Topeka ? Kansas used to have the least debt-ridden state government in the nation, with less than $200 in bonds to pay off per resident. Most states had at least five times as much per person.

But starting in the 1990s, faced with low interest rates, Kansas, like other states, issued bonds in earnest to finance better highways and bridges, repairs on state university campuses and even a restoration of the State Capitol.

The Sunflower State’s debt per resident ballooned by 333 percent from 1992 to 2002, faster than any other state’s, according to U.S. Census Bureau figures. Kansas’ per capita debt grew more than twice as fast as that of its nearest rival, Texas.

And Kansas continues to float more bonds — about $1.2 billion in the past two years alone. The State Budget Division now calculates that at the end of the current fiscal year, on June 30, 2005, the state will have $3.71 billion in bonds to pay off.

“You just have to start wondering at what point Kansans need to be concerned,” State Treasurer Lynn Jenkins said. “We may be getting there.”

‘Financial time bomb’

The rise in Kansas’ debt has at least started a debate about the burden.

One legislator, Sen. Henry Helgerson, compared the state with a family that has used its limit on one credit card and is preparing to max out another.

“It’s a financial time bomb that’s probably going to catch up with us sometime in the next four or five years,” he said.

While State Budget Director Duane Goossen agrees that bond payments will represent a fiscal issue in the near future, he said the state had yet to overburden itself.

National trend

Across the nation, states collectively have been issuing more debt. According the census figures, state bonded debt increased from $372 billion at the end of the states’ 1992 fiscal years to nearly $641 billion by the end of fiscal 2002. That’s about 72 percent.

In recent months, California has received the most attention because in March its voters approved a plan to issue $15 billion in bonds to help solve that state’s ongoing budget problems.

While Kansas’ borrowing has been on a much smaller scale, it is in some ways more dramatic, given the state’s history.

In fact, according to the census, at the end of its 1992 fiscal year, Kansas had less than $486 million in bonds to pay off, about $195 for every resident. The Census Bureau said Texas had the next-lowest per capita amount, at $461.

By 2002, according to the census, Kansas’ debt had risen to $2.29 billion, and its per capita figure to $844. Both Tennessee, at $627, and Arizona, at $799, had lower figures. Texas’ per capita figure rose nearly 140 percent, to $1,104.

At the end of 2005, if the state’s population grew as it did in 2003, the state’s per capita debt figure would jump to $1,352.

Borrowing capacity at issue

Bart Hildreth, a public finance professor at Wichita State University, called the increase a “warning flag” for Kansas. He is a former board member for the Kansas Development Finance Authority, which issues bonds for most state agencies.

Hildreth is not sure how much of a financial problem Kansas’ burgeoning debt represents yet — and is in fact doing research on how much the state might be able to issue in bonds before causing a crisis.

But he said legislators and other state officials now needed to consider the state’s overall borrowing capacity.

“It’s something we should watch,” he said. “As individuals, we’ve got so much borrowing capacity. If you buy that plasma TV, you may not be able to borrow the money you need to buy a car to get to work.”

Helgerson sees a problem. While most bonds are backed by special revenues — motor fuels taxes for highway bonds, for example — the state plans to use general revenues to pay off some of them.

For example, state officials decided earlier this year to issue $500 million in bonds to shore up the long-term health of the pension fund for government workers and teachers. The first payment on those bonds, $10 million, is in fiscal 2006, but the annual amount rises to $37 million in fiscal 2009.

Helgerson said those funds could instead be available for other programs.

“It does have financial consequences for our children and their children who need services,” he said.