The Lawrence City Commission on Aug. 12 voted to authorize the city manager to execute a development agreement with the University of Kansas for the KU Gateway project — a multi-phase plan that includes stadium renovations, a conference center, a hotel, student housing and related infrastructure — and took the first-step votes on three financing tools that would help fund the development.

The measures matter because they allow KU and private developers to access special financing tools — STAR bonds, a community improvement district (CID) sales tax and tax increment financing (TIF) — that together, under the terms presented, would cover a capped portion of an approximately $800 million project while the university and private partners supply the larger share of capital and construction. City staff and the university described the package as a partnership that links state STAR bond support, a CID levy and TIF proceeds to public infrastructure and a conference center intended to draw out‑of‑town visitors.

City bond counsel Kevin Wimpey of Gilmore & Bell presented the financing overview for the commission, describing a project budget “close to $800,000,000” and saying the city’s maximum exposure under the development agreement is roughly $94.6 million (about 12% of the total). He said the agreement includes a working threshold figure of about $86,000,000; if bond proceeds used by the university exceed that threshold, proceeds over the threshold would be split 50–50 with the city and could be applied to additional infrastructure. Wimpey and city staff said STAR bond repayment would be primarily supported by state sales tax revenues, with the city contributing an estimated portion of captured local sales tax. He also described a CID that would levy an additional 2% local sales tax within the district for up to 22 years and TIF proceeds that the commission has agreed may be pledged as general obligation bonds to raise additional proceeds for stormwater and street projects.

KU and its development partners presented the project’s components and economic case. KU representatives described Phase 1 as the completed conference center and work on the stadium that will be in use for the upcoming football season; Phase 2 was described as the east‑side redevelopment including a full‑service hotel (about 150 rooms), roughly 443 student beds in apartment‑style housing, 43,000 square feet of retail/restaurant space, and structured parking on a two‑level parking podium with apartments above. KU’s presenter said the university expects a total economic impact of roughly $1.9–2.0 billion statewide over 20 years, direct spending in the hundreds of millions, and nearly $28 million in incremental city sales tax revenue over 20 years in addition to increased property tax revenues after development of formerly exempt parcels.

Key public commitments in the development agreement and project plan materials described to the commission include:
- A $14.5 million allocation of TIF bond proceeds for stormwater, parking and related public infrastructure near the project site; city staff said the city has “first rights” to those proceeds for specified improvements.
- An affordable housing commitment from KU of $4,000,000 in funds or equivalent value (through real estate or other means) to be provided before bond issuance; failure to perform would reduce KU’s right to bond proceeds commensurately.
- A condition that KU establish an off‑campus housing office to work with neighbors; commissioners amended the agreement on the dais so the city expects that office to be established and operational within 18 months (the draft said 24 months).
- A cap on total city‑accessible bond proceeds (the $94,600,000 cap described above) and conditions precedent to issuance (evidence of complete capital stack, GMP contracts and other items investors would expect).

The commission conducted three statutorily required public hearings (STAR bond project plan, TIF project plan, and establishment and levy of the CID). Public comment mixed neighborhood concerns about noise, traffic, parking, and inclusion of students in the process with endorsements from local business and tourism interests. Speakers opposing or urging delay emphasized: incomplete community advisory committee (CAC) deliverables, potential impacts of concerts and amplified sound on surrounding neighborhoods, parking and traffic mitigation, and possible effects on housing affordability and students. Supporters — including Explore Lawrence, Downtown Lawrence Inc. and the Lawrence Chamber of Commerce — said the conference center and hotel would help attract weekday and out‑of‑town business and benefit downtown businesses.

Votes taken after the hearings and subsequent discussion (all votes below are the recorded first‑reading or resolution votes taken Aug. 12):
- Resolution authorizing execution of the KU Gateway development agreement (Resolution No. 7620): passed 5–0 (motion by Commissioner Finkelstein, second by Commissioner Littlejohn). The motion on the dais included two amendments: (1) change the off‑campus housing office implementation timeline from 24 months to 18 months and (2) add language requiring “good‑faith discussions” with neighborhoods and the city on concert sound and related operating issues prior to full operations.
- Ordinance No. 10155, approving the STAR bond project plan (first reading; two‑thirds required for final adoption under state law): first reading passed 4–1 (Commissioners Larson, Finkelstein, Littlejohn and Devor voted yes; Commissioner Sellers voted no).
- Ordinance No. 10156, approving the TIF project plan (first reading): passed 5–0.
- Ordinance No. 10157, establishing the Community Improvement District and levying a 2% CID sales tax within the district (first reading): passed 3–2 (yes: Finkelstein, Littlejohn, Devor; no: Larson, Sellers).
- Resolution of intent to issue industrial revenue bonds (IRBs) for purposes of sales‑tax exemption on construction materials for hotel and multifamily development: passed 5–0.

City staff and KU representatives said additional revenue and feasibility analyses would be completed before any bonds are issued and that the city retains final discretion on financing terms and bond sizing. Bond sale decisions, they said, are contingent on conditions precedent in the agreement (capital stack, contractor GMPs, and revenue studies). For STAR bonds specifically, city counsel and staff noted the state Department of Commerce must sign off and that the state typically expects the city to identify all local contributions and revenue sources that would be available to the financing plan.

Neighborhood groups and several commissioners pressed KU and its operators to include enforceable noise and event limits, clearer parking mitigation (several speakers asked for assurance that parking promised for displaced lots would be delivered), and stronger, explicit protections for neighborhood traffic calming. KU and Oak View Group (OVG) representatives said they would work with the city and neighborhood representatives, perform additional noise and traffic studies, and return with monitoring and mitigation plans; the commission included a requirement for ongoing dialogue in the development agreement and directed staff to present clean‑up language prior to final ordinance readings.

Commissioner Sellers and others who voted no or raised concerns said they supported economic development but were not satisfied with the CID tax structure or had open questions on noise and neighborhood impacts. Commissioners who voted yes said the agreement gives the city tools and leverage to secure neighborhood benefits (stormwater, affordable housing dollars, off‑campus housing services and traffic/street improvements) that would not be available if the city did not approve the financing package.

Next steps: Because the STAR and TIF ordinances require supermajority votes under state law, the measures will return for second reading; staff will present finalized ordinance language, any technical clean‑ups and additional documentation on the financing and conditions precedent prior to final votes. Additional revenue consultant work will be done before any bond issuance and the city retains authority over bond terms, sizing and timing.