Voice For Liberty

Tag: Downtown Wichita

  • Wichita taxing district to expand

    Wichita taxing district to expand

    The City of Wichita plans to expand a special tax district.

    Next week the Wichita City Council will consider expanding an existing CID, or Community Improvement District, in the Delano neighborhood near downtown Wichita. A map provided by the city is nearby.

    Community Improvement Districts are a mechanism whereby extra sales tax is collected within a district. For this CID, the city asks to collect an extra two cents per dollar, which is the maximum allowed in Kansas.

    CIDs are distinguished from STAR bonds, in which incremental sales tax revenue in a district is captured and handled differently from the base sales tax. The sales tax rate remains as before. The ballpark and surrounding area use both CID and STAR bonds, as well as other public funding.

    In its analysis appearing in the agenda packet for the February 11, 2020 meeting, the city provides this:

    The expanded boundaries will permit the collection of additional CID revenues and the application thereof to development opportunities as well as the design and construction of the Stadium, utilities, parking, and other improvements related to the Stadium and river corridor improvements. The expansion further permits the use of funds to support the construction of public auditoriums and convention centers.

    The CID petition included the $83,000,000 stadium project, which includes both the $75,000,000 stadium and $8,000,000 in supporting infrastructure. The amended petition has an estimated project costs of $210,200,000, which includes the additional $127,200,000 in project costs related to the Riverfront Partners project.

    Project costs originally included costs related to the development of a multi-sport stadium, related infrastructure and adjacent commercial, retail residential and parking structures. The amendment has been expanded to include public auditoriums and convention centers as well as the additional commercial construction on the Development Site.

    In this context, “Development Site” refers to the Riverfront Partners site north of the ballpark, southwest of Douglas and McClean Boulevard.

    Of note, the CID includes a portion of the land included in the Riverfront Legacy Master Plan. The city contemplates that CID funds might be used there: “The petition also requests that the uses of CID revenues be expanded to include uses contemplated by the DA to be made on the Development Site, costs for additional parking and costs that may be associated with for potential development on the east side of the Arkansas River that is within the Stadium CID.”

    The item the council will consider also includes a correction, as explained by the city: “The petition also requests removal of certain City-owned property that was inadvertently included in the Stadium CID.”

    The city plans to borrow funds to be repaid by the CID tax collections: “The City anticipates issuing up to $13,000,000 in bonds, based on a pledge of CID revenue.”

    Don’t want to pay? Don’t go there.

    Does the use of CID mean the city has raised taxes? Certainly, the sales tax within the CID is higher (9.5 percent) than outside (7.5 percent). But that extra tax can be avoided. It is common for city council members to advise citizens that if they don’t want to pay the higher sales tax, just don’t go there.

    On the surface, this reasoning is correct. But as explained in city documents, the city is borrowing money to be repaid by CID tax collections. If enough people take this advice and avoid patronizing merchants within the CID, there may be a shortfall of money to make bond payments. Since the city’s policy is that CID bonds are not backed by the full faith and credit of the city, Wichita as a city is not on the hook. 1 But should this happen and the city defaulted on CID bonds, it would be a severe blow to the city’s reputation.

    A similar situation exists for the STAR bonds the city has issued to fund the ballpark and related spending. If the district fails to generate enough incremental sales tax revenue to make bond payments, city taxpayers are not liable. 2 But the failure of these bonds would, again, severely damage the city’s reputation.

    Further, the city expects property tax revenue to pay off tax increment financing (TIF) bonds issued in favor of the project.

    Even more, the city expects the economic activity generated by the ballpark and surrounding development to spin-off associated economic activity that will generate further tax revenue. If this does not happen, and happen in a big way, the project threatens to be a burden on the city budget, and by extension, taxpayers.

    From the agenda for the February 11, 2020 council meeting, showing area to be added and removed from the CID. Click for larger.

    —
    Notes

    1. City Of Wichita Community Improvement District Policy. “While the CID Act permits the issuance of either full-faith and credit general obligation bonds or special obligation bonds, payable solely from the CID revenue, it is the policy of the City of Wichita to issue only special obligation CID bonds.” ↩
    2. $42,140,000 City Of Wichita, Kansas Sales Tax Special Obligation Revenue Bonds (River District Stadium Star Bond Project) Series 2018. “The series 2018 bonds are not general obligations of the city and neither the full faith and credit nor the general taxing power of the city, the state, or any political subdivision thereof is pledged to the payment of the series 2018 bonds. The series 2018 bonds shall not constitute an indebtedness of the city, the state, or any political subdivision thereof within the meaning of any constitutional or statutory debt limitation or restriction.” ↩
  • Naftzger Park event management agreement ambiguous

    Naftzger Park event management agreement ambiguous

    The profit-sharing agreement for Naftzger Park event management contains ambiguity that could lead to disputes.

    Today the Wichita City Council approved an agreement with Wave Old Town LLC for event management in Naftzger Park in downtown Wichita. The agreement was approved unanimously.

    While there was controversy over the awarding of the contract (Wichita Eagle reporting is here), others have noticed that the contract is imprecise in a way that could lead to problems.

    The city and Wave will share profits and losses based on a schedule in the management agreement contained in the agenda packet for today’s meeting, Item V-2. The issue is when the profit-sharing is calculated.

    Profit-sharing agreement for City of Wichita and Wave. Click for larger.

    Based on the way the profit-sharing is calculated, different profit-sharing results could be obtained from the same event history. The management services agreement the city council passed today does not speak to this issue. Neither does the request for proposal for event management.

    The issue is when the profit-sharing calculation is performed and using which data, as follows:

    • Profit-sharing could be calculated independently for each event, using data for just the current event. This is illustrated in example 1.
    • Profit-sharing could be calculated once at the end of the year (or another period) using the sum of events during the period. This is shown in example 2.
    • Profit-sharing could be calculated independently for each event, using cumulative data for the year (or another period). Example 3 illustrates.

    As the following examples show, the differences between these three methods of calculation could be substantial. These three examples assume two events, one with an event profit of $49,999, and the second with an event loss of $49,999. Notice that depending on how and when the same calculation is performed, Wave’s share of profits could be $0, or $25,000, or $49,999. The city could either lose $25,000 or $0.

    While these examples are contrived and use extreme values, they illustrate that the agreement the council passed is ambiguous. There could be disputes that could be avoided with careful attention to detail by the city when constructing contracts.

    Click for larger.
  • Business improvement district on tap in Wichita

    Business improvement district on tap in Wichita

    The Douglas Design District seeks to transform from a voluntary business organization to a tax-funded branch of government.

    Tomorrow the Wichita City Council will consider forming a business improvement district (BID) in east-central Wichita. Previously, city documents offered some explanation regarding the district: 1

    First, there already exists a voluntary organization: “The Douglas Design District (DDD) is a voluntary organization of over 300 local businesses located near Douglas Avenue between Washington Avenue and Oliver Avenue. In 2017, the DDD established a five-year strategic plan to become a financially self-sustaining organization that is not reliant on elective membership.”

    The purpose of a business improvement district: “A BID provides for the administration and financing of additional and extended services to businesses within the district and is funded by the City levying a mandatory service fee on the businesses within the district.”

    Who will collect, and who will spend? “While the City levies the service fee, it can contract with a third-party organization such as the DDD to operate the BID. The approach is similar to that used by the City to contract with the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation in downtown.”

    All this is repeated in the agenda packet for this week’s meeting. 2

    The action on the agenda this week finalizes the district’s funding mechanism: “The annual fee ranges from $100 to $550 depending on the size of the business and is anticipated to generate approximately $50,000 a year.” By size, the city means the number of square feet. If a business or property owner does not pay, the city may start collection activity, although what that means is unspecified: “If any delinquent Fee or penalty is not paid within sixty (60) days from the date on which the Fee or penalty became delinquent, the City may give notice to the business of its intention to initiate a collection action.”

    Are BIDs a good idea? Most information about them is provided by their boosters, that is, those who directly benefit from the service fee, which is really a tax. But there are some doubters. The New Republic, by no means a conservative publication, printed a piece arguing against BIDs, stating: “But too often BIDs have turned against the businesses they were meant to serve, making the cost of entry into a new area even higher for local merchants, or lacking the transparency needed to instill trust from the community.” 3

    A larger and more balanced look at BIDs comes from Washington Monthly in 2018:

    The privatized structure of BIDs may raise liberals’ hackles, but it’s clear that BIDs can be a useful tool to remake neighborhoods into places where people actually want to spend their time. Many big-city mayors — who are overwhelmingly Democratic — have thrown their weight behind them. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser recently doled out grants totaling $300,000 to five neighborhoods thinking about forming their own BIDs. (One of the grantees, Dupont Circle, with the decaying park, will start collecting taxes from business owners in the fall.)

    Still, there are real downsides to BIDs for renters and small business owners, who will not benefit from rising property values and may ultimately be pushed out of the area. Luckily, this isn’t a hugely difficult problem to remedy. The best, and easiest, way to revamp how BIDs are run is through city halls; they’re the ones who legislate what BIDs can and can’t do, while holding them accountable to the public. But too often, they renege on that responsibility. 4

    From Canada, harsh criticism:

    In this paper, we propose and develop the concept of “socio-economic hygiene” to denote the ways in which neoliberal Western urban space is spatially regulated and re-oriented towards consumption in a way that reinforces social exclusion. … We conclude by tracking how sociological strategies of “hygiene” have moved from racial and biological features to features of place and socioeconomic status, and how BIDs, resembling genocidal states in certain ways, use these strategies to continually justify their own existence. 5

    Civil society, or government?

    What should trouble everyone is the replacement of civil society with political society. Edward H. Crane explains: “There are basically only two ways to organize society: Coercively, through government mandates, or voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals and associations. … In a civil society, you make the choices about your life. In a political society, someone else makes those choices.”

    Right now DDD is a voluntary organization. Civil society, in other words. But now it is proposed to replace it with political society.

    Why trade voluntary cooperation for the force of government? The annual report of the DDD (included in the city council agenda packet in 2018) explains: “Approximately 1/3 of businesses in DDD’s project area are DDD members yet ALL businesses benefit from DDD’s efforts. A BID eliminates this ‘free rider’ problem and, if implemented, would allow DDD to have a singular focus on implementing the BID business plan rather than always chasing membership.” For emphasis, the report notes: “THE PAYMENT OF THE BID ASSESSMENT WILL REPLACE MEMBERSHIP DUES.”

    Another term for chasing membership is selling your product by showing how it creates value. If the formation of the BID is successful, the Douglas Design District will be relieved of this necessity. Will having a guaranteed source of revenue make DDD more or less responsive to its members?

    Also, the DDD annual report states: “A BID assessment is not a tax.” But for those who decide to skip paying this tax? After a few years, they will experience the blunt power of government tax collection.

    Taxation without transparency

    The agenda packet states this about the relationship between the city and the district: “While the City levies the service fee, it can contract with a third-party organization such as the DDD to operate the BID.”

    Wichita has similar organizations. One is the Wichita Downtown Development Corporation, now known as Downtown Wichita. This organization is funded nearly entirely by tax revenue from an improvement district. Yet, it refuses to make its spending records public, and the city supports that decision. 6

    Another similar taxpayer-funded organization is the city’s convention and tourism bureau, which has gone by several names over the years. Regarding it, in 2012 I wrote:

    We’ve learned that city council members rely on — as Randy Brown told the council last year — facile legal reasoning to avoid oversight: “It may not be the obligation of the City of Wichita to enforce the Kansas Open Records Act legally, but certainly morally you guys have that obligation. To keep something cloudy when it should be transparent I think is foolishness on the part of any public body, and a slap in the face of the citizens of Kansas. By every definition that we’ve discovered, organizations such as Go Wichita are subject to the Kansas Open Records Act.” 7

    Of interest is a segment from the KAKE Television public affairs program “This Week in Kansas” where the failure of the Wichita City Council, especially council member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita), to recognize the value of open records and open government is discussed. Video is here.

    Since this time, the city has formed a business improvement district known as a TBID. It covers all hotels in the city and imposes an additional 2.75 percent tax to hotel bills, although the city and hotels call it a “City Tourism Fee.” 8 I’ve not asked for records of this spending, but I am sure the request would be rejected.

    Will the Douglas Design District follow the standard set by Wichita’s other improvement districts and evade accountability and transparency?

    Results from current improvement districts

    The Washington Monthly piece mentions that city halls can hold BIDs accountable. But lack of transparency works against oversight and accountability.

    Then, if anyone wonders what about the results of Wichita’s improvement districts, here are a few findings:

    • For the past decade business activity in downtown Wichita has been on a downhill trend. The data for 2017 (the most recent year for data) holds good news, with business activity rising. It isn’t the vibrant growth we’ve been told is happening in downtown Wichita, but at least things are not getting worse. 9
    • Truthfulness is in short supply. The Downtown Wichita organization has been caught in either a huge lie or gross incompetence regarding its claim of the number of people working in downtown Wichita. After brought to its attention, the number is no longer used. 10
    • Wichita economic development officials use a circuitous method of estimating the population of downtown Wichita, producing a number much higher than Census Bureau estimates. 11
    • Looking at hotel guest tax receipts, which are a surrogate for total hotel room revenue, we observe that of the largest markets in Kansas, Wichita has experienced nearly the least growth in hotel guest tax collections since 2010. 12

    Despite this record, Wichita City Hall seems satisfied with these results.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. Agenda for August 21, 2018, Item IV-1. Available at http://www.wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/08-21-2018%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    2. City of Wichita. Agenda for January 14, 2020, Item V-4. Available at https://wichita.gov/Council/Agendas/01-14-2020%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    3. Max Rivlin-Nadler. Business Improvement Districts Ruin Neighborhoods. The New Republic, February 19, 2016. Available at https://newrepublic.com/article/130188/business-improvement-districts-ruin-neighborhoods. ↩
    4. Saahil Desai. One Landlord, One Vote. Available at https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/july-august-2018/one-landlord-one-vote/. ↩
    5. Sanscartier, Matthew D.; Gacek, James. Out, Damned Spot: Socio-economic Hygienic Practices of Business Improvement Districts. Canadian Journal of Urban Research. Winter 2016, Vol. 25 Issue 2, p73-85. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. Wichita’s open records policy is contrary to the interests of citizens. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-open-records-policy-contrary-interests-citizens/. ↩
    7. Weeks, Bob. Wichita, again, fails at open government. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/open-records/wichita-again-fails-at-open-government/. ↩
    8. Weeks, Bob. Wichita seeks to add more tax to hotel bills. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-seeks-add-tax-hotel-bills/. ↩
    9. Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita jobs rise Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/downtown-wichita-jobs-rise/. ↩
    10. Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita jobs, sort of. Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-jobs/. ↩
    11. Weeks, Bob. Downtown Wichita population is up Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/downtown-wichita-population-is-up-2018/. ↩
    12. Weeks, Bob. Updated: Kansas hotel guest tax collections Available at https://wichitaliberty.org/economics/updated-kansas-hotel-guest-tax-collections/. ↩
  • It may become more expensive in Wichita

    It may become more expensive in Wichita

    The City of Wichita plans to create a large district where extra sales tax will be charged.

    At next Tuesday’s Wichita City Council meeting, the council will consider imposing additional taxes in downtown Wichita and Delano. The new tax district includes the new baseball park and large amounts of surrounding land, some of the land in Waterwalk east of the Arkansas River, and land as far north as First and Waco.

    The new tax is known as a Community Improvement District, or CID. In these districts, merchants charge additional sales tax which is used to benefit the owners of property in the district. In this case, the city is proposing to add two cents per dollar to the existing 7.5 percent sales tax.

    City documents give this for the use of the funds: “CID revenue will be used for the design and construction of the stadium utilities, parking, and other improvements related to the stadium, river corridor improvements and surrounding development on the west bank, within the district.”

    Of note, the city proposes to pass the ordinance on emergency first reading.

    Following, a map of the CID. Click for a larger version.

  • Downtown Wichita population is up

    Downtown Wichita population is up

    New Census Bureau data shows the population growing in downtown Wichita.

    Data released today by the United States Census Bureau shows the estimated population for zip code 67202 in 2018 was 1,671, an increase of 73 from the prior year.

    Zip code 67202 is greater downtown Wichita, from the Arkansas River east to Washington, and Kellogg north to Central, roughly.

    The source of this data is U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. This means the data is not the Bureau’s estimate of the population in 2018. For areas of population less than 65,000, the Bureau does not provide one-year estimates. Instead, the five-year estimates use data gathered over a longer time period in order to provide greater accuracy. The 90 percent confidence interval for the 2018 estimate is plus or minus 214 persons.

    The Bureau cautions that the five-year estimates should not be used as the population of the year in the midpoint of the five-year period: “Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled ‘2013,’ even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.” (See below for more about these data.)

    Further, the Bureau issues this advice: “However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years.” Downtown Wichita, I believe, qualifies as an area “experiencing major changes.” The five-year estimates must be considered in light of this advice.

    Still, as shown in the nearby table and charts, the ACS numbers are far below the population reported by the downtown Wichita development agency Downtown Wichita. See my article Downtown Wichita population for more about this topic.

    Following, excerpts from the Census Bureau publication Understanding and Using American Community Survey Data: What All Data Users Need to Know.

    Understanding Period Estimates
    Single-year and multiyear estimates from the ACS are all “period” estimates derived from a sample collected over a period of time, as opposed to “point-in-time” estimates such as those from past decennial censuses. For example, the 2000 Census “long form” sampled the resident U.S. population as of April 1, 2000.

    While an ACS 1-year estimate includes information collected over a 12-month period, an ACS 5-year estimateincludes data collected over a 60-month period.

    In the case of ACS 1-year estimates, the period is the calendar year (e.g., the 2015 ACS covers the period from January 2015 through December 2015). In the case of ACS multiyear estimates, the period is 5 calendar years (e.g., the 2011–2015 ACS estimates cover the period from January 2011 through December 2015). Therefore, ACS estimates based on data collected from 2011–2015 should not be labeled “2013,” even though that is the midpoint of the 5-year period.

    Multiyear estimates should be labeled to indicate clearly the full period of time (e.g., “The child poverty rate in 2011–2015 was X percent.”). They do not describe any specific day, month, or year within that time period.

    Multiyear estimates require some considerations that single-year estimates do not. For example, multiyear estimates released in consecutive years consist mostly of overlapping years and shared data.

    The primary advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability of the data compared with that of single-year estimates, particularly for small geographic areas and small population subgroups. Figure 3.2 shows the improved precision of an ACS 5-year estimate, compared with a 1-year estimate, for child poverty statistics in Rice County, Minnesota—a county with about 65,000 residents in 2015. The lines above and below the point estimates represent the confidence intervals, or ranges of uncertainty, around each estimate. The confidence interval for the 1-year child poverty estimate ranges from 1.4 percent to 9.4 percent (8 percentage points) while the interval for the 5-year estimate is narrower, ranging from 12.8 percent to 19.2 percent (6 percentage points). (Refer to the section on “Understanding Error and Determining Statistical Significance” for a detailed explanation of uncertainty in ACS data.)

    Deciding Which ACS Estimate to Use
    For data users interested in obtaining detailed ACS data for small geographic areas (areas with fewer than 65,000 residents), ACS 5-year estimates are the only option.

    The 5-year estimates for an area have larger samples and smaller margins of error than the 1-year estimates. However, they are less current because the larger samples include data that were collected in earlier years. The main advantage of using multiyear estimates is the increased statistical reliability for smaller geographic areas and small population groups.

    However, in areas experiencing major changes over a given time period, the multiyear estimates may be quite different from the single-year estimates for any of the individual years. The single year and multiyear estimates will not be the same because they are based on data from two different time periods.

  • Downtown Wichita jobs rise

    Downtown Wichita jobs rise

    The number of jobs in downtown Wichita rose sharply in 2017.

    New data from United States Census Bureau shows the number of workers in downtown Wichita rose sharply in 2017, while the number of business firms fell slightly.

    Zip code tabulation area 67202. Click for larger.

    From 2016 to 2017, the number of workers in zip code 67202 rose from 13,618 to 14,588, an increase of 970 jobs, or 7.1 percent. (Zip code 67202 is greater downtown Wichita, from the Arkansas River east to Washington, and Kellogg north to Central, roughly.)

    The number of business firms fell from 810 to 802.

    The annual payroll fell from $666,804,000 to $664,564,000, which is 0.3 percent.

    Since 2007, the number of jobs has declined by 9.3 percent, the number of business firms has declined by 9.5 percent, and annual payroll has declined by 4.2 percent.

    The significant increase in jobs in 2017 without a corresponding rise in the count of business firms is likely due in large part to the rapid expansion of two companies, King of Freight and SNT Media. The latter ceased operations in 2018.

    An interactive visualization of this data for all zip codes is available at Visualization: Zip code business patterns.


  • From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Speakers promoting the saving of the Century II Convention and Performing Arts Center in downtown Wichita. Speakers were, in order of first appearance, Greg Kite, Dean Bradley, and Celeste Bogart Racette. This video was recorded on November 1, 2019. View below, or click here to view at YouTube.

    There is other material on this topic:

  • From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From Pachyderm: Save Century II

    From the Wichita Pachyderm Club: Speakers promoting the saving of the Century II convention and performing arts center in downtown Wichita. Speakers were, in order of first appearance, Greg Kite, Dean Bradley, and Celeste Bogart Racette. This audio presentation or podcast was recorded on November 1, 2019.

    There is other material on this topic:

  • Checking a Jeff Longwell for Mayor political ad

    Checking a Jeff Longwell for Mayor political ad

    An ad from the Jeff Longwell for Mayor Committee contains a false claim.

    An advertisement advocating the re-election of Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell contains a claim about economic development that is false.

    The ad appears in the October 20, 2019 print edition of the Wichita Eagle. Under the heading “Let’s Set the Record Straight,” we find this item: “Multiple large scale business development projects like the Cargill Downtown Headquarters which created 850+ jobs.”

    Click for larger.

    It’s the use of the word “create” that is false. It’s wrong because Cargill’s headquarters was located in downtown Wichita at the time it announced it would build a new headquarters in another part of downtown Wichita. 1 Whatever the number of jobs, they merely moved from North Main Street to East Douglas Avenue in the same zip code. 2

    It’s possible that if Cargill’s threat to build a new headquarters in another city was genuine, we could say the city and state “retained” these jobs. But using the word “create” to describe these jobs is false. Regarding the retention of these Cargill jobs, voters can decide whether the cost was worthwhile.

    Regarding the cost of retaining Cargill jobs, since Mayor Longwell raised the topic, here is a list of the known subsidies and incentives the city offered to retain the Cargill jobs. 3 As summarized in the agenda packet:

    “In exchange for Cargill’s commitment, the City has negotiated the following:

    • Issue Industrial Revenue Bonds (Letter of Intent approved April 18, 2017) 100% property tax abatement; 5+5 year basis
    • Sales tax exemption
    • Acquisition of a 15 year parking easement for public access to the garage in the evenings and on weekends (estimated cost of $6,500,000)
    • Expedited plan review (50% reduction in time)
    • Reduced permitting fees (50%) (estimated savings of $85,000)
    • Assign a project manager/ombudsman for a single point of contact for the company”

    The Wichita Eagle reported the value of the tax breaks as $13.6 million. 4 More information about these subsidies is here: More Cargill incentives from Wichita detailed.

    The agenda packet for the city council meeting doesn’t mention this, but from the state of Kansas Cargill is likely to receive PEAK benefits. Under this program, the Kansas state withholding tax deducted from Cargill employees’ paychecks will be routed back to Cargill. 5 (Not all; only 95 percent.) Some very rough calculations show that PEAK benefits might be worth some $2 million annually to Cargill. 6

    —
    Notes

    1. Cargill to keep headquarters in Wichita, but new site still unknown. Wichita Eagle. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/business/article79516092.html. ↩
    2. Cargill selects site for new Wichita headquarters. Wichita Eagle. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/business/biz-columns-blogs/carrie-rengers/article105193381.html. ↩
    3. City of Wichita. Agenda Packet for July 18, 2017. Approval of Development Agreement with Cargill Meat Solutions Corporation. ↩
    4. Cargill’s job guarantee to city could count 1-day workers as full time. Wichita Eagle. Available at https://www.kansas.com/news/politics-government/article161882968.html. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. In Kansas, PEAK has a leak. http://wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/kansas-peak-leak/. ↩
    6. For the first year of the agreement, Cargill is expected to have 750 or more employees at an average salary of $66,814. That annual salary / 26 pay periods = $2,570 biweekly. For a family with two children (this is just a guess and could be way off), there are two withholding allowances, so $2,570 – ($86.54 x 2) = $2,397. Using the new withholding tables for married workers (another assumption), bi-weekly withholding is $48.17 + 5.7% x ($2,397 – $1,298) = $48.17 + $62.64 = $110.81. That means $2,881 annual withholding, so Cargill’s 95% share is $2,737. For 750 employees, this is an annual subsidy to Cargill of $2,052,750. ↩