Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Wilmore debates higher per-square-foot building fees as city questions share of joint planning costs
Summary
Council reviewed a proposed rewrite of the joint planning commission fee schedule that lowers base residential permit fees but raises per-square-foot charges; councilmembers pressed planning staff for data showing how much of the commission’s deficit Wilmore is subsidizing and asked for the office’s budget before any vote.
Council members on June 1 pressed planning staff for clearer numbers after Christopher, the local planning director, proposed revisions to the joint planning commission fee schedule that lower the base residential permit charge from $900 to $750 while raising the per-square-foot rate from $0.05 to $0.25.
The changes, Christopher said, aim to recover the department’s plan-review and inspection costs and shift more of the cost burden onto new development. Under the example he provided, a 2,500-square-foot house would see permit fees rise from about $1,025 to $1,375 — roughly a $350 increase — because of the higher per-square-foot charge even though the base fee was reduced.
Council members said the city is already subsidizing the joint planning commission and asked how much of its operating shortfall Wilmore bears. One council member said the city has paid about $160,000 and described that as “a third of the deficit.” Christopher replied that, based on recent budgets, Wilmore’s contribution appears closer to one-quarter of the commission’s shortfall and that he would provide the exact fiscal-year numbers to the council before any decision.
The discussion ranged beyond permit math. Christopher said the proposed fee structure is intended to cover personnel time for plan review, inspections, and travel to sites and not to generate profit. He also noted most growth is happening outside the city limits in the county, so the fee changes would have a larger effect on county builders than on Wilmore residents.
Council members asked for three items before voting: the past fiscal year’s planning-and-zoning budget, the upcoming fiscal year’s budget, and a breakdown showing how much fee revenue is attributable to Wilmore. Christopher said he would return with those documents and offered to delay action so he could discuss the proposal with the county fiscal court and the judge-executive.
The council did not vote on the fee changes at the meeting. Next steps identified by council included a staff follow-up with the requested budget and revenue-breakdown documents and further conversations with county leaders about cost-sharing.
