Conference conferees back election trigger for tax lid, set June 15 notice and reshape Astra Fund

Conferees on the Committee on Taxation agreed on a package of changes to how local governments notify voters and trigger elections when they intend to exceed a property-tax threshold, and on how a new Astra Fund would be allocated.

Under the tentative agreement, a taxing entity that intends to adopt a budget exceeding the agreed threshold must certify that intent to the county clerk by June 15. If an entity fails to certify by that date it would be restricted from adopting a budget above the threshold. The conferees also agreed to replace the prior protest-petition mechanism with an election placed on the primary ballot by this certification process.

Why this matters: the change replaces a petition-driven process with a scheduled-election trigger that supporters said will be clearer for voters and administrators. Conferees discussed trade-offs including whether smaller jurisdictions that lack primaries would incur extra election costs and whether the state should reimburse those costs.

Key points and mechanics

- Trigger and timing: Conferees agreed the certification to the county clerk must occur by June 15 to put the question on the next primary ballot (the primary is the first Tuesday in August). The committee directed staff to ensure statutory language clarifies that an entity that misses the deadline may not adopt a budget exceeding the threshold.

- Election method: The group agreed the packet should allow the question to appear on the primary ballot (the revision follows earlier statutory language that allowed primary, general, mail ballot or special election). The ballot question under discussion would be a yes/no vote on whether the taxing entity should be allowed to exceed the threshold; the exact dollar amount of any exceedance would not be on the ballot because budget figures are not final at certification.

- Who is covered: Conferees discussed limiting eligibility to cities and counties for Astra Fund payments; the House position had applied to every taxing authority, but the working agreement narrows Astra payments to municipalities and counties (other taxing subdivisions may still be subject to the election requirement depending on final language). The conferees noted school districts and the state were discussed separately.

- County responsibilities and election costs: The committee agreed counties will administer and bear the cost of any election called under this process. Conferees discussed options to avoid penalizing counties when a small special-purpose district (for example, a fire district) causes an election; the working approach is that counties pay the election cost, with a separate treatment in the Astra Fund for payment eligibility.

Astra Fund design and allocation

- Size and indexing: Conferees preserved the Astra Fund concept as proposed in the conference materials: an initial appropriation of $60,000,000 with an annual adjustment of 2 percent. The committee discussed making unused fund balances stay in the Astra Fund so the succeeding year’s transfer requirement would be reduced by any balance on hand rather than mandating an additional full $60 million each year.

- Eligibility and penalties: Under the working agreement, a municipality or county that intentionally stays below the threshold on its own would be eligible for its Astra allocation. If a county or municipality takes a measure to an election and the voters prevent the entity from exceeding the threshold, the county would still receive 25% of its scheduled Astra allocation (the conferees agreed to a partial payment rather than full disqualification). Some smaller taxing subdivisions (for example, fire districts) were noted as not being Astra-eligible in the working proposal and would not receive payments; conferees discussed that counties would nonetheless bear election costs in that case.

Revenue-neutral notice form and timing

- The group directed that changes to the revenue-neutral notice form (including adding totals and mill-levy labels and possible secondary-page tax-amount estimates) will be finalized by staff and that statutory changes to the form should take effect in 2026 to give counties time to implement software and printing changes. Other statutory timing changes (for example, an October 1 budget deadline) were included in the package with adjustments to publication timing so June 15 certification is feasible in 2025 if published in the Kansas Register.

Outstanding technical items and next steps

Staff and revisers were asked to draft statutory language that: (1) defines the certification process and on-or-before language for the June 15 deadline, (2) specifies which taxing subdivisions are Astra-eligible, (3) sets the exact ballot question wording, and (4) provides appropriation language to allow the treasurer and Department of Revenue to administer and disburse Astra payments and pay notice/mail costs for 2025–26. Conferees also directed staff to study whether the county clerk can revert to prior mill levies if a local board has not adopted a budget by October 1.

Quotes from the record

Representative Sawyer said conferees should avoid “the perfect be the enemy of the good” when balancing clarity and administrative burden. Senator Corson urged that petition-signers might want to know “is it a penny over? Is it a dollar over? Is it 15% over?” when deciding whether to take action, so the group discussed whether notice should include an intent amount or simply a yes/no election question.

Ending

Conferees planned to return with draft statutory language; they agreed in principle to the June 15 certification, primary-ballot election trigger, county administration of elections, a $60 million Astra Fund with 2 percent annual increases, and retention of unused Astra balances for future-year allocations. Staff were asked to produce bill language for the conference report and to reconvene to resolve remaining technical items.