Candidate Forum 3/12/91 7-8:30pm

We're there to support the trip to our administrative assistant. I'm Terry Groves. Music Major funding for Fresh Air is provided by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Additional support comes from the listeners of WHYY in Philadelphia where Fresh Air is produced. And from Talbets, retailers of women's classic clothing and accessories through stores and catalogues, 1-800-8 Talbets. This is NPR, National Public Radio. Philadelphia, which was one of the Soviet Union's most prominent pianists. Her son Dmitri Sikovetsky was one of the Soviet Union's most promising young violinists. On the next Fresh Air, Sikovetsky tells us how he and his mother left the Soviet Union for the West.

Also, the global politics of abortion. I'm Terry Groves. I hope you'll join us for the next Fresh Air. This is KMUW Wichita. The listeners supported radio from Wichita State University. Tomorrow on NPR's Morning Edition, Democrats looking ahead to 1992. They claim they're not frightened by the president's high approval rating. And the Democrats admit they normally have a presidential candidate by this time. So why don't they? Koki Roberts reports. That and more coming up tomorrow morning on NPR's Morning Edition, beginning at 5 right here on KMUW. In Wichita, whether? Wendy this evening with Northwest winds at 15 to 25 miles per hour, otherwise cloudy with a low of 35 degrees. Tomorrow partial clearing, cool with a high near 50. On Thursday, mostly cloudy with a high in the upper 40s.

Currently, it's 40 degrees coming up on the hour of 7 o'clock. Now KMUW Radio takes you to South High School in Wichita for a live broadcast of the second in a series of election. 91 candidate forums. Thank you, Marshall. Good evening. I'm Gary Shivers, General Manager of KMUW Radio. The Wichita Eagle, Cape TV Channel 10, KMUW Radio, and the Wichita citizens' participation organizations and CPO staff are proud to present a series of neighborhood forums for the discussion of community issues with candidates for election to the Wichita City Council. The sponsors are grateful to KZSN Radio for the use of their remote broadcast equipment, which makes this live broadcast possible. Four council seats in four districts are up for election forums are scheduled in each of the districts on Tuesday evenings during the month of March. A fifth forum with candidates for mayor of Wichita will be held on Wednesday evening, March 27. The object of these forums is to provide individual citizens an opportunity to question the candidates about the issues.

The candidates have agreed to the following guidelines for the forum. Each candidate will offer a two-minute opening statement. The sequence of the statements was determined a few moments ago by the toss of a coin. After the opening statements, questions from the audience are invited. In order to maximize citizen participation, each individual may ask one question and one follow-up question. Each candidate will then have two minutes in which to respond to the question and one minute for a response to the follow-up. The sequence of the responses will alternate between the candidates. Joining us here is a panel of three journalists who represent the sponsoring news organizations. They are here to ask additional follow-ups to the audience questions and if time permits to initiate their own questions for the candidates. The panel includes Mike Taylor, senior reporter per cake TV, Gordon Basham, news director per KMUW Radio, and Jim Lynn, city hall reporter for the Wichita Eagle. Time is reserved at the end of the hour for the candidates to question each other. There will be a two-minute response and a one-minute follow-up response.

The candidates will ask their questions in the reverse sequence of their opening statements. Tonight's forum comes to you live from South High School and Council District 4. The candidates alphabetically are Chip Gramke and Stan Reaser. Mr. Gramke is financial controller of Climate Control Institute and owner of VIP Carcare. He is a member and president of CPO4B, a member of the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission, and a member of the Sedgwick County Comprehensive Planning Steering Committee. Mr. Reaser is regional director of the Kansas-American Diabetes Association. He was chairperson of CPOC in 1982-83 as a member of the Democratic State Committee and has been active in the campaigns of several political candidates. Both of tonight's candidates are graduates of South High School and the Wichita State University. The first opening statement comes from Mr. Gramke.

Thank you, Gary. First of all, I'd like to thank KMUW, the Eagle Beacon, Channel 10, and certainly a CPO office for sponsoring this debate. I'd like to start off with answering the question is why in the world Chip Gramke would be seeking the Office of City Council representing the Fourth District? My answer is somewhat selfish. I have a young family and I want Wichita, Southwest Wichita, to be a good place to raise a family. I want Wichita's quality of life to be so attractive that my daughters don't feel as if they must leave Wichita to enjoy a good quality of life. For Wichita to become the great mid-sized city of America, I believe that men and women must step forward to help lead this city who possess a clear understanding of the district, a strong business background, and a steady and clear community involvement record. I have a clear understanding of district four. I've never had a home anywhere else but district four.

My wife grew up in district four. My folks still live there. Her folks still live there. I'm raising my family there. I have a stake in Southwest Wichita. I feel the same feelings the Southwest Wichita people feel, the same feelings of neglect and frustration. I know district four. I have a strong business background. I'm a graduate from Wichita State University with a bachelor's and business administration from major in accounting. I've worked eight years as an internal auditor with the financial institution. I'm presently the financial controller of a trade and technical school and I'm a small business owner. I am currently serving my community. I'm serving on CPO 4B where I've developed the art of being a good listener. I've helped resolve conflicts among neighborhoods. The candidates make complete sentences when the time is up. The beep is the one you'll become accustomed to at the City Council meetings.

It is the official City Council timer. The opening statement now from Stan Reeser. I also want to thank KMUW Wichita Eagle and KTV for sponsoring this forum. I want to use my two minutes for an opening statement to jump right into a couple of issues that I believe are important to the residents of Southwest Wichita. From the start of this campaign, I'm proud to say that it has been my candidacy that has avoided slogans and titled sayings and it offered my positions on important issues that will affect all Wichitans. I believe I owe that to the voters. My name is Stan Reeser and I'm running for Wichita City Council because I want to bring accessibility and accountability to the City Government for the average tax-paying citizen. I plan to be a strong and if need be a loud voice for the taxpayer that doesn't get the eye of being the tax abatement or the tax break. I plan to bring accountability to a downtown plan whose backers went and built yesterday before we take a hard look at the financing package.

I believe there are some elements of the plan that will withstand the scrutiny of the public, but we must keep in mind that many members of our society, especially in Southwest Wichita, are struggling with a tax burden through property taxes. When we have to keep that in mind, we need to balance that with this ambitious plan. The City of Wichita continues to use a franchise tax which is basically a sales tax on utilities in which middle and low income pay a larger proportion of, in order to claim that they are keeping the middle levy low and stable. What they don't tell you is that they are raising your taxes in another area. And what accountability was in place when the City Manager was given an 11% increase, bringing a salary to $100,000, when City employees, including police and firefighters, were told there were no money for them. A standard answer on the City Council will mean that tough, politically sensitive questions will be asked. In the average tax, but most importantly, the average tax payer will feel welcomed in the Chamber of City Hall as does the real estate developer working on a special deal.

During the course of this forum, I plan to also discuss with the voters my position on groundwater contamination, capital and permits need for the fourth district and public safety issues. Now it's time to hear questions from the audience here in the South High School Library. We were unable to arrange a basketball game next door tonight, but we do have permission to speak out loud in the library. Individuals with questions are invited to get in line at the microphone in the aisle here in the center. In order to let more people participate, please keep your questions brief and to the point and please state them as questions. Remember that both candidates will respond to each question and follow up and please state your name. Right, I'm Frank Leham. I live at 1220 folks. I've put many years on CPO down here. I'm not serving on a traffic commission. My prime question for both candidates is what are we going to do about this south section of the city on Seneca 27th Street with a red light at 27th of Seneca. I'm also looking for 27th to be open to McLean like they have at Wasill and K 15.

Now I have been told that this is being looked at right now by Bill McKinley on the opening of 27th Street. Now the $3 million that we had down here on the Southwest section was given to the northeast section of the city. Now what are you two going to do about getting our money back and getting Southwest section taken care of on Seneca? Thank you. That's a good question. When I moved to Wichita on 1970 South Seneca, the widening of South Seneca was on the capital improvement projects list. Here it is 1991 and it still is. One thing I found during the course of this campaign is that if the city makes something a priority, it gets done. Our problem has been is we've never had that advocate. We've never had that strong voice in City Hall that says projects in South Wichita will be done. And while I understand that government is a course of give and take, you win a few battles, you lose a few battles, you still have to stand up for your district and you still have to stand up for what you feel is right.

And I think there are many projects in South Wichita that have the merits to stand on their own, whether or not a council person or a county commissioner or whether anyone supported or not. But it does take an advocate, somebody with political savvy, someone that knows the inside game in order to get it done. I believe I can be that person. Now on the question of 27th Street, again that's a project that probably needs to be done. I have not seen the figures on the traffic count and so forth. But I do know, I drive in that area quite often. I do know turning north or turning south if you're going the opposite direction is very difficult to do. And with the activities of St. Anne's Church, and I believe there's a stake house on that corner, it is very tough to turn there.

So I think again, it's just a question of making sure we have an advocate, someone who knows the inside game to get things done. Mr. Grampy? Well, we certainly need an advocate in South Wichita. As I stated, I've got a stake in South Wichita. And Frank, as I walk the district, I'm finding that there are a lot of people that agree with you on that 27th Street project. And I was sitting there at the corner of the other day trying to make a left hand turn on the Senate off the 27th Street. And I can guarantee I agree with you because it took me almost five minutes to get out of there. Like Stan said, we need an advocate for Southwest Wichita. We need someone that understands that it's not just getting the projects on the CIP program, but it's keeping them there. We've had lots of projects on the CIP program for years. And I keep getting moved back what we need is an individual that will stand up and say, wait, this is my district. These are my people.

You're not pushing to pass them. You pushed to pass them for years and years and years. And stand up and say, this is staying on. You have to follow it. Is there another question? I'll jump up here. My name's Gary Trip. And my question has to do with the sale of tobacco and vending machines. The Board of Health was presented with a survey last year where children attempted to buy cigarettes from various sources. They found a hundred percent success rate with vending machines because of that survey. The Board of Health is considering a ban on tobacco sales in vending machines. How would you feel about that? I believe I'd be in favor of a ban on sale tobacco and vending machines in certain establishments that are mainly frequent in by minors.

But those that are frequent in by adults more frequently, I would have a problem with it. But that would have to be studied. I'm willing to look at all options. I guess my own personal philosophy tends to say that government cannot be all things to all people. And we cannot always dictate what an individual will do. If we lived in an ideal world, it'd be the parents that took control of this and decided whether or not their children will be around places where they have access to machines that sell smoking products. So it's just something that I'd have to weigh out of my own personal philosophy that says that government can't be big brothers standing over your shoulders saying no that's wrong, yes that's right.

I think government has a responsibility to educate a responsibility to say this is what smoking does to you. This is what medical research has shown. But I have to weigh both those options and that's the closest I could come to answering that question. Thank you very much. If I could follow up another part of that proposal would charge retailers a licensing fee which would set up an enforcement office but more importantly an education office. Your thoughts on that please. One minute, Mr. Crampy. Again, I'd have to look at it. I do have a problem with the ordinance as you stated it. I would have to take a look at it. Again, I'd stress the education. Is it okay for me? Yes, please.

I'd have to stress the education over the enforcement. As long as we do an adequate job at education, I think it's up to churches and families and schools to provide the incentive for children not to smoke. I know for fact my daughter's Lindsey's class, she's a third grader at Ray Woodman Elementary School and they have stressed a non-smoking class of 2000. That's the year Lindsey will graduate. And it's going to take those type of things. And again, you go back to well, can government make sure that my daughter never smokes a cigarette? No, I really don't think they can. I think government should be wise enough to help my daughter's education but I just don't believe that they need to be right there as she's either buying the cigarettes or not buying the decision. That should be my wife and my responsibility. Another question for the candidates. Yes sir. I'm Rascal Sanborn and I'm running for CPO and I've been into the district for 35 years.

And I would like you to talk about Santa, which is very bad. If you got another problem, 47th Street from Broadway. You come off the stage where they made it a four lane. It goes into a narrow two lane. Then it hits their arrow tracks. You've got two arteries going from east to west. In the south end, you get three axles. 63rd Street would have been the county. 47th from MacArthur. This traffic's heavy. I mean, you can't believe it until you live. I live on made water. Just east, north of the checkers. I can't even get out of there. When the Boeing shift changes, they're the biggest traffic problem with you. I think in your bulk material runs your tracks. Then as you cross Sanica. I know you're coming to a question here, sir. No, I'm. Yeah. Would you like to get to your question, please? Well, about 47th. Okay. To I'll say from this, 47th to west street. Well, it has to be meridian because that's the city. After that, it's coming. Mr. Reese's turn.

December, and you sound very qualified to be on the CPO. You got my vote on 47th Street. I'm very familiar with that area when I was working my way through college. I worked third shift at Bob's IGA. It was my very first full-time job and I was working my way through college. And so I'm very familiar with the city and 47th area. We have, when I was on CPO, we worked diligently on that to get a turn left signal. And again, it was the city heard the CPO, but we at that time we didn't even have anyone elected from our district. It was all city wide and to get an ear at city hall was just impossible. And I would like to change that. And I think it's going to change. Again, we, I think this brings out the broader question of capital improvements. Actually, we have slowed down capital improvements in Wichita. Since about 1985, when we made the commitment to reduce our debt level by the mid 1990s, we slowed down capital improvement projects.

But the problem on that was the fact Mr. Sanborn was that South Wichita never got any of those projects in the first place. So when we slowed down, we got the double whammy. So I mean, I think what we're going to have to do is again, it goes back to a strong advocate for our part of town. And I plan to be that. I'll just go back to what I said at the beginning. That stretch of 47th Street from Broadway on West is on the CIP project already. I believe it's scheduled for 92, possibly 93. The key there is to make sure that we keep it there. If it's scheduled for 1992, I'm willing to bet right now with the way City Council has structured, it won't be 92. It'll be 94, 95, if ever. We need someone to stand up and say, this needs to be done now. And your right, 47th Street is a mess.

There's projects that had been done on 47th Street with construction companies that are no longer allowed to provide bids to the city because they did a shoddy job. And we need to make sure that South Wichita has a strong voice, someone that understands the CIP projects. And, you know, it's too bad that South Wichita has to wait for federal money to come in to widen intersections like Meridian and 31st Street. Because, you know, we get the federal money because there's too many accidents there. Why can't we widen the intersection because it needs whiteen down here in South Wichita? Mr. Sandberg, did you have a follow-up to that? Thank you. Mike Taylor from CakeTV does have a follow-up question.

What we're talking about street improvements. There has been talk among council members in the past of doing away with special assessment financing for a lot of street projects. They've recently done that with drainage projects as well. Special assessments have been prohibitive in a lot of cases. Residents and businesses living along the street that's heavily traveled simply can't afford to pay thousands and in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars for that improvement. Would you support a policy that's been talked about of simply going to city at large funding for these kind of street projects for streets that are considered territorial? Mr. Research, one minute. Generally, I would support that. You know, I'm going to have to disagree with Chip a little bit on the fact when he talks about we need to make sure these projects stay on the CIP list. That's not the problem. They stay on the CIP list forever. What they need is they need to be completed. So I think that's the biggest problem. But exactly that's the problem has where special assessments have been very harmful for improvements in southwest Wichita. Recently, the city passed temporary funding on drainage projects, 4.6 million.

I was talking to the city staff about that and they said, well, your drainage project that which would free up construction on South Sinaca is part of that, but we're not sure where it is on the priority list. You know, where is our representative on to make sure that our drainage projects get done? Mr. Grampke, a little bit. Not only generally would I be in favor, but I would be in favor of it. Take, for instance, South Sinaca. The residents of South Sinaca have paid for that, the widening of that road over and over and over again in terms of flooding damage in terms of damage to their vehicles. They paid for it. And it's time that we get on with the project, complete the project and make their lives a lot easier because it is a mess down there. Questions? Yes, sir.

My name is Lee Bright and I live at 206 West, MacArthur. I'd like to thank you, Mr. Richard and Chip, for coming down tonight and let us understand how you feel about this South in Wichita. I'm going to stand up here and talk all evening on this. I've served about seven years out here in CPO and likely say Southwest Drainies, put on the burner, back burner, so on and so forth. But my question to you, gentlemen, is I would like to know your feelings on mobile home parts. We have 80% of the mobile home parts in our district. The second part of my question, problems such as upkeep, deterioration, fire safety, streets. I'd like to hear each one of us answer a little bit to that. Please, thank you. Mr. Graham Key is first. Well, as you know, even I serve on CPO together and as you know, we've dealt with this issue over and over again. We've got the problem that people in mobile home parts feel as if they're in an island in and of themselves with a lack of communication with the police departments and fire departments as to whether they even have jurisdiction to go in there. And that's too bad. We need to make sure that we communicate to these communities, like you said, 80% of which are in our district. And we also need to make sure that we follow up on the complaints that we hear in regards to condemnation and problems with junk to vehicles and things like that.

Not only in mobile home parks, but throughout our district. And we have steadily come up against the problem of neighbors calling CID and calling the city and saying we've got this problem in our neighborhood. And it gets put on the back burner and it takes years and years and years. And that's why the citizens of Southwest, which are apathetic, they've been put off. And we need to make sure that they're not put off anymore. They need a strong voice on the city council to listen to them and to go to CID or go to whatever department say, listen, you need to take interest in helping this individual. Well, I disagree that Southwest, which tall residents are apathetic, I think tonight's turnout is indicative of the citizen participation that we have in this part of town. But I think on the issue of mobile home parks, I'm also concerned with the general amount of time that it takes police to respond to a call.

And that's not only a problem with mobile home parks, but it's also a problem with some businesses and other neighborhoods. I applaud the city for adding in the budget for next year, 20 new police officers, I think that's critical. I think the important part, though, is to make sure that those 20 police officers that we add or beat police officers. I think we need any more middle management or upper management on police, so we need we need police in the street responding to calls. Also, I'm very concerned about, like you said, deterioration of mobile home parks. And I think again, it's going to be a responsibility of the city to work with the property owners, especially the managers of the mobile home parks to keep it tight control on what's happening in their mobile home part.

Basically, some responsibility is going to have to be shared between the city and mobile home owners and management of these mobile home parks. Thank you. We will take further questions from individuals in the audience after everybody else has had a chance to ask their question first. So who's next? Yes, sir. You might want to get closer to the microphone for your turn. Yes, sir. I'm Durf, you call. I'm also a member of the CPO 4B here. As I look at both stand and chip, your youthfulness comes very much to my mind. Help me understand if you will how your experiences as independent decision makers will, in fact, enhance us in the city council. Mr. Racers first.

Well, Durf, I think one thing you got to keep in mind is when I graduated from Wichita, South, in 1980, and then married my high school sweetheart at Miss Euretic in 1981, I then continued on to college and worked my way through and worked night jobs at grocery stores, all night grocery stores, stayed involved in the community, stayed involved in my church, stayed involved with CPO, stayed involved with the democratic process, the political process, and believe me, when you do all that in eight years during also trying to get a college education, which I succeeded in 1988, you mature quite a bit. Basically, I really can't explain it, but public service and a responsibility to my community has always been a part of my life. I cannot think of a time where I was not concerned about my fellow citizens. And basically, I think through my experience with my work experience, my college experience, my family experience, and I've been basically working on city issues, my whole adult life, and that gives me that extra little advantage and an experience that may be lacking in my physical age.

Mr. Crampke, I too will agree with Stan on the point that it's very important, one of the biggest qualifications for a public servant is someone that truly understands that public service is a very high calling, and I do believe that I was taught that from early age, not through words, but through actions. And that is a very big qualification that I bring to the City Council, also a business background helps tremendously. Like I said, I graduate from which I'll stay at university with a green accounting. I've got a strong business background, I own a small business of my own, I understand the effects of property taxes on small business owners,

I have a financial controller of a trade and technical school, and understand the budgeting process, and understand how to analyze and scrutinize budgets. Secondly, I am currently serving. I am serving on the CPO, and I'm here in the telephone calls in the middle of the night, people tell me of the different problems they have, and going to their homes and listening to them, and trying to help them resolve those conflicts. Also, when I see this community who they are empathetic, for many years they have felt as if they've been neglected, and I'm beginning to see a surge of non-apathy among the Southwest, which taught people, when you have 18,000 people registered to vote in District 4 and only around 5,000 of them vote, there's some apathy there, but hopefully that will change because they are seeing individuals coming forward that are from their district that will be strong, vocal advocates for them, and that's why I'm here. Follow the question, yes we do, and then we'll have one from our panel.

I guess my question, I would prefer not be answered in trite phrases. I think it relates to, it used to be real popular to not trust anyone under 30 or over 30, and now it's real popular to be suspicious of those who are under 40 with our aging population. I'm specifically interested in hearing about experiences that allow you to make independent decision making, that we know then you're going to enhance us in the fourth district, not trite phrases. Mr. Reaser was first just this round. Well, again, I just have to say that with my, you know, I also look at budgets, and I tell you one thing that if you've ever looked at a non-profit budget and scrutinized one of those budgets and tried to keep expenses down, you haven't lived, because that's where you really get your experience. As a regional director of the American Diabetes Association, I'm responsible for over three-fourths of the state, and activities in public awareness, budgeting, fundraising, and those type of things.

And we do not receive any government money. We constantly rely on the kind hardness of people who give donations to the American Diabetes Association. And basically, those budgets are tighter than government budgets, and they're tighter than business budgets, believe me. And those experiences that I have had while trying to raise a family, while going through college, I'm a very independent minded person, and I prove that every single day, and I'll prove it on the City Council. Mr. Grampke. Well, serving on the MAPC for the last couple of years has been experience and education in and of itself. The one particular issue that comes to mind in regards to Southwest Wichita, and a lot of residents have a lot of concern about, is the bar and tavern issue that the MAPC dealt with. The residents of Southwest Wichita are tired of the bars and taverns infiltrating their neighborhoods. I was instrumental in bringing regulations to the City Council, putting restrictions on bars and taverns infiltrating residential neighborhoods.

To go further, I couldn't even get a second to my motion. The first time we tried it, it went to the City Council, they sent it back. The second time I did get a second to my motion, it did pass, and it is law now. So I understand that persistency matters. That persistency counts. It doesn't really matter whether you lose the battle or whether you win the war. So I'll go up on this line from Gordon Bashman of KMUW. As a question, I'm not intending to ask this question originally. I was going to ask another one, but I will follow up on something you said, Mr. Grampke, and I'd like for both of you to respond. In recent months and years, municipal and district courts in Sedgwick County in Wichita have essentially struck down local ordinances on new dancing in Wichita. My question to both of you is, as residents of your district, what is your position regarding the continued City Council fight to try and maintain the illegality of these clubs, given the fact that every time the ordinance has changed, it's challenged and changed again and challenged again.

Nice segue. Mr. Reiser has heard. Well, basically on new dancing, my position is that the City Council has been a lot of valuable time trying to come up with a law which will probably never be constitutional, will probably never be enforceable. We'll probably be wasting a lot of people's valuable times. But on the other hand, I'm also very concerned about new dancing because from a personal belief, I think it's very degrading to women. But again, I trust the moral integrity of the residents of the southwest Wichita and of Wichita, and the best way to fight against new dancing is through our economic dollars. Again, it's up to the churches, it's up to the schools, it's up to families to provide that basis in order for people to make these type of individual decisions on their own.

Mr. Graham, as I walk the district, I am finding that this is an issue among people in southwest Wichita, and they're wanting to see some additional restrictions on new dancing, and a lot of the new dancing establishments are in southwest Wichita. And I think what we need to do on the City Council is instead of working harder, we need to start working smarter and realize that we need to get our ducks in order before we pass something where to go to municipal court and struck down. Jim Lennon has a phone. Just on quick point, you said we ought to use our dollars in the private economy to try to regulate this. Do you mean that the City Council should get out of the business of trying to regulate topless or new dancing altogether and leave it to private economy? As much as possible, yes.

Mr. Graham, can you join us? Well, I am finding among southwest Wichita residents, they do want us to do something about it. And like I said, I think we need to work smarter and not harder, and there needs to be some regulations. Next question, please. Good evening, one and all. My name is Robert Cowdry. I'm not sure I'm in the district, but I got one of two pieces of mail from Mr. Reesner two days before the election. So I'm assuming I'm in this district 1824 South Wichita. You are. Two pieces. Different pieces, but they were two pieces sent the same day. The state of Kansas Constitution provides for dissolution of cities. The City Council or governing body can dissolve the city. And I hear a lot of talk this evening about Southwest Wichita on this area town doesn't get service like it should.

Most likely, I think you'll find if you're really sincerely interested in checking up on it that the reason why is because there's a lot of roadblocks and stone walls in the way. And I think that if you're really interested in serving the people of the Southwest area of Wichita, you'll look into dissolving the city of Wichita. Like they've this cliff, folks down in Dallas, Fort Worth area is suing for a succession. Because they are not getting their capital improvement programs like they should and their neighborhoods are falling apart. And they don't get police protection and so on and so forth. And what is your opinion? What are your thoughts on dissolving the city of Wichita into smaller towns that are governed at the local level? Mr. Gramke is first. The question is, what is my opinion on dissolving the city of Wichita?

There are areas to create their own small entities like the city of Eastboro is completely surrounded by Wichita and that's a demonstration that indicates that it can be done. I think it would be utter chaos to dissolve the city and let neighborhoods make their own rules and regulations. Mr. Reeser? It is Reeser, not Reesner. That's okay, Robert. That's okay. That's just for the public record. The reason why you received two pieces of mail from me on the same day was because of the post office did not deliver my piece. And about a time they finally delivered it and already mailed another piece. And that's why you got two pieces from me on the same day. And the reason why I mailed those two pieces was because I wanted you to be an informed voter. I wanted you to have as much information about Stan Reeser as possible and that's why you got those pieces. I'm also walking the district and obviously from the primary results I think it's clear who knocked on the most doors.

One thing that I heard was I did hear the frustration of citizens in our district. I did not hear very many people who I would consider apathetic but I think they were very concerned and they basically were not very shy and letting me know exactly what they fell on issues. No one ever mentioned those succeeding. I think all Southwest Wichitons are proud of being Wichitons. I know both Chip and I are and I don't see that as being workable. All of it? Yeah. I mean it took a long time to circle route to answer my question. I thought for a little bit you weren't going to do it. I'll answer all the questions. The follow up on that. I have to stick to this particular subject because I got a whole lot of questions. Let's stick to this subject and then we'll try to get back to you to another turn for you and other subject.

Would you being if you were put on the city council and there's some question in the community as to whether or not the voting machines that we have are actually reliable. If you were put on the city council whether the voting machines are reliable or not. Would you allow the citizens if they had a referendum or provided for a petition for a referendum to dissolve the city. Would you vote in favor if they presented this petition? One minute. That's true research. No again it's just not workable. I'd be very surprised if anyone ever did come up with a referendum like that. Though I think the state government is definitely dealing with that issue. Robert and I believe that if that is a concern of yours I would urge you to contact your state representative who is representative Tom Sawyer and I would urge you to represent to contact Governor Finney about those issues. Mr. Grimke or a subordinate.

Very directly like I did the first part and be out of chaos and no I would not support it. Mr. Basham of KMUW has the following question. I would ask this question in honor of County Commissioner Bill Hancock who's standing in the back of the room. How would each of you feel about the consolidation of the city and the county governments into one metropolitan government? Mr. Grimke. That's something that's not going to happen overnight. I think it's something that we need to work towards. One example of that was the consolidation of the park department into the public works department. All that wasn't from city to county. There are a number of areas where we can consolidate things and quit being redundant in the ways that we run the city. And we need to start moving forward those things.

I'm certainly going to be open to those. And like I said it's not going to happen overnight but we need to work towards those things because the days of tax and span have to stop. Mr. Reaser. Well basically I think this fits into my theme of accessibility to city government for the average taxpayer. I think one concern I have with city county government or a metro government would be the fact that it's going to create a bureaucracy that may be impossible for the average citizen to gain any kind of access to. So at this point it can be proven to me that the average citizen will have just as much of an ability to contact their public officials whether they're elected or non-elected unless that can be proven to me I would not support it. Further questions from the panel?

Yes sir. You've been waiting for the question. My name is Jim Quick and my question relates to the city's relationship with the state legislature only not quite the same way that the last question did. The eagle has been critical of the way the city has dealt with the state legislature concerning issues such as our underground contamination, the state office building in downtown. What could either of you bring to the council that would be influential or what impact could you have with the state legislature who the city definitely needs and lots of issues and areas. Mr. Reaser is this time. I've got to write. I am also a chair of the government relations committee for the American Diabetes Association and we work with the legislature all the time. I feel I have some special skills in that area. Currently representative Diane Jurstead is chairperson of the Economic Development Committee.

Well unfortunately the city just totally botched their lobbying effort to gain special taxing ability which would perhaps improve our possibility of doing something downtown. And I believe I have enough of a relationship with most of the legislators up there that I believe representative Jurstead would have called me and said stand hey this thing is dying up here. I would like to convey to the city officials lobbying effort that things are not working now and I believe I could have that my special relationship and my ability to work with the legislature would have come in handy at that time. I think a major role of any city council person is that of lobbying the Topeka and I think we have fallen down in that in the past. We need to make sure that we have a good relationship with the Topeka but also that we speak very strongly we are the largest city in Kansas.

We send the most tax dollars to Topeka of any other city and we need to make sure that we quit being the step the step child of Kansas seems like it's hard to get money to come back to Cedric County and to Wichita and it's time that city council people realize that it's our role to lobby Topeka. I have had some experience in lobbying in the past and working for a trade and technical school I've been to Washington DC and lobbying dole and cast a bomb and gligment and it's extremely important. Do you ever follow up to this if not Jim Lennon of the Wichita Eagle does just a quick one when we talk about downtown development taxes should in the relationship with the legislature should the city even be proposing these additional taxes for downtown development. Well yes I think we need some flexibility and I think the city of Wichita has special needs that like Chip said we are the largest city and we are going to have things come up from time to time where we're going to need a little special attention from the legislature.

Again I've worked with the George deans and the Darrell webs and you know cast a bomb and dole are going to be able to do a lot for us specifically and when we need actions from Topeka right away. I've worked with George deans and Darrell web and Dianne Jerstad and these are all committee persons chair persons now and I think I had that special ability to get some changes in Topeka. I think my question more was do you favor those taxes being levied for downtown if it if it if it's used in a way that we can do a comprehensive and a reasonable downtown plan. We ought to be able to do that. I think one thing that I'm slightly disappointed in is the fact that we have not been completely honest with the tax payers on on those taxes you know in a very we haven't been open and honest with them on those taxes.

This is an example of what we on the food and beverage tax that we're asking the can't legislate you to get us. It's going to generate $1.5 million. But what they're going to do is they're going to finance $15 million with a project with that 1.5 and I see a problem in that we have not educated and we have not been open and honest with the what the tax paying public about that. Mr. Gramke Jim can you pick the question my question I think the most directly was do you favor leaven that restaurant tax on the vehicle rental tax for downtown development I think that's the most no I do not. It's an unfair tax. It's a tax on tax and and very directly no I do not. And Gordon Bastion came EW has a question going back just a moment ago both of you either sense specifically or alluded to the fact that you would you would not be uncomfortable in the role of lobbying the legislature in order to get legislation passed favorable to which it's all my question to you is.

You feel like that this is in any way a complication of things since we have a paid lobbyist in city government is this something that should be left to professionals or is this something that should be done is this a role of someone on the city council. Mr. Reeser yes it is. Yes Mr. Gramke yes it is and it's a role of citizens. You had a question way in the back please hurry way to the front where our microphone is. We are approaching the end of this hour we can be flexible in radio but not all that flexible we will take this one additional question from the audience and then we will go to the final phase in which our candidates will ask questions of each other. My name is Frank Lewis perhaps part of my question has been answered and I'm going to ask ask the full question if I may anyway as I understand it both of you are in favor of at least in part of the downtown redevelopment and the water cleanup.

As proposed by the city are you in favor of the complete package plan of the city in financing both those projects and if not what do you not favor. First of all if you're asking me do I favor the plan as a whole absolutely not there are certain aspects of the plan that need to be looked at I'm not going to go into the city council with any preset agenda on what I'm going to ask and what I'm not. I'm going to go in I'm going to look at it as a businessman as a citizen I'm going to listen to my constituents and make my decisions based on that. The process has to be on a step by step basis we need to need to first of all realize that this this whole issue is what is the city council persons view of what the role the city plays in this.

And my view of what the city's role is is that of creating an atmosphere for growth in downtown which tell not priming that growth or making that growth happen by going in joint venture ship partnerships with private entities the private entities should be the ones that bear the risk. So it may we get Mr. Reeser's answer then your father I want to make sure they understand I'm talking about the financing of the project not the pro not the proposed project I see. The financing part of that is misleading at best basically what we've told the county government is that you raise the property taxes and we'll build the 299 foot Indian. And then we've told them that it's not going to raise property taxes well you know the people in Southwest which to have a great amount of common sense and they smell skunk a mile away I mean when we say this isn't going to raise property taxes let's we need a heavy dose of reality.

The financing package has not been well thought out one part that really disturbs me is the fact that there's a small in the study that the city which talk came out in a preliminary study they said we could redirect some capital improvement projects in order to finance this downtown plan they did not specifically say what projects would be redirected to downtown. Are they going to redirect South Sinaca they're going to direct some of our drainage projects that's what that's what that's why when my opening statement when I said I'm going to ask the tough sensitive politically sensitive question overall the financing plan has been kind of hidden from the average citizen. I answered the question of groundwater contamination please start on two minutes.

The time keeper says no I'll let you I'll let you ask that as a follow up. When you guys have this worked out then we'll proceed. Do you have a follow-up question I really would like to know also about the groundwater because that was that was a part of the question that initially. Mr. Graham you guys go first again on the groundwater contamination. I'm talking also about the financing. The financing is the major portion of it we we we need to realize that that property down there is already devalued. The property tax bases are already spread out and I'm supportive of city's plan on taking responsibility for getting that cleaned up so the super fund doesn't come in but I need to make I want to make sure that the people that are responsible for the pollution itself are the ones that bear the financial burden of cleaning it up. Again this is a situation where the city said we're going to spend ten to twenty million dollars and clean it up but your property taxes aren't going to go up.

What I'm concerned about is the fact that Coleman at this time is negotiating with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to clean up what's underneath their property. Now we do not have a firm agreement from Coleman and Coleman is not the only polluter but we do not have a firm commitment from Coleman or from the other polluters saying that they will pay their fair share. I agree with Chip they're going to have to pay their fair share and they're going to have to pay most of it all of it. That should be very clear from the very start. Basically what could happen is Coleman could go under there and clean up what's underneath their property and say we're done. We did our part you know for this month underneath our property is all cleaned up. What they don't understand is that ground water contamination is there's constant movement in it. You could clean up a certain section of it and it would be cleaned for the time being and then the next day there could be pollution underneath the property again.

This is me not through. That means you're through but they are and because Jim Land of the Wichita Eagle wants to follow up on your questions. Briefly we keep saying to one point one another that we want to study downtown. We want to look at various parts of it but we know it's in the plan. Do we do downtown and bolster that tax pay perhaps health the whole city or do we say no? We need to pay some streets and do other things in South Wichita which is that we know what's in the plan. Mr. Grapky was coming first this time. There are certain items that we can do in downtown Wichita to help make it attractive for private investors to come down and invest there. But in terms of doing the whole plan the way it's stated now absolutely not because you know where they're going to get their CIP projects to move over. We've seen it before and it's going to be from Southwest Wichita.

Mr. Lin basically what downtown has been sold is that here take the plan take it all. Basically what we're going to have to do is take a very rational business-like approach to it and look at it separately. And basically what I'm saying what I've been telling the residents of Southwest Wichita as I knocked on their doors since December is that we're going to have to look at many of the projects separately. Personally I support many of the cultural and the recreational parts of the plan but that's only after we make sure some projects in Southwest Wichita are done and that's only if we can afford it. Because the tax burden and many of our especially I think of the senior citizens who are on fixed income at this time they are struggling and we are going to have to make sure that this plan is done in a prudent way. And if the plan truly has merit and I think a lot of the plan does have merit then it's going to be able to withstand that type of public scrutiny.

Here on KMW Wichita we're listening to candidates forum here in the 4th district and Mike Taylor of KTV has another follow-up question. I have heard both of you indicate that we need to hold the line on property taxes. You've expressed concern that taxes might go up because of the downtown plan or various other things. Yet I've also heard you say we need more police officers, we need better streets, we need more sewers. Those things all cost money. I don't know how you're going to pay for them if you do hold the line on taxes. Would either of you support a property tax increase by the City Council for projects that may very well help your district here. Mr. Grumpy, you never heard me say that we need more police officers, you've heard me say we need more police officers on the street. People of Wichita have been hit hard with re-appraisal and if we come back around and we raise the mill levy they've been hit doubly hard and I can think of no situation where I'm going to be willing to raise the mill levy. How are you going to control inflation then? Basically I think we owe we owe to the residents of South Wichita more than just absolutely no new tax.

I promise to keep your taxes low. I think the citizens are smarter than that. I think we insult their intelligence when that's when all we stress. What we're going to have to do is take a look at the overall taxing policy of the city. Many sections of our taxing is very regressive. Meaning middle income and low income pay a greater proportion than do upper middle and high income. That's what we're going to have to look at. Basically there are two ways that I would try to keep property taxes low Mr. Taylor and that is number one. I would try to put an end to the consultant gravy train. We have an ability right now. Anybody who comes up and calls himself a consulting firm and we have a problem will give you a million dollar contract. We're going to have to look at whether or not we're going to have to do some more things in house. Secondly I think we're going to have to broaden the tax base and stop some of the tax giveaways that we've been doing for so many years.

My time's up but I can talk on this forever. Further Gordon Basham K. M. W. As a follow up to that specifically Mr. Reaser and also Mr. Graham give you'd like to respond to it. How would you broaden the tax base in which it's on. Basically what I would like to see is strict formulas on our tax abatements every year before election year somebody on the city council says boy we've got to look at those tax abatements we've been given away too many tax dollars and then as soon as the election year is over we go right back to what we're doing. So number one we need to change that we need to say we're going to have a serious discussion about it instead of just these election year discussions about it. Let's on the issue of tax abatements and strict formulas. Basically what I would like to see is if the company comes in and requests a tax abatement if they say they're going to produce 50 new jobs and after the end of that 10 years they only produce let's say 25 new jobs.

And when I say when they say 50 new jobs you know they better mean new jobs not jobs they've stolen from other companies here in which talk or not from jobs they've stolen from Hutchison or from other industry. I mean new jobs so basically what I'm saying is that at the end of their tax abatement if they have not met the requirements then we take back proportionally what they have promised us. And one minute or so for Mr. Grampkin we said we need to stop making economic development in giveaways synonymous the total tax abatement package needs to be totally revamped when companies come in promise that they're going to add new jobs and couple of years later they haven't done it. They haven't done it they owe the citizens of which talk Kansas something back for that and we need that is what I want to see put in the tax abatement package is that when when it doesn't happen when they're part of the deal doesn't come through they owe the citizens back what they took.

Thank you gentlemen now we move into the final phase of our forum in which the candidates will question each other and once again they'll each have an opportunity to ask a follow-up question there'll be a two minute response and a one minute follow-up response. The order of questioning is the reverse of the order of the opening statements so the first question comes from Stan Reeser to Chip Grampkin. Chip you have suggested that you support a strong full-time mayor I guess basically my question is what kind of price tag are you going to stick us with in order to to get this full-time manager mayor are you talking 13,000 60,000 what's your plan. When terms of full-time mayor I believe that the citizens of this city do believe that Wichita is big enough and strong enough that it needs someone full-time selling the city at $40,000 a year no we don't need that type of a mayor but we need a mayor that is paid full-time wages enough to work full-time and sell the city.

The question that the citizens were being asked in the primary election was a ridiculous question we were asking it backwards we're asking first what what do we want to pay the mayor instead of asking first what's the job description of the mayor going to be and I'm finding that people do want a full-time mayor but they don't want to pay the big bucks that was on the referendum. Again Chip what kind of salary then you mentioned and so it's my understanding you you support under 40,000 we're talking 39,999 what what give me a specific dollar amount that you want to pay the full-time mayor. I think the citizens need to say what the dollar amount needs to be 20,000,000 in that range but the citizens need to be the ones that come up with the answer.

Not the City Council the way it happened last time City Council putting on a referendum needs to come from the citizens. Another question from Chip Graham to Stan Reeser. Stan you you have mentioned that you would like to bring back the intangibles tax and my question to you is in looking at the intangibles tax do you think it's a workable tax first of all and don't you feel that the intangibles tax is hits the elderly the hardest and keeping in mind the fact that the elderly who are on a fixed income right now have been hit doubly hard with property tax reappraisal. Glad you asked that Chip you're absolutely correct the elderly have been hit very hard on taxation and a lot of times they've been hit on taxation I'm not sure what people you're talking about but in the fourth district there's very few people in the fourth district that pay intangible tax.

It's basically a tax it's basically a tax on interest income it's not a tax on earned income it's not a tax on earned income such as when you work at an airplane factory it's a tax on stocks and bonds. Now if you invest in real estate we tax you if we if you invest in real estate we tax you but if you invest in stocks and bonds for some reason we decide you're Scott free. What I would like to know is why when we have taxes on in the middle income and low income through that's disproportionately regressive toward them why do we call those taxes workable but then when we get into intangible tax which is a tax on investment income then we then all said we're very scared of it. Basically it's a it's a tax that would make the overall tax picture of Wichita more progressive and fair.

Your follow up so stand your understanding of the intangible tax is it is in tax on investment income is that correct yes okay it's it's not. Thank you stand so we feel we have a variation from the procedures gentlemen let's ask Jim when to ask the follow up question it's radio we can have fun with this. Well we talk about intangibles tax I mean is it how much money do you think we could raise out of intangibles tax it's not we clear about what the intangibles tax is. Well it's a tax it's a tax on investment income it it you know I think that's it's just a tax that that's a very progressive tax though it's generally paid by upper middle income and high income basically you're right though Mr. Lynn that it's not going to solve our tax problems basically what I've been saying about the intangibles is that when we discuss things like public safety issues. And we discussed downtown development well we're going to have to be very honest with all the public and say let's put everything on the table let's look at both the revenue and let's look at the expense side of our budget and the intangible it's not a sacred cow it has to be discussed.

Mr. Graham did you want to respond to Jim Lynn's follow up question the intangibles tax is a tax on unearned unrecognized income when when you have an investment that raises but yet you didn't sell it. And you're taxed on that it's going to hurt the elder I guarantee it's going to hurt the elderly because there are a lot of elderly in district 4 stand who are going to be hit hard with the intangibles tax back in the early 80s the people of which Tom in Sedgwick County stated very clearly we don't want an intangible tax. No further follow ups on that gentlemen I'm we are very grateful to you for indulging especially these last few moments to clarify the issues you raised yourselves.

Thank you to Stan Reeser and Chip Graham Key candidates for City Council in Wichita's fourth district. Thanks also to our panel of journalists Jim Lynn of the Wichita Eagle Mike Taylor of Cake TV Gordon Basham of KMW Radio and to the district for residents who joined us live here at South High School. Special thanks to KZSN Radio for the use of their remote broadcast equipment which made this live broadcast possible and thanks to Barry Carroll the CPO office our official celebrity timekeeper. This was the second in a series of election 91 candidate forums next Tuesday evening at 7 City Council candidates in district 5 will meet in the forum at the Orchard Park Recreation Center at 4808 West 9th. For a schedule of the dates and locations of the remaining candidate forums call the City CPO office during regular business hours at 2684516. Technical supervisors for tonight's program were Ross Pierce and Ralph Cram on behalf of KMW Radio Cake TV the Wichita Eagle and the citizens participation organizations and CPO staff.

This is Gary Shivers inviting you to join us again next Tuesday evening now back to Dan Taylor at KMW. This is Dan Taylor at KMW of course this is 89.1 in your FM. Thank you for joining us tonight we've got 812 in which it's around 39 degrees outside our studios. Let's see if we can squeeze in some nice music for you. you