Pawnee County bill would let voters repurpose local 1% sales tax for emergency services

House Bill 2,125 would give Pawnee County authority to submit a ballot proposition allowing the county to impose up to 1% in countywide retailer sales tax and to pledge the revenue for health care and county-supported public safety operations, including the sheriff’s department, jail, emergency management and emergency dispatch services.

The reviser, Adam, told the Committee on Taxation that the bill would allow Pawnee County to place a question before voters to authorize the tax and that, as a dedicated sales tax, revenues would be retained by the county and expended only for the pledged purposes.

Dr. Michael Burdett, appearing by WebEx as a proponent, said the county is not seeking to increase the tax burden on residents and is seeking authority to modify how an existing 1% sales tax (instituted in February 2009) may be expended. "We have since 02/2009 utilized subsection B of 12‑187, where the county had instituted a 1% sales tax for health care purposes," Burdett said, adding that the county’s hospital has been largely self‑sufficient and that commissioners want voters to decide whether to permit funding for emergency services from that revenue.

A county representative clarified on the record: "This is not an additional 1% sales tax. This is taking the 1% that we actually have on the books now and trying to modify that to use that for emergency services and actually looking to put that to the electorate." The committee also heard that the 2009 authority has no sunset provision.

Committee members asked how the Pawnee‑specific authority would interact with existing general county authority under the Kansas statute cited in testimony. The reviser said the Pawnee provision would be additional to the general county authority (referred to in the hearing as B5), meaning both authorities could conceivably be applied by the county; any change to how existing 1% revenue is used would ultimately be decided by voters via the county ballot language.

The committee closed the hearing on HB 2,125 and later took up the bill for action. Representative Hoheisel moved that the committee pass HB 2,125 favorably; Representative Howerton seconded. Hoheisel offered a friendly amendment to place the bill on the consent calendar; the committee approved the motion with that amendment by voice vote. The committee did not record a roll‑call tally.

The record includes written proponent testimony from Jay Hall of the Kansas Association of Counties. No neutral or opponent witnesses appeared at the hearing.

What the bill does not decide on the legislative record is whether the county would repeal the existing authority or rededicate it; witnesses and reviser testimony show that the statute authorizing the original county 1% remains in effect and that rededication or an additional measure would depend on county ballot language and voter approval.