Misunderstandings about property taxes are pretty common and, in most cases, unintentional. Unfortunately, some of those mistakes become major barriers to property tax relief because solutions must be designed to treat the root cause of a problem.
In medical terms, a doctor could prescribe something that makes the patient worse off without an accurate and complete understanding of the patient’s condition.
For example, a recent article by the Kansas Reflector said: “In 1997, residential property owners accounted for 38% of all property tax revenue, while commercial property owners picked up 62%.” By 2024, the article says the burden flipped to 57% residential and 43% commercial. That could lead people to believe that commercial property owners got tax breaks at homeowners’ expense, but that isn’t true.
The residential numbers in the story are close, but the commercial numbers are much lower, and other categories are missing.
Table 4 from our recent paper, “Examining the issues and options for PROPERTY TAX RELIEF in Kansas,” shows residential owners paid 39% of all property tax in 1997, while owners of commercial and industrial property paid 20%; other major categories include 14% from state-assessed property (mostly railroads and utilities), 9% from machinery, 7% from agricultural land, and 6% on mineral leaseholds (mostly oil and gas).
The most recent 2025 data is similar to 2024: 56% residential, 24% commercial, 11% on state-assessed property, and 5% on agricultural land. The burden on commercial property didn’t fall as reported; it increased from 20% to 24%, and the taxes paid quadrupled from $401 million to $1.6 billion.
Commercial property owners aren’t the bad guys; that dubious honor belongs to local elected officials and school board members who spent far more than necessary to provide essential services and used some of the property taxes they collected to add billions more to their cash reserves.
Property tax myth related to special education funding
The Kansas Reflector article also repeated a false narrative pushed by the Kansas Association of School Boards and some districts, alleging that school districts have to increase property taxes because (and this is another false claim) the Legislature underfunds special education.
School districts charge a 20-mill property tax for general support and have no discretion to make it higher. The Local Option Budget (LOB) tax is a percentage of state aid that flows through their General Fund, which includes special education funding. Most districts are at the 33% maximum allowed under state law, so they also can’t increase that property tax. Ironically, that means more state funding for special education would lead to higher local property taxes.
For example, a district that gets $10 million in special education funding is collecting $3.3 million in LOB property taxes. If special education funding increased to $12 million, the district would collect $3.96 million in property taxes.
Other property taxes schools can charge are for capital outlay, debt service, and cost of living. Education officials want you to believe you are paying higher property taxes because the state isn’t giving them as much special education funding as they want, while knowing that isn’t true.
By the way, the LOB property tax generated by special education funding doesn’t count as special education funding; if it did, the state would be above the threshold schools say it must provide. Education officials also know this, but don’t want that obvious error in the formula to be fixed.
Bipartisan blame for not passing property tax relief
The Reflector article also repeats a false narrative Democrats push, blaming Republicans for not passing a constitutional amendment to restrict valuation increases. Democrats say the amendment would have passed if all Republicans voted for it, which is true, but it would have passed in the House with just a few Democrats. (The amendment passed the Senate with two Democrats in favor – Senators Haley and Schmidt.)
The primary reason that most Democrats and some Republicans voted against an assessment limit is that they side with local government officials instead of taxpayers. As one Democrat put it, the intent was to “financially starve local governments.” Remember, these are local governments that over-taxed Kansans to add billions to their cash reserves and are spending far more than necessary to provide essential services.
Legislators have a clear understanding of their constituents’ feelings on these issues. A June 2026 public opinion poll we commissioned shows 76% of Kansans want an assessment limit and 65% of them want it to be a fixed percentage rather than a rolling average. It doesn’t vary much by party affiliation; 74% of Democrats want an assessment limit, and 67% of them want a fixed limit.
Governor Kelly brazenly advised the Legislature to create a $60 million fund to reward cities and counties that kept property tax increases below 3%. You don’t “reward” those who created the property tax crisis; you make them operate more efficiently. Kelly’s other idea – increasing the homestead exemption on the 20 mills for property tax – would just raise property taxes on farmers, commercial property owners, and everyone else because cities and counties would charge higher mill rates to make up the difference.
The first thing that every legislator must decide is whether to stand with people paying property taxes or the local governments charging excessive taxes. Unfortunately, some in both parties choose local government over taxpayers.
