Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita Downtown Development Corporation

  • Redesigned Naftzger Park likely not only subsidy

    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

    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

    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

    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

    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?

    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

    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. ↩
  • Naftzger Park concerts and parties?

    Naftzger Park concerts and parties?

    In Wichita, a space for outdoor concerts may be created across the street from where amplified concerts are banned.

    Amplified music is banned in Gallery Alley, but concerts and parties are proposed in Naftzger Park.
    One of the City of Wichita’s stated purposes for the redesign of Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita 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.” 1

    There may be a problem, however. Directly across the street from Naftzger Park lies Gallery Alley. This is a new development whereby an alley was converted to a space for events, like concerts. Not long after the alley’s first events, the Wichita Eagle reported this:

    But it was too much for the neighbors, according to Jason Gregory, executive vice president of Downtown Wichita.

    “It’s just the amplified sound — we’re just trying to be respectful to those buildings there, that have a mix of uses,” Gregory said. “There’s residences there, and obviously when you get high-bass subwoofers, you’re basically hearing that through the building.” 2

    Now, right across the street from Gallery Alley, directly across St. Francis from residences at the former Eaton Hotel, directly across Douglas from the Zelman Lofts, and catty-corner from the Lofts at St. Francis, the city proposes creating an outdoor space for — get ready: Concerts and parties.

    By the way, the proposed use of the parking lot that abuts Naftzger Park is a “high-end mixed-use development” possibly including a hotel. I don’t know if this use is consistent with parties and concerts in its front yard.

    —
    Notes

    1. Request for Qualifications No. — FP740043. Available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B97azj3TSm9MQ1ZVcXVsNVQ2dkE/view. ↩
    2. Riedl, Matt. Bummer, no more crowd-surfing in downtown Wichita alley. Wichita Eagle, June 20, 2017. Available at http://www.kansas.com/entertainment/ent-columns-blogs/keeper-of-the-plans/article157094874.html. ↩
  • A Wichita social media town hall

    A Wichita social media town hall

    A City of Wichita town hall meeting ends in less than nine minutes, with a question pending and unanswered.

    As part of its engagement with citizens, the City of Wichita holds social media town hall meetings. On June 20, 2107, there was a Facebook town hall on the topic of economic development featuring Assistant City Manager Scot Rigby. His charge is “developing and implementing a coordinated and comprehensive development services program and for developing, implementing and overseeing economic development, redevelopment and real estate programs and projects.” He’s worked for the city for two years. 1

    Promoting the town hall. Click for larger.
    There is not a customary duration for events like this, although other social media town halls have been promoted by the city as lasting 90 minutes. Surely citizens might expect any meeting like this to last at least 30 minutes, if not 60 or more.

    But Wichita Assistant City Manager Scot Rigby’s town hall meeting on June 20 lasted eight minutes and 22 seconds.

    (A screen capture of the event is available here, and the entire event as recorded on Facebook is here.)

    It wasn’t for lack of questions that the meeting ended so quickly. One question I asked had to do with the city’s reporting on its economic development efforts. The City of Lawrence annually produces a comprehensive report, but Wichita does not. 2 Rigby answered this question online, which is the way these things are supposed to work.

    An excerpt from the town hall. Click for larger.
    Then I asked this question: “There has been a lot of investment, public and private, in downtown Wichita. What has been the trend in the number of business firms, employees, and payroll during that time?” That was six minutes and 50 seconds after the start of the meeting, according to Facebook. The meeting ended 92 seconds later with no answer to this question.

    But I wanted the city to answer my question. After five weeks of multiple requests through both Facebook and email, I received a response from the city:

    from: Bob Weeks
    to: Scot Rigby

    Hi, I’m still wondering why the social media town hall from June 20 was ended after less than nine minutes. There is still a pending question.

    For your convenience, here is the link to the Facebook video:
    “https://www.facebook.com/cityofwichita/videos/1450322791680383/”

    Thank you,
    Bob Weeks

    Dear Mr. Weeks-

    Scot Rigby asked that I follow up with your question since I was involved with coordination of the Social Media Town Hall events.

    During the Social Media Town Hall events on June 15 and June 20 we presented content in a variety of formats on Facebook and Twitter. We used the Facebook Live format for one topic, but 30 second videos for 14 other topics (seven on each day). We publicized the Facebook Live topic the day before, and our intent was to respond to questions from that topic as well as during the event. We ended the Facebook Live event after responding to comments and feedback from June 15 and focused efforts on responding to other posts as well as Nextdoor, which we used for the first time during the Social Media Town Hall this year. Because of changes in technology, each year the Social Media Town Hall is a little different.

    Sincerely-

    Elizabeth

    Elizabeth Goltry Wadle
    Principal Budget Analyst
    City of Wichita

    I think I’ll characterize this as nonresponsive.

    Besides this answer, the city also responded on Facebook on July 18, nearly a month after I posed the question. That response referred me to the 2016 State of Downtown Report from the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation. That is also (mostly) nonresponsive to my question.

    Trends of business activity in downtown Wichita. Click for larger.
    In a way, I can sympathize with Rigby not wanting to answer my question. Perhaps he doesn’t know the answer. But he might know — he should know — the answer, which is that since 2007 there are fewer business establishments, fewer people working downtown, and lower earnings generated in downtown Wichita. In all cases, the trend is lower. 3

    Regarding the 2016 State of Downtown Report from the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation: That document claims there are 26,000 workers in downtown Wichita. That is a large mistake and greatly overstates the number of workers. 4

    It’s curious that the city did not refer me to a 2017 edition of the State of Downtown Report. But that document does not exist. It’s common for these reports to be released in May, but this year’s report is not yet available.

    The city takes pride in being responsive to citizens. Former Mayor Carl Brewer often spoke in favor of government transparency. For example, in his State of the City address for 2011, he listed as an important goal for the city this: “And we must provide transparency in all that we do.”

    When the city received an award for transparency in 2013, a city news release quoted Wichita City Manager Robert Layton:

    “The City Council has stressed the importance of transparency for this organization,” City Manager Robert Layton said. “We’re honored to receive a Sunny Award and we will continue to empower and engage citizens by providing information necessary to keep them informed on the actions their government is taking on their behalf.”

    Shortly after his election, current Mayor Jeff Longwell penned a column in which he said, “First off, we want City Hall to be open and transparent to everyone in the community.”

    Is a lack of staff at city hall the reason why I can’t get an answer to a question? I don’t think so. Two years ago the city expanded its staff by hiring a Strategic Communications Director. When the city announced the new position, it said: “The Strategic Communications Director is the City’s top communications position, charged with developing, managing, and evaluating innovative, strategic and proactive public communications plans that support the City’s mission, vision and goals.”

    My experience with this social media town hall runs contrary to the city’s proclaimed goals, and this is not the only time I’ve had problems with the city regarding requests for information. 5

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. Assistant City Manager, Development Director Hired. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/News/Pages/2015-07-15a.aspx. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita doesn’t have this. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-does-not-have-this/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita business trends. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-business-trends/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita jobs, sort of. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-jobs/. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. During Sunshine Week, here are a few things Wichita could do. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/open-records/sunshine-week-wichita/. ↩