Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city government

  • Wichita bridges, well memorialized

    Wichita bridges, well memorialized

    Drivers — like me — on East Twenty-First Street in Wichita are happy that the work on a small bridge is complete, but may not be pleased with one aspect of the project.

    The memorial plaque celebrating the accomplishment on East Twenty-First Street in Wichita. The flare from the sun is a defect of this photograph, not the marker. Click for larger.
    The memorial plaque celebrating the accomplishment on East Twenty-First Street in Wichita. The flare from the sun is a defect of this photograph, not the marker. Click for larger.
    It’s a small bridge, on East Twenty-First Street between Mosely and New York Streets. At 49 feet long it is designated a bridge by the Federal Highway Administration. And we’re glad it’s there.

    But with city lane width guidelines for arterial streets at 11 feet, this four-lane bridge may not be not much longer than it is wide.1

    The bridge on East Twenty-First Street. Click for larger.
    The bridge on East Twenty-First Street. Click for larger.
    Does it warrant the full commemorative treatment of a bronze plaque memorializing the elected officials and bureaucrats who happened to be in office at the time taxpayers paid for this bridge?

    A city official told me that the plaque cost around $2500, and noted that the City Council approves them for each project.2

    Why does the city spend so much on plaques for bridges that, in some cases, may not be much longer than wide? It’s a small matter, but these issues are symbolic of government’s attitude towards costs, and of some officials’ view of their own self-importance.

    It’s presumptuous, that such a mundane accomplishment would be decorated so at the expense of taxpayers. More than this, it’s preposterous.

    West Twenty-Ninth Street in Sedgwick County. Click for larger.
    West Twenty-Ninth Street in Sedgwick County. Click for larger.
    The City of Wichita is not alone. As I reported in The bridges of Sedgwick County are well marked, Sedgwick County does this, too. And doubly so. The bridge in Twenty-First Street in Wichita has one plaque, but even small bridges in Sedgwick County have two, one on each side.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. *Street Design Guidelines, Approved by the City Council, December 2014. http://www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/Planning/PlanningDocument/Street%20Design%20Guidelines-Final.pdf ↩
    2. Email correspondence with Gary Janzen, Wichita City Engineer and Assistant Director Public Works & Utilities, November 28, 2016. ↩
  • Beware of government arts spending

    Beware of government arts spending

    Art is too important to be dependent on politicians and injecting politics into anything inevitably tarnishes it, writes Lawrence W. Reed of Foundation for Economic Education.

    Economist Lawrence W. Reed is president of the Foundation for Economic Education in Atlanta, Georgia. He is the author of the forthcoming book, Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character and Conviction. Follow on Twitter and Like on Facebook.

    While in Wichita Reed appeared on WichitaLiberty.TV in this episode. An abridged version of the following appeared in the Wichita Eagle.

    Beware of Government Arts Spending
    By Lawrence W. Reed

    While visiting Wichita in October, I learned that city government subsidies for the arts is a local, contentious issue. I’d like to offer a perspective: Don’t do it. Art is too important to be dependent on politicians and injecting politics into anything inevitably tarnishes it.

    Proponents of art subsidies argue that because a large majority of people enjoy art and even personally engage in it, it’s therefore a government responsibility. But even larger majorities of people enjoy things like clothing, pets and good movies; this fact is actually an argument for government to butt out and stick to doing its proper duties.

    Lawrence W. Reed
    Lawrence W. Reed
    Those “studies” that purport to show X return on Y amount of government arts spending are a laughingstock among economists. The numbers are cooked and almost never compared to alternative uses of tax money. Even less frequently do subsidy advocates consider what people might choose to do if their earnings weren’t taxed away in the first place.

    Every interest group with a claim on the treasury argues that spending for its projects produces some magical “multiplier” effect. Routing other people’s money through politicians and bureaucracy is supposed to somehow magnify wealth, while leaving it in the pockets of those who earned it is somehow a drag. Assuming for a moment that such preposterous claims are correct, wouldn’t it then make sense to direct all income through the government?

    What if “public investment” simply displaces a certain amount of private investment? Arts subsidy advocates never raise this issue, but I know that I personally am far less likely to make a charitable donation to something I know is on the dole than to something that depends on the good hearts of willing givers.

    What if I, as a taxpayer, could keep what the government would otherwise spend on the arts and invest it in my child’s education and get twice the return than the government would ever get on the arts? The more that government takes, the less we can purchase of the things we value, including tickets to the theatre or a concert.

    Money which comes voluntarily from the heart is more meaningful than money that comes at gunpoint (taxes). For that reason I don’t believe in either arts welfare or shotgun marriages. There’s an endless list of desirable, enriching things, very few of which carry a tag that says, “Must be provided by taxes and politicians.”

    If we don’t rob Peter the worker to pay Paul the artist, perhaps Paul may have to become a better artist or a better marketer of his art, or perhaps find another profession entirely. Welcome, Paul, to the real world of willing customers and earning an honest living.

  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita and Kansas economics, and government investment

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita and Kansas economics, and government investment

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Wichita sells a hotel, more subsidy for downtown, Kansas newspaper editorialists fall for a lobbyist’s tale, how Kansas can learn from Arizona schools, and government investment. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 131, broadcast October 30, 2016.

    Shownotes

  • Cost per visitor to Wichita cultural attractions

    Cost per visitor to Wichita cultural attractions

    Wichitans might be surprised to learn the cost of cultural attractions.

    The price of adult admission to the Wichita Art Museum is $7.00, or free on Saturdays thanks to the generosity of Colby Sandlian, a Wichita businessman.

    But the cost of admission is much higher. For 2015, Wichita city documents report a cost per visitor of $55.37. This was eight percent over the target cost of $51.24.

    Cost per visitor to Wichita cultural attractions. Click for larger.
    Cost per visitor to Wichita cultural attractions. Click for larger.

    The cost per visitor figures the city reports each year are presented in a nearby table. For each year the city reports the cost per visitor along with a target for the next years. In the nearby chart, the target values are represented by dotted lines of the same color as the actual cost.

    We should note that for these attractions much of their costs are fixed, meaning they do not vary with the number of visitors. An example is the employment cost of a museum director. As the number of visitors rises or falls, the salary stays the same. This means that if attendance increased, the cost per visitor would fall, and fall dramatically. (Of course, if attendance really boomed, the museum might need more directors. But that’s a long term decision.)

    The source of this data is Wichita city budgets and performance reports. All are available on the city’s website at wichita.gov.

    Cost per visitor to Wichita cultural attractions. Click for larger.
    Cost per visitor to Wichita cultural attractions. Click for larger.
  • CID and other incentives approved in downtown Wichita

    CID and other incentives approved in downtown Wichita

    The Wichita City Council approves economic development incentives, but citizens should not be proud of the discussion and deliberation.

    Today’s meeting of the Wichita City Council saw the council discuss and approve economic development incentives for a project in downtown Wichita.

    The item contemplated economic development incentives for redevelopment of an empty building in downtown Wichita to become a Hilton Garden Inn Hotel. The incentives being considered were a Community Improvement District (CID), Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRB), a parking agreement, and a skywalk easement. The discussion by the council was useful for revealing two members who are opposed to some targeted economic development incentives, but it also showed a troubling lack of knowledge and consideration by others.

    Property tax

    The hotel is requesting industrial revenue bonds. These bonds do not mean the city is lending any money. Instead, IRBs in Kansas are a mechanism to convey property tax abatements and sales tax exemptions.

    The agenda packet for this item states: “[Hotel developer] WDH is not requesting abatement of property taxes in conjunction with the IRBs.”1 This is presented as a magnanimous gesture, as something the hotel developers (WDH) could have requested, but did not, presumably out of some sort of civic duty.

    But: Property tax abatements may not be granted within the boundaries of a TIF district, which this hotel is located within.2 3 So the developers did not request something that they are not entitled to request. This is not news. Nonetheless, several council members were grateful.

    As to property taxes, Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) asked what would be the increase in value in the building, once finished. Later Wichita City Council Member Jeff Blubaugh (district 4, south and southwest Wichita) praised the property taxes that will be paid. He also mentioned the “nearly-empty parking garage.” When the city built this garage and accompanying retail space it was to be a showpiece, but has been suffering from blight and lack of tenants paying market rates for rent.4

    Asking about tax abatements, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) asked “They didn’t apply for other …” His voice trailed off before finishing the question, but the “other” tax abatement that could be applied for is the property tax abatement. Except, the law does not allow for a property tax abatement for this project.

    All these questions alluded to the increased property taxes the renovated building will pay. Except, being within a TIF district, property taxes may not be abated. So where will the hotel’s property taxes go?

    First, the property tax generated by the present value of the property (the “base”) will be distributed as before. But the increment — which will be substantial — will go to the TIF district, not the city, county, and school district. Except: This is an unusual TIF district, in that an agreement between the city and county provides that only 70 percent of the incremental property taxes will go to the TIF district, with the remainder being distributed as usual. This was not mentioned during today’s discussion.

    There was talk about a “gap.” Some economic development incentives require documenting of a “financing gap” that makes the project not economically feasible. But that is not required for the incentives considered for this hotel.

    Sales tax

    Regarding the sales tax exemption: City document do not state how much sales tax will be forgiven, so we’re left to speculate. Previous city documents5 indicate spending $3,000,000 on furniture and fixtures, which is taxable. Sales tax on this is $225,000.

    The same city document mentioned spending of $6,250,000 on construction of the hotel, and of $1,000,000 for construction of retail space. Sales tax on this combined total is $543,750. Based on material from the Kansas Department of Revenue, these amounts would be due if not for the action of the city council.6

    In total, the development of this hotel will escape paying $768,750 in sales tax. It should be noted that Kansas is one of the few states that charges sales tax on groceries at the same rate as other purchases, making Kansas food sales tax among the highest in the nation.7

    Curiously, council members Clendenin and Williams, who represent low-income districts where families may be struggling to buy groceries — and the sales tax on them — did not object to this special sales tax treatment for a commercial developer.

    No more cash?

    In his remarks, the mayor talked about how we can continue with economic development “without handing cash to corporations.” But when a project is going to buy materials and services on which $768,750 in sales tax is normally due, and the city council takes action to extinguish that liability, well, that’s better than cash to the receiver.

    Good news

    Kudos to Wichita City Council Member Bryan Frye (district 5, west and northwest Wichita), who actually cited the United States Constitution in his statement from the bench. He said that the issues surrounding this project are a far cry from what our Founding Fathers envisioned as the role of government, saying “I struggle with using city resources to collect and distribute sales tax for the sole benefit of one commercial entity.” He offered a substitute motion which would have approved all the parts of the agreement except for the CID tax. His motion failed, with only he and Wichita Mayor Jeff Longwell voting in favor.

    On the original motion, which was to approve all parts of the incentive agreement, Longwell and Frye voted in opposition, with everyone else voting in favor.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. Agenda packet for September 6, 2016. Available here. ↩
    2. “Certain property, even though funded by industrial revenue bonds, does not qualify for exemption: … property located in a redevelopment project area established under K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq. cannot be exempt from taxation.” Kansas Department of Revenue. Property Tax Abatements. Available at www.ksrevenue.org/taxincent-proptaxabate.html. Also, Kansas Department of Commerce. Industrial Revenue Bond Exemptions. Available at www.kansascommerce.com/DocumentCenter/Home/View/1082. ↩
    3. Gilmore & Bell PC. Economic Development tools. Available here. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. As landlord, Wichita has a few issues. Available at http://wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/landlord-wichita-issues/. ↩
    5. Wichita City Council Agenda packet for August 16, 2016. Available at wichita.gov/Government/Council/Agendas/08-16-2016%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    6. “General rule: Materials are taxable.” (p. 4) Also: “Taxable labor services in Kansas are the services of installing, applying, servicing, repairing, altering, or maintaining tangible personal property performed on real property projects in the general category of commercial remodel work.” (p. 8) Kansas Department of Revenue. Sales & Use Tax for Contractors, Subcontractors, and Repairmen. Available at www.ksrevenue.org/pdf/pub1525.pdf. ↩
    7. Food sales tax a point of shame for Kansas. Wichita Eagle. January 25, 2016. Available at http://www.kansas.com/opinion/editorials/article56532903.html. ↩
  • Wichita has no city sales tax, except for these

    Wichita has no city sales tax, except for these

    There is no Wichita city retail sales tax, but the city collects tax revenue from citizens when they buy utilities, just like a sales tax.

    Some Wichita city officials tout the fact that Wichita has no city sales tax, even though this is contrary to their and the city’s recommendation to voters in November 2014.

    But the city has a sales tax. It’s called a “franchise fee” or “franchise tax,” depending on which city documents you’re reading. Either way, it’s just like a sales tax applied to your utility bill: gas, electric, cable television, water, sewer, or telephone.

    Franchise fees collected by the City of Wichita for 2015.
    Franchise fees collected by the City of Wichita for 2015.
    In 2015, Wichita collected $44.3 million in franchise taxes. By comparison, the city’s share of the county-wide one cent per dollar sales tax was $58.0 million.1 Another context: In 2014 the city estimated that a one cent per dollar city sales tax would generate $80 million per year.

    For 2017 the city is budgeting for $48.4 million in franchise fees.2 For 2018, $49.8 million.

    What is the purpose of franchise taxes? The Wichita city budget explains: “Franchise Fees — These revenues are based on agreements between the City and local utilities. Generally, these agreements are long term and result in payments to the City of 5% of utility revenues. All franchise fee revenues are credited to the General Fund.”

    The Wichita city code amplifies:

    Sec. 3.93.350. — Payment of taxes — Franchise fee not a tax.
    The franchise fees required herein as part of any franchise shall be in addition to, not in lieu of, all taxes, charges, assessments, licenses, fees and impositions otherwise applicable that are or may be imposed by the city, except that the franchisee shall be entitled to a credit in payment of franchise fees in the amount of any telecommunications service occupation tax due pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of this Code, as may be amended. The franchise fee is compensation for use of the right-of-way and shall in no way be deemed a tax of any kind.

    Excerpt from an electric bill in Wichita.
    Excerpt from an electric bill in Wichita.
    There is some confusion over the naming of this concept. The city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report uses “franchise taxes.” The budget documents and the code shown above use “franchise fees.” Either way, this is extra money people must pay when they use utilities, as illustrated on these excerpts from electric and gas bills.

    Excerpt from a gas bill in Wichita.
    Excerpt from a gas bill in Wichita.
    But should city residents have to pay this tax or fee? The city explains that the fee is “compensation for use of the right-of-way.” That makes sense. If someone owns something and someone else wants to use it, charging a fee is reasonable, if the parties agree.

    Except: Who owns the right-of-way? The people of Wichita, of course. So our city government is charging us a tax (or fee) to use something we own. That’s clever — deviously clever. And something that only government can do.

    I don’t want to give our city leaders any ideas, but when the city is complaining about not having enough revenue to fund everything it wants, it should look at franchise taxes. (Sorry, I mean fees.) While the city budget explains that the rates are the results of agreements between the utility companies and the city, why would utility companies object to an increase in franchise tax rates? They would simply pass along the tax to their customers, just as retail stores do when the state raises the sales tax rate. Certainly the water and sewer utilities would not object, as they are owned by the city.

    —
    Notes

    1. Wichita, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015. Page A-6. ↩
    2. City of Wichita, Kansas 2017-2018 Proposed Budget. Page 61. ↩
  • CID and other incentives proposed in downtown Wichita

    CID and other incentives proposed in downtown Wichita

    A proposal for a community improvement district in downtown Wichita includes a public hearing, but much information the public needs is missing.

    This week the Wichita City Council will consider starting the process of creating a community improvement district and other economic development incentives. The action the council will consider Tuesday is to accept the petition of the property owners and set September 6 as the date for the public hearing. Also, on September 6, “a development agreement defining the City and Developer’s responsibilities will be presented to the City Council.”1

    A community improvement district, or CID, is a geographical district in which merchants add extra sales tax, known as the CID tax. This extra tax is then routed to the property owners. CIDs may be of two types. In one, the city borrows money to give to the developers, and the CID tax repays the bonds. In the second, no money is borrowed. Instead, the CID tax is periodically remitted to the developers as it is collected. The proposed CID is of the latter type. It is proposed to collect a CID tax of 1.5 percent for up to ten years, with a limit of $930,000. (For more information about how CIDs work, see Community improvement districts in Kansas.)

    City documents also state the developers will request industrial bond financing. In this case, according to city documents, the purpose of the IRBs is to avoid paying sales tax on property purchased. The developers are also requesting use of the nearby state office building parking garage, but no details are given.

    A public hearing?

    The September 6th meeting will include a public hearing regarding the CID, industrial revenue bonds, parking agreement, and development agreement. As of today, we have information about the CID. But we have little or no information about the other items to be considered that day, which is billed as a public hearing.

    If a public hearing is to include meaningful input from the public, the city needs to provide citizens with information about these items, and soon.

    Rationale

    What is the need for these economic development incentives? No reason is given. Some incentive programs require that the applicant demonstrate financial necessity. In other words, if the incentive is not given, it is impossible to proceed. No such argument has been advanced for this project. And if such an argument were to be made, we have to ask why are incentives needed to develop in downtown Wichita?

    Since these incentives are proposed for a hotel, supporters argue that the cost of the incentives — at least the CID — will be borne by visitors to Wichita. This development, however, will contain a rooftop bar and ground floor commercial space. To the extent that Wichitans patronize these business firms, they will pay the CID tax. Even considering only the hotel, there are many Wichita-based companies whose employees travel to Wichita, staying in hotels at their companies’ expense. Wichita companies will be paying the CID tax in these cases. They will also pay the tourism fee, even though their employees are not tourists.

    Besides, we shouldn’t view visitors to Wichita as a cash cow. Visitors staying in this hotel will pay these taxes:

    State of Kansas sales tax, 6.5%
    Sedgwick County sales tax, 1.0%
    Wichita hotel tax, 6%
    City tourism fee, 2.75%2
    CID tax, 1.5%

    The total of these taxes is 17.75%. (Yes, Wichita does charge visitors a “tourism fee.” If Wichita voters had followed the recommendation of the city, its bureaucrats, and the political class, there would be an additional tax of one percent.3)

    Finally: As with all CIDs, why don’t the merchants simply raise their prices? Part of the answer is that the CID tax goes to benefit the landowners, which may not be the same party as the merchants who collect the tax.

    Other than that, it’s convenient to have someone to blame higher prices on.

    —
    Notes

    1. Wichita City Council Agenda packet for August 16, 2016. Available at wichita.gov/Government/Council/Agendas/08-16-2016%20City%20Council%20Agenda%20Packet.pdf. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Wichita seeks to add more tax to hotel bills. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-seeks-add-tax-hotel-bills/. ↩
    3. Ballotpedia. City of Wichita Sales Tax Measure (November 2014). Available at ballotpedia.org/City_of_Wichita_Sales_Tax_Measure_(November_2014). ↩
  • Wichita water statistics update

    Wichita water statistics update

    With adequate river flow every day, the Wichita ASR water project produced water equivalent to six days design capacity during July 2016.

    Since this article was written, the city has changed the way it determines the availability of water in the river. This may change some of the conclusions made below, but I believe the changes are minor.

    An important part of Wichita’s water supply infrastructure is the Aquifer Storage and Recovery program, or ASR. This is a program whereby water is taken from the Little Arkansas River, treated, and injected in the Equus Beds aquifer.1 2 That water is then available in the future as is other Equus Beds water.

    With a cost so far of $247 million, the city believes that ASR is a proven technology that will provide water and drought protection for many years. In 2014 the city recommended that voters approve $250 million for its expansion, to be paid for by a sales tax.3 Voters rejected the tax in the November 2014 election.

    July 2016 production

    Flow of the Little Arkansas River at Valley Center. The ASR project is able to draw from the river when the flow is above 30 cfs at this measurement station. (Click charts for larger versions.)
    Flow of the Little Arkansas River at Valley Center. The ASR project is able to draw from the river when the flow is above 30 cfs at this measurement station. (Click charts for larger versions.)
    In July 2016, the ASR project recharged 158,770,175 gallons of water.4 The design capacity for ASR is 30,000,000 gallons per day, so production for the entire month of July was about six days design capacity. For other context, in 2015 the Wichita Water Utility produced 18,942 million gallons of water.5 The water recharged in July 2016 is 0.84 percent of this.

    The ASR project is able to draw from the Little Arkansas River when the flow is above 30 cfs. As shown in the chart of the flow of the river, there was adequate river flow for ASR to operate every day of the month for July 2016. This is counting only those days when the flow was above 30 cfs for the entire day.6

    ASR project background and production

    According to city documents, the original capacity of the ASR phase II project to process water and pump it into the ground (the “recharge” process) was given as “Expected volume: 30 MGD for 120 days.” That translates to 3,600,000,000 (3.6 billion or 3,600 million) gallons per year. ASR phase II was completed in 2011.

    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR Phase II, cumulative since July 2013.
    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR Phase II, cumulative since July 2013.
    At a city council workshop in April 2014, Director of Public Works and Utilities Alan King briefed the council on the history of ASR, mentioning the original belief that ASR would recharge 11,000 acre feet of water per year. But he gave a new estimate for production, telling the council that “What we’re finding is, we’re thinking we’re going to actually get 5,800 acre feet. Somewhere close to half of the original estimates.” The new estimate translates to 1,889,935,800 (1.9 billion) gallons per year.7

    Based on experience, the city has produced a revised estimate of ASR production capability. What has been the actual experience of ASR? The U.S. Geological Survey has ASR figures available here. I’ve gathered the data and performed an analysis. (Click charts for larger versions.)

    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR phase II, monthly.
    Gallons of Water Recharged Through Recharge Basins and Wells during Wichita ASR phase II, monthly.
    I’ve produced a chart of the cumulative production of the Wichita ASR project compared with the original projections and the lower revised projections. The lines for projections rise smoothly, although it is expected that actual production is not smooth. The second phase of ASR was completed sometime in 2011, but no water was produced and recharged that year. Further, 2013 was a drought year, so to present ASR in the best possible light, I’ve prepared a chart starting in July 2013. That was when it started raining heavily, and data from USGS shows that the flow in the Little Arkansas River was much greater. Still, the ASR project is not keeping up with projections, even after goals were lowered.

    On the chart of monthly production, the horizontal line represents the revised annual production projection expressed as a constant amount each month. This even rate of production is not likely, as river flow varies. In the three years that ASR phase II has been in production, that monthly target been exceeded in six months.

    ASR days of flow and work through July 2016.
    ASR days of flow and work through July 2016.

    ASR operating efficiency through July 2016.
    ASR operating efficiency through July 2016.
    Two nearby charts give an idea of the efficiency of operation of the ASR project. (Click charts for larger versions.) For each month, I counted how many days had a river flow above 30 cfs at every measurement for the day. (The flow is measured many times each day.) If a day had all measurements above 30 cfs, I counted that as a day of adequate river flow. I then calculated the number of days of work actually accomplished using the water produced each month, the number of days of adequate river flow for the month, and the ASR design capacity.

    As can be seen in the charts, the ASR project is operating far below its design goal.

    At one time the city was proud enough of the ASR project that it maintained an informative website at wichitawaterproject.org. That site no longer exists.
    At one time the city was proud enough of the ASR project that it maintained an informative website at wichitawaterproject.org. That site no longer exists.

    —
    Notes

    1. City of Wichita. Wichita Area Future Water Supply: A Model Program for Other Municipalities. Available at www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/PWU/UtilitiesDocuments/WICHITA%20AREA%20FUTURE%20WATER%20SUPPLY.pdf. ↩
    2. City of Wichita. Equus Beds Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project. Available at www.wichita.gov/Government/Departments/PWU/Pages/PublicWaterSupply.aspx. ↩
    3. City of Wichita. Plans and Background on Proposed 1 cent Sales Tax. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/City-Sales-Tax-Information.pdf. ↩
    4. United States Geological Survey. Equus Beds Water Recharge. Available at ks.water.usgs.gov/water-recharge. ↩
    5. Wichita, City of. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2015. Page J-14. ↩
    6. United States Geological Survey. USGS 07144200 L ARKANSAS R AT VALLEY CENTER, KS. Available at waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis/uv?site_no=07144200. ↩
    7. Wichita City Council Workshop, April 8, 2014. Video available at wichitaks.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=2548. ↩
  • In Wichita, your house numbers may become illegal

    In Wichita, your house numbers may become illegal

    House numbers that may become illegal in Wichita.
    House numbers that may become illegal in Wichita.
    Thousands of Wichita homeowners may soon be lawbreakers if the city council follows its staff’s recommendation.

    An update is at the end of this article.

    This week the Wichita City Council may make your house number illegal, even though those numbers may — literally — be set in stone. This will be the case if the council takes the action recommended by its Department of Public Works and Utilities.

    Current city code requires address numbers three inches high. The proposed ordinance requires numbers four inches tall. The penalty for noncompliance is $500 per day, with each day being “a separate and distinct offence.”

    Existing and proposed ordinances

    The existing city code:1

    Sec. 10.04.190. – Same — Duty of owner or occupant to place; size, etc.

    The owner or occupant of each and every house or building in the city is required to place on the house or building, in a conspicuous place, numbers of at least three inches in height of a type to be selected by the owner or occupant, which numbers shall be in conformity with and according to the provisions of the two preceding sections of this chapter. (Ord. No. 14-491 § 2)

    The proposed code.2

    SECTION 10. Section 10.04.190 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas, is hereby amended to read as follows:

    “Duty of owner or occupant to place; size, etc.”

    The owner or occupant of every house or building in the City is required to conspicuously place on the house or building house numbers of at least four (4) inches in height. Painting house numbers on the Curb alone shall not be sufficient to comply with this Section.

    Such numbers shall be consistent with Sections 10.04.170 and 10.04.180. Such numbers shall be of a sufficient contrast such that police officers and firefighters can read the numbers from the abutting street. Any property owner failing to comply with this Section is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed five hundred (500) dollars. Each day house numbers are not properly placed on the house or building is a separate and distinct offence.

    Update
    At its August 9 meeting, the city council deferred this item to September.

    —
    Notes