Topeka City Council Meeting - September 10, 2025
Topeka City Council Meeting - September 10, 2025
The governing body met on September 10, 2025 to consider rezoning proposals, the 2026 operating budget, property disposals, and utility liens. The meeting featured extensive public comment and debate on equity, affordable housing, and development incentives.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Amy Hayton (Lois Curtis Center) expressed concern that the budget reflects inequity, noting the closure of the DEI office while the percentage of non-white unhoused individuals rose from 18% (2022) to 46%. She argued that financial equity must be a conscious decision.
- Michelle Bradbury criticized the budget's reliance on one-time transfers and the use of incentive programs for developers with outstanding tax liabilities, calling it a breach of public trust.
- Gage Church (pastor, member of Topeka Jumps) requested $2 million for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, citing promises from council members Duncan and Miller.
- Martha Boatright (via Zoom) voiced agreement with previous speakers, stating the budget downplays low-income areas and criticized inequity in handling water bill liens vs. developer debts.
- Corey Chandler opposed a tax increase for Topeka Airport, noting no commercial flights and questioning the need for higher taxes given recent grants.
- Chuck Daltmeyer (developer) argued against further waivers for the Lawrence Bay developer, stating the city has already discounted lots and granted an RHID program that will divert property taxes for 25 years, costing Topeka up to $30 million.
- Candace Stiles (Topeka Metro Transit Board) expressed disappointment with the revenue neutral rate hearing for Metro, which led to a $300,000 budget cut that may reduce service, and offered solutions for future hearings.
- Jonathan Smith (tenant) shared a personal story of poor housing conditions and unresponsive landlords, arguing that current property maintenance codes allow such conditions and calling for stronger tenant protections.
- Danielle Temmo advocated for moving public comment to the beginning of the agenda to increase civic engagement and trust.
Discussion Items
- Zoning Overlay (4A & 4B): The council approved an overlay district for the Monroe School area after discussion. Dan Warner noted the overlay limits building height to 32 feet. For 4B, the rezoning of 40 properties to implement the overlay was approved 9-0-1 (abstention).
- Rezoning to M3 (4C): A .88-acre property near Southwest 29th and Armstrong was rezoned from C4 to M3 (multifamily). Approved unanimously (10-0).
- Rezoning at 625 Southwest Polk (4D): A .52-acre site rezoned from O&I to M3 faced opposition from the neighborhood who preferred a park. Staff noted M2 would also be appropriate. After debate, the council deferred the item to October 7th (first meeting in October) by a vote of 8-2 (Ortiz and Banks dissenting), to allow further discussion with stakeholders.
- 2026 Operating Budget (4E): Public hearing held; no action taken. Council members noted they will bring amendments next week, including potential funding for the Affordable Housing Trust Fund and CIP adjustments.
- Property Disposals (4F, 4G, 4H): The council authorized disposal of three city-owned properties (204 SW 5th, 400 SE 8th, 225 NW Curtis) and the use of RFPs to engage a broker. All approved 10-0.
- Utility Liens (4I): An ordinance to place liens on properties with unpaid utility bills (94 properties, total ~$86,000) was approved 7-3 (Valdivia, Banks, and Duncan dissenting). Dissenters cited inequity compared to treatment of large developers.
Key Outcomes
- Approval of Monroe School overlay district and rezoning of 40 properties (4A, 4B). Vote: 10-0 and 9-0-1 respectively.
- Rezoning of .88 acres to M3 (4C). Vote: 10-0.
- Deferral of rezoning at 625 SW Polk to October 7, 2025. Vote: 8-2.
- Public hearing on 2026 budget held; council will take up budget amendments and final vote next week.
- Authorization to dispose of three properties (4F, 4G, 4H). All approved 10-0.
- Approval of utility lien ordinance (4I). Vote: 7-3.
- Two executive sessions were held for legal advice on financial affairs and attorney-client privilege; no action taken.
- The council also acknowledged ex parte communications from Councilmember Hiller, Ortiz, and another member on rezoning items, each stating they could still be impartial.
Meeting Transcript
And then there's potential some districts that are some uses that could be allowed through conditional use permit. That includes a contractor yards for a contractor yard, for instance. And then finally the draft residential standards limit building height to thirty-two feet, that's the same for industrial. We tested thirty-two feet for industrial buildings that have been built recently, and most of those have been thirty feet or less. Any further discussion? Seeing none, we're ready to vote. Okay. Okay, we have 10. Yes, the motion carries. Okay. Move on to a related item under 4B. Madam Clerk. He has an ordinance introduced by City Manager Dr. Robert Perez. Amending the district map referred to made a part of the zoning ordinances by section 1850 50 of the Topeka Municipal Code by amending the district zoning classification to aid the Monroe School zoning overlay pursuant to section 18280 of the Topeka Municipal Code. Mr. City Manager. Thank you, Mayor members of the governing body. Dan Warner, our planning division director will lead us through this item. Mayor governing body, that last presentation included the details for the rezoning. Uh to reiterate this rezoning uh implements that overlay district that you just approved and rezones 40 properties uh with this overlay zoning. Uh with that I'll be happy to answer any questions. Any questions? This particular piece uh requires uh ex parte communication notification. So prior to proceeding with the vote, each member of the governing body who is engaged in ex parte communication with any individual either in favor of or against the matter being considered, must state that the communication occurred and indicate and indicate that even in light of having engaged in the communication, they were able to fairly objectively and impartially consider the measure based only upon the evidence provided on the record. The record includes the planning commission minutes, the staff report and its attachments, the public comments made during the planning commission hearing, and similar relevant information related to the matter. So I asked the governing body are there any ex parte communications to bring forward? Councilwoman Hiller. Yes, but I think I can make a reasonable decision. Councilwoman Ortiz. Yes, and I can make a fair and objective and impartial. Okay. Thank you. Yes, I've had a conversation, but I think I can uh make an impartial decision. Thank you, Councilman. Seeing nothing. Um I'm gonna give the voting options for this item. One is to approve the planning commission's recommendation, two reject or amend the planning commission's recommendation, or three remand back to the planning commission as required by the governing body. So is there a motion? Uh motion to approve. Motion to approve by councilwoman Hillary, second by councilman uh Miller. Sir Mayor, I have a uh just a comment. I'm wondering if there is opposition to the rezoning or Dan. Could you um I will say we had a number of meetings and we had a few people show up that were once they kind of heard it, were in favor of all of this. Uh we met specifically with one property owner that had the most concerns and questions, and we did that and didn't hear from them again. Um we haven't had really anybody speak up about opposition to the rezoning um since. Okay. Did the uh property owner uh was in favor of the planning commission's decision or did they have questions about it? Uh the specific property owners that came to the meeting that um kind of expressed support did have questions about kind of the standard the design standards and and those things, but um you know, beyond that, I felt like we answered most people's questions sufficiently. Okay, thank you, Dan.
openpublica.com