Commission hears detailed critique of indoor-aquatics survey plan as staff readies $19,000 contract with consultant

City staff and a retained survey consultant outlined plans on Sept. 2 to survey registered Manhattan voters about an indoor aquatic facility and broader SECO Park priorities; commissioners and residents pressed for clearer language, alternate cost scenarios and funding transparency.

Aaron (city parks staff) presented the draft questionnaire and said the city hired the ETC Institute to administer a stratified mail/online survey targeting 400 completed responses to achieve a 95% confidence level with a ±5% margin of error. He said the city will mail roughly 3,000 invitations to achieve that 400-sample target and that the city signed a contract with ETC for about $19,000. "The first question is: how many people are in your household just to get a sense," Aaron said as he reviewed the draft.

Jason Rondo of ETC Institute described administration steps and quality controls: "Our goal is to receive at least 400 completed surveys. As Aaron mentioned, we'll mail the survey to about 3,000 households... As we're getting surveys completed, we'll be checking the demographics of survey respondents. If we're not getting enough surveys from a certain group, we would do additional outreach to that group," Rondo said.

The draft asks respondents to weigh construction and operating scenarios for a notional $60 million facility, offering property tax and sales tax options with example impacts on households. Commissioners and public commenters repeatedly urged clearer, narrower wording and asked for smaller-cost alternatives. Commissioner feedback included requests to clarify that SECO Park is jointly owned by multiple entities, to separate high-level SECO Park priorities from a focused aquatics poll, and to present a range of facility sizes and amenity tradeoffs (for instance, lap/diving pools versus leisure elements such as lazy rivers).

Staff said the MoveMHK study influenced the $60 million estimate and that the survey's purpose is to test financial appetite and preferred funding mechanisms. Several residents urged presenting a lower-cost option and more precise operational assumptions; one resident recommended a two-stage approach: a high-level SECO Park priorities poll followed, if appropriate, by a focused pool-amenities and funding survey.

Rondo confirmed methodological safeguards to protect validity: households taking the online survey must provide a home address so results can be matched to the random sample; non-random responses would be reported separately and not used in the primary, statistically valid sample. He also confirmed that administration and analysis are included in the quoted cost and that the vendor will present findings in person as part of the contract.

City Manager Doolin told commissioners the contract was executed under the city manager's spending authority but that the commission could direct staff to stop the effort in open session if three commissioners so instruct. Staff said they will take the commission's feedback and return in October with a revised draft after briefings to the school board and Riley County Commission.

Public comment at the meeting reflected wide disagreement: some speakers supported an indoor pool as a quality-of-life investment, while many raised objections to proposed tax scenarios, questioned the $60 million figure, or urged postponement given other city budget pressures. No formal vote to place a ballot measure occurred at the Sept. 2 meeting; staff said the survey results would inform whether a ballot question should be considered next year.