by Jeff Quibell
4. February 2009 20:56
Wanda and I are taking a brief vacation this week, traveling by car around the southeastern part of the nation. We watched this week’s council meeting on the Internet while relaxing in Florida.
The discussion surrounding the Parkway Place development was again the main topic in the visitors session. Residents and individuals alike again encouraged Councilmen Fowler, Solon or Shaver to bring the project back up for reconsideration, as they are the only ones who can make this request.
Bill Wrisinger, recently named Blue Springs Business Person of the Year by the Blue Springs Chamber of Commerce, spoke to the council again, seeking its help and direction in determining how best to proceed with his project. He mentioned that in the negotiations, the council had offered 353 tax abatement in place of the community improvement district financing that he had originally requested.
Use of 353 tax abatement would result in a reduction of funding to other taxing entities, such as the school district and fire district. The community improvement district imposes a sales tax only on the users of the project, including the many people who would stop in to shop or buy gas as they came through the area on the interstate. The 353 tax abatement funds the infrastructure improvements by taking away from our school district, and other taxing entities. One has to wonder how that is an improvement for our citizens.
Some may wonder why a tax incentive is requested at all. Why shouldn’t the developer pay all of the expenses for his project? The council approved the Parkway Place project; why doesn’t Wrisinger just move forward with that approval?
The answer is that the city is requiring him to pay for road improvements and additional infrastructure that will benefit the entire Adams Dairy Parkway and all existing and future developments along the corridor. When those costs are included in the overall project, the cost of developing the currently vacant land is no longer financially feasible.
The council must evaluate if the incentive requested and the development proposed are worth the expense to our taxpayers. In this case, the resulting project will generate hundreds of thousands in new revenue for the city, so the answer may be yes, as it has been for other developments in the vicinity.
Based on this week’s meeting, it appears some members of the council may prefer for the revenue to come from other taxing entities like our school district. I believe the best solution was the one originally proposed that includes revenue from sources outside our city and provides full funding to our school district.