DEAD > 1640- BNIM HQ

[KCTOGA]

Curious if any of the Crossroad TIF cheerleaders here have kids in KCPS district?

I do not myself, however I probably know 35-40 people who support this. Most people (parents) hope that their children attain good, well paying jobs when they are done with their education. Most of which would hope those jobs are close to home instead of in Cincinnati.

[ThorsteinVeblen]

I think anyone that pays property taxes (both residential and personal) in downtown has skin in the game when it comes to TIF, regardless of whether or not they have children in the public school system. My wife and I own a condo downtown and paid fairly decent property taxes in 2015 even with a 50% abatement still in place, no abatement on personal property. Also, 62 cents of every dollar went to KCPS. On top of that, we are paying into an unaccredited school system that spends $12,939 per pupil compared to Shawnee Mission School District which spends $11,303 per pupil. At this point, I have a hard time agreeing with parents that KCPS needs more money in order to provide better education. I agree that any TIF offering needs to be well reviewed but I'm also cognizant of where we are in our downtown development phase. It's probably selfish but any GOOD development that will increase the number of downtown workers and/or demand for residential property I'm for. I'm also willing to be generous with TIF to get to a certain point of downtown residential and office population. Once the threshold is passed, then the TIF grants can be reined in substantially, however, we just aren't there yet.

[flyingember]

Once the threshold is passed, then the TIF grants can be reined in substantially, however, we just aren't there yet.

Exactly. Now take your idea and split downtown into multiple areas used to determine what areas get help.

With that standard this part of downtown is already getting projects without assistance, and very big ones at that, Use TIF on other parts of downtown that are still having problems.

[chingon]

Curious if any of the Crossroad TIF cheerleaders here have kids in KCPS district?

does anyone here have kids in the KCPS district?

I do.

[kboish]

Once the threshold is passed, then the TIF grants can be reined in substantially, however, we just aren't there yet.

Exactly. Now take your idea and split downtown into multiple areas used to determine what areas get help.

With that standard this part of downtown is already getting projects without assistance, and very big ones at that, Use TIF on other parts of downtown that are still having problems.

Remind me the projects of similar scale and type that have been completed in this area that aren't receiving incentives.

All I can think of is a hotel that is being built. People keep saying there are all sorts of privately funded development happening in the area (you can't seriously consider a philanthropically financed Performing Arts Center that has an endowment to cover operating costs to be unsubsidized), but I don't know what they are referring to.

Serious question- do ALL the incentives get cut off for an area as soon as one project is under construction that didn't request incentives? What happens if the developer of the hotel w/o subsidies is way off base in their speculation and goes belly up within a couple of years? Do we wait 3-5 years with no incentives in the area-forgoing other opportunities- and then turn the spigot back on after it fails? or do we wait 3-5 years with incentives still available and once we see the project is actually successful, only then do we cease incentivizing that area? And again, do we cease incentivizing everything or just hotels?

Its a pretty complicated beast. It does seem like some policy development in this area would be a good thing.

[beautyfromashes]

For me, I'd agree with the TIF request if the green aspects were paid by the developer only and not included in the total development cost to determine TIF. If green is financially viable, it should pay for itself in the long term. Why should taxpayers be responsible to pay for upfront infrastructure that will eliminate utility costs in the future. To me, it feels like they want the city to pitch in for development of the building and pay for utilities too.

[kboish]

For me, I'd agree with the TIF request if the green aspects were paid by the developer only and not included in the total development cost to determine TIF. If green is financially viable, it should pay for itself in the long term. Why should taxpayers be responsible to pay for upfront infrastructure that will eliminate utility costs in the future. To me, it feels like they want the city to pitch in for development of the building and pay for utilities too.

I think the opposite would be desired. Make them pay for the building and allow the city to chip in for green aspects. Especially if it is thought that the building could be redeveloped on its own without incentives. Incentives should be pushing for something. It seems like the goal previously (possibly currently being phased out) was anything- just build downtown, the city will pitch in. Moving forward the city should have clear targets on what sort of "something" it wants. These could include design standards (green, walkable, etc), density/height, population growth, new businesses, business retention, etc (edit: I'm specifically referring to areas people are calling "gentrified" or complete in KC- though I disagree with that assessment). Just taking a geographic area and painting it red and saying "no, its off limits for incentives" seems pretty shortsighted. I mean look at Chicago, they use TIF on Michigan Ave.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/de ... s/tif.html

Also, the news recently touted Overland Park for establishing a TIF policy that limited TIF to redevelopment of a certain older part of town...what was not mentioned is that the policy left plenty of leeway for TIF to be used along the 435 corridor for just the reasons I mentioned above.

[DaveKCMO]

Why should taxpayers be responsible to pay for upfront infrastructure that will eliminate utility costs in the future. To me, it feels like they want the city to pitch in for development of the building and pay for utilities too.

...because they're going to capture runoff on-site, and not just their own. most developments just let it run into the streets or the stormwater system. we've seen how that's worked in the crossroads, which is nearly 100% impervious.

[flyingember]

Remind me the projects of similar scale and type that have been completed in this area that aren't receiving incentives.

The Helzberg built garage is the second one.
I'm excluding the PAC too.

The law doesn't say if 5 projects don't get incentives then others can't. it says the area has to be one that "would not reasonably be anticipated to be developed without the adoption of tax increment financing."
I don't think number of projects is fair so look at dollar amounts. Within a couple blocks-
$26.8 million with incentives
$51 million without.

Why should taxpayers be responsible to pay for upfront infrastructure that will eliminate utility costs in the future. To me, it feels like they want the city to pitch in for development of the building and pay for utilities too.

...because they're going to capture runoff on-site, and not just their own. most developments just let it run into the streets or the stormwater system. we've seen how that's worked in the crossroads, which is nearly 100% impervious.

we're already spending a fortune for work on the stormwater system to add capacity (the overflow control project). why should people pay for this twice?
maybe the funding for that part should come from part of the overflow control project? it's relevant to the purpose at least. Property owners that want to minimize sewer need should get help from sewer funds, not the schools

[KCTOGA]

I think anyone that pays property taxes (both residential and personal) in downtown has skin in the game when it comes to TIF, regardless of whether or not they have children in the public school system. My wife and I own a condo downtown and paid fairly decent property taxes in 2015 even with a 50% abatement still in place, no abatement on personal property. Also, 62 cents of every dollar went to KCPS. On top of that, we are paying into an unaccredited school system that spends $12,939 per pupil compared to Shawnee Mission School District which spends $11,303 per pupil. At this point, I have a hard time agreeing with parents that KCPS needs more money in order to provide better education. I agree that any TIF offering needs to be well reviewed but I'm also cognizant of where we are in our downtown development phase. It's probably selfish but any GOOD development that will increase the number of downtown workers and/or demand for residential property I'm for. I'm also willing to be generous with TIF to get to a certain point of downtown residential and office population. Once the threshold is passed, then the TIF grants can be reined in substantially, however, we just aren't there yet.

Thank you for stating this far better than I did.

[pash]

.

[kboish]

Are you sure you understand what projects have received TIF incentives in the Crossroads, and how much of the cost of those projects the public has abated?

I said incentives- not just TIF. All properties in Xroads are eligible to receive an abatement on their taxes if they prove whatever percent of their use is for the arts. this is essentially a retroactive tax abatement for whatever investment they've made. No one who uses that can claim they didn't receive an incentive (which is a lot of the hood).

And that's the point. It's not about whether this project should get subsidies or not. It's not a binary question. It's a question of how much public money goes to which projects, in what form, and over what timeline—and in exchange for what.

I certainly don't disagree with this. I'm not saying its not a bad discussion to have. And I think if you read my other posts you could probably see that is precisely what i said.

This Helzberg/BNIM project is asking for more money as a share of the project cost than any other recent TIF project (of which there are very few), and for very substantially more than is typical of comparable projects subsidized under programs other than TIf. And all in return for arguably less public benefit, at a time when the neighborhood is clearly more desirable and less in need of subsidies than ever before.

I think this project is likely a little skewed because the garage is viewed as a separate part of the project to those watching the TIF project, but to the developer its likely all part of one project. If you coupled them together is it that much out of line with other projects? Certainly if there was no garage already existing the project would require it.

Its also quite possible the project was broken into two pieces so the demo required for the garage didn't have to face public approval (private money), but now to make the project whole she needs to get a TIF that is larger (on its face)than traditionally requested.

[DaveKCMO]

Why should taxpayers be responsible to pay for upfront infrastructure that will eliminate utility costs in the future. To me, it feels like they want the city to pitch in for development of the building and pay for utilities too.

...because they're going to capture runoff on-site, and not just their own. most developments just let it run into the streets or the stormwater system. we've seen how that's worked in the crossroads, which is nearly 100% impervious.

we're already spending a fortune for work on the stormwater system to add capacity (the overflow control project). why should people pay for this twice?
maybe the funding for that part should come from part of the overflow control project? it's relevant to the purpose at least. Property owners that want to minimize sewer need should get help from sewer funds, not the schools

1. the major OCP project for the crossroads is currently unfunded and couldn't start until at least 2034 (when a predecessor project will complete, assuming that isn't delayed). even then, that unfunded project wouldn't solve flash flooding during intense rain events like the four we've experienced this year (and an added bonus is that it will take yet another decade to build).
2. water services has repeatedly told us that whatever private properties can do to capture runoff on-site now is beneficial even with all of the new infrastructure. they are even contemplating their own incentive program (private cisterns, green roofs), but haven't set it up yet.

the watershed in this part of the crossroads all runs east from broadway down and towards walnut -- which has seen significant flash flooding this year.

[pash]

.

[beautyfromashes]

...because they're going to capture runoff on-site, and not just their own. most developments just let it run into the streets or the stormwater system. we've seen how that's worked in the crossroads, which is nearly 100% impervious.

And they receive no benefit to collecting rainwater and a reduced water bill?

Honestly, I think that Shirley Helzberg probably has killed TIF for all of the Crossroads or at least put it under more scrutiny, and that's unfortunate because there are still developments that could/should happen in the area that justify TIF funds. This one just seems too outlandish and greedy and screams of ego and entitlement. I hope she back peddles and pitches in more money for the green aspects.

[DaveKCMO]

if there was a financial benefit to collecting other people's rainwater on your property, more people would be doing it.

[DaveKCMO]

https://twitter.com/LynnHorsley/status/ ... 2003643392

Petitioners against Helzberg TIF needed 3,417 signatures and election boards counted 3,962. Without compromise, TIF deal may be dead.

[macnw]

What happens to the tax base now if BNIM decides to bolt for Kansas? Hopefully won't come to that, but you know Kansas is just lurking in the shadows

[beautyfromashes]

What happens to the tax base now if BNIM decides to bolt for Kansas?

Why would any forward-thinking company want to do that now?

[KCTOGA]

What happens to the tax base now if BNIM decides to bolt for Kansas? Hopefully won't come to that, but you know Kansas is just lurking in the shadows

These people are to hell-bent on making a point than they are compromise, money for the school students. They are trying to break TIF altogether. Helberg has already stated if this fell through she would simply have to tear the building down. What a shame. Again the school students suffer because the anti-TIF crowd cannot compromise.