A Review of the Effectiveness of the Heritage Property Tax Relief

Transcription

Report CSACH11-007 - Appendix A
A Review of the Effectiveness of the
Heritage Property Tax Relief Program
Heritage Preservation Office
Arts, Culture and Heritage Division
Department of Community Services
City of Peterborough
April 5, 2011
Table of Contents
RECOMMENDATIONS
3
1 INTRODUCTION
4
2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF BUILDING REHABILITATION
Introduction
Employment
Cultural Heritage Tourism
Downtown Revitalization
Property Values
5
3 ANALYSIS OF THE HERITAGE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAM
Program Uptake by Year
Summary of the Program to Date
Participant Survey
General Comments Concerning Program Operation
10
4 ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY VALUE TRENDS IN TAX RELIEF AREAS
Introduction
Methodology
Limitations
Summary of Results
Conclusions on Analysis
19
5 ADAPTIVE REUSE AND TAX REBATES IN PETEBOROUGH
Introduction
Rehabilitation Projects
Conclusions on Adaptive Reuse
21
6 CONCLUSION
24
REFERENCES
26
APPENDIX 1- Participation in the HPTRP by Year
27
APPENDIX 2- Cost of Program Participation by Property
29
APPENDIX 3- Ryerson University Peterborough Revitalization Study
31
APPENDIX 4- Average Annual Rate of Increase of Assessed Value
32
APPENDIX 5- Maps
33
2
RECOMMENDATIONS
This report recommends the following:
1. That the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program (HPTRP) be continued in its
current form as a major revitalization tool for the historic commercial core of the
City;
2. That the tax rebate increase from 20% to 40% on the commercial portion
properties within Schedule ‘J’ of the Official Plan (Downtown Revitalization Area)
that undergo major rehabilitation to develop residential units on upper floors,
effective to the date of approval of the amended HPTRP by-law;
3. That the enabling by-law for the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program be
amended to:
a. provide clarity in administering penalties for non-compliance;
b. provide clarification for inclusion of properties outside of Schedule ‘J’;
4. That the Heritage Preservation Office be directed to continue to encourage
owners of non-designated properties in Schedule ‘J’ with high heritage value to
pursue designation and inclusion in the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program;
5. That Council continue to grant exceptions for inclusion in the HPTRP to
significant designated properties outside of Schedule ‘J’, with special
consideration being given enhancing the viability of major rehabilitation projects;
6. That the Heritage Preservation Office be directed to continue evaluating the
heritage significance of properties beyond Schedule ‘J’ to help define possible
boundaries for a ‘heritage schedule’ in the Official Plan.
3
1 INTRODUCTION
Well-maintained heritage properties enrich
quality of life and give communities a
unique character and distinctive sense of
place. The process of historic designation,
as provided for in the Ontario Heritage Act,
has become an essential tool in the efforts
to
preserve
and
protect
historic
neighbourhood districts and individually
recognized properties in communities
throughout the province. The designation
process strikes a balance between the
freedom of individual property owners and
the recognized need of the community to
preserve its heritage resources. Heritage
designation
prohibits
unwarranted
demolition and controls major alterations
that might otherwise harm specific heritage
features.
Hunter Street Cafe District
In December of 2001, section 35.2 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 2001, c.25, was revised
allowing a municipality to establish a by-law to create a Heritage Property Tax Relief
Program (HPTRP). This program would provide tax relief to owners of eligible properties
provided that they were designated under Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act
as an individual property or part of a heritage conservation district. The program
requires an owner to enter into a heritage conservation easement agreement, registered
on title, in which the property owner agrees to respect the preservation and
maintenance needs of the property.
In October of 2003 The City of Peterborough passed by-law 03-208 establishing a tax
incentive program for heritage properties. The City adopted rebate values of 40% for
residential properties and 20% for commercial and multi-unit residential properties. The
City excluded the industrial tax class from participating in the program. It was felt that
it’s inclusion would increase both the cost of running the program and the amount of
administrative time spent monitoring preservation standards in large industrial
complexes, especially active ones where safety and security are primary concerns.
The Cox Terrace National Historic
4
Report CSCH03-001 (April 7 2003) included a recommendation that Council evaluate
the impact of the program at the end of its first five years and consider expanding the
geographic area to include the area currently defined as the Community Improvement
Area, Schedule H in the Official Plan (Schedule H approximates the City, as it existed
up to the early 1950’s). The presentation of the report was postponed when the City
was given the opportunity to participate in a major study by Ryerson University on the
impact of heritage designation and the HPTRP on the City’s commercial and historic
core. That study is appended to this report.
The following report provides a comprehensive review of the HPTRP since 2003. It
includes:
•
•
•
•
a brief discussion of the benefits of tax incentive programs;
an overview of the Peterborough program to date;
an analysis of assessment increases in designated versus non-designated
properties, and;
a discussion on adaptive reuse projects in the City.
The report concludes with a qualitative analysis of the properties receiving tax relief and
provides an understanding of how the program has affected the owner’s capacity to
preserve heritage buildings and recommendation for the HPTRP in the future.
2 ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF BUILDING REHABILITATION
2.1 Introduction
Historic Preservation enhances the lives of both a community’s residents and its
visitors. As with many municipalities, historic properties in Peterborough have become
valuable cultural, aesthetic, educational and economic resources. Dozens of wellresearched studies have come to the conclusion that historic preservation activities act
as significant economic motivators through:
•
•
•
•
•
Job creation;
An increase in property values;
The revitalization of neighbourhoods and commercial districts;
The promotion of adaptive reuse resulting in increased tax revenue from underperforming properties;
The stimulation of a range of economic activities such as heritage tourism.
The effect of heritage designation on property values and the economic benefits that
stem from building rehabilitations are well documented. From a municipal perspective a
strong preservation mind-set contributes to:
•
•
•
Improved competitiveness of revitalized downtowns;
Curbing of urban sprawl and the related cost of new infrastructure;
Increased property tax revenue from renovated buildings;
5
•
•
•
•
•
Increased tourism revenues;
A geographic focus for increased cultural activities and cultural industries;
Reduced demolition debris being sent to landfills;
Increased activity in the building supply and construction sectors;
Enhanced community and civic pride.
Historic rehabilitation projects have both
direct and indirect economic impacts. Direct
impacts
are
expenditures
directly
associated with a rehabilitation project such
as design, labour, materials and technology
costs related to construction. These direct
costs are often higher than in new
construction because historic buildings
require specialized skill-sets and materials
(although the overall cost of rehabilitation is
typically lower than new construction
because of the value embodied in the
existing structure). Indirect impacts are
those expenditures that are associated with
the production of value-added supplies and
services specific to the preservation
industry like the provision of salvaged
architectural features.
Launching the Bonnerworth Mills
Admin Building Rehabilitation Project
2.2 Employment
Jobs related to rehabilitation projects typically have a greater impact in the community
than non-preservation construction work. Preservation skills are typically more
specialized and command higher wages. Heritage rehabilitation work tends to rely more
heavily on local craftspeople with knowledge of local building traditions and materials.
Also, new construction techniques are
designed around minimizing site labour by
using unitized components like windows
and trusses that are manufactured and
shipped from elsewhere. A 2002 study by
the
Michigan
Historic
Preservation
Network found that in new construction
about 50% of cost is labour and 50%
materials. The ratio for rehabilitation
projects is typically 70% labour and 30%
materials1. When a higher proportion of
labour is used locally, more money stays
in the local economy.
Careful Re-pointing of Historic Masonry
1
“Investing in Michigan’s Future: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation” Prepared for the
Michigan State Historic Preservation Office. October 2002.
6
The 2000 Downtown St. John’s Strategy for Economic Development And Heritage
Preservation report cites a 1986 study by the CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing
Corporation) which states that employment directly related to renovation projects
generated an investment that was over twice the direct employment rate provided by an
identical investment in new construction2. The overall total employment (including
indirect employment e.g. suppliers) was still considerably higher in building
rehabilitations compared to new construction3. Heritage property improvements also
have a catalytic effect on investment in the immediate area. Highly visible and centrally
located projects (such as cornerstone buildings) encourage surrounding building owners
and investors to consider similar improvement projects.
2.3 Cultural Heritage Tourism
Cultural Heritage Tourism is the fastest
growing sector of the tourism industry,
which is the largest industry in the world.
Heritage
tourism
focuses
on
the
preservation of the features of a place that
make it distinctive, for presentation to
visitors. Heritage tourism resources vary
greatly and can include historic sites,
cultural landscapes, aboriginal centres,
ethnic festivals, industrial ruins and
battlefields. Key to the development a
successful
cultural
heritage
tourism
program for a municipality is the concept of
The Canadian Canoe Museum
authenticity. That is, what a visitor
experiences in a place is real, not a fabrication or replacement of the heritage of a
place. This concept makes the preservation of heritage resources a vital component of
strategies seeking to capture economic growth through tourism.
Heritage tourism is also a more economically robust sector of the tourism industry than
most others. A report by Rutgers University about tourism in the state of Texas found
that more than 11% of all travelers in the state were heritage tourists. Three of the major
findings are of particular note: cultural heritage tourists spent more money per day than
non-heritage travelers; a higher percentage of cultural heritage travelers stayed in hotel
accommodations than in private homes or with relatives; and, heritage travelers stayed
in a particular location longer than tourists visiting for other reasons.
According to Statistics Canada, in 1999 spending by Canadians in heritage/cultural
tourism sector amounted to three billion dollars.4 Heritage tourists are especially
attracted to areas where they can enjoy an authentic built heritage environment so the
2
Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc and Sheppard Case Architects Inc. Background report No. 3. Economic
Benefits of Built Heritage Revival. Downtown St. John’s Strategy for Economic Development and Heritage
Preservation. April 12, 2000.
3
The Canadian Renovation Market, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1986
4
Heritage Tourism. Heritage Canada Foundation Advocacy Action. Accessed December 14, 2008 from
<http://www.advocacyaction.org/english/tourism/introduction.htm>
7
benefits of a strong relationship in a municipality between tourism development and
heritage preservation are substantial.
2.4 Downtown Revitalization
Communities across North America have begun to capitalize on their distinctive heritage
assets to revitalize historic business cores reclaiming them as the social hub of the city.
Rehabilitation of heritage buildings in the core area produces a range of economic
benefits for a municipality:
•
Encouraging the relocation of housing and businesses to the downtown area by
creating new and viable residential and commercial space;
•
Increasing property values downtown which in turn stabilizes and protects the
values in surrounding residential neighbourhoods;
•
Returning underutilized or vacant buildings to municipal property tax rolls;
•
Increasing tourism and community participation.
The value of core revitalization to a city is
significant to the non-profit, private and
government sectors. Local governments
benefit through an increased property tax
base and reduced costs of services and
new infrastructure. Property owners benefit
through increased occupancy rates and
increases in rental value. Merchants benefit
through a greater opportunity for growth
and
expansion.
Finally,
residents
themselves benefit from an increased
access to goods and services, more
employment opportunities, greater security
and an improved standard of living.
Dr. Chuck Chaprapani, an economist with
The Former T Eaton Company Building,
the Centre for Study of Commercial Activity
Now the Turnbull Medical Centre
at Ryerson University, has produced
research projects on the impact of heritage preservation initiatives on the downtown
core of several Ontario cities, including Peterborough. His survey of business owners
and managers in Peterborough found very strong support for heritage preservation.
97% of business owners/managers in Peterborough believe that heritage preservation
is important, and 84% said specifically that they believe that heritage preservation is
important to the business environment of a community. Prof. Chaprapani’s report is
included as Appendix 3.
8
2.5 Property Values
Understanding the effect of designation on property values is crucial to understanding
the true cost of the HPTRP, since increasing property values increases tax revenue and
helps offset the cost of the program. Changes in property values can also be an
indicator of changes in quality of life and the liveability of a community. Rising property
values in a city suggest that people are seeking it out as a place to live. Internally,
property values rising faster in one part of the city than others suggests that an area is
becoming a desirable place to live. This raises the question as to whether heritage
designation plays a part in the desirability of neighbourhoods and impacts on values.
Recent studies have shown that buildings protected by heritage legislation tend to
perform well financially. A report by the New York City Independent Budget Office in
September of 2003 stated that:
After controlling for property and neighborhood characteristics, market
values of properties in historic districts were higher than those outside
historic districts for each year of the study. Although the results for price
appreciation during particular sub-periods are mixed, for the entire 1975
through 2002 period properties in historic districts increased in price at a
slightly greater rate than properties not in districts 5
Rutgers University, conducted a study examining the effects of designation on property
values in nine American cities. The study concluded that historical designations actually
stabilized property values in all nine cities:
Seven of these showed significantly higher property values within
designated historic districts when compared with similar but nondesignated areas. In some cases, there was as much as a 20% difference
between a designated and a non-designated area. The remaining two
cities could not establish a quantifiable increase or decrease in property
values. 6
Similar results have been recorded by numerous studies across North America. As part
of the direction that Peterborough City Council gave when it approved the Heritage
Property Tax Relief Program, it asked that a review of the value of the program to the
City take place after the fifth year of operation. Clearly, across North America,
municipalities have found that tax incentives have had a positive effect promoting
tourism, enhancing the community landscape beyond the individual restored buildings,
revitalized downtowns, generated employment and increased property values and tax
revenue. The following section will track the participation of Peterborough’s designated
5
New York City Independent Budget Office. The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property
Values. September 2003.
6
Heritage Preservation at Work for the Texas Economy. Based on the Study Economic Impacts of
Historic Preservation in Texas. The Centre for Urban Policy Research at Rutgers University, Texas
Perspectives and The LBJ School of Public Affairs at University of Texas at Austin Page 4.
9
properties in the HPTRP to determine the impact that it has had on the community both
fiscally and in terms of quality of life.
3 ANALYSIS OF THE HERITAGE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PROGRAM
3.1 Program Up-take by Year
When the Heritage Property Tax Relief
Program was first adopted three categories
of designated properties were considered
for inclusion: all existing designated
properties regardless of their location in the
city were automatically included; newly
designated properties within Schedule ‘J’
were considered eligible; and, properties
outside of Schedule ‘J’ would be considered
by Council on a case by case basis as they
were designated (usually category ‘A’
properties). This third category allowed
Council, at its discretion, to provide tax relief
for individual properties where doing so
in the HPTRP
would encourage economic development or 361 Park Street. An Early Property
(Roy Studio Image)
support other worthy endeavours.
Currently there are 61 properties enrolled in the program (counting those with easement
agreements that are not yet registered) although three properties are currently in
arrears and do not receive the rebate. The split between properties inside and outside
Schedule ‘J’ is roughly equal- 30 inside and 31 outside the current program boundary.
24 of the properties are buildings that were designated before the introduction of the
program while 37 properties (60.3%) were designated after the program’s inception.
Breaking down the program uptake by year gives a picture of the way in which the
incentive has driven core revitalization.
2003
13 properties joined the program in the inaugural year. The majority, 92.3%, were older
designations (passed by City Council before 2000) and with the exception of the Morrow
Building (commercial / multi-unit residential), all were residential properties. Only four
properties (31%) were located inside the “Schedule J” boundaries. The remaining nine
were all located in older residential sections of the City.
In 2003 the overall total value of tax relief amounted to $19,799.91 of which the
total cost to the City was $15,324.14. The largest rebate went to the Morrow Building
at $3,151.91; the cost to the City was $1,985.25, while the lowest rebate was for the
James Miller House at $580.33 where the cost to the City was $461.07.
10
2004
There was similar uptake for the program in its second year with 12 new properties
enrolled. Five of these properties were located inside Schedule ‘J’ and seven were not.
In 2004 four commercial properties enrolled in the program. Of those, three were in
Schedule ‘J’ and were new designations while the fourth was Burnham Mansion, which
was designated in the 1980s. By the second year it was clear that the program was
beginning to have the intended effect: to provide financial incentives in return for
designation of buildings in the downtown revitalization area and generate rehabilitation
of commercial activities to help stimulate economic activity. The overall total value of
tax relief was $41,239.53 of which the cost to the City was $31,510.48.
In 2004 a capitally funded, part-time position was created to provide research support
for the preparation of heritage designation briefs for Council. As building owners
became aware of the financial incentives available through the HPTRP, the requests for
designation increased dramatically. Prior to
the inception of the program in 2003 the
City had not designated a building since
1997. Between 2004 and 2006 the Heritage
Preservation Office wrote 31 designation
briefs. The Heritage Researcher position
now
oversees
the
preparation
of
designation briefs including the coordination
of a heritage property research project
undertaken annually by the Museum
Management and Curatorship program
students of Sir Sanford Fleming College as
well as the administration of the HPTRP.
Currently this position is a .66 FTE (24
hours/week).
100 Benson Street-
2005
The Peterborough Normal School
In 2005 fifteen new properties were
designated and thirteen entered the HPTRP. There was a large increase in the number
of commercial properties applying to the program (seven of the thirteen). In 2005 four
major adaptive re-use projects were designated and entered the program: The
Bonnerworth Mill Administration building, The Normal School (Teacher’s College),
Central School and the Post Office and Customs House. All of these were converted to
residential use, two of which include affordable housing units. Two of the buildings are
located in Schedule ‘J’ and two were granted exceptions by Council to participate in the
program.
These projects are significant for several reasons. The Normal School was the first
building in Peterborough for which the Planning Division requested heritage designation
as part of the site plan approval process. As part of that process the Municipal Heritage
Committee (PACAC) worked with the owners to complete a conservation plan for
heritage features as the design for the conversion was progressing. Since that time it
11
has become a common practice to create conservation agreements as part of the
designation process. These agreements provide clear direction for developers as to the
expectations by Council for the preservation of heritage attributes during construction.
The projects have also been significant revenue generators for the City. Three of the
four properties were redundant institutional buildings that had never paid municipal
taxes. The effects of large adaptive reuse projects on the HPTRP are discussed in a
later section.
The total rebate for 2005 was $83,598.26 with a cost to the City of $58,519.83. This
amount reflected a major increase of $42,358.73 over the previous year driven mainly
by the inclusion of the Former Post Office ($10,420) and the Normal School ($8,005).
Sadleir House, 751 George St N, received the biggest residential rebate of $3,178.73
with a cost to the City of $2,580.81. Sadleir House is run by a Trent University student
organization that, without the support of the tax program, would have great difficulty in
maintaining the building’s architectural integrity through regular upkeep and repairs.
2006
Enrolment fell sharply in 2006 with only four new properties entering the program. The
total rebate for 2006 was $106,044.72 with a cost to the City of $80,402.80
2007
Enrolment rebounded in 2007 with thirteen new properties including seven commercial
properties in the core. The drop and rebound in uptake between 2006 and 2007
highlights a significant trend in the downtown real estate market. A number of the
properties enrolling in 2007 were under new ownership after having been held by a
previous owner for many years. Those properties had been allowed to depreciate for a
variety of reasons. Young entrepreneurs are acquiring these inexpensive, depreciated
properties in the downtown for rehabilitation, and they are incorporating designation and
inclusion in the HPTRP as part of their business plan. The total rebate for 2007 was
$127,059.91 with a cost to the City of $98,009.87
2008
Enrolment dropped again in 2008 with only five properties entering the program. Three
of the properties are in Schedule ‘J’ and two are category ‘A’ residential properties that
were provided exceptions by Council. In Schedule ‘J’ two of the properties are major
cornerstone buildings, the Turnbull Building at the corner of Simcoe and George
Streets, and the old Toronto Dominion Bank at the corner of Hunter and George
Streets. The two latter properties represent major downtown revitalization efforts at
each end of the rehabilitation process. The Turnbull Building conversion is complete
and has full occupancy as a medical clinic with ground floor commercial. The building
was designated as part of the rehabilitation process and entered the HPTRP during the
conversion so that the tax relief provided a partial financial incentive to create a
basement garage to meet the parking requirements of the building. The entrance for the
parking was sensitively done using the old loading doors on Charlotte Street with
minimal changes to the building’s character. The old Toronto Dominion building remains
in the planning stages and the tax relief is being used to stabilize the heritage features
12
of the structure until a major rehabilitation project takes place. In both cases the tax
relief plays key role in preserving the character of the building. The total rebate for
2008 was $151,582.46 with a cost to the City of $110,660.54
2009
Six properties entered the program during the 2009 tax year. Four of the six properties
are in schedule ‘J’ and one is 661 Park Street, a property that the City sold last year and
has been designated since the 1980s. It is eligible under the grandfathering provisions
of the by-law to enter the program and the new owner has chosen to do so. The total
rebate for 2009 is projected to be $166,243.22 with a cost to the City of
$122,350.63.
The data in this report on participation in the HPTRP only extends to 2009. Because of
the way the enabling legislation is structured, owners have until the end of February of
the year following the tax year for which they apply to enter the program. When the data
for this report was analyzed the deadline for 2010 had not yet passed.
3.2 Summary of the Program to Date
There are several points of note concerning the rebate totals. The first is that the
amounts shown by year do not reflect capping of rates in certain classes as mandated
by the Province. The amounts shown are calculated based on the assessed value of the
property. If the taxes owing are capped, the City only pays the HPTRP rebate on the
collected taxes. In no one year does the capping increase the represented value more
than $1,500 to $2,000 so it is not considered a significant margin of error in
understanding the relative value of the
rebates by year. Also, three properties
in the HPTRP are in arrears and do not
currently receive tax relief. Each has
been in arrears for two or more years.
Should those owners make their
accounts current they would be eligible
to receive heritage tax relief and that
would increase the overall value of the
relief by approximately $10,000.
Finally, because the focus of the
program has been on the historic
commercial core of the City, the majority
of buildings now entering the program
are taxed at a commercial rate. Because
the commercial tax class pays a higher
percentage of the educational portion of
the property taxes, and the educational
portion of the heritage property tax
rebate is refunded to the City by the
Province, the net cost per dollar of tax
201 Charlotte Street, The former Post Office and
Customs House, Before and After Conversion to
Market Rate Residential
13
relief by the City is decreasing. In the first year of the program, when the majority of
properties entering were residential properties that were previously designated, the
owner received $1.29 for every dollar the City spent because of the educational portion
refunded by the Province. In other words, the City only bore 77% of the program cost.
By 2009 a building owner received $1.37 for every dollar the City spent on the program
and the City is only bearing 73% of the program cost. The ratio of commercial to
residential entries into the program has stabilized in recent years so this premium will
not increase much in the future but it does help to reinforce the understanding that the
City is receiving good value for its investment.
3.3 PARTICIPANT SURVEY
As part of the HPTRP review process a
survey was sent to 43 property owners
enrolled in the program at the time. Thirtytwo responses, or 74.4% of the sent
surveys, were received back by the
Heritage Preservation Office. This is a
statistically high rate and should generate a
reasonably accurate snapshot of the
participant’s views.
3.3.1 Response Profile
Fourteen respondents own commercial
properties and all but two of the responses
are for properties located in Schedule ‘J’
(Burnham Mansion is located on Highway 7
East and Veralum, an apartment building on Restoration work at the Jameson House Included
Burnham Street, is a multi-residential Stabilizing a Rare 19th Century Carriage House
dwelling and receives tax relief at the commercial rate of 20%). The majority (86%) of
the commercial properties were designated after the introduction to the program. This
suggests that Council’s intent, that the program encourages restoration and
revitalization in the downtown, is being met.
Eighteen respondents own residential properties, of which five are located in Schedule
‘J’. In contrast to the commercial properties, the majority of residential properties in the
program were designated before the introduction of the program; 66% compared to
33% designated after 2003. This might suggest that the program has been of interest
only to people who already had designated properties but has not necessarily been an
incentive to designate a residential property. It is more likely however that because
owners of properties already designated were the first ones made aware of the new
program, they were the first to apply. Only two pre-existing designated residential
properties have entered the program since the second year. There have been sixteen
residential properties designated since the program began, seven of which have
entered the program. This suggests that the program has been a significant but not vital
incentive for the designation of residential properties. The focus of awareness building
14
for the program has been aimed at the core area in keeping with the program mandate
to act as a revitalization tool.
3.3.2 Projects Undertaken
Program participants were asked to list and give a brief description of routine
maintenance projects to heritage attributes that were pending or had been completed
(including costs if available) on the designated property. They were also asked whether
any of the projects would have been undertaken without the tax relief. While not all said
yes, in every case the respondents indicated that the tax relief had contributed to their
capacity to preserve their heritage building(s). There were a total of 124 projects listed
by respondents of which 53 (43%) were undertaken on commercial or multi-unit
residential properties and 71 (57%) were completed on residential properties.
Of fourteen commercial property owners
that responded, two indicated that no
projects had been undertaken, nine had
undertaken one to five rehabilitation
projects and three indicated that they had
completed six or more projects.
Eighteen residential property owners
responded of which: seven owners
completed five projects on their properties;
four owners reported completing three
projects; three owners reported completing
four projects; and, four owners reported
completing one project.
The maintenance projects were varied in
terms of scope and size. Nearly every
residential
owner
(93%)
reported
maintenance on the original windows, sills,
and storm windows of their properties.
Other projects included roofing, woodwork
repair and restoration, foundation repointing
and
waterproofing,
shutter
restoration, interior storm windows and
ornamental plasterwork repairs.
Restored Verandah on Harvey Street House
The program participants were asked if the projects would have been undertaken if the
HPTRP were not available. The commercial property owners were split equally. Six
indicated that some projects would still have been completed without the tax relief and
six responded that they could not have completed the projects without financial support.
Residential property owners were nearly evenly split as well. Ten respondents indicated
that they would still have completed their projects and eight said that they would not
have been able to.
15
Owners were then asked if they had undertaken major projects that they would not have
been able to complete without the HPRTP. Unlike general maintenance there was a
strong indication that funding had made major rehabilitation work feasible. Eight
commercial respondents indicated that the tax relief had facilitated major rehabilitation
projects while five noted that the tax relief was used for maintenance only. Sixteen
residential property owners reported that they were able to take on a major rehabilitation
project. Only two residential property owners indicated that the funding was used solely
for maintenance work. Major projects included re-pointing work, chimney reconstruction,
jacking up an historic barn, and verandah reconstruction.
Some interesting trends emerged through the interviews with the program participants.
Many building owners have been exploring energy efficient upgrades and/or green
solutions in their heritage buildings. For instance, window repair rather than
replacement was considered a more environmentally sustainable alternative when the
entire production process of replacement windows was considered. Several program
participants undertook major plumbing and electrical work projects to comply with
current building codes and indicated that the HPTRP helped cover the increased costs
of doing such work sensitively in an historic building.
One of the original reasons for instituting tax relief for heritage building owners was the
cost premium when hiring skilled trades people heritage-building professionals for
specific projects. Several respondents reported that inexperienced trades people
claiming to have suitable experience with heritage buildings caused damage to
protected attributes of their buildings. In response, one owner used some of his HPTRP
rebate to enrol in several old home restoration workshops. Such education is valuable in
understanding the specialized qualifications required in heritage trades. Building
specialists must be qualified to perform all of the work they accept and owners need the
skills to know what their buildings need.
3.3.3 Effectiveness for Commercial Properties
Among the commercial property owners there was some feeling that at 20%, the tax
rebate does not provide an owner with a sufficient incentive to undertake a major
rehabilitation of the property.
One owner’s survey response outlines these concerns. The owner has invested over
$100,000 to convert a heritage building to offices and make several existing apartments
on upper floors code compliant. The work included some restoration of heritage
attributes protected by heritage designation at a cost of about $8,500. The total
rehabilitation work resulted in a $142,000 increase in the MPAC assessment. This
reassessment resulted in an increase of $6,653.14 in taxes annually. Since the property
has been in the program the owner has paid approximately $47,000 in taxes while
receiving $10,780 in heritage tax relief. The owner’s conclusion is that the HPTRP is a
token and not a meaningful contribution to restoration projects.
16
The argument, however, is flawed. The purpose of the HPTRP is to recognize that there
is a premium to be paid for completing rehabilitation work to recognized heritage
standards. In this case that premium was about $8,500 for which the owner has
received over $10,000 in municipal support. The increase in assessment is primarily
due to the creation or improvement of revenue generating floor space, not to the
preservation or maintenance of heritage attributes. What the owner fails to account for
is that the revenue stream has increased as well as the assessment costs because
capital improvements represent an enhanced value to the property. In fact, in this case
the HPTRP has done exactly what it is intended to do, make the protection of heritage
features on a building a revenue neutral part of the rehabilitation process.
The conversion of the former Post Office
into ninety-one market rate downtown rental
units is a noteworthy example of a
successful adaptive reuse project assisted
by the tax rebate. The owners indicated in
their responses to the survey that the tax
relief was a major component in their
decision to go forward with the project.
They also noted that while the restoration of
heritage features increased costs and
introduced construction challenges, they
were pleased that the HPTRP made
preservation of the building a favourable
option over demolition.
Chimneys on Verulam Were Reconstructed
The property at 236 Burnham St, Verulam,
is a multi-unit residential building receiving a 20% tax rebate annually. The owners have
spent approximately $172,000 on rehabilitation work since entering the program in
2003. This project is a good representative example of the HPTRP providing the
premium to complete repairs to recognized heritage standards. Asphalt roofing was
replaced with copper at a cost of $43,000 where an asphalt roof would have cost
approximately $25,000. Two chimneys on the east side were reconstructed to duplicate
originals again at a premium over standard masonry work. Soffits and fascia were
repaired using in-kind materials and replica copper gutters and down-pipes were
installed to match originals. The owners have received $12,660 in tax relief to date,
which is about 19% of the value of the work to heritage features.
3.4 General Comments Concerning Program Operation
Overall the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program has been well received by
participants. The survey responses reflected a high degree of satisfaction with the
benefits of the tax incentives. In particular, owners of properties designated prior to the
inception of the program indicated that the support for their on-going efforts was greatly
appreciated.
17
FIGURE 1- PROCESS AND RESPONSIBILITY CHART
Responsibility
Task
Heritage Researcher
Receives HPTRP applications from owners
Sends copies of the HPTRP application form to Law
Clerk/Conveyancer.
Law Clerk/Conveyancer
Law Clerk/Conveyancer
Heritage Researcher
Documents Include:
• Copy of the Application Form
• Designated property maintenance plan
• “Schedule B”, (created from information in the
maintenance plan).
Completes sub-search of property to confirm ownership and
property description.
Drafts easement agreements.
Mails easements to owners.
Receives signed easement agreements from owners. Registers
easement agreements on title.
Sends Confirmation of Registration to the Clerk’s Office,
Heritage Preservation Office (HPO) and the Tax
Collector/Revenue Coordinator in Corporate Services,
Municipal Property Assessment Corporation and to the
Applicant(s).
Tax Collector/ Revenue
Coordinator
Heritage Researcher
At this time Tax Collector/Revenue Coordinator receives copies
of the application forms and a copy of the Easement Agreement
from the Heritage Researcher.
Enters participation in HPTRP on Tax Accounts. Refund
cheques issued if final bill already issued, or for previous years,
otherwise credit applied to be deducted from Final tax bill for
current year.
Using Crystal Reports, HPO Monitors participation of owners in
program.
HPO notifies owners and Tax Collector that program is
suspended for taxes in arrears.
Tax Collector/Revenue
Coordinator
Maintains a current list of all participants in the HPTRP
Notifies HPO and Law Clerk/Conveyancer if property in the
program is sold/transferred to new owners.
18
In the early years of the program some owners expressed concern about the length of
time required before the rebate was received. Once the Heritage Preservation Office
(HPO) has received the initial application, it can several months for it to be processed
and approved. In response to these concerns, the HPO has created a procedure chart
(Figure 1) outlining the application process for distribution to program participants. It is
important that owners understand that the application process does take several
months to complete. By communicating the timeframe clearly at the outset, owners can
coordinate the financial requirements of their rehabilitation programs more efficiently.
There are several other procedural changes recommended in this report. Currently the
by-law allows for the City to recoup the tax credits with interest if an owner fails to
comply with the terms of the heritage agreement. However the by-law does not
articulate the specifics of this process. The report recommends that the by-law be
amended to outline timelines and procedures by which the City shall impose penalties
for non-compliance. The by-law provides for Council to grant exceptions to the program
boundaries but is silent on any criteria by which the decision to include a property is
made. The report recommends the inclusion of such criteria to provide building owners
with a clear understanding of the likelihood of a property being granted an exception.
Finally, the by-law allows the City to inspect properties at its discretion to assure
compliance with the terms of the heritage agreements.
4 ANALYSIS OF PROPERTY VALUE TRENDS IN TAX RELIEF AREAS
4.1 Introduction
One of the primary reasons for establishing the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program
was to stimulate the revitalization of core properties and by extension, the economic
activity of downtown. Predicted benefits included lower vacancy rates, an increase in
high-end commercial activities, a higher level of spending by visitors and tourists and an
increase in pedestrian traffic downtown. The long-term effects of these benefits has
been clearly documented in many municipalities to improve quality of life through
decreased crime rates, increases in tax revenues, increases in discretionary spending
at independent merchants and improved aesthetics in the core area.
Documenting the effect of the HPTRP on some quality of life issues, such as crime, is
beyond the scope of this report. However a quantitative assessment model has been
developed to determine whether the tax credit program for heritage properties has
generated a meaningful trend in increased assessments. The financial benefits
discussed are in addition to the secondary economic benefits of spending on
construction where the provision of specialized preservation skills and materials
generates a premium for the building industry.
The quantitative assessment model was designed to explore the increases in
assessment values for designated buildings, including properties that are not in HPTRP,
versus non-designated buildings in the same area of the city.
19
4.2 Methodology
Assessed values for the years 2003 to 2009 were collected for all properties in
Schedule J (the area of the city that was included in HPTRP). The Municipal Property
Assessment Corporation (MPAC) supplied the assessment values for each property.
The properties were divided into three categories: non-designated properties,
designated properties that are not in HPTRP, and properties that are in HPTRP. The
average annual change (increase or decrease) in assessed value was calculated for
each property, so that the three categories could be compared to one another.
Comparing non-designated properties to designated properties that are not receiving
tax relief shows the “base value” of heritage designation – the value of designation
without any incentive. A comparison of designated properties that are not receiving tax
relief to those that are in HPTRP, shows the value of offering tax relief to the owners of
designated properties.
4.3 Limitations
Since the majority of designated properties in Schedule ‘J’ have joined the tax relief
program, the category for designated properties not in the program has a very small
sample size. Also, some designated properties outside of Schedule J have been
allowed to enter HPTRP. For both of those reasons, designated properties, both those
in the program and those not in the program, that are outside of Schedule ‘J’ were
included in the evaluation. Results are stated with and without these properties
included.
Assessed values are not always identical to market values. Conducting a similar study
using market values would be much more time consuming, since that data is not as
readily available. However, it is assessed values that have a direct affect on tax
revenue, so from the City’s perspective the analysis is valuable in creating a clear
picture of the impact to the City tax base.
4.4 Summary of Results
All of the data used in this study is shown in Appendix 4 of this report. The following is a
summary of the findings.
The average annual rate of increase in the assessed value of all non-designated
properties in Schedule ‘J’, commercial and residential, for the years 2003 to 2009 was
7.12%. This was a bit higher than the average increase for designated properties in
Schedule ‘J’ that are not in the tax relief program which was 5.61% over the same
period. This may suggest that when no tax incentive is offered, heritage designation
slightly retards assessment growth. However, Ontario municipalities use market rate
assessments generated by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC)
through a complicated evaluation of nearly 200 factors. Five factors, including the size
of the lot, the size of the building and the age of the building make up 85% of the
property value. Since MPAC devalues a building the older it is and by definition heritage
value increases as a building ages (and by extension, its likelihood to be designated), a
difference of 1.5% in assessed value is not statistically significant. Other factors such as
20
a buyer’s, seller’s or a real estate agent’s attitude towards heritage designation might
affect market value as well. When designated properties outside of Schedule ‘J’ are
included the average annual increase of assessed value of designated properties not in
the HPTRP rises to 6.06%.
The numbers are substantially different for properties that are in the HPTRP. Properties
in Schedule ‘J’ that participated in the tax relief program saw their assessed values rise
by an average of 28.09% annually. This significantly higher growth rate is attributable to
a trend in the commercial core that is seeing the conveyance of completely depreciated
properties, which then undergo major rehabilitation. Some buildings, such as 205
Charlotte Street, 475 George St., and 90 Murray St. had average annual increases in
assessed value of over 100% after they entered the HPTRP. Two of these buildings
underwent a complete rehabilitation with support from the tax relief program. When the
YMCA was purchased from a not for profit organization the City began collecting taxes
at a modified commercial rate.
Since a primary goal of the HPTRP is to revitalize the downtown core, it is important to
consider the impact of the program on the value of commercial core properties by
themselves. Unlike the values of all designated properties where designation alone may
slow value growth, the opposite is true in the core area. The overall annual growth of
commercial properties in Schedule ‘J’ between 2003 and 2009 was 6.36% annually.
Heritage designated commercial properties not in the HPTRP saw their assessed
values rise at an average annual rate of 8.19%. In that same time period, the assessed
value of the commercial properties in the tax relief program rose at an average annual
rate of 29.00%. These numbers provide strong evidence that the HPTRP has been
successful at encouraging designated commercial property owners undertake major
renovation and rehabilitation projects.
4.5 Conclusions on Analysis
Although it is impossible to know for certain why a property owner decides to make
major capital improvements, the data strongly suggests that the HPTRP has achieved
its goal of encouraging rehabilitation projects. This in turn has led to a substantial
increase in assessment values, which can offset the cost of the program (see Appendix
5). It is important to remember that the tax increases on the properties studied are
driven by capital improvements that generate either improved revenue streams for
commercial properties or higher sale prices for residential properties. The increase in
municipal tax revenues is not to be understood as an increased financial burden to
property owners.
5 ADAPTIVE REUSE AND TAX REBATES IN PETERBOROUGH
5.1 Introduction
Adaptive reuse is the act of altering a building to facilitate a use that was never planned
or contemplated in the original design. It is one of the most effective ways to promote
sustainable urban growth and resist urban sprawl. Older buildings make a vital
21
contribution to the identity of a community and maintaining these buildings enhances
the capacity of a city to create sustainable economic development.
Peterborough has experienced a recent surge in adaptive reuse projects as redundant
educational and institutional buildings are offered for sale. There are now several large
scale adaptive reuse projects currently enrolled in the Heritage Property Tax Relief
Program including the Peterborough Normal School, Central School and the former
Post Office and Customs Building.
Prior to their sale and conversion to housing, these properties were owned by
government agencies and did not contribute to the tax base. After redevelopment into
multi-unit residential complexes, the buildings began contributing significantly to the
City’s tax base.
These projects have also intensified residential capacity in the historic core of the city,
a focus in the new Central Area Master Plan. In doing so they help meet sustainability
targets for the city while protecting important cultural resources. Historic buildings are
tangible connections to the past that lend character to the community while serving
practical purposes today. Three of these projects are summarized below.
5.2 Rehabilitation Projects
100 Benson Street- Designed by renowned Canadian architect Francis R. Heakes in
1908, the former Peterborough Normal School (the Teachers' College) is the largest
surviving example of turn-of-the-century Beaux Arts or City-Beautiful architecture in the
City of Peterborough. Built at the height of Peterborough's prosperity, it reflects a time
when the city was regarded nationally as a major urban centre.
The building served for many years as the offices of the local school board but when the
board relocated in 2000 it sat vacant for several year. In 2004 it was converted to 20
market rate units. The work included the installation of an elevator to service all floors
and the rehabilitation of several recent additions into the offices of the County-City
Health Unit and an educational facility.
Since it entered the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program 100 Benson Street has
generated $196,577 in municipal taxes. Heritage tax relief has totalled $38,660 of
which the City’s portion was $31,984.
205 Charlotte Street- The former Post Office on Charlotte Street was called “the most
modern post office in Canada” at the time of its construction in 1953. The building is
representative of contemporary innovation in both architecture and technology and is
among the first example of international modernism in Peterborough and provincially.
The property had been vacant for several years after the federal government relocated
the city’s sortation centre and main post office when AON Corporation purchased the
property. The company rehabilitated the property and converted it to 91 high-end,
market rate rental units with some ground floor commercial space.
22
Since it entered the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program, 205 Charlotte Street
has generated $254,766.24 in municipal taxes. Heritage tax relief has totalled
$66,656.09 of which the City’s portion was $51,436.56.
90 Murray Street- Constructed in 1860 to replace both common and grammar schools
in the area the Central School Building extremely important in the context of the
development of Peterborough’s educational system. It is one of the oldest school
buildings in Peterborough.
Redeveloped by The Moloney Project Development Corporation in 2004, the Central
School building was transformed into 50 affordable housing units for singles, seniors
and families.
Since it entered the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program, 90 Murray Street has
generated $83,520.41 in municipal taxes. Heritage tax relief has totalled
$23,880.38 of which the City’s portion was $16,602.72.
New Tax Dollars from Rehabilitated Institutional Buildings
Designated Property
100 Benson St.
205 Charlotte St.
90 Murray St.
New Municipal
Taxes
$ 196,576.80
$ 254,766.24
$ 83,520.41
Rebates
Received
$ 38,660
$ 66,656.09
$ 23,880.38
Municipal
Portion
$ 31,984.46
$ 51,436.56
$ 16,602.72
5.3 Conclusions on Adaptive Reuse
All of these properties were designated after the program’s inception and in each case
the owners have indicated that the viability of the project was enhanced by the
availability of the tax rebate.
The rehabilitation of the heritage building on some of these sites was not the most
intensive use permissible under the zoning by-law. And new construction might have
generated a higher tax assessment depending on the type of redevelopment. The
former Post Office site at 205 Charlotte Street, for example, is zoned C-6 and would
have allowed for a multi-story residential development with a higher density than the
post office building provided. The economic value to the community however is not
measured only in the contribution to the tax base. Peterborough, like most North
American communities is re-imagining itself in more sustainable terms as it comes to
fully understand the real cost of suburban development and sprawl. That process is
referred to as smart growth and is usually defined as a set of actions that are aimed at
controlling the growth of resource inefficient urban sprawl. Adaptive reuse of existing
buildings on a site instead of building new is one of many ways to promote smart
growth. The rehabilitation process generates and/or recognizes a wide range of
economic benefits:
•
The value of the embodied energy already invested in an existing structure;
23
•
•
•
•
Savings over the cost of producing new materials and products;
Decreased shipping costs;
Energy and cost savings by avoiding building demolition;
Higher labour to materials cost.
It is likely that in the near future several more institutional buildings will be made
redundant by federal agencies and school boards. These buildings continue to be viable
candidates for adaptive reuse and have the capacity to be environmentally sustainable
developments that also support the recommendations of the Central Area Master Plan
to intensify residential capacity in the core area. Strong consideration should be given to
the City taking a lead role in the re-purposing of these buildings.
6 CONCLUSION
Peterborough has always recognized the
value of heritage preservation as a way to
enrich the quality of life of its citizens. The
City was the second in Ontario to create a
Local Architectural Conservation Advisory
Committee in 1975, just three months after
the Ontario Heritage Act was passed. When
Council adopted the Heritage Property Tax
Relief Program in 2003 it recognized the
value of carefully targeting a financial
incentive at heritage preservation as a way
to
promote
downtown
revitalization.
Participating owners in the program have
undertaken over 120 rehabilitation projects
of various scales and every owner indicates
that the tax relief has contributed to their
capacity to preserve their heritage building.
More importantly, among commercial
property owners, a significant number
indicated that they would not have been
able to undertake projects without the
HPTRP.
Now seven years into the program, a staff
review and an independent study by
Ryerson University researchers have
concluded that the program has clearly met
its intended objective of encouraging core
revitalization. Moreover it has done so in a
way that is generating increased tax Central School Conversion to Affordable Housing
revenues to offset the value of the
incentives.
24
Historic properties in Peterborough are emerging as valuable cultural, aesthetic,
educational and economic resources for the community. As one tool in the promotion of
adaptive reuse, the HPTRP has enabled several major heritage buildings that were
formally underperforming properties to become full contributors to the tax base. A
number of these projects are multi-unit residential conversions and have started a
much-needed trend towards encouraging the relocation of housing to the downtown. As
the historic core of the city begins to flourish again as a well-maintained area with a
healthy balance of uses, its capacity to be competitive as a regional tourism destination
increases dramatically. Business owners recognize this as an overwhelming majority
have responded that they believe heritage preservation is important to the business
environment of the community.
The benefits of this process reach beyond the downtown. As the core revitalizes,
surrounding residential neighbourhoods become attractive and property values stabilize
and then begin to climb. This is clearly evidenced by the growing desirability of
properties immediately to the north and east of the downtown. These historic areas are
beginning to gentrify and participation in the HPTRP is providing valuable assistance to
owners as they undertake sensitive restorations of properties significant to the history of
Peterborough.
This report recommends the continuation of the program as a major revitalization tool.
At this time the report recommends maintaining the current program boundaries.
However, as the Planning Division undertakes the first phase of its Official Plan review
including priority setting in 2011, consideration should be given to creating an Official
Plan schedule that more accurately recognizes the historic evolution of the City and
captures a greater percentage of the heritage resources worth preserving. Granting
exceptions to Category A properties outside of Schedule ‘J’ has proven to be a valuable
tool in protecting significant landmark buildings outside the core, but this a time
consuming approach and does not necessarily help to maintain the urban heritage
landscapes that Peterborough is becoming known for. Consideration should be given to
the study of potential conservation districts as a way to accelerate the process of
revitalization and renewal that is supported significantly by municipal heritage
preservation efforts.
25
References
Doolittle, Howard (1967) “Story of a Lumber Company,” in Peterborough, Land of
Shining Waters: An Anthology ed, Ronald Borg (Toronto: University of Toronto Press),
205-208.
Jones, Elwood and Buce Dyer (1987) Peterborough: The Electric City (Burlington:
Windsor Publications (Canada) Ltd.).
Robnik, Diane. (2006). The Mills of Peterborough County. Peterborough: Trent Valley
Archives.
Patterson, Brandy. (April, 2001) The Historical Geography of the Dickson Mills
Residential Area, 1930-1940. Unpublished B.A. Honours Thesis. Trent UniversityGeography Department.
Shane, Curtis and Marisa Bosa (April 4, 2007) The Dickson Mills Conservation District.
Trent Centre for Community Bases Education. Trent University-Geography Department.
Schappert, Sue. “The Creation of a Heritage Conservation District in Peterborough”.
Heritage Preservation Intern. Museum Management & Curatorship, Fleming College.
2004
Patterson, Jennifer. “Dickson Mills District Research”. Heritage Preservation Intern.
Museum Management & Curatorship, Fleming College. 2008
“Investing in Michigan’s Future: The Economic Benefits of Historic Preservation”
Prepared for the Michigan State Historic Preservation Office. October 2002.
Canning & Pitt Associates, Inc and Sheppard Case Architects Inc. Background report
No. 3. Economic Benefits of Built Heritage Revival. Downtown St. John’s Strategy for
Economic Development and Heritage Preservation. April 12, 2000.
The Canadian Renovation Market, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 1986
Heritage Tourism. Heritage Canada Foundation Advocacy Action. Accessed December
14, 2008 from <http://www.advocacyaction.org/english/tourism/introduction.htm>
New York City Independent Budget Office. The Impact of Historic Districts on
Residential Property Values. September 2003.
Heritage Preservation at Work for the Texas Economy. Based on the Study Economic
Impacts of Historic Preservation in Texas. The Centre for Urban Policy Research at
Rutgers University, Texas Perspectives and The LBJ School of Public Affairs at
University of Texas at Austin Page 4.
26
Property Address
Common Name
Year of Entry
661 Park Street North
Dixon House
2009
140 Hunter Street West
The Roy Studio
2009
425-427 George Street North The Chambers-Potvin Building
2009
443 Reid Street
2008
St. Peter’s Elementary
361-365 George Street North The Zellers-Turnbull Building
2008
269 Edinburgh Street
2008
Smith Town Hill House
396-400 George Street North The Bank of Toronto Building
2008
537 Waterford Street
John Haffey Cottage
2008
570 Water Street
Hazlitt House
2007
Clancy’s Hotel
2007
402-404 George Street North Uptown Building
2007
17 Merino Road
Merino
2007
388 Mark Street
The Forsyth Labourer’s Cottage
2007
671 George Street North
Henry Lawson-Smith House
2007
John Douglas Cottage
2007
YMCA
2007
480-484 Weller Street
The Morrow Estate
2007
379 Reid Street
The J.J Duffus House
2007
220 Brock Street
The W. J Hall, Dr. Eastwood Residence 2007
468-474 Stewart Street
Stone Brewery
2006
Knapman-Turner House
2006
83 Robinson Street
John C. Sullivan House
2006
Henry Newton Building
2006
100 Benson Ave
Normal School / Teacher’s College
2005
191-201 Charlotte Street
Former Post Office
2005
90 Murray Street
Central School
2005
Fair-Bierk Building
2005
Dr. A. Harvey Cottage
2005
544 McDonnel Street
Bonner Worth Admin Building
2005
544 Harvey Street
Jameson House
2005
407-409 George Street North Pappas Billiards
2005
27
Property Address
Common Name
Year of Entry
396 Downie Street
Rogers-Conway-Kenner House
2005
414-416 George Street North Long-Hooper Building
2005
273 Hunter Street
Eastland House
2005
168 Brock Street
Perry-Spencely Building
2005
385-387 Reid Street
Green-Edwards House
2005
84 Benson Ave.
William Blackwell House
2004
751 George Street N
Sadleir House
2004
155 Hunter Street East
Hay-Smit House
2004
548 Weller St.
Weller-Boucher House
2004
533 Harvey St.
John Britton House
2004
279 Sherbrooke St.
James Menzies Cottage
2004
309 Engleburn Ave
Absalom Ingram House
2004
73 Robinson St.
Henry Calcutt House
2004
2235 Keene Rd.
Burnham Mansion
2004
478 Downie Street
Hamilton Carriage House
2004
379 George Street N
Dixon-Stevenson-Bradburn Building
2004
285 George Street N
Lundy Building
2004
260 Engleburn Ave
Engleburn
2003
62 Dunlop St.
Malone
2003
183 Mark St.
The Peck House
2003
82 Dublin St.
Sutton Deyman House
2003
607 Stewart St.
Dumble-Hinton House
2003
266 Burnham St
The Pines
2003
1154 Armour Rd
James Reid House
2003
538 Harvey St.
Henry Myers Cottage
2003
547 Water St.
The Wallis-Graham House
2003
565-569 Harvey St.
The James Miller House
2003
236 Burnham St.
Verulam
2003
442 George St. N
The Morrow Building
2003
361 Park St. N
Marchbanks
2003
28
(Before Rebate of Educational Portion)
Address
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
607 Stewart St.
1,004.17
1,107.83
1,143.78
1,250.22
1,284.11
1,357.64
7,147.75
361 Park St. N.
2,243.08
2,505.22
2,586.52
2,581.11
2,651.08
2,806.58
15,373.59
442 George St N
3,151.91
2,874.96
3,049.32
2,959.61
3,063.25
236 Burnham St
1,670.25
1,888.40
2,204.68
2,241.51
2,316.93
2,502.75
12,824.52
547 Water St.
684.66
805.7
831.84
904.54
929.06
985.83
5,141.63
538 Harvey
599.89
711.28
734.36
812.36
834.38
955.07
4,647.34
1154 Armour Rd.
1,167.18
1,252.61
1,293.26
1,434.59
1,473.48
1,541.00
8,162.12
266 Burnham St.
1,564.94
1,989.06
2,053.62
2,016.49
2,071.15
2,217.76
11,913.02
82 Dublin St.
1,890.96
1,617.69
1,670.19
2,389.14
12,099.42
183 Mark St.
1,864.88
2,102.36
2,170.59
2,321.84
2,384.78
2,501.93
13,346.38
62 Dunlop St.
1,375.84
1,479.21
1,527.21
1,774.51
1,822.61
1,832.56
9,811.94
260 Engleburn
2,001.82
2,064.60
2,131.60
2,477.40
2,544.56
2,692.36
13,912.34
565-569 Harvey St.
580.33
610.57
630.38
766.27
787.04
842.28
4,216.87
285 George St N
1,809.48
1,928.04
2,169.51
1,936.97
1,872.22
9,716.22
379 George St. N
3,311.75
3,262.38
3,080.93
3,006.53
3,844.96
16,506.55
478 Downie St.
503.27
847.29
949.78
1,303.12
1,371.91
4,975.37
2235 Keene Rd.
1,966.18
2,676.92
3,360.72
3,429.37
3,477.60
14,910.79
73 Robinson St.
1,491.80
1,540.21
1,676.57
1,722.02
1,807.60
8,238.20
309 Engleburn Ave.
1,271.49
1,312.75
1,376.98
1,414.30
1,491.20
6,866.72
279 Sherbrooke St.
893.82
922.83
985.2
1,011.90
1,062.00
4,875.75
533 Harvey St.
774.22
799.35
893.02
917.22
974.11
4,357.92
548 Weller
2,712.93
2,646.94
2,742.43
2,816.77
372.67
11,291.74
155 Hunter St. E
1,000.83
1,033.31
1,117.71
1,148.01
1,193.54
5,493.40
751 George St. N
3,178.73
3,281.88
3,831.33
3,935.19
4,372.52
18,599.65
84 Benson
1,315.55
1,358.24
1,394.26
1,432.05
1,495.59
6,995.69
2,235.42
2,296.02
Total
15,099.05
29
(Before Rebate of Educational Portion)
Address
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Total
100 Benson
8005.236
10,948.85
11,055.93
8,650.05
38,660.66
385 Reid St
1,864.70
2,238.13
2,295.22
2,394.99
8,793.04
544 Harvey
929.32
1,060.10
1,088.83
1,146.96
4,225.21
90 Murray St
3,966.44
4,446.24
6,987.06
8,480.64
23,880.38
414 George St. N
1,659.90
1,858.79
1,765.11
1,618.45
6,902.25
383 George St. N
1,797.47
1,964.81
2,139.37
2,953.20
8,854.85
544 George St. N
1,357.88
1,475.04
1,615.75
1,886.66
6,335.33
168 Brock St.
2,024.03
2,093.29
3,328.51
3,248.98
10,694.81
407 George St. N
2,140.42
1,892.48
2,733.99
2,611.44
9,378.33
544 McDonnel St
2,389.85
1,904.33
1,835.84
1,797.67
7,927.69
273 Hunter W
1,767.64
2,818.26
2,872.77
2,899.90
10,358.57
396 Downie St
1,637.69
1,809.08
1,858.12
1,974.59
7,279.48
205 Charlotte St
10,420.19
18,493.61
18,784.74
18,957.55
66,656.09
432 George St. N
1,810.49
1,821.78
1,821.26
1780.86
7,234.39
83 Robinson
1,947.35
2,000.14
2,035.22
2124.01
8,106.72
604 George St. N
1,388.50
1,426.14
1,451.15
1498.52
5,764.31
468-474 Stewart St.
1,302.08
1,337.37
1,360.83
1347.64
1347.64
480-484 Weller
3,248.87
3,284.84
3,631.67
10,165.38
402-404 George St. N
2,461.44
2,451.99
2,629.12
7542.55
362 Hunter St.
952.73
969.44
1,001.95
2924.12
379 Reid St.
988.24
1,005.57
1,032.71
3026.52
570 Water St.
3,006.53
3,006.20
3,062.73
9,075.46
388 Mark St.
858.05
873.1
908.2
2639.35
671 George St. N
698.27
710.52
747.06
2155.85
475 George St. N
2,774.64
4,411.36
4470.74
11,656.74
638.27
647.46
1285.73
537 Waterford St.
Total
19,799.91 41,239.53 83,598.26 121,931.52 130,912.89 129,464.57 529,395.42
30
Appendix 3
Ryerson University Peterborough Revitalization Study
31
CENTRE FOR THE STUDY OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY
RYERSON UNIVERSITY, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA
THE IMPACT OF HERITAGE DESIGNATION:
CASE STUDY OF DOWNTOWN PETERBOROUGH
Chuck Chakrapani and Tony Hernandez
RL 2010-03
Using a case study approach, centred on the Historic Downtown core of the City of Peterborough, Ontario, this research letter highlights the
importance of heritage conservation and the positive impact that heritage designation has had within the City of Peterborough. Drawing on a
combination of primary and secondary data sources, across economic, social and cultural themes, the research provides perspectives on the value
of heritage from local businesses and residents, along with visitors to Peterborough. The findings underline widespread support for heritage
conservation, its economic benefits and the broader role that it serves in terms of providing a sense of place and identity. The overwhelming
conclusion is that heritage designation accompanied by tax breaks, as offered through heritage tax relief programs, has discernible positive impacts
that include: encouraging and promoting the protection of heritage properties; generating measurable additional revenue for the municipality by
adding commercial value to properties; attracting consumers (local residents and tourists) to the downtown district; and, inducing civic pride
among local citizens.
The data reported in this research letter has been taken from the findings of a larger study of the impact of heritage designation undertaken in
partnership between: the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture; Parks Canada, Government of Canada; the City of Peterborough and the
Centre for the Study of Commercial Activity (CSCA), Ryerson University. The authors would like to acknowledge the research support,
direction, insight and advice provided by James Hamilton and Andrew Jeanes from the Cultural Services Unit, Programs and Services Branch,
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture; and, Erik Hanson and Ben Dick from the Heritage Preservation Office, City of Peterborough. Of
course, any errors or omissions are the sole responsibility of the authors.
Heritage - a finite resource
Our cultural heritage is what we value from the past, and what
we want to preserve for future generations
(OTMC, 2006)
potential to collapse, or in the worst case scenario, one for which
demolition has become the only feasible option. Unlike other
resources, heritage is finite, it is non-renewable, and as such the
actions taken by property owners today resonate for generations
to come.
The loss of heritage properties (e.g., historic buildings and
structures) often goes unnoticed by most Canadians, at least
those outside of heritage circles or local historians. The
destruction of heritage is usually undertaken in a piecemeal
manner - building project by project. Sometimes it takes place
with the full knowledge and approval of local planners, on other
occasions heritage loss takes place under the municipal radar
screen. It may simply come about as the result of a property
owner inappropriately 'modernising' their building through
renovation or refit or more drastically through demolition.
Often it is the result of years of property neglect by the owner
with poor building maintenance and up-keep, leading to an
unsightly property and/or an unsafe structure that has the
On occasion, heritage conservation does hit the newsstands, our
collective public conscious, and even our television screens with
documentary series such as the History Channel's Saving Places
showcasing heritage conservation projects across Canada (in
partnership with the Heritage Canada Foundation); and most
recently, Heritage Heroes (aired on BBC World News in the
Summer 2010) that as the producers note 'shows how people from
all walks of life... have succeeded in carving out a place for the past
in our present'. Yet, much of the news reporting of heritage loss is
highly localised. In some cases the news coverage reports major
heritage loss, such as the demolition of forty-one heritage
properties in the City of Brantford, with one broad-sheet
newspaper leading with 'Ontario city to demolish historic street,
despite Ottawa’s objection' (Anon, 2010a). Other times, the
1
reporting relates to properties that have literally fallen at the
hands of absentee property owners, dereliction and neglect. As
was witnessed very close to the Ryerson University campus in
April 2010 with the dramatic collapse of the upper storey brick
facade of a heritage property at the corner of Yonge Street and
Gould Street in Downtown Toronto (Anon, 2010b).
This research letter provides an abridged case study of builtform heritage conservation activities in the City of
Peterborough, focused on the historic downtown core. Using
both primary and secondary data sources the research tracks the
impact of heritage property designation initiatives within the
City. In addition to outlining the economic merits of heritage
designation, the research explores the response of local
businesses, residents and visitors to heritage conservation. The
City of Peterborough provides an example of a forward-thinking
municipality that has put in place programs and resources,
managed through the Heritage Preservation Office (HPO), to
protect and enhance built-form heritage values. As the Ontario
Ministry of Tourism and Culture note (OMTC, 2006, p.8) that
'the City of Peterborough is at the forefront of Municipal Cultural
Planning'. The City has set up a Municipal Heritage Committee
and coupled this with property designation and tax incentives to
promote heritage conservation. While the mandate of the HPO
goes beyond built-form to landscape and archaeological sites this
research is limited to heritage properties.
The letter is divided into four sections. First, the concept of
heritage designation is introduced. Second, an overview of
heritage designation in Peterborough is presented, mapping and
detailing the uptake of the heritage property tax relief program
in the City. The third section examines the impact of heritage
designation with economic and stakeholder perspectives from
local business owners, local residents and visitors to the city.
Finally, the key findings are summarised and a selected listing of
heritage conservation website resources provided for further
reference.
Heritage Conservation Terminology
"H
Heritage conservation involves identifying, protecting and promoting the elements that our society values. The term
'heritage' can cover a wide range of physical things from a railway station to a garden to a painting, and non-physical
things such as traditional knowledge and language. The term 'heritage conservation' (or 'historic preservation' in some
regions) has traditionally been associated with protecting the physical or 'built' environment, i.e., the tangible
landscapes , buildings, structures, artefacts that have been created throughout the history of Canada."
(Parks Canada, 2003, p.4)
Historic Place - a structure, building, groups of buildings, district, landscape, archaeological site or other place in
Canada that has been formally recognized for its heritage value
Heritage Value - the aesthethic, historic, scientific, cultural, social or spiritual importance or significance for past,
present and future generations. The heritage value of a historic place is embodied in its character-defining materials,
forms, location, spatial configuration, uses and cultural associations or meanings.
Conservation - all actions or processes that are aimed at safeguarding the character -defining elements of a cultural
resource so as to retain it heritage value and extend its physical life. This may involve preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration or a combination of these actions or processes. Reconstruction or reconstitution of a disappeared cultural
resource is not considered conservation [nor is renovation and refit].
Preservation - the action or processes of protecting, maintaining, and/or stabilizing the existing materials, forms, and
integrity of a historic place or of an individual component, while protecting its heritage value
Rehabilitation - the action or process of making possible a continuing or compatible contemporary use of a historic
place or an individual component, through repair, alterations and/or additions, while protecting the heritage value
Restoration - the action or process of accurately revealing, recovering or representing the state of a historic place or an
individual component, as it appeared at a particular period in its history, while protecting the heritage value.
Source: Parks Canada (2003)
2
What is Heritage Designation?
Why designate?
Within the Province of Ontario, there are a set of guiding
principles and process as set out in the Ontario Heritage Act to
assess the heritage merits of a given building, structure or site.
Two basic concepts are used in the act: the definition of
cultural heritage value (why it is important) and heritage
attributes (how it is important).
Designation serves the community by ensuring heritage
attributes of a property are conserved over time and that any
changes to a property respect its heritage values. It also serves the
property owners (and future owners) by recognizing the
significance of their property, and in many cases provides access
to numerous economic incentives (grants, loans, tax relief ) to
support conservation efforts. Designation publicly recognises
and promotes awareness of heritage properties, providing
a process to ensure that any changes are appropriately managed
and respect the property's heritage value. It also provides
municipal planning mechanisms to stop demolitions or other
major destruction of heritage assets.
Cultural Heritage Value - this concept relates to why the
building, structure or site is important. This can be determined
in a number of different ways (with standard designation criteria
set out in the Ontario Heritage Act), including:
Design or physical value
• Is a rare, unique, representative or early example of a
style, type, expression, material or construction method; or
• Displays a high degree of craftmanship or artistic merit; or
• Demonstrates a high degree of technical or scientific
achievement.
As the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture highlight,
heritage designation (OMTC, 2007):
• recognizes the importance of a property to the local
community
• protects the property's cultural heritage value
• encourages good stewardship and conservation
Historical or associative value
• Has direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person,
activity, organization, or institution that is significant to a
community; or
• Yields, or has potential to yield, information that
contributes to an understanding of a community of
culture; or
• Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,
artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a
community.
Contextual value
• Is important in defining, maintaining or supporting the
character of an area; or,
• promotes knowledge and understanding about the
property
What can be designated?
Heritage designation is often focused on built-form (either in
isolation or as part of broader heritage conservation
districts), however it can also be applied to a range of structures
and sites, including; cemeteries, natural features, cultural landscapes or landscape features, ruins, archaeological sites, or areas
of archaeological potential. Regardless of the type of designation, the underlying aim remains the same: conserve our past and
ensure that any changes are undertaken in a manner that respects
the heritage value for present and future generations.
• Is physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to
its surroundings; or,
Why does it matter?
• Is a landmark.
The importance of heritage is multifaceted and far-reaching,
numerous studies have attempted to qualitatively and
quantitatively measure the impact of heritage. Collectively these
studies have highlighted that heritage can serve to:
Heritage Attributes - these are the specific attributes that
contribute to the cultural heritage value (i.e., materials, forms,
location, spatial configuration , etc.). They are the elements that
should be retained and conserved, and include, for example:
• provide a community with a sense of place and identity
• style, massing, scale or composition
• contribute to community distinctiveness and cohesion
• features of a property related to its function or design
• play an important role in economic development through
enhancing the quality of life
• features related to a property's historical associations
• interior spatial configurations, and/or exterior layout
• materials and craftsmanship
• relationship between a property and its broader setting
• can be the basis and point of leverage for economic
revitalization and reuse of built-form
• increases property values
• stimulates employment growth
• promote heritage tourism
3
Yet, heritage conservation is not for everyone. While this study
underlines a number of successes of heritage designation in
Peterborough, it is also important to note that heritage
conservation, and in particular, designation, may not be seen in
a positive light by all stakeholders in the community. For some,
such conservation activities are unnecessary as they serve to:
• discourage economic development by dictating
unreasonable limitations on building improvements
and property development options
• drive-up construction costs due to the need for heritage
specialists (craftsperson, architects, etc.. )
• incentivize improvements that result in an increased tax
burden for the property owner and/or tenant
• limit property resale opportunities and/or tenancy options
• interfere in the operation of real estate market forces
• limit contiguous redevelopment (for example, a single
heritage property designated along row strip of
non-designated properties. In such a scenario the
heritage designation may be viewed, by the property
development community, as barrier to major redevelop
ment and revitalization of the contiguous strip)
• leave property owners and tenants with excessively high
maintenance and repair costs and lengthy planning
approval processes for future improvements
Heritage designation represents a balance between conserving
the past for current and future generations while providing
viable ownership and development options in the present. For
example, the Ontario Heritage Act, and accompanying resources
from the Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture (OMTC,
2006a-2006f ) provide legal frameworks, guidelines and toolkits
to assess the eligibility for heritage property designation. Within
the heritage industry there is much debate over what should and
shouldn't be designated. From a municipal perspective decisions
on designation are often addressed by local-level heritage
committees, indeed, there is growing support for community
involvement and participation in local heritage matters.
Case Study: The City of Peterborough
Located approximately 130 kilometres to the north-east of
Downtown Toronto, The City of Peterborough, with a
population of just under 75,000 residents in 2006, serves as a
regional centre in East Central Ontario, and a tourist hub for the
Kawartha's cottage country area. The larger Greater
Peterborough Area (including the City) is home to
approximately 135,000 residents, a number that increases
substantially in the summer months. The City itself acts as:
a university town because of its proximity to Trent University; a
retirement area because it is a relatively tranquil town close to
large city; a tourist town because of its historic downtown
streetscape, location in a river setting (Trent-Severn waterway),
and home to places of interests, such as the Peterborough Lift
4
Locks and the Canadian Canoe Museum; and a lifestyle town
because it combines an eclectic mix of restaurants, arts and crafts
businesses, and cultural venues (e.g., theatre, music venues,
cinema, etc..). The historic downtown is centred along George
St with the Market Hall Clock and Tower the dominant
landmark property in the core (see Photos 1 and 2). The
commercial structure is divided into two distinct areas: the
historic downtown core and the Lansdowne commercial
corridor. The downtown core is comprised of a wide range of
retailers and services (business and personal), many of the
companies in the core are independently owned and operated
businesses. The eclectic retail and service mix coupled with the
historic streetscape provides the downtown core with its unique
character. By contrast, the Lansdowne corridor, located to the
south of the downtown, is where the major big box retailers and
auto service operators reside. It is an arterial retail strip that
stretches across the southern boundary of the municipality. The
commercial structure is the classic 'tale of two cities', the old
historic downtown core and the newer arterial retail strip to the
south that has witnessed the most retail expansion in recent
years, with the addition of national big box retail chains.
Heritage Designation and Tax Relief Programs
in the City of Peterborough
"Heritage property tax relief is a financial tool for municipaliities to
help owners maintain and restore their properties for the benefit of
the community.. it encourages and supports owners to be stewards of
their heritage properties, so that Ontario's heritage is protected for
future generations."
(OMTC, 2005, p.1)
In 2001, Section 365.2 of the Ontario Municipal Act was
amended to grant municipalities with the option of providing
heritage property tax relief (in the order of 10% to 40%) to the
owners of heritage properties. The Heritage Property Tax Relief
Program (HPTRP) provides tax incentives to owners of eligible
properties that have been designated under Part IV or Part V of
the Ontario Heritage Act as an individual property or part of a
heritage conservation district. The program is funded by the
Province through their sharing of the education portion of the
property tax (i.e., the education portion is refunded to the
Municipality). As Hanson (n.d.) outlines:
"The program requires an owner to enter into a heritage
conservation easement agreement, registered on title, in which the
property owner agrees to respect the preservation and maintenance
needs of the property. In October of 2003, The City of Peterborough
passed By-Law 03-208 establishing a tax incentive program for
heritage properties. The City adopted rebate values of 40% for
residential properties and 20% for commercial and multi-unit
residential properties"
Heritage Designation is managed through the Historic
Preservation Office (HPO), City of Peterborough (see inset on
p. 7). Figure 1 shows the location of 61 properties that had
signed up for HPTRP between 2003 and 2009.
PHOTOGRAPH 1. Downtown Peterborough Streetscape
PHOTOGRAPH 2. Market Hall and Clock Tower
5
FIGURE 1. HPTRP Designated Properties in the City of Peterborough, 2009
ST
ST
N
N
LONDO
LONDO
LONDO
ST
ST
ST
NST
N
LONDON
LONDO
LONDO
ST
ST
ST
NNEL
NNEL
NNEL
MCDO
MCDO
MCDO
ST
ST
NNELST
NNEL
MCDO
MCDONNEL
MCDO
ST
ST
YYY
YST
ST
MURRA
MURRAY
ST
MURRA
MURRA
MURRA
ST
ST
TTE
ST
RLO
TTEST
ST
CHA
RLO
RLOTTE
TTE
CHA
CHARLO
CHA
ST
ST
UNE
UNE
UNE
ST
BETH
BETH
BETH
ST
UNEST
UNE
BETHUNE
BETH
BETH
ST
ART
ART
ST
STEW
STEW
ART
ST
ST
STEW
ARTST
STEWART
STEW
ST
ST
ST
GE
GE
RUBIDGE
RUBID
RUBID
GEST
ST
ST
GE
RUBID
RUBID
RUBID
ST
ST
ST
LOUIS
LOUIS
LOUISST
ST
ST
LOUIS
LOUIS
LOUIS
N
ST
EEST
N
ST
GEORG
GEORG
N
N
STN
GEORG
GEORG
GEORGEEEST
N
ST
R
R
N
ST
R
AYLME
AYLME
N
N
STN
ST
AYLME
RST
AYLMER
AYLME
ST
ST
OE
OE
OE
SIMC
SIMC
SIMC
ST
ST
ST
OE
OEST
SIMC
SIMC
SIMCOE
ST
ST
ST
WATER
WATER
WATER
ST
ST
WATERST
WATER
W
W
ST
STW
W
ST
W
HUNT
HUNT
HUNTER
ERST
ER
ST
HUNT
HUNT
HUNT
N
N
ST
SHERIDA
SHERIDA
SHERIDA
ST
N
NST
SHERIDAN
SHERIDA
SHERIDA
ST
ST
KKST
BROC
BROC
ST
ST
BROC
BROC
BROCKKKST
ST
ST
KING
KING
KING
ST
ST
KING
KING
KINGST
ST
ST
KE
KE
KEST
ST
BROO
BROO
BROOKE
ST
SHER
KE
KE
SHER
BROO
SHERBROO
BROO
SHER
ST
ST
ST
IEST
IE
IE
OUSIE
OUS
ST
ST
OUS
IE
IE
DALHOUS
OUS
DALH
DALH
Lake
Lake
Lake
Simcoe
Simcoe
Lake
Lake
LakeSimcoe
Simcoe
Simcoe
Simcoe
Kawartha
Kawartha
KawarthaLakes
Lakes
Lakes
Lakes
Kawartha
Kawartha
Kawartha
Lakes
Lakes
Lake
Lake
LakeScugog
Scugog
Scugog
Scugog
Lake
Lake
Lake
Scugog
Scugog
Peterborough
Peterborough
PeterboroughCounty
County
County
County
Peterborough
Peterborough
Peterborough
County
County
Rice
Rice
RiceLake
Lake
Lake
Lake
Rice
Rice
Rice
Lake
Lake
Northumberland
Northumberland
Northumberland
Northumberland
Northumberland
Northumberland
County
County
County
County
County
County
Durham
Durham
Durham
Region
Region
Durham
Durham
DurhamRegion
Region
Region
Region
York
York
YorkRegion
Region
Region
Region
York
York
York
Region
Region
Lake
Lake
LakeOntario
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
Lake
Lake
Lake
Ontario
Ontario
Toronto
Toronto
Toronto
Toronto
Toronto
Toronto
6
Heritage Preservation Office, City of Peterborough
The Heritage Preservation Office (HPO) is charged with designing and administering programs relating to the
preservation of historic places in the City including structures, landscapes and archaeological sites. The HPO also
provides expert advice to Council and liaises with other staff on a range of issues relating to matters of built heritage.
Programs include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Heritage Property Tax Relief Program which provides a property tax reduction to owners of designated
heritage properties
Preparation of Heritage Designation briefs and the administration of over 70 heritage properties in the City
Education and public awareness for heritage through guest lectures, conference presentations and
publications
Administering federal and provincial incentive and recognition programs on behalf of the City
Property Management for Market Hall including the exterior restoration and interior capital upgrades to this
premier heritage landmark
Coordinating archaeological services for all City Departments
Source: http://www.peterborough.ca/Living/Arts_Culture_Heritage/Heritage_Preservation.htm
Measuring the Impact of Heritage
Designation: Stakeholder Perspectives
There is widespread evidence to show that heritage designation
is an economically sound decision (Asabere et al., 1989; Asabere
& Huffman, 1994a, 1994b; Ashworth, 2002; Benson and Klein,
1998; Coulson & Leichenko, 2001, 2004; Kovacs et al., 2008;
Leichenko et al., 2001; Lennox & Revels, 2002; Listokin, 1985;
Lockard & Hinds, 1983; Rypkema, 1994; Schaeffer & Millerick,
1991; Shipley, 2000, 2007, 2008). The purpose of this research
was to broaden the assessment of impact to include multiple
stakeholder perspectives: the municipality, businesses, residents
and visitors. Many of the existing studies of the impact of
heritage conservation are purely economic in nature (Asabere et
al., 1994; Mason, 2005,2008; Sharpe, 2006), limited to tangible
economic benefits that can be readily priced and quantified
(private goods). The challenge in measuring impacts of heritage
investments is in the fact that many of the benefits are intangible
('soft'), and often indirect (Noonan & Krupka, 2010; Tweed &
Sutherland, 2007), that may even accrue slowly over time.
Equating a dollar figure to what economists would call 'public
goods' is extremely difficult and subjective, for example, how do
you value an heightened 'sense of place' or 'identity' for local residents? For these reasons we adopted a multi-pronged approach
that included:
2. Secondary Research - market research data, with structured
interviews with stakeholder groups. The surveys were
undertaken by a professional market research agency.
"Stakeholders" for the purposes of our analyses were defined as
three primary groups:
• Residents of Peterborough - Telephone interview. Sample
of 101 persons over 18 years of age that resided in
Peterborough (undertaken, August 9th to 20th, 2009)
• Business Operators/Owners - Door-to-door survey.
Sample of 100 business owners or operators in Downtown
Peterborough (undertaken September 10th to 12th, 2009)
• Visitors to Peterborough - Intercept face-to-face survey.
Sample of 120 visitors, defined as non-residents of
Peterborough (undertaken August 29th-30th, 2009)
1. Primary Research - basic cost analysis of tangible economic
benefits (i.e., property valuations and tax). The property
assessment, taxation data and tax rebate data was provided by the
City of Peterborough. The analysis based on Hanson (n.d)
adopts a simple pre- and post-designation approach to assessed
property values, taxes paid to the municipality, and the level of
tax rebate offered by the municipality.
7
FIGURE 2. Heritage Designation: Tax Rebate versus Municipal Cost
180,000
160,000
140,000
Tax($)
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2003
2004
2005
Rebate
2006
2007
2008
2009e
Cost
Economic Impacts
The analysis in this section is based on 61 heritage properties
that entered the HPTRP between fourth quarter 2003 and the
first quarter 2009 (this includes those with easement agreements
that are not yet registered), with data provided by the HPO. The
properties were fairly evenly spread between those within
Peterborough central area (Schedule J) and those outside. It
should be noted that the one of the aims of the HPTRP is to
promote the conservation of properties within Peterborough's
central area. Properties outside of this area are reviewed on a
case-by-case basis by the council, allowing the City to apply
discretion to the tax incentive program to promote the
widespread take-up of the scheme, as Hanson (n.d.) notes this is
being applied 'where doing so encourages economic development or
supports other worthy endeavours'. In the order of 10 properties
have entered the HPTRP program each year, many of these
properties were previously designated (i.e., through prior
heritage by-laws) but not registered with the HPTRP program
(about 40% of the properties in the program).
Heritage tax relief involves investment by the City. In recent
years, the number of properties designated by the City of
Peterborough has increased. The growth in properties
participating in HPTRP has been substantial. The cost to the
City has grown from about $15,000 in 2003 to an estimated
8
$122,000 in 2009, an eight-fold increase in six years
(see Figure 2), with the level of rebate increasing at a higher level
as more commercial properties (that receive a larger edudcation
rebate) join the program. The basic cost analysis presented
divides the properties into: Designated (with HPTRP),
Designated (without HPTRP) and Non-Designated. The data
is based on property assessment and taxation data from the City
of Peterborough.
To have a positive return on investment, the tax generated by
HPTRP properties should be higher than that generated by the
other two types of properties and the initial investment cost
should be recoverable over a period of time. Figure 3 compares
the three sets of properties based on a notional commercial
property valued at $100,000 in Year 1. The results show the bestcase scenario benefits of designation: with significantly higher
tax revenue to the City over time. The City initially loses
revenue on HPTRP (based on the reduced tax rate of properties
in the HPTRP), however, on a cumulative basis it takes about
three years for the City to completely recuperate its investment.
Once it does, the disparity in tax revenue increases. By Year 7,
HPTRP properties can produce substantially more cumulative
revenue to the City compared to non-designated properties. A
number of caveats need to be noted. The analysis applies the
increase in assessed value evenly over the seven year period, in
reality, major benefits accrue immediately after improvements
have been made to the property. The scale of the benefits are
FIGURE 3. Commercial Properties (Best case-scenario): Cumulative Tax Revenue
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
Year1
Year2
Year3
NonͲDesignated
Year4
Year5
Designated(NotinHPTRP)
Year6
Year7
HPTRP
FIGURE 4. All Properties: Cumulative Tax Revenue
$16,000
$14,000
$12,000
$10,000
$8,000
$6,000
$4,000
$2,000
$0
Year1
Year2
Year3
NonͲDesignated
Year4
Year5
Designated(NotinHPTRP)
Year6
Year7
HPTRP
9
dependent on the level of investment, and market viability of the
improvements made to the property. Increases in property value
will often increase dramatically after an improvement, and then
will stabilize in the following years. The best-case scenario is
driven by a smaller number of designated properties that
through HPTRP have been incentivized to make major
improvements. When these properties that have made
significant improvements are removed from the analysis, then
the annual increases in assessed value drop from over 30%
per year, to the order of 8 to 10% per year, still higher than
non-designated buildings at around 6 per cent. At this lower
level of annual increase and with the costs associated with tax
incentives, then HPTRP may not generate increased revenues.
The bottom line, if the owner invests in improvements to the
property then the municipality benefits. The worst case scenario
for the municipality is an owner that receives tax incentives but
does not make any improvements. The HPTRP is a successful
mechanism when it is viewed as a catalyst that results in
investments in the heritage value of the property.
for HPTRP properties over time holds true (again, this is
dependent on tax incentives leading to tangible 'bricks-andmortar' improvements). It should also be noted that
improvements that dramatically increase the assessed value of a
property may be seen as a sizeable tax burden to the property
owner that needs to be offset by revenues from the property
(i.e., tenant leases, sales increases from an owner-operated
business). A counter-argument to the heritage tax burden is that
the HPTRP assists a property owner to fully realise the market
value of the property, with the added benefit of tax breaks along
the way. In turn, this does raise further fundamental questions
with regard to the ability of the local property market in being
able to support the 'heritage' premium - remembering that
assessed value does not always truly reflect the markets
willingness to pay (i.e., market value).
Local Businesses
Virtually all of the business owners/operators who participated
in the survey felt that Heritage Conservation was important, not
just in general terms (95%) but to the business environment
(84%). Business respondents felt that Heritage Conservation’s
importance lay in its fostering a connection to the past as well as
Figure 4 provides cumulative tax revenue data for all properties
by designation type. While the overall increases are far less
dramatic, the overall trend of comparatively more tax revenue
FIGURE 5. The Importance of Heritage Conservation to Local Businesses
Howimportantisheritageconservationtothe
businessenvironmentofcommunities?
47%
Howgenerallyimportantisheritageconservation,that
is,thedesignationandrestorationofhistoricalcity
buildings,streetscapesandlandscapes?
35%
SomewhatImportant
37%
84%
60%
95%
VeryImportant
FIGURE 6. Local Businesses Perception of Heritage Activity
BusinessofOther
BusinessesinArea
Respondent’sOwnBusiness
Improved
52
20
Madenochange
38
75
Worsened
2
3
+50
+17
PerceptionofHeritageActivityOn…
Neteffect(Improved–Worsened)
Base:LocalBusinessRespondentsAwareofHeritageActivities
10
FIGURE 7. Local Business Perception of Heritage Conservation
LevelofAgreementwithAttitudeStatements
%answering4or5ona5ptscale(positiveboxscores)
where1=DisagreeStrongly,5=AgreeStrongly
Total
(100)
%
LevelofAgreementwithStatementsaboutHeritageConservation...
Historicplacesandheritagebuildingsarefundamentaltooursenseofhistory
96
WellͲmaintainedhistoricbuildings,streetscapes,andlandscapesfosterlocalidentityandpride
95
Historicplacesandheritagebuildingsarefundamentaltooursenseofcommunityandidentity
86
WellͲmaintainedhistoricbuildings,streetscapes,andlandscapescontributetosafeandcomfortable
neighbourhoods
69
Rehabilitatingheritagestreetscapesandbuildingshasapositiveeconomicimpactonourcommunity
66
Heritageconservationhasapositiveeffectontheenvironment
56
Base:AllLocalBusinessRespondents
FIGURE 8. Local Business Perception of Heritage Conservation in Peterborough (1)
TheHeritageConservationActivitiesinDowntownPeterborough...
Total
(65)
%
HavemadetheoverallappearanceofDowntownPeterboroughmoreattractive
83
HavemadeitmoreappealingtoliveinDowntownPeterborough
79
MakemefeelproudtoliveinPeterborough
77
Haveimprovedtheoverallatmosphereofthecity
77
HaverejuvenatedDowntownPeterborough
66
MakemefeelmorecomfortablewhenIamdowntown
63
Havehadapositiveeffectonthebusinessesdowntown
63
HaveresultedinmorepeoplevisitingPeterborough
51
Haveincreaseddowntownpropertyvalues
46
HaveincreasedthefrequencythatIgoDowntown
43
Havecreatedareal“buzz”inthecommunity
40
Haveincreaseddowntownleases
29
HaveincreasedcongestionDowntown
26
Havemadedowntownmorecrowded
14
HavemadeDowntownPeterboroughseemlessclean
11
HaveincreasecrimeratesDowntown
6
11
FIGURE 9. Local Business Perception of Heritage Conservation in Peterborough (2)
TheHeritageConservationActivitiesinDowntownPeterborough…
Total
(65)
%
HavemademefeelproudtoownabusinessinPeterborough
83
Wereworththeinvestmentmade
79
71
Havenotmadeasubstantivedifferencetothebusinesscommunity
30
drawing people into the area. The few respondents who felt that
Heritage Conservation was not important to business attributed
this to a lack of relevance to their specific business. Some
respondents cited the restrictions on building improvements
that were perceived to be attached to Heritage designation
as a detractor of importance.
Of particularly interest is the dichotomy between the perceived
benefits of heritage conservation to the business environment in
general versus to the respondent's own business. Specifically,
over half of business operators felt that the Heritage activities in
Downtown Peterborough had a positive impact on other
businesses in the area. They were less likely (20%) to claim that
the activities had a positive effect on their own businesses. The
majority of respondents agreed that the Heritage activities had
increased their pride in business ownership and were worth the
investment made.
Local Residents
Commitment and affinity to a city by its residents has positive
spinoffs to the city both in terms of revenue (how much
residents spend) and potential growth (attraction of the City).
Residents that do not identify with the City, have little civic
pride or sense of place are neither likely to invest in their city or
entice others to move into the City (or just visit). To gauge local
residents' 'buy-in' to heritage conservation and designation we
interviewed 101 randomly chosen residents. The telephone
interviews were carried out by professional interviewers using a
standard questionnaire. Most residents who participated in this
study were long-term residents of Peterborough, with two-thirds
residing in Peterborough for more than 20 years. Nearly
two-fifths (38%) were lifelong residents. One-third of
respondents worked, lived or owned property in Downtown
Peterborough. Downtown was a regular destination for the
residents who participated in this study; six in ten reported that
they went downtown at least once a week or more often, with
12% visiting downtown every day. The majority of respondents
FIGURE 10. Local Residents - What does Heritage mean to you?
WhatDoesHeritageMeanWhenReferringtoBuildings,Streets,andLandscapes?
Havebeenthereforalongtime
Hashistoricalsignificance
41
Keepingitasitoriginallywas/preservingit
36
Distinctivearchitecturalstyles
10
Don’tknow
4
Base:AllLocalResidentRespondents
12
Total
(101)
%
51
FIGURE 11. Local Residents Perception of Heritage Conservation
Total
(101)
%
88
85
79
neighbourhoods
75
74
64
FIGURE 12. Local Residents Perception of Heritage Conservation in Peterborough
Total
(45)
%
TheHeritageConservationActivitiesinDowntownPeterborough…
HavemadetheoverallappearanceofDowntownPeterboroughmoreattractive
73
Haveimprovedtheoverallatmosphereofthecity
67
MakemefeelproudtoliveinPeterborough
64
HavemadeitmoreappealingtoliveinDowntownPeterborough
58
HaverejuvenatedDowntownPeterborough
53
MakemefeelmorecomfortablewhenIamdowntown
49
44
HaveresultedinmorepeoplevisitingPeterborough
38
HaveincreasedthefrequencythatIgoDowntown
27
Havecreatedareal“buzz”inthecommunity
24
HaveincreasedcongestionDowntown
9
HaveincreasecrimeratesDowntown
9
HavemadeDowntownPeterboroughseemlessclean
9
Base:LocalResidentRespondentsAwareofHeritageActivities
13
FIGURE 13. Local Residents - The Downtown is...?
Total
(101)
%
TheDowntownis...
Downtownisagoodplaceforartsandculturalevents
74
Downtownisagoodplacefortouriststovisit
65
Downtowniseasilyaccessiblebypublictransit
59
DowntownPeterborough’shistoricbuildingsandenvironmentmakeitaspecialplace
57
Downtownoffersuniquestoresandshoppingopportunities
50
Downtownisagoodplacetovisitintheevening
43
Downtownisafamilyorientedplacetoshoporvisit
42
ThemixofbusinessesinDowntownPeterboroughmeetmyneeds
42
Shoppingordoingbusinessinthedowntownisconvenient
40
(76%) had visited Downtown Peterborough in the past week
and virtually all had made a trip downtown in the past month.
The average spend reported on the last trip was $54.20 (when
non-spenders were removed that rose to $65.90); the majority of
which was spent on food, either in a grocery store or restaurant.
The majority of residents also expressed agreement with
attribute statements about the effects of heritage conservation
and its role in fostering community pride, a sense of history, and
safe, comfortable neighbourhoods. While still high, resident
respondent agreement with attributes connecting heritage
conservation to more tangible outcomes (i.e., a positive effect on
the environment and economy) was slightly lower (yet higher
compared to business respondents). Response to attitudinal
statements suggests that most residents saw the Heritage
activities as enhancing the appearance of Downtown
Peterborough and engendering civic pride. A strong core of
about half of respondents felt the activities had improved the
atmosphere, appeal, and comfort level Downtown. The
Heritage activities were not however perceived by most as
translating into increased visits (only 27% stated it had increased
their frequency of visits) or business activities (44% indicated
they felt it had a positive impact on business). Very few
respondents agreed that the conservation activities had led to the
negative consequences (increased congestion, increased crime
rates, decreased cleanliness). Only one-in-ten residential
property owners surveyed felt that heritage conservation
activities in Peterborough would lead to an increase in their
property values.
14
Residents agreed most strongly that Downtown is a good place
for arts and cultural events and for tourists to visit. Nearly 60%
noted that 'Downtown Peterborough’s historic buildings and
environment make it a special place'. In terms of commercial
function, only approximately 40% highlighted that the shopping
offer in the downtown was family oriented, convenient or met
their needs. In terms of needed improvements to the downtown
area, a better mix of shops and improved parking was identified
by just over a quarter of residential respondents.
Visitors to Peterborough
The City of Peterborough attracts visitors because of it is
closeness to cottage country, proximity to a large city (Toronto)
and the occurrence of local seasonal activities (music events,
festivals, etc..). Visitors add to the vibrancy of the economy of a
city and for a city like Peterborough, which already attracts many
visitors, it is important to keep its current visitors coming back
as well as attracting new visitors. The importance of tourism to
Peterborough is captured by data from the Travel Survey of
Residents of Canada (TSRC) that reported in 2007 that
Peterborough County received 2.22 milliion visitors. With the
City of Peterborough forming the regional centre it is likely that
the majority of visitors to the county will have visited the City.
Designation and conservation of heritage properties can
potentially attract new visitors. As this study shows a substantial
proportion of visitors stayed at hotels, motels or bed and
breakfast places thereby contributing to the local economy. The
purpose of this part of the research is to identify the impact that
heritage designation had directly and indirectly upon visitors to
the City of Peterborough. For our purposes we chose the
FIGURE 14. Visitors to Peterborough - The Downtown is...?
Total
(120)
%
Downtownis...
DowntownPeterboroughisagoodplacefortouriststovisit
88
TheHeritagebldgs,streetscapes&landscapesmakeDowntownmoreappealingtovisit
87
DowntownPeterborough'shistoricbuildingsandenvironmentmakeitaspecialplace
80
DowntownPeterboroughoffersuniquestoresandshoppingopportunities
75
DowntownPeterboroughisagoodplaceforartsandculturalevents
72
DowntownPeterboroughisafamilyorientedplacetoshoporvisit
68
DowntownPeterboroughisagoodplacetovisitintheevening
63
ShoppingordoingbusinessinDowntownPeterboroughisconvenient
61
DowntownPeterboroughiseasilyaccessiblebypublictransit
38
IwouldratherbesomeplaceelsethanDowntownPeterboroughintheevening
17
DowntownPeterboroughisgettingcrowded
13
DowntownPeterboroughisgettingdirtier
9
ShoppingordoingbusinessinDowntownPeterboroughisahassle
6
DowntownPeterboroughhasnothingtoofferbywayofshopping
3
Base:AllVisitorRespondents
FIGURE 15. Visitors to Peterborough Perception of Heritage Conservation
Total
(120)
%
96
92
92
neighbourhoods
79
83
73
Rehabilitatingheritagestreetscapesmakesthecitymorecrowded
7
Historicplacesandheritagebuildingsneednotbepreserved
5
Heritagedesignationisjustagimmick
4
Heritagedesignationsbringsinmoreunwantedtourists
3
Heritagedesignationsdon'taddanythingpositivetothecity
3
Base:AllVisitorRespondents
15
weekend of the Wakeboarding Festival in Peterborough and
interviewed 120 visitors to Peterborough. The festival time was
chosen to maximize visitors available for interviews. As such it is
a convenience sample, and the results are not necessarily
representative of all visitors. All interviews were carried out by
trained professional interviewers by intercepting visitors at the
Wakeboard Festival as well as at different locations in downtown
Peterborough. The majority of visitors interviewed were
residents of Ontario (92%); one-fifth lived in either Toronto or
Ottawa. Three-quarters of respondents had visited
Peterborough in the past; of those, most had visited multiple
times; and 8 out of 10 had visited Peterborough before 2006 (so
were able to comment on how Peterborough has changed in
recent years).
Most visitors had a very positive view of Downtown
Peterborough, regarding it as a good place to visit. The Market
Hall Clock Tower and Peterborough Lift Locks (the world's
tallest hydraulic lift locks!) were high up on the list of places to
visit. Heritage was seen as a key part of the 'identity' of the
Downtown with heritage buildings making it a 'special place'
and as such appealing to visit.
The mix of shops, restaurants, and of particular note, arts and
crafts were identified by visitors as a key to the draw of the
downtown (78% had positive views of the Downtown
streetscape). That said, a smaller proportion of visitors highlighted negative aspects of the Downtown: with 17% indicating
that they would rather be somewhere else than in Downtown
Peterborough in the evening (although this was offset by the
63% that indicated it was a good place to be in the evening),
some found the Downtown to be crowded (13%) and dirty
(9%).
Virtually all visitors regarded heritage conservation as
important, with 72% indicating it was very important and 24%
somewhat important (96% positive). However, only three out
of ten visitors were aware of heritage designation in
Peterborough, which potentially highlights the need to better
market and signpost the heritage component of the Downtown
and City as a whole (e.g., heritage plaques, heritage street maps,
etc). Very few visitors viewed heritage designation as
detrimental, either making the City crowded, as a unnecessary or
simply a gimmick. Overall, the data suggests that the heritage
component of the City could be further leveraged and marketed
to attract more visitors and to keep visitors in the area longer.
Summary
This research letter has highlighted:
• the role and importance of heritage conservation and
designation
• the positive impact of heritage designation in the City of
Peterborough and within the Historic Downtown Core
• the economic benefits of heritage designation for both the
property owner and municipality
• the widespread support for heritage conservation in the
City, from local businesses, residents and visitors
• the need to support heritage designations with
improvements and maintenance in order to accrue benefits
• the potential to further market and promote heritage
designation within the Downtown core and across the
entire City
The following are a few selected heritage conservation websites
for further reference :
Canada's Historic Places
http://www.historicplaces.ca
Parks Canada
http://www.pc.gc.ca
Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture
http://www.culture.gov.on.ca/english/heritage/index.html
Ontario Heritage Trust
http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca
The Heritage Canada Foundation
http://www.heritagecanada.org
The Heritage Canada Foundation Advocacy Action
http://www.advocacyaction.org
16
References
Anon (2010a) 'Ontario city to demolish historic street, despite
Ottawa’s objection', National Post, June 8th 2010.
Anon (2010b) 'Toronto building unsafe after wall collapse:
official', Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News, April
17th2010.
Asabere, P.K., Huffman, F.E. and Mehdian, S. (1994) The
Adverse Impacts of Local Historic Designation: the case of small
apartment buildings in Philadelphia, Journal of Real Estate
Finance and Economics, 8, 225-234.
Asabere, P.K. and Huffman, F.E. (1994a) Historic Designation
and Residential Market Values, The Appraisal Journal, 62(3), pp.
396--401.
Asabere, P.K. and Huffman, F.E. (1994b) The Values Discounts
Associated with Historic Facade Easements, The Appraisal
Journal, 62(2), pp. 270-277.
Leichenko, R.M., Coulson, E. and Listokin, D. (2001) Historic
Preservation and Residential Property Values: an analysis of
Texas Cities, Urban Studies, 38(11), pp. 1973-1987.
Lennox, C. and Revels, J. (2002) The Economic Benefits of
Historic Preservation in South Carolina, South Carolina
Department of Archives and History, Columbia, South
Carolina, US.
Listokin, D. (1985) The Appraisal of Designated Historic
Properties, The Appraisal Journal, 53(2), pp. 200-217.
Lockard, W.E. and Hinds, D. (1983) Historic Zoning
Considerations in Neighbourhood and District Analysis, The
Appraisal Journal, 51(4), pp. 485-498.
Mason, R. (2008) Be Interested and Beware: Joining Economic
Valuation and Heritage Conservation, International Journal of
Heritage Studies, 14(4), pp 303-318.
Asabere, P.K. and Huffman, F.E. (1991) Historic Districts and
Land Values, The Journal of Real Estate Research, 6(1), pp. 1-7.
Mason, R. (2005) Economics and Historic Preservation: a guide
and review of the literature, Discussion Paper - Metropolitan
Policy Program, The Brookings Institution, Washington DC,
US.
Asabere, P.K., Hachey, G. and Grubaugh, S. (1989)
Architecture, Historic Zoning, and the Value of Homes, Journal
of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 2, pp. 181-195.
Noonan, D.S., and Krupka, D.J. (2010) Determinants of
Historic and Cultural Landmark Designation: why we preserve
what we preserve, Journal of Cultural Economics, 34(1), pp. 1-26.
Ashworth, G.J. (2002) Conservation Designation and the
Revaluation of Property: the risk of heritage innovation,
International Journal of Heritage Studies, 8(1), pp 9-23.
Parks Canada (2003) Standards and Guidelines for the
Conservation of Historic Places in Canada, Parks Canada,
Government of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Benson, V.O. and Klein, R. (1988) The Impact of Historic
Districting on Property Values, The Appraisal Journal, 56(2), pp.
223-232.
OMTC (2007) Why designate: Info Sheet, Ontario Ministry of
Tourism and Culture, Government of Canada, Queen's Printer
for Ontario, Canada.
Coulson, N.E. and Leichenko, R.M. (2004) Historic
Preservation and Neighbourhood Change, Urban Studies, 41(8),
pp. 1587-1600.
OMTC (2006a) Heritage Resources in the Land Use Planning
Process - Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Ontario Ministry of Tourism
and Culture, Government of Canada, Queen's Printer for
Ontario, Canada.
Coulson, N.E. and Leichenko, R.M. (2001) The Internal and
External Impact of Historical Designation on Property Values,
Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 23(1), pp. 113124.
Hanson, E. (n.d.) A Review of the Effectiveness of the Heritage
Property Tax Relief Program, Draft Report, Heritage
Preservation Office, Department of Community Services, City
of Peterborough.
Kovacs, J.F., Shipley, R. Snyder, M. and Copeland, S. (2008) Do
Heritage Conservation Districts Work? the case of Kitchener's
Upper Doon District, Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
17(2), pp 125-141.
OMTC (2006b) Your Community, Your Heritage, Your
Committee - Ontario Heritage Tool Kit, Ontario Ministry of
Tourism and Culture, Government of Canada, Queen's Printer
for Ontario, Canada.
OMTC (2006c) Heritage Property Evaluation - Ontario
Heritage Tool Kit, Ontario Ministry of Tourism and Culture,
Government of Canada, Queen's Printer for Ontario, Canada.
OMTC (2006d) Designating Heritage Properties - Ontario
17
OMTC (2006e) Heritage Conservation Districts - Ontario
OMTC (2005) Getting Started: Heritage Property Tax Relief,
Rypkema, D. (1994) The Economics of Historic Preservation,
National Trust for Historic Preservation, Washington DC, US.
Schaeffer, P. and Millerick, C.A. (1991) The Impact of Historic
District Designation on Property Values: An Empirical Study,
Economic Development Quarterly, 5(4), pp. 301-312.
Sharpe, C. (2006) House Prices in a Heritage Area: the case of
St. John's, Newfoundland, Canadian Journal of Urban Research,
15(2), pp. 175-201.
Shipley, R. (2008) Getting Heritage Development Right,
Municipal World, 118(2), pp.13-14.
Shipley, R .(2007) The Real Impact of Heritage Designation,
Municipal World, 117(2), pp. 9-12.
Shipley, R. (2000) Heritage Designation and Property Values: is
there an effect?, International Journal of Heritage Studies, 6(1),
pp 83-100.
Tweed, C. and Sutherland, M.( 2007) Built Cultural Heritage
and Sustainable Urban Development, Landscape and Urban
Planning, 83, pp. 62-69.
18
CSCA Research Papers
Power Retail Growth in Canada and the GTA: 2004
by T. Hernandez, T. Erguden and P. Bermingham
2004
Canada's Megamarkets
by J. Simmons and S. Kamikihara
Hotspots in Canadian Retailing 1999-2000
by K. Jones, T. Erguden and P. Bermingham
Consumer Behaviour and Power Retailing
by B. Lorch
General Merchandisers in Canada
by N. Fyfe, K. Jones, T. Lea and R. Lussier
Toronto Area Summary Tables
by T. Erguden and P. Bermingham
What's in a Trade Area?
by T. Hernandez, T. Lea and P. Bermingham
2006
Location Strategies in Western Canada
Modeling Commercial Property Values in the GTA
by M. Yeates and C. Jackson
The Commercial Structure of Canadian Tourist and Cottager Towns
by K. Jones, T. Lea and G. Bylov
Location Preferences of Canada’s Leading Retailers
by R. Gomez-Insausti and J. Simmons
The Affect of Shopping Malls and Power Centres on Residential
Property Values
by M. Yeates and S. Farber
Hot Spots in Canadian Retailing: 2001-2002
Spillover Effects of Investments in Cultural Facilities
by K. Jones, T. Lea and D. Sharpe
Retail Sales Change in Metropolitan Canada
by T. Hernandez,J. Simmons and S. Kamikihara
Power Retail: Close to Saturation
by J. Simmons and T. Hernandez
Power Retail within Canada's Major Metropolitan Markets
Under the Radar? The Employer Perspective on Workplace Privacy
by A. Levin, M. Foster, M.J. Nicholson and T. Hernandez
Emerging Trends in General Merchandise Retailing
by T. Hernandez
Changing Character of Retail Strips in the City of Toronto:1996-2005
by T. Hernandez, J. Helik and P. Moore
Advances in Retail GeoVisualization
by T. Hernandez, M. Du and T. Amin
Market Segmentation: a Practitioner Guide
by C. Chakrapani, T. Lea and T. Hernandez
by T. Erguden and P. Bermingham
Canada's Leading Retailers - Latest Trends and Strategies
by C. Daniel and T. Hernandez
2005
Hot Spots in Canadian Retailing: 2002-2003
Comparing Retail Markets: Toronto and Dallas-Fort Worth
by T. Hernandez
Hot Spots in Canadian Retailing 2000-2001
by K. Jones, T. Erguden and P. Bermingham
2007
Commercial Activity in Canada: 2004
Productivity Growth in Canadian Retailing
by J. Simmons
Canada's Leading Retailers - Latest Trends and Strategies: 2004
by R. Gomez-Insausti
Aging Consumers: Victoria as Canada's Future
by J. Simmons
Aging Consumers and the Commercial Structure
by J. Simmons, S. Kamikihara, and T. Hernandez
Market Thresholds - Major Retail Chains in Canada: 2004
by T. Hernandez and T. Erguden
The Diversity of Commercial Locations in the Greater Toronto Area
The Changing Pattern of Commercial Specialization: 1991-2001
by J. Simmons
Location Strategies in Quebec
by T. Erguden and C. Daniel
19
by T. Hernandez, T. Erguden and M. Svindal
Lifestyle Centres in Canada: 2007
by T. Hernandez
Greening Retail: Volume 2 – Best Environmental Practices of Leading
Retailers from Around the World
by W. Evans, H. Jacobs, L. Sparks, M. Denney, K. Webb and M. Vilanova
Who Shops Power Retail? The Victoria Study
Foreign Retailers in China: Stories of Success and Setbacks
by S. Wang and P. Du
Canada's Leading Retailers - Latest Trends and Strategies: 5th Edition
by C. Daniel, T. Hernandez and J. Aversa
The Impact of Power Retail? The Victoria Study
Tracking the Evolution of the Canadian Mall
by T. Hernandez and P. Du
Greening Retail: Volume 1 – Identifying the ‘Greening Retail’
Opportunity for Canadian Retailers
by W. Evans, M. Denney, B. McIntyre, A. Reesor, R. Van den Bremer
Store Vacancy Rates in the GTA: 2005 to 2009
by T. Erguden, C. Daniel and M. Svindal
by T. Erguden, C. Daniel and M. Svindal
2008
2010
Going Green: the Implications for Commercial Activities
The Next Digital Divide
by A. Levin, M. Foster, B. West, M.J. Nicholson, T. Hernandez and
W. Cukier
Market Thresholds of Canadian Retailers: 2nd Edition
by T. Hernandez and M. Svindal
The Changing Face of the Shopping Mall
by T. Hernandez, B. Lorch and P. Du
Canada’s Leading Retailers - Latest Trends and Strategies:8th Edition by
C. Daniel, T. Hernandez and J. Aversa
The Impact of Heritage Designation: case study of Downtown
Peterborough
by C. Chakrapani and T. Hernandez
FORTHCOMING RESEARCH REPORTS OR LETTERS:
Canada’s Leading Retailers - Location Tables and Maps: 9th Edition by
Implications of Demographic Change for the Retail and Service Sector
by D. Norris and T. Hernandez
Places to Shop and Places to Grow
by R. Buliung and T. Hernandez
Defining Power Retailing
Canada’s Leading Retailers - Latest Trends and Strategies: 6th Edition by
by T. Erguden, P. Du and M. Svindal
FOR A COMPLETE CSCA PUBLICATION LIST, PLEASE
CHECK OUR WEB SITE
2009
Information about purchasing research reports is available at the CSCA website
(http://www.csca.ryerson.ca). Orders can be placed by fax (416-979-5378) or mail.
Payments can be made by cash or cheque. Please make cheques payable to: RU/CSCA.
CSCA is a non-profit organization, supported by its members, that facilitates research, innovation and discussion into private-sector economic activities dealing directly with consumers.
tel (416) 979-5379; fax (416) 979-5378; e-mail [email protected]; or, on the World
Wide Web at http://www.csca.ryerson.ca
Canada’s Leading Retailers - Latest Trends and Strategies: 7th Edition
by C. Daniel, T. Hernandez and J. Aversa
By mail:
CSCA, Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto, Ontario, M5B 2K3
CSCA is located at:
575 Bay Street (enter via 55 Dundas St. W.)
Room TRS 3-183 (9th floor)
Toronto, Ontario
ISBN 1-894503-96-1
20
Appendix 4 - Average Annual Rate of Increase of Assessed Value
(2003-2009)
Property Type
Rate
Non-Designated, Schedule J, All Tax Classes
7.12%
Non-Designated, Schedule J, Commercial Tax Classes
6.36%
Designated, Not in HPTRP, Schedule J, All Tax Classes
5.61%
Designated, Not in HPTRP, Schedule J, Commercial Tax Classes 8.19%
Designated, Not in HPTRP, Entire City, All Tax Classes
6.06%
Designated, HPTRP, Schedule J, All Tax Classes
28.09%
Designated, HPTRP, Schedule J, Commercial Tax Classes
34.73%
Designated, HPTRP, Entire City, All Tax Classes
18.11%
32
Appendix 5- Maps
The Arts, Culture and Heritage Division has started a cultural mapping program as part
of the completion of the City’s Municipal Cultural Plan. Data sets relating to
archaeology, heritage buildings and cultural assets have been compiled and
incorporated into the AMANDA database. The City can now to create maps that analyse
the relationship of heritage resources to any data the City maintains including zoning
and site plan applications, tax information and building division data.
As part of the HPTRP review, several maps were created to highlight the effectiveness
of the program in stimulating economic growth in the commercial core. These maps
present the changes in property values, the value of investment in properties and the
increase in heritage designation of properties, before and after the implementation of
the HPTRP.
Property Values
These maps illustrate the impact of the HPTRP on property values in Schedule ‘J’. They
present the average annual change in the assessed value of all properties from 2000 to
2003 and the average annual change in the assessed value of all properties from 2004
to the present.
In these maps the darker the colour gradient, the higher the assessment increase on
the property. The lighter areas of the maps are areas in which property values were
rising at a lower rate. The maps show that property values in the Central Area,
particularly in the commercial core, have been rising at a higher rate since the tax
program was implemented. Designated properties are marked on all maps and many of
the darkest areas of the post 2004 map are around these properties.
Investment in Properties
These maps illustrate the impact of the HPTRP on investment in properties based on
the value of building permits issued in schedule ‘J’ in the years leading up to, and then
since the program was implemented.
In these maps the darker the colour gradient, the greater the amount of money that was
spent on construction, repairs, and renovations. The lighter areas of maps are areas in
which less money has been spent on construction activities. The maps show that
significantly more investment has been made in properties in the Central Area since the
HPTRP was implemented than before the program began. Also, a high concentration of
this construction activity has been occurring in the commercial core, in close proximity
to a concentration of designated properties that are participating in the HPTRP.
Designated Properties
These maps illustrate the impact of the HPTRP on the increase in designated properties
in the central area. The maps demonstrate that there was little interest in the
designation of commercial buildings in the core area prior to the implementation of the
HPTRP, but show a major increase in designation after 2003.
33
Map One- Average Annual Increase in Property Assessments in Schedule ‘J’ Before and After
the Introduction of the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program
34
Map Two- Average Annual Increase in Property Assessments in the Historic Core Area Before
and After the Introduction of the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program
35
Map Three-Increase in Value of Construction Permits in Schedule ‘J’ Before and After the
Introduction of the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program
36
Map Four- Increase in Value of Construction Permits in the Historic Core Area Before and
After the Introduction of the Heritage Property Tax Relief Program
37
Map Five – Heritage Property Designation in Schedule ‘J’ Between 1995 and 2000
38
Map Six – Heritage Property Designation in Schedule ‘J’ Between 2005 and 2011
39
Map Seven– Heritage Property Designation in the Historic Core Area Between 1995 and 2000
40
Map Eight – Heritage Property Designation in the Historic Core Area Between 2005 and 2011
41

A Review of the Effectiveness of the Heritage Property Tax Relief

Transcription

Similar documents

Champaner-Pavagadh Archaeological Park

Xero House

enREDo International Design Network

For Adding to the World Heritage List

Heritage Committee Monday, November 16, 2015 7:00 p.m. Council

Virtual 3D Reconstruction of Heritage Sites in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Sustainable management of the World Heritage Site, Bryggen.

Summer-2016 - The Canadian Heritage of Quebec

Cross Border E-arhive - DCH

Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority Work on