Leavenworth County residents warn commission about large Lansing housing projects, proposed RHID tax break

Leavenworth County commissioners heard extended public comment on large residential developments proposed by the City of Lansing and a related proposed residential housing investment district (RHID) at their April 3, 2025 meeting.

Residents said the three developments shown to the board would bring high-density housing, strain roads and schools, and rely on a long-term tax abatement that they argued would not benefit county taxpayers. "This is gonna be higher taxes, probably more schools," said John Duff, a resident who presented maps and unit counts. Duff estimated the combined projects could add roughly 2,123 new housing units and about 2,500 students to the Lansing school system, and said the scale far exceeded a 2023 planning report recommendation of 512 new units.

Why it matters: Commissioners were presented with specific figures and statutory questions that affect county infrastructure planning. Commenters said the proposed RHID — described in testimony as providing a multi‑decade property tax deferral to the developer — could shift local tax dollars away from the school district and county services while accelerating dense annexation along McIntyre Road near K‑7.

Details presented and concerns raised

Duff and other speakers identified three projects under active consideration by the City of Lansing, including parcels owned by entities identified in testimony as Epic Estates and the Engelhart family. Duff described one project as a 412‑unit development and said other parcels could add hundreds more apartment units; he summarized the three projects together as roughly 1,161 new housing units in one grouping and said, when combined with other local projects, the total housing increase shown would be about 2,123 units.

"This is gonna hit Leavenworth County — all the congestion, all the additional traffic," Duff said, adding that the county portion of McIntyre Road and narrow local roads such as 130th Street are not prepared for the proposed traffic. He said the developments would likely require traffic signals and road widening and questioned where space for new schools and recreation would come from.

April Cromer, who gave her name and address during public comment, said the RHID request is intended to underwrite roughly $27 million of infrastructure costs and described the RHID’s structure and projected tax allocations as presented by the city. "It does not provide any revenue benefit to the city, to the county, or to the school district whatsoever," Cromer said during her remarks, and she detailed the allocation percentages offered in testimony: testimony cited 78.5 mills allocated to the developer, 20 mills directed to the state school fund, and 1.5 mills to the state building fund (she also noted pending state legislation, Senate Bill 35, that would change treatment of the 1.5 mill levy).

Cromer told commissioners she had reviewed public records and said some aspects of the proposal and the annexation occurred with limited public notice. She urged the board to consider whether the proposed district would have "an adverse effect on such county," citing KSA language that gives county commissions a role in considering proposed tax‑incentive districts.

What the county said and next steps

Commissioners and staff did not adopt a new policy at the meeting; the discussion was presented to the board for awareness and public record. Commissioner Mike Smith acknowledged the volume of information and said the board had heard the concerns. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about jurisdiction over roads and easements and noted that certain portions of McIntyre Road remain under county jurisdiction and would require separate approvals or ceding if city access is proposed.

Speakers and attribution

The following people spoke on the topic in the public meeting record: John Duff (resident and presenter), April Cromer (resident and neighborhood representative), Commissioner Mike Smith (Board of County Commissioners), and Commissioner Culberson (Board of County Commissioners), among county staff and meeting attendees referenced in the record.

Background and context

Speakers referenced a 02/2023 planning report prepared by RPG Planning and said the city annexed certain parcels in late 2024 (testimony cited an annexation date of 11/26/2024). Cromer said the city administrator had told the Lansing City Council that city staff identified the developer for the homeowner and that the RHID application sought long‑term tax rebates to fund infrastructure.

Numbers cited in public comment (as presented at the meeting)

- Approximate combined new housing units shown to commissioners: 2,123 (presenter’s estimate) - Example project sizes cited in testimony: 412 units (one parcel), 765 apartments referenced for another parcel; presenters said some parcels could accommodate 500+ apartments - Approximate additional students estimated by presenters: 2,500 - Developer tax deferral cited in testimony: $25,000,000 over 20 years (presenter’s figure) - Estimated infrastructure need discussed: about $27,000,000 (presenter’s estimate) - RHID allocation figures cited in testimony: 78.5 mills to developer; 20 mills to state school fund; 1.5 mills to state building fund (testimony noted Kansas Senate bill changes affecting mill distributions) - Statutory limits referenced in testimony: 50 houses per year build limit under the statute cited by the speaker

Closing and forthcoming hearings

Speakers asked the board to consider a county resolution opposing the RHID and urged public engagement. Cromer said the City of Lansing has a scheduled hearing on the RHID and related rezoning on April 17, 2025. The county meeting record shows the comments were entered into the public record for the county commissioners; the board did not take a formal action on the RHID at this session.

Ending

The county commission did not vote to approve or deny the Lansing proposals during the meeting. Commissioners indicated they would take the public comments under advisement and that related permit, annexation and road‑jurisdiction matters would come back to the board as specific requests for county approvals.