Voice For Liberty

Tag: Economic development

  • Greater Wichita Partnership asks for help

    Greater Wichita Partnership asks for help

    Wichita’s economic development agency asks for assistance in developing its focus and strategies.

    At the meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission this week, commissioners will consider funding a consultant to assist the Greater Wichita Partnership.

    Here is information provided to commissioners:

    Greater Wichita Partnership (GWP) has requested $45,000 from Sedgwick County to engage the services of a consultant to direct an initiative to bring more focus to GWP’s regional economic development efforts. This one-time request, if provided, is intended to be leveraged with $45,000 from the City of Wichita and another $45,000 from GWP. Sedgwick County’s committment would represent one-third of the consultant’s work.

    The proposed consulting engagement would be designed with two primary goals:

    1. Develop a strategic plan for GWP that establishes an organizational structure to optimize and coordinate regional economic development efforts that grow opportunities, help create and maintain jobs, and promote the region as an attractive place to locate and/or grow a business.

    2. Bring clarity and innovative ways for the Blueprint for Regional Economic Growth (BREG) to expand. We need to develop strategies to work together as a region to maintain and grow the Aerospace clusters for which we are known globally; while working to attract and grow businesses in other industries that will strengthen and diversify the regional economy.

    There are a few ways to look at this request. One is that presently, GWP is working well and providing positive results, so there’s no need to spend money on the organization’s improvement. Local leaders seem pleased with GWP and its work. In January Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell said “It’s hard to find a time when we’ve had more momentum.” 1 There are many other example of praise heaped on GWP and its leaders.

    Or: We might argue that even though GWP is performing well, an overhaul could really boost its efforts.

    Or: We might wonder how this organization is just getting started doing things like working on its focus and strategies. (While GWP is relatively new, it is a successor to a previous economic development group, with many of the same leaders and employees.)

    What has GWP been doing? How effective is its stewardship of the Wichita-area economy? Here are some numbers on the Wichita-area economy.

    Click for larger.
    Personal income. For the Wichita metropolitan statistical area, personal income in 2016 rose slightly from 2015 level, but is still below the 2014 level. In real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, personal income fell in 2016. 2

    Wichita metro employment and unemployment. Click for larger.
    Employment. While officials promote the low Wichita-area unemployment rate, there is an alternative interpretation: The May 2017 unemployment rate declined to just about half the January 2011 rate. The number of employed persons rose by 1.1 percent, but the labor force fell by 3.7 percent. If we consider only unemployment rate, it looks like the Wichita area is prospering. But the unemployment rate hides bad news: The number of jobs increased only slightly, and the labor force fell by a lot. While it’s good that there are more people working, the decline in the labor force is a problem. 3

    Population. In 1990 Wichita was the 80th largest SMA. In 2016 its ranking had fallen to 87.

    Growth of GDP by Metro Area and Industries. Click for larger.
    Growth in output. The worst news, however, is that the Wichita-area economy shrank from 2015 to 2016. In real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the Wichita metropolitan area gross domestic product fell by 1.4 percent. For all metropolitan areas, GDP grew by 1.7 percent. Since 2001, GDP for all metropolitan areas grew by 29.3 percent, while Wichita had 12.3 percent growth. 4

    With these points in mind, we ought to wonder if GWP and its leadership ought to be replaced with something else.

    This item will be handled on the commission’s consent agenda, meaning that there will be no discussion or individual vote unless a commissioner decides to “pull” the item.

    —
    Notes

    1. Heck, Josh. Emerging Leaders panel offers insight into eco-devo strategies. Available at https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2018/01/11/emerging-leaders-panel-offers-insight-into-eco.html. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita personal income up, a little. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-personal-income-up-2016/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Wichita employment trends. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-employment-trends/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Wichita economy shrinks. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/wichita-economy-shrinks/. ↩
  • In Wichita, three Community Improvement Districts to be considered

    In Wichita, three Community Improvement Districts to be considered

    In Community Improvement Districts (CID), merchants charge additional sales tax for the benefit of the property owners, instead of the general public. Wichita may have an additional three, contributing to the problem of CID sprawl.

    This week the Wichita City Council will hold public hearings considering the formation of three Community Improvement Districts. In Kansas Community Improvement Districts, merchants charge additional sales tax for the benefit of the property owners, instead of the general public. 1

    Each of these CIDs will charge customers additional sales tax, with a cap on the amount that may be raised, and a separate cap on the length of the CID. For the three projects this week, here are the details: 2

    Delano Catalyst CID: 2% additional tax, raising up to $3,000,000, up to 22 years
    Spaghetti Works CID: 2% additional tax, raising up to $3,118,504, up to 22 years
    Chicken N Pickle CID: 1.5% additional tax, raising up to $2,300,000, up to 15 years

    All these CIDs are of the pay-as-you-go type, which means the city is not borrowing money that would be repaid by the CID tax proceeds. Instead, the CID tax proceeds are periodically sent to the landowners as they are collected. The city retains a 5% administrative fee.

    Additionally, two of these CIDs earmark 10% of the CID tax collections for public benefits, which are extra park maintenance for the Spaghetti Works CID, and street improvements for the Chicken N Pickle CID. While these earmarks may seem magnanimous gestures, they directly work to the developers’ benefit. For Spaghetti Works, Naftzger Park is, in effect, becoming the front yard to a development. It will be of great benefit for it to be maintained well, especially considering that the developers will be able to close the park for private events. For the Chicken N Pickle CID, the street improvements the CID will fund are usually paid for by special tax assessments on the nearby landowners, which in this case is the Chicken N Pickle. This is a large savings.

    By the way, none of the applications for these economic development incentives pleads economic necessity. They simply want more money, and are willing to let government take the blame when customers notice they’re paying 9% or 9.5% sales tax in these districts.

    Of additional note: The Delano and Spaghetti Works developments are receiving many millions of taxpayer-provided subsidy from other economic development incentive programs. 3 4

    It will be interesting to see how the council’s two new members, Brandon Johnson (district 1, northeast Wichita) and Cindy Claycomb (district 6, north central Wichita), will vote in these matters. As Progressives, we might expect them to be opposed to higher sales taxes, which affect low-income households disproportionally. We also might expect them to be opposed to targeted tax incentives for the “wealthy,” such as the now-defunct exemption on pass-through business income in Kansas. Here, they are asked to vote on a highly targeted tax incentive that will benefit identifiable wealthy parties.

    Issues regarding CID

    Perhaps the most important public policy issue regarding CIDs is this: If merchants feel they need to collect additional revenue from their customers, why don’t they simply raise their prices? But the premise of this question is not accurate, as it is not the merchants who receive CID funds. The more accurate question is why don’t landlords raise their rents? That puts them at a competitive disadvantage with property owners that are not within CIDs. Better for us, they rationalize, that unwitting customers pay higher sales taxes for our benefit.

    Consumer protection
    Customers of merchants in CIDS ought to know in advance that an extra CID tax is charged. Some have recommended warning signage that protects customers from unknowingly shopping in stores, restaurants, and hotels that will be adding extra sales tax to purchases. Developers who want to benefit from CID money say that merchants object to signage, fearing it will drive away customers.

    State law is silent on this. The City of Wichita requires a sign indicating that CID financing made the project possible, with no hint that customers will pay additional tax, or how much extra tax. The city also maintains a website showing CIDs. This form of notification is so weak as to be meaningless. See Wichita community improvement districts should have warning signs and In Wichita, two large community improvement districts proposed. In the latter, future Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell argued that signs showing different tax rates for different merchants would be confusing. Council Member Sue Schlapp said she supported transparency in government, but informing consumers of extra taxes would make the program “useless.”

    Eligible costs
    One of the follies in government economic development policy is the categorization of costs into eligible and non-eligible costs. The proceeds from programs like CIDs and tax increment financing may be used only for costs in the “eligible” category. I suggest that we stop arbitrarily distinguishing between “eligible costs” and other costs. When city bureaucrats and politicians use a term like “eligible costs” it makes this process seem benign. It makes it seem as though we’re not really supplying corporate welfare and subsidy.

    As long as the developer has to spend money on what we call “eligible costs,” the fact that the city subsidy is restricted to these costs has no economic meaning. Suppose I gave you $10 with the stipulation that you could spend it only on next Monday. Would you deny that I had enriched you by $10? Of course not. As long as you were planning to spend $10 next Monday, or could shift your spending from some other day to Monday, this restriction has no economic meaning.

    Notification and withdrawal
    If a merchant moves into an existing CID, how might they know beforehand that they will have to charge the extra sales tax? It’s a simple matter to learn the property taxes a piece of property must pay. But if a retail store moves into a vacant storefront in a CID, how would this store know that it will have to charge the extra CID sales tax? This is an important matter, as the extra tax could place the store at a competitive disadvantage, and the prospective retailer needs to know of the district’s existence and its terms.

    Then, if a business tires of being in a CID — perhaps because it realizes it has put itself at a competitive disadvantage — how can the district be dissolved?

    The nature of taxation
    CIDs allow property owners to establish their own private taxing district for their exclusive benefit. This goes against the grain of the way taxes are usually thought of. Generally, we use taxation as a way to pay for services that everyone benefits from, and from which we can’t exclude people. An example would be police protection. Everyone benefits from being safe, and we can’t exclude people from participating in — and benefiting from — police protection.

    But CIDs allow taxes to be collected for the benefit of one specific entity. This goes against the principle of broad-based taxation to pay for an array of services for everyone. But in this case, the people who benefit from the CID are quite easy to identify: the property owners in the district.

    —
    Notes

    1. Weeks, Bob. Community improvement districts in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/community-improvement-districts-kansas/. ↩
    2. Wichita City Council Agenda Packet for January 9, 2018. Agenda items IV-1, IV-2, and IV-3. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Naftzger Park project details. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-project-details/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Delano catalyst site. https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/delano-catalyst-site/. ↩
  • Naftzger Park project details

    Naftzger Park project details

    The city has finalized a proposal for a development near Naftzger Park. It includes a few new and creative provisions.

    This week the City of Wichita will consider a development agreement for land and buildings near Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. 1

    Community Improvement District

    The plan includes the formation of a Community Improvement District. In CIDs, merchants charge additional sales tax for the benefit of the property owners, instead of the general public.2 In this CID, the proposed additional sales tax is two cents per dollar, the maximum available under state law, and could generate up to $3.1 million over a period as long as 22 years.3

    This proposed CID contains a “sweetener,” likely designed to reduce public opposition. Ten percent of the CID revenue would be used to maintain Naftzger Park. We’ve seen this before, as in the Cabela’s CID where some of the funds paid for road improvements near the store.4

    The action the city council will consider this week is whether to accept the petitions to form the CID and set January 9, 2018 as the date for the public hearing.

    Industrial Revenue Bonds and tax forgiveness

    This project is also requesting Industrial Revenue Bonds. under this program, the city will not be lending money, nor will it be responsible for repaying any loans. Instead, the program allows the developers to avoid paying sales tax on construction.5 City documents don’t give an amount of tax savings, but it could be over one million dollars. 6

    City documents state that a property tax abatement is not being requested. That isn’t available for this project, as its property taxes are already allocated by TIF.

    Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

    The project has already been approved for of Tax Increment Financing. In this case, future property tax revenues from this project will be rerouted from their normal flow to reconstruct Naftzger Park, something that is seen as a large benefit to the developers.

    Construction administration fee

    The city will pay the developers up to $250,000 for construction administration of the park.

    Parking

    This agreement also contains something I’m sure is considered as creative. We also saw this as an incentive offered to Cargill earlier this year. In this case, the city will pay the developers a fee for using their parking spaces. In this case, the city proposes paying a one-time easement fee of $10,000 per spot for from 80 to 90 parking spots. The total payment would be from $800,000 to $900,000. These parking spots would be available to the public outside of business hours, which are defined as 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.

    Private events

    Buried with the development agreement is a provision that the developers may use the park for private events: “The City and the Board will cooperate with Developers, upon Developers’ request, to create an Annual Master Calendar of private and public events for the Park, with the expectation that the Developers will have the use of the Park for certain private events.”

    Little else is mentioned regarding these private events, such as the maximum number of private events. This seems subject to abuse.

    Other Naftzger Park material

    1. City of Wichita Agenda Packet for December 19, 2017, Item IV-6. Available at http://wichitaks.granicus.com/AgendaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=3699. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Community improvement districts in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/community-improvement-districts-kansas/. ↩
    3. Council Agenda: “The Developer and Park Board control the land within the proposed CID. The requested CID would provide pay-as-you-go financing for qualified project costs through the imposition of a 2% special retail sales tax on all taxable retail sales within the district for a maximum of 22 years. The eligible project costs identified in the CID petition include costs of renovating the building at 691 E. William and construction of the Class A commercial building. The City will receive 10% of the CID revenue to fund Naftzger Park maintenance and or ROW repairs and improvements, in addition to the 5% administrative fee. The revenue is estimated to be $310,000. The maximum amount of project costs that can be reimbursed is $3,118,504 based on the projected revenue of the project, exclusive of the City’s administrative fee and Naftzger Park maintenance.” ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Cabela’s CID should not be approved in Wichita. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/cabelas-cid-should-not-be-approved-in-wichita/. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/industrial-revenue-bonds-kansas/. ↩
    6. “The Developer is also requesting the issuance of a letter of intent to issue Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs), valid through December 31, 2022, in an amount not-to-exceed $26,000,000 to achieve a sales tax exemption on items purchased for the redevelopment project. No property tax abatement is being requested.” ↩
  • Delano catalyst site

    Delano catalyst site

    A development near downtown Wichita may receive subsidy through four different avenues.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider approval of a development agreement with EPC Real Estate, LLC, for the Delano catalyst site. This is vacant land north of Douglas, between the Advanced Learning Library and the River Vista project.

    Update: The measure passed four votes to three, with Bluebaugh, Frye, and Longwell in the minority.

    Wichita Eagle reporting mentions some of the public subsidy the development will receive: $12 million over a period of years, in the form of Tax Increment Financing and Community Improvement District sales tax. (Delano project looks to add 180 apartments, hotel next to new Wichita library)

    One form of additional subsidy is forgiveness of sales tax on the construction of buildings. The Letter of Intent for Industrial Revenue Bonds the council will consider states: “The City’s governing body has authorized an application for sales tax exemption with an estimated value of $1,611,822.”

    But a really big gift to the developers is the price of the land. City document state the selling price for the 7.2 acre plot is $750,000. That’s about ($750000 / 7.2 acres) = $104,167 per acre. It’s a pretty good deal for the buyers. A look at some current commercial land listings in Wichita finds these:

    1.20 acres at 47th South and Seneca for $425,000, or $354,167 per acre.
    0.50 acres at 140 N. West St. for $225,000, or $450,000 per acre.
    20.00 acres at 1462 S. Maize Road “Great for entertainment, retail, etc.” for $4,251,456, or $212,573 per acre.
    0.52 acres at 640 N. Webb Road for $368,570, or $708,788 per acre.

    It’s clear that the developers are buying the land from the city for a small fraction of its value.

    By the way: Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell says the city will no longer offer cash incentives for economic development. But selling land a deeply discounted price: Is that different from a cash incentive?

    We might also note that this project will receive millions in benefits from Tax Increment Financing. This was a program born out of a perceived need to help redevelop blighted property. This development site, however, is vacant land.

    Finally: If downtown Wichita is really progressing as well as its boosters say, why is it necessary to offer so much subsidy to develop a project like this?

  • Spirit Aerosystems incentives reported

    Spirit Aerosystems incentives reported

    Opinions vary on economic development incentives, but we ought to expect to be told the truth of the details.

    The Wichita Business Journal has reported on the economic development incentives used to cement the Spirit AeroSystems expansion announced last week. Following are some quotes from its article How Wichita won the battle for Spirit AeroSystems’ expansion. Background on the aspects of the deal can be found at Spirit expands in Wichita.

    Wichita Business Journal: “And many aren’t shy about bringing cash to the table as an incentive. In Wichita, in the wake of the defeat at the polls in 2014 of a sales tax measure that would have been used in part for economic development activities, such a war chest isn’t an option.”

    Wichita and Sedgwick County are contributing cash and cash-equivalents to the deal. See below for more.

    Further, the city has other ways to fund a “war chest” of incentives. While the sales tax failed to pass, there was nothing to prevent the city council from raising other taxes (such as property tax or franchise fees) to raise funds for economic development. Now there is a property tax limitation imposed by the state, but there are many loopholes the council could drive a large truck through, including holding an election asking voters to raise property taxes.

    Also, the city justifies spending on economic development incentives by the positive return to the city. That is, for every dollar the city spends or forgoes in future taxes, it receives a larger amount in return. For this project, the analysis provided by Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University reports a benefit/cost ratio of 2.75 to one for the city. That is, the city believes it will receive $2.75 for every $1.00 “invested.” If the city truly believes this, it should have no hesitation to issue bonds to fund this incentive, repaying the bonds with the projected benefits.

    Wichita Business Journal: “‘Here … the state, city and county put together a very creative package focused on infrastructure and training,’ [Spirit CEO Tom] Gentile said.”

    I suppose the innovative aspects of the package are the formation of a new business entity to build and own a large building, funded largely by the city and county. Also, the infrastructure referred to may mean the city’s forgiveness of Spirit’s debt to the city regarding a special water project.

    Wichita Business Journal: “The government investment isn’t cash, but it is a way of helping Spirit grow that Gentile said combined with local training opportunities to make the government involvement important to Spirit’s decision to expand in Wichita.”

    According to the agreement the city and county will consider this week, both Sedgwick County and the City of Wichita are contributing cash. The city will also forgive a large debt owed by Spirit. It’s hard to see how canceling a debt is different from giving cash.

    Also, city, county, state, and school district are canceling millions in property and sales taxes that Spirit would otherwise owe, which is also difficult to distinguish from a cash benefit.

    Finally, the state, under the PEAK problem, will likely refund to Spirit the state income tax withheld from their paychecks (minus a small fee).

    Wichita Business Journal: “‘Because Spirit was willing to look at another way of investing, because this community said it was more important to invest in other ways, they’re allowing us to invest in infrastructure instead of handing Spirit cash,’ Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell said Wednesday. ‘We believe that our community can rally behind that. We’re investing in Spirit and they’re investing in our community.’”

    I’d really like to know the “another way of investing” the mayor mentions. Plus, contrary to the mayor’s assertion, the city is handing Spirit cash. Well, it’s giving cash to a new business entity whose sole purpose is to provide a new building for Spirit. Perhaps for Jeff Longwell that’s a distinction with a meaningful difference. If so, that’s too bad.

    There are differing opinions as to the necessity and wisdom of economic development incentives. But we ought to expect the unvarnished truth from our mayor and economic development officials. It would be great if the Wichita Business Journal helped report the truth.

  • Spirit expands in Wichita

    Spirit expands in Wichita

    It’s good news that Spirit AeroSystems is expanding in Wichita. Let’s look at the cost.

    While it is good news that Spirit AeroSystems is expanding its Wichita operations, it is not without cost to several governmental agencies. Here’s a summary of what is publicly available so far.

    First, a new “entity” will be formed in order to facilitate the construction and ownership of a new building on the Spirit campus. 1

    This entity will be funded with $7 million in cash from Sedgwick County and $3 million cash from the City of Wichita. Further, the city will forgive Spirit’s debt of $3.5 million associated with a water project. 2

    Second, through the mechanism of Industrial Revenue Bonds,3 Spirit receives a property tax exemption of one hundred percent for five years, with renewal for another five years if goals are met. Despite the use of the term “bond,” no governmental entity is lending money to Spirit, and no one except Spirit is liable for bond repayment.

    Third: The bonds confer another benefit to Spirit: According to city documents, “IRBs will, pursuant to STATE law, provide for a sales tax exemption on materials and labor subject to sales tax necessary to construct and equip FACILITY.” 4 City documents give no dollar amount is given for the sales tax exemption. But in the analysis conducted by Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University these figures are used for the amount of sales tax exemption: City of Wichita: $279,445. Sedgwick County: $137,354. State of Kansas: $3,120,000. Total: $3,536,799. 5

    Fourth, this project will undoubtedly qualify for PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas. This is a State of Kansas program that allows companies to keep the state income taxes their employees pay through paycheck withholding, less a small fee. 6 It isn’t possible to know in advance how much PEAK benefit the company will receive, because the individual circumstances of each employee determine the income tax withheld. The following calculation, however, gives an indication of the magnitude of the amount of PEAK benefits Spirit can expect:

    $56,000 annual salary / 26 pay periods = $2,154 per bi-weekly pay period. For a married worker with two children, withholding tables show $55 to be withheld each pay period, or $55 * 26 = $1,430 per year. For 1,000 employees, the PEAK benefit is $1,430,000 per year. 7

    There may be other programs that this project qualifies for.

    Are these incentives necessary?

    Taxpayers might be wondering if these incentives are necessary for Spirit to be able to expand its operations, and for it to select Wichita as the site. Spirit says it has received generous offers from other locations. If so, Spirit could do itself a favor by revealing these offers. So too, could other Wichita companies that have claimed intense courtship by other cities. But the economic development industry operates in darkness.

    One thing that would also increase the credibility of economic development efforts is for Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell (and others) to stop making claims of “no more cash incentives.” The city explicitly offers cash in this proposal. The city also offers to cancel a debt, which is just like cash. Forgiveness of future taxes is as good as cash, too.

    For years we’ve been told that Wichita needs to diversify its economy, meaning that it relies too heavily on the aircraft industry. This expansion by Spirit will undoubtedly heighten that concentration. We should not turn down this expansion of our local economy. But the incentives that are offered have a cost, and that cost is paid — partly — by other business firms in other industries that are trying to grow in Wichita.

    Many will undoubtedly cheer the Spirit announcement as an economic development win on a large scale. It will add many jobs. But the Wichita-area economy is so far behind it will take much more growth than this to catch up with the rest of the nation. In fact, the Wichita-area economy shrank last year. 8 And while many cheer our low unemployment rate, sole reliance on that number hides a shrinking labor force. 9

    Also, let’s be appropriately humble when boasting about this expansion. A region’s largest employer deciding to expand in the same city: This is the minimum level of competence we ought to expect from our economic development machinery.

    Further, economists caution us to look beyond any single project, no matter how large, and consider the entirety of the local economy. As economist Art Hall has noted, large-employer businesses have no measurable net economic effect on local economies when properly measured. “The primary finding is that the location of a large firm has no measurable net economic effect on local economies when the entire dynamic of location effects is taken into account. Thus, the siting of large firms that are the target of aggressive recruitment efforts fails to create positive private sector gains and likely does not generate significant public revenue gains either.” 10

    That’s assuming that the incentives even work as advertised in the first place. Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, in their paper titled The Failures of Economic Development Incentives published in Journal of the American Planning Association, wrote on the effects of incentives. A few quotes from the study, with emphasis added:

    Given the weak effects of incentives on the location choices of businesses at the interstate level, state governments and their local governments in the aggregate probably lose far more revenue, by cutting taxes to firms that would have located in that state anyway than they gain from the few firms induced to change location.

    On the three major questions — Do economic development incentives create new jobs? Are those jobs taken by targeted populations in targeted places? Are incentives, at worst, only moderately revenue negative? — traditional economic development incentives do not fare well. It is possible that incentives do induce significant new growth, that the beneficiaries of that growth are mainly those who have greatest difficulty in the labor market, and that both states and local governments benefit fiscally from that growth. But after decades of policy experimentation and literally hundreds of scholarly studies, none of these claims is clearly substantiated. Indeed, as we have argued in this article, there is a good chance that all of these claims are false.

    The most fundamental problem is that many public officials appear to believe that they can influence the course of their state or local economies through incentives and subsidies to a degree far beyond anything supported by even the most optimistic evidence. We need to begin by lowering their expectations about their ability to micromanage economic growth and making the case for a more sensible view of the role of government — providing the foundations for growth through sound fiscal practices, quality public infrastructure, and good education systems — and then letting the economy take care of itself.

    —
    Notes

    1. “The CITY, COUNTY and COMPANY would each take action to establish a new legal entity separate and apart from the CITY, COUNTY and COMPANY for development of the PROJECT (the “ENTITY”) which will take such form as the PARTIES may approve.” Memorandum of Understanding for Project Eclipse, Section I.A. Contained within agenda packet for Wichita City Council meeting for December 13, 2017. ↩
    2. “The COUNTY participation of $7 million US is anticipated to be available cash; the CITY participation would consist of cash in the amount of $3 million US, forgiveness of $3.5 million US in future COMPANY payments associated with the CAPITAL COMPONENT and an agreement to make additional capital improvements relating to the WATER AGREEMENT in an approximate cost of $1 million US.” Memorandum of Understanding for Project Eclipse, Section I.B ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/industrial-revenue-bonds-kansas/. ↩
    4. Memorandum of Understanding for Project Eclipse, Section I.3.E ↩
    5. Project Eclipse – ROI calcs plus author’s calculation. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uGaxTgrctYpBjkG7PR6bP81SxgFjpzjo/. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/peak-promoting-employment-across-kansas/. ↩
    7. Kansas Department of Revenue Withholding tables. Available at https://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/whtables2017.pdf. ↩
    8. Weeks, Bob. Wichita economy shrinks. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/wichita-economy-shrinks/. ↩
    9. “It is possible that the unemployment rate falls while the number of people employed falls or rises slowly. This is the general trend in Wichita for the past seven years or so.” Weeks, Bob. Wichita employment up. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-employment-up/. ↩
    10. William F. Fox and Matthew N. Murray, “Do Economic Effects Justify the Use of Fiscal Incentives?” Southern Economic Journal, Vol. 71, No. 1, 2004, p. 79. A ↩
  • Briefs

    Briefs

    He didn’t participate

    Wichita Eagle Opinion Line, November 24, 2017: “The kindest word that can be ascribed to State Senator Susan Wagle, when she criticizes the Kansas Supreme Court? Disingenuous. She never mentions Brownback appointee, Justice Caleb Stegall; he has repeatedly agreed with his colleagues on school finance.”

    The likely reason Senator Wagle doesn’t mention Justice Stegall when criticizing the Court on school finance matters is that he, along with another judge, hasn’t participated. The recent opinions are signed “BEIER and STEGALL, JJ., not participating. MICHAEL J. MALONE and DAVID L. STUTZMAN, Senior Judges, assigned.” Why? “Justices Carol Beier and Caleb Stegall have both recused themselves from the Gannon case — Stegall because he served as Brownback’s chief counsel before he was appointed to the Kansas Court of Appeals in 2014; Beier did not provide a reason for her recusal.” See Kansas Supreme Court rejects lawmakers’ school finance changes, threatens in new ruling to close schools.

    Quality of life, or a boatload of cash

    Ron Sylvester in The Hutchinson News: “It’s all about quality of life. [Wichita Mayor Jeff] Longwell said Wichita drew Cargill and its $60 million investment downtown by investing in its arts community, parks, trails and a new library. Businesses move to town, not because of tax breaks and cash incentives, Longwell said, but because the people who work for those companies want to live there.”

    First, Wichita didn’t draw Cargill downtown. It was already located in downtown Wichita. Wichita merely retained Cargill. No new jobs are anticipated.

    As to the role of quality of life: Possibly that was a factor. More likely? The millions in subsidy Cargill will receive. Cargill tapped pretty much every economic development incentive program it could, along with a few innovative additions, such as renting its parking garage to the city during the times Cargill doesn’t need it.vSee More Cargill incentives from Wichita detailed.

    Let’s ask the mayor this question: If tax breaks and cash incentives were not needed, why did the city (and the state) award so much in incentives?

    Who oversaw Wichita schools when this happened?

    Teachers ‘fearful’ about escalating violence at Southeast High (Wichita Eagle, December 1, 2017): Some employees at Southeast High School in Wichita say they have ‘grave concerns’ about escalating violence and unruly behavior at the school, and they’re urging leaders to take ‘decisive and strong actions’ to combat it.” This continues a theme from this summer, as further reported in Behavior is getting worse in Wichita classrooms, data shows. (Wichita Eagle, June 16, 2017): “Discipline problems have increased substantially in Wichita schools over the past four years, particularly among the district’s youngest students, according to data obtained by The Eagle. The situation is frustrating teachers, prompting some of them to leave the profession, and has inspired a new program aimed at teaching elementary school students how to pay attention, follow directions and control their emotions.”

    I was surprised to learn of these problems that have been developing in the Wichita Public Schools. That’s because John Allison, the immediate past superintendent, was universally praised by the school board and district administration. Allison left at the end of June after serving eight years to become superintendent in Olathe. Hopefully that district will not experience the erosion in discipline that Allison presided over in Wichita.

    Amtrak affordable for whom?

    Wichita Eagle Opinion Line, December 3, 2017: “How I long for affordable rail service connecting Wichita to major cities. Traveling to family for the holiday reminds me of how sad it is to live in such a remote, isolated, inaccessible place as Wichita.” Inaccessible? We were told that subsidies to discount airlines and a new airport terminal would fix that. Then, the only reason Amtrak is affordable is that taxpayers pay a lot to keep Amtrak running. (That’s if Amtrak prices are really affordable. I just compared a few Amtrak trips with airline trips, and airfares aren’t much more, and offer many more options as to time. And if you value your time, there is no better way to waste it than on a train.) Other forms of travel receive subsidy too, but peanuts compared to Amtrak. From Randal O’Toole, Stopping the Runaway Train: The Case for Privatizing Amtrak:

    According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, after adjusting for inflation to 2011 dollars, subsidies to domestic air travel averaged about $14 billion a year between 1995 and 2007. Considering that the airlines carried an average of more than 500 billion passenger miles a year during those years, average subsidies work out to about 2.8 cents per passenger mile (see Figure 2).

    Using Bureau of Transportation Statistics’ numbers, highway subsidies over the same time period averaged about $48 billion a year. Highways carried about 4.1 trillion passenger miles per year, for an average subsidy of 1.1 cents per passenger mile. While 95 percent of the airline subsidies came from the federal government, all of the highway subsidies came from state and local governments.

    By comparison, federal Amtrak subsidies over the same time period averaged 25 cents per passenger mile. State subsidies averaged another 2.8 cents. Per-passenger-mile subsidies to Amtrak were nearly 9 times subsidies to air travel and nearly 22 times subsidies to highway travel.

    Airline, Highway, and Amtrak Subsidies per Passenger Mile, Cato Institute, 2012

  • PEAK benefits across Kansas

    PEAK benefits across Kansas

    The use of PEAK, a Kansas economic development incentive program, varies widely among counties.

    An economic development incentive program in Kansas is PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas. This program allows companies to retain 95 percent of the payroll withholding tax of employees. 1

    Data is available for fiscal years 2010 through 2015. For this period, we can see that the application or use of PEAK varies widely among counties. Here is data for the two largest counties in Kansas:

    Johnson County: 135 projects, 17,643 new or retained jobs, $36,085,527 cumulative annual benefits.
    Sedgwick County: 8 projects, 1,113 new or retained jobs, $1,858,516 cumulative annual benefits.

    According to the U.S. Census Bureau American Fact Finder, the 2016 population of Sedgwick County was 511,995. Johnson County population was 584,451. So Johnson County has 1.14 times the population of Sedgwick County, but it receives some 16 to 19 times the PEAK benefits as Sedgwick County.

    Of note, this data is available on Kanview, the state’s data download portal. The data is from a spreadsheet compiled in August 2015. It contains data through fiscal year 2015, which ended on June 30, 2015. Upon my inquiry, it appears no similar data compilations were created in August 2016 or August 2017. I have asked for the data and it is taking some time to prepare it, which leads us to wonder how diligently the state collects data regarding economic development programs.

    You can access an interactive visualization of PEAK data here.

    —
    Notes

    1. Weeks, Bob. PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/peak-promoting-employment-across-kansas/. ↩
  • PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas

    PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas

    PEAK, a Kansas economic development incentive program, redirects employee income taxes back to the employing company.

    An economic development incentive program in Kansas is PEAK, or Promoting Employment Across Kansas. This program allows companies to retain 95 percent of the payroll withholding tax of employees.

    Flow of tax dollars under normal circumstances, and under PEAK.
    Flow of tax dollars under normal circumstances, and under PEAK.
    PEAK incentive payments can be a substantial sum. Tables available at the Kansas Department of Revenue indicate that for a single person with no exemptions who earns $40,000 annually, the withholding would be $27 per week (for weekly payroll), or $1,404 annually. For a married person with two children earning the same salary, withholding would be $676 annually. Under PEAK, the company retains 95 percent of these values. (These illustrations are based on 2016 tax rates.)

    There are requirements regarding the minimum number of jobs to be created or retained. Also, companies must pay wages greater than or equal to the median county wage. 1

    Then, the Secretary of Commerce has “discretion to approve applications of qualified companies and determine the benefit period.”

    Legislators and public officials like programs like PEAK partly because they can promote these programs as self-financing. That is, the state isn’t subsidizing a company. Instead, the company is paying its own way with its own taxes (actually, its employees’ taxes). PEAK supporters say the state is not sending money to the company. Instead, the company is just holding on to 95 percent of its employees’ withholding taxes instead of sending the funds to the state.

    Schemes like PEAK call into question one of the fundamental principles of taxation: That tax funds be used to fund the operations of government, not to enrich one particular person or company. But continually, states and local government use programs like PEAK — and others like tax increment financing (TIF) districts, Community Improvement Districts (CIDs), Industrial Revenue Bonds, and others — that turn over a public function to private interests.

    Illustration of a shortfall under PEAK
    Illustration of a shortfall under PEAK
    Here’s another consideration regarding the PEAK program. The amount of money withheld from a worker’s paycheck is not the same as the amount of tax the worker actually owes the state. Withholding is only an approximation, and one that is biased in favor of the state. Many Kansas workers receive an income tax refund from the state. This is in recognition that the sum of the withholding taxes paid by a worker is larger than the actual tax liability. Therefore, the state is returning money that the state was not entitled to.

    Now, what about workers who are employed at a company that is in the PEAK program and who receive a state income tax refund? Their withholding taxes — 95 percent, anyway — have already been given back to their employer.

    So: What is the source of the money used to pay these refunds? How much money is paid in refunds to employees working at PEAK-participating companies?

    We should note that the funds don’t come from the PEAK company’s employees, as the employees receive credit for all their withholding taxes, even though 95 percent never contributed to the state treasury.

    Inquiry to the Department of Revenue revealed that there are no statistics on actual income tax liability of PEAK employees vs. the amount of withholding tax credited to that employee that was retained or refunded to the PEAK employer. The Department of Commerce referred inquiries to the Department of Revenue.

    If we wanted to know how much money was paid in refunds to PEAK-company employees, I believe we would need to examine the account of each affected employee. I’m sure it’s not possible to come up with an answer by making assumptions, because the circumstances of each taxpayer vary widely.

    Whatever the amount, it represents state tax revenue being used to fund an economic development incentive program that is pitched as being self-funded.

    —
    Notes

    1. “PEAK requires the qualified company to commit to creating five new jobs in non-metropolitan counties or ten (10) new jobs in the metropolitan counties of Shawnee, Douglas, Wyandotte, Johnson, Leavenworth and Sedgwick over a two-year period. The qualified company must also pay wages to the PEAK jobs/employees, that when aggregated, meet or exceed the county median wage or North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) average wage for their industry.” Kansas Department of Commerce. Promoting Employment Across Kansas (PEAK) Program. Available at http://kansascommerce.gov/141/Promoting-Employment-Across-Kansas-Progr. ↩