The CPKC Stadium ordinance was introduced at 1.25x coverage. It passed at 1.10x.
Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 260748 passed 9 to 3 on September 10, 2026. It appropriates $150,000. The $185 million is a pledge to put debt service on someone else's borrowing into the city's budget request every year, behind a bank letter of credit, with a special assessment on the stadium as the last backstop. Between introduction and passage the Finance Committee cut both cushions from 1.25 times debt service to 1.10 and struck the sentence that made the city the expected bond issuer. None of the three stations that covered the vote reported either change, and one names as a no vote a council member the city's own roll call records as a yes.
The Kansas City Council passed Committee Substitute for Ordinance No. 260748 on Thursday, September 10, 2026, by a vote of 9 to 3, one member recorded as out. It is the $185 million the television stations reported for the expansion of CPKC Stadium. Read as enacted, it does two things with money. It appropriates $150,000. It authorizes the City Manager to promise, in every annual budget submission, debt service on up to $185,000,000 of debt that someone else will borrow.
The ordinance does not issue bonds. The version introduced on August 20 expected the city to; the version that passed removed that sentence.
What the ordinance authorizes
Section 1 authorizes the City Manager “to execute the Development Agreement, as attached in substantial form,” and to apply to the state for financing under the TIF Act “and/or” MODESA, the Missouri Downtown and Rural Economic Stimulus Act.
Section 3 is the money. The city “will agree to include as part of its annual budget submission to the City Council, an annual appropriation pledge of debt service on a maximum of $185,000,000.00 in debt to be issued by a third party or otherwise obtained by the Developer.” Four conditions attach: the backstop “will not, by itself, result in a downgrade of the City’s credit rating”; a feasibility study “must reflect that the project has at least 1.10x coverage of average annual debt service”; a bank must supply “a renewable letter of credit” equal to 1.10 times that debt service; and there must be “a special assessment or other mechanism available in the event the Letter of Credit is not sufficient.”
Section 7 appropriates the only money that moves now: “$150,000.00” from “the Unappropriated Fund Balance of the Development Services Fund, Fund No. 2210,” to account 27-2210-107522-B-10KCCURRENT, for the feasibility study and advisory and legal services.
Sections 8 and 9 were added in committee: the agreement “shall include considerations for workers during the project construction and the operations of the expanded stadium,” and, “as a minimum project element,” a Riverfront Trail from Current Landing to Riverfront Park at 1700 Monroe Avenue, “with funding to be identified in a future financing agreement.”
What the committee changed
The attachment headed “COMPARED VERSION, COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE TO ORIGINAL ORDINANCE” contains no strikethrough or underline, and the original is not among the attachments. The city’s data interface stores every version; The Kansas City Stare pulled both on September 12, 2026.
Version 1, dated August 20, required “at least 1.25x coverage for average annual debt service” from the feasibility study and a letter of credit “equal to 1.25x average annual debt service coverage.” Version 2, dated September 8, the day the Finance Committee advanced it, says 1.10x in both places. A cushion of 25 cents on every dollar of debt service became a cushion of ten.
As introduced, the fourth condition required “a CID special assessment capable of producing sufficient revenue to provide 1.25x average annual debt service coverage.” As passed it requires “a special assessment or other mechanism available in the event the Letter of Credit is not sufficient.” The ratio is gone, and so is the word CID.
As introduced, the debt was “to be issued by the Developer.” As passed, “by a third party or otherwise obtained by the Developer.” As introduced, the credit-rating condition read “will not result in a downgrade.” As passed, “will not, by itself.”
The original Section 8 declared the city’s “official intent to reimburse itself” for expenditures “with the proceeds of bonds expected to be issued by the City,” capped at $185,000,000, “under Treasury Regulation Section 1.150-2.” The committee deleted it. The original authorized only a memorandum of understanding; the substitute authorizes the agreement itself, and the file named “Current Landing Development Agreement - FINAL” was uploaded at 2:06 p.m. on September 10, six minutes after the Council meeting’s scheduled 2 p.m. start. The roll call was recorded at 5:26 p.m.
Who pays, and in what order
The agreement is between the city and Ballard Development, LLC, which it calls the Developer. The stadium is leased by KC WFC StadCo Funding, LLC from Port KC. The term is 30 years.
The first dollars are redirected taxes. Exhibit H lists a 3.250 percent city sales-tax subtotal, of which a statutory TIF would redirect 1.356 percentage points for 23 years and MODESA up to 2.4625 points for as long as 30. The public mass transit levy is on the list, at 0.231 of its 0.500 points under TIF and 0.4625 under MODESA. After fiscal 2034 the city’s share of rent under the Bally’s Kansas City Casino lease, “currently $1,944,821.00 per year,” is redirected too. The exhibit “will be appended upon approval of the Incentive Plan,” which needs its own hearing and Council vote.
If those revenues fall short, the letter of credit is drawn first. If it is not renewed or not enough, “the City may recover any cashflow shortage through a special assessment against the Stadium Project or other mutually agreeable mechanism.” Between those two sits the city’s annual appropriation. FOX4 and KSHB both reported that the Current will be responsible for any debt shortfalls. The agreement’s order is pledged taxes, a bank, the city’s budget, then the stadium’s land.
Against the $1.4 billion estimate the Council wrote into June’s ordinance, $185 million is about 13 percent, and only if the guaranty is drawn in full. The ordinance is built so that it is not.
A parking financing in “the estimated principal amount of $50,000,000,” for at least 1,500 stalls, carries no city guaranty but takes a pledge of city incentives. FOX4 reported that “the city council recently designated the riverfront as a community improvement district.” Legistar says otherwise: Ordinance 260834, which would establish the Riverfront CID, is held in committee until September 22; what passed on August 20 was a resolution to sign the petition. The petition asks for a 27-year district, a 1 percent sales tax, and a stadium-parcel assessment of up to $25.00 per square foot per year, and estimates $34,426,250 in revenue.
The city also “shall appropriate sufficient amounts during the current fiscal year to fund the initial design” of a traffic signal and turn lane at Lydia Avenue and Berkley Parkway. No figure is given.
What the public is buying, in the agreement’s words
The “Minimum Required Project Elements” are Exhibit C. Exhibit C reads “(to be appended).” So does Exhibit E, the final schedule. The definitions name three elements: an expansion of CPKC Stadium “to approximately 18,000-person capacity,” “not fewer than 1,500 parking stalls,” and the Riverfront Trail. Section 2.02: “Failure to complete the Riverfront Trail shall not constitute Developer or City Event of Default.”
The phrases “public access,” “open to the public,” and “free of charge” do not appear in the agreement or its exhibits. “Streetcar” and “transit” appear only as tax lines in Exhibit H. “Neighborhood,” “housing,” and “affordable” do not appear. The one neighborhood commitment is Section 5.02(k): the developer’s traffic consultant will expand a study “to analyze the impact of additional development on traffic, infrastructure, and other safety considerations in Columbus Park.”
Section 8 of the ordinance required “considerations for workers.” On construction, the agreement delivers prevailing wages and the city’s workforce and affirmative action policies, and excludes seating purchases from small-business goals. On operations, Section 10.05 is one sentence: “Developer intends to continue to prioritize workforce development and competitive compensation throughout the operations of the expanded stadium.”
Exhibit D finishes the stadium bowl by December 31, 2031, sooner if it is selected for the 2031 Women’s World Cup; FOX4 reported on September 11 that the Current plans to start after the 2027 season.
The vote, and a disagreement about it
Legistar’s roll call, recorded September 10 and pulled September 12: Aye, Mayor Quinton Lucas and council members Lindsay French, Wes Rogers, Melissa Robinson, Crispin Rea, Eric Bunch, Darrell Curls, Ryana Parks-Shaw, and Kevin McManus. Nay, Nathan Willett, Melissa Patterson Hazley, and Johnathan Duncan. Out, Kevin O’Neill.
KCTV5 reported that the measure “faced resistance from Councilmembers Johnathan Duncan and Eric Bunch, who voted against the agreement.” The city’s roll call records Bunch as Aye, and records two no votes KCTV5 did not name. The roll call is the city’s document.
Per KCTV5, Duncan said: “These bonds, even if it’s being backed by another entity, this isn’t free money. We are redirecting revenue that would be going to our general fund back into projects. We had a 2.5% decrease in our budget this last fiscal.” Bunch, per the same report: “Streetcar operations are already pretty maxed out. They’re doing a great job, but with the 60% capacity expansion there are some real challenges.” From the 11,500 seats FOX4 reports today to 18,000 is a 57 percent increase.
June’s ordinance, 260565, passed 9 to 2 on July 2, Willett and Duncan opposed, French and Bunch excused. Its Section 11 said the Council “expects to evaluate the issuance of special obligation bonds” of up to “$235,000,000.” KCTV5 describes September’s figure as less than that request. It is a smaller number and a different instrument: city bonds became a city backstop on someone else’s borrowing.
Two things the file does not contain
The ordinance waives no procurement rule. It does not need to; under Section 4.05 of the agreement the developer “shall have the sole right and responsibility to negotiate and enter into all contracts.” The agreement defines a “Competitive Bid Process” and applies Chapter 3, Article IV, Division 1 of the city code, Sections 3-501 through 3-527, and Section 3-622. Neither document describes what those provisions require, and a reader of the file alone cannot tell.
The first attachment is a one-page PDF reading, in full, “No Docket Memo Provided for 260748.” The city’s memo form says memos “are required on all ordinances initiated by a Department Director”; this one was sponsored by the Mayor. June’s ordinance, also Mayor-sponsored, had one, with “n/a” on every fiscal-impact question. September’s appropriates $150,000, and the form’s questions, whether the general fund supports it and whether the fund is in structural imbalance, are answered nowhere in the file.
What comes next
September 22: the Riverfront CID ordinance is due back in committee. Undated: the feasibility study, the Incentive Plan with its hearing and vote, the Financing Agreement, and Exhibit C. Until Exhibit C is written, the minimum the public is buying is three items, one of which is allowed to go unbuilt.
https://webapi.legistar.com/v1/kansascity/matters/50950/texts/12344 is the ordinance as introduced, /texts/12472 the substitute, and /eventitems/107975/votes the roll call, by name.
Every fact above is quoted from a document the City of Kansas City published itself, or attributed to the outlet that reported it. Where two of them disagree, both are printed. No records request was needed.