Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Illegal Dumping topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wichita council advances tougher illegal-dumping rules, raises penalties and enables restitution
Summary
After an 18-month task force review, the Wichita City Council placed on first reading an ordinance to strengthen illegal-dumping enforcement: higher minimum fines, a major-violation tier, restitution to cover cleanup costs and a pilot using existing staff to improve prosecutions and evidence collection.
The Wichita City Council on first reading advanced a package of changes aimed at curbing illegal dumping, broadening enforcement tools and recovering cleanup costs.
City Law Department attorney Sharon DeGraff told the council the task force’s recommendations followed an 18‑month review and an inventory of the city’s cleanup efforts. “Since 2018, almost 11,000 dump sites have been remediated by MABCD and their contractors at a cost of a little over $1,500,000,” DeGraff said, arguing the city has not been recovering cleanup costs under current penalties.
The ordinance, as amended on the council floor, raises minimum fines, creates a structured tier for major violations (based on number/size of items), authorizes municipal court restitution to require offenders to pay the cost of removing dumped waste, and allows courts to hold vehicle or trailer owners responsible when those conveyances were used in dumping. DeGraff said the changes also add a new charge to make owners liable “in the same manner as if I was the person that actually did the dumping.”
Wichita Police Department and MABCD staff said the package is designed to remove prosecution barriers. “Being able to pull the vehicle in…gives us a lot more ability to tie that evidence together,” said Chris Laberman (MABCD), adding the city spends about $300,000 annually on cleanups and that improved enforcement could redirect some of that spending to prevention. Laberman also provided a prosecution breakdown: of 10,944 cleanup sites since 2018, 72 were charged, 17 resulted in no-contest pleas, and six were guilty verdicts, yielding roughly $3,689 in fines recovered to date.
Council members debated penalty levels and enforcement practicality. Council member Johnson argued $500 was too low and urged a $1,000 minimum; other members suggested even higher thresholds for repeat or major offenses. DeGraff advised the council on the municipality’s jurisdictional limits and said changes to minimum and maximum penalties could be included in the motion for first reading and cleaned up for second reading.
Staff also described non‑punitive measures: a six‑month pilot using existing MABCD staff to support better case development, targeted camera deployment and continued coordination with WPD technology to improve evidence collection.
Councilmember Hoheisel moved the ordinance onto first reading with amendments raising minimum fines and clarifying second-offense ranges; a friendly amendment adjusted the second-offense minimum to $1,500. The motion carried, 7-0.
What happens next: the ordinance was placed on first reading; staff said a clean copy reflecting the council’s changes would be prepared for second reading and that data on district locations and prior incident counts could be provided to the council on request.
