Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedgwick County commissioners consider 10% MAPD fee increase amid questions about cost sharing with Wichita
Summary
County staff and commissioners discussed a proposed 10% increase to application and permit fees charged by the Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD), with commissioners asking for more financial detail and consensus to brief further before a final decision.
Sedgwick County commissioners on Wednesday reviewed a proposal to raise application and permit fees charged by the Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD) by 10 percent to shift more of the cost of planning services to users rather than general taxpayers.
The discussion centered on who should fund MAPD services and how changes would affect cost recovery between the county and the City of Wichita. Scott (MAPD representative) told commissioners the proposal was designed “to get people who are using the services in the planning department to pay for the services and get and divert that away from general taxpayer.”
The increase was described by staff as an attempt to reduce the degree to which taxpayers subsidize application processing. Scott said MAPD’s financial model differs from the city’s building-permit fund: year-end savings are split between the county and the city, and MAPD has experienced staff vacancies that have affected its budget. He said the department has 20 positions and currently has three vacancies.
Several commissioners urged more data before adopting a fee change. One commissioner asked for information on how much surplus has been transferred to the city in recent years and suggested deferring an increase until the board had a fuller analysis; another said a 10% bump would still leave the department substantially subsidized and supported approving the increase now while scheduling a fuller budget-model review during the 2026 budget process.
County staff and other commissioners discussed structural differences between MAPD and the city’s building-permit fund (MABCD), noting the city can maintain a special fund under state law while the county’s options are more limited. The county manager and finance staff advised the board that creating a separate county planning fund without corresponding city action might have limited effect.
Commissioners asked for additional financial detail, including historic transfers, the amount of fees collected and how vacancies altered year-end balances. Scott told the board he could provide multi-year financials and data on recent surplus transfers for the commission to review. The board agreed to receive a briefing on Monday and to consider whether to defer action pending further information.
No formal vote on the fee increase was recorded in the transcript of this briefing; commissioners directed staff to provide additional financial information and to continue the conversation at the upcoming budget discussions.
