[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6634854,"mediaKeyId","2661833-f86c4177436cc2aef8b5e041f6cfd612","parentId",2661833,"title","Committee hears HCR 5011 to limit taxable valuations with rolling average; advocates and local officials split on effects","audioSeconds",1775,"startMs",19000,"endMs",1794000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661833-f86c4177436cc2aef8b5e041f6cfd612&start=19&end=1794","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661833-f86c4177436cc2aef8b5e041f6cfd612/thumbnail_19000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6634854/Kansas/Committee-hears-HCR-5011-to-limit-taxable-valuations-with-rolling-average-advocates-and-local-officials-split-on-effects","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634854-7e544db9a3d6dfcc55f23cf9dbb131a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770984821&Signature=kGudiKeK0hbYJOO2MXItzfV0jdPoVBxQSFgx6RE6qKpI8FLXRpyfzo7iTEG0j7Dcd2q3lIXlNtq37-f3uhI5mTdykWnjJvNF4gBrtLrcPmvwZ4Es25zZdBeQ1scHuN0P1R-EkMwbW2H~ZgxM6tB6-3JWQ3Sm6k9B6FCMVG0wo1WR4zRU94LL286cfj50jvK6PDyQNwg8bLCha7BUtvEV-64m2Pnp-cgVEoU6BbDkmzsKiZ0aXi5kycvsq1uPfE7pKfTXD86k3u8lXBUOFWxfYa8oZ~~0vAxqrauYa8vW72GKJGf3WXORmmORkj91lP6waPZb4Lq3Oxye4AQzdpOAXQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Assessment and Taxation","date","2025-03-17T15:28:34.167Z","article","House Concurrent Resolution 5011, which would amend Section 1 of Article 11 of the Kansas Constitution to set taxable valuation for three property subclasses based on the lesser of fair market value or an average fair market value, was discussed at a committee hearing.

The resolution would apply to three subclasses—residential real property, commercial and industrial real property, and buildings and other improvements on land devoted to agricultural use and mobile homes classified as personal property—and proposes that, beginning Jan. 1, 2027, taxable valuation be set at the lesser of current fair market value or an average fair market value over a number of years that the Legislature would later set. The House adopted HCR 5011 on March 7 on a vote of 117 to 4.

Why it matters: Proponents said the change would reduce sudden valuation spikes in taxable value that can make property taxes harder for homeowners to afford; opponents said the change would not, on its own, lower taxes and could shift burdens or create ballot confusion without a set number of years for the rolling average.

Supporters at the hearing argued the measure addresses rapid appraisal-driven increases. Dave Trabert, CEO of Kansas Policy Institute, told the committee, \"We support HCR 5,011, because it would we believe it would blunt the rate of increase on property taxes.\" Trabert said the proposal does not change the appraisal process itself but instead changes how taxable assessed value is calculated, and he urged clearer statutory language if the committee moves forward.

Trabert offered analysis comparing HCR 5,011 to a fixed-cap alternative favored in the Senate (referred to in testimony as SCR 1603). Using example scenarios, he showed that under a 6% annual increase a homeowner with a 2024 appraised value of $200,000 would pay roughly $48,000 in property taxes over 10 years under current law, about $46,000 under HCR 5,011 and about $42,000 under the Senate fixed-cap proposal. He told the committee, \"The fixed cap, of 3% is far superior for taxpayers than any number of rolling averages.\" Trabert also provided county-level examples in his written testimony showing valuation increases in recent years (e.g., Cherokee County ~45%, Linn County ~66%).

Opponents and neutral witnesses cautioned that changing the basis for taxable valuation will not automatically reduce local tax collections. Jim Benage, identified as mayor of the City of Bel Aire, testified in opposition, calling the amendment \"a shell game\" and saying taxable revenues depend on local budgets rather than appraisals alone. \"The way we actually figure taxes is we set a budget... That determines what the discrete property tax is on each individual,\" Benage said.

Leah Fleiter of the Kansas Association of School Boards testified with neutral concerns and asked for clarification on how \"fair market value\" would be defined and how reduced revenue for schools would be backfilled; she reminded the committee of a statewide special-education funding shortfall she said is currently being partially covered with existing revenue sources.

Aaron Popelka (CANS Livestock Association) gave neutral testimony focused on implementation timing and urged a phased approach if the committee adopts a rolling average, noting agriculture valuation rules already use a multi‑year average and that implementation details matter to avoid unintended classification shifts. Eric Stafford of the Kansas Chamber said the business community was neutral because of concerns about cost shifts onto commercial property and other unknowns.

Several committee members asked witnesses what number of years would be appropriate for a rolling average. Witnesses and some local officials said the measure’s lack of a fixed number of years could create confusion at the ballot box and leave significant discretion to a future Legislature.

No formal committee action or vote on HCR 5011 is recorded in the hearing transcript.

Ending: The hearing record shows a mix of support for limiting volatility in taxable valuations and concern that a rolling-average constitutional amendment, without clear implementing statutes and a defined averaging period, could produce confusion or shift tax burdens. The committee then closed the hearing on HCR 5011 and opened the hearing on House Bill 23 96.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Senate Committee on Assessment and Taxation 03/17/2025","oneSentenceSummary","House Concurrent Resolution 5011 would change how Kansas sets taxable valuation for three classes of property by using the lesser of current fair market value or an average fair market value; proponents said the measure would blunt steep valuation-driven tax increases, while opponents said it would not itself reduce taxes and could shift burdens.","taxTitle","Assessment and Taxation, Standing, Senate, Committees, Legislative, Kansas","taxId",20419,"location","Kansas","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6634849,"Senate committee hears HB 23‑96: protest petitions, Astra Fund transfer and repeal of revenue‑neutral rate explained",0,1733000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2661833-f86c4177436cc2aef8b5e041f6cfd612&start=1733&end=1733","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2661833-f86c4177436cc2aef8b5e041f6cfd612/thumbnail_1733000.jpg","/articles/6634849/Kansas/Senate-committee-hears-HB-2396-protest-petitions-Astra-Fund-transfer-and-repeal-of-revenueneutral-rate-explained","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6634849-e52c7f39d8e2296439e79a2c392cdacb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770984821&Signature=ENMcC77~F3j2QoHZacf5bJ-lCrIyzYFGJExF-s3o4KNoUaa77qHPGhnNCqttVE1-U5Pipa9yYmqzLxSEKYzyqLyJ~WyK7xRqgWJTvR8vL~pMUSL26mG71a1T0yO62MKG2KRzqki3-qHUUZgVBDKr~C1ZopMYV~0i9xtQQQ8bwHuhDP7m5U0m3WZ5NSu6~5o9a6oPQzp2UpRZfXm7OwxubVZNG3LT4ps2v2pi1VFufzO2dAwv0KhO8KVEp30BE6Sxqquz0R3iUf0Lf6BXCyAdqNkgbem0gyrYT--NW5uZkv1hdeHr1PdV9xDYOgWi3AJ7xIpU4IBoO26C8-ybfp50Pw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Bill 23‑96, as amended by the House committee, would (1) authorize a protest‑petition process by which voters could limit a taxing jurisdiction’s property‑tax revenue increase for a year if a petition meets a signature threshold; (2) establish the \"Astra Fund,\" funded by a demand transfer from the State General Fund of $60 million annually (increasing 2% each year) to distribute to eligible cities and counties that limit property‑tax revenue growth to the prior year’s revenues plus CPI, new construction revenue and voter‑approved bond payments; and (3) repeal existing revenue‑neutral statutes (K.S.A. 79‑2988 and 79‑2989).

Sponsor remarks and overview: Chairman Adam Smith presented the bill and said the proposal is intended to simplify how taxpayers see tax increases and to create an incentive for local governments to limit tax growth. \"Why are we repealing the revenue neutral law? And quite simply, I'm just trying to make tax increases easier for the taxpayers to see and understand,\" Smith said. He described the current revenue‑neutral statement as detailed but confusing for many taxpayers and proposed a simpler, cash‑focused notice. Smith also described the Astra Fund distribution formula: 65% of the annual appropriation apportioned by county population and 35% apportioned by assessed tangible valuation, with county apportionments then shared with cities in the county based on the ratio of property taxes levied.

Key provisions and process timing: The bill would subject all taxing jurisdictions except school districts to the protest‑petition mechanism if their adopted budget would cause property‑tax revenues to exceed the prior year plus CPI, new construction revenue and voter‑approved bond payments. If ten percent or more of the voters (measured as votes cast for the U.S. president in the prior election) sign a valid petition, the taxing jurisdiction's property‑tax revenue for the year would be limited to the prior‑year amount plus the stated adjustments; otherwise the jurisdiction could levy the budget it adopted. The bill requires the director of property valuation to certify eligible jurisdictions to the State Treasurer; transfers would be made with an annual January 15 distribution after the July 15 creation of the Astra Fund.

Support and concern: Witnesses and committee members discussed expected effects. Chairman Smith presented modeling for Leavenworth County showing hypothetical savings if the county had stayed within the proposed threshold; he described a three‑year example with cumulative savings of roughly $11.3 million under the Astra limit and estimated Astra transfers for that county in the example. Smith said the fund is intended as an incentive rather than a full backfill.

Several senators asked procedural and substantive questions. Senator Peck asked whether the Astra Fund distribution timing meant a jurisdiction would receive funds in the same fiscal year as applying the limit; committee staff and the bill presenter explained certification and distribution timing would occur within the same fiscal year but noted the statutory nature of the transfer is subject to appropriation rules. Senator Owens and others questioned the difference between the bill’s protest‑petition approach and a traditional petition‑plus‑election model; Smith said the bill makes the petition itself determinative and is designed to shorten the calendar mismatch between budget and election timelines.

Exemptions and scope: The bill exempts school districts from the protest‑petition mechanism; Smith said schools and state levies are currently structured in statute (for example, the statutory 20‑mill school levy) and pose separate policy questions, and he suggested further review of how school mill levies and voter approvals work if a broader approach is taken.

Repeal of revenue‑neutral statutes: The bill would repeal K.S.A. 79‑2988 and 79‑2989 (the current revenue‑neutral notice and related provisions). Sponsor testimony emphasized that the repeal is intended to replace the existing notice and hearing regime with the protest petition and Astra Fund incentive model.

Ending: Committee members requested additional detail and asked the sponsor to return for continued questioning; the hearing recessed to resume later in a specified room for further consideration.","House Bill 23‑96 would create a protest‑petition process to limit property‑tax revenue increases, establish an \"Astra Fund\" with a $60 million annual transfer to reward jurisdictions that hold tax growth to a CPI-plus-new‑construction standard, and repeal the current revenue‑neutral notification law. Sponsor Adam Smith and other witnesses debated ","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee hears HCR 5011 to limit taxable valuations with rolling average; advocates and local officials split on effects

Senate committee hears HB 23‑96: protest petitions, Astra Fund transfer and repeal of revenue‑neutral rate explained