Mandate that KC spend 25% of budget on police tossed by court. What happens now?

Reality Check is a Star series holding those with power to account and shining a light on their decisions. Have a suggestion for a future story? Email our journalists at RealityCheck@kcstar.com.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas fought against a state law requiring the police department’s budget increase from 20% to 25% of the city’s general revenue. And he won.

The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in his favor this week, sending the ballot question back to the electorate in November.

But the decision does not appear to have an impact on this year’s budget because it has already been finalized, the mayor’s office said.

The Kansas City Police Department was allocated $317,258,928 for the next fiscal year, an 11.5% increase over the previous year’s budget of $284 million. Much of the $33 million of additional police spending will go toward officer hiring and retention.

The $317 million was 25.03% of the general revenue, according to the mayor’s office. The city used a formula which subtracted some revenue sources including interest on special and general obligation debts. Per state statute, KCPD pension costs are also subtracted.

The purpose of the lawsuit appeared to be more about local control than dollar amounts for Lucas.

Kansas City is the only city in Missouri that does not directly control its police force. The department is overseen by a five-member board of police commissioners. Four are appointed by the governor while Lucas fills the remaining spot.

“The Missouri Supreme Court sided with what is fair and just: the people of Kansas City’s voices should not be ignored in conversations about our own safety,” Lucas said in a statement posted on social media.

“This is an important decision standing up for the rights of cities and their people.”

Why did court toss results?

In 2022, Missouri voters overwhelmingly approved a measure called Amendment 4, which mandated Kansas City increase the amount of general revenue it spends on the police department from 20% to 25%.

A fiscal note summary that voters saw on the ballot said that “local governmental entities estimate no additional costs or savings related to this proposal.”

Lucas filed a lawsuit arguing that the ballot measure would cost the city more than $38.7 million and force the city to cut spending on other services.

On Tuesday, the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that the fiscal note summary was misleading and threw out the election results.

The decision was a victory for Lucas as well as Kansas Citians who want more say over the police department.

At the same time, Lucas touted the coming year’s police budget, saying it exceeded KCPD’s personnel funding request, with starting salaries for officers raised to $65,000.

Ongoing criticism of police spending

Community groups and activists have long called for reducing spending on police, especially after controversial shootings by Kansas City police and the 2020 protests for racial justice.

Gwen Grant, president and CEO of Urban League of Greater Kansas City, welcomed the court’s decision.

“This is a second chance for the electorate to get it right,” she said.

Grant went on to say that Kansas City is one of the most violent cities in the country. Taxpayer money is better spent on addressing the root causes of violence and violence prevention efforts, she said, instead of adding more officers or purchasing police equipment.

In 2021, Grant filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of state control over the police department. That case is ongoing in Jackson County Circuit Court.

Dylan Pyles, an organizer with Decarcerate KC, said regardless of state control, funding the police department is a City Council issue.

“We actually have the city keep dumping money into the police and expecting different results, but the police don’t offer real solutions,” Pyles said.

Avery Jones, another organizer with Decarcerate KC, said solutions lie with meeting the community’s needs, including housing and health care.

Pyles added that even with amended ballot language, “Amendment 4 is deceptive and manipulative.”

The Star’s Kacen Bayless contributed to this story.