Chiefs Jackson County officials worry about KC withholding payments for sports complex

**Tribal Warfare** · 08-30-2010, 12:29 AM

Jackson County officials worry about KC withholding payments for sports complex
By MICHAEL MANSUR
The Kansas City Star

Jackson County Legislator Dan Tarwater and his son donned their red Chiefs gear for Friday’s preseason game, the first in the newly upgraded Arrowhead Stadium.

But while they enjoyed the $375 million in new stadium renovations, Tarwater could not shed his concerns that the stadium leases that keep the Chiefs in Kansas City could soon be in jeopardy.

“This is a worry,” Tarwater said. “And it shouldn’t be at all.”

After months, city and county officials are still at odds over an $8.5 million upkeep fee, part of the leases that govern the Chiefs’ and Royals’ use of the Truman Sports Complex.

Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser has called publicly for an end to the city’s share of that expense — $2 million per year. He contends that it’s Jackson County’s legal obligation under the lease, not the city’s.

More recently, Funkhouser proposed exploring a community improvement district, or CID, at the Truman Sports Complex. It could impose some new tax, like an extra charge on a hot dog, that would pay the city’s $2 million upkeep bill.

In turn, $2 million would not have to be diverted from the city’s general fund, which is used to pay for basic services such as public safety and road improvements.

Now it’s becoming clear that the CID idea won’t fly.

City and county officials confirmed last week that the CID wouldn’t be supported by the teams or their leagues, the National Football League or Major League Baseball.

“The teams have absolutely said no,” said Calvin Williford, Jackson County’s chief of intergovernmental operations. “We’ve not seen it in writing, but it’s no. And the leases would require their consent.”

The acting city manager, Troy Schulte, agreed.

Even if it seemed a good idea, the reaction was hardly a surprise, Tarwater said. The teams had made clear in the last lease negotiations that no extra taxes or fees, such as a ticket surcharge, would be acceptable to them or their leagues.

“Everyone has known from day one that it’s really not a possibility,” he said. “I don’t know why the mayor kept bringing it up.”

Funkhouser, when asked about the CID effort, declined to say much last week.

“I’ll just keep that to myself for the moment,” he said.

So what happens now?

A “Plan B,” Schulte said, for the city’s stadium upkeep bill could be a tax increment financing plan that would earmark certain tax revenues generated at the stadium complex, such as a portion of the city’s 1 percent earnings tax revenues generated from the pay to team employees, including players.

Schulte added that the state referendum that threatens the city’s earnings tax might give that strategy more potential. It could illustrate to voters the importance of the city earnings tax, tying it to the stadiums.

In December, the City Council cut its usual $2 million subsidy to $1.7 million.

Told by an attorney for the team that the $300,000 shortfall would break the lease, the county put up the funds itself.

This year, Kansas City cut its subsidy further, to $1.53 million.

But in July, the City Council, over the mayor’s objection, approved using $770,000 in county-collected funds designated for city road improvements. That made whole the city’s commitment of $2 million for 2009 and 2010.

Jim Rowland, executive director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, has declined to comment on the efforts behind a city funding plan.

The leases, Tarwater said, are among the best in the country because they cap taxpayers’ future obligations to the stadiums. For example, the teams had to pay for renovation costs that exceeded the nearly $500 million approved by taxpayers in 2006.

The Chiefs and Royals deserve credit for putting their own money into the projects, Tarwater said. But the notice last year that leases might be broken if the city subsidy wasn’t forwarded was a clear message, he said.

“Do you think they’d want to try to get out of those leases if it wasn’t in their best interest?”

08-30-2010, 12:29 AM	Topic Starter
Tribal Warfare Man of Culture Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Far Beyond Comprehension Casino cash: $-2997187	Jackson County officials worry about KC withholding payments for sports complex Jackson County officials worry about KC withholding payments for sports complex By MICHAEL MANSUR The Kansas City Star Jackson County Legislator Dan Tarwater and his son donned their red Chiefs gear for Friday’s preseason game, the first in the newly upgraded Arrowhead Stadium. But while they enjoyed the $375 million in new stadium renovations, Tarwater could not shed his concerns that the stadium leases that keep the Chiefs in Kansas City could soon be in jeopardy. “This is a worry,” Tarwater said. “And it shouldn’t be at all.” After months, city and county officials are still at odds over an $8.5 million upkeep fee, part of the leases that govern the Chiefs’ and Royals’ use of the Truman Sports Complex. Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser has called publicly for an end to the city’s share of that expense — $2 million per year. He contends that it’s Jackson County’s legal obligation under the lease, not the city’s. More recently, Funkhouser proposed exploring a community improvement district, or CID, at the Truman Sports Complex. It could impose some new tax, like an extra charge on a hot dog, that would pay the city’s $2 million upkeep bill. In turn, $2 million would not have to be diverted from the city’s general fund, which is used to pay for basic services such as public safety and road improvements. Now it’s becoming clear that the CID idea won’t fly. City and county officials confirmed last week that the CID wouldn’t be supported by the teams or their leagues, the National Football League or Major League Baseball. “The teams have absolutely said no,” said Calvin Williford, Jackson County’s chief of intergovernmental operations. “We’ve not seen it in writing, but it’s no. And the leases would require their consent.” The acting city manager, Troy Schulte, agreed. Even if it seemed a good idea, the reaction was hardly a surprise, Tarwater said. The teams had made clear in the last lease negotiations that no extra taxes or fees, such as a ticket surcharge, would be acceptable to them or their leagues. “Everyone has known from day one that it’s really not a possibility,” he said. “I don’t know why the mayor kept bringing it up.” Funkhouser, when asked about the CID effort, declined to say much last week. “I’ll just keep that to myself for the moment,” he said. So what happens now? A “Plan B,” Schulte said, for the city’s stadium upkeep bill could be a tax increment financing plan that would earmark certain tax revenues generated at the stadium complex, such as a portion of the city’s 1 percent earnings tax revenues generated from the pay to team employees, including players. Schulte added that the state referendum that threatens the city’s earnings tax might give that strategy more potential. It could illustrate to voters the importance of the city earnings tax, tying it to the stadiums. In December, the City Council cut its usual $2 million subsidy to $1.7 million. Told by an attorney for the team that the $300,000 shortfall would break the lease, the county put up the funds itself. This year, Kansas City cut its subsidy further, to $1.53 million. But in July, the City Council, over the mayor’s objection, approved using $770,000 in county-collected funds designated for city road improvements. That made whole the city’s commitment of $2 million for 2009 and 2010. Jim Rowland, executive director of the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority, has declined to comment on the efforts behind a city funding plan. The leases, Tarwater said, are among the best in the country because they cap taxpayers’ future obligations to the stadiums. For example, the teams had to pay for renovation costs that exceeded the nearly $500 million approved by taxpayers in 2006. The Chiefs and Royals deserve credit for putting their own money into the projects, Tarwater said. But the notice last year that leases might be broken if the city subsidy wasn’t forwarded was a clear message, he said. “Do you think they’d want to try to get out of those leases if it wasn’t in their best interest?”
Posts: 43,454