Letter to the Editor

Dear Editor,

With typical legislative hoopla and fanfare, the Kansas state legislature passed in 2021, The Kansas Truth in Taxation Act, containing K.S.A 79-2988 - the so-called Revenue Neutral Rate (RNR) statute. In my opinion, it constitutes one of the shoddiest pieces of legislation ever to come out of Topeka. Marty Long, our Representaive at the time, enthusiastically supported and promoted this legislation. Supposedly ultra-conservative right wing think tanks, (effectively lobbying organizations), such as The Kansas Policy Institute endorsed and promoted passage as well, and send out campaign flyers during election cycles promoting candidates such as Representative Long as believing in limited government and lower taxes.

In this current legislative session (2025), HB 2396, which would have overturned and replaced K.S.A. 79-2988, was passed in the House, with representative Long's vote in favor thereof, (therefore against his previous vote for K.S.A. 79-2988 in 2021), but the Senate dropped the ball to pass it; consequently K.S.A. 79-2988 still governs. It seems Representative Long, like so many of his colleagues, holds his finger up to sense which way the legislative wind is blowing, and joins the crowd mentality to vote as a "party puppet" to appease his colleagues instead of his constituency.

In 2021, the RNR statute was touted by it's promoters/supporters as a "pro"-taxpayer piece of legislation, and they did everything to disguise and camouflage the same as such - every thing from it's nick-name "Revenual Neutral Rate" to the initial provisions of the statute that basically stated "(b) Except as otherwise provided in this section, no tax rate in excess of the revenue neutral rate shall be levied by the "governing body" of any taxing subdivision unless a resolution or ordinance has been approved by the governing body according to the following procedure:" bla bla bla.

This lulls the taxpayers into believing taxing subdivisions are discouraged from levying an ad valorem property tax increase that exceeds the RNR mill levy rate and creates the illusion that the "governing body" is trying to keep spending/taxation stability under control relative to prior taxing cycles.

"Revenue Neutral Rate", (the mill levy rate needed to generate the same property tax revenue as the previous year),  is calculated as RNR in mills = (Previous Year's Property Tax Revenue / Current Year's Total Taxable Assessed Valuation) x 1000, carried out to three decimal places.

However paragraph (b) is not the whole ball of wax, and it's in the "bla, bla, bla" where things get interesting. If a "governing body" decides to pursue the fiscal policies of spend and tax and tax and spend, they may do so WITHOUT LIMIT, since the RNR statute did  away with the previously applicable "tax lid" that constituted the maximum a "governing body" could increase taxes in any given tax cycle. So now, under RNR, a "governing body" may actually impose without restriction a tax increase by 100%, 500%, 1,000%, a million per cent - what ever strikes their fancy - the sky and their imagination is the only upper limit boundry their whims and desires are subject to, allowing them to butter their bread as thick as they want to butter it.

But in all fairness to the taxpayers, the legislators, in a gust of consciousness, decided we should at least provide for taxpayer notification of the intent. So they included in the "bla, bla, bla" provisions that the "governing body" shall hold a public hearing on the matter - at which hearing those citizens/taxpayers who aren't so apathetic and complacent that they actually  give a damn can show up and yell, scream, holler, shout, cuss and stompt their feet in protest. But in the end when all the commotion subsides the "governing body" can look every one in the eye and say "Well we are sorry you feel that way, but now that we've allowed your First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech and Protest including grievance against your government to be exercised, . . . guess what . . . we are the "governing body" and we are going to do it anyhow . . . screw you". The public hearing constitutes the ONLY public representation possible. And that's about the end of the dog and pony show, but not quite.

The statute specifies that in conjunction with this public hearing, there shall an election. But can the general electorate, the taxpayers who will have to pick up the tab and get stuck paying for the "governing body's" spending/taxation spree vote in this election ? NO !!! Only those who are direct members of the "governing body" can vote in an internal election held within. How do you think an election only among those proposing the increase to begin with will turn out 99.9% of the time ? The taxpayers picking up the tab are prevented from exercising their ultimate form of representation, a confidential vote in the ballot box. Our system "of, by, and for the people" has been replaced with a system that is "of, by, and for the governing body". In the past, this style of governance has led to the grass roots "guns and butter movements" of history by the oppressed.

Did the legislators who pushed through K.S.A. 79-2988 sleep through history & government class in High School ? Even if not so, they seem to have forgotten our founding forefathers dumped a lot of tea in the Boston Harbour and fought a bloody Revolutionary War to break away from the Crown of England - the central issue prompting all this was "taxation without meaningful representation". In 1776, we broke away from England's authority only in time to replace it with the equivalent.

Our founding fathers relied on musket skills and kept their powder dry. They were pretty good with "tar and feather skills" as well. Since those forms of protest have been made illegal criminal activity in our current society, the legislators know they can get away with anything.

I propose the lazy voters across the state find out the role their respective legislators from their respective jurisdictional districts played in this, and express your ultimate form of representation in the ballot box next time your legislator's term is up for re-election. In the interim, recall petitions might be in an option.

Daris P. Wiebe

Ulysses, Kansas