Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Utilities Permitting Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews utility permitting fees, finds county yields far less than nearby cities
Summary
Public Works staff told the committee that Jackson County collected about $106,000 from utility construction/permitting over four years (29 permits) under a 3% construction‑improvement fee; staff compared that with much larger franchise assessments in nearby cities and recommended the committee consider fee structures and licensing.
The Jackson County Public Works Committee reviewed state statutes and county code that govern utility permitting and discussed whether a different fee structure—such as a franchise fee used by many municipalities—could raise additional revenue for county infrastructure.
Bridal Gaddy of Public Works walked the committee through state and county authorities. Gaddy said permitting for utility work is governed by provisions in the Revised Statutes of Missouri and by the county’s Unified Development Code (UDC), chapter 2.40 within county code chapter 54. “That 31 days is enacted once all items are received,” Gaddy said, describing the statutory timeline: once the county receives a complete permit application, state law permits a 31‑day review period after which a permit is deemed approved if the county has not acted.
Gaddy told the committee that the county applies a 3 percent fee for construction improvements related to utilities, calculated from the engineer’s estimated probable construction cost. Over the last four years that 3 percent process generated slightly more than $106,000 from 29 new permit requests, Gaddy said, an average of roughly $27,000 per year.
Members compared those receipts with franchise fee or assessment programs in nearby jurisdictions. Gaddy provided municipal comparisons including Blue Springs (5 percent franchise fee) and Kansas City (6 percent) and cited figures presented to the committee showing much larger assessment totals in those municipalities (for example, Kansas City’s assessment was described as roughly $105 million in the cited fiscal period). Gaddy said Johnson County charges certain contractors a straightforward daily or weekly fee for use of right of way rather than a percentage of construction valuation.
Committee members asked whether the county’s lower receipts reflected a lack of volume (fewer permit applications) or a structural choice not to pursue franchise fees. Gaddy said the 3 percent fee appears to be reasonable for the county’s workload: “We do not believe that the fees assessed are in excess or in lack of our actual time commitment,” Gaddy said, noting the county had 29 permits in four years. The committee asked staff to provide a short summary of licensing and fee structures and the municipal comparisons discussed earlier.
The committee also discussed easement requests affecting county parkland. Michelle Newman, director of Jackson County Parks + Rec, said the parks department had two easement requests in 2023 totaling $19,891 and eight easement requests in 2024 totaling $74,608. Newman said St. Louis County evaluates easement requests on a case‑by‑case basis and does not use a fixed fee schedule. Brian DeWandi of Parks + Rec said most easement requests do not create long‑term disuse of park property, but the department evaluates each request for potential impact on trails and recreational use.
Committee members asked for follow‑up materials on licensing fees, the UDC fee schedule, and the municipal comparisons. Staff said they would provide the charts and the permit fee history requested by the committee.
