Leavenworth County reviews draft RHID policy, seeks earlier city notice

Leavenworth County commissioners on Tuesday reviewed a staff-drafted policy that would guide county response to proposed Reinvestment Housing Incentive Districts, or RHIDs, a state-authorized tool that redirects incremental tax revenue to pay for infrastructure in areas targeted for housing development.

The draft policy requires cities to provide proposed RHID materials to the county at least 15 days before the city’s public hearing — a timeline staff said would give the county a minimum of 45 days to review proposals — and creates a presumption that insufficient notice will be treated as adverse to county interests. The policy also lists factors the county would weigh, including potential loss of tax revenue, increases in demand for public services, feasibility of the development without RHID funding, developer track record, whether RHID boundaries are contiguous, overlap with other incentives and whether the term exceeds a presumption threshold for the county.

County staff described the RHID program as a state-law process that begins with a housing assessment and a city resolution finding an ongoing shortage of housing; the resolution triggers a review by state officials before a district plan and local ordinance or resolution are adopted. Staff cited the statutory maximum RHID term of 25 years and said the draft policy would treat RHIDs longer than 15 years as presumptively adverse to county interests. Staff also noted that under the statute a county or a school board may block an RHID if it finds an adverse effect.

John (staff member) told commissioners the draft is modeled in part on policies developed by Sedgwick and Riley counties and is “intended to set forth the criteria that will be used to evaluate RHIDs in the future.” He said the draft would require the 15‑day pre‑hearing submittal from a city so the county has adequate time to evaluate impacts.

Legal counsel Mark and other staff answered questions about procedural details and statutory timelines. Mark explained the approval-by-inaction rule for the county and school boards: “So inaction would be an approval of the RHID,” a point several commissioners raised as a reason to require earlier, clearer notice from cities.

Commissioners debated whether RHIDs are appropriate where private development is already occurring without subsidies. Commissioner Mike questioned why the county would subsidize developers in parts of the county where subdivisions are already being built, noting the effect abatements have on other taxpayers. Other commissioners pressed staff on whether the draft should require an economic impact or feasibility study and on how notification to the county should be delivered (for example, certified mail, which some commissioners contrasted with the statutory notice method).

Staff answered specific technical questions: the draft contemplates an economic risk assessment overseen by Living North County staff and includes financial review items such as private equity in a project, total project cost, number of units, and whether other funding sources are available. Staff said the RHID statute number they relied on is KSA 12‑5241 and related sections, and that statutory review by state officials — the office named in the memo — remains part of the process.

After discussion commissioners asked staff to draft any desired changes and return the RHID policy as an agenda item in two weeks for further review and possible action.

Ending: The board did not take a final vote on the draft RHID policy. Staff said they would update the draft to reflect commissioners’ feedback (including a clearer notification method) and return it to the board as an agenda item in two weeks.