Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee hears support for amendment to cap assessed-value increases at 3%

At a hearing of the Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee, conferees and lawmakers voiced support for Senate Concurrent Resolution 16-16, a proposed amendment to Article 11, Section 1 of the Kansas Constitution that would cap annual increases in the final taxable assessed value of most real property and certain mobile homes at 3% (or a lesser percentage set by law) and take effect for assessments on and after Jan. 1, 2027.

Amelia Kovar Donahue, assistant reviser with the Office of Reviser of Statutes, described the amendment’s mechanics: the cap would not apply to new construction or improvements, classification changes, exempt-to-taxed conversions, first listings, escaped or omitted property, corrected errors, or specified legal-description changes. The amendment would also roll back the comparison baseline: for 2027 the final taxable assessed value would be compared to tax year 2022, except where one of the stated exceptions applies, and would be submitted to voters at a special election on 08/04/2026.

Sen. Mike Thompson, who submitted written testimony and spoke in support, said the measure would give homeowners “some assurance that there is a limit to how much … they can be increased” and help prevent sharp valuation-driven tax spikes that can force seniors and fixed-income residents to sell. “Capping property tax also very much simplifies the taxing structure,” Thompson said, adding that the goal is to increase fiscal discipline at local levels so governments “have to live within a budget like the taxpayers do.”

Local government and agricultural voices told the committee the cap would provide predictability. Maddie Mountain, deputy city administrator for the city of Bayser, said her city has budgeted with a cap in mind and urged the Legislature to provide “true transparency in the property tax calculation formula,” noting that jurisdictions can still increase revenue by raising mill levies so taxpayers can see who is accountable.

Eric Estes, representing several dealer groups including the Kansas Dealer/John Deere dealer association (KDDA), said his member outreach produced large local engagement and argued agricultural producers are feeling valuation pressure; he cited modeling and prior state comparisons that suggested substantial savings for farms under a cap. Michael Martin, a Miami County landowner and veteran, said he supports the cap because current valuations can treat his ground as if it were residential and make taxes difficult to pay from farm income.

Committee members pressed for additional fiscal context. Sen. Corson asked legislative research to provide representative ending-balance data for local governments; Eddie Penner said staff would supply samples and links but noted comprehensive statewide aggregation is challenging because of reporting formats and the number of local taxing entities. Some members flagged stakeholder division: Sen. Shallenberger noted the Farm Bureau and Livestock Association oppose the cap, while KDDA and other dealers support it, and asked proponents to explain the split.

Supporters and some lawmakers emphasized that the 3% figure is compounded and does not by itself bar local governments from raising mill levies to meet legitimate expenses. Amelia Kovar Donahue and several speakers underscored the amendment’s exceptions and that the Legislature could adopt implementing legislation to refine definitions and administration.

The committee paused testimony for the day with proponent written testimony entered into the record; the chair said opponents will be heard the following day and reminded members of a joint hearing with the House on the committee calendar.

What’s next: The committee will continue the SCR 16-16 hearing with opponents and additional witnesses at its next scheduled session; the resolution, if advanced, would be placed on a special election ballot in August 2026 for voter approval as described in the proposal.