Downtown [Organizations] By The Numbers
Don’t look for any population figures here. This post is about the financial numbers for the two organizations using public funds to ‘improve’ downtown, Downtown Now! and the Downtown St. Louis Partnership. Since our money is used to fund these organizations they are fair game for analysis and criticism.
The figures shown were extracted from 2004 tax returns (source www.guidestar.com). Downtown Now! uses the calendar year as their fiscal year while the Partnership has a July-June fiscal year. Executive Director compensation below is the total of base salary, benefits and expense account.
Here is a quick summary of the basics:
| 2004 | Dtwn Now! | Partnership |
|---|---|---|
| Exec. Dir. Compensation | $204,833 | $286,396 |
| Total Revenue | $4,870,129 | $1,957,263 |
| Total Expenses | $5,243,985 | $1,898,644 |
| Excess (deficit) | (-$373,856) | $58,619 |
Downtown Now! is much bigger than I thought. But it also has taken on some debts. Its report showed a $10,000,000 loan at the beginning of 2004 but that it was paid off by the end of the year. However, they show other outstanding notes of $1,821,577 at the end of 2004. The maturity date for these notes was 12/31/05. The lenders for these loans were the Danforth Foundation and Bank of America.
Some serious money is spent each year. Lots of salaries, office rent, and travel expenses with too little to show. Yes, each year downtown gets better and better but I think that is a function of more and more residents and the businesses to serve them.
Downtown Now! was supposed to be a temporary organization but I don’t think the powers that be are willing to let it go.
What do you think?
– Steve
What I don’t understand about Downtown Now! is that Reeves seems to be its only employee, according to the 2004 tax filing. The organization’s website gives no indication of other staff. Can anyone shed some light on this, please?
[REPLY – The DN return indicates $46K in other salaries. – SLP]
Looks like Reeves salary is in line with the financial activity of the organization.
Given the size of its budget and substantial loan activity, you need a financially savvy guy like Tom to run the place.
Given the turnaround we’ve all seen in downtown, the downtown strategy is apparently working. Downtown Now was part of the strategy.
Any wonder the organization is getting awards?
[REPLY – Yes, the salary is not exorbitant given the annual budget. What bothers me is that someone was attempting to say Reeves is working pro bono when he is clearly not. To be clear, it was not Reeves that indicated this.
I’m all for giving credit where it is due and having the plans in place back in the late 1990s help get the ball rolling. But I question the continued need. By way of example, the 2004 return showed payments of just over $500K to subcontractors for professional services (URS Engineering $196,037, HOK $158,007 and McCormac Barron $150,000).
As for awards it is not that they are geting awards but the two organizations (that share a number of board members) continually give each other awards as well as their paid members. Some, but not all, of these appear more as PR payoffs. – SLP]
The tax returns of non-profits only have to call out the salaries of the higher paid executives. DN may have a part-time assistant that doesn’t show up. What else would they need?
What sucks about Downtown Now is you can’t file a FOIA request. The City will refer you to DN for conroversial downtown developments, and DN isn’t required to share any information.
Downtown strategy?? St. Louis is getting recognized in spite of itself. We have stellar sports years (this not being one of them). We have great musical talent in certain circles. People from out of town are starting to invest in the region which may be because of organizations such as this, but they would never admit it. And we have the Arch. What other city has an Arch like ours? Its like the space needle, or Statue of Liberty, or Eiffel Tower. I applaud what these organizations may be doing, but 7 million for this?? come on! I dont think they do 7 million dollars worth of stuff in one year, but I also don’t work there, so I could be wrong too. It would be interesting to see how much of this was subsidized by local government and how much was privately funded from donations. maybe if they took all the residents in St. Louis city (not just those who put St. Louis on their return address- you know who you are mr. Creve Coeur), but those actually within the city limits, and split up the funds, we could then improve our houses, or buy goods and services within the city ourselves. What are we at 350,000? That would be what?? $20. Okay well, maybe they are doing a good job after all.
[REPLY – But what if this tax money went not into a bunch of salaries but instead into projects. Changing streets from one-way to two-way can’t happen for a number of years because we don’t have the cash. I guess I’d like to see more physical changes and not just a bunch of suits going to meetings. – SLP]
Just winging it here, but I wonder if those millions in expenditures at Downtown Now have anything to do with some big downtown projects that have been done in recent years?
In many cases, donating a building to a nonprofit like Downtown Now is required in order to manage risk and qualify a project for certain tax credits. It’s possible in the same transaction that the non profit then makes a loan to the developer.
It could be that donations of cash and dead real estate are made to Downtown Now as charitable contributions, with Downtown Now in turn making seed loans to developers on high risk projects not strong enough to pass standard commerical underwriting requirements.
So it makes sense that someone with both real estate development and banking expertise would head such an organization.
Like I said, I’m just winging it here, but maybe there’s more to the Downtown Now story than we know…
This is a dumb question, but was DN! spawned from STL2004 once it was no longer 2004? I know they have similar funding support (i.e. Danforth). Also, is there any way to find out if DN! or DP is integral in projects that are improving downtown or is it all closed-door stuff?
[REPLY – DN! was started in 1999. It was supposed to be temporary to help get some development plans implemented. I feel it and other things are mostly closed door to the public. – SLP]
I agree with the name of one of the other posters here: A little knowledge IS a dangerous thing.
So, uh, why doesn’t Downtown Now! give us all a bit more knowledge? A bit more information about itself, for starters? Otherwise, we’ll all have to keep “winging it.” And that in itself is dangerous, wouldn’t you agree?
Whatever happened to the DN! plan to have musical events & such on that closed part of 13th street between Washington and Lucas? I remember Reeves being quoted in the Business Journal in 2003 saying that little “plaza” would be a center of activity. I have yet to learn of DN! putting on a single event there or trying to get people to use the space, even though supposedly lots of money was spent on an amplifier-supporting electrical system for this block.
DN! also champions the idea of a plaza on the block north of the OPO, and may be financially involved in that project. (Anyone know?) Their track record on creating lively urban plazas is not a hopeful sign…
Do you have data on the extent of their “public” funding, as opposed to dues and contributions for corporations, etc.?
It seems that the sources for the money should be motivated to question the efficacy of its spending. I know I’m a source of DTSLP since I pay a small property tax into the CID, but the services it provides in return are well worth it. I’d like to know if any of us are paying for either organization through other taxes, though.
[REPLY – The DN! return is not detailed enough to know the source of the income. They show $761,395 from direct public support and $4,040,936 as non-cash goverment contributions/grants. DN! does not have members.
The Partnership return shows $1,648,172 from “program service revenue including goverment fees and contracts” and $240,810 membership dues and assesments and $61 from interest. A 2003 return from the CID shows the CID paid the Partnership $1,505,713 for “mangement services.”
Yes, the CID (community improvement district) is a separate entity from DN or the Partnership. It does not have any staff as that is all contracted out. – SLP]
Do you have more details from the CID’s return? Who else does it contract to besides the DTSLP?
I’m assuming you have a Guidestar subscription. I’d love to hear about the NLEC’s return, too 😉
[REPLY – The CID return shows total expenses for 2003 as $3,127,000. These include Admin & contingency, $206,603; housing & development, $335,820; image & communication, $129,828; maintenance, $899,919; other non-CID, $156,659; security, $1,093,297; signs and banners, $211,418 and special events, $93,456.
Churches such as the New Life Evangelistic Center are not required to file form 990 with the IRS. – SLP]