BG FNP Hotel - MP (copy)

The former Frederick News-Post building at 200 E. Patrick St. is part of the property planned to be used to build the downtown hotel and conference center.

An early draft of a plan to help owners of historic properties in Frederick reap benefits from the proposed downtown hotel and conference center is floating around as part of an effort to offset the loss of the state’s last standing tannery building.

And although city officials are leery, members of the Frederick Historic Preservation Commission have thrown their full support behind it.

The multimillion-dollar, 180-room hotel and 20,000-square-foot conference center is planned for 200-212 E. Patrick St. The project is planned to come to fruition with both public and private dollars, with the lion’s share coming from the developers, Plamondon Hospitality Partners, and the remainder from the city, county and state.

As part of the project plans, the early 20th-century Birely Tannery building near Carroll Creek is set for demolition. In turn, the historic Frederick Trolley building that fronts Patrick Street and most recently served as the Frederick News-Post headquarters, is set for renovation, and incorporation into the project.

Members of several groups representing the local historic preservation community, the state, the developers, the city and other groups with interest in the project have met informally over the past several months to discuss the best and most effective way to ensure that historic elements of the site are preserved.

As part of that effort, members of Preservation Maryland — a state organization with a mission to preserve historical sites — have come up with an idea to use a portion of future revenue generated by the hotel tax for downtown historic rehabilitation. The idea was explained in a draft letter to the Department of Housing and Community Development, one of the parties involved in developing the mitigation efforts that were required as part of the tannery demolition approval.

Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Dan Lawton presented the letter Thursday to his fellow commissioners, who pledged their own support for the measure.

“Over the past five to 10 years there has been a widespread decline in financial donations from the public going to house museums and those types of organizations,” said Commissioner Carrie Albee, who also serves as president of the board of directors of the Frederick County Landmarks Commission.

“This is something that is at the forefront of my thinking, and I do think there is strong value in actually being able to earmark bricks-and-mortar monies to work on historic buildings,” she continued. “It seems to be more expensive and harder and harder to get support. ... I am very pleased Preservation Maryland has put this together.”

THE LETTER

This is not the first time Preservation Maryland has taken a stance on the downtown hotel project.

Representatives publicly opposed the demolition of the tannery building before the Historic Preservation Commission voted on it.

Now in the draft letter, Preservation Maryland is proposing that a “small, to-be-negotiated percentage” of the increased hotel room tax from the new hotel project be put into a separate fund to use for loans to finance historic rehabilitation projects.

According to the letter, Preservation Maryland, the Downtown Frederick Partnership and the city of Frederick would govern the program as partners. Downtown Frederick Partnership and city officials have not agreed to govern the program. The three-way partnership is currently only an idea Preservation Maryland officials included in the letter.

The program would initially focus on facade restoration and address ongoing challenges with historic building rehabilitation, such as ADA access, sprinkler systems and second-floor reuse.

The partners would begin administering the loans once the fund hits $75,000 to $150,000, according to Preservation Maryland’s proposal, and it would be replenished annually with money from the hotel tax collected from the new project.

At Thursday’s meeting, the city’s Historic Preservation Commission voted unanimously to draft its own letter of support for Preservation Maryland’s idea.

But the implementation may not be quite that easy.

PLAN IN THE WORKS

Matt Davis, the city’s manager of comprehensive planning, told commissioners Thursday that a draft memorandum of understanding that will map out the details of the mitigation plan is already circulating. The MOU will be signed by city officials, the developers, the Maryland Historical Trust and the Department of Housing and Community Development. Davis said he does not believe Preservation Maryland’s plan will be included in that document.

“It’s really not mitigation for what’s being lost,” Davis said in the meeting.

He also said no mechanism currently exists to implement that type of program.

“It’s a little more involved than just all of a sudden money coming to a certain entity and then how you distribute that and administer that program. It’s something that will take a lot of discussion,” Davis said. “Not to say something like this can’t exist within the city, but this might not be the exact place for that to occur.”

Albee disagreed.

“This is, in fact, a perfect example of creative mitigation,” she said. “We’ve already talked about the unusual importance of the tannery site and the legislation that calls for this consultation to consider effects on historic properties. That absolutely allows for, enables and encourages creative uses of monies that will ultimately go to mitigation, and particular monies that will benefit the public actively.”

HOTEL TAXES
AND THE DOWNTOWN HOTEL PROJECT

Frederick County collects hotel tax revenue, with about 97 percent of the funds passed through the Tourism Council of Frederick County.

In August 2016, the Frederick County Council narrowly voted to raise the tax rate from 3 percent to 5 percent. With that approval, a plan from the Tourism Council to divert a portion of the revenue to a downtown hotel incentive program was also approved. The program allows the proposed downtown hotel and conference center to get back up to 85 percent of the hotel rental tax it pays. The stipulation was included in a memorandum of understanding that took effect with the council’s vote to increase the tax.

Tourism Council Executive Director John Fieseler explained that the tax money the hotel is receiving back is set to be used for public infrastructure costs the city is slated to contribute toward the project. In turn, he said, the only way a portion of the hotel tax could be used for something else — such as the proposed loan program for historic rehabilitation efforts — would be if it came out of those funds.

“It would be up to the city if they wanted to take a portion they were counting on to service part of the parking structure [to go toward Preservation Maryland’s proposal],” Fieseler said.

He added that he has not seen the draft letter from Preservation Maryland, but is familiar with the idea.

Frederick Economic Development Director Richard Griffin said he is also familiar with the the idea because it was discussed during the recent informal meetings. He said he has not seen the letter from Preservation Maryland but anticipates its contents, and the position of the Historic Preservation Commission, will be taken into consideration.

“Anybody that has an idea should submit it,” he said. “We are going to take the recommendations, look at the impact from the demolition, and come up with mitigation strategies.”

He confirmed that a draft MOU is in the works and circulating. He would not comment on any information that is or is not in the document, though.

“As soon as the signatory partners have agreed on the content, it will be made public and subject to a public workshop,” he said.

This story has been updated to clarify that Downtown Frederick Partnership and city officials have not agreed govern the potential program with Preservation Maryland.

Follow Mallory Panuska on Twitter: @MalloryPanuska.

(28) comments

petersamuel

Why is there even discussion of using tax monies to further subsidize this development? Plamondon the hotel developer is the one proposing to demolish the Birely Tannery because, as he sees it, demolition makes the most business sense. This was his argument at the Historic Preservation Commission in the fall. It was Plamondon who proposed this site knowing the complications of its two historic buildings and extensive archeological remains. Since he stands to benefit financially from the demolition of the tannery he should be the one asked to pay the full costs of ‘mitigation.’ If these mitigation costs are too much for his business to support, then he can scale back his hotel to allow the tannery building to be preserved instead of ‘mitigating’ its loss. Use of the hotel tax for other historic preservation projects is a whole different subject unrelated to the proposed Plamondon hotel. P Samuel

sofanna

NO taxpayer dollars were supposed to be used to build this project when it was originally proposed. Once again, the citizens of Frederick County get thrown under the bus.

eswinnette

[thumbup][thumbup]

Burgessdr

As usual you are terribly confused. The article clearly says that tourism tax from the hotel would be used to provide loans to other historic projects. No money going TO hotel, going FROM hotel. You got it backasswards. More pathological trash talking. P Samuel

eswinnette

Among other more significant mitigation, this is a grand idea. If a fund is created I would hope it will be pointed toward helping non-business property owners such as residents, museums, and non-profits who maintain historic buildings. The Downtown Partnership aready has a facades program funded with preservation dollars to benefit the business community. Many public dollars benefit the business community and one of the most proclaimed purposes for the Downtown Hotel is to benefit the retail establishments downtown. Please focus this on residents and non-profits.

Burgessdr

The facade program is not preservation dollars. The funds come from the Dept Housing and Community Development. They can be used for any property, they don't have to be historic.

elymus43

Let the historic buildings pay for their own upkeep. Why should money come from else where???????????????????

jerseygrl42

Plamondon paying "lions share"....taxpayer share is almost 40%, not exactly chickenfeed....but it is shameful

sofanna

It's Plamondon's project, he should be paying 100% of the cost. But no, the taxpayers are being forced to contribute money to this project. Plamondon and the City of Frederick will be the only ones obtaining money from this project.

gary4books

[smile]

rbtdt5

Lets get this built.

richardlyons

Why?

rbtdt5

It's going boost local businesses. Increase our tax base and help that end of town that is up and coming.

richardlyons

[lol]

gary4books

"Can't never could." Or "Nothing ventured means nothing gained."

Boyce Rensberger

It's a great idea to direct some of the potential new revenue toward historic preservation. And I can think of no more deserving recipient than the city's premier historic site--the 1758 house called Schifferstadt. It is the only building in Frederick County awarded the status of National Historic Landmark by the federal government.

It's the oldest building in the city or county that the public can visit. Schifferstadt currently receives no funding from any city, county, state or federal source. It scrapes by on private donations and an all-volunteer staff.

It's owned and operated by the Frederick County Landmarks Foundation (not Commission, which sounds like a government entity), also an all-volunteer organization.

gary4books

[thumbup][thumbup]

eswinnette

[thumbup][thumbup]

Crusty Frederick Man 64

Could you explain to me again how a loan is a benefit . Seems like more smoke and mirrors on this project.

tatt2ed

"...“small, to-be-negotiated percentage” of the increased hotel room tax from the new hotel project be put into a separate fund to use for loans to finance historic rehabilitation projects."

Loans... If the Historical's were so concerned about their plight, these would not be loans, but grants, to enable historically correct renovations. Of course, can't charge interest on a grant...

DickD

More tax money for the wealthy.

Frayou

This is just another rouge to buy off the Historical Regulators as it pertains to the hotel & conference center. Any future funds will just enable Historical Committees to make life more difficult for individuals property owners in the future.

jerseygrl42

exactly!

Titanman123

You know a plan is in trouble when they start trying to buy people off. Start over!

jwhamann

If you stand on the Carroll St. bridge and look west along the creek you will not see a single building over 30 years old....mostly only 20 years old. Just tear the tannery down. It has little historical importance to Frederick.

kimberlymellon

Glad to see the follow up on a small fee for maintaining the historic district. The fee should be broken out on all downtown historic district hotel bills as it is in cities across the US. Having a small $2-3 per night fee that is separate from tourism will aid in funding mitigation of the tannery loss by supporting museum and/or historic education or preservation of relics to include archeology, the chimney or other aspects such as a public tower view of our iconic historic city - not just for paying hotel customer - and in the long term, other historic treasures (buildings and sites) that benefit our tourism and most importantly, the historic downtown. This is standard policy in others cities and does not deter tourism or business hotel stays in the least. I still strongly support mitigation that spares the tannery as the hotel can surely build around it or locate to the other side of the creek which has always been the best location. The City proposes to purchase the Tannery/Trolley site for the hotel. Let it be for their Preservation instead. They have a far greater value for tourism and with this fee, a mechanism for maintaining them. A win for all, including the hotel, if they truly care about historic downtown Frederick. Imho.

Hammer

The first priority should be mitigation of the loss of historic resources on the site. Further archeology is required and could prove costly. There were many good ideas, and creative ones, but addressing the destruction allowed by our supposed protectors of historic resources should come first. No more preservation money to Downtown Frederick Partnership. Funding this idea should come from other sources. Real preservation first!

Burgessdr

No preservation money is going to the Downtown Frederick Partnership. Dull pencil.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.