The Post asked readers in August about the issues they wanted to hear candidates running for Prairie Village city council address. Based on that feedback, we developed a five-item questionnaire with the most important issues to Prairie Village residents.
Each day this week, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to one of five questions. Today, we’re publishing candidates’ responses to the following question:
Prairie Village has seen some of the sharpest property valuation increases in
Johnson County in recent years — which has translated to commensurate increases in taxes that have stressed the finances of some residents on fixed incomes. What’s your take on how the city should be handling this issue?
Below are the answers the Post received from candidates on this issue:
Ward 5
Gregory Shelton
The average annual amount paid by property owners has increased 37% over the past five years, which is why I fully support the plan to offer property tax relief to our residents who are most in need based on their economic circumstances.
In fact, as I’ve talked with my neighbors throughout Ward 5 many are unaware that only 16% of our property taxes go to Prairie Village. So our ability to reduce property tax burden will be limited in that perspective. For example, in 2022 if the Council had cut our mill rate as the new Revenue Neutral Rate law proposed, then the average property owner’s tax bill for Prairie Village would be $36 lower for the year, and it would have created a $460,000 hole in our 2022 budget. So I will continue to advocate for solutions that offer tax relief where it’s truly needed without exposing our City’s financial position to unnecessary risk.
John Beeder
I will work hard to implement a MILL LEVY DECREASE for the next fiscal year to address property tax increases. Tax pressure on residents with fixed incomes is the under-discussed dimension of the ‘affordable housing’ issue.As I have walked the neighborhoods of Ward 5, property taxes are top of mind for residents. Many of the Ward’s residents are on fixed incomes. They are wanting to ‘age in place’. Others (including some of our younger families) are stretching to be able to afford their homes. Property tax increases are particularly difficult for these residents. Prairie Village’s component of property owner’s tax bill has risen at twice the rate of inflation over the past five years. The City Council has had many opportunities to reduce the financial burden on its residents and has chosen to do otherwise. The 2022 city budget has large spending increases at rates far exceeding inflation in many areas. It bothers me that there are arguments that each individual component of the government tax bill (like our city tax bill) requires only a “small part” of a taxpayer’s personal budget. This point of view is dismissive of the financial pressure tax increases create for some of our residents. It is ultimately disrespectful to taxpayers struggling to make ends meet. It signals a troubling sense of ‘entitlement’ some government officials have to claim tax dollars. My 35 years in business has taught me that a thorough well-deliberated budget process will help define choices that can help keep spending increases under control. The city staff tells me they use a “zero based” budget approach, which when applied to this problem should be highly effective in defining the choices we need to make to slow spending increases. As a City Council member, I will work to slow spending increases and reduce the need for the large property tax increases.
Ward 1
Cole Robinson
The number one issue I’m hearing about from residents is a concern over rising property taxes. We want Prairie Village to be a place that isn’t just accessible, but a city where families can afford to stay. I’m interested in exploring all options to assist folks who are struggling to remain in their homes due to skyrocketing taxes.
The city’s 2022 budget, which was just approved last month, included a targeted property tax refund program. The program would allow residents who qualify to apply for a refund of the municipal portion of their property taxes. I am in favor of strategic, targeted relief such as this for folks who need it and would look for ways to expand or create similar programs using federal COVID relief funds, for example.
It is important to consider that only 16% of your property tax bill goes to Prairie Village. The city currently allocates 75% of those funds to public safety and critical infrastructure – investments that I strongly believe should not be defunded. I would oppose any proposal to cut city spending that would impact our police, roads, and parks.
I would welcome every opportunity to work together with Johnson County to create meaningful solutions that would help our residents remain in Prairie Village.
Thorne Daimler
Our current city council has a spending problem. They are adding new programs and initiatives at an alarming rate. These projects cost money and more personnel to implement, which is why our taxes keep going up. If elected, I will work to cut unnecessary spending so we can look at reducing the PV mill-rate and ultimately deliver tax relief to all residents. We also need to be working at the county level to look at capping property value appraisal increases each year to a number more in line with historical inflation. I’d also like to see property value appraisals capped once a resident lives in their home for a certain number of years and reaches a certain age. That will help protect the ability of retirees to stay in their home.
Ward 4
Jessica Priestland
It is very important to acknowledge and support Prairie Village’s fixed income residents. Many of these residents have lived in our community for 30 + years and have been a large influence in shaping Prairie Village into the wonderful, highly sought-after city it is today. They have maintained their properties, supported our local businesses, and provided stability and a wealth of homeowner experience to our neighborhoods.
From my knowledge, Prairie Village currently has one program that our fixed-income aging population can benefit from, the “Exterior Grant Program”. This is helpful, but it isn’t quite enough. The City Council has also noted in the city’s 2022 budget a new “Property Tax Relief Grant Program”. I reached out to our city administrators this week to learn more details on the specific parameters and qualifications of the program and was told that they are still in the process of solidifying those details. The City Council will be given those details in the next month or so and will vote to enact the program or modify it further. I am hopeful the program specifications will be available to Prairie Village residents soon.
Additionally, it may be little known that Kansas also has a couple programs that may help lessen the burden some fixed-income taxpayers are experiencing due to the sharp rise in property values. These programs are called the “Kansas Homestead Refund” program and the “Kansas Property Tax Relief”. You can go here for more details. Also, while researching different municipal property tax relief examples online, I came across several compelling models of programs that counties across the US had established for their fixed income and senior populations. One example I found especially of interest was a program from the Lake County, IL website called the “Senior Citizen’s Assessment Freeze”. In essence, this program “freezes” the property tax amount of a qualified recipient based on their property value assessment from the prior year. Moving forward, the recipient would only pay that amount of tax each year, even if their property increased in value. However, it is important to note that the recipient would not be protected should the actual property tax “rate” increase.
Although this program is instituted at the county level, I feel there may be some potential application of this or a similar type of program at the city level. As a council member, I would continue to research and examine other city’s effective and beneficial property tax relief models to create a program that would help alleviate some of the financial pressures many of our Prairie Village residents have begun to experience due to the sharp increase in property values.
Dave Robinson
First, the City needs to remain sensitive to the property tax burden on citizens and businesses. As a homeowner and landlord, I have seen the impact of rising property values and the resulting county and city taxes that outpaced my personal income growth and rents.
Higher property valuations should not automatically translate to a windfall to city and county tax collections. And the trend toward tear-downs and rebuilds in the city should not automatically make the older homes around rebuilds, skyrocket in value. There should be some checks in place to assure that property evaluations and the respective tax assessments reflect expected growth in inflation along with and spending that is consistent with the overall economy, household income levels, and prepared fiscal plans.
Any decisions by the City Council that may impact property taxes should be approached with great sensitivity and diligence. Overall, the City has done well to historically maintained a relatively consistent mill levy. The city’s share of the overall property tax is only 16%, or about $70 a month per average household. And that 16% accounts for about 28% of the city’s overall annual income. This amount feels reasonable given all the services that are provided by the city. The majority of our property tax dollars are being spent out of the City’s control.
I would favor programs that provide some tax relief for residents with a financial burden, particular elderly and low-income residents. As I mentioned at the recent candidate forum, a greater focus on enhancing income opportunities within the city’s four business districts may be an opportunity to help offset any need to increase property or sales taxes.
On Wednesday, we’ll publish the candidates’ responses to the following question:
The rising cost of even “starter homes” in Prairie Village has put home ownership in the city out of reach for many middle class families. Should the city be looking to add more “attainable” housing options? If so, in what form should that take?
