self-supported municipal improvement district impact report

2016 David Reno Vox Consulting P.O. Box 6353 Kansas City, KS 66106-0353

Attn: Director Charles Schlittler & Board

Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas 726 Armstrong Avenue, Suite 201 Kansas City, Kansas 6610-2702

Updated May 2016

[SELF-SUPPORTED MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IMPACT REPORT]

Acknowledgements Thank you to the following organizations for delivering valuable statistical information, answering questions, and providing feedback to the author of this report: The Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas; inSITE Planning, LLC; Wyandotte Economic Development Council; the SSMID/DID Advisory Board; Simmons Security; The Kansas City, Kansas Police Department; and MM Companies, LLC for providing translation services. Your assistance has been invaluable. Thank you also to the Downtown community for welcoming this researcher into your businesses and taking time to provide your earnest feedback.

Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas

SSMID Impact Report

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In-Person Survey 

79% of respondents favor renewal beyond 2016; 5% do not favor renewal; 16% are unsure/other o 150 contacted — 62 respondents; 3 declined; 85 did not respond o 62.5% of property owners favor renewal; 12.5% do not favor renewal; 25% are unsure/other

Electronic Survey   

94% of respondents favor renewal beyond 2016; 5% do not favor renewal; 1% did not respond o 1,900 sent — 207 bounced; 384 opened; 112 clicked; 98 responded 93% of property owners favor renewal; 7% do not favor renewal 93% of business owners favor renewal; 7% do not favor renewal

Economic Data  

Retail sales increased 36.9% between 2011 and 2014 Beating the surrounding metropolitan area by 18%

Security & Cleaning Service Data   

Crime declined 19% and vandalism declined 36% between 2008 and 2014 119,266 total calls for service between 2009 and 2015 270 short tons of loose trash and litter removed o In addition to approximately 100 abandoned vehicle tires in May 2016 alone

Outreach 

Facebook, Twitter, Blog (numerous); 3 Newsletter Articles (4,904 delivered); Tuesday Coffee (40+hrs); Quarterly Meetings (2); In The Know Luncheons (4); Community Meetings (numerous); Direct Surveying (150 contacted); Survey Mailer (1,693 delivered); Door-to-Door (all businesses); More than 400 Certified Letters

District Data    

318 non-exempt parcels; assessed value of $19,828,006 47.5% of parcels owned by non-residents; assessed value of $12,666,018 52.5% of parcels owned by Wyandotte County residents; assessed value of $7,161,988 Leased properties likely utilizing Triple Net Lease

Recommendations    

Renew SSMID program Increase availability of Security Ambassadors during winter months Replace Cleaning Ambassador Contractor (completed January 1, 2016) Replace trash receptacles (Summer, 2016); Update Banners (Summer-Fall, 2016 2


SSMID Impact Report

It does not require a background in economics, business administration, public policy, or accounting to understand the previous several years of economic activity in the United States represent a time of significant difficulty for a wide variety of communities. Even a modest review of council meetings, legislative agendas, political speech making, and local newspapers is enough to impress thoughts of distressed communities upon an audience. Communities across the country have suffered, and Wyandotte County is no exception: Of the state’s 105 counties, only one had an unemployment rate higher than the national average for October [2014]: Wyandotte County, with 6 percent, compared to the national rate of 5.8. (“Economist,” December 3, 2014, n.p) While the Unified Government (UG) of Wyandotte continues to address the needs and issues facing its residents and economic outlook in a variety of innovative ways, the emphasis of this report is focused solely on the activity of the SelfSupported Municipal Improvement District (SSMID, or Downtown Improvement District, DID) administered by the Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas (DTSKCK) over the previous 7 years. To better serve the reader, this report is divided into distinct sections: (1) Background; (2) Relevancy; Purpose, and Scope; (3) In-Person Survey Development, Process, and Rationale; (4) In-Person Survey Data; (5) Electronic Survey Development and Process; (6) Electronic Survey Data; (7) Additional Outreach; (8) Economic Data; (9) Service Data; and (10) SSMID Impact, Recommendations, and Improvements.

BACKGROUND What Are Business Improvement Districts? Business Improvement Districts (BID) are by no means a recent development in the United States, and their favorability as a means to the revitalization of once-bustling downtown communities continues to increase throughout the country. A 2011 census of BIDs performed by the International Downtown Association (IDA) indicates there is a total 1,002 BIDs currently operating in nearly every metropolitan area in the country. In the Kansas City area, the Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri (EDC) notes, “more than 36” improvement districts “have been formed around the region” since 2002 (“What is,” 2015, May 1, n.p.). In Kansas, there is an improvement district in nearly every major city including Wichita, Topeka, Overland Park, Olathe, and Kansas City; with additional districts in cities such as Hays, Salina, and Newton. Improvement districts vary as much in designation, objective, funding, and administrative structure as they do in services provided. Nonetheless, Mitchell (2011) identifies five important similarities across all types: (1) BIDs must be “authorized by law through state legislation,” (2) BIDs are “usually established through a petition process,” (3) BIDs receive most of their funding from an added assessment on the property owners and/or businesses within the boundary of the business district,” (4) services are provided through a non-profit, public-non-profit, or government agency, and (5) “BIDs are expected to focus on what will be most effective for the business district” (116-118). Unlike traditional non-profits, which may be limited to focusing on one or two major projects of limited scope with unreliable long-term funding mechanisms, improvement districts are especially well equipped to harness a capacity for long-term improvements via the confluence of “business self-interest and vision” and “public financing unencumbered by urban politics” (Houston, 1997, 38). Long-term projects may emphasize providing supplement services such as litter control, Security Ambassadors, façade restoration, landscaping, snow removal, general district marketing, graffiti removal, and small construction projects. Service possibilities are quite unlimited, but projects do generally revolve around either supplementing a service provided by local government or providing a service city government has the authority to provide but does not (Hoyt & Gopal-Agge, 2007; Mitchell, 2011; Leinberger, 2005). Improvement districts are not a solution to all of the economic and/or social difficulties facing downtown communities, but they most certainly are an excellent and innovate way for local partnerships to be proactive in their effort to revitalize. 3


SSMID Impact Report

Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District Background The Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District was formally proposed by The Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas; a business advocacy non-profit in the Downtown community. Between 2007 and 2008, DTSKCK worked alongside more than 100 Downtown business and property owners; local chambers of commerce; non-profits; community organizers; civic leaders; and devoted city staff to distill issues facing Downtown and formulate a means to address them in a manner consistent with the Unified Government’s Downtown Master Plan. From countless discussions and meetings emerged the idea of utilizing a SSMID to assist in the revitalization of a once bustling Downtown community. To better facilitate orderly communication, elicit feedback, and identify an appropriate SSMID service area, a 17member SSMID Steering Committee was formed. The committee was comprised of individuals representing local business, property owners, community organizations, and the UG. Through direct-mail surveying, countless one-on-one discussions and numerous planning meetings, four major areas of improvement were identified by the Steering Committee: (1) safety, (2) litter control and graffiti removal, (3) landscaping, and (4) general district marketing. In addition to eliciting feedback via direct-mail and in-person discussion, the Steering Committee invited members of the Downtown community to participate in two town hall meetings in December of 2007. More than 80 Downtown business and property owners attended these meetings, and the Steering Committee utilized this opportunity to present them with a draft of the proposed SSMID district and incorporate their feedback moving forward. By March 2008, the SSMID Steering Committee completed the SSMID’s Business Plan based upon feedback obtained from the Downtown community over the previous year. Despite their success, Kansas Statute only allows the establishment of an improvement district if initiated by a governing body or petition. In order to obtain a public hearing on the formation of a SSMID, the Steering Committee and DTSKCK had to present the UG with a petition containing: The signatures of at least 25% of all owners of real property within the proposed district which together represent ownership of 25% or more of the assessed valuation of all of the real property in the proposed district. (K.S.A. 12-1796) The requirements of K.S.A. 12-1796 are not extraordinarily difficult to obtain in a community containing several large organizations. At the time, Mayor Reardon indicated that if this proposal were to pass, it would need more than 50% approval. Commissioner Holland echoed this concern: This requires 25% of the property owners, by state law, to allow this to pass. If this passes, then the group that did not want it would get it anyway. There is no way I could support something that had 25%. (“Planning & Zoning,” 2008, August 28, 73) With the understanding that more than 50% approval would be required for SSMID approval, DTSKCK, the Steering Committee, and numerous other businesses and property owners went to work. On July 3, 2008, the Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas filed a petition with the County Clerk containing 52% of property owners and 70% of the assessed property value. By July 24, 2008, certified mail was sent to every property owner in the proposed SSMID service area, and the Unified government adopted a resolution indicating it was considering the establishment of a Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District in the Downtown area. On the evening of August 28, 2008 the UG held a public meeting considering the establishment of the SSMID roughly spanning 4th to 18th Streets between Washington Boulevard and Sandusky Avenue. Present at the meeting were Commissioners Cooley, Ellison, Holland, Kane, Mitchell, and Pettey, with Commissioner DeSeure presiding as Mayor Pro Tem. Following a lengthy discussion, community feedback, and a presentation by DTSKCK Director, Chris Carucci, concerning the formal SSMID Business Plan, the Commission provided encouraging remarks but took no action. Slightly less than two months later on October 2, 2008, the UG met in Regular Session with Commissioners Barnes, Cooley, DeSeure, Ellison, Holland, Kane, Miller, Mitchell, Murguia, and Pettey with Mayor Reardon presiding. Commissioner Kane made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Mitchell, to approve Ordinance No. 0-72-08: 4


SSMID Impact Report

An ordinance authorizing and providing for the establishment of the Downtown Kansas City, Kansas SelfSupported Municipal Improvement District. (“Regular Session,” October 2, 3) Roll was taken and the ordinance passed with ten “Ayes” delivered by Commissioners Barnes, Cooley, DeSeure, Ellison, Holland, Kane, Miller, Mitchell, Murguia, and Pettey. SSMID Quick Facts As originally passed, the SSMID program provided four primary services: (1) Downtown Security, (2) Trash Cleanup and Graffiti Removal, (3) Landscaping, and (4) General District Marketing. Unfortunately, the economic downturn felt by many throughout the United States limited the SSMID program’s full offerings to Security and Trash Cleanup/Graffiti removal. These services are currently available to addresses in the SSMID service area. Current SSMID Services Cleanliness Ambassadors

Security Ambassadors

Graffiti Removal

SSMID Service Area 4 to 18 Streets spanning Washington Boulevard to Sandusky Avenue 1 th

th

SSMID Duration January 1, 2009 – December 31, 2016

RELEVANCY, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE Relevancy of Report Business Improvement Districts, Downtown Improvement Districts, Community Improvement Districts, and SelfSupported Municipal Districts vary as widely in name as in function served. However, these programs do generally have at least one aspect in common: expiration dates. The Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District program currently in effect in Downtown Kansas City, Kansas will expire on December 31, 2016 after approximately 7 years. In mid-2016, the Unified Government of Wyandotte County will consider whether or not the SSMID warrants renewal for an additional 10 years spanning January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2026. Purpose of Report As the SSMID will expire on December 31, 2016, the primary purpose of this report is to provide the Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas with an independent impact analysis of the SSMID program’s efficacy from the unique perspective of property owners, local businesses, and community members. The purpose will be served by analyzing available economic data spanning the previous 7 years and obtaining feedback from business owners, property owners, and community members via direct, in-person interview, electronic survey, and certified letter. Scope of Report 1. Quantify benefits of the Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District program by engaging a random sample of the SSMID community via in-person survey distribution and collection. 2. Quantify benefits of the SSMID program by analyzing available economic data over the previous 8 years. 3. Compile information and utilize the confluence of economic data and survey results to tell a comprehensive impact story about the SSMID. 4. Provide DTSKCK and all relevant parties with information concerning SSMID impact and renewal favorability from the aggregate perspective of community members.

1

See addendum III for a visual representation of the SSMID district.

5


SSMID Impact Report

IN-PERSON SURVEY DEVELOPMENT, PROCESS, AND RATIONALE In-Person Survey Development The survey deployed was developed alongside members of DTSKCK and the SSMID Advisory Board, with an emphasis given to obtaining information relevant to SSMID renewal and SSMID services. The survey itself is two-sided. The first side contains a total eight questions of both polar and non-polar variety. The second side contains an explanatory device written by SSMID Advisory Board Chairman, Lynn Kuluva. As the SSMID service area likely contains Spanish speaking businesses, a Spanish language version of the survey was developed by MM Companies, LLC. The surveys are available in Addendum II. In-Person Survey Process and Rationale In order to obtain as much economic data and reliable feedback as possible, the survey process deployed for this report contains three distinct but related parts: Part I. Before surveying could commence, it was necessary to identify what businesses and organizations currently reside within the SSMID service area. Drawing from field-verified address data originally compiled by inSITE Planning, LLC in mid-2015, an update of the data was performed by walking the SSMID survey area and consulting relevant parcel data available via the Wyandotte County Appraiser’s office. Part II. Vacant buildings, parking lots, and home residencies were removed from updated address data, leaving slightly more than 300 addresses.2 Non-profits, religious institutions, and government agencies were allowed to remain on the list. Although these organizations do not necessarily contribute to the SSMID program from a funding standpoint, many utilize and benefit from the services. According to available data, the SSMID district contains a total 318 parcels with an assessed value of $19,828,006 (“Real Estate,” n.d.). Of those parcels, 9 are a part of the Wyandotte County Landbank and 2 are Right of Way. This leaves 307 non-exempt parcels, not all of which contain a business or structure. Interestingly, 149 or 47.5% of SSMID parcels are owned by individuals or companies with addresses falling outside the boundaries of Wyandotte County. 3 The remaining 52.5% are owned by residents of the county.4 This is an important realization, as it indicates feedback received from absentee property owners may not represent a reliable gauge of the program’s efficacy. In these instances, it is best to rely upon information gleaned from those individuals and businesses utilizing SSMID services on a regular basis. As an additional note, it is highly unlikely that absentee property owners are in-fact contributing any amount of property tax to the SSMID program. A common practice among property owners is the deployment of a Triple Net Lease. A Triple Net Lease is: A lease agreement that designates the lessee as being solely responsible for all the costs relating to the asset being leased in addition to the rent fee applied under the lease. The structure of this type of lease requires the lessee to pay for net real estate taxes on the leased asset, net building insurance and net common area maintenance. (“Triple Net Lease,” n.d, n.p) In other words, the costs of supporting the structure, including payment of applicable property taxes, falls upon the business or individual leasing the space. With this in mind, preference should be given to the opinion of business owners when the structure is leased from an absentee property owner. 2

Even with tax data, determining the exact number of organizations operating within the SSMID service area is difficult, as this value fluctuates from week to week. 3 Assessed value: $12,666,018 4 Assessed value: $7,161,988

6


SSMID Impact Report

Utilizing Excel’s “RAND()” function, individual addresses were assigned a random number and sorted according to the value of that number. A sample total of 150 locations were extracted from sorted values. Part III. Direct, in-person canvassing began immediately following survey finalization. Businesses and organizations contacted were all delivered an identical rhetorical message "the pitch" to explain the project's relevancy, establish need, and increase the rate of survey response. While the survey itself is designed to take no more than 1-5 minutes, business owners, property owners, managers, and organizational representatives were welcomed and encouraged to provide additional feedback concerning the SSMID and the services it offers if they so choose. In many cases, respondents were happy to provide additional, in-depth feedback, engage in conversation concerning the program, and offer their genuine opinions concerning the program's efficacy. Total direct interview times spanned 5 minutes to more than 2.5 hours.

IN-PERSON SURVEY DATA In-Person Survey Surveys were hand delivered to businesses with an emphasis placed upon speaking directly with property owners, business owners, and managers. A total 150 businesses in the SSMID service were contacted. Of those contacted, 62 respondents opted to spend time discussing SSMID perceptions in a capacity beyond the scope of the written survey, and. In every case, respondents were made aware that information provided would be shared only in aggregate. There is no punishment for declining the opportunity to provide feedback, and not all respondents chose to answer every question. 3 businesses declined the opportunity to participate, but were given a copy of the survey should they choose to participate at a later time. 85 businesses did not respond to the survey for various reasons. In each of these cases, an attempt at follow-up was made 3 times. Feedback is largely positive across all survey questions, with the average business age being approximately 20 years.5 See Addendum II a copy of the survey. Polar Questions Q1) Are you the property owner? Respondents 60

YES 37%

NO 61%

Unsure/Other 2%

37% of respondents indicate property ownership, while 61% indicate they are a manager or rented/leased the property from someone else. 2% of respondents indicate shared-ownership of the property or are unsure. Q2) Are you familiar with Security and Cleaning Services provided by the Kansas City, Kans . . . Respondents YES NO 60 83% 17%

Unsure/Other —

83% of respondents are familiar with the security and cleaning services, while 17% are unfamiliar. Q3) Has your business requested service from the Security or Cleaning Ambassadors? Respondents YES NO 60 42% 52%

Unsure/Other —

5

Suspected outliers were removed from data utilizing the modified Thompson tau technique. Found in Question 2, omitted in the report for space.

7


SSMID Impact Report

42% of respondents report requesting service from either Security or Cleaning Ambassadors. 52% of respondents indicate they had not ever requested the use of these services at their location. Q2) Are you satisfied with the services provided by the Security and Cleaning Ambassadors? Respondents YES NO 57 68% 9%

Unsure/Other 23%

68% of respondents indicate service satisfaction and 9% indicate dissatisfaction. A total ten comments were provided: 1. I didn’t know the services were available to me. 6. Pleased with cleaning, but it is sporadic 2. Provide more cleaning service. 7. The cleaning services never happened. 3. Cleaning services are inconsistent. 8. I have never seen cleaning ambassadors in the 4. We all want more for our money. 2yrs I’ve been working here. 5. Satisfied with security but unsatisfied with 9. Never had to call for services. cleaning 10. Provide more cleaning services. Q8) The current DID will expire after 2016. Would you favor renewing the DID beyond 2016? Respondents YES NO 61 79% 5%

Unsure/Other 16%

79% of respondents indicate they favor SSMID renewal beyond 2016, while 5% indicate they oppose renewal. The remaining 16% of respondents requested additional information about the program's cost, proposed duration, and services proposed. Efforts are underway by DTSKCK to ensure these individuals are provided with the information they require to make an informed decision. Non-Polar Questions Non-polar questions are those which begin with Who, What, Where, When, and Why, or provide respondents with an opportunity to choose from a list of available options. In the case of this survey, questions 6 and 7 contained non-polar questions. Question 6, "How can these services be improved," elicited 21 written responses outside of verbal feedback: 1. Is there the possibility of cleaning the Reardon Center parking lot? Additional landscaping would be nice, with some commercial snow-removal added to district sidewalks. 2. The cleaning service seems like an excellent way to perform community outreach services. Allow students (high school) to participate in cleanup, and consider partnering with law enforcement to allow individuals with community service requirements to earn time by assisting with cleanup. 3. Provide more trash cleanup. Trash cans are not always emptied, and some trash cans appear broken. 4. Daily inspection of trash on Minnesota Avenue is needed. 5. Provide more frequent trash cleanup. 6. Nighttime security services would be nice. 7. Provide more cleanup. 8. Address vacant building issue and keep people out of them. 9. Increase security service in the morning and evening during winter months. 10. Add personnel for security and cleaning. 11. Clean sidewalks. 12. Trashcans don't have bags. Add morning/night security for individuals arriving early or leaving work late during the winter. 13. There needs to be more accountability from cleaning crews. Put them on a regular schedule. 14. State Avenue needs more cleaning services. 8

Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

SSMID Impact Report

Use cleanup crew to police new landscaping. People throw cigarette butts in there. Provide better trash service. Make cleaning less sporadic. Actually provide cleaning services. Security and cleaning services should submit new bids each year. I think the workers are doing a great job.

A significant amount of feedback elicited from question 6 is echoed in prolonged discussions with other respondents. These issues are addressed in greater detail under the section heading "Recommendations and Analysis." Q7) Which of the following additional services would you like to see offered by the DID in the future? Responses Snow Removal Landscaping General Marketing Holiday Lighting 74 45% 22% 9% 20%

Other 4%

45% of responses indicate a desire to see snow removal added to the list of SSMID services. However, it is important to note that this does not necessarily include snow removal from parking lots or sidewalks. Following discussion with respondents, many indicated they would like to see snow removal occur in areas where city plows block pedestrian pathways and/or parking lot entrances. There are some questions among business owners about what liability they have if these areas are blocked and a pedestrian is injured. 22% of respondents would like to see more landscaping in the SSMID district. Landscaping in this regard does not necessarily mean the construction of flower gardens, retaining walls, and etcetera. Instead, respondents are primarily interested in adding simple flower pots and trees (where soil currently exists). 9% of respondents favor additional general marketing. This option has a surprisingly low response rate compared to other improvement districts. As was noted in earlier sections of this report, many BIDs throughout the country consider general district marketing or branding a major function of their overall budgets. It is possible respondents understand "general marketing" to mean "general, store-specific, marketing." 20% of respondents favor holiday lighting. Holiday lighting in this regard means lighting outside of the UG's annual holiday lighting ceremony. Many of these particular respondents indicate having a uniform holiday lighting system throughout the district would make it a holiday destination which encourages drivers to stop and shop. 4% of respondents provided responses not echoed by the respondent population. Some include providing services such as lawn mowing, while others provided no clear intent to the meaning of the choice.

ELECTRONIC SURVEY DEVELOPMENT AND PROCESS Electronic Survey Development The electronic survey utilized was developed alongside members of DTSKCK and the SSMID/DID Advisory Board, with an emphasis provided to distinguishing opinions provided by property owners, business owners, and community members/employees. In order to increase the likelihood of survey response, the delivered questionnaire featured a framing device and contained only 4 polar questions; each question was designed to elicit a YES/NO response from respondents. 6 Survey questions were structured to accomplish two primary goals: (1) obtain additional favorability feedback from respondents, and (2) distinguish between respondent types. 6

See Addendum IV for a copy of the framing device and survey questions.

9


SSMID Impact Report

Electronic Survey Process The electronic survey was delivered to 1900 potential respondents via Constant Contact on April 25, 2016 at 5:02AM, with a closing date of May 9, 2016 at 7:00PM. Respondents were able to complete the survey and provide comment at leisure. The electronic survey was submitted to the DTSKCK mailing list a second time on May 2, 2016 at 5:02AM as part of regularly scheduled newsletter delivery. Electronic Survey Controls While controlling and securing the credibility of respondent feedback via in-person survey is relatively easy, submitting an electronic survey to a mailing list of 1,900 potential respondents opens the door to potentially inaccurate information. In order to ensure feedback obtained via the electronic survey was delivered only by property owners, business owners, and community members, the link to the online survey contained a tracking beacon. The tracking beacon or “bug” associated each respondent’s email and IP address with their particular survey. Respondents attempting to take the survey multiple times were prevented from doing so, and any respondent attempting to take the survey without having an email address associated with the DTSKCK mailing list became automatically listed as “anonymous.” Anonymous survey responses were immediately discarded.

ELECTRONIC SURVEY DATA In total, 98 valid respondents participated in the electronic survey, and 2 anonymous participants were discarded. April 25, 2016 Unique Survey Submission Sent Bounces Spam 1,900 207 (10.9%) 0

Opt-Outs 2 (0.5%)

Opens 384 (22.7%)

PC/M 70.1%/29.9%

Clicks 112(29.2%)

Fwds 0

The unique or stand-alone survey request was submitted to potential respondents on April 25, 2016 at 5:02AM. In total, 29.2% of potential respondents followed the survey link. Of those, 98 valid surveys were provided. May 2, 2016 Additional Survey Submission Sent Bounces Spam 1,895 192 (10.1%) 0

Opt-Outs 1 (0.3%)

Opens 317 (18.6%)

PC/M 73.1%/26.9%

Clicks 65 (20.5%)

Fwds 0

On May 2, 2016 a secondary survey link was included in the larger, regularly distributed, DTSKCK newsletter in order to provide respondents who may have forgotten or failed to receive/open the original survey mailer with additional opportunity to provide feedback. No additional, valid respondents appeared. Overall Results Q1) Do you work within the Downtown Improvement District? Answer Respondents Yes 60 No 38 No Response 0 Total 98

Ratio 61% 39% 100%

10


SSMID Impact Report

Q2) Do you own a business within the Downtown Improvement District? Answer Respondents Yes 15 No 82 No Response 1 Total 98

Ratio 15% 84% 1% 100%

Q3) Do you Own real property within the Downtown Improvement District? Answer Respondents Yes 14 No 84 No Response 0 Total 98

Ratio 14% 86% 100%

Q4) Do you favor renewing the Downtown Improvement District beyond 2016? Answer Respondents Yes 92 No 5 No Response 1 Total 98

Ratio 94% 5% 1% 100%

Electronic Survey Results Filtered by Question Employees and Community Members. Q1 & Q4) Work Downtown & Favor Renewal Respondents 57

Ratio 97%

Of all respondents, 57 identify as working Downtown and favoring SSMID renewal. Q1 & Q4) Work Downtown & Do Not Favor Renewal Respondents 2

Ratio 3%

Of all respondents, 2 identify as working Downtown and not favoring SSMID renewal. Q1 & Q4) Do Not Work Downtown & Favor Renewal Respondents 35

Ratio 92%

Of all respondents, 35 identify as not working Downtown and favoring SSMID renewal. Q1 & Q4) Do Not Work Downtown & Do Not Favor Renewal Respondents 3

Ratio 8%

Of all respondents, 3 identify as not working Downtown and not favoring SSMID renewal. 11


SSMID Impact Report

Business Owners. Q2 & Q4) Own Business & Favor Renewal Respondents 14

Ratio 93%

Of all respondents, 14 identify as owning a business and favoring SSMID renewal. Q2 & Q4) Own Business & Do Not Favor Renewal Respondents 1

Ratio 7%

Of all respondents, 1 owns a business and does not favor SSMID renewal Q2 & Q4) Do Not Own Business & Favor Renewal Respondents 77

Ratio 95%

Of all respondents, 77 identify as not owning a business and favoring SSMID renewal. Q2 & Q4) Do Not Own Business & Do Not Favor Renewal Respondents 4

Ratio 5%

Of all respondents, 4 identify as not owing a business and not favoring renewal. Property Owners. Q3 & Q4) Own Property & Favor Renewal Respondents 13

Ratio 93%

Of all respondents, 13 identify as owning property and favoring SSMID renewal. Q3 & Q4) Own Property & Do Not Favor Renewal Respondents 1

Ratio 7%

Of all respondents, 1 owns property and does not favor SSMID renewal. Q3 & Q4) Do Not Own Property & Favor Renewal Respondents 74

Ratio 95%

Of all respondents, 74 do not own property and favor SSMID renewal. Q3 & Q4) Do Not Own Property & Do Not Favor Renewal Respondents 4

Ratio 5% 12


SSMID Impact Report

Of all respondents, 4 do not own property and do not favor renewal. Comments. Respondents were given the opportunity to provide additional feedback in the form of a comments section. 38 valid respondents chose to complete the survey and provide additional comment. These comments have been altered only to obscure potentially identifiable information. Respondents Ratio 38 39% As a non profit organization with predominately women in staff/volunteers, having the Cleaning and Safety Ambassadors has been a huge benefit. In addition, since 2010 (when we moved to the Downtown area) we have literally watched the transformation to Downtown KCK first hand. Losing the Downtown Improvement District would be a disservice. I am not a business person nor am I an owner in the district. However, I have strong opinons about the need to continue to improve this District....otherwise it will go downhill, back to where we were fifteen years ago. Any chance on getting some bigger, better businesses in there. Progress has been good. Let's continue the effort. The results speak for themselves. Let's continue to make Downtown a greater place. You are doing a great job! Having been a property owner for 20 years, I believe the Downtown Improvement District has made a real difference and I fully support its renewal. I worked in Downtown Kansas City for 10 years before retiring. Much improvement has been made to make Downtown more attractive to business and welcome to customers. The program has helped the Downtown Shareholdefs accomplish this. More restaurants for those of us that work Downtown & perhaps some retail (clothing). I work near there and think it is important to continue the work that has been done--but at some point the public needs to take responsibility as well. It can not always be about committees and taxes and studies. At some point the people need have the pride and invest the time and effort to make the area a place to be proud of. I live adjacent to DID. There is so much potential. I am hoping that temporary art galleries might locate in empty store fronts. What about a culinary school restaurant? I do think that something as simple as banners placed on lamp posts delineating the district would be positive and make people stop and think hey maybe my business should be here I have been unhappy with the cleaning & security crew. I have been told by the Security Ambassadors that their supervisor told them not to come to my shop. I was involved in establishing the security team. We were also supposed to have a representative for each district. Not once has my rep even let me know who he was. More to say, not enough space I enjoy meeting clients and using Downtown businesses and resources more and more. Thank you for the work you are doing! I attend church and volunteer in the Downtown Improvement District. I do favor renewing this great service, but it seems like an undue burden on some of the very small businesses. Is there any other way to take care of at least part of this? More volunteers, or grants or something? The transformation of the Downtown area has been spectacular. I think it would benefit the District to include Lewis and CLark Park at Kaw Point as an anchor to the east of Downtown. A bike/walking trail connecting the park to Downtown would have a positive impact on the district and the park. The UG owns the park and would generate more funding This is a great asset for Downtown KCK. There has been a good improvement since the program has started. I been seeing people walking around the area on weekends. 13


SSMID Impact Report

I am involved in child support enforcement, and we really work hard to get people employed. The more improvements we can make to the Downtown area, encouraging growth and increased viability of businesses, the better shot we have at getting jobs and development in KCK The Downtown Improvement District has made great positive changes in Downtown...so many more people out walking around, fewer panhandlers. Keep up the good work! I am not directly involved with our Downtown, but I hope that those who are will continue to improve the core of our community. Much has been accomplished, but much remains to be done. It is vital that the District be continued. The impact on improving the image of Downtown since 2008 is beyond measure. The only image many people get of any city is its Downtown. It has never looked cleaner than during the past decade. Thank you. Yes, our City is growing; we need to place ourselves ahead of the times. This is a critical time for KCK and for us to get on the map as our bigger surrounding sister city. We need to make a BIG SCALE POWER MOVE that will place us among the rest. We need to offer as much as we can. Then we shall see full growth within our land. A vibrant Downtown is an asset to any city. When the Unified Government made the decision to quit funding Kaw Valley Arts, Downtown lost an art gallery and an arts and humanities agency, to the great loss of our city. But, I hear that the blues fest is coming back to KCK. Anything to enhance our city is a good thing to do. I do a lot of traveling to Downtown (I work just south of there)for meetings and events. Also, my husband takes the bus to the Downtown area. Drug use/selling is rampant at the 10th & Main metro center. Downtown's rebirth is wonderful, and much credit is due to the improvement district. A beautiful and safe Downtown reflects favorably on the entire city/county. A good use of our money. Keep up the good work. If we are trying to improve the Downtown area, paying $200000+ out of the business' pockets is to much. You want more people to visit, shop, enjoy the area, but if the business have to pay more you know they are going to have to raise the prices of our products to the consumer to offset it,they may not want to patronize your establishments then Keep up the great work! Downtown is really looking phenomenal. As a homeowner in strawberry hill I fully support the DID for renewal. Our Downtown is growing and will hopefully be booming in the upcoming years. My businesses are a block from Sandusky on Strawberry Hill. We derive no benefit from this service and seldom see anyone who works for the improvement district unless they're cleaning up one of the city's properties. I believe this has more merit for those on Minnesota Ave. I remember when we had a wonderful Downtown shopping area. It was fun to go to the "avenue." Although we will not have Kresges (sp?), Woolworths, Grants, Mode Day, Helzberg's and all the rest - I would love to see KCKS have something on the order of what used to be. Lol lol It was a fun time in my life. The Downtown Area of Kansas City Kansas has benefited incredibly from the efforts coordinated through the SSMID. Security and Trash pickup. The continued interest in Downtown Kansas City, Kansas is evident in business increase. Look forward to a future improvements. Because I do not have a real interest in the district, I will defer to those who do. Clean-up is not satisfactory. I live just outside the district in the Cathedral Neighborhood. Our neighborhood starts on Washington Blvd between 5th St. and 7th St to Freeman Avenue. We support the improved climate of Downtown KCK and look forward to businesses that improve our quality of life, hardware store, grocery store, theatre, etc. I live in Westheight just beyond the District boundaries, & the progress that's happened in Downtown over the past 8 years (& that needs to continue to happen) is important to me, my family, my friends, my neighborhood, & the whole city & region. There is so much more to go, & I would hate to see it have to happen WITHOUT the District. The work the you do makes a big difference not only for those who work in the District. It also helps create a positive impression on those who visit the Kansas City, KS Downtown area. The efforts of the district benefit the city of KCK and Wyandotte County. The momentum should not be lost. 14


SSMID Impact Report

ADDITIONAL OUTREACH In addition to outreach via direct and online survey, DTSKCK and the SSMID Advisory Board have taken care to ensure consistent community outreach and organizational availability. DTSKCK Tuesday Coffee Since October 2015, DTSKCK has regularly hosted a Tuesday Coffee event at A Cup on the Hill (720 Minnesota Avenue) between 8:00AM and 9:00AM. The event is designed to provide the Downtown Community with an opportunity to learn more about DTSKCK’s mission, meet other Downtowners, and learn more about current events impacting the Downtown area. Since October, DTSKCK has hosted a total 33 Tuesday Coffees. This event is free and open to the community, and it is regularly advertised via social media, word of mouth, and flyer distribution. A number of community members, business owners, and property owners have taken this opportunity to discuss the SSMID and/or learn more about its function. Electronic Newsletter For the previous 9 years, DTSKCK has regularly distributed a bi-monthly newsletter to both the Downtown Community and the surrounding metropolitan area. Between April 4, 2016 and May 2, 2016 a total of 3 articles concerning SSMID renewal were included with the newsletter. The first announcement contained statistical information concerning both the program’s successes and challenges. The April 18, 2016 article contained additional statistical information addressing an overall decline in crime within the SSMID district. The May 2, 2016 article contained specific information related to SSMID renewal, its costs, and a final request to provide feedback via electronic survey. Certified Letter As a matter of state law, the Unified Government submitted a notice of public hearing to all property owners within the SSMID boundary concerning program renewal in May 2016 via certified letter. This notice included a renewal resolution, but it contained little additional information. Downtown Improvement District Advisory Board Chair Lynn Kuluva, writing on behalf of the SSMID Advisory Board, submitted a supplemental explanatory letter to property owners via certified letter not long after.7 The letter provided a clear program description, addressed the program’s strengths, and invited property owners to contact Mr. Kuluva directly with questions or to provide feedback. In total, more than 400 certified letters were mailed to property owners.

ECONOMIC DATA The reception of improvement districts by local communities is largely positive, as their proliferation over the previous thirty years certainly demonstrates. Nonetheless, studies concerning the positive economic impact improvement districts have on the areas they serve vary as much as the functions they serve. For the purposes of this report, economic data collected is restricted to retail sales and sales tax receipts for the SSMID service area.

Year 2008 — 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Retail Sales Total Sales — $17,298,623 $20,497,750 $22,162,851 $23,692,830 $23,579,588

% Increase — — 18.49 8.12 6.90 (0.47)

Source: Unified Government of Wyandotte County 7

See Addendum V

15


SSMID Impact Report

Unfortunately, retail sales data for 2008 through 2010 is not available on account of retail stores reporting sales outside of the SSMID service area. Nonetheless, available data paints an interesting picture. Retail sales have increased 36.96% between 2011 and 2014. This level of growth outpaces surrounding counties in Kansas and Missouri by a substantial amount. According to market research firm Cushman & Wakefield (2014), the metropolitan area — comprising Johnson and Wyandotte in Kansas and Clay, Jackson, and Platte in Missouri — experienced an increase in retail sales of 19% between 2010 and 2014. The SSMID service area is beating the surrounding metropolitan community by nearly 18%. Data independently acquired by inSITE Planning, LLC supports these findings, but it also provides a positive outlook for other markets, including utilities, construction, manufacturing, wholesale trade, education, professional/technical services, healthcare, accommodations and food services. Economic data covering NAICS codes other than retail sales are omitted. While determining causality in this regard is difficult, it is wholly unfair to declare services provided by the SMMID have not had an impact on increased retail sales. A number of factors contribute to the overall increase, and SSMID services are among them.

SERVICE DATA Security Ambassadors Security Ambassadors are an important, if not integral, part of the SSMID program. In many ways, the SSMID service area Security Ambassadors serve as the highly-public face of the program itself. The professionalism of this team, their management, and their ability to respond appropriately to the needs of the community has extraordinary impact on general perceptions of the SSMID program. If Security Ambassadors perform poorly in their duty, the public will notice. The current security program includes 4 full-time and 4 part-time Security Ambassadors. Part-time Ambassadors work approximately 1-2 days per week. Security Ambassadors are responsible for patrolling the whole of the SSMID service area from 4th to 18th Streets spanning Washington Boulevard and Sandusky Avenue. Security Ambassadors are available to all businesses and organizations within the SSMID district via local dispatch. While Security Ambassadors are not expected to perform the work of Police Officers, they are available to assist community members with panhandlers, disruptive customers, shoplifters, loitering, and other similar disturbances. Security Ambassadors are intended to solve issues which do not necessarily warrant the attention of local law enforcement personnel. The following table includes security responses to Calls for Service between June 2009 and November 2015. Service calls may be initiated by the Security Ambassador on duty or initiated by a member of the community via dispatch. A call is considered dispatched when someone calls the Supervisory Security Ambassador's phone or request in-person assistance. Self-initiated calls are initiated by the security ambassador based upon observation.

Year 20091 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 20152

Dispatched 255 560 380 198 171 129 157 1,850

% Increase — 119.61 (32..14) (47.89) (13.64) (24.56) (21.71)

Self-Initiated 10,589 15,330 16,177 18,769 20,026 19,337 17,188 117,416

% Increase — 44.7 5.53 16.02 6.7 (3.44) (11.11)

Total Calls 10,844 15,890 16,557 18,967 20,197 19,466 17,345 119,266

% Increase — 46.53 4.20 14.56 6.48 (3.62) (10.90)

1June through December, 2009 2 January through November, 2015 Source: Simmons Security

16


SSMID Impact Report

In total, Security Ambassadors have responded to a total 119,266 individual issues since June 2009. This is an excellent bit of information for those interested in SSMID efficacy. Not only are community members reaching out to Security Ambassadors for assistance, but Security Ambassadors are well-trained enough to initiate contact without the need for formal requests. While the increase in responses may lead some to conclude crime in the SSMID service area may be increasing, a 2015 review by the Kansas City, Kansas Police Department indicates the opposite. Between 2008 and 2014, total crime in the area declined 19%, with vandalism dropping a full 36%:

All Crime Vandalism

2008 610 191

2009 502 158

2010 498 150

2011 499 149

2012 500 145

2013 472 131

2014 494 123

Source: Kansas City, Kansas Police Department.

Overall, the presence of Security Ambassadors has had a positive impact on the Downtown community. Security Ambassador Feedback. A significant number of businesses provided positive feedback concerning Security Ambassadors. In many cases, ambassadors are known on a first name basis by local businesses, and those businesses report security staff stop by on a regular (if not daily) basis to "check in and say hello." Here are some positive security reviews provided by community members: 1. We are always happy to have the security patrols stop in during their rounds to warm up (during the winter) or cool off (summertime). It's good to see them on the street too. 2. I value their presence in the area. 3. Security enables people to be themselves and feel safe Downtown. 4. Extended hours in the fall/evening would be very helpful for securing the entire neighborhood. 5. The Security Ambassadors are a tremendous help at our community-wide events. Cleanliness Ambassadors The second major service provided by the SSMID program is trash cleanup. Cleanliness Ambassadors police parking lots for litter, clean sidewalks, and respond to business requests for cleaning assistance. Cleanliness Ambassadors are recognizable by their reflective uniforms and 50-gallon trash bins. Unfortunately, tabular data concerning clean up services is currently unavailable. However, between June 2009 and August 2015 ambassadors collected an estimated total of 270 short tons of loose trash and litter. 8 This is an important piece of data, and it should not be taken lightly. Cleaning services are not meant to replace traditional refuse services — this is a crew responsible for picking up small amounts of trash as it appears on sidewalks, in landscaping, and parking lots within the Downtown district. 270 short tons are equivalent to 14.5 eight-wheeled IAV Strykers or 170 Honda Accords Cleanliness Ambassador Feedback. Feedback for the cleaning crew is occasionally negative, with some degree of condition. For the most part, cleaning receives positive feedback between 4th and 12th Streets on Minnesota Avenue. Feedback for the length of State Avenue is mostly negative, with some respondents having never heard of or seen cleaning services. 8

A previous version of this report indicates an estimated 434 short tons removed. After applying updated controls based upon the 2015 total of 26 tons, the original value has been reformulated to avoid overestimation. Ultimately, there is little difference between the two, as they both represent a significant amount of refuse which would otherwise be piling up in front of local buisnesses.

17

Downtown Shareholders of Kansas City, Kansas 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

SSMID Impact Report

Provide more trash cleanup. Trash cans are not always emptied, and some trash cans appear broken. Daily inspection of trash on Minnesota Avenue is needed. Provide more frequent trash cleanup. Clean sidewalks. Trashcans don't have bags. There needs to be more accountability from cleaning crews. Put them on a regular schedule. State Avenue needs more cleaning services. Provide better trash service. Make cleaning less sporadic. Actually provide cleaning services. Security and cleaning services should submit new bids each year. I didn't know we had cleaning services. I pay for that service, but I never see it.

SSMID IMPACT, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND IMPROVEMENTS Downtown’s SSMID has certainly had a positive impact on the district. Retail sales are up 36% since 2008; a full 18% more competitive than the surrounding metropolitan area. Between 2008 and 2014, total crime in the area declined 19%, with vandalism dropping a full 36%. In total, a safer, cleaner, and more vibrant Downtown is beginning to emerge. Customers are returning to stores, businesses are moving in, and community members choosing to participate in this study have indicated an overall happiness with the program’s results. Indeed, 79% of direct-survey respondents indicate they would like to see the SSMID renewed, and 94% of electronic-survey respondents indicate the same. It is important not to discount the opinion of individuals not owning property within the district. According to available data, 48% of SSMID parcels are owned by individuals or companies residing outside of Wyandotte County – some as distant as the West Coast. Ultimately, the decision to renew should be based upon the opinions and feedback provided by those individuals conducting business within the SSMID district. Although data indicates the emergence of a safe, cleaner Downtown and community feedback remains largely positive across groups, there are several issues which require attention. In general, community members are satisfied with the professionalism of security services. They would, however, like Security Ambassador escorts available during the winter months to assist employees arriving in the early morning (6-7AM) and leaving the area later (7PM). The SSMID/DID Advisory Board and DTSKCK are currently considering a plan to make this a possibility. By far, the most common request for improved service involves the inconsistency of trash pick-up. Although respondents along Minnesota Avenue indicated a certain degree of inconsistency, the service does decline significantly between 10th and 18th streets for nearly all named roads within the district. Inconsistent trash pick-up appears divisible into two distinct categories: (1) trash receptacles and (2) cleaning service. A number of organizations indicate that trash bins are not emptied on a regular basis, lack appropriate bags, and/or have fallen into a state of general disrepair. More still have been surprised to learn the SSMID offers trash pick-up at all. The SSMID/DID Advisory Board and DTSKCK are aware of the situation, and new trash receptacles are expected in summer 2016. The Boards are also working to return normalcy to regularly scheduled trash pick-up. As cleaning services remain a significant portion of SSMID/DID activity, inconsistent service is simply unacceptable. In October 2015, a request for competitive bids was submitted to the public in an effort to replace the previous contractor. A new contractor was selected in November 2015, with start date of January 1, 2016. Initial feedback suggests the alteration is largely positive, but the situation warrants continued attention. In addition to the new contractor, DTSKCK 18


SSMID Impact Report

should, by way of additional outreach, take an aggressive marketing approach to highlighting the presence of a new contractor in this area. This may be done via social media, newsletter, and mention at community meetings. It may also be of benefit to request Security Ambassadors mention this to businesses on their daily rounds. Although trash receptacles are not necessarily the responsibility of the cleaning crew, their general state of disrepair is often lumped into the general category of cleaning services. The arrival of new receptacles will be a welcomed change, but normalcy to their maintenance must yet be restored. Ultimately, the number of respondents indicating they are unfamiliar with SSMID services is low, but important. Marketing the District and its services is an excellent way to demonstrate in an additional, tangible manner the impact the SSMID program has on Downtown. An artist for new District Banners was recently selected by DTSKCK’s Outreach Communications Committee, and multiple designs are underway. In addition to this, new trash receptacles should be outfitted with a horizontal banner naming the district “The Downtown Improvement District” and directing individuals to a website for additional information. This approach has been taken with receptacles in the River Market Community Improvement District operating in Kansas City, Missouri with appealing visual success.

19


SSMID Impact Report

ADDENDUM I 12-1795. Self-supported municipal improvement district; definitions. As used in this act: (a) "City" means any city in Kansas. (b) "District" means a self-supported municipal improvement district which may be created and the property taxed in accordance with this act and which is: (1) Comprised of contiguous property wholly within the boundaries of the central business district of the city as such boundaries are determined by resolution adopted by the governing body of the city and none of which property is zoned for any use other than commercial or industrial; (2) comprised, at a minimum, of an area equivalent to four square blocks excluding any public streets and rights-of-way; and (3) given a descriptive name containing the words "self-supported municipal improvement district." (c) "Improvement" means the principal structures, works, component parts and accessories of any of the following: (1) Sanitary and storm sewers and lift stations. (2) Drainage conduits, channels and levees. (3) Street grading, paving, graveling, macadamizing, curbing, guttering and surfacing. (4) Street lighting fixtures, connections and facilities. (5) Underground gas, water, heating, and electrical services and connections located within the public right-of-way. (6) Sidewalks and pedestrian underpasses or overpasses. (7) Drives and driveway approaches located within the public right-of-way. (8) Water mains and extensions. (9) Plazas and arcades. (10) Parking facilities. (11) Landscaping and plantings, fountains, shelters, benches, sculptures, commercial and noncommercial signs, lighting, decorations and similar amenities. (d) "Revenue producing improvement" means any facility or property proposed to be leased in whole or in part to any person or governmental body which aids in the commercial development of the district, furthers the purposes of the district and does not substantially reduce the city's property tax base. The term shall include any utility defined by K.S.A. 10-1201, and amendments thereto. (e) "Service" means: (1) The provision of special or additional services, such as sanitation, the security of persons and property and the care and maintenance of public facilities, including sidewalks and other public areas; (2) the financial support of public transportation service and publicly owned parking facilities, including the operation and maintenance of parking facilities; (3) the development of plans and programs for the future development of the district; (4) the development, promotion and support of community events and activities open to the general public; and (5) any other service which the city is authorized to perform and which the city does not also perform to the same extent on a city-wide basis. (f) "Cost" means: (1) Expenditures made for construction, engineering, architectural, technical and legal services, reports, property valuations, estimates, plans, specifications, notices, acquisition of real and personal property, consequential damages, easements, rights-of-way, supervision, inspection, testing, publications, printing and sale of bonds, interest on temporary notes, and provisions for land use planning, administrative expense and contingencies of the district; (2) maintenance expenses of improvements as defined in subsection (c) or (d); and (3) service as defined in subsection (e). History: L. 1981, ch. 63, § 2; L. 1982, ch. 76, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 79, § 1; Jan. 1, 1989.

20


SSMID Impact Report

ADDENDUM II

21


SSMID Impact Report

22


SSMID Impact Report

23


SSMID Impact Report

24


SSMID Impact Report

ADDENDUM III

25


SSMID Impact Report

ADDENDUM IV

Friends of Downtown KCK, We would like you to help us by completing a very important survey of only 4 questions. You are probably familiar with our Downtown Improvement District (Officially called the Self-Supported Municipal Improvement District of Downtown Kansas City, Kansas or SSMID). The District was established in 2008 for an eight year period and, unless renewed, will expire at the end of this year. The main focus of the District has been to make Downtown KCK a better place to work, shop and live by making Downtown cleaner, safer and more attractive. The District has teams of uniformed Safety Ambassadors and Cleaning Ambassadors. Safety Ambassadors help people feel safer and welcomed when they work, shop and dine Downtown, plus serve as the eyes and ears of the KCK Police Department. Cleaning Ambassadors remove litter, weeds and graffiti to keep Downtown looking beautiful for visitors, residents and workers. This summer the District will be installing 150 new banners on light posts throughout Downtown and will be replacing the old trash receptacles with 20 new ones. Here is what has been accomplished during the past seven years:     

The Cleaning Ambassadors have removed 434 tons of trash and litter. This is the equivalent to 280 Chevy Malibus. The Safety Ambassadors have responded to 119,266 calls for service. Downtown retail sales in 2015 were up 37% compared to 2011. Overall crime Downtown in 2014 was down 19% compared to 2008. Vandalism in 2014 was down 36% compared to 2008.

New businesses are moving in and investors are purchasing and improving property within the District. The image of our Downtown has improved and our property values are headed back up. All are good things.

26


SSMID Impact Report

But this costs money. The 2017 budget for the proposed renewed District is $372,000. The Unified Government (UG) will pay $100,000 this year as their share for the property they own in the Downtown. We expect the UG to pay $100,000 in 2017. Other governmental agencies, not-for-profit organizations and various grant sources are expected to pay approximately $70,000. The remaining $200,000 would come from owners of commercial and industrial property in the District as a line item on the annual real estate property tax bill. The owner of a parcel appraised at $100,000 would pay $312.50 per year to support the District at the current and proposed mill levy of 12.5. The mill levy is limited by ordinance to 13.0. We would very much like your opinion on the question of extending the Downtown Improvement District beyond 2016. Please follow the link below to complete a quick survey of only 4 questions. We would appreciate your response by May 9, 2016. If you have any further questions about the Downtown Improvement District, please contact Lynn Kuluva at [email protected]. Thank you for your participation.

Click Here to Take Our 4 Question DID Survey Sincerely,

Advisory Board KCK Downtown Improvement District Lynn Kuluva, Chairman Carla Baker Mike Benitez Roderick Bettis Cindy Cash Albert DeLeon George Gates Robert Hughes Barbara Jolly Gregg Ottinger Lupita Sanchez

Your privacy is important to us. Feedback received will be shared only in aggregate.

27


SSMID Impact Report

Downtown Improvement District Survey The Downtown Improvement District generally comprises 4th to 18th Streets from Washington Boulevard to Sandusky Avenue.

1. Do you work within the Downtown Improvement District? Yes No

2. Do you own a business within the Downtown Improvement District? Yes No

3. Do you own real property within the Downtown Improvement District? Yes No

4. Do you favor renewing the Downtown Improvement District beyond 2016? Yes No 28


SSMID Impact Report

ADDENDUM V Dear Investor in Downtown Kansas City, Kansas, You are probably familiar with our Downtown Improvement District (Officially called the Self Supported Municipal Improvement District of Downtown Kansas City, Kansas or SSMID). The District was established in 2008 for an eight year period and, unless renewed, will expire at the end of this year. You will soon receive a notice of a public hearing regarding renewal of the District. The main focus of the District has been to make Downtown KCK a better place to work, shop and live by making Downtown cleaner, safer and more attractive. The District has teams of uniformed Safety Ambassadors and Cleaning Ambassadors. Safety Ambassadors help people feel safer and welcomed when they work, shop and dine downtown, plus serve as the eyes and ears of the KCK Police Department. The Cleaning Ambassadors remove litter, weeds and graffiti keeping downtown clean and attractive. This summer the District will be installing 150 new banners on light posts throughout Downtown and will be replacing the old trash receptacles with 20 new ones. Here is what has been accomplished during the past seven years:  The Cleaning Ambassadors have removed 434 tons of trash and litter. This is the equivalent of 280 Chevy Malibus.  The Safety Ambassadors have responded to 119,266 calls for service.  Downtown retail sales in 2015 were up 37% compared to 2011.  Overall crime Downtown in 2014 was down 19% compared to 2008.  Vandalism in 2014 was down 36% compared to 2008. New businesses are moving in and investors are purchasing and improving property within the District. The image of our Downtown has improved and our property values are headed back up. All are good things. But this costs money. The 2017 budget for the proposed renewed District is $372,000. The Unified Government (UG) will pay $100,000 this year as their share for the property they own in the downtown. We expect the UG to pay $100,000 in 2017. Other governmental agencies, not-for-profit organizations and various grant sources are expected to provide an additional $70,000. The remaining $200,000 would come from owners of commercial and industrial property in the District as a line item on their annual real estate property tax bill. If your property is appraised at $100,000, you would pay $312.50 per year to support the District at the current and proposed mill levy of 12.5. The mill levy is limited by ordinance to 13.0. We encourage you to attend the public hearing at City Hall on May 26 to express your opinion regarding the renewal of the district for 10 more years. If you would like to meet personally or by telephone with a member of our Board for more information about the District and the terms of the proposed renewal, please contact me as Chairman of the Advisory Board at [email protected] or 913-371-2400.

Sincerely,

Lynn Kuluva Chairman, Advisory Board KCK Downtown Improvement District

29


SSMID Impact Report

WORKS CITED Cushman & Wakefield (2014). Kansas City Annual Market Report, 2014. Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://dtz.cassidyturley.com/DesktopModules/CassidyTurley/Download/Download.ashx?contentId=412 8&fileName=DTZ_Research_Market+Annual+Report_2014.pdf Houston, L.O. (1997). BIDs: Business Improvement Districts. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Hoyt, L. and Gopal-Agge, D. (2007). The business improvement district model: A balanced review of contemporary debates. Geography Compass, (1)4, 946-968. Inhyuck, H. (????). An Economic Study to Establish an Asheville Downtown Business Improvement District. Ashville, NC: Downtown Master Plan Management Subcommittee. Retrieved from http://www.ashevillenc.gov/ Leinberger, C.B. (2005). Turning around Downtown: Twelve steps to revitalization. Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.edu/research/ reports/2005/03/Downtownredevelopment-leinberger Macdonald, H. (1996). BIDS really work. City Journal, 6(2), 29-42. Retrieved from http://www.cityjournal.org/html/6_2_a3.html Mitchell, J. (2011). Business improvement districts and the ‘new’ revitalization of Downtown. Economic Development Quarterly, 15(2), 115-123. “Real Estate Search.” (n.d., n.p.) Official Website of the Unified Government of Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas. Retrieved from http://landsweb.wycokck.org/LandsWeb/Disclaimer.aspx “The benefits of business improvement districts: Evidence from new york city.” (2007, July). Furman Center for Real Estate & Urban Policy. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://furmancenter.org/ files/publications/FurmanCenterBIDsBrief.pdf “Triple Net Lease.” (n.d., n.p.). Investopedia. Retrieved from http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/netnetnet.asp Unified Government Commission of Wyandotte County. (2008, August 28). Planning & Zoning Session. Kansas City, KS. Retrieved from https://wycokck.org/InternetDept.aspx?id=18410& menu_id=1390 Unified Government Commission of Wyandotte County. (2008, October 2). Regular Session. Kansas City, KS. Retrieved from Retrieved from https://wycokck.org/InternetDept.aspx?id=18410& menu_id=1390 “What is a community improvement district (CID) and what does it do?” (2015, May 1). Economic Development Council of Kansas City, Missouri. Retrieved from: http://edckc.com/what-is-a-cid/

30