Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Sales Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Seward County sales-tax proposal receives hearing; proponents say revenue needed for roads and bridges
Summary
House Bill 2004 would authorize Seward County to ask voters to impose a 0.5% countywide retailer sales tax for road and bridge projects for 10 years; proponents said existing fuel-tax funding has lagged and heavy trucks add wear. Committee held a hearing and closed the record; no committee vote recorded in transcript.
Committee staff member Amelia gave an overview of House Bill 2004, saying the bill “relates to sales and compensating use tax and provides countywide retailer sales tax authority for Seward County.” Amelia explained the proposal would authorize the county to submit a proposition to voters to impose a countywide retailer sales tax at a rate of one-half of 1 percent, with revenues pledged “for the purpose of financing the costs of roadway and bridge construction, maintenance, and improvement.” The tax would expire after 10 years; subsequent elections could reauthorize additional 10-year periods.
Amelia also noted the bill had passed the Kansas House on Jan. 30 by a vote of 116 to 1 and said the bill would take effect after publication in the statute book.
Representative Shannon Francis, a Seward County resident, testified as a conferee and described local needs. “This just gives us the gives the residents of our the electors of our county, the opportunity to make this decision if they so choose,” Francis said. She told the committee that state fuel-tax revenue that funds the special state city-county highway fund has been flat for about 20 years and that greater fuel efficiency and electric vehicles have limited that funding source. Francis said growth in the dairy and ethanol industries has increased heavy-truck traffic in the county and stressed the county’s desire for another source of revenue for roads.
Senators questioned the bill’s statutory language, possible cleanup of outdated statutory references and whether counties understand how revenues are apportioned. Senator Peck asked whether revisers had examined expired statutory provisions; Amelia said a cleanup could be requested. The committee discussed an apportionment exception that would allow all of the countywide sales-tax revenue to be retained by the county; Amelia confirmed the bill is written to include Seward County in that exception so “all of the money would go to the county for their stated purpose.”
Senator Petersen asked about the condition of Seward County bridges; Representative Francis said the county has relatively few bridges but has at least one that needs work and said repairs were already scheduled. Senator Stein used the opportunity to urge support for a separate county home-rule resolution (transcript referenced “SCR 16 o 5, the county's home rule”), arguing for local flexibility in taxation.
Two conferees participating by WebEx could not be heard; the committee noted written testimony from Scott Carte and April Warden and from Jay Hall. After public and conferee testimony and questions, the committee chair closed the hearing on House Bill 2004. The transcript records no committee vote on the bill during this session.
Because the bill would put a countywide sales-tax question before voters, committee members repeatedly noted that municipal apportionment rules and statutory exceptions affect how revenue would be distributed, and they urged careful statutory drafting to ensure Seward County’s stated purpose is met.
