Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Services topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public urges county to stop 'flatlining' senior funding; commissioners debate WSU 1.5‑mill interlocal
Summary
Public commenters and commissioners pressed Sedgwick County to re-evaluate senior-services funding amid flat budgets for senior centers; a separate discussion centered on the county's role administering a 1.5‑mill levy for Wichita State University and legal/timing constraints tied to the May 1 interlocal‑agreement deadline.
Several members of the public used the county's budget period to press commissioners to reexamine senior‑center funding and to request clarity about the Wichita State University (WSU) mill‑levy arrangement.
Resident Andre Cisco told the board that senior centers provide meals, social connection and essential services and urged the county to stop what he called the "flatlining" of senior funding. Cisco read historical mill amounts and said the levels allocated to senior activities have declined in recent years, asking commissioners to review total dollars for aging services rather than just per‑center formulas.
Commissioners and staff responded with budget context: Commissioner Bates and staff described the county's combined aging and CDDO funding at roughly $20.7 million, with about $770,000 directed to senior centers across about 19 sites. Commissioners discussed options for indexing senior funding to CPI and highlighted differences in municipal support for centers (some centers receive city subsidies; others—especially Wichita sites—do not).
Faith Martin told the board she wanted a public update on the WSU mill‑levy negotiations and urged action before a May 1 contractual notification deadline. County Counselor Justin Wagner explained the county's 1987 interlocal agreement under KSA 19‑117 that expanded a city‑imposed levy to the county, the Attorney General review requirement for any amendment, and potential bonding consequences tied to projects that were included when the county entered the agreement. Wagner noted timing challenges and that an interlocal amendment would involve a 90‑day review and potential Attorney General review.
Commissioners debated applying proposed state fiscal-cap language (CPI or 3% cap) to WSU earlier than the statute's effective date and whether amending the statute rather than renegotiating the interlocal would be a simpler path. Several commissioners said they wanted staff to bring policy options back for consideration and recommended adding legislative requests to explore statutory change.
What happens next: Commissioners did not take final action to change the WSU arrangement but asked staff to study options and consider legislative items; they also signaled willingness to revisit senior funding allocation methodology during the budget process.
