Hey personally I think its a good idea to have Lowe's located in Ark City, but I also believe they should not recieve any tax incentives to build there. Why are so many folks so hell bent on the NO vote for issuing TIF's to get Lowe's to build it? Lowe's is a corporation that could foot the bill 100% if they wanted to build in Ark City.
Lowe's rarely builds in any community without some incentive. But whether it would have been good for the community or not, it should have been sent to the next level, so more information could be gathered. The city commissioners who voted to kill the talks did NOT follow the will of the people... which is their job. They failed us, and made us look like backwoods hicks to any future develpoers at the same time
Lowe's would not have received this TIF and TDD. These incentives were for the Developer. Lowe's would have had to purchase the property from the Developer, paid for their own construction, then paid full taxes with no return. The taxes would have gone to pay the Developers debts in improving the area to attract the other retailers. Lowe's would have received some minor value in they would have a ready made parking lot. Utilities would also have been brought up to the development, but the city provides that for normal construction anyways. Like Walgreens already having all of their utilities in the easement along the street, all they had to do was run it from the street up to the building.
There is another value that Lowe's would have received that the city will now have to pay for anyway. A portion of the TIF and TDD would have gone to improve 61st Road and Skyline. The commission has already agreed with the county to do this work. It would have come out of the TIF and TDD but now we will have to foot the bill with existing tax revenues and bonds.
If Lowe's decided to come in on their own they would do some improvements, but the city would have to pay for some too. Usually when something like this happens the city and the company sit down together and negotiate who will be paying for what. We passed up an opportunity for all to be paid for out of new property taxes and new sales taxes generated by the development. If it happens now it comes out of our already existing budget and if we bond part of it then it would affect future budgets.
I saw this as not only an opportunity for growth for the community, but as growth for the city. Besides continuing the progress and growth that we have seen along Summit, we would have also seen addition benefits to city revenues. Half of the property taxes would have come back into the city budget immediately upon completion of phase 2, as well as still collecting all of the original property taxes. Then, after the TIF and TDD were paid off the city would collect all of the sales taxes and property taxes.
James at the Traveler now has all of the original public information about the TIF dating back to March of this year. I also gave him my copy of the corridor study. Hopefully he will make it available to all through the newspaper.
Patrick, Regardless of rather the TIF and TDD were the right thing do, I believe you and Joel did the right thing as far as at least willing to listen to the next phase. What most people seem to not seem to understand that the tif and tdd were not for Lowe's it was for the developer. Also the developer was correct it will be difficult to get any national chain in our community without some sort of incentives. The large chains know that they have a strong ability to make communities grow by their ability to pull other retailers in. This ability has VALUE! Lowes and other large chains know the value of their names and do not just give it away. It is no differant than a proffessional athlete putting their name on a cereal box. Their name has value!
I commend you and Joel for trying but the other three blew it!
While it would be nice to have a Lowe's here, the incentives as you point out are not for Lowe's. Which brings me to my point. The developers are gambling that they can get Lowe's to come here after they get the inital ground work in. Again no contract with Lowe's, just a pocket full of "if's" and "maybes". What better way to gamble than with our money, where they have no risk? Lowe's or whoever, will come in and buy the land and develop it themselves, or with a group of investors who are aware of the finincial risk, and the possibility there can be little or no rewards, as well as the fact there may be substancial rewards. They are doing it with their money, and only after they have done their homework.
It seems as though too many are downwind of a controlled burn once again! Well, a lot of intel once again surfaced after the fact, I for one believe that the commission and their vote upheld their duty and responsibility of the office. If someone or business want's to build, do it without taking into play tax dollars, if it is profitable and viable they have no reason to ask to medel within the taxing infrastructure of any community. Don't think for one second that the base structure would not have an impact with this deal! Number 1.. the county had already purchased ground south of winfield for the jail, these guys step in and influence that decision, as far as the site of that construction. Winfield leadership then decided against a tif. Wow! the more questions I have the fewer and farther between are logical answers! Oh yeah, I did see part of the meeting replayed on tv, and I noticed many voicing opinions that no longer reside within our town, what's up with that? Do we need to rally support out of our community? I don't need to tell you what and who, maybe they would like to be annexed so they can be legitimate.
__________________
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." == Winston Churchill
This is not the developers first Rodeo! The developer and their investors assume all the risk, typically they will buy their own construction bonds back as an investment for their investors. The sad thing about this deal was we did not get to see the deal! Lowes and other large chains do not just pick a place on the map and decide to locate. They are done with real estate developers and investors.
While it would be nice to have a Lowe's here, the incentives as you point out are not for Lowe's. Which brings me to my point. The developers are gambling that they can get Lowe's to come here after they get the inital ground work in. Again no contract with Lowe's, just a pocket full of "if's" and "maybes". What better way to gamble than with our money, where they have no risk? Lowe's or whoever, will come in and buy the land and develop it themselves, or with a group of investors who are aware of the finincial risk, and the possibility there can be little or no rewards, as well as the fact there may be substancial rewards. They are doing it with their money, and only after they have done their homework.
To get the final redevelopment vote the developer would first have to present the proposal with guarantees. There would have had to have been a contract with Lowe's including a guaranteed opening date as part of the proposal. The second Tenant had to be named within a certain period too. I'm not sure if that would have been in the proposal or if it was within 45 days. In either case if the second tenant wasn't signed on before the last phase the deal would bust anyway. There had to be at least 2 tenants (in the agreement) to start for the TIF and TDD to become effective.
As for how long they have to stay in business there is no contract that can control that. Though Lowe's would have had to spend about $24 million on construction. I think they would have made sure they could stay in business long enough to make back their investment.
And for the record, yes the Developer would make money on the deal. They were doing all the work. They have paid for all of the surveys and studies. They have paid for every aspect to date. The Developers are the ones taking the chances on the bonds, the city would not have been affected at all. The Developers had to go out and fill the stores (normally takes about 2 years, even after contracts the retailers take some time to build and organize). The Developers are a business too and should get paid for the work, the investment, and taking all of the chances.
I've tried to keep all the information I could out in the open. If there is anything else I can answer please let me know.
If you want to raise my taxes, it had better be for something I support. Retail is not a concern of mine. New jobs? Supposedly the current employers can not find people to pass drug tests so they are hiring illegals. If you want my support give the tax $ to those who are cleaning up drugs and crime on the street. Where are our priorities? I have yet to hear an argument for Lowe's coming here which addresses these things which effect me every day.
If you want to raise my taxes, it had better be for something I support. Retail is not a concern of mine. New jobs? Supposedly the current employers can not find people to pass drug tests so they are hiring illegals. If you want my support give the tax $ to those who are cleaning up drugs and crime on the street. Where are our priorities? I have yet to hear an argument for Lowe's coming here which addresses these things which effect me every day.
I'm still trying to find out where the idea of raising taxes came from. The city would have had additional taxes coming in from this project on top of the taxes only from this development paying off the TIF. The projects being paid for and the additional revenues would have gone a long way to making sure you don't pay any greater taxes, and you could have well ended up paying LESS.
Oh well, that was the biggest problem. Not a lot of people understood what was going on. I tried to get the Traveler to print it straight, but it just never seemed to get through to them. I guess that's my fault.
I would like to comment on Mayor Smiths comment in yesterdays Traveler. She said..."When you go to Ponca (to shop at stores at the north end of town), do you go downtown? When you shop at Wichita, do you go downtown?" I will proudly admit that I would not travel to Wichita or Ponca City for a one-stop visit. If I need something (that I cannot find in A.C.) from another city, I will plan on making the most of my trip. And yes, that may include a visit to the downtown merchants and almost always having lunch or dinner at a local restaurant. It is a fact that Wichita and Ponca City are larger cities and they do have more to offer so why not enjoy it? It seems unfair to me to assume that out of town patrons coming to the Big Box store would not visit any other stores in town. Sure some won't but many others will. But lets put the taxes and narrow-minded politics aside and think about the JOBS this store would create! Nuff' said.
I think a LOT of people had the idea that our taxes would be raised (although I understood that they would not prior to the vote), and that had a lot to do with the nay saying. If only all this information would have been out there before hand, the vote may well have been different, and we might have some nice shopping places. As it is, we will continue to drive out of town for most of our shopping and dining needs.
What is it that you don't understand about increased taxes? It was made clear that the establishment if TIF would increase property taxes in the area. In addition , a .01 increase in sales tax, IS an increase. Please, someone who knows, not just spouting what they have heard, respond with the correct information. Until then, I have to go with the notion that there will be tax increases.
What is it that you don't understand about increased taxes? It was made clear that the establishment if TIF would increase property taxes in the area. In addition , a .01 increase in sales tax, IS an increase. Please, someone who knows, not just spouting what they have heard, respond with the correct information. Until then, I have to go with the notion that there will be tax increases.
The increase in revenue to the city is not an increase in taxes, but was an increase in new taxable property annexed for the development. Additionally improvements to the property besides the Lowe's and one other store would have been immediatly taxable. The 1% sales tax would have been added ONLY in the new district and not in anyplace else in town.
This development would have had a better chance of decreasing YOUR taxes than increasing. The city would have had more money coming in without raising the MIL levy.
On the other hand without this development your taxes might be affected, but not hopefully not. The city has committed to funding some of the improvements on 61st Road, and I believe on Skyline Road also. This will come out of the city's present revenues (your taxes) and will have to be bonded and interest paid on it. The TIF and TDD would have paid for these out of the new revenues only, and not have touched any of our present tax revenues.
There are also some water improvements needed for the northern end of town. Some of the TIF funds may have paid for part of those improvements out of new revenues from the development. I am still not certain but it was a possibility. Now you can be certain that it will all be paid from your water bill and city funds.
We can get by without that additional revenue from the development, and hopefully fit those needs into our budget. It would have been nice to have had the money to make the improvements we need.
Good thing I was not there to vote or speak on the issue then. I was under the impression that my taxes would go up. I would never support such a thing. In the past, my water bill has gone up for certain improvements much to my dislike. The amount we pay for this service is outragous! Anywho... I am still not disappointed about losing this deal. I love to shop at Lowe's, but would rather see AC Industries and other groups focus on filling the empty buildings in town before trying to build new ones on land they are trying to improve. What is the word on the empty Wal-Mart building? What about Village Market? I believe we now have an empty building where Sonic vacated. How about the empty spaces by Blockbuster and the new strip mall on the hill? Any chances of getting those filled? Not to mention spaces downtown?
I know we go to Ponca ALL THE TIME. To LOWES. We are building and it is nice to get to go in and PICK OUT stuff that is on hand. We have been going to Ponca every since Lowe's opened up. AND YES ,while there.we go eat and a variety of their restraunts. WE go buy shoes at Chapman's. We shop at Albertson's.(food pyramid now called). I do shop some of the downtown places occasionally. There is a Honda place there that services my Honda. So there again....i go across the street to Lowes. We go to the supercenter there because it has MORE than our Supercenter,and has the gas cheaper with 3 cents off also. It does seem our Supercenter does NOT do a good job of stocking stuff up.???? I have been asking repeatedly about a common item they have been out of now since thanksgiving. Each time being told "we get a truck several times a week". Well I waited from Thanksgiving until this weekend and gave up. Went to Ponca and got it. Couldnt wait any more.. SOOO I think people go where the things are that they need. If we have in our town what people need....it will be bought HERE. I also know that while I am at Lowes in Ponca City....I SEE MANY ARKCITIANS THERE TOO!!!!
Mr. Commish, I understand that the TIF would allow the development district to retain local taxes for their own, if I am incorrect please expain this further. I am also aware that this district would also impose an additional 1 percent sales tax for their own special development district. I understand these funds are kept of and to the special development district. I also know that local business would suffer from sales reductions, these local business facilities generate revenue which is collected in the form of taxes which are then paid to governing entities. When the governing entities would suffer a reduction of income you have my word that it would compensate that loss and regain in another area, thus more taxes or a tax increase. Again, why would you consider harming the stable foundation? I have a suggestion, maybe Parkerfield could support this enterprise!
__________________
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." == Winston Churchill
I have to question the results of the recent poll. There seemed to be two to three times the voting responses and the majority was for the tax incentitive. I voted and when my wife went to vote it would not let her because it evidently recognized our computer and thought I was trying to vote twice. I wonder how many people went to other computers and voted several times just to look like the majority was for the tax break. I have not problem with the big box store I think it would probably be good for the community but I do not feel the City should give them a break just so they will develop here. I would like to see the tax break go to someone like the new meat market.
I would like to comment on Mayor Smiths comment in yesterdays Traveler. She said..."When you go to Ponca (to shop at stores at the north end of town), do you go downtown? When you shop at Wichita, do you go downtown?" I will proudly admit that I would not travel to Wichita or Ponca City for a one-stop visit. If I need something (that I cannot find in A.C.) from another city, I will plan on making the most of my trip. And yes, that may include a visit to the downtown merchants and almost always having lunch or dinner at a local restaurant. It is a fact that Wichita and Ponca City are larger cities and they do have more to offer so why not enjoy it? It seems unfair to me to assume that out of town patrons coming to the Big Box store would not visit any other stores in town. Sure some won't but many others will. But lets put the taxes and narrow-minded politics aside and think about the JOBS this store would create! Nuff' said.
Thank you for saying something about this. I have found from personal experience that it is the out of towners that visit the smaller shops. I have family members that shop at the local clothing stores and other local stores more than I do. Sorry to say I leave town to do the biggest part of my shopping. When I do leave I go to box stores and also to the down town shops of the town I shop. Regardless of where Lowes, Home Depot, or any other of these stores are located; people are going to travel to get to them. Why shouldn't it be to Arkansas City? Wasn't the motto OUR Kansas City? My husband has lived here the majority of his life. He has always said that this town needed a enema... We thought that was what it was getting. The town is looking so much better, but it needs more then a face lift. It needs something to bring people here and keep them here!
Mr. Commish, I understand that the TIF would allow the development district to retain local taxes for their own, if I am incorrect please expain this further. I am also aware that this district would also impose an additional 1 percent sales tax for their own special development district. I understand these funds are kept of and to the special development district. I also know that local business would suffer from sales reductions, these local business facilities generate revenue which is collected in the form of taxes which are then paid to governing entities. When the governing entities would suffer a reduction of income you have my word that it would compensate that loss and regain in another area, thus more taxes or a tax increase. Again, why would you consider harming the stable foundation? I have a suggestion, maybe Parkerfield could support this enterprise!
Interesting thought. If the Lowe's comes locally (Parkerfield, Winfield, in the county) we not only have to deal with all you are concerned with, but will still have to deal with the affects on downtown. It would have been nice to avoid a LOSE/LOSE game, but I guess people aren't concerned about that.
Then again, the development would have provided the city with taxes on the original property, then additional taxes on everything except Lowe's and one other store. We certainly would not want to have other revenues coming into the city.
The development would also have paid for upgrades and repairs that we will have to pay for anyway. It would have been nice to have had a revenue stream to pay for improvements to Skyline and 61st roads as well as water and sewer. That's ok, not only do we not have the TIF to pay for that for us, but YOU (we the taxpayers) still have to pay for it.
As for local business, there was a lot of effort to compare us to communities with 100,000 people or more (examples Vermont, Maine, San Francisco, San Diego) from the internet. In those examples Lowes did detract from the immediate community. In cases of cities and counties our size Lowe's actually increased business to local stores, people coming to the area to shop and spending the day, while taking business away from other local communities.
I underderstand you are saying that maintanence is no longer a factor in the service charges and fees collected? This seems to be the new trend of public fiscal responsibility. It also seems that the public education infrastructure also has deemed that creative bookeeping manuver a standard now that the schools and colleges are requesting extra funding to resolve maintenance neglect after initiating this policy! Back to the TIF development, without the creative accounting we would come out in the black paying for structure development, charging for that service accordingly, and collecting the sales and property tax! What the ?, Pat, you are telling me on the storm fund issue I have to pay for several years before I can actually expect results, It seems you want to treat the people already here with a different set of standards than the others you want as your new neighbors.
__________________
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." == Winston Churchill
I underderstand you are saying that maintanence is no longer a factor in the service charges and fees collected? This seems to be the new trend of public fiscal responsibility. It also seems that the public education infrastructure also has deemed that creative bookeeping manuver a standard now that the schools and colleges are requesting extra funding to resolve maintenance neglect after initiating this policy! Back to the TIF development, without the creative accounting we would come out in the black paying for structure development, charging for that service accordingly, and collecting the sales and property tax! What the ?, Pat, you are telling me on the storm fund issue I have to pay for several years before I can actually expect results, It seems you want to treat the people already here with a different set of standards than the others you want as your new neighbors.
I apologize for any misunderstanding.
A new department was created. There are several things needed to become involved. New machines had to be purchased. A plan had to be created. Employees had to be organized to work this plan. Things like this cannot happen overnight. Even using present funds which had already been budgeted it would take several years. Maintenance happens after you have a working order established. We did not have street cleaning before, and we are developing it, and increasing service for the future. It will be another couple of years before it is fully in place and operational.
It seems that some people think that we can just stop other projects and get new things started immediately. In the case of emergencies people are outraged that the city cannot solve the emergency and keep all of the other city functions up to speed. This not being an emergency we have no excuses. Borrowing people from other departments (hindering them) has got us to this point, now we need to move to the next step.
Without tapping into our regular budget, how long do you suppose it would take at $2 per household per month to buy a street sweeper? Even a used one? At the same time that $2 per household is paying for curb and gutter repairs around town. There are also storm drains that have to be upgraded and repaired. Eventually it will also pay for 2 employees for that department.
All of this is required by a federal mandate. We have no choice. The feds are not giving us the funds to accomplish this. All we can do is try to accomplish these things without interupting regular services and imposing as little as possible on the people that fund this - we the taxpayers.
Yes, it could have happened sooner. Yes, we could have more services. Almost anything can happen if you are willing to pay for it. This plan was best economically, and with least hindrance on our other services.
I underderstand you are saying that maintanence is no longer a factor in the service charges and fees collected? This seems to be the new trend of public fiscal responsibility. It also seems that the public education infrastructure also has deemed that creative bookeeping manuver a standard now that the schools and colleges are requesting extra funding to resolve maintenance neglect after initiating this policy! Back to the TIF development, without the creative accounting we would come out in the black paying for structure development, charging for that service accordingly, and collecting the sales and property tax! What the ?, Pat, you are telling me on the storm fund issue I have to pay for several years before I can actually expect results, It seems you want to treat the people already here with a different set of standards than the others you want as your new neighbors.
My apologies again in case I misunderstand.
I am confused on your statement about the TIF. I think there is a misunderstanding about infrastructure. People seem to take it for granted. In most cases much of the infrastructure is provided by the city. When you buy a building water and sewer are already connected. There is a street and other public services (fire hydrant, lighting...) nearby.
In a new development of any kind the developer (housing, retail, whatever) negotiates with the city and each side takes responsibility for different parts. Basically that means that the city incurs some if not all of the expense.
In the case of the TIF, it is only for new development, which is also new income to the city. In our recent case the city the city was already responsible to upgrade 61st Road and Skyline roads out of our present budget. We have water and sewer already up to this area (across the street from it). Using taxes from part of that development (about 1/2) we would have made improvements (not maintenance) to water and sewer and would have been ready for future development. The TDD (additional sales tax) would have made the needed improvements on Skyline and 61st Road.
Now then, most of these improvements we were going to do anyway. The streets as a certainty, the utilities as industry and housing grew at that end of town. This will be paid out of our regular budget, ie your taxes. These are things that will have to be done. If the city had other money (tax income) to pay for this, it would have been less of a burden on the taxpayers. The new businesses would have had to pay ALL of their property and sales taxes. The city would have been using this money to pay for those improvements instead of the tax dollars we now have coming in.
There seems to be some confusion about someone (anyone) not having to pay taxes. That is totally and completely untrue! The primary difference is those new taxes would have been earmarked to pay off improvements we would have had to make anyway, as well as some lesser improvements for the development (parking, lights,....). Furthermore, the bonding (borrowing) to pay the up front costs would have been the responsibility of the developer. The city would have had no financial responsibility at all other than turn part of the new collected taxes back to the financial institution controlling the bond.
As far as continued maintenance, if done properly there should be no major maintenance for many years. Water and sewer should be good for decades. Streets in the 10 to 20 year range. In both cases the city would have had tax income of about 1/2 the property coming in each year, and full income in probably about 15 years.
I hope this helps to answer your question. It doesn't matter anymore as this opportunity is completely closed to us. You should know that the various commission members had been working on this for close to 3 years and had some of the wrinkles worked out, but was waiting for the chance to negotiate and see how much better deal we could make. I'm sorry we missed the chance to see what we could have done.
I underderstand you are saying that maintanence is no longer a factor in the service charges and fees collected? This seems to be the new trend of public fiscal responsibility. It also seems that the public education infrastructure also has deemed that creative bookeeping manuver a standard now that the schools and colleges are requesting extra funding to resolve maintenance neglect after initiating this policy! Back to the TIF development, without the creative accounting we would come out in the black paying for structure development, charging for that service accordingly, and collecting the sales and property tax! What the ?, Pat, you are telling me on the storm fund issue I have to pay for several years before I can actually expect results, It seems you want to treat the people already here with a different set of standards than the others you want as your new neighbors.
My apologies again in case I misunderstand.
I am confused on your statement about the TIF. I think there is a misunderstanding about infrastructure. People seem to take it for granted. In most cases much of the infrastructure is provided by the city. When you buy a building water and sewer are already connected. There is a street and other public services (fire hydrant, lighting...) nearby.
In a new development of any kind the developer (housing, retail, whatever) negotiates with the city and each side takes responsibility for different parts. Basically that means that the city incurs some if not all of the expense.
In the case of the TIF, it is only for new development, which is also new income to the city. In our recent case the city the city was already responsible to upgrade 61st Road and Skyline roads out of our present budget. We have water and sewer already up to this area (across the street from it). Using taxes from part of that development (about 1/2) we would have made improvements (not maintenance) to water and sewer and would have been ready for future development. The TDD (additional sales tax) would have made the needed improvements on Skyline and 61st Road.
Now then, most of these improvements we were going to do anyway. The streets as a certainty, the utilities as industry and housing grew at that end of town. This will be paid out of our regular budget, ie your taxes. These are things that will have to be done. If the city had other money (tax income) to pay for this, it would have been less of a burden on the taxpayers. The new businesses would have had to pay ALL of their property and sales taxes. The city would have been using this money to pay for those improvements instead of the tax dollars we now have coming in.
There seems to be some confusion about someone (anyone) not having to pay taxes. That is totally and completely untrue! The primary difference is those new taxes would have been earmarked to pay off improvements we would have had to make anyway, as well as some lesser improvements for the development (parking, lights,....). Furthermore, the bonding (borrowing) to pay the up front costs would have been the responsibility of the developer. The city would have had no financial responsibility at all other than turn part of the new collected taxes back to the financial institution controlling the bond.
As far as continued maintenance, if done properly there should be no major maintenance for many years. Water and sewer should be good for decades. Streets in the 10 to 20 year range. In both cases the city would have had tax income of about 1/2 the property coming in each year, and full income in probably about 15 years.
I hope this helps to answer your question. It doesn't matter anymore as this opportunity is completely closed to us. You should know that the various commission members had been working on this for close to 3 years and had some of the wrinkles worked out, but was waiting for the chance to negotiate and see how much better deal we could make. I'm sorry we missed the chance to see what we could have done.
Patrick McDonald
Pat, best wishes in any of your future political aspirations, sincerely. abc123.
__________________
"I am fond of pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." == Winston Churchill
