In each city council district, the top two candidates move to the general election in November. This means in district 3, Mike Hoheisel will face the newly-appointed incumbent Jared Cerullo. In district 6, Maggie Ballard runs against incumbent Cindy Claycomb.
The Save Century II committee presented a forum of candidates for Wichita City Council District 6. There are six candidates. The primary election is August 3, 2021, and the two candidates with the most votes advance to the general election on November 2, 2021. (more…)
The Wichita city council will consider an ethics code that overlooks a simple and effective solution to a problem.
This week the Wichita City Council will consider the final version of a proposed ethics code. It does not cover campaign finance. It does cover gifts to council members, which has been an issue in the past.
Part of the problem with the proposal is the creation of a new board, the Ethics Advisory Board. Its members will be asked to judge things like whether a gift is “… intended or has the appearance or effect …” The board will be asked to judge intent. It will need to consider how things appear. This is all highly subjective.
A further problem is that the new code requires disclosure of gifts, but on an annual basis. This means that by the time the public becomes aware of activity, it is likely past the time when awareness has value. If information about gifts has value in helping people make informed voting decisions, we need to have timely disclosure. This is also a problem with the disclosure of campaign contributions in Kansas.
Rapid disclosure of gifts can help citizens judge the actions of elected officials. Disclosure should have these properties, and the propsed code has none:
Some of the points that have caused disagreement include the meaning of friends. If we want to restrict the involvement of friends, how do we define the term? This is a problem with the current ethics ordinance in Wichita. City attorneys have told us that with no definition of the term friend, the ordinance can’t be enforced. See In Wichita, a problem with government ethics, Wichita fails ethics test, Wichita City Council can’t judge airport contract.
Disclosing everything eliminates the issue of someone deciding the meaning of friend. Voters and others can make their own decisions. Elected officials’ opponents will help us learn this.
(An old saw: “Why bother researching your family? Just go into politics, and your opponents will do that for you.”)
Will disclosing all gifts rapidly be burdensome to officeholders and staff? Many employees file detailed expense reports so that they may be reimbursed. This is not a problem.
Disclosing effectively is necessary to make use of information filed on these gift reports. The minimum requirement is that the information in reports be downloaded in machine-readable formats. Currently, for campaign finance reports in Sedgwick County, including for Wichita city offices, reports are filed in a variety of formats. The information is difficult to use, even if optical character recognition can be applied successfully. Some reports are filed in handwriting, and others appear to be faxed to the election office in such low quality that I believe the candidates want to avoid effective use of the information.
Disclosing effectively means that analysis of the reports will be easier than it would be otherwise. Who will do this analysis? There are several sources, such as journalists and citizens such as myself. And, of course, candidates’ opponents.
The agenda report for this item is here, and the code itself is here. Here are a few excepts from the code:
“Avoid the appearance of improper influence and refrain from ever receiving, soliciting or accepting gifts, gratuities, hospitality, favors or anything of value for the official, or their family, valued over ONE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS ($150.00) from a specific donor over a one-year period ending on December 31, which is intended or has the appearance or effect of influencing the performance of the official duties of an official.”
“Further, a public official shall report any offer or presentation of a gift or gratuity valued at fifty dollars ($50.00) or more on a yearly basis.”
A bill designed to protect two buildings in downtown Wichita has a legislative hearing this week.
Last year a citizen group gathered signatures on a petition that would prevent the City of Wichita from disposing of two downtown buildings without an approving vote of a majority of citizens. Based on having the required number of valid signatures, the petition was certified as valid. But the city sued to have the petition thrown out, contending the petition went beyond what Kansas law allows as the subject of municipal petitions. A judge agreed with the city.
Now the group has a bill in the legislature with a hearing this week. The bill is HB 2233, titled “Enacting the municipal historic building act.”
The key provision of the bill is this: “No city shall be permitted to sell, destroy, demolish, dispose of or otherwise alienate any public building that is more than 80,000 square feet in size and has been placed on the national register of historic places without first obtaining the approval [of voters.]”
At present, there are only two buildings that meet the criteria: Century II and the former Central Wichita Library.
In a release, John Todd writes:
House Bill No. 2233 is a bill initiated in the Kansas Legislature by the Wichita Save Century II citizens committee that is written to require a mandatory majority vote of Wichita qualified electors before municipally-owned buildings exceeding 80,000 square feet and on the National Register of Historic Places can be demolished or destroyed. We believe only two buildings in the state of Kansas meet this narrow definition: Century II and the former Wichita public library.
A public hearing is being held on Wednesday, February 24, on House Bill No. 2233 titled the Municipal Historic Buildings Act at 9:00 a.m. in the House Local Government Committee at the statehouse in Topeka.
Celeste Racette, Save Century II Committee Chair, Karl Peterjohn, Save Century II Committee Member, and I (also a Save Century II Committee Member) will be testifying in person at the committee hearing in Topeka.
This week the Wichita City Council will update an agreement from last year, but it appears important issues were not addressed.
Last February the City of Wichita approved an agreement with a local business to manage events at Naftzger Park. With the pandemic upending public events, the business — Wave Old Town, LLC — was unable to program any events. Therefore, the city wants to add additional time to the agreement.
During the delay, the city could have addressed problems with the original agreement. Some problems concern the bidding process. My concern was the uncertainty in the profit-sharing agreement, which could result in widely varying results depending on how the profit is calculated. None of these issues are mentioned in the agenda packet for Tuesday’s meeting. Further, the item is scheduled on the consent agenda. This means there will be no discussion on this item, and there will not be a vote specifically on this item, unless at least one member of the council decides to “pull” it from the consent agenda.
There is discussion on Facebook in the Naftzger Park group here. Following, my article from February 2020, which applies today as then:
Naftzger Park event management agreement ambiguous
The profit-sharing agreement for Naftzger Park event management contains ambiguity that could lead to disputes.
Today the Wichita City Council approved an agreement with Wave Old Town LLC for event management in Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. The agreement was approved unanimously.
While there was controversy over the awarding of the contract (Wichita Eagle reporting is here), others have noticed that the contract is imprecise in a way that could lead to problems.
The city and Wave will share profits and losses based on a schedule in the management agreement contained in the agenda packet for today’s meeting, Item V-2. The issue is when the profit-sharing is calculated.
Based on the way the profit-sharing is calculated, different profit-sharing results could be obtained from the same event history. The management services agreement the city council passed today does not speak to this issue. Neither does the request for proposal for event management.
The issue is when the profit-sharing calculation is performed and using which data, as follows:
As the following examples show, the differences between these three methods of calculation could be substantial. These three examples assume two events, one with an event profit of $49,999, and the second with an event loss of $49,999. Notice that depending on how and when the same calculation is performed, Wave’s share of profits could be $0, or $25,000, or $49,999. The city could either lose $25,000 or $0.
While these examples are contrived and use extreme values, they illustrate that the agreement the council passed is ambiguous. There could be disputes that could be avoided with careful attention to detail by the city when constructing contracts.
An interactive visualization of gross domestic product by metropolitan area and industry.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis, an agency of the United States Department of Commerce, gathers data about economic output, known as gross domestic product. The visualization I have created presents this data in tabular and graphic form. (more…)
The City of Wichita property tax mill levy rose slightly for 2020.
In 1994 the City of Wichita mill levy rate — the rate at which real and personal property is taxed — was 31.290. In 2020 it was 32.749, based on the Sedgwick County Clerk. That’s an increase of 1.459 mills, or 4.66 percent, since 1994. (These are for taxes levied by the City of Wichita only, and do not include any overlapping jurisdictions.)
New Census Bureau data shows the downtown Wichita population growing in 2019.
Data released today by the United States Census Bureau shows the estimated population for zip code 67202 in 2019 was 1,751, an increase of 80 from the prior year.
Zip code 67202 is greater downtown Wichita, from the Arkansas River east to Washington, and Kellogg north to Central, roughly.
The source of this data is U.S. Census Bureau, 2015-2019 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This is not the Bureau’s estimate of the population in 2019. This is because for areas of population less than 65,000, the Bureau does not provide one-year estimates. Instead, the five-year estimates use data gathered over a longer time period in order to provide greater accuracy.
The Bureau cautions that the five-year estimates should not be used as the population of the year in the midpoint of the five-year period: “Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled ‘2013,’ even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.” (See below for more about these data.)
Additionally, the Bureau issues this advice: “However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years.” Downtown Wichita, I believe, qualifies as an area “experiencing major changes.” The five-year estimates must be considered in light of this advice.
Still, as shown in the nearby table and charts, the ACS population numbers are far below the population reported by the downtown Wichita development agency Downtown Wichita. (See my article Downtown Wichita population for more about this topic from a previous year.)
The 90 percent confidence interval for the 2019 estimate is plus or minus 256 persons. This means the Bureau is confident the population is between 1,495 and 2,007, with 90 percent probability.
Note that Downtown Wichita — the development agency — reports the downtown population as 2,778, which is 58.7 percent higher than the Census Bureau. It is extraordinarily unlikely that the Downtown Wichita numbers are anything near the actual population.
Click charts and tables for larger versions.
Following, excerpts from the Census Bureau publication Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know.
Understanding Period Estimates
Single-year and multiyear estimates from the ACS are all “period” estimates derived from a sample collected over a period of time, as opposed to “point-in-time” estimates such as those from past decennial censuses. For example, the 2000 Census “long form” sampled the resident U.S. population as of April 1, 2000.
While an ACS 1-year estimate includes information collected over a 12-month period, an ACS 5-year estimate includes data collected over a 60-month period.
In the case of ACS 1-year estimates, the period is the calendar year (e.g., the 2015 ACS covers the period from January 2015 through December 2015). In the case of ACS multiyear estimates, the period is 5 calendar years (e.g., the 2011–2015 ACS estimates cover the period from January 2011 through December 2015). Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled “2013,” even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.
Multiyear estimates should be labeled to indicate clearly the full period of time (e.g., “The child poverty rate in 2011–2015 was X percent.”). They do not describe any specific day, month, or year within that time period.
Multiyear estimates require some considerations that single-year estimates do not. For example, multiyear estimates released in consecutive years consist mostly of overlapping years and shared data.
The primary advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability of the data compared with that of single-year estimates, particularly for small geographic areas and small population subgroups. Figure 3.2 shows the improved precision of an ACS 5-year estimate, compared with a 1-year estimate, for child poverty statistics in Rice County, Minnesota—a county with about 65,000 residents in 2015. The lines above and below the point estimates represent the confidence intervals, or ranges of uncertainty, around each estimate. The confidence interval for the 1-year child poverty estimate ranges from 1.4 percent to 9.4 percent (8 percentage points) while the interval for the 5-year estimate is narrower, ranging from 12.8 percent to 19.2 percent (6 percentage points). (Refer to the section on “Understanding Error and Determining Statistical Significance” for a detailed explanation of uncertainty in ACS data.)
Deciding Which ACS Estimate to Use
For data users interested in obtaining detailed ACS data for small geographic areas (areas with fewer than 65,000 residents), ACS 5-year estimates are the only option.
The 5-year estimates for an area have larger samples and smaller margins of error than the 1-year estimates. However, they are less current because the larger samples include data that were collected in earlier years. The main advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability for smaller geographic areas and small population groups.
However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years. The single year and multiyear estimates will not be the same because they are based on data from two different time periods.
A group opposing any future plan to raze Century II or the former central library building has filed an appeal of the decision in their lawsuit.
A group called Committee to Save Century II organized and filed a petition aimed at requiring a popular vote before demolishing Century II or the former central library building. The City of Wichita challenged the legal basis of the petition and a judge ruled in favor of the city. Now, that decision is being appealed.
Following, a press release announcing the appeal. For more information on Century II and its future, see my Century II resource center.
WICHITA — Sept. 25, 2020 — The Committee to Save Century II has filed an Appeal of the 18th Judicial District Court decision.
The City of Wichita’s lawsuit to invalidate the Save Century II municipal initiative petition signed by 17,265 Wichita citizens is being appealed. The Save Century II Committee has retained legal counsel of Austin K. Parker, Parker & Parker LLC, Wichita, Kansas, for this appeal.
On Wednesday, September 23, Mr. Austin Parker electronically filed the Entry of Appearance and Notice of Appeal for the City’s lawsuit.
Save Century II is a non-partisan effort by Wichita folks who are tired of back office deals for millionaire developers using our taxes. The appeal is an effort to preserve citizen’s ability to petition City Hall while also trying to preserve our historic and iconic city buildings. The City of Wichita credit rating has been downgraded by Moody’s recently, and it could happen again. Our economy is in a precarious state, and we cannot afford development that will cost future generations for years to come. Quality of life is more important than a 400,000 square foot new convention center.
John Todd said, “We are delighted to announce that the appeal of the District Court decision will now proceed into Appellant review.” Save Century II Committee continues to battle to stop the insanity of City Hall. We believe in the right to vote, and the right to decide future debt this City undertakes. The Save Century II office at 435 N. Broadway, Suite 102, will be open from Monday to Friday with hours of 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. Tax deductible donations can be mailed to the Historic Preservation Alliance, Inc., P.O. Box 75037, Wichita, KS 67275.
“We are fighting back! The battle to Save Century II and the former public library continues!” said Celeste Racette.