State lawmakers considering change to the state constitution, over property taxes

WICHITA, Kan. (KSNW) — Two potential constitutional amendments will be debated in Topeka next week. It comes as property valuations are going up in many communities; residents in Sedgwick County saw a 10% average increase in their 2024 property valuations.

Both State Representative Adam Smith and Sedgwick County Commissioner David Dennis agree that there are problems with both proposals. Dennis believes that neither resolution should move forward. 

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1611 would cap property valuation increases to 4% each year in most cases. Sedgwick County Commissioner David Dennis believes it creates unfair advantages. 

“The inequality on a 4% cap, between if you bought your house today, you’d be paying more property tax than I’d be paying on the exact same house I bought 20 years ago, that’s not fair,” said Dennis. 

The other option the legislature is considering is House Resolution 2025. It would determine the valuation based on the average fair market value over 10 years. Dennis believes this option creates a hardship for commercial businesses. 

“It’s only on residential, so commercial is going to have to pick up that difference in tax burden because the amount that it cost government didn’t go down,” said Dennis. 

State Representative Adam Smith sits on the House Committee on Taxation. He said he would like to see the House Resolution pass. He believes hearing from county leaders next week is important. 

“If the county or city officials want to come testify, absolutely, we need to make sure we do this right, if we do it, the only way we can do that is if we understand how it’s going to impact everybody,” said Smith. 

Dennis said the county believes the best solution is Local Ad Valorem Tax Reduction (LAVTR) funds. The Kansas Association of Counties (KAC) says that LAVTR funds are a portion of sales tax dollars collected by the state that are supposed to be shared with local governments. The KAC and Dennis said that funding has not gone back to local communities for about 20 years. He believes bringing it back could provide tax relief. 

“Make it mandatory that we will use every bit of the money that came back from LATVR and CCRS for property tax reduction comes, I’m fine with that. I want to reduce property tax,” said Dennis. 

State Representative Smith said LAVTR funding was done away with due to a budget crunch. 

For either of these proposed constitutional amendments to move forward, they would have to be adopted by a two-thirds majority of both the House and Senate before going to a public vote in November unless a special election was called sooner.