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.
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.
