District 5 Commissioner Dr. Carlos Pacheco III will present a property tax relief plan to the Economic Development & Finance Committee on Monday, Mar. 30, that would rebate a portion of property taxes to homeowners whose bills are rising faster than they can absorb, capped at $1,000 per household per year and funded by revenue returning to the county as economic development incentives expire.
The plan, named the Circuit-breaker Assistance for Resident Equity (CARE), is on the agenda as an information-only discussion item. No vote is expected Monday. Pacheco said he will formally request at the committee’s next meeting that staff be directed to complete fiscal, legal, and operational analyses of the program.
How the rebates would work
The program is structured around three triggers. A homeowner who hits any one of them would receive a rebate from the Unified Government’s General Fund after their property taxes have already been billed and paid. If a homeowner qualifies under more than one trigger, they receive whichever benefit is largest. The triggers do not stack.
Tax bill exceeds a percentage of household income. If a homeowner’s county property taxes exceed 5% of their household income, the amount above that threshold would be rebated, up to $1,000. In the presentation materials, Pacheco uses this example: a household earning $60,000 a year with a $3,600 county tax bill would receive $600 back, since 5% of their income is $3,000. [1]
Valuation spikes year over year. If a home’s assessed valuation jumps more than 10% from one year to the next, the homeowner would receive a rebate on the tax increase attributable to the growth above 10%, up to $1,000. A home that goes from $150,000 to $170,000, a 13% increase, would generate a rebate on the tax increase caused by the 3% above the threshold.
Long-term homeownership. Homeowners who have lived in their home for 10 or more consecutive years would receive 20% of whatever their county property taxes increased from the prior year, up to $1,000.
The thresholds of 5% of income, 10% valuation growth, and a 20% rebate of year-over-year increase are working numbers that could be adjusted by the commission in the future. The program would also include an aggregate cap on total annual spending, annual public reporting, and a neighborhood equity analysis to ensure relief is distributed fairly across the county.
In an interview, Pacheco said the triggers are not income-restricted by design. Middle-income families are often squeezed the hardest, he said, because they don’t typically qualify for existing state rebate programs like the Homestead, SAFESR, or Selective Veterans Relief programs, but they’re still absorbing valuation increases.
What it would cost
The presentation includes two cost estimates. The one Pacheco described as realistic for Wyandotte County projects annual spending of $1.0 million to $2.0 million, based on typical rebates of $250 to $500 and participation by 10% to 20% of owner-occupied homes. A theoretical maximum of $2.0 million to $4.0 million would require countywide valuation spikes, very high participation, and many households hitting the $1,000 cap simultaneously, a scenario Pacheco’s materials describe as “highly unlikely.”
The formal committee report, prepared separately, lists a wider estimated range of $4.5 million to $8 million depending on enrollment and future valuation trends, though it notes the figures would be calibrated annually based on actual experience.
A feasibility study by UG finance staff would refine these numbers, modeling qualifying households per trigger, average rebate amounts, and total costs at different participation scenarios.
Where the money comes from
The primary funding source would be revenue that flows back to the county as older economic development incentive agreements, including TIFs, industrial revenue bonds, and sales tax deals, expire. Under Pacheco’s proposal, 25 percent of that returning revenue would be dedicated to CARE.
The county already has two resolutions on the books directing development revenue toward property tax relief or debt retirement. One earmarks 50 percent of revenue from expiring incentive agreements, which totaled roughly $1.6 million for the city and $579,000 for the county in 2025. The other directs 10% of new construction-related revenue to debt retirement. Those figures were prepared by Chief Financial Officer Shelley Kneuvean and are included in the agenda packet.
Pacheco’s presentation also points to future revenue streams that would strengthen the program over time, including payments in lieu of taxes from the American Royal, which the committee will begin standing up through a new subcommittee also on Monday’s agenda, and projected revenues from the Chiefs development project over the coming decades.
“For years, Wyandotte County has promised that major developments would ease the tax burden on our people,” the presentation materials state. “That promise has not always been delivered.”
Legal structure
A key design choice is that CARE would operate as General Fund spending, with rebates paid after property taxes are billed, rather than as a change to assessed values, exemptions, or tax rates. That distinction matters because Kansas law requires property to be assessed uniformly and equally. By structuring the program as a rebate from the county’s own budget rather than a modification to the tax roll, the proposal is designed to comply with state constitutional requirements.
The program would complement, not duplicate, existing state relief programs. Rebates would be calculated after any Homestead, SAFESR, or SVR benefits are applied.
The draft resolution included in the agenda packet directs the county administrator to conduct both a fiscal impact analysis and a legal analysis. That would include a constitutional compliance review, a recommendation on whether the program should be structured as a post-payment rebate, tax bill credit, or grant, and an assessment of whether an attorney general opinion is needed.
Timeline
Pacheco laid out a specific schedule in the committee materials. Monday’s presentation is informational. At the next committee meeting, he will ask the committee to formally direct staff to prepare the study. The target is a committee vote on that directive no later than May 4. If approved, staff would present the completed feasibility study by Aug. 31. The committee would then discuss results and vote on whether to recommend adoption by the full commission, with an effective start date no later than Dec. 31.
The proposal also calls for phased implementation. Income and valuation spike triggers would launch first, with the long-term homeowner trigger added in a second phase if the initial rollout succeeds.
Political context
The proposal arrives as the Kansas Legislature wraps up a session in which property tax relief was a dominant topic but produced no enacted changes. A constitutional amendment that would limit annual increases in assessed valuations passed the House on Mar. 19, but was sent to a conference committee after the Senate did not accept it as written. Lawmakers were still negotiating as the session neared its final days last week.
Pacheco said he is pursuing a local solution because the state has not delivered. “No structural changes were made to provide direct relief to homeowners,” his presentation states. “Our residents continue to face rising valuations and increasing pressure.”
He drew distinctions between CARE and the approaches debated in Topeka. Valuation caps, he argued, lock in advantages for earlier buyers and shift costs onto younger families and first-time homeowners. Proposals to replace property taxes with consumption-based surcharges would disproportionately burden lower- and middle-income households. A circuit breaker, by contrast, ties relief to each household’s actual circumstances.
“My family of four still only needs two gallons of milk per week, just like another family of four,” Pacheco said in an interview. “But if we’re both taxed the same on the two gallons, then it affects me less than others based on my income. It’s regressive and unfair.”
Pacheco pointed to Philadelphia, Cook County (Chicago), and Jefferson County (Birmingham, Ala.) as jurisdictions where similar programs have operated successfully. Philadelphia’s valuation-spike protection has been in place for nearly a decade.
Property tax relief was identified as a top priority at the new commission’s retreat after inauguration in December. The 2026 budget, passed by the previous commission last September over then-Mayor Tyrone Garner’s veto, raised the mill rate by two mills in both the county and the city, adding roughly $56 a year to a $200,000 home in the county. However, three new commission members and a new mayor may want to reconsider that approach to the budget.
Also on the agenda
The committee will also consider a resolution to transfer additional funds to the senior citizen tax refund program administered by the UG Clerk’s Office. The number of claimants has outpaced the budgeted amount, and staff is requesting the item be fast-tracked to the Apr. 2, full commission meeting, an indication that demand for property tax relief among seniors is already exceeding what the county has budgeted.
Other items include a $95 million increase to the industrial revenue bond agreement for NorthPoint Development near I-70 and Turner Diagonal, bringing its revised total to $250 million; a letter of intent with Santa Fe Grocers to operate a grocery store at 501 Minnesota Avenue; the Homefield community investment requirement; and the appointment of a standing committee member to the newly formed American Royal subcommittee.
The committee meets at 5:00 p.m. in the 5th floor conference room at City Hall.