Fw: The But-For Test Is the Failure: Topeka Should Retire It
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2026 6:58 PM
To: Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>; Marcus Miller <marcusm@topeka.org>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; John Kollhoff <johnkollhoff@gmail.com>
Cc: Leigha Boling <lboling@topeka.org>; Jeff White (jwhite@columbiacapital.com) <jwhite@columbiacapital.com>
Subject: Re: The But-For Test Is the Failure: Topeka Should Retire It
-
A check register or payment report of every payment the City of Topeka has made to Columbia Capital Management, LLC, including any affiliates, predecessor names, or individual principals such as Jeff White, from the first date the City engaged the firm through the present, across all departments and funds (including Finance, bond and debt issuance, and capital project funds).
-
For each payment: the date, amount, fund or account charged, and the project, bond issue, or purpose, if recorded.
-
A grand total of all payments, and totals by year if readily available.
-
Copies of all engagement agreements, contracts, or amendments with Columbia Capital, including scope of services and fee schedules.
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2026 5:24 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; Marcus Miller <marcusm@topeka.org>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; John Kollhoff <johnkollhoff@gmail.com>
Cc: Leigha Boling <lboling@topeka.org>; Jeff White (jwhite@columbiacapital.com) <jwhite@columbiacapital.com>
Subject: Re: The But-For Test Is the Failure: Topeka Should Retire It
Thanks Mr. McClure
Appreciate your sharing your opinion. We will have to agree to disagree on this issue. The resolutions adopted by the governing body establishing the economic development programs for TIF, RHID and CID all require financial analysis to determine that the incentive is necessary to achieve a market rate of return—commonly referred to as the “but-for” test.
Because a developer is asking the governing body to forego tax revenue as an inducement to construct the project, the governing body needs to assure itself that it is not using tax dollars to over-incentivize the project
Attached is a memo explaining capitalization rates and the “but-for” test that was shared with the governing body earlier this week.
This is a policy matter for the the governing body. Until they choose to remove or modify the requirement to do the financial analysis to determine the need for the incentive, staff will continue to follow requirements set forth in the various resolutions.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2026 14:31:52
To: Marcus Miller <marcusm@topeka.org>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>; John Kollhoff <johnkollhoff@gmail.com>
Subject: The But-For Test Is the Failure: Topeka Should Retire It
Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender----- |
The But-For Test Is the Failure: Topeka Should Retire It
Take one Topeka building as an example. A city water main broke, and deferred maintenance meant there was no way to shut it off. Water backed up inside and flooded the space, and the sheetrock was ruined. The owner has spent years paying for damage he didn't cause. If that owner ever wanted to set up a Community Improvement District (CID) to help rebuild, he would first have to pay a consultant to run a "but-for" test. That's a theoretical exercise to decide whether the project "needs" help and what his rate of return should be.
That's the problem in one sentence. A property owner who has already absorbed the cost of the city's neglect would have to pay an outsider with no money at risk to judge what his own risk is worth.
This isn't about one building or one owner. It's about a test that fails every time it meets the real world.
It measures the wrong thing. The but-for test asks whether a project would happen "but for" public help, and it answers with assumptions on paper. It can't see floods, failed infrastructure, ruined interiors, years of lost use, or what it costs to rebuild after damage someone else caused.
It puts the cost on the wrong people. Owners pay up front just to be allowed to ask. Every dollar spent on a consultant's opinion is a dollar not spent on roofs, drywall, and tenants. The consultant gets paid whether the project succeeds or fails.
It slows down the very reinvestment Topeka says it wants. Older corridors and distressed buildings are exactly where reinvestment is hardest and matters most. A costly gatekeeping step makes small, local owners less likely to try at all. Only those who can afford the paperwork move forward.
It's outdated. Tools like CIDs already come with public hearings, council approval, and limits set in law. Adding a paid rate-of-return opinion on top of that is redundant. It's bureaucracy, not accountability.
There's a better standard. Judge projects on what they deliver and verify it: restored buildings, jobs, a stronger tax base, and blight removed. Make the owner prove results, not pay for a forecast.
Topeka should retire the but-for test. The people with skin in the game have been through enough. Future owners shouldn't have to pay for a litmus test that was never built to understand them.
Henry McClure, mcre Media | (762) 291-2765 | mcremedia.blogspot.com
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2026 1:24 PM
To: Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; David Banks <dbanks@topeka.org>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>
Subject: Re: You should be fired.
This property has already absorbed significant damage in recent years from a City water main failure. Deferred maintenance left the main unable to be isolated, the break flooded the building, and the resulting interior damage—including to the sheetrock—was extensive and costly. Those problems were not caused by weather or by anything the ownership did; they were caused by the condition of the City’s infrastructure.
The ownership is now being asked to absorb still more disruption from a City project, again without notice or permission. Against that history, it is especially hard to accept analyses from outside consultants who have no connection to the property, no knowledge of what it has already endured, and no stake in the outcome. A rate-of-return calculation that ignores prior City-caused damage, and that treats the property as if it has operated in a normal environment, is not a useful measure of anything. The owner is not seeking special treatment. He is simply trying to keep a property functional after repeated problems that originated with the City.
From: Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 24, 2026 1:14 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; David Banks <dbanks@topeka.org>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>
Subject: Re: You should be fired.
Mr McClure
Thank you for the communication. Please give me an opportunity to look into this matter. I will be in touch
B
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, 24 October 2026 14:02:48
To: Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; David Banks <dbanks@topeka.org>; Governing Body <governingbody@topeka.org>; Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>
Subject: You should be fired.
Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender----- |
Braxton
This is shameful
H
Henry McClure
Time Kills Deals
762-291-2765
444
Comments