Printable Format12-1770. Purpose of act; issuance of special obligation bonds and full faith and credit tax increment bonds. It is hereby declared to be the purpose of this act to promote, stimulate and develop the general and economic welfare of the state of Kansas and its communities and to assist in the development and redevelopment of eligible areas within and without a city thereby promoting the general welfare of the citizens of this state, by authorizing cities to acquire certain property and to issue special obligation bonds and full faith and credit tax increment bonds for the financing of redevelopment projects. It is further found and declared that the powers conferred by this act are for a public purpose and public use for which public money may be expended and the power of eminent domain may be exercised. The necessity in the public interest for the provisions of this act is hereby declared as a matter of legislative determination.
History: L. 1976, ch. 69, § 1; L. 1979, ch. 52, § 1; L. 1982, ch. 75, § 6; L. 1984, ch. 74, § 1; L. 1988, ch. 78, § 1; L. 1994, ch. 63, § 1; L. 1996, ch. 228, § 1; L. 1998, ch. 17, § 1; L. 1999, ch. 83, § 3; L. 2001, ch. 103, § 1; L. 2007, ch. 179, § 21; July 1.
Law Review and Bar Journal References:
"Urban Redevelopment: Utilization of Tax Increment Financing," Randall V. Reece and M. Duane Coyle, 19 W.L.J. 536, 543.
Attorney General's Opinions:
Payment of redevelopment costs from tax increment revenues without issuance of bonds. 96-45.
Criteria for redevelopment district qualifying for tax increment financing. 97-58.
City may reimburse redevelopment project costs incurred prior to time redevelopment district was created. 2004-2.
Discusses use of STAR bonds to pay costs of constructing a building in redevelopment district. 2004-6.
Moneys raised through bonds issued pursuant to K.S.A. 12-1770a may be used for demolition of buildings to prepare site for development. 2004-14.
STAR bond proceeds available to finance only real property. 2004-24.
Multiple redevelopment project areas; completion requirements within 20 years; legal description of the redevelopment project area. 2009-15.
A city may exercise home rule authority to terminate rather than amend an existing project when the city deems the project no longer feasible, the project should be transferred to another district, new projects for the transferred area should be pursued, and new revenue resources are pledged to pay the cost of the projects. 2011-1.
CASE ANNOTATIONS
1. Act held constitutional; no unlawful delegation of legislative power; no violation of sections 1 and 5 of Article 11 of the Kansas Constitution. State ex rel. Schneider v. City of Topeka, 227 Kan. 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 605 P.2d 556.
2. Cited; uniform and equal rates for intangibles tax (K.S.A. 12-1,101) only required within taxing district. Cogswell v. Sherman County, 238 Kan. 438, 443, 444, 710 P.2d 1331 (1985).
3. Mentioned in holding city entitled to state action immunity from federal antitrust claims in denial of rezoning application. Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. Lawrence, Kan., 715 F. Supp. 1000, 1008 (1989).
4. Race track facility and related projects valid public purposes; bonds may be issued and eminent domain authority exercised. State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, 265 Kan. 779, 781, 962 P.2d 543 (1998).