Commissioners debate budget amendments and a resolution capping ‘non‑mission‑critical’ property-tax spending; staff to bring RFSC CIP vote next week

Sedgwick County commissioners used a staff meeting to review a draft resolution that would cap property-tax support for what the document calls “non mission critical” spending, and to consider several proposed amendments to the manager’s recommended 2026 budget.

Resolution to cap non mission critical spending

Assistant County Counselor Thomas Henry summarized a draft resolution that combines elements of two earlier commissioner proposals. The draft would cap spending on a defined list of discretionary functions (Exhibit A) — the staff packet identified roughly $15.5 million associated with that list in the recommended budget — and would define the capped category as “non mission critical” for purposes of the resolution. Staff said the list is annual and amendable at the budget retreat; the cap’s baseline is linked to prior sales-tax collections in the approach outlined in the draft (similar to a prior pledge concept) and includes specified exceptions (for example, capital projects and employee compensation as described in the draft). Staff and commissioners discussed adding clarity to the definition of “non mission critical” and confirmed the list in Exhibit A functions as the operative definition for the resolution.

Senior centers and aging services

Commissioner Wise presented two possible amendments for senior-center funding: (1) reallocate $29,000 within the aging budget to increase the Goddard Senior Center allocation from $6,000 to $35,000; or (2) reallocate $50,000 from aging in-home services to five named senior centers (Bentley, Cheney, Mount Hope, Orchard Park and Goddard) prorated to requests, which would raise several centers’ allocations in 2026. Staff noted the property-tax supported portion of the in‑home services program totals about $915,000 in the recommended budget, with roughly $500,000 available for contractual services based on prior-year spending; staff cautioned that reallocations reduce the pool for in-home service contracts.

Commissioner Wise also asked staff to prepare a senior-center funding model for the 2027 budget so the new aging director can participate in evaluating formula changes.

Exploration Place funding and buyout concept

Commissioner Wise discussed a potential early buyout of a multi‑year funding agreement with Exploration Place (EP). She described an illustrative buyout in the range of $4.6 million (roughly two years of contracted funding plus a one-time amount) and asked staff to analyze options. County staff provided EP’s year-end fund-balance figures: an unrestricted fund balance without donor restrictions of $21,222,034 and additional restricted amounts; commissioners discussed whether a buyout or glide path tied to a future sales-tax solution would be appropriate. Commissioners noted the county owns the EP building and that long-term relationships and prior county investments (the county has contributed significant support to EP over time) complicate any abrupt funding change. No formal action or motion to buy out EP was made at the staff meeting; staff was asked to provide additional analysis if commissioners want to pursue this option.

Proposed reductions and reallocations (package discussed)

One commissioner (Howe) proposed a package of reductions and reallocations intended to lower the recommended property-tax levy. The package as discussed in the staff meeting included — as illustrative options to be finalized before the board meeting — the following items (staff-level numbers provided during the meeting): (a) eliminate the general-fund subsidy to the motor-vehicle licensing/tag (auto license) fund ($951,806); (b) reduce the recommended contractual allocation to Exploration Place by $500,000 (alternative amounts were discussed); (c) reduce planned additions to emergency communications by six dispatcher FTEs (saving $501,735) — alternatives of larger or smaller dispatcher reductions were discussed tied to available funds; (d) eliminate $13,300 in funding for the Wichita Arts Council; (e) reduce the Sedgwick County Fair Association allocation by $3,650; (f) remove one unfilled grade-70 IT manager position ($123,736) from the staffing table; (g) remove one accreditation-manager position from emergency communications ($87,979); (h) formally remove three long-vacant, unfunded positions in the county clerk/registered-deeds tables (clean-up of FTE count); (i) direct staff to develop a competitive procurement for Oaklawn-area transportation services rather than continuing the current allocation ($38,795 noted); and (j) reallocate $200,000 from a Northwest Expressway right-of-way fund (project R328) to an Arc 95 fund for right‑of‑way acquisition.

Commissioners and staff discussed tradeoffs: (1) reductions to EP funding would reduce county support of a major cultural institution that the county has funded historically (staff reported the county has provided over $83 million of support to EP over many years); (2) the auto‑tag subsidy stems from inadequate state fee structures and could create operational challenges for tag-office staff if removed; (3) dispatcher hires tie directly to 9‑1‑1 service capacity and public-safety response times; and (4) several cuts would attempt to bring the recommended levy closer to a commissioner-specified comfort zone (one commissioner described a target of about 4.5 percent budget growth rather than the manager’s recommended higher figure).

Stormwater ballot question and other directives

A commissioner directed staff to draft language and the workplan necessary to place a ballot question on a future general election that would dedicate a funding stream (two mills annually, described as roughly $14 million per year) to stormwater capital projects. Staff said such a ballot measure would require public outreach and city engagement to ensure coordination with municipal stormwater programs; staff noted alternative funding mechanisms (a fractional sales-tax increment) could be considered but would require legislative authority.

Procedure and next steps

Staff reminded commissioners the RFSC CIP amendment will appear on next week’s commission agenda and that changes to the recommended budget must be made quickly to affect the budget book and bond/interest forecasts. Multiple commissioners asked for additional fiscal notes and for staff to circulate updated allocation spreadsheets before the formal budget meeting so commissioners can see the net effect of proposed reallocation packages. No formal votes were taken at the staff meeting; multiple proposed motions were presented for commissioners to consider for next week's agenda.