Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:08:20 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: POLL: Kansans are Keeping More this Tax Day
|
Wednesday, April 15, 2026
Fw: POLL: Kansans are Keeping More this Tax Day
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2026 12:08:20 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: POLL: Kansans are Keeping More this Tax Day
Tuesday, April 14, 2026
Reno
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Monday, April 13, 2026
Fwd: Subject: Kansas Open Records Act Request – Downtown Topeka Parking Data, Meters, Garages, Occupancy, and Studies
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
From: Keya Downing <kdowning@topeka.org>
Date: Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: Subject: Kansas Open Records Act Request – Downtown Topeka Parking Data, Meters, Garages, Occupancy, and Studies
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>, City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>
Request received. You will receive a response within three business days. Thank you
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 2026 1:04 PM
To: City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>
Subject: Subject: Kansas Open Records Act Request – Downtown Topeka Parking Data, Meters, Garages, Occupancy, and Studies
|
Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender----- |
Subject: Kansas Open Records Act Request – Downtown Topeka Parking Data, Meters, Garages, Occupancy, and Studies
KORA
Dear Parking Division / City Clerk,
Pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.), I am requesting the following public records related to downtown Topeka parking (Central Business District / study area bounded roughly by SW 2nd St., Tyler St., SW 12th St., and Adams St.):
- Current (2026) detailed schedule of all on-street parking meter rates, time limits, payment methods, number of active meters, and any recent changes to policies or zones.
- Complete inventory of all city-operated parking garages and surface lots, including: exact stall counts per facility, current hourly and monthly rates, operating hours, and number of spaces designated for hourly vs. monthly use.
- Any and all occupancy, utilization, or parking demand data/reports for downtown public parking facilities (garages, lots, and on-street) from the past 24 months, including peak-period counts, average daily/weekly occupancy rates, or any dashboard/summary reports.
- Any parking studies, assessments, or executive summaries completed since 2017 (including any updates to the 2017 DESMAN Comprehensive Parking Plan or the Walter P. Moore garage structural review), along with any recommendations implemented or pending.
- Any internal analyses or data on parking supply vs. demand, revenue trends, or enforcement statistics for downtown parking.
If any responsive records are already publicly available online, please provide the direct links. I prefer electronic copies (PDF or spreadsheet format). I agree to pay reasonable copying fees up to $25 without further notice; please contact me if costs will exceed that.
Thank you for your assistance. Please provide the records or an estimated timeline within the statutory period.
Watch "Every single American needs to see this video from Marco Rubio" on YouTube
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Check out this bad 🍕
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Watch "You probably haven’t heard of these genius hacks yet, have you?#lifehacks" on YouTube
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals
Saturday, April 11, 2026
This isn't unique to one party or era—economic competition between states is healthy in a federal system—but sustained one-way traffic signals underlying differences in governance priorities.
"BREAKING" news. Hewlett Packard Enterprise (HPE) publicly disclosed its plan to relocate its global headquarters from San Jose, California, to Spring, Texas (in the Houston suburbs) in December 2020. The company opened its new campus there in 2022.
HPE's origins trace back to the iconic 1939 Palo Alto garage where Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard started their partnership with $538 in capital—the symbolic "birthplace of Silicon Valley." That garage story remains true and inspirational for American innovation. However, the original Hewlett-Packard company split in 2015: one part became HP Inc. (personal computers and printers, still with significant California presence), while HPE focused on enterprise hardware, servers, storage, and networking. HPE's decision reflected its evolution into a more mature, hardware-centric firm rather than a pure Silicon Valley software/startup culture.
Reasons for the Move
HPE's CEO at the time, Antonio Neri, cited "business needs, opportunities for cost savings, and team members’ preferences about the future of work" (accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic's shift to hybrid/remote models). Texas already had a substantial HPE presence (over 2,600 employees in the Houston area, plus sites in Austin and Plano), making consolidation logical. The move was not a sudden rejection of innovation but a pragmatic corporate choice for a company whose core operations had shifted.
Governor Greg Abbott welcomed it enthusiastically, highlighting Texas's business climate: no state income tax, lower overall costs, regulatory environment, quality of life, and workforce access. Abbott noted Texas was gaining Fortune 500 headquarters and positioned it as competitive for talent recruitment.
California's response (via a surrogate) was indeed the dismissive "companies come and go," reflecting a longstanding attitude among some state officials.
Broader Context on Corporate Migration
The post's larger point holds water: California has seen a notable outflow of major company headquarters and high-profile relocations in recent years, with Texas as a primary beneficiary. Examples include:
- Tesla (HQ to Austin)
- Oracle (to Austin)
- Chevron (to Houston, 2024)
- Charles Schwab, SpaceX, X (formerly Twitter), and others like Public Storage, In-N-Out (some operations), and smaller firms.
Reports indicate dozens to over 100 companies have relocated to Texas since 2020, with a significant share from California. Texas metros (Dallas-Fort Worth, Austin, Houston) have led national HQ gains, while the San Francisco Bay Area has posted net losses.
Key policy differences driving decisions for many firms:
- Taxes: California has the nation's highest top marginal personal income tax rate at 13.3% (plus additional payroll taxes pushing effective rates higher for high earners). Texas has zero state income tax. California also levies an 8.84% corporate income tax; Texas relies more on property and franchise taxes but avoids income-based taxation on individuals. High earners and executives can save substantially in Texas.
- Regulations and costs: California imposes heavier regulatory burdens, higher housing/energy prices, and operational frictions that raise costs. Texas markets itself on lighter regulation and affordability.
- Other factors: Crime, homelessness, infrastructure strain, and quality-of-life issues in parts of California are frequently cited by relocating executives and residents. Remote/hybrid work post-pandemic reduced the need to stay anchored in expensive coastal hubs.
That said, California retains enormous strengths: a massive economy (still among the world's largest if treated as a country), deep talent pools in tech/biotech, venture capital networks, universities, and cultural appeal. Many startups and innovation hubs still thrive there, and not every company flees—some expand or stay for market access. Headquarters moves don't always mean all jobs leave; HPE kept some innovation presence in San Jose.
The symbolism is real: when a company tied to Silicon Valley's founding myth finds better conditions elsewhere, it underscores policy incentives matter. Businesses vote with their feet on taxes, regulations, and livability. Texas has aggressively courted relocations and benefited from net gains in population and economic activity. California faces persistent budget challenges, out-migration of residents and firms, and debates over whether its progressive policies (high services/taxes) justify the trade-offs or deter growth.
This isn't unique to one party or era—economic competition between states is healthy in a federal system—but sustained one-way traffic signals underlying differences in governance priorities. If the goal is retaining the next generation of innovators, addressing cost, tax, and regulatory competitiveness becomes essential, rather than shrugging it off. The garage spirit of Hewlett and Packard thrived on low barriers and practical problem-solving; modern policy environments either nurture or repel that.
From Trudy = thanks
Here's the latest available public information on downtown Topeka parking (as of early 2026), plus the executive summary from the key study. I pulled this directly from the City of Topeka’s website, recent official announcements, and the 2017 Comprehensive Parking Plan (the most recent full study). No newer public occupancy/utilization study or real-time dashboard was located—current data would need to be requested from the city.
Current Parking Meters, Prices, and Policies (Downtown/Central Business District)
- On-street meters: Uniform rate of $1.00 per hour (increased from $0.50 for 10-hour meters in Sept. 2025). Most meters accept coins or mobile app payment (Passport or similar); some areas now use signage + app only (no physical meter). Time limits: gray posts = 2-hour max; yellow = 10-hour max.
- Kansas Avenue: Still free with a 2-hour daily limit per block (yellow hoods removed in some 100-blocks east/west of Kansas Ave. between 6th–10th St. in Jan. 2026; those spots converted to paid 2-hour metered). Additional free 4-hour stalls added on downtown outskirts for longer stays/employees.
- Garage hourly rates: $1.00 per hour across all city garages. Free evenings (after 6 p.m.) and weekends.
Recent rate changes (approved June 2025, phased in Sept. 2025 and Jan. 2026) were made to standardize fees, fund garage repairs/infrastructure, and improve accessibility. They were not driven by reported overcrowding.
Parking Garages/Lots (City-Operated, ~3,253 total spaces)
The city runs 7 public garages + several surface lots. Hourly parking is available in most (except 512 Jackson, Coronado). Monthly lease rates have risen (some still pending structural repairs). Here’s the latest from the city site + announcements:
| Garage/Lot | Capacity | Hourly Parking? | Current Monthly Rate | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 512 Jackson | 443 | No | $74.00 (as of Jan. 2026) | Monthly leases only |
| 9th Street | 760 (100 hourly) | Yes | $51.00 (post-repair) | 6 AM–6 PM |
| Centre City | 261 (65 hourly) | Yes | $74.00 | — |
| Crosby Place | 251 (55 hourly) | Yes | $74.00 | — |
| Park N Shop | 390 (150 hourly) | Yes | $74.00 | 6 AM–6 PM |
| Townsite Plaza | 259 (55 hourly) | Yes | $74.00 | 6 AM–8 PM |
| Coronado | 251 | No | $74.00 (post-repair) | Pending repairs |
| Other lots (5th Jackson, 800 Madison, etc.) | 92–254 each | Varies | $18–$44 | Lower-cost options |
Occupancy data: Not publicly posted in real time or in recent reports. The last detailed counts come from the 2017 study (see below). Some business owners have noted underused spaces in recent news coverage.
The Main Parking Study: 2017 Topeka Comprehensive Parking Plan (DESMAN)
This is the most recent comprehensive study (data collected May 2017; some references to 2016). It was conducted to assess supply/demand, operations, enforcement, and future needs amid downtown growth. No full public update or new executive summary has been released since (a structural engineering review of garages by Walter P. Moore in ~2023 focused only on repairs, not utilization).
Executive Summary (key excerpts and findings):
- Overall supply/demand: “During the typical weekday peak demand period, there is currently not a shortage of parking when looking at the Downtown as a whole.” Combined public parking (on-street + garages + surface lots) was 53% occupied in the morning peak and 52% in the afternoon (May 4, 2017 counts).
- Breakdown:
- On-street: 38% occupied (both AM/PM peaks).
- Public garages: 66% AM / 65% PM.
- Public surface lots: 20–22%.
- Localized high-demand areas: S. Kansas Avenue and streets near the State Capitol (some blocks >85% full).
- Weekends: Much lower (~12% on-street).
- Operations issues: Old coin-only mechanical meters, manual enforcement/tracking, outdated garage equipment, and declining Parking Division profits (~$320k projected shortfall at the time).
- Future outlook: New development would create localized shortfalls; the city would need more supply or better management long-term (2020–2025 horizon).
- Recommendations (high-level): Modernize technology (smart meters, apps, counting systems), adjust rates/permits, improve enforcement/wayfinding, and consider demand-management strategies. The plan assumed continued free 2-hour parking on Kansas Ave. but noted the city was forgoing ~$280k/year in potential revenue. Additional funding beyond current fees would be needed for sustainability.
Full PDF (free): https://s3.amazonaws.com/cot-wp-uploads/wp-content/uploads/parking/Topeka+Comprehensive+Parking+Plan.pdf
Core Request to the City of Topeka (Draft Letter/Email)
Here’s a concise, professional open records request you can copy-paste and email to parking@topeka.org (or the City Clerk’s office for formal Kansas Open Records Act processing). It asks specifically for meters, prices, garage stalls, occupancy, and any studies/executive summaries.
Subject: Kansas Open Records Act Request – Downtown Topeka Parking Data, Meters, Garages, Occupancy, and Studies
Dear Parking Division / City Clerk,
Pursuant to the Kansas Open Records Act (K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.), I am requesting the following public records related to downtown Topeka parking (Central Business District / study area bounded roughly by SW 2nd St., Tyler St., SW 12th St., and Adams St.):
- Current (2026) detailed schedule of all on-street parking meter rates, time limits, payment methods, number of active meters, and any recent changes to policies or zones.
- Complete inventory of all city-operated parking garages and surface lots, including: exact stall counts per facility, current hourly and monthly rates, operating hours, and number of spaces designated for hourly vs. monthly use.
- Any and all occupancy, utilization, or parking demand data/reports for downtown public parking facilities (garages, lots, and on-street) from the past 24 months, including peak-period counts, average daily/weekly occupancy rates, or any dashboard/summary reports.
- Any parking studies, assessments, or executive summaries completed since 2017 (including any updates to the 2017 DESMAN Comprehensive Parking Plan or the Walter P. Moore garage structural review), along with any recommendations implemented or pending.
- Any internal analyses or data on parking supply vs. demand, revenue trends, or enforcement statistics for downtown parking.
If any responsive records are already publicly available online, please provide the direct links. I prefer electronic copies (PDF or spreadsheet format). I agree to pay reasonable copying fees up to $25 without further notice; please contact me if costs will exceed that.
Thank you for your assistance. Please provide the records or an estimated timeline within the statutory period.
Subject: Kansas Open Records Act Request – Downtown Topeka Parking Data, Meters, Garages, Occupancy, and Studies
- Current (2026) detailed schedule of all on-street parking meter rates, time limits, payment methods, number of active meters, and any recent changes to policies or zones.
- Complete inventory of all city-operated parking garages and surface lots, including: exact stall counts per facility, current hourly and monthly rates, operating hours, and number of spaces designated for hourly vs. monthly use.
- Any and all occupancy, utilization, or parking demand data/reports for downtown public parking facilities (garages, lots, and on-street) from the past 24 months, including peak-period counts, average daily/weekly occupancy rates, or any dashboard/summary reports.
- Any parking studies, assessments, or executive summaries completed since 2017 (including any updates to the 2017 DESMAN Comprehensive Parking Plan or the Walter P. Moore garage structural review), along with any recommendations implemented or pending.
- Any internal analyses or data on parking supply vs. demand, revenue trends, or enforcement statistics for downtown parking.
Friday, April 10, 2026
Fw: Important updates to the Chick-fil-A One® Terms & Conditions, Chick-fil-A’s Terms and Conditions of Use, and Privacy Policy
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:20 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Important updates to the Chick-fil-A One® Terms & Conditions, Chick-fil-A’s Terms and Conditions of Use, and Privacy Policy
|
3. Property Sale/Conveyance Vote (April 7, 2026) – Most Recent Split as Mayor vs. Council Member
Yes, there are a few documented policy differences between Brett Kell (note: consistently spelled "Kell" in all public records, not "Cale," "Kel," or "Brent") and Spencer Duncan, both during their overlapping time on the Topeka City Council (roughly 2022–early 2026) and now with Duncan as mayor (since January 2026) and Kell continuing as District 5 council member. These appear limited to specific votes and budget emphases rather than broad or personal rifts—no public disparaging comments, personal attacks, or reported "falling out" turned up in exhaustive searches of news archives, council minutes references, or recent coverage (through April 2026). They collaborated on many routine items, served together on boards like the Topeka Development Corporation, and Kell publicly endorsed Duncan for mayor in 2025. Friendly interactions (e.g., Kell helping brush lint off Duncan's suit at the January 2026 swearing-in) are also noted in photos and coverage.
Here's a breakdown of the key separating issues found:
1. DEI Ordinance Changes (June 2025) – Clearest Split as Colleagues
- While both were council members, Duncan (then Policy & Finance Committee chair) proposed Ordinance No. 20568 to amend/repeal parts of the city code on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), affirmative action in contracting, and the dedicated DEI office. The goal was to protect ~$45 million in federal funding amid Trump administration executive orders.
- The council passed it 5-1 (with absences). Kell (then Deputy Mayor) cast the sole "no" vote, while Duncan supported it as a pragmatic but "difficult" balance.
- This was the most prominent public difference; critics (including some residents and advocates) viewed the changes as a rollback, while supporters called it necessary compliance. No further amendments or reversals are reported as of April 2026.
2. Budget Priorities and Specific Amendments (2024–2025)
- September 2024 budget discussions: Duncan (District 8) expressed concerns about dipping deeply into reserves alongside a mill levy increase, pushing for county support on shared costs. Kell (District 5) stressed the need to avoid "major cuts" to maintain competitiveness as a capital city on wages and infrastructure projects.
- September 2025 2026 Operating Budget vote: Duncan made a successful motion to retain 2-hour metered parking on 8th Avenue (accepting a $25,000 revenue reduction). It passed 7-3, with Kell voting against Duncan's motion (along with Michelle Hoferer).
These reflect stylistic differences—Duncan often more fiscally cautious on reserves/taxes, Kell more focused on investment and growth—but they aligned on the overall budget package.
3. Property Sale/Conveyance Vote (April 7, 2026) – Most Recent Split as Mayor vs. Council Member
- At the April 7 council meeting (covered April 9), one item involved selling a ~30,000 sq. ft. former police station parking lot site at 204 SW 5th St. (environmental history noted; bid of $215,000 from a private buyer who planned to keep it as a parking lot).
- Staff recommended rejection (not cost-effective long-term; city could operate it more profitably). The council voted 6-4 to reject the sale.
- For approving the sale (yes votes): Kell + Marcus Miller, Sylvia Ortiz, Michelle Hoferer (4).
- For rejecting (no votes, prevailing): Mayor Duncan + Karen Hiller, Christina Valdivia-Alcala, David Banks, Michelle Bradberry, Murray McGee (6).
- Duncan stated: "I don't think we need to sell the property at this time," wanting more time to review circumstances and discuss long-term marketing strategies with staff. Councilmember Miller (who voted yes) criticized the rejection as making the city look like it was doing business poorly after marketing the property.
- Note: Separate items that night (iconic water tower property at 1121 SE Quincy St. and a vacant lot to the Land Bank for affordable housing) passed unanimously 10-0; no split there.
Other council actions and development votes (e.g., Hotel Topeka dealings, rezonings) show them generally aligned or without recorded opposition between them.
Overall assessment after deep review (news, meeting references, 2022–2026 coverage): These are typical council policy disagreements on federal compliance, fiscal strategy, and asset management—not evidence of personal animosity or consistent opposition. Kell's term runs through January 2030 (next election 2029), so more differences could emerge, but as of April 10, 2026, nothing deeper or ongoing is public. Local Topeka sources (Capital-Journal, WIBW, KSNT, city records) treat their relationship as professional and collegial. If private context or unindexed older comments exist, they aren't in verifiable public records. Let me know if you'd like links to specific meeting videos or further checks on any issue!