KCRag Forum

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:12 pm How do you do this? The city doesn't collect property taxes, each county does, so there's no special fund that separates post-TIF property taxes from all other taxes. Property taxes just go into one giant bucket in the general fund.

Seems it would take a very short amount of time to cross reference in a pivot table the addresses for expired TIF properties and the amount of property taxes they pay annually.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:12 pm You need a method to (re)allocate money within the city budget. If properties asses lower does the fund get less money? If a project is making payments in lieu of taxes how do you adjust for this?

This would be covered with the first answer. The taxes paid would tell the amount allocated. If the property tax went down, the allocation would as well.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 2:12 pm Seems like you're just asking for the city to increase it's allocation. At that point why bother with the source and just take a percentage of the general fund instead?

Direct funding of expenditures, tied to a funding source is always a better way to allocate funds and it also would help justify TIF designation. The governed would see that development and forgoing some upfront revenue on a project can help with housing all citizens given time.

Question: Why wouldn't electeds want this type of designation except that they want a big fat pool of $ they can access for pet projects like soccer fields?

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 3:56 pm Question: Why wouldn't electeds want this type of designation except that they want a big fat pool of $ they can access for pet projects like soccer fields?

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edit ... 70091.html

Because even with dedicated funding sources for urban renewal projects already existing it doesn’t mean the money is being spent well, or at all.

I apologize for taking the original conversation off course. But yes, I do believe that imposing a new tax on development is exactly the wrong thing to do at the moment. It's one thing to reduce or eliminate incentives but to add new costs to new construction will guarantee you get less of it, which means fewer new neighbors and higher rents and prices.

And even setting aside dedicated funds for subsidies doesn't work if those same subsidies come with strings (workforce inclusion, prevailing wages, etc.) that can more than offset the value of the subsidy itself. Flyingember's link speaks to that issue.

That said, I agree that recalls are pretty much the stupidest and least productive political action out there. Just look at California. Maybe it was a joke but I would say "too soon!" Besides, I wouldn't be surprised if commissioning a "nexus study" is just a politically palatable way to kill the whole idea. "Sorry, we studied it and it came back looking not so good." The danger of course is that there are consultants out there who will give you a study that tell you whatever you want to hear, so you are playing with fire if you ask for a study without pretty much knowing the answer you are going to get in advance.

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:27 pm Because even with dedicated funding sources for urban renewal projects already existing it doesn’t mean the money is being spent well, or at all.

The urban part of town isn't the only place this can happen. The Northland has some of the worst expenditures of money in the last year.

beautyfromashes wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 11:43 pm

flyingember wrote: ↑Wed Aug 25, 2021 6:27 pm Because even with dedicated funding sources for urban renewal projects already existing it doesn’t mean the money is being spent well, or at all.

The urban part of town isn't the only place this can happen. The Northland has some of the worst expenditures of money in the last year.

The point is a dedicated funding source seems good but it leads to bad actions as much as anything

Flexible funding can target multiple issues, like free transit reduces the cost of living overall, targeted jobs incentives brings jobs to neighborhoods to increase income, repair grants enables people to stay in their home, etc.

Money just for one thing or one place is harder to be redirected if demand rises in a more productive area.

flyingember wrote: ↑Thu Aug 26, 2021 8:34 am Money just for one thing or one place is harder to be redirected if demand rises in a more productive area.

I'd agree with that if this was just one project. I'm talking about funding a whole affordable housing program. There will always be a need and money always needs to be available.

Northland is kind of the red headed stepchild of KCMO and city Council. Lots of good things going on up here but plenty of needs and plenty of room for improvement. Northland benefits from the smaller municipalities being able to do some development and add things, NKC, Gladstone, and Liberty have had some good luck with projects and initiatives. Riverside & Parkville as well. Just wish there was more of a push to build it up and out and take advantage of what can be a great tax base for KCMO.

July YTD housing permits for Midwest. KC's multifamily permits are slowing down at 31% behind same time last year but still high relative to most of Midwest. Indy stands out for single family, Madison significant boost in MF.


https://www.nahb.org/-/media/NAHB/news- ... nd-msa.xls

^If the case that demand is keeping up with supply recently, maybe it will pick back up by end of year. Will be interesting to see what other reports show for Q2 absorption.

earthling wrote: ↑Fri Aug 27, 2021 5:52 pm ^If the case that demand is keeping up with supply this quarter, maybe it will pick back up by end of year. Will be interesting to see what other reports show for Q2 absorption.

Could have been they were waiting to see, seems like a lot is coming down the pipeline at the moment

Will be impressive if this year KC can keep up with or pass last year with permits, so far it's not.

An interesting read on what's driving MF investment/financing decisions..
https://www.berkadia.com/wp-content/upl ... e-Poll.pdf

Interest rates and inflation are expected to still be driving factors relatively more than current rate of absorption (supply/demand) according to Berkadia. However Central KC has nearly 10% new units relative to stock, which is unusually high so absorption might also be key factor in this area for more Class A. Class B and affordable are expected to be the focus for near future, relatively more than past anyway.

Yardi Matrix says KC has been pursuing nearly all units toward higher income. KC needs to get a piece of the affordable and Class B bandwagon as well, especially for E Side and Midtown.

Kansas City had 7,695 units under construction as of June, with the sweeping majority (95.7%) aimed at high-income renters. Yardi Matrix expects 3,712 units to come online across the metro this year, slightly exceeding the 2019 and 2020 totals. As of June, Kansas City had an additional 35,200 units in the planning and permitting stages.

Developers broke ground on 4,384 units across 18 properties in the 12 months ending in June. The figure is more than double the one recorded in the previous 12 months, when developers broke ground on 2,145 units across 11 properties.

How often do developers build Class B and/or affordable housing developments without some sort of governmental incentive or directive to do so?

^KCMO already more open to easier path to incentives for affordable than for market-rate Class A.

According to the Berkadia article, investors are expected to head that direction more than in past...

Across the Affordable housing opportunities available in the market, Berkadia’s professionals foresee Affordable housing property acquisitions (49%), rehabilitations of existing Affordable housing properties (31%) and ground up construction projects (24%) to be most attractive to investors over the next two years.

AFFORDABLE A TOP PRIORITY
Affordable housing is an easy way for investors to meet ESG requirements [environmental, social, governance]. Building LEED certified buildings, while very costly, has been a popular trend for a while.”

Sani wrote: ↑Tue Sep 07, 2021 9:45 am How often do developers build Class B and/or affordable housing developments without some sort of governmental incentive or directive to do so?

“Almost never” is my guess.

Yardi Matrix August report shows KC's multi-family rent growth near bottom of top markets, which may be due to potential overbuilding. KC single-family rent growth very low yet change in occupancy above US avg.

https://www.yardimatrix.com/Publication ... August2021

Asking Rent Growth Breaks Records Nationwide

National asking rents increased by 10.3% in August, the first double-digit increase in the history of our data set, as nearly all the metros Yardi Matrix tracks exhibited positive YoY rent growth in August. The recovery in rents is widespread, fueled by job growth, excess savings and a return to urban cores.

I get that higher rent means more money for landlords and developers, but I am not going to shed any tears for developers around here who feel they haven't been able to increase rents as drastically as their colleagues in Denver, or San Diego, or whatever.

Found another Multi Family source. Northmarq Q2 report for KC, some conflicting information with other reports...
https://www.northmarq.com/wp-content/up ... 2Q2021.pdf

How many urban core buildings will be delivered in 2023? Only 3 come to mind

1. WestPort Commons (maybe at end of year)
2. West Plaza Flats

CORE will be delivered in late 2021 IIRC, but could be counted in the 2022 list. ANy others?

^According to Berkadia pipeline report...

https://base.berkadia.com/wp-content/up ... Report.pdf