Thank you.

Yeah, this feels good.

Oh, okay.

Oh, we're bringing people in here today.

Yeah, I figured afterwards.

Maybe try to catch them before they're oh yeah, before the screen, yes.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, I'm sure to see you feel like today.

You guys want to vote?

And there's no argument right now.

Okay, that works.

Yeah, but they are going to talk about the same thing.

Right.

There's no parties that are like the last time I know there's a lot of these words.

Yeah, yeah, no.

Oh no.

Can you make sure you don't mind?

Yes, I can't.

Oh, great.

Well, I can verify this.

Message you're trying to send us.

I will do that.

Yeah, I have my number.

I do somebody.

Hey, thanks.

I'm gonna tell him.

How are we doing?

I see your thing.

What do you think?

Oh, I think it's false walls.

I know that's what I'm saying.

Oh, but by the flags.

It doesn't actually form it.

It's freezing here too.

I'm gonna so you know.

It's pretty important.

So you call it my screen, my freaking thing.

So it's a kind of like when it first actually here's the right.

Yeah, that's right.

That's right.

Okay, so I don't think it's a lot of things.

Thank you.

Uh huh.

It is right.

How are you doing?

Yeah.

Oh, that's right.

That's recursive.

I know I stole this.

Sorry.

Okay.

I told my call them to turn off the actual error.

That's why you're trying to help you.

Should we get that right?

Yeah, microphone that's we can call our micro.

If there's more than like four minutes in the meeting, if you want to talk about it.

Yeah, this is calling it.

Um like the month.

Right on.

Yeah.

So they're talking about it.

Uh microphone on your double screen.

So this is why it's a good thing.

Good morning, city staff.

Can you please roll the video?

Thank you for attending today's City Council meeting.

Please take a moment to silence your mobile device.

If you wish to speak on an agenda item after the mayor invites public comment, proceed to the podium, state your name and address, and you will be given five minutes to speak.

A timer can be viewed on the podium screen.

You may speak one time per agenda item.

Please refrain from clapping after other speakers.

Thank you again for joining us today.

Let's pause a moment for our television audience to join us.

Following that invocation, we will have our Pledge of Allegiance, and we ask that you please stand for both.

Help us to rejoice and to be glad in it.

Especially today, we pray for the City Council.

Seeking liberty and justice for all.

Amen and amen.

Thank you, Reverend Gannon.

Before we begin, I simply wanted to say thank you to our public works and airport staff for clearing many of the roads so that you all could attend today's meeting.

And so I encourage you to walk just across the hallway to provide your input.

With that, Madam Clerk, can you please call the first item?

Approve the minutes of the regular meeting, January 20th, 2026.

Council members, are there any items to be edited from the minute?

I see none.

I move to approve the minutes for January 20th, 2026.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

I see none.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Uh please open the roll.

Motion passes 7-0.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Awards and proclamations.

Today's proclamation is National Mentor Month, and the award we have for today is the 40th anniversary of the Wichita Area Sister Cities Friendship with Kaifeng China.

Can I please ask the individuals with youth horizons to come forward at this time?

The proclamation reads the City of Wichita, Kansas founded in 1870, whereas January is National Mentoring Month, an annual campaign to raise awareness of and celebrate the powerful impact of mentoring relationships to recruit new members and to encourage institutions to integrate quality mentoring programs into their policies and practices.

Whereas the City of Wichita recognizes the contributions of volunteer mentors who link youth to economic, educational, and social opportunities while also strengthening our community.

Mentors can help young people set career goals and connect mentees to industry professionals to train and find jobs.

Whereas youth development experts agree that mentoring encourages positive youth development and smart daily behaviors, growth and success of a young person, and mentoring programs generally have a significant positive impact on youth academic achievement, which can lead to outcomes such as improved attendance, grades, test scores, and classroom behavior.

Whereas effective mentoring for at-risk youth helps them navigate challenges and support improved mental health and social emotional well-being.

We'll have a few words about that.

Okay, good morning, Mayor Wichita Council, City Council and Friends.

Thank you for this proclamation recognizing National Mentoring Month.

I am grateful that our city has taken a moment to say out loud what many of us already know.

Mentorship can change the trajectory of a young person's life.

It's not complicated, it's a consistent presence.

It's a relationship.

National Mentoring Month was launched in 2002 by a network of national mentoring organizations to strengthen and expand mentoring for young people.

And the reason it has lasted so long is it's simple and it works.

Here are just a few stats.

92% of youth with mentoring are more likely to volunteer regularly in the community.

75% are more likely to hold leadership roles in clubs or sports teams and activities.

22% are more likely to have felt a real sense of belonging growing up.

74% of adults who had a meaningful mentor say that they significantly, they significantly contributed to their later success.

85% of young people with a mentor say it helped them with school and education, and 58% say that they help support their mental health.

Here in our community, Youth Horizons is mentoring has seen mentoring impact up close for more than three decades.

Our mentoring program has launched committed Christian adults with kids and young people who need someone to look up to, someone who can offer individualized attention, encouragement, and steady support.

One in three kids will never experience a mentor.

That's just a statistic.

But that is a child in our that's not a statistic, I'm sorry, but that's a child in our community who could just be one carrying adult away from a positive future.

So if you are remotely considering mentoring in the workplace, if you're from the workplace, the church, or a civic group, and you've wondered how to get involved, this is your moment.

Please visit us at youthhorizons.

Thank you again for your leadership, and we're honored to do this work in the community with so many committed organizations who also believe in the power of mentoring.

Thank you.

May I please ask the city council to come forward at this time since this proclamation received a 7-0 vote.

Thank you again to Youth Horizons.

And I know many of you here today are from Justice Together, and we are always looking for mentors in our community.

I think that that's one of the biggest uh ways that you can impact a person's lives as I have been impacted by mentors in my life.

And so I'm very grateful to my mentors and grateful to all of you who volunteer as mentors.

At this time, I would like to invite the Wichita Area Sister Cities and the Chinese Kaifeng delegation for a special recognition.

We want to say uh welcome to Wichita to Mr.

Li, Feng, Ms.

Wu, Mr.

Wang, Ms.

Wang, Mr.

Zheng, and Miss Zheng.

The certificate reads: the City of Wichita recognizes Wichita Area Sister Cities and the City of Kai Thung, China, in recognition of the 40th anniversary of the sister city partnership between Wichita, Kansas, USA, and Kaifung China.

For 40 years, the Air Capital of the world and the city of Chrysanthemums have shared a lasting friendship rooted in cultural exchange, mutual respect, and international cooperation reflected through the Chinese Garden of Friendship at Botanica and decades of meaningful exchanges.

The City of Wichita honors this milestone and looks forward to continued collaboration, friendship, and shared vision of mutual respect and peace in the years to come.

Thank you, Mayor Wu and City Council members, and and for all of you being present.

I'm president of Wichita Area Sister Cities.

And my father was a fighter pilot in World War II.

Many of you may not know this, but Sister Cities unofficially started at that time when we liberated Orleans, France from the Nazi Germans.

So I'm very proud of the work we do in Sister Cities.

What is most important to all of us is friendship with our neighbors and friendship with our friends overseas.

This is our 40th anniversary with Kai Feng, China.

And we will have an annual meeting tonight at Botanica Lotus Gardens, where they are celebrating the tenth year of the Chinese friendship gardens.

And Kaiwei Lu will be our guest speaker.

I'm gonna now introduce you to the chairman of our China Committee, Dr.

Win.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Celeste.

I'm Hua Chong Wen.

I'm a professor of at Newman University, also the China Committee Chair on the Wichita Air Sister Cities Association board.

And uh uh it has been my pleasure to welcome and host uh a delegation from China, our sister city Kai Feng in China.

So they came over thousands of miles, of course, and they've been staying here for four days, and they are going to leave Thursday morning.

So their main purpose here today, well, yeah, during this visit, is to uh present the very fine uh excuse art of the Qi Ming Shanghou Tu, which has a history of uh close to a thousand years, different versions.

Now they are on display at Newman University, and and uh this new one they are going to the scholar headed by Mr.

Feng, and he will present uh about this painting, a new one, and also this evening, they will also showcase uh some versions of the painting tonight uh at Botanica.

Yeah.

Thank you for coming.

They brought this all the way from China.

In your honor, you're welcome.

This is a chrysanthemum.

Uh this is a plate, uh uh a gift from Mr.

Li to our mayor.

Uh it's a plate with uh chrysanthemum, which is the symbol of Kai Feng City, and the each petal of the flower is handmade, it's a fine porcelain.

So it's not easy to mate.

Yeah.

Mayor Wu is one of our champions.

She has been a strong supporter of Sister Cities, and we really appreciate it.

We had eight visitors from Orleans last year to uh Wichita, and we're expecting the Mexican cyclists again from River Festival.

So she's one of our champions.

Thank you, Mayor Wu.

This is the specific slide.

Thank you for your patience.

Uh, in order to um recognize the contribution headed uh to the association, which is headed by Mr.

Lee, and so our mayor has dedicated this uh recognition certificate uh to uh yeah again to show appreciation of his contribution to the cultural exchange and communication between the two sister cities.

He has donated not only funds and he has been to Wichita.

This is his, I think, the fourth or fifth time for the exhibition of the art and the communication between the cities.

Thank you.

I think we need to do this.

Oh, okay.

I'm sorry, we are taking time, I know, but this these two letters are from Kai Feng's mayor, whose last name is also Wu.

Also a lady.

And uh this uh she hand sign of two letters in English and Chinese.

And uh Mista Feng, the scholar is uh handing it to our mayor.

Yeah.

What a sweet coincidence.

All right.

Okay.

They are very honored to be here.

Can you tell how important this is to them?

It's very important to them, and this is some of their artwork that we'll get at Newman College, and also the artist that like I said, we will speak tonight, five o'clock at Botanic the Gardens.

It's a wood print, which is typical of uh the Song Dynasty art printing.

Um it's represents the gift of from a Kaifung mayor as well.

Oh, this is your gift.

Oh, yes.

This is my gift to the Kai Feng delegation.

It is Wichita's official monopoly.

Uh so they will take this back to China.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you.

A thousand miles.

Thank you again to our Wichita Area Sister Cities and the Kai Fung delegation.

Vice Mayor Glasscock serves on that board, and we're very again grateful for the friendship between uh Orleans, France, uh Talipantla, Mexico, Cancun, Mexico, and Kai Feng, China.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the next item?

Public agenda.

We now come to the public agenda.

The public agenda allows for up to five speakers to have five minutes each to address the council.

Please bear in mind that this is not a period of dialogue with council or question and answer period.

This is your opportunity to address the council with your concerns.

I ask that you address your remarks to the city council as a body and not to any individual council member.

No action will be taken relative to items on the public agenda, other than referral to the city manager for information as necessary.

Speakers will please speak into the microphone.

Please state your name and address for the record.

A time clock will display the speaker's remaining time to speak.

Order and rules of decorum will be observed.

The first speaker is Reverend Wade Miller, Affordable Housing.

Mayor Wu, members of the Wichita City Council.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak this morning.

My name is Pastor Donna Goltree, and I am the co-chair of Justice Together Steering Committee on Homelessness and Affordable Housing.

Pastor Wade is not able to be with us this morning, and we have co-chaired as you all are aware because we have had a lot of meetings.

As people of faith, we believe housing is more than shelter.

It is stability, it is dignity, it is safety, it is the foundation for families, children, elders, and a thriving Wichita.

Today our city is facing a serious affordability crisis and a growing housing shortage.

Over the past 20 years, housing costs have risen twice as fast as wages.

Housing costs have increased by 140%, whereas wages have grown by only 70%.

This widening gap has become more than just a statistic.

It represents families working harder and still falling behind.

Here in Sedgwick County, according to a report, the 2025 State of Alice in Kansas report, it shows that 72%, that's nearly three quarters, of low-income renters are cost burdened, paying more than 30% of their income on rent.

That includes 27,000 households in our county.

These are people who are working, raising children, caring for elders, and still struggle to stay housed.

When rent takes that much of a family's income, there is little left for food, health care, transportation, or emergencies.

One car repair, one medical bill, one job disruption, it can tip a family into homelessness.

The question we must ask is this are our decisions making life more affordable, or are they worsening inequities for those who need it the most for those with the least?

This is not only a housing problem, it is a moral problem.

There is a proven solution.

It's before you, the Wichita Affordable Housing Fund.

The Affordable Housing Fund lowers the cost of building homes through no interest forgivable loans, making it possible to create housing that working families can't afford.

It holds builders accountable, requiring affordability and ensures public dollars are used for the public good.

In just one year, the fund helped create 80 affordable homes, 35 homeownership units, and 45 rental units, and this approach works.

Yet the fund has been allowed to run out of money while the need for the community continues to grow.

So today, we are here to remind you of the public commitment.

At our Nehemiah Assembly last May, in front of 1,250 or so folk, City Council members Ballard, Hoheisel and Title commended committed to expand and improve the Wichita Affordable Housing Fund and to secure at least 10 million in annual ongoing funding.

Since that time, Justice Together has met with every council member.

We've been to each one of your district advisory boards.

And if the commitments and comments we have heard in these spaces are true today, then we know there is well over a majority of this council that could make this happen.

In past council meetings, our colleague, Pastor Wade Miller has consistently asked three questions that still guide us today.

Does it secure 10 million in annual funding for the affordable housing fund?

Does it worsen inequality?

Does it make a significant effort to a holistic solution?

And does it avoid worsening inequalities for those who already have the least?

Justice Together is discerning our proposed position on the proposed sale tax, but we see this moment as an arena for you, our elected leaders, to live into your word to honor commitments and demonstrate your support for neighbors who need housing.

We urge you to call for at least 10 million in ongoing annual funding for the Wichita Affordable Housing Fund now and moving forward, regardless.

And Mayor Wu and each of you city council members.

We remind you that housing is dignity, stability, and justice.

And especially we thank you for your time today.

Madam Clerk, please call the next individual.

Rabbi Andrew Pepperstone, Affordable Housing.

Good morning.

Mayor Wu and members of the Wichita City Council, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this morning.

My name is Rabbi Andrew Pepperstone.

I serve as the co-president of Justice Together, a 40 congregation multi-faith coalition committed to the common good of Wichita.

We gather today as people of faith, of conscience and commitment.

We come from many congregations, many traditions, and many political perspectives.

But we are united, we are united by a shared moral conviction that every person is created in the image of God, and that safe, stable housing is not a luxury, but a sacred risk or sac sacred responsibility.

This day of faith in action is both prayerful and purposeful.

We are here to ground ourselves spiritually, speak with moral clarity and to bear public witness to what our faith demands of us in this moment.

Let me begin by naming our purpose.

Over the past three years, Justice Together has engaged nearly 2,000 people in small group conversations across Wichita, listening deeply to what is weighing most heavily on our neighbors' hearts.

Year after year, affordable housing rises to the top alongside homelessness as one of the most urgent concerns in our community.

In our first year of listening, our members voted to make homelessness a priority.

Through our research, we identified the multi-agency center, now known as Second Light, as a promising housing first solution.

But it was built on one time COVID funds set to expire.

Since then, state and federal built funding decisions have reduced the number of housing units from a predicted 250 to just 50, compromising an evidence-based approach.

In the fall of 2024, after another year of listening, nearly 300 members of our coalition voted to make affordable housing a priority.

We heard stories that were heartbreakingly consistent.

Families choosing between renting utilities, adult children relying upon parents for housing, children and families couch surfing or living in cars, and those stories reflect a larger reality.

One in five records in Wichita spend the majority of their income on housing.

Housing costs have risen twice as fast as wages.

Nearly 2,000 of our students in UFC 259 are homeless or housing insecure.

Like about the 800 communities nationwide, Wichita created an affordable housing fund, a proven model that works.

But like the MAC, it was funded with one time COVID dollars with no plan for ongoing investment.

At our first Nehemai Assembly in front of 1400 people in this community, Mayor Woo and County Missioner Ryan Beatty committed to a braided funding approach for the MAC, and the city announced at least 600,000 in ongoing support.

Then at our 2025 Nehemai Assembly, with over 1,200 people present, Council members Ballad Hohaizel and Tuttle committed to expanding and improving the Wichita Affordable Housing Fund and to achieving at least 10 million in annual ongoing funding by the end of this calendar year.

Today, Justice Together isn't a season of discernment.

As a multi-faith coalition, we are prayerfully considering our position related to the proposed sales tax, not moving hastily, but faithfully.

We are guided by the three questions that Pastor Donna mentioned.

Does it secure the annual funding?

Does it address housing homelessness in a in a holistic way?

And does it avoid worsening inequalities for the most vulnerable?

We pray that the decisions you make today will clarify the answers to these questions.

Mayor Wu and Council members, how we move matters.

Our community did not set the pace of this initiative.

We at Justice Together move at the pace of trust, not as an act of hesitation, but as faithfulness, so that when we act, we act together with unity and moral authority.

We pray that no matter what the outcome of March 3rd, you will live up to your word and into the urgency of the moment by achieving 10 million in annual ongoing funding for the Wichita Affordable Housing Fund.

Because tonight, our neighbors in our city will sleep in cars and in shelters.

Families will choose between rent and medicine.

Elders will wonder if they can remain in their homes.

This is not an abstract policy debate.

It is a present ongoing moral crisis.

Our sacred texts are clear.

We are called to do justice, to love mercy, and to build a community where we can all dwell in dignity.

So today we pray, we listen, and we show up.

Not as spectators, but as people of faith who believe in another way is possible and who trust that we are being called to help build it together.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, please call the next individual.

Cody Stiles Rocket at Riverside Park.

Is Cody here?

I do not see Cody.

We have three spots for public comment.

You can just come up to the microphone, state your name, and you will have five minutes.

Please also state your address or district.

Hello, Trevor Darmstedder, 803 North Bristol and District 2.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm just one citizen doing my best along with my wife to raise our four kids.

But seeing friends I've worked with in the past, uh, former coaches I still highly respect.

Uh, along with everyone else in the city government doing their best to better the city I grew up in love.

I made the decision to be here today because I'm concerned.

In regards to the sales tax issue, uh, first off, thank you for all the work and due diligence you are putting in, especially the work to see that the organizations like Second Light are able to continue assisting my fellow Wichitans, the that most needs someone to show them the light of a new day.

It was only last evening that I first became aware of an ad that Wichita Forward ran on the news a few days ago.

And the ad essentially called anyone that didn't vote for the sales tax a communist.

And seeing that, I was immediately filled with disappointment.

All of the initiatives that the sales tax says it would go to are things I highly support.

My police and fire friends need funds to do their jobs for everyone's sake.

Every last one of my neighbors should have a roof over their head that they can feel safe under.

And Century 2, along with all the performing arts are vital to our community.

But they all require money, and where it comes from will forever be debatable.

Ultimately, the decision was a sales tax, and now we need to focus on if March's vote is in favor, where the money will go and who decides it.

It seems to me like the allocation plan after funds were divided according to the proposed list boiled down to trust.

Trust that the coalition would allocate funds properly, and trust that the oversight committee would be able to catch if they weren't.

I want to trust because all of the mentioned areas are important to Wichita.

I was prepared to trust, knowing that my city government is taking this very seriously.

I was going to trust, but I'm really not sure now.

Wichita Forward is a non-partisan coalition of businesses and community leaders whose singular aim is to advocate for ideas that advance the flourishing and prosperity of Wichita.

That's their mission statement directly from their website.

A nonpartisan coalition who a month after getting on a yes-no ballot approved an ad that chose fear mongering and demonization and demonizing opposition over extolling the virtues of why they think sales tax increase would be the best option and how much good the projects would do.

In response, Wichita Forward said online that they have taken steps to ensure future communications remain focused on respectful fact-based engagement, yet they made no mention what those steps were, and if there is anyone still in the coalition that scripted or approved an ad that directly ran counter to their own mission statement.

Because at least for me, following the guidelines on how funds are allocated is a step beyond following their own mission a couple months in to the process.

And I'm not certain I'm comfortable trusting that responsibility to any individuals who would so quickly ignore their own mission.

Those most hurt if this fails are my neighbors without a roof, my neighbors who need fire or police when every moment matters.

All because I didn't trust Wichita Forward due to one sensationalist ad.

So as this moves through all the processes in the coming months, I just ask that you please hold Wichita Forward to a higher standard than what that ad showed, and please please help me trust again because I believe that a single ad has already hurt the chances of the tax passing.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thanks, Trev.

Always good to see uh an old wrestler up here.

So uh glad to see you up here today.

Um, yeah, none of us up here were happy with uh seeing that ad come along.

It's not something we can have any control of either way, but um I do understand that that ad has been pulled and is not being shown anymore.

Um, yeah, I think it shows uh lapse in judgment if I'm speaking from the heart here.

So um I have some other council members who like to react as well and respond, but it is good to see you.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Trevor Burrus I want to thank you for speaking from the heart and for joining us today.

I'd actually just sent an email to somebody that had also expressed concerns with the ad, and so I'll just read you a portion of what they I just emailed them.

I agree with you completely that we need to bring civility back into public discourse.

People can oppose or support the sales tax for legitimate reasons.

No one's patriotism, character, or motive should be questioned because of how they intended to vote.

While the city council does not control independent advertising, I share your disappointment with rhetoric that inflames rather than on forms.

And I remain committed to engaging the issue in a way that is honest, respectful, and focused on the facts and real concerns of Wichita residents.

And so I agree with sentiments.

We have to get back.

Yesterday, I have four of us attended a forum hosted by KLC and Braver Angels.

And I think it was a perfect example of what public discourse in this community could be, and something that we should all strive towards.

I walk walked away from that, hopeful about our community and how we can have a conversation.

I hope we've maybe reached the um highest point of heat in this conversation, and I hope we can all agree regardless of what side somebody's on, that we're all trying to do what's best for Wichita in this messy process that's called government.

But thank you for speaking today as well.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor Trevor.

Thank you so much for being here.

And I echo the sentiments of both my colleagues, Councilmember Hoheisel and Councilmember Glasscock.

One of the things that the Kansas Leadership Center talks about is speaking from the heart, and I certainly understand how difficult it was to see that commercial.

I reject that sentiment fully.

And I also know that it is incredibly important to take responsibility for those learning moments that we have.

I've certainly had some myself this past weekend to be uh exact.

And so making sure that we take ownership for our shortcomings, understanding that we are all humans and we have those shortcomings, but I also want to reiterate that in this time that we are living in, when people are feeling under attack for just their humanity and dignity.

It is incredibly important for all of us to reject any sentiment that strips that humanity and dignity from individuals for practicing what they believe in our democracy.

So thank you for coming and speaking from the heart.

Um, and I hope that you hearing some of our colleagues today speak from the heart also guarantees you that we are going to work extremely hard to build that trust and that the guard rules that we put in place today hopefully will be one step to earning that trust back.

I see no other council members.

We have two more spots available for public agenda.

Hello, I'm Kent Miracle.

Thank you, Mayor, and Council members for the opportunity to speak today.

I'm here as a citizen, a business leader, and someone who has lived on both sides of the key issues we're discussing.

I currently serve on two boards working directly to serve homelessness in Wichita.

Second Light Shelter Plus Services and the Coalition to End Homelessness.

These organizations see the problem up close, every day, every night, in real human lives.

I also stand before you as a recovered alcoholic.

I was homeless on and off for five years of my life.

During that time, I cost taxpayers money.

Police calls, emergency rooms, hospital beds.

I was not a bad person.

I was a broken one until someone offered me structure, services, and a chance.

Today I'm sober.

I'm employed.

I serve my community.

I pay taxes.

I give back.

That transformation didn't happen by accident.

It happened because services existed and were accessible.

Today, Wichita is facing a serious financial challenge.

These challenges directly threaten the sustainability of police services, fire protection, emergency response, homelessness services, and affordable housing.

Doing nothing is not a neutral choice, it is a decision with consequences.

I understand that not everyone loves every element of the proposed 1% sales tax.

That's normal.

Find me a community that agrees 100% on everything, and I'll show you a fictitious place, one that doesn't exist.

Today we cannot afford to abandon our most vulnerable neighbors because the solution isn't perfect.

The overall value of this proposal is enormous.

It stabilizes funds and essential services that benefit everyone.

It opens the door to hundreds of millions of dollars in tourism and event revenue, revenue that we're losing out on today.

Revenue that we badly need, but is going elsewhere.

Right now, major events pass Wichita by because we can't accommodate their needs.

Des Moines benefits, it also benefits.

Other cities move forward while Wichita gets left behind.

The citizens want to know about costs, and that's fair.

So let's talk about the real cost of homelessness.

At Wichita State, there's a study that reveals that Wichita spends at least 20 million dollars annually when you count for 911 calls, emergency room visits, police resources, and that's just the start.

Last year alone, there were over 6,600 police calls tied directly to homelessness related issues.

That's about 20 calls a day related to homelessness.

And that doesn't include the cost of local business, the strain on our community's vitality, or the lost economic contribution of people who could be working if they were in a stable situation.

Homelessness is not free.

Ignoring it is not cheaper.

It only lets things get worse for you, me, and our unhoused neighbors.

The most expensive approach is doing nothing.

Housing and services are not charity, they are infrastructure.

They are a bridge from crisis to contribution, and you're looking right at living proof of that.

This proposal gives people what I was given, and now smarter and simpler a brief helping hand, accountability, dignity, and a path forward.

Wichita is a city with heart, but a heart without resources eventually breaks.

The vote is about whether we choose to invest in safety, stability, opportunity, and shared programs.

I urge you and my fellow Wichitans to support the 1% sales tax, not because it's perfect, but because it's necessary, because it strengthens our city, and because it ensures Wichita remains a place where people can fall, be helped up, and ultimately stand tall again.

And if you remember nothing else from what I shared today, remember this.

All of us are just a few tough breaks or poor decisions away from hopelessness and peril.

Thank you for your time, your service, and your contributions.

We are grateful.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Kent, thank you for sharing your uh your story.

It's a great story.

I still remember when you uh spoke at the uh homeless task force, and you said everyone is two bad decisions away from homelessness.

So that stuck with me, and uh, it can happen to anybody.

So thank you very much for coming, and thank you for pointing out uh both sides of the issue.

Appreciate it.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

Can't thank you so much for coming and sharing your story.

Congratulations on five years of um sobriety.

That's something to really be proud of, and thank you for all that you do in the community to give back and make sure that we're looking at all the different sides of the issue.

So thank you so much.

We have one more spot available for public agenda.

Good morning, mayor, city council.

My name is Scott Regats.

I'm the general manager of the Drury Plaza Hotel Broadview, located at 400 West Douglas Avenue, right here downtown.

I'm also a member of the Visit Wichita Board of Directors.

First and foremost, thank you each for your time, effort, and leadership you've put into this initiative.

I'm here today in support of the 1% sales tax.

In my 20 years working at the Jury Hotel, I've witnessed firsthand the challenges facing our community, including the growing number of unhoused individuals downtown.

We know this is a complex issue, and we also know that doing nothing is not an option.

This tax provides a meaningful resource to address public safety and quality of life concerns that impact residents, visitors, and business alike.

As a hotel located directly across from Century 2, we also understand the tremendous impact a new convention center and updated Century 2 facility will have on Wichita.

These investments will attract new meetings, large-scale conventions, events, visitors, and bring fresh dollars into our local economy.

These visitors shop in our local retail stores, dine in our restaurants, stay in our hotels, supporting nearly 17,000 jobs in small businesses throughout our community.

Most importantly, a safe community is essential to our success.

This tax helps ensure our first responders will have the resources they need to do their jobs and keep Wichita safe for everyone.

Thank you for your continued service to our city and to our community.

With that, thank you for all the individuals who spoke during public agenda.

So there's still an opportunity for individuals to speak up to five minutes each after that.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor.

Before we begin the rest of the presentation, can I just um I want to take a quick pause to have uh staff just present some visuals for future discussion?

So I didn't want them interrupt the meeting while we continue.

Thank you.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the next item?

Consent agenda items one through sixteen.

Council members, are there any items to be pulled for the consent agenda?

I have several.

With that, I see no other individuals who would like to pull items.

I move to approve the consent agenda one through sixteen without items five, ten, eleven, and twelve.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Madam Clerk, please open the roll.

Motion passes seven zero.

We'll go in numerical order.

Um, for item number five, it's the proclamations.

I just wanted to make sure that it was captured as a seven zero vote for national mentor month.

With that, I see no other comment.

Uh Count Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thanks, Mayor.

I think we got another uh agenda and our or another uh green sheet in our packet for item number five, too.

It was not updated on the website, so I wanted to make sure that that was captured.

Uh with that, I see no further comments.

Uh would anyone in the public like to speak on this item?

I see none.

I'll bring it back to the bench.

I move to approve consent agenda item number five.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

I see none.

Madam Clerk, please open the roll.

Motion passes seven zero.

Consent agenda items ten, eleven, twelve are with the Wichita Housing Authority.

Um, I would like to have housing address how the sales of these public housing units have been going.

Uh, ten, eleven, and twelve show property values at fifty thousand sold at sixty-six thousand.

Uh, another property valued at fifty-four thousand sold at sixty-six thousand, and another one valued at thirty-one thousand sold at sixty thousand.

Can we please um get an uh explanation what's going on with the increased um sale prices?

Um, my name is Carmen Hoffein.

I'm the real property section manager for the Department of Housing and Community Services.

So regarding the properties that you're talking about, when we send the properties to the broker, we have a broker that the agents will go out and they will look at the property and then they determine what the sale price should be.

And we as a we have a review team, we review it and we make sure that we look at the other um costs or prices of the surrounding properties, and then that's when we determine okay that would be an appropriate listing price.

So that's why you'll see the appraisal value that's different from that is because oftentimes the appraisal it does change throughout the years in areas change.

So there was also some of the properties are more desirable than others, but that is the main reason that the price is different or what it's selling for different than the appraised value because of the area and the changes in the prices as well.

I'm very grateful to see that these three uh are located in council member Shepard's district.

Uh, these are three bedroom homes, three bedroom homes in all three of these um agenda items, and I just wanted to say thank you to the housing staff for uh being proactive and selling these properties.

I wanted to know how many have become homeowners, uh, individuals who were already staying in these uh locations who then chose to become homeowners.

I don't have the exact number, but I can definitely get that to you later today.

Um we have seen an increase in individuals that are putting in offers that for homeownership, which has been amazing to see because we all know it's been very challenging to try to purchase and own a home, especially now, but there definitely has been an increase for homeowners.

And can you address?

I know that there are several programs within the housing department that help with home ownership.

Uh can you address maybe one of those?

So one of the programs, and I'm also um the program manager of home repair.

That is something that we're also trying to get out there more.

So we assist low-income homeowners with any type of um home repairs that are uh health and safety issues.

So usually we we changed everything with the application back in October.

So we do encourage people if you're a homeowner and there are some repairs that are substantial, or even the smaller home repairs that the city of Wichita does have a home repair program that we can possibly assist.

Thank you again, Carmen.

I see no further questions for you.

Again, appreciate your team uh for doing this.

With that, we'll open it up for public comment.

I see none.

I'll bring it back to the bench.

With that, I will move to approve consent agenda items 10, 11, and 12.

Second.

Motion and a second.

Any further discussion?

I see none.

Madam Clerk, please open the roll.

Motion passes 70.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Board of Bids and Contracts dated January 26, 2026.

Morning, Mayor, City Council, Josh Lauber, Department of Finance, Board of Bids and Contracts convened yesterday, January 26, 2026, for the following items.

We have pump station three, six through nine repairs.

This items being withdrawn from the agenda as a formal protest has been filed, so we will be processing this in accordance with our challenges and protests, policies and procedures.

Uh for purchasing, we have the 151st Street West and US 54 Kellogg Water Line Extension for Apex Excavating LLC for 558,615.

We have the concrete requirements bulk delivery for Kansas Ready Mix for an estimated annual usage of 311,675.

We have fire hydrants for Wichita Windwater Works Company for an estimated annual use of $689,913 and 24 cents.

We have Pebble Quick Lime Bulk Delivery rejecting all bids, and we have the current Pebble Quick Lime Bulk Delivery Contract Change Order for U.S.

Lime Company St.

Clair requesting your authorization to extend the contract two months to solicit this and bring it back to you.

This is how to become a vendor with the city.

This is a purchasing calendar of small business resource partners and events the city's hosting and participating in.

This is our open public opportunities out on the street today.

And I'd be happy to try to answer your questions and recommend your approval.

Thank you, Josh.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, Josh.

Could you please go back to slide five?

Sure.

Could you explain what you mean when you say reject all bids and talk about the protest?

I don't I don't think I've ever heard you mention that before, so just curious what that means.

Sure, great question.

So rejecting all bids, this project specifically, we had, I believe, two respondents from memory that were over the department's budget authority and the other firm that was initially going to be awarded was rejected, not offered, deemed non-responsive.

The challenges in protest policy are really a check and balance on the purchasing manager's authority.

So vendors within our process robustly have opportunities to engage the city and how the city awards their projects and services.

That step is a check on our process where they can file a formal complaint with the contract compliance officer.

If the contract compliance officer doesn't agree with the vendor, it can be escalated to the internal auditor.

If the internal auditor files a files a recommendation that's not agreed with probably a year or two years ago, you can have a public hearing in the form of a city council meeting where the vendor and a city representative discuss the issue.

Hopefully that answers your question, but that is something we offer for all of our bids and proposals.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Josh, can you go to slide number 11?

Can you please share how your purchasing department makes sure that it's an open bid process, making sure that there is an opportunity for all to participate.

Can you just kind of talk about that?

Sure, great question.

So there's a couple couple methods for how the city is required through state law, city ordinance, and just general best practice to incentivize competition.

So city ordinance and city code 2.64 outlines the city council's directive that all procurements of $50,000 or more will be completed by public bidding or through very specific parameters of exemptions awarded or conferred by the purchasing manager's recommendation.

That process for ensuring transparency and competition is we use a procurement portal.

The procurement portal is the city's way of identifying firms that we would never know or recognize.

We contract and have services through a software provider called Unisolutions, who is a national firm for procurement processes.

That for instance, if the city of Kansas City, Missouri, who use utilizes Unisolutions procurement portal software, if you're registered in the Unisolutions portal in Kansas City, you're also registered to get city notifications.

We also ensure that we publish projects online on the city's website in accordance with the ordinance for the city newspaper outlining the city website as the official source of information.

And we also work with our city departments and city manager and the council when we have referrals for vendors.

Explaining our dollar thresholds, the ways that we evaluate risk to purchase goods and services, and we highly, highly encourage them to register with the city because if we do not have them registered, we do not know they exist.

So those are a couple of ways that we hope and strive to have competition.

Thank you, Josh.

One of the guardrails that I propose is that all contracts be awarded through a sealed bidding process.

So can you address this?

How you all open up these applications and do the you do them all at the same time or as they come along.

In addition, another guardrail that I wanted was no bid uh contracts would be permitted.

And it looks like the purchasing uh guidelines don't allow for that unless there's special uh exemptions.

So I'd like to address what those exemptions are.

And last but not least, sole source contracting, um, making sure that again it is an open process that anyone can apply, and that there's no special treatment to individuals who may be for or against this sales tax.

Mayor taking me to task today.

Um see if I can get through those.

So, first is internal controls and what purchasing does.

So, purchasing um is a centralized function within a public agency that receives all the purchasing requests for all city operating departments.

Um, what that looks like pragmatically is as if a department submits a request for a service of $5,000 or more on a requisition, that workflow step goes through the purchasing office.

Um the importance of that workflow step is that the purchasing office will validate what's called procurement authority.

So procurement authority can be within a defined thresholds of 5,000 to 50,000, being the city manager and purchasing manager, 50,000 above, in accordance with city ordinance and city code 2.64, um, and outlining documentation of substantiating some sort of competitive process.

Um, so really super broken down form is um purchasing staff are responsible and take very seriously the checks and balances in that process to make sure that apartments are not spending without the appropriate approver approving something.

Um, how does that look in practical reality?

When a department submits a requisition or a request, they very frequently develop relations with relationships with purchasing staff saying, Hey, I've got a project coming down the pipeline in 12 months, get me plugged into the system.

Say happy to get you plugged in the system.

Um, this is what I recommend doing market research.

I recommend developing some parameters or specifications in your bid document so it's the most competitive and not unduly restrictive, um, and then make sure that um you get aware of what are the offerings.

What does the city Wichita specifically need to forward your uh department mission and goals?

Um, internal controls.

So then the second question relating to what are the parameters or tolerances for the city approving exemptions to competitive bidding.

They're very specific parameters in city code 2.64.

Um, they're listed A through N.

I'd be happy to go through each and every one of them, but uh high level is sole sourcing, typically emergencies, typically a security matter of some sort.

Typically, uh the city can ratify a competitive process by another public agency if it vets and meets our best practices.

Um, and then the last question, Mayor.

I don't know if I got that down.

What was the last question?

The last one is just to make sure that individuals who may be connected to the yes or no for the sales tax would not have special treatment.

That's a great question.

So if there is a specific interest or influence in the process, um, the purchasing office only and specifically will be looking at the procurement authority.

So if there is a policy or parameter or guideline surrounding 50,000 and above, um, these approvals, 50,000 above, are ratified by the city council.

The purchasing manager will present to the city council items over $50,000 either through a competitive bid process through your new business item and consent or through the board of bids and contracts presentation.

Um if you specifically are asking for items related to sales tax, some of conversations spitballing from the from the podium could be is that could be a presentation on the board of bids saying this explicit item is a competitive exemption for sales tax.

Uh, the funding source is sales tax, or could be an agenda report highlighting this purchases for sales tax and only approval by the city council could change that.

I just want to make sure that again those connected for or against the sales tax do not get special treatment or favor if there are contracts that come before us.

So I want to make sure that there's verbiage, and I believe that we will have verbiage given the proposed guardrails I have that um will not allow special treatment to be given to any business entity or organization in the awarding of any contract.

In addition, um all contracts will be awarded following compliance with the city's purchasing and procurement process, which you just outlined, um, unless approved by the vote of the city council.

So again, I want to make sure that there's full transparency and open competition when it comes to if there are any projects that come before us connected to again the for or against groups.

Mayor, thank you for the for the comments.

The only thing I just want to make a hundred percent clear, sure, is that the purchasing office does not have an explicit vested interest or tie to a vendor or firm.

We're very agnostic in how we process purchases.

Um there's actually state law outlining conflict of interest for local government employees or local governments.

Um the city purchasing office takes very seriously the processes related to conflict of interest because they also implicate the internal auditors ethics policy, human resources ethics policy, and then the purchasing division has a code of ethics policy.

Um so I do want to be abundantly clear in terms of treatment or favoritism.

The purchasing office is agnostic.

We do not have any preference for vendors.

Thank you very much, Josh.

With that, I see no further questions for purchasing.

I will move to approve the Board of Bids and Contracts dated January 26, 2026.

Second.

Motion and a second, any further discussion.

I see none.

Madam Clerk, please open the roll.

Motion passes 7-0.

Madam Clerk, please call the next item.

Special election on March 3rd, 2026 to impose a 1% sales tax implementation.

And Mayor, as we start this um presentation, I will do that here in a second.

But um, we anticipated starting the project or the conversation with a representative from Wishtaw Forward, if Matt or someone in the audience wanted to come for a few minutes, and then I'll do the presentation.

Thank you, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, city manager, uh, for the opportunity to be here today.

Michelle Ford appreciates a chance to continue the conversation and to help clarify and refine their proposal so it works for all Wichitans.

I'm grateful that today's discussion includes city staff, community leaders, subject matter experts who can add perspective and context to the specific projects outlined in the proposal.

Our hope is that this workshop contributes to a greater clarity and specificity as we work together to address some of the city's most critical needs.

Thank you.

Good morning, mayor and council members.

It's a pleasure to be before you for my first agenda item presentation.

And I will be joined by some others.

We have some staff members who will also contribute to the conversation as well as some partners in the community to give some of their information about the items that are contained within the sales tax proposal to presented in March.

As you see the presentation, um we'll highlight first on the second page that um our role today is to be the resource to serve as the education arm of this proposal.

And so now that it's been presented, going to be on the ballot, it's the opportunity to make sure we have some clarity, and that's what we want to do today with um some of the resolutions and different information.

But we want to highlight just as you discussed in the purchasing conversation.

City staff is not advocates for either position.

City staff is here to educate.

Once council makes decisions about resolutions or other methods going forward, we will have the exact ballot language on the website, and we will be glad to speak as staff members just on the education component of what voters will be asked to vote on March 3rd.

So I want to make sure everyone understands there's no advocacy role on the behalf of city staff, and even you as council members have the opportunity to speak personally, individually on this topic as you want.

You can have some guardrails that are outlined from the law or the uh state ethics on this, but you also have an opportunity as council members to speak on this individually.

Um, but for staff members and city resources, it will not be used to advocate any one position on the sales tax.

To get into where we are, December 16th, you approve the sales tax referendum to be on the ballot on a special election on March 3rd.

It is for a limited term and it will terminate when 850 million is collected or at the end of the seven-year term.

Also, the sales tax would begin on July 21st, or July 1st, 2026, and the funds would be receded and received to the city in September of 2026.

We'll have some uh budget conversations here and implications, but the timing is important to know when the clock actually starts should this approve.

Um, what we would want to highlight is that our city budget adoption is in August of 2026, so it's kind of in between there, so there will be some estimates and revenue projections that we will have to make going forward should this pass.

Um, it was developed a proposal by Wishtaw Ford, a nonpartisan group, and it focused on five areas public safety capital improvement for a value of 225 million, the revitalization set revitalization of century two, an upgrade expansion convention center for 225 million, a property tax relief effort for 150 million, homeless and housing services for 150 million, and then the development and construction of a downtown public performant arts center for 75 million.

As we looked at this from the staff perspective, knowing when the monthly revenues will be coming in, it is a staff recommendation that when the first dollar comes in, it would be apportioned by the percentages to be raised of the 850 for the five different initiatives.

I know there are some other proposals that you'll be discussing here in a little bit, but from staff perspective, when the first dollar comes in, we need direction on how it is to be applied.

The ballot initiative, when people see the ballot in the elections center booth, they will not have a choice to rank those projects.

They will all be a yes or no.

Do you want to support a sales tax to support these five different initiatives?

Within that, there are three different times where it will become important how we take the first dollar in or we take the money in over the seven years.

First is how we apportion it for the five initiatives.

Second, we anticipate investing the money.

We'll have money coming in that we will put in investment vehicles to generate interest income.

We have to determine where does that money earned from interest go.

And so again, our recommendation would be to apportion any new revenue from investment income would be apportioned by the percentages outlined here.

And then thirdly, the consideration when you think about how money is appropriated apportioned across the five issues, is should there be a shortfall if we have some uh food sales tax um elimination of the sales tax on those items if that has an impact on the 850 million?

Again, how does that be, or how will that be attributed to the five different initiatives?

So there's kind of three steps along the way where it will be important to determine how the funds will be apportioned or allocated and at what time.

Um so as we go through and talk about some of this, we do have revenue projections.

I'd like to ask Mark Manning to come forward as our director of finance, and he can run through the revenue projections and give some more information about our cash basis as we approach this proposal.

Mark.

Good morning, Mayor, members of the city council, Mark Manning.

We can't see over here because Mayor Mark Manning, uh Department of Finance.

Good morning.

Uh, like the manager said, I want to go over uh cash flows, particularly from a revenue estimation standpoint.

Uh I'll talk about some considerations on the revenue estimates, and then we'll talk about uh investment of funds and uh uh how we would uh envision spending the funds based on the referendum.

Then I'll touch briefly on uh homestead property tax program because we've had some questions about that.

Uh so here is a a model of when we would expect the sales tax revenue to come if the referendum is successful.

As you know, the referendum would take effect on July 1st of 20 uh 26, which means six months.

However, there's about a two-month lag in when the revenue actually reaches us from the Kansas Department of Revenue.

Uh simplistically, we would expect annual revenues of somewhere in the neighborhood of 120 to 130 million dollars a year over time.

Uh but you can see in 2026, again, we would only expect about 37 uh.7 million.

Again, that's because that's only roughly one-third of an annualized amount of the sales tax.

Uh, same thing is true in 2033, of course, because the sales tax uh would terminate no later than June 30th of 2023.

Uh I would point out again this is a simplistic uh model.

We generally use three percent growth in sales tax.

It's gonna fluctuate, obviously, but this should give you some idea of what the annual uh cash flows and revenues would be that would be available uh if the referendum uh were successful.

So another thing we've talked a lot about is the exemption of food from uh a local sales tax or specifically uh this proposed referendum, as you know, food is exempted from the state sales tax, uh which is six and a half percent, but it is not exempted from local uh sales taxes, which in this case would be one percent.

Uh the city is interested in pursuing options with the legislature to uh exempt uh food from uh this referendum, for example.

Uh it's a challenge to estimate the cost of that.

We do not have the data.

I have to lean into the Kansas Department of Revenue.

I use data that they prepared in 2023 when they exempted uh food at the state level.

And the bottom line is I believe it's approximately 12% of our revenue base uh here in the city, which taw.

That would result in a revenue loss approximately of 81 million dollars based on the model that I showed you on the previous page.

Now, if you're quick on the math, you'll know that 850 times 12% is a little bit more than 81 million dollars.

That's because, and I should have pointed this out on the prior slide.

We would expect to collect the entire 850 million several months before the termination date of June 30th, based on the model I presented on the previous page.

However, if there was a food tax exemption, obviously the sales tax would extend to the termination date of June 30th.

So that would mitigate the loss a little bit, and that's why we estimate 81 million dollars.

I also point out that's assuming something is enacted by July 1st of this year.

That could be a challenge in the legislature.

So we also modeled a second scenario.

If, for example, it was implemented in 2029, that would reflect a loss of approximately 45 and a half million dollars.

Again, cannot emphasize these are simply estimates, but they're primarily to give an order of magnitude of what the impact of that exemption could be on a local sales tax.

We've been asked to look at the state homestead exemption.

And I I don't want to go into a lot of detail, but I did want to provide some information about that.

Again, if we lean into Department of Revenue, we know that in Sedgwick County in 2024, there was approximately 8,500 applications for the homestead property tax program with the state.

Those 85 people got an average refund of approximately 213 dollars, which is to say it costs the state of Kansas about 1.8 million dollars in Sedgwick County in 2024.

Now, what would it cost the city of Wichita if we replicated such a program?

That's very difficult to estimate.

We're approximately 25% of the county population.

Uh so maybe a high end would be 1.4 million dollars, but that's if the entire population that participated in the state program participated in the city program.

More likely it would be significantly lower than that.

Again, it would be based on participation rates and how we implemented the program.

And just a little reminder on what the state program is.

It provides uh refunds to individuals, uh, seniors that are over 55, disabled veterans, uh, folks that have a dependent living with them under the age of 18, but it's income restricted.

It has to be income of less than 42,000, and the home value has to be less than 350,000.

We replicated this program, as you know, a couple years ago at the state or at the city level.

We marketed it extensively.

We made it as easy as possible to apply at the neighborhood city halls, and our participation unfortunately was very limited.

So again, I cannot tell you what a program like this would cost.

Uh I can tell you the maximum amount would probably be no more than 1.4 million.

More likely it would be significantly less.

One last thing I should point out: any cost of this program likely would not be eligible for sales tax funds in a referendum.

It's not contemplated in the referendum, so most likely we would have to find an ulterior funding source for this, which most likely would be the general fund.

Uh we would uh envision a parameter under this referendum in which we would recommend cash-only funding for any capital improvement projects.

There's a couple of reasons for that.

Uh, one, it's not generally a good idea to issue debt with a term longer than your revenue stream, and we typically typically issue 10-year GO debt, and the referendum, of course, is a maximum of seven years, and those two not do not align.

That's the primary reason.

Secondarily, uh I don't think we believe that the referendum contemplated the use of debt.

So for those two reasons, we would not recommend the use of any debt with any of the capital improvement projects associated with the referendum.

And in fact, uh state cash basis law requires us to have cash on hand before we obligate.

Uh so our model would be that we would accumulate cash and uh initiate projects when we had cash accumulated to the degree necessary for those particular projects.

Uh finally, let me talk about investment a little bit.

Uh we, of course, invest idle funds here at the city of Wichita, and those revenues typically go into the general fund with a few other restrictions, and that's a significant source of revenue for our general fund.

Uh it's a good thing to invest idle funds and put that money to work, and we're pretty aggressive about doing that.

If the referendum is approved, we would have positive cash flow, obviously.

Our recommendation would be that we invest those funds consistent with our current investment policy.

Right now, by the way, uh our uh our idle funds are earning somewhere north of four percent.

Uh, but I would also tell you that anything I'm buying these days is a little closer to about three and a half percent.

Uh, the final caution I would give you is interest earnings go up and down uh in 2021.

Uh I wasn't earning four percent, I was earning 0.02 percent.

So they are they are volatile.

Uh but uh uh we would definitely recommend investing the idle funds consistent with our investment policy.

Having said that, let me address the endowment.

That is different uh than what I just told you.

We wouldn't we would segregate the endowment into a restricted fund, and we would invest it with our investment policy, and all those proceeds would be returned to the endowment.

Uh in fact, uh something we would recommend uh if the referendum is successful, is perhaps amending our investment policy to allow us to invest a little bit longer duration, which would likely enhance the earnings of any endowment, and which would be consistent with the nature of the endowment.

Again, we can cross that bridge when we come to it later.

Uh but the bottom line is we would not recommend debt, and we would recommend issue uh investing all the idle funds consistent with our investment policy, and we would segregate any investment earnings specifically for the endowment.

Mike, uh we have a couple of questions.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Uh thank you, Mayor.

Um, appreciate your work so far on this, Mark.

Um if we could go just um speaking back a couple of slides here.

Um, where you have it listed out as far as how much would be this slide right here, how much is accumulated every year, and it seems like it's just based on it being spread evenly throughout the duration of the seven years.

Yes, sir.

Um, I know at least a few council members up here, including myself, have been uh wanting to prioritize and that way we can start getting a head start on some of the ones that we think are a little more um impactful this early, such as homelessness performing or um housing and public safety and property taxes, which I guess we would have to do that one as well.

Is that I know there was some conversation with you and legal about if that's doable.

Um, is that something that we can do?

Prioritize certain buckets.

Council member, if it's okay, I'll jump in on that.

Um we've looked at that question and legally um we don't find any Kansas case law that squarely answers that question, but we believe that legally it's a it's within the council's discretion as the governing body stemming from your ultimate authority under home rule to set a budget and spend the funds you have available so long as the these individual initiatives don't exceed the cap that are that is in the ballot.

So we're going back to the ballot caps for guidance here.

But we believe that just legally you have discretion in how to prioritize that sales tax revenue.

Does that answer your question?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Um we also talk about you know this model, and you said that you projected that we would actually if sales food sales tax is included, shut down a couple of months early, be um overperforming as far as collecting the revenue.

Is that a Mark Manning conservative model?

Um it's based on three percent annual growth, which I could uh tell you is very similar to what our long-term growth in the sales tax is, but I would also tell you that we had a couple 10% growth years a couple years ago, and we actually grew five percent last year.

So, you know, in reality it's gonna zigzag like this.

Whether it averages three percent long term, I don't know, but yes, fundamentally you are correct.

Three percent is probably on the moderate side.

Okay, I appreciate that.

And then also um the share of the homestead tax.

Um what is our proportion of receiving the property taxes compared to the state?

Is it a two for one the state gets about 50 percent to our 25 percent or what's the ratio of property taxes that homeowners pay?

Simplistically, approximately a quarter comes to the city, approximately a quarter goes to the uh uh county, and approximately the other half goes to the uh uh school district.

Actually, I believe the state repealed their they used to have levy on a half, and I believe they repealed that last year.

That's right.

Um okay, so we would not be getting the same or we're not giving away the same amount as the school board would, for example, for their if they did the share of the homestead tax.

Well, it depend on how you structured it.

If we if our objective was only to refund the portion of someone's taxes that was applicable to the city of Wichita, yes, that would be roughly about 25%.

Okay, and that's the 1.4 million ish.

Uh no, actually, that was 100%.

I just modeled exactly what the state of Kansas does in that model.

So yes.

Okay.

If we did something you're suggesting, that would reduce the cost.

Okay, so that would be the better return for for the money.

Okay, appreciate that.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor.

Just wanted to offer maybe some color to Councilman Hoheisel's comments about prioritization.

I like to make sure it's codified in this uh the resolutions presented before us today, resolution 2026 052, section one item seven goes on to say that the council is determined that a sales tax revenues become available or the sales tax revenues are insufficient to fund all projects, those projects with a higher priority ranking shall be funded in a manner consistent with with such prioritization.

So just to maybe ease some of your concerns, I think it's codified in uh the resolutions presented by staff as well.

Well, we're on the topic of that.

Um, I think it is important to note that we will be discussing uh just that portion about prioritization, maybe after the presentation, so that we again um continue with the presentation.

However, um I do want to ask a question regarding uh the slide that you're back on, which is slide number 27.

You were just talking about the endowment ballot language specifically states.

Uh can someone read please the homeless and housing uh portion of that ballot language, and that is in regards to the endowment.

Just a moment, Mayor.

The ballot itself.

If you want, I'll read it.

Thank you.

An amount not to exceed 150 million dollars of such tax applied to establish a restricted special fund with, and I emphasize with earnings from such fund to be reinvested into this special fund to support homeless and housing services by funding affordable housing projects and programs, shelter facilities, a multi-agency center and its operations and related services for people experiencing homelessness.

So my question is specific to you, Mark.

According to the ballot language, it says earnings from such fund, which then means you cannot touch the principal, which would be 150 million.

Can you explain that portion for us?

Uh mayor, the way I interpret the ballot language is that we would create a restricted fund that would hold the endowment, uh, which would be in a very effective guardrail, and that any investment earnings from that endowment would be completely deposited in that restricted fund.

Uh I can't speak to whether the ballot language would allow the corpus to be expended.

Uh, typically that is not the case in endowments, uh, but uh that's a question that's probably not within my realm of the case.

Thank you, Mark.

Maybe it's a law question.

Can the corpus be expended?

Look for Sharon Dickraff, who has um looked into this a little further and see if um she's available.

Speak to that the the ballot language does show an intent to get to that hundred and fifty million dollar fund amount.

Um there is no specific language in the ballot, however, that would preclude spending some of that money.

Um, but again, I think the the ballot language is intended to try to get as close to that 150 million dollars.

Um, I know I've had conversations with several of you.

Um, the 150 million would not be in total um gathered until that last year.

Um so there may be some flexibility, some I think it's minimal flexibility in spending some of that money um through the process.

Thank you, Sharon.

Maybe now a question for Mark.

In these types of endowments, again, can you explain how um the corpus continues to grow and that the earnings and how much do you expect an earnings to then be able to be utilized?

Well, on a long-term basis, again, we would expect earnings somewhere in the three percent range, maybe three and a half percent.

Obviously, we could have years higher than that.

We could certainly have years lower than that.

Uh, you know, a hundred million dollars, three percent is three million dollars a year, three and a half percent, three and a half million dollars a year.

When we reach the level of of uh 150 million dollars, uh you would be looking at closer to four and a half and maybe five million dollars a year in the earnings thrown off from the endowment.

So again, I think the answer to the question I asked specifically was can the corpus be expended?

And the answer is no.

Um, but there are minimal ways that you could uh utilize some of that corpus according to Sharon.

Is that accurate?

Yes.

Thank you.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this is a big question yesterday, and uh ran it by several people, and it's about 50-50 on people how they read this.

So some people read it that you do have to get the all 150 million in there and only use their earnings.

Other people said no.

It just says with it doesn't say you have to spend all of you can't spend any of it on the way.

So I think it's it's up to interpretation.

I'm not sure I agree with our legal team uh on the interpretation.

Um did call the uh the three people that presented this, ask them what their intent was, and one of them their intent was to keep the 150 million and only use the earnings.

The other two, uh, that was not their intent.

Their intent was to use the earnings.

They just did not want any of the money going outside to anything else but homelessness and housing.

That was their interpretation of the intent.

So it's open to interpretation, and then my interpretation is that we can get to that to the corpus of it.

Council uh Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'll agree with my colleague uh councilman Johnson regarding his interpretation.

It doesn't say with only earnings from such special fund to be reinvested, it just says with earnings from such fund.

Um, and so doesn't specifically preclude that.

Now, what it does protect, and that I appreciate when we're talking about guardrails, that regardless, out of the hundred and fifty million bucket, it would go towards homeless and housing services and also affordable housing as well.

And so I would agree with my colleague, uh, Councilman Johnson on his interpretation.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I agree with my other two council members who previously spoke.

Uh, who would have the final say, so to speak, on that one if we went through a process.

Well, I'll just jump in here.

I I think you know, as the research we've shown is that the the attorney general's opinions generally point to deference toward a governing body's discretion in how to spend this money.

Um, I think the you could be challenged on it, but that's that's what we we would look at that the discretion that you have inherently as a governing body to spend the budget that you have.

Okay, I appreciate that.

The goal is of course to try to be consistent with what the intent of the voters was, and that's the question here today.

So, not an easy answer.

Thank you, uh Jennifer.

So I will disagree with my three council members in that the ballot language says earnings from such fund, and I understand that there are some immediate needs that need to be um covered uh in the interim, and so I appreciate the moderate approach of legal staff saying that the corpus cannot be expended, but rather a minimal uh could uh if if the governing body would wish to do that, because I think the intent is to have this endowment be able to live on in perpetuity to be able to provide these services as they will be um multiple different ways from sheltering to actual housing, and so I believe that endowments are for that specifically, so that it can live on in perpetuity and not touching that corpus.

Um, so again, I will be in disagreement with my uh three council members.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you.

I'd be interested in hearing maybe the perspective of the other council members to see the will of the body.

In addition, um, I would like to see if Sally could come up.

Um I asked Sally to run some of the numbers regarding the principle that the mayor proposed just to see if the numbers pencil out.

Sally, could you maybe let us know what you did and running the numbers?

Um seeing the mayor suggests before she does that, Mayor.

Can I maybe suggest that we go through the rest of the presentation?

Um, because I think what people see in total in the full context of all the issues, and we do have your language uh for the ballot on the next couple slides.

And so if we wouldn't mind if it's council's wish, we can go through the full presentation, then you can have I think the full conversation.

Councilmember Johnston.

Okay.

We will continue with the presentation.

So we'll go through, yeah.

We'll get through.

So we do want to part of the um conversation for today certainly is to give um voters the understanding about guardrails and oversight.

The language does have some information on there about oversight is crucial.

All the financial activity will adhere to the city standards.

You've heard about that with the purchasing here, but also our investment policy and other guardrails can be put in place by council, and that's some of the resolutions that are proposed that have been put on the public website.

But also the ordinance does outline the creation of a citizens oversight committee specifically for the sales tax use, should it pass.

And the scope of the committee's role is to verify projects funded with the sales tax revenue are consistent with the purposes and uses that were approved by the Wichita voters.

Also, you'll see that the details of the oversight committee, it has to be created within 90 days.

No more than 15 members that are appointed by council.

Um there is a three-year term if needed can be reappointed.

Um there'll be a chair, co-chair, and certainly the committee will also have to follow the similar rules that we have for the open meetings and open records act.

And also, council can determine if you want subcommittees under these or whatever it may be, who are maybe some other folks in the community, but you have the outline in the ordinance to have an oversight committee.

So that will happen if approved.

Um, also, if you look at that, it will be dissolved once the sales tax expires.

We will have at least one independent financial audit annually during each of the seven years.

Also, it will meet twice annually, and it may have the subcommittees or meet more often, should council want to direct that as well.

Um, while the committee will not make the funding determinations, that will be determined by council.

Um, we'll also have we have initiative specific considerations.

Each of the five, as we're starting to talk about right now, have some assumptions that need to be clarified, and that's where I think we were just a minute ago.

Um, it does include how we do the pay as you go cash basis that we just talked about, and it's not one lump sump distribution or payment, so we can talk that through a little bit more.

Um, but also we will look to city council to clarify or outline how they will be administered through the resolutions.

And so we have one with each one.

Um, on the first one is initiative specific.

We want everyone to see the ballot language.

So on the first item or initiative is a public safety capital improvements to generate 225 million dollars.

The ballot language states an amount not to exceed 225 million dollars of such tax applied to public safety costs for support of city police and fire facility construction and maintenance, the acquisition of vehicles, apparatus, equipment, and other purposes related to providing police and fire services for the city.

Again, we want to clarify in the resolution in no manner would those funds be shifted or utilized for hiring new employees for police or fire.

So we want to clarify that in the resolution.

Um, we do say it will be used to cash fund planned improvements over seven years rather than as you heard from Mr.

Manning about our general tenure program for capital improvement.

We did put with the agenda item the explicit CIP projects that were developed in this last budget process for both police and fire.

So you can see we're talking about new equipment, we're talking about new stations for both police and fire.

Um, so the CIP is actually identified and then also updated on an annual basis.

And so you'll have input going forward on the annual adoption of the CIP, but we will have those identified as of today, and then we'll work from those.

Um so we said right here it does align with our strategic plan, and we talked about replacing fire trucks and equipment, even talked about a new police training facility, talked about things as radios, communication, and other equipment needs and especially vehicles.

Again, we have that all outlined in our tenure CIP already for police and fire, and we would go down those lists.

On the next one is about property relief, property tax relief.

150 million dollars, the ballot language says an amount not to exceed 150 million dollars of such tax applied for property tax relief.

Our current mill levy for 2026 is 32.34 mills with one mill slightly equaling about five million dollars annually.

So again, we would certify the amounts with the county on June 10th of every year, and then simply we would take a budget transfer, depending upon how you uh structure priorities of sales tax revenue to the general fund revenue to help offset the mill.

So we could see anywhere from a 3.7 to 4.0 mil annual drop, um, which is roughly a 11.5 to 12 percent reduction.

Um then again the value reduction will fluctuate, so it will be hard to say.

We can tell you that it's gonna be a certain percentage drop or mill drop because the um mill value is based on the assessed value each year, and that fluctuates depend upon the properties that come on the tax roll, properties that go off the tax rule.

And so again, there is some fluctuations.

So voters don't have a exact number, but we can tell you roughly 3.7 to 4 mills would be the impact.

Um talking about the next ballot language on there is an amount not to exceed 250 million dollars of such tax applied to pay the cost for revitalization of century two, not to exceed 25 million, and upgrade and expanded convention center improvements not to exceed 225 million.

And I'd like to ask Susie Santo or someone from Visit Wichita to come forward and they can give you a little bit more detail on how they see this being utilized.

Susie?

Thank you, Mr.

Manager Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, it's a pleasure to be here this morning.

And I'm gonna chat about two distinct and connected investments.

Modernize and preserve Century 2 as a community asset, and expand Bob Brown to align with market supportable convention programming.

And together, these two investments will drive the tourism economy.

I think before I get into it, it's important to kind of look and see what's happening in our our cities nearby.

So when we look at the peer cities, our peer cities have invested significantly in their convention center product.

Oklahoma City just opened theirs.

I know many of you have seen that back in 2021.

Omaha is currently involved in a 200 million reinvestment.

Des Moines built new in 2004, Overloom Park built new in 2002, and Tulsa in around 2020 completed a major renovation.

It's interesting to note too, currently, right now, both Springfield and Lincoln have active RFPs for a new convention center.

So you can see in the last 20-ish years, our peer cities have invested significantly, and Wichita has not.

So when I talk about industry standard convention center facilities, these are what is expected by meeting planners when they come in and they see our convention product.

So think about that contiguous exhibit space.

Exhibit space is the cement space where you're gonna set up your 10 by 10 booth and have those trade shows.

It's typically rectangular, it's subdividable and column free.

They have covered loading docks for ease in and out.

The ceiling heights with a minimum minimum clearance that allows for hanging hanging capabilities.

Floor utility boxes are critical with water and power.

Again, think of that 10 by 10 booth that sets up and everyone needs access.

They have significant pre-function meeting space.

Again, how meetings convene has changed dramatically over the last several decades, and that pre-function space is essential.

There's a ballroom space.

And when you look at best practice, best practice has your uh convention hotel, in our case it's the connected Hyatt, has its own meeting space and ballroom as well as the convention center.

So the difference between exhibit space and ballroom space, exhibit space is cement.

You're putting those booths up.

Ballroom is that carpeted, that nicer finish where you're gonna have your meal functions, et cetera.

There's natural light, enhanced technology is critical, and then the icing on the cake is if it's aesthetically pleasing.

So that's what's considered industry standard.

I'd like to chat a little bit about uh the deficiencies and our current product.

What you're looking at at the left is our layup, our layout for Bob Brown and convention center, and Bob Brown Convention Center as well as C2.

And then on the right, that's an industry standard facility, and that's in a layout of Oklahoma City.

And so again, on the right, you see Oklahoma subdividable covered loading docks, ease in and out.

And when you look at our Bob Brown, Bob Brown has around 90,000 square feet, but it is not subdividable.

So if we have a meeting that comes in and only needs 40,000 exhibit space, they take up the whole space.

So we are losing out on opportunities because we can't subdivide it.

Also, if y'all have been in Bob Brown, which I know you have, you see the lower ceiling where we have the consent the concession stands.

That's not considered prime space because it's lower ceiling and the exhibitors want to be out in the high ceiling where you can have the hanging capability.

So we have right now about 60,000 square feet in Bob Brown that would be considered the appropriate, you know, meeting that some of those standards but again it's not subdividable.

So I want to share with you how we sell it when we bring a meeting planner in.

So again, on the right, that's what a meeting planner is typically used to saying, where they can subdivide based on their needs.

When we bring in a meeting planner, we take them to Bob Brown, but what we have to sell is we say, okay, we can set up in Bob Brown, then the connecting lobby, which is the orange spot, then the green convention hall and exhibit hall.

But what we have to sell is we say, okay, we can set up in Bob Brown, then the connecting lobby, which is the orange spot, then the green convention hall and exhibit hall.

That's how we sell roughly 180,000 square feet of space.

So again, if you're bringing in your trade show and you've got one exhibitor over in the corner of Bob Brown and another exhibitor over in exhibit hall, it make or exhibition hall, it does not make for a pleasing experience, and that's where we run into kind of the difficulties with our current product not meeting industry standards.

Again, this information we've studied this for quite some time, and all of this came out of the Century 2 and Bob Brown Convention Center District Envisioning, originally published back in 2023.

So we know what program can be supported by Wichita on our side.

So when we think about that exhibit space, again, that's that contiguous space, roughly 130,000 square feet.

You know, it's interesting.

I noted that Bob Brown today is about 90, but we've only got about 60,000 that's prime.

So for Wichita, about 130,000 square feet of that subdividable exhibition exhibit space, meeting space, an additional 30,000 square feet.

The ballroom space that I talked about again is the carpet, that's about 40,000.

So people have asked what's the difference between the meeting space and the ballroom space.

The ballroom space are going to be your larger where you're gonna have your bigger meal functions and the meeting space again are those smaller breakout rooms, but again, flexibility is key.

And then outdoor space, again, allowing for people to reconvene outside.

So let's talk about what an expansion of Bob Brown would look like.

Again, expanding the exhibit space, adding the ballroom and the meeting rooms to align with the market need that we just chatted about.

Upgrading the core building technology and infrastructure systems required to operate this modern convention facility.

So think about the mechanical, electrical, the plumbing, the HVAC, technology, lighting, power, building controls, and security systems.

Renovate and better integrate the existing meeting rooms connected to the Hyatt.

So again, for nice flow and connectivity, reorganizing the back of house operations, including loading and circulation to improve efficiency, expanding the kitchen and food beverage capacity to support higher quality service and revenue opportunity.

And then it's important too to align the support spaces and operations with the modernized C2 facilities.

Again, to leverage both of these investments.

I think it's important to note that when you have or when we have as a community this expanded convention hall that brings regional and national conventions, it allows then for the round building century two to be just a great community asset.

So let's talk about modernizing and preserving Century 2.

I think it's important to note when we go back to that diagram.

In fact, I think I'm gonna go backwards.

When you look at the actual spaces in Century 2, you have concert hall and Mary Jane Teal on the bottom left, and then you have that arch that I told you we would we would sell.

If you think about with the modernized and preserving Century 2, the theaters stay intact.

I know that Angela's gonna chat with you a little bit about the new performing arts center and the needs for the professional in that vein, but what this would allow is when those tenants move out, it would allow for that theater to have another six months of availability.

Right now in Century 2, six months of that is used by the incredible tenants, Broadway, Wichita.

So that opens up that space.

We'd modernize in public facing spaces, including the lobbies and lighting and signage and restrooms, and in the exterior areas as well.

Could refresh the convention and exhibit halls that we talked about, how we currently sell into a purpose-built community event space that supports public events and trade shows and local meetings.

It's gonna be important to assess the parking and circulation needs during the design phase to make sure that they support modernized facilities and the needs of the surrounding district.

And again, as I mentioned with the Bob Brown expansion, aligning the support spaces and the modernized century two to align with the expanded Bob Brown to integrate the facilities.

It's gonna be important to note that there's currently about 12.6 million from what I understand in the city's CIP, be recommended that that stays and that you evaluate and address the building systems systems to be consistent with this modernized and preserved facility to make sure that it enhances.

So when we think about this modernized convention facility that drives outside visitors to Wichita, we have known some quite some time we're leaving a lot of money on the table.

In fact, every year that we have a modernized convention center, direct spending from visitors, new money is about 32 million every year.

If you look at the total economic impact with indirect and direct and induce, is roughly 54.

But I like to talk about that direct spending.

That's visitors opening up their wallets and shopping in our shops and restaurants and visiting all of our great uh places to attractions and places to see and do in Wichita.

It's also important to note that convention center will bring those outside visitors.

Again, anyone that doesn't live in the city of Wichita that's a visitor, they're helping pay for this tax that would benefit all of the five projects outlined.

And it's estimated by I believe city finance that about 20 to 25 percent of the tax will be raised by visitors, right?

And in this case, paying into the tax of visitors, anybody in Derby or anybody that doesn't live in Wichita to help support the overall tax, and it's about 20 to 25 percent.

Thank you.

Any questions to the convention and century two?

Sure.

I'll ask our housing and community services director to come up now and we can walk through the housing uh component initiative of this.

So we do see on the ballot the initiative as the mayor highlighted a little bit ago, an amount not to exceed 150 million dollars of such tax applied to establish restricted special fund with the earnings of such fund to be reinvest in the special fund.

And so it goes on to elaborate on that a little bit, and then we can talk about how we saw the implementation on this, and then you can um we'll do the rest of the presentation, and then we can get to um difference of how you might want to address these.

Good morning, honorable mayor, members of council, Sally staying with the housing and community services department for the record.

So, you know, the way we looked at this, funding could be allocated annually beginning the you know fall of 2026 to support homelessness initiatives with that excess cash flow being used to uh create that endowment fund.

At the as we propose at the end of the sales tax term, the endowment could have over a hundred million dollars, generating an estimate of 3.5 million annually for future homelessness and housing needs.

This proposal obviously looks into spending some of that corpus.

That restricted fund can produce interest uh to provide operational support to a low barrier multi-agency center, currently second light, um, as proposed could provide 690,000 in the fourth quarter of 2026, and then per 2002,750,000 in 2027 with a $50,000 a year step up through 2032, and then 1,525,000 for the first and second quarters of 2023.

This plan still requires that community agencies collaborate in the services and expenses at Second Light.

It also requires the Second Light Board to continue to try and fundraise as it was envisioned in both the MAC plan under Home ARP as well as the agreements with the Mark MAC board.

This breaks out based on with every dollar coming in.

Um it is proportionally put in the five different program areas.

So that was how this plan was developed.

So that first quarter uh revenue of 377, which is consistent with um Mark Manning's projections, only 6.7 million of that could go into the endowment.

We would be expending 690,000 of that to support second light in that last quarter of 26.

And then this goes through each year of that in 2027, another 20 and a half million going into the endowment.

Interest earned in that last quarter of 179,000 in change, um, and then that 2.75 million going to support second light, a million dollars to support homeless gap services, which are critical, so that um that we have case managers, outreach, and other programs that can move people out of shelter and into housing in 27.

You'll note starting in 2029, we see expenditures on the affordable housing side.

So over the seven years, we're looking at a shelter expenditures of eight 18 million, 775,000 dollars, 7 million in other homeless services, and just over 31 and a half million towards affordable housing projects.

And I'll show you a little bit of how that breaks down.

So the funding to support other gap services, as I meant, mentioned, are critical in our community, would be, for example, homeless outreach to extend and expand quick trip outreach funding, housing navigation in order to connect people from shelter or encampments into housing, case management to help people stay housed.

They also help to connect people to mental health substance abuse, medical employment, all those other wraparound services.

Landlord incentives and risk mitigation funds.

We've seen how impactful those can be.

We've launched programs in the past, but use grant funds that had expirate expiring terms, and we're not able to continue those going forward, as well as homeless prevention.

We can't stop the number of people entering into homelessness.

If we can't slow that down, we're gonna have a really hard time getting ahead of addressing homelessness.

All projects would be awarded through competitive RFPs and with recommendations by the grants review committee.

That is a process we've used for decades.

Creation of the restricted special fund coupled with other resources will permit strategic investment of a total of 70 million dollars over seven years for the development and preservation of affordable housing through the scaling of existing heavily regulated long-term programs.

Some examples of that programs are the homeowner repair program that Ms.

Hoffhein talked about earlier.

This has been funded with community development grant funds, and currently we provide $5,000 grants with an additional $20,000 zero interest deferred loans to provide critical repairs to homes owned by low-income homeowners.

So we've provided over $14 million in assistance for over 3,000 projects since the year 2000.

We have the homeowner, the home 80 down payment assistance and homeowner housing development loan program.

This uses federal home funds for housing development and provide subs provide subsidy for the development of those homes, and then up to 20% of the purchase price in $2,000 towards closing costs for low-income home buyers.

And we've provided over almost $22 million in assistance for $1,374 households since 1993.

We also have for under rental housing, we have the housing development loan program where we use home subsidies for the development and renovation of rental housing for low-income households.

These projects leverage and provide points for low-income housing tax credit applications.

And we've provided just over $4.3 million for $15 projects since 2000.

And then we have the Affordable Housing Fund.

And we used $5 million in ARPA funds to preserve those 70 former public housing units, 35 for affordable home buyers, 45 for Section 8 rentals.

Funding remains, it's actually program income from that original expenditure that will be used for some remaining properties in the floodplain and market challenged units, and we'll be issuing an RFP later this year.

So we have existing funding, either currently or coming available that we could pair with the three 31,553,000 in revenues from the sales tax to bring us to that 70 million dollars over seven years.

And that's funding that includes that program income from the Affordable Housing Fund.

We have home funds targeted to multifamily housing of just under 1.6.

We have funds in the home AD down payment assistance program of about a million dollars.

Uh revenue from selling those public housing units currently, just over 2.1 million in the bank, and with it expecting another $14.3 million coming in.

And then we have the annual allocations of CDBG and home funds, which tally $8.87 million and $1.68 million for a total investment leveraging other sources of $38,446,073.77.

What is not in here is the $15 million investment we're doing in 2026.

So we have $15 million going into park landing, 10 million in public housing sales proceeds, 4.1 million from home art funds, and a million dollars in CDBG.

So that investment is happening this year in 2026.

And what I have here is projecting 2027 and forward.

So that's it from the housing side.

And I'll turn it back over to the real quick.

So it's looking a little better than it did a couple of months ago.

So the THUD bill was just released last week and passed by the House, which looks at level funding for home and CDBG.

Unfortunately, level funding means a cut because every year we have more and more communities that enter into eligibility for those those funding by reaching 50,000 population.

So we'll likely see a slight cut in that area.

On the voucher side, they showed a very slight increase in funding.

The challenge is we're seeing rents increase much faster than the increases in the amount of housing assistance dollars they give us.

To give an example, we are 400 families fewer that we are able to assist this year than we were two years ago, simply due to level funding and continual rise in rents and utility expenses.

So we are definitely seeing challenges in meeting the demand.

We have nearly 7,000 people back on the waiting list for section eight.

We're looking to pull maybe two or three hundred names from the list this year.

Also Light Tech Credits.

Could you touch on that?

Sure.

LITEC, the application for 9%, the pre-applications went in in January.

Our community has not seen our fair share of tax credit allocations.

We continue to lobby the Kansas Housing Resources Corporation to try and position projects from our from Wichita to score better and be awarded, but there's some ambiguity in how they do that scoring despite the scoring matrix.

We will continue to try, but they do require a local investment in order to get additional points.

Despite in some cases, providing some of that local investment, we're still seeing challenges in getting projects awarded here.

Thank you.

And then we'll talk about the last initiative area and then wind this up and open it up for your discussion on the different five areas and resolutions.

So we do have one last uh ballot language item, Mount Not to Exceed $75 million applied for development, construction of a new downtown public performing arts.

And so we have a representative from the arts community, Ms.

Angela Cassette.

Thank you, Mayor.

Good morning, Mayor and City Council.

My name is Angela Cassette.

I'm the managing director of Music Theater Wichita.

I'm here as a representative to talk about a new performing arts center because I've been involved with these community conversations since 2013, and because Music Theater Wichita would be a primary tenant of a new or new primary user of a new performing arts center.

My job is running a nonprofit and not building performing arts centers, so I'm not presenting myself as the ultimate expert, but I can share some basics as they apply to our situation here in Wichita, and then I'll do my best to answer questions.

A performing arts center is critical to a city because it supports our uh it creates a lot of economic impact, it enhances our quality of life, and it expands opportunities for wichetins of all generations to experience the arts, whether it be a Broadway show, a symphony performance, etc.

Um, there's several relevant studies, um, if anyone is interested in more research.

I we have many performing arts center feasibility studies.

Uh I would also point to the 2024 through 2028 cultural arts strategic plan that was adopted by city council in May of 2024.

And I'd like to specifically highlight the mayor's committee report from 2019, which was a group of appointed citizens who spent more than a year diligently reviewing other studies and conducting robust listening sessions.

Their findings are closely mirrored in what I will say today, and it still holds true.

Really, the only significant derivation from their findings is that they presented repurposing century two as one of the options for the round building, and the Wichita Forward Plan and the ballot language solidifies renovation and repurposing as the option for the round building.

But notably, the mayor's committee spent three months gathering input from thousands of Wichitans via survey and listening sessions.

They appeared before each district advisory board and conversed with community groups, including users.

And I think it's one clear example of how, while timelines may feel condensed to some, the Wichita Forward Plan stands on the shoulders of countless hours of work to gather widespread community input.

A little bit about the arts economic impact in Wichita.

Some of this will be very familiar to some of you.

The arts and economic prosperity study in 2022 shows that nonprofit arts and culture are significant economic sector in Wichita.

The arts generate 184.7 million dollars annually in total economic activity, with 78.5 million being in spending by arts and cultural organizations, and 106.2 million in event-related spending by audiences.

I do want to point out that this is only nonprofit arts and cultural organizations.

We also have many for-profit arts and cultural organizations in the city of Wichita that add to the overall arts and culture ecosystem.

And these jobs, the 22,929 full-time equivalent jobs in Wichita, generate 108.8 million dollars in income for residents and produce 32.3 million in tax revenue each year.

Pandemic disruptions for arts organizations were devastating and had a long tail.

These numbers are conservative due to their timing.

2022 was still in the midst of a lot of slow start of recovery.

But what we found at that point in time was that on average, audience members spend $40.75 per person per event, not including the cost of admission.

So that is restaurants, shops, babysitters, etc.

Out of town visitors averaged $56.75 per person.

And notably of the non-local attendees who came and were surveyed, 81% of them said they came to Wichita specifically for that arts and culture event.

Half of all attendees, whether local or out of town, said they would travel to a different community to see an event if it were not available in Wichita.

Which means that we are not only talking about creating new revenue for the city of Wichita, we are also talking about retaining what we currently have flowing through our ecosystem.

What we're seeing at Music Theater Wichita is that subscriptions are up.

The last time we had as many subscribers as we do now at this point in the year, it was 2019.

And over the past two years, just at Music Theater Wichita, we've had ticket holders from 3,705 unique zip codes for reference, Wichita has 42.

So that's a lot of visitors.

Some stakeholders that would need to be involved in presenting ideas and working through processes with the Citizens Oversight Committee, include Music Theater Wichita.

We have professional and education programs.

The Wichita Symphony Orchestra also has both a professional orchestra and many youth ensembles.

The American Theater Guilds is the musicals that tour through Wichita.

We have Ballet Wichita and other local dance companies.

Wichita is actually home to two opera companies, both Wichita Grand Opera and Opera Kansas.

And then there's additional programming like comedians that come through concerts, etc.

This slide doesn't include the front-of-house users, that is the community members and visitors.

And for Music Theater Wichita alone, that's about 40 to 45,000 people each year.

They tell us what they think, though.

So we do have a lot of information on their opinions.

Just to lay out the industry standard for a performing arts center.

This is a framework that outlines the basic requirements that we think is appropriate for the city the size of Wichita.

We're looking at about a 180,000 square foot facility, two theater spaces, including a main hall that has a capacity of around 200,000 or 2002.

And a second theater space that's a capacity of 500 plus.

Modern technology and acoustics with appropriate sound isolation.

The modern uh applies to the technology.

The acoustics are quite old, but the acoustic principles haven't changed.

But this building would balance the needs of the primary users.

Um and appropriate sound isolation is a major, major concern at Century 2 and would need to be addressed in a new performing arts center.

Back of house, there would be storage, sufficient dressing rooms, and a street serviced loading dock.

The front of house patron amenities would include modern and accessible lobby space, compliant with ADA standards, sufficient bathrooms, box office, and then administrative offices for the performing arts center managers, as well as meeting spaces.

Wanted to share just a few performing arts center projects from different cities.

And I've included here the estimated adjusted expense.

Things have uh certainly changed in terms of construction costs over the years.

But um the Eccles Theater in Salt Lake City would be similar in footprint to what we would be looking at.

Um they actually have it's in a very um tightly uh a kind of tight spot in a very busy downtown, um, and they have done a really nice job of fitting into a robust downtown area.

Uh the Buddy Holly Center in Lubbock, Texas, uh slightly bigger than what we would imagine with two theaters.

Uh the Schuster Performing Arts Center is a beautiful building in Dayton, Ohio.

Um then the Kaufman Center is included here because many Wichitans may have been to that space.

Um it is Kansas City, it is a much different city than Wichita, obviously.

So we'd be looking at something that felt more appropriate for Wichita, but um felt it was uh helpful to have this in here for reference.

Thank you.

So the last three slides we did want to highlight again if there is revenue shortfall or excessive revenue protocols, but we will uh discontinue the sales tax, whatever is reached first the 850 or the seven years.

We would recommend adjustments, including the project scope, timeline sequencing if there are any revenue shortfalls.

Um, certainly the required adjustments would be made proportionally, as if we looked at it.

Um then, of course, public input and citizen oversight committee recommendations would be sought with any changes.

Then, of course, any allocation decision where uh sit squarely with city council by either approval of resolution or ordinance.

So going forward, the action steps is have the conversation this afternoon about clarifying what we can do from the presenters here today related to the special election, the sales tax use for each of the five initiatives.

Certainly provide feedback on how we see the implementation investments or whatever it may be.

Um, staff will develop the educational materials to be included on the city website for educational purposes only.

And then um again, we will not advocate on the staff side.

We are just here to share information and be a resource.

Um we do have scheduled um with city council to do a town hall on this.

Once you finalize through the resolutions or how you want to proceed for Tuesday, February 10th at 6 p.m.

That can be adjusted based upon your schedule or desire for more communication with the public after today's conversation.

So I turn it over to the mayor and council, and we stand ready for any questions you may have.

Thank you, city manager, and all the speakers who came forward to provide presentation remarks.

Um, this board will be discussing a lot, so we'll start with Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor.

I have a few questions.

I do want to talk about what the boards up front are.

I'm a very visual person, and so I wanted to offer a visual representation for everybody in the crowd as well.

The one at the far left side is the ballot initiative passed in 1985 in the city of Wichita, and I'll just read that briefly.

A proposition to enact a countywide retailer sales tax in Cedro County, Kansas, and the amount of 1% such sales tax to take effective on October 1st, 1985.

That was the entire ballot language for the sales tax pass in 1985.

Was that language over there?

The second ballot initiative, I won't read that, was the ballot initiative passed in 2004 regarding interest bank arena.

The one to the right near Council Member Tuttle is the sale is the sales tax initiatives for Mays, Haysville, Derby, and Sedgwick all passed within the last three years and their ballot language.

And then this one in front of me, and I think this is as a result of hearing from the community and making sure that we're offering guardrails protections and accountability for this is 17 pages long when you include the resolutions that will be passed today as an addendum.

If you include just the specific ballot language alone, it's about a page and a half of this first page.

When I tried to put it all on one page, I had to take it down to 0.5 font and put it on three columns to put it on one page.

So I just want to give a visual representation that we're hearing from the community about transparency about guardrails and making sure that we're spending money efficiently.

And I just wanted a visible visible or visible representation for that as well as we begin these discussions.

If all the resolutions were to pass today, we'd have more than 17 pages and three columns as you could see in front of here as well.

And I think that's as a result of community conversations.

That's a result of hearing people and making sure that we can restore trust and accountability from this body as well.

Turning over, I did have one question that I had asked Sally a minute ago and just wanted to bring Sally back up to offer some uh color as well.

Based on your presentation, I know that a different one of my colleagues maybe had a slight adaptation of that presentation, offering some specific numbers.

Um so I asked you to maybe run uh those numbers to see if it pencils out.

Can you elaborate what would be different from one of my colleagues' presentations versus what you are presenting before the body today?

Sure.

So my presentation uh made that assumption that the money would go into the buckets at the percentage of the overall tax.

So it's you know started at the beginning, not prioritizing any of the five um funding areas and having that money coming through over a seven-year period.

If there was a prioritization to fund public safety, the sale of the property tax, as well as the housing, a hundred million towards the beginning.

So, you know, when I looked at that, first of all, um getting projects started, capital projects takes time.

So there is a little bit of time, especially on the public safety side, right, for them to start accumulating some dollars.

Um, I I put together a model that showed um obviously the need the sales tax amount that would be needed, it's representative piece, but then front loading the uh housing and affordable housing endowment a hundred million in that first year.

So if if that was front loaded with that a hundred million dollars, there's still we still would not earn enough in interest in order to make the uh 2.75 million um allocation to second light that would be needed to support their operations in that first year.

Even by year two, there's not enough in earnings to support year one and year two of support of second light at that 2.75 increased by three percent in the second year.

The other challenge is it um it doesn't have enough funding coming through to support the other homeless initiatives that are needed to be able to move people out of shelter and into housing, or as well as providing funding to meet 10 million dollars a year for the development of additional affordable housing.

So it just posed some challenges that way.

Okay, thank you.

And then follow-up for legal.

Um, I know there is uh just some conversation about uh the language.

Would you is legal's interpretation that the presentation presented by Sally would fall within the attent and be uh legally sound?

I think that's that's correct.

I mean, that's what we've been discussing.

Yes.

Thank you, Jennifer.

Follow-up questions to that.

Um it's not for you, Sally, it's actually for legal.

Uh, back to the question of according to the ordinance itself, it literally says earnings from such fund, which would imply that the corpus cannot be touched.

Can someone please again reiterate?

Can the corpus be utilized prior to earning earnings?

As I think I said before, yes, I think it can with some limitations.

Um, the language says that the earnings is to be reinvested back into this special fund.

And and again this can be interpreted a number of different ways, but I read that to mean that any interest that is gathered on this fund is gonna go back into the fund, not to another project.

And I know Councilman Johnston and Glasscock may not agree with that, but I do think the intent is to get as close to that 150 million so that you can have this self-sustaining fund.

I understand there are some competing emergency type issues.

Um I think that the council has some flexibility as long as you don't exceed that 150 million dollars collected based on the language of the sales tax ballot.

Sharon, another question.

So one of the guardrails I had shared was making sure that second light, which is the multi-agency low barrier shelter in our community, um, gets funded.

One of the you said you can touch the corpus with limitations, and that limitation could that limitation be no more than five million dollars of that fund may be used annually to prioritize expenditures at the low barrier shelter.

I think it could be.

I don't know whether Sally has run any numbers on that, that what what would what that would look like at the end, but but I do think those first one through three years, you are gonna be pulling the majority of that five million from from the corpus of that fund simply because your interest isn't gonna get to equal that five million until your year three or four.

This is a question for Mark now.

Would there be an opportunity to provide a loan, not from the sales tax, but it would be paid by the sales tax eventually in order to pay for those temporary funds to fund uh the emergency winter the shelter low barrier shelter slash multi-agency center.

Um based on an AG opinion from the legal answer to that is yes, you could enter into some sort of an agreement to be repayable through through the sales tax, the risk and the financial uh desirability of that.

I am gonna defer to Mark who just sat down.

Well, mayor, if our attorney tells me it's something that we could do, I'm sure that I could figure out a way to work it out.

We would have to identify a fund balance or a reserve somewhere that we could in effect loan for this purpose.

Uh but again, if it's permissible based on what our attorneys think, I'm sure that we could figure out a way to do it.

Thank you, Mark.

And just uh for point of clarification, I won't be seeing second light.

Uh that because it is the city's low barrier shelter multi-agency center, which is capital improvements um and the property itself does belong to the city of Wichita.

Um, so it is one uh reason why sole source in this situation does not apply.

This is a city asset.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um just for clarification, I am uh supportive of including housing services and uh affordable housing within that fund.

Um that was my intent when I voted to put it on the ballot.

Thank you, Councilmember Johnston, for reaching out and two of the three gentlemen who did push us.

Uh it sounds like that was their intent as well.

So if we need to do anything to clarify that from the bench, I would be more than happy to entertain that.

Um Mark, in regards to the property tax.

Um, it seems like if we could go back to that slide.

Uh which one's that, sir, the homestead?

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

I'm sure your ears are about done bleeding from me bringing that up so much.

Um it says essentially uh it sounds like what you're saying here is that this is not something that would be um able to be covered with the um profit from the um property tax fund for the sales tax.

Is that accurate on what you believe?

I don't think it would be appropriate to fund this using any funds generated by the sales tax proposed in the referendum.

Is that a personal opinion or is that uh a legal opinion?

That's a legal one.

My favorite department.

Um the the reimbursement of the sales tax is not one of the purposes that is set forth in the ballot.

And um it would be my legal opinion that to reimburse that from these funds would be outside of the stated purposes on the ballot.

So is it is it it's the reimbursement as the action of us giving money back as opposed to us just saying we're not gonna tax you on that?

Yeah, I mean, yes.

I mean, I I think you can exempt food sales if if the state legislature allows you to do that.

But I think the next question then is if you are going to reimburse or rebate some of that money back, that money can't come from the sales tax proceeds, it needs to come from some other fund within the city.

Is that something we can get a legal opinion?

Would that be like the attorney general would have an interpretation of that?

Quest one, it is not you know, it is guidance, it's not binding, but it's guidance.

Okay, and this is another one if this is um intent from the bench.

Um, this would be another one of the things that I would be glad to bring up an intent to vote on.

Um, and if not, we still I think with some of that savings we get with the CIP long term that this is something targeted tax relief to seniors who are you know barely making it as it is and will be impacted by this sales tax, is definitely something I want to explore.

I had hoped that it would be covered in the property tax um aspect of this, but if we need to work on it, we need to work on it.

But I would be interested to get an opinion on that.

Yeah, I councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this is the first time I've ever heard of a loan in this program.

This is meant to be a cash funding, not a loan anywhere.

That's been one of the criticisms of people is hey, the city's gonna the leaders are gonna do a loan and they're gonna move money around and all kinds of stuff.

It undermines trust in us, the city council, and government if we if we inject that as a possibility.

This is supposed to be a cash funding, and I very much support it.

Uh, especially for the police and fire and the homeless shelter and housing.

Um, supposed to be cash, not a loan, not paying it back, robbing from Peter to pay Paul.

It should be a cash transaction, and we should not be talking about a loan.

Um I think we we can definitely uh get the funds there.

Um I like Sally's plan a lot.

I think we you can even accelerate it some more by funding it first, along with police and fire and property tax relief.

I think we can do that.

Um, and that's that's why people elect us to make decisions like that.

So thank you.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

This question is for Mark, and I know you just sat down, but I'm curious.

It was mentioned uh looking at the reserves or the stabilization reserves is what I like to call.

And I know that this has been a major point of conversation.

The city has reserves, so we have money, right, to fill some of this gap.

I'm curious if you can explain how touching the reserves impacts our credit rating.

Uh yes, sir.

As you noted, uh, we have a general fund reserve, which is the one that most people are familiar with, and by policy it set at 15%, and that's roughly $51 million or so.

We also have a stabilization reserve that the city council established a few years ago, and it is intended basically to smooth uh challenges that we have based on economic uncertainty or to fund one-time purposes.

Uh, that reserve uh is currently I think a little bit north of 40 million dollars.

The challenge we have with reserves is reserves are very important in our bond rating.

Our bond rating is very important because that helps determine the amount of interest that investors want to pay us when we issue debt for a variety of purposes, primarily capital improvement projects.

It's not the only factor, but it is an important factor.

They generally have benchmarks on the level of reserves as percentage basis that they like.

Uh, you know, it's a it's not hard and fast, but generally somewhere neighborhood of 25 or 30 percent to be triple A, which we are, of course, with standard important.

Uh, we are in that ballpark of 25 to 30 percent.

There's two things they don't really like, and I'm not telling you anything that you couldn't find out by reading their agency reports, they're very transparent.

Uh, they will tell you two things.

They don't want, they don't like to see erosion in reserves, particularly if it's for unplanned purposes.

That's considered to be a negative.

There's probably some flexibility to use reserves occasionally for very specific purposes or or aligned to our policy, but they do not like to see unpredictable or significant changes in reserves.

They also don't like to see years in which we don't have a balanced budget again, unless it's due to a very specific reason, pandemic, things of that nature.

But generally speaking, that's why reserves are important from a regency rating agency standpoint.

They also provide us flexibility to handle contingencies, you know, disasters, cash flow purposes, variety of reasons to have them.

So, follow-up question, um, given your expertise, which you do a phenomenal job, and thank you for being here to explain all of this.

Um, given what you just said, I know that we heard the legality of the risk posed.

Can you please share with me from your expertise the risk being posed given all that you've shared when we start talking about a loan for this particular purpose of operating the city's multi-agency center?

Well, we would be very transparent with everyone, particularly our rating agencies, they no doubt would notice it and we would explain to them the policy direction that hypothetically uh we followed to do that.

Uh I don't know that they would be too excited about it.

Uh they would uh definitely want to know what the provisions were for us to be reimbursed.

Uh they would recognize the risk in a transaction like that.

But having said that, uh that uh you know whether it would impact our rating, probably not, but they would be very well aware of it, and it's probably not something that they would view in a favorable light.

Again, doesn't mean we couldn't do it.

Uh but I say answer your question.

A follow-up to that.

Um, given that there would be, which we have not gotten to the prioritization of these five initiatives, there would be dollars that would be immediately uh be able to be uh reimbursed to the uh agency that's gonna provide the loan.

Wouldn't that also play into the credit agency understanding that there is fun funding available to pay back that loan?

Uh yes, no doubt.

And if it was paid back soon with cash flows that were relatively immediate, uh, you know, that would obviously mitigate any concerns they would have.

Uh they would view a longer term loan probably much less favorably than they would a very short-term arrangement.

Thank you.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you.

I want to echo the sentiments of Councilman Johnston regarding concerns, and I uh want to ask again this is a colleague's uh suggestion, this is not the recommendation from staff, correct, regarding a loan.

Uh we haven't been asked to make a recommendation on that.

Uh no.

Okay, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that.

I do have a question regarding something that could affect this.

This is a very complex issue, and they're still moving parts because it's happening in the state house currently, but I'd be interested in how this will just affect the city as a whole from what you know about it already.

Um Senate concurrent resolution 1616, which passed uh out of one of the committees, it's now moving towards a floor vote would um cap the amount of assessed value that the city could offer.

Um, and looking at some numbers, it would actually cap out of the assessed value in 2022, if I remember correctly.

So that actually brings out a cap to about 2.3%, which is lower than consumer price index.

Could you briefly and um succinctly maybe translate what this could do to the city's budget forecasting over the next few years?

If they sort of pass the Senate, the House, it would move forward towards a constitutional ballot in August, and how that could affect the city's finances moving forward in 2027, 2028, and subsequently.

Based on our current modeling, which is to say our financial plan that's included in the budget that we approved last August, uh, a proposal like that to cap our assessed valuation growth would be detrimental to the current revenue estimates, which is to say that we expect assessed valuation growth to grow higher than a 3% or 2.3% cap into the future, and that's what our property tax collection uh estimates are based on.

And briefly, I would say that growth is based on a variety of components.

One is annexation, which we're not very active at, one is new construction, which adds to our tax base, and the other is reappraisal and expiring exemptions.

But yes, depending on how it's structured, any cap on property tax growth, particularly at that low of level, is likely going to reduce property tax revenues to the city in the future.

Okay, and looking at some data that was presented, uh, this is countywide, this would not be the municipality.

If uh the constitutional amendment would be able to move forward in August, it looks like the county would need to cut approximately 45.4 million dollars or 21% of the current prox or tap property tax levy to avoid a tax shift.

So just adding maybe something to the conversation about challenges if this were to move forward in August, uh additional pressures of the city would be under as well.

It would no doubt be millions of dollars for us as well.

Okay, thank you, Mark.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Mark, stay there.

Lots of questions.

Um another aspect of this is the interest income.

As it's presented now, interest income from each count, each initiative would stay with that initiative.

Is that correct?

Again, that that was just consistent with our initial model of proportional allocation of the revenues flowing in.

Again, we can you know our objective is to adhere to whatever guidelines are provided.

Yeah.

But yeah, that's the way that staff initially uh modeled uh the proposal.

Okay, the way except for the homeless and and homeless shelter, second light, and and housing, which specifically says it should be kept in there.

Can the other initiatives can the interest be moved to the end to cover up any cover any shortfall that might happen as a as a safety barrier?

Well, I'll give you my opinion, then you might check with our attorneys, but my opinion the referendum is silent about interest earnings, so I think we could uh do whatever you chose to.

I don't know why we couldn't uh retain those and then allocate them at some point for whatever purposes the council desire.

Yeah, because every every initiative has a cap on it.

Yes, sir.

So whether it's funded by direct deposit from the sales tax revenue, or it's funded from that plus interest earnings, it still has a cap.

So we could put the interest earnings to the back end, the back end to cover any shortfall that might happen.

Maybe it may and I I do I'm very much for not having a sales tax on food.

Uh maybe taking that to zero instead of instead of one percent.

Um, so it could possibly cover some of that shortfall.

Yes, you can put the sales tax back into the fund, you can sales back into the other three four funds.

Um, you can say the interest until the end.

Um the ballot does not talk about what's gonna happen with the interest with the exception of the homeless fund.

Let me ask another question then.

If the interest income is it included in the 850 million from the sales tax.

So you got sales tax, you collect 840 million, you got 10 million in interest income.

Are we done at 850 million?

Or can we actually go over the 850 million with the addition of interest income?

I would say the interest income would not be included with the 850 million.

I mean, the 850 million was the collection of the sales tax.

So the collection would not include whatever interest the city chooses to make, whether that's zero, whether that's five, whether that's you know what whatever we choose to invest that in based on the investment policy, but it is the collection of the 850 million dollars.

Okay, is it your legal opinion that let's say it's seven years from now, we're down to the end, and we have just make up numbers.

We have 10 million extra.

So we've collected 850 million, we've got 10 million extra in interest income.

Um that 10 million, could it be used for anything other than these five projects?

Yes.

The interest income could be used.

Yes.

Okay, unless specified by council.

Yes, quite late.

So we'd have to specify that that interest income would have to stay within the five initiatives.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

My question is for housing, so um, thank you for being here, and thank you for your presentation.

I know that this is uh a major priority for many of the colleagues here, many people in our community as well.

Um of the things that I have heard, and that I'm deeply concerned about is that is the regressive nature of a sales tax on working class families, and as mentioned earlier by someone I believe the Alice report, which I believe showcases that a household making sixty-five thousand dollars, I mean they're living paycheck to paycheck, working poor, um, to make ends meet.

That really concerns me.

Um I also believe that one of the ways that we can help close the gap, which has been my challenge of if we're going to have a regressive tax, if that's what the community chooses to do, how do we ensure that there is a benefit to these families, which I believe should also be a priority?

Um I see the programs that you have outlined here, and I'm curious which of these programs would give us the latitude to maybe be a little bit more flexible with the qualifications and requirements of folks who can benefit from these programs.

In essence, um, are they federally funded programs?

So we really can't do much in terms of the qualifications, or do we have some wiggle room to really look at how do we utilize data such as the Alice report to figure out how we can reach the most vulnerable in our community or those who are on the brink of homelessness, even though they may have a job or employment?

Sure.

So the as far as what the programs that I outlined, all of the federal programs do have specific um income guidelines.

They're much higher than people realize oftentimes we are serving people, often making much more than $65,000 a year.

And they are different from program to program.

So public housing sales proceeds have to be used in Section 8 housing.

You're looking at 50% area median income.

Home funds and CDPG funds is 80% area median income.

Those there's there's no wiggle room on those.

But that was representing 38% of the housing and affordable uh or the homelessness and affordable housing funds.

What was brought in through the sales tax, you would definitely have some flexibility if you wanted to expand that that eligibility.

This got brought up in a can uh meeting at the continuum of care on Friday, in which all of those federal programs often have restrictions that keep out, for example, sex offenders or or other certain classifications.

And it was inquired whether or not funding from the sales tax could potentially be used to fill those gaps.

Absolutely, there are no federal stipulations on those.

Any additional guidelines would have to be approved by the council as part of a program.

Um but at the same time, you know, the programs I listed was four or five of the 35 programs out of our office.

So we're always trying to connect households to the other side, what I call the other side of the house, which is our uh employment side, our job training sides, because we absolutely believe that dealing with housing affordability is not just keeping housing costs down but increasing household income at the same time.

Follow-up question for you.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding correctly.

Um so those who are reintegrating back into our society after incarceration, that would be a population that we could consider doing something with with the sales tax.

Absolutely.

And we actually just last uh with the last PHA plan launched uh as part of the referral-based preferences, trying to work with KDOC to try and ensure that we have a path for people who are reintegrating.

Thank you.

I just want to stress the importance of the work that you all do.

You all do phenomenal work um running several programs more than what people even realize with limited staff.

Um but I've also seen firsthand in District One Northeast Wichita community and all over our city, what a world of a difference it makes when we not just pay attention to the folks who are utilizing shelter right now, but we're also serving the folks who are one paycheck away.

And I think that that's why this is important to invest in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund.

Thank you.

Before we move on, I want to be very respectful of um director Mark Manning.

So can I ask which council members have specific questions to uh the finance director?

Councilmember Tuttle.

Thank you.

Um Mark and or Sharon, and you you know how much I don't like to make sausage from the bench, but you said something that um answering a question for one of my colleagues that brought a recollection a couple weeks ago when we were having one of these um meetings, I asked if interest earnings could be used for the cost of the special election.

And I was told at that meeting that the only thing that any of the funds could be used, including interest, was for these five categories.

But a few moments ago it was said that it could be potentially used for something outside of these categories.

I think it was when um council member Johnston asked the question.

So I I'm not trying to cause drama or be contradictory, but that's a very different response than I got a couple weeks ago.

So I don't know if something's changed, we've learned something more.

I slept in the last couple weeks, kind of not well.

I mean, I just want to clarify because I the main question I'm getting asked right now from the community is really two interest, what are we gonna do with it?

How can it be spent?

And then people have had questions regarding Ms.

Santos.

Thank you for being here.

Great job.

That if we prioritized and moved up, let's say the convention center, we're gonna be generating more sales tax.

You know, so but interest has been a question that's been asked many times for me.

So could you help me to understand?

Thank you.

Again, I'll give you my perspective.

Uh interest earnings on our pool right now, other than a few specific restrictions, is deposited in the general fund, which basically makes it fungible.

Uh, and that's typically what we do with the interest funds on all our idle investments, and any referendum funding from my perspective would be idle funds.

Having said that, uh that you know might not be consistent with the uh policy direction, and certainly we can allocate interest earnings to any place we choose to, including the idle funds in these uh four areas.

Again, that's not for me to determine, obviously.

That's uh we follow whatever policy the council would implement.

Uh I don't recall whether I mentioned that to you.

I I hope I didn't, because uh, like I said, if interest earnings were credited to the general fund or for any other purpose, I don't know why they wouldn't be available if that was the will of the body to to fund an election cause, but that's certainly not how we have it budgeted.

Yeah, and Sharon is looks like she wants to jump in.

I think I probably answered it.

Um I think I probably answered that, and I think I may have misunderstood what you were asking.

You can't use the sales tax proceeds, i.e., the number that we the amount of money that we get from the state um for anything other than those initiatives.

Um the interest on that could be used to fund the sales tax election.

And I apologize if I did not understand the question.

No, and I might not have asked it well, but I asked specifically a couple weeks ago if the interest could be used to refund the city for the cost of the sales tax for of the vote.

And I think the answer would be yes, you could if that was the policy decision that was made as to what to do with that interest, whether it goes back into one of the initiatives, whether it goes into the general fund, whether you earmark it to reimburse the managers account where that hundred and seventy thousand dollars came from, um, those are all policy decisions for you all to make as part of the budgeting process and resolutions.

So just to make sure I understand what I hear you saying, and correct me if I'm wrong, please always, that interest earned from these funds could be used for things outside of these five buckets.

With the exception of the homeless.

Oh, yes, thank you.

So for the four buckets.

And I don't have anything in mind right now.

I just want to make sure as we have further discussions.

But again, at the time when I asked the question, it was because we were being asked about the 170,000 dollars for the cost of the miss her definition.

It's okay, but totally fine.

But um, the interest can be used for anything with exception of the homeless fund.

Thank you so much for the clarification.

I'm gonna ask staff to go to slide number 23 so that we're all talking um regarding finance with Mark Manning.

Um there are other council members that are asking questions.

I have one quick one.

Um what would be the percentage of um return for any of these um interest uh for these sales tax dollars collected?

Again, uh, if you're asking me what I can invest at today, uh it'd be somewhere around three and a half percent.

Three point five, thank you.

Uh councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um this might be more for the city manager.

I don't see public works here.

Um the mayor's proposal as far as guardrails uh mentions um funding the water rebate program.

Uh I know we've had discussions in the past about LEAP, um, which is more of a utilities program.

And I I think it's similar in um intent.

I'm just curious between the two, which one would apply to more people to help give them alleviate the burden between the two programs.

I don't have the answer from sorry on the numbers who would qualify for equal.

Um so we'll add that to our list of trying to get you some more information.

Um but again, no matter what, if that is going to support the general fund, the water.

So again, that's an impact on the general fund.

Right.

So I just make sure everyone's clear.

Um I don't have numbers on that, so I'll work to see if we can get them for you.

I would be interested in that.

Thank you.

Councilmember uh uh Vice Mayor Glascock.

Thank you.

Um I am interested about council member Tuttle's questions regarding uh perhaps paying back uh the cost of the election via interest earnings.

I think that's a great suggestion, and I think that would go a long way uh to earn trust with the community as well.

I'm gonna have rapid fire questions.

I promise they're easy.

Can they're just yes or no questions?

Can any money be spent outside the five ballot categories?

Any sales tax money spent outside?

I think that's a no.

It's a no.

Uh can any category exceed it's not to exceed cap?

Okay, can any money be moved from one category to another?

Can the tax be extended past June 30th, 2023?

No.

Can the tax be increased above one percent?

No.

Are we prohibited from borrowing against future sales tax revenue under this plan?

Definitely would not be a good idea.

I don't know what the referendum prohibits that, but it doesn't permit it, so I would say no.

Okay.

Um are we prohibited from issuing debt for these projects?

Again, best practice would say the answer to that is no.

And a lot of I guess those two questions are addressed by resolution today as well.

And then will any project we start unless the cash is available?

No, it should not be.

Okay, thanks for all those answers.

I think that there are no further questions for you, Mark.

Um, so now I'm gonna move to the prioritization question because this uh contradicts what my proposal is.

Um so I believe that there are three top priorities that need to be for sure funded as soon as possible.

Um, and those are public safety, uh property tax, and the homeless and housing services initiatives.

Those are three out of the five.

And so one of my um proposals is to prioritize uh the first three hundred million dollars collected of sales tax proceeds to be distributed to homeless and housing, property tax relief, and public safety, each being allocated a hundred million dollars thereafter, all initiatives will be funded on a pro-rata basis, so the percentages that you see here, in accordance with the ballot language, up to each initiative's maximum revenue amounts.

So that would guarantee that property tax, public safety, and homeless housing do get funded as soon as possible.

Um I wanted to have a discussion with my colleagues about prioritization.

Um if this is the will of the council uh to agree that there should be prioritization of these five initiatives.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you.

I support the recommendations as presented by staff.

You look at resolution 2026 052, specifically item one seven.

Again, I'll reiterate the council's chairman that a sales tax revenues come available, or if any sales tax revenues are insufficient to fund all projects, these projects with a higher priority ranking shall be funded a manner consistent with such prioritizations.

I believe the resolution by staff covers a lot of the uh suggestions uh that you proposed on Facebook, and um I'd be interested in moving forward with staff's recommendations.

I think the 17 pages of guardrails as provided by staff uh ensures transparency in the process, and I think is a well thought out and vetted plan.

Councilmember Ballard.

Uh let's go.

So I actually would not be in favor of that.

I think that prioritization is important, especially when we keep talking about homeless services at the city's only low barrier shelter that currently is housing 365 people in this winter storm.

Um I think that again I want to say thank you to Dan Clifford and his staff in security at Second Light.

Also thank you to a lot of homeless service providers in our community, including Union Rescue Mission, Humankind Ministry, St.

Anthony's Family Shelter, and several domestic violence shelters.

Um so I do believe that homeless and housing uh needs to be funded again back to prioritization, including public safety and property tax.

So I am looking uh forward to again hearing from more council members about prioritization.

Councilmember Johnston.

Uh Mayor, I would agree with you, they should be prioritized.

Uh, I'd also like to hear from the community what they would like.

Um we're making sausage today, we're not deciding anything today.

So we're making sausage in two weeks.

We'll come back with another proposal and we'll make a little more sausage and hopefully come up with some definite guardrails.

But I would like to hear more of what the community has to say about that.

I would be in favor of it personally, but I'd like to hear what they would say.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I'm curious if we were to go this route, how does that impact the other projects that are not being prioritized?

As I said in my comments earlier, these again, because if the referendum passes, these initiatives have to be funded.

However, I say that it's important to prioritize the first 300 million of the 850 million to those three first initiatives.

Again, property tax, public safety, and homeless and housing services.

And so the others would still get funded, but they would be funded after the first 300 million dollars has been collected.

Thank you, Mayor.

As a follow-up to that, they would be funded.

They probably would not be funded at the same rate, right?

If there is an exemption on groceries at some point, I just want to make sure that the community has clarity that, and I don't disagree with you, those three items that you mentioned do deserve the prioritization.

I also think what I've heard overwhelmingly from the community is to be clear, and that clear is kind.

And so if we're advocating for an exemption on groceries, we should also be clear about how that would impact other projects down the road because we would not generate the same revenue that is being projected.

That would be a great follow-up question to either legal or city manager.

Um, based off of this council's will, which I believe all seven of us want to make sure that sales tax for groceries is removed.

Um wanted to understand what these numbers would then look like if that did pass at the state legislature level.

And I think we did address just initially what we know from some projections is that we did say it could have an 81 million dollar term, and if you go with the proposed prioritization, then you're right.

We'll have to see what the interest income is, how much that fills the gap of the 81 million.

But again, it depends on implementation.

If it is 2029, where we're shown on the slide here, maybe a 45 million dollar impact.

And so it's a variable that we won't know until we know the state legislature's um progress on that exemption.

Um, but we can say right now take a guess at 45 million could be an impact um starting in 2029.

And again, the buckets or initiatives would still be funded at their respective percentages based off of my prioritization uh proposal at those rates moving forward after collecting the first 300 million.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, just for the record, I've been in favor of prioritization from the start of this conversation.

Um, so I do support it now.

Um, that's that's um Dennis.

How many more presentations do we have from members of the public coming up?

None are scheduled.

I mean presentations today.

Yeah, was a united way.

No, they they they um I believe want to speak during um citizen comment.

Okay.

Councilmember John Stun.

Thank you, Mary.

Uh City Manager, I'd like to ask Mark to model what a potential interest income would be.

I imagine that pot would be 100 million dollars within a couple years because you have to design fire stations and police stations, and it takes time to do that before you actually expend it.

So I'd like to model how much the estimated interest income would be.

So we'd still, I think he said we do that at the 3.5% return rate.

Yeah, yeah, we'll we'll start that.

Yeah.

I I would like to I think that should stay 3.5% or whatever the very conservative thing is.

The just say this now is I think the the fund for housing and homeless, I think we should look at maybe modifying that to get a higher interest rate.

I think there are safe ways to get higher interest rate than what we have.

Um I realize it can go down, but I I don't I think there's no reason why we can't get five to seven percent and provide more money for housing and more money for homeless.

And we've acknowledged that and we agree, but we would have to change our investment policy because we'd use some investment strategies to get higher yields.

And we could change it just for one bucket.

Is that exactly okay?

Thank you.

Council members, anything else regarding prioritization?

Um, again, today is not to approve any of these uh guardrails proposed by the city staff, and I have my own proposal for guardrails.

Um, so again, this is not an opportunity for that because we did say to this community that we would continue hearing from them at the February 10th meeting.

Uh so I do have a couple of questions regarding procedures for um moving forward uh for uh performing arts itself.

Can we go back to the slide regarding performing arts?

Is there a particular one you wanted to say?

Uh ballot language, please.

Thank you very much.

Um this coincides with century two.

Uh the city actually has a policy regarding century two.

Um, and I know one of the points of contention is what's the future of century two.

Um, and I believe Angela uh made it clear that it is about renovating century two while also adding a new performing arts center.

And I want to make mention that there's a city council policy number 38 that specifically addresses century two and its future.

And so one of my guardrails was making sure that Century Two is not going to be torn down.

That's a commitment that I believe is important to make to the individuals who are part of Safe Century 2 in good faith because they feel like that could be in jeopardy if a new performing arts center would be built.

So I just want to again make mention of City Council policy number 38 regarding Century 2.

Again, the intent is to renovate Century 2 and provide more usage for the public to utilize that facility while also having a new performing arts.

So with performing arts, I was the one that asked for specific guardrails because Angela showed in a slide earlier, how much it costs to build a new performing arts.

I believe it was in the 300 million for Kaufman Center, and in the north of 100 million for the other ones that she showed as examples.

So 75 million would not cover building that type of new performing arts center.

So can I have a clarification of how the other dollars will be fundraised for building a new performing arts?

There has always been conversation of how do we how do we create something that is a reasonable public-private partnership?

And a lot of the cases that I shared had some sort of public funding component and some sort of private funding component.

So there um there has been conversation in the philanthropic community for a long time about there's going to be a time where we need a new performing arts center, and um I believe there are several who will step up and help get to this 75 million dollars needed uh for the one-to-one ratio and uh private funding.

I believe that Wichita Forward is planning to take the lead in consultation with um organizations like Music Theater Wichita and the Wichita Symphony on organizing that process.

Um you have an expert in Councilmember Johnston on uh fundraising and its complexities and how it works, and it's usually a community-driven event, it's not one single person that leads that initiative, but um, but there's a lot of confidence that with this ballot measure and there being that one-to-one funding, we have a lot of great examples in Wichita of other important community landmarks where the public funding has merged with private fundraising and things have been accomplished.

Um, I'd point to our advanced learning library, um, exploration place, lots of uh lots of places in town that are great spaces, and we feel really confident that that could happen here as well.

Thank you, Angela.

Uh one of the guardrails I had was uh no sales tax proceeds shall be released until at least 50 million dollars in private funds have been expended, not just collected, expended so that again the public dollars, which are taxpayer dollars, are actually protected.

So private dollars have to be expended before public dollars are expended.

Um can I have um legal clarify resolution 26-050 regarding performing arts in section uh one six and seven, um, if the words right now, which says collected can also include uh expended from a legal standpoint, yes.

Um the policy implications of that and people's willingness to contribute, if if that's the the key.

I mean, you're from a planning process if they have to expend their money first, which we already have in this that um all of the pre-construction things are to be used by their funds.

Um this also doesn't start because it's a pay as you go project, so there are other provisions in there that I think can get you where you want to be.

Um, but if the council votes and wants to put in that that they have to spend their 50 million first, you can certainly do that.

The amplifications of this project is something outside of my area.

I think that is a protection for taxpayer dollars.

Again, we don't want a 50 million dollar performing arts.

Um, if that is truly the will of this uh community, it's also not a 75 million dollar, it is a one-to-one.

So um I would really expect that private dollars have to come first before public tax dollars come in next.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

My question is about the um the performing arts.

I'm trying to figure out how to how to word this.

Um I am all for prioritizing some of the projects, but I would just am curious what message that sends to someone that is a private group or um individual, whoever is coming up with the money that if we aren't prioritizing it, but they come with the money first, and we haven't started collecting for that bucket.

I mean, I I don't think that's a great message for for us to send.

Well, you spend your money, but we haven't started collecting it yet.

I I don't know.

I just think that's I'm struggling with that a little bit.

Um I would love to chat with it with my colleagues, or if you guys have any questions about it or comments.

Um I'm just really stuck on um what that looks like, especially if we're talking about them expending their dollars first, but yet we haven't put any money in that bucket yet with public dollars.

So just curious what that looks like, um, and would like to have a conversation about it at some point.

I I can answer that.

Again, prioritization doesn't mean that the other two initiatives would not get funded.

They just would take a second seat until the first 300 million would be collected.

So it would still be a commitment to abide by the ballot language, however, the first 300 million would be the priority for again public safety, homelessness, and property tax.

Um, so again, the the commitment if this referendum were to pass is to collect those dollars for those five separate initiatives, so it would not allow us to discontinue it uh without again having this conversation with this council about uh if they're not able to raise 50 million dollars, um, and I think that is actually the segue question.

What if Wichita Forward cannot collect and expend 50 million dollars?

What then happens to the fund?

I'll just jump in here, Mayor.

The ballot language directs you to spend that money for development construction of a new downtown public performing arts center.

So that money needs to be spent according to the ballot language.

Follow-up question to that, then would be we currently have a performing arts center at century two.

Uh, renovate could those dollars be then used for further renovation and improvement into what would be called a new performing arts center question?

Well, see what Sharon says.

My interpretation, the ballot language would be no.

Um, the ballot language is an amount not to exceed 75 million dollars of such tax applied for development and construction of a new downtown performing arts center.

Um I think when you read that language in conjunction with your renovation language for century two, you're talking about two separate buildings.

And and again, the this is all open to interpretation, and I think the farther away you get from the languages in the ballot, the more likely that you could get a challenge as to whether or not um the council is using the proceeds in accordance with the purposes stated.

So then that this question is not for city staff, it's really for Wichita Forward.

What if you cannot collect 50 million dollars?

Anyone else is welcome to take this question, but um I know that at City Council we don't um it's not it's not if an acceptable answer to say don't worry, it's gonna be fine.

But I would encourage the council not to spend too much time worrying about the ability to raise these private dollars.

I have a lot of confidence that that's gonna happen.

Um that is as council member Johnson can attest, that is partially how you succeed in fundraising is by having an incredible amount of confidence that's gonna happen.

But um, based on the level of interest and support that I've heard from the community um over the past 10 years.

I I don't see um it it's not a it's not a possibility that these dollars aren't raised, in my opinion.

May I have Wichita answer that question?

We we'll echo uh what Angela has articulated that um we support the um opportunity to spend private dollars in advance of public dollars being applied to the project and have great confidence that this city um will be uh uh enthusiastic, uh both philanthropically and the participation planning process to build a new performing art center in downtown.

Follow-up question.

Um, because the ballot language does not specifically speak to private dollars coming in.

Uh, this is really just a resolution that there would be a verbal and written commitment that you would you, which taught forward and private donors would be able to raise the one-to-one match.

Can you commit that you would be able to do a one-to-one match to 75 million?

Yeah, I mean, uh obviously we can't uh make promises that we don't have those money as hand right now, but we will lead the effort to try and attempt to uh meet the ballot language that you're proposing to get to the 75 million dollar commitments within five years.

So the intention uh follow-up question, the intention is to build a new performing arts center at the cost of 150 million.

Is that accurate?

Yes.

So a new performing arts center in downtown Wichita will cost 150 million.

I want to make sure that in the language on the resolution, it is a one-to-one match.

So you would still get that commitment that if you're able to raise 75 million, then the city public dollars would come in to match.

Again, I don't believe that the intention is to build a $50 million performing arts, a $75 million performing arts.

Uh so I wanted to make sure that you were on the record saying that this new performing arts will be at the 150 million dollar mark.

That's our intention.

Thank you.

Councilmember Glascock.

Thank you, Mayor.

The mayor had mentioned policy 38 and city code.

I just wanted to read that for people that may not know what policy 38 is.

City council values community input in the continuous improvement of city's downtown core.

In this regard, it's the policy of the city council pursuant to home rule authority to request the Sudget County election commissioner and advisory election before any demolition of Century 2 performing arts or the public central library occurs.

It's not the opinion of the policy to limit the number of questions or issues which may be posed to voters as part of any such advisory election regarding the financing, proposed uses or development plans regarding Century 2 performing arts or the Wichita Public Central Library.

Loose translation, this codifies.

That is the intent of the council to have an election.

If there were to be demolit or if we were to demolish century two, that is not what the ballot question before the voters is.

The ballot question is in line with policy 38 that would prohibit the demolition pursuant unless there was a special election of the people to be able to do that.

So one of the mayor's concerns is codified by policy 38 in city code as it stands now.

Council member Tuttle.

Thank you.

I have lots of questions about this one.

It several things don't make sense to me.

Part of it in the recommendations for guardrails that we received yesterday is that no sales tax proceeds can be released until at least 50 million in private funds have been expended.

Well, that's not how a design build project works, right?

You design the project and you pay someone for the architectural work, the design, and then you build construction.

And so it wouldn't make a lot of sense to me to say, oh, once you get to 50 million dollars, then we'll start collecting, so then the building just sits there like half-started, maybe a foundation, maybe not.

The other part of it that doesn't make any sense to me is that Wichita Forward that um sorry, it talks about how it has to be within three years, two years okay.

If they're unable to raise uh at least 25 million in private contributions within three years or 50 million dollars within five years, but according to the information we receive from finance, we're gonna start collecting in year one.

So at the end of five years, there will be, I don't know, I don't do math very well, but you know, 50 some plus million sitting in an account, but the money can't be shifted anywhere else.

So the money then would just go away.

Uh does anybody understanding what I'm asking?

It just doesn't seem like a very feasible plan to say you have to spend 50 million dollars before any money is collected from the sales tax because that's gonna put a gap.

Um and then if the money isn't raised, then the performing arts initiative shall dissolve and the sales tax collection shall expire early, but the money can't go from one bucket to another.

So I I guess there I just have some questions.

I see some head nods, a few people understand what I'm asking.

So I think this is uh too restrictive.

Um I agree there should be 75 million dollars collected from the community, and then we have the 75 million dollars from the sales tax to ensure there's a public-private partnership, but I think putting some of these other guardrails is too restrictive and could possibly inhibit the the project from being successful.

My intention for that uh proposed guardrail was because usually if someone gets a loan uh to build anything type of project, their money is always spent first before actually receiving that loan.

Therefore, uh yes, you're right, it is much more restrictive.

It's because it's a challenge to the private dollars that supposedly are there to collect them over time, and that's the reason also why prioritization matters.

If you prioritize the first three initiatives, not saying that you wouldn't collect for century two and this new performing arts, it allows them time to go and collect those pledges and actually collect the dollars and then actually create the plans with engagement from the community.

So all of this is gonna take time, and I don't believe that they will be able to raise uh the dollars immediately, therefore, it does make sense to have a prioritization.

Uh again, not the intention to not follow through with the ballot language.

However, I gave a proposal of a guardrail that then again was told that that would not be uh able to be accomplished because our ballot language does require that fifth initiative to be funded at 75 million.

Yeah, so it doesn't say though, according to this that we're not gonna collect in year 2026, 2027.

We're gonna start collecting for performing arts right away, just like we are all the other categories.

That's according to what staff is recommending.

My recommendation is prioritization, the first 300 million going to again, public safety, homelessness, and property tax, so that again, we are making the commitment that during budget season, which is happening as soon as this comes um through and finished with the conversation, that we would be talking about the budget following that.

And so property taxes is part of that conversation, and that's one of the things that I've heard from communities saying, well, if you only spend ten dollars on one initiative, you will have fulfilled it because it says up to.

And I remind them that each of those initiatives has an up to, however, it may not have a minimum, but it does, it actually does imply that minimum.

It has to be all of that to those specific initiatives unless we prioritize.

And again, my intention is to prioritize council member Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Again, I agree with your position of prioritizing first 300 million.

Also agree with council member Tuttle.

Uh, I don't think that guard rule is necessary because we have a one-to-one match.

It still has to be one to one match.

Um Councilmember Ballard to answer your question.

Uh when would a tax start to be collected if we prioritize the first 300 million when we start collecting for the other initiatives?

And that would be in March, according to the estimates.

March of 2029.

Yeah, 2026, 27, and 28 is 274.2 million.

So it's about about 10 million a month.

And so that would be in March of 29 when you start collecting those for uh fine arts and convention center.

So then it would then we'd go to all of them.

So maybe still I I think it's gonna take them while I'll get the the funds raised anyway.

Somebody could probably write a check for that.

So somebody could, whether they will or not.

I don't know.

Angela, I'd like to ask you a question.

I think you've just completed a very successful fundraising campaigns.

Can you go over that a little bit?

You you bought a school.

Yeah, that's one campaign.

We're still in a we're still in a quiet phase.

You are it's not very quiet.

It's it's not super quiet.

We're gonna get to the loud phase at the end of April.

But yeah, we have been, um, and that is something that is has only uh private funding and it is ongoing, um, but has been successful so far.

Um, and certainly we're not talking about this the same amount of dollars here, but I do think a lot of the principles were will carry over.

Um, and uh I wanna say I really appreciate um what the mayor is trying to do here and creating the the guardrails, and I think we're trying to walk this line of we want guardrails and we don't want to handcuff any projects, and that's like a really sensitive line to walk.

Um but yeah, I agree.

What my what my experience with the campaign that we're part of right now and starting the phases of um remediation and demolition and construction um is that there is this long process that involves the planning and the fundraising and that all sort of dovetails together.

Um, and then comes the part where like a lot of the expenditure happens at the same time.

So my guess is that in a situation like this, we would spend the first several years on seeking community input, making plans, um determining um you know where the set where this other 75 million dollars comes from, and then um to councilwoman Tuttle's point, there's going to be a point where it's really a press go, and all of those dollars are gonna get expended almost together.

So if it's the if the first 50 million are the private funds, it's gonna be the public funds that need to come right next to that, right?

Because we don't want to have major pauses in construction though that costs a lot of money.

Um did that answer your question.

It does, but also gives us an opportunity to earn more interest income if we spend your money first.

That's I think we should spend money one to one like we raised it.

That's my that would be my interpretation of that.

I also think there's an option here that you know we've used a lot of um agreements that are like essentially legal donor agreements that donors sign.

Um, and that might be a a step here to help ensure that this money is forthcoming, whether or not it is literally sitting in a count, um, but to have you know legal documentation saying these dollars are coming from this private donor might might help um create some more create a guardrail in that way.

Right.

Nationally, you get you're gonna get at least 98, 99% of commitments.

Generally in fundraising, that is the case.

Sometimes you get 101%.

People give you more money than they committed.

So that can happen too.

I do want to highlight the success you've had, because as you understand it, you start off with a bare bones project.

Fundraising went really well, and so you added more to it.

Went really well, you added more to it.

Is is that the case?

That is the case.

I'm trying to be, I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be coy.

I'm just trying to save some things for our big public announcement in April.

Well, I think I just think that says a lot about support for your pro you're one of many.

And that that tells a lot of support for for the arts and for music theater witch taw.

So I think that's is something that needs to be mentioned that there is support there, and it's been demonstrated by by your fundraising and what you have planned.

Yeah, I think exploration place is another really terrific example of you know when the community gets excited about something and the the type of um the type of out-of-town visitors that we're gonna see because of that fantastic project, and we would hope that a performing arts center would do the same, certainly a convention center.

Um, so there's lots of opportunity here.

Yeah, well, good.

Well, thank you.

Thanks for the work you do.

Any questions further for performing arts.

Thank you, Mayor.

Most capital projects will take two to three years to plan and get off the ground, and so I think the prioritization is fine in this case.

Um regarding just uh, I think we probably need to recenter on what we're talking about.

Staff presented more than 36 pages of resolutions before us, and those are what we're talking about today.

Those were presented at the council on Thursday and Friday.

I think a lot of the conversation has been reverted to Facebook posts posted yesterday at 7 o'clock and different suggestions that haven't had the chance to be vetted.

There's the opportunity for them to be vetted, but I think we should talk about the resolution and how those things are implied specifically when we look at uh maybe a few of them.

I think policy 38 covers a lot of my colleagues' concern.

26052 1.4, um, 26052 1.6, 26050 1.7.

That is all in staff's presentations.

And so I just re-wan to recenter the conversation about what was presented uh to mayor and council on Thursday of last week, not what was um posted on Facebook and then suggested to the council today to be able to debate.

And so I think that's a clear delineation just when we're talking about we can definitely strengthen the resolutions, but I think we should be looking at how to strengthen the resolutions and bring additional resolutions before this body in our debate today.

I will have specifics after that.

I'm still in the questioning phase, but I actually have them based off of the resolutions.

Uh Angela, I uh have another question.

Um wanted to know how if this performing arts center gets built a new one, what has been the consideration regarding staff?

Will this all be private staffing?

What how is this going to be staffed?

That's a great question, and one that I think um should be the purview of the citizen oversight committee.

There are essentially three different ways to run a performing arts center.

One is what Wichita used to do, where city owns and operates, and so it is city staff who run the performing arts center.

Another is what Wichita is currently doing, which is that city owns the building and it is a third-party for-profit company that manages the building.

And then there's a third, which you see places like Omaha, um, lots of places throughout the country.

There are there is a not-for-profit 501c3 that becomes the body that manages and fundraises, etc.

for the building.

And I think that um as we are going through the plans of what does this performing arts center look like, that would be like the appropriate time to do a really deep dive on each of those three models and which fits best for Wichita.

And then I would think that the Citizen Oversight Committee would bring that back to council and say, here are the pros and cons of each, here's what we think works the best, um, and and make that determination going forward.

My concern comes from what has happened currently with our situation with our low barrier shelter plus services.

The challenge was for this community to step up and provide private dollars to help fund the low barrier shelter plus services multi-agency center.

However, we have not seen a lot of folks step up with those dollars because those dollars, as I mentioned earlier, had been allocated to other nonprofits that are also providing similar services but not exact same services.

So my concern comes from that.

My concern comes from if we build something new, how we're going to operate it.

And that's the reason why I asked for another guardrail, which was a minimum of 10% of the total public and private funds must be reserved for initial operations and a plan for long-term operational sustainability with no additional public support, which would fit the model of your number three, which would be a 501c3 running it.

Again, my concern really is you build it, how are you actually going to operate it?

And that comes again from an experience we're currently facing regarding our low barrier shelter.

Um so can you help alleviate some of that concern?

Yeah, I think it's really reasonable to say we need to have long-term plans.

We cannot assume that the building opens on day one and then it will never need anything.

Um, and I think that um it is certainly in best practice to have endowments set up for buildings.

Um, I I think that when there is that determination of what is the best way for this performing arts center to be managed, that would also be a really fantastic time for to say this is how many dollars we think should go into uh an endowment, this is what we think the reserve fund should be.

Um, I think certainly like the 501c3 option is very appealing and has worked well in other cities.

Um that then requires though, typically when that happens, a city signs over the building for like you know, it's like the lease is a dollar a year for 30 years or something.

And I just think that that's something that should really we don't want to lock that in at this point and lock into a model before there's been sufficient time for that to really be studied, and then for that citizen oversight committee to bring that that back to council.

But I do think that the concept of there needs to be a plan made at time of construction for what happens when repairs need to be made, what like how how is this gonna exist into the future?

I think is really important and something we should all be concerned about.

Again, I think it's that question of like walking that line of like how do we put on the appropriate guardrails, but not lock us into something that we might find after more study is like not the best plan for Wichita.

So I think that that's that's where I think we need to just be very careful with that language.

But I think that the intent of having a reserve fund is absolutely best practice and what we should be thinking about.

Thank you, Angela.

Any further questions for performing arts?

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

It's not necessarily a question.

I I just want to say thank you.

I think it is in these conversations when we're talking about priorities.

I I think the arts catch it not so great.

And so I just want to say thank you for the work that you're doing.

You talked about earlier, I want to remind everybody about the economic value of the arts.

And when we talk about a sales tax, we also have to think about the tourism that we have here available to help generate and contribute to that sales tax.

But also what we're talking about today is it's indicative of what a lot of people don't realize, what nonprofit leaders do every single day is they plan quietly and they collaborate quietly when no one is looking.

And the mayor mentioned uh, you know, the difficulty and the complexities of running a capital campaign and raising money in a in a silent phase and getting people on board, but prior to that silent phase, you have you have a plan in place that's part of running a capital campaign.

And so I just want to say thank you for the work that you are doing.

Um, I've had the opportunity to see the magic that you're creating uh with very little resources.

Um, and I also know overwhelmingly when I'm in the community, I hear millennials, younger people saying that they want the arts, that it is not just an economic driver, but it's mental health, it's emotional health, it's also an opportunity to unify our community.

It's through the arts where the stories of our lives are told, and we see that we have more in common than we don't have in common.

And so please know that I support you and I support the arts, and I have no doubt in my mind that you will raise that 75 million dollars.

Thank you.

I just want to say for the record, it's not me personally that's gonna raise the 75 million dollars.

Um, but yeah, I think that I think that um what you hit on here is that we have a lot of um issues facing our community, and um and it's very easy to get into an either-or, um, and it really has to be a both and I think that is because uh conventions and performing arts um are going to add to the economic success of the community.

So thank you for recognizing that, and thank you for all the time today.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um legal.

Uh the mayor's proposal is that allowable under the language of the ballot as far as the 10% being reserved.

The ballot did not specify a 10% reserve or an uh for operating funds, so that is something we don't believe is is provided for in the ballot.

Okay, because my understanding is it's not to go for ongoing employment essentially, it's for the the infrastructure cost.

Yes.

Okay, so not for operations.

Okay, thank you.

Again, I'll uh give you a clarification of why I set up that uh suggested guardrail.

And it's really to get Wichita Forward to commit that they will have a reserve, as Angela just mentioned.

That is the most responsible way to think about not just building something new, but how are you gonna maintain it moving forward?

As we've been talking about public safety, what breaks my heart is that we have been deferring maintenance for so long because we build things and forget that they will eventually have a roof that will need replaced, an HVAC unit or a boiler replaced, those all costs major amounts of dollars, and if you don't plan for them now, then you're faced with situations where we have to discuss how we're going to pay for them.

So I think that it's prudent that I asked that to be put in there, not necessarily for a resolution, but more really as a commitment from Wichita Forward, which will be raising these funds, that they should have a prudent and conservative uh reserve that takes into account operations.

So maybe that question is for Wichita Forward.

And I can appreciate the prudency in it.

Again, I'm just not sure that that is something that we can do according to the ballot language.

But I'm here speaking on behalf of citizens of our community that want to make sure that if something is built new, two things, how will it be operated moving forward, and how will it be maintained moving forward after it gets built?

Those are very valid questions that community has asked.

And so I'm not part of Wichita Forward, I'm asking that question to Wichita Forward.

Mayor, if I may, I I think the previous speaker suggested great things that I think we could even amend within the resolution of having that be a task of the oversight committee.

And I think as we are all representing constituents, um, and I and I think which tall four would agree because I I believe from what I've seen online and then what I've read that they feel very strongly about an oversight committee, even at the Braver Angels uh debate last night.

We heard citizens want deep involvement in the decision making process should the sales tax pass.

And so being able to put that as an amendment in the in the section that speaks to the oversight committee and taking the last speaker's advice, I think would be a demonstrated effort that we're listening to the community and that we're trying to establish some more trust.

I appreciate that, Councilmember Shepard.

And uh that is one of the reasons why one of the uh additional guardrails I would like to see in the over sight committee is subcommittees for each of the five initiatives.

Each of the five initiatives must have a subcommittee.

Um, so that already makes it five subcommittees plus one big oversight committee, and I think that that would help with alleviating a lot of these specific concerns to each of these specific initiatives.

So I would like to uh see how that language can be added to the oversight of this sales tax, that it will have additional five subcommittees for the five initiatives.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um I see a lot of people leaving.

Uh people maybe that wanted to speak.

Um I would I would suggest that maybe we we go to public comment and allow six to ten people to speak.

Um, then then break for lunch and then come back, and anybody else wants to speak could speak.

Could we maybe even just take like a five-minute break just to stand up and then go to public comment?

I know it's it's hard for me to concentrate after so long, right?

And it's cold, so could we even just entertain a quick break, then come to public comment, then break for lunch.

Any anybody else agree?

I got criticized for not liking 10 hour meetings, so I'm for breaks all the time.

Yeah, second.

We could just break for lunch now, but I think we lose some people that want to comment.

Uh I see United Way in the front.

Or we could break, bring our lunch and eat it while we're up here.

Do that too.

I'm okay with either option.

Honestly, I could start uh listening to the public.

I want to hear from the community.

Um, so community is also uh wanting to take their lunch break.

However, they don't want to come back in and out of city hall.

So out of respect for them, I actually would pause the portion of city council continuing to speak to open it up for public comment first.

I agree.

So I would uh um I would ask my council members if we could start public comment now, but continue with our further detail uh questions following public comment.

If we're okay with that, we'll now open it up for public comment.

Uh five minutes per person.

Please state your name and your address.

City council members, vice mayor, mayor, city staff.

My name is Ben Salceta, uh, Kansas Aviation Museum, also 6406, East Aberdeen, here in Wichita Council member uh Tuttles district here.

A lot has been said here today, um, and this has continued on for the last six weeks of conversation related to this.

I do want to take a second to say thank you to this council who has taken the time to prioritize some of these issues that you're dealing with within this ballot language.

Uh, if you remember just a few years ago, this council helped shift money away from a pickleball complex to address the needs of both Second Light and Fire Stations within our community, and that's to be uh admired for the steps that are being now presented here within this uh plan.

You all have understood the needs to make sure that our first responders are most vulnerable are taken care of, and this is a continuation of the commitment that you have made over the past couple years, and for that you all are to be commended uh for this proposal here that is going to move forward.

One of the things that I think that's very important to talk about when we address the issues uh, as this is a very wide-ranging proposal.

There's not a single person, I would imagine in our community that says 100% of this is what I love.

But I would say, venture to say that there are several who would say that a majority of this does meet some of the issues of my concern.

If we're talking about perfect, the reality is this is your perfect is different than my perfect.

And so we can't let progress be impeded by trying to aim for perfection.

Because the reality is again, none of us see 100% of things eye to eye.

But what this project and what this proposal does do is ensure that we take care of some of the most vulnerable people within our community while addressing issues of second light and the homeless, the housing services that need to be addressed.

It also helps to take care of our first responders, our police, and our fire.

As someone who in our city uh could depend upon those for life-saving services at some point, making sure that they're adequately funded is important and vital.

It offers property tax relief to those who have seen their uh property tax appraisals continue to go up.

I do want to sit there and clarify that the city council, nor the previous ones have ever raised the mill levy on citizens over the past 30 years.

Uh, it's just a simple tax thing.

When you make more, you have to pay more.

Uh, and that is a very shallow attempt at trying to just clarify how the mill levy and assess value works.

But this city, the school boards have no control over the appraisal process and what happens.

But you have done diligent work to make sure that the mill levy is not increased.

And in fact, this last year has even lowered that there.

But the continuation of that will help offset some of those things.

Looking at homestead value or homestead credits is also extremely important to make sure that those who are seniors and on fixed incomes have an opportunity to receive some sort of credit back and not continue to be taxed out of their home.

When it comes to the convention center, Bob Brown, Century 2, and the Performing Arts Center, the key piece of any sales tax, though is regret though regressive in nature, is that you want to collect as much out-of-state city res uh out of city revenue as possible.

And having something at the disposal of Visit Wichita, who is a continual proponent of our community or the performing arts center that continually brings in people from outside of our community, having the proper tools in their tool belt to continue to bring in outside visitors is imperative.

And that's what helps shift the burden away from citizens of our city to those outside of those who utilize our services through their programs.

I will say this again.

Programs like Sunflower Summer, who have seen who have been extraordinarily helpful to the citizens within our community and our state, visit which has been a tireless advocate to make sure that those programs that help our community are reinvested and we see that money coming back in.

And so, again, this is all about how we have proper dialogue.

And though there are various opinions, your perfect is not my perfect, my perfect is not somebody else's perfect, but this program this proposal aims at progress, and that's what this is about.

Lastly, I will say this is that the vilification of people simply because they bring forward a proposal is something that should stop within our community.

We have individuals who have supported our community philanthropically through employment and through tax dollars, and simply to vilify them because you don't like a proposal should stop.

That is not what is what is best in our community.

And while we might not agree, people don't we don't have to look at them as enemies.

We look at each other as community residents who care for our city and want the best thing.

We might just have a few different approaches of how we get there.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'd like to echo my friend uh Ben's uh comments commending all of you uh for the discussion uh this morning.

Um I am more hopeful and optimistic around these initiatives hearing the very practical discussion that all of you are having, the very serious topics and steps you're taking forward to make this initiative successful for our city.

Uh for those of you who don't know, my name is Pete Nahara.

I am the president and CEO of your United Way of the Plains.

We are headquartered at 245 Northwater Street in the uh elected under the elected leadership of Maggie Ballard in District 6.

Um, but as you know, we do community building work in all of your districts.

We do work in all five districts of the of Cid Cedric County Commissioners as well.

And in fact, because of the thousands of local donors and advocates and volunteers and hundreds of nonprofits that we partner with, our charitable services help neighbors and families here in South Central Kansas over one million times every year.

We believe that that scale of work only happens when you see public, private, and nonprofit sectors aligned like we are right now, and we believe this work can be even more amplified and create even more good in our community if we vote yes on March 3rd.

Our work is data driven and it is closely aligned with the social determinants of health that when met can ensure a strong community where everyone can thrive.

And in that regard, a yes vote would provide a more robust public safety environment driven by well-resourced police and fire.

That means preventing that means a focus on prevention, timely response and safety across our city.

And we would end up preventing violent crime.

And we, as we've seen, keeping illegal drugs off our streets, ensuring our school children are safe, and providing life-saving measures in a timely fashion.

A yes vote would really strengthen the complex multi-layered system we have in place now to achieve functional zero homelessness by appropriately resourcing our city's multi-agency center.

It's a critical part of our full spectrum of services in Wichita's continuum of care from street outreach all the way to safe and affordable housing.

I mean, just this past weekend, with three straight days below freezing, second light safety and shelter provided uh shelter to more than 300 unhoused neighbors every day.

It's hard not to ask ourselves what would have happened if that resource wasn't in place.

What if we didn't have this asset in our community chest of tools to address these this human crisis?

It's systemic.

What will we do next year if we don't have uh the money to keep it open and the weather dips below freezing again?

Today, Wichita is on the verge of becoming just the 15th city in the nation to achieve functional zero homelessness in our veteran population.

With a reliable funding source, we can accelerate that progress and extend it to women and families, foster children aging out of the system, people with disabilities, seniors, the chronically homeless, those struggling with mental health and addiction, and a yes vote would strengthen our local economy by giving us the inherent 21st century capability to bring in millions of new dollars every year through a more functional convention center and a more usable performing arts center.

In both cases, we bring in 20 to 30 percent of estimated revenue from people who don't live here to make an investment in the people who do live here.

This kind of investment creates pathways to economic mobility and more financial opportunities for the 40 percent of working families who are living paycheck to paycheck, commonly referred to Alice, right?

Asset limited, income constrained and employed.

That's how cities grow opportunity so their residents can live better and begin saving for themselves and for the future of their families.

Voting yes in this special election isn't just about March 3rd, it's about the next seven years of March 3rd.

It's about investing in ourselves with the same grit and determination that our pioneering forefathers founded our state in 1861.

There are no guarantees, but with the same grit and determination, we can give ourselves the opportunity to build a future just like they did 165 years ago.

In two days, it's Kansas Day, and we're gonna be celebrating uh the fact that we became the 34th state in the union, and in a uniquely Cansan way, we can vote yes on March 3rd and take a chance and bet on ourselves and lift this community for another generation and for the future of Wichita for a long time going.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

Excuse me, good afternoon, Mayor Wu, Council members.

My name is Heather Schroeder.

I'm the executive director of Downtown Wichita, located at 505 East Douglas Ave in Council Member Shepherd's district, District One.

Downtown Wichita supports the 1% sales tax initiative because it provides timely avenue to fund our most pressing concerns.

Last year in Wichita, our community counted 736 individuals experiencing homelessness.

This year's point in time count where volunteers go out to survey people living outdoors is scheduled for this Thursday, and we expect that number to rise.

Our homeless shelter, Second Light, housed at least 350 people during the extreme cold temperatures this past weekend.

I also, like Pete, hate to think what would have happened if this shelter was not available.

But we may know the answer to that question as early as this October if this initiative fails.

Federal funding to operate Second Light runs out this fall, and we have no identified source of funding after September 30th to keep it going.

The 1% sales tax initiative will provide funding to operate Second Light in perpetuity, providing no barrier emergency shelter to people who need it.

Downtown Wichita is committed to a strong, vibrant city center, but our downtown is only as strong as our most vulnerable neighbors.

I ask my fellow Wichitans, isn't it worth a penny to help them?

If I spend five dollars under the new sales tax, I'd pay an additional five cents to the fund that lets us build a better city and a better place to live.

Visitors to Wichita would pay that too, whether they're from nearby towns or they're visiting to attend an NCAA game, a play, a museum, or a show at the arena.

Derby, Goddard, Andover, Mays, and Valley Center already have a penny tax.

This is not something new to our region.

And their residents are better for it with funding for new parks and community amenities and resources that benefit everyone.

Again, I ask my fellow Wichitans.

Doesn't Wichita deserve to invest a penny in ourselves?

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Matt Lowe, and I'm um here.

I'm also with the United Way of the Plains, but I'm not here wearing my United Way of the Plains hat.

I'm here wearing my hat as the lead staff for the coalition in homelessness in Wichita and Sedgwick County, which is a partnership of organization that together form the community's homeless response system.

We have currently 24 uh voting members that are a part of our uh coalition.

And um, as this sales tax, you know, uh discussion came about.

We've had several opportunities to meet with them and to discuss, you know, like what would our position be, you know, should this thing go to a vote.

We are supportive of this initiative and are here today to share how it can meaningfully strengthen our community's response to homelessness if it's done right.

I want to emphasize the urgent need for sustained evidence-based funding, coordinated implementation, and decision making that is informed by both local providers and people with lived experience.

This special election on March 3rd represents an important step forward.

With the adoption of the plan as presented by Director Stang and city staff, the coalition we support a yes vote to move this effort forward.

Homelessness already cost our community more than 20 million dollars each year, and without strategic investment, both the financial cost and the human impact will continue to grow.

We believe the proposed sales tax presents Wichita with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to meaningfully address homelessness and the shortage of affordable housing.

To do so effectively, the coalition urges the city to adopt a balanced, holistic approach to using the anticipated 150 million dollars in sales tax revenue revenue.

First, establish a restricted special fund with reinvested earnings to support homeless and housing services for the continued operation of the second light shelter.

Secondly, provide sustained funding for an affordable housing trust fund to spur the development of long-term affordable housing for people exiting homelessness, and third, commit to seven years of funding to address the gaps in the homelessness services ecosystem and stabilization services, uh services that are that keep people housed once they get there and support long-term stability after they are housed.

The need for this investment is clear.

In 2025 alone, nearly 2,000 households experienced homelessness for the first time in our community.

That same year, the coalition served more than 4,100 people through shelter, street outreach, and traditional housing programs.

These services that are funded by a fragile mix of federal grants, local dollars, and philanthropy.

Affordable housing remains a major barrier in our community.

Over the past 20 years, housing costs have continued to increase twice as fast as wages.

According to the 2025 uh State of Alice report that's been referred to a couple of times today, more than 27,000 low-income households in Sedgwick County spend over 30% of their income on rent, putting them at high risk of homelessness.

Among those served by the coalition in 2025, 43% either reentered homelessness or remained homelessness at the start of this year due to a lack of housing options.

Prevention and stabilization services are equally critical.

Without a path from shelter to self-sufficiency, we will continue expanding shelters without reducing homelessness overall.

Last year, 211 received over 10,000 calls in Sedgwood County for rent and utility assistance alone.

Clear evidence of how many families are just one crisis away from losing their housing.

The winter storm this past weekend was a good example of how important it is to have a coordinated plan and place for people to go to find shelter from the elements.

And I also commend the work of Second Light Union Rescue Mission, our local police, and the way that they came together and communicated and was able to serve everyone who needed shelter this weekend without any deaths that I'm aware of or any major issues.

And here in a couple of days, as Heather mentioned, we do our point in time count that we do annually.

Over the last four years, we have seen a 57% increase in unsheltered homelessness across our community, and that will continue.

I have no doubt that that will continue to rise without these local investments into homelessness and housing resources in our community.

Wichita has an opportunity to transform its homeless response system and create lasting pathways to stability for our most vulnerable neighbors.

With strategic investment and coordinated implementation, homelessness in Wichita can be rare, brief, and non-reoccurring for all of our neighbors.

And that is why the coalition in homelessness in Wichita and Sedgwick County urges the city of Council to adopt the plan that was presented today by staff by Director Stang and others and support it, and we support a yes vote on this sales tax tax initiative.

We believe that it gives Wichita the tools that we need to move from managing homelessness to truly ending it.

Thank you for all of your time and your leadership.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members.

My name is Tim Starhoff.

I'm the executive director of the Wichita Symphony.

We're located in Century 2 at 225 West Douglas.

So I'm gonna speak a little bit about the impact uh new performing arts center could have on our community.

Uh as I walked over from Century 2, we had 1,500 students in the concert hall.

Those kids are long gone by now and have gotten back on their buses to go back to school.

But uh by tomorrow afternoon, we'll have had 6,000 students from USD 259, private schools, districts across the region, and that'll all have walked through those doors.

One of the greatest challenges we have with those concerts is that the facility struggles to meet current standards for accessibility.

When we have students who use wheelchairs, they're often forced to sit far away from their friends and classmates.

And these accessibility challenges extend to our regular concerts as well.

When there are limited wheelchair spaces, and many of those are taken up by subscribers at every concert, we often have to turn interested ticket buyers away.

We need a venue that matches our values, one where dignity and accessibility are built into the foundation so that no student or patron is ever sidelined from the experiences that bring us together.

This facility is also about matching our infrastructure to our talent.

We have a world-class orchestra of professional musicians, most of whom live, teach, and work right here.

And when guest artists visit from around the country or internationally, I often get this same backhanded compliment wow, you have a really good orchestra here.

They're surprised because the building doesn't reflect the caliber of the artists inside it.

And I know from conversations throughout Wichita that that preconceived notion extends throughout our community as well.

There are people who think they need to drive to Kansas City or Oklahoma City to hear great live music.

Our musicians are the backbone of our performing arts economy.

They are the teachers in our schools, performers at our weddings, and community events.

By providing them with professional home they deserve, we can give Wichita's talent a stage that commands the same respect as the cities we're trying to compete with.

Ultimately, investing in a new performing arts center is a commitment to Wichita's long-term growth and our local workforce.

This project directly supports the livelihood of the working class musicians and artists who call our city home and contribute to our local economy every day.

A modern accessible landmark will elevate our downtown and our cultural landscape to signal that Wichita is a place where new businesses can grow and homegrown talent can plant roots, ensuring that our best and brightest want to stay and enrich this community.

Thank you.

Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council members, Mr.

Manager, welcome to town.

I'm Evan Rosal.

I hailed proudly from District One.

Thanks for the opportunity to be in front of you today.

I'm speaking in uh in support for the Wichita Forward proposal because I believe at the most fundamental level that communities, businesses, families thrive when they invest in themselves.

I think communities are like bicycles.

I think we're moving forward or we're falling over.

And I think in the fast-moving world that we exist today, uh, there's not a positive neutral gear or cruise control.

And Wichita is at a point where the needs around infrastructure and public safety and long-term quality of life are real and they're not going away on their own, and there's no cavalry on the hillside that will swoop in and save us.

What I appreciate about this proposal is that it focuses on the basics that make a community great, public safety, infrastructure, and the kinds of community assets that keep Wichita a place where families want to live and businesses want to invest.

I see this plan as a responsible way to make critical investments that Wichita can't afford to keep postponing.

It's consumption-based.

So you buy more and you pay then you pay more.

It captures revenue from visitors and non-residents who avail themselves to our city's assets without contributing always to those that support.

It also helps avoid paying bond interest so that we get more bang for our taxpayer buck.

And it's a time limited and it's tied to specific capital needs rather than inflating an operating base.

And today's meeting focuses on guardrails, but zooming out, I think the biggest guardrail that exists is on March 3rd, where we get to discern the will of our community.

And I've heard I've seen several of your proposals, and I've been incredibly encouraged by the discussion today around those guardrails.

And I appreciate the tension you're having to navigate between a robust vision and protecting the trust of our community.

And so hear me say I trust you to make those decisions.

I understand the objections, and I completely understand that in a community like ours, there's going to be a host of perspectives on issues like these.

Some believe the plan is too vague.

I don't see it that way.

I think it lays out our project categories and funding totals.

And at this stage, I think we're voting on direction, priorities, and safeguards, not the paint color of different facilities.

That detail comes through design and oversight and responsible process of implementation led by the city and the citizens' advisory committee.

This is a question about whether we have the will to invest at all.

Others say it's rushed, but I think we've been having these conversations about these investments for a very long time.

Some say that we're not actually financially pinched, but you know, and I'm not a CFO, but I think if the if our needs outpace our current funding levels, then that gap is going to show up somewhere.

And some would argue that it has already deferred maintenance, aging equipment, strained or decreased services.

As for me, I say we go out and meet these challenges directly rather than to have to play defense for the next 10 years.

And one last thing I want to say because I think it matters a lot in this moment, far beyond the immediate proposal and the safeguards that we're talking about, just a uh uh a burden I feel for our community.

We're living in a time of real exhaustion.

People are tired and they're frustrated, and trust is wearing thin.

And a lot of that frustration is landing on leaders and institutions of every kind, civic leaders, business leaders, church leaders.

And some of that frustration is well earned.

But I'd encourage us all with this.

I think what we need more than anything is vision and resolve.

See, we're always becoming something, and this is a moment where we get to choose what we're becoming.

I don't think anger is a great strategy.

I don't think cynicism is gonna help uh businesses move here or kids stay here.

I think opportunities like this where we can stand up together, choose an imperfect vision and move toward that is a great opportunity beyond the projects to unite our community.

Thank you for the opportunity to share.

Good afternoon, mayor, vice mayor, city council members, new city manager, good to see you again, sir.

Jeff Fleur with president of the Grey Wichtail Partnership, 505 East Douglas Avenue.

Um just wanted to come on behalf of the partnership again, just to say thank you for the steps you are taking.

Uh perseverance is extremely important in this moment uh because our future really relies on it.

And one of the things you've heard us talk about uh as we work as the economic development entity for this community, this region, working with the private sector and the public sector, um, is that we really do believe this referendum is critical, it's essential uh to our future as we look to where we want to go.

You've heard me say often about what cities in the Midwest are doing, what cities in North America are doing, and even globally uh to really position themselves for success.

And part of that is creating that distinctive city that people want to stay in if they're here, uh, or they want to move to because they hear what's happening uh with opportunities and they see themselves in those opportunities.

You know, one of the things that I was reminded of here recently is that we've done a lot of city to city trips, uh a lot.

And I I know being in that audience, if you will, that delegation, while we're there in that city, we talk about well, what if?

What about this opportunity?

And then you come back, we say, what's the piece of action that we can take?

This referendum is an action step that we can take to move our city into reality of those things that we've seen in other cities, and we want for ourselves because we do believe I do believe our community deserves to have a world-class performing arts and a convention center of that nature, and to take care of those that need additional help.

Um, these additional referendums, I do believe are positioning us for future success.

Last night, um, you know, one of the things I'm very privileged in the role that I have at the partnership is to be a part of a lot of conversations.

Last night I was a part of a group around Biomed.

It was out at the innovation campus, a campus that didn't exist 10 years ago, but today it does.

And you look across it and marvel about the excellence of it, but also what are the opportunities it's positioning us for in the future.

Last night was around Biomed.

And as we had different physicians and different disciplines together, it just excited me more and more, and y'all know I can get excited about where we can go, but we have to have the infrastructure to support that.

And one of the things that came up last night, and we talked about this previously, is that a convention center does play a role because if you have an industry standards center, you want to bring in not only people from North America but around this world to see what we're doing.

You've heard me talk about the International Air Show.

We talk about biomed there because of space companies dealing with pharmaceuticals.

It's a reality that we can have incredible industry of that nature, but we have to have facilities to be able to meet in.

The other is performing arts.

Um, Councilman uh Joseph Shepard, I I love your aspect about the arts.

Uh, it they are important to me, they're the unique fingerprint that we have the privilege of having as a community.

Um, and so I think about NASCAR Park.

Um, Nasker Park, a never forget meeting with a previous city manager, and seven figures need to be raised to make that park happen.

The city had enough money to do maybe phase one, and we were like, you can't you can't not do it all.

Uh now, we walked out of that meeting with Bob saying, go raise the seven figures.

Now, I'm not going to say I'm gonna go raise 75 million, but the deal is this I do believe the money is there for the performing arts.

I believe partners are waiting in the wings to see what's the directive, and once that directive is known, they will step forward.

I really do believe that.

In fact, I'll go on record on being a part of trying to help do that because I believe so firmly that that's important for our community as we look to the future.

You know, one of the things that um Melissa and I moved here from Baton Rouge.

We're not from Wichita, but I will tell you what keeps us here.

One of the things there's several, but one is is that this truly is a community that I believe at its core is working to create new opportunities for individuals and families, and I think that's a noble thing for a community.

Certainly, our city has seen significant progress in our downtown and industry growth and depth, but we can't let up.

Uh, if anything, this is the time to double down because other communities are, and we need to make sure we're keeping in pace, if not exceeding that.

This referendum provides an avenue to address key issues that we need to address, but it also helps us accelerate our growth.

So, again, thank you for your leadership.

Thank you for leaning in.

The private sector is there with you to help lead and also make these things become a reality.

So thank you.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor.

Jeff, thank you for being here, and thank you for the work of Greater Wichita Partnership.

You mentioned something about Innovation Campus, and uh it brought back lots of memories.

I was I was the student body president when innovation campus was happening.

And anybody who can recall that time, they know that.

I flipped over a couple tables during that time, and I was very opposed to innovation campus.

And 21, 22-year-old Joseph did not know what 32-year-old Joseph knows now.

And though I didn't do everything right, and I certainly wasn't wrong in every aspect then.

What I can say is I agree with you that if former President John Burdeaux was still here, one of one of the biggest wishes that I have is that I would be able to sit across from a table and tell him thank you for moving forward and for investing, and I appreciate the diversity that has come with Innovation Campus.

Again, not perfect, but it certainly has had its benefits.

And so I just want to acknowledge that because I know that that is an example of a lot of consternation that folks felt, and we definitely have to do more work in that area to bridge the gap between the campus and the community.

Um, but the benefits of what innovation campus has brought to our community, the lives that it has changed, it is it is so evident.

And so thank you for mentioning that.

Good afternoon.

My name is Dan Clifford, and I'm one of the many people working at Second Light to keep our unhoused neighbors safe.

This past weekend was a crisis.

It was a crisis to the scale that Wichita has never seen before.

We have served over 365 people keeping them safe.

The temperature got well below zero degrees at that temperature.

Frostbite can set in in under 30 minutes.

I personally took someone to the hospital this weekend that had a frostbite in both their hands.

She was admitted to the burn unit.

There was incredible work this weekend as well.

We had staff working multiple days, several of whom were working 16 hour shifts to keep people safe and to keep them alive.

In bringing folks to us and also responding when we had emergencies.

I can say that we did not turn away a single individual that came to our building, and we were able to keep every guest that came to our building inside for as long as they chose to stay.

That is a reflection of the work and the dedication of the people that show up to Second Light and do this work every single day.

Homelessness is a crisis.

It's a humanitarian crisis and it's an economic crisis.

We've heard about the economics already.

Over 11 million dollars from local government goes into responding to homelessness.

That is not solution focused.

That is reactive.

That is responding to a crisis.

We can be proactive.

It's also a humanitarian crisis.

Last year, we lost 72 unhoused individuals in this community.

There is a solution.

We can use an evidence-based model to solving homelessness in our community.

We can take a multidisciplinary, holistic approach of meeting people where they're at, to being able to connect them to services and putting folks on a path to housing.

This is not speculation.

This has been proven in other communities to work.

And it is and will work here in Wichita.

In partnership with the city of Wichita, working with some of their housing case managers in a very short amount of time, we were able to house 10 individuals just in a matter of a few days for some of them.

So I want folks to know that there is just incredible collaboration and work happening at Second Light to not only keep people alive in extreme weather, but also try to solve the homelessness crisis our community is facing.

So Wichita has a choice to make.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

Dean, I just also want to say thank you so much.

I think most of us know, but not to the full extent that you do that this is really hard work.

Um and the weather elements only make it harder.

So thank you to you and your staff.

And I know you guys didn't do it alone.

You had lots of um collaboration, actual collaboration from partners across the community.

So thank you so much.

And please pass the word to your staff as well.

We'll continue with public comment.

Hi, my name is Bob Nelson.

Uh 14 years ago I moved to Goddard.

Um, but I am a proud uh person who uh spends all his money in Wichita, most of it at uh Central and Mays.

Um my roots are in Wichita since uh 1965.

Um I have heard so many objections from uh uh the city and meetings um that hopefully weren't representative of the whole city, and I understand your concerns at um listening to those objections and criticisms.

Uh I would just uh want you to keep in mind that if you make it too complicated, you may even inspire too much trust, so or or too much distrust, excuse me.

So don't overcomplicate it.

I also would like somebody to do an analysis someday.

Uh I hate the fact that sales taxes are regressive, but I don't know of any other uh income source that you have.

And so can somebody compare the net benefits uh of the millions of dollars you're spending on Second Light and affordable housing and fire and police protection to the net expenses that uh how uh housing burdened person would uh incur or a homeless person would incur.

Uh that's kind of a cold, cruel way of looking at it, but I would still like to hear that.

Uh and then uh another point of confusion for me that I would like somebody to explain at some point uh is you have uh four buckets that require writing checks, and one bucket that sounds like it's going to be a mill levy reduction.

We're taking in money for this fifth bucket of uh property tax.

How does that work?

Um, and I've never heard that process uh enunciated, and it affects uh Mayor Wu's plan.

I'm very much in favor of uh prioritization of the capital improvement program and housing and second light.

Uh I don't know how uh an extra hundred million dollars uh goes into uh property tax relief in the first three years.

I'm confused about the process, and so I would like to see some explanation of that sometime.

So I re uh thank you very much.

Would anyone else from the public like to speak hello council?

Uh my name is Russell Fox.

I'm a professor of political science at Friends University.

I live at 605 North Westlink Avenue in J.B.

Johnston's district.

Um I came here to sit with uh the people from justice together.

I am not in a leadership position in that organization.

I do not in any way speak for them.

Um but I do know a few things about politics and voting and elections, and I thought it would be important to put into the record here something that might be very, very important to the passage of this sales tax.

I wanted to put into the record something that the co-president of Justice Together said this morning at a prayer meeting before this meeting began.

Today, justice together is in a season of discernment.

As a 40 congregation multi-faith coalition, we are prayerfully considering our position related to the proposed sales tax and its connection to housing and homelessness in Wichita.

Our intention is not to move hastily, but to move faithfully, rooted in our values, informed by relationships, and accountable to the people most impacted.

To guide that discernment, we are holding ourselves to three clear considerations.

The second and the third of those three considerations, and I'm speaking for myself now, are ones that are somewhat more uh subjective in their determination.

Does it make a significant effort towards a holistic solution to our housing and homelessness crisis?

And does it avoid worsening inequities for the lead for those with the least among us?

Those are things that can be debated about in connection with all of the priorities that have already been mentioned thus far by representatives from United Way and Second Light and the Cedric County Coalition for the Handling of Homelessness.

They do important work, and I have nothing but respect for what they are hoping for out of this particular vote.

And in regards to, you know, uh trying to prevent inequities worsening.

It's been recognized by you know Councilmember Shepherd and others that of course a sales tax is by definition regressive, but you can make it less regressive, and there are different ways to talk about you know rebates to property tax and working with uh people on the state level to try to exempt uh food from the sales tax, those are all very important considerations.

But the first of the three clear considerations that Rabbi Pepperstone read out was does this proposal secure 10 million dollars in annual funding for the Wichita Affordable Housing Fund.

That's less subjective.

That's more objective.

It's an objective that came out of literally hundreds of hours of research and interviews that justice together did with dozens of stakeholders and experts.

And it is a number that is a serious reach.

It is a number that involves asking questions about prioritization of sales tax funds.

It's a question that might require looking again at uh digging into the principle as opposed to merely the interest that can be generated by the sales tax funds.

I wanted to read off this because I've been listening all morning and I've been talking with others, and I really want the best out of this, especially insofar as its ability to serve our affordable housing and homelessness needs.

And I know that that feeling is shared by thousands of other members of justice together, hundreds of whom are likely to vote one way or another on March 3rd.

So to the extent that you want this to pass, I hope that there can be incre there can be in additional efforts made to try uh to mount a genuine good faith effort to reach that one particular objective ask.

Thank you very much.

Thank you to the 10 speakers who spoke during public comment.

Uh appreciate each of your comments regarding not just the sales tax itself, but the guardrails that are being discussed from this bench.

Um, with that, we're going to take a short break of 15 minutes.

We will return at 145 for the remainder of this council meeting.

Allowing the break, we now return to the city council meeting.

Uh public comment has now been taken and close.

We're now bringing it back to the bench, and I have multiple questions that have not been answered.

So I have um specifically, I would like to go to the slide regarding property tax relief.

Bless you.

Oh, here we are.

There we are.

Thank you.

Uh, specifically here, City Manager, can you talk about um the 3.7 to 4.0 mills?

Um, if this was to get prioritized, how would that work in the 2027 budget?

If um you do the priority amount, um we are saying roughly a hundred to a hundred and twenty million dollars would be generated by the sales tax each year.

And so if your prioritization proposal goes forward, I would then say roughly 30 or maybe 40 million would be in those first three buckets.

So if you say 40 million in property tax relief in the first year would be generated, um it's when it's generated.

So this is where the fluctuation will happen.

If you have 40 million, we would simply there's more to it, but we would simply take the sales tax money, credit it to the general fund, so that way we could reduce the millage, and again, that would be 40 million reduction, I think would actually be more than the four mills that we had projected.

Um but as you think about that going forward, that could be diminished a little bit as you roll in the amount of money in the year six and seven.

So it is gonna fluctuate, but for the first three years, if you say roughly 40 million dollars, we could then just simply take that off from the general fund need that we have in millage for the general fund allowance and use the sales funds, sales tax funds to help with that.

One of the comments made by community has been there's gonna be a 12% reduction uh in the property tax, and here it looks like it's a fluctuation again, depends on valuations and what the mill levy will be set by Sedgwick County's um portion.

So is there any way to codify that at least a certain amount of mills will be reduced per year?

And if so, would that be in one of the resolutions and specifically how can that be captured so that we can guarantee that again a certain mill that millage will be reduced?

Well, I think it we are challenged about locking in because for instance, as we just said, this is projected we say one mill is equal to about five million dollars, and so this was predicated on the buckets being filled um proportionately in first year, second year on out.

Um so really we're saying the 3.7 to 4 mills is based on 20 million.

If we're gonna put 40 million dollars in there, you're at a higher percentage.

And so this is changing the equation to go higher in the first couple of years than what we're slowly gradually moving it up to.

So unless we actually put an amount and said we're going to reduce property taxes by four mils each year over the next seven years.

Is that accurate?

If you say that, I'm just yes, you can say that as one of the resolution items, but again, you may constrain the general fund.

So if you say you're going to certainly reduce the millage by four mils, and the sales tax for whatever reason doesn't materialize, I don't think under your plan that would happen, but you could constrain the general fund.

And that would just mean we may have to identify two or three million dollars.

It just depends on how the sales tax generates the revenue.

I think people are asking for a specific amount that will be guaranteed, and I think that uh the current resolution that staff presented does not provide an actual mill levy reduction, it just says it will be reduced.

Um, it will be reduced by how much isn't it's a fair question that community is asking.

And so if the intention of this council is to provide a mill levy reduction, it should be stated.

Um then again, if this this gets prioritized, you would still have some funds in there if you went with a four mil reduction.

Um I would like this council to talk about do we want to make a commitment that we're actually going to reduce the mill levy?

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, so is it required that as the money comes in if we do prioritize that it gets spent that year on property tax reduction?

Well, I think it depends on how you structure the prioritization.

If you're saying three buckets will be filled equally first, and if you just do a basic math revenue, a hundred to a hundred and twenty million dollars will come in the first year, but it won't be generated except for a quarterly basis when we get the money from the department of revenue.

So when you're making your budget decisions in August, we'll have a decent revenue projection, but we will not have a lot of certainty to tell you that actually, I think in the first year of the fiscal year, um, if you go with the prioritization that you're talking about, in the first year we may only be able to do 3.5 mills just because how the revenues flowing in that first year, and then the second year you might be able to go a little bit higher actually depend upon on prioritization again.

So keep in mind one mil equals five million dollars, roughly, if there's no deduction for the sales tax on food as well.

Um that's also gonna impact revenue if that hits in year three and year four.

So if you want to try to lock in a millage each year, you do have to factor if the revenue would be adjusted based upon the exemptions as well.

Um there's a lot of variables, and when the staff when we put this out here to say, and it wasn't our 12% number, we did hear that from the community from I think um some folks from which thought forward, we said then to get to that, it would be about four mils would equal 20 million dollars, and that is what we saw for the revenue projection under the proposal that we had filling these buckets.

So if we do the 40 million, if we do the prioritization that we get 40 million that first year, does that mean we're we have to spend that 40 million in the next year, or do we hold on to it?

It's not where we spread it out, and it's a consistent number from somewhat consistent because if we have to spend it more on the front and on the back end of this deal, there will be little to no property tax reduction.

So well, I do think you um you hit on something in terms of say yes, you do raise 40 million dollars where you contribute 40 million dollars in the first year in that bucket.

You're right, we're just headed towards 150, but that's where the millage will be smoothed out, so to speak, in terms of you may only get four mil credit, but that bucket would still have maybe another 15, 20, 25 million.

So it will be structured however you want to prioritize it.

But yeah, you very much could have it if you have a minimum millage of say three, five or four mills, you could easily accommodate that.

I think in easily in the first or two years, and you have some excess funds in that bucket until you keep filling it.

So it's got a little bit of variable because the years, the money collected and the time frame, then how much you want to withdraw from that each year.

Okay, yeah.

I'm just wondering if it might be more prudent, uh keep this one on uh just a split, just a basic one that we were looking at for the rest of them.

So just curious, thank you.

I here's a follow-up question to that because I believe that again clarity is kindness, and right now people are saying if we only use ten dollars, we would be fulfilling this ballot language, and I remind them that that is not uh the case.

However, there's no clarity of how many mills will actually be reduced, other than there will be a reduction.

So if we put in place a four mil reduction every year, uh whether it collects more or less in that uh fund, four mils is roughly twenty million dollars.

Is that accurate?

Correct.

Um so even if um for 2027 you had a four mil reduction, you still would have funds in the property tax um initiative that would be collecting interest.

Is that accurate?

It would start we said July one.

July one.

And so um I would I personally would like to see a four mil reduction in property tax that it's written in there so that people have clarity of what that mill levy reduction would be.

And I think, and I understand your point.

I think um for the lands, just to be clear, if you can say that the four mil reduction would be achieved with the sales tax offset, meaning if for some reason in the first year it doesn't generate that or you don't contribute that, you're not putting the burden on the general fund to be reduced by four mills only with the support of the sales tax.

And so I think you can achieve your goal, but also make sure that we can account for the fluctuation should something happen, that if the sales tax is not generate in this bucket that amount, it's based upon what's available or four mils at a minimum.

So I think you've got an opportunity.

Thank you.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor Similar question.

Um I almost think we'd be better just to have a set four mils, like the mayor said, so people know.

Now, in year seven, we might have to reduce that because it's a maximum of 150 million dollars.

So, as Mark said, it's slightly over five mils, five five million per mil.

So it's probably twenty million and something for four mills.

Um, so we might be a little short on the on the back end of that.

Um, but I think we do need to codify exactly how much it is every year.

That's just my opinion.

I I think you're correct.

I think it's the first year and the last year that are the most fluctuation, because just when the timing is if we're getting the revenue where our budget timing is in August for adoption and then implementation January one.

So it's just a little bit of the fluctuation on the beginning and the end.

When do we have to fund that?

When do we have to make that transfer?

Is it in January of 27 or is it any time during 27?

Can't speak to that without the finance director.

Um I would think you could probably transfer it any time.

See, I think we transferred any time.

So I would think so.

Come on.

I don't know our process.

Yeah, sure.

Um so we do have a process for interference transfers between our different funds, so there's different schedules for those based on so you could do this on a monthly basis since the revenue would be remitted monthly, or it could be done on a quarterly or even annual basis.

Okay, so we we could adjust it to even the first year we could have four mills because it starts six months earlier.

We can we can't adjust it until January of 27 anyway.

Right.

If the sales check tax started in July, we would have kind of a run-up to that anyway.

Right.

So the this the that transfer schedule is just set administratively, just based on timing.

But okay, okay.

It doesn't wouldn't need to occur in January.

Okay.

All of it.

Okay, thank you.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

Support the manager's recommendation.

You don't have to stand.

I was just I support the recommendation if it's possible, then um, I would support my colleagues and saying that as well.

Would this require us um to go back to the conversation about that prioritization?

Because again, would it allow for enough funds to start talking about um a four mill reduction if this passes and collections start July 1?

Do we need to go back to the prioritization question first?

Yes, I I believe so because that way you will then guide the three buckets for sure if that's where you're headed.

Absolutely.

If you can uh resolve that first, I think that will lead to the rest of the clarity on the conversation.

Thank you.

So I know I asked about property tax, but it really goes back to the prioritization initial goal of all of this, and in prioritizing the first three equally at three hundred um 100 million each housing, property tax, and public safety.

So I want to hear from this council because I do have the resolution that this would be in place for prioritization, and that would be the overall uh guardrails resolution.

That one would allow us to talk about prioritization.

So I wanted to see if I have consensus if this body would like to prioritize not everyone said yes, so prioritize those three council member Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um part of this uh is just going to make it real tricky, is I still just want to wait before we do any resolutions on property tax uh to get a ruling on the homestead exemptions with it, which again I think are big to make sure that we actually get um relief to our seniors who are just hanging on.

So um I'm okay with prioritizing it.

I think I've been consistent in that.

So uh just one aspect as far as enacting a property tax relief um proclamation today.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

I I would also be uh like to prioritize those three buckets.

I would say not let's not try to get the numbers right now.

Let's we have two weeks.

Let's have staff go back, figure it out how that would work, bring back a couple options and let us decide.

Instead of us trying to decide up here without all the experts in the room.

Thanks, Mayor Glasscock.

Thank you, Mayor.

So that was my question legal.

Given that staff's presented one, two, six resolutions for us to consider what is the timeline, what's the process for those to be brought back?

When do we expect first read, second read?

Theoretically, we could do that today, but when would you recommend first read, second read?

Obviously, voters are gonna be run at the ballot box in just a few weeks.

They might want to know these guardrails beforehand.

And so, would the best recommendation be if any member of this body have you know any strengthened suggestions they want to, they point to which resolution they want that a part of, and then staff could prepare those resolutions to be brought before this body?

Um the cool thing about resolutions is there's not two readings, there's just one.

Okay, so we don't have to do a first and a second.

You can certainly defer this as a packet, you can defer half.

Um, but I think we can either go through these and make sausage at the bench, or you can provide me and the city manager your recommendations and guidelines, and we can come back and massage these as long as we get some direction.

Um, and I wrote these based on other cities kind of guidelines and what I had gleaned from conversations with some of you.

Um, but certainly, I mean, if the prior prioritization looking at what options there are for some sort of maintenance fund with Wichita forward, and I have some ideas about that.

I don't think that we can bind them to that, but I think we can make that a goal or a aspiration or a negotiation that the city will attempt to negotiate or will negotiate with some of those maintenance funds that some of the earlier speakers had talked about.

So I think that we can get there by just providing me the input that you want as some idea of whether we're talking about all three funds being prioritized, one being prioritized, and then I think in particular, how we wanted to handle the nucleus of the 150 million dollars in homelessness, whether we wanted to peel some of that off, just use the interest.

Um, I think some of those things would be helpful for the drafter.

Yeah, I think the latter suggestion makes a lot of sense so we can start moving forward on this as well to make sure that we could have something presented.

And so I'll start uh because we're also into the discussion phase.

Sorry, I think we still have one more.

I'm not making a motion, I'm just it's still part of conversation.

Um, particularly in resolution 26049.

Um, I believe in section two item five, we can add um quarterly regular reports for the community instead of just the regular reports.

That would just take a slight adjustment from staff.

Um, in addition, on page three item six, when we're looking at the first bullet point agenda minutes and project updates, financial summaries are made publicly available, including but not limited to be published on a digital dashboard dashboard showing taxes collected and expended.

I think those would be two small changes that would also be in line with what we've heard from this bench and just small changes.

So I just wanted us getting moving in the right direction to make sure we're editing uh these guardrails as well.

And then really the last thing I know that uh Councilman Hoheisel and the mayor have both talked about this as well, um, regarding the rate relief water assistance program or leap program, if that can be a separate resolution also presented as part of I know you have resolution 26054, 26050, 26053, 26052, 26049, and 26051.

If that could be an additional one that talks about um if the um sales tax on food were not to pass the state uh legislative body, that that resolution would then be enacted.

Um, and that way there could be a separate resolution.

I don't think it makes sense to be tied in any of these, but as a separate concurrent resolution, if um so I just wanted to start the discussion of actual tangibles and guardrails, those would be the ones I have now.

I don't really have much more than that.

I know some of my colleagues will, but that way we're giving you guys direction right now.

I just did want to come back to one comment that was made on the property tax and tying it to a mill levy, and I certainly understand that.

Um there is the bill that we talked about earlier in the Kansas legislature for constitutional amendment that would cap property taxes.

Um, and and we need to be careful that we don't get into some budget law violation by saying we will or we shall or we must.

Um, and I know the voters want concrete guidelines, um, but a budget is a flexible thing, and there's a sales tax variable, there could be a property tax cap that would severely um hinder the city's finances in the next five years.

So I think we need to be careful in we're gonna guarantee something that we may not have the funds in five years to guarantee a four-mill levy.

And I'm talking in Mark's arena at this point, um, but that I think that's just something for us to think about that you need to maintain some sort of flexibility as we look at this long term, and there's a lot of variables.

I have a follow-up to that specific question or comment that you made.

If we do prioritize though, there are there would be funds in that specific initiative to be able to pay that four mil.

You have a hundred million dollars for if you're doing 20 million dollars worth of tax relief, that would get you through years one through five.

You got six and seven.

And I agree with you.

I just want to make sure that again community is asking for clarity on how much they expect as a homeowner, and then not only as a homeowner, but as a renter, as they are renting from individuals who own homes, what they may or may not see as a reduction in their property taxes.

So I think clarity saying four mils is if that is the intention of this body, and again, we haven't I'm counting who has said they want to prioritize first, and I see that there are already four people that want to prioritize, so I guess we can move to the property tax, but we have not reached consensus on the property tax portion.

So I want to make sure that we're all again in line with that conversation.

So let's start since you've uh asked about the property tax.

Who here is in favor of specifically saying there will be a four mil reduction?

I have questions first.

Sure.

Councilmember Ballard, thank you.

Sorry to interrupt.

Um I just need help trying to understand this.

How can we talk about lowering the mill when we can't afford we can't afford it already?

I mean, I didn't support lowering a half a mill or whatever it was a couple months ago.

We can't afford to do that.

It's one of the buckets in the right.

I understand, but I'm trying to I'm trying to understand we're just trading tax for tax.

So we're saving money in property tax and then taxing people, which I understand we're leaving a lot of money on the table with people coming into our community and all of that stuff, but I feel like I'm just missing something.

Like same, I think a little bit more clarification.

I know it's one of the buckets, and I understand, but I just the overall, but when we're talking about lowering the mill for four mills, I mean we can't we can't afford to do that as it is.

Because you can.

Sure.

Councilmember uh Vice Mayor Glass Cocktail.

Yeah, and so I'm going to go back to other communities that have done this as well and done this successfully.

This portion is to offset the property tax component.

So this portion of 150 million will allow for the property taxes.

Isn't going to affect the rest of the general fund that's currently funded by tax obligations.

This is funded exclusively through this additional sales tax revenue to be able to offset funds.

If you look at May's uh and their 2025 out initiative, said 15% of the sales tax revenues will be used to reduce ad valor and property taxes in the city.

They specifically addressed ad law and property tax in Haysville as well.

They did uh they reduced theirs by 10 percent of the revenues social.

We reduced to property taxes, and then um in addition, uh ours comes out to about 17.6 percent.

And so for this portion, it is a different mechanism or tool to be able to offer relief for families in the community.

So it's coming out of that one.

Yes, it's coming out of that 150.

Correct.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

I did have one question.

Um it talks about the um section one item three based on this amount under the property tax proclamation.

The city will pledge to utilize this amount of funding to relieve the tax levies upon taxable tangible property located within a city with continued compliance with the provisions of the state tax load law.

Can you give me a little background on the state tax load law?

Whoever might be the most familiar with it.

Council member clarify which resolution are you talking about?

260490.

053.

Yeah, I have it online.

It doesn't have the numbers at the top of the ones that we got online item three, which we go through.

So you're asking about item number three with relation to the revenue mutual rate.

Uh with the state tax law.

Okay.

Yeah, so yeah, we always prepare budgets and have a budget process it's in compliance with the state tax lid law.

So for the last and it changed maybe three or four years ago, and since then that's why there's been um the notice that the county clerk provides in July, and then um the hearings and so forth.

So um the compliance with the provisions of the tax legal law is really more related to process, I think, in this case.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I had all the background on that particular councilmember Shepard.

Thank you so much.

Um, Mayor, I will yield my time to anyone who doesn't have oh, never mind.

I have recommendations that I'd like to discuss if we're still on section two.

I think it'd be easier, Mayor.

I think you were mentioning going section by section.

I think we're currently on property tax right now, so resolution zero five three.

Okay, which is again property tax relief.

I just have a question then, Mayor, on property tax relief.

And um, again, I'm asking this question because I believe that the public wants to know the answer on this.

I think we all know the answer on this, but just for legal, I want to clarify that we are not able to per the Kansas Constitution tier who would qualify for that property tax relief, correct?

So for example, if we wanted to put in the resolution that homes or individuals who own homes at a certain value amount are the only people who qualify for that property tax relief.

That is not legal per the Kansas Constitution.

Correction question correctly.

I believe the answer is no, unless Sharon disagrees.

Okay.

I just I want the record to reflect that several council members have heard that we've asked about it, and unfortunately we are we are not able to do it.

It's not that we don't think it's a good idea, it's that we are not able to do that per the law.

So I'm back to um this four mil specific reduction.

Um I want to see who who is in favor because I asked the other one, which was about prioritization, and there were four that were willing to go to prioritization now in terms of specifically saying four mil reduction.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Mayor.

Um, I am not at this time until I get further clarification on the homestead tax rebate because I might figure into the actual mill levy number that we are aiming for.

So I'd like more time and waiting until the 10th to make sure we get all the information for that.

Vice Mayor Glasscock.

In favor of the resolution presented by staff and also pending uh confirmation.

I'm I would be comfortable with the four mill reduction.

If there could be a way to also say if the Senate or if the um legislative body were to pass something that would let's say they do pass the constitution amendment that would affect our ability to offer that or put us at any further risk.

I would just want the ability to have flexibility if the state legisl legislator put us at further risk.

Councilmember Shepard.

Thank you, Mayor, and I appreciate the question.

I echo the sentiments of council member Hoheisel without all of the proper information, especially um while I was campaigning saying that I would be a big supporter of the Homestead Act and looking into that, I would feel more comfortable until we know more information.

Councilmember Tuttle.

I concur with my colleagues.

I think we need more information, and I'm especially concerned about what's going to happen in Topeka because that could greatly impact us for the next year, how many years?

So I don't feel comfortable making a decision at this point, and I don't think we have to.

So thank you.

Councilmember Johnston.

I would also concur with that.

I think on all of these, we don't need to make a decision now.

We need to process it, vet it, and then come back and make a decision on the 10th.

Let the record show that I'm the only one that wanted, along with council member Glasscock, um that a four-mill reduction needs to be spelled out in a resolution so people understand that that's a concrete portion that will be funded uh through these sales taxes.

And without that, I will not be in favor of a lot of these uh things moving forward if I don't for sure know that four mills out of property taxes will be taken off.

So council member tunnel.

Thank you.

The board lit up, and I bet we're all gonna say the same thing.

None of us didn't agree with four mills.

We just said we want four mills and more information.

So I think it's unfair to say to make that statement and into the public.

So um I if I I'm not speaking for my colleagues, I never do and I never will, but we all blew up at the same time, so I'm anticipating that's why.

Thank you.

I will correct my statement by simply asking staff.

Um, can I please have two versions of uh section one three of resolution zero five three that specifically states out a four mil reduction and one without so that during the February 10th meeting, we can have that debate.

Thank you.

Councilmember Johnston.

Thank you, Mayor.

Uh, did not appreciate your first statement.

I mean, it's looked bad.

I said I was for four mils, so I don't appreciate that.

Uh I I much rather like your your statement now to give a couple different options, and we can talk about it again on the 10th.

So thank you.

Councilmember Hoheisel.

Thank you, Mayor.

I concur with uh council member Johnston.

And can I also please get a third draft that would include any uh potential homestead act um actions on that one as well, so we can make sure to have the full debate.

Did you want a separate resolution or do you want that to be part of 053?

Part of 053.

If it's permissible, if that actually works as far as a property tax language goes.

Councilmember Ballard.

Thank you, Mayor.

I think my colleagues uh already uh shared the the same concerns that I did.

I don't like words being put in my mouth, so I'll be looking forward to this continued conversation on February 10th.

Councilmember Shepherd.

Mayor, I appreciate the conversation we're having here.

I just I want to bring us back to a level of a purpose and engagement and what we're trying to do here today.

I agree with all of my colleagues who have spoken.

None of us disagree on the on the reduced mill levy.