Showing an amazing lack of concern for the many Lawrence residents who are unhappy over the city’s financial dealings on Rock Chalk Park, city commissioners on Tuesday approved payment of the final bill associated with infrastructure costs at the facility.

The payment was not included on the agenda that is provided to the public and news media and might have gone unnoticed, at least for now, if a Journal-World reporter hadn’t seen a Kansas University Endowment Association staff member at the meeting and started asking some questions. The disputed bill for various fees associated with the project was approved along with other claims — which usually aren’t detailed until after approval.

Bright and early Wednesday morning, City Manager David Corliss said that even though the payment of fees was approved, that payment would not be made until after commissioners have a chance to discuss the issue at their Dec. 16 meeting. That also will give the public an opportunity to see a report that commissioners were sent before Tuesday’s meeting but was not posted as part of the agenda.

The initial payment for about $1.09 million in legal fees, interest costs and other “soft costs” of the project was pulled from the larger infrastructure payment made Nov. 18. After examining those costs, city officials determined that some of those costs weren’t the city’s responsibility and reduced the payment by about $157,000. That information was conveyed to city commissioners but not specifically to the public.

Commenting on the situation, Corliss said it wasn’t clear the report needed to be part of the commission’s agenda packet. “Our response is that the people who are paying the bill had the information,” he said.

If Corliss doesn’t wish he could take that statement back, he should. The “people who are paying this bill” are the taxpayers of Lawrence; commissioners are only their agents in this matter.

Giving local residents additional time to examine the city’s report probably won’t result in any changes in this payment, and, in the big scheme of this project, $157,000 is a drop in the bucket anyway. But the idea that the city manager and city commissioners would approve this bill before giving the public an adequate opportunity to see the report on which that payment was based seems like a final insult to taxpayers concerning the controversial financing arrangements for this project.