Clark Hunt hoists the Lamar Hunt trophy after the as the Kansas City Chiefs celebrate the teams’ 32-29 win over the Buffalo Bills to claim the AFC Championship on Sunday, Jan. 26, 2025, at GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium. Tammy Ljungblad tljungblad@kcstar.com
A massive incentives plan to keep the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals in Missouri survived its first major test on Tuesday after a Senate committee advanced it to the full Senate for debate and possible passage.
Tuesday’s vote marked a significant moment for supporters of the package, which would allow Missouri to pay for up to 50% of new or improved stadiums for the teams. However, during the hearing, lobbyists for both the Chiefs and Royals would not commit to staying in Missouri if the plan passed, which could spark hesitation among some senators.
The three-hour hearing itself was also noteworthy, providing supporters and critics of the plan a chance to weigh in before it reaches the Senate floor. The stadiums plan faced intense criticism when Gov. Mike Kehoe unveiled it last month without any hearing or input from the general public.
The vote on Tuesday wasn’t unanimous, with three of the nine committee members voting against the plan. However, it allowed the proposal to advance during a special session specifically aimed, in part, at keeping the teams from moving across the state line to Kansas.
The full Senate could consider the package, filed by Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican, as early as Wednesday. Senate President Pro Tem Cindy O’Laughlin, a Shelbina Republican, told The Star on Tuesday she wasn’t sure whether senators would take up the tornado relief and construction projects before debating the stadiums plan.
Before the committee’s vote, lobbyists from the Chiefs and Royals urged senators to approve the proposal and outlined their plans if they decide to stay in Missouri. But neither would actually commit to staying in the state.
Chiefs lobbyist Rich AuBuchon told the committee that if the team stays, the plan is to spend $1.15 billion to renovate Arrowhead Stadium. Those renovations would likely start in either 2027 or 2028, he said.
“If we are to stay, with state and local participation, this is the type of plan that could work,” AuBuchon said.
AuBuchon also compared Missouri’s proposed plan, which would potentially pay up to half the cost of stadiums and would require commitments from local governments, to the supercharged bonds program in Kansas, which could publicly finance up to 70% of new stadiums.
“The Kansas proposal is better in the respect that we don’t need a local vote and in the respect that it would cover up to 70% of the construction,” Aubuchon said. “But it’s new construction. It is also not going to be the loudest stadium in the world. You don’t have the allure of Arrowhead.”
As for the Royals, lobbyist Jewell Patek told lawmakers that the team plans to build a new stadium and surrounding district. He estimated the construction cost at between $1 billion and $2 billion.
But, like AuBuchon, Patek would not say whether the team would stay in Missouri if lawmakers approved the incentives plan. Patek emphasized that the Royals also need additional commitments from either Jackson County or Clay County — which has been floated as a potential stadium spot — and have not received those yet.
During the hearing, senators grilled AuBuchon, Patek and representatives from the Missouri Department of Economic Development, which is negotiating with the teams. Critics of the plan, including Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican, questioned the economic impact of the teams and whether senators were doing enough to help tornado victims in St. Louis.
In addition to the stadiums proposal, the bill would extend for another seven years a bill that offers tax credits to sports organizations in Jackson County and St. Louis, which was set to expire in August. The legislation also offers tax credits to people whose homes are damaged by disasters.
Uncertain future
Coleman, who successfully added an amendment to the bill that expanded the disaster damage tax credit, voted against the legislation along with Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck, an Affton Democrat, and Sen. Steve Roberts, a St. Louis Democrat.
Despite advancing through the committee, the stadium funding plan still faces an uncertain future. The legislation is poised to run into resistance from both sides of the political aisle when it reaches the full Senate.
On the Republican side, some hard-right senators say they’ll refuse to vote on the plan unless they also get tax cuts and legislation to make it harder for voters to amend the constitution.
On the Democratic side, senators have vowed to not discuss stadium funding until the state approves more money for victims of the St. Louis-area tornadoes.
If the bill clears the Senate, it still has to pass through the House. Passage of the plan could shape the future of the Kansas City metro and decide which state, on either side of State Line Road, will spend millions in tax incentives to secure the teams for years to come.
But any opposition in the coming days — or even weeks — could put the future of the teams at risk.
Missouri lawmakers face a ticking clock. While state law allows special sessions to last up to 60 days, the end of June looms over the Missouri Capitol.
When Kansas lawmakers passed, and Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly signed, a plan to lure the teams across the state line, the bonds program included a June 30 expiration date.
Both teams have said they would like to decide by then whether to try to use the Kansas program to move across the state line. Supporters of keeping the teams in Missouri view that deadline as a warning to get a competing offer on the table.