Kansas local government leaders question ‘millions’ in costs, lack of detail in bathroom bill

Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, speaks in defense of legislation policing bathrooms during a Jan. 28, 2026, debate in the House. Local government leaders believe the bill, which passed both chambers and awaits the governor's signature, could be costly to enforce. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)

TOPEKA — Local government leaders want more details about how to enforce a “bathroom bill” passed by the Legislature that some city officials say could cost taxpayers “millions of dollars.”  

Senate Bill 244, which is awaiting Gov. Laura Kelly’s signature, forces people to use facilities matching their biological sex at birth in government buildings. 

Kelly has a 10-day deadline once receiving a bill to veto it. That deadline is Friday for SB 244, a spokesperson said. Kelly is expected to veto the bill, which passed both chambers with veto-proof majorities.

The bill says local governing bodies should take reasonable steps to ensure people use restrooms, locker rooms and other private spaces tied to their biological sex at birth, said Jay Hall, deputy director and general counsel for the Kansas Association of Counties.

The phrase that concerns Hall is “every reasonable step.”

“That’s really where our questions start,” he said. “What’s the expectation of local governments, and how are they supposed to handle the enforcement? That’s not something that we know at this point.”

Spencer Duncan, Topeka mayor and government affairs director for the League of Kansas Municipalities, said his organization is exploring what the bill means for its members. Initial determinations of changing signage and other steps could cost millions of dollars, some city leaders told him. 

Duncan expressed frustration with the process that eliminated opportunity for public input when  SB 244 was passed out of committee. The bill, originally House Bill 2426, addressed gender markers on driver’s licenses and birth certificates, which would stop the state’s practice of allowing transgender individuals to change their sex on those documents and would roll back markers that were previously changed. 

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee added the bathroom portion of the bill and then amended SB 244 by overwriting it with HB 2426, a process called “gut and go.” That allowed the Senate, which had already approved the unrelated version of SB 244, to concur with changes rather than hold hearings on the bill.

The only public hearing was in the House Judiciary Committee regarding gender markers — which received opposition from more than 200 people. During floor debate in the House, Democratic legislators spent more than five hours trying to add amendments that were repeatedly defeated. The bill passed along party lines, with one Republican, Emporia Rep. Mark Schreiber, voting against it. 

The process meant no fiscal note was put on the bill for the bathroom portion, which concerned Democrats during the House debate and also worried Duncan and Hall.

Rep. Bob Lewis proposed the amendment to House Bill 2426 that requires local and state government entities to police who is using bathrooms in their buildings. (Photo by Morgan Chilson/Kansas Reflector)

Duncan said city officials are concerned about the cost of changing signage and that some buildings may need additional construction to adhere to the law. They also may need to set up administrative processes. 

Daron Hall, city manager in Pittsburg, said his city has 13 buildings that will need to comply. 

“There is a cost associated with this to the tune of millions of dollars across the state for cities,” Duncan said. 

The bill also has little direction on enforcement procedures. 

Duncan reeled off questions he couldn’t answer for the league’s members: “What is the enforcement mechanism? Who are people supposed to report this to?  What kind of guidance are we supposed to not only give our local officials to make sure their buildings are in compliance?”

Another concern is what people should do if they believe the bathroom policy has been violated, he said. A process for reports isn’t laid out in the bill, he said.

“If somebody comes in and says, ‘I saw this’ or ‘I witnessed this,’ but it’s 10 minutes later, 15 minutes later, and people have left the area … again, what is the process?” Duncan said. “Do you fill out some kind of official report? Whose responsibility is to investigate that? We legitimately don’t know the answer.”

Duncan said it would have been nice for the bill to follow usual legislative procedures that would have allowed everyone who will be impacted to ask questions. 

“Regardless of where you come down on the issue, our job at the end of day is to make sure that we are following the laws that the state puts in place,” Duncan said. “That’s harder when they’re not as clear as they could have been.”

The bill lays out processes and actions that result if governing entities or individuals using restrooms don’t comply, but with little detail. For instance, a person accused of using the incorrect bathroom can get an administrative hearing with the governing body of the building, but there are no guidelines on the hearing and who would make final decisions.

Questions directed to Attorney General Kris Kobach’s communications department, Rep. Bob Lewis, R-Garden City, and Rep. Susan Humphries, R-Wichita, about who will determine processes for SB 244 weren’t answered. Humphries proposed HB 2426 and Lewis added the bathroom amendment.