By DALE GIRARD
Mayoral Notes
At the last meeting, the Claremont City Council chose to temporarily hold off on three applications for the 79:E Community Revitalization Tax Relief Incentive. Since its adoption in 2015, this program has been used six times, but with a recent uptick in applications, the council felt it was necessary to step back and evaluate its implementation.
While we recently approved one application, the arrival of three more on the agenda raised important questions about the program’s scope and long-term impact on the city.
It’s important to clarify that this decision is not a rejection of 79:E. Rather, it is a commitment to ensuring that the program is applied in a way that best serves the community. The intent behind 79:E is to encourage the rehabilitation of buildings in disrepair, providing a public benefit through economic revitalization. However, the definition of “public benefit” is broad and sometimes vague. Some projects clearly meet this goal by restoring buildings, creating business opportunities, or addressing Claremont’s tight housing market. Others may not offer the same level of community impact. Moving forward, the council must take a closer look at how we define public benefit and ensure the program is applied consistently and effectively.
One of the biggest considerations is the financial impact of these incentives. The tax shift created by 79:E projects can be significant, and we must carefully evaluate the duration of tax relief granted to each applicant. Should a project that adds just one new apartment receive the same length of tax relief as one that creates 80 units? A more tailored approach — adjusting the length of relief based on the scale of the project — could help balance economic growth while minimizing the burden on other taxpayers.
To put this into perspective, I reviewed a hypothetical scenario where a building valued at $1 million before renovations is reassessed at $10 million post-upgrade. In this case, the tax relief would be based on the increased value, potentially deferring over $250,000 in tax revenue per year. Over the full term of relief, this could amount to more than $2.75 million in tax incentives. In contrast, another project I reviewed would provide just over $34,000 in relief. These examples highlight the vast differences in potential tax shifts and reinforce the need for a thoughtful, case-by-case approach.
Another critical issue is the timeline for project completion. Under state law, municipalities can require buildings to meet program covenants for twice the number of years they receive tax relief. However, we should also consider setting firm deadlines for project completion. Without clear timelines, projects could take years longer than expected, delaying their economic benefits and preventing reassessments that reflect their true value. If an applicant takes a decade to complete a project, their tax assessment would revert to its original approval level, further shifting the tax burden onto other property owners. This is an issue the council must address to ensure fairness and accountability.
To be clear, I fully support the 79:E program and recognize its value in fostering economic development. However, as we move forward, I believe the council should assess each project individually, rather than automatically granting the maximum relief period simply because an applicant is eligible. A more strategic approach will help ensure that the program continues to serve Claremont’s best interests while maintaining fiscal responsibility.
At our next council meeting, we will continue the discussion on refining the program’s guidelines. Once we have established a clearer framework, we can move forward with reviewing the latest applications and finding solutions that work for everyone. I encourage residents to share their thoughts — your input is invaluable in shaping Claremont’s future.
