Voice For Liberty

Tag: Downtown Wichita revitalization

Articles about the redevelopment of downtown Wichita and its impact on the economic freedom of Wichitans.

  • Naftzger Park on the web: Do we care?

    Naftzger Park on the web: Do we care?

    A badly outdated portion of Wichita’s website makes me wonder: Does anyone care?

    In the Naftzger Park Facebook group that I co-administer, someone recently posted this:

    Hi! I’m [not] new to Wichita and a friend told me about a quaint and lovely Victorian style park set in the downtown area. I love little parks like these as they’re such an endearing surprise in the midst of old industrial buildings and warehouses. After seeing the pictures on your website, I can tell my friend understated the beauty of the park. I can’t wait to visit! One problem though, I can’t find the hours of park operation. Could you please tell me what time the park closes as I’d hate for people to think that I’m a bum just because I was visiting after 9:00 p.m.?

    In the next paragraph, the author confessed that the post is “pure sarcasm laced with bitterness,” because, as most Wichitans know, the Victorian Naftzger Park has been replaced with something else. While opinions vary as to whether the new park is better than the old, there is one thing of which this author is correct: “Not even a whisper of the change.”

    What hasn’t changed is the City of Wichita website, specifically the page devoted to Naftzger Park. 1 As of April 19, 2020, it shows photos of the old park and this description: “A mini-park located in the heart of downtown Wichita containing many beautiful flowers, trees and shrubs, and grass accenting the waterfall that flows into a pond. Park benches and a gazebo add to the park’s Victorian style as well as providing a quiet haven in the downtown area.”

    Wichita.gov, captured April 19, 2020. Click for larger.

    None of this, except for “mini-park located in the heart of downtown Wichita” has been true for a long time. Naftzger Park — the Victorian version — closed in May 2018, nearly two years ago, when construction started on the new version. The new version opened in March 2020.

    So the city’s website is nearly two years outdated regarding Naftzger Park, outdated in a very material manner. Does this matter? In the scenario from the start of this article, yes, it matters. For an enthusiast of these parks that might travel to Wichita for that reason: Yes, it matters. For those looking to the city’s website for current and accurate information: Yes, it matters.

    It matters for more than just Naftzger Park. Glaring examples like this cast doubt on the reliability of the rest of the city’s website. That’s a shame, because in my experience, the information on the city’s website is usually good. It could be more thorough in some simple but important ways, such as including spending records and legal notices. The city also overlooks simple ways to be innovative, such as posting fulfilled records requests.

    Outdated information like this is a symptom of someone not caring. It’s especially troubling in light of this week’s city council meeting, where many council members were effusive in their praise of the city manager during his annual performance evaluation. I imagine that the city manager doesn’t maintain the Park and Recreation section of the city’s website. Maybe the Director of Parks and Recreation doesn’t update the website. But someone does. Someone must be responsible for keeping things current.

    Naftzger Park, July 31, 2018.

    When that responsible person doesn’t care, responsibility flows upwards. Hasn’t anyone at the city noticed this badly outdated information? Have any park board members or city council members noticed? Anyone at DowntownWichita.org, the agency that, in its own words, “amplifies the energy, capital, and growth of downtown by empowering residents, visitors, and businesses to explore the possibilities of our city’s core.” Or what about someone at Visit Wichita? (To its credit, its website showcases the new version of Naftzger Park.) Or have they noticed but not cared? Or did they report the outdated page, but no one cared to act?

    It’s not the case that someone needs to spend hours creating a page for the new Naftzger Park. Just take the outdated stuff off the site.

    —
    Notes

    1. Should the city update this page, here is a link to a recent archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20200416014239/https://www.wichita.gov/ParkandRec/CityParks/Pages/Naftzger.aspx#. ↩
  • Wichita taxing district to expand

    Wichita taxing district to expand

    The City of Wichita plans to expand a special tax district.

    Next week the Wichita City Council will consider expanding an existing CID, or Community Improvement District, in the Delano neighborhood near downtown Wichita. A map provided by the city is nearby.

    Community Improvement Districts are a mechanism whereby extra sales tax is collected within a district. For this CID, the city asks to collect an extra two cents per dollar, which is the maximum allowed in Kansas.

    CIDs are distinguished from STAR bonds, in which incremental sales tax revenue in a district is captured and handled differently from the base sales tax. The sales tax rate remains as before. The ballpark and surrounding area use both CID and STAR bonds, as well as other public funding.

    In its analysis appearing in the agenda packet for the February 11, 2020 meeting, the city provides this:

    The expanded boundaries will permit the collection of additional CID revenues and the application thereof to development opportunities as well as the design and construction of the Stadium, utilities, parking, and other improvements related to the Stadium and river corridor improvements. The expansion further permits the use of funds to support the construction of public auditoriums and convention centers.

    The CID petition included the $83,000,000 stadium project, which includes both the $75,000,000 stadium and $8,000,000 in supporting infrastructure. The amended petition has an estimated project costs of $210,200,000, which includes the additional $127,200,000 in project costs related to the Riverfront Partners project.

    Project costs originally included costs related to the development of a multi-sport stadium, related infrastructure and adjacent commercial, retail residential and parking structures. The amendment has been expanded to include public auditoriums and convention centers as well as the additional commercial construction on the Development Site.

    In this context, “Development Site” refers to the Riverfront Partners site north of the ballpark, southwest of Douglas and McClean Boulevard.

    Of note, the CID includes a portion of the land included in the Riverfront Legacy Master Plan. The city contemplates that CID funds might be used there: “The petition also requests that the uses of CID revenues be expanded to include uses contemplated by the DA to be made on the Development Site, costs for additional parking and costs that may be associated with for potential development on the east side of the Arkansas River that is within the Stadium CID.”

    The item the council will consider also includes a correction, as explained by the city: “The petition also requests removal of certain City-owned property that was inadvertently included in the Stadium CID.”

    The city plans to borrow funds to be repaid by the CID tax collections: “The City anticipates issuing up to $13,000,000 in bonds, based on a pledge of CID revenue.”

    Don’t want to pay? Don’t go there.

    Does the use of CID mean the city has raised taxes? Certainly, the sales tax within the CID is higher (9.5 percent) than outside (7.5 percent). But that extra tax can be avoided. It is common for city council members to advise citizens that if they don’t want to pay the higher sales tax, just don’t go there.

    On the surface, this reasoning is correct. But as explained in city documents, the city is borrowing money to be repaid by CID tax collections. If enough people take this advice and avoid patronizing merchants within the CID, there may be a shortfall of money to make bond payments. Since the city’s policy is that CID bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the city, Wichita as a city is not on the hook. 1 But should this happen and the city defaulted on CID bonds, it would be a severe blow to the city’s reputation.

    A similar situation exists for the STAR bonds the city has issued to fund the ballpark and related spending. If the district fails to generate enough incremental sales tax revenue to make bond payments, city taxpayers are not liable. 2 But the failure of these bonds would, again, severely damage the city’s reputation.

    Further, the city expects property tax revenue to pay off tax increment financing (TIF) bonds issued in favor of the project.

    Even more, the city expects the economic activity generated by the ballpark and surrounding development to spin-off associated economic activity that will generate further tax revenue. If this does not happen, and happen in a big way, the project threatens to be a burden on the city budget, and by extension, taxpayers.

    From the agenda for the February 11, 2020 council meeting, showing area to be added and removed from the CID. Click for larger.

    —
    Notes

    1. City Of Wichita Community Improvement District Policy. “While the CID Act permits the issuance of either full-faith and credit general obligation bonds or special obligation bonds, payable solely from the CID revenue, it is the policy of the City of Wichita to issue only special obligation CID bonds.” ↩
    2. $42,140,000 City Of Wichita, Kansas Sales Tax Special Obligation Revenue Bonds (River District Stadium Star Bond Project) Series 2018. “The series 2018 bonds are not general obligations of the city and neither the full faith and credit nor the general taxing power of the city, the state, or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the series 2018 bonds. The series 2018 bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness of the city, the state, or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction.” ↩
  • Naftzger Park event management agreement ambiguous

    Naftzger Park event management agreement ambiguous

    The profit-sharing agreement for Naftzger Park event management contains ambiguity that could lead to disputes.

    Today the Wichita City Council approved an agreement with Wave Old Town LLC for event management in Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. The agreement was approved unanimously.

    While there was controversy over the awarding of the contract (Wichita Eagle reporting is here), others have noticed that the contract is imprecise in a way that could lead to problems.

    The city and Wave will share profits and losses based on a schedule in the management agreement contained in the agenda packet for today’s meeting, Item V-2. The issue is when the profit-sharing is calculated.

    Profit-sharing agreement for City of Wichita and Wave. Click for larger.

    Based on the way the profit-sharing is calculated, different profit-sharing results could be obtained from the same event history. The management services agreement the city council passed today does not speak to this issue. Neither does the request for proposal for event management.

    The issue is when the profit-sharing calculation is performed and using which data, as follows:

    • Profit-sharing could be calculated independently for each event, using data for just the current event. This is illustrated in example 1.
    • Profit-sharing could be calculated once at the end of the year (or another period) using the sum of events during the period. This is shown in example 2.
    • Profit-sharing could be calculated independently for each event, using cumulative data for the year (or another period). Example 3 illustrates.

    As the following examples show, the differences between these three methods of calculation could be substantial. These three examples assume two events, one with an event profit of $49,999, and the second with an event loss of $49,999. Notice that depending on how and when the same calculation is performed, Wave’s share of profits could be $0, or $25,000, or $49,999. The city could either lose $25,000 or $0.

    While these examples are contrived and use extreme values, they illustrate that the agreement the council passed is ambiguous. There could be disputes that could be avoided with careful attention to detail by the city when constructing contracts.

    Click for larger.
  • Century II resource center

    Century II resource center

    Updated and refreshed: A resource of information about the Century II Performing Arts and Convention Center in Wichita. Click here: wichitaliberty.org/century-ii-resource-center-wichita

    Painting of Century II by Bill Goffrier. For more of his works, visit Goffrier Studio on the web or Bill Goffrier Studio on Facebook.

  • Downtown Wichita population is up

    Downtown Wichita population is up

    New Census Bureau data shows the population growing in downtown Wichita.

    Data released today by the United States Census Bureau shows the estimated population for zip code 67202 in 2018 was 1,671, an increase of 73 from the prior year.

    Zip code 67202 is greater downtown Wichita, from the Arkansas River east to Washington, and Kellogg north to Central, roughly.

    The source of this data is U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This means the data is not the Bureau’s estimate of the population in 2018. For areas of population less than 65,000, the Bureau does not provide one-year estimates. Instead, the five-year estimates use data gathered over a longer time period in order to provide greater accuracy. The 90 percent confidence interval for the 2018 estimate is plus or minus 214 persons.

    The Bureau cautions that the five-year estimates should not be used as the population of the year in the midpoint of the five-year period: “Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled ‘2013,’ even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.” (See below for more about these data.)

    Further, the Bureau issues this advice: “However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years.” Downtown Wichita, I believe, qualifies as an area “experiencing major changes.” The five-year estimates must be considered in light of this advice.

    Still, as shown in the nearby table and charts, the ACS numbers are far below the population reported by the downtown Wichita development agency Downtown Wichita. See my article Downtown Wichita population for more about this topic.

    Following, excerpts from the Census Bureau publication Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know.

    Understanding Period Estimates
    Single-year and multiyear estimates from the ACS are all “period” estimates derived from a sample collected over a period of time, as opposed to “point-in-time” estimates such as those from past decennial censuses. For example, the 2000 Census “long form” sampled the resident U.S. population as of April 1, 2000.

    While an ACS 1-year estimate includes information collected over a 12-month period, an ACS 5-year estimateincludes data collected over a 60-month period.

    In the case of ACS 1-year estimates, the period is the calendar year (e.g., the 2015 ACS covers the period from January 2015 through December 2015). In the case of ACS multiyear estimates, the period is 5 calendar years (e.g., the 2011–2015 ACS estimates cover the period from January 2011 through December 2015). Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled “2013,” even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.

    Multiyear estimates should be labeled to indicate clearly the full period of time (e.g., “The child poverty rate in 2011–2015 was X percent.”). They do not describe any specific day, month, or year within that time period.

    Multiyear estimates require some considerations that single-year estimates do not. For example, multiyear estimates released in consecutive years consist mostly of overlapping years and shared data.

    The primary advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability of the data compared with that of single-year estimates, particularly for small geographic areas and small population subgroups. Figure 3.2 shows the improved precision of an ACS 5-year estimate, compared with a 1-year estimate, for child poverty statistics in Rice County, Minnesota—a county with about 65,000 residents in 2015. The lines above and below the point estimates represent the confidence intervals, or ranges of uncertainty, around each estimate. The confidence interval for the 1-year child poverty estimate ranges from 1.4 percent to 9.4 percent (8 percentage points) while the interval for the 5-year estimate is narrower, ranging from 12.8 percent to 19.2 percent (6 percentage points). (Refer to the section on “Understanding Error and Determining Statistical Significance” for a detailed explanation of uncertainty in ACS data.)

    Deciding Which ACS Estimate to Use
    For data users interested in obtaining detailed ACS data for small geographic areas (areas with fewer than 65,000 residents), ACS 5-year estimates are the only option.

    The 5-year estimates for an area have larger samples and smaller margins of error than the 1-year estimates. However, they are less current because the larger samples include data that were collected in earlier years. The main advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability for smaller geographic areas and small population groups.

    However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years. The single year and multiyear estimates will not be the same because they are based on data from two different time periods.

  • Downtown Wichita jobs rise

    Downtown Wichita jobs rise

    The number of jobs in downtown Wichita rose sharply in 2017.

    New data from United States Census Bureau shows the number of workers in downtown Wichita rose sharply in 2017, while the number of business firms fell slightly.

    Zip code tabulation area 67202. Click for larger.

    From 2016 to 2017, the number of workers in zip code 67202 rose from 13,618 to 14,588, an increase of 970 jobs, or 7.1 percent. (Zip code 67202 is greater downtown Wichita, from the Arkansas River east to Washington, and Kellogg north to Central, roughly.)

    The number of business firms fell from 810 to 802.

    The annual payroll fell from $666,804,000 to $664,564,000, which is 0.3 percent.

    Since 2007, the number of jobs has declined by 9.3 percent, the number of business firms has declined by 9.5 percent, and annual payroll has declined by 4.2 percent.

    The significant increase in jobs in 2017 without a corresponding rise in the count of business firms is likely due in large part to the rapid expansion of two companies, King of Freight and SNT Media. The latter ceased operations in 2018.

    An interactive visualization of this data for all zip codes is available at Visualization: Zip code business patterns.


  • The Wichita baseball team’s name

    The Wichita baseball team’s name

    Is the name of the new Wichita baseball team important? Yes, as it provides insight.

    Whatever you may think of the name of the new Wichita baseball team, it’s important. Important because the city is spending many millions on the stadium, much of it borrowed through bonds that must be repaid if the team doesn’t generate as much success (and tax revenue) as planned.

    Additionally, the city is depending on the team owners to successfully develop the four acres of surrounding land that the city gave to them. (Well, almost gave to them. They paid about four dollars.) Without successful development, the city and its residents are in trouble.

    But given that the reaction to the name is near-universal scorn, I don’t have a lot of confidence in the team owners and their judgment.

    Still, there are knowledgeable Wichitans who are praising the team’s ownership and management. I would suggest asking the people of New Orleans what they think of the promises made to them by Lou Schwechheimer, the majority owner of the team. See Coverage of Wichita baseball owner Lou Schwechheimer and Wichita vets its baseball partner(s).

    Can a city’s political and bureaucratic leaders want something so badly that they make bad decisions regarding who to choose as partners and how to structure the partnership? Yes, I’m afraid so.

  • From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Speakers promoting the saving of the Century II Convention and Performing Arts Center in downtown Wichita. Speakers were, in order of first appearance, Greg Kite, Dean Bradley, and Celeste Bogart Racette. This video was recorded on November 1, 2019. View below, or click here to view at YouTube.

    There is other material on this topic:

  • From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Speakers promoting the saving of the Century II convention and performing arts center in downtown Wichita. Speakers were, in order of first appearance, Greg Kite, Dean Bradley, and Celeste Bogart Racette. This audio presentation or podcast was recorded on November 1, 2019.

    There is other material on this topic: