TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) — Kansas legislators approved a bipartisan plan Tuesday aimed at attracting the Kansas City Chiefs to the state by assisting in financing a new stadium for the Super Bowl champions.
The bill approved by the Legislature and awaiting approval from Gov. Laura Kelly would involve issuing bonds to cover up to 70% of the costs for a new stadium for the Chiefs and another for Major League Baseball’s Kansas City Royals. The plan also includes incentives for the teams to move their practice facilities to the Kansas side of the metropolitan area.
The state proposes to pay off the bonds over 30 years using revenues from sports betting, Kansas Lottery ticket sales, and new sales and alcohol taxes collected from shopping and entertainment districts near the new stadium sites.
Korb Maxell, an attorney for the Chiefs residing on the Kansas side of the border, expressed enthusiasm for the state’s commitment to supporting the teams and providing an enticing offer to the NFL team.
“We’re thrilled about the progress made today,” he stated after the bill’s passage. “This is a significant step forward.”
The bill received significant support, with votes of 84-38 in the House and 27-8 in the Senate. While Kelly has not confirmed if she will sign the bill, she commended the collaborative effort behind it.
“Kansas now has the opportunity to emerge as a hub for professional sports,” she remarked.
Lawmakers in Kansas are targeting the two teams as a potential opportunity, given that voters in the Missouri side of the Kansas City area recently rejected extending a sales tax to maintain the existing stadiums of both teams.
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson’s spokesperson did not immediately respond to requests for comment, while Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas vowed to present a competitive proposal to retain both teams in Missouri.
In Kansas, top Republican legislators pledged to address the stadium proposal only after passing a tax reduction plan aimed at saving $1.23 billion over the next three years. Many legislators argued that taxpayers would expect tax relief alongside state support for new stadiums.
“We need to show that we are providing relief to our citizens,” stated Senate President Ty Masterson, a supporter of the stadium-financing plan.
Kelly called for a special session to consider tax reductions after vetoing three tax-cutting plans earlier. This special session allowed for the consideration of the stadium-financing plan.
The bill initially proposed bonded financing for all stadium costs, but a 70% cap was imposed to garner more support. House Commerce Committee Chair Sean Tarwater estimated that the Chiefs would invest hundreds of millions in private funds for a new stadium.
A new advocacy group, Scoop and Score, was formed to promote bringing the Chiefs to Kansas, leading to extensive lobbying efforts by both teams during the special session. However, groups like Americans for Prosperity and the Kansas Policy Institute oppose the measure.
Economists caution that past studies have shown subsidizing sports stadiums may not be cost-effective. Development around new stadiums may divert funds that could support other community needs.
Missouri officials have expressed willingness to retain the teams but have not outlined specific proposals at this time.
“Today’s developments were largely about leveraging power,” Lucas stated. “The teams currently hold significant leverage in this situation.”
The current lease for the stadium complex runs until January 2031, but there is urgency for planning renovations in advance.
Supporters argue that the stadium plan will generate additional tax revenues that would not exist without the stadiums and surrounding development. They stress that these bonds are not a subsidy and are essential for a state to host major-league teams.
However, economists caution that this argument has been contested in previous stadium debates, noting that development around stadiums can shift funds from other areas.
“It could benefit Kansas while potentially disadvantaging Missouri by the same magnitude,” said one economist. “It’s a trade-off.”
