Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chamber asks Riley County Commission to delay RHID policy, seek flexibility on income guidelines and TIF term
Summary
A Chamber representative urged the Riley County Commission to slow or postpone a newly drafted RHID policy, citing limited stakeholder input, divergent income limits with the city, and the county's shorter proposed tax increment financing term.
Tom Phillips, representing the Chamber's Business Abbesses Committee, asked the Riley County Commission on Feb. 13 to delay action on a recently drafted RHID policy to allow more stakeholder input.
“This policy will impact” local businesses and developers, Phillips said, asking the commission to “table it or delay it so that you have an opportunity to hear from other interested stakeholders in the city and in the county.” He said committee chair Stacy Kollmeier could not attend and that Jason Smith, the chamber’s executive director, and other board members were present.
Phillips identified three specific requests: more time for stakeholder engagement; greater flexibility in application decisions so commissioners are not unduly constrained by prescriptive policy language; and reconsideration of income eligibility and tax increment financing (TIF) term limits. He said the policy’s income guidelines are set “at about 80% of the average median income,” while the city’s comparable guideline is much lower — “20… maybe 30% of the average median income,” according to his remarks — a difference he said would make some housing products harder to build.
On the TIF term, Phillips noted state law allows a 25-year TIF period but that the county draft proposes 10 years. He asked the commission to consider allowing a longer or more flexible TIF window so applicants and the county have additional options.
Commissioners did not take formal action on the request during the public comment period. The RHID policy remained an item under commission consideration later in the meeting; no vote on policy adoption was recorded during the Feb. 13 session.
