How would KC cover $600M for Royals stadium? Why proposal doesn’t require a vote
Officials say the financing plan for a new Royals stadium near Union Station would mean no new taxes for residents, as details trickle out about how the plan for a $1.9 billion baseball district — that Mayor Quinton Lucas and nine council members proposed on Thursday — would be paid for.
The Kansas City City Council moved to set up a public hearing for an ordinance that would kickstart negotiations over city support for a future new Royals Stadium in what is now Washington Square Park, north of Crown Center.
Finer details remain unclear as the concept makes its way through City Hall. A pending ordinance, which has not yet been approved by the City Council, would direct the city manager to negotiate agreements with the Royals and hash out finalized aspects ranging from construction, parking and funding.
But what we know so far suggests that revenue generated by people spending money at the stadium and in the immediately surrounding businesses in a ballpark entertainment district would help support its development costs.
Mayor Quinton Lucas said Thursday that he sees the proposal as an economic development investment in the community.
“This is how we stimulate our city long term,” Lucas said, “and that’s a lot of the focus that we have here.”
$600 million in bonds
According to a news release from Lucas’ office and the proposed ordinance, the city would commit to issuing up to $600 million in bonds, a financing tool, to help support construction of the stadium and team offices as part of what is anticipated to be a broader entertainment district in the heart of Kansas City.
It’s unclear exactly how those bonds would be paid back, but the city’s release suggested they would be paid down primarily through “economic activity redirections” from the stadium and surrounding development.
That appears to reference what are known as economic activity taxes, such as sales taxes, that would include revenue generated by people spending money in the proposed ballpark district. The bonds would be “backed by the city’s annual appropriation pledge or contributions,” the proposed ordinance says.
Lucas said at a press conference Thursday that the city’s bond obligations will be paid for by people who attend games at the stadium and shoppers who make purchases in an entertainment district around the stadium.
The city’s 1% earnings tax, which comes from the incomes of people who live or work in Kansas City, is considered an economic activity tax, but Lucas previously told The Star that the earnings tax would not be used to cover any stadium costs.
Redirecting tax revenue from ballpark district
Thursday’s ordinance suggests that the city would be able to redirect tax revenue from the stadium district to help cover development costs by using a public financing tool called tax increment financing, or TIF. The ordinance would start the process of setting a TIF plan through the city-tied Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City (EDC).
TIFs work by setting a baseline amount of tax revenue that usually comes through a specific set of properties. Then generally, as new development comes online, those same properties generate more tax money because the property value goes up and people spend more money there.
The TIF captures any new revenue that comes in higher than the baseline and redirects it to help pay off development costs.
A related example could be the Country Club Plaza, whose owners have proposed a TIF plan that would redirect some economic activity taxes back into their proposed revitalization project, instead of other government functions, for 23 years.
Further details about a Royals TIF and how it would fit into the broader bond proposal are to be announced.
Not like the Chiefs plan
The mayor’s news release also says that the proposed agreement would confine incentives to a district including the stadium and surrounding development, not the whole city or other areas in Missouri.
That seems to separate the Royals plan from the financing plan for a new Chiefs stadium in Kansas, which could capture sales tax revenue from larger areas across Wyandotte and Johnson counties.
The Royals plan is also expected to include a sales tax break on construction materials, which would be a big help for a massive stadium project given what would be a high cost of construction.
And it’s also expected to consider the use of a state law passed last year aimed at keeping the Royals and Chiefs in Missouri, which also uses tax revenue generated from stadiums to support their development, alongside other state tax credits.
It’s still unclear what the state of Missouri and Jackson County could contribute to the project.
Ultimately, The Star previously reported, 60% of funding is expected to come from public sources, while 40% would come from private funding.
The ordinance also calls for putting together a lease for the stadium, which the City Council would need to approve. What terms and costs that would entail for the Royals is currently unknown.
But the city and other public agencies don’t pay property taxes on land they own, which could also cut costs for the Royals if leasing publicly-owned land.
Divide already emerges on City Council
Nearly every City Council member sponsored the pending ordinance to move the negotiations for a Washington Square Park ballpark.
Three were not listed on a city news release, including Council members Melissa Patterson Hazley of the Third District At-Large, Nathan Willett of the First District and Johnathan Duncan of the Sixth District.
Duncan said he opposes using hundreds of millions of public tax dollars to support a baseball stadium. He said Jackson County voters already rejected using public money to support stadium projects in 2024.
That year, voters rejected authorizing a 3/8th-cent sales tax, which would have funded a new Royals stadium in the Crossroads and upgrades to Arrowhead Stadium where it is now. Since then, the Chiefs have announced they are leaving and moving to Kansas.
“They voted overwhelmingly ‘no’ for a stadium tax to fund stadiums for billionaires,” Duncan said after the council meeting. “My colleagues and my mayor would do well to respect the will of the people and the will of the voters.”
He also criticized the language of the ordinance for giving the city manager the authority to negotiate the public funding details, suggesting that the council won’t have final say on how much the city ends up paying.
Lucas said that the city will look to engage the community as the proposal moves forward.
“I think a lot of people I’ve heard from want to make sure that we get a stadium that makes sense for our public, that is fair to our taxpayers,” Lucas said. “And, frankly, helps us continue to stimulate the future of our community.”
Why no vote?
That 2024 Jackson County proposal went before voters because it would impose a new tax, for which Missouri law required a public vote.
But the new Royals proposal is not a tax. The state’s laws around the city’s power to offer incentives for development projects are different from those around imposing taxes.
However, incentive plans and development agreements typically require public hearings and votes by elected or appointed officials.
Lucas said this proposal is different from the sales tax vote in 2024.
“This is a baseball stadium footprint that is actually helping fund the development and surrounding development,” Lucas said. “This is a lot like incentives that we do each and every day, as compared to the old votes that we had on full county sales taxes.”
Similarly, public agencies like the Port Authority of Kansas City stags hearings but have not needed voter permission to consider incentives for new apartment buildings and other projects. And recently, the city of Independence staged public hearings but did not need voter permission to sign a deal granting $6 billion-plus in tax breaks for a $150 billion dollar data center.
But Duncan said he’s working with local organizations to collect signatures for an initiative petition to force a vote on the proposal anyway.
Duncan, a progressive, was joined by Willett, a conservative running as a Republican in the 6th Congressional District.
“Public feedback is crucial before voting on any stadium proposal. I did not join my other colleagues in sponsoring the proposed legislation,” Willett said in a statement. “Any proposal should be approved by the taxpayers of Kansas City. In the meantime, I will make sure the details of the proposal do not harm police and fire budgets.”
Star reporters Kacen Bayless and Sam McDowell contributed to this article.
This story was originally published April 9, 2026 at 6:35 PM.
