Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Topeka council approves Winward Estates RHID and development agreement after debate over incentive size and affordability
Summary
After a public hearing and questions from council members over affordability and a $2.6 million RHID cap on a $9.8 million project, the Topeka governing body approved the Winward Estates Reinvestment Housing District and authorized the city manager to execute the development agreement, with three council members voting no.
The Topeka governing body voted June 2 to establish the Winward Estates Reinvestment Housing District and to authorize a development agreement for a 40‑unit market‑rate rental project at Southeast 45th and California Avenue.
Economic development staff described the proposal as a roughly $9.8 million project consisting of 20 duplexes (40 units), with unit sizes of four bedrooms and two‑and‑a‑half bathrooms and proposed monthly rents presented in the range of $1,500 to $1,750 (staff said final rents would be market‑determined at completion). Staff said the developer submitted required documentation, that the State of Kansas deemed the application eligible under RHID criteria in October, and that staff’s ‘but‑for’ financial analysis supported a pay‑as‑you‑go RHID reimbursement capped at $2.6 million over 25 years and a developer fee cap.
Council discussion focused on two issues: whether the proposed rents would be affordable to many Topeka households and whether $2.6 million in incentives — roughly 26% of the project cost — was appropriate. Council Member Kell and Council Member Valdivia Alkala said they were not comfortable approving the RHID because they feared the units would be priced beyond reach for many residents; Valdivia Alkala cited local median income and past RHID concerns when announcing she would vote no. Other council members defended workforce housing and said the developer’s local track record indicated the units would serve working households.
The ordinance establishing the RHID was moved by Council Member Bradberry and seconded by Council Member Banks; the motion carried 8–3 with Council Members Valdivia Alkala, Aquala, and Kell voting no. The subsequent development agreement was approved in a separate motion (mover: Council Member Miller; second: Council Member Bradberry) with the same dissenting votes.
Two members of the public spoke: Joe Ledbetter supported the project and praised the developer’s prior work; Henry McClure supported development generally but criticized the ‘but‑for’ test and the developer fee cap as unnecessarily restrictive.
Staff said the developer must report final development fees by June 2030 and that the city retains the right to recalculate reimburseable amounts if developer fees exceed assumptions. The governing body also approved related development items on the consent agenda and then moved on to other business.
