Bel Air Mayor Jim Benage opposes tax amendment citing transparency concerns

During the Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation meeting held on March 17, 2025, significant discussions emerged regarding proposed changes to property tax assessment practices in Kansas. The committee heard from various stakeholders, including proponents and opponents of a constitutional amendment aimed at altering how property taxes are calculated.

One of the key points raised was the effectiveness of using fixed caps versus rolling averages in property tax assessments. A committee member suggested that longer averaging periods, such as six years, might help smooth out tax increases. However, another participant argued that a fixed cap of 3% is more beneficial for taxpayers, as it provides predictability amidst potential large increases in property values. This perspective emphasizes the need for a stable approach to taxation that minimizes sudden financial burdens on residents.

Opposition to the proposed amendment was voiced by Jim Benage, the mayor of Bel Air. He criticized the amendment as a "shell game," asserting that it would not lead to actual tax reductions but rather create a false sense of accomplishment among taxpayers. Benage explained that property appraisals serve to equalize property values rather than directly influence tax rates. He highlighted that regardless of changes in assessed values, the overall tax burden would remain tied to the established budget, which in his example was set at $5 million.

The discussion also touched on the importance of transparency in local tax decisions. While Benage acknowledged the value of transparency, he maintained that the proposed changes would not alter the fundamental budgeting process for local governments. He emphasized that any perceived benefits from the amendment would not translate into real financial relief for taxpayers.

As the committee continues to deliberate on these issues, the implications of their decisions will be closely watched by Kansas residents, particularly those concerned about property tax fairness and transparency in local governance. The outcome of these discussions could shape the future of property taxation in the state, impacting how local budgets are managed and how taxpayers perceive their financial responsibilities.