By JASON NOBLE
The Star’s Jefferson City correspondent
JEFFERSON CITY | Inconsistencies in the Kansas City Chiefs’ verbal promises and contractual agreements may imperil a $25-million tax credit and cancel plans to return the football club’s training camp to Missouri.
The Chiefs secured the tax credits last December to help finance $50 million in improvements at the Truman Sports Complex and construction of a $13.45 million training facility at Missouri Western State University in St. Joseph.
The facility at Missouri Western is to be owned by the university, but used a few weeks each summer as the Chiefs’ training camp.
Returning the camp to Missouri from River Falls, Wisc., was a major factor in granting the tax credits, with team officials and state leaders forecasting positive economic and social returns for St. Joseph and the state.
But legal documents and confidential correspondence obtained by The Kansas City Star indicate that the football team exaggerated its commitment to St. Joseph in public statements to the board that approved the tax credit, and that Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon is now moving to renegotiate the deal.
The credits were awarded Dec. 16 by a unanimous vote of the Missouri Development Finance Board, a commission of gubernatorial appointees, the lieutenant governor and several state departments heads with broad authority to award tax credits.
Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder was chairman of the board at the time, but has since been replaced by state Economic Development Director Linda Martinez, a Nixon appointee.
At the meeting, Chiefs Senior Vice President Bill Newman told members approval of the credits would keep the training camp in Missouri “for a minimum of ten years,” according to meeting minutes.
An economic impact study prepared for the Chiefs a month before the meeting also describes a “commitment” by the team to hold camp at Missouri Western for 10 years, and bases its findings on those terms.
But legal documents prepared before and shortly after the meeting ratchet those requirements downward.
A letter of intent signed by Missouri Western and Chiefs officials, issued Dec. 5 and updated Dec. 18, requires the team to stay in St. Joseph for just five years, with a series of one-year options to extend its stay another five years.
The five-year requirement is also outlined in a Jan. 7 agreement signed by officials with the finance board, the team and Jackson County.
When reached for comment last Friday, Chiefs Spokesman Bob Moore said the team has always intended to commit to five years in St. Joseph, followed by the five one-year options.
When team officials referred to a 10-year commitment at the finance board meeting, they were referencing the five-year deal followed by the one-year options, he said.
“There’s a difference between a statement on the record and a legal document,” Moore said. “Just because it was mentioned at a meeting doesn’t mean it’s the final word.”
But the Nixon administration, which assumed power in January after the credits had been awarded, is putting new scrutiny on the agreements and has suggesting the board may want to reconsider its award.
A confidential memo sent Monday by finance board lawyer David Queen to board members and staffers outlines three “inconsistencies” between what the board voted on and what is included in the various agreements.
These include the length of the Chiefs’ commitment to Missouri Western as well as how much the team will pay for the training facility and whether it can move the camp elsewhere in Missouri should Western not finish the facility on time.
At the December meeting, Newman offered a $10 million “pledge” from the Chiefs for construction, but subsequent documents indicate the team wants to deduct from its share about $2 million in fees levied by the finance board for processing the tax credits.
“We have concluded that the agreement may contain provisions that … were not specifically set forth in the Board’s approval,” Queen wrote in the memo.
As such, he continued, “the best course of action is to contact the Chiefs and insist on revisions to the agreement to bring it back in line within the letter of your approval.”
If the team is unwilling to make the changes, the memo says, “we would likely bring that matter back to the Board for clarification of the terms.”
Martinez, the board chairwoman, spoke with an attorney for the Chiefs on Monday.
In comments to the Associated Press, Department of Economic Development Spokesman John Fougere said the Chiefs must amend their agreement to reflect the 10 year commitment or draw up a new one.
“Ten years is the term that the board voted on. They have to abide by those terms,” Fougere told the AP.
The deal is not yet finalized. The letter of intent between the team and the university is not binding, and is due to be replaced by a formal contract. That contract is still being worked out and could be changed to include the 10-yar commitment.
Western hopes to begin construction on the facility in June, said university Spokesman Kent Heier , and would need to finalize the contract before then.
The controversy is not without political implications.
The Chiefs’ tax credit drew sharp criticism from some lawmakers when it was first approved, and has spurred efforts in the legislature this year to rein in the state’s tax-credit programs and limit the finance board’s credit-granting power.
The questions raised by the Nixon administration and the board as led by Martinez also signal a break from the board policy under Kinder, the Republican lieutenant governor.
The Monday memo from Queen indicates the agreements now being contested were worked out with the knowledge of the board and with help from Kinder’s office.
“At the time these compromises were reached I concluded that they were within the authority of the Chair given the materials presented on December 16,” Queen wrote.
Only after the new administration took over were questions raised.
To reach Jason Noble, call 573-634-3565 or send e-mail to jnoble@kcstar.com.
The AP contributed to this report.
Those coming to you with their hand out and asking for....
public assistance very seldom have any credibility, at least with big biz and developers. They are there for one reason only - to increase their profits or use someone else's (taxpayers') money for their benefit.
I can only hope the day will come again when all entities pay their full taxes and not ask for their tax dollars to be diverted back to themselves so every entity will be paying their full share for the needs of the community. These deals are not for the benefit of the people although they like to sell you that story - demand fair and equitable taxation and you might see some real economic development for ALL. Deals are made for the benefit of the money and greed mongers but not for the people and you sure better be looking at the fine print as this example tells you.