Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Credit Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public hearing draws cities, libraries warning of multimillion‑dollar hits from proposed residential tax credit
Summary
At a June 29 public hearing on proposed Ordinance 6,089, municipal officials and library leaders said a three‑year residential tax credit would reduce local tax revenue by millions — taxing jurisdictions asked the county to coordinate with the Missouri State Auditor to preserve recoupment options.
A Jackson County public hearing on Ordinance 6,089 — proposing a three‑year residential tax credit tied to corrected assessments — drew municipal and library testimony on June 29 in Kansas City.
Several local officials told the Legislature the credit could significantly reduce operating revenue for cities and public libraries. Tammy Queen, assistant city manager for Kansas City, said the city cannot retroactively change levy rates and estimated the combined effect of recent changes and credits at about $18 million over three years, saying the county should "work very closely with the Missouri State Auditor's Office" so taxing jurisdictions have a path to recoup lost revenue.
Library leaders warned of direct service impacts. Aaron Mason, Executive Director of Mid‑Continent Public Libraries, said "this credit could total roughly 6,400,000 over 3 years, or about 2,100,000 a year in lost revenue for our library system," and said his multi‑county levy structure would make a Jackson‑only recoupment levy problematic. Abby Yelman, CEO of the Kansas City Public Library, told legislators the county estimate would mean "more than $3,000,000 of lost revenue for our Kansas City public library over the next 3 years," and urged an approach that preserves funding stability for essential services.
Public commenters also pressed refund and implementation details. Preston Smith and other residents urged the county to provide clear refund forms and procedures so taxpayers who are eligible under state law can claim refunds; one commenter suggested a county bond to front‑load refunds, but legislators and county staff warned most of the revenue is controlled by other taxing jurisdictions, limiting the bond option.
After questions and a lengthy exchange with taxing‑jurisdiction officials, the chair closed the hearing; the Legislature later moved to hold further action on the underlying ordinance for additional review and coordination with the state auditor.
