Kris Kobach Challenges Johnson County Tax, Cites Mental Health and EMS as Not Public Safety

Legal Dispute Over Johnson County Sales Tax Renewal

A recent legal opinion from Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has sparked a debate over the renewal of Johnson County’s public safety sales tax. The controversy centers on whether the county board of commissioners exceeded its authority when it proposed a ballot question to extend the existing tax, which is set to expire in 2027.

Kobach argues that the proposed use of the tax funds goes beyond what Kansas law permits. Specifically, he claims that mental health services and emergency medical services do not qualify as public safety projects under state law. According to his interpretation, the tax should only fund physical facilities directly related to law enforcement and necessary programs.

The issue arose after Sen. Mike Thompson, a Republican from Shawnee, raised concerns about the potential burden of an additional sales tax on residents. Thompson emphasized that higher prices could reduce consumer spending and negatively impact the local economy. He hopes the attorney general’s opinion will encourage the county board to reconsider the proposal, especially given the rising costs of other taxes.

Understanding the Public Safety Sales Tax

The Johnson County Public Safety Sales Tax is a quarter-cent tax approved by voters in 2016. Since then, the funds have been used for various projects, including the construction of the new courthouse and medical examiner’s facility. Cities within the county have also utilized the money for police vehicles, mental health co-responders, and facility improvements.

The tax is scheduled to expire in March 2027, prompting the county board of commissioners to propose an extension. In May, they voted to place the renewal question on the November 2025 general election ballot. The proposed measure asks voters to approve a 1/4-cent sales tax for ten years, starting April 1, 2027. The funds would be distributed to the county and cities, with the county using the money for public safety projects such as emergency services, sheriff’s office operations, mental health crisis intervention, and criminal justice system support.

The county board claims that the renewal is necessary due to population growth, an aging demographic, and increasing demand for mental health and emergency services. Rising inflation, competitive wages, and uncertain funding sources from state and federal governments are also contributing to higher costs for emergency response services.

If approved, the tax would generate approximately $54 million annually, split between the county and cities. Residents would pay one cent on a $5 purchase or 25 cents on a $100 purchase.

Legal Implications and County Response

In his opinion, Kobach stated that the Kansas statute allows the board to seek a sales tax that funds "certain public safety projects," specifically "physical facilities directly related to law enforcement and necessary related programs." He argued that mental health services and emergency medical services do not meet this criterion, as they are not physical structures directly tied to law enforcement.

Kobach also pointed out that the renewed tax would not fund the same projects as the original tax, since the courthouse and coroner facility—paid for with the initial tax—will be completed by the time the current tax expires. He described the situation as a "fine line" and claimed that the proposition exceeds the board’s authority, making it null and void.

Despite the opinion, Johnson County Communications and Engagement Director Lisa Thurber stated that the board is reviewing the matter. She noted that the opinion is not legally binding but is being considered carefully. Johnson County Sheriff Byron Roberson expressed support for investing in public safety but said he will wait for more information before commenting further on the attorney general’s opinion.

Fred Sherman, the county elections commissioner, emphasized that the decision to include, adjust, or remove the ballot question rests with the commissioners. The county has until September to submit or withdraw the question from the November 5 ballot.

This ongoing debate highlights the complex balance between funding essential public services and adhering to legal constraints. As the county moves forward, the outcome of the ballot vote will play a critical role in shaping the future of public safety in Johnson County.