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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Driving too fast for conditions and exceeding the speed limit contribute to significant numbers of deaths, numbers of injuries, and costs. While Kansas laws generally specify acceptable speeds and penalties for violation, additional policy options could be explored.
Speeding Statistics
In information released in April 2025, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) estimated 11,775 speeding-related traffic fatalities in the United States in 2023 (29 percent of total traffic-related fatalities), down from 12,157 in 2022 (28 percent of the total). Approximately 332,600 people were injured in speed-related crashes in the United States in 2023. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), USDOT, defines a crash to be speeding-related if any driver involved in the crash is charged with a speeding-related offense or if a law enforcement officer indicates that racing, driving too fast for conditions, or exceeding the posted speed limit was a contributing factor in the crash.
In Kansas in 2024:
4,611 crashes (7.5 percent) involved speeding; 70 people died in speeding-related crashes and people were injured in 1,494 crashes; The estimated costs of those crashes exceeded $1.6 billion; and Approximately 20 percent of the speeding-related crashes involved people ages 15‒19, and nearly 60 percent involved people ages 15‒34.
Preceding years show similar numbers:
Year
Crashes
Deaths / Injuries
Costs ($ billions)
2023
4,354
80 / 2,105
$1.78
2022
4,890
94 / 2,056
$1.90
2021
4,479
76 / 1,976
$1.50
2020
4,599
88 / 2,075
$1.60
2019
5,773
93 / 2,203
$1.64
(Source: Kansas Traffic Crash Facts, Kansas Department of Transportation)
In testimony provided to the Legislature in February 2025, the Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) provided the numbers of citations troopers have issued for driving more than 100 miles per hour (mph) (see chart on next page).
Kansas Laws
Kansas law contains multiple provisions regarding lawful maximum speeds:
KSA 8-1557 states, “No person shall drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual hazards then existing”;
KSA 8-1558 establishes maximum speed limits of 30 mph in any urban district, 75 mph on any separated multilane highway (increased from 70 mph in 2011), 55 mph on any county or township highway, and 65 mph on all other highways;
KSA 8-1559 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to alter speed limits based on information known to the Secretary;
KSA 8-1560 authorizes local authorities to alter speed limits within certain parameters; and
KSA 8-1560b authorizes the Kansas Turnpike Authority to establish speed limits on highways under its jurisdiction.
Fines for speeding are established in KSA 8-2118. Fines increase with the difference between the posted speed limit and the vehicle speed.
Proposed 2024 SB 476 would have created the separate traffic infraction of operating a motor vehicle at more than 100 mph, and 2023 HB 2146 would have increased fines for speeds more than 30 mph above the posted speed limit. Neither received a chamber vote.
Speeding as Reckless Driving
KSA 8-1566 states, “Any person who drives any vehicle in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.” Most states appear to have similar language. Virginia law also defines driving too fast for conditions as reckless.
In Perry v. Schmitt, 184 Kan. 758 (1959), 339 P.2d 36, the Kansas Supreme Court stated, “While speed alone is not sufficient to establish gross and wanton negligence, it is properly considered along with other facts and circumstances surrounding the occasion in determining whether defendant was guilty of wantonness.” A 2025 Dickinson County district court decision in which the court states the defendant drove away from an officer at 140 mph, and in which the court did not find a case for a charge of felony fleeing and eluding an officer, cites cases including Perry v. Schmitt and further states, “speed is to be considered with other facts and circumstances” in determining whether an action constitutes willful or wanton disregard for the safety of others; which other states’ courts interpret excessive speeding to be included was not available.
Two bills have been proposed in recent years to amend KSA 8-1556 to define reckless driving to include driving at high rates of speed: 2025 SB 113 (100 mph or 35 mph over the posted speed limit) and 2022 HB 2628 (40 mph over the posted speed limit). Neither received a chamber vote. At least two states and the District of Columbia specify speeds in their definitions: Connecticut, faster than 85 mph; New Hampshire, 100 mph or faster; and the District of Columbia, 20 mph or faster above the speed limit, and, for aggravated reckless driving, 30 mph or more above the speed limit or 20 mph or more above the speed limit and causing injury to another person, colliding with another motor vehicle, or causing $1,000 or more in property damage.
Countermeasures
NHTSA’s guide for states titled Countermeasures that Work includes information on several ways to reduce the numbers of speeding vehicles. The agency notes that lowering the speeds at which vehicles travel requires public engagement and understanding the relationship between speeding and unwanted outcomes.
Lower Speed Limits
According to NHTSA, “The effects of maximum (highway) speed limits on speeds, crashes, and casualties have been studied extensively over the past 40+ years. In general, there is significant evidence that when limits are raised, speeds, crashes, and injuries rise, and when they are lowered, speeds, crashes and injuries usually decline.” NHTSA reported benefits of lowered speed limits occur particularly in urban areas and with extensive public education.
Infrastructure to Slow Traffic
Roadway modifications have been found by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS) to be effective in slowing vehicles in an urban environment in combination with public outreach and enforcement. Those modifications can include chicanes that force vehicles to curve around them on an otherwise straight road, curb extensions to reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and narrow the vehicle lane at an intersection, and speed humps.
Automated Enforcement Systems
Automated enforcement systems (“speed cameras”) supplement other speed-slowing efforts by gathering specified data on speeders over a certain speed threshold in a specific place and generating citations based on that data. As of September 2025, the IIHS has found the use of speed cameras in at least 1 locality in 22 states: Alabama, Arizona, California (only in San Francisco), Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois (Chicago), Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota (Mendota Heights), New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia), Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington. Hawaii authorizes their use statewide, as does Washington on state highways. Their use in highway work zones is authorized in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware (I-95 only), Illinois, Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington.
NHTSA cites numerous studies showing reductions in speed, crashes, injuries, and fatalities where speed cameras have been used. A 2025 study cited by the IIHS found a 75 percent reduction in the number of speeding tickets over the first 18 months after speed cameras were installed in school zones in New York City.
States that allow speed cameras in at least one municipality
Intelligent Speed Assistance
“Intelligent speed assistance” (ISA) refers to a device system installed on a motor vehicle to limit the speed of the vehicle based on the speed limit where the vehicle is operated. The organization Families for Safe Streets is among those promoting ISA as a strategy to change the behavior of “super speeders,” those whose licenses have been suspended for speeding and other speed-related violations.
Two states and the District of Columbia, as of September 2025, have enacted bills to require ISA use under certain circumstances:
Virginia (2025 HB 2096, effective July 1, 2026) requires a person convicted of reckless driving and found to have been driving more than 100 mph to enroll in its new ISA Program, and it authorizes the court to require such enrollment of any person convicted of reckless driving as an alternative to suspending the person’s driver’s license;
Washington State (2025 Sub. HB 1596, effective January 1, 2029) requires people convicted of excessive speeding (10 mph over if the speed limit is 40 or lower, 20 mph over if the speed limit is higher) and applying for certain restricted licenses, under certain terms of probation, or as ordered by a court to drive only a vehicle equipped with an ISA device. The device must allow the driver to exceed the speed limit no more than three times a month; and
District of Columbia (Act 25-406, enacted in February 2024) requires a person whose license was suspended and the violation involved a speed more than 20 mph above the speed limit to complete its ISA Program before a license or registration can be reinstated.
Connecticut, in 2025 SB 1377, has directed its Vision Zero Council and the Chief State’s Attorney “to study and make recommendations concerning the feasibility of leveraging [ISA] devices to address speeding and reckless driving in the state,” in partnership with a higher education or national transportation research entity if they choose to do so, and report to the Connecticut General Assembly in January 2026. Continuing Connecticut law requires attendance at a motor vehicle operator’s retraining program for a driver age 24 or younger who has been convicted of at least two moving violations, any driver older than 24 with three or more moving violation convictions, and any driver convicted of driving 75 mph (65 mph if in a commercial motor vehicle) in a highway work zone.
Illinois, in 2025 SB 1507, requires the University of Illinois Chicago Urban Transportation Center to conduct a study to include “an assessment of the effectiveness of psychological deterrence in reducing habitual speeding.”
The National Guard is a creation of the U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Code, and state statutory authority.
Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress is granted the authority to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth the Militia to “be employed in the Service of the United States…” The composition of the militia is more specifically defined in the U.S. Code, which incorporates the National Guard into the organized component of the militia of the United States.
The organization of the National Guard in Kansas is specified in Chapter 48 of the Kansas Statutes Annotated. “The Kansas army and air national guard shall consist of such units as the governor of Kansas may from time to time authorize to be formed, all to be formed and organized in accordance with the laws governing the regular army and regular air force of the United States and the regulations issued by the secretary of defense, the department of the army and thee department of the air force of the United States.”
As a result, the National Guard exists as both a state and federal entity. Accordingly, the National Guard provides both the state and federal government with trained armed forces support in appropriate conditions.
What is Mobilization of the National Guard?
Mobilization of the National Guard is the process by which reservists are brought into active duty service for a prescribed set of circumstances.
State Definition
Although relevant state statutes do not explicitly define what “mobilization” means, KSA 48-238 states the Governor is required in certain cases “to call upon the national guard to defend the State or aid the civil authorities to enforce the laws thereof.” [Note: Under the Kansas Family Law Code Revised, KSA 23-3217 defines “mobilization” with regard to child custody and parenting time as “the call-up of a National Guard or reserve service member to extended active-duty status.”]
Federal Definition
Title 10 of the U.S. Code mobilizes the National Guard through the call of “units of the National Guard of any State” to active duty.
The National Guard, distinct from federal reservists and active-duty military personnel, is subject to Title 10 active duty, Title 32 full-time National Guard duty, and state active-duty military orders for mobilization.
Who May Mobilize the National Guard?
Because the National Guard is both a state and federal entity, it may receive orders from the state or federal government.
Governor
The Governor, by statute, presides as the Commander in Chief for the State of Kansas and has supreme command of the state’s military forces until they are ordered or accepted into the services of the United States.
Kansas law grants the Governor the ability to “muster out any national guard organization of the state…” and discharge members “from military service of the state.”
President of the United States
Similarly, the President of the United States presides as the Commander in Chief of the United States. The U.S. Constitution states “the President shall be Commander in Chief… of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States…”
Title 10 of the U.S. Code prescribes circumstances in which the President may order the National Guard to active duty, as the Commander in Chief.
When May the National Guard be Mobilized?
State Mobilization
Pursuant to Kansas law, the Governor may order the National Guard to mobilize under three instances:
Request by civil authorities to support federal or state law enforcement agencies in counter-drug and drug interdiction operations when such request is approved by the Commander in Chief;
A need for personnel to support the Adjutant General’s Department during a local, state, or federal disaster or other mission; or
Breaches of the peace, tumult, riot, or resistance to process in this state, public disaster, or imminent danger thereof.
Federal Mobilization
Title 32
Similarly, the National Guard may be activated to full-time National Guard duty pursuant to Title 32 of the U.S. Code.
“Full-time National Guard duty” is legally defined as “training or other duty, other than inactive duty, performed by a member of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States in the member’s status as a member of the National Guard of a State or territory…”
“Active guard and reserve duty” more specifically refers to “active duty performed by a member of a reserve…or full-time National Guard duty performed by a member of the National Guard pursuant to an order to full-time National Guard duty…for the purposes of organizing, administering, recruiting, instructing, or training reserve components.” Title 32 provides for five circumstances that may be used to mobilize National Guard forces to active duty by the President:
For purposes of the training of civilians in the use of military arms;
To attend schools conducted by the Army or the Air Force;
To conduct or attend schools conducted by the National Guard;
To participate in small-arms competitions;
For the purposes of different training and field exercises pursuant federal law; and
To “support or execute homeland defense activities…”
Title 10
Members of the National Guard also may be mobilized federally through Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Title 10 activation orders National Guard members to serve in federal active-duty alongside reserves and active duty military components.
The U.S. Code sets forth multiple methods of mobilization under Title 10:
Call into federal service the militia of other states as the President considers necessary to suppress an insurrection in any state against its government;
To enforce the laws of the United States or to suppress rebellion;
To suppress in a state any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy in hindrance of the laws of the state and the United States;
For selected or ready reserve, a member of the National Guard may be mobilized into active duty upon declaration of war or national emergency by Congress;
Mobilization to active duty may be made upon a national emergency declared by the President;
When it has been determined that it is necessary to augment the active military forces;
Upon the request of federal assistance by a governor in response to a major disaster or emergency;
Whenever the United States, or any of the commonwealths or possessions, is invaded or is in danger of invasion by a foreign nation;
There is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the United States government; and
The President is unable, with the regular armed forces, to execute the laws of the United States.
What is the Effect of Mobilizing the National Guard?
The ultimate effect of a mobilization order depends on its type. Under state active duty, members of the National Guard are limited to pay in accordance with state law.
State active duty is limited to deployment within the continental United States and forces remain under the command of the Governor. Full-time National Guard duty is also limited to deployment within the continental United States with forces remaining under the command of their state’s governor.
In a federal activation, guardsmen are entitled to federal pay and allowances through the duration of their mobilization. Like Title 32 full-time National Guard duty activations, Title 10 federal active duty entitles guardsmen to federal pay and allowances. However, Title 10 mobilizations bring the National Guard members under the command of the President, and deployments may be worldwide.
The length of a mobilization order and any extensions thereof are statutorily defined, but may be modified by active duty agreement.
A “claim shark” is the term given to an agent or company that charges veterans to help them file their initial claims for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits. The process to file a claim for VA benefits is free, yet claim sharks usually charge upwards of $5,000 for their services despite the existence of accredited individuals and accredited veteran service organizations (VSOs) that offer free assistance to veterans in filing their VA benefits claims.
While it is technically illegal for claim sharks to operate under federal law, there is currently no criminal penalty for violating the law and no regulation of the practice. Consequently, claim sharks often use aggressive, misleading, and predatory tactics to persuade the veteran to let them guide, assist, advise, or consult with the veteran in filing a VA claim.
Federal Legislation Stalls
In 2022, the Governing Unaccredited Representatives Defrauding (GUARD) VA Benefits Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill would have reinstated criminal penalties for unaccredited claim representatives who charge unauthorized fees while assisting veterans with filing a claim for VA disability compensation benefits. The bill was introduced again in 2023, but no action was taken to advance the bill.
In May 2025, the Certified Help Options in Claims Expertise (CHOICE) for Veterans Act was advanced by the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. The bill would allow individuals who work at for-profit companies to seek accreditation and legally charge veterans fees for assisting them in filing disability claims in all 50 states. As of September 2025, the bill has not been considered by the full House of Representatives. In July 2025, the VA Claim Sharks Effective Warning Act was introduced in the U.S. Senate. The Act would require the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to warn veterans more effectively about unaccredited VA claims representatives. As of September 2025, the bill remains in the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs.
State Legislation Advances
In the absence of federal law to regulate the operations of claim sharks, several states have advanced their own legislation to prohibit or limit operations of unaccredited claims representatives or companies. At least 14 bills related to this topic have been enacted in 12 states since 2015. Some states have completely prohibited the compensation of claims sharks while also placing guardrails on the compensation of those agents and VSOs that are authorized under federal law to provide assistance. Other states allow compensation but require claim sharks to provide written disclosures to veterans that the services they are providing may be free of charge if performed by an accredited agent or organization.
While Kansas has not yet enacted any legislation on the topic, two bills illustrating the competing ways to address the issue were introduced in the 2025 Legislative Session.
Kansas Legislation
In 2025, Kansas considered two veterans claim sharks bills. 2025 HB 2213 would have provided an outright prohibition against such compensated services. 2025 HB 2214 would have allowed such service but with certain restrictions and required disclosures.
HB 2213
HB 2213 was introduced by a representative of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and was heard by the House Committee on Veterans and Military.
The bill would prohibit any person from receiving compensation for assisting any individual about any veterans benefits matter. If a person were to receive compensation, the person would be held to the same ethical standards as an attorney under the Kansas Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically the rules regarding advertising, new client solicitation, confidentiality, and specific duties. The bill would also prohibit any compensated referrals for such compensated assistance. Violations under the Act would be considered a violation of the Consumer Protection Act.
In the House Committee hearing on the bill, representatives of accredited VSOs provided proponent testimony. The representatives stated claim sharks’ operations have escalated since the passage of the federal PACT Act, which expanded eligibility for veterans to receive disability claims. Opponents of the bill included three for-profit companies providing claims assistance. Opponents expressed frustration that their companies had not been able to become accredited by the VA under current law, and stated that veterans should be able to choose who they want to assist them with their claims.
HB 2214
HB 2214 was introduced by a representative of the Veterans Benefits Guide and was heard by the House Committee on Veterans and Military.
The bill, known as the Safeguarding American Veteran Empowerment (SAVE) Act, would prohibit an individual from receiving compensation for referring a veteran to another person for advice or assistance in such veteran’s benefits matter. It would also apply to any services in connection with any claim filed within one year of a veteran’s active-duty release, unless the veteran acknowledges via a signed waiver that the veteran is choosing to deny the free services available.
The bill would require any person seeking compensation for assisting with any veterans benefits matter to obtain an agreement specifying the amount to be paid, signed by both parties. Moreover, if a veteran’s claim is successful and the veteran receives an increase in awarded benefits, the bill would specify that the individual who assisted could receive additional compensation in an amount not to exceed five times the amount of the monthly increase in benefits awarded. The bill would prohibit any initial or nonrefundable fees. The bill would also prohibit any person from directly or implicitly guaranteeing a certain outcome.
The bill would require such persons receiving compensation for assisting with a veteran’s benefits matter to:
Provide a disclosure at the outset of the business relationship to the veteran and with specific requirements of style, placement, and wording;
Retain copies of such disclosures;
Not use international call centers or data centers for processing veterans’ personal information;
Not use a veteran’s personal login or personal credentials to access such veteran’s medical, financial, or government benefits information; and
Ensure that any person with access to veterans’ medical or financial information undergoes a criminal history record check conducted by a reputable source prior to having access to that information.
Any violation of the SAVE Act would constitute an unfair, false, misleading, or deceptive act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce. Civil penalties would be in an amount ordered by the district court in an action brought by the Attorney General.
In the House Committee hearing on the bill, the representatives who opposed HB 2213 testified as proponents, stating the bill would allow companies to receive fair compensation with appropriate disclosure of the terms of such compensation. Opponents to the bill included representatives of VSOs, who expressed concerns that the proponents advocating for this bill would still remain unaccredited and thus unaccountable under federal law.
You must be logged in to post a comment.