Developer explains RHID tool as board begins study of housing incentives

Ross Vogel, a consultant with Heartland Housing Partners, spoke to the Leavenworth Unified School District Board of Education on June 9 about reinvestment housing incentive districts, a state-authorized tool that captures future property-tax revenue from a redeveloped site to reimburse infrastructure and related costs.

Vogel told the board that RHIDs have been available since 1998 and have seen increased use in the last seven to eight years. He described the core mechanism this way: a property’s real-estate tax base grows after development; the jurisdiction continues to receive the pre-development tax amount while the additional tax revenue can be used to reimburse the developer for infrastructure and eligible costs. “The additional $900 would be reimbursed to that developer to help offset those infrastructure costs,” Vogel said in an example comparing current tax at $100 and future tax at $1,000.

Board members treated the presentation as informational but discussed next steps. Board member Reed said she called the presentation to make sure the board would not be “blindsided” if an RHID proposal reached the district and urged trustees to study the issue before any formal proposal arrives. Reed asked staff to gather information and stakeholder feedback and suggested the district prepare a written policy laying out how the board would want to be contacted and what information it would need if an RHID were proposed. Superintendent Dr. Adams and district staff agreed to bring draft policy language and examples back to the board for future meetings.

Board members raised recurring concerns about whether RHIDs reduce tax revenue to the school district, how long reimbursement periods commonly run, and how closely projects are vetted. Vogel said RHIDs in communities like Leavenworth often run up to 25 years in smaller places, and might be closer to 20 years in a community of Leavenworth’s size, but he noted Leavenworth County officials had indicated they were “averse to anything 15 years” while remaining open to project-by-project discussions. Vogel also explained that state law allows certain downtown, multistory rehabilitation and pre-existing infrastructure to be counted as eligible costs under more recent legislative changes.

The board asked staff to collect tax-impact examples from neighboring communities that have used RHIDs and to provide comparisons showing real-life splits of captured taxes, developer returns and school-district revenue impacts under typical scenarios. Trustee Price specifically requested presentation material focused on the tax impacts — “Will the school district lose money? Will the city lose money? Will the county lose money?” — and asked staff to include local examples and the Lansing study referenced during the meeting.

The discussion included community and policy considerations: Reed said projects can bring additional housing that may increase student enrollment and said she has seen RHIDs become a primary economic-development tool in nearby jurisdictions. Other trustees emphasized that any board response should be deliberative and public. The board did not vote on RHID authority at the meeting; instead, staff agreed to return with draft policy and analysis for future board consideration.