House representatives passed House Bill 23-96 on a voice and roll-call vote after extended floor debate, moving a new approach to property-tax relief that pairs a state transfer with limits and a citizen protest mechanism.

Representative Adam Smith, the bill's carrier and a member of the House Taxation Committee, said the measure creates the Astra Fund, a $60,000,000 demand-transfer pool distributed to qualifying cities and counties. The fund would increase by 2% annually and, Smith said, would ‘‘incentivize local governments to keep property-tax increases at a minimum.’'

Under the bill, local governments must adopt and certify budgets and meet statutory minimums to qualify. Smith said the Astra Fund's first-year appropriation would be $60 million and that if fully utilized it could leverage an additional $70 million to $75 million of local property-tax relief, producing roughly $130 million total in the bill's first year of full effect. He said the fund would be apportioned by county, with 65% of a county's allocation based on population and 35% on assessed valuation.

The bill creates a protest-petition mechanism allowing voters to seek to limit property-tax revenues above a threshold. Smith described the petition as available at the county treasurer's office between Aug. 25 and Sept. 25 and set the qualifying signature threshold at 10% of the voters in the last presidential election for the affected jurisdiction. He emphasized the petition applies to taxing jurisdictions other than the state and school districts.

Supporters argued the bill replaces an ineffective revenue-neutral hearing process and creates accountability by tying the availability of the protest petition to the legislature's appropriation for the Astra Fund. Representative Sawyer said the measure provides at least $60 million in state property-tax relief annually and fosters a partnership with local governments.

Opponents and several members raised concerns about specific provisions. Representative Vestas warned the 10% signature threshold could translate to very large raw signature counts in populous counties (she cited 21,662 as an example for Sedgwick County) and noted the time and cost of running petition drives. Representative Petr Parchel and others said the bill removes the revenue-neutral mechanism that some constituents value; Parchel said no constituents in his district sought repeal of revenue neutral and expressed constituent opposition.

Members also debated the fund's size. Representative Helgerson offered an amendment to raise the fund to $100 million; the amendment failed on a roll call (Y 43, N 74). Several members said they favored a larger appropriation but cited budget caution and the need to coordinate with the Appropriations Committee.

Smith and other supporters said fiscal administration would be handled by the State Treasurer's Office and the Department of Revenue; Smith told members that state officials indicated no additional FTEs or programming costs were expected. The bill explicitly repeals the revenue-neutral requirement for taxing subdivisions and eliminates the taxpayer-notification cost fund.

Final action: the House recorded 115 votes in favor and 6 against and declared House Bill 23-96 passed. The bill will proceed to the Senate for further consideration.

Ending: The floor debate mixed policy and fiscal concerns: supporters framed the measure as a novel state-local partnership to limit property-tax growth, while critics warned the protest process, signature thresholds and the repeal of revenue-neutral protections merit further refinement as the bill advances.