Tag Archives: Economic development

A consultant to help Wichita’s confidence factor

Wichita considers hiring a consultant to help find a baseball team.

In August the Wichita Eagle reported:

Wichitans can hope for an announcement on a new affiliated baseball team coming to Wichita by the end of 2017, Mayor Jeff Longwell says.

“By the end of this calendar year, we feel confident that we will be able to announce a team, who the team is, all of the above,” Longwell told The Eagle Tuesday afternoon. “We hope that we can complete all of those conversations by the end of this year and be able to announce a contract in place.” 1

Evidently the mayor and the city are feeling less confident. Next week’s city council agenda includes a proposal to hire a consulting firm to help the city. The contract the council will consider states: “Wichita desires to retain Beacon Sports as its advisor and exclusive representative for the Assignment, and perform such other advisory services as are mutually agreed upon between the two parties.” 2

The city’s analysis advises: “Based on the encouraging findings, City staff have reached the conclusion that, due to Minor League Baseball (MiLB) rules and protocols, it is necessary to formally contract with a specialized baseball consultant.”

The contract has a cap of $50,000. For this, the contract states, “Beacon Sports will use its best efforts and endeavor to assist Wichita in obtaining and having present to it qualified offers on terms that are acceptable to Wichita, but makes no representation regarding the successful outcome of this Assignment.”

Of note, this item appears on the consent agenda. That’s a collection of agenda items that are voted on in bulk, with one single vote, unless a council member requests an item be “pulled” for discussion and possibly a separate vote. Generally, items on consent agendas are not controversial, and it may hold two dozen or more items.


Notes

  1. Salazar, Daniel. *Expect affiliated baseball team announcement by end of 2017, Wichita mayor says.* *Wichita Eagle,* August 29, 2017. Available at http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article170095417.html.
  2. “MiLB Baseball Consultant Contract,” Wichita City Council Agenda packet for October 24, 2017.

Kansas hotel tax collections

Kansas hotel guest tax collections presented in an interactive visualization.

Cities and counties in Kansas may levy a transient guest tax collection on hotel guests. It is sometimes called a bed tax or guest tax. The tax is collected as a percentage of total room revenue, not the number of rooms or the rate charged for rooms. While the Kansas Department of Revenue collects the tax, the proceeds are returned to the cities or counties, except for a two percent processing fee. In Wichita the rate is six percent.

In some cases, jurisdictions may levy additional taxes that may not be paid to the Kansas Department of Revenue. This is the case with the Wichita city tourism fee, which took effect on January 1, 2015. This tax of 2.75% is paid directly to the city1, so it doesn’t appear in KDOR figures.

Also, jurisdictions may change the tax rate. The Kansas Department of Revenue maintains a list of taxes charged. 2

The visualization has three views of data. One is a table of collections, including percent change from the previous year. A line chart shows the dollar amount of collections. A second line chart shows collections indexed to a common starting point. This is useful for comparing the relative change in guest tax collections. These line charts show data as the average of the previous 12 months.

Examples of nondisclosure.
This data does not represent all hotels in Kansas. Confidentiality rules prohibit disclosure when a jurisdiction has a small number of hotels. In the nearby example, the value “C” is reported for Sedgwick County, indicating such non-disclosure. Obviously, there are hotels in Sedgwick County. But considering hotels in Sedgwick County that are not located in cities like Wichita, the number is too small to report, based on confidentiality guidelines. Similarly, for small cities, data is probably not available to the public.

Of note, while Wichita is the largest city in Kansas, Overland Park collects the most hotel guest tax. Of the largest markets in Kansas, Wichita has experienced the least growth in hotel tax collections since 2010.

Click here to access the visualization.

Guest tax collections in largest hotel markets in Kansas, indexed change. Click for larger.


Notes

  1. City of Wichita ordinance 49-745. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/CityClerk/OrdanicesDocuments/49-745%20TBID%20Fee%20Ordinance.pdf.
  2. Kansas Department of Revenue. Transient Guest Tax Rates, Effective Dates, and Number of Active Accounts. Available at https://www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/tgratesfilers.pdf.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Century II, Again

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks continue discussing Century II, Wichita’s convention and performing arts center. But first, some unfortunate economic news for Wichita. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 166, broadcast September 24, 2017.

Shownotes

Wichita economy shrinks

The Wichita-area economy was smaller in 2016 than the year before.

The Wichita MSA economy produced fewer goods and services in 2016 than in 2015, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.

In real (inflation-adjusted) dollars, the Wichita metropolitan area gross domestic product fell by 1.4 percent. For all metropolitan areas, GDP grew by 1.7 percent.

Since 2001, GDP for all metropolitan areas grew by 29.3 percent, while Wichita had 12.3 percent growth.

Wichita and US GDP. Click for larger.

Wichita job growth

Wichita economic development efforts viewed in context.

Greater Wichita Partnership is the organization with primary responsibility for economic development in the Wichita area. Data provided by GWP shows that since 2004, GWP takes credit for creating an average 1,847 jobs per year through its economic development efforts. 1

To determine whether this is an impressive amount, we need context.

Over the past ten years the labor force for the Wichita MSA has averaged 314,877 each month (in May 2017 it was 306,809), and there were an average of 295,785 people working each month (May 2017 value was 293,763).

So one level of context is that the jobs for which GWP credits itself amount to 1,847 of 295,785 jobs, or 0.6 percent of the number of people working.

Click for larger.
Another way to look at this level of job creation is to consider it in relation to the number of hires. Over the past ten years, the national average monthly rate of hires is about 3.4 percent, meaning that each month 3.4 percent of jobs have a new person filling them, or the jobs are newly-created. With an average of 295,785 people working in the Wichita MSA each month, this means that about 10,057 jobs have a new worker, each month. That’s 120,684 per year. With GWP taking credit for 1,847 jobs, this means that GWP’s efforts are responsible for 1.5 percent of the new hires each year.

Another context: Employment in the Wichita MSA reached a peak of 312,100 in July 2008. In June 2017 it was 298,800. To get back to the peak, Wichita needs 13,300 new jobs. At the GWP rate of 1,847 per year, it will take seven more years to recover.

All this shows that the efforts of our economic development machinery are responsible for small proportions of the jobs we need to create. This assumes that the data regarding jobs and investment that GWP provides is correct.

Here’s one example of problems with the data GWP provides. GWP reported that companies made investments of $1.2 billion in 2016 when the average for years before that was $138 million. That looks like an impressive jump. This figure, however, contains over one billion dollars of investment by Spirit Aerosystems projected to occur over the next five years. Not in 2016, but possible over the next five years. Yet GWP presents this investment as through it occurred in 2016.

Furthermore, when Spirit asked the city for authority to issue $280 bonds over five years, it told the city this would result in 349 new jobs over the same time period. That’s creating jobs at the rate of 70 per year. These jobs are welcome, but we need thousands of jobs per year. 2

Does GWP deserve credit? GWP says, “We only incorporate data and dollar amounts from projects which we helped attract, retain or expand; we do not include announcements that we have not assisted with.” 3 “Helped” and “assisted” are not very precise. How much “help” did Spirit need to decide to remain in Wichita, except for hundreds of millions of dollars in forgiven taxes? That is something the people of Wichita pay for, not GWP.

We must also be concerned about the reliability of GWP statistics. Earlier this year GWP was prominently promoting on its website the success of NetApp, a technology company. The problem is that NetApp never met the job creation numbers GWP promoted, and in fact, had been downsizing its Wichita operations. 4

Still, GWP promoted NetApp as a success. An important question is, the NetApp jobs that were announced but never created: Are they included in the jobs and investment totals GWP provides? We don’t know, because GWP will not disclose the data used to build its report.

There are other instances of GWP’s predecessor, Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition (GWEDC), promoting Wichita as home to companies that had closed their Wichita facilities, or were in the process of closing. 5

GWP also promotes this on its website: “Downtown Wichita is work central, boasting 26,000 daytime workers in the financial, healthcare, education, oil & gas and creative services industries.” This claim of 26,000 workers is based on blatant misuse and misrepresentation of U.S. Census data, and GWP leadership has known of this for several months. 6 Still, the use of incorrect data remains.

Capacity to create

When the Wichita area offered incentives to a company that planned to add 50 jobs, the president of the chamber of commerce told commissioners that staff worked very hard to acquire these jobs. He called it “a great moment” in economic development. 7 But 50 jobs, while welcome, is just a drop in the bucket compared to what Wichita needs.

For Spirit to create 349 jobs over five years, we must let the company escape paying property tax and sales tax on $280 million of property.

For BG Products to add 11 well-paying jobs, we must let them avoid paying $204,280 per year in property taxes and $368,417 in sales tax.

In order to prepare the incentives package for another company, several events took place. There was a visit to the company. Then another visit and tour. Then economic development officials helped the company apply for benefits from the Kansas Department of Commerce. Then these officials worked closely with Wichita city staff on an incentive package. City documents stated that the expansion will create 28 jobs over the next five years. Obtaining these jobs took a lot of effort from Wichita and Kansas economic development machinery. Multiple agencies and fleets of bureaucrats at GWEDC, the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, and the State of Kansas were involved. Wichita State University had to be involved. All this to create 5.6 jobs per year for five years.

This illustrates a capacity problem. Acquiring these jobs took a lot of bureaucratic effort, which has a cost. It required expensive incentives. Occasionally the city works with a large number of jobs, as in the recent case of Cargill. But those jobs required many expensive incentives, and no jobs were created. The incentives and effort were spent simply to persuade Cargill to remain in Wichita instead of moving elsewhere.

All this assumes, of course, that the incentives are necessary. Either that, or there is a larger problem. If companies can’t afford to make investments in Wichita unless they receive exemptions from paying taxes, we must conclude that taxes are too high. It’s either that, or these companies simply don’t want to participate in paying for the cost of government like most other companies and people do.

Civic leaders say that our economic development policies must be reformed. So far that isn’t happening. Our leaders say that we will no longer use cash incentives. But cash incentives like forgivable loans were a minor part of the incentives Wichita and the State of Kansas used. Furthermore, forgiveness of taxes is just as good as receiving cash. 8

The large amount of bureaucratic effort and cost spent to obtain relatively small numbers of jobs lets us know that we need to do something else to grow our local economy. We need to create a dynamic economy, focusing our efforts on creating an environment where growth can occur organically without management by government. Dr. Art Hall’s paper
Embracing Dynamism: The Next Phase in Kansas Economic Development Policy provides much more information on the need for this. 9

In particular, Hall writes: “Embracing dynamism starts with a change in vision. Simply stated, the state government of Kansas should abandon its prevailing policy vision of the State as an active investor in businesses or industries and instead adopt the policy vision of the State as a caretaker of a competitive ‘platform’ — a platform that seeks to induce as much commercial experimentation as possible.” But our economic development policies are that of an “active investor,” and the cost of incentives increases the cost of experimentation.

Another thing we can do to help organically grow our economy and jobs is to reform our local regulatory regime. Kansas Policy Institute released a study of regulation and its impact at the state and local level. This is different from most investigations of regulation, as they usually focus on regulation at the federal level.

Business Perceptions of the Economic Impact of State and Local Government Regulation coverThe study is titled “Business Perceptions of the Economic Impact of State and Local Government Regulation.” It was conducted by the Hugo Wall School of Public Affairs at Wichita State University. Click here to view the entire document.

Following is an excerpt from the introduction by James Franko, Vice President and Policy Director at Kansas Policy Institute. It points to a path forward.

Surprising to some, the businesses interviewed did not have as much of a problem with the regulations themselves, or the need for regulations, but with their application and enforcement. Across industries and focus group sessions the key themes were clear — give businesses transparency in what regulations are being applied, how they are employed, provide flexibility in meeting those goals, and allow an opportunity for compliance.

Sometimes things can be said so often as to lose their punch and become little more than the platitudes referenced above. The findings from Hugo Wall are clear that businesses will adapt and comply with regulations if they are transparent and accountable. Many in the public can be forgiven for thinking this was already the case. Thankfully, local and state governments can ensure this happens with minimal additional expense.

A transparent and accountable regulatory regime should be considered the “low hanging fruit” of government. Individuals and communities will always land on different places along the continuum of appropriate regulation. And, a give and take will always exist between regulators and the regulated. Those two truisms, however, should do nothing to undermine the need for regulations to be applied equally, based on clear rules and interpretations, and to give each business an opportunity to comply. (emphasis added)

Creating a dynamic economy and a reformed regulatory regime should cost very little. The benefits would apply to all companies — large or small, startup or established, local or relocations, in any industry.

Our civic leaders say that our economic development efforts must be reformed. Will the path forward be a dynamic economy and reformed regulation? Or will it be more bureaucracy, chasing jobs a handful at a time?


Notes

  1. Greater Wichita Partnership – 2017 Investment Request. Part of the February 15, 2017 Sedgwick County Commission meeting. Available at https://goo.gl/hk6RHB.
  2. “Spirit is now requesting a new Letter of Intent (LOI) to issues IRBs in an amount not to exceed $280,000,000 for a period of five years. … Spirit projects it will create 349 new jobs over the next five years as a result of these expansions. In addition to the $280,000,000 Spirit expects to invest in facilities over the next five years, it also projects approximately $825,000,000 of capital investment in new machinery and equipment for a total capital investment in excess of $1 billion dollars.” Wichita City Council agenda packet for May 3, 2016.
  3. Personal correspondence from Andrew Nave, GWP executive vice president of economic development.
  4. Weeks, Bob. Greater Wichita Partnership. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/greater-wichita-partnership/.
  5. Weeks, Bob. Wichita economic development not being managed. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-economic-development-managed/.
  6. “The claim of 26,000 workers in downtown Wichita is based on misuse of data so blatant it can be described only as malpractice.” Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita jobs, sort of. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-jobs/.
  7. Weeks, Bob. Economic development in Sedgwick County. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/sedgwick-county-government/economic-development-sedgwick-county/.
  8. Weeks, Bob. Contrary to officials, Wichita has many incentive programs. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/contrary-officials-wichita-has-many-incentive-programs/. Also: Fact-checking Yes Wichita: Boeing incentives. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/fact-checking-yes-wichita-boeing-incentives/.
  9. See also Weeks, Bob. Wichita to grant property and sales tax relief. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-grant-property-sales-tax-relief/.

Sales tax incentives yes, but no relief on grocery sales tax

Is it equitable for business firms to pay no sales tax, while low-income families pay sales tax on groceries?

Last week I wondered if the city’s agenda packet for economic development incentives proposed for BG Products was complete. 1 Since the city’s narrative had no mention of a sales tax exemption, but the accompanying ordinance that was passed authorized a sales tax exemption, I wondered if the analysis performed by the Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research was correct.

Now that I’ve received the document, it appears that CEDBR’s analysis properly included the cost of the sales tax exemption incentive. 2 The city’s narrative did not mention the sales tax exemption.

According to the CEDBR analysis, the sales tax exemption has a cost of $368,417. It is shared among the city, county and state, with 88 percent born by the state. 3

From a public policy perspective, we must wonder whether this incentive, and the other incentives BG Products received, are necessary for the company to proceed with its expansion in Wichita. The Industrial Revenue Bond program, which is the enabler of these incentives, does not require the applicant companies to demonstrate financial need. There are a few requirements, but none have to do with economic or financial necessity. 4

The State of Kansas applies the full sales tax rate to groceries, and is one of the few states to do this. 5 This tax disproportionally harms low-income families. 6 This is a problem in equity, in that business firms may request sales tax exemptions without showing need, while low-income families have no way to avoid the sales tax on their groceries.


Notes

  1. Weeks, Bob. Wichita Business Journal grants city council excess power. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-business-journal-grants-city-council-excess-power/.
  2. Analysis by Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97azj3TSm9MZXJaOVhzUzBJc2M/.
  3. From the analysis performed by the city by Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University, these are the values of the sales tax incentives:
    City: 29,109
    County: 14,308
    State: 325,000
    Total: 368,417
    With the sales tax rate of 7.50%, this implies taxable spending of $4,912,227.
  4. “The percentage of taxes abated is based on capital investment and job creation. Majority of goods or services sold must be destined for customers outside of the Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Company must pay average wages equal to or greater than the industry or Wichita MSA wage rate. City benefit/cost ration must be at least 1.3 to 1.” City of Wichita, Economic Development Incentives. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Economic/Pages/Incentives.aspx.
  5. “Kansas has nearly the highest statewide sales tax rate for groceries. Cities and counties often add even more tax on food.” Weeks, Bob. Kansas sales tax on groceries is among the highest. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-sales-tax-groceries-among-highest/.
  6. “Analysis of household expenditure data shows that a proposed sales tax in Wichita affects low income families in greatest proportion, confirming the regressive nature of sales taxes.” Weeks, Bob. Wichita sales tax hike harms low income families most severely. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-sales-tax-hike-harms-low-income-families-severely/.

Century II: The consultant’s disclaimer

The report produced for the City of Wichita on Century II has a disclaimer that absolves pretty much everyone from any accountability.

The document is titled “Funding and Delivery Options Analysis for the Century II Facility Expansion: Delivery and Funding Strategy.” It was produced by Arup Advisory Inc. at a cost to the city of $294,000. The entire document is available at https://goo.gl/hq9iqR.

Following is the disclaimer at the front of the report. It is typical of what is found in reports produced by economic development consultants. It establishes several large loopholes for Arup, the City of Wichita, and boosters of public spending on downtown like Wichita Downtown Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce.

Disclaimer

Current accepted professional practices and procedures were used in the development of this report. However, as with any forecast, there may be differences between forecasted and actual results. The report contains reasonable assumptions, estimates, and projections that may not be indicative of actual or future values or events and are therefore subject to substantial uncertainty. Future developments cannot be predicted with certainty, and this may affect the estimates or projections expressed in this report, consequently Arup specifically does not guarantee or warrant any estimate or projections contained in this report.

This document is intended only for the information of the City. It is not intended for and should not be relied upon by any third party, and no responsibility is undertaken to any third party.

Our findings are based on limited technical, financial, and commercial data concerning the project and its potential delivery options. Arup has relied upon the reasonable assurances of independent parties and is not aware of any facts that would make such information misleading.

We must emphasize that the realization of any prospective financial information set out within our report is dependent on the continuing validity of the assumptions on which it is based. We accept no responsibility for the realization of the prospective financial information. Actual results are likely to be different from those shown in the prospective financial information because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and the differences may be material.

Century II resource center

Here is a resource of information about the Century II Performing arts and Convention Center in Wichita. Send suggestions for additions to [email protected].

WichitaLiberty.TV: Century II, Its Future

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Community influencer John Todd joins Karl Peterjohn and Bob Weeks to discuss Century II, Wichita’s convention and performing arts center. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 165, broadcast September 17, 2017.

Shownotes

Wichita Business Journal grants city council excess power

The Wichita Business Journal and the City of Wichita team to provide incorrect coverage and missing analysis.

Today the Wichita Business Journal reported: “An $11.5 million expansion of the Wichita operations of BG Products has been given the go-ahead. The Wichita City Council on Tuesday approved the expansion plan and issued industrial revenue bonds for the project.” 1

The problem with this reporting is that BG Products was not asking for the city’s permission to expand its operations, as the first sentence implies. Nor did the council approve an expansion plan, as the second sentence plainly states.

Instead, today the council granted BG Products an exemption from paying property taxes estimated at $204,280 per year for the next five years, and possibly another five years. This is how the industrial revenue bond program works in Kansas. Cities do not lend money. Instead, they grant exemptions from paying taxes. 2

(BG has agreed to pay $5,143 per year, the present taxes on a building being razed.)

While the agenda packet for the meeting specified BG’s plans for the bond proceeds, the proposed uses of the funds have little — nothing, really — to do with qualifying for IRBs. 3

So it’s curious as to why the agenda packet details the company’s plans for the bond proceeds. It’s even more curious why city economic development analyst Tim Goodpasture spent quite a bit of time briefing council members on these plans. Except: His Twitter handle is @goodybagict.

While the agenda packet supplies the estimated amount of property tax exemption granted to BG products, the city’s analysis makes no mention of the amount of sales tax BG may escape paying. Sales tax exemptions are another feature of IRBs in addition to property tax exemptions. While the city’s analysis doesn’t mention sales tax, section 5 of the ordinance passed by the council states the city has determined BG is entitled to a sales tax exemption of unspecified amount.

Since the city’s analysis of the proposal did not include mention of sales tax, we’re left to wonder whether the Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research incorporated the sales tax exemption in the analysis it performs for the city.


Notes

  1. Heck, Josh. Council green-lights company’s $11.5M expansion. Wichita Business Journal, September 12, 2017. Available at https://www.bizjournals.com/wichita/news/2017/09/12/council-green-lights-companys-11-5m-expansion.html.
  2. Weeks, Bob. Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/industrial-revenue-bonds-kansas/.
  3. “The percentage of taxes abated is based on capital investment and job creation. Majority of goods or services sold must be destined for customers outside of the Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). Company must pay average wages equal to or greater than the industry or Wichita MSA wage rate. City benefit/cost ration must be at least 1.3 to 1.” City of Wichita, Economic Development Incentives. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Economic/Pages/Incentives.aspx.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita and Kansas economies

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn discuss issues regarding the Wichita and Kansas economies. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 163, broadcast September 3, 2017.

Shownotes

  • Wichita employment trends. While the unemployment rate in the Wichita metropolitan area has been declining, the numbers behind the decline are not encouraging.
  • Downtown Wichita business trends. There has been much investment in Downtown Wichita, both public and private. What has been the trend in business activity during this time?
  • Wichita downtown plan focused on elite values, incorrect assumptions. One of the themes of those planning the future of downtown Wichita is that the suburban areas of Wichita are bad. The people living there are not cultured and sophisticated, the planners say. Suburbanites live wasteful lifestyles. Planners say they use too much energy, emit too much carbon, and gobble up too much land, all for things they’ve been duped into believing they want.
  • Charts shown in the show: (Click charts for larger versions.)

In Wichita, not your tax dollars

At a Wichita City Council meeting, citizens are told, “These tax dollars are not your tax dollars.”

At the meeting of the Wichita City Council this week, Wichita City Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) lectured the audience, saying: “These tax dollars are not your tax dollars.”

The matter under consideration was a redevelopment plan for Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. Approval was necessary if tax increment financing (TIF) funds could be spent on the park. 1 TIF is a mechanism whereby future tax revenues are redirected towards a specific purpose, usually to the benefit of a private property owner. 2

The “plan” under consideration was solely the financing plan. No actual design for a future Naftzger Park was considered or selected.

At the council meeting — and at many other meetings and online discussions — people have noted that the city is planning to spend money on the redesign of Naftzger Park while at the same time there are, according to them, unmet needs throughout the city: Closing swimming pools, assistance for homeless, inadequate staffing of the police department, etc. Why, they ask, can’t the Naftzger Park money be used to solve these problems?

The admonishment of Williams — “These tax dollars are not your tax dollars” — was directed at this criticism. She is correct: The mechanism of TIF allows for these dollars to be spent on just one thing, and that is the redesign of Naftzger Park. 3

So in one way, they aren’t our tax dollars. They are being spent in the way that TGC Development Group, the owner of adjacent property, wants them spent. 4

But this upends the rationale and justification for taxation.

In Wichita, as in most cities, the largest consumers of property tax dollars are the city, county, and school district. All justify their tax collections by citing the services they provide: Law enforcement, fire protection, education, etc. It is for providing these services that we pay local taxes.

Within a TIF district, however, the new property tax dollars — the increment — do not go to the city, county, and school district to pay for services. Instead, these dollars are used in ways that benefit private parties.

Yet, the new development will undoubtedly demand and consume the services local government provides — law enforcement, fire protection, and education. But its incremental property taxes do not pay for these, as they have been diverted elsewhere. (The base property taxes still go to pay for these services, but the base is usually low.) Instead, others must pay the cost of providing services to the TIF development, or accept reduced levels of service as existing service providers are saddled with increasing demand.

Supporters of TIF argue that TIF developers aren’t getting a free ride. The city isn’t giving them cash, they say. The owners of the TIF development will be paying their full share of higher property taxes in the future. All this is true. But, these future tax dollars are spent for their benefit, not to pay for the cost of government.

In the case of Naftzger Park, the situation is murkier. Usually TIF funds are spent on things that directly benefit the private development, things like property acquisition, site preparation, utilities, and drainage. In this case, the TIF funds are being spent to redesign a public park — and a park that many people like.

But it’s clear that the present state of Naftzger Park is a problem for TGC. A newly redesigned park will effectively serve as the “front yard” for TGC’s projects, and will greatly benefit that company. Now that the park redesign will be financed with TIF, this new park comes at no cost to TGC.

Contrary to Council Member Williams and the others who voted in favor of the TIF redevelopment plan: These are our tax dollars. Redirecting them for private benefit has a cost. A real cost that others must pay. If we don’t recognize that, then we must reconsider the foundation of local tax policy.


Notes

  1. Weeks, Bob. Naftzger Park tax increment financing (TIF). Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-tax-increment-financing-tif/.
  2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita TIF projects: some background. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-tif-projects-background/.
  3. The Center City South TIF district is an unusual case in that only 70 percent of the incremental taxes are redirected.
  4. Weeks, Bob. Naftzger Park contract: Who is in control? Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-wichita-contract-who-controls/.

Redesigned Naftzger Park likely not only subsidy

The developers of property near Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita will possibly receive millions in other subsidy.

The powerful impetus to redevelop Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita is attributed to two sources: The NCAA basketball games in March and the desire of TGC Development Group to develop property it owns near the park.

How much motivation comes from which source depends on who you ask. But it’s clear that the present state of the park is a problem for TGC. A newly redesigned park will effectively serve as the “front yard” for TGC’s projects, and will greatly benefit that company. If the park redesign is paid for with tax increment financing, or TIF, this new park comes at no cost to TGC.

But this is likely not the only benefit TGC will receive from taxpayers. The building TGC owns near Naftzger Park is commonly known as the “Spaghetti Works” building. Before that it was known as the Wichita Wholesale Grocery Company. Under that name, the property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 1983. 1 Then, in 2016 conditional approval was given for federal historic preservation tax credits. 2

These federal tax credits are worth 20 percent of the cost of rehabilitating historic structures. 3 These credits may be used dollar-for-dollar when paying federal income taxes, or they may be sold for cash, usually at a discount, and someone else uses them — instead of cash — to pay taxes they owe.

Wichita Wholesale Grocery Company faded sign. Click for larger.
So when TGC spends, say, $1,000,000 on the building, it will receive — conceptually — a slip of paper valued at $200,000. It may use this instead of cash to pay its taxes, or it may sell it to someone else.

That’s not all. Although there is no application at this time, it’s likely that TGC will also apply for Kansas tax credits. These are like the federal credits, except they are for 25 percent of the rehabilitation costs. 4

Together these tax credits can pay up to 45 percent of the costs of rehabbing this building.

These tax credits have a real cost. As long as state or federal government does not reduce spending by the amount of these credits, and specifically because of these credits, other taxpayers have to pay.

Additionally, these tax credits are inefficient. When Kansas Legislative Post Audit looked at Kansas tax credits, it found that when sold, the state receives 85 cents of project value for each dollar foregone. 5

There are many reasons why historic preservation tax credits should be eliminated. 6 7 But for now, it’s important to know that a redesigned Naftzger Park is not the only economic subsidy the nearby private property owners are likely to receive.


Notes

  1. National Park Service, National Register Digital Assets. Available at https://npgallery.nps.gov/AssetDetail/NRIS/83000440.
  2. Wichita Wholesale Grocery Company search at National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services. Captured August 14, 2017. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97azj3TSm9MN292dHVZZ2NLcWs/.
  3. National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services. Tax Incentives for Preserving Historic Properties. Available at https://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives.htm.
  4. Kansas Historical Society. State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. available at http://www.kshs.org/p/state-historic-rehabilitation-tax-credit/14666.
  5. “The Historic Preservation Tax Credit isn’t cost-effective. That credit works differently than the other three because the amount of money a historic preservation project receives from the credit is dependent upon the amount of money it’s sold for. Our review showed that, on average, when Historic Preservation Credits were transferred to generate money for a project, they only generated 85 cents for the project for every dollar of potential tax revenue the State gave up.” Kansas Legislative Post Audit. Kansas Tax Revenues, Part I: Reviewing Tax Credits. Available at http://www.kslpa.org/assets/files/reports/10pa03-1a.pdf.
  6. Weeks, Bob. Kansas historic preservation tax credits should be eliminated. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-historic-preservation-tax-credits-should-be-eliminated/.
  7. Weeks, Bob. Kansas historic preservation tax credits should not be expanded. https://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-historic-preservation-tax-credits-should-not-be-expanded/.

Naftzger Park land ownership

One of the issues surrounding Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita is land ownership.

Naftzger Park land ownership from Sedgwick County Online Map Portal. Click for larger.
Information from the Sedgwick County Online Map Portal shows land parcels and ownership. The nearby illustration shows Naftzger Park and its environs. (I don’t think it’s possible for me to save a link that brings you directly to the map as I’ve shown it.) On this map, the two parcels owned by private owners are outlined in orange. The City of Wichita or the Board of Park Commissioners own the other parcels north of William Street.

We can see that the park is built partially on land owned by private owners. City officials have said that a narrow strip of land on the east side of the park is involved. From this map we can see that the situation is more complex.

It would be interesting to learn how this mistake — if that’s what it is — occurred. At one time the city owned the entire block after it acquired land to reform what was skid row.

Naftzger Park public hearing

On Tuesday August 15 the Wichita City Council will hold a public hearing to consider authorizing spending TIF funds on Naftzger Park.

This week the Wichita City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on a new redevelopment project plan for a tax increment financing (TIF) district in downtown Wichita. The redevelopment project plan contemplates transforming Naftzger Park. The hearing is part of the regular council meeting at 9:00 am Tuesday August 15 at city hall.

While the city has held four public meetings on the topic of Naftzger Park redesign, these meetings were not legally required. But the Tuesday public hearing is required, as city documents explain: “In order to establish the legal authority to use tax increment financing the City Council must adopt a redevelopment project plan for a project area, within the district, which provides more detailed information on the proposed project, how tax increment financing would be used and demonstrates how the projected increase in property tax revenue will amortize the costs financed with tax increment financing.” 1

As for providing “more detailed information on the proposed project,” the redevelopment project plan supplied by the city is quite generic. This week the project architect presented four plans at public meetings. But these drawings cannot be found online — not on the city’s website, its Facebook page, or the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation — except for unclear photographs.

The redevelopment project plan describes how to pay for the redesign of Naftzger Park: “Improvements on the adjacent site are anticipated to generate the revenue necessary to fund the improvements to Naftzger.” This is the mechanism of tax increment financing: Future property taxes are redirected from their normal course and funneled back to benefit the development. The city correctly notes that the TIF funds are being used to develop a public park, not a private development. But the private property owner obviously considers the present park a problem. A new park will effectively serve as the “front yard” for new development and will be of great benefit to the owner. And, many people are opposed to changing the park.

From the redevelopment project plan: “The City will provide public funding, including tax increment financing and general obligation bond financing to finance the project costs.” 2 That is, there is additional spending contemplated.

“Tax increment funds may also be used to pay for eligible improvements financed through general obligation bonds and to reimburse additional eligible project costs when additional tax increment revenues are available.” 3 Here, the redevelopment project plan hints at more property tax being redirected to the development.

“It is assumed that Project construction will begin in 2018 and be completed before the end of 2023, and therefore achieve full valuation by January 1, 2024. It is estimated that in 2024 the property tax increment will be $163,970.” 4 These projections are highly speculative. The city’s record in projecting future development in current TIF districts is spotty. See WaterWalk, Ken-Mar, etc.

“Park improvements are projected to costs approximately $3,000,000, with $1,500,000 of such costs to be financed from proceeds of the City’s full faith and credit tax increment bonds (the “Bonds”).” 5 Here the redevelopment project plan reminds readers that if future property taxes are insufficient to pay the bonds, the city itself is liable. The city exacts an agreement from TIF developers that if TIF revenue is insufficient that the developers will pay the difference, but the city’s record in enforcing these agreements is spotty. 6

“Incremental tax revenue available after the payment of such Bonds may be used to pay for additional TIF-eligible Project costs related to Park improvements on a pay-as-you-go basis or reimburse the debt service on City general obligation bonds issued to finance a portion of the cost of the Park improvements, if any.” 4 Again, the redevelopment project plan hints that future park spending may be paid for with TIF.

The table titled “Projected Tax Increment Report” is subtitled with the name of a different project. This is probably an error without much consequence, as someone in the city probably reused a spreadsheet from a similar project and forgot to revise the title. The same error appears in a second table of figures titled “Projected Bond Cash Flow Report.” Except: The city made this same error in previous versions of this document, as I reported earlier. 8 We’re left to wonder whether anyone — at city hall, the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, or the private developers who will benefit from this spending — care to correct errors like this.

The first table projects the assessed value — and by implication, also the appraised or market value — of property through the year 2036. These projections are highly speculative.

Excerpt from city documents. Click for larger.

In a section titled “Description of Naftzger Park Project” we see an item titled “TIF Pay-as-you-go Costs” with the amount given as $1,500,000. This spending was mentioned in earlier city documents, but hasn’t received much public discussion. The $1.5 million figure that is in the news is from “regular” TIF financing. In that case, the city borrows money, and the debt is repaid from future property taxes. With the pay-as-you-go TIF, the city simply spends future property taxes in the project. 9 The difference is that in regular TIF, the city is liable for the debt if future incremental taxes are insufficient to cover bond payments. In pay-as-you-go TIF, there is no debt, only redirection of property taxes from their normal distribution.

For more about Naftzger Park, see these articles and other information from Voice for Liberty:


Notes

  1. Wichita City Council Agenda Packet for August 15, 2017. Item IV-2. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/08-15-2017%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf.
  2. City of Wichita. Comprehensive Financing Feasibility Study for the Naftzger Park Project within the Center City South Redevelopment District City of Wichita, Kansas. Available in the August 15 agenda packet.
  3. Ibid.
  4. Ibid.
  5. Ibid.
  6. See, for example, Weeks, Bob. Ken-Mar TIF district, the bailouts. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/ken-mar-tif-district-the-bailouts/. Also
  7. Ibid.
  8. Weeks, Bob. Naftzger Park public hearing to be considered. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-public-hearing-to-be-considered/.
  9. Weeks, Bob. Wichita TIF projects: some background. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-tif-projects-background/.

WichitaLiberty.TV: Naftzger Park

In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita Assistant City Manager and Director of Development Scot Rigby joins hosts Bob Weeks and Karl Peterjohn to discuss the plans for Naftzger Park. Then, Bob and Karl continue the discussion. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 161, broadcast August 13, 2017.

Shownotes

Naftzger Park construction manager

The City of Wichita seeks a construction manager for the construction of Naftzger Park.

The request for qualification is titled “CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK to Construct Naftzger Park.” On the city’s purchasing website the relevant information is contained in five separate documents. I’ve gathered them together in one document, which you may access here.

The city may be getting ahead of itself. The RFQ sets the deadline for submissions as 2:00 pm Tuesday August 15. That morning is when the Wichita City Council will consider approval of the redevelopment project plan. 1 Until that plan is approved by a two-thirds majority of the council, there exists no authorization to spend funds from a tax increment financing district. 2

Trends of business activity in downtown Wichita. Click for larger.
Referring to the planning process for downtown Wichita in 2008 and 2009, the document says, “Since that time downtown Wichita has experienced record growth.” This statement isn’t true. Since that time there are fewer business establishments, fewer people working downtown, and lower earnings generated in downtown Wichita. In all cases, the trend is lower. 3 There is growth in people living downtown.

Something new appears in this paragraph: “Design and construction are planned to be implemented in phasing to accommodate budget, with the first phase budget of $1,500,000 for design, project administration and construction. The first phase budget will provide for an open and usable park that accommodates as many programming features as budget allows. In addition to the $1,500,000 for phase one, there will also be approximately $500,000 worth of cross site work, demolition, and infrastructure to be completed on the adjacent property.”

The document doesn’t specify the source of the $500,000, and this is the first mention of that sum, as far as I know. But the fact that management of it is included in this RFQ is more evidence that the redesign of Naftzger Park is really a project being done for the benefit of the nearby private landowner.

Later, more evidence of the park’s importance to, and benefit of, one company: “Because of the adjacent location and utilization of the park as it relates to the Spaghetti Works Development, it is necessary that TGC’s team play an integrated role; so that the flow and function developed in the park work seamlessly together with the TGC project.”

Just to emphasize, the proposals are not sent to city hall but to the private company that will benefit from the park redesign: “Sealed Request for Proposal will be received in the office of the TGC Development Group, 125 N Emporia, Suite 202, Wichita, KS 67202, Attn: Blake Heiman.”

A possible plan for Naftzger Park from the City of Wichita
And who will make the decision? An addendum to the RPQ holds: “A Selection Committee consisting of staff from various City department and TGC will evaluate submissions.”

The city has provided an illustration of what a potential redesign might look like. There has been much criticism — including by city council members — especially for the covering of the park with artificial turf. But, the RFQ states: “A summary of programmatic elements will include a flexible use lawn area (with potential of artificial turf).”

For more about Naftzger Park, see these articles and other information from Voice for Liberty:


Notes

  1. Weeks, Bob. Upcoming Naftzger Park legislative action. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/upcoming-naftzger-park-legislative-action/.
  2. Weeks, Bob. Background on tax increment financing (TIF) as applied to Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/naftzger-park-tax-increment-financing-tif/.
  3. Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita business trends. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-business-trends/.

Naftzger Park contract: Who is in control?

The City of Wichita says it retains final approval on the redesign of Naftzger Park, but a contract says otherwise.

As part of the proposed redesign of Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita, an architectural firm has been engaged, and a contract agreed to. I’ve made the document available through Google Drive here.

In responding to my request for the contract, the city included this information:

The Naftzger Park design contract you requested is between SWA Balsley and TGC Development Group. SWA has provided a copy of the draft agreement. The City has coordinated with TGC in this effort to ensure that the selection process followed City procedures. The City Council has taken action to select SWA as the design team and did accept the design funding proposal of SWA Balsley, but is not a party to the design contract. The City is utilizing this collaborative approach to take advantage of the experience and expertise in project management of TGC Development in this unique project. Any final Naftzger Park design approval is retained by the Parks Board and the City of Wichita. 1 (emphasis added)]

As stated, and according to the language of the contract, the parties to the contract are SWA/Balsley Landscape Architects, P.C. (“SWA/Balsley”) and TGC Development Group, which is referred to as the “Client.” The City of Wichita is not the Client; that party is a private business firm. And not just any private firm, but one that owns property abutting Naftzger Park and is clearly looking to rebuild the park according to its needs and profitability, not what is good for the city at large.

As to the city’s contention that final approval is retained by it alone, the contract holds language like this:

“Upon the Client’s authorization to commence design development …”

“Upon the Client’s approval of the design development plans and preliminary cost estimate …”

“SWA/Balsley shall prepare and process change orders only with prior approval of the Client.”

Example from the contract. Click for larger.
(The document is covered with a large watermark that obscures parts of its text. As the document is encrypted, there is no way to remove the watermark without the password, as far as I know.)

Remember, the city is not the Client. TGC Development is the Client.

Here is a paragraph near the end of the contract:

“As material inducement to SWA/Balsley to enter into this agreement, Client represents it warrants that it has full authority to bind the City to the terms of this Agreement, and that the City will assume full responsibility for payment.” (emphasis added)

There’s a discrepancy here. The city says final approval rests with it alone, but TGC Development has agreed to a contract which states it can bind the city to an agreement.

By the way, if you thought the Naftzger Park redesign was a $1.5 million project, think again, as this language from the contract shows:

“Based upon our understanding of the project, the park design should encompass the vision as described in the RFQ and be planned with phased implementation. Conceptual and Schematic Design phases were based on a complete vision of an estimated $3,000,000 budget. Design Development, Construction Documentation, and Construction Observation, which are to be completed under Phase One, are established at $1,500,000. The fee quoted in this proposal is based upon this present understanding and these budgetary figures.”


Notes

  1. Correspondence from Lauragail Locke of the Wichita City Manager’s Office, August 3, 2017.

Downtown Wichita gathering spaces that don’t destroy a park

Wichita doesn’t need to ruin a park for economic development, as there are other areas that would work and need development.

One of the reasons for the redesign of Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita is to increase economic development. A city council agenda held, “These recommendations include opening up the park to provide for increased walking and public activity as well as to encourage development adjacent to the park.” 1

Other city documents say the redesign of the small downtown Wichita park is to, “create a continuous flex space for multi-use; i.e. Tai Chai, as well as other passive use activities including but not limited to weddings, concerts, performances, films, special celebrations and parties as well as quiet contemplation.” 2

In other documents city officials have promoted the need for gathering space before and after events at Intrust Bank Arena.

All this is fine. But current plans call for the destruction of an existing park and its transformation into this new design.

But there’s no need to destroy an existing park in order to meet the goals of the city. There is a lot of vacant and underutilized land immediately south and west of the arena. Any of this could be transformed to what the city wants. Development of these areas would possibly help fulfill the promise of the arena as a driver for economic development and growth.

Today, 12 years after the identification of the arena’s site and seven years after its opening, there is little activity around the arena to its west and south. Five years ago the Wichita Eagle noted the lack of growth in the area.

“Ten years ago, Elizabeth Stevenson looked out at the neighborhood where a downtown arena would soon be built and told an Eagle reporter that one day it could be the ‘Paris of the Midwest.’ What she and many others envisioned was a pedestrian and bike-friendly neighborhood of quaint shops, chic eateries and an active arts district, supported by tens of thousands of visitors who would be coming downtown for sporting events and concerts. It hasn’t exactly turned out that way. Today, five years after the opening of the Intrust Bank Arena, most of the immediate neighborhood looks much like it did in 2004 when Stevenson was interviewed in The Eagle. With the exception of a small artists’ colony along Commerce Street, it’s still the same mix of light industrial businesses interspersed with numerous boarded-up buildings and vacant lots, dotted with ‘for sale’ and ‘for lease’ signs.” 3

Since then, not much has changed. The area surrounding the arena is largely vacant. Except for Commerce Street, that is, and the businesses located there don’t want to pay their share of property taxes.4

On the other hand, the area around Naftzger Park is developing. The city points to Old Town as a success, and now promotes the “Douglas Corridor” as an area where city policies have produced growth, with more yet to come as Cargill and a call center move to a location near Naftzger Park.

But the areas on the other side of the arena are not growing. Doing something to jump-start development in that stagnant area could help downtown growth. Paying attention to that area would fulfill past promises and projections, and increase the credibility of Wichita’s leaders.

Nearby are photographs of the area surrounding the arena to the east and west. Click photos for larger versions.

Intrust Bank Arena and environs, with areas for development outlined and numbered. Image courtesy Google.
In area 1, across Emporia Street from the arena, a former used car lot is unused. A vacant lot is to its immediate west.
Area 3 is the block diagonally south and west from the arena. It is vacant land except for parking and a work-release facility.
More of area 3.
Area 4 is directly across Waterman Street to the south of the arena. It holds a parking lot along with abandoned and underutilized buildings.
Abandoned buildings on St. Francis Street, within pitching distance of the arena. Could this area be used for gatherings?

What was said

Following, a few quotes from civic leaders in 2005.

“On the brink of spending $55 million to renovate the Kansas Coliseum, the community saw the wisdom of investing that kind of money instead in downtown Wichita, where it could spur development, lure conventions and enhance Old Town and the planned WaterWalk development. The action on behalf of an arena has offered the strongest signal in years that Wichita, booming fringes and all, still wants a vibrant, functional downtown. 5

Imagine sports fans and concertgoers flocking to restaurants and shops in a lively, distinctive district surrounding Wichita’s new downtown entertainment arena. Can the 15,000-seat venue be the Pied Piper of economic development? City officials hope so.

“It will have a profound change,” Wichita Mayor Carlos Mayans said. He envisions a modern, sophisticated district, home to a four-star hotel, apartment buildings, high-end retailers, a Cajun restaurant – maybe a Hard Rock Cafe. “The things happening downtown are going to change downtown Wichita for the 21st century,” he said.

Officials view the arena as another opportunity to coax more life into downtown. The city is hunting for a consultant to help it cash in on development opportunities surrounding the arena. 6

While Sedgwick County lays the groundwork for its 15,000-seat downtown arena, the city of Wichita is busy trying to plan for everything that will go around it. The city wants the advice and expertise of a consultant to help it develop a lively, distinctive district to jump-start — and cash in on — downtown redevelopment. 7

The arena will cause spillover development, but the city must carefully set the conditions to foster economic development, said Dave Knopick, an urban planner with Gould Evans Associates, the consultants hired to study the arena area. This includes attractive streets and public features, adequate parking, good traffic flow, zoning to bring in wanted businesses, and even deals with developers to bring in new projects. “These are once-in-a-lifetime events that have a huge impact, so you have to make the right decision to maximize the benefits,” Knopick said. …

The arena is a key part of the downtown revival, but it’s just one piece. “It’s a redeveloping area, but those changes may take place over 10 or 15 years,” Knopick said. “It won’t all just happen because the arena was built.” 8

The most exciting development: a new downtown arena. Whatever the final site selection (we vote for the east site), the reality is sinking in that this major community project will have a heavyweight impact on the core area. The naysayers said none of this could happen — in fact, they said the same thing about Old Town. It’s happening.

Things change — and sometimes change is disruptive and hard to accept. But Wichitans should be excited by what’s happening downtown.

It’s experiencing a rebirth. 9

I would like to congratulate the city leaders and the public for their insight and willingness to see the impact that the development of downtown will have for the citizens of Wichita and all of south-central Kansas. We only stand to benefit from this much-needed injection into the economy.

It is about re-energizing this community, spurring economic development, creating jobs, quality of life, encouraging tourism from around the region, and bringing money into our community.

The WaterWalk development and the downtown arena are only the beginning of the potential for downtown to flourish and continue to fuel other economic development. Wichita has an opportunity to become a viable destination stop. And these projects can help support many of the other amenities already available in the city, such as the museums along the river, the ice center, Old Town and so many other businesses and attractions. 10 Richard L. Taylor of Wichita is business manager for the Building and Construction Trades Council of Central and Western Kansas.


Notes

  1. Wichita city council agenda packet, July 18, 2017. Item IV-3.
  2. Request for Qualifications No. — FP740043. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97azj3TSm9MQ1ZVcXVsNVQ2dkE/view.
  3. Lefler, Dion. 5 years after Intrust Bank Arena opens, little surrounding development has followed. Wichita Eagle. December 20, 2014. Available at http://www.kansas.com/news/local/article4743402.html.
  4. Riedl, Matt. Has Commerce Street become too cool for its own good? Wichita Eagle. April 8, 2017. http://www.kansas.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/keeper-of-the-plans/article143529404.html.
  5. Holman, Rhonda. AT LAST – ARENA COMING SOON TO DOWNTOWN WICHITA. Wichita Eagle, March 23, 2005.
  6. Buselt, Lori O’Toole. GROUNDS FOR CHANGE — WILL ARENA RENEW FALLOW DOWNTOWN? Wichita Eagle, May 1, 2005.
  7. Buselt, Lori O’Toole. CITY TRIES TO PLAN ARENA’S DISTRICT – — OFFICIALS ARE CONSIDERING HIRING A CONSULTANT TO HELP DEVELOP THE AREA AROUND THE NEW DOWNTOWN ARENA. Wichita Eagle, June 20, 2005.
  8. Voorhis, Dan. TUG-OF-WAR FOR ARENA — PLACEMENT WILL FAVOR OLD TOWN OR WATERWALK. Wichita Eagle, September 18, 2005.
  9. Scholfield, Randy. REBIRTH — DOWNTOWN IS PLACE TO BE. Wichita Eagle, November 7, 2005.
  10. Taylor, Richard L. DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS ALL. Wichita Eagle, November 15, 2005.