The city is suffering under a $55 million operating deficit. The mayor pointed out in a 2023 budget letter that “The demands of a City this size in square miles and infrastructure age far exceed affordable options for residents and available resources.”

What to do? The answer is obvious: dedicate more public tax dollars to private corporations. And not just baseball, but women’s soccer, too!

Kansas City leaders are once again proposing public subsidies for a sports facility. This time, the beneficiary is the Kansas City Current and the continued development of the Berkley Riverfront.

According to reporting by The Kansas City Star, the city may create a new tax-increment financing (TIF) district and issue up to $235 million in bonds to support expansion of CPKC Stadium and surrounding development. The project would increase stadium capacity from 11,500 to 18,000 seats and add parking, retail, and mixed-use development to the riverfront.

Why? Why is it the responsibility of taxpayers to fund this? Projects like this can be good. They can even be great! But it’s not on par with, say, public safety or infrastructure, or education—which will all lose money because of the subsidy.

Supporters of the proposal point to the team’s success. Lucas told Fox4 that Kansas City must position itself for future events such as a potential Women’s World Cup and noted that there are limits to what an 11,500-seat stadium can host. He also emphasized that the proposed financing would not come from the city’s general revenue fund.

Let’s be careful about that last point. TIF does not create money out of thin air. Without a deal, the Current owners would pay taxes on their development—just like you and me. The proposal is to change that and let them keep that money. Money that we are told the city doesn’t have enough of.

Perhaps the most revealing thing is that Lucas can’t even be bothered to make a coherent defense of this spending. When asked about public subsidies for the Current, he told Fox4, “We’ve been through this before with another professional team that plays in Kansas City.”

But in an April 17, 2026, live interview with the Kansas City Stack Substack, Lucas said about public financing for a Royals ballpark: “this is like the incentive arrangements that we’ve done in other places. Probably the most stadium-like discussion is the stadium we built on the riverfront for the Kansas City Current. That, of course, was an incentive arrangement where you had votes at city council at one of our incentive agencies, that being the Port Authority, and you had state participation. I expect that to be the same.” [3:36 mark]

In other words, we’re giving public money to the Current because we’re giving money to the Royals because we gave money to the Current. That’s his argument.

I was reminded recently of other reporting from Fox4 in which Lucas defended himself for accepting secret gifts from the Royals, among others, to pay for tuxedos and trips to the Super Bowl. He said, “my goal is always to save taxpayer dollars.”

Lucas may have lots of reasons for accepting gifts. But given his willingness to spend public funds on stadiums, it’s hard to believe he cares about saving taxpayer dollars.

The post Kansas City Mayor’s Circular Reasoning on Stadium Subsidies appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I wrote recently that in the lead up to the public vote, even earnings tax defenders could not defend the earnings tax. Despite urging yes votes, they conceded many, if not all, of my claims that the tax makes for bad policy.

Now we might be seeing this story repeat itself with stadium subsidies. It’s being reported that Kansas City’s package of subsidies for a downtown baseball stadium includes bonds issued by the city—and backed by them. This means that if the stadium fails to generate enough revenue to pay the bonds, city taxpayers will make up the difference. This is exactly the type of deal that requires the city to direct over $10 million each year to cover Power & Light District debts.

The Kansas City Business Journal reports city leaders are aware of that same risk with a downtown ballpark for the Royals. They concede:

. . . estimates for Power & Light District sales and economic activity tax generation proved “spectacularly wrong.” The entertainment hub’s annual bond gaps have required about $10.5 million a year from the city’s general fund and $199 million total to date.

City leaders now say they’re being more careful — even as they plan to support as much as two times the district’s original debt for a stadium at Washington Square Park.

How times have changed. Twenty years ago then-Mayor Kay Barnes told a columnist for The Kansas City Star, regarding her deal on the Power & Light District:

“We’re going to look like geniuses” in five or 10 years, Barnes said. The city is paying low interest rates for projects that are capable of paying off the debt, she added.

Barnes could not have been more wrong. (Though she was named the 2018 Kansas Citian of the Year by the Chamber of Commerce, which says more about the chamber than it does Barnes.)

Public subsidies for private interests such as a baseball stadium is still bad policy. They don’t benefit taxpayers. But it’s some comfort that at least Kansas City leaders are capable of learning from their mistakes—right?

Right?

The post Another Policy Concession from Kansas City—Kind of appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The most interesting tax issue on the Harrisonville ballot is a local gas tax. Local gas taxes are a little-used option for funding roads for municipalities. Harrisonville would be the eighth city in Missouri to enact such a tax for its roads, according to Show-Me Institute research. Not surprisingly, many of these municipalities are located along major highways where people frequently stop for gas. In the same way that Prussia was called “an army with a country,” Foristell and Matthews could be considered truck stops with their own cities.

Local gas taxes require a 60 percent threshold for voter approval. The funds raised by the tax can only be spent on roads within the city. Obviously, getting 60 percent of the vote for any new tax is difficult, and that is likely one reason local gas taxes are so rare. Foristell, for example, needed multiple attempts before voters approved its gas tax.

Funding roads with user taxes like a gas tax is good public policy, and this includes local roads. It is smart policy to connect the cost of driving with the act of driving as much as possible. When you pay for roads with unrelated taxes, such as a property tax, a general transportation sales tax, or a targeted transportation development district (TDD) sales tax (which sounds like a transportation tax but is often just a form of corporate welfare), you subsidize increased driving by lowering the relative cost of driving.

As electric vehicles become more common, adjustments to the gas tax system will have to be made. But in the short term, more cities should consider adopting very low gas taxes in order to fund local roads. This table has more information on the local gas taxes implemented by Missouri cities:

While not every municipality can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, it is worth considering in any municipality with a gas station. Similarly, the state should consider lowering the threshold for voter approval of local gas taxes to the standard 50 percent plus one.

The other two taxes and bonds being considered are much less beneficial. Harrisonville already has a local sales tax rate of 2.375%, and it is asking voters to raise it another 0.25%. However, the ballot wording is very confusing. The ballot says, “Shall the city of Harrisonville, Missouri impose a city sales tax of one and one quarter of a percent?” That would seemingly indicate a tax increase of 1.25%. However, the city website says it is only a 0.25% increase, leading to a total tax of 1.25%. But that conflicts with the other city website (link above), which lists the city sales tax at 2.375%. It may be that the city general sales tax is being increased, but then the city is clearly misleading voters as to the current sales tax rate by saying it is just 1% when it is 2.375%.

This sales tax rate increase is particularly high considering that Harrisonville also levies a moderately high property tax rate. Other cities with extremely high sales taxes tend to have very low property tax rates, such as Ashland. Whether they want the tax increase or not, Harrisonville residents should know they are living in a city with very high total municipal taxes. In particular, Harrisonville should remove some of its 1% TDD sales taxes, which would make its local sales tax almost 5%, if voters approve the tax increase.

Finally, voters are being asked to approve a bond issue for the Harrisonville municipal water and sewer system. This blog post is long enough, but suffice it to say residents of Harrisonville would be better served by privatizing their municipal utilities instead of continuing to go further into debt for them.

The post Harrisonville Goes for a Local Gas Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City and St. Louis are notably highlighted for their fiscal challenges. Kansas City is ranked 57th, while St. Louis is positioned at 59th. Both cities have been assigned “D” grades, indicating significant financial distress. This distress is quantified through the “Taxpayer Burden” metric, representing the amount each taxpayer would need to contribute to settle all municipal debts. In Kansas City, this burden amounts to $8,800 per taxpayer, whereas in St. Louis, it escalates to $9,800. ​

A primary factor contributing to these burdens is the underfunded pension liabilities in both cities. Unfunded pensions place taxpayers and city services at risk, leading to increased debt and financial instability. ​

The implications of such financial distress are profound. Residents may face reduced public services, increased taxes, or both, as cities strive to balance their budgets. Moreover, fiscal instability can deter business investments, stymie economic growth, and erode public trust in local governance.​ This is in addition to both cities’ struggles providing public safety.

Addressing these challenges necessitates a multifaceted approach. Cities must prioritize fiscal responsibility, ensure transparent accounting practices, and engage in proactive financial planning. Fostering economic development can help alleviate fiscal pressure, but it must be real development, not the sort we have seen for decades that merely transfers tax dollars to corporate cronies.

There is an urgent need for comprehensive fiscal reforms in both of Missouri’s largest cities. Without prompt and effective action, residents will bear the brunt of past financial mismanagement for years to come.

The post Can We Handle the Truth . . . of Our Cities’ Financial Status? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I’m skeptical, and you should be too.

This is a claim that cities and states like because it makes their leaders look financially responsible. But it’s often just a result of bookkeeping sleight of hand. Governor Mike Parson made the same claim in January, and it wasn’t true then, either.

The accounting trick consists of merely looking at the cash you have on hand and not considering your long term-debts. Truth in Accounting (TIA), the indefatigable men and women who pore through annual reports, issued its State of the Cities report in February 2024. St. Louis ranked 64th in financial health out of the top 75 cities examined. The authors wrote:

St. Louis’ financial condition appeared to improve due in part to increased tax collections and federal COVID relief funds. Despite the good news, it still had a Taxpayer Burden™ of $11,100, earning it a “D” grade from Truth in Accounting. But the improvement is deceiving, because the city used outdated pension data.

On pages 150 and 151 of the report, available online here, TIA lists St. Louis’s assets and liabilities. The report must use 2022 data because St. Louis is not a stickler about releasing its financial data in a timely manner. Despite being in the red, St. Louis’s cash-basis accounting allows it to consider the money it has on hand without considering its long-term debts. It’s akin to getting a cash advance on your credit card and pretending you’re richer as a result.

If the comptroller wants to make such claims, she should release a complete and to-date copy of the city’s books. Until then, I am going to assume that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

The good news is that we here at the Show-Me Institute, and the fine folks at Truth In Accounting, are dedicated to making sure people understand the truth about city and state finances.

The post Be Skeptical of Claims St. Louis is Running A Surplus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As systems evolve and become more complex over time, certain things that used to be commonly provided by cities and counties have moved beyond the realistic capacity of local governments. Two such examples are sewers and hospitals. The last public hospital in St. Louis closed in 1997, and municipal sewer systems in Arnold and Eureka have both been privatized recently. Not all of these changes result in the private sector taking over service provision. For example, in the City of St. Louis and most of St. Louis County, the Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) is a large, independent public agency with the resources and expertise to manage the sewer system for our region. Local governments in two areas in our region are currently preparing to hand over responsibility for major services to outside providers, and in each instance the prospects for beneficial transformations are being put at risk by a process that is not being managed in the best interest of the public.

First, the sewers. Festus and Crystal City are considering selling their shared municipal sewer system to the Jefferson County Public Sewer District (JCPSD). Like MSD, this larger, regional system has more resources and expertise than the cities do. However, the leadership of both cities have missed an opportunity to get the best deal for their residents. Earlier this summer, both councils approved a plan to consider only JCPSD’s proposal for a $5 million sale of the sewer system—that is, to exclude any other potential applicants from participation—after quietly negotiating only with JCPSD for months. This is despite the fact that representatives from both Missouri-American Water, which has recently purchased systems in Jefferson County, and Central States Water Resources, which operates sewer systems throughout Missouri, expressed interest in making a proposal once the idea become public. Those private utilities have been denied the opportunity to participate thus far.

Leaders in both cities deserve credit for their willingness to consider major changes to their sewer system. JCPSD’s $5 million offer may well be the best overall proposal the cities receive. But how can the cities know it is the best deal for their residents if they don’t even take any other offers?

The hospital example is even more troubling. In Perry County, located between St. Louis and Cape Girardeau, the county hospital board is planning to sell county-owned and operated Perry County Memorial Hospital (PCMH) to Mercy. Such a deal is almost certainly necessary and likely beneficial for the county and its residents, but the manner in which it has been conducted would make former Kansas City political boss Tom Pendergast blush. While they probably don’t have smoke-filled rooms for politicians in Perry County hospital, they might as well have. There are two boards that run the hospital—one elected and one appointed—and the boards have gone so far as to deny vital financial information to elected members of the hospital’s own board who have had the audacity to ask tough questions about the deal. You read that right. Elected members of the hospital board who aren’t falling into lockstep are being shoved aside as the board majority forces the deal through. Things like the Sunshine law and open records requirements are not suggestions; they are the law, and someone needs to inform the Perry County hospital boards of that.

In general, I strongly support local government changes such as outsourcing services to the private sector or other, larger public bodies. Divesting entities like the Perry County hospital and the Festus–Crystal City sewer system could benefit both communities. However, elected officials in both places have a responsibility to go through the process in an open, transparent fashion. They have utterly failed that test in Perry County, and they aren’t off to a good start in Festus and Crystal City. Residents of Perry County, Festus, and Crystal City should demand better from their local leaders.

The post Good Ideas Done Poorly in Jefferson and Perry Counties appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

When Missouri voters approved the ballot initiative legalizing marijuana last year, one part of the plan authorized cities and counties to enact a three-percent tax on marijuana sales in their communities (once again upon voter approval). Not surprisingly, many local governments in the St. Louis-region are attempting to do just that this coming April. The argument in favor of voters approving the tax is straightforward enough, but the debate over what to do with the new tax revenue is more complex.

“Pigouvian” taxes are taxes levied on certain goods to address their negative effects. They are common and include special taxes in Missouri on items like cigarettes, alcohol, and pool tables (yes, really, pool tables). Tobacco and alcohol consumption impose certain costs on society, and the extra tax revenue is used to fund services to address those negative effects, like lung cancer research and drunk driving enforcement. In addition, the taxes simply make the item more expensive, thereby reducing consumption. Elsewhere, for example, gas taxes may be quite high not only to fund roads but also to encourage public transit. Marijuana legalization will indisputably have some negative societal effects, and the three-percent local sales tax on it can help fund services like county health departments and municipal police efforts to mitigate those negative impacts. Also, life is not a Cheech and Chong movie—dare to dream that it were! —and cheap pot really doesn’t do anyone much good. I generally support neither new nor high taxes, but the argument in favor of these new local marijuana sales taxes is very strong.

What to do with the money is more difficult. There are two questions: Should the revenue be dedicated to certain uses or sent to the general fund? And should it serve as new revenue or be used to cut taxes elsewhere? Economists have long debated the costs and benefits of earmarking taxes for specific uses. Directing taxes into the general fund gives local officials more flexibility to address local needs, but earmarking taxes improves both voter and elected-official decision-making and accountability. In some cases, as with cigarettes, the harms to society are easy to determine. Accordingly, the choice to earmark tobacco taxes to health-related fields, as we generally do in Missouri, is defensible. Legal marijuana, however, will be more like alcohol, with costs and harms (also called externalities) to society spreading across a variety of sectors. Should the tax revenues go to policing? Health care? Family services? Frankly, who knows? This is why alcohol taxes generally are not earmarked in our state, nor should local marijuana taxes be.

Politicians will try, as is their wont, to treat the new marijuana tax revenue as manna from heaven. Voters should demand more from them as we approach the elections. A new marijuana tax should not just be an opportunity to raise more revenue. It should also be an opportunity to replace other, more economically harmful taxes. St. Louis County, with its high commercial property surtax, should use the marijuana revenue as a justification for a surtax reduction. Cities such as University City with the woeful economic development sales tax—a misnomer if there ever was one—should use the marijuana revenue to replace that useless tax. It could be a small part of a larger package to help phase out the earnings and payroll taxes in St. Louis city. And, yes, at a minimum it should replace the anachronistic pool table taxes implemented long ago in the days of seedy pool halls, gangster molls, and bathtub hooch.

There is, unfortunately, one question mark hanging over the upcoming votes. The question of whether a county-level marijuana sales tax will apply countywide or only in the unincorporated areas is unclear and will likely be determined in court. The budgetary implications for counties are enormous, as the revenue difference between the two options is substantial. If county taxes are determined to be in addition to municipal taxes, that could make the total sales tax for marijuana purchases well above twenty percent. A sales tax that is too high is concerning because it might encourage the illegal market for marijuana to continue, as has happened in California. This would nullify one of the purported benefits of legalization.

Marijuana taxes are an opportunity to improve both the current budgets and the long-term tax environment for cities and counties. Voters should demand a plan that does both.

The post Pot Taxes Can Help Municipal Kettles Get into the Black appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Tax Burden in Missouri’s 20 Largest Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It is important to learn from one’s mistakes, and when it comes to special taxing districts in the Springfield area, there are plenty of mistakes to learn from. Special taxing districts (SDs) are tax districts established to support one specific function or program, such as a school district. In recent years, however, most new SDs have been nothing more than vehicles for corporate welfare, and their use in Springfield has been anything but an example of good government.

Springfield is now considering a gift basket of new tax subsidies for the Sports Town youth sports complex. This included the recent city council approval of a new community improvement district (CID) to use tax dollars to subsidize the private development. First, the city gerrymandered a map to make sure the new CID didn’t include any voters to get around the voting requirements. Next, city leaders decided to give the developers $2 million in upfront subsidies even though the city’s own guidelines recommend against doing exactly that. The upfront subsidy by the city means that all Springfield taxpayers are paying for this project, not just the ones who may use the facility.

Remaining on this expensive list is a request by the developers for $4 million more subsidies from federal stimulus funds. Shockingly, the developers have decided that their project qualifies for federal funding. Maybe it’s for the sewers, or for tourism, or perhaps this project will help fight the COVID pandemic. Youth sports may be infrastructure now. Whatever the feeble excuse is, the lure of “free” federal money is strong. If a private development such as SGF Sports (the company behind Sports Town) cannot succeed without multiple subsidy programs, it’s not the job of taxpayers to ensure it goes forward.

With such a large subsidy upfront, Springfield is basically trying to be a real estate developer. The city should have learned from Greene County that government real estate speculation is a bad idea. That county previously subsidized the private Jamestown development by creating a neighborhood improvement district (NID) to pay off bonds the county issued in support of the proposal. It assumed the future taxes from the NID would suffice to pay off the bonds. It assumed wrong. When the Jamestown project failed, Greene County taxpayers were on the hook for the unpaid debt. Springfield should have learned from this costly mistake.

This SGF Sports CID would be the 17th CID in Greene County, most of them in Springfield, along with at least four more transportation development districts (TDDs). Despite the public-sounding names, many CIDs and TDDs consist of just a few parcels of property with sales taxes imposed on the public for the private benefit of one property owner. These tax dollars are often used for essentially private purposes, such as retail parking lots or landscaping.

How have these other SDs worked out in Springfield? Not very well. Missouri state auditor Nicole Galloway specifically cited Springfield’s HyVee store CID for improperly collecting almost a quarter million dollars of tax money. Galloway also identified Springfield’s College Station TDD downtown for multiple abuses, including failures to notify shoppers of the tax. Based on research on SDs generally in Missouri, the other SDs are likely functioning as corporate welfare schemes here in the Queen City of the Ozarks.

Springfield is a vibrant, growing community that does not need to rely on tax subsidies to boost its economy. If Springfield wants to help all businesses succeed rather than just a select few, it should work with Greene County to lower its commercial property tax surcharge rate, which is high compared to those of other Missouri communities. The CID for Sports Town was not necessary, and $4 million more from federal funds would be an even worse decision. The evidence is clear that these subsidy programs produce more financial mismanagement than economic growth. Springfield should learn from its history and stop repeating the same mistakes.

The post Springfield Should Reject Subsidies for Sports Town appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For a home with a market value of $1 million (of which there are many in Ladue), the 30-cent increase per $100 of assessed valuation would amount to a tax hike of $570. If similar recent proposals in neighboring cities are any guide, how Ladue voters will respond to this proposal is anyone’s guess. In August, voters in Frontenac approved a very large tax increase, while voters in Clayton rejected a much more modest one (18 cents per $100). In each case, turnout was light, as expected and (perhaps) intended.

The most interesting part of the proposed tax increase is that it’s only for residential property, not commercial. In other words, homeowners will pay it, but businesses won’t. Too often, governments try to export the costs of running their cities to outsiders with tourist taxes, sales taxes, special district taxes, and so on. The best thing you can say about this Ladue proposal is that it deals with property taxes that will be paid by the people who receive the public services. But don’t businesses also benefit from public services like police and fire protection? Of course they do. However, unlike both Frontenac and Clayton, where commercial property makes up a large part of the tax base, commercial property in Ladue is less than ten percent of the tax base. Including commercial property in this tax increase would not make that much of a difference in tax collections, but how voters react will be intriguing.

In Frontenac, the (voter-approved) tax increase actually targeted commercial property with especially large increases, while in Clayton the city proposed the same (voter-rejected) tax increase for each. What is the moral of the story? Voters apparently like targeting businesses to fund as much of their services as they can.

Does Ladue truly need this added money? As stated, the annual deficits Ladue has been running have been large, and that can’t continue. With most city funds going to public safety in recent years, cuts would have to come from police and fire protection. Ladue has very little crime and even fewer fires, but history has shown that people like having higher levels of police and fire protection than may be necessary.

Ladue has received over $900,000 in stimulus funds and will receive over a half-million more in the near future. This is on top of upcoming increases in local tax revenue from higher gas taxes and online sales tax collections passed in the state legislative session. (Ladue voters would have to pass a use tax, which they rejected in 2020, to collect all of the online sales taxes.) I don’t doubt that the cost of providing public services is increasing, but with the stimulus funds, increased property assessments, and other future taxes, do the people of Ladue really need to be hit with approximately $2.5 million in new taxes?

Residents, voters, and taxpayers (most people are all three, of course) generally like the high quality of services found in most St. Louis County suburbs, especially in the more prosperous cities like Ladue. But you can only ask for so much before people start saying “no.” People want quality services; they also like fair taxation and the idea that their cities aren’t just out to gouge them. One thing Ladue has a large number of is country clubs, and on election day, we will see how many voters in Ladue are yelling “Fore!” as they cast their votes.

The post A Property Tax Increase for Ladue? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

TIF is an economic development incentive tool used to try and spur development. When a TIF project is approved, governments return a portion of a developer’s tax payment back to the developer to help fund the development. It’s a classic case of the government picking winners and losers by choosing which developers receive handouts. This practice is almost always a misuse and waste of taxpayer dollars. Independence, MO, had a particularly frightening experience with TIF.

TIF is often financed through debt bonds. Normally, the increment (the extra taxes generated by a development) is returned to the developer. When TIF is financed via debt bonds, that money is returned to the developer, but the developer then uses those funds to make bond payments. A TIF district in Independence anchored by a Bass Pro Shop was funded with bonds issued by the city. However, when the project failed to meet sales tax revenues projections, the developers couldn’t make the bond payments. Independence lawmakers decided to use $3.5 million from the general fund to cover the shortfall in the bond payment. The city wasn’t required to do this because the bonds weren’t guaranteed, but it did so to “ensure the city’s strong financial credit rating.”

Independence’s bad bet cost taxpayers. Paying the $3.5 million to cover the shortfall and protect the city’s credit rating may or may not have been the right move, but the point is that the decision could have been avoided altogether. Taking money from the general fund to bail out a development that already received tax dollars means even less funding for other critical city services. TIF cases such as these, and other taxing district failures, are policy scare stories. Cities such as Webster Groves that are currently considering large TIF projects need to consider the considerable risks with tax subsidies. Maybe it’s time for lawmakers to end this nightmare for good and stop using TIF to fund private developments.

The post A Policy Scare Story: TIF appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Truth in Accounting’s report ranks the country’s 75 most populous cities by their taxpayer burden (or surplus for a few cities), a number calculated by dividing the money needed to pay the city’s bills by the estimated number of city taxpayers. A larger taxpayer burden means a larger rank number.

According to the report, Kansas City went into the pandemic in poor fiscal health, with a $1.7 billion debt burden. This equates to a taxpayer burden of $11,300 per person and lands Kansas City at 57th in the country. St. Louis City is in even worse shape. Financial decisions have left St. Louis with a debt burden of $1.3 billion and a taxpayer burden of $14,600 per person. St. Louis ranks 63rd out of the 75 cities in the report. Missouri’s two largest cities both received a D grade for fiscal health.

All the cities on this list, including Kansas City and St. Louis, have balanced budget requirements, meant to “prevent elected officials from shifting the burden of paying for current-year services to future-year taxpayers.” As explained in the report, “if a city has a balanced budget requirement, then spending should not exceed earned revenue brought in during a specific year. Unfortunately, in the world of government accounting, things are often not as they appear.” Cities can do things such as keeping pension and other employment compensation costs out of the budget to give the illusion of a balanced budget. For example, Kansas City has $870 million and St. Louis has $380 million in underfunded pension benefits for city employees, so they each clearly need to be contributing more each year to the city pension funds to achieve true financial stability (as well as moving forward, not backward, with pension reforms).

Times are tough for individuals, businesses, and governments, but we shouldn’t forget the importance of accountability and balancing the budget. Truth in Accounting has released this report in previous years, and St. Louis and Kansas City have continuously ranked in the bottom third of cities. Show-Me Institute researcher Patrick Tuohey wrote this years ago and it still holds true: Instead of chasing shiny new projects and schemes, policymakers “should focus on the less glamorous but more important task of regaining sound fiscal footing.”

The post Kansas City and St. Louis Receive D’s in Fiscal Health appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The timing is especially vexing for new publicly funded convention hotels that were built to draw business travelers. The $367 million Loews Kansas City convention hotel in Missouri was supposed to open on April 2 and had already hired 340 of the roughly 450 employees it needed. But in mid-March, Loews announced that it would delay opening the 800-room property indefinitely. Kansas City provided financing incentives valued at about $166 million.

The Times piece is worth reading in it entirety, and it includes comments from Heywood Sanders, who spoke on this exact issue at the Kansas City library on July 22, 2016. The Show-Me Institute previously published a brief history of Kansas City’s convention-related failed promises since 1969. In short, despite decades of hype and public funding, Kansas City has never seen a significant increase in convention business despite considerable public investment.

A reasonable person might conclude that city leaders shouldn’t be held responsible for unforeseeable circumstances such as COVID-19. That is fair, but it also demonstrates that city leaders shouldn’t be involved in such speculative investments in the first place. As I’ve argued for years, the job of city government should be to provide basic services efficiently.

Private investors are much better at assessing risk because they are investing their own money. Cities are responsible for providing the basic services that we all depend on, and should be more interested in protecting the public dollars that we may depend on in a time of crisis.

The post Another Fine Convention Hotel Mess appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to The Kansas City Star back in February 2016:

City Manager Troy Schulte recently estimated it would cost $10 million to knock down all the most dangerous houses and other buildings in the city. That backlog of 870 buildings has built up because in the past, the city has only been able to spend about $800,000 annually to demolish about 100 houses, and more properties keep getting added to the list every year.

The city sold bonds to raise the $10 million to pay for the demolition. Work started in June 2016 and it was to take two years to tear down about 800 buildings. In April 2018, Channel 41 reported that the city surpassed it goal and “taken care of” 895 buildings in two years. That is because many were sold and rehabilitated, not demolished.

According to city data, only 609 buildings actually have been torn down by the city in the three years since. While this is slower than initially planned, it represents good progress toward addressing blight.

As of October 7, 2019, there are 343 dangerous buildings remaining on the city’s list.

The post What Happened to Those 800 Dangerous Buildings? 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.

That might not be true.

Kansas City Councilmember Scott Wagner appeared on KCMO Talk Radio with host Pete Mundo (Wagner’s segment starts at 5:14) on February 14 and discussed this very point:

Mundo: So [new terminal contractor] Edgemoor is saying that to basically get this deal going in any type of reasonable time frame we need you, Kansas City, to basically loan us money or loan yourself money to get cash on hand to start this project? Is that the deal?

Wagner: Basically that’s the deal and you’ve got really two things. On the one hand [Edgemoor says,] “we’ve got to repay our loan of 23 million dollars,” because they took out a loan to start doing their work. So they’re saying, “We need you to make us whole by giving us $23 million.”

Mundo: That’s absurd, I mean that’s absurd…

Wagner: Well honestly that’s the deal that the city signed last year, which I didn’t vote for, but eight people on the Council did. And they [Edgemoor] were very clear, they said “We’re going to spend $23 million and we expect to be paid for that.”

Mundo: The city put it to a vote, they said there was going to be no taxpayer dollars used for it. And then they agree to this after the vote, that says, “yes we will pay back $23 million?” That’s-that’s not a good look, Councilman.

Wagner: I can’t disagree with what you just said.

Sadly, this sort of bait-and-switch has become commonplace with the new terminal project. As a result, Kansas City is providing a lesson to the country about how not to deal with transparency. Kansas Citians and indeed everyone in the region deserve much better than this.

The post Lies, Damn Lies, and Airport Politics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Kansas City’s and St. Louis’s debt service per person were the highest of the cities we studied a few years ago and remain the highest today, despite some dramatic increases in debt in Louisville and Denver. Tulsa and Indianapolis actually reduced their per capita debt payments!

For Kansas City, debt service spending rose from $296.24 per person in 2011 to $322.90 in 2017. St. Louis’s numbers rose from $328.15 to $369.33 in the same time period. Long-time readers of this blog shouldn’t be surprised; we pointed this out almost two years ago when Kansas City and St. Louis ranked 101st and 112th out of 166 cities in a study of financial health  by the California Policy Center. Nor should it surprise Kansas City’s leaders. As we wrote at the time,

The Mayor’s own Citizens Commission on Municipal Revenue 2012 report cites high debt as a problem and offers, “Because current debt levels are high compared to peer cities, the impact on the City’s credit rating from issuing additional and significant levels of debt must be of primary concern.”

As Kansas City approaches a mayoral election and St. Louis yet again ponders subsidizing a sports stadium for wealthy would-be owners, city leaders need to focus on long term financial sustainability and stop buying expensive municipal baubles on taxpayer credit.

The post Kansas City and St. Louis Increasingly in Debt appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We’ve built a new entertainment district along with several luxury apartment high-rises, corporate headquarters buildings, and hotels—including an 800-room convention hotel. We’re trying to build a new single-terminal airport, revive the 18th and Vine Jazz District, and expand the streetcar. There is also talk of building along the riverfront, possibly including a new sports stadium!

But along with building structures, we’re also building a reputation—and not a good one.

Perhaps you have also heard about a years-long, nation-leading spike in homicides, an underperforming Kansas City Public School District, and a nonexistent affordable housing policy. Maybe you’ve read about blighted structures on the East Side collapsing under their own weight. You may be aware that the police department has about 10 percent fewer uniformed officers than it did before the homicide rate jumped.

These things are related. Our leaders are falling over themselves to offer generous tax incentives to everyone from Amazon to Burns & McDonnell to Cerner while city services are being starved of tax revenue because those companies are no longer paying. Recently, both the Kansas City Library and Mid-Continent Public Library turned to taxpayers to make up for funds lost to such subsidies. Sometimes service providers like the Community Mental Health Fund are less able to help those in need.

Like a crazed Christmas shopper, we’ve paid for much of this development spree armed with credit and questionable judgment. Kansas City’s leaders were warned about high levels of debt in 2012 in the Citizen’s Commission on Municipal Revenue. But since then our debt per capita has only risen, and last year city leaders sought and were granted 40 more years of debt.

If you’re looking for a metaphor from the season, it might be that we’re hanging a lot of shiny ornaments on a dry, dying Christmas tree.

Proponents argue that without generous subsidies, wealthy corporations could not afford to build their luxurious headquarters buildings. Beyond the question of why taxpayers should support such things, the research from around the country tells quite another story. A 2018 study from The Upjohn Institute for Employment Research concludes in part, “for at least 75 percent of incented firms, the firm would have made a similar location/expansion/retention decision without the incentive.”

Another cost of these burdensome baubles on our community Christmas tree is they make it harder for us to keep the tree itself alive and healthy. Consider the time and attention spent on the new airport terminal or the convention hotel that might have been used addressing housing policy or the homicide rate.

We are diverting money and seeing no real gain. So why do city leaders keep doing it?

One reason might be explained by another Christmas metaphor: gift giving. A Show-Me Institute study of tax-increment financing (TIF) projects in Kansas City from 2002 through 2018 found that developers’ campaign contributions to city council and mayoral candidates increased in the years leading up to their TIF applications and then dropped off in the years after TIF was awarded. This finding suggests a TIF-for-tat arrangement between developers and city leaders, and it could help explain why an economic development policy universally decried as suspect remains popular—and increasingly so—in Kansas City.

The final days of a year are often a time to take stock and reflect. As Kansas City prepares for local elections, we need to focus more on the real issues affecting our municipal tree—crime, infrastructure, education, and debt—and less on the distracting and ultimately unsuccessful policies of economic development subsidies.

The post Kansas City’s Christmas Tree appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Tell that to Platte County.

The Zona Rosa shopping district there cannot meet its bond obligation, and so the County has been considering covering the debt. In a March piece in The Kansas City Star, Platte County Commissioner Dagmar Wood said the effort amounts to “basically bailing out bondholders.”

According to The Bond Buyer magazine, the county board considered not making those payments, and as a result,

[S&P Global Ratings] slashed the rating on the Platte County Industrial Development Authority bonds for Zona Rosa deep into junk Sept. 7, to B-minus from A. The bonds were originally rated AA-minus based on the strength of the county’s guaranty subject to annual appropriation.

Let’s consider that “guaranty subject to annual appropriation.” It does not mean the County is bound to make up the difference; just that it will consider doing so each year as funds are available. The 2007 financial deal itself makes very clear that the county is not on the hook for the bonds (emphasis in the original),

THE BONDS DO NOT CONSTITUTE A GENERAL OBLIGATION OF THE AUTHORITY, THE DISTRICT OF THE COUNTY AND DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN INDEBTEDNESS OF THE AUTHORITY, THE DISTRICTS, THE COUNTY, THE STATE OF MISSOURI (THE “STATE”) OF ANY POLITICAL SUBDIVISION THEREOF WITH THE MEANING OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL, STATUTORY OR CHARTER PROVISIONS OR LIMITATION.

Despite this, and because the County is considering not making such an appropriation, there may be considerable repercussions not just for the Zona Rosa project, but for Platte County and for the state! The Bond Buyer continues,

“S&P reports that the county is in strong financial and economic condition, but MMA assumes catastrophic downgrades for all Platte County securities should the IDA bonds default,” MMA wrote in its weekly commentary. “Further, MO appropriation bonds generally could see weaker price trends, particularly if market wide yields begin to rise.”

One can easily imagine a situation wherein a weak air travel market generates lower-than-expected revenue at KCI—below that needed to meet debt payments to bondholders. Just as with Zona Rosa, one can see that a rating agency might threaten to lower ratings for Kansas City despite the specific terms of the bond. Would Kansas City leadership then argue that taxpayers need to bail out the airport to avoid a reduction in our city bond rating?

The lesson for Platte County is that no publicly financed development is without risk to taxpayers. As Kansas City’s new terminal project lurches forward from error to error, it is lesson we ought to remember.

The post The Risk of City-issued Bonds appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This isn’t the first time WalletHub has given Missouri cities poor ratings on matters such as spending efficiency and financial health. But this year’s study was broader and included 35 metrics divided into six categories such as financial stability, education, and infrastructure & pollution. The table below shows each city with its overall ranking and the ranking in each of the six categories.

Once these scores were set, WalletHub calculated other scores based upon them. According to their methodology:

Next, we calculated an overall “Quality of City Services” score for each city based on its weighted average across all the metrics. Finally, for each city, we divided the Quality of City Services score by the “Total Budget per Capita” (dollar amount) in order to construct a “Score per Dollar Spent” index—displayed as “Overall Rank” in the Main Findings table above—which we then used to rank-order the cities in our sample.

St. Louis also appeared in the list of “Top 5 Highest Violent Crime Rate” and was rated last in the category of “Safety.” Of the 150 cities, St. Louis was also near the bottom for Quality of City Services (148th), Financial Stability (146th), and Health (145th).

Kansas City was 138th in Safety, and the rest of its scores were also in the bottom half with the exception of Education. The ranking for Education, 18th, seems high and is dependent on school quality as determined by GreatSchools.org and graduation rates. Given the practice of social promotion, relying on graduation rates is problematic.

People often claim that cities are the engine of a state’s economy, and to the degree that is true, Missourians should be concerned. High taxes, high crime, and low educational performance are just part of the problem. St. Louis scores low in Financial Stability, Health, and Quality of Life Services also. Is it any wonder residents are fleeing the River City? St. Louisans, and indeed all Missourians, deserve better.

The post How Well Are Missouri Cities Run? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.