From the Alvin and Rosalie Sara Check studio.

PBS Kansas Presents Kansas Week.

A major shift in public safety across Sedgwick County.

While some neighboring towns could soon be fighting fires alone.

A new nationwide ranking that no Wichita rider wants to see.

We're diving into the soaring cost of calling the air capital home.

But first, a high stakes showdown over the future of the Flint Hills.

Why?

State officials are suddenly siding against a local power giant.

That's what we're talking about right now on Kansas Wheat.

Hello and welcome to Kansas Week.

I'm Jared Sorelle.

A major power play by Evergy has just hit a massive wall in the heart of the Flint Hills.

State regulators are siding with landowners, unanimously blocking a significant chunk of a proposed 133 mile transmission line.

While the KCC has cleared the route west of highway 77 through Sedgwick and Sumner counties, they told the utility to go back to the drawing board for the section that's cutting east into the delicate tallgrass prairie.

Ranchers and oil operators argue the massive steel structures would permanently scar the unique ecosystem and disrupt generational businesses.

Evergy claims the line is a necessity to prevent outages during severe weather, and could save Kansans millions of dollars.

But they now have until June 12th to come up with a new route.

Here to discuss this and some of the week's other big state and local news is State Representative Henry Helguson and president of the Kansas Policy Institute, James Franco.

Thank you both for joining us.

We have a light panel today, so let's get close and have a good discussion with both of you.

James, the first time I've had you on the show since I've hosted in the last couple of years.

So welcome.

Tell me about this state lawmaker.

Well, I don't think energy is used to be used to having pushback from state lawmakers like this.

Now, it certainly seems to be the case where, you know, on some level, the bigger the business, the more sway that they hold.

But, I mean, my family hikes in the Flint Hills whenever we get the chance to get out of town and do something.

It's a gem of the state.

It's a gem of the region.

So anything that protects that I think is good.

The question is more fundamental than that, though.

It's as we build out, you know, infrastructure projects, whatever it is, different things that we'll talk about today is it's oftentimes something about not in my backyard.

And the question is where are we going to cite these things, be they in this case, you know, energy infrastructure or something else?

And how do we preserve what makes our state special but still build out, the things that our cities, that our communities, that our state needs to continue to grow in the 21st century.

Yeah.

He mentioned not in my backyard.

Henry, we've had that discussion with, like, data centers recently.

People don't want data centers to come close to their homes or properties or, you know.

Tell me your thoughts.

Well, in fact, we had our public our annual public hearing last night and the majority of people were there talking about data centers and what it's going to do to their communities.

One of the things that we have to keep in mind is many of the decisions in a line that Evergy is proposing, or a data center will quite often go past the generations that we are presently dealing with.

You know, I think it's important to give businesses the opportunity of successful work here in this state.

Take care of the energy.

But they can't do it all by themselves.

It has to be a collective of people coming together to making those decisions.

And that's what the KCC said.

Go back to the drawing board and putting together.

And this is not the first time Evergy has had that message.

Evergy has had this for the last two years because we have had testimony in the tax committee and, and Piqua specifically about this, that they want Evergy to come to the table and negotiate about how we protect the Flint Hills, because it is a resource that we don't want to lose.

And I think a lot of the argument, correct me if I'm wrong.

I think a lot of the argument here was the electricity that this transmission line is going to carry.

Electricity isn't even going to be used anywhere around here.

It's that electricity is going to be shipped off to Missouri or another state.

Am I correct?

I think I mean, Kansas, our economy in many different ways is, you know, premised on the idea of exports, be it wheat or aerospace or or anything else.

So in and of itself, that hardly seems like a deal breaker in the sense that energy is a commodity.

It's something that we should, you know, if we're producing it here and we can produce it better than somewhere else and at a cheaper rate than we should be able to do that here.

But again, it gets back to my mind, to that most fundamental issue of how are we going to site these things?

What are the tradeoffs of where we're siting them?

Are we using existing right of ways?

Are we building off of the existing infrastructure rather than putting up new structures, and things that we can do so that we're not just stuck in this?

Oh, well, this is a great idea, but not here or something or something like, you know, you brought up the word trade offs.

And that's one of the things that has to happen.

There has to be a clear discussion between the the individuals that are complaining or wanting Warren influence in it, plus the people that are making that decision.

And everybody understands upfront what the trade offs are.

You brought up the data centers last year or two years ago when we had the discussion about data centers.

Point was we're going to give, oh, I think was $17 million tax exemption for data centers.

It went through the legislature without a whole lot of complaint, but that was a trade off that few people brought up at that time that we should be looking at.

Yeah.

Do either of you think everybody is going to get their way here?

I mean, go back to that.

What does go back to the drawing board?

I mean, are they going to route the transmission line?

200 miles north, I doubt it.

I mean, nothing that I've seen, suggest what going back to the drawing board is hopefully it's a legitimate going back to the drawing board, and they can get creative and different solutions to try to get the energy that's being created to where it needs to be used, be it data centers or something else, to where we're actually going to need this kind of increase in in energy production and transmission.

So only time will tell how that actually shakes out.

And, hopefully we're in a place where the impact on planning for the future still preserves, you know, the tallgrass prairie as well as what it is.

Absolutely.

Our next door, Wichita, is making a national top 15 list, but it's not one that renters will want to celebrate.

A new study from Smart Asset ranks Wichita 14th in the nation for the largest percentage increase in rent over the last year.

Typical rent in the air capital is now sitting at $1,125 a month, and that's a 4% jump from last year.

Since 2021, rent prices in Wichita have climbed more than 32%, while Wichita remains well below the national average of $1,800.

Home buyers aren't finding much relief, either.

The median sale price for a house in the city of Wichita has jumped more than 7% in just the last 12 months.

Representative Halverson, tell me your thoughts on this one.

I think Wichita doesn't seem any different than any other city in the nation.

I'm sure rent has increased in just about every other city across the nation.

What's different here?

Anything?

Well, it's where we started.

We have always had lower, lower rents for houses and apartments.

We've always had purchasing a new house was lower than anywhere else than most other metropolitan areas.

So it is a large increase, but at the same time it still keeps us below the average.

And I think that's something to keep in mind.

We're seeing an increase and it's difficult for many people, but it's not as bad as a lot of other places.

And it's hard to, accept.

But that's the reality.

Let me ask you this.

How do property taxes figure into this rent equation?

And rising property?

How do how the property taxes factor into this?

Well, I mean, very much so.

Right.

It's the check that, for homeowners or property owners that we write ourselves, write our income taxes or whatever, just get taken straight out.

But many of us write an actual property tax check ourselves, and we feel that very, very differently.

But it's interesting that this story comes out this week and we're talking about it at the same time.

There's a big profile on the Wall Street Journal about how affordable Wichita is, and this building of duplexes and all of these other kinds of things.

And it gets back to what we were talking about before, is everybody wants affordable housing, and they want different kinds of units and rents and multifamily facilities and all this kind of thing, unless it's close to them and then they don't want it.

And then we start talking about regulations and land use and minimum lot size and all these other kind of things that ultimately drive up the cost of housing, be it renting or purchasing a home for the first time.

And, you know, if you look at the City of Wichita, social media pages and Facebook, everything seems to be hunky dory from from the city of Wichita standpoint.

And and I don't blame the city at all for trying to pump up our city.

We we always want to do that.

But this article makes it seem like maybe it's not quite so good that Wichita Falls maybe not quite so affordable as it used to be.

Well, it may not be as affordable as it used to be, but it's still more affordable than most other places.

Not only is it more more affordable than the majority of municipalities around the country.

We also have more and more jobs coming in, good jobs that are available.

We had Boeing that talked about that.

They're getting $1 billion worth of money from the Home Office in order to build and expand Wichita.

There are going to be jobs here that we have to take advantage of, and the housing situation will work itself out.

I'm sure you know, James, a lot of people say with property taxes skyrocketing, people are getting taxed out of their homes.

Is that really happening?

Are there really examples of that happening?

Do you know?

I mean, I would say yes.

And we've all heard stories of those things.

I was in a meeting earlier today with one of your colleagues in the legislature, and he was telling this story about, a retiree on a fixed income who paid off his house a long time ago.

But then it became harder and harder and harder for this individual once they were on that fixed income, to be able to stay in that home.

And now ultimately, that individual passed away.

But now that person's family is figuring out what to do with this house that, you know, was built 60 years ago, is the original owner.

And now what are we doing with it?

And his taxes continue to increase.

And it's be it housing or property taxes, it's about what the local government, what the state government can control.

We're not going to be flooded and be on the coast or be in Colorado and be on the mountains.

It's what is within our control to influence.

And is it keeping spending down so we can keep property taxes or income taxes down?

Is it regulation so that folks can build more homes, whatever those things may be?

It's what's in our control as a local community or as a state to to really drive the kind of growth that we want to see.

And you mentioned that article in the Wall Street Journal that's just recently.

Tell me about that a little bit.

I saw it as well, but that article seemed to focus on the rise of, duplex construction.

And there seems to be a lot of duplex construction in Wichita.

Is that an anomaly from any other city?

Do you know?

I don't know how it would compare to other cities, but it's I think it gets to this fundamental idea of what is it that gets people into this kind of gateway to the American dream, which for many people is owning a home of some sort.

Be it a condo, a duplex, a single family, whatever it is, that's the thing that people borrow against if they want to start a business.

That's how people start building equity.

And we need to be doing what we can to create more opportunities for those kind of developments to exist, rather than just saying, all we want is this size house on this size of a lot, and that is putting it out of the grasp of more and more young people.

I saw something that, the average age of first time homebuyers is creeping up to 40, if not past it.

Right.

Which is just a completely different, way to kind of start your, your life, than what it was when, you know, we were younger.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I, I bought my first house when I was 24 years old and very fortunate to be able to do that, but I can't imagine being 24 years old in this day and age and trying to buy a home anywhere.

Let me let me add in.

I happened to have a breakfast this morning with, county commissioner and another legislator, and we were talking and it was brought up to me that if we did not have all of the regulations that are in place now from the state and from the locals, you may be able to do one of the starting houses or 220, $240,000.

Move that back 80 to $100,000.

Because of all of the restrictions that government puts on all of them, many of them valid.

But we have to, as we talked about earlier, look at what are our decisions costing in order to have those decisions in the process.

You know what.

So let me know.

Go ahead.

I was just going to say really quickly, there's this interesting move nationally from Ezra Klein and some other folks.

They released a book called abundance, and it's essentially a center left perspective on how we need to increase supply of these things and how government.

I mean, again, this is from a group of, you know, progressive and liberal, you know, public intellectuals and whatnot, talking about what we can do to your point on regs and taxes and all of these other kind of things to create more opportunity, to where government is helping things rather than hurting them and all these regulations, every one of them comes with a justification.

Every one comes with a constituency, but too often they're they're put in place and then become obstacles, to the kind of growth that everybody wants, especially for the people lower on the economic spectrum rather than something that's, really creating, you know, safety or any of these other kinds of things that that we can also agree on and one to.

And if they're put in, what happens is they get rolled in every year.

Nobody bothers to ask, what is the cost the second year and the third year.

And down the road it's more yeah, or getting rid of the right.

This year later, a major shake up is coming to how fires are fought in Sedgwick County after officials voiced serious concerns over public safety.

The county's fire District one is ending long standing agreements.

Eight agreements with five towns, including Cheyney, Clearwater College, Mount Hope and Valley Center.

Commissioners say the move is fueled by staffing challenges at volunteer departments.

They argue that those towns often struggle to get enough boots on the ground fast enough to meet national safety standards, putting both citizens and firefighters at risk.

While the district has officially given a 90 day notice, the door is not completely closed.

Officials are encouraging the cities to either scale up their own departments or join the fire district entirely to ensure permanent, full time professional coverage.

Join the fire district.

So that means those residents of, say, Hays ville and Mount Hope in the other cities, Cheyney they would actually have to pay taxes to the fire district as well.

Are those residents going to be willing to do that?

I mean, again, we talked about property taxes earlier, and it's going to come back here as well, right, in that everybody wants something for nothing.

Right?

And and we need good fire and emergency service coverage.

The question is how we're going to deliver this.

And in a county like Sedgwick, those kind of considerations are going to be different than they are in Bourbon County or somewhere, you know, out in the the Kansas, Colorado border and Sharon Springs or something like that.

So the question is, what can we do to, keep those services where we need them, but not necessarily have all of these different governmental entities?

Kansas is one of the most, governed states when it's local, employees per capita.

And we should be moving away from that and moving more towards sharing services so that everybody has the fire coverage that they need or something like this, rather than simply, keeping to your point, you know, these these legacy systems that have existed for a long, long time back when the the cities, the communities, the counties were very different places.

And if we just got to the national average unemployment, per capita from local governments, we'd be saving $2 billion a year.

So it doesn't directly implicate this fire question right now.

But it gets to this more fundamental idea of how are we reviewing what's gone on over the last number of decades, and how are we building these systems so that they're providing the care and the service we need?

Giving forward?

So Sedgwick County argues that, number one, the residents in these cities aren't paying taxes.

They aren't paying for Sedgwick County services, even though they get a fire department response if they have a house fire, God forbid.

And also, the Sedgwick County seems to be arguing that these city fire departments are mostly volunteer.

Let's face it.

And they aren't up to a higher, a level that Sedgwick County's training is, and that puts lives in danger, firefighters lives at danger.

That's what the county's argument seems to be.

Is, is that an argument to just get rid of all of these aid agreements altogether?

No, but it there's there are two questions that come up in mind.

First, what is what is the reality on the volunteering, what most of these towns may have, shifting populations, and they don't have the volunteers that are available to do this, but at the same time, what are the standards?

Are those standards higher than what we actually need in some of those communities?

I guess I'm hoping that the county commission is asking those kind of questions.

I think we talked about the the idea for negotiation predicted a conversation, let's say, and that's what has to go on.

And in some, not just a standard that was put down by some federal group.

Right.

But how it fits the local communities in Sedgwick County, you know, do we see this 90 day moratorium?

I get moratoriums, probably not the right word, but we do.

We see this being extended.

Do we see some sort of agreements coming from these other towns?

I mean, to Henry's point, I can only hope that this leads to some constructive conversations, because the last thing somebody is going to want is a, God forbid, a structure fire in one of these communities.

And then all of a sudden this 90 day, you know, deadline hits, and now somebody is not getting the service that they need and it's their livelihood or their family that's at risk.

And then what will happen is there'll be a news story that will criticize all the local officials for not having an agreement in place to protect this one house.

But then, you know, it all comes down to whether you're paying for the service or not, doesn't it?

I mean, at some point with the growth and like you compared Wichita to, you know, Sharon Springs, other small or very rural communities that aren't facing this problem.

But Wichita is, let's face it, an urban, very much populated area and expanding outer and outer.

So this seems to be mostly impacting people on the outskirts of the city of Wichita and the smaller towns.

I live way down on the south side, in between Derby and Hays ville, and the contrast in the fire service between both of those two towns is vastly different.

Haynesville does not have a fire department at all.

Darby does have a fire department.

And so this is how you know, Darby will still get fire services.

Haynesville won't.

If the county ends this agreement.

What our cities like Hays.

So we're going to do with no fire protection at all.

It seems adding in property taxes to cover the cost, which is not popular.

But if they want the service, they have to pay for it I agree.

Yeah.

All right.

We'll move on.

15 rural Kansas downtowns are getting a major facelift thanks to a new round of state funding.

The Kansas Department of Commerce is awarding more than $1 million through the Heal program, which turns aging historic buildings into engines for new business.

That state money is being paired with nearly $4 million in local matching contributions in Cheyney, a $100,000 grant will help open a new grocery store and golf cart store.

Over in pot one, an old gas station is being rehabbed into a community market and in the town of McDonald, a vacant building will soon become a 24 hour grocery store.

State leaders say the goal is to jumpstart local economies, while preserving the historic character of Kansas small towns.

Representative Helguson, tell me your thoughts on this.

Is this a lifeline to small communities, rural communities that, many of those populations are barely a lifeline?

Let's say that.

But this is the the state of Kansas has embarked on several different programs, putting putting money for bridges, roads, airports, historical buildings.

We provide money for the locals to try to come up with matching dollars, either from federal grants or other resources to revitalize the, communities around the state.

It's somewhat, successful, but is it does it do everything we want?

No, we haven't.

And are we measuring it appropriately?

We're giving out the money and it makes differences in some areas.

But it's, you know, it's a drop in the bucket.

Yeah.

James Franco, tell me your thoughts.

I, I'm deeply skeptical of almost any economic development scheme, especially despite the best of intentions.

Right.

But we should judge these things based on their outcomes, not just their intentions.

And it's easy to see, be it with the Chiefs Stadium.

And you know, why not?

Good.

Let's get into that.

Yeah.

In Wyandotte County or the the old feeder that gets renovated in the small town where that small town, you know, that's what matters, right?

Is this historic building.

It's easy to see that, but it's harder to see where that money is coming from to pay for that.

And are we raising property taxes to do it?

And does that mean the taxes are going up?

Does it mean that fire services is decreasing whatever it is?

So it's that scene, the big fancy building, the new coat of paint, the 24 hour market in there.

But what is unseen is where is that money coming from?

And what's the what's the cost?

The tradeoff of of taking that money out of the economy in one way or another.

So is this program a mistake?

I think, again, any time that we're spending state tax dollars or local tax dollars to benefit this business and not that business, it's just very, very difficult to justify.

And in some of these small towns, my wife grew up in a small town.

It's just a very different situation than what we're experiencing in Wichita or Sedgwick County or whatnot.

But it is.

Where are we going to actually see those things change over time?

And if the market will if the community wants to support a store front, whatever it is, then they should do that.

They shouldn't be going to government.

To ask for, well, for further support, not go to government.

But let's use the example.

If we have $1 million and they invest that million dollars and it comes back to the state, in some other type of revenue and then is reinvested over a period of time, you know, that makes sense.

But I agree with you.

There has to be accountability and there has to you have to really see where the money's coming from.

And make sure, as we've said earlier, everybody understands this is what the table, stakes are.

Right.

And to that last point is it's where does that million dollars in your scenario come from originally?

That has to be part of the conversation.

And if it's if I'm taking $1 million from you to give it to Peter to pay Paul.

That's right.

Yeah.

All right.

We know county leaders are hoping to turn the area into a premier golfing destination.

Commissioners have unanimously approved a special star bond district to help fund the new salt Lick Golf Resort.

The nearly $80 million project is already under construction at the former Cottonwood Hills Golf Club, just east of Hutchinson.

A state feasibility study suggests the destination resort could draw more than 50,000 visitors a year and pump up to $35 million annually into the local economy.

The development will be built in three phases, beginning with an 18 hole championship course carved through rolling sand dunes, along with a clubhouse and nearly 50 lodging units.

Officials stress that existing county tax dollars will not be used to foot the bill, as the bonds will be repaid exclusively by sales tax revenue generated on the resort's property.

Representative Helgeson quickly with about a minute and a half left here, I struggle with the, the notion that sales tax money is not being used or tax money is that would have gone into the coffers of local government is not going to go into the coffers of local government now because they're going to be paid to pay off the debt for this specific development.

Quite often what happens is they'll draw the district.

So it's picking up sales tax or other revenue from existing businesses.

And when that happens, you're basically robbing the sales tax that would have gone to the community and to the state.

That's a concern.

If you have a development that is wholly separate private development, and all you're doing is saying, all right, if you raise a few extra tax dollars, we dedicated to paying off all the obligations that that that might be satisfactory to me.

30s.

Go, James.

Prairie fire was a star district up in Johnson County.

It failed.

And now taxpayers are on the hook because it didn't work.

The Legislative Post Audit committee says only 30 or 3.

Excuse me.

Of the 16 projects that they evaluated in star bonds actually paid for themselves, color me skeptical that the one in Hutch is going to actually be Wichita's Lone Star.

Bond with Riverside Mall or at the equity Bank ballpark is not is not generate enough revenue either.

Taxpayers as a whole are very likely going to have to start covering that debt, right?

Absolutely.

And we're going to see the same thing, with the new Chiefs Stadium and in Wyandotte County.

And I totally agree with you.

And second, I totally agree with you that and we should do a whole story on what that's going to do to the state and how we're jeopardizing the state's finances.

All right.

That's a wrap this week.

Thanks to both of you for coming today.

We'll we'll see you next week.