08/19/2026
On August 25, the City Council will take final action on Wichita’s 2027 budget.
I’ve been working through the budget line by line and comparing the 2026 revised budget to the 2027 proposal. Here are several amendments I’m considering, many of which overlap with ideas colleagues have raised from the bench:
• Eliminate the new $300,000 employee tuition program. Mayor Wu also raised this during our budget discussion and was ready with a motion.
• Reduce the $1.447 million Unallocated Administrative Costs line by $1 million, leaving $447,332 available.
• Restore a $400,000 process and administrative efficiency target. The 2026 budget carried an $800,000 process-improvement savings assumption; the 2027 proposal carries none.
• Hold two new fiscal positions in the City Manager’s Office until staff demonstrates they are not duplicative of the new Finance/Central Services structure. Councilman Johnston raised a different perspective on these positions during our discussion, and I may also have received additional information from staff last night that helps paint a fuller picture before Tuesday.
• Use net General Fund savings from these amendments to reduce the planned draw on the Stabilization Reserve, rather than immediately redirecting those savings to other spending.
• Tie 2027 City funding for the Multi-Agency Center to a documented net increase in emergency or low-barrier shelter beds.
• Provide $10,000 in one-time funding for the Mayor’s Youth Council. Mayor Wu led an effort yesterday to reduce her travel funding to cover this cost and potentially more with Council member Tuttle offering some amended changes that would take it out of all Council travel instead.
• Create a $100,000 homeowner property-tax relief pilot using Kansas Homestead eligibility, with a proposed benefit of $200 per qualifying owner-occupied Wichita household. Councilman Hoheisel has advocated for this kind of relief for years and led a motion yesterday directing staff to bring back a plan by Tuesday.
• Reprogram up to $400,000 of uninitiated Pawnee Prairie capital authority toward eligible tree and stump backlog work. Parks has identified an approximately $1.8 million tree/stump backlog. I know how much Council member Ballard has been about restoring our canopy and this helps with that through reallocation.
• The Police CIP includes $650,000 for robotic dog equipment, and Police has indicated that approximately $325,000 has already been initiated for one unit. That leaves roughly $325,000 in remaining capital authority. I’m considering reallocating up to $50,000 for a community violence problem analysis and using the remaining approximately $275,000 for security bollards and other vehicle-protection improvements around Naftzger Park and major community events.
• Hold the $500,000 2027 design allocation for the Dr. Glen Dey Park Sports Complex until the anticipated $20 million non-City capital commitment is documented. Councilman Shepard expressed reservations about that approach, and he and I plan to sit down this week and work through it.
The base General Fund math on these amendments is currently:
$300,000 tuition savings
+$1,000,000 unallocated administrative reduction
+$400,000 efficiency target
+ savings from the two CMO fiscal positions, if those are ultimately held
After proposed one-time funding for the Mayor’s Youth Council and homeowner relief, that leaves at least $1.59 million plus any CMO position savings available to reduce the Stabilization Reserve draw.
I’m also continuing to review Library funding closely. The Library’s gross General Fund appropriation rises from about $12.8 million to $14.55 million, but roughly 97% of that increase is explained by new internal administrative charges, higher technology charges and a new contingency. Once those are separated out, the remaining year-over-year increase is only about $49,000, with staffing essentially flat. If additional capacity emerges during final budget discussions, I plan to ask where direct Library services can be strengthened without increasing the mill levy.
A lot of this work is iterative. Council-members Johnston, Hoheisel, Shepard, Ballard, Tuttle and the Mayor have each raised questions or perspectives that are shaping where the final package may land, and I expect more of that between now and Tuesday.
These are working amendments, not a final package. Seven members have to build a budget together, and that means testing ideas, making adjustments, and finding enough common ground to actually govern.
But I do think governance requires a plan. We should know what we are proposing to change, what it saves, what it costs, and what outcome we expect before we vote.
I’d be interested in your feedback before August 25.