KansasProperty taxpayers could challenge certain proposed tax revenue increases
If enacted, Kansas voters could challenge certain local property tax revenue increases, while counties would follow added notice and reimbursement procedures.
What it does
Registered voters could petition against certain property tax revenue increases. A sufficient petition would require the taxing subdivision to stay within an adjusted prior-year revenue limit.
Taxing subdivisions would need taxpayer notice, a public hearing and a majority roll-call vote before exceeding the revenue-neutral rate. Violations could lead to refunds or lower tax levies.
County clerks could receive state transfers for qualifying property-tax notice printing and postage costs through 2031. Fund payments would remain subject to appropriation acts.
Argument forPetitions could give registered voters a direct way to block certain tax revenue increases and require an adjusted prior-year limit.
Argument againstThe process could require county clerks and local governments to prepare, mail, publish and review additional notices and petitions each year.
More detail
Registered voters could use protest petitions to challenge certain proposed increases in a taxing subdivision's property tax revenue. The process would cover taxing subdivisions other than school districts and only registered voters in the affected taxing subdivision could sign. A petition would need signatures from at least 10% of the qualified electors based on votes cast for secretary of state at the last general election. A sufficient petition would require the governing body to limit property tax revenue to the prior year's amount, adjusted for listed items such as inflation, new construction and certain debt payments. Only county-clerk-approved or county-clerk-issued forms would be valid. Taxing subdivisions would notify the county clerk by July 20, petitions would be available by August 10, and petitions would generally be due by September 15 each year.
Governing bodies would have to notify taxpayers, hold a public hearing and approve by roll-call majority vote before adopting a budget above the revenue-neutral rate. The rules would apply to taxing subdivisions that propose to exceed the rate that would raise the same property tax revenue as the prior year using current assessed values. Taxpayers would receive estimates, hearing information and protest petition instructions by mail or electronic notice when permitted. A public hearing would have to allow interested taxpayers a reasonable opportunity to speak. If required procedures were not followed, the governing body would have to refund over-collected taxes or reduce uncollected taxes, subject to proceedings before the state Board of Tax Appeals. Required hearings would occur between August 20 and September 20, and governing bodies subject to a hearing would certify the tax levy to the county clerk by October 1.
The state would transfer certified printing and postage costs to the taxpayer notification costs fund for county clerks. The transfers would cover county clerk costs tied to property tax notices required under the revenue-neutral-rate law. The county clerk would have to report and document the costs to the secretary of revenue. The secretary would certify the costs before the director of accounts and reports transferred an equal amount from the state general fund. Fund expenditures would be made under appropriation acts. The stated reimbursement period would cover calendar years 2024 through 2031.
Where do you stand?
Choose your position
Tell your reps
Take a position to see your representatives and ways to contact them.
Where it stands
- Introduced
- Passed House
- Passed Senate
- To Governor
- Became Law
Looking ahead
No hearings or votes scheduled.
History
- 2026
- Apr 10Conference Committee Report was adopted; Yea 27, Nay 13Latest
- Vote recorded Adopt CCR. Result: pass.Upper
- Vote recorded Conference Committee Report was adopted. Result: pass.Lower
- Apr 10Conference committee report now available
- Apr 10Conference Committee Report was adopted; Yea 87, Nay 35, Absent 3
- Apr 10Reengrossed on Monday, April 13, 2026
- Apr 10Enrolled and presented to Governor on Monday, April 20, 2026To Governor
- Apr 10Vetoed by Governor Laura Kelly; Returned to House on Monday, April 27, 2026Major
- Apr 10No motion to reconsider vetoed bill; Veto sustained
- Apr 9Rep. Daniel Hawkins and Rep. Chris Croft are appointed to replace Rep. Adam Smith and Rep. Carl Turner on the Conference Committee
- Apr 9Sen. Ty Masterson and Sen. Chase Blasi are appointed to replace Sen. Caryn Tyson and Sen. Virgil Peck on the Conference Committee
- Apr 9Conference committee report now available
- Apr 9Motion to suspend Joint Rule 4 (k) to allow consideration adopted
- Apr 9Conference Committee Report agree to disagree adopted; Sen. Ty Masterson, Sen. Chase Blasi and Sen. Ethan Corson appointed as second conferees
- Apr 9Motion to suspend Joint Rule 4 (k) to allow consideration adopted
- Apr 9Conference Committee Report agree to disagree adopted; Rep. Daniel Hawkins, Rep. Chris Croft and Rep. Tom Sawyer appointed as second conferees
- Mar 27Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Carl Turner, and Rep. Tom Sawyer are appointed to replace Rep. Bill Sutton, Rep. Brian Bergkamp, and Rep. Cindy Neighbor on the Conference Committee
- Mar 27Sen. Caryn Tyson, Sen. Virgil Peck, and Sen. Ethan Corson are appointed to replace Sen. Brenda Dietrich, Sen. Michael Fagg, and Sen. Marci Francisco on the Conference Committee
- Apr 10Conference Committee Report was adopted; Yea 27, Nay 13Latest
- 2025
- Mar 17Nonconcurred with amendments; Conference Committee requested; appointed Rep. Bill Sutton, Rep. Brian Bergkamp and Rep. Cindy Neighbor
- Mar 17Motion to accede adopted; Sen. Brenda Dietrich, Sen. Michael Fagg and Sen. Marci Francisco appointed as conferees
- Mar 13Final Action - Passed as amended; Yea 39, Nay 0, Absent 1Major
- Vote recorded Final Action. Result: pass.Upper
- Mar 12Committee of the Whole - Committee Report be adoptedMajor
- Mar 12Committee of the Whole - Be passed as amendedMajor
- Mar 5Committee Report recommending bill be passed as amended by Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and InsuranceMinor
- Feb 11Referred to Senate Committee on Financial Institutions and InsuranceMinor
- Feb 10Engrossed on Friday, February 7, 2025
- Feb 10Received and IntroducedMinor
- Feb 7Committee of the Whole - Committee Report be adoptedMajor
- Vote recorded Emergency Final Action - Passed as amended. Result: pass.Lower
- Feb 7Committee of the Whole - Be passed as amendedPassed Senate
- Feb 7Motion to advance to Emergency Final Action adopted
- Feb 7Emergency Final Action - Passed as amended; Yea 97, Nay 14, Absent 14Passed House
- Jan 30Committee Report recommending bill be passed as amended by House Committee on InsuranceMinor
- Jan 21IntroducedMinor
- Jan 21Referred to House Committee on InsuranceIntroduced
Taxes & BudgetGovernment & EthicsCivil Rights & Voting