Kansas lawmakers are exploring the possibility of introducing a constitutional amendment that would limit the Legislature’s ability to raise new revenue and effectively rein in spending.
A joint House-Senate committee is looking at different ways of how it might limit government spending, possibly by using excess revenues to cut taxes or reduce state debt.
Lawmakers are considering a constitutional amendment, which would require support from two-thirds of the Legislature and would have to be ratified by Kansas voters.
The idea is still in its embryonic stages, with details yet to be worked out before the Legislature convenes in January. The goal is to roll out the legislation by the second day of the session.
Two ideas floated during the committee’s meetings this week would lower taxes if revenues reached a certain point or put the excess revenues into paying off state debt.
“We’re comparing different states as to what they have in place and what possibilities we could put in place for the state of Kansas,” Tyson said in an interview.
“We’ll take a look at what’s working and what’s not in other states and come up with the best solution,” she said.
The idea comes at a time when the state is seeing record surpluses with a nest egg of more than $2 billion.
In early November, state economic forecasters added more than $1.3 billion to the revenue picture for the current fiscal year.
The latest revenue estimates predicted total state tax collections would increase to $8.9 billion in 2022 from $7.6 billion in 2021, or about 17% higher than the revenue estimate from last spring.
The new budget estimates will leave the state with a nest egg of about $2.89 billion for fiscal year 2022, which ends next June 30.
Lawmakers learned this week that 30 states have some type of limit on spending or revenues, with six states having more than one.
Twenty-eight states have limits on spending or appropriations, seven have limits on revenue and one state has a mix of both.
There are a number of ways to control revenue, possibly by tying it to inflationary and population increases or to personal income.
In 1980, Missouri voters passed a constitutional amendment that required the state to refund money to income tax payers when revenues are in excess of a percentage based on the personal income of Missourians.
Sixteen years later, Missouri voters approved another constitutional amendment requiring voter approval of any tax or fee increase exceeding $50 million.
In 1987, Oklahoma voters agreed to limit appropriations, with some exceptions, to 95% of the estimated revenue for the state.
Additionally, Oklahoma spending, with some exceptions, is capped at year-over-year growth of 12%.
Democratic state Rep. Jim Gartner of Topeka criticized the idea, saying it was outside the bounds of special joint committee created to address taxes.
“As far as I am concerned the committee went way too far,” Gartner said.
“We need to stay on tax issues not appropriations and financial obligations,” he said.
