Committee on Taxation reviews Senate Bill 82 setting 3% property tax cap and Astra Fund distribution

At a meeting of the Committee on Taxation, members reviewed the provisions of Senate Bill 82, a measure that would limit annual property tax revenue growth and create a $60,000,000 Astra Fund to provide transfers to taxing jurisdictions.

The bill would set a property tax funding limit equal to the lesser of 3% (plus growth from new construction) or a formula tied to a regional consumer price index plus new-construction growth and bond increases. Local governing bodies could exceed that limit only by a supermajority vote; "it should be 80% or more," a committee reviser said. The proposal also creates a $60 million Astra Fund whose transfers to counties would be reduced depending on whether a county exceeds certain revenue thresholds.

The Astra Fund distribution, as described to the committee, would allocate a taxing district's share of the $60 million at 100% if the district does not exceed the revenue-neutral rate; 75% if it exceeds the revenue-neutral rate but not the midpoint between the revenue-neutral rate and the proposed property tax limit; 50% if it exceeds that midpoint but not the cap; and 0% if it exceeds the cap or attempts to exceed the cap but the attempt fails. "The, the bill includes a, property tax funding limit, that can be exceeded by a vote of at least 80% of the members of the governing body of a taxing jurisdiction," Eddie, the committee reviser, said. He added that the State Treasurer's Office would be authorized to investigate failed attempts to exceed the limit.

Lawmakers discussed related work on earlier legislation. The reviser said the distribution method and the population-and-valuation calculation are the same as in House Bill 2396. Committee members also noted that lobbyists had circulated opposition emails that, in their view, mischaracterized the bill. One member said, "There's nothing This is just the carrot. There's no stick," characterizing the proposal as offering incentives rather than penalties.

Committee members confirmed the bill's effective date would be the register-effective date that the reviser described and said they had an "agree to disagree" report on the measure. Several members indicated a desire to move quickly; one member said the committee would like to vote on the bill that day and asked staff to prepare the report for signatures.

No formal motion or vote is recorded in the transcript excerpt. Committee discussion included clarifying technical elements of the distribution calculation and whether state officials had been briefed; a senator said the State Treasurer's Office had not heard about the revised proposal since the committee met the previous day, while the reviser said staff had worked with that office on the House version of 2396 but had not followed up after creating the current committee-conference committee report.