Chiefs and Royals pledge ‘benefits’ to Jackson County if it renews stadiums sales tax

The Chiefs and Royals issued a joint statement late Friday afternoon announcing their “commitment to staying in Jackson County.” The teams proposed a set of promises they would make to the county if it can get an extension of the 3/8th-cent sales tax for both teams’ stadiums on the April ballot and voters pass it.

The teams described their proposal as a “significant financial benefit for Jackson County” and pledged to pay for insurance of the teams’ facilities — a cost the county covers now.

The move comes ahead of a key vote in the Jackson County Legislature on Monday, when legislators will consider not just one but two stadium sales-tax ballot measures.

One, proposed last month by the legislature’s chairman, DaRon McGee, would extend the current 3/8th-cent sales tax for 40 years to help pay for a new Royals ballpark in downtown Kansas City and finance the renovations that the Chiefs want done at Arrowhead Stadium. That’s what the teams want to pass.

The second is a surprise proposal that legislator Manny Abarca added to the agenda, which he characterizes as his backup: a proposed ballot measure that would ask voters to approve a 3/16ths of a cent sales tax — about 19 cents on a $100 purchase — for 25 years that would benefit the Chiefs alone. Polling shows a Chiefs tax has a good chance of passing.

“My goal is to keep both teams in Jackson, but not at all costs,” he said in a text message announcing the addition. “My priority is to definitively keep the Chiefs in Kansas City.”

The vote is a crucial point in the county’s lease negotiations with the teams. Both teams would prefer that the county put a sales tax extension on the April ballot, which would require the legislature to decide by Jan. 23.

If either proposed ballot measure passes on Monday, County Executive Frank White Jr. has made it clear he would veto unless he has newly signed leases in hand from the Chiefs and Royals.

And no agreements have been reached.

White reiterated his stance to block any ballot measures before a lease deal in a statement Friday, saying he’s seeking a “fair and equitable agreement that upholds the financial stability and future prosperity of our county.”

“As we navigate these crucial negotiations involving potential commitments of billions of taxpayer dollars, I want to make it abundantly clear: I have not, and will not, rush into any agreement,” he said.

“We are mindful that we have weeks until the April ballot deadline. But we also have seven years remaining on our current leases with both teams, providing us a valuable window to thoroughly evaluate all proposals.”

White would have up to 10 days to issue that veto after Monday’s vote, or it would become law without his signature. If he did veto it, then it would take six votes to override, and it’s unclear whether even five members are willing to move ahead without leases in hand, let alone six.

Another factor: the lack of a community benefits agreements with the teams. As chairman of the legislature’s stadium improvements committee, Abarca presided over a hearing Thursday afternoon during which members of labor and social justice groups demanded that neither team be given additional government aid without guarantees that the projects would be built with union labor and that workers at the stadiums would be paid a living wage, among other demands.

The teams promised a “robust community benefits agreement” in their joint statement, but those negotiations haven’t taken place yet.

This story was originally published January 5, 2024 at 5:27 PM.