Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city council

  • John Todd: Wichita officials may have won a battle, but the Century II war isn’t over

    John Todd: Wichita officials may have won a battle, but the Century II war isn’t over

    On Century II, Wichita City Hall won the first round, but the public issue remains, writes John Todd.

    A special to the Wichita Eagle by John Todd.

    The Wichita City Council’s lawsuit against the Save Century II committee and the 17,265 Wichitans who had signed our petition won a first-round legal victory in state district court Aug. 28. The effort to have a binding vote by Wichita voters at an upcoming election was rejected by the court. This is a setback for Wichitans seeking to resolve this issue at the ballot box in November.

    This courtroom defeat demonstrates that the provision in the Kansas Constitution’s Bill of Rights, which says, “all political power in this state is inherent in the people,” has disappeared when it comes to this petition in district court. However, a district court decision is not the final word — not in the court of public opinion, or in Kansas appellate courtrooms. City Hall won the first round, but the public issue remains.

    Continue reading at the Wichita Eagle here or link to archived article here.

    Paintings of Century II by Bill Goffrier. For more of his works, visit Goffrier Studio on the web or Bill Goffrier Studio on Facebook.

  • Economic development incentive to be canceled

    Economic development incentive to be canceled

    The City of Wichita will consider canceling an economic development incentive for a firm that no longer meets policy requirements.

    Two years ago the Wichita City Council granted an economic development incentive for a freestanding emergency department in northeast Wichita. The incentive was in the form of property tax relief. The firm would be exempt from paying 88 percent of its property taxes for five years, with the possibility of renewal for another five years. 1

    At the time, the city estimated the first-year property tax savings to be $61,882, allocated this way: City of Wichita: $17,226. State of Kansas: $792. Sedgwick County: $5,520. USD 259 (Wichita public school district): $28,345.

    The facility closed earlier this year, and will be converted to a cardiology office. This change means the facility no longer meets the criteria in the city’s economic development policy in two ways. First, the city’s policy requires medical facilities to attract at least 30 percent of its patients from outside the Wichita MSA, and the city says the new use of the facility does not meet this requirement.

    Second, the new use of the facility is not the use that was approved by the council two years ago.

    The city’s office of economic development recommends canceling the tax incentive after this year. This item appears on the meeting’s consent agenda, which means there will be no discussion or individual vote on this matter unless a council member requests.

    I hope that a council member asks that this item receive discussion and perhaps an individual vote. This is a positive moment for the city. Not that a business failed to survive — that is unfortunate — but that the city is applying policy as designed.

    Freestanding emergency departments are controversial. The notes to this article hold references to news articles and academic studies looking at the costs and usage of these facilities. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

    Researchers note that the emergency rooms are much more expensive than traditional doctor offices or urgent care facilities, yet many of the diagnoses made at the ERs are the same as made at non-emergency facilities.

    —
    Notes

    1. Weeks, Bob. Free standing emergency department about to open in Wichita. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/free-standing-emergency-department-room-open-in-wichita/. ↩
    2. NBC News. You Thought It Was An Urgent Care Center, Until You Got the Bill. Available at https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/you-thought-it-was-urgent-care-center-until-you-got-n750906. ↩
    3. Carolyn Y. Johnson. Free-standing ERs offer care without the wait. But patients can still pay $6,800 to treat a cut. Washington Post, May 7, 2017. Available at http://wapo.st/2pUCskD?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.21bb76a447aa. ↩
    4. Rice, Sabriya.Texans overpaid for some medical services by thousands, study says. Dallas Morning News. Available at https://www.dallasnews.com/business/health-care/2017/03/23/texans-overpaid-medical-services-thousands-study-said. ↩
    5. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas. Rice U. Study: Freestanding Emergency Departments In Texas Deliver Costly Care, ‘Sticker Shock’. Available at https://www.bcbstx.com/company-info/news/news?lid=j0s5sm9d. ↩
    6. Alan A. Ayers, MBA, MAcc. Dissecting the Cost of a Freestanding Emergency Department Visit. Available at https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/ucaoa.site-ym.com/resource/resmgr/Alan_Ayers_Blog/UCAOA_Ayers_Blog_FSED_Pricin.pdf. ↩
    7. Michael L. Callaham. Editor in Chief Overview: A Controversy About Freestanding Emergency Departments. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 70, Issue 6, 2017, pp. 843-845. Available at http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(17)31505-6/fulltext. ↩
    8. Ho, Vivian et al. Comparing Utilization and Costs of Care in Freestanding Emergency Departments, Hospital Emergency Departments, and Urgent Care Centers. Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 70 , Issue 6 , 846 – 857.e3. Available at http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(16)31522-0/fulltext. ↩
    9. Jeremiah D. Schuur, Donald M. Yealy, Michael L. Callaham. Comparing Freestanding Emergency Departments, Hospital-Based Emergency Departments, and Urgent Care in Texas: Apples, Oranges, or Lemons? Annals of Emergency Medicine, Volume 70, Issue 6, 2017, pp. 858-861. Available at http://www.annemergmed.com/article/S0196-0644(17)30473-0/fulltext. ↩
  • Century II maintenance to be considered

    Century II maintenance to be considered

    The Wichita city council will consider spending $250,000 on maintenance for Century II. There are questions regarding the source of funding.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider spending $250,000 on maintenance items for Century II and the attached expo hall. The items are mostly ventilation, air conditioning, and plumbing. 1 There is some uncertainty as to how the city plans to fund these projects.

    In a Facebook conversation, an unknown city official was quoted: “We are using Transient Guest Tax funds for these repairs. The bonding resolution provides us with the flexibility to cash fund or debt fund the improvements. But in either case it will be paid from the TGT.” 2

    This seems at odds with material from the agenda packet for the meeting, which states: “Financial Considerations: The 2019-2028 Adopted CIP includes $250,000 in General Obligation bond funding for Century II Repairs in 2020. Staff recommends initiating $250,000 at this time”

    The city’s 2019-2028 Adopted Capital Improvement Program shows these amounts as either actual or adopted for the category “Cash Transfer to CIP Projects” from the Tourism and Convention Fund”

    2017 $1,624,585
    2018 $891,960
    2019 $1,857,891
    2020 $550,000
    2021 $2,050,000

    The same document notes for this fund: “Revenues are received primarily from the Transient Guest Tax, currently set at 6% of gross receipts.” From other city documents, the fund receives no dollars other than the transient guest tax in some years, 2019 and 2020 specifically. In 2021, the city budget projects the fund will receive $350,000 in other revenue and $7,635,348 from the transient guest tax.

    As is common with these expenditures, even as small as this, the city plans to borrow the funds: A related ordinance states: “Section 2. Project Financing. All or a portion of the costs of the Project, interest on financing and administrative and financing costs shall be financed with the proceeds of general obligation bonds of the City.”

    As you can see, there is some confusion. One source says the funding is the transient guest fund, while other sources state funding is general obligation bonds, which could, of course, be paid with transient guest funds revenue. Hopefully, city staff will clarify this at the July 14, 2020 meeting.

    I’ve gathered relevant pages from city documents and present them here.

    Painting courtesy Goffrier Studio.

    —
    Notes

    1. The bonding resolution, number 20-192, states: “Facility repairs and improvements to Century II (District I). Including, but not be limited to, prioritized critical building system improvements, renovation and repairs as well as replacement of Expo Hall HVAC Roof-Top Unit systems and Century II circulation pumps throughout the facility and mechanical, electrical and plumbing and fire/life safety and structural concerns where hazardous conditions may develop.” ↩
    2. Facebook. Available at https://www.facebook.com/groups/CenturyII/permalink/1439270942947133/. ↩
  • Wichita presents industrial revenue bonds

    Wichita presents industrial revenue bonds

    A presentation by the City of Wichita regarding IRBs is good as far as it goes, which is not far enough.

    Recently the City of Wichita prepared a short video explaining the city’s industrial revenue bonds (IRB) program. The video may be viewed on YouTube by clicking here.

    Several times the presenters emphasized that in the IRB program, the city does not lend money. They properly identify the true purpose of the program, which is to subsidize companies by allowing them to avoid paying property taxes and possibly sales taxes.

    Several times the presenters emphasized that the IRB program has no cost to the city. But that isn’t true. Part of the rationale for taxes, especially the property taxes that cities, counties, and school districts collect, is to pay for services that people and business firms demand. Well, don’t new businesses firms demand or require services from the government? And if a business is not paying its share of taxes, who is paying for the services it consumes?

    If we don’t think that a new or expanded business spurs demand for services, then we need to rethink the basis of taxation.

    The presenters mentioned the benefit-cost analysis produced for the city by Center for Economic Development and Business Research at Wichita State University and concluded that the city profits from the IRB program. This analysis purports that if the city incurs costs — either by spending one dollar or giving up one dollar of tax revenue — it will receive a certain amount in return. City policy requires that the city receive $1.30 or more in benefits for each dollar of cost. But there are issues:

    • The city says IRBs have no cost, but the benefit-cost ratio identifies costs. The city hopes the benefits outweigh these costs.
    • There is no guarantee that the city will receive any benefits, or that the benefits will be close to what the CEDBR model estimates.
    • The CEDBR model asks companies to make projections of economic activity for up to ten years in the future. Especially in the out-years, these estimates are subject to large errors.
    • No effort is made to scrutinize these projections. They are taken at face value, as supplied by the applicant company.
    • The benefits to the city are in the form of taxes paid. Taxes are a burden to those who must pay them.
    • Applicant companies do not have to demonstrate economic necessity.
    • The policy of requiring a benefit of $1.30 for each dollar of cost has many loopholes.

    Perhaps the most important policy issue is that the city realizes the benefits of increased economic activity whether or not the activity is subsidized with IRB tax breaks. The benefit-cost ratio for unsubsidized projects is infinite: All benefit, no cost. Therefore, the benefit-cost ratio is meaningful only for those projects which could not proceed without the subsidy.

    Some incentive programs require the demonstration of economic necessity. That is not the case with IRBs.

    Additionally, when the city issues IRBs and grants tax abatements, other jurisdictions are affected. Both the overlapping county and school district have their property tax collections eliminated. If a sales tax exemption is granted, the state is most prominently affected, as nearly all sales tax paid goes to the state. (For sales tax paid in Sedgwick county, the state’s share is 86.7 percent.) None of these overlapping jurisdictions can opt-out of the tax abatement that the city imposes.

  • Wichita needs transparency from its agencies

    Wichita needs transparency from its agencies

    When the Wichita city council delegates spending to outside agencies such as Visit Wichita, it should insist on the same transparency requirements the city itself faces.

    The Kansas Open Records Act is designed to give citizens access to data concerning their government. In the words of the Kansas Attorney General, “An open and transparent government is essential to the democratic process.”

    The preamble to the Kansas act states, “It is declared to be the public policy of the state that public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided by this act, and this act shall be liberally construed and applied to promote such policy.” (emphasis added)

    That isn’t always the case in Wichita. Here, the city has formed several non-profit organizations that are funded in large part by tax revenue. But these organizations believe they are not covered by KORA, and so far the city agrees with that.

    An example is Visit Wichita, the city’s convention and visitors bureau. This week the Wichita City Council will consider the scope of services and budget for the money the agency receives from Wichita’s Tourism Business Improvement District. This is a tax of 2.75 percent that is added to hotel bills in the city. From 2016 to 2018 this tax brought in an average of just over three million dollars per year.

    If the city itself was spending these funds, there is no doubt that the spending records would be public. But Visit Wichita wants to spend this money in secret. It also wants to enter into contracts in secret.

    In the Kansas law, here is the definition of a public agency: “‘Public agency’ means the state or any political or taxing subdivision of the state or any office, agency or instrumentality thereof, or any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by the public funds appropriated by the state or by public funds of any political or taxing subdivision of the state.” There is an exception, which doesn’t apply here: “‘Public agency’ shall not include: … Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods or services of such entity.”

    As can be seen in the nearby table, Visit Wichita gets around 93 percent of its funds from taxes. Surely this qualifies as “supported in whole or in part by the public funds.”

    In the past, agencies have objected to the release of records on the basis that they would reveal information or strategies that would benefit Wichita’s competitors for jobs, conventions, and tourists. But the requests I have made (and which were rejected) asked for past data, not contemporaneous data. Further, if Wichita was successful in attracting jobs, conventions, and tourists, this might make some sense. But Wichita lags in these categories, which means that oversight is important. For example, among large hotel markets in Kansas, Wichita is near the bottom in growth.

    The records that Visit Wichita needs to disclose are its spending records, which means the checks it has written and credit card charges made. It also needs to disclose its contracts. This is the law, and it is also good public policy.

    When my records requests were rejected, I asked the Sedgwick County District Attorney to enforce the law. The DA sided with Visit Wichita (then known as Go Wichita) and the city’s other non-profit agencies, concluding that they were not “public agencies.”

    That determination simply meant that Visit Wichita could not be forced to reveal records. But it does not prohibit the agency from supplying records — if it wanted.

    This issue is important so that people can trust their government. But leadership in Wichita has not agreed. Now, as Wichita considers large public investments in facilities like a convention center — something desired by Visit Wichita — we need transparency, not secrecy.

    Wichita Mayor Brandon Whipple campaigned on greater government transparency. An amendment to the city’s recommended action could require that Visit Wichita recognize itself for what it is — a public agency as defined in the Kansas Open Records Act. Proposing a motion to include this requirement would allow the mayor to fulfill a campaign promise, and it would let Wichitans know where council members stand on this issue.

    For more information, see Open Records in Kansas.

    Click for larger.
  • Wichita city council to address misunderstanding

    Wichita city council to address misunderstanding

    The Wichita city council will address a misunderstanding regarding imprecise language in an economic development incentive agreement.

    This week the Wichita City Council will address a mistake or misunderstanding regarding an economic incentive. Briefly, a company that received a tax abatement believed that land was included in the abatement. When it received a bill for tax on the land, it paid it and inquired to the city as to why it received a bill for taxes it believed it would not owe.

    Documents for the meeting state: “The agenda report and Economic Development Incentive Agreement did not specifically state that the land would not be exempt from property tax.” The agreement, which was approved at the January 16, 2018 council meeting, states: “… it is the City’s intention that the acquisition and equipping of a building by the Company pursuant to Section 1.A., above, shall be entitled to an 100% exemption from ad valorem taxation …” (Section 1.A. specifies a time frame and amount of investment, which it appears the company satisfied.)

    The ordinance that the council passed states: “5. Tax exemption will be given only for the acquisition and equipping of the building.” It seems that the term “acquisition” is the source of uncertainty. Another source of confusion might be the original agenda packet which refers to “estimated value of the real property tax exemption.” The usual definition of real property is buildings and land.

    The recommended action is that the council side with the company, that is, grant the tax abatement on land as the company believed it would receive, and apply the abatement to the remaining years of the agreement. Additionally, the city will reimburse the company for the taxes it paid on the land.

    In the agenda review meeting on Friday, the city manager said that the documents are not clear regarding land and that the city is taking steps to clarify language in future agreements. Also, at least two staff members will be involved in calculations.

    City staff assured the council that the cost-benefit analysis has been revised. But the numbers contained in the agenda for this week are exactly the same as in the original agenda from January 2018.

    Of note, this is not the only correction the council may want to address this week. In a different agenda item regarding tax increment financing for the Chester I. Lewis Reflection Park, a table is titled “West Bank Redevelopment District Delano and Stadium Project.”

  • Should Wichita have a deputy to the mayor?

    Should Wichita have a deputy to the mayor?

    A proposal to hire a deputy or chief of staff to the Wichita mayor is a good idea which will increase transparency and accountability of elected officials.

    Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider a proposal to create the position of Deputy to the Mayor. I’ve excerpted the relevant portion of the agenda packet in pdf form, available here. I include partions below.

    How could a deputy or chief of staff help improve the city? As an example, at the April 14 council meeting, approval of a loan for a portion of the new water treatment was on the agenda. This was no surprise; borrowing the money had been planned for a long time. The agenda packet noted the loan amount of $280 million, which was no surprise. But the document mentioned this caveat: “capitalized interest excluded.”

    It’s no surprise that loans carry interest charges, but shouldn’t we wonder how much interest? Documents in the agenda packet provided an estimate, as the council passed an ordinance authorizing the issuance of a bond to the government of up to $331 million, meaning the capitalized interest is likely to be around $50 million.

    But you had to read a lot of material to come across this figure. It was not obvious. Sources tell me that this figure was not mentioned during the agenda review meeting, and it was not mentioned by city staff during the presentation at the council meeting. It was only when the mayor asked a question that the number was discussed. (The mayor mentioned that a constituent had asked him about it. That was me.) For more on this, see Wichita water plant financing on agenda.

    Another example: Recently the council was asked to pass an economic development incentive. The reported benefit-cost ratio did not meet the city’s established standard. There are exceptions that the city can invoke to override the standards, and the council did that. But the agenda packet did not mention that an exception would be required, although it was discussed during the meeting. See Wichita to consider tax forgiveness outside policy parameters.

    As another example, the council recently approved a profit-sharing agreement for Naftzger Park event management that contains ambiguity that could lead to disputes. Under certain conditions, depending on how and when the same calculation is performed, the event manager’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. No one noticed, or if they did, they didn’t speak up, at least not publicly. See Naftzger Park event management agreement ambiguous.

    These are a few examples from this year where city staff has not served the council — and the public — very well. And these are just examples that I know of. We remember last summer when the former mayor was upset with major items being placed on the agenda by management with little or no notice.

    Whether the mayor should have a deputy like this depends on what type of relationship we want between the mayor, council, and city management. Currently, and in the past, it seems like the council and mayor operate passively, merely reacting to matters that management brings to them. “Rubberstamp” is a term often used to describe council action. Praise for management and staff is often, in my opinion, uncritically offered and unjustified.

    We need some tension, a little bit of check on the power of the city manager and city staff. We need someone to independently conduct research and advise the mayor and council so that the mayor doesn’t have to, as did Mayor Longwell last year, admit on television that he didn’t know the city’s population has declined.

    Additionally, having an independent resource who is responsible primarily to the mayor will increase the accountability of the mayor to voters. It will be less credible for the mayor to slough off responsibility to the city manager and staff.

    The proposal

    The relevant portion of the agenda packet in pdf form is available here. Excerpts follow.

    In introducing the proposal, the document states:

    This unprecedented time of crisis both economically and in public health requires professional assistance within the Mayor’s office to better serve the community, interface with city department heads and align with Council Members on shared objectives.

    This position brings the office of Wichita Mayor to a similar professional standing of every other mayor in comparable cities who enjoy the assistance of a Chief of Staff. Wichita is only one of two top 50 cities in which the Mayor does not have a Chief of Staff, or the equivalent.

    Public expectation for the position of Mayor has evolved to expect more community outreach, public accessibility and to maintain a presence throughout the city. This position gives the mayor the resources necessary to provide a similar level of public outreach as current Wichita City Council Members enjoy through the use of their full time community outreach employee, resulting in increased accountability and transparency.

    Under job description: “The Deputy to the Mayor will assist the Mayor in policy research, community outreach, special projects, communications, and other tasks as directed.”

    It is to be non-political: “This is a non-political position that prevents the participation in campaign activities as defined by K.S.A – 25-4143(h). Employee will sign a non-disclosure order (NDA).”

    How will the person be hired? “The selection committee will consist of the Mayor and a staff member appointed by the City Manager.”

  • Naftzger Park on the web: Do we care?

    Naftzger Park on the web: Do we care?

    A badly outdated portion of Wichita’s website makes me wonder: Does anyone care?

    In the Naftzger Park Facebook group that I co-administer, someone recently posted this:

    Hi! I’m [not] new to Wichita and a friend told me about a quaint and lovely Victorian style park set in the downtown area. I love little parks like these as they’re such an endearing surprise in the midst of old industrial buildings and warehouses. After seeing the pictures on your website, I can tell my friend understated the beauty of the park. I can’t wait to visit! One problem though, I can’t find the hours of park operation. Could you please tell me what time the park closes as I’d hate for people to think that I’m a bum just because I was visiting after 9:00 p.m.?

    In the next paragraph, the author confessed that the post is “pure sarcasm laced with bitterness,” because, as most Wichitans know, the Victorian Naftzger Park has been replaced with something else. While opinions vary as to whether the new park is better than the old, there is one thing of which this author is correct: “Not even a whisper of the change.”

    What hasn’t changed is the City of Wichita website, specifically the page devoted to Naftzger Park. 1 As of April 19, 2020, it shows photos of the old park and this description: “A mini-park located in the heart of downtown Wichita containing many beautiful flowers, trees and shrubs, and grass accenting the waterfall that flows into a pond. Park benches and a gazebo add to the park’s Victorian style as well as providing a quiet haven in the downtown area.”

    Wichita.gov, captured April 19, 2020. Click for larger.

    None of this, except for “mini-park located in the heart of downtown Wichita” has been true for a long time. Naftzger Park — the Victorian version — closed in May 2018, nearly two years ago, when construction started on the new version. The new version opened in March 2020.

    So the city’s website is nearly two years outdated regarding Naftzger Park, outdated in a very material manner. Does this matter? In the scenario from the start of this article, yes, it matters. For an enthusiast of these parks that might travel to Wichita for that reason: Yes, it matters. For those looking to the city’s website for current and accurate information: Yes, it matters.

    It matters for more than just Naftzger Park. Glaring examples like this cast doubt on the reliability of the rest of the city’s website. That’s a shame, because in my experience, the information on the city’s website is usually good. It could be more thorough in some simple but important ways, such as including spending records and legal notices. The city also overlooks simple ways to be innovative, such as posting fulfilled records requests.

    Outdated information like this is a symptom of someone not caring. It’s especially troubling in light of this week’s city council meeting, where many council members were effusive in their praise of the city manager during his annual performance evaluation. I imagine that the city manager doesn’t maintain the Park and Recreation section of the city’s website. Maybe the Director of Parks and Recreation doesn’t update the website. But someone does. Someone must be responsible for keeping things current.

    Naftzger Park, July 31, 2018.

    When that responsible person doesn’t care, responsibility flows upwards. Hasn’t anyone at the city noticed this badly outdated information? Have any park board members or city council members noticed? Anyone at DowntownWichita.org, the agency that, in its own words, “amplifies the energy, capital, and growth of downtown by empowering residents, visitors, and businesses to explore the possibilities of our city’s core.” Or what about someone at Visit Wichita? (To its credit, its website showcases the new version of Naftzger Park.) Or have they noticed but not cared? Or did they report the outdated page, but no one cared to act?

    It’s not the case that someone needs to spend hours creating a page for the new Naftzger Park. Just take the outdated stuff off the site.

    —
    Notes

    1. Should the city update this page, here is a link to a recent archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20200416014239/https://www.wichita.gov/ParkandRec/CityParks/Pages/Naftzger.aspx#. ↩
  • Wichita water plant financing on agenda

    Wichita water plant financing on agenda

    The Wichita city council will consider borrowing $280 million from the federal government, and also consider issuing bonds of up to $331 million to repay the loan.

    Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider approving a large portion of the financing for the new Northwest Water Facility (NWWF).

    The financing comes from the United States Government through a program called Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA), which is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The amount of financing is $280,860,714, which is 49 percent of the total cost of the plant. A loan from the State of Kansas is expected to cover 48 percent of the cost of the plant, so between these two sources, nearly the entire plant is financed. The state loan is expected to be considered by the council in August or September.

    Repayment of the WIFIA loan will begin in 2029 and continue until 2059. Because of the attractive terms of the loan program, EPA estimates the city will save $69,069,005 over regular municipal bond financing.

    City documents state that the interest rate on the WIFIA loan is set “by adding 0.01% to the rate for state and local government securities with a similar length of repayment.” This contradicts information from EPA and CRS, with CRS stating, “WIFIA provides credit assistance, namely direct loans, at U.S. Treasury rates, potentially lowering the cost of capital for borrowers.” See EPA summary and the Congressional Research Service in Water Infrastructure Financing: The Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) Program.

    Of note, while the summary documents provided by the city cite a loan amount of $280,860,714, it is important to realize that this is “capitalized interest excluded.” In an ordinance the council will consider Tuesday, there is this language: “… the City proposes to issue and deliver to the WIFIA Credit Provider a revenue bond in the principal amount not to exceed $331,000,000 (the ‘WIFIA Bond’).” The difference between the two amounts, about $50 million, is capitalized interest. The $331 million figure is not mentioned in the agenda report or the executive summary.

    The city has provided these documents in the agenda packet:

    • Agenda Report No. V-1 (Revised).docx (link)
    • Executive Summary for NWWF Financing 4-14-2020.pdf (link)
    • Basic Docs 2020B (WIFIA).pdf (link)
    • WIFIA Credit Agreement 4.7.20 – to City.pdf (link)

    For an archive of documents related to the water plant, see Wichita water plant resource center.