Sunday, February 8, 2026

dig deeper - Role of 501(c)(4) Organizations in Economic Development

A **501(c)(4)** organization is classified by the IRS as a **civic league** or **social welfare organization** (under IRC Section 501(c)(4)). Its primary purpose must be to promote the **common good and general welfare** of the community (or a substantial segment of it), rather than serving private interests. This broad "social welfare" test allows significant flexibility compared to other nonprofit types, especially in advocacy and policy work.

### How 501(c)(4)s Engage in Economic Development
Economic development activities can qualify as promoting social welfare if they relieve unemployment, alleviate poverty/distress in economically depressed areas, stimulate community improvement, or induce industry/business location for broader public benefit (e.g., job creation, tax base strengthening). Key IRS-recognized examples include:

- Making loans to businesses to encourage industrial development and employment in underserved areas.
- Efforts to relieve unemployment through area redevelopment or attracting companies to economically depressed communities.
- Supporting civic betterments that indirectly foster economic opportunity (e.g., community facilities or initiatives tied to job growth).

Unlike **501(c)(3) charitable organizations** (which focus on relief of the poor/distressed, education, or advancement of economics as explicitly charitable), 501(c)(4)s can pursue these goals with fewer restrictions on private benefit (as long as it's incidental) and no requirement for exclusively charitable operations.

### Key Advantages for Economic Development Work
- **Unlimited Lobbying**: 501(c)(4)s can engage in **unlimited lobbying** (direct or grassroots) to influence legislation in furtherance of social welfare goals, such as advocating for pro-development policies, incentives, infrastructure funding, or regulatory changes. This is far more permissive than 501(c)(3)s (limited to insubstantial lobbying) or 501(c)(6) business leagues (lobbying must be germane to member interests).
- **Some Political Activity**: They can participate in political campaigns or issue advocacy, as long as it's **not their primary activity** (e.g., endorsing candidates who support economic growth policies is allowed if secondary).
- **Tax-Exempt Status**: No federal income tax on related income; donations are **not tax-deductible** to donors (unlike 501(c)(3)s), but this enables more flexible funding from businesses/corporations.
- **Flexibility**: Can operate with substantial non-exempt activities if primarily social welfare-focused; no strict "exclusively" test like 501(c)(3)s.

### Comparison to Other Common Types in Economic Development
| Type | Primary Focus | Lobbying Allowed | Political Activity | Donations Tax-Deductible? | Typical Economic Dev. Role | Examples |
|------|---------------|------------------|--------------------|---------------------------|----------------------------|----------|
| **501(c)(3)** (Charitable) | Exclusive charitable purposes (e.g., relief of poor/distressed, education, economic advancement as charitable) | Limited (insubstantial or via 501(h) election) | Prohibited (no candidate intervention) | Yes | Grant-making, workforce training, loans/grants to businesses in distressed areas (private benefit must be incidental) | Community foundations, economic development foundations (like Greater Topeka Partnership Foundation) |
| **501(c)(4)** (Social Welfare) | Promote common good/social welfare (broad, includes civic betterment) | Unlimited (if furthering exempt purpose) | Allowed if not primary | No | Advocacy/lobbying for development policies, loans to induce business location, community revitalization | Civic leagues making business loans for employment; some downtown associations or advocacy groups pushing economic policies |
| **501(c)(6)** (Business League) | Promote common business interests (e.g., chambers, trade groups) | Unlimited if germane to members | Limited (can lobby but not endorse candidates primarily) | No | Business attraction/retention, networking, incentives advocacy (often the "operational" arm) | Chambers of commerce, GO Topeka (Growth Organization), Greater Topeka Partnership Inc. |

### Real-World Examples and Context
- Organizations making loans to businesses to locate in depressed areas and create jobs have qualified under 501(c)(4) (per IRS Rev. Rul. 67-294).
- Some downtown or civic associations use 501(c)(4) status for advocacy-heavy economic revitalization.
- In contrast, purely charitable economic development (e.g., grants for training/relief) often uses 501(c)(3), while business-focused promotion leans toward 501(c)(6).

501(c)(4)s fill a niche for groups needing aggressive policy influence or advocacy in economic development without the strict charitable limits of 501(c)(3)s. However, they face scrutiny if activities primarily benefit private businesses rather than the broader community.

If you're exploring this for a specific Topeka/Shawnee County context (e.g., comparing to existing GTP entities or potential new structures), let me know for more tailored insights!

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live

more more more how do you like it?

**Similar Economic Development Foundations (501(c)(3) Organizations)**

The **Greater Topeka Partnership Foundation** (EIN 80-0077427) is a classic example of a **501(c)(3) charitable foundation** tied to local economic development. It provides grants, funding for education/training, workforce opportunities, and support for underprivileged groups to advance economic growth—often complementing a related 501(c)(6) business league (like the Greater Topeka Partnership umbrella). This "dual structure" (charitable arm for tax-deductible donations + operational/business arm) is common in U.S. economic development ecosystems.

Here are comparable **501(c)(3) foundations** focused on economic development, drawn from public examples across the U.S. (with emphasis on Midwest/Kansas where possible). These often fund grants, loans, workforce programs, business support, or community revitalization in distressed/underserved areas, aligning with IRS-recognized charitable purposes like relief of the poor/distressed, advancement of education, or community betterment.

### Midwest/Kansas-Focused Examples
- **Topeka Community Foundation** (Topeka, KS): Manages charitable funds for local needs, including economic opportunity, education, and community development grants. It supports nonprofits and initiatives that boost Topeka's quality of life and prosperity—similar role as a philanthropic partner to local economic efforts.
- **Greater Kansas City Community Foundation** (Kansas City metro, KS/MO): Oversees donor-advised funds and grants for 501(c)(3) charities in the region, including those focused on economic mobility, workforce development, entrepreneurship, and underserved communities. It powers inclusive economic growth through philanthropy.
- **Patterson Family Foundation** (Kansas/western Missouri): Funds rural entrepreneurship, business support, mentorship, technical assistance, and innovation to address economic barriers—explicitly targets economic opportunity in rural areas.
- **Central Kansas Community Foundation** (Central KS affiliates): Provides grants to 501(c)(3)s, governments, and schools for community/economic projects, often in rural or underserved areas.

### National/Regional Examples with Similar Structures
- **San Diego Regional Economic Development Foundation** (San Diego, CA): A 501(c)(3) companion to the San Diego Regional EDC (501(c)(6)). It accepts tax-deductible donations to support job creation, business cultivation, and quality employment opportunities—mirrors the Topeka model of charitable support for economic goals.
- **Indiana Economic Development Foundation** (Indiana): A 501(c)(3) that supplements the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (state agency) with private donations for marketing, workforce, and growth initiatives. Shares leadership/staff with the operational arm.
- **Greater New Orleans Development Foundation** (New Orleans, LA): A standalone 501(c)(3) sharing management with Greater New Orleans, Inc. (GNO, Inc.), focused on economic development, business support, and community revitalization.
- **Carolina Small Business Development Fund** (North Carolina): A 501(c)(3) providing capital, technical assistance, and policy research to foster economic opportunity in underserved communities via small business lending and support.
- **National Institute of Minority Economic Development** (Durham, NC, with national reach): Focuses on minority business diversification, economic opportunity, and community development—originally seeded by grants for similar purposes.

### Common Patterns Among These Organizations
- **Mission Alignment**: Relief for poor/distressed/underprivileged + economic advancement (e.g., jobs, training, business startups in targeted areas).
- **Revenue/Activities**: Primarily contributions/grants (tax-deductible), some program revenue (loans/fees), and grants out to related entities or nonprofits.
- **Scale**: Modest to mid-size revenue (hundreds of thousands to millions), often fluctuating with grants.
- **IRS Recognition**: Qualify under 501(c)(3) for charitable economic development (e.g., aiding depressed areas, incubators, minority businesses), per IRS guidance on relieving poverty/distress through job creation and community support.

These are not exhaustive but represent well-documented parallels. Many economic development efforts use 501(c)(3) arms for philanthropy while 501(c)(6) handles lobbying/marketing. If you're interested in a specific state, city, or aspect (e.g., financial comparisons, how they structure grants), let me know for a deeper look!

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live

looking at the flow $$$$

### GO Topeka's Financial Flows to the Chamber or Other GTP Entities

Henry, thanks for the query—I'll dive into this based on public filings, reports, and the structure of the Greater Topeka Partnership (GTP) umbrella. GO Topeka (officially Growth Organization of Topeka-Shawnee County Inc., a 501(c)(6) entity) is one of several affiliated organizations under GTP, including the Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce, Visit Topeka Inc., Downtown Topeka Inc., and the Greater Topeka Partnership Inc. (the parent/umbrella, EIN 82-2627387). These entities share leadership, office space (719 S Kansas Ave), and administrative resources to minimize duplication and maximize efficiency for economic development in Topeka/Shawnee County.

From my analysis of available Form 990 filings (via ProPublica and GuideStar summaries for 2021–2024), news reports, and GTP documents, there is no evidence of **direct grants or one-way payments** from GO Topeka to the Chamber or other GTP entities. However, there are **indirect financial flows through shared services, reimbursements, and allocated expenses**, as is common in umbrella nonprofit structures. GO Topeka's primary funding comes from Shawnee County (via Joint Economic Development Organization/JEDO allocations from sales tax revenue), which it uses for business incentives, workforce programs, and operations. Any "payments" to affiliates would likely be for shared costs rather than grants.

#### Key Findings on Payments/Expenses
- **No Direct Grants from GO Topeka**: GO Topeka does not report granting money to the Chamber or other GTP entities in its 990s. Instead, it focuses on incentives to businesses and employers (e.g., Choose Topeka relocation reimbursements up to $15,000 per employee, paid directly to employers for talent attraction). The Greater Topeka Partnership Foundation (your provided 2021 990) is the charitable arm that makes grants (e.g., $199,700 in 2021 to Greater Topeka Partnership Inc. for general support), but GO Topeka is not a grant-maker to affiliates.

- **Shared Expenses and Reimbursements (Likely Yes)**: The GTP model involves centralized administration, so GO Topeka probably reimburses or allocates funds to the parent GTP Inc. for shared overhead. This could include:
- **Rent/Occupancy**: All entities share the same headquarters. GO Topeka's 990s report functional expenses (Part IX) including occupancy costs (typically $100k–$200k annually across programs/management), but summaries don't break out affiliate-specific allocations. Shared rent is implied, as GTP Inc. manages facilities.
- **Staff/Compensation**: GTP Inc. pays salaries for leaders of affiliates, including GO Topeka's president (e.g., Molly Howey at ~$170k in recent years, paid by GTP Inc., $0 from related orgs). This suggests GO Topeka may reimburse GTP Inc. for its share of payroll/benefits to avoid double-counting. No exact dollar amounts for these reimbursements are detailed in public summaries, but related-party transactions (Schedule R) would list them in full 990s—typically in the $100k+ range for shared services in similar structures.
- **Other Shared Expenses**: Programs like diversity initiatives (INCLUDED) or insurance plans (Chamber Blue of Kansas) are co-backed by GO Topeka and the Chamber, implying cost-sharing. GTP documents mention unified advocacy and events, where costs (e.g., marketing, events) are allocated across entities.

- **Funding Direction**: Flows often go **to GO Topeka** rather than from it. For example:
- Shawnee County/JEDO provides ~$3–4M annually to GO Topeka for economic development (majority of its revenue).
- The Partnership Foundation grants to GTP Inc., which supports affiliates like GO Topeka indirectly.

#### Table of Potential Shared/Allocated Expenses (Estimated Based on Structure)
| Category | Estimated Annual Amount (GO Topeka Total Expenses) | Likely Allocation to GTP/Chamber | Notes |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------|-------|
| **Rent/Occupancy** | $150k–$250k (from Part IX summaries) | Partial reimbursement to GTP Inc. | Shared office; no specific breakout. |
| **Staff Compensation** | $1M–$1.5M (total for programs/management) | Reimbursement for shared execs (~$170k for GO Topeka president paid by GTP) | GTP Inc. handles payroll; GO Topeka reimburses share. |
| **Other Shared Services (IT, Marketing, Admin)** | $500k–$800k | Allocated/reimbursed to GTP Inc. | For joint programs like Momentum 2027 or advocacy. |
| **Grants/Payments** | $0 to affiliates | None reported | GO Topeka pays incentives to external businesses/employers, not GTP entities. |

#### Limitations and Recommendations
- Public 990 summaries (e.g., ProPublica, GuideStar) don't always include full Schedule R/L details on related-party transactions, which could list exact reimbursements. Full PDFs (available on those sites) or audited financials from Shawnee County/JEDO might show more—e.g., GO Topeka's 2024 filing (fiscal year ending Dec. 2024) reports ~$4.9M revenue, mostly contributions, with no explicit affiliate grants noted in overviews.
- No news or reports mention direct payments from GO Topeka to the Chamber/GTP beyond shared ops.
- If you're seeking precise numbers, I recommend requesting full 990s via ProPublica or contacting GTP directly (as a local in Topeka, you could email info@topekapartnership.com or attend a board meeting). Shawnee County audits (available on their site) often detail JEDO allocations to GO Topeka.

If you have a specific year or more details (e.g., a particular expense type), I can refine this further!

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live

where is the money?

**Visit Topeka Inc.** (EIN: 32-0176144) is a 501(c)(6) nonprofit organization operating as the destination marketing arm for Topeka and Shawnee County. It functions as a subsidiary or affiliate within the **Greater Topeka Partnership** umbrella structure, focusing on tourism promotion, convention sales, visitor services, and economic impact through travel and events.

### Funding Allocation (Based on Recent Public Reports)
A December 2025 report (from KSNT and related coverage) detailed the allocation of Visit Topeka's funds as follows:

- **79%** → Directly supports **Visit Topeka's own operations** (staffing, marketing campaigns, office expenses, advertising, website maintenance, visitor center operations, and general administrative costs).
- **11%** → Directed to a **Bid Fund** used to attract conventions, meetings, sports tournaments, and group events (e.g., subsidies, hosting incentives, or competitive bidding support).
- **10%** → Supports the **City of Topeka** (likely through direct payments, shared services reimbursements, or contributions to municipal tourism-related efforts).

These percentages appear to reflect a typical annual breakdown of its budget, though exact dollar amounts vary year to year depending on total revenue (primarily from **transient guest tax / hotel-motel tax** collections allocated by the city/county, plus some grants and sponsorships).

### Primary Revenue Sources for Visit Topeka
Visit Topeka's funding is mostly **publicly derived** rather than private donations:
- **Transient guest (hotel/motel) tax** — The largest source; a portion of the local lodging tax is dedicated to Visit Topeka under Kansas law and local agreements.
- **Grants** — e.g., $5,000 from Kansas Tourism marketing grants in 2023 (shared with ArtsConnect/Topeka).
- **Other** — Sponsorships, cooperative advertising funds from partners, and minor program revenue.

### Relationship with Greater Topeka Partnership
- Visit Topeka is **governed as part of** the Greater Topeka Partnership (a collaborative structure that includes GO Topeka, the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Topeka Inc., and others).
- It shares office space, leadership oversight, and administrative support with the Partnership (located at 719 S Kansas Ave, Topeka).
- **No specific dollar amount** for direct payments/transfers from Visit Topeka to the Greater Topeka Partnership is explicitly disclosed in public reports or summaries. However, the umbrella model means:
- Shared overhead costs (rent, utilities, executive salaries, IT, etc.) are often allocated across entities.
- Some staff and services are centralized, so Visit Topeka effectively contributes indirectly through shared expenses and governance.
- Public Form 990 filings for Visit Topeka (available via ProPublica, GuideStar/Instrumentl, etc.) would show "management/general" expenses and any related-party transactions, but recent summaries do not highlight large standalone transfers to the Partnership.

### Key Financial Snapshot (from Public 990 Data Sources)
- **Assets** (recent years): Approximately $2.3–$2.4 million (mostly cash and receivables from tax allocations).
- **Revenue** — Primarily tied to lodging tax collections, which fluctuate with tourism volume.
- **Expenses** — Heavily weighted toward program services (tourism marketing) and operations, consistent with the 79% figure.

For precise dollar figures (including any inter-entity payments), review Visit Topeka's most recent Form 990 filings directly:
- ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/320176144
- Instrumentl or Cause IQ: Search for EIN 32-0176144
- Latest full filings typically cover calendar years 2022–2024 (2025 not yet available as of February 2026).

If you'd like me to dig into a specific year's 990 details (e.g., exact revenue, related-party transactions, or compensation), or compare to other Partnership entities, let me know!

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live

ngo

### Greater Topeka Partnership Foundation (EIN: 80-0077427)

Based on the latest available Form 990 filings, here are the income sources for the foundation in recent years. The organization primarily relies on contributions (e.g., donations and grants) and program service revenue (e.g., from the First Opportunity Fund, including loan interest and fees). No investment income or other miscellaneous sources were reported in these years. Total revenue fluctuates significantly, often tied to specific grants or initiatives.

| Fiscal Year | Total Revenue | Contributions (Amount / %) | Program Services (Amount / %) | Other Sources |
|-------------|---------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|--------------|
| 2022 (Ending Dec.) | $1,024,117 | $1,004,970 (98.1%) | $19,147 (1.9%) | $0 |
| 2023 (Ending Dec.) | $113,645 | $75,008 (66.0%) | $38,637 (34.0%) | $0 |
| 2024 (Ending Dec.) | $374,198 | $337,087 (90.1%) | $37,111 (9.9%) | $0 |

Note: 2025 filings are not yet available as of February 2026. Contributions likely include support from related entities, individuals, or community grants aligned with economic development goals. Program services remain consistent with workforce and business support activities.

### Related Entity: Growth Organization of Topeka-Shawnee County Inc (GO Topeka, EIN: 48-1227900)
GO Topeka operates as the economic development arm under the Greater Topeka Partnership umbrella. It focuses on business attraction and growth, with revenue primarily from contributions (e.g., public-private partnerships, county/city funding) and program services (e.g., incentives, consulting). Investment income has grown in recent years, possibly from managed funds or assets.

| Fiscal Year | Total Revenue | Contributions (Amount / %) | Program Services (Amount / %) | Investment Income (Amount / %) | Other Revenue (Amount / %) | Sales of Assets (Amount / %) |
|-------------|---------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
| 2021 (Ending Dec.) | $5,398,082 | $5,183,563 (96.0%) | $179,767 (3.3%) | $32,822 (0.6%) | $1,930 (0.0%) | $0 |
| 2022 (Ending Dec.) | $4,538,551 | $3,980,201 (87.7%) | $240,978 (5.3%) | $72,644 (1.6%) | $245,224 (5.4%) | -$496 (0.0%) |
| 2023 (Ending Dec.) | $4,468,885 | $3,913,465 (87.6%) | $262,439 (5.9%) | $244,451 (5.5%) | $48,530 (1.1%) | $0 |
| 2024 (Ending Dec.) | $4,933,459 | $4,313,090 (87.4%) | $253,556 (5.1%) | $349,723 (7.1%) | $17,090 (0.3%) | $0 |

### Related Entity: Greater Topeka Partnership Inc (Umbrella Organization, EIN: 82-2627387)
This is the parent entity encompassing GO Topeka, the Chamber, and others. Revenue sources include contributions (e.g., sponsorships, grants), program services (e.g., events, tourism promotion), and a large "other revenue" category (likely including membership dues, fees, and miscellaneous income). Investment income is minor.

| Fiscal Year | Total Revenue | Contributions (Amount / %) | Program Services (Amount / %) | Investment Income (Amount / %) | Other Revenue (Amount / %) | Sales of Assets (Amount / %) |
|-------------|---------------|-----------------------------|--------------------------------|---------------------------------|-----------------------------|------------------------------|
| 2022 (Ending Dec.) | $9,147,732 | $4,832,177 (52.8%) | $1,302,701 (14.2%) | $3,146 (0.0%) | $3,019,266 (33.0%) | -$9,558 (0.0%) |
| 2023 (Ending Dec.) | $6,920,867 | $2,477,284 (35.8%) | $1,242,049 (17.9%) | $14,961 (0.2%) | $3,175,024 (45.9%) | $11,549 (0.2%) |
| 2024 (Ending Dec.) | $8,124,211 | $3,160,408 (38.9%) | $1,597,401 (19.7%) | $23,644 (0.3%) | $3,342,758 (41.1%) | $0 |

If you'd like deeper details (e.g., specific grants or PDFs of the full 990s) or info on other related entities like the Chamber of Commerce, just let me know, Henry!

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live

GTP Foundation

### Overview

The 2021 Form 990 is the tax return filed by the Greater Topeka Partnership Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt public charity (EIN: 80-0077427) incorporated in Kansas in 2003. The organization is located at 719 S Kansas Ave, Suite 100, Topeka, KS 66603. It reports no employees, 4 volunteers, and gross receipts of $68,859. The principal officer is Matthew Pivarnik, President & CEO.

### Mission
To provide sources of charitable support and funding for the establishment or support of educational and training opportunities designed to provide relief for the poor, distressed, and underprivileged; to support the advancement of economics, economic planning, and development; and to accelerate the quality and quantity of economic growth and employment opportunities.

### Financial Summary
The foundation experienced a net loss in 2021, with revenues significantly lower than the prior year ($1,039,116 in 2020). Expenses were primarily directed toward program services, including substantial grants.

| Category | Amount ($) |
|----------|------------|
| **Total Revenue** | 68,859 |
| - Contributions and Grants | 45,174 |
| - Program Service Revenue | 23,685 |
| - Investment Income | 0 |
| **Total Expenses** | 224,788 |
| - Program Services | 224,532 |
| - Management & General | 256 |
| - Fundraising | 0 |
| **Net Income (Loss)** | (155,929) |
| **Net Assets (Beginning of Year)** | 1,433,271 |
| **Net Assets (End of Year)** | 1,277,342 |
| - Without Donor Restrictions | 621,965 |
| - With Donor Restrictions | 655,377 |

#### Balance Sheet (End of Year)
| Assets | Amount ($) |
|--------|------------|
| Cash (Non-Interest-Bearing) | 336,488 |
| Savings & Temporary Cash Investments | 576,010 |
| Pledges & Grants Receivable (Net) | 193,608 |
| Prepaid Expenses | 1,347 |
| Other Assets | 2,500 |
| **Total Assets** | 1,336,716 |

| Liabilities & Net Assets | Amount ($) |
|--------------------------|------------|
| Accounts Payable & Accrued Expenses | 40 |
| Other Liabilities | 59,334 |
| **Total Liabilities** | 59,374 |
| **Total Net Assets** | 1,277,342 |

### Program Services
The foundation reported two main program services, focused on economic and community development.

1. **Economic Development Support** (Expenses: $223,019; Grants: $222,236; Revenue: $0)
Provides charitable support and funding for educational/training opportunities to aid the underprivileged and promote economic growth.

2. **First Opportunity Fund** (Expenses: $1,513; Grants: $0; Revenue: $23,685)
Offers financial support for workforce development programs in the community.

No other program services were reported.

### Grants and Assistance
The foundation provided $222,236 in grants to domestic organizations. Key grant:
- $199,700 to Greater Topeka Partnership Inc. (related organization) for general support.

No grants to individuals were reported. The organization maintains records to substantiate grants, eligibility, and selection criteria.

### Governance and Policies
- **Governing Body:** 5 voting members (4 independent). The organization has members/stockholders with power to elect board members.
- **Documentation:** Meetings and actions are contemporaneously documented.
- **Policies:** Written conflict of interest policy (monitored and enforced), whistleblower policy, and document retention/destruction policy. No significant changes to governing documents.
- **Review Process:** Form 990 is provided to the governing body for review before filing. Financial statements are audited on a consolidated basis with related organizations; an audit committee oversees this process.
- **Public Disclosure:** Governing documents, conflict of interest policy, and financial statements are available upon request.

### Compensation
No officers, directors, trustees, or key employees received compensation directly from the foundation. However:
- Matthew Pivarnik (President & CEO) received $353,344 in reportable compensation and $61,705 in other compensation from related organizations.
Compensation processes for executives are handled by related organizations, which use independent reviews, comparability data, and substantiation.

### Related Organizations and Transactions
The foundation is part of a network focused on economic development in Topeka/Shawnee County.

- **Disregarded Entities ( Treated as Part of the Foundation):**
1. Topeka/Shawnee Co First Opportunity Fund (EIN: 61-1596467) – Provides loans; Income: $23,685; Assets: $805,196.
2. 712 Innovations LLC (EIN: 47-1776434) – Provides facilities/equipment for entrepreneurs; Income: $0; Assets: $0.

- **Related Tax-Exempt Organizations:**
| Organization | EIN | Type | Primary Activity | Controlled? |
|--------------|-----|------|------------------|-------------|
| Growth Organization of Topeka/Shawnee Co | 48-1227900 | 501(c)(6) | Foster economic growth | No |
| Greater Topeka Partnership Inc | 62-2627387 | 501(c)(6) | Enhance economic development and quality of life | No |
| Downtown Topeka | 48-0694197 | 501(c)(6) | Encourage business/cultural growth | No |
| Greater Topeka Chamber of Commerce | 48-0451270 | 501(c)(6) | Support policies for economic success | No |
| Go Topeka ETLC Support Corporation | 83-0950867 | 501(c)(3) | Foster economic growth | Yes |
| Visit Topeka Inc | 32-0176144 | 501(c)(6) | Increase tourism | No |

- **Transactions with Related Organizations:** Yes, including grants/capital contributions ($199,700 to Greater Topeka Partnership Inc.), sharing of employees, facilities/equipment, and reimbursements for expenses.

No unrelated business income, political contributions, or foreign activities were reported. The return was prepared by BT&CO PA and signed on November 15, 2022.

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

www.henrymcclure.live

Clove

The best way to get eugenol into your diet is by incorporating whole or ground cloves into meals, such as curries, baked goods, and hot beverages like chai, as this provides a safe and effective, controlled intake. Other natural sources include cinnamon, basil, tulsi, and oregano. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Usage Examples for Dietary Eugenol:

• Cloves: Add whole cloves to broths or curries and ground cloves to oatmeal, fruit salads, or baked goods.

• Cinnamon: Use cinnamon sticks in tea or ground cinnamon in porridge.

• Herbs: Incorporate fresh basil or oregano into salads and sauces.

• Drinks: Chai tea with cinnamon and cloves is a great source (https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-cloves). [1, 4, 5, 6]

Synonyms and Natural Sources of Eugenol:Eugenol is often referred to by the sources it is derived from rather than a direct synonym. Key sources include:

• Clove Oil/Buds (highest concentration)

•

• Tulsi (Holy Basil)

• Pimenta racemosa (Bay leaf/tree) [1, 2, 3, 7, 8]

Safe Consumption Tips:

• Moderation: Use culinary amounts rather than large quantities to avoid potential toxicity.

• Avoid Pure Oil: Do not consume undiluted, highly concentrated essential oils (like pure clove oil) without professional guidance.

• Whole is Better: Prefer using whole spices over extracts to ensure lower risk of overloading on the compound. [1, 5, 6, 9]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://earthley.com/earthleys-blog/clove-vs-clove-eo

[2] https://wellness.alibaba.com/nutrition/eugenol-in-cloves

[3] https://tisserandinstitute.org/learn-more/eugenol/

[4] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/benefits-of-cloves

[5] https://wellness.alibaba.com/nutrition/eugenol-tree-oil

[6] https://npistanbul.com/en/what-are-the-benefits-of-clove-how-to-consume

[7] https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2017/ra/c7ra04803c

[8] https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/pharmacology-toxicology-and-pharmaceutical-science/eugenol

[9] https://wellness.alibaba.com/nutrition/what-is-eugenol

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Saturday, February 7, 2026

Raw

Dr. Steven Gundry generally advises caution with carrots, advising that they should be eaten in moderation due to their high sugar content when cooked, which makes the sugars more available. While they are not considered a highly lectin-heavy food, he suggests eating them raw when possible to avoid this breakdown of cell walls. [1, 2]

Key points from Dr. Gundry regarding carrots:

• Raw is Better: Cooking carrots breaks down their cell walls, releasing sugars that may not be ideal, so raw is preferred.

• Moderate Intake: Due to their starch/sugar content, they are not an "eat all you want" vegetable in his diet plans.

• Low Lectin: Raw carrots are generally low in lectins compared to high-lectin foods like beans or grains. [1, 2, 3, 4]

He emphasizes focusing on leafy greens and other low-sugar, low-lectin vegetables for better gut health, rather than root vegetables. [1, 5]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCus8lEzx_d/

[2] https://www.strongrfastr.com/foods/carrots-11124

[3] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/carrots

[4] https://www.browlab.fr/en/blogs/magazine-conseils-beautes/combien-de-carottes-faut-il-manger-par-jour-pour-avoir-un-teint-hale

[5] https://www.innerbody.com/dr-gundry-superfood-to-eat

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Good for the goose is good for the gander?

Here are **five ways** in which Mexico's immigration policy has often been described as stricter than that of the United States, particularly in enforcement practices and treatment of irregular migration (especially from Central America and other transit countries). These points draw from historical and ongoing comparisons, noting that policies evolve and both countries have tightened controls in recent years.

1. **Higher deportation rates relative to apprehensions**

Mexico has historically deported a much higher percentage of apprehended migrants compared to the US. For example, in periods like 2004–2018, Mexico deported about 94% of apprehended Central American migrants, while the US often apprehended far more than it deported (due to asylum processing, releases, or other factors). In specific years (e.g., 2015–2018), Mexico deported more Central Americans than the US did, despite the US having a much larger overall unauthorized population and border flow.

2. **Stricter enforcement and use of military/national guard for border control**

Mexico has deployed its National Guard (and previously other forces) extensively to enforce its southern border with Guatemala, intercepting migrants in transit and restricting movement northward. This has included busing migrants back south, checkpoints, and disruptions to migrant routes—often in direct response to US pressure. The US enforces its border primarily through Border Patrol and ICE, but Mexico's approach has been characterized as more aggressive in blocking transit migration.

3. **Visa requirements and restrictions on transit/asylum access**

Mexico has imposed visa requirements on nationals from countries like Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and others in recent years, and restricted humanitarian visas or transit permissions that previously allowed migrants to move through the country while awaiting US asylum claims. It has also kept many asylum seekers in southern Mexico rather than allowing them to reach the US border. While the US has asylum restrictions (e.g., metering, Remain in Mexico), Mexico's policies have limited onward movement more directly for non-Mexicans.

4. **Criminalization and penalties for irregular entry (historically harsher)**

Prior to reforms (e.g., pre-2008), unauthorized entry into Mexico could result in jail time (up to two years), and even after decriminalization, enforcement remains firm with fines, detention, and rapid removal. Some sources describe Mexico's overall framework for legal residency and citizenship as more difficult and restrictive for many foreigners compared to US pathways, though the US has per-country caps and backlogs.

5. **Rapid removals and cooperation in deportations**

Mexico frequently cooperates with the US on deportations (including accepting third-country nationals in some cases) and carries out swift removals of non-Mexicans to their origin countries. In contrast, the US system often involves longer processing times due to court backlogs, asylum claims, and legal protections. Recent Mexican administrations have increased deportations and enforcement budgets, contributing to sharp drops in migrant flows through the country.

Note that "stricter" is subjective and context-dependent—Mexico faces different migration dynamics (primarily as a transit country) than the US (primarily a destination). Both nations have faced criticism for enforcement practices, and recent years show convergence in tougher controls.

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Beet it

Based on Dr. Steven Gundry's "Plant Paradox" principles, pickled beets can be part of a healthy diet, but with specific, critical caveats regarding preparation and ingredients. [1, 2]

Here is what Dr. Gundry says about pickled beets:

• Raw vs. Cooked Beets: Dr. Gundry generally classifies raw beets as a "Yes" food. He cautions that cooking root vegetables like beets breaks down their cell walls, making their sugars more available and potentially less healthy.

• Pickling and Fermentation: He advises that true fermentation is better than simple vinegar pickling. While many pickled foods are just in vinegar, fermented foods (like properly fermented pickled beets) are rich in gut-healthy probiotics.

• Watch the Ingredients: Dr. Gundry often warns that many store-bought pickled products contain added sugars and unhealthy oils, which should be avoided.

• Lectin Concerns: Beets are generally low in lectins, but they are high in sugar (carbohydrates). [3, 4, 5, 6, 7]

In summary: Dr. Gundry considers fermented, low-sugar, homemade, or properly sourced pickled beets acceptable, but cautions against store-bought versions laden with added sugar and preservatives. [8, 9, 10, 11]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://theproof.com/are-lectins-toxic-alan-flanagan-phd-matthew-nagra-nd/

[2] https://www.poochandmutt.co.uk/blogs/can-dogs-eat/beetroot

[3] https://www.instagram.com/reel/DCus8lEzx_d/

[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDMdDl-Rvc0

[5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5BWQ1-orGQ

[6] https://www.webmd.com/diet/health-benefits-pickled-beets

[7] https://www.servantsuniversity.com/foods-to-eat/

[8] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/are-pickled-beets-good-for-you

[9] https://prakritikswad.com/blogs/blogs-and-recipes/mango-pickle-benefits-for-gut-health-prakritik-swad

[10] https://spicysouthernkitchen.com/pickled-beet-salad-with-walnuts-and-feta/

[11] https://teaching.eng.cam.ac.uk/sites/teaching15-16.eng.cam.ac.uk/themes/?id=amazing-benefits-of-pickled-beetroot-for-weight-loss-alicia-silverstone-style

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Fw: Attached Greater Topeka

From: Rhonda Underwood <prettyidangel@yahoo.com>
Sent: Friday, February 16, 2024 1:54 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Attached Greater Topeka

Good Afternoon Mr. Henry McClure,

I came across this tax return as well...

Also, noticed and circled in red some thing's...

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

Fw: good to see you at the mall

From: Michael Padilla <mpadilla@topeka.org>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2024 4:22 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: good to see you at the mall

Henry,

If you believe this report, then you are not as smart as some people say you arr.

Have a good day.

From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2024 7:40 PM
To: Brett Kell <bkell@topeka.org>
Cc: Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>
Subject: good to see you at the mall

This message originated from outside your organization

https://youtu.be/qT69RgF01hw?si=HC8YySBwTHG5F4ZO

Not cool

Henry McClure

Time kills deals

785-383-9994

Fwd: Lauren's Bay

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 7:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: Lauren's Bay
To: Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>, <mcre1.media@blogger.com>

I have one fan........... That is how it starts.

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Rhonda Underwood <prettyidangel@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2024 at 5:58 PM
Subject: Lauren's Bay
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>

Hey Mr. Henry McClure,

Both you and Mr. Dultmeier gave outstanding information that the people of the community need to know and hear. KUDOS

Rhonda

LOCAL

Developer: City can't stand pat regarding problems with Lauren's Bay Estates

Situation could leave city on the hook to pay $11.1 million

Tim Hrenchir

The 178-lot Lauren's Bay Estates development, located just west of S.W.47th and Wanamaker, could cost the city up to $11.1 million if it continues to fail in taking off. The city currently charges a special assessment of $3,318 per parcel in the development.

The city of Topeka will "get every lot back" if it charges the current estimated special assessment of $3,318 per parcel in southwest Topeka's Lauren's Bay Estates, said Perry Marney, who owns 28 of the lots.

"The bottom line is that, if nothing changes, that subdivision will never go," Marney told The Topeka Capital-Journal on Friday.

The failure of the 178-lot development — located just west of S.W. 47th and Wanamaker Road — could cost the city as much as $11.1 million, council members learned at their meeting this past week.

Brandon Kauffman, the city's chief fiscal officer and controller/treasurer, said Gene Jani's Brainstorm Development Group initiated the Lauren's Bay Estates project using a process through which the city forms special assessment benefit districts to encourage development.

Developers ask the city to form geographic districts to pay the city's costs to provide such services as water, sewer and street infrastructure. The city, after the work is completed, requires each lot owner to pay a certain amount annually as part of their property tax bill, generally for 20 years.

But the city is legally obligated to pay any bonds it has issued if the developers or property owners default on the special assessment payments, Kauffman told the city governing body in a recent memorandum.

Get the Afternoon Headlines newsletter in your inbox.

Get the latest headlines you may have missed

Delivery: Weekdays

Your Email

Kauffman said the city has assessed a payment of $701 per lot to put in sanitary sewer system infrastructure to serve Lauren's Bay Estates, and governing body members soon will be asked to approve assessments for projects the city completed to make improvements to a pond and provide water and street infrastructure. Work has yet to be completed on a separate project to make improvements to a second pond, he said.

Meanwhile, Jani went into bankruptcy in 2008 and ownership of the 178 lots is now divided between two banks, four developers and three individual owners. Those lots contain only three houses, Kauffman said.

He said CoreFirst Bank and Trust owns 68 parcels, James Klausman owns 45, Marney owns 28, The Lawrence Bank owns 19, Sam Campbell owns 10, Mark McGivern owns five and individual homeowners own three.

0:00

1:50

Kauffman's memo indicated the estimated total special assessment rate for the lots is $3,318 a year, at a time when the market rate is $1,800 to $2,160.

"The primary concern for the City is that the specials per lot are higher than the market rate, which will make the lots difficult to sell," Kauffman wrote.

Marney said the city consequently needs to do something other than maintain the status quo.

"The best way would be to extend the bonds out from 20 years to 30 years, but they say they can't do that," he said. "If they don't do anything and they just run the specials straight, they get every lot back."

The city's governing body on Tuesday will consider scheduling a June 9 public hearing to discuss its options, which Kauffman said include:

¦ Assessing the estimated $3,318 per lot.

¦ Putting in place a "partial pre-payment" option, which the city hasn't used in the past but its staff considers to be viable.

¦ Lowering the interest rate owners must pay on the lots, which would require the city to cover the part of the rate they don't pay.

Developer Chuck Dultmeier asked the city not to take the latter step at this past week's meeting.

Dultmeier said he owns 237 lots south of Lauren's Bay Estates and about 230 elsewhere in the area.

He said he would be "pounding my fist" if Lauren's Bay Estates got a special rate when he "made it work" without one.

Dultmeier suggested the city pursue the partial pre-payment option.

Kauffman explained that option in his memo to the governing body.

He wrote that, during the process to apply special assessments to properties, there is a 30-day window to pay special assessments in advance so they don't apply to the property. The city currently only allows full payment of those assessments but multiple cities in Kansas allow partial prepayments.

"For example, instead of an individual paying $1,000 for their share of the special assessment projects, the City would allow them to pay $500, resulting in the remaining $500 being spread over the 20 years of the bonds," Kauffman said.

He said partial prepayment would allow the city to reduce the debt load and enable Lauren's Bay Estates developers to bring the special assessments on the properties down to a rate that is closer to what the market is dictating.

In addition to dealing with the problems regarding Lauren's Bay, city officials are considering taking steps to mitigate the risk the city takes by offering special assessment benefit districts.

Kauffman said the city collected 97 percent of the special assessments it levied up until 2008, the year of a housing market crash, but has collected only 83 percent since that time.

Planning director Bill Fiander said the city will hold an open developer forum from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Thursday, May 21, at its Holliday Building, 620 S.E. Madison.

Fiander said the city will seek input regarding potentially changing its policy by requiring developers to:

¦ Pay for certain improvements.

¦ Obtain financial sureties.

¦ Put down a certain percentage of the project costs.

¦ Allow the city or a third party to perform due diligence on the developer's finances.