Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears HB 23‑96: protest petitions, Astra Fund transfer and repeal of revenue‑neutral rate explained
Summary
House Bill 23‑96 would create a protest‑petition process to limit property‑tax revenue increases, establish an "Astra Fund" with a $60 million annual transfer to reward jurisdictions that hold tax growth to a CPI-plus-new‑construction standard, and repeal the current revenue‑neutral notification law. Sponsor Adam Smith and other witnesses debated
House Bill 23‑96, as amended by the House committee, would (1) authorize a protest‑petition process by which voters could limit a taxing jurisdiction’s property‑tax revenue increase for a year if a petition meets a signature threshold; (2) establish the "Astra Fund," funded by a demand transfer from the State General Fund of $60 million annually (increasing 2% each year) to distribute to eligible cities and counties that limit property‑tax revenue growth to the prior year’s revenues plus CPI, new construction revenue and voter‑approved bond payments; and (3) repeal existing revenue‑neutral statutes (K.S.A. 79‑2988 and 79‑2989).
Sponsor remarks and overview: Chairman Adam Smith presented the bill and said the proposal is intended to simplify how taxpayers see tax increases and to create an incentive for local governments to limit tax growth. "Why are we repealing the revenue neutral law? And quite simply, I'm just trying to make tax increases easier for the taxpayers to see and understand," Smith said. He described the current revenue‑neutral statement as detailed but confusing for many taxpayers and proposed a simpler, cash‑focused notice. Smith also described the Astra Fund distribution formula: 65% of the annual appropriation apportioned by county population and 35% apportioned by assessed tangible valuation, with county apportionments then shared with cities in the county based on the ratio of property taxes levied.
Key provisions and process timing: The bill would subject all taxing jurisdictions except school districts to the protest‑petition mechanism if their adopted budget would cause property‑tax revenues to exceed the prior year plus CPI, new construction revenue and voter‑approved bond payments. If ten percent or more of the voters (measured as votes cast for the U.S. president in the prior election) sign a valid petition, the taxing jurisdiction's property‑tax revenue for the year would be limited to the prior‑year amount plus the stated adjustments; otherwise the jurisdiction could levy the budget it adopted. The bill requires the director of property valuation to certify eligible jurisdictions to the State Treasurer; transfers would be made with an annual January 15 distribution after the July 15 creation of the Astra Fund.
Support and concern: Witnesses and committee members discussed expected effects. Chairman Smith presented modeling for Leavenworth County showing hypothetical savings if the county had stayed within the proposed threshold; he described a three‑year example with cumulative savings of roughly $11.3 million under the Astra limit and estimated Astra transfers for that county in the example. Smith said the fund is intended as an incentive rather than a full backfill.
Several senators asked procedural and substantive questions. Senator Peck asked whether the Astra Fund distribution timing meant a jurisdiction would receive funds in the same fiscal year as applying the limit; committee staff and the bill presenter explained certification and distribution timing would occur within the same fiscal year but noted the statutory nature of the transfer is subject to appropriation rules. Senator Owens and others questioned the difference between the bill’s protest‑petition approach and a traditional petition‑plus‑election model; Smith said the bill makes the petition itself determinative and is designed to shorten the calendar mismatch between budget and election timelines.
Exemptions and scope: The bill exempts school districts from the protest‑petition mechanism; Smith said schools and state levies are currently structured in statute (for example, the statutory 20‑mill school levy) and pose separate policy questions, and he suggested further review of how school mill levies and voter approvals work if a broader approach is taken.
Repeal of revenue‑neutral statutes: The bill would repeal K.S.A. 79‑2988 and 79‑2989 (the current revenue‑neutral notice and related provisions). Sponsor testimony emphasized that the repeal is intended to replace the existing notice and hearing regime with the protest petition and Astra Fund incentive model.
Ending: Committee members requested additional detail and asked the sponsor to return for continued questioning; the hearing recessed to resume later in a specified room for further consideration.
