Earlier this summer, the Post asked our readers what issues you wanted to hear candidates running for Gardner City Council to address leading up to the Nov. 4 election.
Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire centering the issues most important to Gardner residents.
Each day this week, we’re publishing the candidates’ responses to one question.
Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:
Property taxes: We frequently hear from readers urging cities to consider tax rate cuts or other relief to counteract the impacts of rising valuations in Johnson County. It’s the job of each city’s governing body to set your city’s annual mill levy, or property tax, rate. Is your city’s current tax rate appropriate for your city’s needs? Would you vote for steeper tax rate cuts, as residents often call for? Why or why not?
Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on this issue:
Mark Baldwin (incumbent)
A Gardner resident’s tax bill is made up of several levies (2024 rates): State of KS (1.5), JoCo (17.286), JCCC (8.124), JoCo Parks (3.023), USD231 (15.418 + 20 + 16.399 + 7.924), JoCo Fire #1 (14.296 + 1.127), JoCo Library (3.816), and Gardner (18.172). Gardner’s mill rate is 14.3% of our bill, while the state’s share is 1.18%, schools make up 47%, and the rest are county-related. Since being elected, I’ve helped lower Gardner’s rate by 2.548 mills. We have kept Gardner’s rate competitive or better than nearby cities—Spring Hill (22.97), Olathe (23.32), Lenexa (26.96), Prairie Village (18.33), Roeland Park (25.5), and Overland Park (14.54). Despite the city’s rate being only 14% of our tax bills, and strong by comparison, I want us to hold it steady or reduce it further. Even while lowering the rate, we’ve managed significant challenges: handled the COVID crisis, doubled capacities at wastewater and water plants, addressed insurance increases, raised police wages, and responsibly kept bond ratings secure by spending down our reserve fund. To keep it from eroding too much ( bond rates can be affected when it drops below 30% ) I voted to keep the rate flat this year. Gardner is seeing positive growth, and with patience, we can realize the gain of being the fastest growing city in the KC metro. We have to keep focusing on commercial development to share the tax burden more fairly.
Kelly Johnson
Gardner needs funds to accommodate the growth that’s happening and to provide services like the Police Department, Gardner Aquatic Center, parks and playgrounds, and snow removal; and I believe Gardner provides great services for our residents and businesses with the property tax funds it receives—services that make people want to move to Gardner and cause families to stay here for the long term.
That said, I know that personal property taxes feel really high. Most of that tax burden is levied by Johnson County—Gardner receives only a small portion of the tax collected by the county. One of my priorities, if elected, is to stick to the budget and commit to keeping the mill levy as low as possible. I’m a homeowner here too, and I know the pinch of living paycheck-to-paycheck and the dread of receiving the Johnson County appraisal notices in the mail. And just like in our own personal bank accounts, money doesn’t magically appear when a city council votes to spend money it doesn’t have, so I won’t vote to exceed the budget (or to spend budgeted money just because it’s there). I will also commit to studying the budget to see where expenses should be reduced and to advocate adjusting the mill levy accordingly.
Dawn Kirtley
I believe Gardner’s current mill levy rate is appropriate for where we are right now. The current council chose to keep the same mill levy rate as the prior year. This allows Gardner to keep up with important services like police and fire protection, road repairs, and park maintenance, while trying to keep the taxpayer burden to a minimum. I know rising property values have made taxes feel higher for many families, and I understand why people are asking for relief.
Before supporting any major tax rate cuts, I’d want to make sure Gardner could still take care of the basics and plan responsibly for future growth. Cutting too much too quickly could mean falling behind on infrastructure or reducing services residents count on.
Instead of big rate changes, I’d focus on using tax dollars wisely — finding efficiencies, being transparent about spending, and looking for grants or partnerships that help stretch the budget further. Smart economic growth can also help take some pressure off residents by bringing in new businesses and jobs.
If elected, I intend to keep Gardner financially stable, make the most of taxpayer dollars and ensure our community stays a great place to live for everyone.
Steve Shute (incumbent)
Did not provide the Post with a response.
John Snyder
Bottom line is, I am not in favor of paying any more property taxes. People are tired of seeing their hard-earned dollars siphoned off in taxes. The effective property tax rate in Gardner is part of the Johnson County’s overall tax structure. Johnson County is responsible for the evaluations of properties in Johnson County. The city does control their own Mill Levy Rate. The current mill levy rate in Gardner is 18.172%. To put that into comparison with nearby cities, Olathe has a Mill Levy rate of 23.356%, and Overland Park has a Mill Levy Rate of 14.538%. We need a Mill Levy Rate closer to Overland Park, which I suspect is low due to their vast number of commercial businesses. According to current Gardner City Officials, Gardner may not be able to provide the same services within the next five years without raising the Mill Levy to generate funds to pay for services. Their answer was to raise utilities rate by nearly 30% over the next six years. Most household incomes will not increase that much over six years. It was a clever way to say they kept tax rates steady, while backdoor taxing Gardner residents. Very disingenuous. I believe the only way to continue to provide quality services to Gardner with the exploding population is to partner with more commercial entities to generate revenue; otherwise, the citizens will have to continue to flip the bill. Gardner has some new developments going up, but the city was late to the game. These developments should have happened years ago. Near-Term, Short-Term, and Long-Term planning is critical to keeping tax rates low. I believe there is still time with aggressive leadership in the pursuit of commercial businesses. The exploding population, and proximity to Gardner Airport is a great lure for thriving businesses. I am a fan of renewing downtown Gardner to make it more attractive and inviting for families to enjoy and spend their money. We need to keep people in Gardner to spend their dollars in Gardner. When citizens go to another city to shop, recreate, or eat. Gardner loses important revenue. I am optimistic that we could make Gardner a destination city that others would want to visit and spend their money.
