News – Page 4

Briefing Book 2026: Sex Offender Residency and Travel Restrictions

Historical Perspective on Residency Restrictions

Legislation enacted in 2006 (SB 506) authorized the creation of the Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB) under the auspices of the Kansas Criminal Justice Coordinating Council to study and make recommendations pertaining to various issues involving sex offenders. One of the topics to be studied by the SOPB included restrictions on the residence of released sex offenders.

SB 506 also prohibited cities and counties from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, or regulation establishing residential restrictions for offenders required to register under the Kansas Offender Registration Act. This provision was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. During the 2006 Interim, the Legislative Coordinating Council created a Special Committee on Judiciary and charged the Committee to study actions by other states and local jurisdictions regarding residency and proximity restrictions for sex offenders to discover any serious unintended consequences of such restriction and identify actions Kansas might take that actually achieve the intended outcome of increasing public safety. The Committee held a joint hearing with the SOPB to take testimony from experts in the field. The Committee recommended the Legislature wait to receive the report from the SOPB on the topic before any legislative action was taken.

On January 8, 2007, the SOPB issued a report on its findings regarding sex offender residency restrictions. The SOPB concluded that while residency restrictions for sex offenders are widely supported by the public, there is no evidence they are effective in improving safety. The SOPB stressed that laws should genuinely enhance public safety rather than provide only a false sense of security. It recommended that the Legislature make the current moratorium on residency restrictions permanent, while still allowing local governments to regulate the placement of offender group homes through zoning. Instead of broad restrictions, the SOPB advised that residency requirements be determined by individualized risk factors.

During the 2008 Legislative Session, SB 536 was passed to eliminate the sunset provision on the prohibition on cities and counties from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, or regulation establishing residential restrictions for offenders.
During the 2010 Interim, the Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice Oversight studied the issue of residency restrictions and concluded that sex offender residency restrictions have no demonstrated efficacy as a means of protecting public safety.

Legislation Related to Offender Residency or Travel Restrictions

2023 HB 2213. The bill, introduced by the House Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice at the request of a representative of the Kansas Judicial Council, would have removed the requirement that registered offenders provide notice when coming into any county or jurisdiction for employment or to attend school. The bill died in the House Committee at the end of the 2024 Session with no action having been taken.

2025 Senate Sub. for HB 2164. The conference committee report (CCR) for this bill was adopted by the Senate on March 27, 2025, but the CCR was not taken up by the House prior to adjournment. The bill, originally introduced as SB 288, would prohibit certain sex offenders from entering onto school property or attending school activities and would create criminal penalties for violating such prohibitions. The bill would create an exception to allow an otherwise prohibited person to attend a religious service on school property. Proponents testifying on the bill included several concerned parents of school children that attended a school dance where an adult registered sex offender was in attendance. Opponents expressed concerns that enactment of the bill could increase recidivism rates of sex offenders by isolating them from their communities and could expose the State to costly constitutional challenges.

Sex Offender School Restrictions in Other States

Permits, with Permission

Florida, Nevada, and Oregon allow sex offenders on school grounds with permission from their probation or parole officer before entering.

Arizona, California, Iowa, and Louisiana allow sex offenders on school property with written permission from the school administrator.

Alabama allows offenders on school property if they notify before, immediately report to the principal of the school upon entering, and comply with any other requirements of the school.

Prohibits, with Exceptions

Arkansas generally prohibits offenders on school property, but has exceptions for parents or guardians of students or for attending a graduation ceremony.

Idaho prohibits offenders on school property, with exceptions for parents or legal guardians at extracurricular activities.

Illinois prohibits a child sex offender to knowingly be present in any school building, on real property comprising any school, or in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school-related activity when persons under the age of 18 are present, unless the offender is a parent or guardian of a student attending the school and other conditions are met.

Indiana prohibits serious sex offenders from knowingly or intentionally entering school property, but provides an affirmative defense to prosecution if the offender enters the grounds for religious worship or instruction or when classes, extracurricular activities, or other school activities are not being held.

Mississippi restricts offenders from school property with exceptions for parents or legal guardians of students attending the school, provided they comply with notification requirements.

Missouri prohibits any person who has been found guilty of certain sexual offenses from being present in or loitering within 500 feet of any school building, on real property comprising any school, or in any conveyance owned, leased, or contracted by a school to transport students to or from school or a school-related activity when persons under the age of 18 are present, unless the offender is a parent, legal guardian, or custodian of a student present in the building and has met specific conditions.

Tennessee prohibits sexual offenders and violent sexual offenders from knowingly being on the premises of any building or grounds of any public school, private or parochial school, licensed day care center, other child care facility, public park, playground, recreation center, or public athletic field available for use by the general public when children under 18 of age are present, but has exceptions for when the offender is a student, attending a conference as a parent or legal guardian, or dropping off or picking up a child with prior written notice to the school.

Utah prohibits sex offenders from being in certain “protected areas,” which include public or private primary or secondary schools, unless certain exceptions apply, such as performing parental responsibilities or when the school is open for a public activity other than a school-related function involving minors.

Prohibits, No Exceptions

Wyoming prohibits registered sex offenders who are 18 years of age or older from being on the premises of any school building or school grounds, or other properties owned or leased by a school when children under the age of 18 are present and involved in a school activity, or within 30 minutes before or after a scheduled school activity.

By Natalie Nelson and Walter 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: Port Authority

A port authority is a legal entity created by a local government or governments to address local transportation-related issues. “Port” is statutorily defined for this purpose to mean a water-port facility, airport facility, terminal facility, land transportation facility, railroad facility, or industrial-use facility. A port authority is distinct from an airport authority. Statutes creating and enumerating the powers of a port authority are in KSA 12-3401 et seq.

Creation of a Port Authority

Under state law first enacted in 1969, a port authority may be created by a city or cities, a county or counties, or a combination of those, by ordinance, resolution, or both. Any port authority formed on or after April 1, 1981, must be approved by the Legislature via concurrent resolution. A cooperative agreement creating a joint port authority may be amended by the governing bodies without legislative approval.

Port authorities formed by legislative concurrent resolution include:

Kansas City–Wyandotte County, Kansas, Joint Port Authority (1984);
Butler County (1997);
City of Pittsburg (2001);
Grant, Morton, Stanton, and Stevens counties (2007); and
Stafford County (2014).

The Mid-States Port Authority, one of the largest, was formed in 1980 by a joint cooperative agreement of the counties of Clay, Cloud, Decatur, Jewell, Norton, Phillips, Republic, Riley, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Thomas, Wabaunsee, and Washington to rehabilitate and use rail lines left by the Chicago, Rock Island, and Pacific Railroad after it declared bankruptcy in the late 1970s.

Subject to provisions for payment and performance of its obligations, a port authority may be dissolved by the entities that created it. Its properties would be transferred to the creating entity or entities as they agree. Obligations of the dissolved port authority are not obligations of the State or of any city or county unless that is approved by voters.

Powers of a Port Authority

A port authority must have a clear purpose for which it is created and the character of the work to be undertaken to accomplish that purpose as part of its official plan. A port authority is required to prepare or cause to be prepared plans for future development; this plan must be published and, if sufficient owners of contiguous real property object, hold a hearing on the plan.

To accomplish the goals of the plan, a port authority may purchase, acquire, construct, improve, equip, furnish, or maintain facilities within its area of jurisdiction and make contracts to do so; borrow money; apply for, receive, and participate in grants from the State or the federal government; change a watercourse during facility development; issue bonds; and exercise eminent domain over property needed to implement the plan under certain circumstances. It must fix rents, charges, and fees for the use of its buildings, services, and facilities that are sufficient to assure the prompt payment of principal and interest on bonds as they become due. It may have employees and professional help.

Subject to voter approval, any city or county creating or participating in the creation of a port authority may levy a tax for such authority. If approved, the levy may be used for repayment of bonds, and the port authority may spend funds not otherwise appropriated for surveys and other statutory purposes. Currently, no city or county levies a tax for purposes of financing a port authority.

A port authority may not change a lease, sale, or action taken by a governmental entity before creation of the port authority; spend more than $10,000 (unchanged since 1980) for construction, alteration, or repair of any improvement without notification in the Kansas Register at least 30 days before opening bids for the project, except in an emergency; or sell property without giving the current lessee the first right to purchase the property. It may not exercise eminent domain on property outside of the port authority without approval by resolution of the governing body, acquire a site for industrial use, or until all permits in the official plan have been obtained.

A port authority is to exercise its powers for the benefit of the people of Kansas, “for the increase of their commerce and prosperity, and for the improvement of their health and living conditions, and the activities and operations of a port authority will constitute the performance of essential governmental functions” (KSA 12-3418).

Bonding

With the approval, by resolution, of the governing body of the city or cities or county or counties composing such port authority, a port authority may issue negotiable notes, bonds, or other evidence of indebtedness in amounts deemed necessary by the board of the port authority to purchase, acquire, construct, improve, equip, furnish, or maintain facilities, and it must provide for their payment of the bonds. Those bonds may be issued for a maximum term of 40 years, subject to terms approved by official resolution of the board; may be sold for not less than par plus accrued interest to date of delivery; and may be sold at a public or private sale. A public sale must be advertised and the bonds sold to the best bidder, based on an open competitive public offering. The bonds are never a debt or obligation of the State or any city or county. The Attorney General must examine and certify all bonds as legal obligations of the issuing authority. Proceeds from the sale of bonds must be segregated and used solely for the purpose for which the bonds were issued. All entities doing banking business and all insurance companies and agencies may lawfully invest funds in these bonds.

The board may vest a trustee or trustees with the right to receive revenues pledged for bondholders. Any trustee must take an oath of office and be under a sufficient fidelity bond approved by the Attorney General. No trustee or beneficiary may be charged with liability except for willful or grossly negligent breach of trust.

Governance of a Port Authority

A port authority is governed by a board of no fewer than five members appointed by city or county commissioners or by the various subdivisions involved as they agree, to four-year terms. The appointing authority may at any time remove a director appointed by it for misfeasance, nonfeasance, or malfeasance in office, and only for cause. No board member may own land, other than a residence, or represent in a fiduciary capacity any land surveyed or examined for port locations. A user of the port facility may serve as a member.

The board’s meetings and records are public, and it is required to prepare an annual budget.

Tax Exemptions and Credits

An airport authority is exempt from ad valorem property tax only until the calendar year in which the property “is rented, leased, subleased, or developed and returns revenue to the authority in excess of the amount necessary to retire obligations of the authority and pay its administrative costs” (KSA 12-3418).

An airport authority is exempt from sales tax for tangible personal property or services used directly by the authority or for constructing, repairing, equipping, or furnishing port facilities other than an industrial-use facility.

The single city port authority income tax credit provides an income tax credit for 100.0 percent of retired debt of a single city port authority established prior to 2002, up to $500,000 in any one fiscal year. The credit is issued as a warrant by the Department of Revenue and is deemed to be a capital contribution. As written, the law applies only to the port authority created by the City of Pittsburg.

Airport Authorities

Airport authorities also have an economic development role, by developing, leasing, renting, or otherwise providing facilities used by business and industry. Airport authorities were statutorily created in the 1960s and 1970s to develop and manage air bases and other property declared surplus, usually by the federal government, such as deactivated World War II-era bases (KSA 27-315 et seq.). Statutes also created an airport authority for the City of Wichita in 1975 that assumed powers formerly held by a city board of park commissioners or the city governing body (KSA 3-162 et seq.) and for a county specified by 1979 population and valuation: Shawnee County (KSA 27-327 et seq.).

In general, the powers and duties of an airport authority are like those of a port authority. An airport authority is authorized by statute to levy mill levies of no more than 1, 1.85, or 3 mills depending on the purpose and under which statutes the airport authority was created. Airport authorities also may issue their own general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, industrial revenue bonds, and no-fund warrants as provided by statute.

By Jill Shelley and Eric Adell.
See State and Local Government for more.

Briefing Book 2026: Subsidies-based Rental Inspections in Topeka

Summary of 2025 HB 2099

Legislation addressing rental inspections for subsidized housing (HB 2099) was introduced during the 2025 Legislative Session at the request of a representative of the City of Topeka. The bill would have:

Defined “direct public financial assistance” to mean a financial payment or consideration from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
Authorized the City of Topeka to adopt an ordinance to require:
- Periodic property inspections of privately owned residential housing property when the owner of such property is receiving direct public financial assistance, with reasonable notice to tenants; and
- Landlords to perform random inspections at the request of the City in response to code violation complaint;
Directed the City of Topeka to obtain an administrative search warrant to facilitate the inspection if a tenant objected to an inspection; and
Had a sunset date of July 1, 2030.

Under current law, cities and counties are prohibited from conducting interior inspections of private residential property without the occupant’s consent.

The bill was heard by both the House Committee on Local Government and the Senate Committee on Local Government, Transparency and Ethics, and died on Senate General Orders.

Federal Inspection Requirements

At the federal level, inspections of subsidized housing are regulated by HUD and its newly formulated NSPIRE (National Standards for the Physical Inspection of Real Estate) standards.

These inspections take place in-unit, inside facilities, and outside of subsidized housing developments. HUD provides inspectors a checklist using HUD standards to note any deficiencies in multiple areas of a facility. If a violation is found, a code is applied, and a correction period is agreed upon for the inspector to check if a change has been made. Currently, HUD inspections happen at the time a tenant moves in and every one to two years after.

By the Numbers

HUD reports that, as of publication of this article, the Topeka area has 744 units that fall under Annual Contributions Contracts (ACC) between the federal government and a public housing agency to provide subsidized housing. Of these 744 units, 687, or 92.0 percent, are currently leased to tenants. These units are spread between 7 different residential property developments.

In the State of Kansas, as of publication of this article, there are 7,954 units with ACC authorization. Currently, 6,968 are leased, with 660 unleased units. For these units, there are 104 developments across the state. Overall, Topeka makes up 0.09 percent of the units for affordable housing in Kansas.

By Julia Kofoid and Jillian Kincaid.
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 Year	Receipts
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 Year	Expenditures
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 Type	FY 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

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.

Briefing Book 2026: Attorney Workforce Within the Office of the Attorney General and the State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services

Attorney Workforce Trends

According to the Kansas Supreme Court’s Rural Justice Initiative Committee Report, there were 11,179 active attorneys in Kansas in 2023. Of those attorneys, only 70.2 percent (or 7,843 attorneys) resided in the state of Kansas. This correlates with the 2024 Profile of the Legal Profession by the American Bar Association, which states that the number of active resident attorneys in Kansas decreased by approximately 5.0 percent from 2014 through 2024, for a total of 7,845 licensed resident attorneys.

Notably, Kansas had a lower attorney rate than the national average and all neighboring states in 2024. In that year, 2.6 attorneys resided in the state for every 1,000 Kansans, compared with 2.9 attorneys for every 1,000 Kansans in 2014. Colorado and Missouri maintained rates near 4.0 attorneys for every 1,000 residents. Nebraska and Oklahoma reported a higher rate in 2024 despite the former having a lower rate than Kansas in 2014, and the latter experiencing a greater percentage decline than Kansas over the decade.

Attorney Workforce Impact in Kansas

The decreasing number of attorneys in Kansas may have an impact on the availability of legal services in the state, particularly in rural areas.

[Note: In July 2025, Massachusetts judges dismissed 102 criminal cases in Boston and Suffolk County due to a state law mandating that charges against defendants be dismissed entirely after 45 days if they were unable to get a court-appointed attorney.]

These workforce shifts form the backdrop against which Kansas’ public legal institutions are operating. As such, this article provides an overview of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services, as well as statistics regarding the attorney workforce within those agencies.

Office of the Attorney General

The OAG serves as Kansas’ chief prosecutorial agency, and the Attorney General serves as chief legal officer, handling criminal complaints on behalf of the State in cases that require statewide involvement or cross multiple jurisdictions. The Attorney General is a constitutionally established, elected position with a four-year term, authorized under Article 1 of the Kansas Constitution and statutes including KSA 75-702 to represent the state in criminal and civil proceedings in both state and federal courts.

Salaries for assistant attorneys general range in the mid-$80,000s to around $120,000 annually, depending on assignment and experience. Recruitment and retention have been identified as ongoing challenges for the OAG. In 2023, the Attorney General stated the agency salary levels were generally lower than those offered by the private sector and by surrounding states, which has contributed to persistent workforce shortages. Recent increases in agency funding through legislative action have allowed the OAG to improve hiring and begin closing the compensation gap between the public and private sectors.

Criminal Division

The OAG’s Criminal Division is composed of five sections: Major Crimes; Medicaid Fraud Control Unit; Victims’ Rights Coordination; Economic Crimes; and Investigations. The following details a few of the sections within the Criminal Division of the OAG.

Major Crimes

The Major Crimes section works closely with county and district attorneys to provide prosecutorial assistance in the State’s most complex and demanding cases. In FY 2024, the Major Crimes section provided prosecutorial support on 68 criminal cases, and the section accepted six cases directly from county or district attorney offices.

Medicaid Fraud Control

The Medicaid Fraud Control section is the sole State entity authorized to investigate and prosecute suspected fraud by Medicaid providers. Established under KSA 75-725 to comply with federal mandates, the section investigates both criminal and civil violations, including fraudulent billing and financial exploitation. It also handles cases involving abuse, neglect, or misappropriation of patient funds in Medicaid-funded facilities or services. In FY 2024, the section managed 239 open criminal investigations related to provider fraud and 82 additional open criminal investigations involving patient abuse, neglect, or exploitation.

Economic Crimes

The Economic Crimes section prosecutes cases involving elder and dependent adult fiduciary abuse and exploitation, securities fraud, insurance fraud, tax violations, organized retail crime, illegal gambling, and other economic offenses. In FY 2024, the Economic Crimes section criminally litigated 7 general white-collar cases, 11 securities fraud cases, 24 revenue cases, and 50 insurance fraud cases.

Office of the Solicitor General

The Office of the Solicitor General, also housed within the OAG, handles civil and criminal appeals for the State. It drafts official Attorney General opinions and defends state statutes in constitutional challenges. In FY 2024, there were 52 Kansas counties under contract for appellate services for a pre-set fee with a goal toward achieving efficiency, economies of scale, and greater uniformity in the handling of the State’s criminal appellate work. That year, the Office reviewed 316 appellate briefs submitted by local prosecutors.

State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services

The State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services (BIDS) provides legal counsel to indigent adults charged with felonies through the agency’s public defender offices or its appointed private counsel program. The Kansas public defense system consists of the regional public defender offices and the Assigned Counsel program. Attorneys who are classified as public defenders are employees of the State who work at one of the public defender offices located in the state. Attorneys who are classified as assigned counsel are private attorneys who:

Volunteer to serve on local appointment panels in each judicial district, where they are assigned felony cases in exchange for the current BIDS hourly rate; or
Have accepted contracts from BIDS to handle felony cases in certain jurisdictions under negotiated terms.

The following provides information on the relation between the agency’s regional public defender offices and the Assigned Counsel program.

Public Defender Offices

Until 2025, BIDS had 12 non-capital trial-level public defender officers located throughout the state. In FY 2024, the agency was authorized to employ 99.0 attorneys throughout the then-existing 12 trial-level public defender offices, but only 77.0 attorney positions were filled.

[Note: During the 2024 Legislative Session, the Legislature authorized the creation of 30.0 new full-time equivalent (FTE) positions to establish two new public defender offices, one in the 11th Judicial District and one in the 29th Judicial District. As of September 1, 2025, most of the vacant positions have been filled.]

The agency partly attributes vacancies to the fact that the starting salary for new law school graduates is approximately 28.0 percent below the starting salary at competing prosecutors’ offices around the state.

The agency has previously stated that the lack of criminal defense attorneys within the Kansas public defense system is inadequate to handle the volume of cases being prosecuted. In FY 2024, of the 26,417 felony cases completed in Kansas, attorneys assigned to the regional public defender officers were able to handle only 33.0 percent of those felony cases. Moreover, five of the trial-level public defender offices partially accepted or refused to accept new cases for over half of FY 2024, including the Salina Regional Public Defender Office which refused to accept new cases for 92.1 percent of the fiscal year due to constitutional and ethical concerns.

Public Defender Workforce Concerns

Constitutional and ethical concerns regarding the public defense sector are detailed in a 2023 National Public Defender Workload Study, which states that depending on the level of severity, an attorney should spend anywhere from 35 hours to 248 hours on average per felony case in order to provide the constitutional standard of reasonably effective assistance of counsel. In FY 2024, trial-level public defenders for BIDS were able to spend an average of 13 hours per felony case. The agency states that when attorneys stationed at public defender offices cannot take cases due to constitutional and/or ethical concerns, the Assigned Counsel program comes into play so that indigent defendants can be provided with their constitutional right to counsel.

Assigned Counsel

Insufficient staffing, along with high caseloads, threaten the State’s ability to provide effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, according to BIDS. As such, the agency contracts with private attorneys through its Assigned Counsel program. The agency generally utilizes assigned counsel in geographic areas where a public defender office is not nearby, and in cases where the public defender offices have a conflict of interest or are otherwise unavailable to provide services due to caseloads. In FY 2024, 29 counties had contracts for assigned counsel, which is an increase of 12 counties when compared with FY 2023. All counties in the state were covered by assigned counsel panels, though the agency states that many assigned counsel panel members are beginning to refuse cases for appointment due to their own caseload issues. In FY 2024, assigned counsel handled 67.0 percent of the 26,417 felony criminal cases completed in Kansas.

Assigned Counsel Compensation

Due in part to the difficulty the agency faces in recruiting additional assigned counsel attorneys to take more cases, the 2024 Legislature amended KSA 22-4507(c) to increase the compensation for assigned counsel from $80 per hour to a minimum of $120 per hour, up to $140 per hour. In December 2024, the BIDS Board voted to increase the rate to $125 per hour for FY 2026. The agency notes that costs associated with the Assigned Counsel program will likely continue to increase, including travel costs due to assigned counsel having to travel farther distances in the state to meet with their indigent clients and to attend a variety of legal proceedings. The agency estimates that in FY 2024, the State spent approximately $1,712 per case handled by trial-level public defenders, compared to $1,524 per case handled by assigned counsel.

By Molly Pratt and Arianna Waddell.
See Judiciary, Corrections, and Juvenile Justice for more.