2026-10-12 - Policy & Finance Committee

00:15Hello. Good afternoon. I'm sorry about

00:18the delay. Uh but we are here for the

00:20October 12th, 2026 policy and finance

00:25committee meeting for October.

00:28Um, if you could let's go ahead and call

00:31this meeting to order.

00:34We have in attendance today, Councilman

00:36Banks from District 4 and Council

00:39Bradberry from District 7. Um, let me

00:42introduce you real quick just so we can

00:43get on right through it.

00:45All right. First up, because we do have

00:47a few items you need to attend to today,

00:50uh we want to get to the consent agenda,

00:52uh which is just approving the minutes

00:54for the September 3rd, 2026 policy and

00:56finance committee meeting. Uh I would

00:58welcome a motion.

01:00>> Chair, I'll make a motion to accept the

01:03minutes as written.

01:08>> I'll second.

01:10>> Thank you. Motion made by Councilman

01:12Banks and seconded by Council Bradberry.

01:15Uh all those in favor say I.

01:17>> I.

01:17>> I.

01:18>> I. All those nay. Uh all those opposite

01:22say nay. None heard. Uh minutes are

01:26approved. We'll go to our action items.

01:28The first thing we have today is the

01:31ordinance on the citizens government

01:33review committee composition and

01:35appointment of members.

01:39I know that the uh there's a

01:41recommendation. I'm changing the the uh

01:44committee members from five members to

01:4610 and one being from each council

01:48district. I know that is their thought.

01:51So I wanted to speak to committee

01:54members today and see if you guys had

01:55any any thoughts today

01:58on that action item.

02:01>> I don't have any at this time. Chair.

02:06Okay. Councilwoman Bradberry.

02:07>> I don't have any questions on it.

02:09>> Okay.

02:11All right. Well, looks like we uh the

02:15next thing for us to do is take a vote

02:16on this.

02:17>> I'll move.

02:18>> Okay. So, moved by Councilwoman

02:20Bradberry and I'm guessing that is

02:23>> move to approve.

02:24>> Move to approve. All right. Seconded by

02:26Council Member Banks. All those in favor

02:29say I.

02:30>> I.

02:30>> I.

02:32Opposite the same. And hearing none that

02:36is approved to go into the governing

02:38body for them to take action.

02:44And next with some non-action items

02:50staff is coming right now on 4A

02:53reinvestment housing incentive district

02:55policy revisions and looking forward to

02:58hearing some updates on that.

02:59>> Okay.

03:00>> Thank you ma'am.

03:02>> Good afternoon chair and members of the

03:03committee. This morning I will be I'm

03:06sorry this afternoon I will be walking

03:08you through some revisions staff are

03:10proposing to the RHID policy.

03:16So the current resolution 9695 was

03:20adopted in 2025.

03:23Why update the policy now? As you know,

03:26the city went through updating the

03:28housing study in 2026. And so, the first

03:32would be to update the policy and

03:34reflect those changes.

03:36It would be to improve the coordination

03:38with affected taxing jurisdictions. So,

03:41there's new language being proposed in

03:43this policy for that. We've also

03:47proposed language that helps clarify the

03:49reimbursement of eligible expenses

03:52related to the $25,000 step two

03:55application deposit. And we've also

03:57added some additional uh provisions

04:00regarding bonds and safeguards for the

04:03city.

04:04Now, I'll walk you through those in

04:06greater detail. So,

04:10the current resolution references the

04:132020 housing study and housing needs

04:15analysis numbers. And so, the language

04:18that we've incorporated updates that to

04:21reference the 2026 numbers. We've also

04:24incorporated language that provides uh

04:27flexibility to say this housing study

04:31will be updated as necessary because we

04:34intend to do it every five years as

04:36budget allows. And so we don't have to

04:38redo the resolution every time we have

04:41updates to those numbers. It it

04:43incorporates that language in there as

04:45well. Uh so this establishes that the

04:48study and housing needs analysis is

04:50updated periodically and will continue

04:53to be the basis for whether additional

04:55RHID assistance is warranted.

04:58The language also, as I mentioned,

05:00provides the flexibility to discontinue

05:03the use of RHID assistance for projects

05:06intended to address a specific demand in

05:09a category for a need of a particular

05:12housing uh type if it no longer exists.

05:21The next item is that um

05:24additional language regarding the

05:26affected taxing jurisdictions. So the

05:28updated language we're proposing

05:30requires developers to engage with

05:32applicable school districts, Shauny

05:35County, and other potential affected

05:37taxing jurisdictions upon submitting the

05:39step two um application.

05:43So the developer, we would ask them that

05:45they provide

05:47information on the requested incentive

05:50to the school district and county, the

05:53maximum reimbursement amount that

05:55they're seeking as part of the

05:57incentive,

05:59what they plan to use that increment

06:01for, and the uh the uh potential

06:05duration of the RHID that they're

06:08proposing. and then specifically the

06:11financial impact to that taxing

06:13jurisdiction.

06:14The developer would have to provide

06:17documentation demonstrating that they've

06:19met this requirement before staff bring

06:21forth the housing development plan to

06:23the governing body for final review and

06:25approval.

06:27This is intended to provide an earlier

06:28notice to the school districts and

06:31county. It goes beyond what state law

06:33requires as part of that 30-day veto

06:36process at the end of an incentive. um

06:40the adoption of a district. And so

06:43the school district and county, we're

06:46not asking for them to approve or or

06:50deny the incentive at this time, but

06:52it's to provide them an upfront notice

06:55um before the governing body

06:58officially

06:59approves the district.

07:02[clears throat]

07:10This isn't working.

07:13Can you next slide please?

07:18Thank you.

07:21So the third item is uh related to bond

07:26provisions in the RHID policy. We've

07:29added some language that allows the

07:32governing body to grant an exception as

07:34long as there are trustee requirements

07:36written into the agreement. The

07:39governing body uh by resolution can

07:41allow for the issuance of special

07:43obligation bonds. The developer is part

07:46of that request

07:48um would have to guarantee that the city

07:50shall only be the issuer of the bonds

07:52and not be held um not back or guarantee

07:56the bonds.

07:58All RHID proceeds would be directed

08:00first to a designated bond trustee and

08:03then the trustee would um verify and

08:07confirm that the developer has made all

08:09payments related to the project prior to

08:14uh the collected RHID proceeds going to

08:16the payment of the bonds.

08:21So, in summary, uh the proposed language

08:25um updates the housing study reference

08:28to the 2026

08:31um numbers and references that most

08:34recent housing study or housing needs

08:36analysis numbers would be used uh to

08:39justify any incentive.

08:41It allows uh assistance to be

08:46I'm sorry.

08:48It requires earlier developer outreach

08:50and documentation to those affected

08:52taxing jurisdictions

08:54which goes beyond that statutory notice

08:56and veto process. It clarifies the

08:59reimbursement for the step two

09:01application uh and deposit.

09:04and it still prefers the pay as you go

09:07uh financing as part of the RHID, but it

09:10does allow bonds with an exception um

09:13with payment guarantees and trustee

09:15protections.

09:18So, this is the first of um multiple

09:22discussions if the committee wishes to

09:25continue having conversations about

09:27these policy revisions. staff have made

09:30these adjustments to better align with

09:32other industry best practices that we've

09:34seen and also uh make accommodations for

09:38better communication with other taxing

09:40jurisdictions.

09:41With that, I'm happy to stand for any

09:43questions. Um and if the committee has

09:46any proposed changes they'd like to see

09:48in the language, I'm happy to go through

09:50that.

09:55>> Thank you very much. Um, you say this is

09:59the first of many conversations. Um,

10:01[snorts]

10:02it looks like you guys are hoping that

10:03we can pass this along. Um, I don't know

10:06if there's any questions I have right

10:08off top, but I want to open it up to the

10:10committee members to see if there's

10:11anything they have. Council

10:12>> Bradberry.

10:13>> Yeah. Um, I think my mine are just more

10:16clarifying. Um,

10:24so when you're talking about meeting

10:28earlier with other taxing jurisdictions

10:34um or meeting with other that's not

10:37happening now

10:40>> with our most recent applications that

10:42are in progress. We are asking

10:44developers to do that and they are doing

10:45that. is just not written as a as a

10:48requirement at this time.

10:49>> Okay. Can you talk about why

10:54you want that as a requirement?

10:56>> Of course. So, according to state

10:58statute,

11:00the affected taxing jurisdiction such as

11:02the school district, um the school board

11:05or the county uh board of commissioners,

11:08they have a 30-day veto period, and that

11:11would be after the governing body takes

11:13final action in creating the district,

11:16approving the development agreement,

11:18etc. And so what this does is it opens

11:22up earlier dialogue between the

11:24developer and the affected jurisdictions

11:26so that they understand what the

11:29developer is seeking, how it might

11:31financially impact them because some

11:35most school districts budget is based on

11:37their their tax revenue um their

11:42property tax revenue. And so the earlier

11:45conversation provides them notice and

11:48allows them to maybe make adjustments um

11:51themselves or understand what benefits

11:54the development might bring to their to

11:56their school district.

11:58>> And so when we're talking about veto,

12:00they would be able to stop something

12:03that the I guess I'm trying I just

12:05wanted more information on that. So when

12:07the governing body takes final action

12:09and approves the develop the district,

12:12the RHID district and the development

12:14plan, the school board, county, state,

12:18they receive notice of that of that

12:21ordinance and that adoption and um the

12:24creation of that district. Once that

12:26notice is provided, there's a 30-day

12:28window where they can put in writing and

12:31request to veto it. that effectively

12:34um

12:37just reverts everything back and um

12:41vetos the governing body's action. And

12:43so

12:45if if that's done after the fact,

12:48there's obviously a lot of consequences

12:51um for the city, for the developer, the

12:53time and effort that went into the

12:55process and and

12:57um all of the analysis that had to be

13:00done to get to that point. And so having

13:02an earlier conversation benefits all

13:04parties involved.

13:06>> Has that ever happened before?

13:11>> I am not familiar with a case in which

13:13that has happened.

13:17Has there ever been concern of that

13:18happening?

13:19>> There has been concern voiced by um the

13:22school district USD501. We've had

13:25several conversations with them about

13:27the process and and what goes into the

13:30process and we've actually worked out an

13:33arrangement um prior to this language

13:36being being adopted that we connect a

13:40developer if it's within the USD501

13:42district. we we will connect them

13:44directly with um the administrator over

13:47there uh at the school school board so

13:50they can have that conversation with the

13:52developer as the school board um if the

13:55school board uh wishes to.

13:58>> Okay.

14:01Um

14:03and then the other

14:06um question I had was just kind of

14:08talking some more about the reason for

14:11the um changes in the bond provisions

14:16and if something has prompted that.

14:20the

14:22I will say that we have had questions

14:25come in from developers whether we would

14:28allow bonds and our our current policy

14:31doesn't necessarily provide

14:35any flexibility in that. It currently

14:38says, and it still does say with the

14:40language that we're proposing, that

14:41bonds would have to be done after the

14:43fact, after four years of stabilization

14:46and um seeing that property tax

14:49valuation come in four years after the

14:51development's been stabilized. But what

14:54we've seen is um and state statute

14:56allows for it. It allows for us to do

14:58bonding. We don't have that flexibility

15:01or language in our policy. And so we're

15:03proposing to add it in the event the

15:05governing body would like to grant an

15:07exception. There's at least that

15:08language there that allows us to do so.

15:14>> That's all that I have for the moment.

15:16Thank you. You're welcome.

15:18>> Thank you, Councilwoman.

15:20Councilman Banks, do you have anything?

15:21>> Yeah, one just a couple of things. Thank

15:24you, Leah, for a really informational

15:27presentation. Uh my only thoughts are

15:31will

15:33the language be revised automatically

15:36every five years or

15:39so the language that we included um says

15:44the city intends to update the analysis

15:46periodically generally every 5 years as

15:48the city budget resources allowed to

15:51identify changes in housing market

15:53conditions and community housing needs.

15:56And it further goes in to say that

16:01the city may use the findings and

16:04recommendations of the most current

16:05housing study and housing needs analysis

16:08to evaluate the RHID applications and

16:10determine whether a proposed housing

16:12development

16:14addresses an identified housing need.

16:16And so that statement is intended to say

16:20if five years from now we've adopted a

16:23new housing study and housing needs

16:25analysis, we don't have to specifically

16:29uh revise the language in this policy.

16:31>> Okay. Thank you, Leah.

16:33>> You're welcome.

16:34>> Thank you, chair.

16:35>> Thank you, Councilman Bess. Um, I

16:39imagine that, uh, this discussion, if it

16:42needs to happen here a couple times, um,

16:45you know, might be beneficial. Uh, but I

16:49honestly think that it's probably best

16:50served moving up to the governing body.

16:52Uh, so I I wanted to check with the city

16:54and see what their thoughts are on if

16:57you feel comfortable with this moving to

17:00the governing body right away or if we

17:03need to hold this in committee for

17:04another discussion.

17:06I will defer to the committee 100%. I am

17:09comfortable with taking it now to the

17:11governing body, but I think that if you

17:13would like more time to consider the

17:15language and come back in a month at the

17:17next meeting, um it's completely up to

17:21the committee.

17:22>> Okay.

17:23>> I'm okay either way.

17:27>> Of course you can. Council member,

17:32>> will you take public comment? Uh, no.

17:35[clears throat] From council members

17:36only for right now.

17:38>> At the at the end of the at the end of

17:40the discussion, you you certainly can.

17:43>> Thank you.

17:44>> On this, can you explain to me we've got

17:47red, we've got blue, and we've got green

17:49in the uh

17:52the resolution that has all the changes

17:54in it. I'm trying to decide which what

17:59each one means.

18:01>> So, thank you for asking that. Um these

18:04revisions were done um with our team

18:08being myself, Braxton Copley, our

18:11financial adviser Jeff White with

18:12Columbia Capital, and our bond council

18:15Kevin Cowen with Gilmore and Belt. And

18:17so the various colors are based on the

18:20track changes uh in Word. Um whereas I

18:25am red and Jeff's changes were green,

18:28Kevin's were blue. Okay. So it's it's

18:30all of our um combined effort.

18:33>> Okay. Then if you go down to line 178

18:37>> in the red line version.

18:38>> Yeah,

18:43>> I'm there.

18:43>> I'm not sure what the NTD means, but we

18:46will ex will we accept an unofficial

18:49printed um certificate of good standing?

18:52Is there a time frame it takes to get a

18:56certificate?

18:57>> No. And I'm glad you brought that up. I

18:59actually caught that right before this

19:01meeting and removed it. It's a comment

19:03question that was left by uh Columbia

19:06Capital need to discuss. Um staff

19:09currently pull this uh on their own as

19:12part of the due diligence process and

19:14now we're just asking that they supply

19:16it a copy of it with their um

19:19application.

19:20>> Okay. I didn't know if that was

19:22something that needed to be changed

19:23before we

19:25um moved it forward or if it was okay as

19:28is.

19:29>> Yes.

19:30>> Okay.

19:32I'm still reading. There's a lot here.

19:34>> Yes. Thank you.

19:40>> Murray want to say something here.

19:43>> Yeah. Say what?

19:44>> Murray might want to say something.

19:46>> Is he on there as well? Council member

19:48McGee.

19:58C. Hold on because we can't hear you

20:00right now.

20:02Can you can hear us though? It looks

20:04like

20:17Is your mic on?

20:19Do you have the right mic selected on

20:22your end?

20:24Okay. Give us just a moment. We're

20:25trying to figure out here.

20:35No, Council Member, I don't want you to

20:37to feel like you can't say your piece.

20:39Your piece is important, Council Member

20:40McGee. And if you if we want to work on

20:43that for a second, then we come back to

20:44you. We h we more than happy to. It

20:46sounds like we have a citizen here who

20:48would like to discuss their public

20:50comment on this. So, we'll come back to

20:52you and see if we can figure your sound

20:53out.

20:59>> Um committee, if it's okay, uh we have a

21:03citizen here who has asked to discuss uh

21:06some public comment on this item. Um he

21:09did not sign up correctly for it to be

21:11done that way, but he says he would like

21:14to speak on this. You guys are all right

21:15with that? Go pro.

21:16>> All right.

21:16>> Thanks, Mr.

21:17>> Clair.

21:18>> Thanks, Marcus.

21:20>> Or Councilman Miller

21:22be more appropriate. Chairman,

21:26citizens or council people,

21:29city manager, lead.

21:33The butt for test is capital.

21:38This originally was created for

21:40smalltown USA when people weren't living

21:43out in the sticks in western Kansas.

21:46>> That's right.

21:47>> This was originally for rural America

21:50where they were just desperate to ha

21:52have housing for people

21:55and I think there was a very wise

21:58decision and proofs in the pudding that

22:02we got a housing problem in Topeka. So

22:05they they redid the whole rule

22:08that they they're treating Topeka like

22:10rule America.

22:12We're we're desperate. We're the housing

22:15study says we need housing. They're all

22:17I hear is about housing. So we don't

22:20need a butt for test.

22:23We don't need to pay Jeff White at Colia

22:26Capitol to have him sit there and look

22:30at this project and say, "Well, it's

22:32worthy of our HID." No, that's just

22:35another burden on the developer.

22:39What you guys need to look at is we are

22:41the but for test. We are we're capital

22:45where capital comes to the city to

22:49invest.

22:50That is the but for test today. We don't

22:53need an extra layer of approval. We we

22:56should have a policy. We should get the

22:59mindset

23:01of of taking one less hoop down. You

23:06know, we the developers have to jump

23:09through a new hoop. So many hoops. I

23:11think it's very wise what you're doing.

23:13Create not not have it be veto get it

23:16veto proof. go to the districts and get

23:20them to sign that, hey, you you're

23:22accepting this and you're not going to

23:24veto it later because why should the

23:26governing body come together and meet

23:30just to have it vetoed later?

23:33Same thing with the but for test.

23:36Capital is the but for test. It wouldn't

23:39happen but for capital being invested.

23:43And if we could just get the the people

23:46to understand the pay as you go, you

23:50know, all the capital's coming out of

23:52our pocket.

23:55Thanks for letting me talk.

23:58>> You're welcome.

24:02We're

24:03>> Mr. Mccclure with time to spare on the

24:05clock.

24:07>> That's a new one. That's a new one. I

24:08like that. I I would I would I would

24:10welcome that trend.

24:10>> I'm Trey. Um, thank you very much. Um,

24:16>> okay, Council Member McGee.

24:19Thank you, city manager.

24:45Go ahead. Try and speak for us. Good.

24:51Council member, can you hear me?

24:53>> Yes, I can.

24:54>> There you go.

24:57My mic wasn't on, but there you go.

25:00>> All righty. Thank you.

25:04And did you said you had some questions

25:06on this RHID?

25:09Uh I did I didn't have questions related

25:12to RHID. I was just hoping that we can

25:16also in the future address the uh NRP

25:21policy.

25:29>> Okay. Um staff, is that something that

25:32we plan to be revisiting soon?

25:35>> Yeah, the NRP currently goes through

25:372027. So during next year would be the

25:40time in which the planning department

25:42begins reviewing that plan and getting

25:45updates put in place for the 2028 cycle.

25:49It runs right now 2025 through 2027

25:52>> like through the end of 27. Not a

25:54specific date. Okay.

25:55>> So when will we start discussions on

25:57that?

25:59>> In 2027. Um probably the first quarter I

26:03would guess. That's Dan Warner's area

26:06that manages that program. Okay. That's

26:07what I was That's why I was curious. I

26:08was like, are we gonna start discussions

26:10in October or

26:11>> I I believe in the first quarter.

26:13>> Okay. All right. Perfect. Okay. All

26:16right. So, make sure you mark your

26:18calendar there, Mr. McGee or Council

26:20McGee.

26:22>> Thank you.

26:24>> All right. Well,

26:27um I actually want to do a little more

26:28digging on this. Um and I I think it'd

26:32be probably be smart if we could come

26:34back on this next month. uh just so that

26:36I can if there's any questions that I

26:38have from it. I mean, we may may be able

26:40to talk about it beforehand to where

26:41it's like, no, I've gone through and we

26:43don't I don't have anything else. Um but

26:45I think there's one piece of it that I

26:46want to dive into a little more um

26:48before I actually have a question on it.

26:50So, if that's okay, we can bring this up

26:52again for action on November and then

26:55take it up to the council after that.

26:57>> Okay, sounds good.

26:58>> Perfect.

27:00Thank you very much.

27:03And with that, we'll move on to 4B,

27:06which is the industrial revenue bonds

27:09and the policy revisions of TMC 3.55.

27:13>> Okay. Thank you again.

27:16So, I'll wait for Kim to pull up the

27:19presentation.

27:35Okay.

27:37So,

27:40this policy that you have um this

27:44afternoon is regarding industrial

27:46revenue bonds. There is a resolution

27:507563 that was adopted in 2004. It's our

27:55current resolution that provides um

28:00the the governance and provisions

28:02related to industrial revenue bonds. Our

28:05ordinance number 15898

28:08was actually adopted in 1988 and is our

28:12Topeka municipal code chapter 3.55.

28:17This is the provision uh in the code

28:19that is related to article 11 section 13

28:24of the Kansas constitution

28:27regarding industrial revenue bonds as

28:29they relate to economic development.

28:33Why update our policy? staff are um

28:39providing the

28:41policy um update to consolidate the IRB

28:46policies into one clear framework. And

28:48so staff are proposing that we

28:49consolidate resolution 7563

28:52and Topeka Municipal Code 3.55

28:56under a new Topeka Municipal Code 3.55

29:00that incorporates IRB um in its

29:05entirety.

29:06So it would create clear procedures for

29:10the three structures of IRB assistance

29:14which include conduit bond uh issuance

29:17and financing, retail sales tax

29:19exemption and property tax abatement.

29:23This uh updated policy also moves us

29:26away from an outdated formulabased

29:28approach towards the uh project by

29:31project review and evaluation.

29:37So to consolidate both of these um we

29:41have clearly defined requirements for

29:43applications and the approval process.

29:46We have defined a but for requirement to

29:48document why the incentive is necessary

29:51for the project's feasibility that is uh

29:54consistent with our other economic

29:56incentive policies that we have and

29:59we've esta established uh expectations

30:02uh regarding a development agreement

30:05annual compliance and remedies for the

30:07city.

30:10The three structures that are available

30:12for IRB assistance again include the

30:15conduit bond financing which provides a

30:18framework for projects seeking bond

30:20financing. The city would act as an

30:22issuer on behalf of the applicant and

30:25not back the bonds or be responsible for

30:27any uh repayment of the bonds.

30:30The real retail sales tax exemption

30:33would be the city um

30:36allowing for retail sales tax exemption

30:39for construction labor and materials.

30:41And in this new policy, we establish an

30:44application and review process for uh

30:47that type of approval. And the third and

30:49final is the property tax abatement

30:52which would um establish a payment in

30:55lie of taxes a pilot arrangement to

30:58reduce the effect of abating any

31:00property tax related to a development if

31:02we choose to approve one. Um the pilot

31:05would be shared with other taxing

31:07entities.

31:12The updated policy establishes a project

31:15specific review rather than a

31:17formulabased approach. solely on jobs

31:19and capital investment.

31:21The policy that you have is

31:24approximately 29 pages. It goes into a

31:26lot of depth on what a developer would

31:29be required to provide in order to

31:31pursue any type of IRB incentive from

31:34the city. It also um requires that

31:37applicants demonstrate that the

31:39incentive is necessary. As I mentioned

31:41before, this is in line with our

31:43existing incentives that we have. So the

31:45but for incentive uh but for the

31:49incentive the project would not be

31:50feasible

31:52uh which establishes the consistency

31:54with our other policies

31:58fees and applicant responsibilities. Um

32:02this uh is now clearly defined in this

32:05new um this revised policy. We've

32:09established a $25,000 application fee

32:12for any bonds if someone is seeking bond

32:15issuance and a $25,000 fee if someone is

32:18seeking a property tax abatement. That

32:21$25,000, like our other incentives, pays

32:24for the cost associated with the

32:25financial analysis and the review of the

32:28application and bond issuance. And then

32:31a $5,000 application fee if someone is

32:34seeking a sales tax exemption.

32:37Each of these also have a $5,000 annual

32:40administrative fee. Um, again, there are

32:44annual activities that the city has to

32:47undergo in order to maintain each of

32:49these incentives if they're approved.

32:51And so that $5,000

32:54uh assists with those expenses.

32:57If a developer is seeking more than one

33:00incentive, only one $25,000 fee is

33:03required as part of the application

33:05process.

33:10So, um, as a brief overview, um, we've

33:14updated this this policy which would,

33:18um, take place at the current chapter

33:203.55 in municipal code to be consistent

33:24with our other economic development

33:25tools that we have um, with the city.

33:28Staff will work with the developer

33:30throughout the application process. we

33:33have to do all of our financial analysis

33:35and ensure that it meets the but four

33:37test. The IRB review committee as part

33:40of the new uh policy is also established

33:43in the language. So just like our other

33:46incentives that have that review

33:47committee element as part of the review

33:49before it comes to the governing body to

33:51ensure it's a project and incentive that

33:55the city should be considering and the

33:57governing body should consider that is

33:59outlined in the new policy. And then of

34:01course the governing body still will

34:03make the final policy decision um upon

34:06any um granting of an incentive. So this

34:11this new ordinance is uh there's a lot

34:16in there. Um it does align with what

34:19we've seen other peer cities uh have

34:22outlined in their policies. We've think

34:25it's the best uh path forward to

34:28consolidate the existing code that

34:31allows for the

34:34the IRB well the bonding under article

34:3811 chapter 13 of the Kansas constitution

34:42and um our resolution that was last

34:46adopted in 2004.

34:48And so with that, I'd be happy to stand

34:52for any questions. Um, and

34:56we can have follow-up conversations on

34:58this item as well. Thank you.

35:02Before I open it up to the committee, I

35:04have just a clarity question. Um, the

35:10$25,000

35:12uh for the project and then it's the

35:145,000 annual administrative fee. Is

35:16there multiple admin fees for multiple

35:18incentives or just one for all of their

35:20incentives?

35:22Let me get to that section.

35:25Should be just

35:36I believe it's for um I don't want to

35:40misspeak but I believe it's for each

35:43incentive.

35:44Um, for example, if the applicant

35:48reaches its um expiration to its project

35:51tax exemption, the city would have to go

35:53through the steps to issue an extension

35:55to that that project tax exemption

35:58certificate. Um, also bond uh bond

36:03filings, annual compliance with the

36:05state of Kansas and those reporting

36:07requirements under the state um statute.

36:12I believe it's in I believe it's per

36:15incentive, but let me let me look that

36:18up.

36:19>> Okay. And if you can't find that right

36:21now, I'd like you to come back to us on

36:22that one because that's a clear

36:24distinction. That's a good little chunk

36:25of change.

36:26>> Um,

36:28and I want to make sure we have clarity

36:30for what for our developers. Uh, council

36:32members, any questions?

36:35Council member Bradberry out there. Um

36:39yeah, I want to make sure before we go

36:41out to for the committee members, Miss

36:45Herford, would you have anything?

36:47>> Okay, Council Member Brad,

36:48>> the only question I have is just an idea

36:51of the other peer cities that you looked

36:52at.

36:56other peer cities um

36:59Lawrence, Witchaw,

37:01Shauny County, um

37:07tha

37:12Overland Park

37:14and Unified Government of Wot.

37:23>> Thank you. You're welcome.

37:27Council member Banks, do you have

37:28anything?

37:29>> Yeah, thank you. Chair,

37:32uh, as we're talking about this process,

37:35so developers uh, invest that $25,000

37:41in the process initially, right? Well,

37:45you know, we've been hearing about the

37:46but for a lot. So, at this time moving

37:50forward, why do we need but for? So, but

37:54the butt for analysis is truly a way for

37:58the city uh to evaluate the return on

38:02investment and the reasonable rate of

38:05return to ensure the developer isn't

38:08being over incentivized

38:10by the city foregoing

38:12uh tax revenue. Um, it's important that

38:17when we incentivize a developer, we

38:20don't

38:22overcompensate

38:24and and

38:26in using tax. Does that make sense? Does

38:29that answer your question?

38:30>> Well,

38:32as I'm listening

38:34and you know, we had a public comment

38:36that said that it was something used

38:39a long time ago. and as I've been

38:43working with trying to get uh uh really

38:47really big investors to come back to our

38:49city and he also talked about the but

38:54for test and how we administer it.

38:58So, it's not clear to me, but

39:02you know, if that's policy, that's

39:04policy. But I think that we should take

39:07a look right now during this time. How

39:12valuable is it to the process, you know,

39:16since I'm not a developer and

39:19don't know, it's just I'm kind of

39:22curious as how we could function without

39:26it.

39:27I'd be happy to prepare something for

39:29the next meeting.

39:30>> Okay.

39:30>> To come back and provide a full

39:34>> overview of what exactly the but for

39:36analysis means and why we do it.

39:38>> All right.

39:39>> I think that would be good.

39:40>> Yeah.

39:40>> Okay.

39:41>> I think that

39:41>> Thank you, chair.

39:42>> Thank you. Thank you, Council Member

39:43Banks. Um,

39:45>> off of that, I do have another question.

39:46>> Yeah. Council,

39:47>> do the other do the peer cities that you

39:49looked at have the same or similar but

39:53for test? I would need to refresh my

39:56memory on that. I'd be happy to bring

39:58that back as part of the conversation.

40:00>> Okay. Too. Thank you.

40:08>> Yeah, I think those are good questions

40:10um and and good things for us to

40:11discuss. Uh committee members um you

40:15know, in our role here, uh it's it's

40:17important for us to take the developers

40:19thoughts into consideration for sure.

40:22Um, but understanding that our

40:23responsibility is to the city and the

40:25taxpayers that live here. Um, so, uh, I

40:29think that's all good discussion to

40:31have. Um, I'm sure that discussions have

40:33happened throughout the years, but as we

40:35develop our policies and, um, and and

40:39and revise those policies, I think

40:41making sure that the conversation and

40:43the basis of why we do these things, um,

40:46stays at the forefront of everybody's

40:47minds. So, thank you very much for that.

40:49>> Thank you.

41:07All right. And for our last non-action

41:09item, um, is a quick discussion. And I

41:12thought that uh

41:15the citizens government review committee

41:17I thought somebody for them might be

41:19here today but they are not uh to be

41:22able to give their thoughts on the

41:24citizen on on 4C from today which are

41:26citizens government review committee

41:28recommendation of the code of ethics

41:29misconduct and practice violations.

41:32Um

41:36to give a little overview of they they

41:39made some recommendations or some

41:41thoughts that um making sure that each

41:43council member uh signs documents to

41:47acknowledge the receipt and

41:48understanding of code and ethics and

41:49practices uh with year with yearly

41:51reviews. And I distinctly remember and

41:56staff did a good job of bringing up

41:57resolution 7473

42:00that every single time that every

42:02council member who starts their

42:04orientation, they get a copy of the

42:08resolution um given to them during in

42:11their notebook and they get a digital

42:13copy. Um a little background of it. Uh

42:18that resolution number 7473

42:21has a few sections in it where we talk

42:22about respecting the constitution and

42:24the law, serving the public interest,

42:27demonstrating personal integrity,

42:30promote an ethical organization, and

42:33striving for professional excellence. U

42:36there's there's a a few things in there

42:38and I'm not going to go through every

42:39single one of them, but I know that it's

42:41something that each of us um look

42:43through and that we receive. Uh how

42:45diligently we look through it is all up

42:48to each person, but I know for myself um

42:52having high ethics in this position is

42:54extremely important. Um, and having the

42:57the city's best interest when we when we

43:00conduct our business, I think is

43:01something that I know I personally hold

43:04uh very high. Um, and I think that the

43:08majority of the council members do as

43:09well. Um,

43:12so, you know, before we even do anything

43:15on this, um, which there's no need to do

43:18anything on it because it's, uh, it's

43:20already something that we do. It's it's

43:22already in our resolutions. It's already

43:24something that every council member has

43:26to to uh to to abide by. Um but I don't

43:29know if there's any thoughts from the

43:30council members um on what they think on

43:33this action item or non-action item

43:35today.

43:36>> I don't have any thoughts at this time.

43:38Chair.

43:39>> Okay.

43:43Council woman.

43:44>> So the question is whether or not to

43:47amend or update.

43:50>> Yeah. I I I believe there was some

43:52thought that they wanted um us to redo

43:56and have yearly reviews of it. Um right

43:59now um every council member that comes

44:02in gets one. Um and then I don't think

44:05it's something that we necessarily

44:07review on a yearly basis. Um I'm I'm not

44:11opposed to us doing it on a yearly

44:14basis. I mean, it's just one more thing

44:16for us to do. Uh, but I don't ever think

44:20there's a problem with making sure it's

44:22clear to the public that your your

44:23ethics are high and that you have that

44:24on on the forefront. So, um, [snorts]

44:28and if city staff has anything to say on

44:30it, they're they're they're welcome to,

44:32but I don't think that u this is

44:33anything bad for us to do on a yearly

44:36basis. Yeah, I

44:41I think continuing this discussion and

44:43reviewing to see if there's anything

44:45that needs to be updated or

44:50>> Yeah, obviously. And anything needs to

44:52be updated. I mean, we can go through um

44:55each one. I mean, if that's what you

44:57guys if you want to more it shouldn't

44:59take us too long.

45:01if you really if you guys want to have

45:02that discussion.

45:06>> Um I think I'm the only one Am I the

45:08only one with a copy of it right of

45:09resolution 7473.

45:12>> Um

45:13okay.

45:16And I know we probably have a digital

45:17copy, but that would be a little deep

45:18dive into our emails right now.

45:25>> Yeah, we'll get uh that posted on on the

45:28screen real quick. Take a moment to let

45:29her get that up.

45:31um so that we can have a public

45:33discussion about it.

45:38And as she's doing that, you know, I'm

45:39just giving my personal thoughts. I

45:40don't think it's we have to do a new

45:42resolution every single year. This one's

45:43been in in place since 2004, I believe.

45:49Yeah. So, we don't have to do one every

45:51single year, but just um if we want to

45:54do an update to it now, um I mean,

45:56that'd be a discussion for the governing

45:58body, I imagine. Um, it doesn't sound

46:00like this committee's

46:01>> uh totally against it.

46:04>> Banks. I don't know if you have any

46:05thoughts on it, but

46:06>> no.

46:08>> Yeah. Um, so I don't think there's a

46:12need to really do anything. Uh, but a a

46:15a review

46:17um probably from this this committee.

46:19>> Yeah.

46:20>> Um, again, probably not a bad thing to

46:22do. Just make sure the public knows that

46:24we have that on on our forefront. So

46:27>> yeah, I I think it's a good idea to

46:29review what we have and see if there's

46:30any other best practices or anything

46:32like that that we need to

46:33>> Okay.

47:00Awesome.

47:11Thank you, staff. That quick work.

47:14That was pretty impressive right there.

47:16Good job, everybody. Um, so

47:20on the screen right now, you see

47:22resolution number 7473.

47:25um where

47:27during orientation we received this

47:29document um and

47:33again I'll let people read what's on

47:35there right now. Um but obviously

47:37respecting the constitution of the law

47:39is extremely important for us. Um

47:42it says to seek to and number two right

47:45there is seek to identify and eliminate

47:47city policies that are counterproductive

47:49or obsolete. Um, I think that is

47:52something that we we do every single

47:54day. Um, and I think that's extremely

47:57important that we do. um

48:01what is counterproductive and obsolete

48:03um may look different from person to

48:05person, but I think that um when we keep

48:08like I was just talking about a little

48:09bit ago um the city the citizens and

48:12their tax money um at the forefront of

48:15what we're supposed to do um I believe

48:17that

48:19as we go through those these different

48:21policies um keeping that in mind um it

48:25may not always look right to someone who

48:28doesn't have that as their most

48:30important um idea.

48:33You know, when we have and and

48:35developers or contractors or who not who

48:37have their own bottom line that they're

48:38looking out for, um I think it's

48:40important for them to understand that

48:41what our job is here.

48:48Um

48:51if you go to that next page, uh we're on

48:55Oh, page two.

48:59It has a little bit left over from the

49:02respect the constitution and the law,

49:04but serving the public interest.

49:07That's a little more of what I was just

49:09speaking about a second ago. I think um

49:12as we go through as council members,

49:16we don't have to have this read to us

49:18every year, I don't think. Um, but

49:20making sure that if we just sign a

49:22document that says we still adhere to

49:24it, um, I don't think that would require

49:27us to change the resolution at all.

49:30So,

49:33I don't want to make sure I I asked that

49:35question. I don't think we'd have to

49:36change the resolution just to get

49:54>> [clears throat]

49:54>> So your question is you want to have

49:58um governing body members either like

50:00sign or do something to recognize how

50:03they reviewed it. I guess my yeah I I I

50:06wonder if that would be good policy for

50:09every year the as the resolution sits

50:12right now we would have all council

50:14members

50:16um you know at the beginning of the year

50:18middle of the year I don't care when

50:19signing the document yes I steal it here

50:21and I am still participating on as a

50:25council member pertaining to this

50:27resolution and its current set of

50:30ethics. Okay. I mean, we can if you want

50:35to put something in writing to ensure

50:37that it is followed and enforced, uh,

50:40that's something we can potentially add

50:41to the governing body rules. Um, or it's

50:44something we can add to the resolution

50:47itself and just add that extra provision

50:50that says this will be signed by every

50:52governing body

50:54on a yearly basis.

50:56>> Okay. Committee me committee members, do

50:58you guys have any thought on that?

51:01I think it's a good idea to do something

51:05annually to acknowledge um that we are

51:11maintaining a a code of conduct and an

51:14ethics standard and by signing that

51:17document. I mean, at least it

51:19you're putting it in writing.

51:22Um

51:24I do have questions on some of these

51:27other items though, but I agree. I think

51:30at a minimum something like that.

51:32>> Okay. You said you say you have

51:34questions.

51:34>> I have questions on some of the other

51:36things. Yeah.

51:36>> All right. If you have questions on some

51:38of this, I mean it we might as well go

51:41ahead and go through each line and and

51:44see if there's anything you have a

51:45question on

51:47>> and if we want to come back on this next

51:49month and talk about it.

51:50>> Okay.

51:50>> And see if there's specific items you

51:52want to discuss. We can go through it

51:53now. Or if you want to go through

51:54>> clarity really on some of these items.

51:57>> Okay. All right. Council member Banks,

52:00>> my my personal opinion is number one, I

52:04can't even see it. I don't have to look

52:07at

52:08I mean,

52:12code of ethics. U for council members,

52:18the only thing I see that's relevant to

52:21me would be if we are elected officials

52:27and That's what this resolution

52:30is about. The one thing that puzzles me

52:33more than anything is the our

52:36attendance.

52:37I think that if we our elected official

52:40agrees to be in chamber, we should be in

52:42chamber.

52:44>> I think that too many times ethically,

52:47how can we say we're doing

52:51our due diligence when we're not in

52:53chamber? I mean, I would just like to

52:55sit at home and

52:59do counsel.

53:01So, are there is there anything that

53:04holds us to a standard to be in chamber?

53:09[clears throat]

53:09>> Um, I don't believe so. Um, I think the

53:14governing body rules is what determines

53:17whether or not you have to be actually

53:19be in person or it can be via Zoom. And

53:22I think that the governing body has

53:24elected or or made that determination is

53:27that you can

53:29>> uh appear via via Zoom and that still

53:32counts as being attendance.

53:34>> Chair, that's my only thought on it. I

53:38those other things we're all adults and

53:40we should be able to know that we need

53:42to be honest. We need to uh produce to

53:47our constituents. I think everything on

53:50there is pretty common

53:53common knowledge. I mean, those are

53:54things that we should be doing just as

53:57responsible adults. So,

54:01>> I agree with that. Thank you, chair.

54:03>> No, no, thank you. Um, and you go to

54:05page three on that, please.

54:06>> Um, but no, you're you're not wrong um

54:11about the attendance thing. I think my

54:14[sighs] viewpoint on that would be that

54:17having that Zoom option allows us to

54:19probably have more actual attendance.

54:21Um, if someone needs to be away or

54:23whatever cuz cuz obviously

54:25>> that I understand if you sick or you

54:27have to do things

54:28>> with your kids or stuff like that,

54:31that's understandable.

54:33>> But

54:34>> and and I think that's that's part of

54:36the ethics. Are are you if you're not

54:38here in person, are you gone for a good

54:41reason? Um, you know, and I distinctly

54:44remember some council members being on

54:46vacation uh during a council me a

54:50council meeting and still being on Zoom.

54:53So, not only are they focusing on their

54:55own personal stuff, they're making sure

54:57they're being attentive to their council

54:59duties as well. So, I think that's um an

55:01admirable thing that they've done. Um,

55:03and I know that I've done it myself

55:05before. Um, I try to make it to as many

55:08council me as possible, but I think that

55:11having that Zoom option allows us to

55:12have more attendance. Um, maybe not

55:15physically in person, uh, but get in our

55:18quorum the way it should. Um, I think

55:21that that allows better options for it.

55:27I have to say I have a tendency to

55:29agree, especially when there are those

55:31of us on the council that still that do

55:33have full-time positions.

55:36Um, it does allow for that flexibility

55:38to be able to participate even if you

55:41can't make it in person. You are able to

55:43participate through

55:45through Zoom or that. But I I can see

55:51where

55:53it the concern might be where

55:58it's used instead of coming to

56:06personal attendance.

56:08>> Yeah. It could be abused.

56:10>> Um it could be absolutely.

56:14Um,

56:16so you know, we were just talking about

56:18the uh the document that we not might be

56:21might be able to put together for

56:22council members to sign and you're

56:24looking at D1 right there. Provide open

56:26communication and be creative with

56:27dedication to the city of Topekin as

56:29taxpayers. I think that's an example of

56:31us doing literally that is that showing

56:33that we're being open about our ethics

56:36and being open about what our our public

56:38interest is and our duty to serve the

56:41public interest. Um, so

56:45and it might even be just a where the

56:47document is I I council member XYZ is

56:54still adhering to 7473

56:57and plan to for 2027 or I have in 2026.

57:01I don't know if it's you probably

57:02shouldn't do a retro. It's probably I

57:04will adhere to it for for this year and

57:08going forward. Um, it's just another

57:11layer of accountability and that's an

57:14easy one for us to do. So, if we could

57:17look at a document that might suit that,

57:19that'd be great.

57:20>> I can do that.

57:21>> Thank you.

57:30Okay.

57:33Anything else on that from anyone?

57:37Okay.

57:40All right, with that being said,

57:44looks like we are at the end of our

57:47agenda for today. Um, we have one person

57:52signed up for public comment. I don't

57:53know if he wanted to speak again on

57:55>> Absolutely.

57:55>> earlier. Yeah.

57:57>> As we uh go ahead

57:58>> as we think about council rules, what

58:01would really be nice is you shouldn't

58:03have to worry about signing up for

58:05public comment. half of winning is

58:07showing up and if you're here, you ought

58:09to be able to address the public. Now,

58:12what I was going to use in my minute

58:14last Tuesday

58:16when I was not uh given an extra minute,

58:20what I was going to tell you all, you

58:22better start thinking about the

58:23policies.

58:25You got to listen to the market. We're

58:28the capital. We're the market. We're the

58:30developers. They've got it now set up

58:34where you can just invest in treasuries

58:36where usually you you could throw your

58:38money in a triple net deal uh you know

58:42when you need to park five or $6 million

58:44in a deal or hundred million whatever

58:49where you don't even you so you put it

58:51in a treasury and you can get five six%

58:56and you don't have to go that many years

58:58out. I think at five and a half% you're

59:01at um five years. So the people are

59:06going to stop putting capital in the

59:08Dollar General deals. They'll stop

59:10putting capital in the investors.

59:13They'll stop putting capital in the

59:16Chick-fil-A deals. They'll stop putting

59:18capital in the Maverick deals. And

59:20you're going to outgo government

59:21yourself. You literally need to make the

59:25process everywhere you can. Do you know

59:27there's a policy that says you can't

59:30sell land unless it's uh platted and

59:33deeded? Well, platted. Well, no. That's

59:37not that's not against the law in the

59:39state of Kansas. You know, I'm going

59:42through all that stuff out at 37th

59:44Engage. I've got the engineers. I'm

59:46playing by the rules completely, but I

59:49couldn't actually close the church sale

59:53because it wasn't platted. The policy

59:57Now, the planning department laughed.

59:59They go, "Well, we can't keep you from

1:00:01doing it, but I had to fire my uh

1:00:05closing agent because she wouldn't it

1:00:07didn't go by the rules. They know that

1:00:10there's that policy at the city." But I

1:00:13went to my uh uh title insurance

1:00:16attorney and he says, "No problem. I'll

1:00:19ensure that even though

1:00:22but you guys you're going to want to

1:00:24streamline the policies

1:00:27and the difference is here today you

1:00:30let's talk about retail sales. Oh and

1:00:32and why does Jeff White get to decide

1:00:35what kind of return we get? What's a

1:00:38reasonable return? That's ridiculous.

1:00:42you you know he's not risking any

1:00:44capital and if we're able to hit a home

1:00:47run well okay so maybe at a certain

1:00:51percentage just reasonable pe people can

1:00:53say all right you know at this rate

1:00:58we'll stop getting our incentive that's

1:01:01fine but also too guys like us we'll pay

1:01:05the sales tax and if you really want to

1:01:08analyze a deal and I'll have it for you

1:01:10tomorrow,

1:01:11the rate of return on the AT&T deal,

1:01:16the I mean, it's going to be

1:01:17astronomical.

1:01:19The the sales tax money. So, when you

1:01:23come, you've got a contractor over here

1:01:26doesn't have to play by any rules

1:01:27whatsoever. And actually, we've we found

1:01:31them uh breaking rules.

1:01:35And when are we going to hold them

1:01:36accountable?

1:01:39their rules. So, it's over here. It

1:01:42doesn't matter if you're going to have

1:01:44an auditor,

1:01:47if you're going to have make it make it

1:01:50to where you report to the public.

1:01:54So,

1:01:56the butt for test needs to go away.

1:02:01One minute. Just one second here. One

1:02:03more statement.

1:02:06>> One statement. Committee members, you go

1:02:08with the one minute.

1:02:09>> Yes.

1:02:09>> Okay. Listen, go right ahead.

1:02:12>> This is coming from a guy that talked a

1:02:15guy into buying land because there's

1:02:20$2.5 million already spent on

1:02:23engineering for Elevation Parkway.

1:02:28Well, you know, a logical guy would

1:02:30think, well, if the city of Topeka is

1:02:32going to spend that kind of money,

1:02:34they're probably going to put that road

1:02:35in.

1:02:37And it didn't. Where's the butt for test

1:02:40on that?

1:02:42We, you know, we don't have any

1:02:43recourse.

1:02:46And I got about $1.2 million sitting out

1:02:49there just to get it shovel ready. And

1:02:52I'm no I'm nowhere near done.

1:02:55played by the rules, got all the

1:02:56engineering done,

1:02:59and I'm the guy right here telling you I

1:03:03am the butt for test. We don't need Jeff

1:03:06White telling us what kind of returns we

1:03:09get.

1:03:12>> Thank you, M. Thank you, Mr. Clair.

1:03:16>> All right,

1:03:18staff. Do we have any announcements?

1:03:21No. Okay.

1:03:24I know that we're currently looking to

1:03:26see when our November meeting will be.

1:03:29November 4th. It is. Okay.

1:03:34Oh, what? Lord have mercy.

1:03:39The next policy and finance committee

1:03:41meeting will be held November 4, 2026 at

1:03:4311:00 a.m. Yes, right here in this spot

1:03:47that we are at.

1:03:49Hoping that we make an in person in

1:03:50attendance to make Mr. Councilman Banks

1:03:53having

1:03:56uh but uh if not please do your best to

1:04:00appear via Zoom.

1:04:03Um okay and with that uh any motion to

1:04:07adjourn this meeting.

1:04:10>> I'll move to adjourn.

1:04:12>> Second.

1:04:12>> So moved by Council Bradberry, second by

1:04:15Council Banks. This meeting is

1:04:16adjourned.

1:04:18>> Thank you chair.