Kansas Republicans flout fiscal notes in rush to pass costly, contentious bills
Rep. Kristey Williams, seen during a March 26, 2026, session of the House, repeatedly questioned the merits of fiscal notes while mischaracterizing a three-year-old audit. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — When Rep. Kristey Williams appeared before the House budget committee in late January to pitch her idea for hiring “fiscal integrity” auditors, she told lawmakers not to pay attention to how much the ploy would cost.
State budget analysts had determined the salary and benefits for two high-level employees, with operating expenses, would amount to $475,000. But Williams, an Augusta Republican, dismissed the inconvenient fiscal note as she preached about the need to root out wasteful spending.
“I don’t think it needs to be as high as what was estimated, but as we know, fiscal notes are often not accurate,” Williams said, without providing evidence to show how the cost could be lower.
House and Senate Republicans throughout this year’s legislative session routinely brushed aside concerns about the projected costs of policies as a way of hushing objections from their political adversaries. Some of them, like Williams, misrepresented the findings of a three-year-old audit that found fiscal notes are often inaccurate — primarily because nobody asks for an updated estimate after bills are amended.
A staff of 10 nonpartisan budget analysts, some with decades of experience under both Republican and Democratic governors, are required by statute to produce a cost estimate within seven days for each of the 600-800 bills that are introduced each year, mostly in the early weeks of the session. They gather input from state agencies, the League of Kansas Municipalities, Kansas Association of Counties and Kansas Association of School Boards, and perform accuracy checks before they finalize their work in the form of a fiscal note that is attached to the bill.
The work is complicated when committee chairs rush hearings immediately after a bill is introduced, or negated when lawmakers dramatically alter the contents of the bill before it reaches the floor of the House or Senate.
Rather than accept responsibility for ensuring accurate cost estimates, Republicans disavowed concerns about costs for legislation to restrict bathroom use in government buildings, require local elections to be held in even-numbered years, create a tax write-off for unregulated, faith-based health coverage, and force recipients of public assistance programs to continuously prove their eligibility.
“It cracks me up when legislators talk about needing to be responsible stewards of the taxpayer dollar, because very few of them make proactive or even active efforts to ensure that that’s what we do in the process,” said Rep. Alexis Simmons, a Topeka Democrat. “And this fiscal note problem is a great example of it. When we know that maybe we could add a day or two on and get a revised fiscal note, and they make the active choice not to do that, there’s no excuse when we have budgetary problems down the line.”
State budget director and administration secretary Adam Proffitt answers questions during a Feb. 16, 2026, interview. He says the governor’s office has never asked him to alter or skew a fiscal note. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
‘The main takeaway’
Budget director Adam Proffitt, who also serves as secretary of the Department of Administration, says his staff gets “pretty bogged down” during the early weeks of the session as they scramble to keep pace with bill introductions.
The seven-day clock starts with the day a bill is introduced, which means staff really have six days to produce the fiscal note. Weekends and holidays are included in that window.
On peak days, more than 60 bills are introduced. At times, each of the 10 budget analysts were working to produce fiscal notes for 20-30 bills.
As the staff gathers information from state agencies or local governments, Proffitt said, the goal is “to take into account as many factors as we possibly can” without inserting opinions about policy into cost estimates.
Governors want to know the actual fiscal effect of legislation, Proffitt said.
“In my five and a half years as budget director, not one single time has anybody in the governor’s office reached out to me and asked me to alter or skew a fiscal note,” Proffitt said. “It just does not happen.”
Proffitt said the amount of time staff has to process a bill “is paramount.” A single word, such as the distinction between a refundable or nonrefundable tax credit, “can quite literally change the outcome by hundreds of millions of dollars,” he said.
Fortunately, he said, the staff is able to produce accurate estimates, as verified by their internal checks and reviews, thanks to their historical knowledge.
But committee chairs have increasingly held hearings immediately after a bill is introduced.
“And if there’s a hearing that’s just simply too fast for us to get the information, we have what we call a boilerplate template that we send the chair and say, ‘We anticipate a fiscal impact. We will let you know as soon as that’s available,’ ” Proffitt said.
Proffitt spoke with lawmakers about the process of developing fiscal notes during a Jan. 21 hearing of the House Committee on Legislative Modernization. The committee also heard from Andy Brienzo, of the Kansas Legislative Division of Post Audit, about a 2023 audit of fiscal notes.
That audit looked at 10 bills that were passed during the 2018-19 legislative sessions to determine whether the fiscal notes were more than 20% off. Seven of the 10 missed the mark, with six costing less than the fiscal note predicted.
Four of the forecasts were inaccurate because the bills were amended after the fiscal note was created. There is nothing in statute that requires staff to monitor bills and update fiscal notes, and legislators seldom ask for an update. Proffitt said he would need more staff to handle such a task.
Auditors found one fiscal note was compromised because an agency’s process changed after the bill passed. Another fiscal note was off because a new income tax credit was inherently unpredictable. And one was deemed inaccurate because a state agency miscalculated setup costs.
“We didn’t have any recommendations for this,” Brienzo said of the audit. “I think the main takeaway from this is that fiscal notes, the process is generally good in our estimation, but the fiscal notes end up being inaccurate because of things that happen after the fiscal note was created.”
Rep. Alexis Simmons listens to debate during an April 9, 2026, session of the House. She says complaints about fiscal notes, based on a 2023 audit, are lacking context. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
‘A grain of salt’
A day after Brienzo and Proffitt appeared before the modernization committee, Williams asserted in two different committee hearings that fiscal notes couldn’t be trusted.
She testified before the House budget committee in support of House Bill 2427, her plan to hire two new auditors who would report directly to the Senate president and House speaker about finances in the executive branch. These political staffers would have full access to accounting and budgeting software, which means they could see Social Security numbers, sensitive banking information, and even the identity of undercover Kansas Bureau of Investigation agents. Proffitt warned this would be a cybersecurity threat.
Williams’ bill didn’t go far. But the idea was inserted into the state budget in the final days of the legislative session and adopted by Republican majorities in both chambers, despite concerns that it would grow state government without actually leading to savings.
The topic of fiscal notes came up again in the House Elections Committee. Rep. Pat Proctor, the Leavenworth Republican who chairs the committee, had held a hearing on House Bill 2452, which would require all local elections to be held in even-numbered years, just five days after the bill was introduced.
The fiscal note read: “Due to the expedited turnaround for hearing of the bill, the agency is unable to complete a fiscal note for the bill prior to the hearing.”
Two days after the hearing, the same day Williams made her pitch for “fiscal integrity” auditors, Proctor moved to amend and pass HB 2452.
Simmons, the Topeka Democrat who serves on the Elections Committee, argued the bill should be tabled until lawmakers understood how much it would cost election offices in the state’s 105 counties. Williams interjected.
“I just wanted to throw into the discussion that in 2023 there was a legislative post audit, and that audit showed that seven out of 10 (fiscal notes) were significantly inaccurate,” Williams said. “And as much as we do appreciate fiscal notes, we do utilize them, we generally, in our bodies, calculate correctly based on additional evidence, and so I would just place that into the order of discussion.”
She didn’t offer “additional evidence.”
Simmons countered that fiscal notes were compromised by bill amendments, like the one Proctor had proposed.
“So she’s correct, but that was only half of the context,” Simmons said.
The committee passed the bill with less than 10 minutes of discussion.
On the Senate side, a fiscal note became the focus of debate on Senate Bill 363, which would require low-income families to reapply for benefits throughout the year. Republicans asserted, without proof, that public assistance programs were subjected to widespread fraud. Critics said the bill was designed to discourage eligible residents from seeking aid for food or health care.
Typically, people would apply for benefits on a yearly basis. The budget analysts, based on information from state agencies that administer public assistance, concluded the constant surveillance of program eligibility would require an additional 256 employees with an estimated cost of $18.5 million next year and $17.1 million the following year.
“Quite frankly, the fiscal note is, I guess we could say, hogwash,” said Sen. Doug Shane, a Louisburg Republican, during a Feb. 11 meeting of the Senate Committee on Government Efficiency.
According to Shane, the forecast failed to account for the supposed savings the new policy would produce.
The fiscal note considered savings. According to the budget office, no lawmaker inquired about the calculations.
Proffitt said his staff doesn’t take things personally and that he would welcome the opportunity to talk with lawmakers who have questions about fiscal notes.
“If somebody’s seen something that is just factually incorrect or inaccurate, I want to know that, and I want to fix it,” Proffitt said. “But to just completely disregard this, I think, is not the best course of action. I don’t think that makes for good, informed policy.”
Disregard for fiscal notes resurfaced during a Feb. 17 debate on the Senate floor over a tax credit for people who contribute to a “health care sharing ministry.” These faith-based plans act like traditional health insurance, but without regulations for things like preexisting conditions.
The fiscal note for Senate Bill 368 predicted a $1.2 million reduction in annual tax collections.
“I could opine on how fiscal notes are guesstimated,” said Sen. Caryn Tyson, a Parker Republican. “I do not know.”
This particular fiscal note was based on the 11,015 Kansas households that take part in a health care sharing ministry. A typical household plan costs $3,154 per year. That would reduce taxable income by $34.7 million per year. An effective tax rate of 3.5% would reduce tax collections by about $1.2 million per year.
“We actually saw a legislative post audit on how accurate fiscal notes are, so we have to take this with a grain of salt when we decide legislation,” Tyson said. “I cannot defend or impugn what the fiscal note is. I will just say that is what was presented to us, and it is an estimate.”
Williams, Shane and Tyson, as well as Senate President Ty Masterson and House Speaker Dan Hawkins, didn’t respond to Kansas Reflector requests for comment for this story.
Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, dismissed concerns about the potential cost of anti-trans legislation during a Jan. 28, 2026, debate in the House. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
‘Are you kidding me?’
Rep. Susan Humphries grew indignant as Democrats raised cost concerns during the Jan. 28 House debate on legislation that would restrict bathroom use in government buildings based on sex assigned at birth.
Senate Bill 244 requires government entities to enforce the law or face $125,000 fines. It isn’t clear what exactly government entities are expected to do.
Democrats repeatedly raised concern that local governments might have to remodel bathrooms or put up signage, and that the state would get bogged down in costly litigation. Indeed, two transgender men from Lawrence sued the state the day the law took effect.
Humphries had introduced House Bill 2426 on the opening day of the session and held a hearing on the bill 24 hours later. That bill only regulated gender markers on driver’s licenses and birth certificates. But a week later, lawmakers amended the bill to add the bathroom ban. Then, they inserted the new bundle as an amendment into SB 244 and rushed to pass it through both chambers.
“We are talking about modifying, immediately, regulations and physical bathrooms across every municipality, county, school board, public library, police department across the state of Kansas, and we do not know how long it will take to implement, how much it’s going to cost. We have no fiscal note. We will never get a fiscal note,” said Rep. Dan Osman, an Overland Park Democrat.
Humphries, a Wichita Republican, shot back: “What do you mean by fiscal note? Because there is nothing in this bill where there has to be any new construction. There is nothing as far as infrastructure that has to be changed.”
Without the standard fiscal note based on input from the League of Kansas Municipalities, Kansas Association of Counties and Kansas Association of School Boards, no one could dispute Humphries’ claim.
Humphries had a different response when Rep. Lindsay Vaughn, an Overland Park Democrat, offered an amendment to require a single-occupancy, gender-neutral bathroom on each floor of a public building.
Humphries: “Did you get a fiscal note for this amendment?”
Vaughn: “Is there a fiscal note for the underlying bill?”
Humphries: “Is that no?”
Rep. Kirk Haskins, a Topeka Democrat, said he found it interesting that a fiscal note was suddenly important.
“Are you kidding me?” he said. “The bill itself can’t even justify how much it’s going to cost.”
As the House prepared to vote, Humphries assured members the bill was “not about a fiscal note.”
“I’m asking you, what do you think the fiscal note might be? I know there’s not one. I understand that, but if you think about what it might be, this does not require any construction, OK?” Humphries said.
Sen. Cindy Holscher, seen during an April 9, 2026, session of the Senate, says complaints about fiscal notes are made to push bills forward. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
‘Clear and transparent’
Rep. Adam Smith, a Weskan Republican who chairs the House tax committee, praised Proffitt and his staff for their work on fiscal notes.
His comments came toward the end of the hearing where the House Legislative Modernization Committee heard input from auditors and Proffitt about how his staff produces fiscal notes.
“I want to commend your staff and everybody that puts those together,” Smith said. “In tax committee, there’s obviously some bills that are pretty complex, and they have a lot of moving parts. And the fiscal notes — I’m not sure if this is mandated policy or if it’s just what they do on tradition, but if there are ever assumptions that are made, it’s very clear and transparent, ‘This is how we came up to these numbers.’ ”
It was a rare moment of praise by a Republican during this year’s session, where the predominant refrain was that fiscal notes shouldn’t be trusted.
Sen. Cindy Holscher, an Overland Park Democrat who is running for governor, had a front row seat to those comments while serving on the Committee on Government Efficiency.
“I’m hearing this brought up more often that, ‘Well, the fiscal note isn’t correct or probably doesn’t make sense,’ just to try to push these bills forward, when the reality is that our fiscal notes seem to be pretty sound,” Holscher said.
Some of the GOP policies, she said, are costly and outweigh any potential savings.
“I kind of find it interesting that the ‘party of fiscal responsibility’ is really trying to not be responsible at all,” she added.