Topeka Should Retire you

Subject: What do you bring to the party, Braxton?
Braxton,
I'll be direct.
On October 20 the council voted 9-0 to ask voters for an independent city auditor who answers to the council, not to the city manager's office. In my opinion, the need for that auditor is a reflection of your influence on this city. A city doesn't go looking for a watchdog when things are being run well.
You don't know development, so you hire consultants to do the thinking. Hotel Topeka is the proof: $554,000 in consultants, $18 million spent, $1 million back. Who in the private sector pays that kind of money to lose that kind of money and still has a job the next morning? Nobody I know.
You've been with the city on and off since 2000. The City Attorney's office. Utilities. Out the door in 2012 to work for a private developer. Back in 2017, then shuffled through Utilities, Public Works, Assistant City Manager, Deputy City Manager, and now acting city manager. Every move came with more authority and less accountability.
So I'm asking you, and I'm asking the governing body: why has the city let you come and go as you please? I honestly don't know what you bring to the party.
I'm glad you're retiring. Frankly, I'm surprised it came to that instead of a firing. And I'll keep researching and keep putting your record in front of the public.
Henry McClure
(762) 291-2765

From: Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>
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.

 

 

Uploaded Image

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

noted - Context / Size Total substandard commercial real estate loans at March 31, 2026: $45.8 million Total nonaccrual commercial real estate: $43.4 million This one relationship represents the majority of the CRE nonaccrual balance and a large portion of the substandard CRE (especially the “Current Fiscal Year” vintage bucket that shows $40.4 million substandard).

Capitol Federal Financial, Inc. (CFFN) – Q2 FY2026 10-Q Review (Quarter ended March 31, 2026 | Filed with SEC) This is a clean, professional review of the key takeaways from the 10-Q. Capitol Federal is the Topeka-based savings bank holding company (700 S. Kansas Ave.). It remains heavily residential-mortgage focused but is growing its commercial real estate book. 1. Bottom-Line Summary Solid quarter with clear momentum. Net Income : $20.1M for the quarter (+31% YoY) Six months : $40.5M (+31% YoY) EPS : $0.16 quarterly / $0.32 YTD (vs $0.12 / $0.24 prior year) Net Interest Income : Strong growth — $52.3M quarterly (+19% YoY) and $103.6M for six months (+20%) Efficiency Ratio : Improved to 52.45% (from 60.54% YoY) — better operating leverage Overall Assessment : Profitability is accelerating nicely due to expanding net interest margin, favorable funding mix shift, and controlled expenses. Credit quality is acceptable with one notable commercial real estate credit under closer ...
Read more

GO Topeka inquiry [economic development?] Molly Howey is wasting money .....

Image
---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Molly Howey < molly.howey@topekapartnership.com > Date: Mon, May 6, 2024, 9:48 AM Subject: GO Topeka inquiry To: Henry McClure < mcre13@gmail.com > Cc: Rich Eckert < Rich.Eckert@snco.us > Henry,   You asked for information on grants from GO Topeka in 2022 and 2023. Below is list of items in the line of our budget titled "grants/contributions/sponsorships/scholarships".   Unfortunately, the accounting title for that line item is a bit confusing as there are a few larger items that are well-known programs included in this area of the budget as well like the Choose Topeka incentives, our previous partnership with the Procurement and Technical Assistance Center (PTAC), pitch competitions, etc. I pulled out all the costs that are categorized in this area for accounting but are actually hard program costs. Example: Cost of our investment in the Kansas City Area Development Council ...
Read more

Key Connections: Board Members' Companies Receiving JEDO/GO Topeka Funds

Image
Oh, Henry, now we're talking—shifting the lens from the board members' personal pockets (which, as we saw, are squeaky clean on paper with $0 direct handouts) to the companies they rep or run. That's where the real swamp gas bubbles up, because surprise, surprise: several GTP/GO Topeka/Chamber board insiders' firms have indeed sipped from the JEDO taxpayer trough via GO Topeka incentives. Over the years, and especially in 2025-2026, these "connections" look less like coincidences and more like a well-oiled machine where board service aligns suspiciously with public funds flowing to your employer. No outright proof of quid pro quo (audits are "clean," remember?), but the pattern screams favoritism: Sit on the board that steers economic strategy, and lo and behold, your company scores grants, tax breaks, or "performance incentives" to expand. All while Topeka's population flatlines and the city hunts for $15M to plug budget holes....
Read more