Voters will decide Nov. 4 who will fill three positions on the Manhattan City Commission.
The two candidates with the most votes will receive four-year terms, while the third-place finisher receives a two-year term.
The nine candidates are incumbent Jayme Minton, 39, a Meadowlark employee; incumbent Peter Oppelt, 37, a veteran and Travelers Insurance employee; Larry Fox, 71, former K-State Foundation director of real estate; Jim Morrison, 78, a retired Manhattan attorney; Scott Seel, 42, an Alliance Realty employee; Amber Starling, 32, founder and owner of Good Witch Cleaning Services; Martha Sweeney, 65, office manager for the K-State rowing team; Abena Taylor, 27, an administrative office specialist at K-State; and Andrew Von Lintel, 42, a Big Lakes Developmental Services employee.
The Mercury provided every candidate with a list of questions covering current issues and their plans for office. Their answers are listed in alphabetical order. Responses are edited for space.
The election is non-partisan. Advance voting closes at noon Nov. 3. Election Day is Nov. 4.
Why are you running? What makes you the best person for the job?
Fox: I would bring a significant level of residential and commercial property development experience to the commission, plus experience working with the city and KSU. I don’t agree that our economy is stagnant. We have experienced a significant amount of residential and commercial development over the last decade. I have issues with the concept of a shortage of workforce housing and the approaches that are being taken to address that lack of workforce housing. I’m opposed to tax abatements for residential development; limited abatements for commercial development are warranted. Every tax abatement granted adds pressure to raising the mill levy.
Minton: I am running to bring growth-oriented leadership and vision to our city’s priorities. The city commission of previous years has not been focused on the growth of Manhattan or invested in a way that ensures the city’s sustainable future. In the last 16 months on the city commission, I have shown a great understanding of our city budgets and processes. I am a firm believer in a nonpartisan commission and base all decisions on facts, processes and procedures for the good of Manhattan. I am future-focused, diligent and investigative.
Morrison: I decided to run for city commission because there needed to be an adjustment in its focus on spending and taxes. Street conditions showed evidence of mis-assessment of maintenance and repair needs to the point of excessive budget impact, similar to some Park and Rec programs. I practiced law here for 53 years from 1971 to 2023. I served as county attorney, founder of Meadowlark Hills, Manhattan-Ogden Public Schools Foundation and the Greater Manhattan Community Foundation. I have consistently participated in the area through 4-H, Scouts, Habitat for Humanity, the Breadbasket and church. My children were raised and educated here.
Oppelt: I am running for several reasons. The first time I ran was because I was tired of seeing politicians serve unopposed for decades. I believe that you shouldn’t complain without being willing to help, so I found a position I could serve in. The last two years have been an honor and we have started down a path towards sustained success. We hired a new city manager and implemented plans for several long-term goals that will help our financial position be more stable and provide a vibrant, safe place for folks to live. I’d like to continue working on those.
Seel: I’m running because I care deeply about Manhattan — not just the city it is today, but the city it can become. I bring real experience in housing, budgeting and planning, and I’m focused on results, not politics. I’ve served on key committees, led collaborative efforts and know how to navigate tough decisions. I’ll bring a steady hand, open mind and commitment to doing the work that matters — with no ego, just action.
Starling: Before moving here, I was a journalist and volunteer firefighter/teacher. I learned to love research; be calm; observant under extreme stress; educate others. I founded Good Witch Cleaning Services. In 8 years, I went from solo cleaner to living-wage employer with over $1 million in payroll/benefits to this community, featured in national business magazines and graduated from the SBA Emerging Leaders program. I co-founded and finance the Free Store, a thrift store where everything costs $0. I live in Northview. I’m working class. My platform is data driven; human first; needs over wants; townies over tourists; and sustainability.
Sweeney: I’ve been proud to call Manhattan home since moving here in 2003 with my husband Patrick, then-newly appointed as head coach for K-State Women’s Rowing. It’s where we raised our daughter, built lasting friendships and where I’ve spent the past 20-plus years as the office and operations manager for the women’s rowing team. Now, I want to give back to the place that’s provided so much to me and my family. As commissioner, and in the best interests of our city, my decision-making would prioritize listening — and hearing — the perspectives of all constituents regarding the issues that affect them.
Taylor: I am running because I didn’t feel like I was being heard. We as citizens were asked something, yet, after expressing no interest, the very thing was still being pursued. I’ve come to realize that if I wanted to see something change then I would have to do it myself. I am the best person for this job because I’m running to bring fresh ideas to this city that will help us grow without taking from our citizens.
Von Lintel: I have always loved Manhattan since arriving in 2001 but I am growing increasingly worried about our town’s financial future. I want to see significant changes in how we operate, with financial discipline becoming a core value. I think my best gift for the city will be a focus on reducing debt. My career at Big Lakes has helped strengthen my patience, observation and listening skills, all of which will be required to do this job. My first real job out of college was as a personal financial advisor, and of course that will help too.
What is the biggest problem facing Manhattan, and how would you address it?
Fox: Keeping Manhattan affordable to live here while sustaining our quality of life. Our property valuations have steadily increased over the years despite steady growth in the supply of housing (350 units/year over the last 10 years) and commercial development, resulting in higher property taxes. Our current commissioners have increased our mill levy by 5.5 mills, or 11.3% over the last two budget cycles. I would work to reign in the city’s budget growth and stop approving residential tax abatements so that our tax base has a chance to grow proportionately with the increase in the city’s budget.
Minton: Manhattan’s issue is that our financial burden continues to rise while our population remains stagnant. We must expand our tax base through smart growth: more citizens, businesses and visitors. Without growth, we risk our services, infrastructure and quality of life. Current strategy is to work within city limits to develop underused property by adding housing, businesses and jobs. Manhattan’s future growth strategy must consider annexation of property outside existing city limits for commercial and industrial use. As commissioners, we must set this vision and support policies allowing Manhattan to compete with other communities for businesses and industry.
Morrison: The biggest problem depends on who you ask, but the following are the most stated: property tax excess; roads/streets; and budgeting for needs (too much spent on “wants”). The above issues need to be the focus of the commission and there need to be clear instructions to staff to change. All phases of decision making need to be evaluated, to include spending.
Oppelt: Manhattan is facing an identity crisis. We have depended on Fort Riley and KSU for decades, but that has begun to stall our growth. If we are to grow our population, we will need diverse employers who can provide real careers to people here. There are some who say we should just stay the way we are right now. If that happens, we have to be OK with shouldering the increasing cost to deliver city services, or decide that we will cut more and more as costs increase and revenue stagnates. I think we can grow without losing our charm.
Seel: Housing is one of Manhattan’s biggest challenges. We’ve spent years identifying the problem — now it’s time to act. As a realtor and housing advocate, I’ve helped push for smart, strategic solutions, including using incentives where they’re truly needed. We need more of every kind of housing — rental, workforce, senior and starter homes. The city has a role in affordability, especially where the market falls short. We must improve zoning, streamline processes, and focus on growth that strengthens neighborhoods and opportunity.
Starling: Many problems are piling up — rising costs, shrinking population, low trust in government, high poverty, food insecurity, minimal working-class housing, dead-end jobs. Slashing taxes will neglect infrastructure, eliminate services, staff, quality of life, but not fix these problems. High taxes are a symptom: the cause? Lack of strategic planning. Emergencies require triage. Short-term: stabilize taxes with budget cuts/reallocation, use vouchers to help taxpayers. Mid-term: grow population and tax base, keep senior independent using ADUs. Build housing for Amazon, PTMW and Torgeson employees. Mixed use is most profitable — main floor stores, apartments above. Expand downtown/Aggieville with mixed-use workforce housing.
Sweeney: While there exist a number of challenging issues for our city — among them: stagnant growth that impacts costs for services and over-burdens taxpayers, frustrations with the pace and lastingness of repairs and maintenance to our existing infrastructure — I believe the greatest problem is the availability and quality of affordable workforce housing. Addressing this issue would help attract and retain needed workers to allow our businesses to thrive and would increase the tax base and local spending. I am a proponent of mixed-use and medium-density housing projects within the city limits, with an emphasis on revitalization of existing buildings.
Taylor: The biggest problem is the increasing costs yet mismanagement of the city budget. There’s a lot we could do right as a city that would still not motivate some people to stay because the costs are higher some places, sure, but there is also more to do there. We need to correct our spending and bring the benefits of those better decisions to Manhattanites. Citizens need to feel like their city cares about them.
Von Lintel: Taxes and debt are the two main issues that are working together to harm the city. On May 15, 2025, the city had $170 million of general obligation bonds. We are expected to pay $6.6 million of interest on those bonds in 2026. To put it in comparison, our streets sales tax is raising approximately $3.1 million per year. Our citizens are currently under assault from property taxes and inflation. Appraisals shoot up, but it doesn’t mean our citizens have increased their salaries or pensions. Reducing our interest payments is the key.
Was the tax rate set by the city this year too high? If so, what would you cut from the budget? If not, what do you say to a homeowner whose tax bill is up by double digits?
Fox: Yes, it was too high. The city manager initially recommended a budget that resulted in a mill levy that was the same as last year (53.109). The current commissioners chose to override her recommendation and increase the mill levy by 1.35 mills (to 54.459) so they could provide city staff with COLA raises. The money for that increase could have come from excess sales tax revenue the city generated last fall and very likely will generate again this fall. However, four of the five commissioners chose to extract that additional money from the property taxpayers.
Minton: Our financial burden, including the tax rate of all entities, continues to be the central issue facing Manhattan. It is the unfortunate reality that previous year’s expenditures and spending outpaced revenues, resulting in our current financial burden. The expenses needed to sustain our current services, infrastructure and quality of life will continue to be costly until Manhattan grows its economy and tax base. Deep slashes in funding now will only destabilize Manhattan and not provide a safe or sustainable community. It is critical that expenses and spending are purposefully managed for city services and Riley County Police Department.
Morrison: The tax rate set this budget year was too high. The specific cuts were presented by the city manager and the commissioners did not follow such recommendation. What I would say to taxpayers who say the taxes are too high is to change the commission by voting for three new commissioners who are not spenders on “wants.”
Oppelt: I completely understand when a homeowner shares concern about their property tax bill. Valuation has risen far faster than the rate of inflation and everyone who owns a home sees exactly what their increase is when they get their bill every year. I don’t think our decision to approve an increase was reckless, but when it’s added on to every other bill, it starts to hurt. As a commissioner, I have and will continue to work to ensure that those dollars are spent wisely and effectively to deliver a level of service that we all expect from our government.
Seel: Most of this year’s tax increase came from RCPD budgets, which the city is legally required to accept. Every dollar the city spends should reflect community priorities — that means intentional budgeting. I support keeping taxes manageable while funding essential services like roads, safety and housing. Rising tax bills are frustrating, and we owe residents transparency. We must evaluate spending, tie it to measurable outcomes and avoid short-term decisions that create long-term costs. Instead of across-the-board cuts, I’d focus on aligning spending with what delivers real value — and holding ourselves accountable when it doesn’t. That’s responsible, community-centered leadership.
Starling: People are getting taxed out of their homes: of course taxes are too high. We must both cut/redistribute expenses and increase revenue. Cuts/Redistribute: Redirect Parks and Rec special sales tax from new facilities to maintaining existing infrastructure. Reduce funding to the chamber, who can compensate with corporate sponsorships/donations. Be choosier about who gets tax abatements/incentives. Increase: Grow tax base. Develop mixed-use buildings that produce housing and tax revenue. Enter into PILOT agreements with colleges, churches and non-profits to recoup public safety expenses. Taxpayers subsidize their police and fire expenses, and we need them to pitch in.
Sweeney: The Mercury recently reported that our ”property tax rate (is) middling among major Kansas cities.” This fact does not make it any easier to accept the 13.6% property tax increase for the average homeowner in 2025, nor the 7.7% increase for 2026. Residents on a fixed income in particular feel the burden of these sharp increases. Yes, prices for everything are up, and yes, Manhattan has the additional challenge that a significant proportion of our properties are tax-exempt. Still, I believe a revenue-neutral tax policy, allowing for inflation adjustment, should be the aim of a responsible city commission.
Taylor: As a citizen feeling the results of the tax rate, yes it’s too high. I understand that the city is responsible for a lot and as elected officials we would have to see what area would affect our citizens the least when that time comes. One thing I think we could wait on, though, is park development.
Von Lintel: Yes, the tax rate was set too high. We increased tax revenues and still raised taxes. It is caused by a lot of bad decisions with excess spending and free giveaways. We had multiple opportunities to get fair value for our Aggieville land as one example. If we had received fair value for the land, it should have been worth about $2 million. Stop giving property tax abatements that are reducing our revenue as well. The biggest budget savings should be reducing our interest payment as we stop adding debt.
Do you support an indoor aquatics facility? If so, what would be the ideal location and elements of one?
Fox: I support an aquatics facility that is scaled down in scope to include only competition lanes, warm-up pool, dressing room facilities and a spectator area that could double as community space, which would significantly lower both the construction and operating costs of the facility. I would only build it if the costs of construction and an endowment for operating the facility were funded with philanthropic dollars. I would support a location in CiCo Park so the facility could augment the other sporting facilities currently in CiCo, and I would maintain the existing city park, CiCo and Northview swimming pools.
Minton: I cannot support the financial proposal for an indoor aquatics facility as it is currently presented. Property taxes would increase by 15 mills, or our sales tax rate would increase by .75%, plus user fees. The overall expense is not reasonable or necessary until we experience sustainable growth. That said, I will continue to support exploring alternative solutions and working with other private and public entities to meet our community’s needs.
Morrison: I do not support an indoor aquatic center when city staff dreams up a $60 million cost. This is a low priority for me. Such opinion could change only if the cost could be covered by gifts, to include a fund for maintenance and operation, and the dollar amount is 5 to 10 million. Where to place such aquatic center, if to be built, has not been properly explored.
Oppelt: As a voter, citizen and parent, I would love to have an indoor pool in Manhattan. My 9 year old loves to swim and it would be great to have a pool year-round. I also recognize the many health benefits for people of all ages and physical abilities a pool could provide. It’s important for us to also acknowledge the long-term financial liability we would be committing to. It will likely cost around $1 million/year in taxes to operate, even after user fees. A sales tax ballot question is not the perfect solution, but is likely the most democratic.
Seel: An indoor aquatics facility would be a great addition — but only if it’s done responsibly. Before moving forward, we need to make sure the community, USD 383 and K-State are true partners so the cost isn’t carried solely by taxpayers. The lessons learned from the Rec Centers and parking garage must guide us — no surprises down the road. The ideal location would be centrally accessible while preserving our neighborhood pools. It should serve all ages, from swim lessons to seniors’ fitness. Nice to have? Yes. But only if it’s financially sustainable long-term.
Starling: Not at this time, with this plan or under these economic conditions. The plan is a $60 million build with roughly $1 million annually in operating/maintenance costs. The special sales tax for Parks and Rec would triple from .25% to .75% with a subsidization of operating and maintenance expenses for the first 10 years. We have so much park acreage that we could grow by 9,600 people and still have the average parkland per resident. We must focus on infrastructure we need to sustain and grow population and not spend money on improving an already-lovely quality of life.
Sweeney: I would love for Manhattan to have an indoor Olympic-size swimming pool — the opportunity for exercise and sport/recreation is a very important quality-of-life factor. However, the city must be able to afford such a project without putting itself further into debt. I believe the design for a future indoor pool should prioritize lane swimming, as opposed to adding cost with extras such as lazy rivers, etc. If and when the city is in a financial position to do such a project, I would like to see the indoor pool situated next to the CiCo Park Waterpark.
Taylor: I absolutely do not support the indoor aquatics facility. It is not something many citizens have time or money for right now and most importantly our city cannot afford to make it happen, so it should not be considered until we are out of debt.
Von Lintel: Indoor aquatics would be a great idea for a financially healthy Manhattan. Unfortunately, we are not healthy. City just had to raise property tax to pay for a Cost of Living Adjustment for our employees. In this high debt and high tax environment, we have no business talking about $60 million more in debt. When the Parks special sales tax expires, I want it to be renewed for General Debt and Park Operations Maintenance Spending. For now, hopefully we can find some budget savings and make the Recreation Centers free again.