In a pivotal special meeting called by Mayor Lily Wu, the Wichita City Council voted 5-2 to keep the proposed 1% sales tax election on the March 3, 2026 ballot rather than delaying it to August 4, 2026. The meeting, which drew significant public attendance and online viewership, centered on new information about election costs and polling place changes affecting approximately 26,000 voters. January 14, 2026. Assistance from Claude AI.
Key Outcomes:
- Motion to delay election to August failed 2-5
- Voting YES for delay: Mayor Wu, Council Member Hoheisel
- Voting NO (keeping March date): Vice Mayor Glasscock, Council Members Shepard, Tuttle, Johnston, Ballard
- Additional workshop scheduled for January 27, 2026
- Follow-up town hall scheduled for February 10, 2026 (evening)
- 22 community members provided public comment
Financial Context:
- Projected sales tax revenue: Up to $850 million over 7 years
- March election cost: $170,000 (increased from $150,000)
- August/November election cost: $0 (county-funded)
- Estimated interest savings from cash-funding public safety projects: $25-26 million
Meeting Background
Why the Special Meeting Was Called
Mayor Wu convened this special meeting after receiving new information from the Election Commissioner on Friday regarding:
- Increased Election Costs: The special election cost rose from $150,000 to $170,000
- Polling Place Disruptions: Approximately 26,000 voters (10% of eligible Wichita voters) would need to vote at temporary locations
- Voter Notification Expenses: An additional $20,000 to mail notices to affected voters about polling place changes
As Mayor Wu explained: “After receiving new information on Friday from the election office that the special election will cost more, and locations will be changed for approximately 26,000 voters, I called this special meeting to have a discussion and a vote to potentially delay the special election to the August 4th primary.”
Election Commissioner’s Report
Laura Rainwater’s Testimony
Laura Rainwater, Sedgwick County Election Commissioner, provided critical context about the challenges of conducting the March 3 special election:
Polling Place Issues:
- Original estimate affected 500 voters at 4 locations
- Actual impact: 25,500 additional voters need temporary relocation
- Total affected: Approximately 26,000 voters (just over 10% of Wichita’s 253,000 registered voters)
- By comparison: USD 259’s February 2025 special election moved 10,000 voters (5%)
Reasons for Polling Place Changes:
- Westlink Christian Church: Sold, no longer available
- Heart of Christ Church: Ongoing maintenance issues prevented opening
- Five other locations: Scheduling conflicts with pre-planned events on March 3
Cost Analysis:
- Opening a single polling site on election day: ~$1,200
- Moving voters to temporary sites: <$500 total
- Mailing notices to 26,000 affected voters: $20,000 additional cost
- Total March 3 cost: $170,000
- August or November cost: $0 (county-wide elections already funded)
No Costs Incurred Yet: Rainwater clarified that despite putting everything on pause pending this meeting, the county had not yet incurred direct election expenses. Ballots, envelopes, and notice publications were delayed.
Voter Impact and Communication
When asked about voter feedback from previous special elections, Rainwater acknowledged receiving complaints whenever voters are moved to temporary locations, noting the confusion it creates despite posting signs at closed polling sites.
For the August primary, Rainwater confirmed:
- All voters would use their assigned polling places
- Over 100 polling sites already contracted county-wide
- Unaffiliated voters would receive ballots with only the sales tax question (plus the constitutional amendment)
- No additional polling place moves would be necessary
One-third of Sedgwick County’s registered voters are unaffiliated/independent, making voter education about their eligibility to vote in the August primary particularly important.
Financial Analysis
Mark Manning’s Budget Presentation
Mark Manning, Finance Department Director, provided extensive analysis of the financial implications:
Sales Tax Collection Timeline
March Election Scenario:
- Ordinance approved December 2025 would take effect July 1, 2026
- 90-day notice required to Kansas Department of Revenue
- Collections begin: July, August, September
- First distribution to City: September 2026
August Election Scenario:
- Must provide KDOR 90-day notice
- Collections begin: January 1, 2027
- First distribution to City: Late March 2027 (approximately March 25)
- Gap for Second Light funding: October 2026 – March 2027 = ~$1.8-2 million
Public Safety Capital Improvement Program
Current CIP Allocation for Public Safety:
- Total: $197 million (2026-2035)
- Local share: ~$193 million ($5 million from KDOT)
- Distribution by year:
- 2026: $14.4 million
- 2027: $17.5 million
- 2028: $22.6 million
- 2029: $33.9 million
- 2030: $31.9 million
- 2031: $21 million
- 2032: $18 million
- 2033: $20 million
- 2034: $10 million
- 2035: $8 million
Current Funding Method:
- General obligation bonds: ~50% ($95 million over 10 years)
- Cash funding: ~50% ($95 million over 10 years)
- Total debt service: Funded from ~7 mills property tax levy
Interest Savings from Cash Funding: Manning estimated the City would save approximately $25-26 million in interest costs if the entire $193 million public safety portion could be cash-funded through sales tax revenue rather than bond-financed.
For context, the $4 million fire apparatus purchased the previous week would have saved approximately $750,000-$800,000 in interest if cash-funded (as confirmed by Fire Chief).
Budget Shortfall Projections
Manning outlined the City’s financial challenges:
- 2028 projected deficit: $4.1 million
- 2029 projected deficit: ~$8 million
- Stabilization reserve created in 2020 during pandemic
- Reserve built from abnormally large revenues (particularly interest income)
- Adopted budget envisions drawing ~$9 million from stabilization reserve in 2027-2029
Property Tax Relief Analysis
Current Mill Levy:
- Historically ~32.7 mills (flat for approximately 40 years)
- August 2025: Reduced by ~0.5 mills for first time in 40 years
- Current mill levy: ~32.2-32.3 mills
Proposed 4-Mill Reduction:
- Would apply to 2027 budget (2026 mill levy already set)
- Process: Calculate needed general fund revenue, subtract sales tax contribution
- Estimated reduction: ~4 mills
- Question raised about targeted relief (e.g., homestead rebate matching) vs. across-the-board reduction
Homestead Rebate Context: Council Member Hoheisel discussed the City’s previous homestead rebate program that matched the state program:
- Piggy-backed on state KDOR verification
- Eliminated City audit burden
- Benefits seniors earning <$41,000, people in poverty, disabled veterans
- Individual rebates could reach ~$250
- Labor-intensive but valuable for qualifying residents
Second Light Operating Funding
Current Status:
- ARPA (American Rescue Plan Act) funds allocated through December 2026
- Accelerated spending deadline: September 2026 (for audit/reporting purposes)
- Monthly operating cost: $300,000-$315,000 (potentially up to $350,000)
- Annual operating budget: ~$4 million
Critical Funding Gap: Troy Anderson, Assistant City Manager, confirmed no City funds allocated beyond Q3 2026, creating urgent need if sales tax delayed to August:
- October 2026 – March 2027 gap: 6 months
- Estimated funding need: $1.8-2 million
- No county funding committed
- No state funding available
Proposed Guardrails and Oversight
Current Framework
Sharon Dickgrafe, Chief Deputy City Attorney, reviewed existing guardrails in the ordinance, with Mark Manning elaborating on proposed financial controls:
Financial Accountability Measures:
- Segregate all funds in specific buckets
- Ensure funds used only as directed by referendum
- Develop investment policy for sales tax funds
- Ensure investment income remains in designated buckets
- Coordinate with Oversight Committee
Historical Model: Manning referenced the 1986 county-wide sales tax oversight model as proven framework the City has experience implementing.
Audit and Reporting:
- Separate, distinct funds or projects for every single item
- Specific accounting as outlined in audit plan
- Compliance procedures similar to current debt-financed capital projects
- Currently report quarterly; capacity to increase frequency
Centralization Process: Manning noted the Finance Department is undergoing centralization, which will provide additional capacity for enhanced financial reporting without necessarily requiring additional staff.
Workshop Preview
The January 27 workshop agenda includes:
- Detailed presentation on each of five “buckets”
- Discussion of guardrails for each category
- Prioritization/sequencing of bucket funding
- Public comment period (added at Mayor Wu’s request, not typical for workshops)
Council Member Hoheisel emphasized the importance of determining allocation order, noting some buckets (like Second Light) require immediate funding while others can wait.
Public Comment Highlights
Twenty-two community members addressed the Council during the 3-minute public comment period. Major themes included:
Concerns About Process and Trust
Celeste Racette (Former Chief Internal Auditor) characterized the proposal as “too big, too rushed, too vague,” citing:
- Secret meetings with “insider” business groups
- Historical missteps: $80 million ballpark, Kenmar loan default, Water Walk, 3-year gap without internal auditor
- Violation of Administrative Regulation 1.2
- Allowing outside groups to violate City Commission Policy No. 20 (municipal facilities for commercial/political activities)
- Finance Department’s rejection of paying off Fairfield Inn debt early to save $1 million, yet now advocating cash funding
Bill Anderson expressed suspicion about:
- Urgency and “bulldozer” approach
- TV advertising emphasizing benefits without mentioning 1% regressive sales tax
- Lack of concrete details about bucket priorities
- Preference for prioritizing homeless services over “public-private cultural center”
Joan Schneider (Attorney, retired Army veteran) emphasized leadership and trust:
- “Nothing is more important than having the trust of those who follow you”
- Rushing creates impression that special interests trump constituent interests
- Moving to August shows council values trust over speed
- “Cost of reputation” more valuable than 6 months of tax collection
Polling Place and Voter Access Concerns
Korey Swartfager (supervising judge at multiple polling places) detailed voter frustration:
- Many complaints when polling sites change
- Voters shifted twice: temporary location in March, back to regular location in August
- Many voters don’t see mailed notices about polling changes
- Provisional ballots create more work for voters and election office
- August/November ensures maximum participation
Dr. Walt Chappel advocated for November election:
- March turnout: ~10%
- August turnout: 25-30%
- November turnout: ~60%
- “Informed voter is what you want coming to the poll”
- Constitutional amendment on August ballot ensures strong turnout
- $170,000 could help pay homeless shelter costs: “Waste not, want not”
Chase Billingham thanked Mayor Wu for leadership:
- Special elections have inherently lower turnout
- Moving 10% of electorate will further depress participation
- Four council members “thought it was okay to have further depressed turnout”
- Question framed as: Should residents pay more so “wealthy homeowners and businesses can contribute less financially to our collective well-being”
Food Sales Tax Opposition
James Barfield (District 1) emphasized the food sales tax impact:
- “Nobody is talking about the issue that affects every single family in the city of Wichita”
- Wichita would be only municipality subjecting residents to food sales tax
- Governor worked for years to eliminate state food sales tax
- Historical failures: Water Walk ($40M), Genesis Project (hundreds of thousands lost), Kenmar ($1.4M)
- “All were proposed by rich millionaires and billionaires to suck up our hard-working tax dollars”
Council Member Hoheisel responded that his brother in the state legislature introduced legislation allowing cities/counties to eliminate local food sales tax, and noted every municipality with sales tax currently taxes food.
County Commissioner Jim Howell clarified that approximately 17% of sales tax revenue comes from food purchases, confirming the significance of this component.
Concerns About Implementation Details
Myron Ackerman (District 1) questioned:
- What specifically will the $25 million for Century II cover?
- What are the $225 million convention center plans?
- Historical precedent: $10 million allocated for Century II maintenance was moved elsewhere
- Past City error: County tax-sharing funds deposited in wrong accounts, unreported
- “You have a history of moving money around”
Faith Martin (civic engagement advocate, election worker) raised:
- Lack of CIP guardrails beyond arts funding requirement
- How to ensure fire station allocation without formal requirements
- $171 million not yet allocated to fire in CIP
- Oversight committee selection process unclear (“more insiders?”)
- Second Light sustainability concerns: “What’s their plan after tax expires?”
- Compared to Oklahoma City MAPS: detailed documentation, unbundled voting, bucket-specific oversight groups
- Still voting no without these safeguards
Joseph “Tex” Dozier (District 1 Advisory Board Chair, Republican precinct chair) compared to Oklahoma City MAPS:
- MAPS voters approved ordinance language with full details
- Oversight committee with teeth written into ballot language
- Subcommittees for each bucket with subject experts
- Specific goals and projects identified
- 18-month public discourse period before each vote
- Wichita had only one public forum with questions only, no input on language
- “Future councils could have to put up with” inadequate guardrails
- Advocated for full-year process, 2-3 year focused program
Support for Specific Elements
Ted Bush (Wichita Firefighters Local 135 President) urgently described fire department conditions:
- Fire stations that leak when it rains, requiring buckets
- Snow blowing through original 1960s windows
- Firefighters scraping ice next to beds, sleeping in stocking caps
- Stations designed for 60-year-old apparatus, inadequate for modern equipment
- Non-functional diesel exhaust extraction systems exposing firefighters to carcinogens
- Air conditioners breaking, forcing sleep in 90-degree temperatures
- Aging fleet with rescue company and reserve both broken simultaneously
- “I’ve been talking about these same things 7 years ago” with no progress
- Email from council member 7 years ago: “What are you worried about? It’s in the CIP”
- Rebuilds never happened: “not touched, not even talked about”
Dr. Donna Castillo-Garcia (homelessness sector expert, content specialist) offered nuanced support:
- Family of eight with foster children understands impact on grocery costs
- 1% not bad idea for fire services and homelessness
- Concern: attaching needed items to questionable priorities
- “Don’t want to lose the things that we really need because we’re attaching them to things that we don’t”
- Supports spreading out priorities, clear frameworks, trust-building time
- Housing Continuum of Care has good frameworks community needs to learn about
- “Happy to support a 1% sales tax that goes to homelessness and goes to fire”
- Hopes for August vote to allow proper education
Larry Brooks Sr. (NAACP Wichita Branch President) emphasized:
- Importance of informed electorate
- Organization’s obligation to ensure constituents have clarity
- Supports delay for cost savings
- Supports delay to allow full information dissemination
- Requests PSAs and enhanced communication from City Council
- “Let us be more informative”
Economic Impact Concerns
Dallas Grimes (young renter) explained regressive tax burden:
- “People with the least end up paying the most”
- Wichita’s appeal: aviation/manufacturing jobs, affordability, community character
- “I want to build my life here… and not be priced out of it”
- 16% of Wichita renters below poverty line (higher than Kansas average)
- Rent, utilities, childcare all increasing
- Sales tax relief doesn’t help renters who never see property tax reduction
- “Seven years is a long time when you’re living paycheck to paycheck”
- “People don’t stay in cities that nickel-and-dime them”
- Alternatives: housing stability investment, support local businesses, large developments pay fair share
- “Young people are paying attention. We show up, we organize, and we vote”
Brock Booker (District 2) broke down actual costs:
- $10 purchase: 10 cents more
- $100 purchase: $1 more
- $1,000 purchase: $10 more
- Single person earning $51,000: ~$510 annually (~$42.50/month)
- Needs before voting: clear property tax relief definition (mills reduced, duration, who benefits), public dashboard showing collections/spending/budget comparison, oversight committee with “teeth and full transparency”
- Committee should meet more than twice yearly with just annual audit
Lavonta Williams (former educator, senior advocate) emphasized:
- Community lacks education about proposal details
- Planning community education event
- Equity lens essential: “each of our communities have an opportunity to excel”
- Senior concerns: living Social Security check to check, risk of being unhoused
- Serves on Department of Aging board
- Age-friendly city designation requires caring for seniors and elders
- “Think about the aged… those 70-, 80-, 90-year-old people”
Process and Transparency Concerns
Eric Lorenz (self-employed business owner, District 2) questioned:
- “Why so fast? Why does this need to be done now?”
- What changes in 5 months between March and August?
- Guardrails should be established before asking for votes
- Save $170,000 by using regular August election
- Illinois experience: single-issue special elections designed to avoid attention
- “Let’s not erode any more trust”
Shannon Boone (District 6) delivered comprehensive governance critique:
- Trust fractured from years of mishandled projects, cost escalation, fading accountability
- Water Walk, ballpark, ice center, water treatment facility, deferred maintenance
- Council knew about trust deficit before voting 7-0 for rushed election
- “You knew the context, you knew the skepticism”
- Public not interested in finger-pointing but wants transparency promises fulfilled
- Decision sent message: “public’s voice was secondary to speed”
- Contradicts City mission and strategic pillars
- Wichita Forward = idea from developers, not complete city plan
- “Intentions are not a substitute for due diligence, and ideas are not plans”
- Residents met with pressure instead of answers
- Bundling = “feature,” warned of losing Century II/arts/momentum if fails
- “Fear-based messaging… deepens the trust gap”
- Special meeting called over $20,000 cost, not public demand
- Wichita Forward ad spending “is frankly not our concern”
- Not opposed to investing, just to “doing it right”
- “Trust is rebuilt when leaders slow down, listen, and do the work”
- Demands: (1) Acknowledge distrust is earned, (2) Provide city-led implementation plan or delay
Margaret Shabazz (District 6) highlighted inconsistencies:
- ARPA funds accelerated and spent faster than intended
- Years of shelter meetings but no sustainability plan
- “You want me to trust you that if we vote yes… you guys are going to appropriate and use the money correctly”
- How did “independent group” know about funding shortage if not “insiders”?
- Paid parking contractor in another state vs. hiring 40 local employees at $23/hour (~$2.5M annually with benefits)
- $25-26M interest savings vs. $9M Douglas Avenue vs. $600,000 port-a-potties vs. $225,000 basketball courts
- “I just found a lot of money, if you ask me”
- Need auditor to audit current spending, establish guardrails now
Olivia Best (District 6, first-time speaker) made simple request:
- “One thing… repeal this ordinance, and very simply, at minimum, delay this vote to August or November”
- “No harm, literally no harm” from more time, information, guardrails, familiar polling locations
- “Give back their allegiance to the citizens of Wichita and to working people and working families”
- Most unifying issue across political spectrum: opposition to rushed timeline
- “Unity, what a gift”
- “Exclusion of city workers from this conversation has been a disservice”
- Everyone uses water, restrooms, roads, sidewalks, buildings maintained by city workers
- IT staff, custodians make City Hall function
- “Largest quantity of city workers” excluded from conversation
- “Truly be ashamed of yourselves… leaving city workers, public service workers out”
- Grateful for fire department but “most of all grateful for the city workers that keep our city running”
Nuanced Perspectives
Sarah (2116 South Seneca, homeless services advocate) offered measured view:
- 1% tax generates automatic apprehension
- Food prices already doubled without notification
- “1% is one cent on a dollar”
- Knowing where money goes makes difference
- All proposed uses valid (homeless, city arts)
- People want different things for city
- Waiting until August allows more information
- Wants community outreach so people know they can speak
- Council “great about listening”
- Can’t fix past but can fix children’s future
- “1% is one cent, but that one cent can mean a million dollars in your future”
- Suggests transparency board with multilingual communication
Council Discussion and Votes
Council Member Comments Before Vote
Council Member Shepard (District 1):
- Grateful for community engagement regardless of agreement
- Committed to CIP guardrails with expert guidance
- Concerned about independent voters not paying attention
- “I’m not the average voter because I’m so inundated with this”
- Research shows crowded ballots cause choice fatigue and voter abstention
- Sales tax “is not perfect” but addresses urgent needs
- Meeting with departments shows unsustainable situation: “it’s going to cost lives”
- Committed to partnering on public education
- Wants communication plan from City
- Remove emotion, separate Wichita Forward from municipality role
- Not fear-mongering to discuss consequences: “it’s the reality”
- Calling for contingency plans outlining what’s at stake if approved/rejected
- Commitment to engage at coffee shops, district knocking doors
- Creating reliable transportation beyond free transit for polling place changes
- Goal: “do our due diligence, to educate, to reach people where they are”
- Voting NO on delay
Vice Mayor Glasscock (District 2):
- Acknowledges “loss and there is distrust”
- “People have been let down before, and I’ve been let down before”
- Democracy depends on people asking hard questions
- Welcomes accountability: “apply for the Oversight Board and hold us accountable”
- Problems “set in motion long before any of us took our seats”
- “Responsibility still rests with us”
- Toured fire stations with Ted, walked Centrally with John, rode with police, visited homeless encampments
- 14 years allowing citizens to live in encampments without adequate resources: “unacceptable”
- “Inaction doesn’t make these problems smaller”
- Leadership requires honesty about delay costs
- Rare 7-0 vote shows unanimity about real problems
- “Wichita was not built by people who said no”
- Voting NO on delay, YES on letting Wichitans decide
Council Member Tuttle (District 3):
- Topic on district advisory board agenda tonight (Rockwell Branch Library, 6pm)
- New City Manager attending
- Consistency principle: “we can’t change the rules in the middle of the game”
- Applied to economic development tools, should apply here
- Both Vote Yes and Vote No campaigns have robust efforts underway
- Glad to see divide is “still respectful”
- Would be concerned if no divide existed
- 236 people watching online at peak
- Once something in motion, don’t change rules
- Concerned about polling changes but confident in Election Commissioner Rainwater and team
- Ballot will show five categories and allocation amounts
- Voting NO on delay
Council Member Johnston:
- “Totally against” food sales tax
- Working with Hoheisel’s brother (state legislator) for city/county authority to eliminate
- Technical point: bring rate to zero rather than eliminate
- Math on Second Light/homelessness “very important”
- Second Light runs out of ARPA money October 2026
- Operating cost: $300,000-$315,000/month (potentially $350,000)
- Adding services, affordable housing fund details TBD
- August election timeline:
- Vote passes August 2026
- Collections start January 1, 2027
- First distribution March 25, 2027
- Gap: October 2026 – March 2027 = $1.8-2 million shortfall
- Funding gap questions: Cut public safety? Roads? Libraries? Parks?
- County not interested in funding; state not interested despite other Kansas cities sending homeless to Wichita
- March election: invest $170,000 now, get funding when needed
- August: over one year before funds arrive, $2M deficit
- Voting NO on delay for Second Light funding
Council Member Hoheisel:
- Originally tried to delay, didn’t have support, remains consistent
- Also voted for March 3, stands by decision “regardless of how much flack we got”
- “We need to have this discussion”
- All points (bench and audience) valid
- Must address deferred maintenance for fire/WPD stations and equipment
- Must address affordable housing crisis and expanding homelessness
- Workshop will address questions; guardrails should be “as strong as possible”
- To Tex’s point: ordinance is where guardrails apply
- Ensure community trust about spending
- “Discussion we do need to have as a community”
- “Big problems… need to be able to come together and talk these issues out”
- Felt rushed initially, but “we need to see the good in each other”
- Voting NO on delay
Council Member Ballard (District 6):
- Plan not perfect but issues discussed for years
- City expanded 50-60 miles wide
- No new fire trucks, only 5 personnel added in “several decades”: “extremely unsafe and irresponsible”
- First new fire station since 2009 (in Glasscock’s district)
- Population grew 100,000+ without adding proportional resources
- Agrees with Tuttle and Hoheisel on consistency
- December vote was 7-0 to put in public’s hands
- “Some change of hearts”
- Grateful for speakers, emails, DAB comments
- Coffee coming January 24, Benjamin Hills meeting January 20, both with Wichita Forward representation
- Encourages neighborhood associations to call meetings, bring Wichita Forward
- Won’t leave at 7pm: “last person standing there to answer all of the questions”
- Disappointed unbundling vote failed 3-4
- “Good way to allow the public to prioritize”
- Voting NO on delay
Mayor Wu:
- Important to engage community who elected council
- New information warrants pause/discussion
- “Still… uncomfortable with the lack of guardrails”
- January 27 workshop will address five buckets and guardrails
- Workshop will allow public comment (not customary but important)
- Sees passion on both sides
- Many say rushed, lacks detail; detail coming January 27
- “It does need more time. It needs time. It needs time to breathe”
- Must rebuild trust lost from current/previous councils and leadership
- Asking community: “How do we move our community forward together?”
- Costly to live; helps parents with budgets
- Sees homeless population in core and outer areas
- Council voted 7-0 for Second Light shelter+services
- Maintaining what we have hasn’t been priority, but is with this council
- “In the best interest to wait until August”
- If motion fails: “I ask that each of you… come back on January 27 and share what guardrails must be in place so that this is in the best interest of all of this community”
- Voting YES for delay
The Vote
Motion: Declare public emergency, pass ordinance on single reading repealing Ordinance 52-866 (March 3 election), place ordinance on first reading calling for August 4, 2026 election, approve Notice of Special Question Election.
Result: Motion FAILED 2-5
- YES (for delay to August): Mayor Wu, Council Member Hoheisel
- NO (keeping March 3): Vice Mayor Glasscock, Council Members Shepard, Tuttle, Johnston, Ballard
Post-Vote Discussion
Council Member Hoheisel reiterated:
- March 3 vote allows community to have discussion
- “Big issues that we are facing”
- “Process is not perfect”
- Ample opportunity over next month and a half to engage, answer questions
- January 27: lengthy CIP discussion, homelessness, affordable housing
- “Must support police and fire, and the deferred maintenance”
- “Most important” discussions for budget planning
- Other communities’ affordable housing successes show possibilities
- “Please, please, stay engaged. Let’s have an honest, open discussion”
Council Member Ballard raised procedural concern:
- Supports public comment anytime
- Concerned about 3-minute vs. 5-minute limit
- Doesn’t want to seem “inconvenienced” by cutting time short
- Even if people repeat, wants full 5 minutes
- Constantly encouraging participation, don’t want to shortcut people
Mayor Wu proposed alternative:
- Five buckets could allow five speaking opportunities
- Present bucket one, open public comment (3 min)
- Present bucket two, open public comment (3 min)
- Continue through all five buckets
- Total possible speaking time: 15 minutes per person across buckets
- Allows more focused discussion on each topic
Vice Mayor Glasscock agreed with Ballard:
- Should have been bench decision, not mayoral decision
- Wishes it would be 5 minutes
Council Member Tuttle requested clarification:
- Emailed City Manager, Legal, Communications, all council
- “How did we get to 5 minutes?”
- “I don’t think one of us can make that decision. It needs to be a council decision”
- Any public engagement decision should be council decision
Council Member Johnston suggested efficiency:
- Five bucket approach could create 10-11 hour meeting
- “We’ve all survived” long meetings before
- “Not sure that’s in the best interest of people”
- Limited peak engagement time
- Present all five buckets, then 5-minute public comment
- People usually have one specific interest
- “Efficiency does not mean worse. Efficiency actually usually means better”
Council Member Shepard proposed supplemental approach:
- Appreciates conversation about public engagement
- Long meeting impacts staff, council, and people taking time off work
- Offer: work with staff to present town halls on specific topics
- Get public engagement on particular topics beforehand
- Still have workshop January 27 with 5-minute comments
- “The more engagement, the more education, the better”
Council Member Johnston refined suggestion:
- Can’t have presentation then comments without ability to change based on comments
- Town halls where everyone speaks 5 minutes may “not accomplish anything”
- “I want to accomplish something and move it forward”
- Better formula: presentation → public comment → revise → present again → public comment again
Mayor Wu supported Johnston’s approach:
- January 27 workshop will require fine tuning
- Schedule follow-up instead of saying “sometime”
- Two weeks after January 27: revised presentation based on feedback
- Additional sales tax, five buckets, guardrails discussion
Council Member Ballard suggested:
- Make follow-up an evening meeting
- More people can participate who work during day
Council reached consensus:
- January 27, 2026: Workshop on sales tax, five buckets, guardrails (regular daytime)
- Public comment: 5 minutes each
- Not typical for workshops but Mayor Wu requesting exception
- February 10, 2026:
- Regular 9:00 AM council meeting
- Evening town hall on sales tax with public comment (5 minutes each)
- Special meeting format, single topic focus
- Allows working residents to participate
Council Member Shepard added:
- Ensure materials available in multiple languages
- Voters have different preferred primary languages
- Make accessible to all community members
Historical Context Raised
Past Project Challenges
Multiple speakers referenced historical city projects that contributed to current trust deficit:
Water Walk (~2002):
- City on hook for $40 million
- Passed when Vice Mayor Glasscock was 8 years old
Genesis Project (2011):
- Lost hundreds of thousands of dollars
- Occurred when Vice Mayor Glasscock was in high school
Kenmar Project:
- City on hook for $1.4 million
- Two insider developers sold off collateral on taxpayer-funded $2 million loan
- Loan defaulted and went “off the books”
- Celeste Racette: “Not an accounting practice that I consider well vetted”
Ballpark (Emergency Ordinance):
- $80 million vote
- Former City Manager Layton overestimated revenue
- General fund had to cover shortfall
Water Treatment Plant:
- Former mayor allegedly changed bid after “freebie golf trip”
Century II Maintenance:
- $10 million allocated for maintenance
- Money moved and spent elsewhere
- Bill Anderson’s wife (30+ years at Century II) aware of extensive problems
Fairfield Inn:
- Bipartisan group suggested early payoff to save $1 million
- Finance Department declined due to “low interest rates”
- Now advocating cash funding for other projects
Internal Audit Gap:
- City operated without internal auditor for 3 years
- Violated Administrative Regulation 1.2
Tax Fund Misallocation:
- County-to-city tax sharing funds deposited in wrong accounts
- Not reported, not found by City staff
Vice Mayor Glasscock responded: “I will not be responsible for something that happened for this bench when I was 8 years old.”
Key Questions Raised
For Further Clarification
Sales Tax on Food:
- Currently all Kansas municipalities with sales tax charge food tax
- State eliminated state portion; local portion remains
- Hoheisel’s brother introduced state legislation allowing cities/counties to eliminate local food tax
- Approximately 17% of sales tax revenue comes from food purchases
- Council “united in trying to push through” local elimination authority
CIP Guardrails:
- Current only guardrail: arts funding requirement by ordinance
- No requirement to spend on fire, police, or any other specific purpose
- ~$171 million not yet allocated to fire in current CIP
- Projects can be moved forward, backward, increased, decreased
- Projects approved twice: in adopted CIP, then individually before initiation
- Faith Martin/Tex Dozier: ballot language doesn’t include enforcement mechanisms
Interest on Sales Tax Funds:
- Interest would accrue to project buckets
- Cannot use for administrative costs (including election expenses)
- Investment policy and options still being developed
Oversight Committee:
- To be established within 90 days if passes
- Meet at least twice yearly
- Provide annual financial audit
- Selection process not yet defined
- No subcommittees or specific expertise requirements in current language
Property Tax Relief:
- Language doesn’t specify targeted vs. across-the-board reduction
- Homestead rebate matching discussed but not codified
- Council Member Hoheisel wants clarification before January 27 workshop
- Any oversight committee interpretation wouldn’t be binding
Transparency/Reporting:
- Finance Department currently reports quarterly
- Capacity to increase frequency, detail
- Centralization process will provide additional capacity
- Could require additional work or reprioritization
- Possible use of contractual partners
Polling Place Communication:
- Rainwater: no advertising budget
- Relying on media (three stations), social media
- County presence in community, news appearances
- Election office doesn’t fund voter education
- “Outside resources” needed for comprehensive outreach
- Constitutional amendment will generate publicity statewide
Procedural Notes
Public Comment Protocol
Initial announcement: 3-minute limit instead of typical 5 minutes to allow more speakers.
Post-vote discussion revealed:
- Mayor set 3-minute limit unilaterally
- Council Members Ballard, Glasscock, Tuttle objected to process
- Consensus: future public engagement decisions should be full council decision
- Agreed on 5 minutes for January 27 workshop
- Agreed on 5 minutes for February 10 town hall
Meeting Statistics
- Start time: 12:03 PM
- End time: 2:49 PM
- Duration: 2 hours 46 minutes
- Public speakers: 22
- Peak online viewership: 236
Special Meeting Authority
Mayor Wu called special meeting under her authority after receiving new information Friday about:
- Increased election costs
- Polling place impacts
- Voter notification expenses
Council Member Johnston initially expressed frustration about “moving target of a number,” but Commissioner Howell clarified state statute (KSA 25-2201B) requires city to bear special election costs, and polling place changes resulted from private property owners’ scheduling conflicts, not county manipulation.
Upcoming Meetings
January 27, 2026 Workshop
Topics:
- Detailed presentation on five buckets
- Guardrails for each category
- Funding prioritization/sequencing
- CIP discussion (extensive)
- Public comment period (5 minutes each, not typical for workshops)
February 10, 2026
Morning: Regular City Council meeting (9:00 AM) Evening: Special town hall on sales tax (time TBD)
- Single topic focus
- Public comment: 5 minutes each
- Accommodates working residents
- Note: Same night as Kapaun vs. Carroll basketball game
District Advisory Boards
January 14, 2026 (evening): District 3 – Rockwell Branch Library, 6:00 PM
- City Manager Dennis Marstall attending
- Wichita Forward representation
- Sales tax discussion
February 2026: District 1 breakfast
- City Manager Dennis Marstall attending
January 20: Benjamin Hills neighborhood meeting
- Wichita Forward representation
January 24: Council Member Ballard coffee
- Wichita Forward representation
- Extended Q&A commitment
Council Member Contact Information
Council members encouraged residents to reach out:
- Mayor Lily Wu
- Vice Mayor Dalton Glasscock: dglasscock@wichita.gov
- Council Member Joseph Shepard (District 1): provides cell phone number publicly
- Council Member Becky Tuttle (District 2)
- Council Member Mike Hoheisel
- Council Member JV Johnston
- Council Member Maggie Ballard (District 6)
All indicated availability for coffee meetings, office visits, phone calls, and emails.
County Officials Present
Commissioner Jim Howell: Attended to defend Election Commissioner Rainwater’s integrity, clarified state statute requirements, discussed election law
Chairman Jeff Blubaugh: Present in audience (recognized by Mayor Wu)
Laura Rainwater, Election Commissioner: Presented election administration challenges, answered council questions
Analysis: The Path Forward
What March 3 Election Means
Immediate Timeline:
- January 27: Workshop with public comment
- February 10: Town hall with public comment
- Ballot printing, site preparation proceed
- Early voting period
- March 3: Election Day
- If approved: Collections begin July 2026, first distribution September 2026
Advantages Cited:
- Secures Second Light funding before October gap
- Begins property tax relief planning for 2027 budget
- Cash-funds public safety CIP sooner, saves ~$25-26M interest
- Focused voter attention on single issue
- Addresses urgent fire station/equipment needs faster
- Recent fire apparatus purchase example: could have saved $750,000-$800,000
Concerns Raised:
- 26,000 voters (10%) at temporary polling locations
- Lower expected turnout (~10% vs. 25-30% August or 60% November)
- $170,000 cost vs. $0 for August/November
- Insufficient time for guardrail development and public education
- Rushed process erodes trust
- Independent voters may not know they can participate in August primary
- Bundled priorities prevent public from prioritizing individually
- Implementation details still undefined
- Oversight committee structure unclear
What August 4 Election Would Have Meant
Timeline:
- Extended public engagement period
- Collections begin January 1, 2027
- First distribution late March 2027
- Second Light funding gap: October 2026 – March 2027 (~$1.8-2M)
Advantages:
- No polling place changes
- No special election cost ($170,000 savings)
- Higher expected turnout (25-30%)
- Constitutional amendment ensures all voters know about primary
- More time for guardrail development
- More time for public education and trust-building
- More time for implementation planning
- Better voter access at regular polling locations
Concerns:
- Second Light funding gap requires alternative solution
- Property tax relief delayed one year
- Public safety CIP cash-funding delayed
- Interest costs continue accumulating
- Additional ~6 months before addressing urgent infrastructure needs
The Trust Question
The meeting revealed fundamental tension between:
Urgency Perspective:
- Fire stations leak, lack proper ventilation
- Firefighters exposed to carcinogens
- Equipment breaks down
- Homeless population growing
- Budget deficits approaching
- Infrastructure maintenance deferred for decades
- Every delay costs money and potentially lives
Process Perspective:
- Historical mismanagement requires skepticism
- Guardrails should precede, not follow, voter approval
- Oklahoma City spent 18 months before each MAPS vote
- Bundling prevents public prioritization
- Insider influence perception undermines legitimacy
- Rushed timelines suggest avoiding scrutiny
- Trust requires transparency, time, and responsiveness
Both perspectives contain truth. The challenge: how to address genuine urgent needs while rebuilding trust through transparent, inclusive process.
What Happens Next
With March 3 election proceeding:
Immediate Actions Needed:
- Election Commissioner Rainwater’s office proceeds with:
- Ballot printing
- Mailing 26,000 polling place change notices
- Poll worker recruitment
- Site preparation at temporary locations
- Voter education campaign
- City staff prepares for January 27 workshop:
- Detailed presentations on five buckets
- Proposed guardrails for each
- CIP prioritization analysis
- Public comment accommodation
- Campaign activity intensifies:
- Vote Yes (Wichita Forward) campaign
- Vote No campaign
- Both sides working neighborhood associations, district meetings
- Council community engagement:
- District Advisory Board presentations
- Neighborhood association meetings
- Coffee conversations
- Direct constituent outreach
- February 10 evening town hall:
- Present revised proposals based on January 27 feedback
- Additional public comment opportunity
- Accommodate working residents
Unresolved Questions:
- How will $1.8-2M Second Light gap be addressed if vote fails?
- What specific CIP guardrails will be proposed?
- How will oversight committee members be selected?
- Will property tax relief be targeted or across-the-board?
- How will affordable housing fund be structured?
- What sequencing/prioritization for bucket funding?
- How will City enhance transparency and reporting?
- Can food sales tax exemption be achieved through state legislation?
The Fundamental Question:
As multiple speakers noted, this vote asks Wichitans to:
- Pay $850 million over 7 years through regressive sales tax
- Trust council to implement undefined guardrails
- Accept bundled priorities without individual choice
- Believe this council won’t repeat past mistakes
- Fund public safety, homelessness, arts, property relief, and convention infrastructure simultaneously
Whether voters say yes or no March 3, the underlying challenges remain: aging infrastructure, growing homeless population, budget constraints, and trust deficit require sustained attention regardless of election outcome.
Conclusion
The special meeting demonstrated robust civic engagement, with passionate advocates on all sides making substantive arguments. The council’s 5-2 vote to proceed with March 3 reflects majority belief that:
- Urgent needs justify expedited timeline
- Workshop and town hall processes provide adequate public input
- Focused election better than crowded ballot
- Second Light funding gap demands swift action
- Trust rebuilding can occur within shortened timeframe
Mayor Wu and Council Member Hoheisel’s dissent reflects concern that:
- Trust requires time, transparency, and proven guardrails
- New information warranted reconsideration
- August timeline sacrifices speed but gains legitimacy
- Proper planning produces better outcomes
- Democracy benefits from maximum participation
Both positions stem from genuine commitment to Wichita’s future. The question now: will the January 27 workshop and February 10 town hall provide sufficient detail, guardrails, and community input to earn voter confidence by March 3?
The answer will emerge in six weeks when Wichitans decide whether to invest $850 million in their city’s future—and whether they trust this council to manage that investment wisely.
Meeting Documents:
- Agenda Report I-1
- Ordinance No. 52-887 (Repeal 52-866)
- Emergency Declaration for Ordinance No. 52-887
- Special Election Notice for August 4, 2026
- Ordinance No. 52-888 (1% Sales Tax, August 4, 2026)
Next Council Actions:
- January 27, 2026: Sales tax workshop with public comment
- February 10, 2026 (AM): Regular council meeting
- February 10, 2026 (PM): Sales tax town hall
Election Information:
- Sedgwick County Election Office
- Laura Rainwater, Election Commissioner
- Approximately 253,000 registered voters in Wichita
- Early voting information to be announced
This blog post is based on official City Council meeting minutes from January 14, 2026. All quotes are drawn directly from the meeting record. For complete context, readers are encouraged to review the full meeting minutes and attend upcoming public sessions.