Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Hotel Topeka Site Improvements topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Topeka Development Corporation defers decision on $142,338 funding request for Hotel Topeka site improvements

2946759 · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Topeka Development Corporation on Jan. 14 deferred action on a request for $142,338 to cover part of increased site-improvement costs at Hotel Topeka after consultants raised ADA and civil-work needs; the board will seek county input on easements and cost-sharing before acting.

Jan. 14 — The Topeka Development Corporation on Tuesday deferred a decision on a request for $142,338 in additional funding for site and accessibility improvements at Hotel Topeka, after board members pressed staff to seek participation from Shawnee County and to clarify funding options.

The request was presented by Assistant City Manager Braxton Copley, who said initial engineering for the hotel put the project budget at about $125,000 but that a later survey and an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility analysis raised the total estimated cost to about $268,000, including design, inspection and contingency. “That amount has increased up to $268,000, and that includes design, inspection, as well as contingency,” Copley said.

Board members said they want the county to weigh in because most of the land between Topeka Boulevard and the hotel is county-owned and would require easements. Director Duncan moved to defer consideration to a future Topeka Development Corporation meeting so staff could make a formal request to the county; Director Dover seconded. The motion carried; Director Ortiz recorded a dissenting vote.

Why it matters: Because the city now owns the hotel, Copley and others said the property falls under Title II of the ADA, which applies to government-owned facilities. The board discussed several funding options: using operating funds, using a capital-project resolution that would allow the corporation to issue bonds for qualifying projects, or recovering costs later through a community improvement district (CID) if a developer pursues that route. Copley said the existing resolution could allow bonding up to $2,000,000 for capital improvements and that the board could choose the funding source.

Details and debate: Copley told the board the survey and consultant recommendations identified a failing retaining wall, sunken panels and the lack of an accessible path from Topeka Boulevard to the hotel entrance. He said the consultant considered the accessible path a high-priority item: “If the DOJ or someone were to be called in on a complaint, this is one that they felt was important.”

Directors pressed staff on timing, ownership and cost recovery. Director Banks asked whether the corporation would be reimbursed if it paid to construct the sidewalk and then sold the hotel; Copley said sidewalk construction could be an eligible CID expense and that the cost could be negotiated as part of a development agreement. When asked for a unit cost, Copley said a five-foot sidewalk would cost about $60 per linear foot to construct. Several directors suggested asking Shawnee County to share costs because the county owns the strip of land between the boulevard and the hotel and would also benefit from increased accessibility to the adjacent expo center.

The board asked staff to place the request on a future agenda after formal outreach to the county; Copley said hotel staff will not put the project out to bid until funding is approved. Several members noted weather and construction-season constraints and the advantage of bidding the work as a single package.

Ending: The board did not set a binding date but discussed tentative February meeting dates (Feb. 14 or Feb. 21) to revisit the matter once staff has sought county input and clarified funding preferences.