The Consensus Estimating Group met today to revise the November 13, 2025, State General Fund (SGF) estimates for FY 2026 and FY 2027. The revisions include the estimated impact of all 2026 legislation signed into law thus far. The impact of any legislation affecting the SGF that becomes law after April 20, 2026, will be quantified in a separate legislative adjustments report. Consensus revenue estimates are based on current federal and state laws and their current interpretation. A more detailed memo will be available soon which contains the economic forecast for Kansas upon which the new estimates are based, as well as a discussion of the other factors influencing the individual source estimates.
Summary of Legislation 2026
Supplement II to Preliminary Summary
This updated version of the April 2, 2026, publication contains summaries of bills passed by the Legislature from April 9 to adjournment on April 10. Bills that have not yet been signed by the Governor are included.
The first Preliminary Summary containing summaries of bills passed through March 20, 2026, was distributed on March 26, 2026. An initial supplement to the first Preliminary Summary was distributed April 2, 2026.
Highlights, a summary of major legislation, is being prepared and will be mailed to legislators as soon as possible. The 2026 Summary of Legislation, which accounts for all bills enacted by the 2026 Legislature, will be distributed at a later date.
Supplement to Preliminary Summary
This updated version of the March 25, 2026, publication contains summaries of bills passed by the Legislature from March 20 to First Adjournment on March 27. Bills that have not yet been signed by the Governor are included.
The first Preliminary Summary containing summaries of bills passed through March 20, 2026, was distributed on March 26, 2026 and is available below. A final supplement will be mailed after the wrap-up session in April.
Highlights, a summary of major legislation, will be prepared after the Legislature adjourns and will be mailed to legislators as soon as possible. The 2026 Summary of Legislation, which accounts for all bills enacted by the 2026 Legislature, will be distributed at a later date.
Preliminary Summary
This publication contains summaries of bills passed by the Legislature as of the end of the legislative day on March 20, 2026. Bills that have not yet been signed by the Governor are included.
A supplement containing summaries of bills passed after that date will be distributed during the week of March 30, 2026. An additional supplement will be mailed after the wrap-up session in April.
Highlights, a summary of major legislation, will be prepared after the Legislature adjourns and will be mailed to legislators as soon as possible. The 2026 Summary of Legislation, which accounts for all bills enacted by the 2026 Legislature, will be distributed at a later date.
Briefing Book 2026: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles in Agriculture
What is an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle?
The terms “unmanned aerial vehicles” (UAV), “unmanned aerial systems” (UAS), and “drones” include any flying vehicle that does not carry a human pilot on board. UAVs are typically controlled via a remote operator on the ground, though many now employ GPS mapping and artificial intelligence to allow the testing of autonomous operation. They are typically electric but can be powered by combustion engine or are hybrid.
Non-agricultural uses of UAVs, currently more common in urban areas, include: cargo transport (such as package delivery by companies like Amazon and Walmart); disaster response (the State Fire Marshal’s Office has three–one in Topeka, one to cover the western part of the state, and one to cover the eastern part of the state); and police search and rescue.
In agriculture, UAVs are used to monitor crop and livestock health, map and survey fields for crop planning, and apply seed, pesticides, or fertilizer.
Proponents of the technology tout the efficiency and accuracy of such agricultural uses, stating that UAVs use less fuel, and their increased precision will lead to less waste and less pollution.
Kansas
Wichita claims the title of “Air Capital of the World” due to its history and prominence in aircraft manufacturing. It is home to some of the leading manufacturers of aircraft in the world including Textron Aviation, Bombardier, and Spirit AeroSystems. It is also where companies like Cessna, Beechcraft, and Learjet began.
The Kansas Departments of Commerce (Commerce), Transportation (KDOT), and Agriculture (KDA) have made supporting the agricultural drone industry a priority. Their goal is to make Kansas a leader in this industry worldwide in the same way that Kansas is a leader in the aircraft manufacturing industry.
Kansas State University (KSU), University of Kansas (KU), and Wichita State University (WSU) are heavily involved in UAV research and development in partnership with the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Alliance for System Safety of UAS Through Research Excellence (ASSURE) program. Most public universities in the state offer UAV-related classes, certifications, or degrees.
Kelly Hills Unmanned Systems, a company based in northeast Kansas, has the largest contiguous FAA-approved UAV test range in the country that shares airspace with four states. It is also home to the largest FAA-certified drone in the nation, the Pyka Pelican II. In partnership with KDOT’s Division of Aviation; KSU Salina; Commerce; and other private and community partners, this drone made the state’s first long-range beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) medical supply delivery using a UAV on August 12, 2025. The flight was approximately 30 miles from Seneca, Kansas, to Community Healthcare Systems in Onaga, Kansas.
Kansas is also home to other leading manufacturers and operators of UAVs, including Saxon Unmanned, Kansas Drone Services, AgEagle Aerial Systems, Humminbyrd Drones, and many others offering a variety of services.
Infrastructure Needs
When electric vehicles began to be available to the public, infrastructure was needed in the form of charging stations, certified mechanics, and electrical energy to meet the needs of the advancements in technology. The increased use of UAVs in agriculture will also require a certain amount of infrastructure in place. This includes testing ranges, traffic management, communications, and airport electrification.
Regulations
The operation of UAVs is regulated by the FAA in 14 CFR Part 107. It is currently required that the operator must keep the UAV in sight at all times. There is a proposed rule, Part 108, that would regulate operation of UAVs BVLOS. It is scheduled to be in the Public Comment phase until October 6, 2025.
The FAA requires the passing of the Aeronautical Knowledge Test to obtain a Remote Pilot Certificate in order to fly a drone commercially. To fly a drone recreationally, the FAA requires the passing of the Recreational UAS Safety Test (TRUST).
Kansas requires any commercial agricultural pesticide sprayers to be certified through the KDA’s Pesticide and Fertilizer Program. Commercial operators of UAVs that are used for pesticide application are regulated by these rules.
Recent Bills
2025 HB 2308
HB 2308 would enact the Aviation and Innovative Manufacturing in Kansas Act (AIM-K). The bill would create tax incentives and funds to attract businesses engaged in electric- or hydrogen-powered vehicle production and aircraft innovation, education, and manufacturing in Kansas. The bill was introduced by the House Committee on Commerce, Labor and Economic Development. The Committee held a hearing on March 4, 2025. No further action was taken on the bill.
2025 House Sub. for SB 9
House Sub. for SB 9 created the Kansas Land and Military Installation Protection Act. The bill contained certain amended provisions of HB 2293. The provisions relevant to UAVs prohibit Kansas government agencies from acquiring drones whose critical components were produced by a country of concern, or whose critical components were produced or owned by a foreign principal. House Sub. for SB 9 was signed into law by the Governor on April 7, 2025.
Other State Policies
In 2016, Kansas included the use of UAVs over or near any dwelling, occupied vehicle, or other place where one may reasonably expect to be safe from uninvited intrusion or surveillance as a prohibited form of harassment in the Protection from Stalking Act.
Local Policies
Municipalities and other local authorities in Kansas are free to make their own policies regarding UAVs. For example, the city of Wichita prohibits the use of UAVs near airports without the written permission of the airport director, and the city of Prairie Village prohibits the use of UAVs near a person in an offensive manner, over certain events, or over certain private property without consent.
By Walter Nelson and Walter Schmidt.
Briefing Book 2026: Water Fluoridation
On February 27, 2025, the House Committee on Water held an informational hearing on fluoridation of public water supply—when communities add additional fluoride to their water.
The Committee received information supporting water fluoridation from a dentist from Abilene, Kansas, and representatives of the Kansas Dental Association and Oral Health Kansas. The Committee also received testimony against water fluoridation from a dentist from Overland Park, Kansas, and a biological dentist from the Institute for Biological Dentistry.
Additionally, the Committee received information about the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) Bureau of Water’s role in fluoridation of public water supply systems.
What is Fluoride?
Fluoride is a chemical ion of fluorine, which is the 13th most common element in the Earth’s crust. It is naturally found in almost all soil, water, and many rocks. It is released into the environment when rocks or soil containing fluoride are dissolved by water. It can also be released from volcanic emissions or through man-made processes. (Centers for Disease Control, Community Water Fluoridation FAQs, posted May 14, 2024.)
How Did Fluoridation of Public Water Supply First Occur?
In 1944, the Grand Rapids, Michigan, City Commission voted for Grand Rapids to become the first city in the world to add fluoride to its public water supply system, which occurred in 1945. [Note: Research in water sources related to dental health first began in the early 20th Century.]
The then-named National Institute of Dental Research conducted a 15-year study, monitoring the levels of tooth decay in the Grand Rapids’ population of almost 30,000 schoolchildren.
After 11 years, the Institute announced that the rate of cavities in Grand Rapids’ schoolchildren had dropped by 60 percent. This finding, given the large sample size, was considered a remarkable scientific achievement at the time, as it was believed to be the first time in history that tooth decay was found to be a preventable disease. (National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, “The Story of Fluoridation,” reviewed December 2024.)
Are there State Laws or Rules and Regulations that Require Water Fluoridation?
No. There is no state or federal requirement to add fluoride to public water supply systems. Water fluoridation is a local decision. The State of Kansas is precluded from requiring water fluoridation by KSA 68-171m, which explicitly states, “No primary drinking water standard or rule and regulation may require the addition of fluorides to public drinking water.” [Note: The statute was passed by the 1977 Legislature.]
KDHE’s Bureau of Water monitors public water standards, but has stated it is neutral on fluoridation and its benefits, and ultimately, it is a local decision whether a community fluoridates its public water.
Does the State Have a Role in the Fluoridation Addition Process?
Yes. KDHE’s Bureau of Water approves the addition of fluoride for a public water supply system based on several factors that are reviewed by the agency, including the:
- Form of fluoride chemical to be added;
- Point of application;
- Feeding mechanism and rate of flow;
- Storage and handling;
- Automatic controls, safety precautions, and laboratory procedures;
- Designation of Class II (or higher) certified operator; and
- A copy of the city ordinance or rural water district resolution authorizing fluoridation.
KDHE has stated that its general principle regarding fluoridation projects is that it should not be undertaken without the full cooperation and approval of the local administration, the public water utility, and the local health department.
Does the Federal Government Have a Role in Water Fluoridation?
Since 1962, federal agencies have recommended certain levels of drinking water fluoridation to promote dental health. Water fluoridation, however, is not required by federal law. Federal agencies, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), adopt standards for drinking water under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
What are the Recommended Fluoride Levels in Kansas for Public Water Supply Systems?
Kansas, like most states, adopts the drinking water standards set by the federal Safe Drinking Water Act and its regulations. In 1986, the EPA established a regulation under the Act that set the maximum enforceable level of 4.0 mg/L to protect against adverse health effects, which Kansas has adopted.
The EPA has also issued National Secondary Water Supply Standards, which are non-enforceable guidelines for contaminants that may cause cosmetic or aesthetic effects. Should a public water supply system find fluoride levels to be higher than 2.0 mg/L but less than 4.0 mg/L, the EPA requires certain public notices to be made. Kansas adheres to this standard.
For oral health standards, the U.S. Public Health Service has found the optimal concentration level of fluoride for oral health is 0.7 mg/L. Kansas adheres to this standard.
Who Monitors Fluoride Levels in Kansas?
All public water supply systems monitor for fluoride levels. That includes all community water systems, rural water districts, and non-transient, non-community systems (such as self-supplied schools or industry). There is a testing schedule for systems that fluoridate their water or not, surface water, and some groundwater sources.
What Developments are there at the Federal Level?
In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services directed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to reconvene an independent panel to make new recommendations on fluoridating public water supplies, including the role it plays in public water systems and whether there are any negative affects to public health.
The EPA Administrator has stated publicly that the EPA would also review the scientific evidence regarding fluoride in public water supply and health outcomes based on fluoride consumption. (NPR, Kansas Public Radio, “HHS will review guidance on the addition of fluoride to drinking water,” “https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10/g-s1-59452/hhs-rfk-fluoride-drinking-water-epa)
By Heather O’Hara and Elaina Rudder.
See more topics in Agriculture and Natural Resources »
Briefing Book 2026: Gray Machines
Gray machines are unregulated gaming machines, sometimes referred to as “skill-based” games, that look much like their regulated counterparts, such as slot machines. The unregulated gaming machine market has grown significantly in recent years, becoming a cause for concern for policymakers as they are not subject to the same oversight and do not have the same player safeguards as regulated gaming machines.
Regulated Gaming versus Unregulated Gaming
Regulated gaming machines include casino slot machines, video poker machines, historical horse racing machines, and other electronic gaming machines that have received hardware and software approvals from authorized testing agencies and offer player protections, such as promised payback percentages.
In Kansas, electronic gaming machines must be approved by the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission (KRGC) (KSA 74-8750). Each game prototype and the associated equipment are subject to testing and approval by KRGC and are evaluated based on overall integrity and compliance with Kansas statutes, regulations, and standards adopted by the KRGC, among other criteria (KAR 112-107-3).
According to the American Gaming Association (AGA), unregulated gaming machines are often referred to as “amusement” games and operate in a legal gray area—hence the term “gray” machine. Gray machines largely look and play much like traditional slot machines or casino games. According to Scientific Games, a lottery gaming vendor, gray machines are also called “skill-based” gaming machines because they typically offer an opportunity during the play experience to exercise a skill, such as memorizing a pattern or requiring speed and accuracy to unlock a bonus or another part of the game. Players are often given the option to engage with the skill-based portions of the game or skip them, but operators assert their inclusion in the game puts these machines in a legal gray area, outside the definition of a traditional, regulated gaming machine and the accompanying oversight.
Examples of unregulated gaming machines include:
- “Nudge” games where “a player can touch the screen to move a symbol into a winning position”;
- “Sweepstakes machines” that mimic slot machines and allow players to receive a coupon in exchange for money to redeem for merchandise online; and
- “Zero chance” or “no chance” games that attempt to circumvent prohibitions on “chance” games. Zero-chance games sometimes include a feature that can reveal the outcome of the next play in advance, allegedly making them “skill” games that force players to make a decision in order to get an outcome.
The Unregulated Gaming Market
According to the AGA report, “Sizing the Illegal and Unregulated Gaming Markets in the United States,” published in August 2025, Americans wager more than $673 billion each year with illegal and unregulated gambling operators. This estimate translates to $54 billion in annual lost revenue for the legal gaming industry and about $15 billion in lost tax receipts for state governments.
The AGA estimates that more than 625,000 unregulated gaming machines are currently in operation across the U.S., representing about 40 percent of all gaming machines in the country.
Consumer Protection and Other Concerns
Opponents of gray machines argue their unregulated nature creates increased risks for both consumers and operators. While unregulated gaming machines may operate in more concealed locations like private clubs or bars where patrons are limited by age, they are also often found in locations like convenience stores, malls, and gas stations, making them accessible to underage individuals. The AGA notes that consumers often cannot tell the difference between legal and illegal gaming machines, and this confusion can also be exploited at the consumer’s expense.
The Philadelphia Inquirer notes “the issue of access for gambling addicts, who can put themselves on self-exclusion lists at casinos, but not at their local gas station where skill games are available.”
Because they are not subject to regular oversight, gray machines cannot be ensured to have a particular payout guarantee, and customers who have an issue with their game may have no recourse to recoup their money.
Other concerns relating to the lack of regular oversight include improper security and increased likelihood of crime, including robbery and money laundering. Robberies related to gray machines have been reported in recent years in Pennsylvania and Virginia
Scientific Games notes, however, that gray machines “have been a boon to certain retailers, usually mom-and-pop operators of convenience stores and bars, who have benefited from the extra foot traffic the games bring in as well as the revenue they generate.” Spectrum News 1 in Kentucky reported in September 2025 that small business owners were pushing the state to lift the current ban on gray machines in favor of regulation as they can be a “way for independent businessmen throughout the state of Kentucky to generate extra revenue.”
The games are also popular for players looking for higher payouts. Scientific Games reports that gray machine payouts typically range from 75 percent to 93 percent, while the average instant lottery game payout is 75 percent and draw game payouts average between 50 and 58 percent.
Gray Machines in Kansas
According to the Kansas Lottery, there are an estimated 985 gray machines operating in Lottery retailers across the state as of September 2025. This estimate does not include any gray machines operating outside of Lottery retailer locations in the state.
Federal and State Regulation of Gray Machines
The Johnson Act (15 USC § 1175) generally prohibits the manufacture, possession, use, sale, or transportation of any gambling device in the United States and requires all persons manufacturing, using, selling, transporting, or providing gambling devices for the use of others to register with the U.S. Department of Justice and provide certain disclosures when such devices are shipped. However, enforcement of this federal law is inconsistent.
A few states have enacted legislation to regulate gray machines.
Nebraska
Nebraska allows “skill games” to operate as long as the operators apply for a site license and obtain a tax decal for each machine. The Nebraska Department of Revenue maintains a statewide database of games with a tax decal and reported that there were 5,413 registered skill games in July 2025, a 44 percent increase since 2022. Revenues from the gaming machines are taxed at 5 percent.
Georgia
The Georgia Lottery licenses “Coin Operated Amusement Machines,” which function similarly to slot machines. Gross revenue from the machines is taxed at 4 percent. The Georgia Lottery reported 41,119 active machines in 2025, a 4 percent increase from 2021.
Ohio
In 2015, the Ohio General Assembly expanded the authority of the Ohio Casino Control Commission (OCCC) to oversee licensing and reporting for all gray machine manufacturers, distributors, and operators. The OCCC licenses every skill game in the state, including those at family establishments, like Chuck E. Cheese. The widespread licensing has served as a strategy for the OCCC to identify bad actors and shut down illegal machines.
Pennsylvania
In Pennsylvania, legislation has been introduced during the 2025 Session to regulate gray machines. SB 756 would impose a 35 percent tax on skill games, limit terminals per establishment to 7, and delegate license oversight to the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board. SB 626 would impose a 16 percent tax on gray machines, provide for establishments to house between 5 and 10 terminals, and delegate enforcement to the Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement and the Pennsylvania State Police. Both bills remain in Senate Committee. In his budget, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro has proposed a 52 percent tax on skill games and limiting establishments to five terminals. Pennsylvania has a year-round Legislature and has not passed a budget for the 2025-2026 fiscal year as of September 2025. At the municipal level, the Philadelphia City Council voted unanimously in March 2024 to ban skill games from city businesses unless the business also has a casino or liquor license and an area for at least 30 patrons to eat or drink.
By Leighann Thone and Elaina Rudder
See Federal and State Affairs for more.
Briefing Book 2026: Sports Wagering
Background
U.S. Supreme Court Decision
In Murphy v. NCAA, the U.S. Supreme Court held a 1992 law prohibiting states from allowing betting on sporting events to be unconstitutional. The Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA) of 1992 had prohibited all sports lotteries except those allowed under state law at the time PASPA was passed, which included only Delaware, Montana, Nevada, and Oregon.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the Murphy ruling that PASPA was unconstitutional on the grounds that the federal law prohibited the modification or repeal of state law prohibitions and unlawfully regulated the actions of state legislatures.
State Action Since Murphy v. NCAA
As a result of the U.S. Supreme Court holding PASPA unconstitutional, states can legally regulate gambling on sporting events. Since the Murphy decision in May 2018, 39 states and the District of Columbia have legalized sports wagering. Kansas authorized sports wagering in 2022 through the enactment of House Sub. for Sub. for SB 84.
Review of 2022 House Sub. for Sub. for SB 84
In 2022, the Kansas Legislature passed House Sub. for Sub. for SB 84, which amended the Kansas Expanded Lottery Act (KELA) concerning sports wagering operations by the lottery gaming facilities, added new sections to KELA that are part of and supplemental to the Kansas Lottery Act (KLA), amended the Kansas Parimutuel Racing Act, and authorized operation of historical horse racing machines. The bill went into effect on July 1, 2022.
Sports Wagering Operations and Regulation
The bill authorized the Kansas Lottery (Lottery) to offer sports wagering in accordance with the KLA and KELA, through one or more lottery gaming facility managers (managers) who have contracted with the Lottery, and through one or more interactive sports wagering platforms (platforms) pursuant to a marketing agreement. Managers are allowed to offer sports wagering in-person at their facility or over the internet through websites and mobile device applications from up to three licensed platforms.
The bill also contained provisions regarding suppliers licenses, marketing agreements, advertisements, investigations, required records, and facility inspections and security measures.
The bill directed the Lottery to adopt rules and regulations regarding:
- The advertisement of sports wagering;
- Management contracts;
- The integrity of sports wagering operations;
- Permitting sports wagering managers and platforms to have employees located outside of Kansas;
- Permitting the establishment of online sports wagering accounts and the access to pre-established online accounts established in other states; and
- Allowing the carry-over of negative sports wagering revenues by managers.
The bill directed the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission (KRGC) to adopt rules and regulations regarding:
- KELA and sports wagering;
- Certification requirements and enforcement procedures for persons owning at least 5.0 percent in a lottery gaming facility manager or racetrack gaming facility manager and an electronic gaming machine manufacturer, technology provider, or computer system provider who proposes to contract with a lottery gaming facility manager, a racetrack gaming facility manager, or the State for the provision of goods or services related to either gaming facility; and
- The suspension, revocation, or non-renewal of certification for certain employees involved in sports wagering.
Restrictions and Crimes Related to Sports Wagering
Compulsive Gambling and the Self-restriction List
The bill prohibited a manager from providing a line of credit to any person engaged in sports wagering and required managers to include information and tools to assist players in making responsible decisions. The bill also required a manager, upon request by an individual, to restrict such individual from placing sports wagers with such manager and take reasonable measures to prevent the individual from placing sports wagers.
Minimum Age
The bill prohibited any person under the age of 21 from directly or indirectly wagering on a sporting event.
Prohibited Wagering
The bill required sports wagering managers to use reasonable methods to prohibit certain persons, including, but not limited to, managers, owners, employees, athletes, coaches, and referees, from placing certain wagers. The bill also made it a Class A misdemeanor for certain persons to place a sports wager in the State of Kansas.
Crimes Related to Sports Wagering
The bill made amendments to and defined the following types of crimes:
- Misuse of nonpublic sports information;
- Sports bribery;
- Tampering with a sports contest;
- Conflicts of interest; and
- Gray machines.
[Note: For more information on gray machines, please see the article titled “Gray Machines” in this publication.]
Funds
The bill created the Sports Wagering Receipts Fund, the Attracting Professional Sports to Kansas Fund, and the White Collar Crime Fund. The bill also amended law related to the Problem Gambling and Addictions Grant Fund.
Other Provisions
The bill authorized wagering on historical horse races and amended law related to simulcast racing to prohibit the licensing for and displaying of simulcast greyhound races.
Recent Legislation
2023 Senate Sub. for HB 2058
Senate Sub. for HB 2058 amended state law to authorize any gaming compact concerning sports wagering to include provisions governing sports wagering outside the boundaries of Indian lands. The bill went into effect upon publication in the Kansas Register on April 27, 2023.
Tribal Gaming Compact Amendments
Since enactment of this bill, three of the four federally recognized Tribes in Kansas have negotiated with the State of Kansas to amend their gaming compacts to create and amend provisions concerning sports wagering on reservation lands. The Tribes include:
- Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation;
- Iowa Tribe of Kansas and Nebraska; and
- Sac and Fox Nation of Missouri in Kansas and Nebraska.
The Legislature approved these gaming compact amendments through the adoption of House and Senate Resolutions.
2025 SB 125 Proviso
The appropriations bill passed by the 2025 Legislature, SB 125, included proviso language prohibiting the Lottery from expending moneys to negotiate or to enter into any contract or extension of an existing contract or renewal of an existing contract for the management of sports wagering with any lottery gaming facility manager. The proviso language applies in FY 2025 and FY 2026.
[Note: The existing contracts between the Lottery and lottery gaming facility managers expire in August 2027.]
Sports Wagering Revenue
Sports wagering revenue is defined in KSA 74-8702 as total revenues from sports wagering, excluding voided tickets and after all prize-related payments are made and after federal excise taxes, free plays, or other promotional credits. Under 2022 House Sub. for Sub. for SB 84, management contracts for sports wagering include a provision stating that 10.0 percent of sports wagering revenue will be distributed to the Lottery Operating Fund and the remaining 90.0 percent of sports wagering revenue will be retained by the manager.
The state’s 10.0 percent share distributed to the Lottery Operating Fund is further distributed accordingly:
- The first $750,000 is credited to the White Collar Crime Fund;
- 2.0 percent is credited to the Problem Gambling and Addictions Grant Fund;
- 80.0 percent is credited to the Attracting Professional Sports to Kansas Fund; and
- The remaining 18.0 percent is credited to the State Gaming Revenues Fund/State General Fund.
The following table details sports wagering revenue and the State’s 10.0 percent share in FY 2023 through FY 2025. [Note: The table contains unaudited revenues from the Lottery’s sports wagering monthly revenue reports.]
Sports Wagering Revenues FY 2023–FY 2025
| Year | Settled Wagers | Revenues | State Share |
| FY 2023 | $1,676,590,108 | $58,726,207 | $5,872,621 |
| FY 2024 | $2,363,711,655 | $117,159,060 | $11,715,906 |
| FY 2025 | $2,672,881,517 | $174,538,442 | $17,453,844 |
By Elaina Rudder and Nicole Bergman
See Federal and State Affairs for more.
Briefing Book 2026: Approval Process for the Housing Deposit Loan Program
Introduction
The 2008 Legislature established the Kansas Housing Loan Deposit Program (Program) with the purpose of providing incentives for the making of housing construction development loans. The 2012 Legislature added adult care home construction development loans to the Program.
The Program allows an eligible lending institution that agrees to receive a housing loan deposit to accept and review applications for loans from eligible developer borrowers.
The State Treasurer is required to submit an annual report outlining the status of the Program to the Governor and the Legislature.
Definitions
“Eligible lending institutions” are defined as a depository bank that agrees to participate in the Program and is eligible to be a depository of state funds.
“Eligible developer borrower” means any person, firm, or corporation:
- Building new houses;
- Building not-for-profit adult care homes;
- Rehabilitating existing houses; or
- Rehabilitating not-for-profit adult care homes.
“House” means a single-family or multi-family dwelling that initially sells or is appraised at or below the area purchase price safe harbor for the State of Kansas as established by the State Treasurer through rules and regulations based on the requirements of section 143(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for homes that are eligible for mortgage revenue bonds.
“Adult care home” means any nursing facility, nursing facility for mental health, intermediate care facility for people with intellectual disability, assisted living facility, residential health care facility, home plus, boarding care home, or adult day care facility, all of which are classifications of adult care homes and are required to be licensed by the Secretary for Aging and Disability Services. Such facilities are further defined in KSA 39-923.
Housing Loan Deposit Loan Package
To participate in the Program, an eligible developer borrower must complete the housing loan deposit loan package (loan package), or the forms provided by the State Treasurer, and submit the documentation to an eligible lending institution.
Eligible developer borrowers with approved loan packages are:
- Limited to $2.0 million at any one time;
- Prevented from amortizing a loan for a house for a period of more than five years;
- Prohibited from amortizing a loan for an adult care home for a period of more than 20 years; and
- Required to certify on its loan application that the reduced rate loan will be used exclusively for the expenses involved in building houses.
The program allows up to $60.0 million of unencumbered funds to be granted. Aggregate loans for adult care homes must not exceed $24.0 million, or 40.0 percent, of the amount available unless loans are being used for assisted living, residential health care, or home plus facilities which must not exceed $54.0 million, or 90.0 percent, of the amount available.
Eligible Lending Institution Approval
The eligible lending institution reviews the application, applying all usual lending standards to determine the credit worthiness of eligible developer borrowers. The decision to approve or reject a loan package is based on the:
- Lending institution’s evaluation of the eligible developer borrowers included in the loan package;
- The amount of the individual loan in the loan package; and
- Other appropriate considerations.
Approved loan packages are forwarded to the State Treasurer and must include information regarding the amount of the loan requested by each eligible developer borrower, a certificate by the applicant that the applicant is an eligible developer borrower, and anything else the State Treasurer requires.
State Treasurer Approval
The State Treasurer may accept or reject a loan package based on the State Treasurer’s evaluation of whether the loan to the eligible developer borrower meets the purpose of the program.
If sufficient funds are not available, then the application may be considered in the order received when funds are once again available, subject to a review by the lending institution.
The State Treasurer must certify to the Director of Investments the amount required for the loan package. The Director of Investments places a housing loan deposit in the amount certified with the eligible lending institution at an interest rate that is 2.0 percent below the market rate. The minimum interest rate must be 0.5 percent, if the market rate is below 2.5 percent.
Agreement
The eligible lending institution enters into a housing loan deposit agreement with the State Treasurer, which must include requirements necessary for implementation, including:
An agreement by the eligible lending institution to lend an amount equal to the housing loan deposit to eligible developer borrowers at an interest rate that is no more than 4.0 percent greater than the interest rate on housing loan deposits;
Provisions for the housing loan deposit to be placed for a maturity considered appropriate in coordination with the underlying housing loan; and
Provisions for the reduction of the housing loan deposit in an amount equal to any payment of loan principal by the eligible developer borrower.
Conclusion
Currently, there are 17 eligible lending institutions with current participation agreements throughout the state. The last active loan was paid out in FY 2024, and no further loans have been issued since that time.
By Chardae Caine and Mike Ditch
See Financial Institutions and Insurance for more.
Briefing Book 2026: Occupational Licensing
Introduction
Occupational licensing is a system of granting individuals permission to practice a particular kind of business activity. It is a form of credentialing intended to protect public interests by ensuring that licensed individuals are qualified and responsible for performing the regulated activity, subject to appropriate oversight.
Occupational Licensing in Kansas
In Kansas, occupational licensing at the state level is required by statute for various fields of professional practice. Statute establishes various requirements and conditions for such licenses but many requirements are provided through administrative regulations by the various agencies or licensing bodies charged with administering the respective credentials.
It is difficult to ascertain the exact number of occupational licenses required within Kansas, but statutory reports to the Legislature on occupational licensing are required by 21 regulatory bodies, who report on about 100 distinct licenses to the Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) (see Reporting Requirements, below).
For many activities, requiring occupational licensing credentialing and oversight is a federal or local matter. For example, aircraft mechanics are regulated by the Federal Aviation Administration, while plumbers and electricians are licensed locally.
Interstate Licensing Compacts
For a variety of professions, Kansas law provides for state participation in interstate licensing compacts through enacted legislation. Such compacts are agreements governing licensure within particular professional fields, as a means of ensuring uniform standards of practice while reducing barriers to workforce participation through reciprocal licensure or privilege to practice in another compact member state.
Under such agreements, while many requirements are dictated by the terms of the compact, the regulatory authority of states to protect public health and safety are preserved; state licensing bodies are generally still responsible for administering credentialing programs and maintaining oversight and enforcement authority over practice within their respective fields.
Reporting Requirements
2021 HB 2066 introduced requirements for most agencies administering occupational licenses to make an annual report to the Legislature related to statutory requirements for expedited licensure. The report requires licensing bodies to provide information on the types of licenses issued with statistics on the time required for each license determination, the number of licenses issued or denied, and reasons for denial, among other information.
[Note: KLRD is required by 2021 HB 2066 (KSA 48-3406) to annually collect licensure information regarding expedited military and non-military licensure law and report that information to certain entities.]
Several state entities overseeing statutorily required occupational licenses are not required to make an annual report on licensing to the Legislature. Examples include weights and measures service technicians, regulated by the Department of Agriculture, and various emergency medical service provider types regulated by the Emergency Medical Services Board.
Occupational Licensing Reforms in Kansas
Since 2012, the Legislature has enacted a number of occupational licensing reforms.
Credentials for Non-resident Military Members and Military Spouses
Legislation enacted in 2012 provided for licensing of spouses of active-duty military members with out-of-state credentials regardless of whether the credentialing body otherwise recognized the equivalent credential in Kansas. Similar provisions were added for military veterans in 2013 and active-duty service members were added in 2015. Credentialing was extended to all spouses of military members, regardless of active-duty status, with enactment of HB 2066 in 2021.
Expedited Credentialing
A number of legislative efforts have reduced the time required to obtain licensure in Kansas for qualified individuals moving from out of state. The 2015 changes to law providing for reciprocal credentialing of active-duty military members also required credentialing bodies to issue licenses within 60 days for military members and military spouses. 2021 HB 2066 shortened the period of time in which regulatory bodies are required to issue occupational credentials to military service members or military spouses seeking to establish residency in Kansas to 30 days while also providing for expedited credentialing of non-military prospective residents, requiring credentials to be issued within 60 days for all qualified out-of-state applicants.
Temporary and Provisional Licensing
2021 HB 2066 also provided for temporary and provisional licensing for certain applicants with out-of-state credentials. Regulatory bodies are permitted to issue temporary occupational permits allowing applicants to lawfully practice their occupation while completing any specific requirements to practice in Kansas that were not required in the other state, provided the practice of the occupation by the individual would not jeopardize public health and safety.
Removal or Reduction of Fees
One of the ways states can ease the regulatory burden of obtaining occupational credentialing includes the reduction or removal of fees related to licensure. In line with the policy of making licensure easier for qualified military members and spouses, 2024 HB 2745 exempted military service members and spouses of active-duty military members from all fees for applications for any such credential assessed by the licensing body, including criminal background report fees, whether assessed by the licensing body or another agency, and any fees associated with initial applications or renewal of any credential. In 2025, with enactment of HB 2274, this fee waiver was extended to all spouses of military members, regardless of active-duty status.
Exemption from Regulation
There have also been a number of changes to policy in recent years that ease regulations on certain occupational practices, either by removing applicability of licensure requirements or removing or easing specific regulatory requirements.
2022 SB 440 authorized occupational therapists to provide limited services to patients without referral from a health care provider under certain conditions. 2022 SB 348 removed certain threading (temporary hair removal by use of a strand of thread) methods from regulation under the licensure of cosmetologists. 2022 SB 453 permitted, with regard to licensure of specialist clinical social workers, supervised postgraduate experience in lieu of completion of a graduate-level supervised clinical practicum.
Easing of regulations that apply to licensure or specific practices are often complemented by other offsetting conditions. For example, the 2022 bill exempting threading from cosmetology licensure required threading practitioners to make available to clients a brochure including infection control guidelines with the practitioner’s responses to a self-assessment of adherence to such guidelines.
2022 Senate Sub. for HB 2279 allowed advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) to prescribe drugs without a written protocol authorized by a responsible physician, but added a requirement for APRNs to maintain malpractice insurance. Similarly, 2022 SB 440 required occupational therapists to maintain liability insurance while authorizing limited practice without requiring health care provider referrals.
Increased Participation in Interstate Licensing Compacts
Kansas has enacted compact legislation participation in a variety of interstate occupational licensing agreements in recent years to facilitate interstate practice of regulated professions.
Kansas enacted the Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology Interstate Compact in 2021 with SB 77 and the following eight additional interstate compacts between 2023 and 2025:
- Counseling Compact (2023 HB 2288);
- Cosmetologist Licensure Compact (2025 HB 2069);
- Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact (2024 HB 2453);
- Dietitian Compact (2025 HB 2069);
- Interstate Teacher Mobility Compact (2023 SB 66);
- Physician Assistant Licensure Compact (2025 HB 2069);
- School Psychologist Compact (2025 HB 2069); and
- Social Work Licensure Compact (2024 HB 2484).
Notable interstate health care professional licensure compacts that have not been enacted in Kansas but have been enacted or are being considered in other states include the Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Compact, Occupational Therapy Licensure Compact, and Respiratory Care Interstate Compact.
Other Reform Efforts
2025 SB 30 was a recent attempt at additional substantive reforms to occupational licensing in Kansas. The bill would have required licensing bodies to annually provide a report of certain information to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations and for new occupational licenses and material changes to existing licenses adopted by certain state agencies to be approved by the Legislature.
Before consideration of any such adoption or material change, KLRD would have been required to conduct a review and submit a report with certain information relating to the rationale for the proposed requirement, comparison with requirements in other states, and alternative measures for achieving the intended purpose of the proposed requirement.
The Conference Committee Report for SB 30 was adopted by the House but was not taken up by the Senate.
By Eric Adell and Mike Ditch. See Commerce, Labor, and Economic Development for more articles on these topics.
Briefing Book 2026: Cellphone Policies in K-12 Schools
National Policy Landscape
First adopted by Florida in 2023, state action regarding the restriction or prohibition of personal communication devices has been taken in 31 states and the District of Columbia as of the start of the 2025–2026 school year. Personal communication devices can include, but are not limited to, cellphones, smart watches, and bluetooth headphones. These policies, as classified by Education Week, fall into four categories: statewide restrictions, policies required, incentive policies, and policies recommended.
[Note: For purposes of this article, the term “personal wireless communication device” will be referred to as “cellphone” even though these policies would or could include other items such as smart watches and bluetooth headphones.]
Statewide Restrictions
Four states have passed legislation that establishes statewide restrictions on the use of cellphones at school. The policies generally prohibit the use of cellphones during a specific time frame, such as instructional time, or in certain locations, such as on school property or at a school-sponsored activity. Additionally, the policies allow for exemptions for students needing cellphones for individual education programs (IEPs) or 504 plans, for medical reasons, in case of an emergency, or for educational purposes.
An outlier to the above generalities, the South Carolina General Assembly passed a budget proviso requiring the State Board of Education to adopt a model policy to prohibit access to cellphones by students during the school day. School districts are required to adopt the State Board of Education’s policy in order for the school district to receive state aid.
Policy Required
The largest category, 27 states and the District of Columbia, have taken action that requires school districts or schools to implement policies related to the use of cellphones in schools. The specificity and requirements of what must be included in the policies varies widely by state. For example, Minnesota’s requirement for districts is solely that the district has a policy governing a student’s possession and use of a cellphone in school. Conversely, Texas’s policy requires the school district’s policy to prohibit students from using cellphones on school property during the school day. Additionally, district policy must include designated methods for storing student cellphones during the school day and what disciplinary measures would occur for violating said policies.
Similar to the states with statewide restrictions, most states with required policies do require exemptions for use by students with IEPs or 504 plans, for medical purposes, for education purposes, or in case of an emergency.
Incentive Policies
Two states, Delaware and Pennsylvania, have adopted policies to incentivize districts to adopt cellphone restrictions.
The Delaware General Assembly established a pilot program for middle and high schools to apply for grant funding to purchase storage pouches for student’s cellphones. The state’s Department of Education is required to evaluate the effectiveness of the pilot program and submit a report to the General Assembly. The General Assembly appropriated $250,000 for the pilot program.
Pennsylvania allows funds from the State’s existing School Safety and Mental Health grant program to be used for the purchase of lockable cellphone bags. However, to receive the grants, a school district would be required to adopt a cellphone use policy that prohibits cellphone usage during the school day.
Policy Recommended
Four states, including Kansas, have taken actions to recommend that school districts or schools establish cellphone policies but do not require it. In all but one state, South Dakota, the action was taken by the state’s Board of Education to recommend adoption of policies.
Kansas
Blue Ribbon Task Force
The Blue Ribbon Task Force on Student Screen Time (Task Force) was established by the state Board of Education at the Board’s July 2024 meeting. The Task Force was charged with providing recommendations regarding the use of personal devices in school, screen time, and mental health, and parental oversight of district-owned devices. The Task Force was composed of 36 members including, but not limited to, legislators, superintendents, teachers, students, and parents. The Task Force met weekly from August 22, 2024, through November 7, 2024.
The Task Force’s report can be found on the State Department of Education’s website and includes 22 recommendations. Five of the recommendations involved cellphones in school and include recommending districts implement a “bell-to-bell” cellphone policy and requiring cellphones to be secure and inaccessible to students during the school day. Four recommendations centered on screen time and mental health, such as providing “digital citizenship education” and districts sharing peer-reviewed research on excessive use of technology and software with students, families, and district staff. The remaining 13 recommendations centered on parental oversight of district-owned devices and included recommendations regarding parental supervision and district-operated content management.
The State Board of Education accepted the recommendations of the Task Force at its December 2024 meeting and tasked the State Department of Education with disseminating the report to school districts for review by local boards of education.
Kansas Legislature
The Kansas Legislature has, as of this article’s publication, not passed any legislation regarding cellphones in school.
Bills prohibiting cellphone usage in schools have been introduced in the 2024 and 2025 Legislative Sessions. In 2024, HB 2641 was introduced and received a hearing from the House Committee on Education, but no further action was taken. In 2025, HB 2186 was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Education, but no action has been taken.
By Matthew Willis and Nicole Bergman.
See Education for more.
Briefing Book 2026: Kansas School Finance System Overview
The State’s current school finance system includes both the Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act (KSEEA) and other school finance laws that cover six areas of focus:
- State Foundation Aid;
- Supplemental State Aid;
- Capital Outlay State Aid;
- Capital Improvement State Aid;
- Special Education State Aid; and
- Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) employer contributions.
Each area contains its own unique funding formula or formulas.
Kansas School Equity and Enhancement Act
KSEEA consists of two major areas of focus: State Foundation Aid and Supplemental State Aid. The 2017 Legislature enacted the KSEEA to replace the Classroom Learning Assuring Student Success Act (CLASS) Act. It will expire on July 1, 2027.
The KSEEA was enacted as part of the Legislature’s response to the Gannon v. State court cases, which started in 2010. The Kansas Supreme Court released jurisdiction of the Gannon case in February 2024.
An Education Funding Task Force was established during the 2025 Legislative Session to review the current school finance system and provide recommendations regarding the school finance formula after the expiration of KSEEA, Special Education State Aid, and any other recommendations related to school finance on or before January 11, 2027.
The Education Funding Task Force has already met several times during 2025 and will continue to meet through 2026.
State Foundation Aid
State Foundation Aid is the primary focus within the funding formula and provides the majority of state funding for the daily operation of schools. State Foundation Aid is a student-based funding model, where school districts receive a base amount of funding per student, with additional funding added to provide additional services and support to students with unique needs. In Kansas, State Foundation Aid calculations are based on two factors: the base aid for student excellence (BASE) and the weighted full-time equivalent (FTE) student enrollment of each school district.
BASE
BASE funding is set by statute and, as of school year (SY) 2023-2024, the BASE is the prior year’s amount adjusted by the average percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the Midwest region during the three immediately preceding school years.
For SY 2025-2026, BASE is $5,615 per student.
Weightings
Weightings are added to each school district’s regular FTE enrollment in order to reflect additional costs associated with serving certain student populations and to address other district characteristics. There are currently 11 weightings:
- At-risk students;
- High-density at-risk students;
- Bilingual students;
- Low enrollment;
- High enrollment;
- New school facilities;
- Ancillary school facilities;
- Cost-of-living;
- Career technical education;
- Special education; and
- Transportation.
The resulting weighted FTE enrollment is then multiplied by the BASE aid amount to calculate a school district’s (district) Total Foundation Aid entitlement.
While special education is listed as a weighting, the weighted FTE is backed into from the Special Education State Aid amount for each school district. This weighted FTE is not included in State Foundation Aid calculations for a school district, but is used to calculate Total Foundation Aid for the purposes of local option budget calculations.
Supplemental State Aid
Local school boards (boards) may adopt a local option budget (LOB) in addition to the annual State Foundation Aid a district receives from the State. LOB revenues are generated from local property taxes and Supplemental State Aid.
Because property valuations vary widely between school districts in Kansas, Supplemental State Aid is provided by the State as a form of equalization aid. The lower a school district’s property values per student are, the more Supplemental State Aid it receives for its LOB. After the amount is determined, districts are then responsible for funding the rest of the LOB with local property taxes. Equalization, therefore, effectively serves as property tax relief for school districts with smaller tax bases.
Capital Outlay State Aid
Districts may levy a local property tax of no more than eight mills for the purpose of funding capital outlay expenditures. These funds may be used for the “acquisition, construction, reconstruction, repair, remodeling, additions to, furnishing, maintaining, and equipping of school district property and equipment necessary for school district purposes.” Additionally, some school districts are eligible to receive Capital Outlay State Aid in a manner similar to Supplemental State Aid. However, unlike Supplemental State Aid, Capital Outlay State Aid does not replace local property taxes, but instead supplements local property taxes.
Capital Improvement State Aid
Districts may also issue bonds to finance construction of school facilities and receive Capital Improvement State Aid, if eligible, to help pay costs associated with these bonds as a form of equalization aid. Rates for these bonds are broken down into four different rate categories, which are:
- Bonds approved by voters prior to July 1, 2015;
- Bonds approved by voters on or after July 1, 2015, but prior to July 1, 2017;
- Bonds approved by voters on or after July 1, 2017, but prior to July 1, 2022; and
- Bonds approved by voters on or after July 1, 2022.
Each of these rates have different calculations for state aid, although all four rates are based on school districts’ assessed valuation per pupil (AVPP), which is calculated yearly.
A district’s state aid may be calculated using multiple rates depending on when the bonds were approved by voters.
Special Education State Aid
Calculation
Special Education State Aid is calculated as reimbursement for the “excess costs” associated with providing special education services. The State Department of Education determines the excess cost both statewide and, starting in SY 2024-2025, for each individual school district before distributing Special Education State Aid.
Statute requires a reimbursement rate for Special Education State Aid at 92.0 percent of total state excess costs, but provides for prorating state aid if the appropriation for Special Education State Aid does not equal 92.0 percent of excess costs.
Distribution
During the 2024 Legislative Session, the Legislature amended law governing the distribution of state aid for special education to require the Legislature to appropriate at least $601.0 million for special education for FY 2025 and every year thereafter. It also requires $528.0 million to be distributed based upon the existing statewide distribution system. This distribution includes four areas:
- Medicaid Replacement State Aid;
- Catastrophic Aid;
- Transportation Aid; and
- Special Education Teacher Aid.
The Special Education State Aid funding that is in excess of $528.0 million has its own distribution formula, which is established by the State Board of Education. Currently, funding is distributed proportionally based on each school district’s local effort towards special education expenses.
KPERS Employer Contributions
The State pays the employer contributions to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) for all KPERS-eligible school employees in Kansas. This part of the retirement system is known as KPERS–School and is composed of two parts: KPERS–USDs (United School Districts) and KPERS–Non-USDs. The obligation for employer contributions follows the schedule of contribution rates included in statute. KPERS–USDs is for public school employees, and KPERS–Non-USDs is for employees of community colleges, technical colleges, and school district interlocals.
By Jennifer Light and Matthew Willis.
See Education for more.
You must be logged in to post a comment.