The package of subsidies offered to the Kansas City Chiefs by the Missouri Legislature during last year’s special session was bad.

But that bill was not nearly as bad for taxpayers as what is being offered to the team by our neighbors in Kansas. House Bill 2793—the Kansas Sports Authority Act—offers the team, well, it seems, everything.

The bill sets up a Sports Authority to administer the site of a new stadium. That in and of itself is not unique. The Truman Sports Complex, in which the Chiefs and Royals currently play, is administered by the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority. But the power and portfolio of what is being considered in Kansas is breathtaking. Consider the following:

• The authority board includes “a representative of the professional sports team” using the facility as a voting member. This means the Chiefs would have a vote on such things as negotiating its lease, financing, and operations. Having the team oversee itself is a crazy conflict of interest and uncommon in other similar authorities if not absolutely unique, for obvious reasons.
• But the Chiefs aren’t merely one of several votes on the authority. The bill allows additional sports facilities to be placed under the authority if the governing body requests it and the Chiefs also recommend it—giving them an unusual role in expanding the authority’s jurisdiction. This provision may exist because team ownership wants to make sure nobody else can siphon away public funds.

• The authority’s powers “shall not be exercised in a way that conflicts with the terms and conditions set forth in the STAR bond agreement dated December 22, 2025.” This means the authority is locked into the already-negotiated agreement with the team, limiting its ability to adjust terms later.

The three items hand the Chiefs an incredible amount of power. The bill gives the Chiefs a voting seat on the governing authority, binds that authority to the STAR bond agreement the Chiefs negotiated, and gives the team an effective veto over whether additional sports facilities are added to the authority.

But wait, there’s more!

• Contractors must use competition only “to the extent reasonable and practicable in the authority’s sole discretion.” This is a significant weakening of competitive bidding requirements, increasing the risk of opaque contracting and favoritism.

• The authority is exempt from multiple statutes including the Kansas Civil Service Act and the Kansas Administrative Procedure Act, removing the standard hiring, rulemaking and administrative oversight safeguards that normally apply to public entities spending public funds.

• The authority must submit annual reports and testify if legislative committees request it. But this so-called oversight is largely after-the-fact reporting, with no routine legislative approval required for major contracts, bonds or development agreements.

• You read that correctly: the authority may issue special-obligation bonds for stadium construction and infrastructure. Although not legally state debt, political pressure often arises if revenues underperform, creating potential taxpayer exposure. If you doubt this, read up on the fiasco over Platte County and the Zona Rosa shopping center.
• In addition to capturing the increase in sales taxes in the approximately 300-square mile STAR bond district, the authority will be exempt from paying state and local sales and use taxes on purchases of materials, machinery, and services used to construct or equip the facility.

• “Insofar as the provisions of this act are inconsistent with the provisions of any other law, whether general, specific or local, the provisions of this act shall be controlling.” Yeah, that’s in the bill. The authority’s statute is designed to override conflicting state or local laws, potentially weakening local regulatory control.

• And what happens when the stadium is completed and paid for? Nothing. The statute does not include a sunset provision or dissolution trigger. That means the authority could become a permanent quasi-government entity in perpetuity.

• But at least the authority’s power is limited to the stadium, right? Nope. The authority’s purpose includes not just sports facilities and infrastructure used for it, but any “civic, community, athletic, educational, cultural and commercial activities.” “Commercial activities” seems like something that could cover, well, anything.

Kansas State Senator Mike Thompson claims that this measure will set up an unaccountable  “shadow government.” That seems like an over-the-top claim, but the provisions of this bill suggest he is at least directionally correct.

The post Kansas Sports Authority Lets Chiefs Play as Home Team, Referee and Rulebook appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Across Missouri, public officials routinely delay, dodge, or deny access to information that taxpayers are entitled to. They charge outrageous fees, cite vague exemptions, lose track of requests, or hide behind non-disclosure agreements, treating transparency as a nuisance rather than a requirement.

Years ago my colleagues wrote about the prohibitively high fees municipalities sought just to turn over the most basic financial data—the city checkbook. That’s just the beginning.

Consider Kansas City’s downtown ballpark negotiations. Mayor Quinton Lucas indicated he was willing to share details, so I took him up on it. I filed an open records request through the city website. Having received no response for almost two weeks (state law requires action be taken within three days), I followed up only to be told that the request had been wrongly assigned and had been sitting idle. A city employee resolved the issue, adding, “Let’s keep our fingers crossed” that it works this time. Two weeks later I was emailed: “All responsive records pertaining to this request are closed records pursuant to Sec 610.021(12) because such records are related to negotiations for a contract prior to its execution.”

The Kansas City Star reports that the city is again in negotiations with the Royals to subsidize a downtown park. Elected leaders are apparently eager to make sure the deal is not only kept secret, but also that it avoids any public vote.

In August 2025, I asked the Kansas City Streetcar Authority for records about the construction costs of its new Main Street extension—reported to be the most expensive streetcar line in the country at over $100 million per mile. My request was redirected to city staff who told me the matter was under review. I followed up in late October and was told the city would contact me by the end of that week. It’s been almost three months with no update.

In one recent case, a state employee told me the data I needed would take just 20 minutes to find—but only after a formal Sunshine Request was submitted and processed. This person did not know how long that would take. I got the information five days later, and I was grateful. But it underscored a troubling reality: a process meant to promote transparency is now often used to delay it.

Then there are the NDAs. The director of Missouri’s Department of Economic Development signed one with both the Royals and Chiefs—and indicated in a legislative hearing that she may not be able to answer questions. PortKC even requires companies sign an NDA in its application. While sealed bids may serve public interest in competitive contracting, secrecy around subsidies undermines the very idea of public oversight.

Missouri’s Sunshine Law could be a valuable tool, but it needs to be refreshed and its exceptions narrowed. Doing so would not merely combat waste, fraud, and abuse, but would also encourage better public policy.

The post Missouri’s Sunshine Law Needs More than Good Intentions appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Mr. Collins did not appreciate my conclusion. He called it “misleading and inflammatory,” and wrote that I was dealing in “political spin.”

I welcome the opportunity to respond. Collins wrote:

The claim that PortKC’s NDA signals secrecy is misleading and inflammatory. The NDA applies only during early negotiations, and thus, to protect complex deals before terms are finalized. That is standard in any serious public-private partnership. It doesn’t block legal disclosures, doesn’t hide information from taxing jurisdictions, and doesn’t erase public accountability. It protects taxpayers from leaks that can tank deals or drive-up costs.

PortKC literally—and I am not being figurative—requires in writing that applicants sign an NDA. I do not know what the justification is for requiring secrecy, but I do know that it is not “standard in any serious public-private partnership.” The Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City (EDCKC), which also provides a raft of public subsidies, requires no such NDA. As I wrote, I can understand why a developer would want such secrecy, but it is another thing completely to have the public body handing out taxpayer subsidies to be the one demanding discretion.

If you doubt that PortKC maintains a level of secrecy throughout its deals, search online for the terms Project Mica and Project Kestrel.

Collins continues:

PortKC’s process requires more upfront disclosure from developer’s ownership, litigation history, financials, job creation, wage data, and community impact than many.

If this is the justification, it doesn’t appear to be working. It was only three years ago that PortKC failed to discover that a developer to which it was prepared to issue subsidies, Lux Living, had a few Securities and Exchange Commission violations in its past. So much for “more upfront disclosure.”

Separately, in its most recent financial audit, PortKC was faulted for failing to demonstrate that it searched federal databases to determine if any vendors were “suspended and debarred entities” prior to payment. Again, PortKC is not demonstrating that it carefully vets applicants.

Collins continues:

Critics, like this guy [that’s me!], also ignore that PortKC posts its full fee schedule, limits its own ability to rack up costs without approval, and requires developers to follow workforce, equity, and wage policies from day one.

Yes, PortKC posts an impressive fee schedule. I can’t say that it’s complete, but it does make quite a buck from issuing taxpayer subsidies. That’s part of the problem.

Most organizations that grow as quickly as PortKC face similar growing pains, and PortKC has taken action.

Has it, though? The financial audits of 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 all point out that PortKC failed to provide “effective internal control” of finances. One such finding may be the result of growing pains, but four consecutive findings suggest an inability or an unwillingness to right the ship.

Mr. Collins concludes:

The idea that PortKC is “insisting on secrecy” is political spin. This is about protecting sensitive financial negotiations; not hiding public subsidy. If you’re serious about transparency, deal with the facts; not headlines.

Again, it’s very clear from the PortKC application that it insists on secrecy.

I understand that Mr. Collins and others in the “public-private real estate development” industry are either happy with things just as they are or are hesitant to be critical of a scheme from which they stand to gain. But the argument that taxpayers are also benefitted by “protecting sensitive financial negotiations” from taxpayer scrutiny is just silly.

Organizations like PortKC and the groups they fund want public funds dispersed in the dark. If PortKC were serious about serving the public, its leadership would remove its NDA requirement and heed the counsel of its financial auditors. Until then, it should be viewed skeptically.

The post Responding to PortKC’s Defenders appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Last week we found out that it is neglecting to carry out one of the boards’ nine “major duties,” which is accrediting local school districts. The 98 percent of school districts that were fully accredited a decade ago can count on that being unchanged for at least another couple of years.

In addition, as of this writing, DESE is no longer complying with the federal requirement that state education agencies publish state, district, and school report cards detailing student performance. DESE had a school report card web page until recently, when it disappeared with no indication of whether the report cards are being updated or ever coming back.

Both of these issues bring into question whether Missouri should be receiving over $1.6 billion in education funding from the federal government since it does not “meaningfully differentiate between schools and districts” or publish the required report cards. The board and DESE are shirking their responsibilities and yet they want $10 billion from taxpayers for the FY 2026 budget. Missourians should be highly disappointed, to say the least, in their state education leaders.

The post Where Did the Report Cards Go? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

To achieve this transparency objective seems simple. A new statement could be added to RSMo §105.145(2) that says, “the auditor may require the submission of supporting documents for such financial transactions, including but not limited to check registers or their electronic equivalent, and digital bookkeeping files.”   Such an addition wouldgive the state auditor the authority to require supporting documents for financial documents reported to the state by local governments. The auditor could then post the documents online, giving the public a complete and detailed picture of how their money is being spent.

With such a change to state law, the State Auditor would be better equipped to ensure that public funds are being used in a transparent and accountable manner. For its part the public would be able to see how money is spent rather than being forced to use the Sunshine Law to get such records—a process that, as staff at the Show-Me Institute has discovered over many years, is often made more difficult by officials apparently trying to prevent the dissemination of these records.

No more asking “pretty please” for transparency from local bureaucrats. The Auditor’s Office would be able to deliver this transparency if it had such explicit powers.

The post The Authority of the Missouri Auditor Should Be Expanded to Enhance Local Transparency appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There are two key ways of doing this reporting. The first way is by embracing something along the lines of House Bill 2242 from 2019, which included mandatory municipal transparency language. The second way is by tweaking Missouri Revised Statutes §§37.1090 to 37.1098 by replacing the voluntary “may” language with mandatory “shall” statements.

Making local government transparency mandatory in Missouri would be an enormous leap forward in government accountability in the Show-Me State. Transparency can empower people, build trust in government, and ensure public resources are used in the best way possible.

The post Transparency in Municipal Government Should Be Mandatory appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Several days later I received a reply by, of all things, email! Thankfully, the Governor’s office sent just what I wanted: the statistics and sources behind its claims. I must note that the original graphic was updated after I sent the Sunshine request (e.g., the word “low” was removed from “Low Cost of Doing Business”). Also, while each of the office’s claims does correspond to a study, index, or ranking in the real world, your mileage may vary regarding their persuasiveness.

Some citations used by the governor are very subjective. Several of the statistics, such as “On-the-Job Training” and “Apprenticeships” were from Missouri Government agencies, which doesn’t strike me as the most unbiased source of information. The document I received also—somewhat—answers my question from the last post and clarifies the statistic as “New Apprenticeships,” but the website’s graphic remains unchanged in that regard.

In some cases, the claim is ambiguous; the second-place ranking for state-level veteran benefits is based on the number of distinct benefits offered but does not consider that one benefit may be much more or less valuable than another. Again, a very subjective ranking.

And even when the statistics could be represented more favorably for the governor, they remain misleading. The “Fourth for Personal Income Tax” is certainly not measuring the lowest or highest personal income tax rates. There are eight states with no income tax (nine if you include New Hampshire), and Missouri isn’t one of them. It turns out that the governor’s office was relying on a report that ranks governors, not states. The “personal income tax” metric is derived not only by the level of income tax, but how much it has changed over each governor’s term—the governor can thank his special session last October for getting him so highly ranked on this metric.

I do appreciate that the governor’s office didn’t drag its feet with my request and provided sources for each of the claims, but I shouldn’t have had to submit a Sunshine request in the first place. It should be standard practice for the government to include sources for the claims in the documents they produce and, more to the point, practice transparency without hiding behind a fax machine. Thankfully, there are organizations like the Show-Me Institute that employ summer interns who can hold our government accountable.

*pats self on back*

If you are interested in checking out the sources yourself, click here to see the .pdf file I received from the governor’s office.

The post Just the Fax, Ma’am: Dubious “Rankings” Press Release Emphasizes Importance of Transparency (part 2) appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That’s why the latest version of Missouri Department of Revenue’s sales and use tax mapping tool is so welcome. A story by the eMissourian is a testament to precisely how I would hope the site would be used by the media and the public:

A purchase in downtown Washington comes with an 8.85 percent sales tax, which includes a 2 percent city sales tax and a 0.375 percent tax for the Washington Area Ambulance District.

Someone making the same purchase in downtown Union would have to pay 9.475 percent in sales tax. While Union has the same 2 percent city sales tax as Washington, consumers also pay a 0.5 ambulance district tax and a 0.5 percent tax for the Union Fire Protection District. St. Clair has the same 9.475 percent sales tax rate, with its fire and ambulance districts both having half cent sales taxes.

While Pacific charges a higher 2.5 percent city sales tax, it has the same overall 9.475 percent sales tax rate because no fire sales tax is shown.

You can find the sales and use taxes in your jurisdiction, and any Missouri jurisdiction, here.

It’s worth noting that while a number of articles this month have referenced the map as “new,” as my colleague Elias Tsapelas might note, it’d be more accurate to characterize it as “improved.” House Bill 1858 in 2018 and Senate Bill 153 in 2021 both helped lead to the new initiative, and perhaps serendipitously those local rate transparency initiatives also coincided with both the Show-Me Checkbook spending transparency projects and parallel spending transparency initiatives by the state treasurer and the state office of administration.

In other words, the transparency initiatives of the late 2010s are starting to bear fruit here in the early 2020s, so while some features on the interactive map may be “new,” the ideas aren’t. Of course, the state can always do more to promote transparency, such as requiring spending transparency from local governments and curricular transparency from schools and districts. But for what this tax map narrowly seeks to do, it does a good job of it.

The post State-Created Tax Map a Solid Tool for Oversight of Local Sales and Use Taxes appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When elected officials intentionally ignore the law, we often react with a mixture of anger and helplessness. Abetted by their government lawyers, whose jobs exist at the pleasure of their only client, elected officials invent arguments to justify going around the plain meaning of ordinary words. It’s enough to make the most moderate of political hearts jump online and order home-delivery of pitchforks in bulk.

We have seen too many examples of this recently in St. Louis. For example, the statutory definition of the earnings tax for the City of St. Louis states that it can be collected “. . . for work done or services performed or rendered in the city.” [emphasis added throughout] Yet city Collector of Revenue Gregory F. X. Daly has interpreted those words during the pandemic to include people working remotely from their homes outside of the city for businesses within the city. Such a determination is preposterous.

You don’t like it? You have the audacity to think people should enforce the laws as written? Tough luck. Sue him. War is Peace.

The legislature has failed in an effort to further tighten the law to clarify that it does not include remote workers. That is unfortunate, as it will embolden Daly and others to engage in more of this, and it should not have been necessary in the first place.

St. Louis County Executive Dr. Sam Page is getting a Ph.D. in this line of governing. He took the position knowing the county charter states that “the county executive’s entire time shall be devoted to the duties of the office.” In the vernacular of 1950, when it was written, that passage clearly meant that the county executive could not have a second job, but Page kept practicing medicine part-time anyway. As admirable a profession as medicine is, the charter did not include an exception for admirable work.

Going from the sublime to the absurd, Dr. Page later attempted to appoint former County Executive Charlie Dooley to the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority. The governing statutes for that board state that nominees “may be appointed by the chief executive of the county with the advice and consent of the county council.” Dooley’s appointment was rejected by the council. (I think he should have been appointed, but that’s another issue.) Page appointed Dooley to the board anyway, with Page’s county counselor justifying it all with legal gymnastics that would have made Simone Biles beam.

You don’t like it? You think the county executive should follow the charter and laws? Tough luck. Sue him (which the council did, in a legislative fashion). Ignorance is Strength.

The county council and county voters have addressed these issues with charter changes, both past and upcoming. But it should not have to come to that.

During his brief time as Governor, Eric Greitens attempted to pay some of his cabinet members more than allowed by state law by quietly funneling the additional salaries through other departments. This was blatantly illegal, but the Greitens administration did it anyway until the legislature caught on and put a stop to it. Until then, it was two plus two equals five.

You think the Governor should follow the law and pay his people within the legal range? Tough luck. Impeach him (which the legislature did, albeit for other, more salacious actions).

President Trump routinely ignored the law to do whatever he wished. Spending money on his ballyhooed border wall without congressional approval and imposing a 25 percent steel tariff without any legal authority are just two examples out of many.

You don’t like it? Tough luck. Impeach him (which they also did, twice). Freedom is slavery.

It’s bad enough when the government lies. It’s worse when elected officials demonstrate how little they think of our democracy and the rule of law by flouting the very laws they are supposed to enforce or enact. The regrettable actions described here are part of a process that is degrading trust in our institutions and our democratic process. As a philosophical libertarian, I appreciate a healthy skepticism of government. Seeing government for what it is instead of taking its benevolent facade at face value is fine by me. But we should all be concerned about the breakdown of the basic regard for the law as it is written. If you don’t like the law, don’t ignore it. Change it by engaging in the hard work of democracy.

But while we are doing that, is it too much to ask that we all agree two plus two equals four?

The post “Stop,” or I’ll Yell “Stop” Again appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We continue to have optimism that, among other things, greater transparency will come to education,  unnecessary occupational licensing burdens will continue to lose favor, and health care reform in Missouri will continue to hew in a free-market direction.

But warning signs are starting to show up now that we’ve entered the new year. Stories like this one from The Missouri Independent suggest that rather than promoting transparency, Governor Mike Parson may instead be using state resources to protect state and local governments from the Sunshine Law:

Amending Missouri’s open records law to permit government agencies to withhold more information from the public — and charge more for any records that are turned over — is among Gov. Mike Parson’s priorities for the 2022 legislative session.

The changes, which were outlined in a presentation to Parson’s cabinet that was obtained by The Independent through an open records request, include a proposal to allow government agencies to charge fees for the time attorneys spend reviewing records requested by the public….

The slide on proposed Sunshine Law changes dubbed the proposals as “Good Government” reforms and described the changes as ones that would “benefit political subdivisions, the legislature and state government.”

You know who these changes would not benefit? Taxpayers. And that’s the point.

We talked just last year about how attorney fees are used to boost the cost of Sunshine Law fees, pricing people out of records they’re owed. Reintroducing such a barrier indicates the governor is misreading the times. Springfield officials—Springfield is one of the worst regions in the state for transparency—have also called for Sunshine Law limitations, and that tells you just about all you need to know about the sort of quarters this initiative may be coming from and why it’s being pushed.

In fact, if a solution is “needed” for state and local government to avoid attorney fees, that solution would be radical transparency: ensure practically everything that taxpayers are asking for is already public and online as a matter of government practice. This should include spending, curricula, and administrative correspondence. What’s not a solution is passing on extravagant fees to taxpayers—the people who pay to have these records created and who are owed access to them.

The Missouri House and Senate should not go along with this anti-transparency initiative. That at least one legislator has already put the governor’s anti-transparency priorities into his own legislation is enormously disappointing. Legislators should not let themselves be used simply because the governor asked to use them.

I continue to have high hopes for 2022, but I have concerns now that I didn’t have last year. State representatives and senators need to remind themselves that they represent their taxpayers—not the governor, not their superintendent, not their mayor. And anti-transparency initiatives like the one articulated by the governor’s office are antithetical to the interests of those taxpayers.

The post Optimism Remains for 2022, Despite Anti-Transparency Forces appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a long time, the county had a county auditor. That part is the history. In 2017, the county hired a new auditor who, unfortunately, had no experience with auditing. That part is the tragedy. In the ensuing four years, the auditor has not 1) demonstrated growth in the job, nor 2) hired talented assistance, nor 3) resigned, but has continued to serve as the auditor of the largest county in Missouri without performing any audits. Let me repeat this, the auditor’s office does no audits. This, obviously, has been the farce.

But the latest turn is that the St. Louis County Council has finally decided to replace the auditor, and, lo and behold, it’s proving difficult to find anyone to take the position. That is the part that is yet to be named.

There are hundreds of millions of dollars coming into St. Louis County government from COVID stimulus, on top of the billion-dollar budget it already has. The county needs a qualified auditor and appropriate staff to help oversee that money and account for it. There have been at least two major embezzlement scandals in county government that I can remember, and that does not even count Steve Stenger’s various issues.

The county council offered the job to someone, but the person turned it down, even though the candidate had gone through the entire application process. Precisely why the person refused is unknown. Whatever the council has to do to attract qualified candidates, it should consider it. Raise the pay? If necessary, fine. Remove the CPA requirement? Fine (but keep the auditor certification requirements). Lower the pension vesting rules? Well, no, keep those as they are. Most importantly, just make sure whoever gets the job can document a history of doing real audits of government bodies or closely related things (such as large businesses).

But do what it takes to get someone in that office who can property do the job. Until that happens, I don’t know what to call the phase the county is in.

Perhaps “befuddlement?”

The post What Comes After Farce? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But Missouri policymaking could use fresh AIR as well—Accountability, Investment, and Reform. As pandemic restrictions end and life moves back to normal, policymakers have a unique opportunity to reassess where the state is going and enact free-market and good-government reforms that would have helped during the pandemic but will certainly help after it is long gone. With federal stimulus dollars waiting in the wings, policymakers will also have spending decisions to make, and they should make those decisions conservatively, deliberately, and with reform as a top priority. But whether these ideas are funded with federal or state money, having a framework of potential programs and reforms ready for them as they embark on their work is crucial. The ideas presented in this document provide a starting point for the work ahead.

Click HERE to Download Coming Up for AIR After COVID

https://issuu.com/showmemo/docs/coming_up_for_air__1_

The post Coming up for AIR After COVID appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Prior to being halted in 2017, the state’s LIHTC program was plagued by several serious problems. As I’ve written many times before, Missouri’s program was one of the biggest in the country and was repeatedly shown to be ineffective, costly, and utterly lacking in accountability. Sufficiently addressing each of the program’s shortcomings has proven to be elusive for the state’s elected officials, with legislative attempts to reform the program failing over the past three years. Absent any legislative action, the governor and MHDC decided to bring the program back on their own terms by administratively implementing changes.

The MHDC’s changes include a yearly cap on state credits, a scoring rubric for project applications, and a new pilot program that allows more credits to be redeemed over the first five years (of ten total) of the project. At first glance, the changes seem to touch on each of the major issues with the program outlined above. But do they make the program worthy of taxpayer expense?

In theory, the yearly cap should make the program less costly because Missouri used to match each federal LIHTC on a dollar-for-dollar basis. A cap would mean that is no longer possible. The scoring rubric could add some accountability by showing how the chosen projects stack up against those that aren’t awarded funding. And the pilot program should make the credits more enticing to investors, and in turn, increase the value for which they can be sold.

After details of the revived program were made public, an optimistic real estate developer was quoted saying he expected the new state LIHTCs to sell for roughly sixty cents on the dollar. It is important to keep in mind what this means: Developers are happy to trade each taxpayer dollar they receive for a little more than half its value. How can LIHTC be a good investment for Missourians if the people who profit off the program believe what they’re receiving is worth much less than what state taxpayers are paying? It will be some time before there are enough data to determine the full effect of these changes, but even if this estimate of improved sale value is proven true, Missourians would still be receiving a very poor return on their investment.

The program’s revival is certainly a good deal for already-wealthy developers. But shouldn’t the governor and MHDC instead ensure that Missourians have an affordable housing policy that’s good for everyone?

The post More to Be Done on LIHTC appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But while the ruling is disappointing, it isn’t altogether unexpected, either. As I wrote in a paper on the subject of government union reform published earlier this year, “ongoing statutory tweaks and court interventions—driven by interests on both sides of the government–labor debate—seem likely to shape how, and whether, reforms are implemented for years to come.” Government unions weren’t going to give up their power easily even in the face of changes to the law, and it seemed reasonably clear after the lawsuit was filed that an adverse ruling was certainly on the table.

That doesn’t mean reform efforts will or should come to an end as litigation on such matters makes its way through the judicial system. In fact, there was plenty for the state still to do even before the Court’s decision on HB 1413, especially ensuring collective bargaining agreements are catalogued by state regulators, and we observed as much in the paper:

Whatever HB 1413’s eventual disposition, any oversight regime that cannot identify all the subjects of that oversight will fail to meaningfully execute its mission. Without effective oversight, the likelihood of patently illegal contract provisions rises. That’s bad for taxpayers and government workers, but it’s also bad for the rule of law.

Currently the legislature is hearing bills dealing with “paycheck protection” reforms, which we’ve talked about before and were part of HB 1413. But as the legislature takes stock of the government union landscape as it moves toward the completion of its legislative year in May, policymakers should also take a hard look at whether the state can effectively oversee any of the reforms that it’s contemplating and whether it has delegated sufficient power and resources to officials to ensure the will of the legislature is being carried out. Changing the law is fine, but a law that can’t be or isn’t enforced will be ignored.

The post On Government Union Reforms, Present and Future appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As Graham Renz and I discussed in our paper, “Overgrown and Noxious: The Abuse of Special Taxing Districts in Missouri,” CIDs allow business owners the ability to levy a sales tax on their customers—and sometimes spend the revenue generated on explicitly private purposes. CIDs are often unknown to shoppers and are notoriously easy to set up. What’s more, if business owners are clever, they can construct a district in a way that evades the need for any public vote.

This brings us back to the Columbia Business Loop CID. The businesses likely meant to draw a district without any residents, allowing only business owners to vote to approve. The Tribune reported on August 25, 2015 that a single resident, 23-year-old Jen Henderson, was living within the proposed district and would be the sole voter. Eventually 14 more voters living within the district were identified. The vote on the CID was 4 to 3 in favor, but Henderson filed a lawsuit claiming that Missouri election law was not followed.

The details of the case are themselves mystifying. The presiding judge decided to dismiss the case in March 2016, but refused to issue and sign an actual ruling—and in doing so denied Henderson the ability to appeal—until ordered by the Missouri Supreme Court in February 2019, over 1,000 days later. The CID has been collecting the sales tax all the while.

Henderson did appeal once the ruling was issued, and that was the case heard by the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District on Wednesday. In short, Henderson alleges that the CID did not follow Missouri voting procedure requiring a secret ballot. The defendants argue that the statute setting up CIDs does not specify any election guidelines, so they can do as they please.

Whatever the outcome of the case, any attention brought to Missouri’s permissive special taxing district laws is welcome. Voters and taxpayers ought to be better respected and those granted the power to tax should be held accountable.

The post That Crazy CID Vote in Columbia Goes Back to Court appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Two months have now passed since our lawsuit was filed, and so far, the case is proceeding relatively slowly, which we expected. Unsurprisingly, the Office of Administration didn’t immediately surrender and decide to just hand over the documents it’s been giving the AFSCME, so we are still anticipating the case will carry on well into next year. In the interest of transparency, I would have hoped that the OA would have simply provided these documents to us without further delay—transparency for AFSCME should also mean transparency for the rest of the public. But unfortunately, it may take a judge to affirm this notion.

A little more surprising is the fact that AFSCME itself has decided to try and intervene in the case, arguing it has a stake in the resolution of this case. That’s surprising because our litigation doesn’t address AFSCME’s actions, but rather the actions of the government. Time will tell what becomes of this intervention, if anything.

We’ll continue to keep you posted on this important case.

The post Show-Me Institute v. Office of Administration: A Brief Update appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It turns out, Target workers themselves.

After Target raised its employees’ wages, Target then proceeded to cut their hours. A CNN story highlighted the workers’ frustration.

“I got that dollar raise but I’m getting $200 less in my paycheck. I have no idea how I’m going to pay for rent or buy food,” one worker commented.

Workers didn’t just lose hours—some lost benefits. Target employees must average 30 hours per week to qualify for health insurance benefits. But the reduction in hours worked pushed some employees below 30 hours, costing them health care benefits. The negative impact of such a policy was predictable.

The vast majority of people earning the minimum wage are not trying to live solely on that wage. The typical minimum wage worker is someone who is under 25, still in college, working part time, and living in a family well above poverty. According to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report, only 13 percent of households with someone earning between $7.25 and $12 per hour were in poverty.

Raising the minimum wage benefits some lucky teenagers at the expense of the working poor. Show-Me Institute analysts have discussed this problem many times before, most recently regarding Missouri’s decision to raise the state’s minimum wage to $12 per hour by 2023.

Perhaps Target’s situation will help people see that the negative consequences of minimum wage increases are more than theoretical. Policies targeted specifically at the desired recipients, like the earned-income tax credit, are more effective at incentivizing hard work than a one-size-fits-all policy.

If we want to help the working poor, raising the minimum wage is simply not the way to do it.

The post Fight for 15 . . . Hours Per Week? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But even if these inflated jobs claims were accurate, would they be worth celebrating?

The state of Missouri publishes an annual report cataloging every existing TIF project. While the job projection numbers are squishy (as mentioned above), we can still compare the promised benefits with reported reality.

The spike in the graph at the top of this post could be attributed to a larger number of projects granted TIF benefits in 2015. The Missouri Department of Revenue has not responded for comment on how the numbers are calculated. However, even without that blip, the highest number of claimed jobs in any of the six years has not reached the lowest number of promised jobs.

Even though some projects meet or exceed projections, most do not. In all, the job shortfall from these six years is over half a million jobs, counting promised new and retained jobs.

Further, taxpayers are on the hook for almost a quarter of the total costs for these projects:

Source: Missouri Department of Revenue Tax Increment Financing in Missouri reports, 2013-2018. Table created by author.

If these projects routinely produce fewer jobs than expected at a large expense to the taxpayer, what is the public benefit? We have reported several cases of companies using TIF for private benefit, and this appears to be a consistent trend. In many cases, for up to 23 years, developers in a TIF district receive a refund of some portion of the local sales taxes, utility taxes, and earnings taxes (if applicable)  generated by the project and only pay property taxes on the value of their property before the improvement was made.

While the public return may be questionable, the private benefit seems clear. TIF-related property values came a little shy of tripling in value between 2013 and 2018. What business would not want its property to increase in value, especially when it has received a 23-year tax abatement?

People with good intentions can differ on economic development policy, but it should be plain to everyone that Missouri’s current TIF policy isn’t working.

The post Theoretical Jobs appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

City manager Troy Schulte said he wasn’t concerned about the increased price of the hotel since cost overruns are covered by the developer.

“We are actually getting a better project with lower public commitment,” Schulte said.

This seemed ominously familiar to me. A quick search confirmed my suspicions. Back in 2009, Vockrodt wrote in the Kansas City Business Journal about Cordish’s effort to reduce the property valuation for the Power & Light District. He included this:

Kansas City Councilman Ed Ford said he was told by city attorneys that the Power & Light District’s dispute would not put the city on the hook financially.

“It looks like the city is not going to have a dog in the hunt on that,” Ford said.

But of course it did affect the city because a low property tax assessment meant Cordish paid less in property taxes, which in turn meant there was less TIF money available to apply to bond payments. And because city leaders committed Kansas City taxpayers to paying any bond shortfall, we very much did have a dog in that hunt.

This doesn’t mean that hotel cost overruns will necessarily cost the city—unless the hotel so underperforms that taxpayers are told they need to add amenities to improve performance, exactly as has happened in the past. When it comes to publicly financed projects, being told by city leaders that there is no cause for concern seems itself to be a cause to be concerned.

The post When City Leaders Aren’t Concerned, Taxpayers Should Be appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Things are no different in government. Analysts at the Show-Me Institute spend a lot of time combing through reports and audits, and as I looked through the state auditor’s 50 or so reports for this year, I found a whole lot of dust bunnies—nasty, government failure dust bunnies.

Of the reports that received a judgment (about half of the reports are follow-ups or monthly postings without a judgment), half enjoyed “excellent” and “good” results, while the other half received “fair” and “poor” marks. In short, about 50% of the public entities audited weren’t doing a great job by any stretch of the imagination. 

For context, here is how the SAO defines “Fair” and “Poor”:

Fair: The audit results indicate this entity needs to improve operations in several areas. The report contains several findings, or one or more findings that require management’s immediate attention, and/or the entity has indicated several recommendations will not be implemented. In addition, if applicable, several prior recommendations have not been implemented.

Poor: The audit results indicate this entity needs to significantly improve operations. The report contains numerous findings that require management’s immediate attention, and/or the entity has indicated most recommendations will not be implemented. In addition, if applicable, most prior recommendations have not been implemented.

Now, this all is a little abstract, so let’s consider some examples.

The City of Hamilton, the subject of SAO Report No. 2019-007, received a rating of “Fair.” For what exactly? Well, among other things, for lacking a road maintenance plan, for failing to stop conflicts of interest, for not following basic payment procedures, for not complying with Missouri’s Sunshine Law, for not giving the public library its money on time, and for failing to put its budget together in a proper way. So, while ‘fair’ might not sound so terrible, it is a long shot from being acceptable.

More troubling reports come from places like the City of Miller and Madison County. 

In Miller, west of Springfield, the city raised taxes for water treatment services but still can’t pay its bills, and has violated the state’s Clean Water Act. Basic timesheet procedures weren’t followed, city credit cards were not adequately tracked, the city’s budget wasn’t put together according to the law and was inaccurate, and the city hasn’t complied with the Sunshine Law. Most troubling is that the former police used city credit cards for personal expenses and kept his brother on the city’s payroll while he was working another job.

In Madison County, in southeast Missouri, where an investigation is ongoing, it appears taxpayers would pay their property taxes and then records of the payment would be deleted from county systems. The money from these transactions appears to have never made it to the bank. In short, it looks as if taxpayer money was being flat out stolen. Bad government? I think so.

With 114 counties, nearly 1,000 cities and villages, and thousands of other public entities across the state, bad government is a constant and ubiquitous problem. A liberty-minded skepticism of government seems warranted when reports like these make news. 

The post Show-Me . . . Lots of Bad Government? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.