A public opinion poll conducted last month shows that self-described conservatives, moderates, and liberals overwhelmingly want a constitutional limit on assessed valuations to protect them from unaffordable property tax hikes. No surprise there. The question is whether the candidates for the Kansas House of Representatives—to say nothing of other candidates or Senators not on the ballot—will listen to their constituents’ demands or side with local government, as many of them did this year.
76% of those surveyed want a limit on assessed valuations to protect them from unaffordable property tax hikes, and only 10% are opposed. Support for a constitutional limit is above 70% across all geography and political preferences, and it’s been that way for a long time.
Among those who support an assessment limit, 65% want a fixed rate limit of 3%, 4%, or 5%, and only 16% want a limit based on a rolling average of prior years. Again, these results are very similar to past polls.
So why didn’t the Legislature pass an assessment limit? And why would the House Tax Committee push a rolling-average limit instead of a fixed-rate limit that voters want?
The Senate passed a 3% limit by a vote of 30-10, with all but three Republicans (Argabright, Blew, and Fagg) and two of nine Democrats (Haley and Schmidt) in favor. The House Tax Committee, however, would only consider a limit based on a rolling average preferred by cities, counties, school districts, and other special interests, even though (or probably because) people will pay higher property taxes with a rolling average limit than with a fixed cap.
The simulation below shows that the owner of a $300,000 home would pay almost $26,000 more in property taxes over 15 years, based on the same mill rate, under a 6-year rolling average, compared with a fixed 3% annual cap on the home’s taxable assessed value.
The rolling average for this model is based on proponent discussions at a House Tax Committee hearing; it takes effect in 2027 and builds toward a 6-year average, reached in 2031. The ‘average’ is based only on the current year, 2027; in 2028, it is based on 2027 and 2028 values, and so on, until 2031. Thereafter, the 6-year average is based on the current year and the previous five years.
An assessment limit protects property owners from unaffordable property tax hikes from valuation jumps, and voters also need protection from mill rate hikes.
Voters also want a levy limit on property tax collections
Levy limits restrict the amount of property taxes that a city or county can collect, either with a hard cap or some means of voter input. Direct voter authorization and protest petitions to stop increases beyond a specific level are the most common.
Attempts to get legislators to support putting tax increases to a vote were unsuccessful; it can be done, but cities, counties, and school districts strongly resist letting voters decide. The Senate narrowly passed a bill allowing a protest petition to stop tax increases exceeding the lesser of inflation or 3%, with 11 Republicans opposed (Billinger, Blew, Bowers, Claeys, Clifford, Dietrich, Fagg, Ryckman, Shallenburger, Shane, and Thomas) and all but two Democrats (Haley and Schmidt).
It passed the House 63-59, with 24 Republicans and all Democrats in attendance voting against it, and then Governor Kelly vetoed the bill. A much weaker House-designed levy limit passed on the last day of the session; it was also vetoed and couldn’t be overridden because the Legislature ended the session early.
As with a fixed-rate assessment limit, votes cast against a levy limit ran counter to the majority of voters’ wishes. The 78-10 margin in the current poll is very similar to that in the 2025 poll.
Even self-identified liberal voters support a levy limit by a margin of 80-12, so why does almost every Democrat in the Legislature and a considerable number of Republicans oppose it?
Simply put, they are doing what cities, counties, school districts, and other special interests want them to do.
So don’t ask legislative or gubernatorial candidates if they generically support property tax relief; every single one will say yes with every intention of voting against fixed-rate assessment and levy limits.
Ask if they will vote for (or sign, in the case of gubernatorial candidates) fixed-rate assessment and levy limits.
