The Kansas Legislature is again taking up a bill this year that would put a proposed amendment to the Kansas Constitution that would limit taxable assessed valuation increases to 3% per year on real estate and mobile homes.
This is the fourth straight year legislators have attempted to pass such a measure.
Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute — which owns The Sentinel — spoke in favor of the proposal during the hearing in the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee.
“Statewide, 75% of voters support an assessment limit, while only 13% oppose it,” Trabert said in written testimony. “There is robust support across all geographic areas of the state and all self-identified political viewpoints. Voter support isn’t just strong — it is skyrocketing.”
According to Trabert, homeowners in 52 of the state’s 105 counties have been hit with property tax increases above the 26% state average because local officials took advantage of valuation spikes.
In oral testimony, Trabert noted that from 1997 to 2024, “residential property went from paying 39% of the tax burden to 55% and ironically, everyone else went down.”
The share borne by commercial and industrial real estate increased by four percentage points, but machinery and equipment dropped by eight points, for a net burden decline of four points.
Moreover, he said, there are 10 counties in the state where property taxes went up over 45% in three years.
“Who got a 45% increase in their income?” he said. “This is just not affordable. It’s not even about ‘can we pretend that all the assessed values are accurate,’ we know they’re not, because we know that half, at least, of the [Board of Tax Appeals] cases get overturned in favor of the taxpayer, but let’s pretend that they’re all accurate. This isn’t affordable. That’s what this really is. It is an affordability issue.”
Trabert said SCR 1616 — the current bill — addresses some of the concerns that were brought up last year.
“I really like the new design of SCR 1616, I think it’s resolved a fair number of the concerns that were expressed last year,” Trabert said. “There was concern that this would suppress market values, if it was on appraised [values] this is on assessed, taxable value. There’s no change in the appraisal.”
According to the Revisor of Statutes, the bill provides that any valuation limit tied to a property would remain in place when the property is sold.
Benefits of assessed valuation limit debated
Kansas Association of Realtors Vice President of Governmental Affairs Mark Tomb — who testified in opposition to the bill last year — continued his opposition this year.
“This Amendment gives property owners/taxpayers the false perception that they will pay less in property taxes,” Tomb said in written testimony. “However, assessed valuation is only part of the property tax formula; local governments will still be able to raise the amount of revenue unencumbered by anything having to do with valuation increases. Under current law, local governments would only be checked by revenue neutral notice/hearing and eventually the consequences of the ballot box. This measure does not increase accountability where it actually counts.”
That is not exactly the case, however, as — while taxes may not immediately drop — data presented at a Special Committee on Taxation hearing last November showed limits would save taxpayers a great deal of money over time.
“An assessment limit absolutely would impact government spending decisions,” Trabert said in a recent story. “Local elected officials have conditioned voters to equate mill rate increases with tax increases. If they want to continue imposing large tax increases with assessed values limited to 3% growth, they would have to impose significant mill rate hikes and risk getting tossed out of office. It’s much more likely that most elected officials curb spending a bit or use some of their carryover cash reserves to avoid a large tax hike.
“Our analysis shows that homeowners could save billions over time, even with mill rate increases that raise local government’s property tax revenue by 4% each year. An assessment limit would make it much harder for local officials to get away with double-digit tax increases, however.”
Ironically, many of the realtors who belong to KAR do not agree with the organization’s position.
Additionally, Basehor Deputy City Administrator Maddie Bouton and Leavenworth County Commissioner Mike Stieben both testified in favor of the amendment.
The Kansas Farm Bureau testified in opposition — as did the Kansas Livestock Association — something which flabbergasted Eric Estes, of the Kansas Deere Dealer’s Association.
“I’m not exactly sure why they would take a stance to not support something that’s good for Ag,” Estes said. “It will help our agriculture and our farms and our cattle producers. So I can’t speak to as to why they would be opposed to that. I would like to hear if there’s something better, right? If there’s a better idea, we’d sure love to hear it. But right now, this cap is sure working, and other states have implemented it.”
Representatives of the Farm Bureau and KLA referenced their calculations that show a very small shift in Shawnee County that would have occurred between 2019 and 2024. Trabert noted, however, that ag land values were declining during that period, but farmers and ranchers would save a lot of money overall because of the cyclical nature of ag values.
Ag land has a special valuation formula based on use value, which produces alternating periods of increases and declines. Chart 1 from Trabert’s testimony shows the annual rates of change, with the blue line reflecting actual changes. The formula produced valuation declines between 2005 and 2010, then annual increases from 2011 to 2020 before running negative again through 2024. Notice the double-digit valuation jumps each year from 2013 through 2017. (The orange line is used to project future changes.)
Chart 2 from his testimony shows how values would have changed with a 3% limit on taxable assessed valuation. The increases are capped at 3%, and the cumulative, compounding impact produces big savings. Even allowing for significantly higher mill rate increases than those actually implemented, Trabert showed calculations in his testimony showing that ag landowners would have saved $1.3 billion through 2024.
Cities and counties are neutral, education lobbyists oppose an assessment limit
The Kansas Association of Counties and the League of Kansas Municipalities submitted neutral written testimony on the assessed valuation limit. The education lobby came out against anything that might reduce property taxes.
Assistant Executive Director of Advocacy for the Kansas Association of School Boards, Leah Fliter, issued a short written testimony stating: “We oppose arbitrary limits on taxes and valuations because of the long-term impact on revenues for schools and other public services. We urge caution and due deliberation in the consideration of tax policy. Tax policy must provide sustainable and reliable funding for public schools; property tax relief efforts must not imperil school funding.”
Vikki Mullins, president of the Kansas Parent Teachers Association, also opposed the amendment, somehow suggesting a return to the failed “race to zero” experiment earlier this century.
“This change to tax policy could return Kansas to the chaos and uncertainty of the 2012 tax experiment,” Mullins wrote, and then went on to ask for more special education, or SPED, funding.
“Kansas just reached the total constitutional remedy for general education funding in 2023, setting the new baseline for Kansas students,” she wrote. “With a restored commitment to full funding of the special education formula, the legislature could halt the erosion of this newly restored base state aid and strengthen districts’ capacity to create more critical opportunities for student success.”
Trabert explained why both of their claims are unfounded. The Legislature funds schools based on a formula that’s mostly driven by enrollment, and the amount of state funding each district receives is not dependent upon the amount of property taxes collected.
