Conference negotiators tentatively back 3%‑or‑formula tax cap, 80% local vote and tiered ASTRA payments

Conference negotiators working on bill 2125 discussed three mechanisms to limit local property‑tax increases and reached a tentative compromise to draft language that would set the threshold at the lower of a flat 3% or the House formula, require an 80% vote of elected members of the governing body to exceed that threshold, and create tiered distributions of ASTRA funds to reward jurisdictions that remain revenue neutral or stay below specified thresholds.

The discussion centered on three options the conference has considered: a citizen protest petition process the House adopted, a voter election tied to primary or mail ballots, and a requirement that the local governing board approve any budget that exceeds the limit by a supermajority. Eddie (staff member) summarized the House approach as a petition process in which the taxing jurisdiction certifies a budget that exceeds the limit to the county treasurer, the treasurer posts notice, qualified voters have 30 days to sign a protest petition, and if signatures equal at least 10% of the votes cast in the most recent presidential general election the taxing entity must amend its budget down to the statutory limit.

Under the election option described in the conference report, taxing jurisdictions would certify intent to exceed the limit to the county clerk by June 1; where applicable the question would be placed on an August primary ballot, and in jurisdictions without an August primary the county clerk could schedule a mail ballot election on Sept. 15 in odd‑numbered years. Committee members also discussed logistics tied to the committee’s existing calendar: budgets would be due and certified by Oct. 1 under the negotiated schedule.

Several members said they favored abandoning the protest petition or election processes in favor of a local governing‑body vote for simplicity. "We do like the idea of the governing body for simplicity and where we're at in the process," said Madam Chair (unnamed). Under the governing‑body option the committee discussed requiring a supermajority to approve a budget that exceeds the limit; the group converged on an 80% threshold, to be computed as 80% of the total number of elected members rather than 80% of members present, to reduce the potential for tactical absences.

Conference members also debated how to structure ASTRA distributions — the state funds intended as an incentive for jurisdictions to hold property taxes steady. Earlier drafts would have given counties a fixed 25% share regardless of local decisions; negotiators discussed making the ASTRA distribution depend on local outcomes. One working proposal that gained traction would allocate 75% of a jurisdiction’s ASTRA share if it stays at revenue neutral or below the midpoint between revenue neutral and the statutory threshold, 50% if it stays under the maximum formula (for example, 4% plus new construction under prior language), and 0% if the jurisdiction attempts to exceed the threshold and fails. Committee members also discussed alternatives to the tiered cliff — including a sliding or “slope” formula that would apportion ASTRA payments continuously rather than in discrete steps.

Members asked how the state would verify local outcomes. Staff suggested that meeting minutes recording the local vote could be submitted to the state treasurer’s office for verification and that a complaint process could allow residents to challenge certifications if discrepancies were alleged. Conference attendees discussed adding audit or repayment language if a jurisdiction received ASTRA funds after misreporting its local vote and later a review found otherwise, but they did not adopt final enforcement language during the session.

No formal votes were taken during the discussion. Committee members directed staff to draft the compromise language reflecting the agreed items — threshold language (3% or House formula, whichever is lower), an 80% requirement of total elected members to exceed the threshold, an Oct. 1 certification/deadline for budgets, and tiered ASTRA distributions with verification procedures — and to circulate the draft so that it could be filed and, if possible, run on the floor that evening or the following morning. Participants said they would reconvene quickly to consider the drafted language.

The conference discussion referenced prior committee and conference work on bill 2125 and multiple earlier provisions; negotiators emphasized that many elements remained to be finalized in drafting. The staff summary and repeated procedural questions indicated the parties considered the agreement preliminary and subject to revision during drafting and any subsequent floor action.