Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessment And Taxation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kansas tax committee hears competing views on SCR 16-16 assessment cap
Summary
Supporters told the Assessment and Taxation Committee an assessed-value cap would protect homeowners; opponents from farm, housing and real-estate groups said the proposed 3% cap (SCR 16-16) would shift property-tax burdens to other classes and could complicate development and school funding. The hearing was continued.
The Kansas Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee heard more than a dozen conferees on SCR 16-16, a proposed constitutional amendment to limit annual assessed-value growth, with opponents saying the measure shifts tax burden and proponents saying it would protect homeowners and increase transparency.
Opponents framed the amendment as a shift, not a cut. John Donley, lobbyist for the Kansas Farm Bureau, said the Farm Bureau — which represents about 30,000 voting members — considered the proposal through its policy process and opposes it because a 3% cap on assessed value will prompt local governments to raise mill levies. "We stand adamantly opposed to this resolution," Donley said during his remarks, adding the cap would not be applied uniformly across taxing jurisdictions and therefore must be evaluated carefully.
Representatives of the building trades and real-estate sectors warned of unintended market effects. Sean Miller of the Kansas Building Industry Association told the committee that caps that compound over decades can "affect the churn that impacts the housing market in Kansas," arguing they can discourage transfers and complicate financing for new developments that rely on incremental tax increases from tools such as TIF or RHID. Mark Toome of Kansas Realtors said capping valuation without constraints on local spending leaves government revenue needs unchanged: "This is not going to lower taxes," he said, urging other fixes such as clearer rules on when improvements remove a cap.
Agriculture stakeholders provided county-level modeling showing the distributional effects. Matt Teegarden for the Kansas Livestock Association said the Property Valuation Division ran county models applying a 3% cap and, while results vary by county, the pattern in many counties was that residential owners would pay less and owners of agricultural land, commercial property, oil and gas, and vehicles generally would pay more.
Proponents and individual homeowners urged the committee to adopt guardrails. Lynell Griffith, chair of the Shawnee County Republican Party, said an assessment cap protects long-time residents and recommended pairing it with a revenue cap that would require voter approval to exceed a set revenue growth limit so new construction and population changes could be funded through explicit votes. Erica Sheets, testifying as an individual from Johnson County, described repeated large assessment increases in her home and said caps would provide relief and respect for taxpayers' money.
Committee members pressed conferees on details that could change outcomes: whether the amendment would apply to vehicles (research staff noted vehicles were intentionally excluded from the 3% limit), how appraisal accuracy and appeal processes factor into fairness, and how county-by-county differences alter who benefits or loses. Senators also asked for county data (Cloud County and Shawnee County were discussed) and PVD runs to better quantify shifts.
The committee did not vote; the chair announced the hearing would continue the following morning. The record includes written opposition and proponents; committee staff were asked to supply additional county-level data and clarifications on transferability and definitions of improvements.
