1. Simplify taxes: make property-tax bills understandable

I'd propose a Kansas Property Taxpayer Bill of Rights:

• Require every county property-tax statement to show, in plain language:

  • total tax owed;

  • change from the prior year;

  • change attributable to higher valuation versus higher mill levies;

  • each taxing authority's share.

• Create a single online state portal where taxpayers can see their property valuation, taxing jurisdictions, mill levies, and historical changes.

• Require counties to provide a simple explanation of the appeals process with every valuation notice.

• Simplify and consolidate Kansas' existing residential property-tax relief programs where possible. Kansas currently has separate Homestead, Tax Freeze, and SAFESR programs.

You shouldn't need a tax lawyer to understand why your property-tax bill went up.

2. Review ineffective tax incentives

This one could be very powerful politically, particularly given your recent data-center work.

Kansas has an enormous collection of economic-development incentives, including state tax credits, property-tax exemptions, revenue bonds, TIFs, community improvement districts, and other local incentives. State law now defines a remarkably broad range of these programs as economic-development incentives.

I'd propose:

Every major tax incentive gets a return-on-investment review.

For incentives above a specified threshold:

• Publish the recipient.

• Publish the amount of foregone tax revenue.

• State the promised jobs/investment.

• Report actual jobs/investment.

• Calculate tax revenue actually generated.

• Establish expiration dates.

• Require legislative reauthorization for programs that don't meet their benchmarks.

And importantly:

No special tax break should be permanent merely because somebody managed to get it written into statute.

Kansas is already moving toward greater reporting of economic-development incentives, including local incentives.

Your position therefore isn't "eliminate economic development incentives." It's:

"If we're going to give somebody a tax break, Kansans deserve to know what we're getting in return."

3. Grow the tax base instead of simply squeezing existing taxpayers

This is where I'd make your property-tax argument distinctive.

Don't promise to freeze local government revenue. Promise to make it easier for communities to grow their way out of the problem.

I'd propose a Rural Housing and Growth Initiative:

• State grants/low-interest financing for infrastructure needed to open new residential subdivisions.

• Incentives for renovation of vacant/abandoned houses.

• State matching funds for communities that establish workforce-housing programs.

• Expand financing for water/sewer infrastructure supporting new housing.

• Target state economic-development funds toward communities demonstrating actual population and employment growth.

• Give small communities technical assistance to assemble land, infrastructure, and financing for housing projects.

The basic economic proposition:

1,000 new taxable homes and businesses can broaden the tax base in a way that another 10% increase in the valuation of existing homes cannot.

That's particularly relevant in rural Kansas, where the problem isn't simply "government spends too much"; it is often that there aren't enough taxpayers supporting the infrastructure and services we need.

4. Stop unfunded state mandates

This one has a very strong factual basis.

Kansas counties are required to provide numerous services—including public health, emergency management, mental health, sheriff/jail functions, courts, elections, property valuation, roads, bridges and others—and the Kansas Association of Counties estimates that property taxes provide about 56% of the funding for those core services.

I'd propose a "State Mandate, State Responsibility" law:

If the Legislature requires a county or municipality to provide a new service or substantially increases the cost of an existing state-mandated service, the state must either provide funding or explicitly identify the local revenue source that will pay for it.

And I'd go further:

• Require a fiscal note for significant local-government mandates.

• Require the Legislature to identify the expected cost to counties/cities.

• Prohibit the state from simultaneously imposing the mandate and artificially restricting the local government's ability to raise the revenue necessary to comply.

• Establish a periodic review of existing mandates to identify obsolete requirements.

• Give counties a formal mechanism to petition the Legislature for relief from demonstrably obsolete or excessively costly mandates.

This produces a very clean political argument:

"You can't tell Pratt County what it has to do and then complain when Pratt County has to raise the money to do it."

That's a position that can appeal to Democrats, Republicans, county commissioners, sheriffs, hospital administrators and rural taxpayers simultaneously.

I'd actually make this a larger tax platform

Property Tax Relief That Actually Works

1. Make the bill understandable.
Taxpayers deserve to know exactly why their bill changed.

2. Protect people, not just property values.
Strengthen income-based relief for homeowners who genuinely cannot afford rising taxes rather than giving the largest dollar benefit to the owners of the most expensive houses.

3. Make tax incentives earn their keep.
No blank checks for corporations. Measure jobs, investment and actual tax revenue.

4. Grow the tax base.
Housing, businesses and population growth let communities spread the cost of government across more taxpayers.

5. Stop unfunded mandates.
If Topeka requires a local government to provide something, Topeka should help pay for it.

6. Preserve local control.
Don't force rural counties to choose between cutting essential services and raising property taxes because the state has made the decision for them.

That last point is especially important for your campaign. You can simultaneously advocate property-tax relief and defend local government from state interference. Those aren't contradictory positions.

And given the current Kansas debate over property taxes—including proposals for assessed-value growth limits and broad homestead exemptions—I think your strongest contrast is to say: "I want relief that is targeted at people who need it, fiscally sustainable for rural communities, and paired with policies that actually grow the tax base."

That is a much more defensible platform than simply promising a statewide property-tax cut.