Amanda Webb, planning director for Riley County, told commissioners that updated contractor bids for the proposed Stottle Sewer Benefit District have come in substantially higher than the estimates used when property owners first signed petitions.

The increase has put the county and the City of Riley at a crossroads over whether to proceed with parts A and B of the district, which were originally designed to allow a property owner to split a tract and to address at least one known failing private wastewater system in the area.

“The bids have gone up considerably — roughly double in a lot of situations,” Webb said, adding that Part C of the district is separate and can proceed independently but that the immediate conversation centered on A and B. “We need direction from you: do you want to keep moving forward given increased costs, the easement issue and the need to recirculate petitions?”

Brandy DeWitt, interim director of utilities for the city, said the city obtained actual construction bids this summer to replace older engineer estimates and that the low bidder identified construction challenges tied to the lack of an easement on what was originally Property 1. “If we did have easement on Property 1, they said it would probably reduce the cost, but not to a point where we wouldn’t still see substantial savings,” DeWitt said.

Why it matters: If the district does not win enough petition support at the higher assessment level, the county and city could be forced to consider compelling formation of the district on health-and-welfare grounds for properties with failing septic systems — a step that would require additional administrative and possible condemnation costs and would shift more direct costs and schedule risk to the public agencies.

How the proposal is structured: Webb and DeWitt explained the project has three parts. Parts A and B are linked geographically and were the focus because earlier owners who petitioned for A and B have since changed and at least one current owner has refused to grant an easement. Part C is independent and staff said it appears more financially “palatable” and that bids for C could be pursued separately.

Costs and examples: Staff provided assessment examples from the as-bid summaries. For example, a property at 300 Johnson Road would face an estimated single share assessment near $8,700 and an estimated annual assessment (if financed) of about $641. By contrast, multiple parcels owned by another owner (the MOD properties) showed higher per-parcel annual assessments approaching $2,600, reflecting the way shares and financing were apportioned in the as-bid totals.

Property and public-health context: Webb noted one parcel within parts A and B that has a documented wastewater system failure and has been maintained by periodic pumping; staff also said some parcels have two structures on a single system or nonresidential uses that make future redevelopment more likely and therefore increase the public benefit of providing sewer.

Options presented: Staff said they can (a) recirculate petitions at the higher assessment levels and see whether owners will still support the project, (b) pursue a forced formation on health-and-welfare grounds if sufficient no votes appear, or (c) discontinue parts A and B and let staff and property owners pursue alternative solutions. DeWitt warned that pursuing condemnation or forced easements would add time and costs.

Next steps: Commissioners did not commit to forcing the district during the discussion. Staff said they would take direction from the commission about whether to recirculate petitions, pursue informal outreach (a “straw poll”) to gauge current owner support, or stop work on parts A and B and proceed with part C petitions.

Ending: Staff noted the city has spent approximately $40,000 on preliminary design and that plans would be ready if the project resumes, but emphasized that escalating construction prices and the unresolved easement on the original parcel are the principal obstacles to moving parts A and B forward now.