BY: SHERMAN SMITH
Kansas Reflector
TOPEKA — Topeka resident Lanell Griffith urged senators Thursday to support a proposed constitutional amendment that would cap annual increases in appraised property values that result in higher tax bills.
Describing herself as a representative of “grassroots unpaid activists,” Griffith said past legislation that requires local officials to hold public meetings before raising property taxes was only a step in the right direction. She said she is subject to 10 taxing entities and finds it difficult to attend every meeting.
The Senate tax committee heard testimony from Griffith and others on Senate Concurrent Resolution 1603, which would cap annual increases in appraised value at 3%.
“With no cap on those increases, we citizens just have an unknown — I call it — theft,” Griffith said. “You already own it, and they’re just telling you you gotta pay more and more. We need to stop the hemorrhaging and increase transparency.”
The proposed resolution, co-sponsored by 18 Senate Republicans, requires approval from two-thirds of both the Senate and House members. If passed, it would place a constitutional amendment before voters on the Nov. 4, 2025, ballot.
If at least 50% of voters support the amendment, it would take effect Jan. 1., 2026.
The proposed cap would include exceptions for new construction and improvements to property, changes in property classifications, and when a property changes owners.
Sen. Ethan Corson, D-Fairway, raised a concern about the potential for two virtually identical properties on the same block to have different tax rates, depending on when the homes were purchased.
Other groups, including the teachers union, oppose the constitutional amendment because of the potential effects on public school funding, which is largely collected through a state-assessed mill levy.
The Kansas Farm Bureau opposed the constitutional amendment because it favors cutting the mill levy for schools instead.
But Republicans said constituents made it clear during last year’s election that property tax relief was a top priority.
“I wasn’t going to push this this year,” said Sen. Caryn Tyson, a Parker Republican who chairs the committee. “I had told people the House isn’t going to move on it, ag people don’t want it, but there was enough push from our body, and I’m listening to them.”
Sen. Mike Thompson, R-Shawnee, testified in support of the amendment. He said property tax relief was the No. 1 issue he heard about from voters when he knocked on doors during the campaign last year.
He said lawmakers should consider the strongest restrictions possible on property taxes.
“If we truly value liberty,” Thompson said, “property tax wouldn’t even exist.”
“We’re allowing the valuations of the appraiser to do the dirty work,” he added, while elected officials “can ostensibly say we didn’t raise your taxes.”
John Donley, lobbyist for Kansas Farm Bureau, said he agreed with the need for property tax relief and grew frustrated last year when Republican leadership and the Democratic governor were more interested in a tax relief package that primarily dealt with individual income.
He said he thought about the issue as he drove Thursday morning to testify at the Statehouse.
“I was like, welp, it’s the middle of January in an odd-numbered year — we’re here talking about how all we hear about is property taxes on the doorsteps,” Donley said. “This is my 10th election cycle that I’ve been working in this building, and this is what we do in January of odd-numbered years.”
The Kansas Farm Bureau is concerned that the annual cap would effectively shift the tax burden away from residential property, where values are skyrocketing, onto other classifications, such as agriculture.
Instead, Donley said, the state should lower the statewide mill levy.
“We just feel like this is the wrong tool,” Donley said. “This is truly a tax shift.”
Leah Fliter, a lobbyist for the Kansas Association of School Boards, asked lawmakers to exercise caution when considering changes to tax policy.
“We oppose arbitrary limits on taxes and valuations because of the long-term impact on revenues for schools and other public services,” she said, quoting the organization’s member-adopted legislative policy.