LOOK

Topeka and Lawrence, two mid-sized Kansas cities, both offer economic development incentives to attract projects, spur growth, and address challenges like rising construction costs and housing needs. However, their approaches to **development fee waivers** (such as building permits, planning applications, or related charges) differ in scope, flexibility, and focus.

### Topeka's Approach to Development Fee Waivers

Topeka provides limited, discretionary fee relief primarily through its Municipal Code (Section 109.6). The City Manager has authority to **waive or reduce fees up to 25%** for qualifying economic development projects. This is reviewed case-by-case, based on project scope, type, and public benefit—such as job creation, redevelopment, or community impact.

- This tool supports broader economic initiatives, including commercial, retail, or mixed-use developments tied to tools like Community Improvement Districts (CIDs).

- Examples include potential waivers for infrastructure-related costs or specific affordable/charitable housing scenarios (e.g., past discussions on emergency or nonprofit housing).

- Waivers are not automatic or full; they cap at 25% and require approval, reflecting a cautious, performance-oriented stance.

- Topeka's incentives emphasize consistency across projects, with no broad full waivers standardly available outside targeted cases.

This limited flexibility helps offset developer burdens from inflation and high construction costs but stops short of aggressive relief to avoid straining city revenues.

### Lawrence's Approach to Development Fee Waivers

Lawrence offers more targeted and sometimes fuller fee waivers, often integrated into specific programs like affordable housing incentives or industrial development.

- For **affordable housing**, the city has a dedicated policy (including a 2025 draft Affordable Housing Incentive Policy) that allows **planning and development fee waivers** to promote 99-year affordable units for households at or below 80% Area Median Income (AMI). These waivers can be full or substantial when projects meet criteria like income-restricted units and public benefits.

- Recent examples include the City Commission approving an $80,000 fee waiver for the 9 Del Lofts II project in East Lawrence (2025), conditional on adding more affordable units to boost eligibility for state tax credits.

- The **Catalyst Incentive Program** (temporary, sunsetting in 2025 for new industrial projects) waives city application fees and Industrial Revenue Bond (IRB) origination fees for qualifying industrial developments.

- Waivers appear more project-specific and generous in sectors like housing and industrial growth, often tied to broader incentives (e.g., grants, land donations, or tax abatements) under the city's Economic Development Policy.

Lawrence's framework prioritizes equity, affordability, and targeted sectors, enabling fuller waivers in high-priority areas compared to Topeka's percentage-based cap.

### Key Comparison

- **Scope and Generosity** — Topeka caps at 25% discretionary reduction (via City Manager approval), making it more conservative and broadly applicable to economic projects. Lawrence allows potentially full waivers in focused programs (e.g., affordable housing or industrial), providing stronger relief for aligned developments.

- **Focus Areas** — Topeka ties waivers to general economic development (e.g., CIDs, redevelopment). Lawrence emphasizes affordable housing and industrial growth, with recent actions showing willingness to waive significant fees (e.g., $80,000 cases) to secure state/federal leverage.

- **Consistency and Process** — Both require case-by-case review and alignment with policy goals. Topeka stresses uniform application to avoid favoritism; Lawrence integrates waivers into structured policies (e.g., housing toolkit or Catalyst program) for transparency.

- **Impact on Developers** — Amid rising costs (e.g., 4-6%+ annual construction inflation), Lawrence's targeted full waivers may better "give a pass" in priority sectors, potentially attracting more housing or industrial deals. Topeka's 25% cap offers meaningful but partial help, encouraging projects while protecting city funds.

Both cities use waivers strategically to combat economic pressures and foster growth without broad tax hikes. Lawrence appears more aggressive in housing-related relief, while Topeka maintains a balanced, limited approach suitable for diverse projects. For specific proposals, developers should consult current city policies, as incentives evolve (e.g., Lawrence's Catalyst sunsetting in 2025). Contacting economic development offices in either city can provide tailored guidance.