Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economic development

  • Wichita City Council to consider a clawback

    Wichita City Council to consider a clawback

    The unrealized potential of an economic development incentive teaches lessons.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider an amendment to an economic development incentive agreement. 1

    In 2008 the city awarded an incentive to a company in the form of exemption from paying property taxes, estimated by the city to be $93,175 annually at the time the incentive was awarded. 2

    The incentive was awarded based on the applicant company creating a certain number of jobs and making a certain level of investment. It was rewarded on a five plus five basis, meaning that the city council reviewed the deal after five years. The plan was if the company met goals, the city would extend the incentive for another five years.

    At the five-year review, however, the applicant company had not met the job goals. The city invoked an exception that allowed extension of the incentive based on a downturn in the economy as measured by the Wichita Current Conditions Index, which is produced by the Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University. 3

    Now is the end of the second five-year period. The job goals have not been met, and the city has decided the applicant company is in default of the agreement. The city is proposing a clawback, that is, recovery of the value of the incentive for the second five-year period. According to the agenda packet: “The value of the abated taxes for the second five-years is approximately $253,000. The City Council could clawback the entire amount, or some portion, per the incentive agreement.”

    But: The agreement that the council will consider is that the applicant company build an expansion to its facilities at a cost of $2,500,000, using no incentives. Also, the company will repay $100,000 of the abated taxes, in four annual payments of $25,000.

    A few things to learn:

    First, economic development incentives don’t always work. This reflects the uncertainty of business. When the city presents projections like benefit-cost ratios, it might want to remind us that these values will be achieved only if the project targets are reached. When businesses describe their plans, these are called forward-looking statements. They are accompanied by disclaimers like “subject to risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially.” Investors and interested parties are “cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements.” The same cautions hold for citizens of Wichita, as they are the investors paying the cost of incentives and expecting to receive the benefits. That is, after all, the foundation of the benefit-cost analysis that accompanies requests for incentives: That by spending now or by giving up future tax collections, the city receives even more in benefits.

    Second, cities often don’t have the fortitude to strictly enforce clawbacks. Here, the company is receiving credit of $153,000 for construction an expansion to its facility, something the company was contemplating anyway. In other words, receiving credit for something it was going to do anyway. This is the usual case. 4

    Third, when the city and its officials say we no longer use cash as an incentive, here’s a case where the city canceled $153,000 of debt the city is entitled to, based on its agreement with the applicant company. That’s just like cash.

    For more on this topic, see Clawbacks illustrate difficulty of economic development and In Wichita, a gentle clawback

    —
    Notes

    1. Wichita City Council Agenda Packet for January 8, 2019. Item V-1. ↩
    2. Wichita City Council Agenda Packet for February 12, 2008. Item No. 34 ↩
    3. See http://kansaseconomy.org/local-indices/wichita-current-index. ↩
    4. Bartik, Timothy J. 2018. “‘But For’ Percentages for Economic Development Incentives: What percentage estimates are plausible based on the research literature?” Upjohn Institute Working Paper 18-289. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. https://doi.org/10.17848/wp18-289. ↩
  • Wichita employment, November 2018

    Wichita employment, November 2018

    For the Wichita metropolitan area in November 2018, jobs are up, the labor force is up, and the unemployment rate is down, compared to the same month one year ago. Seasonal data shows a slowdown in the rate of job growth.

    Data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, part of the United States Department of Labor, shows a mostly improving employment situation for the Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area.

    Total nonfarm employment rose from 296,700 last November to 302,200 this November. That’s an increase of 5,500 jobs, or 1.9 percent. (This data is not seasonally adjusted, so month-to-month comparisons are not valid.) For the same period, jobs in the nation grew by 1.6 percent.

    The unemployment rate was 3.2 percent, down from 3.6 percent one year ago.

    Considering seasonally adjusted data from the household survey, the labor force rose by 391 persons (0.1 percent) in November 2018 from October 2018, the number of unemployed persons fell by 8 (0.1 percent), and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.5 percent. The number of employed persons not working on farms rose to 298,749 in November from 298,350 the prior month, an increase of 399 persons, or 0.1 percent.

    Click charts for larger versions.

  • Starlite loan isn’t needed

    Starlite loan isn’t needed

    The Wichita City Council seems poised to enter an unnecessarily complicated transaction.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider a loan to the operator of the Starlite Drive-In Theater in Wichita. According to city documents, the proposal is for a five-year loan of $200,000 with an annual interest rate of one percent. The city is requiring both a personal guarantee and a letter of credit, presumably from a reputable bank. 1

    We have to wonder why the city asks for both a letter of credit and a personal guarantee. When issuing a letter of credit, a bank will be careful. It is, in effect, making a promise to issue credit to a borrower (the operator of the Starlite) if the borrower does not perform according to the agreement with the city. That alone ought to be enough security.

    Moreover, if a bank has enough confidence in a customer to issue a letter of credit for $200,000, it would probably make a loan for the same amount. But that would cost more than one percent in interest.

    This is really what the city is doing: Reducing the cost of a loan that a borrower ought to be able to obtain on his own.

    Given this, why doesn’t the city simply subsidize the interest cost of the loan? I don’t know what rate a bank would charge this borrower, but it might be 12 percent or so. Then the borrower would have interest costs of $24,000 per year as compared to $2,000 per year for the City of Wichita loan. If the city would simply pay the borrower the difference between the two, things would be much simpler for the city. It wouldn’t have to worry about the loan being repaid.

    Well, the city shouldn’t have to worry about repayment, because of the letter of credit. But if the borrower qualifies for that, he can also qualify for a loan.

    There are other reasons why the city shouldn’t get involved in the Starlite theater, but if it must, let’s try to keep things simple. Based on what we know so far, I don’t think we’re being told the entire story.

    Further evidence of lack of transparency is that this matter has been elevated to an emergency. According to city documents, the mayor will make this declaration regarding the enabling ordinance: “I, Jeff Longwell, Mayor of the City of Wichita, Kansas, hereby request that the City Council declare that a public emergency exists requiring the final adoption and passage on the day of its introduction, to wit, December 18, 2018 …” 2

    —

    Notes

    1. “The $200,000 loan from the City will be structured to be repaid over five years as an interest only loan with an interest rate of 1% per annum, with quarterly interest payments for the first four years. The borrower will pay one-twelfth of the principal amount plus interest in each month of year five. The borrower is Blake Smith through Starlite, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company. Smith will provide the City with a personal guarantee as well as a letter of credit securing the entire loan. The letter of credit will be structured as a declining letter of credit. If any principal amount of the loan is prepaid, the letter of credit can be reduced by an equal amount. For instance, if $25,000 is paid at the end of year one, the letter of credit may be reduced to $175,000, the remaining balance of the loan.” City of Wichita, Agenda Packet for December 18, 2018. Item V-5. ↩
    2. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
      REQUEST OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, FOR THE DECLARATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC EMERGENCY REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BELOW DESIGNATED.
      TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS:
      I, Jeff Longwell, Mayor of the City of Wichita, Kansas, hereby request that the City Council declare that a public emergency exists requiring the final adoption and passage on the day of its introduction, to wit, December 18, 2018 of an ordinance entitled:
      ORDINANCE NO. _____
      AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 50-585 OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, PERTAINING TO HYATT GRANT PROCEEDS FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, GRANTS AND GRANT PROGRAMS
      The general nature of such public emergency lies in the need to pass and publish this ordinance to authorize the release of funds for the purchase of special digital projection equipment and for costs related to its installation for Wichita’s Starlite Drive-In, which was recently purchased by an anonymous buyer to prevent its closure.
      It is therefore expedient at this time that the City Council find and determine that a public emergency exists by reason of the foregoing and that the above entitled Ordinance be finally adopted on the day of its introduction.
      Executed at Wichita, Kansas on this day of December 18, 2018.
      MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS. ibid. ↩
  • Sedgwick County tax exemptions

    Sedgwick County tax exemptions

    Unlike the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County has kept track of its tax exemptions.

    As part of an effort to increase efficiency and management of Sedgwick County government, former county manager Michael Scholes implemented numerous changes, as detailed in the document Efficiencies in Sedgwick County government. One management accomplishment was described as this:

    Developed a tax system and business intelligence query to identify Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB) & Economic Development (EDX) tax exemptions and report foregone property tax revenues for Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 77 reporting. The report provides the ability to report by tax authority, company, and real or personal property for one (1) or up to four (4) years. Prior reporting was time consuming and error prone; requiring manual data entry into Excel spreadsheets.

    The county has not made this report available on its website. To access this report in an alternative manner, click here

    The City of Wichita, to my knowledge, does not provide information like this, except as a total amount in the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). (The city and county numbers are not in agreement, and by a large amount.)

    Of note, the mayor’s page on the Wichita city government website holds this: “Mayor Longwell has championed many issues related to improving the community including government accountability, accessibility and transparency …” So far, the mayor’s leadership and stewardship has not produced this level of information.

    Of further note, a majority of the Sedgwick County Commission decided to fire Michael Scholes.

  • It’s not the bonds, it’s the taxes

    It’s not the bonds, it’s the taxes

    A Wichita Eagle headline reads “Wichita aircraft supplier plans 45 new jobs with $7.5 million bond request,” but important information is buried and incomplete.

    According to the agenda packet for the December 4, 2018 meeting of the Wichita City Council, a local aircraft supplier is “requesting issuance of bonds” worth $7.5 million. 1

    Even if you read the entire Wichita Eagle article2 on this matter, you wouldn’t really learn much about this item. You might think the city is lending the company this money, which many people assume is the purpose of the Industrial Revenue Bonds program. But in the IRB program, the city lends no money, nor does it guarantee repayment of the bonds. 3

    Instead, the purpose of the IRBs is to convey a tax holiday. In the very last paragraph, the article mentions this property tax abatement, but no dollar value is given, even though the “city documents” presumably used as a source for this story clearly state the dollar values. The sales tax exemption is also mentioned, with no dollar value given. City documents don’t hold that, either.

    The value of the tax holiday, according to the city, is estimated at $82,040 annually for up to ten years, shared among local taxing authorities thusly:

    City of Wichita: $22,837
    State of Kansas: $1,050
    Sedgwick County: $20,575
    USD 259 (Wichita school district): $37,578

    For the value of the sales tax exemption, no value is given. By city documents state the purpose of the bonds is to pay for “$4,000,000 for new machinery and equipment.” Sales tax on that would be $300,000. If the entire $7.5 million is spent on taxable purchases, sales tax savings would be $562,500.

    Why doesn’t the Wichita Eagle mention some of these important matters?

    The article also holds no mention of the important public policy issues involved. For example, why does the owner of the business want to escape paying the same taxes that (nearly) everyone else must pay? This question is especially pertinent as Kansas is one of the few states in which even low-income households pay the full sales tax rate on groceries.

    Perhaps the reason is that the cost of government makes this investment unprofitable. If that is true, we have a grave problem. If the city must issue bonds and create a tax holiday for this rather small investment, we have a capacity problem. A reader on Facebook left this wry comment to the Eagle story: “So, local area population 600,000+ people … About to add 45 jobs over 5 years?”

    The city justifies tax giveaways like this by using a benefit-cost analysis. That is, if the city gives up some taxes, it will receive even more in additional taxes. This analysis is useful to politicians and bureaucrats. But the analysis is valid and meaningful only if the investment is impossible without the tax giveaway.

    The question then becomes: Is this tax forgiveness necessary? City documents don’t say. Showing necessity is not a requirement of the IRB incentive program. We’re left wondering if the tax expenditure, which is potentially more than one million dollars over ten years, is truly needed.

    The city is proud of its requirements that the benefit-cost ratio must be at least 1.3 to 1. But for USD 259, the Wichita school district, the ratio is 1.17 to 1. So the city is pushing an “investment” on the school district that is below the standard it requires for itself. The school district has no say in the matter, based on Kansas state law. Note also that the school district gives up the most tax revenue, 1.6 times as much as the city.

    By the way, Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell says the city is no longer using cash as economic development incentives. But when the city waves a magic legislative wand and says you don’t have to pay $82,040 per year in property tax, how is that different than giving the same amount in cash? Or when the city says don’t bother paying the sales tax on this, how is that different than giving a cash discount?

    The answer is there’s no difference. The mayor, city council members, and city bureaucrats hope you won’t notice the sleight of hand, that is, skillful deception. And with the Wichita Eagle being the watchdog, there’s little chance very many people will be informed.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita, agenda for December 4, 2018. V-2: Public Hearing and Issuance of Industrial Revenue Bonds, Etezazi Industries, Inc. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/12-04-2018%20Agenda.pdf. ↩
    2. Siebenmark, Jerry. Wichita aircraft supplier plans 45 new jobs with $7.5 million bond request. Wichita Eagle, November 30, 2018. ↩
    3. “Industrial Revenue Bonds are a mechanism that Kansas cities and counties use to allow companies to avoid paying property and sales taxes.” Weeks, Bob. Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/industrial-revenue-bonds-kansas/. ↩
  • Sedgwick County income and poverty

    Sedgwick County income and poverty

    Census data show Sedgwick County continuing to fall behind the nation in two key measures.

    Data released today from the United States Census Bureau through the Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates (SAIPE) Program shows Sedgwick County median household income continues to fall farther behind the nation.

    In 1989, median household income in Sedgwick County was greater than that for Kansas and the nation. In 2017, however, Sedgwick County has fallen behind both.

    In 1989, the all-age poverty rate in Sedgwick County was less than the national rate, but now it is higher.

    As can be seen in the nearby charts produced by the Census Bureau’s visualization tool, the trend in economic performance between Sedgwick County and the nation started diverging around the time of the last recession. As time passes, the gap between the two generally grows larger, with Sedgwick County falling farther behind.

    Courtesy U.S. Census Bureau. Click for larger.
    Courtesy U.S. Census Bureau. Click for larger.
  • Wichita employment, October 2018

    Wichita employment, October 2018

    For the Wichita metropolitan area in October 2018, jobs are up, the labor force is up, and the unemployment rate is down, compared to the same month one year ago. Seasonal data shows a slowdown in the rate of job growth.

    Data released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, part of the United States Department of Labor, shows a mostly improving employment situation for the Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area.

    Total nonfarm employment rose from 296,900 last October to 299,000 this October. That’s an increase of 2,100 jobs, or 0.7 percent. (This data is not seasonally adjusted, so month-to-month comparisons are not valid.) For the same period, jobs in the nation grew by 1.7 percent.

    The unemployment rate was 3.3 percent, down from 3.5 percent one year ago.

    Considering seasonally adjusted data from the household survey, the labor force rose by 719 persons (0.2 percent) in October 2018 from September 2018, the number of unemployed persons rose by 283 (2.7 percent), and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 3.5 percent. The number of employed persons not working on farms rose to 298,219 in October from 297,783 the prior month, an increase of 436 persons, or 0.1 percent.

    Click charts for larger versions.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Economic development incentives

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Economic development incentives

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: A look at some economic development incentive programs in Wichita and Kansas. Second in a series. Tax increment financing (TIF) is prominent in this episode. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 219, broadcast November 25, 2018.

    Shownotes

  • Sedgwick County jobs, second quarter 2018

    Sedgwick County jobs, second quarter 2018

    For the second quarter of 2018, the number of jobs in Sedgwick County grew slightly slower than the nation.

    Data released today from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, part of the United States Department of Labor shows an improving labor picture in Sedgwick County, growing at a rate 80 percent of the nation.

    For the second quarter of 2018 there were 12,600 establishments in Sedgwick County employing 250,800 workers. That is an increase in jobs of 1.2 percent from the same time the previous year, a proportional rate which ranked 176 among the nation’s 349 largest counties. For the same period, the national job growth rate was 1.5 percent. (Ranked by employment, Sedgwick County is the 123rd largest county.)

    These are figures from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages program.

    The average weekly wage was $882, an increase of 2.7 percent over the year, that change ranking 204 among the same 349 largest counties. The U.S. average weekly wage was $1,055, increasing by 3.4 percent over the same period.