Jackson County pumps brakes on Royals and Chiefs stadium tax to work out deal details

Jackson County legislators will decide late next week or in early January whether to approve a ballot measure that would ask voters if they want to continue paying a stadiums sales tax for another 40 years.

They have until Jan. 23 to get it on the ballot for a vote in an April 2 special election.

The chairman of the legislature, DaRon McGee, set off a furor late last week when he put a proposed ordinance on Monday’s agenda that, if it had been approved as it was written, would have put the tax measure on the ballot minus two important contingencies.

First, it did not require that the Chiefs and Royals sign new leases before voters were asked to approve that 3/8th-cent tax.

Nor was it contingent on the Royals negotiating a community benefits agreement in exchange for a taxpayer subsidy to build a $1 billion ballpark in downtown Kansas City.

A corrected version of the ordinance addressed both issues, but still leaves some key details unresolved. McGee’s failure to put lease requirements in writing initially inspired criticism from within the county government, as well as protests from outside groups that want a community benefits agreement guaranteeing stadium workers a living wage as well as support of affordable housing projects and other demands to be part of the stadium deal.

Dozens of people in support of the benefits agreement rallied outside the courthouse and then packed the second-floor legislative chambers for the 10 a.m. meeting Monday. Except for a baby crying throughout, they stood largely silent as legislators voted to hold until later consideration of McGee’s five-page “corrected” proposal that did address the need for having a negotiated community benefits agreement.

The Good Jobs and Affordable Housing for All coalition later took credit for getting that language into the proposed ordinance, although county and team officials said there was never any intention to go forward without an agreement in place.

Likewise, the Royals have said they have always intended to have a signed lease with the county before asking voters for a sales tax extension.

McGee said in a statement he issued Friday to KCTV5 that he had always planned to add those conditions before a public vote.

But by placing it on the agenda without either guarantee or explaining at the time his reasons for doing so, McGee’s proposed ordinance drew strong criticism.

A day after The Star first reported on it, the legislature’s vice chair, Megan Marshall, posted on Facebook a scathing letter she had sent to McGee.

She called the lack of contingencies “alarming” and “troubling” and a betrayal of the trust that voters had placed in the legislature by electing its member.

“The glaring absence of a lease agreement hands the Royals a blank check for an additional 40 years,” she wrote McGee.

Agreeing to put something on the ballot before the leases were signed would undermine County Executive Frank White’s ability to negotiate the best possible leases with both teams, the letter said.

“The role of negotiator falls under his purview, not that of the Jackson County Legislature,” she wrote and then went on to criticize McGee and legislator Manny Abaca for inserting themselves into the negotiating process.

“Your presentation of Ordinance 5822 for (a) vote before an agreement has been reached and Abarca’s consistent disclosure of closed-session, confidential information to the public through town hall meetings and media appearance only worsens the situation.”

McGee did not respond publicly to her concerns before or at the meeting. But the corrected ordinance addressed some of them.

Abarca did not respond publicly, either.

But the Good Jobs and Affordable Housing for All coalition issued a statement after the meeting quoting him on his support of having a community benefits agreement in place.

“As we have seen with major projects like the jail, without a clearly defined community benefits agreement that spells out requirements like prevailing wage at all points of construction, stronger hospitality and concession workers’ protections, and clearly defined benefits for ALL Jackson Countians, the county would deny our residents and taxpayers the transformative impact this stadium project could have,” he said.

Union and social justice groups advocating for that benefits agreement say the Royals should begin talks with them about what needs to go into the agreement. But the Royals say those discussions are more appropriate after a site has been selected.

Neither the county nor the teams have said how much they expect county taxpayers to spend for construction of a new baseball stadium and the renovation of Arrowhead Stadium.

Neither have the Royals given any specifics on what other funding sources they have lined up to pay for construction of a ballpark to replace Kauffman Stadium.

Nor have the Royals ruled out building that new stadium in North Kansas City, the team’s other preferred location.