronberg@heraldsun.com; 419-6648
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
