Wichita council debates guardrails, funding priorities for proposed 1% sales tax ahead of March 3 vote

Wichita City Council spent much of its Jan. 27 workshop debating how to protect taxpayer money and sequence projects if voters approve a one‑percent temporary sales tax on March 3.

City staff told the council the ballot would seek a maximum of $850,000,000 over seven years, with five capped allocations: $225 million for public‑safety capital projects, $225 million for revitalizing Century II and expanding the convention center, $150 million for property‑tax relief, $150 million for homeless and housing services and $75 million for a new downtown performing‑arts center. "This is our opportunity to make sure we have some clarity," the city manager said as staff outlined timelines and oversight plans.

Finance Director Mark Manning presented revenue models showing roughly $120–$130 million a year once fully ramped and about $37.7 million expected in the partial year after the tax’s proposed July 1, 2026 start. Manning warned that exempting groceries at the state level could reduce city revenue by roughly 12 percent (an order‑of‑magnitude loss staff estimated at about $81 million over the term depending on timing). He recommended cash‑funding capital projects and said the city’s practice, consistent with state cash‑basis law, is to avoid issuing debt whose term would outlast the revenue stream.

Council and legal staff spent a large portion of the meeting parsing the ballot’s phrase about the homeless and housing initiative: the ballot creates "a restricted special fund with earnings from such fund to be reinvested into this special fund to support homeless and housing services." Legal counsel said the language signals an intent to protect an endowment but acknowledged the governing body retains discretion; some council members urged a strict reading that would preserve the corpus, while others left open limited use of principal for urgent operations.

Housing Director Sally Stang outlined staff’s approach: create a restricted fund, begin annual allocations as revenues arrive, and grow an endowment intended to generate ongoing earnings. Her modeled plan shows early operating support for a low‑barrier multi‑agency center (Second Light) and a path toward an endowment that staff projects could exceed $100 million by the end of the sales‑tax term, producing several million dollars a year in earnings for homelessness services.

Public testimony split along predictable lines. Faith and homelessness advocates—including Justice Together and the Coalition to End Homelessness—urged the council to ensure sustained funding and to aim for at least $10 million a year for the affordable‑housing fund; Pastor‑representatives said, "We urge you to call for at least $10,000,000 in ongoing annual funding." Several business and tourism leaders, including Visit Wichita and hotel operators, supported the tax as a way to preserve conventions and draw visitor spending. A resident, Trevor Darmstetter, told councilors he had been "disappointed" to see an ad from Wichita Forward and said it made him distrust the coalition’s stewardship; he urged higher standards of campaign communication.

Councilmembers pressed staff for firm guardrails and specific text. Among the questions: how quickly projects in each bucket would be funded; whether interest earned on balances could be moved between buckets; what the oversight committee would look like; and whether private fundraising commitments for a performing arts center should be required before public dollars are released. Staff proposed a citizens’ oversight committee with subcommittees for each initiative, annual audits, and public reporting via a dashboard. Legal staff proposed procurement language to require compliance with city purchasing rules and to bar special treatment and sole‑source awards unless expressly approved by council.

Mayor Wu proposed prioritizing the first $300 million in collections to three immediate needs—homelessness/housing, property‑tax relief and public safety—allocating $100 million to each, then funding the remaining initiatives pro‑rata up to the ballot caps. Several council members asked staff to draft multiple prioritization scenarios (including language spelling out a 4‑mill annual property‑tax reduction) for formal consideration at a Feb. 10 meeting that the council set as an evening session to permit broad public comment before any votes.

On procurement, Purchasing Manager Josh Lauber explained that city code (city code 2.64) requires public bidding for procurements $50,000 and up and described protest and protest‑escalation procedures. He said the city uses an online procurement portal (Unisolutions) to increase vendor outreach and that contract approvals above thresholds are brought to council.

What’s next: staff will revise the draft resolutions to reflect council direction—drafts that include oversight‑committee composition and reporting cadence, procurement guardrails, and multiple prioritization options—and return for action at the council’s next public meeting and town‑hall session. The council moved the regular Feb. 10 meeting to 6 p.m. to allow additional public engagement; staff was asked to present updated resolutions at that session. If voters approve the referendum on March 3, the council will have the authority to adopt the implementation resolutions and appoint the oversight committee described in staff proposals.

Why it matters: the proposal would deliver a large, time‑limited revenue stream intended to pay for infrastructure and services the city says it cannot afford through existing funds alone. Decisions the council makes now on priorities, procurement, oversight and whether the homeless endowment corpus may be used before it reaches its stated target will shape how quickly the city can act on shelters, public‑safety facilities and convention upgrades—and how the public perceives stewardship of the new funds.

The council scheduled further debate and directed staff to return with refined language and cost models; a town‑hall and the council’s Feb. 10 evening meeting were set as the next opportunities for public input and possible action.