Kansas committee reviews bill to freeze seniors' home property taxes and limit some nonprofit exemptions
Loading...
Summary
A House bill would freeze property tax bills for homeowners 65 and older at their base-year amount and allow county appraisers to remove exemptions for nonprofit health facilities judged to compete with taxed providers; proponents say it levels the playing field, while hospitals and community health centers warn of service cuts and increased costs to Medicaid and schools.
A House committee on Feb. 20 heard testimony on House Bill 24-57, which would freeze the amount of property tax owed on a homeowner’s primary residence once they turn 65 and allow county appraisers to remove tax-exempt status from some nonprofit health-care properties if they compete with nearby taxed providers.
Supporters, led by bill sponsor Representative Helwig, told the Committee on Taxation the measure aims to ease burdens on seniors with fixed incomes and to restore competitive balance between private providers and nonprofit clinics that receive favorable reimbursements and property tax exemptions. "This would just be their primary residence where they reside at," Helwig said, describing the freeze as a way to protect older homeowners.
The bill has two main parts. Section 1 would freeze the dollar amount of property taxes assessed to qualifying homesteads beginning with tax year 2027. Section 2 would permit a county appraiser to determine whether property owned by a 501(c)(3) organization used to provide health services is competing with a taxable provider in the same or adjacent county; if so, the exemption could be removed and the property returned to tax rolls, with appeals heard by the county commission.
Why it matters: Department of Revenue testimony flagged a material fiscal impact to the state’s school finance fund, estimating reductions of about $8.5 million in fiscal 2028, $17.5 million the following year and $27 million in a later year as more claimants enter the freeze. Opponents said shifting exempt properties back onto tax rolls could weaken safety‑net clinics and hospitals that serve low‑income patients.
Proponents argued the nonprofit exemption has been used in ways that undercut local, taxed providers. Pharmacists and private clinicians described cases where federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) or certified community behavioral health clinics (CCBHCs) receive higher reimbursements, can waive co‑pays and operate without property taxes. "That ain't right," clinician David Adams said, summarizing his contention that reimbursement and tax advantages distort local health care markets.
Opponents — including Watson‑area hospital representatives and Community Care Network of Kansas — countered that FQHCs and other nonprofit clinics are legally required to serve all comers, operate on slim margins and reinvest any surplus into services, workforce and community programs. Aaron Dunkel of Community Care Network said subjecting FQHCs to property tax would ‘‘create health care deserts’’ in rural Kansas and shift costs to Medicaid and emergency services.
Committee members asked practical questions about administration: the reviser said applications for the freeze would be filed locally (county clerk or treasurer) and that the freeze appears to require ongoing filing rather than a single application. Members also questioned surviving‑spouse treatment and whether government and religious properties would be affected; proponents and staff said government properties are constitutionally protected and the bill’s sponsor offered an amendment to exempt properties defined as hospitals under KSA 65-4-25.
What happens next: The bill received public testimony and technical questions; no committee vote was taken at the hearing. Staff said they would provide clarifications on surviving‑spouse language and could work on fiscal projections should the committee request further analysis. The committee proceeded to other bills after closing HB 24-57 testimony.
