Commission hears LCDC update, debates withdrawing from county EDC and moving economic development in-house

At a Leavenworth City Commission study session, Lisa Hack, executive director of the Leavenworth County Development Corporation (LCDC), updated the commission on LCDC marketing and lead-generation work for county industrial sites and business parks. The presentation prompted an extended commission discussion about LCDC and Port Authority funding, Chamber and Main Street capacity, and whether the city should withdraw from LCDC and instead house economic-development functions internally.

Hack told commissioners LCDC markets the Leavenworth Business and Technology Park and the Gary Carlson Business Center, responds to requests for information (RFIs) from site selectors and state partners, and pursues business-attraction and retention activities. She said LCDC markets through digital and print materials, networking in the Kansas City region and nationally, Team Kansas familiarization events and partnerships with the Kansas Department of Commerce and the Kansas City Area Development Council. Hack said LCDC logged 15 projects related to the Business and Technology Park in 2024 and reported 13 leads in 2025 to date. She noted the park remains vacant and highlighted two recurring constraints raised by prospective projects: electric-power delivery (Evergy does not build speculative capacity) and community acceptance/housing near the park.

Hack said the Business and Technology Park offers abundant water and a gas line that can support temporary generation, which can be an advantage for some prospective data-center projects. She also said LCDC and the county are pursuing a wider strategy that includes workforce development and marketing the county’s talent pool—noting the local veteran population and Fort Leavenworth as assets.

City staff framed the county organizations’ distinct roles for the commission: LCDC as the county economic-development corporation that prepares RFIs and marketing proposals; the Port Authority as the legal entity that can own and hold land for future industrial development; the chamber as the chief community connector and fundraiser; Main Street as the downtown revitalization organization; and nonprofit partners such as Girl Leavenworth County as gap-financing sources for small businesses. Staff noted recent funding reductions to county economic-development efforts and said LCDC and the Port Authority have insufficient steady funding to maintain current levels of service indefinitely.

During the discussion one commissioner proposed withdrawing Leavenworth City’s funding from LCDC in 2026 and using those funds instead to create an in-house economic-development position (and potentially a grant-writing role) that could focus specifically on the city’s needs. The commissioner said the city could reallocate existing budget items (examples mentioned in the discussion included a portion of Main Street funding and transient guest tax allocations) to cover salary and operating costs. That commissioner also urged establishing clearer metrics for measuring partners’ performance and recommended creating a business-licensing or tracking program so the city could better see outcomes and have a current list of operating businesses.

Scott (city staff) and Penny (city economic development staff) said they regularly interact with LCDC on RFIs and marketing but acknowledged the county entities’ funding limitations. Staff recommended the commission treat any change carefully because county-led organizations currently perform marketing and maintain relationships with regional site selectors. They told the commission the city can choose its economic-development model and that options range from continuing the current partnership to reduced funding with specific deliverables to full in-house service.

Other matters raised during the session: Chamber governance and finances. Staff said the chamber has overspent its budget and used reserves; there has been a mid-2023 decision that restricted some financial transparency with ex officio members, and staff expressed concern that the chamber’s financial fragility could harm local-business support if not addressed. Staff also described Main Street’s recent stabilization—new leadership, a strategic plan, a building-inventory tracker and renewed committee activity—and noted Main Street had applied for a $50,000 downtown master-plan grant.

Staff closed the discussion by offering to prepare options and costs for the commission: maintain funding as-is with clarified deliverables; reduce funding tied to measurable metrics; or withdraw funds and bring economic-development functions in-house, including an outline of likely staff roles, salary ranges and budget impacts. Commissioners asked for metrics to judge partner performance and requested staff return with options during the budget process. No formal vote was taken during the study session.

Ending: Staff will prepare and present options for the commission during upcoming budget discussions, including cost estimates, recommended performance metrics for external partners, and a proposed job description or scope for any in-house economic-development position.