Monday, February 23, 2026

Fw: Newsletter



From: Protecting KS Children From Sexual Predators <protectkschildrenfrompredators@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 10:43 PM
To: Protecting KS Children From Sexual Predators <protectkschildrenfrompredators@gmail.com>
Subject: Newsletter

Thank you for being part of our Survivor and Supporter Network. Your continued support, advocacy, and compassion mean so much as we work together to protect children and empower survivors across Kansas.

We would like to give you and update on our legislative work and how you can help:

  1. Erin's Law SB 385/HB 2576: requiring that all K–12 students receive age-appropriate body safety and child sexual abuse prevention education.  The law will also require teachers to do a yearly training specific to child sexual abuse in spotting warning signs and reporting abuse.  

    1. The bill had a hearing in the House Education Committee but the House decided not to work the bill this session.  We would like to thank all of the survivors and supporters who testified in support of this bill.  

    2. Unfortunately, the Children's Advocacy Centers of Kansas and one of the CACs changed their testimony before the hearing and testified neutral rather than as a proponent.  A concern was brought up that they felt only CACs should be presenting body safety education to children using an accredited curriculum (very few curriculums are able to make it through an accreditation process due to time and financial constraints, but there are numerous "evidence based" or "researched informed" curricula available.  We were not prepared for this and were not able to change our testimony in time to counter these arguments or be able to work previously discussed amendments to strengthen the bill.   

    3. We continued to meet with legislators and various community agencies to come up with solutions and have drafted a new version of Erin's Law with amendments that we hope will satisfy concerns that were mentioned.  Please let us know if you would like a copy. We are so thankful to community agencies who have spoken up and shared the work that their programs do and how there are agencies that are willing and able to train presenters who would present body safety training to students in communities that do not have access to a CAC or other established program.  

    4. SB 385 is alive in the Senate thanks to Senate President Ty Masterson who "blessed" the bill and gave it more time to have a hearing.  We were told today that it is likely that there will be a hearing in the Senate.  The bill is currently in the Ways and Means Committee but may be transferred back to Senate Education.

    5. Please start writing proponent testimony for SB 385 now.  We are often given very little notice when a hearing will be and it is important to be prepared.


  1. Survivor's Rights Bill SB 236: allowing survivors of substantiated abuse to access their own DCF (Department for Children and Families) records.  This bill was introduced last year in the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee.  We are told that it will not get a hearing this session, but that it is likely we can get one next year if we submit the bill ourselves.


Your voice and involvement make a difference! Here's how you can help:

  • Continue sharing our social media posts advocating for these bills.

  • Join us at public outreach events to spread awareness.

  • Contact your state legislators, leadership, important committee members, and leadership and ask them to support Erin's Law (SB 385). (See below how and who to contact)

We are calling on child welfare professionals, educators, school leaders, counselors, medical providers, mental health professionals, and law enforcement across Kansas to show their support of Erin's Law.  We are looking for these professionals to write testimony in support of Erin's Law.  Please share with anyone you know that may be able to help.

We are also looking to gain information about how/if body safety is currently being taught in Kansas schools.  Please contact us if you know how your local school district handles this and/or if you would be willing to contact your local school district to help obtain this information. Example: My children currently attend school in the DeSoto School District in Johnson County and they are given a presentation by Sunflower House Child Advocacy Center twice in elementary school in an assembly type presentation.

Be sure to keep an eye out on our Facebook and Instagram pages.  That is the best way to get the most up to date information on our status for Erin's Law.  

We will keep you updated about future events and opportunities to get involved. If you know of a group or event where we can speak or host a table to share information about these bills, please let us know!

Together, we're building a safer future for children and ensuring survivors' voices are heard. Thank you for standing with us and continuing to be part of this movement.

Thank you,

Kim Bergman, LMSW
Survivor & Co-Director
Protecting KS Children From Sexual Predators

How to contact your personal State Legislators:

1. Enter your address at https://pluralpolicy.com/find-your-legislator/ to learn who your state legislators are and ask for their support and for a hearing for Erin's Law (SB 385).

2. Send a brief email letting them know you are a constituent and ask for their support.

3. Contact members of leadership and the Senate Education and Ways and Means Committee (see below) and ask them to support Erin's Law and grant a hearing for the bill.

Sample Email for your personal legislators:

"Hello my name is _________ and I am one of your constituents in __city___ Kansas.  I would like to ask for your support for Erin's Law, SB 385, which requires students K-12 to be taught about body safety and child sexual abuse prevention once a year.  The law would also require teachers to receive training specific to spotting warning signs of child sexual abuse and how to report.  

This bill is important to me because _______________________.

Please support Erin's Law so that we can protect children and support survivors."

Sample Email to Leadership and Committee Members:

"Hello my name is _________ and I am a Kansas resident.  I would like to ask for your support for Erin's Law, SB 385, which requires students K-12 to be taught about body safety and child sexual abuse prevention once a year.  The law would also require teachers to receive training specific to spotting warning signs of child sexual abuse and how to report.  

This bill is important to me because _______________________.

Please support Erin's Law so that we can protect children and support survivors."

Senate Education Committee:

  1. Renee.Erickson@senate.ks.gov

  2. Adam.Thomas@senate.ks.gov

  3. Dinah.Sykes@senate.ks.gov

  4. Mike.Argabright@senate.ks.gov

  5. Beverly.Gossage@senate.ks.gov

  6. Scott.Hill@senate.ks.gov

  7. Michael.Murphy@senate.ks.gov

  8. Pat.Pettey@senate.ks.gov

  9. Doug.Shane@senate.ks.gov

  10. Brad.Starnes@senate.ks.gov

Senate Ways and Means Committee:

  1. Rick.Billinger@senate.ks.gov

  2. Rick.Kloos@senate.ks.gov

  3. Pat.Pettey@senate.ks.gov

  4. Larry.Alley@senate.ks.gov

  5. Renee.Erickson@senate.ks.gov

  6. Michael.Fagg@senate.ks.gov

  7. Cindy.Holscher@senate.ks.gov

  8. Jeff.Klemp@senate.ks.gov

  9. Stephen.Owens@senate.ks.gov

  10. Virgil.Peck@senate.ks.gov

  11. Mike.Petersen@senate.ks.gov

Senate Leadership:

  1. Ty.Masterson@senate.ks.gov

  2. Tim.Shallenburger@senate.ks.gov

  3. Chase.Blasi@senate.ks.gov

  4. Caryn.Tyson@senate.ks.gov

  5. Rick.Kloos@senate.ks.gov

  6. Dinah.Sykes@senate.ks.gov

  7. Oletha.Faust-Goudeau@senate.ks.gov

  8. Cindy.Holscher@senate.ks.gov

  9. Marci.Francisco@senate.ks.gov

  10. Ethan.Corson@senate.ks.gov


House Education Committee:

  1. Susan.Estes@house.ks.gov

  2. Kyle.McNorton@house.ks.gov

  3. Jerry.Stogsdill@house.ks.gov

  4. Sherri.Brantley@house.ks.gov

  5. Shawn.Chauncey@house.ks.gov

  6. Linda.Featherston@house.ks.gov

  7. Jason.Goetz@house.ks.gov

  8. Steve.Huebert@house.ks.gov

  9. Louis.Ruiz@house.ks.gov

  10. Rebecca.Schmoe@house.ks.gov

  11. Mark.Schreiber@house.ks.gov

  12. Megan.Steele@house.ks.gov

  13. Greg.Wilson@house.ks.gov

  14. Valdenia.Winn@house.ks.gov

  15. Dawn.Wolf@house.ks.gov

House Leadership:

  1. Dan.Hawkins@house.ks.gov

  2. Blake.Carpenter@house.ks.gov

  3. Chris.Croft@house.ks.gov

  4. Kyle.Hoffman@house.ks.gov

  5. Nick.Hoheisel@house.ks.gov

  6. Kristey.Williams@house.ks.gov

  7. Brandon.Woodard@house.ks.gov

  8. Mike.Amyx@house.ks.gov

  9. JoElla.Hoye@house.ks.gov

  10. Barbara.Ballard@house.ks.gov

  11. Jerry.Stogsdill@house.ks.gov

  12. Dan.Osman@house.ks.gov




Henry McClure
785.383.9994 

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

Fw: financial statements "KORA"




From: Keya Downing <kdowning@Topeka.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 2:45 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>
Subject: RE: financial statements "KORA"

Request received.  Thank you

 

From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 2:12 PM
To: City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>
Subject: financial statements "KORA"

 

Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender-----

 

KORA

 

Can I get a copy of the City of Topeka financial statements

 

Thanks 

 

H

 

financial statements "KORA"

KORA

Can I get a copy of the City of Topeka financial statements

Thanks 

H

Sunday, February 22, 2026

### Overview of the Kansas Chiefs Deal

The user's query points to an article questioning why taxpayers should fund billionaires, likely in reference to the ongoing controversy over the Kansas City Chiefs' relocation to Kansas. Based on the article's title and the broader context, this ties directly into Kansas' use of Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) bonds to finance a new stadium and related facilities for the Chiefs. The article appears to be a general opinion piece on public subsidies for sports stadiums, but it lacks Kansas-specific details. To do a deep dive, I'll draw from recent developments: After Jackson County, Missouri, voters rejected a sales tax extension in April 2024 to renovate Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas lawmakers passed legislation in June 2024 allowing STAR bonds to cover up to 70% of stadium costs for professional sports teams. By December 2025, the Chiefs announced a move to Kansas, with a $4.4 billion project including a domed stadium in Wyandotte County (near Kansas Speedway), an entertainment district, and a training facility/headquarters in Johnson County. The state signed a preliminary agreement, with final details expected by late 2026.

The core question is whether this "hoses" Kansas taxpayers—meaning, do they bear undue financial risk for billionaire owners like Clark Hunt (net worth ~$2 billion)? The answer is nuanced: Proponents argue it's a no-new-taxes deal that boosts the economy, but critics (including economists and bipartisan lawmakers) highlight risks of revenue shortfalls, hidden diversions of existing taxes, and overstated benefits. Let's break it down.

### How STAR Bonds Work in This Deal
STAR bonds are a Kansas-specific tool where the state issues bonds to finance developments, repaid primarily by "incremental" (new) sales tax revenue generated within a designated district. No direct tax hike is involved; instead, future taxes from the project pay off the debt. For the Chiefs:

- **Financing Breakdown**: Kansas commits ~$2.8 billion in STAR bonds—$1.8 billion for the stadium (60% of its ~$3 billion cost) and $975 million for the practice facility. The Chiefs cover the remaining 40% privately. Total project cost: ~$4.4 billion, including interest over 30 years pushing taxpayer exposure to $3-4 billion.
- **Repayment Sources**: 
  - 6.5% state sales tax on purchases in the district (e.g., tickets, concessions, retail).
  - State alcohol taxes from the district.
  - A portion of Kansas lottery revenue.
  - Potential local sales taxes if counties opt in.
- **District Size**: Preliminary maps suggest a massive area—nearly all of Wyandotte County and much of Johnson County—to capture enough revenue. This is larger than typical STAR projects, raising flags that the stadium alone won't suffice.
- **Timeline**: 30-year repayment (longer than standard 20-year STAR terms). Bonds are sold to private investors, who get repaid from the tax streams.

Proponents (e.g., Kansas Dept. of Commerce) claim this creates $1 billion in annual economic impact, $7 million in Chiefs rent, and jobs without touching general funds. The state owns the stadium, exempting the Chiefs from property taxes—a perk worth millions annually.

### Do Kansas Taxpayers Get Hosed?
Potentially yes, depending on revenue performance. Here's a balanced view:

#### Pros and Claimed Benefits
- **No Immediate Tax Increase**: Unlike Missouri's rejected sales tax, STAR bonds use only "new" revenue from the development. If it succeeds, it's self-funding.
- **Economic Boost**: Officials project $4.4 billion in total impact, including tourism, jobs (construction and ongoing), and spillover spending. Similar to past STAR successes like Kansas Speedway, which repaid bonds ahead of schedule.
- **Regional Win**: Keeps the Chiefs in the metro area, preventing a full relocation (e.g., to Dallas). Bipartisan support in Kansas legislature highlights this.

#### Cons and Risks to Taxpayers
- **Revenue Shortfall Risk**: If sales tax doesn't hit projections (e.g., due to economic downturns or low attendance), bonds could default. Of 23 past STAR projects, 18 succeeded, but 2 lagged, and one (Prairiefire in Overland Park) defaulted in 2024 despite promises. Economists like Geoffrey Propheter argue stadiums rarely generate enough net new revenue—spending just shifts from elsewhere.
- **Diversion of Existing Funds**: Even without a bailout, large districts could redirect taxes currently funding schools, roads, or services. A 2021 audit found many STAR projects failed tourism metrics and harmed taxpayers indirectly.
- **Overstated Economics**: Independent studies show stadium subsidies yield poor returns (e.g., $0.38 economic benefit per $100 spent in some cases). Critics say Kansas' deal ignores this, with $3-4B cost potentially draining state budgets.
- **Bipartisan Backlash**: Democrats and Republicans criticize it as "tax giveaways for billionaires." Locals in affected areas report opposition due to added burdens. X discussions echo this, with users noting taxpayers could be "on the hook" despite assurances.

| Aspect | Proponent View | Critic View | Potential Taxpayer Impact |
|--------|---------------|-------------|---------------------------|
| **Cost** | $2.8B bonds, repaid by new taxes | $3-4B total w/ interest; no guarantee | High if shortfalls; diverts ~$100M/year from state funds |
| **Revenue** | $1B annual impact, self-sustaining | Shifts existing spending; math doesn't add up for $150M/year needed | Bailout risk if district underperforms |
| **Taxes** | No increase; only from users | Diverts current sales/lottery taxes | Indirect hit to services; property tax exemption saves Chiefs millions |
| **Jobs/Economy** | Thousands created, tourism boost | Minimal net gain; economists agree subsidies fail | Benefits concentrated, costs statewide |

### Where Are the Loopholes?
Several structural issues could shift more burden to taxpayers:
- **Baseline Year Flexibility**: The agreement lets the Commerce Secretary pick a pre-2025 baseline for "new" revenue, potentially including existing taxes (e.g., from 2015) to meet targets. This contradicts "no existing taxes" promises.
- **District Expansion**: Oversized districts (e.g., capturing unrelated sales) act as a loophole to inflate revenue, but risk cannibalizing other areas' growth.
- **No Full Guarantee**: Bonds aren't general obligation; if revenue fails, investors might push for state backstops. Past defaults show this risk.
- **Eminent Domain**: STAR law allows seizing private property for "public purpose," potentially displacing residents/businesses without fair compensation.
- **Opaque Negotiations**: Preliminary deal lacks details on exact costs, districts, or contingencies. Final docs (due ~Oct 2026) could reveal more.

### What Are We Missing?
- **Independent Audits**: Most economic impact studies are team-funded and optimistic; neutral ones (e.g., from universities) often show negative ROI.
- **Royals' Status**: The bill targeted both teams, but only Chiefs moved forward. Royals might still pursue, doubling risks.
- **Missouri Response**: Missouri could counter-offer, turning this into a bidding war that inflates subsidies.
- **Long-Term Lock-In**: Chiefs commit for 30 years, but if they underperform or relocate post-bond payoff, Kansas is stuck with debt/maintenance.
- **Public Input**: Limited community meetings; some residents (e.g., near Speedway) recall unfulfilled promises from past projects.

In summary, while the deal avoids overt tax hikes, the risks of shortfalls and diversions could indeed "hose" taxpayers, especially if projections flop. It's a high-stakes bet on stadium economics, which history shows rarely pays off. If you're in Topeka, this affects statewide funds—contact your reps for more transparency as details emerge.