Kansas committee hears SB 391, a bill that would bar cities from restricting landlords on Section 8 and screening rules

The Senate Federal and State Affairs Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 391, legislation that would prohibit cities and counties from adopting or enforcing ordinances that bar landlords from refusing tenants on the basis of income provided through the Housing Choice Voucher program (Section 8) and would preempt local limits on tenant screening methods, security-deposit caps, and rights-of-first-refusal.

The measure, as summarized to the committee, would also nullify any local ordinance or resolution in effect on the bill's effective date that conflicts with the statute; the presenter said the bill would take effect July 1 if enacted.

Proponents, including representatives of state real-estate interests and property companies, said the bill is necessary to preserve what they described as landlords' private-property rights and to keep participation in HUD programs voluntary. "They're real money," Stanley Weber, CEO of Tower Properties, said of voucher payments as he described a citation his company received in Lawrence after refusing vouchers. Weber and other proponent witnesses said joining HUD programs brings contract obligations, inspections and other oversight that can add time and cost to leasing and, they argued, can discourage investment in rental housing.

Supporters pointed to litigation and actions in other states as precedent. Mark Toome of the Kansas Realtors told the committee the bill is similar to measures passed elsewhere and said it prevents cities from "complicating" landlord‑tenant relationships beyond health-and-safety concerns.

Opponents — local government officials, housing advocates and some small landlords — said the bill would remove tools localities use to respond to local housing markets. "This affects both the people that UCS represents, but it also affects people like me who provide housing in our community," said Christy Baughman, executive director of United Community Services of Johnson County and a small landlord. Baughman cited state housing trends testified to the committee: rents rising roughly 25% since 2018 and a reported loss of lower-cost units, and she said just over 11,000 Kansans currently use vouchers.

Leah Roseland, housing administrator for the City of Lawrence, told the committee Lawrence's source‑of‑income ordinance does not require landlords to use HUD leases or to abandon tenant screening. "It simply says that lawful sources of rent payments, such as housing choice vouchers, cannot be categorically excluded," she said, adding that the ordinance has been challenged and that, according to her testimony, the Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed its lawfulness as recently as May 2025. Roseland described local programs that pair protections with landlord incentives and funding to cover unit damage when needed.

Committee members pressed both sides on practical effects. Proponents acknowledged that accepting a voucher typically involves participating in HUD’s programmatic contract process — including inspections and lease requirements — while opponents said those program elements do not mean a city ordinance requires a landlord to adopt HUD leases or to forgo all screening; rather, local rules can prohibit using source of income as the sole disqualifier while leaving other screening intact.

No formal action or vote on SB 391 was taken during the hearing; the committee closed the hearing and moved on to other bill introductions before adjourning. The committee also received written proponent and opponent testimony, and the record includes multiple submitted statements from both sides.

What happens next: The hearing concluded with committee members continuing to weigh home-rule and statewide-preemption concerns raised during questioning. If the bill advances, members and stakeholders indicated legal questions about standing and the scope of local authority are likely to remain part of future debate.