This article is part two of a three-part Dotte Dispatch series examining how a delayed funding request moved through the Unified Government (UG) and why its approval process differed from past Consent Decree items.
A stalled $39 million funding request tied to the Unified Government’s (UG) federal Consent Decree returned to the full commission on December 4, raising questions about how the item moved through the process and why it failed to advance during an earlier committee meeting. The path the request followed was unusual and highlighted differing understandings among commissioners about what the Consent Decree requires and how it must be funded.
The request first appeared at the November 3 meeting of the Economic Development and Finance Standing Committee. Standing committees are the first place major financial items are reviewed. They allow commissioners to ask questions, debate funding sources, and decide whether an item is ready for consideration by the full commission. Items that fail at this stage are usually set aside or revised before returning at a later time.
This request did not follow that pattern.
During the November 3 meeting, the bond request received significant pushback from District 7 Commissioner Chuck Stites, who questioned whether the UG should issue more debt.
“I’m not for issuing more debt,” Stites said. “I mean, we’re trying to get out of debt. And here we are talking about adding another darn near 40 million dollars to debt.”
Stites also argued that the UG had not used discretionary general fund dollars to address other needs throughout the year and questioned why additional debt was being requested.
Staff clarified that Consent Decree work is funded through the sewer system, which is paid for by ratepayers. Discretionary general fund dollars are not used for these projects.
At-Large District 2 Commissioner Tom Burroughs offered a different perspective, noting that the UG did not have the option to avoid or reduce the request. He reminded the committee that the projects were tied to a federal court order. “This was an EPA mandate that we reinvest and separate the storm water and the sewer collectively. In our community, we were the last ones to settle in the state, and the fines are extremely expensive.”
Despite the discussion, the standing committee voted not to advance the request to the full commission. In most cases, this would have stopped the item from moving forward.
Committee votes shape what reaches the full commission, so when an item does not advance, it rarely moves forward.
Instead, one month later, the same $39 million request appeared on the Mayor and CEO’s portion of the December 4 Planning and Zoning/Full Commission meeting agenda. Because the Mayor has authority to add items to the agenda, the request returned for consideration even though it did not advance out of committee.
District 6 Commissioner Phil Lopez, who also voted against the measure in committee, expressed surprise when he saw it on the agenda. “I was on the standing committee where that did not make it through,” he said. “How did it get on tonight’s agenda? Just curious.” Staff with the UG’s legal department explained that the mayor’s authority allowed the item to move forward.
The unusual path stood out because Consent Decree related items typically do not face procedural obstacles. These projects support federally required improvements to Kansas City, Kansas, sewer and stormwater systems. In past years, funding requests for Consent Decree work were handled during the annual budget process or advanced through committee without significant debate, since the project schedules are mapped out years in advance.
The initial committee vote created uncertainty about whether the UG would remain on schedule with its Consent Decree obligations. When the item returned on December 4, commissioners learned that several projects had already stalled due to lack of funding. Public Works staff said crews had been waiting several months for the money needed to resume work on required projects.
The Mayor’s decision to place the item on his agenda allowed the full commission to revisit the issue and take action. UG officials said the bond authorization was needed to restart delayed projects and begin new phases already listed in the 2025 and 2026 budgets. Several commissioners noted that falling behind on the Consent Decree schedule could lead to enforcement action or costly fines.
After further discussion, commissioners approved the measure nine to two. District 6 Commissioner Phil Lopez and District 7 Commissioner Chuck Stites voted no.
It is not clear how the initial delay will affect the pace of future Consent Decree work. The UG expects to consider additional funding requests tied to the agreement as new project phases move forward in the coming years.
This story is part two of a three-part Dotte Dispatch series. The final installment will explain what the Consent Decree requires, how combined sewer systems work, and why these federally mandated improvements matter for residents and ratepayers.
One Comment