[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6343152,"mediaKeyId","2252820-632f6f5ba9eade429b76adc646c8edcb","parentId",2252820,"title","Commission approves first reading to levy special assessments for 14 improvement districts","audioSeconds",2146,"startMs",2021000,"endMs",4167000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2252820-632f6f5ba9eade429b76adc646c8edcb&start=2021&end=4167","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2252820-632f6f5ba9eade429b76adc646c8edcb/thumbnail_2021000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6343152/Manhattan/Riley/Kansas/Commission-approves-first-reading-to-levy-special-assessments-for-14-improvement-districts","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343152-22f3b70018193611b994fc7e034e7509/orig.mp4?Expires=1775217477&Signature=BW3ok94cTJNof1Ts7tl12l9rxjoTd53QyNkyZew0k4D1kcHG6XsUggGw99Tq9ODG4iMg7NAA6CxtIsnjIQ3zTflI9UCOrnvsu~8gHY7Wk44TB4MXE8n0PMXFNrbwbVgfK34zwoD3GKt4E4yj4uDdctrACAHRSe~3ZCJqMjhUSzckDR738r0CGibZIBrRd1eu6xT2M9xRR7rhBDANeVMDMv94y0qfKojSOy5OiTO6uU9boM74myvFLG5lj9-MzYCYAOKL10AlDTjc5f1bBt23Rc8FZg5fKpUZ4U2gupLQZL77Pi15pq4skrO52SvJXABRB9Nf2oSB4zJZcEvi6MKcAg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City Council of Manhattan , KS","date","2025-02-04T00:00:00Z","article","The Manhattan City Commission on Feb. 4 approved the first reading of an ordinance to levy special assessments across 14 public improvement districts after a public hearing in which multiple property owners objected to assessment methods and notification timing.

City staff provided the presentation and maps for the projects and described repayment options. Rena, a community development staff member, said the projects for the May 2025 bond series include turn-lane work at Candlewood Shopping Center; sewer, street and water improvements in Highlands at Grandmere, Elijah Addition and Henry Addition; a Stagg Hill Golf Course waterline; a sidewalk for Genesis Health Club; and sewer and water extensions in the Stagg Hill business community. Rena said the city will cash-pay an administrative portion and bond the remainder, and noted property owners were notified by letter. She said property owners will receive a second letter after the Feb. 18 second reading giving 30 days to pay off assessments by March 21; unpaid assessments would be bonded in May and amortized over 20 years, and the assessments would appear on the November 2025 tax statements.

“Property owners were notified by letter about the amount and purpose of their assessment, and the notice was published in the Manhattan Mercury,” Rena said.

Several residents urged changes to how assessments were calculated and complained about late or confusing notice. Marlo Claussen, who said she lives on Victory Drive, told commissioners the three vacant lots adjacent to her property were each estimated at $5,225.62 per year despite having no road, sewer or water usage. She said the lots had been reduced in size during nearby road work and that using an equal-per-lot share rather than square footage made assessments she called inequitable.

“I am 100% objecting to how these special assessments are calculated and distributed,” Marlo Claussen said.

Alex Van Dyke, who said he lives in Elijah Addition, said buyers were told during sale negotiations to expect assessments “around $4,000,” and that actual assessments now appear more than $1,000 higher. Caleb Anderson Swanson, who said he purchased in the area last month, said he and other younger homeowners budgeted for about $3,600 in special assessments and are surprised by larger bills.

City Attorney Jackson said state statute requires the city to assess every lot that potentially benefits from improvements and allows three commonly used methods for calculating assessments: linear frontage, square footage or equal shares per lot. Jackson told commissioners the developer’s petition established the calculation method used for the districts at issue.

“The statute requires that every lot that potentially benefits from the infrastructure improvements is assessed in an equitable way,” Jackson said.

Commissioners asked staff whether the commission could exclude a single subdivision from the ordinance at first reading or delay action. Staff said the petition and resolution reflect the calculation method and that changing the method would require time to recalculate and legal review; staff also noted statutory timelines for the 30-day pay window and subsequent bond sale. Commissioners discussed possible alternatives—including asking affected owners to sell extra lots so new owners would assume assessments—but did not adopt any exception.

The commission voted 5-0 to approve first reading of the special-assessment ordinance. The mayor called the roll for the vote: Commissioner Opelt — yes; Commissioner Motta — yes; Commissioner Minton — yes; Mayor McCullough — yes; Commissioner Adamczyk — yes.

Next steps and key dates listed by staff: a second reading of the ordinance is scheduled for Feb. 18; property owners who receive the second letter will have 30 days to pay off assessments (payment deadline cited as March 21); staff anticipates a bond sale in mid-May 2025; unpaid assessments will be amortized over 20 years and appear on November 2025 tax statements.

In response to residents’ questions about earlier estimates, staff said petition-based estimates are generally higher than final construction costs; final assessment amounts reflect construction bids plus contingencies and soft costs. Staff also noted that some petitions date to 2016 and 2019 and that a developer, not the city, chose the petition calculation method when the benefit districts were created.

The commission also carried routine consent business earlier in the meeting by a 5-0 roll call ahead of the public hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan City Commission Meeting 02/04/25 ","oneSentenceSummary","The Manhattan City Commission on Feb. 4 approved first reading of an ordinance to levy special assessments across 14 public improvement districts after a public hearing in which multiple property owners objected to calculation methods and notification timing.","taxTitle","Manhattan, Riley, Kansas","taxId",4219,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6343148,"Residents urge commission to retain longer public-comment periods and raise safety and inclusion concerns",1590,50750,1641280,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2252820-632f6f5ba9eade429b76adc646c8edcb&start=50&end=1641","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2252820-632f6f5ba9eade429b76adc646c8edcb/thumbnail_50750.jpg","/articles/6343148/Manhattan/Riley/Kansas/Residents-urge-commission-to-retain-longer-public-comment-periods-and-raise-safety-and-inclusion-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6343148-22394fc41047125a526eed709dbe2a10/orig.mp4?Expires=1775217477&Signature=omZKBvAaH2qAXWZpuaEzTOtFvdGf5~cWmGeWrvPgTvBamfJf11rbMEcWbzb5WuAWOeCqi62NKdH4cZhWXAhoQgOjOjTRpqmGRQj7D6MEGtBRTQ2fA4qj8PsFrXAnYrcUBwwiqoDFxEPKygNb7mwuJmO2A~YXoXmZqwDAqN5m9yxfaqs0b4ZfKnQMbkdZ7hpwBTN-YYfT3BfyOY0Rb8hhhHTSH-L-Te5NJm~pIYvyqwqfswqw6BbwF9ppaMlvfKRQ7JIJ1Mvg3CVzTd6v3ARrQ1ScSZQuFwH-0YbqgpxQJsnivGS89iWbaYYzuSQbo~AM-y1nRowsCwZP56P~KPhrYg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Manhattan City Commission heard more than a dozen public comments on Feb. 4 opposing a proposed rule change to shorten individual public-comment time from five minutes to three minutes and to cap public-comment segments at 30 minutes. Commenters also raised broader concerns about civic trust, local growth strategy and safety for migrants and nonwhite residents.

“Reducing it to three minutes starts to feel like you don't really want to hear from the public,” said Kathy Joweltowski, who gave her address as 100 South Delaware Avenue. Joweltowski said a previous limit of five minutes had been a reasonable compromise and warned a new cap could exclude people who decide to speak after the speaker list is full.

Amber Starling, who gave her address as 408 Houston Street, urged the commission to reconsider growth strategies that she said have left infrastructure in poor condition and to hold local partners to performance benchmarks. Starling criticized the commission’s outreach and said she and a team of younger supporters had been curtailed in earlier meetings when speaking time was reduced.

“Now it's three minutes with a 30-minute max,” Starling said, adding that controversial items have in the past drawn more than 30 speakers.

Several commenters urged the commission to address the impacts of dehumanizing language and policies on mental health. Katie Smith said hate speech and the dehumanization of immigrants are an early warning sign that a community may be preparing for violence and asked how the city would respond if vigilante or extremist actors appeared. “When fear and dehumanization take hold, this is the outcome,” Smith said.

Other speakers expressed concern about reduced opportunities for civic participation. David Chiboltowski said he supported making public comment more effective but opposed shrinking the time without first discussing engagement strategies on a work agenda. “I don't think eliminating public comment is a solution,” he said.

Mayor McCullough told speakers the commission planned further discussion: motions to consider shortening individual public comments to three minutes and capping segment lengths to 30 minutes will be considered at a Feb. 11 work session and at the Feb. 18 legislative session. Commissioner Adamczak said the commission had not yet adopted any policy and invited residents to bring thoughts to the Feb. 11 discussion.

Several commenters also raised local accountability issues tied to economic-development policy, the chamber of commerce and rec-center fees, with one speaker recounting past instances where commissioners truncated speakers’ time. Tessa Anderson (who gave a preferred name of Rowan) offered a broader critique of commissioners’ responsiveness and called for action to protect vulnerable residents.

The public-comment period closed after the mayor asked whether there were additional speakers; the commission moved on to its consent and public-hearing business afterwards.","Multiple residents used the public-comment period at the Feb. 4 Manhattan City Commission meeting to oppose a proposed change to shorten individual public comments from five minutes to three and to raise worries about community polarization, migrant-related threats and mental-health impacts.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission approves first reading to levy special assessments for 14 improvement districts

Residents urge commission to retain longer public-comment periods and raise safety and inclusion concerns