Raymond James presents mixed financial picture for proposed Riverbend Heights RHID; board asks for more analysis

Greg Varenberg of Raymond James told the Lansing School Board that an RHID could produce both revenue the district might capture and costs the district would need to plan for.

Varenberg said the RHID could “capture revenue from inside the RHID that would impact money that would be used for the district for operating cost,” and that the district could also see increased state aid for certain existing bond repayment formulas if additional students enroll while the RHID’s assessed valuation is excluded from the tax rolls.

That potential gain is limited, Varenberg emphasized, to how the state calculates aid for pre-2015 bond issues and capital outlay; he told the board that “increased state aid in the bond and interest fund cannot be used for anything other than repayment of bonds.” He also warned that added students could increase classroom and operating costs and could, in an extreme case, force the district to consider a bond election for more space.

Public commenters gave sharply different views. John Redden, a public commenter, disputed the developer’s contention that the project would solve the district’s revenue gap and said the per‑pupil state subsidy “is significantly less than the actual cost to educate each additional student.” Harlan Russell, a Lansing resident with site‑development experience, supported the RHID as a time‑limited tool to spur housing growth and said more homes could broaden the tax base.

Board members asked detailed questions about the Raymond James calculations and the timetable. Varenberg described his firm’s numbers as illustrative, using assumptions such as $300,000 average home value, 417 homes built at 52 homes per year, and an example 80% capture of allowable revenues over a 20‑year period. Using those assumptions he showed an example in which roughly $10.2 million could be captured inside the RHID and about $2.0 million would flow to the district over the 20 years; he stressed those figures were illustrations, not firm projections.

After the presentation the board agreed to a next step: provide Raymond James with the district’s demographer/market study (RSP Associates) so Raymond James can produce a more complete analysis that incorporates enrollment projections and facility capacity. Board member Amy asked that the district provide RSP’s information “as soon as we possibly get it so that that way we can have up to date information and analysis from them,” and Greg answered, “We can run those calculations, fairly quickly if we have the data.”

The board and presenters repeatedly framed the numbers as dependent on several variables outside the district’s control, including statewide assessed valuation per pupil and enrollment timing. Varenberg recommended the board evaluate impacts within the 30‑day window that follows city action on the development plan; he noted the city’s development plan was scheduled for public presentation on July 17 (city process), which would start the clock for county and school protest rights.

The board did not take a formal vote on RHID approval at the meeting; instead it sought further analysis and directed staff to share RSP demographic materials with Raymond James.