What Will KC Do About Its Budget?
The Kansas City Star has a long story about an even longer budget report that deserves at least a short blog post. I have carefully read the article, and the study itself will be my work-related reading assignment over the holiday break.
In the interest of focusing on the key points, I am only going to discuss the consultants’ seven recommendations that were highlighted in the Star. If you are in such a hurry that you can only read one more sentence, then I will tell you this: Four of the recommendations are very good, one is worth consideration, one might be a good idea, and one is absolutely horrible. But on to the details, with each suggestion followed by my comments. The report suggests that Kansas City should:
- Consider a new trash fee, consistent with what is charged in many cities in the region and nation. Kansas City residents often resist this idea, saying the earnings tax, in place since the 1960s, is supposed to cover those costs.
Definitely worth considering. Moving toward direct fees for direct services is a move in the right direction. However, this should not be done as just an excuse to create a new fee. Rather, it should be at least partly offset by spending cuts elsewhere, as the revenue moves toward the new trash fee.
- Consider seeking state legislation for mandatory suburban withholding of that earnings tax to make sure people working or living in Kansas City pay the taxes they owe.
This is an absolutely terrible suggestion. Businesses that operate outside of Kansas City should not be forced to collect taxes for the city. If anything, this could serve as an incentive (albeit a minor one) for companies outside of Kansas City to hire fewer KC residents. Just a stupid idea.
- Consolidate the Police Department with the rest of city government.
Both Kansas City and St. Louis would like to gain control of their police departments from the state. I am friends with some St. Louis city cops, and I have never talked to one who liked this possibility. Control by the state board means that the police department answers to one board and the governor, not to 28 aldermen and 11 citywide elected officials. However, in Kansas City, with its city manager form of government, local control might work better.
- Hold the line on city hiring, limit wage increases, and contain health-care costs to a greater degree than the city has done in the past.
Now we are on to the good ideas, so I don’t have much to add. Obviously, this suggestion is imperative for any city.
- Pursue regional funding for civic and cultural assets, as is done in such cities as Denver, St. Louis and Minneapolis-St. Paul.
Now, here is an idea that might raise taxes for some people but which I still support. The zoo-museum district in St. Louis has been an excellent system for some time, and should be expanded for other counties like St. Charles. I think it should definitely be implemented in Kansas City.
- Prioritize basic, quality-of-life services over “nice-to-have” amenities.
This is a pretty standard, yet important and worthwhile, recommendation.
And, finally, the best part of the whole report:
- Hold the line on new taxpayer incentives for development and tax abatement to limit negative effects on city revenues. Also, re-evaluate the number of sports and entertainment arenas such as Kemper Arena that are subsidized by the city, “particularly given ongoing maintenance needs.”
Why do you think that just because something was good for STL it will be good for Kansas City? Did St Louis plan cross the State Line and include the Illinois communities? In Kansas City, a substantial portion of our affluent population is in Kansas.
St Louis has a city/county government – Kansas City does not. We have many communities that are suburbs of Kansas City that are not, in any way, controlled or regulated by Kansas City. Why would those suburban communities bow to the wishes of Kansas City? By far, their biggest budget issues are within the control of the elected officials of Kansas City. Until Kansas City demonstrates that it is serious about getting its own house in order, I do not see any suburban communities, on either side of the state line, lining up to help them.
Comment by JohnQPublic — December 19, 2008 @ 4:36 p.m.
I’ve often heard it said the reason Eastern Kansas is doing so well is because of KCMO and their earnings tax. Fortunatley I don’t work in KCMO so I don’t pay the stupid thing but many of my neighbors do. Sooner or later there is going to be a revolt and when it happens, KCMO will be in front of the bus not driving it. They will be sorry.
I hope they do go to the legislature with this stupid idea. It will give the legislature one more opporutnity to do the right thing for KCMO and eliminate the earnings tax, after they fall off their chairs laughing at the original suggestion that is.
Comment by RudyT — December 20, 2008 @ 11:07 a.m.
Mr. Public,
Thanks for your comment. I assume you are objecting to my comments about regional funding of cultural assets. I certainly don’t assume that because something works, or does not work, in St. Louis, the same point applies to KC. In fact, as to the point on local control of the police dept., I commented on how that would be terrible for St. Louis but might work fine in KC.
Suburbs in Jackson Co. are actually more connected to KC than St. Louis city and county are. At least in Jackson Co. they share in the same county government. In St. Louis, the city and the county are absolutely separate. That is why we have a regional board in St. Louis, appointed by the mayor and the county executive, which sets the property tax rate (a very low rate, by the way) to fund the zoo, art museum, science center, history museum, and Shaw’s garden. There are different rates of funding for the various entities, which is why some of them still have to charge admissions, like the garden, while others are free, like the zoo.
I think the regional taxing district here should be expanded to include surrounding counties, and the assets it supports should be expanded to include the symphony. That expansion could include Illinois counties. While that might be more difficult then just expanding to other Missouri counties, it’s not impossible. For example, Metro, the St. Louis transit agency, is a cross-state taxing district that includes cities and counties from both MO and IL.
You make an excellent point about the Kansas part of the KC-area being larger and more affluent than the Illinois part of St. Louis, so it would be more important to include them in the taxing body. But again, while that might be hard, it is entirely possible to create such a cross-state entity to support the zoo, various museums, the World War 1 memorial… whatever the residents might choose to have it support.
Now, none of this is very free-market libertarian of me, but this is another example of why I am not a libertarian. Thanks again to both commenters for taking the time to participate in the discussion.
Comment by David Stokes — December 22, 2008 @ 10:19 a.m.