Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Economic Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Topeka approves $900,000 in sales-tax support for 911 Walnut development after cost increases
Summary
Council approved a restated development agreement increasing total project costs and authorizing use of up to $600,000 from the citywide half-cent sales tax and $300,000 from general city sales tax to cover roadway and site-access improvements for a Southwest Topeka development at 911 Walnut/37 Ashika Boulevard.
The governing body approved May 6 a restated development agreement tied to the Southwest Topeka Community Improvement District / tax increment finance project for a development at 911 Walnut (also cited as 37 Ashika Boulevard). The agreement reflects an increase in total project cost and authorizes capped reimbursements from two municipal sales-tax buckets to cover certain roadway and access improvements.
Rhiannon Freeman, director of planning and development, told the council that construction costs for the project had risen and that the developer requested additional public support for roadway and circulation improvements. The developer proposed using up to $600,000 of citywide half‑cent sales tax funds for improvements on Topeka Boulevard that qualify under that funding source and up to $300,000 of general city sales-tax funds for improvements outside the existing boulevard alignment.
Freeman described the restated agreement’s maximum reimbursement cap as roughly $4.4 million plus reimbursable interest, and she said the city required a detailed cost breakdown from the developer showing which elements matched which funding bucket. She noted the half‑cent citywide sales tax sunsets in October 2029 and that any extension would require a future vote, so the funding is not guaranteed beyond that date.
City Attorney clarified that the reimbursement was structured as a home‑rule ordinance rather than a CID amendment because the existing CID contained multiple property owners and adjustments to that CID would have been more complex; using home‑rule achieves the same result but changes the mayor’s voting role on the item (mayor does not vote on home‑rule ordinance in this context).
Council members debated the appropriateness of granting additional sales-tax support after the developer returned seeking more funds. Councilman Kell said he was sympathetic to municipal needs and the project’s local benefit but voiced concern about the city making a second request to cover higher costs: "This is $900,000 that we can use in the city that we desperately need," he said. Councilman Dobler and Councilman Jason Duncan urged flexibility for the developer because market conditions had changed and construction inflation had driven cost escalation.
Outcome: The council approved the restated development agreement and the sales-tax allocations; the clerk recorded eight yes votes with Deputy Mayor Kell voting no. The project will proceed with the revised funding terms and the capped reimbursements as described in the agreement.
What this means: The developer keeps the project’s momentum while the city uses targeted sales-tax tools to fund public road and access improvements tied to the development. Staff emphasized the caps and the sunset date on the half‑cent sales tax as material constraints.
