After just one term, Kansas City, KS, Mayor Tyrone Garner chose not to seek reelection. During his tenure, Garner often found himself at odds with commissioners as he fought for underserved residents, particularly the poor, the elderly, and those living east of I-635.
Now, voters are looking for a leader who will continue to prioritize community needs while also building coalitions strong enough to move KCK forward. Out of six candidates who entered the race — four women and two men — two women have advanced to the general election on Nov. 4.
In this Q&A, they share their visions for the city and address issues that matter most to our readers.
Rose Mulvany Henry is an accomplished attorney with a proven track record of strategic leadership and success in the private sector. She has demonstrated the ability to align policy with business objectives – partnering with public/private stakeholders to drive multi-billion-dollar infrastructure investments. She is recognized for her ability to quickly assess business risk, navigate complex regulatory environments, and deliver impactful results.
Henry is also an elected member of the Board of Public Utilities, where she has led governance reforms, championed equitable customer service policies, and played a central role in recruiting an executive management team focused on innovation, efficiency, and community impact.
Christal Watson has served as a nonprofit leader, education leader, and corporate leader, experiences that shaped her deep understanding of how to bring different sectors together for the good of the community. She knows Wyandotte’s challenges are complex, but also believes they can be met when leaders push boldly for fairness while working compassionately with partners across every sector.
Her vision is simple but urgent: lower bills, safer streets, and real investment in long-overlooked neighborhoods. Watson’s strength is in uniting people and resources, ensuring prosperity isn’t limited to a few corridors but shared by families across Wyandotte County.
Question 1: Equitable Economic Development
Economic growth in Wyandotte County has often been concentrated in areas like Village West. What is your plan to ensure that jobs, infrastructure investment, and new opportunities are equitably distributed across all communities in the county?
RMH: Realistically, UG leadership, including the mayor, cannot force investors to develop in specific areas of our community. However, we can be intentional about attracting investment to traditionally disenfranchised areas. For example, the potential for the defunct Quindaro power plant property to be remediated and re-purposed into another business (likely a data center) can serve as a catalyst for further housing and business investment in the Northeast area. The influx of both property and utility sales taxes from a project like that could be intentionally reinvested as incentives to further “destination-type” projects.
The UG needs a strong and creative economic development team that is working in lock step with Wyandotte EDC as well as BPU to ensure all facets needed for new projects. It will be my job as mayor to ensure our county administration team is doing just that. When we all work together, nothing can stop us.
CW: Economic development has been uneven, and that has to change. I would aggressively push for new incentives to be tied directly to east-of-635 neighborhoods and legacy corridors, ensuring at least half of our next decade’s projects land in communities that have been left behind. I would also insist on community benefit agreements for all major projects, requiring local hiring, apprenticeships, and small-business inclusion.
At the same time, I would build people-first bridges by working with churches, nonprofits, and schools to align workforce training with actual job openings. We can’t wait for an opportunity to trickle down; we must demand fair distribution of resources and then back it up with grassroots support systems so residents are ready to take those jobs.
Question 2: Data Center Development
Large-scale data centers have been proposed in Kansas City, KS, including a $12 billion campus west of the Speedway and redevelopment of the Quindaro Power Station. Do you support these developments? What safeguards would you put in place regarding energy consumption, environmental impact, and quality of life for nearby residents?
RMH: I support the data center developments, with caveats. 1). We must ensure that BPU can successfully manage the electric and water loads required for any one or combination of the projects against the needs of our residents. BPU is working closely with the Southwest Power Pool (its Regional Transmission Organization) from/to whom it buys and sells power to ensure it will be able to meet the various loads projected. However, until a project is further down the line, they are just projections at this point. 2.) Any development agreement entered into by the large hyperscalers (e.g. Google, Amazon, Meta, etc.) must require environmentally protective construction and design requirements (with penalties for failures in this regard), as well as financial sureties to address any future burden to the electric and water supply to KCK residents and businesses (including additional investments required by BPU).
CW: Data centers can bring billions in investment, but they must not come at the cost of our people. I will push aggressively for enforceable safeguards: renewable energy requirements, water-use limits, and independent monitoring of noise and environmental impacts. No deal should move forward without a written community benefits agreement that includes affordable energy impact fees, local apprenticeships, and investment in neighborhood infrastructure.
At the same time, I’d take a softer but steady approach by creating a standing community advisory council, so residents near these sites always have a seat at the table. Technology growth should fuel neighborhood stability, not strain it. If we balance smart regulations with community partnership, Wyandotte can become a leader in tech development that serves both investors and families.
Question 3: BPU PILOT and Utility Relief
The Board of Public Utilities’ Payment In Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) fee — currently set at 10.9% — is a significant concern for residents who struggle with high utility bills and lack of billing flexibility. What specific steps would you support to provide relief, such as reducing or restructuring the PILOT, separating BPU charges from Unified Government charges, or expanding targeted relief programs? How would you balance relief for residents with the need to maintain funding for essential services?
RMH: I have been working on these very issues for the past 3 years on the joint PILOT Task Force with Commissioners Bynum and Hill. Together, we developed various strategies to reduce the PILOT, including permitting separate fees for residential and non-residential customers (which has resulted in reduced PILOT fees for residential customers in recent years; 2026 budget proposes 9.9% for residential and 11.9% for non-residential). In addition, we also reviewed options to separate the BPU bill from UG fees (for flexibility), but that remains cost prohibitive to the UG at this point ($2 million for setup with $1.1 million annually ongoing). BPU and the UG each fund programs for PILOT and utility rate relief (hundreds of thousands in relief annually) for our most vulnerable residents. As your mayor, these relief efforts will continue and expand (possibly using a portion of the tax dollars from data center projects).
CW: Families shouldn’t have to choose between paying utility bills and putting food on the table. I would press for an aggressive review of the PILOT, including options to reduce the burden on low-income households and separate UG charges from BPU bills for clarity. I would also fight for a “lifeline rate” on essential usage and tie new development deals to a utility-relief fund. At the same time, I’d pursue softer, longer-term solutions, expanding weatherization programs, flexible billing, and community partnerships for energy efficiency, so families’ bills naturally go down over time. Relief and sustainability can coexist, but only if we stop treating high utility costs as inevitable and start treating them as solvable.
Question 4: Property Taxes and Fiscal Transparency
With the recent decision by the Unified Government to unfreeze the mill levy, resulting in higher property taxes, how would you address concerns about fiscal sustainability, budget transparency, and potential tax relief for residents?
RMH: To decrease our near full reliance on property taxes (and therefore decrease our individual tax burden), we must: diversify our tax base with sales taxes received from new economic development and small businesses; increase taxes from visitors to Wyandotte County vs residents (transient tax); and push for an earning tax at the state level to be imposed only onnon-WyCo residents working inWyco. We must also find new ways to attract new residents offering affordable housing solutions. New streams of revenue will help us achieve the financial sustainability we need. For transparency, I have already proposed a dashboard to show residents where their tax dollars are being used in real time. If this method works for Fortune 500 companies, it should work for the UG. As mayor, I will work every day to champion these strategies with our commissioner and the entire UG team.
CW: Property taxes can’t keep climbing while families’ wages lag behind. I would aggressively call for a public-facing, line-by-line budget dashboard, so residents know exactly where every tax dollar is going. I would also push for performance audits and require new projects to include impact fees, so growth pays for growth instead of homeowners footing the bill.
On the softer side, I’d champion expanded relief options for seniors, working families, and residents under hardship, ensuring no one is forced out of their home due to taxes. Fiscal sustainability isn’t about squeezing residents, it’s about smarter, more transparent budgeting. By setting higher expectations for accountability and building trust through clarity, we can stabilize taxes while maintaining the services our families rely on.
I like Mulvaney Henry’s response better about the property taxes. We were promised years ago that the Legends would help relieve our property taxes. However, Legends and all the other crap they have been building in our county/city has only increased OUR property taxes while these other companies still get tax rebates!