KCRag Forum

I'd think you could at least make it retroactive for some period.

based on feedback from the city's bond counsel, there will now be three questions (pending council approval of the ballot language):

Q1 - $600 million for roads, bridges, sidewalks (can include trails)
Q2 - $150 million for flood control
Q3 - $50 million for buildings (can include fountains, monuments, ADA improvements in parks, KC museum, animal shelter)

With the vote for this coming up soon, how likely is it this'll pass? Any polling data on it?

JLowe2018 wrote:With the vote for this coming up soon, how likely is it this'll pass? Any polling data on it?

The east side sales tax is on the same ballot so that will draw out the east side vote en mass. Will they vote for two new taxes? The heavy voting ewav of the northland is largely incentivized to vote no for both.

My guess is the near northland, west of troost votes a strong yes and east side a near majority with the northland a tossup and it doesn't get 57%

related, I expect the east side sales tax to pass or fail depending on turnout citywide.

It takes 57% to pass.
http://fox4kc.com/2017/01/19/mayor-sly- ... ing-roads/

Yes turnout tend to affect elections.

Not my most comprehensible, but I was saying I think it's going to come down to what part of the city has what turnout.

I think it's a long shot for any of them to pass.

it is a very high bar.

If I make the assumption that one of the four ballot items will pass but only one I would pick the roads/sidewalks even though it's the biggest.

Road quality has been a top area of concern for years.

.

With or without this passing I would change side setbacks.

The 16 feet required between homes does more to inflate cost per home than anything else which increases future liabilities of course.

Dropping to 14 feet maximum can have a notable impact. If a home is 45 feet wide and a neighborhood is 20 by 30 homes that saves enough space to add another 20 homes. That's a ~3% increase in density for a tiny change few will notice.

4 feet setbacks or 8 feet per house total with the same neighborhood gives room for another 100 homes. (8 * 30/ 45 * 20) So that's a 15% increase in density. Over 20 years those homes add around $1.5 million in taxes to the city.

Looks like this might be the answer to my polling question:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 70223.html

The survey by Remington Research Group showed 62 percent of likely voters agreed Kansas City should be authorized to issue $800 million in general obligation bonds for streets, bridges, sidewalks, buildings and flood control. On that issue, 23 percent said “no” and 15 percent were undecided.

The automated phone survey was done March 24 and 25 with 1,458 likely municipal voters. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. The actual ballot measures on the general obligation bonds need a supermajority of 57.1 percent approval to pass.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... rylink=cpy

Also shows the marijuana question passing with 56% pro.

^ Such a bogus poll. They didn't ask if property taxes should be increased to pay for the bonds! Of course people will say yes to more stuff if they don't think they personally have to pay for it. Iceberg!!!

beautyfromashes wrote:^ Such a bogus poll. They didn't ask if property taxes should be increased to pay for the bonds! Of course people will say yes to more stuff if they don't think they personally have to pay for it. Iceberg!!!

The ballot language doesn't necessarily spell out to lay folk that there will be a property tax increase - it kind of wordsteps around it.

The authorization of the bonds will authorize the City to maintain tangible property tax rates sufficient to pay the interest and principal on the bonds until fully paid.

VAGUE!

^ That's evil. So, there isn't even a set amount that it will be increased?

beautyfromashes wrote:^ That's evil. So, there isn't even a set amount that it will be increased?

they can't possibly know because it depends on the assessed values of property in the city over time

beautyfromashes wrote:^ That's evil. So, there isn't even a set amount that it will be increased?

It can only be increased to the extent required to cover the authorized bonding authority...so actually, yes, it is limited.

It looks like bonds would be issued on an annual basis of $40M. As these bonds are issued other city debt will be retired If $40M in bonds are retired and $40M are issued in the same year it would seem there would be no increase or decrease in the property tax rate for that year. Of course interest rates and property values would affect the final annual rate for debt service but it looks like those would have a minimal effect on the rate.

^ So, is this a way to refinance current city debt?