Committee advances amendments to Star Bonds bill, delays final vote until noon tomorrow

A Kansas Senate committee on Senate Bill 197 advanced a package of amendments to the Star Bonds Financing Act and postponed a final vote until a noon session the following day.

The committee agreed to extend the Act’s sunset date to July 1, 2030; to remove a statutory grant of eminent-domain authority specifically for Star Bond districts; to change when and how information about Star Bond projects must be posted on the Kansas Department of Commerce website; to require quarterly visitor ZIP-code reporting from entities in Star Bond districts; and to bar state general funds from being pledged to repay Star Bond debt while allowing use of federal funds under certain committee changes.

The items matter because they touch on how local governments acquire property for large development projects, how much project and fiscal information is publicly available, which revenue sources may be used to repay Star Bond debt, and what oversight the state has over deals anchored by the Department of Commerce.

On the bill's sunset and eminent-domain authority, an advisor to the committee summarized the effect: “Senate Bill 197 would extend the sunset [of the Star Bonds Financing Act] to 07/01/2030,” and explained that one amendment would remove the specific 2007 statutory grant that allowed cities and counties to use eminent domain to acquire property for Star Bond districts. The advisor told members that removing the specific grant would not eliminate other statutory avenues that a municipality could rely on to acquire property (for example, donation, or other statutes that authorize condemnations for particular public-works purposes).

Committee members asked for clarification that removing the Star Bond–specific eminent-domain grant would not prevent a municipality from condemning an easement for a water line under other statutes. The advisor affirmed that other statutory authorities would remain available for those purposes.

On transparency and document timing, the committee approved amendments that change several timing and posting requirements. Members approved replacing an initial 30-day posting deadline with 90 days in one provision and instructed the reviser to draft language that would also require updated postings at the time bonds are sold and as plans are modified. One senator said, “I will support the 90 day, but I do not support the public documents,” voicing concern about making certain proprietary or deal-sensitive details public; the sponsor withdrew a proposed insertion of the word “public” after discussion and later accepted the 90-day timeline. Committee staff were given leeway to consolidate multiple posting requirements into clear statutory language.

On fiscal transparency, the committee removed language that would have required reporting “sales tax revenue foregone,” agreeing instead that reporting the amount of incremental revenue collected would provide the needed information without the potentially confusing phrase. A member urged that incremental revenue figures are the useful number for oversight and that the phrase “foregone” could be misleading.

For visitor reporting, members approved moving from annual to quarterly ZIP-code reporting for entities within a Star Bond district and required the Department of Commerce to publish visitor ZIP-code data within 90 days of the end of each quarter. Committee discussion included concerns about measurement accuracy (for example, whether repeated purchases by the same customer would overcount) and the administrative burden on small businesses; one committee member described the requirement as “a big ask for a small business owner,” prompting members to discuss limiting reporting to principal attraction businesses or otherwise reducing the burden.

On funding restrictions, the committee adopted a substitute motion that left an express ban on using state general funds for Star Bond repayment but removed an absolute prohibition on federal funds so the state could consider federal assistance where appropriate. Committee staff advised the change would not retroactively affect past uses of state general fund appropriations but could be overridden later by a separate appropriations bill.

A separate amendment that would have required a majority vote of the State Finance Council before the secretary of commerce could approve a Star Bond project failed on division. Supporters described it as “a second set of eyes” for multimillion-dollar projects; opponents warned it could prolong negotiations and impede deals.

Members approved the package of individual changes to the amendment language but did not complete a final vote on the overall amendment during the session. The chair said the committee will reconvene at noon the next day to continue consideration.

Minor procedural and drafting directions recorded in the meeting included: asking the reviser and committee staff for drafting leeway to consolidate posting and timing provisions; preserving previously approved project-document postings while adding a requirement for updates when bonds are sold; and moving some existing reporting requirements into clearer statutory subsections.

A number of committee members raised questions about how the changes would operate in practice, including the precise drafting needed to tie certain posting triggers to the sale of bonds, how ZIP-code data would be collected and aggregated, the scope of information subject to public disclosure, and whether prohibitions on particular funding sources could be superseded by future appropriations.

The committee adjourned with the matter continued to a noon session the next day.