Voice For Liberty

Tag: Sedgwick county government

  • Taxpayer-funded lobbying discussed

    Sedgwick County Working for You

    Taxpayer-funded lobbying was a subject of discussion at today’s meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, with the commission passing by a vote of three to two a resolution expressing the commission’s opposition to a bill under consideration in the Kansas Legislature. Video is here or at the end of this article.

    The bill of interest is SB 109, described here. It states “No public funds may be used directly or indirectly for lobbying. No public funds may be used to pay membership dues to an association that is engaged in lobbying the state. Public funds shall not be used for the purpose of employing or contracting for the service of any person whose duty and responsibility includes lobbying.”

    But if we must have taxpayer-funded lobbying, let’s make the best of it. Communications to and from a local governmental body and its lobbyist are open to the public under the Kansas Open Records Act. The documents might be testimony the lobbyist will deliver, reports covering the status and impact of bills, and other matters.

    As these documents are open under the Kansas Open Records Act, I propose this: Instead of requiring citizens to ask for these records, possibly paying fees to obtain what they’re already paying for, why don’t local governments post these documents immediately on their websites?

    Citizens could then benefit from the activities of the lobbyists they’re paying for. They could learn more about legislation as it works its way through the process.

    Very importantly, citizens could judge whether the positions taken by the government lobbyists are aligned with their policy preferences.

    If the actions taken by taxpayer-funded lobbyists are truly in the public interest, you’d think that cities, counties, and school boards would already be making this information easily available. In any case, there should be no resistance to starting this program immediately. Today, as the legislature is currently in session.

    If any local governmental units feel that posting documents on a website is too much of a burden, here’s my offer: When your lobbyist sends you an email with testimony, legislative reports, or anything else, just forward the email to me (bob.weeks@gmail.com). I’ll take care of the rest.

    Here’s one such example: Kansas Legislative Session 2013 — Week 5: An update on the Kansas Legislature from Sedgwick County’s lobbyist.

  • Kansas local office campaign finance reports

    Kansas local office campaign finance report example

    It’s hard to obtain and use local office campaign finance reports in Kansas. In Sedgwick County, for example, candidates for local offices file reports on paper with the county election office. These reports are scanned and made available online.

    That sounds good. But the online system is very difficult to use. It’s hard to find the reports you want to view.

    Until recently the system didn’t support modern browser programs like Firefox and Chrome. I kept a Windows virtual PC on hand and maintained with an old version of Windows and Internet Explorer for the sole purpose of using the document system at Sedgwick County.

    It’s better now. You can use modern browser programs. But how many people will make the effort of creating a virtual PC so to obtain campaign finance data?

    Then, the data you download or print is not machine readable. It’s images of text. It’s not searchable. It can’t be loaded into a spreadsheet or database, except by hand, or in some limited cases, through optical character recognition.

    The campaign finance reports can’t be linked to like other documents that are online, like you can link to an agenda or the minutes of meetings.

    The Johnson County election office didn’t do any better. There, the finance reports I looked at were available as multi-page TIFF files. These are difficult to work with. The software that most people have on their computers will show just the first page, probably.

    We can do better.

    As a start, I’ve created a collection of campaign finance reports from Sedgwick County. It’s not comprehensive. The documents are images as provided by the election office, meaning they’re not searchable and can’t be loaded into a spreadsheet or database.

    But it’s something more than the government provides. Click here to see.

  • In Sedgwick County, misplaced concern for an industry

    Wheat harvestExpressing concern about a large industry that he said is important to Sedgwick County and Kansas, Sedgwick County Commissioner Tim Norton spoke in favor of the need for comprehensive government planning. He cited the commonly-held belief that humans, with their desire for large suburban home lots, are depleting the stock of available farmland.

    Specifically, Norton said “Agribusiness is the third largest economic driver in our community, in our region.”

    But is this true? Using 2010 figures from the Kansas Statistical Abstract, these are the largest industries in Kansas in terms of gross domestic product:

    IndustryGDP (millions)
    State and local government$13,047
    Real estate and rental and leasing$11,794
    Health care and social assistance$9,898
    Durable goods manufacturing$9,620
    Finance and insurance$8,426
    Retail trade$8,324
    Wholesale trade$7,910
    Non-durable goods manufacturing$7,750
    Professional and technical services$6,652
    Information$5,806
    Agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting$4,612
    Transportation and warehousing$4,418
    Construction$4,062
    Federal military$3,816
    Administrative and waste services$3,769
    Other services, except government$3,250
    Accommodation and food services$3,157
    Utilities$2,639
    Federal civilian$2,608
    Management of companies and enterprises$1,769
    Mining$1,472
    Educational services$770
    Arts, entertainment, and recreation$506

     

    Agriculture ranks below many other industries. In most years agriculture would rank even lower, but because of high farm prices in recent years, it ranks higher than it has.

    Norton also expressed concern that humans with large home lots would deplete the land available for agriculture. But he need not worry, as I show in Saving farms from people.

  • Saving farms from people

    Wheat combine on farmLast week at a meeting of the Sedgwick County Commission, Commissioner Tim Norton spoke in favor of the need for comprehensive government planning. In support, he cited the commonly-held belief that humans — especially with their desire for large suburban home lots — are depleting the stock of farmland to the point of being detrimental to agribusiness.

    Here’s part of what Norton said (video below):

    Now I know people don’t like the idea of sprawl and growth rings and all that, but the truth is there is a balance between where people live and preserving our good agricultural lands and how do you make that work. And that’s being able to sustain part of our economy. Agribusiness is the third largest economic driver in our community, in our region, and to say that we’re okay with every five acre tract being taken up by somebody’s rural residence sounds really good if you’re talking only property rights. But if you’re talking about preserving and sustaining agribusiness you gotta have the land and it’s got to be set aside for that enterprise.

    Farms and ranches being driven out of existence by homeowners — that sounds like a problem that might threaten our food supply. But what are the facts?

    First, there is an overabundance of farmland in America. There is so much farmland that we pay farmers billions each year to refrain from planting crops. We pay corn farmers billions in subsidies each year and then use their crops for motor fuel, instead of for making fine Kentucky bourbon and taco shells, as God intended.

    Considering Sedgwick County, as that is what Norton represents: Despite being the second-most populous county in Kansas and home to its largest city and surrounding suburban communities, Sedgwick County ranks fourth among Kansas counties in the number of farms, thirty-fourth in farmland acres, seventh in total harvested cropland acres, thirty-third in market value of harvested crops, sixty-sixth in market value of livestock, and eighty-seventh in pasture acres. (Data from Kansas Farm Facts 2011, reporting on 2007 farm statistics.)

    There’s something else that might ease Commissioner Norton’s concern, if he would only believe in the power of markets over government: That is the price system. If we were truly running short of farmland, crop prices would rise and farmland would become more valuable. Fewer people would be willing to pay the price necessary to have a five-acre home lot.

    In fact, if crop prices were high enough, farmers would be buying back the five-acre lots, or perhaps paying homeowners to rent their yards for planting crops or grazing livestock.

    In either case, markets — through the price system — provide a solution that doesn’t require politicians and bureaucrats. There are many other areas in which this is true, but government nonetheless insists on regulation and control.

    The power of prices, as told by Thomas Sowell: “The last premiere of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev, is said to have asked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher: How do you see to it that people get food? The answer was that she didn’t. Prices did that. And the British people were better fed than those in the Soviet Union, even though the British have never grown enough food to feed themselves in more than a century. Prices bring them food from other countries.”

  • Wichita economic development solution, postponed

    Recent reporting in the Wichita Business Journal on Wichita’s economic development efforts has many officials saying Wichita doesn’t have enough incentives to compete with other cities. That is, we are not spending enough on incentives.

    Whether these incentives are good economic development policy is open for debate. I don’t believe we need them, and that we in Kansas and Wichita can chart another course to increase economic freedom in Kansas. That will make our area appealing to companies. But our local bureaucrats, most business leaders, and nearly all elected officials believe that targeted incentives are the way to attract and retain business.

    (Charts at the end of this article illustrate the record in Wichita on jobs.)

    Our leaders have identified what they believe is a solution to a problem, but have not implemented that solution effectively, in their own words.

    I should say have not implemented the solution on a widespread basis, because Wichita has devoted more tax money to economic development. According to the 2010 City Manager’s Policy Message, page CM-2, “One mill of property tax revenue will be shifted from the Debt Service Fund to the General Fund. In 2011 and 2012, one mill of property tax will be shifted to the General Fund to provide supplemental financing. The shift will last two years, and in 2013, one mill will be shifted back to the Debt Service Fund. The additional millage will provide a combined $5 million for economic development opportunities.”

    So the city has decided to spend more tax dollars on economic development, but this allocation is being phased out — at the same time nearly everyone is calling for more to be spent in this area.

    Isn’t this a failure of political and bureaucratic leadership? We have a long-standing problem, officials have identified what they believe is a solution, but it is not being implemented. These leaders have the ability to spend more on economic development, as illustrated by Wichita’s shifting of tax revenue.

    Even if we believe that an active role for government in economic development is best (and I don’t believe that), we have to conclude that our efforts aren’t working. Several long-serving politicians and bureaucrats that have presided over this failure: Mayor Carl Brewer has been on the city council or served as mayor since 2001. Economic development director Allen Bell has been working for the city since 1992. City Attorney Gary Rebenstorf has served for many years. At Sedgwick County, manager William Buchanan has held that position for 21 years. On the Sedgwick County Commission, Dave Unruh has been in office since 2003, and Tim Norton since 2001. Unruh has said he wants to be Wichita’s next mayor.

    Wichita City Manager Robert Layton has had less time to influence the course of economic development in Wichita. But as he approaches his fourth anniversary in Wichita, he starts to become part of the legacy of Wichita’s efforts in economic development.

    Wichita’s job creation record

    Two charts illustrate the record of job growth in Wichita. The first shows Wichita job growth compared to Kansas and the nation. Data is from U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, and indexed with values for 2001 set to 1.00.

    As you can see, job growth in Wichita trails both Kansas and the nation.

    The next chart shows Wichita job growth by sector.

    Private sector job growth is prominently lower than government. This is a problem, because more economic activity is directed away from the productive private sector to inefficient government.

  • Americans for Prosperity-Kansas applauds Sedgwick County Commission for rejecting public financing for Bowllagio

    TOPEKA, KAN — The Kansas chapter of the grassroots group Americans for Prosperity applauds the Sedgwick County Commission for rejecting the proposed tax-increment financing (TIF) district for the Bowllagio development in Wichita.

    “We are pleased that Sedgwick County commissioners unanimously voted against public funding for this entertainment development,” said AFP-Kansas grassroots coordinator Susan Estes. “Commissioners apparently realized it wasn’t a good deal for taxpayers in Wichita and Sedgwick County.”

    Estes said this proposed development was another example of a developer receiving several layers of public financing, and that additional public financing would give the Bowllagio developers an unfair advantage over competing businesses.

    “Those who will benefit from today’s vote are the taxpayers and the existing businesses who have worked for years to invest in this community,” she said. “This would have been just another example of government picking winners and losers in the marketplace.”

    Although some may say today’s vote was a “win” for opponents of the TIF district, Estes says it was more of a win for good government.

    “This isn’t a victory in the traditional sense,” she said. “The bottom line is, we believe the Sedgwick County Commissioners today acted in the best interests of their constituents.”

    From Americans for Prosperity-Kansas.

  • Bowllagio property purchases seem overpriced

    As part of a planned real estate development, taxpayers may be asked to pay property owners much more than the appraised values for the parcels.

    According to documents obtained from the Wichita city manager’s office, developers of Bowllagio have budgeted to pay a collective $1,110,300 over the property’s appraised values. This is 63 percent over the appraised values for the 14 parcels.

    The source of funds for these purchases is a proposed tax increment financing (TIF) district created for the benefit of Maize 54, LLC, the developer of Bowllagio. The Wichita City Council approved the formation of the district on November 20. Now the Goddard School District and Sedgwick County Commission may veto the formation of the district. The approval of these two bodies is not required; but they have the right to cancel the formation of the district.

    A meeting last week with Goddard school officials resulted in learning that it seems unlikely that the school district will take up the matter. The item is on the agenda of the county commission’s Wednesday meeting.

    The Sedgwick County Appraiser’s Office explains appraised values: “The value of property is determined by market transactions. The Appraiser’s office has the responsibility to study those transactions and appraise property accordingly. The Appraiser’s office determines market value through the use of generally accepted appraisal methods.”

    If the appraiser’s valuations are close to the market value of the properties — and we have reason to believe they are — we have to ask why did the Wichita city council approve spending so much taxpayer money on these properties?

    And, will the Sedgwick County Commission give its approval to this waste of taxpayer money?

    Proposed home purchases for Maize 54 / Bowllagio development

  • Flight options from Wichita decline, compared to nation

    A program designed to bring low air fares to Wichita appears to meet that goal, but the unintended and inevitable consequences of the program are not being recognized.

    The legislative agendas for Wichita and Sedgwick County call for supporting the retention and funding of the Affordable Airfares program. This program provides taxpayer money to subsidize low-cost air carriers in Kansas. Most of the program’s funds have been spent in Wichita, in particular on AirTran Airways.

    According to Regional Economic Area Partnership, the managing organization, the goal of the program is “to provide more air flight options, more competition for air travel, and affordable airfares for Kansas.”

    Is the Affordable Airfares program meeting its goals? If we look at “air flight options,” and if we consider the number of monthly departing flights as a measurement, Wichita isn’t doing well compared to the nation. The chart at the end of this article illustrates.

    (Since this data is highly seasonal, I present a 12-month moving average, so that each point plotted is the average of the previous 12 months data. Also, I index January 2000 to 100.)

    Of particular note is that over the past two or three years, the trend of flights nationally is level, while the trend of flights available in Wichita is declining.

    In its Kansas Affordable Airfares Program Fiscal Year 2011 Report, REAP addresses the goal of “more air flight options” and reports:

    “Air service through Wichita Mid-Continent Airport addresses the statutory objective of more flight options, as follows: A total of 11 airlines provide service from Wichita to seven nonstop destinations with connecting service and four nonstop destinations with no connecting service. Overall, there are on average 38 daily (with 40 on weekdays) nonstop or one-stop flights by commercial air carriers, providing access to 4,989 U.S. and international destinations.”

    This statement simply addresses the current situation. But the goal is more flight options. Which is better evidence of meeting the statutory goal: A simple recitation of what’s available today, or looking at the trend, especially comparing Wichita to the nation? REAP’s statement provides very little information as to whether the program is meeting its stated goals, or whether the program is desirable. We should ask that REAP recognize the data and its implications.

    This trend is an example of unintended consequences of government intervention and regulation. The Affordable Airfares program imposes a rough form of price control on airfares in Wichita. If the program didn’t do that — and it appears it succeeds at this goal — then there would be no point in having the program.

    The inevitable effect of price controls is that less is supplied, compared to what would have been supplied. This economic phenomenon is reliable and predictable.

    While travelers prefer low air fares to high, this is not the only consideration. For those who need to travel on short notice, the availability of flights is very important.

    For more about flights in Wichita, see In Wichita, confusion over air traffic statistics.

    Monthly flights, Wichita Airport and nationally.

  • In Wichita, confusion over air traffic statistics

    As the governments of Wichita and Sedgwick County prepare their legislative agendas for next year, retaining the Affordable Airfares program is a high priority for most officials. This program provides taxpayer money to subsidize low-cost air carriers in Kansas. Most of the program’s funds have been spent in Wichita, in particular on AirTran Airways.

    It’s almost certain that air fares are lower now in Wichita than they might be if not for the Affordable Airfares program. But another goal of the program is not being met. That goal is to increase the flight options from Wichita. This number has been declining for many years, but local officials seem reluctant to acknowledge this. A report produced last year by Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit, while containing many useful findings, muddies the water in a way that makes it difficult to see the trends at the Wichita airport.

    Here’s an example: Sedgwick County’s 2012 legislative platform states “The Post Audit report also concluded that ‘the program appears to have the desired effect … fares have decreased while passengers and flights have increased.’”

    In the chart provided in the LPA document, there mare many years where the “percent change in flights from prior year” is zero or negative. That means that for that year, the number of flights declined.

    In the chart (below) titled “Monthly Departures, Wichita” we see the number of flights leaving Wichita each month since 2000. (I gathered this data from the same source as did LPA, but independently.) I draw a trend line starting in 2000. That line barely slopes upwards, supporting a claim that “flights have increased.”

    But suppose we start the trend line on January 1, 2003, about seven months after AirTran entered the Wichita market. In this case, the trend line slopes downwards, and rather sharply. Which of the two lines best represents the performance of the Affordable Airfares program? I would contend it is the second line, as it shows what has been happening for the past nine or so years: Flight options from Wichita are declining.

    Considering passengers, shown in the chart titled “Monthly Passengers, Wichita and U.S.”: If we take as a starting point any time from 2000 to 2002, the number of passengers is higher now than then. But since 2004 the trend for Wichita passengers is pretty flat. (Since the monthly passenger data is highly seasonal, I present a 12-month moving average, so that each point plotted is the average of the previous 12 months data.)

    Comparing Wichita to national data, we can see that for the past two years the national trend is slowly rising, while Wichita’s trend is flat. The gap between national and Wichita is increasing, although slowly. This means that Wichita passenger traffic is not keeping pace with national.

    In presentations made as part of the Wichita/Sedgwick County Community Investment Plan attendees are told: “Fares have decreased (24 % overall) while passengers (23% increase) and flights have increased.”

    You have to make a selective — and I would say tortured — reading of the data for this statement to make sense and be true. The survey administered to program participants, at least in draft form, holds similar errors.

    Is the number of flights important? To the business traveler — who often must make travel arrangements on short notice — it is. An available seat on an airplane, even if the fare is high, is the primary concern.

    Other facts regarding the Affordable Airfares program are muddy too. The LPA report from February 2011 is Affordable Airfares: Reviewing the Benefits Claimed As a Result of State Funding to Lower Airfares. In its “Answer in Brief” the audit states: “Overall, the program appears to have had the desired effect. Since Wichita’s original affordable airfare program (FairFares) began in 2002, fares have decreased, while the number of passengers and the number of available flights have increased. However, the Regional Economic Area Partnership’s (REAP) annual reports on the program contain numerous inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Further, the economic impact of the program has been significantly overstated. Specifically, the estimated number of jobs created and the State’s return on investment were overstated because of key methodological errors and the use of some inaccurate data. We also found that overall accountability for the State funds is lacking.”

    Specifically, some of the problems LPA found were:

    • REAP officials don’t use the best data available on fares and the number of passengers.
    • The baseline years and industry benchmarks REAP officials use for comparisons are inconsistent from year to year, and sometimes even within the same report.
    • REAP officials omitted data on the number of flights available to passengers — a key goal of the program — from all but one of the annual reports.
    • The annual financial reports contain numerous errors and inconsistencies.
    • The general approach to estimating the number of jobs created appears reasonable, but the actual estimate includes some key methodological errors and uses some inaccurate data. … As a result, the 2008 study’s estimate of more than 9,700 average annual jobs from AirTran entering the Wichita market is significantly overstated. … The calculated return on investment to the State is also significantly overstated.
    • Overall accountability for state funds is lacking.
    • There is a perception among some people in the State that REAP isn’t sufficiently independent to administer the State Affordable Airfares Fund.

    Thea actions of Wichita and Sedgwick County officials show that they are either uninformed regarding these issues, or that they simply don’t care.

    Monthly departures from the Wichita Airport.
    Monthly passengers, Wichita Airport and nationally.