Brett Kell, a public comment form, online post, or any advocacy piece. It highlights how the **California Crossing** 2% CID fits Topeka's established pattern of using CIDs for retail redevelopment—without burdening taxpayers or neighborhoods—while delivering proven benefits like new anchors (e.g., your Supermercado Nuestra Familia grocery store).
**Subject (for email):** California Crossing 2% CID Fits Topeka's Successful Pattern – Comparison to Other Projects
**Body / Post Content:**
Brett Kell and Topeka City Council Members,
As discussions continue on the full 2% Capital Improvement District (CID) for the California Crossing Shopping Center in East Topeka, it's helpful to compare it to other Topeka CID projects. Kansas law caps CIDs at 2% sales tax (paid only by voluntary shoppers in the district), and Topeka has used this tool successfully for retail/commercial redevelopment without costing the general fund or city taxpayers anything upfront.
Here's a straightforward comparison showing California Crossing aligns with—and builds on—Topeka's proven approach:
1. **Similar scale and purpose: Retail redevelopment of older/declining sites**
- **California Crossing** (SE 29th & California Ave): Targets an older shopping center with ~$6M in public improvements (parking repairs, lighting, sidewalks, landscaping, signage). Already delivered a new grocery anchor (Supermercado Nuestra Familia, opened 2025) to serve East Topeka.
- **Comparable examples**:
- Wheatfield Village CID (near SW 29th & Fairlawn, approved ~2017–2018): Funded revitalization of commercial/retail area with 2% CID sales tax to attract businesses and jobs.
- SW Topeka Blvd developments (e.g., near SW 32nd Terrace & Topeka Blvd, approved 2023): 2% CID for new restaurants/retail (Whataburger, Dutch Bros, Chick-fil-A opened recently) to spur growth in a commercial corridor.
- Sherwood Crossing Redevelopment (2019 TIF + planned CID): Redeveloped a dilapidated shopping center into mixed retail/restaurant uses with incentives including CID reimbursement for improvements.
These projects, like California Crossing, focus on private-led upgrades to blighted or underused retail sites, funded by district-specific sales tax—not city dollars.
2. **Same financing model: Self-funding, pay-as-you-go, zero net cost to city**
All Topeka CIDs (including recent ones at Hotel Topeka in 2026 and south-central projects like Sunflower Crossing) use 1–2% sales tax collected only from shoppers at the site. This reimburses developers for eligible public improvements over time (up to 22 years), with no bonds, loans, or general fund impact.
- California Crossing started at 1.5% (approved Feb 2026 with $1M phase-one cap), but full 2% matches the maximum used in successful cases like the SW Topeka Blvd and Wheatfield projects. It ensures faster/full reimbursement for the ~$6M scope, accelerating tenant attraction and long-term stability—exactly like those other retail successes.
3. **Proven outcomes: Jobs, services, tax base growth in targeted areas**
Topeka's CIDs have consistently delivered:
- New businesses, jobs, and foot traffic (e.g., fast-food chains on Topeka Blvd brought modern retail options).
- Neighborhood uplift without burdening residents broadly (tax only hits voluntary shoppers; broader trade areas drive most revenue).
- Net positive for the city long-term via higher property values and sales tax growth after payback.
California Crossing follows suit in an "overlooked" East Topeka area: The new grocery store already proves viability, serving low-to-moderate income families with fresh food/jobs while extended demographics support strong sales. Full 2% CID prevents half-measures, mirroring how other projects sustained momentum.
Bottom line: California Crossing isn't an outlier—it's consistent with Topeka's smart use of CIDs for retail redevelopment (e.g., Wheatfield, SW Topeka Blvd, Sherwood Crossing). These tools have worked without controversy over "burdening" shoppers because the benefits (better services, jobs, safer/attractive areas) far outweigh the tiny, voluntary tax. East Topeka deserves the same full support to keep investment rolling.
Thank you for considering this comparison and for championing growth across our city.
Sincerely,
Henry McClure
Topeka resident
@mcre1 on X
This is concise, factual (drawn from public records and recent approvals), and directly counters any "unique burden" concerns by showing precedent. If you'd like a shorter bullet-only version, more details on a specific project, or adjustments, let me know!
From: Brenda Younger <BYounger@Topeka.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:51 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; MCRE Media <mcre1.9999@blogger.com>; Charles Baylor <cbaylor1@hotmail.com>
Cc: City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>; Council Assist <Councilassist@topeka.org>; Jane M. Murray <jmurray@topeka.org>; Braxton Copley <bcopley@topeka.org>; Robert M. Perez <rmperez@topeka.org>; Avery L. Moore <almoore@topeka.org>
Subject: RE: Subject : Why the California Crossing 2% CID Does NOT Burden Poor Shoppers – Here's the Big-Picture Proof
Mr. McClure,
Email received. I will forward to the Governing Body.
Thank you.
From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:33 PM
To: Brett Kell <bkell@topeka.org>; David Banks <dbanks@topeka.org>; Spencer Duncan <sduncan@topeka.org>; City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>; MCRE Media <mcre1.9999@blogger.com>; Charles Baylor <cbaylor1@hotmail.com>
Subject: Subject : Why the California Crossing 2% CID Does NOT Burden Poor Shoppers – Here's the Big-Picture Proof
| Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender----- |
Dear Brett Kell and Topeka City Council Members,
I appreciate Brad Cale raising concerns about the 2% CID placing an extra sales-tax burden on low-to-moderate income shoppers at the California Crossing Shopping Center — especially at the new Supermercado Nuestra Familia grocery store. However, when you look at the full picture (extended trade-area demographics, actual dollar impact, and the services now being delivered), that argument simply doesn't hold up. The CID is actually the tool that brings better goods, services, jobs, and long-term stability to East Topeka.
Here are three clear reasons why the "burden on the poor" claim is untrue in the big picture:
- The extra cost is tiny, voluntary, and spread across a much broader customer base A typical grocery trip at Supermercado Nuestra Familia might run $150–$200. The 2% CID adds just $3–$4. For a household spending $400–$500/month on groceries, that's only $8–$10 extra — far less than the gas and time it used to cost residents to drive to other stores. Importantly, this tax is only paid by people who choose to shop there. And because the extended trade-area demographics you referenced are strong (ZIP 66605 median household income near the city average of ~$57,000), a large share of the sales (and therefore the tax) comes from moderate- and higher-income shoppers across southeast Topeka, not just the immediate neighborhood. It's effectively a user fee from the full market that supports the center.
- The real burden on low-income families was the lack of investment — the new grocery store and CID fix that Before Supermercado Nuestra Familia opened in December 2025, East Topeka residents had limited fresh-food options. Now they have a full-service Hispanic grocery with bakery, produce, meats, and culturally relevant items right in the neighborhood. Community reaction has been overwhelmingly positive — packed parking lots at the grand opening, residents calling it "wonderful" and saying they "love it." The 2% CID funds the public improvements (parking repairs, lighting, sidewalks, landscaping) that keep the center attractive and safe so more tenants and services follow. Without full reimbursement capacity, the developer can't finish the upgrades quickly. That means fewer jobs, declining conditions, and residents left driving elsewhere — the true daily burden on low-income families.
- It delivers permanent neighborhood uplift with zero net cost to the city or general taxpayers The CID is temporary (up to 22 years) and self-funding — paid only from sales at the center. It creates construction and retail jobs (many filled locally), raises property values, and grows the overall tax base for everyone. Kansas already removed the state sales tax on groceries, so the added 2% is even less impactful. Long-term, better-maintained retail, more choices, and a safer environment serve low-to-moderate income families far better than leaving the shopping center to deteriorate. This is exactly the targeted economic development East Topeka has needed, and the strong extended demographics prove it will succeed.
Bottom line: We're not shifting a burden onto poor shoppers — we're using a proven Kansas tool (already approved at 1.5% and working elsewhere in Topeka) to leverage private investment and bring real services where they're needed most. The alternative is stagnation. The numbers work, the grocery store is already delivering, and East Topeka families are benefiting. A full 2% CID simply ensures the momentum continues full speed.
Thank you for your leadership on this project. I'm happy to provide more details or attend a meeting to discuss.
Henry McClure Topeka resident
