The Chiefs and Royals want to stay in Jackson County. Here’s why an impasse remains

The Royals and Chiefs have made a commitment to spending their long-term futures in Jackson County — so long as voters approve, via an April ballot measure, the 40-year extension of a 3/8th-cent sales tax for their stadium projects, they said directly in a joint statement Friday.

What isn’t said quite so directly: That’s if they find a way to put the initiative in front of voters.

And that’s a big if.

While a 450-word statement outlining the teams’ concessions toward a new 40-year lease agreement provides the appearance of not-so-subtle pressure on potential Jackson County voters, it’s just as much a message to the county’s political leadership.

The sales pitch: The teams have agreed to cover insurance costs (about $2 million to 3 million annually) for the stadiums, and to redirect the park tax ($3.5 million annually) for other county uses, which they estimate would turn more than $200 million combined back to the county over the lifetime of the agreement. Both are effectively county “wins” relative to the current lease agreement, in which the teams receive the park tax and the county covers the insurance costs.

But that has not sparked a deal.

The Royals are seeking a new ballpark in downtown Kansas City, and they have turned their attention recently from the East Village to the South Loop site of the former Kansas City Star press pavilion, according to sources. The Chiefs prefer to stay at Truman Sports Complex and renovate GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium.

An item is on the agenda for Monday’s Jackson County Legislative meeting to approve a ballot measure that would extend the sales tax, which generated $49 million in 2023.

But let’s read further between the lines here — because this isn’t about the voters.

Yet.

Years into their efforts to obtain Jackson County taxpayers’ financial support for these stadium projects, the Royals and Chiefs are days shy of a key ballot deadline. And they’re sitting in the same spot as when those negotiations began: absent an agreement with the county.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas has separately voiced his support for the projects, and the city has agreed to ease the county’s financial burden for the stadiums.

But a meeting Thursday that included all relevant parties — county executive Frank White and members of his office, the Chiefs, the Royals and Lucas and others within his office, along with legal counsel for all involved — concluded without significant progress toward securing a ballot measure, multiple sources told The Star.

That’s why we’re here, with the Royals and Chiefs all but publicizing the major financial component of their offer Friday.

How wide is the gap with White? Multiple sources familiar with the negotiations told The Star that as recently as this week, White, a member of the Royals’ team Hall of Fame, requested the county receive upwards of $25 million annually to offset the county’s contributions to the stadium and provide a revenue stream for parks and other items.

Over a proposed 40-year lease, that request would total $1 billion. And the teams have balked at that ask, multiple sources said.

It’s hard to envision the voter base having an appetite for such an arrangement. Which leaves a disconnect on finances buoyed by a disconnect on timing, the persistence of which will prompt some tense steps in the immediate, and potentially long-term, future.

For example, as part of a statement in response to the teams’ statements Friday, White said, “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.”

White referenced the fact that seven years remain before the lease’s expiration in 2031 — though he also noted that just weeks remain until Jan. 23 deadline to place a measure on the April ballot.

The Chiefs and Royals have made clear that they are operating on a much different timeline than the lease-expiration date. The Royals estimate a new ballpark would require four years to construct, and they’d like to have a downtown address by opening day 2028. The Chiefs, renovating on their existing site, would need to start their build in 2027, shortly after they play host to the World Cup, with construction to be completed by 2031.

The timeline is particularly important for a Chiefs organization confident about its current support from a governor’s office that will be changing leadership next year — a message they have repeated, and one Lucas reiterated to White in a recent letter obtained by The Star through the Missouri Sunshine Law.

The time, they insist, is now. And it’s running thin.

To date, the teams have pinned their hopes on eventually securing White’s approval. And in retrospect, they’ve spent considerable time on a plan they might be forced to scrap in favor of a new path.

The teams actually have two options for getting the sales tax on the county ballot in April. Although they have long focused on one — White’s endorsement — they might soon be faced with a decision: whether to expand their audience to nine.

They have the option of circumventing White and instead seeking to get the sales-tax measure in front of the voters through the approval of a majority of the county legislature. That deadline would also be Jan. 23, but with a caveat.

Even if the teams secure enough support from the nine-member legislature to place the measure on an April ballot, White would have a 10-day window in which to veto it. That 10-day window must be built into the teams’ shared timeline.

It’s notable that on Friday, White said, “I will not support any ballot issue until we have reached an agreement that aligns with the best interests of Jackson County and our residents.”

If he does invoke a veto, support from six of the nine legislators, not just five, would be required to override it.

To date, the process has revealed the power of one elected official at the center of the negotiations. It might soon expand to reveal just how much support he has within his own backyard. Manny Abarca, one of the county legislators, expressed frustration Thursday, saying members of the legislature have not been kept in the loop during the negotiations.

An attempt to gain approval through the county legislature would not preclude all parties from engaging with White simultaneously.

As they have recently.

The city, county and Royals met Tuesday at Populous, the chosen architectural firm for a new Royals ballpark. Topics of discussion, sources said, included renderings of the team’s preferred site: the former KC Star press pavilion. The site is sandwiched between the Crossroads District and the Power & Light District downtown.

After that gathering, Lucas sent White a letter, also acquired by The Star through the Missouri Sunshine Law, in which he underscored an offer that included the city taking ownership of the proposed downtown ballpark.

Wrote Lucas: “The City would plan to facilitate ownership of the new stadium through an incentive agency, either the Port Authority (the ownership entity for the Kansas City Current’s CPKC Stadium), the PIEA, or the City itself, which owns, among other venues, the T-Mobile Center and Municipal Auditorium.”

That would include, Lucas said, “debt financing for the new stadium project; condemnation as necessary; negotiation, execution, and enforcement of a lease agreement and a community benefits agreement with the Kansas City Royals; and all other contingent costs and liabilities of the project not expressly assigned to the Kansas City Royals.”

That’s a notable mention of condemnation, even if “as necessary.”

In response, White said that the county was informed only last week that the Royals were focusing on the former Star site, rather than the proposed East Village location. White said, “this shift necessitates a detailed reassessment to understand both the implications and the potential of the new location.”

White also requested a meeting with leadership from jurisdictions that will be affected by a new ballpark, including the Kansas City School District.

Last summer, the Royals announced two site finalists — one in the East Village area near City Hall and one across the river in North Kansas City and Clay County. They later revisited the possibility of the former Star pavilion, owned by the Privitera family, as reported by The Star in November.

The Chiefs, on the other hand, have maintained consistency in their plan to renovate Arrowhead Stadium. And they are urgent to enact that plan now.

Here’s why: They want state finances to complete a project that has an estimated price tag of $1 billion, and Missouri Gov. Mike Parson has told the Chiefs he will ask the state General Assembly this session to offer financial support. Parson, though, has just entered his final year in office. It’s unknown what kind of support will occupy that seat a year from now.

Also at the center of negotiations: a community benefits agreement. On Thursday, Abarca presided over a hearing designed to allow local labor groups to voice their concerns. Most who spoke were not against new stadiums altogether, but rather wanted to ensure that a community benefits agreement — with union labor and living wage guarantees — would be in place before county residents voted on the issue. In their letters, Lucas and White similarly expressed a desire to use the KCI Airport Terminal Modernization Project as a guideline.

In all, it’s apparent that securing the county’s support — whether through the county executive or a legislative majority — is a tall task

But it would not be the final task. A potential April ballot is less than 90 days away, shortening the runway for an important campaign. In an ideal world, that campaign would include White as a proponent.

In another letter to White after Thursday’s meeting, Lucas wrote that, “you have won tremendous concessions from both teams that will benefit the people of our region.”

Three paragraphs later, he added:

“Yesterday’s meeting made clear that further delay could be concerning.”