On April 2, 2010, the Minnesota Credit
for Historic Structure Rehabilitation (MHTC) was signed into law by Governor
Tim Pawlenty, breathing life into a multitude of redevelopment efforts and
preservation projects throughout the state. Since its adoption, 16 projects (11
in the Twin Cities) have been approved tax credit funding in Minnesota. The
MHTC matches the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit, which is a 20%
income tax credit managed by the National Park Service.This post will serve as an analysis of
the MHTC, which is based on the framework for expenditure analysis presented in
class.
The price elasticity of the historic
preservation of buildings has a large influence on the demand for the MHTC.
Even in a development context, the preservation of a historic building is a
pricy endeavor. It often costs more to purchase and renovate an older building
than to construct a new building.
Because of this fact, the historic preservation construction is
considered to have an elastic demand. Also associated with the high costs of
redevelopment, historic preservation would be considered a superior good; one
that sees its demand increase with an increase in income.
A tax credit is not a traditional
expenditure in terms of government spending, such as programs like Medicare and
Social Security, where money is given from the government budget to qualifying
parties. For all practical purposes, the tax credit is just money withheld from
the government; reducing tax revenue, as opposed to increasing expenditures.
Since the money is withheld by the approved applicant, rather than collected
and redistributed, the MHTC is efficient to implement.
There are some nuances to the tax
credit, apart from meeting the criteria explained above. It should be noted
that the MHTC has a sunset in Fiscal Year 2015 and that the program is an
uncapped appropriation. The purpose of leaving it uncapped is to ensure, “that
a project meeting the criteria for award of a tax credit / grant is eligible to
receive the full incentive available to them under the federal and state
programs regardless of the number of applications received in a single year.” The credit may also be received as a “cash grant
option,” which means that the developer can elect to take $.90 in a cash grant
instead of $1.00 in credit.
The
effects from the program have been fairly positive since the adoption of the
credit. One report estimates that for
every one dollar of credit received from this program, the economy sees about
$9 of investment from the private market. In order to accurately measure
the effects of the credit, the MHTC
program is being closely monitored by the University of Minnesota (in
partnership with the MN Historical Society).
The
state of Wisconsin has two separate tax credits available for historic
preservation. The first is for
“income-producing historic buildings,” and features an additional five percent
kicker to the Federal program and is automatically
qualified for if the project meets federal standards. Due to the low amount of
matching funds set forth by the state of Wisconsin, the program is less
adequate than Minnesota’s program. The second Wisconsin program was established
to aid historic homeowners, which drastically improves the equity of the
Wisconsin program. Considering the
differing conditions of the two programs, the effects of the MHTC will be much
more apparent and impactful, both from an investment perspective and from a
physical structures perspective. Because
there is no cap on the program, large historic buildings can be saved much more
easily, which preserves downtown landscapes and promotes investment.
Thus
far, the MHTC is considered by national observers, local developers, and local
media to be a success. . However, the
program sunset in the year 2015 looms in the future, which may spell trouble
for the future of historic preservation funding in Minnesota.
No comments:
Post a Comment