Today's Feature Development Agreement Moving Ahead.
The development agreement
proposed by 71A Partnership that would use sales
tax revenue to pay for infrastructure
improvements is being fine tuned before returning
to the Budget/Ways and Means Committee.
The agreement would allow 71A
Partnership to recoup costs for infrastructure
which would include building a road from HH near
Hazel Street to Elm Street which intersects with
571 near Bobs Shoe Warehouse.
The City would pledge 50% of
all sales taxes generated by the development
above what is currently generated. The proposal
would not include sales tax of any business that
relocated to the development from within the City
limits.
According to City Administrator
Tom Short, the City could see accelerated
commercial development with little risk.
The estimated cost of the
infrastructure improvements, which also include
water, wastewater collection, storm water
detention and stop lights at HH and 571, is
$706,250. There is still some discussion as to
the length of time the agreement would be in
place, but fifteen years looks to be a
comfortable time for most Committee members.
If the agreement is approved,
71A Partnership would agree to submit plans for
the improvements within 90 days of the approval
and begin construction within 90 days of the
plans being approved. Improvements would be
completed within 180 days after construction
begins. Application for annexation for any of the
development property not currently within City
limits would be submitted.
After construction, which would
be verified as meeting all City requirements, 71A
Partnership would "convey without
compensation right-of-way interest in real
property in which Developer has an interest as
may be reasonably necessary to complete the
Improvements."
Initial plans presented to the
Committee anticipated the construction of a
shopping center, five restaurants, three motels
and other retail. The plan projected a total
increase in City sales tax for the development to
be $90,750 in 1999 and a total of $257,152 by the
year 2009. Half of those amounts would be used to
pay for the infrastructure costs. It was also
estimated that City property tax, net City
utility profits, and franchise and business
licenses fees could net the City another $22,000
per year .
Commentary
by Bubs Hohulin
State Representative District 126
Suppose you decided to go into
the moving business. You decided you were just
going to move stuff between Kansas City and St.
Louis with a few stops in between. To attract
customers, you lowered the prices you charged to
less than anyone else. In fact, you charged less
than it took to even operate your business, let
alone make a profit, yet you were registered as a
for-profit company. Pretty soon you start to
notice that you are not making any money, in
fact, you are losing money. What should you do.
You suddenly have a brilliant idea. You will go
to the Missouri Legislature and tell them that
unless they give you enough money to make up the
difference you are going to quit doing business
in Missouri. While you are at it you tell them
that even though you are losing money every day,
you are going to paint all your trucks and redo
all the interiors. Oh yeah, you also expect the
amount of money they give you to go up each year.
What do you think would happen? Would there be
even the slightest glimmer of hope you would get
the money? If your business was called Amtrak and
you were in the business of moving people, the
answer would be yes.
We have been meeting in Budget
Committee about five hours a day this week. I
never cease to be amazed at some of the things we
spend money on, including the above mentioned
item. Last year you shelled out $3.6 million so
Amtrak would run in Missouri. This year they want
$4.9 million and next year, $6.2 million. I
really wasn't that familiar with Amtrak, so I
asked the lady that came in from Chicago to make
the presentation a few questions. One of the
things I wanted to know was, who owns Amtrak?
Turns out you do. Even though it is incorporated
as a for-profit company, all of the stock is held
by the Federal Department of Transportation,
making the taxpayers the owners! Think about that
for a moment and it really lends credence to the
argument that we ought to not let government tell
businesses how they have to operate. It also
demonstrates the mentality that permeates all
levels of government, that if something isn't
working, all we have to throw more money at it
and all will be well in the universe again.
Some will argue that it is
public transportation and we should just look at
it as a necessary service to our citizens. The
lady from Chicago repeatedly pointed out what a
great and necessary service it is. That is fine,
but if that is the case let's be up-front about
it. Let's call it what it is and not hide behind
the farce of calling it a for-profit business.
What we have now is a business in name only,
operated by bureaucrats, managed by bureaucrats,
PAID for by the taxpayers, and SUBSIDIZED again
by the taxpayers!
I suggest they may want to get
their financial house more in order before
embarking on a grand refurbishing plan for their
cars. She reasoned that they needed to do that in
order to maintain their high level of service to
attract and keep their customers riding their
trains. I guess it is the old argument of
"Yeah, I knew I was selling at a loss, but I
figured volume would take care of me!" My
last question was, how did the lady get to
Jefferson City? Turns out she flew.
As usual, I can be reached at
House Post Office, State Capitol, Jefferson City,
MO 65101 or 1-800-878-7126, or
mhohulin@services.state.mo.us for your questions,
comments, and advice.
|