More than 20 applications were submitted from Cincy. Unfortunately, they were all submitted later on, and a number appear to have been submitted, withdrawn and resubmitted ... must have had some sort of problem with eligibility, application protocol, etc.

 

Only 3 apps were submitted from Columbus; the first app from Columbus is 3 projects down from where they ran out of money

 

... So none of the Columbus or Cincy projects had the opportunity to be reviewed; ODOD has disbursed all the tax credit funds they had before they even hit applications from Cincy or Columbus.

 

Granted, it was always described as a first-come, first-serve program, but still a shame that funding didn't hit these communities. And pragmatically, I think it will make it more difficult to rally advocates for a later round if the impression is that greater Cleveland gets all the credits.

I hope the legislature approves this for another two years of funding. We should find that out end of this year/beginning of next, I believe? It's such a fantastic program for Ohio's cities, one of the few anti-sprawl policies we've got going for us in this state.

$100M in Greater Cincinnati projects jeopardized

Ohio Historic tax credits program criticized

BY DAN MONK | CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER

March 28, 2008

 

Complaints about northeast Ohio's dominance of a state tax credit program might force officials to reverse a recent decision to halt the program.

 

The reversal could bring $34 million in credits to more than two dozen local projects, including $6 million in Over-the-Rhine housing renovations and $440,000 to renovate Lebanon's Golden Lamb inn and restaurant.

Jonathan Sandvick is the expert on historical renovations in the state. I'm not surprised at all that he has so much work. He's a very interesting guy. Very religious and devout.

aww what "looks fishy" is that article is just a lot of whining because they couldn't get their paperwork right and their act together. get with the program people!

aww what "looks fishy" is that article is just a lot of whining because they couldn't get their paperwork right and their act together. get with the program people!

AMEN!

It just doesn't make a lot of sense that the Cleveland/Canton area pull in more than 80% of the historic tax credits.  Of the 3 C's Cleveland is the youngest, and it is also experiencing the lowest population growth (actually declining).

 

From just looking at that alone you would think that Cincy and Cbus should be higher on the list, but even if the pencil pushers in Cleveland are better there shouldn't be that large of a disparity.  We're all paying into the pot here.

You got to be kidding me?  There were a set of rules that and everyone had an equal opportunity.

 

You can't change the outcome of the game after the final whistle.

 

If the program is offered in the future, the other cities need to get their act together.

 

What has Cleveland's declining population got to do with this?  The funding of the Cleveland projects will greatly help the city's infrastructure and hopefully be part of a series of changes that contribute to the revitalization of the regional economy.

Sorry, but all I'm hearing is "waaah f#cking waaah!!!".

 

Just like any other program like this involving tax dollars, a case has to be made for each individual project, each projected expense down to the penny has to be accounted for, and thus - every application needs to be filled out properly with every i dotted and every t crossed. Those "pencil pushers" help prevent your tax dollars from going to un-itemized "extras" listed as "Miscellaneous". If you could actually see some of the sh!t people try to pull when using taxpayer funds at every level (i.e. a non-profit seeking "$100K for "Miscellaneous Expenses" for a street festival after everything was accounted for), you'd understand why the standards of programs like this HAVE to be so stringent. There's no doling out money to people who can't make their case just "to be fair".

It just doesn't make a lot of sense that the Cleveland/Canton area pull in more than 80% of the historic tax credits.  Of the 3 C's Cleveland is the youngest, and it is also experiencing the lowest population growth (actually declining).

 

Cleveland also was the largest city in the 1920s. Therefore we probably have the largest historic footprint of the three Cs (providing more opportunities for redevelopment). We have the largest downtown in the state. There are a lot of good development opportunities in the city. Reading an article on population decline won't explain the complicated development patterns that we see in Clevland.

 

Downtown office leasing is brisk, more and more people are moving downtown, and the downtown is seeing more development than it has seen in decades. 

 

 

You got to be kidding me?  There were a set of rules that and everyone had an equal opportunity.

 

You can't change the outcome of the game after the final whistle.

 

If the program is offered in the future, the other cities need to get their act together.

 

What has Cleveland's declining population got to do with this?  The funding of the Cleveland projects will greatly help the city's infrastructure and hopefully be part of a series of changes that contribute to the revitalization of the regional economy.

 

I agree that the NE Ohio folks probably had their stuff in better order, but I don't have anyway of actually proving that (do you).  You can surmise that because they got the lion's share of the credits they had their paperwork in better order, but as I mentioned there is no hard evidence to support that claim.

 

The declining population has to do with the market in the area.  3CDC is doing a lot of work in Over-the-Rhine with these credits, and there wouldn't be as much of this work if the market wasn't there to support it.  The higher the growth I would assume the higher the number of applications for this tax credit.  Maybe the Cincy people aren't tapping into it as much as they should, maybe their paperwork is wack, but I just don't know...and the >80% number just doesn't seem right.

Cleveland also was the largest city in the 1920s. Therefore we probably have the largest historic footprint of the three Cs (providing more opportunities for redevelopment). We have the largest downtown in the state. There are a lot of good development opportunities in the city. Reading an article on population decline won't explain the complicated development patterns that we see in Clevland.

 

Downtown office leasing is brisk, more and more people are moving downtown, and the downtown is seeing more development than it has seen in decades.

 

I'm not oblivious to the population patterns/trends that are facing Cleveland.  I understand that Cleveland's Downtown has seen a lot of investment, and there are quite a few inner-city neighborhoods that have been doing extrodanarily well, but the city as a whole is struggling.  While Cincy and Cbus aren't prime examples of success, they aren't struggling as much as Cleveland.

 

BTW, Over-the-Rhine is one of the largest historic districts in the nation...and Cincinnati has tons of historic districts all over the city.

^your previous statement appeared to infer that Cleveland should not have any development because of the declining population. That's how I read it. :)

 

In regards to Columbus, it definitely has a lot less "historic" buildings than Cleveland and Cincy.

In regards to Cincy, it seems that people just dropped the ball and didn't take advantage of a good opportunity. Cleveland had a champion who was very organized and determined.

 

 

 

I agree that the NE Ohio folks probably had their stuff in better order, but I don't have anyway of actually proving that (do you).  You can surmise that because they got the lion's share of the credits they had their paperwork in better order, but as I mentioned there is no hard evidence to support that claim.

 

The declining population has to do with the market in the area.  3CDC is doing a lot of work in Over-the-Rhine with these credits, and there wouldn't be as much of this work if the market wasn't there to support it.  The higher the growth I would assume the higher the number of applications for this tax credit.  Maybe the Cincy people aren't tapping into it as much as they should, maybe their paperwork is wack, but I just don't know...and the >80% number just doesn't seem right.

So now you're a marketing analyst?  I don't agree.

 

BS, BS, BS.  The downtown Cleveland market is the fast growing in the region, not just the state.  And what you "assume" has NOTHING to do with the process at hand!  Period!

 

Have you ever taken into consideration that the folks in NE Ohio have more experience with restoration and the tax credit/lobbying for funding process, and submitted their correctly filled out paperwork on time and were able to successfully receive funding?

 

Cleveland also was the largest city in the 1920s. Therefore we probably have the largest historic footprint of the three Cs (providing more opportunities for redevelopment). We have the largest downtown in the state. There are a lot of good development opportunities in the city. Reading an article on population decline won't explain the complicated development patterns that we see in Clevland.

 

Downtown office leasing is brisk, more and more people are moving downtown, and the downtown is seeing more development than it has seen in decades.

 

I'm not oblivious to the population patterns/trends that are facing Cleveland.  I understand that Cleveland's Downtown has seen a lot of investment, and there are quite a few inner-city neighborhoods that have been doing extrodanarily well, but the city as a whole is struggling.  While Cincy and Cbus aren't prime examples of success, they aren't struggling as much as Cleveland.

 

BTW, Over-the-Rhine is one of the largest historic districts in the nation...and Cincinnati has tons of historic districts all over the city.

More whining and BS.

 

Cleveland downtown is already several times larger (in total population) and its surrounding neighborhoods (not just one) are also re-inventing themselves. 

 

Just as Cinci, has many historical districts so does Cleveland.  Your point?

BS, BS, BS.  The downtown Cleveland market is the fast growing in the region, not just the state.  And what you "assume" has NOTHING to do with the process at hand!  Period!

 

Have you ever taken into consideration that the folks in NE Ohio have more experience with restoration and the tax credit/lobbying for funding process, and submitted their correctly filled out paperwork on time and were able to successfully receive funding?

 

But the assumption is being made that Cleveland is doing everything right (which they probably are as you have pointed out), but also that Cincinnati is doing everything wrong.  I just tend to think it is a bit much to assume that is the case, but who knows...maybe you know something that I don't.

 

More whining and BS.

 

Cleveland downtown is already several times larger (in total population) and its surrounding neighborhoods (not just one) are also re-inventing themselves. 

 

Just as Cinci, has many historical districts so does Cleveland.  Your point?

 

I brought this up because of this comment:

Cleveland also was the largest city in the 1920s. Therefore we probably have the largest historic footprint of the three Cs (providing more opportunities for redevelopment). We have the largest downtown in the state.

 

I was simply stating similar argument points for Cincinnati in that regard.  Cleveland has the largest downtown...well Cincinnati has one of the largest historic districts in the nation.  To say that Cleveland has the "largest historic footprint of the three Cs" is a stretch to say the least...especially when comparing with Cincinnati.  Cleveland's Downtown also has seen tons of recent investment, as well as, a number of other neighborhoods (as I mentioned)...but the same can be said for Cincinnati.

I honestly don't understand why this is immediately considered whining.  NE Ohio got over 80% of the tax credits, when merit alone wouldn't seem to warrant that kind of lopside distribution.  Everyone here is assuming that the people's sh!t don't stink in NE Ohio, and that the people in SW Ohio can't do paperwork.  It seems like a large assumption to say the least, but if you disagree then we have fundamentally different views of the situation.

 

This is certainly not the first time Cincinnati has gotten the short end of the stick in state funding...and I have learned that there are VERY few coincidences in life.  You all think that it is the fault of the SW Ohio people not being able to do the paperwork, and I think it is probably more of a combination of things.

Having been involved in watching the tax credit unfold, interfacing with preservation developers on a frequent basis, and greeting first-day applicants on behalf of Preservation Ohio, I can tell you this:

 

1.  Northeast Ohio, and Cleveland in particular, has led the state in use of the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit over a period of many years.  As a result, there are law firms, accountants and other consultants with extensive experience in crafting tax credit projects centered in Cleveland -- probably one of the largest concentrations of expertise in the country.  When the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit was announced, there was incredibly little time between announcement of the guidelines/release of the application and the opening of the program.  Cleveland therefore had a HUGE advantage going in... not because of anything sinister, but rather due to the extensive local expertise in place.

 

2.  The only region of Ohio that hosted a seminar on the Tax Credit was Northeast Ohio - an event co-sponsored by the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, National City Bank and others.  I was there, as were several hundred others.  I am not aware of any other local planning or development agencies hosting such an event anywhere else in Ohio.  In short, Northeast Ohio took it seriously from the get-go.

 

3.  This shared, one may well take exception with the way the criteria used for review (first come, first serve as opposed to some sort of requirements of even geographical distribution).  I would strongly suspect that the criteria will change the next time around.

 

Thomas/presOhio

 

Which brings the circle right back to where it was when you posted that article.  So my question to you "Mr. 2007 UO forumer of the year".  You said all that, to say what?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ??

 

I honestly don't understand why this is immediately considered whining.  NE Ohio got over 80% of the tax credits, when merit alone wouldn't seem to warrant that kind of lopside distribution.  Everyone here is assuming that the people's sh!t don't stink in NE Ohio, and that the people in SW Ohio can't do paperwork.  It seems like a large assumption to say the least, but if you disagree then we have fundamentally different views of the situation.

 

This is certainly not the first time Cincinnati has gotten the short end of the stick in state funding...and I have learned that there are VERY few coincidences in life.  You all think that it is the fault of the SW Ohio people not being able to do the paperwork, and I think it is probably more of a combination of things.

 

It's whining because it's over and done with!!  It is what it is.  Move on.

 

Oh don't throw out the whoa-es-me, we got the short end of the stick, crap to me.  Cleveland too has been felt slighted (hello, Cleveland public school district) on many state funding issues and many people think that Columbus has seen growth at the expense of the rest of the state of Ohio.  In other words, give me a break 'cause these after-the-fact crocodile tears don't move me one bit!

 

PresOhio.  Thank you very much.  What a timely post.

Having been involved in watching the tax credit unfold, interfacing with preservation developers on a frequent basis, and greeting first-day applicants on behalf of Preservation Ohio, I can tell you this:

 

1.  Northeast Ohio, and Cleveland in particular, has led the state in use of the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit over a period of many years.  As a result, there are law firms, accountants and other consultants with extensive experience in crafting tax credit projects centered in Cleveland -- probably one of the largest concentrations of expertise in the country.  When the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit was announced, there was incredibly little time between announcement of the guidelines/release of the application and the opening of the program.  Cleveland therefore had a HUGE advantage going in... not because of anything sinister, but rather due to the extensive local expertise in place.

 

2.  The only region of Ohio that hosted a seminar on the Tax Credit was Northeast Ohio - an event co-sponsored by the Cuyahoga County Planning Commission, National City Bank and others.  I was there, as were several hundred others.  I am not aware of any other local planning or development agencies hosting such an event anywhere else in Ohio.  In short, Northeast Ohio took it seriously from the get-go.

 

3.  This shared, one may well take exception with the way the criteria used for review (first come, first serve as opposed to some sort of requirements of even geographical distribution).  I would strongly suspect that the criteria will change the next time around.

 

Thomas/presOhio

 

 

Thank you Thomas, that was very informative. To the dissenters, I present you with your very own:

 

"BIG FAT I TOLD YOU SO!!!"

PS, Rando:

 

This was ALWAYS a first come first serve initiative.  If I want to go to a concert on June15, and tickets go on sale May 1st, but I wait until June 13th to try and buy tickets and they are sold out... guess what? Tough shit for me.  I can't sue the band and the venue for not having any tickets left.

 

If this developer is so pissed off, maybe he should have showed up a little earlier.  This is nothing but sour grapes.

And part of the peevishness that is going on is that it was first come first serve.  If the goal of the program is to encourage historical preservation throughout the WHOLE state, that is a completely assinine method of selection.  As I have said before, that selection method detracts from the goal.  Further, when it becomes known where the money went, it creates a secondary public perception that other areas aren't worthy of the same types of preservation efforts -- while this is completely false, that perception is created.

 

Yeah, there is some sour grapes going on here because the distribution LOOKS unfair (which is not to say that it was in actuality)

 

If you can't agree to the fact that when 80% of the money goes to one region Ohio, it looks unfair, then it seems you must be looking through some serious rose colored glasses.  The ticket sales analogy works just fine, to a point.  Where it fails COMPLETELY is that these weren't tickets to a show that happens in one place we were selling, it was the notion that the state supports historical preservation. 

 

If you want to make the ticket analogy, it would have to be we are selling tickets to a show that will occur in 30 different locations around the state.  Then, tickets are allocated to each venue on a first come first served basis.  Then, in order to get those tickets you had to fill out 100s of pages of documentation.  And further, if the tickets were all sold for one venue, the rest of the venues didn't get to have a show... Its just a silly way to distribute funding.  The choice was made that it was more important to have an easy to administer system (first come, first served) than it was to have a system that put the goal for the funds first (a careful look at each application and the purpose to which the money would be put)

 

Clearly, people down here who were working to get those credits dropped the ball, especially knowing it was first come first served.  Admitted.  You have to also admit, that first come first serve is a foolish way to distribute funds intended to serve the entire state.

"Ahh, Christina - no one EVER said that life was fair, did they?"

 

 

;-)

If you want to argue that first come first serve was a poor choice fine.  But it doesn't change the fact that... that's how it was being handled... and everyone knew it.  There were no biases, the people who put their efforts together in cleveland were simply more aggressive and took advantage of it.  The bottom line is that it is nothing more than sour grapes.  I'd say the same thing if Cincy would have gotten 80%, in that case, then i guess the people in NE Ohio would have dropped the ball. But they didn't.  So can we stop whining about it and move on?  At any rate the fact that people are actually looking into litigation over this is ABSURD.

And part of the peevishness that is going on is that it was first come first serve.  If the goal of the program is to encourage historical preservation throughout the WHOLE state, that is a completely assinine method of selection.  As I have said before, that selection method detracts from the goal.  Further, when it becomes known where the money went, it creates a secondary public perception that other areas aren't worthy of the same types of preservation efforts -- while this is completely false, that perception is created.

 

Yeah, there is some sour grapes going on here because the distribution LOOKS unfair (which is not to say that it was in actuality)

 

If you can't agree to the fact that when 80% of the money goes to one region Ohio, it looks unfair, then it seems you must be looking through some serious rose colored glasses.  The ticket sales analogy works just fine, to a point.  Where it fails COMPLETELY is that these weren't tickets to a show that happens in one place we were selling, it was the notion that the state supports historical preservation. 

 

If you want to make the ticket analogy, it would have to be we are selling tickets to a show that will occur in 30 different locations around the state.  Then, tickets are allocated to each venue on a first come first served basis.  Then, in order to get those tickets you had to fill out 100s of pages of documentation.  And further, if the tickets were all sold for one venue, the rest of the venues didn't get to have a show... Its just a silly way to distribute funding.  The choice was made that it was more important to have an easy to administer system (first come, first served) than it was to have a system that put the goal for the funds first (a careful look at each application and the purpose to which the money would be put)

 

Clearly, people down here who were working to get those credits dropped the ball, especially knowing it was first come first served.  Admitted.  You have to also admit, that first come first serve is a foolish way to distribute funds intended to serve the entire state.

 

This argument started with "Something seems fishy because Cleveland got 80%."  Now that it has been cleared up, the argument has turned to "Well that's a stupid way to do it." To which my answer is:

 

Fine.  As presOhio mentioned, the methodology will probably be changed in the future.  Doesn't change what happened this time around though.

 

Litigation is absurd, agreed. 

 

I didn't know the specifics of how the program was administered until after the whole hubbub, so its all hindsight anyhow.

 

Anyhow, I hope this is not repeated in the future.  First come first serve only serves the purposes of the funding if you are willing to concede that the most worthy projects will get their applications in first.  I am not willing to concede that at all (in fact, some of the most worthy projects are the most underfunded, and have the least ability to hire the lawyers required to dot the i's and cross the t's)

 

I

Litigation is absurd, agreed. 

 

I didn't know the specifics of how the program was administered until after the whole hubbub, so its all hindsight anyhow.

 

Anyhow, I hope this is not repeated in the future.  First come first serve only serves the purposes of the funding if you are willing to concede that the most worthy projects will get their applications in first.  I am not willing to concede that at all (in fact, some of the most worthy projects are the most underfunded, and have the least ability to hire the lawyers required to dot the i's and cross the t's)

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree.  I was just a little miffed at the "this isn't fair because cleveland did well".  Don't blame people here for doing a good job.  I'm sure there is a better way to "divide the pot" in the future, but they also have to be careful.  If people are upset now, wait until they try to award funds to the most "worthy" projects.  When people in regions start screaming my project is more important than yours.... wait to see how ugly that gets.

Well from my perspective, I don't blame Cleveland for doing well.  The lawyers up there clearly had their ducks in a row.

 

You have to admit that at first, before it was known that it was first come first served, it seemed fishy.  (By before it was known, I mean, before we had and explanation for why the distribution shook out the way it did, not before people who were in the know knew, because clearly they knew a long time ago). 

 

If it had gone the other way (before you knew how the funds were going to be distributed) with 80% to southwest, and nickels and dimes to the northeast, would your assumption have been "Damn, those guys in Cincy must have done something right"?  Or would your assumption have been "Something doesn't smell right?"

 

It could well be just as irksome to do the analysis based on "most worthy" but at least that better serves the goal and would likely have made the distribution more "fair"

 

Pssst, I am not whining, just explaining ;) (And hoping that next time around we don't have to deal with this)

PS, Rando:

 

This was ALWAYS a first come first serve initiative.  If I want to go to a concert on June15, and tickets go on sale May 1st, but I wait until June 13th to try and buy tickets and they are sold out... guess what? Tough sh!t for me.  I can't sue the band and the venue for not having any tickets left.

 

If this developer is so pissed off, maybe he should have showed up a little earlier.  This is nothing but sour grapes.

 

ahh but that is not necessarily so in politics.

 

i am thinking of les wexner, who in the 90's got an expansion of the eastern ring of I-270 and rt161 in columbus bumped up over a heap of other higher priority highway projects so he could build his easton and new albany sprawlburb xanadus.

 

or per your analogy, if mick jagger shows up at your rock show, he waltzes in free with his posse. sometimes if you have the juice you can change the rules.

 

cinci would need some wexner/jagger type political pizzazz to do it.

 

however, in this case let's keep in mind cleveland's jonathan sandvick & others 100% played by the rules.

 

It just doesn't make a lot of sense that the Cleveland/Canton area pull in more than 80% of the historic tax credits.  Of the 3 C's Cleveland is the youngest, and it is also experiencing the lowest population growth (actually declining).

 

 

no unc, this bit of rantski is incorrect. cinci was founded in 1788, the clev in 1796 and cols in 1812.

Well for those of you complaining that Cleveland got the most credits, you should look on the state website to see who put together the most, and the largest, applications.  Even if the total credits are boosted to encompass all complete applications Cleveland will walk away with the lion's share.  You guys just didn't really come to the game, comparatively speaking. 

 

What I hope happens in the future is that a submission date is set and projects are selected by merit after that submission date.  The worst thing would be geographic set asides, as that would encourage putting resources into mediocre projects or into the hands of mediocre organizations.  Better to have state-sponsored meetings to help the development community in underperforming regions compete better for these credits.

Well from my perspective, I don't blame Cleveland for doing well.  The lawyers up there clearly had their ducks in a row.

 

And our developers, our architects, our community leadership, etc.

Or they control the state of Ohio . . .

To be honest I haven't seen a more childish response from a group of people in my life.  I never claimed to know the details of how this worked...I was just highlighting the fact that over 80% of the funds (for a statewide effort) were going to one portion of the state.  Regardless of the distribution methods this should be re-examined and improved upon.  I don't see that as whining and/or sour grapes.

 

I say congrats to Cleveland for being on top of things...and I applaud their efforts.  I would say the same thing if Cincinnati/SW Ohio pulled in over 80% of the money from what is a program for the entire state.

Ohio developers file writ with Supreme Court over tax credit program:

http://www.building-cincinnati.com/2008/04/ohio-developers-file-writ-with-supreme.html

The "original" thread (http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,13304.0.html) was locked so I started a new thread.  If they can be merged that would be nice.

---

Historic buildings in limbo

State program offering tax credits for renovation hits budget cap quickly

http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business-6/1208593864262640.xml&coll=2

 

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Michelle Jarboe

Plain Dealer Reporter

Astate program that started with great fanfare but dried up quickly has left the fate of dozens of historic buildings in limbo.

 

 

 

This really was an amazing program to help breathe new life in our cities.  I understand the state doesnt have the money anymore, but could we at least shoot for a higher number than $120 million in 2010??  It should honestly be 5-15 times that for communities to truly feel the impact and spur new growth.

 

And why is the other thread locked?

^Cincy v. Cleveland shenanigans.

 

This is a program that really needs to be around in this state.

The problem is there was no dollar limit within the legislation that created the OHPTC, nor anything in there that gave Fisher the right to just close down the program, whether the state has funding issues or not.  That's why the writ of mandamus was filed, and why this PD article is so sorely lacking.

FYI -- Posted the item below this afternoon.

 

Presenting the New, New Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit

 

With the recent passage and signing of Ohio’s economic development package, the somewhat confusing Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit situation has now been given some needed clarity.  According to the latest and most reliable information available, this is the way that what might be called the "new, new historic preservation tax credit" will function over the next three years:

 

1.  The total amount of money authorized under the package was $120 million, which will be given in two cycles.

 

2.  The 2008-2009 cycle is officially eliminated, and there will be two new funding cycles beginning on July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010.

 

3.  Of the $60 million available in each of these two funding cycles, $45 million will be reserved for projects that were applied for in the 2007 cycle, but for which credits were not received before the cut-off.  The unused portion of this $45 million, if any, will be available for new projects.

 

4.  The “first-come, first-served” language has been removed, and the Ohio Historic Preservation Office will now serve only to review eligibility requirements.  The cost-benefit analysis previously required has also been removed, and the Department of Development is now required to “…consider the potential economic impact and the regional distributive balance of the credits throughout the state.”  No other guidelines are provided to govern the Department in granting or denying applications.

 

5.  Credits can be rescinded if an applicant fails to meet project benchmarks and timelines, but can be re-applied for in that eventuality.

 

6.  There is a new limit of $5 million per project (this may also be per owner).

 

7.  The credit will now be non-refundable, except as it applies to the corporate franchise tax.

 

Preservation Ohio will be updating its Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Resource Center in light of this new information.  For more information on the credit, please drop us an e-mail at: [email protected].

 

http://myhometownohio.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/6/23/3758952.html

Ahh, I don't like the 5 million dollar cap. We need to be much more proactive with this. We need to adopt Virginia's model and not cap the credits.. This will be a boon for us in the end if we do so.

I support the cap, I think.

 

I think one of the problems with the previous distribution of funds was that the money ran out before everyone in line could receive them. I think this will at least help with a more even distribution of funds and ensure a bit more that the smaller projects will still be eligible for funds. I don't think that the bigger cities of Ohio should be the only ones to get these funds, even though, at the end of the day, they drive the economy more than the little guys.

I'm OK with the cap for now, but I think it ultimately needs to be lifted. I hope someone is tracking the economic spin-off benefits from these credits, as that will help make the case to the state that much more funding should be allocated.

I'm OK with the cap for now, but I think it ultimately needs to be lifted. I hope someone is tracking the economic spin-off benefits from these credits, as that will help make the case to the state that much more funding should be allocated.

 

Heritage Ohio and the National Trust (I believe) are starting a major project to monitor who received the first set of credits and the impact that they make.

 

As for the cap -- there was a great deal of consternation about geographic and demographic diversity the first time around, and I suspect that you will see the Ohio Department of Development (which is currently working on the new regs) emphasize that the credit is available for both relatively large and small sized projects that are also geographically diverse.

Developers may learn soon about state historic tax credits

 

Posted by Michelle Jarboe August 12, 2008 14:51PM

Categories: Economic development, Real Estate News Impact, Real estate

 

CLEVELAND -- Developers hoping to revamp Ohio's historic buildings could know next month whether they'll receive state tax credits considered critical to their projects' success.

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/08/developers_may_learn_soon_abou.html

Cincinnati projects score Ohio historic tax credits

Business Courier of Cincinnati - by Lucy May Senior Staff Reporter

http://cincinnati.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/stories/2008/10/13/daily41.html?surround=lfn&brthrs=1

 

The state of Ohio will award millions in Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credits to 16 different projects in Greater Cincinnati, Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher announced Thursday morning.

 

is it possible, when posting, to include the entire article as link don't live on forever.  A few months from now, someone new to UO, might want to acquaint themselves with a topic and having the actual text along with the link would be beneficial.

 

thanks,

From http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/10/northeast_ohio_wins_43_million.html

 

Northeast Ohio wins $37 million in state tax credits; most not available until mid-2010

Posted by Michelle Jarboe October 16, 2008 13:00PM

 

links and text when posting, please.  Yes, "please".

From the Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit Resource Center

 

The Ohio Historic Preservation Tax Credit is available again during two application cycles in 2009.  This site is designed to provide an overview of the new tax credit, and to direct you to the latest resources, news and information concerning its availability and use.  This site will be updated as information becomes available to Preservation Ohio ... 

 

... More at http://ohiopreservationalliance.homestead.com/ohptcresourcecenter.html.

 

 

And check out the official website: http://development.ohio.gov/UD/OHPTC/ with additional information on the application process.

 

I will be curious to see how the new attention to regional distribution impacts Cleveland; specifically, whether future applications from Cleveland will be adversely impacted by the earlier heavy distribution in northeast Ohio. In other words, will ODOD be attempting regional parity among the credits within a given cycle, or will ODOD be attempting regional parity among the credits over the lifetime of the program? If the second is true, I would anticipate we won't see many Cleveland projects getting funded for a while. Even after splitting the earlier cycles to allow more applications from outside northeast Ohio to get a review, Cleveland still has an INCREDIBLE lead in this program ... $93.9 million to Cleveland, compared to $16.9 million to Cincy and Columbus's $9.4 million.