The Kansas House on Friday overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment that would place a cap on property tax appraisals softer than one passed by the Senate.
The House voted 117-4 to approve an amendment proposing a system that would limit appraisal increases for residential and commercial property to a rolling average of property values across the state or the current fair market value, whichever is less.
The Senate’s amendment capped property tax appraisals at 3% for tax purposes starting with property values when compared to tax year 2022.
The House bill doesn’t spell out specifically how many years the rolling average would cover, although the chair of the House tax committee has suggested it would be six years.
A future legislature would have to set the number of years.
Adam Smith, chair of the House tax committee, said the goal is to smooth out spikes in property valuations so they’re more stable and property taxes are more predictable.
Smith said a hard cap on property appraisals, like the one passed by the Senate, creates disparities between a home’s fair market value and the taxable value.
The House amendment would go on the ballot in the 2025 general election and would start in tax year 2027.
The amendment requires support from two-third of the Legislature before it would be ratified by the voters this fall.
Smith said that either the House or Senate bill would require trailer legislation if they are ultimately adopted by the voters.
If approved, the Legislature would have to return next year to develop the details about how the amendment would be implemented, he said.
“We usually want to provide broad general language in the constitution because if we get something wrong, you just can’t pass a law to change it,” he said.
“You have to go back and amend the constitution. We want to leave the language in the constitution relatively open,” he said.
A number of other details would need to be determined by the Legislature, including how the amendment would apply to new construction or remodeling.
“We have to answer these questions,” he said.
“It’s possible, but it’s complicated, and this is why it will take a bill next year to answer all of these questions should this amendment be adopted,” he said.
“This is a very complicated process. If this is what the people want, so be it. Personally, I’m not a real big fan of a valuation limit in any form.
“But if we do have to have one and this is what the people want, I think this is the best way to accomplish it,” he said.
Republican state Rep. Brett Fairchild of St. John tried to amend the bill to ensure that the appraisals would be based on a six-year rolling average. It was defeated.
“Right now, when you read through the amendment, I think it’s a little bit complex,” Fairchild said. “It gives more power to the Legislature.”
He said his amendment would make it a lot simpler for voters to understand, and improves the chances of it passing at the polls.
“Putting the six-year rolling average valuations into the amendment simplifies it, and we also wouldn’t be giving more power to the Legislature,” he said.
Smith cautioned lawmakers about whether six years is the right number, although he said it’s his intent for a six-year average.
“If six years doesn’t end up being the right number, we need maybe to speed it up to four years or maybe we need extend it out to eight years…we’d have go through another amendment process,” he said.
“If you’re confident that six years is the perfect number and that’s going to work, great, go ahead and vote for this amendment,” he said.
“I’d prefer to have that flexibility in statute to allow for unintended consequences,” he said.
Republican state Rep. Samantha Poetter Parshall was among the four lawmakers who opposed the amendment.
Poetter Parshall of Paola called the amendment “extremely confusing,” adding that if the Legislature doesn’t follow up with a trailer bill, nothing will be accomplished.
“I don’t know how you expect to campaign for it when you’re having to explain it in details,” she said.
“We can pass this and it can go on to the ballot and it can become part of our constitution,” she said.
“If the Legislature never actually takes action, you’re going to be stuck with same thing that we have right now, and that’s a huge issue for me.”
