Kansas Senate Commerce Committee briefed on SB 30, proposal to tighten legislative review of occupational licenses

The Senate Committee on Commerce held an informational briefing on Senate Bill 30 on Jan. 22 to bring new members up to speed on proposed changes to how Kansas reviews occupational licensing.

Amelia Kovar Donahue, assistant reviser in the Office of Reviser of Statutes, told the committee SB 30 is currently in conference and that a conference committee report (CCR 2025 SB 30 H2 11) had struck the bill’s original contents and instead included provisions of Senate Bill 229 as amended. She said portions of SB 30 dealing with background checks were moved into House Bill 2342, which became law upon publication in the Kansas Register on May 1, 2025.

Under the conference committee report Kovar Donahue described, agencies would be required to submit an annual report to the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules and Regulations (JCAR) each September listing every occupational license they oversee and enumerated data points for each license (including number of current holders, typical employment, governing statutes and regulations, federal mandates, education/training requirements, fees, moral-character requirements and reciprocity agreements). A new section would require that any new occupational license or a material change to an existing license adopted by an agency on or after July 1, 2025, take effect only after approval by the legislature via joint resolution unless the requirement had been enacted under KSA 77,441. The measure also creates a committee review process that would include a Kansas Legislative Research Department (KLRD) staff report before a joint resolution is considered.

Proponents argued the bill would reduce unnecessary barriers to work. "Does this license really need to exist?" Tanner Temple of Americans for Prosperity asked, urging routine review of licenses that do not protect public health or safety. Wendy Doyle, president and CEO of UnitedWe, said Kansas’s large male-female self-employment gap and higher female licensing rates mean reform could expand opportunity for women entrepreneurs; she cited examples such as spray tanning and pet grooming as services that may not pose public-health risks requiring state licensure.

A representative of the Secretary of State’s Office, who identified himself as Clay Barker, general counsel, said legislative oversight is important because licensing choices determine "who may work, under what conditions, and at what cost," and he described the bill’s three components—definitions, reporting and legislative review—as a first step toward a framework for oversight.

Opponents representing the accounting profession urged explicit exemptions. Scott Lloyd, a CPA from Galva and secretary-treasurer of the Kansas CPA Society, said the profession has a rigorous regulatory and ethics process and asked that CPAs be exempted in the same manner as architects and engineers. Aaron Dunn, a board member of the Kansas Board of Accountancy, also recommended an exemption and warned that the profession needs the ability to adapt quickly to changes such as alternative practice structures and pathways to licensure.

A fiscal analyst told the committee an earlier fiscal note for SB 229 estimated $225,000 from the State General Fund in the first year for salaries, wages and operating expenditures for the Secretary of State’s Office; the analyst said committee changes were not expected to materially change that impact and that the Legislature’s budget would not be affected.

Committee members asked several clarifying questions: whether the measure raises constitutional issues referenced as the "Stevens case" (staff could not recall the prior hearing and proponents were asked to expand on the argument), whether fingerprinting or background-check provisions were still pending (staff said those provisions were enacted via HB 2342), and whether certain professions—teachers and attorneys—would be explicitly excluded (staff said the term "agency" is broad and that the committee may want to clarify exclusions).

The committee treated the meeting as informational and took no votes on SB 30. Members were reminded of upcoming committee business, including scheduled budget hearings on the Commerce budget and a hearing on SB 334. The committee adjourned with no formal action on SB 30.