This special meeting.

I will call this meeting to order.

May we please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

Second, we have a workshop scheduled to discuss guardrails on January 27th.

Then we'll open it for public comment so the community can share their feedback on a potential delay in the special election and any suggestions for guardrails on this proposal.

In the interest of time, and I see that there are many of you here.

Madam Clerk, please call the item.

Repeal of city ordinance 52-866 in consideration of an ordinance of the City of Wichita, Kansas, for the purpose of submitting to qualified electors of the City of Wichita the question relating to the imposition of a 1% citywide retailer's sales tax and placing a question on the August 4th, 2026 election ballot.

Sheridcraft, City Law Department.

Laura Rainwater is here and has another commitment this afternoon.

So if we could take her out of order, she's here to talk about generally why the change was made regarding the polling places for the March 3rd election as well as the potential costs for having the election on March 3rd versus at the primary on August 4th.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council members.

I am Laura Rainwater, your Sedgwick County election commissioner.

Thank you for inviting me here to briefly explain the election administration timeline for the March 3rd election.

The election office was asked in mid-November by the city's legal department about the cost to hold a special election in March.

There are approximately 253,000 registered eligible voters within the city of Wichita.

At the time of the request, we knew of approximately 500 voters who vote in four different polling places in surrounding communities that we we would need to temporarily move due to efficiencies of election operations and the cost of opening those sites for a minimal amount of voters.

It costs approximately 1,200 per site to open on election day and less than 500 total to move those voters to a temporary site for this election.

So the total estimate given at that time back in November was approximately 150,000.

We officially received notice of the city's special election on December 16th.

The following week, we began contacting about 70 polling sites to see if they were available for the March 3rd election.

What we weren't expecting was having to temporarily move another 25,500 voters.

That's just over 10% of eligible voters.

This is a very high number.

To give a comparison for the USD 259 special election last February, which had approximately 200,000 voters, we had to move over just over 10,000 voters, which was approximately 5% to a temporary location.

We contract with polling sites approximately a year in advance for the primary and general election.

The contracts do not include special elections.

The sacrifices they make for the August and November elections are huge.

They do it for minimal compensation and out of service to our community.

We truly appreciate all they do to make our elections accessible accessible to all our community.

For the March 3rd election, one site, Westlink Christian Church, has been sold and will no longer be a host site.

Another site, Heart of Christ Church, we had to make a difficult decision to move voters because of ongoing maintenance issues at that site that kept it from opening at all last year.

So that leaves us with the other five locations.

They told us last week that they have events scheduled that prevent them from being a host on March 3rd.

By law, we must send notices of the temporary change by U.S.

mail to every impacted voter.

The cost to send these notices increased the cost of this election by approximately 20,000.

So far, we have incurred no direct election expenses for the March 3rd election.

By law, we are not allowed to charge for staff time that has been involved thus far.

Pallots and envelopes were supposed to be ordered yesterday, and the notice of election publication is scheduled for next week.

So those expenses have not been incurred because I put everything on pause until after this meeting.

If you move this election to the August primary or the November general, there will also be no cost to the city as it is a countywide election.

Again, I want to thank you for inviting me here today.

I'm happy to stand for any questions.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Did you receive any feedback from any voters that had to move in the last um spring election?

We always get feedback when voters get moved.

We do not like to have to move voters to temporary polling locations.

It confuses them.

We do put signs in up on the doors of all closed polling sites.

We did it for the 259 election and the other special elections that we had last year, alerting voters.

Hey, this location is not open.

Here is where you need to go.

But yes, we get complaints every election, and that is why I sent the email to all of you as well as our county commissioners alerting them you're gonna get phone calls.

There's 26,000 voters that have to be moved for this election.

Is there do you have any metric as as to how many people called and complained for that?

Is that something that you can do?

We keep track of all of the calls that come in, but I can get that to you.

I don't have it with me today.

Okay, thank you.

Uh-huh.

We have questions from Councilmember Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Laura, for being here today and for the work that you do.

Um I've had the opportunity to be a uh a poll agent, and I know that it's a very rewarding experience.

Um you mentioned that there are some polls that are um being impacted due to maintenance on facilities and or events that are scheduled on the same day as the special election as it is right now.

Um are you able to project out in the if we were to move this to August?

If you would encounter some of the same situations, no, we would not.

Um voters would vote at their assigned polling places.

We've already contracted with all of our polling sites.

There's over a hundred for both the primary and general elections.

Those are countywide elections.

Um every voter will be voting.

The unaffiliated voters for the primary will have will create a different ballot style.

So their ballot will only have if you were to move this to August, would only have the sales tax question on it.

Does that make sense?

Yes, it does make sense.

What's the plan to communicate with those who are unaffiliated with a party that they would still be eligible to show up in that August election, considering that typically it's partisan?

I know that there's a judicial question also on that August ballot as well.

You would then factor in a sales tax question that every citizen in the city of Wichita limits would be eligible for.

Do you have a plan on what's the marketing and or communication to educate voters on that?

Absolutely.

We we get out there in the media as well as social media because every voter will be voting in this primary, because you brought up a good point.

There is a constitutional amendment on this ballot come August, so that will also open it up to every single voter in Sedgwick County in August.

Thanks for bringing that up.

Good point.

Councilmember Glasscock.

Thank you.

Quick question.

How many items are we expecting?

Obviously, the state legislator could change that where we would have more maybe ballot questions depending on what happens this legislative session.

How many items are we expecting on the August ballot as it stands now before the legislature adds further questions?

Well, it would just right now we know of the one constitutional amendment.

Total all elections.

Races?

Oh, all of your state representatives, state uh state offices.

So we're looking on in typical ballot, five, ten, fifteen.

How many state representatives are there that represent Sedgwick County?

I don't know off the top of my head.

Twenty.

Close.

Give or take a few.

So those races will be on the ballot.

On a particular ballot, though.

So it varies by election.

Okay.

But we don't have a set number for that yet.

No, I can get that for you.

That would be helpful.

Yep.

Can I go back to the August question?

Um, because it we do have a lot of independent voters or non-affiliated voters.

About a third of the county registered voters.

So because there's already going to be a constitutional ballot question, was there gonna be communication, extra communication to those independent voters?

I'm sure there'll be a lot of uh uh uh information coming out between now and August, getting the word out that there is a constitutional amendment on the ballot for all voters to vote on.

Um so I'm sure that'll come down from both parties.

Um everybody's eligible come August.

Thank you.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

So I just want to clarify, because because I mentioned this yesterday, this is a major concern for me.

Does the county have any plan to educate voters or to spend any dollars on communication to independent and or unaffiliated voters that they would be eligible to participate on the August ballot for two particular questions?

One being a sales tax and another being the referendum regarding the judicial process.

I did have some constituents reach out and share that maybe perhaps they don't care about the judicial referendum.

I would not encourage that.

I encourage them to pay very close attention to that.

But is there a plan?

So we don't have an advertising budget.

Um, but we do.

I'm all about voter education.

As you know, um we are always out in the community.

We are always on the news, um, all three stations, social media.

We can play a big presence on getting the word out.

It's very important.

I'm a firm believer that you should vote in every election you are eligible to vote in.

Um, so yeah, there will be lots of publicity leading up to August.

But my understanding from you is that we were we are relying on outside resources to do that.

Okay.

I have a question, Mayor, for the city manager.

If that's okay with you, City Manager, um, given that the and I know that we've discussed this before prior to my time on council, but for those who are here, I think it's important.

Where is that 170,000 coming from?

We actually have it identified in the city manager's budget, is my understanding.

So it's been identified for funding in the current fiscal year that started January 1st.

Okay, no other questions.

Again, thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Just a little background as to how we got here.

Maybe I'm not advancing for some reason.

Uh, as background, in December, the city council approved an ordinance calling for a special sales tax.

Um, it was to approve a one percent retailer sales tax.

Um, state statutes limit sales tax or special elections to occur at three particular elections.

There used to be more flexibility in that uh recently in 2022.

Uh the state statutes were amended to limit those elections to occur at a general, a primary or elections held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March.

Um the election or the ballot called for a number of specific purposes to provide funding for public safety, homelessness and housing, uh real revitalization of century two and convention center improvements, property tax release, and the development and construction of a new downtown public performing arts.

The applicable statutes when passing a sales tax, state law provides at the ballot for a special purpose election, must specify the purpose or purposes for which the revenue may be used.

The revenue can only be used for the purposes as specified in the ballot.

Um again, the ballot language divides up the sales tax into a number of, we've been referring to them as buckets, um, an amount not to exceed 225 million dollars for public safety costs for the construction and maintenance of facilities, acquisition of vehicles, apparatus and equipment, uh, amount not to exceed 250 million dollars for costs for read all revitalization of century two not to exceed 25 million, upgraded and expanded conventure convention center improvements not to exceed 225 million, 150 million dollars for property tax relief, 150 million dollars to establish a special fund to invest and to support homelessness and uh housing services by per by funding affordable housing projects, an amount not to exceed 75 million dollars for the development and construction of a new downtown performing arts center.

Um as Mayor Wu stated on Friday, we received information from the election commissioner that uh polling places were required to be moved, and therefore the cost of the election has increased.

Um, yesterday, Mayor Woo, pursuant to her authority by city ordinance called for this but called for this special meeting to discuss the special election.

Um, in order to delay the uh previously called special election, you have to repeal the ordinance calling for that election.

Um, once that ordinance is repealed, the council could pass a new ordinance and a new notice calling for a special election to occur at the time of the primary election or the general election.

Uh the election ordinance uh provisions which have been presented mirror those of the prior ordinance, which was passed by the city council to provide guidance to the election commissioner as she mentioned, ballots are mailed out on Friday.

So it is required that the city ordinance repealing the prior special election ordinance be passed on one reading, which by city ordinances require that an emergency declaration be made by the city council.

Um declare the existence of a public merch emergency and pass the ordinance on a single reading.

Um place a second ordinance on first reading calling for a special election and approve the proposed notice of special election.

And I would stand for questions.

I know Mayor would wanted some information about the guardrails.

Um staff have been working on the requested resolution to try to formalize some of those issues that have been presented by the city council.

Um staff is meeting with uh new city manager um tomorrow to work and have additional conversations regarding the public private partnership agreement, which has been discussed at the last meeting where this was discussed.

In addition to those cardrails, thank you, Sharon, for the information.

Um I know that the January 27th meeting, we're gonna talk about each of the five quote buckets.

Can you provide what are some proposed guardrails that are going to be discussed in addition?

What are just the current ones that are in place at this current moment?

Try to talk about just what that process would look like.

Good uh excuse me.

Good afternoon, Mayor.

Uh, we've had some very preliminary discussions about what those guardrails were would look like.

Uh as you know, in the finance department, we have a well-practiced machine on uh accountability uh for financial transactions, uh, so it uh would fit in well with us.

Uh we would uh attempt to segregate all the funds in very specific buckets so that we could ensure that they were only used exactly uh as they were directed based on the referendum.

Uh some of the investment pieces we would still want to work out what our investment policy and options might be in those areas, but again, we uh would have mechanisms to ensure that any investment income from those particular items would remain in the bucket for those.

Uh we've had some preliminary discussions again about how we could coordinate our efforts with the oversight committee as well.

Again, we have practice with that model.

Uh it's been a while, but uh, we employed a very similar model with our countywide sales tax back in 1986, so that model is also familiar with us.

So we're having a lot of discussions around those issues.

I'm confident that we would have no problem developing procedures and policies to keep everything segregated and report uh all the appropriate information to the appropriate parties.

Mark, can you share what current guardrails are in place at the current moment?

Can you speak about these buckets yet again?

For the sales tax coming up, the referendum.

Again, we're in the preliminary stages, Mayor.

Uh, we're still developing those.

Uh we have a lengthy report that was prepared that would outline uh some of the procedures that we could employ.

Again, uh not to get too much into accounting, uh, but we would develop separate and distinct funds or projects for every single item.

Uh we would account for the uh items specifically as would be outlined in an audit plan.

We typically would develop an audit plan of exactly what we're going to report on and what we're going to uh make sure we're compliant with, and then we would develop procedures to ensure compliance with those.

So again, we're pretty well practiced with that.

We do that currently with CapPor Projects as general capital projects, primarily because they're debt financed, and there's a whole series of rules around that.

So it's something we're very familiar with.

We would just have to adopt specific procedures for uh any buckets developed as a result of the referendum.

Thank you, Mark.

Council member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um at the workshop, we will be prioritizing the order of those buckets too, correct?

Because some of them we will have to start filling up immediately, and some of those buckets can wait a little while before the capital has to or the revenue has to flow into them.

Well, that would be a good discussion to have because uh again, when the revenue comes into us, it would be helpful for us if we knew whether to allocate it proportionally or in a specific order, so that would be a good discussion point.

Okay, I appreciate it.

Yeah, I think that's something a discussion we will be having because um, for example, second light, that'll have to be an immediate cost that we that we look at helping help cover.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mark and email to me if we put the ballot on in August, when's the first time we could collect sales tax?

What would state start collecting sales tax?

When would they start collecting it?

Uh, based on Kansas Department of Revenue regulations, uh, we have to provide them 90 days' notice of any proposed new sales tax.

And the second rule they have is they only begin at the beginning of quarters.

Uh so if you worked at the calendar backwards, uh the short answer is January 1st is when this would be effective if the referendum was adopted in or approved in August.

Okay, and it takes some time to send that money to the community.

When would that be?

Yeah, there's typically about a three-month lag.

Uh we would expect our first distribution towards the end of March, probably.

Okay, so the end of March would be the first time any money would come in.

Yes, sir.

Okay, thank you.

That's a good follow-up question.

So if this remained at the March special election, provide the date of when taxes would start getting collected, and then again, one more time if it went to August when it would be collected.

Again, I believe uh the current uh referendum that was approved uh in December uh would take effect on July 1st, if I remember correctly, uh, which would give us the ability to provide the 90 day notice to KDOR, and again, uh we would expect to collect it uh July, August, probably around September.

We would receive our collections in September.

Councilmember Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh the Mayor and Councilmember Johnston raised a good point.

I'm curious if maybe you can explain, Mark, when is the city projected to face a budget shortfall and by how much?

Uh each year we develop a financial plan associated with our budget process.

It's a point in time financial plan.

That financial plan was included in the budget that the city council adopted back in August of 2025.

Uh that financial plan has a deficit in uh 2028 of 4.1 million dollars, and then 2029 approximately eight million dollars.

Um follow up.

How does the stabilization or the reserve fund play into that considering that we know that a rainy day may be coming?

Sure.

Uh we created the stabilization fund, I believe, in uh 2020.

Uh during the pandemic, uh, we were receiving abnormally large revenues from a variety of sources, particularly interest income, and so uh the city council established the stabilization reserve, and we basically swept our abnormally large revenue streams into the uh stabilization reserve and built the balance.

Uh that reserve is available for purposes based on policy.

Uh typically reserves are better suited for one-time purposes, but it is available uh in the adopted budget last year that the city council approved.

Uh, it envisions drawing down approximately nine million dollars from that uh stabilization reserve in years 27, 28, and 29.

Mayor, if I may have one final follow-up.

So assuming the sales tax passes, a lot of folks reached out yesterday because I mentioned that there's a potential of 197 million dollars in CIP saving, not all at once, of course.

I think that's important to clarify.

Like we're not gonna wake up one day and have 197 million dollars in the bank, it'll be over time.

So can you clarify how much uh per year is projected of that 1970 give or take?

And then um if there is a possibility to earmark those funds prior to those savings, so that community can have a voice in how those dollars are being used.

Sorry, sir, I wasn't running away from your question.

I just wanted to get some uh detail because that is included in our CIP and I don't have the CIP memorized, unfortunately.

Uh you are correct.

RCIP includes 197 million dollars for public safety improvements.

Uh small technical point, I will point out that five million of that is revenue we expect to receive from K DOT.

Uh so the local shares actually a little closer to about 193 million, but a fine point on that.

But that is allocated over a 10-year period, 2026 to 2035, and it's not linear.

We allocate resources based on need and financial capacity.

Now the public safety uh section happens to be rather front loaded, which is to say that the bulk of it is in the first five years.

Uh but to your specific question, if you don't mind, I'll just read the amounts off.

I'm gonna use round numbers.

We have about 14.4 million in 2026, about uh 17.5 million and 27, 22.6 million and 28, 33.9 million in 29, uh 31.9 million in 30, 2030, and uh 21 million in 2031, uh 18 million in 2032, 19, 20 million or so rounded in 2033, uh 10 million in 2034, and about 8 million in 2035.

A follow-up question before uh Vice Mayor uh Glasscock, can you just explain um how we currently are funding these will be potentially funding these public safety facilities, police and fire stations and equipment.

Can you address the bond versus cash funding of these major capital investments?

Yeah.

Uh with the exception of the KDO funding, I mentioned the entire public safety project plan of 193 some million dollars is will be funded in the current adopted CIP with general obligation funding.

Uh general obligation funding means that we would finance it out of our debt service fund uh into which we levy approximately seven mills.

Now, to your specific question, uh we have the capacity to debt finance that we also have the capacity to pay cash for that.

Uh typically, and it varies based on project, but typically our target ratio is approximately 50 percent cash and 50 percent debt.

Again, I won't go into the nuances because it can vary significantly based on project and timing and a lot of other variables, but simplistically of that 193 million, we'd expect to issue what uh 95 million or so in debt over that 10 year period and probably pay about 95 million in cash over that 10 year period.

And that ratio of 5050 could change.

Is that one of the proposals that you know of regarding the sales tax?

Well, it probably would change for the capital improvement program because uh our total GO in the capital improvement program is somewhere in the neighborhood of 350 million dollars, so public safety is literally over half of our entire uh CIP on the GO side.

So if that portion was funded with a different source, uh that would provide the council with a variety of options.

I mean, uh I suppose that 190 million could be reallocated to other purposes.

Uh we could, you know, you would have options of whether the mill levy going into the debt service one was the set at the appropriate level, or to your point, another uh option would be for us to accelerate our cash funding of the remainder of the uh capital improvement program and then you know basically modify that 50-50 ratio probably to zero to a hundred, zero and a hundred, maybe I don't know.

We would issue we would our issue our need to issue debt would be significantly reduced in our capital improvement program if the public safety portion was removed from it.

And cash funding obviously would remove the aspect of interest rates.

Can you address how much in savings could be had if it went all into cash funding versus bond funding?

Uh I'll start out with that because I I did look at this uh a week or so ago.

The public safety portion that I mentioned, maybe issuing 95 million over 10 years or so.

Uh if we did that, uh that interest cost on that based on a variety of assumptions that we typically use uh would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 or 26 million dollars.

So, in other words, uh we would not have the need for that issuance on the public safety side, and uh means that the uh city would save approximately 25 or 26 million dollars in projected interest that we would pay.

I can't really answer the second part of your question with any degree of precision uh because I I did model that, but if we did have more cash in the debt service fund to pay cash for the remainder of it, I think it's very likely that we would not issue any more geo debt for the foreseeable future, uh, which means that uh the only debt service payments we would make were for our existing already issued debt.

Uh again, I I apologize I did not run a model on that, uh, but I would guess it would be uh probably 15, 16, 17 million dollars.

A lot of variables involved, so I'm you know giving you the big picture view, but uh generally that's what I would estimate.

Thank you, Mark.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you.

I just want to uh have that question answered again.

How much would we save by cash funding these projects over the course of uh the seven years?

Uh if we could cash fund the entire public safety portion, I would estimate we would save somewhere in the neighborhood of 25 to 26 million dollars.

So if this were to pass in March, the city would save 25 to 30 million dollars in um the interest earnings from that or the debt pay debt service payments for it.

If the if this passes in March and the CIP is reflective of the elimination of the GO funding for public safety projects, then yes, we would likely save about 25 or 26 million dollars over the course of the CIP.

Okay, thank you.

Follow-up question to that that's maybe a little nuanced and a little specific.

So if you don't have this information, that's totally fine.

Last week we purchased a new fire apparatus.

Uh um, how much would we have saved if we would have cash funded that project based on debt servicing over the life of that project?

What was it, four or five million dollars?

Four million correctly.

Uh I I really can't answer with any precision, but it would be probably in the upper hundreds of thousands.

Okay, so that one project that we debt serviced last week, if we would have cash funded it as part of the sales tax, would have saved a couple hundred thousand dollars theoretically.

Yeah, I mean, simplistically, interest uh ultra simplistically is maybe 15 or 20 percent of a total project cost.

So if it was five million, fifteen percent would be what uh 750,000, maybe so.

We could have saved 750,000 if this let's say we've had the sales tax six months ago.

Potentially, yes.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um Mark.

There are some concerns from community that they want to know how these dollars are being used and want to be able to follow along.

Should the sales tax pass, and I would argue, even even without a sales tax, I just feel that there's a major appetite to be able to follow along with what's happening with city finances.

Given your capacity as a department, what what is realistic for the finance department to commit to so that the public has readily available access to how their dollars are being spent, where it's going, and where we may be falling short and can do better.

Well, again, uh that is in our wheelhouse.

That's what we do routinely and consistently.

Currently, we report formally on a quarterly basis.

Uh obviously, we would have the capacity to report on more frequent time periods and in more greater detail.

Uh it's kind of a balance between staff resources and uh the degree of reporting.

Uh, we'd certainly have the capacity to do that.

Uh yes, would it require additional work for us?

Uh on the reporting side, probably.

Uh we would either reprioritize resources in the finance department or we have some contractual partners in some cases we lean on.

Uh I will point out to you, council member, uh, we're in the middle of a centralization process, which I think you're aware of.

Uh that process will provide capacity in the finance department for a variety of things, and that might be useful for us uh if we enhance our financial reporting to a more frequent period.

Uh so that might be a way that we would mitigate some of the effort that any additional financial reporting would require council member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mark, now this the CIP is not etched in stone, right?

Like there's constant move bumping projects up, bumping projects back, depending on the availability and the projections that we have in the budget in the CIP, correct?

The CIP is a plan.

And any plan is subject to change.

Obviously, we have parameters under which we like to consider changes to it, but you're exactly right.

Uh and in fact, every CIP project is actually approved twice.

You approve the plan when you approve the adopted CIP, but we don't initiate a project until staff brings that specific project to you.

And you're right, variety of issues impact that timing, sometimes strategic uh issues, you know, sometimes if we're leveraging funds and we have issues there.

So there's a variety of reasons why projects move back and forth in the capital improvement program.

But generally we use it as a guiding plan for what we want to accomplish.

But yes, I wouldn't disagree with you.

They move forward and backwards, and sometimes the amounts increase, sometimes they decrease.

So it is a plan.

Right.

Um I do remember a couple years ago we took a pretty large chunk of money from Crystal Prairie Lake and put it towards firehouses, at least 20 million, I believe.

Um so what does the CIP look like currently?

And do you see us adjusting and possibly bumping some things back in the CIP with current projections?

Based on our current projections, uh the capital improvement program is a little different than the operating budget uh for one particular reason, two particular reasons.

One, the capital improvement program is not financed with interest earnings, and all our volatility on the general fund is largely on the revenue side due to interest earnings.

Uh conversely, assessed valuation is significant in the capital improvement program, and as we know that's been pretty strong, which has actually been good for the capital improvement program.

Our projections going forward again, we're heavily reliant on property tax in the capital improvement program.

Uh we generally have some pretty conservative estimates in the out years.

Uh, we've been pretty surprised by the valuation growth in the last few years.

We don't model that to continue.

Uh so I guess my point is there's just not quite the pressure on the capital improvement program that we have on the operating budget.

There's a little bit more flexibility there.

So, what are the projections moving forward?

Do we are we looking at the state potentially capping property taxes?

Just property tax assessments going down.

What's helping to inform our projections there?

That's a great point.

We do not project things like that.

We're certainly cognizant that any action by the state legislature could impact our property tax revenues, which would have a significant impact most likely on the uh capital improvement program.

I was just referring more generically to our modeling.

We always model assessed valuation growth.

Uh again, we visit with our friends across the street, or not across the street anymore, but down the street over at the uh at the county, and they uh help us and give us some information that they have available about trends, and we try to use that to make an informed projection of typical growth, irrespective of any potential legislative changes.

Okay, appreciate that.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor.

I got a response back from the fire chief.

So thank you, fire chief, for sending some information regarding the fire apparatus.

Based on finances calculations, we would have spent 800,000, so you're very on the money up here.

Thank you.

800,000, or we would have saved 800,000.

Um, and so inaction really costs us 630,000 if we're looking at the net positive of the sales tax.

So thank you for that.

Thank you.

I'm having a good day, I guess.

You are that's great.

My question then now is about one of those buckets.

Um, it is the property tax relief.

Um, I think from this bench we've talked about multiple things, but uh the number I recall is a four-mill reduction.

Can you talk about our current mill levy um and what happened this past uh August of 25 regarding a mill levy reduction and what this would mean if we had a four-mill?

Sure.

Uh I'm gonna use round numbers, Mayor, because I can't remember the it goes out four or five decimals, and I can't remember the decimals.

Uh but our mill levy is in the neighborhood.

Uh traditionally it's been in the neighborhood about 32.7 uh ballpark.

Uh as you know, we've uh had a policy here at the city to keep it flat for years and years and years.

Approximately if you discount the impact of reappraisal and reclassification happened in the early 90s, our mill levy has essentially been flat for and not increased for 40 some years.

Uh but uh last year uh particularly due to our valuation growth, the council made the policy decision to reduce our mill levy, and we actually reduced it by about a half a mill, uh, which I think was the first time it actually been reduced by action of the governing body again in probably about 40 years.

Uh so our mill levy now is closer to I believe 32.3, 32.2, sometime somewhere in that neighborhood.

And uh that's what happened last year.

So what would happen with the four mil reduction if that was to occur?

I know that we're in the middle of a new budget cycle uh that you're gonna propose to us.

Will you have two different budgets?

One that shows one that doesn't have a four-mill reduction and one that does have a four-mill reduction.

Uh I don't know that we'd go that route, Mayor, if the referendum is currently scheduled for March and if it's uh approved, uh, most likely what staff would recommend when the budget was developed, and we discussed this in workshops is based on the direction in the referendum to use that funding to reduce the mill levy.

Most likely we would estimate what that amount would be available uh, the amount that would be available.

Now, remember we're setting the mill levy for 2027 because our mill levy for 2026 is already set.

Uh, but I would envision uh that we would determine the amount of revenue necessary in the general fund to fund whatever level of uh uh outcomes the city council desired, and then we would subtract from that the amount of money that we believed would be available from the sales tax, and you're correct.

Uh ballpark figures, roughly that would probably be about four mills.

Thank you, Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, on the prop on the property tax relief question here.

Uh, do you feel like this ordinance has um gives us latitude to make more targeted property tax relief?

Or do you do you interpret it as just being across the board mill lever reduction?

Uh council member, that's probably a better question reserved for your council.

But my and my understanding was based on the previous discussions that it would be utilized for uh as I noted, just an uh effort to reduce the overall mill levy.

But again, I'm I'm not an attorney, so I'm probably not qualified to answer the nuances of your question.

Okay, I I'd be curious about that.

I know this isn't necessarily the place.

I think the workshop's something that we can work on that more, but that is something I'm in very much interested in is making sure that we target it towards the people who need the relief the most.

Um so again, I keep talking about the homestead rebate, trying to match that again.

We did it in 2023.

So just again putting it on people's radar, and I would be uh curious.

I think that would also be something that would be up to any um oversight committee as well to kind of make a judgment on their interpretation of um of the ordinance, but that's something I would like to have some clarification for before um our workshop on the 27th.

I'm sorry, sir.

I may have misunderstood your question.

I thought your question was more towards which mill levy and how would we reduce the mill levy, but I understand your question now.

Uh, yes, uh, you know, that's been discussed as well.

Uh I think uh the former city manager mentioned some of the challenges we have with that.

Uh we did in uh develop a property tax relief program several years ago.

Uh we want to ensure accountability in that program, and so essentially our mechanism to do that was to copy it completely based on the state program.

Yes, sir.

Uh, you know, that certainly would be an option uh if we wanted to go that route.

Uh or I'm sure there's other options available.

The challenge for us is ensuring uh auditability and accountability and how we spend those dollars, and our second challenge would be how to do that in a manner that is efficient for staff to do because particularly on the property tax uh program, it resulted in a lot of applications that were relatively small dollars for us.

I recognize it's very important to the people that we paid the money to, and it was you know, it was uh you know, made us feel good to make those payments uh based on some of the applications I saw.

So I'm glad we did it, but it's it can be labor-intensive, so we'd want to consider that as well.

Yeah, if I remember correctly, we brought in or they they would bring in their the um their tax information and show that yeah, they qualified for it and got the homestead rebate, and then we would just take the city's share of that and give them a rebate.

And I believe your estimates could be up to 250 dollars by your estimates.

Um a big part of that is senior citizens who make 41,000 dollars or less.

And then also people living in poverty and disabled American veterans.

So again, just putting it on the radar since it came up in this topic.

So you're right, you're right.

The beauty of that program though was we didn't audit any information provided us.

We assumed that if they provided it to the state of Kansas that CDOR would be auditing and verifying their returns, so that made it much simpler to us.

If you could show us a tax return and that KDOR had accepted it, that was that provided us with the accountability piece that we needed, and that's why we piggyback on the state program.

Okay, appreciate it.

Thank you, Mark.

This question is um for someone else on staff.

I'm not clear who would be available to answer this question.

Um, but second light is the shelter uh plus services that are being provided at 9th and Main Street, and currently I believe those dollars run out by the end of September.

I wanted to know what is the plan in regards to operating dollars beyond October 1st.

And for full disclosure, Councilmember Ballard and I both sit on the second light board.

So honorable mayor members, council Trianderson, assistant city manager.

So I don't know if there is a plan beyond I I'd have to defer to the board of second light uh to I don't know what their status is on funding outside of the ARPA funds that were provided, uh, but you're you're correct.

The ARPA funds that were provided uh were supposed to provide funding through the end of 2026.

Uh we accelerated that just for auditing purposes and closing out accounts uh that those be spent by uh the end of Q3 of this year, uh but otherwise, beyond uh Q3 of this year, beyond those ARPA funds, the city has not allocated any other funds to support uh second light in the day-to-day operations.

And do you recall the amount that is needed to operate second light?

So if my memory serves me correctly, they've come up with a number of about four million dollars a year uh for annual operations.

Thank you.

I see no further questions from the bench.

We will open it up for public comment, and as a reminder, we have limited it to three minutes uh so that everyone has the opportunity to speak.

Please state your name and your address.

Good morning, City Council Celeste Rassett, former chief internal auditor.

Too big, too rushed, too vague.

One of you said yesterday, and I quote a group brought this to us.

We did not bring this proposal forward.

A separate group brought this proposal forward.

A separate group, that's another word for insider.

I say insiders because of the Webster definition.

A person who is in a position to have special knowledge of the affairs of or to influence the decisions of a company.

When were discussions started with insider groups for this plan sales tax increase?

That's a big question.

Insiders are not to make decisions for city council.

Taxpayers elected each of you to make decisions for city council.

Here's what your responsibilities are right off this placard.

Community representation, budget approval, legislative authority, not bankers, construction companies, or business owners, not insiders.

One of you said, and I quote, to say I'm frustrated and baffled is the understatement of the century.

That's not transparent, that's not giving anyone in the community any trust in us, unquote.

I hate to break it to you, but 70% of Wichita citizens do not trust you.

Taxpayers are incredibly frustrated that you all held secret private meetings with business insiders behind closed doors before this was presented in December in City Council.

You want to know what's incredibly unfortunate for Wichita that some of you sitting here on City Council passed an 80 million dollar vote on a new ball stadium through an emergency ordinance, and that former city manager Leighton overestimated the revenue, causing the general fund to have to pick up the tab.

It's incredibly unfortunate that some of you sitting on city council allowed a former city mayor, excuse me, to change the bid on the new city water plant after a freebie golf trip.

It's incredibly unfortunate that some of you sitting on city council did nothing when two insider developers sold off collateral on a taxpayer-funded two million dollar loan.

The loan went into default and the loan was off the books.

That's Kinmar.

And I hate to take offense with finance manager.

I hate to say this, but that is not an accounting practice that I consider well vetted.

When you have loans off the books that aren't recorded for two million dollars, that is a travesty of taxpayer funds that we entrust to you to spend properly.

It is incredibly unfortunate that the city of Wichita had no internal auditor for three years.

This violated administrative regulation 1.2, and that just astounds me.

It's incredibly unfortunately unfortunate that you allowed an outsider group to violate city commission policy number 20.

Municipal facilities are not to be used for commercial or political activities.

So how is it that this outside group, not a charity, was allowed to speak at the advanced learning library and during district advisory meetings when my nonprofit group is held to only five minute meetings a year.

It is incredibly unfortunate that a bipartisan group spent hours finding efficiencies and savings in the witchdaws process, but former city manager Leighton failed to meet with us, and one of our suggestions was to pay off the debt on the fair filled in early and save a million dollars.

But the finance department said with low interest rates, why would they pay off that bond debt?

And yet here we are being told that they need to cash fund the CIP.

Strongly disagree with you.

Too big, too rushed, too vague.

Thank you.

Good morning.

My name is Bill Anderson.

I live at 1227 Jefferson and then Maggie Balard's district.

Hi, Maggie.

And congratulations to Joseph and Baggy for the re-elections or four elections.

Okay.

I came here, I come here today with good intentions, and I assume all of you have good intentions too.

That's the assumption.

That's the basis that I'm going to make the short presentation.

If I can get this thing to open.

Sorry.

One of the things that has bothered me from the beginning is the apparent urgency of this.

Can everybody hear me?

All right, good.

Okay.

Um Joseph and I were at the first meeting when these people presented it, and one of the things that came out of that was the lack of trust.

We I mean it was really it was palpable.

People don't trust what you guys do, unfortunately.

There's a lot of lack of trust.

Okay.

The urgency.

Come on, open this up.

Oh man, I am sorry.

I'm really sorry.

Okay.

Um it feels like a bulldozer.

Uh shortly after that meeting, I started seeing ads on TV, uh, particularly during the news cycle for this proposing this, all the wonderful things we could have without mentioning the one percent regressive sales tax.

That was not mentioned.

To me, that I'm suspicious of things like that.

It sounds like we're being hoodwinked, bulldozed.

More than eight tenths of a we're you're asking people over the course of seven years for us to put in almost eight or more than eight tenths of a billion dollars.

That's a lot of cash.

You're asking people to come up with the taxes regressive.

Today I was really interested in hearing bucket.

It reminds me of the limerically about Ntucket, and I won't continue the rest of that.

Uh, but we've all we all know where that ends up.

Uh but in terms of buckets, sorry, in terms of buckets, I really wish whenever we have this, or if if it is done, and I I prefer not to have a regressive tax to do it, but to be prioritized.

We have a bucket for a public private cultural center as opposed to a bucket to help the homeless.

What should what should have greater priority?

What should have greater priority?

My concern is this is not, there's nothing concrete about this.

We have no idea what is being proposed actually, how this thing is gonna look.

And I really ask you all to do the research, take the time so that you would know what the heck we're gonna be doing, and then you could, and then you could propose it.

Then you then you could try to educate us about what's needed and how it's gonna happen.

It's my wife's calling, sorry.

Uh if she were here, she could tell you about problems with sensory two.

She worked here for over 30 years.

Uh there are a lot of problems with sensory too, but they're all all kinds of things that don't make sense.

Don't make sense.

I thank you very much for your effort.

Um forget the buckets, okay?

Let's just have let's prioritize the needs of people of which it's all.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

My name is Joan Schneider.

I am an attorney and a retired Army veteran.

I'm not going to waste your time.

As a former Army leader, I know nothing is more important than having the trust of those who follow you.

And that means accountability and transparency.

When people cannot trust the process, they do not trust their leaders.

Rushing this proposal to a special election creates the impression, true or not, true or not, that this leadership places special interests above those that they represent.

The right thing to do is to move the election to the August election.

There's no additional cost for moving it.

Yes, there is a cost in that the tax will not be collected as quickly.

But when you consider the cost of the reputation of this council and the trust of the people that it serves, it is more valuable to maintain that trust or to earn that trust rather than eroding it, just to rush such an important issue that still deserves pop popular comment, actual discussion, and for the people to consider it rationally.

Therefore, it should be considered on the August ballot and not in March.

Thank you.

And uh in light of the new information that's come, um uh and I think mines can be uh uh changed um based on the new information.

Um this you know, there's some important things that could happen with the sales tax, but if you push the uh um if you go ahead and uh keep it on the March election, it's gonna fail, and then we're not gonna have that funding.

So this theoretical six months of uh um extra funding that's been talked about that could happen, wouldn't happen because it wouldn't be there.

Um, I've been a supervising judge at several um um election polling places uh for the uh several years.

And um you know, and especially during the last year when we had uh several special um elections, people were complaining about the special elections, and you know, why are they doing this?

And uh and uh Commissioner Rainwater um uh mentioned um that the um amount of you know uh people she didn't have the figure I know that uh council member Hoheisel asked for some metrics about the uh number of people that were um you know mad about um um their polling places change.

Well I can tell you as a poll worker that uh we get a lot of people angry uh when they come and they uh this is their polling site for years, all of a sudden it's not, they've been shifted around.

And uh and also remind you that um the shift will happen twice.

If it if in March they're gonna be shifted to one polling place, then in August they're gonna be shifted to another polling place back to their other one.

So they're gonna have to be informed twice, and a lot of people don't um see those uh mails that go out to um find their polling place.

So there's a lot of frustration, and we don't turn away voters.

You know, we uh um if they we tell them if you want to stay, you can do a provisional ballot, which is more work for the for the um um the voter, and it's more work for the uh um the county election office too, but uh but it I'm primarily uh concerned about the voters.

And if you want to really engage the voters and you want the voters, you want the the people of uh the city of which really to voice their opinion on and to do this, then you'll give them time and push this off to um August or November where there'll be more time for them to come and there'll be more people.

I guarantee there's gonna be a lot of people at this August election with that um constitutional amendment.

There's gonna be um a lot of voters there, so please um uh delay the uh until uh later date the vote.

Thank you.

Good morning, James Barfield.

Well, good afternoon, I guess.

Uh District One.

You know, I'm here today to address some comments that were made on yesterday at the uh council meeting.

And first thing I want to say is I am baffled that nobody is talking about the issue that affects every single family in the city of Wichita, and that is the food sales tax that would be applied if this bill was to go forward.

Now, secondly, I want to address some of the comments, and some of them are almost comical.

Well, yesterday I heard more than once that we didn't bring this, it was brought to us.

And let me just tell you that 90 percent of the items that you discuss here are brought to you.

And let me just tell you why we don't trust you.

You've heard the word trust from almost everybody that's spoken.

Let me tell you a few items that were brought to you that you brought to us.

The water walk, which we're in the hook, we're on the hook for 40 million dollars, the Genesis Project, which we lost hundreds of thousands, the Kinmore project, which we're on the hook for 1.4 million dollars.

It is projects like this that has caused the public not to trust you.

Now the thing about it is this when we all of you were elected to represent us, and after hearing the comments yesterday, I think some of you have forgotten who you're supposed to represent.

It was said yesterday that these people that propose on this are taking a risk.

How are they taking the risk they have not invested one dollar?

The people that are here are the ones that are taking the risk.

They're the ones who are gonna be paying for this, should we go through?

So I need I need you guys to really take a strong look at not who is making these proposals, because all these have for one thing in common.

The Waterwalk Project, the Kinmar Project, the Genesis Project, and this one all were proposed by rich millionaires and billionaires to suck up our hard working tax dollars.

It's time to put it to a stop.

And yesterday I proposed that you uh repeal it today.

I'm gonna say take it completely off the table.

I apologize.

I have a couple of people on the board really quick.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh Mr.

Barfield.

Yesterday, my brother who serves in the state legislature introduced legislation to give cities and counties the option to eliminate their local sales tax on groceries, um, just like the state has done.

So we are in contact with them.

I realize it didn't come up yesterday, but that is something that all of us up here are united in trying to push through for this.

We would be the only municipality in the state of Kansas that I know of that we subjected to paying taxes on food.

No, that's every every municipality does who has a sales tax.

That's actually ingrained in the state law.

So if you go out to Derby or if you go out to any of the other surrounding towns that have a sales tax, um, and actually right now, you are paying that um for the countywide sales tax on food.

Still one percent currently.

Well the governor worked very hard for a number of years to finally get to the point where we don't pay it.

And we've only enjoyed that for one year, and now we're gonna be reimposing that.

And that's unfair.

And that is a state sales tax that they lowered it to zero on, but the any municipalities and counties are still paying uh sales tax on groceries.

Okay, uh second question.

No.

Vice Mayor Glascock.

Thank you.

I don't have any questions, Mr.

Roarfield.

I would just like to say the water walk deal was passed in 2002.

I was eight.

Um Genesis was 2011.

I was in high school, and Kinmar was.

So it's not this council that made the determinations, and often many of the many of us from this bench got elected to try to be able to change business at City Hall.

But I will not be responsible for something that happened for this bench when I was eight years old.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

My comment is uh in reference to, I was gonna wait until the end, but um if we can, the city manager can please get one of the with one of the previous speakers to discuss uh the discrepancy as to why their nonprofit group was being told that they could not utilize the lot the the services at the same rate as others.

I feel very strongly that we should be equitable and fair across the board.

And I'm not sure what the entire situation was.

I'm not blaming anybody here, but um if we can at least take the time to just communicate and clarify, um, I think folks would be really grateful for that.

I will just add to that city manager that is the Safe Century 2 group, and I would love for you guys to offline have that conversation.

Thank you very much.

We'll continue with public comment.

And what I want to use my point of privilege to recognize that commissioner Jim Howell is here.

Well, thank you, madam mayor.

It's a great honor to be here.

This is actually my second time to appear before the city council in my 12 years as a county commissioner, it's quite the honor to do so.

I'll say congratulations once again to Councilmember uh Shepherd for being on this bench.

I'm looking forward to get to know him.

I know all of you very well, and I respect you greatly.

I always want to say I I appreciate the uh this this discussion this afternoon, and I know you have a very difficult uh job ahead of you to make a decision on behalf of the city.

And again, I'm not here about the sales tax, believe it or not.

I'm here to actually make a point about Laura Rainwater.

She doesn't even know I'm here to speak on her behalf.

She's already left.

She didn't know I was gonna be here.

Well, I guess she might be anyway.

I I just wanted to reflect a little bit on that on the uh on the 26,000 and the in the 20,000 dollars.

State statute as KSA 25-2201B stipulates the charging for this election.

It is not our choice, it's state law.

And and the the cost of the election must be borne by the city if it's not an August or November election.

That's just the way the law works.

So we're not trying to be mean, uh, we're not trying to disenfranchise anybody.

These comes down to private property rights.

These locations made a choice to either support the election or not.

We can't force them to do that.

We we're there essentially by their invitation, by their goodwill.

They let they let us conduct the election on their site.

And if we ask them what about this particular date, and they say they can't do it, we have no way to control that decision.

This is not disenfranchising voters uh by some intentional sinister corruption effort.

And some people in the community have used those words that this was some type of manipulation to cause the election to be approved or to be uh rejected.

So at the end of the day, this has nothing to do with Cedric County.

Laura Rainwater, I'll say it for the record, she does a great job.

Uh Tabitha Layman does did a great job.

She was my sister-in-law.

I learned about I actually worked as a supervising judge in numerous elections, learned about elections.

I pride myself in having uh a lot of information about election integrity as a board of canvassers, election integrity, elections uh election uh uh quality matters to me.

And I would just say that uh uh these folks that are doing really a thankless job, they do a tremendous job, they follow the law, and there was no ill intent to anybody to disenfranchise disenfranchise anyone.

In fact, the word disenfranchise means specifically an effort to deprive somebody the right to vote.

There was no intention by anybody on the county or in that election office to deprive anybody of the right to vote.

In fact, we want to accommodate everybody their right to vote.

So Laura Rainwater does a great job.

I would love to talk about taxes or election integrity anytime.

Um the uh my co-heisel was exactly right that this is state law regarding the one percent, the one percent sales tax is on food.

About 17% of the revenue comes from food.

And I would love to talk about that if I had time, but I'm out of time.

So thank you for what you do.

I support you all regardless of the decision today.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Commissioner Howell.

And I also want to point of privilege recognize that chairman of Cedric County, uh Jeff Blue Baugh is here in the audience as well.

Vice Council Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Commissioner, I was the one that said that, and I did not know that, so thank you for telling me that.

I I like Laura very well.

I've known her for a long time.

She does a great job.

Um, so that was me.

A little frustration and a moving target of a number, but I understand why, but a little frustration on a moving target by the number moves.

So thank you for thank you for the clarifying that.

So thank you.

Um based on my need to be in another meeting.

I'll be brief.

It's too quick.

It's too vague.

What is the 25 million dollars going to be spent on at Century 2?

What is the 225 million dollars that's going to be spent?

I'm guessing this is on Bob Brown.

It's it says convention, and that's the only convention I'm aware that the city owns or maintains.

Based on past councils, past management, 10 million dollars was allocated for maintenance at Century 2.

It was moved and spent somewhere else.

It's great to say, oh, we got 10 million in the budget, but if you move that money, which you can legally do, you lie to people.

The other thing that concerns me is in the past, there was money sent from the county to the city as part of regular tax, I guess sharing will put it.

The city put it in the wrong funds.

What was supposed to go in one fund went in number two.

What was supposed to go in number two went in number one.

This was not reported.

This wasn't this wasn't even found by city staff.

So you have a history of moving money around, whether or not this council, which I respect.

This is too fast.

You need to stop this, and you need to give us time to look at it seriously.

Thank you.

Hello, uh, my name is Doll Scrimes.

Uh, this is my first time in uh going before the council.

Um, good afternoon.

Um, I'm here today to speak against the proposed sales tax.

A sales tax is not just a number on a ballot, it's a choice about who pays and who gets protected.

And this proposal places the burdens on young people, working families, and especially renters.

Sales tax are regressive.

That means the people with the lease end up paying the most.

If you work hourly or raising kids or are just starting out, every grocery trip costs more, every school supplies run costs more, and every basic necessity costs more.

Meanwhile, the wages stay the same and rent keeps rising, and young people are just told to quote make it work.

And that's frustrating because Wichita should be a place where people can build a life.

People come to Wichita for real reasons, for aviation and manufacturing jobs that build the city, for an affordable cost of living, or at least what it's supposed to be, for neighborhoods like Riverside and College Hill, for weekends in Old Town, evenings near the keeper of the plains, and community spaces like Delano that give the city its character.

I'm here because I want to stay in Wichita.

I want to build my life here.

I want to work here, organize here, and invest in this community and not be priced out of it.

In Wichita, nearly 16% of renters live below the poverty line, higher than the Kansas average.

That means tens of thousands of families are already struggling to make ends meet, and young people in which I already feel the pressure.

Rent is up and utilities are up, and even child care is more expensive these days.

So when we're told that the solution is another sales tax, it feels disconnected from reality.

I know this proposal is framed as an investment for property tax relief, public safety, and addressing homelessness.

Those are real issues and they deserve serious solutions.

But a regressive sales tax is the wrong tool.

Sales tax don't meaningfully help renters or young people, many of whom who will never see property tax relief, but will feel the tax on every single day items.

Oversight committees in a seven year sunset doesn't change who pays first and who pays the most.

And seven years is a long time when you're living paycheck to paycheck.

You can't find housing stability by raising the cost of living, and you can't build public safety by making people less economically secure.

If Wichita wants young workers here, the people grabbing coffee downtown before work or the people spending their weekends at local restaurants, then it cannot be balancing the budget on their backs.

I hear a lot of talk about keeping Wichita competitive and about retaining talent.

But let me be clear.

People don't stay in cities that nickel and dime them.

They leave cities where their paycheck doesn't stretch, where their voices feel ignored, and their solution to every budget challenge is simply add another tax.

But there are there are alternatives.

That means investing in housing stability, supporting local businesses, asking more from large developments that benefit from city resources, and building a city that people can actually afford to live in.

A blanket sales tax is the opposite of targeted.

It's blunt and it's unfair.

And I want to say this respectfully but plainly.

And we notice when decisions are made about us instead of with us.

Because the future of Wichita should not be balanced on the backs of the people trying hardest to build their lives here.

We must choose leadership that invests wisely and not conveniently.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Eric Lorenz.

I live at 3739 West Angel Street, Councilmember Glasscock's district.

Congratulations on being appointed vice mayor.

I'm a self-employed business owner of two businesses.

So due to schedules, I was unable to attend a lot of the early meetings surrounding this whole issue.

I am sure that the um three businessmen who came up with this proposal are wonderful people.

I do not know them, so uh I I cannot necessarily question their motivations behind this.

Um I have concerns about some areas of this sales tax proposal.

It being a temporary sales tax proposal, there are a lot of questions about what happens when that temporary sales tax increase goes away.

But I'm not here today to question that.

That is a discussion for another time.

Uh, what I am concerned about is the pace at which this is being presented.

And the question I have is why so fast?

Why does this need to be done now?

What is going to change in another five months between waiting until August and rushing this through, in my perception, at the end of March.

Um I had a couple email, I had an email that I sent out Monday morning to the to the council, and I did get a couple answers back.

Um, thank you.

Um, and I'm gonna quote here from uh councilmember Glasscock, and he said, Before the tax can be collected, the city must identify eligible projects, define guardrails for spending and codify oversight requirements.

Great.

Let's do that, but let's take the time to do that before we ask people to vote on this.

Um let's save that 170,000.

Why do we need to put this in March and spend that extra money as opposed to wait five months until August and put it in uh in course of a regular election, regular primary election, and not have to spend that extra money?

Um I believe that uh from my experience living in the state of Illinois, when things like this are put in single issue special elections and off months.

The reason is a lot of times is that's because we want to not draw too much attention to it so it will pass easier.

Let's not do that.

Let's not erode any more trust than there seems to be an issue with with a lot of the residents here already.

Um thank you.

Councilmember Vice Mayor Glascock.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh Eric and Dallas, both constituents of mine for coming and speaking today.

Uh, Mr.

Manager, the 27th, can you describe what will be happening at the January 27th City Council meeting before the March 3rd vote?

We are looking to have different presentations on the different aspects of what we call the buckets so that there will be a bit more clarity on how the funding will be spent, structured, and so that will be the gist of the presentation only on the 27th.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Faith Martin.

Um, this will be the fourth time I've spoken publicly about this issue, and um, I don't really like spending that much time up here for free.

But uh I really care about civic engagement, and all of you know that about me.

That's something I deeply care about, even when the election office asked if I would work this election, even though I have a vote no sign in my yard.

That's how much I care about civic engagement.

Um, just to answer a few questions, um, there will be, at least in my district, five candidates and one ballot initiative.

So that's only six items or eleven if you break it all into five different questions.

Um, I'm also a third party voter, so unaffiliated, independent, and third party voters will get informed the way we do about everything by paying attention and staying engaged with local government.

Um, we don't typically get mailings from our party because we don't have one or they're too small, so we just have to be more informed.

Um I appreciate the opportunity to talk about delay and how there'll be no cost.

Like I said, I've been a supervising judge before.

People understand that sometimes moves happen, but to spend this kind of money when there's so much opposition seems very irresponsible to me when August or November it's an election that's already paid for.

Staff have already been hired, location have already been secured.

That just seems irresponsible.

Um, I'd like to talk a little bit about the CIP because we've talked a little bit about guardrails today, and I try to come up during the budget session and talk about these items that I care about.

As far as I know, the only guardrail on the CIP is for arts funding.

By ordinance, you're required to spend a certain amount on arts.

You're not required to spend anything on fire, you're not required to spend anything anywhere because you can move things around as you need to.

Um, as far as I know, there's about a hundred and seventy-one, don't quote me, I'm not the finance person, um, that hasn't been to allocated to fire yet.

What is gonna make sure that this how are we gonna ensure that that still gets allocated?

Like if you're not doing it in the CIP, what tells the public besides a group of volunteers, which how who knows how they're gonna get selected to manage that money?

What if it's more insiders and we still don't know where the money's going?

I would encourage if we're gonna put talk about guardrails, we need to put guardrails on the CIP funding.

Um I'm also concerned about the rush for second light, and I've said this before in my comments.

I worked at a lot of nonprofits.

If we didn't have a sustainable fund, whether it's through grants or donor funding, our nonprofit wouldn't exist.

I'm really concerned that we're putting that on the backs of taxpayers instead of having a sustainable.

So, what happens if we fund it now?

And then to tax ends, what's their sustainability plan?

How are they gonna fund their operation after that?

Um, and then I've heard maps talked about before.

Um, if you go onto the maps page for Oklahoma City, there is so much detail, and there are so many documents and there's so much public input about exactly how it's going to be spent.

If we're gonna do that, I would say unbundle it, let the public see what each of those five items are, have a group put together for each item, and then vote on it either August or November.

Otherwise, I'm still gonna be a vote no.

Thank you.

Hello, council members.

I'm Shannon Boone.

I live and work in Maggie's district, and I play in all of them.

Um as you've heard a lot today, trust matters.

Um, and right now, trust between this community and its government is deeply fractured.

That distrust didn't appear overnight.

It's the result of years of watching projects be mishandled, cost escalate, timeline slip, and accountability fade.

Water walk, the ballpark, the ice center, the water treatment facility, decades of deferred maintenance on city-owned buildings and properties, chronic underfunding of public safety facilities, while needs continue to grow.

Those missteps have occurred under council's past, but you are the ones in the seats now.

And this council, with one exception, was aware of that history and the resulting lack of public trust before making the decision to rush and $850 million, seven-year sales tax to a special election ballot.

You knew the context, you knew the skepticism, and you knew the responsibility that came with it.

The public is not interested in finger pointing at those who came before you.

We are looking at you to follow through on the promises of transparency and communication that many of you ran on.

Instead, residents experienced a 7-0 vote to force a rushed election that the community was not prepared for, despite large, loud, and sustained opposition from the very people being asked to shoulder this burden.

That decision sent a clear message, whether intended or not, that the public's voice was secondary to speed, and that message directly contradicts the city's own mission.

Your mission is to provide policy direction for the city of Wichita in developing, implementing and maintaining services to his residents.

You have adopted strategic pillars to guide decision making, keeping Wichita safe, building dependable infrastructure, growing Wichita's economy, living well, and making Wichita a well-run city.

Rushing a proposal of this scale without clear city-led implementation plan undermines every one of those pillars, especially the commitment to being a well-run city.

Wichita Forward did not arrive as a fully developed city plan.

It arrived as an idea brought forward by unelected developer, banker, and a business owner.

Their intentions may have been sincere, but their intentions are not a substitute for due diligence, and ideas are not plans.

Instead of demanding and developing a complete voter-facing implementation plan with timelines, project sequencing, funding assumptions, equity impacts, and contingency scenarios, this council chose to move forward anyway.

Since then, residents asking legitimate questions have been met not with answers but with pressure.

We're told bundling unrelated priorities as a feature.

We're warned that if this fails, we'll lose century two, we'll lose arts funding, or lose momentum, as though those outcomes would be the fault of the voters rather than policy decisions made here.

That is fear-based messaging, and it deepens the trust gap.

Now we are told the special meeting is being called not because the public demanded more time, but because the city may incur an additional $20,000 cost.

A cost that would have been avoided had proper diligence been done either by the council, Wichita Forward, or both.

I'm almost done, I promise.

Um before rushing this forward.

And the fact that Wichita Forward will be out advertising money that they've chosen to spend, if this vote is delayed, is frankly not our concern.

Let me be clear, I'm not opposed to investing in Wichita.

I'm not opposed to using sales taxes for public purposes.

I believe deeply that public safety, addressing homelessness and housing challenges, and arts and culture are vital to the success of our city.

That is exactly why this deserves to be done right.

Trust is rebuilt when leaders slow down, listen, and do the work before asking voters to fund these initiatives in this manner.

So I'm asking this council to do two things.

First, acknowledge that the public's distrust is not irrational, it has been earned.

Second, provide a clear, comprehensive city-led implementation plan before asking voters to decide, or delay this vote until that work is done.

Not by developers, not by bankers, not by campaign committees, by the city of Wichita, transparently, responsibly, and in genuine partnership with the people you serve.

We are not asking you to abandon this idea.

We are asking you to govern responsibly.

Councilmember Shepherd.

Thank you, Mayor.

And I want to address a couple of things from the previous speaker of Faith, thank you for being here.

And I know it can be taxing coming forward and sharing thoughts.

I want you to know that your voice uh certainly does make a difference, even when I don't agree particularly with you all the time.

Please know that I'm taking in what I can, and um I'm supportive of guard royal guardrails for CIP.

I don't know what that looks like, but I'll definitely depend on the experts to help get us there.

So I want you to know that.

And then the second thing, um, I want to just offer another interpretation that really concerns me, and I think this is something that I was reminded of.

You know, I would find myself very frustrated during the the campaign season of what don't people understand, what don't people get?

And I had loved ones remind me that I'm not the average voter because I'm so inundated with this.

This is a passion of mine.

Paying attention to these things matter to me because it's a personal passion of mine.

But as we heard for a third of the vote voting population, independent voters, they may not be paying attention.

And so that's why it is so concerning to me to make sure that we are putting this in a position where this where they can solely focus on this particular question and issue and educate themselves in a manner where they show up and they make an informed decision.

Um, because whether or not this passes, my hope is that every single person knows that we have done our due diligence as a local municipality to provide space for them to have clarity and education, which brings me to the most recent speaker, Shannon.

Um, thank you for your comments.

I am fully supportive of the city putting together a communication plan and making sure that we are putting out publicly ways in which we can engage with the public from this day moving forward.

I believe that two things can be true, and I think you made a good point.

We're so focused on Wichita Ford that we are not focused on what the role of local government is.

Let's remove a motion and look at the facts and separate Wichita Ford from the local municipality.

In my mind, it is our responsibility to educate the public on how we got here, the detriment it will cause if if we find ourselves in a situation where we don't close these financial gaps.

And I don't think it's fear-mongering.

I think it's the reality.

But please know you have my support.

I'll get with the city manager to make sure that we can get that rolling with the support of my colleagues.

And I also want to acknowledge that distrust is low.

And I'm not going to put the blame on any former council members.

It's I'm a part of this.

But I'm committed to making sure that we work together to rebuild that trust.

Good afternoon, Levante Williams.

And as you talk about education, education is one of the things that I'm looking at.

As a former educator, you have a community out here that is wondering what is going on.

What should I be looking at?

What's on the table?

What are the issues?

They are not educated as to how to move forward, and that is very, very important.

Of course, the time frame is across the board.

It was done and it's done very fast.

But education is one of those that is something that is uh needed to be looked at.

Um as a matter of fact, we're planning something, and I and I hope we go through with that soon.

Another thing that I'm looking at is if this were to pass, if this were to pass, I would hope that we look at it with an equity lens, making sure that each of our communities have an opportunity to excel with something that is coming.

You're you're talking about some communities right now that are living from one paycheck to the other.

And as I talk about equity, I'm talking even about myself as a senior, as a senior in the city of Wichita, as a senior who sits on the Department of Aging board, as a senior who just a while ago was figuring out how to help our senior community move from one space to the other, how to make sure that they have meals coming to their homes, not just a frozen meal that they have to go in and unfreeze.

We have seniors who live from Social Security check to the next social security check.

We have seniors who could at any time be unhoused, and I want us to make sure that we're taking that time frame under consideration.

I appreciate the young man earlier talking about the younger generation.

I support that younger generation wholeheartedly.

But I'm asking you to look at this community as you are looking at us becoming an age-friendly community.

We can't do that if we're not taking care of the seniors and those that are elders and those that are almost there as elders.

We've got to take that generation into consideration.

That is the generation that I hope many of my students are saying that was my teacher, and I'm proud of what she's saying.

That was my teacher, and she sat on that bench, and I was proud of what she did.

So I'm asking you to think of us as those 70, 80, 90-year-old people.

96 is one of the ones that I'm thinking about right now.

And please make sure that they are educated, but that if we want to become an age-friendly city, then think about the aged.

Councilmember Hohaisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, and thank you, Miss Williams.

It's always a pleasure to have you up here.

Um, I we are thinking of seniors, and I've brought this up before a report I heard recently about the expectation that the number of homeless seniors is going to double in the next decade.

It's very much on my mind, and I appreciate you bringing it up, and I will continue to make sure that that is a top priority for us.

Hello, uh Mayor City Council Ted Bush, Wichita Firefighters, local 135 president.

I just have a few notes.

First, I want to just acknowledge the citizens that came here.

It always makes me proud to be a Wichita and makes me even prouder that I serve them for three years as a firefighter.

I just this is my home.

So I just wanted to say listening to these people.

I just had a few notes here.

I I just quickly want to people to understand the critical place that the fire department is in.

Um it's hard for me to look in the mirror and know that I have to wait another day to continue to try to get these things fixed.

We've waited far too long.

I think you know the CIP program through the years has been a, in my opinion, and trust me, I it's been clunky misuse and drawn out capital improvement program that's delayed so many needed repairs and upgrades for fire stations.

Um that firefighters work and live 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year, a third of their lives are spent in these fire stations.

We have fire stations that leak.

Currently leak when it rains, and we we have buckets that we have to put put under the the leaks.

We have snow that blows through windows that were originally installed in 19 in the 60s, they're still there.

I remember scraping ice next to my bed and putting a stocking cap on to sleep at night.

Uh many of these stations were designed for fire apparatus that were built 60 years ago.

So the fire station that housed a fire truck that's 60 years old is still the same size with fire engines that are today's size.

It doesn't work.

It doesn't work for today's staffing, and it doesn't work for today's equipment equipment.

We have diesel exhaust extraction systems that don't work in some stations and most.

Diesel fumes are cancer causing.

Every time a firefighter starts the engine, we get exposed every single time.

Every time we come back to the station, we're exposed every single time.

These things were put in years ago, but never was a plan to fix them and maintain them because of budget.

That's that's what I've been told, which I don't doubt.

Every summer and winter, consensus consistently we have air conditioners that break.

And firefighters have been subject to sleep and 90 degree temperatures at night trying to get rest after an alarm.

At the same time, firefighters dealing with an aging fleet.

Apparatus continues to break down.

We had a rescue company that was broke, the reserve broke, so a third of the equipment was on the ground.

I could go on for much more time.

All I'm saying, I I understand everybody's concerns.

I really do, and and they're valid.

But these are things that have to be done now.

And and we just can't wait.

Real quick, I had an email from a city council person.

I just found today, seven years ago.

I was talking about these same things.

Seven years ago.

I still have the email.

Ted, what are you worried about?

It's in the CIP.

Those three rebuilds are gonna get done, and here we are, not touched, not even talked about.

Once in a while, they'll talk about it.

But so that's all my concern, and I wanted the citizens to know.

That's it.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Margaret Shabbas, District 6, 11th and Market.

Um Thank you, Mayor Lily Will, so much for calling this special meeting.

Thank you, Michael, for um seconding it, and thank you for also voting for it, Joseph, because our voices really do need to be heard.

This is being rushed.

I won't echo everything that everybody's been saying because they're all correct.

I just want to pull in a few facts, a few, maybe not even well, I think they're facts, so they're facts in my world.

Um, today we just heard earlier today that the ARPA funds were accelerated and spent faster than intended.

This money was supposed to go through 2026, but it is going to run out in September of this year.

So by October, they won't have funding for the shelter.

But you guys are asking us to trust you that if we vote yes on this sales tax, that you guys are going to appropriate and use the money correctly and make it last.

You guys have had meeting after meeting for a few years over this shelter.

And you mean to tell me you guys did not plan on how you were gonna sustain any funding for this shelter?

How did this independent group know that we were gonna run out of money if it wasn't an inside insider?

But you want me to trust you.

You want me to say yes on March 3rd.

Spending 170,000 right now when we're saying that we're low on money, so we need to fund these things is ridiculous.

We contract out to too many things.

How much are we spending the contractor in a whole nother state to monitor our paid parking?

And how much of a return are we expected to see on it?

Would it have been cheaper to hire inside?

I did a little calculation.

If we hired 40 people per um full time at 23 an hour, a livable wage, full time, that comes up to about 23 2.3 million dollars.

I added about $5,000 a year per person for benefits that came up to $2.5 million a year.

That's just assumptions because I don't know what benefits really cost.

But I put it at a livable wage.

That was the most important thing.

You guys expect us, we're getting ready.

The fire department needs all this money.

We are cutting $25 million to $26 million in interest rate.

Do we really need to spend nine million dollars on Douglas right now?

Are they more important?

Is reducing that street more important than the fire department?

Um spending the paid parking, the $600,000 on the fancy porta pies you guys know that I love so much.

So I mean, can I really trust you guys to put a guardware and put an auditor out there?

Because we need to add it right now to audit these things and put guardrails on these contractors.

We're about to spend $225,000 for two basketball courts.

That's ridiculous.

I just found a lot of money if you ask me.

Wow, this is scary.

Hi, my name is Olivia Vest.

I am a constituent in Maggie Ballard's district, District 6.

Um, I would like to clarify that I'm here in a personal capacity as a citizen of Wichita.

Um, I am gonna read because I'm really nervous right now, so bear with me.

Um, it's hard to follow an act like Margaret's.

Um this morning I'm here to well, afternoon now.

I'm here to do one thing to ask that you repeal this ordinance and very simply at minimum delay this vote to August or November.

There can be no harm, literally no harm, that comes from giving voters more time, more information, more guard rolls, because that's the the big word today, more guardrails, and more familiar polling locations.

I ask that the council sincerely consider giving back their allegiance to the citizens of Wichita and to working people and working families instead of following through bullheadedly with an expensive plan that the people do not want.

It just doesn't sit right with the majority of Wichita citizens.

You've heard from us all today, you've heard from us repeatedly, and thank you, Mayor Wu, for giving us this opportunity to say once again, none of us want this to happen in March.

Well, a few people do.

I'd be remiss if I didn't congratulate you all on one thing.

I have never seen anything more unifying of all sides of the political spectrum than the poor manner with which this issue has been handled and rushed through.

All people, all sides, all political parties, and all belief systems have been united in opposition to the rush that this council has created to force this vote in March.

At such a politically divisive time, unity, what a gift.

To that end, I ask each of you individually to listen to all of us now.

Please give us more time.

Most importantly, I want to note too that the method by which this all occurred, specifically the exclusion of city workers from this conversation has been a disservice to the city and to all of your constituents.

Everyone on this bench and in these chambers drinks our water.

All of us use the restroom, literally every person in this room.

We all drove on roads to get here, or we walked on sidewalks.

We're all sitting in chambers maintained by custodians, custodians employed by this city too to keep our buildings running properly and clean.

They make these things happen.

The people running the city aren't only the fire department, they're not only the police department.

You've excluded the largest quantity of city workers from the conversation and pushing this through.

I think that is shameful.

I think you should truly be ashamed of yourselves.

To continue leaving city workers, public service workers out of these conversations, does a disservice to every citizen of Wichita.

And yes, I am very grateful for the fire department.

Don't get me wrong.

Um, but I'm most of all grateful for the city workers that keep our city running.

Um, and I beg of you to include them in this conversation as this continues on.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, thank you, Olivia.

You did a great job for your first time up here.

Um, I did have one point to Margaret.

I you're here.

Um, thank you as well for coming up and uh sharing your thoughts with us.

Um, just a point about the ARPA funding.

It was always designed to end in September, if I'm not mistaken.

Um it was the same thing with our violence interrupters that we've included because we have to have the reports done by the end of the year.

So, unless I'm mistaken, Troy, do you have any other information with that?

Yeah, you're correct.

It the ARPA funding has to be spent by December 31st, 2026.

But there are also auditing and reporting that needs to be provided.

So, much like uh we have asked of all of our vendors, we're also internally, and I I'll turn to our finance director uh and our budget office to that that even applies to all of the other funds that we're using internally for ARPA.

We're trying to get them spent by September so that we can close out all the books by the end of the year.

Okay.

I just wanted a point of clarification with that.

Good afternoon.

Uh Chase Billingham, 256 North Parkwood.

Um, I've written extensively about the sales tax proposal.

I think everyone up here has probably read what I've written, and you probably know how I feel about it.

Uh so I'm not here to talk about the sales tax proposal specifically.

I'm just here to thank the mayor.

Uh, I want to thank the mayor for bravery and leadership in calling this meeting.

It was just late last week that we all learned that about 10% of all potential voters in this election uh would face additional confusion regarding where to vote, which would inevitably lead to depressed turnout in this election.

Special elections inevitably have lower turnout than average already, and the moving of people's polling places was going to further depress turnout.

Uh, the mayor did not spring this on the rest of the council, as was suggested last week.

Uh we all learned about it late last week, and she took the action that was necessary to try to bring this back for further consideration.

Now, I certainly trust the election commissioner that that she and her staff are gonna do everything they can to get everybody out to the polls, but it is inevitable that when 10% of the electorate have their polling places moved, it will lead to depressed turnout.

Uh, the mayor saw that.

The mayor acted decisively.

Four members of this council didn't want to go forward with this.

Four members of this council thought it was okay to have further depressed turnout.

But the mayor took this action and on her own initiative called this meeting.

So thank you to the mayor for that.

Um, if you want as many wichetans as possible to have a say about the question of whether they should pay more for everything they purchase in this town so that wealthy homeowners and businesses can contribute less financially to our collective well-being, um, then you will move the election to a date when we can guarantee increased turnout.

Thank you to the mayor.

Good morning or afternoon now, Mayor, Vice Mayor, City Council.

My name is Brock Booker for the record.

Wichita City Council District 2.

Becky Tettle is my city council member.

Just a couple of quick things, and I want to be clear that I want to be for this.

Um, and but quickly, some quick things.

Wichita, this proposal is simple to say, one percent sales tax, but it's not that small.

It's a seven-year commitment with the projected revenue not to exceed 850 million.

What does that mean?

One percent means at the register.

Ten dollars purchases or ten cents more.

A hundred dollar purchases could be one dollar more.

A thousand dollar purchase could mean ten dollars more.

So the real question is how often and who ends up paying it.

What $850 million over seven years might look like.

We've talked about that.

Um where the proposal says the money can go and the caps.

Um, but what we'd like to have in writing before asking families to pay more.

I think is a clear definition of property tax relief.

For example, how many meals are reduced for how long and who benefits, homeowners, renters, etc., seniors have been mentioned.

A public dashboard that shows in plain the sales tax collected, sales tax spent, and project project versus the budget.

And third, strong oversight.

The ordinance calls for an oversight committee within 90 days, if it passes, meeting at least twice a year and providing an annual financial audit.

That's good, but it needs real teeth and full transparency.

Lastly, on a single person like me, if you were to make roughly $51,000 a year.

Annual household spending level at a 1% sales tax equals about $510 per year, or roughly $42.50 a month out of pocket.

That means before we ask families to pay an extra five hundred dollars a year, City Hall owes them clear math, clear timelines, and clear proof that this investment delivers real results in all of our neighborhoods.

Good afternoon.

I'm so glad that your folks are holding this election and uh hopefully November.

And why did I say that?

The first thing to consider is turn it up.

If you hold this in March, the estimate from Laura just this morning was maybe 10%.

And you have 10% of the folks that are going to be disenfranchised because you're moving polling sites.

Plus, you have $170,000 you're gonna have to spend just to hold it on the third of March with very limited turnout.

The other point would be August.

As several of you pointed out, hey, a bunch of folks that are independent aren't going to think about coming in August.

And historically, we get maybe 25 to 30 percent of the people to come out.

If we really want to find out what the people at Wichita want to know about supporting this sales tax, you'll move it to November.

As Jennifer's pointed out, as Laura Rainwater pointed out when she spoke, this is the time when everybody comes to the poll, and you'll get about 60 percent turnout.

Now, to me, that's really important for each of you to make that possible.

So you'll hear from the whole community, and it actually gives an added advantage to both sides the no and the yes, because each of them will have an opportunity to use these months to try to educate each other on why they should vote one way or the other.

And that informed voter is what you want coming to the poll.

It's really important that this be done right.

And I really congratulate Lily.

Thank you so much as Mayor for speaking up and saying we want to hear from the public.

I want to point out one thing that all of us have heard from our grandparents.

I learned this as a young boy.

Waste not whatnot.

That $170,000 is money that could be used to help pay debts and costs at the homeless shelter.

That opportunity to make sure everybody has a chance to vote, as you point out, Mr.

Shepard.

You have a lot of folks that are disenfranchised if they don't come to the right poll.

And if they're independent, you hold it in August, then you're in the same boat.

A lot of folks won't even show up.

So please move it to November.

Please do this right.

Don't just rush this through.

Let's have an educated vote.

And I appreciate your time very much for having this opportunity for us to speak.

God bless all of you.

Hello, council.

It's nice to see all of you again.

Let's start off.

Thank you, Mayor Wu, for giving us this chance to speak.

Um, opening the door to the having these conversations, continued conversations, and the opportunity to push this back so that we have time to get voters where they need to be.

My name is Dr.

Donna Castillo Garcia.

You are all familiar with me, but for those who don't, I work in the homelessness sector.

I am um content expert at uh outreach and services.

We are uniquely poised to give a voice to people who are really intersected in this issue, those that are coming out of homelessness and those who are the lowest earners trying to make ends meet.

Um, this is going to hit all of us very hard, including myself.

I'm a family of eight and we have foster children.

We know exactly how much it costs to get groceries and to feed everyone and to pay for this and how it's gonna hit us, but we know also what can happen when we come together as a community, and this one percent is not a bad idea when it comes to things like paying for our fire services, paying for homelessness services, those are things that we really really need.

And I'm hearing a lot of concern about things that maybe we don't need that are being attached to things that we do.

That to me feels as a private citizen just saying it it's kind of I don't want to lose the things that we really need because we're attaching them to things that we don't.

So spreading it up, talking about this, having um clear what are we going to do and when.

And I know that from my conversations with the COC and the city departments, especially in housing, that there are some good frameworks that are already in place that the community needs to know about in order for things this important to get passed.

And I love the opportunity to be able to have time to explain that and to build trust with the community as it should be.

I see that you are all sitting on this board trying to make up for things that have happened in our past, and that is what us, our generation, our citizens are supposed to be doing now at this point.

I'm happy to stand with you in this place.

I'm happy to support a 1% sales tax that goes to homelessness and goes to fire, and I hope that we can vote on this all together coming up in August.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, all.

My name is Larry Burke Senior.

I live at 1131 North Glenmore Court here in the city of Wichita, Kansas.

I just want to share to the council um uh the fact that I want to thank you all for taking this measure to give us an opportunity to just talk about and provide input on this issue.

This is something that's very critical.

Anything that talks about funding, especially as this case concerns taxpayer dollars that impact uh the folks in the city of Wichita, it's a concern that all of us need to be aware of.

Uh as you notice the people that are in this room, uh, and I will share just for me, for example.

I represent not only myself as an individual citizen, but I am I'm the president for the Wichita branch of the NAACP, and I represent a constituents of people within this city, and I have an obligation and concern to make sure that those people that are part of our organization and part of our community are aware of the importance of this, and they look to us to ensure that whatever information we can bring back to that body, we bring that back with clarity and preciseness.

And all we're asking this this council, our city to do basically is make sure that going forward, and I do in fact support a delay of this for their cost-saving measures, number one, but also to give you all an opportunity to make sure that all the information that needs to be disseminated about every aspect of this is put out so that we will have an informed electorate.

I think that's gonna be one of the most important things that happens as a part of this because when we talk about spending our money on things, you know, people want to know that it's going to be going towards something that's gonna benefit them.

Uh, and uh it's it's it's critical uh for their understanding of all.

So I want to thank you for the opportunity to be able to speak, but I want to also request that as we move forward this.

I know I support, of course, the delay, but also in conjunction with that, let us be more informative.

If we have to do PSAs or whatever the case may be from this body to ensure that the people of Wichita, the citizens of Wichita understand what's going on with this issue, so we can have a more informed electorate and be able to for them to make an informed decision choice when it comes to the vote.

Thank you so very much for your time.

Hi, it's me again.

My name's Sarah, I'm uh 2116 South Seneca.

Um I'm home still.

I just want to say good morning to all y'all.

And it never fails whenever I have something, me and Donna weren't always on the same page, and then I followed this gentleman, and basically I wanted to come to you guys saying the thing he had to say is you know, you know, I believe that um I think the one percent, you know, a lot of us like one percent, and when it's a number and people feel like it's being imposed on their taxes, there's automatic there's that um apprehension.

And I just think that like if people actually realize how much the increase is without them knowing that, like I don't know how many times I went to the grocery store the other day, and like food is twice as much, and like it had increased without us knowing, you know, the one percent is one cent on a dollar, and if we know what that money is going towards, I think that's a great way to start doing things, you know.

Like I think whether or not it's for the homeless or it's for the city arts, I think all of it's valid.

And I think a lot of the things that we have in Wichita, we all I've been around here for a while, and I've been so many different places, and I've heard so many people speak on so many things that are the same thing.

They're just said different ways.

You know, we all want things that are great for our city, but we're not maybe not agree everything that is great for our city.

So I think waiting until August and maybe having more information, and I think going forward, I'd like to see more community outreach as like if people knew that they could come up here and speak about what they want.

I I would hope that more people would.

You know, you guys have been great about listening, and I'm learning to speak a little bit better every time.

You know, I've had like with uh well Dalton coming down and like the animal board and knowing that like this city can be great, you know.

What I've had difficulty, my kids, I'm able to make changes for them.

I can't fix the things that I've been through, but I can fix the things that they're going to have to go through.

So maybe a little bit more education on like this one percent.

Hey, one percent is one cent, but that one cent can mean a million dollars in your future, you know.

And I just thank you for being here.

And I would like if you guys could make put that pause on with more public information.

Um maybe I'd like to say a transparency board where things can be conveyed to different people, different ways that they speak, and maybe that's it.

Hello, council Joseph Texas, there's your district one advisory board chair, and I'm a Republican precinct chair in one of the precincts that were affected with uh the voting location change.

Um I appreciate the and respect the mayor for calling this, and I thank her for this for the public input.

I also recognize that I feel like this is a bit of damage control too.

Um, and the opportunity of the voting change gives this third opportunity for the council to do the right thing because it's about good politics and good policy lining up, and we all want to see what you saw succeed.

And we've heard a lot of points made, and one of the things I knew council member um Shepard mentioned how well how can what we can do right now at our last ab and the problem is the language is already codified for what's going to a vote because one of the things we bring up is maps, and I mentioned it before.

But those voters voted on a simple sentence, which was to say yes or no to an ordinance that the city council passed, which included everything in detail, and those details included an oversight committee in language, ballot language with subcommittees for each of the buckets with experts on those subcommittees and teeth.

And I know folks say we are we just want to trust council to do it, but y'all aren't gonna be here always, and you won't be here always as well, mayor.

And y'all could put ordinance forward now after the fact, but it's what the voters pass that stays concrete, and another mayor can change the buckets, and there's no minimums in that as well.

And as long as it's not in the writing in what they're voting on, that is a real concern.

And the reason Oklahoma City has been successful with their accountability, and they still had tons of political debates, even with clear language, is because they took the power and put it into the people's vote into the buckets specifically with specific goals down to the parks exact parks and projects they're doing over a 30-year period, four different times, where there's a year and a half uh period of public discourse before the language even goes to a vote.

The idea that we would have a single public forum, and I understand uh council member uh Glasscock said that the ballot language came really late in the process from staff, but y'all have a fiduciary responsibility.

I don't put it on the developers who are in the business world to think to know every all the workings of county uh city politics.

I put it on y'all to protect the taxpayers, and the idea that we'd have one single public forum where there were only questions, no comments on what even the language could be for a down for what could be an off-cycle election, and our city council elections in Texas were always uniform local.

I understand the low turnout, I understand the strategies around that.

That that is unacceptable.

So y'all now have the opportunity a third time to to do the damage and control, do this right.

And I actually think um a vision of a full year process and getting input and maybe coming back with a two to three year program, a single program, something tangible.

We can figure this out because right now we got nuts and bolts from the FDR New Deal administration on our current water facility.

The idea of getting into a new raw deal that future councils could have to put up with and contend with is unacceptable.

And I thank y'all for hearing the public today and taking action.

I see no one else who would like to speak to the council.

Uh thank you to the 22 individuals who spoke during public comment.

Um, I appreciate each of you for sharing your thoughts, your concerns, and also addressing the council.

Uh, we will now close public comment and bring it back to the bench.

As y'all know, this special meeting is called uh specifically to delay this vote uh instead of the March election to the August 4th primary.

Um, and so if there are no other individuals on the council who would like to speak, and now I see some, um, I will be moving an item.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a question for legal and city manager.

We heard today that there needs to be more opportunity for public engagement and to educate the public and to educate the public on the specific unique needs of the community.

But I also believe that as a local government, what I've heard is that we need to do a better job of opening the doors of City Hall to create more transparency.

Um the mayor has the ability to call a town hall.

We each as council members have the ability to open the doors of City Hall too.

What's the process of codifying that, making sure that that's a part of this process, regardless of how the vote goes today?

When you say process, just general of count calling town halls.

Uh, specifically, I would like to know if it needs to be a resolution for the mayor or for the city council to hold a certain amount of town halls or open opportunities for the public to engage to understand the the nuances and where we are as a local municipality that led us to this point.

Um council member, there is nothing in the city code right now that talks about town halls.

City can decide to do that um as it wishes.

Um there is always the just opportunity for the city council to adopt ordinances to impose duties on itself, it's just a policy decision.

And if council wants to do something, it can codify it by ordinance or for more short-term um statements of intent, it can adopt a resolution.

And I would suggest um council member one thought is that I know the district advisory board level has been a lot of the um opportunity to share information if you want to have on the agenda of future district advisory board meetings, we can ask to have that place on there.

Um so we can ask, certainly I can guide and direct and same as you with your district advisory board meetings, but if you want to put something through resolution, that's always an option.

I think district advisory boards are great.

Um, I guess my question is for the mayor, if I may.

Are you committed to working with each of the council members to create town halls in each of our district to ensure the public has an opportunity to not just engage on this particular matter but other matters in a way that we can operationalize the end the the internal um operations of city hall better?

I think we heard a lot today about things that are on the hearts and minds of citizens that are related to the sales tax.

Um but one of the things that I think we can do better is mobilizing why things work the way they do.

Uh we've heard a lot today, in my opinion, that um from the average voter perspective is fair to think and or say, but I would also argue that until we create a unique opportunity to educate why we can't just move funds around or what we have done in the past to try to close the gap on some of these issues, um, then we've not done our due diligence on trying to educate.

So would you be committed to doing that?

And I'm happy to kick off as district one in working with you.

I've always been uh ready and able to participate in any town halls.

Um my intention, even from becoming mayor, has been to help educate how local government works.

Um, and if you recall, I think someone uh today, I think it was Celeste, who brought um the pamphlet that simply explains how our city government works.

It's not partisan, it's simple information, and oftentimes it's new information for a lot of residents, and so I'm very grateful to see uh individuals who identified themselves as I'm part of district one through six.

Um, when we had your swearing in ceremony this week, I asked the community, can you please raise your hand if you live in district one through six?

That has not been the norm, and I understand that we have a responsibility from this bench to help explain how local government works, and so I am always ready and available to be at town halls to consider hearing more feedback.

As a matter of fact, last year we had a town hall with three different governing bodies the city council, the Sedgwick County Commission, and USD 259, and I expect those to continue this year.

So I am always able and excited about any additional public engagement.

Councilmember Tyler.

Thank you.

Um and this topic will be at my district advisory board meeting this evening.

So anybody, of course, is welcome if they want to join us at six o'clock, we're at Rockwell Branch Library, and our new city manager will be there as well.

So I appreciate that.

I I have a question for Mark.

Um Mark, if you wouldn't mind.

I kind of have some questions and some comments um based on speakers.

And if this has been addressed, I'm sorry, I'm trying to take notes and to keep up and you know every all the things.

Um but uh one of the things that I heard from a few of the speakers was the cost of the special election, 150,000, and now we know it's 20,000 more to inform residents um of the location changes.

Would it be possible?

So when the sack sales tax money is collected and it goes into our coffers, I'm assuming interest will be earned on that.

I'm assuming interest will be earned on that.

Is that an assumption?

Well, uh actually my understanding is that we would accrue any interest to the project buckets.

Okay, that we would or would not that we would so I'm wondering if we could debt I'm just asking a question, and I don't like to bring some from the bench, um, but I'm going to in this case just because I think it it could maybe work, but could we commit or s or think about having some uh use interest to offset the cost retroactively for the election?

I don't think there's anything in the referendum that would permit us to use any of the dollars for administrative costs.

Okay, just wanted to make sure.

I was just kind of thinking out loud.

Um, and then one thing that, and thank you, Mark, that's all I have for you.

I really appreciate it.

Thank you.

Um some one of the speakers did mention that um uh on the the ballot um that people wouldn't know what the categories were, and so just wanted to clarify that on the ballot, and Sharon, if I'm wrong, tell me on this one that on the ballot it will state the five different categories and how much is allocated for each one, right?

Yes, so folks who are voting will be able to do that.

Um I have a few other comments, but I'll I'll wait and see what my other colleagues have to say.

Thank you.

Councilmember John Stun.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, first of all, I want let people know that the sales tax on food.

I'm totally against it on food.

So I think it's very important.

I think uh Mike's brother's helping with that.

I think we have some support for that.

So uh I think it's very important.

To be technical, you wouldn't not eliminate the sales tax on food, you just bring the rate to zero.

So it's a technicality, but we can still get there.

So that is important.

Um the other thing important for me, and we've heard a lot of math today, and some of it's right, and some of it is not correct.

Um, but for me, the math on the on the uh second light and homeless is very important.

Um and for affordable housing too.

Um this is where the timing of elections are very important.

A second light will run out of money in October, end of September, October.

These are RPA dollars the city gave uh them to get it going.

It's costing them about I just got this from the board chair, uh $300,000 to $315,000 a month to operate, could go as high as $350 in future dates.

They'll soon be adding additional services and people and to get people housed.

It will also provide a fund for affordable housing that is yet to be vetted on how it works.

This is very important to me.

If we push the election to August, and it passes both, we will not begin collecting sales tax until January 1st, 2027.

And the first check will not be given to the committee until March.

Mark told me earlier, March 25th, uh typically when they send the checks.

So three months later, 90 days, as he stated earlier.

That's a 300 to 315,000 gap with no financing.

How are we gonna cover this?

That's 1.8 to 2 million dollars gap that they're gonna need to operate in the coldest months of this coming year.

Do we cut public safety?

I don't think anybody on this bench would want to do that.

Do we cut roads?

People don't want to do that.

I can just tell you that.

Do we do we cut libraries?

Do we cut parks and rec?

I don't want to do that either.

So the money's got to come from somewhere.

As you as heard earlier, it's not in our budget as of right now.

Uh the county has indicated they're not interested in funding it.

The state has no interest in funding it, even though cities from all over Kansas are sending their homeless to Wichita, and the state does not want to help us.

I think that's wrong.

So again, where's the money come from?

It comes from the city, it comes from you, the taxpayers.

That's where it comes from.

That 1.8, the two million dollars is gonna come from somewhere.

If we invest, and I know it's a chance, if we invest 170,000 now, we can get that funded when they need it.

If we don't, it's gonna be over a year from now before those funds come in at the earliest, the end of March 2027.

There'll be a two million dollar deficit.

The whole homelessness thing and housing is very, very important to me.

And we need to find a way to fund it.

This is a way to fund it, and this is an opportunity to fund it.

I don't know where the gap is gonna get filled from city budget.

Maybe we can figure it out.

Right.

But I think this is an opportunity for us to take action and make it happen for second light, and then really make a difference in our community for the very least of our community.

Thank you.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm just sharing my thoughts here.

Um, when this first came up, I did try to delay.

Um, I did not have support, and so um I do try to remain consistent.

That will have um that will be part of my vote later, but I also did vote for March 3rd, and I do stand by that decision as well, regardless of how much um flak we got for that, because we need to have this discussion.

The points up here today are all very valid.

The points in the audience are also very valid.

We do need to get ahead of um some of the deferred maintenance, uh, all of the deferred maintenance with fire and WPD, fire stations, and fire engines.

We also do need to address the affordable housing crisis and the one that we'll be expanding in the future.

Um, and it's not hard to look around and see how the um the homeless issue is affecting a lot of the people in our community and how we truly can help them.

I I think the workshop's gonna go a long way towards addressing a lot of these questions, and I would like to see um the guardrails of holding our feet to the fire as strong as possible.

So uh to Texas Point um ordinances where it's um applicable as well, so that way the community has that trust that we are being held to our word as far as how we spend um spend the money that as it does come in.

So, again, I just wanted to provide a little bit of background about how my vote has been informed over here.

Um, this is a discussion we do need to have as a community.

We have big problems as a community, and we need to be able to come together and talk these issues out.

I did feel like this is rushed.

That was one of the two main concerns I had early in this process.

Um, but in the end, we need to see the good in each other, and we need to see the good in the community, and we need to have these discussions and do it as uh open and transparent way as we possibly can.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you so much, Mayor.

I do want to take a moment to clarify my comments earlier about making sure that we are committed to opening the doors of City Hall and creating more unique opportunities that are intentionally designed for the public to learn about where we are as a city and how we got here.

What I continue to hear today, and what I've heard in the community is that a lot of people don't understand the inner workings of City Hall.

That's not a slight on anyone up here.

I think everyone up here cares about the community, and they're doing an amazing job of reaching people when they can.

My colleague here mentioned that tonight at her district advisory board, there'll be an opportunity to engage with the city manager at our district advisory board breakfast in February.

The city manager will also be at district one.

I think these are great and unique opportunities that have existed for a very long time.

I think what I've heard from the community today is do more, do it differently, and try to reach people in places that traditionally we are not reaching them.

And so I'm asking on all of us to do that because I really do think we have a unique opportunity to educate the public by doing that.

Um, I also want to follow council member Hoheisel and taking just a moment to really um mobilize my opinion, and I want to thank every single person for coming here today.

Please know that my intention in voting yes uh to hold this meeting is because I don't believe there's ever such a thing as too much public engagement when it comes to local government.

We need to engage as much as we can as often as we can, which is why I give my cell phone number out because I want people to call and text whenever they have questions or whenever they have a concern.

I've heard from residents, particularly those disproportionately impacted by polling locations in disproportionately impacted in district one.

That's why I immediately began working with community partners to ensure that reliable transportation to the polls beyond free transit options were going to be available.

While some say that decisions were made before I arrived at this position, I take a different leadership stance.

I'm here now, and I don't care who made the decisions.

I don't care how we got to this point.

What I do know it is now my responsibility to work with the community and the colleagues, regardless of who is responsible or when those decisions were made.

The folks up here, they're my team now, and you all are a part of that team as well, and I'm responsible for my own vote, and I'm responsible for the decisions that I make.

With that said, I want no surprises.

I will not be in support of delaying this vote today, Mayor.

This issue is important.

It deserves the full attention of voters.

And the research that has convinced me says that placing measures on crowded ballots leads to choice fatigue and voter abstention.

Again, I know we need to do better addressing the needs of our city.

I believe that's the job of local government.

That's not the job of Wichita Ford.

It is our responsibility to share the perspective and information that's available, vote both from the vote no campaign and for Wichita Board, and present the facts to provide opportunities for the public to know where we are.

I also want to acknowledge that sales tax is not perfect.

It has nothing to do with who is leading the sales tax here, but a sales tax in general is not perfect.

But it is an opportunity to address the urgent needs.

I mean, when I've met with departments, again, I am incredibly grateful for the work that our staff and departments are doing, but it is not sustainable, and it has not been sustainable for a while, and it's going to cost lives if we don't do something immediately.

I'm committed to partnering with organizations.

I'm committed to partnering with our city manager and the entirety of our staff to create meaningful opportunities for public education.

But once again, I'm calling on the mayor to work with me and to work with all of our colleagues to work on contingency plans that clearly outlines what happens and what is at stake if we approve or reject this measure in March.

Between now and election day, please know this.

You have my commitment to engage.

I don't care.

Call me, stop by City Hall.

I'll be out at coffee shops.

If you see me out, let's engage on ways in which we can utilize the potential long-term savings within the CIP to ensure that residents have a voice and that these savings are going to meaningful projects that you all want to see in your community.

I also would like to ask for folks to join me in District One, especially the parts of my district that are most impacted by polling locations to knock the doors to educate the citizens on the opportunities that we've created to ensure that there is reliable transportation, not just through free transit, but through the community engagement that we have created to make sure that there's transit available too.

The goal here should be simple to do our due diligence, to educate, to reach people where they are, to get outside of our ivory tower, and to let them know that their voice matters in this critical decision, regardless of where they stand.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Glascock.

Thank you, Mayor.

Before I talk about my vote, I want to acknowledge something real.

There is loss and there is distrust.

People have been let down before, and I've been let down before, and in many ways that's why I chose to be in this seat as well.

I believe democracy depends on hard people asking hard people asking hard questions and demanding transparency and that accountability makes this institution better.

And I welcome it.

And I welcome every single person that spoke today as well.

I hope you choose to apply for the oversight board and hold us accountable because I believe that that is good governance.

Many of the challenges that we're facing today were set in motion long before any of us took our seats, but as Councilman Shepherd had said, the responsibility still rests with us.

Our job is to reform what isn't working, to rebuild trust where it's broken, and I know that's our toughest job, and to move the city forward.

We inherit systems, but we're judged by how we choose and what we choose to do with them.

And leadership is not about waiting for the perfect conditions or unanimous comfort.

It's about weighing real trade-offs and acting when we know that an action carries a higher cost, and inaction will carry us a higher cost.

This plan matters and means fewer days for firefighters to be in aging and unsafe stations the most of the time they work in those facilities every single delay.

Delay also has real financial consequences.

There are no general fund dollars set aside for many of our investments, including four million dollars for second light.

And postponing only pushes those costs further into the future when we can save on uh deferred or on um deferred maintenance costs.

So we're talking about fire, and we're talking about harder choices in the future because of inaction today.

And there are rare times that we have seven to oh vote on this council.

We don't even get that on a budget.

And so to show unimity in that we believe that there is real problems facing our community and that we need to take action.

I believe that's a statement from this bench that we all realize there are real challenges, and we we all need to do a better job at communicating that to the public.

And so I encourage residents to come and join us on January 27th.

Learn more, ask questions.

My email is dglasscock at Wichita.gov.

I'd be more than happy to answer any questions.

I've never said no to a meeting, I've never said no to a coffee, and my doors are open at City Hall every single day.

I also didn't reach this conclusion lightly.

I toured our fire stations with Ted just a few weeks ago.

I walked around century with uh two with John three weeks ago.

I rode along with our police officers just last Sunday, and I spent time as homeless encampments with Sarah and Dr.

Donna listening to people with lived experiences, including people in our encampment near um the drive-in that have lived in those places for more than 14 years.

For 14 years, we've let citizens live in conditions without providing adequate resources, and that's unacceptable.

And I believe that inaction doesn't make these problems smaller.

I respect residents who disagree with me, and good faith disagreement is part of governing well, but leadership requires us to be honest about what the cost of delay would be.

As I said in my vice mayor's speech, Wishda was not built by people who said no, it was built by people willing to act to take responsibility and also invest in the future in a matter.

And for those reasons, I'm voting no on delay, and I'm voting yes on letting Wichitans decide.

Councilmember Tottle.

Thank you.

And and just to be clear, at my district advisory board this evening, not only will City Manager Marsh still be there, but Wichita Forward will be there.

Yeah, so just want to make sure.

Okay.

Um, so couldn't agree more.

Um, one of the things that I just wanted to mention, and I've said this several times from the bench, and so this was part of my rationale is my consistency, is when we have discussed economic development tools, and we have a property owner, a business who wants to come to us, and they work with Troy and his team, and they want to develop economic development tools, and we set them through the process.

Then they come to us and they have to meet certain criteria, and it's reviewed by an outside party and and all the things.

And and sometimes from this bench, we have tried to change the process.

We've said, well, we want them to have a little more of this and a little more of that.

And over the years, I have consistently said we can't change the rules in the middle of the game.

And I feel like today, having a delay in this is changing the rules in the middle of the game for both parties for the vote yes side and the vote no side.

I know the vote no side has a very robust campaign going on.

Congratulations, and and I wish you the best.

I know the vote yes team has a very robust campaign campaign going on.

Again, I wish you the best.

I love the fact that people are so concerned and so interested in this, and I would be more concerned if there wasn't a divide in some way.

What I like so far is that I see the divide is still respectful.

People are coming to us and being respectful.

I think all the speakers who came here today, at one point, there were 236 people watching online.

I appreciate that as well.

The emails that we're receiving, the calls and texts, the grocery store meetings that happen, all of that I think is part of the process.

But for me, I want to make sure that I am consistent in once we put something in motion, we don't change the rules of the game.

The other thing that's very important to me, and several of you mentioned it, and um a couple folks have left, but the fact that polling places are going to be changed, and that is an issue.

Um, and we want to make sure that everybody has the right to vote.

It's been something that I've been very passionate about for more than a decade and worked on the initiative of making sure that people know the importance of voting.

Um, but I have the utmost confidence in our insurance commissioner.

She came here today, she's wonderful, she has an amazing team, and so I have confidence that her and her team will do everything they can to make sure everyone is informed and knows when and where to vote.

So, with that, I will not be supportive of delaying this ballot item until August.

Thank you.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, a lot of my colleagues have already shared um questions, concerns that they all are uh thinking on them on the forefront of their minds as well.

Um, I certainly don't think that this plan is perfect.

Um, but the issues and projects that are being discussed have been discussed for years.

We've added no new fire trucks and five personnel in the last several decades.

That is extremely unsafe and irresponsible in my mind.

We know that in Councilmember Glasscock's district, we're working on our first uh fire station since 2009.

And I think just a quick Google our our um population in Wichita has grown over a hundred thousand people, and we have not um we just extended out, but we haven't necessarily added the resources that go along with it.

So I also agree with uh councilmember Tuttle talking about consistency and council member Hoheisel as well.

Uh, just in December, we we voted to put this uh vote in the hands of the public 7-0.

Uh so it sounds like there's been some some change of hearts, and I appreciate you know everyone that came to speak today.

We've gotten several emails.

Uh people spoke at my dab last night.

I have a coffee coming up on the 24th.

We will have representation from Wichita Forward there.

Uh, and then I know in Benjamin Hills there's a meeting on the 20th where there'll be representation there as well.

So I would ask any of the neighborhood associations, call a meeting, reach out to your council member, ask us to bring someone from Wichita Forward there to ask all of your questions, and I won't leave at 7 o'clock when the meeting says it's from 6 to 7.

I will be the last person standing there to answer all of the questions.

We we are there to provide answers for all of you.

So I know there's still a lot of unanswered questions.

I would encourage all of you to pay attention all the way through.

Make sure that you're holding us accountable, but more than anything, go vote.

Whenever the vote happens to be, participate.

If you don't agree with it, vote no.

If you agree with it, vote yes.

I'm disappointed that the splitting it up into individual votes didn't pass, it failed four to three or three to four.

Um, I think that was a good way to allow the public to prioritize some of these uh initiatives that are uh gonna be placed on the ballot.

So with that, I will not be uh supportive of delaying uh the election till August.

Which leaves it to me.

Um like I all always have said, it's important for us to engage our community, and we were elected by you, the community.

And when there's new information that is presented to a council, I believe it's prudent for us to pause or have a discussion as we've done today.

I still am uncomfortable with the lack of guardrails.

However, January 27th, we are to have a full workshop regarding just the sales tax, the five buckets, and guardrails.

I will also ask that workshop will allow for public comment.

That is not customary for workshops, but I want to make sure that the community would have that opportunity to speak.

Many of you have said it's because it's rushed, because it lacks detail, and that detail is going to come January 27th.

However, I also understand that it does need more time.

It needs time, it needs time to breathe.

It needs time to regain the trust that as a body, whether it was from this council, previous councils past leadership that has been lost, and we must rebuild and regain that trust.

And so I'm asking that we as a community really have these conversations of how do we move our community forward together?

What are things that are important to us?

I hear that it is costly to live in our community.

I help my parents do those budgets.

I know.

I also see our homeless population in our core and also in the outsides of the core of Wichita, which is why this council voted 7-0 to help with second light with the shelter and services in one location.

I also understand that over the years, maintaining what we have has not been priority number one, but it has with this council.

We've talked about it, we share our discussions from this bench publicly, and you know how I feel about maintaining what we have.

So with that, I will still say that it is in the best interest to wait until August to have this election.

But if this fails, I ask that each of you being engaged, will come back on January 27th and share what guardrails must be in place so that this is in the best interest of all of this community.

So with that, I want to move a motion.

Second.

Motion and a second, any further discussion.

I see none.

Madam Clerk, please open the roll.

Motion fails, five to two.

With that, I will again remind the community that we do have the January 27th workshop.

It will now have public comment.

Um, and I have council members who would like to speak.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just want to reiterate the point that I made earlier that the reason I did vote for it to be on the March 3rd is because I do believe this community deserves to have a chance to have this discussion.

These are big issues that we are facing.

Um the process is not perfect, but we do have ample opportunity over the next month and a half to really engage the community to answer questions and to make this process as strong as possible.

So again, the 27th of January will be having the workshop.

We plan on talking at length about the CIP, which is one of the most important things on here.

We must support police and fire and the deferred maintenance that we have on the many of the buildings, and also and most importantly, I believe homelessness and affordable housing.

They are important for our community moving forward.

Um we see what other communities are able to do with affordable housing funds and funding for programs like second light.

So please, please stay engaged.

Let's have an honest open discussion, and let's all try to come together and make the best decisions moving forward for our city that we possibly can.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I just wanted to have a quick conversation about the public comment.

I am all in on allowing public comment anytime for that matter, but I don't know that I like the um only allowing three minutes over five just because we ask and are constantly encouraging people to participate, and I don't want to seem even if they are repeating I want to give people the full five minutes and not seem inconvenienced by cutting their time short.

So I don't know how my colleagues feel about that.

Um, I would like to give them the full five minutes.

Um we want as many people to participate as possible, and I just don't want to shortcut people on time.

So just wanted to put that out there and see how my colleagues I actually would um ask for a friendly conversation about that since there are five buckets, and I really believe people will have more comments about each of the specific of the five.

This would allow each of the individuals to speak up to five times if we limit it to three minutes, but focus it on if we talk about bucket one now.

Let's open it up for public comment.

Let's talk about bucket two, open it up for public comment.

And I believe that a three-minute versus five minute, then we'll allow for more opportunity for discussion.

Um I would ask if that would be uh something council members would be in favor of.

I agree with council member ballard uh that I wish it would have been a decision from the bench um and uh council decision instead of uh decision through the mayor today to allow five minutes for comment.

So I agree with council member ballard.

And I'm just gonna chime in quick.

I um sent an email to uh city manager legal comms and all of us at 10 saying um how did we get to five minutes, and I don't think one of us can make that decision, it needs to be a council decision.

So, how are we gonna move forward with deciding it's three or five minutes?

So I think that you know, any time that we decide public engagement, it should be a council decision.

So I'm very curious and interested in having the conversation, so thank you for bringing it to our attention, council member ballard.

So do I have anyone in favor of having five separate buckets of public engagement or just one area of public engagement and just keeping it at five minutes?

I I would like to address that.

That's why I'm on the board actually.

Um if we do that, we're gonna have a 10-hour meeting, 10-11-hour meeting, um, which we've done before, and we've all survived.

Um, but I'm not sure that's in the best interest of people because you only have a certain amount of time where you really are at your peak as far as engagement.

So I think that's a factor.

I would rather see um present all five buckets at once, and then allow public comment for five minutes.

I I think that's the way to go because usually people will have one specific uh item that they're interested in, and they can comment on that item and address it.

Um people will comment on all five just because you can, and which which is fine, but I just I just think for uh somewhat of a uh more efficient process.

Um it doesn't mean it's worse.

Efficiency does not mean worse.

Efficiency actually usually means better.

So I I think we should present all five of them, then let people comment publicly councilmember Shepherd.

I really appreciate this conversation because I think it goes back to what I mentioned earlier that we have to begin engaging the public prior to January 27.

And I agree with councilmember Johnston that it it may present an opportunity for a meeting to run long, which I think we're all in for.

You all certainly are.

You've been up here um several times before.

Um, but I also know what that does, not just to the staff, not only to council, but also to individuals who may be taking time um out of their schedules off of work to show up to comment on a matter on a matter that matters.

Um I would offer that uh we work with city staff to present town halls on those specific topics so we can get public engagement on those particular topics and then still have the workshop on the 27th, and those who wish to continue to come and comment on that for five minutes can as well.

But I think the more engagement, the more education, the better.

May uh may I offer another uh suggestion?

Um I just don't think we can have one presentation and have comment and not change it per the per the comments.

So if you do have town halls, you're still gonna have one presentation.

Um possibly another idea might be to have that one presentation have public comment, come back a week or two later, and have another presentation, a revised presentation.

Um, and then have public comment again.

Because I I think we can have all town halls and everybody can go speak for five minutes, and we can not accomplish anything.

I want to accomplish something and move it forward.

So I think if we do have a presentation, we get public comment, we bring it back, we redo it again, then we present it again, have public comment again.

I I think that would be a better formula count uh Vice Mayor Glasscock.

I would be in favor of that.

Um I think that that the workshop on January 27th will still require more fine-tuning, and I believe that we should put it on the calendar then, instead of just saying sometime we'll talk about this after the January 27th workshop.

After the January 27th workshop, I would like to see whatever revisions were suggested to come back two weeks later and have another sales tax and the five buckets and the guard rails that have been proposed from the January 27th meeting.

So I don't know what that date would be, but the two weeks after we don't have an extra week in January, do we?

No.

That's too bad.

We don't have a new schedule.

I don't have that.

We don't have a 2026 schedule.

We might work on a 2026 schedule for the council meetings too.

Okay.

So I have heard from this council, and it looks like everyone's just in favor of just the regular five minutes after the presentation of the sales tax at the January 27th meeting.

In addition, we will have a follow-up meeting two weeks after the January 27th sales tax workshop for further fine-tuning of those guardrails.

I I would suggest we keep that meeting agenda short, so we have plenty of time for that, if that's possible.

On the 10th.

Would anyone be in favor of having an evening meeting on this?

Yes.

Yes.

That's fine.

Okay, so I will direct staff to find an evening time two to three weeks after the January 27th meeting.

So it will allow individuals who would like to come and share their thoughts during an evening time.

And maybe we don't do that on a Tuesday.

We don't have our calendars here.

These are still from 2025.

We have a regular council meeting on Tuesday, February 10th.

So we can have the regularly scheduled February 10th council meeting, and then in the evening, we will only talk about one topic.

So it will not be a council meeting, but a special meeting.

So two meetings on February 10th.

One at the regularly scheduled 9 a.m.

And then we'll follow up with another evening one, and we'll call that a special meeting.

Is the intent to conduct business at the evening meeting or just to receive comment?

Because then if it's a town hall.

Do you want a workshop or a voting meeting?

You were asking about a town hall.

That's why we're trying to accommodate multiple requests.

Yes, to council member ballard's point.

As long as there's an opportunity for open comment.

So we will have the regularly scheduled February 10th council meeting, and then in the evening time we will have a town hall to address the sales tax, and it will have public comment at five minutes so that individuals in the evening time can also have the opportunity to speak.

That is the night of the holy war, Cape and Carroll basketball game.

I'll sacrifice that though.

Well, thank you all very much.

I moved, oh Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

The only thing that I wanted to mention is that for folks who are working on the campaigns, vote no, vote yes, as well as for us in terms of the education that we're going to provide, which I know the city does a remarkable job all the time, but making sure that it's available in different languages, understanding that we have voters who have preferred prior uh primary languages that are spoken, and so making sure that that is accessible to those individuals as well.

Thank you.

I move to adjourn this meeting.

Motion and a second, any further discussion.

I see none, Madam Clerk.

Please open the roll.

We will do a voice vote.

All those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those opposed to sign.

Motion passes 7-0.