Kansas House Bill HB2138

Kansas 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/28/25
• Refer: 1/28/25

Caption

Authorizing school districts to levy an annual tax levy of up to two mills for the purposes of school building safety, security and compliance with the Americans with disabilities act and including such levy in the capital outlay state aid determination for such school districts.

Impact

The proposed tax levy is significant as it equips school districts with a dedicated revenue stream specifically earmarked for essential safety and accessibility projects in public schools. Supporters of the bill argue that this measure is crucial for improving school safety and ensuring that all schools meet federal standards under the ADA. However, the bill's reliance on local taxation could exacerbate disparities in funding between wealthier districts with a broader tax base and those in less affluent areas, creating challenges in ensuring equitable access to safe and compliant school facilities throughout the state.

Summary

House Bill 2138 authorizes school districts in Kansas to levy an annual tax of up to two mills on taxable tangible property. This tax is intended to fund school building expenses that ensure safety and security, as well as compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The bill aims to address urgent needs in school infrastructure, particularly concerning safety measures necessitated by recent national trends and ADA compliance. The revenue generated from this tax will also be included in the calculations for capital outlay state aid determinations provided to school districts, helping to stabilize funding and support necessary improvements.

Contention

Although the bill is largely viewed as a positive step towards ensuring student safety and compliance with federal regulations, some stakeholders have raised concerns regarding the tax implications for local taxpayers. The possibility of a petition opposing the tax levy, which could lead to a public vote, reflects the contentious nature of local taxation initiatives. Critics worry that the additional tax burden could pose financial strain on families and may not adequately address systemic funding issues in education.