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

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.