Port KC wants more power — and armed police force. Critics say it’s a ‘nonstarter’
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Bills would expand Port KC's jurisdiction and allow armed port rangers.
- Critics warn expansion could reduce transparency and divert public revenues.
- Bills are advancing in Missouri legislature while schools and labor oppose them.
The powerful agency at the center of Kansas City’s most high-profile projects is lobbying state lawmakers to expand its authority, alarming critics who worry about the agency’s ability to dole out incentives with little oversight.
A pair of bills winding their way through the Missouri Capitol would give the Port Authority of Kansas City, or Port KC, the ability to oversee projects across the sprawling four counties that touch Kansas City. They would also hand the agency the extraordinary power to establish its own armed police force, called port rangers.
The legislation comes as Port KC has in recent months developed a constellation of critics, including public school leaders and organized labor groups. The core complaint, opponents say, centers on the agency’s outsized power over development projects spread across the city.
Established in 1977, Port KC’s ability to issue bonds and other tools has allowed the quasi-governmental agency to expand into one of the city’s most influential redevelopment groups. The seven-member board is also largely able to bypass City Hall, issuing incentives without approval from the city’s elected officials.
Opponents of the legislation say it’s bad timing. They fear the bills would further expand the agency’s already growing authority amid a myriad of controversial projects, including the future of the Country Club Plaza, a massive Northland data center and the agency’s role in a highly-publicized debate over a planned immigration detention facility in south Kansas City.
Kansas City Public Schools, which has fought against Port KC’s consideration of tax exemptions for the Plaza, staunchly opposes the legislation, Superintendent Jennifer Collier told The Star on Tuesday.
“Port KC has long had the power to redirect potential public revenues but has done so without the same level of transparency and accountability as other agencies with authority to grant tax breaks to private companies,” Collier said. “There should be no expansion of this agency’s work while their current portfolio is one that has created an unresolved burden to, and a significant lack of trust with, the public.”
But supporters of the bills — and the agency’s work — frame the legislation, which would largely affect port authorities across the state, as noncontroversial. Jon Stephens, the president and CEO of Port KC, cast the bills’ provisions as minor tweaks to state law that would ease the agency’s ability to complete development projects in multiple jurisdictions.
“It’s very, very procedural in its scope,” Stephens said in an interview. “Believe me, I’ve been, you know, I spend a lot of time in state government. I understand how things can be perceived, because you read nuance in each piece of legislation.”
Stephens, as an example of why the agency wants to expand its jurisdiction, pointed to a rail and river port terminal project along the Missouri River. That project, he said, includes land in multiple jurisdictions, including Kansas City, Sugar Creek, Independence and Clay County.
“I would say that it does not expand any authorities for port authorities in Missouri,” he said of the legislation. “It does small, but meaningful things.”
Stephens, who has traveled to Jefferson City to testify in favor of the legislation, went on to tout the possibility of the agency creating a new policing force. If enacted, port rangers would operate similar to park rangers, providing security at Port KC facilities, he said.
The bills would allow Port KC to appoint and commission rangers to oversee the areas around facilities leased or owned by the agency. Rangers would be authorized to carry firearms, issue citations and make arrests within the agency’s jurisdiction.
“We are not seeking to create a law enforcement arm, but we currently spend a million dollars on private security,” Stephens said. “We’re looking at ways to make that more effective and efficient, particularly in how we coordinate with the other law enforcement agencies.”
A spokesperson for the Kansas City Police Department declined to comment on the legislation on Tuesday.
KC opposition
Despite the slew of controversies facing PortKC, the pair of bills has continued to move through the Missouri General Assembly with little opposition.
One version, filed by Sen. Kurtis Gregory, a Marshall Republican, could be headed for the Senate floor after passing a committee earlier this month. Another, filed by Rep. Mike Steinmeyer, a Sugar Creek Republican, is awaiting a vote in a House committee.
At a hearing in Jefferson City last month, Gregory told Missouri lawmakers that the legislation was simply a way to update a law that’s been on the books since the 1970s.
Back in Kansas City, however, the bills have drawn the ire of critics. Some worry about the legislation’s impact on school funding, fearing that more tax breaks for developers will pull money away from public schools and libraries.
“We, along with many local stakeholder groups in Kansas City, have raised concerns about the broad impact Port KC’s board has on our tax dollars and our limited ability to influence its process,” said Ashley Sadowski, a member of Parents for KC Kids, a group that advocates for public school issues.
A coalition of local labor groups also opposes the legislation. Those groups argue that Port KC has not lived up to a promise that its projects would be subject to Missouri’s prevailing wage and minimum apprenticeship standards.
“Expanding a jurisdiction when we’re having serious problems with how they operate inside the jurisdiction they already have is just a nonstarter for us,” said Mike Talboy, a former state lawmaker who now serves as the political director of the Greater Kansas City Building & Construction Trades Council.
And Stephens’ decision to travel to Jefferson City — and his urging of lawmakers to pass it — has also appeared to raise eyebrows from at least one member of the Port KC Board of Commissioners, the seven-member board appointed by the mayor.
“Port Commissioners have not been briefed on the contents or purpose of this legislation, or on the extent to which Port KC has weighed in,” Commissioner Morgan Said said in a statement, “but it is clear Port staff and Commissioners need to be working in closer alignment on all issues related to and in front of Port KC.”
Said was the only Port KC commissioner to respond to The Star’s request for comment about the legislation on Tuesday.
When asked about the legislation last week, Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas was noncommittal about his support for the two bills. He said they weren’t at the top of Kansas City’s list of priorities.
However, Lucas referenced Kansas City’s unusual lack of control over its police force when asked about the possibility of port rangers. The KCPD is overseen by a five-member board with four members appointed by the governor; Lucas fills the remaining spot.
“I’ll give Port credit for creating a force that answers, ultimately, to a board appointed by a local official, rather than the governor of Missouri,” he said.
While the bills face little pushback in the Missouri Capitol, the legislation — in the wake of several highly-publicized development projects — has once again thrust PortKC and its growing influence into the spotlight.
“We would urge the Port Authority to direct its resources to better serving the community by engaging in more rigorous analysis of, and more engagement around, projects already under their purview,” said Collier, the public school superintendent.
