|
Testifying for legislative change has become a key role for the county commission. We often discover issues that can only be fixed with changes in state law. This last legislative session, I personally testified on eight different pieces of legislation, sometimes as the lead proponent and other times as an opponent.
Some of the issues I testified on this year include a retirement bill, suspended driver’s license law, juvenile justice policy, an accountability and transparency bill, a property tax bill, several bills relating to election integrity and more. It was a whirlwind session, but we had a lot of success.
My favorite achievement this year was the passage of HB2021. This new law will directly help juvenile offenders get assessed and program support more quickly and gives judges some tools to ensure more effective outcomes.
Back in 2017, the legislature made a sweeping rewrite on the state’s juvenile justice policy. The state’s new strategy was reasonably effective for most kids, but unfortunately, the most troubled kids figured out ways to circumvent the programs intended to help them. With six years of implementation history, we are very aware that some adjustments to the existing law would help Sedgwick County become more effective in putting certain juvenile offenders on a more positive path. I am very happy this bill passed.
One of the biggest legislative disappointments this year was the loss of SB2. This bill would have helped a huge number of Sedgwick County drivers resolve their ongoing suspended driver’s license issues. Sedgwick County has a disproportionate number of suspended licenses that stem primarily from poverty. We will try again next year.
The one bill that has local government concerned is SCR1611. If the House passes SCR1611, it will go on the ballot next year. This policy will limit property value increases to a maximum of four percent per year. On the surface this seems great, but it would disconnect property appraisals from the real estate market. Anyone who would purchase or remodel a home would be reset to the current fair market value, and that is inherently unfair. Homes that are substantially equal will be taxed differently simply because one has a new owner.
I enjoy the legislative process and the debate. Let me encourage you to engage the legislative process for those things you are passionate about because anyone can make a difference.
| 
