Watch "How Topeka Municipal Court Supports Accountability and Recovery - Episode #2" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/Nsxr1t2LRCQ?is=FLe5h7GwDXlDsSnK

Henry McClure  
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

RE: Spencer/Karen This Is About Form of Government, Not Personalities

Mr. McClure,

Thank you for your message.  This message serves as confirmation that your email has been received by the council members. 

 

Tonya L. Bailey

Sr. Executive Assistant to the City Council

City of Topeka

215 SE 7th St. Rm 211

785-368-3710

 

“The preceding email message (including any attachments) contains information that may be confidential, protected by the attorney/client or other applicable privileges or that may constitute non-public information. This message is intended to be conveyed only to the designated recipient(s). If you are not listed as a recipient of this message, please notify the sender immediately by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.”

From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2026 11:25 PM
To: Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>; Karen A. Hiller <khiller@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; MCRE Media <mcre1.9999@blogger.com>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>
Subject: Spencer/Karen This Is About Form of Government, Not Personalities

 

Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender-----

 

The Mayor can change this today. 

 

Karen this would be a great project for you too. 

 

 

Why the City Manager Serving on the Board of Go Topeka Is Inappropriate Under Topeka's Council-Manager Form of Government

It's Not About the Person — It's About the Structure

By Henry McClure

Topeka, Kansas operates under a council-manager form of government. That is not a minor administrative detail. It is the deliberate structural choice voters made more than two decades ago when they abandoned the strong-mayor system. The entire point of that form is to separate political leadership and policy-making (the elected mayor and city council) from professional, nonpartisan administration (the city manager). When the city manager sits as a director on the board of Go Topeka — the private nonprofit that receives and administers the bulk of the community's economic-development tax dollars — that separation collapses. This is not a personnel issue. It is not about any individual currently holding the office. It is a structural, policy, and ethical problem that would exist no matter who occupies the city manager's chair.

What Council-Manager Government Actually Means

Under the council-manager system used by Topeka (and the majority of American cities of our size), the elected City Council — including the mayor — sets policy, adopts the budget, and provides political direction. The city manager is hired by the council as a professional chief executive to implement those policies, manage day-to-day operations, prepare the budget for council consideration, and give objective advice. The manager serves at the pleasure of the council and can be removed by a simple majority.

The International City/County Management Association (ICMA), the professional body that sets the ethical standards for city managers nationwide, is crystal clear on the role: the manager must remain politically neutral, avoid activities that undermine public confidence in professional administration, and carefully manage any conflicting roles that create even the appearance of a conflict of interest. The manager is not a politician. The manager is not an advocate for private organizations. The manager is the professional hired to execute the will of the elected body without becoming entangled in the advocacy apparatus that seeks to influence that body.

What Go Topeka Actually Is

Go Topeka is not a city department. It is not a government agency. It is a private nonprofit organization — what is commonly called an NGO (non-governmental organization). Many Topekans have never heard the term, but it simply means a private entity that is not part of government yet often receives public money and performs functions that look governmental. Go Topeka operates under the Greater Topeka Partnership umbrella. It holds a long-standing service agreement with the Joint Economic Development Organization (JEDO), the public body created by interlocal agreement between the City of Topeka and Shawnee County.

JEDO is funded primarily by a half-cent countywide sales tax. Those are taxpayer dollars. JEDO then contracts with Go Topeka to design, market, and administer the community's economic-development programs, incentives, and recruitment efforts. In short: public money flows through a public body (JEDO) to a private NGO (Go Topeka) that then recommends, structures, and helps deliver the very incentive packages and development priorities that the City Council and County Commission later vote on — and that the city manager is responsible for implementing on the city side.

This arrangement already raises legitimate questions of accountability and transparency. Placing the city's top professional administrator on the board of the very NGO that lives off those tax dollars multiplies the problem.

Why Dual Service Is Inappropriate

The city manager sits, by virtue of the position, on the Go Topeka Board of Directors. That means the same individual who:

• Prepares and recommends the city budget that may include local matching funds or related economic-development line items; • Advises the mayor and council on the merits of specific incentive agreements, land deals, and development policies; • Implements the council's decisions once they are made; and • Is responsible for the performance of city departments that interact with Go Topeka and the projects it promotes

…is simultaneously a director of the private organization that is the primary recipient and implementer of those same programs. The dual role creates an inherent tension between the manager's duty of undivided loyalty to the City of Topeka and the fiduciary and strategic duties that board membership imposes toward Go Topeka's institutional interests.

Even if every vote is recused and every conversation is carefully walled off, the appearance of conflict remains. Appearance matters. The ICMA Code of Ethics specifically addresses “conflicting roles” and requires members to avoid participating in matters that create either a conflict or the perception of one, and to disclose such situations so the governing body can manage them. Serving on the board of the principal economic-development NGO that contracts with the public sector is precisely the kind of dual role the professional standards caution against.

This Is About Form of Government, Not Personalities

It is essential to be clear: this is not a call to fire or replace any particular city manager. It is not a personal attack. The problem exists because of the position, not the person. Any city manager who accepted a board seat on Go Topeka would face the identical structural conflict. The correct remedy is institutional: the City of Topeka should adopt a clear policy that the city manager (and likely other senior city administrators) shall not serve as voting or non-voting directors on the boards of private organizations that receive substantial public economic-development funds or that regularly advocate before the City Council on matters the manager must implement.

Elected officials — the mayor and council members — are political actors. They campaign, they take positions, they sit on boards if they choose. That is their role. The city manager is deliberately insulated from that world so that administration can remain professional, continuous, and nonpartisan. Putting the manager on the board of the community's most powerful economic-development NGO erases that insulation and turns the professional staff into part of the advocacy network. That is the opposite of what the council-manager form was designed to achieve.

Why It Matters for Ordinary Topekans

Most residents do not follow the bylaws of the Greater Topeka Partnership or the service agreement between JEDO and Go Topeka. They simply expect that when public tax dollars are spent on economic development, the process is transparent, competitive, and free of insider advantage. When the city's top administrator is simultaneously a board member of the organization that helps design and deliver those programs, public confidence erodes — whether or not any actual impropriety occurs. In a city that already struggles with trust in local institutions, the optics alone are damaging.

Moreover, the arrangement blurs the line between public policy and private organizational strategy. Go Topeka has institutional interests: maintaining its contract, growing its programs, demonstrating success to keep the sales-tax funding stream flowing. The city manager's sole institutional interest must be the City of Topeka and the policies adopted by its elected council. Those two interests are not always identical. When they diverge, the dual-hatted official is placed in an impossible position.

A Simple Fix

The solution is straightforward and requires no charter amendment. The City Council can, by simple resolution or policy, direct that the city manager shall not serve on the board of Go Topeka or any similar private economic-development organization that contracts with JEDO or receives substantial public funds for services that the city manager must implement or oversee. The mayor and council members remain free to participate as they see fit; they are elected politicians. The professional administrator should not.

This is not “politically incorrect” in the cultural sense. It is politically incorrect in the original, structural sense: it is incorrect under the political form of government Topeka chose. The council-manager system exists precisely so that professional administration remains independent of the political and advocacy networks that surround economic development. Putting the city manager on the Go Topeka board violates that design. It should stop.

The issue is not who holds the office. The issue is the office itself and the form of government that created it. Get the structure right, and personalities become far less important.

 

How much a year do the American taxpayers pay farmers in Kansas in subsidies to farm or not to farm?

Around $1–1.5 billion per year in recent years (e.g., ~$1.2 billion in 2024), though it fluctuates significantly with crop prices, disasters, trade issues, and policy changes—sometimes spiking much higher.

This covers direct government payments to Kansas farmers and ranchers via USDA programs, including commodity subsidies (e.g., Price Loss Coverage/PLC, Agricultural Risk Coverage/ARC), crop insurance premium subsidies, conservation payments (e.g., CRP), disaster aid, and ad hoc programs. It includes payments "to farm or not to farm" (e.g., conservation set-asides or deficiency payments when markets are weak).

Key Context and Figures

• Long-term average (1995–2025): Kansas received roughly $33.97 billion total in subsidies (~$1.1 billion/year average over ~31 years). Kansas ranks 4th nationally.
• Recent/2024: ~$1.2 billion paid to ~36,570 recipients.
• 2025 projections: Significantly higher (~$2.7–2.8 billion in direct government payments), driven by supplemental disaster aid, market loss payments, and programs like the Farmer Bridge Assistance to offset low prices/weather impacts. This boosted projected net farm income sharply.

Nationally, farm subsidies (commodity + crop insurance subsidies + etc.) have averaged in the $10–30+ billion range annually in recent decades, with big swings (e.g., trade war/disaster aid spikes). Kansas, a major wheat/corn/sorghum/cattle state, consistently gets a large share.

Important Notes

• Concentration: Payments heavily favor larger operations. Over two decades, the top 10% of Kansas recipients got the vast majority (~75%+ in some analyses). Many smaller farms get little or nothing.
• "Not to farm": Includes Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) payments for idling land, plus counter-cyclical/deficiency-style payments when prices are low.
• Crop insurance: A major component—taxpayers subsidize ~60%+ of premiums on average. Indemnities (payouts) add more in bad years.
• Variability: Payments surge with low commodity prices, droughts, trade disruptions, or new legislation (e.g., farm bills, emergency aid). They drop in strong market years.
• Sources: Primarily USDA data tracked by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) Farm Subsidy Database, USDA ERS farm income reports, and state ag analyses. Exact annual totals can vary slightly by what’s included (e.g., loans vs. grants, timing of disbursements).

For the most current or county-specific breakdowns, check the EWG Farm Subsidy Database or USDA ERS resources. These programs aim to stabilize farm income and food production but are often debated for cost, equity, and market distortion.

What’s in it for us?

Salt Lick Success in Reno County… While Topeka Gets Stuck Holding the Bag on Lauren’s Bay

By Henry McClure July 12, 2026

There’s a big story unfolding out in Reno County right now that every Topeka taxpayer and elected official should be watching closely.

Jim Klausman — the same Topeka-based developer who has left a trail of unpaid taxes and special assessments across Lauren’s Bay — is pouring tens of millions of dollars into an $80 million, 45-hole destination golf and hunting resort east of Hutchinson called Salt Lick Golf & Hunting Resort. He’s already invested nearly $45 million of private capital, secured a STAR Bond district, industrial revenue bonds with a 10-year property tax abatement, community improvement districts, and is seeking roughly $26 million in STAR Bond financing. Construction is underway. The first championship course is targeting a 2027 soft opening. Full resort operations are aimed for late 2028.

Impressive. Ambitious. Exactly the kind of private-led, high-impact tourism project Kansas needs.

But here’s the part that should make every Topeka resident sit up straight:

While Klausman is out there developing a multi-phase, world-class resort on 620 acres of sand dunes near Prairie Dunes — and lining up millions in public incentives from Reno County and the State of Kansas — his companies still own more than 100 lots in Topeka’s Lauren’s Bay subdivision (near SW 47th and Wanamaker) that collectively carried nearly $7.9 million in unpaid back taxes, special assessments, and delinquent fees as of late 2025.

Shawnee County had to file a lawsuit in September 2025 against Klausman and others seeking to collect millions on roughly 86 properties he controls. City records and reporting showed his entities accounted for the vast majority — more than 84% — of the unpaid obligations in that failed subdivision.

The City of Topeka, for its part, negotiated a heavily discounted settlement on just 15–16 of those lots: Klausman agreed to pay $525,333 ($2.25 per square foot) instead of the full past and future special assessments that would have totaled nearly $961,000 on those parcels alone. The city then layered on Community Improvement District and Reinvestment Housing Incentive District tools to help him restructure and move forward on a small slice of the problem.

Meanwhile, the rest of the mess largely sat. And when he came back asking for still more incentives on additional Lauren’s Bay lots, the City Council rightly balked and eventually saw the request pulled.

So let’s ask the obvious question: What’s in it for Topeka?

Klausman has shown he can raise and deploy tens of millions for a splashy project 100+ miles away in Reno County. He has shown he can navigate the STAR Bond process, work with architects of national reputation, and deliver a destination asset that will generate new sales tax and visitor spending for someone else.

But when it comes to cleaning up the long-standing financial hole he and others left in southwest Topeka — vacant lots, unpaid specials that burden the rest of us, delayed housing production in a city that desperately needs it — the pattern has been delay, discount, and more requests for public help.

That is not partnership. That is not loyalty. That is not reciprocal.

Developers who want public incentives in Topeka should first demonstrate they are current on their obligations to Topeka taxpayers. Period. If a developer can find $45 million in private equity for a golf resort in Hutchinson, he can find a way to make the City of Topeka and Shawnee County whole on Lauren’s Bay without needing another round of abatements, RHIDs, or sweetheart settlements.

Reno County did its due diligence and structured a deal around new incremental revenues generated by the project itself. That’s how these tools are supposed to work. Topeka, by contrast, has spent years chasing dollars that should have been paid years ago while the same developer chases the next big opportunity elsewhere.

Topeka does not exist to subsidize developers who treat our city like a second-class priority.

If Klausman wants to be celebrated as a visionary who is elevating golf tourism in Kansas, great — start by finishing what he started (and left unfinished) right here at home. Pay the taxes. Clear the specials. Build the houses or sell the lots to people who will. Then come talk about the next incentive package.

Until then, the question remains simple and unavoidable:

What’s in it for us?

Why This Matters for Topeka People $$$$ Jim Klausman is a well-known Topeka developer with significant local real estate

 Salt Lick Golf & Hunting Resort (also called Salt Lick Golf Resort) in Reno County, Kansas, is the big project. It’s an ~$80 million destination resort on the former Cottonwood Hills Golf Club site (about 605–620 acres) roughly 5 miles east of Hutchinson, near Buhler Road and 4th Avenue / N. Victory Road area.

Site History

The property was previously home to Cottonwood Hills, a Nick Faldo-designed course intended as the centerpiece of a master-planned residential community with hundreds of homes. That vision never fully materialized due to infrastructure and financial problems. The course opened, struggled, closed (multiple times in some accounts), and fell into disrepair. The new owners cleared the old layout and are building from scratch to take better advantage of the natural sand dunes (30–40 feet tall in places) that make the area special—similar to the famous nearby Prairie Dunes Country Club.

Developers and Team

• Lead developer/principal: Jim Klausman (Topeka-based, associated with Midwest Health and various LLCs including references to 2641 Wanamaker and Prairie Lick LLC / Salt Lick LLC). Klausman has extensive Topeka-area holdings (Wheatfield Village mixed-use with apartments, hotel, theaters, restaurants; downtown and Wanamaker Road properties). Note: He has faced public issues with unpaid taxes/special assessments and county lawsuits on multiple properties in Shawnee County.
• Investors: Group from Topeka, Kansas City, and Lawrence areas.
• Golf architect: Todd Clark of CE Golf Design (with Ron Whitten and Brent Hugo). Clark describes this as a career pinnacle project—full free rein on 45 holes. Courses will be among the longest in Kansas (pushing 7,800–7,900 yards) with wide fairways, large rolling greens (8,000–14,000 sq ft), native grasses, and six sets of tees.

Project Scope: 45 Holes + Resort Amenities

Three-phase destination resort emphasizing multi-day stays, golf, and hunting:

• Phase 1 (Salt Lick Dunes focus): 18-hole championship dunes-style course routed through rolling sand dunes; clubhouse with event/dining space; night-lit putting course; practice facilities; ~48 lodging units. Soft opening targeted for fall 2027 / 2027 golf season; clubhouse into 2028. Construction is underway (as of mid-2026: holes shaped, irrigated, and grassed).
• Phase 2: Second 18-hole championship course (Salt Lick Prairie—more open prairie layout); 9-hole par-3 “CC’s Loop” for accessibility, match play, and short-game/repeat rounds; ~76 more lodging units.
• Phase 3: Additional ~60 lodging units.

Total lodging: Roughly 180+ units/cabins (early plans mentioned ~36 cabins for up to 200 guests; later figures scale higher). Includes restaurant/dining, retail/commercial elements, and guided hunting (deer and other game in winter months) to create year-round appeal. Overall mixed-use tourism destination with associated infrastructure. Full operational target: late 2028.

Financing: STAR Bonds and Local Incentives

This is a classic Kansas Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) Bond project under K.S.A. 12-17,160 et seq., designed for major commercial/entertainment/tourism destinations that draw regional/national visitors. Bonds are repaid only by new sales tax revenue generated within the district (limited to developer-owned land). No diversion of existing county taxes and no county liability for repayment.

• STAR Bond request: Approximately $26–26.2 million. Project plans adopted by Reno County Commission (June 2026); final approval rests with the State of Kansas / Department of Commerce.
• District: Salt Lick STAR Bond Project District established via Resolution 2026-12 (May 13, 2026) after public hearing. ~605 acres. Kansas Commerce confirmed it as an eligible “major commercial entertainment and tourism area.” Feasibility study (Commerce) projects >50,000 annual visitors (many out-of-state), $25–35 million annual spending in Reno County (some earlier figures around $23–25M), with strong coverage for debt service.
• Private investment: Developer group has already put in ~$44.9 million of their own funds toward the ~$80 million total.
• Additional local incentives (approved June 2026 by Reno County Commission):
  • Industrial Revenue Bonds (IRBs) with 10-year 100% abatement on the incremental property tax increase (school capital outlay levy excepted). 4-1 vote (one commissioner concerned about county finances).
  • Community Improvement Districts (CIDs)—one per phase—with up to 2% additional sales tax (for up to 22 years) to reimburse eligible project costs. CID revenues cannot be used for STAR Bond debt service.
  • Transient guest tax (countywide outside Hutchinson/South Hutchinson) also advanced to support tourism promotion (and potentially project-related uses).

Phases are intentionally paced so the market isn’t flooded. Water rights, wastewater reuse for irrigation, wells, and lagoon systems have been addressed in presentations.

Status as of July 2026

• Under active construction.
• STAR Bond district created (May 2026).
• Project plans, IRBs, and CIDs approved (June 2026).
• “Full steam ahead” per architect Todd Clark. First 18 holes + key amenities targeted for soft opening 2027; full resort late 2028.
• Expected to complement (not compete with) world-class Prairie Dunes (which hosts major USGA events including 2029 U.S. Senior Open and 2032 U.S. Women’s Senior Open), elevating Hutchinson as a genuine golf destination. Good access (near Wichita, ~3 hours from KC).

Why This Matters for Topeka People

Jim Klausman is a well-known Topeka developer with significant local real estate (Wheatfield Village, Wanamaker corridor, etc.). This is a high-profile Kansas STAR Bond success story so far—private capital first ($45M+), then public tools limited to new incremental revenues generated by the project itself. Reno County moved relatively quickly and unanimously (or near-unanimously) on the district and plans once the feasibility study checked out.

For Topeka/Shawnee County observers (who deal constantly with TIF, CID, RHID, STAR Bonds, IRBs, and abatements on projects ranging from hotels and mixed-use to industrial), this is a useful case study:

• Strong private skin in the game.
• Clear tourism/visitor metrics from the state feasibility study.
• Phased approach + multiple tools layered carefully.
• Leveraging natural assets (dunes) next to an existing world-class attraction (Prairie Dunes).
• Potential model (or cautionary note, depending on your view of incentives) for destination recreation projects elsewhere in Kansas.

Critics have raised the usual points about tax abatements, STAR Bond diversion of sales taxes that would otherwise go to the state/local general funds, and whether the visitor numbers materialize. Supporters (including local engineers and commissioners) emphasize zero risk to existing taxpayers, infrastructure-light impact, and big tourism upside for a rural county.

Bottom line: This is one of the more ambitious pure destination golf/hunting resorts in Kansas history—45 holes designed to championship standards on a dramatic dune landscape, backed by substantial private money and a full suite of state/local incentives, with Topeka developer fingerprints all over it. Construction is real and progressing. Full operations targeted for 2028 to ride the wave of major events at Prairie Dunes.