Can a Kansas city or school district still block a tax-incentive housing district after a 2013 disaster exemption expired?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Kansas law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Osawatomie's city attorney asked whether other taxing bodies, like a school board or a neighboring city, can still nullify a proposed Reinvestment Housing Incentive District (RHID) when the city relies on a disaster-declaration exemption that lets it skip the usual public hearing. Osawatomie sits in Miami County, which was covered by two federal disaster declarations (FEMA-1711-DR and FEMA-1699), and the city read K.S.A. 12-5252(a) as giving it a standing exemption from the hearing requirement because the county was designated as disaster-affected at some point in the past.
The Attorney General first concluded that the city's premise was wrong: K.S.A. 12-5252(a)'s exemption, tied to those two specific FEMA declarations, only lasted "prior to July 1, 2013." Reading the statute's present-tense verb alongside a parallel, expired statute using the same language, and considering that a companion subsection caps newer disaster-based exemptions at five years, the opinion concluded the Legislature meant the FEMA-1711-DR/FEMA-1699 exemption to sunset on July 1, 2013, not to continue indefinitely. Because that date has long passed, Osawatomie cannot currently claim that exemption.
The opinion went on to address the underlying legal question anyway, since a city or county might still qualify for a newer, time-limited disaster exemption under K.S.A. 12-5252(b). Even when a city or county is exempt from holding a public hearing, the opinion concluded, the separate nullification power in K.S.A. 12-5246(c), letting an affected school board or nearby city or county void the RHID within 30 days, still applies. The opinion traced this back to the bill's own legislative history: an earlier draft would have exempted disaster-affected jurisdictions from the nullification process too, but that exemption was deliberately stripped out before passage. When no public hearing is held, the 30-day nullification clock instead runs from the date the district-creating ordinance or resolution is adopted.
What this means for you
Cities and counties considering an RHID in a county with an old federal disaster declaration: the opinion holds the FEMA-1711-DR/FEMA-1699 hearing exemption in K.S.A. 12-5252(a) expired July 1, 2013, and no longer applies; you must hold the standard public hearing unless a newer, governor-declared disaster exemption under subsection (b) is in effect and within its five-year window.
School boards and neighboring cities or counties evaluating whether they can still block an RHID: the opinion confirms your 30-day nullification power under K.S.A. 12-5246(c) survives even when the city or county creating the district was exempt from holding a public hearing; the clock simply runs from the date the ordinance or resolution establishing the district was adopted instead of from the close of a hearing.
Common questions
Is a Kansas city still exempt from holding a public hearing for an RHID because of a disaster declaration from years ago?
Not under K.S.A. 12-5252(a) if the exemption relied on is the FEMA-1711-DR or FEMA-1699 declarations, according to the opinion; that exemption stopped applying after July 1, 2013. A newer exemption under subsection (b), tied to a governor-declared disaster after January 1, 2008, can still apply for up to five years from that declaration.
If no public hearing was held for an RHID, can a school district still stop it?
Yes, according to the opinion. The nullification power in K.S.A. 12-5246(c) is not limited to districts created after a public hearing; the Legislature removed an earlier draft provision that would have exempted disaster-affected jurisdictions from that nullification power.
How much time does a school board or neighboring city have to nullify an RHID when no hearing was held?
The opinion concludes the 30-day window runs from the date the ordinance or resolution establishing the district is adopted, since that adoption serves the same role as the "conclusion of the hearing" language in K.S.A. 12-5246(c) when no hearing actually takes place.
Background and statutory framework
The Kansas Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act (formerly the Rural Housing Incentive District Act until 2023 amendments broadened it) lets a city or county capture the incremental increase in property tax revenue from a housing development to reimburse developer costs or pay project bond debt. Ordinarily, K.S.A. 12-5245 requires a public hearing before a city or county can establish an RHID, and K.S.A. 12-5246(c) lets a school board, a nearby city, or the county commission nullify the district within 30 days after that hearing concludes if the district would adversely affect them.
K.S.A. 12-5252, enacted in 2008, carved out an exemption from the hearing (and Secretary of Commerce approval) requirements for cities and counties tied to the FEMA-1711-DR and FEMA-1699 disaster declarations, but limited it to jurisdictions that were "prior to July 1, 2013" located within the affected area. The opinion compared this wording to the now-expired K.S.A. 12-5257, enacted at the same time with the same "prior to" phrasing and an explicit 2010 sunset, to conclude the Legislature intended a similar hard cutoff for the FEMA-based exemption in K.S.A. 12-5252(a). The opinion also traced the bill's drafting history: the original 2008 Senate Bill 417 would have exempted disaster-affected jurisdictions from the K.S.A. 12-5246 nullification process entirely, but the House Committee of the Whole removed that language before passage, which the opinion treated as strong evidence the Legislature did not want to shield disaster-exempt RHIDs from being nullified by an affected school board or neighboring government.
Citations and references
Statutes:
- K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq. (Kansas Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act)
- K.S.A. 12-5244(c); 12-5245(b)-(c); 12-5246(a)-(c)
- K.S.A. 12-5252(a)-(c)
- K.S.A. 12-5257(a); 12-5258(b)
Cases:
- Austin Props., LLC v. City of Shawnee, 564 P.3d 1262 (2025)
- Bruce v. Kelly, 316 Kan. 218, 514 P.3d 1007 (2022)
- State v. Moler, 316 Kan. 565, 519 P.3d 794 (2022)
Source
- Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
- Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/24604/638890536624470000
Original opinion text
July 25, 2025
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2025-15
Jeffrey W. Deane
Osawatomie City Attorney
4031 NE Lakewood Way
Lee's Summit, MO 64064
Re: Cities and Municipalities—Local Residential Housing—Kansas
Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act—Exemption from
Certain Requirements in a County under a Federal or State Disaster
Declaration
Cities and Municipalities—Local Residential Housing—Kansas
Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act—Nullification of Plan,
When
Synopsis: K.S.A. 12-5252(a) exempts cities in counties subject to the FEMA-1711-
DR or FEMA-1699 disaster declarations and those counties from
certain statutory requirements for the establishment of a
Reinvestment Housing Incentive District, including the requirement of
holding a public hearing on the proposal, but this exemption only
applied prior to July 1, 2013.
The provisions of K.S.A. 12-5246(c), which authorize other taxing
entities to nullify or void a city or county's establishment of a
Reinvestment Housing Incentive District, apply even when the city or
county is not required to hold a public hearing. This action must be
taken with 30 days of the adoption of the ordinance or resolution
establishing the district.
Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-5245; 12-5246; 12-5252.
* * *
Dear Mr. Deane:
As City Attorney for Osawatomie, you ask whether K.S.A. 12-5246(c) authorizes any
entity to nullify or void a city's creation of a Reinvestment Housing Incentive
District (RHID) when K.S.A. 12-5252 exempts the city from the requirement of
holding a public hearing to establish the district.
The Kansas Reinvestment Housing Incentive District Act1 is a program designed to
aid developers in building housing in communities.2 An RHID operates by capturing
the incremental increase in real property taxes created by a housing development
project and then allowing this revenue to be used for the reimbursement of costs
incurred by the developer or to pay debt service on bonds issued to fund the project.3
Ordinarily, a city or county seeking to establish an RHID must hold a public
hearing on the proposal.4 If the city or county decides to establish the RHID, K.S.A.
12-5246(c) allows certain other taxing entities to nullify that decision:
(c) The ordinance or resolution establishing the district shall be null
and void if, within 30 days following the conclusion of the hearing:
(1) The board of education levying taxes on such property determines
by resolution that the proposed district will have an adverse effect on
such school district;
(2) the governing body of any city located within three miles of [the]
district proposed to be established by a county determines by
ordinance that the proposed district will have an adverse effect on such
city; or
(3) the board of county commissioners of the county in which a city
governing body proposes to establish such a district determines by
resolution that the proposed district will have an adverse effect on
such county.
This action must be taken "within 30 days following the conclusion of the hearing."
But K.S.A. 12-5252 exempts RHID projects in counties subject to certain disaster
1 K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq. The Act was known as the Kansas Rural Housing Incentive District Act until
2023, when statutory amendments expanded its scope. See L. 2023, ch. 68.
2 See K.S.A. 12-5241 et seq.; https://www.kansascommerce.gov/program/community-programs/rhid/.
3 Id.
4 K.S.A. 12-5245(b)-(c); 12-5246(a).
declarations from the public hearing requirement, raising the question of whether
and how the veto provision in K.S.A. 12-5246(c) applies in that situation.
Interpretation of K.S.A. 12-5252(a)
Before answering your question, we must first address whether the public hearing
exemption in K.S.A. 12-5252 applies to Osawatomie. K.S.A. 12-5252, which was
first enacted in 2008, provides:
(a) Any city that prior to July 1, 2013, is located, in whole or in part,
within the boundaries of a county designated by the United States
federal emergency management agency under major disaster
declaration FEMA-1711-DR or FEMA-1699, as eligible to receive
individual or public assistance from the United States federal
government that desires to designate a reinvestment housing incentive
district pursuant to this act or such county shall be exempt from the
provisions of K.S.A. 12-5244(c),5 and amendments thereto, and may
adopt a plan for a designated reinvestment housing incentive district
without the approval of the secretary and without conducting a public
hearing on such proposed plan.
(b) For any city in a county declared by the governor to be a state of
disaster after January 1, 2008, or such county if the governor finds
that such disaster resulted in the destruction of a significant amount of
residential housing in such city or county the governor may designate
such city or county to exercise the exemption authorized by subsection
(a) for a period of five years from the date of the declaration of a state
of disaster.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to exempt a city or
county from any other requirement set forth in this act, or to limit any
of the rights, duties and privileges of a city or county under any other
provisions of this act.
Osawatomie is located in Miami County, which you inform us was subject to the
FEMA-1711-DR disaster declaration, and therefore the city purports to rely on
subsection (a) of the statute. But that subsection contains a limitation—"prior to
July 1, 2013." You read this to mean only that Osawatomie must have existed in
Miami County prior to July 1, 2013. We disagree. While the statute is perhaps not
the most clearly drafted, we believe this language creates a July 1, 2013, deadline
for the exception. After all, the word "is" is in the present tense. Following July 1,
5 K.S.A. 12-5244(c) requires the governing body to send a copy of a resolution making findings in
support of establishing an RHID to the Secretary of Commerce for approval.
2013, it would be grammatically correct to say that "prior to July 1, 2013," the city
"was" located in a county subject to the disaster declaration. The verb "is," in
conjunction with "prior to July 1, 2013," means that the exemption based on FEMA-
1711-DR or FEMA-1699 only applies until July 1, 2013.6
The statutory context supports this interpretation.7 Subsection (b) of K.S.A. 12-5252
limits exceptions based on newer disaster declarations to "a period of five years
from the date of the declaration of a state of disaster." Given that K.S.A. 12-5252
was first enacted in 2008, a July 1, 2013, deadline for exemptions under subsection
(a) would similarly allow a roughly five-year period for exemptions. By contrast, a
contrary reading would allow for a perpetual exemption—which seems unlikely to
have been the legislative intent, particularly given the time limit in subsection (b).
Our interpretation is also consistent with K.S.A. 12-5257, which was enacted at the
same time as K.S.A. 12-5252 (but has now expired under K.S.A. 12-5258(b)).8 It
provided:
(a) For purposes of [K.S.A. 12-5253 through 12-5257], and amendments
thereto, the term "city" means any city that prior to July 1, 2010, is
located, in whole or in part, within the boundaries of a county
designated by the United States federal emergency management
agency under major disaster declaration FEMA-1711-DR or FEMA-
1699, as eligible to receive individual or public assistance from the
United States federal government, or designated exempt by the
governor pursuant to [K.S.A. 12-5252], and amendments thereto. On or
after July 1, 2010, "city" shall mean any city incorporated in
accordance with Kansas law.
(b) For purposes of [K.S.A. 12-5253 through 12-5257], and amendments
thereto, the term "county" means any county that prior to July 1, 2010,
is designated by the United States federal emergency management
6 We recognize that the Legislature amended K.S.A. 12-5252(a) in 2023, which might suggest the
exemption continues to apply. But subsection (b) provides that cities or counties subject to other
disaster declarations may "exercise the exemption authorized by subsection (a)," so subsection (a)
has continuing application apart from the FEMA-1711-DR and FEMA-1699 disaster declarations. In
addition, the 2023 amendments to subsection (a) were technical in nature, reflecting the new title of
the Act and a different style for citing statutory subsections, L. 2023, ch. 68, § 8, so we do not read
them as an indication that the Legislature intended to continue an exemption based on the FEMA-
1711-DR or FEMA-1699 disaster declarations past July 1, 2013.
7 "When employing a plain language interpretation, courts consider not only the language itself, but
also the specific context in which that language is used and the broader context of the statute as a
whole." Austin Props., LLC v. City of Shawnee, __ Kan. __, 564 P.3d 1262, 1269 (2025).
8 "[E]ven when the language of the statute is clear," courts "still consider various provisions of an act
in pari materia to reconcile and bring those provisions into workable harmony, if possible." See
Bruce v. Kelly, 316 Kan. 218, 224, 514 P.3d 1007 (2022).
agency under major disaster declaration FEMA-1711-DR or FEMA-
1699, as eligible to receive individual or public assistance from the
United States federal government, or designated exempt by the
governor pursuant to [K.S.A. 12-5252], and amendments thereto. On or
after July 1, 2010, "county" shall mean any county with a population of
less than 60,000, as certified to the secretary of state by the director of
the division of the budget on the previous July 1 in accordance with
K.S.A. 11-201, and amendments thereto.
K.S.A. 12-5257(a) used the same pairing of "prior to" and "is located" as K.S.A. 12-
5252(a) and even referenced K.S.A. 12-5252. K.S.A. 12-5257 then went on to give
different definitions of "city" and "county" to apply "[o]n or after July 1, 2010,"
indicating that the paring of "prior to" and "is located"—or "is designated" in
subsection (b)—established a July 1, 2010, end date for the original definitions.
Likewise, the phrase "prior to July 1, 2013, is located" in K.S.A. 12-5252(a)
establishes a July 1, 2013, end date for the exemption under that subsection.
Because it is now past July 1, 2013, FEMA-1711-DR and FEMA-1699 no longer
provide a basis for an exemption from the requirements to hold a public hearing or
to obtain the Secretary of Commerce's approval to establish an RHID.
Applicability of K.S.A. 12-5246(c) when no public hearing is required
Our conclusion that FEMA-1711-DR no longer provides a basis for an exemption
from the public hearing requirement arguably moots your inquiry. But because it is
possible that either Osawatomie or another city or county might at some point
qualify for an exemption under K.S.A. 12-5252(b), we believe it would nevertheless
be useful to answer your initial question.
The fact that any action to render the creation of an RHID null and void must be
taken "within 30 days following the conclusion of the hearing" might suggest that
the process in K.S.A. 12-5246(c) for nullifying the creation of an RHID is
inapplicable when no public hearing is held. But a closer reading of the statute and
the legislative history ultimately lead us to the opposite conclusion.
While K.S.A. 12-5252 provides an exemption from the requirements to obtain
approval by the Secretary of Commerce and to hold a public hearing, subsection (c)
states that "[n]othing in this section shall be construed so as to exempt a city or
county from any other requirement set forth in this act, or to limit any of the rights,
duties and privileges of a city or county under any other provisions of this act." And
K.S.A. 12-5252 says nothing about exempting proposed RHIDs from the
nullification provisions in K.S.A. 12-5246(c). The plain language of K.S.A. 12-
5252(c) therefore indicates those nullification provisions should continue to apply
even in the absence of a public hearing. We do not read the law to exempt cities and
counties from those provisions by implication merely because the timeline is tied to
the conclusion of the public hearing when K.S.A. 12-5252(c) states that no other
exemption is intended.
The legislative history, which Kansas courts consider when the statutory language
is unclear or ambiguous,9 also indicates that the Legislature did not intend to
exempt cities and counties from K.S.A. 12-5246(c) when they are not required to
hold a public hearing. K.S.A. 12-5252 was first enacted as part of 2008 Senate Bill
417. As first introduced, New Section 3(a) of the bill provided:
(a) Any city that prior to July 1, 2013, is located, in whole or in part,
within the boundaries of a county designated by the United States
federal emergency management agency under major disaster
declaration FEMA-1711-DR or FEMA-1699, as eligible to receive
individual or public assistance from the United States federal
government that desires to designate a rural housing incentive district
pursuant to this act shall be exempt from the provisions of subsection
(c) of K.S.A. 12-5244, subsections (b), (c) and (d) of K.S.A. 12-5245 and
K.S.A. 12-5246, and amendments thereto, and may adopt a plan for a
designated rural housing incentive district without the approval of the
secretary and without conducting a public hearing on such proposed
plan.10
In other words, the original bill would have provided an exemption from the
nullification provisions in K.S.A. 12-5246(c). But the House Committee of the Whole
amended the bill to eliminate the K.S.A. 12-5246 exemption:
(a) Any city that prior to July 1, 2013, is located, in whole or in part,
within the boundaries of a county designated by the United States
federal emergency management agency under major disaster
declaration FEMA-1711-DR or FEMA-1699, as eligible to receive
individual or public assistance from the United States federal
government that desires to designate a rural housing incentive district
pursuant to this act [or such county] shall be exempt from the
provisions of subsection (c) of K.S.A. 12-5244, subsections (b), (c) and
(d) of K.S.A. 12-5245 and K.S.A. 12-5246, and amendments thereto,
and may adopt a plan for a designated rural housing incentive district
without the approval of the secretary and without conducting a public
hearing on such proposed plan.
9 See State v. Moler, 316 Kan. 565, 573-74, 519 P.3d 794 (2022).
10 (Emphasis added).
There is no record of the reason for this amendment. But given the textual
command in K.S.A. 12-5252(c) that the section should not be construed to provide
any other exemption, we are reluctant to imply an exemption from the nullification
provisions in K.S.A. 12-5246(c) when the Legislature removed an express exemption
from that statute from the initial bill.
Of course, that leaves the question of timing for any action to nullify or void the
establishment of an RHID when no public hearing is held, given that K.S.A. 12-
5246(c) states the action must be taken "within 30 days following the conclusion of
the hearing." We believe the answer lies in K.S.A. 12-5246(b), which provides that
"[u]pon the conclusion of the public hearing, the governing body may adopt the plan
for the district and may establish the district by ordinance or, in the case of any
county, by resolution." Thus, the reference in K.S.A. 12-5246(c) to the "conclusion of
the hearing" is also referring to the point in time when the city or county adopts the
plan for the district, establishing it by ordinance or resolution. The fact that these
two events are the same makes sense given that what is being made "null and void"
under subsection (c) is the "ordinance or resolution establishing the district"—if the
city or county chose not to establish an RHID at the conclusion of the hearing, there
would be nothing to nullify. And so, when no public hearing is held, we interpret
K.S.A. 12-5246(c) as requiring any action to render an ordinance or resolution
establishing an RHID null and void must be taken within 30 days following the
adoption of the ordinance or resolution.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kris W. Kobach
Kris W. Kobach
Attorney General
/s/ Dwight R. Carswell
Dwight R. Carswell
Deputy Solicitor General
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2025 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Kansas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.