Voice For Liberty

Tag: James Clendenin

Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin

  • The power and influence of the Wichita mayor

    The power and influence of the Wichita mayor

    When pursuing a large Wichita city contract, did the winning company lobby all council members, or primarily Mayor Jeff Longwell?

    The role of Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell in the awarding of the contract for the new Wichita water plant has been in the news. A recent Wichita Eagle article showed how the mayor steered the award to a company other than the company recommended by the city’s selection committee. 1

    Central to the story is the relationship between the mayor and the company he favored. There was, according to Eagle reporting, a close relationship including a cash gift that was not disclosed 2 and some eerily chummy emails. 3

    The mayor, however, downplayed his role. In a response from Longwell posted on the city’s Facebook page, he said he is part of a team: “A team that deliberately keeps each other in check. We question and challenge each step, and that is an intentional process designed to ensure we have the best deal for our city.” 4

    Some council members agree. In the Eagle article, two council members were interviewed, Brandon Johnson (district 1, northeast Wichita) and James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita):

    Johnson and Clendenin both downplayed Longwell’s role in awarding the contract, saying the mayor is just one vote.

    “You give the mayor too much credit,” Johnson said.

    “Yeah, this idea that the mayor of the city of Wichita has enough power to make any decision he would like is something that I think is a misconception,” Clendenin said.

    What, then, is the power of the mayor to lead or steer the council in his preferred direction?

    The answer to this question holds the answer: Did the winning company (Wichita Water Partners) lobby, flatter, or gift any Wichita City Council members with anything approaching the consideration directed to Mayor Jeff Longwell?

    —
    Notes

    1. Swaim, Chance. Wichita’s mayor steered multi-million-dollar water plant contract to friends. Wichita Eagle, September 29, 2019. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article234701932.html. ↩
    2. “Before Longwell cast the deciding vote, the president of one of the Water Partners’ companies paid for Longwell to enter a $1,000-per-person charity golf tournament. … Nor did Longwell disclose the $1,000 entry fee on a state ethics form for local officials that he filed in February.” ↩
    3. “They frequently referred to each other in emails by nicknames — Your Eminence, His Highness, Homecoming Queen, Eye Candy, Jethro and Wine Delivery Guy, after Young, the president of PEC, offered to drop off to Longwell leftover wine from a previous dinner party.” ↩
    4. Longwell, Jeff. City of Wichita Facebook page. Available at https://www.facebook.com/cityofwichita/posts/2535037446542240. ↩
  • Starlite loan isn’t needed

    Starlite loan isn’t needed

    The Wichita City Council seems poised to enter an unnecessarily complicated transaction.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider a loan to the operator of the Starlite Drive-In Theater in Wichita. According to city documents, the proposal is for a five-year loan of $200,000 with an annual interest rate of one percent. The city is requiring both a personal guarantee and a letter of credit, presumably from a reputable bank. 1

    We have to wonder why the city asks for both a letter of credit and a personal guarantee. When issuing a letter of credit, a bank will be careful. It is, in effect, making a promise to issue credit to a borrower (the operator of the Starlite) if the borrower does not perform according to the agreement with the city. That alone ought to be enough security.

    Moreover, if a bank has enough confidence in a customer to issue a letter of credit for $200,000, it would probably make a loan for the same amount. But that would cost more than one percent in interest.

    This is really what the city is doing: Reducing the cost of a loan that a borrower ought to be able to obtain on his own.

    Given this, why doesn’t the city simply subsidize the interest cost of the loan? I don’t know what rate a bank would charge this borrower, but it might be 12 percent or so. Then the borrower would have interest costs of $24,000 per year as compared to $2,000 per year for the City of Wichita loan. If the city would simply pay the borrower the difference between the two, things would be much simpler for the city. It wouldn’t have to worry about the loan being repaid.

    Well, the city shouldn’t have to worry about repayment, because of the letter of credit. But if the borrower qualifies for that, he can also qualify for a loan.

    There are other reasons why the city shouldn’t get involved in the Starlite theater, but if it must, let’s try to keep things simple. Based on what we know so far, I don’t think we’re being told the entire story.

    Further evidence of lack of transparency is that this matter has been elevated to an emergency. According to city documents, the mayor will make this declaration regarding the enabling ordinance: “I, Jeff Longwell, Mayor of the City of Wichita, Kansas, hereby request that the City Council declare that a public emergency exists requiring the final adoption and passage on the day of its introduction, to wit, December 18, 2018 …” 2

    —

    Notes

    1. “The $200,000 loan from the City will be structured to be repaid over five years as an interest only loan with an interest rate of 1% per annum, with quarterly interest payments for the first four years. The borrower will pay one-twelfth of the principal amount plus interest in each month of year five. The borrower is Blake Smith through Starlite, LLC, a Kansas limited liability company. Smith will provide the City with a personal guarantee as well as a letter of credit securing the entire loan. The letter of credit will be structured as a declining letter of credit. If any principal amount of the loan is prepaid, the letter of credit can be reduced by an equal amount. For instance, if $25,000 is paid at the end of year one, the letter of credit may be reduced to $175,000, the remaining balance of the loan.” City of Wichita, Agenda Packet for December 18, 2018. Item V-5. ↩
    2. REQUEST FOR DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY
      REQUEST OF THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, FOR THE DECLARATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY OF THE EXISTENCE OF A PUBLIC EMERGENCY REQUIRING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE BELOW DESIGNATED.
      TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS:
      I, Jeff Longwell, Mayor of the City of Wichita, Kansas, hereby request that the City Council declare that a public emergency exists requiring the final adoption and passage on the day of its introduction, to wit, December 18, 2018 of an ordinance entitled:
      ORDINANCE NO. _____
      AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE 50-585 OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, PERTAINING TO HYATT GRANT PROCEEDS FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, GRANTS AND GRANT PROGRAMS
      The general nature of such public emergency lies in the need to pass and publish this ordinance to authorize the release of funds for the purchase of special digital projection equipment and for costs related to its installation for Wichita’s Starlite Drive-In, which was recently purchased by an anonymous buyer to prevent its closure.
      It is therefore expedient at this time that the City Council find and determine that a public emergency exists by reason of the foregoing and that the above entitled Ordinance be finally adopted on the day of its introduction.
      Executed at Wichita, Kansas on this day of December 18, 2018.
      MAYOR OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS. ibid. ↩
  • On big contracts, Wichita has had problems

    On big contracts, Wichita has had problems

    As Wichita prepares to award a large construction contract, let’s hope the city acts in an ethical manner this time.

    As the Wichita City Council prepares to make a decision regarding a contract for the new baseball stadium, the council’s past reputation in these matters can’t be overlooked.

    The controversy over the stadium contract has been covered by the Wichita Eagle: “The Wichita City Council hasn’t officially approved a design-build team for the city’s new $75 million Minor League ballpark, but there’s already been a protest over the recommended group. … At issue in a protest by a competing team is whether the JE Dunn team meets a key requirement to be selected, which is that it has built at least three similar Major or Minor League ballparks.” 1

    The biggest potential for unethical behavior comes from Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell. In 2012, as the Wichita city council was considering the award of the contract for the new airport terminal, Longwell (then a council member) received campaign contributions from executives of Walbridge, a Michigan construction company partnering with Key Construction to build the new Wichita airport terminal. 2

    Two Walbridge contributions were made on July 16, 2012, the day before the council, Longwell included, voted to award the contract to the Key/Walbridge partnership. More contributions from Walbridge arrived on July 20, according to Longwell’s campaign finance reports.

    When questioned about the Michigan contributions, Longwell told the Wichita Eagle, “We often get contributions from a wide variety of sources, including out-of-town people.” But analysis of past campaign finance documents filed by Longwell showed just three out-of-state contributions totaling $1,500. 3

    In deciding the airport contract issue, the council was asked to make decisions involving whether discretion was abused or whether laws were improperly applied. It’s not surprising that Jeff Longwell made these decisions in favor of his campaign contributors. But he shouldn’t have been involved in the decision.

    That was not the first time Jeff Longwell has placed the interests of his campaign contributors ahead of taxpayers. In 2011 the city council, with Longwell’s vote, decided to award Key a no-bid contract to build the parking garage that is part of the Ambassador Hotel project. The no-bid cost of the garage was to be $6 million, according to a letter of intent. Later the city decided to place the contract for competitive bid. Key Construction won the bidding, but for a price $1.3 million less.

    It’s not only Longwell with problematic behavior in the past. In 2012, before the vote on the airport contract, executives of Key Construction and spouses contributed heavily to the campaigns of both Wichita City Council Member Lavonta Williams (district 1, northeast Wichita) and Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita). These contributions were not known to the public until months after the vote was cast.

    Williams is no longer on the council, but Clendenin remains.

    Former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer had his own issues, with a curious set of ethics principles. 4

    The city needs an adult in the room. That person is, or should be, Wichita city manager Robert Layton. In the past he has implemented policies to end the practice of no-bid contracts. We don’t know what will happen this week.

    —
    Notes

    1. Rengers, Carrie. City selects ballpark design-build group; competing bidder questions qualifications. Wichita Eagle, November 29, 2018. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/carrie-rengers/article222372330.html (subscription may be required). ↩
    2. “A campaign finance report filed by Wichita City Council Member Jeff Longwell contains contributions from executives associated with Walbridge, a Michigan construction company partnering with Key Construction to build the new Wichita airport terminal. … These contributions are of interest because on July 17, 2012, the Wichita City Council, sitting in a quasi-judicial capacity, made a decision in favor of Key and Walbridge that will cost some group of taxpayers or airport customers an extra $2.1 million. Five council members, including Longwell, voted in favor of this decision. Two members were opposed.” Weeks, Bob. Michigan company involved in disputed Wichita airport contract contributes to Jeff Longwell. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/michigan-company-involved-in-disputed-wichita-airport-contract-contributes-to-jeff-longwell/. ↩
    3. “Analysis of Longwell’s July 30, 2012 campaign finance report shows that the only contributions received from addresses outside Kansas are the Walbridge contributions from Michigan, which contradicts Longwell’s claim. Additionally, analysis of ten recent campaign finance reports filed by Longwell going back to 2007 found three contributions totaling $1,500 from California addresses.” Weeks, Bob. Jeff Longwell out-of-town campaign contributions. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/jeff-longwell-out-of-town-campaign-contributions/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. The odd ethics of Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/odd-ethics-wichita-mayor-carl-brewer/. ↩
  • Wichita being sued, alleging improper handling of bond repayment savings

    Wichita being sued, alleging improper handling of bond repayment savings

    A lawsuit claims that when the City of Wichita refinanced its special assessment bonds, it should have passed on the savings to the affected taxpayers, and it did not do that.

    A lawsuit filed in Sedgwick County District Court charges that the City of Wichita improperly handled the savings realized when it refinanced special assessment bonds at a lower interest rate. The case is 2018-CV-001567-CF, filed on July 13, 2018, and available here.

    The suit names David L. Snodgrass and Leslie J. Snodgrass as plaintiffs, and a long list of defendants, namely:

    • The City of Wichita, Kansas
    • Wichita City Manager Robert Layton
    • Wichita Finance Director Shawn Henning and Former Wichita Finance Director Kelly Carpenter
    • Wichita City Clerk Karen Sublett
    • Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell and former Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer
    • Current Wichita City Councilmembers Brandon Johnson, Pete Meitzner, James Clendenin, Jeff Blubaugh, Bryan Frye, and Cindy Claycomb
    • Former Wichita City Councilmembers Lavonta Williams, Janet Miller, Sue Schlapp, Paul Gray, Jeff Longwell, Jim Skelton, and Michael O’Donnell
    • Springsted Incorporated
    • Gilmore And Bell, A Professional Corporation
    • Kutak Rock, LLP
    • Sedgwick County Treasurer Linda Kizzire

    The suit asks for a class to be created consisting of “all other affected land owners paying excess special assessments,” which would, undoubtedly, be many thousands of land owners. No specific amount of relief is requested.

    The suit’s basis

    The city borrows money by issuing bonds to fund improvements to (generally) new neighborhoods. These bonds pay for things like residential streets, water pipes, and sewer lines. The debt service for these bonds, that is, the money needed to make the bond payments, is charged to benefitting property owners in the form of special assessment taxes, often called “specials.” These specials are separate from the general property taxes that are charged to all property.

    General property taxes are based on a property’s assessed value multiplied by a mill levy rate. Specials, however, are based on the cost of the infrastructure and the payments needed to retire the debt. This amount is determined at the time bonds are sold and the repayment schedule is established. (Bond payments depend on the amount borrowed, the length of the repayment period, and the interest rate. All this is known at the time the bonds are issued.)

    These specials usually last 15 years, and after paid, no longer appear on a property’s tax bill. Sometimes special assessments are prepaid.

    What the city did, and didn’t do, according to plaintiffs

    During the last decade, interest rates on long-term bonds generally fell. In response, the city issued refunding bonds. These bonds took advantage of low interest rates by paying off old bonds that had higher interest rates, replacing them with bonds with lower interest rates. The lawsuit alleges that since 2009, the city has issued $216 million in refunding bonds saving $60.2 million, according to city documents cited in the lawsuit. The suit does not specify how much of this savings is attributed to special assessment bonds.

    So the city refinanced special assessment debt at a lower rate, reducing the cost of the debt. That’s good. Homeowners often do this when mortgage rates are low, and it’s good that the city does this too.

    The problem, according to the lawsuit, is that some of the refinanced debt was special assessment debt. The lawsuit contends that, based on Kansas law, the city should have passed on the savings to the property owners that were paying off this special assessment debt. Instead, says the suit, “the City of Wichita transferred the excess special assessment money paid by affected Wichita taxpayers to support its general fund and/or other municipal funds.” In other words, the city spent the savings on other things, when it should have directed the savings to land owners who were paying the special taxes.

    Plaintiffs allege that the conduct of the city and its advisors constitutes fraud against those paying special assessment taxes:

    The fraudulent actions of Defendant City of Wichita, along with the other Wichita Defendants, and Defendants Springsted, Gilmore and Bell and Kutak Rock resulted in the misappropriation of millions of dollars of “saved” tax payments that should have been returned to Plaintiffs along with all other affected land owners paying special assessments levied under the General Improvement and Assessment Laws of the State of Kansas.

    Further, the suit alleges that the liability faced by many of the defendants is personal:

    Because the Wichita Defendants actively participated in the fraud practiced by Defendant City of Wichita, they cannot escape personal liability for the fraudulent actions of the City of Wichita upon Plaintiffs and all other affected land owners paying special assessments.

    While there is one named party as plaintiff, the suit alleges that all similarly situated persons have been harmed, and so a class action is appropriate. That would be all property owners who have paid special assessment taxes to Wichita since 2009, including myself.

  • From Pachyderm: Local legislative priorities

    From Pachyderm: Local legislative priorities

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Local government officials present their legislative priorities. Appearing are James Clendenin for the City of Wichita, Dave Unruh for Sedgwick County, and Sheril Logan for the Wichita Public School District. This was recorded December 22, 2017.

  • From Pachyderm: Legislative Agendas for 2017

    From Pachyderm: Legislative Agendas for 2017

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club this week: Representatives of local governments presented issues important to them in the upcoming session of the Kansas Legislature. Presenters were:

    • Sheril Logan, board member for Wichita Public Schools. The material she presented to the audience is here.
    • James Clendenin, Wichita City Council. His presentation is here.
    • Jim Howell, Sedgwick County Commission. A link to the county’s legislative agenda is here.

    This is an audio presentation recorded on January 6, 2017.

  • CID and other incentives approved in downtown Wichita

    CID and other incentives approved in downtown Wichita

    The Wichita City Council approves economic development incentives, but citizens should not be proud of the discussion and deliberation.

    Today’s meeting of the Wichita City Council saw the council discuss and approve economic development incentives for a project in downtown Wichita.

    The item contemplated economic development incentives for redevelopment of an empty building in downtown Wichita to become a Hilton Garden Inn Hotel. The incentives being considered were a Community Improvement District (CID), Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB), a parking agreement, and a skywalk easement. The discussion by the council was useful for revealing two members who are opposed to some targeted economic development incentives, but it also showed a troubling lack of knowledge and consideration by others.

    Property tax

    The hotel is requesting industrial revenue bonds. These bonds do not mean the city is lending any money. Instead, IRBs in Kansas are a mechanism to convey property tax abatements and sales tax exemptions.

    The agenda packet for this item states: “[Hotel developer] WDH is not requesting abatement of property taxes in conjunction with the IRBs.”1 This is presented as a magnanimous gesture, as something the hotel developers (WDH) could have requested, but did not, presumably out of some sort of civic duty.

    But: Property tax abatements may not be granted within the boundaries of a TIF district, which this hotel is located within.2 3 So the developers did not request something that they are not entitled to request. This is not news. Nonetheless, several council members were grateful.

    As to property taxes, Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) asked what would be the increase in value in the building, once finished. Later Wichita City Council Member Jeff Blubaugh (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) praised the property taxes that will be paid. He also mentioned the “nearly-empty parking garage.” When the city built this garage and accompanying retail space it was to be a showpiece, but has been suffering from blight and lack of tenants paying market rates for rent.4

    Asking about tax abatements, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) asked “They didn’t apply for other …” His voice trailed off before finishing the question, but the “other” tax abatement that could be applied for is the property tax abatement. Except, the law does not allow for a property tax abatement for this project.

    All these questions alluded to the increased property taxes the renovated building will pay. Except, being within a TIF district, property taxes may not be abated. So where will the hotel’s property taxes go?

    First, the property tax generated by the present value of the property (the “base”) will be distributed as before. But the increment — which will be substantial — will go to the TIF district, not the city, county, and school district. Except: This is an unusual TIF district, in that an agreement between the city and county provides that only 70 percent of the incremental property taxes will go to the TIF district, with the remainder being distributed as usual. This was not mentioned during today’s discussion.

    There was talk about a “gap.” Some economic development incentives require documenting of a “financing gap” that makes the project not economically feasible. But that is not required for the incentives considered for this hotel.

    Sales tax

    Regarding the sales tax exemption: City document do not state how much sales tax will be forgiven, so we’re left to speculate. Previous city documents5 indicate spending $3,000,000 on furniture and fixtures, which is taxable. Sales tax on this is $225,000.

    The same city document mentioned spending of $6,250,000 on construction of the hotel, and of $1,000,000 for construction of retail space. Sales tax on this combined total is $543,750. Based on material from the Kansas Department of Revenue, these amounts would be due if not for the action of the city council.6

    In total, the development of this hotel will escape paying $768,750 in sales tax. It should be noted that Kansas is one of the few states that charges sales tax on groceries at the same rate as other purchases, making Kansas food sales tax among the highest in the nation.7

    Curiously, council members Clendenin and Williams, who represent low-income districts where families may be struggling to buy groceries — and the sales tax on them — did not object to this special sales tax treatment for a commercial developer.

    No more cash?

    In his remarks, the mayor talked about how we can continue with economic development “without handing cash to corporations.” But when a project is going to buy materials and services on which $768,750 in sales tax is normally due, and the city council takes action to extinguish that liability, well, that’s better than cash to the receiver.

    Good news

    Kudos to Wichita City Council Member Bryan Frye (district 5, west and northwest Wichita), who actually cited the United States Constitution in his statement from the bench. He said that the issues surrounding this project are a far cry from what our Founding Fathers envisioned as the role of government, saying “I struggle with using city resources to collect and distribute sales tax for the sole benefit of one commercial entity.” He offered a substitute motion which would have approved all the parts of the agreement except for the CID tax. His motion failed, with only he and Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell voting in favor.

    On the original motion, which was to approve all parts of the incentive agreement, Longwell and Frye voted in opposition, with everyone else voting in favor.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. Agenda packet for September 6, 2016. Available here. ↩
    2. “Certain property, even though funded by industrial revenue bonds, does not qualify for exemption: … property located in a redevelopment project area established under K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq. cannot be exempt from taxation.” Kansas Department of Revenue. Property Tax Abatements. Available at www.ksrevenue.org/taxincent-proptaxabate.html. Also, Kansas Department of Commerce. Industrial Revenue Bond Exemptions. Available at www.kansascommerce.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1082. ↩
    3. Gilmore & Bell PC. Economic Development tools. Available here. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. As landlord, Wichita has a few issues. Available at http://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/landlord-wichita-issues/. ↩
    5. Wichita City Council Agenda packet for August 16, 2016. Available at wichita.gov/Government/Council/Agendas/08-16-2016%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    6. “General rule: Materials are taxable.” (p. 4) Also: “Taxable labor services in Kansas are the services of installing, applying, servicing, repairing, altering, or maintaining tangible personal property performed on real property projects in the general category of commercial remodel work.” (p. 8) Kansas Department of Revenue. Sales & Use Tax for Contractors, Subcontractors, and Repairmen. Available at www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/pub1525.pdf. ↩
    7. Food sales tax a point of shame for Kansas. Wichita Eagle. January 25, 2016. Available at http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article56532903.html. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: News media, hollow Kansas government, ideology vs. pragmatism

    WichitaLiberty.TV: News media, hollow Kansas government, ideology vs. pragmatism

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: New outlets for news, and criticism of the existing. Is Kansas government “hollowed out?” Ideology and pragmatism. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 124, broadcast July 17, 2016.

    Shownotes

  • In Wichita, Meitzner, Clendenin sow seeds of distrust

    In Wichita, Meitzner, Clendenin sow seeds of distrust

    Comments by two Wichita city council members give citizens more reasons to be cynical and distrusting of politicians.

    In a recent Facebook post that someone sent to me, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) wrote: “Hmmmm…..of note; Wichita is the only sizable city in Kansas that does not ADD any sales tax on top of the State and Sedgwick County sales tax rate.”

    Pete Meitzner sales tax Facebook 2016-07-06

    It is astonishing that council member Meitzner would brag of this — that Wichita has no city sales tax. That’s because Meitzner, along with all council members but one, voted to place the sales tax measure on the November 2014 ballot. Wichita voters rejected that sales tax, with 62 percent of voters voting “No.”1

    Meitzner is not the only council member to brag of no city sales tax in Wichita. Just a month after the November 2014 election in which Wichita voters rejected the sales tax, Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) said, in a council meeting, “thanks to a vote we just had, [Wichita] has zero municipal sales tax.”2

    I wonder: If the Wichita city sales tax had passed, would Meitzner and Clendenin feel the same way?

    The answer is “No.” If the sales tax had passed, I believe Wichita city council members Pete Meitzner and James Clendenin would be congratulating themselves on the wisdom and foresight that led them to allow Wichitans to vote on the tax. They would be boasting of their ability to gauge the sentiment of public opinion. They would be proud of the investment they are making in Wichita’s future.

    That’s important to remember. The city council, at its initiative, decided to place the sales tax on the ballot. Why would the council do this if it did not believe the tax was a good thing for the city?

    Because if the tax would not be good for Wichita, then we have to wonder: Why did the Wichita City Council — including Pete Meitzner and James Clendenin — decide that the people of Wichita should vote on a sales tax? Was it a whim? A flight of fancy? Just a poll to gauge public opinion, without binding meaning?

    Anyone can conduct a poll of public opinion. But when the Wichita city council places a measure on the ballot asking whether there should be a sales tax, the results have meaning. The results are binding. There will be a new tax, if a majority of voters agree.

    Say, what should we ask the city council to let us vote on this November?

    We have to ask: Why would Wichita city council members allow Wichitans to vote on a tax they didn’t — personally — believe in? There is no good answer to this question. So when we see city council members boasting of no city sales tax in Wichita, remember this was not their preference. This is especially important because the city told us we needed to spend $250 million of the tax on a new water supply. Now we know that we can satisfy our future needs by spending much less, at least $100 million less.3

    Lily Tomlin once said “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.” Here we have two Wichita city council members illustrating and reinforcing the truth of Tomlin’s observation.

    —
    Notes

    1. Sedgwick County Election Office. November 4th, 2014 General Election Official Results – Sedgwick County. Available at www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/election_results/Gen14/index.html. ↩
    2. City of Wichita. Minutes of city council meeting, December 2, 2014. Page 9. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, the phased approach to water supply can save a bundle. wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-phased-approach-water-supply-can-save-bundle/. ↩