Kansas Senate Bill SB472

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Report Pass: 2/16/26

Caption

Authorizing the administrator to set and the commissioner of insurance to cause to be published in the Kansas register certain fees and eliminating the 10% credit to the state general fund required of fee funded agencies as reimbursement for certain services provided by the state.

Summary

SB 472 revises several provisions of Kansas securities and insurance law to give the relevant administrator/commissioner authority to set certain filing, registration, examination, and licensing fees by rule or order, subject to statutory caps. The bill also requires those fees to be published annually in the Kansas Register so regulated parties know the amounts for the next calendar year. In addition, it updates administrative language throughout the Kansas Uniform Securities Act and insurance statutes to reflect the Kansas Department of Insurance’s role in administering these programs. A major fiscal change in the bill is the elimination of the 10% credit to the state general fund for the securities-related fee fund and other listed fee funds, meaning those revenues would remain in the applicable fund rather than being partially diverted to the general fund. The bill also preserves existing fee ceilings for securities filings, broker-dealer and investment adviser registrations, insurance agent examinations, and excess lines licenses, while allowing the agency to determine the exact amounts within those limits. It retains existing consumer-protection and disclosure requirements for securities offerings and excess lines insurance placements, and it continues to authorize stop orders and other enforcement tools for noncompliance. The bill’s impact on state law is primarily administrative and fiscal rather than substantive in terms of market regulation. It amends multiple sections of the Kansas Uniform Securities Act and insurance code to shift fee-setting authority to the agency, require annual publication of fees, and remove the statutory general-fund sweep from certain fee collections. Regulated entities such as securities issuers, broker-dealers, investment advisers, insurance agents, and excess lines agents would be affected by any fee changes, but the underlying licensing and disclosure frameworks remain largely intact. Because no committee transcript or recorded votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of debate, support, or opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill caption and text, the measure appears to be a technical and budget-related administrative bill rather than a controversial policy overhaul. The main point of potential contention is the fiscal effect of ending the 10% general fund credit, since that change would keep more fee revenue within the affected agency funds and reduce transfers to the state general fund. Overall, the bill appears aimed at improving fee-setting flexibility for the Department of Insurance and securities administration while maintaining transparency through annual publication of fees. It also standardizes references to the commissioner and administrator across the amended statutes and updates fund accounting rules to align with the bill’s revenue changes.

Impact

SB 472 amends Kansas securities and insurance statutes to authorize agency-set fees within existing statutory caps, require annual publication of those fees in the Kansas Register, and remove the 10% general-fund credit from specified fee collections. The bill affects the Kansas Uniform Securities Act, insurance agent examination fees, excess lines licensing fees, and the securities act fee fund, while leaving most substantive licensing, filing, disclosure, and enforcement provisions unchanged.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded public sentiment in the supplied materials. From the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a largely technical, administrative, and fiscal proposal with a neutral policy profile, focused on fee administration and fund allocation rather than substantive regulation changes.

Contention

The most likely point of contention is fiscal: the bill would eliminate the 10% credit to the state general fund for certain fee-funded agencies, keeping more revenue in the affected fee funds. That could draw concern from budget writers or general-fund advocates, while the Department of Insurance and securities administrators would likely favor the added flexibility to set and publish fees annually. No other specific disputes are documented in the provided materials.