The Kansas League of Municipalities is actively seeking a new executive director, you can still get your application and I believe, but that process won't hinder development of the organization's policy agenda ahead of the 2023 legislative session in January. With us today is Spencer Duncan, director of government affairs at the Kansas League of Municipalities. And he's also a two biggest city council member. We're going to work through the league's wish list for the session. Well, hey,
glad to be here. Thank you for inviting me.
Yeah, thanks for helping us there's a lot of issues that whether people know it or not touch people at a local level here of government. Let's begin by telling us a little bit about the League of Municipalities for those who are unfamiliar
League has been around since 1910, actually created by the legislature Believe it or not to make sure that cities had some protection. 530 Plus, of the 625 cities in Kansas, are members of the league. Our goal is to advocate on their behalf, provide them information. So while I do government affairs and lobbying work for them, I am a small percentage of training and education on open records and leadership training and government elected officials training and legal advice. Our lawyers took over 2000 calls so far this year from cities with legal questions. So that's sort of the breadth of everything that we do.
Yeah, that's, that's fascinating, and just gotta be helpful to
help. So I mean, I know that you change comes on the local level quicker than anywhere else, feds, it takes forever state takes their time. But if you want to change, you go to your local council or commission, and you can get it done pretty quick. And so we take that very seriously, and making sure that those bodies can still operate in your favor. More often than not,
I think it was Tip O'Neill said All politics is local. And so why is an organization like this needed?
Well, we always talk about local control, it'll probably come up as one of our first topics on what we call home rule, which is always our legislative priority. I tell people, it's actually our mascot. If I could come up with what that would look like, then if someone wants to send me an idea, I will make the mascot I will wear it. But Home Rule is important because it allows municipalities to deal with local issues locally. I mean, just as much as the state likes to complain when the Feds send down unfunded mandates and things they don't like same for your city, we don't always like the state to intrude in areas where we say that may work for county A, but over here in city B, we don't want to operate that way. And we don't have to. And so that's our biggest always our biggest issue is Home Rule, Home Rule and home rule again.
So let's just talk about home rule. That is something that comes up and you know, sometimes I think people's eyes glaze over. But it's a really important principle, constitutional principle, I believe, in, you know, if you want to deal with blighted structures, for example, and the state wants to pass a law dictating how you go about that the process of maybe Leavenworth wants to do it different than Garden City. Right, and
there should be some state standards, so that we're not digging up things, you know, especially when it comes to whether it's water issues, right, or environmental issues, or those types of things, because you want I mean, alcohol laws are pretty standardized. That's good. But yeah, when you're dealing with specific issues, the Blight we deal with in Topeka is very different than the Blight they're dealing with in Dodge City and how they can approach that the resources at their disposal are very different. One size does not fit all. So when those cases, we look to the state to facilitate resources for us, which doesn't mean give us money, it means make sure programs are open, make sure we can access state level programs, federal level programs, but let us make the rules at home so that the people in that community can decide how they want to deal with blight instead of the state telling them how to deal with blight. So hopefully
a number of the legislators have come up through the government ranks and observed on city councils or county commissions, for example,
many of them have and usually that plays well, every once in a while an issue comes up where they're like, yes, but I think this needs to be uniform across the state. I hear you when we always have to have that debate. Yes. Remember, though, when you were up here as a local person saying local control, let's let's tap back into that inner you
when you think about these issues, being on the two biggest city council that must kind of inform your your conversations with legislative
does I mean, I can honestly look at them and say I'm in the trenches. I actually literally every day I'm dealing with my city staff and my other elected officials to deal with these problems. And I have constituents too, and real issues we're trying to deal with so so I don't just say this. I want it because I'm the lobbyist. I say it also because I have a elected person who's trying to who needs every tool you can give me what I always ask the legislature is when you pass a law, that might take some tools away, offset them by giving us some other tools back so it's okay if you didn't like this tool and the way we're using it, but don't just take it away from us, give us something else that replaces it to still let us deal with the problem. And that doesn't happen all the time.
Let's just jump jump into one of the issues. That can be a point of conflict. There's just generally call it government competition. So a specific example would be for many years, there's the owners of a fitness club Empire Genesis. They have places all over the state and multistate actually complained about the taxes that Genesis pays. And they've lobbied hard over the years to try to get property tax breaks, because they don't like the fact that nonprofits like the few YWCA or YMCA are, are have a tax exemptions. That would be an example of a government competition issue that perhaps the league would have an interest in.
It is I mean, because some of that crosses over to things that a cities are doing, right, the cities have run some operations through nonprofits or work with them that would be impacted by that. And then we also have likewise in our community that are serving a lot of people. Two biggest arguments I always make to legislators on that are first of all, they're most of those nonprofits are offering services that the private sector is not the In other words, they're offering health care, or I mean, I'm to childcare. Yeah, they're offering food programs, right? Genesis, God bless them, they're for profit, and great, I hope they make all the money they can, but they're not offering those services at no cost to their community, we need those services to help our citizens. Second thing I always remind them is if it's going to be good for the state or for the city, it better be good for the state. And I have not seen a bill yet that also applies this rule to the state of Kansas. And as someone who prior to coming to the league spent years doing some nonprofit trade associations who did education, programming, who this would impact I can tell you, the state currently impedes on those programs. But none of these bills also say, well, the state will also stop getting involved in these competitive processes. And once you remind the state of that, sometimes those agencies pop up and say, Wait a minute, that's not what we wanted to happen here. And I just want equality. There's the old saying, I don't care if you treat us shabbily. Just treat us all equally shabbily. And I want that to apply to the state also.
Right. Good point. All right. Another point of contention would be property taxes. You got
any contention people? Yeah, there's a lot of
property, say property taxes are too high. I suppose at some point, you got to pay for government. But so the legislature has tried repeatedly to try to influence taxation at the local government level. And they've tried to, they would argue, increased transparency, by having public hearings or requiring certain documents be sent to taxpayers, identifying what your property tax was in the current year, and what it's going to be some of that might be useful. But do you think there's an overreach going on here at all?
Well, a little bit. First of all, I don't think there was ever a lack of transparency. I think if you look at any tax bill, regardless of the county, they've always been pretty detailed. And that's okay. We we initially opposed what is the current law that they offered, which is this revenue, what they call the revenue neutral rate, but it's the law of the land, and we're not there to find it. And that'll be a big issue this year, what we look for is, once you've put something in place, if there are problems with it, we need to fix them along the way. So our request to the legislature now is fine, you gave us a system that we don't all love, but we're going to learn to live with it. But you have to work with us to again, give us additional tools to make sure that it works the way you intended and that that goes to on taxes. That is a big problem. That is something where the legislature has taken tools away from the locals. Ask them to do more with less but not given us any other options to find resources.
That's top down management. What about the dark stories? You're gonna explain that?
Yeah, I'll try. So there was a Walmart store that was assessed value at what happens if the building has a Walmart in it, which would be very different than if that building was empty and did not have a Walmart in it. Walmart appealed and said, That's not fair. Actually, the way the process should work is you just assess the building doesn't matter what business is in the building, went all the way to the Supreme Court who said we disagree with Walmart that the the tax code, as written says that they can do it that way. They didn't say it was unconstitutional. They just said that's what the current law is. So those who had an issue with that will be introducing a bill to change current state law. We're good with the way it is. We think that that's an outlier. We if you look at how these assessments are made, that doesn't happen all across the state doesn't happen with small and mid sized businesses. And tax code seems to be working just fine. And there's an appeal process, you
would would hope that the application of this is is systematic across the state and there's some uniformity,
we would but you know, the reality of that sometimes is you get different people assessing taxes in different communities, and they have they have a handbook to follow. They're all qualified, they do a pretty good job, but sometimes differences do pop up. But that's why we have a board of tax appeals and that's why we have a whole appeal process including the court system and so it's not an unchecked process.
Here's an issue that might be under the radar that I think the league has has weighed in on it regarding regulatory mandates when you're trying and supporting somebody in an ambulance in a medical vehicle. And it's about the personnel in that vehicle with the ill person. It's mostly
small towns as mostly smaller to mid sized communities who have maybe two ambulances for ambulance drivers total. If that and in this case, state law says I need one driver, one medical professional on to transport from point A to point B. Now in a lot of these communities, those transports are pretty far because the hospitals are maybe even out of the state. Yeah, well, the regulatory board that oversees that said it needs to be to medical professionals, which is beyond the law. And that is taking two people out of communities and sometimes for several days as they make these transports. We're not asking for any other change except to roll that back, go back to state law give us one qualified driver, one medical professional so that the other medical professional can stay back in the community and serve community
is there any way to get around it by having the driver also be a medical professional?
Well, that's part of the problem now is that is that they're requiring? Right now there you want it right now, the drivers they were using are the other are the second medical professional, but we have people the alternative drivers, cities have qualified drivers who can do the actual driving, who have the proper licenses, that's that if they get taken out for their to city can eat that they can eat someone who can do an emergency medical call in a community of 1200 people, if you lose that person, and the next ambulance is 40 minutes away. That's a problem if you're having a heart attack,
right, I would say the redundancy in that ambulance doing a transport to another medical facility. I'm weighing that against having somebody with some skills come and respond to my heart attack.
Right. That's right. And that's the that's the where we're at. And like I said, originally, the legislature's intent was that and we understand regulatory boards are there to their professionals. And sometimes they think things should be up. And if they want to make that case, they can go over the legislature and make that case. And that's what we would
do, the legislature would stand up in support of their own law, we would have a related issue is in mental health. And I think this is in communities, cities across the state, all 625 of them are going to have mental health issues in which they weren't community based services, the what's the league, think about that
there's not a single city that doesn't deal with that issue. Now, the issues are slightly different. Some places have nowhere to send individuals at all, if they're in crisis. Others have places they can't hire professionals for whatever they're they're trying to recruit those, they've got the job openings, they just kick anyone to come there be. And so they're trying to find ways to do that, because of where they are. To their credit, the legislature has made some improvements the last couple of years and loosing some of that up and offering some services available. But this still needs funding across the board, especially for smaller communities. It's hard for us in Topeka to hire people right now. I can't I mean, I know it's just unbelievably hard if you're out in Garden City to hire somebody.
Right. And this is probably an overlooked area of, of governance, in terms of grappling with mental illness
deals with multiple problems. And it's not always that individuals fault, but it's it's systemic. And some of the homelessness issues you deal with it's systemic, and some of the criminal acts you deal with. It's just systemic and helping people having the resources to simply help other people in your community, right substance. I mean, so it touches a lot of other issues that you're dealing, it is one of those core problems. And if you can find a way to deal with it, you suddenly are also alleviating a lot of other issues in your community. I
think it's actually a greater challenge in rural areas. You just mentioned the hiring of people, but I just think having the facilities and and people are so spread out in rural communities, you know, you look out there and you're half a mile from your closest neighbor. That's a little different than getting on a metro bus and riding 10 blocks to the clinic.
Right? That's absolutely right. You know, I mean, so yeah, facilities are a huge a huge need and, and finding some transportation will come in from out of state to who run those facilities would be very helpful.
There's a thing that it's also crosses the board in the state of Kansas, the housing shortage and affordable housing. And what would the league like to see done?
Yeah. So again, I will give credit to the legislature on this one, the last couple of years, they've actually opened up some programs that have helped cities access federal dollars, grant programs and even state programs that didn't exist before, so good for them. But they're, again, not a city that's not dealing with the housing problem. And housing is probably one of the other two three issues that are at your core problem. Homelessness, right? keeping kids in school, just helping everybody in general, and nobody has enough of it. quality housing, doesn't matter what size of city you are. One of the things we would like to see the state do is open up a at least $100 million revolving loan fund that cities could access because now that these programs exist, which is great, nobody has the capital. And so especially a smaller community, they want to be able to access it a low it's a loan. We're not asking for the free money, but a lower interest loan that these cities could take out to then build some of these developments and fix some of these blight issues and rundown houses and turn them flip them around.
All right, the state could run something like that because it's really a profit. No, that's the point enter and not supposed to be a profit center, but they have a massive billion dollar whatever excess right now
everybody wants that. And I get, of course they do. But But I think if they look at the core problems, I know they're gonna look at the food sales tax issue with that get into it quicker. Great. That's a core that's a money in people's pocket. I think housing is AHBs. Absolutely. I don't think there's a single city that wouldn't say, Oh, you're putting money towards housing, we object to that?
Yeah, there'll be a big battle and January when the session starts over over that money. There always is there's, there's a lot more interest in spending money than making rods. Nobody wants to be at the meeting where they're making the current.
Yeah, we just did some of that it was.
So there's, the state has a program. It's called Star bonds. And it's really an economic development tool in which you modify tax obligations of businesses. And in areas, these development areas try to bring in new business, but it's called the Star bonds and and it involves tax revenue. So what would the what would the league like to see done in that regard? Or perhaps you're playing defense? Oh, no, no, no.
So we absolutely support supported the lowering the food sales tax, and we support the legislature doing it away with it immediately if they can, instead of a three year phase out what nobody thought about, and I this is unintended consequences of legislation was Star bond projects are paid back through sales tax in the areas that get them. We have a couple of star bond projects who once that bill passed, realize, Oh my we have a lot of food sales tax collected that pays off that star bond because we have a Costco and Walmart, Sam's Club with Kroger IV, we have a lot of groceries in this zone. Nobody thought of that. So they're going back to the legislature saying we have a problem. We don't know how we're going to pay back the star bonds if we're losing this food, but we want you to keep the food tax low. Right. So there's currently $3.4 million in a star bond fund that would take care of next this next year. But it expires after that. So our ask of the legislature is let's do the math on what the star bonds are going to be impacted would be and let's put the money in that for the length of time to cover that so that we can also make sure that we can lower the food sales tax quick,
it is a fascinating consequence of something that's a very popular policy and that is eliminating the state's say food sales tax.
It is no one I like I said no. One of those things. I don't think anyone all those
smart lobbyists. Nobody saw what was going on.
Not on that one, it'll some some smart accountant, for one of these cities did the math and ran to their city manager or mayor and said, we have a problem here. When you start
bonding districts, many 10s of millions of dollars. Some of these projects are just absolutely awesome.
I mean, we have one in Topeka. And I'll tell you it is not as impacted by say the one down in noon. I mean, we certainly collect a little but we don't have a bunch of stores in that area, because it was for the Heartland Park project. It's on the outside of town. But yeah, for the one that's down there and a couple other areas that are right in the heart of a big district with food, it's it's a sudden,
oops, what is the solution? Just general taxpayer dollars are going to cover those bonds? Well,
we think if we think again, with their surplus, they have enough money because we're not talking 10 or $20 million a year, we're again talking 3 million this year. So over the next 5678 years, which adds up is a lot. But it's still such a small amount versus Delaine. Getting rid of it.
It's the entire state taking over the taxing responsibility is something that benefits Newton. Correct doesn't benefit me. Correct. But
the truth is, once they approved the star bond, they did that. I mean, they stopped taking revenue in from those communities that would have gone to the state in the first place. Which is why the legislature came back over the last two years and tightened up star bond requirements because they thought they were a little loosey goosey there for a few years. They certainly were That's right.
I still think the accountability on Star bonds is terrible. Yeah. I want independent annual reports on whether it's working or not.
Yeah. And so I do think the legislators recognize that we can't do it the same way anymore. So we can stop that problem moving forward. But we still have these problems out in the world today.
I'm going to close out on your agenda here for the year on an issue that some people may not think you would be involved in, but it's about water policy. And when you turn on the tap, people have expectations. They do
and we think the average person like me who grew up in the city of Topeka, right, we just think about the water that we comes out of our to drink every day. But the reality is, a lot of this state is ag based and water is essential not just to making sure they stay in business, but to actually feeding us and a lot of the rest of America and there's a problem with water. You know, we can cite whatever that reason is whether you think it's climate change, or just the weather has changed or whatever you're you can't deny there's a water problem.
Well, another issue is if you're drawing water out of the Ogallala aquifer that covers much of the state, a lot of the vast majority of that goes to irrigating crops and increasing production. If you look
at the rate When that aquifer is going to be gone, it's horrid. It'll give you nightmares if you care about. I mean, it's, it's, it's horrifying. And so there is a water commission, it has been meeting for probably 30 years if you want to the truth, but we have hit the point where a lot of the legislators, especially from western Kansas have said, Enough is enough, we have to put create water policy. From the lease perspective, we not only think there needs to be water policy, but we also recognize that what works in western Kansas is different than what works in Southeast Kansas, what works in the middle of the state, what works in eastern Kansas. And so we want them to also understand as as a giant body, and sometimes it's hard to get the legislature to understand nuances. But there needs to be nuances in that legislation to give those locals the ability to deal with their specific water issue because they're different. And that's what we will advocate for back to that home rule. But but we'll make sure those policies actually work to we're not just blanketing for, you know, we want to make good policy, but we want to give some flexibility to the locals and you have a
real Kansas to go away, no, have a massive water problem, right? That was the ethic is going to be about conservation across the board. But how that's tackled it within a jurisdiction might be different, right,
because some have different I mean, obviously, the rain we get in this part of the state has been very different than the rain they've gotten and the snow that will all get in the moisture over the next course of a year. So I may need different whether it's stricter policies in western Kansas or freedom. I mean, I just read an article about one community trucking in water from another community, because they had plenty and they needed some right. So Western Kansas would like the freedom to be able to do those sorts of things. Whereas parts of eastern Kansas may say, we don't have that problem, we just need to do a little more conservation to make sure that we don't run into that problem in the next 30.
I think everybody can conserve, but the issue at hand is you go far southwest Kansas and maybe get five inches of rain a year. And there could be 35 inches of rain in far eastern.
There's also a misperception, I don't think with respect to all my good friends on this part of the state who and I always tell them I'm going out to Wichita and they say oh, you're going to Western can't know it tells me you've never been the western Kansas. But they don't understand what your obligation is really, what is irrigating a crop look like? How much water does it really take or not take what goes into getting the water for that irrigation. They think of watering their lawn right up in this part. So So you so there's just people who live in parts of the state, me being one of them, who don't have the knowledge base of what it really takes to do that to make sure that we can grow food, you know, and so there's misperceptions because of where you're from. We don't want to seep into that policy. Want it to be based on the actual facts and needs of those communities.
Well, Mr. Duncan, I think that this is an interesting list of agenda, you'll have your hands full in the state house, there certainly will be a few surprises so you have to stay on your toes. Always a surprise. I want to thank you for helping us go through some of these issues that do touch on on people's lives out there
anytime and if people ever need anything, I'm easy to get a hold of where lkm.org And so they can just find me there and I will do my best to answer whatever I can whenever I can. Well, thank
you for joining the Kansas reflector. Appreciate your help.