The #1 affordability issue facing many Kansans is property tax increases that are literally taxing some people out of their homes and prompting some small businesses to close.
The average taxable assessed home value jumped 40% over the last four years, resulting in a 31% average property tax increase. Meanwhile, real (inflation-adjusted) per capita personal income declined by 1%, according to data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
That 32-point difference between the property tax increase and the change in personal income is the average, but it’s far worse in many counties.
The affordability gap exceeds 50 points in 15 counties, with four exceeding 70 points (Brown, Cheyenne, Lincoln, and Wallace). Other large affordability gaps include Wyandotte (56 points), Coffey (55 points), Ellis (47 points), Harvey (44 points), Finney (39 points), Sedgwick (34 points), and Leavenworth (34 points).
Even counties with slight income gains have large affordability gaps, including Johnson (29 points), Shawnee (31 points), and Saline (23 points).
The gap across three counties – Barber, Chautauqua, and Neosho – is in single digits, and three other counties – Stevens, Grant, and Hamilton – have property tax changes that are smaller than the change in real per capita income.
The map below shows the affordability gap for each county, with the largest affordability gaps in the Northwestern and North Central counties.
Local officials create affordability crisis by taking advantage of assessed valuation spikes
Property taxes are determined by two variables: the taxable assessed value of a property and the mill rates imposed by local officials.
On average, local elected officials slightly reduced mill rates over the last four years, which is why a 40% average valuation increase led to a 31% average property tax increase. They could have chosen to reduce mill rates much more to produce smaller property tax increases, but they chose to spend more, leaving homeowners with unaffordable property tax hikes.
The map below shows the average residential assessed valuation change using a similar scale. Increases below 10% are shaded the lightest; increases between 10% and 24.99% are a little darker, and those above 50% are the darkest shade.
It’s not exact, but there is a strong correlation between the affordability gap and valuation increases in many cases.
That’s why about 75% of Kansans support a fixed-rate limit on taxable assessed values. The Senate passed a 3% limit last year, but the House Tax Committee sided with local government and would only consider a limit based on a multi-year rolling average of the increases.
Polling ahead of this year’s legislative session showed an overwhelming preference for a fixed-rate limit. Of those who favor a limit, 66% wanted a fixed-rate limit and only 17% preferred a rolling average.
So why would the House Tax Committee only consider a rolling average, knowing voters don’t want it because it’s of little value when many Kansans are consistently getting double-digit valuation hikes?
The answer is simple: a rolling average will result in higher property taxes than a 3% fixed limit, and most committee members…Democrats and Republicans alike…chose to support local government instead of taxpayers, while still being able to say they support property tax relief.
When candidates come asking for your vote, test their claim of supporting property tax relief by asking, “Will you vote for a 3% annual assessment limit?” Any response except an unequivocal “yes” means you are probably talking to someone who puts government interests ahead of yours.
