HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/05/2000, 4 - MILLS ACT HISTORIC PROPERTY TAX EVALUATION council 05.00
j agenda Report '4" �`
C I T Y OF SAN L U I S O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Long-Range Planning Manager
PREPARED BY: Jeff Hook, Associate Plann
Andrew Bailey and Frank A ez, Planning Interns
SUBJECT: Evaluation and consideration of possible expansion of Mills Act Historic
Property Tax Incentive Program.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution that: 1) approves the Cultural Heritage
Committee's recommendation to expand the Mills Act
Program to include additional historic properties, 2)
establishes the program as an on-going historic preservation
incentive, and 3) directs staff to work with the County to set
an application fee for the program.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF:
As a result of property inspections, property owner surveys, and program evaluation, the Cultural
Heritage Committee recommends expanding the pilot Mills Act Program to allow up to 10
additional historic properties to be added per year. With five years of experience in the program,
the Committee determined the program is generally meeting both property owner and City
expectations and promotes General Plan goals for historic preservation. As the City's primary
historic preservation incentive,the Mills Act Program provides a public benefit by encouraging a
high level of maintenance for historic properties, enhancing neighborhoods and by recognizing
individual efforts to preserve the community's heritage. The report summarizes the program's
fiscal effects on property tax revenues and staffing costs, noting that the program will not
significantly affect City and County property tax revenues. There is a minor effect on city and
county staffing costs, and the report recommends the Council direct staff to work with the
County to set an application fee and return to Council for approval of the fee.
DISCUSSION
Situation
The Mills Act Program has been a City pilot program since 1996. The program allows owners of
historic properties to enter into individual contracts with the City to preserve, maintain, and in
some cases improve their historic properties in return for reduced property taxes. Eighteen
historic homes are under Mills Act preservation contracts. When Council approved the last four
contracts, it asked for a program evaluation to come back after sufficient time had elapsed to
gauge the program's effectiveness. This report discusses the program's results and provides
background on the Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation to expand the program as an
on-going historic preservation incentive.
4-1
Council Agenda Report—Mills Act Evaluation
Page 2
In preparing this report, staff sent a questionnaire and copy of their Mills Act contract to each
property owner. Pictures of each property were taken and on-site inspections done to determine
property owners' progress in meeting their commitments to maintain or improve their properties.
Under the terns of the contract property owners have up to 10 years to complete the phased
improvements. Photos, field notes and surveys are available in the Council Reading File.
Cultural Heritage Committee Recommendation
Based on property owner survey responses, individual property inspections and its own review,
the Cultural Heritage Committee believes the Mills Act Property Tax Incentive Program is a
success and merits expansion. At its regular meeting on September 25, 2000 the Cultural
Heritage Committee unanimously recommended the Mills Act Program be established as an on-
going historic preservation incentive and that the program be expanded to allow up to ten new
Mills Act contracts per year, finding that: 1) The Mills Act Plan furthers the City's General Plan
goals of providing incentives to encourage historic preservation, and 2) The Mills Act Program is
an important tool to maintain Master List properties and to recognize the additional costs
associated with maintaining historic properties.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
In considering whether to continue or expand the program, the Council should determine whether
1) the program has helped the City achieve its historic preservation goals, and 2) the program has
met City and property owner expectations.
Has the Program Helped Achieve Historic Preservation Goals?
The General Land Plan Land Use Element says "Historical resources should be identified,
preserved, and where necessary and possible, restored", and that to accomplish this, the City
should "continue financial assistance programs which encourage owners to maintain and restore
historic properties." The Mills Act Program has met this objective. It is the only financial
incentive for historic preservation offered by the City and helps offset the relatively high costs to
repair and maintain a historic building while still preserving its original architectural character.
Program requirements are stringent and require strict conformance with city review procedures
and development standards. In return, property owners benefit from a substantial reduction in
property taxes, up to about 50 percent.
i
h I s Ffi
Historic Kaetzel House,547 Marsh Street Historic George Miller House, 1435 Broad Street
4-2
Council Agenda Report—Mills Act Evaluation
Page 3
In approving the pilot program, Council hoped to encourage a high level of maintenance for
some of the City's heritage buildings. Overall, it appears that expectation has been realized.
City staff has maintained flexibility in working with property owners to accomplish their
property improvements and city staffing costs have been insignificant. County staffing costs are
discussed under "Fiscal Impacts." In a few cases, it appears additional monitoring and a written
"reminder" may be needed to ensure property owners follow-through on their commitments. As
discussed below, one property owner has not cooperated with the County Assessor to allow
property inspections, thus delaying reassessment under the Mills Act contract. Nevertheless, the
overall effect of the program has been beneficial and most likely resulted in a higher level of
maintenance than otherwise possible. For example, in preparing for the recent Heritage Home
Tour, owners of four Mills Act properties went beyond normal maintenance levels to beautify
their properties and enhance the public's enjoyment of these historic resources.
Has the Program Met Property Owner Expectations?
Property owners went into the program with the expectation of property tax savings to allow
reinvestment in their homes, with a minimum of hassle. According to the County Assessor, the
average annual property tax savings is $1500 per property. Based on the owners survey and
staff's experiences with the program so far, that expectation has generally been met. When a
Mills Act property changes ownership, the new owner may not be familiar with program
requirements or procedures; however because the Mills Act contract is recorded, it is part of the
escrow documentation a buyer receives. As an additional tool, staff intends to prepare a handout
for buyers, realtors and escrow officers so they understand the program and contract obligations
and benefits before escrow closes.
PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY RESPONSES
Property owner survey responses were generally favorable. Homeowners were pleased with tax
savings resulting from the program that could then be applied toward house maintenance or
repairs, and a majority expressed support for expansion of the program. Two property owners
objected to the stringent development review process for changes to Master List properties. The
remaining sixteen participants complimented the program and city staff. Some also commented
that the program enhances the small town character and quality of San Luis Obispo through
historic preservation and restoration. Owners also suggested there was a direct relationship
between historic preservation and enhanced tourism and investment in the area. One such
program that has public benefits is the recent Historic home tour, " Deliveries `Round the Back."
This tour featured four homes on the Master List: The Historic Biddle House, the Historic
Kaetzel House, the Historic Vetterline House and the Historic Sandercock House.
COMPLIANCE WITH MILLS ACT CONTRACTS
Most property owners had either fulfilled the terms of their contracts, or were well on their way
to doing so in only the fourth contract year. During recent inspections, most of the Mills Act
homes appeared well maintained and were among the better-maintained homes on their
respective blocks. With regard to design review, it is the City's policy that all changes to Master
List properties are subject to some level of design review by the Cultural Heritage Committee
and Architectural Review Commission to ensure consistency with the Historic Preservation
4-3
Council Agenda Report—Mills Act Evaluation
Page 4
Program Guidelines. In some cases, minor exterior changes may be approved by the Community
Development Director as "minor or incidental" without a public hearing.
Of the 19 original properties, 18 are actively participating in the program. The historic property
located at 1117-1119 Marsh Street is not receiving program benefits because the owner did not
respond to County Assessor requests for an inspection of the property as a prerequisite for
reassessment. City and County staff tried several times to contact the property owner, both by
telephone and letter, to arrange for inspection. Recently, the owner contacted city staff after
receiving notice of possible contract termination for non-compliance. At this point, it is not clear
whether the property owner intends to participate in the Mills Act program, and staff may need to
return to Council to terminate the contract.
The other 18 property owners reported property tax savings, ranging from minor to significant,
which were used to help maintain and restore the properties. The program seems to be fulfilling
its purpose of not only preserving historic properties but also giving tax incentives to enable the
owners to better preserve and maintain these community-valued historic resources.
FISCAL IMPACT
The program has two potential fiscal impacts: reduced property taxes potentially affecting city
and county government and special districts, and increased city and county staffing costs. As
discussed below, the Mills Act Program has not significantly affected City or County costs or
revenues, nor is it likely to in the future, even if the program were expanded to eventually include
all 167 properties on the Master List of Historic Resources.
Reduction in Assessed Property Value,2000-2001
City
In the 2000-2001 tax roll, the reduction in assessed value for all 18 properties under contract is
estimated at $3,150,777. This would reduce city property tax revenue from the previous tax year
by about $4,700. To put this in perspective, the total assessed value for all properties in the City
during the same period was $2,888,480,826, with total city property tax revenues estimated at
about $4.8 million. The reduction in property tax revenues due to the 18 properties under
contract is about 1/10`s of 1 percent of the total – an insignificant factor in the City's overall
revenue picture. When compared with the County's total assessed value of over $18 billion, the
effect of the Mills Act program is extremely small. Even if all 167 Master List properties were
eventually added to the Mills Act Program over a period of several years, the loss of City and
County property tax revenue would still be an insignificant factor in the overall revenue picture.
With program expansion, the reduction in property tax revenues would also increase. A worst-
case approximation of the reduction of City property tax revenues was calculated in 1995-96,
assuming all 167 Master List properties were under Mills Act contracts, and that a 50 percent
reduction in assessed value applied to all properties. The result was an estimated reduction in
annual City property tax revenues of two percent, or $117,464. The "worst-case" assumption is
highly unlikely because about one-half of the Master List properties have been under the same
4-4
Council Agenda Report—Mills Act Evaluation
Page 5
ownership since passage of Proposition 13. These properties are not likely to participate since
they already have relatively low property tax assessments. Other communities with Mills Act
programs in place have participation rates of 10 - 15 percent of the eligible properties. A more
realistic approximation of annual City property tax loss is $5,000 to $10,000, increasing to about
$48,100 in 8 years, with 74 properties added.
County
Various Countywide agencies receive a portion of property taxes collected in the City of San
Luis Obispo. These include: San Luis Coastal Unified School District (approx. 36%); County
General Fund (approx. 20% after State transfer); Cuesta College (6%); County Schools (4%);
Library (1.9%); Port San Luis Authority (1.6%); Air Pollution Control District (0.1%); and
others. Property tax collection methods are fairly complex, and actual percentages allocated to
each taxing agency vary depending on where the taxed property is located in the County.
Nevertheless, the effect of the Mills Act program on countywide revenues can be estimated:
2000-20001 Taxes collected under current method (before Mills Act)
Total Assessed Valuation of 18 Master List Properties: $5,600,851
Tax Collected (.011111)(total assessed valuation) = 62,225
Less 15% (adjusted for the state "ERAF' takeaway)
Taxes returned to City of SLO [9.3341
Tax revenue available to County taxing agencies $ 52,891
2000-2001 Taxes collected under Mills Act
New Assessed Valuation of Master List Properties: $2,450,074
Tax Collected (.011111) (total assessed valuation) = 27,223
Less 15% taxes returned to City of SLO 4,083
Tax revenue available to County taxing agencies $ 23,140
The estimated revenue loss to County taxing agencies for the current program is $29,750. In
1996, staff estimated the total property tax revenue loss to the County at $250,000. Indexed for
inflation, that estimate would increase to $270,608. This assumes all 167 properties on the
Master List participate in the program, a highly unlikely scenario. In other cities which have
enacted Mills Act programs, the participation rate is relatively low -- 10 to 15 percent. A more
realistic of the program's fiscal impact on County revenues is expected to be approximately
$135,300 annually, or about three-fourths of 1 percent of the total property taxes collected
countywide ($179,000,000).
City/County Staff Costs
Additional City and County staff hours are required to administer the Mills Act program. City
staffing costs to administer the program have been minor, and involve property inspection,
contract preparation and review and information services. Estimated cost of services is:
4-5
Council Agenda Report—Mills Act Evaluation
Page 6
(19 properties)(4 hrs.)($65 staffing cost) = $4,940 per year
County Assessor staff have spent additional time beyond what is required for properties not
under Mills Act contracts. This time was necessary to start up the program and due to the
additional assessment and inspection work required annually for Mills Act properties. According
to the County Assessor, the Mills Act program generated the following additional County
staffing hours beyond what would normally be required:
1996-97: 36 hours
1997-98: 72.5 hours (property inspections started)
1998-99: 68 hours
1999-00: 26.5 hours
Total 203 hours
At an estimated cost factor of$65 per hour, county staffing costs are averaging about $3300 per
year to run the program, or about $183 per property. The County Assessor previously asked the
City to consider establishing a property owner fee to help offset costs to administer the program.
The City, the approving body for the Mills Act contract, could collect the fee and share a portion
with the County to cover staff costs to run the program.
State law allows cities to recoup actual costs to administer the Mills Act Program. Given the
program's community benefits, full cost recovery may not be a desirable goal. Nevertheless,
staff supports an application fee that will cover a portion of city and county costs to appraise and
inspect the Mills Act property. Application cost, however, should not be set so high as to pose a
disincentive to participation. The CHC previously recommended against charging fees for the
program, feeling that this would be contrary to the program's intent and could discourage
participation.
If the Council supports establishment of an application fee, staff suggests that it direct staff to
work with the County to establish a reasonable one-time application fee as part of the City's
schedule of fees for development services, and that a portion of the fee be shared with the County
on a pro-rata basis. Staff would then return to the Council for approval of the fee.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a modified incentive program. The Council may adopt a modified program,
allowing a more limited number of properties to join the program annually (i.e., fewer
than 10 properties), establishing an upper limit to the total of Mills Act contracts
allowed, or by allowing another "step increase" in the number of contracts. Without
publicizing the program, staff has received four letters of interest from owners of historic
properties interested in participating.
2. Status Quo. Allow the program to continue with 19 contracts. The Mills Act program is
voluntary, and the Council may choose not to expand the program.
4-6
I
Council Agenda Report—Mills.Act Evaluation
Page_?
Attachments: Draft Council Resolution; List of Historic Properties with Mills Act Contracts.
Council Reading File: Inspection notes and photos of Mills Act properties, property owner
surveys; Mills Act contracts
Jh/1/mipsacdcLiep6r[11.9.00
4=7.
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TO ESTABLISH THE MILLS ACT HISTORIC PROPERTY TAX
INCENTIVE PROGRAM
WHEREAS, in 1996 the City Council approved the Mills Act Program establishing it as
a pilot program with 19 properties participating;
WHEREAS, on September 25, 2000 the Cultural Heritage Committee held public
Hearings to consider recommending to the City Council the possible expansion of the Mills Act
Program;
WHEREAS, at said meeting, the Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed field inspection
notes, property owner surveys, and staff evaluation of the Program and recommended that the
City Council establish the Mills Act Program as an ongoing historic preservation incentive and
that the program be expanded to allow up to 10 new Mills Act contracts per year;
WHEREAS, the City Council considered this recommendation during a public hearing
on December 5, 2000.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo that based on the
Cultural Heritage Committee's recommendation, public testimony, the staff report and on the
City's Historical Preservation Program Guidelines the following:
SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council has determined that:
1. Preservation of historic resources is a key component of the Community's sense of place
and quality of life.
2. The General Plan contains policies and programs to promote the preservation,
maintenance and rehabilitation of historic resources through City financial incentives.
4-S
Council Resolution No. (2000 Series)
Page 2
3. The Mills Act Program promotes General Plan goals by providing a direct financial
incentive to encourage property owners to preserve, maintain and rehabilitate their
historic properties through potential property tax savings.
4. The program provides a public benefit by helping to preserve and enhance heritage
buildings for public appreciation and enjoyment, enhancing neighborhood environmental
quality, and by providing educational opportunities for the community.
SECTION 2. Mills Act Program Established. The Council hereby establishes the Mills Act
Historic Preservation Incentive Program, allowing up to ten (10) Master List historic properties
to be included in the program annually, subject to the following requirements:
a. Mills Act Contracts shall require City Council approval, upon recommendation by the
Cultural Heritage Committee.
b. To participate in the Mills Act Program, properties must be on the City's Master List of
Historic Resources.
c. Council reserves the right to modify or discontinue the program, including reducing the
annual number of properties which can be added or setting a limit on the total number of
properties which may participate.
d. The City shall establish a fee for participation in the Mills Act Program, intended to
partially offset City and County costs to administer the program.
SECTION 3. Environmental Determination. The community development director has
determined that establishment of the Mills Act Program is not a "project" as defined by Section
15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act since it applies to existing development and
does not have the potential to result in a direct physical change in the environment. Therefore,
no further environmental review is necessary.
Upon motion of , seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 2000
4-9
Council Resolution No. (2000:Series)
Page 2
MAyor Allen Settle
ATTEST-
Lee Price, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
e y Q/orgen; Ofy
Attorney -- - -
j
jh/Urriills acUcdep ra 1.9.00
4-10
November 2000 1999
City of San Luis Obispo
LIST OF HISTORIC PROPERTIES WITH
MILLS ACT CONTRACTS
1. 670 Islay "FITZPATRICK HOUSE" Randall Lavack and Shayne Sandeman
2. 1511 Morro "MARTHA DUNLAP HOUSE" J. Kelly Moreno
3. 1167 Marsh "GRAVES HOUSE" Robert and Zoe Schrage
4. 1504 Broad "VETTERLINE HOUSE" William and Michelle Walter
5. 547 Marsh "KAETZEL HOUSE" Gail Johnson and Victoria Wood
6. 1435 Broad "GEORGE MILLER HOUSE" Mary Marquardt
7. 1426 Broad "DUTTON HOUSE" Adrienne M. Riley
8. 963 Broad "MANDERSCHIED HOUSE" Keith and Kathy Godfrey
9. 591 Islay "SANDERCOCK HOUSE" David and Cathy Holmes
10. 752 Buchon "STANTON HOUSE" Lorilee Silvaggio
11. 461 Islay "ERICKSON HOUSE" Malcolm and Peggy Carlaw
12. 745 Buchon "BRADBURY HOME" Carol Adams
13. 559 Pismo "BIDDLE HOUSE" Richard H. and Adian M. Lenz
14. 896 Buchon "COSSET HOUSE" New Owners of
15. 1763 Santa Barbara "TRIBUNE-REPUBLIC BUILDING" Astrid Gallagher
16. 1725 Santa Barbara "ALEXANDER GALEWSKI HOUSE" Astrid Gallagher
17. 1717 Santa Barbara "WILLIAM M. DUFF HOUSE" Astrid Gallagher
18. 1117-1119 Marsh "ESQUAR HOUSE" Lorilee Silvaggio
19. 1105 George "EDWARD F. BUSHNELL HOUSE" Astrid Gallagher
jh/L:millsprops99
4-11