By Kevin Collison
A development industry coalition backed by the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce is fighting a ballot initiative they say would cripple the city’s primary incentive program, property tax abatements.
The “Committee for Kansas City Jobs” wants to raise $500,000 to defeat a petition initiative on the city ballot next month supported by a group calling itself the “Coalition for Kansas City Economic Development Reform.”
The Coalition gathered 2,300 signatures to place what’s tagged “Question One” on the ballot June 18. It would cap the amount of property tax abatements available to assist developers at 50 percent of what’s allowed by state law.
At a meeting of the Downtown Council last week, former Mayor Kay Barnes, a key player in the current revival of downtown that began in earnest in 2001, said opposing the initiative was a “critical issue.”
“It’s clear to me that 95 percent of the population doesn’t understand how TIF works,” said Barnes, who served as chair of the Kansas City Tax Increment Finance Commission before being elected mayor.
“This is an extremely dangerous question on the ballot. I shudder about what it will mean if it passes.”
The Development Reform Coalition describes itself as “an alliance of community organizations working to improve economic development by targeting incentives toward truly distressed communities and by promoting civic stewardship of voter-approved public resources” on its website.
In its statement opposing the initiative, the Chamber said capping the amount of property tax abatement at 50 percent would undermine the city’s ability to use the incentive to attract investment to poorer neighborhoods.
“The proposed cap is arbitrary, too restrictive and would have a devastating impact on the ability to use economic development incentives in Kansas City’s most blighted and under-resourced neighborhoods,” according to the Chamber.
Richard Martin, an attorney at J.E. Dunn Construction, is the chairman of the Committee for KC Jobs. He said its membership includes development attorneys, unions and contractors.
Besides the Greater Kansas City Chamber, Martin said other organizations supporting the Committee includes the Northland Chamber and Platte County EDC. He said the goal is to raise $500,000 for an opposition campaign.
“I think we can do it, but it’s an uphill battle,” Martin said.
“If you are the average citizen, you naturally don’t think that incentives are a good idea. They think they’re being taken from somebody else.”
Tax abatements are not a cash subsidy allocated by the city or its development agencies. The abatement funds come from the increased tax value of a property after it has been redeveloped.
A percentage of the new or incremental property tax growth is kept by the developer to help make the project work financially. The abatement can last up to 25 years and often is gradually reduced during that period.
The taxes originally paid on the undeveloped property continue going to taxing jurisdictions including the county, schools and libraries.
The key evaluation required before incentives are granted is called the “but-for” analysis. A third party consultant determines whether a development would be financially viable to move forward “but-for” the incentive.
Under state law, up to 100 percent of the additional or incremental value could be reimbursed to developers for the first 10 years and 50 percent for the next 15.
However, in an earlier incentive reform, the Kansas City Council approved a measure sponsored by Councilman Quinton Lucas in October 2016 that capped the amounts at 75 percent and 37.5 percent.
Martin told the Downtown Council the development industry had expected the backers of Question One to wait to see how the Lucas reform plan worked before introducing their petition.
He noted that even the 75 percent cap puts Kansas City at a disadvantage to competing cities in the metro. The Chamber statement said no local communities have a 50 percent cap, adding it could establish an anti-development atmosphere in Kansas City.
“The messaging that is put forth though this policy could create an an anti-growth image that might deter future developers and employers from locating to not just the city, but the entire region,” the Chamber stated.
The Chamber also noted a 50 percent cap would undermine the ability to pursue the public policy goal of providing more affordable housing.
“Limiting the available tools for economic development will have a drastic impact on new construction of affordable and mixed-income housing across the city and primarily in the urban core,” according to the Chamber.
Martin also told the Downtown Council none of the candidates running for mayor or City Council in the June 18 election support Question One.
“Among the candidates out there on the frontline talking to voters, not a one of them support the cap,” he said. “Voters are not bringing it up.”
Don’t miss any downtown news, sign up for our weekly CityScene KC email review here.
really wish KC Council would update their policies to make ballot initiatives really reflective of change needed or desired by the community and not just the interest of a few select individuals. Catering to this small, but vocal minority is hurting our city’s development and our ability to work to bring in outside investment & opportunities. True, we do not want to make it seem that “hand outs” are the only way to get business done, and we don’t want o cripple tax bases but the development this spurs is more than in most cases what taxes are being generated currently. Time for big picture thinking and to see the forest through the trees. Time to make requirements 10,000 valid signatures to represent at least 2% of the population of KC proper. Tired of these groups taking advantage of a loophole/broken system to force issues without providing proper facts or context to the voters
Mayor Kay Barnes is out of touch with reality. She should check out Ordinance 170358. Once #KCTIFwatch ordinance passes, there is still potential for 100% abatement in truly distressed areas with city council vote (which they would do should the community TRULY support the development proposal). It happened with 170358 and can happen again, any time. They skyscrapers are not falling on poor chicken little.
We had this problem in LA a few years ago with Proposition S that proposed virtually banning ALL development here which would have, obviously, been disastrous to the booming economy. But a small, vocal, and insanely mis-informed group backed it with the help of the disgruntled CEO of an AIDS foundation. (Don’t ask, no one really knows why.) Thankfully it was crushed at the ballot box. I think this coalition of concerned citizens in KC must be, in part, some of the folks who got the architecture firm to pull out of its really interesting and public-minded Crossroads plan a couple of years ago – leaving a gaping hole in the city. My advice? Crush this initiative, as we did with Prop S.
How much money does one need to make on a program to invest 500k in making sure it continues?
It’s quite a thing to tell KC residents that they don’t understand how incentives work and how they are vital to development but definitely NOT a cash grab – while also thinking 500k is a reasonable amount of money to spend to defeat the ordinance. Developers absolutely are not spending that money out of the goodness of their hearts.
Whats 500k when you can make millions off development downtown and in the crossroads. There is no ‘affordable housing’ development on the East side to stop. Just more 500 sq ft ‘luxury, art focused’ apartments that rent for $1000+. KC voters are smart enough to see through that.
City Hall’s largest campaign donors get the largest TIFs. They also run the Chamber. Cerner, JE Dunn, Burns and Mac, Big Law Firms, etc. etc. One hand washes the other at City Call.
Lots of good information about our city. Learned something new today.
Comments are closed.