Kansas homeowners aren’t just facing higher property taxes — they’re facing unaffordable assessed valuation increases that make it impossible to budget for life essentials or stay in their homes.
Property tax is the #1 affordability issue facing many Kansans, but nothing may be done about it – again – because electoral politics is the #1 concern of too many Democrats and Republicans.
Democrats are campaigning on affordability, and House Minority Leader Brandon Woodard says, “We’re willing to work with anyone to get something done” on property tax relief. Yet no Democrats in the House or Senate have publicly supported limiting taxable assessed values or mill rates. A few indicate they are at least open to the idea, but most of them openly oppose the relief efforts that most of their constituents support.
A statewide public opinion survey we commissioned in September found that 75% of Kansas voters support an assessment limit, while just 13% oppose it. Self-identified Democrats support it by a 66-18 margin, and support is even stronger among Independents and Republicans. Support for mill rate limits is around 80% for voters in each party. Democrats’ unwillingness to support those measures indicates that electoral politics is more important than property tax relief.
As Woodard explains, “If they (Republicans) don’t do anything, then you’re going to see not only us picking up seats and breaking the supermajority in November in the House, but you’re going to see a 2016 level wave.”
Translation: Party leaders want property tax relief to fail so they can campaign on it, and that’s worth having some of their constituents taxed out of their homes.
Some Republican opposition to property tax relief is also based in electoral politics
Many Republicans support limits on assessed values and mill rates, but there are enough holdouts that nothing can get done unless some Democrats are willing to come on board. Electoral politics may also be motivating some of those holdouts, but with a different twist.
They worry that powerful lobbying interests will oppose their re-election if they deliver on voters’ demands.
Rural voters and agricultural businesses have testified before the Senate that farmers and ranchers favor assessment limits, whereas some rural lobbying groups remain opposed. The same is true for real estate. These are diverse groups with different members, but reconciling the high-level opposition with local support is difficult.
The institutions opposing assessment limits cite potential negative consequences for the housing market, the shifting of more of the property tax burden to agricultural interests, and they don’t believe assessment limits will save money. Those are legitimate questions, but the data and history show significant benefits.
Assessment limits have been in place for decades across multiple states, yet opponents cite no negative consequences in those states; they discuss only what might happen.
Our statistical analysis, which examines what would likely have occurred if a 3% assessment limit had been in place over the last 20 years and the first 10 years since implementation in 2027, shows hundreds of millions in savings for homeowners and agricultural interests.
Even allowing for considerable mill rate increases (which the revenue-neutral requirement limited in 48 counties, 271 cities, and dozens of school districts last year), our research shows significant property tax savings for residential, commercial, and agricultural land. Ag land would do especially well because it is subject to a special valuation formula based on use value, which produces alternating periods of significant increases and declines. An assessment limit eliminates the large spikes, while farmers and ranchers still benefit from formula-driven declines.
Of course, cities and counties could try to dramatically raise mill rates to impose large tax increases, so we also need legislation to cap mill increases without voter approval. For example, any taxing authority seeking more than a 3% mill increase above revenue-neutral would have to get voter approval.
Some legislators say a 3% limit on assessed values and mill rates would lock in a 3% property tax increase, so they oppose the measures. Ironically, most homeowners would be thrilled with a 3% increase because the average residential tax increase over the last three years was 26%.
There may be some elements of assessment and mill rate limits that make legislators uncomfortable. That’s true of almost every piece of legislation. In this case, they have to decide whether their concerns or their electoral aspirations are worth allowing people to be taxed out of their homes, because that’s exactly what ‘no’ votes will do.
This column also appeared in the Topeka Capital-Journal
