Senate committee hears testimony on bill to expand local conflict-of-interest rules for major development projects

A Senate committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 66, a proposal to require local government officers to recuse themselves from decisions and contracts involving major development projects in which they or closely connected individuals have a substantial interest.

Senator Mike Thompson, the bill’s author, said the measure is intended to be “a matter basically of anti corruption” and described instances he said he has observed where local officials advocated for projects that would personally benefit them. “It only takes one bad actor,” Thompson told the committee, arguing the bill would strengthen public confidence in local decision-making.

The bill’s text, participants noted, would cover a broad range of people and projects. A staff explainer during the hearing pointed to definitions in the bill that describe who counts as a “local governmental officer” and link the statute’s “major development project” definition to Renewable Energy Systems such as wind and solar. The sponsor and proponents said that scope is intentional because they see frequent disputes around large-scale projects.

Charlotte O'Hara, a former Johnson County commissioner testifying as a proponent, cited multiple local examples and financial figures in support of the bill. O'Hara told the committee that in Johnson County in 2024, “we diverted, at the local level, dollars 108,000,000 in property taxes in just industrial revenue bonds and tax increment finance districts,” and she described past local votes and abstentions she said raised transparency concerns.

Angel Cushing, a property rights advocate who testified in favor, warned of escalating local conflicts tied to large projects and said she has seen local officials who “have skin in the game” and act as a persistent advocate for developers.

Opponents testified that the bill is too broad in its current form and would unintentionally prevent routine participation by many local officials. Jay Hall, Deputy Director and General Counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties, told the committee the proposal “captures every type of project that would be over $250,000,” and said the bill could make it difficult for elected officials who also serve on local boards to participate in votes affecting their communities.

Joshua (Josh) Swaghi, representing the Kansas Advanced Power Alliance, said the panel should consider narrower options such as strengthening the existing statement-of-substantial-interest filing requirements rather than the bill’s approach. Spencer Duncan, Government Affairs Director for the League of Kansas Municipalities, identified several drafting concerns, including competing definitions of “local government officer,” a broad definition of “intimate partner,” and expansive cohabitation language that could reach long-ago roommates or disaster-related temporary living arrangements.

Several opponents and some committee members suggested alternatives: require more frequent or more detailed substantial-interest disclosures, publish those filings online, increase enforcement or penalties for non-disclosure, or adopt a narrower statutory fix targeted to clear, demonstrable pecuniary conflicts rather than the bill’s broader language.

Committee members asked multiple clarification questions about the bill’s definitions and practical consequences, including whether county administrators or planning commissioners would be covered, how leases signed before approvals would be treated, and how the bill would affect unzoned counties. Supporters said the draft attempts to capture common ways conflicts are concealed (for example, through leases or third-party arrangements) and to provide counties a tool to rescind contracts tied to undisclosed interests.

No committee vote occurred during the hearing. The committee record includes contesting views among proponents who emphasized perceived corruption risks and opponents who urged narrower, administrable fixes such as annual or more detailed substantial-interest filings.

The hearing record contains written testimony from additional participants not present to speak, including Alan Anderson, and a reference to prior related legislation (Senate Bill 301 from 2024) as a possible starting point for compromise language. The chair closed the hearing after questions and additional opponent statements were entered into the record.