With their property tax bills arriving in the mail, Kansans are paying far more than their neighbors in Oklahoma, which approved an assessment limit in 1996 and again in 2012. The stark reality of Oklahomans saving and Kansans being taxed out of their homes played out at the final meeting of the year for the Kansas Legislature’s joint House-Senate Special Committee on Taxation.
Other tax issues were discussed during the day-long session, but the contentious issue of property tax in Kansas was a focal point. This past legislative session, both chambers passed a constitutional amendment to limit value increases, but couldn’t agree on the methodology.
Curtis Shelton with the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs recounted his state’s efforts to reduce the property tax burden:
“In 1996, Oklahoma established a 5% cap on evaluation increases, year to year. We changed that in 2012 to 3% just for homestead properties and agricultural land. Homestead is essentially what you think of as a primary residence. And on top of that valuation limit, we also have an assessment ratio, and that ratio is between 11 and 13.5% for all property.”
Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, which owns the Sentinel, testified that Oklahoma also has much lower property taxes, according to a 50-state study by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
The property tax on a rural home valued at $300,000 in Kansas is more than $6,000 but the tax in Oklahoma would be less than half, at about $2,800. The tax on a $1 million commercial business with $200,000 in fixtures would be over $45,000 in rural Kansas, versus just $12,000 in Oklahoma. The effective tax rate on rural commercial property in Kansas is the highest in the nation; rural residential property has the fifth-highest effective tax rate.
Trabert also shared results of a public opinion survey, showing overwhelming support among Kansas voters for an assessment limit and voter input on the mill increase above revenue-neutral:
“I want to give us all a reminder of why we’re here, why you’re getting so many phone calls about property tax issues. This is from our public opinion poll that we did in September. 75% of Kansans said, yes, they want a limit on assessed valuations. And we were clear that that is not on the appraised value. That would stay as is, but on the taxable portion of the assessed. 82% want a limit of some sort on basically the mill increase above revenue neutral; how much a revenue increase a city or a county could take in without some form of voter input, whether that’s a direct vote to approve or a protest petition, there’s a number of ways it could be done, but Kansans really want it. This is one of these 80/20 issues, literally.”
Trabert offered research confirming the oppressive nature of Kansas property tax:
“Over the last three years, the average residential property tax increase exceeded 30% in dozens of counties. The change in residential values and property taxes for each county is available at beehonestkansas.com.
“Since 1997, residential property taxes have jumped by 365%, pushing the property tax burden borne by homeowners from 39% to 55%. Rural Kansans have been especially hard hit.
Trabert said excuses offered by local government officials that tax increases are the result of “unfunded mandates” by the state are specious:
“The Legislature requires local governments to provide certain basic services, such as law enforcement, district courts, property appraisal, and a public health department, but the amount spent on those services is left to local officials. Local budgets show that elected officials’ spending decisions are the cause of tax hikes.”
In 2025, the per-resident spending amount in counties with fewer than 3,000 residents ranged from as little as about $2,500 in Edwards County, to nearly $10,000 in Greeley County. The median per-resident spending on the Sheriff was $247 in Graham County, with Stanton County spending the least at $97 per resident and Kiowa County spending the most, at $890 per resident.
Trabert also shared modeling of the potential impact of a 3% limit on assessed values over the last 20 years, as well as the first ten years of an assessment limit going into effect in 2027, in his written testimony:
“Knowing that 75% of voters want a limit on annual assessed value changes, we’ve done some modeling to understand the potential impact of a 3% limit, which was the most preferred option in our public opinion poll. The actual change in assessed values for the primary real estate categories over the last 20 years is shown in Table 1.”
“Table 2 shows what would have occurred if assessed value changes were limited to the lesser of the actual change or 3% in any year. Over 20 years, agricultural land assessed values would be 32% lower, residential assessed values would be 18% less, and commercial & industrial assessed values would be 21% lower. Ag land fares better than the other categories because the double-digit valuation increases that occurred between 2013 and 2017 would have been limited to 3%. No other category has that degree of volatility.”
Tables 3 and 4 estimated the property tax savings resulting from the assessment limit, assuming mill rates would increase five times faster than the average annual increase of 0.43% over the last 2o years. Property taxes on ag land would have been $1.3 billion lower, while residential and commercial property taxes would have been $1.7 billion lower.
Estimated future impact of a 3% assessment limit
If voters approve an assessment limit on the 2026 ballot, it would take effect in 2027. Kansas Policy Institute estimates the impact over the first ten years by allowing for mill rates to rise by 20% over the period and assumes assessed value increases for residential and commercial property of 6% and 5%, respectively.
Changes in ag land values are estimated based on the historical pattern shown in Chart 1, which shows the actual rate of change each year in blue, and the assumed future changes in orange. For example, the total value of ag land increased by 17.5% in 2014 and by 16.1% in 2015.
The projection allows for declines of 5% in 2025 and 3% in 2026, followed by eight years of increases and two years of decline. Chart 2 shows the annual rates of change if a 3% assessment limit had gone into effect in 2005.
Table 6 reflects the growth assumptions for the first ten years (2027 through 2036) on property that existed in 2024, with no assessment limit and no inclusion for new construction, to focus on the change for existing property.
Table 7 shows the impact of a 3% annual assessment limit value growth beginning in 2027, again, without any allowance for new construction. There are small declines in effective mill rates in Table 6, but Table 7 allows for rate increases of 20% over ten years, resulting in average annual property tax growth of 4%.
Based on those assumptions, ag land would save $777 million over ten years with an assessment limit, homeowners would save $3.3 billion, and there is a $151 million savings for commercial and industrial property.
