## Facts

- In 1996, Loretto Redevelopment Corporation, Inc. (Loretto) proposed a Chapter 353 redevelopment plan to Kansas City, Missouri (City) for roughly 6–6.5 acres of property near 39th and Mercier, including the former Loretto Academy and adjacent residential tracts in the Quimby Park area.
- The plan contemplated four phases, including converting the academy building into apartments, condominiums, and event space; constructing additional apartment/condominium structures; demolishing a dangerous building; and renovating residential property.
- Loretto requested that the City (1) declare the area blighted and rezone it as an Urban Redevelopment District (URD) and (2) grant a tax abatement of general ad valorem taxes (100% for 10 years, then 50% for 15 years).
- On November 14, 1996, the City approved the redevelopment plan, made the blight determination, and granted the requested tax abatement by ordinance; it also rezoned the property to URD by separate ordinance.
- Soon after, the City and Loretto entered into a Chapter 353 redevelopment contract setting out approved uses and a construction schedule for the four phases.
- In 1999, Loretto sought, and the City approved, an amendment modifying some approved uses and extending the construction schedule.
- In 2007, Loretto again requested an amendment to extend the schedule and modify permitted uses. The City held a public hearing and then enacted Ordinance No. 070790 approving the amendment and authorizing an amended and restated contract.
- The 2007 amendment did not change the previously granted tax-abatement period.
- Nearby property owners Cynthia S. Riggins and Thomas K. Riggins sued the City and Loretto for declaratory relief, alleging the City acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, and unlawfully by approving the amendment despite public objections (including concerns about the continued effect of the abatements and other neighborhood impacts).
- The trial court entered judgment for the City and Loretto, declaring the City did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unlawfully; the Rigginses appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the City acted arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unlawfully in adopting the ordinance approving the 2007 amendment to the Chapter 353 redevelopment contract.
2. Whether Chapter 353 required the City to make new findings (including blight-related determinations) or undertake additional proceedings before approving the 2007 amendment.
3. Whether approving the 2007 amendment unlawfully extended or otherwise exceeded the statutory limits on the tax abatement previously granted.

## Decision

- The Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held the City did not act arbitrarily, unreasonably, or unlawfully in approving the 2007 amendment after a public hearing.
- The court concluded the City had authority under Missouri’s Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law (Chapter 353) and ordinary contract principles to amend the redevelopment contract to extend deadlines and modify uses.
- Because the amendment did not alter the length of the tax-abatement period, the court rejected the claim that the City unlawfully continued or expanded the abatement through the amendment.

## Legal Principles

- An ordinance approving or amending a redevelopment arrangement under Chapter 353 is a municipal legislative act reviewed with substantial judicial deference; challengers must show the action was arbitrary, unreasonable, or unlawful.
- Courts do not reweigh policy objections to redevelopment decisions when the municipality acts within its statutory powers and there is a reasonable basis for the decision.
- Chapter 353 authorizes a city to approve redevelopment plans, enter into redevelopment contracts, and grant tax abatement within statutory limits; a city may later agree to contract amendments that change implementation details (such as schedule extensions and use modifications) when consistent with the governing approvals.
- When an amendment does not change the tax-abatement term or exceed statutory limits, claims of unlawful abatement extension fail.
- Holding a public hearing and following the city’s required procedures supports the validity of the ordinance; public opposition alone does not establish arbitrariness or illegality.

## Conclusion

Riggins v. City of Kansas City affirmed Kansas City’s ordinance approving a 2007 amendment to its Chapter 353 redevelopment contract with Loretto, holding that the City acted within its statutory and contractual authority, did not unlawfully extend the tax abatement, and did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably by approving schedule and use changes after a public hearing.


Riggins v. City of Kansas City, 351 S.W.3d 742 (2011)