[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5973211,"mediaKeyId","5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820","parentId",5834453,"title","Commissioners debate Greater Wichita Partnership funding levels; staff to confirm budget impact before final vote","audioSeconds",611,"startMs",1504000,"endMs",2115000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820&start=1504&end=2115","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820/thumbnail_1504000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5973211/Sedgwick-County/Kansas/Commissioners-debate-Greater-Wichita-Partnership-funding-levels-staff-to-confirm-budget-impact-before-final-vote","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973211-44313dd5818438707ed863bee331395a/orig.mp4?Expires=1770667586&Signature=ZZ7dOOmXWntsrNyWRgC~L5TR95dmMEmN6Rm-KQWzK6uyrn1zjpeIr9Vd9ygSZKnvXIJerx5~7I3XHtk8~AmFsNal~kZHAz~wgRGgZMAHz8G65PvKn5WuQZ8~2Axf1Mu9pNzUSavSGruRh6J7NSx0XNQRkxzIWtjguh7zzyDiaz9pyckLBFtzJkaoT-tEqM8k7jJeHlTJn72ogOI05p7prmP-BuSqaVX0UTGccMttlTsjxzIb51r9cZ6QmYBr5cn~yKqIw8rWtTyiLOByAAjrGzDk7sMp4OfAauIavWebPJoSUqZ~Erw4NaszD8f5BuLPI6~~7udFL~CkdmMhvCO-UQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Sedgwick County, KS","date","2025-09-26T13:02:55Z","article","Sedgwick County commissioners debated the county’s planned funding for the Greater Wichita Partnership (GWP), with some commissioners urging a flat $500,000 per year over three years and others supporting the multi-year ramp-up proposed in the agreement.

The agenda backup showed a requested amount and commissioners recalled prior budget discussions that proposed $450,000 for 2026 and increases in subsequent years. A commissioner advocating a flat approach said a steady $500,000 annually for three years would avoid a future budget “surprise” and provide clarity. \"If we’re gonna give them that level of funding, let’s just do it,\" he said.

Another commissioner cautioned against assuming the county will automatically add more in 2029 and said predicting future budgets is speculative. Several commissioners said they support GWP and want to be fair to the organization while also protecting county budget flexibility.

Staff told the commission the item is on the consent agenda but offered to pull it for discussion. Chairman Tom and other commissioners asked Lindsey (county finance) to confirm whether the county’s funding would match Wichita’s in each year and to provide the exact budget impact if the commission adopted a flat $500,000 proposal.

Commissioners agreed to consult with Lindsey and contact Jeff Fuller of GWP to understand whether GWP prefers the ramping proposal or a flat schedule. The commission did not finalize a change at agenda review; staff said they would provide the requested budget verification and could pull the item from consent for fuller discussion at Wednesday’s meeting if needed.

The item remains on the consent agenda for now; commissioners said they will revisit it after staff provides the matching and budget-impact details.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Sedgwick County Board of Commissioners Agenda Review - 9/26/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Commissioners discussed whether to fund the Greater Wichita Partnership at $450,000 with increases over time or to set a flat $500,000 per year for three years. Commissioners asked staff to confirm matching and budget impacts and said the item may be pulled from consent for further discussion.","taxTitle","Sedgwick County, Kansas","taxId",2883,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973216,"Commissioners demand more information on IMA insurance-consulting contract; staff to brief public before vote",610,744000,1354000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820&start=744&end=1354","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820/thumbnail_744000.jpg","/articles/5973216/Sedgwick-County/Kansas/Commissioners-demand-more-information-on-IMA-insurance-consulting-contract-staff-to-brief-public-before-vote","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973216-6e3f988c5f9c57d0943ba35e1f8cf08d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770667586&Signature=j96-GVY2lwijKvH3nks-JlKuXgxm0XUwpZmFDsyJBTQvWjt2CZCs-Yx19hdCwarvhaooGuYeDje~e~XFqBoPPp969AAc7iWIsqGTx48udTHk4Yiv6dvOtUu6tJ1LeoZg3LKSSwM9vRMptZ2EIfxfvve7z4X1fO7X~GLUJaml6lzKnq7Rf5HifRO9HavqnsLVV1Dq8FP1ddPDnINHF9xoFCj9GOWfYfVDj25a3DpqSKU2IJFF38euqkAxjJYSSIWVjHGsz8lshMyvuIa2rTbuQmrp~g0w3p3d9jcJK7OIh3RRdZ~ebHtT4IY5g-8W~ddueRQRUjQsSHNOrYaouTypXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Sedgwick County commissioners asked staff to pull and fully brief a proposed continuation of insurance and benefits consulting services with IMA after several commissioners said the solicitation appeared to lack competition and the prior contract had expired.

A commissioner critical of the process said the county had \"given us very little due diligence\" and argued the county should have explored other vendors and competitive options before approving a continuation with IMA. He said the current contract had expired and said he was \"not ready to vote for this.\"

Procurement and county staff replied that IMA has been the county’s consultant for about five years and that they have used IMA across county services. Joe, a procurement staff member, confirmed this RFP was characterized as a professional-services continuation and that the office received no other proposals on this specific item. \"No. This RFP was, right. It was professional services…We did not. You just simply called up IMA…\" he said when asked whether others were solicited.

Justin (county staff) and Sheena (human resources, benefits lead) told commissioners the county could continue service under the old contract while staff works with legal on an extension or bridge contract, and that open enrollment preparations for 2026 are already underway. Sheena confirmed the PBM (pharmacy benefits manager) topic is separate from this consulting contract.

Commissioners also noted that one member recused herself from prior consideration because she works in the human resources department that uses the consultant; staff confirmed \"Anna\" recused for that reason. Commissioners asked staff to return to the full commission meeting with a public briefing explaining: the county’s relationship with IMA, why staff judged sole-source status appropriate, the dollar amount of prior contracts and the operational risks of switching consultants during open-enrollment preparations.

Chairman Tom said the commission should not feel compelled to approve the item because a contract was expiring. Staff agreed to pull the bid-board item, prepare a public briefing with Justin, Sheena and other staff in person, and, if necessary, work with legal on a short extension to preserve continuity while commissioners review the matter. No contract was approved at the agenda-review session.

The public record shows the county has treated IMA as an ongoing local vendor and the discussion will return to the commission after staff provides the requested documentation and a clearer procurement justification.","Commissioners pressed staff over a sole-source continuation with IMA for insurance and business consulting, citing lack of competition and the contract’s imminent expiration; staff said service continuity can be maintained and agreed to brief the commission publicly and explore contract extension options.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5973220,"Commissioners pull on-call commercial real estate broker RFP for workshop after questions on process and conflicts",462,234000,696000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820&start=234&end=696","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5834453-ef102340d3891a51d26036867c2f8820/thumbnail_234000.jpg","/articles/5973220/Sedgwick-County/Kansas/Commissioners-pull-on-call-commercial-real-estate-broker-RFP-for-workshop-after-questions-on-process-and-conflicts","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5973220-f2ab4a15c15489bd54ec8663fb3c3c4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1770667586&Signature=KnFp8M0VAXzIW8~~dshujBDcg04GZxksoFtgCJGp7eV-b-3Uh~Bvzeb6CZjTIV71MQotV3Aq3ENsm-cFVx8PGlIjQAtDH~dbty3KaKAndyBOovlh9M-FYUABW6Ujtaq9im76sZN9gcBWJLcnOcGei2xp0aRhMRGukwlJd~xCq97L9XZKpVLnb~dndSqbObJ3y2uegqm4poKbrRvpPIXqeUQX5sSk25gFcJowIkqAhfxSYTinEsAWGiC9kG5TBtSpvzAVYclMuw--1xHU2MMfDGqUsJabfJvNwh5Kg-X5xVD6atkZKpWe5ChXX5UYSDjYuJFJCMYd9zfARMRIb-IzWw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Chairman Tom and county staff agreed to remove the on-call commercial real estate broker services request from the Wednesday consent agenda and hold a workshop so commissioners can review the procurement process and conflict-of-interest safeguards.

The item would have established on-call broker services to help the county buy, lease and research real property. Tanya, a county procurement staff member, said the RFP advertised broadly and that the scope includes market research, price opinions, site inspections and transactional assistance. \"So, what we're asking there is to to work with us or purchase or lease a real property. They help us with research on market conditions, preparing price opinions, consulting services that include site inspections, and then any activities or services such as with real estate transactions,\" she said.

A commissioner who said he is transitioning from city government questioned why the county uses an on-call roster rather than issuing a request for proposals (RFP) or bid per individual property. He also raised questions about who pays broker commissions and whether using an on-call list creates conflicts when the county transacts with a firm on that list. \"Who’s paying the commission? Is the buyer paying the commission? Is the seller paying the commission?\" he asked.

Procurement staff said the county formerly contracted for specific properties via separate solicitations and that, in practice, real estate deals are negotiated property-by-property to protect taxpayer interests. Staff said the current on-call roster had received three proposals and the recommendation was to select two vendors; they also noted the prior on-call agreement has expired. Staff advised that, after issuing an RFP, proposers must hold their pricing for 120 days.

Given those questions, the commission chair instructed staff to pull the item from the consent agenda and prepare a workshop briefing for the full commission. The clerk’s office will confirm whether the county has sufficient time to finalize any needed work while pricing holds remain in effect.

The pull means no contract award or renewal will be approved at Wednesday’s meeting; commissioners said they want a public briefing so the body and members of the public understand the rationale, how commissions are handled in any given transaction, and steps taken to avoid conflicts of interest.

Staff said they will return the item with additional explanations about the selection process, the number of proposers, the recommended roster size and how commission/fee arrangements are handled on a deal-by-deal basis. The commission did not take a formal vote on the item at the agenda-review session.","Sedgwick County commissioners pulled an item to renew on-call commercial real estate broker services after commissioners asked for a workshop on the procurement process, commissions and conflict-of-interest safeguards; staff said three proposals were received and the current contract had expired.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commissioners debate Greater Wichita Partnership funding levels; staff to confirm budget impact before final vote

Commissioners demand more information on IMA insurance-consulting contract; staff to brief public before vote

Commissioners pull on-call commercial real estate broker RFP for workshop after questions on process and conflicts