Kansas Attorney General Opinion 2013-006

March 5, 2013
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2013- 6
John T. Bird, City Attorney
City of Hays
200 West 13th Street
P.O. Box 727
Hays, KS 67601-0727
Re: 	Cities and Municipalities—Retirement Systems—Group Health Care Benefits
Plan; Availability for Retirants; Coverage, End; Eligibility; Cost of Coverage;
Definitions
Synopsis: 	K.S.A. 12-5040 does not require a local government to make coverage under
its group health care benefits plan available to former employees who left
employment with the local government for reasons other than retirement.
Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-5040.
* 	* 	*
Dear Mr. Bird:
As City Attorney for the City of Hays, Kansas, you ask for our opinion on whether the City
is required to make coverage under its group health care benefits plan available to a
former city employee who resigned employment with the City in 2003 but did not begin
collecting retirement benefits under KPERS until September 2012. You are unaware of the
former city employee’s employment, or lack thereof, during this interim period. 	If it is our
opinion that the City must provide coverage, you also ask what method a city may use to
gather the information on the former employee’s eligibility for coverage from another
employer.
The applicable statute for local governments providing group health care benefits to their
employees is K.S.A. 12-5040. It provides:

Mr. John Bird
Page 2
(a) Each local government which provides an employer-sponsored group
health care benefits plan for the employees of the local government shall
make coverage under such group health care benefits program available to
retired former employees and their dependents, upon written application filed
with the clerk or secretary thereof within 30 days following retirement of the
employee, as provided by this section. 	Coverage under the employee group
health care benefits plan may cease to be made available upon (1) the retired
employee attaining age 65, (2) the retired employee failing to make required
premium payments on a timely basis, or (3) the retired employee becoming
covered 	or 	becoming 	eligible 	to 	be 	covered 	under 	a 	plan 	of 	another
employer.
(b) Each such local government shall make such coverage available to all
persons who were employed by the local government for not less than 10
years and who retired from such employment after December 31, 1988, and
may make such coverage available to other retired employees and their
dependents. 	Each such retired employee who elects to continue such
coverage 	may 	be 	required 	to 	contribute 	to 	the 	employee 	group 	health
benefits plan, including the administrative costs thereof, but such contribution
shall not exceed 125% of the premium cost for other similarly situated
employees. 	The local government may pay for all or part of the cost of
continuing the employee group health care benefits plan coverage for such
retired former employees and their dependents.
(c) As used in this section, “local government” means any county, city,
township, special district, unified school district or any instrumentality of any
one or several of such governmental entities; and “retired” means any
employee who has terminated employment and is receiving a retirement or
disability benefit for service with the local government from which they
terminated employment.
At first glance, it appears K.S.A. 12-5040 is susceptible to different meanings. 	Under
subsection (a), K.S.A. 12-5040 requires a local government to provide group health care
benefits coverage to a "retired former employee" who worked for the local government for
more than 10 years if it provided such coverage to its employees. 	Under subsection (c),
the definition of "retired" could include persons who resign from employment and later elect
to receive retirement benefits for service with the local government from which they
terminated employment. 	Thus, the former employee described in your letter appears to
qualify under subsections (a) and (c).
By contrast, subsection (b) of K.S.A. 12-5040 states that the local government is not
required to make group health care benefits coverage available unless the employee was
employed 	by 	the 	local 	government 	for 	at 	least 	10 	years 	and 	"retired 	from 	such
employment." In other words, the phrase, "retired from such employment" modifies the first
phrase, "employed by the local government." 	Thus, the reason that the employee leaves
the employment with the local government is retirement. 	The former employee described

Mr. John Bird
Page 3
in your letter appears not to qualify under section (b) because he resigned from his
employment in 2003 for reasons other than retirement.
However, subsection (a) pertaining to coverage for "retired former employees" contains
qualifying language, "as provided by this section." 	Thus, subsection (a), and thereby the
definition of "retired" in subsection (c), must be read in conjunction with the limiting
language regarding eligibility in subsection (b). In reading the provisions of K.S.A. 12-5040
together, a local government is only required to make group health coverage available to
those retired former employees who worked for the local government for at least 10 years
and retired from that employment. This interpretation is consistent with the rule of statutory
construction known as in pari materia. 	That is, provisions relating to the same thing must
be read together in an attempt to reconcile their differences and reach sensible and
rational results.1
Even if we found that the language in K.S.A. 12-5040 is ambiguous and resorted to
legislative history to construe the statute,2 we would conclude that it is the intent of the
legislature to extend coverage only to employees whose retirement from the covered
employer caused such employees to lose coverage.3
Having concluded that the City is not required to make coverage under its group health
care benefits plan available to former employees who left employment with the local
government for reasons other than retirement, we do not need to address your second
question on what method a city is permitted to use to gather information on employee
eligibility for coverage.
Sincerely,
Derek Schmidt
Attorney General
Athena E. Andaya
Deputy Attorney General
Janet L. Arndt
Assistant Attorney General
DS:AA:JLA:sb
1 Martindale v. Tenny, 250 Kan. 621, 632 (2006).
2 In re K.M.H., 285 Kan. 53, 79, (2007). If statutory language or text is unclear or ambiguous, we apply
canons of statutory construction or rely on legislative history to give effect to the legislature’s intent.
3 See Report on Kansas Legislative Interim Studies to the 1988 Legislature: Proposal No. 36—Retirants
Health Care Benefits Plan (December, 1987) and Attorney General Opinion Nos. 89-122, 94-31 and 2001-11.