Intrust Bank Arena Needs a Sustainable Maintenance Plan

Oct 3

Key Takeaways

Intrust Bank Arena’s original maintenance reserve has been exhausted, and Sedgwick County is supplementing it with general-fund money.
Commissioner Ryan Baty makes a reasonable distinction between paying for daily operations and funding major repairs and equipment replacement. Both, however, are costs of owning the facility.
The county needs a public estimate of future capital costs before choosing a permanent funding mechanism.
Several funding options deserve consideration. Allowing the arena to deteriorate would be a costly failure of stewardship.

Why It Matters

Intrust Bank Arena is a publicly owned building with continuing public responsibilities. Whatever residents thought of the original decision to build it, the county now must maintain it and plan for the replacement of equipment and building systems.

According to the Wichita Eagle, the reserve established with excess revenue from the arena’s construction sales tax has run dry. The county approved a $2 million general-fund transfer for 2027, following roughly $1.2 million in contributions from 2021 through 2026.

Commissioner Ryan Baty emphasizes that the arena covers its operations and that the funding discussion concerns capital improvements and asset replacement. That distinction matters. An arena can generate enough revenue to run events while still falling short of the money needed to sustain the building over decades.

Baty also says no new arena tax is planned and favors exploring alternatives to greater reliance on property taxes. That is a reasonable starting point. Casino revenue, investment earnings, and existing sales-tax revenue nevertheless remain public resources. Allocating them to the arena means they are unavailable for other purposes.

Start With the Cost

Before settling on a funding source, the county should publish a long-term capital assessment.

Residents should be able to see what needs replacement, when the work is expected, what it will cost, and how much must be set aside annually. Necessary repairs and replacements should be identified separately from optional upgrades.

That assessment should also show how much existing arena revenue can contribute. A reserve built around an annual funding target would give the county a clearer basis for decisions than recurring transfers made as needs arise.

Options Worth Examining

The existing ticket arrangement deserves review. Patrons pay a $1.50 facility fee, which the county matches from its general fund. Officials should assess whether a greater share of capital costs could reasonably be supported by users, taking account of ticket affordability and competition for events.

The county should also examine operator participation and future sponsorship agreements. Those arrangements should be evaluated by their net contribution after associated expenses and benefits.

A partnership with Wichita involving transient guest tax revenue deserves consideration, too. Visitors attending arena events may support local hotels and restaurants. Any agreement, however, must account for the city’s existing commitments and its own facility needs.

Baty’s suggestion of examining a broader funding mechanism for cultural assets could provide a more consistent approach. Each facility should still have a transparent capital plan so residents can understand what they are supporting.

Could STAR Bonds Help?

Kansas STAR bonds finance qualifying commercial, entertainment, and tourism development through sales-tax revenue generated within an approved district. The program is intended to attract regional and national visitors. (kansascommerce.gov)

They might merit investigation if arena improvements were part of a credible larger redevelopment proposal. Whether particular costs would qualify would require a formal eligibility review. They should not be presented as an established solution to the arena’s maintenance shortfall.

Financially, such a proposal would need dependable growth in taxable spending. Restaurants, retail, and other businesses could contribute, but forecasts must distinguish genuinely additional spending from spending shifted from elsewhere in Wichita.

Commerce’s published guidance emphasizes sustainable development, public benefits exceeding public costs, and verifiable tourism and market assumptions. Those are sensible standards for evaluating any proposal. (kansascommerce.gov)

My Perspective

I generally agree with Commissioner Baty that we need to solve this problem and protect the public investment in Intrust Bank Arena.

Visible from U.S. 54, the arena is part of Wichita’s downtown landscape. Allowing it to become another deteriorating downtown structure would carry consequences beyond the building itself.

At the same time, enthusiasm for downtown development is not universal. In conversations with people who live in other developed areas of Wichita, I often encounter limited interest in downtown as a destination. Those conversations are not a representative survey, but they remind me that public support cannot simply be assumed.

A tourism-based financing proposal therefore needs evidence of demand. Preserving a building we already own is a responsibility we can explain directly.

The county should establish the costs, evaluate the available contributions, and present a sustainable plan. I support Baty’s effort to find a solution that limits additional pressure on property taxes. That effort will be stronger with clear numbers, realistic assumptions, and an honest accounting of the trade-offs.