A new stadium battle is brewing on both sides of the state line as Kansas and Missouri pitch competing proposals to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals in the metro.Kansas is offering a plan that could cover up to 70% of stadium project costs using STAR bonds, a financing mechanism that lets future tax revenues pay off public debt. Missouri’s plan, by contrast, would limit state assistance to covering up to 50% of project costs and require teams to front the expenses and apply for reimbursement through a tax credit program.Supporters say Missouri’s more conservative approach still gives teams a strong reason to stay.“They can stay centrally located, here in Missouri where they should be, where they have traditionally been,” said Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican and sponsor of the Missouri legislation.Brown said the Missouri House spent months on various bills this session, but the stadium proposal emerged only in the final days. The measure was introduced as an amendment and passed the House 103-43.The current plan, known as the Show-Me Sports Investment Act, would require a local contribution, include clawback provisions if a team relocates, and undergo annual legislative reviews.“In 10 years, people won’t care how many hours this was debated,” Brown said. “They’ll enjoy the games and the jobs.”Missouri’s bill is now in the hands of the state Senate, which has until 6 p.m. Friday to act. If lawmakers fail to pass it, Gov. Mike Kehoe has pledged to call a special session.Meanwhile, Kansas has given the Chiefs and Royals until the end of July to accept its offer. Brown believes Missouri’s version is a better long-term deal for both teams and taxpayers.“The time for inaction, the time for indecision is behind us,” he said.

KANSAS CITY, Mo. —

A new stadium battle is brewing on both sides of the state line as Kansas and Missouri pitch competing proposals to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals in the metro.

Kansas is offering a plan that could cover up to 70% of stadium project costs using STAR bonds, a financing mechanism that lets future tax revenues pay off public debt.

Missouri’s plan, by contrast, would limit state assistance to covering up to 50% of project costs and require teams to front the expenses and apply for reimbursement through a tax credit program.

Supporters say Missouri’s more conservative approach still gives teams a strong reason to stay.

“They can stay centrally located, here in Missouri where they should be, where they have traditionally been,” said Rep. Chris Brown, a Kansas City Republican and sponsor of the Missouri legislation.

Brown said the Missouri House spent months on various bills this session, but the stadium proposal emerged only in the final days.

The measure was introduced as an amendment and passed the House 103-43.

The current plan, known as the Show-Me Sports Investment Act, would require a local contribution, include clawback provisions if a team relocates, and undergo annual legislative reviews.

“In 10 years, people won’t care how many hours this was debated,” Brown said. “They’ll enjoy the games and the jobs.”

Missouri’s bill is now in the hands of the state Senate, which has until 6 p.m. Friday to act. If lawmakers fail to pass it, Gov. Mike Kehoe has pledged to call a special session.

Meanwhile, Kansas has given the Chiefs and Royals until the end of July to accept its offer. Brown believes Missouri’s version is a better long-term deal for both teams and taxpayers.

“The time for inaction, the time for indecision is behind us,” he said.