Executive Summary
Kansas cities and counties have significant discretion under the Reinvestment Housing Incentive District (RHID) Act (K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq.) when administering this state-authorized tool for financing public infrastructure that supports new housing. While the statute requires a housing needs analysis, a redevelopment plan with a comprehensive feasibility study, public hearings, and specific findings by the governing body, it does not mandate a formal local "but-for" test (i.e., rigorous proof that the project would not proceed without the RHID incentive, often via detailed gap analysis or internal rate of return modeling).
Some jurisdictions, such as Topeka, Overland Park, Derby, Ottawa, and certain counties like Leavenworth, have adopted explicit local policies or incentive guidelines that incorporate a but-for analysis as an additional layer of scrutiny. These "stricter" approaches typically require developers to demonstrate economic necessity, often with review by city staff or external financial advisors, to ensure incentives target projects that truly address unmet housing needs without over-subsidizing market-driven development.
Many other cities and counties—particularly smaller or rural ones—adhere more closely to the statutory minimum. In these cases, developers submit the required feasibility data and assurances as part of the plan; the local government reviews it, makes the statutorily required findings, and approves via resolution without a formalized but-for policy or mandatory independent gap analysis. Examples include Gardner, Emporia, Hays, Lansing, and various rural jurisdictions handling subdivision infrastructure projects.
No centralized statewide tracking exists for which of Kansas's 105 counties and 627 cities have added but-for requirements versus those following baseline procedures, making comprehensive statistical analysis challenging. Available population and economic data from U.S. Census sources (2010–2024 estimates) reveal no clear correlation between adoption of a local but-for test and stronger outcomes in population growth or financial prosperity.
Growth patterns are overwhelmingly driven by broader factors: proximity to major employment centers (e.g., Johnson County suburbs like Overland Park and Gardner both show robust gains regardless of policy nuance), university presence, major employers, and regional migration trends. Johnson County metros continue rapid expansion, while many non-metro areas remain flat or declining. Cities with but-for policies do not systematically outperform those without; some stricter-review communities grow, while others stagnate, and vice versa for minimal-review jurisdictions.
In short, the presence or absence of an extra local but-for layer appears to function primarily as a local governance choice for taxpayer protection and deal quality rather than a decisive driver of city-wide demographic or economic success. RHID's effectiveness hinges more on underlying market demand, housing needs, and overall economic conditions than on this particular administrative detail. Local officials and residents can adjust policies through council or commission action to best fit community priorities.
No, there is no reliable, data-driven way to create a clear statistical correlation between Kansas cities/counties that adopt a local “but-for” test for RHID projects and those that stick to the statutory minimum (developer-submitted feasibility study + required findings). Kansas does not track or publish a centralized list of which jurisdictions have added a formal but-for policy versus those that follow only the baseline Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act requirements (K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq.). Policies are set locally via resolutions or economic-development handbooks, often on a case-by-case or ad-hoc basis, and only a fraction of the 105 counties and 627 cities actively use RHID.
Why a clean correlation is impossible
- Sparse and incomplete policy data: Only a handful of cities have publicly documented explicit “but-for” language for RHID (e.g., Overland Park, Topeka, Ottawa, Derby, Newton, Pottawatomie County). Many others use general incentive policies that mention but-for for TIF/CID/etc. but not always for RHID specifically. Smaller/rural jurisdictions rarely publish detailed policies and simply approve projects via resolution after the statutory feasibility analysis.
- Confounding variables dominate outcomes: Population growth and financial prosperity in Kansas are overwhelmingly driven by proximity to major job centers (Kansas City or Wichita metro areas), universities, major employers, and broader economic trends—not by one layer of RHID review. Metro-suburb growth has been explosive for decades regardless of RHID policy.
- No studies exist: There are no academic, state, or Commerce Department analyses linking but-for adoption to growth metrics. RHID itself is a relatively new/expanded tool in many places, and local policies are too recent and varied for meaningful long-term comparison.
What the examples actually show (2010–2024 population data)
Here is a side-by-side look at representative cities from earlier examples, using U.S. Census Bureau decennial and annual estimates:
Cities with explicit/local but-for policies (stricter review)
- Overland Park (Johnson County/KC metro): Strong but-for policy. 2010 ≈ 173k → 2020 ≈ 197k (+13.6%) → 2024 est. ≈ 203k. Very prosperous, high-income suburb.
- Derby (Sedgwick County/Wichita metro): But-for in incentive policy. 2010 ≈ 22k → 2020 ≈ 25.6k (+15.6%) → 2024 est. ≈ 26.6k. Solid growth.
- Topeka: Explicit but-for test. 2010 ≈ 127k → 2020 ≈ 126.6k (–0.7%) → 2024 est. ≈ 125k. Slight decline/stagnant.
- Ottawa: But-for analysis required. 2010 ≈ 12.6k → 2020 ≈ 12.6k (flat) → 2024 est. ≈ 12.7k. Stable.
Cities following closer to statutory minimum (or no explicit but-for policy documented for RHID)
- Gardner (Johnson County/KC metro): Earlier example of minimal review. 2010 ≈ 19.1k → 2020 ≈ 23.3k (+21.9%) → 2024 est. ≈ 25.8k. Explosive growth (one of the fastest in the state).
- Emporia: Feasibility-focused policy, no but-for language in RHID docs. 2010 ≈ 24.9k → 2020 ≈ 24.1k (–3.3%) → 2024 est. ≈ 24.3k. Decline then flat.
- Lansing (Leavenworth County/KC metro area): Focuses on unit size/rent/duration criteria. 2010 ≈ 11.3k → 2020 ≈ 11.2k (flat) → 2024 est. ≈ 11.3k. Stable.
- Hays (college town): General incentives mention but-for, but RHID approvals appear minimal. 2010 ≈ 20.5k → 2020 ≈ 21.1k (+3%) → 2024 est. ≈ 21.2k. Modest growth.
- Pittsburg (southeast KS): RHID program exists with no documented but-for requirement. 2010 ≈ 20.2k → 2020 ≈ 20.6k (+1.8%) → 2024 est. ≈ 20.5k. Flat/slight decline.
Takeaway from the numbers: Growth is strongly tied to location (Johnson County suburbs like Overland Park and Gardner both boom; rural or non-metro places like Emporia and Pittsburg struggle). But-for cities are not systematically “more prosperous.” Some with the test grow fast; some decline. Some without the test grow fast; some decline. The test appears more common in larger or development-active places that already have staff/consultants, but it does not appear to cause better outcomes.
Bottom line on prosperity
- Population growth is driven by jobs, housing supply/demand, migration to metros, and regional economics—not by whether a city adds a but-for gap analysis to RHID applications.
- Financial prosperity (tax base, median income, etc.) follows the same pattern: KC/Wichita suburbs thrive; many rural counties lose population and struggle with declining tax bases. Using but-for is simply a prudent local safeguard to ensure public incentives deliver actual new housing rather than subsidizing projects that would happen anyway. It may improve return-on-investment for taxpayers in any given deal, but it is not a magic driver of city-wide growth or wealth.
- If anything, the reverse dynamic sometimes appears: faster-growing places (with more development pressure) are the ones most likely to adopt extra guardrails like but-for to protect against over-subsidization.
Local policies can (and do) evolve through city council action. If you’re looking at a specific project or jurisdiction, the best evidence is still the public resolutions, applications, and Census data for that exact place rather than any broad “but-for vs. no but-for” rule of thumb.
who what where?
There is no publicly available, comprehensive count of how many Kansas cities or counties "avoid" the but-for test for RHID (Reinvestment Housing Incentive District) projects and instead follow only the minimum state-law process (developer-submitted feasibility study + statutory findings). Kansas does not maintain or publish a centralized database tracking every locality's internal RHID administrative policies or review procedures. The state has 105 counties and 627 incorporated cities/towns, but only a subset (dozens, based on news reports, resolutions, and project approvals since the program's expansion) actively use RHID. Policies vary widely by jurisdiction and are often handled case-by-case rather than through a uniform statewide standard.
What state law actually requires (the baseline that "just following state law" means)
Under the Kansas Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act (K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq.):
- The city or county must prepare or rely on a Housing Needs Analysis.
- It adopts a redevelopment/development plan that includes a comprehensive feasibility analysis (evaluating project costs, public benefits, revenues from tax increments, and whether benefits exceed costs).
- The developer typically supplies the underlying data, pro formas, cost estimates, and supporting information for that feasibility analysis and contractual assurances.
- The governing body makes specific statutory findings (e.g., the plan is in the best interests of the community, addresses documented housing needs, etc.), holds public hearings, passes resolutions/ordinances, and submits to the Kansas Secretary of Commerce for approval.
- No explicit "but-for" test (proof that the project would not proceed without the RHID incentive) is mandated by statute. The feasibility analysis is the core required study, and the developer can (and often does) prepare or heavily contribute to it.
This is the "minimal" process many smaller or rural jurisdictions follow for one-off projects.
What many cities/counties actually do in practice
Some add a local "but-for" test or enhanced review (explicit local policy requiring the developer to prove the project wouldn't be economically feasible without the incentive, often with pro formas showing IRR/gap analysis both with and without RHID, plus city financial advisor review). Examples with documented policies or practices requiring this:
- Overland Park
- Arkansas City
- Ottawa
- Derby
- Topeka
- Pottawatomie County
- Leavenworth County
- Others like Riley County (policy exists) and similar incentive-heavy cities.
These localities treat RHID as a "need-based" tool and often cap returns, limit terms, or require extra documentation beyond the statute.
Many others stick closer to the statutory minimum (developer submits feasibility study/data as part of the plan; city reviews and makes the required findings without a formal local but-for policy or mandatory gap analysis). This is common in smaller cities and counties handling individual projects via resolution. Examples from public records/resolutions include:
- Emporia
- Gardner
- Hays
- Columbus
- Eldorado
- Lansing (focuses on unit-size/rent/duration criteria rather than explicit but-for)
- Various rural counties and towns approving subdivision infrastructure RHIDs.
Resolutions in these cases typically just reference the statute, attach a summary of the developer's assurances and feasibility analysis, and proceed.
Because most RHID activity occurs in smaller/rural eligible communities (population limits apply in the original Rural Housing Incentive District framework, later expanded), the majority of approvals likely follow the state-law minimum rather than layered local policies. Larger or more development-active cities are the ones most likely to adopt formal "but-for" guardrails for taxpayer protection.
Bottom line
- Exact number? Unknown and not tracked centrally — probably most of the active smaller jurisdictions handle it with developer-submitted feasibility studies per statute only, while a smaller but visible group (10–20+ with published policies) add the but-for test and extra scrutiny.
- This flexibility is intentional under state law: cities/counties have discretion on how strictly to apply the tool.
- If you're asking about a specific city or county (e.g., one near Topeka or a particular project), public records like recent city/county commission agendas, resolutions, or the locality's economic development page will show exactly how they handle applications. You can also check the Kansas Department of Commerce RHID program page or request records directly from the jurisdiction.
Local policies can change via city/county action if residents want stricter or looser standards.
Stop micro-managing our lives.
Topeka’s use of RHID (Reinvestment Housing Incentive District) follows Kansas state law (K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq.), but the city layers on its own stricter local policies and hires outside financial experts like Columbia Capital Management (Jeff White’s firm) for due diligence. This is standard practice for municipal incentive programs across Kansas and the U.S.—it’s not a refusal to follow state law, but an attempt to use the tool responsibly while protecting taxpayers. Here’s the breakdown based on the statutes, Topeka’s own policies, and how these programs work.
What RHID actually is under state law
The Kansas Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act lets cities and counties create special districts for new or renovated housing. The key mechanism: the city captures the incremental increase in property taxes generated by the new development (above the pre-project “baseline”) for up to 25 years. That increment can reimburse developers for eligible public-improvement costs (infrastructure like streets, sewers, sidewalks, etc.) or pay debt service on bonds issued to fund those costs upfront.
State law requires:
- A Housing Needs Assessment (showing a shortage that private development alone isn’t fixing).
- A redevelopment plan with a comprehensive feasibility analysis.
- Approval by the city governing body and submission to the Kansas Secretary of Commerce.
- Contractual assurances from the developer, public hearings, etc.
The law does not automatically hand out incentives or prohibit cities from adding extra review steps. Cities have discretion on how strictly they apply it and what additional criteria they impose.
Why Topeka adds the “but-for” test
Topeka explicitly treats RHID as a need-based program in its own RHID policy and informational packet (adopted via city resolutions). Every application gets a “but-for” analysis: the city asks whether the project would proceed but for the RHID incentive (or whether it could meet the city’s housing goals without it).
From Topeka’s official RHID packet:
“RHID is a need-based incentive program. For every application received, the City of Topeka will include a ‘but-for’ test in our financial analysis to ensure that incentives are only awarded to projects that would not proceed without them.”
Applicants must submit evidence supporting the but-for claim, plus details on how the project addresses the city’s Housing Needs Analysis/Study (e.g., affordable/workforce units, location in high-need neighborhoods). The city also caps returns (e.g., 7.5% capitalization rate in some cases) and can adjust the incentive amount or duration.
This is not required word-for-word by the state statute, but it is a common local policy (used in many Kansas cities for TIF, CID, RHID, etc.). The reason: state law’s feasibility study is a baseline requirement, but the but-for test operationalizes it into a concrete financial gap analysis (internal rate of return, pro forma modeling, comparable projects). It prevents over-subsidizing projects that would happen anyway and ensures public dollars deliver actual new housing that the market isn’t providing on its own. Without it, critics (including some residents and council candidates) argue incentives become giveaways.
Topeka’s policy also prioritizes equity, downtown/missing-middle housing, and reserving some increment for public infrastructure—again, local choices on top of the state framework.
Why hire Jeff White / Columbia Capital Management?
Columbia Capital (with Jeff White as Managing Member/Principal) is Topeka’s contracted municipal financial advisor. The city uses them for bond issuances, incentive structuring, financial modeling, and due diligence on deals like RHID, TIF, and general-obligation bonds.
They perform or review:
- The detailed but-for/gap analysis (IRR modeling, developer pro formas, market comparables).
- Feasibility studies required by state law and city policy.
- Bond sizing, structuring, and sales (if the city issues debt to front the infrastructure costs).
- Compliance and risk assessment.
Why not just use city staff? These are complex public-finance transactions involving tax-increment capture, potential bond issuance, long-term reimbursement agreements, and legal/fiscal risks. Most cities (including Topeka) do not have full-time in-house experts with the depth of experience in municipal bond markets, developer modeling, and incentive structuring. Columbia Capital has decades of Kansas-specific experience (they’ve advised Topeka on utility bonds, water/wastewater systems, and other financings for years).
The “extra layer” and fees:
- The city pays Columbia Capital under a financial-advisory contract (budgeted line item; small annual increases noted in recent Topeka budgets). Fees are standard transaction costs in municipal finance.
- Developers sometimes bear part of the study/application costs indirectly (via the $5,000 non-refundable RHID application fee or project soft costs), but the advisor’s work protects the public side.
- This is not unique to Topeka—virtually every Kansas city using TIF/RHID/CID hires a financial advisor for exactly these reasons. It adds a professional check against bad deals.
Critics (including local voices like yourself) see it as unnecessary bureaucracy or profiteering by consultants. Proponents see it as prudent oversight: better to pay experts upfront than approve incentives that don’t deliver new housing or create fiscal problems later.
Bottom line
Topeka is not ignoring state law—it is using the authority the legislature gave cities under the RHID Act and then applying tighter local guardrails (but-for test + expert review) that many cities adopt for accountability. The but-for test and Columbia Capital engagement exist to make sure the incentives actually work as intended: spurring housing that wouldn’t otherwise get built, without over-subsidizing developers or shortchanging taxpayers.
If a specific project or council vote is the source of frustration, the public records (agendas, resolutions, and the RHID applications themselves) spell out exactly what analysis was done. You can find Topeka’s RHID info and applications on the city’s Finance page (topeka.org/finance/rhid). Local policy can always be changed by the City Council if enough residents push for it.
She signed this and Thank YOU!!
Governor Laura Kelly did not personally "approve bringing RHID inside the city limits of Topeka" as a one-off decision for Topeka alone. Instead, she signed Senate Bill 17 (SB 17) into law in 2023, which took effect July 1, 2023. This bipartisan legislation renamed the old Rural Housing Incentive District (RHID) program to the Reinvestment Housing Incentive District and expanded its eligibility statewide.
What changed with SB 17
- Before 2023: The program was strictly for rural areas. It applied mainly to smaller cities (generally under 60,000 population) and counties with lower populations. The goal was to spur housing in places where private developers struggled to build due to high infrastructure costs and limited market demand.
- After SB 17 (effective July 1, 2023):
- The word "Rural" was removed from the name and purpose.
- Cities with more than 60,000 people (like Topeka, population ~125,000) became eligible for the first time.
- Larger cities face some limits (e.g., caps on units per year or per project, and restrictions on average home size in certain cases) to prevent overuse in big urban areas.
- The focus shifted to addressing housing shortages anywhere in Kansas through public infrastructure financing (streets, sewers, sidewalks, etc.), paid for by the incremental property taxes the new housing generates.
Topeka’s City Council and staff began using the updated RHID tool shortly after the law changed, with resolutions and project approvals appearing in 2024–2025 (e.g., for downtown and other infill projects). The Kansas Secretary of Commerce still reviews and approves individual district applications, as required by statute.
Why expand it beyond rural areas?
The original program (enacted in 1998) targeted rural Kansas because many small towns and counties faced severe housing shortages, declining populations, and high costs to extend infrastructure for new subdivisions. Private builders often couldn’t make the numbers work without help capturing future tax growth to reimburse those upfront costs.
By 2023, Kansas lawmakers (and Governor Kelly) recognized that housing shortages had become a statewide problem, not just a rural one:
- Rapid growth in some suburbs and job centers created demand for more units.
- Many mid-sized and larger cities (including Topeka) had aging housing stock, downtown redevelopment opportunities, and "missing middle" housing gaps.
- Post-COVID economic shifts, inflation in construction costs, and migration patterns made it harder everywhere to build affordable or workforce housing without incentives.
- The bill expanded allowable uses (e.g., more flexibility for bond proceeds and certain project types) to encourage reinvestment in existing communities, not just greenfield rural development.
Supporters argued this would help revitalize downtowns, add multi-family and infill housing, and support economic growth without new general tax dollars—using only the "but-for" incremental taxes from the project itself. Critics worried it could subsidize projects that might happen anyway or shift too much burden to other taxing entities (schools, counties).
Simple explanation for the crowd
"RHID used to be a 'rural-only' tool to help small towns build houses when developers couldn’t afford the roads and pipes. In 2023, the Legislature and Governor Kelly updated the law so bigger cities like Topeka could use it too. The reason? Kansas has a housing crunch pretty much everywhere now—not just in the country. Topeka has needs for more apartments and homes downtown and in neighborhoods, and this lets the city help pay for the public improvements by capturing the extra property taxes the new housing will create. It’s no longer just for farmland subdivisions; it’s for reinvesting in our cities to build more housing where people actually want to live."
Topeka still applies its own local policies (including a but-for test and financial review) on top of the state rules when approving specific projects. If residents want changes to how Topeka uses it, that’s a conversation for City Council.
For the exact text of the changes, see the Kansas Legislature’s summary of SB 17 and the current RHID page on the Kansas Department of Commerce website.
