Letter to Mayor Bower and the Board of Aldermen from the Mid-Continent Public Library

The following letter was received by Mayor Bower and the Raytown Board of Aldermen prior to a public hearing to consider granting a 15 year 50% property tax abatement to HyVee on property they plan to purchase (formerly, the Schnucks grocery store) located at 350 Highway and Gregory Boulevard. HyVee has an exclusive 20 year lease on the Schnucks property. The Board of Aldermen will consider the property tax abatement at its next meeting, Tuesday, November 6, 2007. The meeting is a public hearing and open to any Raytown resident who wishes to speak at the meeting. October 16, 2007 Regarding Amendment No. 1 to the Development Plan for the Schnucks Raytown Redevelopment Area Dear Mayor Bower, I apologize that I am not able to attend the meeting of the Board of Aldermen to discuss my concerns about the above-mentioned project. The monthly meeting of the Library Board occurs the same night as your hearing. I want to take a moment to mention several concerns that the Library has with this plan and to state our opposition. First, there seems to be a document irregularity in the official application and notice. I mentioned this to your counsel on Friday, October 12. I was told by the city clerk that the error was not considered significant enough to recall and correct the notices. The problem is that the notice identifies the property in question as sitting on US Hwy 50 rather than MO Hwy 350. Although the road may have been designated as US 50 at one point, it is no longer. Simply, the Certificate of Notice and Notice to Taxing Jurisdictions is incorrect and should be reissued since it is inaccurate. More troubling is since there are simple problems like this in the official documents; it does beg the question what other errors might be in the application? Second, Mid-Continent Public Library typically opposes all 353 abatements except in the most drastic cases. Chapter 353 abatements provide significant financial risk to the library district and to other taxing districts. The proposal before you appears to demolish several shops that reoccupied and have the potential to contribute to the tax rolls. The remaining, unoccupied building will be spared from the tax rolls for an additional ten years so that the fifteen-year-old building may be given a “facelift” and the parking lot may be repaired. To me, the repairs that are being requested are the type of repairs that any homeowner or business owner finds himself considering after a building has aged. In fact, the library has recently replaced the tile, the carpet, improved the drainage ditch with stone, and resurfaced our parking lot at the Joe Herndon Branch Library. This is the cost of doing business. Rather than taking money from the fire department, schoolchildren or the physically handicapped, a thoughtful business that is a community partner would fund such improvements themselves. Finally, the project itself is not in the best interest of the library district (or any other taxing jurisdiction). There is no compelling argument in the notice to indicate why using the taxpayers’ money for the private development is in the best interest of all the people. On the surface, this project seems to benefit the developer’s interest only. According to your analysis, there is only a $1,599 (up to $24,000) per year increase in tax and pilots revenues for all taxing jurisdictions if the project is built with the 353 abatement. On the other hand, your analysis suggests that the taxing jurisdictions will earn between $152,502 to $164,104 if the development is not upgraded. Finally, if the property is allowed to come back on the tax rolls and the developer proceeds with the improvements (as a cost of doing business) the taxing jurisdictions would receive $327,404 to $354,393 annually. In simple dollars and cents, it does not follow that we should accept $1,599 in total tax revenue when we could receive $164,104 or $354,393. I should be clear. The Library is not opposed to economic development or the use of incentives. However, given the risks that you are taking with our resources, it would be advisable to meet with the other taxing jurisdictions to explain your plans. I request that you table this proposal so the taxing jurisdictions can be educated on our proposal before a vote is taken. Given the history of abating this property 15 years ago, and requesting a second 10-year abatement, we seriously must ask; will this property EVER be returned to the tax rolls? At this point, the taxing jurisdictions have had significant revenues diverted for fifteen years. It is time to allow the owners of this parcel (whether the original developer or a new one) to be responsible corporate citizens and pay their fair share for fire protection, education and library services. Sincerely, Steven V. Potter Assistant Director Mid-Continent Public Library spotter@mcpl.lib.mo.us