Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tif Starbond topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners press for legal check after mixed messages on TIF/STAR bond veto power
Summary
Riley County commissioners urged staff to verify whether parcels tied to a proposed TIF/STAR Bond district are taxable after city and developers gave conflicting information; county counselor will confirm whether the county has a 30-day veto if the parcels are subject to ad valorem taxes.
Commissioners discussed a consultant proposal and the city’s pending action on a redevelopment district tied to tax increment financing (TIF) and STAR bonds, and asked county counsel to verify whether Riley County retains a 30-day veto over affected parcels.
Amanda Webb, the county Planning Director, said a consultant (Oleg Alba) provided a proposal at the request of Commissioner McKinley for help assessing the data-center and district proposal. Webb said she had no formal recommendation and asked the board whether to engage the consultant now or later.
Commissioners then debated whether the county would have veto authority if the district included privately held parcels that are subject to ad valorem taxes. One commissioner said city staff and bond counsel told them there was no private, taxable property in the district; another commissioner reported being told the opposite and pointed to GIS data listing one parcel under "KSU Real Estate Fund LLC" and generating ad valorem taxes.
County Counselor Jacob Hanson said the county's veto depends on whether property inside the district is privately owned and subject to ad valorem taxes. "We need to analyze the property," Hanson said, adding that if parcels are taxable and privately held the county may have a 30-day veto; if the parcels are tax-exempt then the county would likely have no veto. Hanson committed to a double-check and asked staff to report back before the city's vote.
Commissioners questioned city and developer representations and suggested retaining the consultant as a future resource while the county develops a policy for handling similar proposals. No formal action was taken on the consultant proposal at this meeting; commissioners asked staff to verify property tax status and clarify legal options.
Next steps: County Counselor will confirm whether parcels are subject to ad valorem taxes and whether the county’s 30-day veto applies; staff will report back to commissioners prior to the city's expected vote.
