Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Remediation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senators amend remediation exemption to cover properties constructed as day‑care centers; language to be added to HB 2169
Summary
Senate Commerce members amended Senate Bill 2340 to extend remediation responsibility and a deed notice to properties converted to residential use or constructed as day‑care facilities; the amended SB 2340 was added to House Bill 2169 and passed out of conference by consensus.
Senate Commerce members on Monday amended language from Senate Bill 2340 to make owners responsible for investigation, removal and remediation of contamination when nonresidential property is converted to residential use or constructed as a day‑care facility, and to require a deed notice noting potential contamination. The committee agreed to add the amended SB 2340 into House Bill 2169 and pass that package out of conference.
The committee’s discussion began when Senator Owens, a member of the committee, said, “we pulled 23 40, which is the remediation exemption for property in Johnson County” and described an amendment that had been negotiated with committee stakeholders. The amendment inserts language stating that a person who owns such nonresidential property would be responsible for remediation costs if the property is converted to residential use or used for a day‑care facility, and that a notice would be placed on the deed about a potential presence of registered commercial chemical products identified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Owens said the notice “shall run with the land.”
Committee members debated whether the remediation trigger should apply to any property “used for a day‑care facility” or only to property that was “constructed as” a day‑care facility. A committee member who raised concerns about small day‑care operations said that an office building that later housed a small on‑site child care arrangement was not the same as a freestanding day‑care center built for that purpose. Owens proposed changing the language from a trigger of "used for" to "constructed as" a day‑care facility; members agreed to allow revisers to adopt wording in that direction and reached consensus to update the amendment.
Members also discussed local context. One member referenced ongoing development related to Panasonic in Johnson County and asked whether a commercial building that later housed a day care would be required to undergo excavation or remediation. The record shows the group chose language aimed at limiting the provision to facilities built or constructed for the purpose of a day‑care, rather than any business that later offered child care on site.
After agreement on the language, the committee instructed staff to change the amendment text. The committee then voted by consensus to insert the amended SB 2340 into House Bill 2169 (HB 2169) and to pass the combined package out of conference.
The amendment directs KDHE to determine whether remediation is needed and requires a deed notice that runs with the land; the committee did not specify any timetable for KDHE review or for when a deed notice would be recorded. Committee members asked staff and the reviser to finalize the precise statutory wording.
The committee also asked for the amendment language to be handed out to members and agreed to reconvene on related items after the next floor session.
