See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247530862

Business Improvement Districts in Southern California: Implications for Local

Governance

Article  in  International Journal of Public Administration · January 2006

DOI: 10.1080/01900690500408973

CITATIONS

10

2 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

CULTIVATING RESILIENCY – METROPOLITAN WATER MANAGEMENT AS COMPLEX ADAPTIVE SYSTEM View project

Collaborative Public Administration View project

Jack Wayne Meek

University of La Verne

46 PUBLICATIONS   427 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jack Wayne Meek on 08 September 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=lpad20

Download by: [University of La Verne] Date: 08 September 2016, At: 08:27

International Journal of Public Administration

ISSN: 0190-0692 (Print) 1532-4265 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/lpad20

Business Improvement Districts in SouthernCalifornia: Implications for Local Governance

Jack W. Meek & Paul Hubler

To cite this article: Jack W. Meek & Paul Hubler (2006) Business Improvement Districtsin Southern California: Implications for Local Governance, International Journal of PublicAdministration, 29:1-3, 31-52, DOI: 10.1080/01900690500408973

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900690500408973

Published online: 19 Aug 2006.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 119

View related articles

Citing articles: 5 View citing articles

Intl Journal of Public Administration, 29: 31–52, 2006Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01900690500408973

LPAD0190-06921532-4265Intl Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 29, No. 1-3, November 2006: pp. 0–0Intl Journal of Public Administration Business Improvement Districts in Southern California: Implications

for Local Governance

BIDs in Southern CaliforniaMeek and Hubler Jack W. Meek and Paul HublerUniversity of La Verne, La Verne, California, USA

Abstract: This article provides an assessment of the nature and functioning of Busi-ness Improvement Districts (BIDs) in the metropolitan area of the Southern Californiaregion. While modern BIDs date back to the mid-1960s, the emergence of BIDs is arelatively new phenomenon. The increasing numbers of BID in metropolitan areashave governance and jurisdictional implications. These implications are the centralconcern of this article. The governance and jurisdictional issues are examined withfour research questions: Why and how were BIDs established? How do BIDs function?How are BIDs held accountable? Are BIDs effective? This article relies on case studyresearch of five BIDs located in various areas of Southern California. Interviews wereconducted with BID managers and local government representatives. Contextual infor-mation was gathered from state laws, official documents, and websites.

Keywords: business improvement district, collaborative public management, localgovernance, public-private partnership, special districts

Among the more fascinating developments in the Southern California regionin the past decade are the growth in numbers, influence, and official powers ofBusiness Improvement Districts (BIDs), benefit assessment districts formedby business and property owners to provide heightened levels of service in down-town, Main Street, and commercial strip areas. While the concept of special

Originally presented by the authors at the American Society for Public Administra-tion Conference, Portland, OR; March 27–30, 2004. The panel was entitled “BusinessImprovement Districts: Local Government and Interjurisdictional Implications.”Appreciation goes to Gabriela Hurtado Gutierrez, doctoral research assistant, for herediting of this manuscript.

Address correspondence to Jack W. Meek, Department of Public and Health Admin-istration, University of La Verne, 2220 3rd St., La Verne, CA 91750, USA;E-mail: meekj@ulv.edu

32 Meek and Hubler

assessment districts to pay for shared public facilities is rooted in collectiveaction strategies to meet infrastructure needs, modern business improvementdistricts provide for promotional services and special facilities to improve thevitality of commercial areas first appeared in the mid-1960s. State laws autho-rizing BIDs often evolved from earlier laws allowing authorities to financenew public facilities, such as water, levee, and sewer systems by levyingassessments on the properties benefiting from the new facilities.[1] Such wasthe case in California with the enactment of the Parking and BusinessImprovement Area Law of 1965, which expanded on earlier legislation thatprovided for assessment financing of public improvements such as streetlighting by permitting assessments to be used for service provision as well ascapital improvements.

BIDs are authorized to levy business license and/or property assessmentsfor the purpose of improving a business area, typically through marketingefforts and “clean and safe” programs using contracted maintenance and pri-vate security teams. What makes BIDs of real importance to public adminis-trators is their rapid rise in popularity as localities seek to spin offparticularized or “boutique” service functions, their role in the revitalizationstrategy for moribund commercial areas, and their evolution into profession-ally run organizations that exhibit public and private characteristics. Theseunique characteristics make them worthy of attention in the years to come.

California’s BID growth scene has mirrored a national trend, yet may alsobe due to particular developments and circumstances. Following a taxpayerrevolt in the late 1970s, Californians set stringent limits on property taxincreases. This, coupled with the power of the state to withhold local funds tobalance the state budget during tough fiscal times, has forced local govern-ments to focus on core service provision and seek alternative revenue streamsto support services. One result has been growth in the number of BIDs, whichoffer relatively safeguarded revenue streams. California leads the nation increating BIDs, with 73 BIDs formed by 1999 compared to 404 BIDs nation-wide.[2] (According to the International Downtown Association, more than1,200 BIDs have been formed in the United States and Canada since the early1970s.) The City of Los Angeles is home to more that 23 BIDs with some 20additional BIDs requesting City Council approval.[3] BIDs have emerged as akey tool for local businesses, property owners, and officials in SouthernCalifornia seeking to revitalize aging downtowns and commercial areas.

The Southern California BIDs studied here offer many of the functionstypically provided by localities, ranging from business-promotion activities—such as consumer marketing—to providing security patrols and street cleaningsquads (so-called “clean and safe” teams). Rather than duplicate city services,BIDs attract support from business and property owners assessed by offering ahigher level of services concentrated on a defined business area. These twoqualities (focused service and consistent funding) provide insight into currentpublic administration practice. In interviews with directors of BIDs and with

BIDs in Southern California 33

city officials in Southern California, a clear consensus is that BIDs provideservices more effectively and efficiently than their host government jurisdic-tions, in most cases delivering more intensive services and, in some cases,inheriting the delivery of municipal services. It appears clear that BIDs dodeliver added value.[4] Certainly, BIDs and their host jurisdictions share aninterest in delivering added value, with cities often legally bound to continuethe pre-BID level of service to the business district.

What follows in this article is a report on five business improvement dis-tricts in Southern California, each created to meet unique needs of the busi-ness community and representing distinct sizes, origins, and relationships tothe authorizing municipality. The paper first reviews the legal foundation ofBIDs under the California law, which establishes the authority by which theycan function and the accountability framework from which they must operate.The article reviews the five BID case studies conducted by the authors. Thearticle then summarizes the central findings of the case studies and posesquestions for future examination.

LEGAL FRAMEWORK OF BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS IN CALIFORNIA

Most BIDs in California are formed by property and/or business owners seekinga heightened level of services financed by the imposition of an assessment oncommercial or industrial property within a defined geographic area, typically aMain Street, downtown area, commercial strip, or industrial area. (Occasionally,as we have found, a municipality may play a co-instigating role with local busi-ness leaders in forming a BID.) Among the key benefits of a BID is that it ener-gizes the private stakeholders to cooperatively organize in pursuit of a higherlevel of service to benefit a particular area. While organizations and groupingsof merchants for mutual benefit are common, it is uncommon for property own-ers to be organized for mutual benefit. California’s BID laws give merchantsand property owners the vehicle to organize for mutual benefit.

BIDs typically must be approved by ordinance or resolution of local gov-ernment in order for the business license or property tax assessment to be lev-ied. Local governments derive authority to approve BIDs through stategeneral enabling legislation, which sets forth requirements for governance,accountability, and financing of the BIDs.[5]

BIDs are enabled through three sections of the California Streets andHighways Code: the Parking and Business Area Improvement Law of 1965(Section 36000 et seq.), the Parking and Business Improvement Law of 1989(Section 36500 et seq.), and the Property and Business Improvement DistrictLaw of 1994 (Section 36600 et seq.). The chart below notes the general char-acteristics of BIDs created under each of the three sections of law, startingwith the earliest iteration of the law in 1965 and leading up to the 1994 law.

34 Meek and Hubler

As noted in Table 1, the revenue base of BIDs was expanded in 1994 toinclude property tax assessments. According to BID experts, assessments onreal property generate far greater revenues and collections are far simpler toadminister than business license taxes. Property and business license fee BIDsare both portrayed by proponents as self-help mechanisms for providinghigher levels of services for a particular area. In 2004, localities were statuto-rily authorized to issue BID revenue bonds, with a vastly increased potentialfor funding large-scale capital improvements (see the discussion of CaliforniaAssembly Bill 944 below).

A small number of BIDs, so-called Alpha BIDs, are authorized by muni-cipalities with special rules concerning governance. Under these rules, BIDpassage rates and fiscal sources are subject to city ordinance rather than statelaw. As noted in the chart above, the 1994 state law explicitly recognizes theindependent authority of the charter cities to create Alpha BIDs. The authorshave found that charter cities typically do not stray far from state law practicein creating these Alpha BIDs, other than to set a petition threshold lower thanthat required by state law. In the example in the City of Los Angeles, the cityBID conforms to state law requirements with two key exceptions: the passagethreshold is lowered from 50% of property owners to 30% and the BIDlifespan is lengthened from five years to 10 years. The authors are aware ofonly two cities in California that have passed ordinances creating Alpha BIDs,the Chinatown BID in Los Angeles and a BID in Oakland. In both cases theseBIDs are located in economically depressed areas and city officials havesought to overcome perceived property owner and merchant apathy by lower-ing the petition threshold.[6]

As noted in Table 1, current state law enables three types of BIDs inCalifornia: merchant-based business license BIDs, property-tax-based BIDs,and municipally created BIDs already discussed above. These three types varyprimarily by whether the assessment is levied against the merchant or theproperty owner but also by the lifespan of the BID and by petition thresholdsfor initiation of the BID, characteristics which are outlined below.

Merchant-based BIDs may be initiated upon City Council, county, orbusiness owner request. Under legislative provisions that took effect in 2004,a petition of support from those business owners representing more than 50%of the assessment fulfills the constitutionally required weighted ballot vote.Assessments are levied on business owners, which may include landlords,with the assessment collected by the city. Merchant-based BIDs renew annu-ally unless opposed by those paying more than 50% of the assessment, andcan thus have indefinite life spans.

Property-based BIDs are initiated only upon property owner petitionsigned by property owners who will pay more than 50% of the assessments tobe levied. (However, if there is a single property owner who will pay morethan 40% of the total assessment, that assessment is not counted in determin-ing whether the 50% benchmark is met.) Upon receipt of the petition, the City

35

Tab

le 1

.C

alif

orni

a B

ID E

nabl

ing

Leg

isla

tion

Nam

eC

reat

ion/

Spe

cial

Fun

ctio

nsG

over

nanc

eFi

scal

Park

ing

and

Bus

ines

s Im

prov

emen

t A

rea

Law

of

1965

Aut

hori

zes

citi

es to

cre

ate

park

ing

and

busi

ness

im

prov

emen

t are

as f

or th

e pu

rpos

e of

acq

uiri

ng,

cons

truc

ting

or m

aint

aini

ng p

arki

ng s

truc

ture

s an

d to

pro

mot

e re

tail

trad

e ac

tivit

ies

in th

e ar

ea.

Est

abli

shm

ent i

s su

bjec

t to

city

cou

ncil

hear

ing

and

prot

est v

ote

by a

maj

ority

of

busi

ness

ow

ners

pay

ing

the

tax.

City

Cou

ncil

has

sole

dis

cret

ion

as

to u

se o

f re

venu

es b

ut m

ay a

ppoi

nt

an a

dvis

ory

com

mitt

ee.

Bus

ines

s lic

ense

tax.

T

ax a

sses

smen

t bas

ed

on b

enef

it.

Park

ing

and

Bus

ines

s Im

prov

emen

t L

aw o

f 19

89

Aut

hori

zes

citie

s an

d co

untie

s to

est

ablis

h pa

rkin

g an

d bu

sine

ss im

prov

emen

t are

as f

or th

e sa

me

purp

oses

as

abov

e an

d, in

add

ition

, to

pay

for

benc

hes,

str

eet l

ight

ing,

par

ks, f

ount

ains

, and

ot

her

busi

ness

are

a ca

pita

l im

prov

emen

ts.

Est

abli

shm

ent i

s su

bjec

t to

peti

tion,

cit

y co

unci

l hea

ring

, and

pro

test

vot

e by

maj

ority

of

bus

ines

ses

owne

rs p

ayin

g th

e ta

x.

City

Cou

ncil

has

sole

dis

cret

ion

as

to u

se o

f re

venu

es a

nd is

req

uire

d to

app

oint

an

advi

sory

com

mitt

ee to

re

com

men

d ex

pend

iture

s.

Bus

ines

s lic

ense

tax.

T

ax a

sses

smen

t bas

ed

on b

enef

it.

Prop

erty

and

B

usin

ess

Impr

ovem

ent

Dis

tric

t Law

of

199

4

Aut

hori

zes

citie

s an

d co

untie

s to

est

ablis

h pr

oper

ty a

nd b

usin

ess

impr

ovem

ent d

istr

icts

to

prom

ote

and

supp

ort r

etai

l tra

de a

ctiv

ities

an

d ca

pita

l im

prov

emen

ts in

the

area

in

acco

rdan

ce w

ith a

man

agem

ent d

istr

ict p

lan.

E

stab

lish

men

t is

purs

uant

to p

etiti

on, h

eari

ng

and

prot

est v

ote

by m

ajor

ity o

f pr

oper

ty

owne

rs p

ayin

g th

e ta

x. L

aw e

xpre

ssly

per

mits

ch

arte

r ci

ties

to a

dopt

ord

inan

ces

prov

idin

g fo

r di

ffer

ent p

roce

dure

s fo

r le

vyin

g as

sess

men

ts f

or s

o-ca

lled

“Alp

ha”

BID

s.

A p

riva

te n

onpr

ofit

entit

y, “

owne

rs

asso

ciat

ion”

may

be

unde

r co

ntra

ct

to th

e ci

ty to

impl

emen

t the

man

agem

ent

dist

rict

pla

n. T

he C

ity C

ounc

il m

ay

appr

ove

annu

al f

inan

cial

rep

orts

file

d by

the

owne

rs a

ssoc

iatio

n. O

wne

rs

asso

ciat

ions

are

pri

vate

ent

ities

but

ar

e re

quir

ed to

com

ply

with

sta

te o

pen

mee

tings

and

pub

lic r

ecor

ds la

ws.

Prop

erty

or

busi

ness

lic

ense

ass

essm

ent.

Ass

essm

ent b

ased

on

mea

sure

d be

nefi

t. R

esid

entia

l and

ag

ricu

ltura

l pro

pert

ies

are

exem

pt. C

ity C

ounc

il m

ay p

erm

it is

suan

ce o

f bo

nds

base

d on

pro

pert

y ta

x or

bus

ines

s lic

ense

as

sess

men

ts n

ot

to e

xcee

d 30

yea

rs.

36 Meek and Hubler

Council may adopt a resolution expressing its intention to form a district.California law then requires a ballot vote in which more than 50% of the bal-lots received, weighted by assessment, be in support of the district. Unlessrejected by the protest vote, the City Council may adopt a resolution levyingthe assessment for a period of five years for new districts, and 10 years forrenewed districts. Assessment are levied on property owners and collected bythe county, through the property tax bill.

The petition and vote threshold requirements are important due processchecks due to the mandatory nature of the BID assessment. As noted above,the boundaries and plan for the BID are initiated as a result of a petition ofproperty owners in the cases of the property-based BID or merchants in thecase of the merchant-based BID.

BIDs are generally managed by a private nonprofit corporation with over-sight from an elected or appointed board of directors and a financial reportingrequirement to the authorizing City Council or county board of supervisors.At smaller BIDs, the city staff may assume the management role. State lawrequires the nonprofit corporation to provide an annual report to the CityCouncil to report on revenue received, expenditures made, and budgets for theupcoming year.

State law does require the assessment formula to be fair, balanced, andcommensurate with benefits received. The law explicitly notes that assess-ments are not taxes and instead are fees based on benefit received. Nonprofitsand owner-occupied residential properties are exempted from assessment.Municipalities typically pay assessments or in-lieu fees, while school districtsmay be exempted. Although not required to pay assessments, in some cases,state and federal agencies have voluntarily agreed to pay under “good neigh-bor” policies.

A feature of California BIDs that is perhaps unique to the state is that as apractical matter property-based BID assessments cannot be based on a per-centage of the assessed valuation of property. This is due to the great variancein assessed valuations due to the tax reform initiative, Proposition 13, whichimposes stringent limits on valuation increases unless a property changesownership. Instead, property-based BIDs typically use a more complicatedassessment based on lot and building square footage, shopping street frontage,and proximity to areas more intensely served by the BID.

California BIDs operate as public-private partnerships with various rangesautonomy vis-à-vis the public authority that are further discussed in theResearch Findings section below. The primary role of the authorizing publicentity, either a municipality or a county, is to exercise its authority to levy theassessment on behalf of the BID community. Either the city itself or, more typi-cally, an owner’s association or private nonprofit is designated as the serviceprovider or agent responsible for implementing the improvements identified inthe BID plan. By law, an owner’s association must be a private nonprofit entity,either existing or newly formed, and expressly may not be considered a public

BIDs in Southern California 37

entity. However, state law recognizes the challenge in ensuring public account-ability by a private non-profit which is the recipient of assessment revenues, andBID owner’s associations are required to comply with the state open publicmeetings and public records acts applicable to local public entities.[7]

Unlike in Georgia and other states, BIDs in California are not associatedwith Transportation Management Associations, and transportation improve-ments are not among the primary purposes of California’s BIDs. The primaryobjectives of BIDs are to increase security, maintenance, and marketing ofbusiness areas, although BIDs may undertake an essentially unlimited rangeof improvements and activities as identified in each individual BID plan.

In general, BIDs focus on achieving security and maintenance goals and rel-atively limited capital improvements within their jurisdictional areas (althoughBIDs may seek to take on large scale improvements with the enactment of a newlaw permitting BIDs to issue revenue bonds). California Streets and HighwayCode Section 36610 defines improvements as the “acquisition, construction,installation, or maintenance of any tangible property with an estimated useful lifeof five years or more including, but not limited to, the following:

• Parking facilities.• Benches, booths, kiosks, display cases, and pedestrian shelters and signs.• Trash receptacles and public restrooms.• Lighting and heating facilities.• Decorations.• Parks.• Fountains.• Planting areas.• Closing, opening, widening, or narrowing of existing streets.• Facilities or equipment, or both, to enhance security of persons and property

within the area.• Ramps, sidewalks, plazas, and pedestrian malls.• Rehabilitation and removal of existing structures.”

According to Code Section 36613, BID activities include but are not limited to:

• Promotion of public events which benefit businesses or real property in thedistrict.

• Furnishing of music in any public place within the district.• Promotion of tourism within the district.• Marketing and economic development, including retail retention and

recruitment.• Providing security, sanitation, graffiti removal, street and sidewalk clean-

ing, and other municipal services supplemental to those normally providedby the municipality.

• Activities which benefit businesses and real property located in the district.

38 Meek and Hubler

As noted above, the California Legislature and Governor enacted legisla-tion that took effect in 2004 permitting BIDs to begin issuing bonds to financepublic works and to levy assessments against business owners or real propertyto pay off the bonds. Assembly Bill 944 (Steinberg) also abolished therequirement of a weighted vote following the submission of a petition signedby business owners who would pay 50% or more of the total assessment—thelegislation declared that the petition serves as the equivalent to the constitu-tionally required weighted vote ballot process, with property owners givenvotes based on the total assessment to be paid. Property owner BIDs wouldstill be required to hold the weighted ballot vote. The bill was introduced withthe intent of enabling the financing of a sports arena as the linchpin in theredevelopment of Sacramento’s downtown rail yards.[8]

RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND METHODS

To better understand the functioning of Business Improvement Districts ingeneral, and Southern California in particular, the authors collaborated withthree other professors as a cross-national research team (Göktug Morçöl,Pennsylvania State University at Harrisburg; Jim Wolf, Virginia Tech; andUlf Zimmermann, Kennesaw State University, Georgia). The research teamreviewed existing research on business improvement districts and developedfundamental questions that would focus the data gathering and analysis ofBIDs. The design of the research team’s instrument focused on the centralconcerns in the literature with regard to BIDs. These concerns included thefollowing four areas of inquiry:

• Why and how are BIDs established?• Where and how do BIDs work (location, revenues, membership, manage-

ment, services)?• How are BIDs held accountable, how are they evaluated?• Are BIDs effective?

The research team felt that to get a fuller grasp of the functioning ofBIDs, it would be necessary to rely on an in-depth case study approach todata gathering to develop a stronger contextual understanding of the estab-lishment, operation, and effectiveness of BIDs. The research team alsoagreed to conduct open-ended interviews with both BID leaders as well asBID government liaisons so as to contrast the views on BID operations fromboth the perspective of government and business, the two central players inthe partnership.

For the research presented here, the authors hoped to select from a varietyof BIDs, large and small, urban and suburban, from different cities to retainthe possibility of identifying differences in the approach that cities in Southern

BIDs in Southern California 39

California demonstrated in working with BIDs. Our selection process beganwith the City of Los Angeles, and a listing of BIDs in the city and interviewswith leaders of the Department of Community Redevelopment. In our inter-views we decided to select one of the original BIDs in Los Angeles, the Fash-ion District. From interviews at the Fashion District, we relied on referencesand contact in other major cities in the region, and explored contacts with BIDleaders and their city counterparts.[9]

Our approach led to the selection of five very different BIDs with a geo-graphic spread within the region (see Table 2). We chose to examine currentoperating BIDs to see how they were functioning and how they were heldaccountable for their operations and if there were significant issues related totheir operations. Some BIDs have been dismantled in the past years and thesemay be useful to examine in future research, but they were not selected for thisexamination due to our criteria that the BID had to be a current functioningoperation.

Los Angeles: The Fashion District BID

• Why and how was the BID established?The Los Angeles Fashion District Business Improvement District was

established in 1994 following a two-year organizing drive initiated by twoprominent Fashion District property owners. The Fashion District BID wasthe first BID in the City of Los Angeles and was initiated in an effort torevitalize the area formerly known by the less glamorous appellation of theGarment District. Formed as a demonstration merchant-based BID, the BIDwas subsequently authorized on January 1, 1995, as a property-based BIDfollowing the enactment of enabling state legislation.

• Where and how does the BID work (location, revenues, membership, management, services)?

The BID was reauthorized in 2003 for five years and to encompass a 90block area. With each reauthorization vote, the BID has grown from theoriginal 12 block demonstration area. The BID enjoys annual revenues ofapproximately $2.9 million, with assessments constituting the mainsource of revenue. There are 580 property owners assessed on approxi-mately 1,118 parcels. The BID is governed by a 12-member Board ofDirectors and managed by a private nonprofit organization with sevenstaff members and another 60 contract employees providing clean andsafe services. Other services provided include job training and marketingactivities. More than 72% of the BID budget is dedicated toward cleanand safe programs.

• How is the BID held accountable? How is it evaluated?The Fashion District BID provides regular reports of revenues and

expenditures to the Los Angeles City Council. The BID evaluates its own

40

Tab

le 2

.So

uthe

rn C

alif

orni

a C

ase

Stud

ies

City

/BID

(BID

Yea

r) P

BID

Yr.

F

orm

ed/A

ffir

med

O

wne

rs/P

arce

ls (b

lock

s)

BID

Siz

e (a

sses

smen

t)Se

rvic

es P

rovi

ded

Gov

erna

nce

&

Acc

ount

abili

tyE

valu

atio

n an

d E

ffec

tive

ness

Los

Ang

eles

—Fa

shio

n D

istr

ict

(199

4)/1

995/

1998

/200

372

% C

lean

& S

afe

15 m

embe

r bo

ard

with

no

city

rep

s.In

tens

e &

Exc

lusi

ve F

ocus

580

Ow

ners

1,

118

Parc

els

(90

bloc

ks)

Job

Tra

inin

gB

ID P

rovi

des

Reg

ular

R

epor

tsIn

crea

se in

Pro

pert

y V

alue

s

$2.9

mill

ion

Mar

ketin

gB

ID E

valu

ates

Ow

n G

oals

Incr

ease

in B

usin

ess

Ow

ners

(2

00)

2003

Vot

e: 7

6%L

ong

Bea

ch—

Pine

Ave

nue

(197

3)/ 1

999/

2003

M

BID

: 1,1

00 O

wne

rs

PBID

: 255

Ow

ners

, 650

Pa

rcel

s (9

0 bl

ocks

)

68%

Cle

an &

Saf

e12

mem

ber

boar

d w

ith

two

city

rep

s.R

espo

nsiv

e

MB

ID: $

450K

Mar

ketin

gA

nnua

l Mgm

t Pla

nFo

cuse

d Se

rvic

ePB

ID: $

1 m

illio

n (2

5% fr

om a

sses

sed

city

pr

oper

ty p

lus

$100

K to

$1

45K

a y

ear

in p

arki

ng

reve

nues

)

Spec

ial P

roje

cts

Mon

thly

& A

nnua

l R

epor

ts

2003

Vot

e: 7

5%A

dvoc

acy/

Adm

inis

trat

ion

Pasa

dena

—O

ld T

own

(198

9)/ 2

000

66%

Cle

an &

Saf

e23

mem

ber

boar

d w

ith

thre

e ci

ty r

eps.

Focu

sed

Serv

ice

41

160

Ow

ners

, 228

Par

cels

(2

1 bl

ocks

)A

dvoc

acy

Ann

ual P

lan,

Ann

ual r

epor

tsPr

ovid

e V

oice

for

Dis

tric

t

$1.1

mill

ion

(50%

fro

m

asse

ssed

city

pro

pert

y)M

arke

ting

City

liai

son

coor

dina

tion

2000

Vot

e: tb

aB

urba

nk—

Med

ia C

ity

Cen

ter

Mal

l

(199

4)/ 2

003

15%

Cle

an &

Saf

e9

mem

ber

boar

d ap

poin

ted

by C

ity C

ounc

il w

ith tw

o ci

ty r

eps.

Perf

orm

ance

Ben

chm

arks

E

stab

lishe

d

133

Ow

ners

, 289

Par

cels

(3

0 bl

ocks

)St

reet

Sig

nage

, Hol

iday

D

écor

, Pas

eo U

pgra

des

Ann

ual F

inan

cial

Rep

orts

Eng

aged

Ow

ners

as

Stak

ehol

ders

$750

KM

arke

ting

& P

rom

otio

nC

ity e

mpl

oyee

act

s as

BID

ex

ecut

ive

dire

ctor

2003

Vot

e: 8

2%M

onro

via—

Myr

tle A

venu

e(1

965)

No

Cle

an &

Saf

e fu

ndin

g5

mem

ber

advi

sory

boa

rd

appo

inte

d by

City

C

ounc

il

Ann

ual R

epor

ts

210

Bus

ines

s L

icen

se

Hol

ders

Prom

otio

nsC

ity e

mpl

oyee

act

s as

BID

ex

ecut

ive

dire

ctor

Incr

ease

d Pr

oper

ty V

alue

s

$40K

(as

sess

men

t)

$20K

(pa

ss th

roug

h)M

arke

ting

City

App

rove

d B

udge

t

Vot

e: N

o pr

otes

t vot

e to

dat

e

42 Meek and Hubler

performance by tracking crime and trash counts through the clean and safeprogram, pedestrian counts, increases in property valuation and decreasesin vacancy rates.

• Is the BID effective?The Fashion District BID can be more effective than the city at deliver-

ing services because of its intense and exclusive focus on a relatively smalldowntown area. According to BID CEO Kent Smith, property values in theassessed area have soared by 20% to 50% over the last five years and theBID area has added 200 businesses in the last two years. The BID strives toreplace lower-wage garment manufacturing jobs with higher-wage jobs increative fashion design.

Downtown Long Beach: The Pine Avenue BID

• Why and how was the BID established?The Downtown Long Beach BID was first established as a merchant-

based BID in 1973. Following an 18-month organizational effort, the prop-erty-based BID was established in 1999 for a period of 5 years in an effortto revitalize the downtown area. The property-based BID was recently reau-thorized for a period of 10 years. The merchant-based BID is authorizedunder state highways code and renews in perpetuity unless contested by amajority of those assessed. The property-based BID was established bybusiness leaders in response to two external influences: first, the announce-ment by the city of Long Beach that it would cease subsidizing higher lev-els of service for the downtown area and second, the enactment of statelegislation permitting property-based BIDs.

• Where and how does the BID work (location, revenues, membership, man-agement, services)?

Long Beach has two BIDs focused a similar downtown geographic area.The merchant-based BID encompasses a 175-block area; the property-based BID was initially authorized for a 75-block area in 1999, whichincreased to 90 blocks commencing on January 1, 2004. Because of theoverlay, it is possible for businesses to be assessed twice; first as merchantsthrough an assessment on their city business licenses and second as tenantsthrough a pass-through of the property assessment from their landlords. Themerchant-based BID raises approximately $450,000 to $500,000 per yearthrough assessments levied on business licenses of some 1,100 to 1,200businesses. The property assessments generate another $1 million annuallywith 355 property owners paying assessments on 650 parcels. Assessmentsconstitute 90% of income and the city passes through the remaining 10% inthe form of parking meter revenues. The city has also awarded the property-based BID a grant of $30,000 a year to fund the position of an economicdevelopment specialist.

BIDs in Southern California 43

The “Operation Clean and Safe” accounts for 68% of BID expenditures.In addition, the BID is focusing greater efforts on homeless services and isone of two Los Angeles area BIDs selected by the International DowntownAssociation for a federally funded case study of homeless services. TheBID is managed by a private nonprofit organization, the Downtown LongBeach Associates, with five staff members and one contract controller.

• How is the BID held accountable? How is it evaluated?The Downtown Long Beach Associates, which manages both the prop-

erty-based BID and the merchant-based BID, is governed by a 12-memberboard. The board is comprised of five property owners, five merchants, onerepresentative of the city of Long Beach, and one representative of theLong Beach Redevelopment Agency. BID Board members are elected bythe membership, with votes weighted by assessment and with the city,which owns some 24% of the property assessed, agreeing to abstain fromvoting.

The BID produces an annual management plan, as well as monthly andannual financial reports that are submitted for approval by the Long BeachCity Council. The BID surveys customer satisfaction, counts visitors, and,for economic development measures, quantifies the number of businessesretained, and the square footage of new leases generated. The BID alsomeasures the volume of trash picked up and the square footage of sidewalkscleaned by the Clean Teams.

• Is the BID effective?BIDs require a mutual awareness of shared problems and a contribution

in the form of an assessment from their members. They tend to be moreeffective because they are more responsive, more focused on a smaller geo-graphic area, and can implement their programs using their own resourcesrather than competing with other programs.

Pasadena: “Old Town” BID

• Why and how was the BID established?The Old Pasadena Business Improvement District, a property-based BID,

was established in 2000, replacing a merchant-based BID that was startedin 1989. It took approximately three years to organize the BID after the OldPasadena Management Association was incorporated as a 501(c)(6) corpo-ration in the fall of 1997. The leaders of the Old Pasadena ManagementAssociation felt that the city was providing an unsatisfactory level of ser-vices to the revitalizing downtown area. Sidewalks were described as filthyand police response times were thought of as poor. In addition, it was feltthat merchant-based BIDs spent an inordinate amount of time enforcingrevenue collection, whereas a property-based BID could collect revenuethrough a more reliable mechanism, the property tax bill.

44 Meek and Hubler

The property-based BID was initiated by two key downtown propertyowners and a city Redevelopment Agency staff member assigned as a liai-son to the downtown area. The city staffer was attending InternationalDowntown Association conferences and brought back information regard-ing the advantages of property-based BIDs.

• Where and how does the BID work (location, revenues, membership, man-agement, services)?

The boundaries of the property-based BID follow the contours of anexisting area of city-installed parking meters for the designated downtownarea. The area encompasses 21 blocks. The property-based BID has annualrevenues of approximately $1.1 million, with the city of Pasadena provid-ing approximately 50% of the annual budget. The city, which owns twoparks and several parking structures within the boundaries of the BID, paysa flat assessment of $545,000. In addition, the Pasadena City Council votedin December 2003 on a proposal to transfer the management of the parkingstructures in the downtown area from the city to the BID, with aresulting10% or $110,000 increase in the BID budget, permitting the hiringby the PBID management company of a full-time dedicated marketing andcommunication specialist.

There are 160 property owners assessed on 228 parcels. The BID is man-aged by a private nonprofit organization, the Old Pasadena ManagementDistrict, with three full-time members on staff, with one part-time tempo-rary employee and one outside contract events organizer. “Clean and safe”operations account for 66% of expenditures.

• How is the BID held accountable? How is it evaluated?The BID is governed by a 23-member Board, comprised of 16 property

owners, retailers, or merchants; three representatives of the City of Pasa-dena, including a Pasadena Police Department lieutenant and one represen-tative of the Castle Green residential complex. The slate of candidates forthe Board is recommended by a governance committee and only the currentBoard members vote in new members of the Board, not the general mem-bership. Thus, the Board membership has remained very stable with littlechange in membership from year to year.

The BID provides annual financial reports to the city, which are auditedby the city Finance Director. The BID also produces an annual manage-ment plan that is submitted to the City Council for approval. In addition,the city tracks sales tax revenues generated by businesses within theBIDs.

• Is the BID effective?BIDs can be more effective at delivering services than a city because

they can be more innovative and are not hobbled by red tape. In addition,BIDs give a voice to the business district. BIDs are effective problem solv-ers but can also create demands because they provide a new platform andmechanism for the articulation of those demands for city services.

BIDs in Southern California 45

BIDs can adopt the efficiencies of a private sector firm. For instance, theBID is not required to award contracts to the lowest responsible bidder as acity would be required to do so. Instead, the BID can award the contract tothe bidder that will provide the best service for security and maintenance.However, upon assumption of the management of the city parking struc-tures, the Pasadena BID is complying with city bid requirements in award-ing contracts to manage the garages.

Burbank: The Media City Center Mall BID

• Why and how was the BID established?The Downtown Burbank BID, the Media City Center Mall, was estab-

lished on July 22, 2003, following an 18-month organizational process. TheDowntown Burbank Property and Business Improvement District wasformed to replace the Burbank Village Business Improvement District, amerchant-based BID, which was formed on July 22, 1994. City and cham-ber of commerce officials considered the Village BID, which assessed busi-ness owners rather than property owners and had an annual budget ofapproximately $70,000, to have failed to revitalize the downtown area. Thecity and business community have been seeking to revitalize the downtownarea for the past decade. In addition, the city had experienced difficulty incollecting assessments under the merchant-based BID. Under the new prop-erty-based BID, the county collects assessments through the long-estab-lished property tax process.

The impetus for the creation of the property-based BID came from cityofficials, although the proposal had the support of the key downtown busi-ness leaders. The city hired a consultant to devise a property-based manage-ment district plan. The City Council brought in a Downtown Manager fromthe Park and Recreation Department to organize and operate the BID. Amajority of the Downtown Manager’s time is expected to be devoted to theoperation of the BID.

• Where and how does the BID work (location, revenues, membership, man-agement, services)?

The boundaries of the BID generally follow that of the already estab-lished downtown redevelopment project boundaries as well as that of Bur-bank’s downtown. The only gerrymander appears to have been to includethe downtown Metrolink/bus station in the BID boundary to better coordi-nate marketing of transportation alternatives.

The BID is anticipated to have annual revenues of $750,000 with assess-ments constituting 100% of revenues. Assessments are paid by 133 propertyowners on 289 parcels. The BID is organized as a nonprofit corporation andis managed by a full-time Burbank Redevelopment Agency employee withthe assistance of the consultant who helped establish the BID.

46 Meek and Hubler

The BID will focus on providing better street signage, holiday décor,paseo upgrades and marketing and promotional activities at a cost ofapproximately $500,000 a year. In addition, the budget contemplatesexpending $110,000 a year for maintenance and security.

• How is the BID held accountable? How is it evaluated?The BID will provide annual financial reports to the City Council. The

BID is governed by a nine-member Board of Directors appointed by theCity Council. The City Council has reserved the right to amend or modifythe composition of the Board of Directors without amending the Manage-ment District Plan.

The Board has established performance benchmarks and the performancegoal of the Downtown Manager is to accomplish those services, signageand events noted in the budget in the Management Plan.

• Is the BID effective?According to city staff, the BID will be more responsive to downtown

merchants and property owners as they request services because the BIDhas more leeway in accomplishing goals and fewer “bureaucratic hoops” tonegotiate than would city staff. In addition, the PBID will offer propertyowners and merchants a greater feeling of ownership or sense of beingstakeholders in the downtown area.

Monrovia: The Myrtle Avenue BID

• Why and how was the BID established?This merchant-based BID was established in 1965, most likely by a mer-

chants’ association, at a time when Monrovia was a city in decline, with ris-ing crime and a declining local economy. The BID was created amongbusinesses on and along Myrtle Avenue in downtown Monrovia with theintent of revitalizing the city’s traditional “Main Street” downtown.Founded in 1887, Monrovia is one of the older cities in Los AngelesCounty.

• Where and how does the BID work (location, revenues, membership, man-agement, services)?

The BID boundaries generally follow that of the long established down-town area. The BID has annual revenues of $60,500, with assessmentsbringing in some $40,000 and the city passing through approximately$20,000 a year in filming permit fees for the downtown area. There are 210business license holders assessed within the BID boundaries. The BID isoperated by city staff, with the former assistant city manager serving asexecutive director, assisted by the city’s downtown manager. The manage-ment of a weekly downtown street festival, which is not sponsored by theBID but which plays a role in attracting shoppers to the area, is contractedout to a private contractor. Most of the BID budget is spent on promotions

BIDs in Southern California 47

and marketing for the downtown area. None of the budget is spent on“clean and safe” operations, which are provided by the city.

• How is the BID held accountable? How is it evaluated?The BID provides an annual report of revenues and expenditures to the

City Council, which approves its budget. The BID does not conduct evalua-tions of its performance.

The BID is governed by the Monrovia Old Town Advisory Board, whichis an official city commission whose five members are appointed by theMayor. Members serve staggered two-year terms and are charged withdeveloping a budget.

• Is the BID effective?City staff believes the efforts of the BID, as well as those of the Redevel-

opment Agency, have been instrumental in revitalizing and increasing prop-erty values in the downtown area. Essentially, the BID is indistinguishablefrom the city since it is organized and operated by city staff.

RESEARCH FINDINGS AND IMPLICATIONS

A summary of findings related to the case studies examined in this research is pro-vided in Table 2. To summarize the general trend of BIDs in Southern California:

1. There are 23 BIDs in Los Angeles alone with some 20 additional BIDsrequesting city council approval and there are numerous additional BIDSin Southern California;

2. each of the BIDs have a range of participants, all have governing boards;3. the BIDs are 501c3 authorizations;4. BIDs are able to be constructed because of state law;5. BIDs are self-taxing, and in some cases have city pass through support, and6. BID boards are self-managed, held accountable for activities and most

have city representatives on the board.

In addition to the descriptive findings listed in Table 2, we offer five additionalimplications with regard to our research on these five Southern California BIDs.

1. Context matters. The source of creation matters. The formation of each of thefive BIDs examined in this research was initiated by business owners driven bya united business group. Two BID formations had significant city involvementalong with a united business group. This may be a telling point for some citiesin that active redevelopment agencies may be more aggressive partners in sup-plementing their roles in larger capital investments. Where there was significantcity influence, there remains a deep city connection in terms of board member-ship. Regardless of city involvement, in each case there is an identifiable historyof working together as well as a geographic sense of identity.

48 Meek and Hubler

2. Budget size matters. The size of budget matters with regard to scope of oper-ations and potential for influence. In almost all cases, the BID began as amerchant-based BID and evolved into a property-based BID. It was reportedin the interviews conducted that the property-based approach allowed fortwo outcomes to emerge: increased financing for district services andincreased commitment from property owners. All those interviewed indi-cated that the move to have property owners assessed led to a more engagedcommitment on the part of the owners and in all cases enough budget toactually carry out significant services ranging from security, safety, cleanli-ness, to marketing and promotion. With a clear geographical representation,a common vision, and a dedicated staff, BIDs are taken seriously by cities,because they are a voice to be heard in city chambers with regard to matterswithin their districts. It is also clear that the city often advises owners towork with the BID leadership on various district matters that concern theowner rather than seeking individual assistance from the city.

3. Spillover matters. Spillover effects of BID successes are feasible [Goktug; Iam not clear what this means.]. As operations become successful, one canconceive that there will be spillover to other areas of the city. For example,the Pasadena BID last January 2004 was granted authority by the City Coun-cil to take over parking management in the district from the current contact-ing source managed by the city. Approval was granted after the city and theBID approved the terms of the agreement. As another example, the LosAngeles and Long Beach BID leadership will be working on homelessissues in a cross-national study sponsored by HUD with IDA. Homelessnessissues have been a priority and source of controversy for BIDs. The FashionDistrict BID, for instance, and three other downtown Los Angeles BIDswere sued and settled over treatment of the homeless and mentally ill.[10]

One can conjecture that a number of areas would be attractive to allocateto special districts in the hope of securing consistent service funding andfocusing on specific functions in a geographic area. There may be a numberof consequences to this strategy. First, there are labor costs issues: as BIDstake over city functions, do the operations of these reduce labor costs (to thedisadvantage of some groups) and/or are there increases or decreases inoverall employment? Second, there are evolutionary concerns: as BIDsevolve, is there a “non-democratic effect” or an outcome effect that resem-bles private government? It is evident that BIDs have a political prowesspotential: BIDs can unduly influence the political system. BIDs are certainly“voices” that are heard in city hall, and these voices are often welcomedbecause they represent a cohesive consensus among a significant representa-tion of citizens and business interests. While alignment issues within the dis-trict may be of little concern, it is unclear what happens when this voicecarries over and is heard with regard to other matters in the city.[11]

4. Accountability matters. Accountability can become an issue: How isaccountability handled in the governance structure within the BID and in

BIDs in Southern California 49

oversight of the BID? For the most part, we have found that BIDs largelyoperate under the general public radar: There may be an issue of lack ofknowledge of the existence and operations of these entities. It is clear,however, from our observations in the cases we examined, that while BIDsare not generally known by the public, BIDs are certainly known by cityleadership: They include city representatives (often appointees) on theboards, city representatives monitor quarterly and annual reports, and cityauthorities have the final say on granting and renewing authority for theoperation of the BIDs. While little may be known about BIDs among thegeneral public, much is known about their operations within city leader-ship and city management.

When asked about their leadership roles in managing BIDs, CEO men-tal models differ: Some see themselves as public administrators, some donot. Some are quite clear that they are operating a not-for-profit agency,that they are serving the interests of the stakeholders, and that they workclosely with the board in determining the direction of the BID. These lead-ers clearly see their role as serving a limited set of interests within the cityand that their freedom to pursue innovative strategies encourages newcapacities of managing. [12] On the other hand, some see their work asserving the public interest, and those they serve as the citizens in theirjurisdiction on the functions that they have agreed upon. In this role, thereis a broader interpretation of the role of BID leadership.

5. Partnership matters. The BIDs researched for this article are each viewed byall parties as providing complementary services to those services provided bygovernments. It is apparent that BID leadership and city leadership sharemutual respect for the operational efficiencies of BIDs. This is a critical pointfor accountability and success of BIDs. [13] Our research indicates that BIDsare improvements over government in providing services of a non-controver-sial and specific focus. The clear hallmark of BIDs is that they have the advan-tage of a specific focus and they have the advantage of stabilized funding.

Finally, it is important to point out that BIDs have different meanings fordifferent people: For some, BIDs are a funding tool, for others, a servicedelivery tool, for others, a common interest tool, and still for others a devel-opment tool. With this many meanings attached to a single instrument, it is awonder that BIDs can achieve positive outcomes for each of the expecta-tions. To this point, each of the BIDs in our case study work has met theneeds of each of the stakeholders, an outcome reflected in the reauthoriza-tion votes both by the BID membership and the city councils involved.

CONCLUSION: COMPLEMENTARY PUBLIC SERVICES

The importance of Business Improvement Districts, and the successes reportedhere, cannot be underestimated. It seems clear that as BID operations succeed,

50 Meek and Hubler

they will provide funded added value to targeted areas above services that couldbe provided by urban government.[14] From the interviews we conducted, bothgovernmental officials and BID leadership view BID activities and services ascomplementary to those provided by government and government operations.Because there is a clear distinction between what services are to be provided bygovernment and what services are provided by business improvement districts,each view the other as complementary to each other’s mission and objectives.[15]

We interpret this finding to mean that citizens can establish and create organizedefforts to improve their life in the city, as long as the partnership is establishedand authority and accountability are clearly understood and carefully moni-tored.[16] This seems to be the case in the experiences represented in this study.

And this success may lead to an evolution of activities or an expansion ofservices that go beyond the district into other areas of public service. If thisevolution takes place, local government service provision may be a very dif-ferent matter that has been traditionally conceived.[17]

There are a number of directions that the special district strategy canevolve, some of which will draw the attention of city officials. For example, itis possible that the privatization of service delivery will be expanding only tothose who can afford the assessment, thus creating a divide between those whocan accomplish added value because of financial capability and those who can-not. One can also conceive of assessment strategies that will bring not onlyadded value, but also a return on investment to only those in the district and notto the general welfare of those surrounding the district. One can also foreseethe emergence of multiple special districts that supply narrowly defined ser-vices, which are focused and easy to produce and manage, leaving more com-plicated, messy, and difficult services to governmental service delivery thatwill be viewed as inefficient and ineffective. This outcome may contribute tonegative citizen attitudes toward government and the role of government.

None of the cases we examined exemplified these problems, but it may beuseful to speculate on these outcomes should the special district strategy spill-over to other services traditionally provided by local governments. In short,future research is needed to examine the secondary impacts of BIDs on the sur-rounding community.[18] In addition, comparative examination of BIDs in othergeographic regions will allow theoretical interests in BIDs to be expanded,including the assessment of the multiple interpretations of BIDs that range frominnovative solutions designed to finance special public needs to obtaining unfairaccess to the policy process through questionable representation.

REFERENCES AND NOTES

1. Houstoun, L.O. In Business Improvement Districts, Second Ed.; ULI—theUrban Land Institute in cooperation with the International DowntownAssociation: Washington, D.C., 2003.

BIDs in Southern California 51

2. Houstoun, L.O. In Business Improvement Districts, Second Ed.; ULI—theUrban Land Institute in cooperation with the International DowntownAssociation: Washington, D.C., 2003.

3. City of Los Angeles. Citywide Business Improvement District. Los AngelesCity Clerk, Administrative Services Division, Special Assessment Section,Business Improvement Program: Los Angeles, 2002.

4. Meek, J.W.; Hubler, P. Southern California BID Interviews, 2003–2004(Unpublished Notes). Interviews were conducted with Donald Spivak, Dep-uty Administrator, Community Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles in thesummer of 2003; Gail Stewart, Downtown Manager, City of Burbank onJuly 22, 2003; John A. Lambeth, President, Downtown Resources on July22, 2003; Kent Smith, Executive Director, LA Fashion District BID onOctober 6, 2003; Kraig Kojian, President and CEO, Downtown Long BeachAssociates on November 3, 2003; Maggie Campbell, President and CEO,Old Pasadena Management District on November 12, 2003; RobertMontano, Business District Coordinator, City of Pasadena on March 10, 2004and Travis Brooks, BID Liaison, City of Long Beach on March 11, 2004.

5. Meek, J.W.; Hubler, P. Southern California BID Interviews, 2003–2004(Unpublished Notes). Interviews were conducted with Donald Spivak, Dep-uty Administrator, Community Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles in thesummer of 2003; Gail Stewart, Downtown Manager, City of Burbank onJuly 22, 2003; John A. Lambeth, President, Downtown Resources on July22, 2003; Kent Smith, Executive Director, LA Fashion District BID on Octo-ber 6, 2003; Kraig Kojian, President and CEO, Downtown Long BeachAssociates on November 3, 2003; Maggie Campbell, President and CEO,Old Pasadena Management District on November 12, 2003; Robert Mon-tano, Business District Coordinator, City of Pasadena on March 10, 2004 andTravis Brooks, BID Liaison, City of Long Beach on March 11, 2004.

6. Meek, J.W.; Hubler, P. Southern California BID Interviews, 2003–2004(Unpublished Notes). Interviews were conducted with Donald Spivak, Dep-uty Administrator, Community Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles in thesummer of 2003; Gail Stewart, Downtown Manager, City of Burbank onJuly 22, 2003; John A. Lambeth, President, Downtown Resources on July22, 2003; Kent Smith, Executive Director, LA Fashion District BID onOctober 6, 2003; Kraig Kojian, President and CEO, Downtown Long BeachAssociates on November 3, 2003; Maggie Campbell, President and CEO,Old Pasadena Management District on November 12, 2003; RobertMontano, Business District Coordinator, City of Pasadena on March 10, 2004and Travis Brooks, BID Liaison, City of Long Beach on March 11, 2004.

7. Meek, J.W.; Hubler, P. Southern California BID Interviews, 2003–2004(Unpublished Notes). Interviews were conducted with Donald Spivak, Dep-uty Administrator, Community Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles in thesummer of 2003; Gail Stewart, Downtown Manager, City of Burbank onJuly 22, 2003; John A. Lambeth, President, Downtown Resources on July 22,

52 Meek and Hubler

2003; Kent Smith, Executive Director, LA Fashion District BID onOctober 6, 2003; Kraig Kojian, President and CEO, Downtown LongBeach Associates on November 3, 2003; Maggie Campbell, President andCEO, Old Pasadena Management District on November 12, 2003; RobertMontano, Business District Coordinator, City of Pasadena on March 10,2004 and Travis Brooks, BID Liaison, City of Long Beach on March 11, 2004.

8. Assembly Committee on Local Government. Committee staff analysis of AB944 (Steinberg) September 12, 2003. http://info.sen.ca.gov/(accessed January2004).

9. Meek, J.W.; Hubler, P. Southern California BID Interviews, 2003–2004(Unpublished Notes). Interviews were conducted with Donald Spivak, Dep-uty Administrator, Community Redevelopment Agency/Los Angeles in thesummer of 2003; Gail Stewart, Downtown Manager, City of Burbank onJuly 22, 2003; John A. Lambeth, President, Downtown Resources on July22, 2003; Kent Smith, Executive Director, LA Fashion District BID onOctober 6, 2003; Kraig Kojian, President and CEO, Downtown Long BeachAssociates on November 3, 2003; Maggie Campbell, President and CEO,Old Pasadena Management District on November 12, 2003; Robert Mon-tano, Business District Coordinator, City of Pasadena on March 10, 2004and Travis Brooks, BID Liaison, City of Long Beach on March 11, 2004.

10. Bronstad, A. Downtown BID pays $10,000 to settle suit brought by home-less. Downtown Business Journal February 19, 2002, www.findarticles.com(accessed February 2004).

11. Garodnick, D.R. What’s the BID Deal? Can the Grand Central BusinessImprovement District Serve a Special Limited Purpose?. University ofPennsylvania Law Review 2002, 148 (5), 1733–1771.

12. Mitchell, J. Business Improvement Districts and the Management of Inno-vation. American Review of Public Administration 2001, 31 (2), 201–217.

13. Lavery, K. Privatization by the Back Door: The Rise of Private Govern-ment in the USA. Public Money and Management 1995, 15 (4), 49–53.

14. Mallett, W.J. Managing the Post-Industrial City: Business ImprovementDistricts in the United States. Area 1994, 26 (3), 276–287.

15. Pack, J. R. BIDs, DIDs, SIDs, SADs: Private Governments in UrbanAmerica. Brookings Review 1992, 10 (4), 18–22.

16. Briffault, R. A Government for Our Time? Business Improvement Districtsand Urban Governance. Columbia Law Review 1999, 99 (2), 365–477.

17. Mitchell, J. Business Improvement Districts and Innovative ServiceDelivery November 1999, report sponsored by a grant from The Pricewa-terhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government.

18. Clark, C.; Green, J.; Grenell, K. Local Regimes: Does Globalization Chal-lenge the “Growth Machine”?. Policy Studies Review 2001, 18 (3), 49–61.

View publication statsView publication stats