Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city council

  • Cost of Wichita water likely to rise in some way

    At yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council, the water department asked for permission to add $1.00 per month to water bills. It’s actually a $2.00 per month proposed increase, as $1.00 would be added to both the water charge and the sewer charge, and most people have both services.

    It’s estimated that this charge would bring in $270,000 per month, or about $3,240,000 per year.

    The problem is that with the rainy weather for the past year or more, water usage is down. The water department would like to “guarantee a revenue stream not affected by weather conditions.” This is at a time when the water department is undertaking some expensive capital improvement programs, including an aquifer recharge program.

    In answering a question, Kristi Irick, customer service manager for the water department, said “If we have a nice dry summer, like we’re hoping for …” This illustrates a conflict of interest: the water department wants revenue, but water customers don’t want to pay a lot to water their lawns. It seems that everyone except the water department views rainfall in the Kansas summer as a blessing.

    One citizen said that in light of the federal government recently spending “$700 billion [sic] just to give jobs back to people so they can make a living,” not considering this proposed increase is “petty.” He suggested an additional $1.00 per month increase so that the city could train people and give them jobs in water efficiency. He also suggested a rebate program for those who who are “truly suffering and have done everything they can” to use water wisely.

    His suggestion for an even steeper rate increase was met with a chuckle from the audience.

    In general, council members and the mayor expressed concern over the proposed increase. The competitiveness of Wichita versus other cities was mentioned, as was the large number of recently laid-off workers in Wichita.

    Council member Paul Gray said that “we have a process of revenue generation that is counterproductive to conservation.” The need for a water rate increase, he said, is that use is down. He wants to find an alternative way of paying for the aquifer recharge project, an idea supported by other council members.

    In the end, the council deferred action, wanting to wait for methods of alternative funding to be discovered.

    We should be glad that Wichita water and sewer rates are low. That’s a blessing, not a problem.

    The concern of the council over water and sewer rates, while welcome, is a little misplaced. Concern for the citizens of Wichita is a factor in some types of spending, but not for others. As an example, earlier in the meeting the council approved a grant of $20,000 to a private business in Wichita to help them upgrade the facade of their building. A cynic might say the city just increased the profit of a private business by $20,000, all at the expense of taxpayers if Wichita.

    Or, the city spends some $2,000,000 per year subsidizing arts in Wichita. That’s a burden to the finances of many homes in Wichita, just as an increase in water rates is.

    Even worse, our electric utility has been increasing its rates by amounts much larger than this proposed water increase. A large reason for this request is the expense of wind power. I imagine a number of city council members support wind power and renewable energy.

    It seems there there is momentum towards paying for the aquifer recharge project is a way other than through water bills. If this happens, it will isolate to some degree the cost of the city’s water system from the level that people make use of it.

  • Wichita facade improvement program bad for Wichitans

    Remarks to be delivered to the Wichita City Council on June 16, 2009. For background on this issue, see Wichita to consider grant to business and Wichita facade improvement plan updated.

    As this city council decides whether to give a grant of $20,000 to a private business, we need to consider the effect of programs like this on all the people of Wichita. And people are telling me that they don’t like it. They wonder why, at a time when the city is struggling with its budget, and when many are struggling with their personal budgets, there’s money available for programs like this.

    They also wonder why can’t everyone be eligible for grants like this. Many people throughout the city — not only in politically favored areas — would like help in repairing their buildings.

    Programs like the facade improvement program represent centralized government planning. It’s the polar opposite of free people trading voluntarily in markets. These programs represent politicians and bureaucrats deciding where money should be spent, rather than people deciding themselves.

    Strip away all the lofty talk and wishful thinking about downtown and revitalization areas, and what we have is this city council deciding that people don’t know how to spend and invest their own money.

    That’s a slap in the face to citizens. People don’t like that.

    Besides the personal insult, programs like this harm the wealth of our community. Free and competitive markets are the best way to decide where to make investments. Government simply doesn’t have all the knowledge necessary to make these decisions. Government doesn’t have the right incentives, either.

    These programs have a way of expanding and growing. Now we have the city manager and his staff deciding whether or not to pay certain bills as developers work on facade improvement. This seems to be an additional layer of city bureaucracy that we can’t afford.

    Mr. Mayor and members of the council, please respect the citizens of Wichita by voting against this grant of taxpayer funds to a private business.

  • Wichita to consider grant to business

    On Tuesday June 16, the Wichita City Council will consider whether to give a business $20,000.

    The business, Delano Barbeque Partners, LLC, is renovating a building at 579 W. Douglas in Wichita, at the corner of Sycamore Street. They’re applying for special assessment financing in the amount of $60,000. While bad public policy, this financing under the city’s facade improvement program is in the form of a loan that is to be repaid by future property taxes.

    What is truly outrageous is that the owners of this business are also asking for a grant of $20,000. This would be, if I understand the plain meaning of the word, a gift to the owners of this property.

    How is this possible? Is everyone eligible for grants like this?

    I’ve asked the city for the name of the program or law under which grants like this can be made. I’ve also asked the applicant, Delano Barbeque Partners, LLC, for comment. According to the Kansas Secretary of State’s office, the resident agent for the limited liability company is W.G. Farha II, with address of 8100 East 22nd. Street North Building 1700-2, Wichita, KS 67226.

    This illustrates a problem with Wichita city government, and other branches too, for that matter: Here it is, late Friday afternoon, and the city council agenda has been available for less than 24 hours. I just received the email from the city announcing its availability. I’ve made a few phone calls and sent a few email messages, but it’s not easy to contact people late on a Friday summer afternoon. So citizens just don’t have much time to do research and prepare for these meetings.

    The applicants, of course, have known about this agenda item for some time. They have a lot to gain by making sure this passes. $20,000 of taxpayer money, in fact.

    For convenience, I’ve excerpted the appropriate pages of Tuesday’s agenda below.

    (This is a Scribd document. Click on the rectangle at the right of the document’s title bar to get a full-screen view.)

  • At Wichita city council, citizens are frustrated

    Yesterday’s meeting of the Wichita City Council provided a lesson in how frustrating it can be for citizens to interact with city government.

    You might even have to endure a slight insult from our mayor.

    The matter in question involved real estate developer Dave Burk and the city’s economic development office.

    Regarding this matter, I wrote Mr. Burk by email early Monday morning with a question. He didn’t reply. I should have followed-up with a telephone call, but I didn’t have time.

    Monday afternoon I called the city’s economic development office with a few questions. The person I talked to was confused by the questions I asked, and suggested that I make records requests to get what I was asking for. There wasn’t time for that.

    So I wrote by email to Allen Bell the city’s economic development director. He didn’t reply. I don’t necessarily fault him for that, as it was around 3:00 Monday afternoon when I wrote. But he still hasn’t replied, and it’s Wednesday afternoon now.

    In my questions before the council, which you can read by clicking on Wichita facade improvement loan program: questions to answer, I asked if Burk had been investigated through background checks by the city, as the city has pledged to conduct thorough background investigations of its partners. Bell replied that he had been through checks in the past with regard to other deals.

    But we now know, based on events from last December, that the checks the city conducted were cursory, and failed to uncover important facts about a developer. At that meeting, the mayor sternly scolded city staff for their lack of diligence in performing these checks.

    Bell said that Burk is “well known in the community.” It hardly bears mentioning that sitting in the Sedgwick County jail at this moment is another developer who was very well known and very highly regarded in his time. So having a familiar face is not sufficient.

    Bell also revealed that now Burk has equity partners, and the city will be vetting them. That’s too late, however. The ordinance has been passed.

    Bell said that the risk analysis has been performed. That was subject of the inquiry I made in my email to Bell. But there was no mention of that in the agenda materials, and Bell didn’t answer my email.

    Mr. Burk then spoke. He said that the fee being paid to the developer ($39,277) is not being paid to him personally, but is instead “overhead and profit for the contractor doing the work.”

    This is hair-splitting at its finest. If that money wasn’t supplied by this loan, Burk would have to pay it himself.

    He also questioned a figure of 6.5% for an interest rate that I used. That figure is from the agenda material Bell’s office prepared. If citizens can’t rely on that — and remember I contacted Burk and Bell’s office too — what can they rely on?

    Burk said that in today’s market it’s difficult to borrow adequate funds from commercial banks. There’s a reason for that, I would submit.

    He mentioned also that he’d been vetted. Again, this would have been from the time when the vetting process wasn’t rigorous enough to be meaningful.

    Additionally, any vetting process of Burk should take into account his involvement as part of the development team for Waterwalk. This highly-subsidized development in downtown Wichita is recognized as a failure by even the Wichita Eagle editorial board.

    Mayor Carl Brewer thanked Burk for answering questions, because “sometimes information is put out there that’s inaccurate and that’s the way it’s left, as being inaccurate.”

    To the extent that my questions were based on inaccurate information — and that something that’s far from true — some things could have been cleared up if my inquiries the day before had been successful. While it may seem that inquiring the day before a meeting is waiting until the last minute, the agenda and accompanying material for the Tuesday meetings of the council isn’t available until the Thursday or Friday before. So there’s not a lot of time for citizens to act.

    In the end, anything I might have said or questions I might have raised probably would have made little difference in the council’s action. Burk and his wife have made generous campaign contributions to most members of the council, including a total of $2,000 to Janet Miller’s recent successful campaign (that’s the maximum amount it’s possible for two people to contribute). If I’d paid that much, I’d probably feel like I didn’t have to answer questions from pesky citizens.

    A question to raise, and one that needs answering, is if this is a new strategy the city will use in the future: Don’t answer questions from citizens. Provide incomplete or erroneous information in the material you make available. Then, if citizens ask questions, you get to point out all the ways they’re wrong — and on television, too.

  • Wichita city council celebrates while others face cuts

    It’s reported that the City of Wichita is facing a $6.5 million shortfall. The city’s looking at several ways to reduce costs, including closing police substations during the overnight hours ($148,000), reducing lawn mowing at parks ($100,000), and cutting back on swimming pool hours ($2,000).

    Here’s one simple thing the city could do to save money that won’t cause very many people any pain at all: cut back on celebratory luncheons.

    On Tuesday April 14, 2009, after the city council meeting, 37 guests lunched at the Hyatt Regency. The total cost of this event to the city, according to the estimate of charges that I asked for, was $1,046.99.

    The event was titled “Wichita City Council Changing of the Guard.”

    That’s not the total cost of the festivities on that day. A city council meeting was held. It was light on business, but long on sentiment. A video presentation of the highlights of departing council member Sharon Fearey’s tenure was shown. Maybe someone else will want to ask how many hours of city employee time it took to create this video.

    Even in good times I don’t think the city should be spending taxpayer funds on celebrations like this. Now the council is asking others to cut, but is spending like this on itself. It’s a mixed message that Wichitans need to remember.

  • Wichita election results equal status quo, worse

    The result of yesterday’s elections in Wichita is an endorsement for the status quo. For those interested in liberty, free markets, and education in Wichita, the election was a total disaster.

    On the Wichita city council, the two incumbents running for re-election won. For the open seat, Janet Miller won. While her website talks of fiscal responsibility, it’s a safe bet that Miller is on the side of increasing the size, scope, and intrusiveness of city government.

    The election of Miller doesn’t signal a huge shift on the council, as Sharon Fearey, her predecessor, favored an expansionary city government.

    For the board of USD 259, the Wichita public school district, all four incumbents won. This is terrible news for Wichita schoolchildren and taxpayers. As outlined in my post Wichita school board members should not be re-elected, the Wichita school district is moving exactly in the wrong direction on many issues.

    The board members have a bad attitude, too. Walt Chappell, a member of the Kansas State Board of Education, recently experienced the overbearing arrogance of this board. My post Wichita school board video shows why members should not be re-elected holds the video that exposes these attitudes.

    But as reported in the Wichita Eagle, board members are pleased. Connie Dietz actually said “This wasn’t time for new people to be on the board.”

    When people like Dietz believe that they — and only they — have the ability to successfully run the Wichita schools, we’re in a lot of trouble. Wichita schoolchildren now face great danger, as any possibility of meaningful reform in the Wichita school district is becoming less likely.

  • Wichita city council endorsements

    Voters in Wichita are deciding on who should fill three city council district positions. Here’s some information to help make a decision.

    In district 1, voters can choose between the appointed incumbent Lavonta Williams and businessman James Barfield. There’s quite a contrast between these two. In my opinion, Williams supports increasing government intervention and intrusion into the lives of Wichitans. This comes in her support of policies such as a smoking ban and TIF districts, but also even in things like the city considering to start providing computer tech support to citizens.

    Barfield is opposed to many of these things, in particular TIF districts. I appreciate enough of Barfield’s positions — and as a liberty-loving Wichitan I am so opposed to many of Williams’ — that I have provided volunteer service to the Barfield campaign. I encourage district 1 voters to vote for James Barfield.

    In district 3, incumbent Jim Skelton faces Charles Dahlem. Skelton has worked hard for his district. He is often the only council member to ask some tough questions of city staff. Sometimes he has frustrated me, as he will express concern or even disagreement with a matter before the council, but he votes for it in the end. I’d like to be able to persuade him that there’s nothing wrong with being on the short end of a six to one vote.

    Also, sometimes when asking city staff members a tough question, instead of sitting still and letting staff answer the question, he may talk over his question, giving staff an easy out. Despite these reservations, I believe Skelton can grow in a second term, and if I lived in district 3, I would vote for him.

    In district 6 voters can choose between Bob Aldrich and Janet Miller. Both have a history of involvement in civic affairs. In endorsing Miller, the Wichita Eagle noted her effectiveness and leadership during her service on various boards. But her positions are wrong. A recent letter in the Eagle got it just right when the writer called her a “Sharon Fearey protoge,” meaning that there are few government programs that she would not be opposed to starting or expanding.

    While I do not agree with Bob Aldrich on all issues — TIF districts and economic development, for example — he would provide a fiscally conservative voice on the city council from a district that doesn’t often send such representatives to the council. I recommend that district 6 voters vote for Bob Aldrich.

  • Lavonta Williams still exploiting dead man

    I had thought this issue would be over, that Wichita city council candidate Lavonta Williams would revise her campaign materials and make the needed corrections. But here’s a report from a citizen:

    “I received a new mailer today from Lavonta and she is STILL using the dead man’s name as a supporter. This is clearly intentional and unacceptable.”

    Original reporting is at Wichita political endorsements from the other side and Another unlikely Lavonta Williams voter.

  • Cornejo & Sons Campaign Contributions

    A few weeks ago, Cornejo & Sons, Inc., a Wichita company, was reported to be in serious violation of agreements with the City of Wichita regarding a construction landfill.

    The Wichita Eagle story Cornejo landfill along K-15 taller than permitted reports the contemporary details. My post Cornejo & Sons campaign contributions history recaps some of this company’s problems with political campaign contributions in the past.

    Undoubtedly this company and its landfill will be in front of the Wichita city council before too long. Voters may want to know to whom has Cornejo or its associates contributed recently. Here’s what my inspection of campaign finance reports shows:

    Lavonta Williams (candidate in district 1) received a contribution of $300 from company president Ron Cornejo on April 17, 2008. Another $500 was received on March 4, 2009.

    Bob Aldrich (candidate in district 6) received a contribution of $200 from company president Ron Cornejo on January 28, 2009.