The questionable financial justification for extended heights in Gettysburg

During the 2026 budget presentation, Gettysburg Borough Manager Charles Gable shared a chart showing annual surpluses or deficits from 2016 through 2024.  The Borough recorded surpluses in eight of those nine years, resulting in a combined positive balance of $2.8 million.  In simple terms, revenues exceeded expenses in nearly every year during that period.

A review of the Borough’s audited financial statements shows that the current assets on December 31, 2015 totaled $3.1million.  Adding the $2.8 million in cumulative surpluses from 2016-2024 suggests a balance of approximately $6 million.  The audited finance statements for December 31, 2024, list current assets at $7.9 million.  For clarity, “current assets” do not include property or equipment – those fall under fixed assets such as land, buildings, and vehicles.  With this information in mind, many residents are questioning why tax increases or height incentives are necessary.  

Gettysburg Borough officials have stated that the community needs height incentives in future developments to increase tax revenue, given that close to 50% of the property in the Borough is tax-exempt.  According to recent county records, 43% of assessed property value in the borough is tax-exempt, of which 5.7% is Borough owned.

Many residents have asked for a clear explanation of both the benefits and potential cost of allowing taller buildings. Borough management has touted how much tax revenue would be generated but has been silent on what the cost of extended height would be, ansd therefore not providing an evidence-based framework to ensure the decision would result in a net benefit to the community.

The Planning Commission recommended keeping the height limitation at 48 feet  after listening to many residents’ concerns about the potential costs of extended height.  However, height incentives were added back into the rezoning draft that the Borough Council will vote on MondaY.  The ordinance is expected to pass unless more residents contact their council representatives to share their view.

Community members have also shared alternative ideas to strengthen the tax base.  One suggestion is to adjust zoning rules so existing buildings can be converted into condominiums without increasing their footprint.  For example, a three-story building currently assessed at $300,000 could be divided into three individually owned units, with each floor valued separately based on its use and market demand.  A storefront might be valued at $400,000, a second-floor residence at $300,000, and a third-floor studio at $100,000- raising the total taxable value to $800,000.  This approach would encourage affordable homeownership for singles, young couples, and downsizing seniors, while also building a more stable and less transient community.

Residents have also suggested the Borough explore opportunities for economic growth through job-creating uses and evaluate whether some tax-exempt borough-owned properties could be used more efficiently or considered for sale to return them to the tax rolls.  For instance, the Welcome Center recently added costs to the Borough budget, further expanding long-term expenses and the number of properties not generating tax revenue.  What will be the long-term cost of this recent borough-owned property?

Our newly elected Mayor campaigned on transparency and this is a perfect opportunity to honor that commitment.  Let’s end this year and begin the next with open communication about the long-term costs of extended height.  Before passing such an important document, we deserve clear, substantiated information, especially when it differs from the Planning Commission’s recommendation.  

Contributed by Save Historic Gettysburg