THE LAUNCH DOCK

What Public-Private Partnerships, Data Centers, and Overlapping Leadership Mean for Local Economies

Who Really Signs the Deal?

Some contracts never appear on a signature page.

They are formed quietly — through overlapping leadership roles, shared incentives, and decisions made long before a public vote ever occurs.

Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) are often presented as efficient, innovative solutions to infrastructure needs. In many cases, they are. But when the same small circles of consultants, civic leaders, and private businesses repeatedly appear across projects, boards, and communities, the question shifts from “Is this legal?” to “Is this visible?”

Because economic development does not just build projects —
it reshapes power.

What Public-Private Partnerships Actually Do

Public-Private Partnerships allow governments to contract with private entities to design, finance, build, and sometimes operate public infrastructure. In education and municipal settings, P3s are increasingly used for:

• school facilities and energy performance contracts

• broadband and data infrastructure

• large industrial or technology developments

• long-term maintenance and operational services

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (2023), P3s now account for over $300 billion in infrastructure investment nationwide, with contract terms commonly extending 20–40 years.

Once approved, these agreements often outlast:

• elected officials

• school board members

• superintendents

• economic development council representatives

What remains is the obligation.

Where the Risk Emerges

The challenge is not that P3s exist.
The challenge is how influence accumulates around them.

In many communities, the same individuals appear across:

• school boards

• economic development councils

• chambers of commerce

• nonprofit boards

• private consulting, construction, insurance, or development firms

This overlap is not inherently unethical. In small communities, it is often inevitable.

But when:

• leaders help shape projects in public roles

• those same individuals or peers later benefit through private contracts

• or records do not clearly document recusals, disclosures, or alternatives considered

The public loses the ability to trace how decisions were made — even if the decisions themselves were lawful.

Transparency is not about proving misconduct.
It is about preserving trust.

The Data Center Factor

Data centers dramatically raise the stakes.

These projects require:

• massive energy capacity

• long-term utility agreements

• tax abatements or incentives

• land use approvals

• infrastructure upgrades often funded publicly

The Missouri Department of Economic Development (2024) reports that data centers can require 50–100 times more electricity than traditional commercial facilities and often receive incentive packages exceeding tens or hundreds of millions of dollars over time.

When education, municipal infrastructure, and industrial development converge, communities must understand:

• who introduced the project

• who advised the process

• who benefited financially

• and who will be accountable decades later

What the Public Often Cannot See

In many large projects, the most consequential decisions occur before formal approvals.

What is often missing from easily accessible public records includes:

• early feasibility discussions

• how vendors or consultants were identified

• alternatives that were considered but rejected

• financial models underlying projected savings

• internal communications guiding direction

While these materials may exist, they are not always proactively disclosed in agendas or minutes.

As a result, communities may see the approval without ever seeing the full pathway.

This absence does not imply wrongdoing —
but it does limit informed consent.

Why This Matters for Small Businesses

Public dollars shape local markets.

When large contracts are awarded through limited channels, small and independent businesses often find themselves:

• excluded from bidding opportunities

• unable to compete with bundled services

• priced out by long-term exclusive agreements

According to the Small Business Administration (2023), communities with concentrated public contracting see lower rates of small business participation over time, particularly in construction, facilities, and professional services.

Transparency is not anti-development.
It is pro-competition.

What Communities Can Do Now

For many projects, approvals have already occurred. Oversight does not end there.

Practical next steps include:

1. Submitting Missouri Sunshine Law requests for:

   • contracts, amendments, and change orders

   • consultant agreements

   • communications related to vendor selection

2. Reviewing disclosure and recusal practices in board minutes

3. Asking whether performance benchmarks are publicly reported

4. Notifying the Missouri Attorney General’s Office when records requests are not fulfilled in compliance with state law

Transparency is not retroactive —
but accountability is ongoing.

Closing Reflection

Public-Private Partnerships can build extraordinary things.

But when power, contracts, and civic leadership intersect without clear documentation, the true cost is not financial — it is trust.

Communities deserve to understand not just what was built, but how decisions were made, who influenced them, and why alternatives were chosen or dismissed.

Sunlight does not stall progress.
It strengthens it.

In solidarity,
Lyndsay LaBrier
Merchant Ship Collective

References

Missouri Department of Economic Development. (2024). Economic development incentives and infrastructure investment. https://ded.mo.gov

Small Business Administration. (2023). Small business participation in public contracting. https://www.sba.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation. (2023). Public-private partnerships in infrastructure. https://www.transportation.gov