Is there a movement afoot to revisit the CID (Community Improvement District) for the 10 Quivira Plaza shopping Center (Shawnee Mission Parkway & Quivira)?
The original plan, which fortunately went nowhere, would have placed an additional 1% sales tax on the stores only in that shopping center. That additional tax money would go to the developer/owner for upgrades to the shopping center.
Today, the state sales tax was increased by 1%, which means that folks in Shawnee will now pay 8.775% on all retail purchases, including food. If the CID plan goes into effect, then folks who shop at that shopping center will pay 9.775%. Outrageous, especially when the major retailer in that center is a grocery store. Doubly outrageous when that shopping center is in one of the more modest income neighborhoods of the city.
Currently, there are 3 CIDs in the State of Kansas. One is in Maple Hill, sits on I-70 and is a truck stop. Another one is in Hays, sits on I-70 and is for a motel and restaurant. The third one is in Junction City, sits on I-70 and is like a mini regional shopping center with major retailers (like Sears).
The examples above fall in line with this statement: "If the project relies upon local business and if the CID sales tax would be unpopular in the community, a CID could negatively impact the project's business. On the other hand, retail businesses that derive a large portion of business from tourism and other transient clientele may not experience the same negative consequences from an additional sales tax."
The above statement was written by Matthew S. Gough, an attorney, who specializes in real estate financing transactions to include economic development financial incentives. The entire article that he wrote was published in both the Feb 2010 issue of The Journal of the Kansas Bar Association and The May 2010 issue of the Kansas government Journal.
If a CID, with its corresponding sales tax increase was to be placed on that shopping center it would be outrageous. How any member of the city council could even entertain that thought is, IMHO, beyond comprehension.
The citizens who would be most affected live in Wards 1, 2 & 4. I urge all, who agree that this is wrong, to contact your elected city council members and stay on them until this matter is put to rest. Side note: Ironically, when the original public hearing was held on this, the two council members who were most in favor of it were the two from Ward 3.
