Lee's Summit Council advances Arborside redevelopment plan after long presentation and public debate

Council members voted on first procedural steps Tuesday after a joint city‑staff and Land Reserve presentation laying out an infrastructure financing plan intended to accelerate development across a roughly 1,000‑acre northern portion of the Arborside property.

David Bushek, economic development staff, opened the public hearing and said, “This presentation consists of a full explanation of how this funding package works to fund public improvement,” and walked the council through how a Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority (LCRA) plan and a Community Improvement District (CID) would work together to fund major transportation, sewer and water projects.

The financing structure Bushek explained uses three primary elements when real property taxes are abated: payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) that flow to taxing jurisdictions; special assessments imposed by a CID to reimburse construction of public improvements; and a remaining abatement component used to induce private investment. Bushek described the CID as a mechanism that would add a 1% sales tax to the district, with half the revenue targeted at regional public infrastructure and half at site‑specific improvements.

Tyler Buswell, president of Land Reserve, framed the initiative as a long‑term master plan. “This is a 20‑year investment moving forward as well,” he said, describing coordinated trails, parks and school sites that the developers say are easier to deliver with a single master developer and financing package than by piecemeal approvals.

Staff and the developer identified major cost categories: Todd George Parkway and Struthers Road improvements (transportation), roughly $40 million in the table presented; sanitary sewer lift stations estimated at about $34 million; and a water main extension near $6 million. Michael Park, the city’s public works director, told the council voter‑approved bond proceeds already secure a portion of the transportation funding and that the proposed partnership would accelerate construction and cap the city’s exposure at the bonded amount.

Council members asked whether development would occur without the package and whether the city would be on the hook for any debt. David Bushek characterized the alternative as a piecemeal series of incentive requests from separate site developers, saying that approach would likely be slower and more expensive overall. He also said, “There is no debt being requested to be issued by the city,” noting the developer or other private parties would be reimbursed only to the extent CID revenues and assessments materialize.

Residents at the public hearing questioned the plan’s scale and transparency. One commenter said: “My concern is the incentive value at about $233,000,000. That’s too big of a number for me to really contemplate,” and others objected to using a statutory blight finding on land currently used for agriculture and wildlife habitat.

The council voted to advance the LCRA ordinance to a second reading by an 8–0 vote (one absence recorded in the minutes). The council also advanced the separate CID petition to a later step after additional discussion; the minutes record the CID advancement vote as passing with a recorded mix of yes, no and abstentions in that session’s roll call. Staff told the council the planning commission and the LCRA board had recommended approval of the LCRA plan and that the evidence and exhibits presented to the council would be entered into the public record for the next hearing.

What’s next: Council advanced both items to their next formal readings; the packet and staff memos indicate a master development agreement and more detailed CID documentation will be returned to council in the coming weeks for final action and legal review.

Authors note: The city’s presentation and the developer’s cost tables and a formal blight study were entered into the public record and are referenced in council materials.