IBJNews

Preservation tax credit gets makeover in House bill

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana House is set to consider legislation that would shift the state’s historical preservation tax cut program into one that relies on grants instead.

House Bill 1215 – authored by Rep. Ed Clere, R-New Albany – would originally have expanded the tax credit from $450,000 to $10 million a year, an effort to boost its effectiveness and create move incentives for preservation projects.

But in the House Ways and Means Committee this week, lawmakers stripped the funding out of the bill and replaced the tax credit with a grant program.

Ways and Means Chairman Tim Brown, R- Crawfordsville, authored the change.

“We have not been doing a very good job with the current tax credit,” Brown said. “Tax credits decrease revenue coming into the state. The idea going forward is so we can have an honest balanced budget is to really look at this as an expense to the state.”

The current program – administered by the Department of Natural Resources – is backlogged because the tax credit caps at $450,000 per year. That means some projects approved for the program have been completed but can’t claim the tax credit until 2023. Supporters of a program expansion say that gives few incentives for investors to restore historic properties, especially since many of them are private developers.

Clere and other supporters of the program have been working to change that. Last year a similar bill failed in the Senate.

“This bill is important because it is focused on Main Street Indiana,” Clere said. “Every community large and small has historical buildings that were once part of the economic life of the community and could be again.”

Brown said he had tried in the past to increase the tax credit but said the state needed to get rid of the outstanding credits first. He said starting over with a grant program cleans “the ledger sheet, so to speak.”

Amy Levander, a lobbyist for Indiana Landmarks, a historic preservation group, said she is concerned about changing the bill from a credit to a grant because Brown included no funding in the bill. That means the program would compete against the state’s other spending needs next year, when lawmakers write the next two-year state budget.

Levander said she would like to see a study between sessions so the lawmakers can look at the implications of having a grant program versus a tax credit program.

“We are open to looking at options for putting in place something that will maximize state tax dollars to stimulate redevelopment in historical properties around the state,” Levander said.

The bill now moves to the full House for consideration.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT