Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for legal clarity on Champions Gate TIF and Star Bond veto power
Summary
Riley County commissioners debated whether parcels tied to the Champions Gate development are taxable and whether the county retains a 30‑day veto on TIF/Star Bond approvals; conflicting statements from city staff and county counsel led to a request for legal research.
Riley County commissioners spent a large portion of their June 15 meeting discussing a proposal tied to the K‑State Edge/Champions Gate development and whether the county possesses any veto or review power over tax increment financing (TIF) or STAR bond tools tied to the project.
Amanda Webb, Riley County planning director, presented a consultant proposal from Oleg Alba at a commissioner’s request; she offered no recommendation and asked the commission how to proceed. Commissioners expressed interest in the consultant’s expertise but questioned the cost and whether hiring him would alter the county’s legal position.
The discussion shifted to whether certain parcels associated with the project are held by “KSU Real Estate Fund LLC” and whether those parcels are subject to ad valorem taxes. Several commissioners reported conflicting information from city staff and bond counsel: one staffer told commissioners some parcels were taxable (listed under an LLC), while others had been told the properties were K‑State property and tax‑exempt. County Counselor Jacob Hanson said the county’s veto power depends on whether privately held, taxable property is implicated; if the parcels are not subject to ad valorem taxation, the county’s 30‑day veto provision would not apply.
Commissioners asked staff to double‑check parcel records, request attorney names used by the developer, and verify whether tax collections and exemptions are in effect. Multiple commissioners described the issue as time‑sensitive because city approvals and filing windows create a short period for county review.
No formal action was taken; commissioners directed county counsel and staff to research the tax status of the parcels and report back. Several commissioners said they would keep the consultant proposal on file as a potential future resource.
