Board debates RHID housing tool as city moves forward; members seek shared criteria before voting

Board members devoted a lengthy portion of the May 20 meeting to the City of Manhattan—s recently passed resolution authorizing an RHID project and to broader local use of the Reinvestment Housing Incentive District tool.

Superintendent Eric Reed summarized staff work and said the city had submitted materials for a proposed RHID project; the board—s facilities and growth committee had heard a presentation, and the district had participated in a task force meeting with city and county representatives. Christine and Kristen (board representatives on the task force) reported differences between county and city RHID policies. The county prefers incentives targeted at lower-income AMI bands (about 60–80% AMI) and prefers infill development. The city is more open to projects that serve workforce housing (closer to median AMI) and to either infill or greenfield development. The two jurisdictions also differed on policy detail such as preferred RHID duration (the county favored shorter terms; the city said it would evaluate on a case-by-case basis).

Board members discussed the project now before city government (a package with multiple proposed developments). Several members said they wanted a boardwide, affirmative yes-or-no vote rather than leaving decisions to a three-member facilities-and-growth committee. Christine said the board has a 30-day window from May 20 to act if it intends to veto; members discussed scheduling a vote for the June 4 meeting or calling a special meeting.

Board discussion centered on these points: - Whether the price points in the proposed project (examples given in city materials showed market-rate figures well above traditional starter-home values) would truly serve the district—s workforce; some members questioned whether the homes proposed at roughly the city—s cited price would be affordable for teachers or typical district workers without additional subsidy. - Whether an RHID that freezes growth in property taxes for 10–20 years is acceptable given district revenue needs, especially for bond/interest and local option budget considerations. - Whether the board should favor infill projects (which avoid paying specials and reduce infrastructure costs) over greenfield sites. - The board—s limited staffing for detailed project review and a desire to provide earlier input to the city/county process so developers do not prepare proposals that local taxing entities will later reject.

Several members noted RHID is similar in concept to tax-increment or redevelopment financing: the district would continue to receive current tax receipts but defer growth in assessed value increments for a fixed period. Members asked staff to prepare a short list of recommended guiding principles that mirror the overlap (a Venn-style summary) of city and county policies and to present it at the next board meeting so the full board could give direction before the city and county finalize projects.

No final vote on the current project was taken May 20. Board members said they expected further discussion and a formal yes-or-no vote at the board—s June meeting or via a special session depending on timing; staff will coordinate with city and county staff to collect needed project detail.