As Kansas lawmakers rush to pass legislation designed to solidify a Kansas City Chiefs stadium in their state, the draft proposal would grant the team extraordinary influence over the project.
The proposed nine-member sports authority in charge of overseeing construction of a new stadium would include a representative from the Chiefs. The arrangement has raised a series of questions from critics who say it would give the team an unusual amount of sway over a publicly-financed stadium.
Lawmakers on the House commerce committee advanced the legislation Thursday, setting up a vote of the full House early next week on a crucial part of the team’s plans in Kansas. The bill outlines the powers and limitations of the quasi-governmental entity that will own, manage — and oversee construction of — a $3 billion Chiefs stadium in Wyandotte County.
Under the legislation, a representative from the Chiefs organization would have voting power on the authority’s board, granting the team the ability to vote on major decisions related to the construction and operation of the stadium.
Meanwhile, the mayors of Kansas City, Kansas, and Olathe — where the Chiefs plan to build their new practice facility and team headquarters — would only serve as non-voting members of the public corporate body.
The team’s spot on the board sparked concern at a hearing over the legislation on Tuesday. During the hearing, Rep. Rui Xu, a Westwood Democrat, pressed a Chiefs representative about the language, pointing to the authority’s broad powers, including the ability to buy and sell property.
“How is it not a conflict of interest for a member of the Chiefs to be on that board?” Xu asked the Chiefs representative. “They could be able to grant or sell land to themselves or vote to do so. They could vote to charge fees or not charge fees to themselves. They get to act as both the tenant and the landlord in this case.”
In response, Korb Maxwell, a Kansas City real estate attorney and representative of the Chiefs, emphasized the team would represent just one member of the board.
In addition to the Chiefs, the authority would include the Kansas commerce secretary and one appointee each from the governor and the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Kansas House and Senate.
“It’s now one single member out of a nine-member board, and whatever the decisions of the Legislature are, we will be very much a minority,” Maxwell said.
In defense of the team’s position on the board, Maxwell pointed to the idea that the team would have to bear the responsibilities of maintaining the stadium, such as any potential cost overruns.
“The team is the one that is very much responsible for all of the cost of this,” Maxwell said.
A Chiefs spokesperson did not respond to a series of follow-up questions from The Star. Those questions included who the Chiefs would like to serve on the board and whether the team would commit to recusing itself from votes that might present a conflict.
On Thursday, before the House commerce committee advanced the sports authority bill, Xu proposed amending it to make the team representative a non-voting member of the board. He said he couldn’t find another example of a sports authority anywhere in the country that gave a team voting privileges on major financial decisions.
That amendment failed on a voice vote, as did Xu’s second amendment, which would have prohibited the Chiefs’ representative from serving as chair of the board.
Rep. Lynn Melton, a KCK Democrat, proposed making the KCK and Olathe mayors voting members — a change that the Kansas Department of Commerce endorsed earlier this week. Republican lawmakers voted that down, too.
“Representation is not valid if we have no vote, and so it would be important for us to be able to have that seat,” KCK Mayor Christal Watson told lawmakers on Tuesday.
Instead, lawmakers prioritized giving the Chiefs representation. Rep. Sean Tarwater, a Stilwell Republican, who chairs the commerce committee, said cutting the team out of the decision-making process would be unfair.
“The team itself is putting over $1 billion into the stadium,” Tarwater said.
“If they don’t have a say, the board could do a lot of different things that put a lot of financial strain on the team,” he added.
To fund the rest of the stadium, Kansas plans to issue $1.8 billion in sales tax and revenue, or STAR bonds, that will divert new sales tax revenue in much of Johnson and Wyandotte counties to pay down stadium debt for decades to come.
‘Straight up conflict’
The team’s position on the board would signify a major departure from how it operates in Missouri. The five-member Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, which controls the team’s lease at Arrowhead Stadium, does not give voting power to the Chiefs or the Kansas City Royals.
In Illinois, for example, the sports authority in charge of overseeing the Chicago White Sox’s stadium expressly prohibits “anyone with financial interest in any facility regulated by the Authority” from serving on the board.
“I don’t think the Chiefs really want to do this if they think about it,” Mike White, an attorney who represents the Jackson County authority, said in an interview. “It’s going to create some problems for them.”
White, a former Jackson County executive, said the arrangement would present a host of potential conflicts for both the authority and the team. He pointed to the fact that sports authorities, unlike other quasi-governmental agencies, have the power to issue bonds.
“If you’re a member of the board…you’d be voting to approve your own request for the funds that you’re turning in to be paid,” White said. “That would be a straight-up conflict.”
Another situation that would be ripe for conflict is any potential litigation involving the Chiefs. White said that while the Jackson County authority has never been in litigation with the team, they have “come close.”
White said the team should recuse itself from any votes “where there is a conflict between the unbiased judgment of the authority and an economic interest of the team.”
Lacing concerns about the sports authority is a provision in the legislation that exempts the board from the state’s competitive bidding requirements. White said that line could create “enormous problems” for the authority and the state.
“Anytime you’re spending taxpayers’ dollars, you want to make sure that you’re getting the best price and that there’s no nepotism involved,” he said. “You definitely want to have competitive bidding.”
Loading…
Related Stories from Kansas City Star
The Kansas City Star
Kacen Bayless is the Democracy Insider for The Kansas City Star, a position that uncovers how politics and government affect communities across the sprawling Kansas City area. Prior to this role, he covered Missouri politics for The Star. A graduate of the University of Missouri, he previously was an investigative reporter in coastal South Carolina.
The Kansas City Star
Matthew Kelly is The Kansas City Star’s Kansas State Government reporter. He previously covered local government for The Wichita Eagle. Kelly holds a political science degree from Wichita State University.