 with the commission at the appropriate time. Ms. Sims-Branham. Here. Mr. Broom. Here. Mr. Greenberg. Here. Ms. Jacob. Here. Mr. Lee Decker. Here. And Mr. Salibi. Here. We have quorum. In order to avoid ex parte communications, DDRC members are under strict instructions not to discuss cases under consideration with the public or with each other outside of the public forum. The meeting typically starts with staff calling the case, giving a summary of the project, and then calling on the applicant to present if they wish. Decisions are typically made in one evening. Decisions may be appealed within 30 days to accord a competent jurisdiction. O's will be administered individually as we hear either from applicants or from live speakers. Applicants with requests before the DDRC are allotted a presentation time of 10 minutes. This time should include but is not limited to an overview of the project, case history, and any pertinent meetings held regarding the request. This time also includes all persons presenting information on behalf of the applicants, such as attorneys, engineers, and architects. This time limit does not include any questions asked by the DDRC or staff regarding the request. Members of the general public are given the opportunity to address their concerns in intervals of two minutes. Applicants may have five minutes to respond. Staff has a timer and will make presenters aware of when the time has expired. Are there any changes to the agenda? We've had one change to the agenda, 1500 Gladden Street, which is an appeal of a staff decision for exterior changes in the Melrose Heights-Oklon Architectural Conservation District. This one was deferred. Yeah. The DDRC uses the consent agenda to approve non-controversial or routine matters by a single motion and vote. If a member of the DDRC or the general public wants to discuss an item on the consent agenda, that item is removed from the agenda and considered during the meeting. The DDRC then improves the remaining consent agenda items. Will staff please read the consent agenda? Certainly. The first item is 2531 Gervais Street, request for preliminary certification of the Bailey Bill for an individual landmark. 1403 Confederate Avenue, a request for design approval for an addition and for preliminary certification through the Bailey Bill in the Cotton Town Bellevue Architectural Conservation District. The third project is 425 Whaley Street, a request for design approval for new construction in the Granby Architectural Conservation District. 2408 Green Street, request for design approval for construction of a single family home in the Old Shandon Lower Waverly Protection Area. Likewise, 2410 Green Street, a request for design approval for construction of a single family home Old Shandon Lower Waverly Protection Area. And 2430 Green Street, again a request for design approval for construction of a single family home in the Old Shandon Lower Waverly Protection Area. Seventh on the list is 200 Mulberry Lane. This is in the Whaley Protection Area and it's a request for design approval for new construction of a duplex. 1851 Divine Street in the University Hill Architectural Conservation District, which is a request for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. And last is 718 Aiken Street in the Elmwood Park Architectural Conservation District. This is a request for design approval for an addition and for preliminary certification for the Bailey Bill. Is there anyone from the DDRC that would like any item removed from the consent agenda? Think we're good, next. Is there anyone from the public, right? Thank you, Sam. I need to see the words, right. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have an item removed from the consent agenda? Because once we move on the consent agenda, nothing on there will be talked about, okay? All right, do I have a motion and a second to accept the consent agenda, subject to all the conditions contained in and also the March minutes? I will move to accept all items on the consent agenda, subject to all the conditions enumerated in the staff report. And the minutes as well. And the minutes as well, a twofer. Second. Mr. Broom. Yes. Ms. Sims Brannam. Yes. Mr. Greenberg. Yes. Ms. Jacob. Yes. Mr. Lee Decker. Yes. And Mr. Salibi. Yes. The motion passes. All right, we'll now move on to the regular agenda. The one item on the regular agenda today is 1312 Pine Street, which is in the Waverley Protection Area. This is a house that is a 1312 Pine Street is a two-story colonial revival structure that was built in 1941. It is three bays wide with a single side gable roof and has a two-story dependency building behind the house. The applicant received a certificate of design approval on May 25th, 2023 for exterior changes to the siding and windows. The CDA was allowed for new windows and siding. New windows are not always granted in this district, but because these had been replaced previously, they were allowed to replace those vinyl windows. At the time that the CDA was issued, the siding was horizontally oriented aluminum siding, and that was not original to the house either. Staff included on the CDA that the applicant was allowed to replace the non-original aluminum siding with vinyl or hardy board in accordance with the district guidelines. Staff conducted a site visit before work began to discuss the scope of work with the applicant. In October of 2023, staff observed that the new siding that had been installed was in a vertical orientation with a modern interpretation of a board and baton design. The Waverly guidelines clearly state that the predominant siding material is horizontally oriented weatherboard, and that new materials should appear similar to the historic materials found in the neighborhood. This is true of new construction and for changes to existing buildings. As board and baton is not used historically as a primary siding material in Waverly, its use on new or renovated properties is not considered to be compatible with neighborhood guidelines or patterns. A written notice of violation was sent to the property owner, stating the staff did not approve of the change to vertically oriented siding, and that it was needed to be modified to come into compliance with the guidelines. The owner has appealed that decision. Staff is not aware of any other residential structures within the Waverly protection area that use faux board and baton or vertical siding, as this type of siding was not common historically anywhere within the urban core of Columbia, specifically this type of siding would not have been used in a colonial revival house in the 1940s. This type of siding is representative of a current trend in building styles that aims to mimic a farmhouse motif. These types of trends do come and go over the years, whereas the guidelines in historic districts are intended to maintain historic integrity and protect the historic character of the district. So before going into the guidelines, I was gonna point out that the photograph on the top is from September 2022 from Google Street View, and that's before any work was done. The lower photograph is from the staff survey of the district in June of 2023, and work was in progress. Some of the siding had been removed, but there was no evidence of what original material would have been underneath of that. It appears to just be a particle board or other type of material there. So we have no evidence of what would have been on the house before the aluminum siding. And then this is how the house is presenting today. So to go through the guidelines for the district, section five exterior changes, and I'll just highlight the ones that are pertinent to this case. Section five states that any new siding or trim used on an existing building should replicate the siding or trim that it is covering, as best as the product is able to do. Vinyl soffit is allowed even though it does not replicate historic soffits due to the limitation of the product. The vertical siding that has been installed does not replicate the horizontal siding that was previously on the house. While the previous siding was not original, it is likely that it was in place since the 1970s or 80s, as that was when aluminum siding was popular and used most often. This shows that there had been an established pattern of horizontal siding on the house for decades, and all other houses on the street are clad in horizontal siding, showing that this is a clear pattern for the neighborhood. Section seven says that if the siding on the building is metal, perma stone, or asbestos, it may be replaced with cement fiber ward if one, it is the original siding, or two, there is original wood siding underneath that is more than 50% deteriorated or damaged beyond repair. There was no original wood siding beneath the aluminum siding that was previously on the house. Therefore, the applicant would be allowed to install new vinyl or cement fiber board siding as long as it replicates the horizontal orientation that would have been on this building and maintains a consistent pattern with the houses surrounding it. Section nine states that the origin do not dramatically change or conceal a character defining exterior fixture or feature with an alternate material such as covering a stucco gable with horizontal siding. These areas may be repaired or replaced in kind if deteriorated. So, horizontally oriented siding is a character defining feature which should be retained. This is the common pattern not only for this street but throughout the Waverly Protection Area. This house itself presented a pattern of horizontal siding for decades, making it a character defining feature of the building. Maintaining historic character is an essential goal of the guidelines and intended to protect this and other districts from trends and fads that do not last the test of time. Horizontal siding is a clearly defined pattern in the district and while current vertical boards dramatically change the character of this house and violate intentions of the guidelines. And so some of the other photographs include houses on the block. This is the house directly across the street which is 1311 Pine Street has wood horizontal siding. Same with the house right next door, you can see the house in question to the left and this is the house immediately next to it and this is the house two doors down. So all the other houses on the street have that type of horizontal oriented siding. The staff is recommending that the vertical siding installed at 1312 Pine Street is not in keeping with section two of the Waverly Protection Area guidelines and recommends denial of this appeal. Staff recommends that the vertical siding should be replaced with vinyl or cement fiberboard siding in a horizontal orientation and that work should be completed within 90 days of this decision. Is anybody present who wants to speak to the commission? If you already come up here and I'll swear you in and then the staff will start timer. And if we could also get the applicant to sign in as well. Yeah, did everybody sign in when you came into Curiosity? Okay, great. Let me see what first individual come up. Will you please state your name? I'm Darryl Chapman. Make sure you speak in the microphone so we can hear you. And do you swear to tell the truth during this proceeding? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you. Will you be speaking as well? Yes. Yeah, and just state your name. My name is Javon Drear. Okay, did y'all hear that? Everybody hear it? Here, I'll say it one more time. Javon Drear. Okay, Javon Drear? Yes, ma'am. All right, and do you swear to tell the truth during this proceeding? Yes, ma'am. All right, great. Who was like to speak first? Well, I'm the contractor and this is the owner. Okay. So the owner wants to speak. Okay. Yes, I've been nervous, I'm sorry. And the reason, one of the reasons I am nervous is because it costs a lot of money and I did not do it intentionally. When I asked the code book, I went straight to the deciding, which states that you could do semen fiber, when I ran vertical. So I wasn't familiar with, I was doing something wrong at the time. I actually got the idea for my house downtown, which is not the same neighborhood. So I didn't know, like I was going like all outside of being wrong. And if I knew I was doing something wrong, I definitely wouldn't have did it because it was very, very expensive. Even if we like, we put the stuff on top of it. So it's like it was on top of the windows on top of everything. So basically we have to tear the whole house down from the exterior and put new back on, new painting. It's very expensive. I know you say it's not historically, but nobody in the community have a problem with it. President didn't have a problem, everybody likes it. We did reach out to see what the proper way that we should do everything. And when we did that, I guess it wasn't 100% clear to me how I should have done it. So first thing I'd like to do is just apologize for my mistake. And all I'm asking for is just a chance that's all I can really say. No, thank you. All right. Thank you. Trying to clarify a comment you made about something when the regulations with certain sightings that was on our vertical organ staff helped me on that. It was section five, it said exterior changes. The number two, sightings slash trim, there'd be guidelines. Number eight, which states if wood sighting is found to be at least 50% complete completely, damage beyond repair or missing, it can be replaced with vinyl or cement fiber. I did use cement fiber. The polymers is the horizontal and the way that it's put on the house, the shape. I didn't go fight vinyl because I was trying to make it look expensive, which it was expensive. And it says the manual also don't state. Oh, that's something that I wrote. But yes, I did use the right material. I just didn't, I guess I didn't put it back. I was supposed to put it back. We did meet up with Elizabeth and all that. I should have just asked more questions. It's my first time doing something like this. So that's what happened. I didn't read the whole book. I know y'all just said some more stuff that I was like, oh, I went straight to the sighting. When we did the windows, went straight to the windows. I didn't read the whole program that I had received. More of a question for staff, but generally, in the application packet, we're looking at section five exterior changes from the guidelines. The recommendation references section two. Is that a typo or is there something we're not seeing here? Where is that? Where are you? Under staff recommendations. Oh, Kevin with section two of the Waveley Protection Area. Oh, I don't see. Is that supposed to be section five? Is that what he's asking? Where are we? Are we reviewing the wrong guidelines? I think it should be section five. Yeah, okay. Okay. I don't have a question of staff too, unless you were not done. No, no, go ahead. So do we have, in the regulations, specifically for the Waverley District, somewhere that says that it needs to be vertical? Is the word vertical written somewhere? Don't believe the word vertical is, but it says that it needs to mimic what was already there. And so this house did have that horizontal sighting for several decades, if not originally. And so did this the rest of the neighborhood, most of the neighborhood. And does it not reference traditional patterns of? Yes. Use of materials. Yes. So I think with the guidelines, when you're crafting guidelines, it's difficult to cover every possible eventuality. So that language is intended to sort of help reinforce the use of materials as they were done historically, just overall umbrella there. So I guess I have a question too of the applicant. When you came to apply for your first opinion, did you not have images of what you thought the exterior sighting would be replaced with? We didn't have the images at the time. One thing we was told was that we could put it on top. And we was talking about the sighting and the windows. And I guess the inside of the house didn't matter how we did the insides all about the outside. So I was told that I could put the cement fiber or the vinyl on top of it, and that we could go with the windows. And we did look at the windows, and we walked around enabling the windows. Or if we looked around and see what windows we could use at the time. But we talked more about the windows as we did the sighting. So this is probably a lessons learned for any applicant that if there is another big component of a project that is being asked for, for a variation or a guideline adherence to changing an exterior, that the intent to which you want to replace it should be part of the packet just so it's very, very clear. I would just do that as kind of a caution to future applicants. Yes, ma'am. The vertical sighting is a painted wood. The cement fiber. Fiber? Cement fiber. It's like hard and plain. Yeah. Yes. It's more better than the vinyl. It's more expensive. Yes, it's the hardy board type of material, hardy plank. And it is allowed in the district for that material, just not in that orientation. Yeah. In the Waverly guidelines, I'm surprised you said it can be vinyl or wood. I thought vinyl was out all together. Yeah, the way that vinyl can be installed over wood siding, it can be done in a way that's less damaging to the wood siding, and it fits the profile more accurately. So in a lot of houses, if you have in this district, if you have original wood underneath, you can cover that up. And vinyl usually works better than the hardy board does. So that's why it's allowed there. It's got a better profile for doing that. And I will say all of our guidelines are different because we work with the community to craft those. So certain materials might be allowed in one district based on conversations with the community and the level of the district than in others. So vinyl would not be permitted necessarily in an architectural conservation district. So any other comments? So am I hearing correctly that the material used is appropriate. It's just the orientation. That's right. OK. Thank you. I mean, this is an unfortunate situation, but the guidelines are very clear. And we've definitely had other cases where this has happened before. It's a tough one. Yes, I think the part on the guidelines was when I read number two, and like the big guidelines, it is never said specifically horizontal or vertical. But I guess I don't know where in the packet, because like I said, I didn't read the whole packet. She said that it says that it's supposed to be exactly like the rest of the neighborhood. And I didn't see that in the side, in the trim part of the brochure. And then when we met up, we never talked about that as well. When I said I was going to put the side on the cement fire, but it was never. She's a Mr. Elizabeth, I just might have saw that. She maybe didn't know what I was going with. It wasn't like specifically, but it was never like we never talked about it. She never said you have to do exactly like this. And I guess we should have got more details about it. That's all. I understand. Any other questions? Just trying to think outside the box here, because I do understand that it costs a lot of money to do something like this. And then to tear it down, buying new material and replace it would be doubly expensive, if not more. Yeah, the material by itself is like between like $30,000 to $40,000 just by itself. Yeah. Not even to paint in the labor. So you said that you spoke with a number of your neighbors and even maybe the president of the. He reached out to somebody on the board, because he's seen the sign. He says he talked to somebody I don't know who he talked to, but his name is Ronald. Mr. Ronald, I guess he's the new president of the Waverly. Do we have any record of comments from the neighborhood? I haven't received any. No. OK. Mr. Ronald. I mean, if the neighborhood truly is on board or is OK with what you have here, again, thinking outside the box, is it possible to delay the application until maybe there's been time for an administrative process to go through to amend the guidelines, if that's truly how the neighborhood feels? Well, I think as commissioners, we have to decide what we're trying to where our charge is. I mean, I hear you. And this is a tough one. Well, we delay projects at the time. I know. I know. I had a question about what is visible from what is visible from the road? Is it just the front? The front and the side. And then in that second picture, you can see the rear building as well as visible from the road. Both sides are and not the rear of the building, though. So for the front side, the rear structure would be replaced? Yes. I guess we would have a lot to allow them to keep it on the side, on the sides, the rear structure, the rear main structure? If it's not visible, then it would be allowed. We'd have to probably go out there and see it just to be sure. Do y'all do that? Does the applicant understand what we're considering here? Our authority ends when you can't see the change from the street, right? So I think what the comments suggest is perhaps a middle ground here is changing the front facade and the right facade of the primary structure and of the secondary structure of the front facade. What you can see from the road in these pictures? From the road, I believe you can see the garage, both sides of the house, and the front. The only thing you probably can't see is just behind the house. Right, right. So I think if we recommend a change, or if we accept the staff's recommendation, the changes, obviously, it's up to your discretion. But the only mandated changes would be to the front and right side of the primary structure and the front side of the rear structure. So you wouldn't have to change everything. I know it'd still be expensive, but that's, like I said, your discretion. Just to be sure there, you can see the left and right sides. Okay, and you? Yes, okay. Mainly the basic whole house. Just not the back, I would say. Yeah. And like, I talk to neighbors. I mean, I understand that they probably don't matter. And I talk to the president, Ronald V. Davis. That probably doesn't matter, but nobody had to have a problem with it, but I understand that it's not historical. I mean, I could always keep the house on whenever I just take it down. I could go back with the original. I had to sell it or anything. Just very expensive, especially 90 days and taking it off. That's like, it was already a lot of money in the fist of the house. The house was totally damaged, termites and just everything was just a lot of money. It wasn't cheap at all. Now just wish I would, if it was like vinyl, like I was just trying to make the neighborhood look good. I woulda went with it. But I wouldn't know. It would have been easier if it was just vinyl, some cheap material. But I should put like, even like that style, that style cost more than just the regular style. So I wasn't trying to like be cheap or none of that. I was really trying to make the neighborhood look nice. I didn't know I was doing something wrong while doing that. Cause it would have been cheaper for me to just to go to design that y'all want me to go with in the first place. We'd be flexible at the time. Yeah. One of the things that's most difficult about, first of all, just know that we feel for you in terms of your intent to do a really great job with your house. Unfortunately, there were some missteps in terms of your interpretation. And the unfortunate thing is there's no other houses in your district that have this look. And if this were allowed that's outside of what the guidelines allow, that would then open it up for many other houses to do whatever they wanted to do. Not just this style, but other styles. So you can see that this is bigger than your specific situation in terms of how the whole neighborhood could just become a hodgepodge of, which is why guidelines are in place. So I just want you to understand it's not that we don't feel for you and understand that you have attempted to do a very good job. Clearly some miscommunication. Yes. I just wish the guidelines was like more detailed. That's all. I don't go around blaming people for anything that I go through. So I'm trying to take the blame myself, but I just wish it was like just more detail, like just detail. That's all because when I go, when I know I'm doing something to a house, you know what I'm saying? A lot of times when people we sign stuff, we don't read like, all the, when we run a car, we don't read every single, we go to the main points. Sure. So when I went to the main point of just what I'm doing, siding in the exterior with the windows, it wasn't really specific on the siding about the horizontal or the vertical. It wasn't like specific. Only thing it said right here is cement fiber. That's all it said. But again, what it goes back to is if you get that detailed about how, if it needs to be vertical, then you'd have to listen. And then it has to be a certain color. Then it has to be, I mean, there's too many pieces other than saying it needs to match whatever else is in your and you know that everywhere around that you look around your house, it's all vertical. And so I think that's the overriding. Now, I think that we can do a better job in the future too, of making sure that we have, I think that the staff does a great job, but we'll certainly take it to heart to be sure that it's very clear, even when we go out for our inspections, that we ask questions like, what are you intending to just to be sure we understand it? I think communication is always a positive. Unfortunately, all of those perfect things didn't happen and, but the guidelines are in place. I know when I first started doing that, some people was talking about grants. Y'all don't have like any type of grants or something that would like, help me out with the situation because at the end of the day, like, it's not really the part of, or how to do all this work, it's the money part. And that's like the hardest part. Like stuff is like, Oh, I know. Oh, right now it's for me to, basically if I tear down and how the house is looking crazy like that, like how it was the first time, it's like- Well, perhaps the contractor can reuse some of the material. I would certainly, if you're going to be looking at, you know- Until you can make that material with the side, the side, the side, that one is a different- I know you can't reuse it on your house, but I bet if you talk to your contractor, there may be an ability to reuse the material that he can use it somewhere else. Potentially, I'm just saying these are options that perhaps the contractor could assist you with. Yeah, it came because it got nails and stuff like that in there. So, and one thing about Seaman 5, if anybody know about Seaman 5, it could break easily. So like just basically just trash, you know. But back to the grants, I'm assuming this wasn't applied for as a Bailey bill. No, that's what we were just talking about. We were trying to think of some things that might help, but Bailey bill isn't money in your pocket upfront. Right, right. So that could help in the long run, you know, possibly after fixing this, but it's not gonna get Mr. Drear money in his pocket. So, but we're happy to look. I don't know of anything offhand, but more than happy to look to see if there's anything out there. Any other comments? Comments, okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is anybody else here to speak? All right. That I'll open up for a motion to clarify before we do that. What is the leeway on the 90 days? Is there, how does that get handled? It's really up to your discretion. Anybody want to do a motion here? Do I know this right here? I'll make a motion to deny the appeal of staff decision regarding exterior changes to the single family home located at 1312 Pine Street as the changes were not in conformance with section five of the Waverly Protection Area guidelines and that recommend or and also accept staff recommendation that the vertical siding be replaced with vinyl or cement fiberboard siding in a horizontal orientation with the work to be completed within a reasonable amount of time left to staff's discretion in working with the applicant. Do you have a second? I'll second that. Mr. Brim? Yes. Ms. Sims Brannum? Yes. Mr. Greenberg? Yes. Ms. Jaco? Yes. Mr. Lee Decker? Yes. And Mr. Salibi? Yes. Motion passes. I'll move on to other business. We do have a presentation for y'all. Let's see if it's loaded. Might take a moment for staff to do this. There we go. So recently in December 2023, we had an economic impact of historic preservation study done to evaluate the impact Columbia's historic resources have on the city in some different areas. So we were looking at property values, we were looking at demographics, we were looking at heritage tourism, a couple of different categories. And working with Historic Columbia, we were able to engage Place Economics, which is an internationally known firm, private firm who does this sort of analysis. So Donovan Ripkama is the principal and founder of that firm. And he and his team came to Columbia, met with us, met with stakeholder groups, collected information from Richland County and from some other, I can't think about, longwood study for statistics gathered on heritage tourism to analyze data and to give us this report. So I'm gonna fly through it pretty quickly. But there's a lot there. Y'all also have a quick summary in front of you, but we do have this on the website and it's a 62 page study. So there's a lot more information out there than what you're seeing before you today. So again, here's what we looked at. Demographics, older housing and affordability, property values, impact of the Bailey bill. You should be. I just was checking. Oh yeah, well that looks a lot more exciting than our screen. Yeah. Yeah. Our screen is like this. Oh, just happened. They might be trying to fix that. Yours is updating. We got a picture. Now we got a gentleman. Oh, here we go. Oh, you've got something, but I have. Okay, there we go. We got it. We'll share. All right, yes. We're live. Oh, they're still working. Okay, let's see. Am I gonna? Are we missing many slides before we all realize we weren't? Yeah, there we go. I'm not sure. I think I'm doing this. Okay, we're back on track. So they looked at all of our historic districts in order to gather this information. So you can see all of those listed there. They excluded Fort Jackson since that skews data since it's such a large area. And this is just showing that our historic districts take up maybe 3.5 or 3.6% of the city's land area. So quite a small percentage of the city overall. Population changed by decade. You can see things have been down or moving slowly up within our historic districts. Population density is a very interesting slide. So basically you get more people per square mile in our historic districts than you get within the city, the rest of the city. So it's actually a pretty substantial difference. So it speaks to the density that we already enjoy in our historic districts. And that is a goal of the city overall to increase density. We're already seeing it in our historic districts. Demographics, we already covered this. So this is quite a, well, 6% is what it's saying there. 6% of the city's population exists in our districts. Household income is shown there. It's pretty interesting. So we have a large percentage of folks in architectural conservation districts below $25,000, which is a little unexpected until you think about students who are living in those districts and also some retired folks who are on fixed incomes. Racial distribution, we have some disparity here. So we have a lot more of the white population living in our architectural conservation districts than we do in protection areas. We have some differences there. Kind of interesting. We've lost some of our population in all Chandon Lower Waverly. Buildings that have come down, people who've moved out. We've had some gentrification. We also have, since the city's policy is to allow neighborhoods to come to us and talk about historic designation, we don't automatically designate. We do it with the neighborhood's initiation and consent. So staff is looking at ways to reach out to more communities of color so that they can take advantage of some of the positive ends of historic designation. Owners and renters are about even in all of our districts and with the rest of Columbia. Change in minority population has been a little interesting here too. Again, we think that we've seen some loss of folks in our protection areas by influx of students, I think personally influx of students in some of our areas and also some buildings coming down and families moving out. Older housing and affordability is really interesting. So Mr. Ripcama and his team divided the city's land mass into sort of pre-1970 block groups since its groups and post-1970 block groups. And so you can see how the pre-1970 group takes up a lot of the core of the city there. And that is, it's a pretty dense group of early homes but you do have some to the north as well. Post-1970 is much further out. You can see where the new construction has happened. Amy. Yes. What does that term block group mean? Charlie, I believe that refers to the way they look at census parcels. Census truck. It's usually like a bunch of little census together. Yeah. So pre-1970 block groups make up about 45% of the city and that actually includes buildings that are not in historic districts. So that's interesting because there is a great deal of affordable housing that already exists out there outside of our historic districts. And pre-1970, that is available for folks who are on more moderate incomes. So it's not protected but it is out there to be utilized. Household income distribution is here. So you see the benefits of using some of those affordable housing in the pre-1970 groups. Racial distribution again. Owner and rental households, pretty standard. Change in median housing costs versus income. You can see that rent has gone up at a faster pace than income has gone up. It's just a troubling thing and another reason that we really need to pay attention to where our affordable housing is in the city. I see a vertical. And then property values. This is another very telling slide. So rest of Columbia, of course, property values have gone up. We've seen that happening across the board in the nation. Protection areas have gone up slightly. Architectural conservation districts have outpaced outside of the city by a good measure. And again, we see that we're not losing value in these districts that have regulation. They are picking up value in some places. They are actually outstripping regular property values. Amy, do you think that's because people are actually putting money into them and fixing them up and then just reselling at a higher value? I think that's part of it. I also think people are attracted to those historic districts because of the amenities that they offer. Sidewalks, old growth trees that are still there and that there's confidence in how changes are gonna happen. And so people know that house is not just gonna disappear overnight to be replaced with something much more, perhaps out of scale or not sympathetic to the character of the neighborhood. So people wanna live in those areas and I think that's a big contributor. There are some changes in property value shown in a different way here. So you can see that both architectural conservation districts and protection areas outstrip the rest of Columbia property values in terms of their increase in value. And then heritage tourism, we thought would be a great thing to take a look at just to see how our historic downtown and historic house museums and other historic resources might impact the city. So here you see, it's very interesting because it turns out heritage tourism, tourists actually stay longer and spend more than regular visitors to the city. So 25% of our overnight visitors are equal to about two, almost two and a half million folks. Is that right? 25% of our total visitors, I think. And then 39% of our overnight visitors equal about 2,217,000. Here again, heritage travelers. Just shows you how many more there are than non-heritage travelers that they actually spend a good bit more than our non-heritage travelers. I think just the attraction of coming in seeing places, going certainly to different areas, spending time, spending money in those areas as part of the reason that people stay longer, they're not here for just one thing, perhaps. Job creation has been a really interesting bit of this too. So heritage tourism creates over almost 6,000 jobs, direct jobs, which are actually like the people who wait on you, let's say, versus indirect jobs, which might be the people who deliver goods to the restaurant. But they do generate a total of over 7,000 jobs a year. And then labor income is over 180,000 generated. And for a total labor income, including direct and indirect labor of over 265,000. Pardon? Oh, sorry, thank you, yes, 265,490,000, yeah. That's a small difference, thank you, Charlie. And then direct state and local taxes that have been generated are over $37 million. So big impact. And another reason in my mind that we should continue looking at where more of our historic resources are, because those will continue to generate interest and income for the city. So the impact of the Bailey Bill is another big piece that we were looking at. We looked at Bailey Bill projects by size. So you can see that under 35%, which is the largest percentage, are actually projects that were under $50,000. And then we have a very small percentage over a million dollars, which are probably our larger commercial projects. And then the others that fall in between those categories. 21 and a half percent, which is the next largest percentage is gonna be somewhere between the 100,000 to $250,000 range. I presume that's the costs of rehabilitation, not the value of the property. Right, those are the costs of rehabilitation. And then location of these, you can see that over 50% are in architectural conservation districts, not quite 20% in protection areas. And then the 28.9% not in local historic districts are in our national registered districts. So remember those properties also are eligible for the Bailey Bill, whether they fall within a local district or outside of it. So number of Bailey Bill projects by type is shown here. So you can see that almost 50% are residential and the others are commercial or multi-family use. And investment in Bailey Bill projects by type, 74% of investment actually comes from those bigger commercial properties, which is not a surprise. And this was a really interesting slide. So income investment that's required for the Bailey Bill into eligible projects is 20% of the value of the house itself. So people are required to spend that much money. But the statistics show that actually they spend a great deal more. So for the minimum investment required for every dollar spent, people are actually spending $15 over that required investment. And that's huge. So it generates more jobs, it generates more taxes down the road. So there's a lot going on with that extra money coming in and that leverages money also, I guess the savings of the Bailey Bill that people can put back into their property. So maybe they invest that money back in at the beginning knowing they're saving money on the back end. So Bailey Bill activity itself has created an average of 57.7 direct local jobs and 44.9 local indirect induced jobs each year for the past 15 years, which is the period in which they studied it. And then the direct workers have received income averaging 3.1 million and 2.1 to indirect and induced. So that money is coming back into the local economy, those folks who have been working. And often you find that the literature shows with people who do work on historic buildings, they tend to be local folks. They're not big companies coming in from out of town. So that money is generated in the economy and it tends to stay here as well because people live here and they'll spend it. So change in that present value of city and county taxes over 30 years. So they looked at, of course, is this really benefiting the city and the county? Because we've got deferred taxation for 20 years. So in the end, is this really benefiting our municipality and the county? And they found that if at least, I think it was 28% was a break even point of projects that happened because of the Bailey bill. At that point, it becomes a benefit to the city and to the county. So we're not losing money where we're actually seeing a benefit of the Bailey bill over that period. And they looked at it over 30 years. So instead of just the 20 years because they were looking at the extended 10 years later impact of taxation, I think that was correct. This is one of the more difficult slides to wrap your head around and explain. But anyway, 28% was a break even point. And given the number of developers and property owners we've spoken to who've decided to do projects because of the Bailey bill, because those taxes made the difference, especially in these large commercial properties. This is a tool that they use. We're very confident that it's a large percentage of the number of projects that have happened because of the Bailey bill. How long should know this? When did the city of Columbia pass, well, Anne Richland County passed their Bailey bill ordinances? When did we attain the Bailey bill? Right, right, like, well, state legislature authorized counties and the cities to do this. And then we did it at some point. Do you know when that was? I wanna say it was 1992. And then the city, the language for the Bailey bill, I think was amended to make it more usable around 2006, 2007. Before then it was a very convoluted and difficult method of determining value and how the taxes would be assessed. The county had one set of taxes as well. They had a different length of time for abatement and they required a different amount of investment than the city. This was maybe 10 years ago, so it was another evolution. When those things all came together and the county adopted the 20% investment threshold and the 20 year abatement, things got a lot easier and we started to see a lot more people using the Bailey bill. So that was the business community that came forward to the county and asked them to consider changing that so it was more usable. And do we know if the net present value calculation considers depreciation of the building over time? Meaning I renovate a building and it's fair market value today would otherwise be $30 million. The net present value calculation when the Bailey bill ends of that increased tax revenue, is that assuming the building maintains fair market value of 30 million or does it depreciate over time? Do we know that? I don't know that, but I bet I can find out. Okay. Yeah, yeah. So that's it in a nutshell, but that information may be in the study, Andrew. So we can take a look. I think that's a bigger report. Yes. Yeah. I can read that. I perused it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Some light bedtime reading. Yeah. I have a question about the area for the Bailey bill. Yes. The Bailey bill only affects on this map. I'm sorry. Well, not every, right. Unless the individual property is also a national register property or in a national register district. So those boundaries, it gets complicated. Local historic districts are one thing. National registered districts are another thing, another district, that they can sit on top of each other. Boundaries may not match exactly. So, and then you have all of the individually designated national register properties and local landmarks. So not everything is going to go on that map, but you're right in a general sense that unless it's a designated property, it's not going to be eligible for the Bailey bill. The reason I asked that question is not only for my neighborhood, the property on Saluda, Saluda Hills, like you're going to Wheeler Hills, whatever that area, like a $2 million house being renovated. And I'm wondering if they qualify for the Bailey bill. I believe all those are new construction up in Wheeler Hills. So I think that area, what was historic about that area disappeared a long time ago. Yeah. But thank you for your attention. And if you have any questions. Has this all been presented to the city of Columbia? Pardon? City of Columbia officials, did you all do the presentation to everybody? We did to a couple of subcommittees. So we presented to, I can't remember the new name, the Preservation Committee and Economic Development and Infrastructure Committee. Yep. And then of course to, the information's being presented also by Historic Columbia personnel as well as us. So we're reaching out to different groups, neighborhood groups, Chamber of Commerce, some Rotary Clubs, different groups, people we think would be interested and benefit. Yeah, yeah. Really neat. Thank you. Yeah, thank you. I'd like to make a motion. That's the adjournment meeting. Thank you. So I'll ask for a motion to adjourn. I can think we already got one. Second. All right, thank you. All right, everybody have a good day. Thank you. I did put. So, yes. So I have a rough draft of our calendar. Amy pointed out to me I did not spell check. So there are some typos on here. If you would like one. It's, we have a lot of events planned for May. We're gonna have a few different presentations and kind of activities surrounding our, the economic impact study. So if you'll receive our emails, you'll be getting some information about that. We're gonna be at Art in the Yard at historic Melrose this next weekend, as well as we're having a cemetery workshop to teach people how to properly maintain gravestones. And then we're also going to be doing a children's craft with the library. So if you have any kids in your life, please join us. We'll be in the children's room at Richland, Maine. And we are doing another bike tour, which always proves to be very popular. So this year we're looking at Green Book sites around Columbia and African-American history. So this is, if you want to take a calendar, just know it's got typos and it's a rough draft. But it will be finalized by May 1st, which is two days from now. So I hope to see y'all there, or if you can promote these events in any way, please do. You can take a copy, just don't share it. Historically accurate. The QR code on the bottom works and it'll take you to our website. Yeah, you can give me your notes. Well, you could wait. You can keep it for yourself though, if you'd like to. Yeah, find my typos.