⬚ figure

CommunityInvestmentsPlan

...a framework for the future, 2015-2035

A New Comprehensive Plan for Wichita-Sedgwick County

Adopted by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Planning Commission on November 19, 2015

Approved by the Wichita City Council on December 8, 2015

Approved by the Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners on January 20, 2016

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

(blank page)

CommunityInvestmentsPlan

...a framework for the future, 2015-2035

A New Comprehensive Plan for Wichita-Sedgwick County

Table of Contents

Plan Introduction and Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1

Plan Vision, Community Values and Guiding Principles ..................................................................... 9

Future Land Use Policies ........................................................................................................................................... 15

  2035 Urban Growth Areas Map .................................................................................................................... 19

  2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map ........................................................................................... 20

  Locational Guidelines .......................................................................................................................................... 22

  Wichita Urban Infill Strategy .......................................................................................................................... 25

Plan Elements .................................................................................................................................................................... 27

  Funding and Financing ....................................................................................................................................... 29

  Transportation ........................................................................................................................................................... 30

  Water, Sewer & Stormwater ........................................................................................................................... 31

  Arts, Culture and Recreation .......................................................................................................................... 33

  Public Safety .............................................................................................................................................................. 34

  Priority Enhancement Areas for Wichita Public Infrastructure Projects Map ..... 35

Plan Implementation ..................................................................................................................................................... 37

  Part 1. Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Framework ................................................ 39

  Part 2. Plan Monitoring, Review and Amendment ............................................................................ 42

Plan Steering Committee Members

Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department Staff Support

John Schlegel, Planning Director Dave Barber, Advanced Plans Manager Scott Knebel, Downtown Revitalization Manager Stephen Banks, Senior Planner Jess McNeely, Senior Planner Scott Wadle, Senior Planner Ashley Jones, Planning Aide Jim Schiffelbein, Planning Aide

central Rural JOBS areas 2035 CORE DOWNTOWN incorporated infill established DESIGN Quality of life development economic land use urban growth

Plan Introduction and Overview

(blank page)

Plan Introduction

Why This Plan

• The State of Kansas requires cities and counties to have a comprehensive plan in order to exercise authorized development reviews, and to guide spending decisions on public infrastructure and facilities.

• The current joint comprehensive plan for Wichita and Sedgwick County dates back to 1993. A new plan is needed in an era of diminishing revenues and fiscal constraint.

• A new joint comprehensive plan is needed to guide the future growth, development and public infrastructure investment decisions of Wichita and Sedgwick County (our community) over the next 20 years. Accordingly, this new plan is called the Community Investments Plan ... a framework for the future.

• This Plan will better guide the long-term capital improvement programs for Wichita and Sedgwick County in the overall Plan context of:

  Promoting economic growth and job creation

  Advancing community quality of life and safety

  Creating a community that will attract and retain future generations

Setting Our Public Infrastructure Investment Priorities

• Over many decades, investment in public infrastructure has shaped our community’s economy and quality of life. This investment has also influenced private investment decisions in Wichita and Sedgwick County.

• Current and future generations in Wichita and Sedgwick County will live with the infrastructure investment decisions we make today, just as we live with those decisions of past generations.

• The primary public infrastructure investment challenges our community faces over the next 20 years are determining:

  How best for the City of Wichita to grow

  How much and where best to spend or not spend in terms of future City and County public infrastructure and facility investment

  How to close the long-term gap between our future investment needs and wants and our projected revenues (ability to pay)

• The following graphic illustrates three key inter-related elements that ultimately shape our public infrastructure and facility investment decisions.

Community Investment Plan Development – Key Interrelated Elements

⬚ figure

Developing the Plan

This Plan has been developed by an 18-member Plan Steering Committee jointly appointed by the City and County, with technical support provided by staff from the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department, the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County. The Plan is reflective of the following considerations:

Existing Infrastructure Conditions Assessment (see Appendix for details)

• A comprehensive assessment of all Wichita and Sedgwick County infrastructure and facilities in 2011-12 revealed that 38% of Wichita's infrastructure is in a 'deficient/fair' condition (about 11% of the County's infrastructure is in a 'deficient/fair' condition).
• Costs of bringing existing deficient Wichita infrastructure (primarily local streets, aging water and sewer lines) up to standards is estimated at an additional $45-55 million annually.
• Ongoing existing infrastructure replacement costs are estimated to require an additional $102 million annually for Wichita.
• This situation is due in part to decades of under-investment in maintaining Wichita's local road, water and sewer infrastructure.

Community Trends and Challenges Ahead (see Appendix for details)

• Our infrastructure investment decisions and future growth will be influenced by the following fiscal/economic shifts:

  Diminishing state and federal funding for local infrastructure; Slowing locally generated revenues for Wichita and Sedgwick County; Rising costs of maintaining existing infrastructure and facilities; and, Slowing new job creation and employment growth rates.

Population and Employment Growth Projections: 2012 to 2035 (see Appendix for details)

This Plan has been developed with a baseline growth rate (0.83%) and an accelerated growth rate (1.25%) for annual population growth and associated employment growth projections in Wichita and Sedgwick County. The accelerated growth rate is reflected in the 2035 Urban Growth Areas Map and the 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map.

⬚ figure

Preferred Wichita 2035 Growth Scenario Development (see Appendix for details)

• Three 2035 growth scenarios were developed for Wichita to illustrate a range of possible growth patterns and associated infrastructure investment impacts. These scenarios were called Current Trends; Constrained Suburban Growth; and Suburban and Infill Growth Mix.

• Growth and development patterns depicted in the Suburban and Infill Growth Mix scenario reflected a more constrained suburban growth pattern combined with increased urban infill growth in Wichita’s mature urban neighborhoods (the Established Central Area). This scenario required the least amount of expansion to Wichita’s existing system of infrastructure, and placed greater investment priority on maintaining our existing infrastructure and transit system. This scenario became the basis for the development of the 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map.

• There is currently a $9-10 billion gap over the next 20 years between Wichita’s planned future infrastructure and facility expenditures and its projected revenues. Different growth scenarios alone won’t close this gap ... a combination of new revenues, shifting project priorities and reducing project expenditures will be necessary.

Listening to the Community (see Appendix for details)

• Most City and County residents may not be aware of the current condition of our public assets, nor may they be aware of current City and County spending plans for the maintenance and expansion of these assets. During the development of this Plan, ongoing efforts have been made to better inform and educate the community on these important issues.

• Public outreach initiatives have included a community-wide survey, eight informal public open house meetings, nine community discussion meetings and over 40 presentations to community/neighborhood groups, business organizations and service clubs. The web-based Activate Wichita engagement tool has also been utilized.

Plan Overview

Within the broader context of the 2035 Plan Vision Statement, Plan Guiding Policy Principles and the Future Land Use Policies, this Plan provides an Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Framework to guide future public investment decisions that best reflect our community’s highest priority needs and wants, and “willingness to spend” on public infrastructure. This Plan is comprised of the following components:

1. 2035 Plan Vision Statement and Core Community Values

⬚ figure

A general statement describing what we envision our community will be 20 years from now in terms of employment and quality of life opportunities:

“Building on our rich aviation and entrepreneurial heritage, Wichita-Sedgwick County is a global center of advanced manufacturing and high-tech industry and a premier service, education, health and retail center for South Central Kansas. People feel safe and enjoy affordable housing choices in diverse, vibrant neighborhoods offering unique quality living environments and active, healthy lifestyles with access to arts, culture and recreation.”

Seven core community values also collectively define our community approach and beliefs for the purposes of this Plan:

• Common-sense Approach
• Fiscal Responsibility
• Growth-oriented
• Inclusiveness and Connectivity
• Cultural Richness
• Vibrant Neighborhoods
• Quality Design

2. Plan Guiding Policy Principles

Five overarching themes and aspirations for our community’s future. They help set relative priorities at the broadest and highest levels for future public infrastructure and facility investment decisions:

⬚ figure

3. Future Land Use Policies

2035 Urban Growth Areas Map - Depicts the anticipated growth pattern and extension of city limits for the cities of Sedgwick County.

2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map - Depicts the preferred 2035 growth concept for Wichita based on projected population/employment growth rates.

Locational Guidelines - Encourages compatible and appropriate future land use change in Wichita and unincorporated Sedgwick County.

Wichita Urban Infill Strategy - Encourages appropriate infill development in Wichita’s Established Central Area.

Neighborhood and area plans adopted as elements of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan will provide additional land use policy guidance as applicable.

4. Plan Elements

A set of Plan Goals and Strategies to guide public infrastructure and facility investment decisions pertaining to each of the following Plan elements:

Funding and Financing - Guidance on how we should best fund and finance our public infrastructure and facilities.

Transportation - Guidance on how we should best invest in our transportation infrastructure and facilities.

Water, Sewer and Stormwater - Guidance on how we should best invest in our water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure and facilities.

Arts, Culture and Recreation - Guidance on how we should best invest in our arts, culture and recreation facilities.

Public Safety - Guidance on how we should best invest in our public safety facilities.

Priority Enhancement Areas for Wichita Public Infrastructure Projects Map - Guidance on priority areas for aesthetic enhancements to planned City of Wichita public improvements.

5. Plan Implementation

Part 1. Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Framework

This framework is intended to help close the long-term cost/revenue gap between our currently planned future infrastructure expenditures and our projected revenues. Three different levels of evaluation are recommended for both new and replacement infrastructure projects. This encourages best practices for public infrastructure investment decision-makers. It also enables strategic investment decision-making by aligning funding priorities with community priorities as reflected in the 2035 Plan Vision Statement, Core Community Values and Plan Guiding Policy Principles.

Part 2. Plan Monitoring, Review and Amendment

An ongoing, systematic approach to monitor community change, and review and amend the Plan so that it remains relevant and appropriate for our community.

Plan Appendix

Under separate documentation, the Plan Appendix contains important and relevant background information listed below that has been helpful in shaping the development of this Plan:

• Wichita 2035 Growth Scenarios
• Community Trends & Challenges Ahead
• Existing Conditions & Community Infrastructure Assessment
• Community Engagement

⬚ figure

(blank page)

⬚ figure

Plan Vision, Community Values and Guiding Principles

(blank page)

2035 Plan Vision Statement

The 2035 Plan Vision Statement below describes what kind of future we want to help make for our community over the next twenty years based on our public infrastructure and facility investment decisions.

“Building on our rich aviation and entrepreneurial heritage, Wichita-Sedgwick County is a global center of advanced manufacturing and high-tech industry and a premier service, education, health and retail center for South Central Kansas. People feel safe and enjoy affordable housing choices in diverse, vibrant neighborhoods offering unique quality living environments and active, healthy lifestyles with access to arts, culture and recreation.”

Core Community Values

Listed below are important Core Community Values that define our community approach and beliefs for the purposes of this Plan. These core values collectively provide the context in which the Plan Guiding Policy Principles will be accomplished:

• Common-sense Approach – pragmatic; market-driven; competitive; low tax burden; appropriate/simplified regulations only as necessary; strong belief in personal rights and property rights.
• Fiscal Responsibility – don’t spend more than you have; spend and invest wisely; take care of what you have; build on what you have; maximize ‘return-on-investment’.
• Growth-oriented – innovate; re-invent; diversify; entrepreneurial; positive ‘can-do’ attitude; the future holds hope and promise.
• Inclusiveness and Connectivity – easy to get around; social and technological accessibility.
• Cultural Richness – visual and performing arts; educational achievement; diversity of cuisine; strong community events and celebrations; philanthropy; community service; value racial diversity; community pride and heritage.
• Vibrant Neighborhoods – care about neighbors, value condition of property, take pride in quality of place and where we live.
• Quality Design – value public art, attractive and sustainable design, and community aesthetics.

Plan Guiding Policy Principles

The following Plan Guiding Policy Principles:

• Represent the overarching themes, aspirations and actions for our community’s future,
• Reflect the 2035 plan vision statement and our core community values,
• Guide future land use policies and the plan element goals and strategies,
• Help set relative priorities at the broadest and highest levels for future investment decisions and funding/expenditure reductions.

1. Support an Innovative, Vibrant and Diverse Economy

Without good jobs and opportunities for all to prosper, our vision and aspirations as a community cannot be achieved.

Core Community Value Elements

Common-sense Approach: Promote an environment of low taxes and reasonable regulation

Fiscal Responsibility: Target economic development investments in areas with the greatest public return

Growth-oriented: Focus on innovation and diversification for start-ups, entrepreneurship and growing existing businesses

Inclusiveness and Connectivity: Improve transportation connections to businesses for employees and customers of all incomes and abilities

Cultural Richness: Encourage a culture of corporate philanthropy and encourage culturally-diverse business areas

Vibrant Neighborhoods: Support neighborhood-scale business development

Quality Design: Utilize aesthetic and cohesive treatments in major business areas to encourage compatibility with adjacent businesses and residential areas

2 . Invest in the Quality of Our Community Life

Quality of life is important to both current and future residents of our community and is essential to support job growth and a strong economy.

<u>Core Community Value Elements</u>

Common-sense Approach: Ensure that basic services are delivered efficiently and effectively

Fiscal Responsibility: Make strategic investments in public resources and facilities that will benefit current and future residents

Growth-oriented: Foster quality of life amenities that attract and retain talented workers

Inclusiveness and Connectivity: Provide equitable access to arts, culture and recreation

Cultural Richness: Support broad-based diversity in quality of life opportunities, events and facilities

Vibrant Neighborhoods: Provide safe, active and healthy living environments in all neighborhoods

Quality Design: Make strategic investments in iconic facilities that create a community of distinction

3 . Take Better Care of What We Already Have

Maintaining and preserving existing infrastructure and community facilities is a high priority for citizens, supports economic growth and quality of life/place, and makes sound fiscal sense.

<u>Core Community Value Elements</u>

Common-sense Approach: Invest in maintenance first

Fiscal Responsibility: Establish long-term maintenance programs based on asset life-cycle

Growth-oriented: Leverage maintenance investments to promote infill development

Inclusiveness and Connectivity: Take a systems and networks-based approach

Cultural Richness: Re-invest in public facilities and infrastructure throughout our community

Vibrant Neighborhoods: Invest in existing neighborhood stability, redevelopment and growth

Quality Design: Consider life-cycle costs

⬚ figure

4 . Make Strategic, Value-added Investment Decisions

Our limited public resources must be focused on infrastructure and community facility investments that best support the vision for our future. Priority will be given to projects that support economic growth and job diversification, are multi-purposed and have multiple impacts for the greatest benefit to our community.

<u>Core Community Value Elements</u>

Common-sense Approach: Use the comprehensive plan to guide capital improvement programming

Fiscal Responsibility: Ensure that our investments are scale-appropriate and maximize economic and social returns that are measurable

Growth-oriented: Tie major infrastructure investments to economic development

Inclusiveness and Connectivity: Focus major transportation investments on critical community-wide connections

Cultural Richness: Make strategic long-term investments in cultural facilities

Vibrant Neighborhoods: Use multi-faceted and strategic approaches

Quality Design: Use context-sensitive design for infrastructure projects

5 . Provide for Balanced Growth but with Added Focus on Our Established Neighborhoods

Growth can be expected to occur in all parts of our community and should be supported. Established neighborhoods will receive more attention than has been given in previous comprehensive plans in order to promote growth and maintain vibrancy/quality of place.

<u>Core Community Value Elements</u>

Common-sense Approach: Target areas of greatest opportunity

Fiscal Responsibility: Establish a funding mechanism for the additional maintenance costs of existing and new infrastructure

Growth-oriented: Support growth in all areas of our community

Inclusiveness and Connectivity: Promote physical, social and economic accessibility and connectivity for all

Cultural Richness: Enhance existing cultural facilities

Vibrant Neighborhoods: Focus growth in established neighborhoods and encourage infill development programs

Quality Design: Support infill project designs that enhance value in existing neighborhoods

⬚ figure

This page intentionally blank.

⬚ figure

Future Land Use Policies

(blank page)

Future Land Use Policies

Introduction

The purpose of the Future Land Use Policies is to encourage orderly growth that meets future market demand while considering impacts to taxpayers, developers, the environment, and the community as a whole while protecting individual property rights. These policies reflect the 2035 Plan Vision Statement, Core Community Values, and Plan Guiding Policy Principles and guide future land use through the ongoing comprehensive planning process.

The Future Land Use Policies are comprised of the following four components which are described in this section of the Plan:

1. 2035 Urban Growth Areas Map Depicts anticipated long-term growth patterns for the cities of Sedgwick County. These areas are not prescriptive or binding in nature but serve as a reasonable indication as to where the future efficient and fiscally responsible extension of public infrastructure, services, and corporate limits could occur by 2035.

2. 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map Depicts the preferred 2035 future growth concept for Wichita. This concept is based upon projected population and employment growth rates, reflects the Plan Guiding Policy Principles, and strategically guides future public investment that supports the growth of Wichita.

3. Locational Guidelines Provide a framework for decision-making regarding land use changes so as to: encourage patterns of development that efficiently and effectively use land, public infrastructure, and services; strive for compatibility among various land uses; and, promote quality of place through design.

4. Wichita Urban Infill Strategy Focuses on Wichita’s Established Central Area (comprised of the downtown core and the mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three mile radius) and ‘areas of opportunity’ within it that have the most vacant/underutilized parcels where infill development can reverse patterns of abandonment and decline. The strategy provides a framework for addressing: regulatory barriers; infrastructure in need of modernization; neighborhood concerns about different housing types or incompatible uses; difficulties with land assembly and financing; and, preserving areas of stability.

These four components constitute the Future Land Use Policies. To ensure needed flexibility in the application of the Future Land Use Policies, it is important to continue to modify land use implementation tools such as the zoning and subdivision regulations to maintain consistency with the Plan as it is amended in the future.

Adopted Neighborhood and Area Plans

Neighborhood and area plans adopted as elements of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan will provide additional land use policy guidance as applicable, to supplement the overall guidance provided by the Future Land Use Policies.

⬚ figure

1. 2035 Urban Growth Areas Map

(Refer to fold-out map on page 19)

2. 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map

(Refer to fold-out map on page 20) The 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map visually portrays the goals and policies of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan. It generally illustrates anticipated development patterns and provides a generalized guide to future land use, development and rezoning decisions within the City of Wichita and its 2035 urban growth area. The categories shown are intended to provide a generalized guide to land use based upon functional use classifications, rather than by type of facility or type of ownership. The small-scale nature of the map does not allow for detailed assessment on an individual parcel basis. Suitability of future development at the site-specific, facility level needs to be determined based upon existing land uses and zoning, along with the Locational Guidelines and Wichita Urban Infill Strategy, as applicable. Development proposals that do not exactly match these guides but reflect market place demand should be given reasonable consideration, if they do not present extraordinary new public infrastructure or service burdens on the community.

Established Central Area: Comprised of the downtown core and the mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three mile radius, the Established Central Area is the focus area for the Wichita Urban Infill Strategy.

New Residential: Encompasses areas of land that likely will be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses predominately found in the Residential category. Pockets of Major Institutional and Commercial uses likely will be developed within this area as well, based upon market-driven location factors. In certain areas, especially those in proximity to existing industrial uses, highways, rail lines, and airports, pockets of Industrial Uses likely will be developed.

New Employment: Encompasses areas that likely will be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses that constitute centers or concentrations of employment primarily in manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, construction, research, technology, business services, or corporate offices. Major shopping centers and office parks likely will be developed within this area as well, based upon market driven location factors. In certain areas, especially those in proximity to existing residential uses, higher density housing and convenience retail centers likely will be developed. In areas where the uses are already established, pockets of industrial uses associated with extraction, processing or refinement of natural resources or recycling of waste materials likely will be developed.

⬚ figure

New Residential/Employment Mix: Encompasses areas of land that likely will be developed or redeveloped by 2035 with uses predominately of a mixed nature. Due to the proximity of higher intensity businesses uses, residential housing types within this area likely will be higher density. Due to the proximity of residential uses, employment uses likely will have limited negative impacts associated with noise, hazardous emissions, visual blight, and odor.

2035 Urban Growth Areas Map

(This map is not reflective of the Zoning Areas of Influence in Sedgwick County)

The 2035 Urban Growth Areas Map visually portrays the anticipated growth patterns for the cities of Sedgwick County. Municipal growth patterns that do not exactly match this guide but reflect marketplace demands should be given reasonable consideration, if they do not present extraordinary new public service burdens on the community. It is also important to note that the 2035 urban growth areas depicted are not prescriptive or binding in nature. They serve only as a reasonable indication as to where the future efficient extension of public municipal services and corporate limits could occur by the year 2035.

Small City Urban Growth Areas: Generally located adjacent to existing municipal boundaries, these areas indicate the likely direction and magnitude of growth these communities can expect to experience out to the year 2035. Determination of growth direction and amount is based upon municipal political considerations, anticipated municipal population growth, efficient patterns of municipal growth, current infrastructure limitations, cost effective delivery of future municipal services and environmental factors.

Wichita Urban Growth Area: Areas adjacent to Wichita that are primarily undeveloped but have the potential to be developed by the year 2035, based upon Wichita population growth projections and current market trends. This is the area in which City expansion and extension of municipal services and infrastructure should be focused. Determination of growth direction and amount is based upon municipal political considerations, anticipated population growth, efficient patterns of growth, current infrastructure limitations, cost effective delivery of future municipal services and environmental factors.

Established Central Area: Comprised of the downtown core and the mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three mile radius, the Established Central Area is the focus area for the Wichita Urban Infill Strategy.

K-96 Special Uses Corridor: Encompasses areas identified in the K-96 Corridor Economic Development Plan that require special land use controls in order to ensure appropriate patterns of commercial redevelopment within the K-96 corridor. The K-96 Corridor Economic Development Plan should be consulted for more specific future land use direction.

Industrial, Improvement, Sedgwick County Park, & McConnell AFB District: Encompasses areas within the Wichita Urban Growth Area where various legal agreements have been established to restrict Wichita city limits expansion and provide for shared delivery of municipal services by the City of Wichita, Sedgwick County, and townships.

Rural: This category encompasses land outside the 2035 urban growth areas for Wichita and the small cities. Agricultural uses, rural-based businesses, and larger lot residential exurban subdivisions likely will be developed in this area. Such development should occur in accordance with the Urban Fringe Development Standards for Wichita and Sedgwick County.

Adopted by the Sedgwick County Commission on August 13, 2025 (Resolution No. 217-2025) and Wichita City Council on July 22, 2025 (Ordinance No. 52-764)

It is understood that while the City of Wichita Geographical Information Systems Department have no indication and reason to believe that there are inaccuracies in information incorporated in the base map, GIS personnel make no warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, with respect to the information, or data displayed. Note: Public property represented on this map is not intended to be inclusive.

⬚ figure

2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map

Legend

Established Central Area

New Residential/Employment Areas

• Residential and Employment Mix
• New Employment
• New Residential
• Wichita City Limits
• Other Cities
• Northwest Bypass Right-of-Way

Land Use

• Major Institutional
• Residential
• Commercial
• Industrial
• Major Air Transportation & Military
• Parks and Open Space
• Agricultural or Vacant
• Neighborhood Area & Plans 2025

New Residential/Employment Areas

• Small City Urban Growth Areas
• Small City Urban Growth Areas
• Rural Growth Areas

This map does not reflect the Urban Areas of Influence. Adopted by Sedgwick County Commission on August 13, 2025 (Resolution No. 217-2025) and Wichita City Council on July 22, 2025 (Ordinance No. 52-764)

It is understood that while the City of Wichita Data Geographical Information Systems Department have no indication and reason to believe that there are inaccuracies in information incorporated in the base map, the GIS personnel make no warranty or representation, either expressed or implied, with respect to the information, or data displayed. Note: Public property represented on this map is not intended to be inclusive. 4/2013

⬚ figure

Residential: Encompasses areas that reflect the full diversity of residential development densities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. The range of housing densities and types includes, but is not limited to, single-family detached homes, semi-detached homes, zero lot line units, patio homes, duplexes, townhouses, apartments and multi-family units, condominiums, mobile home parks, and special residential accommodations for the elderly (assisted living, congregate care and nursing homes). Elementary and middle schools, churches, playgrounds, small parks and other similar residential-serving uses are located in these areas.

Commercial: Encompasses areas that reflect the full diversity of commercial development intensities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. Convenience retail, restaurants, small offices, and personal service uses are located in close proximity to, and potentially mixed with, Residential Uses. Major destination areas (centers and corridors) containing concentrations of commercial and office uses that have regional market areas and generate high volumes of traffic are located in close proximity to major arterials or highways and typically are buffered from lower density residential areas by higher density housing types.

Industrial: Encompasses areas that reflect the full diversity of industrial development intensities and types typically found in a large urban municipality. Centers or concentrations of manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, construction, research, and technology are located in close proximity to highways and airports and may have rail service. Industrial uses associated with the extraction, processing or refinement of natural resources or recycling of waste materials typically are located along rail lines. Businesses with negative impacts associated with noise, hazardous emissions, visual blight, and odor typically are buffered from Residential Uses by Commercial Uses.

Major Air Transportation & Military: Encompasses areas that are developed with airports, airfields, and military installations. The areas surrounding these areas, particularly immediately in proximity to areas used for take-off and approach to runways, should be protected from encroachment by uses that are negatively impacted by high levels of noise.

Parks and Open Space: Includes major parks, golf courses, public open space, private development reserves and recreational facilities/corridors (including floodplain, natural drainage channels, easements, abandoned railway corridors, etc.). More detailed maps and policies are contained in the Wichita Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Plan.

⬚ figure

Agricultural or Vacant: Encompasses areas that are undeveloped or used for agricultural production. Agricultural land is an important natural resource. Pockets of low-density residential uses without the full range of municipal services likely will be developed in areas of the urban fringe that primarily are used for agriculture. Such development should occur in accordance with the Urban Fringe Development Standards for Wichita and Sedgwick County and should be developed in a manner that facilitates future connection to municipal services when they become available.

Major Institutional: Includes institutional facilities of a significant size and scale of operation and could include a range of such uses as government facilities, libraries, high schools, colleges, universities, cemeteries, and hospitals.

⬚ figure

Neighborhood/Area Plan: Adopted neighborhood and area plans have been designated on the map. These plans should be consulted for specific future land use direction.

3. Locational Guidelines

The Locational Guidelines provide a decision-making framework regarding land use changes. This decision-making framework is comprised of three key elements - Development Pattern, Land Use Compatibility, and Design. These elements encourage patterns of development that efficiently and effectively use land, public infrastructure, and services; strive for compatibility among various land uses; and, promote quality of place through design. Within each of these elements, guidance is provided according to the following geographic areas:

1. General (applicable throughout the entire Plan area)
2. Established Central Area (specific to the downtown core and the mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three mile radius)
3. Outside Established Central Area (specific to the remaining incorporated areas of Wichita outside the Established Central Area, and also including Wichita's 2035 Urban Growth Area)
4. Rural Area (specific to the unincorporated areas of Sedgwick County located outside the 2035 Urban Growth Areas)

These Locational Guidelines should be used with a sense of flexibility supplemented by guidance contained in neigh-borhood and area plans adopted as elements of this Plan; small city comprehensive plans; and other state-of-the-art planning principles and practices as circumstances warrant.

Development Pattern

1. General

    a. Development should occur where necessary supporting infrastructure and services exist or are planned for extension concurrently with the development.

        “...strive for compatibility among various land uses; and, promote quality of place through design...”

    b. Discourage development from occurring in aquifer recharge, flood prone, high ground water, wetland, and unsuitable soil areas.

    c. Major commercial and employment centers should be located at intersections of arterial streets and along highways and commercial corridors.

    d. Industrial uses should be located in areas with good access to highways, rail lines, and airports.

    e. Higher-density residential uses and neighborhood-serving retail and office uses should buffer lower-density residential uses from major commercial and employments centers and industrial uses.

    f. Primary outdoor sales uses should be located along highway corridors or in areas where the uses have already been established.

    g. Support expansion of existing uses to adjacent areas.

    h. Development near primary and secondary gateways identified on the Priority Enhancement Areas for Wichita Public Infrastructure Projects Map should be oriented primarily towards destination retail (such as: regional shopping centers, entertainment complexes, national retailers with limited locations) and hospitality.

2. Established Central Area

    a. Encourage infill development that maximizes public investment in existing and planned infrastructure and services.

    b. Promote mixed-use redevelopment of existing commercial centers and along arterial streets.

    c. Promote downtown as the region's preeminent walk-

⬚ figure

able, mixed-use development area with a focus on office, retail, hospitality, government services, high-density residential, and entertainment, cultural, and civic facilities and activities.

3. Outside Established Central Area

a. Strip commercial development along arterials should be discouraged except along established commercial corridors and highways.

b. Major commercial development should be guided to the intersection of two arterial streets.

c. Small, neighborhood-serving retail and offices uses and high-density residential uses not located at arterial intersections should be limited to the intersection of an arterial and a collector street.

d. Low-density residential uses should be buffered from commercial and industrial areas by open space, water bodies, changes in topography, or major barriers such as arterial streets or highways.

e. New development areas separated from existing developed areas by major barriers (such as: highways, railroads, waterways, and airports) or by significant open space or undeveloped areas should be discouraged unless the scale of the development is sufficient to support the cost of extending infrastructure and services in a manner that sup-

⬚ figure

ports additional development on surrounding sites.

f. New development in areas where city growth areas abut should be coordinated among the affected cities, particularly as it relates to street connectivity and land use compatibility.

4. Rural Area

a. Outside the 2035 Urban Growth Areas, commercial/industrial development should be limited to the following: agricultural-oriented uses; rural home occupations; natural resource dependent; convenience services; highway-oriented services at interchange areas; or uses that need significant buffering from residential areas (to mitigate nuisance or hazard impacts).

b. Urban-density development is discouraged from locating in rural areas, and rural-density development should be located in accordance to the Urban Fringe Development Standards for Wichita and Sedgwick County.

Land Use Compatibility

1. General

a. Higher-intensity development should be discouraged from locating in areas of existing lower-intensity development, particularly established low-density residential areas.

b. Industrial and major commercial land uses that generate pollution, odor, noise, light, safety hazards, and high levels of traffic should be located away from residential areas and developed with screening, buffering, and site design features sufficient to mitigate adverse impacts.

c. Residential development should not encroach upon existing or planned heavy industry, airfields, and military installations.

d. Manufactured home parks (as distinguished from manufactured home subdivisions) should be located on large

tracts and buffered from lower-density residential areas by physical barriers (e.g., freeways, drainage ways, railway, etc.).

2. Established Central Area a. Neighborhood-serving retail and office uses and high-density residential uses can be appropriate along arterial streets on small infill sites near residential uses or through conversions of residential structures if appropriate site design features that limit traffic, noise, lighting, and adverse impacts on surrounding residential are provided and the scale of the development is appropriate for its context.

b. Accessory dwelling units, duplexes, and small-scale multi-family developments can be appropriate in existing residential areas if appropriate site design limits adverse impacts on surrounding residential uses, the design of the buildings is compatible with existing residences, and the scale of the development is compatible with the intensity of the surrounding area.

3. Outside Established Central Area a. Except in mixed-use developments, residential and non-residential development areas generally should be separate and distinct with appropriate screening and buffering to ensure compatibility among land uses while maintaining connectivity among uses.

⬚ figure

b. Mixed-use developments should provide appropriate screening and buffering to ensure compatibility with surrounding lower-intensity land uses while maintaining connectivity among uses.

4. Rural Area a. Discourage encroachment of land uses such as residential and recreation that would be negatively impacted by noise, dust, odor, light, and other impacts of agricultural operations into primarily agricultural areas outside the 2035 Urban Growth Areas.

b. Industrial and commercial uses located in rural areas should be separate and distinct from lower-intensity lands uses and should provide appropriate screening and buffering to ensure compatibility among land uses.

Design

1. General

⬚ figure

a. Commercial centers, office parks, and mixed-use developments should be designed with shared internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation, combined signage, coordinated landscaping and building design, and combined ingress/egress locations.

b. Ingress/egress locations to non-residential uses generally should not access residential streets unless such access will not negatively impact nearby residential areas, except that industrial traffic should not feed directly into local streets in residential areas.

c. Driveways and intersections along major thoroughfares should be limited to maintain safe and efficient mobility. Medians should be used when appropriate to limit turning conflicts, particularly near arterial intersections. Pedestrian crossings of arterial streets should be provided between arterial intersections.

d. Except in mixed-use development areas, non-residential uses should provide appropriate screening and buffering from residential uses.

e. Non-residential uses should have site design features that limit traffic, noise, lighting, and adverse impacts on surrounding residential land uses.

f. Major commercial and employment centers and institutional and government services should be designed to accommodate convenient transit service, particularly for those with mobility challenges.

g. Building entrances should be oriented to the street or internal circulation drives that connect to the street and designated pedestrian connections should be provided from building entrances to the street.

h. Development abutting the targeted arterials, Kellogg freeway, gateways, and landmarks identified on the

Priority Enhancement Areas for Wichita Infrastructure Projects Map should consider the inclusion of site design features that increase the sense of quality of life through emphasis of visual character and aesthetic improvements.

2. Established Central Area a. Support development of a variety of lot sizes and housing types. b. Buildings are encouraged to be located close to the street with parking areas located beside or behind buildings. c. Commercial and mixed-used developments are encouraged to have building entrances, transparent facades, and outdoor patios adjacent to the sidewalk.

3. Outside Established Central Area a. Low-density residential lots should not front directly onto arterial streets. b. Layout of blocks within neighborhoods should promote direct pedestrian connectivity within the neighborhood and to adjacent neighborhoods and surrounding commercial centers and institutional uses.

4. Rural Area a. Layout of blocks that provide a single point of access to a neighborhood should be discouraged.

4. Wichita Urban Infill Strategy

Infill refers to developing vacant or underutilized land in existing developed areas. By absorbing growth in existing developed areas, residential and employment-based infill development can reduce growth pressure on rural areas; provide for efficient use of land; utilize existing infrastructure and services; and improve the quality of life in areas experiencing abandonment and decline. However, infill development can be inhibited by regulatory barriers, infrastructure in need of modernization, neighborhood concerns about different housing types or incompatible uses, and difficulties with land assembly and financing.

The Wichita Urban Infill Strategy is focused on the Established Central Area – comprised of the downtown core and the mature neighborhoods surrounding it in a roughly three mile radius (see 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept Map). Increased levels of residential infill/redevelopment throughout the Established Central Area will represent 12% of total new dwelling units forecasted for Wichita by 2035 (a threefold increase from current trends).

The strategy focuses on ‘areas of opportunity’ that have the most vacant and underutilized parcels where infill development can reverse patterns of abandonment and decline. The strategy also is intended to preserve ‘areas of stability’ where few vacant and underutilized parcels exist and a pattern of continued reinvestment is evident. Neighborhood and area plans adopted as elements of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan will provide additional land use policy guidance as applicable.

Areas of Opportunity

Defining Characteristics: Areas of opportunity are areas in the community where focused efforts on infill development can have the most success. The defining characteristics of areas of opportunity are generally higher than average and increasing:

• Vacant parcels
• Vacancy rates
• Renter-occupied dwelling units
• Structures in fair or worse condition
• Nuisance complaints
• Building demolitions
• Infrastructure below standard

⬚ figure

Guiding Principle: Larger-scale, multi-property infill projects should be guided to areas of opportunity to maximize public investment in existing and planned infrastructure and services.

Areas of Stability

Defining Characteristics: Areas of stability are areas in the community where infill development opportunities are limited by the lack of available land. Areas of stability have few vacant parcels and higher than average occupancy rates. A majority of the structures are in average or better condition and owner-occupied. There are few nuisance complaints and building demolitions, and much of the infrastructure is at or above standard.

Guiding Principle: Infill development should be limited to projects on individual or small sites with a scale of development appropriate for its context. Infill projects should complement existing neighborhood development and incorporate site design features that limit traffic, noise, lighting, and adverse impacts on surrounding properties.

Neighborhood Concerns

Issue: Infill development changes a neighborhood. While redevelopment projects can be of the appropriate scale and have the necessary design features to mitigate adverse impacts on surrounding properties, current processes make it difficult for neighborhoods to visualize the proposed changes and have meaningful input into project design.

Strategy: Establish a participatory neighborhood planning program to prepare neighborhood design guidelines for areas of opportunity prior to construction of large-scale, multi-property infill projects. Also develop basic infill development guidelines that would be applicable throughout the Established Central Area.

Regulatory Issues

Issue: Our traditional development regulations are geared toward suburban-scale, auto-oriented development requirements (such as: parking, setbacks, density, landscaping, screening, etc.). To promote greater levels of more walkable, urban-scale infill projects, regulatory changes are required.

Strategy: Amend development regulations to better encourage by-right infill development projects.

Infrastructure Modernization

Issue: Many of the areas where the opportunity for infill development exist are also the areas with the most substandard infrastructure. While infrastructure may be in place, it often cannot support additional development, and the layout and design of the infrastructure often must be changed to support the configuration of infill.

“...infill development projects often do not qualify for conventional financing because the appraised value of a project is less than the cost of development...”

Strategy: Develop and implement a long-range plan for major infrastructure maintenance projects that focuses infrastructure investment in areas of opportunity in a manner supportive of infill development efforts.

Land Assembly and Financing

Issue: Profitable infill development opportunities are difficult to find. Once an area experiences a few successful projects, the remaining available land often increases in value beyond a level at which additional projects can be profitable. Additionally, infill development projects often do not qualify for conventional financing because the appraised value of project is less than the cost of development.

Strategy: Establish a public-private relationship to support infill development through market research, design assistance, and financing opportunities.

⬚ figure

Plan Elements

(blank page)

Plan Element-

Funding and Financing

Plan Context & Perspective - According to Kansas statutes, a specific requirement of a city and county comprehensive plan is to identify major sources and expenditures of public revenue including long range financial plans for the financing of public facilities and capital improvements. For the purposes of this Plan, the term ‘funding’ is used to describe the various sources of revenue available for spending/investing. The term ‘financing’ is used to describe the various means by which funding is leveraged, combined and utilized for spending/investing purposes.

One of the Core Community Values of this Plan is fiscal responsibility. This value embodies the following principles ... don't spend more than you have; spend and invest wisely; take care of what you have; and maximize the ‘return-on-investment’.

Presently, there is an estimated $9-10 billion gap over the next 20 years between Wichita’s planned future infrastructure and facility expenditures and its projected revenues. A key challenge of this Plan is how to close that gap over the long-term. Our choices are essentially increasing revenues (through taxes and fees), decreasing expenditures (utilizing alternate approaches or standards; reducing scope and scale of projects; deferring or eliminating projects), and learning to live within the funding and financing resources available to local government.

From a public infrastructure funding and financing perspective, the preferred option of closing the projected expenditure and revenue gap over the long term is to better align expenditures with available funding and financing resources. While opportunities to increase revenues may present themselves in the future, there are more opportunities to improve how budget allocations are made for capital improvements.

"...better align expenditures with available funding and financing resources..."

"...there is an estimated $9-10 billion gap over the next 20 years between Wichita's planned future infrastructure and facility expenditures and its projected revenues..."

Our Funding and Financing Goals & Strategies

Strategies: A. Strategically leverage public and private funding where possible. B. Decrease project costs through a combination of reduced or alternate project approaches or standards; reduced project scale and scope; and, project deferral or elimination. C. Identify long-term maintenance and replacement costs for all capital improvement program projects. Include ongoing maintenance and operations budgets as part of the overall project cost. D. Align infrastructure and facility funding to reflect the maintenance and replacement costs associated with that infrastructure or facility.

Strategies: A. Align utility fees, user fees and taxes to reflect the cost of providing facilities and services at standards acceptable to our community. B. Align our public infrastructure and facility investments with the willingness of our community to pay for them. C. In 1985, Sedgwick County voters approved a county-wide one-cent sales tax to help maintain or construct road projects as well as reduce property tax. The one-cent sales tax revenue distribution formula is determined by statute and is based on local jurisdiction property tax mill levy rates as well as population.

Strategies: A. Fund public infrastructure and facilities based upon the following overall ranking of spending and investment priorities:

1. Maintain and replace what we currently have;
2. Make enhancements to what we currently have;
3. Expand our current system of infrastructure and facility assets.

B. Focus funding on infrastructure and facilities that will advance our community quality of life, create a place that will retain future generations, and promote economic growth and job creation.

C. Focus funding on infrastructure and facilities that will maintain vibrancy, promote growth and secure quality of place in the Established Central Area of Wichita.

D. Review existing public infrastructure and facility assets to determine those assets which should no longer be retained by the City or County due to duplication/redundancies with private sector facilities, functional obsolescence, and/or changing community investment priorities.

Plan Element -

Transportation

Plan Context & Perspective - The realization of the 2035 Plan Vision Statement is dependent upon our community having a safe, reliable and well-connected transportation system that strategically supports economic growth and community quality of life. The term “transportation” refers to the movement of goods, people and information. Our transporta-

⬚ figure

“...additional expenditures are needed to maintain Wichita’s local road system...”

tion infrastructure constitutes a basic yet essential, community-sustaining investment.

Wichita’s freeway and bridge infrastructure are in good condition overall with adequate system capacity. The County’s road and bridge infrastructure are in very good repair and condition. However, decades of under-investment and deferred maintenance in Wichita’s local road system has required the City to develop an enhanced maintenance strategy for its local road infrastructure. Additional expenditures are needed to maintain Wichita’s local road system.

Decades of under-investment in Wichita’s long-established public transit system have resulted in minimal service levels, low ridership and future financial instability. Additional investment in Wichita’s public transit system would be needed in order to achieve the system’s financial stability and retain public transit service. Opportunities for alternate, innovative solutions must be pursued.

For Wichita, the level of investment priority over the next 20 years varies across the major transportation infrastructure categories as follows: Very high priority - local streets and bridges Medium-high priority - public transit Low-medium priority - freeway enhancements Low priority - new bypasses

For Sedgwick County, the level of investment priority over the next 20 years varies across the major transportation infrastructure categories as follows: Very high priority - local streets and bridges Medium-high priority - freeway enhancements Medium priority - new bypasses Low priority - public transit

Our Transportation Goals & Strategies

<u>Strategies:</u>

A. Develop and implement a transportation asset management system that effectively uses available funds.

B. Make transportation infrastructure investments, particularly integrated transportation technology enhancements, that support and reflect Wichita’s 2035 Future Growth Concept and Urban Infill Strategy.

C. Allocate additional funding for the long-term maintenance and replacement of Wichita’s existing local road and bridge infrastructure.

D. Invest in new or existing transportation infrastructure that directly supports additional job growth, especially of an advanced manufacturing or high-tech nature.

<u>Strategies:</u>

A. Develop and implement a community-wide, public and/or private broadband infrastructure and high-speed internet access plan to support future job and employment growth.

B. Develop and implement a long-term transit system plan that reflects the needs of our community.

C. Improve our community connectivity and safety through the implementation of Wichita’s Bicycle Master Plan and Pedestrian Master Plan, and promoting linkages to surrounding cities in the County.

D. Coordinate and integrate local transportation infrastructure plans with the Wichita Area Metropolitan Area Organization (WAMPO) long-range regional transportation infrastructure plan.

Plan Element -

Water, Sewer and Stormwater

Plan Context & Perspective - The realization of the 2035 Plan Vision Statement is predicated upon our community securing a long-term water supply, and having well-maintained water treatment/distribution, sewer collection/treatment and stormwater/flood management systems. These constitute essential, community-sustaining services. They represent a basic yet essential public investment that supports future job growth and a strong economy.

Decades of under-investment and deferred maintenance in Wichita’s water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure requires the City to be aggressive in protecting what assets it already has (especially replacing aging pipe infrastructure) and making future water and sewer facility enhancements to meet required treatment and discharge standards. Additional investment in our community water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure and facilities is necessary ... securing a long-term water supply is critical to the future of our community.

“...securing a long-term water supply is critical to the future of our community...”

The funding/financing, maintenance, replacement and enhancement of our public water, sewer and stormwater infrastructure and facilities is a high-very high investment need for our community over the long term.

⬚ figure

Our Water, Sewer and Stormwater Goals & Strategies

<u>Strategies:</u>

A. Develop and implement Wichita’s long-term water sup-

⬚ figure

ply, treatment and distribution plans to reflect and accommodate Wichita's 2035 Future Growth Concept and Urban Infill Strategy (including long-term population and employment growth projections).

B. Develop and implement a Wichita water supply funding/financing plan that enables our community to make those investments necessary to secure an affordable, long-term water supply.

C. Develop and implement a Wichita water funding/financing plan that identifies appropriate water rate adjustments necessary to properly maintain Wichita's water infrastructure over the long-term.

D. Place a very high investment priority on properly maintaining and replacing Wichita's aging, existing water distribution system.

E. Develop and implement a Wichita water conservation and drought-response plan that is relevant to our community's need and supported by our community.

F. Create a task force comprised of appropriate representatives from the City of Wichita and other affected cities, the local land development community, and the rural water districts to identify workable long-term solutions to compensatory and logistical issues associated with continued urban growth and development within the rural water districts in Sedgwick County.

Strategies:

A. Develop and implement Wichita's long-term sewer collection and treatment plans to reflect and accommodate Wichita's 2035 Future Growth Concept and Urban Infill Strategy (including long-term population and employment growth projections).

B. Develop and implement a Wichita sewer funding/financing plan that identifies appropriate sewer rate adjustments necessary to properly maintain Wichita's sewer infrastructure over the long-term.

C. Place a very high investment priority on properly maintaining and replacing Wichita's aging, existing sewer collection system.

D. Invest to ensure that Wichita's sewer collection and treatment infrastructure and facilities meet required standards and long-term community needs.

E. Ensure that appropriate local regulations are in place that provide for the compatible, long-term co-existence of city water and sewer infrastructure systems with self-contained, independent sewer collection and water distribution systems.

⬚ figure

Strategies:

A. Develop and implement long-term stormwater management plans that reflect and accommodate Wichita's 2035 Future Growth Concept and Urban Infill Strategy (including long-term population and employment growth projections), and address county-wide stormwater and flooding issues.

B. Develop and implement a county-wide stormwater funding/financing plan that will raise sufficient revenues needed to plan and construct stormwater project improvements with regional, county-wide or multi-jurisdiction benefits.

C. Develop and implement a Wichita stormwater funding/financing plan that determines appropriate ERU (equivalent residential unit) rate adjustments necessary to properly fund the maintenance and repair of Wichita’s stormwater infrastructure over the long-term.

D. Make the investments necessary to properly maintain and replace our existing stormwater infrastructure and facilities.

E. Maintain and implement stormwater management standards that meet mandated requirements but do not place undue burdens on development or redevelopment.

F. Integrate park and open space improvements where appropriate and cost-effective as part of stormwater management system infrastructure improvements.

Plan Element -

Arts, Culture and Recreation

Plan Context & Perspective - Having a “quality living environment and active, healthy lifestyles with access to arts, culture and recreation” is specifically referenced in the 2035 Plan Vision Statement. One of the five Plan Guiding Policy Principles is to Invest in the Quality of Our Community Life. It is evident that community quality of life investments are important to residents of our community and are an essential means of supporting future job growth and a strong economy.

Arts, culture and recreation quality of life investments refer to capital, maintenance and operational spending in the general categories of parks and open space; recreation facilities; libraries; and, arts, culture and entertainment. From a public infrastructure perspective, appropriately funding, maintaining and expanding our arts, culture and recreation quality of life investments is an overall medium-high priority investment need for our community over the long term.

“...quality of life investments are important to residents of our community...”

Our Arts, Culture and Recreation Goals & Strategies

Strategies:

A. Review and update the Wichita Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan to ensure that future planned parks/open space and recreation facility investments (capital, maintenance, operations) strategically integrate with County regional parks and open space investments, and remain consistent with our community priorities and willingness to pay.

B. Develop and implement a joint City/County integrated cultural arts/quality of life facilities investment plan to achieve better planning, coordination, integration and maximization of City and County quality of life community investments.

⬚ figure

C. Utilize relationships with private and not-for-profit organizations and secure dedicated funding sources for the construction, maintenance and operation of our quality of life investments (includes park/open space, recreation, library and cultural arts facilities).

D. Employ best management practices/systems to properly maintain our existing quality of life facilities.

E. Review and update the Wichita Public Library System Master Plan to ensure our city-wide system of library facilities and associated technologies remain relevant to the evolving library needs of our community.

F. Develop and implement a “built environment” strategic plan that better promotes healthy community lifestyles, neighborhood and community connectivity, resource conservation, protecting the City’s urban forest in public spaces, and multiple-use integration of our parks, open space and stormwater management systems.

G. Identify opportunity areas and regulatory adjustments necessary to support agritourism in the unincorporated areas of Sedgwick County.

Plan Element -

Public Safety

Plan Context & Perspective - Having a “safe community” is specifically referenced in the 2035 Plan Vision Statement. From a public infrastructure perspective, appropriately maintaining and expanding our fire, police and EMS facilities is a high priority investment need for our community over the long term.

Our Public Safety Goals & Strategies

Goal 1 - Provide efficient and effective police, fire and EMS public safety service facilities that meet current and future community needs.

Strategies: A. Identify opportunities for collaborative partnerships, joint-funding and joint-use agreements, and sharing of facilities between public safety government agencies.

B. Evaluate the merits of City/County public safety services consolidation as an option to provide for more coordinated and cost-effective public safety facility operations and service delivery.

C. Ensure that service and facility planning for police, fire and EMS service delivery addresses current and future community needs, adapts to future patterns of growth, and supports neighborhood-based safety initiatives within the City of Wichita.

D. Establish performance measures that evaluate functional relevancy, need and effective utilization of our public safety service facilities.

“...maintaining and expanding our fire, police, and EMS facilities is a high priority investment need...”

⬚ figure

Plan Element -

Renewable Energy Facilities

Plan Context and Perspective - Local renewable energy sources have enormous potential value for landowners within Wichita and Sedgwick County when developed at a large scale. Several renewable technologies are already cost-effective when compared to conventional fossil and nuclear fuels; while others are projected to be cost-effective in the near future. Because of the increase in interest by landowners in making their property available for largescale, renewable energy development; it is prudent to become aware of these renewable resources opportunities and to have some idea of the potential energy and economic viability of these resources, as well as the potential impacts and mitigation measures to be taken as this technology is introduced to the region.

The improvements in technology have made the development of Solar Energy Conversion Systems (SECS) economically viable and the potential for such development on a large scale is a reality in Wichita and Sedgwick County. Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) have already been established in many locations within Kansas; some in close proximity to Wichita and Sedgwick County. While provisions already exist within the adopted local laws governing small facilities serving only one property; it is important that Wichita and Sedgwick County establish viable rules and regulations to manage the introduction of these new uses within the community.

For Wichita and Sedgwick County, the challenge will be to manage the placement of these facilities in a manner that protects the larger interests of the diverse ownerships existing within the community. The unincorporated areas of Sedgwick County have seen diverse development over the years as more people have acquired home sites that are not tied to an agricultural use. These have created a pattern of rural uses that often make the introduction of large-scale develop that is designed to utilize natural resources...or in this case, renewable resources such as solar and wind resources...challenging to site. It is also recognized that the potential for further development of rural home sites in increasing densities is growing and will most likely result in greater non-agricultural land uses throughout the County. Provided such development complies with the existing rules, regulations and policies of the County, that development is acceptable and will generally be allowed.

Additionally, the history of aviation development in Wichita and Sedgwick County has resulted in numerous airports and landing strips being established. Those uses are historically important to the community and must remain viable irrespective of other uses that might be presented. This fact is further accentuated by the presence of major aviation fa-

⬚ figure

cilities at McConnell Air Force Base, Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport, Colonel James Jabara Airport, Raytheon Airport, and numerous smaller airports and landing strips throughout the County. These facilities add significant value and importance to the aviation industry to this community. As such, the objective of the policies and plans outlined herein need to remain cognizant of the importance and value of existing investments in the community as new uses and other changes are evaluated; especially regarding the protection from potential uses that would conflict or hinder the mission of McConnell Air Force Base, or harm to existing and future uses of the facilities in place today.

Given these facts, and in the interest of eliminating the potential of deleterious affects on existing land uses, the continuing potential for more non-agricultural develop-

ment, and the growth and further development of aviation interests, the introduction of wind energy conversion systems (WECS) is deemed incompatible within the City of Wichita and all of Sedgwick County and, therefore, should be prohibited.

It is recognized that solar energy conversion systems (SECS) may be acceptable within the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County; however, design and performance standards need to be established that can be used in determining the location and size of all proposed facilities.

Finally, as renewable energy facilities are proposed, the continued protection of the viability of the existing cities within Sedgwick County and their ability to grow remain a priority and, as such, the placement of such facilities must not endanger the life of the existing cities.

⬚ figure

Our Renewable Energy Goals and Strategies

Goal 1 - Protect existing cities, land uses, aviation interests and other private investments as new renewable energy facilities are considered for development.

<u>Strategies:</u>

A. Prohibit Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS) within the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County.

⬚ figure

B. Develop and implement specific rules, regulations and procedures that protect people and property from all negative impacts associated with acceptable renewable energy facilities.

C. Develop and implement specific rules, regulations and procedures that protect existing aviation facilities, especially airports and landing strips within Sedgwick County from all negative impacts associated with acceptable renewable energy facilities.

Goal 2 - Evaluate renewable energy development proposals based on the best information available as the technology continues to evolve and change.

<u>Strategies:</u>

A. Continually evaluate and update rules, regulations and procedures concerning renewable energy facilities based on research of the changing standards and principles associated with development of these facilities.

Priority Enhancement Areas for Wichita Public Infrastructure Projects

⬚ figure

Legend

Corridors

Gateways & Landmarks

City Limits

Intent and Purpose:

This map replaces the 1993 Visual Form map and is intended to foster efforts to improve community perception and increase the sense of quality of life in Wichita through emphasis of the visual character of public facilities and open spaces.

Its purpose is to help the City with prioritizing City of Wichita public works projects along specified corridors, at gateways, and at other selected locations for aesthetic improvements including landscaping, public art, and other visual enhancements to public facilites and rights-of-way.

(blank page)

⬚ figure

Plan Implementation

(blank page)

Plan Implementation

Part 1. Infrastructure Investment Decision-making Framework

Plan Context & Perspective - The infrastructure investment decision-making framework is a tool to systematically guide future public spending in a manner that supports community priorities, reflects willingness to pay, and is coordinated with market-driven growth. This framework is also intended to help close the gap over the next 20 years between our forecasted revenues and the costs of our proposed capital project needs and wants associated with the 2035 Wichita Future Growth Concept. The forecasted revenues and proposed capital project costs have been aggregated and summarized below for planning-level purposes:

Project Costs

• Maintaining and replacing existing infrastructure: $4.9 billion
• Making enhancements to what we currently have: $6.4 billion
• Expanding our current system of infrastructure & facilities: $2.1 billion
• Total: $13.4 billion

Forecasted Revenues

• Total: $3.9 billion
• Projected Gap: $9.5 billion

The infrastructure investment decision-making framework is comprised of various components, criteria and considerations. This framework is intended to encourage long-term continuity and best practices for decision-makers as they implement the Guiding Principles, Goals and Strategies set forth in this Plan, for the intent of ...

• Promoting economic growth and job creation
• Advancing community quality of life and safety
• Creating a community that will attract and retain future generations

For the purposes of this Plan, the term ‘spending/investing’ is used to describe where and for what purposes funding and financing will be utilized. The term ‘decision-making’ is the process of deciding how to spend/invest.

The Framework ... The components and accompanying criteria listed below represent different levels of evaluation for both new and replacement infrastructure and facility projects. There will be interplay between these three levels of evaluation during the project decision-making process.

Level 1 Evaluation - Detailed Project Analysis

(determining individual project merits)

• To what extent is this project right for our community in terms of: a) Scope and scale (cost effectiveness) b) Timing
• Is this project recommended in a plan approved or endorsed by the City Council or the County Board of Commissioners?
• To what extent does this project build upon prior investments or generate multiple benefits to our community?

• Is there a legal mandate or requirement to do this project?
• To what extent does this project reduce or offset costs to the community?
• Project economic and quality of life assessments – will this project: a) Increase wealth for our local economy b) Generate job growth for our community c) Secure or protect important natural resources (soil, water and air quality) d) Retain current residents and attract future residents - help create a community that is desirable and attractive to future generations
• Is this a project that impacts infrastructure or facility assets that should no longer be retained by the City or County due to duplication/redundancies with private sector facilities, functional obsolescence, and/or changing community investment priorities?
• Project funding and financing assessments: a) How will this project be funded and financed b) Is this project identified for funding in the Capital Improvement Program for Wichita or Sedgwick County c) What is the project’s impact on the City of Wichita or Sedgwick County budget d) Have sufficient operating and maintenance funds been secured for this project once construction is completed e) Has a benefit/cost or ‘return-on-investment’ analysis been done for this project f) What are the ‘trade-offs’ if this project is approved (e.g. what other projects do not get built, or are deferred or reduced in scope)

Level 2 Evaluation - Project Selection & Funding

(determining project priorities)

• To what extent is this project consistent with the five Plan Guiding Policy Principles:
  1. Support an Innovative, Vibrant and Diverse Economy
  2. Invest in the Quality of Our Community Life
  3. Take Better Care of What We Already Have
  4. Make Strategic, Value-added Investment Decisions
  5. Provide for Balanced Growth but with Added Focus on Existing Neighborhoods
• What is the priority of this project in relation to the ‘Infrastructure & Facility Investment Category Priorities’: Priority 1 - Maintain and replace what we currently have Priority 2 - Make enhancements to what we currently have Priority 3 - Expand our current system of infrastructure and facility assets

• To what extent is this project consistent with the Plan Element Goals for:
  • Public Safety
  • Transportation
  • Water, Sewer, Stormwater
  • Arts, Culture, Recreation
  • Funding and Financing
• Does this project allocate funding to those categories of infrastructure that have the highest need for additional investment?

Level 3 Evaluation - Capital Improvement Programming

(appropriate project timing, phasing & sequencing)

• To what extent do the capital projects programmed for Wichita or Sedgwick County reflect the project initiation and completion sequencing principles of: ‘plan’, ‘design’, ‘fund/finance’, ‘construct’?
• To what extent are the capital projects programmed for funding over the next three to five years properly and logically timed, coordinated and integrated (geographically and fiscally)?
• To what extent are the capital projects programmed for funding critically and strategically timed and synchronized with external mandates and/or external funding and financing considerations?
• To what extent are the capital projects coordinated with market-driven development?

⬚ figure

Part 2. Plan Monitoring, Review and Amendment

Plan Context & Perspective - In a new era of social and economic uncertainty, it is imperative that a systematic and ongoing approach be developed to monitor change and to review and evaluate this Plan. This will allow the Plan to be adjusted and updated annually as necessary so as to remain relevant and appropriate for our community. The ultimate measure of the Plan's success is whether it helps our community to become what we wish it to be over the next 20 years.

a) Plan Monitoring Approach

2035 Plan Vision Statement - Reflects Desired Plan Outcomes:

Global center of advanced manufacturing and high-tech industries Premier regional service, education and retail center Affordable housing opportunities Vibrant neighborhoods Active, healthy lifestyles Safe community

Plan Guiding Policy Principles - Represent Key Areas to Measure Plan Performance:

1. Support an Innovative, Vibrant and Diverse Economy.

<u>Hi-tech, advanced manufacturing and business start-up job-growth indicators</u>

a) Center for Economic Development and Business Research data:

• Bureau of Labor Statistics
• County Business Patterns
• GDP data (total and per capita growth rates)
• Small Business Innovation Research Grants
• Small Business Technical Transformation Grants

b) Greater Wichita Economic Development Coalition data:

• Annual projects announcement report data

<u>Regional service, education and retail job growth indicators</u>

a) Center for Economic Development and Business Research data:

• Bureau of Labor Statistics
• County Business Patterns

b) GWEDC data:

• Annual projects announcement report data

c) American Community Survey data:

• Annual education attainment levels for Wichita and Sedgwick County

<u>Economic opportunities & growth indicators</u>

a) National Citizen Survey Benchmark Results for Wichita*

• 'Wichita average rating' & 'comparison to benchmark' for the following survey questions:

• Employment opportunities
• Shopping opportunities
• Economic development services
• Educational opportunities
• Wichita as a place to work

b) American Community Survey data:

• Annual median income for Wichita and Sedgwick County
• Annual percentage change in the 25-40 age cohort for Wichita and Sedgwick County
• Wichita and Sedgwick County unemployment rates

2. Invest in the Quality of Our Community Life.

<u>Quality of life indicators</u>

a) National Citizen Survey Benchmark Results for Wichita*

• 'Wichita average rating' & 'comparison to benchmark' for the following survey questions:

• Overall quality of life in Wichita
• Sense of community
• Your neighborhood as a place to live
• Wichita as a place to live
• Wichita as a place to raise kids
• Wichita as a place to retire
• Recommend living in Wichita
• Will remain in Wichita for the next five years
• Opportunities to attend cultural activities
• Air quality
• Public safety – violent crimes
• Public safety – property crimes

*assumes continued future participation

⬚ figure

3. Take Better Care of What We Already Have.

Plan Element: Public Safety

<u>Building Facility Condition Indicators</u>

a) Wichita Public Works and Utilities Dept. (under development)

• Building asset value ($ million)
• Building remaining service life (sq. footage yrs.)
• Buildings with no remaining service life (sq. footage)

b) Sedgwick County Information & Operations - Facilities Division

• Building roof useful life remaining
• Building HVAC useful life remaining

Plan Element: Transportation

<u>Street and Bridge Infrastructure Condition Indicators</u>

a) Wichita Public Works and Utilities Dept. (under development)

• Paved road network service value ($ million)
• Paved road network remaining service life (lane mile yrs.)
• Paved road lane miles with no remaining service life (lane miles)
• Bridge network service value ($ million)
• Bridge network remaining service life (lane mile yrs.)
• Bridge network remaining service life (lane miles)

b) Sedgwick County Public Works Division

• Percentage of paved lane miles receiving preventative maintenance
• Percentage of all lane miles with permanent pavement
• Percentage of all lane miles with temporary pavement
• Bridge average sufficiency rating (scale of 0 to 100)
• Bridge percentage of inventory with sufficiency rating below 50
• Number of bridges requiring special inspections

c) National Citizen Survey Benchmark Results for Wichita* - ‘Wichita average rating’ & ‘comparison to benchmark’ for the following survey questions:

• County Business Patterns
• Street repair
• Sidewalk maintenance
• Ease of car travel
• Ease of bus travel
• Ease of bicycle travel
• Ease of walking

Plan Element: Water, Sewer, Stormwater

<u>Water, Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Condition Indicators</u>

a) Wichita Public Works and Utilities Dept. (under development)

• Water, sewer, stormwater line and main network service value ($ million)
• Water, sewer, stormwater line and main network remaining service life (pipe inches/feet yrs.)
• Water, sewer, stormwater line and main network with no remaining service life (pipe inches/feet)
• Long-term water supply (mg/day/years)
• Water treatment plant asset value ($ million)
• Water treatment plant capacity (million gallons/day years)
• Wastewater treatment plant asset value ($ million)
• Wastewater treatment plant capacity (million gallons/day years)

b) Sedgwick County Public Works Division

• Number of homes and businesses in the 100 year floodplain

c) National Citizen Survey Benchmark Results for Wichita* - ‘Wichita average rating’ & ‘comparison to benchmark’ for the following survey questions:

• Sewer services
• Drinking water
• Storm drainage

Plan Element: Arts, Culture, Recreation

<u>Building Facility Condition Indicators</u>

a) Wichita Public Works and Utilities Dept. (under development)

• Building asset value ($ million)
• Building remaining service life (sq. footage yrs.)
• Buildings with no remaining service life (sq. footage)

*assumes continued future participation

b) Sedgwick County Information & Operations - Facilities Division

• Building roof useful life remaining
• Building HVAC useful life remaining

c) National Citizen Survey Benchmark Results for Wichita¹ - 'Wichita average rating' & 'comparison to benchmark' for the following survey questions:

• Recreation opportunities
• City park services
• City recreation center facilities
• Public library services

4. Make Strategic, Value-added Investment Decisions.

<u>Key Value-added Investment Indicators</u>

a) National Citizen Survey Benchmark Results for Wichita 'Wichita average rating' & 'comparison to benchmark' for the following survey questions:

• Value of services for the taxes paid to Wichita

b) Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD), Wichita and Sedgwick County Finance Departments

• An annual report prepared by MAPD with input from the City and County Finance Departments and a survey of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (MAPC) members that assesses the consistency level of capital projects funded in the city and county capital improvement programs with the investment decision-making framework components and criteria set forth in the Community Investments Plan.

5. Provide for Balanced Growth but with Added Focus on Our Established Neighborhoods.

<u>Key Resource Allocation Indicators</u>

a) Wichita Finance Dept.

• % of total annual capital investments in infrastructure/facilities projects located within and/or benefiting Wichita's Established Central Area and the Suburban Area

<u>Key Growth Indicators</u>

a) American Community Survey

• Annual net population growth in Sedgwick County, Wichita and the Established Central Area

b) County Appraiser's Office

• Annual number of net new dwelling units in Sedgwick County, Wichita and the Established Central Area
• Annual net new commercial square footage in Sedgwick County, Wichita and the Established Central Area

b) Plan Review & Amendment

• Prepare an annual plan monitoring report containing a summary of the key performance indicators data associated with the five Plan Guiding Principles. The report would also document progress on the implementing the Plan Element Goals and Strategies
• Review the annual monitoring report with City and County Department Heads, the Advance Plans Committee, the MAPC as well as the Wichita City Council and the Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners
• Prepare list of recommendations regarding any appropriate Plan amendments
• Staff initiative Plan amendments as appropriate for consideration by the MAPC

⬚ figure

CommunityInvestmentsPlan

Appendix

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

CITY OF WICHITA wichita.gov

⬚ figure

Sedgwick County... working for you

This page intentionally blank.

CommunityInvestmentsPlan

Appendix

Table of Contents

Wichita 2035 Growth Scenarios......................................................................................5     Scenario #1 – Current Trends.................................................................................................. 5     Scenario #2 – Constrained Suburban Growth........................................................................ 9     Scenario #3 – Suburban and Infill Growth Mix...................................................................... 13 Appendix - Community Trends and Challenges Ahead...............................................17 Appendix - Existing Conditions & Community Infrastructure Assessment .....23 Appendix - Community Engagement...........................................................................31     2013 WSU Community Survey Results ............................................................................... 31     ACT-ICT Community Outreach Results................................................................................ 32     April 2014 Community Investments Plan Open House Meeting Results ............................. 33     May-June 2014 Community Investments Plan Discussion Meeting Results ....................... 34     May-June 2014 Activate Wichita Online Survey Results....................................................... 39     2015 Community Engagement ............................................................................................ 41 Appendix - Plan Adoption and Amendments .............................................................59

(blank page)

Appendix - Wichita 2035 Growth Scenarios

Wichita 2035 Growth & Community Investment Scenarios Summary Sheet

Scenario #1 – Current Trends

Scenario Vision Elements -

Wichita will experience a population and employment growth rate and development pattern (suburban and downtown) typical of the last several decades, but with a slightly higher percentage of Wichita area population growth being captured by surrounding smaller cities. The historic trend of one-fourth of Wichita’s total dwelling units being multi-family will continue.

Wichita’s infrastructure system investment will continue to focus on accommodating suburban growth that reflects continued housing market demand in suburban school districts and downtown redevelopment. Future suburban growth and development within the surrounding rural water district service areas will not be cost-prohibitive from a water service delivery standpoint. Substantial investments will continue to be made in improving the Kellogg freeway system, and in designing and constructing both the Northwest Bypass freeway and the South Area Parkway bypass route south of Wichita.

Wichita will continue its practice of under-investment in maintaining its existing infrastructure. Public transit will continue to be an insignificant infrastructure investment and transportation mode.

Pattern of future growth:

• Future residential growth predominately located in suburban West-Northwest Wichita and suburban East-Southeast-Northeast Wichita (about 75% of suburban infill areas existing in 2012 will be developed by 2035).
• Future employment growth within existing, established commercial and industrial areas/corridors and along emerging suburban corridors in west and east Wichita. Continued employment growth and residential redevelopment in the Downtown.
• Northwest Bypass will be a catalyst for concentrations of future new employment growth.
• Wichita’s city limits will expand by 10% from 162.8 sq. mi. to 178.8 sq. mi. supporting a 17% growth in total population.
• Wichita’s overall population density will increase slightly: 2,359 people/sq. mi. in 2012: 2,506 people/sq. mi. in 2035.

Future Wichita Job & Housing Growth - 2012 to 2035 (2012 is the base-year for the long-term forecasts)

Wichita population growth forecast (baseline growth forecast): 64,000 additional people - 2035 total population of 448,000 (growth rate of 0.8% per year) 49,900 additional dwelling units - total of 205,000 dwelling units in 2035 (overall city average of 2.25 people/dwelling unit in 2035)

Wichita employment growth forecast: 31,200 additional jobs - total of 224,400 jobs in 2035 (new job growth rate of 0.7% per year)

Future Wichita Infrastructure Investments - 2013 to 2035

Long-term investment categories (includes existing ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ projects) and planning-level cost & revenue estimates (2011 dollars)

Investment Category #1 Bringing existing deficient Wichita infrastructure up to standard - additional $45-55 million needed annually (Majority of these costs are to replace one-third of Wichita's aging sewer lines and one quarter of aging water lines and to improve existing local neighborhood roads to a 'good' condition)

$1.0 billion cost est.

• $0 revenue allocation $1.0 billion gap

Investment Category #2 Ongoing Wichita infrastructure depreciation/replacement costs - $180 million needed annually; current annual spending is approx. $78 million (Annual maintenance/repair costs required to keep all existing infrastructure assets at or near current conditions - maintains a continued state of deterioration for some assets)

$3.9 billion cost est. $1.7 billion revenue allocation $2.2 billion gap

Investment Category #3 Expanding existing system of infrastructure and facilities (2013-2035)

$2.8 billion¹ cost est. $1.1 billion revenue allocation $1.7 billion gap

Investment Category #4 Enhancing existing infrastructure and facilities (2013-2035)

$6.6 billion[^p57-1] cost est. <u>$1.2 billion revenue allocation</u> $5.4 billion gap

[^p57-1] *Total includes capital and aggregated maintenance/operation costs

Investment analysis:

• The purpose of this scenario is to illustrate a range of possible Wichita 2035 future growth patterns and infrastructure investment options.
• The gap between our future infrastructure needs & wants and our forecasted revenues is estimated at $10.3 billion.
• This scenario is <u>not fiscally constrained</u> ... current revenue forecasts over the next 22 years are insufficient to maintain Wichita's existing infrastructure assets (Investment Categories #1 and #2) let alone enhance or expand our system of assets.
• Different growth patterns alone won't solve the cost/revenue gap.
• The long-term cost/revenue gap over the next 20 years can't be 'solved' today.
• Different service delivery models and creative ways of providing public infrastructure need to be considered. Substantial new revenues or a combination of new revenues and/or cost reductions (through project elimination or project scope adjustments/reductions) will be necessary.

Plan Development -

Scenario #1 - Current Trends

"Suburban Growth Status Quo"

Highlights:

Growth and Investment Pattern:

• Continue suburban growth (west/northwest, northeast/east/southeast) reflecting market demand for new housing in suburban school districts
• Continue downtown residential and commercial redevelopment
• Continue under-investment in maintaining & replacing existing city infrastructure
• Continue expansion of Kellogg freeway system and related interchange improvements
• Design and construct the Northwest Bypass - catalyst for new retail & employment development
• Design and construct the South Area Parkway bypass around south Wichita
• Public transit remains an insignificant public investment & transportation mode

Major Growth-Driven Infrastructure Costs:

401 miles of new local streets and water, sewer & stormwater lines 42 miles of new arterial streets, water and sewer mains 7.1 mg/day capacity upgrades to sewer treatment facilities

Infrastructure Investment Gap:

Wichita 2035 Growth & Community Investment Scenarios: Scenario #1-Current Trends

⬚ figure

Scenario #2 – Constrained Suburban Growth

Scenario Vision Elements -

Wichita will experience a population and employment growth rate typical of the last several decades, but with a slightly higher percentage of Wichita area population growth being captured by surrounding smaller cities. Continued residential and employment growth will occur in downtown, but the pattern of future suburban growth and development is constrained by two influencing factors:

1. Prohibitive land development costs associated with water service delivery within rural water district service areas; and,
2. Deferred construction of the Northwest Bypass freeway beyond 2035 (due to lack of funds).

Suburban growth and development patterns within surrounding rural water district service areas will be constrained. Future employment growth originally anticipated to concentrate along the Northwest Bypass over the next 20 years will relocate to other established areas in west and northwest Wichita. The historic trend of one-fourth of Wichita’s total dwelling units being multi-family will continue.

Wichita’s infrastructure system investment will continue to accommodate suburban growth that reflects continued housing market demand in suburban school districts and downtown redevelopment. Substantial investments will continue to be made in improving the Kellogg freeway system. The South Area Parkway bypass route will be constructed around south Wichita.

Wichita will continue its practice of under-investment in maintaining its existing infrastructure. Public transit will continue to be an insignificant infrastructure investment and transportation mode.

Pattern of future growth:

• Future residential growth predominately located in suburban West-Northwest Wichita and to significantly lesser degrees in suburban East-Southeast-Northeast Wichita (about 75% of suburban infill areas existing in 2012 will be developed by 2035).
• Future employment growth within existing, established commercial and industrial areas/corridors and along emerging suburban corridors in west and east Wichita. Continued employment growth and residential redevelopment in the Downtown.
• Concentrations of future new employment growth originally anticipated with the future Northwest Bypass have relocated to areas in West Wichita along N. Maize Road, N. Ridge Road and the West Kellogg freeway.
• Wichita’s city limits will expand by 8% from 162.8 sq. mi. to 176.0 sq. mi. supporting a 17% growth in total population.
• Wichita’s overall population density will increase slightly: 2,359 people/sq. mi. in 2012: 2,524 people/sq. mi. in 2035.

Future Wichita Job & Housing Growth - 2012 to 2035 (2012 is the base-year for the long-term forecasts)

Wichita population growth forecast (baseline growth forecast): 64,000 additional people - 2035 total population of 448,000 (growth rate of 0.8% per year) 49,900 additional dwelling units - total of 205,000 dwelling units in 2035 (overall city average of 2.25 people/ dwelling unit in 2035)

Wichita employment growth forecast: 31,200 additional jobs - total of 224,400 jobs in 2035 (new job growth rate of 0.7% per year)

Future Wichita Infrastructure Investments - 2013 to 2035

Long-term investment categories (includes existing ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ projects) and planning-level cost & revenue estimates (2011 dollars)

Investment Category #1 Bringing existing deficient Wichita infrastructure up to standard - additional $45-55 million needed annual- ly (Majority of these costs are to replace one-third of Wichita’s aging sewer lines and one quarter of aging water lines and to improve existing local neighborhood roads to a ‘good’ condition)

$1.0 billion cost est.

• <u>$0 revenue allocation</u> $1.0 billion gap

Investment Category #2 Ongoing Wichita infrastructure depreciation/replacement costs - $180 million needed annually; current annual spending is approx. $78 million (Annual maintenance/repair costs required to keep all existing infrastructure assets at or near current conditions - maintains a continued state of deterioration for some assets)

$3.9 billion cost est <u>$1.7 billion revenue allocation</u> $2.2 billion gap

Investment Category #3 Expanding existing system of infrastructure and facilities (2013-2035)

$2.1 billion* cost est. <u>$1.0 billion revenue allocation</u> $1.1 billion gap

*Total includes capital and aggregated maintenance/operation costs

Investment Category #4 Enhancing existing infrastructure and facilities (2013-2035)

$6.4 billion*cost est. <u>$1.2 billion revenue allocation</u> $5.2 billion gap

Investment analysis:

• The purpose of this scenario is to illustrate a range of possible Wichita 2035 future growth patterns and infrastructure investment options.
• The gap between our future infrastructure needs & wants and our forecasted revenues is estimated at $9.5 billion.
• This scenario's constrained suburban growth pattern reduces the Category #3 and #4 infrastructure gap costs associated with Scenario #1- Current Trends by approximately $0.8 billion.
• This scenario is <u>not fiscally constrained</u> ... current revenue forecasts over the next 22 years are insufficient to maintain Wichita's existing infrastructure assets (Investment Categories #1 and #2) let alone enhance or expand our system of assets.
• Different growth patterns alone won't solve the cost/revenue gap.
• The long-term cost/revenue gap over the next 20 years can't be 'solved' today.
• Different service delivery models and creative ways of providing public infrastructure need to be considered. Substantial new revenues or a combination of new revenues and/or cost reductions (through project elimination or project scope adjustments/reductions) will be necessary.

Plan Development -

Scenario #2 - Constrained Suburban Growth

"More Compacted Suburban Growth"

Highlights:

Growth and Investment Pattern Differences from Scenario #1 - Current Trends:

• Suburban growth is constrained due to high land development costs within rural water district service areas (see map).

• Defer construction of the Northwest Bypass beyond 2030 due to lack of state and/or private investment funds. Future retail and employment growth in west & north Wichita will concentrate in existing established areas.

Major Growth-Driven Infrastructure Costs:

401 miles of new local streets and water, sewer & stormwater lines 30 miles of new arterial streets, water and sewer mains 7.1 mg/day capacity upgrades to sewer treatment facilities

Infrastructure Investment Gap:

Wichita 2035 Growth & Community Investment Scenarios: Scenario #2-Contained Suburban Growth

⬚ figure

Scenario #3 – Suburban and Infill Growth Mix

Scenario Vision Elements -

Wichita will experience a population/employment growth rate typical of the last several decades, but with a slightly higher percentage of Wichita area population growth being captured by surrounding smaller cities. Continued residential and employment growth will occur in downtown, but the pattern of future suburban growth is constrained by three influencing factors:

1. Prohibitive land development costs associated with water service delivery within rural water district service areas;
2. Deferred construction of the Northwest Bypass and the South Area Parkway bypass beyond 2035 (due to lack of funding); and,
3. Increased levels of infill and redevelopment throughout the established central urban core.

Suburban growth and development patterns within surrounding rural water district service areas will be constrained. Future employment growth originally anticipated to concentrate along the Northwest Bypass over the next 20 years will relocate to other established areas in west and northwest Wichita. The historic trend of one-fourth of Wichita’s total dwelling units being multi-family will continue.

Wichita’s infrastructure system will continue to expand to accommodate suburban growth that reflects continued housing market demand in suburban school districts. Substantial investments will continue to be made in improving the Kellogg freeway system. However, this scenario creates the least amount of new infrastructure to maintain and replace in the future.

Wichita will increase investment levels in maintaining its existing infrastructure. Public transit will become an improved and expanded infrastructure investment/transportation mode (Wichita Transit Vision Proposal 2013) that supports increased levels of infill and redevelopment throughout the established central urban core, improves cross-town and regional connections, and provides neighborhood feeders in areas of low ridership.

Pattern of future growth:

• The established central urban core constitutes the central statistical development area bounded by Pawnee on the south, Woodlawn on the east, 21st Street on the north and the Wichita/Valley Center floodway on the west; supplemented by an area extending one mile beyond the perimeter of the central statistical development area.
• Increased levels of infill/redevelopment throughout the established central urban core will represent 12% of total new dwelling units forecasted for Wichita by 2035 (of which 75% will likely be multi-family units).
• Future residential growth predominately located in suburban West-Northwest Wichita and to significantly lesser degrees in suburban East-Southeast-Northeast Wichita (about 75% of suburban infill areas existing in 2012 will be developed by 2035).
• Future employment growth within existing, established commercial and industrial areas/corridors and along emerging suburban corridors in west and east Wichita. Continued employment growth and residential redevelopment in the Downtown.
• Northwest Bypass will not be a catalyst for concentrations of future new employment growth.
• Wichita’s city limits will expand by 7% from 162.8 sq. mi. to 173.8 sq. mi. supporting a 17% growth in total population.
• Wichita’s overall population density will increase slightly: 2,359 people/sq. mi. in 2012: 2,578 people/sq. mi. in 2035.

Future Wichita Job & Housing Growth - 2012 to 2035 (2012 is the base-year for the long-term forecasts)

Wichita population growth forecast (mid-range growth forecast): 64,000 additional people - 2035 total population of 448,000 (growth rate of 0.8% per year) 49,900 additional dwelling units - total of 205,000 dwelling units in 2035 (overall city average of 2.25 people/dwelling unit in 2035)

Wichita employment growth forecast: 31,200 additional jobs - total of 224,400 jobs in 2035 (new job growth rate of 0.7% per year)

Future Wichita Infrastructure Investments - 2013 to 2035

Long-term investment categories (includes existing ‘needs’ and ‘wants’ projects) and planning-level cost & revenue estimates (2011 dollars)

Investment Category #1 Bringing existing deficient Wichita infrastructure up to standard - additional $45-55 million needed annually (Majority of these costs are to replace one-third of Wichita's aging sewer lines and one quarter of aging water lines and to improve existing local neighborhood roads to a ‘good’ condition)

$1.0 billion cost est.

• $0 revenue allocation $1.0 billion gap

Investment Category #2 Ongoing Wichita infrastructure depreciation/replacement costs - $180 million needed annually; current annual spending is approx. $78 million; proposes additional $18 million annually (Annual maintenance and repair costs required to keep all existing infrastructure assets at or near current conditions - maintains a continued state of deterioration for some assets)

$3.9 billion cost est.

• $2.1 billion revenue allocation $1.8 billion gap

Investment Category #3 Expanding existing system of infrastructure and facilities (2013-2035)

$2.0 billion* cost est.

• $0.9 billion revenue allocation $1.1 billion gap

Investment Category #4

Enhancing existing infrastructure and facilities (2013-2035)

$6.1 billion¹ cost est.

• $0.8 billion revenue allocation
  $5.3 billion gap

*Total includes capital and aggregated maintenance/operation costs

Total cost estimates $13.0 billion
Total revenue es-timates to fund infrastructure investments $3.8 billion

Cost/revenue gap estimate ($9.2 billion)

Investment analysis:

• The purpose of this scenario is to illustrate a range of possible Wichita 2035 future growth patterns and infrastructure investment options.
• The gap between our future infrastructure needs & wants and our forecasted revenues is estimated at $9.2 billion.
• This scenario’s constrained suburban growth pattern reduces the Category #3 and #4 infrastructure gap costs associated with Scenario #1- Current Trends by approximately $0.7 billion and the Category #2 infrastructure gap costs by approximately $0.4 billion.
• This scenario is not fiscally constrained ... current revenue forecasts over the next 22 years are insufficient to maintain Wichita’s existing infrastructure assets (Investment Categories #1 and #2) let alone enhance or expand our system of assets.
• Different growth patterns alone won’t solve the cost/revenue gap.
• The long-term cost/revenue gap over the next 20 years can’t be ‘solved’ today.
• Different service delivery models and creative ways of providing public infrastructure need to be considered. Substantial new revenues or a combination of new revenues and/or cost reductions (through project elimination or project scope adjustments/reductions) will be necessary.

Plan Development -

Scenario #3 - Suburban & Infill Growth Mix

"Urban Infill with More Investment in Transit and Existing Infrastructure"

Highlights:

Growth and Investment Pattern Differences from Scenario #1 - Current Trends:

• Suburban growth is constrained due to high land development costs within rural water district service areas (element of Scenario #2)
• Defer construction of the Northwest Bypass and the South Area Parkway bypass beyond 2030 due to lack of state and/or private investment funds.
• Increase investment levels in existing city infrastructure
• Increase levels of infill and redevelopment throughout central city area ... 12% of new Wichita dwelling units by 2035
• Improve and expand public transit (implementation of Wichita Transit Vision 2013)

Major Growth-Driven Infrastructure Costs:

369 miles of new local streets and water, sewer & stormwater lines 26 miles of new arterial streets, water and sewer mains 7.1 mg/day capacity upgrades to sewer treatment facilities * This scenario creates the least amount of new infrastructure to maintain and replace in the future.

Infrastructure Investment Gap:

Wichita 2035 Growth & Community Investment Scenarios: Scenario #3 - Suburban & Infill Growth Mix

⬚ figure

Appendix - Community Trends and Challenges Ahead

“The future isn’t what it used to be” Yogi Berra

Yogi Berra, the famous catcher for the New York Yankees once said, “Making projections is a difficult business, especially when it deals with the future.” It’s difficult to accurately predict precise numbers and totals for events and outcomes 20 years from now. However, it is possible to observe and predict general future trends. There is no crystal ball to see what the future holds for Wichita and Sedgwick County - only data-driven, informed and educated opinions and evaluations.

An analysis of fiscal, economic and demographic trends data indicate that the next 20 years of growth and development in Wichita and Sedgwick County will be different than what has occurred over the past 20 years. The City and County have entered a new era of fiscal constraint, austerity and diminishing financial resources that will likely continue into the foreseeable future. Trend data indicates that our community is aging, our minority population is growing, and the composition of the traditional family is changing (especially a rise in the number of single person households). These demographic changes will influence future housing decisions related to location, size, and type, as well as future transportation choices.

Below is a summary of important fiscal, economic and demographic trends and challenges that will likely influence future growth and development in Wichita and Sedgwick County, and impact future public investment decisions.

Fiscal and Economic

Trend/Challenge - Diminishing state and federal funding available for new construction and/or replacement of Wichita and Sedgwick County public facilities and infrastructure.

Data:

• The Federal Highway Trust Fund (18.4 cent per gallon gas tax) has for decades been a significant funding source for new roadway construction projects in the country and for Kansas, Wichita and Sedgwick County. However, this tax has steadily lost purchasing power to inflation, and the rise in fuel-efficient cars has caused revenues to flatten. The Congressional Budget Office projected in January 2012 that the Federal Highway Trust Fund, with a $12 billion balance at the end of the 2012 fiscal year, will be depleted by fiscal year 2014.

⬚ figure

• State of Kansas funding for transportation infrastructure has declined. The State’s 2011-2020 ten-year transportation program (T-WORKS) is currently funded at $7.8 billion. This represents a 38% reduction in funding from the previous ten-year transportation program budget of $13 billion. Future increases in state transportation funding appear unlikely.

• Research done in 2007 for the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission indicated that a 10% increase in vehicle fuel economy produces a 9% reduction in motor fuel use and fuel tax revenues. Rising fuel costs and vehicle fuel efficiencies have generated less vehicle miles traveled and less fuel consumption respectively. This has resulted in a trend of flat and/or declining gasoline tax revenues for the State of Kansas (and Wichita and Sedgwick County).

• Sedgwick County approved a dedicated one-cent countywide sales tax in 1985. A half-cent is pledged to fund road and bridge projects and the other half-cent is pledged for property tax relief. This tax provides an ongoing revenue stream for road and bridge construction in Wichita and Sedgwick County (approximately $47.9 million and $22.4 million respectively in 2011).

Trend/Challenge - Growing structural imbalance (gap) between slowing Wichita and Sedgwick County revenues and the rising cost of maintaining existing City and County public facilities and infrastructure.

Data:

• Over the last decade, Wichita and Sedgwick County have experienced growing structural imbalances between slowing revenue streams and the increasing costs of government (especially costs associated with maintaining current assets, as well as employee pensions and health care). This gap has challenged the ability of Wichita and Sedgwick County to maintain, replace and/or expand existing public facilities and infrastructure (see Appendix - Existing Conditions & Community Infrastructure Assessment).
• A leveling off in overall ad valorem property valuation in recent years has yielded lower property tax revenues for the City and County. For the City of Wichita, property tax revenues declined by $1.4 million between 2009 and 2011 ($106.5 million in 2009; $105.1 million in 2011). For Sedgwick County, property tax revenues declined by $3.0 million between 2009 and 2011 ($136.1 million in 2009; $133.1 million in 2011, this decline also reflecting a half mil lowering of the County tax rate in 2010).
• Wichita has experienced slowing rates of return with other revenue sources including interest earnings, local sales tax, motor vehicle taxes, transient guest tax, gasoline tax, and franchise fees.
• Revenues (property and retail sales tax) associated with future growth and development in Wichita and Sedgwick County will not cover long-term cost liabilities associated with the maintenance and replacement of existing City and County public facilities and infrastructure assets.

Trend/Challenge - Rising fuel and energy prices significantly increase capital, operational and maintenance costs associated with City and County public facilities and infrastructure.

Data:

• The average price of gasoline has trended upward nationwide within the last decade ($1.42 per gallon in 2001; $2.27 in 2005; $4.02 per gallon in 2008; $3.50 per gallon in 2012).
• In 2001, the annual fuel cost for Wichita’s maintenance vehicle fleet was $2. 2 million. By the end of 2008, annual fuel costs rose to $6.9 million (an increase of $4.7 million). This increase is largely attributable to increased costs of fuel rather than increased fuel consumption. Rising oil prices also impact tire and lubricant prices. Since 2009, tire prices have increased an average of 24.7%; lubricants have increased by 16.5%.
• Rising fuel costs significantly increase Wichita Transit vehicle operations costs. For every $0.10 increase annually in a gallon of gasoline, operating costs for the transit van fleet go up about $10,000 per year. For every $0.10 increase annually in a gallon of diesel, operating costs for the bus fleet go up about $40,000 per year. As of 2012, Wichita Transit buses drove 1,563,624 miles annually (3.96 mpg) and the transit vans drove 716,131 miles annually (6.99 mpg).

⬚ figure

• Rising fuel costs increase local road construction costs. During the sharp rise in oil prices in 2008, the cost of asphalt increased to approximately $30 per square yard compared to about $25 per square yard in 2012. That cost differential of $5 per square yard equated to a comparative savings of $150,000 per mile of arterial street construction for Wichita in 2012.
• There is no current research that suggests crude oil and gasoline prices will trend significantly downward over the foreseeable future. According to a report by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (December 2012), various alternatives may replace petroleum as the primary vehicle fuel in the future but virtually all currently being developed will be more expensive than what petroleum has cost in the past.

Trend/Challenge - External factors and mandates will dictate some future Wichita and Sedgwick County public infrastructure spending priorities.

Data:

• Federal environmental legislation for wastewater management, stormwater management, water quality and air quality will continue to impact community infrastructure and shape the future operations and costs of local government in Wichita and Sedgwick County.
• Prolonged periods of extreme drought could threaten the viability of the Equus Beds Aquifer Recharge Storage project as a long-term water supply source for Wichita. Additional solutions to secure a long-term water supply for Wichita will generate significant costs.
• Under authority of the 1972 Clean Water Act, the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may mandate by 2020, local compliance with current recommended biological nutrient removal standards for nitrogen and phosphorous in all wastewater released into the nation's waterways. Depending upon the level of required compliance, Wichita may need to invest between $95 and $146 million to upgrade its existing wastewater treatment facilities.
• Substantial improvements to Wichita's current sewer collection system may also be required by the EPA over the next decade to limit sewer back-up incidents. Depending upon the level of mandate, this could potentially cost the City over $100 million per year for multiple years.
• Based on current air quality conditions, the Wichita MSA has the potential to move to a non-attainment status (not meeting air pollutant standards set by the EPA under authority of the 1970 Clean Air Act) with respect to acceptable ozone levels. The community costs of going ozone non-attainment have been estimated as follows:
  • The Kansas Department of Health and the Environment has estimated that a vehicle inspection and maintenance program alone for the Wichita MSA could cost the community over $13.7 million per year;
  • City of Wichita staff estimated in 2005 that the cost to local government, local businesses, and citizens in the Wichita MSA could approximate $10 million per year for at least ten years. A more accurate cost estimate model has not been developed.

Trend/Challenge - Wichita and Sedgwick County faces a new era of market globalization and competition with other communities regionally, nationally and globally.

Data:

• Many aspects of the Sedgwick County and Kansas economy are export oriented (civilian aircraft, aircraft parts and agricultural products) and vulnerable to instability or shifts in global economic market conditions.
• Local, regional, national and international economic uncertainty appears to be the new normal for the next several years. All levels of government throughout the world continue to wrestle with issues/impacts associated with austerity, debt, expenditures, revenues, and regulation.
• University professors Arthur C. Nelson and Robert E. Lang (Megapolitan America, 2011) predict the emergence of 10 megapolitan clusters in the United States by the year 2040. Within these clusters will be concentrated most of the nation's population and much of its associated economic activity. Wichita does not fall within one of the 10 megapolitan clusters predicted. This implies that Wichita could be economically less competitive. Regardless of whether these projections prove to be accurate, Wichita and Sedgwick County will need to work hard to remain competitive with other communities in the region and the nation.
• According to the Visioneering Wichita Plan 2009, roughly 20% of the young adults (25-40 yrs.) in the Wichita metropolitan area leave each year to other communities in the country, representing an estimated net annual lost investment of $595 million for the Wichita area. This age group constitutes the future business and government leaders of our community by 2035. According to U.S. Census cohort data, the total number of people

in Wichita between the ages of 25-44 dropped by 2.4% between 2000 and 2010. A 2010 research report titled “Destination ICT: Attracting and Retaining Talent to Wichita” indicates that Wichita’s total population of 25-40 year olds declined by 2.6% between 2000 and 2007. The report states that while this loss is not significantly out of line with cities of similar size, in Wichita’s peer competitive cities (e.g. Fort Worth, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Tulsa) the aggregated population of 25-40 year olds grew by 2.3%.

Trend/Challenge - Employment growth rate in Wichita and Sedgwick County over the next 20 years is forecast to increase at an annual average rate slightly less than 1 percent.

<u>Data:</u>

• The WSU Center for Economic Development and Business Research (CEDBR) projects (2011) that the average employment growth rate in the Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) will increase during the next 25 years at an annual rate of 0.87% (with manufacturing, retail trade and health care dominant).
• The overall average annual employment growth rate in Sedgwick County has trended downward in recent decades. Between 1970 and 1987, data from the Kansas Department of Human Resources indicted an average annual employment growth rate of 2.7%. The annual employment growth rates between 1990 and 2010 in Sedgwick County have averaged around 0.7% (factoring in two recessionary periods).

⬚ figure

• According to the WSU CEDBR, long term economic growth in Kansas has been driven by growth in five key industries: health care; professional services; administration and waste services; accommodation and food services; and educational services.
• In 2011, the National Bureau of Labor Statistics reported the following national economic outlook indicators through 2018:
  • Growth in work force by 8.2%;
  • Aging work force (employees aged 55 or older will comprise 24% of the total labor market);
  • More service jobs (12.5% increase) and less manufacturing jobs (9% decrease);
  • Areas of growth ... professional and business services, health care, small-box and boutique retail, ‘middle market’ companies (annual sales between $10 million and $1 billion).
  • The WSU CEDBR anticipates that retiring baby boomers will want to live close to quality, convenient health care services. This could increase Wichita’s current role as a premier south central Kansas area regional health care services center.

<u>Demographics</u>

Trend/Challenge - Shifting demographics: impacts of an aging population.

<u>Data:</u>

• Although the population of Wichita and Sedgwick County is slightly younger on average than the rest of Kansas or the nation, the population of our community is aging. The WSU CEDBR projects that the percentage of Sedgwick County residents over the age of 65 will increase from 10.9% in 2010 to 17.5 % by 2030 (a 60% increase). According to projections by the U.S. Census, one in five residents in the nation will be 65 years or older by 2030.

• The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration estimates by 2030, one out of every four drivers in the nation will be over the age of 65 with the number of drivers over age 85 four times higher than today. As our area population ages, an increasing number of less mobile seniors will require alternative transportation and accessibility choices.
• According to Arthur C. Nelson (Reshaping Metropolitan America, 2013), 77% of the demand for new housing construction in America between 1990 and 2010 was driven by the baby boomer generation (1946 to 1964) seeking large, single-family homes. Nelson predicts that a major housing crisis will occur around 2020 as aging/retiring baby boomers try to sell off their large single-family homes (for which he predicts there will be a significantly reduced market demand) to downsize into smaller homes and properties. Nelson foresees two classes of seniors in America – those “aging in place” voluntarily and those “aging in place” involuntarily because they can’t sell their homes.

⬚ figure

Trend/Challenge - Shifting demographics: impacts of changes in the traditional family and the rise in single person households.

<u>Data:</u>

• The U.S. Census shows that average household size in Wichita increased slightly from 2.46 persons in 2000 to 2.48 persons in 2010 (2010 national average was 2.58 persons). Due to economic necessity and lifestyle choices across the nation, there is evidence that children are residing longer with their parents and/or returning to live with parents and other family members. It is uncertain whether this will be a long-term trend.
• Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of two member households in Wichita remained unchanged at 32%.
• From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of households with children in Wichita dropped slightly from 32.1% to 30.7%. Some researchers are anticipating that by 2030, only 20-25% of all households nationwide will have children.
• Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of single person households in Wichita remained unchanged at 31% (2010 national average was 26.7%).
• Some researchers are projecting that by 2025, between a third and half of all households nationwide could be single person households. These demographic shifts are important since household size and composition influences choices of house size, type, configuration and location.

Trend/Challenge - Shifting demographics: impacts of the growth in minority populations.

<u>Data:</u>

• The U.S. Census has projected that by 2043, the majority of people in America will be non-white.
• From 2000 to 2010, the percentage of the Hispanic population in Wichita increased from 10% to 15%. The percentage of the African American population in Wichita over the last decade remained unchanged at 11%, while the Asian population grew slightly from 4% to 5%. Between 2000 and 2010, the percentage of the non-Hispanic white population in Wichita decreased from 72% to 65%. If these trends continue over the next 20 years, it is reasonable to anticipate that a significant portion of the future population growth in Wichita will occur within the Hispanic segment of the community. Due to underlying cultural and socio-economic factors, some of this growth could be concentrated within certain geographic areas of the city.

Trend/Challenge - Future 2035 population growth estimates for Wichita range between 448,000 and 485,000; for Sedgwick County, the estimates range between 610,000 and 671,000.

Data:

• The WSU CEDBR anticipates that Sedgwick County will capture the majority (86%) of population growth in the five-county Wichita Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) over the next 30 years. According to the 2010 U.S. Census, Sedgwick County and Wichita population totals were 498,365 (79.2% of MSA) and 382,368 (60.6% of MSA) respectively.

⬚ figure

• By 2035, the total population of Sedgwick County is currently estimated for planning purposes by the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD) to range between 610,000 and 671,000. Wichita's share of that total County population is estimated to range between 448,000 and 485,000, with the remaining population spread among the other cities of Sedgwick County and the unincorporated area.
• Over the last two decades, the majority of the population and land development growth in Wichita has been concentrated in the northwest, northeast and southeast quadrants of the city. Based upon the shifting demographic trends previously discussed, MAPD staff anticipates that future population growth in Wichita may be more evenly dispersed throughout both the established central area and the suburban neighborhoods of the City.

Plan Application:

Baseline Growth- The development of the Community Investments Plan started with an overall baseline annual population growth rate in Sedgwick County of 0.834%, resulting in a population increase of 106,107 for Sedgwick County and a total population of 610,006 by 2035. Wichita’s portion of that growth was projected at 64,058 reflecting a slightly slower growth rate of 0.673% and a total population of 448,083 by 2035. The remaining cities and rural areas in Sedgwick County would experience a slightly higher rate of growth by adding 42,048 population to their communities to bring the overall County growth rate to the 0.834% average.

Household size is expected to decline between 2012 and 2035 as a result of previously discussed demographic shifts. In 2012, household size is at 2.59 for Sedgwick County and 2.53 for Wichita. In order to accommodate Sedgwick County’s population in smaller households, housing units will have to be built at a higher rate than the population growth rate. An additional 71,468 units will need to be built to achieve an average household size of 2.31 for Sedgwick County by 2035. Wichita’s average household size is projected to fall to 2.25 persons per household requiring an additional 49,900 housing units.

Employment growth was projected to be 41,003 jobs, consistent with a growth rate of 0.70% for Sedgwick County and a total of 276,002 jobs by 2035. This is in line with recent trends and forecasts. Wichita’s share of employment growth is projected to be approximately 76% of Sedgwick County’s growth or 31,200 new jobs for a total of 242,840 jobs.

Accelerated Growth- During the Plan development process it was decided that a more aggressive growth rate needed to be considered in order to accomplish key objectives of promoting economic development and creating a successful community. The Plan Steering Committee settled on a countywide population growth rate of 1.25%. Using this accelerated growth rate, Sedgwick County would see an additional 166,869 new people for a 2035 total population of 670,768. Wichita’s share of this growth would be an additional 101,458 persons for a total of 485,483 by 2035.

The accelerated growth projection assumes the same average household sizes for Wichita and Sedgwick County by 2035 as the baseline projections. This would result in 97,093 new housing units for Sedgwick County and 66,067 new housing units for Wichita. The accelerated growth projection uses the same employment participation ratios as in the baseline projection. The result is an annual growth rate of 1.011% for Sedgwick County. This would mean 63,815 new jobs for Sedgwick County by 2035 for a total of 298,814 jobs. Assuming Wichita continues to capture about 76% of the new jobs in the County, it would see 51,271 new jobs for a total of 262,911 jobs by 2035.

Appendix - Existing Conditions & Community Infrastructure Assessment

Assessment Approach

In 2011-12, Wichita and Sedgwick County with assistance from the Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs at Wichita State University completed an extensive 'order-of-magnitude' assessment of current city and county infrastructure and facility assets (City of Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Infrastructure and Facilities Status Report, November 2012). This assessment was not intended to provide a complete inventory of capital assets for operating or budgetary purposes. It was solely intended to provide a broad overview of public assets controlled by the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County.

Initial data was submitted by operating departments of Wichita and Sedgwick County on forms that requested the following information: an inventory of all infrastructure/facility capital assets including their replacement cost; life expectancy; utilization level (under, appropriate or over utilized); level of usability based on criteria of safety, security and accessibility; and asset condition based on factors of relevancy, functionality, need for repairs, age/life cycle stage, and overall condition; and associated maintenance costs and planned investments. Data was collected separately for building condition. A scale of excellent to unsatisfactory was used to assess usability and asset condition. All dollar figures are stated in constant 2011 dollars. Department data was supplemented with insurance records to determine age and asset replacement cost.

For assessment and evaluation purposes, City and County capital assets were grouped according to the following four functional categories of general public infrastructure and facilities:

1. Transportation (Highways, streets, bridges, sidewalks/paths, parking facilities, transit, airport);
2. Health & Environment (Water, sewer, stormwater, public health);
3. Culture/Recreation & Parks (Libraries, arts/education facilities, parks, recreation facilities);
4. Public Safety (Fire, police, corrections, court facilities).

Capital assets were evaluated in terms of the following criteria to help better understand the financial obligations associated with existing City and County public infrastructure and facility investments:

• Replacement cost;
• Life expectancy;
• Level of usability based upon criteria of safety, security and accessibility;
• Utilization level;
• Asset condition based on factors of relevancy, functionality, need for repairs, age/life cycle stage and maintenance costs.

Assessment Overview

The value of combined public infrastructure and facility capital assets for Wichita and Sedgwick County exceeds $7 billion (2011). The approximate valuation of these assets aggregated according to functional categories is depicted in the accompanying graphic:

Based upon factors of functionality, relevancy, need for repair, age and life cycle stage, almost 38% of Wichita's assets and 11% of the County assets have been rated as being 'fair/deficient' in terms of overall

⬚ figure

condition (using a five point rating scale of ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘poor’, ‘fair/deficient’, ‘good’, ‘excellent’). Remaining City and County assets were rated as being ‘good’ or ‘excellent’.

Application of straight line depreciation calculations to combined City and County assets based upon age, remaining life expectancy and estimated cost of replacement, produced a depreciation estimate of $242 million (split approximately one-quarter to Sedgwick County and three-quarters to the City of Wichita). This estimate is an extrapolation and assumes that infrastructure ages linearly over its expected life cycle. This figure is roughly one-quarter the size of the combined annual operating budgets of Wichita and Sedgwick County.

The adopted capital improvement programs for Wichita and Sedgwick County in 2012 show expected capital spending averaging roughly $275 million over the next five years. Approximately 70% of those expenditures are for maintenance/repair of existing assets with the remaining 30% for the expansion of assets. Combined annual maintenance expenditures are roughly $48 million. Based upon these accounting assumptions, Wichita and Sedgwick County are spending (2012) sufficient funds each year to maintain existing infrastructure assets at or near their current condition. If current asset conditions are below acceptable standards, then additional investment would be necessary.

The following 2012 assessment is provided for the four functional categories of public infrastructure and facilities. 2012 is the baseline year for which comprehensive information is available on both condition and capacity of assets, as well as approved planned capital expenditures for both Wichita and Sedgwick County.

1. Transportation Infrastructure ($3.7 billion) -

(Highways, streets, bridges, sidewalks/paths, parking facilities, transit, airport)

Summary of Major Assets:

• Wichita and Sedgwick County combined transportation assets account for 54% of all City and County infrastructure (52% of total City assets and 57% of total County assets). These assets include a total of 2,500 miles of roads and streets (including over 100 miles of unpaved city streets), over 990 miles of sidewalks, 950 bridges, 54 miles of bike paths, 9 miles of bike lanes, a public transit center and facility, and two public airports.

Wichita Streets Below National Pavement Index Standard

⬚ figure

Condition and Capacity:

• Annual straight-line depreciation (adjusted for assets condition) of City and County assets in this category is estimated at $102 million and $46 million respectively.

• Nearly half (48%) of Wichita’s streets fall below the recommended pavement condition index (PCI) developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and standardized by the American Society for Testing and Materials. The City is currently (2013) developing a new street condition measurement system that will more accurately identify street pavement condition and maintenance techniques that can maximize the return-on-maintenance dollars spent to extend the life cycle of existing City streets. Timely and appropriate maintenance has a significant impact on the useful life of pavement due to variations in usage, weather, construction techniques, and drainage characteristics.

• Based upon national pavement condition index standards, additional Wichita street maintenance funding needs are currently (2012) estimated at $12 million

Wichita Under-Investment in Infrastructure Maintenance

⬚ figure

annually. These estimates will be adjusted once the City finalizes a new street condition measurement system.

• It is estimated that between 23% and 46% of Wichita streets have a sidewalk.
• Sedgwick County utilizes a five-year road maintenance schedule that has yielded good overall road conditions for County-maintained roads.
• Approximately 29% of Wichita's bridges and 6% of Sedgwick County's bridges are functionally obsolete and/or structurally deficient based on national assessment standards (these bridges are not hazardous or dangerous). The City has over $69 million in needed bridge projects for which no funding has been identified.
• Road system congestion: There is less traffic congestion in the Wichita area now than five years ago. According to the 2012 Wichita Urban Mobility Report prepared by the Texas Transportation Institute, traffic congestion in the Wichita metro area expressed as a percentage of peak vehicle miles traveled decreased between 2006 and 2011 (8% in 2006; 5% in 2011). Wichita metro area traffic system congestion as a percentage of total lane-miles also decreased during this same time period (16% in 2006; 9% in 2011).
• Road system safety: Between 2005 and 2009, the number of crashes in the Wichita metro region remained steady near 10,500 per year while the overall crash rate (number of traffic crashes per one million vehicle miles traveled) declined slightly from 2.48 crashes to 2.31 crashes (WAMPO Safety Plan 2010). While the overall crash rate declined, the total number of crashes involving vulnerable road users (motorcyclists, pedestrians, and cyclists) increased from 254 crashes per year to 314 crashes per year.
• The capacity of Wichita Mid-Continent Airport is currently being enlarged with a terminal upgrade and parking improvements at a cost of $200 million.
• Wichita Transit: An additional investment of $20.5 million (83% federal funding) is required for the phased replacement of Transit's aging bus fleet (48 buses over the next five years). Utilizing compressed natural gas (CNG) as a cheaper fuel source for buses would require the city to make a capital investment of approximately $3 million (80% federal funding) to install a CNG facility. Roughly 3% of the city's population currently uses public transit (12,000 individual riders annually). Recent plans to improve transit service have recommended system improvements (more routes, increased frequencies and hours of bus service) for which no funding has been identified. Future funding sources to maintain Wichita Transit operations and transit services remain uncertain after 2015.

⬚ figure

Planned Capital Expenditures (2012):

<u>City of Wichita Capital Improvement Program (2011-2020)</u> -

• Following the slow-down in new home construction after 2008, the City has placed more emphasis on street projects within established areas of Wichita. The City has determined that it may get the best return on its limited road maintenance dollars by extending the life of streets that are currently in better condition rather than those streets that are in the worst condition.
• The three state-funded T-WORKS transportation projects (with local City and County matching funds) committed in the Wichita metro area through 2020 are: Kellogg/I-235 interchange improvements ($116 million); Kellogg Freeway eastward extension from Cypress to 127th Street ($162 million); and, improvements to K-96/I-235/I-135 interchanges (design only, no construction funds available).
• Wichita's major planned transportation improvement expenditure categories through 2020 are: Arterial Streets ($584 million - $206 million in City funds); Freeways ($247 million - $94 million in City funds); Bridges ($80 million - $73.8 million in City funds); Transit ($28 million - $4.6 million in City funds); Airport ($305 million - $194 million in City funds).

<u>Sedgwick County Capital Improvement Program (2013-2018)</u> -

• For future County road and bridge projects planned through 2018, system maintenance (600 miles of road; 600 bridge structures) is the first priority. Roughly 50% of County CIP funds are expended for system maintenance. System reconstruction is the second priority and new improvements (routes and bridges) are third priority.
• Sedgwick County’s major planned transportation improvement expenditure categories through 2018 are: Roads ($78 million - $70 million in County funds); Freeways ($83 million - $4 million in County funds); Bridges ($16 million - $12 million in County funds).

2. Health & Environment Infrastructure ($2.1 billion) -

(Water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer/stormwater management, solid waste management, public health)

Summary of Major Assets:

• Wichita and Sedgwick County combined health and environment assets account for roughly 30% of all City and County infrastructure (39% of total City assets and 1% of total County assets). Wichita has 2,016 miles of sanitary and storm sewer lines, and 2,367 miles of water lines.
• Wichita operates a cell for construction and demolition waste at the former Brooks Landfill facility.
• In 2006, Wichita completed Phase I of the multi-phase Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project (ASR) to supplement the Cheney Reservoir and local City well fields as the long-term water supply sources for the City. To date (2102), Wichita has spent $254 million dollars on Phases I and II of the ASR Project.

⬚ figure

• Wichita maintains and operates three sewer treatment facilities - Plant #2, Plant #3 and the 4-Mile Creek Plant.
• Wichita and Sedgwick County jointly own and operate the Wichita/Valley Center Floodway Control Project. Completed in 1959, this project currently consists of 108.8 miles of levees and 40.9 miles of channels that transect Valley Center, Park City, Wichita, Haysville and unincorporated Sedgwick County.
• Sedgwick County Public Health Department clinic and office facilities are currently leased or rented. Under agreement with the City of Wichita, the Health Department will eventually take title (in eight years) to the current City-owned facility at 1900 E. 9th St. North.

Condition and Capacity:

• Annual straight-line depreciation (adjusted for assets condition) of City and County assets in this category is estimated at $57 million and $0.8 million respectively.
• Wichita’s water supply: Wichita’s long-term water supply needs and costs are currently under evaluation. The City is reviewing the impact and effect of long-term drought on Lake Cheney and the ASR Project, as well as the impacts of agriculture irrigation and chloride-contaminated groundwater movement. Most of the City’s long-term water supply costs will be paid by Wichita Water Utility consumers (requiring a possible increase in utility rates), supplemented with possible additional funding from other partners including the state and federal governments. The potential costs are currently unknown. Long-term options include a mix of:
  • Additional water conservation practices;
  • Re-using treated sewer plant water for irrigation or manufacturing;

• Tapping into the El Dorado reservoir;

• Water desalination or reverse osmosis facilities.

• Wichita sewer treatment facilities current average daily demand and capacity:

  • Plant #2 (54 mg/day capacity - averaging 30 mg/day);
  • Plant #3 (3.5 mg/day capacity - averaging 0.5 mg/day);
  • 4-Mile Creek Plant (2.5 mg/day capacity - currently at design capacity)

By 2020, Plant #2 will need to be upgraded (estimated cost range of $95 million to $146 million) to meet federal EPA mandates for biological nutrient removal standards in wastewater discharged into lakes or rivers (requiring a possible increase in utility rates).

• Wichita’s water and sewer pipe system: The age, size of pipe and material composition of the City’s water lines, water valves, and sewer lines vary throughout the City, and reflect in large part the decade of building construction. Approximately 25% of the City’s water lines are over 50 years old - some lines in downtown Wichita are over 100 years old. Roughly 33% of the City’s sewer lines are over 50 years old. The condition of these system assets represents significant maintenance and replacement liabilities on the part of the City over the next 20 years. In 2012, funding for the City’s annual water line repair/replacement budget increased from $2.5 million to $5.4 million. Funding for the City’s annual sewer repair/replacement budget increased from $1.5 million to $5.4 million. Unfunded water and sewer maintenance projects totaling $42 million have been identified by Public Works and Utilities Department.

• Substantial improvements to Wichita’s current sewer collection system may also be required over the next decade to limit sewer back-up incidents, if so mandated by the EPA. Depending upon the level of mandate, this could potentially cost the City over $100 million per year for multiple years (requiring a possible increase in utility rates).

• The overall age, condition and capacity of Wichita’s water and sewer pipe system is such that the current system is not capable of providing new or enhanced services in certain older established neighborhoods and newer suburban areas without significant re-investment on the part of either the City or private developers.

• Wichita/Valley Center Floodway Control Project: The annual operation and maintenance budget is $2 million. An additional $1.6 million is needed annually to maintain the project to FEMA and U.S. Corps of Engineers certification and accreditation standards. Needed and desired future improvements and expansions to the project over the next 10-15 years would cost an estimated $60 million.

• Wichita and Sedgwick County stormwater management: The Sedgwick County Stormwater Management Advisory Board has identified more than $200 million in future stormwater infrastructure projects

⬚ figure

county-wide and across multiple jurisdictions necessary to solve historic and chronic stormwater/flooding problems. Wichita’s current $2.0 per month ERU (equivalent residential unit) stormwater fee generates $8.5 million annually and is insufficient to raise the additional $76 million needed by the City to fund required City projects through 2020.

• Brooks Landfill construction and demolition cell: The current estimated life expectancy of the remaining cell is 2018. The City is proposing a new cell that would create 36 years of construction and demolition waste capacity. Design and permitting approvals should be completed by 2015.

Planned Capital Expenditures (2012): City of Wichita Capital Improvement Program (2011-2020) -

• Wichita’s priority for planned water and sewer investments is the rehabilitation and replacement of system integrity and capacity rather than system expansion. Major planned health and environment capital improvement expenditure categories through 2020 are: Water Supply ($345 million); Water Distribution ($236 million); Sewer Distribution ($114 million); Sewer Treatment & Facilities ($177 million); Stormwater ($32 million - $15.5 million in City funds).

Sedgwick County Capital Improvement Program (2013-2018) -

• Major planned health and environment capital improvement expenditure categories through 2018 are: Stormwater ($5 million).

3. Culture, Recreation & Parks Infrastructure ($0.5 billion) -

(Libraries, arts/education facilities, parks, recreation facilities)

Summary of Major Assets:

• Wichita and Sedgwick County combined culture, recreation and parks infrastructure assets account for roughly 7% of all City and County infrastructure (6% of total City assets and 14% of total County assets).

• Wichita recreation assets include 124 parks, 11 pools, 8 recreation centers and 5 golf courses. Special recreational use facilities include Lawrence Dumont Stadium, Ralph Wulz Riverside Tennis Center and the Wichita Ice Center.

• Wichita education and cultural assets include 10 public libraries, Botanica, the Great Plains Nature Center, Century II Convention Center, CityArts, Exploration Place (joint City/County), Mid-America All Indian Center, Old Cowtown Museum, Wichita Art Museum and the Wichita-Sedgwick County Historical Museum.

• Sedgwick County recreation, education and cultural assets include Lake Afton Park and Observatory, Intrust Bank Arena, National Center for Aviation Training, Sedgwick County Extension Center, Sedgwick County Park and the Sedgwick County Zoo.

Condition and Capacity:

• Annual straight-line depreciation (adjusted for assets condition) of City and County assets in this category is estimated at $20 million and $5 million respectively.

• Wichita recreation assets: Based on extensive public input and asset inventory work undertaken in 2008, the Wichita Park and Open Space Plan (PROS) recommends $8 million annually for the replacement and/or renovation of the City’s existing park and recreation assets. The City’s annual spending on replacement and/or maintenance has averaged around $2.3 million. The PROS plan recommends $19 million be spent annually to implement recommended expansions to the City’s park and recreation system. Unfunded park projects totaling $44 million have been identified by the Park and Recreation Department.

• Wichita education and cultural assets: Asset renovation cost estimates include $12 million for Century II, $5 mil-

lion for Kennedy Plaza, $30 million for a new downtown library and $0.5 million for Westlink Library improvements. No funds have been identified for the proposed Northwest Regional Library ($9.7 million), the proposed Southeast Wichita Community Resource Center ($8.3 million), the recommended $50 million retrofit of Lawrence Dumont Stadium, or the recommended $173 million expansion to the Convention Center.

• Sedgwick County recreation, education and cultural assets: The Intrust Bank Arena has a dedicated operations and maintenance reserve fund of $8.7 million.

Planned Capital Expenditures (2012):

<u>City of Wichita Capital Improvement Program (2011-2020)</u> -

• Major planned cultural, recreation and parks capital improvement expenditure categories through 2020 are: Parks ($26.5 million - $24 million in City funds); Libraries ($33.5 million); Culture/Arts ($18.4 million).

<u>Sedgwick County Capital Improvement Program (2013-2018)</u> -

• Major planned cultural, recreation and parks capital improvement expenditure categories through 2018 are: Parks ($1 million); Education ($1 million).

4. Public Safety Infrastructure ($0.2 billion) -

(Fire facilities, police facilities, EMS facilities, corrections facilities, court facilities)

Summary of Major Assets:

• Wichita and Sedgwick County combined public safety infrastructure assets account for roughly 6% of all City and County infrastructure (1% of total City assets and 20% of total County assets).
• Wichita's fire facilities include 22 fire stations and a regional fire training center.
• Wichita's police facilities include 4 police substations, the City Hall Police Center and a bomb disposal range.
• Sedgwick County's public safety facilities include 15 EMS posts, 9 fire stations (Sedgwick County Fire District #1), County Sheriff's Office, Sedgwick County Jail, joint City/County Law Enforcement Training Center, Public Safety Center, juvenile and adult correction/detention facilities and work release centers.
• Wichita and Sedgwick County are providing matching funds for the construction of the new Heartland Preparedness Center, a joint law enforcement training center and Kansas National Guard facility.
• Significant portions of total public safety service expenditures for both the City and County are the staffing costs associated with the delivery of public safety services.

Condition and Capacity:

• Annual straight-line depreciation (adjusted for assets condition) of City and County assets in this category is estimated at $1.9 million and $10.5 million respectively.
• In Wichita, the total violent crime rate per 1,000 population has increased slightly since 2010 (5.39 in 2010; 5.59 in 2012) while the property crime rate per 1,000 population has increased notably (49.77 in 2010 to 57.38 in 2012). Nationally, property crimes rates have risen while rates for violent crimes have declined.
• Wichita residential structure fires have trended downward over the last four years (542 in 2009; 364 in 2012) as has the rate of residential structure fires per 1,000 structures (4.4 in 2009; 2.9 in 2012). Basic life support (BLS) responses for the Wichita Fire Department have trended upward since 2010 (30,633 in 2010: 33,938 in 2012) as has the rate of BLS per 1,000 population (80.1 in 200; 88.3 in 2012).
• Wichita police public safety assets: Existing Patrol East and Patrol West Substations have operational and capacity issues and are not strategically located for optimal service delivery based upon the city’s current urban growth limits. The City has committed $5 million to fund the relocation of these substations. No funds have been identified for a new Police helicopter ($2.5 million) or for remodeling projects at the City Hall Police Center ($3 million) and the Patrol North and South Substations ($2.7 million).

• Wichita fire public safety assets: Due to expanded City growth, the Fire Department has recommended the construction of two additional fire stations to ensure targeted response time coverage. No funds have been identified to construct these stations ($5.6 million total cost) or the recommended fleet center improvements to the Fire Regional Training Center ($5.6 million).
• Sedgwick County public safety service assets: The County has initiated design work ($2.1 million) to improve the aging Law Enforcement Training Center. Funding commitments have been made for a new County Administration Building ($32 million cost estimate) due to the State Supreme Court directive to accommodate up to eight new judges in the 18th Judicial District at the Main Courthouse. The County has identified a need to replace EMS Post 1 and construct a new northeast EMS post. No funds have been identified for these facilities ($2.2 million total).

Planned Capital Expenditures (2012): <u>City of Wichita Capital Improvement Program (2011-2020)</u> -

• Major planned public safety capital improvement expenditure categories through 2020 are: Fire Facilities ($2.8 million); Fire Apparatus ($31 million); Police Facilities ($5 million); Police Equipment ($4 million); Heartland Preparedness Center ($90 million - $19.2 million in City funds).

<u>Sedgwick County Capital Improvement Program (2013-2018)</u> -

• Major planned public safety capital improvement expenditure categories through 2018 are: Public Safety & Court Facilities ($1 million); Heartland Preparedness Center ($30 million).

Appendix - Community Engagement

During the development of this Plan, ongoing efforts have been made to better inform, educate and engage the community in the development of the Community Investments Plan. Public outreach initiatives have included a community-wide survey, over 100 ACT-ICT community outreach meetings, eight informal Community Investments Plan public open house meetings, eight Community Investments Plan community discussion meetings and numerous presentations to community/neighborhood groups, business organizations and service clubs. The web-based Activate Wichita engagement tool has also been utilized. Summaries of these initiatives are provided below:

2013 WSU Community Survey Results

A survey of 25,000 randomly selected registered voters in Wichita and Sedgwick County was conducted by Wichita State University early in the Plan development process (January 2013). This survey reached a broad cross-section of the community. Developed with input from focus groups discussions, the purpose of the WSU survey was to create a general awareness of the infrastructure investment issues facing our community; identify initial community priorities for future public infrastructure investment; and, to get an indication (at a general level) of community willingness to pay for future public investments.

A total of 4,100 surveys were returned yielding a response rate of almost 17%. This means that the survey results have a plus or minus margin of error rate of less than 1% and are statistically valid/representative of our community. Priorities for future public infrastructure investment as identified in the WSU community survey questionnaire results are summarized in the following graphics:

⬚ figure

It is important to recognize that the survey responses do not likely reflect a fully informed community awareness or understanding of the following factors: community trends and challenges ahead; the current condition of our public infrastructure and facility assets; or, the guiding principles of maximizing return on investment and minimizing future risk to our community.

The WSU survey results do not provide the ‘answer’ to the issues and questions addressed in this Plan. Rather, the survey initiated the community discussion about future community needs and wants. The survey results do provide some important preliminary community feedback on possible future public investment priorities and willingness to pay. A complete summary of the survey questions and results are contained in a separate report prepared by WSU entitled, “Wichita-Sedgwick County Community Investments Plan, Community Survey: Overview, Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs, Wichita State University, 2013.”

ACT-ICT Community Outreach Results

More than 2,000 people attended 102 ACT ICT community meetings held from mid-September 2013 through January 2014 to share their vision and public investment priorities for the City of Wichita. These meetings were held in part to provide vision direction for the development of the Community Investments Plan. Attendees were also asked to indicate their public investment priorities and preferred methods/options for funding those priorities. The results of the feedback received are summarized below. A detailed compilation of all feedback received is contained in the report entitled, “City of Wichita ACT ICT Community Engagement Survey Results, Hugo Wall School of Urban and Public Affairs, Wichita State University, February 2014.”

Community Vision

Citizens in the survey showed strong value for community and toward future generations:

• Are willing to rise above their personal interest to do what is best for the community (72%)
• Have a strong commitment to preserving the future and are willing to do their part so that a better community is left for the next generation (86 - 98%)
• Willing to take responsibility to help create opportunity for all citizens IF citizens are willing to do their part (93 - 95%)

Residents shared 1,379 statements on their vision for the community. Twenty different themes arose in participant comments:

1. Top theme: Economic development -community growth, innovation, job creation and diversification, job training, business promotion
2. Second most discussed theme– arts and culture and entertainment events and amenities

Funding

How should we invest to create our community’s vision for the future?:

⬚ figure

Priorities

Community Survey: Residents ranked 14 different priorities and their willingness to pay for them. The top 5 priorities were:

⬚ figure

ACT ICT: The Top 10 Priorities for Future Public Investment

⬚ figure

April 2014 Community Investments Plan Open House Meeting Results

Four come-and-go community open house meetings were held during the month of April (April 14, City Arts; April 16, Alford Library; April 21, WSU Metroplex; and April 28, Sedgwick County Extension Office). Total attendance was 97 people. The following is a summary of the feedback received to specific questions asked of meeting attendees:

Topic - Determining how best for Wichita to grow over the next 20 years

HANDOUT QUESTION: How best for Wichita to grow? Rank the following three Wichita growth areas according to which you think best supports the future growth, prosperity and quality of life of our community (1=best, 2=second best, 3=third best) (68 total responses)

General Thoughts and Comments Submitted

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Focus growth and infrastructure reinvestment within the established urban core and the downtown – encourage infill development
• A strong downtown is important to our community and will help attract/retain younger people
• Slow spending on suburban growth – it is financially unsustainable
• Investment in a more effective public transit system is important to the future of our community
• Need to maintain and improve our existing water, sewer and local road infrastructure assets – a new central library and securing a long-term water supply are also top priorities

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Current redevelopment projects are too modest – our City needs to be more dense
• Let the market determine future growth areas
• Keep taxes low to encourage people to stay in our community
• New growth won’t solve our current infrastructure maintenance and replacement problems
• Consider artificial turf requirements in new home green spaces – prohibit planting of fescue grasses in new home construction areas
• Eliminate the use of special assessment financing tools to fund new development – costs of new streets and utilities should be included in the initial purchase cost of the lot/home
• Combine City and County public safety services
• Need to improve USD 259 schools in order to attract young families in the urban core
• Quality of life investments are needed to retain and attract new jobs, businesses and people to our community
• Public transit allows some people in our community to keep their jobs

Topic - Creating an effective infrastructure investment decision-making process for the long-term

BOARD QUESTION: Please list important criteria that you would like elected officials to consider as they make future community infrastructure spending and cost-reduction decisions.

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Future economic growth and job creation within our community
• Quality of life investments that will retain/attract young professionals and a strong workforce – advancing community quality of life in order to promote economic development
• Investments that will support and improve public transit in our community

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Consideration must be given to private sector development plans
• Wichita has to be a place people want to live – then the jobs will come
• Alternative transportation investments (transit, bicycle and pedestrian) are important – 1/3 of Wichita does not drive
• Priority area for investment needs to be the urban core – it will help the most people and fix what we already have
• Investments that will complement and support WSU efforts to bring new jobs to our community

BOARD QUESTION: What thoughts and comments do you have?

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Take care of basic infrastructure needs first – maintain what we have
• Investments in libraries are key to quality of community life
• A vibrant downtown and urban core is important
• Public transit improvements need to be a priority for our community

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Explore the development of local food systems as a way to stimulate economic development – vacant lands in the urban core could be used for local food production
• Privatize the public transit system
• Consider medical marijuana as way to raise revenues
• Super high-speed municipal internet is needed to support future business growth and educational development

May-June 2014 Community Investments Plan Discussion Meeting Results

Nine community discussion meetings were held during the month of May and June (May 15th, 22nd, 29th and June 3rd, 5th, 12th, 19th and 26th). Each meeting was organized around one of the following topic interest areas: Business, Industry, Commerce and Transportation; Building, Development and Real Estate; Arts, Culture and Recreation; Social Services, Community Health and Wellness; Neighborhoods; Education; and, Mayor’s Youth Council. Seven of these meetings were held at the Downtown YMCA, one meeting was held at City Arts and one meeting was held at the Wichita Country Club. Total attendance at these meetings was 96 people. The following is a summary of the feedback received to specific questions asked of meeting attendees:

Topic - Identifying long-term investment spending priorities; determining how best for Wichita to grow over the next 20 years

QUESTION: Prioritize future City spending within the following three general categories of infrastructure investment (Priority #1, #2, #3) (78 total responses)

QUESTION: Check future City spending priorities within each of the following types of infrastructure projects (85 total responses)

DISCUSSION: What projects and investments are most critical to Wichita’s future?

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Securing an affordable long-term water supply for our community
• Maintaining our existing infrastructure and facilities (particularly streets, bridges, water and sewer lines) especially within the established urban core area
• Improving and expanding our existing public transit system will be important to the future of our community (more transportation and accessibility options especially for millenials, seniors and disadvantaged people in our community)
• Investing in quality of community life projects (esp. parks, libraries, cultural arts/entertainment) is needed to retain and attract people to our community

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Investments that reduce divisions between different areas and populations of our City
• Investments that reduce our consumption of energy
• Neighborhood and urban core area investments should be done in a networked, block-by-block, coordinated manner that integrates all infrastructure category needs (e.g. water, sewer, streets, parks) and helps achieve long-term cost savings
• Investment in high-speed internet access
• Investing in revamped/retooled libraries - “media centers”, to enhance quality of life and bring on-line technology access to all in our community

QUESTION: Recognizing that growth in all areas of Wichita is necessary for enhancing the quality of life in our community, rank the following three Wichita growth areas according to which you think best supports the future growth, prosperity and quality of life of our community (1=best, 2=second best, 3=third best) (83 total responses)

DISCUSSION: How best should Wichita grow over the next 20 years?

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Vitality, growth and infrastructure reinvestment within the established urban core needs to be a priority. This area has affordable housing stock as well as proximity to services and many cultural/arts/entertainment amenities
• A strong downtown is important to everyone in our community – it is what makes a community unique and attractive.
• The suburbs will remain a strong and affordable draw, especially for younger families
• Greater connectivity and mobility options (esp. bicycling, walking, transit) will be needed for all community residents

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Identify growth areas that will generate the best return on investment over the long-term
• People look to downtown for cultural and entertainment amenities regardless of where they live in the community
• Future generations will want to live in areas of reduced travel time to their place of work, personal services and entertainment
• Encourage growth and reinvestment around centers of education (WSU Innovation Center and existing public schools) and city parks

Creating an effective infrastructure investment decision-making process for the long-term

DISCUSSION: What would you want an elected official to consider when making decisions about investing in new capital projects, modifying existing projects, or eliminating existing capital projects?

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Consider the long-term impacts of investment decisions on future generations, and whether it impacts and benefits a larger number of citizens - greatest good for the greatest number of people
• Ensure that the scope and scale of investments is cost effective and right for our community
• Keeping our existing assets up to standard must be a priority for future investment
• Invest in projects that have multiple benefits to our community and/or build upon other projects (e.g. stormwater detention facility that also provides park/open space during dry periods)
• Investments are needed to enhance our quality of community life in order to retain our residents and attract young professionals
• Invest in projects that will help attract better paying jobs and help grow our community

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• The real question is what do we want our community to be in the next 20 years? That future vision should drive our investment decisions and priorities – the challenge is that the long-term community vision will be different for different people
• It is important to find balance in future investment decisions and to be flexible/adaptable to changing circumstances
• Ask whether our community can afford not to do the project or make this investment
• What are the investment trade-offs and down-sides of a project? How will this project take away from other important projects?
• Make targeted investments that will help people say, ‘this is the place where I want to live, work and play.”
• Do a return-on-investment calculation on the basis of ‘benefit per capita’
• Ensure that investments help foster and develop a healthy and safe community

Topic - Establishing important infrastructure investment decision-making criteria and considerations

QUESTION: Listed below are important criteria and considerations to guide future community infrastructure investment spending and cost-reduction decisions. Please check the two (2) most important and the two (2) least important. (83 total responses)

DISCUSSION: What are the most important decision-making criteria?

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Enhancing the quality of life in our community so as to create a place where people will want to live, work and play
• Promoting economic growth/development and new job creation – creating a diversity of good jobs
• Advancing the public health and safety of our community - protecting our air and water quality
• Maintaining flexibility in order to seize opportunities and make good investments – can’t be locked into existing plan priorities

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Quality of life investments, economic growth and creating a future place where people want to live, work and play are inter-related. Without good jobs, there is nothing to attract people, and the quality of life investments cannot be sustained
• Use a holistic approach to creating quality of life in our community
• Advancing our community quality of life is important – Koch Industries has hundreds of well-paying jobs here in Wichita that they can’t fill
• Just because citizens want a project or investment doesn’t necessarily mean it is a good investment for our community
• Invest in projects that reinvest in our community and help to build our identity
• Invest to help support a strong public school system
• Review the history of past investments and determine which have had the greatest benefit to the community

Topic- Any other things or issues needing to be addressed or considered in the Community Investments Plan?

DISCUSSION:

<u>Recurring Comments/Themes:</u>

• Wichita needs to establish and improve its regional/national brand, image and identify (outsiders have a false impression of our community) – promote what we have to offer as a community
• High-speed internet access is critical to the future of our community
• Passenger rail connections to our community will be important in the future
• Need to create more walkable neighborhoods
• Need to support healthy local food systems

<u>Unique Insights/Ideas:</u>

• Within the 20-year plan, set shorter-term (3 to 5 year) investment priorities that can be reviewed annually
• Co-ordinate with other jurisdictions (municipal and school) on major infrastructure or facility planning and decision-making
• Create ‘street soccer’ facilities by re-using older, under-utilized city tennis courts

May-June 2014 Activate Wichita Online Survey Results

General Project Demographics

The figures below illustrate the participant demographics for the Community Investments Plan Survey which appeared on www.activate-wichita.com and closed June 26, 2014. The survey attracted 50 respondents which is 26% less than Activate Wichita’s average response rate (but still 85% more than MindMixer’s total average). The most responsive postal codes for this survey were 67203 (District VI), 67218 (District III), and 67226 (District II).

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

Community Investment Plan Survey Summary

This survey attempted to gain feedback related to the growth scenarios proposed by the Plan Steering Committee. Participants were asked to rank from first to third the areas they felt would best support future growth, prosperity and quality of life in our community. In addition to these questions, participants identified what they liked the best and least about the Wichita 2035 growth scenarios as well as what important items elected officials should consider as they make community infrastructure spending and cost-reduction decisions.

Areas which Support Future Growth, Prosperity and Quality of Life

Respondents were asked to rank three areas of the City regarding their overall importance to supporting and developing growth in all of Wichita. The responses indicated that participants felt that development and redevelopment

in the (1) Downtown area ranked highest in importance (47%), followed by development and redevelopment on vacant/underutilized properties or buildings in the (2) Established Urban Core (43%), and finally development on vacant properties and agricultural land in the (3) Suburbs (68%).

Items for Elected Officials to Consider

Question 5 of the survey asked participants what things they felt elected officials should consider when making infrastructure spending and cost reduction decisions. Several responses dealt with advancing the community quality of life and having these efforts be in concert with economic growth and job creation. These respondents felt that none of the issues should be looked at in a vacuum and the inherent relationships between them should not be ignored.

Several respondents stressed how important a vibrant downtown is to future growth in Wichita. Many felt that an improved downtown would do most to attract and retain young professionals. Urban sprawl was identified as a leading cause of the decay of downtown amenities over time. Suggested improvements to downtown included a grocery store, special or free transit routes, and ample parking. In addition to downtown improvements, a number of respondents singled out sidewalk and street repair across all of Wichita as a priority they’d like elected officials to consider in their decision making. Job creation and stability was mentioned several times as well. Other items that respondents felt elected officials should consider include environmental impacts, improved library services, a focus on short commute times, reliable access to water, and increased cultural attractions.

Opinions on the Wichita 2035 Growth Scenarios

When asked what they liked most about the three presented scenarios, respondents identified numerous items. The focus on economic growth and job creation was mentioned several times. Rehabilitation of the downtown are and streets/sidewalks all over town was also identified. Many appreciated the realistic admission that there will be a significant deficit in terms of resources to address the future needs of the community. Having an honest interpretation of potential conditions was viewed as the best way to begin planning for the future.

Some criticism of the growth scenarios centered around their presentation. Respondents claimed that comparing the three options was difficult as they were currently being presented online. A significant number of responders felt that suburban development/redevelopment was focused on too much and that urban sprawl was counter-productive to solving the community’s problems.

Summary

The general consensus from the 50 responses to this survey was that a focus on downtown was essential to future growth and prosperity in Wichita. It was identified as the most important area of town to focus on. It should be noted that 19 respondents claimed they lived in the established urban core are of Wichita and 17 claimed to live in the suburbs (the rest of the responses were non-committal or claimed they lived in the downtown area). When given the opportunity to provide responses to open-ended questions, respondents repeatedly focused on downtown issues and a distaste for continued suburban development. Rebuilding the core of Wichita and gaining all the advantages that come with that process seemed the most popular response offered to this survey.

2015 Community Engagement

2015 Community Meetings & Presentations on the Draft Plan

Forty-one presentations on the Draft Community Investments Plan were made from February through June 22, 2015 to a broad and diverse cross-section of community groups (see list and attendance numbers below). The total attendance at these various presentations and meetings was 738 people.

Business/Community Service/Local Government/Neighborhood Boards & Groups/Professional Associations Access Advisory Board (21) Airport Advisory Board (23) American Institute of Architects - Wichita Chapter (7) American Society of Civil Engineers & Society of Professional Engineers - Wichita Chapter (36) American Society of Landscape Architects - Prairie Gateway Chapter (5) Country Overlook Neighborhood Association (9) Kansas CCIM Chapter of Commercial Real Estate Brokers (11) Mayor's Youth Council - City of Wichita (27) Northeast Millair Neighborhood Association (23) Old Town Rotary Club (9) Sedgwick County Advisory Council on Aging (20) Sedgwick County Association of Cities (14) Southside Democratic Club (20) Southwind Neighborhood Association (19) West Heights United Methodist Church (11) Westlink Neighborhood Association Annual Social (25) Westlink Neighborhood Association Board (7) Wichita Area Association of Realtors - Government Relations Board (10) Wichita Area Builders Association - Board (35) Wichita Area Builders Association - Under 40 Council (23) Wichita Area Builders Association - Remodeler's Council (20) Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization Policy Body (37) Wichita Arts Council (16) Wichita Bar Association - Real Estate Division (25) Wichita Bike/Ped Advisory Board (12) Wichita Downtown Development Corporation Board (9) Wichita Habitat for Humanity Board (18) Wichita Health and Wellness Coalition (10) Wichita Historic Preservation Board (9) Wichita Independent Neighborhoods (14) Wichita Independent Business Association & Wichita Nonprofit Chamber of Service (18) Wichita Library Board (20) Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce - Government Relations Committee (13) Wichita Metro Chamber of Commerce - Health Alliance Committee (41) Wichita Pachyderm Club (30) Wichita Park Board (15) Wichita Transit Advisory Board (15)

Open House Meetings

Four come-and-go community open house meetings (61 total attendance) were also held in April and May 2015 (April 27th at Alford Library; May 4th at City Arts; May 11th at WSU Metroplex; and May 18th at Sedgwick County Extension Office).

Activate Wichita Web Survey

Since April 27, 2015, a summary of the Draft Plan along with the 11 community survey feedback questions have been posted on the City's Activate Wichita website. A total of 316 website material views have occurred (as of June 12, 2015). A total of 15 people responded to the on-line survey questions.

Aggregated Community Outreach Results

The following graphs display the total responses received from the various community meetings, presentations and Activate Wichita (as of June 12, 2015) to each of the 11 community survey questions regarding the overall direction of the Draft Plan.

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

⬚ figure

The following is a summary of all written comments submitted and received. These comments have been organized according to the major Plan elements.

2035 Plan Vision Statement and Core Community Values

• A diverse economy, not dependent on aircraft jobs, is needed - take the focus off aviation jobs and diversify our long-term employment (5).
• A diversified economy must include the creation of green jobs.
• Job growth will be necessary for this Plan to work.
• We need to focus on job creation.
• We need more economic diversity and new businesses.
• We need a plan to bring new jobs to Sedgwick County in order to keep our young people (2) ... this Plan is not innovative enough to keep our younger citizens here.
• Bringing more people to our community is good, but keeping people here is more important.
• Addressing the quality of life and educational needs of Wichita’s youth is important.
• Education needs to be a high priority and it’s not referenced in the draft Plan. Our schools need more support and programs to get students to realize that education is important for their future.
• A big challenge to implementing this Plan is the ever-changing elected City and County leadership that inherently brings new ideas and priorities.
• The Plan Vision statement won’t happen without new leadership.
• Plan is put together well, but additional growth will required additional jobs. This will be difficult with the current County Commission not understanding the nature of job competition with other cities and states.
• We are basing this Plan on accelerated growth projections that are not realistic/practical.

Plan Guiding Policy Principles

• The Plan Vision and Guiding Policy Principles are really defined by willingness to set spending priorities.
• The five Guiding Policy Principles are too general.
• Is it possible to follow all five Plan Guiding Policy Principles at the same time ... how will you choose and prioritize between them?
• The following terms used in the five Guiding Policy Principles; ‘support’, ‘quality’, ‘better’, value-added’, ‘balanced’, and ‘added focus’, need to be defined.
• Need to clarify what ‘make strategic, value-added investment decisions’ means.
• Quality of life keeps our young professionals, attracts people, jobs and economic growth. This will in turn generate additional revenues to invest back into our public infrastructure.
• Quality of life means different things to different people - need to better define what constitutes quality of life for our community.
• Quality of community life includes investments in affordable housing and the creation of a usable public transit system.

Future Wichita Growth Patterns & Policies

Suburban fringe:

• Projected future suburban growth will utilize agricultural land ... need to support urban infill.
• Plan needs to be more cautious about continued suburban growth (2).
• People who choose to live in the fringes of Wichita should expect to have less access to city services.
• We need to stop suburban sprawl with an urban growth boundary around Wichita.
• There is no need for further expansion of the city's suburban areas.
• Look toward raising the cost of development in the fringe areas as means of encouraging redevelopment within existing city limits.
• Stop expanding residential development further away from the established core area.

Downtown:

• Funding downtown development is not a good investment.
• Downtown is already a semi-ghost town. Can we change that, or are we just throwing money down a rat hole?
• More lighting is needed in Old Town.
• Develop downtown.

Urban Infill Strategy:

• I support the Wichita Urban Infill Strategy (2).
• I support concentrating investment and redevelopment of the City core area.
• There needs to be a high emphasis on neighborhood-level investments in the urban core area.
• It's critical that we make it easier to develop and redevelop inner-city neighborhoods.
• A similar guideline should be applied to identify priority areas for renovation and reconstruction in the established central area.
• Make sure that reinvestments to support infill growth do not take away from our continued suburban growth – we need both.
• The Plan does not include a lot of "sustaining" practices ... a means of walking to grocery and daily shops in the core of the City.
• Some local street lights have not been working for some time (by Ray Woodman School and Truesdale).
• Public/private land banking should be incorporated into the urban infill strategy.
• The City needs to enforce its codes and ordinances including the imposition of appropriate penalties on those violators.
• Make it easier to redevelop in the core areas by removing regulatory barriers, improving infrastructure and overall quality of life.
• How will the Plan address the abandoned houses and buildings in the City?
• Abandoned residential and commercial structures convey Detroit-like decline.
• Stop the practice of 10 year tax abatements to existing businesses, even if they are in the ECA.
• Every large city allows inner city decay at the expense of those who cannot afford to live in the more prosperous suburban areas. We need to take better care of what we have already.
• USD 259 must be a partner in this planning process, otherwise, they undermine the efforts of this Plan.

• I would like to see an example of how making public infrastructure investments would increase residential redevelopment and employment growth within Wichita’s Established Central Area.
• The City should not be encouraging infill development.

Plan Elements

Funding & Financing

Taxation issues:

• Instead of focusing on the $9 billion gap which we will never be able to close without significantly raising taxes and fees, we should focus on how to best spend the $4 billion in forecasted revenues.
• The City’s stormwater ERU already addresses our stormwater funding needs.
• All of our talented, creative people and young people will move away if we do not take the financial burden off of future generations.
• Taxpayers should not pay for the costs of public infrastructure needed to support residential/employment growth at the fringes or in the Established Central Area.
• Taxes levied on local businesses are actually a tax on its customers, because that cost is passed on to the consumer.
• An innovative and diverse economy can be accomplished without large tax revenues.
• Be cautious with any future tax increases and the impact it would have on fixed and low-income households.
• The City needs to do a better job assuring citizens that our tax revenues are being spent wisely.
• Any future sales tax initiative to fund a long-term water plan should be done independent of any initiative for economic development slush fund money.
• We get what we are willing to pay for … sometimes, we need to help people understand the cost of our community infrastructure. There are some who would be willing to have their property taxes go up in order to help pay for things.
• We can’t have low taxes and significant public investment at the same time – property tax increases will be needed.
• Taxes need to be raised to accomplish the Plan.
• I support increasing our available funding by raising taxes.
• Additional funding will be required via progressive taxation.
• I don’t mind paying higher taxes for bike paths, park and recreation improvements.
• Additional revenues will be needed to pay for infrastructure construction/maintenance.
• We need additional funding strategies to be included in the Plan. The gap is huge and no solutions are proposed in the Plan.
• I don’t agree with a common sense approach that is limited to less regulation and low taxes.
• We must raise taxes in order to help close the gap between needs/wants and our revenue forecast.
• It is not possible to close the $9 billion gap if the city and county are not willing to raise local taxes.
• It will be very hard to achieve our vision with low taxation. We may need to gauge how much we could raise taxes to get more money.
• I would pay more taxes if necessary to make this happen .

• I'm willing to provide more in property & sales taxes to help close the gap.
• I am willing to pay additional taxes to improve our community infrastructure (2).
• Have these public infrastructure issues been caused by a change in the taxing structure, or due to changes in the state and federal taxing system? Before our public infrastructure issues can be resolved, there needs to be a change in our culture of taxation – the wealthy need to pay more.

Incentives:

• The City needs to stop providing incentives to private developers.
• Don't pay companies to come to Wichita, or give them big tax breaks.
• The community should not be responsible for assuming the debt of businesses who leave the community.
• Targeted tax breaks smack of pay-offs and favoritism – level playing field is needed for all.
• Small businesses are the backbone of our community, but get no support other than the crazy Kansas income tax break. Big businesses get TIF support from the City, and the forecasted jobs don't always pan out.
• Look for opportunities to consolidate and redefine local government. Stay out of direct development and avoid picking winners and losers. Work with the local development community on a fair basis.
• Use public investments, not incentives, to promote green job growth, combat poverty and reduce unemployment.
• No corporate welfare investments.

Funding Priorities:

• Rather than trying to accomplish all three of the investment priorities, we should invest as much as is needed into the first priority and then move on to the others once that priority area is finished.
• Strongly agree that the first priority is to maintain and replace what we have.
• The 3rd investment priority of expanding our current system of infrastructure and facility assets should be the 2nd priority.
• I strongly endorse the fundamentals of maintaining our current infrastructure and yet adding to our assets to support new growth.
• Fund the CIP program.
• Fix what we already have.
• Don't defer maintenance and upkeep of streets, bridges, water and sewer lines (2).
• Maintaining and enhancing our existing infrastructure are the two most important priorities.
• I'm willing to pay more taxes for public transit, water supply and public health.
• I support the Plan emphasis on safety, quality of life and long-term water investments.
• Need to make investments that will keep our college students in Wichita.
• An infrastructure maintenance fund is needed. If a certain percentage of each project is set aside, then we would have the funds for upkeep. It is sad to see our investments falling apart because of a lack of maintenance (for example, bridge rails rusting that need to be replaced but could have been kept if maintained with regular painting).

Miscellaneous:

• Provide micro loans to local entrepreneurs to help create decent-paying jobs within Wichita.
• The payoff from private-public partnerships is often worth it – we need to partner with private entities to continue to redevelop downtown to support the trend among our young people for urban living.

• The payoff from private-public partnerships is often worth it – we need to partner with private entities to continue to redevelop downtown to support the trend among our young people for urban living.
• Public retirement pension plans put a strain on our city budget.
• If we grow our population and employment as projected, then we should be able to increase our forecasted revenues to help finance our future.
• Utilizing alternate energy sources (solar, wind) could reduce some of the City’s costs.
• More energy efficient public buildings would lower costs and help the community.
• Public facilities should be built to LEED Platinum standards to spur the creation of ecologically sustainable building practices locally.
• What happens to capital projects that get deferred for several years?
• We need openness and accountability in the expenditure of public funds ... private contracting or internal competition may be better.
• The City needs to have greater transparency in funding public improvements.
• We can’t let big money interests dictate our means of financing.

Transportation

Transit-yes

• A strong transit plan is needed.
• A dedicated funding source is needed for public transit.
• Public transit needs to be linked to roads and bridges infrastructure issues. More people who use public transit will reduce the number of vehicles on the roadway. Increased vehicular traffic increases the costs to maintain our road/bridge infrastructure and increases the need for more roads and bridges.
• Expand and enhance public transit service (e.g. to support night shift workers).
• Wichita needs to expand public transportation service hours and routes. A vibrant city provides public transportation for its residents and visitors.
• Young people want public transit ... that should be a focus.
• We need better city transit buses.
• Public transit will help the local economy and quality of life if it is a good enough that I don’t need a car.
• Transit should be a higher priority than proposed in the Plan (6).
• There needs to be a higher emphasis on public transit.
• Public transit needs to be a higher priority for the core areas of Wichita ... transit is a quality of life issue (2).
• Public transit should be a medium priority rather than a low-medium priority (2).
• Public transit investments should be a medium-high priority (3).
• Public transit should have a high-medium priority.
• Investments in public transit should be a high priority (4).
• Public transit should be a very high priority (5).
• Public transportation is so important and we need a change management & marketing program to reinvent MTA and improve public perception.

Transit-no

• Public transit is nice to have but it shouldn’t be subsidized by our community to support just 5% of our population. Other alternatives need to be explored including private transit options.
• The public transit cost to serve such a small percentage of our population is not cost-effective nor affordable. At a lesser cost, we could provide free cab fare for the few public transit users.
• We can’t afford a public transit system if we can’t afford to maintain our local streets.
• Public transit should be a low priority.
• Investment in transit should be a very low priority (2).

Local streets

• The Plan does not specifically address the City’s dirt streets and the negative health impacts associate with associated dust emissions (3). USEPA Region 7 states that clean air for our children is a major concern that we need to address.
• Upgrading the dirt streets in our City needs to be a high priority.
• There are also sections of Douglas that need repair – some of our local residential streets are also in great need of repair.
• We have over 100 miles of dirt roads which create dust and health problems. What are the priorities in the Plan to address these problems?
• Local roads and bridges should be a medium priority.
• Local streets are a high investment priority.
• Local roads and bridges are a high priority rather than a very high priority.

Bike/Ped

• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements can be considered quality of life improvements.
• Bicycle and pedestrian improvements are much cheaper than the cost of freeway expansion, and they help improve health and air quality.
• More money and higher priority is needed for maintenance of our bike and pedestrian infrastructure (5).
• Greater investment is needed in constructing and maintaining bike/ped infrastructure.
• Bicycle and pedestrian projects need to be a medium priority transportation investment.
• The Plan needs more emphasis on improving active forms of transportation - sidewalks and hike/bike trails (2).

Bypasses/Freeways

• The NW Bypass is not needed.
• Bypasses and freeways are a low priority.
• Long-term investments in bypasses and freeway expansion should be a higher priority (2).
• Bypasses and freeway expansions should be a medium-high priority.

Miscellaneous

• We need to plan for a rail overpass at 21st St. North and Broadway.
• The Plan needs to address technology impacts … high-speed fiber optic has given communities a huge return.
• The Plan needs to support continued enhancements on the west side of the City … supporting infrastructure and facilities (libraries and public transit) has not kept up with this growth.

Water, Sewer and Stormwater

• We need to repair and maintain our water infrastructure investments in conjunction with water conservation and the development of alternate future water sources.
• Water reuse should be an important part of securing a long-term water supply.
• Need practical, low cost water sources– sewer effluent is a possible source (just need education).
• Water, sewer and stormwater needs should be a high priority rather than a very high priority.
• Saying that long-term water supply investments are a very high priority is fine, but it doesn’t address how it will be accomplished. The ASR project is essentially throwing good money after bad.

Arts, Culture and Recreation

• Quality of life investments should be a low priority (2).
• All quality of life improvements categories are not of equal importance … this single category is too broad.
• Quality of life improvements can’t all be libraries, art exhibits or museums … that’s not realistic for our community.
• This community must support policies and actions that improve the quality of life for young and old alike.
• Quality of community life is an important factor young people consider in deciding where to live.
• Quality of life improvements (e.g. Zoo, Exploration Place) are key to attracting new move-ins according to real estate data. We need to fund these improvements if we are to be competitive with other cities.
• Quantity doesn’t equal quality when it comes to quality of life improvements.
• Quality of life investments should be more of a ‘low-medium’ or ‘medium’ priority.
• Quality of life should be a high or very high priority (2)
• Investment in quality of life is a very high priority (5).
• Long-term quality of life improvements should be a very high priority, which includes public transit (especially for low-wage earners).
• Arts, culture and recreation should be the highest priority along with public safety and water, sewer and stormwater.
• We also need to replace the McAdams and Edgemoor public pools.
• Greater investment is needed in bike/walking paths in Grove/Dr. Glen Dey Park.
• A new downtown library is nice but not a priority given our budget issues.
• I strongly support building a new downtown library.
• A new central library is an important priority.
• We need locally-based and properly maintained “free” recreation buildings for the benefit of our school-aged children.
• Closing the neighborhood city hall eliminates connections between the core area neighborhoods and the City.
• The Plan does not address the future development of County parks.
• Higher priority needed for park maintenance.

Public Safety

• The payoff from private-public partnerships is often worth it – we need to partner with private entities to continue to redevelop downtown to support the trend among our young people for urban living.
• Provide more equipment for first responders.
• Maintaining public safety services is a high priority but expanding them should be a low priority.
• More fire, police and EMS facilities doesn’t equal better facilities or service.
• Public safety infrastructure is strong and in good shape … not a top priority
• Expanding our public safety services facilities doesn’t automatically result in better service.
• Without public health services (aging, physical/mental health, addiction treatment, family crisis, etc.), there will be increased loads placed upon local law enforcement. Public health needs to guide the Plan discussion.
• Utilize smaller fire vehicles on emergency response runs.

General/Overall Comments

• The proposed Plan is “on-target” … thank you.
• Good Plan (2)
• The Plan is very comprehensive and clear.
• The Plan is very convincing and high-level in its approach.
• The Plan is well constructed with a long-term focus.
• Solid Plan approach to current conditions.
• Great and important work!
• Excellent presentation (3)
• Thank you for a great view of our city’s future potential. The Plan provides an excellent base for our future.
• Good work on the Plan (2).
• Plan is very well developed.
• The draft Plan looks good (2).
• Thank you for the proactive approach.
• Staff is to be commended for their good work.
• It’s good to have a long-term plan.
• Draw a sharper distinction between this Plan and economic development efforts of Wichita and Sedgwick County.
• There were not enough details in the presentation to make any kind of assessment of this plan.
• Plan reflects a lot of hard work, but other than a guidance document, it doesn’t solve the issues.
• The Plan appears to be largely a city effort focused largely on Wichita.
• More emphasis should be put on creating the decision-making framework – it would eliminate radical approvals and disapprovals.
• The Plan seems to be headed in the right direction – I have question about the ‘how to make it happen’ part (2)

• Andover is part of our urban area and should be included in this plan even if it is in another county.
• The Plan needs to better address the needs/impacts of the aging of our population and the growing % of our total population that it represents.
• Why is it that some businesses can water their grass while other residents are not allowed to?
• The river bank areas in Riverside Park need cleaning.
• Public funds should be diverted from the Zoo for elephants and given to help our schools. Most of the magnet schools are in bad areas of town.
• Need to provide for ongoing community awareness throughout the life of the Plan.
• A key for success is finding a way of working together for our great city and not getting caught up in meaningless bi-partisan mindsets and bickering.
• Neighborhood input is important to help shape this Plan
• Decide whether the Arkansas River is an asset or liability, and treat it as such.
• The Plan needs to emphasize connecting greenspaces and protecting our environmental resources – very important to the livability and economic viability of our community.
• City employees should be required to live within the City.
• Provide adequate housing and support to our homeless population.
• Need to ensure that the city and county are committed to implementing this Plan and making adjustments as necessary.
• The devil is in the details which this presentation does not get into.
• Like the long-term checks and balances in the plan implementation piece.
• Need more communication between the City and its citizens, especially more public input at the City Council and DAB meetings.
• Age discrimination exists in all employment sectors for those over age 50.
• Use common sense and listen to all sides of the issues.
• Instead of using the words “community investments”, you should call it what it is …. “taxes and spending”.
• Use common sense and listen to all sides of the issues.
• Instead of using the words “community investments”, you should call it what it is …. “taxes and spending”.
• The Community Investments Plan is somewhat flawed in that it must depend on a strategy being in place that will make Wichita more competitive in the region, and on adjusting our tax rates to implement the Plan.
• Spending to retain and attract new jobs and taxpayers is essential. We cannot continue to defer projects to another time when things are better. Wichita/Sedgwick County must become more competitive in the region.
• Youth employment programs are needed to help rebuild and develop new infrastructure.
• Spiritual resources and compassionate service is slowly fading from our community.
• Taxing marijuana will help fill our revenue gaps.
• A strong school system will be key to our economic prosperity and development.

Appendix - Plan Adoption and Amendments

CERTIFICATION OF ADOPTION OF THE WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

I, Dale Miller, Director of the Metropolitan Area Planning Department, and Secretary for the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, hereby certify that the attached Community Investments Plan 2015-2035 is a true and correct copy of the new Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan adopted by the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission on November 19, 2015.

⬚ figure Dale Miller, Director Metropolitan Area Planning Department

RESOLUTION

WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY METROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COMMISSION

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the statutes of the State of Kansas, in K.S.A. 12-747 et seq., the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission developed a Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County in 1993, and amended in 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan may be amended or a new Comprehensive Plan adopted to ensure it reflects timely and relevant information and the needs of the community; and

WHEREAS, before the adoption of any Comprehensive Plan or amendment thereto, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission is required by K.S.A. 12-747 et seq. to hold a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission did give due and proper notice by publication in the official City and County newspapers on July 30, 2015, of a public hearing to be held to consider the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on August 20, 2015, did hold a public hearing at which a quorum was present, did hear all comments and testimony relating to said adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, and voted to adopt the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035 as the new Comprehensive Plan;

WHEREAS, the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners, on November 4, 2015, returned the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve;

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wichita, on November 10, 2015, returned the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve;

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on November 19, 2015, gave further consideration to the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, and voted 10-3 to amend the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, as outlined herein as Attachment “A”;

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission duly assembled, hereby adopts the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, and attached herein as Attachment “B”, as the new Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, and also adopts those neighborhood and area plans itemized on Attachment “C” as elements of the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that notice of this action be transmitted to the City Council of the City of Wichita and to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners for their consideration and adoption.

ADOPTED at Wichita, Kansas, this 19th day of November, 2015.

Carol C. Neugent, Chair Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Dale Miller, Secretary Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

Approved as to Form:

Jennifer Magana, Director of Law City of Wichita

ATTACHMENT “A”

The following amendments to the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, are included in the duly adopted Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015:

Plan page 17. Add the following additional text (identified below with italics) to the first sentence of the introductory paragraph located in the left-hand column of the page:

The purpose of the Future Land Use Policies is to encourage orderly growth that meets future market demand while considering impacts to taxpayers, developers, the environment, and the community as a whole while protecting individual property rights.

Plan page 29. Add the following new Funding and Financing Strategy C statement (identified below with italics) under Goal 2 – Maintain a responsible and appropriate taxing level to address our community’s needs.

C. In 1985, Sedgwick County voters approved a countywide one-cent sales tax to help maintain or construct road projects as well as reduce property tax. The one-cent sales tax revenue distribution formula is determined by statute and is based on local jurisdiction property tax mill levy rates as well as population.

Plan page 30. Add the following new sentence (identified below with italics) at the end of the last sentence of the second paragraph located in the right-hand column of the page:

Opportunities for alternate, innovative solutions must be pursued.

Plan page 30. Reverse the listing of transportation investment priorities for Wichita as contained in the third paragraph located in the right-hand column of the page, from highest priority to lowest priority as follows (indicated below with italics):

Very high priority – local streets and bridges Medium-high priority – public transit Low-medium priority – freeway enhancements Low priority – new bypasses

Plan page 30. Following the third paragraph located in the right-hand column of the page, add the following new paragraph of text (indicated below with italics) listing the transportation investment priorities for Sedgwick County:

For Sedgwick County, the level of investment priority over the next 20 years varies across the major transportation infrastructure categories as follows: Very high priority – local streets and bridges Medium-high priority – freeway enhancements Medium priority – new bypasses Low priority – public transit

Plan page 31. In Transportation Strategy B statement listed in the left-hand column of the page, delete “public” (indicated below with a strikethrough) from the Strategy wording as follows:

B. Develop and implement a long-term public transit system plan that reflects the needs of our community.

Plan page 33. In the Arts, Culture and Recreation Goal 1 statement listed in the left-hand column of the page, delete the word “premier” (indicated below a strikethrough) from the Strategy wording as follows:

Goal 1 – Improve quality of life and healthy lifestyles for all through an accessible system of premier arts, culture, library, recreation and open space facilities.

Plan page 33. In the Arts, Culture and Recreation Strategy G statement listed in the right-hand column of the page, delete the words “Establish a task force to” (indicated below with a strikethrough) from the Strategy statement as follows:

G. Establish a task force to Identify opportunity areas and regulatory adjustments necessary to support agritourism in the unincorporated areas of Sedgwick County.

ATTACHMENT “B”

The Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, is incorporated herein by reference.

ATTACHMENT “C”

The following Neighborhood and Area Plans and amendments thereto are hereby adopted as elements of the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015:

OCA150004 BID #37529-009 CID #76383

PUBLISHED IN THE WICHITA EAGLE ON December 18, 2015

ORDINANCE NO. 50-129

AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS PLAN 2015-2035, DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2015, AS THE NEW WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the statutes of the State of Kansas, in K.S.A. 12-47 et seq., the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission developed a Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County in 1993, and amended in 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan may be amended or a new Comprehensive Plan developed and adopted to ensure it reflects timely and relevant information and the needs of the community; and

WHEREAS, the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County in collaboration with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, did initiate the development of a new Comprehensive Plan in 2011; and

WHEREAS, before the adoption of any Comprehensive Plan or amendment thereto, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission is required by K.S.A. 12-747 et seq. to hold a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission did give notice by publication in the official City and County newspaper on July 30, 2015, of a public hearing to consider the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on August 20, 2015, did hold a public hearing at which a quorum was present, did hear all comments and testimony relating to said adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, and voted to adopt the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035 as the new Comprehensive Plan;

WHEREAS, the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners, on November 4, 2015, returned the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve;

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wichita, on November 10, 2015, returned the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve;

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on November 19, 2015, gave further consideration to the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, and voted (10-3) to amend the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, as outlined in Attachment "A" of the Resolution of Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission dated November 19, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on November 19, 2015, did approve a Resolution adopting the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, as the new Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, and also adopting those neighborhood and area plans itemized on Attachment "C" of said Resolution as elements of the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, which Resolution has been submitted to the Wichita City Council and the Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County for consideration.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS:

SECTION 1. The City of Wichita hereby approves the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, as the new Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, including those neighborhood and area plans itemized on Attachment "C" to the Resolution of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission dated November 19, 2015.

SECTION 2. Notice of this action shall be transmitted to the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners and to all other taxing subdivisions in the planning area that request a copy of the plan.

SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force from and after this adoption by the Governing Body and publication in the official City newspaper.

ADOPTED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, this date December 15, 2015.

⬚ figure Jeff Longwell, Mayor

ATTEST:

⬚ figure Karen Sublett, City Clerk

(SEAL) ⬚ figure

Approved as to form:

⬚ figure Jennifer Magana, City Attorney and Director of Law

(150004) Published in the Wichita Eagle on January 28, 2016

RESOLUTION NO. 008-2016

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS PLAN 2015-2035, DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2015, AS THE NEW WICHITA-SEDGWICK COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WHEREAS, pursuant to the authority granted by the statutes of the State of Kansas, in K.S.A. 12-747 et seq., the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission developed a Comprehensive Plan, adopted by the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County in 1993, and amended in 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011; and

WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan may be amended or a new Comprehensive Plan developed and adopted to ensure it reflects timely and relevant information and the needs of the community; and

WHEREAS, the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County in collaboration with the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, did initiate the development of a new Comprehensive Plan in 2011; and

WHEREAS, before the adoption of any Comprehensive Plan or amendment thereto, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission is required by K.S.A. 12-747 et seq. to hold a public hearing; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission did give notice by publication in the official City and County newspaper on July 30, 2015, of a public hearing to consider the adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on August 20, 2015, did hold a public hearing at which a quorum was present, did hear all comments and testimony relating to said adoption of a new Comprehensive Plan, and voted to adopt the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035 as the new Comprehensive Plan;

WHEREAS, the Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners, on November 4, 2015, returned the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve;

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Wichita, on November 10, 2015, returned the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, to the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for further consideration, together with a statement specifying the basis for the governing body's failure to approve;

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on November 19, 2015, gave further consideration to the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, and voted (10-3) to amend the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated August 20, 2015, as outlined in Attachment “A” of the Resolution of Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission dated November 19, 2015; and

WHEREAS, the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, on November 19, 2015, did approve a Resolution adopting the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, as the new Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, and also adopting those neighborhood and area plans itemized on Attachment “C” of said Resolution as elements of the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, which Resolution has been submitted to the Wichita City Council and the Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County for consideration.

NOW, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS:

SECTION I. That after receiving a recommendation from the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and after said Planning Commission has given proper notice and held a public hearing as provided by law, under the authority granted in K.S.A. 12-747 et seq., the Board of County Commissioners of Sedgwick County hereby approves the Community Investments Plan 2015-2035, dated November 19, 2015, as the new Wichita-Sedgwick County Comprehensive Plan, including those neighborhood and area plans itemized on Attachment “C” to the Resolution of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission dated November 19, 2015.

SECTION II. Notice of this action shall be transmitted to the Wichita City Council, and to all other taxing subdivisions in the planning area which request a copy of the plan.

SECTION III. This resolution shall become effective upon its passage and publication once in the Official County Newspaper.

Commissioners present and voting were:

Dated this 20th day of January, 2016.

ATTEST:

⬚ figure KELLY B. ARNOLD, County Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

⬚ figure ERIC R. YOST, ESQ. County Counselor

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SEDGWICK COUNTY, KANSAS

⬚ figure JAMES M. HOWELL, Chairman Commissioner, Fifth District

⬚ figure RICHARD RANZAU, Chair Pro Tem Commissioner, Fourth District

⬚ figure DAVID M. UNRUH Commissioner, First District

⬚ figure TIM R. NORTON Commissioner, Second District

⬚ figure KARL PETERJOHN Commissioner, Third District