Creating a historic district in downtown Emporia could lead to financial incentives to drive downtown revitalization, but also could lead to more regulations as the properties will fall under the authority of the state historic preservation office.
Christy Davis, preservation consultant with Davis Preservation in Topeka, presented information on historic districts to Emporia commissioners at the commission’s study session Wednesday morning.
According to Davis, the state ultimately will decide on the creation of a historic district, but the city has the option to recommend or oppose the project.
Davis has been working since early last fall on a plan for the district, which would cover Commercial Street from 12th Avenue to the railroad tracks and parts of other streets, including Mechanic and Merchant streets.
Properties included within the district would qualify for property tax incentives and tax credits for renovation and redevelopment work, but also would face more strict regulations because of state preservation statutes.
The project started with work being planned to renovate Broadview Towers.
Matt Catanese of Investment Resources Corp., the company doing the work on Broadview Towers, said the company tried to have the building listed on the National Register of Historic Places, but it didn’t qualify because of extensive changes made over the years, including bricking up the ground floor windows. Creating a historic district downtown would qualify the Broadview project for $600,000 in tax credits and also would provide incentives for downtown revitalization.
Catanese said the developers would pay the costs associated with applying for the creation of the district.
A public meeting was held March 4 to gather input on the plan, and was well-attended by downtown business and property owners.
“There are various reasons folks would want to establish historic districts,” Davis said. “Many communities want to protect the sense of place in their downtown. Folks who are investing in downtown often want to protect their investment by protecting the historic character of downtown. ...”
Davis said many downtown buildings wouldn’t be individually eligible for a historic listing, but a district is a way to qualify an entire area.
Financial incentives Davis mentioned include:
• the Heritage Trust Fund Grant program, with grants up to $90,000 for listed buildings;
• a state rehabilitation tax credit program, which offers a 25 percent income tax credit on qualified rehabilitation work; and
• a federal rehabilitation tax credit for income-producing buildings, with a 20 percent income tax credit on qualified rehabilitation work.
Another incentive is Emporia’s Neighborhood Revitalization Program, which offers additional benefits for listed buildings.
Renovation of the Granada Theatre is an example of a project that benefited from both the Heritage Tax Fund Grant program and from rehabilitation tax credits. With the creation of a historic district, all properties within the district would qualify for the incentives.
Possible drawbacks to a historic district include property owners’ concern about more regulations.
“Historic properties in Kansas are protected under a state preservation statute,” Davis said. “... The statute requires that projects on historic buildings that require permits be commented on by the state preservation office.”
Davis said that 98 percent of the projects reviewed by the office are approved, but the others are appealed back to the local governing bodies, which can proceed with the projects if they decide there are no “feasible and prudent alternatives.”
Projects still can be stopped with a suit filed in district court.
“Some people see that regulation as a detriment, some people see it as a way of protecting the character of the historic property,” Davis said, “so it just depends on how you look at it and what your experiences are.”
Another drawback is that properties within a 500-foot radius of the district would fall under the same regulations, but would qualify for none of the financial incentives. This includes home and property owners outside but close to the district. The permit review process could cause delays on projects in these areas.
Casey Woods, incoming executive director of Emporia Main Street, said the organization supports the plan, saying that a historic district would promote tourism and business enhancement, and that incentives to reinvest in downtown would be good for Emporia.
Mark Runge, facilities director for Emporia State University, said the university doesn’t oppose the district, but asked that its north border at 12th Avenue be moved so ESU is not included in the district. Runge said three buildings — Roosevelt Hall, Beach Hall and the William Allen White Library — would fall under the regulations for the district, and officials at the school have concerns about how that would disrupt maintenance and rehabilitation work at the school.
Commissioners won’t make a decision whether to support the district until next week.
“There are pros and cons to every aspect of change,” Commissioner Kevin Nelson said, but commissioners want more information and feedback from the public before deciding.
The commission also discussed the possibility of purchasing new outdoor warning sirens from the Kansas City Regional Purchasing Cooperative.
Tim Frevert, city purchasing manager, said the national cooperative comes up with a list every year of major projects to bid out and sends that list to regional cooperatives. The projects then are bid out for the different governmental entities that are a part of the cooperative.
“The different entities benefit by the quantity that they’re bidding out,” Frevert said. “Instead of bidding out, for example, the city of Emporia is looking for nine sirens, they’re actually bidding out for many counties for hundreds of sirens, and we benefit from the pricing.”
Bid date and time for new outdoor warning sirens will be set at the commission’s action session next week.
Harlu (anonymous) says...
I think this will be great for Emporia!! It will help existing business owners fix up their businesses and encourage developers to come in and save some of our existing businesses in need of repair.
All the better, the cost of this historic district was donated..yes NO LOCAL TAX DOLLARS USED FOR THIS PROJECT!!!!
I hope the commissioners support this project...considering how supportive they were of TIF with its downsides. This historic district is a no brainer with all its upsides for business owners, developers, and our community!!!
March 26, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Tell (anonymous) says...
Be carefull what you wish for if our downtown becomes a historic district it will be highly regulated, you won't be able to paint your building without special permission and strict permits this could be extremely costly to current business owners.
March 26, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
noel_stanton (anonymous) says...
The real historic district in Emporia is Exchange and Union Streets from 5th to 9th. If downtown, in spite of the extensive abuse of its historical architectural legacy becomes a historic district, then the Exchange /Union area should at least be protected by the Neighborhood Revitalization Program.
Noel Stanton,
Moerlenbach, Germany
March 26, 2009 at 8:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
Tell,
There are no "special permissions", no state agency stoping people from painting their walls, and no "extreamly costly" hoops for businesses; but there are financial incentives (making things less expensive) for people wanting to revitalize buildings. The program was clearly outlined in a public meeting. I'm guessing by your response that you did not get the opportunity to attend. However, maybe you can take the opportunity to contact the people involved with the proposed project so you can get some clarification on some misconceptions that you might have. The more I've learned about the proposed district, the more I like the idea.
This proposed project makes renovation of downtown buildings more affordable. This project encourages development and reinvestment. This proposed district will bring a lot of good development downtown, encourage historic preservation and makes downtown an area more open to investment. Those are good things, aren't they? The above article states that all the state has the power to do is comment. That's it. The city council has the right to do with those comments what they will. In return, building owners can save a bunch of money with the use of tax credits, if they so choose. I'll agree with the poster above that said this is 'great for Emporia". However, if we buy into the false argument that some boogey man will tell us what drapes we can and can't hang, this is an opportunity that will pass us by. I hope that doesn't happen.
March 26, 2009 at 10:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
siamesefred (anonymous) says...
I agree that believing the state will have a say in what drapes to hang is farfetched, but don't underestimate the power of the state agency being allowed to comment.
I know of a house in middle-Emporia that is crumbling and needs probably $30,000 worth of work to rectify the situation. It is owned by a nonprofit group that has been renting it to tenants.
The nonprofit group's membership has decided it does not want to throw that kind of money at the rental house, it would rather tear it down. Eventually, it is hoped, a new building can take its place that can be used by the community.
It's a twofold process, however, so the first step is demolition.
The group applied for a demolition permit from the city. Then it received a reply that the house is located within 500 feet of a house that had earned historic status. The state opposed the demolition.
Apparently it feels that a crumbling house better maintains the integrity of the historic neighborhood than a nicely landscaped vacant lot.
I don't know what the group plans to do, but it looks as if the preservationists and state is going to force a nonprofit group to find and spend money rather than being fiscally responsible.
So, I do agree that those pushing for the district need to be careful what they wish for. And those living on the fringes had better decide whether they want to be subjected to the bureaucracy without any benefits.
March 27, 2009 at 6:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
As the article stated, the organization would simply have to go to the city and show that there are no "feasible and prudent alternatives" to the demolition, which shouldn't be that hard if the building is in as bad shape as you say. The city commision would then simply say "we agree" (assuming your information about the state of the building is correct), and the building goes down. Again, the state has the right to comment, but the final authority belongs to the local governing body.
March 27, 2009 at 7:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
cdavis (anonymous) says...
This should address some comments/questions.
1. What is a historic district?
An concentrated area of buildings with historic/architectural integrity and significance that is designated under preservation laws. Districts streamline the process for preservation-related funding. The historic character is protected under state and/or local laws.
2. What KS communities have downtown districts?
29 KS communities have downtown historic districts.
3. How will listing affect property values?
Designation generally stabilizes property values because it assures property owners that their investments will be protected by laws that help preserve the area’s character.
4. How will listing affect property taxes?
Listed properties would qualify for an enhanced property tax rebate under the Neighborhood Revitalization Program. The program encourages investment by providing a rebate on increases in property taxes resulting from property improvements. Listed properties qualify for a 100% rebate on increases in property taxes for 10 years following a project.
5. What are the other advantages of listing?
Qualified rehabilitations on contributing properties qualify for the state and federal rehab tax credits. The federal tax credit is equal to 20% of qualified rehab expenses for income-producing buildings. The state tax credit is equal to 25% of qualified rehabilitation expenses for both income-producing and non-income-producing buildings – or 30% for 501c3s. Projects that qualify for the federal tax credit program also qualify for the state program, for a total of 45%.
Listing also qualifies buildings to apply for funding through the Heritage Trust Fund Grant program, which provides grants up to $90,000 for preservation projects.
Listing encourages the rehabilitation of historic buildings. Because rehabilitation is more labor-intensive than new construction (60% of costs vs 40% of costs), it creates more jobs than new construction.
6. What restrictions apply to historic districts?
Projects on listed buildings that require permits are reviewed under the state preservation statute, KSA 75-2724. The law allows the State Preservation Office to comment on projects to determine if they will “encroach upon, damage or destroy a historic property or its environs.” (The standards for review are consistent with the design-review guidelines identified in the recent Emporia CID project.) If the office determines that the project will adversely affect a historic property, the project cannot proceed until the local governing body determines that there “are no feasible and prudent alternatives” to the project. Because there are many listed buildings in or near downtown, many downtown properties are already subject to review under the preservation statute.
District listing will qualify downtown properties, the majority of which are already subject to review under preservation laws, for preservation-related funding.
March 27, 2009 at 11:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Reets (anonymous) says...
I attended the City Commission meeting today (Wed., April 1) to hear the comments and discussions, and was not surprised, nor terribly disappointed with the Commissioners choice. It was not an easy one to make, and considerable debate was taken on the matter. Ultimately, the City was just not given adequate time to look into the pros & cons, but was asked to make a decision TODAY, so hesitantly said 'no'. There were heartfelt and reasonable issues raised on both sides of the matter. This would be great for downtown Emporia, and I think we all ardently want this, but the timing was lamentable. Designating the vast area involved as an Historic District would/could radically affect everyone living, working, or owning property within the proposed parameters, with a deadline to get the wheels in motion only 2 weeks away. This should be a front page story & be put to a vote (even if only on this website). Also, the Gazette should print a map of the proposed district in question, perhaps shading those neighborhoods that would be affected by the extreme 500' radius rule. Kansas is, apparently, the only state in the Nation that has this 500' environs boundary (everyone else has 150'), and this needs to be addressed and amended. For what it's worth, I entered today's meeting all Gung-Ho for proceeding with designating downtown Emporia as an Historic District, which it is, & left feeling glad we didn't just jump in head-first & blindfolded. I'm hoping everyone looks online for feedback on the pros/cons of designating their entire downtown area as an Historic District. We definitely have to save the Broadview, but need more time to decide how much of the area should be included, and how that would impact the owners of those properties, & would they be willing to comply, since major perks would be involved. There are restrictions, but it's not quite like living in a Gated Complex (the lawn must be no more than 3/4" tall EVER, & your front door must be Copenhagen Blue).
Perhaps this should be the Gazette's next online poll?
April 1, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SFIns (anonymous) says...
This sounds like it comes down to the broadview owners looking for a quick way to save some money. Beware of quick fixes they rarely work out for the community but reap rewards for the person pushing it down our throats.
April 1, 2009 at 7:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...
SFIns for your information Broadview Towers Owners is not looking for a way to save money. Broadview Towers is a non-profit housing complex for the elderly in Emporia. Like most non-profits they do not have money to do all the big ticket items which sometimes need done. They are just looking for a way to continue serving this community like they have done for many years.
I am sure the owners and the elderly residents on fixed incomes which live there had no intention of pushing anything down your throat so they could reap the rewards! They were only looking for a way do some work on their home which is needed.
April 1, 2009 at 7:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Matt66647 (anonymous) says...
Momus, I trust that you would support the creation of a "Certified Local Government", thereby ensuring access to even more state preservation funds (10% or more of the annual Heritage Trust Fund allotment). This would be a concrete step toward educating the populace about preservation issues, and dispelling many of the myths. Additionally, the creation of a "Qualified Preservation Commission" is also warranted, so as to put these preservation decisions in the hands of professionals and not simply untrained politicians! Don't you agree? If we're going to "Do It" then lets REALLY get it done, you know as well as I do that this issue has been debated for the last 15 years until we're all blue in the face. Look at the downtown...it is time!
April 1, 2009 at 8:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SFIns (anonymous) says...
sociallyconsious, since you appear to have a different opinion than mine I wanted to let you know why I view this the way I do. Broadview Towers is owned by a LLC called Action Management. Action Management is ran by a local real estate agent who also has numerous rental property in the city.
So while it may cater to the low income or elderly it is a corporation and the purpose of any corporation is to make money.
If it was a true non profit entity then I would agree with you.
April 3, 2009 at 10:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sociallyconsious (anonymous) says...
SFIns you are incorrect on your facts. Broadview Towers has never been owned by Action Management LLC. For a while they were the mananging agent; however, they have not been involved with the property since 1996. Broadview Towers is owned by Broadview Towers Inc., and managed by a management company who has NO OWNERSHIP. It is a non-profit, has always been a non-profit and must remain one to continue with their HUD designation to remain low income housing for the elderly.
April 5, 2009 at 12:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )