Briefing Book 2026: Cybersecurity Update

Cybersecurity threats continue to pose an escalating risk to state and local governments, with attacks becoming more sophisticated, diverse, and costly. Recent data shows large increases in cyberattacks across all categories—from ransomware and data breaches to state-sponsored espionage, and supply chain compromises—making cybersecurity preparedness more critical for all levels of governments in Kansas.

Understanding the Cybersecurity Threat Landscape

Cybercriminals employ various tactics to compromise government systems and data, including:

  • Ransomware: Malicious software that encrypts files and demands payment for decryption;
  • Data Breaches: Unauthorized access to sensitive information for theft or exposure;
  • Phishing: Fraudulent communications designed to steal credentials or install malware;
  • Supply Chain Attacks: Compromising third-party vendors to access target organizations;
  • State-sponsored Attacks: Nation-state actors conducting espionage or disruption operations; and
  • Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS): Overwhelming systems to disrupt operations.

These tactics typically allow for access to systems through phishing emails, malicious downloads, unpatched vulnerabilities in software, or compromised user credentials. Using that access, cybercriminals may steal sensitive data, disrupt operations, demand ransom payments, or establish persistent access for ongoing surveillance.

Threat Statistics

Cybersecurity threats are at all-time highs as statistics indicate approximately 4,000 cyberattacks happen daily, or an average of one attack every three seconds. According to multiple cybersecurity firms, worldwide cybercrime costs are estimated to reach $10.5 trillion annually by 2025.

Cyberattacks on state and local governments increased by 48.0 percent between 2023 and 2024, with 34.0 percent of state and local government organizations indicating they were hit by ransomware in 2024. The broader cybersecurity community has taken notice of these trends, with 72.0 percent of cybersecurity professionals reporting increased cyber risks, especially social engineering and ransomware. The financial impact has also risen, as the average cost of a data breach reached $4.88 million in 2024.

Emerging Threats

Several trends are changing the threat landscape, with artificial intelligence (AI) playing an increasingly prominent role in cyberattacks. AI-enhanced attacks have led to a surge in phishing incidents, which increased by 4,151.0 percent since ChatGPT’s release, as AI makes social engineering more sophisticated and harder to detect. Simultaneously, attackers are shifting their focus toward supply chain targeting, increasingly concentrating on managed service providers (organizations that manage information technology (IT) infrastructure remotely), and third-party vendors to access multiple clients simultaneously through a vulnerability. These evolving tactics have also intensified pressure on critical infrastructure, with 16.0 percent of reported ransomware attacks in 2024 specifically targeting utilities and energy infrastructure.

Kansas Incidents

Kansas has experienced multiple significant cyber incidents affecting critical government services. In October 2023, a cyberattack on the Kansas Judicial Branch’s IT systems shut down online access to the court system for several months, severely disrupting legal proceedings across the state.

The following year brought additional challenges when an attack on the City of Wichita in May 2024 disrupted city services and forced the municipality to revert to cash-only payments for city services. A September 2024 breach in Franklin County exposed sensitive poll book records containing names, social security numbers, vaccination information, and insurance billing information of 30,000 residents, demonstrating the broad scope of personal data at risk in government cyber incidents. So far, there has not been a major state-level incident in 2025.

National Incidents

Recent attacks on governmental entities nationwide show the cyber threats facing public sector organizations. In Bucks County, Pennsylvania, a cyberattack disabled 911 terminals in emergency vehicles, creating operational disruptions that required the National Guard to assist with emergency services.

Fulton County, Georgia, experienced a multi-week system outage that affected utilities, courts, and tax networks, demonstrating how ransomware can impact multiple government functions simultaneously.

The city of Columbus, Ohio, suffered a particularly damaging breach where three terabytes of sensitive data was stolen and subsequently leaked online after the city refused to pay ransom demands.

The education sector has also been targeted, with the Chicago Public School District experiencing a data breach that affected over 700,000 current and former students.
Federal agencies have also been attacked, as Chinese hackers breached a third-party vendor serving the U.S. Department of the Treasury, gaining access to over 3,000 files.

The judicial system faced significant disruption when Washington’s state courts experienced a statewide court system outage caused by a cyberattack. As recently as August 24, 2025 Nevada’s state government suffered a major attack that disrupted services statewide, including Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) operations, law enforcement dispatch systems, and state agency websites, forcing many offices to close for extended periods. The attackers successfully exfiltrated data from state networks, though officials have not yet identified what specific information was stolen.

Several high-profile private sector breaches have had significant government and public implications as well. Change Healthcare suffered the largest health care breach in U.S. history, affecting 100 million individuals and costing the company $2.87 billion, creating widespread disruptions in health care services and insurance processing. AT&T experienced a breach of its cloud environment that affected call records of over 100 million users, raising national security concerns about telecommunications infrastructure. A supply chain attack on Starbucks affected 11,000 stores nationwide, demonstrating how attacks on major retailers can impact local communities and economic activity across the country.

Kansas State 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 State’s security posture. The most significant recent effort is the enactment of 2024 House Sub. for SB 291.

2024 House Sub. for SB 291

The legislation requires Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) for each branch of government to work with 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 implemented by July 1, 2028.

NIST CSF 2.0 includes 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: Taking action during or after a cybersecurity event;
  • Recover: Restoring capabilities and services after a cybersecurity event; and
  • Govern: Establishing and monitoring policies, processes, and oversight to manage cybersecurity risks.

Kansas is currently the only state to adopt a requirement for NIST CSF 2.0 compliance. Federal agencies are the only other entities requiring similar compliance.

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.
All provisions will expire on July 1, 2026, and the law will need to be reviewed during the 2026 Legislative Session. The House of Representatives adopted 2025 HB 2271 which, among other things, would have removed the referenced sunset provisions contained within 2024 House Sub. for SB 291. This legislation is currently in the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, and could be considered during the 2026 Session.

Additionally, the Joint Committee on Information Technology held discussion and received testimony on the provisions of 2024 House Sub. for SB 291 during the 2025 Interim and is expected to make several recommendations for consideration by the 2026 Legislature.

State Appropriations

In 2025, the Office of Information Technology Services (OITS) requested, and the Legislature appropriated, $2.0 million for the creation and operation of a 24/7 Security Operations Center (SOC). The SOC provides real-time threat detection and incident response for the State’s network. In 2024, OITS modified its rate structure to eliminate the agency charge-back for cybersecurity services, opting to include those costs as a core portion of its services. Essentially, state agencies utilizing OITS services no longer pay a separate fee for cybersecurity services.

By James Fisher and Matthew Willis.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Electricity Capacity

Electricity capacity refers to the total amount of energy a device or system can store and release to utilities and customers.

2025 Electric Supply and Demand Biennial Report

KSA 66-1282 requires the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) to produce a report on electric supply and demand for all electric utilities in Kansas every two years. Electricity supply refers to the actual amount of energy produced and delivered over a period of time. Statute requires the report to include information pertaining to generation capacity needs, system peak capacity needs, and renewable generation. This reporting requirement became effective in 2011, and required the first report to be submitted by February 1, 2013.

In order to obtain data needed for the Electric Supply and Demand Biennial Report (Biennial Report), the KCC issued an order on October 29, 2012, requiring electric generators in Kansas to file this information annually. The KCC indicates the following generators are required to participate:

  • Evergy Kansas;
  • Empire District Electric Company;
  • Kansas Power Pool;
  • Kansas Municipal Energy Agency;
  • Kansas Electric Power Cooperatives;
  • Midwest Energy;
  • Sunflower Electric Power Corporation; and
  • Kansas City Board of Public Utilities.

The 2025 publication of the Biennial Report is available online through the KCC’s website.

Generation Capacity Needs and System Peak Capacity Planning

Section one of the Biennial Report includes information on generation capacity, which refers to the maximum amount of electric power a generating unit can produce at any given time and peak capacity planning. The report indicates that all major utilities in Kansas are members of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP), and the SPP operates as the Regional Transmission Organization (RTO) in Kansas. As an RTO, the SPP has to meet certain federal requirements to ensure reliable and adequate power supplies and reserves are maintained by members.

According to the Biennial Report, in 2023, investor-owned utilities (IOUs) operated at a deficit of 950 megawatts (MW) while cooperatives (co-ops) and municipal utilities had surpluses of 83 and 73 MW, respectively. Those deficits are estimated to increase to 7,195 MW for IOUs by 2043, and co-ops and municipal utilities are estimated to have deficits of 186 and 129 MW by 2043.

Utilities that operate at a deficit are required to pay penalties. The Biennial Report shows long-term positions held by utilities and does not include short-term capacity contracts. The deficit illustrated in 2023 in the report can be explained by the use of short-term capacity contracts that are not captured in the report.

Reliability Concerns

The SPP has expressed concerns facing the industry. In an article published by the Kansas Reflector on April 23, 2025, the SPP was quoted in a letter posted online as saying: “We are facing an increase in extreme weather events that are causing grid emergencies, tight operating conditions, and risks to human health and safety. In the past, there were only a few weeks in summer when SPP risked running out of energy. Now, we are issuing grid alerts throughout the summer as well as during winter. Our risk of having inadequate supply to meet demand has greatly increased, and grid emergencies are likely to last longer, cause more damage and increase risks to human health and safety.”

On July 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Energy stated United States’ power outages could increase by 100 times in five years if suppliers fail to add capacity during peak demand.

Electricity Capacity Issues in Kansas

During an April meeting of the KCC’s Commissioners, KCC staff explained support for Evergy building two new natural gas plants in Kansas. Concerns exist regarding whether solar and wind generation will continue in Kansas, with solar tariffs placed on certain countries and uncertainty surrounding clean energy tax credits. There have also been issues with obtaining permits to build new solar facilities, as more local communities do not support hosting those facilities.

Furthermore, as more power generation comes online, retirement of older assets are also assessed. In Kansas, Evergy has explored and is planning on the retirement of the Jeffery Energy Center, which is a coal plant located in Pottawatomie County. Evergy has stated its intent to close all remaining coal generation plants by 2040, and within the next 10 years, will retire nearly 1,200 MW of coal-based energy and add 3,200 MW of renewable generation.

The addition and deletion of certain power generation by utilities represents the continual changes in energy portfolios as utilities work to create stable energy production that meets the projected needs and stresses on the system.

By Luke J. Drury and Kate Smeltzer.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Next Generation 911

What is Next Generation 911?

Next Generation 911 (NG911) is a digital, internet protocol (IP)-based system replacing the analog 911 infrastructure that has been in place for decades. Along with the digital transfer of information, NG911 utilizes geographic information systems (GIS) to help emergency dispatchers provide a location where the emergency call is taking place.

An analog system uses continuous electrical signals, such as voltage or current, sent over telephone wires to transmit data. A digital system uses a discrete, binary system (0s and 1s) to store and transmit information. An analog system uses continuous signals that are susceptible to data loss during transmission because of the physical aspect of transmitting the information from one source to the receiving source. A digital system using a discrete system is less likely to lose information because it is sending and receiving a fixed amount of data.

NG911, therefore, uses a digital system that bolsters the 911 system to overcome the drawbacks of an analog system. It enhances the capacity of emergency number services to create a faster and more resilient system that allows voice, photos, videos, and text messages to be sent from the public to the 911 network seamlessly, rather than relying on the location of specific phone numbers when calling a public safety answering point (PSAP).

A PSAP is the location where 911 emergency calls are received and processed and then dispatched to the appropriate emergency services. PSAPs have historically processed only analog systems. However, with newer technology and equipment, a PSAP is able to process the digital information that NG911 utilizes. That allows a person in an emergency situation to send voice and video phone calls, text messages, photos, or videos.

Next Generation 911 in Kansas

The Kansas State 911 Board (Board) was created by the Kansas 911 Act found in KSA 12-5362 et seq. It is tasked with monitoring the delivery of 911 services and developing strategies for future enhancement to the 911 system. The Board replaced the Kansas 911 Coordinating Council in 2024.

In 2012, the U.S. Congress created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet) as an independent authority within the National Telecommunications and Information Administration to provide emergency responders with a nationwide, high-speed, wireless broadband network dedicated to public safety use. In November 2013, Kansas began researching how to implement a NG911 system in Kansas. FirstNet awarded the federal contract to AT&T to implement this system in April 2014. FirstNet would provide a plan for each of the 50 states to build a single, national, integrated network dedicated to public safety communications.

Kansas was in the process of data collection to understand how opting into the FirstNet services would impact Kansas financially and the state’s 911 systems’ ability to respond to emergency calls. This included gathering GIS data, imagery acquisition for the NG911 system, and how to incorporate PSAPs into this new system. The plan for Kansas was expected to be sent to the Governor in 2017 to understand how Kansas would be able to transition to NG911 services through FirstNet.

When Kansas opted into the FirstNet plan on August 15, 2017, under then-Governor Brownback, Kansas became one of the first adopters of NG911 services.

By Walter Schmidt and Nicole Bergman.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Judicial Deference

Prior to the 2023-2024 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, the landmark decision in the area of judicial deference to administrative agencies was Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (1984), which was recently overturned by Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimando (2024). This article provides a brief history of U.S. Supreme Court precedence on judicial deference and surveys the current status of deference amongst the 50 states.

Evolution of Judicial Deference

Before Chevron was decided in 1984, the controlling doctrine had been the decision in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. (1944), which directed courts to consider several factors that allowed the court to “give weight to” an agency’s interpretation of the law, but did not direct a court to give deference to such interpretation.

The Chevron decision, colloquially referred to as “the Chevron Doctrine” overturned the Skidmore decision and directed courts to defer to an administrative agency’s interpretation of the law in matters where the text of the policy is ambiguous, assuming the agency’s interpretation of the law is a permissible construction of the statute.

During the 2023-2024 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, a decision was handed down in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimando (2024), overturning the Chevron decision and directing federal courts to interpret the law, rather than rely on or defer to an agency’s construction of the law when the statute or regulation is ambiguous.

State Court Judicial Deference

State policies on judicial deference to administrative agencies vary widely. State policies generally fall into one of four categories:

  • More Deference (22 states);
  • Possible Deference (7 states);
  • Possible Weight (6 states); or
  • No Deference (15 states).

States that are categorized as “More Deference” tend to have elements of the Chevron doctrine present in the controlling decisions or statutes. These states may follow rulings that state a court “shall defer” or that require a court to “give great weight to” an agency’s interpretation of a law. Additionally, caselaw in these states may consider the technical expertise of an agency in carrying out related laws.

States that are categorized as “Possible Deference” may direct a court to review the law de novo, but also direct the court to give deference if it is reasonable under the circumstances. [Note: De novo is a legal term meaning “from the beginning,” without being bound by a previous entity’s judgment.] State courts in this category would not be required to give deference.

States that are categorized as “Possible Weight” tend to have more of a Skidmore approach, by giving weight to certain factors that may weigh in the favor of an agency’s interpretation. However, some state court decisions have also made distinctions between the terms “weight” and “deference” by stating that deference would require the court to follow an interpretation whereas weight allows for persuasiveness.

States that are categorized as “No Deference” may have caselaw that requires court to review the law de novo or explicitly directs a court to give no deference to an agency’s interpretation. The majority of these controlling policies appear to have been handed down post-Chevron, with some states recently overruling previously controlling deference caselaw through either a new decision or by passing a statute.

Map chart of the USA showing which states give which type of judicial deference. Updated in September 2025.

Judicial Deference in Kansas

In Kansas, courts follow precedent that requires no deference be given by a court to the interpretation or construction of a statute by an administrative agency. In 2013, the Kansas Supreme Court held:

In dealing with a statute in a workers compensation appeal, no deference is due…To be crystal clear, we unequivocally declare here that the doctrine of operative construction…has been abandoned, abrogated, disallowed, disapproved, ousted, overruled, and permanently relegated to the history books where it will never again affect the outcome of an appeal.

During the 2025 Session, the Kansas Legislature considered SB 222, which would require courts to give no deference to a state agency’s interpretation of a statute, by instructing a court to “exercise any remaining doubt in a way that is consistent with an individual’s fundamental constitutional rights.”

SB 222 was amended and passed by the Senate in 2025. The bill is in the House Committee on Judiciary, where it received a hearing in 2025.

By Jordan Milholland and Natalie Nelson.
See Judiciary, Corrections, and Juvenile Justice for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Extraterritorial Zoning

Cities are authorized under KSA 12-715b et seq. and KSA 12-754(a) to adopt zoning regulations affecting land located outside the city but within three miles of its boundaries, or one-half the distance to another city if that distance is less than three miles. This is colloquially referred to as “extraterritorial zoning” or the “three-mile zone.” The city may do so only if the board of county commissioners has not adopted zoning regulations for the extraterritorial zone, and if the city meets certain requirements. Such authorization is not extended to zoning parcels of agricultural land in excess of three acres under one ownership.

City and county planning commission requirements of KSA 12-741 et seq. also apply.

City Requirements for Extraterritorial Zoning

Planning Commission

First, the city must establish a planning commission. If the planning commission is for the city alone, the membership of this commission must include two members residing in the extraterritorial zone. Alternatively, the city may be part of a joint metropolitan or joint regional planning commission in cooperation with the county in which the city is located (KSA 12-715b(a) and KSA 12-744(a)).

Comprehensive Plan

One of the planning commissions established as described above must adopt a comprehensive plan to be approved by the city governing body or the board of county commissioners.

The planning commission is authorized to make comprehensive surveys and studies of past and present conditions and trends relating to any element deemed necessary to the comprehensive plan. The proposed plan must show the commission’s recommendations, including:

  • The general location, extent, and relation of the use of land;
  • Population and building intensity standards and restrictions and their application;
  • Public facilities, including transportation facilities of all types relating to the transport of persons or goods;
  • Public improvement programming based upon determination of urgency;
  • The major sources and expenditure of public revenue, including long-range financial plans for the financing of public facilities and capital improvements;
  • Utilization and conservation of natural resources; and
  • Any other element deemed necessary to the proper development or redevelopment of the area.

Before adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan, the planning commission must hold a public hearing, notice of which must be published at least once in the official newspaper at least 20 days prior to the date of the hearing.

Upon adoption of the appropriate resolution by a majority vote of all members of the planning commission, the comprehensive plan is submitted to the appropriate governing body.

A planning commission must review or reconsider its plan at least once each year.
For a city to exercise its extraterritorial zoning authority, the comprehensive plan recommended by the planning commission must be approved by the city governing body or the board of county commissioners (KSA 12-715b(b)).

Notification of County Commission

The final step for a city to utilize extraterritorial zoning is to notify the board of county commissioners in writing 60 days before initiating zoning regulations by ordinance of the city’s intention to do so.

At any point in the city’s process of extraterritorial zoning, including after adopting zoning regulations by ordinance, if the board of county commissioners adopts zoning regulations governing the same tracts of land in accordance with statute, all city zoning regulations and authority to adopt zoning regulations for land outside the city must cease on the date the county places such zoning regulations in effect.

Recent Legislation Addressing Extraterritorial Zoning

2025 HB 2025 and SB 37; 2023 HB 2150

2025 HB 2025 and SB 37 were mirror bills introduced by the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs and the Senate Committee on Federal and State Affairs, both at the request of committee members. The bills would rescind a city planning commission’s authority to apply subdivision regulations to land in the extraterritorial zone with extraterritorial zoning regulations. The bills would also repeal statutes providing for the extraterritorial zoning process for cities and providing that all city zoning regulations and authority to adopt zoning regulations for land outside city limits shall cease and terminate as to any tracts of land lying within such area on the date the county places in effect zoning regulations governing the same tracts of land in accordance with statute.

HB 2025 was referred to the House Committee on Local Government and was heard on January 29, 2025. SB 37 was referred to the Senate Committee on Local Government, Transparency, and Ethics and received a hearing on January 30, 2025. Both bills remain in committee for the start of the 2026 session.

2023 HB 2150, which had the same provisions, was introduced by 26 representatives. It received a hearing and died in committee.

2020 SB 248

2020 SB 248 would have directed the governing body of any city or county that proposes to enter an interlocal cooperation agreement with a city or county regarding a city establishing extraterritorial zoning or subdivision regulations to hold a public hearing on the proposed agreement. The bill would have provided for notice of the hearing to be given in a specified manner.

Additionally, the bill would have added a step for cities to hold a public hearing specifically on the proposal of extraterritorial zoning in order to exercise their authority to adopt zoning regulations affecting the extraterritorial zone. The bill would have provided for notice of the hearing to be given in specified manner.

Further, the bill would have directed city planning commissions to mail notice to all owners of record in an unincorporated area affected by proposed subdivision regulations and cities to hold public hearings on proposals of subdivision regulations.

By Jillian Kincaid and Matthew Willis.
See State and Local Government for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Budget Process Overview

Overview

This article describes the historical process by which the Kansas State Budget has been developed, and changes made during the 2024 Legislative Session to that process.

Historical State Budget Process

Prior to the 2024 Legislative Session, the State budget process was largely shaped by the 1976 Task Force of Effective Management established by former Governor Robert Bennett, which created the balanced budgeting system, required performance indicators, and organized the current structure of state government into programs. There have been attempts at budget process reform since then, primarily around the issues of biennial budgeting, the consensus caseload estimating process, and the 2016 Kansas Statewide Efficiency Review by Alvarez and Marsal which provided additional detail on the performance budgeting process specifically around evidence-based practices.

Article 37, Chapter 75 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated prescribes key dates in the Kansas budget process:

  • The Director of the Budget provides agencies with budget forms and budget cost indices prior to September 1;
  • Agencies must file a budget request with the Division of the Budget no later than October 2;
  • The Director of the Budget must notify agencies of any adjustments to the agency requests by November 10;
  • Agencies have ten days to appeal such adjustments. The chairpersons of the House Committee on Appropriations and the Senate Committee on Ways and Means may attend such appeal hearings; and
  • The Governor is required to submit the Governor’s Budget Report to the Legislature on or before the 8th day of the session, unless the Governor is newly elected; in that case, the report is due on or before the 21st calendar day of Regular Session.

The Governor’s Budget Report is statutorily composed of three parts:

  • The Governor’s message describing important features of the budget plan and means of financing the spending. This portion can not include proposed expenditures from anticipated income from legislation that would provide additional revenue or expenditures related to the 7.5 percent ending balance requirement;
  • Detailed budget expenditure estimates by agency including bonded indebtedness; and
  • Draft legislative measures reflecting the Governor’s Budget for all fiscal years included in the report. The budget for the Judicial Branch is included in the submission, but the Governor must pass the recommendation along without revision.

2024 Session Revisions to the State Budget Process

During the 2024 Interim, the Legislative Coordinating Council created and appointed the 2024 Special Committee on Budget Process and Development. The Committee met twice and included the Senate President, Speaker of the House, House and Senate Minority Leaders, Chairpersons of the House Committee on Appropriations and Senate Committee on Ways and Means, and 15 other members of the House of Representatives and Senate.

2024 Special Committee on Legislative Budget

The 2024 Special Committee on Legislative Budget made 12 recommendations, which were incorporated into a bill introduced by the Chairperson for the House Committee on Appropriations on the first day of the 2025 Session. This bill became the starting point for legislative deliberation on the budget.

The Committee recommended the Legislative Coordinating Council establish an interim committee to develop a legislative budget recommendation, to be introduced on the first day of the 2025 Session.

The Committee also recommended the 2025 Legislature establish a cap on State General Fund growth of 2.0 percent per fiscal year, excluding human services caseloads and expenditures for K-12 education; and prohibit adding language to appropriations bills directing agencies to engage in specific acts via the conference committee process without specific approval by legislative leadership.

Other recommendations included:

  • Delete all agency and department salary and wage increases, to be addressed in a global discussion on salaries during the 2025 Legislative Session;
  • Delete all agency enhancement and supplemental requests in the revised FY 2025, FY 2026, and FY 2027 budget summaries for budget committees to review during the 2025 Legislative Session;
  • Delete any requests for new full-time employee positions and any associated costs in FY 2025 and FY 2026 for budget committees to review during the 2025 Legislative Session;
  • Review all State General Fund reappropriations and identify those that can be lapsed in FY 2025; and
  • Suspend the transfer of $50.0 million State General Fund to the Build Kansas Fund for FY 2026.

Kansas Budget Process Going Forward

The 2025 Legislature did not adjust any of the Governor’s duties to submit a budget recommendation. However, the Legislative Coordinating Council has established the 2025 Special Committee on State Budget and charged it with reviewing and making recommendations on state agency budgets.

By Dylan Dear and Steven Wu.
See State Budget for more.

Briefing Book 2026: An Overview of the Board of Tax Appeals Financing

Introduction

The Board of Tax Appeals is the highest administrative tribunal to hear appeals relating to ad valorem (property), income, sales, compensating use, and inheritance taxes, along with other matters involving taxation by state and local taxing authorities. The Board is divided into two divisions:

  • The Regular Division has broad jurisdiction to hear and decide tax matters, including property tax appeals, appeals from final determinations of the Department of Revenue, tax grievances, applications for exemptions from property tax, countywide reappraisal requests, and no-fund warrant requests; and
  • The Small Claims and Expedited Hearing Division oversees appeals for the valuation of single-family residential properties and commercial properties that are appraised at $3.0 million or less.

Fee Fund Financing

Prior to FY 2012, the Board was primarily funded with State General Fund (SGF) dollars. Over time, financing for the Board has shifted toward a greater reliance on the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) fee fund. Filing fees have been increased to support agency operations and offset reductions to the SGF. In FY 2024, funding for the Board was:

  • 46.5 percent SGF;
  • 53.4 percent from the BOTA Filing Fee Fund;
  • 0.1 percent from the American Rescue Plan Act funds; and
  • 0.1 percent from the Duplicating Fee Fund.

[Note: The Duplicating Fee Fund was closed in FY 2024.]

As of September 15, 2025, the BOTA Fee Fund has a balance of $953,325. Since the creation of the fee fund, several regulations have impacted the revenue collected, including the removal of the:

  • Filing fee for not-for-profit organizations’ appeals under $100,000;
  • Residential filing fee; and
  • Filing fees assessed to municipalities and political subdivisions.

The table below shows the amount in receipts the Filing Fee Fund received for FY 2016–FY 2024.

Fiscal YearReceipts
FY 2016$878,015
FY 2017$944,818
FY 2018$1,028,606
FY 2019$819,183
FY 2020$872,802
FY 2021$872,636
FY 2022$902,085
FY 2023$949,575
FY 2024$1,133,609
FY 2025$1,128,325

The amount collected in FY 2024 was attributable to an increase in incoming cases from the Regular Division. Additionally, the 2024 Legislature approved reducing BOTA Filing Fee Fund expenditures by $150,000 and substituting these expenditures with funding from SGF in FY 2025.

The table below shows the ten-year expenditure history for the BOTA Filing Fee Fund:

Fiscal YearExpenditures
FY 2016$754,737
FY 2017$1,030,906
FY 2018$918,816
FY 2019$945,802
FY 2020$959,350
FY 2021$862,880
FY 2022$1,010,487
FY 2023$1,064,798
FY 2024$1,173,069
FY 2025$933,059

The ending balance was $972,877 at the end of FY 2025. The Board estimates it will receive $950,000 in filing fees in FY 2026, which would lead to an ending balance of approximately $819,808.

By Chardae Caine and Edward Penner.
See Taxation for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Local Sales Tax Authority and Apportionment

Local Sales Tax Overview

The Kansas state sales tax dates to 1937, but local units of government did not receive authority to impose sales taxes until 1970. While this authority was briefly repealed in 1972, taxes enacted under the 1970 law were grandfathered into continuing existence and broad authority was reinstated in 1973.

[Note: Any local government imposing a sales tax also automatically imposes a compensating use tax for transactions that would have been subject to the sales tax if the transaction were made entirely in Kansas. For purposes of this article, use tax is treated as a component of sales tax.]

As of 2025, local sales taxes are imposed by 94 counties and 329 cities throughout the state with local collections totaling $1.73 billion in FY 2025.

While tax rates for local sales taxes are determined locally, the tax is administered at the state level on a uniform statewide tax base, which generally mirrors the tax base for the state sales tax, with limited exceptions, most notably food and food ingredients and certain residential and agricultural utilities.

All local sales taxes require the approval of the tax at an election prior to being imposed. Unless the ballot language or statutory authority for the tax specifies an expiration of the tax, the tax continues indefinitely, and the rate may only be changed by a future election. However, the repeal of a tax may be accomplished by either an election or the adoption of an ordinance.

Authority of Local Units to Impose Tax

Cities

Cities are authorized to levy sales taxes up to 2.0 percent for general purposes and 1.0 percent for special purposes. The purpose of special purpose taxes must be specified by the city prior to the imposition of the tax, and special purpose taxes expire 10 years after the date the tax is first collected. However, special purpose taxes may be replaced or extended with an additional election. City sales tax rates are required to be fixed in increments of 0.05 percent.

Counties

Counties are generally authorized to levy a sales tax of up to 1.0 percent for general purposes and an additional 1.0 percent for the provision of health care services. However, numerous exceptions to this limit are provided in statute, typically for specific purposes. As of 2025, there are 64 instances of specific counties being granted authority in excess of the 1.0 percent of general authority and 1.0 percent of health care services authority. Countywide sales tax rates are generally required to be fixed in increments of 0.25 percent. However, some special purpose county taxing authority permits rates that do not correspond to quarter percentage points.

Special Taxing Districts

In addition to sales taxes imposed by cities and counties directly, municipalities may create special taxing districts that are permitted to levy additional taxes within the bounds of the district.

Community improvement districts may levy taxes of up to 2.0 percent to pay debt service costs associated with community improvement economic development projects within the district or to directly pay such project costs on an ongoing basis. Such project costs are generally limited to those within the district.

Transportation development districts may levy taxes of up to 1.0 percent to pay debt service associated with projects to improve transportation infrastructure within or outside of the district for economic development purposes.

Both community improvement districts and transportation development districts are established through a petition process of the owners of the land within the district.

Other Named Entities with Taxing Authority

In addition to cities, counties, and special taxing districts, state law provides for sales tax authority of up to 0.65 percent for Washburn University, 0.5 percent for the Gage Park Improvement District, 0.25 percent for the HorseThief Reservoir Benefit District, and 0.2 percent for the Johnson County Education Research Triangle Authority.

Apportionment of Countywide Sales Tax Revenue

While cities retain all revenue from proceeds of city-imposed taxes, revenue from general countywide sales taxes is apportioned between the county imposing the tax and the cities located within the county using a two-factor formula where half of the distribution is based on the proportion of property taxes levied by each entity to the total property taxes levied by all entities, and half of the distribution is based on proportion to the population of each city and the population of the unincorporated area of the county in proportion to the total population of the county.

Countywide sales taxes adopted pursuant to exceptions for specific purposes may be excluded from apportionment providing for the entirety of the revenue from the tax to be applied to the specific object of the tax.

Line graph showing the cumulative total of local sales tax collections in Kansas from 1994 to 2025.

Revenue From Local Sales Taxes

As of 2025, local sales taxes totaled $1.73 billion, which represented 19.5 percent of total local tax revenue and 8.2 percent of combined state and local tax revenue for the year. The share of total taxes coming from local sales taxes has increased in recent years as revenue from local sales taxes has grown faster than local tax revenue or combined state and local tax revenue.

The graph on the previous page shows the change in local sales taxes from 1995 to the present.

Recent Legislation

In recent years, the Legislature has regularly considered and passed bills expanding specific county authority for special purpose taxes.

Additionally, legislation proposed in 2019 would have authorized universal countywide special purpose authority up to 1.25 percent and would have generally treated countywide special purpose authority comparably to city special purpose authority.
The 2025 Legislature considered legislation that would have replaced the half of the countywide sales tax apportionment formula based on property taxes levied with assessed value located within each taxing district. While this legislation was not enacted, the Legislature did enact a freeze on the apportionment ratios from July 1, 2025, through December 31, 2026, resulting in changes to ratios attributable to property taxes levied for tax year 2025 having no effect on the apportionment of such taxes.

By Edward Penner and Eric Adell.
See Taxation for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Sales Tax Exemptions

The Kansas retail sales tax is levied statewide at the rate of 6.5 percent on retail sales of tangible personal property and certain services, absent specific exemption. Additionally, certain services are not subject to the retail sales tax. For purposes of this article, the term “sales tax” refers to both sales and use tax.

In terms of their effect on revenues, sales tax exemptions are a type of “tax expenditure,” representing a loss of revenue attributable to the tax that would otherwise be collected.

Specific sales tax exemptions are primarily found in KSA 79-3603 and KSA 79-3606; additional exemptions are provided for in KSA 79-3602, 79-3606d through 79-3606f, and 79-3606h.

Definition of Sales Tax Exemption

Strictly speaking, sales tax exemptions refer to categories of sales subject to the tax imposed by KSA 79-3603, but which are specifically named as exempt from the otherwise imposed tax. In a broader sense, exemptions also include certain sales expressly excluded from being subject to the tax in the first place. These occur as exceptions that narrow the definition of a category to which the tax applies. In a similar way, certain modifications to the definition of “sale price” for purposes of retail sales tax also amount to exemptions by excluding all or a portion of the price of certain kinds of sales from taxation.

Even more broadly, categories of sales previously subject to tax but excluded through legislative action are sometimes considered to be sales tax exemptions, even though no provision currently exists that would render it otherwise taxable.

These distinctions can have important ramifications in terms of how the sales tax is administered, as sellers are required to collect exemption certificates from purchasers under varying circumstances, but only as it applies to exemptions in the narrow sense described above.

State and Local Impacts of Sales Tax Exemptions

A few categories of otherwise exempt sales remain subject to city and county sales taxes, including all sales of food and food ingredients and certain residential and agricultural utilities.

Statutory Exemptions

As of July 1, 2025, Kansas statutes include 120 subsections devoted to exemptions, of which 101 are found in KSA 79-3606 and 13 of which are exemptions in the broader sense. The remaining exemptions are true exemptions found outside of KSA 79-3606.

In their annual Tax Expenditure Report, the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR) classifies sales tax exemptions as conceptual, legally required, and public policy exemptions. The total reported amount of state revenue foregone due to sales tax exemptions in FY 2024 was $8.7 billion.

Conceptual Exemptions

Exemptions classified as conceptual exemptions tend to serve broadly acknowledged policy goals attributable to generally accepted principles of tax policy. These primarily avoid double-taxation or imposition of a value-added tax, neither of which is explicitly required by law, but which have historically been avoided in the United States. Value-added taxes impose tax on intermediate states of production and distribution, but sales taxes in the United States are, as a matter of custom, collected at the point of sale as a tax on final consumption.

For FY 2024, KDOR estimated that conceptual exemptions resulted in a reduction of revenue in the amount of $4.84 billion. Of that amount, $3.0 billion can be attributed to the exemption found in KSA 79-3606(m), which exempts from taxation property that becomes an ingredient or component part of property or services produced or manufactured for ultimate sale at retail.

Legally Required Exemptions

Legally required exemptions are required for conformity with federal law. Such exemptions resulted in reduction of revenue in the amount of $156.2 million in FY 2024, according to estimates by KDOR. This amount was primarily attributable to $63.5 million lost to purchases by the federal government or its agencies and instrumentalities; and $36.3 million lost to purchases by railroads or public utilities for use in the movement of interstate commerce.

Public Policy Exemptions

Public policy exemptions, as classified by KDOR, are more discretionary in nature (though some could be considered to be in line with conceptual exemptions) and generally tend to promote public welfare or serve social or economic goals. Public policy exemptions accounted for $3.7 billion in lost revenue in FY 2024 according to KDOR.
Exemptions for non-federal government and nonprofit health care entity purchases are the largest public policy subcategory, accounting for 46.0 percent of such exemptions in FY 2024. Other categories of public policy exemptions include:

  • Exemption of services that are otherwise specifically taxable;
  • Charitable, religious, and benevolent exemptions, including general exemptions for such purposes and exemptions for specifically named charitable organizations;
  • Economic exemptions, including consumer, business, and agricultural exemptions; and
  • Public welfare exemptions, including educational and health care exemptions.

The subcategories of public policy exemptions are provided in the table below with the respective amount of foregone revenue in FY 2024 attributable to each.

Exemption TypeFY 24 Revenue Lost (millions)
Governmental Exemptions$1,719.0
Consumer Exemptions$879.9
Business Exemptions$542.9
Educational Exemptions$197.2
Agriculture Exemptions$171.1
Health Care Exemptions$132.7
Charitable/Religious/Benevolent Exemptions$49.3
Named Charitable Organization Exemptions$2.6
Taxable Service Exemptions$6.4

Recent Legislation

2022 House Sub. for SB 347 created a sales tax exemption for qualifying firms under the Attracting Powerful Economic Expansion (APEX) Act.

2023 HB 2002 created two new sales tax exemptions for purchases by Area Agencies on Aging and Kansas Suicide Prevention HQ.

2024 HB 2098 excluded from sales tax coupons issued by a manufacturer, supplier, or distributor for purposes of reimbursing the seller and created eight new sales tax exemptions. The new exemptions included, among others, purchases of custom meat processing services and, beginning in 2026, all sales tax on sales totaling up to $24,000 per year for Kansas resident military veterans who are 100.0 percent permanently disabled and were honorably discharged.

2024 HB 2465 created a sales tax exemption for purchases by pregnancy resource centers and residential maternity facilities.

2025 SB 98 created a sales tax exemption for purchases by certain firms making eligible investments in a qualified data center.

2025 HB 2275 clarified the exemption for custom meat processing services by excluding it from the requirement in continuing law that an exemption certificate be provided to the seller by the purchaser and removing the burden of proof the service is not subject to tax from sellers who believe such sales to qualify for the exemption.

There are no recent examples of repeal of a sales tax exemption, with the last significant case being the repeal of sales tax on custom computer software by the 2002 Legislature. The sales tax on prewritten computer software (as defined in statute) is still explicitly imposed.

Prior Policy Review

In 1970, the Joint Committee on the State Tax Structure (also known as the Hodge Committee) met to review the State’s tax system, part of which included a review of sales taxes. The Hodge Committee recommended:

Retail sales tax should remain focused on consumption rather than production;
“Consumables” should be exempt as a class rather than by a policy of selective exemption through listing specific items;
The “component-part” rule should be retained and refined; and
Production machinery and equipment should not be exempted generally as a class without consideration of the type of production.

Sales tax exemptions and related policy have also been reviewed by various interim tax committees over the past few decades. Interim tax committees met to review sales tax exemptions and related policy in 2002, 2006, and 2015.

The 2002 Special Committee on Assessment and Taxation specifically considered the sunset of sales tax exemptions in light of frequent discussions to this effect taking place during the regular 2002 Legislative Session. Ultimately, the Special Committee recommended further study of the topic.

The 2006 Special Committee on Assessment and Taxation strongly recommended the standing tax committees develop criteria to evaluate future requests for sales tax exemptions. Criteria suggested included whether or not an exemption:

Helps maintain the sales tax as a final tax on consumption;
Makes the tax more easily administered;
Is targeted to a broad class or to a narrow, special interest;
Establishes an unfair competitive advantage for one group relative to another; and
Causes the overall public benefit to outweigh the loss of revenue.

The 2015 Special Committee on Taxation recommended the standing tax committees develop a continual process to evaluate exemptions by measurable goals and standards, and implement a sunset schedule for current and future tax exemptions, excluding those that are legally required, applicable to governmental entities, or would otherwise result in double taxation if repealed.

Sales tax exemptions were also reviewed as part of more comprehensive reviews of the tax system in the 2004 and 2010 interim sessions, but no substantive recommendations were made in regard to sales taxes.

Additional Policy Considerations

Kansas participates in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), which is a multi-state cooperative agreement intended to streamline the administration of state sales tax systems through voluntary participation by states and retailers. The SSUTA requires member states to agree to certain rules in the administration of their sales and use taxes.

Because of Kansas’ participation in SSUTA, among other things, sellers must be provided advance notice of legislative changes and policy options can occasionally be limited when it comes to specific exemptions. Exemptions for products must be applied in a manner consistent with definitions provided in the agreement, where they exist, and states may not exempt subcategories of items defined within a broader category for purposes of the agreement unless an exception is expressly granted.

By Eric Adell and Edward Penner.
See Taxation for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Telecommunication Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

According to the Federal Communications Commission’s 16th Annual 911 Fee Report, the state of Kansas received approximately 1.6 million 911 voice calls in 2024. Telecommunication Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, referred to as T-CPR or dispatcher-assisted CPR, is a life-saving process in which emergency medical dispatchers provide real-time CPR instructions over the phone to bystanders during an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) while waiting for emergency medical services (EMS) to arrive.

When someone experiences a sudden OHCA, immediate action can double or triple their chance of survival. T-CPR guides dispatchers through CPR instructions with untrained callers to take action, helping keep the victim’s heart and brain alive until EMS arrive to provide advanced care.

T-CPR Process

When a 911 call is placed for a person who may be experiencing OHCA, the call is routed to a public safety answering point (PSAP), which may then be handled by the initial PSAP emergency medical dispatcher or transferred to a secondary PSAP. The dispatcher begins by asking specific questions to assess the situation and determine whether CPR is needed.

Dispatchers are trained to recognize signs of cardiac arrest, such as unresponsiveness and abnormal or absent breathing, based on the caller’s responses. If cardiac arrest is suspected, the dispatcher provides clear, step-by-step instructions over the phone, guiding the caller through hands-only CPR or traditional CPR, depending on the situation. The American Heart Association (AHA) indicates that performing CPR can double or even triple a person’s chance of survival.

Throughout the T-CPR process, the dispatcher remains on the line, offering reassurance and coaching to help the bystander maintain effective and continuous chest compressions until EMS arrive. Upon arrival, EMS personnel take over with advanced life support and begin transporting the patient to a medical facility if necessary.

According to the National Institute of Health (NIH), on average, it takes approximately 7 minutes for EMS to arrive at the scene. For rural areas, an average time of 14 minutes has been reported for EMS to travel and arrive. During this critical period, T-CPR enables emergency dispatchers to provide CPR instructions over the phone to bystanders, helping to maintain vital blood flow to the heart and brain until EMS personnel arrive and begin advanced care.

T-CPR Legislation by State, 2025

A color-coded map chart of the United States showing which states have implemented, not implemented, or considered T-CPR legislation or mandates.
T-CPR Process Challenges

The NIH has discussed how telecommunicators and bystanders can encounter several barriers during the OHCA assessment and delivery of chest compression instructions, including: agonal breathing, delayed or incomplete recognition assessment, communication gaps, caller distress, caller-patient proximity to the patient, repositioning delays, non-essential questions and assessments, and caller hesitation, refusal, or inability to act.

T-CPR History

According to the May 2019 issue of the Rhode Island Medical Journal, the first documented instance of pre-arrival instructions occurred in 1975, provided by a paramedic to a caller in Phoenix, Arizona. Although these early instructions were neither standardized nor scripted, Arizona began to implement them on a limited basis. In 1979, Utah developed the first formal Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) protocol. By 1983, these protocols—along with the requirement for dispatch-assisted CPR—became mandatory statewide in Utah. Meanwhile, in 1981, King County, Washington, launched one of the nation’s first Telephone CPR, which was also known as T-CPR. This is regarded widely as a significant milestone in the evolution of emergency medical dispatching.

Kansas Legislation

2024 HR 6037

House Resolution 6037 was adopted in February 2024 to recognize February as American Heart Month and support efforts to raise awareness on the rise of cardiovascular disease as the world’s leading cause of death and disability. As stated in the resolution, more than 350,000 individuals experience a OHCA annually in the United States, with an average survival rate of approximately 10 percent. The resolution stated about 70 percent of cardiac arrests occur at home and highlights approximately 23,000 children under the age of 18 experience OHCA each year. Nearly 40 percent of those cardiac arrests are related to sports activities.

2025 Senate Bill 11

On January 15, 2025, SB 11 was introduced, which would require the State 911 Board to establish requirements for 911 telecommunicators to receive training and continuous education in T-CPR. The bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Utilities.

T-CPR Legislation in Other States

As of September 2025, 24 states have implemented legislation or statewide mandates requiring emergency medical dispatchers to be trained in T-CPR. Maine and Wyoming have considered legislation regarding requiring dispatchers to be trained in T-CPR, but neither has implemented any law or mandate.

State Implementation Challenges

According to the AHA, there are several system barriers that can delay the implementation of T-CPR programs, including PSAP chartered or perceived scope of practice, organizational culture, fear of liability, public relations concerns, and budget constraints.

T-CPR Training and Program Funding

Funding for T-CPR training and programs for dispatchers in states that have implemented legislation or statewide mandates comes from a mix of federal and state-level grants, public safety fees, and private organization support.

By Kate Smeltzer and Luke Drury.
See Infrastructure and Security for more.