Can a Kansas city adopt a fire code that is less restrictive than the state fire prevention code?

Plain-English summary

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach concluded that municipalities cannot adopt local fire codes with standards weaker than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. The state law gives that code uniform force throughout Kansas and bars local rules inconsistent with it. The opinion says a municipality may set stricter fire standards because those standards do not permit what the state code forbids.

The opinion distinguishes a local code from a project-specific alternative. K.A.R. 22-1-1(b) lets a local board of appeals approve an alternate method of fire protection as a substitute for strict compliance with code requirements. The Attorney General read that provision as covering an equivalent level of protection for an individual project, not legislative adoption of a less restrictive citywide code. Under K.A.R. 22-1-1(a), a municipality must submit modifications to a nationally recognized fire or building code for the State Fire Marshal's review and approval or rejection.

What this means for you

Municipal officials

The opinion treats the Kansas Fire Prevention Code as the minimum standard for a local fire code. It says municipalities may adopt more restrictive provisions, but cannot weaken the state standard. It also describes State Fire Marshal review of local modifications under K.A.R. 22-1-1(a).

Local boards of appeals and building officials

An approved alternate method for a specific project may satisfy the state code when it provides equivalent fire protection. The opinion says that authority does not let a board enact a less restrictive municipal code.

Property owners and builders

The opinion distinguishes a project-specific alternate method approved by a local board from a generally weaker local code. Its analysis of K.A.R. 22-1-1(b) concerns substitutes that maintain an equivalent level of protection.

Common questions

Can my city use a less restrictive local fire code than Kansas uses statewide?

No. The Attorney General concluded that K.S.A. 31-134(b) preempts local fire codes that weaken the Kansas Fire Prevention Code.

Can a Kansas municipality adopt a stricter fire code?

Yes. The opinion says K.S.A. 31-134(b) permits more restrictive local fire codes because they do not undermine the statewide minimum.

Does a local board of appeals have authority to approve a different method for one project?

The opinion reads K.A.R. 22-1-1(b) as allowing case-specific alternate methods that provide an equivalent level of fire protection. It says that provision does not authorize a less restrictive municipal code.

Who reviews a municipality's modifications to a national fire or building code?

K.A.R. 22-1-1(a), as quoted in the opinion, requires a summary of the modifications to be sent to the State Fire Marshal, who reviews and approves or rejects them.

Background and statutory framework

The State Fire Marshal asked whether municipalities could adopt fire safety codes less restrictive than the statewide code. The opinion relied on K.S.A. 31-134(b), which gives the Kansas Fire Prevention Code uniform force and prohibits inconsistent local rules. It applied Kansas decisions distinguishing stricter local prohibitions from rules that permit what state law forbids. It then read the two subsections of K.A.R. 22-1-1 together: subsection (a) covers review of municipal code modifications, and subsection (b) covers alternate methods for individual projects.

Citations and references

• K.S.A. 31-133(a); K.S.A. 31-134(b)
• K.A.R. 22-1-1(a); K.A.R. 22-1-1(b)
• Dwagfys Mfg., Inc. v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 1336, 443 P.3d 1052 (2019)
• State v. Jenkins, 295 Kan. 431, 284 P.3d 1037 (2012)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/26325

Original opinion text

October 16, 2026

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2026-10

Mark Engholm
Kansas State Fire Marshal
800 SW Jackson, Suite 104
Topeka, KS 66612

Re: Fire Protection—Fire Safety and Protection—Adoption of Rules and
Regulations; Designated as Fire Prevention Code

Synopsis: Kansas municipalities may not adopt local fire codes that are less restrictive than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. Cited herein: K.S.A.
31-133; 31-134; K.A.R. 22-1-1.

                           *            *            *

Dear Mr. Engholm:

As the Kansas State Fire Marshal, you ask whether municipalities may adopt local fire safety codes that are less restrictive than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. We conclude that the answer is no.

The Kansas Fire Safety and Prevention Act 1 requires the State Fire Marshal to “adopt reasonable rules and regulations . . . for the safeguarding of life and property from fire, explosion and hazardous materials.” 2 These regulations “may incorporate by reference specific editions, or portions thereof, of nationally recognized fire prevention codes.” 3 The rules and regulations adopted by the State Fire Marshal are known as the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. 4

1 K.S.A. 31-132 et seq.
2 K.S.A. 31-133(a).
3 K.S.A. 31-133(b).
4 K.S.A. 31-134(b).

Mark Engholm
Page 2

K.S.A. 31-134(b) provides that “[n]o municipality shall enact or enforce any ordinance, resolution or rule or regulation inconsistent” with the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. 5 You explain that several municipalities have modified their local fire codes to be less restrictive than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code, and your question is whether this complies with state law.

I. K.S.A. 31-134(b) preempts local fire codes that are less restrictive than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code.

While the Home Rule Amendment to the Kansas Constitution empowers cities to “determine their local affairs and government,” 6 cities remain subject to uniform state laws applicable to all cities. 7 The Legislature therefore may expressly preempt municipal action with a uniformly applicable enactment. 8 Even in the absence of express preemption, local legislation may not conflict with state law, unless the state law is nonuniform and the municipality adopts a charter ordinance or resolution. 9

We identify no lack of uniformity in the Kansas Fire Safety and Prevention Act; it applies equally to all municipalities. In fact, K.S.A. 31-134(b) requires that the Kansas Fire Prevention Code “shall have uniform force and effect throughout the state.” The Act therefore expressly preempts “any ordinance, resolution or rule or regulation inconsistent” with the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. 10

Since the Act applies uniformly, the next question is what fire safety rules are “inconsistent” with the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. “Inconsistent” can be defined as “not in agreement, harmony, or accord; incompatible.” 11 We believe this has the same meaning as the principle that local ordinances cannot conflict with uniform state law. The Kansas Supreme Court has held that a conflict exists when a local “ordinance permits or licenses that what [a state] statute forbids or prohibits that which the statute authorizes.” 12 There is no conflict, however, “where both an

5 However, K.S.A. 31-134(b) states that “nothing in this act shall be construed to impair the power of

any municipality to regulate the use of land by zoning or fire district regulations or to prohibit or regulate the sale, handling, use or storage of fireworks within its boundaries.” 6 Kan. Const. Art. 12, § 5(b). 7 Dwagfys Mfg., Inc. v. City of Topeka, 309 Kan. 1336, 1340, 443 P.3d 1052 (2019). Although the

Home Rule Amendment only governs cities, counties also “shall be subject to all acts of the legislature that apply uniformly to all counties.” K.S.A. 19-101a(a)(1). 8 State v. Jenkins, 295 Kan. 431, 437, 284 P.3d 1037 (2012). 9 Id. Counties may adopt charter resolutions under K.S.A. 19-101b, except as to “those limitations,

restrictions or prohibitions set forth” in K.S.A. 19-101a. 10 K.S.A. 31-134(b). 11 Webster’s New World College Dictionary 737 (5th ed. 2014). 12 Dwagfys, 309 Kan. at 1344 (quoting City of Junction City v. Lee, 216 Kan. 495, 501, 532 P.2d 1292

(1975)).

Mark Engholm
Page 3

ordinance and the statute are prohibitory and the only difference is that the ordinance goes further in its prohibition but not counter to the prohibition in statute.” 13

Thus, the Kansas Supreme Court has held that an ordinance outlawing the carrying of both concealed and unconcealed weapons did not conflict with a state statute outlawing only the carrying of concealed weapons because the ordinance was “more restrictive” than the statute. 14 But the Court has recognized a conflict in cases where municipal ordinances classified certain offenses as misdemeanors when the offenses were classified as felonies under state law. 15 In other words, uniform state law establishes a minimum standard that must be met by any local legislation if a municipality intends to exercise concurrent jurisdiction, and a local ordinance or resolution that would undermine or weaken the standard set by uniform state law is beyond the power of a municipality to enact.

Applying those principles here, we conclude that less restrictive codes would be “inconsistent” with the Kansas Fire Prevention Code because they would permit what state law has prohibited. 16 Therefore, while K.S.A. 31-134(b) allows municipalities to adopt fire codes that are more restrictive than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code, it prohibits them from adopting fire codes that impose less restrictive standards.

II. K.A.R. 22-1-1(b) does not authorize municipalities to adopt less restrictive fire codes.

Some interested parties have argued that K.A.R. 22-1-1(b), a provision of the Kansas Fire Prevention Code, authorizes municipalities to adopt fire codes less restrictive than those adopted by the State Fire Marshal. K.A.R. 22-1-1(b) provides: “Each alternate method of fire protection that has been approved by a local board of appeals as a substitute for strict compliance with code requirements shall be deemed to be in compliance with the Kansas fire prevention code.”

We understand that a “local board of appeals” is a body that is often created by a city’s adoption of national model codes, such as the International Fire Code or International Building Code. 17 These boards hear appeals from administrative interpretations, orders, or decisions by local building officials and may approve project-specific alternatives to code requirements provided the alternatives meet the

13 Id.
14 Id. at 1344-45.
15 See Jenkins, 295 Kan. at 442 (thefts of property valued at less than $1,000 by a person previously

convicted of two or more thefts); City of Junction City v. Cadoret, 263 Kan. 164, 168, 946 P.2d 1356 (1997) (third and subsequent DUI offenses). 16 See Dwagfys, 309 Kan. at 1344. 17 See 2024 International Fire Code, § 112.1; 2024 International Building Code, § 113.1.

Mark Engholm
Page 4

code’s life-safety intent. 18 These boards are not legislative bodies that adopt fire codes for the municipality but rather adjudicative bodies that may determine on a case-by-case basis whether an “equivalent or better form of construction is proposed.” 19

Thus, K.A.R. 22-1-1(b) only refers to the approval of case-specific alternatives that provide an equivalent level of fire protection and cannot be read as authorizing municipalities to adopt less restrictive fire codes. This understanding is further supported by K.A.R. 22-1-1(a), which provides:

When a municipality adopts one of the nationally recognized fire codes or the fire protection segment of a nationally recognized building code and modifies a section of that code, a summary of the modifications shall be submitted to the state fire marshal’s office. The modifications shall be reviewed and either approved or rejected by the state fire marshal.

This subsection addresses municipalities’ adoption of codes that differ from the codes adopted by the State Fire Marshal, confirming that subsection (b) addresses only case-by-case alternatives for specific projects. It would be incongruous to read subsection (b) as authorizing municipalities to adopt less restrictive fire codes when subsection (a) is clear that the State Fire Marshal must approve any local modifications to nationally recognized building and fire codes to ensure consistency with the Kansas Fire Prevention Code.

In conclusion, K.A.R. 22-1-1(a) provides no authority for municipalities to adopt local fire codes that are less restrictive than the Kansas Fire Prevention Code. Less restrictive fire codes are inconsistent with the Kansas Fire Prevention Code and are therefore preempted by K.S.A. 31-134(b).

18 See, e.g., Building Code Board of Appeals, Lenexa, KS (2026),

https://www.lenexa.com/Government/Boards-Commissions/Building-Code-Board-of-Appeals (“The Board has the authority to approve the use of alternate materials, equipment and types of construction, if they are at least equivalent in quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability and safety to those prescribed by the code.”); Building Code Board of Appeals, Leavenworth, KS, https://www.leavenworthks.gov/bc-building-code-board-of-appeals (“The Building Code Board of Appeals determines the suitability of alternate materials and methods of construction
. . . .”).
19 See, e.g., 2024 International Building Code, § 113.2; 2024 International Fire Code, § 112.2.

Mark Engholm
Page 5

Sincerely,

/s/ Kris W. Kobach

Kris W. Kobach
Attorney General

/s/ Dwight R. Carswell

Dwight R. Carswell
Deputy Solicitor General