Politics

UG files suit after stadium negotiations break down

by Brian Turrel Views: 69
An artist’s rendering of the proposed Chiefs stadium in Wyandotte County. (Credit: MANICA/Kansas City Chiefs)

This morning, the Mayor CEO/Christal Watson announced that the Unified Government has brought legal action against the state of Kansas, opposing the state law that created the sports authority to administer the proposed Chiefs stadium in western Wyandotte County.

The announcement follows Thursday evening’s special meeting of the UG commission which voted to exempt the UG from sections of the sports authority law it objects to.

Watson’s office released the following statement:

“Today, the Unified Government has pursued litigation against the State of Kansas to ensure a constitutional and equitable process for building the proposed stadium in Wyandotte County. If the State intends to embark on an economic development project of this magnitude, it must include the local citizens who work and live here. The current legislation does not give us a proper say in how this gets done and who will benefit. Until the situation is fair for all Wyandotte County residents, we will turn to the courts for a fair hearing and resolution of the matter.”

The Unified Government filed its petition Friday morning in Wyandotte County District Court, asking a judge to declare parts of House Bill 2466 unconstitutional and to block the state from enforcing them against the UG and the Board of Public Utilities.

The suit names the State of Kansas, the Kansas Sports Facilities Authority, Attorney General Kris Kobach, and Lt. Gov. and Commerce Secretary David Toland, the two officials in their official capacities. The Kansas City Chiefs are not a defendant. The UG is not seeking money damages.

The petition says the UG “does not oppose economic development, and it does not oppose professional football in Kansas.” Its central argument is that the law singles out one project in one community, while the Kansas Constitution lets the Legislature override cities’ home rule powers only through laws that apply uniformly to all cities.

The filing makes nine claims. Among them, the UG argues the law:

  • Conditions the mayor’s seat on the tax pledge. The mayor may sit on the authority’s 11-member board only if the UG’s pledge of local tax revenue carries no conditions limiting the commerce secretary’s authority or conflicting with the state’s December 2025 agreement with the Chiefs. The petition calls this “pay to play.”
  • Removes local land-use control. The authority may consult local governments but is not required to, and consultation gives them no approval authority or regulatory jurisdiction.
  • Opens BPU’s territory. The law exempts the authority from the state’s retail electric suppliers act, allowing it to buy power from another provider inside BPU’s exclusive service area, with no compensation to BPU.
  • Eliminates local fees and taxes. The stadium would be exempt from local utility fees, including BPU’s payment in lieu of taxes, as well as from property taxes and from sales taxes on construction.
  • Gives the team a vote. The Chiefs appoint their own voting member to the authority’s board without confirmation by any public official, and the authority may not act in ways that conflict with the team’s agreement with the state.

The suit also asks the court to uphold the charter ordinance commissioners adopted Thursday, which exempts the UG from 11 provisions of the law, and to rule that the UG’s board seat cannot be revoked because of the conditions on its tax pledge.

As an alternative, the UG asks that the entire act be struck down if the challenged provisions cannot be separated from the rest.

The UG is represented by Charles Hatfield and Anna Krstulic of Stinson LLP. The case is No. WY-2026-CV-000864.