ROBERT PIERCE
• Leader & Times
Many locals have been speculating about recent requests made under the Kansas Open Records Act, including one by Seward County Commission Chairman Steve Helm, for a list of protestors who petitioned the county after commissioners in September 2025 tried to increase the county’s budget 15 mills over the Revenue Neutral Rate for Fiscal Year 2026.
Monday, County Counsel Forrest Rhodes shed some light on the issue, and he started by saying current Board of Tax Appeals issues do not concern two formal complaints filed last year, as those have now been resolved.
“The resolution of that is done,” he said. “BOTA gave us the authority to implement the settlement, which meant returning to revenue neutral. That process is finished. All the taxpayers in the county have been notified of the Revenue Neutral Rate and were either given refunds or credits on their taxes to account for that. That process is behind us.”
Rhodes said what the issue is now is 156 small claims actions pending before BOTA premised on taxpayers who made their December 2025 tax payment under protest.
“That process starts a small claims action within BOTA that is at least at present individual,” he said. “There are 156 pending protests. It doesn’t mean there’s 156 individuals. Some individuals might own more than one parcel of property that’s subject to property tax, but there are 156 parcels that have filed protests. BOTA notified us of this back in February during a status conference we had on the two formal complaints that were settled at that point.”
As the county was in the process of negotiating a resolution to the two formal complaints, Rhodes said BOTA was willing to put the small claims matters on hold with the idea if the settlement involved a reverting to revenue neutral, which ultimately happened.
“There was a question of what would be the reason for the small claims complaints moving forward,” he said. “Those individuals presumably were challenging the Revenue Neutral Rate decision. Although we didn’t know that, we being the county officials, the only person in the county who would’ve known the reason for the complaints at that point was the treasurer because her office was the one that would’ve accepted the complaint forms, and with the complaint form, there’s a three-page form you complete. On the form, the taxpayer has to identify the reason for the complaint.”
Rhodes said at this point, he and county administration knew of around 170 complaints, but it was not known what the basis of any of the individual complaints.
“We didn’t even know who the complainants were,” he said. “We just knew the number recognizing once BOTA was notified of the terms of our settlements before the settlement actually occurred. Before we had authority to go in and actually return to revenue neutral, BOTA was aware that was the terms we had agreed on.”
Rhodes said BOTA sent letters to each of the protesting payers, notifying them of the settlement and asking each to respond as to their intention regarding whether they wanted to continue to pursue a small claims matter in light of the fact the rate was going back to revenue neutral.
“Most of the 170 plus didn’t respond,” she said. “About 20 did respond, and they notified BOTA they intended to withdraw their complaints. That took the previous number down to I say about 20 parcels, so now we’re left with 156 small claims protests. BOTA notified us on April 21 we had 156 left that needed to be set for hearing.”
The thought at this point, Rhodes said, is the number of small claims cases could be decreased.
“There’s going to be potentially a pretty significant cost to having to do 156 small claims hearings, and we felt that many of those folks didn’t want to continue to pursue their complaint in light of the settlement, but we didn’t know, and they didn’t respond,” he said. “For whatever reason, there were those who didn’t respond to the letter BOTA sent, so we asked BOTA to give us a little time to see what we could do. At that point, they were agreeable to it.”
As an attorney, Rhodes said even under the best circumstances, getting all 156 cases to withdraw would likely not happen.,
“We certainly hope that’s what’ll happen, but that’s a big number,” he said. “I needed to start thinking about what information I would need as counsel for the county to defend these small claims matters if they go to hearing.”
April 23, Rhodes reached out to Treasurer Mary Rose to provide a copy of a report Rose said she was keeping which identified each of the protestors by name and address and copies of the forms each taxpayer submitted with their protest.
“For my purposes as counsel, I needed to know why those individuals were filing their protest,” Rhodes said. “Were they all for the same reason? Were they for different reasons? I didn’t know, and the only way I would know is by looking at those forms. I got no response from the treasurer’s office to my request, understanding at the time the treasurer’s office was in the midst of working through the settlement.”
As Rose and her office staff were in the midst of processing refunds and creditors to taxpayers at the time after the commission voted to return the budget to revenue neutral, Rhodes said he did not press the issue for some time.
“I had numerous exchanges with Miss Rose about information we would need for a notice letter to the protesting taxpayers, again sending a letter coming from the county,” Rhodes said. “My initial proposal was Miss Rose would be the one to send it. I think a lot of the taxpayers, they’ve made their protest through the treasurer’s office. A letter coming from her office might resonate with those folks to let them know by reverting to revenue neutral, we’ve resolved these issues. Do you really still want to pursue a small claims matter with BOTA?”
Rhode said Rose was uncooperative with what he was trying to do and had refused to sign the letter.
“Ultimately, we reached language on the letter, and the board through the commissioners agreed to sign it collectively with each of the five commissioners signing the letter,” Rhodes said. “We got that worked out on May 18.”
Rhodes said he later repeated his request to Rose, saying he needed information regarding the outstanding protestors and copies of the protest documents.
“I needed to be ready to prepare for these small claims hearings BOTA was pushing to move forward,” Rhodes said. “Once again, I got no response from her or her office to that request. On June 1, I reached out again explaining why I needed the protest documents.”
Rhodes said there was some dispute at this point because Helm had made a request for the information the attorney needed through KORA.
“My explanation to Mary was my request wasn’t a KORA request,” Rhodes said. “I’m representing the county. I need the information she has in order to represent the county’s interests in these matters. Again, she didn’t respond to me June 11. I again let her know the matter these documents were outstanding, and again, no response. She didn’t respond to me.”
Rhodes said he was aware at this point Rose responded to the KORA request, stating she was not going to produce anything until she had obtained her own legal counsel.
“I again mentioned to her the request from me had nothing to do with KORA,” Rhodes said. “This is one department within the county sharing information with another person working for the county working towards the same end, and I got no response and still haven’t got a response.”
Rhodes said he became aware of a message Rose posted on Facebook explaining that her attorney had told her it was okay to disclose the information through KORA.
“Once again, KORA was never at issue for why I needed it, and I still at this point don’t have the documents or a response,” Rhodes said. “I understand she’s represented by counsel, and he and I have exchanged e-mails, but we haven’t had a chance to connect.”
In the statement, Rose said she had hired outside counsel, Chris McGowne of McGowne Uhrich P.A. to assist her in the matter to ensure she did the proper due diligence before releasing the personal information of anyone in the county.
“He has reviewed the statute and spoken with the Kansas Attorney General, and he has determined the information must be released under the statute,” Rose said. “We looked at every available option to protect the information of the citizens who protested the mill levy that was rescinded, and unfortunately, we are unable to redact the personal information such as names and addresses nor prevent release of the information to Commissioner Helm as the requesting party.”
Rose said she and McGowne wanted to explore every avenue to prevent release of the information, but under Kansas law, she is required to release the information to Helm.
“We are reaching out to those individual taxpayers to let them know the situation and allow them to explore all their options prior to release of the information to Commissioner Helm,” Rose said. “We understand this is a difficult situation, and we do apologize to those citizens who are the subject of this request.”
For those who have further questions, Rose advised constituents to reach out to McGowne or herself to get further information.
“I want to assure all my constituents I will always explore any available avenue at my disposal to keep their information confidential, but I am also obliged to follow Kansas law as an elected official,” Rose said.
Monday, Rhodes said he had got an updated response from BOTA.
“What I hoped to see is BOTA would set each of the pending matters for a status conference with the idea people might no show for the status conference if they really weren’t interested in pursuing their complaint,” he said. “Then BOTA could potentially move forward on those complaints without a hearing. If the protestor wasn’t interested in attending the conference, BOTA was not willing to do that, but what they have proposed is before setting the matters for hearing, the will do a joint status conference viz Zoom with as many of the protestors as choose to show up for it.”
Rhodes said he still has hope BOTA will set conferences and the number of complaints can still be decreased.
“Given the size of the number, I still fully expect some of these are going to some sort of a hearing, and we’re going to have to prepare for that,” he said. “Right now, I can’t do that because I don’t have the information on which the protests were made.”
Administrator April Warden said BOTA officials have provided her with phone numbers to allow her to reach out to constituents with outstanding claims in an effort for additional facilitation beyond letters.
“Maybe we could find out from some of them if they’re willing to sign something I can send them via e-mail,” she said.
Rhodes said communication beyond letters would be a great option.
“The sense I’m getting from BOTA is they’re not willing to dismiss or stop a claim based on an assumption of what someone’s non-response means,” he said. “They’re flexible to removing the complaints that really don’t want to be there, and that’s better for everybody. They don’t want to go through the process of a hearing from someone who is going to not show up for it, but we need some sort of direct contact with each person.”
With letters producing few results, Rhodes said other methods definitely need to be tried.
“If there’s e-mail or phone calls, any means of actually communicating directly with someone and getting a confirmation they don’t want to continue this or if they do, just tell us they do, and we can move forward accordingly,” he said. “If a phone call is the way to get hold of them and have a discussion, that’s great.”
