The Kansas Senate Tax Committee cleared the first hurdle for major property tax reform in the state by approving a proposed constitutional amendment limiting yearly increases in property valuations to 3%. If approved in both the Senate and House by 2/3 majorities, Kansas voters would go to the polls in November to decide the fate of SCR 1603.
The panel approved the measure 6-3, with Senators Tyson, Peck, Kemp, Peterson, Shallenburger, and Starnes voting in favor and Senators Courson, Owens, and Ware opposing.
The amendment, to take effect January 1st, 2026 has the following exceptions:
- New construction or improvements made to existing structures
- Classification changes
- Properties disqualified from exemption
- Properties first listed as Escape or OmittedProperties
- Legal description changes
- Property titles transferred to another person or entity
Property tax reform in Kansas was listed near the top of voter concerns as they headed to the polls in November, following recent double-digit increases in valuations in numerous counties. Several counties have residential values rising more than 40% over two years, threatening to tax people out of their homes.
Testifying in favor of the amendment, Johnson County Sen. Mike Thompson reached back into history to illustrate his support:
“The founders of this country believed the ownership of property was a fundamental right, without which you can never be free. Taxing one’s property is a violation of the principles of liberty established in our Declaration of Independence. This fact alone should be enough to justify the complete elimination of property tax. But that is not going to be possible at this time given the over-reliance on the property tax as a source of government funding. However, I think it should be a goal that is worthy of discussion.
Leavenworth County Commissioner Mike Stieben testified that 26 states have capped real estate appraisals in some manner.
Kansans clearly want a valuation limit, according to a public opinion poll conducted by SurveyUSA on behalf of Kansas Policy Institute, which owns The Sentinel.
Statewide, 64% of registered voters approve of limiting real estate valuation increases to 3% annually, and only 18% are opposed. Broad support is also found across all parts of the state as well as ideological positions.
Puzzling opposition to valuation limits from agricultural interests
The primary opposition to the valuation limit comes from the Kansas Farm Bureau and the Kansas Livestock Association. KBA spokesman John Donley believes the proposal will create a shift in the tax burden.
“The reason we’re here today is we feel this is the wrong tool. This is truly a tax shift (to agricultural, commercial and utilities properties). We’re here today to encourage you to reduce the mill levy (the tax applied to property, currently 21.5 mills). That way we have broad-based tax relief and not a tax shift.”
Some senators on the committee pushed back on the idea that the amendment would result in such a tax shift and requested research from the Farm Bureau on the issue, but none has been provided.
Senator Jeff Klemp says his analysis of data provided to the committee by the Kansas Department of Revenue shows the 3% valuation limit would have saved farmers, ranchers, and everyone else a great deal of money over the last 30 years.
Klemp’s chart shown below indicates that Agricultural taxpayers would have saved more than 50% if the valuation limit had existed since 1994. Commercial & Industrial taxpayers would have saved about 40%, and homeowners would have saved 60%.
Some of the savings would likely have been reduced by elected officials imposing higher mill rates, but Kansas Policy Institute CEO Dave Trabert believes there would still have been substantial savings.
“Local elected officials’s false insistence that they’ve held the line on property tax increases by not raising mill rates much would have worked against them. The primary concern for many of them is getting re-elected, and they know that big hikes in mill rates would hurt their re-election chances. They likely would have increased mill rates, but taxpayers would still probably have considerable net savings.”
Department of Revenue data shows a huge tax burden shift to homeowners since 1997, going from about 39% to more than 55%. Agricultural interests have benefitted from that shift, with the combined burden of Ag Land and Ag Improvement dropping from almost 8% to 6%.
Committee Chair Caryn Tyson, also a supporter of the amendment, looked ahead after her committee approved the measure:
“Property tax assessment limits can help prevent people from having to move out of their homes due to rising valuations. The Senate Tax Committee passed it out, and I anticipate Senate floor debate in the coming weeks.”
