Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Services And Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Atchison officials on sidewalks, tax‑exempt properties, animal control and solid‑waste fees at budget hearing
Summary
During the Atchison budget public hearing residents asked how the proposed mill levy and budget would affect sidewalks, rentals, tax‑exempt institutions, animal control capacity and county solid‑waste fees; staff explained state law, city programs and funding mechanisms.
Several residents raised service and equity concerns during the Atchison City Commission’s budget public hearing, asking how the proposed levy and budget would affect sidewalks, renters and city services.
Bruce, who identified himself as Reggie Regenstein of 133 Deer Run in Atchison County, asked whether the state legislature — and specifically his state representatives — were the only people who could address a revenue neutral rate increase. Mayor Mary Young and City Manager Mark Westoff told him the city sets the final mill levy locally. "We set the final mill levy here at the local level," Westoff said.
Kevin Eichelberger of 1012 Price Boulevard asked where sidewalk costs fall for properties without sidewalks. Westoff responded that "state law in Kansas is that sidewalks are the property owner's responsibility," and that the city operates a cost‑share program that can cover up to 50% of a sidewalk project depending on cost. He noted that the city pursues grant funding for larger sidewalk projects and cited North Fifth Street and Unity Street as upcoming projects that are largely grant‑funded.
A resident asked how the Raven Hills development (an RHID district) affects taxes. Westoff explained an RHID typically lets a private developer front infrastructure costs (streets, water, sewer) and capture the incremental tax revenue from that district until the developer’s investment is repaid; at that point the tax revenue reverts to the city’s general roll.
On animal control, a resident identified as Davidson asked what the city does for animal control. Westoff said the city has two full‑time animal control employees, that the shelter has capacity for about 15 dogs, and that the city cannot house cats or wild animals in its current facility. He said the 2026 budget increases the animal control line by about $10,000 to fund partnerships with spay/neuter clinics and to address feral and free‑roaming cat populations. Westoff also said the city’s annual contracted veterinary and related costs run roughly $34,000.
Several speakers also questioned a county solid‑waste fee formerly put to voters and the city’s practice of transferring funds from the solid‑waste enterprise to the general fund. Westoff explained the city transfers enterprise funds to offset shared administrative costs and credited the county fee vote with shifting some revenue away from the city. He said a transfer out of the solid‑waste fund included roughly $658,000 to cover costs shared across city services.
Public commenters asked about tax‑exempt properties and whether the city could capture revenue from institutions that do not pay property taxes. Westoff said many institutions that do not pay property taxes still use city services and that some municipalities use sales taxes to capture revenue from non‑property‑taxpaying users, citing examples elsewhere in Kansas.
No changes to the proposed levy or budget were made during the hearing; the commission subsequently adopted the resolution and budget. Several residents thanked officials for holding the open forum.
