Russell County officials ask Legislature for option to impose countywide sales tax to fund school facility upgrades

Russell County officials and community members asked the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee to allow Russell County voters to decide whether to impose a countywide retailer sales tax of up to 1% to finance school construction, remodeling, capital improvements and maintenance.

Amelia, speaking for the committee staff, explained that Senate Bill 223 would authorize Russell County to submit a proposition to county electors to impose a countywide retailer sales tax of up to 1% and to pledge that revenue to finance attendance centers or other district facilities for school districts in the county. Amelia said the tax would expire once the authorized costs are paid and that the bill’s text would allow the county to retain and expend the revenue solely for the pledged purposes. She also noted the bill would take effect upon publication in the statute book.

Jason Crew, a Russell County commissioner for District 2, said USD 407 and the county face long-running facility problems and declining enrollment that threaten local tax base and economic vitality. "I'm asking you today to give us that opportunity," Crew told the committee, describing years of steering-committee work and saying the last bond the district passed was in 1959. He said county leaders believe including a countywide sales tax in financing would improve the chance of passing a bond and help retain families and businesses.

Mandy Trout, co-chair of the Russell steering committee and a longtime former Russell High School teacher, gave details about the district’s infrastructure needs. "With just the needs of our school, we are looking at $30,000,000 of improvements," Trout said, describing failing boilers, inadequate electrical capacity for expanded technology and CTE programs, mobility and accessibility problems in multi-level buildings, and storm shelter concerns. Trout said the steering committee surveyed homeowners, businesses and agricultural land values to estimate the tax impact and concluded a countywide tax would generate materially more revenue than a city-level tax: committee figures cited roughly $2,200,000 in county-level revenue vs. about $450,000 from a city tax for 2024.

Committee members asked whether revenue from the proposed tax would go to municipalities; Amelia clarified the bill provides that the entirety of the sales tax collected would go to the county and be expended for the pledged school facilities. Another committee staff member, identified as Eddie, noted that city sales taxes in some instances have been used for school purposes where a city made a finding advising that use and that the Kansas Supreme Court has addressed city sales taxes and schools.

Proponents framed the request as a locally driven solution: the steering committee surveyed the community, visited every facility, and proposed dividing proceeds among the county’s four school districts based on student populations. The committee closed the hearing on SB 223 with proponents but recorded no opponents or neutral testimony and no formal committee action during the session.

The bill would require voter approval in Russell County to impose the tax and, if approved, the revenue pledge and expiration would be set in the proposition approved by voters.