During the Build Kansas steering committee meeting on June 17, members questioned and voted to require additional documentation for multiple applications that requested exemptions from the committee’s suggested local match. The discussion focused on the adequacy of exemption letters and the risk of setting a precedent that could invite similar requests.

Why it matters: The steering committee has suggested a 5% match expectation to ensure “skin in the game.” Members stressed that blanket or anecdotal exemption letters without financial detail do not justify waivers and could create inconsistent precedent across applicants.

Franklin County requested $165,164.15 and separately asked for an exemption from the suggested 5% match, citing the regional nature of its application and collaborative partners. Representative Hoffman and others questioned the rationale, noting Franklin County’s population (about 25,000, as discussed in the meeting) and that an approximately $8,000 match appeared attainable. Representative Hoffman made a motion to require Franklin County to return with the 5% match; the motion was seconded and carried.

Separately, the Flint Hills Regional Council sought a regional CSAP and demonstration package totaling $346,673.80 and requested a 5% match exemption due to constrained local budgets and staffing. Several legislators, including Representative Waymaster and Senator Fagg, expressed concern that the application’s executive summary did not demonstrate why the regional council could not secure the local match and asked that the application be returned with county-level commitments. The committee approved a motion returning the Flint Hills application for additional match documentation.

Discussion and next steps: Committee members said prior exemptions granted to very small towns included detailed financial letters showing limited tax bases; they said the Franklin County and Flint Hills letters lacked comparable detail. The hub staff said they had asked applicants to reconsider and supply matches; in Franklin County’s case the county submitted a letter instead of the requested dollars. The committee recorded motions sending both applications back for fuller matching evidence before recommending final advice.