Using bond funds for a $75 million aquarium at the zoo would betray KC voters’ trust

The Kansas City Council should reject any plan to use voter-approved general obligation bond money for a new aquarium at the Kansas City Zoo.

Two council members — Alissia Canady and Kevin McManus — have offered a resolution pledging $7 million in GO bond funds for a new $75 million saltwater aquarium at the zoo.

The rest of the aquarium’s cost would be paid with private donations and revenue from an existing zoo sales tax. On Wednesday, Canady called it a “great opportunity.”

We’re not anti-aquarium, and we’re certainly not anti-zoo. If supporters and patrons of the zoo want to build an aquarium, and can raise money from donors to pay for it, that would be a welcome addition in Kansas City.

But using GO bond funds for an aquarium breaks faith with Kansas City voters, and the idea should be rejected.

The money would come from the public buildings section of the GO bond package. That section — Question 3 on the April 2017 ballot — called for spending $50 million over 20 years for city construction needs.

Existing projects have already gobbled up much of the fund. The city has pledged roughly $40 million for GO bond-funded building projects through 2023, a budget official said Wednesday. That includes $18.5 million for the animal shelter, $8 million for the Kansas City Museum, $2.9 million at City Hall and other projects.

If the council takes another $7 million for the aquarium, the public buildings bond fund would be left with about $3 million after 2023, barely enough to undertake any other serious repair project.

Will public buildings need repairs and upgrades after 2023? Of course. That means the city will have to cut the regular budget to pay for those upgrades. The bond fund will be essentially broke.

That isn’t what voters signed on for in 2017. Spending money on the aquarium would increase skepticism among voters, making it harder to pass tax increases for repairs in future years.

There’s another problem with the plan. The city’s money would come from a property tax increase, paid for largely by property owners who live in Kansas City. Yet the zoo is clearly a regional asset, visited by residents in the surrounding suburbs on both sides of the state line.

Kansas Citians should not bear the burden of constructing yet another amenity that benefits the metro area.

There are alternatives. The zoo now attracts roughly 1 million people annually; a small fee — say, $1 a ticket — could raise the $7 million. Additional fees may be a possibility.

Donors could defray more of the cost. Other governments could be asked to chip in.

Kansas Citians have supported their zoo, and the attraction is strong. The area has talked about a major aquarium project for years. This proposal deserves serious consideration.

But property tax dollars, pledged for city building projects, should not be diverted to an aquarium. There will be other, more urgent needs in the years to come.

This story was originally published September 5, 2018 at 5:59 PM.