Commentary: Ballard asking the right questions on Wichita developer subsidies

A curious thing happened at the Feb. 15 Wichita City Council meeting.

Somebody asked a question.

Not just any “somebody.” It was an elected official, namely, newly-elected council member Maggie Ballard.

And it wasn’t just any question. It was a question that no elected official had asked before, even though they all had the opportunity numerous times over the past decade.

The issue at hand was the council’s pending approval of a $6 million tax increment financing — or TIF — package for the ICT21 project, an ambitious effort to redevelop the old refinery site on North 21st Street just west of Interstate 35.

TIF is a fancy way of funneling tax dollars into the pocket of developers, arguably to help create a new economic development. Every TIF project, and there have been many over the past decade, must pass inspection by every local city council member, county commissioner and school board member, since the TIF impacts the tax burden for each of those entities.

The question Ballard asked was a simple one, addressed to developer Marty Cornejo, a well respected member of the Wichita economic scene. Simple, yet never before articulated by any elected official on any previous TIF application.

Did you exhaust every other financing option before you asked for TIF funding? Ballard asked.

That written rule applies to every TIF proposal that comes before the council. It makes sense to ask, because tax dollars are sacred and can’t be handed out willy-nilly to any ambitious developer.

Cornejo gave a credible response. Pursuit of federal and state funding had been unsuccessful. Local lenders were reluctant because of the environment challenges left behind by the decades of refinery pollution.

Those challenges include a layer of gasoline resting just beneath the surface atop the groundwater below. It was so bad that local citizens would siphon out the gasoline to burn in their automobiles.

Cornejo plans to pave over the area, preventing any further pollution and creating a much needed warehouse/manufacturing park.

So why was Ballard’s question so significant?

Because it wasn’t asked last year when the Council awarded $1 million in TIF funds to developer David Burke to subsidize his luxury patio home development just north of Sim Golf Course in the Riverside District.

It would have been interesting to hear Burke defend the “environmental” challenges he faced in building homes on a largely vacant section of riverfront property abutting the established and iconic Riverside neighborhood.

Burke paid for a study from a Kansas City firm that declared the area “blighted” because it had stickers. Yes, that’s right, those little nasty stickers that can puncture your bike tire and inconvenience dog walkers. Not exactly the same magnitude as a plume of toxic petrochemicals, but, hey, if you pay somebody enough, they’ll tell you anything.

That “study” was more than enough for then-council member Cindy Claycomb, who had championed the Riverside project on behalf of Burke, her major campaign contributor. The smell of that relationship wafted over the last election as Ballard soundly ousted Claycomb from the District 6 seat.

Burke’s application said it would cost $8 million to construct the homes.

The first models reportedly are up for sale at $350,000 each. Take that times 40, and Burke will realize a $14 million return, a pretty good bet in this current housing market.

And, of course, he gets to keep the $700,000 in TIF funds.

The moral to the story? It is always good to ask questions when you are the last backstop protecting public tax dollars.

Maybe council member Ballard has set an example that will inspire her fellow elected officials on the City Council, County Commission and school board to be similarly diligent the next time a developer shows up for a handout.

This story was originally published March 22, 2022 at 12:18 PM.