Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homestead Tax Refund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee previews changes to homestead refund program: social security exclusion and higher income and home-value thresholds under consideration
Summary
Senate Bill 215 would exclude Social Security payments from household income for the Homestead Property Tax Refund Act, raise the household income eligibility limit to $80,000, and increase the homestead appraised-value threshold in the bill text to $595,000 with an annual adjustment for later base years.
Senate Bill 215 would amend the Homestead Property Tax Refund Act to exclude payments under the federal Social Security Act from the definition of household income, increase the upper household income threshold for eligibility to $80,000, and raise the appraised-value threshold for homestead base-year property to $595,000 with an annual adjustment for base years after 2025.
Amelia (committee staff) introduced the proposal and asked the committee whether it wanted to work the bill immediately; she said staff were awaiting an updated Kansas adjusted gross income fiscal note to clarify the bill's fiscal effects. Eddie (committee fiscal staff) walked the committee through multiple fiscal scenarios that reflected different combinations of home-value thresholds ($450,000, $500,000, $595,000) and alternate base years (2021, 2024, 2025), and he said the choice of base year materially affected the near-term fiscal cost estimates.
Eddie explained that one possible amendment under consideration would extend exclusions conceptually similar to Social Security exclusions to certain veterans benefits; he said that amendment would add about $500,000 per year to the fiscal note. He also noted the bill as written was focused on a homestead tax freeze-style program, and that the committee could opt to extend similar income exclusions to the state's other senior programs (such as Safe Senior) but that those programs have separate income provisions.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about which thresholds and base years staff were modeling. Senator Peck asked whether the $595,000 home-value threshold in the bill text applied to the fiscal scenarios; staff said the fiscal note included alternate modeling at $450,000 and $500,000 to illustrate different cost outcomes. Senator Klump and others pressed for clarification of which base year the committee intended to use because using 2021 as the base year pushed near-term costs higher than modeling based on 2024 or 2025.
No formal committee action was taken during the hearing; staff said the committee planned to work the bill the following day once the adjusted gross income fiscal note was available and after members had time to review the fiscal scenarios. Amelia said the committee intended to consider the bill and related measures over the coming days and asked members to provide any additional data requests to committee staff.
Ending: The committee paused further action pending receipt of additional fiscal data and scheduled the bill for follow-up consideration.
