Fact checking the Wichita Ambassador Hotel campaign

Update: The Wichita Eagle has published its article that fact checks the campaigns. See Wichita Eagle fact checks Ambassador Hotel campaigns.

This week many Wichitans received a mail piece from “Vote Yes for Wichita,” a group urging Wichitans to “Vote Yes” for a measure that would rebate 75 percent of the guest tax collected by the Ambassador Hotel back to the hotel. The election will be on February 28th.

Following are some of the questions and answers that appear in the mailer, along with what Wichitans should really know about the issue.

Will the Ambassador (Douglas Place) redevelopment create new jobs?
Vote Yes for Wichita answer: YES, according to a study by Wichita State University, 1,102 direct and indirect jobs will be created, 978 for construction and 124 for ongoing operations. These jobs will generate over $39 million dollars in payroll earnings.

Jobs are a good thing. We can all agree on that. What Wichitans need to know is that no matter what the outcome of the February 28th election, these jobs will be created. Ambassador Hotel developers have said they will proceed and open the hotel regardless of the outcome of the February 28th election.

Aside from this, the WSU study that Ambassador Hotel backers rely on contains some important qualifications and additional information than provided in the “Vote Yes” group’s answer to this question. These additional facts are important for Wichitans to know.

The study was produced by Wichita State University Center for Economic Development and Business Research. One of the facts contained in the study is that there is a substitution factor of 50 percent. This means that half of the projected business of the Ambassador Hotel is business taken from other Wichita area hotels. According to Jeremy Hill, who is director of CEDBR, the institute that produced the study: “This particular industry has a 50 percent substitution rate, indicating that 50 percent of the business is new and the remaining 50 percent already existed in the Wichita MSA. Substitution may be applied to both jobs and revenues.”

So when counting jobs and other economic statistics regarding the Ambassador Hotel, we have to discount them by half, according to the study that the hotel relies on.

Furthermore, the 978 new construction jobs are not new jobs. According to CEDBR’s Hill: “It is likely that these expenditures merely support existing construction jobs.”

Finally, there is a question as to how many local workers are being hired for the construction jobs. The Kansas Democratic party, in support of its “Hire Kansas First Act,” says: “Instead of sending millions of dollars of work to out-of-state firms as happened in the Ambassador Hotel and Fairfield Inn projects, contractors or subcontractors working on state contracts of a certain size will have to ensure that at least 70 percent of the employees working on the contract are Kansas residents.”

These facts are inconvenient to the “Vote Yes” supporters. But Wichitans need to know them.

Will there be any new taxes for this project?
Vote Yes for Wichita answer: No, there are no new taxes as part of this project.

On an elementary level this statement is true. But any reasonable analysis will conclude that this hotel is benefiting greatly from taxpayers in Wichita, across the state of Kansas, and even across the country. These taxpayer-provided benefits have a cost.

First, the hotel developers benefit from $3,325,000 in tax increment financing. This diverts money from services like police, fire, and schools to provide benefits to the developers, in this case parking for the hotel. Since the hotel will consume these government services — but is not contributing property taxes to pay for them beyond what the presently vacant building pays — other taxpayers have to step up and pay.

The hotel developers will receive $3,800,000 in tax credits from the State of Kansas. Taxpayers across Kansas have to make up this missing revenue. In fact, Kansas Governor Sam Brownback has recognized the cost to the state of this program, and has proposed elimination of this tax credit program.

The hotel developers will receive $3,500,000 in tax credits from the U.S. government. Taxpayers across the country have to make up this missing revenue.

The hotel developers will receive $537,075 in sales tax exemptions on purchases during the construction and furnishing of the hotel. That’s missing revenue that other Kansas taxpayers have to make up.

These government spending programs are implemented through the tax system, and they have a cost. Indeed, these programs have a new name: Tax expenditures, in recognition that these are really spending programs in disguise, and there is a cost to the taxpayer to provide them

If you are not convinced that these programs have a cost, ask yourself this question: If these programs are without cost, why shouldn’t everyone benefit from them?

The many levels of generous subsidy provided to the Ambassador Hotel are costly. They are harmful to taxpayers, and their negative effects mean that economic activity and jobs are lost elsewhere.

Did the project receive a review?
Vote Yes for Wichita answer: The project received a thorough economic review by an independent committee made up of local residents, private sector business representatives, planners and financial experts before being considered by the City Council.

This statement is true. The review board, however, is stacked with people who benefit financially from taxpayer subsidy to downtown developers, and with bureaucrats who benefit from the expansion of government control and planning in Wichita. There is not a single person on that board who is even remotely skeptical of government intervention into the economy. The term “rubberstamp” applies.

Who pays the hotel tax?
Vote Yes for Wichita answer: Visitors — the transient occupancy tax (bed tax) is paid by visitors to the city. People from out of town will help to pay for this important downtown redevelopment.

This statement, on the surface, is true. But when we look under the surface, we see a different picture.

Recall that the WSU study says the substitution factor for this hotel is 50 percent. This means that half the business of this hotel is business taken away from other Wichita hotels. This also means that other Wichita hotels will not be collecting guest tax on behalf of the city to the extent of 50 percent of the Ambassador Hotel’s business.

The diversion of the Ambassador Hotel’s guest tax is contrary to city policy. According to the Wichita budget document, the purpose of this fund is to “support tourism and convention, infrastructure, and promotion of the City.” The document also states the priorities of the fund, which are given as “1) debt service for tourism and convention facilities, 2) operational deficit subsidies and 3) care and maintenance of Century II.”

Besides being contrary to established city policy, diversion of guest tax revenue away from the Convention and Tourism Fund means that some other group of taxpayers will have to pay. This fund is running a loss of $2 million this year, and after next year the fund’s balance will be nearly zero. As there are plans to continue — and even increase — spending on maintenance and upgrades to Century II, the Convention and Tourism Fund needs revenue. As business is shifted from other Wichita hotels to the Ambassador Hotel (which is proposed to pay the city just 25 percent of its guest tax), it is likely that Wichita taxpayers will be asked to make up the missing revenue that has flowed to the Ambassador’s developers. Wichitans, contrary to the claim of “Vote Yes” backers, will pay.

Did the Wichita City Council approve this project?
Vote Yes for Wichita answer: YES, the Wichita City Council by a vote of 6-1 approved the project.

This statement is true. It is also true that the six members who voted for the project have all received generous campaign contributions from the hotel developers.

Was a comprehensive financial feasibility study conducted?
Vote Yes for Wichita answer: YES, as required by the City of Wichita, an independent financial study was conducted. The report concluded that the revenues (benefits) of the District and Project Area exceed the expenditures (costs) and that the private to public investment ratio is nearly 3-to-l.

The feasibility study referred to is the one conducted by the WSU CEDBR and referred to earlier.

Regarding the costs and benefits of this project, the WSU study produced these numbers:

                                    ROI   Cost-benefit ratio
City Fiscal Impacts General Fund  163.2%        2.63
City Fiscal Impacts Debt Service  -17.2%        0.83
City Fiscal Impacts                -9.8%        0.90

WSU evaluated the impact of the Ambassador Hotel on the City of Wichita’s finances in two areas: The impact on the city’s General Fund, and separately on the city’s Debt Service Fund. The two were combined form the total fiscal impact, which is the bottom line in this table.

Supporters of subsidy to the hotel cite only the 2.63 cost-benefit ratio to the General Fund. The City itself also cites only this figure. But the impact on the Debt Service fund is negative, and the impact in total is negative.

It’s true that the ROI and cost-benefit ratio for the General Fund are large numbers and indicate a positive investment return. But the cost of the Ambassador Hotel subsidy program to the General Fund is $290,895, while the cost to the Debt Service Fund is $7,077,831 — a cost factor 23 times as large.

Wichitans need to ask the “Vote Yes” group why they cite only economic impact that is positive and ignore the much larger negative impact. Citizens should also be asking the City of Wichita this same question.

For the state of Kansas, the WSU study shows a large positive economic impact. But the only costs to the state that the study includes is that of the sales tax exemption, which the study gives as $695,569. Remember, however, that the state is contributing $3,800,000 in tax credits, at a cost of that same amount to the state’s treasury. The WSU study does not include these costs.

CEDBR’s Hill states “CEDBR did not receive sufficient information regarding the state and federal incentives; however, the purpose of the analysis was for the benefit and cost for the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County.”

We can’t ignore the costs to taxpayers that are not included in the economic impact study. Wichitans should ask the “Vote Yes” group and Wichita officials why their focus is so narrow and why the full facts are not included.


11 thoughts on “Fact checking the Wichita Ambassador Hotel campaign”

  1. Since when did checking the facts become important to you? You failed to check the facts on Dale Dennis’ position on school fund balances even after I pointed out you were distorting his position. I guess you only check “facts” when the “facts” support your position.

  2. I will be voting YES on this referendum and will encourage everyone I know to do so as well. Even if I might not totally agree with this corporate charity, I’d vote to allow the investment group to retain the guest tax solely because you and your Koch masters are working to have the decision of the City Council overturned.

  3. CEDBR is partly funded by the mill levy that Wichita State has been collecting from City and County officials, consequently, Mr. Hill understands where his bread is butter and will never develop an assessment that will tell the whole truth about the financing. You can make the numbers fit the situation.

  4. I read the mailer I rec’d from the “yes” side, and if I hadn’t already known what the purpose of this election was, I wouldn’t have known after reading their verbiage. The average person would assume that a “no” vote means the hotel projects stops. Not true. It continues no matter which side wins. So why are we having this election? To keep the city from rebating a guest tax that would normally go into a fund for Century II and tourism from lining the pockets of the developer. So tell me, if that fund for Century II and tourism runs dry, will the developer be the one depositing money into that account or will it be us, the taxpayers of Wichita, who have to pick up the slack?

  5. Hey Prosperity,
    You’re right about those stinkin’ Koch brothers. I just signed up to sponsor someone for Big Brothers Big Sisters Bowl for Kid’s Sake, and how dare they! They’re sponsoring it. Talk abour your subversives!!!

  6. Based upon the subsidy advocates claims that the $39 million in payroll is an annual figure for the 1,102 jobs, that translates into average pay, including all benefits of barely $35,000 a year.

    Assuming that benefits are about 20% of this total figure, the jobs are going to be around $28,000 a year in payroll. Of course, this assume that this is an annual figure and not a one time figure. I suspect that the construction jobs will be a one-time figure. They will be paid while working on this project and when it is over, the job benefits depart.

    Considering the amount of city, state, and federal tax dollars that will be provide to subsidize this development, this looks like a relatively weak project. At least the state and federal tax credits are in theory available to all taxpayers instead of just be available to the select few in the case of the city subsidies to the developers.

    If this small hotel project will generate over 1K jobs and if Wichita is losing 2K Boeing jobs, it seems to me that a second hotel will offset the loss of Boeing…..in theory. In reality, two hotels will not offset the same number of departing Boeing jobs. One Boeing engineering job is likely to total in pay and benefits at least two and possibly even three of these jobs.

  7. Bob Weeks generates more data in his posts than I’ve seen in a variety of KS newspapers. The criticism of Nash seems to be tied to other issues than the subject of this post and seems out of place for this discussion. How sad.

    Bob deserves credit for keeping this type of non sequitor posted on this blog. Ditto for AfP’s post.

  8. The Yes Vote mailing failed to disclose the voting objective which is the Guest Tax Subsidy that I believe the Hotel Devleopers requested in their dealings with the City of Wichita. I believe to request 15 years at an estimated annual rebate of $ 150,000 has crossed the line from a charity request to a greed request, period !!

  9. Poor Westie. The only thing that is sad is that you don’t read my posts. If fact checking is so important to Bob, don’t you think he should check the facts himself instead of distorting a state official’s position? Maybe you should learn the “facts” before commenting.

  10. The Ambassador has barely produced 50 jobs and is not running at any level of hotel standards. They are also refusing basic health care for most of all the hourly employees by refusing to allow them over 33 hours. Thus avoiding the healthcare coverage they all so desperately needing. This developer should. To be allowed to continue to receive tax credits when they owe multiple vendors and continue to not pay their debt.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>