Debbie Detmer has a lot of memories in her house. She’s lived there 40 years and raised three children in it.
Detmer is retired now and lives on a fixed income in Johnson County. She hasn’t done any work on her house, yet she pays more in property taxes each year. The bill is rising so much it’s becoming too much to manage.
Last year, she paid $100 more a month and this year she is paying $50 more a month in property taxes. That’s before her homeowner’s insurance goes up because a more expensive house means more expensive insurance.
Her property taxes are making her choose between paying for taxes or other essentials — compromising her retirement.
“You keep turning the heat down. You keep (it) hotter in the summer,” she said. “You just got to cut back.”
Lawmakers have multiple tax proposals
Kansas lawmakers are trying to ease the property tax burden, but halfway through the session it doesn’t look like there’s consensus on how to do so.
Constitutional amendments on property taxes have headlined the tax cut debate so far.
The Senate passed a 3% cap on valuation increases. Property taxes could increase more than 3% in a year, but the appraised value of a home would be capped at 3% unless it was renovated or qualifies for other exemptions.
The House has a similar proposal that would use a rolling average of a home’s value, likely a six-year rolling average.
Both ideas would need to be approved by voters.
The Senate’s proposal passed with more than a two-thirds majority. But the House hasn’t acted on its valuation cap proposal.
House Committee on Taxation chair Rep. Adam Smith, a Weskan Republican, said these constitutional amendments are gimmicks that don’t provide real relief. He isn’t alone. Some Senate Republicans voted against the 3% cap and almost every Senate Democrat opposed it.
Senate Minority Leader Dinah Sykes, a Lenexa Democrat, said this is California tax policy that shouldn’t come to Kansas.
Senate Democrats have instead proposed increasing property tax exemptions from $75,000 to $125,000. Democrats will also get a hearing on a bill expanding “the property tax rebate program for seniors and disabled veterans by excluding Social Security payments from the definition of household income and increasing the household income and appraised value thresholds for eligibility related to increased property tax homestead claims.”
Sen. Stephen Owens, a Hesston Republican, has another idea. He tried to amend the 3% cap during an early February floor debate to tie tax increases with inflation. Property taxes could only rise with the rate of inflation. Taxing bodies could still raise taxes higher than inflation, but that would require voters to approve of the increase. Owens’ amendment failed.
“We certainly cannot predict the actions of the other chamber,” Owens said during the Senate debate. “It is generally assumed that (this constitutional amendment) is not the final product. If this is not the final product, we want to go in with the strongest position possible on truly giving our taxpayers a tax break.”
Debate over passed plans
Concern about a 3% cap is simple. Capping the appraised value doesn’t stop governing bodies from just raising property taxes anyway. Agricultural associations and business lobbyists also worry that capping residential valuations would then shift more tax burden to farms and businesses.
Sen. Caryn Tyson, a Parker Republican, is the chair of the Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation. She is leading the push to pass the constitutional amendment. She disagrees that her 3% cap does nothing. She’s looked back at decades of tax rates and has seen valuations jump. Had the cap been in place, those valuations would not have jumped as high and those homeowners would pay less in property taxes.
The property tax cap also would start based on 2022 home values. That would cap property tax increases before a recent surge in valuations.
Tyson said she’s seen someone’s property tax rise even though they did no work on their house. The price jumped because their neighbor renovated their home. The current system doesn’t work, she said.
“We are not inventing the wheel here,” Tyson said at a past debate. “We have looked to other states to see what to model after.”
For Detmer, the homeowner on a fixed income, property tax relief needs to come soon. She might have to move, and depending where she buys, that could mean moving farther away from her grandchildren.
Property taxes mean cutting back, Detmer said. But she’s annoyed that the county government doesn’t cut back as hard as she does.
“When I bought it, I had no intention of moving,” Detmer said. “I raised my family here. I have no intentions of going anywhere unless (taxes) force me out.”