[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6662022,"mediaKeyId","2401494-3a064c4abdd332b20a4b0a25516771da","parentId",2401494,"title","Russell County officials ask Legislature for option to impose countywide sales tax to fund school facility upgrades","audioSeconds",1434,"startMs",312000,"endMs",1746000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2401494-3a064c4abdd332b20a4b0a25516771da&start=312&end=1746","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2401494-3a064c4abdd332b20a4b0a25516771da/thumbnail_312000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6662022/Kansas/Russell-County-officials-ask-Legislature-for-option-to-impose-countywide-sales-tax-to-fund-school-facility-upgrades","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662022-0680c366a526a1c45d84ff30c5d9ff69/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157337&Signature=KXmXe1A-cCIYfIN--ZTtw19zQ6nYgr7XJAYernjyH2yUEyy9X5V9ehQ1ha4nIy5WwS7MXOhAKZ5gAtvsXFlT7a1c17Ikf2fXO1Q7EkbwkwjjritWWFJkb-tZhaUNBcYNyIw2GjtpXMtwY4NrzQbRzUVlt~ykLMzVXHW~B0StgB-mJjWi4ThN6iHFd30ZkcDq~u4C51aDxzE6dmwhRgyRjQfSLT6-z-Su4Mj-BIR7wkZ~RofwsvfTx9pdPtIrmnshWHOMXU~saUX07BXntZ55VcisHPFlmh29pnv2q7lkBctJRt5ZqkA8Q16GkfLLRbfiGNn6dYVBEnXuUybk3zLEwA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Assessment and Taxation","date","2025-02-26T16:42:17.06Z","article","Russell County officials and community members asked the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee to allow Russell County voters to decide whether to impose a countywide retailer sales tax of up to 1% to finance school construction, remodeling, capital improvements and maintenance.

Amelia, speaking for the committee staff, explained that Senate Bill 223 would authorize Russell County to submit a proposition to county electors to impose a countywide retailer sales tax of up to 1% and to pledge that revenue to finance attendance centers or other district facilities for school districts in the county. Amelia said the tax would expire once the authorized costs are paid and that the bill’s text would allow the county to retain and expend the revenue solely for the pledged purposes. She also noted the bill would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Jason Crew, a Russell County commissioner for District 2, said USD 407 and the county face long-running facility problems and declining enrollment that threaten local tax base and economic vitality. \"I'm asking you today to give us that opportunity,\" Crew told the committee, describing years of steering-committee work and saying the last bond the district passed was in 1959. He said county leaders believe including a countywide sales tax in financing would improve the chance of passing a bond and help retain families and businesses.

Mandy Trout, co-chair of the Russell steering committee and a longtime former Russell High School teacher, gave details about the district’s infrastructure needs. \"With just the needs of our school, we are looking at $30,000,000 of improvements,\" Trout said, describing failing boilers, inadequate electrical capacity for expanded technology and CTE programs, mobility and accessibility problems in multi-level buildings, and storm shelter concerns. Trout said the steering committee surveyed homeowners, businesses and agricultural land values to estimate the tax impact and concluded a countywide tax would generate materially more revenue than a city-level tax: committee figures cited roughly $2,200,000 in county-level revenue vs. about $450,000 from a city tax for 2024.

Committee members asked whether revenue from the proposed tax would go to municipalities; Amelia clarified the bill provides that the entirety of the sales tax collected would go to the county and be expended for the pledged school facilities. Another committee staff member, identified as Eddie, noted that city sales taxes in some instances have been used for school purposes where a city made a finding advising that use and that the Kansas Supreme Court has addressed city sales taxes and schools.

Proponents framed the request as a locally driven solution: the steering committee surveyed the community, visited every facility, and proposed dividing proceeds among the county’s four school districts based on student populations. The committee closed the hearing on SB 223 with proponents but recorded no opponents or neutral testimony and no formal committee action during the session.

The bill would require voter approval in Russell County to impose the tax and, if approved, the revenue pledge and expiration would be set in the proposition approved by voters.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation 02/26/2025","oneSentenceSummary","Proponents of Senate Bill 223 told the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee they want authority to place a countywide retailer sales tax of up to 1% on the ballot to finance $30 million in repairs and upgrades across USD 407 and other districts in Russell County.","taxTitle","Assessment and Taxation, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",20419,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6662026,"Bill would waive duplicate filing fees for taxpayers with pending Board of Tax Appeals cases",0,1108000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2401494-3a064c4abdd332b20a4b0a25516771da&start=1108&end=1108","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2401494-3a064c4abdd332b20a4b0a25516771da/thumbnail_1108000.jpg","/articles/6662026/Kansas/Bill-would-waive-duplicate-filing-fees-for-taxpayers-with-pending-Board-of-Tax-Appeals-cases","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662026-3e422d1dc204d769ac08e2d6d1fabf7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771157337&Signature=M5Hu36fgyJITeUs5YJmcp1muPsLcpf8OGS8pYzv63e4Ox5lldd7kddz8wX06Tx1GBDOZKvwdwF3PSjTvmgU--ERoE6xokphxiUoGhPao4YDZ5H5AC3IMpPEV5kYu29h3i6AD7K-Mi32Ii~9ALj5Fd42-y9jd97f4BBozv00HzqfN6h52bp7qDCZMxuCGKgrpgYJkFk2XFBUNmtKcrNCuTV2Ea0DxGB6JOgg8KjURdxa7QmVoIfsgC9w6uACCw~DBFEtBypHegi8aZylb2XKjQYnS7tYnauysOhC2lkajWkVcN4cnt1uIm58imIDvIPtk27KIh0Uc4~fJS9T1JDbloQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Senate Bill 269 would prevent the State Board of Tax Appeals from charging a second filing fee to a taxpayer who has an earlier appeal still pending before the board when the taxpayer files another appeal for a later tax year.

The bill was described to the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee by a committee staff member identified in the hearing as Amelia. She said the bill would amend the statutory list of fee exceptions in KSA provisions to add a new exception: no filing fee would be charged if a taxpayer has filed an appeal for a previous year that remains pending before the Board of Tax Appeals at the time another appeal is filed. Amelia explained the current statutory language requires the earlier appeal to have passed the time periods in KSA that govern summary or full opinions — 14 days for a summary decision or up to 90 days if a full opinion is requested — before the exception applies. Under the proposed change, the exception would apply even if the earlier appeal is simply still pending and not yet scheduled for hearing.

Eric Stafford, representing the Kansas Chamber, testified in support. \"This is a good pro-taxpayer piece of legislation that really isn't that complex,\" Stafford said, adding that it is fair for a taxpayer to avoid paying a second filing fee when the first appeal has not been addressed. The committee did not record any opposition or neutral testimony during the hearing.

Committee members asked clarifying questions during the hearing; one member summarized the effect as meaning a taxpayer who has already paid to file an appeal would not be required to pay again if the earlier appeal has not yet been heard. Amelia confirmed the process point that each tax year is treated as a separate appeal that typically requires a separate filing fee unless an exception applies.

The committee closed the hearing on SB 269 with no recorded vote or formal action on the bill during the session.

Proponents at the hearing characterized the bill as a narrow, taxpayer-friendly technical fix to avoid duplicate fees while cases remain pending before the Board of Tax Appeals.","Senate Bill 269 would amend statutory exceptions to the Board of Tax Appeals filing fee so taxpayers who have a previous year's appeal still pending would not owe a new filing fee for a subsequent year’s appeal while the earlier case remains undecided.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Russell County officials ask Legislature for option to impose countywide sales tax to fund school facility upgrades

Bill would waive duplicate filing fees for taxpayers with pending Board of Tax Appeals cases