Senate Conference Committee Report (Final Passage, April 11, 2025): 26 Yea, 8 Nay, 6 Absent.

Nay votes in Senate (mostly Republicans, with one Democrat):

• Chase Blasi (R)
• Marci Francisco (D) — Often progressive/Democratic voice; likely concerned with fiscal costs, resource strain, or corporate giveaways.
• Michael Murphy (R)
• Virgil Peck (R)
• Doug Shane (R) — Noted positively by some local constituents opposing data centers.
• Mike Thompson (R)
• Kenny Titus (R, District 18, Pottawatomie County area) — Voted against; highlighted by local groups critical of the tax break.
• Caryn Tyson (R)

House Conference Committee Report (Final Passage, April 11, 2025): 85 Yea, 37 Nay, 3 Absent.

Notable Nay votes in House (mix of Democrats and Republicans):

• Mike Amyx (D)
• Bradley Barrett (R)
• Brian Bergkamp (R)
• John Carmichael (D)
• Ken Corbet (R)
• Ronald Ellis (R)
• Charlotte Esau (R)
• Brett Fairchild (R?)
• Linda Featherston (D)
• Henry Helgerson (D, Eastborough/Wichita area) — Vocal critic; expressed strong concerns about long-term water shortages, lack of strong conservation mandates, impacts on future generations, and the rushed process on a complex bill at session's end.
• Dale Helwig (R)
• Steven K. Howe (R)
• Angela Martinez (D)
• Heather Meyer (D)
• Lisa M. Moser (R)
• Lon Pishny (R)
• Susan Ruiz (D)
• Rebecca Schmoe (R)
• Joe Seiwert (R)
• Megan Steele (R, District 51) — Highlighted by opponents of the bill.
• Adam Smith (R)
• Others including Rep. Barth, Nathan Butler, Shawn Chauncey, Fred Gardner, Rick James, Mike King, etc.

Common Themes in Opposition

Opposition to SB 98 centered on:

• Resource strain (water for cooling, electricity demand on the grid, potential higher costs for residents/farmers).
• Fiscal cost to the state (lost sales tax revenue, estimated in the millions per project, with benefits going to large out-of-state corporations).
• Process concerns (rushed final votes, behind-the-scenes negotiations).
• Broader skepticism about prioritizing hyperscale data centers in an agriculture-heavy state vs. protecting existing residents, taxpayers, and small communities.

Many "No" votes came from legislators wary of corporate incentives without stronger local benefits or safeguards. Some rural or fiscally conservative Republicans joined Democrats in opposition.

For full district info or contact details on any specific legislator (especially relevant to Shawnee County/Topeka area reps), check kslegislature.gov or let me know names you'd like deeper profiles on. This data is from official roll calls via FastDemocracy and contemporary reporting.

SB 98 (2025 Kansas Legislature) passed with strong bipartisan support in both chambers, though with some notable opposition. It ultimately became law after conference committee adjustments. Here are the key final passage votes:

Senate Votes

• Initial Senate Passage (Feb 19, 2025): 39 Yea, 1 Nay.
  • Yea (39): Larry Alley, Mike Argabright, Rick Billinger, Chase Blasi, Elaine Bowers, Craig Bowser, Joseph Claeys, William Clifford, Ethan Corson, Brenda Dietrich, Renee Erickson, Michael Fagg, Oletha Faust Goudeau, Marci Francisco, Beverly Gossage, David Haley, Cindy Holscher, Jeff Klemp, Rick Kloos, Ty Masterson, Michael Murphy, Stephen Owens, Virgil Peck, Mike Petersen, Pat Pettey, TJ Rose, Ronald Ryckman, Patrick Schmidt, Tim Shallenburger, Doug Shane, Brad Starnes, Dinah Sykes, Adam Thomas, Mike Thompson, Kenny Titus, Caryn Tyson, Sen. Ware, Kellie Warren (and others filling the count).
  • Nay (1): Tory Marie Blew.
• Final Senate Approval of Conference Committee Report (Apr 11, 2025): 26 Yea, 9 Nay (bipartisan majorities overall).

House Votes

• Initial House Passage (Mar 13, 2025): 105 Yea, 17 Nay, 3 Absent.
  • Yea (105): A large majority including Mike Amyx, Avery Anderson, Francis Awerkamp, Barbara Ballard, Bradley Barrett, Rep. Barth, Emil Bergquist, Doug Blex, Lewis "Bill" Bloom, Lauren Bohi, Jesse Borjon, Sherri Brantley, Wanda Brownlee Paige, Ron Bryce, David Buehler, Nathan Butler, Sydney Carlin, Blake Carpenter, Will Carpenter, Shawn Chauncey, Kenneth Collins, Ken Corbet, Chris Croft, Pam Curtis, Leo Delperdang, Duane Droge, Ronald Ellis, Charlotte Esau, Robyn R. Essex, Susan Estes, Brett Fairchild, Linda Featherston, Shannon Francis, Fred Gardner, Dan Goddard, Jason W. Goetz, Kirk Haskins, Daniel Hawkins, Henry Helgerson, Dale Helwig, Kyle Hoffman, Nick Hoheisel, Steven K. Howe, Leah Howell, Cyndi Howerton, Jo Ella Hoye, Steve Huebert, Susan Humphries, Rick James, Timothy Johnson, Tom Kessler, Mike King, Bob Lewis, Marty Long, Nikki McDonald, Kyle McNorton, Jim Minnix, Lisa M. Moser, Lance W. Neelly, Cindy Neighbor, Dan Osman, Rep. Penn, Sandy Pickert, Lon Pishny, Samantha Poetter Parshall, Mari-Lynn Poskin, Pat Proctor, Ken Rahjes, Allen Reavis, Rep. Resman, Bill Rhiley, Angelina Roeser, Webster T. Roth, Susan Ruiz, Clarke Sanders, Tom Sawyer, Stephanie Sawyer Clayton, Tobias Schlingensiepen, Rebecca Schmoe, Mark Schreiber, Kevin Schwertfeger, Joe Seiwert, Chuck Smith, Megan Steele, Angela Stiens, Jerry Stogsdill, Bill Sutton, Kyler Sweely, Sean Tarwater, Rep. Thompson, Adam Turk, Carl Turner, Lindsay Vaughn, Paul Waggoner, Jill Ward, Barb Wasinger, Troy Waymaster, Gary White, Suzanne Wikle, Rick Wilborn, Sean Willcott, Kristey Williams, Laura Williams, Valdenia Winn, Dawn Wolf (and others).
  • Nay (17): John Alcala, Brian Bergkamp, John Carmichael, Ford Carr, Angela Martinez, Lynn Melton, Heather Meyer, Rep. Miller, Brooklynne Mosley, KC Ohaebosim, Melissa Oropeza, Jarrod Ousley, Louis Ruiz, Adam Smith, Virgil Weigel, Brandon Woodard (and one more to reach 17).
• House Approval of Conference Committee Report (Apr 11, 2025): 85 Yea, 37 Nay.

The bill had strong Republican support with significant Democratic crossover in favor, reflecting economic development priorities. Opposition centered on concerns about water/power usage, fiscal cost to the state, and local impacts.

For the most authoritative details or full roll calls (including any absences/pairs), check the official Kansas Legislature site (kslegislature.gov) vote records or LegiScan. Let me know if you want breakdowns by party, district, or help analyzing specific legislators (e.g., Shawnee County area reps). 

Data - looks like the state wants them?

SB 98 (2025) creates a targeted 20-year sales and use tax (SUT) exemption for qualified data centers in Kansas, effective for purchases on or after July 1, 2025. It aims to attract large-scale, permanent hyperscale or enterprise data center investments by removing a major tax barrier that previously made Kansas less competitive.

Key Provisions of SB 98

• Exemption Scope: 100% exemption from state and local sales and use taxes on:
  • Eligible data center costs (development, acquisition, construction, operation) — including land, buildings, site improvements, lease payments, engineering/design, site characterization, permitting, etc.
  • Data center equipment (broadly defined: servers, routers, networking gear, racks, cabling, monitoring/security systems, cooling systems/chillers/towers/water management, backup generators, software, fiber/conduit for connectivity, and other essential operational personal property).
  • Labor services to install, apply, repair, service, alter, or maintain data center equipment.
  • Contractor purchases for building or modifying the data center.
• Exclusions: Electricity costs (and electric generation equipment in some clarifications); modular/preassembled components in certain contexts; administrative property.
• Duration: 20 years from the incentive agreement/certification (not scaled by investment size after amendments). The benefit applies to a qualified data center (one or more connected buildings via fiber for redundancy/resiliency).
• Effective Date: July 1, 2025, for qualifying purchases.

Note on the separate property tax exemption you mentioned: This is longstanding Kansas law (K.S.A. 79-223 and related), not part of SB 98. All commercial and industrial machinery and equipment (including data center gear falling under the relevant property tax classification) acquired/purchased/leased or transported into Kansas after June 30, 2006, for business use/expansion is generally exempt from property tax. This continues annually and provides ongoing savings independent of SB 98's sales tax relief.

Eligibility Requirements (Qualified Firm + Qualified Data Center)

To qualify (via application to KS Dept. of Commerce):

• Investment: At least $250 million in eligible data center costs, completed within 5 years of operations commencement.
• Jobs: Create and maintain at least 20 new full-time jobs (Kansas residents, primary work location in KS) within 2 years of operations start.
• Electricity: 10-year purchase agreement with the local certified retail electric utility (no discounted economic development rates allowed for data centers under the bill).
• Water: Adopt a comprehensive conservation/reuse plan (efficient fixtures, rainwater harvesting, recycling, partnerships for beneficial reuse, watershed support, etc.).
• Security Review: Mandatory review by Kansas Intelligence Fusion Center (KIFC) + approval by Fusion Center Oversight Board (assesses equipment, software, ownership, operations for critical infrastructure risks). Can deny high-risk projects.
• Other: Registered/good standing with KS Secretary of State; not a telecom/wireless/video provider; enter binding Incentive Agreement with Commerce; commit to construction start within 10 years of agreement; ongoing compliance/reporting.

Application Process (year-round):

1. Submit application + $1,000 non-refundable fee to Commerce.
2. Provide plans (investment, jobs, electricity, water).
3. Submit security materials directly to KIFC.
4. Commerce + KIFC reviews → Incentive Agreement → Certification to KS Dept. of Revenue (KDOR) for PR-70B exemption certificate.
5. Periodic (every 5 years) reviews by Commerce for compliance.

Enforcement/Clawbacks: Breaches (after 120-day cure period) can lead to partial/full repayment of benefits, suspension, or termination. Audits by KDOR; records must be available.

Background and Context

• Why SB 98? Kansas previously taxed data center equipment (unlike many states and unlike its own ag/manufacturing exemptions), deterring hyperscale projects. SB 98 (which incorporated/amended elements from SB 51) addresses this to compete with states offering similar long-term SUT relief. Proponents (NetChoice, chambers, utilities, economic developers) highlighted job creation, construction activity, and ancillary economic benefits. Opponents raised water/power strain and taxpayer costs.
• Fiscal Impact: Potential significant SUT revenue loss (e.g., estimates around $9-10M+ per large project), but offset by new economic activity, jobs, and property tax base growth (though equipment itself is often property-tax exempt).
• Broader Incentives: Data centers may layer this with other KS tools (e.g., property tax abatements elsewhere, IRBs, etc.), but must comply with all.

Practical Implications for Developers/Topeka Area

This is highly relevant for large-scale projects in Shawnee County or nearby. The $250M threshold targets hyperscale facilities. Combined with the general machinery/equipment property tax exemption, it significantly lowers total tax burden on equipment and construction. Power availability, water resources, fiber connectivity, and local utility partnerships will be key site-selection factors. Security/national interest reviews add a layer (especially for foreign-linked projects).

For official guidance, start with the KS Dept. of Commerce program page (contact Richard Martinez) and guidelines PDF. Consult KDOR for exemption certificates and a tax attorney/consultant for project-specific structuring, as details like "eligible costs" and compliance are agreement-specific.

This positions Kansas more competitively in the data center boom driven by AI/cloud demand, while including safeguards on jobs, utilities, water, and security. Let me know if you want help with a specific project summary, comparison to other states, or drafting related docs!

Endeavor to persevere

**Summary: Topeka Development Corporation (TDC) Board Meeting – June 9, 2026**

This was a short public meeting of the TDC Board (City of Topeka channel). Key attendees included Board President Duncan, Vice President Hoer, and other directors (Hiller, Ortiz, Baldi Aqua, Banks, etc.). Kale and Miller were absent.

### Main Agenda Items:

1. **Approval of May 19, 2026 Minutes**  

   Approved unanimously.

2. **Executive Session**  

   Recessed briefly (~15 minutes) for discussion of financial affairs/trade secrets related to a corporation (per KSA 75-4319). No action taken upon return to open session.

3. **Update on Hotel Topeka Sale to Endeavor Hotel Group LLC** (Item 6)  

   - IRB (Industrial Revenue Bonds) process moving forward with Shawnee County.  

   - Components: Sales tax exemption for improvements, property tax exemption, and private activity bonds.  

   - First reading done; final vote likely June 11 or 19.  

   - Negotiations ongoing for management agreement with the county.  

   - Endeavor remains committed to closing even without full agreement.  

   - Inspection period ends **June 14**; closing on or before **July 14**.

4. **Amendment #3 to Hotel Topeka Purchase Agreement** (Item 7)  

   - Allows assignment of the contract from Endeavor Hotel Group LLC to a new single-purpose entity: **YBR Properties WG Topeka LLC** (YBR).  

   - Reason: Standard practice to limit liability for the parent company. Endeavor will retain ~90% ownership.  

   - Original agreement restricted assignments (to prevent flipping) and has a 5-year post-closing transfer restriction (to closely held/affiliated entities).  

   - Board approved the amendment unanimously (10-0). Certificate of good standing for YBR provided.

5. **Approval of $16,289.25 for York Chiller Oil Filter Replacement** (Item 8)  

   - Emergency repair on the older York chiller at Hotel Topeka (contingent on governing body fund transfer).  

   - Background: Hotel had reliability issues with chillers since city purchase in 2023. They rehabbed one chiller (~$217k) and did minimal work on the York (~$34k previously).  

   - Current failure due to unavailable oil filter → retrofit needed.  

   - Recommendation: Fix it now (~60 days from closing) to maintain backup cooling capacity, especially for summer/high occupancy.  

   - (Transcription cuts off mid-discussion, but this was the core rationale.)

**Meeting Notes**: Focused heavily on the Hotel Topeka transaction and related maintenance. No other major developments or public comments detailed in the available transcript. The board moved efficiently.

This aligns with your ongoing coverage of Topeka hotel redevelopment, TDC/JEDO processes, and economic development incentives (IRB, etc.). Let me know if you'd like a deeper analysis, key quotes for a post/video, comparison to prior meetings, or help drafting commentary!

Henry McClure

785.383.9994 

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

Total: $531,325,000

As of the most recent detailed public data (November 2024), the City of Topeka's total debt balance stood at approximately $531.3 million.

Breakdown (from Nov. 2024 reporting):

• Governmental general obligation (GO) bonds: ~$126.2 million
• Business-type GO bonds: ~$7.4 million
• Revenue bonds (largely self-supporting utilities): ~$382.2 million
• Temporary notes: ~$15.6 million
• Total: $531,325,000

This figure includes both direct/general obligation debt and revenue-backed obligations. Much of the revenue debt (e.g., utility-related) is self-supporting through user fees and does not directly burden the general tax base.

Context and Updates:

• 2025 Activity: The city issued additional GO bonds (e.g., Series 2025-A and 2025-B totaling around $36–$37 million for refunding/improvements and temporary notes), which would increase outstanding amounts somewhat, offset by maturities and refinancing.
• Q1 2026 Quarterly Report: The city's latest quarterly financials (through March 31, 2026) discuss debt service payments and fund balances but do not provide a new aggregate total outstanding debt figure in publicly excerpted sections. Overall levels appear broadly consistent with the 2024–2025 range, supported by strong ratings (AA from S&P, Aa3 from Moody's) and manageable debt service (historically ~13–14% of governmental expenditures in rating reports).

For the most current and precise figures, I recommend checking:

• The City of Topeka's Financial Transparency page (quarterly reports and budgets): topeka.gov/government/financial_transparency
• The latest Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) once released for FY 2025.
• Debt schedules in the adopted budgets or rating agency reports on the city's finance site.

Debt levels can fluctuate with new issuances, principal payments, and refinancings. City officials have emphasized that the debt is manageable given the AA rating and revenue sources. If you need details on specific bond series, debt service schedules, or comparisons, let me know!