Voice For Liberty

Category: Wichita city government

  • Wichita and Sedgwick County Agenda Deadlines Are Too Short

    Both the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County have policies that limit citizens’ ability to address these bodies on timely matters. Each body requires, effectively, at least one week notice to appear on the public agenda. That’s the part of the meeting where citizens can speak about any topic, not just those matters that are being considered that day.

    Here’s an example of how these restrictive deadlines work against citizens. On December 2, John Todd and I spoke at the Wichita city council meeting, as part of a public hearing. As shown in the posts Wichita TIF Public Hearing Was Bait and Switch and Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing, the public hearing was defective. Further, there’s a time factor involved, in that the city council set in motion a process that must be resolved within 30 days. With the upcoming holidays, time is tight.

    So John called the Wichita city clerk, but we can’t get on the agenda for the next city council meeting. By the time we can get on the agenda, it’s nearly too late for the council to take the action we’d like to ask of them.

    A reasonable policy is this: When something happens in a meeting one week, there should be time for citizens to get on the public agenda for the next meeting.

    The policy of the Wichita City Council is “Members of the public desiring to present matters to the council on the public agenda must submit a request in writing to the office of the city manager prior to twelve noon on the Tuesday preceding the council meeting.”

    For Sedgwick County, I wasn’t able to find a policy on its website, but while watching today’s commission meeting on television, chairman Winters asked the public to contact the county manager’s office “at least a week or ten days before our meeting” if they wanted to address the commission.

    Note: when an item is on the agenda, citizens usually get to speak about the item. The public agenda is where citizens can speak about items that may or may not be on the meeting’s agenda.

  • Jeff Fluhr’s Decision

    At the December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, Jeff Fluhr, the new president of the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, spoke on behalf of the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

    Attending the meeting with him were several members of that organization’s board of directors, headed by Joe Johnson of Schaefer Johnson Cox Frey Architecture. This board, emblematic of the “good ol’ boy” network, is stocked with those who seek to profit in the halls of government power rather than in the marketplace where consumers rule. It’s easier that way — no pesky consumers with their varied wants and desires.

    The problem Mr. Fluhr faces is that in order to lure developers to downtown Wichita, incentives must be offered. Now some on the Wichita city council act as though incentives come at no cost. The proceeds from TIF financing, they say, are used only for infrastructure, as though this is something the city is obliged to provide. But as I show in my post Many Wichita Developers Pay for Infrastructure, market-based developers pay for their infrastructure. The city doesn’t give away much to them.

    The TIF developers, they being the political entrepreneurs, are privileged to use their own property taxes to pay for their infrastructure, and for other things, too. This sets up a situation where the city, through its attempts at centralized planning, thwarts the will of the people by forcing Wichitans to subsidize developers who are lured — “incentivized,” as one city council member put it — to develop where politicians want them to.

    This sets up a tension. Citizens are starting to realize the reality of the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the political entrepreneurs, and they don’t like it. They’re starting to realize that public/private partnerships mean the public takes the risk, and the “privates” earn the profits. This is far removed from capitalism, which is what we need to build the wealth of our city. “Crony capitalism” is a better term for the relationship between the TIF district developers and local government officials.

    Then there’s the defect in the process surrounding the public hearing before the Wichita city council. As Randy Brown wrote about this meeting: “Among other transgressions, we had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue.” Mr. Fluhr needs to decide if he’s on the side of open and transparent government, or whether he’s in favor of crony capitalism and the good ol’ boy network. If he would request that the City of Wichita withdraw this TIF district until a proper public hearing is held, we’d get a good indication of his thinking. Of course, if he doesn’t make such a request, we’ll know just as well.

    Finally, Mr. Fluhr stated in his presentation to the Wichita city council: “[The TIF district] will greatly contribute to Wichita’s development as a destination river city, which will in turn enhance the economic vitality of downtown and the community at large.” (emphasis added)

    I would ask that Mr. Fluhr and the citizens of Wichita familiarize themselves with the research to the contrary. A number of studies tell us that TIF districts, while good for the subsidized developers, are not a good deal for the city as a whole. As economists Dye and Merriman (see below) found out: “We find evidence that the non-TIF areas of municipalities that use TIF grow no more rapidly, and perhaps more slowly, than similar municipalities that do not use TIF.”

    Kenneth A. Kriz: Tax Increment Financing: Its Effect on Local Government Finances
    Dye, Richard and David Merriman: Tax Increment Financing: A Tool for Local Economic Development
    Dye, Richard and David Merriman: The Effects of Tax Increment Financing on Economic Development
    Danny Santivasci: Tax Increment Financing: Private Investment at the Expense of Local Community

  • Wichita Penalizes Companies Through Taxation

    Five years ago, the City of Wichita granted Big Dog Motorcycles industrial revenue bonds (IRB). The benefit of these bonds is that the company escapes paying property tax (and often sales tax) on the property purchased with the proceeds from the bonds.

    At the December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, the council reviewed the tax abatement to see if the company had lived up to the projections and promises it made as part of its application for the IRBs. Unfortunately for this company, their fortunes have reversed, and while at one time their employment was above what they committed to, their present employment is less than half what it was five years ago.

    There are two illuminating things to take from this video clip. First, council member Jim Skelton wonders why the benefit-to-cost ratio for Sedgwick County is negative, but city staff still recommends approving the tax abatement. Allen Bell, Wichita’s director of urban development, didn’t know why. No council members except for Skelton seemed to be bothered by this.

    But what’s really troubling is this quote from Bell: “I don’t think it would be productive at this time to further penalize them — as the market has already penalized them — by putting them back on the tax rolls at this time.”

    So is taxation by the City of Wichita equivalent to a penalty? That’s what Mr. Bell seems to be saying.

    Further, the fact that the council voted to extend the tax abatements because this company is going through lean times is tacit recognition that property taxes are bad for business. I wonder how many companies have gone out of business because Wichita’s taxes were too high? And how many companies are never formed, or have put off expansion plans because of Wichita’s taxes? Here’s an example of one: Wichita Taxes Cancel Development.

  • Letters to Wichita City Council and Sedgwick County Commission Regarding Downtown Wichita TIF District

    John Todd has prepared letters that we hope will influence local governments regarding the downtown Wichita TIF district. One, to the Wichita City Council, asks them to conduct a proper public hearing. A second letter to the Sedgwick County Commissioners asks them to not consider passing this TIF district until Wichita conducts a proper public hearing. A third is a letter to the Wichita Eagle explaining citizens’ concerns.

    If you’d like to sign these letters, please contact John Todd at john@johntodd.net. Here’s the one to the Wichita City Council:

    Mayor Carl Brewer
    Wichita City Council Members
    Wichita City Hall
    Wichita, Kansas

    Subject: Citizens request for a new and open City Council public hearing before implementing the Center City South Redevelopment TIF District, commonly known as the downtown Wichita arena TIF district.

    The December 2, 2008 public hearing as conducted by the Wichita City Council concerning the expansion of the Center City South Redevelopment TIF District was not a true and meaningful public hearing. Therefore, we ask that you withdraw the proposal until a proper public hearing can be held before the City Council. This issue needs to be sent to the District Advisory Boards (DAB) for their review. Wichita citizens in general and DAB boards both need all the details and a complete cost analysis for this TIF district scheme.

    Let me refer you to Randy Brown’s letter in the Eagle (see “Reopen TIF issue” Dec. 7), referring to Bob Weeks’ letter in the Eagle (see “TIF public hearing was bait and switch” Dec. 5) that hit the nail on the head by saying, “conducting the public’s business in secret causes citizens to lose respect for government officials and corrupts the process of democracy.” Brown further states, “… we (the people) had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue. The Wichita officials involved should publicly apologize, and the issue should be reopened. And this time, the public should be properly notified.”

    The citizens of this community deserve open, honest, and transparent government. The Wichita City Council needs to hold a new and open public hearing on this issue before proceeding with the implementation of this project.

  • The Process Should Be Most Important

    Rhonda Holman’s editorial from yesterday’s Wichita Eagle (Parking plan finally coming together) contains this paragraph:

    A confusing move last week by the Wichita City Council didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately. Without time for public consideration, city leaders added up to $10 million for parking structures to the proposed tax-increment financing plan for the 16-block area around the arena; the council unanimously approved the plan Tuesday. There are good reasons for the council’s action, which simply puts parking in the mix of things that up to $10 million in TIF money can fund in the future along with street improvements, sidewalks, lighting, signage and other basics. But the last-minute handling left much of the public out of the public hearing, raising suspicions that the council sought to slide in the parking dollars under the radar.

    Look at the language here: “confusing move … didn’t help build public trust, unfortunately.” “left much of the public out of the public hearing,” “raising suspicions,” “under the radar.”

    This type of action is corrosive to the democratic process. I think that Ms. Holman realizes that, but she won’t call for the city council to take the proper action, which would be to hold a proper public hearing. No parking facility — indeed, nothing the city could ever build — is so important that it should be approved through this type of process.

  • Wichita Taxes Cancel Development

    Carrie Rengers’ Wichita Eagle column from yesterday (Warehouse plans near airport are called off) reports on two Wichita real estate developers who have canceled a project that would be a valuable addition to our city. The reason for canceling? Wichita’s property tax environment.

    In Wichita, we’re separating real estate development into two classes. There are those who listen to markets and consumers, and try to satisfy the needs that they sense. These are the market entrepreneurs.

    Then, there are the political entrepreneurs. These developers make use of devices such as tax increment financing (TIF districts) to offload large portions of the cost of their developments on the public. They do this by pleasing government officials and bureaucrats, not consumers.

  • Many Wichita developers pay for infrastructure

    A frequent and valued commenter on this blog wrote a comment a few days ago that contains a factual error. I think it’s important to understand this error, because it goes to the heart of the difference between developers working in TIF districts and those who aren’t. Here’s the comment:

    The thing is that real estate developers do not invest in public streets, sidewalks and lamp posts, because there would be no incentive to do so. Why spend millions of dollars redoing or constructing public streets when you can not get a return on investment for that.

    I think this perception, wrong as it is, is common: that when we see developers building something, the City of Wichita magically builds the supporting infrastructure, and at no cost to the developers. But it isn’t quite so. A while ago I had done some research to make sure I correctly understood the relationship between the city and real estate developers. I chose a development on the east side of Wichita, mostly because I live nearby and was familiar with the project. Here’s what I found when I searched for City of Wichita resolutions concerning this project:

    03-637 Water Distribution System Number 448-89901: $54,000
    04-571 Lateral 47, Main 24, War Industries Sewer: $52,500
    04-570 Water Distribution System Number 448-90011: $83,000
    04-572 Left and right turn lanes on 13th Street: $310,000
    05-264 Traffic signalization at the intersection of Waterfront Parkway and Webb Road: $120,000
    05-259 Storm Water Drain No. 189: $400,000
    05-265 Street lighting system: $125,000
    05-262 Left and right turn lanes on Webb Road: $393,000
    05-260 Waterfront Parkway from the North line of 13th Street to the East line of Webb Road: $1,672,000
    03-347 Street lighting system: $125,000

    The total cost of these projects is $3,334,500, and I’m pretty sure I didn’t find all the resolutions and costs pertaining to this project.

    Who pays these amounts? The developers whose project benefited from these improvements. They pay it all: water systems, sewer systems, turn lanes on existing streets, new street construction, traffic lights, etc.

    In a TIF district, these things are called “infrastructure” and will be paid for by the development’s property taxes. Outside of TIF districts, developers pay for these things themselves.

  • Randy Brown: Reopen Downtown Wichita Arena TIF Public Hearing

    In a letter in yesterday’s Wichita Eagle, Randy Brown comments on my recent op-ed piece in the same newspaper. He is senior fellow at the Elliott School of Communication at Wichita State University, and also the executive director of the Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government. He’s done a lot to promote openness and transparency in government. His experience as an editorial writer for the Wichita Eagle shows in his use of vividly descriptive language like “under cover of Monday evening’s darkness” and “aggravated assault on its spirit.” I wish I could write like that.

    Here’s Randy’s letter:

    Reopen TIF issue

    I’m fairly well acquainted with Bob Weeks, our extraconservative government watchdog. It’s fair to say that I agree with Weeks no more than one time in every 20 issues. But that one time is crucial to our democracy.

    Weeks is dead-on target when he says that conducting the public’s business in secret causes citizens to lose respect for government officials and corrupts the process of democracy (“TIF public hearing was bait and switch,” Dec. 5 Opinion). And that’s what happened when significant 11th-hour changes to the already controversial and questionable tax-increment financing plan for the downtown arena neighborhood were sneaked onto the Wichita City Council’s Tuesday agenda, essentially under cover of Monday evening’s darkness.

    This may not have been a technical violation of the Kansas Open Meetings Act, but it was an aggravated assault on its spirit. Among other transgressions, we had a mockery of the public hearing process rather than an open and transparent discussion of a contentious public issue.

    The Wichita officials involved should publicly apologize, and the issue should be reopened. And this time, the public should be properly notified.

    Randy Brown
    Executive director
    Kansas Sunshine Coalition for Open Government
    Wichita

  • Sharon Fearey’s Bad Joke

    At the Tuesday December 2, 2008 meeting of the Wichita City Council, a property owner was present. This man, owner of the Nifty Nut House, a popular store for nuts and treats, was in front of the council when council member Sharon Fearey asked this question:

    “Do we all get free nuts or anything?”

    (Laughter from the council and audience.)

    “Just kidding! You can’t buy our vote!”

    It’s troubling to me when elected officials think things like this are funny. Why was she even thinking of this? The Nifty Nut House has great products. I was thinking about them as I sat in the audience at this meeting. But why did council member Sharon Fearey think it would be funny to suggest that the council members get free nuts?

    Incidents like this are why citizens have a poor attitude towards government and its officials.