Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy Sb108 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioner Culberson to testify on Senate Bill 108 proposing 1% income tax option to offset property tax
Summary
Commissioner Jeff Culberson said he will testify before the legislature in favor of Senate Bill 108, a county-option measure that would allow voters to approve a 1% earnings tax to be dedicated to reducing county property tax, and answered commissioners' questions about safeguards included in the draft bill.
Commissioner Jeff Culberson told colleagues on Feb. 25 he plans to testify the following morning in Topeka in support of Senate Bill 108, a bill he described as a county-level option that would allow voters to approve a 1% earnings tax dedicated to reducing county ad valorem property taxes.
Culberson said the proposal is a revision of an earlier House Bill 79 and would let counties place a ballot question asking workers who draw paychecks in the county to pay an additional 1% earnings tax that would be credited to county budgets and used to reduce property tax. “We're asking for 1% income tax to be applied directly toward property tax,” Culberson said during the meeting.
He told commissioners the bill includes language that would prevent counties from keeping the revenue unless it is actually used to reduce property tax; he also said the measure would require periodic voter approval (every five years, he said was included in the draft he reviewed). Culberson said the bill would be a local option and that counties would not receive revenue unless voters authorize it.
Commissioners asked for specifics about likely property-tax reductions. Culberson provided illustrative figures from prior analyses: he said the average household pays about $3,000 a year in property tax and about $800 a year in income tax, and that adding 1 percentage point to earnings tax would increase income-tax payments roughly $80 annually for an average household while substantially reducing the county portion of property tax. He said the measure would be voter-approved at the county level so only property taxpayers would vote on implementation.
Other commissioners raised concerns about possible future expansions of the tax and asked for statutory safeguards. Culberson said language was added so that if the county does not use the authorized earnings tax revenue specifically to relieve property taxes, the county could not collect it. He also said some jurisdictions include sunset or referendum provisions to give voters periodic review.
Ending: Culberson said he will testify on the bill; commissioners did not vote on any official county endorsement at the meeting but asked to review the bill language. Culberson committed to provide the relevant statutory language to colleagues after the hearing.
