Council approves 1% CID for East Douglas building after residents press for safeguards

The Wichita City Council approved a community improvement district (CID) that will add a 1% sales tax limited to two properties at 3109 and 3111 East Douglas to reimburse the applicant for upfront façade and renovation costs.

Corey Nisley of Development Services told the council the project would be a roughly $1.5 million investment to rehabilitate the former Margarita’s Cantina building and convert the space into up to three storefronts. The CID is structured as a pay‑as‑you‑go arrangement; the cost cap identified in staff materials is $233,250 to be remitted to the developer as revenue is received. Staff said the CID term could last as long as 22 years but that actual payback might be much shorter depending on incremental sales tax receipts.

“The CID just allows for a self‑imposed sales tax up to 3% for the district,” Corey Nisley said, adding that this proposed district would only assess an additional 1% within the two‑property boundary.

Opposition came from multiple speakers during the public comment period. Celeste Rosette, a longtime banker and neighborhood resident, urged council to reject the request, saying the documents on the city website were incomplete and that the project did not meet the CID policy’s public‑purpose expectations. “This program is currently broken and needs to be fixed before you expand it,” Rosette said.

Neighborhood representatives pressed for safeguards including no drive‑thrus, improved signage, traffic mitigation, and tree and streetscape investments. Council members asked staff to ensure drive‑thru uses are expressly prohibited in the developer agreement; staff confirmed the current DA includes a prohibited‑use provision (section 3.02).

Council members also discussed the CID’s 10% public‑benefit set‑aside. Developer representatives said the 10% would amount to only a small amount annually for this project (about $23,000 over the life of the payback at staff’s cost cap estimate) and indicated they were willing to work with the district representative on a suitable public‑good project.

Several council members said the CID program needs clearer public filings and stronger parameters and asked staff to bring reforms to a September workshop. Still, a majority concluded the applicant met current policy requirements and moved to close the hearing and place the ordinance on second reading. The motion to approve the development agreement and proceed passed 6–1.

Council member Johnston, who voted against the measure, argued that the CID mechanism was intended for broader district redevelopment rather than reimbursement for a single building: “I don’t think this is one of them,” he said, noting concerns about public cost and precedent. Supporters, including the council member representing the district, said the neighborhood engagement and the applicant’s willingness to accept the at‑risk financing made approval reasonable under existing policy.

Next steps: the council placed the ordinance on second reading and authorized necessary signatures; staff will post updated developer agreements and supporting documents on the city website per council direction and return any subsequent policy recommendations to a scheduled workshop in September.