Did you ever have to settle squabbles coming from the back seat of the car, with kids saying ‘she’s looking at me’ or ‘he started it’? That’s how I felt listening to the August 6 discussion among Leavenworth County Commissioners about setting the date for its revenue-neutral hearing.
The entire unfortunate exchange is covered here. The core issue was whether to raise property taxes, with at least one commissioner, Vanessa Reid, opposing a tax increase and refusing to vote to approve a date for a public hearing that is required by law. Reid wanted to see options to avoid a property tax increase, but Commissioner Jeff Culbertson said county staff claims that it is not possible.
“Staff told you what they needed. Staff told you we cannot remain revenue neutral to afford the same assets and services that we had. That’s what the staff recommendation to you was. And you’re saying, ‘I don’t care what staff is saying, that that’s how much money we need. I’m saying, I’m not going to vote for you to get that much money. I don’t know what needs to be cut. I don’t know what there is to be cut. You figure it out.’ That’s what you’re saying.”
Culbertson’s retort is a standard bullying technique employed by people who don’t want to even examine whether tax increases can be avoided. It’s not about choosing which service to cut but finding ways to provide the same services at a more efficient cost.
Former Indiana Governor and President of Purdue University Mitch Daniels explains:
“This place was not built to be efficient. [But] you’re not going to find many places where you just take a cleaver and hack off a big piece of fat. Just like a cow, it’s marbled through the whole enterprise.”
Daniels had the Purdue staff examine the entire enterprise to reduce costs and avoid a tuition increase for nine years. Elected city, county, and school officials should do the same, telling the chief administrator to bring them a budget that doesn’t increase property taxes or cut any services unless staff believes a particular service isn’t needed. And if that doesn’t happen, find a new administrator.
No tax increase needed in Leavenworth County
A quick examination of Leavenworth County budget reports reveals multiple opportunities to avoid a property tax increase next year.
Compared to actual spending in 2014, proposed spending in the group of funds that get property tax revenue would be 98% higher in 2026, and property taxes would be 108% higher. Meanwhile, inflation would be 36% and population would only be 9% higher (both continuing at the current pace).
It simply isn’t believable that a 98% spending hike is necessary.
There may not be time to examine the entire enterprise at this late stage in the budget cycle, but there’s another option.
The proposed budget includes nearly $6 million in discretionary transfers to a collection of non-budgeted funds that probably isn’t necessary. (I say ‘probably’ because Leavenworth County only provided 2024 data for the non-budgeted funds.) The funds in the adjacent table – Equipment Reserve, Capital Improvement Reserve, Capital Roads, and Road & Bridge – finished 2024 with a collective total of $17.7 million.
Imagine having savings accounts set up to save for vacation and home repairs. Each year, you deposit money in those accounts and spend it, while leaving a balance that would cover a couple of years’ worth of spending. You could skip a year of making deposits and still go on vacation and fix up the house, with money left over.
That’s what has been happening with those four Leavenworth County funds.
The property tax of $43.7 million proposed for 2026 is about a $2 million increase. So rather than transfer $6 million next year, commissioners could reduce it to $4 million and not increase property taxes.
Leavenworth County Administrator Mark Loughry says, “It is never a good idea to use reserves” to balance a budget or prevent a tax increase. He’s entitled to his opinion, but isn’t it fair (to taxpayers) to have an open discussion to decide how much reserves are necessary, especially since people are being taxed out of their homes (Leavenworth County increased property tax by 437% since 1997)?
Loughry says, “Nearly all of our reserves are tied directly to multi-year Capital Improvement schedules and Fleet Replacement schedules,” but shouldn’t taxpayers at least have the option of examining the facts to make an informed decision on how their money should be spent…and when? We asked Loughry to see the multi-year schedules, but none were provided.
He pushed back on the notion of being able to operate more efficiently, saying, “To my knowledge, you have never set (sic) through one of our annual budget meetings with each department where they present a detailed report of their expenditures.”
That’s true, but I’d be delighted to do so and be able to ask some taxpayer-focused questions. Elected officials should know how much spending in each agency is discretionary, meaning it isn’t required and doesn’t directly contribute to a service. Businesses and government alike have discretionary spending, like travel and organizational memberships. Commissioner Stieben told me about a discretionary expenditure of about $140,000 to add security measures to a second entrance; the Kansas state capitol only has one entrance, so maybe one entrance is sufficient for the county.
Leavenworth County taxpayers also deserve an explanation for a 149% increase in Employee Benefits over 12 years. It may be valid, but these things are for taxpayers to decide.
Avoiding tax increases is eminently possible when elected officials show leadership and prioritize taxpayers’ interests, and voters deserve nothing less.
