Commissioners Andrew Davis, Jim Lopez, and Gayle Stites voted against the ordinance, citing concerns about the speed of the process, unanswered questions, and long-standing inequities in investment across Wyandotte County.
Supporters of the ordinance emphasized that the vote was not an endorsement of every detail of the project. Instead, they described it as a strategic decision to ensure the Unified Government retained leverage and a formal role in negotiations largely driven by the State of Kansas.
A Fast-Moving Process, Set by the State
The vote came less than 60 days after the state announced its intent to pursue a STAR bond-financed stadium in Wyandotte County. Commissioners repeatedly raised concerns about the pace, noting that many key agreements have not yet been finalized and that the county was required to act before seeing all “definitive documents.”
Several commissioners contrasted Wyandotte County’s experience with that of Olathe, whose city leaders had been involved earlier in negotiations related to a proposed Chiefs training facility. Wyandotte County officials said they were brought into discussions later and were asked to make decisions under tight deadlines while operating under nondisclosure agreements that limited what could be shared publicly.
Despite those concerns, a majority of commissioners concluded that declining to participate would leave the county with little influence over a project they believe is likely to move forward regardless.
Project Area vs. STAR Bond District: A Critical Distinction
Understanding the difference between the local project area and the broader STAR Bond district is essential to understanding the vote.
The ordinance approved by the commission applies only to a defined local project area of approximately 235 acres in Kansas City, Kansas. That area is generally described as:
- State Avenue to the south
- Parallel Parkway to the north
- Roughly 118th Street to 126th Street
This project area is where the Unified Government is pledging its general 1% sales tax and its transient guest tax to help repay STAR bonds.
The STAR Bond district, established by the state, is much broader. It includes:
- Kansas City, Kansas
- Bonner Springs
- Edwardsville
- Lake Quivira
- Olathe
- Portions of Shawnee, Lenexa, and Merriam
Incremental state sales tax revenues generated within this multi-city district would be pledged toward repayment of the bonds, even though the stadium itself would be located in Wyandotte County.
What the Vote Actually Does — and Does Not — Do
There was significant concern about the fiscal impact of the stadium, with much of the confusion stemming from uncertainty over which taxes the Unified Government was pledging to support the project.
The ordinance does not pledge all city or county sales taxes.
Instead, it authorizes the pledge of:
- The Unified Government’s general 1% sales tax, but only the incremental portion generated within the project area
- The transient guest tax at its current 8% rate, generated within the project area only
The ordinance explicitly excludes:
- The 0.25% emergency medical services sales tax
- The 0.375% public safety and neighborhood infrastructure sales tax
- Any sales taxes already committed to other purposes
While Wyandotte County’s transient guest tax is capped at 10%, only the current 8% rate is pledged. Any future increase above that level would not be committed to the project.
What “Incremental” Sales Tax Means
The Unified Government pledged its incremental sales taxes generated within the project area to help repay the STAR bonds.
Incremental sales tax refers to the increase in sales tax revenue above a defined base amount once the district is established. That distinction became a key source of misunderstanding during public comment, with many residents believing the city was pledging its incremental sales tax citywide for 30 years, which would have represented a significant financial hit.
Because the project site is largely agricultural land with little to no existing sales tax activity, nearly all sales tax generated within the project area would be considered incremental.
Safeguards Added by the Commission
The ordinance approved Tuesday night includes several safeguards added by the commission to protect the interests of Wyandotte County residents and preserve local leverage.
Those conditions include:
- Project area boundaries cannot be expanded without commission approval
- The Unified Government retains review authority over key “definitive documents,” limited to provisions that directly affect Wyandotte County and Kansas City, Kansas
- Those documents include development agreements, land transfers, maintenance agreements, non-relocation agreements, and the community impact agreement
- STAR bonds must be issued by Dec. 31, 2031, ensuring the county is not bound indefinitely to a project that may never materialize
- Attorney Todd LaSala of Stinson LLP told commissioners the deadline was important to prevent the pledge from lingering without a clear path forward.
Community Impact Fund
The Community Impact Fund is a pool of money established under the state–Chiefs framework to support community-serving projects designed as support of the stadium’s broader economic impact.
Spending from the fund is structured so that no more than 50% may be used in the Kansas City metro area. LaSala said he believes that limitation reflects the state’s position that this is a statewide project and that some benefits should accrue to communities and organizations outside the metro area. He also noted that statewide funding sources, such as lottery revenues, could potentially contribute to the project.
By conditioning its approval on having a seat on the fund’s governing board, the Unified Government ensured it would have a voice in how the funds are distributed — positioning the county to influence how, and whether, Wyandotte County programs and organizations benefit.
Stadium Ownership and Property Taxes
The stadium would be owned by a state agency, which means — like most government-owned property — it would be exempt from property taxes.
That exemption applies only to the stadium itself. Private development in the surrounding entertainment district is expected to generate property tax revenue unless developers later seek abatements or other incentives, which would require local approval.
Infrastructure, Utilities, and BPU
Infrastructure costs were a major concern for residents worried about the long-term economic impact of the stadium. The agreement is not fully clear about what qualifies as stadium infrastructure, but county officials said they are comfortable that required water, sewer, and electrical improvements tied to the project will be covered under STAR bond financing.
Street and road improvements within the district are also expected to be covered under the STAR bonds rather than becoming an ongoing burden on city or county budgets.
Officials emphasized that BPU PILOT payments are not pledged to the project and that infrastructure upgrades should not shift costs to utility ratepayers.
Public Safety
While the Kansas City Chiefs would be responsible for security associated with the stadium itself, the county anticipates some additional police and fire demand related to events. Those costs were included in the financial projections presented to commissioners.
Financial Impact: Benefits vs. Costs
A financial impact analysis prepared by Canyon Research Southwest Inc., with additional modeling by Municipal Consulting LLC, examined the projected fiscal effect of the project over 25 years.
Projected benefits include increases in:
- Unpledged sales tax revenues
- Property taxes from ancillary development
- Transient guest taxes not committed to bond repayment
- Other governmental revenues tied to increased activity
Projected increases in costs include:
- Infrastructure and maintenance
- Public safety and service demands
- Ongoing operational impacts
The analysis projected $488 million in benefits, $396 million in costs, and a net surplus of approximately $92 million over 25 years. Officials noted that if STAR bonds ultimately cover more infrastructure costs than assumed, the county’s financial outcome could improve.
Bridges and Transit Improvements
Mayor Christal Watson played a key role in negotiations aimed at securing local safeguards and state funding for long-delayed infrastructure projects.
Commissioners also highlighted major infrastructure investments negotiated by Mayor Christal Watson as part of discussions surrounding the project.
Those include:
- Central Avenue Bridge, closed in 2021, which connects Kansas City to KCK’s bustling Central Avenue Corridor. The Unified Government has struggled for years to find the money to replace the locally owned bridge. The state has committed $135 million toward its replacement.
- Kansas Avenue Bridge, a critical connector between Kansas City, Kansas and Kansas City, Missouri that carried about 7,000 vehicles daily before it was closed in 2022.
- Union Pacific Bridge, which serves key rail and roadway connections and requires major repair.
- East–west bus route improvements, aimed at strengthening transit service across Wyandotte County and improving access between the county’s east and west sides.
Commissioners noted that aging bridges, limited river crossings, and years of underinvestment had effectively left Kansas City, Kansas landlocked, with few options for east–west connectivity. The stadium negotiations created leverage to secure state funding that had long been out of reach.
A Strategic Decision
The vote closed with remarks from Mayor Christal Watson, who acknowledged the frustration many residents felt about the speed and structure of the process but emphasized that the commission’s responsibility was to protect Wyandotte County’s long-term interests in a project largely controlled by the state.
That sentiment was echoed by Commissioner Carlos Pacheco, who said the ordinance was not about control, but about securing a seat at the table — give the county leverage, review authority, and an opportunity to shape outcomes that could otherwise move forward without local input.
While Commissioners Andrew Davis, Philip Lopez, and Chuck Stites voted against the ordinance, the majority concluded that participating — rather than standing outside the process — placed Wyandotte County in the strongest position to influence a project they believe is likely to move forward regardless.