Playing dumb on the Chiefs' tax credit deal
The News-Press' Scott Pummell is unhappy that the Kansas City Chiefs are being asked to stand by the commitments they made to secure a $25 million tax credit. In his mind, everyone needs "act like a team" and give the Chiefs the deal they negotiated with help from Peter Kinder's office, no matter what was promised about:
It basically comes down to a technicality. The new governor says the deal should hold the Chiefs to a firm 10-year commitment to St. Joseph, and this faction says that’s what was agreed on when the tax credits were approved.
Missouri Western and Chiefs officials say the team agreed to a five-year contract followed by five one-year renewable options.
The terms of the deal were spelled out pretty clearly in the paperwork. The framework of five years plus five one-year options is how the proposal was reported in the News-Press on Dec. 13. Four days after that article, the Missouri Development Finance Board [MDFB] voted to approve the credits.
One would hope that state-appointed commissioners can research $10 million tax credit proposals at least as well as a newspaper reporter — before that much money is agreed to and approved.
For someone hoping that Board members would "research $10 million tax credit proposals at least as well as a newspaper reporter", Pummell's own research seems a bit incomplete.
There are three "technicalities" (not one) about a $25 million tax credit (not $10M) according to the MDFB's own lawyer, David Queen. The "crux of the issue," as Pummell puts it, is not whether or not people care about St. Joseph's economy, but whether or not it's proper for a deal to be negotiated with MDFB tax credits that is inconsistent with MDFB authorizations.
I really don't see how Pummell can claim that he knows what the Board understood better than the person keeping the meeting's minutes or the MDFB's own lawyer, who acknowledges that the deal he helped authorize contains "provisions...not specifically set forth in the Board’s approval.” Those three "technicalities" are:
- The length of the Chiefs’ commitment to Missouri Western
- How much the team will pay for the training facility
- Whether it can move the camp elsewhere in Missouri should Western not finish the facility on time
That the News-Press got wind of the Chiefs' five-year plan four days before the meeting is evidence that the Chiefs were talking out of both sides of their mouth, but what matters is what they promised to the board to get the $25 million. The minutes read "minimum of ten years," and the MDFB lawyer has confirmed that ten years and $10 million was the understanding of the Board at that time.
Pummell's article also ignores what's been reported about the $10 million that Missouri Western is supposed to get from the Chiefs. From the Star:
At the December meeting, Newman offered a $10 million “pledge” from the Chiefs for construction, but subsequent documents indicate the team wants to deduct from its share about $2 million in fees levied by the finance board for processing the tax credits.
And in what just boggles my mind, he writes...
It’s obviously a tough economic climate, and the state’s financial responsibility begins and ends with the governor.
...but questions the motives of the Governor because he thinks that taxpayers should get 100% of the benefit they were promised when forking over a $25 million tax credit. How would not standing up for $25 million in taxpayer money be the fiscally responsible route?
This is all very public information, and I don't think any anyone is challenging the fact that the Chiefs made bogus commitments. The dispute is whether or not they have to stick to them, and if the Lt. Governor's office has the authority to help rework a MDFB deal that goes against the terms approved by the MDFB Board.
So why did Pummell just ignore those promises, the admissions of the MDFB lawyer and the minutes of the MDFB meeting when he was conducting his research?
