Grid Security

Protecting the bulk electric system (or “power grid”) from both physical and cyberattacks is known as “grid security.”

Risks and Threats

In 2023, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) reported at least 175 instances of physical attacks or threats against critical grid infrastructure, including incidences of theft and vandalism. In 2024, Check Point Research documented 1,162 cyberattacks on utilities, a 70 percent increase compared with the same period in the prior year.

While few of these attacks have had an impact on the grid, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reported that points of susceptibility continue to increase as the grid expands and incorporates new technologies—with the number of susceptible points increasing by approximately 60 per day. With these ever-increasing vulnerabilities, coupled with the outdated software that many utilities use, a coordinated attack could be devastating to the power grid and the essential services it supports.

The Grid. Image by Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, via Wikipedia.

Regulating Authority

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to oversee the reliability of the power grid. FERC certified NERC as the nation’s electric reliability organization to develop and enforce reliability standards, subject to FERC approval. These standards are referred to as the Critical Infrastructure Protection standards.

Preparedness

The Electricity Subsector Coordinating Council (ESCC) is the liaison between the electric power industry and the federal government, and it is responsible for preparing for and responding to threats and disasters. Among other things, the ESCC manages a Cyber Mutual Assistance program to help utilities restore critical computer systems following significant cyber incidents.

The electric power industry employs a strategy called “defense-in-depth,” which focuses on preparation, prevention, response, and recovery for “all hazard” threats to electric grid operations. Aspects include emergency exercises, such as NERC’s biannual GridEx program. Utilities also share transformers and other equipment through programs like SPAREConnect, Spare Transformer Equipment Program, and Grid Assurance.

Recent Legislation

The 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, now known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), provided $27.0 billion to the DOE to modernize the electrical grid and make it more resilient to extreme weather and resistant to cyberattacks. Under the BIL, the DOE created the Grid Deployment Office and established several grant programs, including the Rural And Municipal Utility Advances Cybersecurity Grant and Technical Assistance Program. The BIL also required states to submit revised state energy security plans by September 30, 2023.

In March 2022, the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA) was signed into law. CIRCIA requires covered critical infrastructure entities to report cyber incidents within 72 hours and ransomware payments within 24 hours to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

In Kansas statute, KSA 66-1234 through 66-1236 is known as the Kansas Energy Security Act. The Act became law in 2003 and deals only with recovery of security expenditures after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

For more information, contact:

Nicole Fielder
Research Analyst

Kate Smeltzer
Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Kansas Cybersecurity Update

From 2022 to 2023, ransomware attacks against cities, counties, and state agencies increased by 36 percent.

A ransomware attack is a type of malicious software (malware) that encrypts its files on a victim’s computer or network, rendering them inaccessible until a ransom is paid to the attacker.

Ransomware typically infiltrates a system through phishing emails (emails from a malicious actor that appear to be from a legitimate or trusted sender), malicious downloads, or vulnerabilities in software. After data encryption, the attacker presents a ransom note, usually demanding payment in cryptocurrency, which is digital currency that uses cryptography (encryption) to secure transactions, making it harder to trace. The note typically includes instructions on how to pay and may threaten to permanently delete the files if the ransom is not paid within a specified time frame.

Victims face the dilemma of paying the ransom, which does not guarantee data recovery, or attempting recovery through backups or cybersecurity measures, which can be complicated and costly.

Recent Kansas Incidents

In 2023 and 2024, entities in Kansas have been victims of multiple high-profile ransomware attacks. These incidents include:

  • The October 2023 attack on the Kansas Judicial Branch, shutting down online access to the court system for several months;
  • The May 2024 attack on the City of Wichita, disrupting city services and reverting to cash-only payments of city services; and
  • The September 2024 attack on Franklin County, exposing poll book records containing names, social security numbers, vaccination information, and insurance billing information of the county’s 30,000 residents.

The above list is not exhaustive, and multiple other towns, hospitals, colleges, and governmental entities have dealt with increasing cyber threats.

New Cybersecurity Initiatives

State officials and the Legislature, in cooperation with federal entities like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), have been working to improve the security posture of the State for the last several years.

The most recent effort can be seen in the enactment of 2024 House Sub. for SB 291, which contains numerous provisions geared toward improving the State’s cybersecurity posture. Among these provisions is the requirement that the Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) for each branch of government work with their respective agency heads to develop cybersecurity programs compliant with the National Institute of Standards and Technology Cybersecurity Framework (NIST CSF) 2.0. These programs must be in place by July 1, 2028.

The NIST CSF was first established in 2014 and provided guidelines and best practices to manage and reduce cybersecurity risk for critical infrastructure. The standards were updated in February 2024 and expanded to be more applicable to governments, small businesses, and nonprofits.

The NIST CSF 2.0 includes the following six core functions:

  • Identify—understanding organizational assets, risks, and resources;
  • Protect—safeguarding critical assets and data from threats;
  • Detect—identifying potential cybersecurity events or incidents;
  • Respond—take action during or after a cybersecurity event;
  • Recover—restore capabilities and services after a cybersecurity event; and
  • Govern—establish and monitor policies, processes, and oversight to manage cybersecurity risks.

The goal of the core functions is to help organizations understand, assess, and prioritize cybersecurity risks, as well as communicate those risks with stakeholders and partners.

At the time of this publication, Kansas is the only state to adopt a requirement for NIST CSF 2.0 compliance. Federal agencies are the only other entities that require similar compliance. Other entities adopt the NIST CSF 2.0 on a voluntary basis.

The legislation also requires cybersecurity staff for each branch of government in Kansas to work at the direction of the branch’s respective CISO. Additionally, beginning in 2028, a mechanism will be in place to certify an amount equal to 5.0 percent of an agency’s total budget that may be lapsed by the Senate Committee on Ways and Means or the House Committee on Appropriations should it be determined by the relevant Chief Information Technology Officer and Director of the Budget that an agency is not in compliance with provisions found within 2024 House Sub. for SB 291.

The provisions will expire on July 1, 2026, and the law will need to be reviewed sometime during the 2025 or 2026 Legislative Sessions.

For more information, contact:

James Fisher
Managing IT Analyst

Matthew Willis
Senior Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Passenger Rail in Kansas

Current Passenger Rail Service

Passenger rail service in Kansas is limited to Amtrak’s Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles, which includes nightly stops in Kansas City, Lawrence, Topeka, Newton, Hutchinson, Dodge City, and Garden City. Since 1999, the Heartland Flyer has connected Oklahoma City to Fort Worth, where Amtrak connections are available to Dallas and San Antonio. Passenger service from Newton to Oklahoma City has not been offered since 1979, but plans are underway for its restoration.

Legislative Review and Action

Extending passenger rail service in Kansas has been discussed for many years. The 2000 Task Force on Rail Passenger Services in Kansas found a Kansas City-Lawrence-Topeka-Newton-Wichita route to be the most economically feasible of the passenger rail routes reviewed. Following public input in 2008 to the Special Committee on a New Comprehensive Transportation Plan, the Transportation Works for Kansas (T-Works) program (2010 Senate Sub. for Senate Sub. for HB 2650) was established. It added KSA 75-5089, which authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish and implement a passenger rail service program and authorizes the Secretary to, among other things, enter into agreements with Amtrak, other rail operators, local jurisdictions, and other states for that purpose.

The 2012 Special Committee on Transportation recommended the 2013 Legislature pursue private, local, state, and federal funding for maintenance of the Southwest Chief route and direct $3.0 million to an environmental study needed for federal funding for a Heartland Flyer Extension to link Newton and Oklahoma City. The study was not funded.
Advocates and stakeholders have continued to urge state support for passenger rail.

Representatives of Amtrak and the Midwest Interstate Passenger Rail Commission and advocates, including representatives of the Northern Flyer Alliance, Inc. (NFA), have periodically updated legislators. Representatives of Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT), 10 cities, 1 county, and 4 organizations, including NFA plus 11 individuals, provided proponent testimony on 2024 SB 349, which would have authorized a transfer of $5.0 million per year each July 1 in 2024 through 2034 from the State General Fund or KDOT special revenue funds for intercity passenger rail service. A proviso in 2024 SB 28, §142, authorizes FY 2025 loans or grants from the Passenger Rail Revolving Fund for intercity passenger rail service, with approval of the State Finance Council.

Federal Funding to Expand Service

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law) (P.L. 117-58) includes $102.0 billion in total rail funding, including $36.0 billion in authorized funding.

In late 2023, the Governor announced Kansas had received $500,000 in IIJA funding for a Service Development Plan (SDP) for the Heartland Flyer Extension, which means the project could qualify for future IIJA moneys for implementation. An SDP includes an analysis of operations, such as frequency, route timing, station location, and intermodal connections; capital investment needs, including for infrastructure, rolling stock, and stations; financial analysis involving ridership and revenue forecasts, potential funding mechanisms, and cost-sharing opportunities; and an implementation plan to identify roles, responsibilities, and costs.

Source: Passenger Rail Service Development Plan, KDOT.

KDOT, the project sponsor, has stated it is working with Amtrak, the Oklahoma and Texas departments of transportation, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC (BNSF) Passenger Operations, and BNSF Network Operations on the plan. Note: The Heartland Flyer Extension would use BNSF track, as does the Southwest Chief. Amtrak’s relationship with host railroads is governed by federal law (49 USC Subtitle V) and negotiated agreements specifying key terms such as schedules and performance standards.

The Federal Railroad Administration provided additional guidance on the SDP in August 2024 and expects to offer funding opportunities for future steps, including project development, final design, construction, and operation.

For more information, contact:

Jill Shelley
Principal Research Analyst

Eric Adell
Senior Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Hutchinson Correctional Facility Capital Improvement Projects

Background

The Hutchinson Correctional Facility (HCF) is the second-largest facility in Kansas housing male adults, with a capacity of 1,810 residents at four custody levels: maximum, special management, medium, and minimum.

The facility employs 507 full-time state employees, more than 85 contract employees, and has an annual operating budget of $47.3 million.

The majority of the structures composing HCF were built prior to 1912, which makes HCF the oldest correctional facility maintained by the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC). As an older facility, HCF no longer complies with safety requirements, such as minimum cell sizes and fire safety sprinkler systems, set by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the American Correctional Association.

In 2021, KDOC contracted with Carter Global Lee (CGL), a criminal justice consulting firm, to conduct an equipment and facility assessment of the site. CGL’s report concluded that it would be more cost effective to build a new facility than to renovate the existing facility.

The CGL report identified $80.2 million in capital needs over a 10-year period to address deficiencies in mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems; roofs; foundations; exterior enclosures; fire safety systems; and interior constructions. However, not included in this estimate is the cost to bring the facility up to ADA standards, to retrofit air conditioning into the housing units, and to increase cell sizes, as well as other possible issues not addressed due to the inspection being purely visual.

Courtesy of Kansas Department of Corrections

Plans

KDOC plans to construct a new facility incorporating modern correctional design and systems on adjacent land already owned by the agency.

Plans for the facility include:

  • 20,000 square feet of program space;
  • 105,000 square feet of private industry space;
  • Consolidating the medium- and maximum-security housing units for a total of 1,792 beds; and
  • A separate minimum security housing unit outside the secure perimeter with 400 beds.

The agency intends to seek an appropriation of approximately $453 million from the State General Fund for fiscal year 2026 to fund construction of the new facility.

A representative of KDOC presented the agency’s plan for the new facility to the J. Russell (Russ) Jennings Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight on November 19, 2024. The Committee recommended the Joint Committee on State Building Construction move forward with consideration on replacement of HCF.
KDOC plans to present the agency’s Five-year Capital Improvements Plan to the Joint Committee on State Building Construction at the Committee’s next meeting, scheduled for December 2024. During this presentation, the agency intends to discuss the deficiencies of the current HCF and its plans for a new facility.

For more information, contact:

Nicole Hrenchir
Fiscal Analyst

Natalie Nelson
Principal Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Kansas Law Enforcement Fentanyl Response

Fentanyl-related controlled substances (fentanyl) are powerful synthetic, or lab-made, opioids. Fentanyl has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat severe pain related to surgery or complex conditions. However, over the past decade, fentanyl and other illegally made synthetic opioids have been increasingly found in the drug supply and have contributed to a dramatic rise in drug overdose deaths (via KDHE Drug Overdose Data Dashboard, https://www.kdhe.ks.gov/1309/Overdose-Data-Dashboard).

Fentanyl response can generally be broken down into three categories: prevention, treatment, and harm reduction. This article summarizes legislation passed by the Kansas Legislature since 2020 to address these areas.

Kansas Fights Addiction Act

The Kansas Fights Addiction Act was enacted in 2021(KSA 2023 Supp. 75-775 through 75-781). The Act established the Kansas Fights Addiction Fund and the Municipalities Fight Addiction Fund. These funds are the depositories for all moneys received by the State for opioid litigation in which the Attorney General is involved. This money is awarded as grants by the Kansas Fights Addiction Grant Review Board—also established by the Act—taking into account substance abuse prevention, reduction, treatment, or mitigation strategies. In calendar year 2023, $10.1 million was awarded from the first two funding opportunities, focusing on treatment and prevention. The fourth round of requests for proposals opened on August 5, 2024.

Prevention

Joint Fentanyl Impact Team

In 2023, the Legislature appropriated $2.9 million from the State General Fund (SGF) for the Kansas Bureau of Investigation’s (KBI) Surge Initiative for FY 2024. This initiative included funding for investigations of fentanyl drug trafficking operations. This initiative evolved into what the agency refers to now as the Fight Against Fentanyl, the special operations division within KBI dedicated specifically to the Joint Fentanyl Impact Team (JFIT). The JFIT is a collaboration between KBI, Kansas Highway Patrol, local law enforcement, Homeland Security Investigations, and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The objective of the JFIT is to identify and disrupt fentanyl trafficking and distribution networks.

In 2024, the Legislature added 5.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions to the KBI for the JFIT for FY 2024, supported with funding approved during the 2023 Legislative Session. For FY 2025, the Legislature appropriated $6.9 million SGF and added 30.0 FTE positions for KBI’s Fight Against Fentanyl effort. These positions include forensic scientists, analysts, special agents, and support staff.

Increased Penalties

2023 SB 174, among other things, increases penalties for crimes related to fentanyl. This includes increasing unlawful manufacturing of fentanyl to a drug severity level 1 felony from a drug severity level 2 felony. A special sentencing rule was established for the crime of manufacturing material containing any quantity of fentanyl; the rule includes presumptive imprisonment and two times the maximum duration of the presumptive sentence term. The sentence is not subject to appeal. Another special sentencing rule with the same penalty was added for the crime of manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance if the appearance or packaging was likely to be attractive to minors.

2024 SB 414, among other things, amends the penalties for unlawful distribution of a controlled substance to specify the penalty for the crime with respect to material containing any quantity of fentanyl to be the same as for material containing any quantity of heroin or methamphetamine. The bill also specifies penalties for instances where fentanyl is measured by a dosage unit. [Note: Dosage unit is a discrete unit including, but not limited to, a pill, capsule, microdot, or a liquid form not distributed by weight.] Additionally, the bill adds fentanyl to the list of drugs for which knowingly causing or permitting a child to be in an environment when the drug is present constitutes the crime of aggravated endangering a child.

Treatment

2023 Senate Sub. for HB 2010 expands eligibility for certain offenders for the non-prison sanction of placement in a certified drug abuse treatment program. Defendants convicted of a nonperson severity level 7, 8, 9, or 10 felony with a criminal history score of C through I are eligible to participate in a certified drug abuse treatment program, so long as the defendant has no prior convictions of manufacturing, cultivating, or distributing a controlled substance or unlawful acts involving proceeds from drug crimes. Defendants convicted of the same nonperson severity level felonies with a criminal history score of A or B and no prior convictions of manufacturing, cultivating, or distributing a controlled substance or unlawful acts involving process from drug crimes are eligible to participate in a certified drug abuse treatment program, provided the person felonies in the defendant’s history are nondrug severity level 8 or lower, and the court finds the safety of the public will not be jeopardized by placement of the defendant in such a program.

Harm Reduction

2023 SB 174, referenced above, also removes tests used to detect the presence of fentanyl from the definition of “drug paraphernalia” in the Kansas Criminal Code.

2024 House Sub. for SB 419 provides controlled substances “Good Samaritan” protections to those who, due to the use of a controlled substance, are seeking medical attention on their own behalf, seeking medical attention on behalf of another, or rendering medical aid to someone in need. Such a person must fully cooperate with law enforcement and emergency medical service (EMS) personnel while medical assistance is being provided, remain at the scene with the person needing medical assistance until EMS personnel and law enforcement officers arrive, and provide their full name and any other information necessary to provide medical assistance requested by law enforcement or EMS personnel. The bill provides eligible persons immunity from criminal prosecution for the crimes of possession of a controlled substance or possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia to introduce a controlled substance into the human body.

For more information, contact:

Jillian Block
Research Analyst

Iraida Orr
Principal Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

SCOTUS 2023 Term Review and October 2024 Term Preview

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is the ultimate appellate jurisdiction for all federal court cases, as well as state court cases that involve questions of Constitutional or federal law.

SCOTUS begins hearing cases in October of each year and typically issues decisions before the term is concluded, customarily in June or July of the following year.
This article provides a review of cases that were decided in the October 2023 term and a preview of cases that will be heard during the October 2024 term that involve issues recently before the Kansas Legislature.

Civil Asset Forfeiture

In Culley v. Marshall, the issue before SCOTUS was whether the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a post-seizure hearing evaluating probable cause for the seizure prior to a forfeiture hearing. SCOTUS held that, in civil forfeiture cases involving personal property, the Due Process Clause requires a “timely” forfeiture hearing but does not require a separate preliminary probable cause hearing.

The 2024 Legislature enacted SB 458, amending several provisions of the Kansas Standard Asset Seizure and Forfeiture Act. Among the revisions to the Act, SB 458 requires an affidavit describing probable cause supporting forfeiture to be filed in addition to the notice of pending forfeiture in order to commence forfeiture proceedings, and the forfeiture may proceed only after a judge has determined there is probable cause to believe the property is subject to forfeiture under the Act.

Homeless Encampments on Public Property

In City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson, the issue before SCOTUS was whether the city’s enforcement of public camping restrictions against homeless individuals violates the 8th Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. SCOTUS held that enforcement of generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

2023 HB 2430 would have required local governments with ordinances prohibiting public camping, sleeping, or obstruction of public rights-of-way to enforce such ordinances. The bill would also have made the use of public lands for unauthorized sleeping, camping, or long-term shelters an unclassified nonperson misdemeanor.

2024 HB 2723 would have made appropriations for fiscal year 2025 for a grant program administered by the Kansas Department for Aging and Disability Services to fund homeless shelter infrastructure for local governments. Local governments that failed to enforce ordinances regarding camping and vagrancy would be required to pay back any grant funds awarded to them under the bill.

Neither bill advanced out of the House Committee on Welfare Reform during the 2023-2024 biennium.

Gender-affirming Care for Minors

In United States v. Skrmetti, the issue before SCOTUS is whether a Tennessee law that prohibits all medical treatments intended to allow “a minor to identify with, or live as, a purported identity inconsistent with the minor’s sex” or to treat “purported discomfort or distress from a discordance between the minor’s sex and asserted identity,” violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. As of September 2024, the parties have filed briefs in the case but no oral argument date has been set.

House Sub. for SB 233, passed by the 2024 Legislature and vetoed by the Governor, would have enacted the Forbidding Abusive Child Transitions Act. The bill would have prohibited health care providers from treating children whose gender identity is inconsistent with the child’s sex.

Age Verification for Certain Websites

In Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, the issue before SCOTUS is whether a law burdening adults’ access to protected speech, in order to protect minors’ access to sexual materials, should be reviewed under a rational-basis test or strict scrutiny test. In July 2024, SCOTUS granted a motion to extend the time for filing briefs in the case to September 16, 2024 (petitioner’s brief), and November 15, 2024 (respondent’s brief).

2024 SB 394 requires the use of age verification technology to permit access to internet websites containing material that is harmful to minors. The bill contains similar language to laws enacted in other states that have been subsequently challenged in federal court, including the Texas law at issue in Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton.

Regulation of E-cigarette Products

In Food and Drug Administration v. Wages and White Lion Investments, LLC, the issue before SCOTUS involves whether the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) acted arbitrarily when it denied marketing authorization applications for new e-cigarette products. As of September 2024, the parties have filed briefs in the case but no oral argument date has been set.

2024 HB 2801 would have required manufacturers of e-cigarette products to certify that FDA approval has been obtained for each of its products offered for sale in Kansas and would have required establishment of a statewide database to list such approved products. The House Committee on Federal and State Affairs held a hearing on the bill, but no final action was taken before adjournment.

For more information, contact:

Natalie Nelson
Principal Research Analyst

Jordan Milholland
Managing Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

KPERS Tier 3

Created in 1961, the primary purpose of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS or Retirement System) is to accumulate sufficient resources to pay benefits to retired state workers statutorily entitled to those benefits. As of December 2023, KPERS manages approximately $26.41 billion on a market value basis and $27.58 billion in actuarially valued assets.

Membership in the original retirement plan, now referred to KPERS Tier 1 (Tier 1), was offered to state and local public employees qualified under the new law and whose participating employers chose to affiliate with KPERS. In 2007, KPERS Tier 2 (Tier 2) was created for state, school, and local public employees becoming members on and after July 1, 2009.

In response to the 2008 recession and a 2011 study commission, the 2012 Legislature created KPERS Tier 3 (Tier 3), a cash balance plan for members employed on or after January 1, 2015.

KPERS Tier 3 Plan Design

The Tier 3 cash balance plan is similar to defined benefit plans—like Tiers 1 and 2—with characteristics of defined contribution plans—like 401(k) or 403(b) plans.

Similar to defined contribution plans, members have an account balance for employee contributions and employer credits. These accounts are notational (that is, all assets remain in the KPERS Trust Fund), and risks are shared between employer and employee.
Similar to defined benefit plans, retirement benefits are paid for life, and notational accounts are guaranteed a minimum interest crediting rate. Additionally, assets are pooled, and employer contributions are determined by an annual actuarial valuation.

KPERS State School Active Members
KPERS Local Active Members

Employee Membership

Membership is mandatory for all employees in covered positions, other than elected officials. As of December 2023, Tier 3 constitutes the largest share of members among KPERS plans, with 57,209 active State/School members and 22,657 active Local members.

Retirement Eligibility

Members are eligible for normal retirement at age 65 with 5 years of service or age 60 with 30 years of service. Since 2015, the Tier 3 plan serves as the primary retirement plan for new KPERS members.

Members are eligible for early retirement at age 55 with 10 years of service. However, because of Tier 3’s design as a cash balance plan, early retirement benefits are based on the account balance and annuity factor at retirement age.

Vesting Requirements

Vesting (the period of employment necessary for benefits to accrue) occurs at five years of service. If termination of employment occurs before vesting, interest would be paid for the first two years if employee contributions are not withdrawn. Conversely, if termination occurs after vesting, members have the option to leave contributions and draw retirement benefits when eligible or withdraw employee contributions and interest but forfeit all employer credits and service.

Retirement Benefits

By default, retirement distribution occurs as a single life with 10-year certain annuity. Differing from Tier 1 and Tier 2 plan designs, the Tier 3 plan is based on the member’s contributions and retirement credits earned from the employer, which are tracked throughout the member’s career. Interest is applied to the two accounts, and the benefit is based on the total account balance at retirement and has nothing to do with the number of years worked or finalized average salary.

The two components of interest credited under the cash balance plan are the guaranteed portion and the dividend. The guaranteed interest credit rate on the member and employer accounts is 4.0 percent, and the discretionary dividend credit is a dividend design (KSA 74-49,3061) equal to 75.0 percent of the five-year average net compound rate of return above 6.0 percent, as determined by the KPERS Board for the calendar year and the four preceding years.

Other Tier 3 benefits include the following:

  • Withdrawal Benefit. Members who terminate employment may withdraw contributions with interest after the last day on the employer’s payroll;
  • Disability Benefit. Tier 3 members who become disabled will have their accounts credited with employee contributions, employer retirement credits, interest credits, and dividends for the entire period of disability, but no later than the normal retirement age;
  • Post-retirement Benefit. Tier 3 has a self-funded cost-of-living adjustment of 1.0 or 2.0 percent, but that benefit is funded by the member through an actuarial reduction to the member’s lifetime benefit;
  • Death Benefit. If a vested Tier 3 member dies before attaining normal retirement age and has a spouse named as a primary beneficiary, that member’s retirement benefit would be distributed to the spouse when eligible; and
  • Post-retirement Death. A lump sump amount of $4,000 is made payable to the member’s beneficiary.

Employee Contributions

Members contribute 6.0 percent of pre-tax compensation, and contributions vest immediately. Interest is credited quarterly.

Employer Contributions

Employers contribute 3.0 percent for less than 5 years of service; 4.0 percent for at least 5 but less than 12 years of service; 5.0 percent for at least 12 but less than 24 years of service; and 6.0 percent for 24 or more years of service. Employer contributions are 12.54 percent in FY 2025 and 12.68 percent for FY 2026.

For more information, contact:

Steven Wu
Managing Fiscal Analyst

Dylan Dear
Assistant Director for Fiscal Affairs

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Approaches to Property Tax Limits

Property tax relief is commonly sought through targeted policies intended to reduce the tax burden for individual taxpayers, such as exemptions for fixed- or lower-income individuals. Other policies aim to provide more broad-based property tax relief by limiting the growth of the components used to determine the amount of tax paid. Approaches to tax relief that fall under the latter are the subject of this article.

Ad Valorem Taxation of Real Property in Kansas

In Kansas, real property—which includes real estate and associated property rights—is subject to ad valorem (according to value) property tax as a source of revenue for county and local governments. The tax to be assessed in a given year is determined by multiplying together the values of three components, as follows:

  • The value of the property as determined by each county appraiser each year according to constitutional and statutory requirements;
  • An assessment ratio, as defined by the Kansas Constitution, according to use classification; and
  • A mill levy rate (or millage rate) determined by dividing the total amount of revenue to be levied by the total value of property to be taxed within the jurisdiction.

Approaches to Property Tax Limits

Policy approaches that attempt to broadly limit property tax growth include levy limits, rate limits, and assessment limits:

  • Levy limits (or revenue limits) limit the amount that total property tax collections made by a taxing jurisdiction may increase from one year to the next;
  • Rate limits restrict growth of millage rates that taxing jurisdictions can set and may be applied by setting an absolute maximum rate or by limiting the relative amount that rates may grow from one year to the next; and
  • Assessment limits restrict the amount that a property’s valuation may increase from one year to the next.

Rate and levy limits often have exemptions that enable the limits to be exceeded under certain conditions, such as when authorized by voter approval or when certain conditions of the purpose for revenue increases are met.

Among states that utilize assessment limits, a common exception is that the limitation does not apply in years where certain events transpire, such as improvement or sale of the property, among others.

Approaches to Property Tax Limits in Kansas

Kansas does not currently impose direct limitations on levies, mill rates, or valuation increases; however, Kansas has had both levy limits and rate limits throughout much of its history.

From 1908 until 1933, statute provided that individual taxing entities could not increase amounts levied in any year by more than 2 percent, with a similar limitation placed on the aggregate amount levied by local governments beginning in 1933. In 1970, the Legislature enacted temporary limits on growth of operating budgets for all taxing entities (a form of levy limit), while making reforms to the earlier levy limits that persisted in largely the same form until the repeal of the so-called “tax lid” in 1999. For most of that period, tax levies could be increased beyond limits (up to a maximum rate increase) if approved by voters.

Legislation referred to as “truth in taxation” was adopted in 1999 that imposed a general limit on any levy increase from one year to the next without the adoption of a resolution or ordinance, unless the increase was attributable to new improvements to real property, increased personal property valuation, newly applicable taxing jurisdictions, or changes in the use of property.

A new form of the tax lid, adopted in 2015 and repealed in 2021 by the adoption of SB 13, generally limited increases in levy amounts to the rate of inflation unless approved by voters. Since that time, Kansas has applied a requirement that mill rates beyond what would generate the same amount of revenue as in the previous year (the “Revenue Neutral Rate”) require special notice and a public hearing afforded to taxpayers.

Recent Legislative Proposals

More recently, the Legislature has considered policies that would have imposed limits on valuation growth. 2023 SCR 1611 would have amended the Kansas Constitution to limit the annual growth of the valuation of a parcel of real property to 4 percent, except in years when certain events occur, including when new construction or improvements have been made to the property or when the title to the property is transferred, changed, or conveyed to another person. Similar approaches have been proposed in additional legislation, including 2024 SCR 1621 and the 2024 Special Session resolutions SCR 1603 and SCR 1604.

During the 2023 Interim, the 2023 Special Committee on Taxation considered property valuation issues, including those related to the subject matter of 2023 SCR 1611 and additional items. Among the recommendations made by the Committee was that the Legislature consider implementation of tax levy limitations or a possible hybrid of SCR 1611 and the limitation approach utilized in Florida, which imposes similar limitations but includes a component allowing taxpayers to retain a portion of their growth limitation benefit, even when changing residences.

For more information, contact:

Eric Adell
Senior Research Analyst

Edward Penner
Assistant Director for Research
Principal Economist

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Disabled Veterans Property Tax Relief

Disabled veterans are currently entitled to residential property tax relief measures in all 50 states; however, the qualifications and scope of relief vary greatly from state to state. Note: All provisions discussed in this article refer to the primary residence of a disabled veteran.

Veterans Administration Disability Ratings

Typically, state or local laws require a person to be designated by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) as having some sort of compensable service-connected disability. In other words, the disability must be connected to the person’s service in a branch of the U.S. military and must also meet the threshold for disability compensation. For veterans under the care of the VA, their service-connected disability or disabilities are assigned a rating, with 10 percent being the lowest rating. Disability ratings may then be combined up to a maximum total of 100 percent. For additional information on disability ratings and compensation, please visit the VA’s website.

State Qualifications—Disability Rating-only

In the majority of states, disabled veterans may receive a residential property tax benefit regardless of income or property valuation.

100 Percent Disability-only

A total of 27 states offer either a complete or partial exemption of residential property taxes for primary residences of veterans with a 100 percent disability rating-only.

Less than 100 Percent Disability

In 11 states, persons with less than a 100 percent disability rating may receive an exemption of a portion of the taxable value of their primary residence, resulting in a lower amount of residential property taxes due. In many of these states, the exemption is proportional to disability rating. The exemption threshold also varies greatly, with some states providing some benefit at 10 percent disability and others having minimum thresholds between 40 to 90 percent.

Other Qualifications and Specific Benefits

Delaware offers full exemption from school district residential property taxes for 100 percent disabled veterans. In Hawaii, county laws and ordinances govern residential property tax, with some counties granting a 100 percent exemption to certain disabled veterans, with a minimum tax due of $150 in each county. Idaho law provides a $1,500 credit toward residential property taxes for persons with a 100 percent disability rating. Missouri provides a 100 percent exemption for veterans who have a 100 percent disability rating and who were also a prisoner of war.

State Qualifications—Income or Valuation Threshold

In eight states, residential property tax benefits for disabled veterans are only extended to those who meet certain income thresholds or whose primary residence is valued under a certain amount for taxing purposes.

Disabled Veterans Property Tax Reduction or Exemption by State - Map chart

Current Kansas Benefits

The state Senior or Disabled Veteran program, enacted in 2022, is available to Kansas residents who, for the entire year:

  • Owned and occupied a home in Kansas;
  • Were 65 years or older or a disabled veteran with a 50 percent or greater permanent disability rating; and
  • Had a household income at or below the threshold for eligibility, which was $53,600 in 2023.

If the home’s value did not exceed $350,000 in their base year, the taxpayer can receive a refund in the amount of the difference between the current year and base year tax amount, with the base year being the first year the taxpayer was eligible for the program.

Veterans’ Valor Property Tax Relief Act—2024 HB 2096

HB 2096 (2024) would have enacted the Veterans’ Valor Property Tax Relief Act, which would have created a refundable income tax credit for veterans with a 100 percent permanent disability or unemployable rating by the VA. The credit would have refunded 75 percent of the property and ad valorem taxes paid on the residential property of such veteran. Taxpayers receiving the credit would have been prohibited from receiving certain other property tax relief credits and would not have been subject to income or valuation requirements. HB 2096 included other tax provisions and was vetoed by the Governor. The Legislature did not make a motion to override the veto.

For more information, contact:

Jordan Milholland
Managing Research Analyst

Molly Pratt
Fiscal Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181

Residential Property Tax Relief Programs

Kansas has had some form of property tax relief program for certain residential property since 1970, when the Homestead Property Tax Relief Act was enacted. Today, Kansas has three such programs, each differing in their recipients and benefits.

This article summarizes the key elements of Kansas’ Homestead Property Tax Refund Act, Selective Assistance for Effective Senior Relief (SAFESR) program, and a newer “tax freeze” benefit option.

Homestead Property Tax Refund Act

Kansas became the sixth state to adopt a property tax “circuit breaker” program in 1970 with the enactment of the Homestead Property Tax Refund Act.

This program provides a refund of a portion of property taxes paid, up to $700. The refund amount is determined using a sliding scale where participants with higher incomes receive a smaller percent and participants with lower incomes receive a greater percent.

Taxpayers with incomes below $6,000 are entitled to 100 percent of their property tax or the cap of $700, whichever is lower. For each $1,000 increase in the income amount, the benefit amount decreases by 4 percentage points to $16,000 and 60 percent, at which point the sliding scale adjusts to 5 percentage points for each $1,000 of income until leveling off at 5 percent for all eligible incomes over $26,000.

This program requires participants to have household incomes of $40,500 or less as of 2023 (the actual amount is annually indexed for inflation) and to meet at least one additional eligibility criteria for someone in the household:

  • Age 55 or above;
  • A dependent under the age of 18; or
  • Blind or otherwise disabled.

Selective Assistance for Effective Senior Relief

In 2008, Kansas enacted a simplified version of a circuit breaker program with a generally larger benefit and heightened eligibility thresholds.

This option required someone in the household to be age 65 or above and the household income to be equal to or less than 120 percent of the federal poverty level for a family of two people, which equaled $23,700 for 2023.

The benefit paid under this program is 75 percent of the total property tax paid, without the $700 limit applicable to the Homestead program, resulting in larger average refunds than the Homestead program but fewer eligible claimants.

“Tax Freeze” Option

In 2022, Kansas enacted a new approach to determining the amount of property tax relief afforded to eligible beneficiaries.

This option, which attempts to “freeze” taxpayers’ bills at the amount for the year in which they first became eligible for the program, grants a benefit that is the difference between the current year’s tax and the tax amount for the base year. Accordingly, the size of the benefit is typically linked to the length of time the taxpayer has been eligible for the program.

The base year is 2021 or the first year the taxpayer meets the eligibility criteria for the program, whichever is later.

The program requires participants to have household incomes of $53,600 or less, as of 2023 (actual amount indexed for inflation), and to be either age 65 or above or a disabled veteran with a permanent disability rating of at least 50 percent.

Provisions Applicable to Multiple Programs

Each program contains a provision prohibiting beneficiaries under the program from being eligible for either of the other two programs, meaning a taxpayer may only receive benefits under one program per year. However, taxpayers are able to participate in different programs in different years.

For all programs, household income is defined more broadly than taxable income is defined for individual income tax purposes, specifically including 50 percent of Social Security benefits, regardless of whether they are subject to tax and other income categories.

All programs generally require the claimant to be a resident of Kansas for the entire year and to own their home.

Each program has a residential valuation limitation of $350,000. However, this limitation only applies to the base year for the tax freeze option.

All programs provide an option for the refund amount to be automatically applied to the taxpayer’s property tax bill for the following year, thereby directly lessening the amount of property tax required to be paid in all years other than the first year of participation in the program.

For more information, contact:

Edward Penner
Assistant Director for Research
Principal Economist

Eric Adell
Senior Research Analyst

Kansas Legislative Research Department
Kansas State Capitol Building
300 W. 10th, Suite 68-West
Topeka KS 66612-1504
kslegres@klrd.ks.gov
(785) 296-3181