by J. Brooks Terry
Staff Writer
City Council members Suzanne Jenkins and Elaine Brown say the Council should either pass or pull a pair of bills allowing tax breaks for historic renovation downtown.
The bills, which would grant tax exemption for qualified landmark properties, have languished in committee for nearly two years.
They were introduced at the request of a downtown historic preservation task force.
“The goal from the beginning when we served on the task force was to attract more attention downtown,” said Jenkins. “We wanted developers to come here. We wanted things to start happening here.
“We thought the bill helped provide for that.”
However, as the ordinances were first scrutinized and subsequently deferred in committee, Jenkins said she initially supported having them withdrawn them at the behest of Council Auditors.
“I did because I felt like there wasn’t the support we needed for them,” she said. “They came about during Matt Carlucci’s presidential term because that was his platform.
“But then they were caught in the transition as Jerry Holland became president and his interests just lay elsewhere. Over time, they continued to sit there and weren’t discussed.”
Jenkins changed her mind about pulling them, however, after City attorneys told her the bills could spur historical preservation at little cost to taxpayers.
“One of the concerns that kept coming up when the bills were first introduced,” said Jason Teal, an attorney at City Hall, “was that it would cost the City a lot of money in lost tax revenue.”
Teal calculated potential tax shortfalls from the bills and found the numbers to be far from over the top.
“If every piece of downtown property qualified for this kind of exemption at 50 percent, the City would only lose out on about $650,000,” he said. “Obviously at 100 percent it’s double that amount, but still not all that high.
“And that’s if every building qualified, which wouldn’t happen.”
Teal said qualified buildings must obtain a historical designation through the City, which at a minimum requires they be at least 50 years old.
“Right there you’ve knocked out all of the major buildings downtown,” he said.
The bills further mandate that the eligible properties be sanctioned for either commercial or non-profit uses.
A second concern, Teal said, was that lower tax revenues might shortchange Downtown Vision Inc.’s budget. DVI is funded through various tax streams.
According to Teal, DVI director Terry Lorince said the bills would have little effect on their operating budget.
“She even said it,” said Teal “The majority of their budget is being supplemented by buildings like the Bank of America and Modis (Independent Square) buildings.
“The bottom line is, it’s up to the Council to decide if they want to do this or not, but from a City perspective, with this kind of arrangement they might be able to encourage more interest downtown without having to pay more later.”
With that information, Jenkins said it might be time for she and Brown to more vocally support the bills to the Council.
“We’ll have to see,” she said. “I want to learn more about the downside of passing either bill. If it turns out there aren’t any, we’ll have to champion these bills and get them approved.”