Boley Building TIF. Deal or Steal?

By Mark Forsythe The Kansas City Post It's easy to see how TIF deals pass so easily in Kansas City. There doesn't seem to be a critical voice in the room whenever developers approach the TIF Commission looking for a handout. Yesterday's presentation by Andrews McMeel Universal for the Boley Building project was no exception. What most people don't know about the process is that the deals are already cut before the public hearing takes place. The Economic Development Corporation (EDC) does all the due diligence and then makes a "recommendation" to the TIF Commission, who in turn makes a recommendation to the City Council. Sure there's a little posturing along the way, but for the most part it's just a rubber stamp process. I would very much like to see AMU locate their operation in the Boley Building. I think a creative organization with a long history is a good fit for one of Kansas City's most historic pieces of architecture. What I don't think is a good fit is the business as usual attempt at bilking the taxpayers out of millions of dollars. I don't fault AMU. They're not in the development business so they've hired one of Kansas City's most prominent development attorneys, Jerry Riffel of Lathrop & Gage. Mr. Riffel is an expert at convincing TIF Commissioners that his clients need tax subsidies. Not that it takes that much convincing. The AMU plan estimates redevelopment costs at $19,066,037. My first question would have been how did they arrive at such a specific figure for an estimate? Considering the Boley Building hasn't even been subdivided and re-platted, I get curious when estimates are so specific. Are they sure it's not going to cost $19,066,038? Of those costs, AMU estimates that $4,800,000 needs to be reimbursed. $1,776,961 of that is for acquisition costs. My question here is doesn't that mean that AMU feels the purchase price being asked by Copaken, White and Blitt is $1.7 million too high? That of course is a rhetorical question. The answer is "yes." Finally it was mentioned that a consultant had "run the numbers" and determined that the developer could only make a reasonable profit with TIF assistance. But isn't AMU the developer? (once again, rhetorical) How is it a company makes a profit for renovating their own headquarters? But as always, there are no hard questions at a TIF Commission meeting, only flashy PowerPoint presentations leading to millions of dollars changing hands. In the case of the Boley Building, the decision is postponed for one month while the school board representatives get answers to meaningless questions. What bothered me most of all was the TIF Commission's apparent lack of knowledge about the entire deal. One commissioner had a hard time understanding that the Boley Building is platted as one parcel with the entire block on which the Town Pavilion sits. The very location on which he happened to be sitting. So I'm led to believe that certain TIF Commissioners don't even research agenda items ahead of time? Is it too much to ask for a TIF Commissioner to pick up a newspaper or click on a link every now and then? The details of this deal have been in the news for weeks. Chairman Peter Yelorda chose to be the toughest critic, declaring the entire plan a "good deal." Once more, I had another question. Good deal for whom? Update: The Kansas City Business Journal's Jim Davis cuts right to the heart of the matter. No innuendo, no dancing around, just the facts. The Boley Building's proposed purchase price is $5.2 million, almost $90 a square foot. This price is nearly twice what larger downtown buildings such as the Commerce Tower have sold for on a square-foot basis but as much as 40 percent less than comparable figures for sales along College Boulevard in Overland Park.