Austin tax breaks for historical landmarks more generous than other cities, review fi

[JAM]

Austin is the only large Texas city that offers permanent tax breaks to hundreds of historical homes and buildings, according to an American-Statesman review of preservation programs in the state . Austin and local taxing entities also lost more revenue from the tax break last year - $4.2 million - than that in any other large Texas city.

Austin is preparing to revise its 36 -year-old historical preservation program to quell concerns about the growing number of properties, many of them high-value West Austin homes, that the city has designated as landmarks and made eligible for tax breaks.

Unlike Austin, many cities require owners of historical landmarks to restore or rehabilitate those buildings to get tax breaks that last three to 15 years. Austin is also the only big Texas city in which owners of most historical properties could, until recently, get a tax exemption from all local taxing entities. And Austin was slow to form local historic districts, a zoning tool that can preserve swaths of older buildings with smaller tax breaks than landmarks receive.

Last year, Austin designated about 50 landmarks, more than any city the Statesman surveyed, which included five cities outside of Texas. Austin's preservation program also took more property value off the tax rolls - $250 million - than any other Texas city except Dallas, at $263 million .
...

Bicentennial spurred preservation

Many cities and states created preservation programs in the 1970s , in the wake of new federal preservation policies and a focus on history stirred by America's bicentennial, said Donovan Rypkema

Austin began designating landmarks in 1974 to counter a spate of demolitions occurring in the downtown area, said Betty Baker , who ran Austin's preservation program from 1974 to 1996 .

Landmark status alone wasn't enough to persuade owners to give up some rights to redevelop their properties, Baker said. So the city added tax breaks in 1976 , at the urging of the city commission that reviews landmark applications, Baker said.
....

Austin's criteria for landmarks - buildings must be at least 50 years old, have enough structural integrity to convey a historical look and meet two of five other standards, such as having associations with significant events - dovetail with those in other cities. Its tax break does not.

For owner-occupied homes, the city permanently exempts 100 percent of a home's value and 50 percent of the land value, if the owner maintains the building's historical appearance and gets city approval before making exterior changes, from paint color to additions. During a 2004 effort to update the preservation program, the city capped its tax break for future designated landmarks only.

Most other cities and states require owners to renovate a historical building to receive a tax break, then set a time limit on the discount, said Adrian Fine of the National Trust for Historic Preservation .

In San Antonio , owners of historical buildings who rehabilitate them either pay no city property taxes for five years and get a less-generous tax break for the next five , or pay taxes on the building's pre-rehab value for 10 years.

Owners in Houston who spend 50 percent to just under 100 percent of a historical building's value on renovation (a $250,000 restoration of a $500,000 building, for example) pay taxes on the new value of the property minus the restoration's cost for 15 years. They get a bigger tax break for spending more than 100 percent.

Houston and Fort Worth offer especially generous tax breaks only to "significant" and "highly endangered" buildings that meet criteria above a typical landmark. Only six historical buildings in Houston qualify for that tax break, which cuts as much as $30,000 off the owner's city property taxes in perpetuity, no restoration required.

read more at: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...us-894986.html

[electricron]

I know bureaucrats love to go around benchmarking their government agency with others, but why is being in the top or bottom percentile automatically wrong? Should we grade our city's agencies and regulations on a bell curve with other cities?

If we do seek mediocrity; we will never be leaders, only followers.....

[JAM]

Originally Posted by electricron

I know bureaucrats love to go around benchmarking their government agency with others, but why is being in the top or bottom percentile automatically wrong? Should we grade our city's agencies and regulations on a bell curve with other cities?

If we do seek mediocrity; we will never be leaders, only followers.....

probably cause city needs money and this is low hanging fruit

[JAM]

In the last few years, home owners have been unwilling to allow taxes to be raised to support local schools. A "tax cut" was given to the home owners. This "tax cut" was actually just a shell trick and moved to local businesses, raising biz taxes. In turn this increased costs of doing business must be passed on to their customers.

wonder how this "tax increase" will effect our community.....

The AISD board of trustees voted Aug. 23 to eliminate a tax break offered for historic properties. The elimination of the tax break, which saves $1.77 million for local and statewide education, now provides less monetary support for owners of historic properties.

“It is very precipitous and ill advised,” said Jacqui Schraad, executive director of the Heritage Society of Austin. “It is going to have some long-term, unintended consequences.”

http://impactnews.com/central-austin...ves-18-million