Kansas Senate Bill SB202

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Filed/Introduced: 8/8/26
• Introduced: 2/5/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

Transferring teachers from the KPERS 3 cash balance plan to the KPERS 2 plan and defining teachers for purposes of KPERS.

Summary

SB 202 would move certain Kansas teachers from the Kansas Public Employees Retirement System (KPERS) 2015 plan, commonly referred to as KPERS 3, into the KPERS 2009 plan, commonly referred to as KPERS 2. The bill defines “teacher” for this purpose to include certified teachers in school districts and teachers or instructors at technical colleges and community colleges. It applies prospectively to teachers first employed on or after July 1, 2025, and also requires that all active and inactive teacher members in KPERS 3 be transferred to KPERS 2 on January 1, 2026. The bill directs that member and employer contributions, along with prior service credit, be transferred with those teachers, and it guarantees that transferred teachers will receive benefits under KPERS 2 that are no less than what they were entitled to under KPERS 3 at the time of transfer. It also authorizes the KPERS board to take the steps necessary to complete the transfer while preserving the retirement system’s federal tax qualification as a governmental plan. Employer contributions and interest are to be used to help offset the cost of the transfer, and participating employers become subject to KPERS 2 obligations for the transferred teachers. In practical terms, SB 202 would amend Kansas retirement law by carving teachers out of the 2015 KPERS structure and placing them under the older 2009 structure, while preserving accrued rights and service credit. It also updates the statutory language governing KPERS 2015 to exclude these teachers from that plan going forward. The bill therefore affects the retirement benefits, contribution obligations, and plan administration for school districts, technical colleges, community colleges, teachers, and the KPERS board. The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of revisiting KPERS structure and making adjustments based on prior audit findings and ongoing legislative review. The bill’s findings section explicitly references a 2024 post audit report and states an intent to continue reviewing KPERS and make changes as necessary. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the supplied materials. The main point of potential contention is the policy choice to move teachers from the newer KPERS 3 cash balance plan to the older KPERS 2 plan. That shift could raise questions about cost, fairness across employee groups, employer contribution impacts, and long-term retirement system sustainability. Another possible issue is the administrative complexity of transferring assets, service credit, and obligations while ensuring compliance with federal pension qualification rules.

Impact

SB 202 would amend Kansas retirement statutes by redefining how teachers are treated under KPERS and by moving them from the KPERS 2015 plan to the KPERS 2009 plan. It would affect K.S.A. 74-49,301 and related provisions, require transfer of contributions and service credit, and impose KPERS 2 obligations on participating employers for the affected teachers. The bill would also require the KPERS board to implement the transfer in a way that preserves federal governmental-plan status.

Sentiment

The bill appears generally favorable toward changing teacher retirement coverage and continuing legislative oversight of KPERS. Its findings section cites a recent audit and frames the measure as part of an ongoing effort to improve the retirement system. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded public opposition or support beyond the bill’s own stated rationale.

Contention

The likely controversy is whether teachers should be moved from KPERS 3 to KPERS 2, since that change can affect benefit design, employer costs, and the overall balance of the retirement system. Stakeholders such as school employers, KPERS administrators, and retirement policy advocates may differ on whether the transfer improves fairness and retirement security or creates added fiscal and administrative burdens. The requirement to preserve benefits at least equal to KPERS 3 and to manage the transfer without jeopardizing federal tax qualification also adds implementation complexity.