The Kansas House voted to adopt House Concurrent Resolution 50-11, a proposal to amend Section 1 of Article 11 of the State Constitution to limit valuation volatility for residential property by using an averaging system.

Representative Adam Smith, who carried the measure in the Taxation Committee, described the proposed amendment as a rolling-average approach (similar in principle to an existing eight-year average used for agricultural land) that would smooth rapid valuation changes. Smith said the amendment would appear on the November ballot; if voters approve it the legislature must pass follow-up legislation to set implementation details, and county appraisal systems would need reprogramming before any effective date.

Floor debate focused on operational questions and fiscal impact. Smith listed several implementation questions that a companion bill would need to resolve: treatment of property sales, improvements, parcel splits and combinations, and the phase-in schedule if an averaging method were adopted. He emphasized that the constitutional text intentionally left some details to statute because constitutional language is difficult to change.

Representative Sawyer supported the amendment as a method to reduce large single-year spikes in valuations. Representative Fairchild offered an amendment to codify a six-year rolling average directly in the resolution; Fairchild said explicitly naming six years would simplify the amendment for voters and avoid giving the legislature additional authority. Smith and others opposed that codification, warning that an immediate shift to a six-year average would create a much larger, immediate fiscal impact and would take effect as soon as the amendment was adopted.

Smith cited fiscal estimates on the floor: he said adopting the rolling-average language as proposed would reduce state 20-mill receipts and require General Fund backfill of about $25 million annually (rising in later years), while a separate proposal to impose a 3% cap would produce a substantially larger state fiscal impact (Smith quoted estimates in the hundreds of millions of dollars). Several members said those fiscal consequences required careful follow-up in companion legislation.

The House adopted the resolution by recorded vote, 117 in favor and 4 against. The measure will go to the ballot for voter consideration; if it passes the legislature will need to enact implementing statutory language and address technical questions raised on the floor.

Ending: Lawmakers said the amendment addresses valuation spikes but stressed that statutory follow-up will be required to determine details such as phase-in mechanics, appeals, and treatment of sales and improvements.