Riley County commissioners review proposed RHID policy, urge detailed affordability metrics

Riley County commissioners discussed a draft RHID (Residential Housing Incentive District) policy during the Dec. 12 meeting, with county staff and the county counselor urging clearer definitions of affordability, limits on term and tax capture, and earlier city-county communication before the county's 30-day review period.

Budget and planning officer Britney Phillips introduced the RHID concept and the draft policy the county planning team adapted from another county. She told commissioners that an RHID captures incremental increases in property tax revenue above a locked-in base for a limited term (up to 25 years in the draft) to reimburse developers for project-related costs. Phillips summarized the statutory process: the city establishes a district, holds public hearings and a resolution/ordinance, then the city sends its action to the state Department of Commerce and the county and school district each have 30 days to respond.

County counselor Jacob Hansen walked commissioners through the draft policy's preferred standards, highlighting section 3 (policy statement) and section 6(e), which states the county's preference to use RHID incremental taxes to reimburse developers for upfront infrastructure expenses rather than to replace special assessments or pay special revenue bonds. Hansen said the draft emphasizes preferences such as favoring urban infill over sprawl, prioritizing affordable housing, and setting predetermined RHID term and amount limits. He recommended that commissioners expect specific project proposals from the city before the county's 30-day review and asked the commission to adopt objective affordability thresholds (for example, percentages of area median income) to guide decisions.

Commissioners and staff discussed a number of outstanding items: what affordability means in practice (possible use of AMI percentages and a 30% housing cost-to-income benchmark were mentioned), the need for a minimum data set from cities when seeking the county's approval, and how bundled city proposals would be handled (staff said each project would be reviewed separately). Several commissioners asked staff to produce additional local housing market numbers (AMI, median prices) and to return with a refined policy and the city's housing study for more targeted discussion after the holidays.

No binding action was taken at the meeting; staff were directed to collect additional affordability metrics, refine the draft policy's numeric thresholds and minimum data requirements, and return with the city housing study for further consideration. County counsel flagged that while the county seeks more information and earlier communication, the statutory timeline requires county response within 30 days after the city concludes required public hearings and transmits its action to the Department of Commerce.