Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fiscal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing held on proposal to cap state general‑fund spending tied to CPI and population; education groups warn of underfunding risk
Summary
Senate Bill 181 would set an annual cap on state general‑fund expenditures and transfers based on prior‑year SGF multiplied by Midwest CPI‑U plus population change and require the state treasurer to certify the cap. The Kansas Association of School Boards opposed the bill, warning it could lock in underfunding of education and special education.
The Senate Ways and Means Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 181, which would impose a statutory limit on annual expenditures and transfers from the state general fund beginning with fiscal year 2027. Under the bill, the cap would equal the SGF amount authorized in the immediately preceding fiscal year multiplied by the Midwest Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI‑U) for that year plus the percentage change in the state population; the state treasurer would certify the maximum amount on or before Sept. 1 each year.
Why it matters: Supporters described the proposal as a mechanism to constrain SGF growth and require the governor’s and the legislature’s budget measures to conform to a certified ceiling. Opponents, led in testimony by the Kansas Association of School Boards, warned a statutory cap could force underfunding of education by building existing shortfalls—particularly in special education—into future budgets.
What the bill would do: Revisor David Weese summarized that SB 181 would add a new statutory section to set the cap, require treasurer certification after consultation with budget and legislative research directors, and require the governor’s budget submission (beginning with the 2026 session for FY2027) to not exceed the certified maximum. The bill applies to state general fund expenditures and transfers only and does not directly limit other state or federal funds or fee‑based accounts.
Concerns and follow-ups: Shannon Kimball of the Kansas Association of School Boards told the committee that an SGF cap could have the practical effect of guaranteeing that schools receive less than the statutory funding required for some special education services, and would constrain the legislature’s flexibility to account for caseload growth or special education funding obligations already in statute. Senator questions addressed whether the cap could be overridden in an emergency or by later legislative action; staff said the legislature could enact measures "notwithstanding" the cap or otherwise change the statutory limit if it chose to do so in future legislation.
Ending: The committee recorded written proponent testimony from Americans for Prosperity and oral opponent testimony from the Kansas Association of School Boards. No committee vote on SB 181 was recorded in the hearing transcript.
