How to find out if your block is in a TIF in Kansas City

Somewhere within a few blocks of where you are sitting, there is a good chance a piece of the property tax and sales tax generated by a building is not going where you assume it goes. It is going back into the building. That is tax increment financing, and Kansas City uses a lot of it.

The good news is that Missouri makes every one of those districts file an annual report, in public, once a year, forever. The State Auditor has to publish all of them in a database anyone can search. It is genuinely free, it takes about two minutes, and it will hand you a full financial statement for a redevelopment near your house.

The catch is that the database is missing a year, and a second year in it appears to be a copy of the year before it.

Here is how to use it anyway, and how to read it honestly.

The thirty-second version

Go to the Missouri State Auditor’s TIF search at auditor.mo.gov/TIF/Search. Under Plan/Project Approved By, pick your municipality. Leave both year menus alone. Search.

You get a table of every redevelopment plan that municipality has ever reported on, one row per plan per filing year, with the project name as a link. Click a project name and you get the report itself.

That is the whole method. The rest of this is what the report says, and what the database will not tell you.

What you actually get

Each record carries 79 fields. Opening one gives you a financial statement for a redevelopment area rather than a summary of one.

It names the redevelopment plan, the authorizing ordinance number, the state House and Senate districts it falls in, the school district, the project status, and the developer. It then reports money in two columns, since inception and this reporting period: payments in lieu of taxes received, economic activity taxes received, and what is on hand in the special allocation fund. Expenditures are broken out into public infrastructure, site development, rehabilitation of existing buildings, land or building acquisition, and other. Debt service, reimbursements to the developer, and reimbursements to the city each get their own line.

Then it gets to the part most readers came for. Every record carries four job counts: new jobs projected, new jobs actual, retained jobs projected, and retained jobs actual. A subsidy that was justified by employment reports its own homework, every year, in a public file.

The Stare summed those columns for the newest report year, 2024, across 137 filings from 19 metro municipalities. The filings project 72,613 new jobs and report 48,706 as actual, or 67.1 percent. Retained jobs do considerably worse: 17,751 projected against 6,029 actual, or 34.0 percent. Narrowing to the 68 Kansas City filings, new jobs run 49,763 projected against 35,588 actual, or 71.5 percent.

Those same 137 filings put their anticipated TIF-reimbursable project costs at $4.06 billion, against $19.14 billion in anticipated total project costs. Kansas City’s 68 filings account for $2.72 billion of the reimbursable figure.

Read all of that as the municipalities’ own arithmetic. The auditor’s page says so directly, at the top of the search: “Source: Unaudited data from the Department of Revenue.” Nobody at the state has checked these numbers. They are what was filed.

The catch: report year 2021 is not there

Open the search form and look at the first menu, Year Data was Reported to the State. It offers 2024, 2023, 2022, then 2020, 2019, and back to 2007.

It skips 2021.

That is not a rendering quirk. The Stare downloaded the entire database on September 8, 2026 — all 7,266 project-year records, statewide, across 149 municipality values — and checked the same question three ways. The form does not offer report year 2021. A direct query for report year 2021 returns zero records. Not one of the 7,266 records carries it. Every other year from 2007 through 2024 is present.

Before treating that as a lost year of reporting, it is worth saying what the gap is not. The underlying activity is largely accounted for. Reports covering a period that ended in 2021 do exist — 422 of them statewide — and they sit in the database under report years 2022 and 2023. Municipalities filed. What is missing is a filing-year label, not four hundred reports.

The statute makes the absence awkward rather than trivial. Section 99.865.8 requires the State Auditor to keep a searchable database of these reports available for public inspection, and to maintain the information “for a period of no less than ten years from initial posting.” Report year 2021 is four years ago. The missing year is well inside the window the law says to hold.

The other half: 2020 looks like a second copy of 2019

The stranger finding sits directly beside the gap.

Report year 2019 holds 524 records. Report year 2020 holds 523. Matching them on municipality, project name, and exact reporting period, 497 of report year 2020’s 523 records — 95.0 percent — repeat a report year 2019 record. Of those, 492 are identical on all 76 fields other than the record’s own ID and its report-year label.

The record IDs make the pattern plainer. Report year 2019 occupies IDs 5471 through 5994, unbroken. Report year 2020 occupies 5995 through 6517, unbroken, immediately after it. That is the signature of one batch of filings loaded twice under two different year labels, rather than of five hundred municipalities independently refiling identical documents.

This paper has not established how that happened, and is not asserting that it was deliberate. There is an ordinary explanation available and it is the likeliest one: a loading error at the point where the Department of Revenue’s file becomes the auditor’s database. Neither office has been asked yet, and neither has said anything on the record about it, so nothing here should be read as their answer. What can be said today is what is measurable, and what it costs a reader.

What it costs a reader

Sort every record in the database by the period the report actually covers, and one year collapses.

Eight. In the entire Kansas City metro, the state’s statutory TIF database can account for eight reports covering a period that ended in 2020.

The 2019 total is inflated by the duplicate block described above; strip it out and roughly 300 reports remain for that year, which is in line with its neighbours. The 2020 line has no such explanation. If you want to know what a Kansas City redevelopment district collected and spent during the first pandemic year, the database Missouri built for that purpose very largely cannot tell you.

One more thing to know before you file anything

If reading the reports makes you want to check whether your own city is filing them, the state’s instructions are not a reliable guide to the calendar.

The Department of Revenue’s Local Tax Increment Financing page — the page that tells municipalities how and when to file — was live on September 8, 2026 and read, in full: “The next filing deadline is November 15, 2014. The reporting period may cover any 12-month period prior to September 30.”

The deadline itself is right, in the sense that it recurs. Section 99.865.1 requires the report no later than November 15 each year, covering the status of each plan as of December 31 of the preceding year. The year printed beside it has been wrong for twelve years.

The penalty attached is real. Under Section 99.865.7, the Department of Revenue must notify a non-filing municipality’s chief elected officer by certified mail, and if the municipality does not correct the problem within sixty days, it is prohibited from adopting any new tax increment finance plan for five years.

A note for anyone quoting the statute: the version of Section 99.865 that appears first on the Revisor of Missouri’s site is the one enacted in 2022, and it was declared invalid in its entirety in Byrd v. State, 679 S.W.3d 492 (Mo. banc 2023), when the Supreme Court struck House Bill 1606 on single-subject grounds. The Stare checked all four enactments on September 8, 2026. The operative version, effective August 28, 2016, carries both the searchable-database duty and the five-year bar in the same words. Nothing above depends on the void version.

What this database will not do

It will not take an address. It is organized by redevelopment plan, not by parcel, so finding your block means reading project names and descriptions for your municipality and matching them yourself. For 9 of the 137 newest metro filings, the location field points at an attachment that is not in the database at all.

It will not cover Kansas. This is a Missouri statutory filing. A TIF district in Kansas City, Kansas, Overland Park, Olathe, or Lenexa is not in it and cannot be found in it.

It will not be current. The newest filings carry report year 2024 and cover periods that mostly ended in 2023.

For a definitive answer on a specific parcel — the boundary, not the finances — the holders of record are the municipality’s Tax Increment Financing Commission and the county assessor. The database is the better place to learn what the district promised. It is not the place to learn where its line runs.

Check us

Every figure above comes from one file: the complete contents of the auditor’s TIF data service, downloaded once on September 8, 2026, along with the search page, the statute in all four of its enactments, the Department of Revenue’s instructions page, and one sample project report. The capture is 19.8 megabytes and required no key, no account, and no permission.

Anyone can repeat it. The search page is at auditor.mo.gov/TIF/Search, and the data behind it is served, unauthenticated, from the same site at /TIF/SearchData. Adding SearchReportYear=2021 to that address returns an empty result, which is the finding in this story reduced to one line.

---

Sources: Missouri State Auditor TIF report database and search page, captured September 8, 2026; Sections 99.865.1, 99.865.7, and 99.865.8, RSMo, all four enactments checked; Byrd v. State of Missouri, 679 S.W.3d 492 (Mo. banc 2023); Missouri Department of Revenue, Local Tax Increment Financing, captured September 8, 2026. Analysis by The Kansas City Stare; the archived capture and the full arithmetic are held in the newsroom’s source packet. No developer or private individual is named in this story. Corrections: corrections@kcstare.com. Know a TIF district that never delivered? tips.