Can a Kansas county put mental health and EMS funding on the ballot as a 'renewal' of an existing public-safety sales tax?

Plain-English summary

A state senator asked the Attorney General to review a Johnson County resolution that would put a quarter-cent countywide sales tax on the November 2025 ballot, described as a "renewal" of an existing public safety sales tax. The existing tax, passed in 2016, funds construction and operation of a new courthouse, demolition of the old one, and a coroner facility, and it expires in March 2027. The new resolution would redirect the tax toward a different mix of programs, including mental health crisis intervention and emergency/ambulance/911 services, framed to voters as simply continuing the same tax.

The Attorney General found four separate problems, any one of which sinks the proposal. First, K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) requires that tax revenue fund both construction and operation of "public safety projects," using "and" in its conjunctive sense, so a tax that only funds ongoing programs without construction of a qualifying facility does not fit. Second, the statute's own list of examples (a jail, detention center, sheriff's resource center, crime lab) shows "public safety projects" means physical law-enforcement facilities, so standalone mental health and EMS programs do not qualify on their own, even though they broadly relate to public welfare. Third, the statute only lets a county "extend" or "reenact" an existing tax, not "renew" it for a different purpose, and Black's Law Dictionary's definitions of those terms show extension and reenactment both require continuing the same tax for the same purpose, which is not what the new proposition does. Fourth, because the ballot proposition exceeds the county's statutory authority on all these fronts, K.S.A. 19-101a(c) renders the underlying resolution null and void.

What this means for you

County commissioners and county counsel drafting sales tax ballot measures: the opinion holds that a K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) public safety tax must fund both construction and operation of physical facilities directly tied to law enforcement, and that an existing tax can only be "extended" or "reenacted" for the same purpose, not repurposed toward different programs while being marketed to voters as a renewal.

Voters and taxpayers evaluating a countywide sales tax ballot question: the opinion signals that a proposition labeled a "renewal" is not automatically what it claims to be; if the money would go to substantially different projects than the original tax funded, the opinion found that mischaracterization can make the resulting election void.

Common questions

Can a Kansas county use a K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) public safety tax to fund mental health or ambulance services on their own?
Not standing alone, according to the opinion. The statute's examples show it is meant for physical facilities directly related to law enforcement, like a jail or crime lab; mental health and EMS programs could potentially be funded if tied to such a facility, or through the separate health-care-services tax in K.S.A. 12-187(b)(5).

What's the difference between "extending," "reenacting," and "renewing" an existing sales tax under Kansas law?
The opinion explains that K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) only authorizes extending or reenacting an existing tax, both of which mean continuing the same tax for the same purpose; "renewing" a tax to fund different projects is not one of the options the statute allows.

What happens if a county puts an unauthorized tax question on the ballot anyway?
The opinion concludes that a resolution which conflicts with the statutory limits on a county's sales tax authority is null and void under K.S.A. 19-101a(c), and a misleading ballot proposition can make the resulting election void as well.

Background and statutory framework

K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) lets the Johnson County Board of County Commissioners impose a 0.25% countywide retailers' sales tax, capped at ten years per authorization, to fund "the construction and operation costs of public safety projects, including, but not limited to, a jail, detention center, sheriff's resource center, crime lab or other county administrative or operational facility dedicated to public safety." The statute allows the tax to be "extended or reenacted for additional periods not exceeding 10 years" through a new vote of the electors. Counties generally have only the powers expressly granted by the Legislature, per K.S.A. 19-101a, and any county resolution that conflicts with statutory limitations on that authority is null and void under K.S.A. 19-101a(c).

The existing Johnson County tax was approved by voters in 2016 specifically to fund a new courthouse, demolition of the old one, and a coroner facility. The 2025 resolution proposed continuing the same tax rate but redirecting the revenue toward a different slate of public safety-adjacent programs, without asking voters the statutorily required "extend or reenact" question. The opinion's interpretation leaned on the plain meaning of "and" as conjunctive, the interpretive canon of noscitur a sociis (a word is known by the company it keeps) to read "public safety projects" in light of its listed examples, and dictionary definitions distinguishing "extension" and "reenactment" from "renewal."

Citations and references

Statutes:
- K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) (incl. (b)(1), (b)(5), (g)(1))
- K.S.A. 12-16,117(a)(2)
- K.S.A. 19-101a (incl. (a)(7), (c))
- K.S.A. 75-5073(e)

Selected cases:
- In re Est. of Strader, 301 Kan. 50, 339 P.3d 769 (2014)
- In re Dir. of Prop. Valuation, 284 Kan. 592, 161 P.3d 755 (2007)
- City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co-Op, Inc., 298 Kan. 540, 316 P.3d 707 (2013)
- Cap. Elec. Line Builders, Inc. v. Lennen, 232 Kan. 379, 654 P.2d 464 (1982)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/24600/638887921194730000

Original opinion text

July 21, 2025

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2025-13

The Honorable Mike Thompson
State Senator, 10th District
State Capitol, Room 136-E
300 SW 10th St.
Topeka, Kansas 66612

Re: Cities and Municipalities—General Provisions—Countywide and City
Retailers' Sales Taxes

        Counties and County Officers—General Provisions—Home Rule
        Powers; Limitations, Restrictions and Prohibitions; Procedure

Synopsis: The Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County recently
enacted a resolution that purports to place the renewal of an existing
sales tax under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21)—which authorizes a tax to fund
the construction and operation of public safety projects—on the
November 2025 ballot. The resolution seeks to fund, among other
things, mental health services and emergency medical services.
Because the resolution tries to fund measures that do not qualify as
public safety projects and it would fund different projects than that for
which the existing tax was enacted, a court would find that the Board
has exceeded its authority and that the resolution is null and void.
Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-187; K.S.A. 19-101a.

                        *            *             *

Dear Senator Thompson:

As State Senator for the 10th District, you ask four questions stemming from the
Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County's recent adoption of Resolution
No. 052-25.1 This Resolution proposes to renew a countywide retailers' sales tax of
one-fourth of one cent for ten years to finance costs and expenses for certain public
safety projects. The Resolution seeks to do so through the following proposition on
the November 2025 general election ballot:

   Shall the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas,
   adopt, renew, and impose for a period of ten (10) years a one-fourth
   (1/4) of one-cent countywide retailers' sales tax in Johnson County,
   Kansas, commencing April 1, 2027, with proceeds from the tax to be
   distributed as required by law to the County and the cities in Johnson
   County, with the county share to be used for the purpose of financing
   the costs of construction, renovation, repair, maintenance, operation
   and personnel expenses of public safety projects, facilities, and
   programs, including but not limited to emergency/ambulance/911
   services, Sheriff's Office, mental health crisis intervention, emergency
   preparedness/disaster response, and criminal justice system?2

The Board passed this Resolution pursuant to, and seeks to impose the tax
under, K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21), which provides:

   The board of county commissioners of Johnson county may submit the
   question of imposing a countywide retailers' sales tax at the rate of
   0.25% and pledging the revenue received therefrom for the purpose of
   financing the construction and operation costs of public safety projects,
   including, but not limited to, a jail, detention center, sheriff's resource
   center, crime lab or other county administrative or operational facility
   dedicated to public safety, to the electors at an election called and held
   thereon. The tax imposed pursuant to this paragraph shall expire after
   10 years from the date such tax is first collected. The countywide
   retailers' sales tax imposed pursuant to this subsection may be
   extended or reenacted for additional periods not exceeding 10 years
   upon the board of county commissioners of Johnson county submitting
   such question to the electors at an election called and held thereon for
   each additional ten-year period as provided by law.3

The existing tax that the proposition purports to renew was passed at the
November 2016 general election, during which the ballot informed voters that "the

1 Your questions are rephrased below.
2 Johnson County, Kan., Resol. No. 052-25 (May 8, 2025) (emphases added).
3 (emphases added).

County share of the revenue [would] be dedicated to the capital, operational, and
financing costs for the public safety projects and administration of justice programs
associated with and necessary for the construction of a new Courthouse, demolition
of the existing courthouse, and the construction of a coroner facility."4 This existing
tax expires on March 31, 2027.

The answers to your questions primarily turn on the text of K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21). As
always, statutory interpretation is bound by the statute's "plain and unambiguous"
meaning.5 One can neither "speculate" nor "read into the statute language not
readily found there."6 And one must strive, "as far as practicable, to reconcile the
different [statutory] provisions so as to make them consistent, harmonious, and
sensible."7 Because this is a statute that permits taxation, one must "strictly"
construe it "in favor of the taxpayer," i.e., against taxation.8

As explained below, my office has concluded the Board has exceeded its authority
through the Resolution and ballot proposition.9

I. Does K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) require the Board to pledge and use
revenue from the resulting sales tax for both the construction and
the operation costs of public safety projects?

Revenue from a tax imposed under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) must be pledged and used
for both the construction and the operation of public safety projects.

K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) requires that revenue from a tax enacted pursuant to it be
"pledg[ed] . . . for the purpose of financing the construction and operation costs of
public safety projects."10 By using "and" the statute employs a conjunctive term,
which requires both items be satisfied.11 In other words, the revenue must be both
for the construction and for the operation of a qualifying project. For example, when
the current sales tax was passed in 2016, the money was to be used for both the

4 Johnson County, Kan., Resol. No. 042-16 (May 26, 2016).
5 In re Est. of Strader, 301 Kan. 50, 55, 339 P.3d 769 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).
6 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
7 In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. 591, 584, 783 P.2d 331 (1989).
8 See In re Genesis Health Clubs, 42 Kan. App. 2d 239, 242, 210 P.3d 663 (2009)
9 To be clear, this opinion is merely advisory. Only a court with competent jurisdiction could grant

relief related to the Resolution and ballot proposition.
10 (emphasis added); see also K.S.A. 12-187(g)(1) (requiring the Board "specify the purpose or

purposes for which the revenue would be used" (emphasis added)). The Board must use any revenue
as it has pledged.
11 In re Dir. of Prop. Valuation, 284 Kan. 592, 602, 161 P.3d 755 (2007) (noting that "[t]he most

logical and realistic interpretation of the statute is to interpret the plain language exactly as it is
written" while recognizing the conjunctive effect of "and"); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner,
Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 116 (2012) (recognizing that "and combines items
while or creates alternatives").

construction and the operation of a courthouse and coroner facility, along with
necessary related projects (like the demolition of the existing courthouse).

In certain limited circumstances, courts have held that "and" is used as a
disjunctive term.12 But nothing indicates that the Legislature meant to use it in a
disjunctive sense in K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21). To the contrary, the statute lists public
safety projects, like a jail and a crime lab, that are physical structures to be
constructed. Indeed, its catchall example is any "other county administrative or
operational facility dedicated to public safety."13 This is strong evidence that the
Legislature contemplated that the projects for which the revenue would be used
would be facilities, with the tax providing necessary funding for the operation of
these facilities and related programs.

The Board may only impose a tax under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) if the revenue is for
both the construction and the operation of qualifying projects.

II. Do mental health services and emergency medical services
constitute "public safety projects" under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21)?

Mental health services and emergency medical services,14 standing alone, do not
qualify as "public safety projects" that may be funded through a tax imposed under
K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21).

K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) provides that the County's share of revenue from a sales tax
must be pledged for "public safety projects, including, but not limited to, a jail,
detention center, sheriff's resource center, crime lab or other county administrative
or operational facility dedicated to public safety." The statute does not define "public
safety projects," and this term is not defined elsewhere in the legislative code. The
Legislature has used and defined "public safety" in other contexts. For example, in
the same Chapter, "public safety agency" is defined as "any municipal fire
department, law enforcement office, sheriff's department, volunteer and
nonvolunteer fire protection associations, emergency management department,
public works department or other similar public or private agency."15 This definition
casts a wide net, and non-statutory definitions are similarly broad. For example,

12 See, e.g., McMechan v. Everly Roofing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc., 8 Kan. App. 2d 349, 351,

656 P.2d 797 (1983).
13 K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) (emphasis added).
14 We assume that in asking about these services, you are referring to "mental health crisis

intervention" and "emergency/ambulance/911 services," respectively, which are referenced in the
ballot proposition. And although you do not mention "emergency preparedness/disaster response"
(another referenced project), this category would also likely fall outside the scope of permissible
public safety projects for substantially the same reasons as mental health services and emergency
medical services.
15 K.S.A. 12-16,117(a)(2); see also K.S.A. 75-5073(e) (similar).

Black's Law Dictionary defines "public safety" as "[t]he welfare and protection of the
general public."16

Importantly, the statute provides examples of qualifying projects. And under the
interpretative canon of noscitur a sociis, which recognizes the import of associated
words, these examples bear on the meaning of "public safety projects."17

The listed examples, as the statute notes, are not exclusive. Indeed, the existing tax
was passed for, among other things, constructing and operating a new courthouse
and coroner facility, neither of which is listed in the statute. Because "public safety"
is a broad term, the list is the best evidence of what qualifies as a "public safety
project."18 And the examples are different types of physical structures that
traditionally relate to the law-enforcement aspect of public safety, like a jail and a
crime lab. It follows, then, that public safety projects for which a tax may be
imposed under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) must be similar, i.e., physical facilities that are
directly related to law enforcement.

Mental health services and emergency medical services are not physical structures
directly related to law enforcement. To be sure, these services may fairly be
considered as advancing public safety in other contexts. And there may be
situations where these services could be facilitated through a tax under K.S.A. 12-
187(b)(21), such as if the Board wanted to provide necessary mental health services
for detainees in jail. But these services alone do not qualify as "public safety
projects."19

K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) permits the Board to seek a sales tax that funds certain public
safety projects, physical facilities directly related to law enforcement (and
necessary related programs). While certainly important to the County, mental
health services and emergency medical services, standing alone, do not qualify.

16 Public Safety, Black's Law Dictionary 1488 (11th ed. 2019). The Kansas Supreme Court, citing the

Ninth Edition of Black's, noted this broad definition in City of Lincoln Center v. Farmway Co-Op,
Inc., 298 Kan. 540, 552, 316 P.3d 707 (2013). However, because the court there was interpreting the
meaning of a materially different term, "public health, safety or welfare", its analysis is not
persuasive here. See id. at 550, 552-53 (quotation marks omitted).
17 Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U.S. 303, 307 (1961) ("The maxim noscitur a sociis, that a word

is known by the company it keeps, while not an inescapable rule, is often wisely applied where a
word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to [statutes]."));
Scalia & Garner, supra, at 195 ("Associated words bear on one another's meaning.").
18 See Jarecki, 367 U.S. at 307.
19 Our conclusion is bolstered by a separate statute, K.S.A. 12-187(b)(5), which authorizes the Board

to seek to impose a sales tax specifically for "health care services," including "mental health services"
and "emergency medical services." See In re Marriage of Ross, 245 Kan. at 584.

III. Is the description of the ballot proposition as a "renewal" of an
existing countywide retailers' sales tax proper, and if it is not, is this
description fatal?

It is not appropriate for the Board to characterize the proposition as a renewal of
the existing tax. The proposition does not present voters with the required question,
and it does not seek to continue the existing tax for the same purpose.

Counties possess only those powers that have been "expressly granted" to them by
the Legislature and that are necessary to effectuate the express powers.20 The
Legislature has authorized counties to impose sales taxes in certain situations;
their authority is subject to statutory "limitations and prohibitions," including those
in K.S.A. 12-187.21 And "[a]ny resolution adopted by a county which conflicts with
the restrictions . . . is null and void."22 Thus, the Board must strictly follow K.S.A.
12-187(b)(21).

A tax enacted under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) "may be extended or reenacted for
additional periods not exceeding 10 years upon the board . . . submitting such
question to the electors." The Board is strictly limited to seeking only to "extend" or
"reenact" the existing tax; there is no option to "renew" it. Indeed, the statute itself
only permits the tax to be extended if "such question", i.e., whether to "extend[] or
reenact[]" the existing tax, is submitted to the voters. Because the proposition does
not ask for an extension or reenactment, the proposition is unlawful and the Board
has exceeded its authority.23

The exact language aside, the proposition is also improper because it would neither
extend nor reenact the existing tax, which are the only two actions that can be
taken. The statute does not define the relevant terms, but Black's defines
"reenactment" as "passing a statute again for some purpose (such as codification) in
substantially the same form as it has previously been given effect"24 and "extension"
as "[t]he continuation of the same contract for a specified period."25 In other words,
the statute allows the Board to ask voters to continue the same tax for the same

20 Cap. Elec. Line Builders, Inc. v. Lennen, 232 Kan. 379, 382, 654 P.2d 464 (1982), modified on

denial of reh'g, 232 Kan. 652, 658 P.2d 365 (1983).
21 K.S.A. 19-101a(a)(7).
22 K.S.A. 19-101a(c).
23 Although statutory text is always paramount, its importance is magnified here because the

Legislature has expressly limited the Board's ability to impose and continue sales taxes.
24 Reenactment, supra, at 1532.
25 Extension, supra, at 728. Although the definition speaks of a contract, it ultimately requires a

continuation of the same governing arrangement, such as a lawfully enacted sales tax.

purpose so that nothing changes if the tax continues.26 But in reality, the
proposition, if passed, would not do that.

To be sure, if the ballot proposition were to be passed, the tax burden would remain
the same; but the tax would not be funding the same projects because the new
courthouse and coroner facility, the purposes for which the tax was originally
passed, will have been "fully paid for by the time the tax expires."27 Indeed, the
Resolution and proposition describe a new slate of materially different projects
(primarily programs) for which the tax would be used. Because the Resolution does
not seek to effectuate either an extension or a reenactment of an existing tax, it
exceeds the Board's authority.28

This is admittedly a fine line. But as this office noted in Opinion 2007-04, without
an appropriate statutory mechanism, "neither the electorate [n]or a . . . county
governing body can modify the purpose of a local retailers' sales tax that was
previously adopted by the electorate." The Resolution seeks to change the purpose
for which the tax was originally passed in violation of stringent statutory
requirements, which only allow the existing tax to continue. Because the
proposition seeks to institute a new tax under the guise of continuing the current
tax, the proposition exceeds the Board's authority, which means that it is null and
void.

IV. Is the scope of the ballot proposition within the Board's statutory
authority under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21), and if not, does the conflict
render the Resolution null and void?

The ballot proposition is not within the scope of the Board's authority. Again, the
Board is strictly limited in its ability to seek to impose and continue a sales tax
under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21), and any measures that exceed the Board's authority are
"null and void."29 As detailed above, the Resolution and its ballot proposition

26 By contrast, "renewal" means "[t]he act of restoring or reestablishing" or "[t]he recreation of a legal

relationship or the replacement of an old contract, as opposed to the mere extension of a previous
relationship or contract." Renewal, supra, at 1550-51.
27 Johnson County, Kan., Public Safety Sales Tax Renewal,

https://www.jocogov.org/department/board-county-commissioners/public-safety-sales-tax-renewal
(last visited July 9, 2025).
28 The ballot proposition promulgated by the Resolution may also be misleading. Some voters could

believe that a "yes" vote is a vote in favor of continuing the existing tax to fund the same projects for
which it was originally (and actually) enacted, i.e., a new courthouse and coroner facility. Similarly,
other voters could believe that all of the projects named in the proposition are already being funded
by the existing tax, so a "yes" vote supports their continued funding. And when a ballot proposition is
misleading, the "election is void." Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2025-9; see also Wycoff v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
of Logan Cnty., 189 Kan. 557, 560, 370 P.2d 138 (1962) (recognizing that "the recitals on the ballot
shall clearly state the substance of the question the electors are to vote upon[,] and where that
proposition is so obscurely stated that the electors may be misled thereby, the election is vitiated").
29 K.S.A. 19-101a(a)(7), (c).

impermissibly seek to impose a tax to fund programs that do not constitute public
safety projects within the meaning of the statute, and they improperly characterize
the proposed tax as the continuance of an existing tax. Although the proposition
references "construction" and "facilities," it appears to do so in only a cursory
manner. Indeed, the proposition expands "public safety projects", again, the only
permissible matters that may be funded through a tax under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21),
to "public safety projects, facilities, and programs."30 The proposition, the rest of the
Resolution, and the Board's public statements establish that the projects that would
actually be funded if the proposition were passed are outside the scope of the
purposes for which the tax was originally enacted and K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21).31

Because the Board has exceeded its authority, we believe a court would find the
Resolution to be null and void.32

                                           Sincerely,

                                           /s/ Kris W. Kobach

                                           Kris W. Kobach
                                           Attorney General

                                           /s/ Adam T. Steinhilber

                                           Adam T. Steinhilber
                                           Assistant Solicitor General

30 Resol. No. 052-25.
31 See generally id.; see also, e.g., Johnson County, Kan., Johnson County Voters to Consider Public

Safety Sales Tax Renewal on November 2025 Ballot (May 8, 2025),
https://www.jocogov.org/newsroom/johnson-county-voters-consider-public-safety-sales-tax-renewal-
november-2025-ballot (last visited July 18, 2025) ("If renewed, public safety sales tax funds would go
towards Johnson County's public safety departments and programs. Examples of how the funds
could be used include program improvements (e.g., mental health co-responder programs, new
emergency dispatch services, re-entry programs for detainees); technology upgrades tied to public
safety (e.g., body-worn cameras) and emergency communications/9-1-1 system enhancements.").
32 Although not part of your inquiry, it should be noted that avenues likely exist for the Board to

fund its desired projects. The Board could seek to impose a new tax under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(21) for
qualifying public safety projects. The Board could also seek revenue under K.S.A. 12-187(b)(1), the
general sales tax provision, or K.S.A. 12-187(b)(5), the specific health-care-services tax provision.