Committee weighs bill to extend appraisal-review protections to residential properties after appeals

House Committee on Taxation · February 10, 2026

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

House bill 26-44 would require county appraisers to take additional steps — including ordering independent fee-simple appraisals paid by the county — when a final appeal reduces a property’s valuation and year-over-year increases exceed 5%, expanding an existing commercial-only rule to residential properties for final determinations after Jan. 1, 2026.

House members heard an overview of House Bill 26-44, which would expand to residential properties an existing requirement that county appraisers review valuations after a successful appeal and order independent appraisals if year-over-year increases exceed 5%.

The reviser told the committee the bill would apply to final determinations made after Jan. 1, 2026, extend the review period from two years to five years and require a Kansas-certified real property appraiser to perform a fee-simple appraisal when the trigger threshold is met. "Under current law ... this applies only to commercial property," the reviser said, adding the bill "would add in residential class of property."

Members pressed for detail about costs and mechanics. Representative Long asked whether the independent fee appraisal would be paid by the county; the reviser confirmed that responsibility: "That would be, on the burden of the county appraiser to cover the fee simple appraisal." Committee members also sought clarification about whether manufactured homes or other personal property would be covered; Martha Smith (Kansas Manufactured Housing) flagged that the bill’s language may need to explicitly address personal property of manufactured homes.

Committee members discussed the bill’s legal history: proponents and the reviser recounted an earlier, broader 'freeze' on values that was struck down by the courts and said the current draft aims to avoid an unconstitutional freeze by allowing modest, year-over-year adjustments rather than a hard stop. The reviser described the bill’s year-over-year 5% look-back as an effort to limit sudden spikes while respecting successful appeals.

No formal action was taken on House Bill 26-44 during the meeting; the hearing was closed after proponent comment and questions. The chair closed the record and moved to other items on the agenda.