Kansas Legislature 2012 Briefing Book

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2012
Administrative Rules and Regulations A-1 Rule and Regulation Legislative Oversight
Administrative Rules and Regulations

A-1 Rule and Regulation Legislative Oversight
Since 1939, Kansas statutes have provided for legislative oversight of rules and regulations filed by state officers, boards, departments, and commissions. The 1939 law declared that all rules and regulations of a general or statewide character were to be filed with the Revisor of Statutes and would remain in force until and unless the Legislature disapproved or rejected the regulations. It was not until 1974 that the Legislature took steps to formalize an oversight process. In that year, all filed rules and regulations were submitted to each chamber. Within 60 days of that submission, the Legislature could act to modify and approve or reject any of the regulations submitted. In 1984, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a procedure adopted in 1979 which authorized the use of concurrent resolutions to modify or revoke administrative rules and regulations violated the doctrine of separation of powers under the state constitution. The 1975 interim Legislative Budget Committee, under Proposal No. 33, found it important to maintain and even enhance legislative oversight of all regulations in order to make sure that they conform with legislative intent. The 1976 Legislature agreed with that finding and enacted several amendments to the Rule and Regulation Filing Act. In that same year, the Legislative Coordinating Council created the Special Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations to review proposed administrative rules and regulations filed with the Revisor. The law was later changed to require proposed agency rules and regulations to be reviewed as follows below. A 1977 enacted bill created the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations.
Rule and Regulation Authority: Examples

Regulations serve to implement or interpret legislation administered by a state agency. The statutory authority for the agency to adopt these regulations is found in enabling legislation, as illustrated below in the language found in recent legislation:
Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research 785-296-3181
[email protected]
Kansas Legislative Research Department
Compressed Air Energy Storage Act (2009 Session) Within 18 months after the effective date of this act, the department [of Health and Environment] shall establish rules and regulations establishing requirements, procedures and standards for the monitoring of air emissions coming from compressed air energy storage wells and storage facilities to ensure the wells and facilities comply with the Kansas air quality act. [KSA 66-1275] State Educational Institution Project Delivery Construction Procurement Act (2009 Session) The state board [of Regents] may adopt any rules and regulations necessary to implement the provisions of this act. [KSA 76-7,133] The Rules and Regulations Filing Act (KSA 77-415 through 77-437) outlines the statutory requirements for the filing of regulations by most executive branch agencies and for the Legislatures review of the agency regulations.
The Regulation Adoption Process

There are two types of administrative regulations: temporary and permanent. A temporary regulation, as defined in KSA 77-422, may be utilized by an agency if preservation of the health, safety, welfare, or public peace makes it necessary to put the regulation into effect before a permanent regulation would take effect. Temporary regulations take effect and remain effective for 120 days, beginning with the date of approval by the State Rules and Regulations Board and filing with the Secretary of State. A state agency, for good cause, may request a temporary rule and regulation be renewed one time for an additional period not to exceed 120 days. A permanent regulation takes effect 15 days after publication in the Kansas Register. KSA 77-420 and 77-421 outline the process for the adoption of permanent Kansas Administrative Regulations (KAR) in the following steps (to be followed in consecutive order): Obtain approval of the proposed regulations from the Secretary of Administration; Obtain approval of the proposed regulations from the Attorney General including whether the rule and regulation is within the authority of the state agency; Submit the notice of hearing, copies of the proposed regulations as approved, and the economic impact statement to the Secretary of State; and submit a copy of the notice of hearing to the chairperson of the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations; Review the proposed regulations with the Joint Committee; Hold the public hearing and prepare a statement of the principal reason for adopting the rule and regulation; Revise the regulations and economic impact statement, as needed, and again obtain approval of the Secretary of Administration and the Attorney General; Adopt the regulations; and File the regulations and associated documents with the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State, as authorized by KSA 77-417, endorses each rule and regulation filed, including the time and date of filing; maintains a file of rules and regulations for public inspection; keeps
A-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
a complete record of all amendments and revocations; indexes the filed rules and regulations; and publishes the rules and regulations. The Secretary of States Office publishes the adopted regulations in the KAR Volumes and Supplements. A full set is published every third year, with KAR supplements published in the other two years. In addition, new, amended, or revoked regulations are published in the Kansas Register as they are received. The Secretary of State has the authority to return to the state agency or otherwise dispose of any document which had been adopted previously by reference and filed with the Secretary of State.
Adoption of a Permanent Regulation - Time Frame
Total Time: 112 to 174 Days / 16 to 25 Weeks

Step1 Submit regulations to Secretary of Administration 1 to 3 Weeks Step 2 Submit regulations to Attorney General 1 to 3 Weeks Step 3 Submit to Kansas Register 8 days to 2 Weeks Step 4 Notice published in Kansas Register 61-day Minimum Step 5 Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations reviews and comments on proposed regulations Step 6 Hold public hearing 1 to 3 Weeks Step 7 Obtain approval for revisions; adopt; file with Secretary of State 1 to 3 Weeks Step 8 Regulations published in Kansas Register 15 Days Step 9 Regulations take effect
2012 Legislator Briefing Book
page 3
A-1

Source: Policy and Procedure Manual for the Filing of Kansas Administrative Rules and Regulations, Department of Administration
Legislative Review
The law dictates that the 12-member Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations review all proposed rules and regulations during the 60-day public comment period prior to the required public hearing on the proposed regulations. Upon completion of its review, the Joint Committee may introduce legislation it deems as necessary in the performance of its review functions. Following the review of each proposed rule and regulation, the Joint Committee procedure is to forward comments it deems appropriate to the agencies for consideration at the time of their public hearings on the proposed rules and regulations. The letter expressing comments by the Joint Committee also includes a request that the agency reply to the Joint Committee in writing to respond directly to the comments made and to detail any amendments in the proposed rules and regulations made after the Joint Committee hearing and any delays in the adoption of or the withdrawal of the regulations. Staff maintains a database of responses to Joint Committee comments and reports on those responses to the Joint Committee. A limited number of regulations are exempt from the review process of the Joint Committee. In addition, certain permanent regulations have a defined statutory review period of 30 days, rather than the 60-day review period. As part of its review process, the Joint Committee examines economic impact statements, as required by law, that are prepared by agencies and accompany the proposed rules and regulations. The Joint Committee may instruct the Director of the Budget to review the agencys economic impact statement and prepare a supplemental or revised statement. The Legislature also is permitted to adopt a concurrent resolution expressing its concern regarding any permanent or temporary rule and regulation. The resolution may request revocation of the rule and regulation or amendment as specified in the resolution. If the agency does not respond positively in its regulation(s) to the recommendations of the Legislature, the Legislature may take other action through a bill. Recent legislative changes to the Rules and Regulations Filing Act have not changed this review process.
2008 Legislative Action

During the 2008 Legislative Session, SB 579 was enacted. This legislation requires state agencies to consider the impact of proposed rules and regulations on small businesses. The bill defines small businesses as any person, firm, corporation, partnership or association with 50 or fewer employees, the majority of whom are employed in the State of Kansas.

During the 2010 Legislative Session, House Sub. for SB 213 revised the Rules and Regulations Filing Act. The bill updated the Act by removing obsolete language and allowed for future publication of the Kansas Administrative Regulations in paper or electronic form by the Secretary of State. In addition, the bill made changes in the definitions used in the Act and in the exclusion of certain rules and regulations from the Act. Certain procedures to be followed in the rulemaking process and procedures also were revised. One provision requires state agencies to begin new rule making procedures when the adopted
A-1
page 4
rule and regulations differ in subject matter or effect in a material respect. Under these conditions the public comment period may be shortened to not less than 30 days.

During the 2011 Legislative Session, HB 2027 amended the Rules and Regulations Filing Act (the Act) by deleting the existing definition of rule and regulation, rule, and regulation, including several provisions exempting specific rules and regulations from formal rulemaking under the Act, and replacing it with a simplified definition. It also expanded the definition of person to include individuals and companies or other legal or commercial entities. The bill gave precedential value to orders issued in an adjudication against a person who was not a party to the original adjudication when the order is: Designated by the agency as precedent; Not overruled by a court or other adjudication; and Disseminated to the public through the agency website or made available to the public in any other manner required by the Secretary of State.
The bill also allowed statements of policy to be treated as binding within the agency when directed to agency personnel concerning their duties or the internal management or organization of the agency. The bill stated that agency-issued forms, whose contents are governed by rule and regulation or statute, and guidance and information the agency provides to the public do not give rise to a legal right or duty and are not treated as authority for any standard, requirement, or policy reflected in the forms, guidance, or information. Further, the bill provides the following are not subject to the Act: Policies relating to the curriculum of a public educational institution or to the administration, conduct, discipline, or graduation of students from such institution; Parking and traffic regulations of any state educational institution under the control and supervision of the State Board of Regents; Rules and regulations relating to the emergency or security procedures of a correctional institution; and Orders issued by the Secretary of Corrections or any warden of a correctional institution.
Similarly, statutes that specify the procedures for issuing rules and regulations will apply rather than the procedures outlined in the Act. Finally, the bill created a new section giving state agencies the authority to issue guidance documents without following the procedures set forth in the Act. Under the terms of this new section, guidance
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 A-1
documents can contain binding instructions to state agency staff members, except presiding officers. Presiding officers and agency heads can consider the guidance documents in an agency adjudication, but are not bound by them. To act in variance with a guidance document, an agency must provide a reasonable explanation for the variance and, if a person claims to have reasonably relied on the agencys position, the explanation must include a reasonable justification for the agencys conclusion that the need for the variance outweighs the affected persons reliance interests. The bill requires each state agency to maintain an index of the guidance documents; publish the index on the agencys website; make all guidance documents available to the public; file the index in any other manner required by the Secretary of State; and provide a copy of each guidance document to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations (may be provided electronically). For more information, please contact:
Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research [email protected]
Sharon Wenger, Principal Analyst [email protected]
Jill Shelley, Principal Analyst [email protected]

Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 10th Ave., Room 68-West, Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Phone: (785) 296-3181 Fax: (785) 296-3824
A-1
page 6

Agriculture and Natural Resources B-1 Water Litigation Other Agriculture and Natural Resources reports available B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan B-3 Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas
Agriculture and Natural Resources

B-1 Water Litigation
Kansas has been involved in water litigation against neighboring states for the past century. These included litigation against Colorado regarding the Arkansas River and Nebraska over water in the Republican River Basin. Longstanding litigation against Colorado resulted in Colorado paying Kansas $34.6 million in April 2005 in damages and penalties. An additional $1.1 million was collected in June 2006. Arkansas River Litigation. Headwaters of the Arkansas River are located in the Rocky Mountains above Leadville, Colorado. Fed by mountain tributaries, the River supports agriculture in Eastern Colorado before flowing into Kansas. Kansas has contended that agricultural demands for irrigation in Eastern Colorado have depleted water coming into Kansas to the extent that irreparable injury has been done, particularly to the agricultural interests in the western part of the state. The State of Kansas and Kansas ditch companies (holders of water rights) brought suit against the State of Colorado that ended up before the United States Supreme Court several times. In the first half of the last century, two actions brought before the United States Supreme Court were resolved in Colorados favor. The two states formed the Arkansas River Compact in 1948 in an effort to resolve ongoing
State General Fund Expenditures for Colorado Water Litigation
FY 1984 FY 1985 FY 1986 FY 1987 FY 1988 FY 1989 FY 1990 FY 1991 FY 1992 FY 1993 FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 * FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 (Approved) FY 2012 (Approved TOTAL $ 96,032 70,424 281,324 651,449 511,045 746,490 1,655,812 3,213,075 1,313,943 655,060 354,457 506,250 1,042,688 921,800 730,715 950,215 1,523,871 878,172 815,120 939,835 695,308 514,208 915,060 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,982,353
B-4 Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund B-5 Water Policy Trifurcation
Leah Robinson Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
*The 2006 Legislature approved $560,000 from the Interstate Water Litigation Fund for ongoing water litigation activities against Colorado. The funding will be transferred from the Interstate Water Litigation account of the State General Fund to the special revenue fund, and so it is not considered a State General Fund expenditure. No funding has been recommended since FY 2007.
disputes over water, particularly after the federal construction of the John Martin Reservoir in Colorado in 1946. The purpose of the Arkansas River Compact is to resolve water disputes between Kansas and Colorado, to divide the waters of the Arkansas River between the states equitably, and to apportion water conservation benefits arising from the operation of the John Martin Reservoir Project. During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Kansas became increasingly dissatisfied with the Compact, partly because of specific decisions made by the Compact commissioners and because the Commission often was immobilized by the requirement that all of its decisions had to be unanimous. Committees of the Kansas Legislature considered the effectiveness of the Compact in the early 1980s and, in 1983, the Legislature made its first appropriation to the Attorney General for staff to investigate and commence litigation against Colorado regarding interstate water rights. Kansas ditch companies already had filed suit against Colorado. The litigation begun in the 1980s extended over two decades, but this time the United States Supreme Court made decisions in Kansas favor. The lawsuit originally asked the Court to require that the waters of the Arkansas River be delivered in accordance with the provisions of the Compact. In 1987, the Court ruled that monetary damages could be recovered in water compact enforcement cases and Kansas motion was amended to also seek monetary damages. In 1995, the Court found that Colorado diverted water that should have gone to Kansas and had violated the Arkansas River Compact. In 2001, the Court ordered Colorado to pay Kansas for damages and prejudgment interest on the amount to be repaid. In April 2005, Colorado paid Kansas $34.6 million. The Attorney General announced in June 2006 that an additional $1.1 million had been collected from Colorado, representing costs associated with various experts retained by the Attorney General to support Kansas claims that Presumptive Evapotransportation (PET) values required an increase in replacement water flows due Kansas. A judgment and decree was jointly developed by Kansas and Colorado. The decree contains seven appendices, such as the hydrologic-institutional model and accounting procedures, which will be used to determine if Colorado is in compliance with the Compact. It was presented to the United States Supreme Court on August 4, 2009, and brought an end to the active litigation before the Court. Staff and technical experts from the Division of Water Resources of the Department of Agriculture continue to monitor Colorados compliance and other issues that affect Colorados ability to comply with the compact.
B-1
page 2
How Colorado Water Money Is To Be Used

Legislation enacted in 1996 (KSA 82a-1801) specifies how money recovered from Colorado may be spent. Under that law, an amount equal to the amount spent on the litigation (both money appropriated by the Legislature and money spent by ditch companies) would be credited to the Interstate Water Litigation Fund under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General. Money in the Fund would be used to reimburse the ditch companies ($112,500) and to pay for: Preparation for or actual water litigation with another state, the federal government, or an Indian nation; Monitoring or enforcing compliance with an interstate water compact or water settlement; and Ongoing expenses connected with Colorado litigation and expenses of Kansas agencies to monitor the settlement, including expenses of a River Master or other official appointed by the United States Supreme Court. Any money recovered from Colorado in excess of amounts spent on the litigation with Colorado would be allocated as follows: One-third would go to the State Water Plan Fund for water conservation projects; and Two-thirds would go to the Water Conservation Projects Fund for projects in the Upper Arkansas River Basin affected by the Arkansas River Compact.
How Colorado Water Money Has Been Used

The 2008 Legislature approved expenditures using money recovered from litigation with Colorado. Of the $1.1 million received from Colorado in June 2006, the Legislature approved expenditures of $584,217 in FY 2008 and $525,729 in FY 2009 for the Interstate Water Issues program, which monitors interstate compact compliance on both the Arkansas River and the Republican River. The program also receives funding from the State Water Plan Fund and resides in the Department of Agriculture - Division of Water Resources. In addition, the Legislature approved the transfer of any remaining funds in the Water Conservation Projects Fund in FY 2008 to a new fund named the Western Water Conservation Projects Fund, with guidelines for establishing a board under the authority of the Groundwater Management District #3 (GMD#3) that will approve projects and disperse funding in the basin most affected by the Arkansas River Compact litigation. The Legislature also approved a transfer of $739,964 from the State Water Plan Fund to the Western Water Conservation Projects Fund in FY 2008. The total amount transferred to the Western Water Conservation Projects Fund in FY 2008 was $9,134,446.
Interstate Water Litigation Reserve Account of the State General Fund

After receipt of $34.6 million from Colorado in April 2005, the 2005 Legislature created the Interstate Water Litigation Reserve Account in the State General Fund and $20.1 million was deposited into the account, with a $0 expenditure limitation, to maintain the full balance in the account. The funding was to be set aside for use in future water litigation, while helping to maintain a positive ending balance in the State General Fund.
page 3
B-1
The 2006 Legislature approved, for FY 2006, funding of $1.0 million from the account for a loan to a groundwater management district. The funding was not utilized in FY 2006 and reappropriated to FY 2007. The Legislature approved the lapse of the $1.0 million in funding at the end of FY 2007. The language in the appropriations bill, although it was intended to lapse only the $1.0 million in expenditures, was written too broadly, and resulted in the entire balance in the account being lapsed at the end of FY 2007 and returned to the State General Fund, completely depleting the Interstate Water Litigation Reserve Account. This erroneous lapse in funding was not discovered until the 2010 Legislative session, when the Attorney General requested funding be transferred from the account to the agencys special revenue Interstate Water Litigation Fund. The 2010 Legislature authorized water litigation expenditures of $1.2 million in FY 2010 and $1.1 million in FY 2011, from the Attorney Generals special revenue Interstate Water Litigation Fund. To provide this funding, the Legislature authorized a transfer of $686,998 from the agencys Medicaid Fraud Prosecution Revolving Fund to supplement existing balances in the Interstate Water Litigation Fund in FY 2010. For FY 2011, the 2010 Legislature authorized the transfer of $578,605 from the Medicaid Fraud Prosecution Revolving Fund and $578,605 from the agencys Court Cost Fund to fund the expenditure. No funding was approved for water litigation activities for FY 2012.
Republican River Litigation

The states negotiated a settlement, which the United States Supreme Court approved in a decree entered in May 2003. The settlement provides the basis for the annual water accounting and establishes a mandatory non-binding dispute resolution process. From 2003 through 2007, Nebraska overused its annual Compact allocations of water, depriving Kansas of its full annual allocation. Kansas raised the concern that excessive groundwater pumping allowed by Nebraskas local water districts had caused these violations and would cause future violations as well. In 2008, Kansas triggered the dispute resolution process for these violations. That process concluded in late 2009, with Nebraska refusing to cut back on its groundwater pumping. In May 2010, Kansas filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking the Court to enforce the 2003 decree by imposing groundwater pumping restrictions on Nebraska, setting penalties for future violations, requiring Nebraska to pay damages for the water that it deprived Kansas from receiving, and granting other remedies. The Supreme Court has asked the Solicitor General of the United States to file a brief expressing the federal governments views on the situation, and Kansas petition remains pending at this time. Ongoing monitoring of compliance with the Republican River Compact and settlement is the responsibility of the Water Resources Division of the Department of Agriculture. Expenditures by the Attorney General are largely for outside counsel and experts who work under contract with the Attorney Generals Office. Currently, the Interstate Water Litigation account of the State General Fund has a zero balance.
B-1
page 4
State General Fund Expenditures for Nebraska Water Litigation FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008* FY 2009 FY 2010 (Approved) FY 2011 (Approved) TOTAL $ 173,570 277,571 177,448 606,483 1,222,057 527,390 450,718 50,828 99,267 0 0 0 0 0 $ 3,585,332
*The 2007 Legislature approved $100,000 in FY 2007 and $1,000,000 in FY 2008 from the Interstate Water Litigation Fund for ongoing water litigation activities against Nebraska. The funding was to be transferred from the Interstate Water Litigation account of the State General Fund to the special revenue fund, and so is not considered a State General Fund expenditure. A total of $1.2 million in FY 2010, and $1.1 million in FY 2011 was approved from the Interstate Water Litigation Fund.
A Special Master appointed by the United States Supreme Court negotiated a settlement in 2003. Currently, the states are compiling and analyzing data concerning the Republican River Basin, which will provide the basis for enforcement of the settlement and future operation of the Compact. One of Kansas concerns is that local water districts in Nebraska, which are not regulated by the state, will not comply with terms of the settlement. Once the settlement is reached, ongoing monitoring will become the responsibility of the Water Resources Division of the Department of Agriculture, which has been heavily involved in the litigation against both Nebraska and Colorado. Expenditures by the Attorney General in both cases largely have been for outside counsel and experts who have worked under contract to the Attorney Generals Office.
Disposition of Republican River Compact Settlement Moneys2008 Sub. for SB 89

Because of Nebraskas failure to comply with the Supreme Court settlement with respect to the amount of water coming to Kansas and in anticipation of water settlement moneys from Nebraska, the 2008 Legislature enacted legislation which establishes the procedure for the distribution of any moneys recovered from disputes relating to the Republican River Compact from either Colorado or Nebraska. In addition, the legislation creates the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Nebraska Moneys Fund and the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Colorado Moneys Fund. The bills provisions can be found in KSA 82a-1804 and 82a-1805.
page 5
B-1
Out of the first moneys received from any dispute in any litigation from both Nebraska and Colorado involving the Republican River Compact, 100 percent will be credited to the Interstate Water Litigation Fund created by KSA 82a-1802. When those moneys are credited to the Interstate Water Litigation Fund, the Director of Accounts and Reports will transfer moneys from the Fund to the Interstate Water Litigation Reserve Account of the State General Fund until the account balance reaches $20 million. The Attorney General is to certify to the Director of Accounts and Reports expenses incurred in any litigation to resolve disputes with Nebraska and Colorado on the Republican River Compact. After the amount required to be placed in the Interstate Water Litigation Fund Reserve Account is satisfied, any remaining moneys from the State of Nebraska are to be deposited in the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Nebraska Moneys Fund. Likewise, any remaining moneys from the State of Colorado are to be credited to the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Colorado Moneys Fund. Moneys in the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Nebraska Moneys Fund will be allocated as follows: One-third to the State Water Plan Fund to be used for water conservation projects with priority given to those projects which will ensure the State of Kansas will remain in compliance with the Republican River Compact; and Two-thirds to be used for conservation projects in the Lower Republican River Basin.
Fund:
Of the moneys credited to the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Colorado Moneys One-third of the money credited to the State Water Plan Fund to be used for water conservation projects; and Two-thirds of the money to be expended only for conservation projects in those areas of the state in the Upper Republican River Basin in Northwest Kansas.
Republican River Water Conservation Projects

The legislation lists the types of projects that may be funded by the moneys in the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Nebraska Moneys Fund and the Republican River Water Conservation Projects-Colorado Moneys Fund. These project types include the following: Efficiency improvements to canals or laterals managed and paid for by an irrigation district; Water use efficiency upgrades; Implementation of water conservation of irrigation and other types of water uses; Implementation of water management plans or actions by water right holders; Water measurement devices and monitoring equipment and upgrades;
page 6 2012 Legislator Briefing Book

B-1
Artificial recharge, funding the water transition assistance program, purchase of water rights and cost share for state or federal conservation programs that save water; Maintenance of the channel and the tributaries of the Republican River; Reservoir maintenance or purchase, lease, construction, or other acquisition of existing or new storage space in reservoirs; Purchase, lease, or other acquisition of a water right; and Expenses incurred to construct and operate off-stream storage.
Further, the bill permits any person or entity to apply to the Director of the Kansas Water Office for expenditure of moneys from either the Colorado Moneys Fund or Nebraska Moneys Fund. The Director and the Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources will review and approve each proposed project for which moneys would be expended. Interest from those two funds is to be credited to the State General Fund. Under the bill, priority will be given to those projects needed to achieve or maintain compliance with the Republican River Compact, those that achieve greatest water conservation efficiency for the general good, and those that have been required by the Division of Water Resources. Any project greater than $10,000 will be required to be a line item in an appropriation bill of the Legislature. For more information, please contact:
Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
page 7
B-1

Agriculture and Natural Resources B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan Other Agriculture and Natural Resources reports available B-1 Water Litigation B-3 Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas

B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan
The State Water Plan Fund is a statutory fund (KSA 82a-951) that was created by the 1989 Legislature for the purpose of implementing the State Water Plan (KSA 82a-903). The Fund is subject to appropriation acts by the Legislature and may be used for the establishment and implementation of water-related projects or programs and related technical assistance. Funding from the State Water Plan Fund may not be used to replace full-time equivalent positions or for recreational projects that do not meet the goals or objectives of the State Water Plan.
Revenue
Revenue for the Fund is generated from the following sources: Water Protection Fees. A water protection fee of 3 cents per 1,000 gallons of water is assessed on the following: Water sold at retail by public water supply systems; Water appropriated for industrial use; and Water appropriated for stockwatering.
B-4 Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund B-5 Water Policy Trifurcation
Fees Imposed on Fertilizer and Pesticides. A tonnage fee on fertilizer and a fee for the registration of pesticides is assessed and transferred to the State Water Plan Fund in the following amounts: Inspection fees are imposed on each ton of fertilizer sold, offered or exposed for sale, or distributed in Kansas. Of that fee, $1.40 per ton is credited to the State Water Plan Fund.
Jarod Waltner, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
Every agricultural chemical which is distributed, sold, or offered for sale within the state must be registered with an annual fee assessed for each registration. The law requires that $100 from each registration fee be credited to the State Water Plan Fund.
Sand Royalty Receipts. A fee of $0.15 per ton of sand sold is deposited in the State Water Plan Fund. Pollution Fines. Certain fines and penalties are levied by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for water-related pollution including: Violation of terms or conditions relating to public water supply systems; Commission of prohibited acts in relation to the operation of a public water supply system; and Violations of law governing the disposal of solid and hazardous waste.
Clean Water Drinking Fee. A Clean Water Drinking Fee of 3 cents per 1,000 gallons of water is assessed on retail water sold by a public water supply system and delivered through mains, lines, or pipes. Beginning in FY 2008, 101/106 of the Clean Water Drinking Fee receipts will be deposited in the State Water Plan Fund. Of the funding received from the fee, 85 percent is to be used to renovate and protect lakes which are used directly as a source of water for public water supply systems. The remaining 15 percent is to be used to provide on-site technical assistance for public water supply systems. State General Fund Transfer. By statute, $6 million annually is to be transferred from the State General Fund to the State Water Plan Fund. In recent fiscal years, this amount has been reduced in appropriations bills. Economic Development Initiatives Fund (EDIF) Transfer. By statute, $2 million is to be transferred from the Economic Development Initiatives Fund to the State Water Plan Fund.
B-2
page 2
State Water Plan Fund Revenue Source Municipal Water Use Fee Industrial Water Use Fee Stockwater Use Fee Pesticide Fee Fertilizer Fee Pollution Fines and Penalties Sand Royalty Fund Clean Drinking Water Fees State General Fund Transfer Economic Development Initiatives Fund Transfer TOTAL FY 2012 Estimate $ 3,028,646 1,090,116 433,605 941,000 3,220,000 380,000 140,598 2,824,677 0 2,000,000 14,058,642
Expenditures
Expenditures from the State Water Plan Fund are made based on priorities of the State Water Plan. The State Water Plan is developed and approved by the Kansas Water Authority. The following table summarizes recent actual and approved expenditures from the State Water Plan Fund: State Water Plan Fund FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012 Expenditures Actual FY 2010 $ 447,792 157,400 1,066,942 281,475 431,312 2,384,921 28,800 $ Approved FY 2011 753,705 203,948 980,000 269,568 548,696 350,000 3,105,917 28,800 $ Approved FY 2012 790,118 237,097 374,044 716,351 2,117,610 28,697
Agency/Program Department of Health and Environment Contamination Remediation Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Initiatives Local Environmental Protection Program Non-Point Source Program Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy Treece Superfund Total KDHE University of Kansas Geological Survey
$ $
$ $
$ $
page 3
B-2
State Water Plan Fund FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012 Expenditures Actual FY 2010 $ 335,786 632,614 60,000 1,028,400 $ Approved FY 2011 459,905 529,769 10,000 999,674 $ Approved FY 2012 513,850 702,722 83,697 1,300,269
Agency/Program Department of Agriculture Interstate Water Issues Subbasin Water Resources Management Water Use Total Dept. of Agriculture State Conservation Commission* Water Resources Cost-Share Non-Point Source Pollution Assistance Aid to Conservation Districts Watershed Dam Construction Water Quality Buffer Initiative Riparian and Wetland Program Water Transition Assistance Program/ Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program Water Supply Restoration Program Total SCC Kansas Water Office Assessment and Evaluation GIS Database Development MOU - Storage Operations and Maintenance Technical Assistance to Water Users Water Resource Education Weather Stations Weather Modification Neosho River Basin Issues Wichita ASR Project, Equus Beds Aquifer Total - KWO Department of Wildlife and Parks Stream Monitoring Total Water Plan Fund Expenditures
1,370,812 1,795,856 2,266,905 690,030 268,745 140,537 179,328 6,712,213
3,317,121 2,935,367 2,113,796 728,642 290,187 211,974 565,248 656,298 10,818,633
2,138,055 2,424,078 2,259,754 690,652 394 164,828 824,835 255,043 8,953,639
443,285 177,500 296,606 461,057 42,000 50,000 156,200 360,373 300,000 2,287,021
554,715 175,000 248,500 547,236 49,000 43,501 168,000 464,630 563,531 2,814,113
469,492 173,640 366,802 409,044 48,620 38,200 97,935 657,459 2,261,192
$ $
28,800 12,470,155
$ $
28,800 17,795,937
$ $
14,661,407
* For consistency with previous fiscal years, the State Conservation Commission expenditures remain separate from the Department of Agriculture for FY 2012.
B-2
page 4
Kansas Water Authority

The Kansas Water Authority is a 24-member board which provides water policy advice to the Governor, Legislature, and the Director of the Kansas Water Office. The Authority is responsible for approving water storage sales, the State Water Plan, federal water contracts, and regulations and legislation proposed by the Kansas Water Office. The Authority meets quarterly. The Authority consists of 13 private citizens and 11 ex officio members. Private citizen membership includes: One member appointed by the Governor (also serving as Chairperson); One member appointed by the President of the Senate; One member appointed by the Speaker of the House; A representative of large municipal water users; A representative of small municipal water users; A board member of a western Kansas Groundwater Management District (including districts 1, 3, and 4); A board member of a central Kansas Groundwater Management District (including districts 2 and 5); A member of the Kansas Association of Conservation Districts; A representative of industrial water users; A member of the State Association of Watershed Districts; A member with a demonstrated background and interest in water use, conservation, and environmental issues; and Two representatives of the general public.
Ex officio membership includes: The State Geologist; The Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources of the Kansas Department of Agriculture; The Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment; The Director of the Kansas Water Office (also serving as secretary); The Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station of Kansas State University; The Chairperson of the Kansas Corporation Commission; The Secretary of the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism; The Secretary of the Kansas Department of Commerce; The Executive Director of the Division of Conservation of the Kansas Department of Agriculture; The Secretary of the Kansas Department of Agriculture; and The Director of the Kansas Biological Survey.
One primary responsibility of the Kansas Water Authority is to consider and approve policy for inclusion in the State Water Plan. The Plan includes policy recommendations that have specific statewide or local impact and priority issues and recommendations for each of the twelve river basins in Kansas.
page 5
B-2
Budgetary Process
In late spring each year, the State Water Plan Fund Consensus Revenue Estimating Group meets to review past and current receipts and expenditures from the Fund as well as to estimate sources and amounts of revenue for the upcoming budget year. The group consists of representatives of the Kansas Water Office, Department of Revenue, Department of Agriculture, Department of Health and Environment, Division of the Budget, and the Legislative Research Department. Historically, the Division of the Budget has assigned allocations to each agency for the expenditure of State Water Plan Fund monies. Beginning with the FY 2008 budget cycle, the Kansas Water Authority and the Division of the Budget agreed to allow the Authority to develop a budget recommendation in lieu of the Divisions allocation process. For the FY 2009 budget, the Authority agreed to develop and provide a budget to the Division prior to August 15, 2008. A five-member budget subcommittee of the Authority meets in the summer to develop a State Water Plan Fund budget proposal. The budget is presented to the full Kansas Water Authority in August. The Authority-approved budget is then used by the state agencies develop their budgets. The Governors budget includes recommended expenditures for the State Water Plan Fund when it is presented to the Legislature each January. Appropriations from the State Water Plan Fund are made by the Legislature.
For more information, please contact: Jarod Waltner, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected] Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research [email protected]
B-2
page 6

Agriculture and Natural Resources B-3

B-3 Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas
Groundwater is one of this states most important assets. It is used to irrigate crops and sustain businesses as well as cultivate life. To help manage water in times of scarcity, the State of Kansas authorized the Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources of the Kansas Department of Agriculture to designate certain areas of the state as Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas (IGUCAs).
Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas
Other Agriculture and Natural Resources reports available B-1 Water Litigation B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan B-4 Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund B-5 Water Policy Trifurcation
Current Law
In 1978, the Kansas Legislature enacted KSA 82a-1036 et seq. which authorized the designation of IGUCAs by the Chief Engineer. This legislation created an additional water management tool beyond strict enforcement of first in time, first in right appropriation of water to be used by the Chief Engineer in conjunction with the requirements contained in the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. The legislation amended statutes allowing for the creation of the groundwater management districts (GMD) and created four new statutes. The new language established the conditions under which an IGUCA proceeding could be initiated by the Chief Engineer and established the conditions necessary for the creation of an IGUCA. Those conditions include: Groundwater levels in the area in question are declining or have declined excessively; or The rate of withdrawal of groundwater within the area in question equals or exceeds the rate of recharge in such area; or Preventable waste of water is occurring or may occur within the area in question; (the word or is not in the statute after this condition so its absence may cause confusion); or Unreasonable deterioration of the quality of water is occurring or may occur within the area in question; or
[email protected]
Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research 785-296-3181
Other conditions exist within the area in question which require regulation in the public interest.
If any of these statutorily prescribed conditions are found to exist, the Chief Engineer is required to issue an order designating the area in question, or any part of that area, as an IGUCA.
Implementation of the IGUCA Law

Since the 1978 enactment of the IGUCA law, eight IGUCAs have been designated: McPherson (McPherson County)-1979; Pawnee Valley (Pawnee, Ness and Hodgeman)-1980, amended 1985, 2006; Burrton (Reno and Harvey)-1982; Lower Smoky Hill River (Trego, Ellis, Rush, and Russell counties)-1983, amended 1987; Upper Smoky Hill (Wallace, Logan, Gove, and Trego counties)-1984; Arkansas River Valley (Hamilton, Kearny, Finney, Gray, and Ford counties)-1984, amended 1987; Hays and Immediate Area (Ellis)-1985; and Wet Walnut (Barton, Rush, and Ness counties)-1990, amended 1996, 1998, 2001.
B-3
page 2
2007 Session Proposed Legislation

Legislation had been considered during the 2007 Legislative Session, but was not enacted. At that time, HB 2070 was introduced and referred to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Committee. The House Committee of the Whole retained amendments by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Committee which included prohibiting the Chief Engineer from designating any new IGUCAs after the effective date of the bill. In addition, the Chief Engineer would have been prevented from expanding the boundaries of an existing IGUCA after the effective date of the legislation, and the provisions of the bill would have expired on June 30, 2008. The House Committee of the Whole amended the bill to provide that the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) designate a special committee during the 2007 Interim to study issues concerning IGUCAs and the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. However, attempts to pass this bill out of the House were unsuccessful. Despite the failure of the legislation, the LCC created an interim committee to study this issue.
2007 Special Committee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment

The 2007 Special Committee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment recommended legislation creating a seven-member designation advisory committee. The designation advisory committee would have held a public hearing on the question of designating an area as an IGUCA and make a written recommendation to the Chief Engineer to either designate or not designate an area proposed to become an IGUCA. The legislation also would have established a seven-member review advisory committee to review the need for the continuation of IGUCAs within seven years after the effective date of the bill. Subsequent reviews would have occurred within seven years after the previous review. These review committees would have based their recommendations on the law and the public interest. Finally, the legislation would have amended existing law to clarify that only a groundwater management district may recommend that an area be designated as an IGUCA when the area lies within the boundary of a groundwater management district. Existing law also would have been amended to clarify that the Chief Engineer has sole authority to designate an area as an IGUCA when the area lies outside of a groundwater management district boundary. The Committee further recommended that the 2008 Legislature introduce a bill that would add to the list of beneficial uses of a water right, non-use of the right in those areas closed to new appropriation by the Chief Engineer and those areas where water demand exceeds the available groundwater supply.
2008 Session Proposed Legislation

During the 2008 Legislative Session, HB 2625 was considered after having been introduced by the 2007 Special Committee on Energy, Natural Resources, and Environment, containing the aforementioned provisions. As amended by the House Committee of the Whole, Sub. for HB 2625 would have created a review process for IGUCAs designated prior and subsequent to July 1, 2008; established review hearings procedures; established procedures for review of areas designated as an IGUCA; created reporting procedures; and required the Chief Engineer to establish an advisory panel. The major changes proposed by the Senate Committee of the Whole for Sub. for HB 2625 included creating public review hearings and clarifying existing law to limit the Chief Engineer from initiating proceedings for an IGUCA to those areas outside of a groundwater management district.
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 B-3
The House nonconcurred and requested a conference committee. The Senate acceded. The bill then died in conference committee.
2009 and 2010 Session Proposed Legislation

During the 2009 Legislative Session, three bills relating to IGUCAs were introduced or considered, but failed to become law. HB 2065 was introduced by the Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations. HB 2065 would have allowed the Chief Engineer of the Department of Agriculture to designate an IGUCA within the boundaries of the groundwater management district (GMD) when certain groundwater conditions exist: the GMDs definition of public interest has been considered; the GMD has been provided with a description of the areas and documentation that one or more of the water conditions exist; and the GMD has been consulted for a reasonable agreement. The Chief Engineer would have preliminarily determined application of priority under the Kansas Water Appropriation Act to address each groundwater condition that would be less effective in solving the water condition or result in significantly more permits and water rights to cease than an IGUCA. The Chief Engineer would have provided a written report to the GMD; allowed at least 120 days for the GMD to develop and submit to the Chief Engineer a plan to address the groundwater condition; or provided data and analysis that refutes the groundwater condition. If the affected GMD failed to submit a plan to address the water condition or refute the existence of the groundwater condition, the Chief Engineer would have provided at least an additional 90 days to request initiation of an IGUCA. The Chief Engineer would have been allowed to designate an IGUCA if the GMD did not request an initiation of an IGUCA within the time specified. HB 2272 would have allowed the Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources to implement an IGUCA within the boundaries of a GMD only when the implementation was recommended by a GMD or whenever a petition was signed by 300 eligible voters or 5 percent of the eligible voters in the district, whichever was less. After being recommended by the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources, the House Committee of the Whole amended the bill by removing a provision requiring the Chief Engineer to work with county commissioners prior to implementing an IGUCA outside the boundaries of a GMD. A motion failed in the 2009 House Committee of the Whole to recommend HB 2272 favorably for passage. HB 2272 did go on General Orders of the House in 2010. The language contained in HB 2272 was added to the contents of HB 2283, a bill primarily focused on annexation policy, by the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. HB 2283 was passed favorably by both the Committee and the Senate Committee of the Whole. The bill was not adopted by the House of Representatives. HB 2283 became law in 2010, but after Conference Committee action removed the provisions amending the law relating to Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas.
2011 Proposed Legislation

No bills were introduced during the 2011 Legislative Session that would have directly affected IGUCAs. Three bills primarily related to water policy were signed into law during the Session. House Substitute for SB 214 changed the definition of person in KSA 82a-1020 et seq., known as the Groundwater Management District Act, which is also the section that concerns IGUCAs. SB 122 allowed the Kansas Water Office to grant easements to landowners on state property in and along waterways. SB 124 also dealt with groundwater and surface water issues, but did not specifically refer to IGUCAs.
B-3
page 4
For more information, please contact: Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research [email protected] Heather OHara, Principal Analyst [email protected]
page 5
B-3

Agriculture and Natural Resources B-4 Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund Other Agriculture and Natural Resources reports available B-1 Water Litigation B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan B-3 Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas Water Policy Trifurcation

B-4 Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund
History
The Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund (PWSLF) was established by the 1994 Legislature through SB 611. Statutory authority for the PWSLF may be found at KSA 65-163d through 65-163u. The PWSLF is a revolving loan fund program that provides financial assistance in the form of loans to Kansas municipalities, at below market interest rates, for the construction of public water supply system infrastructure. Expenditures from the PWSLF are for projects that comply with the federal SDWA. In 1996, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), by U.S. Congressional action, established the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) to assist public water supply systems in financing the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements, and to protect public health. This measure authorized the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to award capitalization grants to the states.
B-5
How the PWSLF Works

The PWSLF is made possible by receipt of capitalization grants from the EPA. Kansas must provide 20 percent matching funds to receive the capitalization grant (except for the capitalization grant received through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, or ARRA). The PWSLF provides matching funds by issuing state match revenue bonds and by a one-time $5.0 million allocation in accordance with SB 487 from the 1998 Legislature. The state-matched bonds are repaid with the interest portion of the municipalities loan repayments and other interest earning of the PWSLF. The PWSLF is operated as a reserve account leverage program. In a reserve account leverage program, the capitalization grant is deposited in a reserve account and pledged as security for repayment of stateissued revenue bonds. Proceeds from the revenue bonds are loaned to the municipalities. The reserve account is invested and the interest earnings are combined with the loan repayments from municipalities to
Heather OHara, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
buy down the loans interest rate. Municipalities are charged interest rates equal to 80 percent of the previous three months average of the Bond Buyers 20 Bond Index. The PWSLF interest rate for August 2011 is 2.72 percent. The PWSLF is designed to leverage a ration of 4:1, meaning $4 can be borrowed for every $1 placed into reserve. Funding to implement and administer the PWSLF is available from the federal capitalization grant and from a service fee built in the loan interest rate. No State General Funds are needed for the program. The PWSLF resides in the State Treasury and moneys are credited to the Fund from the following sources: Funding received from the federal government; Funding appropriated by the Legislature; Proceeds derived from the sale of bonds issued in accordance to the PWSLF statutes; Funding received from repayments of loans as well as the interest paid; Interest attributable to investment of moneys in the PWSLF; and Funding received from any public or private entity for the purposes of the PWSLF
Administration of the PWSLF

The Secretary of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) is charged with administering the PWSLF and developing a priority system for projects. According to statute, those permitted to have access to the PWSLF are: Municipalities (political or taxing subdivisions that are authorized by law to construct, operate, and maintain a public water supply system); Water districts; and Two or more political or taxing subdivisions that jointly construct, operate, or maintain a public water supply system.
The law requires that the Secretary exclude from the priority list any project of a municipality that has not adopted and implemented conservation plans and practices. Also excluded is any project related to the diversion or transportation of water acquired through a water transfer. Specific authority to issue and sell revenue bonds or to enter into an agreement with the Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA) for the KDFA to issue revenue bonds for the purpose of making loans for public water supply development and improvement is given to the Secretary of KDHE.
B-4
page 2
The PWSLF is audited annually by a certified public accounting firm in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the country and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General. The most recent report shows an unqualified opinion.
Priority System for Projects

KDHE has developed a Project Priority System to rank all projects submitted for funding. The system establishes priority rating criteria that are used to numerically rank projects for potential funding assistance from the PWSLF. All projects are placed on a yearly Project Priority List, which are listed in order of project ranking. A funding line is set to accommodate the highest ranked project in correlation to the available funds. Projects will be funded according to ranking on the 2012 Project Priority List and the readiness of the project to proceed. Twenty percent of the federal FY 2011 EPA capitalization grant will be reserved for green infrastructure, water, or energy efficiency improvements, or other environmentally innovative activities, otherwise referred to as green or Green Project Reserve (GPR). The SDWA requires priority to be given to projects that address the most serious risks to human health, that are necessary to assure compliance with the requirements of the SDWA, and to assist public water supplies most in need, on a per household basis according to state affordability criteria. In addition, state law requires KDHE to make available at least 20 percent of the total money in the PWSLF to public water supply systems serving less than 5,000 people. The SDWA requires KDHE to make available at least 15 percent of the total money in the PWSLF to public water supply systems serving less than 10,000 people. Systems that serve less than 10,000 represent 59 percent of the loan funds in the 2012 Project Priority List and 74 percent above the funding line on the list. KDHE considered several factors, in addition to readiness, in determining the priority of each project. The factors include: Water quality issues, including compliance with maximum contaminant levels, treatment techniques, aesthetic factors, and unregulated contaminants; Consolidation of systems; Improvements to reliability; State median and applicant household income levels; Special categories which include expansions and improvements to potential future quality standards; and Other considerations that KDHE may include when the above factors do not cover the previously outline criteria, but are worthy of consideration.
page 3
B-4
2012 Priority List

The 2012 Project Priority List lists all eligible and current projects that have been submitted for loan fund consideration. The funding line for the Project Priority List will be set to an amount closest to the available funds, which KDHE has estimated to be approximately $95.9 million. The funding line will allow 95 projects on the Project Priority List to submit loan applications. There is approximately $5.2 million available for GPR projects and components (2010 and 2011 grants combined).
Financial Status of the PWSLF

In November 2010, the KDFA created a Master Financing Indenture (MFI) that allows the PWSLF and the Kansas Water Pollution Control Revolving Fund (KDHEs Clean Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund) to access the municipal bond market as a single entity. According to the KDHE, this indenture greatly enhances the PWSLFs ability to provide loans. The MFI issued bonds in November 2010 and May 2011, and both issues were rated AAA. The Master Bond Resolution, which preceded the MFI, will continue to exist as long as bonds issued under it are still outstanding, but no new bonds can be issued from it. As of June 30, 2011, KDHE had 217 loan agreements or offers in place for a total of $457.3 million. KDHE will direct loan the non-set-aside portion of the 2011 capitalization grant (and the remainder of the 2010 capitalization grant) rather than use it to leverage bonds through a reserve leveraging structure. As of June 30, 2011, there was approximately $9.3 million of the 2010 capitalization grant, $76 million from the MFI Program Equity Fund, and $10.6 million from the anticipated 2011 capitalization grant that had not yet been committed to loans. This would provide approximately $95.9 million to be committed to loans on the 2012 Project Priority List. More detailed financial information can be found in the 2011 PWSLF Annual Report and Audit and the 2012 PWSLF Intended Use Plan. This and other reports can be found on the KDHE website: http:// www.kdheks.gov/pws/loan/loanfund.htm. For more information, please contact:
Heather OHara, Principal Analyst [email protected]
B-4
page 4

Agriculture and Natural Resources B-5

B-5 Water Policy Trifurcation
Water Policy Trifurcation
The administration of water in Kansas is, for the most part, divided among these three state agencies: Division of Water Resources of the Department of Agriculture, which is mainly responsible for water appropriation and water rights; Bureau of Water of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, which is mainly responsible for water quality; and Kansas Water Office, which is mainly responsible for water planning. The Kansas Water Authority is established statutorily as a part of the Kansas Water Office to both advise and make recommendations with respect to water resources within the state.
Other Agriculture and Natural Resources reports available B-1 Water Litigation B-2 State Water Plan Fund, Kansas Water Authority, and State Water Plan B-3 Intensive Groundwater Use Control Areas
B-4 Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund
It should be noted that a number of other state agencies have a less significant role in the administration of water including the Adjutant Generals Department; the Kansas Biological Survey; the Kansas Corporation Commission; the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism; the Kansas Geological Survey; Kansas State University Research and Extension; and the State Conservation Commission.
Division of Water Resources-Kansas Department of Agriculture

The Division of Water Resources (DWR) of the Kansas Department of Agriculture is under direction of the Chief Engineer, who administers multiple state laws, including the Kansas Water Appropriation Act which governs how water is allocated and used; statutes regulating the construction of dams, levees, and other changes to streams; and the states four interstate river compacts, as well as coordinating the National Flood Insurance Program in Kansas. DWR is composed of three programs: water appropriation, water structures, and water management
Raney Gilliland Assistant Director for Research 785-296-3181

[email protected]
services. Each program has teams focused on specific functions. The Chief Engineer is in the classified service and is given unique statutory authority and responsibility. Even though DWR is housed within the Kansas Department of Agriculture, this persons responsibility encompasses water rights for cities, industries, and other non-agricultural uses of water. One of the most important programs DWR administers is the Water Appropriation Program, which is authorized by the Kansas Water Appropriation Act and directed by rules and regulations pertaining to water rights. The Water Appropriation Program also is involved in coordinating with groundwater management districts, irrigation districts, rural water districts, public wholesale water supply districts, and water assurance districts; administering the Water Transfer Act and Water Banking Act; administering intensive groundwater use control areas; and other functions related to water rights and use.
Kansas Department of Health and Environment (Bureau of Water)

Much of the authority for water quality rests with the Bureau of Water of the Division of Environment within the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). Although most of the states water quality programs have their home in KDHE, some do not. For example, when oil and gas activities have been the source of water pollution, the Kansas Corporation Commission is given authority for remediation. Below, you will find a listing of some of the major water quality programs administered by KDHE, most within the Bureau of Water: Water Quality Assessment; Watershed Planning/Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL); Watershed Management; Local Environmental Protection Program; Watershed Restoration and Protection Strategy; Livestock Waste Management Program; Kansas Public Water Supply Loan Fund; Public Water Supply Program; Water Pollution Control Program; Clean Water State Revolving Fund; Other KDHE Programs.
Kansas Water Office

The Kansas Water Office (KWO) coordinates the Kansas water planning process in concert with the Kansas Water Authority. The Authority's 24 members include representatives from diverse water use interest groups and leaders of the state's natural resource agencies. In addition, the advice on policy development comes from basin advisory committees in each of the state's 12 river basins and other local stakeholders. The Authority, in turn, advises the Governor and Legislature on water issues to be considered for policy enactment. The following lists the major responsibilities of the Kansas Water Office:
B-5
State Water Planning; Water Marketing Program; Weather Modification; Water Supply and Demand Estimates; Basic Data Collection and Research Coordination;
Lake Level Management; Drought Monitoring and Response; Automated Weather Stations; and Water Conservation Program.
(Note: More detailed descriptions of the KDHE programs, Water Office responsibilities, and the Kansas Water Authority are available on the Legislative Research Department website under the Capitol Issues Water section.)
For more information, please contact: Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research [email protected] Heather OHara, Principal Analyst [email protected]
page 3
B-5

Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling C-1
Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling

C-1 Liquor Laws
Liquor Laws
Other Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling reports available C-2 Lottery, Parimutuel Wagering, Bingo, and Indian Casinos C-3
The Kansas liquor laws are administered by the Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Division of the Kansas Department of Revenue. Current Liquor Laws. The current Kansas liquor laws include the following acts: Liquor Control Act; Cereal Malt Beverage Act; Private Club and Drinking Establishment Act; Non-alcoholic Malt Beverages Act; Beer and Cereal Malt Beverage Keg Registration Act; and Statutes authorizing sales by farm wineries and microbreweries.
Casinos
Liquor Licenses. To produce, distribute, and sell alcoholic beverages in Kansas, a license must be obtained from the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control. License types include the following: Manufacturer; Spirits Distributor; Wine Distributor; Beer Distributor; Retail Liquor Store; Farm Winery; Microbrewery; Class A Private Club (not-for-profit); Class B Private Club (for-profit); Drinking Establishment; Caterer; Hotel Drinking Establishment; and Temporary Permit.
Dennis Hodgins, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
History of Liquor Laws. Some major dates in the history of Kansas liquor laws are listed below.
1880 1917 1937 1948 1949 1965 1979 1983 1986 1987 1990 1994 1995 2002 2005 2006
Voters approved a constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors. The Legislature passed the Bone Dry Law, prohibiting the possession of all liquor. The Legislature authorized the sale of cereal malt beverage (3.2 percent beer) for consumption both on- and off-premises. Voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to regulate, license, and tax the manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquor . . . . The Legislature enacted the Liquor Control Act in response to the 1948 constitutional amendment. The Legislature enacted the Private Club Act providing for the sale of liquor in private clubs. Private clubs were statutorily authorized to sell liquor by the drink to members and guests. Liquor Pools were eliminated and a 10 percent drink tax was imposed. Farm wineries were authorized to sell table wine made from Kansas products. Voters approved a constitutional amendment permitting sale of liquor by the drink in establishments open to the public. Drinking establishments were created as a category of licenses permitted to sell liquor by the drink. Microbreweries were permitted to manufacture and sell beer. The Non-alcoholic Malt Beverages Act authorized the sale of malt beverages containing less than 0.5 percent alcohol. Election day sales legalized. Credit card sales authorized. The Beer and Cereal Malt Beverage Keg Registration Act required retailers to register all beer kegs. The Kansas Liquor Control Act and Cereal Malt Beverage Act is applied uniformly to all cities and counties. The Kansas Liquor Control Act allowed direct shipment of wine from wine manufacturers to the consumer if such consumer is 21 years of age or older, purchases the wine while physically present on the premises of the wine manufacturer, uses the wine for personal consumption, and pays all applicable taxes. The Kansas Liquor Control Act allowed a licensed farm winery or a person who holds an interest in a licensed farm winery to hold a class B club license, a drinking establishment license, and a caterers license.
2007
C-1
page 2
2008
The Kansas Liquor Contract Act allowed the temporary permit holders at the Kansas State Fair to sell, in its original, unopened container, wine that is being sold by the glass. The Kansas Liquor Control Act and Club and Drinking Establishment Act permitted instate and out-of-state wineries to directly ship wine to consumers in Kansas. The Acts permit wine to be sold at a bona fide farmers market. The Acts permit consumption of alcoholic liquor at special events held on public streets, alleys, roads, sidewalks, or highways closed to motor traffic. The Club and Drinking Establishment Act prohibited the issuance of a license to an establishment owner who does not own or lease the premises, except that an applicant for licensure for a premise owned by a city or county, or a stadium, area, convention center, theater, museum, amphitheater, or other similar premises, may submit an executed agreement to provide alcoholic beverage services at the premises listed in the application. No new liquor laws were enacted.
2009
2010
2011
Liquor Taxes. Currently, Kansas imposes three levels of liquor taxes. For more information see article Y-2, Liquor Taxes. For more information, please contact:
Dennis Hodgins, Principal Analyst [email protected]
Julian Efird, Principal Analyst [email protected]
page 3
C-1

Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling C-2 Lottery, Parimutuel Wagering, Bingo, and Indian Casinos Other Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling reports available C-1

C-2 Lottery, Parimutuel Wagering, Bingo, and Indian Casinos
State constitutional amendments permit three types of non-tribal gaming in Kansas: The Kansas Lottery; Parimutuel wagering on dog and horse races; and Charitable bingo.
Liquor Laws
C-3
Revenue. Kansas laws provided for the allocation of revenue to the state in FY 2011 of $70,010,541 from the lottery, $0 from parimutuel wagering, and $407,082 from bingo revenues.
Casinos State-tribal compacts were entered into in 1995 with the four resident Indian tribes to allow casino gaming in the state. Revenue. Under the existing Indian gaming compacts, the state does not receive revenue from the casinos, except for its oversight activities. As of September 2011, no new compacts have been approved.
Kansas Lottery
In 1986, Kansas voters approved a constitutional amendment to provide: For a state-owned lottery; and Included a sunset provision prohibiting the operation of the state lottery unless a concurrent resolution authorizing such operation was adopted by the Kansas Legislature. (The 2007 Legislature extended the lottery until 2022. The bill also required that a security audit of the Kansas Lottery be completed at least once every three years.)

[email protected]
The 1987 Kansas Legislature approved implementing legislation which: Created the Kansas Lottery, to operate the State Lottery; Established a five-member Lottery Commission to oversee operations; Required that at least 45 percent of the money collected from ticket sales be awarded as prizes and at least 30 percent of the money collected be transferred to the State Gaming Revenues Fund (SGRF); Exempted lottery tickets from the sales tax; and Allowed liquor stores, along with other licensed entities, to sell lottery tickets.
Receipts from the sale of lottery tickets are deposited by the Executive Director of the Kansas Lottery into the Lottery Operating Fund in the State Treasury. Statutorily, moneys in that fund are used to: Support the operation of the lottery; Pay prizes to lottery winners by transfers to the Lottery Prize Fund; and Provide funding for problem gamblers, correctional facilities, juvenile facilities, economic development, and the State General Fund (SGF) via transfers to the State Gaming Revenues Fund (SGRF). Revenue. In FY 2011, revenue from the State Lottery was transferred from the SGRF in the following manner: Problem Gambling Grant Fund Correctional Institutions Building Fund Juvenile Detention Fund Economic Development Initiatives Fund State General Fund Total $ 80,000 4,992,000 2,496,000 42,432,000 20,010,541 70,010,541
C-2
page 2
Transfer of Revenue. No more than $50.0 million from both the State Lottery and parimutuel wagering revenue can be transferred to the SGRF in any fiscal year; amounts in excess of $50 million generally are credited to the SGF, except when otherwise provided by law.
The 2008 Legislature amended the Kansas Lottery Act in various ways: Senate Sub. for HB 2923 amends existing law to allow the Kansas Lottery to sell Veterans Benefit Game lottery tickets year-round and to change the distribution of net profits for the Veterans Benefit Game. The bill requires 40 percent of the net profits to be used for Kansas National Guard scholarships and 30 percent to benefit the Kansas Veterans Home, the Kansas Soldiers Home, and the Veterans Cemetery System. For FY 2009 and FY 2010, the bill directs 30 percent to the Museum of the Kansas National Guard for the expansion of its facility, to include a 35th Infantry Division Museum and Education Center. In FY 2011, the 30 percent will be redirected from the Museum to a veterans enhanced service delivery program. Senate Sub. for HB 2946 (Omnibus Appropriations bill) addresses the use of monies from expanded gaming. The 2007 Legislature in SB 66, which established the expanded gaming provisions for state-owned racinos and casinos, also created the Expanded Lottery Act Revenues Fund (ELARF) to receive the states share of the revenues after disposition of operating expenses and statutory transfers of all other money collected. SB 66 also provided for three statutory uses for which money in the ELARF could be used: property tax relief, infrastructure improvements, and debt relief.
Expanded Lottery Act Revenue Fund (ELARF)

For FY 2011 actual revenues for deposit in the Expanded Lottery Act Revenue Fund (ELARF) are $29.2 million.
Parimutuel Wagering
In 1986, voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to permit, regulate, license, and tax the operation of horse and dog racing by bona fide non-profit organizations and to conduct parimutuel wagering. The Kansas Parimutuel Racing Act was created by legislation the following year which: Created the Kansas Racing Commission, subsequently renamed the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission, which is authorized to license and regulate all aspects of racing and parimutuel wagering;
page 3
C-2
Permitted only non-profit organizations to be licensed and the licenses may be for an exclusive geographic area; Created a formula for taxing the wagering; Provided for simulcasting of both interstate and intrastate horse and greyhound races in Kansas, and allowed parimutuel wagering on simulcast races in 1992; and Provided for the transfer of tax revenues from the State Racing Fund to the SGRF of any moneys in excess of amounts required for operating expenditures.
Revenue. In FY 2011, there was no revenue transfer to the SGRF.
Parimutuel Racetracks. As of October 2011, there are no year-round parimutuel racetracks operating in Kansas. Parimutuel horse racing is offered at two county fair locations for short periods during the year: Eureka Downs in Eureka, and Anthony Downs in Anthony.
The parimutuel track located in Frontenac, Camptown Greyhound Park, has been closed since November 2000.
Charitable Bingo
In 1974, voters approved a constitutional amendment authorizing the Legislature to regulate, license, and tax the operation and conduct of games of bingo by bona fide non-profit religious, charitable, fraternal, educational, or veterans organizations. The constitutional amendment was amended in 1995 to authorize games of instant bingo. The Legislature adopted implementing legislation in 1995 to regulate, license, and tax charitable bingo games. The 2011 Legislative session amended the bingo laws by creating a new method to conduct instant bingo, raising the price of instant bingo tickets, increasing the hours of instant bingo and increasing the number of mini bingo games allowed, restricting the hours mini bingo can be conducted, allowing a beneficiary organization to be a bingo licensee, and removing the restricted prize limit for progressive bingo games.
C-2
page 4
Entities Regulated in the Charitable Bingo Industry:

Licensed non-profit organizations (a group which is eligible to conduct bingo games, such as an American Legion post or a church group); Registered premises lessors (the owner or lessor of premises where a non-profit organization may conduct bingo games); and Registered bingo card distributors (a person or entity that sells instant bingo tickets and bingo cards/disposable bingo faces to non-profit organizations).
The Secretary of Revenue is vested with general administration of the bingo statutes. The Director of Taxation is charged with specific duties related to the taxation of bingo. Revenue. The bingo tax generated $407,082 in FY 2011, which was transferred to the SGRF. Of the bingo tax revenue, $271,401 was transferred to the SGF and $135,681 was transferred to the Bingo Regulation Fund. In addition, an annual transfer of $20,000 from the Bingo Regulation Fund to the Problem Gambling Grant Fund was made in FY 2011.
Indian Casino Gaming

In 1995, the State of Kansas and each of the four resident tribes in Kansas entered into tribalstate gaming compacts to permit Class III (casino) gaming at tribal casinos. In accordance with the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), all four of the compacts approved by the Kansas Legislature were forwarded to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and were approved. At the present time, all four resident tribes have opened and are operating a casino gaming facilities: Kickapoo Tribe (the Golden Eagle Casino) in May 1996; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation opened a temporary facility in October 1996, and then Harrahs Prairie Band Casino in January 1998 (in 2007 Harrahs relinquished operation of the casino to the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation); Sac and Fox Tribe (Sac and Fox Casino) in February 1997; Iowa Tribe opened a temporary facility in May 1998, and then Casino White Cloud in December 1998.
Revenue. Financial information concerning the operation of the four casinos is confidential. Under the existing compacts, the state does not receive revenue from the casinos, except for its oversight activities. The State Gaming Agency (SGA) was created by executive order in August 1995, as required by the tribal-state gaming compacts. During the 1996 Legislative Session, the agency was made a part of the Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission (KRGC) through the passage of the Tribal Gaming Oversight Act. The gaming compacts define the relationship between the SGA and the tribes: the actual
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 C-2
day-to-day regulation of the gaming facilities is performed by the tribal gaming commissions. Enforcement agents of the SGA also are in the facilities on a daily basis and have free access to all areas of the gaming facility. The compacts also require the SGA to conduct background investigations on all gaming employees, manufacturers of gaming supplies and equipment, and gaming management companies and consultants. The SGA is funded through an assessment process established by the compacts to reimburse the State of Kansas for the costs it incurs for regulation of the casinos. As of October 2011, no new Indian gaming compacts have been approved.
For more information, please contact:
Dylan Dear, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected]

C-2
page 6

Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling C-3

C-3 Casinos
Casinos
Who can have a casino in Kansas?

The passage of 2007 SB 66 created gaming zones for casinos, and one casino may be built in each zone: Wyandotte County (Northeast Kansas Gaming Zone); Crawford and Cherokee counties (Southeast Kansas Gaming Zone); Sedgwick and Summer counties (South Central Kansas Gaming Zone); and Ford County (Southwest Kansas Gaming Zone).
Other Alcohol, Drugs, and Gambling reports available C-1
Liquor Laws
C-2 Lottery, Parimutuel Wagering, Bingo, and Indian Casinos
Who owns and operates the casinos?

The Kansas Lottery Commission is responsible for ownership and operational control. In addition, the Lottery is authorized to enter into contracts with the gaming managers for gaming at the exclusive and nonexclusive (parimutuel locations) gaming zones.
Who is responsible for regulation?

The Kansas Racing and Gaming Commission (KRGC) is responsible for oversight and regulation of lottery gaming facility operations.
What are the required provisions of any Lottery gaming facilities contract?
[email protected]
The law requires that each contract: Have an initial term of 15 years from the date of opening the gaming facility;
Specify the amount to be paid to the manager; Establish a mechanism for payment of expenses; Include a provision for the lottery gaming manager to pay the costs of oversight and regulation of the operation of the lottery gaming facility by the KRGC; Provide for an investment in infrastructure, including ancillary lottery gaming facility operations, of at least $225 million in the northeast, southeast and south central gaming zones, and $50 million in the southwest gaming zone. Establish a gaming privilege fee of $25 million to be paid by the prospective lottery gaming manager, except the privilege for the southwest gaming facility zone manager is $5.5 million; and Establish the disposition of revenues as follows: Not less than 22 percent of the gaming revenues to the state; 2 percent to the Problem Gambling and Addictions Fund; 1.5 percent to the city; 1.5 percent to the county (3 percent if the casino is located in a gaming zone of only one county and is not located in a city); 1 percent to the host county (2 percent if the casino is located in a gaming zone consisting of more than one county and is not located in a city); and 1 percent to the non-host county if the casino is located in a gaming zone consisting of more than one county.
Who decides who receives the casino contracts?

The Lottery is to solicit proposals, approve gaming zone contracts, and submit the contracts to the Lottery Gaming Facility Review Board for consideration and determination of the contract for each zone. The Lottery Gaming Facility Review Board consists of three members appointed by the Governor, two members appointed by the President of the Senate, and two members appointed by the Speaker of the House. The Board is responsible for determining which lottery gaming facility management contract best maximizes revenue, encourages tourism, and serves the best interests of Kansas. The Board is under the control of the KRGC. In December 2008, applicants in the Northeast and South Central gaming zones withdrew their bids due to a collapse in the credit market. By October 2009, the Lottery Gaming Facility Review Board began considering one applicant in the Northeast zone and one applicant in the South Central zone. As of October 2010, two casinos have been awarded a contract, Southwest Gaming Zone and the Northeast Gaming Zone. A contract was awarded in 2011 in the South Central Gaming Zone. No contracts have been submitted for the Southeast Gaming Zone.
C-3 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Racetrack Gaming Facilities What racetrack facilities are permitted to have slot machines?
The Lottery may place slot machines at the Woodlands in Kansas City, Camptown Greyhound Park in Southeast Kansas, and Wichita Greyhound Park in Valley Center. In 2008, the Woodlands and Camptown closed and the voters in Sedgwick County did not approve slot machines at the Wichita Greyhound Park.
Who decides who receives the racetrack gaming facility management contract?
The Kansas Lottery is responsible for considering and approving proposed racetrack gaming facility management contracts with one or more prospective racetrack gaming facility managers. The prospective managers must have sufficient financial resources and be current in filing taxes to the state and local governments. The Lottery is required to submit proposed contracts to KRGC for approval or disapproval.
What are the required provisions of any racetrack gaming facilities contract?
The law requires the following main provisions: Authorize a maximum of 2,800 electronic gaming machines at all locations; Establish the number of live greyhound and horse races to be conducted at each parimutuel track prior to authorization of placement of electronic gaming machines; and Establish the distribution of electronic gaming revenue as follows: 25 percent to the racetrack gaming facility manager; 7 percent to the Live Greyhound Racing Purse Supplement Fund (not more than $3,750 per machine); 7 percent to the Live Horse Racing Purse Supplement Fund (not more than $3,750 per machine); 1.5 percent to the city; 1.5 percent to the county (3 percent if the track is not in a city); 2 percent to the Problem Gambling and Additions Grant Fund; 1 percent to the Kansas Horse Fair Racing Benefit Fund; 40 percent to the state; 15 percent for expenses; and $2,500 per electronic gaming machine.
page 3
C-3
C-3
page 4

Arts and Cultural Resources D-1 Arts and Cultural Resources Issues
Arts and Cultural Resources

D-1 Arts and Cultural Resources Issues
Funding for the Arts and Cultural Programs in Kansas
Arts and cultural program funding in Kansas is carried out by the Kansas Arts Commission, the Kansas State Historical Society, the Kansas Film Commission, the Kansas Humanities Council, and the Kansas Department of Education.
Kansas Arts Commission

Organizational mission. The Kansas Arts Commission was created in 1965 by the Legislature to support and sustain the development of the arts and cultural resources in Kansas. The agency is governed by a Commission of twelve members appointed by the Governor. Executive Reorganization Order No. 39. The Governor issued Executive Reorganization Order (ERO) No. 39 in February of 2011 to abolish the Arts Commission as a state agency. The ERO transferred the powers, duties, and functions of the Kansas Arts Commission to the Historical Society and provide money as a pass-through to a not-for-profit arts organization. The Governor announced the formation of the Kansas Arts Foundation, a 501(c)(3) corporation and introduced the foundations Board of Directors. The Governors proposed budget for FY 2012 allocated $200,000 through the Kansas Historical Society to assist in the transition from a state agency into a private organization. The Senate proposed and passed SR 1819 disapproving the Governors ERO No. 39, retaining the Kansas Arts Commission as a state agency. The 2011 Legislature appropriated $689,999, all from the State General Fund, and 6.0 FTE positions for the Kansas Arts Commission for FY 2012. The Legislature also deleted the $200,000 the Governor proposed for the Historical Society for the transition. The Governor laid off the Kansas Arts Commission staff in May 2011 and line-item vetoed the appropriation of $689,999 and 6.0 FTE positions from Senate Sub. for HB 2014. The Governor did not veto the
Shirley Morrow, Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
portion of the Kansas Arts Commission budget that appropriated special revenue funds. The Governor also retained the Kansas Arts Commission Board. Federal funds. The National Endowment for the Arts determined in August 2011 that the Kansas Arts Commission currently does not comply with the National Endowment for the Arts eligibility requirements and therefore will not receive a National Endowment for the Arts FY 2011 Partnership Agreement. The partnership agreement would have provided the Kansas Arts Commission with approximately $709,000 in grant funds. Due to the National Endowment for the Arts determination that the Kansas Arts Commission does not meet the partnership criteria, the state is no longer a partner in the Mid-America Arts Alliance. Kansas artists are not eligible for approximately $400,000 in arts grants and other funding in the state. Current funding. For FY 2012, there is no operating budget or staff for the Kansas Arts Commission. However, the agencys FY 2012 request for other assistance of $790,599, all from special revenue funds, was reestablished in the Kansas Arts Commissions budget. At this time, with no federal funding available, this funding would come from private donations.
Kansas State Historical Society

Organizational mission. The Kansas State Historical Society was founded in 1875 by newspaper editors and publishers who wanted to maintain the records of Kansass founding. Its purpose is to identify, collect, preserve, interpret, and disseminate materials and information pertaining to Kansas history in order to assist the public in understanding and appreciating their Kansas heritage and how it relates to their lives. Legislation was enacted in 1879 recognizing the Historical Society as the states trustee for maintaining the states history. The Historical Society was designated the official archival agency of the state in 1905 and is the states trustee in administering state-owned historic sites. The Historical Societys museum collections were moved to the new Kansas Museum of History in 1984, followed later by other programs and divisions that were housed in the Memorial Building in downtown Topeka. In 1995, the Center for Historical Research opened to the public and housed the agencys programs and divisions in Topeka. The Historical Society administers education and outreach programs, library and archives, historic sites and capital improvements, and cultural resources. Current funding. The 2011 Legislature approved a FY 2012 budget of $8.7 million, which is a decrease of $172,306, or 2.6 percent, below the FY 2011 approved amount. The approved State General Fund budget is $5,112,539, which is a decrease of $257,640, or 5.9 percent, below the FY 2011 approved amount. The FY 2012 approved capital improvements expenditures total $346,900, including $175,000 from the State General Fund. Emergency repairs and rehabilitation expenses total $125,000, with an additional $50,000 for repairs and replacement to lighting fixtures at the museum building. The remaining $171,900 from the FY 2012 capital improvements budget represents grants and private donations used to renovate and restore sites such as the John Brown Museum and Shawnee Indian Mission.
Kansas Humanities Council

Organizational mission. The Kansas Humanities Council is not a governmental agency, but operates as an independent not-for-profit organization. The Council was founded in 1972 and states that its mission is to provide leadership and financial support that help Kansans expand their sense of community, preserve historical resources, and envision the future through educational and cultural programs.
D-1
page 2
The Humanities Council receives funding and tax-deductible gifts from individuals, corporations, and foundations, as well as support from the State of Kansas and the National Endowment for the Humanities. It funds humanities programs throughout the state, including those in rural communities and small towns. Funding. The Council receives a portion of its funding from the state. The Legislature appropriates State General Funds to the Council as a line-item appropriation through the Kansas State Historical Society. A portion of the Historical Societys aid to local units of government is allocated to the Kansas Humanities Council. The 2011 Legislature approved FY 2012 funding for the Humanities Council of $64,361, all from the State General Fund. No State General Fund money is allocated for salaries.
Kansas State Department of Education

Fine arts promotion in the schools. The Kansas State Department of Educations role in promoting the arts in Kansas is done through a Fine Arts Program Consultant. This individual serves as a mentor and advisor for all the Fine Arts education programs and instructors in Kansas schools. These programs include dance, drama, theatre, music, and visual arts. In addition, the consultant provides educators with professional development opportunities and assists districts in implementing the Fine Arts graduation requirement passed by the Kansas State Board of Education in 2002 and revised in 2010.
Kansas Film Commission

The Kansas Film Commission is a program in the Business Development Division of the Kansas Department of Commerce, created to encourage and service film and video production in the State of Kansas. The Commission serves as a liaison between prospective filmmakers and the state, and assists companies with a wide variety of production issues, including locations, facilities, governmental assistance, and personnel. The 2007 Legislature adopted 2007 HB 2004, which provides a 30 percent non-refundable, nontransferable film production tax credit to production companies. However, the 2009 Legislature suspended the tax credit for tax years 2009 and 2010 in 2009 Senate Sub. for Sub. for HB 2365. The impact of this legislation is an estimated $1.0 million gain to the State General Fund in FY 2010 and FY 2011. The tax credit resumes in tax year 2011.
Kansass Sesquicentennial Commemoration

The 2009 Legislature passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1604 to encourage the Kansas State Historical Society to develop a plan to commemorate the sesquicentennial of the admission of Kansas to the Union. No State General Fund dollars were provided for the sesquicentennial effort, due to the states economic hardships. Through an advisory committee, the Kansas State Historical Society worked with the Kansas Arts Commission, Kansas Humanities Council, the Travel and Tourism Division (Kansas Department of Commerce), Kansas State Library, the African-American Affairs Commission, and several other organizations to organize community-based commemorations and create support for a grassroots movement. Promotion and marketing is supported through the Sesquicentennial website, www.KS150. org, which was funded from a grant from the Information Network of Kansas. The website is the primary gateway for the public to be informed of events, programs, and projects planned across the state.
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 D-1
Several participating state agencies are featuring exhibits and programs to highlight the states Sesquicentennial. The Historical Society is holding exhibits and adding more primary source documents, artifacts, and photographs from its archives that focus on early Kansas and Civil War history. The Kansas Arts Commission awarded 21 American Masterpiece Kansas grants for artists working on the theme of Kansas 150. The State Poet Laureate wrote and performed a new poem on Kansas Day. The Kansas Department of Transportation promoted the Sesquicentennial at the State Fair with signs and magnets, and added highway signs at selected locations around the state. The Kansas Lottery created a $1 ticket on the Kansas 150 theme that was launched in September 2010, as well as a $2 ticket that launched on Kansas Day 2011. The Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks, and Tourism promoted Sesquicentennial programs at its parks and provided a free day to all parks in 2011. For more information, please contact:
Shirley Morrow, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
Melissa Calderwood, Principal Analyst [email protected]
D-1
page 4

Children and Youth E-1 Tobacco/Childrens Initiatives Fund Other Children and Youth reports available E-2 Juvenile Justice Authority E-3
Children and Youth

E-1 Tobacco/Childrens Initiatives Fund
In 1998, Kansas became The tobacco industry is required one of 46 states to accept a to make payments to the states tobacco settlement negotiated with in perpetuity. Original estimates four major tobacco companies. were that the industry would pay (The remaining four states settled states $206 billion through the year individually.) The settlement, called 2025. Not all tobacco companies the Master Settlement Agreement, are party to the settlement. Those that are not, are required to put is aimed at reducing the use of into escrow an amount of money tobacco by young persons, settling equal to what they would pay legal claims by states against the under the settlement. This is to tobacco industry, and providing level the playing field so that nonreimbursement for health care costs participating manufacturers will of treating Medicaid patients whose not have a competitive advantage illnesses were caused by tobacco. over participating manufacturers. Under terms of the agreement, the tobacco industry is prohibited from targeting youth in marketing and is subject to restrictions concerning sponsorships, advertising, and tobacco promotions. The allocation formula is based on each states smoking-related health care costs, with equal weight given to Medicaid-related and nonMedicaid-related costs. Each state and territory gets the proportion of the settlement that its smoking-related health care costs bear to the total. Kansas share of the recovery is 0.83 percent, which, based on the original estimate, was expected to exceed $1.5 billion over the first 25 years of the agreement. Payments are based on the tobacco companies market share of tobacco product sales and are subject to an annual inflation factor of three percent, or the increase in the Consumer Price Index, whichever is greater. The Master Settlement Agreement also provides that payments to states could be reduced if tobacco sales go down or if tobacco companies go out of business. It is this latter provision which is causing concern over future payments.
Custodial Interference and Child Abuse
E-4
Child Custody Process/Visitation
E-5 Child in Need of Care Proceedings
Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
The Master Settlement Agreement does not impose any constraints on how the states may use their tobacco money. In Kansas, the 1999 Legislature enacted legislation that established a trust fund into which tobacco payments are credited and created the Kansas Childrens Cabinet to advise the Governor and the Legislature on programs that will be funded from the tobacco money. The trust fund, named the Kansas Endowment for Youth (KEY) Fund, is invested and managed by the Board of Trustees of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System. The Legislature also created the Childrens Initiatives Fund and provided that transfers would be made from the KEY Fund to the Childrens Initiatives Fund on an annual basis. Transfers from the KEY Fund to the Childrens Initiatives Fund are capped at $45 million, plus a 2.5 percent annual inflation factor.
Tobacco Payments to Kansas

Kansas received its first tobacco revenues in 1999. In general, payments have been less than originally estimated. In FY 2011, tobacco revenues and interest earnings totaled $57.1 million. Revenues were estimated to be $55.8 million in FY 2012. It is important to note that beginning in FY 2008 revenues include funds from the Strategic Contribution Fund provisions of the Master Settlement Agreement. These provisions require the tobacco companies to pay, from 2008 through 2017, a total of $861 million into the Strategic Contribution Fund. Money from the Strategic Contribution Fund is to be allocated to states based on the percentage each state contributed to the original Master Settlement Agreement. Kansas share of this amount is 1.85 percent. According to the Kansas Attorney Generals office, however, it is unclear how the Strategic Contribution Fund payments will be affected by recent actions of the tobacco companies to withhold payments under the agreement while they are disputing the basis of payments to be made. Estimated revenues from the Strategic Contribution Fund are estimated at $11.5 million in FY 2011. Kansas Tobacco Revenues and Interest Earnings FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 (est.)* *Excludes Interest Earnings $49,705,586 $52,935,158 $61,465,211 $61,511,858 $52,531,729 $53,453,765 $49,463,355 $47,515,501 $46,900,000 $66,347,833 $72,278,198 $60,838,465 $57,091,087 $55,800,000
Staff Note: FY 2009 revenues included receipts of $4.5 million from the disputed payments account of the Master Settlement Agreement.
E-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Concern Over Future Payments

The amount of tobacco money the states will receive is affected by several factors, including an overall decrease in tobacco consumption which results in diminished sales of tobacco products and lower payments to states. The market share of tobacco companies that are participating in the settlement also is being reduced by sales of nonparticipating manufacturers, and the possibility exists that one or more of the major participating manufacturers could declare bankruptcy. The most immediate and direct threat to the tobacco revenue stream is a clause in the Master Settlement Agreement which permits participating manufacturers to seek refund of money paid to the states when there is a drop in their market share below a threshold established in 1997. That threshold was triggered in 2003 and 2006 was the first year for which revenues were affected. In 2006, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lorillard Tobacco Company withheld all or part of their payments to the states, contending that, under the Master Settlement Agreement, the payments were not due because of declining market shares. The National Association of Attorneys General, which has played a leadership role among the states with regard to the tobacco settlement, takes the position that the tobacco companies owe the states the full payment until the industry can demonstrate that the states have failed to exercise due diligence in enforcing the tobacco settlement. (The Settlement is complicated, and there is disagreement between the industry and the states as to exactly how the downward adjustment clause should be interpreted or applied.) In June 2007, the state received $394,424 in funding from the disputed payments account. In March 2009, the state received $4.5 million from the disputed payments account.
Childrens Initiatives Fund

The 1999 Legislature created the Childrens Initiatives Fund to fund programs promoting the health and welfare of Kansas children. The Childrens Initiatives Fund is administered by the Childrens Cabinet, a 15-member committee consisting of appointees of the Governor and Legislature and ex officio members. The Cabinet is responsible for initiating audits and reviews of the programs receiving Childrens Initiatives Fund money. Expenditures from the Childrens Initiatives Fund are requested by the Childrens Cabinet through the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, recommended by the Governor and approved by the Legislature. The Kansas tobacco settlement is the revenue source for the Childrens Initiatives Fund. The settlement payments are placed in the KEY Fund. In general, the KEY Fund has not served as the endowment fund that was envisioned. This is because of a combination of less tobacco payment revenue than expected and shortfalls to the State General Fund which have resulted in transferring balances in the KEY Fund to the State General Fund rather than allowing them to accumulate.
page 3
E-1
ACTUAL FY 2010, APPROVED FY 2011, AND APPROVED FY 2012 EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS FROM THE CHILDRENS INITIATIVES FUND
Actual FY 2010 Department of Health and Environment Healthy Start/Home Visitor Infants and Toddlers Program (tiny-k) Smoking Cessation/Prevention Program Grants Newborn Hearing Aid Loaner Program SIDS Network Grant Newborn Screening Subtotal - KDHE Juvenile Justice Authority Juvenile Prevention Program Grants Juvenile Graduated Sanctions Grants Subtotal - JJA Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Childrens Cabinet Accountability Fund Childrens Mental Health Initiative Family Centered System of Care Child Care Services Reading Roadmap Smart Start Kansas - Childrens Cabinet Family Preservation Early Childhood Block Grants Early Childhood Block Grants -Autism Early Childhood & Literacy Investment Grant Early Head Start Child Care Quality Initiative Subtotal - SRS Department of Education Parents as Teachers Pre-K Pilot Subtotal - DOE TOTAL Approved FY 2011 Approved FY 2012
250,000 5,700,000 1,000,000 49,227 75,000 2,222,222 9,296,449
250,000 5,700,000 1,000,000 50,773 75,000 2,218,443 $ 9,294,216
237,914 5,700,000 1,000,000 47,161 71,374 2,108,806 9,165,255
$ $
4,673,032 4,324,677 8,997,709
$ $
$ $
545,407 3,800,000 5,000,000 1,399,836 8,321,820 3,241,062 11,023,599 50,000 3,452,625 500,000 $ 37,334,349
291,802 3,800,000 4,850,000 1,400,000 8,318,582 3,241,062 10,023,221 50,000 3,452,626 500,000 $ 35,927,293
519,325 3,800,000 4,750,000 5,033,679 933,137 7,158,744 3,106,605 10,567,102 48,179 66,584 479,257 $ 36,462,612
7,527,019 5,000,000 $ 12,527,019 $ 68,155,526
7,359,130 4,880,370 $ 12,239,500 $ 57,461,009
7,237,635 4,799,812 $ 12,037,447 $ 57,665,314
E-1
page 4
Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
Amy Deckard, Assistant Director of Information Management [email protected]
page 5
E-1

Children and Youth E-2 Juvenile Justice Authority Other Children and Youth reports available E-1 Tobacco/Childrens Initiatives Fund E-3
Children and Youth

E-2 Juvenile Justice Authority
History of the Juvenile Justice Authority and Juvenile Justice Reform
The Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA) is a cabinet-level agency headed by the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice. It was created by the 1996 Legislature through HB 2900 and amended by House Substitute for SB 69 during the 1997 Legislative Session. Individuals as young as ten years of age and as old as 17 years of age may be adjudicated as juvenile offenders and ordered into the custody of the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice. The JJA may retain custody of a juvenile offender in a juvenile correctional facility until the age of 22 1/2 and in the community until the age of 23. The JJA exists to promote public safety by reducing juvenile crime in Kansas and developing a balanced juvenile justice system that includes two major components: A broad-based partnership with local communities that develops and operates prevention, immediate interventions, and graduated sanctions programs for nonviolent juvenile offenders. JJA also administers grants to local communities for juvenile crime prevention and intervention initiatives. In addition to providing technical assistance and training to local communities, the agency is responsible for grant oversight and auditing all juvenile justice programs and services. Effective operation and long-term improvement of juvenile correctional facilities for violent juvenile offenders. The two currently funded juvenile correctional facilities are located at Larned and Topeka. The funding for each facility is included in separate budgets. A third facility, Atchison Juvenile Correctional Facility, suspended operations on December 8, 2008; and a fourth facility, Beloit Juvenile Correctional Facility, suspended operations on August 28, 2009.
E-4
Child Custody Process/Visitation
Ryan Weir, Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
The agency developed and maintains the comprehensive Juvenile Justice Information System (JJIS). JJIS is the mechanism that community partners (case management and juvenile intake and assessment) use to manage youth information and meet the data requirements that are required to be tracked across the state. Another functionality that is utilized in JJIS is the facility management portion. This functionality is used on a day-to-day basis to track youth during their time in the juvenile correctional facility.
JJAs History and Community Focus

The juvenile justice reform process implemented in Kansas from 1997 to 2000 is the foundation for juvenile programming in Kansas. Juvenile justice reform focused on prevention, intervention, and community-based services, and the premise that a youth should be placed in a juvenile correctional facility for rehabilitation and reform only as a last resort. Youth are more effectively rehabilitated and served within their own community. The objective of juvenile justice reform in the late 1990s was to create a community-based, prevention-focused juvenile justice system. Prior to the transition, juvenile justice functions were the responsibility of several state agencies, including the Office of Judicial Administration, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, and the Department of Corrections. Other objectives included separating juvenile offenders from children in need of care in the delivery of services, expanding prevention services for offenders within Kansas communities, and focusing on community-based services through the judicial districts. Research on the proposed transition began in 1993 and 1994 with legislative review of juvenile crime and the creation of the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. The Criminal Justice Coordinating Council was charged to create a task force to study and develop policies and recommendations regarding juvenile justice reform.

The Kansas Youth Authority and the JJA were created by the Legislature during the 1995 Session with the enactment of 1995 SB 312. The mission of the Kansas Youth Authority was to develop policies related to the scope and function of the new JJA. The Kansas Youth Authority became advisory after the JJA was created on July 1, 1997, until it was abolished during the 1999 Legislative Session. Pursuant to KSA 75-7012, all powers and duties of the Kansas Youth Authority were transferred to the Kansas Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. The Kansas Youth Authority was charged to develop confinement and alternate disposition policies for juvenile offenders. Specific areas studied included confinement, diversion, fines, restitution, community service, standard probation, intensive supervision, house arrest programs, electronic monitoring, structured school, day reporting centers, community residential care, treatment centers, and sanctions. SB 312 (1995) also assigned the following responsibilities (now in KSA 75-7001) to the JJA:
E-2
page 2
Control and manage the operation of the state youth centers (now referred to as Juvenile Correctional Facilities); Evaluate the rehabilitation of juveniles committed to the JJA and prepare and submit periodic reports to the committing court; Consult with the state schools and courts on the development of programs for the reduction and prevention of delinquency and the treatment of juvenile offenders; Cooperate with other agencies that deal with the care and treatment of juvenile offenders; Advise local, state, and federal officials; public and private agencies; and lay groups on the needs for and possible methods of reduction and prevention of delinquency and the treatment of juvenile offenders; Assemble and distribute information relating to delinquency and report on studies relating to community conditions which affect the problem of delinquency; Assist any community within the state by conducting a comprehensive survey of the communitys available public and private resources, and recommend methods of establishing a community program for combating juvenile delinquency and crime; and Be responsible for directing state money to providers of alternative placements in local communities such as supervised release into the community, out-of-home placement, community services work, or other community-based service; provide assistance to such providers; and evaluate and monitor the performance of such providers relating to the provision of services.
The bill also transferred all the powers, duties, and functions concerning juvenile offenders from the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to the JJA, beginning July 1, 1997.
1996 and 1997 Legislative Action

The 1996 Legislature passed HB 2900, known as the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1996. The bill outlined the powers and duties of the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice. The bill also addressed the areas of security measures, intake and assessment, dual sentencing, construction of maximum security facility or facilities, child support and expense reimbursement, criminal expansion, disclosure of information, immediate intervention programs, adult presumption, parental involvement in dispositional options, parental responsibility, school attendance, parental rights, and immunization. The bill also changed the date for the transfer of powers, duties, and functions from the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services and other state agencies regarding juvenile offenders to the JJA to July 1, 1996. The bill stated that the Kansas Youth Authority must develop a transition plan that included a juvenile placement matrix, aftercare services upon release from a juvenile correctional facility, coordination with Social and Rehabilitation Services to consolidate the functions of juvenile offender and children in need of care (CINC) intake and assessment services (on a 24-hour basis), recommendations
page 3
E-2
on how all juveniles in police custody should be processed, and the transfer from a state-based juvenile justice system to a community-based system according to judicial districts. The Legislature amended the Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1996 in 1997 with House Substitute for SB 69, including changes in the administration of the law. In addition, the amendments dealt with juvenile offender placements in an effort to maximize community-based placements and reserve state institutional placements for the most serious, chronic, and violent juvenile offenders. Also included in this bill was the creation of the Joint Committee on Corrections and Juvenile Justice and the Kansas Advisory Group on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Currently, there are only two major agency divisions with the JJA, Administration and Contracts and Audits, as well as a third smaller division, Debt Service.
Administration Division
The Administration Division provides the leadership and administrative support for the agency. This program is responsible for providing the guidance and oversight of local juvenile justice program providers and the juvenile correctional facilities. The administration staff is responsible for the following: The development, implementation, and administration of agency policies and continuous evaluation and oversight of local providers and the juvenile correctional facilities; Legal services and consultation, including representation of the agency and its employees in litigation and administrative hearings; the development and implementation of policies, procedures, regulations, and statutes for JJA; and the preparation and review of contracts and other legal documents; The planning and information analysis to carry out the agency direct service responsibilities, and providing strategic leadership and technical assistance to local communities for successful community-based juvenile justice services; and Administrative support including human resources, fiscal services, and clerical services.
Contracts and Audits Division

The Contracts and Audits (Programs) Division is responsible for administering the Juvenile Intake and Assessment, Community Case Management, and Juvenile Intensive Supervised Probation programs. Additionally, the Contracts and Audits administers prevention block grants through community providers and conducts performance audits of contracted services. Contracts and Audits is responsible for the funding and overall program performance while actual service delivery is provided by private and public contractors at the local level. Contracts and Audits also is responsible for the management and oversight of youth programming at the four juvenile correctional facilities.
E-2
page 4
Recent Issues
Since the 1996 Legislative Session, smaller changes have occurred, including: The 2007 Legislature added $6,150,260, all from the State General Fund, for the establishment of Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities (PRTF), replacements of the Level V and VI facilities. A PRTF provides comprehensive mental health treatment to children and adolescents who, due to mental illness, substance abuse, or severe emotional disturbance, are in need of treatment that can most effectively be provided in a psychiatric residential treatment facility. In FY 2009 the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice announced the suspension of operations at the Atchison Juvenile Correctional Facility effective December 8, 2008. The closure of the facility led to an estimated savings of $1.96 million in FY 2009. Of the 77.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions at the Atchison Juvenile Correctional Facility, 16.0 FTE positions were transferred to the Kansas Juvenile Correctional Complex, 5.0 FTE positions were transferred to the Larned Juvenile Correctional Facility, 3.0 FTE positions were left for maintenance at the Atchison Juvenile Correctional Facility and 53.0 FTE positions were eliminated. The 2009 Legislature added the JJAs out-of-home services, which includes group homes and PRTF, to the caseload estimating process. The caseload estimating process included both expenditure and revenue estimates and occurs twice a year, once in April and once in November. A variety of agencies are involved, mostly on the expenditure side for agencies with caseloads and school finance estimates. These include the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Department of Health and Environment, Department on Aging, Board of Indigents Defense Services, Department of Education, and JJA. The caseload estimates are then used by the Governor to make recommendations for changes to his or her official budget. In FY 2010 the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice announced the suspension of operations at Beloit Juvenile Correctional Facility effective August 28, 2009. The closure of the facility led to an estimated savings of $1.46 million for FY 2010. The 20 female youth residents who were located in Beloit were moved to the Kansas Juvenile Correctional Complex - West. Of the 59.0 FTE positions, 28.0 FTE positions were transferred to the Kansas Juvenile Correctional Complex West, and 31.0 FTE positions were eliminated. For more information, please contact:
Ryan Weir, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
J.G. Scott, Chief Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 E-2

Children and Youth E-3
Children and Youth

E-3 Custodial Interference and Child Abuse
Current Law
KSA 21-5409 outlines the crimes of interference with parental custody and aggravated interference with parental custody. In KSA 21-5409(a), interference with parental custody is defined as taking or enticing away any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to detain or conceal such child from the childs parent, guardian, or other person having the lawful charge of such child. An individual prosecuted for interference with parental custody cannot use joint custody as a defense. This crime is a class A person misdemeanor if the perpetrator is a parent entitled to joint custody of the child; in all other cases it is a severity level 10, person felony. KSA 21-5409(b) lists certain circumstances in which the crime of interference with parental custody will be considered aggravated, including: Hiring someone to commit the crime of interference with parental custody; or The commission of interference with parental custody, by a person who: Has previously been convicted of the crime; Commits the crime for hire; Takes the child outside the state without the consent of either the person having custody or the court; After lawfully taking the child outside the state while exercising visitation
Other Children and Youth reports available E-1 Tobacco/Childrens Initiatives Fund E-2 Juvenile Justice Authority E-4 Child Custody Process/Visitation E-5 Child in Need of Care Proceedings
Lauren Douglass, Research Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
rights or parenting time, refuses to return the child at the expiration of that time; At the expiration of the exercise of any visitation rights or parenting time outside the state, refuses to return or impedes the return of the child; or Detains or conceals the child in an unknown place, whether inside or outside the state.
This crime is a severity level 7, person felony. These statutes highlight the fact that if a noncustodial parent believes his or her child needs protection from the custodial parent, he or she must take action under the Kansas Protection from Abuse Act (KPAA), KSA 60-3101 to 3111, or the Kansas divorce and maintenance statutes, KSA 60-1601 to 1630. The KPAA allows a parent of a minor child to seek relief under the Act on behalf of the minor child by filing a verified petition with any district judge or with the clerk of the court alleging abuse by another intimate partner or household member. The court must hold a hearing within 21 days of the petitions filing. Prior to this hearing, the parent who originally filed the petition may file a motion for temporary relief, to which the court may grant an ex parte temporary order with a finding of good cause shown. The temporary order remains in effect until the hearing on the petition, at which time the parent who filed the petition must prove the allegation of abuse by a preponderance of the evidence. The other parent also has a right to present evidence on his or her own behalf. At the hearing, the court has the authority to grant a wide variety of protective orders it believes are necessary to protect the child from abuse, including awarding temporary custody. The protective order remains in effect for a maximum of one year, but, on motion of the parent who originally filed the petition, may be extended for one additional year. The Kansas divorce and maintenance statutes allow the court to make a more permanent modification to any prior custody order. This modification can be made only where a material change of circumstances is shown, and no ex parte order can be issued except in the case that sworn testimony supports a showing of extraordinary circumstances. Even if an order is issued ex parte, a review hearing must be held within 15 days following the issuance of the order.
Recent Legislative Proposals

2007 SB 182 would have allowed a parent to remove a child from the custodial parent without a prior judicial determination, if there was a good faith and reasonable belief that such action was necessary to protect the child or the parent from being subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse as long as the parent reported the removal to the district or county attorney in the county in which the child resided as soon as circumstances allowed. The bill also would have allowed a parent to assert a defense if the parent in good faith reasonably believed that the action was necessary to protect the defendant or the minor child or both from being subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse. 2007 SB 182 died in committee.
E-3
page 2
Special Committee on Judiciary 2007 Recommendations

The 2007 Special Committee on Judiciary was directed by the Legislative Coordinating Council to review the topic of allowing a parent to remove a child from the custodial parent to protect the child from abuse. Sandra Barnett, Executive Director, Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence (KCSDV), suggested new language for the existing law to cure any problems that such legislation may create. While the language was drafted with the help of the Attorney Generals Office, it was not endorsed at that time by the Attorney General. The Attorney General and KCSDV later agreed to add language to create a defense for parents who justifiably removed a child from the custody of another parent. Ultimately, however, based upon its study, the Committee concluded there had been no evidence that non-custodial parents were removing children to protect them from an abusive custodial parent. The consensus of the Committee was that the matter needed further study. It was suggested the interested groups confer and try to reach an agreement on any proposed legislation. The Committee did not propose any legislation. For more information, please contact:
Lauren Douglass, Research Analyst [email protected]
Robert Allison-Gallimore, Research Analyst [email protected]
page 3
E-3

Children and Youth E-4 Child Custody Process/Visitation
Children and Youth

E-4 Child Custody and Visitation Procedures
In Kansas, legal custody is defined as the allocation of parenting responsibilities between parents, or any person acting as a parent, including decision making rights and responsibilities pertaining to matters of child health, education and welfare. KSA 23-3211. Within that context, Kansas law distinguishes between residency and parenting time. Residency refers to the parent with whom the child lives, compared to parenting time, which consists of any time a parent spends with a child. The term visitation is reserved for time nonparents are allowed to spend with a child.
Other Children and Youth reports available E-1 Tobacco/Childrens Initiatives Fund E-2 Juvenile Justice Authority E-3
Initial Determination
The standard for awarding custody, residency, parenting time, and visitation is what arrangement is in the best interests of the child. A trial judge can determine these issues when a petition is filed for: Divorce, annulment, or separate maintenance, KSA 23-2707 (temporary order); KSA 23-3206, 233207, and 23-3208; Paternity, KSA 23-2215; Protection, pursuant to the Kansas Protection from Abuse Act (KPAA), KSA 60-3107(a)(4) (temporary order); Protection, in conjunction with a Child in Need of Care (CINC) proceeding, KSA 38-2243(a) (temporary order); KSA 38-2253(a)(2); Guardianship, KSA 59-3075; or Adoption, KSA 59-2131 and 59-2134 (temporary order).

[email protected]
Further, for a court to make a custody determination, it must have authority under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), KSA 23-37,101 to 405. The first time the question of custody is considered, only a court in the childs home state may make a custody determination. The home state is the state where the child lived with a parent, or a person acting as a parent, for at least six consecutive months immediately before the beginning of a custody proceeding. For a child younger than six months, it is the state in which the child has lived since birth. Temporary absences are included in the six-month period and the child does not have to be present in the state when the proceeding begins. Exceptions apply when there is no home state, there is a significant connection to another state, or there is an emergency, e.g. the child has been abandoned or is in danger of actual or threatened mistreatment or abuse. After a court assumes home state jurisdiction, other states must recognize any orders it issues. Legal custody can be either joint, meaning the parties have equal rights, or sole, when the court finds specific reasons why joint legal custody is not in the best interests of the child. KSA 23-3206. After making that determination the court will determine residency, parenting time, and visitation. Residency may be awarded to one or both parents, or, if the child is a child in need of care and a court has determined neither parent is fit, to a third party (third parties are addressed in a later section). In determining residency, KSA 23-3207 requires parents to prepare either an agreed parenting plan or, if there is a dispute, proposed parenting plans for the court to consider. For more information on parenting plans, see KSA 23-3211 to -3222. Within that context, pursuant to KSA 23-3214, courts are required to ensure parents are informed
about:
How to prepare a parenting plan; The impact of family dissolution on children and how the needs of children facing family dissolution can best be addressed; The impact of domestic abuse on children, and resources for addressing domestic abuse; and Mediation or other nonjudicial procedures designed to help them achieve an agreement.
Mediation also can be ordered to resolve a custody dispute. KSA 23-3214(c). Based on the principle that fit parents act in the best interests of their children, an agreed parenting plan is presumed to be in a childs best interests. Absent an agreement, however, or if the court finds specific reasons why the parenting plan is not in the best interests of the child, it will consider all relevant factors, including those outlined in KSA 23-3203, to make a determination: The length of time that the child has been under the actual care and control of any person other than a parent and the circumstances relating thereto; The desires of the child and child's parents as to custody or residency;
E-4
The interaction and interrelationship of the child with parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child's best interests; The child's adjustment to the child's home, school, and community; The willingness and ability of each parent to respect and appreciate the bond between the child and the other parent and to allow for a continuing relationship between the child and the other parent; Evidence of spousal abuse; Whether a parent or a person residing with a parent is subject to the registration requirements of the Kansas Offender Registration Act, or any similar act; and Whether a parent or person residing with a parent has been convicted of abuse of a child.
Though not required, a court may appoint or authorize a lawyer or guardian ad litem, especially in contested cases, to ensure a childs interests are being represented. Guardians ad litem are regulated by Kansas Supreme Court Rules. They serve as an advocate for the best interests of the child and present cases in the same manner as any other attorney representing a client.
Third Party Custody and Visitation Custody

KSA 38-141 recognizes the rights of parents to exercise primary control over the care and upbringing of their children. This stance is consistent with the United States Supreme Courts recognition that a parents fundamental right to establish a home and raise children is protected and will be disturbed only in extraordinary circumstances. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923). As such, parents are generally awarded custody unless they have been determined unfit by a court under the Revised Kansas Code for the Care of Children (KCCC), KSA 38-2201 to -2283. Aside from a proceeding conducted pursuant to the KCCC, a judge in a divorce case can award temporary residency to a nonparent if the court finds there is probable cause to believe that the child is a child in need of care or that neither parent is fit to have residency. KSA 23-3207(c). To award residency, the court must find by written order that: The child is likely to sustain harm if not immediately removed from the home; Allowing the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child; or Immediate placement of the child is in the best interest of the child.
The court also must find that:
page 3
E-4
Reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of the child from the child's home; or That an emergency exists that threatens the safety of the child.
In awarding custody to a nonparent under these circumstances and to the extent the court finds it is in the best interests of the child, the court gives preference first to a relative of the child, whether by blood, marriage, or adoption, and then to a person with whom the child has close emotional ties. The award of temporary residency does not terminate parental rights; rather, the temporary order will last only until a court makes a formal decision of whether the child is a child in need of care. If the child is not found to be in need of care, the court will enter appropriate custody orders according to KSA 23-3207(c) as explained above. If the child is found to be in need of care, custody will be determined under the KCCC. Under the KCCC, if a parent is found to be unfit, the court may appoint a permanent custodian or if parental rights are terminated, the child can be adopted. The court must consider placing the child with the grandparents or other close relatives and may grant visitation to other individuals based on a determination of what is in the childs best interests. The child also might be placed in a shelter facility or foster home with the possibility of the child returning to his or her parents depending on parental compliance with the courts reintegration plan.
Visitation
KSA 23-3301 allows a court to grant grandparents and stepparents visitation rights. Further, KSA 23-3302 gives grandparents visitation rights during a grandchilds minority if a court finds that (1) the visitation would be in the childs best interests, and (2) a substantial relationship exists between the child and the grandparent. Kansas courts applying these statutes have placed the burden of proof for these two issues on the grandparents. In re Creach, 155 P.3d 719, 723 (Kan. App. 2007). Further, the court must weigh grandparents claims against the presumption that a fit parent acts in the best interests of the child and not substitute its judgment for the parents, absent a finding of unreasonableness. Id.
Modification
KSA 23-3218 provides that subject to the provisions of the UCCJEA, courts can modify custody, residency, visitation, and parenting time orders when a material change of circumstances is shown. Pursuant to KSA 23-37,202, a state that previously exercised jurisdiction will have continuing authority over subsequent motions until a court of that state determines that the child, the childs parents, and any person acting as a parent either: No longer have a significant connection with that state and substantial evidence is no longer available in that state concerning the childs care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or A court of that state or a court of another state determines that the child, the childs parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in that state.
E-4
page 4
While a state exercises continuing jurisdiction, no other state may modify the order. If the state that made the original determination loses this continuing jurisdiction, another state can modify an order only if it satisfies the home state requirements outlined above. KSA 23-3219(a) provides that to modify a final child custody order, the party filing the motion must list, either in the motion or in an accompanying affidavit, all known factual allegations that constitute the basis for the change of custody. If the court finds that the motion establishes a prima facie case, the facts of the situation will be considered to determine whether the order should be modified. Otherwise, the court must deny the motion. KSA 23-3219(b) speaks to the requirements for modification of custody orders in alleged emergency situations. First, if the nonmoving party has an attorney, the court must attempt to have the attorney present before taking up the matter. Next, the court is required to set the matter for review hearing as soon as possible after issuance of the ex parte order, but within 15 days after issuance. Third, the court must obtain personal service on the nonmoving party of the order and the review hearing. Finally, it provides that the court cannot modify the order without sworn testimony to support a showing of the alleged emergency. Similarly, KSA 23-3218 states that no ex parte order can change residency from a parent exercising sole de facto residency of a child to the other parent unless there is sworn testimony to support a showing of extraordinary circumstances.
Military Child Custody and Visitation

If either parent is a member of the military, there are additional issues to consider in a custody proceeding. For instance, the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50 U.S.C. app. 501-596, a federal law meant to allow deployed service members to adequately defend themselves in civil suits, may apply. There are two ways the SCRA is used in military custody proceedings: When a service member fails to appear, the SCRA requires the court to appoint counsel to represent the service member; and Upon application by a service member, the court must grant a stay of the proceedings if the application contains the required documents. For a procedural stay, service members must show: How military duties materially affect their ability to appear; A date when they would be available to appear; That military duties prevent their appearance; and That they are currently not authorized for military leave.
State law also applies in these situations. KSA 23-3213 requires that if either parent is a service member, the parenting plan must include provisions for custody and parenting time upon military deployment, mobilization, temporary duty, or an unaccompanied tour. Further, KSA 23-3217 specifies that those circumstances do not necessarily constitute a material change in circumstances, such that a
page 5
E-4
custody or parenting time order can be modified. If an order is modified because of those circumstances, however, it will be considered a temporary order. When the parent returns and upon a motion of the parent, the court is required to have a hearing within 30 days to determine whether a previous custody order should be reinstated. In the service members absence, KSA 23-3217 also allows the service member to delegate parenting time to a family member or members with a close and substantial relationship to the child if it is in the best interests of the child, and requires that the nondeploying parent accommodate the service members leave schedule and facilitate communication between the service member and his or her children.
Priority of Orders
Recent legislation, 2010 SB 460 and 2011 SB 38, clarify the statutes governing the priority of some child custody or parenting time orders. Under 2010 SB 460, orders issued pursuant to the KCCC or Revised Kansas Juvenile Justice Code (KJJC) take precedence over an order issued in conjunction with a divorce, annulment, or petition for separate maintenance until jurisdiction under the KCCC or the KJJC is terminated. Similarly, it provides that any order issued pursuant to the KCCC or the KJJC takes precedence over any order involving the same child issued under the KPAA until jurisdiction under those statutes is terminated. In the latter case, 2010 SB 460 requires that any inconsistent order must be specific in its terms and reference any previous protection from abuse order and the custody being modified. Also, a copy of the order must be filed in the preexisting protection from abuse case. 2011 SB 38 makes technical amendments removing the words custody, residency, parenting time, and other references to specific orders so that the statutes refer to orders generally. For more information, please contact:
E-4
page 6

Children and Youth E-5 Child in Need of Care Proceedings Other Children and Youth reports available E-1 Tobacco/Childrens Initiatives Fund E-2 Juvenile Justice Authority E-3
Children and Youth

The Revised Kansas Code for the Care of Children (KCCC), KSA 38-2201 to 38-2283 governs the Child in Need of Care (CINC) process in Kansas. CINC proceedings can be divided into two categories: (1) those concerning children who lack adequate parental care or control or have been abused or abandoned; and (2) those concerning children who commit certain offenses listed in KSA 38-2202(d)(6)-(10). The focus of this article is on the first group.
Preliminary Issues
CINC proceedings typically begin with a report to the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS), which may be made by anyone who suspects a child may be in need of care. The following types of people, however, are required to report any suspicions that a child is in need of care: Persons providing medical care or treatment; Persons licensed by the state to provide mental health services; Teachers and other employees of educational institutions; Licensed child care providers; Firefighters, emergency medical services personnel, and law enforcement officers; Juvenile intake and assessment workers, court services officers, and community corrections officers; Case managers (see KSA 23-3507 to 23-3509) and mediators appointed to help resolve any contested issue of child custody, residency, visitation, parenting time, division of property, or other issue; and Persons employed by or working for an organization that provides social services to pregnant teenagers.
E-4 Child Custody Process/Visitation

[email protected]
Reports can be made to local law enforcement when SRS is not open for business. A person who, without malice, participates in the making of a report; participates in any activity or investigation relating to the report; or participates in any judicial proceeding resulting from the report is immune from civil liability that might otherwise be incurred or imposed. It is a class B misdemeanor, however, to willfully and knowingly fail to make a report or to make a false report, as well as to intentionally prevent or interfere with the making of a report. KSA 38-2223. Once a report is received, KSA 38-2226 requires SRS and law enforcement to investigate the validity of the claim and determine whether action is required to protect the child. When a report indicates that there is serious physical harm to, serious deterioration of, or sexual abuse of the child and that action may be required to protect the child, SRS and law enforcement conduct a joint investigation. As part of its preliminary inquiry, KSA 38-2230 provides that SRS must, when practicable, look at the circumstances reported to SRS suggesting that the child is in need of care, including the home and environmental situation and the previous history of the child. If there are reasonable grounds to believe abuse or neglect exist, SRS must take immediate steps to protect the health and welfare of the abused or neglected child, in addition to that of other children under the same care. KSA 38-2231 requires law enforcement to place a child in protective custody when an officer reasonably believes the child will be harmed if not immediately removed from the situation where the child was found, or has probable cause to believe the child is a missing person and a verified missing person entry for the child is found in the national crime information center missing person system. Additionally, it requires law enforcement and court services officers to take a child into custody when an order commands it or there is probable cause to believe such an order has been issued in Kansas or another jurisdiction. KSA 38-2242 governs the issuance of one such order, an ex parte order for protective custody. A court cannot enter an initial order removing a child from parental custody unless it finds there is probable cause to believe: The child is likely to sustain harm if not immediately removed from the home; Allowing the child to remain in home is contrary to the welfare of the child; or Immediate placement of the child is in the best interest of the child.
It also must find there is probable cause to believe that reasonable efforts have been made to maintain the family unit and prevent the unnecessary removal of the child from the child's home, or that an emergency exists which threatens the safety of the child. These findings must be included in any such order. Additional findings also may be necessary depending on the order. To issue an ex parte order, for example, the court also must find, based on the facts supplied in the application for an ex parte order, there is probable cause to believe the child is in need of care. An ex parte order for protective custody must be served on the child's parents and any other person having legal custody of the child. At the time the order is issued, the court also may enter an order restraining any alleged perpetrator of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse from residing in the child's home; visiting, contacting, harassing, or intimidating the child, another family member, or witness; or attempting to visit, contact, harass, or intimidate the child, another family member, or witness. This order also must be served on the alleged perpetrator. The court may place the child in the protective custody of a parent or other person having custody of the child; another person, who is not required to be licensed under the Kansas law governing child
E-5 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
care facilities; a youth residential facility; a shelter facility; or, under certain circumstances, the Secretary of SRS. Once issued, an ex parte order will typically remain in effect until the temporary custody hearing, which must be held within seventy-two hours, excluding weekends, holidays, and other days when the clerk of the court is not accessible. KSA 38-2242(b)(2).
Court Proceedings CINC Petition

If SRS determines it is not otherwise possible to provide services necessary to protect the interests of the child, it must recommend that the county or district attorney file a CINC petition. Next, the county or district attorney must review the facts, recommendations, and any other evidence available and determine whether the circumstances warrant filing a petition. If warranted, the county or district attorney prepares and files the petition, the contents of which are outlined in KSA 38-2234, and appears and presents evidence at all subsequent proceedings. KSA 38-2214, 38-2233. An individual also may file a CINC petition and be represented by the individual's own attorney in the presentation of the case. KSA 38-2233. After a petition is filed, the court will do one of two things. If the child is in protective custody, the court can serve a copy of the petition to all parties and interested parties in attendance at the temporary custody hearing or issue summons to all those persons if not present. Otherwise, the court will serve the guardian ad litem (GAL) appointed to the child, custodial parents, persons with whom the child is residing, and any other person designated by the county or district attorney with a summons and a copy of the petition, scheduling a hearing within thirty days of when the petition is filed (grandparents are sent a copy of the petition by first class mail). KSA 38-2235, 38-2236. KSA 38-2241 provides that in addition to receiving notice of hearings, parties and interested parties have a right to present oral or written evidence and argument, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to be represented by an attorney. Grandparents are interested parties in CINC proceedings and have the participatory rights of parties, subject to the courts restriction on participation if such restriction is found to be in the best interest of the child. Other interested parties may include persons with whom the child has resided or that share close emotional ties to the child, and other persons as the court allows based on the childs best interests.
Jurisdiction
A courts jurisdiction is established by the filing of a CINC petition and, if a child is found to be in need of care, continues until: the child is eighteen, or, if the child is participating in a court-approved transition plan, twenty-one; is adopted; or is discharged by the court. KSA 38-2203. The Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 U.S.C. 1901 to 1963 and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), KSA 23-37,101 to 23-37,405, also may affect jurisdiction. The UCCJEA governs jurisdiction in child custody proceedings and allows the state where a custody order is initially issued to exercise continuing jurisdiction until a court of that state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent either: No longer have a significant connection with the issuing state and substantial evidence is no longer available there concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
page 3
E-5
A court of the issuing state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the issuing state.
Pursuant to KSA 23-37,204(a), however, a Kansas court may exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and has been abandoned or it is necessary to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subject to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
Initial Court Proceedings

KSA 38-2247 provides that all CINC proceedings leading up to and including adjudication may be attended by anyone unless the court determines that closed proceedings or the exclusion of an individual would be in the best interests of the child or is necessary to protect the privacy rights of the parents. Dispositional proceedings for a child determined to be in need of care, however, may be attended only by the GAL, interested parties and their attorneys, officers of the court, a court-appointed special advocate, the custodian, and any other person the parties agree to or the court orders to admit. Likewise, the court may exclude a person if it determines it would be in the best interests of the child or the conduct of the proceedings. Within three business days of a child being placed in protective custody, a court must conduct a temporary custody hearing. KSA 28-2235. Notice of the hearing must be provided to all parties and nonparties at least 24 hours prior to the hearing. After the hearing, the court may enter an order directing who will have temporary custody if there is probable cause to believe the child is a danger to self or others, the child is not likely to be available within the jurisdiction of the court for future proceedings, or the health or welfare of the child may be endangered without further care. The court may modify this order during the pendency of the proceedings to best serve the child's welfare and, further, is allowed to enter a restraining order against an alleged perpetrator of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse. KSA 38-2243. The court may place the child in the temporary custody of a parent or other person having custody of the child; another person who is not required to be licensed under the Kansas law governing child care facilities; a youth residential facility; a shelter facility; or, under certain circumstances, the Secretary of SRS. If the child is placed with a person other than the parent, the court will make a child support determination to provide for the child while in the nonparents custody. Short of removing the child, pursuant to KSA 38-2244, if no party objects, a court can enter an order for continuance and informal supervision at any time after the petition is filed, but prior to an adjudication. At that time, the court may place conditions on the parties, and may enter a restraining order against an alleged perpetrator of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse. Initially, the order can continue for up to six months, but may be extended for an additional six months. Beyond that, without objection, it can be continued for another year, with reviews by the court at least every six months.
Adjudication, Disposition, and Permanency

A final adjudication or dismissal of a CINC petition must be entered within sixty days of when the petition was filed, unless good cause for a continuance is shown on the record. KSA 38-2251(c). At this
E-5
page 4
stage, the petitioner must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the child is a child in need of care. KSA 38-2250. If that burden is not met, the court must dismiss the proceedings. KSA 38-2251. If the child is found to be in need of care, however, the court will receive and consider information concerning the childs safety and well being and enter orders concerning custody and a case plan, which governs the responsibilities and timelines necessary to achieve permanency for the child. KSA 38-2253. This can be done either at a dispositional hearing, which must be held within 30 days of the adjudication, or at the time of adjudication, so long as, within ten days of the hearing, notice of the time and place of the hearing has been provided to the person having custody of the child, any foster parents, permanent custodians, or preadoptive parents; grandparents or the closest relative of each of the child's parents; and any person having close emotional ties with the child who is deemed by the court to be essential to the deliberations before the court. The dispositional hearing also may serve as a permanency hearing if, within ten days of the hearing, the persons listed above receive notice this will take place. KSA 382254. KSA 38-2255(a) requires that prior to entering an order of disposition, the court must consider: The child's physical, mental, and emotional condition; The child's need for assistance; The manner in which the parent participated in the abuse, neglect, or abandonment of the child; Any relevant information from the intake and assessment process; and Evidence received at disposition concerning the childs safety and well-being.
Based on these factors, the court may place the child with a parent; a relative of the child; another person who is not required to be licensed under the Kansas law governing child care facilities; any other suitable person; a shelter facility; a youth residential facility; or, under certain circumstances, the Secretary of SRS. This placement will continue until further order of the court. Along with the dispositional order, the court may grant any person reasonable rights to visit the child upon finding that the visitation rights would be in the best interests of the child or may enter a restraining order against an alleged perpetrator of physical, sexual, mental, or emotional abuse. KSA 38-2255(d). If the child is placed with a parent, the court may impose terms and conditions to assure the proper care and protection of the child, including supervision of the child and parent, participation in available programs, and any special treatment the child requires. KSA 38-2255(b). If permanency is achieved with one parent without terminating the others parental rights, the court may enter child custody orders, including residency and parenting time, that the court determines to be in the best interests of the child and must complete a parenting plan pursuant to KSA 60-1625. Orders issued pursuant to a CINC proceeding take precedence over an order entered in a civil custody case. KSA 38-2264(i). If not placed with a parent, a permanency plan must be developed and submitted to the court within 30 days of the dispositional order by the person with custody of the child or a court services officer, ideally in consultation with the child's parents. The required contents of the plan are outlined in KSA 38-2263(c), and (d), and include descriptions of the childs needs and services to be provided in addition to whether the child can be reintegrated, i.e. reunited with a parent or parents. Relevant factors in determining whether reintegration is a viable alternative include, among others, whether the parent has committed certain crimes, previously been found unfit, and worked towards reintegration. KSA 382255(e). If there is disagreement among the persons necessary to the success of the plan, a hearing will be held to consider the merits of the plan. KSA 38-2263(e).
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 E-5
If reintegration is not a viable alternative, within 30 days proceedings will be initiated to terminate parental rights, place the child for adoption, or appoint a permanent custodian. A hearing on the termination of parental rights or appointment of a permanent custodian will be held within 90 days. An exception exists when the parents voluntarily relinquish parental rights or consent to the appointment of a permanent custodian. KSA 38-2255(f). For more information, see KSA 38-2268. Notice of the hearing must be given at least ten days before the hearing to parties and interested parties; grandparents or the closest relative of each of the child's parents; and to foster parents, preadoptive parents, or relatives providing care. Additionally, the court is required to appoint an attorney to represent any parent who fails to appear. KSA 38-2267. The standard for determining fitness is by clear and convincing evidence that the parent is unfit by reason of conduct or condition that renders the parent unable to care properly for a child and the conduct or condition is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. When the court determines a parent is unfit, it can authorize an adoption if parental rights were terminated, KSA 38-2270; appoint a permanent custodian, KSA 38-2272; or continue permanency planning, KSA 38-2269. Preference for placement is given to relatives and persons with whom the child has close emotional ties. KSA 38-2272. Factors the court will consider to determine parental fitness are listed in KSA 38-2269. Additionally, a parent may be found unfit if the court finds that the parent has abandoned the child, the custody of the child was surrendered, KSA 38-2282, or the child was left under such circumstances that the identity of the parents is unknown and cannot be determined, in spite of diligent searching, and the parents have not come forward to claim the child within three months after the child is found. KSA 38-2269. Finally, KSA 38-2271 outlines circumstances that create a presumption of unfitness, including a previous finding of unfitness; two or more occasions in which a child in the parents custody has been adjudicated a child in need of care; failure to comply with a reasonable reintegration plan; and conviction of certain crimes. Parents bear the burden of rebutting these presumptions by a preponderance of the evidence. A permanency plan may be amended at any time upon agreement of the plan participants. If the permanency goal changes, however, a permanency hearing will be held within 30 days, as outlined in KSA 38-2264 and 38-2265. Even without a change in the permanency goal, KSA 38-2264 requires that a permanency hearing be held within 12 months after a child is removed from home and at least annually thereafter. If parental rights are terminated or relinquished, the requirements for permanency hearings will continue until the child is adopted or a permanent custodian is appointed. When permanency has been achieved with either a parent or nonparent to the satisfaction of the court, the court will close the case. For more information, please contact:
E-5
page 6

Concealed Carry F-1 Concealed Carry
Concealed Carry
F-1 Concealed Weapons
Kansas legislation regarding concealed carry of handguns was revised during the 2010 and 2011 Sessions. The changes generally streamlined the process of applying for a license and modified the basic requirements for licensing. The term weapon was changed to handgun to more accurately reflect the type of firearm covered by the legislation. Anyone licensed may carry concealed when hunting, fishing, or fur harvesting. In addition, a person with a legally acquired sound suppression device may use such device during these activities.
Background
Currently, 49 states allow the concealed carry of handguns (CCH), with only Illinois having no provisions to allow CCH. Alaska, Arizona, and Vermont are the only states that do not require a permit or license to carry a concealed handgun. Thirty-eight states are defined as shall issue (non-restrictive, non-discretionary) states where a person who meets the established qualifications to carry a concealed handgun cannot be denied a permit or license. Eight states are defined as may issue (restrictive or discretionary) states where a person may obtain a concealed carry permit or license if determined to be qualified. Some states allow reciprocal recognition, meaning a concealed carry license or permit from one state is recognized by another state. Some states also allow residents of other states to obtain permits or licenses for CCH. Congress is considering legislation that would require any state that issues CCH permits or licenses to honor those issued in all other states.
Kansas Law
The Legislature passed the original Personal and Family Protection Act in 2006, allowing licensed persons to carry concealed weapons on and after January 2, 2007. Kansas is a shall issue state where a person who meets concealed carry qualifications cannot be denied a license. In
Julian Efird, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
addition, Kansas is a reciprocal state where a person who has a concealed carry license or permit from another state is allowed to carry a concealed firearm in Kansas. The 2010 Legislature modified the original 2006 authorizing statutes. House Sub. for SB 306 amended the Personal and Family Protection Act, which previously established the CCH. The amendments removed a number of provisions, modified other provisions, adjusted various fees associated with licensing, added several new provisions, and made a number of technical changes in the original law. The legislation included the following items: Changed the term weapon to handgun in the Act; Deleted a number of licensing requirements that had to be determined prior to licensing in order to qualify to carry a concealed handgun after compliance with the application and training requirements; Maintained the requirements to be determined prior to obtaining a concealed carry license that a person is at least 21 years of age; is a resident of the state and county where application for licensing is made; but cannot obtain a license if prohibited from possessing a firearm either by federal or state law; Added a provision that would allow a person to carry a concealed handgun while the application is pending if the individual meets certain criteria enumerated in a new provision; Modified the process of re-qualification for license renewal by eliminating certain requirements; Modified the drivers license requirement for dependents of certain military personnel relative to the license application process; Reduced the current fees associated with licensing for concealed carry and also reduced fees for renewals; Eliminated the requirement for fingerprinting of applicants for renewal of a concealed carry license and added a requirement for a name-based national criminal records check for renewals; Added a provision that extends the term of a license for 90 days after a person is no longer a resident of the state; Modified the provisions which govern the public and private places a licensee may not carry a concealed handgun and provided new language for violations, with a first offense a $50 fine, a second offense a $100 fine, and the third or subsequent offense a class B misdemeanor; Excluded parking lots and garages from being included in any public or private facility where a concealed handgun is prohibited; Revised the dimensions, locations, and other features of signs prohibiting the concealed carry of handguns, subject to rules and regulations adopted by the Attorney General; Amended the provisions governing the crime of carrying a concealed handgun while under the influence of alcohol or drugs; Deleted implied consent for testing for alcohol or drugs under most circumstances, except in cases of death or serious injury caused by the holder of a concealed carry handgun license; and
F-1
page 2
Added an additional exception to the general criminal prohibition of firearms possession for individuals who hold a license to carry a concealed handgun.
The 2011 Legislature allowed CCH licensed persons to carry while lawfully hunting, fishing, or fur harvesting.
Licensing Requirements
Anyone in Kansas desiring to obtain a concealed carry license first must qualify for licensing. The pre-qualifications include the following three requirements: 1. 2. 3. Must be a Kansas state resident of the county where the application is made; Must be at least 21 years of age; and Must not be prohibited by either federal or state law from possessing any firearm.
A person may be disqualified from licensing if such person: 1. Is deemed to pose a significantly greater threat to law enforcement or the public at large than the average citizen if presented in a voluntary report by the county sheriff or chief law enforcement officer; Has been convicted of any crime or has been the subject of any restraining order or any mental health finding that would disqualify the applicant; or Does not meet any of the pre-qualification requirements or fails to be recommended after firearms training.
2. 3.
Applicants for concealed carry licensing are required to complete an approved training course and to provide a certificate or affidavit of successful completion that is signed by an instructor who must be approved by the Attorney General to offer such training. The applicants must pay an initial license fee of $100 to the Attorney General, submitted along with a formal written application, and a $32.50 fee to the county sheriff. The sheriff will take fingerprints to initiate a criminal records check as part of the application process. The Attorney General may issue a concealed carry handgun license following successful completion of the application requirements. For more information, please contact:
page 3
F-1

Corrections G-1
Corrections
G-1 Sentencing Guidelines
The Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act (KSGA) became effective July 1, 1993. Two grids, which contain the sentencing range for drug crimes and nondrug crimes, were developed for use as a tool in sentencing. The sentencing guidelines grids provide practitioners in the criminal justice system with an overview of presumptive felony sentences. The determination of a felony sentence is based on two factors: the current crime of conviction and the offenders prior criminal history. The sentence contained in the grid box at the juncture of the severity level of the crime of conviction and the offenders criminal history category is the presumed sentence. See KSA 21-6804.
Sentencing Guidelines
Other Corrections reports available G-2 Kansas Prison Population and Capacity G-3 Prisoner Review Board
Off-Grid Crimes
The crimes of capital murder (KSA 21-5401), murder in the first degree (KSA 21-5402), and treason (KSA 21-5901) are designated as off-grid person crimes. The term of imprisonment for these crimes is life. Persons convicted of off-grid crimes, other than capital murder, will be parole eligible after serving 25 years in confinement for premeditated firstdegree murder, or 50 years in certain premeditated first-degree murder cases in which aggravating circumstances are found by the sentencing court. Kansas law also provides for the imposition of the death penalty under specified circumstances, for a conviction of capital murder. See KSA 21-5401 and KSA 21-6617. Felony murder and treason carry a term of life imprisonment with a 20-year parole eligibility date. See KSA 223717(b)(2). Also included in the off-grid group are certain sex offenses against victims under the age of 14: aggravated human trafficking (KSA 21-5426(b)), rape (KSA 21-5503), aggravated indecent liberties (KSA 21-5506(b)), aggravated criminal sodomy (KSA 21-5504(b)), promoting prostitution (KSA 21-6420), and sexual exploitation of a child (KSA 215510). Offenders sentenced for these off-grid crimes are parole eligible after 25 years in confinement for the first offense, parole eligible after 40 years in confinement for the second offense, or sentenced to life without parole if they have been convicted of two or more of these offenses in the past.
Robert Allison-Gallimore, Research Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
Drug Grid and Nondrug Grid

The drug grid is used for sentencing on drug crimes described in KSA Chapter 21, Article 57. The nondrug grid is used for sentencing on other felony crimes. In both grids, the criminal history categories make up the horizontal axis, and the crime severity levels make up the vertical axis. Each grid contains nine criminal history categories. The drug grid contains four severity levels; the nondrug grid contains ten severity levels. A thick, black dispositional line cuts across both grids. Above the dispositional line are unshaded grid boxes, which are designated as presumptive prison sentences. Below the dispositional line are shaded grid boxes, which are designated as presumptive probation sentences. The grids also contain boxes that have a dark shaded color through them, which are referred to as border boxes. A border box has a presumptive prison sentence, but the sentencing court may choose to impose an optional nonprison sentence, which will not constitute a departure. The nondrug grid contains three border boxes, in levels 5-H, 5-I, and 6-G. The drug grid contains five dark shaded border boxes, in levels 3-E, 3-F, 3-G, 3-H, and 3-I. See KSA 21-6804 and KSA 21-6805.
Grid Boxes
Within each grid box are three numbers, representing months of imprisonment. The three numbers provide the sentencing court with a range for sentencing. The sentencing court has discretion to sentence within the range. The middle number in the grid box is the standard number and is intended to be the appropriate sentence for typical cases. The upper and lower numbers should be used for cases involving aggravating or mitigating factors insufficient to warrant a departure. See KSA 21-6804 and 21-6805. The sentencing court may depart upward to increase the length of a sentence up to double the duration within the grid box. The court also may depart downward to lower the duration of a presumptive sentence. See KSA 21-6815, 21-6816, and 21-6817. The court also may impose a dispositional departure, from prison to probation or from probation to prison. See KSA 21-6818. In State v. Gould, 271 Kan. 394, 23 P.3d 801 (2001), the predecessor to KSA 21-6815 was found to be unconstitutional on its face for the imposition of upward durational departure sentences by a judge and not a jury. In the 2002 Legislative Session, the departure provisions were amended to correct the upward durational departure problem arising from Gould, and this change became effective on June 6, 2002. The jury now determines all of the aggravating factors that might enhance the maximum sentence, based upon the reasonable doubt standard. The trial court determines if the presentation of evidence regarding the aggravating factors will be presented during the trial of the matter or in a bifurcated jury proceeding following the trial. See KSA 21-6817.
Sentencing Considerations
The sentencing court should consider all available alternatives in determining the appropriate sentence for each offender. The sentencing guidelines seek to establish equity among like offenders in similar case scenarios. Rehabilitative measures are still an integral part of the corrections process, and criminal justice professionals continue efforts to reestablish offenders within communities. The guidelines do not prohibit sentencing courts from departing from the prescribed sentence in atypical cases. The
G-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
sentencing court is free to choose an appropriate sentence, or combination of sentences, for each case. See KSA 21-6604.
In 2006, the Kansas sentencing guidelines law dealing with upward departures was amended to add a new aggravating factor when the crime involved two or more participants and the defendant played a major role in the crime as an organizer, leader, recruiter, manager, or supervisor. The law was amended further to add a new mitigating factor for defendants who have provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who is alleged to have committed an offense. In considering this mitigating factor, the court may consider the following: The significance and usefulness of the defendants assistance; The truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information; The nature and extent of the defendants assistance; Any injury suffered, any danger of risk of injury to the defendant, or the defendants family; and The timeliness of the assistance.
In 2008, the Kansas sentencing guidelines were amended to provide the following: No downward dispositional departure can be imposed for any crime of extreme sexual violence. A downward durational departure can be allowed for any crime of extreme sexual violence to no less than 50 percent of the center of the grid range of the sentence for such crime; and A sentencing judge cannot consider social factors as mitigating factors in determining whether substantial and compelling reasons exist for a downward departure.
In 2010, the Kansas Criminal Code, including the sentencing guidelines, was recodified. The recodification took effect July 1, 2011. The citations in this article are to the recodified code. The source for the attached sentencing range grid for drug offenses and non-drug offenses is the Kansas Sentencing Commission Guidelines, Desk Reference Manual, 2011. For more information, please contact:
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 G-1
G-1
page 4
page 5
G-1

Corrections G-2 Kansas Prison Population and Capacity Other Corrections reports available G-1
Corrections
G-2 Kansas Prison Population and Capacity
Historically, the Kansas Department of Corrections managers and state policymakers have had to address the issue of providing adequate correctional capacity for steady and prolonged growth in the inmate population. In the late 1980s, capacity did not keep pace with the population, which, along with related issues, resulted in a federal court order in 1989 dealing, in part, with mentally ill inmates and developing a long-term plan to address the capacity issue. The order did not mandate any new construction in its terms, but the immediate, direct effect was to require construction of a new facility which became El Dorado Correctional Facility. The court order was terminated in 1996 following numerous changes to the correctional system, including the construction of Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility. During the last half of the 1990s, increases in the inmate population were matched by capacity increases, but capacity utilization rates remained consistently high. The population and capacity concerns continued into the early part of the 2000s. The utilization rate (average daily population/total capacity) reached a peak of 98.7 percent in FY 2004. Between FY 2004 and FY 2008 the average daily population decreased by 353 inmates to 8,773 while the total capacity increased by 73 to 9,317 beds, which is a utilization rate of 94.2 percent. The budget reductions that occurred during FY 2009 prompted the Department of Corrections to suspend operations at three smaller minimum-custody facilities (Stockton, Osawatomie, and Toronto) and close the mens and womens conservation camps in Labette County. These suspensions and closings resulted in a decrease in total capacity by 447 beds. The trend of reducing inmate population between FY 2004 and FY 2009 was reversed in FY 2010, rising to an average daily population of 8,689, making the utilization rate 98.0 percent at the end of FY 2010. Due to the increasing inmate population, the 2010 Legislature included a State General Fund appropriation for FY 2011 to reopen the Stockton Correctional Facility, which was reopened on September 1, 2010. In addition, prison beds at Larned Correctional Mental Health Facility and Lansing Correctional Facility that were unavailable due to
G-3 Prisoner Review Board
Michael Wales, Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
renovation work have been opened again, making the total capacity of the corrections system 9,164 as of September 23, 2011. The increasing inmate population has continued into FY 2012. On September 23, 2011, the average daily inmate population for FY 2012 was 9,186, a utilization rate of 100.2 percent. The Department has a limited number of prison beds that are not counted in the official capacity, such as infirmary beds, that allow the population to exceed the official capacity.
Total Capacity and Average Daily Population

FY 2002 - FY 2012*
9,447 9,413 9,137 9,070 8,870 8,773 8 773 8,590 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 8,870 8,880 9,025 9,164 9,164 9,186 9,750 9,500 9,244 9,250 9,000 8,750 8,500 8,250 8,563 FY 2002 8,936 8,917 9,114 9,126 9,052 9,357
8,689
FY 2010
FY 2011
FY 2012
Average Daily Population * FY 2012 numbers are as of September 23, 2011
Total Capacity
Budget reductions have prompted the Department of Corrections to reduce parole and postrelease services and offender program services systemwide. The Department of Corrections continues to be concerned that these reductions will create an increase in the average daily population. The FY 2013 prison population projections released by the Kansas Sentencing Commission project that the inmate population will exceed capacity by up to 240 inmates by the end of FY 2012.
Population and Capacity by Gender and Custody Classification

In addition to total capacity, consideration also must be given to gender and custody classification. The following chart displays capacity and average daily population by gender and custody classification for FY 2012, to date.
G-2
page 2
Men'sCapacityandPopulation
AsofSeptember23,2011 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 4 000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
Population Capacity
Total
Maximum
Medium
Minimum
Women'sCapacityandPopulation
AsofSeptember23,2011 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Total Maximum Medium Minimum Population Capacity
Issues with inadequate capacity are more common among the higher custody levels of inmates. This is due to the fact that higher custody level inmates cannot be placed in a lower custody level jail cell (e.g., maximum inmates cannot be placed in medium or minimum cells). That is not the case for the lower custody level inmates, which can be placed in higher custody level cells. In addition, capacity in all-male or all-female facilities are not available for housing inmates of the opposite gender.
Consequences of Operating Close to Capacity

The following list illustrates some of the consequences of operating close to capacity: Excessive inmate movement; More difficult to manage emergencies;
page 3 G-2
More difficult to get offenders into programs, even if space is available; More difficult to separate inmates with conflicts (gangs, grudges); Greater reliance on segregation; and Cannot keep inmates nearer to their families which creates more problematic releases.
Options for Increasing Capacity

If the need to increase inmate capacity arises there are several options available. There are three minimum-custody facilities that were moth-balled in FY 2009 to achieve budget savings. The facility at Osawatomie has a capacity of 80 male inmates with an approximate annual operation cost of $903,000; the facility at Toronto has a capacity of 70 male inmates with an approximate annual operation cost of $966,500; and the north unit at El Dorado Correctional Facility has a capacity of 102 male inmates with an approximate annual operation cost of $1.2 million. There also is the option of new construction to expand the inmate capacity. During the 2007 Legislative Session, the Department of Corrections received bonding authority totaling $40.5 million for new construction including adding cell houses at El Dorado, Stockton, and Ellsworth correctional facilities and a new facility in Yates Center. The Department issued $1.7 million in bonds for architectural planning at the four proposed sites, but the balance of the bonding authority was rescinded during the 2008 and 2009 legislative sessions. While the initial planning of construction is completed, the time frame for bringing newly constructed inmate beds online would be significantly longer than reopening one of the closed correctional facilities. For more information, please contact:
Michael Wales, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]

G-2
page 4

Corrections G-3 Prisoner Review Board Other Corrections reports available G-1
Corrections
G-3 Prisoner Review Board
The Prisoner Review Board (Board) is the releasing authority for incarcerated offenders who have committed the most serious, heinous, and detrimental acts against society. The Board also performs a variety of additional functions in the Kansas Criminal Justice system. As an integral part of the Kansas criminal justice system and consistent with the agency mission, the Board continually strives to provide for public safety through its work with offenders, corrections professionals, victims, families, the public, law enforcement officials, and other criminal justice stakeholders. The Prisoner Review Board was created by Executive Reorganization Order (ERO) No. 34 in 2011 and succeeds to the powers, duties, and functions of the Kansas Parole Board, which was abolished by the same ERO. The Prisoner Review Board consists of three members appointed by the Secretary of Corrections who serve at the pleasure of the Secretary. The Board currently consists of one full-time member and two part-time members. The ERO required these members to be thenexisting employees of the Department of Corrections.
G-2 Kansas Prison Population and Capacity
Parole Suitability
Parole suitability determinations extend to two populations, those with offenses occurring prior to July 1, 1993, and those sentenced under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act for crimes so detrimental to social well-being that they are sentenced to life with a mandatory minimum term. Offenders with pre-guidelines offenses are parole eligible after serving the court-imposed minimum sentence, less good time credits as awarded by the Department of Corrections pursuant to statute and regulation.1 An offender who earns all available good time may be eligible for parole no sooner than upon completion of one-half of the court-imposed minimum sentence.
1

[email protected]
Good time credits are calculated according to statute. For this group, good time is earnable at a rate of 1 day for every day served for sentences with a maximum of 2 years.
For offenders convicted of very serious crimes and sentenced to Off Grid terms pursuant to the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines Act, a life sentence is prescribed by the Guidelines with a fixed, mandatory minimum term (i.e., no good time is available to this group). Examples of this type of sentence include the Hard 10, Life 15, and Hard 40 year sentences. Upon serving the mandatory minimum term, these offenders also see the Board for determination of parole suitability. Kansas law stipulates that the Board may release to parole an offender who satisfactorily has completed the Program Agreement, required by KSA 75-5210a, when the Board believes he or she is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen, and when the Board is of the opinion that there is a reasonable probability that the inmate can be released without detriment to the community or to the inmate [KSA 22-3717(e)]. Satisfaction of these conditions constitutes parole suitability. KSA 22-3717(h) directs the Board to consider whether the inmate has completed programs identified on a program agreement [KSA 75-5210a] and to consider all pertinent information regarding such inmate, including, but not limited to the following: Circumstances of the offense; Previous criminal history of the offender; Programs and program participation; Conduct, employment, attitude, and disciplinary history during incarceration; Reports of physical/mental examinations, including but not limited to any risk factors revealed by any risk assessments; Comments from public officials, victims or their families, offender family and friends, or any other interested member of the general public; Capacity of state correctional facilities; Input from staff where the offender is housed; Proportionality of time served to the sentence that would have been received under the Kansas sentencing guidelines for the conduct that resulted in the inmates incarceration; and Pre-sentence report.
The Board conducts a parole hearing with each eligible inmate the month prior to the inmates parole eligibility date. These hearings consist of interviews and reviews of all available reports and material pertinent to the case. The Board may parole the inmate if it believes the inmate is suitable for release. The Board also may decide to continue, which postpones the parole decision for further deliberation or additional information. Finally, the Board may pass the inmate, which is a denial of parole for a specific period of time.
Imposition of Special Conditions of Supervised Release

For those offenders being released to postrelease supervision (rather than parole), the Board reviews the offenders release plan and may impose any conditions it deems necessary in the interests of public safety or the reintegration of the inmate into the community [KSA 22-3717(i)].
Alleged Violations of Post-Incarceration Conditions

The Board hears testimony and weighs evidence for offenders who stand accused of allegedly violating community supervision conditions and then renders decisions regarding necessity of withdrawal
G-3 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
of community-based liberties for those offenders. This hearing provides the second stage in the twostage process consistent with the United States Supreme Courts determinations found in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). If an offender sentenced to an indeterminate term of incarceration violates parole after being granted such privilege by the Board, the term of revocation is made at the Boards discretion, within the boundaries of the sentence imposed by the court. If an offender sentenced under the determinate sentencing guidelines is found to have violated the conditions of postrelease supervision, the Board may impose a revocation term of up to six months, unless the offender has acquired new convictions. This period of confinement may be reduced by up to three months based on the offenders conduct, work, and program participation during the incarceration. If the violation and revocation result from a new misdemeanor conviction, the Board may require the offender to be confined for a period up to the remaining balance of the period of postrelease supervision. If the violation and revocation result from a new felony conviction, the inmate must serve the entire remaining balance of the period of the postrelease supervision.
Executive Clemency Applications

Executive clemency applications made to the Governor come before the Board for a recommendation before being decided upon by the Governor. Each application and all file material is reviewed by the Board prior to making any recommendation for or against the clemency application [KSA 22-3701(4)].
Public Comment Sessions

Public comment sessions are open meetings where the Board may receive comments regarding an offenders potential release on parole. These are held every month in Wichita, Topeka, and Kansas City. Bi`annual sessions are conducted in Hays and Garden City. Victims, family of victims, offender friends and family members, and volunteers who work with the offender in prison are some of the most common participants at these meetings. These meetings conform to the Kansas Open Meetings Act requirements [KSA 75-4318].
Additional Roles and Responsibilities

Additional roles and responsibilities of the Board include: Review and rule on release requests from inmates who are functionally incapacitated (KSA 22-3728); Review and rule on early discharge requests (KSA 22-3722 and KSA 22-3717); Voting member of the Kansas Department of Corrections Sex Offender Override Panel; and Member of the Kansas Sentencing Commission (KSA 74-9102).
page 3
G-3
Recent Legislation
SB 411 (2008). The Legislature adopted the recommendation of the 2007 Special Committee on Judiciary by adding three factors to those that must be considered by the Board when making parole suitability determinations: Risk factors revealed by any risk assessment of the inmate; Recommendations by staff at the facility where the offender is housed; and Proportionality of time the inmate has served to the sentence a person would have been received under the Kansas sentencing guidelines for the conduct that resulted in the inmates incarceration.
HB 2060 (2009). This bill required that the Board make available to the then-newly created Joint Committee on Parole Board Oversight redacted documents, records, and reports concerning 30 cases selected by the Secretary of Corrections. It also required the Board to provide to the Joint Committee a summary of each case listing the factors and rationale used to grant or deny parole. The Joint Committee was required to submit a final report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2010. These provisions expired on January 1, 2010. SB 434 (2010). This bill requires that any offender sentenced for a class A or B felony who has not had a parole board hearing in the five years prior to July 1, 2010, shall be reviewed by the parole board on or before July 1, 2012, if the review can be done within the Boards existing resources or with funding subject to appropriation. Senate Resolution 1817 (2011). This resolution would have disapproved ERO 34 abolishing the Kansas Parole Board and establishing the Prisoner Review Board. Thus, passage of the resolution would have maintained the Kansas Parole Board as it existed prior to the ERO. The resolution failed to pass the Senate, and therefore ERO 34 went into effect on July 1, 2011. For more information, please contact:
Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 10th Ave., Room 68-West, Statehouse Topeka, KS 66612 Phone: (785) 296-3181 Fax: (785) 296-3824
G-3
page 4

Economic Development H-1 Statewide STAR Bond Authority Other Economic Development reports available H-2 Kansas Bioscience Authority H-3 EDIF Fund Overview H-4 Department of Commerce
Economic Development
H-1 Statewide STAR Bond Authority
What is a STAR Bond?
A state financing program that allows city governments to issue bonds that are repaid by all of the revenues received by the city or county from any transient guest taxes, local sales taxes, and use taxes that are collected from taxpayers doing business within that portion of the citys redevelopment district to retire special obligation bonds. In other words, a STAR Bond is a Sales Tax Revenue Bond with a 20-year repayment period. The exception to this is the auto racetrack facility which was granted a 30-year repayment period.
What type of project can use STAR Bond financing?

A project with at least a $50,000,000 capital investment and $50,000,000 in projected gross annual sales revenues. A project located outside of a metropolitan statistical area that has been found by the Secretary of Commerce to be in an eligible area under Tax Increment Financing law and of regional or statewide importance. A major commercial entertainment and tourism area as determined by the Secretary of Commerce. Auto racetrack facilities, multi-sport athletic complexes, river walk canal facilities, historic theaters, Manhattan Discovery Center, Wyandotte County Schlitterbahn Project, museum facility, or a major motorsports complex in Shawnee County.
Reed Holwegner, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
Is any project specifically excluded from use of STAR Bonds?

Any project including a gambling casino is specifically excluded from use of STAR bonds.
How does the STAR Bond Project work?

The law allows the governing body of a city to establish one or more special bond projects in any area in the city or outside of a citys boundaries with the written approval of the county commission. However, each special bond project must be approved by the Secretary of Commerce, based on the required feasibility study, prior to utilizing STAR bonds. The city also is required to prepare a project plan, hold a hearing on the plan, and adopt the project plan. One mandated component of the project plan is a marketing study conducted to examine the impact of the special bond project on similar businesses in the projected market area. A city that exercises eminent domain to acquire property must compensate the property owner with at least 200 percent of the appraised valuation, according to the eminent domain statute. Finally, the city must do an extensive feasibility study which will include: Whether a projects revenue and tax increment revenue and other available revenues are expected to exceed or be sufficient to pay for the project costs; The effect, if any, the project will have on any outstanding special obligation bonds payable from the revenues used to fund the project; A statement of how the jobs and taxes obtained from the project will contribute significantly to the economic development of the state and region; Visitation expectations; the unique quality of the project; economic impact study; integration and collaboration with other resources or businesses; The quality of service and experience provided, as measured against national consumer standards for the specific target market; Project accountability, measured according to best industry practices; The expected return on state and local investment that the project is anticipated to produce; A statement concerning whether a portion of the local sales and use taxes are pledged to other uses and are unavailable as revenue for the project and, if the revenues are so committed, a detailed explanation of the commitment and the effect; and
H-1
page 2
An anticipated principal and interest payment schedule on the bond issue.
The Secretary of Commerce is required to set a limit on the total amount of STAR bonds that may be issued for any project. A city also is required to have an annual certified public accountant audit of each project.
What are the constraints placed on the developer?

The developer of a special bond project is required to commence work on the project within two years from the date of adoption of the project plan. If the developer does not commence work on the project within the two-year period, funding for the project ceases and the developer has one year to appeal to the Secretary of Commerce for re-approval of the project. If the project is re-approved, the twoyear period for commencement applies. Also, the law requires that Kansas residents be given priority consideration for employment in construction projects located in a special bond project area.
What are eligible uses for STAR bond proceeds?

Property acquisition; Relocation assistance for property owners moving out of the project district; Site preparation including utility relocations; Drainage conduits, channels, levees, and river walk canal facilities; Parking facilities, including multi-level parking structures devoted to parking only; Street improvements; Street light fixtures, connection, and facilities; Utilities located within the public right-of-way; Landscaping, fountains, and decorations; Sidewalks and pedestrian underpasses or overpasses; and Drives and driveway approaches located within the public right-of-way of an auto racetrack facility, major multi-sport athletic complex, museum facility, and major motorsports complex.
What are ineligible uses for the STAR BOND proceeds?

Costs incurred in connection with the construction of buildings or other structures are not eligible. In addition, proceeds are not available for fees and commissions paid to real estate agents, financial advisors, or any other consultants who represent the developer or any other businesses considering locating in or located in a redevelopment district; salaries for local government employees; moving expenses for employees of the businesses locating within the redevelopment district; property taxes for businesses that locate in the redevelopment district; lobbying costs; bond origination fees paid to the city; any personal property as defined in KSA 79-102; or travel, entertainment, and hospitality.
Other important information

All cities that have projects financed with STAR bonds are to prepare and submit an annual report to the Governor; the Secretary of Commerce; and the Legislature
page 3 H-1
by October 1 of each year that describes the status of any projects within the redevelopment area. The STAR bond authority will sunset on July 1, 2012.
Reed Holwegner, Principal Analyst [email protected]
Michael Steiner, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
H-1
page 4

Economic Development H-2 Kansas Bioscience Authority Other Economic Development reports available H-1 Statewide STAR Bond Authority H-3 EDIF Fund Overview H-4 Department of Commerce
H-2 Kansas Bioscience Authority
The Kansas Economic Growth Act (KSA 74-99b01 to 74-99b89) creates the Kansas Bioscience Authority. The mission of the Authority is to make Kansas a desirable state in which to conduct, facilitate, support, fund, and perform bioscience research, development, and commercialization. In addition, the Authority is to make Kansas a national leader in bioscience, create new jobs, foster economic growth, advance scientific knowledge, and, therefore, improve the quality of life for all Kansas citizens.
Governance
The Kansas Bioscience Authority is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors. Nine members are voting members representing the general public who demonstrate leadership in finance, business, bioscience research, plant biotechnology, basic research, health care, legal affairs, bioscience manufacturing or product commercialization, education, or government. One of the nine members of the Board is to be an agricultural expert who is recognized for outstanding knowledge and leadership in the field of bioscience. The Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate each appoints two Board members. The House and Senate Minority Leaders each appoints one member. The Secretary of the Department of Commerce is an exofficio voting member. The voting members are subject to Senate confirmation and serve four-

[email protected]
year terms after conclusion of the initial term, with no more than three consecutive four-year terms. Two non-voting members of the Board represent state research universities and have research expertise and represent Kansas universities.
The Authoritys headquarters is located in Johnson County. Statute requires the Authority to be located in the county with the highest number of bioscience employees. The Authority, with state universities, identify and recruit eminent and rising star scholars; jointly employ personnel to assist or complement eminent and rising star scholars; determine types of facilities and research; facilitate integrated bioscience research; and provide matching funds for federal grants.
Powers
The Authority has the following duties: Oversee the commercialization of bioscience intellectual property created by eminent and rising star scholars; Own and possess patents and proprietary technology, and enter into contracts for commercialization of the research; Incur indebtedness and enter into contracts with the Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA) for bonding to construct state-of-the-art facilities owned by the Authority. Neither the State of Kansas nor KDFA would be liable for the bonds of the Authority; Purchase, lease, trade, and transfer property. Architecture and construction requirements similar to those affecting the research universities also apply; and Solicit and study business plans and proposals. A repayment agreement is required for any bioscience company that receives grants, awards, tax credits, or any other financial assistance, including financing for any bioscience development project, if the company relocates operations associated with the funding outside Kansas within 10 years after receiving such financial assistance. The Authority is required to specify the terms of the repayment obligation and the amount to be repaid. Eminent domain is not be allowed to be used to secure agricultural land for a bioscience project.
Revenues and Fund Uses

Emerging Industry Investment Act (also part of 2004 HB 2647) creates the Bioscience Development Investment Fund which is not a part of the State Treasury.
H-2
page 2
Funds in the Bioscience Development Investment Fund belong exclusively to the Authority. The Secretary of Revenue and the Authority establish the base year of taxation for all bioscience companies and all state universities conducting bioscience research in the state. The Secretary of Revenue, the Authority, and the Board of Regents establish the number of bioscience employees associated with state universities and determine and report the incremental increase from the base annually for the following 15 years from the effective date of the Act. All of the incremental state taxes generated by the growth of bioscience companies and research institutions over and above the base taxation year go into the Fund. The baseline amount of state taxes goes to the State General Fund each year. The Bioscience Development Investment Fund is to be used to fund programs and repay bonds.
Bioscience Development Financing Act (created in the initial bill) allows the creation of tax increment financing districts for bioscience development. One or more bioscience development projects could occur within an established bioscience development district. The process for establishing the district follows the tax increment financing statutes. However, no bioscience development district can be established without the approval of the Authority. Counties are allowed to establish bioscience development districts in unincorporated areas. The KDFA may issue special obligation bonds to finance a bioscience development project. The bonds are to be paid off with ad valorem tax increments, private sources, contributions, or other financial assistance from the state and federal government. The Act creates the Bioscience Development Bond Fund which is managed by the Authority and is not part of the State Treasury. A separate account is created for each bioscience development district (BDD), and distributions will pay for the bioscience development project costs in a BDD.
Bioscience Tax Investment Incentive Act (created in the initial bill) makes additional cash resources available to start-up companies. The Act creates the Net Operating Loss (NOL) Transfer Program. The program allows the Authority to pay up to 50 percent of a bioscience companys Kansas NOL during the claimed taxable year. The program is managed by the Kansas Department of Revenue and is capped at $1.0 million for any one fiscal year.
page 3 H-2
Bioscience Research and Development Voucher Program Act (created in the initial bill) establishes the Bioscience Research and Development Fund in the State Treasury. The Fund may receive funding from any source. The program requires that any Kansas companies conducting bioscience research and development apply to the Authority for a research voucher. After receiving a voucher, the company will then locate a researcher at a Kansas university or college to conduct a directed research project. At least 51 percent of voucher award funds are to be expended with the university in the state under contract and cannot exceed 50 percent of the research cost. The maximum voucher funds awarded cannot exceed $1.0 million, each year for two years, and cannot exceed 50 percent of the research costs. The company is required to provide a one-to-one dollar match of the project award for each year of the project.
Bioscience Research Matching Funds Act (created in the bill) establishes the Bioscience Research Matching Fund to be administered by the Authority. The recipients must be bioscience research institutions, and institutions are encouraged to jointly apply for funds. The funds are to be used to promote bioscience research and to recruit, employ, fund, and endow bioscience faculty, research positions, and scientists at universities in Kansas. Application for the matching funds must be made to the Authority.
H-2
page 4

Economic Development H-3 EDIF Fund Overview Other Economic Development reports available H-1 Statewide STAR Bond Authority H-2 Kansas Bioscience Authority H-4
H-3 Economic Development Initiatives Fund (EDIF) Overview
The statutes governing the EDIF provide that it shall be used to finance programs . . . supporting and enhancing the existing economic foundation of the state and fostering growth . . . to the states economic foundation. With the exception of a statutory $2.0 million transfer from the EDIF to the State Water Plan Fund, the Legislature annually appropriates the EDIF for individual projects and programs deemed to support and enhance the states economic foundation. The EDIF is funded through the State Gaming Revenues Fund (SGRF). A portion of state revenue from both the Lottery and parimutuel wagering is transferred to the SGRF. That fund is used essentially as a holding fund from which further transfers are made on a monthly basis. In normal years no more than $50.0 million may be credited to the SGRF in any fiscal year. Amounts in excess of $50.0 million are credited to the State General Fund. However, for FY 2009 and FY 2010 no more than $47.9 million was credited to the SGRF. Beginning in FY 2011 and in successive years the amount that may be credited to the SGRF shall not exceed $50.0 million. The initial transfers from the SGRF, which began in 1986, were as follows: County Reappraisal Fund (until June 30, 1989) 30.0 percent; Split between Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund and Correctional Institutions Building Fund (Actual amount to be determined by appropriations act) 10.0 percent; and Economic Development Initiatives Fund (to be increased to 90.0 percent as of July 1, 1989) - 60.0 percent.
Department of Commerce
Michael Steiner, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
During the 1988 Session, the Legislature delayed the increase in the transfer to the EDIF until July 1, 1990. During the 1994 Session, the Legislature changed the transfers as of July 1, 1995, to the following: Correctional Institutions Building Fund - 10.0 percent; Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund - 5.0 percent; and Economic Development Initiatives Fund - 85.0 percent.
During the 2000 Session, the Legislature changed the transfers to the following: Economic Development Initiatives Fund$42,432,000; Correctional Institutions Building Fund$4,992,000; Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund$2,496,000; and Problem Gambling Grant Fund$80,000.
During the 2009 Session, the Legislature changed the transfers to the following for FY 2009 and FY 2010: Economic Development Initiatives Fund - $40,782,869; Correction Institutions Building Fund - $4,797,985; Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund - $2,398,992; and Problem Gambling Grant Fund - $80,000.
Kansas Lottery Kansas racing and gaming commission

(Fy 2011 and Fy 2012)
(in miLLions)
State Gaming Revenue Fund Less Transfer to Problem Gambling Grant Fund Total Available for Remaining Transfers
$48.05 0.08 $47.97
Correctional Institutions Building Fund Statutory10% ($4.99)
Economic Development Initiatives Fund Statutory85% ($42.43)
Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund Statutory5% ($2.49)
H-3
page 2
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES FUND FY 2011-2012 (In Millions)

Agency/Program Department of Commerce Operating Grant Older Kansans Employment Program Rural Opportunity Program Senior Community Services Employment Program Kansas Commission on Disability Concerns Strong Military Bases Program Rural Opportunity Zones Program Small Technology Pilot Program Community College Competitive Grants Engineering Expansion Grants Centers of Excellence Entrepreneurial Centers Mid-America Manufacturing Center (MAMTC) Subtotal - Commerce Department of Administration Governors Economic Council Kansas Technology Enterprise Corporation Operations University & Strategic Research Product Development Financing Commercialization Mid-America Manuf. Tech. Center (MAMTC) Subtotal - KTEC Kansas, Inc. Operations Board of Regents & Universities Vocational Education Capital Outlay Technology Innovation & Internship EPSCoR Community College Competitive Grants KSU - ESARP FHSU - KAMS WSU - Aviation Classroom & Training Equipment WSU - Aviation Research Subtotal - Regents & Universities
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3
Actual FY 2010 $ 13,477,415 297,138 1,909,786 3,941 186,832 323,210 $ 16,198,322
Approved FY 2011 $ 13,080,487 294682 1765017 9141 201250 245640 $ 15,596,217 $ $
Approved FY 2012 9,744,888 293,226 140,421 100,000 2,203,172 100,000 1,000,000 135,8851 968,023 1,025,000 16,933,311
197,614
1,242,875 3,404,980 497,504 1,803,253 545,000
1,079,443 2,050,328 300,000 1,421,880 1,025,000
$ $
7,493,612 354,858
$ $
5,876,651 257,561
$ $
2,565,000 86,469 298,668 2,500,000 4994,049
2,565,000 274,531 300,815 200,000 5,000,000 4,998,348
2,547,726 179,284 993,265 500,000 300,175 4,981,537 -
10,444,186
$ 13,338,694
9,501,987
H-3
Department of Agriculture Grain Warehouse Inspection Program Agriculture Marketing Program Subtotal - Agriculture Department of Wildlife and Parks Travel and Tourism Development TOTAL EXPENDITURES Transfers to Other Funds Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiatives Fund KS Qualified Biodiesel Fuel Produce Incentive Fund State Water Plan Fund Public Use General Aviation Airport Development Fund KPERS Death and Disability Moratorium Health Insurance Moratorium State Fair Affordable Airfare Transfer State General Fund Subtotal - Transfers TOTAL TRANSFERS & EXPENDITURES $ $ $ 2,050,000 200,000 1,802,141 1,000,000 36,129 214,058 5,800,000 11,102,328 45,593,306 Actual FY 2010 EDIF Resource Estimate Beginning Balance Gaming Revenues Other Income
*
$ $
$ $
75,000 75,000
$ $
395,573 395,573
$ $
34,490,978
$ $
1,849,037 28,877,522
$ 35,144,123
625,000 200,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 16,236 3,743,605
1,250,000 200,000 2,000,000 159,207 5,000,000 5,785,830
7,584,841
$ $
14,395,037 43,272,559 Approved FY 2012
$ 42,728,964 Approved FY 2011 $ 439,648 42,432,000 524,265 $ 43,395,913 $ 42,728,964 $ 666,949
6,696,286 40,782,869 553,799
666,949 42,432,000 300,000
Total Available Less: Expenditures and Transfers ENDING BALANCE
$ $ $
48,032,954 45,593,306 2,439,648
$ $ $
43,398,949 43,272,559 126,390
*Other income includes interest, transfers, reimbursements, and released encumbrances
For more information, please contact: Michael Steiner, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected] Reed Holwegner, Principal Analyst [email protected]
H-3 page 4 2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Economic Development H-4 Department of Commerce Other Economic Development reports available H-1 Statewide STAR Bond Authority H-2 Kansas Bioscience Authority H-3 EDIF Fund Overview
H-4 Department of Commerce
The Kansas Department of Commerce is the cabinet state agency concerned with economic development. Its focus is primarily concerned with traditional forms of economic development that involve manufacturing or businesses with brick-and-mortar locations. Under the Office of the Secretary, there are four divisions: Business Development, Rural Development, Trade Development, and Workforce Services. Workforce Services became organizationally attached to the Commerce Department in 2004 by an executive reorganization order. Workforce services programming is discussed in a separate article located in the Employees and Employers section of the Legislator Briefing Book. This briefing article outlines the other economic development programs administered by the Department of Commerce.
Business Development
In addition to promoting the growth and retention of existing businesses and industries in the state, the Business Development Division works to attract businesses and new jobs to Kansas. The Business Development Division is composed of three program sections: Finance and Incentives, Expansion and Retention, and Recruitment and Relocation. Finance and Incentives. This program section helps business clients to identify those state programs and incentives that would benefit their business expansion. Staff can act as a liaison with other state agencies, such as the departments of Revenue, Labor, and Health and Environment, to ensure that licensing requirements are met. Programs include determining eligibility of various tax credits and loan funds. Smaller programs contained within the section include Women and Minority Owned Business and the Kansas Film Commission. The Commerce Department also administers the Sales Tax Revenue (STAR) Bond Program. The purposes and administration of STAR Bonds is discussed in a separate article located in the Economic Development section of the Legislator Briefing Book.

[email protected]
Expansion and Retention. There are six field offices located in Garden City, Hays, Manhattan, Pittsburg, Topeka, and Wichita. The field offices assist communities and their businesses to ensure they are prepared to meet the needs of their local economies. Services include board training and strategic planning facilitation, referral to community development assistance programs, and serving as a liaison to other state and federal agencies. Recruitment and Relocation. It is the Commerce Departments role to promote Kansas as a good locale for out-of-state businesses to move a portion or all of their operations. In each of five regions of the country (the East coast, the Great Lakes, the Mid-Central, Missouri, and the West coast), a regional office engages in recruitment activities. Emphasis is placed upon attracting businesses involved in the industries of alternative energy, distribution, bioscience, and advanced manufacturing. The program section manages the website www.thinkbigks.com. The website provides information about potential site locations for businesses that are considering moving or expanding their operations.
Rural Development Division

The Rural Development Division works to enhance the quality of the rural communities in the state. The Division provides financial and technical assistance to community leaders, local units of government, businesses, and agricultural producers. Rural Development is composed of three sections: Community Development, the Office of Rural Opportunity, and Rural Opportunity Zones. Community Development. The states Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is administered by this section. The state annually receives a grant from the federal government. The funds are awarded competitively to projects that are targeted toward improving the lives of low and moderate income persons through community infrastructure improvements and private job creation. Community Development also administers the Incentives Without Walls, the Downtown Redevelopment, the Small Communities Improvement, and the Enterprise Facilitation programs. Each encourages the revitalization of downtown or main street business districts. The Community Development Section determines the eligibility for certain tax credit programs, such as the Community Service Tax Credit, the Individual Development Account (IDA) Tax Credit, and the Rural Business Development Tax Credit. Office of Rural Opportunity. The Office of Rural Opportunity is designed to spur development in Kansas communities that have a population of 5,000 or less. The Office focuses first on community development and strategic planning as necessary precursors to business development. When assisting local community and business leaders, the Office encourages regional planning that incorporates volunteerism and community pride. The Office has four field offices located on the campuses of Sterling College, Colby Community College, Neosho County Community College, and Garden City Community College. Rural Opportunity Zones. Started in 2011, Rural Opportunity Zones (ROZs) are designed to reverse population declines in rural areas of Kansas. Statute designates 50 counties as ROZs. Those counties include: Barber, Chautauqua, Cheyenne, Clark, Cloud, Comanche, Decatur, Edwards, Elk, Gove, Graham, Greeley, Greenwood, Hamilton, Harper, Hodgeman, Jewell, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Mitchell, Morton, Ness, Norton, Osborne, Pawnee, Phillips, Pratt, Rawlins, Republic, Rooks, Rush, Russell, Scott, Sheridan, Sherman, Smith, Stafford, Stanton, Trego, Thomas, Wallace, Washington, Wichita, Wilson, and Woodson.
H-4
page 2
The program has two incentives: A state income tax exemption for up to five years to individuals who move to an ROZ county from outside the state. Individuals must not have lived in Kansas for the past five years, nor have Kansas source income of more than $10,000 per year over the past five years; and Student loan forgiveness of up to $3,000 per year ($15,000 maximum benefit) for individuals who graduate from an accredited post-secondary institution and move to a ROZ county.
The student loan forgiveness incentive is a county-state partnership, and counties must opt in to participate. As of September 23, 2011, the following 39 counties have joined the student loan forgiveness program: Barber, Cheyenne, Clark, Cloud, Decatur, Edwards, Graham, Greeley, Greenwood, Hamilton, Harper, Hodgeman, Kearny, Kingman, Kiowa, Lane, Lincoln, Logan, Marion, Mitchell, Morton, Ness, Norton, Phillips, Pratt, Rawlins, Rooks, Rush, Russell, Scott, Sherman, Smith, Stafford, Stanton, Thomas, Trego, Wallace, Wichita, and Woodson.
Trade Development
The Trade Development Division works to increase the international sales of goods and services produced in Kansas. Private companies can receive counseling services regarding exports, marketing, international regulations, and searches for agents or distributors. International trade representatives are utilized on a contractual basis to provide contacts in China, India, Mexico, and other counties in Asia, Europe, and South America. The Division also has two in-state field offices in Overland Park and Wichita. Kansas vendors are recruited to attend international trade shows. The Division organizes trade missions and hosts foreign delegations when they visit Kansas. For more information, please contact:
page 3
H-4

Education I-1
Education
I-1 School Finance
School District Finance and Quality Performance Act; Bond and Interest State Aid Program 2011-2012 School Year
The School District Finance and Quality Performance Act provides the formula for computing General State Aid and Supplemental General State Aid for the 286 unified school districts in Kansas. General State Aid Formula Base State Aid Per Pupil x Adjusted Enrollment = State Financial Aid According to KSA 72-6410, the Base State Aid Per Pupil (BSAPP) is $4,492. However, appropriations only have been made to fund a BSAPP of $3,780 for the 2011-2012 school year. Enrollment Adjustments Low Enrollment This weight applies to school districts having unweighted full-time equivalent enrollments of under 1,622. The low enrollment factors were adjusted during the 2006 Session. Note: A district cannot receive both low enrollment and correlation weighting.
School Finance
Other Education reports available I-2 Higher Education Deferred Maintenance I-3
Postsecondary Technical Education Authority
Sharon Wenger, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
High Enrollment (Correlation) This weight applies to districts having unweighted full-time equivalent enrollments of 1,622 and over. It is determined by multiplying the full-time equivalent enrollment by a factor of 0.029942. Note: A district cannot receive both low enrollment and correlation weighting.
Transportation This weight helps compensate school districts for providing transportation to public school pupils who reside 2.5 miles or more by the usually traveled road from the school attended. The transportation formula is: The forumla-derived per pupil cost of transportation (a statutorily prescribed factor) divided by the BSAPP, with the product, thereof multiplied by the number of pupils transported 2.5 miles or more in the current year, equals the number of weighted transportation students.
Vocational Education This weight is determined by multiplying the full-time equivalent enrollment in vocational education programs approved by the State Board of Education by a factor of 0.5. Revenue generated by the weight must be spent for vocational education.
Bilingual Education This weight is determined by multiplying the full-time equivalent enrollment in bilingual education programs approved by the State Board of Education by a factor of 0.395. Revenue generated by the weight must be spent either for bilingual or at-risk education.
At-Risk Pupil This weight is determined by multiplying the number of pupils of a district who qualify for free meals under the National School Lunch Program by a factor of 0.456. Pupils who receive services are determined on the basis of at-risk factors determined by the school district board of education and not by virtue of eligibility for free meals.
High Density At-Risk Weighting This weight is determined by multiplying the number of pupils of a district who qualify for free meals under the National School Lunch Program by the following factors:
I-1
page 2
Those districts that have free meal student percentages between 40.0 percent and 49.99 percent would use a 0.06 factor. Those districts that have free meal student percentages of 50.0 percent or more or have a density of 212.1 students per square mile and a free lunch percentage of at least 35.1 percent and above would use 0.10 factor.
Medium Density At-Risk Weighting Those districts having free meal student percentages between 40.0 percent and 49.99 percent multiply the number of at-risk students by a factor of 0.06. In addition, if a school district becomes ineligible for mediumdensity at-risk weighting, the weighting shall be the greater of the weighting in the current school year; prior school year; or the average of the current school year and preceding two school years.
Non-Proficient At-Risk Weighting This weight is determined by calculating the number of pupils in a school district who are not eligible for the federal free lunch program and who scored below proficiency, or failed to meet the standard established by the State Board of Education, on either the reading or math state assessments in the preceding school year. This number is then multiplied by 0.0465. The product is the non-proficient at-risk weighting for the preceding school year. If the State Board determines that students in a school district are unable to take the state assessments as a result of a natural or manmade disaster, the non-proficient at-risk weighting for the school district will be equal to the school districts non-proficient at-risk weighting for the preceding school year.
School Facilities This weight is assigned for costs associated with beginning operation of new school facilities. The enrollment in the new school is multiplied by a factor of 0.25 to produce the weight adjustment. In order to qualify for this weight, the district must have utilized at least 25.0 percent of the state financial aid of the district authorized for the school year.
page 3
I-1
This weight is available for two school years onlythe year in which the facility operation is commenced and the following year. Ancillary School Facilities The law permits a school district to appeal to the State Court of Tax Appeals for permission to levy a property tax for up to two years to defray costs associated with commencing operation of a new facility beyond the costs otherwise financed under the law. To qualify for this tax levying authority, the district must have begun operation of one or more new facilities in the preceding or current school year (or both), have adopted a budget that includes at least 25 percent of the state financial aid for the district and have had extraordinary enrollment growth, as determined by the State Board of Education. The amount authorized by the tax levy divided by the BSAPP amount equals the ancillary school facilities enrollment adjustment. The tax levying authority may grant an extension for an additional three years if the school districts board determines that the costs attributable to commencing operation of the new school facility or facilities are significantly greater than the costs of operating other school facilities in the district. The tax that may be levied during the extension period is computed by first determining the amount produced by the tax levied by the district in the second year of the initial tax levying authority and by adding the amount of general state aid attributable to the school facilities weight in that year. Of the amount so computed, 75.0 percent, 50.0 percent, and 25.0 percent, respectively, are the amounts that may be levied during the three-year period. Special Education and Related Services The amount of special education services state aid a school district receives, including catastrophic special education aid, is divided by BSAPP to produce this weighting. Note: This procedure does not increase the school district general fund state aid requirement; it only increases the computed size of this budget for the benefit of the Local Option Budget provision of the law. Special education funding remains a separate categorical aid program distributed on the basis of a statutory formula.
I-1
page 4
Cost-of-Living Weighting The law permits a local school board to levy a local tax for the purpose of financing the cost-of-living weighting in a district which has higher than the average statewide cost-ofliving based on housing cost. The State Board of Education is required to determine which districts are eligible to apply for this weighting. The district will be deemed eligible if its average cost of living is at least 25.0 percent higher than the statewide average. In addition, to be eligible, the district must have adopted a local option budget in an amount equal to at least 31.0 percent of the state financial aid for the district. The cap that can be levied is 5.0 percent of the districts state financial aid calculation. The local school board is required to pass and publish a resolution authorizing the levy, and the resolution is subject to protest petition. If a school district already was authorized to levy a tax to finance the cost-of-living weighting in the 2006-07 school year, the law allows the district to continue to levy the tax at a rate that generates the same amount of revenue that was generated during the 2006-07 school year. The law allows this as long as the district adopts a local option budget which equals or exceeds the amount of local option budget adopted in the 2006-07 school year.
Declining Enrollment Weighting Any school district that has adopted a local option budget in an amount that equals at least 31.0 percent of the state financial aid for the district and has declining enrollment from the prior year may seek approval from the State Board of Tax Appeals to make a levy for up to two years, capped at 5.0 percent of the districts general fund budget. The levy is equalized up to the 75th percentile. An amount equal to the levy approved by the State Court of Tax Appeals is converted to the ancillary school facilities weight. The weight is calculated each year by dividing the amount of the levy authority approved by the State Court of Tax Appeals by BSAPP.
Decreasing Enrollment Provisions When a districts enrollment in the current school year has decreased from the preceding school year, the district may base its budget on the greater of unweighted full-time equivalent enrollment of the preceding year or the three-year average of unweighted full-time equivalent enrollment (current school year and two immediately preceding school years).
page 5
I-1
In a school district for which the State Board of Education has determined that the enrollment of the district in the preceding school year had decreased from the enrollment in the second preceding school year and that a disaster had contributed to the decrease, the enrollment of the district in the second school year following the disaster is determined on the basis of a four-year average of the current school year and the preceding three school years. However, if the enrollment decrease provisions of the general law (above) are more beneficial to the district than the four-year average, the general law will apply. Virtual School Act The 2008 Legislature passed the Virtual School Act. For each school year that a school district has a virtual school, the district is entitled to Virtual School State Aid. Virtual School State Aid is calculated by multiplying the number of full-time equivalent pupils enrolled in a virtual school times 105.0 percent of the unweighted BSAPP. In addition, virtual schools receive a non-proficient weighting of 25.0 percent multiplied by the full-time equivalent enrollment of non-proficient pupils in an approved at-risk program offered by the virtual school. Advanced placement course funding of 8.0 percent of the BSAPP is paid to virtual schools for each pupil enrolled in at least one advanced placement course if the pupil is enrolled in a resident school district that: Does not offer advanced placement courses; Contains more than 200 square miles; or Has an enrollment of at least 260 pupils.
Moneys received as Virtual School State Aid are required to be deposited in a Virtual School Fund. Expenses of the virtual school will be paid from this fund. In addition, a pupil with an Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and attending a virtual school is counted as the proportion of one pupil, to the nearest tenth that the pupils attendance at the nonvirtual school bears to full-time attendance. Any student enrolled in a virtual school is not counted in the enrollment calculation. The law requires school districts to provide adequate training to teachers who teach in virtual schools or virtual programs. The definition of a virtual school requires that students make academic progress toward the next grade level and demonstrate competence in subject matter for each class in which a student is enrolled, and it requires age-appropriate students to complete state assessment tests. The Local Option Budget and Supplemental General State Aid
I-1
page 6
The law provides that, in addition to General State Aid, a school district board may approve Local Option Budget spending in any amount up to 30.0 percent (and an additional 1.0 percent, subject to approval of the voters) of its State Financial Aid in the current school year. Certain limitations and constraints apply to use of Local Option Budget authority: Below average spending districts (general fund budget and supplemental general fund budget combined) gain authority in accord with a formula applicable to them. Above average spending districts that had a Local Option Budget in school year 1996-1997 are entitled to a specified percentage of the authority the district was authorized to adopt in 1996-1997. Additional authority can be gained by a school board through adoption of a resolution. If certain conditions are not met in increasing the authority, the resolution is subject to a 5.0 percent protest petition and election procedure (or, in one instance, a board initiated election). A district may operate under authority adopted prior to the 19971998 school year until the authority specified in that resolution expires.
School District Bond Principal and Interest Obligation State Aid Payments Bond and interest state aid is based on an equalization principle which is designed to provide state aid in an amount inversely related to school district assessed valuation per pupil. One matching rate is applicable for the duration of bond and interest payments associated with bonds issued prior to July 1, 1992. A different matching rate applies during the life of bonds issued on or after July 1, 1992. For the school district having the median assessed valuation per pupil, the state aid ratio is 5.0 percent for contractual bond and interest obligations incurred prior to July 1, 1992, and 25.0 percent for contractual bond and interest obligations incurred on July 1, 1992 and thereafter. This factor increases (or decreases) by 1 percentage point for each $1,000 of assessed valuation per pupil of a district below (or above) the median.
page 7
I-1
Base State Aid Per Pupil History 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 Fund Flexibility Legislation passed in 2011 allows school districts to expend a portion of the unencumbered balances held in particular funds. The following funds would be considered the first priority for use: at-risk education; bilingual education; contingency reserve; driver training; parent education; preschool-aged at-risk; professional development; summer program; virtual school; and vocational education. The textbook and student materials revolving fund is the second priority with the special education fund the last priority for use. Local school boards are not limited to using the funds in the priority list and are not required to expend the total unencumbered balance before utilizing the unencumbered balance in another fund. This law limits the amount of money a school district can use from its unencumbered balance through a formula that will be calculated by the State Board of Education. The formula follows: Determine the adjusted enrollment of the district, excluding special education and related services weighting; Subtract the amount of Base State Aid Per Pupil (BSAPP) appropriated to the Department of Education for FY 2012 from $4,012; and Multiply the difference between the amount of BSAPP appropriated to the Department of Education and $4,012 by the adjusted enrollment. $4,257 $4,316 $4,374 $4,400 (originally $4,433) $4,280 (following adjournment of the 2009 Legislature) $4,012 (after the Governors November 2009 allotment) $3,937 $3,780
Implementation of the bill establishes the aggregate amount that can be expended from the unencumbered balance for the 2011-2012 school year. The bill also requires that 65.0 percent of the aggregate amount authorized to be spent would be used in the classroom or for instruction as defined in KSA 72-64c01.
I-1 page 8 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Reagan Cussimanio, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
page 9
I-1

Education I-2 Higher Education Deferred Maintenance Other Education reports available I-1
Education
I-2 Higher Education Deferred Maintenance
The 2007 Legislature created the State Educational Institution LongTerm Infrastructure Maintenance Program (HB 2237) to address deferred maintenance needs at the states institutions of higher education. The program specifically excludes from the list of infrastructure improvement projects the construction of new buildings, maintenance of athletic facilities that do not directly support the delivery of academic pursuits, and maintenance of the residences of the President or Chancellor. The projects can include not only utility systems, but other infrastructure projects as well. Ongoing Transfer of Funds for Deferred Maintenance. In FY 2008, the state began making annual transfers to the Board of Regents to fund deferred maintenance projects at the state universities. The transfers will total $90.0 million, including $47.0 million from the State General Fund and $43.0 million from the Statewide Maintenance and Disaster Relief Fund as follows: FY 2008 - $30.0 million from the Statewide Maintenance and Disaster Relief Fund. FY 2009 - $20.0 million - $13.0 million from the Statewide Maintenance and Disaster Relief Fund and $7.0 million from the State General Fund. FY 2010 - $15.0 million, all from the State General Fund. FY 2011 - $15.0 million, all from the State General Fund. FY 2012 - $10.0 million, all from the State General Fund.
School Finance
I-3
Postsecondary Technical Education Authority
Retained Interest. The interest dollars generated from student tuition payments, restricted fee payments, and sponsored research overhead dollars (approximately $8.5 million annually) are allocated for state university building maintenance.
Audrey Dunkel, Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181
[email protected]
Tax Credits. The program further authorizes new tax credits effective for tax years 2008-2012 for contributions earmarked for deferred
maintenance at post-secondary educational institutions; certain capital improvements at community colleges (excluding new construction and real property acquisition); and deferred maintenance and certain technology or equipment at technical colleges. The credits terminate after tax year 2012. The amount of the credits, which can be claimed against the income tax, financial institutions privilege tax, or insurance premiums tax, is equivalent to 50 percent of qualifying contributions for postsecondary institutions, and 60 percent of qualifying contributions for community and technical colleges. The post-secondary credits are non-refundable but can be carried forward for up to three years. The community and technical college credits are refundable. All credits are transferable to other taxpayers if originally claimed by not-for-profit entities. The credit process has been developed and implemented for all institutions in a manner designed to assure that qualifying contributions also would qualify for federal and state income tax deductions. Additional provisions limit the amount of tax credits authorized in FY 2009 for each community and technical college to $0.078 million for tax year 2008 contributions; to $0.156 million beginning in FY 2010 relative to contributions for tax year 2009; and to $0.208 million from FY 2011 through FY 2013 relative to tax year 2010-2012 contributions. The overall maximum credit limitation imposed for community and technical colleges is $1.875 million for FY 2009, $3.750 million for FY 2010, and $5.0 million for FY 2011-2013. The overall maximum credit limitation imposed for the post-secondary institution contributions is $5.625 million for FY 2009, $11.250 million for FY 2010, and $15.0 million for FY 2011-2013. One provision limits to a maximum of 40 percent of a given years annual credits the portion that could be applied to any single postsecondary institution, unless there is unanimous agreement among all eligible institutions to waive that restriction. In addition to the aforementioned allocation restrictions and requirements, prior to the issuance of any tax credits, the State Board of Regents is required to establish an allocation procedure developed in consultation with the Secretary of Revenue (and, for the post-secondary institutions, university foundations or endowment associations) regarding the allocation of credits between and among all affected institutions within a given fiscal year. Community college is defined to include those colleges established under the provisions of the Community College Act. Technical college is defined to include those institutions otherwise defined in KSA 72-4472 et seq. Post-secondary educational institution is defined to include the University of Kansas, Kansas State University of Agriculture and Applied Science, Wichita State University, Emporia State University, Pittsburg State University, Fort Hays State University, and Washburn University of Topeka. The Secretary of Revenue is required to submit an annual report to the Legislature evaluating the overall tax credit utilization and the amount utilized by each institution.
I-2
page 2
Based on the assumption that contributions will be received to utilize fully the maximum amount of tax credits, the fiscal impact of the credits to the State General Fund would be as follows: ($ in millions) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Through FY 2013 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 0.000 (7.500) (15.000) (20.000) (20.000) (20.000) (82.500) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ State 0.000 (5.625) (11.250) (15.000) (15.000) (15.000) (61.875) $ $ $ $ $ $ $ CC/Tech 0.000 (1.875) (3.750) (5.000) (5.000) (5.000) (20.625)
Such credits also would be expected to generate the following amount of contributions: ($ in millions) FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Through FY 2013 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Total 0.000 14.375 28.750 38.333 38.333 38.333 158.125 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ State 0.000 11.250 22.500 30.000 30.000 30.000 123.750 $ $ $ $ $ $ $ CC/Tech 0.000 3.125 6.250 8.333 8.333 8.333 34.375
Bonds. The program authorizes $100.0 million in bonds ($20.0 million each fiscal year) beginning in FY 2008, to be requested by the Board of Regents from the Kansas Development Finance Authority (KDFA) for Washburn University, the community colleges, and technical colleges. The principal and interest for the bonds is paid from the State General Fund, with the institutions reimbursing the State General Fund for the principal portion of the payments each year. The bonds are let as eight-year bonds, with a cap of $15.0 million in bonds per institution over the five-year period. Bond payments could begin after July 1, 2008. Before requesting the bonds from KDFA, the Board of Regents is required to review the requests to determine both need and capacity of the institution to repay the bonds. The capacity to repay the bonds will be further reviewed by the KDFA. The Board of Regents is required to provide an annual report to the Legislature regarding the distribution of the bonds. Limitation on Expenditure of New Funding. New funds may not be spent before the Joint Committee on State Building Construction reviews projects at the state universities. Washburn University, the community colleges, and the technical colleges are exempt from this review. Private funds leveraged with the tax credits cannot be used for bond payments for any bonds other than those authorized in
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 I-2
the Act. The funds are distributed based on the current Board of Regents methodology - using square footage, age, and complexity of the building. New Building Accountability. The Board of Regents cannot request State General Fund funding for the maintenance of new, privately-financed buildings. Retirement of Unnecessary Facilities. The Board of Regents is required to take obsolete and unnecessary facilities out of service. Facilities can be moth-balled or razed. Project Oversight and Annual Reporting Requirements. In FY 2008, the Joint Committee on State Building Construction advised and consulted with the Board of Regents on all state university deferred maintenance projects in FY 2008. In addition, the Joint Committee on State Building Construction was required to develop a long-term management and oversight plan for the Board of Regents deferred maintenance projects which was presented to the 2008 Legislature. The Board of Regents is required to submit to the Joint Committee on State Building Construction, the Senate Ways and Means Committee, the House Appropriations Committee, and the Governor the following reports: Quarterly progress reports on infrastructure improvement projects financed under the program, which will be made available in electronic format; A bi-annual Inventory of Physical Facilities and Space Utilization (provides such things as the age and condition of buildings, building space utilization, and building replacement costs) will be made available in electronic format; and A bi-annual Report on State University Deferred and Annual Maintenance (a comprehensive facilities audit that provides a detailed overview of deferred maintenance needs of all state-owned buildings on state university campuses) will be made available in electronic format.
Improved Project Efficiency. For maintenance projects, an Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) is needed to interpret, approve, and authorize deviations or exceptions as required to applicable building codes. Prior to the program, both the Division of Facilities Management (DFM) and the State Fire Marshal contended that they served in that role, and neither entity would relinquish control to the other. This duplication of effort caused unnecessary delays and confusion. The Board of Regents was granted the option of working exclusively with DFM as it has licensed professionals, uses code standards that are common to design professionals, and offers other similar advantages. Previously approved legislation allows the state universities to opt out of full services from the Department of Administration. Instead of a flat 1.0 percent fee charged by DFM, most projects are now closer to the 0.5 percent range. This continued practice ultimately will result in cost savings. In order to facilitate efficient and timely project reviews, on-call fire protection consultants may be retained to augment DFM staff during busy periods rather than adding permanent full-time staff to DFM or the State Fire Marshals office. DFM will delegate authority to these consultants.
I-2
page 4
Audrey Dunkel, Principal Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
page 5
I-2

Education I-3
Education
I-3 Postsecondary Technical Education Authority
The 2007 Legislature created the Postsecondary Technical Education Authority (Authority) in response to the recommendations of the Kansas Technical College and Vocational School Commission. The new Authority is composed of 12 members as follows: Four members appointed by the State Board of Regents: Two members of the Board of Regents; One representative of a community college that provides technical education; and One representative of technical colleges in the state, or a designee;
Postsecondary Technical Education Authority Other Education reports available
I-1
School Finance
I-2 Higher Education Deferred Maintenance
Three members appointed by the Governor: One member representing Kansas business and industry; and Two members representing the general public;
One member appointed by the Senate President representing business and industry; One member appointed by the Speaker of the House representing business and industry; and Three ex-officio members: the Commissioner of Education, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor.
Audrey Dunkel, Principal Fiscal Analsyt 785-296-3181

[email protected]
No more than two members can represent any one specific technical career cluster, and of the members appointed from business and industry and the general public, at least one must come from each congressional district. In addition, no more than five members of the Authority may be from the same political party. The chairman of the Authority is selected by the Governor. Under delegated authority from the Board of Regents, the Authority is charged with: Coordinating the statewide planning for existing and new postsecondary technical education programs and contract training; Reviewing existing and proposed postsecondary technical education programs; Reviewing requests of state funding for postsecondary technical education and making recommendations to the State Board of Regents for funding amounts and distribution; Developing benchmarks and accountability indicators for the programs; Developing and annually advocating a policy agenda for postsecondary technical education; and Conducting studies of ways to maximize resources to best meet the needs of business and industry, making recommendations to the State Board of Regents.
Recommendations adopted by the Authority are considered and acted on by the State Board of Regents. Disapproval of a recommendation requires a majority vote of all members of the State Board of Regents within 45 days of the submission of the recommendation. The Authority and the Board of Regents select the Vice-President of Workforce Development to serve as the executive director of the Authority, with the participation of the Kansas Association of Technical Schools and Colleges and the Kansas Association of Community College Trustees. The VicePresident is not a member of the Authority and serves in the unclassified service, at the pleasure of the Board of Regents. In addition, the Legislature required that the governing bodies of the following institutions submit a plan to merge or affiliate with a postsecondary education institution, or become an accredited technical college with an independent governing board by July 1, 2008: Northeast Kansas Technical College; Kansas City Area Technical School; Kaw Area Technical School; Salina Area Technical School; and Southwest Kansas Technical School.
The Authority will terminate on June 30, 2014.
I-3
page 2
page 3
I-3

Employees Employers J-1
EmployeesEmployers
J-1 Workforce Development Programs
Workforce Development Programs
Kansas Workforce Development Programs - Kansas 1ST

Kansas workforce development programs have undergone a major restructuring designed to create an integrated, seamless, and market-driven system. A reorganization of programmatic responsibilities and initiatives to enhance the training value of postsecondary educational institutions make up the two major parts of the effort.
Other Employees Employers reports available J-2 Unemployment Insurance Compensation Fund
Reorganization and Re-Engineering

Under the reorganization order, federal workforce programs focusing on job seekers were merged with state-funded programs focusing on employers, essentially connecting supply and demand. The reorganization was both a programmatic and physical change for the Department of Commerce.
Physical Changes
Acquired 26 local offices in five regions where a majority of the transferred positions work; Transferred central administrative staff who are physically located at the Curtis Office Building with other Commerce staff; and Created five regional director positions with the authority to customize regional offices to meet the needs of the particular area and blend programs.
Programmatic Changes
[email protected]
New focus on projects rather than programs with the goal of creating a high performance culture where staff work across programs; and
New responsibility for federal employment and training programs that were blended into the Business Development Division.
The following table displays the new structure of the Business Development Division. Individual programs are only listed for units dealing with workforce development. Programs moved under the reorganization are denoted with an asterisk. Reorganized Business Development Division Kansas Department of Commerce Direct Services - provides funding, tax and financial incentives, and structured work-based learning opportunities for employers.
Apprenticeship* Kansas Economic Opportunity Initiatives Fund (KEOIF) Kansas Existing Industry Expansion Program (KEIEP) Kansas Industrial Training & Retraining (KIT/KIR) Investments in Major Projects and Comprehensive Training (IMPACT) Training Equipment Grant Work Opportunity Tax Credits (WOTC)* Enterprise Zone Kansas Partnership Fund High Performance Incentive Program (HPIP) Certified Development Companies Small Business Development Centers
Workforce Training and Education Services - provides a direct connection to the Board of Regents and schools to provide more custom training for Kansas businesses. Assessment & Labor Exchange Services - links employers with qualified job seekers and provide incumbent and emerging worker assessment services.
Job Service (Wagner-Peyser)* Veterans Programs* Migrant and Seasonal Farm Worker Program* Neighborhood Improvement Employment Act (NIYEA)* Foreign Labor Certification* and Youth
Skill Enhancement Services - helps special populations acquire the skills needed to become employable.
Older Kansans Employment Program (OKEP)* Senior Community Services Employment Program (SCSEP)* Workforce Investment Act (WIA)* WIA National Emergency Grant* North American Free Trade Agreement*
Note: Programs marked with an * were transferred to the Department of Commerce effective July 1, 2004
Major Program Highlights

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 provides the framework for a national workforce preparation and employment system to meet the needs of business and job seekers. The WIA of 1998: Replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program; Focuses on providing easy access, information, and services through a One Stop system; Is funded through the United States Department of Labor;
J-1
Creates a system of state and local Workforce Investment Boards and Youth Councils to guide the development and operation of the programs in five regions; and Targets adult, youth, and dislocated workers as groups for services.
Required Allocation of Funding Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth and Adult 85 percent allocated to local areas 15 percent reserved for statewide activities with a 5 percent limit for administration Dislocated Workers 60 percent allocated to local areas 40 percent reserved by the State 25 percent for rapid response activities 15 percent for statewide activities Statewide Activities must include incentive grants, technical assistance, management information systems, evaluation, and One Stop system buildings. Job Service (Wagner-Peyser) helps employers find qualified employees and job seekers find
jobs:
Federally funded by the United States Department of Labor; Services required to be a part of the One Stop system created by the Workforce Investment Act; Plans are integrated into the state workforce development plans; and Uses an automated job-matching job bank system to enhance the process.
Investment in Major Program and Comprehensive Training (IMPACT) provides financial assistance to basic industries relocating or expanding in Kansas which are creating large numbers of jobs and paying higher than average wages to train employees: Financed through the sale of bonds repaid using a portion of the state withholding taxes (2.0 percent in FY 2006 and beyond); Project must be developed in conjunction with a post-secondary education institution; and The Secretary may invest directly in educational and related workforce development institutions, limited to no more than 10 percent of each project.
page 3
J-1
Investment in Major Projects and Comprehensive Training (IMPACT) Program Components State of Kansas Investments in Lifelong Learning (SKILL) Major Project Investment (MPI) Provides eligible companies funds to train for new jobs created under the relocation or expansion Examples of eligible costs include on-the-job-training, classroom training, curriculum development, training-related travel, supplies, and training equipment Examples of eligible costs include equipment relocation, building and equipment purchases, and labor recruitment
Assistance to companies to defray costs associated with relocation or expansion Eligible expenditures in capital investments of major facility expansions
Kansas Industrial Training and Retraining (KIT/KIR) provide funding to Kansas basic industries to assist in training or retraining: Jobs created or retained must have an average wage of at least $11 per hour in metropolitan regions and $9.50 in non-metropolitan areas; and Retraining funds are awarded on a competitive basis and require at least a dollar for dollar match from the company. INTEGRATING POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION Major Elements Changing relationships; and Program redesign.
One of the goals of current workforce development efforts is to transform community, technical colleges and technical schools into valuable economic assets used to deliver more of the training needed by employers and job seekers. Long range, this translates into moving from a state that provides grants for training to a state that invests in its educational infrastructure and guarantees qualified employees. Historically, Kansas has paid companies to do their own training or to hire an outside consultant to design and execute a training plan for a new or existing business. The result was that similar training may have been designed and paid for multiple times. Recent information shows that approximately $.95 of every $1.00 paid to companies expanding or relocating in Kansas is used by the company or vendors they select and does not help support Kansas educational institutions. Under current programs, basic transferable expertise will be developed in the postsecondary schools one time and then modified as required to meet customer needs.
J-1 page 4 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Changing Relationships
Previously there was very little interaction between workforce development agencies and the Board of Regents. This is changing. As a part of the initiative, the Director of the Workforce Training and Education Services Division is employed jointly by the Kansas Board of Regents and the Department of Commerce (75 percent Commerce and 25 percent Kansas Board of Regents). This direct integration is intended to help mesh the cultures of workforce development and post-secondary education. As a part of this new vision, service area boundary lines currently in place for community colleges are to be eliminated with regard to workforce development. The system will be refocused to deliver curricula based on industry needs across the state.
Program Redesign
The Investments in Major Projects and Comprehensive Training (IMPACT) program was amended as part of the Kansas Economic Growth Act legislation passed by the 2004 Legislature. The changes will help redistribute training dollars across the educational system. The previous program design, where dollars flowed only to institutions that entered into major project agreements with companies, resulted in an uneven distribution of capital investment dollars to areas that had major projects and left behind schools in areas with no IMPACT projects. The Secretary is allowed direct investments in institutions to develop training expertise, human capital, and infrastructure. Investments could include industrytrained instructors and state-of-the-art training facilities. The Department will take over administration of IMPACT projects instead of requiring the involved educational institution to serve as the administrator. The portion of project dollars previously allocated to the educational institutions to cover these administrative expenses will instead be deposited into a trust fund account to be reinvested into schools.
page 5
J-1

Employees Employers J-2
EmployeesEmployers
J-2 Unemployment Insurance Compensation Fund Overview
The Kansas Unemployment Insurance (UI) Trust Fund was created in 1935 as the state counterpart to the Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund. For the past 75 years, the Fund has provided income stability for Kansas citizens during times of economic difficulty while stimulating economic activity. The Legislature has modified the provisions of the Kansas Unemployment Insurance law several times over the past decade to address the accumulation of excess balances in the Fund which can be a drag on economic growth. However, the swift growth and size of the 2009 economic crisis has resulted in the rapid depletion of the Funds reserves, despite measures to ensure the Funds adequacy.
Unemployment Insurance Compensation Fund Other Employees Employers reports available
J-1
Workforce Development Programs
State Fund Contributions

Contributions to the UI Trust Fund are made by Kansas employers and are governed by KSA 44-710a. The Fund is designed to be self correcting. When unemployment rates increase, contribution rates increase, and contribution rates decline during better economic times. The State charges a fee on the first $8,000 of income. The amount of this fee varies dependent on several factors. New employers, without an employment history, are charged 4.0 percent unless the employer is determined to be within the construction industry based on the North America Industry Classification System (NAICS) code. Construction employers are charged a 6.0 percent contribution rate. Employers with an employment history of at least three years qualify for experience based ratings. Employers are classified as positive balance when their total contributions to the Fund exceed the amount withdrawn by qualified recipients of unemployment from the employer. Positive balance employers are grouped into 51 categories depending upon their unemployment experience. In combination with the Reserve Fund ratio and the planned yield, a specific contribution rate is determined for the employer.
Shirley Morrow, Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Employers are classified as negative balance when their total contributions to the Fund fail to exceed the amount withdrawn by qualified recipients. All negative balance employers are charged a base contribution rate of 5.4 percent. The employers pay a further surcharge between 0.2 percent and 4.0 percent depending on the depth of the negative reserve fund ratio, yielding contribution rates between 5.6 and 9.4 percent. Employers have the choice to make additional contributions to the Fund in order to become positive balance employers and qualify for experience-based rating with lower contribution rates. In 2010, the Legislature enacted HB 2676 that lowered the contribution rates charged to positive balance employers for 2010 and 2011 who are in rate groups 1 through 32 to the original tax rate contribution table. Employers in rate groups 33 through 51 are capped at the maximum contribution rate of 5.4 percent. Employers have ninety days past the due date to file their contributions without being charged interest for the first three quarters in each of the two years. The 2011 Legislature enacted SB 77 which extends the tax rate caps for three more years, from 2012 to the end of 2014. However, the bill does not extend the ninety-day extension to file contributions. SB 77 increases the number of reserve ratio groups for negative balance employers from ten to twenty. The surcharge rate applied to negative balance employers increased from 2.0 percent to 4.0 percent. For those employers in the top ten negative reserve ratio groups, there is a temporary 0.1 percent surcharge increase for 2012, 2013, and 2014. Starting in calendar year 2012, negative balance employers with a negative reserve ratio of 20.0 percent or greater will have a surcharge rate that ranges from 2.2 percent to 4.0 percent. The additional surcharge revenue is deposited in the Employment Security Interest Assessment Fund.
Federal Unemployment Trust Fund

In addition to the contributions to the Kansas Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund, employers also contribute to the Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund (FUTF). Employers would pay a rate of 6.2 percent on the first $7,000 of income; however, the federal government provides a tax credit of 5.4 percent against this rate for states with an unemployment insurance program in compliance with federal requirements. This yields an effective contribution rate of 0.8 percent for Kansas employers. The federal trust fund is used for administrative purposes and to fund loans to state unemployment insurance programs when they become insolvent.
2009 Economic Crisis

Between January 2007 and December 2008, the UI Trust Fund maintained a balance between $600 million and $700 million. Benefit payments began a sharp rise starting in January 2009, increasing from an average of $6.0 million per week to $19.0 million per week in July of the same year. The tripling of benefit payments over this period resulted in accelerated depletion of Fund resources. The Department of Labor uses the Average High Cost Multiple (AHCM) system recommended by the United States Department of Labor in order to ensure Trust Fund adequacy. The AHCM is the number of years a state can pay benefits out of its current Trust Fund balance if it were required to pay benefits at a rate equivalent to an average of the three highest 12-month periods in the past 20 years. The last time Kansas experienced a period of unemployment exceeding 6.5 percent was in 1982. This means that there was no equivalent three-month period of unemployment included in the AHCM calculation. The unemployment rate is not the only variable impacting the Trust Fund balance. The
primary determinants of the Trust Fund depletion rate are the average weekly benefit, the number of persons to whom unemployment is paid, and the amount of time for which benefits are paid.
Current Status of the Fund

TrustFundBalance TrustFundLoans
(inmillions)
$350.0 $300.0 $250.0 $200.0 $150.0 $100.0 $50.0 $0.0
For the first time since the passage of the Kansas Employment Security Law, the State of Kansas has been required to borrow funds from the Federal Unemployment Account to make unemployment benefit payments. As of September 20, 2011, the State has borrowed $170.8 million. The federal government began assessing interest on the loans on January 1, 2011. The Kansas Department of Labor received a bill from the U.S. Treasury on September 16, 2011, for the entire interest payment of $4,601,743.91 that was due on September 30, 2011. The interest rate on the loan is currently 4.09 percent. The Social Security Act prohibits employers regular Trust Fund contributions to be used to repay interest on loans from the Federal Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund (FUTF). In addition, employers will lose all offset credits for any year in which interest due under federal law is not paid by the date on which interest is required to be paid. The State also will lose all grants for costs of administration of the program until interest due has been paid. Beginning in January 2013, the State of Kansas has to begin repaying the principal on the loans. The federal government will reduce the amount of Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax credit by 0.3 percent each year after the second January the State has an outstanding loan balance until the loan is paid in full. Therefore, the employers will receive a letter with their new FUTA rate sometime in January 2012. The employers will receive a bill for 1.1 percent against the first $7,000 of earnings. If Kansas has an outstanding loan in 2013, which is expected by the Department of Labor, the employer rate will be 1.4 percent.
page 3
J-2
SB 77 An Act Concerning the Employment Security Act

This law authorizes the creation of the Employment Security Interest Assessment Fund which pays interest and principal owed to the U.S. Department of Labor for advances received by the UI Trust Fund. In addition to increasing the surcharge rate negative balance employers pay from 2.0 percent to 4.0 percent and creating a temporary 0.1 percent increase for 2012, 2013, and 2014, there are additional changes to improve the UI Trust Funds solvency. The law repeals the provision that allows an unemployed individual to receive compensation for the waiting period of one week. The bill also modifies the trailing spouse provision so that it applies only to the spouses of personnel in the U.S. armed forces or military reserves. Under previous law, a person could receive UI benefits if that person left a job because the persons spouse had to transfer to another location for employment. The Pooled Money Investment Board (PMIB) may make long-term loans to the Department of Labor in order to fund debt obligations owed to the federal government. The interest rate for a PMIB loan may not exceed 2.0 percent. The loan period cannot exceed three years unless the PMIB and the Secretary of Labor agree to the extension. The law grants an unemployed individual who receives UI benefits the discretion to have state income tax withheld from the payments. Federal law currently allows an unemployed individual to have federal income tax withheld.
Employee Benefits
The amount of money an employee can receive in unemployment compensation will vary depending on the level of compensation the employee received during employment and the length of time which the employee can receive benefits. However, there are strict upper and lower bounds on benefit payments to prevent over-and under-compensation.
Calculating the Weekly Benefit

The weekly benefit amount is what the claimant will receive each week in unemployment compensation. The weekly benefit amount is determined by multiplying 4.25 percent times the highest earning quarter in the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters. KSA 44-704(c) limits the weekly benefit amount to 60.0 percent of the average weekly wages paid to employees in insured work in the previous calendar year. Subsection (d) of the same statute guarantees that employees will receive at least 25.0 percent of the average weekly wages paid to employees in insured work in the previous calendar year.
Calculating the Length of Compensation

During a standard or non-recessionary period, an employees duration of benefit is calculated in one of two ways, whichever is less. An employee can receive weekly compensation for 26 weeks. Alternately, the duration of benefits is determined by multiplying 1/3 times the total benefits received in the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters. The weekly benefits amount is divided into the total benefits received in order to determine the number of weeks an employee can receive compensation.
The Federal Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008 extends an employees duration of benefit by 20 weeks and has an additional Tier 2 trigger to provide 13 weeks of compensation when unemployment exceeds 6.0 percent, for a total of 33 weeks above the 26 weeks of unemployment compensation in non-recessionary periods. All benefits paid under the Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act are paid from federal funds and do not impact the Kansas UI Trust Fund balance. The federal government recently approved an additional 14 weeks of Tier 3 unemployment compensation for Kansas. Kansas citizens are able to receive a total of 47 weeks in federal unemployment compensation separate from their state benefits. Under KSA 44-704(a), Kansas will provide an additional 13 weeks of unemployment compensation when the Kansas economy hits one of several indicators, including an unemployment rate of at least 6.5 percent for the previous three months. An applicant can receive less than 13 weeks of extended state benefits in the event his or her original eligible benefit period was less than 26 weeks based on the 1/3 calculation. Under state law, Kansas extended benefits are paid 50.0 percent from the Kansas UI Trust Fund and 50.0 percent from the Federal UI Trust Fund. However, until December 1, 2010, a provision of the Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-205) stated that all extended state benefits were to be paid from the Federal UI Trust Fund. For more information, please contact:
Shirley Morrow, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
page 5
J-2

Energy and Utilities K-1 Renewable Portfolio Standards and Wind Generated Electricity in Kansas Other Energy and Utilities reports available K-2 Electricity Transmission
Energy and Utilities

K-1 Renewable Portfolio Standards and Wind Generated Electricity in Kansas
Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS)
Beginning in 2007, utility companies throughout the state reached an informal, voluntary agreement, negotiated by the Governors office, to adopt the goal of producing 10 percent of Kansas energy from wind by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020. The agreement also called for a 10 percent statewide reduction in overall energy use. The 2009 Legislature enacted the Renewable Energy Standards Act which requires electric public utilities, except municipally owned electric utilities, to generate or purchase specified amounts of electricity generated from renewable resources. The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) adopted regulations implementing the standards in Fall 2010. Kansas RPS requires utilities to obtain net renewable generation capacity constituting at least the following portions of each affected utilitys peak demand based on the average of the three prior years: 10 percent for calendar years 2011 through 2015; 15 percent for calendar years 2016 through 2019; and 20 percent for each calendar year beginning in 2020.
K-3 Keystone Pipeline in Kansas
Renewable energy credits may only be used to meet a portion of the requirement in 2011, 2016, and 2020, unless otherwise authorized by the KCC. Each megawatt of eligible renewable capacity installed in Kansas after January 1, 2000, counts as 1.10 megawatts for purposes of compliance with the RPS. The capacity of any systems interconnected with the affected utilities under the Net Metering and Easy Connection Act or the parallel generation statute also count toward compliance with the renewable energy requirement.
Cindy Lash, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
Renewable energy may be generated by wind; solar thermal sources; photovoltaic cells and panels; dedicated crops grown for energy production; cellulosic agricultural residues; plant residues; methane from landfills or from wastewater treatment; clean and untreated wood products such as pallets; existing hydropower; new hydropower, not including pumped storage, that has a nameplate rating of 10 megawatts or less; fuel cells using hydrogen produced by one of the other renewable energy resources; and other sources of energy, not including nuclear power, that become available and are certified as renewable under rules and regulations of the KCC. As of Fall 2011, 29 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had adopted a renewable portfolio standard, while another eight states had adopted a renewable portfolio goal. While the specific guidelines of each states legislation vary, the most common forms of renewable energy cited in RPS legislation are wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and hydropower. More information about individual states can be found at dsireusa.org, the website for the Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency.
Wind-Generated Electricity
As Figure 1 below shows, most of Kansas renewable generation of electricity comes from wind power. Kansas currently has 1,072 megawatts of commercial installed wind capacity, and expects to more than double that amount soon. Seven new projects with 1,388 megawatts of capacity have been announced and are scheduled to be constructed by the end of 2012.
Figure 1 Commercial-Size Renewable Generation within Kansas
CN
RA
DC
NT
PL
SM
JW
RP
WS
MS
NM
BR
DP AT
Meridian Way Wind Farm 201 MW
TH
SD
GH
RO
OB
MC
WA
Central Plains Wind Farm 99 MW
WH
HM
KE
GY
MT
SV
SW Liberal
ME
CA
Greensburg 12 MW
CM
BA
Hydro Landfill Gas
K-1
page 2
n ! 8 c
) )

HP Flat Ridge II 419MW
SU
CL
) )
Wind, Existing Wind, Proposed

29 September 2011
Gray County Wind Energy 112 MW
Shooting Star 104MW
) )
GT
HS
ST
Dodge City FO
Cimarron I & II 296MW
GL
Post Rock 201 MW

LE NS RH BT Great Bend
SC
Spearville Wind Energy Facility FI 149 MW Garden City
HG
PN SF Hutchinson RN HV BU Elk River Wind Farm PR GW
) )
Ironwood 168MW
ED
KW
Flat Ridge Wind Farm 100 MW
LG
GO
TR
EL
Smoky Hills Wind Farm 250 MW
OT
Hays
RS
) )
LC
EW
SA
Salina
RC
MP
KM
SG
SH
CD
CY
RL
PT
Rolling Hills Landfill 6 MW

SN WB
JA
Manhattan GE DK MR LY Emporia CS
8 c
JF
LV
Topeka
DG
n !
Kansas City WY JO Overland Park
Bowersock Hydro-electric Dam 2 MW

OS FR MI
MN
CF
AN
LN
WO
AL
BB Oak Grove Landfill 1.6MW
Wichita
150 MW
) )
WL EK Caney River 200MW CQ
NO
CR Pittsburg CK
8 c
MG
LB
Integrating Wind-Generated Electricity on the Grid

The best economic situation for wind-generated electricity is to have wind farms located close to long-distance transmission lines so that collector transmission lines carrying power from the wind farm to the interconnection can be as short as possible. The Southwest Power Pool (SPP) analyzes interconnection requests from wind farms and other proposed new generation facilities to determine whether system upgrades are necessary to service the requests. While that analysis is conducted on a case-by-case basis, some general characteristics of wind power impact the feasibility of transmitting wind-generated electricity. A number of challenges are presented when attempting to integrate wind-generated electricity onto the transmission grid. Most of those challenges are a result of characteristics of wind generation capacity: it is widely distributed; it is generally quite distant from customers; and it can be constructed and go on-line relatively quickly certainly more quickly than transmission lines can be built. In addition, windgenerated electricity is intermittent. Unlike electricity generated from traditional fuels such as natural gas, coal, or nuclear fuel, electricity generated by the wind is only available when the wind blows. Distribution and Distance From Customers. Wind farms are located, by necessity, in the windiest parts of the country, which also happen to be areas where vast tracts of land tend to be available to house wind farms. As Figure 2 illustrates, the largest areas of high wind potential in the United States are relatively distant from the nations high demand areas.
Figure 2
Wind Availability and Demand Blue - high wind potential, Brown - large demand centers, and Green - little wind and smaller demand centers.
Source: North American Electric Reliability Corporation. Special Report: Accommodating High Levels of Variable Generation. April 2009
Transmitting electricity long distances requires high-voltage transmission lines 345 kV and higher. Those lines are expensive and siting them is sometimes difficult, especially near cities, environmentally sensitive areas, and in some agricultural areas. The Southwest Power Pool has observed that wind generation facilities and transmission lines face the same not in my backyard problems. High voltage transmission lines require acquisition of relatively wide rights-of-way which is sometimes challenged by environmental organizations or property owners.
page 3
K-1
In addition to being relatively distant from customers in large population centers, wind generation facilities cover much larger areas than similar capacity using traditional fuels. Thus, more miles of transmission line are required to move the same amount of power as might be generated by a single, large conventional facility. As Figure 1 on page 2 shows, Kansas wind farms are widely distributed within the state. Wind-powered generation capacity currently installed or proposed totals 2,460 MW in 13 different counties. By comparison, Westars Jeffrey Energy Center, a coal-fired plant near St. Marys in Potawatomie County, has about 2,160 megawatts generation capacity in a single location.
In Kansas, the best wind is in the western portion of the state and in the Flint Hills. Most of the states population is located in the east. That would make the Flint Hills a prime location for wind farm development, but environmental concerns have prevented any significant development of wind generation in that area. In 2004, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius discouraged development of wind farms in the Heart of the Flint Hills, commonly defined as the area bounded by US Highway 24 on the north, U.S. Highway 77 on the west, US Highway 400 on the south and state highways K-99 and K-4 on the east.
Managing Wind on the Grid. WindIn Spring 2011, Governor Sam Brownback generated electricity is characterized as an announced an agreement that would designate intermittent resource because the wind does nearly 11,000 square miles of the Flint Hills as not blowand therefore, the electricity does the Tallgrass Heartland, an area which would be not flowall the time. The amount of windfree of further development of commercial wind generated electricity averages 30 percent to farms. Wind farms within the area with power 40 percent of maximum, ideal capacity of the generation equipment, so transmission lines purchase agreements would continue, but could serving wind farms may be underutilized some not expand. Tallgrass Heartland runs from Riley of the time. Since management of the electric and Pottawatomie counties in the north to the transmission system involves maintaining a states southern border. balance of generation with demand (load), the on-again-off-again nature of wind-generated electricity adds to the complexity of load balancing. Efficiently balancing the input and output on the transmission grid impacts cost. Although any new power source faces transmission constraint issues, wind power is especially handicapped because of the typical long distance from demand centers and the potential underutilization of expensive transmission facilities due to the variable output. Regulators like the Kansas Corporation Commission and the Southwest Power Pool consider the economic impact of decisions to expand transmission resources. That economic impact ultimately is felt in each home and business in the State.
Y-Plan
The Kansas Y-Plan is a high-voltage transmission line that is designed to connect eastern and western Kansas to improve electric reliability and enable energy developers to tap into the transmission grid, which developers hope will further establish a competitive energy market in the state. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, Mid-Kansas Electric Company, and ITC Great Plains are collaborating to design and construct the western arm of the Y-Plan, which begins near Spearville, then drops south to northern Clark County before turning eastward and continuing to near Medicine Lodge. Prairie Wind Transmission, a joint venture between Westar Energy and Electric Transmission America
K-1 page 4 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
(ETA), will design and construct the eastern arm from near Wichita to Medicine Lodge, as well as the stem of the Y dropping from Medicine Lodge to the Kansas-Oklahoma border. The Y-Plan is projected to be in service by the end of 2014. For more information, please contact:
Cindy Lash, Principal Analyst [email protected]
Heather OHara, Principal Analyst [email protected]

page 5
K-1

Energy and Utilities K-2

K-2 Electricity Transmission
This article was adapted from one originally prepared by the Kansas Legislative Research Department for the Kansas Electric Transmission Authority and which was published in the Winds of Change: Special Edition of the Kansas Government Journal, June 2009, pp 172-176.
Electricity Transmission
Other Energy and Utilities reports available K-1 Renewable Portfolio Standards and Wind Generated Electricity in Kansas K-3 Keystone Pipeline in Kansas
The Electric Grid

At its most basic level, the transmission system (or grid) is an interconnected assembly of nearly 160,000 miles of high-voltage transmission lines and associated equipment for moving electric energy at high voltages (typically 110 kV or above) between points of supply and points of delivery. Transmission lines typically operate at higher voltages than distribution lines in order to minimize the amount of energy lost during transmission. Figure 1 illustrates how electricity travels from a source such as a power plant, or any other point of electricity generation such as a wind farm, to a transformer, where the voltage is stepped up for travel over long-distance transmission lines, and then stepped down at a substation for delivery over electric distribution lines to customers. Figure 1
Cindy Lash, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Source: North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). About NERC: Understanding the Grid. http://www.nerc.com/page.php?cid=1|15. Accessed May 13, 2009.
The transmission grid in the contiguous U.S. and parts of Canada is divided into three separate, but connected, regions the Western Interconnection, the Eastern Interconnection, and the ERCOT Interconnection, as illustrated in Figure 2. Within each interconnection, electricity most commonly flows along alternating current (AC) transmission lines. In some places, electricity within an interconnection is transmitted over direct current (DC) lines in order to reduce line loss. DC transmission lines tend to support high-voltage, point-to-point transmission over long distances. The interconnections are linked in a limited number of places. The separations between interconnections facilitate system reliability. For instance, a power disruption in Colorado, located in the Western interconnection, could affect power flows as far away as California, but would not be likely to affect Kansas, in the Eastern Interconnection. The extensive blackout in 2003 in the northeastern U.S. and parts of Canada is an example of the potential for far-reaching effects of a power disruption within an interconnection. Figure 2
Note: As of April 2009, most of Nebraska became part of the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) Regional Transmission Organization Source: North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). Key Players: Regional Entities. http://www.nerc.com/fileUploads/ File/AboutNERC/maps/NERC_Interconnections_color.jpg
Power flows on the transmission grid much like water flows through pipes, seeking the path of least resistance. Also like water in a drainage basin, power is fungible the power placed on grid by a power plant to fulfill a contract is not the same power the purchaser will receive. Coordinating the flow of power over the grid, and ensuring in real time that the amount of power generated and the amount used remain in balance, is a function carried out in the Eastern Interconnection by a number of regional organizations. As Figure 2 shows, Kansas is part of the Southwest Power Pool, or SPP,
Regional Transmission Organization. The SPP was founded in 1941 with 11 members who pooled their resources to keep Arkansas aluminum plants powered for national defense work. The organization was maintained after World War II to support regional reliability and coordination. The Southwest Power Pool covers a geographic area of 370,000 square miles, and manages transmission in all or parts of eight states, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas, in addition to Kansas. The SPP is home to a major wind corridor located primarily in Kansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, and the Texas panhandle. Approximately 4,000 megawatts of wind generation capacity are in service within the SPP footprint and over 37,000 megawatts have been proposed and are under study. In 2010 the total peak demand for electricity within SPP was 45,373 megawatts. Kansas had approximately 1,000 MW of wind power generation capacity on line in 2011 and over 9,000 MW proposed for construction. To place the proposed amount in context, it is more than the total generation capacity of the Westar Energy system. Certainly not all of the proposed wind projects will be developed. However, adding even a portion of the proposed new generating capacity will require construction of additional transmission lines to reliably move the electricity to market. New transmission lines are required to support generation of electricity from wind because the physical properties of transmission lines limit the amount of power they can safely carry, demand for power is increasing in places far distant from wind production areas, and the current grid is nearly fully utilized. Adding large amounts of generating capacity from wind or any other source requires new transmission lines to carry that power safely and reliably to customers, and to avoid expensive congestion and bottlenecks.
For more information, please contact: Cindy Lash, Principal Analyst [email protected] Heather OHara, Principal Analyst [email protected]

page 3
K-2

Energy and Utilities K-3 Keystone Pipeline in Kansas Other Energy and Utilities reports available K-1 Renewable Portfolio Standards and Wind Generated Electricity in Kansas K-3

K-3 Keystone Pipeline in Kansas
The Keystone Pipeline System includes several crude oil pipelines being built by TransCanada, a Canadian energy company. The map shows the various components of the System. The first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System originates in Hardisty, Alberta, and connects to Steele City, Nebraska, before turning east to serve refineries in Illinois. A portion of this pipeline crosses Kansas for approximately 100 miles, running through Marshall, Brown, Nemaha, and Doniphan counties. The first phase of the Keystone Pipeline System went into service on June 30, 2010. Keystone Cushing, the second phase of the Keystone Pipeline System, connects Steele City, Nebraska, to Cushing, Oklahoma. The extension crosses Kansas for approximately 210 miles, through Washington, Clay, Dickinson, Marion, Butler, and Cowley counties. Keystone Cushing went into service in February 2011. The proposed Keystone Gulf Coast Expansion Project or Keystone XL, is an approximately 1.660 mile, 36-inch crude oil pipeline that would begin in Hardisty, Alberta, and extend southeast through Saskatchewan, Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska. It would incorporate a portion of the Keystone Cushing Pipeline before continuing through Oklahoma to a delivery point near existing terminals in Houston and Port Arthur, Texas. Because Keystone XL would cross the international border of the United States, it requires a Presidential Permit. The U.S. State Department had expected to make its determination of the Permit by the end of 2011, but in November 2011 the Department announced it would examine indepth alternative routes that would avoid the Sand Hills in Nebraska. The State Department indicated the review could be completed in the first quarter of 2013.
Electricity Transmission
Heather OHara, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Kansas Property Tax Exemption for Crude Oil Pipelines

In May 2006, Kansas enacted the Kansas Energy Development Act (House Sub. for SB 303), which, among other things, provided a property tax exemption for certain types of energy-related projects, including crude oil and natural gas pipelines. The exemption can be claimed for the period of construction and for ten years after construction is completed. To qualify for the property tax exemption, a crude oil or natural gas pipeline must be located in Kansas and must meet the following criteria: It must be used primarily for transportation of crude oil or natural gas liquids; It must have a length of more than 190 miles in Kansas; and It must be accessible to refineries or natural gas liquid processing facilities in Kansas.
To request a property tax exemption, a pipeline company must file an application with the Division of Property Valuation in the Kansas Department of Revenue. Division staff review the application and make a recommendation to the Court of Tax Appeals, which determines whether to grant or deny the request for a property tax exemption. In mid-October 2010, TransCanada filed a request with the Division of Property Valuation for a property tax exemption for Keystone Cushing, the second phase of the Keystone Pipeline System. Division officials did not recommend approval of the tax exemption. The Court of Tax Appeals has held a procedural hearing and denied the request of six Kansas counties to intervene in the case. Next, the Court of Tax Appeals expects to hold oral arguments in the case on March 7, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. in Topeka. TransCanada currently is paying property taxes for the portion of the first phase of the pipeline that runs through Northeast Kansas.
The six Kansas counties affected by the Keystone Cushing have expressed concerns about the revenue that would be lost if the project is granted a property tax exemption. Recently, Marion, Dickinson, Butler, Clay, Washington, and Cowley counties have hired an attorney to represent their interests with regard to the pipeline. An issue being raised by the counties is whether Kansas refineries will have access to the pipeline, which is part of the eligibility criteria for the tax exemption, and whether access means being able to directly tap into the pipeline, or whether it includes indirect methods.
For more information, please contact: Heather OHara, Principal Analyst [email protected] Cindy Lash, Principal Analyst [email protected]

page 3
K-3

Ethics and Elections L-1
Ethics and Elections

L-1 Identification and Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration and Voting
For as long as voting has been a reality in the United States, the tension between voting access and security has existed. In the most recent chapter of this tension, voter identification and voter registration requirements have grown in scope in an attempt to increase voting security. The purpose of this paper is to outline the federal and state requirements in these two areas.
Identification and Citizenship Requirements for Voter Registration and Voting
Part One - Voter Identification Requirements National Voter Identification (ID) Requirements
The federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) mandates that all states require identification from first-time voters who registered to vote by mail and did not provide identification with their mail-in voter registration. Public Law 107-252, Section 303, further specifies how a voter may meet these requirements: (a) For those voting in person, presenting to the appropriate official a current and valid photo ID, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the voters name and address. (b) For those voting by mail, submitting with the ballot a copy of a current and valid photo ID, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the voters name and address.
Kansas Law
Prior to the 2011 Legislative Session, Kansas law required persons voting for the first time in the county to provide ID unless they had done so when they registered. At that time, acceptable ID forms included a current, valid Kansas drivers license, a nondrivers ID card, a utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, government check, or other government
Martha Dorsey, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
document containing the voters current name and address as indicated on the registration book. A voters drivers license copy or number, nondrivers ID card copy or number, or the last four digits of the voters Social Security number were acceptable when the voter was applying for an advance ballot to be transmitted by mail. In 2011, the law changed significantly through the passage of HB 2067. Effective January 1, 2012, all those voting in person will be required to provide photo identification at every election (with the exception of certain voters such as active duty military personnel absent from the country on Election Day), and all voters submitting advance ballots by mail will be required to include the number on, or a copy of, a specified form of photo ID for every election. Free nondrivers ID cards are available to anyone 17 or older for the purposes of meeting the new photo voter ID requirements. Each applicant for a free ID must sign an affidavit stating he or she plans to vote and possesses no other acceptable ID form. The individual also must provide evidence of being registered to vote. (For a detailed summary of HB 2067, see http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/Elections.htm)
Other State Laws

According to research conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), 30 states require all voters to show ID when voting at the polls. Of these, at least 14 states (including Kansas) request or require a photo ID; however, it should be noted that comparing among states voter ID requirements is somewhat complex. For example, Arizonas voter ID law is listed by NCSL as not requesting or requiring voters to present a photo ID, but the state only requires one form of ID if a valid photo ID form is presented. Otherwise, voters in that state must show two different forms of ID. NCSL further divides the 14 states listed as requesting or requiring photo ID into two groups of seven. The seven states which now or soon will require a photo ID at the polls are as follows: Georgia and Indiana, whose laws were in place prior to 2011; Kansas and Tennessee, whose photo ID legislation will take effect on January 1, 2012; Wisconsin, whose photo ID provision goes from a request to a requirement in the February 2012 spring election; and South Carolina and Texas, whose photo ID legislation takes effect after preclearance by the United States Department of Justice.
NCSLs list of seven states that request a photo ID at the polls includes Alabama, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, and South Dakota. According to NCSL, voter ID has been the most popular topic in the elections field during 2011. A total of 34 states considered voter ID legislation this year. (Only three states Oregon, Vermont and Wyoming do not have a voter ID law and did not consider one in 2011.) The 34 states considering ID legislation in 2011 can be broken down into two categories: those that currently do not require ID at the polls and those that strengthened their current voter ID laws to require a photo ID at the polls. These states and their voter ID law status are listed below.
L-1
page 2
The following 20 states did not or currently do not require ID at the polls (whether photo ID or not) and considered such legislation: Kansas and Wisconsin, whose photo ID legislation passed this year; Rhode Island, whose voter ID legislation (without a photo ID requirement) passed in 2011; Minnesota, New Hampshire, and North Carolina, whose legislation was vetoed; Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, whose bills were carried over to the 2012 session or are otherwise pending; and California, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, and West Virginia, whose bills failed.
Fourteen states strengthened or attempted to strengthen existing voter ID laws to require a photo ID, as follows: Alabama, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas, whose bills were enacted; Missouri, with one bill vetoed and a resolution approved, taking the issue to the voters in the November 2012 election; Montana, whose bill was vetoed; Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, and Ohio, whose bills were carried over to the 2012 session or are otherwise pending; and Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, and Virginia, whose bills failed.
Recent Litigation Regarding States Voter ID Laws

According to NCSL, the most recent court action on state voter ID laws was in 2008. NCSL reports the following regarding litigation: Arizona On October 20, 2006, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated an October 6, 2006, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision that suspended Arizonas requirements pending further litigation. The ID law was in effect for the states 2006 election and remained in effect in 2008. Georgia On October 27, 2006, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an injunction barring Georgia from enforcing its photo ID law. The injunction was issued a week earlier by a U.S. District Court judge. Georgias voter ID requirement was reinstated by a federal judge in mid-2007. Indiana The states photo ID law was upheld by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on January 4, 2007. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling on appeal in April 2008.
page 3 L-1
Michigan The Michigan Supreme Court ruled July 18, 2007, that a voter ID law originally passed in 1996 (but never implemented due to a ruling by the states Attorney General) is constitutional and enforceable. Missouri On October 16, 2006, the Missouri State Supreme Court struck down the states photo ID requirement. ID still is required to vote, but the list of acceptable forms of ID is much broader and includes some forms that do not contain a photo. Ohio On November 1, 2006, the Secretary of State issued an order suspending the requirement that voters present photo ID at the polls for the November 2006 election. The order did not apply to future elections, and voter ID requirements were in effect for 2008.
For a detailed summary of every states voter ID laws, see www.ncsl.org, Legislatures and Elections, Elections and Campaigns, Voter Identification.
Part Two Voter Registration Requirements National Voter Registration Requirements

The U.S. Voting Rights Act of 1965 allows all U.S. citizens to vote at any election in any state. Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter I, Section 1971, states, in part: (1) All citizens of the United States who are otherwise qualified by law to vote at any election by the people in any State, Territory, district, county, city, parish, township, school district, municipality, or other territorial subdivision, shall be entitled and allowed to vote at all such elections, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude; any constitution, law, custom, usage, or regulation of any State or Territory, or by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding; by or under its authority, to the contrary notwithstanding. (2) No person acting under color of law shall (A) in determining whether any individual is qualified under State law or laws to vote in any election, apply any standard, practice, or procedure different from the standards, practices, or procedures applied under such law or laws to other individuals within the same county, parish, or similar political subdivision who have been found by State officials to be qualified to vote; (B) deny the right of any individual to vote in any election because of an error or omission on any record or paper relating to any application, registration, or other act requisite to voting, if such error or omission is not material in determining whether such individual is qualified under State law to vote in such election.... The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), which expanded the locations at which a person may register to vote, requires that a voter registration application form used in conjunction with a drivers license application include a statement that states each eligibility requirement (including citizenship) for that state. Title 42, Chapter 20, Subchapter I-H, Section 1973gg-3, states in part:
L-1
page 4
(2) The voter registration application portion of an application for a State motor vehicle drivers license (B) may require only the minimum amount of information necessary to (i) prevent duplicate voter registrations; and ii) enable State election officials to assess the eligibility of the applicant and to administer voter registration and other parts of the election process; (C) shall include a statement that (i) states each eligibility requirement (including citizenship); (ii) contains an attestation that the applicant meets each such requirement; and (iii) requires the signature of the applicant, under penalty of perjury.... Finally, HAVA (Public Law 107-252, Section 303) requires voter registration applicants provide one of the following when registering: (a) The applicants drivers license number, if he/she possesses a current and valid drivers license. (b) The last four digits of the applicants social security number, if he/she does not possess a drivers license. (c) If an applicant possesses neither a drivers license nor a social security number, the state is required to assign the applicant an identification number for voter registration purposes.
Current Kansas Law

Prior to the 2011 Legislative Session, state law required an applicant for voter registration fill out a form specified by law and sign under penalty of perjury. Among a list of information items, the application form had to contain a box to check to indicate whether or not the applicant was a U.S. citizen. HB 2067 in 2011 made it mandatory to provide documentary proof of citizenship when registering to vote for the first time in Kansas. Documents acceptable for this purpose comprise a long list; among them are the following: Drivers license or nondrivers ID card issued by the appropriate agency in any U.S. state, if the agency indicates on the license or nondrivers ID card that the person has provided satisfactory proof of U.S. citizenship. Birth certificate that verifies U.S. citizenship to the satisfaction of the county election officer or Secretary of State. Pertinent pages of a U.S. valid or expired passport. Naturalization documents or the number of the naturalization certificate, with further instructions if only the number is provided.
page 5 L-1
Bureau of Indian Affairs card number, tribal treaty card number, or tribal enrollment number.
For a complete list of allowable documents, see KSA 25-2309(l). While Kansass proof-of-citizenship requirement does not go into effect until January 1, 2013, effective immediately a person may request a copy of his or her birth certificate for the purpose of registering to vote, and the Secretary of Health and Environment is prohibited from charging or accepting any fee for a certified copy thereof.
Other State Laws

According to research conducted by NCSL, prior to the 2011 Session two states had passed laws requiring individuals to provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Arizona voters in 2004 approved Proposition 200, an initiative measure that revised voter ID requirements for the state, as well as requiring proof of citizenship when registering to vote. In October 2010, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco invalidated the proof-of-citizenship requirement. The law has been in litigation for several years. However, the Ninth Circuit Court agreed to hear the case en banc. The Arizona Attorney General argued the states case before the Court on June 21, 2011. As of October 2011, a decision is still forthcoming. Georgia is the only other state to have passed a proof-of-citizenship law. In November 2010, the State of Georgia filed suit seeking preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice. The suit asked for a three-judge panel to declare that the law does not violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires changes in voting procedures in states with a history of discrimination to be precleared. The Department of Justice approved the proof-of-citizenship law in April 2011. According to the NCSL, at least 12 states, including Kansas, introduced legislation in 2011 to require proof of citizenship for voter registration. In addition to Kansas, such legislation also passed in Tennessee and Alabama. Bills in four states Massachusetts, New York, New Hampshire, and South Carolina are pending still. States failing to pass their proof-of-citizenship bills were Colorado, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Texas.
Martha Dorsey, Principal Analyst [email protected]
L-1
page 6

Executive Reorganization Orders M-1
Executive Reorganization Orders

M-1 Executive Reorganization Orders in Kansas
Background
Executive Reorganization Orders (EROs) are provided for in Article 1, Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution. They enable a Governor to transfer, abolish, consolidate, or coordinate agencies and functions within the executive branch of state government. Legislative and judicial agencies and constitutionally delegated functions of state officers and boards are exempt from EROs. An ERO becomes effective July 1 following its transmittal to the Legislature, unless within 60 calendar days either the Senate or the House adopts a resolution disapproving the ERO. After an ERO takes effect, the Legislature also has the option of amending an ERO in the same way it would amend any other legislation or statute. Whenever reorganization of the executive branch is initiated by the Governor, EROs are frequently the vehicle used. The use of EROs began in the 1970s, a decade that saw the creation of the cabinet form of government in Kansas and beginning of efforts to streamline the operations of state government.
Executive Reorganization Orders in Kansas
Legislative Action
EROs must be transmitted to both houses of the Legislature on the same day within the first 30 calendar days of a session. An ERO becomes effective on July 1 following the transmittal to the Legislature unless within 60 calendar days and before the adjournment of the legislative session either the Senate or the House, by a majority vote of the members, adopts a resolution disapproving it. Portions of an order may become effective at a later time than the order is otherwise effective. An ERO, the same as a statute, may be amended or repealed. Further action sometimes is required after an ERO takes effect in order to clarify details and resolve unanticipated issues that arise from the reorganization. House and Senate rules provide that an ERO is assigned to an appropriate committee. The committee must report its recommendations by no later than the 60th calendar day of the session or no later than 30 calendar days after the order has been received, whichever occurs first.
[email protected]
Michael Wales, Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181
This report is in the form of a simple resolution. If the committee fails to report in accord with these deadlines, the ERO and the resolutions pertaining thereto are deemed returned without recommendation. Within the applicable time constraints, the House and Senate must act to approve or reject each such order, unless the other chamber already has acted to disapprove the order. Such action is scheduled as a special order of business. Of the seven EROs issued during the 2011 Session, six were approved. The Senate introduced resolutions to challenge two EROs. SR 1817, disapproving ERO 34, was introduced but failed by a vote of Yeas 20, Nays 19. ERO 39 was disapproved by the Senate with SR 1819. (See below for details on EROs from the 2011 Session.)
Executive Reorganization Order History

Of the 40 EROs that have been issued through 2011, 16 were issued in the 1970s, including three that were used to create cabinet agencies: the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (1973), the Department of Health and Environment (1974), and the Department of Human Resources (1976). The Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism was created by an ERO in 1987, and further reorganized by an ERO in 2011. Excluding the administration of Governor Docking, who was in his second term when EROs came into use, 27 of 35 EROs, or 77 percent, have been introduced within the first two years of an administration. Of the 40 EROs that have been dealt with by the Legislature, 25, or 63 percent, have been approved and 15, or 38 percent, have been disapproved. Since the 2000 Legislative Session, 11 EROs have been presented to the Legislature. Of those 11 EROs, nine have been approved and two have been disapproved. The following table reflects how many EROs a Governor has presented and what the legislative disposition was to the EROs.
Executive Reorganization Orders by Administration

Governor Docking Bennett Carlin Hayden Finney Graves Sebelius Parkinson Brownback TOTAL Number of EROs 5 11 5 1 3 4 4 0 7 40 EROs Approved 2 8 2 1 2 1 3 0 6 25 EROs Disapproved 3 3 3 0 1 3 1 0 1 15
M-1
page 2
2011 Executive Reorganization Orders

Executive Reorganization Order No. 34
ERO 34 established the Prisoner Review Board within the Department of Corrections, abolished the Kansas Parole Board, and transferred the powers, duties, and functions of the Kansas Parole Board to the Prisoner Review Board. The Prisoner Review Board consists of three members appointed by the Secretary of Corrections from among the existing employees of the Department of Corrections, and the Review Board is administered under the supervision of the Secretary of Corrections. SR 1817 would have disapproved ERO 34 but failed on a Senate vote. For further information on ERO 34, see Section G-3 in this publication, Prisoner Review Board.

ERO 35 transferred the Commission on Disability Concerns (the Commission), its powers, duties, and functions from the Department of Commerce to the Governors Office, where it has an advisory role to the Governor. The Governor will appoint an executive director of the Commission and the Governors Office will provide office space and personnel as needed. Any reference or designation to the Commission in a statute, regulation, contract, or other document is deemed to apply to the Commission attached to the Governors Office. Pursuant to the ERO, all officers and employees of the Commission were transferred to the Governors Office. Likewise, the balance of all funds were carried over to the Governors Office to be used only for the purpose for which the appropriation originally was made.

ERO 36 transferred the powers, duties, and functions of the Division of Travel and Tourism Development within the Department of Commerce to the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and renamed the agency the Kansas Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (KDWPT). All powers, duties, and functions of the division were transferred to KDWPT, establishing the Division of Tourism within the agency. All funds and liabilities associated with the Division of Tourism with the Department of Commerce also were transferred to KDWPT. The Division is to be headed by the Director of Tourism, who is appointed by the Secretary of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. Additionally, the ERO allows the Secretary to appoint an Assistant Secretary for Wildlife, Fisheries and Boating and an Assistant Secretary for Parks and Tourism and abolishes the position of Assistant Secretary for Operations. Any references to the Department of Wildlife and Parks or the Secretary of Wildlife and Parks in statute, contracts, or other documents, including rules and regulations, orders, or directives by the Secretary, will mean KDWPT. The functions of Agritourism Promotion within the Department of Commerce, as defined by KSA 74-50,165, et seq., were not specifically included in ERO 36. HB 2408 would transfer these functions to the Kansas Department of Agriculture, which introduced the bill. After introduction of the bill, all consequential parties came to an agreement that Agritourism Promotion should be in the same agency as the Division of Tourism. Therefore, Agritourism Promotion was transferred to KDWPT by a Memorandum of Understanding and will be included in the FY 2013 budget of KDWPT.
page 3
M-1

ERO 37 abolished Kansas, Inc. The Secretary of Administration is assigned the responsibility of concluding the affairs of the abolished agency. The Department of Administration is the custodian of Kansas, Inc.s, records, documentation, and data.

ERO 38 abolished the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) and established the Division of Health Care Finance within the Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) effective July 1, 2011. In abolishing the KHPA, the order transferred all its statutory powers, duties, and functions to the KDHE, the Division of Health Care Finance, the Secretary, and the Director. ERO 38 also transferred all powers, duties, and functions of any state agency, department, board, commission, or council relating to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010)] and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 [Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010)] to the same entities and officials or their designees. With respect to KHPA and related fund and account balances, ERO 38 transfers all within the State Treasury to KDHE for the Division of Health Care Finance, to be used only for the purpose for which the appropriation originally was made. For more information on ERO 38, see Section O-4, Health.

ERO 39 would have abolished the Kansas Arts Commission as a state agency and transferred its powers, duties, and functions to the State Historical Society. The Senate introduced and passed SR 1819 disapproving the ERO. The Legislature made an appropriation from the State General Fund for operating expenditures and approved 6.0 FTE positions for the agency, which the Governor line-item vetoed, leaving the agency without staff or State General Funds. For further information on ERO 39, see Section D-1, Arts and Cultural Resources.

ERO 40 transferred the powers, duties, and functions of the Agriculture Products Development Division within the Department of Commerce to the Kansas Department of Agriculture (KDA) under the name Agriculture Marketing and Promotions Program. ERO 40 also transferred the powers, duties, and functions of the Kansas Animal Health Department and the Office of the Livestock Commissioner to the KDA and established the Division of Animal Health, with the Livestock Commissioner as the chief administrative officer of the Division. The State Conservation Commission (SCC) and the Executive Director of the SCC were transferred to the KDA as the Division of Conservation. The Kansas Animal Health Board, the Kansas Pet Animal Advisory Board, and the State Conservation Commission (separate from the agency) continued their existence, memberships, duties, and powers within the KDA. Additionally, ERO 40 transferred the balances of all funds and liabilities associated with any of the entities mentioned above to the KDA, and established that any reference to the previous names of the entities transferred to the KDA will apply to the succeeding divisions within the KDA.
M-1
page 4
Kansas Executive Reorganization Orders

The EROs through 2011, along with a short description of what each was about and whether each was adopted, are listed below.
ERO No. 1 Governor Robert. B. Docking Approved or Disapproved (Year) Approved (1973) Short Description Created the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services headed by an appointed Secretary. The Secretary and the Department were the successor to the existing State Board of Social Welfare, State Department of Social Welfare, and other entities. The ERO also created statutory units within the Department. Would have changed certain functions of the State Finance Council pertaining to approval of the salary of the Secretary of Administration and of certain plans of the Governor for improvements in state agencies. In addition, it would have changed functions of the State Finance Council that related to the Kansas Civil Service Act. Created the State Department of Health and Environment headed by an appointed Secretary. The Secretary and the Department were successors to the existing State Department of Health and other entities. The ERO also created statutory units within the Department. Would have created within the State Corporation Commission the Mined-Land Conservation and Reclamation Board. Would have transferred duties of the State Auditor and the State Board of Canvassers to other state officials. Removed the State Board of Tax Appeals from the State Department of Revenue and established it as an independent agency. Consolidated duties performed by the State Department of Economic Development, the Director of the Department of Economic Development, and the Kansas Economic Development Commission into the new State Department of Economic Development headed by an appointed Secretary. Abolished the State Podiatry Board of Examiners and transferred its powers and duties to the Kansas Board of Healing Arts. Abolished the State Education Commission and transferred its powers and duties relating to student assistance programs to the Kansas Board of Regents.
M-1
Robert. B. Docking
Disapproved (1973)
Robert. B. Docking
Approved (1974)
Robert. B. Docking
Disapproved (1974)
Robert. B. Docking
Disapproved (1974)
Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1975)
Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1975)
Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1975)
Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1975)
page 5
ERO No. 10
Governor Robert F. Bennett
Approved or Disapproved (Year) Approved (1975)
Short Description Transferred the Office of Emergency Medical Services from the Office of the Governor to the State Department of Health and Environment. Abolished the existing Governors Committee on Criminal Administration and created a new Governors Committee on Criminal Administration under the control and jurisdiction of the Governor. Would have abolished the elective office of State Treasurer and established a State Department of the Treasury headed by a State Treasurer appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Would have abolished the elective office of Commissioner of Insurance and established a State Department of Insurance headed by a Commissioner of Insurance appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Created the State Department of Human Resources headed by an appointed Secretary. The Secretary and the Department were successors to a number of existing state offices and entities. The ERO also created statutory units within the Department. Transferred the Crippled Childrens Commission to the State Department of Health and Environment. Would have established a Division of Services to the Aging within the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Reorganized and clarified various functions within the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Would have reorganized various boards, divisions, and sections of existing water agencies into one agency to be known as the Kansas Water Resources Authority. Would have abolished the Kansas Energy Office and established a Division of Energy within the State Department of Administration. Established Juvenile Offender Services within the State Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. Would have created the State Department of Agriculture headed by an appointed Secretary. Created the State Department of Wildlife and Parks headed by an appointed Secretary. The ERO also created statutory units within the Department.
11
Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1975)
12
Robert F. Bennett
Disapproved (1975)
13
Robert F. Bennett
Disapproved (1975)
14
Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1976)
15 16
Robert F. Bennett Robert F. Bennett
Approved (1977) Disapproved (1977)
17
John Carlin
Approved (1980)
18
John Carlin
Disapproved (1981)
19
John Carlin
Disapproved (1982)
20
John Carlin
Approved (1928)
21 22
John Carlin Mike Hayden
Disapproved (1986) Approved (1987)
M-1
page 6
ERO No. 23
Governor Joan Finney
Short Description Reorganized various housing programs into a Division of Housing within the renamed State Department of Commerce and Housing. Abolished the Kansas Savings and Loan Department and the Office of Savings and Loan Commissioner and transferred duties performed by the Department and Commissioner to the Office of State Bank Commissioner. Would have separated the State Department of Health and Environment into the State Department of Health and the State Department of Environment, each headed by an appointed Secretary. Would have transferred functions relating to the marketing of agriculture products from the State Department of Agriculture to the State Department of Commerce and Housing. Would have transferred the responsibility for the Infants and Toddlers program from the State Department of Health and Environment to the State Board of Education. Would have reorganized the Kansas Human Rights Commission as the Kansas Commission on Diversity and Human Rights. Created the Commission on Emergency Planning and Response within the Adjutant Generals Department. Shifted the Division of Housing to the Kansas Development Finance Authority from the Department of Commerce and Housing. Renamed the Department of Commerce and Housing to the Department of Commerce. Transferred the Employment and Training Division and all workforce development programs from the Department of Human Resources to the Department of Commerce. Transferred certain food safety programs of the Department of Health and Environment to the Department of Agriculture. Kansas Health Policy Authority establishment. Consolidated parole review by abolishing the Parole Board and establishing the Prisoner Review Board within the Department of Corrections. Transferred the functions of the Commission on Disability Concerns from the Department of Commerce to the Office of the Governor.
M-1
24
Joan Finney
Approved (1992)
25
Joan Finney
Disapproved (1992)
26
Bill Graves
Disapproved (1996)
27
Bill Graves
Disapproved (1996)
28
Bill Graves
Disapproved (1996)
29
Bill Graves
Approved (1999)
30
Kathleen Sebelius
Approved (2003)
31
Kathleen Sebelius
Approved (2004)
32
Kathleen Sebelius
Approved (2004)
33 34
Kathleen Sebelius Sam Brownback
Disapproved (2005) Approved (2011)
35
Sam Brownback
Approved (2011)
page 7
ERO No. 36
Governor Sam Brownback
Short Description Transferred the Division of Travel and Tourism Development from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Wildlife and Parks and renamed the department the Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. Abolished Kansas, Inc., and authorized the Secretary of Administration to conclude the agencys business and satisfy any outstanding liabilities or commitments of Kansas, Inc. Reorganized the Kansas Health Policy Authority into the Division of Health Care Finance within the Department of Health and Environment. Would have abolished the Kansas Arts Commission and transferred its powers, duties and functions to the State Historical Society. (Governors veto defunded agency and eliminated staff.) Transferred the Agriculture Products Development Division within the Department of Commerce to the Department of Agriculture and renamed it the Marketing and Promotions Program; consolidated the Kansas Animal Health Department and the Livestock Commissioner within the Department of Agriculture as the Animal Health Division; consolidated the State Conservation Commission within the Department of Agriculture as the Conservation Division.
37
Sam Brownback
Approved (2011)
38
Sam Brownback
Approved (2011)
39
Sam Brownback
Disapproved (2011)
40
Sam Brownback
Approved (2011)
Michael Wales, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]

M-1
page 8

Financial Institutions and Insurance N-1 Uniform Consumer Credit Code Other Financial Institutions and Insurance reports available N-2 Kansas Health Insurance Mandates N-3
Financial Institutions and Insurance

N-1 Uniform Consumer Credit Code and Interest Rates
Background
Enacted in 1973, the Kansas Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC) applies to all aspects of consumer credit addressing transactions for personal, family, and household purposes. UCCC transactions include consumer sales (closed end or revolving, including retail credit card purchases), consumer loans (including purchases using bank credit cards), and consumer leases. Consumer transactions may involve the consumer and retail merchants; banks, savings and loan associations, and credit unions; licensed lenders, including finance companies; and lender credit card companies. In general, transactions greater than $25,000 are outside the scope of the UCCC, but any transaction may become a consumer credit transaction if the parties to the agreement choose to do so. The Office of the State Bank Commissioner provides oversight of the UCCC. During the 1998 Interim, the Special Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance studied reorganization of the financial institutions regulatory agencies. Committee recommendations included consolidation of the Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner with the Office of the Bank Commissioner. As a result of action by the 1999 Legislature, the Office of the Consumer Credit Commissioner was abolished and the powers and functions transferred to the Office of the State Bank Commissioner. A Deputy Commissioner of Consumer Mortgage and Lending was created, and the Deputy Commissioner was designated as the Administrator of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code.
Payday Loan Regulation
N-4 Uninsured Motorists
Interest Rates
The UCCC establishes three categories of interest rates: closed end or installment rates (KSA 16a-2-201); open end or revolving credit rates (16a-2-202); and lender rates (16a-2-401). Closed end installment contracts calculate in advance the amount financed and the finance charge and provide payment of the calculated total in equal installments at equal intervals, e.g., auto loans. Open end credit includes revolving credit accounts and lines of credit that are payable in amounts, usually monthly, that are a percentage of the outstanding balance. Lender
Melissa Calderwood, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
rates are those charged on loans made by licensed lenders, by supervised financial institutions, and by lender credit card arrangements. Under current law, closed end, open end, and lender rate consumer credit transactions allow a seller to set a finance charge at any rate agreed to by the parties subject to the statutory limits of prepaid finance charges. The limitations and computations for the finance charges are as follows: Closed end consumer credit sales Sales, other than manufactured homes: maximum amount is two percent of the amount or $100, whichever is less; or Sales, manufactured homes: maximum amount is five percent of the amount.
Open end consumer credit sales Average daily balance: finance charge is calculated on the sum of the amount of actual daily balances each day during the billing cycle divided by the number of days in the billing cycle; or Ending balance: finance charge is calculated on the unpaid balance of the account at the end of the billing cycle.
Lender credit sales Periodic rate ceilings (loans other than first or second mortgage): 36 percent per year on the portion of the unpaid balance which is $860 or less, and 21 percent per year on the portion of the unpaid balance that exceeds $860 (subject to limitations on prepaid finance charges); Periodic rate ceilings (loans secured by second mortgage, manufactured homes): 18 percent per year. The rate would apply to any first mortgage loans made subject to the UCCC; or Prepaid finance charges on consumer loans: First or second mortgage loan or certain manufactured home loans, not to exceed eight percent of the amount financed; however, the total of all prepaid finance charges payable to the lender cannot exceed five percent of the amount financed; or Other consumer credit loans: maximum amount is two percent of the amount or $100, whichever is less.
N-1
page 2
Payday loan transactions are subject to special limitations for finance charges: The loans and the cash advance must be $500 or less with a finance charge not to exceed 15 percent of the amount of the advance. In addition, the Code includes a provision that the contract interest rate after maturity cannot be more than three percent per month.
History of Interest Rates Charges

In 1980, the Kansas Legislature amended KSA 16a-2-201 to allow a seller in a closed end credit sale or in an open end sale to charge 18 percent interest as an alternative to other specified rates, including 21 percent on $300 or less, 18 percent on amounts between $300 and $1,000, and 14.45 percent on amounts in excess of $1,000. KSA 16a-2-401 was amended to allow a supervised financial institution to charge 18 percent interest without being a lender licensed by the Consumer Credit Commissioner. The rate charges were sunset at periods of one (1980-1982) and two years (1983-1987). In 1988, the Legislature (SB 507) amended the rates on closed end credit sales by reducing, from three to two, the applicable interest rates, establishing: 21 percent on the first $1,000; and 14.45 percent on amounts over $1,000; or 18 percent on the outstanding balance.
Interest rates on open end credit sales also were amended to allow for an alternate rate. SB 507 also authorized a nonrefundable origination fee not to exceed two percent or $100 on closed end credit sales. The 1993 Legislature amended the Code to allow that on and after January 1, 1994, all finance charges on consumer loans and consumer credit sales be computed on the unpaid principal balances by the actuarial method. Precomputed contracts created on and after January 1, 1994, were prohibited.
Legislative Review 1999 LegislatureSub. for SB 301

The 1999 Legislature amended several sections of the UCCC relating to rates, terms, and conditions on consumer credit sales and consumer loans for personal, family, or household purposes; and allowed certain real estate transactions to be brought under the Code, specifying the rates, terms, and conditions for such loans. The legislation also added new sections to the Code that impose new obligations on persons making loans under the Code. Changes to the law included: Striking the definition of origination fee and adding a definition of prepaid finance charge which for a consumer loan secured by a first or second mortgage may not exceed eight percent of the amount financed (aggregate five percent), and for any other consumer loan and, for closed end consumer credit sales, the prepaid finance charge may not exceed the lesser of two percent of the amount financed or $100.
page 3
N-1
Establishing that the finance charge on a consumer loan or consumer credit sale must be computed by using either the 365/365 or 360/360 method but not on a 365/360 method (lender may assume that a month has 30 days, regardless of the actual numbers of days in a month).
In regard to consumer loan rate ceilings, the legislation: Removed the interest rate limitation on open end consumer loans, including lender credit cards; Maintained a maximum interest rate of 36 percent on the first $860 of a closed end consumer loan; Increased the maximum allowable interest rate on amounts of a closed end consumer loan in excess of $860, from 18 percent to 21 percent (not applicable to loans secured by a first or second mortgage); and Established 18 percent as the maximum rate of interest that may be charged on a loan secured by a first or second mortgage, if the parties to the loan agree in writing to make the loan under the Code.
In addition, finance charges under the Code were amended to: Delete the cap on annual fees that may be charged for the privilege of using an open ended credit account; and Allow a creditor to charge fees on an annual or monthly basis, over limit fees, and cash advance fees on open end credit in an amount agreed to by the consumer.
2000 Legislature
The 2000 Legislature amended the Code to allow a seller to impose a prepaid finance charge in an amount not to exceed five percent for the purpose of reducing the interest rate on the sale of a manufactured home. Another bill (HB 2691) clarified that the interest rate on a closed end loan may be 36 percent on the first $860 financed and 21 percent on the balance of the loan that exceeds $860.
2005 LegislatureSenate Sub. for HB 2172

The 2005 Legislature amended several provisions of the Kansas Mortgage Business Act and the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC). The UCCC provisions: Established a contract rate to replace the annual rate in prior law. Calculations utilizing the 365/365 method and the 360/360 method for the rate of the finance charge remain unchanged; Amended provisions for the computation of finance charges for consumer loans secured by a first or second lien real estate mortgage by creating an amortization
N-1
method: contract rate divided by 360 and the resulting rate is multiplied by the outstanding principal amount and 30 assumed days between scheduled due dates. The provision allows a creditor to assume there are 30 days in the computational period, regardless of the actual number of days between the scheduled dates; Amended the license requirements for individuals making supervised loans by requiring an applicant to provide evidence in the form and manner prescribed by the Administrator of the UCCC that establishes the applicant will maintain a satisfactory minimum net worth to engage in the credit transactions for which the applicant has proposed; Amended the references in the bill to supervised loans with loans for personal, family, or household purposes; Clarified references to applicants and licensees to include persons the applicant or licensee contracts with or employs who is directly engaged in lending activities; Amended annual reporting requirements to include a provision to prevent alteration or any other destruction of records with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence any investigation by the Administrator; Amended the requirement for first and second loan consumer mortgages to allow that a mortgage not be recorded if moneys are not available for disbursal to the mortgagor upon expiration of all applicable waiting periods as required by law, unless the individual informs the mortgagor in writing of a definite date by which payment is to be made and obtains written permission for the delay; Authorized a statute of limitations for prosecution of crimes under the Code, no more than five years after the alleged violation. A restitution provision is added and includes that an order may include an interest rate not to exceed 8 percent; and If deemed necessary by the Administrator, required fingerprinting of applicants, licensees, copartnerships or associations, any agents, or others directly engaged in lending activities.
UCCCPayday Loan Regulation

The 2005 legislation also amended the finance charges for payday loans under the UCCC (KSA 16a-2-404). The finance charge for cash advances equal to or less than $500 is to be an amount not to exceed 15 percent of the amount of the cash advance. The bill also required publication of the notice in Spanish in payday loan agreements. (See M-4 for an in-depth discussion on payday loan regulation.) In addition, Senate Sub. for HB 2172 enacted new law concerning military borrowers, with lender provisions to: Not garnish any wages or salary for service in the armed forces; Defer all collection activity against a borrower who is deployed to combat or combat support posting for the duration of such posting;
page 5 N-1
Not contact any person in the military chain of command of a borrower in an attempt to make collection; Honor all terms of the repayment agreement; and Not make any loan to any military borrower whenever the base commander has declared such persons place of business off limits to military personnel.
A military borrower is defined as any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, any member of the National Guard, or any member of the Armed Forces Reserve. Prior to the actions of the 2005 Legislature, the applicable finance charges were: on any amount up to and including $50, a finance charge of $5.50 could be charged; on amounts in excess of $50, but not more than $100, the finance charge could be 10 percent of the amount plus a $5 administrative fee; on amounts in excess of $100 but not more than $250, the finance charge could be 7 percent of the amount with a $10 minimum plus a $5 administrative fee; and for amounts in excess of $250 but less than the maximum amount, the finance charge could be six percent of the amount with a minimum of $17.50 plus a $5 administrative fee.
Other Legislative Review2005-2006

In addition to the enacted measures discussed above, the Legislature recently reviewed the following proposed amendments to the UCCC: HB 2143 would have amended the Code to allow a seller to charge an interest rate not to exceed 21 percent per year. The interest rate ceiling applies to the finance charges under the UCCC: closed end consumer credit sales; open end credit sales; and lender credit sales. The bill also would have removed the authority to impose deferral charges on closed-end consumer credit sales. Under current law, the finance charge rates are not capped and instead are subject to the rate agreed to by the parties to the transaction with established limitations on any prepaid finance charges. HB 2278 would have amended the Code by creating an alternate finance charge to the finance charges currently specified in KSA 16a-2-401, providing for a slidingscale rate structure for closed-end consumer installment loans that are financed between $100 and $1,500. Specifically, the bill would have allowed a licensee to charge in lieu of the charges specified in current law: A loan acquisition charge, not exceeding the lesser of 10 percent of the financed amount or $75; and A monthly installment account handling charge, based on a slidingscale rate. For example, an account handling charge for a loan financed in the amount of $550 would be up to $17.50 while the charge for a $1,100 loan would be an amount up to $22.50.
The bill would have defined the terms of the loan with a minimum of four months and a maximum amount of 18 months and five days. The bill also would have addressed loan refund rates, prepayments, notification, and contract rates. The rates and charges created by the Act would not apply to payday loans.
N-1 page 6 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
During the 2005 Interim, the Special Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance was charged, among other things, to review HB 2143 and to study the current finance charges, rates, and terms under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code and the impact of the Code on financial institutions, loan companies, and Kansas consumers, and the current regulatory environment in Kansas. The Committee concluded that the interest rate ceiling legislation (HB 2143) should not be recommended and the alternate finance charge for closed-end consumer installment loans legislation (HB 2278) should not be recommended to the 2006 Legislature and recommended new legislation to address the requested HB 2278 amendments. SB 376 was introduced during the 2006 Session. The bill received a hearing in the Senate Committee but no further action was taken, and with HB 2143 and HB 2278, died at the end of the 2006 Session. Further information about recent payday loan legislation is located in Article N-3.
Recent UCCC Amendments (Other than Interest Rates)

The 2009 Legislature amended the Uniform Consumer Credit Code in 2009 SB 240. The bill was requested by the Office of the State Bank Commissioner in response to the requirements of Title V (the Secure and Fair Enforcement [S.A.F.E.] for Mortgage Licensing Act) of the Federal Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The bill made amendments to both the Kansas Mortgage Business Act and the UCCC to include prohibited acts and define the practices and registration requirements of residential mortgage loan originators. Among the requirements, mortgage loan originators will be required to submit certain application and related information to a nationwide mortgage loan originator registry (established by the S.A.F.E. Act). Information reported to the registry will include violations of the law (loan originators), as well as enforcement actions. Kansas entered the registry in 2010. The 2010 Legislature amended the Code in 2010 SB 410. The bill prohibits retailers from imposing a surcharge on a cardholder who uses a debit card in lieu of a cash payment. Under prior law, the prohibition applied only to credit card holders. For more information, please contact:
page 7
N-1

Financial Institutions and Insurance N-2 Kansas Health Insurance Mandates Other Financial Institutions and Insurance reports available N-1 Uniform Consumer Credit Code N-3

N-2 Kansas Health Insurance Mandates
Background
Health insurance mandates in Kansas law apply to: Individual health insurance policies issued or renewed in Kansas. Group health insurance policies issued or renewed in Kansas. (The individual and group health policies are often referred to as accident and health or accident and sickness insurance policies in Kansas law.) Exceptions are noted below. Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) are included in the listing of policy issuers.
These mandates do not apply to: Self-insured health plans (ERISA plans*). Selfinsured plans are governed by federal laws and are enforced by the U.S. Department of Labor. States cannot regulate these self-insured plans. Supplemental benefit policies. Examples include dental care; vision (eye exams and glasses); and hearing aids. * ERISA = The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; states laws that relate to employee benefits are pre-empted under this Act. Since 1973, the Kansas Legislature has added new statutes to insurance law that mandate that certain health care providers be paid for services rendered (provider mandates) and be paid for certain prescribed types of coverage or benefit (benefit mandates). In more recent years,

[email protected]
laws have been enacted to guarantee a right or protection be extended to the patient (patient protection mandates). A table outlining Kansas mandates is included in a later discussion of provider and benefit mandates. Provider Mandates. The first mandates enacted in Kansas were on behalf of health care providers. In 1973, optometrists, dentists, chiropractors, and podiatrists sought and secured legislation directing insurers to pay for services the providers performed if those services would have been paid for by an insurance company if they had been performed by a practitioner of the healing arts (medical doctors and doctors of osteopathy). In 1974, psychologists sought and received approval of reimbursement for their services on the same basis. In that same year, the Legislature extended the scope of mandated coverages to all policies renewed or issued in Kansas by or for an individual who resides in or is employed in this state (extraterritoriality). Licensed special social workers obtained a mandate in 1982. Advanced nurse practitioners received recognition for reimbursement for services in 1990. In a 1994 mandate, pharmacists gained inclusion in the emerging pharmacy network approach to providing pharmacy services to insured persons. Benefit Mandates. The first benefit mandate was passed by the 1974 Legislature, through enactment of a bill to require coverage for newborn children. The newborn coverage mandate has been amended to include adopted children and immunizations, as well as a mandatory offer of coverage for the expenses of a birth mother in an adoption. The Legislature began its first review into coverage for alcoholism, drug abuse, and nervous and mental conditions in 1977. The law enacted that year required insurers to make an affirmative offer of such coverage which could be rejected only in writing. This mandate also has been broadened over time, first by becoming a mandated benefit and then as a benefit with minimum dollar amounts of coverage specified by law. In 1988, mammograms and pap smears were mandated as cancer patients and various cancer interest groups requested mandatory coverage by health insurers. In 1998, male cancer patients and the cancer interest groups sought and received similar mandated coverage for prostate cancer screening. After a number of attempts over the course of more than a decade, supporters of coverage for diabetes were successful in securing mandatory coverage for certain equipment used in the treatment of the disease, as well as for educational costs associated with self-management training. Table A - Provider and Benefit Mandates Provider Mandates Year Benefit Mandates Optometrists Dentists Chiropractors Podiatrists Psychologists Social Workers Advanced Registered Nurse Practitioners Pharmacists 1973 1973 1973 1973 1974 1982 1990 1994 Newborn and Adopted Children Alcoholism Drug Abuse Nervous and Mental Conditions Mammograms and Pap Smears Immunizations Maternity Stays Prostate Screening Diabetes Supplies and Education Reconstructive Breast Surgery Dental Care in a Medical Facility Off-Label Use of Prescription Drugs*
Year 1974 1977 1977 1977 1988 1995 1996 1998 1998 1999 1999 1999
N-2
page 2
Table A - Provider and Benefit Mandates Provider Mandates Year Benefit Mandates Year Osteoporosis Diagnosis, Treatment, and 2001 Management Mental Health Parity for Certain Brain 2001 Conditions
* Off-label use of prescription drugs is limited by allowing for use of a prescription drug (used in cancer treatment) that has not been approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration for that covered indication if the prescription drug is recognized for treatment of the indication in one of the standard reference compendia or in substantially accepted peer-reviewed medical literature.
Legislative Review
Kansas law (KSA 40-2249a) requires the Legislature to review all state-mandated health insurance coverage periodically. The Legislature typically reviews the mandates as amendments rather than reviewing all of the mandates at one time. The provider mandates have been in place, for the most part, longer than the benefit mandates and typically have not been the focus of legislative review. The mandate that has received a great deal of review is the alcohol, drug abuse, and mental illness mandate. A number of interim studies have been conducted on modifying the mandate, with the latest change allowing for mental health parity for certain brain diseases. The Legislature has considered a number of proposed mandates and enacted law to address some of the proposed modifications. KSA 40-2248 requires the person or organization seeking a mandated coverage for specific health services, specific diseases, or certain providers of health care services as part of individual, group, or blanket health insurance policies, to submit to the legislative committees that would be assigned to review the proposal an impact report that assesses both the social and financial effects of the proposed mandated coverage. The law also requires the Insurance Commissioner to cooperate with, assist, and provide information to any person or organization required to submit an impact report. The social and financial impacts to be addressed in the impact report are outlined in KSA 40-2249. Social impact factors include: The extent to which the treatment or service generally is utilized by a significant portion of the population; The extent to which such insurance coverage is already generally available; If coverage is not generally available, the extent to which the lack of coverage results in unreasonable financial hardship on those persons needing treatment; The level of public demand for the treatment or service; The level of public demand for individual or group insurance coverage of the treatment or service; The level of interest of collective bargaining organizations in negotiating privately for inclusion of this coverage in group contracts; and The impact of indirect costs (costs other than premiums and administrative costs) on the question of the costs and benefits of coverage.
page 3
N-2
The financial impact requirements include the extent to which the proposal would increase or decrease the cost of the treatment or service; the extent to which the proposed coverage might increase the use of the treatment or service; the extent to which the mandated treatment or service might serve as an alternative for a more expensive treatment or service; the extent to which insurance coverage of the health care service or provider can reasonably be expected to increase or decrease the insurance premium and administrative expenses of the policyholders; and the impact of proposed coverage on the total cost of health care. State Employee Health Benefit Plan Study. KSA 40-2249a, enacted by the 1999 Legislature, provides, in addition to the impact report requirements, that any new mandated health insurance coverage approved by the Legislature is to apply only to the state health care benefits program for a period of at least one year beginning with the first anniversary date of implementation of the mandate following its approval by the Legislature. On or before March 1, after the one-year period has been applied, the State Employee Health Care Commission is to report to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives the impact the new mandate has had on the state health care benefits program, including data on the utilization and costs of the mandated coverage. The report also is to include a recommendation whether such mandated coverage should be continued by the Legislature to apply to the state health care benefits program or whether additional utilization and cost data are required.
Recent Interim Study

1998 Interim. During the 1998 Session, mandated coverages for prostate cancer screening and diabetes education were enacted. Additional legislation proposing new mandates also was introduced during the 1997-98 biennium but was assigned to the Special Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance, a 1998 interim study committee. In addition to the cost estimates provided by those requesting consideration for mandate proposals, the Committee requested impact statements on premiums for the mandates from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, as the statistical agent for the Kansas Insurance Department, using the data in the Kansas Health Insurance Information System (KHIIS). The provisions of the bills for proposed mandates were used by the actuary to determine the impact. In its final report to the 1999 Legislature, the Special Committee recommended that coverage for reconstructive breast surgery and coverage for certain oral dental procedures (for young children and certain persons who are severely disabled or have medical or behavioral problems) be mandated by the 1999 Legislature; that point-of-service issues be studied further, perhaps by the House Committee on Insurance early in the 1999 Session; and that no action be taken to mandate coverage for durable medical equipment or to provide parity for mental illness conditions. Other proposed mandatesmaternity benefits, infertility treatments, and certain patient protectionswere not recommended. The Committee also recommended any new mandate enacted after the effective date of any enactment by the 1999 Legislature (KSA 40-2249a) be applied first to state employees under the state employee health benefit plan prior to being applied to the public health insurance marketplace. 2003 Interim. The 2003 Special Committee on Insurance also reviewed existing mandates, hearing from both opponents and proponents, reaching a consensus that there was no need to change existing mandates. The Committee also reviewed proposed mandated coverages from the 2003 Session for contraceptives, cancer clinical trials, and common therapies utilized in early intervention of developmental disabilities. A hearing was scheduled to allow for the review of a hair prostheses bill; however, the scheduled conferee cancelled the presentation, and the Committee gave no further consideration to the topic.
N-2
page 4
In its final report to the 2004 Legislature, the Special Committee recommended that, as new mandates are proposed in the future, those proposing the mandates be required to meet the current law requiring impact studies to be completed and presented to the Legislature before consideration is given to the issue. 2008 Interim. The 2008 Legislature directed the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA), in collaboration with the Insurance Commissioner, to conduct a study on the impact of extending coverage for bariatric surgery in the State Employee Health Benefit Program. Additionally, the KHPA was directed to conduct a more general study on the issues associated with bariatric surgery for the morbidly obese including emerging research evidence of the positive health impact of the surgery for the morbidly obese, qualifications of the patients and surgeons when the surgery is appropriate or necessary, and cost analysis with insurance and Medicaid reimbursement. KHPA was required to submit a reporting on its findings to the Joint Committee on Health Policy Oversight on or before November 1, 2008 (2008 HB 2672). The Legislative Coordinating Council assigned the 2008 Interim Special Committee on Insurance the topic to study requiring that colon cancer screening be included in health insurance policies. The Committee was directed to review the benefits of colon cancer screening and the American Cancer Societys guidelines for such screening (see 2008 SB 218 for proposed legislation). The Committee recommended that the House and Senate Insurance Committees hold a hearing regarding colon cancer screening mandates including any proposed legislation during the 2009 Session.
2009 Session
During the 2009 Session, both provider and benefits coverage requirements legislation was introduced. The legislation introduced included: certain professionals, Behavioral Sciences Regulatory Board (BSRB) (SB 104, HB 2088); assignment of benefits (HB 2128); autism spectrum disorder (SB 12, HB 2367); dietary formulas (HB 2344); colorectal cancer screening (HB 2075/Sub. HB 2075; SB 288); mental health parity - full coverage (SB 181, HB 2231); and orally administered anti-cancer medications (SB 195). Additionally, the Kansas Insurance Department requested language to clarify the states existing mental health parity requirements to meet compliance requirements of the federal HR 1424. The language of SB 49 was amended during the conference committee process and was incorporated in 2009 HB 2214. Among the modifications and enhancements to the existing mental health parity law, the bill designated the statutes applicable to the small group and large group plans; increased coverage for in-patient coverage of mental illness (small group) from 30 to 45 days and separately specified a limitation of not less than 30 days for in-patient treatment of alcoholism, drug abuse or substance abuse disorders; eliminated first dollar coverage requirements from the statutes now applicable to large and small groups (benefits are subject to same deductibles, copays, coinsurance, treatment limitations and out-of-pocket expenses as apply to other covered services); replaced references to nervous or mental conditions with the term mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse or substance use (as defined in the DSM-IV, 1994); and increased the lifetime benefit for costs of out-patient treatment for mental illness, alcoholism, drug abuse and substance use disorders from $7,500 to $15,000, with no annual limit for outpatient treatment. Legislative Review. The Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee and the House Insurance Committee also received briefings, during the regular session, from Committee staff on the current and recently considered health insurance mandates. Testimony also was received from interested parties.
page 5
N-2
2010 Session An Emerging Trend for Consideration of a Mandate, the Study Directive
The 2010 Legislature reviewed carryover mandates legislation and also introduced new measures for consideration. A modified version of 2009 SB 195 (oral anticancer medications; parity of pharmacy and medical benefits) was amended into 2010 SB 390, a bill updating requirements on insurers for genetic testing. Ultimately, the oral anticancer medication provisions were enacted in Senate Sub. for HB 2160, a bill that incorporated both oral anticancer medication provisions and an autism benefits study in the State Employee Health Plan. Those provisions, introduced in 2010 SB 554, are discussed below. The Legislature further considered the reimbursement of services provided by certain licensees of the BSRB, as proposed in 2010 HB 2546 (identical to 2009 SB 104 and HB 2088, with technical amendments to update statutory references). This legislation is discussed below under the study directives from the 2009-2010 Legislature. The Legislature again considered a bill that would have required health insurance plans to provide coverage for telemedicine, defined by the bill as using telecommunications services to link health care practitioners and patients in different locations. The bill was jointly referred to two House committees and died in Committee. The Study Before the Law. Recently, the Legislatures review and response to health insurance mandates has included a new direction, the study before the mandate is considered and enacted by the Legislature. Procedurally (as prescribed by the 1999 statute), a mandate is to be enacted by the Legislature, applied to the State Employee Health Plan for at least one year and then a recommendation is made about continuation in the Plan or statewide (KSA 40-2249a). 2008 HB 2672 directed the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) to conduct a study on the impact of extending coverage for bariatric surgery in the State Employee Health Benefit Plan (corresponding mandate legislation in 2008: SB 511; HB 2864). No legislation requiring treatment for morbid obesity (bariatric surgery) was introduced during the 2009-2010 Session. 2009 Sub. for HB 2075 would have directed the KHPA to study the impact of providing coverage for colorectal cancer screening in the State Employee Health Plan, the affordability of the coverage in the small business employer group, and the state high risk pool (corresponding legislation in 2009: SB 288; introduced HB 2075). The study bill was re-referred to House Insurance and no action was taken by the 2010 Legislature. During the 2010 Session, the House Insurance Committee again considered the reimbursement of services provided by certain BSRB licensees (SB 104; HBs 2088, 2546). The House Insurance Committee recommended a study, amended into SB 388, by the KHPA on the topic of requiring this reimbursement. The study design would have included determining the impact that coverage has had on the State Employee Health Plan, providing data on utilization of such professionals for direct reimbursement for services provided, and comparing the amount of premiums charged by insurance companies which provide reimbursement for these provider services to the amounts of premiums charged by insurers who do not provide direct reimbursement. Under the bill, the KHPA also would have been required to conduct an analysis to determine if proactive mental health treatment results in reduced expenditures for future mental and physical health care services. SB 388 died in conference committee. The study requirement also was included as a proviso to the Omnibus appropriations bill (SB 572, section 76). The provision was vetoed by the Governor; the veto was sustained. Finally, the 2010 Legislature again considered mandating coverage for certain services associated with the treatment of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) (introduced 2010 SB 554). The 2010 Legislature in Senate Sub. for HB 2160 requires the Health Care Commission, which administers the State Employee Health Plan, to provide for the coverage of services for the diagnosis and treatment of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in any covered individual whose age is less than 19 years during the 2011 Plan Year. Services provided by the autism services provider must include applied behavioral analysis when required by a licensed physician, licensed psychologist, or licensed specialist clinical social worker. Benefits limitations are applied for two tiers of coverage: a covered person whose age is between birth and age seven, cannot exceed $36,000 per year; and a covered person whose age is at least seven
and less than nineteen, cannot exceed $27,000 per year. The Health Care Commission, pursuant to the requirements of the Insurance Code regarding mandated health insurance benefits, is required to submit on or before March 1, 2012, a report to the Senate President and the Speaker. The report is to include information pertaining to the mandated ASD benefit coverage provided during the 2011 Plan Year, including information on cost impact and utilization. The Legislature is permitted to consider in the next session following the receipt of the report whether to require the coverage for autism spectrum disorder to be included in any individual or group health insurance policy, medical service plan, HMO, or other contract which provides for accident and health services and which is delivered, issued for delivery, amended, or renewed on or after July 1, 2013. This 2010 Legislation (S. Sub. for HB 2160) also required all individual or group health insurance policies or contracts (including the municipal group-funded pool and the State Employee Health Plan) that provide coverage for prescription drugs, on and after July 1, 2011, to provide coverage for prescribed, orally administered anticancer medications used to kill or slow the growth of cancerous cells on a basis no less favorable than intravenously administered or injected cancer medications that are covered as medical benefits. The State Health Care Commission, pursuant to KSA 40-2249a, would be required to submit a report to the Senate President and the House Speaker that indicates the impact the provisions for orally administered anticancer medications have had on the State Health Care Benefits Program, including data on the utilization and costs of such coverage. The report also is required to include a recommendation on whether such coverage should continue for the State Health Care Benefits Program or whether additional utilization and cost data is required. The report was required to be provided to the legislative representatives on or before March 1, 2011.
Mandates in Kansas and Other States; Affordable Care Act Essential Benefits
The Kansas Legislature has enacted eight provider mandates and 14 mandates to provide certain benefits or to cover certain health conditions. In contrast, as of 2008, Maryland had more than 61 mandates and California had 52 mandates in place (provider, benefit, and additional). Other states, including Connecticut, Florida, and Minnesota, also had more than 40 mandates in place. Using this comparison of state mandates, Kansas is closer to its neighbors, with Nebraska having reported 25 and Missouri, 38. (Note: the number of Kansas mandates, outlined in a December 2008 Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association comparison report of state mandates, varies from the figures provided above by rating Kansas with 15 provider mandates and 15 benefit mandates. The increase is due to interpretation of state laws and definitions assumed for mandated coverages.) Mandates adopted by Kansas correspond with what most other states and the District of Columbia have enacted, as indicated Table B. The table also includes benefit mandates that have been considered by the Legislature since the 2003 Session. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) does not directly alter or preempt Kansas or other states laws that require coverage of specific benefits and provider services. However, the law (Section 1302(b) of the ACA and subject to future federal regulations by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), directs the Secretary of HHS to determine the essential health benefits to be include in the essential health benefits package that Qualified Health Plans (QHPs) in the ACA Exchange marketplaces will be required to cover (coverage effective beginning in 2014). Essential health benefits, as defined in Section 1302(b), include at least the following general categories: Ambulatory patient services;
page 7 N-2
Emergency services; Hospitalization; Maternity and newborn care; Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment; Prescription drugs; Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices; Laboratory services; Preventive and wellness and chronic disease management; and Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
Insurance policies are required to cover these benefits in order to be certified and offered in Exchanges; additionally, all Medicaid State plans must cover these services by 2014. Womens preventive health services were separately defined by federal regulation in August 2011 (Federal Register Vol. 76, No. 149: 46621-46626) and required that a group health plan or health insurance issuer must cover certain items and services, without cost-sharing. . . . Coverages included annual preventive-care medical visits and exams, contraceptives (products approved by the FDA), mammograms, and colonoscopies. Under the ACA, QHPs are not barred from offering additional benefits. However, starting in 2014, if a state law mandates coverage not included in the final HHS essential benefits list of coverages, the state will pay any additional costs for those benefits for Exchange enrollees.
N-2
page 8
Table B - Comparison of State Mandates* Provider Mandates States Benefit Mandates Chiropractors Dentists Optometrists Nurse Practitioners Podiatrists Psychologists Social Workers Marriage Therapists Professional Counselors 47 42 46 32 38 43 28 19 19 Alcohol Treatment Drug Abuse Treatment Mammography Screening Mental Health (Parity) Minimum Maternity Stays Prostate Cancer Screening Diabetes Supplies and Education Emergency Services Breast Reconstruction Surgery Dental Anesthesia Bone Density Screening Hair Prostheses (Wigs) Contraceptives Clinical Trials Ambulance Transportation Colorectal Screening Hearing Aids Infertility Treatment Metabolic Disorders/PKU Morbid Obesity, Treatment Telemedicine Autism Treatment
States 44 33 50 39 51 31 47 45 51 29 16 8 28 23 10 32 10 14 34 5 5 15
Source: State Mandated Benefits and Providers, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association, December 2008. *Bolded provider and benefit mandates are under recent review (representative of legislation introduced and reviewed during the 2009-2010 Biennium). No estimate was provided for oral anticancer medication parity. For more information, please contact:
Jay Hall, Research Analyst [email protected]
page 9
N-2

Financial Institutions and Insurance N-3

N-3 Payday Loan Regulation
The Kansas Legislature first began its review of payday lenders during its 1991 Session. Then Consumer Credit Commissioner Neil Arasmith requested legislation citing a concern that check cashing for a fee had become a prevalent practice in Kansas and was being conducted in a manner that would be considered a violation of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC). The unregulated entities were advancing money and agreeing to hold a post-dated check for a specified, short period of time, and were collecting charges exceeding those allowed under the UCCC. The Commissioner indicated to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance that as it appeared there was a need for this type of service, there existed a need to regulate the activity in a manner that allowed the activity to take place lawfully while at the same time providing protection to consumers utilizing the check cashing service. At that time, the Kansas Attorney General had concurred that such practice violated the UCCC and, consequently, had taken action to enforce the law against the payday lenders. The financial records of seven companies were subpoenaed and examined, and all but one of those companies closed their businesses in Kansas. 1991 SB 363 addressed the concern about excessive interest charges and fees, and the Attorney General supported its passage. In some instances, the annual percentage rate (APR) on these short-term loans ranged from 600 percent to 1600 percent. Despite these rates, neither the Commissioner nor the Attorney Generals Office had received many complaints. When the companies closed, the Attorney General received a number of telephone calls from consumers asking when those companies would reopen. Although the bill was recommended favorable for passage by the Senate Committee, it was defeated on final action by a vote of 6 yeas and 32 nays. The Senate later reconsidered its action and sent the bill back to Committee for possible action at a later date. Review of payday loan regulation continued for a second year. During the 1992 Session, the Senate Committee further considered SB 363 and the House Committee on Commercial and Financial Institutions reviewed HB 2749. The House Committee recommended its bill favorable for passage. On final action (initial vote had been 80 to 35), however, a member reported in his vote explanation that passage of such
Other Financial Institutions and Insurance reports available N-1 Uniform Consumer Credit Code N-2 Kansas Health Insurance Mandates N-4 Uninsured Motorists

[email protected]
legislation would burden poor consumers as it would raise the interest rate tenfold from 36 percent to 360 percent. Fifty members changed their votes and the legislation was killed. When the Senate returned to its consideration of payday loan regulation, the Consumer Credit Commissioner (then William Caton) explained the House action on HB 2749 and rebutted the conclusion that the bill raised interest rates. The Senate Committee received favorable testimony from both the Attorney Generals Office and the payday loan industry and voted to amend SB 363 by inserting the provisions of HB 2749. SB 363, as amended, passed the Senate 40 - 0 and was referred to the House Committee which recommended it favorable for passage after considerable discussion. Ultimately, the bill died at the end of the Session. In its third year of consideration of payday loan legislation, both the House and Senate agreed on 1993 HB 2197 and the bill was signed by the Governor with an effective date of April 8, 1993. This new law, made supplemental to and a part of the UCCC, applied to short-term consumer loan transactions with a single payment repayment schedule, for which cash is advanced in an amount equal to or less than the maximum allowed to a supervised lender ($680) and subject to the following conditions: On any amount up to and including $50, a finance charge of $5.50 could be charged; on amounts in excess of $50 but not more than $100, the finance charge could be 10 percent of the amount plus a $5 administrative fee; On amounts in excess of $100 but not more than $250, the finance charge could be 7 percent of the amount with a $10 minimum plus a $5 administrative fee; and For amounts in excess of $250 but less than the maximum amount, the finance charge could be 6 percent of the amount with a minimum of $17.50 plus a $5 administrative fee.
The law also provided that: The maximum term of the loan cannot exceed 30 days. The contract interest rate after maturity cannot be more than 3 percent per month. No charge for insurance or any other charge can be made of any nature except as provided, including cashing the loan proceeds if given in a check. No loan made under this section may be repaid with the proceeds of another loan made by the same lender. If cash is advanced in exchange for a personal check and the check is returned for insufficient funds, only a return check charge provided in the UCCC is allowed. Certain loans made under this section may be unconscionable conductthe Commissioner is to consider in making such a finding the ability of the borrower to repay the loan, and whether the loan meets the amount and terms limitations of this section.
N-3
page 2
Kansas was one of the first states to enact legislation specific to the regulation of payday loans. The payday loan statute remained substantively unchanged for a number of years from its enactment. There have been attempts, however, to amend the law. In 1999, for example, a model act drafted by the Consumer Federation of America was introduced in Kansas as SB 272. The proponent of SB 272 explained at the time of its introduction that it was . . . legislation addressing the exorbitant interest rates charged by payday loan companies and how such consumer issues fall under the auspices of the UCCC. At the time of the hearing on the bill, other than the sponsor, there were no proponents present to testify on its behalf. Acting Consumer Credit Commissioner David Brant did comment to the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance that the bill . . . would substantially alter the rates charged by payday loan companies. In testimony on another UCCC bill (SB 301) before the Committee, the Attorney General reminded the Committee, that while that . . . office does not take complaints on consumer credit, the Attorney General is of the opinion that the payday loan industry is not in the best interest of society as it spirals people into bankruptcy . . . . Opponents of the bill, several operators of payday loan shops in the state, argued that reducing the allowable interest rate charge to 36 percent would have the effect of putting them out of business. Having heard the issues raised by SB 272, the Committee took no action on the measure. SB 301, as enacted in 1999, made several significant changes in the UCCC. Among those changes was the transfer for the enforcement of the UCCC from the Consumer Credit Commissioner to a newly designated position of Deputy Commissioner for Consumer and Mortgage Lending and the elimination of interest rate caps on consumer loans. One effect of the interest rate amendment was to remove the escalator provision which adjusted the dollar amount of consumer loans subject to the then highest allowed interest rate. Since that dollar amount also was the cap for payday loans, the bill established that amount, $860, as the new cap on payday loans. During the 2001 Session, the Deputy Commissioner (Code Administrator) requested the passage of HB 2193 which would limit the number of loans a consumer could have from a single payday lender to two at any one time and to require a Notice to Borrower appear on each loan agreement stating that Kansas law prohibits a lender and its related interest from having more than two loans outstanding to the same borrower at any one time. While the bill was amended by the House Committee of the Whole, those amendments were removed from the bill and the bill passed as proposed by the Deputy Commissioner. Representative Wells, during the 2002 Session, introduced HB 2877 which would have reduced the allowable charges permitted on payday loans. On loan amounts up to and including $50, the charge would have been reduced from $5.50 to $4.00; on amounts in excess of $50 but not more than $100, the charge would have been reduced from 10 percent to 8 percent; on amounts in excess of $100 but not more than $250, the charge would have been reduced from 7 percent to 5 percent and the minimum allowable charge would have been reduced from $10 to $8; and on amounts of $250 but not greater than $860, the charge would have been reduced from 6 percent to 4 percent and the minimum reduced from $17.50 to $12.50. HB 2877 did not have a hearing and died in the House Committee on Financial Institutions at the end of the 2002 Session. The Chairpersons of the House Committee on Financial Institutions and the Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance requested and the Legislative Coordinating Council created an interim Special Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance to study, among other topics: Regulation of payday loans and entities making such loans, including allowable loan rates and charges; loan terms and conditions and collection issues; and appropriate levels
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 N-3
of regulation of lenders, including the activities of some lenders to associate with federally chartered financial institutions and then claim exemption from state regulation. The Special Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance did not meet during the 2002 Interim nor complete a report on its assigned subject matter. The 2004 Legislature passed a measure, HB 2685, addressing the regulation of payday loans. The bill: Established a seven-day minimum term for any loan; Limited the number of loans to three for any borrower within a 30-day period and required lenders to keep a journal of all loan transactions which includes the name, address, and telephone number of the borrower, and the date each loan is made and the date each is due; Required the lender, upon receipt of a check from the borrower, to immediately stamp the check with an endorsement that states: Negotiated as part of a loan made under KSA 16a-2-404. Holder takes subject to claims and defenses of maker. No criminal prosecution.; Allowed a borrower, under the terms specified, to rescind the transaction without cost not later than the end of the business day following the day on which the transaction was made; and Outlined a list of acts or practices prohibited in connection with a payday loan.
The Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance also had reviewed a payday loan bill, SB 439, that would have created a maximum loan amount ($500, rather than $860) and a flat fee (not more than $15 per $100 loaned). The bill received a hearing, but no action was taken on the bill and the bill died in Committee.
Finance Charge, Protections for Military Borrowers

The Office of the State Bank Commissioners representatives brought legislation to the 2005 Legislature to enhance enforcement of both mortgage brokers under the Kansas Mortgage Business Act and supervised lenders under the Code. Senate Sub. for HB 2172 contained the provisions of another measure, Sub. for SB 223, a bill which included provisions for both mortgage brokers and supervised lenders. In addition to the additional enforcement powers and penalties created by the bill, the legislation also amended the finance charges for payday loans under the UCCC (KSA 16a-2-404). The finance charge for cash advances equal to or less than $500 is to be an amount not to exceed 15 percent of the amount of the cash advance. The bill also required publication of the notice in payday loan agreements in Spanish. In addition, Senate Sub. for HB 2172 enacted new law concerning military borrowers, with lender provisions to:
N-3
page 4
Not garnish any wages or salary for service in the armed forces; Defer all collection activity against a borrower who is deployed to combat or combat support posting for the duration of such posting; Not contact any person in the military chain of command of a borrower in an attempt to make collection; Honor all terms of the repayment agreement; and Not make any loan to any military borrower whenever the base commander has declared such persons place of business off limits to military personnel.
A military borrower is defined as any member of the Armed Forces of the United States, any member of the National Guard, or any member of the Armed Forces Reserve. More recently, the Special Committee on Financial Institutions and Insurance convened during the 2005 Interim to study topics that included a broad review of the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. A proposed nondepository lending model, a closed-end installment loan (proposed in 2005 HB 2278, 2006 SB 376), was reviewed by the Committee. A hearing was held on SB 376 during the 2006 Session, but no action was taken on the bill and it died in Committee.
Legislative Proposals, 2007-2008 Biennium and 2009-2010 Biennium

The regulation of payday lending again was addressed during the most recent legislative sessions. 2007 SB 217 and HB 2244 would have added requirements to current law regulating payday lenders. Under the proposals, consumers would not be allowed to have more than two outstanding loans at any one time, and they would not be allowed more than five consecutive loans with the same lender. Under terms of both bills, a statewide database would have been developed to ensure compliance. The House Committee on Insurance and Financial Institutions held a hearing on HB 2244 and a related bill, HB 2245 (addressed vehicle title loans) during the 2007 Session; no action was taken on either bill at the time of the hearing. The 2008 Legislature introduced an additional measure to address payday lending (HB 2717), a bill similar to HB 2244, without the database requirements. No action was taken on the payday lending legislation or the vehicle title legislation during the 2007-2008 biennium. Similar legislation was not introduced for consideration during the 2009 Session. The 2010 Legislature introduced legislation (SB 503) that would have required a $1 surcharge to be assessed on each payday and title loan. The surcharge would have been paid by the borrower to the lender and then remitted to the Office of the State Bank Commissioner (OSBC). Upon receipt of each remittance, the moneys would then have been transferred to the Professional Development Fund (Department of Education) and expended to fund professional development programs or topics that dealt with personal financial literacy. The OSBC had indicated in the fiscal note that the bill would generate approximately $1.2 million from the estimated 1.2 million payday and title loans that will be issued in FY 2011. The bill was referred to the Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee; the bill died in Committee.
page 5
N-3
Payday Lending Activity Kansas

The Office of the State Bank Commissioner (the Division of Consumer and Mortgage Lending) maintains a list, available to the public, of entities that are authorized to engage in the practice of consumer lending or mortgage business entities. The list contains the license number, company name, company location, and date of next renewal. The Division also maintains a list of individuals and entities not authorized to conduct such business in Kansas. Both lists are accessible on the Offices website at: http://www.osbckansas.org/DOCML.html. Data provided by the Code Administrator (the Deputy Commissioner, Consumer Mortgage and Lending, Office of the State Bank Commissioner) indicates that as of June 30, 2011, the Office has issued supervised loan licenses to 468 payday and title loan locations. Title loans are another form of consumer credit regulated under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code. The number of payday and title loan locations, the Office reported, increased from 223 to 368 between 2004 and the end of the calendar year 2005 following the statutory fee increase (Senate Sub. for HB 2172) for payday lenders. CY 2010 reports submitted by payday lenders indicate that 1,138,428 payday loans were made to Kansas consumers for a total amount of $432.7 million. (During that same time period, 22,571 title loans were made for a total amount of $17.6 million.) In 1995, 36 locations offered payday loans in Kansas.
Federal Financial Regulatory Reform, Consumer Protections and Payday Loans

The availability of short-term consumer loans and regulation of payday lending has been reviewed as Congress considered the regulation of financial products and regulatory reform of the financial services industry. Among the payday lending legislation introduced by the 111th Congress, S. 3245, the Payday Lending Limitation Act of 2010, would have amended the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit the extension of consumer credit of $3,000 or less, with an APR exceeding 36 percent (or, under certain circumstances, 25 percent) and an amortization period of 91 days or less (covered loan), to a borrower who has had in the aggregate: (1) six covered loans extended during the preceding 12-month period; or (2) covered loan obligations of 90 days or longer during the preceding 12-month period. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors would have been required to issue specified implementing rules governing the covered loans. The bill included a declaration that this Act would have neither preempted nor prevented state law from providing greater protection to consumers than is provided under this Act. The bill was referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs (04/22/2010). No further action on the bill was taken by the 111th Congress. On July 21, 2010, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act into law (Dodd-Frank Act, PL 111-203). Title X of the Dodd-Frank Act, entitled the Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, established a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection (the Bureau) within the Federal Reserve System with rulemaking, enforcement and supervisory powers over a number of financial products and services and the entities selling them (include payday and student loans). The law also transferred to the Bureau the primary rulemaking and enforcement authority over several federal consumer protection laws, including the Truth in Lending Act. The Bureau does not, however, have the authority to establish usury limits (such as a cap on interest rates) on payday loans. Among the provisions applicable to the use of payday loans (short-term loan products) is Title XII of the Dodd-Frank Act, the Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions Act of 2010. Rather than specific regulations affecting payday lending, the Act provides incentives to financial institutions to offer low-cost alternatives small-dollar loan products with lower interest rates and less predatory practices. The Act authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to establish grants to provide these low-cost loans. Eligible entities include:
Any FDIC institution; State, local, or tribal government entities; Community development financial institutions (CFDIs); and 501(c)3 organizations. [Section 1205]
In order to receive the grant, the loan provider must offer financial literacy and education opportunities, such as relevant counseling services, educational courses, and wealth building programs, to each small-dollar loan consumer. For more information, please contact:
page 7
N-3

Financial Institutions and Insurance N-4 Uninsured Motorists Other Financial Institutions and Insurance reports available N-1 Uniform Consumer Credit Code N-2 Kansas Health Insurance Mandates N-3

Uninsured Motorists: Basic Questions and Answers
What does uninsured mean when speaking of uninsured motorists? Kansas law requires that a vehicle operated on state highways be insured. Criteria differ from state to state, but in general the term uninsured motorist is applied to these groups: Motorists without insurance driving uninsured vehicles; Motorists with insurance driving uninsured vehicles; Motorists driving with insurance, but denied coverage; Motorists whose insurance carrier has become insolvent; and Unknown motorists who cause crashes, regardless of insurance (hit and run).
How many motorists are uninsured? No one knows for certain, in any state, and the answers depend on how the rate is measured. Cross-checking between records of insured vehicles and records of registered vehicles is one method, but that rate will not include vehicles that are not registered. The Insurance Research Council (IRC) annually releases a rate that is based on uninsured motorist and bodily injury insurance claims. The graph on the next page shows trends for Kansas and nearby states.
Jill Shelley, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Rates of Uninsured Motorists, Kansas and Nearby States, 2005-2009
Nebraska Kansas Iowa 2009 Missouri Texas Colorado Arkansas Oklahoma 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 2008 2007 2006 2005
Sources: Uninsured Motorists, 2008 and 2011 Editions, Insurance Research Council The IRC states that a 1 percent change in the unemployment rate, up or down, changed the uninsured motorist rate by 0.75 percent. What does Kansas law say about motor vehicle insurance? Kansas is among 49 states that require vehicles operated on public roadways to be insured, and the 50th state (Vermont) requires financial responsibility. A vehicle must be insured. A vehicle must be insured before it can be registered and the owner must maintain financial security continuously throughout the period of registration. (KSA 2010 Supp. 40-3118) Proof must be provided. A driver must show proof of financial security in the event of a crash (KSA 8-1604(a)) and at any time requested by a law enforcement officer (KSA 2010 Supp. 40-3104(d)). Also, the Director of Vehicles (at the Department of Revenue) is authorized to require a vehicle owner or the owners insurance company to provide records proving the continuous coverage. Kansas law allows coverage to be proven at registration with various types of documents and, since 2001, on-line or electronically; since 2004, the Insurance Commissioner has been authorized to require companies to provide electronic verification. (KSA 8-173(d)). Punishments include fines, jail time, and suspension or revocation of a drivers license, vehicle registration, or both. In addition to fines of $300 to $1,000 for a first violation and $800 to $2,500 for a subsequent conviction within three years, a violator can be jailed for not more than six months. The Director of Vehicles may
N-4
suspend a vehicles registration and its owners license when the Director has prima facie evidence that continuous financial security was not maintained. The reinstatement fee is $100 ($300 if a subsequent violation within one year). (KSA 2010 Supp. 40-3104, 40-3118) (For registration purposes, the Director may verify insurance coverage on-line or electronically. [KSA 8-173(d)]) In addition, under the terms of 2011 SB 136 (Session Laws Ch. 59), an uninsured motorist operating a vehicle involved in a crash may not collect certain noneconomic damages (no pay, no play). How can a state deter motorists from driving vehicles that are not insured? Research suggests states have taken combinations of three approaches: Create a culture of having insurance. While not all factors that create such a culture are known, researchers say there appear to be links to consistent enforcement. Make insurance more affordable. Approaches include the New Jersey Basic policy and Californias eligibility-restricted Low Cost Automobile Insurance Program. Punish those who have been found to have no insurance. However, researchers have not found a direct correlation between harsh statutory punishments and lower rates of uninsured motorists.
How can insurance coverage be verified electronically? Approaches to electronic verification use one or both of two main approaches: (1) the state creates and maintains a database; or (2) the state checks against insurance companies data. Under either scenario, the state usually is assisted by a vendor to use the data to determine whether a vehicle is insured. The state registration database, which contains information such as the vehicle identification number (VIN) and the owners name, is the link between the license plate number entered by a law enforcement officer, Division of Vehicles employee, or court employee and the information about the vehicle. Each approach has its advantages and disadvantages, and some states (such as California and Texas) use combinations. If a state maintains a database (an approach in use for many years), all the data is in a single place and in a single format, and coverage will be listed regardless of whether the insured has changed companies. However, data lag behind company records, and there are no national standards. The state has responsibility for proprietary data. Together, HDI Solutions, Inc., and Insure-Rite, Inc., provide services of this type in states including Utah and Texas. The Insurance Industry Committee on Motor Vehicle Administration (IICMVA) has established standards for on-line, real-time verification of insurance company records. Data are as current as a companys files, and the company retains its data. Real-time is not defined consistently, but IICMVA standards require a participating insurance company to reply within five seconds and make data available at all times. MV Verisol is a leading company in on-line verification using the IICMVA model; it gave a presentation to various committees during the 2010 Legislative Session. The company says 11 states have adopted this model, but such a system does not appear to be fully functional in any state as of October 2011.
page 3
N-4
What priorities for an electronic verification system have been determined for Kansas? In its third-year report, to the 2009 Legislature, Kansas Electronic Motor Vehicle Financial Security Verification Task Force (whose members included legislators and representatives of property and casualty and automobile insurers, the Kansas Insurance Department, the Kansas Department of Revenue, law enforcement, and consumers) cited four goals to serve as the framework for addressing electronic realtime verification: Assist the Director of Motor Vehicles and county treasurers in registration of motor vehicles in compliance with motor vehicle financial security law; Provide law enforcement officers with roadside information during traffic stops to determine whether vehicles are in compliance with motor vehicle financial security law; Provide greater assurance to the motoring public that other vehicles on the road are insured as required by law; and Offer convenient insurance policy interface and reporting for companies required to provide insurance policy information to the state.
A representative of the Kansas Department of Insurance, also representing members from the Department of Revenue, suggested twelve requirements for the system design. Those suggestions included access to information nationwide, not just for vehicles registered in Kansas; a system that is easily, reliably and accurately accessible from a patrol car and from fixed locations; and compatibility with nearly all state and insurance company systems. The suggested requirements also included that a new system be established legislatively. How will one know whether an action the state takes reduces the rate of uninsured vehicles? Measured rates would decrease. The rates measured could include the rate of registered vehicles for which insurance cannot be confirmed and the IRC-determined rate (based on claims). Also, violations for no insurance would decrease. The following table shows trends in violations related to no vehicle insurance from data kept by the Division of Vehicles.
N-4
page 4
What bills have been introduced in Kansas since 2005 to deter motorists from driving vehicles that are not insured? As noted above, a state can create a culture of having insurance, make insurance more affordable, and punish those who have been found to have no insurance. The table below summarizes recent bills related to uninsured motorists, in those categories; the reader should be aware that these categories may overlap within individual bills.
Create a culture of having insurance 2005-2006 SB 321 Require a real-time, online insurance Died in Senate verification system, to be implemented committee by January 1, 2008. 2005-2006 SCR 1619 (2006) Authorize the Electronic Motor Vehicle Enacted 2007-2008 SCR 1603 (2007 Financial Security Verification System (Published reports are SCR 1616 (2008) Task Force. available.) 2009-2010 SB 392 and HB Require the Department of Revenue, SB died in Senate 2474 in consultation with the Insurance committee; HB see Commissioner, to implement an House Sub. for SB 260 online motor vehicle financial security verification and compliance system, using a vendor. 2009-2010 SCR 1631 Reactivate the task force studying Died in House design and implementation of an committee electronic motor vehicle financial security verification system. Make insurance more affordable No bills directly addressed affordability, but bills summarized elsewhere in this table could affect insurance affordability. Punishment 2005-2006 SB 322 Increase penalties under the Kansas Died in House Automobile Injury Reparations Act committee (KAIRA). 2005-2006 HB 2305 Limit on recovery of insurance amounts Failed on House to an uninsured motorist who is injured Committee of the Whole (no pay, no play). vote 2005-2006 Sub. for HB 2690 Address resuspension and revocation Portions (not including of drivers licenses. the penalty provisions) were placed into Sub. for HB 2706, which was enacted 2005-2006 HB 2755 Same as HB 2305. Died in House committee
Biennium
Bill Number
Summary
Disposition
page 5
N-4
2007-2008
SB 615
2007-2008
2007-2008
2009-2010
2011
Amendments to the KAIRA to require additional steps in prosecuting an uninsured motorist (UM), authorize a court to order vehicle impoundment or immobilization for up to 30 days, limit recovery for property damage if no financial security (proof of insurance) on the vehicle. HB 2378 Prohibit the owner of an uninsured vehicle from recovering property damage to that vehicle in a crash with an insured vehicle. HB 2867 Allow a court to order vehicle impoundment or immobilization for up to 30 days. House Sub. for Require the Department of Revenue, SB 260 in consultation with the Insurance Commissioner, to implement a motor vehicle financial security verification and compliance system by March 1, 2011. SB 136 Prohibit a cause of action for noneconomic loss for anyone operating an uninsured vehicle who, at the time of the accident, had not maintained personal injury protection (PIP) coverage.
Died in House committee
Died in House committee
Died in House committee Died on general orders in the House
Enacted
More detail on this topic is available in the article Uninsured Motorists: Questions and Answers for States available through the Kansas Legislative Research Department website, under Capitol Ideas, then Transportation. Appendix A to that article includes IRC rates of uninsured motorists for all states; Appendix B includes additional information on each of the bills summarized above. For more information, please contact:
N-4
page 6

Health O-1
Health
O-1 Health Care Stabilization Fund and Kansas Medical Malpractice Law
The 1976 Health Care Providers Insurance Availability Act (HCPIA) created the Health Care Stabilization Fund in an effort to stabilize the availability of medical professional liability coverage for health care providers. The law mandates a basic liability requirement for certain health care providers (defined below) and establishes an availability plan in order to provide the required basic professional liability insurance coverage for those providers of health care in Kansas unable to obtain such coverage from the commercial market. The Fund receives its funding from professional liability coverage surcharge payments made by health care providers.
Health Care Stabilization Fund and Kansas Medical Malpractice Law
Other Health reports available O-2 Kansas Provider Assessments O-3 Olmstead Institutional and Community Placement Decisions
Health Care Providers

The Health Care Stabilization Fund was created, in part, to provide excess liability coverage for the following defined Health Care Providers in KSA 2010 Supp. 40-3401(f): Medical Doctors and Doctors of Osteopathy who are licensed or hold temporary permits with the State Board of Healing Arts; Chiropractors; Podiatrists; Persons engaged in a postgraduate training program approved by the State Board of Healing Arts; Registered Nurse Anesthetists; Dentists certified by the State Board of Healing Arts; Medical care facilities; Mental health clinics and centers; Psychiatric hospitals (certain facilities); Kansas professional corporations or partnerships of defined health care providers; Kansas limited liability companies organized for the purpose of rendering professional services by their health care providers; Kansas not-for-profit corporations organized for the purpose of rendering professional services by persons who are health care providers; and A nonprofit corporation organized to administer the graduate medical education programs affiliated with the University of Kansas School of Medicine.
O-4 Transfer of Kansas Health Policy Authority

[email protected]
Health care providers whose practice includes the rendering of professional services in Kansas are subject to the basic professional liability coverage and Fund surcharge requirements. In addition, the coverage and surcharge requirements also apply to health care providers who are Kansas residents and to non-resident health care providers whose practice includes the rendering of professional services in Kansas. Fund coverage, through basic professional liability coverage, is available from insurers authorized to write business in Kansas or through the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Plan. The Fund coverage limits currently include three options: $100,000/$300,000; $300,000/$900,000; and $800,000/$2,400,000. (The first dollar amount indicates the amount of loss payment available for each claim, while the second indicates the total annual amount of loss payments for all claims made during a Fund coverage year.) For Kansas health care providers, the insurer is responsible for: Calculation of the amount of the surcharge based on the Fund coverage limit selected by the health care provider; Development of the rating classification code of the provider and the number of years the provider has been in compliance with the Fund; and Collection of the Fund surcharge payment along with the basic professional liability coverage and remitting the surcharge to the Fund without any reductions for commissions, collections, or processing expenses.
With a primary function of excess professional liability coverage, the Fund is triggered when the basic professional liability insurers projected loss exposure exceeds $200,000. According to the Fund agency, the Funds legal staff monitor all claims and suits filed against Kansas health care providers, including attending claim settlement conferences where the Funds coverage has not yet been triggered. In addition to claims protection, the law also requires all basic professional liability insurers to include prior acts coverage which eliminates the need for Kansas health care providers to purchase tail coverage when changing insurers; requires all basic professional liability insurers to provide professional liability insurance for the overall or total professional services rendered by Kansas health care providers; funds tail coverage for qualified inactive health care providers in Kansas; and provides special self-insurance coverage for the full-time faculty, private practice foundations and corporations, and the residents of the University of Kansas School of Medicine and the Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education.
Fund Administration
The Board of Governors, as defined in KSA 2010 Supp. 40-3403, consists of ten members appointed by the Commissioner of Insurance in the manner prescribed by statute. Three members are medical doctors in Kansas nominated by the Kansas Medical Society; three members serve as representatives of Kansas hospitals and are nominated by the Kansas Hospital Association; two members are doctors of osteopathic medicine nominated by the Kansas Association of Osteopathic Medicine; one member is a chiropractor in Kansas and nominated by the Kansas Chiropractic Association; and one member is a Registered Nurse Anesthetist and is nominated by the Kansas Association of Nurse Anesthetists.
O-1
page 2
Prior to 1995, the Fund was administered by the Commissioner of Insurance. Beginning in 1995, the administration of the Fund became the responsibility of the Health Care Stabilization Fund Board of Governors, and the Board was recognized as an independent state agency. The following chart illustrates the agency expenditures for administration of the Fund and total paid claims, by fiscal year. OPERATING EXPENDITURES Health Care Stabilization Fund FY 2003-FY 2012
Fiscal Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Approved 2012 Approved Ten-Year Change Dollars/Percent $ 2,743,307 58.5 % $ 5,145,615 21.9 % 2.0 State Operations $ 4,690,286 6,255,737 6,389,120 5,238,807 5,853,999 5,928,742 6,655,856 7,164,696 7,388,128 7,433,593 % Change 31.0 33.4 2.1 (18.0) 11.7 1.3 12.3 7.6 3.1 0.6 % $ Claims Paid 23,454,385 23,245,032 25,104,792 23,947,225 22,467,114 24,508,355 25,236,640 28,314,866 27,744,030 28,600,000 % Change 1.9 (0.9) 8.0 (4.6) (6.2) 9.1 3.0 12.2 (2.0) 3.1 % FTE 16.0 16.0 16.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 18.0 18.0
The Fund also receives interest on the state agency investments in addition to the surcharge paid by health care providers in Kansas. The investments for the Board of Governors are administered by the Pooled Money Investment Board (PMIB).
Reimbursements from the State General Fund

2009 Session. In FY 2009 and FY 2010, transfers from the State General Fund to the Health Care Stabilization Fund for payments from the KU residents, faculty, and graduate medical education students were suspended. The moratorium on reimbursements from the State General Fund has reduced the fund balance by a projected $6.0 million over the two-year period. (The FY 2010 transfer payments were suspended by the Governors agency allotment authority in July 2009.) 2010 Session. The Senate Financial Institutions and Insurance Committee introduced SB 414, at the request of the Kansas Medical Society, a bill to amend the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act to exempt transfers from the State General Fund (SGF) to the Health Care Stabilization Fund (HCSF) as required by KSA 2009 Supp. 40-3403(j) from the allotment authority delegated by statute (KSA 75-3722) to the Secretary of Administration. The bill further amends the Act to provide that the funds required to be transferred to the Health Care Stabilization Fund for the payments specified in law (KSA 2009 Supp. 40-3403(j)) for state Fiscal Years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 shall not be transferred prior to July 1, 2013. The Director of Accounts and Reports is required to maintain a record of the amounts certified by the Health Care Stabilization Fund Board of Governors for the specified fiscal years. The bill establishes a process for the repayment of the deferred State General Fund payments, as follows: beginning on July 1, 2013, and on an annual basis through July 1, 2017, 20.0 percent of the total amount of the SGF
page 3
O-1
deferred transfers are to be transferred to the Health Care Stabilization Fund. No interest will be allowed to accrue on the deferred payments. KSA 40-3403(j) pertains to the reimbursement for the costs and expenses associated with the administration of a self-insurance program for the full-time faculty, private practice foundations and corporations, and the residents of the University of Kansas School of Medicine and the Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education. (When the costs, including claims and legal expenses, exceed the amount paid by the Faculty Foundations [Private Practice Foundation Reserve Fund], the SGF, upon certification of the amount of the payments made by the HCSF, transfers the difference to the HCSF.) A 2009 Attorney Generals opinion [2009-16] made, among other conclusions, the finding that, nothing in the allotment system statute nor in the Health Care Provider Insurance Availability Act indicates that the statutory transfers of funds in KSA 40-3403 are exempt from the allotment system. SB 414 was signed into law on March 31, 2010.
Oversight
The Health Care Stabilization Fund Oversight Committee was created by the 1989 Legislature. The composition of the Committee is detailed in KSA 40-3403b. The eleven-member Committee consists of: Four legislators; Four health care providers; One representative of the insurance industry; One person from the general public with no affiliation to health care providers or with the insurance industry; and The chairperson of the Board of Governors of the Health Care Stabilization Fund or another Board member designated by the Board chairperson.
The law requires the Committee to report its activities to the Legislative Coordinating Council and make recommendations to the Legislature regarding the Health Care Stabilization Fund. Committee reports are on file with the Legislative Research Department. During its 2010 meeting, the Committee discussed its role in providing legislative oversight of the Fund, as outlined by statute. The Committee indicated that it continues in its belief that the Oversight Committee serves a vital role as a link between the Fund Board of Governors, the providers, and the Legislature, and should be continued. The Committee also reviewed the necessity for the need to contract for an independent actuarial review in 2011. While the Committee continues in its belief that the ability to contract an independent annual review is important for the safety and soundness of the Fund, the Committee did not see, at that time, a need for an independent review in 2011. The Committee members also discussed whether another actuarial review would be made if the Kansas Supreme Courts decision in Miller v. Johnson struck down the constitutionality of the cap on non-economic damages. The Oversight Committee requested, should actuarial projections be made for the Fund Board of Governors to reflect the Courts decision, copies of such estimates be made available for its review. The Committee considered the report from the Health Care Stabilization Fund Board of Governors, its actuary, and conferees at its November 2010 meeting and made recommendations on communication to the Legislature regarding the importance of the Fund and its protection from certain expenditures, a
O-1 page 4 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
potential actuarial review and the significance of the outcome of Miller v. Johnson, monitoring the planned reimbursement schedule for the administration of self-insurance programs (2010 SB 414, discussed earlier in this article), and technology improvements requested by the Fund Board of Governors. The Committee reviewed the report from the Fund actuary (this report assists the Fund Board of Governors in its decision to set the level of surcharges for the next year). The actuary offered some general conclusions about the Funds status and factors that affect or could affect the Funds forecast: undiscounted liabilities at June 30, 2010, are approximately $8.7 million lower than anticipated in the actuarial firms 2009 study; the forecasts assume no change in surcharge rates for FY 2011, a 2.0 percent rate for the discounted liabilities, and full reimbursement for KU/Wichita Center for Graduate Medical Education claims for FY 2010 through FY 2013, but delayed payment until 2014; and the Board should consider modest changes by class, including no longer using uniform percentages for classes 15-21, and leaving surcharge rates unchanged. The actuary spoke to the current trends with the number of claims decreasing and good settlements, noting that the external pressures have the ability to impact the Fund, including reimbursement for the self-insurance program, short and long-term interest rates being relatively low, and the outcome of the noneconomic damages court case.
Fund Status
The actuarial report provided to the Oversight Committee addressed the forecasts of the Funds position at June 30, 2010: the Fund held assets of $223.1 million and liabilities (discounted) of $184.0 million, with $39.1 million in unassigned reserves. Projections for June 2011 include $228.1 million in assets and liabilities (discounted) of $189.7 million, with $38.4 million in reserve. Following is a brief summary of additional Kansas laws that address medical malpractice and the legal proceedings.
page 5
O-1
Kansas Medical Malpractice Tort Laws Statute of Limitations

KSA 60-513. Two years from act or reasonable discovery. Is permitted up to ten years after reasonable discovery.
Damage Awards Limits

KSA 60-19a02. $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages recoverable by each party from all defendants. KSA 60-3702. Punitive damages limited to the lesser of defendants highest gross income for prior five years or $5 million. If profitability of misconduct exceeds limit, court may award 1.5 times profit instead. Judge determines punitive damages.
Pre-trial Screening, Arbitration

KSA 65-4901; 60-3502. Voluntary submission to medical screening panel upon request of party; panelists must include medical professional of same specialty as defendant.
Joint and Several Liability

No separation of joint and several liability.
Expert Witnesses
Attorney Fees
Health Care Stabilization Fund

KSA 40-3403. (discussed above).
KSA 60KSA 3412. Fifty 7-121b. percent of Attorney the experts fees professional must be time over approved by preceding the court. two years must have been devoted to clinical practice in same field as defendant.
O-1
page 6

Health O-2 Kansas Provider Assessments
Health
O-2 Kansas Provider Assessments
Provider Assessment
A provider assessment is a mechanism used to maximize the amount of federal funding for the state by collecting new state funds to be used to draw down additional federal funds. This mechanism can result in increased Medicaid payments for the specified providers assessed for Medicaid eligible services. In order to implement a provider assessment, the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) must first review and approve the provider assessment model designed by the state. CMS guidelines state that, for a provider assessment to be approved, it must be uniformly enforced across all providers. Certain categories of providers can be excluded, but all providers of that category type then must be excluded from the assessment. In addition, CMS guidelines state that no provider within an assessed category is allowed to be excluded, even if that provider is negatively impacted. This means that all providers must be included in the provider assessment, even if some may experience a negative fiscal impact. In FY 2011, 46 states had some form of Medicaid-related provider assessments. Kansas currently has two implemented provider assessments: hospitals and nursing facilities and one provider assessment that is awaiting legal authorization by CMS for Home and Community Based Services providers for individuals with developmental disabilities. The models for provider assessments vary by state based on the population needs and structure of the provider system being assessed. For example, Connecticut assesses funds from nursing facilities based on how many Medicaid days a resident spends in a licensed nursing bed. However, in Kansas, the 2010 Legislature passed a version of a nursing facility provider assessment similar to the Iowa model that assesses funds annually based on licensed nursing facility beds.
Other Health reports available O-1
O-3
Olmstead Institutional and Community Placement Decisions
Amy Deckard, Assistant Director of Information Management 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Health Care Access Improvement Program

2004 Senate Sub. for HB 2912 established the Health Care Access Improvement Program (HCAIP), which uses an annual assessment on inpatient services provided by hospitals and on nonMedicare premiums collected by health maintenance organizations (HMOs) to improve and expand health care in Kansas for low income persons. The assessment paid by hospitals and HMOs is used as a state match to draw down additional federal funding. Hospital providers that are state agencies, state educational institutions, or critical access hospitals are exempt from the provider assessment. The state mental health hospitals and developmental disability hospitals are also exempt. The hospital provider assessment amount is an annual assessment on hospital inpatient services of 1.83 percent of net inpatient operating revenue. The HMOs assessment amount is an annual assessment of 5.9 percent of net revenue. No funds collected through HCAIP are allowed to be transferred to the State General Fund at any point in time. The hospital portion of HCAIP stipulates that no less than 80.0 percent of the funds collected from the hospital provider assessment can be disbursed to hospital providers through a combination of Medicaid access improvement payments and increased Medicaid rates on designated diagnostic-related groupings, procedures, and codes. In FY 2011, this resulted in a net revenue of $33.0 million from all funding sources. In addition, no more than 20.0 percent of the funds collected from hospital provider assessment can be disbursed to doctors or dentists through increased Medicaid rates on designated procedures and codes. Finally, no more than 3.2 percent of the funds collected from the hospital provider assessment can be used to fund health care access improvement programs in undergraduate, graduate, or continuing medical education, including the Medical Student Loan Act. The HMOs portion of HCAIP stipulates that no less than 53.0 percent of the funds collected from the HMO provider assessment can be disbursed to HMOs that have a contract with SRS through increased Medicaid capitation rates. In addition, no more than 30.0 percent of the funds collected from the HMO provider assessment can be disbursed to fund activities to increase access to dental care, primary care safety net clinics, increased Medicaid rates on designated procedures and codes for providers who are persons licensed to practice dentistry, and Home and Community-Based Services. Finally, no more than 17.0 percent of the funds collected from the HMO provider assessment can be disbursed to pharmacy providers through increased Medicaid rates.
Nursing Facility Provider Assessment

2010 Senate Sub. for Senate Sub. for Sub. for HB 2320 established a provider assessment program for skilled nursing facilities for up to $1,950 on each licensed bed within skilled nursing care facilities, which includes nursing facilities for mental health and hospital long-term care units and excludes the Kansas Soldiers Home and the Kansas Veterans Home from the assessment. As of June 30, 2011, there were 317 licensed skilled nursing facilities in Kansas operating as Medicaid providers. Skilled nursing care facility licensed beds that are excluded from qualifying to be assessed up to the full amount of $1,950 are: continuing care retirement facilities (defined as facilities which must hold a certificate of registration from the Commissioner of Insurance); small skilled nursing care facilities (defined as less than 46 licensed nursing beds); and high federal Medicaid volume skilled nursing care facilities (defined as facilities which have more than 25,000 federal Medicaid days). The amount assessed to these identified skilled nursing care facilities can not exceed 1/6, or $250, of the actual amount assessed to the other skilled nursing care facilities.
All funds collected through the Nursing Facility Provider Assessment are used to finance initiatives designed to maintain or increase the quantity and quality of nursing care in licensed facilities. No funds can be allowed to be transferred to the State General Fund at any time or be used to replace existing funding. If any additional funds are available, they must be used for an increase of the direct health care costs center limitation up to 150.0 percent of the case mix adjusted median and then for approved quality enhancement for skilled nursing facilities. At no point would any amount of the assessed funds be allowed to provide for bonuses or profit-sharing for any officer, employee, or parent corporation, but may be used to pay employees who are providing direct care to a resident in a skilled nursing facility. The provider assessment sunsets after the first four years of implementation. After the first three years, the assessment amount will be adjusted to be no more than 60.0 percent of the assessment collected in previous years. During the first year of the Nursing Facility Provider Assessment, which started in March 2011, the assessment is used exclusively to pay for administrative expenses incurred by the Kansas Department on Aging (KDOA), increased nursing facility payments to fund covered services to Medicaid beneficiaries, restoration of the 10.0 percent provider reduction in effect for dates of service from January 1 through June 30, 2010, and restoration of funding for FY 2010 rebasing and inflation to be applied to rates in FY 2011. During the second year of the Nursing Facility Provider Assessment, the 2010 10.0 percent provider reduction no longer needs to be restored but increased payments to nursing facilities, reimbursement of administration costs, and re-basing and inflation will still be applied. In FY 2011, the provider assessment resulted in $51.1 million from all funding sources for increased payments to providers and is still in its first year through the majority of FY 2012.
Developmental Disabilities Provider Assessment

2011 Senate Bill 210 created a provider assessment model for Home and Community Based Services/Developmental Disabilities (HCBS/DD) providers based assessments on the gross revenues received for providing services to individuals with developmental disabilities. Gross revenues would exclude any charitable donations. The assessed funds will be used to draw down additional federal match funds would be used for enhanced rates to providers. Currently, HCBS/DD providers are awaiting approval by CMS to participate in a provider assessment model. Should CMS authorize approval of this class of providers and then subsequently approve a Kansas waiver submission to add this provider class, then 2011 Senate Bill 210 establishes a provider assessment for developmental disabilities providers that would be implemented in the fiscal year these two authorization approvals are granted and would sunset four years after implementation. As of September 2011, the two authorization approvals have not occurred. Should this situation change, 2011 Senate Bill 210 requires the provider assessment to be implemented within 30 days of authorization approval. No funds generated by the provider assessment can be allowed to be transferred to the State General Fund at any time or be used to replace existing funding.
page 3
O-2
Bobbi Mariani, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
O-2
page 4

Health O-3
Health
O-3 Olmstead Institutional and Community Placement Decisions
The Supreme Court Decision
In 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581. This case is now used as the basis for what is required when caring for individuals with disabilities and determining whether to place them in institutional settings or community settings. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that people with disabilities be integrated into the community as much as possible, provided that community placement will serve the needs of the individual. In fact, the ADA identifies unjustified segregation of individuals with disabilities as a form of discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. 12101(a)(2). In the Olmstead case, two unrelated women with mental disabilities from the State of Georgia were in the state hospital system. One woman (L.C.) was deemed stable enough to move into community care in 1993. She was not transitioned into a community setting until 1996. The other woman (E.W.) was deemed able to be treated in the community in 1996. She was not moved into a community setting until several months into 1997. Both women argued that this delay in transitioning them into the community constituted discrimination. The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, agreed with this argument, saying, [t]he States responsibility, once it provides community-based treatment to qualified persons with disabilities, is not boundless. The reasonable-modifications regulation speaks of reasonable modifications to avoid discrimination, and allows States to resist modifications that entail a fundamenta[l] alter[ation] of the States services and programs. The Court also stated that there is no requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire it.
Olmstead Institutional and Community Placement Decisions
Other Health reports available O-1
O-2 Kansas Provider Assessments O-4 Transfer of Kansas Health Policy Authority
Jay Hall, Research Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
However, if the patient does qualify for community-based treatment, and that individual desires to be placed in a community setting, the State would be asked to demonstrate that it had a comprehensive, effectively working plan for placing qualified persons with mental disabilities in less
restrictive settings, and a waiting list that moved at a reasonable pace not controlled by the States endeavors to keep its institutions fully populated. The opinion of the Court was delivered by Justice Ginsburg and joined by Justices Stevens, OConnor, Souter, and Breyer. It should be noted that although he did not join the opinion of the Court, Justice Kennedy concurred in the judgment. Justice Breyer joined this opinion. This means that although he did not support all of the arguments made in the Court opinion, Justice Kennedy supported the ultimate outcome. In addition to joining the opinion of the Court, Justice Stevens wrote a concurring opinion in which he outlined the areas where he differed from the Court opinion, most notably in that the Court did not simply affirm the Court of Appeals decision, but instead vacated that decision in part and remanded that portion for further proceedings. The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Thomas and joined by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Scalia, argued that [t]emporary exclusion from community placement does not amount to discrimination.... Most of the dissent focuses on whether or not the harm in this case even amounts to discrimination. The dissent went on to say that limited resources allowed states to make patients wait their turn for placement in the community. It should be noted that since this ruling was handed down four changes have been made on the Court. Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Stevens, Souter, and OConnor have been replaced by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
The Role of the Department of Justice

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) accepts complaints from individuals who believe that they are being discriminated against in violation of the Supreme Courts ruling in Olmstead. These complaints can be made directly to the DOJ at http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/olmstead_complaints.htm. In 2009, President Barack Obama issued a proclamation declaring it the Year of Community Living. See http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Commemorates-Anniversary-ofOlmstead-and-Announces-New-Initiatives-to-Assist-Americans-with-Disabilities/. Since that time, the DOJ has been pursuing Olmstead violations much more aggressively. The DOJ also has posted a statement of enforcement on its website to give some guidance to states in implementing the requirements of the Olmstead ruling. See http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/q&a_ olmstead.htm.
Recent Olmstead Cases

New Hampshire In April 2011, the DOJ filed a Letter of Findings against the State of New Hampshire citing [s] ystematic failures in the States system place qualified individuals with disabilities at risk of unnecessary institutionalization now and going forward. See http://www.ada.gov/olmstead/documents/new_ hampshire_findings.pdf. The DOJ outlines the steps necessary to remedy the situation.
O-3
page 2
Mississippi The DOJ filed a statement of interest in the case of Troupe v. Barbour, 10-CV-00153 (S.D.MS 2010). The plaintiffs allege that Medicaid-eligible children are not being provided mental health services that they need. The DOJ filed its statement of interest to assist the plaintiffs in opposing the States motion for dismissal. As of early September 2011, the case is still pending. Louisiana The Federal District Court denied the States motion for Summary Judgment in the case of Pitts v. Greenstein, CV 10-635-JJB-SR (M.D. LA 2010). The plaintiffs allege that the State has proposed to reduce long-term personal care services for disabled individuals for the second consecutive year (from 56 hours to 42 hours in 2009 and from 42 hours to 32 hours in 2010). The plaintiffs doctors agree that reduction in care for their patients could result in significant harm. As of early September 2011, the case is still pending. Texas The DOJ filed a motion to intervene in the case of Steward v. Perry, 5:10 CV-1025-OLG (W.D. Tex. 2010). The plaintiffs allege that the State of Texas is segregating disabled individuals in nursing homes. As of early September 2011, the case is still pending. Missouri The DOJ filed a statement of interest in the case of Hiltibran v. Levy, 10-4185-CV-C-NKL (C.D. Mo 2010). The plaintiffs allege that the State has refused claims for incontinence supplies, which are medically necessary for the plaintiffs to remain in community care settings and avoid placement in institutions. On June 24, 2011, the District Court awarded summary judgment to the plaintiffs, permanently enjoining the State to prevent it from denying incontinence supply claims. Delaware The DOJ settled with the State of Delaware to resolve a complaint filed by individuals with mental illness being segregated in institutional settings rather than being integrated into the community as well as complaints about the conditions at the Delaware Psychiatric Center. In the settlement, the State agrees to provide community-based services as outlined in the agreement prior to the deadlines set out in the agreement. California In July 2011, the DOJ filed a statement of interest in the case of Darling v. Douglas, C09-03798 SBA. This law suit came about as a result of the State of Californias proposed elimination of Adult Day Health Care service on September 1, 2011. The plaintiffs sued to prevent the State from eliminating those services until other services that will meet the same needs are put into place to avoid forcing the individuals that depend on those services into institutions. As of early September 2011, the case is still pending.
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 O-3
North Carolina The DOJ investigated the State of North Carolina for alleged violations of Olmstead. In the DOJ report of findings, the DOJ found that the State had not provided the most integrated settings possible for care. The report stated that [t]he State plans, structures, and administers its mental health service system to deliver services to thousands of persons with mental illness in large, segregated adult care homes, and to allocate funding to serve individuals in adult care homes rather than in integrated settings. See Summary of Facts, DOJ Letter of Findings to North Carolina. As a result of these findings, the DOJ recommended that the State move more individuals into community care and that those individuals be provided with a support system in the community. The DOJ also recommended that the State to transition individuals with mental illness to community settings with the necessary supports to maintain their mental health. For more information, please contact:
Jay Hall, Research Analyst [email protected]
O-3
page 4

Health O-4 Transfer of Kansas Health Policy Authority Other Health reports available O-1
Health
Transition of the Kansas Health Policy Authority into the Kansas Department of Health and Environment as the Division of Health Care Finance
The 2011 Legislature approved the implementation of the Governors Executive Reorganization Order (ERO) No. 38, effective July 1, 2011, which: Created the Division of Health Care Finance (DHCF) within the Department of Health and Environment (KDHE); Abolished the Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) established in 2005 as a state agency within the executive branch of state government; Transferred the duties of KHPA to the newly established Division of Health Care Finance within KDHE; Transferred the duties of any agency, department, board, commission or council, providing services or creating systems in order to comply with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111-148, 124 Stat. 119) (2010) and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-152, 124 Stat. 1029) (2010) to KDHE and DHCF; and Transferred the balances of all funds or accounts appropriated or reappropriated for the KHPA within the state treasury to KDHE for DHCF to be used only for the purpose for which the appropriation originally was made.
O-2 Kansas Provider Assessments O-3 Olmstead Institutional and Community Placement Decisions
Iraida Orr, Research Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Executive Reorganization Order Process. The Governor is authorized under Article 1, Section 6 of the Kansas Constitution to reorganize state agencies, within the executive branch of government, by issuing an executive reorganization order. EROs must be transmitted to both houses of the Legislature on the same day, within the first 30 calendar days of any regular session. An ERO becomes effective and has the effect of general law on July 1 unless, within 60 calendar days of transmittal to the Legislature, either the Senate or the House of Representatives adopts a resolution disapproving the ERO.
Purpose of ERO No. 38

The general intent of ERO No. 38 was to create a more efficient state government and produce an estimated savings of $2.4 million, including $1.0 million from the State General Fund during the first fiscal year of implementation (FY 2012), while enhancing efforts directed at improving Medicaid and other health care programs.
Implementation of ERO No. 38

The implementation of ERO No. 38 resulted in the transfer of $ 1,515,122,944, including $571,242,120 from the State General Fund (SGF), and 207.7 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) positions from the Kansas Health Policy Authority to the Kansas Department of Health and Environments newly created Division of Health Care Finance. The Division of Health Care Finance accounts for more than 85 percent of the KDHE total approved FY 2012 budget. The reorganization united the health care finance agency with the agency tasked with ensuring public health. KDHE has noted that the consolidation has allowed for the participation of KDHE Divisions in agency-wide planning, including the preparation and implementation of a three-year strategic plan. Other opportunities to increase capacity across agency divisions cited by KDHE as being created by consolidation include the coordination of Public Health Informatics and Division of Health Care Finance data analysis functions and the focus on programs promoting public health which would impact Medicaid populations. The federal Centers for Disease Control-funded Office of Effective Performance Management also was established within the Director of Healths Office to maximize collection and utilization of performance measures to effect evidence-based improvements across the Divisions of Public Health and Health Care Finance. With the implementation of ERO No. 38, the total number of FTE positions in the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (and Kansas Health Policy Authority) decreased from 1,084.4 FTE in the FY 2011 approved budget to 975.4 FTE in the FY 2012 approved budget. Information regarding FTE positions approved by program for FY 2011 and FY 2012 follows.
Program Administration (KDHE and KHPA) Public Health KHPA/Health Care Finance Environment TOTAL *Including former KHPA
Number of FTEs FY 2011 Approved* FY 2012 Approved 156.6 105.4 265.6 258.6 231.2 190.4 431.0 421.0 1,084.4 975.4
Division of Health Care Finance Programs. Programs previously within the Kansas Health Policy Authority have been transferred to the Division of Health Care Finance. These programs encompass the oversight of: Medicaid; Childrens Health Insurance Program (CHIP, also known as HealthWave); Medi-Kan; State Employees Health Benefit Program; and State Self Insurance Fund (SSIF), which provides workers compensation coverage to state employees.
Historical Overview of the Kansas Health Policy Authority

The Kansas Health Policy Authority (KHPA) was established on July 1, 2005, by 2005 House Sub. for SB 272 as a state agency within the executive branch of state government. KHPA was charged with the development and maintenance of a coordinated health policy agenda that combined effective purchasing and administration of health care with health promotion oriented public health strategies. The bill directed the Legislative Coordinating Council to establish and appoint a joint special committee with the exclusive responsibility to monitor the operations and decisions of KHPA. The same legislation also established the Division of Health Policy and Finance and created the position of Director of Health Policy and Finance within the Department of Administration. On July 1, 2006, KHPA assumed the operational and purchasing responsibility for the regular medical portion of the state Medicaid program, Medi-Kan, the Childrens Health Insurance Program, and the State Employee Health Benefits plan. In 2007, Legislature adopted SB 11, which directed KHPA to look at Medicaid reform issues while developing a statewide health reform agenda. The first health reform agenda was approved by the KHPA Board in 2007, and later revised in 2008.
page 3
O-4
KHPA was abolished by ERO No. 38. The legislation which created KHPA provided that the agency would be abolished on July 1, 2013. The legislative oversight committee created to monitor KHPA was set to terminate on the same date. For more information, please contact:
Iraida Orr, Research Analyst Iraida.Orr @klrd.ks.gov
Bobbi Mariani, Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
O-4
page 4

Immigration P-1
Immigration
P-1 Immigration Issues
Introduction
This briefing paper will discuss the Arizona immigration law and the federal court challenge of the Arizona law. In addition, the proposed 2008 Kansas immigration law, the current Kansas in-state tuition law, and E-verify will be discussed.
Immigration Issues
Arizona Law
The Arizona immigration law (the Arizona law), Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, SB 1070, has generated considerable controversy nationally and internationally. The law was signed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer on April 23, 2010, and was scheduled to go into effect on July 29, 2010. Legal challenges arguing the law was unconstitutional and non-compliant with civil rights law were filed. The United States Department of Justice asked the courts for an injunction against enforcement of the law. A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the laws most controversial provisions. SB 1070 requires officials and agencies to reasonably attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful contact where reasonable suspicion exists regarding the immigration status of the person, except if the determination may hinder or obstruct an investigation. It stipulates that if the person is arrested, the persons immigration status must be determined before the person is released and must be verified with the federal government. The Arizona law makes it a misdemeanor for an alien to not carry the required documents for identification. The law also prohibits state, county, or local officials from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. It allows any legal Arizona resident to sue any state agency that does not comply with the law. In addition, the law makes it a crime for anyone to hire an illegal alien and to hire day laborers off the street. The
[email protected]
law makes it illegal to transport or conceal, harbor, or shield an alien or to encourage an alien to immigrate to Arizona, if the person knows the alien is illegal. Penalties would be assessed for each violation of the law. Critics of SB 1070 stated that it encourages racial profiling. To address these concerns, the law subsequently was modified by HB 2162 which stated that race, color, or national origin could not be used as reasonable suspicion to determine whether an alien was illegal. HB 2162 also required a violation of law to occur before a law enforcement officer could request documents to ascertain alien status.
United States Court for the District of Arizonas Ruling on the Arizona Law
The United States Department of Justice filed a lawsuit (United States of America v. Arizona) in United States District Court for the District of Arizona on July 26, 2010. The federal government requested an injunction declaring the Arizona law invalid because the law interferes with the immigration laws invested exclusively in the federal government. On July 28, 2010, Justice Susan Bolton granted a temporary injunction that blocked the key provisions of SB 1070. These provisions included law enforcements requirement to check immigration status of those individuals suspected of being illegal immigrants, which Justice Bolton ruled would overwhelm the federal governments handling of immigration cases and cause an impermissible burden on legal immigrants who would be wrongly arrested. The justice also blocked a portion of the law that required state officials to check immigration status of anyone in custody before the person detained was released from jail. She stated that federal law would be preempted and those checks would swamp federal immigration officers. The State of Arizona appealed the injunction in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals upheld the injunction. The State of Arizona appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Proposed 2008 Kansas Immigration Laws

Two immigration laws were proposed in the 2008 Kansas Legislative Session: Senate Substitute for SB 458 and House Substitute for SB 329. The conference committees could not agree on the final version of the immigration bills, resulting in no passage of a bill. The general provisions of the substitute bills were these: All state, county, and municipal governments would be required to participate in E-Verify (see page four for an explanation of E-Verify). Employers who did not participate in E-Verify and were found guilty of employing illegal immigrants would face penalties. All law enforcement officers would be required to investigate the citizenship and immigration status of any person arrested for a violation of any state law or ordinance regardless of the persons origin, ethnicity, or race. The law enforcement officer would have to verify with the federal government whether an immigrant is lawfully or unlawfully present in the United States. If the immigrant is unlawfully present, the law enforcement officer would have to cooperate with any request by federal authorities to detain or transfer the illegal immigrant to the custody of the federal government. The Kansas Attorney General would be required to enter into a cooperative agreement with the United States Department of Homeland Security to designate specific law enforcement officers qualified to exercise the enforcement powers of federal immigration officers.
P-1
page 2
The current trafficking statute would be amended to include human trafficking. Human trafficking would be defined as knowingly transporting any person into the State of Kansas who is not lawfully present in the United States, as well as recruiting, harboring, transporting or obtaining a person for services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjecting a person to involuntary servitude. In addition, human trafficking would be defined as concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection an illegal immigrant for the purpose of financial gain. Penalties would be created for human trafficking. The crime of coercing employment would be created and is defined as labor or services preformed by a person obtained under duress. Penalties would result from coercing employment. The crime of peonage would be created, defined as knowingly holding another person in a condition of involuntary servitude for a debt owed by the person. The crime of employment identity fraud would be created (severity level 8, nonperson felony). Identity fraud would be defined as willfully presenting to an employer false or misleading identification documents for the purpose of obtaining employment. The crime of inducing or aiding any person to vote who is not a lawfully registered voter would be created. The penalty would be a severity level 9, nonperson felony. An illegal immigrant would be prohibited from receiving public benefits except those benefits required by federal law. Illegal immigrants who are eligible for in-state tuition would have to file an affidavit with the Immigration Division of the Attorney Generals Office stating such alien has filed an application for citizenship. Current law requires the affidavit to be filed with a postsecondary institution. Labor unions would be prohibited from knowingly collecting union dues from illegal immigrants. Penalties would occur for violation of the proposed law. Bail for illegal immigrants arrested for various infractions would be created. The Illegal Enforcement Division within the Office of the Attorney General would be created. The duties of the Division would be to enforce the provisions of the proposed bills.
Since 2008, the Legislature has not enacted any immigration bills. States have considered legislation since the 2010 SB 1070 enacted by the Arizona Legislature. Some states have patterned their immigration laws after the Arizona law dealing with such topics as instate tuition, law enforcement attempts to identify illegal immigrants, and deportation proceedings. Some of these state laws have been challenged by the federal government as to whose authority it is to enforce immigration laws (the federal government contends that immigration laws are a federal issue and not a state issue). Congress still is debating the DREAM Act which would give citizenship to children under specific circumstances. The federal government has stepped up its deportation of illegal immigrants who commit crimes.
page 3
P-1
E-Verify
E-Verify is an electronic federal program which employers may use to verify the employment eligibility of their workers. The program was authorized by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Responsibility Act of 1996. Employers submit information taken from a new employees Form I-9 (Employment Eligibility Verification Form) through E-Verify to the Social Security Administration and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to determine whether the employee is authorized to work in the United States. The federal argument in favor of the E-Verify system is that employers have safe harbor protection in the event of discovery of unauthorized workers and can avoid penalties, employers can use the system free of charge, the system reduces unauthorized employment and minimizes verification-related discrimination, and it is a quick and easy system to use while maintaining employee privacy. Employers using E-Verify have a better chance of attracting and retaining talented foreign nationals through the H-1B lottery system. Critics of the E-Verify system contend that if the information is not contained in E-Verify for a legal immigrant or U.S. citizen, then the employer would be prevented from hiring such individual, and E-Verify can generate false positives (incorrectly shows a mismatch). Kansas employers currently are not mandated to participate in E-Verify. As noted previously, legislation in the 2008 Session proposed such a mandate, but it did not pass.
In-State Tuition
In 2004, the Kansas Legislature passed HB 2145 (KSA 76-731a), which defines the criteria for in-state tuition to illegal immigrants. The law states an individual is entitled to in-state tuition if the person has attended an accredited Kansas high school for three years or more, has either graduated from an accredited Kansas high school or earned a general education development certificate issued in Kansas, regardless of whether the person is or is not a citizen of the United States, and in the case of a person without lawful immigration status, has filed with the post secondary educational institution an affidavit stating that the person or the persons parents have filed an application to legalize such persons immigration status, or such person will file such application as soon as the person is eligible to do so or, in the case of a person with legal, nonpermanent immigration status, has filed with the postsecondary educational institution an affidavit stating that such person has filed an application to begin the process for citizenship of the United States, or will file such application as soon as the person is eligible to do so. For detailed information, go to KLRD website: http://skyways.lib.ks.us/ksleg/KLRD/immigration.
htm.
P-1
page 4

Judiciary Q-1 Tort Claims Act Other Judiciary reports available Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas Q-3
Judiciary
Q-1 Tort Claims Act
Background
The enactment of the Kansas Tort Claims Act (KTCA) in 1979 ended more than a decade of sparring between the judicial and legislative branches of state government over the issue of governmental immunity. The Kansas Supreme Court rendered five decisions between 1969 and 1979 on the issue of governmental immunity, four of which abrogated governmental immunity, either partially or completely. Several of these court opinions were countered or negated by legislative action reestablishing governmental immunity either for the State or for municipalities. One legal commentator noted after the passage of the KTCA in 1979 that the Act was so sweeping that old rules of immunity and liability did not apply.
Kansas Administrative Procedure Act
Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators Q-5
Scope of Liability
The Tort Claims Act incorporates an open-ended approach, where liability is the rule and immunity is the exception. KSA 75-6103(a) provides that subject to the limitations of the act, each governmental entity shall be liable for damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any of its employees while acting within the scope of their employment under circumstances where the governmental entity, if a private person, would be liable . . . . It is clear the law covers acts of negligence. Plaintiffs also have asserted a variety of other tort actions under this law including, among others: defamation, invasion of privacy, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, trespass, and nuisance.
Alexas Law
Q-6 Human Trafficking
Cap on Damages$500,000
[email protected]
The KTCA contains a $500,000 cap on damage awards for any number of claims arising out of a single occurrence or accident (KSA 75-6105(a)). When the amount awarded or settled on involves multiple
claimants and exceeds the statutory cap, then any party may apply to the district court for apportionment in proportion to the ratio of the award or settlement to the aggregate awards and settlements. See KSA 75-6105(b). The $500,000 cap is waived where the governmental entity has purchased insurance or has entered into a pooling arrangement which provides coverage exceeding this $500,000 liability limit. See KSA 75-6111.
What Governmental Entities Are Covered?

The Act lists those government entities it covers, including: The State (KSA 75-6102(c)): The State of Kansas; Any department or branch of state government; or Any agency, authority, institution, or other instrumentality thereof. Municipalities (KSA 75-6102(c)): Counties; Townships; Cities; School districts; Other political or taxing subdivisions of the state; or Any agency, authority, institution, or other instrumentality thereof.
What Employees Are Covered?

The Act defines employee to include the following: Any officer, employee, servant, or member of a board, commission, committee, division, department, branch, or council of a governmental entity, including the following: Elected or appointed officials; Persons acting on behalf or in service of a governmental entity in any official capacity, whether with or without compensation (the Kansas Supreme Court has held the members of a local Jaycees, Inc. organization administering a city softball league were considered city employees); and Charitable health care providers, as defined in KSA 75-6102(e). Any steward or racing judge appointed pursuant to KSA 74-8818, regardless of whether the services of such steward or racing judge are rendered pursuant to contract as an independent contractor. Employees of the United States Marshals Service engaged in the transportation of inmates on behalf of the Secretary of Corrections.
Q-1
page 2
Employees of a nonprofit independent contractor, other than a municipality, under contract to provide educational or vocational training to inmates in the custody of the Secretary of Corrections and who are engaged in providing such service (so long as the employees do not otherwise have coverage for such acts and omissions). Employees or volunteers of a nonprofit program, other than a municipality, who have contracted with the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice or another nonprofit program that has contracted with the Commissioner of Juvenile Justice to provide a juvenile justice program for juvenile offenders in a judicial district (so long as the employees or volunteers do not otherwise have coverage for such acts and omissions). An employee of an indigent health care clinic, as defined in KSA 75-6102(g). Former employees for acts and omissions within the scope of their employment during their former employment with the governmental entity. Any member of a regional medical emergency response team, created under the provisions of KSA 48-928 in connection with authorized training or upon activation for an emergency response. Medical students enrolled at the University of Kansas Medical Center who are in clinical training, on or after July 1, 2008, at the University of Kansas Medical Center or at another health care institution.
Note: Independent contractors, except as noted above, are excluded from the definition of employee.
Key Immunity Provisions

There are presently 24 different exceptions to liability that are listed in the basic immunity section of the KTCA (KSA 75-6104) compared to 15 exceptions in the original Act. The immunity provisions apply equally to a governmental entity or to an employee acting within the scope of employment. There are, however, four key exceptions to liability, i.e., legislative function, judicial function, enforcement of the law, and discretionary function. See KSA 75-6104(a)-(c) and (e). These exceptions are the most important, and arguably are broad enough to encompass most of the other, more specific exemptions. They codify the traditional notion that it cannot be a tort for government to govern. The additional exemptions, arguably, are codified primarily to give the courts direction in applying the four general exceptions, as the Act does not contain definitions of several key terms, e.g., discretion, in these basic exceptions.
page 3
Q-1
Key Immunity Provisions

Legislative Functions (KSA 75-6104(a)). The exemption covers legislative functions, including, but not limited to, the adoption or failure to adopt any statute, regulation, ordinance or resolution. You cannot sue a city for failure to enact a noise ordinance or, on the other hand, sue the city for adopting a ban on smoking in public places. Judicial Functions (KSA 75-6104(b)). The second exception provides immunity for government entities and employees exercising judicial functions. You cannot sue a judge for wrongly deciding your civil lawsuit. Enforcement of a Law (KSA 75-6104(c)). This exception immunizes actions that involve the enforcement of or failure to enforce a law, whether valid or invalid, including, but not limited to, any statute, rule and regulation, ordinance, or resolution. You cannot sue a county for failing to enforce its speed limits on county roads. Discretionary Functions (KSA 75-6104(e)). This exception covers any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a governmental entity or employee whether or not the discretion is abused and regardless of the level of discretion involved.
The discretionary exception from liability is the single most encompassing immunity provision of the KTCA. It provides the broadest scope of immunity of any of the 25 exceptions. Further, many of the other KTCA exceptions contain a discretionary ingredient. A classic example of discretionary function exception is illustrated by the case of Robertson v. City of Topeka, 231 Kan. 358, 644 P.2d 458 (1982), which found the actions of police officers who removed a homeowner from his own property but allowed another intoxicated individual to remain on the premises, who then burned the house, fell within the discretionary function exception. The court said that absent guidelines, which would be virtually impossible to formulate in anticipation of every situation an officer might encounter, police officers should be vested with the necessary discretionary authority to act without the threat of potentially large tort judgments against their employers.
Notice of Claims Against MunicipalitiesNot the State

KSA 12-105b(d) requires that a notice of claim be filed with the clerk or governing body prior to the filing of a claim against a municipality defined basically as any unit of local government. The notice of claim law does not apply to the State and its agencies. For more information, contact:
Q-1 page 4 2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Judiciary Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas Other Judiciary reports available Q-1
Judiciary
Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas
Background
On June 29, 1972, the United States Supreme Court, in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), held the imposition and execution of the death penalty, or capital punishment, in the cases before the court constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Justice Potter Stewart remarked that the death penalty was cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. That case nullified all capital sentences imposed without statutory guidelines. In the following four years, states enacted new death penalty laws aimed at overcoming the courts de facto moratorium on the death penalty. Several statutes mandated bifurcated trials, with separate guilt and sentencing phases, and imposed standards to guide the discretion of juries and judges in imposing capital sentences. In Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976), the Court upheld the capital sentencing schemes of Georgia, Florida, and Texas. The Court found that these states capital sentencing schemes provided objective criteria to direct and limit the sentencing authoritys discretion, provided mandatory appellate review of all death sentences, and allowed the judge or jury to take into account the character and record of an individual defendant. The death penalty was reenacted in Kansas, effective on July 1,1994. Then-Governor Joan Finney allowed the bill to become law without her signature. The Kansas Supreme Court, in State v. Marsh, 278 Kan. 520, 534535, 102 P. 3d 445, 458 (2004), held that the Kansas death penalty statute was facially unconstitutional. The court concluded that the statutes weighing equation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution because, [i]n the event of equipoise, i.e., the jurys determination that the balance of any aggravating circumstances and any mitigating circumstances weighed equal, the death penalty would be required. Id., at 534, 102 P. 3d, at 457. The United States Supreme Court reversed the Kansas Supreme Courts judgment and held the Kansas capital sentencing statute is constitutional. In June 2006, the Court found that the Kansas death penalty statute satisfies the constitutional mandates
Tort Claims Act
Q-3 Kansas Administrative Procedure Act Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators Q-5
Alexas Law

[email protected]
of Furman and its progeny because it rationally narrows the class of death-eligible defendants and permits a jury to consider any mitigating evidence relevant to its sentencing determination. It does not interfere, in a constitutionally significant way, with a jurys ability to give independent weight to evidence offered in mitigation.
Kansas Capital Murder Crime

In Kansas, the capital murder crimes for which the death penalty can be invoked include the following: Intentional and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of kidnapping, or aggravated kidnapping, when the kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping was committed with the intent to hold the person for ransom; Intentional and premeditated killing of any person under a contract or agreement to kill that person or being a party to the contract killing; Intentional and premeditated killing of any person by an inmate or prisoner confined to a state correctional institution, community correctional institution or jail or while in the custody of an officer or employee of a state correctional institution, community correctional institution or jail; Intentional and premeditated killing of the victim of one of the following crimes in the commission of, or subsequent to, the crime of rape, criminal sodomy, or aggravated criminal sodomy, or any attempt thereof; Intentional and premeditated killing of a law enforcement officer; Intentional and premeditated killing of more than one person as a part of the same act or transaction or in two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or course of conduct; or Intentional and premeditated killing of a child under the age of 14 in the commission of kidnapping, or aggravated kidnapping, when the kidnapping or aggravated kidnapping was committed with intent to commit a sex offense upon or with the child or with the intent that the child commit or submit to a sex offense.
According to Kansas law, upon conviction of a defendant of capital murder, there will be a separate proceeding to determine whether the defendant shall be sentenced to death. This proceeding will be conducted before the trial jury as soon as practicable. If the jury finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that one or more aggravating circumstances exist and that such aggravating circumstances are not outweighed by any mitigating circumstances which are found to exist, then by unanimous vote, the defendant will be sentenced to death. The Kansas Supreme Court will automatically review the conviction and sentence of a defendant sentenced to death. If mitigating circumstances outweigh the aggravating circumstances, a defendant convicted of capital murder will not be given a death sentence but will be sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. A defendant sentenced to life without the possibility of parole is not eligible for parole, probation, assignment to a community correctional services program, conditional release, post-release supervision, or suspension, modification, or reduction of sentence.
Q-2
page 2
Costs
Generally, costs for death penalty cases tend to be higher at the trial and appeal stages. In fact, cases in which the death penalty was sought and imposed could cost about 70 percent more than cases in which the death penalty was not sought. It should be noted that none of the death penalty cases have completed the legal process, except for the two cases that were pled to life sentences before retrial. Therefore, the total cost of a death penalty case remains uncertain. Costs By Case Type Death Sentence (7 cases) Total Cost for Group Most Expensive Case Least Expensive Case Median Cost for a Case $10.6 million $2.4 million $1.1 million $1.2 million Death Penalty SoughtSentenced to Prison (7 cases) $6.3 million $1.1 million $0.7 million $0.9 million Death Penalty Not Sought (8 cases) $6.3 million $1.0 million $0.6 million $0.7 million
Source: 2003 Performance Audit Report for Death Penalty Cases: A K-Goal Audit of the Department of Corrections
The Kansas Board of Indigents Defense established a Kansas Death Penalty Defense unit, with four public defenders who specialize in capital punishment issues. The approved budget for the Capital Defense Unit in FY 2012 will be $1.43 million. Actual expenditures for the unit in FY 2011 were $1.62 million.
Death Penalty and Mental Retardation

At the national level, the U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002), stated that capital punishment of those with mental retardation is cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling holding that it is unconstitutional to execute people with mental retardation, various states attempted to draft legislation that would comply with the Atkins ruling. Currently, Kansas law defines mentally retarded to mean a person having significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning to an extent which substantially impairs ones capacity to appreciate the criminality of ones conduct or to conform ones conduct to the requirements of law. In the Atkins decision, there is no definition of mentally retarded, but the Court referred to a national consensus regarding mental retardation. In this context, recent bill drafts address the topic of mental retardation, in addition to other issues. In 2003 HB 2439, which did not pass, mental retardation was defined as a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills which originates before the age of 18.
page 3
Q-2
In 2004 SB 355, which also did not pass, the term cognitive disability was used instead of mental retardation. Cognitive disability was defined to mean a disability characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and deficits in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. Significant limitations in intellectual functioning meant two or more standard deviations below the norm. The 2004 Interim Special Committee on Judiciary examined the death penalty in view of the Atkins v. Virginia case and, specifically, the substance of 2004 SB 355. Several bills were introduced during the 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008 Sessions on this issue, but no action was taken.
Death Penalty and Minors

In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the death penalty for all juvenile offenders. The majority opinion pointed to teenagers lack of maturity and responsibility, greater vulnerability to negative influences, and incomplete character development, concluding that juvenile offenders assume diminished culpability for their crimes. A provision in current Kansas law declares that if a defendant in a capital murder case was less than 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime, the court shall sentence the defendant as otherwise provided by law, and no sentence of death shall be imposed. As a result of KSA 21-4622, cited here, the death penalty or capital punishment cannot be imposed on a minor in Kansas.
Method of Carrying Out Death Penalty

The method of carrying out a sentence of death in Kansas will be by intravenous injection of a substance or substances in sufficient quantity to cause death in a swift and humane manner pursuant to KSA 22-4001.
Inmates in Kansas Under Sentence of Death

Date Capital Penalty Imposed Mar. 20, 2009 Jan. 23, 2008 Aug. 28, 2006 Nov. 17, 2004 Jan. 21, 2003 Nov. 15, 2002 Nov. 15, 2002 Mar. 11, 1998 Oct. 6, 2005 Case Status Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending Appeal Pending-Sentence Vacated
Defendants Name Justin Eugene Thurber Scott Dever Cheever Sidney John Gleason Douglas Stephen Belt John Edward Robinson, Sr. Jonathan Daniel Carr Reginald Dexter Carr, Jr. Gary Wayne Kleypas Phillip D. Cheatham, Jr.
Race White White Black White White Black Black White Black
Birth Mar. 14, 1983 Aug. 19, 1981 Apr. 22, 1979 Nov. 19, 1961 Dec. 27, 1943 Mar. 30, 1980 Nov. 14, 1977 Oct. 8, 1955 Jan. 6, 1973
County Cowley Greenwood Barton Sedgwick Johnson Sedgwick Sedgwick Crawford Shawnee
On November 17, 2004, the death sentence of Stanley Elms of Sedgwick County was vacated pursuant to a plea agreement. He was removed from administrative segregation and sentenced to the Hard 40 term, which is life in prison with no possibility of parole for 40 years.
On April 3, 2009, the death sentence of Michael Marsh of Sedgwick County was vacated pursuant to a plea agreement. He was removed from administrative segregation and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. On March 24, 2010, the death sentence of Gavin Scott of Sedgwick County was vacated pursuant to a plea agreement. He was removed from administrative segregation and sentenced to two life sentences. As of September 2010, nine inmates are held in administrative segregation since technically Kansas does not have a death row. Inmates, therefore, under sentence of death are held in administrative segregation at the El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF), except for Scott Cheever who is being held at the Lansing Correctional Facility because of the proximity of Greenwood County to EDCF.
State-to-State Comparison
Kansas is one of 34 states that has a death penalty. The two following tables show the states with a death penalty and the 16 states without such penalty. Jurisdictions with the Death Penalty Maryland North Carolina Tennessee U.S. Military* Mississippi Ohio Texas Missouri Oklahoma Utah Montana Oregon Virginia Nebraska Pennsylvania Washington Nevada South Carolina Wyoming New Hampshire* South Dakota Plus U.S. Government
Alabama Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware
Florida Georgia Idaho Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana
* Indicates jurisdiction with no executions since 1976.
Alaska (1957) Hawaii (1948) Illinois (2011) Iowa (1965) Maine (1887) Massachusetts (1984)
*
Jurisdictions without the Death Penalty (year abolished in parentheses) Michigan (1846) North Dakota Minnesota (1911) Rhode Island New Jersey (2007) Vermont New Mexico* (2009) West Virginia New York Wisconsin District of Columbia Puerto Rico
In March 2009, New Mexico repealed the death penalty. The repeal was not retroactive, which left two people on the states death row. (Source: Death Penalty Information Center)
Recent Developments
In March 2009, the Senate Judiciary Committee opened the hearing on SB 208 to repeal the death penalty in Kansas. The bill was amended and passed out of the Committee. The Senate Committee of
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 Q-2
the Whole re-referred the bill to the Senate Judiciary Committee for study by the Judicial Council during the Interim. The Judicial Council formed the Death Penalty Advisory Committee to study SB 208 and concluded the bill presented a number of technical problems which could not be resolved by amending the bill. Instead, the Committee drafted a new bill which was introduced in the 2010 Legislative Session as SB 375. SB 375 was passed, as amended, out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary. However, the bill was killed on final action in the Senate Committee of the Whole. For more information, please contact:
Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 10th, Room 68-West, Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Phone: (785) 296-3181 Fax: (785) 296-3824
Q-2
page 6

Judiciary Q-3
Judiciary
Q-3 Kansas Administrative Procedure Act
Administrative law deals with actions that arise out of state agencies, and for the purpose of hearings by state agencies. Generally, agencies are charged with executing action to further legislative policies and purposes. These powers typically are delegated by statute. Administrative procedure guiding agencies generally is simpler and less formal than judicial procedure. One of the purposes of administrative remedies is to allow individuals to resolve their disputes in a less cumbersome and less expensive way than by a trial in court. In addition, administrative actions are adjudicatory in nature. An adjudicatory hearing is a proceeding before an administrative agency in which the rights and duties of the person involved are determined after notice and opportunity to be heard. A Revised Model State Administrative Procedure Act was drafted in Kansas in 1961 and revised in 1981. According to the 1981 revision, the Model Act applied to all agencies not expressly exempted and further, it warned that it only created procedural rights and imposed procedural duties. A procedural act does not create substantive legal rights. Such substantive legal rights can exist only by statute, by the agencys rules and regulations, or by some constitutional command. The Kansas Administrative Procedure Act (KAPA), KSA 77-501, et seq., was enacted in 1984 and became effective July 1, 1985. Under KAPA, the object is to conduct a fair and impartial hearing for people who contest state agency actions that have impacted their legal rights. The Kansas Judicial Review Act (KJRA), KSA 77-601, et seq., was enacted as a companion piece of legislation. The Kansas Judicial Council was actively involved with the enactment of KAPA and recommended that KAPA apply to all state agencies. The Council also recommended that KJRA be enacted as the appeal act for all agency actions. These Acts, however, were enacted in a more restrictive fashion. Consistency of agency action has been cited as a major purpose of an administrative procedure act. Along the same lines of reasoning, fairness often is mentioned as a major purpose of KAPA as the same rules apply to all parties, who are to be given full opportunity to proceed
Other Judiciary reports available Q-1 Tort Claims Act Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators Q-5
Alexas Law

[email protected]
under the Act. Further, it is purported to exclude most agency bias when independent hearing examiners are used. In 1997, the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) within the Department of Administration was established for the purpose of conducting administrative hearings for the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. During the 1997 Interim, the Special Committee on Judiciary, after a study of the centralized office concept, recommended that the administrative hearing officers of all state agencies covered by KAPA be transferred to OAH. The Legislative Division of Post Audit conducted an audit (March 2001) titled Centralized Administrative Hearings: Reviewing the Advantages and Disadvantages. According to the audit, proponents of centralized administrative hearings indicated that such a measure would promote both fairness and the perception of fairness by eliminating the conflict of interest that exists when a hearing officer works for the agency that is party to the proceeding. Efficiency of operation and economic feasibility also were cited as reasons for the centralized hearing mechanism. Opposition to the measure was noted by the concern that hearing officers will become generalists without adequate technical expertise in particular subject matter areas. As a result of the Post Audit, action was taken by the OAH that included: Handling cases on a timely basis; Establishing an equitable system of billing; Reporting estimated income from all sources in the OAH budget; and Ensuring that participants involved in the hearing process are aware of OAHs independence from the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
In 2004, SB 141 was enacted, extending the responsibility for conducting administrative hearings for nearly all state agencies to the OAH over a five-year phase-in schedule beginning July 1, 2005, and concluding July 1, 2009. Since July 1, 2009, the OAH has existed as a free-standing agency, separate from the Department of Administration. In 2007, SB 351 was enacted, requiring all agencies, boards, and commissions to utilize the OAH for hearings held in accordance with the KAPA on and after July 1, 2009. For more information, please contact:
Q-3
page 2

Judiciary Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators Other Judiciary reports available Q-1 Tort Claims Act Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas Q-3
Judiciary
Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators
Sex Offender Registration
During the 2011 Legislative Session, the Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act was amended substantially to comply with the federal Adam Walsh Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA). The purpose of the federal law is to protect the public, in particular children, from violent sex offenders by using a more comprehensive, nationalized system for registration of sex offenders. It calls for state conformity to various aspects of sex offender registration, including the information that must be collected, duration of registration requirement for classifications of offenders, verification of registry information, access to and sharing of information, and penalties for failure to register as required. Failure of a jurisdiction to comply would result in a 10 percent reduction in Byrne law enforcement assistance grants. The Justice Department announced on July 28, 2011, that 14 states, Kansas included, substantially had implemented SORNA. The other states are Alabama, Delaware, Florida, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming. To achieve substantial compliance with SORNA, 2011 House Sub for SB 37 made numerous amendments to the Kansas Sex Offender Registration Act. First, it limited the definition of offender to sex offenders, violent offenders, and drug offenders, all of which were defined in the bill, in addition to persons required to register in other states or by a Kansas court for a crime that is not otherwise an offense requiring registration. The definitions of sex offenders, violent offenders, and drug offenders incorporate the crimes removed from the former definition of offender. The bill also defines other key terms. Pursuant to the bill, a first conviction of failure to comply with the provisions of the Act became a severity level 5, person felony, (formerly a level 6, person felony); a second conviction remained a level 5, person felony; and a third or subsequent conviction became a level 3, person
Q-5
Alexas Law

[email protected]
felony. Additionally, failure to comply with the Act for more than 180 consecutive days is considered an aggravated violation, a level 3, person felony. Further, the bill consolidated the duties of several entities into a single statute and incorporated those things SORNA required of each. Each entitys responsibilities are outlined in its own subsection as follows: (a) Courts (at the time of sentencing or disposition for an offense requiring registration); (b) Staff of a correctional facility; (c) Staff of a treatment facility; (d) Registering law enforcement agencies; (e) Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI); (f) Attorney General; (g) Kansas Department of Education; (h) Secretary of Health and Environment; and (I) The clerk of any court of record. Registration requirements also were amended. An offender now must register in person with the registering law enforcement agency within three business days of coming into any county or location of jurisdiction in which the offender resides or intends to reside, maintains employment or intends to maintain employment, or attends school or intends to attend school. Exceptions exist for anyone physically unable to register in person, at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency. Additionally, sex offenders must report in person four times a year to the registering law enforcement agency in the county or location of jurisdiction in which the offender resides, maintains employment, or is attending school. Violent offenders and drug offenders, at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency, are required to report in person three times each year and by certified letter one time each year. If incapacitated, the registering law enforcement agency may allow violent offenders and drug offenders to report by certified letter four times a year. An offender must register during the month of the offenders birth, and every third, sixth, and ninth month occurring before and after the offenders birthday. Each time, the offender must pay a $20 fee, with some exceptions. Offenders also must register in person within three business days of commencement, change, or termination of residence, employment status, school attendance, or other information required on the registration form, with the registering law enforcement agency where last registered and provide written notice to the KBI . Similarly, an offender must register within three business days of any name change. Finally, the offender must submit to the taking of an updated photograph when registering or to document any changes in identifying characteristics; renew any drivers license or identification card
annually; surrender any drivers licenses or identification cards from other jurisdictions when Kansas is the offenders primary residence (an exception exists for active duty members of the military and their immediate family); and read and sign registration forms indicating whether these requirements have been explained. The bill provided special conditions for registration in certain circumstances. If in the custody of a correctional facility or in the care or custody of a treatment facility, the bill requires offenders to register with that facility within three business days of arrival, but does not require them to update their registration until they are allowed to leave. If receiving inpatient treatment at any treatment facility, the offender must inform the registering law enforcement agency of the offenders presence at the facility and the expected duration of the treatment. If an offender is transient, the bill requires the offender to report in person to the registering law enforcement agency of the county or location of jurisdiction within three business days of arrival, and every 30 days thereafter, or more often at the discretion of the registering law enforcement agency. If traveling outside the U.S., the offender must notify the registering law enforcement agency and the KBI 21 days prior to travel, and within three days of making travel arrangements. Pursuant to the bill, offenders are required to register for 15 or 25 years, or for life, depending on the offense. Those crimes requiring registration for 15 years are: capital murder; murder in the first degree; murder in the second degree; voluntary manslaughter; involuntary manslaughter; criminal restraint, when the victim is less than 18; a sexually motivated crime; a person felony where a deadly weapon was used; manufacture or attempted manufacture of a controlled substance; possession of certain drug precursors; when one of the parties is less than 18, sexual battery, adultery, patronizing a prostitute, or lewd and lascivious behavior; or attempt, conspiracy, or criminal solicitation of any of these crimes. Those crimes requiring registration for 25 years are: criminal sodomy, when one of the parties is less than 18; indecent solicitation of a child; electronic solicitation; aggravated incest; indecent liberties with a child; unlawful sexual relations; sexual exploitation of a child; aggravated sexual battery; promoting prostitution; or any attempt, conspiracy, or criminal solicitation of any of these crimes. Those crimes requiring registration for life are: second or subsequent convictions of an offense requiring registration; rape; aggravated indecent solicitation of a child; aggravated indecent liberties with a child; criminal sodomy; aggravated criminal sodomy; aggravated human trafficking; sexual exploitation of a child; promoting prostitution; kidnapping; aggravated kidnapping; or any attempt, conspiracy, or criminal solicitation of any of these crimes. Additionally, any person declared a sexually violent predator is required to register for life. Offenders 14 years of age or older who are adjudicated as a juvenile offender for an act that would be considered a sexually violent crime when committed by an adult, and which is a severity level 1 non-drug felony or an offgrid felony, also must register for life. For offenders 14 years of age or older who are adjudicated as a juvenile offender for an act that would be considered a sexually violent crime when committed by an adult, and which is not a severity level 1 non-drug felony or an off-grid felony, a court may: Require registration until the offender reaches 18, five years after adjudication or, if confined, five years after release from confinement, whichever occurs later; Not require registration if it finds on the record substantial and compelling reasons therefor; or
page 3
Q-4
Require registration, but with the information not open to the public or posted on the internet (the offender would be required to provide a copy of such an order to the registering law enforcement agency at the time of registration, which in turn, would forward the order to the KBI ).
The statute governing the form used for registration was amended to require: KBI approval, rather than preparation; information in addition to that already required; and that the signature of the offender be witnessed by the registering officer. The bill also amended the provisions in that section governing the mandatory collection of DNA samples and clarified what information is required to be posted on a website sponsored or created by a registering law enforcement agency or the KBI . Finally, the bill amended the provisions concerning the expungement of juvenile records and adult records, to provide that an offender required to register pursuant to the Act cannot expunge any conviction or part of the offenders criminal record while the offender is required to register. (2010 Session Laws Ch. 136 recodified the Kansas Criminal Code and went into effect July 1, 2011.) The Kansas Legislature has been at the forefront of state and federal efforts to deal with the problem of sex offenders and sex predators. Since 1993, the Kansas Legislature has passed the Kansas Offender Registration Act; passed the Civil Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators Act; reinstated the death penalty for various acts of intentional and premeditated murder following the rape or sodomy of the victim or following the kidnapping of the victim; made life without parole the sentence for those persons convicted of a capital murder crime who are not given the sentence of death; nearly quadrupled the length of time more serious offenders, including sex offenders, serve in prison; lengthened the statute of limitations for sex crimes; and required DNA testing. The 2006 Legislature authorized the creation of the Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB) under the auspices of the Kansas Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (KCJCC). The amendment to KSA 74-9501 (Senate Bill 506; 2006 Session Law, Chapter 214, Sec. 14) established the SOPB to consult with and advise the KCJCC on issues and policies relating to the treatment, sentencing, rehabilitation, reintegration and supervision of sex offenders and to report its findings to the KCJCC, Governor, Attorney General, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives, and the Secretary of the Senate. The SOPBs first report examined four topics: utilization of electronic monitoring, public notification pertaining to sex offenders, management of juvenile sex offenders, and restrictions on the residence of released sex offenders. The second report addressed the topics of treatment and supervision standards for sexual offenders, suitability of lifetime release supervision, and safety education and prevention strategies for the public.
Sex Offender Residency Restrictions

2006 SB 506 prohibited cities and counties from adopting or enforcing any ordinance, resolution, or regulation establishing residential restrictions for offenders required to register under the Offender Registration Act. The provision prohibiting residency restrictions was scheduled to expire on June 30, 2008. The bill also authorized the creation of the Sex Offender Policy Board (SOPB). During the 2006 Interim, the Special Committee on Judiciary was charged by the Legislative Coordinating Council with studying 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 Kansas SOPB issued a Report on its findings regarding sex offender residency restrictions, with the following conclusions: Although residency restrictions appear to have strong public support, the Board found no evidence to support their efficacy. It is imperative that policy makers enact laws that actually will make the public safe and not laws giving the public a false sense of security. It is recommended that the legislature make permanent the moratorium on residency restrictions. However, the moratorium should not be intended to interfere with a localitys ability to regulate through zoning the location of congregate dwellings for offenders such as group homes. Residency restrictions should be determined based on individually identified risk factors. The most effective alternative for protecting children is a comprehensive education program. It is recommended that the necessary resources be provided to an agency determined appropriate by the Legislature to educate Kansas parents, children and communities regarding effective ways to prevent and respond to sexual abuse. Such an education program should include all victims and potential victims of child sexual abuse. In order for an effective model policy to be developed, the issue of sex offender residency restrictions should be referred to the Council of State Governments, the National Governors Association and similar organizations to prevent states and localities from shifting the population and potential problems of managing sex offenders back and forth among states.
During the 2008 Legislative Session, SB 536 was enacted 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; Add a provision to exempt any city or county residential licensing or zoning program for correctional placement residences that regulates housing for such offenders from the prohibition from adopting or enforcing offender residency restrictions; Add a provision which defines correctional placement residence to mean a facility that provides residential services for offenders who reside or have been placed in the facility as part of a criminal sentence or for voluntary treatment services for alcohol or drug abuse; and
page 5 Q-4
Clarify that a correctional placement residence does not include a single or multifamily dwelling or commercial residential building that provides residence to persons other than those placed in the facility as part of a criminal sentence or for voluntary treatment services for alcohol or drug abuse.
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.
Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators in Kansas

In Kansas, a sexually violent predator is a person who has been convicted of or charged with a sexually violent offense and who suffers from a mental abnormality or personality disorder, which makes the person likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence. Sexually violent predators are distinct from other sex offenders due to a higher risk to re-offend if their mental abnormality or personality disorder is left untreated. Those crimes considered sexually violent offenses are: rape, KSA 21-5503; indecent liberties with a child and aggravated indecent liberties, KSA 21-5506; criminal sodomy and aggravated criminal sodomy, KSA 21-5504; indecent solicitation of a child and aggravated indecent solicitation, KSA 21-5508; sexual exploitation of a child, KSA 21-5510; aggravated sexual battery, KSA 21-5505; and aggravated incest, KSA 21-5604. Mental abnormality is defined as a congenital or acquired condition affecting the emotional or volitional capacity, which predisposes the person to commit sexually violent offenses in a degree constituting such person a menace to the health and safety of others. Likely to engage in repeat acts of sexual violence means the persons propensity to commit acts of sexual violence is of such a degree as to pose a menace to the health and safety of others. Pursuant to KSA 59-29a01 et seq., originally enacted in 1994, a sexually violent predator can be involuntarily committed to the Sexual Predator Treatment Program at Larned State Hospital. Civil commitment is different from a criminal conviction. Instead of having a definitive time frame, civil commitment continues until the offenders mental abnormality or personality disorder has changed to the extent that he or she is safe to be released. Commitment can be accomplished only following a civil trial in which the court or a jury finds that a person is a sexually violent predator. A sexually violent predator would be required to complete the seven phases of the treatment program, which include five inpatient phases at Larned State Hospital and two outpatient phases at Osawatomie State Hospital. There is no time limit for completion of each phase. The offender must meet the predetermined requirements of the phase to progress. Upon release from the secure facility, a person would then go to a transitional release or conditional release facility. These facilities cannot be located within 2,000 feet of a licensed child care facility, an established place of worship, any residence in which a child under 18 years of age resides, or a school or facility used for extracurricular activities of pupils enrolled in Kindergarten through grade 12. KSA 59-29a11(b). Additionally, no more than eight sexually violent predators may be placed in any one county on transitional release or conditional release.
Q-4
page 6
The Kansas laws governing commitment of sexually violent predators were challenged by Leroy Hendricks, a self-confessed pedophile who, by his own admission would remain dangerous until he died. He claimed that the law was unconstitutional on the grounds of a violation of substantive due process, double jeopardy, and ex post facto. The Kansas Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional; however, the United States Supreme Court upheld the law as constitutional. Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 US 346 (1997). The Secretary of Social and Rehabilitation Services is required to issue an annual report to the Governor and Legislature detailing activities regarding transitional and conditional release of sexually violent predators. Such details include their number and location, the number of those who have been returned to treatment at Larned State Hospital and the reasons for the return; and any plans for the development of additional transitional or conditional release facilities. For more information, please contact:
Lauren Douglass, Research Analyst

[email protected]
Robert Allison-Gallimore, Research Analyst

[email protected]
page 7
Q-4

Judiciary Q-5
Judiciary
Q-5 Alexas Law
The 2007 enactment of Alexas Law, KSA 21-5419, deals with certain crimes against unborn children. Unborn child is defined as a living individual organism of the species homo sapiens, in utero, at any stage of gestation from fertilization to birth. Enumerated crimes against persons and human beings, which, pursuant to this law, include an unborn child, are as follows: Murder in the first degree, KSA 21-5402; Murder in the second degree, KSA 21-5403; Voluntary manslaughter, KSA 21-5404; Involuntary manslaughter, KSA 21-5405; Vehicular homicide, KSA 21-5406; Battery, KSA 21-5413(a); Aggravated battery, KSA 21-5413(b); Capital murder, KSA 21-5401; Involuntary manslaughter while driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, KSA 21-5405(a)(3); and Attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation to commit the above-mentioned crimes.
Alexas Law
Other Judiciary reports available Q-1 Tort Claims Act Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas Q-3
Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators Q-6 Human Trafficking
The Law does not apply to: Any act committed by the mother of the unborn child; Any medical procedure, including abortion; or The lawful dispensation or administration of lawfully prescribed medication.
History
The enactment of Alexas Law in 2007 followed an incident involving a pregnant teen who was murdered. The fetus, named Alexa, also died. Murder charges could be filed only for the murder of the mother. A 2006 Supreme Court of Pennsylvania case, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Matthew Bullock, 913 A.2d 207 (Pa. 2006), held in pertinent part:

[email protected]
The statute governing the offense of criminal homicide of an unborn child was not void for vagueness, despite absence of viability requirement; The statute did not violate substantive due process; and Statutory exception for crimes of pregnant women against their own unborn children did not violate Equal Protection.
Bills similar to Alexas Law considered by the Kansas Legislature were: 2002 SB 582 and 2002 HB 2797 Unborn Victims of Violence Act; 2005 HB 2300 Unborn Victims of Violence Act; and 2007 SB 2 Unborn Victims of Violence Act.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of November 2010, at least 38 states have fetal homicide laws. The states are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Q-5
page 2

Judiciary Q-6 Human Trafficking Other Judiciary reports available Q-1 Tort Claims Act Q-2 Death Penalty in Kansas Q-3
Judiciary
Human trafficking is a worldwide problem, but it is present and growing in the United States and in Kansas. According to recent information, as a $32 billion industry, it runs a close third behind drug and arms dealing. The problem involves both immigrants and U.S. citizens. Each year, between 17,500 and 20,000 men, women, and children are brought into this country from more than 48 source countries for purposes of sexual or labor exploitation. (Source: State Department Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons, June 2007, as reported by the Attorney General) In addition, the U.S. State Department estimates that more than 250,000 American citizens and legal residents are being trafficked within the U.S. Most of these are children under the age of 18. The purpose of this article is to examine the extent of human trafficking in the U.S. and Kansas, trace the history of human trafficking laws in the United States at the federal level, and compare Kansass statutes with the laws of neighboring states.
Q-4 Sex Offenders/Sex Predators Q-5
Background Definition
Alexas Law
The definition of human trafficking is important. Although the word trafficking generally implies movement, human trafficking does not always follow that implication. Instead, human trafficking focuses on obtaining or holding another person in compelled service. According to the U.S. Department of State 2011 Trafficking in Persons Report (hereinafter referred to as the 2011 Report): [P]eople may be trafficking victims regardless of whether they were born into a state of servitude or were transported to the exploitative situation, whether they once consented to work for a trafficker, or whether they participated in a crime as a direct result of being trafficked. At the heart of this phenomenon are the myriad forms of enslavement not the activities involved in transportation.

[email protected]
Specific statutory definitions will be discussed in later sections of this paper. However, in a presentation to the 2011 Joint Committee on Home and Community Based Oversight (HCBS Committee), a representative of the Kansas Attorney General identified the following key elements of human trafficking: The Act (What is done) Recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring, or receipt of persons. The Means (How it is done) Threat or use of force, coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or vulnerability, or giving payments or benefits to a person in control of the victim. The Purpose (Why it is done) For the purpose of exploitation, which includes exploiting the prostitution of others, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery or similar practices, and the removal of organs.
Scope
There are several major forms of human trafficking and a number of them exist in this country. The following is a partial list as reported in the 2011 Report. The complete list includes forms employed outside of the United States, as well as those used within the nations borders. Forced LaborA number of forms of forced labor exist in the United States, including domestic labor and work in the agricultural, manufacturing, janitorial, construction, health and elder care, hospitality, and hotel industries, in addition to strip clubs. (2011 Report, Page 372) Debt BondageAlthough illegal in the United States, debt bondage reportedly exists here nonetheless. (2011 Report, Pages 7 and 372) Sex TraffickingAn adult can be coerced, forced, or deceived into prostitution, or forced to remain in prostitution. Those who recruit, transport, harbor, receive or obtain the person for sexual services would be deemed as having committed sex trafficking. According to the 2011 Report, the crime also can occur within debt bondage, as women and girls are forced to continue in prostitution through the use of unlawful debt purportedly incurred through their transportation, recruitment, or even sale which exploiters insist they must pay off before they can be free. (2011 Report, Pages 7 and 372) Child Sex TraffickingThe 2011 Report (Page 372) states: U.S. citizen victims, both adults and children, are predominantly found in sex trafficking; U.S. citizen child victims are often runaways, troubled, and homeless youth.
As mentioned, the problem has been documented to exist within and adjacent to Kansas. During her 2011 HCBS Committee presentation, the Kansas Attorney General representative provided the following testimony: Human trafficking is occurring in Kansas at a rate in which the state is currently unprepared to address. Both Wichita and Kansas City have
been recognized as major originating cities for human trafficking. Officers located in the Wichita-Sedgwick County Exploited and Missing Child Unit report that sex traffickers often pick up runaways within 48 hours of their being on the streets and transport them to either Dallas or Chicago within 72 hours. In addition to the sex trade, the vast rural areas in Western Kansas are conducive to human trafficking for forced labor on farms and in food processing plants. While originally noticed in Wichita and Kansas City, human trafficking reports from victim service agencies indicate it is also occurring in many mid-level communities across the state. From July 1 through December 31, 2010, victim service agencies in El Dorado, Garden City, Newton, and Manhattan were faced with providing services to human trafficking victims in their communities, in addition to service agencies in Wichita and Kansas City. On September 10, 2011, The Kansas City Star reported: In addition to some child prostitution cases brought under anti-trafficking laws, federal authorities in Kansas City prosecuted in 2009 what was then the largest labor trafficking ring uncovered in the United States. The scheme forced an estimated 1,000 immigrants from several countries to work for low wages cleaning hotel rooms. (For the full text of the Kansas City Star article, see: http://www. kansascity.com/2011/09/10/3133808/kansas-law-falls-short-on-human. html#ixzz1YbLxwiDb) Additionally, a September 17, 2011, article in The Wichita Eagle reported the following: Wichita sits near the crossroads of the nations sex-trafficking highway. The pimps have routes they travel... and they include I-35 and I-70, police Officer Kent Bauman of the Wichita-Sedgwick County Exploited and Missing Child Unit told a gathering of health care providers Friday at Via Christi Hospital on Harry. Police have documented known pimps recruiting girls as young as 12 from Wichita and selling them for sex across the nation, Bauman said. They find them: At amateur nights in Wichita strip clubs. On streets and at schools. Through their Facebook pages.
page 3
Q-6
(For the full text of the Wichita Eagle article, see: http://www. kansas.com/2011/09/17/2020402/wichita-a-key-spot-for-rescuing. html#ixzz1YWYTzEKX) The Kansas Attorney General representative provided the following additional testimony to the HCBS Committee: Both knowledge of the prevalence of trafficking in Kansas and effective response to trafficking remain elusive due to lack of awareness, lack of identification measures, lack of experience in investigating and prosecuting these cases, absence of tracking protocol, and limited strategic response. Kansas law enforcement officers surveyed indicated they feel ill equipped to effectively respond to human trafficking crime and need training in this area.... The estimated and actual numbers listed below provide a snapshot view of the exploitation potential in Kansas. 2,300 Estimated Annual Number of Juvenile Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation 400 Estimated Annual Number of Adult Victims of Commercial Sexual Exploitation 300 Estimated Annual Number of Victims of Labor Exploitation 2,700 American Victims of Exploitation in Kansas 300 Foreign Victims of Exploitation in Kansas 4,735 2009 Runaway Children Cases Reported to Law Enforcement 14,449 Actual Number of Children with Runaway Episodes 1,352 Serious Cases of Abuse (Physical, Sexual, or Psychological) Reported 6,052 Registered Sex Offenders in Kansas as of October 7, 2011
The Kansas Attorney General representative went on to report the number of sex trafficking cases in Wichita has more than doubled over the past four years, growing in numbers as follows:
Q-6
2006 11 cases 2007 10 cases 2008 9 cases 2010 17 cases 2011 (as of September 21) 28 cases
Kansas Human Trafficking Case One human trafficking case has been prosecuted in Kansas. That case, State v. Williams, 46 Kan. App. 2d 36, 257 P.3d 849 (2011), was prosecuted under the States relatively new aggravated trafficking statute. It involved the sex trafficking of a 16-year-old girl from Wichita. The conviction was upheld by the Kansas Court of Appeals. In upholding the lower courts decision, the judge stated that the statute, KSA 21-3447(a)(2), is clearly aimed at preventing the exploitation of minor children. The statute only applies where the offender knows that a child will be used to engage in forced labor, involuntary servitude, or sexual gratification of the offender or another. The State has a compelling interest in the well-being of its children and in the exercise of its police powers may enact legislation to protect children from adult predators. After the Court of Appeals ruling, the defendant filed a Petition for Review on August 5, 2011. The case is now before the Kansas Supreme Court.
Federal Law
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000/Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 The first comprehensive federal law addressing human trafficking was enacted in 2000. The Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) (Public Law 106-386; also referred to as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000) (TVPA 2000) defined trafficking in persons (TIP) as sex trafficking in which a commercial sex act is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age or the recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining of a person for labor or services, through the use of force, fraud, or coercion for the purpose of subjection to involuntary servitude, peonage (the practice of holding persons in servitude or partial slavery, as to work off a debt or to serve a penal sentence [www.dictionary. com]), debt bondage, or slavery. [22 U.S.C. 7102(8)] This definition applies to both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals. The TVPA 2000 focused on three aspects of federal government activity to combat human trafficking: protection, prosecution, and prevention. Specifics of the law are summarized below. (See: U.S. Department of Defense Briefing entitled The William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 [TVPRA 2008] at ctip.defense. gov/docs/briefing- DODTVPRA2008-Rothenberg.ppt) ProtectionThe TVPA 2000 provided for victim assistance in the U.S. by (a) making foreign trafficking victims eligible for federally funded or administered health and other benefits and services; (b) mandating U.S. government protections for foreign victims of trafficking and, where applicable, their families; and (c) outlining protections from removal from the country in certain circumstances for trafficking victims. ProsecutionThe Act created new crimes and enhanced penalties for existing crimes, including forced labor, trafficking with respect to peonage slavery, involuntary servitude, sex trafficking of children, sex trafficking of adults by force, fraud or coercion, and unlawful conduct with respect to documents. The Act also criminalized
page 5 Q-6
attempts to engage in these behaviors, and it provided for mandatory restitution and forfeiture. PreventionThe Act (a) provided for assistance to foreign countries in drafting laws to prohibit and punish acts of trafficking and strengthen investigation and prosecution of traffickers; (b) created programs to assist victims; (c) expanded U.S. government exchange and international visitor programs focused on TIP; and (d) created the Presidents Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking to coordinate the governments anti-trafficking efforts.
The TVPA 2000 requires the U.S. Department of State to report annually on the worldwide status of human trafficking and rank all nations regarding their efforts to address the problem. The first Trafficking in Persons Report was released in 2001. The year 2010 marked the first time the United States was included in the annual reports ranking of nations based on their human trafficking-related efforts. The United States is ranked in the top tier of nations doing the most to combat human trafficking. Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003 The TVPA 2000 was reauthorized in 2003 with the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2003, or TVPRA 2003. In addition to reauthorization, the TVPRA 2003 mandated new information campaigns to combat sex tourism. It added refinements to the federal criminal law provisions, and created a new civil action that allows trafficking victims to sue their traffickers in federal district court. Finally, the TVPRA 2003 added a requirement that the U.S. Attorney General report annually to Congress on activities to combat TIP. (ibid.) Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2005 Again reauthorized and amended, the TVPRA 2005 authorized a number of new anti-trafficking resources. These included grant programs to assist state and local law enforcement efforts and expand victim assistance programs to U.S. citizens or resident aliens who were victims of trafficking; pilot programs to establish residential facilities for the purpose of rehabilitating trafficking victims (including one program directed toward juveniles); and extraterritorial jurisdiction over offenses committed overseas by federal government employees or persons accompanying these employees. Reporting requirements also were expanded. (ibid.) Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008 The most recent reauthorization, the TVPRA 2008, reauthorized the Act for four years. It also established new measures to combat human trafficking, including efforts to increase the effectiveness of existing programs, providing assistance for potential child victims of trafficking, and enhancing the ability to punish traffickers criminally. Specifically, the TVPRA 2008 strengthened and enhanced the following statutes:
New conspiracy statuteThe statute prohibits conspiring with another person to commit the offenses of peonage, enticement into slavery, forced labor, trafficking, sex trafficking, and document servitude; and it makes the penalty equal to the penalty for the underlying substantive offense, with the exception that there is no minimum mandatory penalty for conspiring to commit sex trafficking. Penalties for benefitting financiallyThe TVPRA 2008 added new provisions to penalize those who knowingly benefit financially from trafficking crimes. (The Acts previous version penalized only those who knowingly benefitted financially from participating in a venture that engaged in sex trafficking acts.) Clarification to forced labor statuteThe TVPRA 2008 adds force as a fourth prohibited means of violating the statute (in addition to serious harm, scheme or plan, and abuse of the law). It expressly states that the four prohibited means are not separate elements, and that the statute may be violated by one or any combination of these means; and it added definitions of the terms serious harm and abuse of the law. Expanded crime of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion The TVPRA 2008 broadened the reach of the sex trafficking statute as it pertains to sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion by allowing the mental state (mens rea) requirement to include reckless disregard as well as knowledge. Under the new law, the federal government no longer is required to prove that the defendant actually knew that force, fraud, or coercion would be used to cause a person to engage in a commercial sex act; rather, the government need only prove the defendant acted in reckless disregard of the fact that such means would be used. Expanded crime of sex trafficking of minorsThe TVPRA 2008 eliminated the knowledge-of-age requirement in certain instances: where the defendant has a reasonable opportunity to observe the minor, the government need not prove the defendant knew the victim was a minor. Expanded authority for detentionUnder the new law, the charging of an offense of peonage, enticement into slavery, involuntary servitude, forced labor, trafficking, or sex trafficking (with a maximum term of imprisonment of 20 years or more) will give rise to a rebuttable presumption of pre-trial detention (as opposed to release on bail). Obstruction of human trafficking enforcementThe TVPRA 2008 created new offenses imposing penalties on those who obstruct or attempt to obstruct enforcement of anti-trafficking laws. Extraterritorial jurisdiction expanded againThe TVPRA 2008 extended extraterritorial jurisdiction to certain trafficking crimes committed outside the U.S., where the alleged offender is a national or lawful permanent U.S. resident or is present in the U.S. New crime: Fraud in labor contractingThe TVPRA 2008 prohibits fraud in foreign labor contracting, imposing criminal liability
page 7 Q-6
on those who, knowingly and with intent to defraud, recruit workers from outside the U.S. for employment in the country by means of materially false or fraudulent representations. The maximum term of imprisonment for the crime is five years. (ibid.)
State Laws
In a limited comparative analysis of Kansas and surrounding states, breadth and content of human trafficking-related laws vary somewhat. While differences appear to be small among the states criminal statutes, each state has named its crimes uniquely. More significant differences appear in the areas of protection, prevention, and other victim assistance. A significant difference among the states criminal statutes is the mens rea (state of mind) aspect of the crime. For example, the standard for Kansass human trafficking and aggravated human trafficking (human trafficking involving kidnapping, sexual exploitation of children, or resulting in death) crimes is as follows: Intent for the recruitment, harboring, transporting, providing or obtaining a person for labor or services; or for benefiting financially from participation in such a venture. Knowledge for coercing employment.
Missouris standard for all human trafficking-related crimes is knowledge. Oklahomas standard is the same. As mentioned, significant differences exist between the various state statutes relating to human trafficking prevention, protection, and other victim assistance. Kansass laws in these areas provide for the following: Offender registration an offender is subject to registration for life under certain circumstances if convicted of certain sex crimes, including aggravated sex trafficking. (See KSA 22-4902(a)(10) and 22-4906(d)(1).) The Kansas Secretary of State is authorized to designate a mailing address for the purpose of protecting the identity and location of victims. (See KSA 75-453.)
Alternatively, Missouri does the following: Allows the victim or the Missouri Attorney General to file a civil action. (See RSMo 566.203.) Requires those convicted of related sex offenses to register. (See RSMo 589.400.) States anyone alleging a violation of Missouris human trafficking-related crimes must be afforded the rights and protections offered in the TVPA of 2000, as amended. (See RSMo 566.223.)
Q-6
page 8
States it is an affirmative defense to a prostitution charge that the defendant engaged in prostitution because he or she was coerced to do so. (See RSMo 566.223.) Requires the Missouri Department of Public Safety to do a number of things, including: Establishing procedures for identifying trafficking victims; and Establishing training programs and protocols for agencies to educate officials and employees on state and federal laws and on identifying and assisting victims. (See RSMo 566.223.)
Requires the Missouri Department of Social Services (and others, where applicable) to begin the eligibility determination process for state and federal services, programs, or assistance as soon as possible after first encountering a person reasonably appearing to be a victim. (See RSMo 566.223.)
For more complete detail on the statutes of Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Colorado, contact the Kansas Legislative Research Department.
State Services
Both the Kansas Attorney Generals Office and the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) provide assistance in combating human trafficking. The Attorney General established the Human Trafficking Advisory Board (HTAB) in 2010. The HTAB is comprised of a team of experts from a wide range of backgrounds, including law enforcement, prosecutors, court personnel, victim advocates, academia, health care, immigration services, and other pertinent parties with expertise. The SRS State Refugee Coordinator notes there are four general areas of victim needs: immediate assistance, including housing, food, medical, safety and security needs, language interpretation and legal services; mental health assistance; income assistance; and legal status assistance. For more information, please contact:

page 9
Q-6

Kansas Open Meetings Act R-1
Kansas Open Meetings Act

R-1 Kansas Open Meetings Act
Kansas Open Meetings Act
Purpose
The Kansas Open Meetings Act (KOMA), KSA 75-4317 et seq., is one of two main laws that guarantee the business of government is conducted in the sunshine. The second sunshine act is the Kansas Open Records Act (KORA) which is discussed in a separate briefing paper. The open meetings law recognizes that a representative government is dependent upon an informed electorate and declares that the policy of the State of Kansas is one where meetings for the conduct of governmental affairs and the transaction of governmental business be open to the public. KSA 75-4317. The Kansas Supreme Court has recognized that the law is to be interpreted liberally and exceptions narrowly construed to carry out the purpose of the law. See Memorial Hospital Association v. Knutson, 239 Kan. 663, 669 (1986).
State and Local Public Bodies Covered by KOMA

The open meetings law applies to the following:
[email protected]
State agencies; Political and taxing subdivisions; Legislative bodies; Administrative bodies; Boards, commissions, authorities, councils, committees, subcommittees; and Other subordinate groups of the above entities which receive or expend and are supported in whole or part by public funds. KSA 75-4318.
State Bodies Covered by KOMA

The State Legislature, its Committees, and Subcommittees unless rules provide otherwise State Administrative Bodies, Boards, and Commissions State Board of Regents State Board of Education Kansas Turnpike Authority Other State Bodies
Local Governments Covered by KOMA

Cities Drainage Districts Counties Conservation Districts School Districts Irrigation Districts Townships Groundwater Management Districts Water Districts Watershed Districts Fire Districts Municipal Energy Agencies Sewer Districts Other Special District Governments
One of the most difficult problems of interpretation of the open meetings law is to determine which subordinate groups of public entities are covered and which are excluded. Representative Subordinate Groups Covered Nonprofit Mental Health Services Providers Area Agencies on Aging Economic Opportunity Foundation Three Rivers, Inc. Not Covered Nonprofit entity operating county hospital Kansas Venture Capital, Inc. Prairie Village Economic Development Commission Hesston Area Service Center
Public Bodies Excluded From KOMA

Certain state and local bodies or entities are excluded from the requirements of the open meetings law, including the following:
R-1
page 2
The Judicial Branch; and State or local bodies when exercising quasi judicial powers (examples include teacher due process hearings, civil service board hearings for a specific employee, or zoning amendment hearings for a specific property).
Meetings: What Are They?

The Kansas Open Meetings Act covers meetings that are defined as: A gathering or assembly, in person or through the use of a telephone, or any other medium for interactive communication; By a majority of the membership of an agency or body; and For the purpose of discussing the business or affairs of the body. KSA 75-4317a.
The definition of meeting was changed substantially by 2008 HB 2947. Prior to this, a meeting was defined as involving a majority of a quorum. It is important to note the law was changed in 2009 to address the topic of what some have called serial meetings, or communications held in a series when, taken together, they involve a majority of members. The new law deems interactive communications in a series to be open if they collectively involve a majority of the membership of the body or agency, share a common topic of discussion concerning the business or affairs of the body or agency, and are intended by any or all to reach agreement on a matter that would require binding action to be taken by the body or agency. KSA 75-4318 as amended by 2009 SB 135. A Kansas appellate court has held that informal discussions before, after, or during recesses of a public meeting are subject to the requirements of the open meetings law. See Coggins v. Public Employee Relations Board, 2 K.A.2d 416 (1987). Calling a gathering a work session does not exempt the event from the law if the three requirements of a meeting are met. The Attorney General has said that serial communications among a majority of a quorum of a public body, if the purpose is to discuss a common topic of business or affairs of that body by the members, constitutes a meeting. (Note: The opinions were issued prior to the change in requirements from majority of a quorum to quorum.)Such a meeting may occur through calling trees, e-mail or through the use of an agent (staff member) of the body. See Atty. Gen. Op. 98-26 and 98-49. The use of instant messaging also would qualify as a meeting. The term quorum means a simple majority of the membership of a public body, i.e., the number greater than one-half of the total (unless otherwise provided by statute). A majority of a quorum is the number greater than one-half of a quorum, and is the smallest number that can take action on behalf of a public body. For example, a quorum of a seven-member body is four, and a majority of that quorum is three. A quorum of a five-member body is three, and a majority of that quorum is two. The Kansas Supreme Court has said a county commission may, by home rule, raise its quorum to a number greater than a majority of its members. See State ex rel. Stephan v. Board of Sedgwick County Commissioners , 244 Kan. 536 (1989). In mayor-council forms of government, the mayor is not included as a member of the governing body for purposes of counting members for a quorum.
page 3
R-1
In regard to discussing the business or affairs of the body, binding action or voting is not necessary; it is the discussion itself which triggers the requirements of the open meeting law. Social gatherings are not subject to the open meeting law as long as there is no discussion of the business of the public body.
Notice of Meetings, Agendas, Minutes, Conduct of Meeting, and Cameras

Notice must be given to any person or organization requesting it. Notice requests expire at the end of a fiscal year, but the public body has a duty to notify the person of the pending expiration before terminating notice. The presiding officer has the duty to provide notice, but that duty may be delegated. Notice may be given in writing or orally, but it must be made individually to the person requesting it. Posting or publication in a newspaper is insufficient. A single notice can suffice for regularly scheduled meetings. There also is a duty to notify of any special meetings. No fee for notice can be charged. Petitions for notice may be submitted by groups of people, but notice need be provided only to one person on the list. No time limit is imposed for receipt of notice prior to the meeting, but notice must be given in a reasonable time, and reasonableness depends on the circumstances.
Misconceptions: Newspaper Notice, Agendas, and Minutes

Contrary to popular belief, the open meetings law does not require notice of meetings to be published in a newspaper. Except for recording motions for executive sessions, the law does not require minutes be kept. The law does not require that an agenda be created. If a body chooses to create an agenda, the agenda should include topics planned for discussion. See Stevens v. City of Hutchinson, 11 K.A. 2d 290 (1986). Agenda copies must always be made available to those who request them. The agenda does not have to be mailed out and can be provided simply by placing the agenda in a public place.
What is Allowed
Any person may attend open meetings, but the law does not require that the public be allowed to speak or to have an item placed on the agenda. Secret ballots are not allowed. The public must be able to ascertain how each member voted. Subject to reasonable rules, cameras and recording devices must be allowed at open meetings. The law does not dictate the location of the meeting, the size of the room, or other accommodation-type considerations. The key to determining whether a meeting is open is whether it is accessible to the public. Telephone conference calls are allowed if the requirements of the Act are met including notice and free access.
R-1
page 4
Executive Sessions: Procedure and Subjects Allowed

Executive sessions are permitted for specified purposes. First, however, the public body must convene an open meeting and then recess into an executive session. KSA 75-4319(a). Binding action may not be taken in executive session. KSA 75-4319(c). Reaching a consensus in executive session is permitted. OHair v. USD No. 300, 15 Kan. App. 2d 52 (1991). A consensus, however, may constitute binding action and violate the law if a body fails to follow up with a formal open vote on a decision which would normally require a vote. The law does not require an executive session; the decision to hold an executive session is discretionary.
Procedures for going into executive session include the following:

Formal motion, seconded, and carried; Motion must contain a statement providing: Justification for closure; Subject(s) to be discussed; and Time and place open meeting will resume.
Executive session motions must be recorded in minutes. The law does not require other information to be recorded. Other minutes for open or executive sessions are discretionary, unless some other law requires them.
Only the members of a public body have the right to attend an executive session. Mere observers may not attend. Inclusion of general observers means the meeting should be open to all members of the public. Persons who aid the body in its discussions may be admitted discretionarily.
page 5
R-1
Examples of Subject Matter Justifying Executive Session

Personnel matters of non-elected individual personnel. The purpose of this exception is to protect the privacy interests of individuals. Discussions of consolidation of departments or overall salary structure are not proper topics. Personnel means employees of the public agency. The personnel exemption does not apply to appointments to boards or committees, nor does it not apply to independent contractors. Consultation with the public bodys attorney where the attorney/client privilege applies. All elements of privilege must be present: The bodys attorney must be present; The communication must be privileged; and No other third parties may be present.
Employer-employee negotiations to discuss conduct or status of negotiations, with or without the authorized representative who actually is doing the bargaining. Confidential data relating to financial affairs or trade secrets of corporations, partnerships, trusts, and individual proprietorships. Matters affecting an individual student, patient, or resident of a public institution. Preliminary discussions relating to acquisition (not sale) of real property. Security of a public body or agency, public building or facility, or the information system of a public body or agency, if open discussion would jeopardize security.
Enforcement of the KOMA

An action for an injunction, mandamus, or declaratory judgment can be brought by any person including the Attorney General, or a county or district attorney. The plaintiff in a suit has the initial burden to show a prima facie case of an open meeting violation. The burden then shifts to the defendant to justify its actions. A plaintiff may receive court costs if a violation is established. The defendant public body may receive costs only if it is determined by the court that the action was frivolous. There is no requirement that specific intent to violate the law be proved; knowing violation occurs when there is purposeful commission of the prohibited acts. Venue is proper in the county where the action occurred. KSA 75-4320 provides for civil, not criminal, penalties. A fine may be levied of up to $500 for each violation of the law as determined by the district courtbut only if the action is brought by the Attorney General or a county or district attorney. Binding action taken at a meeting not in substantial compliance with the open meetings law may be voided by court only if suit is brought within 21 days of the public bodys action. Such suits must be brought by a county or district attorney or the Attorney General.
R-1 page 6 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Violation of the open meetings law can be grounds for ouster from office pursuant to KSA 60-1205. This is a separate action which must be filed by the Attorney General or the county or district attorney. Alleged violation of the law also can be grounds for recall of public officials. On or before January 15, 2006, and each year thereafter, the county or district attorney of each county is required to report all complaints of both the Kansas Open Meeting Act and the Kansas Open Records Act and the disposition of each complaint. The Attorney General is required to publish a yearly abstract of this information listing by name the public agencies which are the subject of the complaints. For more information, please contact:
page 7
R-1

Kansas Open Records Act S-1
Kansas Open Records Act

S-1 Kansas Open Records Act
Kansas Open Records Act
Purpose
The Kansas Open Records Act is one of two main laws that guarantee the business of government be conducted in the sunshine. The other sunshine law is the Kansas Open Meetings Act, which is the subject of a separate briefing paper. The open records law declares that it is the public policy of Kansas that public records shall be open for inspection by any person unless otherwise provided (KSA 45-216, et seq.). The burden of proving an exemption from disclosure is on the agency not disclosing the information (SRS v. Public Employee Relations Board, 249 Kan. 163 (1991)).
Who Is Covered by the Act?

Coverage under the Kansas Open Records Act is keyed to the definition of public agency. Included in this definition are: The State; Any political or taxing subdivision of the State or any office, officer, agency or instrumentality thereof; Any other entity receiving or expending and supported in whole or in part by public funds which are appropriated by the State or its political and taxing subdivisions; and Non-profit entities, except health care providers, that receive public funds of at least $350 per year.

[email protected]
The 2005 Legislature expanded the Kansas Open Records Act to require non-profit entities, as noted above, to document the receipt and expenditure of public funds and make this information available to the public. Non-profit entities may charge a reasonable fee to provide this information.
The definition covers all state agencies, cities, counties, townships, school districts, and other special district governments as well as any agencies or instrumentalities of these entities and any officers of the above public entities.
Exclusions from Open Records Requirement

Certain entities and individuals that are excluded from the definition of public agency include: Any entity solely by reason of payment from public funds for property, goods, or services of the entity. This exemption is designed to exempt vendors who merely sell goods or services to the government, but the records of the public agencies making the purchases must be open to the public. See Frederickson, 33 Kan. L. Rev. 216-7; Any municipal or state judge; and Any officer or employee of the State or local political or taxing subdivision, if the office they are provided is not open to the public at least 35 hours a week.
Judges of the district court are excluded from the definition of public agency and judges telephone records do not become public records merely because the telephone system is maintained by a county (Op. Atty Gen. 77 (1996)).
What Is a Public Record?

Public record is defined under the Act to mean any recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, which is made, maintained or kept by or is in the possession of any public agency. See KSA 45-217(f)(1). Excluded from the definition of public record are: Records that are owned by a private person or entity and that are not related to functions, activities, programs, or operations funded by public funds; or Records kept by individual legislators or members of governing bodies of political and taxing subdivisions. See KSA 45-217(g)(2).
The above definition is quite broad. The comment has been made that the Act is meant to encompass all recorded informationbe it recorded on paper, video film, audiotape, photographs, mylar overlays for projectors, slides, computer disks or tape, or etched upon stone tablets.
Right of Public to Inspect and Make or Obtain Copies of Records

Members of the public have the right to inspect public records during regular office hours and any established additional hours. If the agency does not have regular office hours, it shall establish reasonable hours when persons may inspect records. An agency without regular office hours may require
S-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
a 24-hour notice of desire to inspect. Notice shall not be required to be in writing. All records are open for inspection unless closed pursuant to specific legal authority. Any person may make abstracts or obtain copies of a public record. If copies cannot be made in the place where the records are kept, the records custodian must allow the use of other copying facilities. KSA 45-219(b). Members of the public cannot remove a record without written permission of the custodian. KSA 45-218(a). Computerized information can meet the definition of a public record and must be provided in the form requested if the public agency has the capability of producing it in that form. The agency is not required to acquire or design a special program to produce information in a desired form, but it has discretion to allow an individual who requests such information to design or provide a computer program to obtain the information in the desired form. Op. Atty Gen. 152 (1988) (voter registration lists); Op. Atty Gen. 106 (1989) and Op. Atty Gen. 137 (1987). However, the Kansas Open Records Act explicitly states a public agency is not required to electronically make copies of public records by allowing a person to obtain the copies by attaching a personal device to the agencys computer equipment (KSA 2010 Supp. 45-219 (g)). A public agency is not required to provide copies of radio or recording tapes or discs, video tapes or films, pictures, slides, graphics, or illustrations unless the items were shown or played at a public meeting, but not if the items were copyrighted by someone other than the public agency (KSA 45219(a)).
Duties of Public Agencies

Public agencies are required to do the following: Appoint a freedom of information officer to assist the public with open records requests and disputes. That officer is to provide information on the open records law, including a brochure stating the publics basic rights under the law; Adopt procedures to be followed; and Provide, upon request, office hours, name of custodian of record, fees, and procedures for obtaining records.
Rights of Public Agencies

The public agency may: Require the request to be written, but not on a specific form; Require written certification that the requestor will not use names and addresses obtained from the records to solicit sales to those persons whose names are contained in the list;
page 3 S-1
Deny access if the request places an unreasonable burden in producing the record or is intended to disrupt the agency; and Require payment of allowed fees in advance. Fees may include costs of any computer services and staff time.
Prohibited Uses of Lists of Names and Addresses

A list of names and addresses shall not be obtained from public records for the purpose of selling or offering for sale any property or service to the persons listed (KSA 45-220(c)(2) and KSA 45-230). This provision does not prohibit commercial use generally; it just applies to use of the names to sell or offer to sell property or a service. This provision does not prohibit the use of lists of names obtained from public records to solicit the purchase of property from the persons listed (water meters; promissory note underlying contract for deed). Any person, including the records custodian, who violates this provision of the law and gives or receives records for this purpose can be penalized with a civil fine not to exceed $500 in an action brought by the Attorney General or the county or district attorney (KSA 45-230).
Records That Must Be Closed

Some public records are closed mandatorily by federal law, state statute, or Supreme Court rule. These types of public records must be closed and generally are referenced in KSA 45-221(a)(1). Approximately 260 different statutes require closure of certain public records. A few examples include: Child in need of care records and reports, including certain juvenile intake and assessment reports (KSA 38-2209); Individually identifiable drug abuse treatment records (KSA 38-2213, KSA 45221(a)(3)); Unexecuted search or arrest warrants (KSA 21-5906); Grand jury proceedings records (KSA 22-3012); and Peer review records (KSA 65-4915(b)).
Records That May Be Closed

KSA 45-221(a)(1) to (50) lists other types of public records that are not required to be disclosed. The public agency has discretion and may decide whether to make these types of records available. However, the burden of showing that a record fits within an exception rests with the party intending to prevent disclosure. Some of these 50 different types of records which may be closed discretionarily include:
S-1
page 4
Records which are privileged under the rules of evidence, unless the holder of the privilege consents to the disclosure (KSA 45-221(a)(2)); Medical, psychiatric, psychological, and alcohol or drug treatment records which pertain to identifiable individuals (KSA 45-221(a)(3)); Personnel records, performance ratings, or individually identifiable records pertaining to employees or applicants for employment in public agencies (KSA 45-221(a)(4)); Letters of reference or recommendation pertaining to the character or qualification of an identifiable individual (KSA 45-221(a)(6)); Information which would reveal the identity of any undercover agent or any informant reporting a specific violation of law (KSA 45-221(a)(5)); Criminal investigation records (KSA 45-221(a)(10)); Records of emergency or security information or procedures of a public agency, or plans, drawings, specifications, or related information for any building or facility which is used for purposes requiring security measures in or around the building or facility, or which is used for the generation or transmission of power, water, fuels, or communications, if disclosure would jeopardize security of the public agency, building, or facility (KSA 45-221(a)(12)); Notes, preliminary drafts, research data in the process of analysis, memoranda, or other records in which opinions are expressed or policies or actions are proposed. This exception does not apply when such records are cited or identified in a public meeting (KSA 45-221(a)(20)); Attorney work product (KSA 45-221(a)(25)); and Public records containing information of a personal nature when public disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy (KSA 45221(a)(30)).
Sunset of Exemptions
A sunset provision for all exemptions was added in 2000. The provision required a review of exemptions within five years, or they would expire (KSA 45-229). The Legislature began its review process of these exemptions during the 2003 Interim and continued this review during the 2004 Session and the 2004 Interim. The review was completed during the 2005 Session and extended the life of more than 240 exemptions, which had been scheduled to expire on July 1, 2005. The extension, based on the legislation that resulted from this review, would have expired on July 1, 2011. The exceptions again were reviewed during the 2009 Interim. Recommendations from that review resulted in the extension of approximately the same number of exceptions by the 2010 Legislature. Twenty-eight exceptions were reviewed during the 2010 Interim and subsequently were approved in the 2011 Session.
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 S-1
Enforcement of the Open Records Law

Investigative subpoenas may be issued by the Attorney General and district or county attorneys (KSA 45-228). Any person, the Attorney General, or a county or district attorney may file suit in district court. The suit must be brought in the county where the records are located. If the records are located out of state, there is no cause of action under the Kansas Open Records Act. A district court may order an injunction or mandamus. The court shall award attorney fees against a defendant if it finds denial of access was not in good faith or against a plaintiff if the court finds the plaintiff maintained the action not in good faith. Costs and reasonable attorney fees are to be paid, upon appeal, as part of costs (KSA 45-222). Fines up to $500 for each violation may be levied against a public agency if the agency knowingly violates any of the provisions of this act or that [it] intentionally fails to furnish information as required by this act. . . (KSA 45-223). Cases seeking a fine only may be brought by the Attorney General or district or county attorney. Actions under the Kansas Open Records Act are to be given precedence by the court. KSA 75-753 requires that, on or before January 15 each year, the county or district attorney of each county report to the Attorney General all complaints received during the proceeding year concerning violations. The Attorney General is required to publish a yearly abstract of this information listing the name of the public agency which is the subject of the complaint and the disposition of the complaint.
Criminal Penalty for Altering Public Record

Altering, destroying, defacing, removing, or concealing any public record is a class A misdemeanor (KSA 21-3821). For more information, please contact:
S-1
page 6

Local Government T-1
Local Government
T-1 Home Rule
Introduction
The Kansas Supreme Court reaffirmed in 2004 that cities have broad home rule powers granted directly by the people of the State of Kansas and that the constitutional home rule powers of cities shall be liberally construed to give cities the largest measure of self government. The opinion, State ex rel. Kline v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas, upheld the ability of cities to authorize by charter ordinance the Sunday sale of alcoholic liquor despite a state law prohibiting such sales. The Court found that the state liquor laws were nonuniform in their application to cities and therefore subject to charter ordinance. See also Farha v. City of Wichita, a 2007 case affirming the ruling on Kline. This paper examines briefly the history of home rule in Kansas, and explains the different variations of Kansas local government home rule. Most states confer home rule powers on some or all of their cities and counties. The Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations in 1993 reported cities in 37 states and counties in 23 states have constitutional home rule powers. Another 11 states provide home rule for cities by statute and 13 additional states provide statutory home rule for counties. In Kansas, cities home rule authority is authorized constitutionally, while counties are granted their home rule powers by statute.
Home Rule
Other Local Government reports available T-2 Eminent Domain T-3 Boundary Changes: Annexation
What Is Home Rule?

[Home rule is] ... limited autonomy or self-government granted by a central or regional government to its dependent political units. It has been a common feature of multinational empires or states most notably, the ancient Roman Empire and the British Empire which have afforded measured recognition of local ways and measured grants of selfgovernment provided that the local populations should remain politically
[email protected]
loyal to the central government. It has also been a feature of state and municipal government in the United States, where state constitutions since 1875 have frequently been amended or revamped to confer general or specifically enumerated self-governing powers on cities and towns, and sometimes counties and townships. (Source: www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/270114/home-rule ) The United States system of governance has many different levels. These levels federal, state and local all have a specific role to play in providing public services for the citizenry. At times, these levels of governance can overlap, or create gaps in the provision of services, leaving uncertainty about who has what type of authority.... (Source: Dillons Rule or Not?, National Association of Counties, Research Brief, January 2004, Vol. 2, No. 1.) The question of authority between levels of government has taken different forms historically. In the United States, local governments are considered creatures of the state as well as subdivisions of the state and as such are dependent upon the state for their existence, structure, and scope of powers. State legislatures have plenary power over the local units of government they create, limited only by such restrictions they have imposed upon themselves by state law or by provisions of their state constitutions, most notably home rule provisions. The courts in the late 19th century developed a rule of statutory construction to reflect this rule of dependency known as Dillons Rule. Dillons Rule states that a local government has only those powers granted in express words, those powers necessarily or fairly implied in the statutory grant, and those powers essential to the accomplishment of the declared objects and purposes of the local unit. Any fair, reasonable, or substantial doubt concerning the existence of power is resolved by the courts against the local government. Local governments without home rule powers are limited to those powers specifically granted to them by the Legislature. While local governments are considered dependent on the state and therefore not autonomous, the political landscape changed significantly in Kansas beginning in the early 1960s. The following section describes the development of home rule powers for cities, counties and, to a lesser extent, school districts.
City, County, and School District Home Rule Brief History of Kansas Home Rule Provisions
A new era in city-state relations was inaugurated on July 1, 1961, the effective date of the City Home Rule Constitutional Amendment approved by voters at the November 1960 general election. Cities now can look directly to the Kansas Constitution, Article 12, section 5, for the source of their powers. Cities are no longer dependent upon specific enabling acts of the Legislature. The Home Rule Amendment has, in effect, stood Dillons Rule on its head by providing a direct source, from the people, of legislative power for cities. Home rule for counties was enacted by statute in 1974. The county statutory grant generally is patterned after the city home rule constitutional amendment. Schools in 2003 were granted expanded administrative powers referred to by some as limited home rule powers. This limited grant of added administrative power to schools occurred as a result of several years of effort to expand the powers of school districts by the Kansas Association of School Boards and others.
T-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Constitutional Home Rule Grant for Cities

The key constitutional language contained in Article 12, Section 5, of the Kansas Constitution, reflecting the broad scope of the grant of home rule power for Kansas cities is as follows: Cities are hereby empowered to determine their local affairs and government including the levying of taxes, excises, fees, charges, and other exactions. . . . Cities shall exercise such determination by ordinance passed by the governing body with referendum only in such cases as prescribed by the legislature, subject only to enactments of the legislature of statewide concern applicable uniformly to all cities, to other enactments applicable uniformly to all cities. . . and to enactments of the legislature prescribing limitations of indebtedness. Any city may by charter ordinance elect in the manner prescribed in this section that the whole or any part of any enactment of the legislature applying to such city, other than enactments of statewide concern applicable uniformly to all cities, other enactments applicable uniformly to all cities, and enactments prescribing limits of indebtedness, shall not apply to such city. Powers and authority granted cities pursuant to this section shall be liberally construed for the purpose of giving to cities the largest measure of selfgovernment.
The Home Rule Amendment applies to all cities regardless of their size. Further, the Home Rule Amendment is self-executing in that there is no requirement that the Legislature enact any law implementing it, nor are cities required to hold an election or adopt a charter, constitution, or some type of ordinance declaring their intent to exercise home rule powers. Cities also are granted the power to levy taxes, excises, fees, charges, and other exactions by the Home Rule Amendment. The Legislature, however, may restrict this power by establishing not more than four classes of citiescities of the first, second, and third class. These classes are not classes for general government purposes. Rather, these are constitutional classes for purposes of imposing revenue limitations or prohibitions. The only example, to date, where the Legislature has classified cities for the purpose of imposing limits upon or prohibiting taxes has been in the area of local retailers sales taxes. In fact, 2006 SB 55 addressed this issue by reducing the number of classes of cities to one for the purpose of local retailers sales taxes.
page 3
T-1
The rules are simplecities can be bound only by state laws uniformly applicable to all cities, regardless of whether the subject matter of the state law is one of statewide or local concern. If there is a nonuniform law that covers a city, the city may pass a charter ordinance and exempt itself from all or part of the state law and provide substitute or additional provisions. If there is no state law on a subject, a city may enact its own local law. Further, if there is a uniform law that does not expressly preempt local supplemental action, then cities may enact additional non-conflicting local regulations compatible with the uniform state law.
County Statutory Grant of Home Rule

The county home rule act provides that the board of county commissioners may transact all county business and perform all powers of local legislation and administration it deems appropriate subject only to the limits, restrictions, and prohibitions listed in the act. (KSA 19-101a.) The statutory grant, likewise, contains a statement of legislative intent that the home rule powers granted to counties shall be liberally construed to give counties the largest measure of self-government. (KSA 19-101c.) County home rule is self-executing in the same sense as city home rule. The power is there for all 105 counties to use. No charter or local constitution need be adopted nor any election held to achieve the power except in the case of Johnson County, which is covered by a special law authorizing the adoption of a charter by county voters. Voters in Johnson County approved the charter in November 2002. Counties can be bound by state laws uniformly applicable to all counties. Further, nonuniform laws can be made binding on counties by amending the county home rule statute, which now contains 38 limitations on county home rule. Counties may act under home rule power if there is no state law on the subject. Counties also may supplement uniform state laws that do not clearly preempt county action by passing non-conflicting local legislation.
School District Expanded PowersLimited Home Rule

KSA 72-8205 was amended in 2003 to expand the powers of school boards as follows: The board may transact all school district business and adopt policies that the board deems appropriate to perform its constitutional duty to maintain, develop, and operate local public schools. The power granted by this subsection shall not be construed to relieve a board from compliance with state law. The power granted by this subsection shall not be construed to relieve any other unit of government of its duties and responsibilities which are prescribed by law, nor to create any responsibility on the part of a school district to assume the duties or responsibilities which are required of another unit of government. The board shall exercise the power granted by this subsection by resolution of the board of education.
T-1
The expanded administrative powers of school districts have not been reviewed by an appellate court, to date.
City and County Home Rule Differences

The major distinction between county home rule and city home rule is the crucial fact that the county home rule is granted by statute, whereas the city home rule is granted directly by the people. Because of its constitutional origins, only the voters of Kansas can ultimately repeal city home rule after twothirds of both houses of the Kansas Legislature have adopted a concurrent resolution calling for amendment or repeal, or a constitutional convention has recommended a change. The Legislature can restrict city home rule powers only by enacting uniform laws that apply in the same way to all cities unless the subject matter is one of the few specific areas listed in the Home Rule Amendment, such as taxing powers and debt limitations. By contrast, the Legislature has a much freer hand to restrict or repeal statutory county home rule. Finally, the other factor distinguishing city and county home rule is the existence of numerous (34) exceptions to county home rule powers found in the statutory home rule grant of power.
Ordinary versus Charter Ordinances or Resolutions Ordinary Home Rule Ordinances

City home rule must be exercised by ordinance. The term ordinary home rule ordinance was coined after the passage of the Home Rule Amendment but is not specifically used in the Kansas Constitution. The intent of using the term is to distinguish ordinances passed under home rule authority which are not charter ordinances from other ordinances enacted by cities under specific enabling acts of the Legislature. Similar terminology is used to refer to ordinary county home rule resolutions. There are several instances where cities and counties may use ordinary home rule ordinances or resolutions. The first occurs when a city or county desires to act and there is no state law on the subject sought to be addressed by the local legislation. A second instance is where cities or counties may enact ordinary home rule ordinances or resolutions when there is a uniform state law on the subject, but the law does not explicitly preempt local action. The city or county may supplement the state law as long as there is no conflict between the state law and the local addition or supplement. A third instance that sometimes has been recognized involves situations where either uniform or nonuniform enabling or permissive legislation exists but a city or county chooses not to utilize the available state legislation and instead acts under home rule.
City Charter Ordinances and County Charter Resolutions

A city charter ordinance is an ordinance that exempts a city from the whole or any part of any enactment of the Legislature which is nonuniform in its application to cities and which provides substitute or additional provisions on the same subject. A county charter resolution may be used in essentially the same way. Procedures for passage of city charter ordinances require a two-thirds vote of the members-elect of the governing body of the city. Publication of the charter ordinance is required once each week for two
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 T-1
consecutive weeks in the official city newspaper. The charter ordinance is subject to a 10 percent protest petition and election procedures. County charter resolutions must be passed by a unanimous vote in counties where a three-member commission exists unless the board determines ahead of time to submit the charter resolution to a referendum, in which case a two-thirds vote is required. In counties with a five or seven-member commission, a two-thirds vote is required to pass a charter resolution unless the charter resolution will be submitted to a vote, in which case a majority is required. County charter resolutions must be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in the official county newspaper and are subject to a two percent or 100 electors (whichever is greater) protest petition and election procedure.
Conclusion
Cities and counties in Kansas have broad home rule powers, although the home rule powers of cities are more secure due to the constitutional basis for these powers. The Kansas appellate courts, for the most part, have construed the home rule powers of both cities and counties in broad fashion upholding the exercise of these powers. There are, however, some appellate decisions which have negated home rule actions and, in the process, have established restrictive rules of interpretation that cannot be reconciled with other home rule decisions. Time will tell whether the court has developed two conflicting lines of rationale for deciding home rule cases. The expanded administrative powers of school districts are referred to by some as limited home rule powers. The scope of these expanded powers is considerably less comprehensive when compared to the city and county home rule powers. For more information, please contact:
T-1
page 6

Local Government T-2 Eminent Domain Other Local Government reports available T-1
Local Government
T-2 Eminent Domain
Eminent domain, in its simplest terms, is the inherent power of a governmental entity to take private property and convert it to public use. More specifically, it is the power of a public entity to take private property without the owners consent, conditioned upon the payment of just compensation. Eminent domain is a right founded on the law of necessity which is inherent in sovereignty and essential to the existence of government. The power of eminent domain belongs exclusively to the legislative branch and to those entities or individuals authorized by statute to exercise the power. The governments exercise of the power of eminent domain is subject to several important constitutional limits, including the requirement for payment of just compensation and the requirement that the property owner be granted due process of law, including notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Home Rule
T-3 Boundary Changes: Annexation
U.S. Supreme Court Kelo Decision

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 23, 2005, ruled in Kelo v. New London that the public use provision of the takings clause of the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution permits the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes. The case involved an economic development plan for the City of New London, Connecticut. The City had been in economic decline for many decades. In 1996, the U.S. Navy closed its Undersea Warfare Center, causing the loss of more than 1,500 jobs. In 1998, Pfizer, Inc., a large pharmaceutical company, announced plans to build a large research facility in New London on a site adjacent to the Fort Trumbull neighborhood. This neighborhood had been characterized as one with a high vacancy rate for nonresidential buildings, old buildings in poor shape, and with fewer than half of the residential properties in average or better condition. The homes of the petitioners in this case, however, did not fall into these categories.

[email protected]
The nonprofit New London Development Corporation (NLDC) was formed to help the city plan for economic development. After the Pfizer announcement, the city council authorized NLDC to formulate an economic development plan for 90 acres in Fort Trumbull. The plans stated goals were to create a development that would complement the facility that Pfizer was planning to build, create jobs, increase tax and other revenues, encourage public access to and use of the citys waterfront, and eventually to build momentum for the revitalization of the rest of the city, including its downtown area. Most people in the Fort Trumbull area sold their property to NLDC, but seven did not. The voluntary sales comprised 100 of the 115 properties in the neighborhood. These landowners held 15 properties in two parcels of land being considered for development. They filed suit claiming that the use of eminent domain as contemplated by the plan violated the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, recognized that the U.S. Constitution prohibits a taking whose sole purpose is to transfer one persons private property to another private person, even if just compensation is paid. It emphasized, however, that this was not the issue before the Court. Rather, The disposition of this case therefore turns on the question whether the Citys development plan serves a public purpose. The decision went on to stipulate that Without exception, our cases have defined that concept broadly, reflecting our longstanding policy of deference to legislative judgments in this field. In writing for the majority, Justice Stevens noted, in fact, that To effectuate this plan, the City has invoked a state statute that specifically authorizes the use of eminent domain to promote economic development. The Court determined that New Londons economic development plan served a public purpose under the public use provision of the U.S. Constitution. Justice Stevens noted that, Those who govern the City were not confronted with the need to remove blight in the Fort Trumbull area, but their determination that the area was sufficiently distressed to justify a program of economic rejuvenation is entitled to our deference. The City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community, includingbut by no means limited tonew jobs and increased tax revenue. The Court did not preempt additional state action. We emphasize that nothing in our opinion precludes any State from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power. Indeed, many States already impose public use requirements that are stricter than the federal baseline. Some of these requirements have been established as a matter of state constitutional law, while others are expressed in state eminent domain statutes that carefully limit the grounds upon which takings may be exercised.
Kansas Court Upholds Right of Eminent Domain For Economic Development

The Kansas Supreme Court has upheld the use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes in two cases. In the first case, State ex rel. Tomasic v. Unified Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City 265 Kan. 779, 790 (1998), the Court upheld provisions of the tax increment financing (TIF) law which authorized special obligation sales tax revenue (STAR) bonds and the use of eminent domain to build an auto race track in Wyandotte County. The Court held that the development of the auto race track facility and related projects were valid public purposes for which TIF and STAR bonds could be issued and eminent domain authority could be exercised.
More recently, in General Building Contractors, LLC v. Board of Shawnee County Commissioners 275 Kan. 525 (2003), the Court held that: Counties have the power of eminent domain under home rule and related statutes and have the power to condemn real property for purposes of industrial or economic development; County power of eminent domain must be exercised by resolution rather than motion; and The taking of private property for industrial or economic development is a valid public purpose.
The case involved the condemnation of a private business owners property for a Target Distribution Center facility.
Overview of Government Eminent Domain Power in Kansas

below. The State Legislature has granted the power of eminent domain to several state agencies, listed
Secretary of Administration Secretary of Transportation Secretary of Health and Environment
State Board of Regents State Historical Society State Biological Survey
Local units of government in Kansas may exercise the power of eminent domain where the Legislature has delegated this authority to such unit or where the local government has home rule power. The rule often stated by Kansas courts prior to the General Building Contractors case was that the power of eminent domain can only be exercised by virtue of a legislative enactment. The right to appropriate private property to public use lies dormant in the state until legislative action is had, pointing out the occasions, modes, conditions, and agencies for its appropriation. See Strain v. Cities Service Gas Co., 148 Kan. 393, 83 P.2d 124 (1938). Kansas statutes contain hundreds of specific sections (a computer search located 319 statutes) authorizing the use of eminent domain by a specific unit of government for a specific purpose. See, e.g., KSA 12-1736 (city may use eminent domain to acquire land for public buildings); KSA 19-1561 (county may use eminent domain to acquire land for county fair buildings); and KSA 73-411 (township may use eminent domain to acquire land for a veterans monument). In some cases, the unit of government is given general authority to exercise the power of eminent domain.
page 3
T-2
Local Governments With Power of Eminent Domain That May Engage in Economic Development Projects
Cities Counties Airport Authorities Port Authorities Industrial Districts Public Building Commissions
Recently Enacted Eminent Domain Legislation by States

Thirty-nine states enacted legislation or passed ballot measures during 2005 - 2007 in response to the Kelo decision. The laws and ballot measures generally fall into the following categories: Restricting the use of eminent domain for economic development, enhancing tax revenue or transferring private property to another private entity (or primarily for those purposes); Defining what constitutes public use; Establishing additional criteria for designating blighted areas subject to eminent domain; Strengthening public notice, public hearing and landowner negotiation criteria, and requiring local government approval before condemning property; and Placing a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for a specified time period and establishing a task force to study the issue and report findings to the legislature.
Alabama
SB 68 (2005 Special Session). Prohibits the use of eminent domain for retail, commercial, residential or apartment development; for purposes of generating tax revenue; or for the transfer of private property to another private party. Contains a blight exception. SB 654 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire non-blighted property for a redevelopment project without the consent of the owner. Defines blighted property to emphasize characteristics that are detrimental to the public health and safety.
Alaska
HB 318 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private entity for economic development purposes.
T-2
page 4
California
Proposition 99 (Approved on the 2008 Ballot) Prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire an owner-occupied residence to convey it to a private entity.
Colorado
HB 1411 (2006). Stipulates that a public use for which eminent domain may be exercised does not include transferring private property to another private entity for economic development purposes or to generate additional tax revenue.
Connecticut
SB 167 (2007). Requires a two-thirds vote of the legislative body of a municipality to approve the acquisition of real property through eminent domain by a development agency. If the municipality decides not to use the property for the purpose for which it was acquired, it must offer to sell it back to the original owners or heirs at the original purchase price or fair market value, whichever is less. Increases the level of compensation for property acquired through eminent domain by a development agency to 125 percent of its average appraised value. Prohibits the acquisition of real property through eminent domain if the primary purpose is to increase tax revenue.
Delaware
SB 217 (2005). Restricts the use of eminent domain by the state or a political subdivision to a recognized public use.
Florida
HB 1567 (2006). Prohibits the transfer of private property acquired through eminent domain to another private entity with certain exceptions, including for use by common carriers, public transportation, public utilities, or where the private use is incidental to a public project. Prohibits the use of eminent domain to eliminate blight conditions or to generate additional tax revenue. Authorizes the use of eminent domain under the Community Redevelopment Act if it is necessary to remove a threat to the public health or safety. HB 1569 (Approved on the 2006 Ballot). Requires a three-fifths vote of both houses of the state legislature to approve the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private entity.
Georgia
HB 1313 (2006). Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of property by the public, public agencies or public utilities, or for the removal of blight. Prohibits the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes, including enhancement of the tax base or tax revenue, increased employment or improvement in the general economic health when the property is to be transferred to another private entity. Redefines blighted areas to emphasize characteristics that are detrimental to the public health and safety. Requires approval
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 5 T-2
of eminent domain actions by the governing body of a city or county and greater public notice before proceeding with condemnation authority. HR 1306 (Approved on the 2006 Ballot). Requires approval by the elected governing body of a local government before eminent domain may be used for a redevelopment purpose.
Idaho
HB 555 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain for a public use that is merely a pretext for transferring the property to another private entity, or for promoting economic development.
Illinois
SB 3086 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to confer a benefit on a particular private entity or for a public use that is merely a pretext for conferring a benefit on a particular private entity. Limits the use of eminent domain for private development unless the area is blighted and the state or local government has entered into a development agreement with a private entity.
Indiana
HB 1010 (2006). Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of property by the public, public agencies or public utilities, and does not include an increase in the tax base, tax revenue, employment or general economic health. Redefines blighted areas to emphasize properties that are detrimental to the public health and safety. Requires payment of compensation where the property condemned is the persons primary residence at a rate equal to 150 percent of fair market value. Establishes a legislative study committee to study eminent domain and report its findings to the legislature no later than November 1, 2007.
Iowa
HF 2351 (2006). Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of the property by the general public or a public utility; where private use is only incidental to a public use; or to redevelop blighted areas where at least 75 percent of the properties in the area are blighted. States that public use does not include economic development activities that generate additional tax revenue or employment, or result in private residential, commercial or industrial development. Requires public notice before condemnation proceedings may begin. Includes a buy-back provision whereby the original owner of condemned property that is not put to a public use within five years may purchase it.
Kansas
SB 323 (2006). Prohibits the transfer of private property acquired through eminent domain to another private entity with certain exceptions, including property transferred to a common carrier; unsafe property acquired by a municipality; or property whose taking is expressly approved by the state legislature. The restrictions do not apply to property in a redevelopment district created prior to enactment of the law. Increases the level of compensation to landowners whose property is condemned to 200 percent of the average appraised value of the property.
Kentucky
HB 508 (2006). Defines public use to be ownership, possession, occupation or enjoyment of the property by a governmental entity; removal of blighted properties; or for use by a public utility. Prohibits the transfer of private property to another private entity for economic development purposes, including enhancement of the tax base or tax revenue, increased employment or promoting the general economic health of the community.
Louisiana
SB 1 (Approved on the 2006 Ballot). Prohibits the taking of private property predominantly for use by a private entity or to transfer ownership of the property to another private entity. Stipulates that neither economic development nor enhancement of tax revenue shall be considered in determining whether the taking of property is for a public purpose. HB 707 (Approved on the 2006 Ballot). Prohibits the sale or lease of property, with certain exceptions, that has been taken through eminent domain and held for less than 30 years unless the property is first offered to the original owner or his or her successor at fair market value. Stipulates that within one year after completion of a project for which eminent domain has been used, any surplus property must be offered to the original owner or his or her successor at fair market value.
Maine
LD 1870 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to condemn land used for agriculture, fishing or forestry or land improved with residential, commercial or industrial buildings, for private retail, office, commercial, industrial or residential purposes; primarily to generate additional tax revenue; or to transfer private property to another private entity. Provides a blight exception and use of land by a public utility.
Minnesota
SF 2750 (2006). Limits the use of eminent domain to a public use or public purpose, defined as the possession, occupation, ownership or enjoyment of the property by the general public or a public agency, or for the mitigation of blight. Stipulates that the public benefits of economic development do not, by themselves, constitute a public use or public purpose. Requires good faith negotiations with property owners and increases public notice and public hearing requirements.
Missouri
HB 1944 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain solely for an economic development purpose, which is defined to mean an increase in the tax base, tax revenue or employment in the area. Stipulates that eminent domain may be used only to take property in blighted areas or for a public use. Requires public notification of affected property owners before condemnation may begin, and negotiation in good faith with property owners. Establishes an Office of Ombudsman for property rights in the Office of Public Counsel in the Department of Economic Development to assist property owners in obtaining information about eminent domain.
page 7
T-2
Michigan
SJR E (Approved on November 2006 Ballot). Stipulates that if a persons principal residence is taken for public use, the amount of just compensation shall not be less than 125 percent of the propertys fair market value; public use does not include transferring private property to another private entity for economic development or generating additional tax revenue.
Montana
SB 363 (2007). Limits the use of eminent domain for urban renewal purposes to property in blighted areas where the property is a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare, and prohibits its use if the primary purpose is to increase tax revenue.
Nebraska
LB 924 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain primarily for economic development purposes, which is defined to mean use by a commercial entity or to increase tax revenue, the tax base, employment or general economic conditions.
Nevada
AB 102 (2007). Stipulates that public uses for which property may be acquired through eminent domain do not include transfer of the property to another private entity. Exceptions include where the private entity uses the property primarily to benefit a public purpose; the entity leases the property to a person that occupies an incidental part of a public facility; or the property taken was abandoned by the owner or the purpose was to abate a threat to the public health and safety. AJR 3 (2007). Stipulates that public uses for which property may be acquired through eminent domain do not include transfer of the property to another private entity. Exceptions include where the private entity uses the property primarily to benefit a public purpose; the entity leases the property to a person that occupies an incidental part of a public facility; or the property taken was abandoned by the owner or the purpose was to abate a threat to the public health and safety. Note: AJR 3 must be adopted by the legislature again in 2009 and be passed by the electorate on the 2010 ballot before becoming effective. The Nevada ballot measure, which would have amended the Nevada Constitution, Article 1, 22, failed on November 2, 2010.
New Hampshire
SB 287 (2006). Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of property by the public, public agencies or public utilities; the removal of properties that pose a threat to the public health and safety; or private uses that occupy an incidental area within a public project. Stipulates that public use does not include enhanced tax revenue and increased employment opportunities. CACR 30 (Approved on the 2006 Ballot). Prohibits the use of eminent domain if the property is to be transferred to another private entity for private development.
New Mexico
HB 393 (2007). Prohibits the use of eminent domain by municipalities for redevelopment projects under the Metropolitan Redevelopment Code.
North Carolina
House Bill 1965 (2006). Stipulates that eminent domain may be used only for specified public purposes contained in the statutes, which do not include economic development projects. Restricts the use of eminent domain by a redevelopment commission to blighted parcels only.
North Dakota
SB 2214 (2007). Prohibits the taking of private property for use or ownership by another private entity, except for common carriers or public utilities. Stipulates that public use or public purpose does not include the public benefits of economic development, including an increase in tax base, tax revenue, employment or general economic health.
Ohio
SB 167 (2005). Places a moratorium on the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes that would ultimately result in the property being transferred to another private party in an area that is not blighted until December 31, 2006. Creates a task force to study eminent domain issues. SB 7 (2007). Implements the recommendations of the Eminent Domain Task Force and creates other procedures to protect the rights of property owners.
Pennsylvania
SB 881 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain for private enterprise, except where the private enterprise occupies an incidental area within a public project. Does not affect the authority of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, apply to the exercise of eminent domain where the property is blighted or taken pursuant to the urban redevelopment law or taken to provide low-income housing, among other considerations. Defines blight to emphasize characteristics that are detrimental to the public health and safety.
South Carolina
SB 1031 (Approved on the 2006 Ballot). Prohibits the use of eminent domain for any use, including economic development, that is not a public use. Authorizes the legislature to enact laws allowing eminent domain to be used to remedy blight with the property put to public or private use provided just compensation is paid.
page 9
T-2
South Dakota
HB 1080 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to transfer private property to another private entity or to be used primarily to generate additional tax revenue.
Tennessee
SB 3296 (2006). Stipulates that public use for which eminent domain may be exercised does not include private use or benefit, or public benefit resulting indirectly from private economic development, including increased tax revenue and employment. Exceptions include use of eminent domain by public or private utilities, housing authorities or community development agencies to remove blight, private use that is merely incidental to public use, or the acquisition of property by a local government for an industrial park.
Texas
SB 7 (2005). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to confer a private benefit on a private party or for economic development purposes, with certain exceptions.
Utah
SB 317 (2006). Requires approval by the governing body of a local government before eminent domain may be exercised for a public use. Requires a written notice to be sent to the affected landowner at least 10 days prior to the public hearing where the proposed taking will be considered. Expands the definition of public use to include bicycle paths and sidewalks adjacent to paved roads, while limiting the use of eminent domain for certain recreational purposes. HB 365 (2007). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to acquire single-family residential owner occupied property unless requested by the owners of at least 80 percent of the owner occupied property within the area representing at least 70 percent of the value of owner occupied property in the area, and two-thirds of all agency board members approve of the acquisition. For the acquisition of commercial property, the figures are 75 percent and 60 percent, respectively. Authorizes the use of eminent domain in an urban renewal project area if an agency determines the property is blighted, the urban renewal project area plan provides for the use of eminent domain and acquisition of the property begins no later than five years after the date of the plan. Requires advance written notice and good faith negotiations with property owners before exercising eminent domain.
Vermont
SB 246 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain primarily for economic development purposes, except in accordance with the states urban renewal law. Other exceptions include uses for transportation, public utilities, public property and water projects.
T-2
page 10
West Virginia
HB 4048 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain primarily for private economic development. Contains a blight exception and redefines blighted areas to emphasize properties that are detrimental to the public health and safety. Requires greater public notice and negotiation in good faith with the property owner.
Virginia
SB 781, SB 1296, HB 2954 (2007). Defines public use for which eminent domain may be exercised to be, among other uses, the possession, ownership, occupation and enjoyment of property by the public or a public corporation, or for the removal of blight where the property condemned is actually blighted. Stipulates that property may be taken only where the public interest dominates any private gain and the primary purpose is not for an increase in tax base, tax revenue or employment.
Wisconsin
AB 657 (2006). Prohibits the use of eminent domain to condemn non-blighted properties to be transferred to another private entity. Redefines blight to emphasize properties that are detrimental to the public health and safety.
Wyoming
HB 124 (2007). Defines public purpose for which eminent domain may be exercised to be the possession, occupation and enjoyment of property by a public entity. Prohibits the transfer of private property to another private entity except to protect the public health and safety. Prohibits a municipality from delegating eminent domain authority to an urban renewal agency. Requires advance written notice and good faith negotiations with property owners before exercising eminent domain. States With Case Law Prohibiting Eminent Domain for Economic Development Arkansas Kentucky Maine Michigan New Hampshire South Carolina Washington
page 11
T-2
States With Case Law Upholding Eminent Domain for Economic Development Kansas Louisiana Maryland Minnesota Missouri New Jersey New York North Dakota Ohio
Sources: Elizabeth F. Gallagher, Note: Breaking New Ground: Using Eminent Domain for Economic Development, 73 Fordham L. Rev. 1837 (2005); and the National Conference of State Legislatures website.
Kansas Eminent Domain RestrictionsEconomic Development

The 2006 changes contained in Sub. for SB 323 prohibit the use of eminent domain for economic development purposes unless the Legislature approves the taking; changes certain eminent domain procedures; and requires surveys for lands to be taken through the exercise of eminent domain be performed by a licensed land surveyor or an engineer competent to conduct land surveys.
Takings for Benefit of a Private Entity ProhibitionExceptions

The law provides that on and after July 1, 2007, the taking of private property by eminent domain for the purpose of selling, leasing or transferring it to another private entity including takings under the tax increment financing law is not to be permitted unless the taking meets one of the following: The property is deemed excess real property that was taken lawfully and incidental to the acquisition of right-of-way for a public road, bridge or public improvement project of the Kansas Department of Transportation or a municipality; The taking is by any public utility; The taking is by any gas gathering service, pipeline company or railroad; The private property owner has acquiesced in writing to the taking by any municipality; The property has defective or unusual conditions of title, or unknown ownership interests in the property and is taken by any municipality; or The property is unsafe for occupation by humans under the building codes.
T-2
page 12
Legislative Approval of Taking for Economic Development

Any taking of private property for the purpose of transferring it to any private entity, except as authorized above, must be expressly authorized by the Legislature on or after July 1, 2007, by enactment of a law that identifies the specific tract or tracts to be taken. The Legislature is required to consider providing extra compensation to the person whose land will be taken of at least 200 percent of the fair market value.
Tax Increment Law Change

The tax increment financing law was amended to provide that on or after July 1, 2007, the power of eminent domain could be exercised only as provided in this act, i.e., legislative approval by passage of a bill approving eminent domain for a specific project is required. Most of the eminent domain provisions of the bill have a one-year delay in the effective date to allow tax increment projects (e.g., Manhattan), to be completed under provisions of prior law.
County Home Rule ExceptionAdded

The law adds another exemption on and after July 1, 2007, to the county home rule law to provide that a county may not exempt itself from or effect changes in this Act.
Kansas Eminent Domain Procedure Act Changes

The Kansas Eminent Domain Procedure Act is further amended to allow a defendant ten days to remove personal property from the owners real property which has been condemned and to require the district court clerk to notify property owners of this ten-day provision; and to provide that an appeal would be deemed perfected upon the filing of a notice of appeal and applying this clarification retroactively to July 1, 2003. The bill also adds definitions of municipality and taking to the Act. Municipality is defined to include cities, counties, and unified governments.
Land SurveyorEngineers
The law amends several statutes to require surveys of land to be taken by eminent domain be conducted by licensed land surveyors or by a professional engineer competent to conduct a land survey.
Effective Dates of Different Provisions of the Act

The effective date of most of the eminent domain provisions of the bill was July 1, 2007, to allow the completion of tax increment provisions. The effective date of the land surveyors projects of the bill was July 1, 2006. The effective date of the eminent domain appeals provision was the publication in the Kansas Register.
Additional Developments
In 2008, SB 518, now KSA 12-5801, et seq., created the DeSoto/Johnson County Riverfront Authority, the purpose of which is to encourage private capital investment by fostering the creation of recreational, retail, entertainment, economic development and housing within the riverfront.
page 13
T-2
The Authority could acquire property and property rights, water rights and riparian rights by purchase, lease, gift or otherwise, but could not take property by eminent domain. In addition, the 2008 Legislature designated a 2008 interim study to investigate issues concerning the use of eminent domain as it relates to water rights and other issues concerning water rights. The 2008 Special Committee on Eminent Domain in the Condemnation of Water Rights reviewed the topic of eminent domain in the condemnation of water rights included in the statutory charge in KSA 82a-740. The Committee recommended SB 64 and SB 253. Both bills passed during the 2009 Session. SB 64 modified several provisions of the Kansas Water Appropriation Act. The first modification amends the definition of water right by striking the would voluntary in order to make it clear that a water right passes as an appurtenance with a conveyance of land in either voluntary or involuntary situations. The second modification clarifies that no person would be able to acquire a new water appropriation right without obtaining a water right through the Chief Engineer. Former law spoke to the acquisition of a water right, not a new water right. Since existing water rights pass with the conveyance of land when sold or transferred, the only time a right is granted from the Chief Engineer is for a new water appropriation right. The third modification amends a section dealing with a person seeking to acquire a new water appropriation right and requires, in addition to the other information required, that the person provide to the Chief Engineer a sworn statement or evidence of legal access to or control of the point of diversion and place of use from the landowner, or his or her authorized representative. The last modification would restate and clarify current law by stating that the date of priority of every water right and not the purpose determines the right to divert and use water when the supply is not sufficient to satisfy all water rights. The bill also clarifies that when the lawful uses of water have the same date of priority, the order of preference is domestic, municipal, irrigation, industrial, recreational, and water power uses. The only water rights with the same date of priority are vested rights since all other appropriation rights have a date of priority. SB 253 addressed modification of zoning regulations in cities and counties (i.e., rezoning). In laws applicable to all cities and counties, the bill exempted rezoning related to mining operations, subject to the Surface-Mining Land Conservation and Reclamation Act (or KSA 49-601 et seq.), from any supermajority vote requirement of the city or county governing body. For more information, please contact:
T-2
page 14

Local Government T-3 Boundary Changes: Annexation Other Local Government reports available T-1
Local Government
T-3 Boundary Changes: Annexation
Introduction
There are basically three ways a municipality can change its boundaries: annexation, consolidation, or detachment. This paper will discuss the first of these boundary change methods. Annexation is defined as the territorial expansion of a municipal corporation through the addition of new land. Nationally, there are five major methods of annexation: (1) by state legislation; (2) by municipal ordinance or resolution; (3) by petition of the residents or landowners in the area to be annexed; (4) by judicial action; and (5) by boundary review commissions. Most states no longer use direct legislative action to provide for annexation; instead, most states have allowed for annexation by way of general, permissive laws. Many states, including Kansas, provide for multiple methods of annexation. (Source: Briffault, Richard and Laurie Reynolds, State and Local Government Law, 6 Ed., West Group Publishing, July 2004, p. 180.)
Home Rule
T-2 Eminent Domain
Kansas: Current Law

Kansas law allows cities to annex land by several different methods, depending upon the circumstances. Unilateral annexation is permitted in Kansas for annexations that meet certain criteria. Also permitted are consent annexations (given other criteria) and annexations involving the approval of the board of county commissioners. All unilateral and most consent annexations are addressed in one statute. KSA 12-520 sets out the conditions under which each of these may take place. Unilateral annexation Pursuant to KSA 12-520, subsection (a), a municipality may annex land unilaterally (i.e., without obtaining landowner consent or voter approval) under any of the following circumstances:
[email protected]
The land is platted, and some part of the land adjoins the city. KSA 12-520(a)(1).
The land lies within or mainly within the city and has a common perimeter with the city boundary of more than 50 percent. KSA 12-520(a)(4). Annexing the land will make the citys boundary line more harmonious (limit: 21 acres). KSA 12-520(a)(5). The tract is situated so that two-thirds of any boundary line adjoins the city (limit: 21 acres). KSA 12-520(a)(6). The land is owned by or held in trust for the city. KSA 12-520(a)(2). The land adjoins the city and is owned by another government (certain restrictions apply). KSA 12-520(a)(3).
(Note: KSA 12-520c allows for annexation, by consent, of land that does not adjoin a city if certain conditions are met. This is discussed later in this paper.) A specific process must be followed for unilateral annexations. Public notification, notice to landowners within the area, and hearings are central to this process, but it is the citys governing body that makes the final decision to approve or reject the annexation. KSA 12-520a and 12-520b. Also, three years after annexation, the board of county commissioners is required to review and hold a hearing on the citys timetable for provision of services to the annexed area. If the board finds that the city has not provided the planned services, the property may be deannexed within 1 years of the boards findings. (The time periods were reduced by 2011 SB 150, as noted below.) Consent Annexation Cities may annex some properties without a public hearing process if certain other circumstances exist, including landowner consent: Adjoining land A city may annex adjoining land if the landowner files a written petition for or consent to the annexation with the city. KSA 12-520(a)(7). Noncontiguous land The governing body of any city may by ordinance annex land not adjoining the city if all of the following conditions exist. An aggrieved owner or city may appeal to the district court. KSA 12-520c. The land is located in the same county; The owners of the land petition for or consent in writing to the annexation; and The board of county commissioners determines the annexation will not hinder or prevent the proper growth and development of the area or that of any other incorporated city located within such county.
County Board as City Boundary Setter (KSA 12-521) The board of county commissioners may be petitioned to act as boundary setter for:
T-3
page 2
Annexations of land not covered in KSA 12-520; or Annexations of land covered in KSA 12-520 but for which the city deems it advisable not to annex under the provisions of that statute.
The citys petition requirement is followed by publication, public notice, notice to landowners within the area, and hearing requirements in the statute. SB 150, enacted by the Legislature in 2011 (2011 Session Laws, Ch.101), required the board of county commissioners to approve any such petition by a two-thirds, rather than a simple majority, vote of its members. In addition, the bill made a distinction between bilateral annexations of 40 acres or more and those of less than 40 acres, as follows: (a) It required any such annexation involving 40 acres or more be put to a vote of the qualified electors, which the bill defined as owners of land in the area proposed to be annexed; and (b) if the area to be annexed is less than 40 acres, it allowed the board of county commissioners to render a judgment on the petition unless the board previously had granted three annexations of adjoining tracts within a 60-month period. Annexation of Certain Lands Is Prohibited Certain annexations are prohibited under KSA 12520. All of the following are prohibited from being annexed unilaterally, and one of the three is allowed only if the owners written consent is received: Agricultural lands consisting of 21 acres or more, unless the owners written consent is received. KSA 12-520(b). Improvement districts incorporated under KSA 19-2753 et seq. on or before January 1, 1987. KSA 12-520(c). Highway rights-of-wayunless the abutting property on one or both sides is annexed. KSA 12-520(f).
Other Kansas statutes forbid certain other annexations as follows: No city may annex via KSA 12-520 (i.e., unilaterally or by the consent circumstances in that statute) a narrow corridor of land to gain access to noncontiguous tracts of land. The corridor of land must have a tangible value and purpose other than to enhance future annexations. KSA 12-520 (2010 Session Laws, Ch. 130, Sec. 1.). No city may annex unilaterally territory of improvement districts where the formation process for the district began on or before January 1, 1987. KSA 12-520(c). If the annexation is of 40 acres or more and the qualified electors reject the annexation, no city may annex any lands within that area for four years. (There are exceptions for government-owned land and for consent annexation.) KSA 12521(e) (2011 Session Laws, Ch. 101, Sec. 7). No city may annex any other incorporated city, in part or in its entirety. KSA 12524.
page 3
T-3
No city may annex any territory of a United States military reservation under control of the Department of the Army (applies to annexation proceedings that began after December 31, 1981). KSA 12-529.
Additional Annexation Provisions Finally, specific provisions exist regarding compensation for annexations of water districts. Those are contained in KSA 12-527. Also see KSA 66-1,176, et seq. regarding city annexation and termination of rights to serve customers and retail electric suppliers.
Recent Kansas Legislative History

Annexation recently has been a concern in the Kansas Legislature. During the 10 years prior to the 2011 Legislative Session at least 24 bills were introduced and debated in the Legislature. Of the 24 bills, seven passed both Legislative chambers. Of those seven, four were approved by the Governor and three were vetoed. Furthermore, the number of bills considered each biennium generally had been increasing, with a significant increase in the 2009-2010 biennium. The following table shows the number of annexation bills considered in each biennium. Biennium 2001-2002 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 Number of Bills 3 5 7 6 15
The bills addressed several different aspects of annexation, both of general (statewide) applicability and of more limited applicability. Many bills have repeated the proposed provisions, either exactly or in similar fashion. Twenty of the bills dealt at least in part with unilateral annexation. The following table lists these unilateral annexation-related bills. Biennium 2003-2004 2005-2006 2007-2008 2009-2010 Bills Containing Unilateral Annexation Provisions HB 2043, HB 2654 HB 2185, HB 2229, HB 2230, SB 24 (Approved), SB 492 HB 2058 (Approved), HB 2917, HB 2978 HB 2084, HB 2471, HB 2478, SB 51 (Vetoed), SB 204, SB 214 (Approved), SB 254, SB 561
The following table lists the unilateral annexation-related topics and the bills in which they were contained:
T-3
page 4
Unilateral Annexation-Related Topics Repeal outright Eliminate by requiring approval of board of county commissioners (BCC) Eliminate by requiring voter approval Prohibit unilateral unless BCC determines it will not have an adverse effect on county Limit unilateral annexation to cities with 100,000+ population Prohibit annexation of county-owned land unless city receives BCC permission Allow cities within 1/2 mile to challenge another citys unilateral annexation decisions Require cities to consider 16 factors when annexing unilaterally
Bills 2005 HB 2185 2003 HB 2043 2004 HB 2654; 2008 HB 2747 2008 HB 2978; 2009 SB 118, SB 204, SB 561; 2010 HB 2478 2006 SB 492 2007 HB 2058 (Approved) 2005 HB 24 (Approved) 2005 SB 24 (Approved)
Another, more recent area of focus in legislation was annexation via approval by the board of county commissioners (i.e., county board as city boundary setter). During the 2007-2008 and 2009-2010 biennia, a total of 11 bills addressed this issue at least in part. The following table lists the topics related to this area and the bills in which they were contained: Topic Re: Board of County Commissioner (BCC) Approval Require voter approval of any BCC-approved annexation Prohibit BCC approval of the annexation of 21+ acres of unplanted agricultural land without landowners consent Prohibit annexation of county-owned land unless city receives BCCs permission Prohibit unilateral annexation unless BCC determines it will not have an adverse effect on county Bills 2009 HB 2029. HB 2031; 2010 HB 2470 2009 HB 2029, HB 2030, SB 51 (Veto) (65 acres); 2010 HB 2470 2007 HB 2058 (Approved) 2008 HB 2978; 2009 SB 118, SB 204; 2010 HB 2478, SB 561
Among other, more general annexation-related topics, a number had been considered in multiple bills. Following is a brief description of three such topics: Revising the timeline for service provisions related to annexations From 2004 through 2010, a total of five bills were introduced that would have shortened the timeline to determine whether promised services were provided to the annexed area before steps to deannex could begin. Although the specific time reductions were different in the bills, the issue was the same. One bill was introduced in 2004, one in 2008, two in 2009, and one was introduced in 2010. One bill, 2009 SB 51, passed both legislative chambers but was vetoed. SB 150, enacted in 2011, reduced from five years to three years the time that must elapse following annexation (or related litigation) before the board of county commissioners is required to hold a hearing to consider whether the city has provided the services set forth in its annexation plan and timetable. It also reduced from two and a half years to one and a half years the time that must elapse following the services
page 5 T-3
hearing (or conclusion of litigation) before a landowner may petition to the board of county commissioners to deannex the land in question. Prohibiting strip annexation This legislation has appeared in seven bills since 2008 and finally was approved in 2010 SB 214. Expanding the scope of the court review regarding challenged annexations This legislation appeared in four bills and finally was approved in 2005 SB 24.
As mentioned previously, 2011 SB 150 made some significant changes in the annexation laws, particularly relating to bilateral annexation. The bill also required homestead rights attributable prior to annexation (in unilateral, bilateral, or most consent-annexation circumstances) to continue after annexation until the land is sold after the annexation. Time will tell whether this bill results in a reduction in emphasis on the topic of annexation. For more information, please contact:
T-3
page 6

Redistricting U-1
Redistricting
U-1 Redistricting Frequently Asked Questions
Why does the Legislature create new Legislative and Congressional districts?
In 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Wesberry v. Sanders case found that congressional districts must be drawn so that as nearly as is practicable one mans vote in a congressional election is...worth as much as anothers. In the same year the Court determined in Reynolds v. Sims that the boundaries of legislative districts (both chambers of a bicameral legislature) must be redrawn and that the overriding objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts, so that the vote of any citizen is approximately equal in weight to that of any other citizen in the State. The one-person-one-vote goal is achieved by creating districts that essentially are equal in population.
Redistricting Frequently Asked Questions
Other Redistricting reports U-2
Redistricting Timeline
How is population equality defined for purposes of redistricting?

In general, congressional districts must be equal in population, i.e., no deviation from the ideal population (the states total population divided by the number of congressional seats). Kansas congressional districts drawn in 2002 had an overall deviation of 33 people. The federal district court that upheld the 2002 congressional plan found the plan to be constitutional, despite the existence of alternative plans with lower deviations, because the: Deviation from perfect population equality was relatively small; Deviation resulted from the balancing of legitimate state goals, and Plan minimized the shift of population from the 1992 plan.
Corey Carnahan, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
Courts have allowed some leeway for legislative districts. In general, plans in which the largest and smallest districts create a range of 10 percent or less overall from the ideal population are acceptable. The 2002 Kansas House plan had an overall deviation of 9.95 percent. The 2002 Kansas Senate plan had an overall deviation of 9.27 percent. Courts have held that a legislative district plan with an overall deviation exceeding 10 percent requires the state to assume the burden of showing both that the overall range is necessary to implement a rational state policy and that it does not dilute the voting strength of a protected racial or ethnic minority. However, a plan having less than a 10 percent overall range is not necessarily safe from a successful challenge. Courts have rejected plans having an overall range of less than 10 percent when a challenger demonstrates that the plan was not created in good faith or that there was something suspect about the districts involved.
What population data is used as the basis for creating new districts?
Kansas congressional districts are based on the enumeration of the states population as reported in the most recent decennial federal census. The Kansas Constitution requires that the population basis for legislative districts (and by extension, the State Board of Education districts) be the most recent decennial federal Census as adjusted to exclude nonresident students and military personnel and to include resident students and members of the military at the place of their permanent residence. The Kansas Constitution was amended by the voters in 1988 to require the use of adjusted U.S. Census figures for development of legislative districts. Prior to 1988, the Constitution required that legislative districts be based on population enumerated in a state-conducted Census. The current adjustment process was used for the first time for redistricting in 1992, following the 1990 federal Census.
How are federal Census results adjusted to meet the requirements of the Kansas Constitution and who performs the adjustment?
KSA 11-301 et seq., requires the Secretary of State to gather data necessary to make population adjustments as required by the Kansas Constitution. All colleges, universities, and military units are to report to the Secretary information regarding students and military personnel as necessary to make the adjustment. The Secretary of State is required by statute to provide the adjusted Census figures to the Legislature by the end of July in the year ending in 1.
Who has primary responsibility for redistricting in Kansas?

The Legislature has initial responsibility for developing legislative, congressional, and State Board of Education districts every ten years following the decennial federal Census. Traditionally, the Legislature has utilized a House and a Senate standing committee to develop plans that are presented to the respective chambers for consideration. All three branches of state government have a role in creation of new legislative districts. New districts are created by enactment of a statute that becomes effective unless vetoed by the Governor. As
U-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
required by the Kansas Constitution, redistricting plans for the state House and Senate must be reviewed by the State of Kansas Supreme Court prior to becoming effective. Congressional district plans also are enacted into law, but are not automatically subject to court review. However, Kansas congressional plans have been challenged in court after every redistricting in recent memory.
When will the 2012 districts become effective?

New legislative, congressional, and State Board of Education districts will be effective for the 2012 General Election and will remain in effect until new districts are drawn again either in accordance with the Kansas Constitution or a court mandate. The June filing deadline for the August primary creates an effective start date for use of the new districts. However, representation from the new districts does not begin until newly elected officials are sworn in after the November 2012 General Election.
How does the Legislature prepare for redistricting?

The earliest preparation for each redistricting since 1989 has involved participation in the U.S. Census Bureaus Redistricting Data Program. Most recently, the Legislative Coordinating Council in 2005 decided to participate in Phase 1 of the Census 2010 Redistricting Data Program. In Phase 1 the Legislative Research Department provided the Census Bureau with Kansas current legislative district boundaries. Phase 2 of the Redistricting Data Program began in 2007. In that phase, the Legislative Research Department, through an agreement with the Kansas GIS Data Access and Support Center, provided computer files to the Census Bureau delineating precincts and suggesting boundaries for the 2010 tabulation census blocks. Verification of the resulting precinct and block boundaries was completed in early 2010. Legislative staff also assembled general election and voter registration data that may be included in the redistricting database. (Decisions regarding what, if any, data in addition to population counts, are included in the redistricting database are made by the Redistricting Advisory Group, a special committee created by the Legislative Coordinating Council.) In Phase 3 of the Redistricting Data Program, the Legislature received the Decennial Census 2010 redistricting data on April 1, 2011. Once those Census results are received, the Secretary of State can begin making adjustments based on data collected from colleges, universities, and military installations in the state. During the Fall of 2009, the Legislative Coordinating Council appointed a special committee, the Redistricting Advisory Group, to assist with preparations for the redistricting effort. The Advisory Group is composed of three Senators and three Representatives. The Advisory Group is staffed by the Legislative Research Department and the Office of the Revisor of Statutes. Among the decisions that the Advisory Group may make are the following: Who should take the lead in the organization and planning for redistricting; The type of staff and technical support the Legislature will need for redistricting;
page 3
U-1
How the work for redistricting will be organized in 2011 and 2012; and Any statutory or constitutional changes that might be necessary to facilitate timely completion of redistricting.
Corey Carnahan, Principal Analyst [email protected]
U-1
page 4

Redistricting U-2
Redistricting
U-2 Redistricting Timeline
What is the timeline for the 2012 round of redistricting in Kansas?
The Kansas Constitution requires that new legislative and State Board of Education districts be enacted during the regular legislative session in the year ending in 2. Actual plan drawing occurs in the year after adjournment of the 2011 Legislature. The redistricting process, including the constitutionally mandated automatic review by the State Supreme Court of legislative plans, must be completed relatively quickly because of the June filing deadline for the August primary election in 2012. The decennial federal Census was conducted in 2010 with the results available to the Legislature in the spring of 2011. The Kansas Constitution requires that those Census results be adjusted for purposes of developing legislative districts. The Secretary of State performed the adjustment and provided the recalculated population figures to the Legislature by the end of July 2011. New district plans will be developed during the interim of 2011 and the Session of 2012. After passage through the legislative process, legislative redistricting bills are published in the Kansas Register immediately after they are passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. Within 15 days of publication, the Attorney General must petition the Kansas Supreme Court to determine the validity of the redistricting acts. The Court has 30 days from the filing of the petition to render its judgement on the initial plan for each legislative chamber. If the Court finds that the first legislative redistricting plan is invalid, the Legislature is required to enact a second plan within 15 days. That plan must conform to the judgement of the Court and also is subject to review by the Court. The Court has 10 days from the time the Attorney General applies for review of the second plan to issue its opinion.
Redistricting Timeline
Other Redistricting reports U-1
Redistricting Frequently Asked Questions
[email protected]
Corey Carnahan, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181
If the second legislative redistricting plan is invalidated by the Court, the Legislature would be required to enact a third bill ...in compliance with the direction of and conforming to the mandate of... the Court within 15 days of the Courts decision. In order to be prepared for the possibility that two additional plans would be needed to satisfy the Court (three plans in total), the first redistricting plan would have to be through both chambers of the Legislature by mid-February. Congressional and State Board of Education district plans are not subject to automatic court review. However, challenges to those plans may be brought via a lawsuit. Historically, Kansas Congressional district plans have been challenged in court.
What was timeline for the last round of redistricting activities?

Major events in the 2002 Redistricting process are outlined below. 1995 - 1999 Kansas participated in the Census Bureau 2000 Redistricting Data Program by submitting census block boundary suggestions and precinct boundaries to the Bureau for use during tabulation of the 2000 Census results and for use during redistricting. Legislative Research Department staff was designated as the Kansas liaison to the Census Bureau for the Redistricting Data Program. HCR 5005 recommended by the House Committee on Governmental Organization and Elections proposed an amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would have eliminated the requirement for use of adjusted Census results for legislative redistricting. The resolution was not adopted by the 1997 Legislature. Redistricting Advisory Group recommendation to the 1999 Legislature: Introduction of SCR 1601 proposing an amendment to the Kansas Constitution eliminating the requirement for use of adjusted Census results for legislative redistricting. The resolution was not adopted by the 1999 Legislature. In its report to the 2000 Legislature, the Redistricting Advisory Group requested Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) action to direct: Legislative staff to negotiate a contract for software and services with Public Systems Associates, Inc., and to develop a memorandum of understanding between the LCC and the Secretary of State for coordination of contract management and payment for services. Legislative Research and Legislative Services staff to prepare a detailed multi-year budget for the entire redistricting project for consideration by the 2000 Legislature.
1997
August 1998
December 1999
U-2
page 2
April 1, 2000 December 2000
March 2001
Legislative Research, Legislative Services, and caucus staff who participated in the vendor selection process to develop plans for staffing and workspace needs for redistricting. Any such plans will be reviewed by the Advisory Group. Census Day The U.S. Census Bureau provided the President with Census results for apportioning Congressional seats among the states. The Redistricting Advisory Group made the following recommendations to the 2001 Legislature, all of which were implemented. The Advisory Group should be authorized to meet until the end of the 2001 Session to provide continuity of Legislative involvement in the areas of contract management and other administrative preparations for redistricting. The House and the Senate should establish standing redistricting committees at the beginning of the 2001 Session to facilitate preparation for redistricting activities that will take place during the 2001 Interim. The Special Committee on Redistricting, appointed by the Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) after the 2001 Session, should hold statewide hearings during the 2001 Interim prior to the formal start of plan-drawing. KLRD and the Revisors staff should continue developing plans to provide public education and information about redistricting including public hearings, public access to proposed plans, and related activities. KLRD and other technical support staff should ensure that the related issues of data integrity and confidentiality of legislative work product be addressed in redistricting system security policies that were prepared for the LCCs consideration. The LCC should authorize caucus staff and any nonpartisan staff to attend the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) Redistricting Seminar in Dallas in January 2001. New legislative leadership should promptly determine caucus redistricting workroom locations to facilitate any necessary arrangements prior to the start of the 2001 Session. U.S. Census Bureau provided federal Census results to Legislative leaders.
page 3
U-2
May 2001
May - June 2001
July 2001 November 2001
February 13, 2002 February 14, 2002 February 25, 2002 March 5, 2002 March 7, 2002 March 11, 2002 April 2, 2002 April 4, 2002 April 8, 2002 April 11, 2002 April 12, 2002 April 23, 2002 April 26, 2002 May 9, 2002 May 14, 2002 May 16, 2002 May 31, 2002 June 5, 2002
LCC appointed the Special Committee on Redistricting composed of the House Special Committee on Redistricting and the Senate Committee on Apportionment, approved seven meeting days in Topeka for the Special Committee, authorized hearings outside of Topeka to be conducted by 9 to 13 members of the Special Committee, authorized compensation and expenses for each member of the Legislature to attend one of the hearings, and approved compensation and expenses for each member of the Special Committee to participate in five working days in Topeka. The Special Committee on Redistricting conducted town hall meetings in Lawrence, Overland Park, Wichita, Hutchinson, Leavenworth, Kansas City, Manhattan, Independence, Fort Hays, and Garden City ten meetings over the course of seven days. The Kansas Secretary of State released the states adjusted Census data to the Legislature. The Special Committee on Redistricting held its final meeting and made recommendations to the 2002 Legislature. The Committee recommended introduction of bills (SB 378, SB 379, and HB 2625) that would enact new districts for Kansas representatives in Congress and the Kansas Legislature. A proposed redistricting plan for the State Board of Education was to be developed during the 2002 Legislative Session. A minority report was prepared and submitted by Democrat Committee members. The report addressed the Committees recommendations for State Senate and congressional districts. Senate passed SB 379 (Senate districts) House passed HB 2625 (House districts) House passed SB 379 (Senate districts) Governor vetoed SB 379 (Senate districts) Senate passed HB 2625 (House districts) Governor signed HB 2625 Senate passed SB 256 (Senate districts) House passed SB 256 (Senate districts) Governor signed SB 256 Senate passed SB 663 (State Board of Education districts) House passed SB 663 (State Board of Education districts) Governor signed SB 663 Kansas Supreme Court upheld the House plan Kansas Supreme Court upheld the Senate plan House passed SB 152 (Congressional districts) Senate passed SB 152 (Congressional districts) Governor signed SB 152 The Attorney General brought suit in federal court to find Congressional districts unconstitutional.
U-2
page 4
June 24, 2002 July 3, 2002 July 9, 2002 August 6, 2002
Filing deadline for primary elections for legislative and State Board of Education seats. The federal district court upheld the Congressional plan. Filing deadline for primary election for congressional seats (Statutory deadline would have been July 12. The Federal Court set the deadline for July 9 in its order upholding the Congressional plan.) Primary election
Corey Carnahan, Principal Analyst [email protected]
page 5
U-2

Retirement V-1
Retirement
V-1 Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
KPERS Overview and Brief History
The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (known as KPERS and referenced in this document as the Retirement System) administers three statewide plans. The largest plan, usually referred to as the regular KPERS plan, or just as KPERS, has two tiers that include state, school, and local groups composed of regular state and local public employees; school district, vocational school, and community college employees; Regents classified employees and certain Regents unclassified staff with pre-1962 service; and state correctional officers. A second plan is known as the Kansas Police and Firemens (KP&F) Retirement System for certain designated state and local public safety employees. A third plan is known as the Kansas Retirement System for Judges that includes the states judicial system judges and justices. All coverage groups are defined benefit, contributory retirement plans and have as members most public employees in Kansas. The primary purpose of the Retirement System is to accumulate sufficient resources in order to pay benefits. Retirement and death benefits paid by the Retirement System are considered off-budget expenses. In FY 2000, the Governor recommended and the Legislature approved making retirement benefit payments non-reportable expenditures. Since the retirement benefit payments represent a substantial amount of money distributed annually to retirees and their beneficiaries, the historical accounting of assistance paid is presented for informational purposes. Total benefits paid in FY 2000 exceeded $500.0 million for the first time. Today more than $1.0 billion is paid in annual retirement and death benefits. The total number of KPERS members increased from 222,968 in 2009 to 265,477 in 2010. The market value of assets increased from $11.8 billion on December 31, 2009, to $12.9 billion the end of the next year. There were $790 million in employer and member contributions, $1.2 billion in benefit payments and expenses, and $1.5 billion of investment income. There was a decrease from 160,831 active members on December 31, 2009, to 157,919 active members on December 31, 2010.
Kansas Public Employees Retirement System Other Retirement reports available
V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans V-3 Working After KPERS V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans V-6
KPERS Early Retirement, Normal Retirement, and Early Retirement Incentive Plans
Julian Efird, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
In order to pay the future retirement benefits, the Retirement System will be required to provide total funding of $21.9 billion in order to meet the accrued actuarial liability, based on the December 31, 2010, actuarial valuation. Total actuarially-valued assets available to pay future benefits totaled $13.6 billion, according to the actuarial valuation. The gap between assets and funding available is known as the unfunded actuarial liability, which amounts to $8.3 billion in the most recent actuarial valuation report. The Retirement System also administers several other employee benefit and retirement programs: a public employee death and long-term disability benefits plan; an optional term life insurance program; and a legislative session-only employees retirement program. The Legislature has assigned other duties to the agency in managing investments of moneys from three state funds: the Kansas Endowment for Youth Fund, the Senior Services Trust Fund, and the Treasurers Unclaimed Property Fund. A nine-member Board of Trustees is the governing body for the Retirement System. Four members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. One member is appointed by the President of the Senate. One member is appointed by the Speaker of the House. Two members are elected by System members. One member is the State Treasurer. The Board appoints the Executive Director who administers the agency operations for the Board. The Retirement System manages assets in excess of $12.9 billion. Annually, the Retirement System pays out more in retirement benefits than it collects in employer and employee contributions. The gap between current expenditures and current revenues is made up with funding from investments and earnings. The financial health of the Retirement System may be measured by its funded ratio, or the relationship between the promised benefits and the resources available to pay those promised benefits. In the most recent actuarial valuation, the funded ratio for the Retirement System was 62.0 percent. Using market value for assets, the funded ratio was 59.0 percent. Using market-based data, the unfunded liability was $8.9 billion on December 31, 2010. This is the amount of financing shortfall when comparing the Retirement System assets with promised retirement benefits. The actuarial unfunded liability of $8.3 billion did not reflect all of the investment losses.
Brief History of KPERS

The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) was created by the 1961 Legislature, with an effective date of January 1, 1962. Membership in the original KPERS retirement plan (now referred to as KPERS Tier I) was offered to state and local public employees qualified under the new law and whose participating employers chose to affiliate with KPERS. Another KPERS tier was created in 2007 for future state, school, and local public employees. The new KPERS Tier II has many characteristics of the original plan, but with certain modifications to ensure that employees and employers will share in the total cost of providing benefits. The new KPERS tier is described in the last section of this document. Most of this document focuses on the original first tier of KPERS and the history of that plan for state, school, and local public employees. Information about other public plans for the judicial branch and public safety personnel is presented in another background document in this publication. A separate document on defined contribution plans discusses the retirement offering for some Regents state employees. The 1961 Legislature, in addition to establishing KPERS, also created the Board of Regents Annuity Assistance Program for another smaller group of state employees, originally administrators and faculty members who are unclassified staff at state universities and colleges. After the 1961 Legislature established the two retirement plans for state employees, membership in KPERS was granted to all state employees on January 1, 1962, who participated in Social Security
V-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
and who were not eligible to participate in any other state retirement plan (namely, the Regents annuity program, the state retirement plan for district court judges and Supreme Court justices, a court reporter retirement plan, and two different state law enforcement plans at the Kansas Highway Patrol and Kansas Bureau of Investigation). In addition, local public employees were eligible for original KPERS membership on January 1, 1962, if they participated in Social Security and if the local governing body passed a resolution for affiliation with KPERS. Local governing bodies were defined to include any city, county or township, or any special district and instrumentality of the State of Kansas and of any city, county, or township. KPERS was established as a defined benefit plan in which membership was extended to most state employees at state agencies and classified employees at Regents institutions, and to many local public employees at entities whose governing body chose to affiliate. Regents unclassified staff could participate in the separate defined contribution (annuity) plan. During the first year, 39 counties, 52 cities, 64 county boards of social welfare, and 28 special districts and other local entities initially affiliated with KPERS on January 1, 1962. The focus of this history of KPERS will trace the developments relative to the state, local, and school groups that affiliated and with the changes in the KPERS retirement law as a defined contribution plan. A separate document on state defined contribution plans also is available for information about the Regents plan and another defined contribution plan that subsequently were offered to a limited number of statutorily designated state employees as an alternative to the KPERS plan. Membership in KPERS totaled 24,278 members on June 30, 1962, after the plan opened on January 1, 1962. State government employees who became KPERS members totaled 16,552 and local government employees whose employers affiliated with KPERS totaled 7,726. A total of 2,437 state and local government employees attained retirement age by June 30, 1962. A 1962 KPERS Annual Report indicated that 1,098 applications for retirement benefits were processed prior to June 30, 1962, since July 1, 1962, was the first date that anyone could retire under the new KPERS plan, and that those retirees received the first retirement benefits the next month. In 1963, affiliation with KPERS increased by 61 additional entities that were determined by the Board of Trustees as eligible to affiliate. Among the additional entities joining the original group, which consisted of the State of Kansas and 183 units of local government, there were another 16 cities, nine counties, four boards of social welfare, nine library boards, six townships, three school districts, five agricultural extension councils, two cemetery districts, one board of health, and the Kansas League of Municipalities. Provision also was made in 1963 for the Kansas Turnpike Authority to affiliate with KPERS as a local government unit. School districts generally were not authorized to affiliate with KPERS until the 1970s, but there were three affiliating in 1963 as the first exceptions to the general rule: the Corning Joint Rural High School 6 NP, Corning Joint School District 44 NP, and LDora School District 55. Two more school districts affiliated in 1966, the Frontenac Board of Education School District #47 and Frontenac USD #249. Later in 1966, four of the five school districts which had affiliated with KPERS were dissolved by the Legislature effective on July 1, 1966, and only the Frontenac USD #249 maintained KPERS affiliation until the general merger into KPERS of the principal school retirement group in 1971. No other school districts became affiliated with KPERS until January 1, 1971, when a general law became effective that brought the old State School Retirement System (SSRS) and its individual members into KPERS. The 1970 Legislature authorized affiliation with KPERS on January 1, 1971, for any public school district, area vocational-technical school, community college, and state agency which employed teachers, provided the entity had employees who were members in the SSRS that originally had been created in
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 V-1
1941. The 1970 legislation also provided for a transfer of all assets from the SSRS to KPERS, and for control of SSRS to be vested in the KPERS Board of Trustees. After September 1, 1971, no school employee was able to participate in SSRS, although the SSRS enabling legislation (KSA 72-5501, et seq.) was preserved in order for promised benefits to be paid as annuities. However, a number of individual school districts maintained their own retirement systems in 1971, but gradually they too were merged into KPERS in subsequent years. In 1973 legislation, members of the Legislature were authorized to join KPERS. Other public officials and officers not addressed in the original 1961 legislation had been authorized, beginning in 1963, to participate in KPERS as the result of a series of statutory amendments to KSA 74-4910, et seq., that broadened participation to include groups defined as public rather than governmental exclusively. Amendments to KSA 74-4901 also broadened the definition of which governmental officials and officers were eligible for KPERS membership. In other statutory changes, certain state officials, beginning in 1988, as defined in KSA 74-4911f, were allowed to opt out of KPERS and to participate in a defined contribution plan (the plan originally allowed voluntary participation by all state employees and was known as the Kansas Deferred Compensation Program). The special state officer retirement plan, in which the state pays an 8.0 percent contribution on behalf of the eligible members, allows participants to have individual, self-directed retirement savings accounts. The member may contribute to the account, but no one is required to pay a matching amount after the state pays an 8.0 percent contribution to the account.
Calculation of Retirement Benefits and Eligibility for KPERS

KPERS retirement benefits are calculated by a formula based on years of credited service multiplied by a statutory percentage for the type of service credit multiplied by final average salary. The original legislation distinguished between different types of credited service with different values to be used in calculating retirement benefits. For credited service, two categories were defined in the 1961 KPERS legislation: participating service which was equal to 1.0 percent of defined salary for each year, and prior service which was equal to 0.5 percent of defined salary for each year. In 1965 legislation, the prior service multiplier was raised to 0.75 percent. In 1968 legislation, the prior service multiplier was raised to 1.0 percent, and the participating service multiplier was increased that year to 1.25 percent for all years of service. Participating service was further defined as future continuous employment with a participating employer after affiliation with KPERS and prior service with previous continuous service with a participating employer before affiliation with KPERS. In 1970 legislation, participating service for school employees was set as the same as for other regular KPERS members which was1.25 percent at that time. The prior service multiplier for education employees was set at 1.0 percent for years under the SSRS and 0.75 percent for years of school service which were not credited under the SSRS. In 1982 legislation, the participating service credit for state, school and local KPERS members was increased from 1.25 percent to 1.4 percent of final average salary for all participating service credited after July 1, 1982. An actuarial reduction for early retirement of 0.3 percent was extended to July 1, 1987. In 1984 legislation, the 0.3 percent actuarial reduction factor was made permanent. Also in 1984 legislation, KPERS members who retired on or after July 1, 1989, with at least 25 years of participating service would have all participating service based on the 1.4 multiplier, while other members would have their benefit based on a 1.25 percent multiplier for participating service through June 30, 1982. In 1985 legislation, the 1.4 percent multiplier for participating service was allowed for all who retired on and after July 1, 1988, with 10 or more years of service, and for prior service, benefits would be based on final average salary effective January 1, 1986.
In 1987 legislation, the Legislature increased the multiplier to 1.5 percent of final average salary for all individuals who retired on or after August 1, 1987, with at least 35 years of service. In 1989 legislation, a 1988 provision was made permanent that allowed normal retirement with 40 years of service or completion of 35 years of service and attainment of age 60. In 1993 legislation, the multiplier was raised to 1.75 percent for all years participating service for members who retired on or after July 1, 1993. Three different qualifications for normal retirement were established: age 65; age 62 with 10 years of service; and 85 points (any combination of age plus years of service).
Other Factors Determining Retirement Benefits

In 1961 KPERS legislation, participating service defined salary was capped at a maximum of $10,000 for final average salary during those credited years and prior service defined salary would be capped at $6,000 for prior service average salary during those credited years. Employee contributions also were based on the original 1961 $10,000 cap. In 1967 legislation, the statutory caps for computing employee contributions and final average salary were eliminated. In 1981 legislation, the use of prior service average salary in calculating benefits was eliminated, and final average salary was cited in the new law. In addition, the actuarial reduction of 0.6 percent used to calculated early retirement benefits was replaced with 0.3 percent between July 1, 1981 and July 1, 1984. In 1961 KPERS legislation, determining the number of years of credited service, whether participating or prior service, a fractional year of six months or more would be counted as one year, and a fractional year of less than six months of credited service would be disregarded. Normal retirement date was defined as the first day of the month coinciding with or following attainment of age 65, and at least six months after the entry date of the employer. Early retirement with actuarial reduction was defined as either the first day of the month following attainment of age 60, or completion of 10 years of credited service, whichever occurred later. Over the years, the Legislature authorized various purchases of other types of service credit to be treated as prior or participating service credit for calculating KPERS retirement benefits. The different types of service credit purchases would augment the years of service calculation in determining monthly benefits.
Contribution Rates for KPERS

KPERS is a participatory plan in which both the employee and employer make contributions. In 1961 KPERS legislation, employee contributions were statutorily set at 4.0 percent of the first $10,000 in total annual compensation. The $10,000 cap was eliminated by 1967 legislation. In 1961 KPERS legislation, initial employer contributions were statutorily set at 4.35 percent (3.75 percent for retirement benefits and 0.6 percent for death and disability benefits) of total compensation of employees for the first year, with future employer contribution rates to be set by the KPERS Board of Trustees, assisted by an actuary and following statutory guidelines. The KPERS Board of Trustees engaged Martin E. Segal & Company as actuarial consultants. In 1970, the employer contribution rate for public education employers was set at 5.05 percent from January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972, with subsequent employer contribution rates to be set by the
KPERS Board of Trustees. In 1981 legislation, the Legislature reset the 40-year amortization period for KPERS until December 31, 2022, and accelerated a reduction in the employer contribution rates in FY 1982 to 4.3 percent for state and local units of government (KPERS nonschool), and to 3.3 percent for education units of government (KPERS school). During the 1980s, the Legislature reset the actuarial contribution rates for employers on numerous occasions in statutory provisions. In 1988 legislation, the Legislature established two employer contribution rates, one for the state and schools and one for the local units of government. Previously, the state and local employer rate had been combined as the KPERS nonschool group. The amortization period for the combined state and school group was extended from 15 to 24 years, with employer contribution rates set at 3.1 percent for the state and 2.0 percent for the local employers in FY 1990. The 1993 legislation introduced the statutory budget caps that would limit the amount of annual increase for employer contributions. The 1993 legislation provided a 25.0 percent increase in retirement benefits for those who retired on and after July 1, 1993, and an average 15.0 percent increase in retirement benefits for those who retired before July 1, 1993. In order to finance the increased benefits, the Legislature anticipated phasing-in higher employer contributions by originally setting a 0.1 percent annual cap on budget increases. It was anticipated that the budget caps would allow the employer contributions to reach the actuarial rates in about seven years. The gap between the statutory rates and the actuarial rates that began in the FY 1995 budget year has never been closed, and the Legislature has modified the annual cap to its present level of 0.6 percent in an effort to close the gap. The failure of employers to contribute at the actuarial rate since 1993 has contributed to the longterm funding problem. Other problems, such as investment losses, also have contributed to the shortfall in funding.
Retirement Benefits and Adjustments

The original 1961 KPERS legislation provided for the nonalienation of benefits. The KPERS Act stated that: No alteration, amendment, or repeal of this act shall affect the then existing rights of members and beneficiaries, but shall be effective only as to rights which would otherwise accrue hereunder as a result of services rendered by an employee after such alteration, amendment, or repeal. This provision is found in KSA 74-4923 and further clarified in that statute by the following statement: This subsection shall not apply to any alteration or amendment of this act which provides greater benefits to members or beneficiaries, but any increase of benefits shall only be applicable to benefits payable on the first day of the month coinciding with or following the effective date of the alteration or amendment. The KPERS retirement benefits were exempted in 1961 legislation from all state and local taxation. The original enacting legislation, found in KSA 74-4923, also declared that No alteration, amendment, or repeal of this act shall affect the then existing rights of members and beneficiaries, but shall be effective only as to rights which would otherwise accrue hereunder as a result of services rendered by an employee after such alteration, amendment, or repeal. In other words, no taxes shall be assessed and no retroactive reduction of promised benefits may be enacted. Any change in benefits must be prospective, unless it involves a benefit increase which may be retroactive in application, as in the case of increasing the multiplier for all years of service credit. In 1972 legislation, the Legislature provided for the first cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) to KPERS retirees by increasing benefits by 5.0 percent for anyone who had retired on or before June 30,
1971. The cost of providing such funding was to be included in the next annual actuarial valuation, as provided in the 1972 legislation. Over the years the Legislature provide additional ad hoc post-retirement benefit adjustments for retirees and their beneficiaries. No automatic COLA was authorized until the new KPERS Tier II was established in 2007 for future KPERS members as described in the last section of this document.
Special and Shared Funding for KPERS

Special funding was authorized by the Legislature after the school group that had membership in the SSRS was merged into KPERS. In 1972 legislation, the Legislature authorized a transfer of $5.0 million on July 1, 1972, from the State General Fund to KPERS for payment of school annuities, noting in the legislation that authorized subsequent transfers for school service annuities would be amortized over 11 years through annual payments for the SSRS annuities authorized by KSA 72-5501, et seq. In 1973 legislation, the annual transfer was increased to $10.22 million on July 1, 1973, and $10.0 million for subsequent fiscal years. In 1984 legislation, the transfers were cancelled and the remaining obligation for SSRS annuities was added to the KPERS unfunded actuarial liability and that obligation was to be amortized over 27 years through state employer payments. In 1977 legislation, the Legislature included a preamble to HB 2041 that stated: Whereas, It is the intent of the Legislature of the State of Kansas that the participating service costs of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System shall be shared equally by employers and employees; and Whereas, It is also the intent of the Legislature of the State of Kansas that the costs of all benefit increases and other changes in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System affecting active members shall be shared equally by employers and employees. Section 1 of HB 2041(Chapter 276 of the 1977 Sessions Laws of Kansas) became KSA 74-4920 without the preamble being included in the statute. The new section addressed only the setting of employer contributions and the amortization period of not to exceed 40 years. The employee contribution rate of 4.0 percent established in the 1961 legislation was never changed by the Legislature until 2007 when Tier II members were increased to a 6.0 percent rate to help pay for an automatic COLA. KPERS Tier I members remained at the original 4.0 percent level, and even when significant benefit enhancements were approved in 1993, no change was contemplated in the employer contribution rate. In order to partially address the long-term funding issue, the 2003 Legislature authorized the issuance of up to $500 million in pension obligation bonds for the reduction of the KPERS unfunded actuarial liability. The State of Kansas assumed the responsibility of repaying the principal and interest on the 30-year bonds that were issued in 2004. Annual payments average $36 million per year from the State General Fund for the debt service on the bonds. KPERS invested most of the net bond proceeds totaling approximately $440 million and the balance of the $500 million was used for bond issuance costs and debt service in the first three years of repayments (in order to avoid paying the costs out of the State General Fund).
New KPERS Tier for Future Members

In 2007 legislation, a new tier for KPERS state, school and local employees was established, effective July 1, 2009, and with the existing KPERS members becoming a frozen tier that no new members could join. The employee contribution rate for the frozen KPERS Tier I remained set at 4.0 percent.
The new KPERS Tier II for employees hired on or after July 1, 2009, continued the 1.75 percent multiplier; allowed normal retirement at age 65 with five years of service, or at age 60 with at least 30 years of service; provided for early retirement at age 55 with at least 10 years of service and an actuarial reduction in benefits; included an automatic, annual 2.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment at age 65 and older; and required an employee contribution rate of 6.0 percent. The 2007 legislation in KSA 74-49,212 stated that the legislature reserves the right to adjust the employee rate of contribution prescribed in KSA 74-49,210, and amendments thereto, to allow participating employers and employees to share equally any additional contribution rate actuarially required to fund the system. Sources: Summary of Legislation, Kansas Legislative Research Department, 1961-2011. Annual Reports, Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 1962-2010.
Alan Conroy, Director [email protected]

V-1
page 8

Retirement V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans Other Retirement reports available V-1
Retirement
V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans
In addition to the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) and the three defined benefit plans its Board of Trustees administers for public employees, the State of Kansas also provides three other defined contribution pension plans for certain state employees designated by statute as eligible for membership in such programs. Public pension plans cover almost all state and local employees who meet eligibility criteria. Nationwide, more than 80.0 percent of public employees are covered by a defined benefit plan. Defined benefit plans pay a lifetime pension at retirement and are based on a contributory formula, usually for both the employee and employer to contribute into a central trust fund where investments are managed and from which benefits are paid. Defined benefit programs typically provide benefits based on years of service and earnings, and generally benefits must be paid from the central trust fund regardless of what happens to the assets in the employers pension program. Because the pension plans usually are viewed as contracts between employer and employee, the obligation to pay benefits may not be altered or reduced without some offsetting advantage for the employee. (Kansas defined benefit plans are discussed in detail in V-1, Kansas Public Employees Retirement System.) Defined contribution plans, however, sharply differ and are more like retirement savings accounts. Generally, the employee and the employer make contributions into the individual members account that is self-directed for investment purposes. The employee bears all of the investment risk during the period of employment, and the final annuity at retirement will be the result of the contributions plus earnings (and losses) over time. There is no obligation on the part of the employer to fund a retirement benefit at a particular level of pay for retirees under a defined contribution plan.
Kansas Public Employees Retirement System
V-3 Working After KPERS V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans V-6
Three Kansas Programs

Three defined contribution plans are authorized by statute and all three have been implemented, with all three having active members. Enabling legislation is found for each plan separately in three statutory sections: KSA 74-4925; 74-49b01 et seq.; and 74-4911f.
Regents Plan (KSA 74-4925). The program was authorized in 1961 for the State Board of Regents to assist faculty and administrators, who are in the unclassified service, by providing a retirement plan under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 403(b). The plan generally is referred to as the Regents Mandatory Retirement Plan. Originally, the Regents contributed 5.0 percent of salary and the eligible unclassified staff (typically faculty and administrators) contributed 5.0 percent of salary to an individual retirement account offered by the Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF). Members became vested immediately and the account, including the employer contributions, was portable (could be moved if the person took another similar position whether in-state or out-of-state at another institution or eligible post-secondary employer). During the 1980s, the Legislature increased the contribution rates to 8.5 percent for the employer and 5.5 percent for the employee. The Regents have adjusted the number of vendors offering investment accounts to unclassified members who are eligible to participate. Today, in addition to original vendor, TIAA-CREF, the ING Financial Advisors also provides accounts for Regents faculty and administrators. Previously, the Security Benefit Group of Topeka had a contract with the Regents, but that contract was discontinued. The Regents retirement program is an individual savings account plan with assets under the control of the member. Investments are self-directed, and there is no guaranteed pension after retirement. All eligible faculty and administrators are required to participate after the first year of employment at a Regents institution, but under some conditions new employees, if they had prior membership in a similar retirement plan, might be able to participate in their first year of employment at a Regents institution. Regents employees also may participate in the states voluntary deferred compensation plan described subsequently in the next section. Other State Plans (KSA 74-49b01, et seq., and 74-4911f). The second program is authorized under IRC section 457(b) and established by statute. In 1976, the Legislature enacted a voluntary deferred compensation program for state employees. The Director of Personnel Services, subject to approval by the Secretary of Administration, was authorized to establish a tax-deferred employee savings plan. Local units of government also were allowed to participate in the deferred compensation program beginning in 1982. The state originally contracted with Aetna Investment Services to provide a selffunded program for state employee accounts since the statute required the participating members to pay all of the operating costs to administer the plan. Because the state deferred compensation plan offered a voluntary savings account, employees had to sign up to become contributing members. Until 2001, there was no provision for a match by the employer to encourage more state employee participation in the program. Despite enabling legislation passed in 2001 and the provision currently in statute that would allow a matching employer contribution, the implementation of this matching provision has not taken place. The contract with the original service provider, Aetna Investment Services, evolved into the current contract with ING Financial Advisors, the firm which acquired the Aetna U.S. operations. In 2008, the program supervision was transferred from the Director of Personnel Services to the KPERS Board of Trustees to administer the plan. In 1988, the Legislature established a second deferred compensation program under Section 401(a) of the IRS Code for certain state officers who are designated in statute and for whom the state contributes 8.0 percent of salary to the individuals self-directed savings account. This selective program was superimposed on the existing deferred compensation program to utilize the contract with the service provider for the other existing voluntary state deferred compensation plan. However, under this 1988 plan, the state makes an employer contribution, while no employee matching contribution is required. The
Legislature gradually expanded membership in this plan to include more positions in state government, including legislative session-only employees in 1996 as the largest group. Eligible state officers and employees include many appointed members of the executive branch, the Governor and Lieutenant Governors staff, unclassified staff in the House and Senate leadership offices, and Session-only legislative staff. Many members of this plan, if full-time employees, initially are offered membership in KPERS if eligible, but if they declined to join KPERS, then they may elect membership in this plan. Some legislators may be members of this plan. They are eligible to join if they are retired from KPERS, and become eligible for membership in this plan if they are members of the Legislature.
Summary
Since 1961, some Kansas state government employees, originally at Regents institutions, and later at other state agencies, have been able to participate in defined contribution programs, often referred to as deferred compensation plans. Three current plans have active members. The Regents plan includes mandatory employer assistance (8.5 percent) and employee contributions (5.5 percent); the regular deferred compensation plan allows state employees to make voluntary contributions (subject to federal limitations) and has authorizing language for an employer match that has not been implemented; and the selective deferred compensation plan has statutory limits as to who may participate and receive employer assistance (8.0 percent). The Regents plan investments are managed in individual accounts and serviced by two different contractors. No aggregate data are available for these individually directed investments, unlike the state deferred compensation plan which is a unit trust and with reportable participation as well as investment information. The voluntary and selective deferred compensation plans as of June 30, 2010, included 15,620 members who were state officers and employees from state agencies and Regents institutions. The number of actively participating state officers and employees totaled 8,831 who were either making voluntary contributions or having the state provide assistance in the form of employer contributions on their behalf, if a member were eligible for such assistance payments. Assets for state officers and employees in the unit trust administered by ING Financial Advisors were valued at $446.5 million as of June 30, 2010. No break-down on the number of voluntary and selective members was provided in the annual report from which the above data were derived. For more information, please contact:

page 3
V-2

Retirement V-3 Working After KPERS Other Retirement reports available V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans V-1
Retirement
V-3 Working After KPERS Retirement
This document addresses the retirees of the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) and the policies adopted by the Legislature regarding the topic of working after retirement. The Legislature has tended to alternate between a policy of restrictions and of no restrictions on retirees who go back to work for a KPERS participating employer after their retirement from state agencies, local units of government, and school districts and other educational institutions. As recently as 1987, there were no statutory restrictions on working after retirement. Prior to that time, there had been a movement away from earlier restrictions that previously had been in statutes. In recent years since 1993, the Legislature has made exceptions to the statutory restrictions, which suggests at least a partial movement away from the restrictions adopted after 1987. In fact, the first restrictive 1988 language lasted only one year and was replaced in 1989 by the Legislature with the general policy currently in effect for KPERS retirees. Working after retirement statutes address the retirees of KPERS, of the Kansas Police and Firemens (KP&F) Retirement System, and the Kansas Retirement System for Judges. Each plan will be discussed below as appropriate in the historical context of legislative actions.
V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans V-6
Current Legislative Policy for KPERS, KP&F, and Certain Judicial Retirees
KPERS. Current statutory provisions impose a salary cap of $20,000 on KPERS retirees who return to work for the same KPERS participating employer from whom they retired. The salary cap legislation originally passed during the 1988 Session when a $6,000 limitation was imposed on KPERS retirees. Subsequent amendments raised the dollar amount of the cap and changed the circumstances under which the cap is applied. In 1993, the Legislature placed retirees of KP&F under an annual limitation, initially at the same dollar cap as KPERS retirees. When the statutory salary cap limitation is reached during a given calendar year, KPERS and KP&F retirees must either stop working or stop receiving their retirement benefits until the end of the calendar year. The cycle begins to be repeated with a new cap on calendar year income on each subsequent
January 1. A permanent exemption from the KPERS cap was authorized for nurses who return to work for state institutions from which they retired, and a three-year exemption from the cap with a sunset of July 1, 2012, was authorized for school professionals. Substitute teachers and legislative staff are exempt from the salary cap limitation on working after KPERS retirement. Another statutory policy imposed a special assessment for other KPERS participating employers who hire KPERS retirees. The special assessment does not apply to hiring KP&F retirees. A statutory provision required participating employers who employ a retired KPERS member and did not retire from that participating employer to pay an actuarially-determined employer contribution plus the 4.0 percent employee contribution. The original provision passed during the 2006 Session. Beginning after the 2009 Session, school districts that rehire any licensed professional employee who had retired from that same participating employer are required to pay the actuarially-determined employer rate plus 8.0 percent as the employee rate, with an expiration date of July 1, 2012, for this provision. A final statutory policy required KPERS retirees to be off the payroll at least 60 days before returning to work after retirement for a participating employer. The previous period of separation had been 30 days, but the longer period was added in 2009. The 30-day separation requirement originally had been added by the 1998 Legislature in response to a federal compliance review that recommended a specific separation time-period in order to determine that a person actually was retired. Prior to July 1, 1998, there had been no prohibition against retiring one day and going back to work for a KPERS participating employer the next day. KP&F. Current statutory law reflects 1998 legislation that set the working after KP&F retirement salary cap limitation at $15,000 for retirees who returned to work for the same participating employer from whom they retired and who returned to work in a KP&F covered position. These KP&F retirees are subjected to a 30-day waiting period before they can return to work for any participating employer. The Legislature did not amend the KP&F salary cap or the KP&F days of waiting for KP&F when the KPERS statutes were amended in 2009 to increase the limitation and double the waiting period before being eligible to work after retirement for a participating employer. Judges and Justices. The Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court has statutory authority to appoint retired judges and justices to hear cases, as authorized by a provision dating from 1967. Total compensation for post-retirement judicial work performed in a fiscal year, when combined with concurrent retirement payments, cannot exceed the salary of a district court judge, as set by statute.
Recent History of Working After Retirement for KPERS and KP&F Retirees
The current restrictions on working after KPERS retirement, if returning to work for a KPERS participating employer, originated in 1988. Tier I KP&F retirees were added later in 1993, while Tier II KP&F retirees were added several years later in 1996. Members of the judiciary who return to work after retirement are treated differently under other statutory provisions that are discussed at the end of this document. The primary focus is on KPERS working after retirement, and the topic of KP&F working after retirement is addressed in a briefing paper on that plan. The 1988 Legislature originally provided for the reimbursement of individual retirement benefits to KPERS by participating employers for any KPERS retirees who were employed more than 30 days in a calendar year. The provision was prospective and applied only to KPERS members who retired on or after July 1, 1988. The statute exempted substitute teachers, as well as officers, employees,
appointees or members of the Legislature. There had been no other statutory restrictions on KPERS retirees and post-retirement employment in effect at the time these provisions were adopted in the 1988 Session. However, there had been previous statutory restrictions in the earlier years of KPERS after its establishment in the early 1960s that eventually were eliminated by the early 1980s. The 1988 change in law was in reaction to news reports of a high-ranking state official retiring one day and returning to work the next day for the same KPERS participating employer at full salary. The 1989 Legislature repealed all provisions relating to post-retirement work restrictions for those who retired on or after July 1, 1988, if they went to work for a different KPERS participating employer. However, restrictions were continued for retirees who returned to work for the same KPERS participating employer for whom the retiree worked during the last two years of KPERS covered employment preceding retirement. If retirees returned to work for the same KPERS participating employer from whom they retired, those retirees would receive KPERS benefits until earnings reached $6,000 in a calendar year, at which time they either would have to stop working or stop receiving KPERS benefits for the remainder of the calendar year. Another provision was authorized that allowed retirees to revoke their retirement and to become KPERS members again in order to continue working. Substitute teaching and services as a public official, including elected members, officers, employees, and appointees of the Legislature, were excluded from the post-retirement salary cap provision. In 1991, the Legislature increased the statutory cap on earnings permitted after KPERS retirement from $6,000 to $9,720 if retirees returned to work for the same participating employer from whom they retired. The limitation did not apply to anyone who retired from KPERS before July 1, 1988, or to any retiree who went to work for a different KPERS participating employer. In 1992, the Legislature raised the statutory cap on earnings limitation for working after KPERS retirement from $9,720 to $10,200. The 1993 Legislature increased the working after retirement cap from $10,200 to $10,560 for retirees of KPERS. The Legislature also for the first time applied the working after retirement salary cap to Tier I members of the Kansas Police and Firemens (KP&F) Retirement System. The 1994 Legislature raised the cap on earnings permitted after retirement from $10,560 to $11,160 for retirees who were subjected to a limitation (KPERS and Tier I KP&F) if returning to work for the same participating employer from whom they retired. The Legislature also during the 1994 Session repealed the provision that allowed retirees to unretire if they returned to work after retirement from a participating employer. KPERS retirees who retired and returned to work with the same KPERS participating employer previously could unretire in order to avoid the cap on post-retirement earnings. Because the 1993 Legislature raised the KPERS multiplier from 1.4 percent to 1.75 percent for retirement benefit calculations, some retirees were unretiring with the intent to re-retire with the higher benefit multiplier applied to all their years of credited service. The 1995 Legislature raised the working after retirement cap from $11,160 to $11,280, and clarified that the limitation would be applied to retirees of KPERS and Tier I KP&F. The 1996 Legislature added Tier II members of KP&F to the working after retirement limitation of $11,280 for those members who retired on or after July 1, 1996. The legislation corrected an oversight in previous legislation that omitted members of KP&F Tier II from the limitation of the salary cap.
page 3
V-3
In 1998, the Legislature added an employer reporting requirement to the working after retirement provisions for both KPERS and KP&F. The Legislature also increased the cap on earnings after retirement from $11,280 to $15,000 for both KPERS and KP&F retirees, and required prompt notification of KPERS by the participating employer when the retirees earnings limitation was exceeded in a calendar year. In 2000, the Legislature authorized phased retirements by members of the Legislature and other elected public officials who would be permitted to retire from another KPERS participating employer, if covered in another job, and would be able to continue serving in elected office covered by KPERS without having to resign that office in order to retire from the other KPERS participating employer. The legislation permitted elected public officials to be able to retire twice, once from their other KPERS participating employer and once from the elected office that is covered by KPERS. Any public elected official who retired from another KPERS participating employer and continued as an elected official with KPERS coverage would be subjected to the $15,000 annual cap on earnings as an elected official. Elected public officials would have their retirement benefit recalculated after retiring from the public positions that were covered by KPERS. Previously, legislators were exempted from the salary cap limitation for working after KPERS retirement. The 2005 Legislature also established a three-year exemption from the working after KPERS retirement salary cap for licensed nurses at state institutions. The legislation provided for the participating state agencies to pay KPERS the actuarially-calculated amount of employer contributions for each nurse working after retirement. The provisions were scheduled to sunset on June 30, 2008. In 2006, the Legislature increased the working after retirement cap from $15,000 to $20,000 for retirees who returned to work for the same participating employer from who they retired. The increased cap of $20,000 also applied to elected public officials who retired from KPERS-covered positions and continued to serve in an elected public office that also is covered by KPERS. In addition, the 2006 Legislature specifically addressed public school teachers and working after KPERS retirement by changing existing law. The legislation amended the statutory definition of a professional employee to exclude, beginning in the 2006-2007 school year, any person who retired from school employment as a KPERS member, regardless of whether an agreement on terms and conditions of professional service between a board of education and an exclusive representative of professional employees provided to the contrary. The legislation also changed the definition of teacher to exclude, beginning in the 2006-2007 school year, any person who retired from school employment as a KPERS member. Also in 2006 the Legislature imposed a special assessment on all KPERS participating employers who hired a retired KPERS member. A statutory provision required that participating employers who employed a retired KPERS member would be responsible for paying an actuarially-determined employer contribution plus the 4.0 percent employee contribution. The provision applied to state, school and local KPERS participating employers who hired a retired KPERS member beginning July 1, 2006. Any KPERS retiree previously employed before July 1, 2006, by a participating employer was exempted from the new law. The first actuarially-determined employer rates in FY 2007 were 5.84 percent for the state group, 9.75 for the school group, and 7.69 percent for the local group of participating employers. In 2008, the Legislature removed a sunset that would have repealed an exemption for licensed nurses at state institutions who had been exempted from the working after KPERS retirement salary cap that was to expire after three years on June 30, 2008.
The 2008 Legislature also amended the statutory provisions related to working after KPERS retirement that applied to teachers. A change in the definition of teacher provided that a teacher means (1) a teacher defined by KSA 72-5436 and (2) any professional employee who retired from school retirement and previously was covered by KPERS. In 2009, the Legislature extended the break in employment required after KPERS retirement from 30 days to 60 days before retirees can return to work for any KPERS participating employer. The Legislature clarified that any retirees who return to work for a KPERS participating employer, even if associated with a third-party contractor who provided services to a school district or other employer, would be covered by the working after KPERS retirement salary cap if working for the same participating employer from whom they retired. The 2009 Legislature also established a three-year exemption from the working after KPERS retirement salary cap for school professionals who return to work for their former KPERS participating school employer. The legislation provided for the participating employers to pay KPERS the actuariallycalculated amount of employer contributions plus 8.0 percent for each school professional working after retirement. The provisions were scheduled to sunset on July 1, 2012. A report from KPERS to the Joint Committee on Pensions, Investments and Benefits is required to be submitted after the sunset date.
Retired Judicial Branch Judges, Justices, and Working after Retirement

Prior to the inclusion of the Kansas Retirement System for Judges under the administration of the KPERS Board of Trustees in 1975, the 1967 Legislature statutorily authorized any retired justice or district court judge to be assigned by the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court to perform judicial duties in any district that the retiree was willing to undertake. The legislation further provided that the retiree would serve without compensation, but would receive actual and necessary expenses to be paid in the same manner as reimbursements for a district judge. The post-retirement program was modeled after the federal judicial practice of allowing judges to take senior status after retiring and to continue hearing cases as needed. The 1976 Legislature added judges of the Court of Appeals to the statutory provisions to make them eligible for working after retirement and assignment of cases by the Chief Justice. The 1980 Legislature modified the compensation provision by allowing retired judges and justices to receive per diem compensation beginning July 1, 1980, of which the total amount of per diem compensation, plus the annual retirement benefit, could not be greater than the annual salary of a district court judge. In addition, the retired judges and justices were allowed to collect the subsistence allowance, mileage allowance, and other actual and necessary expenses. The 1981 Legislature made all judicial annuities and other retirement benefits, including the working after retirement per diem compensation, exempt from state taxation, and also excluded such amounts from execution, garnishment, attachment, or any other process or claim, including decrees for support or alimony. The annual per diem compensation for post-retirement work, plus the annual retirement benefit, continued to be capped to an amount not greater than the annual salary of a district court judge. The 1993 Legislature added district magistrate judges to the list of retirees eligible for the working after retirement and assignment to duties by the Chief Justice of duties after retirement.

V-3
page 6

Retirement V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS Other Retirement reports available V-1
Retirement
V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS
The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (known as KPERS and referenced in this document as the Retirement System) administers three statewide plans. One plan includes state, school, and local groups composed of regular state and local public employees, school district and community college employees, Regents classified employees and certain Regents unclassified staff with pre-1962 service, and state correctional officers. A second plan known as the Kansas Police and Firemens (KP&F) Retirement System includes certain designated state and local public safety employees. A third plan known as the Kansas Retirement System for Judges includes the states judicial system judges and justices. All coverage groups are defined benefit, contributory retirement plans and have as members most public employees in Kansas. The primary purpose of the Retirement System is to accumulate sufficient resources in order to pay benefits. Today more than $1.0 billion is paid in annual retirement and death benefits. Payments exceed the contributions from employees and employers, leaving the balance in benefit payments to come from investment earnings. Long-term disability benefit payments also are paid to disabled members. Of the three plans, only the regular KPERS plan is experiencing a long-term funding problem. The other two plans are funded on an actuarial basis, and employer contributions are adjusted annually in order to provide adequate funding on an actuarial reserve basis. The regular KPERS plan, however, is limited in the amount of annual budget increases by statutory caps on the state, school, and local participating employers. Therefore, the participating employer contributions for regular KPERS are not paid at the actuarial amounts, but rather are paid at the statutorily capped amounts. The employee contributions also are capped by a statutory maximum amount that currently is being paid annually. The Retirement System faces two challenges in terms of longterm funding. The first challenge involves the regular KPERS programs long-term funding of all three groups (state, school, and local), and the second challenge specifically involves the KPERS School Group which is no longer in actuarial balance to achieve full-funding for promised benefits under provisions of current law. Both challenges are impacted
V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans V-3 Working After KPERS V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans V-6
by two situations. First, there is an annual gap between current revenue (contributions) and expenditure (benefits) that must be funded from investment income. Second, there is a shortfall in annual employer contributions computed as the difference between the actuarial rate (which indicates how much should be paid by employers) versus the statutory rate (which determines how much is paid by employers). The resulting reduced funding increases the unfunded actuarial liability, which is the difference between assets and promised benefits. The Legislature focused its attention on the long-term retirement funding issue during recent sessions. As recently as two years ago, all plans, including the KPERS School Group, were in actuarial balance and were expected to reach full-funding by FY 2033. However, in the last two actuarial valuations, the KPERS School Group was determined to be out of balance and in danger of not having enough resources to pay all promised benefits by the end of its amortization period in 2033.
Long-Term Retirement Funding

For a number of years, the Legislature, the Governor, and the Retirement Systems Board of Trustees engaged in the development of a comprehensive plan to address the long-term retirement financing problem. Funding improvements that were made during the 2003 and 2004 Legislative Sessions represented important steps toward improving the Retirement Systems financial condition and securing sufficient funds for future benefit payments. The 2005 Legislature clarified the calculation and contributions for the state and school groups in future years. The 2006 Legislature, in approving a modest benefit adjustment for former members of the Kansas School Retirement System, paid the entire actuarial contribution to prepay the lifelong enhancement, thus having a neutral impact on the unfunded actuarial liability. The 2007 and 2008 Legislatures followed the same practice when $7.0 million from the State General Fund was appropriated to pay the states share of a $300 bonus payment in FY 2008 and in FY 2009. No benefit enhancements were passed by the 2009, 2010, or 2011 Sessions of the Legislature. However, in spite of the various funding measures adopted by the Legislature, the KPERS longterm problems have grown worse. There was modest improvement in 2009 compared with 2010 and 2011, but the long-term projections are negative. In the December 31, 2010, actuarial valuation, the actuary states that: ...KPERS continues to face a significant long-term funding challenge, particularly with the School Group.
Background of the Funding Shortfall

The 1993 Legislature authorized enhanced Retirement System benefits and adopted a 40-year payment plan running until 2033 that gradually increased employer contribution rates to pay for the enhancements. The incremental rate increases were designed so that the statutory contribution rates would converge with the actuarial rates required to fund the enhanced benefits. By 2000 and 2001, it became apparent that the incremental rate increases were insufficient. The Retirement Systems 2001 actuarial valuation showed that the unfunded actuarial liability (difference between the actuarial liabilities and the actuarial value of assets) had increased significantly, and future contribution rates were not projected to converge with actuarially required rates. At that time, the Retirement System actuary recommended that action be taken to increase future contributions to a level which would restore the System to actuarial balance.
V-4
page 2
Prior Funding Improvements

Following review of the 2001 valuation results, the Retirement System Board of Trustees, staff, and actuary began working closely with the Legislatures Joint Committee on Pensions, Investments and Benefits and the Governors Office to develop a long-term funding plan. The following improvements were adopted as part of that comprehensive plan. The 2003 and 2004 Legislatures raised the statutory cap on annual employer contribution rate increases from 0.2 percent for the state and from 0.15 percent for local employers to 0.4 percent in 2006, 0.5 percent in 2007, and 0.6 percent in 2008. The 2003 Legislature authorized issuance of $500.0 million in pension obligation bonds, and the Retirement System received net proceeds of $440.2 million in March 2004. The 2003 Legislature divided the Retirement System state and school group into two separate groups (the state employees group and the school employees group) for actuarial calculations and determination of employer contribution rates. After the 2003 Session, the Retirement System Board of Trustees revised the actuarial components of the new funding plan by adopting the traditional Entry Age Normal actuarial cost method and a five-year asset valuation smoothing method. The 2005 Legislature clarified the determination of the State group and School group employer contributions, and reestablished calculation of a combined rate for the two groups. In any year that the combined rate would be greater than the individual rate for the State group, the difference in contributions amounts for the state group payment calculated under the two methods shall be applied to the School groups payment. The 2007 Legislature established a new KPERS tier for future employees with estimated savings of $3.6 billion in future employer contributions. For the new Tier II KPERS members, the plan includes state, school, and local employees first hired on or after July 1, 2009. Many characteristics of the current KPERS plan are retained, but modifications included addition of a 2.0 percent cost-of-living adjustment after retirement with a 2.0 percent employee contribution to help finance the cost, elimination of the 85-point rule for early retirement, first day membership, and five-year vesting. The fiscal note for employer contributions estimates $2.6 billion in state employer contribution savings and $1.0 billion of local savings over 25 years after implementation of the new tier.
Latest Actuarial Projections

The most recent actuarial valuation, dated December 31, 2010, found that the Retirement Systems long-term funding status remains challenged. The unprecedented negative investment experience in 2008 was a significant setback in the Retirement Systems long-term funding. Despite the 2008 investment losses, the State and Local groups remain in actuarial balance. For the School group, the statutory and actuarial contribution rates are not projected to converge before 2033 if all assumptions are met in future years.
As of December 31, 2010, the Retirement Systems actuarial funded ratio decreased from 64.0 percent the previous year to 62.0 percent and the unfunded actuarial liability increased from $7.7 billion the previous year to $8.3 billion for all groups (state, school, and local; KP&F; and judges). Even with recent funding improvements approved by the Legislature, the dollar amount of the unfunded actuarial liability is projected to increase for a number of years before it begins to decline. However, the KPERS School group may never close the gap and its unfunded liability may not be brought into balance with assets sufficient to pay all promised benefits within the 40-year amortization period that ends in 2033.
School Group Issue

The KPERS School Groups unfunded actuarial liability increased from $5.0 billion in 2009 to $5.3 billion in the December 31, 2010, valuation report, which is more than one-half of the Retirement Systems total unfunded actuarial liability. For this group, the actuarial liability is $11.8 billion and the actuarial value of assets is $6.5 billion. The funded ratio on an actuarial basis decreased slightly from 56.3 percent the previous year to 54.9 percent. Anything below 60 percent funding is considered reason for concern. Rising annual contributions under the current statutory cap of 0.6 percent will not bring the KPERS School Group into actuarial balance even though the states employer contribution rate would rise to almost 20.0 percent in FY 2033. If all other actuarial assumptions are not met, such as annual earnings of 8.0 percent, then the situation could be worse in terms of the long-term funding shortfall.
Summary
The twin challenges facing the Retirement System both involve funding: all of the retirement plans need more money to address a long-term financing problem, and the School Group needs an even greater share of that new money to solve its funding issue. The KPERS School group is out of actuarial balance, and the State and Local groups are barely in actuarial balance. Both of the latter two groups could move out-of-balance if all actuarial assumptions are not met in the future. The 2011 Legislature passed Senate Sub. for HB 2194 which would make fundamental changes in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) plan on July 1, 2012. Implementation of the funding and plan design provisions was delayed in order for the KPERS Study Commission that was created by the bill to makes recommendations to the 2012 Legislature that may modify the funding and other provisions in the 2011 legislation. Senate Sub. for HB 2194 established a 13-member KPERS Study Commission to review alternative plan designs and to make recommendations for long-term sustainability of the System. A commission report is due to the Legislature by January 6, 2012. The report recommendations must have a vote in each chamber of the 2012 Legislature for the other parts of 2011 Senate Sub. for HB 2194 to become effective, unless amendment or repeal of those provisions are recommended by the KPERS Study Commission. The provisions scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2012, (if not modified or repealed during the 2012 Legislature) include the following: Employer Contribution Increases. Raise incrementally the cap on employer contribution increases from the current 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent in FY 2014, 1.0 percent in FY 2015, 1.1 percent in FY 2016, and 1.2 percent in FY 2017 and subsequently until the actuarial required contribution (ARC) is reached.
Tier 1 Members. Contribution Increase or Benefit Decrease (future service only). 6.0 percent contribution and 1.85 percent multiplier is the default option; or alternatively, 4.0 percent contribution and 1.4 percent multiplier is the other option. There is a 90-day election starting July 1, 2013 to choose between Tier 1 options, pending IRS approval. The change does not affect past service credit and the changes are effective January 1, 2014. Tier 2 Members. Benefit Decrease or Lose COLA (future service only except COLA). 6.0 percent contribution, 1.75 percent multiplier, and lose cost-of-living adjustment for all service, not just future service, is the default option; or alternatively, 6.0 percent multiplier, 1.4 percent multiplier, and keep the COLA is the other option. There is a 90-day election starting July 1, 2013, to choose between Tier 2 options, pending IRS approval. The multiplier change does not affect past service credit. The COLA loss is for all service credit and the changes are effective January 1, 2014. All new employees automatically have the default option. Inactive Members. Inactive members returning to work after July 1, 2013, will be given the default tier. Surplus Property. Proceeds (80.0 percent) from the sale of excess state real estate property will be used to pay down the KPERS unfunded liability. Fiscal Note. Plan modifications and funding changes (without elections) will bring the employer contributions for KPERS state, school, and local groups into actuarial balance. Employer contributions for both the state and local groups will reach the actuarial required contribution (ARC) in 2014, specifically FY 2014 for the state and CY 2014 for the local units of government. The ARC for the school group will occur in FY 2019. The general fiscal note (without elections) through FY 2033 forecasts a net savings of $2.9 billion for the employer contributions for the KPERS state and school groups, and a net savings of $636 million for the KPERS local group. The KPERS plan modifications (without elections) will increase the employee contributions by $932.0 million for the state and school groups, and by $365.4 million for the local group. For more information, please contact:

page 5
V-4

Retirement V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans Other Retirement reports available V-1
Retirement
V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans
The Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) and its Board of Trustees were established by 1961 legislation to provide public employee death and retirement benefits for assisting state and local governmental workers. KPERS is an umbrella organization that often is referred to as the Retirement System since its Board of Trustees administers three different retirement plans: the Kansas Retirement System for Judges, the Kansas Police and Firemens (KP&F) Retirement System, and the regular KPERS plan. This document focuses on the two plans for judicial and public safety employees. Prior to the establishment of KPERS in 1961, the Legislature had created four other retirement plans for governmental employees, including two for certain judicial branch state employees and two for public safety (law enforcement) state employees. All four plans eventually merged with KPERS in some manner, either consolidating with KPERS to provide membership for eligible members or transferring the administration of the continuing plans to administration by the KPERS Board of Trustees.
V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans V-3 Working After KPERS V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS V-6
Early Judicial Branch Retirement Plans

The Kansas Retirement System for Judges was established by 1953 legislation to originally include justices of the State Supreme Court and district court judges. The plan was administered by the Kansas Judges Retirement Board. Membership on the board consisted of the Insurance Commissioner, the State Treasurer, the State Auditor, one justice of the State Supreme Court, and one district court judge. The Retirement System for Official Court Reporters was established by 1955 legislation and the court reporters retirement plan was administered by the Kansas Judges Retirement Board. The original source of funding for both of these retirement plans was from court fees paid into separate retirement funds that also were authorized by the Legislature. Both retirement plans were established to provide annuities upon retirement by members of each plan.
The Kansas Judges Retirement Board (formerly established by KSA 20-2604) and the Kansas Official Court Reporters Retirement Board (formerly established by KSA 20-2704) were directed to administer two separate retirement plans: one for district court judges and supreme court justices, and another one for court reporters. The board members of the Kansas Judges Retirement Board also served as the board members for the Court Reporters retirement plan. In 1975, both sets of authorizing statutes were repealed and the administration of the two plans was transferred to the KPERS Board of Trustees. When the Retirement System for Judges plan was modified on July 1, 1975, the KPERS Board of Trustees assumed only administrative duties regarding the management of the plan that was continued with substantially the same provisions as prior to the abolition of the old board. Some benefit changes were authorized in the Judges plan by the 1975 Legislature. New court reporters were authorized to become KPERS members and any court reporter who was a member of the prior plan became a KPERS member on July 1, 1975. Retiring members were to be paid their annuities as previously authorized and the KPERS Board administered the payments for the plans retired members.
Early Public Safety Retirement Plans

The 1947 Legislature established the State Highway Patrol Pension Board and the State Highway Patrol Pension Fund in order to provide for death benefits as well as disability and regular pensions for sworn members of the highway patrol and their beneficiaries. The 1947 law referred to the state pension board as having control and general management of the pension fund. Members of the board designated by the law included the Governor, the State Treasurer, and a patrol employee to be elected by other qualified members of the highway patrol. Any service subsequent to the organization of the state highway patrol on July 1, 1935, was to be considered as service credit for the board to use in computing benefits. In 1951, the Legislature created the Kansas Bureau of Investigation Pension Board and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation Pension Fund in order to provide for death benefits as well as disability and regular pensions for sworn agents of the Kansas Bureau of Investigation (KBI) and their beneficiaries. The board was composed of the Attorney General, the State Treasurer, and an agent of the KBI who was to be elected by agents, and it was authorized to perform administrative duties as trustees of the fund. The 1965 Legislature established the Kansas Police and Firemens (KP&F) Retirement System to provide for disability and retirement benefits for public safety officers working for state and local agencies whose governing bodies voted to affiliate with KP&F. In 1968, the Legislature authorized the Kansas Highway Patrol to become a participating employer on July 1 of that year, and all eligible employees became members of the new KP&F plan. The State Highway Patrol Pension Board was abolished and all assets from the State Highway Patrol Pension Fund were transferred to KPERS for administration. Also in 1968, the KBI became a participating employer on July 1 of that year, and all eligible employees became members of the new KP&F plan. The Kansas Bureau of Investigation Pension Board was abolished and all assets from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation Pension Fund were transferred to KPERS for administration.
V-5
page 2
Current Judicial Retirement Plan

Kansas law requires that all eligible employees must become members. Those eligible employees include justices of the State Supreme Court and court of appeals, district court judges, and magistrate judges. Active members contribute 6.0 percent of gross earnings and contributions earn interest annually. If membership occurred before July 1, 1993, contributions earn 8.0 percent interest; or on or after July 1, 1993, contributions earn 4.0 percent interest. Members automatically earn service credit for the years served in a covered position. Members become vested when first elected or appointed. This vesting provides a guaranteed retirement benefit for the rest of the members life. The maximum benefit is equal to 70.0 percent of final average salary. Final average salary is an average of the three highest of an individuals last ten years of service. For members who were appointed or elected on or after July 1, 1987, the statutory multiplier is 3.5 percent to a maximum of 70 percent of final average salary. If a member were appointed or elected before July 1, 1987, the statutory multiplier is 5.0 percent up to ten years and 3.5 percent for each additional year, to a maximum of 70.0 percent of final average salary. Members have basic group life insurance equal to 150.0 percent of annual salary. The State of Kansas pays for the cost of this benefit. The Retirement System also returns all of a members contributions and interest if someone dies before retiring. Members can name different beneficiaries for this benefit. If a member dies before retirement, a spouse may be able to choose a monthly benefit for the rest of his or her life, instead of receiving the members returned contributions and interest. For this benefit to apply, a spouse must have been designated as the sole primary beneficiary.
Current KP&F Retirement Plan

Kansas law requires that all eligible public employees of participating employers must become members, except elected sheriffs. Active members contribute 7.0 percent of gross earnings, and employee contributions earn interest annually. If membership occurred before July 1, 1993, contributions earn 8.0 percent; or on or after July 1, 1993, contributions earn 4.0 percent. A number of state agencies have KP&F members, as do a number of local units of government that have elected to participate in KP&F. The employee contribution rate drops to 2.0 percent after members have 32 years of service credit. The employer contribution rate is set annually as the actuarially required amount. Members automatically earn service credit for the years worked in a covered position. When enough service credit is earned to become vested, members are guaranteed a monthly retirement benefit for the rest of the members life. This is called vesting the benefit. The KP&F retirement plan includes two tiers of regular members and other special members of local plans that have come under the KPERS Board of Trustees for administration of retirement benefit payments. KP&F Tier I. Tier I members were employed before July 1, 1989, and did not elect to choose Tier II coverage. Tier I members vest with 20 years of service credit.
page 3
V-5
KP&F Tier II. All new KP&F members must become Tier II members. Tier II members vest with 15 years of service credit. Transfer and Brazelton Special Members. Transfer members are KP&F members who formerly participated in a local retirement plan and who chose to participate in KP&F after their participating employer joined KP&F. Brazelton members participated in a class-action lawsuit in 1980. Because of this, their contribution rate is 0.008 percent, and their retirement benefits are offset by Social Security.
Disability Benefits. There are KP&F disability benefits for active members. Tier I and Tier II members are covered by different disability benefits. Members are not eligible for disability benefits if injured while working for any employer other than their KP&F participating employer. Tier I Service-Connected Disability Benefits. Members receive an annual disability benefit, in on-going monthly payments, based on the higher of 50.0 percent of final average salary, or final average salary multiplied times 2.5 percent multiplied times years of service. If a member has eligible children, each receives an annual benefit of up to 10.0 percent of the members final average salary (subject to a maximum) in on-going monthly payments. Children are eligible up to age 18, or age 23, if a full-time student. The maximum family benefit, including childrens benefits, is 75.0 percent of the members final average salary. If a member does not have eligible children, the maximum benefit is 80.0 percent of the members final average salary. For Tier I non-service-connected disability, a member will receive an annual benefit to be paid monthly based on the final average salary multiplied by 2.5 percent for each year of service credit. The minimum benefit is 25.0 percent of final average salary and the maximum benefit is 80.0 percent. A member must wait 180 days from the last day actively worked in order to apply for benefits. Tier II Disability Benefits. Disability benefits are the same, whether the disability is service-connected or non-service-connected. Members receive an annual benefit of 50.0 percent of final average salary in on-going monthly payments. There is no waiting period. Members continue receiving service credit until a person is no longer disabled, or until the member is eligible to retire. If a member becomes disabled and already is eligible to retire, the member cannot apply for disability benefits and must retire.
Working While Receiving Disability Benefits. If a disabled member returns to work for any KP&F participating employer, the disability benefits will stop automatically. There is no earnings limit for non-public safety employment if a disabled member goes back to work for a non-participating employer. Death Benefits for Active Members. KP&F death benefits cover regular Tier I and Tier II members, Brazelton, and Transfer members. Benefits are paid automatically to a spouse or eligible children, or both. Children are eligible up to age 18, or age 23, if a full-time student. If a member is unmarried and has no eligible children, the persons beneficiary receives a one-time lump-sum benefit.
Service-Connected Death. A spouse receives an annual benefit of 50.0 percent of final average salary in on-going monthly payments for the rest of his or her life. A members children, if eligible, also receive an annual benefit of up to 10.0 percent of final average salary. The maximum total benefit is 75.0 percent of final average salary. If a member does not have a surviving spouse or eligible children, a beneficiary receives a lump sum equal to the current annual salary. Non-Service-Connected Death. A spouse receives a lump-sum payment of 100.0 percent of final average salary, plus an annual benefit of final average salary multiplied times 2.5 percent multiplied times the years of service in on-going monthly payments for the rest of his or her life. The maximum annual benefit is 50.0 percent of final average salary. If a member does not have a surviving spouse, any eligible children share the benefit. If a member does not have a surviving spouse or eligible children, a beneficiary receives a lump-sum equal to the current annual salary. For more information, please contact:

page 5
V-5

Retirement V-6
Retirement
V-6 KPERS Early Retirement, Normal Retirement, and Early Retirement Incentive Plans
For the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) that includes state, school, and local governmental employees, the KPERS actuary reviews the actual experience every three years to compare it with anticipated experience (actuarial assumptions) in order to reexamine certain assumptions to see if the actual experience differed from the assumed pattern over the period. Two of the actuarial assumptions included the estimated rates of retirement, one for early retirement without obtaining full, unreduced benefits at age 55 (and at least 10 years of credited service), and the other for normal retirement with unreduced benefits at 85 points (sum of age plus years of service credit), age 62 (with at least 10 years of service credit), or age 65 (with at least one year of service credit). The most recent three-year actuarial experience review coincided with the implementation of ad hoc early retirement incentive plans, initially offered only by the schools and local governments. More recently in 2011, the State offered a Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program for certain of its executive branch employees. There has been statutory authorization since 1983 for both school districts and community colleges to establish early retirement incentive plans. Approximately half the school districts and most of the community colleges established the statutorily-authorized plans, although in recent years many such statutory plans have been closed to new hires. In addition, using statutorily delegated authority, many school boards and local governing bodies in recent years established for limited periods of time a number of special ad hoc early retirement incentive programs for certain of their employees. Both the statutory plans and the ad hoc plans have been used in recent years to reduce the public employee workforce. The States 2011 Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program was an ad hoc plan. The ad hoc plans generally were used when budget problems occurred at the different levels of government and there was an attempt to reduce the overall payroll of those governments. This briefing article reviews the ad hoc early retirement incentive plans that were offered by different units of government. The KPERS actuary did not report on such plans, nor was the impact of such plans assessed in the actuarys work for the three-year actuarial experience
KPERS Early Retirement, Normal Retirement, and Early Retirement Incentive Plans Other Retirement reports available
V-1
V-2 Kansas Defined Contribution Retirement Plans V-3 Working After KPERS V-4 Long-Term Funding of KPERS V-5 Judicial and Public Safety Retirement Plans
study that is referenced by this briefing article. The purpose of this review is to point out the changes in retirement patterns that may have been influenced by ad hoc early retirement plans. The KPERS actuary previously confirmed that the 85-point rule altered the retirement pattern for school district employees, and the subsequent adjustment of the actuarial assumptions for that group of KPERS members recognized that a different pattern had emerged as a result. Actuarial Findings for the 85-Point Rule. For the period 2007 to 2009, the KPERS actuary found that 110 percent of school-eligible employees, and 104 percent of local-eligible employees, with 85 points and prior to age 62, actually retired when compared with the assumed rate of retirement. The state-eligible employees under the same circumstances retired at the rate of 82 percent of the assumed rate. Both schools and local governments offered ad hoc early retirement plans during this period of 2007 to 2009, while the State did not offered such a plan until 2011. In terms of actual retirements during the 2007 to 2009 period, the KPERS actuary found that under the rule of 85 points, there were retirements by 22.2 percent of those school district eligible employees between the ages of 53 and 62. That retirement rate exceeded the anticipated rate of 21.4 percent by 0.8 percent. For the local units of government, there were retirements by 14.1 percent of those eligible between the ages of 53 and 62. That retirement rate exceeded the anticipated rate of 13.1 percent by 1.0 percent. The retirement rate for the state group under the rule of 85 for those between the ages of 53 to 62 was 12.6 percent, compared with the anticipated rate of 13.9 percent, which was 1.3 percent lower than expected. There was no early retirement incentive plan for state employees during this period from 2007 to 2009. Under the rule of 85 points, the retirement rate for the school group was 22.2 percent of those eligible, for the local group was 14.1 percent, and for the state group was 12.6 percent. Actuarial Findings for Normal Retirement. For employees ages 62 to 75, the KPERS actuary found greater differences from the expected patterns in two of the three groups state and local. The school group was anticipated to retire at a rate of 29.3 percent, compared with the actual experience of 29.1 percent. The state group was anticipated to retire at a rate of 27.2 percent, compared with the actual experience of 25.6 percent. The local group was anticipated to retire at a rate of 15.9 percent, compared with the actual experience of 14.8 percent. Actuarial Findings for Early Retirement. For employees ages 55 to 62 and not eligible for the 85 point rule or normal retirement, the KPERS actuary found slight differences from the expected patterns in the three groups. The school group was anticipated to retire at a rate of 7.4 percent, compared with the actual experience of 7.3 percent. The state group was anticipated to retire at a rate of 7.4 percent, compared with the actual experience of 7.3 percent. The local group was anticipated to retire at a rate of 6.7 percent, compared with the actual experience of 6.6 percent. Conclusions and Observations. The ad hoc early retirement plans offered by school districts and local units of government appear to have encouraged KPERS employees with 85 points to retire earlier than anticipated in the actuarial projections. It would be premature to assume that the change in retirement patterns will have an actuarial impact. At least three more years of data would be needed to compare with the past three-year study to determine if the trend continued to occur. With the state adding
V-6
page 2
an early retirement incentive package in 2011, the next three-year study will capture the event in the data for the period. The States ad hoc Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program offered two options: either a one-time, lump-sum payment of $6,500, or the provision of heath insurance in two forms. An eligible employee could elect to continue group health insurance coverage and the State would pay the employers share of the active State employee rates for the coverage and plan in which the employee is enrolled on August 1, 2011, toward the employees group health insurance coverage on the retiree plan directly to the insurance carrier as follows: For up to 60 months if the employee is receiving member-only coverage, or until the participant reaches the age of 65, whichever occurs sooner. For up to 42 months if the employee is receiving member-plus-dependent coverage, or until the participant reaches the age of 65, whichever occurs sooner.
must:
In order to be eligible to apply for the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program, participants
Be currently employed in the Executive Branch as a classified employee or as an unclassified employee whose salary is approved by the Governor; Be eligible to retire under Regular KPERS Tier 1 or Tier 2, including early retirement, on or before October 31, 2011; Agree to retire from the State of Kansas on or before October 31, 2011; and Submit a signed and notarized General Release Agreement to the Human Resources office of the agency in which they work no later than October 14, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. (CDT).
The States Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program is not available to employees covered under the Correctional KPERS plan or the Kansas Police & Firemen (KP&F) plan, employees from the Kansas Department of Labor whose positions are not funded by the State General Fund (SGF) or fee funds, or both. Employees who previously have retired from the State of Kansas also are not eligible to participate in this program. The Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program is available only to employees who are covered by the KPERS retirement plan and meet the eligibility requirements. Not all employees who applied for the program were accepted, as stated in the information about the program. The State of Kansas reserved the right to limit the total number of participants in the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Plan in order to preserve the viability of a departments essential functions and the integrity of its financial resources. All applications for participation in the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program were to be considered on a first-come, first-served basis. The States program was announced on August 2, 2011, and extended one time from its original last working date of September 19, 2011. Employees offering to participate in the Voluntary Early
page 3
V-6
Retirement Incentive Program and who were accepted must have a last day worked no later than October 31, 2011. Employees who accept the Voluntary Early Retirement Incentive Program are not eligible to return to employment with the State of Kansas for five (5) years from the date of retirement, including as a contractor, unless otherwise authorized by the Governor or the Governors designee. This restriction does not apply to elected positions. For more information, please contact:

V-6
page 4

State Finance W-1 Budget Overview Other State Finance reports available W-2 Local Demand Transfers W-3
State Finance
W-1 Budget Overview
This report provides some brief background information on the state budget process, including definitions of classifications of expenditures by function of government and by major purpose of expenditure. Information about the approved FY 2012 budget also is included, as well as general information on the status of the State General Fund. The Budget Process. The Kansas budget is an executive budget, in that the budgetary recommendations of the Governor are embodied in the appropriation bills which are introduced and considered by the Legislature. Most state agencies are required by law to submit their budget requests by no later than October 1 of each year (customarily, the deadline specified by the Director of the Budget is September 15). Agency budget requests are submitted to the Division of the Budget and the Legislative Research Department at the same time. 20 state agencies, most of them occupational and professional licensing boards and financial institution regulatory agencies, are biennial budget agencies and authorized to file budget adjustment requests every other year.
District Court Docket Fees
W-4 Kansas Laws to Eliminate Deficit Spending W-5
Federal ARRA Funding
J. G. Scott, Chief Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected] Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181
[email protected]
The Director of the Budget, an appointee of the Governor, is directed by law to review the detailed requests submitted by the various state agencies, and to make initial recommendations which are transmitted to agencies in November. An agency is then authorized to appeal those initial recommendations to the Governor. By law, judicial branch agency budgets are exempt from review by the Director. By practice, legislative branch agency budgets are not reviewed.
The Governor then makes budgetary recommendations which are provided to the Legislature at the beginning of each session. The Governors recommendations also are included in appropriations bills which become the Legislatures base for approving the budget each year. The Legislative Research Department prepares an analysis of both the budget request made by each agency and the Governors recommendations, which is submitted to the Legislature approximately three weeks after the Director of the Budget submits the Governors budget report. Agencies budgets receive simultaneous consideration in the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Ways and Means Committee. Identical appropriation bills reflecting the Governors recommendation are introduced in both chambers. Consideration by First House. The Chairpersons of the Appropriations and Ways and Means Committees appoints Budget Committees (House) or Subcommittees (Senate) to consider appropriations for various agencies. After reviewing the budget requests, the Budget Committees and Subcommittees draft a report which details all budgetary adjustments to the Governors recommendations that the Budget Committee and Subcommittee support. Once the report is prepared, it is presented to the corresponding full committee. The committee may adjust the recommendations or it may adopt the report as submitted. The recommendations of the committee are considered by the full chamber, which also may adjust or adopt the recommendations. Consideration by Second House. The process for review of an appropriation bill in the second house repeats the steps followed in the house of origin. Conference Committee Action. After consideration of an appropriation bill by the second house, the bill typically goes to a conference committee so that differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill can be reconciled. Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The Legislature usually adjourns its regular session sometime in early April and returns for a wrapup session that occurs roughly two and one-half weeks following the first adjournment. During the wrap-up session, the Legislature takes action on a number of items of unfinished business, one of which is the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. It is designed to make technical adjustments to the appropriations bills passed earlier in the session and to address the fiscal impact of legislation passed during the session. The Omnibus Appropriations Bill is one of the last bills passed each session.
W-1
page 2
FY 2011 Approved Budget

FY 2012 Approved Budget The 2011 Legislature approved: An FY 2012 budget totaling $13.9 billion from all funding sources, which is a decrease of $824.7 million (5.6 percent) below the approved FY 2011 amount. An FY 2012 State General Fund (SGF) budget totaling $6.1 billion, which is an increase of $379.5 million (6.7 percent) above the approved FY 2011 amount.
Classifications of State Spending. The State of Kansas classifies state spending by major purpose of expenditure and by function of government. Major purposes of expenditure include the following: State Operations: Actual agency operating costs for salaries and wages, contractual services, commodities, and capital outlay. Aid to Local Units: Aid payments to counties, cities, school districts, and other local government entities. Other Assistance, Grants, and Benefits: Payments made to or on behalf of individuals as aid, including public assistance benefits, unemployment benefits, and tuition grants. Capital Improvements: Cash or debt service payments for projects involving new construction, remodeling and additions, rehabilitation and repair, razing, and the principal portion of debt service for a capital expense.
page 3
W-1
The following pie chart reflects approved FY 2012 State General Fund expenditures by major purpose of expenditure:
FY 2012 Approved Expenditures by Major Purpose of Expenditure (In Millions) State General Fund
Total $6,054.8
Expenditures by function of government are grouped by agencies which make expenditures for similar programs and purposes. There are six functions of government: General Government: State agencies with both administrative and regulatory functions, including statewide elected officials, the legislative and judicial branches, and fee-funded professional and regulatory licensing agencies. Human Services: Agencies which provide services to individuals, including the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, the Department on Aging, the Department of Labor, the health portions of the Department of Health and Environment, and the Commission on Veterans Affairs. Education: Agencies which provide various educational services to Kansans, including the Department of Education, the Board of Regents and the Regents Institutions, the State Library, the Arts Commission, the State Historical Society, and the Schools for the Blind and Deaf. Public Safety: Agencies which ensure the safety and security of citizens, including the Department of Corrections and its facilities, the Juvenile Justice Authority and its facilities, the Highway Patrol, and the Kansas Bureau of Investigation.
W-1
page 4
Agriculture and Natural Resources: Agencies which protect the natural and physical resources of the state, including the Department of Agriculture, the environment portion of the Department of Health and Environment, and the Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. Transportation: This function includes only the Department of Transportation.
The following pie chart reflects approved FY 2012 State General Fund expenditures by function of Row 1 government (the pie chart does not reflect a reduction of $1.6 million in unspecified spending reductions Row 2 Row 3 approved by the Legislature):
Row 4 Row 5 Row 6
FY 2012 Approved Expenditures Row 7Function of Government by Row 8 (In Millions)

=
State General Fund

Ag and Natural Res ources $26.2 General Government $270.5 Hum an Services $1,535.4
Public Safety $397.1
Trans portation $16.2
Education $3,809.4
Total $5,626.6
Consensus Revenue Estimating Process. Since 1974, a consensus approach involving the Legislative and Executive branches (Division of the Budget, Legislative Research Department, the Department of Revenue, and one consulting economist each from Kansas, Kansas State, and Wichita State universities) has been utilized for estimating revenues to the State General Fund. These consensus estimates are used by both the Governor and the Legislature to formulate and approve budget requests. The law requires that on or before December 4 and April 20, the Director of the Budget and the Director of the Legislative Research Department prepare a joint estimate of revenue to the State General Fund for the current and ensuing fiscal year.
page 5
W-1
The following table reflects actual State General Fund receipts (in millions) for FY 2010 and FY 2011 and the April 2011 estimate, as adjusted for legislation, of the Consensus Revenue Estimating Group for FY 2012: Actual FY 2010 Income Taxes Excise Taxes Other Taxes Other Revenue Total $2,659.7 2,170.8 155.4 206.6 $5,192.4 Actual FY 2011 $2,956.2 2,569.9 166.8 189.2 $5,882.1 Estimated FY 2012 $2,974.4 2,688.4 162.0 222.9 $6,047.6
Income taxes include individual and corporate income and financial institutions taxes. Excise taxes include sales and compensating use taxes, alcohol and cigarette taxes, and severance taxes. Other taxes include motor carrier property taxes, estate/succession taxes, and insurance premium taxes. Other revenue includes interest earnings, agency earnings, and net transfers to and from the State General Fund.
The following tables reflect where a State General Fund dollar is projected to come from in FY 2012 and how it will be spent: Where Each FY 2012 State General Fund Dollar Will Come From (In Millions) 45 39 4 2 2 2 1 4 1.00 Individual Income Tax Sales and Compensating Use Tax Corporation and Financial Income Tax Insurance Premium Tax Severance Tax Tobacco Taxes Alcohol Taxes Other Taxes and Income TOTAL RECEIPTS $ 2,726.8 2,385.8 247.6 133.0 107.7 98.7 88.2 259.8 $ 6,047.6
W-1
page 6
Where Each FY 2012 State General Fund Dollar Will Be Spent (In Millions) 50 Dept. of Education $3,048.4 12 Board of Regents/Postsecondary Education 738.1 0 Other Education 22.9 63 Subtotal Education $3,809.4 12 10 4 3 2 2 1 1 0 1 $1.00 Dept. of SRS and State Hospitals Dept. of Health and Environment Dept. of Corrections and Facilities Department on Aging Jud. Branch, Board of Indigents Defense Department of Administration Juvenile Justice Authority and Facilities Other Public Safety Legislative and Elected Officials All Other TOTAL EXPENDITURES 722.2 601.1 260.2 210.5 123.0 93.0 72.5 64.4 25.5 73.0 $6,054.8
J.G. Scott, Chief Fiscal Analyst

[email protected]
Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst

[email protected]
page 7
W-1

State Finance W-2 Local Demand Transfers Other State Finance reports available W-1 Budget Overview W-3
State Finance
W-2 Local Demand Transfers
This briefing report provides an explanation of the five local State General Fund demand transfers (the Local Ad Valorem Tax Reduction Fund, the County and City Revenue Sharing Fund, the Special City-County Highway Fund, the School District Capital Improvements Fund, and the School District Capital Outlay Fund), including: the statutory authorization for the transfers; where applicable, the specific revenue sources for the transfers; recent treatment of the demand transfers as revenue transfers; and funding provided for the transfers in recent years. In addition, other demand transfers (the State Water Plan Fund, the State Fair Capital Improvements Fund, and the Regents Faculty of Distinction Fund), which do not flow to local units of government, are discussed briefly.
W-4 Kansas Laws to Eliminate Deficit Spending W-5
Distinction between Demand Transfers and Revenue Transfers

Demand transfers are expenditures specified by statute rather than appropriation acts. An important characteristic of a demand transfer is that the amount of the transfer in any given fiscal year is based on a formula or authorization in substantive law. The actual appropriation of the funds traditionally was made through that statutory authority, rather than through an appropriation. In recent years, however, adjustments to the statutory amounts of the demand transfers have been included in appropriation bills. State General Fund demand transfers are considered to be State General Fund expenditures. A State General Fund revenue transfer is specified in an appropriation bill, and involves transferring money from the State General Fund to a special revenue fund. Any subsequent expenditure of the funds is considered an expenditure from the special revenue fund.
J.G. Scott, Chief Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected] Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181
[email protected]
Five statutory demand transfers flow to local units of government: Two of the local transfers are funded from sales tax revenues: the Local Ad Valorem Tax Reduction Fund (LAVTRF) and the Country and City Revenue Sharing Fund (CCRSF). By law, both are to be distributed to local governments for property tax relief. By statute, the LAVTRF should receive 3.6 percent of sales and use tax receipts, and the CCRSF should receive 2.8 percent. While the percentage is established in statute, it should be noted that, in recent years, the transfers often have been capped at some level less than the full statutory amount or not funded at all. The other local transfer based on a specific revenue source is the Special CityCounty Highway Fund (SCCHF), which was established in 1979 to prevent the deterioration of city streets and county roads. Each year, by statute, this fund is to receive an amount equal to the state property tax levied on motor carriers. The fourth transfer that flows to local units of government is not based on a specific tax resource. The School District Capital Improvements Fund (SDCIF) is used to support school construction projects. By statute, the State Board of Education is to certify school districts entitlements determined under statutory provisions and funding is then transferred from the State General Fund to the SDCIF. The fifth transfer to local units of government is the School District Capital Outlay Fund. The 2005 Legislature created the capital outlay state aid program as part of its response to the Kansas Supreme Courts opinion in school finance litigation. The program is designed to provide state equalization aid to school districts for capital outlay mill levies up to 8 mills.
Treatment of Demand Transfers as Revenue Transfers. In recent years, the local demand transfers, with the exception of the School District Capital Outlay Fund, have been changed to revenue transfers. By converting demand transfers to revenue transfers, these funds cease to be State General Fund expenditures and are no longer subject to the ending balance law. The LAVTRF, CCRSF, and SCCHF were last treated as demand transfers in FY 2001, and the School District Capital Improvement Fund transfer was changed to a revenue transfer in FY 2003. Recent Funding for the Local Demand/Revenue Transfers. The School District Capital Improvements Fund was the only local State General Fund transfer recommended for FY 2012. Full-year funding (at a level below the statutory amount) was last recommended for the Local Ad Valorem Tax Reduction Fund and the County and City Revenue Sharing Fund in FY 2002. In FY 2003, as part of approved State General Fund allotments, the second half of the scheduled transfers to the LAVTRF, CCRSF, and SCCHF were suspended, and no transfers have been made since FY 2004. Because of balances in the Special City-County Highway Fund, local governments received the full amounts of the SCCHF transfer in both FY 2003 and FY 2004,
W-2
although only one of two scheduled transfers was made in FY 2003 and no State General Fund transfer was made in FY 2004. The FY 2005, FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008 transfers to the SCCHF were approved at the FY 2003 pre-allotment amount. The FY 2009 transfer was approved at $6.7 million. No funding has been approved since FY 2009. The transfer to the School District Capital Outlay Fund was last made in FY 2009.
The following table reflects actual and approved local demand/revenue transfers (in thousands of dollars) for FY 2009-FY 2012: Dollar Change FY 2011 to FY 2012 $ 3,894 0 0 Percent Change FY 2011 to FY 2012 4.1% 0.0 0.0
Actual FY 2009 School District Capital Improvements Fund School District Capital Outlay Fund Local Ad Valorem Tax Reduction Fund County and City Revenue Sharing Fund Special City-County Highway Fund Total, Local Transfers $ 75,591 22,339 0
Actual FY 2010 $ 87,662 0 0
Revised Amount FY 2011 $ 96,106 0 0
Approved FY 2012 $ 100,000 0 0
0 6,661 $ 104,591
0 0 $ 87,662
0 0 $ 96,106
0 0 $ 100,000 $
0 0 3,894
0.0 0.0 4.1%
Other Demand Transfers. In addition to the local demand/revenue transfers, three other transfers do not flow to local units of government: One transfer provides matching funds for capital improvement projects at the Kansas State Fair. The amounts to be transferred are intended to match amounts transferred by the State Fair to its Capital Improvements Fund, up to $300,000. No transfer was approved for FY 2012. Another provides for a statutory $6.0 million transfer from the State General Fund to the State Water Plan Fund. No transfer was approved for FY 2012. The third provides for a transfer to the Regents Faculty of Distinction Fund. This provides for a transfer to supplement endowed professorships at eligible educational institutions. A transfer of $1.6 million was authorized for FY 2012.
page 3
W-2
For a number of years, a statutory State General Fund transfer was required to be made to the State Highway Fund to provide partial funding for the Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP). Under amendments to the CTP made during the 2004 Legislative Session, the State General Fund transfer has not been made since FY 2004. However, as part of the 2004 legislation, some State General Fund sales tax receipts are deposited directly in the State Highway Fund.
J.G. Scott, Chief Fiscal Analyst

[email protected]
Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst

[email protected]
W-2
page 4

State Finance W-3
State Finance
W-3 District Court Docket Fees
Docket Fees: Kansas has had a uniform system of district court docket fees since 1974. The docket fee system implemented in 1974 involved a uniform fee paid to the court for the cost of services. The original docket fees were $35 for civil cases and varying fees for criminal cases, depending upon the nature of the crime. From 1984 to 1995, local law libraries could charge differing library fees that were in addition to statutorily set docket fees, which caused docket fees to be non-uniform. In addition to statutorily set docket fees and a few fees that are set by Supreme Court Rule, the Kansas Supreme Court imposed a surcharge on district court docket fees. The Supreme Court Docket Fee surcharge was implemented from April 1, 2002 to June 30, 2006, to generate additional revenues to operate the Judicial Branch. In 1996, the Legislature enacted legislation that returned docket fees to a uniform level and also added docket fees for filing post-divorce motions for changes in child custody, modifications of child support orders, or changes in visitation. The 2006 Legislature enacted legislation specifying that only the Legislature can establish fees or moneys for court procedures including docket fees, filing fees, or other fees related to access to court procedures. The 2006 Legislature raised docket fees for four purposes: to provide additional funding for the State General Fund associated with an approved judicial salary increase, to provide an increase in funding for the Kansas Law Enforcement Training Center Fund, to provide funding for the Kansas Judicial Councils judicial performance evaluation process, and for the Child Exchange and Visitation Centers Fund. The 2009 Legislature raised docket fees to provide funding for the first phase of a statewide non-judicial personnel salary adjustment and raised the docket fee in criminal cases by $1 to fund a $1 increase to the Prosecuting Attorneys Training Fund. With regard to distribution of docket fees, the law provides that certain state and local entities will receive a specified portion of district court docket fees and that the balance will be credited to the State Treasury. The Office of Judicial Administration estimates that $22.4 million in district court docket fees will be credited to the State Treasury in FY 2012. The
Other State Finance reports available W-1 Budget Overview W-2 Local Demand Transfers W-4 Kansas Laws to Eliminate Deficit Spending W-5
Dylan Dear, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

[email protected]
amount in the State Treasury is allocated on a percentage basis among a number of state agency funds, as shown in the table below. Fines Penalties and Forfeitures: In FY 2012, the Judicial Branch anticipates collecting approximately $19.7 million in fines, penalties, and forfeitures. The 33.6 percent of funds collected are earmarked for assisting victims of crime, alcohol, and drug abuse programs, childrens services, and other law enforcement-related activities. The remainder is transferred to the State General Fund for general operations. Other Fees: In addition to Docket Fees the Judicial Branch also imposes other fees and assessments on individuals who avail themselves of the judicial system. The Judicial Branch anticipates collecting $15.0 million in other fees and assessment in FY 2012. These fees support law enforcement related activities within the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Office of the Attorney General, Board of Indigents Defense Services, and the Department of Corrections. The 2009 Legislature authorized the Supreme Court to enact a new surcharge in FY 2009. The surcharge is approved on a year-to-year basis by the Legislature. In FY 2011, the Legislature extended the surcharge through FY 2012 and increased the surcharge by 25.0 percent. Surcharge revenue is not considered to be a docket fee and is tracked separately from the fees and deposited in the Judicial Branch Surcharge Fund. In addition to surcharge revenue, the Legislature transferred $778,518 from the Judicial Performance Fund to the Judicial Branch Surcharge Fund in FY 2011. The surcharge on docket fees is projected to raised $10.9 million in FY 2012. The table on the next page shows the amount of each docket fee, the statutory citation or Supreme Court Rule that authorizes the fee, and how it is distributed. Those funds that receive docket fee receipts off the top are shown (the County General Fund, the Law Library Fund, the Prosecuting Attorneys Training Fund, the Indigents Defense Services Fund, and the Law Enforcement Training Center Fund), along with amounts credited to the State Treasury. Amounts credited to the State Treasury may be either a specified dollar amount or may be the balance remaining after other statutory allocations have been made.
W-3
page 2
Kansas Legislative Research Department Distribution of District Court Fees from the State Treasury - FY 2012 Est. Revenue Credited to Fund (Est.)
$948,513 3,438,359 404,908 818,763 64,875 214,758 682,303 107,379 516,760 239,365 525,709 284,106 40,267 129,749 3,476,389 10,478,382 $22,370,584
Name of Fund
Access to Justice Fund Judicial Branch Non-judicial Salary Initiative Fund (Clerks Fees) Judicial Branch Education Fund (Clerks Fees) Judicial Technology Fund Dispute Resolution Fund Judicial Council Fund Judicial Performance Fund Crime Victims Assistance Fund Protection from Abuse Fund Kansas Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Trust Fund Juvenile Detention Facilities Fund Trauma Fund Permanent Families Account in the Family and Children Investment Fund (Clerks Fees) Child Exchange and Visitation Center Judicial Branch Non-judicial Salary Adjustment Fund State General Fund Docket Fee Total
Administering Authority
Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Judicial Administrator, Office of Judicial Administration Judicial Council Judicial Council Attorney General Attorney General Commissioner of Juvenile Justice Commissioner of Juvenile Justice Secretary of Health and Environment Judicial Administrator, Office of Judicial Administration Attorney General Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Kansas State Legislature
Percentage of Fees
4.24% 15.37% 1.81% 3.66% 0.29% 0.96% 3.05% 0.48% 2.31% 1.07% 2.35% 1.27% 0.18% 0.58% 15.54% 46.84% 100.00%
Crime Victims Compensation Fund Crime Victims Assistance Fund Comm. Alcoholism and Intoxication Programs Fund Dept of Corr. Alcohol and Drug Abuse Treatment Fund Boating Fee Fund Childrens Advocacy Center Fund EMS Revolving Fund Trauma Fund Traffic Records Enhancement Fund Criminal Justice Information Systems Line Fund State General Fund Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Total
Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Attorney General Attorney General Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services Department of Corrections Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism Attorney General Emergency Medical Services Board Secretary of Health and Environment Department of Transportation Kansas Bureau of Investigation Kansas State Legislature
10.94% 2.24% 2.75% 7.65% 0.16% 1.10% 2.28% 2.28% 2.28% 2.91% 66.40% 100.00%
$2,157,368 441,728 542,300 1,508,580 31,552 216,920 449,616 449,616 449,616 573,852 13,094,080 $19,720,000
Other Fees and Assessments Bar Admission Fee Fund (Bar Application Fees) Commission on Judicial Qualifications Correctional Supervision Fund (Supervision Fees) Kansas Department of Corrections Court Reporters Fee Fund (Court Report Fees) Judicial Administrator, Office of Judicial Administration Indigents Defense Services Fund (Application & Assessment) Board of Indigents Defense Services Judicial Branch Education Fund (Fines) Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Judicial Branch Nonjudicial Salary Initiative Fund (Marriage & Drivers License Fees) Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court Judicial Branch Surcharge Fund Chief Justice, Kansas Supreme Court KBI-DNA Database Fee (DNA Sample Fee) Kansas Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Training Center Fund (Assesment on Criminal Proceedings) KCPOST Library Report Fee Fund Judicial Administrator, Office of Judicial Administration Permanent Families Account in the Family and Children Investment Fund (Birth Certificate Copies) Judicial Administrator, Office of Judicial Administration Prosecuting Attorneys Training Fund Attorney General Other Fees and Assessments Total
N/A 58.33% N/A N/A N/A 15.25% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
$249,720 425,000 22,275 562,700 155,000 525,852 11,897,252 200,000 280,000 125,050 400,000 200,000 $15,042,849
Grand Total of all Fees, Fines, Penalties and Forfeitures Assessed
$57,133,433
page 3
W-3
W-3
page 4
FY2012FULLCOURTDISTRIBUTIONCHART(revised07/01/2011) Cite State CountyLawLibr

$100.00 Balance $125.00 Balance Balance $14.00 $24.00 $14.00 $14.00 $5.00 $14.00 $14.00 $14.00 Balance $42.00 Balance $56.00 $76.00 $122.00 $141.00 $121.00 $75.00 $22.00 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $0.00 40 41 42 $182.50 $173.00 $138.00 $100.00 $12.50 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $19.00 $46.00 $51.50 $71.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $12.50 $204.50 $195.00 $160.00 $119.00 Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance $22.00 Balance Balance Balance $59.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Balance Balance Balance $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $10.00 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $10.00 $5.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 x $0.00 x x x x x x $0.00 x x $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 x x x $0.00 $10.00 x $10.00 x $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 x $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00
CaseType PATF IDS

2005SC28 28172a 201a04 602001 603005;602001 602203a 28170 28170 28170 65409 28170 28170 28170 602001 601621 614001 614001 614001;612802 612910;602001 612910;602001 612910;602001 28170 612704 612704 28178 28178 28178 28178 28178 28172a 28172a 28172a 214619 36 35 $39.00 31 $24.00 30 $53.00 29 $99.00 $22.00 28 $119.00 $22.00 27 $103.00 $19.00 26 $57.00 $19.00 25 $37.00 $19.00 22 $42.00 $22.00 $64.00 21 $156.00 $22.00 $178.00 18 $14.00 $22.00 $36.00 15 $14.00 $22.00 $36.00 14 $14.00 $22.00 $36.00 13 $5.00 $0.00 $5.00 12 $14.00 $22.00 $36.00 11 $14.00 $22.00 $36.00 10 $24.00 $22.00 $46.00 7 $14.00 $22.00 $36.00 6 $156.00 $22.00 $178.00 5 $156.00 $22.00 $178.00 2 $125.00 $10.00 $135.00 1 $74.50 $22.00 $96.50 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00
CRM#
Fee
DocketFee
JBS
TOTAL
LETC
$0.00 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00 $0.00
BarDisciplineFeeFund
MunicipalCourtAppeals
AppellateCourtReview
CivilDocketFee
ForeignJudgment(anotherstate)
ForeignJudgment(anothercounty)
StateTaxWarrant
PersonalPropertyTax
StatutoryBond
HospitalLien
LisPendens
Mechanic'sLien
Oil&GasMechanic'sLien
Divorce/PaternityDocketFee
PostDivorceMotion
LimitedCivilDocketFee($500orless)
page 5
LimitedCivilDocketFee(over$500)
LimitedCivilDocketFee(over$5000)
TransferLMtoCV(original$37)
PostJudgmentPromotionofCh61toCh60
SmallClaims($500orless)
SmallClaims($500.01to$4,000)
OrderorWritofExecution
HrginAidofExecution
OrderforGarnishment
WritorOrderofSale
AttachmentOrder
Criminal(murder/manslaughter)
Criminal(felony)
Criminal(misdemeanor)
ConvictionExpungement
W-3
W-3

$100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $200.00 $100.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 Balance Balance $59.00 $0.00 Balance $50.00 Balance $56.00 $56.00 $98.00 $120.00 $60.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $71.50 $71.50 $71.50 $50.50 $51.50 $111.50 $25.50 71 72 $110.50 $50.50 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $22.00 $72.50 $36.00 $93.50 $93.50 $93.50 $93.50 $72.50 $73.50 $133.50 $47.50 $132.50 $72.50 Balance Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $50.50 $14.00 $71.50 Balance $14.00 Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance Balance 70 Balance Balance $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $120.00 $60.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $100.00 $10.00 $25.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 x x $0.00 $0.00 x $0.00 x x x $0.00 $0.00 x $0.00 x x x x x x x x x x $50.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $2.00 $0.00 $1.00 $1.00 $2.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
CaseType PATF IDS

222410 382312 28176 75724 224529 214610a 214610a 213707 20369 20370 28172a 28172a 82110 81008 28172a 321049a 382215 382314 28172a 20167;A.O.251* 20167;A.O.251* 59104 28170;592144 59104 59104 59104 59104 59104 59104 59104 59104 59104 59104 69 68 67 66 65 65 65 61 60 $60.00 $120.00 $0.00 52 $76.00 $22.00 51 $34.00 $22.00 50 $34.00 $22.00 $50.00 $0.00 $50.00 46 $76.00 $22.00 $98.00 $150.00 $0.00 $150.00 $59.00 $22.00 $81.00 45 $76.00 $22.00 $98.00 $74.50 $22.00 $96.50 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 $10.00 $0.00 $10.00 $60.00 $0.00 $60.00 $120.00 $0.00 $120.00 $100.00 $0.00 $100.00 $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 $400.00 $0.00 $400.00 $100.00 $19.00 $119.00 44 $100.00 $19.00 $119.00
CRM#
Fee
DocketFee
JBS
TOTAL
LETC
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.00 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $15.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ArrestExpungement
JuvenileExpungement
KBILaboratoryFee
KBIDNADatabaseFee
BIDSAdmin.Fee
ProbationFee(felony)
ProbationFee(misdemeanor)
WorthlessCheckFee
DomesticViolenceFee
Children'sAdvocacyCenterFund
ForfeitedRecognizance
Traffic
Driver'sLicenseReinstatementFee
ADSAP
Fish&Game
WPReinstatement
page 6
ChildinNeedofCare
JuvenileOffender
JuvenileTobacco
JuvenileProbationFee(felony)
JuvenileProbationFee(misdemeanor)
AdoptionDocketFee
ForeignAdoptionDocketFee
ConservatorshipDocketFee
GuardianshipDocketFee
ProbateConservatorship/Guardianship
ProbateTrust
FilingWill&Affidavit
ProbateDescent
ProbateEstates
ProbateTranscript(anothercounty)
ProbateTranscript(anotherstate)
RefusaltoGrantLetters

Balance Balance Balance $59.00 Balance Balance $0.00 x $0.00 x $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1.00 $1.00 $0.00 x $0.00 $0.00 x $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.50 $0.50 $0.00 x $0.00 $0.00
CaseType PATF IDS

59104 59104 5929a01;59104 23108a 59104 59104 81 $59.00 $22.00 $81.00 80 $36.50 $22.00 $58.50 78 $59.00 $26.50 $85.50 76 $35.50 $22.00 $57.50 74 $50.50 $22.00 $72.50 73 $50.50 $22.00 $72.50
CRM#
Fee
DocketFee
JBS
TOTAL
LETC
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
TerminationofJointTenancy
TerminationofLifeEstate
CommitmentofSexuallyViolentPredator
MarriageLicense
TreatmentofAlcoholismorDrugAbuse
TreatmentofMentallyIll
Source: Offices of Judicial Administration The following reference are as follows: CRM-Clerks Reference Manual JBS-Judicial Branch Surcharge PATF-Prosecuting Attorneys Training Fund LETC-Law Enforcement Training Center
A.O.251*Admin.OrderNo.251establishes,"ajuvenilesupervisionfeeinanamountnohigherthantheamountsetforadultsupervisionfee."
page 7 Kansas Legislative Research Department
W-3

State Finance W-4 Kansas Laws to Eliminate Deficit Spending Other State Finance reports available W-1 Budget Overview W-2
State Finance
W-4 Kansas Laws to Eliminate Deficit Spending
Various laws or statutory sections are designed to provide certain safeguards with respect to state budgeting and managing of expenditures, and to prevent deficit financing. These laws and statutes are summarized below.
Constitutional Provisions
Sometimes certain provisions of the Kansas Constitution are cited with regard to financial limitations. For instance, Section 24 of Article 2 says that, No money shall be drawn from the treasury except in pursuance of a specific appropriation made by law. Section 4 of Article 11 states that, The Legislature shall provide, at each regular session, for raising sufficient revenue to defray the current expenses of the state for two years. Sections 6 and 7 of Article 11 relate to incurring public debt for the purpose of defraying extraordinary expenses and making public improvements. Such debt shall not, in the aggregate, exceed $1 million without voter approval of a law passed by the Legislature. The Kansas Supreme Court, in several cases over the years, has said these sections apply only to debts payable from the levy of general property taxes and, thus, do not prohibit issuance of revenue bonds to be amortized from nonproperty tax sources.
Local Demand Transfers
W-3 District Court Docket Fees W-5
Unencumbered Balance Required

KSA 75-3730, enacted in 1953, states that all commitments and claims shall be preaudited by the Division of Accounts and Reports as provided in KSA 75-3731. No payment shall be made and no obligation shall be incurred against any fund, allotment, or appropriation, except liabilities representing the expenses of the legislature, unless the Director of Accounts and Reports shall first certify that his or her records disclose there is a sufficient unencumbered balance available in such fund, allotment, or appropriation to meet the same . . . .
J.G. Scott, Chief Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected] Audrey Dunkel, Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181
[email protected]
State General Fund Ending Balance Law

Part of 1990 HB 2867 (then KSA 75-6704) provided that the Governor and Legislature must target year-end State General Fund balances expressed as a percentage of fiscal year expenditures and demand transfers, as follows: at least 5 percent for FY 1992, 6 percent for FY 1993, 7 percent for FY 1994, and 7.5 percent for FY 1995 and thereafter (now KSA 75-6702). Beginning in the 1992 Legislative Session, an Omnibus Reconciliation Spending Limit Bill is to be relied upon to reconcile total State General Fund expenditures and demand transfers to the applicable ending balance target. The law does not require any future action by the Governor or Legislature if the target is missed when actual data on receipts, expenditures, and the year-end balance become known.
Allotment System
The allotment system statutes (KSA 75-3722 through 3725) were enacted in 1953 as part of the law which created the Department of Administration. In response to a request from Governor Carlin, the Attorney General issued an opinion (No. 82-160) on July 26, 1982, which sets forth some of the things that can and cannot be done under the allotment system statutes. Some of the key points in that opinion are: With certain exceptions, noted below, the Governor (through the Secretary of Administration and Director of the Budget) has broad discretion in the application of allotments in order to avoid a situation where expenditures in a fiscal year would exceed the resources of the State General Fund or a special revenue fund. Allotments need not be applied equally or on a pro rata basis to all appropriations from, for example, the State General Fund. Thus, the Governor may pick and choose as long as such discretion is not abused. Demand transfers from the State General Fund to another fund are not subject to the allotment system because technically, appropriations are made from the other fund and not the State General Fund. Such transfers include those to the Local Ad Valorem Tax Reduction Fund, County and City Revenue Sharing Fund, CityCounty Highway Fund, State Highway Fund, State Water Plan Fund, and School District Capital Improvements Fund. The allotment system cannot be used in any fiscal year for the purpose of increasing the year-ending balance of a fund nor for controlling cash shortages that might occur at any time within a fiscal year. Thus, if a deficit were to be projected at the end of the fiscal year, the allotment system could be used to restore the State General Fund balance to zero.
The Legislature and the Courts and their officers and employees are exempt from the allotment system under KSA 75-3722.
The $100 Million Balance Provision

Part of 1990 HB 2867 (KSA 75-6704) authorizes the Governor to issue an executive order or orders, with approval of the State Finance Council, to reduce State General Fund expenditures and demand
W-4 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
transfers if the estimated year-end balance in the State General Fund is less than $100 million. The Director of the Budget must continuously monitor receipts and expenditures, and certify to the Governor the amount of reduction in expenditures and demand transfers that would be required to keep the yearend balance from falling below $100 million. Debt service costs, the State General Fund contribution to school employees retirement (KPERS-School), and the demand transfer to the School District Capital Improvements Fund created in 1992 are not subject to reduction. If the Governor decides to make reductions, they must be on a percentage basis applied equally to all items of appropriations and demand transfers, i.e., across-the-board with no exceptions other than the three mentioned above. In contrast to the allotment system law, all demand transfers but one are subject to reduction. In August 1991 (FY 1992), the Governor issued an executive directive, with the approval of the State Finance Council, to reduce State General Fund expenditures (except debt service and the KPERSSchool employer contributions) by 1 percent. At the time of the State Finance Council action, the projected State General Fund ending balance was projected at approximately $76 million.
Certificates of Indebtedness
KSA 75-3725a, first enacted in 1970, authorizes the State Finance Council to order the Pooled Money Investment Board (PMIB) to issue a certificate of indebtedness when the estimated resources of the State General Fund will be sufficient to meet in full the authorized expenditures and obligations of the State General Fund for an entire fiscal year, but insufficient to meet such expenditures and obligations fully as they become due during certain months of a fiscal year. The certificate must be redeemed from the State General Fund no later than June 30 of the same fiscal year in which it was issued. If necessary, more than one certificate may be issued in a fiscal year. No interest is charged to the State General Fund. However, to whatever extent that the amount of a certificate results in greater spending from the State General Fund than would occur if expenditures had to be delayed, there may be some reductions in interest earnings that otherwise would accrue to the State General Fund. To cover cash flow issues, the State Finance Council authorized issuance of certificates of indebtedness, as follows: $65 million in December FY 1983; $30 million in October FY 1984; $75 million in April FY 1986; $75 million in July FY 1987; $140 million in December FY 1987 (replaced the July certificate); $75 million in November FY 1992; $150 million in January FY 2000; $150 million in January FY 2001; $150 million in September FY 2002; $200 million in December FY 2002; $450 million in July FY 2003; $450 million in July FY 2004; $450 million in July FY 2005; $450 million in July FY 2006 ; $200 million in December FY 2007; $350 million in December FY 2008;
page 3 W-4
$300 million in June FY 2009; $250 million in December FY 2009; $225 million in February FY 2009; $700 million in July FY 2010; $700 million in July FY 2011; and $600 million in July FY 2012.
The amount of a certificate is not borrowed from any particular fund or group of funds. Rather, it is simply a paper transaction by which the State General Fund is temporarily credited with the amount of the certificate and state moneys available for investment and managed by the PMIB. That PMIB is responsible under the state moneys for investing available moneys of all agencies and funds, as well as for maintaining an operating account to pay daily bills of the state. (Kansas Public Employee Retirement System invested money is not part of state moneys available for investment nor is certain money required to be separately invested by the PMIB under statutes other than the state moneys law.) Certificates of indebtedness could be used if allotments were imposed or if expenditures were reduced under the $100 million balance provision, or if neither such action were taken. For more information, please contact:
W-4
page 4

State Finance W-5 Federal ARRA Funding Other State Finance reports available W-1 Budget Overview W-2
State Finance
W-5 Federal ARRA Funding
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. The Act specifies appropriations for a wide range of federal programs. Twenty-eight different federal agencies such as the Departments of Education; Health and Human Services; and Energy have been allocated a portion of the $787 billion in Recovery funds. Each agency develops specific plans for how it will spend its ARRA funds. The agencies then award grants and contracts to state governments or, in some cases, directly to schools, hospitals, contractors, or other organizations. The agencies are required to file weekly financial reports on how they are spending the money and their specific activities related to ARRA funds. Starting in October 2009, recipients filed their first of regular quarterly reports on how they are spending the ARRA funds that they received. On August 10, 2010, P.L. 111-226 was signed into law by President Obama. This legislation contained a six-month extension of an enhanced match for the Medicaid (FMAP) and Title IV-E programs. The legislation provides states $16.1 billion through a phased-down enhanced match beginning the first calendar quarter of FY 2011 and decreasing in the second calendar quarter. This includes an extension of the additional relief based on increases in unemployment, as well as the hold harmless clause. The bill also provides states $10 billion through the Education Jobs Fund.
Local Demand Transfers
W-3 District Court Docket Fees W-4
Kansas Laws to Eliminate Deficit Spending
Social and Rehabilitation Services Medicaid FMAP Adjustments

Medicaid is a joint federal-state program that finances health care for certain categories of low-income individuals, including children, families, persons with disabilities, and persons who are elderly. The federal government matches state spending for Medicaid services according to a formula based on each states per capita income in relation to the national average per capita income. Title V of ARRA of 2009 provided for temporary increases in the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage (FMAP) match rate as a form of fiscal relief to states and
[email protected]
Reagan Cussimanio, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181
to protect and maintain state Medicaid programs. The federal FMAP increases must be expended for Medicaid expenditures; however, the receipt of these funds may be used to reduce the states share for its Medicaid program, thereby freeing up state funds for other purposes. Increases in the FMAP rate were effective retroactively to October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. All states received a base increase of 6.2 percent to enhance their existing FMAP match rate. Additionally, states are eligible for additional increases based upon increasing state unemployment. These additional increases are calculated quarterly. The following table shows the increased federal match associated with unemployment rate changes. Applicable Percentages for Additional Relief State Unemployment Percentage Increase Applicable Percentage Less than 1.5 percentage points At least 1.5, but less than 2.5 percentage points At least 2.5, but less than 3.5 percentage points At least 3.5 percentage points 0% 5.5% 8.5% 11.5%
States accepting ARRA Medicaid funding are prohibited from reducing eligibility standards, methodology or procedures, and are prohibited from contributing the funds to a rainy day fund or reserve account. In addition, states must comply with federal prompt payment requirements. Funds are drawn down from the federal government quarterly as reimbursement for actual expenditures by the state. No additional funds were provided to the state for administrative costs, which are matched at a different match rate. In Kansas, several agencies operate Medicaid programs including the Department of Health and Environment Division of Health Care Finance, which is the single state Medicaid agency, the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, the Department on Aging, and the Juvenile Justice Authority. The Legislature approved capturing savings from the FMAP match rate changes by adding the increased federal funds and removing the state portion for use in other areas of the budget. The Governor continued this action to capture additional savings resulting from increased unemployment though the allotment process in July 2009. Congress passed an extension to ARRA for Medicaid purposes (P.L. 111-226) which provided for a two-quarter extension of the increased federal match rate. The law eliminated any scheduled standard FMAP decreases for FY 2011 by extending the hold harmless provisions of the original act. The ARRA base increase however is reduced from the 6.2 percent authorized in the original act to 3.2 percent from January 2, 2011 through March 31, 2011 and to 1.2 percent from April 1, 2011 through June 30, 2011. In addition, the new law continues the additional increases based upon state unemployment but makes adjustments regarding calculations of unemployment and only extends the hold harmless provisions for the unemployment tier until January 1, 2011. The total estimate of savings include: Dollars (in millions) $121.4 215.0 216.0
Fiscal Year FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011

W-5
page 2
Child Support Enforcement

The federal government provides funding to states to assist them in the enforcement of support obligations owed by parents to their children. The funding program is operated in Kansas by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. A federal match of 66 percent normally is available for administrative costs the state incurs by operating the child support enforcement program activities under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. ARRA temporarily allows states to use federal incentive payments as the state share of expenditures eligible for federal match. This change was effective October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. This allows states to decrease the state funding required to match the federal funds for this time period. Total funding expected for the child support enforcement is $6.3 million, including: $2.6 million in FY 2009; $3.2 million in FY 2010; and $0.6 million in FY 2011. There are no funds for FY 2012.
Foster Care and Adoption Support

The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services operates the foster care program which is intended to provide safe and stable out-of-home placements for children until they are returned home or have other permanent placements. The Adoption Assistance Program helps to facilitate the timely placement of hard-to-place children, including those with special needs, with adoptive families. Both of these programs are authorized by Title IV-E of the Social Security Act. ARRA temporarily increases the FMAP match rate 6.2 percent from October 1, 2008 through December 31, 2010. States must comply with Medicaid requirements to be eligible for the increased match rate. As with Medicaid, states are allowed to reduce state contributions for this program, thereby freeing up state funds for other purposes. Total funding for foster care and adoption support is $6.1 million, and included $1.8 million in FY 2009; $2.6 million in FY 2010; and $1.6 million in FY 2011. There are no funds for FY 2012.
Food Assistance
ARRA will provide an increase of 12.6 percent in the monthly benefit for recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) beginning April 1, 2009. SNAP is operated in Kansas by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services. This increase is added directly to the consumers benefit and does not appear in the agencys budget. In addition to the benefit increase, the agency anticipates receiving an additional $1.9 million over a three year time frame for additional administrative expenditures.
Child Care
ARRA will provide additional block grants from the Child Care and Development Fund to allow states to assist additional low income families with child care and provide funding for expansion of quality initiatives. These funds may not supplant existing state expenditures. The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services administers this program. The agency expended $8.7 million in FY 2010 and $7.9 million in FY 2011 for the expansion and anticipates expending $1.7 million in FY 2012.
Vocational Rehabilitation and Independent Living

The Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services operates the states vocational rehabilitation services program. The Department anticipates the receipt of $5.7 million over three years to be used
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 W-5
for vocational rehabilitation services assistance, independent living grants, and vocation rehabilitation services for older Kansans who are blind. The majority of the additional funds ($5.1 million) do not require a state match, but the remaining funds would require a 10.0 percent state match. The Department has indicated it is developing a proposal for use of the additional funding.
Department on Aging
The Older Americans Act of 1965, as amended, authorizes nutrition services for persons age 60 or over, as well as other eligible individuals. Meals are provided to eligible participants on a contribution basis in congregate settings or within a homebound individuals place of residence. Federal requirements for this funding included that the award may be used only for meals and retaining jobs at the Area Agencies on Aging, which operate the meal programs, and up to 10.0 percent could be used for Area Agencies administration. In FY 2010, the Department on Aging received ARRA funds totaling $865,164, including $579,749 for congregate meal setting and $285,415 for home-delivered meals, all of which was expended in FY 2010.
Department of Education
The Department of Education received $138.7 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Funds (SFSF) for FY 2010 and FY 2011. However, during the 2010 Legislative Session, $85.9 million in State Fiscal Stabilization Funds was accelerated to FY 2010 to address a shortfall in Supplemental General State Aid. This resulted in a balance of $52.8 million in SFSF for expenditure in FY 2011. These funds can be used for paying the salaries of administrators, teachers, and support staff; purchasing textbooks, computers and other equipment; supporting programs for children at risk of academic failure, limited English proficient students, children with disabilities and gifted students; and meeting the general expenses of the educational agency. Overall, the use of funds is encouraged to lead to improved results for students, long-term gains in school system capacity, and increased efficiency and effectiveness. In addition, the agency also received $55.0 million in Special Education funding in FY 2011. These funds are being utilized to offset a reduction in Special Education funding and generally have been identified by the legislation for short-term investments that have the potential for long-term benefits, rather than for expenditures that may not be sustainable once the ARRA funds are expended. Kansas did not meet the maintenance of effort requirement, which provides that a state would be eligible to receive funds as long as the state did not reduce the amount of state financial support for special education and related services for children with disabilities, or funds otherwise made available because of the excess cost of educating those children, below the amount of that support for the preceding fiscal year. According to ARRA, the state-level maintenance of effort may be waived under Part B of the IDEA by the Secretary of Education on a state-by-state basis for exceptional or uncontrollable circumstance or a precipitous and unforeseen decline in the financial resources of a state. The Kansas Department of Education applied for a waiver and received notice at the end of October 2010 that $2.1 million will have to be provided by the state in FY 2011. There are no State Fiscal Stabilization Funds for FY 2012 within the Kansas Department of Education. Under P.L. 111-226, Kansas will receive an estimated $92.4 million in federal Education Jobs Funding (Ed Jobs) in FY 2011. Overall, the funds are to be used to save or create education jobs for the 2010-2011 school year. Jobs funded under this program include those that provide educational and related services for early childhood, elementary, and secondary education. Ed Jobs funds may be used to pay the salaries of teachers and other employees who provide school-level educational and related services. In addition to teachers, employees supported with program funds may include, among
others, principals, assistant principals, academic coaches, in-service teacher trainers, classroom aides, counselors, librarians, secretaries, social workers, psychologists, interpreters, physical therapists, speech therapists, occupational therapists, information technology personnel, nurses, athletic coaches, security officers, custodians, maintenance workers, bus drivers, and cafeteria workers.
Higher Education
In FY 2011, the Regents system received $40.0 million from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for tuition mitigation and deferred maintenance. The funding is split between the postsecondary education institutions as follows: Institution Universities Washburn University Community Colleges Technical Colleges TOTAL Amount 32,151,982 756,280 6,029,986 1,061,752 40,000,000
In FY 2012, there are no ARRA funds in the Regents budget.
Kansas Department of Corrections

The Department of Corrections (DOC) received $41.3 million in FY 2011 in State Fiscal Stabilization Funds through the ARRA. State Fiscal Stabilization Funds were awarded primarily for education-related projects, but a portion of the State Fiscal Stabilization Funds were earmarked for public safety and other governmental services. The only limit on State Fiscal Stabilization Funds for non-education purposes is that they must be used to create jobs or eliminate job losses. The DOC is using the funds to replace State General Fund expenditures at three facilities: Hutchinson Correctional Facility ($21.3 million), Norton Correctional Facility ($10.0 million), and Winfield Correctional Facility ($10.0 million). The ARRA funds are being used to fund positions at those facilities, with the surplus funds used for operational expenditures at the facilities. All three of these facilities were identified by the DOC as potential sites to suspend operations in order to achieve budget savings, which would create job loss in those communities. The agency does not have any State Fiscal Stabilization Funds in the FY 2012 budget.
Kansas Bureau of Investigation Justice Assistance Grant (JAG)

The Kansas Bureau of Investigation received a grant totaling $818,694 in Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds through the ARRA. The grant was written specifically to retain three Senior Special Agents and hire a new Special Investigator, a Lab Tech III and a part-time DNA Forensic Scientist for a 2-year period. Funds will be expended through the KBIs Federal Grants Fund for this purpose and the agency anticipates expending $409,347 in FY 2011. There are no federal JAG funds through ARRA in the agencys budget for FY 2012.
page 5
W-5
Kansas Department of Transportation

The Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOT) received ARRA grants through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The bulk of the ARRA funding received by the agency will be applied to construction projects. These projects are encumbered in the statewide accounting system, but the funds will be paid out over several fiscal years. As such, the agency will receive ARRA reimbursements for these expenditures for multiple fiscal years. For FY 2010, the agency expended $183.9 million in ARRA funds, and anticipates expending $7.1 million in FY 2011. (The majority of FY 2010 funds came from the FHWA). There are no funds available for FY 2012.
Federal Transit Administration

KDOT received $14,056,694* for rural capital projects intended for job retention and creation in Kansas and across the country in FY 2010. The funding will be used for two facility construction projects, vehicle replacement and expansion, construction of bus stops, maintenance facility equipment, enhancements of 15 of the agencys 800 MHZ communication towers, intercity bus coaches, and dispatching systems. Of the amount awarded, $6.9 million has been utilized in FY 2010, leaving $7.1 million expected to be expended in FY 2011. There are no funds for FY 2012.
*As stipulated in the ARRA legislation, $3.0 million will be allocated to Lawrence Transit and Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority to assist with capital replacement. These monies will be disbursed to these entities directly from the Federal Transit Administration. As such, these expenditures do not appear in KDOTs budget.
Kansas Highway Patrol Rural Law Enforcement Grant Program

The Kansas Highway Patrol (KHP) was awarded $4,716,405 in FY 2010. The agency spent $2.4 million in FY 2010 and has budgeted for expenditures of $1.7 million in FY 2011. Any remaining funds would be spent the following fiscal year. The purpose of the grant is to prevent and combat drug-related crime and increase traffic safety in rural areas. Funding was for: (1) salary and wages for 20 full-time Domestic Highway Enforcement Team (DHET) members organized into three DHETs (KHP existing, tenured staff consisting of three Lieutenants, twelve Master/Technical Troopers, and five Troopers); (2) the purchase of eight drug-detecting canines; and (3) the purchase of specialized counter-drug equipment. Teams were assumed to begin November 1, 2009, for budget purposes. The grant requires that 20 new Troopers be hired for backfill, which frees operational funding for the Recruit class, and allows the KHP to hold one Trooper Recruit class in FY 2010 that had been cut from the budget. There are no funds available for FY 2012.
Kansas Corporation Commission* Efficiency Kansas

For FY 2011, the agency received $8.8 million for Efficiency Kansas, a revolving loan program that provides customers with low-cost financing for cost-effective energy efficiency improvements in their home or small business. The program requires that all improvements be based on a comprehensive energy audit which results in customers receiving a diagnosis and a prescription, called an Energy Conservation
Plan. Efficiency Kansas finances up to $20,000 for approved projects in homes and $30,000 for approved projects in small commercial and industrial buildings. There are no funds available for FY 2012.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant

The agency received $3.4 million in FY 2011 that is used for cities and counties that did not receive direct Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant allocations from the federal government. These funds are apportioned in a variety of ways including renewable energy grants, public projects grants, and energy managers grants. A portion of these funds also support the Facility Conservation Improvement Program, which enables public agencies to use energy savings performance contracting to access financing for planning and implementing projects. There are no funds available for FY 2012. *Please note that ARRA funds totaling $20.5 million were transferred from the Kansas Corporation Commission to the Kansas Department of Commerce in September 2011. The funds will be used for investments in a biomethane production plant and a biomass supply chain project. For more information, please contact:
Reagan Cussimanio, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected]
page 7
W-5

State Government X-1 Veterans and Military Personnel Issues Other State Government reports available X-2 State Employee Issues X-3 Indigents Defense Services X-4 Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State X-5 Capitol Restoration
State Government
X-1 Veterans and Military Personnel Issues
Select Benefits Provided by the State of Kansas to Military Personnel and Veterans
The State of Kansas, through several state agencies, provides certain benefits to current and former members of the military and, in some cases, to their spouses, widows/widowers and children. Many of those benefits are summarized below, by subject category, such as employment and education. Most of the listed benefits are created in statute; a few are created by appropriations proviso or by agency policy.
Benefits Assistance
The mission of the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs (KCVA) is to provide Kansas veterans, their relatives, and other eligible dependents with information, advice, direction, and assistance through the coordination of programs and services in the fields of education, health, vocational guidance and placement, and economic security. Its Claims Assistance Program assists veterans in obtaining appropriate benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.
Employment Veterans Preference in Hiring

The veterans preference applies to initial employment and first promotion with state government and with counties and cities in civil service positions. Veterans are to be preferred if competent, which is defined to mean likely to successfully meet the performance standards of the position based on what a reasonable person knowledgeable in the operation of the position would conclude from all information available at the time the decision is made.

[email protected]
The 2008 Legislature added the above and more specific provisions to state law with Sub. for HB 2562. Those provisions:
Define veteran as one who has been honorably discharged from service in the armed forces and includes spouses for the first time, under certain circumstances: The spouse of a veteran who has a 100 percent service-connected disability; The unremarried spouse of a veteran who died while, and as a result of, serving in the armed forces; or The spouse of a prisoner of war.
Exclude certain types of jobs from preference, e.g., elected positions, city or county at-will positions, positions that require licensure as a physician, and positions that require the employee to be admitted to practice law in Kansas. Require the hiring authority to take certain actions, including noting in job notices that the hiring authority is subject to veterans preference, how the preference works, and how veterans may take advantage of the preference.
Reinstatement
An officer or employee of the state or any political subdivision does not forfeit that position when entering military service; instead, the job has a temporary vacancy, and the original jobholder is to be reinstated upon return. Anyone called or ordered to active duty by the state and who gave notice to his or her public or private employer and reports back to that employer within 72 hours of discharge is to be reinstated to the former position (unless it was a temporary position). A state employee who returns to classified service within 90 days after an honorable discharge is to be returned to the same job or another job comparable in status and pay in the same geographic location. A state employees appointing authority may grant one or more pay step increases upon return.
Protected Consumers
The 2010 Legislature added veterans to the list of protected consumers under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. This includes members of the military, veterans, the surviving spouses of veterans, and immediate family members of individuals serving in the military.
State Licensing
A license to engage in or practice an occupation or profession issued by the state is valid while the licensee is in military service and for no more than six months following release, without the licensee paying a renewal fee, submitting a renewal application, or meeting continuing education or other license conditions. (This provision does not apply to licensees who engage in the licensed activity outside of the line of duty while in military service.) No such license may be revoked, suspended, or canceled for failure to maintain professional liability insurance or failure to pay the surcharge to the Health Care Stabilization Fund.
X-1 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
State Pensions and Life Insurance

State pension participants away from state jobs for military service may be granted up to five years of state service credit for their military service. An employee may buy up to six years of service credit that is not granted, and purchased service need not be preceded or followed by state employment. An absence for extended military service is not considered termination of employment unless the member withdraws accumulated contributions. Basic life insurance, worth 150 percent of annual salary, continues while the employee is on active duty. An employee may continue to have optional life insurance by paying the premiums for 16 months; after that, the policy may be converted to an individual policy.
Direct Payment Benefits to State Employees

Benefits-eligible employees in the States executive branch who are on military leave as activated reserve component uniformed military personnel may be eligible for one-time activation payments of $1,500. Benefits-eligible State employees who are called to full-time military duty may receive the difference between their military pay plus most allowances and their regular State of Kansas wages if they are mobilized and deployed, up to $1,000 per pay period.
Education Scholarships
Scholarships are available to Kansas residents who have served in the military since September 11, 2001, in Iraq or Afghanistan for at least 90 days (or less, if injured). The Board of Regents determines rules for participation. ROTC scholarships are available at Board of Regents institutions, Washburn University and, beginning in 2008, community colleges. Educational institutions, including area vocational schools and technical colleges, are to provide for enrollment without charge of tuition or fees for dependents or unremarried widows or widowers of any Kansas resident who died while, and as a result of, serving in military service on or after September 11, 2001. (The institution may be reimbursed, subject to appropriations.) Obligations to the state for taking certain types of state scholarships (e.g., medicine and surgery) can be postponed for military service.
page 3
X-1
Eligible National Guard members are to be paid the amount of tuition and required fees charged by the educational institution for enrollment in courses necessary to complete an educational program. (This is funded, at least in part, by 40 percent of net profits from the Lotterys veterans benefit scratch-off game.) Free tuition and fees are authorized for dependents of those who are prisoners of war or missing in action. Free tuition and fees are authorized for dependents of those who died as a result of a service-connected disability suffered during the Vietnam conflict as a result of such conflict.
Residency
Those who live in Kansas on active duty and those who stay in Kansas after honorable discharge from the military, generally if they lived here for at least two years, plus their dependents and spouses are to be considered residents by community colleges and Board of Regents institutions.
Interstate Compact on Educational Opportunities for Military Children

Developed in 2007 and adopted by 34 states as of July 2010 (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin), this interstate agreement provides solutions to problems that encumber the educational experience for the children of military families. Adoption by ten states was required before an interstate Commission, to which each state has one delegate, began work on implementation. The Compact states it accomplishes seamless transitions for students to new schools by providing instant records transfer and facilitating the student placement process, including qualification and eligibility for enrollment, student participation in extracurricular activities, scheduling, grading, and assessments. Provisions apply to children of active members of the military, including those members severely injured and medically discharged and those retired, for a period of up to one year, after retirement.
Emergency Assistance
The Adjutant General may enter into grants and interest-free loans with members of the Kansas National Guard and of reserve forces and their families to assist with financial emergencies. A checkoff on individual income tax return forms allows individuals to contribute to the Military Emergency Relief Fund.
Honoring Veterans on the States Highways and Bridges

The State of Kansas honors veterans by designating portions of highways in their honor. During the 2009 Legislative Session, an additional designation was created recognizing a portion of U.S. 60 as the 1011th Quarter Master Co. U.S. Army Reserve Memorial Highway. The designated portion starts at
the east city limits of Independence, to the intersection with U.S. 169. In 2010, the Legislature honored individual several Kansas veterans by naming a bridge or portion of a highway in their honor.
Housing and Care

Certain veterans, primarily those with disabilities, are eligible for housing and care at the Kansas Soldiers Home, near Fort Dodge, and the Kansas Veterans Home, Winfield. The Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs states that priority for admission of veterans will first be made on the basis of severity of medical care required.
Homestead Property Tax

The 2009 Legislature expanded the definition of eligible claimants for the Homestead Property Tax Refund Program to include certain disabled veterans and surviving spouses of active duty military personnel who have died in the line of duty. Disabled veterans are defined to include Kansas residents who have been honorably discharged from active service in the armed forces or Kansas National Guard and who have been certified to have a 50 percent or more permanent disability sustained through military action or accident or resulting from disease contracted while in such active service. The law clarified that surviving spouses of disabled veterans will continue to remain eligible until such time as they remarry.
Hunting, Fishing, and Parks

Three main types of licensing benefits are available: Annual hunting and fishing licenses may be issued without charge to any honorably discharged Kansas veteran who has a service-related disability of 30 percent or more. The disability must be certified by the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs. This benefit was introduced in calendar year 2009. The Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism may reissue big game or wild turkey limited draw permits to military personnel forced to forfeit such a permit due to deployment for armed conflict or war. A nonresident who is on active duty and stationed within Kansas may purchase licenses, permits, stamps, and other issues of the Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism (except lifetime licenses) under the same conditions as a resident. A person who was a resident immediately prior to entry into the armed forces, and members of his or her immediate family who live with him or her, also will be treated like residents for this purpose.
page 5
X-1
Free annual park vehicle permits may be issued to Kansas Army or Air National Guard members, with a limit of one per family. The 2009 Legislature appropriated $54,636 for calendar year 2010 and future years benefit.
Concealed Carry Licenses: Military Personnel

A law enacted in 2009 allows a member of the active duty military to obtain a concealed carry license number if he or she does not have a Kansas drivers license or a Kansas nondrivers license identification card. The Attorney General has to assign a unique concealed carry license number to a military applicant. Upon completing all other requirements for a concealed carry permit, a member of the armed forces would be granted a license under the Personal and Family Protection Act.
Insurance
Private health insurance. A Kansas resident with individual health coverage who is activated for military service and therefore becomes eligible for government-sponsored health insurance cannot be denied reinstatement to the same individual coverage following honorable discharge. Personal insurance. No personal insurance (e.g., personal automobile and homeowners insurance) shall be subject to cancellation, non-renewal, premium increase or adverse tier placement for the term of a deployment based solely on that deployment.
Taxes
Property taxes. A full-time member of the military may defer payment of taxes on real property for up to two years if that member of the military is or soon will be deployed outside of the United States for at least six months. A claim for the deferral must be filed with the county clerk. (This provision was enacted in 2008.) Vehicle taxes. No tax is to be levied on one or two vehicles owned by a Kansas resident who is in the full-time military service of the United States, who is absent from the state solely by reason of military orders on the date registration is due, and who maintains the vehicles outside of this state.
Income Tax Checkoff Provisions

An income tax checkoff has been placed on the state individual income tax form, whereby taxpayers may voluntarily contribute to the Kansas Hometown Heroes Fund. All moneys deposited in the Fund are required to be used solely for the veteran services program of the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs.
Vehicle-Related Benefits
Free license plates for passenger vehicles and trucks with gross weights of 20,000 pounds or less are available to certain veterans:
X-1
Military service veterans and civilians who were held as prisoners of war; and
Military service veterans who have been determined by the federal Department of Veterans Affairs to be entitled to compensation for 50 percent (changed from 100 percent in 2009) disability or entitled to compensation for the loss, or permanent loss of use, of one or both feet or one or both hands, or for permanent visual impairment of both eyes.
Veterans and current members of the military may receive a distinctive license plate, upon proper registration and payment of the regular license fee. A decal will indicate the appropriate military branch in which the person served or is serving. Decals also are available to indicate the person was awarded certain medals, badges, ribbons, and crosses. The fee is $2 per decal. 2011 Senate Sub. for HB 2132 authorized Families of the Fallen license plates for passenger vehicles and small trucks, to be issued on and after January 1, 2012. The bill authorized issuance of such a plate to Department of Defense-recognized next of kin of deceased military personnel, defined as any person entitled to receive the Department of Defense Gold Star lapel button or the lapel button for next of kin of deceased active duty personnel. Anyone who does not pay, in full, a fine and court costs for a traffic citation or otherwise comply with a traffic citation may have his or her driving privileges suspended, in addition to other penalties. The cost to reinstate the drivers license is $50. That fee is to be waived if the failure to comply with a traffic citation was a result of the person being absent from Kansas because of military service.
Vietnam War Era Medallion Program

2009 HB 2171 created, within the Kansas Commission on Veterans Affairs, the Vietnam War Era Medallion program and grants the agency the authority to develop any necessary rules and regulations to administer the Program. Under the Medallion Program, eligible veterans may receive a medallion, a medal, and a certificate of appreciation. To be eligible for participation in the Medallion Program, the veteran must: Have served on active duty in the United States Military Service at any time beginning February 28, 1961, and ending May 7, 1975; Be a legal resident of Kansas, or have been a legal resident of Kansas, at the time the veteran entered or was discharged from military service or at the time of the veterans death; and Have been honorably separated or discharged from the military or still be on active service in an honorable status, or was in active service at the time of the veterans death.
The Medallion Program is open to veterans meeting the above criteria regardless of whether the veteran served within the United States or in a foreign country, and regardless of whether the veteran was under 18 years of age at the time of enlistment.
page 7
X-1
Voting Opportunities
2011 SB 103 expanded voting opportunities for certain absentee federal services voters and military personnel and their family members. The bill allowed overseas voters to vote a full ballot at all elections; to apply for, receive, and return their ballots by electronic means; and to vote a write-in ballot, if needed.
Other Benefits
Kansas prohibits discrimination on the basis of military status. (Alleged violation is a civil matter.) Certain veterans and their eligible dependents may be buried in state veterans cemeteries. Cemeteries are located in Fort Dodge, Fort Riley, WaKeeney, and Winfield. The final disposition of a military decendents remains would supercede existing statutory listing of priorities for such remains. The provision applies to all active duty military personnel and gives priority to the federal Department of Defense Form 93 in controlling the disposition of the descendents remains for periods when members of the U.S. armed forces, reserve forces, or national guard are on active duty. A certified copy of an original discharge or other official record of military service may be filed with the Adjutant Generals Office, which then will provide copies free of charge if they are needed to apply for U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.
X-1
page 8

State Government X-2 State Employee Issues Other State Government reports available X-1 Veterans and Military Personnel Issues X-3 Indigents Defense Services X-4 Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State X-5 Capitol Restoration
State Government
X-2 State Employee Issues
This report discusses a variety of issues regarding state employees, including an explanation of classified and unclassified employees, benefits provided to state employees, recent salary and wage adjustments authorized by the Legislature, general information on the number of state employees, and the characteristics of the classified workforce. Classified and Unclassified Employees. The state workforce is composed of classified and unclassified employees. Classified employees comprise nearly two-thirds of the state workforce, while unclassified employees comprise the remaining one-third. Classified employees are selected through a competitive process, while unclassified positions can be filled through direct appointment, with or without competition. While unclassified employees are essentially at will employees who serve at the discretion of their appointing authority, classified employees are covered by the merit or civil service system, which provides additional employment safeguards. All actions including recruitment, hiring, classification, compensation, training, retention, promotion, discipline, and dismissal of state employees shall be: Based on merit principles and equal opportunity; and Made without regard to race, national origin or ancestry, religion, political affiliation, or other non-merit factors and shall not be based on sex, age, or disability except where those factors constitute a bona fide occupational qualification or where a disability prevents an individual from performing the essential functions of a position.
Dylan Dear, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
Employees are to be retained based on their ability to manage the duties of their position.
State Employee Benefits. Among the benefits available to most state employees are medical, dental, and vision plans; long-term disability insurance; deferred compensation; and a cafeteria benefits plan which allows employees to pay dependent care expenses and non-reimbursable health care expenses with pre-tax dollars. In addition, state employees accrue vacation and sick leave. The vacation leave accrual rate increases after 5, 10, and 15 years. In general, the state also provides nine to ten days of holiday leave for state employees. Retirement Plans. Most state employees participate in the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS). Most employees contribute 4.0 percent of gross bi-weekly salary, while the state contribution is set by law each year. In addition to the regular KPERS program, there are plans for certain law enforcement groups, correctional officers, judges and justices, and certain Regents unclassified employees. Contributions from both the employee and the state differ from plan to plan. Characteristics of State Employees. According to the 2010 State Workforce Report, which the Department of Administration prepared, a profile of classified and unclassified state employees reflects the following: The average classified employee: is 47 years of age; has 14 years of state service; and earns an average annual salary of $38,049. The average unclassified employee: is 47 years of age; has 12 years of state service; and earns an average annual salary of $61,830.
Compensation of State Employees. Kansas statutes direct the Director of Personnel Services, after consultation with the Director of the Budget and the Secretary of Administration, to prepare a pay plan for classified employees which shall contain a schedule of salary and wage ranges and steps. The statutes also provide, however, that this pay plan can be modified by provisions in an appropriation bill or other act. When the Governor recommends step movement on the classified pay plan and a general salary increase, or both, funding equivalent to the percentage increase for classified employees generally is included in agency budgets to be distributed to unclassified employees on a merit basis. The previous Kansas Civil Service Basic Pay Plan consisted of 34 pay grades, each with 13 steps. The difference between each step was approximately 2.5 percent, and the difference between each salary grade was approximately 5.0 percent. Employees typically are hired into a job at the minimum of the salary grade. Until recently, assuming satisfactory work performance, the classified employees would receive an annual 2.5 percent step increase, along with any other general adjustment in salary approved by the Legislature. No classified step movement was recommended or approved from FY 2001 to FY 2006. In FY 2007, the Legislature
X-2
approved a 2.5 percent step movement, effective September 10, 2006. There has been no further step movement since FY 2009. New Classified Employee Pay Plans. The 2008 Legislature established five new pay plans for Executive Branch classified state employees and authorized multi-year salary increases for classified employees, beginning in FY 2009, who are identified in positions that are below market in salary. The legislation enacted the recommendations of the State Employee Oversight Commissions five basic pay plans for classified employees. The exact provisions of the five pay plans are not specified by the legislation, but there is a reference to the pay plans as recommended by the State Employee Oversight Commission. The five pay plans, as recommended by the State Employee Oversight Commission, include: Basic Vocational Pay Plan (3,844 employees in 57 classifications) that is a step plan, but with more narrow pay grades than previously existed; General Classified Pay Plan (11,917 employees in 282 classifications) that is a hybrid model with movement based on steps up to market and an open range, regulated through the use of zones, beyond market, and would include such classes as Human Service Specialists and Mental Health Developmental Disability Technicians; Management Pay Plan (256 employees in 20 classifications) that has open pay grades with pay movement based in position-in-range and performance, and would include such classes as public service executives and corrections managers; Professional Individual Contributor Pay Plan (2,751 employees in 130 classifications) that is an open range model with market anchors and would include such classes as nurses and scientists; and Protective Services Pay Plan (3,215 employees in 42 classifications) that is a step model and would include such classes as uniformed officers of the Department of Corrections and the Kansas Highway Patrol.
The legislation authorized a four-year appropriation totaling $68.0 million from all funds, including $34.0 million from the State General Fund, for below-market pay adjustments (excluding the FY 2009 appropriation of $16.0 million). The State General Fund appropriations of $8.5 million annually are made in FY 2010, FY 2011, FY 2012, and FY 2013 to the State Finance Council for distribution to Executive Branch agencies. The all funds annual authorization to the State Finance Council for the below-market pay adjustments is $16.0 million. The legislation also created the State Employee Pay Plan Oversight Committee. The Oversight Committee included seven voting members and two non-voting ex officio members: One member appointed by the President of the Senate; Two members appointed by the Speaker of the House; One member appointed by the Minority Leader of the Senate;
page 3 X-2
One member appointed by the Minority Leader of the House; Two members appointed by the Governor, with at least one being a representative of a state employee labor union; and Two non-voting ex officio members, the Secretary of Administration or the Secretarys designee, and the Secretary of Labor or the Secretarys designee.
At least one member of the Oversight Committee is required to be a member of the Senate and one member is required to be from the House of Representatives. The Oversight Committee is required to annually report to the Legislature at the beginning of each legislative session on the progress made in the development, implementation and administration of the new pay plans and the associated performance management process. The Oversight Committee will sunset on July 1, 2014. Finally, the legislation codified a compensation philosophy for state employees. The philosophy was crafted by the State Employee Pay Philosophy Task Force and endorsed by the State Employee Compensation Oversight Commission during the 2007 interim period. The pay philosophy includes: The goal of attracting and retaining quality employees with competitive compensation based on relevant labor markets; A base of principles of fairness and equity to be administered with sound fiscal discipline; and An understanding that longevity bonus payments shall not be considered as part of the base pay for classified employees.
X-2
page 4
The following table reflects classified step movement and base salary increases since FY 1997:
Fiscal Year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Salary Adjustment Step Movement: 2.5 percent Base Adjustment: None Step Movement: 2.5 percent Base Adjustment: 1.0 percent Step Movement: 2.5 percent Base Adjustment: 1.5 percent Step Movement: 2.5 percent Base Adjustment: 1.0 percent Step Movement: 2.5 percent Base Adjustment: None Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: 3.0 percent, with 1.5 percent effective for full year, and 1.5 percent effective for half a year Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: None Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: 1.5 percent effective for last 23 pay periods Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: 3.0 percent Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: 2.5 percent, with 1.25 percent effective for full year, and 1.25 percent effective for half a year Step Movement: 2.5 percent, effective September 10, 2006 Base Adjustment: 1.5 percent Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: 2.0 percent Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: 2.5 percent Below Market Salary Adjustments Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: None Below Market Salary Adjustments Step Movement: None Base Adjustment: None Below Market Salary Adjustments
2003 2004 2005 2006
2007 2008 2009
2010
2011
FY 2011. The 2011 Legislature approved a total of 39,177.8 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions. Full-time equivalent (FTE) positions are permanent positions which are either full-time or part-time, but mathematically equated to full-time. For example, two half-time positions equal one full-time position. Non-FTE unclassified permanent positions are essentially unclassified temporary positions that are considered permanent because they are authorized to participate in the state retirement system.
page 5 X-2
T-fte
START
The following chart reflects approved FY 2011 FTE positions by function of government:
General Government 5,293.0 Agriculture and Natural Resources 193.4 Public Safety 4,824.0
Human Services 17,918.2
Hwy/Other Trans. 2,916.5
Education 17,918.2
TOTAL: 39,177.9 Largest Employers. The following table lists the twenty largest state employers and their numbers of FTE positions: Agency Kansas University Kansas State University Social & Rehabilitation Services, Department of Transportation, Department of University of Kansas Medical Center Wichita State University Judicial Branch Revenue, Department of Larned State Hospital Pittsburg State University Highway Patrol Sample Piechart Health & Environment, Department ofvalues Grayscale, six Emporia State University General Govt. Human Services $5,293.0 Fort Hays State University $6,975.2 Ag & Nat Res Administration, Department of $1,251.0 Lansing Correctional Facility Public Institute, Kansas NeurologicalSafety $4,824.0 Labor, Department of Hutchinson Correctional Facility Parsons State Hospital and Training Center
Hwy/Other Trans $2,916.5 Education $17,918.2
FTE Positions 5,002.0 4,033.0 3,669.1 3,113.5 2,604.9 1,897.0 1,858.3 1,096.0 976.0 896.8 859.0 843.1 830.1 769.8 760.5 682.0 570.2 552.0 512.0 497.2
X-2
page 6
page 7
X-2

State Government X-3 Indigents Defense Services Other State Government reports available X-1 Veterans and Military Personnel Issues X-2 State Employee Issues X-4 Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State X-5 Capitol Restoration
State Government
X-3 Indigents Defense Services
Board of Indigents Defense Services (Public Defender Offices)
The United States Constitution bestows rights upon criminal defendants, including the right to be represented by an attorney. The Board of Indigents Defense Services (BIDS) provides criminal defense services through: Public defender offices in various parts of the state; Contract attorneys (private attorneys who contract with BIDS); and Assigned counsel (private attorneys who are appointed by the court to serve as counsel for a defendant).
BIDS also has the responsibility of covering other costs associated with the defense of the criminal case. Costs such as expert witnesses and transcripts must be covered. Death penalty defense cases cost BIDS even more to defend than other crimes. Legal Services for Prisoners, Inc., a non-profit corporation, is statutorily authorized to submit its annual operating budget to BIDS. Legal Services for Prisoners provides legal assistance to indigent inmates in Kansas correctional institutions. In addition to the trial level public defender offices and trial level assigned counsel, BIDS operates offices to handle the defense of capital crimes and conflicts, as well as offices that can handle the appeals of both capital and non-capital convictions.

[email protected]
Public Defender Offices

offices: BIDS operates nine trial-level public defender offices throughout the state and two satellite
3rd Judicial District Public Defender (Topeka); Junction City Public Defender; Sedgwick County Regional Public Defender; Reno County Regional Public Defender; Salina Public Defender; 10th Judicial District Public Defender (Olathe); Western Regional Public Defender (Garden City)*; Southeast Kansas Public Defender (Chanute) and Satellite Office (Independence); and Wichita Conflicts Office.
* The Southwest Public Defender Office closed its office in Liberal on September 1, 2009, because it was no longer cost effective. Most of the caseload is now handled by contract attorneys. BIDS also operates the following offices in Topeka: Appellate Defender; Death Penalty Defense Unit; Capital Appeals; Capital Appeals and Conflicts; and Northeast Kansas Conflict Office.
BIDS reports that it monitors the cost per case quarterly to determine the most cost effective system to deliver the right to defense services, and makes changes to maintain effectiveness.
Assigned Counsel
It is not possible for all criminal defendants who need services to be represented by the stateoperated public defender offices. If two individuals are co-defendants in a particular matter, it would present a conflict of interest for the public defenders office to represent both individuals. Additionally, in some areas of the state, officials from BIDS believe it is not cost effective to operate a public defender office. Such considerations include the cost per case and the number of criminal cases in that particular area. BIDS has been able to contract with private attorneys in some parts of the state to provide defense services at reduced rates. In addition, local judges appoint private attorneys willing to accept appointments for defense cases as assigned counsel. Effective January 18, 2010, assigned counsel are compensated at a rate of $62 per hour for their work as a result of Board action to reduce the costs and meet budget cuts. The rate of compensation for assigned counsel was raised from $30 per hour to $50 per hour in 1988 in response to a Kansas Supreme Court case. The 2006 Legislature approved an increase in compensation from $50 per hour to $80 per hour starting in FY 2007. BIDS was directed to monitor assigned counsel expenditures and open public defender offices where it is cost effective and continues to do so.
Accordingly, BIDS conducted public hearings for eleven counties that would no longer be cost effective using assigned counsel at $80 per hour. BIDS responded to the local request to maintain the assigned counsel delivery system in that county by offering a reduced hourly rate. This was accepted and rates of $62 per hour and $69 per hour are paid which is more cost effective than opening public defender offices in those counties. The 2007 Legislature changed the language of the assigned counsel compensation statute to allow the agency to negotiate a rate of compensation less than the previously mandated $80 per hour. The agencys board currently reviews exceptional claims for fees submitted by assigned counsel. Fees for felony cases that are not exceptional are capped at $1,240 for cases that do not go to trial, and fees are capped at $6,200 for cases that go to trial and that are not declared exceptional by the court. Additional amounts may be paid by BIDS if the judge approves the fees for extraordinary cases. Prior to FY 2006, BIDS paid assigned counsel expenditures from the operating expenditures account in its State General Fund appropriation. The expenses that were considered as assigned counsel costs included all professional services. These expenditures included not only fees to attorneys appointed as assigned counsel, but expert witness fees and transcript fees. The FY 2006 Budget recommended by the Governor and approved by the 2005 Legislature included a separate line item appropriation for assigned counsel expenditures to more accurately account for expenditures made to assigned counsel.
Other Costs Affecting the Agency Expert Witness and Transcript Fees
BIDS also pays the fees for expert witnesses and for transcripts on cases. Most experts have agreements with the agency to provide services at a reduced rate.
Death Penalty Cases

The constitutionality of the Kansas Death Penalty was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. More information about the Kansas Death Penalty is available in the Death Penalty section of this briefing book. The Death Penalty Defense Unit was established to handle the defense of cases where the death penalty could be sought. However, as with other defense cases, circumstances such as conflicts of interest and availability could require that outside counsel be contracted to provide the defense services. Capital offense cases cost more to defend. Not only do such cases take more time for trial, but the defense attorney must be death qualified to defend a capital case. A report completed by the Judicial Council in 2004 found that, The capital case requires more lawyers (on both prosecution and defense sides), more experts on both sides, more pre-trial motions, longer jury selection time, and a longer trial. Kansas Judicial Council, Report of the Judicial Council Death Penalty Advisory Committee, p. 17, January 29, 2004. The Legislative Division of Post Audit issued a Performance Audit Report in December 2003, Costs Incurred for Death Penalty Cases: A K-GOAL Audit of the Department of Corrections. This report noted several findings related to the cost of death penalty cases in Kansas.
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 X-3
BIDS usually bears the cost of defending a capital murder case; Contracted attorneys for such cases are paid $100 per hour, with no fee cap. Post Audit found that some states impose fee caps and pay less per hour, or both, to assigned defense counsel. Post Audit also noted that American Bar Association guidelines state limitations on fees in death penalty cases are improper; and The Report recommended that the BIDS ensure that the Death Penalty Defense Unit has a sufficient number of qualified death penalty public defenders so future cases do not have to be contracted out because of workload, and it also recommended continuing to look at establishing a conflicts office.
BIDS has made arrangements for more of its public defenders to receive the necessary training to become qualified to defend death penalty cases. The goal remains to reduce the need to use assigned counsel on capital cases.
Legal Services for Prisoners

Legal Services for Prisoners, Inc., is a non-profit corporation that provides legal services to inmates in Kansas correctional facilities. The goal of this program is to ensure that prisoners rights to the courts are met to pursue non-frivolous claims. The annual budget for Legal Services for Prisoners is submitted to the State BIDS. Although it is not a state agency, funding for Legal Services for Prisoners goes through BIDS.
Other Offices Operated By the Board of Indigents Defense Services Appellate Defender Office
The Appellate Defender Office, located in Topeka, was established to represent indigent felony defendants on appeal.
Northeast Kansas Conflict Office

The Northeast Kansas Conflict Office was established to deal with a large number of conflict cases in Shawnee County. The office also handles off-grid homicide cases in Lyon County. This office is budgeted with the Trial Level Public Defender Offices and is located in Topeka.
Sedgwick County Conflict Office

This office was established to defend cases in which the Sedgwick County Public Defender Office has a conflict of interest, thereby saving the cost of using contract attorneys or assigned counsel.
X-3
page 4
Death Penalty Defense Unit

The Death Penalty Defense Unit was established with the re-enactment of the death penalty in Kansas. Because of the complexity of capital cases, attorneys providing defense services in such cases must be specially qualified to handle such cases. The cost of coordinating private attorneys to handle death penalty cases was high. In response, the agency established the Death Penalty Defense Unit with in-house attorneys to handle death penalty cases.
Capital Appeals and Conflicts Office

The Capital Appeals and Conflicts Office is budgeted through the Death Penalty Defense Unit. Appeals of capital cases are the offices first priority, although the office does handle some of the cases from the Appellate Defender Office as well as some of the caseload burden of the Appellate Defender Office as time allows.
Capital Appeals Office

The Capital Appeals Office was established in 2003 to handle additional capital appeals. Specifically, this office was created to handle the conflict of the Carr appeals. Reginald and Jonathan Carr were both convicted of murder in Sedgwick County and sentenced to death. While the Capital Appeals and Conflicts Office could handle the representation of one of these two men, it would create a conflict of interest to represent both. The establishment of this office also allows the BIDS to handle twice as many capital appeals. Funding for this office is budgeted through the Death Penalty Defense Unit. For more information, please contact:
page 5
X-3

State Government X-4 Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State Other State Government reports available X-1 Veterans and Military Personnel Issues X-2 State Employee Issues X-3 Indigents Defense Services X-5 Capitol Restoration
State Government
X-4 Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State
Since near the turn of the twentieth century legislative committees have furnished a venue for persons who thought they were injured in some manner by the activity of a state agency. The statutory purpose of the present day Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State is to hear claims for which there is no other recourse to receive payment. The Joint Committee is the place of last resort when there is no other way of appropriating money to pay a claim against the state. The Joint Committee was the only venue available for these purposes until passage in the early 1970s of the Tort Claims Act which allowed state agencies to accept a limited amount of liability. A Tort Claims Fund established in the Attorney Generals Office now offers recourse for other actions brought against the state. The state does assume certain responsibility for its actions under the tort claims statutes; however, there are certain areas under those statutes where the state has no liability. The fact that state agencies are immune under statute does not mean that a citizen cannot be injured by some action of the state. Because state agencies are immune, a potential claimant may have no remedy other than coming to the Joint Committee. Thus, the claims which come to the Joint Committee involve an issue of equity and do not always involve the issue of negligence on the part of the state or a state employee.
Committee Membership
The Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State has 13 members consisting of five members of the Senate and eight members of the House of Representatives. Two House members and two Senate members must be attorneys licensed to practice law in the State of Kansas. Additionally, at least one Representative must be a member of the House Committee on Appropriations and at least one Senator must be a member of the Senate Committee on Ways and Means. The chairpersonship of the Joint Committee alternates between the House
Cindy Lash, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
and Senate members at the start of each biennium. The members appointed from each chamber must include minority party representation. Any seven members of the Joint Committee constitutes a quorum. Action of the Joint Committee may be taken by an affirmative vote of a majority of the members present, if a quorum is present.
Claims Process
The claimant starts the claims process by completing and submitting a claim form. The claim form is available on the Internet through both the Legislatures website and the Legislative Research Departments website, or it may be requested in hard copy by contacting the Legislative Research Department. None of the rules of evidence apply to the Joint Committee. It is an informal environment which contains no impediments to getting the issues to the forefront. Therefore, the Joint Committee is considered a court of equity. The claim form includes a portion in which the claimant indicates whether he or she wishes to appear in person for the hearing. In-person hearings for claimants who currently are incarcerated are conducted via telephone conference. Claimants who request to appear in person for their hearing are notified 15 days in advance of the hearing via certified mail as prescribed in KSA 46-914. Additionally, the claim form includes a portion that must be notarized prior to consideration of the claim.
The Joint Committee is specifically prohibited by KSA 46-913 from hearing claims involving canceled state warrants if the claim is filed more than five years after the warrant was originally issued. The 2005 Legislature amended KSA 46-921, which authorizes the Division of Accounts and Reports to make payment for a canceled warrant, except the authorization expires four years from the date of cancellation of the warrant. Any such payment shall be in the amount denoted on the canceled warrant less 10 percent or $30, whichever amount is less. All claims under this section are paid from the Canceled Warrants Payment Fund.
State agencies and employees are charged with providing the Joint Committee with information and assistance as the Committee deems necessary. The Joint Committee is authorized by KSA 46-917 to adopt procedural guidelines as may be necessary for orderly procedure in the filing, investigation, hearing, and disposition of claims before it. The Joint Committee has adopted twelve guidelines to assist in the process. These guidelines are available on the Internet through both the Legislatures website and the Legislative Research Departments website, or can be requested in hard copy by contacting the Legislative Research Department.
X-4
page 2
The Joint Committee traditionally holds hearings during an Interim Session from June through December of the year. The Committee is mandated by statute to hear all claims filed by November 1st during that Interim Session. The Committee can meet during the Legislative Session only if both the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives authorize the meetings ,pursuant to KSA 46-918.
Committee Recommendations
The Joint Committee makes recommendations regarding the resolution of the claims and is not bound by rules of evidence. The Committee is required by KSA 46-915 to notify the claimants of its recommendation regarding the claim within 20 days after the claims hearing. The Joint Committee submits its recommendations for payment of claims it has heard in the form of a bill presented to the Legislature at the start of each session.
Claims Payments
Payment for claims that are approved by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor are paid by the Division of Accounts and Reports. Prior to such payment being made, claimants are required to sign a release. When an inmate owes an outstanding unpaid amount of restitution ordered by a court, money received by the inmate from the state as a settlement of a claim against the state is withdrawn from the inmates trust account as a set-off, per KSA 46-920. For more information, please contact:
page 3
X-4

State Government X-5 Capitol Restoration Other State Government reports available X-1 Veterans and Military Personnel Issues X-2 State Employee Issues X-3 Indigents Defense Services X-4 Joint Committee on Special Claims Against the State
State Government
X-5 Capitol Restoration
The Capitol Restoration project is being financed by a series of bond issues approved by previous sessions of the Legislature. Debt service is paid from the State General Fund. Bond issuances were approved in FY 2001 for $40.0 million, FY 2002 for $15.0 million, FY 2005 for $19.8 million, FY 2006 for $26.9 million, FY 2007 for $16.2 million, FY 2008 for $55.0 million, FY 2009 for $38.8 million, FY 2010 for $38.0 million, FY 2011 for $36.0 million, and FY 2012 for $34.3 million bringing the total amount approved to $319.9 million for bonding. The current project cost estimate is $319.9 million in the Capitol Restoration Commissions report, including roof and dome replacement, north wing finishes and expedited decisions.
Current Budget Estimate North Wing Shell, Visitor Center Shell, Parking Garage East Wing West Wing South Wing Exterior Masonry North Wing, Visitor Center Roof, Dome Replacement, Chillers North Wing Finishes, Expedited Decisions TOTAL $ $ 37,582,272 30,755,408 42,564,043 61,640,178 38,780,153 74,234,362 24,300,000 10,000,000 319,856,416
On December 12, 2001, the state project manager issued a start work order on the first infrastructure project to relocate utilities and excavate for the utility vaults. Construction started on October 8, 2002, for the parking garage. Soon to follow was construction on the Northwest vault that started December 2, 2002. East wing construction began on July 21, 2003. The visitor center shell started on August 4, 2003. West Wing construction started on November 2, 2005.
Dylan Dear, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected]
The South Wing construction started on November 26, 2007. The Exterior Masonry project started on January 1, 2008, and is projected to be completed in December 2011. The North Wing construction began in December 2009.
Brief Project History

The Legislative Coordinating Council (LCC) authorized the Capitol renovation process in 1998 by adopting LCC Policy 55, which established a Capitol Restoration Commission (CRC). At the Commissions initial meeting on March 3, 1998, it adopted a mission statement and goals for the project, and agreed to request $200,000 in the Department of Administrations FY 1999 budget to fund a historic structure report on the State Capitol building. The amount was included in the budget passed by the 1998 Legislature and approved by the Governor. Another CRC meeting took place on May 19, 1998, at which time a project status report was reviewed and a concept statement regarding committee rooms and locations was adopted. At the Commissions meeting of November 5, 1998, the Department of Administrations representative stated that a request for proposal (RFP) had been issued to secure a preservation architect to start the historic structures report. The next meeting of the CRC took place on March 11, 1999. A status update was presented on the historical structure report, indicating that it would be completed in approximately eight months. Treanor Architects was paid $200,000 from the original FY 1999 appropriation for that report, according to records from the Department of Administration. A contract for all services totaled $389,084 and included two principal subcontractors, Lynch Consulting, LLC, and TCI (The Collaborative, Inc.), as well as other subcontractors. The 1999 Legislature included funding of $825,000, all from the State General Fund, in FY 2000 for statehouse ground and facilities improvements, including an unspecified amount for the statehouse historic structures reports completion. Department of Administration records indicate payments totaling $189,084 from this funding source were paid to Treanor Architects in FY 2000 and FY 2001. Payments to Treanor totaled $389,084 in FY 2000 and FY 2001. At the March 7, 2000, CRC meeting, the Chairperson announced that the Preliminary Historic Structure Report was finished and copies of the Kansas State House Historic Structure Report status as of January 26, 2000, were distributed. At the March 7, 2000, meeting, the CRC adopted a recommendation to introduce legislation for a capitol preservation funding proposal for $40.0 million in bonds. During the 2000 Legislature, SB 660 was introduced by the Senate Ways and Means Committee upon recommendation of the CRC to provide a funding mechanism for the Capitol preservation and restoration process. SB 660, as amended, was passed by the 2000 Legislature and approved by the Governor. The bill authorized $40.0 million in bonds to be repaid from the State General Fund. At the next CRC meeting of April 25, 2000, copies of an executive summary, titled Preservation and Restoration: Kansas State House, were distributed. The Chairperson noted that the purpose of the meeting was to receive updated information from the architects and to adopt both the master plan for space allocation and the phasing of the project. The Chairperson introduced Mike Treanor of Treanor Architects, to explain space allocation proposals in a document titled Kansas State Capitol Master Plan, Proposed Space Allocation and Project Phasing. The CRC approved the master plan.
X-5
page 2
The executive summary described a project with four phases, beginning with the East Wing, then moving to the West Wing and the South Wing, and concluding with the North Wing and Rotunda. The project was anticipated to take five to eight years at an estimated cost of $90 to $120 million. The report cautioned that the cost estimate was qualified and that as time progressed, the numbers will become more refined by the project team. Detailed planning work began in September 2000 when the Department of Administration contracted with Treanor Architects to do the architectural design work. A budget had been developed by the states project manager who assumed a construction budget of $97,574,807 and architectural fees of $10,974,510 for a design and construction budget of $108,549,317. During the planning phase, the state project manager and Treanor developed a baseline budget, estimating construction for $119,598,731 and architectural fees of $13,981,391, for a total baseline budget of $132,580,122. On March 9, 2001, the Department of Administration contracted with J.E. Dunn for construction management services. In September 2001, J.E. Dunn, Treanor, and the state project manager developed a revised budget estimate that included an underground parking garage and visitor center for the project. By December 2001, the revised project budget was estimated at $144,989,376. However, no project funding was added for the visitor center shell in the subsequent estimate since the shell area would be used as a construction entrance and staging site. On May 6, 2002, the project manager reported that the project would cost $135,046,800. The CRC approved the estimated amount on November 20, 2002, when it accepted the Program and Budget Review presentation. The November 20, 2003, and November 17, 2004, CRC meetings received an update on the project from Treanor Architects and J.E. Dunn Construction Company. The 2005 budget estimate increased to $162,227,091 during a CRC meeting. The CRC approved the increased amount on December 19, 2005. By December 14, 2006, the estimated cost had increased to $172,541,931 and was accepted by the CRC. The December 2007 budget estimate added $38.8 million for the Exterior Masonry project which had not been included in previous estimates. The 2011 Legislature added bonding authority for the Capitol restoration and renovation project for FY 2012 for the issuance of $34,300,000 in bonds for capitol restoration. Major items for the Capitol include the replacement of the roof ($11.3 million), replacement of the dome ($10.3 million), replacement of the air conditioning chillers ($2.7 million), completion of the interior finishes of the North Wing ($6.0 million), previous cost increases for the West Wing ($2.8 million), and unforeseen failure and delaminating of plaster walls in the West Wing ($1.1 million). The approved bonding authority increases the estimate for the project to $319.9 million. For more information, please contact:
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 X-5

Taxation Y-1 Homestead Program Other Taxation reports available Y-2
Taxation
Y-1 Homestead Program
When Kansas enacted the Homestead Property Tax Refund Act in 1970, it became the sixth state to enact a circuit-breaker style of property tax relief. A circuit-breaker is a form of property tax relief in which the benefit is dependent on income or other criteria and the amount of property taxes paid. The moniker developed as an analogy to the device that breaks an electrical circuit during an overload, just as the property tax relief benefit begins to accrue once a persons property taxes have become overloaded relative to his or her income. Including Kansas: * 34 states currently have some form of circuit-breaker program. * 27 states allow renters to participate in the programs.
Liquor Taxes
Y-3 Kansas State and Local Tax Structure
Eligibility Requirements:
Household income of $31,300 or less; and Someone in the household is:
Chris Courtwright, Principal Economist 785-296-3181
Age 55 or above; A dependent under age 18; Blind; or Otherwise disabled.
Renters are eligible (15 percent of rent is equivalent to property tax paid).
[email protected]
Program Structure
The current Kansas Homestead program is an entitlement for eligible taxpayers based upon their household income and their property tax liability. The maximum available refund is $700; and the minimum refund is $30.
Recent Legislative History

A 2006 change to the Homestead program expanded it by approximately $4.5 million. The Legislature in 2007 enacted an even more significant expansion in the program, which increased the size of the program by an additional $9.9 million. Eligible Claims Filed FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 72,927 79,661 96,020 102,586 132,136 Average Refund $229 $265 $324 $320 $324
Amount $16.643 million $21.220 million $31.127 million $32.819 million $42.872 million
Among the key features of the 2007 expansion law: The maximum refund available under the program was increased from $600 $700. 50 percent of Social Security benefits were excluded from the definition of income for purposes of qualifying for the program. A new residential valuation ceiling prohibits any homeowner with a residence valued at $350,000 or more from participating in the program.
Hypothetical Taxpayers
The impact of the 2006 and 2007 program expansion legislation is demonstrated on the following hypothetical taxpayers: Elderly couple with $1,000 in property tax liability and $23,000 in household income, $11,000 of which comes from Social Security benefits.
Pre-2006 Law $72
Homestead Refund 2006 Law $150
2007 Law $385
Y-1
page 2
Single mother with two young children, $750 in property tax liability and $16,000 in household income. Homestead Refund 2006 Law $360
Pre-2006 Law $240
2007 Law $420
Disabled renter paying $450 per month in rent, with $9,000 of household income from sources other than disability income. Homestead Refund 2006 Law $528
Pre-2006 Law $408
2007 Law $616
Chris Courtwright, Principal Economist [email protected]
Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 20th Avenue, Room 68-West, Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Phone: (785) 296-3181 Fax: (785) 296-3824
page 3
Y-1

Taxation Y-2
Taxation
Y-2 Liquor Taxes
Kansas has three levels of liquor taxation, each of which imposes different rates and provides for a different disposition of revenue, including:
Liquor Taxes
Other Taxation reports available Y-1 Homestead Program Y-3 Kansas State and Local Tax Structure
Liquor Gallonage Tax Liquor Enforcement or Sales Tax Liquor Drink Tax
Gallonage. The first level of taxation is the gallonage tax, which is imposed upon the person who first manufactures, sells, purchases, or receives the liquor or cereal malt beverage (CMB). Enforcement or Sales. The second level of taxation is the enforcement or sales tax, which is imposed on the gross receipts from the sale of liquor or CMB to consumers by retail liquor dealers and grocery and convenience stores; and to clubs, drinking establishments, and caterers by distributors. Drink Tax. The third level of taxation is levied on the gross receipts from the sale of liquor by clubs, caterers, and drinking establishments.
Gallonage
Since the tax is imposed upon the person who first manufacturers, uses, sells, stores, purchases, or receives the alcoholic liquor or cereal malt beverage, the tax has already been paid by the time the product has reached the retail liquor store or in the case of CMB, grocery or convenience store.
[email protected]
So when the liquor store owner purchases a case of light wine from a distributor, the 30 cents per gallon tax has already been built in as part of that store owners acquisition cost.
Rates Beer and CMB Light Wine Fortified Wine Alcohol and Spirits Per Gallon $0.18 $0.30 $0.75 $2.50
Gallonage tax receipts in FY 2011 were approximately $21.1 million. Of this amount, nearly $10.2 million was attributable to the beer and CMB tax. Gallonage Tax Disposition of Revenue Community Alcoholism and State Intoxication General Programs Fund Fund (CAIPF) Alcohol and Spirits 90% 10% All Other Gallonage Taxes 100% -Liquor gallonage tax rates have not been increased since 1977.
Enforcement and Sales

Enforcement. Enforcement Tax is an in-lieu-of sales tax imposed at the rate of 8 percent on the gross receipts of the sale of liquor to consumers and on the gross receipts from the sale of liquor and CMB to clubs, drinking establishments, and caterers by distributors. So a consumer purchasing a $10 bottle of wine at a liquor store is going to pay 80 cents in enforcement tax. The club owner buying the case of light wine (who already had paid the 30 cents per gallon gallonage tax as part of his acquisition cost) also would now pay the 8 percent enforcement tax. Sales. CMB purchases in grocery or convenience stores are not subject to the enforcement tax, but rather are subject to state and local sales taxes. The state sales tax rate is 6.3 percent, and combined local sales tax rates range as high as 4.25 percent. CMB sales, therefore, are taxed at rates ranging from 6.3 to 10.55 percent. Besides the rate differential between sales of strong beer (and other alcohol) by liquor stores and CMB by grocery and convenience stores, there is a major difference in the disposition of revenue.
Y-2
page 2
Enforcement and Sales Tax Disposition of Revenue State Highway SGF Fund Enforcement (8 percent) State Sales (6.3 percent) Local Sales (up to 4.25 percent) 100.00% 88.57% ----11.43% ---
Local Units ----100.00%
Enforcement tax receipts in FY 2011 were approximately $56.1 million. Grocery and convenience store sales tax collections from CMB are unknown. The liquor enforcement tax rate has not been increased since 1983.
Drink
The liquor drink tax is imposed at the rate of 10 percent on the gross receipts from the sale of alcoholic liquor by clubs, caterers, and drinking establishments. The club owner (who had previously paid the gallonage tax and then the enforcement tax when he acquired the case of light wine) next is required to charge the drink tax on sales to its customers. Assuming the club charged $4.00 for a glass of light wine, the drink tax on such a transaction would be 40 cents. Drink Tax Disposition of Revenue SGF Drink Tax (10 percent) 25% CAIPF 5% Local Alcoholic Liquor Fund 70%
Liquor drink tax revenues in FY 2011 were about $35.9 million, of which $9.0 million were deposited in the SGF. The liquor drink tax rate has remained unchanged since imposition in 1979. For more information, please contact:
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 3 Y-2

Taxation Y-3 Kansas State and Local Tax Structure Other Taxation reports available Y-1 Homestead Program Y-2
Taxation
Y-3 Kansas State and Local Tax Structure
The Broad Picture
Kansas state and local tax receipts in FY 2011 were $12.407 billion. The Big Three Tax Sources: property taxes accounted for 32.4 percent of that total, followed by sales and use taxes at 27.7 percent, and income and privilege taxes at 23.8 percent. The $12.407 billion in total state and local taxes represented an increase in the overall tax burden from the $11.521 billion in FY 2010 receipts. One factor in the growth was an increase in state sales tax rate from 5.3 to 6.3 percent. State and Local Taxes ($ billions)
$12.600 $12.400 $12.200 $12.000 $11.800 $11.600 $11.400 $11.200 $11.000 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 $11.811 $12.216 $12.407
Liquor Taxes
$11.772 $11.521
[email protected]
History
Kansas has had a broad-based state and local tax structure since the 1930s when income, sales and other taxes were adopted. (In FY 1930, prior to those enactments, property taxes accounted for 82.0 percent of all state and local receipts.) Base broadening generally continued through the 1980s with the adoption of various privilege, gross receipts, and severance taxes. A new school finance law in 1992 represented one of the most dramatic changes to state and local finance. School district general fund property tax levies in 1991 had ranged from 9.12 mills to 97.69 mills. The new law set all general fund levies at 32 mills in 1992 and ushered in significant property tax reductions in most school districts, reductions which were funded by state sales and income tax increases. School District General Fund Property Tax Levies 1991 1992 1993 1994-96 1997 1998-present 9.12 (Burlington) - 97.69 (Parsons) 32 33 35 27 20
Note: A $20,000 residential exemption from the levy has been applicable since 1997.
These 1992 changes tended to bring the Big Three Tax Sources into relative balance.
State Taxes
State taxes in FY 2011 were $7.176 billion, an increase of about $815 million from FY 2010s $6.360 billion. The individual income tax was the largest state tax source in FY 2011 at $2.706 billion, or 37.8 percent of total state receipts. The retail sales tax was next at $2.268 billion, or 31.6 percent. Motor fuels taxes were a distant third at $0.436 billion, or 6.1 percent. Revenues have been declining from two major state tax sources which were phased out by recent legislation. The estate tax, which produced $55.6 million in FY 2007, has been repealed since 1/1/2010. The corporation franchise tax, which produced $47.9 million in FY 2007, is expected to bring in less than $4 million annually by FY 2013.
Y-3
page 2
State General Fund (SGF) Receipts

Of the $7.176 billion in state tax receipts, $5.693 billion or about 79.3 percent, was deposited in the State General Fund (SGF). (A) (B) The individual income tax at $2.706 billion and the sales tax at $2.268 billion combined to account for over 87 percent of SGF tax receipts. Motor fuels taxes at $0.436 billion were the largest tax source to not have any receipts deposited in the SGF, followed by the unemployment compensation tax at $0.399 billion.
Tax legislation approved in 2010 was expected to increase FY 2011 SGF receipts by an additional $303.6 million above the amount that had been previously forecast for that year. The primary feature of that bill was an increase in the state sales tax rate from 5.3 to 6.3 percent. Sales and use tax receipts to the SGF grew by $395.5 million from FY 2010 to FY 2011.
Sales Tax Exemptions

The latest data from the Department of Revenue indicate that the fiscal note associated with the number of exemptions from the states 6.3 percent sales tax is $5.337 billion. An additional $0.563 billion also could be raised by extending the tax to previously untaxed services. As of 2011, 31 states imposing sales tax exempt most groceries from sales tax, while several others apply only a reduced rate. Kansas is one of only 7 states that applies its full sales tax rate to food purchases. Kansas does allow a food sales tax rebate program, which is provided to certain taxpayers through refundable income tax credits.
Individual Income Tax Rate Structure

Single Returns Taxable Income Rate Joint Returns Taxable Income Rate
First $15,000 $15,001-$30,000 $30,001 and above
3.50% 6.25% 6.45%
First $15,000 3.50% $15,001-$30,000 6.25% $30,001 and above 6.45%
page 3
Y-3
Selected Surrounding State Tax Rate Comparison

State Sales Tax Rates and Tax Treatment of Groceries, 7/1/2010
Rate Groceries
Kansas Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Colorado
6.3 4.225 5.5 4.5 2.9
6.3 1.225 exempt 4.5 exempt
Selected Individual Income Tax Bracket Features (Tax Year 2011)

Lowest Bracket Highest Bracket # of Brackets
3.5 1.5 2.56 0.5 4.63
6.45 6 6.84 5.5 4.63
3 10 4 7 1
Selected Corporation Income Tax Bracket Features (Tax Year 2011)

Lowest Bracket Highest Bracket # of Brackets
4 6.25 5.58 6 4.63
7 6.25 7.81 6 4.63
2 1 2 1 1
State Motor Fuel Tax Rates in cents per gallon (as of 1/1/2011)
Gasoline Diesel
24 17.3 27.3 17 22
26 17.3 26.7 14 20.5
Y-3
page 4
State Cigarette Tax Rates in dollars per pack (as of 1/1/2011) Kansas Missouri Nebraska Oklahoma Colorado 0.79 0.17* 0.64 1.03 0.84
*Missouri allows additional local taxes.
Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 20th Avenue, Room 68-West, Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Phone: (785) 296-3181 Fax: (785) 296-3824
page 5
Y-3

Transportation and Motor Vehicles Z-1 State Funding for Transportation Other Transportation and Motor Vehicles reports available Z-2 Graduated Drivers Licensing Z-3
Transportation and Motor Vehicles

Z-1 State Funding for Transportation
The Kansas Constitutions Article 11, Section 10, says that The State shall have power to levy special taxes, for road and highway purposes, on motor vehicles and on motor fuels. For many years, the state sources that provide the most funding for transportation programs have been motor fuels taxes, sales tax, and registration fees, as illustrated in the pie chart below. This article provides some history and general information regarding these state funding sources, including information regarding the changes in funding associated with two bills enacted during the 2010 Session: Senate Sub. for Senate Sub. for HB 2650, the Transportation Works for Kansas (or T-Works) Program, and Senate Sub. for HB 2360, which affects sales tax rates and distribution.
Texting Ban
ProjectedKDOT2012Revenues asofApril2011
(inmillions)
FederalFunding, $590.0
38%
RegistrationFees, $171.5
11%
StateMotorFuels Tax,$434.0
28%
Other,$45.8
Jill Shelley, Principal Analyst 785-296-3181 [email protected] 3%
StateSalesTax, $301.8
20%
State Motor Fuels Tax

History. Kansas has imposed a tax on vehicle fuels since 1925, when it imposed a tax of 2 cents a gallon on gasoline. The table below lists the effective dates of tax increases for motor fuels. The increases in 1989 through 1992 were part of the Comprehensive Highway Plan as it was enacted in 1989, and those in 1999 and 2001 were part of the original ten-year Comprehensive Transportation Program enacted in 1999. These taxes remain at the rates given in the table; no 2010 or 2011 bill changed these rates. Motor Fuel Tax Rates, 1925-2010
Effective Date 1925 1929 1941 1945 1949 1956 1969 1976 1983 1984 1989 1990 1991 1992 1999 2001 2002 2003 7 8 10 11 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 24 4 5 Gasoline 2 3 3 4 5 7 8 10 12 13 17 18 19 20 22 23 25 26 Diesel
A tax of 17 cents a gallon was imposed on E-85 gasohol beginning in 2006. Certain fuel purchases, including aviation fuel and fuel used for non-highway purposes, are exempt from the tax. The amount paid by each taxpayer depends on the amount of fuel purchased. The table below, Approximate Gasoline Tax Payments by Individual Taxpayers, illustrates those amounts with different scenarios of miles driven and the vehicles miles per gallon.
Z-1
page 2
Approximate Gasoline Tax Payments by Individual Taxpayers

Gasoline Tax amount paid in fuel taxes at current 24 15 25 35 15 25 35 $192 $115 $82 $480 $288 $206 state tax % of price state tax % of price
alll amounts rounded to the nearest dollar
Fuel at $3.50/gal overall fuel bill if total price is $3.50/gallon $2,800 $1,680 $1,200 $7,000 $4,200 $3,000 6.9%
Fuel at $4/gal overall fuel bill if total price is $4/gallon $3,200 $1,920 $1,371 $8,000 $4,800 $3,429 6.0%
miles per year 12,000 12,000 12,000 30,000 30,000 30,000
miles per gallon
Federal fuel taxes. Drivers also pay federal fuel taxes of 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline, gasohol, and special fuels, and 24.4 cents a gallon for diesel fuel. The federal taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel have not increased since 1993. Other states fuel taxes. All states tax motor vehicle fuels. Most use a set amount per gallon, but some use sales taxes. At least three states index their gasoline taxes to inflation, and other rates can change based on factors such as the highway repair budget. The American Petroleum Institute publishes maps quarterly that show average gasoline and diesel fuel taxes in each state. (Each amount shown is a weighted average, meaning that any taxes that can vary across a states jurisdiction are averaged according to the population of the local areas subject to each particular tax rate.) Those maps are available through http://www.api.org/statistics/fueltaxes/. States total gasoline taxes, per gallon and including federal taxes, range from 26.4 in Alaska to 68.0 in Connecticut as of July 2011. Fuel tax revenues. Amounts raised from fuel taxes fluctuate but generally have declined with decreases in fuel usage attributed to increased fuel efficiency in vehicles, overall increased fuel prices, and other factors. This is a nationwide trend, particularly since 2004. For reasons including these decreases and fairness in amounts paid for the amount of infrastructure used, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission have urged moving toward a system based on vehicle miles traveled. No states have yet adopted a system based on vehicle miles traveled, although the state of Oregon and several other government entities have piloted programs. Amounts raised from state fuel taxes (in millions):
FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07 FY06 $432.7 $421.1 $417.8 $427.8 $430.5 $424.7
page 3
Z-1
Source: KDOT 2013 Budget
KansasTotalGasolineSales(gallons)
1,500,000,000 1,450,000,000 1,400,000,000 1,350,000,000 1,300,000,000 1,250,000,000 1,200,000,000 1,150,000,000 1,100,000,000 1,050,000,000 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
U.S.GasolineSales,GallonsperCapita
490 480 470 460 450 440 430 420 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
U.S.TotalGasolineSales(gallons)
144,000,000,000 142,000,000,000 140,000,000,000 138,000,000,000 136,000,000,000 134,000,000,000 134 000 000 000 132,000,000,000 130,000,000,000 128,000,000,000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Z-1
page 4
Source for information in the bar charts: Monthly Motor Fuel Reported by States from the Office of Highway Policy Information, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/ mmfr/index.cfm; population information from the U.S. Census, www.census.gov.
Allocation under current law. State fuel tax revenues are allocated 66.37 percent to the State Highway Fund and 33.63 percent to the Special City and County Highway Fund (KSA 79-34,142(b)).
Sales Tax
History of the allocation to the State Highway Fund. The 1983 highway bill enacted a transfer from the State General Fund (SGF) to the State Highway Fund (SHF) in increasing amounts over a period of years based roughly on the percentage of sales tax receipts attributable to new and used motor vehicles, then determined to be 9.19 percent of the sales tax base. The bill also required the Department of Revenue to annually determine the percentage of retail sales attributable to vehicle sales. The 1989 Comprehensive Highway Program bill increased the transfer percentage to 10 percent. It also increased the sales and compensating use tax rate from 4 percent to 4.25 percent, with the additional 0.25 percent deposited directly into the SHF. Legislation enacted in 1992 that raised the sales and use tax rate from 4.25 percent to 4.90 percent also reduced the 10 percent transfer to 7.628 percent, an amendment designed to produce an equivalent amount of revenue for the SHF transfer under both different sales tax rates. The 1999 Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) bill initially increased the transfer to 9.5 percent and would have phased in additional increases to 12 percent by July 1, 2004. Legislation enacted in 2004 to help shore up the CTP abolished the transfer, which at that time was not being funded, and also repealed the requirement to annually determine the percentage of retail sales attributable to vehicle sales. The same bill also increased the amount of the daily sales and use tax receipts deposited in the SHF from 0.25 percent to 0.38 percent and then to 0.65 percent. From 2002 until July 2010, the state levied a sales and use tax rate of 5.30 percent. Of every $530 in collections, $465 was deposited in the SGF and $65 in the SHF. Amounts of Sales and Compensating Use Taxes Deposited Directly in the SHF (in millions) FY11 $292.6 FY10 $259.4 FY09 $268.7 FY08 $273.3 FY07 $158.4 FY06 $ 98.9
Source: KDOT 2013 Budget
page 5
Z-1
In 2010, Senate Sub. for HB 2360 raised the state sales and compensating use tax rate from 5.3 percent to 6.3 percent, effective July 1, 2010. The legislation reduces that rate to 5.7 percent on July 1, 2013. The percentage of sales tax revenues going to the SHF was adjusted to provide an estimated $20.4 million of additional revenue in FY 2011, $21 million in FY 2012 and again in FY 2013, and all of the additional revenue above 5.3 percent once the rate is reduced to 5.7 percent.
Registration Fees
The Legislature first imposed registration fees on vehicles in 1913: $5 for a motor vehicle (car or truck) and $2 for a motorcycle. Registration fees for trucks have been based on their rated carrying capacities since 1921. Rates in Kansas vary by type of vehicle and by vehicle weight. The 2010 T-Works Program does not increase registration rates for private passenger vehicles. Starting in 2013, the bill provides for increasing rates for small farm trucks and other small commercial vehicles by $20, for trucks smaller than 54,000 pounds by $100, and for larger trucks by $135. The increases in the bill are divided over two years and start in 2013. A sample of those rates with their increases is shown below. Sample of Kansas Vehicle Registration Fees, 1989-Present 2002 and 1989 current 2013
Passenger vehicle, less than 4,500 pounds Truck or truck-tractor, 12,000-16,000 pounds Truck or truck-tractor, 80,000-85,500 pounds Farm truck, 12,000-16,000 pounds Farm truck, more than 66,000 pounds (largest category) Trailer, 8,000 pounds or less Trailer, 12,000-54,000 pounds $25 $100 $1,925 $35 $600 $15 $35 $30 $102 $1,935 $37 $610 $15 $35 no change no change $2,020 $47 $695 $35 $45
2014
no change no change $2,070 $57 $745 $35 $55
(1) Registration is optional for trailers weighing less than 2,000 pounds. Source: KSA 8-143 as amended by 2010 Senate Sub. for Senate Sub. for HB 2650
Revenues from Vehicle Registration Fees and Related Charges (in millions)
FY11 FY10 FY09 FY08 FY07 FY06 Source: KDOT 2013 Budget $178.9 $176.0 $171.2 $171.7 $176.2 $165.6
Z-1
page 6
At registration, Kansas vehicle owners also pay motor vehicle (property) taxes on those vehicles. Those taxes vary, depending on the countys mill levy. The proportion of the total amount paid depends upon the value of the vehicle and the applicable mill levy, as illustrated in a table below. Registration Fees and Motor Vehicle (Property) Taxes for a Sample of Vehicles 2012 Motor Vehicle Vehicle 2012 Registration description Value Property Tax(1) Registration Total(2) % of total
2012 Cadillac CTS (Premium V6) 2012 Toyota Camry (SE V6) 2012 Ford Focus (SE) 2011 KIA Rio (Base) $41,000 Smith County State Avg Haskell County $23,000 Smith County State Avg Haskell County $15,000 Smith County State Average Haskell County $12,500 Smith County State Avg Haskell County $631 Smith County State Avg Haskell County $45,000 Smith County State Avg Haskell County $1,537 $896 $562 $862 $503 $315 $562 $328 $205 $469 $273 $171 $24 $24 $24 $1,687 $983 $616 $30 $1,576 $935 $601 $901 $542 $354 $601 $367 $244 $508 $312 $210 $63 $63 $63 $1,828 $1,124 $757 2.5% 2.7% 4.5% 4.5% 7.2% 11.5% 6.1% 9.8% 15.2% 9.2% 14.4% 21.5% 45.9% 47.6% 47.6% 9.2% 14.5% 22.2%
$30
$30
$30
1996 Ford Escort (LX) 2012 Ford F250 (Lariat, 4x4, Crew Cab, Diesel) (registration weight 16,000-20,000 pounds) 2011 International Limited (registration weight 60,00066,000 pounds)
$30
$132
$117,148 Smith County State Avg Haskell County
$7,290 $4,542 $3,110
$1,210
$8,509 $5,761 $4,329
14.8% 21.5% 29.5%
Example vehicle 2012 values, mill levies, and property taxes provided by the Department of Revenue. (1) Property tax equals value times mill levy times the assessment rate. The assessment rate is 20 percent for all of the vehicles listed above except the 2010 International truck; its assessment rate is 30 percent. KSA 79-5105(a)(1) sets a minimum tax of $24 for vehicles ($12 for motorcycles) from model year 1981 and newer. The example 2011 motor vehicle property tax levies are as follows: Smith County (the highest in the state), 0.187440; the state average, 0.109247; and Haskell County (the lowest in the state), 0.068497. The reported tax is rounded to the nearest dollar. (2) The total includes two fees: $4 modernization surcharge authorized by KSA 75-5160 and $5 service fee authorized by KSA 8-145d. The service fee would not apply to a truck used in interstate commerce or to a converter gear. Voluntary additional fees that could apply include $40 for personalized license plates (KSA 8-132(c)) and a satellite registration fee of not more than $5 per vehicle (KSA 8-145d)).
Allocation. Except for relatively small fees (e.g., the $4 modernization surcharge enacted in 2008), all registration fees are directed to the State Highway Fund (KSA 8-145(c)). Motor vehicle property taxes are distributed to taxing subdivisions in the same manner as general property taxes, except that school district general funds do not receive any of the receipts.
2012 Legislator Briefing Book page 7 Z-1
Bonding
To finance portions of the programs, both the 1989 Comprehensive Highway Program (CHP) and the 1999 Comprehensive Transportation Program (CTP) authorized KDOT to issue certain amounts of bonds (KSA 68-2320), which KDOT has issued. The 2010 T-Works bill added KDOT bonding authority, with this limit: the maximum annual debt service on all outstanding bonds issued pursuant to [the CHP, the CTP, and T-Works] and [CHP Refunding bonds] . . . will not exceed 18 percent of projected state highway fund revenues for the current or any future fiscal year. (KSA 68-2320(c)) The bill specifies how projected rates for variable rate interest and projected SHF revenues will be calculated. The table below contains information on debt outstanding as of late September 2011 and anticipated debt outstanding for subsequent years. Outstanding State Highway Fund Debt, At End of FY (in millions) Fiscal Year
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 Source: KDOT
Total
$1,783.4 $1,673.4 $1,566.0 $1,462.8 $1,349.7 $1,254.1 $1,154.0 $1,049.9 $940.3 $825.0 $765.0 $633.0 $506.7 $422.0 $325.0 $325.0 $325.0 $325.0 $325.0 $325.0 $325.0 $263.8 $200.8 $135.9 $68.9 $0.0
CHP
$11.5 $11.5 $11.5 $0.0
CHP Refunding
$69.8 $82.4 $42.1 $ 3.1 $ 0.0
CTP
$1,277.1 $1,254.6 $1,187.5 $1,134.6 $1,024.7 $ 929.1 $ 829.0 $ 724.9 $ 615.3 $ 500.0 $ 440.0 $ 308.0 $ 181.7 $ $ 97.0 0.0
T-Works
$ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 325.0 $ 263.8 $ 200.8 $ 135.9 $ $ 68.9 0.0
Z-1
page 8
Transfers from the State Highway Fund

Since 1999, anticipated state revenues to the SHF have been reduced by approximately $1.8 billion. The following table summarizes the categories of those reductions. A detailed spreadsheet, State Highway Fund Adjustments, shows year-by-year revenue adjustments, by category; it is available through the KLRD website homepage, Capitol Issues, Transportation. Net Changes to SHF Revenues, Anticipated to Realized, 1999-May 2011 (in millions) Sales Tax Demand Transfer. As noted above, sales taxes were transferred from the SGF to the SHF under highway program bills starting in 1983. The CTP as enacted in 1999 included provisions to transfer certain percentages of sales tax (9.5 percent $(1,456.73) in 2001 14 percent in 2006 and later) from the SGF to the SHF. Appropriations reduced those amounts, and the transfers were removed from the law in 2004. Sales and Compensating Use Tax. As noted above, when sales tax transfers were eliminated, the sales tax was increased and the percentage going directly into the $483.15 SHF was increased. Loans to the SGF. A total of $125.2 million was borrowed from the SHF with arrangements to replace that money from FY07 through FY10. Only the first two $(61.79) payments were made. Bond Payments. The 2004 Legislature authorized the issuance of $210 million in bonds backed by the SGF. SGF payments were made on those bonds only in 2007 $26.58 and 2008. (Subsequent payments have been made from the SHF.) Transfers to the SGF. Transfers include amounts for the Fair Fares program at the Department of Commerce, Highway Patrol operations, payments on SGF-backed $(797.45) bonds, allotments, and the 2011 direct transfer of $200 million. Total $(1,806.25) For more information, please contact:
Aaron Klaassen, Senior Fiscal Analyst [email protected]

page 9
Z-1

Transportation and Motor Vehicles Z-2 Graduated Drivers Licensing Other Transportation and Motor Vehicles reports available Z-1 State Funding for Transportation Z-3 Texting Ban

Z-2 Graduated Drivers Licensing
New drivers license requirements took effect January 1, 2010, for those who did not have any type of drivers license or permit before that date. Those requirements were passed in 2009 Sub. for HB 2143. Certain provisions were modified in 2010 HB 2482. Among the teen driving requirements that remain the same are
these:
The minimum age for an instruction permit or a farm permit remains 14; The minimum age at which a teen can receive a restricted license remains 15; The holder of a farm permit or a restricted license may drive to and from or in connection with a job, directly to and from school, and at any time with a licensed adult driver in the vehicle; The holder of a farm permit or restricted license who is 15 may not transport any non-sibling minor passengers; A 15-year-old applicant for a restricted license must have completed driver training; and The holder of a farm permit or restricted license must submit an affidavit that the applicant has completed 50 hours of adult-supervised driving, with 10 of those hours at night, before restrictions can be lifted.
Major changes from prior law are given below.
Wireless communication ban. No holder of an instruction permit, a farm permit, or a restricted license may operate any wireless communication device while driving, except to summon medical or other emergency help or to report illegal activity. Wireless communication device is broadly defined as any wireless electronic communication device that provides for voice or data communication between two or more parties. Instruction permit An adult licensed driver accompanying the holder of an instruction permit as the permittee drives must be 21 or older. (There was no previous age requirement.) An instruction permit can be suspended or revoked as can any other drivers license. An applicant for a restricted license must have held an instruction permit for at least a year (increased from six months). Temporary and restricted instruction permits are no longer issued. An adult who has held a valid class M drivers license for at least a year may ride as a passenger on a motorcycle operated by the holder of an instruction permit, in addition to riding a motorcycle in proximity to the novice driver.
Farm permit A farm permit is available until age 17 (increased from 16). A farm permit holder who is 16 may have one passenger who is younger than 18 and who is not a member of the licensees immediate family. A farm permit holder who is 16 may drive from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. with no adult licensed driver in the vehicle, to and from authorized school activities, and to and from any religious worship service held by a religious organization. (2010 HB 2482 also defined religious organization.)
Restricted license Those who are at least 16 may have one passenger who is younger than 18 and who is not a member of the licensees immediate family. A holder of a restricted license who is at least 16 may drive from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. with no adult licensed driver in the vehicle, to and from authorized school activities, and to and from any religious worship service held by a religious organization. An adult who has held a valid class M drivers license for at least a year may ride as a passenger on a motorcycle operated by the holder of a restricted license, in addition to riding a motorcycle in proximity to the novice driver.
Z-2
page 2
Restrictions may be lifted for a 16-year-old holder of a farm permit or a restricted license who has completed the required 50 hours of supervised driving, who has had a restricted license for at least six months, and who has not violated any of the permit or restricted license conditions. A full license cannot be issued to an applicant younger than 17 (increased from 16). Penalties were added for those who violate restrictions. Violation continues to be a misdemeanor. The new law requires suspensions for violations: 30-day suspension for a first conviction; 90-day suspension for a second conviction; and One-year suspension for a third or subsequent conviction. A 16-year-old with two or more moving violations cannot receive an unrestricted license until age 18 (increased from age 17).
The Department of Revenue lists graduated drivers license requirements on its website http:// www.ksrevenue.org/dmvgdl.html. For more information, please contact:
page 3
Z-2

Transportation and Motor Vehicles Z-3

Z-3 Texting Ban
Texting Ban
Other Transportation and Motor Vehicles reports available Z-1 State Funding for Transportation Z-2 Graduated Drivers Licensing
Kansas ban on texting. 2010 House Sub. for SB 300 added a section to Kansas law to prohibit anyone operating a motor vehicle on a public road or highway from texting, or using a wireless communications device to write, send, or read a written communication. The bill defined wireless communications device to include any type of device that sends or receives messages but to exclude voice-operated devices. Texting while driving became illegal in Kansas on July 1, 2010, with warning tickets to be given until January 1, 2011. The fine for this traffic infraction was set at $60, not including court costs. The bill included exceptions to the ban: Law enforcement officers or emergency service personnel acting within the course and scope of their employment; When the motor vehicle is stopped off the regular traveled portion of the roadway; Using the wireless communications device to make or receive a phone call; receive an emergency, traffic, or weather alert message; or receive a message related to the operation or navigation of the vehicle; To report current or ongoing illegal activity to law enforcement; To prevent imminent injury to a person or property; and To relay information between a transit or for-hire operator and the operators dispatcher, if the device is affixed permanently to the motor vehicle.
Other states bans. As of September 2011, 34 states, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and Guam banned text messaging for all drivers. Twelve of these laws were enacted in 2010. Kansas is among the 32 states, plus D.C. and Guam, with primary enforcement laws that allow a law enforcement officer to stop a vehicle for violation. In other states, texting bans are primary for only some drivers (such as school bus drivers) or are secondary, meaning an officer cannot stop the vehicle unless there is an additional violation. The types of devices and the precise uses banned differ among the states, as do exceptions. Some states treat texting as part of broader bans on distracted driving.1 Commercial and federal bans. Many commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers are prohibited from texting while driving under federal regulations. Federal rules effective October 27, 2010, prohibit texting by CMV drivers while operating in interstate commerce and impose sanctions, including civil penalties and disqualification from operating CMVs in interstate commerce, for drivers who fail to comply with this rule. Additionally, motor carriers are prohibited from requiring or allowing their drivers to engage in texting while driving. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration also amended its commercial drivers license (CDL) regulations to add to the list of disqualifying offenses a conviction under state or local traffic laws or ordinances that prohibit texting by CDL drivers while operating a CMV, including school bus drivers.2 Effective March 30, 2011, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration prohibits texting on electronic devices by additional drivers. The rule prohibits texting during the operation of a motor vehicle containing a quantity of hazardous materials requiring placarding under part 172 of the 49 CFR or any quantity of a select agent or toxin listed in 42 CFR part 73.3 Effective March 28, 2011, the Federal Railroad Administration restricts the use of mobile telephones and other distracting mobile devices by railroad operating employees.4
Federal employees also are prohibited from texting while driving, regardless of the law of a specific jurisdiction. The Presidents Executive Order 13513 titled Federal Leadership on Reducing Text Messaging While Driving, dated October 1, 2009, ordered that Federal employees shall not engage in text messaging (a) when driving a Government Owned Vehicle, or when driving a Privately Owned Vehicle while on official Government business, or (b) when using electronic equipment supplied by the Government while driving.5 Bills in Congress. Three bills to address texting and other distracted driving had been introduced and referred to Congressional subcommittees in 2011 before the end of September. One (HR 1772) would fund safety grants to states that prohibit texting and handheld cellphone use while driving (with some exceptions), fund a national distracted driving education program, and provide for research into distracted driving; it appeared to be very similar to the Distracted Driving Prevention Act that had advanced in 2010 but was not enacted. A second (HR 2333) would take a more punitive approach, withholding 25 percent of federal highway funds for states that did not prohibit using a hand-held mobile device in a moving or idling motor vehicle (with certain exceptions) and imposing certain penalties for violations. (This bill also had an equivalent in the 2009-2010 session.) A third (HR 2575) would prohibit use of a personal wireless communications device to make a telephone call or text while a minor is in the vehicle.6
Z-3 page 2 2012 Legislator Briefing Book
Statistics. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in 2009 20 percent of all crashes involved reports of distracted driving; nearly 5,500 people in the country died in crashes involving a distracted driver, and nearly 450,000 were injured. The proportion of fatalities reportedly associated with driver distraction increased from 10 percent in 2005 to 16 percent in 2009.7 According to the 2008 Kansas Traffic Accident Fact Book, the top two contributing factors for crashes in Kansas were these. driver failed to give full time and attention, 26.3 percent; and failure to yield to the right-of-way, 10.2 percent.8
Endnotes:
1
US Department of Transportation, http://www.distraction.gov, accessed September 30, 2011. 75 Federal Register (FR) 59118, September 27, 2010. 75 FR 10771, February 28, 2011. 75 FR 59580, September 27, 2010. 74 FR 51225, October 6, 2009.
See http://thomas.loc.gov/, the website of the Library of Congress, Search Bill Summary & Status. The bills introduced in 2009 were S.1938, S.1536, HR 3535, HR 3829, and HR 3994 (the companion bill to S.1938).
6 7
http://www.distraction.gov/stats-and-facts/, accessed September 30, 2011.
Kansas Department of Transportation, Geometric and Accident Data Unit, document listed at http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficSaf/default.asp, accessed September 30, 2011.
8
Kansas Legislative Research Department 300 SW 10th Ave., Room 68-West, Statehouse Topeka, Kansas 66612 Phone: (785) 296-3181
page 3
Z-3

Kansas Legislature 2012 Briefing Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kansas Legislature 2012 Briefing Book

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kansas Legislature 2012 Briefing Book

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2012

Administrative Rules and Regulations

Rule and Regulation Authority: Examples

Kansas Legislative Research Department

The Regulation Adoption Process

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Adoption of a Permanent Regulation - Time Frame

Total Time: 112 to 174 Days / 16 to 25 Weeks

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

2008 Legislative Action

2010 Legislative Action

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

2011 Legislative Action

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research [email protected]

Sharon Wenger, Principal Analyst [email protected]

Jill Shelley, Principal Analyst [email protected]

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2012

Agriculture and Natural Resources

Leah Robinson Principal Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

Kansas Legislative Research Department

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

How Colorado Water Money Is To Be Used

How Colorado Water Money Has Been Used

Interstate Water Litigation Reserve Account of the State General Fund

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Republican River Litigation

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Disposition of Republican River Compact Settlement Moneys2008 Sub. for SB 89

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Republican River Water Conservation Projects

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Leah Robinson, Principal Fiscal Analyst [email protected]

Raney Gilliland, Assistant Director for Research [email protected]

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislator Briefing Book 2012

Agriculture and Natural Resources

Jarod Waltner, Senior Fiscal Analyst 785-296-3181

Kansas Legislative Research Department

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

1,370,812 1,795,856 2,266,905 690,030 268,745 140,537 179,328 6,712,213

3,317,121 2,935,367 2,113,796 728,642 290,187 211,974 565,248 656,298 10,818,633

2,138,055 2,424,078 2,259,754 690,652 394 164,828 824,835 255,043 8,953,639

469,492 173,640 366,802 409,044 48,620 38,200 97,935 657,459 2,261,192

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department

Kansas Water Authority

2012 Legislator Briefing Book

Kansas Legislative Research Department