Latest news with #KurtisGregory
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri governor allows more spending, property tax cap as he pursues stadium deal
State Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall is sponsoring the bill to set aside state tax money to finance new and renovated stadiums for Kansas City sports teams (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). Gov. Mike Kehoe expanded the agenda of the special session Wednesday enough to win Missouri Senate passage of bills with money for disaster recovery in St. Louis, changes to property taxes policies and tax incentives to finance new or improved stadiums in Kansas City. Initially scheduled to go in at 10 a.m., the Senate finally convened about seven hours later. Talks over what sweeteners Kehoe needed to get his key objective — tax incentives to finance new or renovated stadiums for the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals —- culminated in his revised agenda. 'After productive conversations with members of the Missouri General Assembly this week, we are amending our special session call to allow for additional legislation in the areas of disaster relief, tax policy, and budget investments,' Kehoe said in a news release. 'We appreciate legislators working together to use this as an opportunity to show up for our communities by acting swiftly to help those in crisis, while also making smart decisions that secure opportunity for the future.' Under the constitutional limits on a special session, the governor must 'state specifically each matter on which action is deemed necessary.' Any attempt to address an issue not listed in the call for the session can be ruled out of order. The special session began Monday and can continue for up to 60 days. Kehoe is seeking quick action because both teams have offers from Kansas to relocate. The spending bill passed 23-10 in the early morning on Thursday, winning with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans with only Republicans opposed. The bill to finance the stadiums went to the House on a 19-13 vote, with three Democrats joining 10 Republicans in opposition. For several hours the chamber stalled on the stadium bill, working late into the night. The bill includes all the tax provisions necessary to finance the stadiums, plus disaster relief provisions and an expansion of a tax credit program supporting amateur sporting events. Shortly before 1 a.m., the impasse cleared and bill sponsored by state Sen. Kurtis Gregory was given initial approval. Within a few hours, the final votes were held and the Senate adjourned until June 16. For several hours, debate focused on a proposal from state Sen. Joe Nicola, a Republican from Independence, to freeze the maximum increase in annual property tax bills at 5% in some counties. Then state Sen. Tracy McCreery, a Democrat from Olivette, said she had heard enough. 'This discussion that we've had the last several hours is just an effort for the governor to try to get a couple of votes out of the Freedom Caucus for the stadium funding scheme,' McCreery said. She said Kehoe agreed to Nicola's amendment and added it to the call to wear down opposition. Then she blamed Kehoe and Republicans for using a procedural move to shut down debate during the regular session on an abortion ban and repeal of the sick leave law approved by voters in November. Kehoe could have had the stadium plan passed if the procedural move was not used, McCreery said. 'Here we are tonight, masquerading that we care about people and the amount of money that they're paying for things,' McCreery said. Democrats don't trust Republicans, she said, and the Senate should not trust the House. Until the appropriation bill, which totals $361 million including $175 million in general revenue, passes the House. The House refused to pass a bill with $235 million of the same projects and $282 million of additional spending during the session. House Republican leaders waited for the Senate to adjourn on the last day for passing appropriations before revealing that the bill would be spiked. 'We should not be doing anything until (the spending bill is passed) and over the House, and then the House has to have it on its way to the governor before we should be taking any action on anything else,' McCreery said. The stadium funding plan would allocate state taxes collected from economic activity at Arrowhead and Kauffman to bond payments for renovations at Arrowhead and a new stadium for the Royals in Jackson or Clay counties. The cost is estimated at close to $1.5 billion over 30 years. State Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Republican from Marshall and sponsor of the stadium bill, said the public support for keeping the Chiefs and Royals in Missouri was both a good economic investment and a good investment in the state's image. 'What's at stake if those teams go across the state line is over $2 billion of economic activity inside of the state of Missouri, over 13,000 jobs, and we just let the state of Kansas poach the pride and joy of the western side of the state,' Gregory said. The teams must give Kansas an answer by June 30 on an offer to pay 70% of the cost of new stadiums. Missouri's offer is to cover about half the cost. Some senators have grumbled that the teams should make a commitment to stay in Missouri if the bill is passed. Gregory said their desire to stay should be apparent. 'I also contend that the teams want to stay in Missouri, because if they wanted to go to Kansas, I believe they would have already signed on the dotted line to move those teams,' Gregory said. The spending bill was increased because of demands from St. Louis Democrats that Kehoe address the uncertainty over when or whether President Donald Trump will declare a federal disaster for the May 16 St. Louis tornado. That brought a new $100 million appropriation for storm victims in the city of St. Louis. Previously, the disaster provisions in the call — $25 million for the Missouri Housing Trust Fund to be distributed by the Missouri Housing Development Commission and a tax credit for amounts paid as insurance deductibles — were all applied equally to counties included in disaster requests. Kehoe has submitted four storm events this spring, with damage in 37 counties, to Trump for disaster requests. Two have been granted. The magnitude of the St. Louis tornado — a 22-mile path of destruction that cost five Missouri lives and damaged an estimated $1.6 billion in property damage — surpasses all other damage so far in the state. Damage to public property in the two disasters that have been declared is estimated at $52 million. The other new money added to the spending bill settled an issue for state Sen. Stephen Webber, a Democrat from Columbia. A state contribution to the new research reactor at the University of Missouri, which Kehoe cut from $50 million to $25 million to find money for disaster aid, was returned to $50 million. The only opposition to the spending bill on the floor came from state Sen. Mike Moon, a Republican from Ash Grove, who said the university should tap its $1.4 billion endowment to pay for the reactor. And Moon said he didn't like the disaster relief funds. 'The money that is going to be received by those who were hurt is nowhere near the amount that's going to cause them to be compensated and fully restored,' Moon said. If the state starts paying to repair property after storms, he said, people will not buy insurance. 'I don't think some of this is the proper function of government,' Moon said. 'Compassion, certainly. But unless people take personal responsibility and do the things they should be doing so that we don't have to, when is this going to end?' The tax change Nicola is trying to enact would cap increases in real property tax bills at 5% every two years, corresponding to the reassessment cycle. Officials in 34 counties would have the option of putting the cap in place through a ballot measure. The proposal is a response to rapid increases in property values and the resulting increase in tax bills. There was no estimate available of the potential cost to local governments. Nicola said there were enough protections to make sure all current revenue is maintained and new voter-approved levies are paid. 'Our property tax system in this state, in my opinion, is a disaster,' Nicola said. The amendment is the price of his vote, he told the Senate. 'I am a hard no on the stadium tax bill unless we get some solid property tax relief for my people in Jackson County,' Nicola said. 'I told the governor of this on Monday I can count on one hand how many of my constituents want me to vote for the stadium.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Missouri Senate Democrats currently not focused on Chiefs, Royals
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — It is back to work for Missouri lawmakers as . The work's starting in the State Senate which filibustered the late arriving proposal and then adjourned its regular session. Republican State Senator Kurtis Gregory of Saline County has filed a bill that was first read Monday. His bill creates the Show-Me Sports Investment Act. Kehoe has pitched this plan to try to keep the Chiefs and the Royals in Missouri. Royals' affiliate buys Overland Park Aspiria campus' mortgage While Kregory did not elaborate on his bill on the floor, FOX4 was able to talk to Republican State Senate President Cindy O'Laughlin before session started Monday. 'I think for people this is controversial because people want to bring the owners into the conversation, but for them, it's a business decision,' she said, talking about the owners. 'So, for me, I think it boils down to, 'Do you want to make an offer that you think is reasonable? Do you want to keep the Chiefs and the Royals? And then they have to decide what they want to do.' O'laughlin said she's had indirect conversations with the ownership of both teams, saying she thinks they want to stay in the Show-Me State. Also, before session started Monday, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Doug Beck from St. Louis County said state leaders need to focus on the tornado victims in his part of the state, the capital improvements bill that helped different parts of Missouri, and cancer research. Beck was also asked about the Chiefs and Royals stadium situation. 'So, my focus is that this is the first part of it is the appropriations bill and what we do for the people of St. Louis for the tornado, you know, the cancer research, and all those things,' he said. 'Until that happens, and it's through the House and on the Governor's Desk, then we can talk about the other one.' Beck was asked whether he's had pushback from caucus members on the west of the state when it comes to not currently being focused on the Chiefs and the Royals. Family sues Kansas City, KC Sports Commission & several others for 2024 Chiefs parade shooting 'Our caucus has been united in that we need to take care of the people of Missouri,' he responded. 'That's what's most important right now.' Beck said he does not know where his caucus is member by member on support for the teams' stadiums. He says it really hasn't been talked about much yet. O'Laughlin said stadium bills could be discussed in committees Tuesday before there's full debate Wednesday. Download WDAF+ for Roku, Fire TV, Apple TV The session starts at 10 a.m. on Tuesday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Miami Herald
20-05-2025
- Business
- Miami Herald
King Solomon had the right idea: Split the KC teams and give the babies to each state
When it comes to the Chiefs and Royals, Kansas and Missouri should apply a little wisdom from the Bible. They should split the baby. Kansas should get the Royals. Missouri should get the Chiefs. Or vice-versa, maybe. It doesn't matter all that much, does it? The point here is that both teams would stick in the Kansas City region, beloved and (more importantly) attended by thousands of ticket-buying fans on both sides of the state line. A both-states-get-a-team solution would offer Kansas and Missouri a chance to cooperate in building the future of the Chiefs and Royals instead of trying to outbid each other in a revival of the once-dormant 'border war.' And because leaders in both states are — foolishly, to my mind — dead-set on public support for sports palaces whose economic benefits will flow mostly to the teams' billionaire owners, the two-state solution would have another benefit: Taxpayers in each state would be on the hook for one gazillion-dollar stadium instead of two. All the love. Half the risk and expense. What's not to like? Big promises, small benefits Let's back up a second here: It's still not great that Kansas and Missouri are both maneuvering to offer public support to keep the teams around. Study after study after study has shown that taxpayer-funded stadiums almost never produce the economic payoff that boosters promise when trying to get backing from local governments and taxpayers. It's just not worth it. Anybody who tells you differently is selling something. Nonetheless, it's pretty clear that officials in both states — driven by civic pride, perhaps, or maybe just a little border war envy — aren't going to take that advice. The Kansas Legislature last year approved a plan to fund up to 70% of the cost of two new stadiums using so-called STAR bonds, to be paid back using tax revenues generated by the stadiums and any new surrounding retail developments. The Show-Me State has been a little slower off the mark. Gov. Mike Kehoe offered a late, vague plan to help fund stadium construction that the Missouri General Assembly smartly rejected. He will probably call a special session to try, try again. Legislators will probably find a way to get to 'yes.' 'I don't think that we want to let this opportunity pass,' Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican, told the Star. All this maneuvering has mostly been depicted as a state-versus-state competition. Why can't it be a cooperation instead? If World Cup can do it The model here, obviously, is all the work being done to bring World Cup games to the Kansas City region next year. Matches will be played at Arrowhead Stadium in Missouri, but the success of Sporting KC in its home field at Children's Mercy Park in Wyandotte County clearly played a role in bringing the tournament here. National team camps — and their thousands of fans from around the world — will be spread out on both sides of the state line. That's why Kansas and Missouri are making big infrastructure investments to make the whole thing work. Both sides are putting in money. Both sides will see benefits, hopefully, which proves that the future of the Chiefs and Royals doesn't have to be a zero-sum competition. There are a lot of details that would have to be worked out, of course. Questions about the Royals' desire to play baseball in downtown Kansas City, along with the remodeling of the existing Arrowhead Stadium for the Chiefs, are all in play. (Obviously, resolving these questions means ruling out a scenario where either team moves to Wichita.) But goodness, wouldn't it be nice if those decisions were made on the basis of what's best for the entire border-straddling community instead of a desperate winners-versus-losers contest that mostly benefits the already-rich-guys at the top of the food chain? According to the Sunday School lessons of my youth, King Solomon was playing a game when he told two mothers to split the baby that each claimed. He wanted to see who really wanted the child more. In this case, though, there are two 'babies' — the Royals and Chiefs. Play it smart, and maybe everybody gets to go home happy.
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Lawmakers approve bill exempting Missouri Farm Bureau health plans from federal rules
State Sen. Kurtis Gregory shakes hands following his introduction to the Missouri Senate (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). Missouri Farm Bureau will be allowed to sell health care plans to its members, Medicaid will cover the cost of hearing aids for adults and supplies of birth control will be extended under legislation that passed the legislature in the waning hours of the session on Thursday. The legislation, which was sponsored by Republican state Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall, now heads to the governor's desk. The underlying bill allows the Missouri Farm Bureau to sell health care plans that don't abide by the protections set by the Affordable Care Act. As a result, the Farm Bureau would be able to offer lower-price coverage options, which the organization and its supporters say is necessary to help uninsured farmers. 'This is a product that is going to get people coverage that otherwise cannot afford it,' Gregory said at a House hearing last month. 'This is a coverage product that is going to save lives. It is a product that's going to save people money.' State Rep. Brad Pollitt, a Republican from Sedalia who carried the bill in the House, said Thursday that the Farm Bureau's health plans 'will not be the solution for everyone. But those without health care plans believe this will be beneficial.' This was the third year the bill has been proposed, and it's received significant pushback from Democrats and patient advocates, who argue it would leave some Missourians without protections. It's also faced opposition from insurance companies who argue it gives the Farm Bureau an unfair advantage over competitors. If the bill is signed into law, Missouri will join 10 states that have adopted similar carveouts for the Farm Bureau in previous years. Alabama and Florida also passed similar measures this year. Democrats added some protections to the Farm Bureau portion of the bill during negotiations, including mandating the organization to provide a clear disclaimer that the products it's selling are not officially regulated as health insurance, mandating the company can't cancel coverage for members because of a medical event and ensuring the state insurance department will handle complaints. The bill contains a wide swath of other health measures, including several added by Democrats during negotiations, especially by state Sen. Patty Lewis of Kansas City. Those include: provisions mandating that Missouri Medicaid cover hearing aids and cochlear implants for adults, expanding access to testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, requiring insurance companies that provide birth control medication to provide extended supplies and tweaking the law around telehealth to allow audio-only visits. There was little opposition voiced on Thursday. State Rep. Betsy Fogle, a Democrat from Springfield, said the negotiations 'were able to make a bill significantly better with wins for the majority party, wins for the minority party and ultimately wins for our constituents back home.' The bill passed by a vote of 147 to 1 on Thursday afternoon in the House. That followed a vote of 24 to 6 in the Senate. The Farm Bureau would offer lower prices by reverting to the pre-Affordable Care Act practice of what's called medical underwriting — carefully evaluating applicants' medical history and risk — to determine whether to cover them and at what price. The Farm Bureau is a nonprofit agricultural membership organization which partners with for-profit companies to sell various kinds of insurance to its members. Anyone can join — the fee is $30 per year. Historically the group has been primarily made up of people in farming communities. Gregory has estimated around 15,000 Farm Bureau members lack health insurance and would be the target audience to enroll in the benefit plan. Many farmers and other members of the Farm Bureau, proponents say, are uninsured because they can't afford to buy an individual plan on the Affordable Care Act marketplace or make too much money to qualify for subsidies. Garrett Hawkins, president of Missouri Farm Bureau, said in an interview with The Independent shortly after the bill passed that the organization's effort has been years in the making. Lack of health insurance options for farmers is 'an impediment to bringing the kids home to the farm. It's an impediment to bringing a spouse home to the farm who has pursued off-farm employment solely to get health coverage,' he said. 'This is a big deal.' Emily Kalmer, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, said at a House hearing last month that even with concessions made at the urging of the bill's critics, patient advocates remain highly concerned. 'To be clear, this legislation still allows the Farm Bureau to sell unregulated products that won't have to comply with many of the other provisions we fought for over the years,' Kalmer said, including protections for preexisting conditions. Medicaid coverage for hearing aids and cochlear implants for adults would be expanded under the bill passed Thursday. Currently, Medicaid in Missouri, which is called MO HealthNet, only covers hearing aids for eligible children, pregnant women and blind people. There was little opposition to that change this year, but in prior years there has been some concern around the cost. The Medicaid hearing aid and cochlear implant provisions are estimated to cost up to $10.3 million in fiscal year 2027, and $2.7 million the following year, according to the fiscal note. 'I realize there are some costs to this,' said state Rep. Cameron Parker, a Republican from Campbell. 'But I do believe that the benefit of these services, the hearing instruments, the cochlear implants, outweigh the cost greatly.' The bill also requires health plans to cover extended supplies of birth control. Plans that provide coverage for hormonal contraceptives would be required to cover a supply lasting up to 90 days, or, for generic medication, up to 180 days — meaning patients would be able to pick up months-long supplies of the birth control pill at one time rather than needing to pick up the prescription more frequently. The Independent's Jason Hancock contributed reporting. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Yahoo
27-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Missouri Senate passes bill exempting certain health insurance plans from federal protections
State Sen. Kurtis Gregory shakes hands following his introduction to the Missouri Senate (Annelise Hanshaw/Missouri Independent). The Missouri Farm Bureau would be allowed to sell health benefits plans that exclude people with pre-existing medical conditions and limit benefits to less than what's permitted by federal law for health insurers, under legislation that passed the state Senate Thursday. Sponsored by Republican state Sen. Kurtis Gregory of Marshall, the bill would give the farm bureau a carveout to skirt the consumer protection requirements set by the Affordable Care Act, in an effort to provide affordable coverage options to members. The bill was passed by the Senate by a vote of 24 to 6 on Thursday. 'This is not something where this organization is asking for government dollars to put this program into effect,' Gregory said during debate Tuesday. 'They want to put this on themselves. They want to help cover their members' lives.' The Farm Bureau is a nonprofit agricultural membership organization which partners with for-profit companies to sell various kinds of insurance to its members. Anyone can join — the fee is $30 per year. Historically the group has been primarily made up of people in farming communities. Missouri Democrats and patient advocates have staunchly opposed the proposal, raising concerns that consumers could be left with inadequate coverage and without proper protections. 'These insurance companies are for-profit companies,' state Sen. Tracy McCreery of Olivette said during Tuesday's debate. 'And I think that there needs to be some basic guardrails to make sure that there's some parameters that are consistent amongst providers.' Ten other states have passed similar laws. This is the third year the proposal has been pursued in Missouri. The bill characterizes the plans the Farm Bureau would offer as a 'health benefit plan' or 'contracts for health care benefits' rather than 'insurance,' to skirt state and federal regulations on insurance. Democrats won some concessions, including requiring a written disclaimer in contracts that states the contract 'is not health insurance and is not subject to federal or state laws relating to health insurance.' The disclaimer also states that the contract offers fewer benefits than a federally-compliant plan and may exclude coverage for preexisting conditions. It adds that the individual may qualify for federal insurance subsidies. Under the latest version of the bill, the state's Department of Commerce and Insurance must receive and review complaints from Farm Bureau members. After hours of negotiation earlier this week, Senate Democrats finally allowed the bill to move forward, with several of their health-related priorities added as amendments as well. Those additions include provisions that require Missouri Medicaid to cover hearing aids, which is also a freestanding bill passed by the House, expand access to treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and require insurance companies that provide birth control to provide extended supplies. The bill now heads to the Missouri House, which has passed its own versions of the bill in recent years. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Gregory has estimated around 15,000 Farm Bureau members lack health insurance and would be the target audience to enroll in the benefit plan. Many farmers and other members of the Farm Bureau, proponents say, are uninsured because they can't afford to buy an individual plan on the Affordable Care Act marketplace or make too much money to qualify for subsidies. Republican state Sen. Sandy Crawford of Buffalo, who sponsored the legislation in previous years, said she's heard from farmer constituents who can't afford health insurance for several years in support of the bill. 'It's hard for them to get coverage, and health insurance costs are through the roof,' Crawford said Tuesday. 'And I think anything that we can do to help…anytime we can give them one more tool for their tool box to at least help them get covered, I think that it's a good thing,' she said. Several farmers and agricultural organizations testified in support of the legislation at the public hearing in January. Missouri Farm Bureau lobbyist Emily LeRoy called the bill 'simply another option to provide coverage for more people.' The Farm Bureau would offer lower prices by reverting to the pre-ACA practice of what's called medical underwriting, carefully evaluating applicants' medical history and risk, to determine whether to cover them and at what price. Tennessee enacted a version of the law exempting the Farm Bureau from regulation in 1993 Benjamin Sanders, representing the Farm Bureau of Tennessee, said enrollees in states with the program report high levels of satisfaction. The Farm Bureau in other states doesn't need to abide by data transparency requirements of regulated insurance companies. But the organization says internal numbers show a high retention rate. 'We are not asking for any kind of subsidies or asking to sell subsidized plans. We manage cost on the front end,' he said, referring to the practice of medical underwriting. Emily Kalmer, a lobbyist for the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, raised concern in January that the bill 'authorizes the sale of products that could discriminate against Missourians with pre-existing conditions like cancer.' The bill 'would leave Missourians, including cancer patients, exposed to medical and financial harms,' Kalmer said. Experts have said it could lead to insurance companies siphoning off healthy people and driving up the cost of coverage for others, while offering limited coverage plans. Bill would exempt Missouri Farm Bureau health insurance plans from federal rules Other insurance companies oppose the legislation for allowing just one group to be exempt from federal rules, which they say gives the Farm Bureau an advantage over its regulated competitors. 'I don't believe it should be the policy of the state to give a market advantage to companies selling unregulated products,'Hampton Williams, general counsel for the Missouri Insurance Coalition, said in January, 'over those who are offering existing health insurance products and who are have been lawfully operating within the state statutes and regulations.' Shannon Cooper, lobbyist for Blue Cross Blue Shield, told lawmakers at a hearing in January that insurance companies would adopt similar policies to the bill en masse if allowed, to save costs, but federal and state regulations forbid that. 'It is a rare day when the insurance industry sides with the advocate community, but we all have the same concern here,' Cooper said. 'And that is: These products sound like insurance, but they don't follow the same rules that we have to play by. ' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
