By Anna Kaminski

TOPEKA — The agreement between the Kansas City Chiefs and the state of Kansas to build a new $3 billion domed football stadium, headquarters, training facility and entertainment district could be the largest stadium deal in American history, and most Kansas lawmakers agreed last week to establish a sports authority board to oversee the project.

The unparalleled public subsidies that accompany the deal have drawn criticism from economists, politicians and football fans from the jump.

Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, said the deal will live in infamy and become a euphemism for disagreeable legislation of the future.

On Friday, lawmakers passed the Kansas Sports Facilities Authority Act, establishing an 11-member board to oversee the project. It will have the power to develop and control new facilities, acquire and dispose of property, contract for services and employees, sue and be sued, and procure industry standard insurance. The bill was fast-tracked through the Legislature in March and still requires the governor’s approval to become law.

In a 60-40 split, the state will cover at least $1.8 billion of the project cost through sales tax and revenue bonds, or STAR bonds, and funds siphoned from iLottery and sports wagering revenues. The project, which was announced in December, also includes a $1 billion entertainment district and a new training facility and team headquarters in Olathe.

The Hunt family, which owns the Chiefs, pledged $1 billion to the project, and other private funds will cover the private sector’s remaining 40% obligation.

Under the act, authority members will include the Kansas secretary of commerce, who is currently Lt. Gov. David Toland, and people appointed by the Chiefs, the governor, the mayors of Olathe and the Unified Government of Wyandotte County, and the majority and minority leaders in both chambers.

Appointees must be Kansas residents with education, training and experience relevant to facility administration, accounting, law, marketing or other fields. The mayors are able to appoint themselves as voting members, and all members must be appointed by Aug. 31. Once formed, the authority can hire an executive director, who won’t be compensated with state funds but from the $7 million in annual rent the Chiefs will be obligated to pay for use of the stadium.

Rep. Rui Xu, D-Westwood, said the Kansas Sports Facilities Authority would be the first in the nation to include a voting member from the team. He cited that as his reason for voting against the formation of the sports authority. He said it was ridiculous the state was allowing the team to oversee its own agreements.

The Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which oversees the Kansas City Royals’ Kauffman Stadium and the Chiefs’ current home at Arrowhead Stadium, has a five-member board of private professionals. Both stadiums were built more than 50 years ago, and the Chiefs’ move came after years of negotiations with Kansas and Missouri that escalated to a border war.

Missouri voters rejected a ballot question in 2024 that would have provided the team with hundreds of millions of dollars in public investment to renovate Arrowhead.

Rep. Paul Waggoner, R-Hutchinson, also voted against the sports authority act, questioning whether the state-issued STAR bonds would be paid for by business from the new stadium within a defined district. He speculated inflation will pay for the bonds instead.

“When you have a stadium, and you are somehow trying to pretend that economic activity five miles away in a metropolitan area is somehow generated because of what you did with a stadium, I mean, you’re obviously not being serious,” Waggoner said Friday on the House floor. “You’re obviously not looking at the real economics of it.”

He argued the deal will have an overall negative impact on the state budget if sales tax revenues flatten in a growing part of the state.

Rep. Sean Tarwater, R-Stilwell, chair of the House Commerce Committee and a staunch proponent of the deal, presented the act on the House floor, bitterly criticizing colleagues at one point for opposing the legisaltion. He spent several minutes praising the Hunt family for its philanthropic endeavors and economic prowess.

“I just wanted to take a moment to look at all the great things that that family does since they seem to be getting trashed up here,” Tarwater said.

Rep. John Carmichael, D-Wichita, called for a point of order, challenging Tarwater’s statement. Carmichael, who voted against the bill, complained that Tarwater’s remarks were laudatory statements about the Hunt family rather than on the subject of the bill.

“Well thank God he came up here,” Tarwater said, “because I could talk for three or four hours about all the fantastic things that family does.”

The post Kansas creates new sports authority to oversee multibillion dollar stadium deal for Chiefs appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

By Anna Kaminski

TOPEKA — Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a partisan, anti-abortion bill that offered protections to crisis pregnancy centers, which can function as alternatives to health clinics with abortion services.

Within hours, the House and Senate voted to overturn her decision.

Kelly said Kansans have been clear. They don’t want the government involved in private medical decisions, she said in a Friday announcement.

“That means we shouldn’t be spending tax dollars trying to interfere with that very personal, very private, medical decision,” she said. “That’s why I’m vetoing this bill.”

The House voted 87-35 and the Senate voted 30-9 to override the veto.

House Bill 2635 exempted centers from regulations that dictate what information, services and resources centers can provide on pregnancy, childbirth and parenting. Centers, sometimes called pregnancy resource centers, typically don’t provide abortions and, instead, dispense inaccurate information about abortion pill reversal treatment, undercut regulatory oversight and target low-income populations, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Kansans for Life, the organization that proposed the bill, said in a statement posted on X that Kelly’s veto was “sad, but not surprising.”

Rep. Tom Kessler, R-Wichita, criticized Kelly’s justification for the veto that the bill was a waste of taxpayer dollars. The bill didn’t include a direct fiscal impact estimate, he said.

Rep. Heather Meyer, D-Overland Park, said that taxpayer dollars are involved because legislators stood on the House floor Friday evening discussing pregnancy resource centers “when the majority of Kansans already stated that they support a person’s right to choose their own reproductive decisions.”

Through separate legislation and budget provisions, the Legislature has given $7 million to crisis pregnancy centers since 2022 through a state program.

The pregnancy center autonomy and rights of expression act, or CARE Act, also makes it easier for centers to file lawsuits against any individual or governing entity that violates the CARE Act, if it were to become law. The bill allows state legislators to intervene in any CARE Act lawsuit. The Office of Judicial Administration said the bill could increase caseloads in district courts because it creates a new private cause of action, potentially affecting judicial budgets.

Other Democrats, including Wichita Rep. Ford Carr and Lawrence Rep. Brooklynne Mosley, questioned the true motives behind legislators’ pro-life ideology, arguing they fail to support children after birth.

House Speaker Dan Hawkins, R-Wichita, condemned Kelly’s veto ahead of the override vote.

“This governor is quick to talk about supporting choice, but that support disappears the moment a mother chooses life,” he said in a statement.

He said politicians and bureaucrats shouldn’t interfere with organizations that run pregnancy resource centers, and to target those groups “is just plain wrong.”

Senate President Ty Masterson, R-Andover, said Kelly vetoed “good legislation that saves lives.”

“This bill simply protects pregnancy resource centers’ ability to educate mothers and provide life-affirming care,” he said in a statement.

Earlier that day, Masterson celebrated the House vote that overrode Kelly’s veto of tax breaks for nontraditional health plan users by ringing a bell outside the House chamber.

“I look forward to ringing-in another override soon,” he said before the second override vote.

This story has been updated to reflect the Legislature’s veto override votes.

The post Hours after Kansas governor rejects pregnancy center protections, Legislature overrides her veto appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

Anyone with information about a crime can contact Crime Stoppers. Using Crime Stoppers allows you to remain anonymous and could qualify you for a cash reward of up to $1,000.

Click here for past RCPD reports.

DailyReports_Media (5) DailyCitationMedia (5) DailyArrest_Media (5)

The post RCPD Report 3/28/26 appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

By Morgan Chilson

TOPEKA — Gov. Laura Kelly vetoed a bill that would provide income tax deductions for Kansans enrolled in health care sharing ministries plans, saying the organizations can leave everyday people with “huge medical bills.”

Health care sharing ministries are nonprofit organizations, often formed by people of the same faith or religious belief, to share health care costs by contributing monthly to a pool.

Senate Bill 368 allows for tax modifications based on qualified health care expenses or for shares received from those organizations, according to a legislative report.

“There’s a reason that regulators across the country are taking action against these so-called health care ministries because too often, everyday people are left with huge medical bills,” Kelly said in a news release Thursday. “These health care ministries aren’t regulated, which opens the door to all sorts of fraud and abuse.”

Kelly said her veto isn’t about limiting the ability to practice faith freely, but ensuring Kansans use health plans that cover their medical expenses.

In testimony on the bill, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, American Lung Association and Blood Cancer United raised concerns about health care sharing ministries being unregulated.

“HCSMs reserve the right to refuse to pay for services related to an individual’s pre-existing conditions, even after accepting the person as a member of the HCSM,” the testimony said. “They do not have to comply with requirements that limit out-of-pocket costs for patients, including caps on coverage, and they frequently exclude coverage of certain benefits.”

In addition, if a person isn’t getting adequate care though a fund, they may not be eligible to enroll in coverage through the Affordable Care Act because that wouldn’t be a qualifying event, the testimony said.

Proponents of the bill included the Kansas Catholic Conference, Americans for Prosperity and Kansas Family Voice.

Chuck Weber, executive director of the Kansas Catholic Conference, said the ministries act as not-for-profit clearinghouses to connect people with medical bills and those willing to pay them.

“It is important to note that members are still personally responsible for their own medical bills,” he said. “But members are grateful to be able to participate in a program where like-minded families pray for each other and help shoulder large, unexpected expenses.”

Speaker of the House Dan Hawkins said in a news release that he’s disappointed Kelly vetoed “straightforward tax relief” for families using health care plans that fit their needs.

“House Republicans believe families should have more flexibility and more control over their healthcare decisions, not fewer options and higher costs,” Hawkins said.

Senate President Ty Masterson said the Legislature will override the veto.

“Laura Kelly has deliberately chosen to drive up the cost of healthcare for the many Kansans that choose to use healthcare sharing ministries with her veto of SB 368,” he said. “This bi-partisan bill simply provides a tax deduction for Kansas taxpayers that use these important sharing ministries to cover healthcare costs for their families.”

The bill passed the House and Senate with votes along party lines. The House passed it 87 to 36 and the Senate, 33 to 7.

The post Kansas governor vetoes bill offering tax breaks to people using nontraditional health plans appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

By Anna Kaminski

TOPEKA — Legislators want the state of Kansas to pay local law students a stipend if they promise to practice in a rural part of the state upon graduation.

They also want to repay the student loans of working rural attorneys. It’s all part of an effort to address a persistent rural attorney shortage. House Bill 2595, or the “attorney training for rural Kansas act,” creates two programs meant to attract and retain practicing attorneys in the state’s rural areas.

More than 40% of the population lives in a rural part of the state but only 20% of the state’s attorneys practice there.

“By helping new lawyers build sustainable careers in rural communities, this legislation expands access to justice today and lays the groundwork for stronger communities in the years ahead,” said Gregory Schwartz, president of the Kansas Bar Association, in a Wednesday news release.

The student stipend program is meant for University of Kansas and Washburn University law students. Eligible students can receive up to $3,000 each school year for tuition, fees, books, supplies or other school-related expenses. Recipients must begin practicing in rural Kansas within 90 days of being admitted into the state bar, following law school graduation.

In exchange for each year’s stipend, graduates have to practice in rural Kansas for at least one consecutive year. So a full-time law student who used a stipend for each school year of the typical three-year track would be required by the program to practice law in rural Kansas for three years.

More seasoned attorneys who practice in rural areas can receive up to $100,000 in student loan repayments under the program, in maximum amounts of $20,000 each year. Participation is capped at five years.

The legislation classifies rural Kansas as anywhere in the state other than the population-dense Douglas, Johnson, Sedgwick, Shawnee and Wyandotte counties. With the addition of Leavenworth County, 80% of Kansas attorneys live in the aforementioned counties.

The bill had bipartisan, bicameral support, with only a handful of Republicans in both chambers voting against the bill. The programs were recommended by a judicial branch committee, but, as Agra Republican Rep. Ken Rahjes noted on the House floor Tuesday, the Senate eliminated judicial oversight of the programs, shifting it to the Kansas Department of Commerce.

Rep. Linda Featherston, an Overland Park Democrat, said the bill was important to justice in Kansas.

The Kansas Rural Justice Initiative Committee proposed 10 solutions, including these two programs, to address the dearth of rural attorneys and barriers to access to justice. The committee found that law school students struggled with large student debt loads and concerns about the availability of mentorship, housing and health care in rural areas.

Schwartz said the legislation supports the legal needs of rural Kansans.

“This investment is an important step toward strengthening the rural attorney pipeline,” he said, “and the Kansas Bar Association is committed to being an active partner in ensuring the program’s long‐term success.”

The House voted 119-3 Tuesday to send the bill to the governor. The Senate passed the bill 34-6 last week. If it becomes law, the programs could go into effect as early as this fall.

The post Kansas hopes to lure law students to rural areas by offering to pay part of their tuition appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

By Morgan Chilson

TOPEKA — A former Salina high school wrestling coach is accused of creating child pornography after secretly recording minors while they showered in a locker room.

Ryan Brungardt, 37, of Salina, is charged with three counts of sexual exploitation of a child — production of child pornography, and one count of attempted production of child pornography, according to a news release from the U.S. attorney’s office for Kansas.

He was a former wrestling coach at Salina Central High School.

A Wichita grand jury returned the indictment Monday, saying Brungardt “used, persuaded, induced, enticed and coerced” minor victims with the intent of transmitting visual media that he knew would be sent between states and out of the country.

Brungardt is accused of clandestinely using a cellphone to record minors while they showered in a locker room during a wrestling tournament held in Newton in January 2024, the news release said.

If convicted, Brungardt faces 15 to 30 years in prison and fines in excess of $250,000 on each count, according to the news release.

Investigators are also reviewing seized cellphone videos that may have been recorded at wrestling meets in Newton, Hays, Garden City and Salina. Anyone who believes they witnessed crimes or suspicious activity is encouraged to contact the Kansas Bureau of Investigation at (785) 600-8790 or visit www.kbi.ks.gov/sar.

The post Former Kansas high school wrestling coach accused of recording kids as they showered appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

TOPEKA — A bill changing how courts impose jail time on consecutive sentences and limiting who will be released on bond passed the House despite concerns about how much it will increase costs and remove judicial discretion.

House Bill 2444 addresses multiple issues, including limiting how days spent in custody while awaiting trial are applied toward consecutive sentences, limiting judicial discretion to release a person on their own recognizance, and requiring bonds of specific dollar amounts based on the crime the person allegedly committed.

On Monday, the House passed the bill 85-37 along party lines, concurring with Senate amendments and sending it to the governor for consideration. The Senate passed the bill Thursday on a 34-6 vote.

Rep. Dan Osman, an Overland Park Democrat, opposed the bill’s passage, pointing to projected costs to the state general fund in excess of $1.5 million each year.

The Kansas State Board of Indigents’ Defense Services “is expecting that their costs are going to increase by $800,000, and that alone is just the tip of the iceberg,” he said.

Osman said the Legislature is “putting our thumb on the scale” in a way that will encourage more people to seek a jury trial rather than plead because the bill changes sentencing.

“HB 2444 would replace discretion with blanket policy, upend other policy choices made by the Legislature, and result in more trials,” said public defender Jennifer Roth in testimony for a hearing earlier this year. “HB 2444 would take away discretion from district court judges in a sweeping fashion.”

Roth said the Legislature has “crafted a list of mitigating factors” that allowed judges to depart from sentencing guidelines, including factors for survivors of abuse, people with physical or mental impairments, and veterans.

“HB 2444 would prohibit a departure, regardless of the situation,” she said.

Osman on Monday called the bill “problematic” and said it would require more prison beds be available, noting that Senate changes shifted the bill to add 220 beds by 2036 — 124 of those next year.

“This is the highest we’ve seen for any bill this session — the highest we’ve seen for any bill for multiple sessions,” he said. “You can’t shove that off to the next Legislature and say it’s their problem to sort out. It’s our problem too. When you have bills that impact the prison bed space this dramatically … it is a certainty we are going to need to build new prisons because of this bill, and we’re not going to do it.”

Osman said there were no funds allocated to build new prisons to meet the needs of HB 2444.

The post Bill imposes longer prison sentences in Kansas — with $1.5M cost and need for more beds appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

By Morgan Chilson

TOPEKA — A contingent of House Republicans united with Democrats on Monday to push through a bill that reins in the middlemen operating between drug companies and pharmacies, offering more transparency for a system that can drive up prescription drug costs.

Senate Bill 360 was the original bill introduced to regulate pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. At the end of last week, it appeared House Speaker Dan Hawkins was going to make sure the bill didn’t move forward this session, along with another bill that addressed the federal 340B program controlling prescription costs for certain clinics and hospitals.

While the fate of the 340B bill is uncertain, the bill setting stricter controls on PBMs was inserted into Senate Bill 20 during a conference committee hearing.

The House passed the measure 104 to 17 after passionate debate, with opponents attempting to insert an amendment that would have sent the bill back to conference committee over a $10.50 dispensing fee to pharmacies included in the bill.

They said the dispensing fee, required to be paid by PBMs to pharmacists on all prescriptions they fill, will raise insurance fees and end up costing consumers.

Rep. Barb Wasinger, a Hays Republican, said was in favor of the transparency portions of the bill but disagreed with the dispensing fee. Although she didn’t think consumers would see it as a charge for each prescription they pick up, she said it would show up on insurance costs.

Rep. Pat Proctor, a Leavenworth Republican, said his constituents are worried the dispensing fee will show up as a “pill tax.”

“I love how, ‘Nobody’s’ going to pay the $10.50,” he said. “$10.50 is going to come out of the ether, apparently. You know who’s going to pay the $10.50? It’s not going to be the unions because they’re exempted. It’s not going to be the multi-billion dollar corporations because they’ve exempted themselves. The people who are going to pay this are all the small businesses that have to buy insurance policies.”

Other states have put similar PBM restrictions in place, along with dispensing fees, including Arkansas and West Virginia. Arkansas’ Insurance Department general counsel Booth Rand told the Arkansas Advocate that savings from rebates incorrectly applied by PBMs covered dispensing fees in West Virginia and he expected it to do the same in his state.

That portion of the bill requires PBMs to disclose the rebates they receive and how they are paid out. PBMs receive rebates from pharmaceutical companies in exchange for promoting their products, and they’re supposed to be used to lower the cost of the drugs. However, a criticism of PBMs that has driven laws being passed nationwide — including recent proposals to control PBM activities at the federal level — is that they keep the rebates as profits.

Both Republicans and Democrats spoke in favor of SB 20, painting it as an opportunity to help all Kansans through lower drug costs.

Augusta Republican Rep. Kristey Williams quoted from a federal report by an oversight committee looking into the effects of PBMs on the market. They found evidence PBMs steer patients to their pharmacies to reduce competition and that they use their position to artificially reduce reimbursement rates for competing pharmacies.

Williams said the $10.50 dispensing cost will be addressed by the elimination of “spread pricing” in the bill. Spread pricing refers to a PBM charging the insurance company or employer plan more than what it pays the pharmacist and then pocketing the difference, she said.

Williams also said a study from 2020 through 2023 of 9 million prescriptions found a “huge discrepancy” between what pharmacists received for the prescriptions — an amount that stayed relatively flat — and the amount charged to health plans, which increased. The report said spread pricing could be part of the difference.

“As our costs are going up, both for your employers, for our state health plan, the pharmacies are flatlining,” Williams said. “They haven’t gotten any more. They’re barely making it. So the study found that the employer cost rose 30% in those three years. You know what the reimbursement amount was for those pharmacies? Negative three.”

SB 20 advances to the Senate, which had already passed HB 360, the original bill.

The post Kansas House passes bill providing stricter regulation of prescription drug middlemen appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

The post Kansas House speaker desperately maneuvers to sabotage vote on Senate bill capping drug costs appeared first on News Radio KMAN.

The post Kansas Senate takes shot at coaxing House to endorse 23-hour alcohol sales for World Cup appeared first on News Radio KMAN.