Jackson County legislator proposes Chiefs-only stadium sales tax. But can it happen?

As Kansas lawmakers and developers accelerate their attempts to entice a Chiefs or Royals move across the state line, a Jackson County legislator is attempting to build a path toward another try with county voters.

But it appears he would be prohibited from doing to — at least within the year — by a Missouri state statute.

Manny Abarca, the 1st District legislator, said he plans to introduce two Chiefs-only ballot measures to the county legislature at a May 13 meeting.

• The first is a 3/8th-cent park sales tax, reserved fully for the Chiefs rather than split with the Royals, over a 40-year term.

• The second option is a 3/16th-cent park sales tax over 30 years —similar terms to their share of the existing tax.

Abarca is targeting a November ballot for the measures. But state statute would likely prevent another ballot attempt that soon, at least through a park sales tax, according to Chuck Hatfield, a Jefferson City-based attorney who previously worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s Office.

Statute 644.032, the section in which the Chiefs and Royals attempted to pass the April sales tax to fund their stadium projects, reads, in part, “In no event shall a proposal pursuant to this section and section 644.033 be submitted to the voters sooner than twelve months from the date of the last proposal pursuant to this section.”

Hatfield noted there is no case law on the subject — that it’s never been tested — but said, “This is saying that if you have submitted a proposal under this section to impose a tax, you can’t do another one in 12 months. That’s how I would read it. So I would say it’s not legal to put it on (the ballot) again sooner than 12 months.”

In a statement about the proposals, Jackson County executive Frank White pointed to the language of the statute, calling the law “explicit” that another park sales tax cannot be placed in front of voters for 12 months.

“This statute is designed to respect the voter’s decision and ensure responsible governance, but it seems to be ignored,” White’s statement said, in part.

In response to that, Abarca said: “It is my opinion this is an entirely different ballot measure. If I were to copy and paste the last ballot measure, I would agree with him. This is different. But we’ll leave that determination to the Secretary of State.”

Hatfield noted the omission of one word.

“It doesn’t say same proposal,” Hatfield said. “If that were true, then you’d just tweak a couple of words and say it’s a different proposal.

“The local election boards would have to put it on the ballot, and I’d suspect they’d reject it.”

Those local election boards — Jackson County and Kansas City, in this case — would ultimately make that call, not the secretary of state, said Hatfield. He noted the risk in putting something on the ballot, receiving voter approval, only to later have the result thrown out because of a key legal issue.

Abarca’s two proposals, posted to his social media accounts, call for a countywide park sales tax, which would fall under the same section (644.032) of state code.

With Jackson County potentially facing that roadblock, some Kansas lawmakers are advocating for supercharged Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) bonds to help finance stadiums on their side of the state line.

The Kansas Legislature adjourned early Wednesday morning without debating that proposal, but it could discuss the matter later this spring during a special session.

The Chiefs have said they plan to weigh all options after Jackson County voters last month rejected a 3/8th-cent sales tax extension that would have been split evenly with the Royals.

“What I’ve taken away from a lot of the negativity from this last election is folks just want to support the Chiefs’ plan right now,” Abarca said. “They feel like they have a clear plan. They may not love the plan, but they thought it was vetted, thought out and it was visible.”

The two teams have already agreed behind closed doors to move forward independently of each other now as they determine their future stadium plans — but another attempt using the same park sales tax, it would appear, would require a waiting period.

Jackson County voters rejected the April ballot measure by a wide margin, 58% to 42%. A few days before that vote, in late March, White released a statement saying it was “essential to recognize that the teams do not need to be included in the same ballot.”

But he was unequivocal in his statement Wednesday that no such proposal would be legal within the next year.

“Less than a month ago, a similar proposal was resoundingly rejected at the ballot, a loss that should have served as a costly but clear lesson,” White said. “Over $1 million of taxpayer money was squandered on an unnecessary election — an amount I had hoped would be the most expensive lesson ever learned by those who championed it.”

Potential action on the other side of the state line, within the Kansas Legislature, has garnered the attention of city, county and state politicos who govern in closer proximity to the Chiefs’ and Royals’ current addresses at the Truman Sports Complex.

“I think this is certainly going to serve as a wake-up call for our community to come together and make serious decisions about keeping the Royals and the Chiefs in Missouri,” Missouri House Majority Leader Jonathan Patterson, a Lee’s Summit Republican, said.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include a reference to a Missouri state statute guiding park tax usage.