Senate committee hears proposal to require voter approval for property-tax increases above inflation

Senate Bill 280 would require, beginning Jan. 1, 2026, voter approval whenever a taxing entity seeks to increase its total amount of property tax to be levied by more than the annual rate of inflation, measured by the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), according to a bill summary read to the Senate Tax Committee.

The bill would exclude increases attributable to new construction and would not apply to several statutorily prescribed state mill levies, the summary said: KSA 72-51-42 (20-mill statewide school levy), KSA 76-6b01 (1 mill for the Kansas Educational Building Fund) and KSA 76-6b04 (half-mill state institutions building fund levy). Committee members and witnesses spent the hearing discussing mechanics, local impacts and possible amendments.

Dan Murray, Kansas state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, told the committee NFIB supports the bill. "We represent over 3,600 small business owners," Murray said, and reported nearly 90% of surveyed members said something needed to be done on property taxes. He said the proposal "does a little something" to address the issue and that members expect restraint on property-tax growth.

Eric Stafford of the Kansas Chamber also testified in support and said the bill aligns in spirit with the truth-in-taxation process passed earlier. He said the Chamber supports giving voters a say on levy increases above inflation and welcomed committee work on practical mechanics. Stafford and others noted uncertainty about practical timing: committees and local officials typically finalize budgets in late summer or early fall, and some senators asked how required elections would fit that calendar.

Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, supported the bill but urged changes: he recommended removing the new-construction exemption and replacing the CPI measure with a fixed 3% cap. Trabert cited Department of Revenue data showing large increases in local property taxes since 1997 and said many local governments hold sizable cash reserves; he urged sharper constraints or more absolute caps.

Committee members probed timing and administrative mechanics. Senator Schallenberger raised practical concerns about budget timelines, notice and election administration, noting local budgets often must be approved by October and valuation certifications arrive later. The committee obtained a technical clarification from the reviser's office: the bill's trigger is based on the "total amount of property tax to be levied," an item appearing on the budget, rather than on a stated mill levy.

The hearing was suspended for continuation Monday morning; committee members asked staff to research election notice requirements and estimated election costs for local taxing entities before resuming consideration.

Ending: Witnesses and committee members generally supported the principle of limiting property-tax growth and empowering voters, but they requested follow-up on administrative details and several witnesses proposed alternative caps or narrower exemptions.