Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners weigh 10% MAPD fee increase amid calls for more data
Summary
Sedgwick County commissioners reviewed a proposed 10% increase to MAPD applicant fees intended to shift costs from taxpayers to users, with staff citing vacancies and budget structure; some commissioners urged approval while others asked for multi‑year financials before adopting the change.
Get email alerts on the Planning Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners on the Sedgwick County Commission discussed a proposed 10% increase to applicant fees charged by the Metropolitan Area Planning Department (MAPD) aimed at reducing the subsidy from county taxpayers. Tom Stultz introduced the proposal and Scott, a planning staff member, framed the policy question: "who should fund the services that the planning department provides, especially when it comes to processing applications?" Scott said the increase would move more of the cost to users of planning services.
Several commissioners pressed for additional financial detail before a final decision. One commissioner asked for multi‑year data on how fees and transfers have flowed between the county and the City of Wichita; Scott said he could compile the requested figures. Commissioners also questioned whether the county could create a dedicated planning fund to prevent recurring transfers to the city under current arrangements. Commissioner commentary split: one said he had "no problem with raising the fees and transferring it from the property tax, bills over to the people who are actually using the the resources," while another preferred deferring adoption until the commission had the requested data and model refinements.
Scott described staffing constraints in MAPD — "We currently have 3 vacancies in our department of 20 people" — as part of the financial picture, noting vacant positions have affected year‑end balances. Commissioners suggested next steps including taking the Monday briefing, allowing staff to supply the financial history, and either proceeding with the scheduled adoption or making a motion to defer at the Jan. 8 meeting. The commission did not record a final vote in the briefing; members agreed to further discussion at the scheduled meeting.
