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.

The data center discussion is highly nuanced, marked by an interesting mix of not-in-my-backyardism and yes-in-my-backyardism.

This debate has touched down in Platte County in the Kansas City area, where “Project Kestrel” would grant substantial property and sales tax subsidies to support the development of a new, $100 billion data center campus. But is this the right move for Platte County, or for Missouri?

Missouri is in need of investment, and artificial intelligence and associated data centers already play a significant role in our economy.

However, economic development subsidies enrich individual developers at the expense of taxpayers, schools, and other public services. Using tax subsidies to lure data centers, filmmakers, sports teams, and others into Missouri shrinks the tax base of the region without leading to meaningful economic growth. Opportunity costs are largely ignored, with estimates for economic “boosts” not taking into account what the millions given away in subsidies could have achieved if invested in infrastructure, public safety, education, or tax rebates for Missourians.

Looking at electricity, data centers are enormous consumers that are prompting the buildout of new generation facilities. On a regulated grid, such as Evergy’s in the Kansas City area, building new generation and associated transmission is one of the most expensive processes for average ratepayers, because monopoly utilities are allowed to recoup the cost of their capital investments and typically earn a government-approved profit.

Now, it is true that average Missourians use artificial intelligence, indirectly driving the increased demand for data centers. It is also true that we currently cannot predict with certainty the amount of electricity artificial intelligence and data centers will ultimately require.

In April 2024, Goldman Sachs forecast that data centers would rise from 2.5 percent to 8 percent of all U.S. electricity usage by 2030. However, Google recently reported a 33-fold reduction in energy usage for AI queries in a single year.

Some legislation has been passed in an attempt to shield average Missourians from bearing “unjust or unreasonable” costs of powering new data centers. However, this does not mean that none of the burden of new power-plant construction will fall on average ratepayers. Furthermore, if utilities overbuild generation capacity based on overly aggressive demand projections, average ratepayers could find themselves footing the bill for underused assets.

Yet, there is risk in veering too far in the other direction as well: An underbuild of new generation would likely lead to Missouri missing out on significant investment.

To navigate this dilemma, policymakers in Missouri should think outside of the box. Instead of solely considering solutions inside the regulated, ratepayer-supported grid, Missouri should follow New Hampshire’s example and consider consumer regulated electricity (CRE). The idea is simple: huge customers like data centers are driving up electricity demand and putting strain on the grid and ratepayers. CRE would allow off-grid electricity providers to build and operate generation and transmission facilities whose output would be sold exclusively to these new customers. This approach would help shield Missouri ratepayers from both the rate hikes that would otherwise come with new plant construction and the risk of overbuild. CRE would also provide developers with speed, flexibility, and certainty—attractive qualities that are often lost to red tape and lengthy regulatory approval processes.

Adopting CRE could help ease tensions in Platte County and across the state. Of course, the pressure to offer tax subsidies would remain, but this problem is not exclusive to data center development. Corporate handouts are not the way to encourage economic growth. Instead of trying to lure businesses with subsidies, Missouri should have a free market–oriented economic and regulatory environment; for example, one that is conducive to polices like CRE.

The post Data Centers, Subsidies, and Electricity in Platte County and across Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

David Stokes, Elias Tsapelas, and Avery Frank join Zach Lawhorn to discuss: the cancellation of the St. Louis MetroLink Green Line and what bus rapid transit could mean for the city, major changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) under the One Big Beautiful Bill, and Missouri’s worsening reading crisis and how other states have improved with reforms like third grade retention.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Cancellation of the Green Line Project
08:12 Changes to the SNAP Program
17:18 Reading Retention and Educational Reforms
26:10 Property Tax Reassessments in Platte County

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post MetroLink Line Canceled, SNAP Reform, and Missouri’s Reading Crisis | Roundtable appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The state tax commission (STC) stepped into the below-market mess and required Platte County to increase its assessed valuations to a more accurate level. The county and the STC agreed to an across the board 6.8% increase on residential property in Platte County. This agreement is exciting to me, and yes, I realize it is weird to be excited by something like that. But I have been calling for years for counties to stop individually assessing every property and to do it using an average-based system. As I explained in my recent testimony before a House committee on property taxes:

Missouri should eliminate the practice of sending thousands of assessors out into our neighborhoods every other year to assess residential property. In the current system, each county assessor uses sale prices of comparable homes or other, less accurate, methods to assess every home in the county. The county’s average rate of increase—which is used for tax rate–setting purposes—is determined only after all of the homes are reassessed. I believe the process should be reversed.

. . . This article could serve as a starting point for the Missouri State Tax Commission as it worked with county assessors, local realtors, and online real estate resources to determine average county increases (or decreases) in valuation for each reassessment cycle.

Each residential, commercial, or agricultural property in a county could then be adjusted based on the county’s average for that particular class or subclass of property. The various tax rates could then be adjusted based on that average, and the vast majority of homeowners would be subject to the same resulting increase (or decrease) in their overall property taxes. This would eliminate wide discrepancies from house to house that undermine faith in the current system and sometimes lead to high tax increases for some homeowners even when the overall assessment increases are modest.

The final part is really the key. If everyone sees the same residential increase, then everyone’s tax rates can be rolled back the same amount as dictated by the Hancock Amendment, and everyone will more or less see the same, small property tax increase.

There is one potential flaw in the plan, which Platte County may be experiencing this year. If taxing districts find ways around rolling back their tax rates, then the idea doesn’t work. And from what I have been told by knowledgeable sources, school districts have started to aggressively move funding from their general service funds to their debt service funds. The latter is exempt from rate rollback requirements. I have been told that two school districts in Platte County are going to do this. (I hope that’s wrong.) I know of one school district in Lebanon that was planning to do it but instead “compromised” and moved most of the general fund rollback to the debt service fund but did allow a very small overall decrease in the total fund.

These are just a few specific examples, but I hear about it happening all over Missouri. However much ignoring the tax rate rollback by raising the debt service rate may be happening, it is wrong. School districts (or any government bodies) should not do this, and state government needs to amend the laws to make sure it can’t happen going forward.

The post Platte County Agreement Could Be a Model for Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The measure passed, but the Platte County Commission voted unanimously not to implement the tax. The governing Missouri statute seems pretty clear, stating, “The governing body of a city not within a county, or any county of this state may, after voter approval under this section, levy a sales tax . . .” The commissioners argued the law gives them the discretion to levy the tax after a vote of the people (“may”) rather than require it (“shall”).

KCPBS’s “Week in Review” discussed the matter on February 28, and I pointed out that the commission’s position seemed strong. KCUR’s Brian Ellison argued the case was not as clear cut as I suggested.

Yet the day after a hearing on March 31, a circuit judge in Platte County agreed with the commission, issuing a decision immediately. The ruling concludes, “The plain language of §67.1775 gives the Commission discretion to levy or not levy the tax after voter approval.” Clear cut indeed.

Lastly, let me highlight one of the prescient arguments David put forward in September:

The two charitable agencies that gathered these petition signatures and are supporting this tax do great work for kids. Those two agencies, Synergy Services and Beacon Mental Health, are also going to benefit from this tax, and will almost certainly seek grants from it. (Both agencies have received funding from the Jackson or Clay county children’s services funds.) There is nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend that these charities have no self-interest in this process.

If we look to the last page of the October 28 Missouri Ethics Commission filing from the committee supporting the sales tax in Platte County, we can see that three charities contributed $13,000 to the YES campaign. David was correct—this effort incentivized Beacon Mental Health and other non-profits (Synergy Services seemingly did not donate to this campaign) to steer some of their valuable dollars to a political campaign, something we see too much of already. We should not be encouraging more of this.

The commissioners were right to oppose the sales tax. Platte Countians, regardless of how they voted on this matter, should be grateful for the commission’s willingness to make a stand against higher taxes and politicizing charities.

The post Platte County Commission Decision Not to Levy Taxes Upheld in Court appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On November 5, voters in Platte County will decide on a new “children’s services fund” tax. The proposed quarter-cent sales tax will fund mental health services for children. We all want to help kids, right? It may at first glance seem to be an easy choice, but Platte County citizens should think twice before supporting this new tax.

Politicizing charity is a dangerous road to go down. So is creating another, obscure taxing district with little oversight. The established children’s services fund in Lafayette County provides a useful case study for those problems. The fund had operated for years with almost no oversight. Those operating it routinely engaged in improper activities, including funding charities that were affiliated with board members and funding a private business that wasn’t a nonprofit. After a whistleblower called attention to these problems, the state auditor investigated and referred the fund to authorities.

If voters pass this tax and create this fund, will some kids benefit? Of course. But entangling philanthropy with politics, creating a new taxing agency with limited oversight, and making charities dependent on government are not the best ways to go about helping kids in Platte County.

The post Platte County Children’s Services Fund Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Everyone is for this, right? I mean, who can be against supporting kids?

I’m all for supporting kids. I have three of them. What I don’t support is abusing the political process to turn voluntary charitable giving into mandated taxation and taking the wonderful aims of philanthropy and politicizing them.

The two charitable agencies that gathered these petition signatures and are supporting this tax do great work for kids. Those two agencies, Synergy Services and Beacon Mental Health, are also going to benefit from this tax, and will almost certainly seek grants from it. (Both agencies have received funding from the Jackson or Clay county children’s services funds.) There is nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend that these charities have no self-interest in this process.

The county board that will be created to distribute the funds to the various non-profits will likely have very little oversight, and that has been a real issue on boards like this before, especially in Lafayette County. The last thing Platte County—or any county—needs is another minor taxing body with limited oversight.

While I am not a doctor or counselor, I also think it is worth questioning the new assumption that more mental-health therapy is always good. Undoubtedly, many kids need mental-health services and some kids in Platte County would benefit from these expanded programs. But Abigail Shrier’s bestselling book, Bad Therapy, details some of the pitfalls of this approach. From a Commentary review of the book:

“With unprecedented help from mental health experts, we have raised the loneliest, most anxious, depressed, pessimistic, helpless, and fearful generation on record,” Shrier writes. Moreover, “as treatments for anxiety and depression have become more sophisticated and more readily available, adolescent anxiety and depression have ballooned.”

This tax vote may seem like an easy “yes” vote in Platte County. I hope the voters think long and hard about it first.

The post Politicizing Charity Is Dangerous appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Everyone wants to help kids thrive, right? Who could be against a new tax in Platte County to help kids get more mental health services? Well, we are. Politicizing charity and mandating it through law is a dangerous path to take. Platte County citizens would be well served to think twice before going down this road.

There is an ongoing petition drive in Platte County to create the Platte County Children’s Services Fund. If approved by voters, the plan would institute a new sales tax to fund mental health services for children in Platte County. It would create a new board in charge of overseeing the collection and distribution of the funds as grants to eligible children’s charities.

Charity should not be politized, yet that is exactly what this proposal will do in Platte County. Several years ago, the children’s service fund in St. Louis County became a flashpoint in the county executive’s race. The fund was slow to distribute money and had grown to a balance of $78 million. That large balance became a point of contention in the campaign, made worse when questionable activities with the funds led to the firing of the children’s service fund director and an FBI investigation. Even without that level of controversy, charities will still be forced to play politics. Board members of various Platte County charities that might receive funds will have to start taking that into consideration when they decide whom to support in various county political races. One can’t risk backing the wrong horse and putting the charity’s funding in jeopardy. It’s machine politics at its most insidious.

Any future Platte County Children’s Service Fund would be a special taxing district, and the last thing Platte County needs is another obscure taxing entity with little accountability and even less oversight. The children’s service fund in Lafayette County, on the eastern edge of the Kansas City region, provides a useful case study for those problems. The fund had operated for years with almost no oversight. Those operating it routinely engaged in improper activities, including funding charities that were affiliated with board members, funding charitable activities that were not eligible for funds in the first place, and funding a private business that wasn’t a nonprofit. After a whistleblower brought this to light, the state auditor investigated and referred the fund to authorities for possible Medicaid fraud. If you think the future Platte County children’s fund will be immune from these incidents, you should disabuse yourself of that notion.

If Platte County voters pass the new tax and create a children’s service fund, will some kids benefit? Of course some will. But citizens need to consider all the possible effects of this endeavor. Creating a new taxing agency with no oversight, entangling philanthropy with politics, and making charities dependent on government largesse is not a recipe for making life better in Platte County. Let’s allow these charities do what they were intended to do—help kids—without the heavy hand of government involvement.

The post Think Twice before Supporting a New Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

This November, Clay County residents will vote on reducing an obscure tax that places the county at a competitive disadvantage compared to its neighboring communities.

In 1985 the State of Missouri changed the way local governments tax commercial and industrial property. It eliminated the tax on business merchandise and inventory and replaced it with a surtax on the value of commercial real estate. Every county that year calculated the new surtax at a revenue-neutral replacement level for the lost business inventory taxes. Among the reasons for the change was a desire to base the tax on the value of real estate, which is more consistent than the ever-changing values of inventories. The change, made by an amendment to the state’s constitution, was explicit that the replacement levy calculated by the counties could be lowered only by voters, not elected officials, and that the surtax would not adjust downward as assessed valuations increased. This puts the commercial surtax at odds with most other property taxes in Missouri, for which the tax rate is supposed to go down as assessed valuations go up.

When the rates were established in 1985, most of the collar counties around Kansas City and St. Louis were much smaller than they are today, with fewer businesses. Consequently, these collar counties set their commercial surtaxes at a low rate. But Clay County, likely because of inventory taxes generated by its massive Claycomo Ford Plant, bucked that trend. It set its surtax rate at $1.59 per $100 of assessed valuation. That is the third-highest rate in the state, and the highest in Western Missouri. By comparison, Jackson County has a commercial surtax of $1.44, while Cass’s rate is much lower at $0.54 and Platte’s surtax is a mere $0.36.

Assessed valuations have grown enormously since the tax was introduced. For example, the commercial assessments in Clay County have gone up 287 percent between 1985 and 2021, from $302 million to $1.17 billion, yet the surtax rate has never been reduced to offset that increase. The combination of a high tax rate and the difficulty of reducing it puts Clay County at a competitive disadvantage compared to other counties in its area, especially its Northland neighbor and competitor, Platte County.

This is a problem for Clay County. These differences may not have been a big deal in 1985, when the tax alteration was a neutral one for Missouri businesses and more of them were located in our central business districts. But it is a problem now. After much discussion and debate, the Clay County Commission decided in July to propose lowering Clay County’s surtax to $1.44, equal to Jackson County’s rate. If passed by voters, this modest reduction in the commercial surtax rate would both spur economic activity in Clay County and reduce the perceived need for tax incentives. As Clay County continues to grow and assessed valuations continue to increase, revenue reductions for local governments that receive the tax money will be miniscule or nonexistent. Even with the tax cut, revenues from the tax will almost certainly grow past current levels in the near future. That’s not voodoo economics; it simply reflects expected growth in population, business, and assessed valuation.

Clay County leaders deserve credit for placing this surtax reduction proposal on the ballot this November so voters can have a say in making their community more economically competitive. If approved, this reasonable and beneficial tax cut will help grow Clay County’s economy, and everyone benefits from that.

The post Clay County Should Reduce Its Commercial Property Tax Surcharge appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But first, some history. One might have reasonably guessed that the historic underassessment of property (finally corrected, for better or worse, under orders from the state tax commission [STC] in 2019) was a response to the famous judicial-desegregation case tax increases from Judge Russell Clark. After all, the best way around a big property tax hike is to keep assessments low. The tax rate doesn’t matter much if the assessed value is low enough. But Jackson County assessments were low compared to St. Louis prior to Judge Clark’s order in 1987 that doubled the Kansas City school district tax rates.

In 1985, Jackson County had 44 percent of the population of St. Louis City and St. Louis County, but only 32 percent of the residential assessed valuation. That is a significant difference, especially when you consider that the Case-Schiller real estate value index ranked Kansas City’s housing values higher than St. Louis’s, both then and now. That difference in assessed values grew over time. In 2018 (before the STC ordered redo), Jackson County had 54 percent of the population but only 36 percent of the assessed value of St Louis City and County. What to make of this and how it relates to Judge Clark’s order? I make of it that Jackson County was under-assessed from the start of the current system in 1985, and that the judge’s tax increases gave Jackson County politicians, voters, and taxpayers an incentive to keep those assessments low instead of trying to make them more accurate until more than thirty years later.

That matters for a number of reasons. As Kansas City is within multiple counties, if homes in Jackson County are under-assessed, but similarly valued homes in Platte, Clay, or Cass county are properly assessed, then those taxpayers are paying more property taxes to Kansas City than their Jackson County neighbors based on the same municipal tax rate. That’s just one example. There are many taxing districts that affect your property tax bill; some cross county lines and some don’t.

I don’t think it is far-fetched to believe that something along these lines happened. Judge Clark’s tax increases were outrageous (and some were quickly overturned), and Jackson County officials stated they were going to oppose them at the time. Once the income tax aspect of the order was overturned, keeping assessed valuations low would help deal with the property tax increases.

Fast forward to 2019. Jackson County was compelled (properly) to make its assessments more accurate and property assessments jumped. However, one last holdover from the desegregation case is the Kansas City school district’s exemption from the property tax rollback rules. So, when the assessments increased substantially, the school district had no obligation to lower its tax rate. Final result? Very large tax increases for many people. That is not supposed to happen through reassessment, but it did. This is all a very complicated issue, but there is one change that should be made going forward. It is time to remove the Kansas City school district’s rollback exemption, which is turning assessment increases into a tax windfall for Kansas City schools.

The post Jackson County Assessment Facts, Part 3 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Missouri American Water, naturally, is supportive of the plan and is confident it can deliver the same services to Peculiar residents they receive now and at a lower rate. A webpage in support of the proposal shows the recent rates in Peculiar compared to other American Water customers across Missouri, including Kansas City neighbors Platte County, Lawson, and St. Joseph. (Incidentally, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) claims, “the average American family uses more than 300 gallons of water per day at home” or around  9,000 gallons per month.) 

At a time of increasing water rates in Kansas City, it might be worth considering such a deal here. Kansas Citians already look to private—albeit heavily regulated—companies for their electrical power and natural gas. Why not water too? And if such a sale here would include an upfront payment to the city as well as potentially improved management and lower rates over the long run, city leaders have a responsibility to consider the offer.

All of this hinges on a serious and substantive audit of the Water Department, as Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has called for previously. That is a necessary first step so that taxpayers and any interested buyers know exactly what is at stake. Even without a looming financial crisis, Kansas Citians should be looking to shed costly burdens that can be better and more cheaply provided by others.

The post A Peculiar Solution for Ever-Increasing Water Rates appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

What happened? A new paper published by the Show-Me Institute from economists Rik Hafer and William Rogers provides some insight into Missouri’s half-century of stagnation.

Much of the problem can be traced to the underwhelming growth of Missouri’s two major metropolitan areas: Kansas City and St. Louis. Hafer and Rogers found that from the late 1960s to the mid-2010s, the Missouri portions of the Kansas City and St. Louis metropolitan statistical areas (or MSAs) grew by about 20 percent, which at first glance might not seem terrible. The problem is, similar “mid-major” MSAs around the country grew by nearly 90 percent during the same period.

At least in some respects, the issue boils down to job growth and the retention of trained workers in high-growth industries. Certainly, individual states may be more predisposed toward certain industries based on their geography, their natural resources, and other factors, but in the five industries that have seen the largest growth in the U.S. over the last 20 years—information, professional business services, education, financial services, and mining/logging—Missouri has lagged the national average. For years, Missouri has had weak domestic in-migration, and in particular, the state has had weak in-migration of holders of bachelor’s and advanced degrees who might fill the jobs in these fast-growing industries.

Indeed, in at least four of these industries, a bachelor’s or advanced degree might be expected for a substantial number of these jobs, and arguably those jobs tend to be more urban in nature rather than rural. And that brings us back to Missouri’s two major cities: The industries that need these workers aren’t growing as fast there as they are elsewhere in the country. And although Kansas City and St. Louis are generally regarded as the “engines” of the state’s growth, Missouri’s economic horsepower has sounded more like a Pinto than a Porsche over the last few decades, in no small part due to these losses in talent.

But not every part of the state has been caught up in the state’s overall growth malaise. The metropolitan areas of Springfield and Fayetteville, Arkansas—specifically the parts in Missouri—have exceeded the state’s growth averages over this roughly 50-year horizon. And even within Missouri’s mid-major MSAs, places like St. Charles County and Platte County have been bright spots for the state, offsetting some of the weak economic performance seen in places like Jackson County, St. Louis County, and St. Louis City.

What can be done? That question is beyond the scope of Hafer’s and Rogers’ work, but it merits a discussion among the public and by policymakers. Different regions will have to grapple with different problems; last year, for instance, I wrote that St. Louis City’s long-standing woes can be traced back to its dysfunctional educational, crime, and tax policies, all of which incentivize current and prospective residents to put down their roots elsewhere in the region, or beyond it entirely. Similar criticisms can be leveled at Kansas City. Elsewhere in the state, educational and tax issues are perhaps the more pressing issues for long-term economic growth in their regions.

Regardless, Missourians must begin a serious and deliberate process to ensure that the state is creating an environment for people of all educational backgrounds to succeed here. Hopefully, by the next time astronauts set foot on the Moon, the state will have gotten a handle on its growth problems.

The post A Moonshot of Mistakes: Missouri’s Missing Million 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.

The 25-million-visitor claim comes from the 2016 Tourism Economics report prepared for VisitKC by Longwoods International and the U.S. Travel Association. A copy of the report is available at the link at the bottom of this post. The study defines Kansas City as “a five county region in Kansas and Missouri—Johnson and Wyandotte in Kansas; Clay, Jackson, and Platte in Missouri.”

This means the 25 million visitors visited not only Kansas City, Missouri, but Kansas City, Kansas; Overland Park; Olathe; and Independence. It includes the Cabela’s at the Legends Outlet, which for a while was the number one tourism attraction in the entire state of Kansas, and since then has only added attractions such as Sporting KC’s stadium.

The report divides visitor spending by the five different counties, with Jackson County, the home of Kansas City (and Independence) receiving just under half. It is reasonable to conclude that only half of the 25 million visitors are coming to Jackson County—and even fewer may be visiting Kansas City proper. After all, the five-county area has a population of 1.8 million, while Kansas City has only 480,000.

For an administration that talks about dealing only in facts, the 25 million visitors claim is misleading at best. People are right to be skeptical of such big claims, and city leaders should do a better job of ensuring their accuracy.

The post Tourism: When Kansas City Is Not Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Mid-Continent Library system spends just short of $44 million each year. As far as we at the Show-Me Institute can tell, they appear to be managing their budgets well. The library itself makes an additional point:

In addition, tax incentives and abatements by local government have impacted the revenue that would generally result from the growth of the Library’s tax base. The Library’s budget has been essentially flat for the past 8 years.

It appears that the cost of those tax incentives and abatements given to private developers—which we’ve discussed elsewhere–amounts to about $7 million a year in lost income to the library. The levy will replace that lost income.

We don’t have a view on whether voters should approve the levy increase, but it is clear that municipal handouts to wealthy corporations such as Cerner and Burns & McDonnell are not free. (To add insult to injury, these same corporations won’t have to pay this increased rate, either.) A levy increase such as this, which seeks to recoup diverted funds, can rightly be described as a TIF tax.

The post The TIF Tax appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here’s a rather uncontroversial idea: public information should be public. That is, information, records, and data collected and maintained by public entities should be open, accessible, and affordable. For example, if citizens want to know how their mayor spent public funds during a business trip, that information should be available upon request.

But some public entities don’t want their records and data to be open, accessible, and affordable. Or at least not when they can charge exorbitant fees for their data.

Show Me Institute analysts have written about instances when public agencies have tried to charge huge fees for public information. A recent case involved the University of Missouri asking for more than $80,000 for documents related to university researchers blinding and killing a half-dozen puppies.

I write this because we’ve come across two more instances (thankfully less grisly) of ridiculous fees being charged for public data.

The current culprits are Clay and Platte counties. I recently requested a simple data pull—one that would require an hour or two of time from a single clerk—and was told that it would cost me thousands of dollars. Clay County wanted $2,399 for the data, and Platte’s going rate was $1,263!

Yet Jackson County, just south of Clay and Platte counties, fulfilled an identical request for just $25. Clay and Platte counties don’t incur any more costs than Jackson County does in reproducing the data, so why do they charge 9500% and 5000% more, respectively?

The requested data is geospatial in nature (it’s about property values), and state law allows public entities to charge fees for it. Unfortunately, some public entities have used the law to impose massive and seemingly unnecessary fees on taxpayers in search of basic (and digitally available) information—information that should be easily accessible and affordable under Missouri’s Sunshine law..

There is no good reason why public entities should make nonconfidential, public information effectively inaccessible. If government is going to be accountable to residents and taxpayers, its data and records need to be readily available to those it serves. We’re grateful that Jackson County complied with the spirit of the open records laws and are hopeful that Clay and Platte counties will do the same. 

The post Public Information: If You Have to Ask, You Can’t Afford It. . . . appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

As we wrote before, the plan does not simply prioritize the highways that are most used for commercial and personal transportation. Rather, MoDOT will split state highways into a primary and secondary system. The primary system will include the highways necessary to connect all of Missouri’s communities, while the secondary system mostly handles local traffic. For this reason, Missouri highways that carry less than 500 vehicles a day are sometimes in the primary system while heavily trafficked US routes in urban areas are sometimes in the secondary system.

The primary system under the 325 Plan will cover about 8,000 miles of Missouri’s 34,000-mile highway system, and it will receive the funding to maintain its current state of repair. The secondary system will be maintained as much as funds allow, but their state of repair will deteriorate over time. A map of the 325 primary highways in the Kansas City area is shown below.

All told, only around 900 of Jackson, Clay, and Platte County’s 1,800-plus miles of state highways will be included in the 325 Plan’s primary system. While that includes all of Kansas City’s interstate highways, it excludes most Missouri routes and as much as half of the US routes in those three counties. Among those left out are parts of US 169 and US 71, both of which carry thousands of trucks and tens of thousands of passenger vehicles every day. These well-published omissions have led some to believe MoDOT is attempting to spread the pain wide, instead focusing on maintaining the most efficient highway system, in an effort to convince residents to increase funding.

Whether or not MoDOT’s 325 Plan is politically motivated, there is no doubt that without increased funds parts of the state highway system in the Kansas City area are going to suffer. That is not good for quality of life or the economic competitiveness of the region. If that situation is to be avoided, Missouri will have to modernize the user-funding base that supports the state’s critical roadways.

The post Kansas City, Meet the 325 Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, this places Stephens in a clear conflict of interest as her boss at the Platte County EDC is none other than Mark VanLoh, who is the director of the Aviation Department. In short, Stephens has been asked to serve on a voluntary group charged with passing judgment on her boss’ magnum opus. What’s worse, Stephen’s isn’t shy about her support for the new terminal and this seems to cloud her ability to perform her job on the advisory group.

During the Nov. 5 meeting, Stephens identified herself as one of the advisory group members who is urging a quick vote on the new terminal project. Starting at the 53:45-minute mark, Stephens asserts that because of her position on the Platte County EDC, she has “that kind of opportunity to visit with many of those stakeholders that others around this table may not.” It’s reasonable to expect that a person in her position should know what airport stakeholders are thinking, after all, the airport is in Platte County.

But it appears she does not. The week after Stephens urged a quick vote based on her ‘special knowledge’ of stakeholders, Southwest Airlines — the airport’s biggest stakeholder — announced that the new terminal proposal is too expensive, creates a disincentive to serve Kansas City International (MCI), and that Southwest felt it was not adequately represented in new terminal discussions. Exactly what is the value of having the “kind of opportunity to visit” with stakeholders if these strong views from the biggest stakeholder were missed?

Stephens may mean well in her service to the advisory group, but she is not as dialed in to the views of airport stakeholders as she presents. And how can her input be taken seriously when her very livelihood is dependent upon the man on whose plan she is being asked to pass judgment?

The post Who Is Alicia Stephens And Why Should Kansas City Care? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We know that government departments such as the airport do not pay taxes. This is also true for tenants on airport land. According to Karbank Real Estate Co.,  which competes against the taxpayer-subsidized airport, the assessed value of the Blount International facility on airport land is slightly more than $7 million, or one-third the appraised value. As a result, the affected tax districts have lost almost $650,000 in annual tax revenue. The Park Hill School District alone is denied $380,000; Kansas City proper loses slightly more than $107,000; Mid-Continent library loses $22,000.

Of course reading this, you might think that officials in Platte County — the county in which the airport is located — are up in arms about this deal because they are losing thousands of tax dollars to an airport that undercuts private taxpaying developers. But you’d be wrong. The Platte County Economic Development Council not only supports the airport in the past deal, but also in the current plan for a new terminal. Heck, Alicia Stephens, executive director of the Platte County EDC, supports the new terminal project and the mayor appointed her to the Airport Task Force!

But don’t worry about Stephens losing her job for supporting deals that cost Platte County dearly. Her boss, the chairman of the Platte County EDC, is none other than Mark Van Loh — the head of the Kansas City Aviation Department, whose developments are robbing Platte County of tax dollars.

Reasonable people are left with two compelling questions: How can Stephens credibly serve on a task force in which she will be asked to pass judgment on a proposal by her boss? And why does Platte County tolerate its EDC chairman having such a clear and significant conflict of interest?

Here is a table Karbank compiled that provides a breakdown of tax revenue NOT being paid on property that the airport developed:

Not satisfied with giving away the house on rent and taxes, the Aviation Department signed a lease agreement that stipulated, (emphasis added):

In the event that ad valorem real property taxes are assessed against the Premises, the bonus value of this Lease, the Infrastructure Improvements or any component of the Premises or the leasehold estate created by this Lease (“Taxes”) and paid by Lessee, City shall either pay Lessee an amount equal to such Taxes or credit such amount against Rent owed to City by Lessee.

In other words, Kansas City is on the hook for any taxes owed on the property should the abatement end. And it might. Karbank is suing the airport over the matter, alleging that the agreement, which they claim is effectively 100 percent abatement  in perpetuity, is unconstitutional. Whatever the results of the lawsuit, MCI needs to act like an airport, not Donald Trump.

The post ‘This Is What Airports Do,’ Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

“The golf course fleet is better maintained than the sheriff’s department’s fleet,” Sheriff Richard Anderson said.

This brings to mind a very easy move for the county to make that will (1) bring new revenue into the county (the sale price); (2) reduce future expenditures; (3) expand the county property tax base (placing the property on the tax rolls); and (4) remove the county from doing things government is not intended to do. Privatize the golf course.

Golf courses make up one of the least important government programs. I say this as a golfer. I do not think governments should own golf courses, but at least some just own the land and contract out the operations of the course to private companies. Can someone say “comparative advantage”? But Platte County does not appear to even do that. The county appears to own and operate the entire course as a division of county government. (I base that on my reading of the 2011 budget, pages 221-224.) That is insane.

The Mackinac Center and the Reason Foundation both have conducted great work involving government golf courses.  This should be a fairly easy choice for Platte County. Shed the golf course to raise money to improve your sheriff’s fleet. Platte County should sell off its golf course to private operators, and if that is not possible (due to legal restrictions on selling parkland or some other such issue), contract out the management of it.  

And I now will resist the temptation to end this post with an overly cute golf reference, such as “Privatization would be a real Birdie for Platte County!”

The post Hey Platte County, Sell Your Golf Course! appeared first on Show-Me Institute.