Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 12-1770 (2026)

Purpose of act; issuance of special obligation bonds and full faith and credit tax increment bonds

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

12-1770. 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.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1980–2000 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Schneider v. City of Topeka, 605 P.2d 556 (Kan. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State Ex Rel. Schneider v. City of Topeka, 605 P.2d 556 (Kan. 1980). · cites it 18× “: This case involves the constitutionality of tax increment financing of programs designed to redevelop blighted business areas in Kansas cities as authorized by K.S.A. 1977 Supp. 12-1770 et seq. There is no factual dispute.”

City of Topeka v. Watertower Place Dev. Grp., 959 P.2d 894 (Kan. 1998). · cites it 2× “BACKGROUND In an attempt to stimulate growth in blighted business districts within cities, the Kansas Legislature passed the Redevelopment of Central Business District Areas Act, K.S.A. 12-1770 et secj. Under the Act, the legislature authorized cities to acquire property and…”

South Bend Pub. Transp. Corp. v. City of South Bend, 428 N.E.2d 217 (Ind. 1981). · cites it 2× “Thus under K.S.A.1979 Supp. 12-1770 et seq. there is uniformity in both the valuation and the rate of taxation.”

State Ex Rel. Tomasic v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kansas City, 962 P.2d 543 (Kan. 1998). “In general, relator seeks (1) a determination that some of the amendments to the urban redevelopment statutes, K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq., (also sometimes referred to as the tax increment financing statutes) contained in L.”

Stockman v. Unified Gov't of Wyandotte Cnty./Kansas City, 6 P.3d 900 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “2631 which amended certain portions of K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq. The amended statutes made certain allowances for development within a major tourism area.”

Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs, Co. v. City of Lawrence, 927 F.2d 1111 (10th Cir. 1991). “Kan.Stat.Ann. §§ 12-1770 through -1779 (1989 Supp.”

Jacobs, Visconsi & Jacobs Co. v. City of Lawrence, 715 F. Supp. 1000 (D. Kan. 1989). “and the Kansas Redevelopment of Central Business District Areas Act, K.S.A. 12-1770 et seq., and the Urban Renewal Law, K.”

Cogswell v. Sherman Cnty., 710 P.2d 1331 (Kan. 1985). “2d 556 (1980), the constitutionality of tax increment financing of programs designed to redevelop blighted business areas in Kansas cities, as authorized by K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 12-1770 et seq., was considered.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.