Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment Cap Scr 1616 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas committee hears hours of testimony on 3% assessment cap in SCR 1616
Summary
The Senate assessment and taxation committee heard proponent and neutral testimony on SCR 1616, a proposed constitutional amendment to limit annual increases in taxable assessed valuation to 3%. Proponents said the cap would provide predictability and protect seniors and homeowners; business groups warned of potential tax shifts and urged complementary mill‑rate controls.
TOPEKA — The Senate assessment and taxation committee spent the hearing hearing extended testimony on SCR 1616, a proposed constitutional amendment that would cap annual increases in taxable assessed valuation at 3 percent.
Proponents urged the committee to advance the measure as a tool to curb rapidly rising property tax bills. Ellen Bridal, a realtor with Coldwell Banker Executive Realty in Hays, recounted conversations with neighbors who feared they would no longer be able to afford their homes and said the proposal’s transferability provision would protect adjacent homeowners after high‑price sales. "A reasonable cap provides predictability, stability, and fairness, especially for seniors and families on fixed incomes," Bridal said.
Dave Trabert, CEO of the Kansas Policy Institute, presented historical data and polling that he said show growing public support for assessment limits. He told the committee the residential share of property taxes rose from 39% in 1997 to 55% in 2024 and that his retrospective modeling applying a 3% cap from 2005 through 2024 would have reduced assessed values and produced billions in taxpayer savings under specified mill‑rate assumptions. "We are in a crisis right now," Trabert said. "The patient is bleeding out ... we have to put a tourniquet on that patient." He also acknowledged legitimate concerns about tax shifts and said a mill‑rate cap would be a necessary companion policy.
Witnesses representing business and industry took a cautious or neutral posture. Eric Stafford of the Kansas Chamber described his group's position as neutral on the revised proposal but warned of a possible cost shift to other taxpayers and urged lawmakers to consider the state's large number of taxing entities when weighing reforms. Randy Stuckey of Renew Kansas Biofuels Association said ethanol plants are complex, high‑value properties that face recurring appraisal disputes; he said a 3% limit on assessed value would reduce repeated litigation and appraisal costs for those facilities.
Committee members pressed witnesses on mechanics and consequences: senators asked whether remodels and new construction would still produce reassessments, whether the measure would entrench the residential share of taxation, and whether polling questions explained how an assessment limit works. Trabert said remodels and substantial improvements would continue to be appraised and could change assessed value; he also said the poll question asking whether the state constitution should limit annual increases in taxable assessed valuations contained no explanatory text.
No formal vote occurred at the hearing. The chair said the committee plans to take action on the measure on the 27th and closed the hearing. The committee also noted upcoming budget work for the Department of Revenue and the Board of Tax Appeals, with a Feb. 2 deadline for budget materials.
