The Unified Government’s Economic Development and Finance Standing Committee on Monday held back about $283 thousand that an advisory board proposed to spend on park projects. Several commissioners said residents hurt by the recent storm may need the money more.
The committee voted 6-1 to send $90 thousand to the Homes for Generations program, while keeping back the rest of the $372.9 thousand in the community benefits fund while commissioners work out new uses with the advisory board. The measure now goes to the full commission.
The committee also took its first detailed look at a proposal from Commissioner Carlos Pacheco (District 5) to rebate part of homeowners’ property taxes. Staff laid out the costs and obstacles, and commissioners floated a pilot program and a working group to shape it.
Where the money comes from
The community benefits fund receives half of the administrative fees the UG charges on economic development deals, mostly industrial revenue bonds.
This year the Community Benefits Advisory Board recommended $90 thousand for Homes for Generations and $282.9 thousand for Parks and Recreation. Parks planned to rebuild the sports courts at Welborn Park or replace the playground at Klamm Park. Commissioner Andrew Davis (District 8) pointed to a new basketball court in Armourdale, opened Sept. 25, as the first fund project residents could see from start to finish.
The storm changes the conversation
Commissioner Chuck Stites (District 7) said he could not support spending the whole fund at once. He noted that volunteers used their own chainsaws, gas, and time after the storm, and that many residents still need help. “The community benefit is to help them get back up and running on their feet,” Stites said.
UG Clerk Monica Sparks, whose office runs Homes for Generations, said the program helps families through probate, which is expensive. A smaller allocation would limit how many people it can serve. “Whatever money we have, we make it work,” Sparks said.
Davis offered a compromise. It would have set aside $50 thousand for storm relief, cut Homes for Generations to $80 thousand, and trimmed parks to $242.9 thousand. Stites seconded.
Public comment shifts the vote
Eva Garcia Mesa, speaking remotely, urged the committee to pause the parks allocation. She said Parks and Recreation already draws on the general fund, the transient guest tax, and a 3/8-cent sales tax that runs through 2030. “Just because we are creating funding mechanisms like the community benefit fund, that doesn’t mean we have to spend it,” Garcia Mesa said.
Stites then withdrew his second, and Davis’s motion died. Stites said he knows “there’s people out there that are really in need of getting their lights turned back on, buying the groceries that spoiled when the power was off.”
Commissioner Melissa Bynum (At-Large District 1), the committee chair, then moved to give $90 thousand to Homes for Generations. Her motion holds the balance for more talks with the advisory board and possible changes to the ordinance. Stites seconded. Commissioner Bill Burns (District 2) cast the only no vote.
A vote by the full commission will be need for final approval of the payments.
Circuit breaker proposal gets a first look
Pacheco introduced the CARE program, short for Circuit-Breaker Assistance for Resident Equity, in March. It would rebate part of the county property tax to homeowners after they pay their bills. Homeowners would qualify if county taxes exceed 5 percent of household income, if assessed value rose more than 10 percent in a year, or if they have owned the home more than 10 years. Rebates would top out at $1 thousand per household.
Chief Financial Officer Shelley Kneuvean presented the staff analysis as information only. The 2027 budget has already been approved with no money for a new rebate program.
The staff white paper found that the income trigger would miss most residents. On a home at the county’s median value of $172.3 thousand, only households earning less than $14.15 thousand would qualify. If all 47,980 single-family homes in the county received the maximum, the program would cost $47.98 million.
Kneuvean said eight Kansas cities offer property tax rebates, and all of them run on fixed budgets. If the UG funds a program, she said, “my recommendation as your CFO would be to set an actual budget so that we don’t exceed that budget.”
Pacheco agreed with a fixed budget and wants new development revenue to pay for it. “I don’t want to help relieve people’s taxes by essentially just taking money from the general fund to do it, because then it’s like you’re relieving taxes with tax dollars,” he said.
Doubts about cost and staffing
Burns questioned the cost of staffing a new program. “I’m just worried about the wall of bureaucracy. Are we creating another office, when we’re trying to reduce taxes?” he said.
Davis said the tight county budget points toward a city pilot program. He suggested funding it with the roughly $1.3 million the UG expects from the American Royal development. Deputy Chief Counsel Wendy Green noted that city money could rebate only city taxes.
Sparks said her office was best positioned to support a new rebate program, currently handling 2,200 applications a year for other tax rebates that require verifying income, residence, and home ownership. “Our office is already set up to do most of what you’re asking of this program. Do I have all the resources I would need? No,” she said.
Pacheco asked for a subcommittee to draft a workable plan. Bynum suggested that the county administrator’s office form a group of two commissioners and staff. The committee took no vote on the proposal.