Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) are, according to almost everyone, a flexible tool for reducing crime, cleaning up trash and improving the quality of life in Kansas City. CIDs on 39th Street, Westport Road and Main Street have allowed property owners to band together to impose property and/or sales taxes to be used for the good of the local community. But ongoing debate at city hall pits those who would rein them in against those who say CIDs can’t be regulated without being weakened.
People on both sides of a debate over Community Improvement Districts (CIDs) agree on one thing – “they are one of the most successful things we have in the city right now.”
That’s what council member Cindy Circo said during fresh debate over CID policy yesterday. Referring to leaders of current and proposed CIDs from across the city who had come to city hall, she said, “We are seeing the passion of community leaders who finally have a tool that works” for bettering their streets. And the resounding message from those CID leaders is – CIDs aren’t broke; please don’t try to fix them.
So why all the debate if nothing is wrong? The question is, as City Councilman Ed Ford, chair of the Planning, Zoning and Economic Development Committee, has asked repeatedly, what would happen if there were a bad apple. What if a CID was given authority to collect taxes for 20 years yet did nothing to deliver on its promises to provide services in the public good.
“We’re starting to get feedback as public officials that these sales taxes are being imposed without a vote of the people,” Ford said yesterday.
The problem for Ford and others is that, once the city approves a CID, state law gives the city no recourse to deal with the bad apple. The council yesterday considered a new option for reining in the districts. Committee members have suggested the city and CID sign a consent agreement when the districts are formed, which could be enforced in the courts if the CID failed to deliver.
Concern over the city’s CID policy, or lack of policy, surfaced in July when a single-owner CID was proposed in Midtown. They city manager said he had concerns about the rapid proliferation of proposals the new districts hitting his desk.
The city staff started the discussion by proposing new CIDs should not be allowed to overlap existing CIDs, that the districts would have to be renewed on a regular basis, and offering restrictions on single-user CIDs.
Last week, the debate over CID policy continued but with a different focus. Ford said his concern has become ensuring the districts deliver the public benefits they promise. While development attorneys and CID leaders urge the city to allow them to remain flexible and unique to fit the needs of each set of property owners, Ford made it clear that the city will develop a CID policy with more teeth than the current one.
Marti Lee of the Southtown CID expressed frustration with the council yesterday. She said the city should be asking successful CID operators to share their knowledge and help find ways to encourage more new CIDs in the city. “We have finally found a system that works,” Lee said, saying that the districts represent consensus building at a neighborhood level to solve neighborhood problems.
Ford agreed and invited the CID operators to a lunch meeting on Nov. 7 to continue struggling with the complex issue.
Previous stories
- July 2: City proposes new rules for CIDs. The city manager expressed concern about the rapid proliferation of CIDs and about several single-owner districts that had been proposed.
- July 3: The city staff started the discussion by proposing new CIDs should not be allowed to overlap existing CIDS, that the districts would have to be renewed every 15 years, and offering restrictions on single-user CIDs.
- Oct 18: The debate over Community Improvement District (CID) policy continued at city hall, but with a different focus. Ford said his committee originally began looking at the issue of single owner CIDS. Ford said his concern has become ensuring the districts deliver the public benefits they promise.
Who’s talking