Port KC has too much power, too little oversight from Kansas City | Opinion
Kansas City’s port authority has evolved far beyond its original purpose — and not in a good way. Port KC has become a powerful subsidy agency, operating with minimal oversight. It now quietly funnels taxpayer support to private development projects — often with little public awareness or scrutiny.
This shift didn’t happen overnight. In 2015, as river commerce dwindled, Port KC and pivoted to real estate. That pivot was enabled by Missouri law, which allows port authorities to subsidize anything “reasonably connected to the business of a port” — an intentionally vague phrase that now stretches to include soccer stadiums, tech campuses, luxury apartments and just about any real estate project a developer might dream up.
But as Port KC’s role in Kansas City’s economic development has grown, so have the risks — financial, operational and political.
According to the most recent federal rankings, Kansas City’s port placed 149th out of 150 in volume. Port KC handled just 1.2 million tons of freight in 2022. But you’d never guess that from its budget. In 2024, Port KC reported $8.1 million in operating revenue and liabilities topping $12 million. If you count lease obligations, the figure doubles.
Where does the money come from? Nearly half — 43% in fiscal year 2024 — comes from developer and transaction fees. That’s a built-in conflict of interest. Port KC gets paid up front in application fees, regardless of whether the deal makes sense or the project succeeds.
In 2022, when Port KC issued $283.9 million in bonds, it pocketed more than $1 million at closing, plus years of administrative fees tied to future tax collections. If project revenues miss, schools and services — not Port KC — absorb the shortfall.
Audits showed internal problems
But the concerns with Port KC don’t end with finances alone. A series of audits from 2021 through 2024 flagged serious internal control problems, including one where the finance director had full authority over journal entries, deposits and account reconciliation — with no oversight. Port KC has repeatedly promised to fix these issues and repeatedly failed to act.
It’s a dangerous echo of what happened at the city’s Economic Development Corporation, which lost $3.1 million to internal theft in 2019 because of similar control failures. Port KC’s inaction here may be inviting the same malfeasance.
Worse, the agency is largely insulated from public accountability. Unlike most if not all other boards, all seven Port KC board members are appointed by the mayor and confirmed by no one. That board approves executive salaries, signs off on multimillion-dollar projects and is the only line of oversight between taxpayers and a growing number of development deals.
When two board members recently admitted surprise at the CEO’s legislative testimony in favor of expanded subsidy powers, it raised a troubling question: Who’s running the show?
That CEO, Jon Stephens, once championed public subsidies for the T-Bones baseball team (now the Monarchs) when it couldn’t pay its utility bills. He has run Port KC since 2018 and now earns $309,000 annually — a 32% increase since 2020 — approved each time by the mayor’s appointees. Meanwhile, audits go ignored and the agency’s core mission continues to drift.
St. Louis County scandal
The risks are not theoretical. In St. Louis County, a port authority scandal involving a much tighter structure than ours landed a county executive in federal prison.
Here in Kansas City, Port KC has already been linked to projects involving Google, the KC Current stadium and likely any future Royals stadium deal. Port KC was designed to manage port traffic, not bankroll downtown stadiums or pick winners in the real estate market. It’s become a political convenience — one that operates with fewer public hearings, fewer questions and fewer barriers to cutting deals with public money.
It doesn’t have to stay that way.
Kansas City can require City Council confirmation of board appointments. It can mandate independent financial reviews before any deal moves forward. And it must address the clear conflict in Port KC’s funding model — where financial survival depends on saying yes to projects, regardless of merit.
Port KC has outgrown its excuses. The only question now is whether Kansas City’s elected leaders are ready to outgrow their own complacency and finally act.
This story was originally published June 10, 2025 at 5:07 AM.
CORRECTION: This story should have not have mentioned Meta in a list of projects involving Port KC. The story has been updated.
