A 1-Percent Promise

On January 2, 2025, I sat down with Kansas House District 124 Representative Marty Long, who had read the January 1, 2025 article, “Drawing Attention: Beyond the County Line.” Long expressed appreciation for the issues raised in the story and said he wished to further discuss, in greater depth, the circumstances surrounding Morton County’s lawsuit against the State of Kansas.

The issue traces back to 2014, when Morton County voters were presented with a ballot question proposing a one-percent countywide sales tax to help fund the county hospital. Under Kansas law, a public notice regarding such a ballot measure must be published three times prior to the election. While the required notices were circulated, the statute cited in the notice was incorrect.

Rather than referencing the statute that would direct 100 percent of the one-percent sales tax to the county for hospital funding, the notice instead cited a statute allocating the tax evenly—half to the county and half to the three municipalities within Morton County.

Despite the error, voters approved the one-percent sales tax with the understanding it would support the hospital. Shortly after the election, the county’s legal counsel identified the mistake. Counsel met with the county commissioners, drafted an amendment to correct the statutory reference, and forwarded it to the Kansas Department of Revenue (KDOR). Confirmation was received that the amendment had been submitted, and the issue was believed to be resolved.

However, when KDOR implemented the tax distribution, it followed the original public notice rather than the amended correction—splitting the revenue between the county and the municipalities.

Over the next several years, county leadership changed and the issue largely faded from attention. Nearly a decade later, during a routine conversation between the Morton County Treasurer and KDOR, it was noted that the one-percent tax was still being split. KDOR stated that the amendment submitted years earlier had not been acknowledged as a valid correction.

The county attorney later appeared in Topeka to bring a claim against the State of Kansas. In the process, the Attorney General’s Office was consulted and noted that the ballot language itself was clear in its intent to direct the full one-percent tax to the hospital. Following that determination, KDOR adjusted the distribution going forward to reflect the original intent.

That adjustment, however, raised a larger question: what about the funds the hospital had not received over the course of several years?

According to those involved, the City of Elkhart had not noticed the accounting discrepancy, attributing the increased revenue to a strong economy. Likewise, the hospital believed its funding shortfalls were due to lower-than-expected revenue, rather than a misallocation.

KDOR acknowledged that funds had been distributed incorrectly but indicated that recovering the money would require municipalities to repay it—effectively taking funds from taxpayers to return money to the same taxpayers. Morton County officials also acknowledged that the county shared responsibility for not correcting the issue earlier.

With KDOR operating as a division of the executive branch of Kansas government, Morton County ultimately determined that the only viable option was to pursue legal action in an attempt to recover the misallocated funds for the hospital. That lawsuit remains ongoing at the time of this writing.