Downtown Kansas City Community Improvement District

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
331028823
IRS 990 coverage
2012–2024
Forms available
Form 990 2024
Location
Kansas City, MO, USA
Phone
8164211539
Rating
73
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Moderate

Reported finances

Revenue
$5,099,072
Expenses
$4,857,514
Assets
$3,634,184
Liabilities
$261,006

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

20 people listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • SEAN O'BYRNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR)

Highest reported compensation

  • WILLIAM DIETRICH (CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFIC): $345,964 total reported compensation
  • SEAN O'BYRNE (EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR): $231,798 total reported compensation
  • SUZI ROBERTS (CONTROLLER): $166,096 total reported compensation

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2024. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Provide downtown Kansas city with a clean and safe environment and aid in the revitalization of downtown

What it reported doing in 2024

Downtown Kansas city community improvement district provides downtown Kansas city with a clean and safe environment and is committed to the revitalization of downtown. The primary program service activity is to provide the following services to constituents, who are district landowners: [1] safety & security; [2] maintenance of public and privately owned areas; [3] landscape and streetscape maintenance; [4] community development; [5] management and operations; and [6] establishment of a reserve fund.

Operating model

Revenue model
Earned-program. 99% of the money available for current operations came from fees and other program revenue.
Distribution model
Direct operator. The filing allocates 98% of reported program-service expenses outside its grant, affiliate-payment, and member-benefit lines. This expense classification does not rule out separately announced grant awards.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - A large share of available resources goes toward mission work and the filed numbers largely add up. Some filing-based governance responses are negative or unanswered and expenses are high relative to revenue.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 64
  • Transparency & Controls: 73
  • Accountability: 91
  • Sustainability: 45
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 71.1%; rating input score 71
  • Program expense ratio: 74.5%; rating input score 75
  • Fundraising efficiency: Limited

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: 1 of 6 controls in place; rating input score 17
    • Compensation committee: Missing
    • Independent consultant: Missing
    • Other Form 990s reviewed: Missing
    • Written employment contract: Missing
    • Compensation survey or study: Missing
    • Board or committee approval: Pass
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: 100%; rating input score 100; 72nd percentile among comparable filings
  • Major donor itemization: Limited
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 63rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 7 of 9 controls in place; rating input score 78
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Fail
    • Whistleblower policy: Fail
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: Pass
    • Other executive compensation review process: Pass
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Pass
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Pass

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 4.7%; rating input score 50; 50th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 0.75; rating input score 28; 28th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 65; 65th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 6.1%; rating input score 46; 46th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 3.9% per year; rating input score 100; 33rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 5.2% per year; rating input score 100; 43rd percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 10.8% per year; rating input score 100; 61st percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 71.1% of revenue deployed · 74.5% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 15 of 15 board members independent · 7 of 9 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 1 filed program accomplishment · $3.6M in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $346K · 20 people listed · 1 of 6 pay-setting controls reported
  • Highest-paid contractors: 2 contractors listed · $643K reported
  • Consistency: 32 of 32 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes grants and executive pay
  • Filing history: 13 filing years from 2012 to 2024
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Money network: 3 filed money-flow records
  • Related organizations: 4 filed related-organization links
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.
  • Staff and benefit plans: Retirement and health plans the organization files with the Department of Labor, and the people in them.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: 2 of 9 not reported.
  • Review — Sustainability: Operating margin scored 50/100.
  • High — Sustainability: Total-asset coverage ratio scored 28/100.
  • Moderate — Sustainability: Officer compensation ratio scored 46/100.