$600M Royals bonds could pull from KC’s budget. Officials say that’s not the plan

Kansas City officials say they are working to craft a proposal that ensures the city won’t be left holding the bag as plans move forward to potentially finance $600 million for a new Royals stadium near Crown Center.

City staff offered more details on how the financing deal would work as City Council members posed questions at a finance committee meeting on Tuesday. The proposal is not a done deal, and the details have not been finalized. The City Council is expected to vote Thursday on whether to move negotiations forward for a final stadium plan, which will require more future approvals.

Royals officials have not fully committed to the city’s proposal for a new ballpark and entertainment district in the Washington Square Park area, but the city’s early proposal contemplates a $1.9 billion core project — the stadium itself, offices and infrastructure work that could include parking structures, utility upgrades, streetscape improvements and more — for which the city, or a conduit, could issue up to $600 million in bonds to help pay for.

The stadium would be owned and leased by the city. The $1.9 billion number does not include the prospect of more development around the stadium.

Those bonds for the stadium construction, a form of financing, would be backed by any of the city’s “legally available” revenue sources. That appears to mean that the city could need to dip into other budget sources to make bond payments if not enough money comes through from the project.

But that’s not the plan if everything goes as expected.

The finance committee, alongside a related approval from the city’s parks board on Tuesday, “both advanced a project that will transform our community, bring thousands of jobs to our city’s core, protects our parks and ensures the funding comes from the stadium itself,” Mayor Quinton Lucas said in a statement. “With today’s dual actions, we are building a future that serves every Kansas Citian.”

Officials have said that the bonds would be mainly paid back by redirecting economic activity revenue, such as sales taxes, generated by the stadium and surrounding area back into paying off the project.

In other words, as people spend money in and around the future stadium development, the increase in tax revenue would help pay off the bonds. And the Royals’ existing Kauffman Stadium already generates revenue inside the city.

Details released so far about the Royals bond proposal share similarities with other bond plans that have recently moved through City Council, known as “special obligation bonds,” that are tied to a revenue source. That includes bonds supporting the Luminary Park downtown highway cap project and bonds for infrastructure work in the West Bottoms, which is seeing significant private investment to transform the district with new housing and retail.

For Luminary Park, ordinance language says bond payments would be “made from the proceeds of convention and tourism tax, and any legally available revenue source of the City, as needed” — city staff presented a breakdown of how restaurant taxes and gaming revenue to pay off the bonds over several years.

And for the West Bottoms infrastructure, city documents say revenues from a special sales tax in the area and redirecting economic activity revenue are expected to cover bond payments, though bonds could be paid by general city revenues “to the extent necessary.”

The city plans to pursue a third-party, independent financial review of the projected numbers and the feasibility of the Royals project. And officials say they are being careful with their estimates, noting that activity outside the baseball season could offer another financial bonus.

“We don’t want to have a negative impact to service, and we don’t want to draw on our general fund, so that’s why we’re being conservative in our assumptions,” City Manager Mario Vasquez said.

Staff have also modeled out how to issue the bonds: perhaps all at once to stave off the risk of future interest rate increases, or over four years of construction while using financing tools to pay off interest before the stadium is done and generating revenue.

“We can slice and dice this in many, many different ways, and we will do it in the most financially advantageous way for the city that will have the least impact,” Assistant City Manager Tammy Queen said.

The city is contemplating a brisk timeline of four years to build the stadium. Officials said existing entertainment options around the proposed stadium would lower costs, while nearby businesses would stand to benefit from its construction.

The plan appears to include drawing lines around a stadium district from which economic activity revenue would be redirected back into the project. Exactly what areas would be included is unknown, but the city has said incentives would be “confined to the stadium and surrounding development.”

The bonds and lease would last 30 years. Further steps and City Council approval will be required to finalize the proposal and put it into motion.

More funding could include state tax credits and redirected revenue under a state law passed last year to support stadium projects.

Comparisons to Power & Light

Speaking Tuesday, Councilmember Crispin Rea of the Fourth District At-Large, said his first priority is that the structure of the stadium deal be dependent only on new or additional revenues generated by the project, and not other parts of the city budget.

Rea wants to see the city use available financial tools and mechanisms to limit exposure to the city’s finances and its taxpayers.

“All these things we can put in place to make sure that the scenario where a project doesn’t perform the way that we think it should, the city’s not on the hook, at least in a way that’s impacting our ability to do sidewalks, fund police and fire and streets and all this stuff that we always talk about are very, very important,” Rea said.

Johnathan Duncan, council member for the Sixth District, said the city is bearing the burden of past feasibility studies that did not pan out, including with the Power & Light District, which brought a new entertainment district into the loop as part of mid-2000s revitalization efforts in a blighted downtown.

Famously, tax revenues from the Power & Light District have not kept pace with projections, leaving the city to cover millions in debt costs year over year.

“I think it bears recognition that while we’re saying this is the first step to something that’s going to be an economically viable project and bring untold benefit, it is untold,” Duncan said. “It’s 600 million of public dollars that we could be on the hook for coming out of our general fund when we know we’re already struggling with revenues.”

Queen acknowledged that the stadium project bonds would ultimately be backed by any of the city’s legally-available revenue sources, should revenue not come to fruition.

“We don’t anticipate that,” Queen said, emphasizing that city officials are building conservatism into their financial models.

“But it’s not without risk, correct?” Duncan asked, given the city’s backing.

“Absolutely not without risk, certainly,” Queen said.

More work remains to be done through the City Council and the Economic Development Corporation of Kansas City, which would include more public hearings on the matter at hand.

Duncan and Nathan Willett, council member for the First District, have called for a public vote on the latest Royals stadium proposal.

In 2024, Jackson County voters rejected a 3/8-cent sales tax that would have helped pay for a Royals stadium in the Crossroads and upgrades to Arrowhead Stadium for the Chiefs.

The latest stadium proposal would be a development incentive plan, not a new tax, so it would not customarily require a public vote — much like how officials have approved tax breaks for new apartment buildings and massive data center complexes in the metro without a public vote.

However, organizers have explored options for forcing a vote on the stadium plan.

This story was originally published April 15, 2026 at 5:47 AM.