The Chiefs and Royals say they’ve developed a letter of intent with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority that represents agreement on “virtually all of the principal terms” for their stadium proposals in the county.

It illustrates a step forward with one body.

But will it be a step far enough with another — you know, like the Jackson County Legislature, which has the power to keep the 3/8th-cent sales tax renewal on the April ballot or kill the chance for voters to have their say?

In a letter sent late Friday to attorneys for the county legislature, the teams insist the “unresolved” issues on their projects are actually resolved. Or close to it.

They noted the letter of intent agreement with the Jackson County Sports Complex Authority (JCSCA), which differs from one publicly circulating Thursday, but also wrote, “The teams are disappointed in the County Executive’s veto of the Ordinance which would deny the voters the opportunity to decide whether to retain the Chiefs and Royals in Jackson County for the long term.”

The teams agreed upon the letter of intent, obtained by The Star, on Friday after recently branching off for negotiations with the JCSCA, which operates the Truman Sports Complex — home to Kauffman and Arrowhead stadiums.

But after county executive Frank White vetoed the sales tax ordinance Thursday, support must now come from the county legislature. Make no mistake: That’s the intended audience for the letter of intent, and particularly its four-page cover letter, which seeks to clarify what the teams call “inaccurate information.”

The county legislature initially approved the item’s place on the ballot on Jan. 8, but White’s veto arrived Thursday, the final day allowed, turning it back to the hands of the nine-person legislature for the final decision. In order to override White’s veto and keep the item on the April ballot, the teams need votes from six of the legislature’s nine members.

They’re playing from behind. Four legislators have put their names on statements supporting White’s veto.

The latest move from the Chiefs and Royals derives from optimism that the ink on those signatures isn’t dry just yet. Or that at least one of those signatories may be willing to change sides by early next week.

The four-page introduction preceding the letter of intent serves as a direct response to Thursday’s statement by three county legislators — Legislative Chair Jeanie Lauer, Vice Chair Megan Marshall and Jalen Anderson, 1st District Legislator at-large — detailing 10 “unresolved issues” at the heart of their concerns. Sean E. Smith, legislator for the 6th District, sided with White through a separate statement.

The teams refuted the assertion that those 10 issues remain unresolved, writing at one point, “Unfortunately, there is inaccurate information being circulated that the teams have not agreed to a host of principal terms. … This information is inaccurate, and, as set forth below, all of these issues have been agreed to or the teams have proposed clarifications to a very limited number of issues.”

The teams addressed each of the 10 issues — and it’s certainly worth noting that some of their responses derive from statements they’d issued weeks earlier.

Which is symbolic of what the entire process has become in its final stages. The Royals and Chiefs have found common ground with the sports complex authority, yet they are stuck in place with White, as well as, potentially, the broader authority here: the county legislature.

The latter will be known Monday, when the legislature officially votes on whether to override the veto.

The two teams, for example, released a statement two weeks ago saying they had agreed to return the park tax levy ($3.5 million annually) for other county uses. They also agreed to cover insurance costs for the stadiums. Yet both of those items were listed as unresolved issues in the statement from the three three legislators.

As part of their Friday cover letter, the teams referenced their own previous public statements in which they’d outlined resolutions. They responded to all 10 issues, including one that has more recently become a public gripe from White: that the Chiefs have not committed to keeping their training facilities in Jackson County as part of a potential lease agreement.

In response to that, the Chiefs wrote: “The current lease does not dictate the location of the Chiefs’ training facility or administrative offices, and at this time, there are no plans to relocate those facilities from their current location. If the Chiefs desire to relocate those facilities in the future, the Chiefs welcome the opportunity to find a suitable site in Jackson County and provide the county the first opportunity to make a proposal for those facilities.”

Among the other items the teams underscored in the cover letter:

• The Royals re-stated their commitment to remain in Jackson County pending the April 2 vote — and pledged to will announce a site by Feb. 29, in order to meet a request by county legislators.

• The Chiefs and Royals agreed the county will not be required to fund the demolition cost of Kauffman Stadium once it is vacated by the Royals, who are seeking to use the tax to build a new ballpark downtown. Their recent conversations have focused on a site in the South Loop that formerly served as The Kansas City Star press pavilion, according to sources. The teams say they “are confident that an acceptable arrangement will be developed from various funding options.”

• In the letter of intent itself, one agreement reads: “Each of the Teams acknowledge: (a) the County taxpayers and residents, as well as taxable consumers in Jackson County, are making a substantial and long-term public contribution in the New Stadium Projects through the New Sales Tax, and (b) that such public contribution warrants the Teams’ respective execution of one or more robust Community Benefits Agreements with the County or its designee which reflect the Teams’ respective private commitments to the public.”

It also states that the county “intends to convene stakeholder meetings with various interests groups” to exchange ideas. And it adds that the “CBAs will, among other things, reflect the respective commitments of the Teams to make community investments in such programs, initiatives, and objectives which recognize and respond to community needs, including those which are complementary to the respective program sand priorities of the teams.”