Voice For Liberty

Tag: Wichita city government

  • Wichita water statistics update

    Wichita water statistics update

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

    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.

    June 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 June 2016, the ASR project recharged 194,182,850 gallons of water.4 The design capacity for ASR is 30,000,000 gallons per day, so production for the entire month of June is about seven days design capacity. For other context, in 2015 the Wichita Water Utility produced 18,942 million gallons of water.5 The water recharged in June 2016 is 1.03 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 June 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 five months.

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

    ASR operating efficiency through June 2016.
    ASR operating efficiency through June 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. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: News media, hollow Kansas government, ideology vs. pragmatism

    WichitaLiberty.TV: News media, hollow Kansas government, ideology vs. pragmatism

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: New outlets for news, and criticism of the existing. Is Kansas government “hollowed out?” Ideology and pragmatism. View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 124, broadcast July 17, 2016.

    Shownotes

  • In Wichita, Meitzner, Clendenin sow seeds of distrust

    In Wichita, Meitzner, Clendenin sow seeds of distrust

    Comments by two Wichita city council members give citizens more reasons to be cynical and distrusting of politicians.

    In a recent Facebook post that someone sent to me, Wichita City Council Member Pete Meitzner (district 2, east Wichita) wrote: “Hmmmm…..of note; Wichita is the only sizable city in Kansas that does not ADD any sales tax on top of the State and Sedgwick County sales tax rate.”

    Pete Meitzner sales tax Facebook 2016-07-06

    It is astonishing that council member Meitzner would brag of this — that Wichita has no city sales tax. That’s because Meitzner, along with all council members but one, voted to place the sales tax measure on the November 2014 ballot. Wichita voters rejected that sales tax, with 62 percent of voters voting “No.”1

    Meitzner is not the only council member to brag of no city sales tax in Wichita. Just a month after the November 2014 election in which Wichita voters rejected the sales tax, Wichita City Council Member James Clendenin (district 3, southeast and south Wichita) said, in a council meeting, “thanks to a vote we just had, [Wichita] has zero municipal sales tax.”2

    I wonder: If the Wichita city sales tax had passed, would Meitzner and Clendenin feel the same way?

    The answer is “No.” If the sales tax had passed, I believe Wichita city council members Pete Meitzner and James Clendenin would be congratulating themselves on the wisdom and foresight that led them to allow Wichitans to vote on the tax. They would be boasting of their ability to gauge the sentiment of public opinion. They would be proud of the investment they are making in Wichita’s future.

    That’s important to remember. The city council, at its initiative, decided to place the sales tax on the ballot. Why would the council do this if it did not believe the tax was a good thing for the city?

    Because if the tax would not be good for Wichita, then we have to wonder: Why did the Wichita City Council — including Pete Meitzner and James Clendenin — decide that the people of Wichita should vote on a sales tax? Was it a whim? A flight of fancy? Just a poll to gauge public opinion, without binding meaning?

    Anyone can conduct a poll of public opinion. But when the Wichita city council places a measure on the ballot asking whether there should be a sales tax, the results have meaning. The results are binding. There will be a new tax, if a majority of voters agree.

    Say, what should we ask the city council to let us vote on this November?

    We have to ask: Why would Wichita city council members allow Wichitans to vote on a tax they didn’t — personally — believe in? There is no good answer to this question. So when we see city council members boasting of no city sales tax in Wichita, remember this was not their preference. This is especially important because the city told us we needed to spend $250 million of the tax on a new water supply. Now we know that we can satisfy our future needs by spending much less, at least $100 million less.3

    Lily Tomlin once said “No matter how cynical you become, it’s never enough to keep up.” Here we have two Wichita city council members illustrating and reinforcing the truth of Tomlin’s observation.

    —
    Notes

    1. Sedgwick County Election Office. November 4th, 2014 General Election Official Results – Sedgwick County. Available at www.sedgwickcounty.org/elections/election_results/Gen14/index.html. ↩
    2. City of Wichita. Minutes of city council meeting, December 2, 2014. Page 9. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, the phased approach to water supply can save a bundle. wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-phased-approach-water-supply-can-save-bundle/. ↩
  • 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 May 2016.

    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.

    May 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 May 2016, the ASR project recharged 177,922,475 gallons of water.4 The design capacity for ASR is 30,000,000 gallons per day, so production for the entire month of May is 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 May 2016 is 0.94 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, for the month of May 2016, there was adequate river flow for ASR to operate every day of the month. 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 four months.

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

    ASR operating efficiency through May 2016.
    ASR operating efficiency through May 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 several dozen times a 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. ↩
  • WichitaLiberty.TV: Confusion about corruption in Wichita, regulation in Wichita, and the lowly pencil

    WichitaLiberty.TV: Confusion about corruption in Wichita, regulation in Wichita, and the lowly pencil

    In this episode of WichitaLiberty.TV: Citizen activists were concerned about unleashing a corrupting influence in Wichita City Hall, but they didn’t know it’s already there. Then, the regulatory landscape in Wichita. Finally, what can a pencil teach us about how the world works? View below, or click here to view at YouTube. Episode 121, broadcast June 12, 2016.

    Shownotes

  • Regulation in Wichita, a ‘labyrinth of city processes’

    Regulation in Wichita, a ‘labyrinth of city processes’

    Wichita offers special regulatory treatment for special circumstances, widening the gulf between the haves and have-nots.

    The Wichita Eagle reports that part of what the City of Wichita is offering to Cargill as an inducement to stay in Wichita is regulatory relief.1 In particular:

    The city has offered smaller incentives to Cargill as well, including an ombudsman.

    [Wichita assistant city manager and director of development Scot] Rigby called the ombudsman something of a project manager.

    “They’ll just call one person,” Rigby said of Cargill’s dealings with the city. “It’s a way to eliminate … a business trying to figure out, how do I get through the labyrinth of city processes?”

    Rigby said the city has done this with other companies, such as Spirit AeroSystems and JR Custom Metal Products, and would do it for any company with an expansion or project that needs streamlining.

    He said the city also is committed to work with the state and the Greater Wichita Partnership to create a talent recruitment position that could help Cargill and other companies recruit employees at all levels.

    The city has said it would offer a 15-day turnaround instead of the customary 30 days for plan review and permits, along with a 50 percent reduction in plan review, utility and building permit fees.

    Let me repeat the highlights:

    labyrinth of city processes

    streamlining

    15-day turnaround instead of the customary 30 days

    50 percent reduction in … fees

    All of this is an explicit admission that City of Wichita regulations are burdensome. If not, why would the city devote time and expense to helping Cargill obtain relief from these regulations?

    Further: Why do we have these regulations? If the purpose of the regulations is to protect people from harm, how can we relax or streamline them for the benefit of a few companies? Wouldn’t that expose people to the harm the regulations purportedly prevent?

    What’s even worse is this: Cargill is a large company with — presumably — fleets of bureaucrats and lawyers trained to deal with burdensome government regulation. These costs can be spread across a large company. Meaning that Cargill can afford to overcome burdensome regulations.

    What about the small companies that don’t have fleets of bureaucrats and lawyers? That can’t spread the costs of burdensome regulation across a large volume of business? What will the city do for these companies? This is especially important because the spirit of entrepreneurship the city wants to cultivate is most commonly found in small, young, companies. The type without fleets of bureaucrats and lawyers.

    Well, the city says it would do for any company what it is doing for Cargill.

    Except: How are companies supposed to know to ask for regulatory relief, streamlining, and a discount on fees?

    And is it equitable to offer special companies special regulatory relief when it is not readily available for all?

    Business Perceptions of the Economic Impact of State and Local Government Regulation coverLast year Kansas Policy Institute, in collaboration with the Hugo Wall School of Public Affairs at Wichita State University produced a report titled “Business Perceptions of the Economic Impact of State and Local Government Regulations.”2 On the city’s offer of special treatment to one company, KPI Vice President and Policy Director James Franko commented:

    This bears out one of the key findings from a paper we did with WSU’s Hugo Wall School: Companies want transparency and simplicity in the local regulatory environment. Businesses are not as concerned about the regulation themselves as they are in navigating what the city admits is a “labyrinth” of regulations and processes.

    The regulatory process should be simplified for all businesses, not just a few. Hopefully there is a realization that an “ombudsman,” or better yet a transparent, straightforward regulatory regime, should be available to anyone wanting to start or grow a business in Wichita.

    Instead of the city offering regulatory relief on an as-needed, as-requested basis, why not simplify and streamline regulation for everyone? That seems to make a lot of sense. But if you were a city politician or bureaucrat, this isn’t in your best interest. If regulations are burdensome, and you — as a bureaucrat or officeholder — can offer relief, then you have power. You become important. You have the ability to grant favors and make people feel special.

    But if regulations were streamlined and reformed for everyone as the city will do for Cargill, then bureaucrats and politicians would not be so powerful and important. But the people would be more free and prosperous. Think about that trade off.

    An interview with James Franko of Kansas Policy Institute on the topic of regulation is on WichitaLiberty.TV here.

    —
    Notes

    1. Rengers, Carrie. City offers Cargill tax abatement, parking garage financing. Wichita Eagle, June 6, 2016. Available at www.kansas.com/news/business/article82076122.html. ↩
    2. Kansas Policy Institute. Business Perceptions of the Economic Impact of State and Local Government Regulations. Available at kansaspolicy.org/businesses-welcome-transparent-accessible-accountable-state-local-regulations/. ↩
  • Towards government transparency in Wichita: Legal notices

    Towards government transparency in Wichita: Legal notices

    Kansas law requires publication of certain notices in newspapers, but cities like Wichita could also make them available in other ways that are easier to use.

    Legal publications in the Wichita Eagle, occupying nearly the entire page.
    Legal publications in the Wichita Eagle, occupying nearly the entire page.
    Do you read the legal publications in your local newspaper? Often they are lengthy. Many pertain to just one person or company. All are supplied using ink expressed as fine print on the chemically processed flesh of dead trees.

    But some legal publications are important and of interest to the general public.

    Kansas law requires that many legal notices must be printed in a newspaper. That law needs to be changed. As you might imagine, newspapers resist this reform, as it might mean a loss of revenue for them. (That’s right. Newspapers don’t print these notices as a public service.)

    Although the law requires publishing notices in a newspaper, it doesn’t prohibit publishing them in electronic form. If governmental agencies would make their legal publications available in ways other than the newspaper, citizens would be better served.

    The City of Wichita does some posting of legal notices on its website. Under the City Clerk section, there is a page titled “Legal Notices” that holds notices of bidding opportunities. (Curiously, that page isn’t found when you search for “legal notices” on the city’s site.) So this is good, but the notices that are important to most people are not on the city’s website.

    Posting all city legal notices on the city’s website would be easy to do. It would be quite inexpensive. The material is already in electronic form. The notices would become searchable through Google and other methods. Government transparency would increase. Interested parties could capture and store notices this material for their own use. Once people get used to this method of publication, it will make it easier to get state law changed.

    So why doesn’t the City of Wichita post its legal notices on its website?

  • In Wichita, more sales tax hypocrisy

    In Wichita, more sales tax hypocrisy

    Another Wichita company that paid to persuade you to vote for higher taxes now seeks to avoid paying those taxes.

    Next week the Wichita City Council will consider issuing industrial revenue bonds to benefit a local company. In Kansas, IRBs are not a loan of money from government. Instead, the bonds are a vehicle for conveying property tax abatements, and often sales tax exemptions. 1 The applicant company is Hijos, LLC/JR Custom Metal Products, Inc.

    City documents give the value of abated taxes at $44,900 for the first year. Following years will probably be similar.

    Besides property tax breaks, industrial revenue bonds can convey an exemption from paying sales taxes on purchases. City documents don’t state the amount of sales tax the company might avoid paying. But documents state the bonds will be used to fund capital equipment in the amount of $2,686,000. Sales tax on that is $201,450.

    City documents also state this expansion will add 13 new jobs over the next five years at an average wage of $41,995.

    Like several other companies that have received an exemption on paying sales tax on their purchases, 2 3 4 5 JR Custom Metals advocated for you to pay more sales tax. During the campaign for the one cent per dollar Wichita sales tax in 2014, this company contributed $1,000 to persuade voters to approve the tax.

    JR Custom Metals contribution to Yes Wichita, the group that campaigned for the Wichita sales tax.
    JR Custom Metals contribution to Yes Wichita, the group that campaigned for the Wichita sales tax.

    But now it seeks to avoid paying all sales tax on these purchases. It has done this several times in the recent past.

    The jobs are welcome. But this incident and many others like it reveal a capacity problem, which is this: We need to be creating nine jobs every day in order to make any significant progress in economic growth. 6 If it takes this much effort and the forgiveness of hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxes to create 13 jobs over five years, how much effort and subsidy will it take to create the many thousands of jobs we need to create every year?

    1. Weeks, Bob. Industrial revenue bonds in Kansas. Available at wichitaliberty.org/kansas-government/industrial-revenue-bonds-kansas/. ↩
    2. Weeks, Bob. Spirit Aerosystems tax relief. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/spirit-aerosystems-tax-relief/. ↩
    3. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, campaigning for a tax, then asking for exemption from paying. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/campaigning-for-tax-then-asking-for-exemption-from-paying/. ↩
    4. Weeks, Bob. In Wichita, pro-sales tax campaign group uses sales tax-exempt building as headquarters. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-pro-sales-tax-campaign-group-uses-sales-tax-exempt-building-headquarters/. ↩
    5. Weeks, Bob. Union Station TIF provides lessons for Wichita voters. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/union-station-tif-provides-lessons-wichita-voters. ↩
    6. Weeks, Bob. Wichita economic development and capacity. Available at wichitaliberty.org/wichita-government/wichita-economic-development-capacity/. ↩
  • Best cities for job growth 2016

    Best cities for job growth 2016

    A computation of job growth in cities produces familiar results for Wichita.

    NewGeography.com has released its Best Cities for Job Growth rankings for 2016. It is described as a “performance measure of job growth over the recent, medium, and longer term.” MSAs are assigned an index value calculated from job growth rates measured several ways.

    Of 98 midsized MSAs, Wichita ranked 78 out of 98. That’s five spots higher in ranking from the year before. Considering all 421 MSAs, Wichita ranked 298.

    Wichita’s economic development efforts need reform. The city has taken several initiatives such as forgoing cash incentives, taking a regional approach, and reorganizing its economic development agencies. In some cases, these reforms are merely window dressing. For others, the same groups of politicians, bureaucrats, and civic leaders are still in charge. We hope, somehow, that the same policies and people will produce something other than what has earned Wichita’s low ranking.