Lawmakers in the Kansas House and Senate work just a few hundred feet away from each other in the Statehouse. But they’re far apart from one another on the best way to address rising property taxes.
They have failed so far this year to bridge that gap — despite lawmakers of both political parties saying property tax relief was their top priority this spring.
“It’s extremely disappointing because this was issue number one, two and three that I heard from voters at the doors when I was campaigning last year,” said Democratic Senator Ethan Corson.
The Legislature has passed a modest reduction in the portion of property taxes that go to the state — which itself collects far less than local governments do. That will save the owner of a $150,000 home about $25 per year according to Corson’s back-of-the-envelope math.
While some celebrate that change as broad-based relief, many say it’s a far cry from the progress lawmakers from both parties promised on the campaign trail.
“If you’re wondering this year why we didn’t do anything meaningful on property tax, the reason is, as always, the Kansas Senate,” Democratic Representative Rui Xu said on X.
Lawmakers return to Topeka Thursday for a short veto session. They could continue to work on legislation focused on reducing property taxes, but they are quickly running out of time before they finish work for the rest of the year.
‘We just need to work together’
Xu and other lawmakers said the Senate has mostly focused on a proposed amendment to address rising property valuations, which is one reason property taxes have ballooned over the years.
Under the current setup, a county appraiser calculates how much a property is worth based on changes in the housing market, improvements to the property and other factors. That appraisal affects how much the owner pays in taxes — and often causes sticker shock for homeowners who see their bills ratcheting up year after year.
Republican Sen. Caryn Tyson and some colleagues championed a hard limit of 3% per year on those valuation increases. Supporters said that would prevent homeowners, especially seniors and others living on fixed incomes, from getting priced out of homes they may have paid off decades ago.
But skeptics in both chambers said that policy wouldn’t provide meaningful relief. Rep. Adam Smith, a Republican who chairs the House Taxation Committee, said local governments would just raise their property tax rates, or mill levies, to compensate for a valuation cap.
“It’s kind of an artificial way to not really accomplish a whole lot in my opinion,” he said.
In response to the Senate’s proposed hard limit on valuation increases, the House offered a softer alternative based in part on a rolling average.
But the Senate gutted that proposal and sent the House a version identical to the original proposed amendment.
“I think it was a little bit of the Senate trying to almost bully the House by saying, ‘No, we’re going to ram this down your throat,’” Corson said.
Tyson offered a different explanation.
“We chose to put our language in it because we thought that the House version was clunky, complicated, and you would still see double digit valuation increases,” she said.
