The most pressing question in Kansas City — appropriately labeled Question 1 — has charged the Chiefs and Royals $3.2 million.

The effects? You can’t drive down a street, turn on a TV or open your mailbox without a reminder of the looming 3/8th-cent sales tax for a 40-year agreement to help the Royals fund a new ballpark in the East Crossroads and help the Chiefs provide their current venue, Arrowhead Stadium, with a facelift.

The two teams have placed their star players — Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, Bobby Witt Jr. and Salvador Perez — in their campaign commercials.

But largely absent from a very public conversation has been someone who doesn’t mind being out in the public: Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas.

That finally changed Saturday. Lucas endorsed Question 1 during a brief news conference Saturday afternoon at Kauffman Stadium.

With all of 72 hours to spare.

Why now? And just as relevant: Why not until now?

We’ll get to that. And plenty more.

The stadium projects have left unanswered some key questions that voters won’t know before Tuesday’s election. The Royals project is still undertaking alterations, earlier this week acquiescing to a Lucas request to keep Oak Street open.

Those questions drove a 10-minute interview that I had with Lucas after Saturday’s endorsement.

I’m running his responses in their entirety, with parenthetical notes for the edits, because I believe — or I know, based on your emails and conversations — that these are questions on your mind as Tuesday’s vote nears.

As a matter of clarity, one of my questions, about the city’s financial commitment to the project, is a follow-up to something I’d asked in the news conference. There, Lucas said the city has not made such a commitment.

On to the interview:

Question: Endorsing this three days ahead of the vote, some people will read that as hesitation. What was your hesitation before today, and what got you (past) that?

Lucas: “I think that is a fair assessment. There was concern. I think my greatest concern was the impact on small businesses. I think the conversations that I’ve been able to have with the team, and actually with some of my colleagues on City Council, makes clear to me that, first, the Oak Street opening issue isn’t just about a street. It also creates a dividing line in the project that, to me, says that businesses east of Oak, at least through a condemnation process and others, will not be impacted.

“I went to one new business the other day — had a wonderful dinner; it’s a good place to be — and I enjoyed being able to pledge to them that to the extent that there is change coming to the neighborhood, that’s change that will have to be collaborative. That is change that will not be coercive. And I think that makes a world of difference. I believe the Crossroads can work as a place where you have all of these institutions coexisting. But it needs to be one where we’re having open and transparent conversations. I think it’s fair to say that there were a lot of folks who may not have felt that before. But I think we’ve gotten to a good place where we are now.”

Question: Do you envision having to use eminent domain within the district inside of Oak Street?

Lucas: “Right now, where I am, I do not. Kansas City’s viewpoint is that we don’t have any interest in eminent domain. I think I’ve established a fairly bright line in terms of no discussion on the use of that in the east-of-Oak conversation. And so I don’t think that will be a part of almost anything that Kansas City is expected (to do).”

Question: You mentioned in the press conference that the city has not made a financial commitment to date. But what do you envision being possible for a city commitment?

Lucas: “It is my view that the city doesn’t have cash to give out. The sales tax question is the way that I think they generate the revenues that are largely necessary for it. So to the extent that there’s financial asks, what I would anticipate and what I would think is more along the line of what you’d expect from a city — things like tax breaks, tax redirections. Now granted, they’re not paying taxes on the property, but even if there’s a Community Improvement District, those sorts of things that are rather typical, I think you’ll see that.

What you are not going to see — and I think has been reported by some — (is) Kansas City can’t just write a $350 million check. And particularly when out of Jackson County, you have that type of potential investment coming from the taxpayers, my view is that’s the tranche of funds that needs to fully support the project. I think we’re looking both at the state of Missouri and the city, they have to be more particular (with) asks that aren’t pure cash.”

Question: You talked today about Phase Two (which will come after the vote) providing more details within the project. Ideally, would that have come before a vote?

Lucas: “I think if you’re looking at a perfect project … it’s hard to say there’s a perfect one, but the KC Current stadium, which I’ll remind you and the public is also subsidized, free property, free land; your fees are something different than you might have in a normal situation; and owners with some capacity to fund things. Sure.

“I think it is fair to say there have been elements of this process that would not be the way I would have done it, nor would I think that anybody who has been involved in this endeavor would have wished to have done it. So coming out of all of that, I think we have had to spend a lot of time trying to say, ‘All right, how can we make sure we’re doing this right?’ For me, making sure we’re doing it right was doing right by the (business) owners, particularly east of Oak, where a lot of your smaller businesses are, not just real estate speculators on the old Star printing press building. That’s why I care a lot about them. I think that we are starting to do some of the steps better.

“To your original question, would more Phase Two stuff have been great earlier in the process? Yes. But I have confidence in the city and our ability to have real conversations about things like street closures, of which I’m really seeing maybe one — McGee — maybe one other — 16th. Had we done more of that, I actually think this wouldn’t be nearly as close of a question as it is now.”

Question: Can you explain the balance in knowing you would have done some things differently, and how you still were able to push past that to endorse it?

Lucas: “Without (taking) too much time, the business conversation — businesses east of Oak — was important to me. The opening of Oak Street was important to me. That was a very material factor in getting me to where I am today.

“I think another important factor that is under-discussed is the Arrowhead Stadium conversation. Here’s the story: This is a big and important part of Kansas City, where we are now. I think you need to continue to have a Truman Sports Complex. I think you need to continue to have activity here. What I don’t want to have to do as a mayor, or wouldn’t want on for any mayor’s future, is … a lot of people have moved the conversation to, ‘The Chiefs likely stay in the region. Maybe they go to Kansas, something like that.’ To me the question is what happens with Arrowhead Stadium long term? What happens to people of East KC, Raytown, Independence that are directly impacted? So that has been very relevant to my thoughts throughout, too.

“One other thing that was an important push, to be quite honest, is I have been to a lot of big events in Kansas City over the last two weeks. And those events include NCAA Wrestling Championships, the Big 12 Tournament, KC Current home opener. Those have brought thousands of people to the core of our city. And so having that type of activity, having that type of money being spent in the core of Kansas City, it’s been good. And those have been crowded nights downtown and vital ones. So that’s a big part of it.”

Question: The teams’ campaign has centered on this vote keeping the the teams in Jackson County. What should voters know, from a city viewpoint, if this vote fails?

Lucas: “I think (Royals owner) John Sherman talked about going back to the drawing board. The challenge is this: It has been a very difficult and vexing negotiation along the way. So I don’t know if things get better with a rejection. I think some conversation has been, ‘Won’t they just pick a different place immediately?’ No, I’m not sure that that’s the case.

“And then the other thing that I start to get concerned about long term is if you go through another two years of a difficult negotiation, and you don’t get somewhere, then what does that start to mean for our teams’ relationship with both the city and the county long term? I know this, too: that if the vote fails, and the teams, (for example), come to Kansas City, Missouri, and say, ‘Well, do you have the money to just keep us here forever? Is there an investment you can make?’ You know, our answer might be that that’s difficult because we have taxes that are going to support an arena. We’re going to support a soccer stadium, right, those sorts of things.

“So I think things become much more difficult for us on all these phases, if there’s a no vote on Tuesday. That’s not to be scary. I think that’s just a fact.”