Kansas House panel passes bill allowing local taxpayers to sink property tax hikes above 3%

Bennington Republican Rep. Dawn Wolf, right, offers an amendment to House Bill 2745 supported by the House Taxation Committee that creates a petition process of challenging decisions by city or county governments to raise property tax revenue by more than 3% annually. (Kansas Reflector screen capture of Kansas Legislature video)

TOPEKA — A Kansas House committee offered bipartisan support for legislation authorizing a protest-petition option for taxpayers eager to block city or county property tax increases that pushed revenue more than 3% above the previous year’s total.

A key amendment approved Monday by the House Taxation Committee deleted from House Bill 2745 provisions for relying on special public votes — an idea sharply opposed by cities — to resolve objections to property tax growth above the threshold.

In the bill sent to the full House, the election option was replaced by a protest-petition process for contesting property tax revenue growth over the artificial cap. The bill would require petition signatures from 10% of those voting in the previous presidential election to prevent local property tax revenue growth from exceeding 3%, excluding revenue collections tied to new construction or building improvements.

“The whole point of people yelling at us and wanting us to get our taxes in line is because they don’t want them to grow over 3%,” said Rep. Dawn Wolf, R-Bennington.

Democratic Rep. Rui Xu of Westwood said he didn’t like the bill’s election format for challenging property tax increases, and also was convinced the proposed petition-signature bar of 10% was far too low. The Johnson County representative, who serves parts of eight cities, offered an unsuccessful amendment to set the petition metric at 20%.

“In many cities the size of mine, you will always find 10% of people who will vote against the city budget,” Xu said.

The House bill was altered to include a series of exemptions for property taxes related to economic development programs. The idea was to make certain municipal debt was paid and expiring incentives were dealt with cleanly, said Rep. Robyn Essex, R-Olathe.

The bill would distribute $60 million annually in state funding to cities and counties based on actions limiting property tax increases. The size of the state fund would grow 2% annually.

The House committee rejected an attempt to preserve an existing state law intended to encourage local government officials to hold property tax revenue at the previous year’s level. Under current statute, cities or counties must conduct public hearings and take a recorded vote when acting to boost property tax mill levy rates over a “revenue neutral” level.

In addition, the House committee defeated a motion presented by Rep. Carolyn Caiharr, R-Edwardsville, to apply provisions of the property tax bill to the state government and public school districts.

“I just have concerns how this is going to screw up the school finance formula,” said Rep. Tom Sawyer, D-Wichita.

 

Nathan Eberline, executive director of the League of Kansas Municipalities, says the House plan will destabilize municipal finances. He is seen here at a Dec. 17, 2025, recording of the Kansas Reflector podcast. (Photo by Morgan Chilson/Kansas Reflector)

Skeptics

On Friday, the House committee convened a public hearing in which proponents and opponents of property tax reform shared their insights on the bill.

Nathan Eberline, executive director of the League of Kansas Municipalities, said he understood legislative leaders wanted to make a priority of property tax relief during the 2026 session. However, he said, HB 2745 was not a workable and responsible solution.

“The bill weakens local accountability, destabilizes municipal finance, increases taxpayer costs and fails to address the primary drivers of rising property tax bills,” he said.

Alan Dinkel, interim administrator of Ellsworth, said many cities in Kansas relied on property taxes to fund streets, police and fire protection, as well as parks and recreation services. He said the House bill was an overreach by the state into affairs of local government.

“Exempting school districts and the state is a clear indication that the Legislature was unwilling to follow the rules regarding taxation and budgeting that they are asking cities to follow,” he said. “Simply, each city needs to determine their future and not be limited by the Legislature.”

The Johnson County cities of Mission, Merriam, Prairie Village, Roeland Park, and Westwood Hills opposed the bill. The five cities also objected to the idea — since removed from the House bill — of placing property tax decisions before voters.

Jason Hannaman, finance director for Prairie Village, said application of a rigid revenue cap on local governments wouldn’t reflect real cost growth. It would force cities to cut services and defer infrastructure and wouldn’t take into account escalation in wages, health care benefits and utility costs, he said.

“HB 2745 replaces local accountability with a blunt statewide formula that does not reflect how communities actually function,” Hannaman said. “It adds complexity, cost and uncertainty while undermining responsible financial planning.”

David Dillner, city manager for El Dorado, said elected city or county officials were held accountable for decisions about property taxes at the ballot box. The election of local officials was one of the clearest lines of accountability in a representative democracy, he said.

“It is interesting, however, that nearly every election in my tenure with the city of El Dorado has largely been uncontested despite increases to the amount of property taxes collected to support local services,” he said.

 

The advocates

Aaron Popelka, an attorney and lobbyist at the Kansas Livestock Association, said the trade group supported HB 2745 because it would impose limits on property tax increases and, in its original form, included a process whereby local voters could decide whether local governments needed an increase in property tax revenue above 3%. He said KLA supported greater reliance on income taxes and other non-property tax sources to fund government.

The rising cost of living remained a top concern among Kansas families and steps by the Legislature to moderate local property taxes could relieve anxiety in communities statewide, said Nathan Kessler, an economist at Kansas Action for Children.

John Donley, a representative of Kansas Farm Bureau, said the state should pursue ways of moderating property taxes that weren’t detrimental to production agriculture.

“KFB feels that HB 2745 provides the proper policy incentives to encourage local taxing jurisdictions to be fiscally responsible. In turn, this will provide property tax relief in the long term,” Donley said.