■ Staff: Council OK would mean tax revenue loss cap would be exceeded in some years
Though accepting would mean a difficult choice in the future, the Benicia Historic Preservation Commission recommended Thursday that the City Council extend Mills Act contracts to the owners of two homes that contribute to the downtown historic district.
Such contracts are designed as incentives for owners of historic properties to restore and maintain them in historically appropriate ways in exchange for seeing their property taxes lowered.
Those with Mills Act contracts are required to accomplish certain tasks within a scheduled time, spending the money they would have paid in taxes.
Benicia has had a Mills Act program since 2003, and capped the amount the city would lose each year to $35,000.
However, if the Council concurs with the commission, that cap could be breached in some years.
Benicia collects 26 percent of property taxes paid to Solano County for parcels in its city limits.
Aud Olsen owns 153 West G St., which has an 1895 Queen Anne cottage. She would save about $1,792 in Fiscal Year 2016-17 taxes, and the city’s share of the loss would be $466 each year.
Larry and Kim Miller own 180 West H St., a 1927 Craftsman home. If the Council concurs with the commission, Benicia would lose $959 each year from its share of county property taxes.
Depending on tax fluctuations, this and the impact of other Mills Act contracts could exceed the city’s lost revenue cap, staff reported, and if the contracts are approved and Benicia wants to continue the program, it must consider increasing the cap.
On the other hand, the city would assure both properties would be kept up in ways that support the city’s commitment to historic preservation.
Some commissioners worried that too little was being asked of the property owners in exchange for their discounted taxes.
“I’m not impressed by the list,” Commissioner Steve McKee said of Olsen’s contract proposal.
But Associate Planner Suzanne Thorsen and Principal Planner Amy Million explained that the act emphasized not interior restoration but exterior work, since that is what the public sees.
In addition, tasks considered routine maintenance — keeping yards maintained and homes painted, for instance — also aren’t listed on the schedule of tasks that have dates by which they must be completed for the property owners to remain in compliance, Thorsen and Million said.
Though Commissioner Toni Haughey said some of those tasks had been included in the specific schedules of other contracts rather than being considered as “maintenance,” Million explained that if they are classified as maintenance, city staff could require the upkeep annually. Failure to perform that upkeep would be a violation of the contract, she assured the panel.
The panel decided to delay requiring Olsen to perform tasks until 2016, when her tax savings would start. It also moved up and modified the requirement to repair a walkway, adding in underground drainage that would meet city standards. Replacing a kitchen door would be subject to design review, the panel agreed.
The Millers’ house may not need its door restored to historic standards, the commission ruled, because it very well may be the house’s original door. If the door must be replaced, the Millers will need to do so in 2015, along with determining whether the house needs cellar vents.
They also would need to replace a front window.
The couple would replace iron front railings with those of more historical style in 2016, but would need the commission to review their proposal, and the house’s fireplace and chimney would need to be restored by 2018.
In other business, the commission denied a request by property owner Kim Osburn and her contractor, Marcus Burget of Paul Davis Restoration. Osburn’s home, 181 West H. St., had been damaged in a fire, and the contractor had obtained a permit to replace the house’s windows with wood-frame ones.
Instead, the contractor installed wood-frame windows that had vinyl cladding.
The home is a contributor to the city’s downtown historic district, and like the Millers’ home is a Craftsman-style house, built in 1920.
Benicia’s Downtown Historic Conservation Plan states that wood-frame windows are preferred, and if they’re not available, substitute materials must resemble the original. Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation are less lenient, saying historic features must be repaired, and if not they must be replaced with materials that match the old feature, including its materials, where possible.
Wood-frame windows that meet those recommendations are available, and in some cases cost less than the vinyl-covered wood-frame windows Osburn’s contractor installed. Chairperson Luis Delgado sought assurances from attending staff members that they had been clear with the contractor about the city’s expectations.
“Wood needs to be replaced with wood,” Thorsen said.
“It’s maintaining the integrity of the house,” Haughey said.
Also Thursday, the panel appointed Haughey, Jon Van Landschoot and McKee as a three-person subcommittee to develop a recommendation to the City Council about inadequacies of Benicia’s design review process and whether that procedure needs to be revised.