Jackson County committee reviews utility permit and easement fee process

The Jackson County Public Works Committee discussed the county's permitting and easement fee rules for utilities and municipalities at a morning committee meeting, committee Chair Manuel Bark said. County staff described a permitting process that requires plans and specifications from both municipalities and private utilities but applies fees to for‑profit providers while exempting municipalities from some charges.

County Public Works Director Brian Gaddy told the committee that the county's Unified Development Code (UDC) governs permitting and fees. "Public utility doesn't necessarily mean a not for profit company. It means just a provider to public utility," Gaddy said, and added that the UDC contains a schedule of fees and definitions for construction improvements. He said the UDC requires "construction improvements must pay 3% of total construction costs." Gaddy also said the county follows a statutory 31‑day turnaround "once all materials have been submitted to the county as requested by the UDC." (As cited in the meeting, staff referenced the state statute read aloud.)

Michelle Newman, director of Jackson County Parks + Rec, said parks easement fees and discounts are set in county code Chapter 50 and that municipalities receive a reduced rate. "There's a real impact to granting these easement rights," Newman said, adding that installations such as sewer or gas lines can limit how park land is used and that "fair compensation is warranted for the municipalities as well as the utility companies." Ryan DeWontney of Parks + Rec reported the department charges an administrative fee of $2,000 per easement and that the per‑square‑foot charge is 40 for utilities and 20 for local municipalities.

Committee members pressed staff for additional context on how large projects could be affected and how much revenue the county collects from these fees. Legislator Smith said a 3% fee on a million‑dollar construction improvement is substantial and asked for ballpark revenue figures; Gaddy said he would research the totals. Staff also reported that some municipalities use franchise agreements (franchise fees reported in the meeting for nearby cities were 5% and 7%), and committee members asked whether the county could adopt a franchise model for unincorporated areas. Gaddy responded that a county franchise would apply only to unincorporated areas and that creating franchise agreements would require drafting and proposing them to providers.

The committee asked staff to return with comparative fee schedules (for example, rates from Independence, Kansas City, Lee's Summit, and St. Louis County), a list of current providers doing work in the county, and revenue totals showing how fees have flowed into departmental budgets. No motion or formal vote was recorded on any change to existing code or fees during the meeting.

The committee concluded the item by asking Public Works and Parks + Rec to provide the requested comparisons and revenue figures for a future staff follow up.