Can a Kansas county offer a property tax rebate program without specific state statutory authorization?

Plain-English summary

Harper County's Ad Valorem Rebate Program offered tax rebates to participating property owners, and the county attorney asked the Attorney General whether the program was permissible as set up, and whether it could require participants to waive appeals of their property valuation or refund requests while enrolled.

The Attorney General explained that taxation in Kansas is entirely a creature of state statute: under Article 11, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution, only the Legislature can set the basis and rate of property taxation, and that exclusive power extends to the power to remit or rebate part of an assessed tax. K.S.A. 79-1703(a) bars county commissioners from releasing, discharging, or remitting any portion of assessed taxes except as the statute or other law allows. Because the county could not produce any ordinance, resolution, or meeting minutes showing the Rebate Program had ever been formally adopted, or identify which (if any) state statutory scheme it relied on, the opinion could not confirm the program's validity. But it stated plainly that without statutory authorization and compliance with that authorizing statute's procedures, the program is likely impermissible. Because it could not resolve the validity question, the opinion declined to address whether the program could require participants to waive appeal rights.

What this means for you

County commissioners and county attorneys designing local tax incentive or rebate programs: the opinion holds that any ad valorem property tax rebate or abatement program must trace to a specific state statutory scheme, such as the Community Improvement District Act, the Economic Development Revenue Bonds Act, the Business Improvement District Act, the Neighborhood Revitalization Act, or the Downtown Redevelopment Act, and must follow that statute's own adoption procedures. A program with no statutory citation and no documented formal adoption is legally exposed.

Property owners considering enrolling in a county tax rebate program: the opinion signals that rebate programs lacking clear statutory grounding carry legal risk, since K.S.A. 79-1703(a) allows recovery of improperly discharged or remitted taxes through a civil action.

Common questions

What statutory schemes let a Kansas county offer property tax incentives?
The opinion lists five: the Community Improvement District Act (K.S.A. 12-6a26 et seq.), the Economic Development Revenue Bonds Act (K.S.A. 12-1740 et seq.), the Business Improvement District Act (K.S.A. 12-1781 et seq.), the Neighborhood Revitalization Act (K.S.A. 12-17,114 et seq.), and the Downtown Redevelopment Act (K.S.A. 12-17,121 et seq.), each with its own required procedures.

Did the Attorney General rule that Harper County's program was illegal?
Not definitively. The opinion says it lacked enough information about the program's origin and legal basis to reach a final conclusion, and separately notes the underlying contract among taxing entities had already expired December 31, 2025, which may make the question moot.

Background and statutory framework

Article 11, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution requires the Legislature to provide a uniform and equal basis of valuation and rate of taxation for all taxable property. Because taxation exists only by virtue of legislation, the power to tax, and the related power to remit or rebate a portion of an assessed tax, belongs exclusively to the Legislature. K.S.A. 79-1703(a) codifies this by barring county commissioners or other county officers from releasing, discharging, or remitting any portion of assessed or levied taxes "for any reason whatever," except as subsection (b) allows (a narrow bankruptcy-related compromise procedure requiring state Board of Tax Appeals approval) or as otherwise provided by law. Taxes improperly discharged, released, or remitted can be recovered through a civil action under K.S.A. 79-1703(a).

The opinion noted the Attorney General's office has applied this limitation before, including a prior opinion (No. 1991-6) holding a county commission cannot forgive accrued interest and penalties on unpaid taxes, and an earlier opinion (No. 78-190) concluding a city or county had no statutory authority to grant ad valorem tax credits for energy-efficient property improvements absent a specific enabling statute. Because Harper County could not show any ordinance, resolution, or meeting-minute record adopting its Rebate Program, and the program document itself cited no statutory authorization (a related interlocal contract mentioned only K.S.A. 12-2908, which allows municipalities to jointly perform government services but does not itself authorize a tax rebate program), the opinion could not confirm which, if any, of the state's existing tax-incentive statutory schemes covered it.

Citations and references

Statutes:
- K.S.A. 79-1703 (incl. (a), (b))
- Kan. Const. Art. 11, § 1(a)
- K.S.A. 12-6a26 et seq. (Community Improvement District Act), incl. 12-6a28, 12-6a29
- K.S.A. 12-1740 et seq. (Economic Development Revenue Bonds Act), incl. 12-1741, 12-1741b
- K.S.A. 12-1781 et seq. (Business Improvement District Act), incl. 12-1783
- K.S.A. 12-17,114 et seq. (Neighborhood Revitalization Act), incl. 12-17,116, 12-17,117
- K.S.A. 12-17,121 et seq. (Downtown Redevelopment Act), incl. 12-17,123
- K.S.A. 12-2908

Cases:
- Heartland Apartment Assoc., Inc. v. City of Mission, 306 Kan. 2 (2017)
- Joseph v. McNeive, 215 Kan. 270 (1974)
- In re the Protest of Strayer, 239 Kan. 136 (1986)
- Kucera v. State, 160 Kan. 624 (1945)
- Walkemeyer v. Stevens Cnty. Oil and Gas Co., 205 Kan. 486 (1970)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ks.gov/reports-resources/ag-opinions
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.ks.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/24710/639034658625130000

Original opinion text

The full opinion as issued by the Office of the Kansas Attorney General:

January 6, 2026

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 2026-1

Richard Raleigh
Harper County Attorney
201 N. Jennings Ave., 4th Floor
Anthony, KS 67003

Re: Taxation—Correction of Irregularities—Unlawful Release, Discharge, Remission or Commutation of Taxes; Civil Action Authorized Thereon

Synopsis: Article 11, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution requires a "uniform and equal basis of valuation and rate of taxation of all property subject to taxation." Taxation is a legislative power and can only be exercised under the authority of a state statute. The Legislature's exclusive power to tax extends to the power to remit portions of an assessed tax. Thus, a county may not implement a tax rebate program unless it is authorized by, and complies with, a state statutory scheme. Harper County instituted the Ad Valorem Rebate Program to offer tax rebates from county ad valorem property taxes to program participants. Because this Office lacks information on whether the Rebate Program was implemented under the authority of a state statute, we cannot determine its validity under state law. But, for the Rebate Program to be valid, it must be based on, and comply with, a state statutory tax rebate scheme. Cited herein: K.S.A. 12-6a26; K.S.A. 12-1740; K.S.A. 12-1781; K.S.A. 12-2908; K.S.A. 12-17,114; K.S.A. 12-17,121; K.S.A. 79-1703.

Dear Mr. Raleigh:

As County Attorney for Harper County, you ask whether Harper County's Ad Valorem Rebate Program is permissible as currently constituted. If it is permissible, you also ask whether the Rebate Program can require participants to agree not to appeal the valuation of their property or seek a refund of any tax for which rebate payments have been made while the property is a part of the program.

You specifically ask whether the Rebate Program is required to be authorized by a state statutory enactment, such as with the Neighborhood Revitalization Act, K.S.A. 12-17,114, et seq., and the Downtown Redevelopment Act, K.S.A. 12-17,121, et seq. Taxation is a creature of state law, so any programs providing rebates for ad valorem property taxes must also be authorized by state law. Because this Office has not been provided information on the enactment of the Rebate Program, or the basis for its authorization, we are unable to conclude whether the Rebate Program is properly constituted. In any case, without such statutory authorization and compliance, the Rebate Program is likely not permissible under state law.

Article 11, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution directs: "Except as otherwise hereinafter specifically provided, the legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal basis of valuation and rate of taxation of all property subject to taxation."1 The "uniform and equal basis of valuation" clause requires the Legislature to provide uniformity in the basis of assessment as well as the taxation rate.2

1 Kan. Const. Art. 11, § 1(a).
2 Heartland Apartment Assoc., Inc. v. City of Mission, 306 Kan. 2, 10, 392 P.3d 98 (2017).

Taxation is wholly derived from legislation and cannot exist apart from state statute.3 "The Legislature is empowered to provide the means and agencies for carrying out its responsibility in matters of taxation."4 While the power to tax is inherent to the power to govern, "the exercise of that power is dependent upon the existence of legislation designating the kinds of property to be taxed and nothing is taxable unless clearly within the taxing statute."5

3 Joseph v. McNeive, 215 Kan. 270, 271, 524 P.2d 765 (1974).
4 Id.
5 In re the Protest of Strayer, 239 Kan. 136, 141, 716 P.2d 588 (1986).

The Legislature's exclusive power to tax also extends to the power to remit portions of an assessed tax. K.S.A. 79-1703(a) states that, except as provided in subsection (b) or otherwise by law, "no board of county commissioners or other officer of any county shall have power to release, discharge or remit any portion of the taxes assessed or levied against any person or property within their respective jurisdictions for any reason whatever." Any taxes that are "discharged, released or remitted" can by recovered in a civil action.6 Subsection (b) permits the county commissioners, with the approval of the state board of tax appeals, if "a person, partnership or corporation" has failed to pay taxes and is in an United States bankruptcy action to "compromise, assign, transfer or otherwise settle such tax claim in such fashion as the commissioners deem to be in the best interest of the state and all taxing subdivisions affected thereby."7

6 K.S.A. 79-1703(a).
7 K.S.A. 79-1703(b).

This Office has previously recognized the limitations K.S.A. 79-1703 places on counties,8 and has explained that the authority to tax is "wholly statutory" and "that a board of county commissioners may not forgive interest and penalties lawfully accrued as a result of unpaid taxes."9 The collection and distribution of ad valorem tax money is statutorily established.10 And this Office has not found any statutory authority or case law that shows a public entity was permitted to decline acceptance of tax money otherwise required by a tax statute.11 Once that money has been accepted, as required by law, the entity may expend it "for any legally permissible purpose within the scope of authority of those public entities" and for no other purpose.12 Finally, in Attorney General Opinion No. 78-190, this Office explained that, with regard to city or county property tax incentives for energy-efficient uses of property and vehicles, that there was no statutory authority for a city or county to offer a "credit against ad valorem tax liability for generated energy-efficient features installed on real property, or for energy-efficient motor vehicles." That opinion specifically noted that a board of county commissioners had no authority to release, discharge, remit, or commute any portion of a tax except as provided by law, citing K.S.A. 79-1703.13 The opinion thus concluded that, without a statutory basis for the ad valorem tax abatement, a city or county could not implement a tax-incentive program involving "ad valorem property taxes levied by such city or county."14

8 Att'y Gen. Op. No. 2005-19, at 1 ("If the property is not exempt from taxation, K.S.A. 79-1703 generally prohibits a county commission from releasing, discharging, remitting or commuting any portion of the taxes assessed or levied against any person or property within their respective jurisdictions for any reason.").
9 Att'y Gen. Op. No. 1991-6, at 1 (citing Kucera v. State, 160 Kan. 624, 626 (1945); Walkemeyer v. Stevens Cnty. Oil and Gas Co., 205 Kan. 486 (1970)).
10 Id. at 2.
11 Id.
12 Id.
13 Att'y Gen. Op. 78-190, at *2.
14 Id.

State law contains several statutory schemes authorizing such programs.15 Each statutory scheme requires a taxing subdivision, like a county, to comply with specific procedures required by statute to participate in the program.16 Our Legislature's creation of specific statutory schemes to authorize certain programs to provide tax-relief incentives for taxing subdivisions to encourage their constituents to make improvements provides additional evidence that a county can only offer a tax relief program if specifically authorized by statute.

15 See K.S.A. 12-6a26, et seq. (Community Improvement District Act); K.S.A. 12-1740, et seq. (Economic Development Revenue Bonds Act); K.S.A. 12-1781, et seq. (Business Improvement District Act); K.S.A. 12-17,114, et seq. (Neighborhood Revitalization Act); K.S.A. 12-17,121, et seq. (Downtown Redevelopment Act).
16 See K.S.A. 12-6a28; K.S.A. 12-6a29; K.S.A 12-1741; K.S.A. 12-1741b; K.S.A. 12-1783; K.S.A. 12-17,116; K.S.A. 12-17,117; K.S.A. 12-17,123.

Accordingly, the Rebate Program implemented by Harper County must be authorized by, and comply with, state statute. In your request, you note the Rebate Program is similar to the Neighborhood Revitalization Act and the Downtown Redevelopment Act. However, there is no indication that the Rebate Program is authorized by either act. With your request, you provided a copy of the Rebate Program and application, as well as an unsigned copy of a contract between the County and several other taxing entities located within Harper County for the signatory parties to timely implement the Rebate Program.17 The copy of the Rebate Program contains no statutory citation for authorization. The contract mentions K.S.A. 12-2908, allowing municipalities to contract to jointly perform a government service but otherwise contains no authorization for the Rebate Program itself. When this Office sought information on the authorization for the Rebate Program, you provided copies of ordinances enacting the program from the cities of Harper and Anthony, but you informed this Office that you were unable to find any ordinance, resolution, publication, notice, or anything in the county commission's meeting minutes indicating consideration and passage of the Rebate Program, or whether it was authorized under any state statute. As a result, this Office has no evidence that the County ever passed any ordinance or resolution enacting the Rebate Program, or that it even signed the contract with the other taxing subdivisions.

17 The contract lists several cities, school districts, and hospital districts as part of the Rebate Program. This opinion does not address the validity of the Rebate Program as adopted by any of these entities at this time, as the authority of those entities to enact the Rebate Program is not a part of the question presented to this Office.

Given the absence of these necessary facts, we are unable at this time to answer with certainty your specific question about whether the Rebate Program is properly constituted. The Rebate Program must be authorized by, and comply with, a state statutory scheme for the County to offer ad valorem rebates under the Rebate Program. If the Rebate Program lacks this statutory authorization, then it would likely violate state law.

We also note that the contract shows the agreement expired on December 31, 2025. You did not provide any information about whether the Rebate Program has been renewed or reenacted past December 31, 2025. Thus, we recognize this question may be moot.

Finally, because we are unable to determine whether the Rebate Program is permissible under state law, we decline to opine on whether the Rebate Program can require participants to waive appeal of the valuation of their property or seek other refunds.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kris W. Kobach

Kris W. Kobach
Attorney General

/s/ Ryan J. Ott

Ryan J. Ott
Assistant Solicitor General