Committee hears bill to bar cities from using tax revenue for guaranteed-income programs without legislative approval

The Committee on Government Efficiency heard House Bill 2101, which would prohibit a city or county from adopting an ordinance or resolution that establishes or funds a guaranteed income program using tax revenue unless the Legislature expressly consents by statute. David Weese, the reviser, opened the hearing with an overview of the bill.

The bill, as described by Weese, would add a new section of law barring municipalities from implementing a guaranteed income program that uses tax revenue unless the Legislature approves such a program. The bill defines a "guaranteed income program" as one that is not expressly required by federal law or regulation and that provides individuals with a regular periodic cash payment. A House floor amendment revised the definition and clarified that the prohibition applies to programs using tax revenue. The reviser said the bill's effective date would be July 1, 2025, and noted the House passed the bill on Feb. 20 by a vote of 86 to 37.

Proponent testimony came from Steve Green of Opportunity Solutions Project. "It is important to note that this bill doesn't prohibit cities outright from being able to participate in guaranteed income programs or universal basic income," Green said, describing the House amendment that conditions tax-funded programs on legislative approval. Green described guaranteed basic income as unconditional cash payments (examples given included $500 or $1,000 monthly models) and distinguished those programs from means-tested cash assistance with work requirements, like TANF. He said he will provide the committee with studies he cited showing modest or waning health impacts over multi-year trials and evidence of declining work participation in some pilots.

Senators on the committee asked whether the bill responds to a current Kansas program. Green said no Kansas city was actively operating such a program, but he pointed to Douglas County and the city of Lawrence, which he said included in a multi-year community health plan an outcome to participate in a guaranteed basic income program within the next two to three years.

John Goodyear, general counsel for the League of Kansas Municipalities, testified in opposition in writing and answered committee questions. "We would certainly argue no," Goodyear said when asked whether the legislation is needed now; he described the idea as aspirational and warned the bill would be an unnecessary limit on local control. He also said the policy had not gained traction among Kansas cities and cautioned the committee about preempting locally elected officials.

Committee members pressed both sides on local control and on whether state funds that flow to cities create a state interest in how local tax dollars are used. The proponent acknowledged opponents' local-control concerns and said the amended bill follows a model used in other states (he referenced Arkansas) while still supporting the amended version.

The hearing closed with no neutral testimony and no committee vote recorded in the transcript.

Votes and legislative status noted during the hearing: the reviser said the House passed HB 2101 on Feb. 20 by a vote of 86 to 37 and stated the bill's effective date would be July 1, 2025. The committee did not take a vote during the hearing.