Bill to cap reassessment increases at 15% and require inspections wins support from developers and appeals lawyers
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Bill 2178 would limit single-year assessment increases to 15% (unless supported by a physical inspection or new construction) and require county- or statewide increases to be phased over reassessment cycles; supporters said it protects small businesses and reduces appeals, while some members raised questions about Hancock interaction and attorney-fee provisions.
The committee also considered House Bill 2178 on Jan. 22, a measure intended to limit large single-year assessment spikes and add procedural safeguards for taxpayers.
What the bill proposes: Representative Chad Perkins described the bill s placing a 15% cap on increases to an individual parcel's assessed value in a reassessment cycle unless the increase is tied to new construction or a documented physical inspection. The bill also addresses state tax commission equalizations by requiring any countywide (class or subclass) increases above 15% to be amortized over successive reassessment cycles so no single year exceeds the 15% cap.
Support and rationale: Attorney Chris Maddox, who represents commercial property owners, and developer Butch Rigby testified in favor. Maddox said the cap promotes predictability and could reduce the high volume of appeals seen in some counties; Rigby described cases in Kansas City where some commercial assessments rose by 100% to 400% in a single tax period, producing rent and cost shocks that endangered small tenants. Maddox argued the bill largely borrows existing statutory frameworks used for residential property and applies them to commercial assessments.
Concerns and technical questions: Members asked whether a 15% cap should be lower, how Hancock rollbacks would interact with amortized increases, whether a Sept. 30 deadline for BOE resolution creates perverse incentives, and how attorney-fee awards would be handled when a county loses on legal issues. Opponents raised concerns the bill could encourage frivolous appeals if taxpayers delay the board of equalization process.
Computer-assisted appraisal debate: Opponents also criticized mass-appraisal systems (witness named Tyler Technologies) and pressed the committee to consider whether presumptions about computer-assisted valuations should shift burdens to assessors in some counties.
Outcome: The bill drew robust debate and multiple witnesses; the committee recessed for the governor's State of the State and adjourned without voting on HB2178. Members and the sponsor indicated willingness to refine deadlines, attorney-fee caps, and subclass treatment in follow-up work before any markup.