Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners debate House Bill 2396 changes to property-tax lid and potential effect on municipal bonding
Summary
Sedgwick County staff and legal counsel flagged language in House Bill 2396 that could restrict issuing debt backed by a local government's full faith and credit unless bonds were approved by an election; staff recommended technical fixes and added transparency requirements.
Sedgwick County staff briefed the commission on House Bill 2396, a proposed property-tax lid bill that county counsel and bond counsel say contains language that could limit governments' ability to issue general obligation debt backed by the full faith and credit of the jurisdiction unless the bonds were approved by a public election.
Lindsay, a county staff member, summarized the bill as a property-tax lid that would restrict what a government could increase its levy to regardless of valuation. She said bond counsel raised concerns about a provision that refers specifically to bonds "approved by a vote of the electors at an election," which could prevent the county from using its full faith and credit for bonds issued under statutory authority. "He said you could kiss your AAA goodbye," Lindsay said, describing bond counsel's warning about the county's credit rating if the language were left unchanged.
Why it matters: County staff suggested two technical changes if the commission wanted to support the bill: (1) clarify that debt-service increases required to pay general obligation debt issued under Kansas statutes (citing KSA 10-301 series) are permitted and (2) replace references to "county clerks" with the broader category of "election officials" to account for counties with election commissioners. Staff noted the bill would supersede some existing law (including provisions of a prior RNR law) and that opponents have raised transparency concerns.
Transparency and other concerns: Commissioners and staff discussed adding explicit transparency steps to the bill's language, such as requiring publication of a draft budget, a recorded vote and a public hearing, while avoiding costly mass mailings. A commissioner suggested combining the bill's spending controls with a narrowly targeted remedy for overvalued property to make a more comprehensive package.
Next steps: Staff asked whether the commission wished to be a proponent of the bill and to propose the technical clarifications for a floor amendment or on the Senate side. Commissioners asked staff to consult legislative contacts about the preferred approach and to draft suggested amendments addressing the bond-language and election-official wording.
Ending: The commission discussed support with qualifiers; staff will follow up with legislative counsel on amendment language and outreach to Senate members.
