Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedgwick County seeks one‑year freeze, study group to blunt sales‑tax losses from mill‑levy cuts
Summary
County staff proposed amending House Bill 23‑77 to freeze the property‑tax portion of the state sales‑tax apportionment formula for a year and convene a study group to craft a longer‑term fix, after modeling showed an immediate formula change would sharply shift sales‑tax receipts among cities.
Sedgwick County staff presented a revised approach to House Bill 23‑77 aimed at preventing unintended sales‑tax losses when local governments lower their mill levies. The change would temporarily freeze the portion of the apportionment formula tied to the property‑tax levy and ask the legislature to form a study group to develop a long‑term solution.
Chair (S3) summarized the technical problem: when the county reduced its mill levy last year, the state apportionment formula redistributed sales tax in ways the county did not anticipate. Chair (S3) said staff replaced the levy‑rate component with assessed value in modeling but that the immediate effect “hurts some of our cities” and produced “numbers on that looked too drastic to do in 1 bite.” To limit disruption this year, the draft asks the legislature to pause the property‑tax component for the 0.5 portion of the formula so current mill‑levy decisions “will not be penalized with an additional sales tax removal as well.”
Staff described two steps: (1) request a one‑year freeze on the property‑tax portion of the apportionment (language in the draft references a freeze between 07/01/2025 and 12/31/2026), and (2) ask that the state convene a committee to study and recommend a phased or structural fix. Commissioners debated whether a single‑year pause would be sufficient or whether a five‑year phase‑in would be more politically viable to protect cities from year‑to‑year swings.
Commissioner comments reflected competing priorities. Some argued a five‑year transition would soften the year‑one impact and preserve city budgets while still protecting the county over the long term; others warned that placing a five‑year phase‑in in statute could make the bill harder to pass. Chair (S3) and staff said they had briefed legislative staff (including Jason Watkins) and planned further conversations with state leaders before finalizing language.
Next steps: staff will refine draft language and pursue legislative engagement consistent with the board’s direction; no formal vote on a position was recorded in the transcript.
