Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers vote on proposed 10% MAPD fee increase after stakeholder requests for more data
Summary
The commission agreed to defer a planned 10% increase in Metropolitan Area Planning Department application fees to allow more time for analysis and stakeholder input, including builder association concerns about impacts on housing costs.
The Sedgwick County Board of County Commissioners voted Jan. 8 to defer consideration of a proposed 10% increase in application fees charged by the Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD), following requests from building-industry stakeholders for more time to review data.
Scott Weidl of MAPD told the commission the department is funded roughly fifty-fifty by the city and county, with the remainder coming from application fees; the 2024 budget included a planned 10% fee increase. Weidl showed MAPD cost-recovery data indicating fees currently recover about 23% of the department’s case-processing costs and that a 10% increase would raise recovery toward 28%.
Why it matters: The fee change shifts a greater share of MAPD processing costs from taxpayers to applicants. Commissioners and industry groups requested more fiscal detail tying the proposed rates to recent case volumes and to comparisons with peer jurisdictions before final action.
Summary of discussion - Weidl reviewed department funding, historical fee adjustments (last implemented in 2018), and a 2024 budget note that included an assumed 10% fee increase. - Stakeholder feedback: representatives from the building trades and local builder associations expressed concern and asked for a deferral to compile additional data. A MAPD presentation to WABA and other groups occurred in November; WABA later asked for more time. - Commissioner David Dennis supported deferral and said the county should reduce taxpayer subsidy of MAPD where appropriate but wanted the item to return with clear fiscal modeling. Commissioner Jim Howe asked for comparative data about other jurisdictions’ subsidies and noted that a 10% increase is not necessarily unreasonable given inflation but requested deeper fiscal analysis.
Board action The commission voted unanimously to defer the item to a later date to allow MAPD and stakeholders time to provide additional analysis and comparisons; commissioners discussed a possible March 1 effective date if approval proceeds later to give time for city council action and public notice.
Ending MAPD will return with additional fiscal analysis showing the likely revenue impact based on recent case volumes, comparative subsidy data for peer jurisdictions, and stakeholder feedback before the BOCC reconsiders any fee change.
