[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] My name is Andrea Buo, I'm Chair of the Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee.
[0:05] And I will call the May 19th, 2026 meeting to order.
[0:10] And I would ask that my colleagues introduce themselves.
[0:13] West Roger II, Chris Monroe, right up fourth district.
[0:20] And if additional colleagues from the council who are joining us, starting at my left.
[0:26] Found the duck in six districts.
[0:28] Let's be friends second district at large.
[0:30] Melissa Patterson has lead their district at large.
[0:33] And it's so fun to introduce themselves.
[0:35] How are rice city clerk's office?
[0:37] Can we clean finance?
[0:38] Oh, finance. Not finance.
[0:40] Assistant City Manager.
[0:42] Britain is a really finance.
[0:43] Travis, keep your case you want.
[0:45] Sam Miller assistant city attorney.
[0:48] Sarah backster, a lot of permit.
[0:50] Right. And we have a couple of items that we are going to hold.
[0:55] The first item is item number 2, or number 2, 6, 0, 4, 8, 0, that is the contract with the EDC.
[1:04] We will hold that one week that will actually be to the June 9th.
[1:13] June 9th meeting, then on under held in committee,
[1:23] item number
[1:27] 260065, that is the Board
[1:34] of Police Commissioners, ordinance relating to the overage fund. We will hold that for a month.
[1:43] See, let's hope that told June 16th, as well as the Midtown Justice Campus and told June 16th.
[1:53] Do you all meet that week?
[1:55] I don't think you meet that week.
[1:56] We don't meet that week?
[1:58] No, it's June 16th.
[2:00] Okay, I believe.
[2:00] Well, let's then push it back to June 9th, I guess.
[2:11] Looking at the long calendar.
[2:22] All right, Howard, if you will read the first item.
[2:24] to 604-570, or proving an authorized
[2:27] settlement of a lawsuit entitled Can You Mitchell versus
[2:30] City of Kansas.
[2:32] He was very case number 251-6-CV-055-05992,
[2:39] and related claims in the amount of $400,000.
[2:44] All right, this is an item that you each should have received.
[2:47] In fact, the entire council received a number
[2:50] from the law department. If you have any questions through the intertainment or go into
[3:00] close session, but if they're none, I'll ask for a public testimony.
[3:06] Not that someone who's submitted for this one.
[3:10] Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. I would say on this, we would probably not put
[3:15] it on consent agenda, just because of the amount.
[3:18] I'm
[3:23] trying to move that ordinance number 20604-570 report out of committee with recommendation
[3:27] of the advancing do pass.
[3:29] Second.
[3:30] Second.
[3:31] Second of the ordinance number 20604570 report out of committee with the recommendation
[3:34] of advance and do pass.
[3:36] All those in favor, please say aye.
[3:38] Aye.
[3:39] Aye.
[3:39] Any opposed?
[3:40] Can the motion passes?
[3:41] Two, six, zero.
[3:43] Four, seven, four.
[3:44] We're proving an authorizing settlement of a lawsuit in the title Andrea George versus City
[3:48] I can't see Missouri at how, case number 2456-CV-06268 in the amount of $500,000.
[3:59] Right, this too, the Council received a memorandum from the law department.
[4:04] Are there any questions on this item?
[4:07] Is there any public testimony for an December 264-474?
[4:11] No public testimony submitted for the Swords.
[4:14] Right, I would entertain a motion on this item.
[4:16] I'm Chair, move to the ordinance number 2060474 be reported out of committee with recommendation of advancing new pass.
[4:23] Then, move to the second of the ordinance number 2060474 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance in due pass.
[4:30] All those in favor please say aye.
[4:31] Aye.
[4:32] Aye.
[4:32] Any opposed?
[4:33] The motion passes.
[4:35] How are we going to hold off just a minute to wait on the mayor's arrival?
[4:41] that when we come back, we're going to take up, we're going to take about a 10-minute break,
[4:48] but just for those in the audience reference, we're first going to take the ballot measures
[4:56] beginning with the help.
[5:00] Resolving trust fund ordinance, which is 2060484, then we will go to 2060483,
[5:18] then 485,
[5:25] 8,
[5:29] 1 and 482.
[5:33] Then after we have taken up those items, we will proceed with the three items related to
[5:48] the
[5:49] MPD, which is held in committee,
[5:53] four, four, three.
[5:55] Then we will discuss, along with that,
[5:58] 260, four, eight, six, which is the new items,
[6:03] and four, four, five, which is the vacation
[6:06] of the sidewalk right away.
[6:09] So we're going to jump around a little bit
[6:12] that we will proceed.
[6:14] I'm told you will be here on the first 1050, which is why we started but now around 11.
[6:25] So we will take a few minute break. I apologize for the delay, but he especially wanted to be here for the ballot measure.
[6:34] I'm so full tight and we will be back with you in a few minutes.
[13:02] 1, 2, 6, 0, 44, calling an election on August 4, 26, for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of an
[13:10] amount, not to exceed $75 million in general obligation bonds to finance affordable housing projects
[13:16] through the housing trust fund, directing the city clerk to provide notice of the election, declaring
[13:23] the city's intention to reimburse itself from Prime Proceeds, 4 by related expenditures, directing
[13:29] the City Clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of the selection, recognizing
[13:35] this one is just having an accelerated effect of day and establishing an effect of day,
[13:40] football or authorizations.
[13:43] Madam Chair, if I just may, on the election ordinances, the issue that came to us that City Council
[13:48] or comes to us now is a request actually from water services to run valley questions relating
[13:54] to sue in water bonds, of course those haven't been called yet, because of both the cost of
[14:01] the municipal election and the campaign apparatus that is often built up. Consideration for
[14:06] us a committee is whether to run all potential municipal questions at the same time, and so that's
[14:12] where these questions arise from in November 2022. We had a similar arrangement where I believe
[14:19] we ran water bonds, but also ran bonds that were in part for conventions, parks, and then there
[14:24] housing trust fund bond as well, and so that's the spirit from which these come and I know nothing
[14:29] about the presentation here.
[14:33] So the ordinance does include two six zero four eight three as well as a combined presentation.
[14:40] Okay, so how would go ahead and read four eight three three four eight three.
[14:45] Committee sets two four and it's number two six zero four eight three.
[14:48] Calling in election August four twenty six what the purpose of authorizing the issuance of
[14:53] And I'm up not to exceed $100 million in the general obligation spot to...
[15:00] General obligations, bonds, to finance capital improvements of city convention facilities and other governmental buildings constructed before 1950, directing the city clerk to provide notice of the election and declaring the city's intention to reimburse itself from buy and proceeds for bond related expenditures, directing the city clerk to notify the responsible election authority of this election, recognizing this ordinances have made an accelerated effect of day in establishing an effect of day.
[15:32] So, good morning.
[15:34] Good morning.
[15:34] Good morning.
[15:34] Kimberly Carter from the Finance Department.
[15:35] I have a long-sign meeting with Director.
[15:38] Director from the House of the Department and Director Gilmore from the Convention's Department.
[15:42] So, the ordinances before you two 604-83 and 484 is pertaining to the new GO ballot measure.
[15:53] Both ordinances together are proposed of $250 million in general obligation bonds.
[15:59] So, 35 million dollars for convention and entertainment facilities for the purpose of paying for the
[16:05] acquisition construction of renovation improvement equipment and furnishing of city
[16:08] convention and entertainment facilities, which includes parking structures as well.
[16:12] 75 million dollars for affordable housing, and that's going to include rehabilitation
[16:16] renovation and construction of houses and buildings to include black removal as well as
[16:21] provide affordable housing for low to moderate income households.
[16:26] A key point is that the proposed geobion program is structured as a no-sex increase in
[16:32] It's similar to our Geo 2022 authorization.
[16:36] So the issuance itself is intentionally phased over multiple years,
[16:40] and this will allow our lettuce remains stable.
[16:44] So depicted on the slide, we would anticipate a two year issuance
[16:48] for the convention facilities with a equal, equal
[16:52] tranches of $37.5 million.
[16:55] And then we'll continue on our affordable housing pattern
[16:58] as a five year period with 15 million dollars issued
[17:04] So whether or not the ballot is approved or or not the authority there is no impact to the general fund under this proposal.
[17:14] So if it's approved the additional debt series is fully offset by property tax capacity and that would otherwise decline as existing debt would roll off.
[17:24] In for instance, the measure is not approved, there is still no impact on the general fund.
[17:29] The city was simply see the property tax decrease over time as debt is retired.
[17:36] The next use lies in it was straight.
[17:39] The projected debt lived under the different scenarios.
[17:42] So this particular one you'll see that the absent is absent of the new authorization
[17:46] and the levied declines over time as we pay off the existing debt.
[17:52] On slide six we're going to add in the proposed authorization today.
[17:56] today. And essentially, it layers in the new debt is old debt rolls off, and which keeps
[18:03] the overall living relatively stable.
[18:07] Now, slide seven includes our 2017 authorization. So, this is all of our geobondent
[18:13] that's going to affect our living. And so, basically, this is a capacity replacement type
[18:19] of strategy. So, what allows the city to continue making strategic capital investments
[18:23] without increasing their taxes and without creating pressure on our general fund.
[18:29] So, I'll pause here if you have any questions, if not, I'll move on to conventions and
[18:34] housing as they can present their projects.
[18:40] The morning chair and Mr. Mayor and members of the committee.
[18:43] Thank you for the opportunity.
[18:44] Can you pull this a little closer?
[18:46] Yes, ma'am.
[18:50] Thank you.
[18:51] Thank you.
[18:52] Thank you for the opportunity to speak about ordinance number 260483 and the proposed investment
[18:58] in Kansas City's convention and entertainment facilities.
[19:01] Well, the presentation outlined our project's categories.
[19:05] I think it is equally as important to talk about what these investments represent and what has
[19:11] already been accomplished.
[19:12] Over the past several years, convention and entertainment facilities in the business and
[19:16] process of more than $45 million in capital improvements, including ADA upgrades, escalator
[19:22] replacements, lighting improvements, seating upgrades, and critical infrastructure work throughout
[19:27] the convention complex and municipal auditorium.
[19:30] Those investments are producing results, Kansas City continues to attract major conventions,
[19:35] sporting events, and entertainment activity that generate significant economic impact for
[19:41] community. This proposal allows us to continue protecting and modernizing these public assets
[19:46] without increasing taxes by aligning new investment with role-off exist of existing debt.
[19:52] These are not cosmetic projects. They are core infrastructure investments that directly impact
[19:58] our ability to operate.
[20:00] Mayfully, efficiently and competitively. At the same time, we are planning for the future. The city is partnering
[20:06] with populists on a long-term modernization plan for Bottle Hall and, excuse me, municipal auditorium,
[20:13] to ensure today's investments align with the next generation of convention entertainment and tourism activity in Kansas City.
[20:20] That work is especially important as we prepare for FIFA World Cup 2026 and continue building on the momentum created by
[20:27] transformational projects like the new Airport Terminal,
[20:30] Low-Shotel, and the Convention Center campus.
[20:34] Simply put, these proposals are about stewardship,
[20:38] maintaining and modernizing public assets,
[20:41] and support jobs, tourism, economic development,
[20:44] and civic pride in a physically responsible way.
[20:48] Thank you, and after blame finishes,
[20:50] I'll be happy to answer any questions.
[20:54] Good morning, blame proctor director of housing and community development.
[20:58] I'm here to talk about the housing trust fund.
[21:02] The housing trust fund is probably one of the most flexible funding sources that we have in the housing department.
[21:10] Because of the various projects that it supports,
[21:16] neighborhood affordability,
[21:19] displacement,
[21:21] new and rehabilitated affordable housing,
[21:24] addressing blight, excuse me, through vacant property renovation and it is also the largest funding tool that we have.
[21:37] We prefer that the housing trust fund is used for gap financing as opposed to projects and developers coming in to the housing trust fund as a first ask for their projects.
[21:51] I think it's important to note that there is currently a 64,000 unit shortage in affordable housing in Kansas City, and that is really made up of very low income and extremely low income households that doesn't include workforce housing.
[22:11] We are guided by a very strong stakeholder and community base.
[22:19] We have an advisory board of housing development experts and community members.
[22:25] When the trust fund is fully seated, when it's board is fully seated, we have nine members.
[22:33] The trust fund was established to address Kansas City's growing affordable housing crisis.
[22:37] It supports the development preservation of housing at or below 60% AMI.
[22:45] In November 2022, voters approved a $15 million geobond creating the city's largest affordable housing investment funding source.
[22:57] And this slide shows what we have accomplished in the funding rounds that we've had up until this date.
[23:08] There's been $60 million awarded $263,363,316 total units, 2,635 of which are affordable.
[23:25] 365 of those units have been completed at this point in time.
[23:29] There's an image there of the parade park groundbreaking, which is to date the largest housing trust fund investment that's been made.
[23:38] This is just a list of some of the completed projects that we've seen so far.
[23:48] Forecasting the impact of a $75 million bond, we anticipate that this would support an estimated
[23:55] 3,571 affordable housing units over the next five years.
[24:01] The funding rounds would increase from the $12.5 million that we've had up until now to
[24:06] 15 million dollars, permitting deeper subsidy levels and more affordable housing projects per year.
[24:14] And we will be able to take any questions.
[24:17] All right.
[24:18] I did have a point out that I believe on ordinance number 2060483 with respect to the conventions.
[24:25] The committee steps to add additional language, well, increased the amount from 75 million to 100 million.
[24:32] and add additional language to allow for...
[24:37] Yeah, I can speak to that.
[24:38] Okay, go ahead and share.
[24:40] The committee staffs too have been circulated to committee would add a $25 million amount to the corpus using
[24:47] available amount of funding and add the following, which is,
[24:51] and other governmental buildings constructed before 1950.
[24:56] The idea there being that city hall, and I'd like to ask the Assistant City Manager to speak.
[25:00] I regret there's not a presentation on it, but I believe there's been estimated $90 million in maintenance
[25:06] and other challenges at city hall itself that continually goes unfunded and so what
[25:14] but to learn a little bit about how we can address that.
[25:18] Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, the additional projects that we are contemplating and we have a lot more
[25:24] means then this 25 million would support, but they include phase two of the HVAC project that
[25:31] has taken us out of this chamber at times, but that would take care of the lower floors.
[25:36] I think one through 15, there is water piping infrastructure in the amount of about $10 million
[25:43] additional fire alarm and intercom replacement so that we've got all the life safety things
[25:48] ensure that we are meeting those.
[25:51] Windows is a big problem in the building, so exterior window replacement, and then also
[25:56] waterproofing and sealing the envelopes.
[25:59] It's about a total of $51 million in projects that exist right now that have been identified
[26:05] that could be used.
[26:06] This money could be used for.
[26:10] Are there any questions from the committee?
[26:12] on ordinance number, committee substitute board, ordinance number 260483, or
[26:18] ordinance number 260484.
[26:22] I can't say I ran.
[26:24] Thank you, mentor.
[26:26] ACM Queen, I want to talk about the question I had for you in regards to the Housing
[26:30] Trust Fund, GEO bond dollars, and the idea that in our search for some sustainable,
[26:36] municipal funding source for our homeless programming would this be the avenue to do so, I think your answer was compelling but I would just ask that you share your response to my question.
[26:52] So the housing trust fund works as a taxable bond issue and it's because we are creating units of housing that tangible assets that we can point to.
[27:01] The housing gateway program doesn't really provide that it provides a lot of services.
[27:05] It might provide housing in the form of a homeless shelter or something like that.
[27:09] But it's not as clear to us that it would qualify for what we like to use bond financing
[27:15] for, which is long-lived assets that hopefully go on our balance shape.
[27:20] They don't always have to, but it's really just not a good use of this authority that the city
[27:26] has in terms of bonding, which would not recommend that.
[27:29] I think it's important. I think it's important. I think it's important as we look for what that source could be that we talk about those that would be a good avenue and those that would not.
[27:38] And originally I thought this might be one that we could discuss, but I think your answer is compelling.
[27:43] Right. Councillor Duncan.
[27:45] Thank you, Mayor.
[27:48] For the committee substitute for the housing trust fund, it's just for an increase of the 25 million of the corporates right.
[27:55] There is no change other than the date, and then the conventions, et cetera, we've got
[28:03] a lot of media substitutes to increase from 75 to 100 million.
[28:07] 75 to 100 million on the inventions and buildings.
[28:11] 75 million stays on the housing, and then the other changes, the date of the election.
[28:19] It's him queen, do we have the bond leveraged increase?
[28:22] The housing trust fund from 75 to 100 million.
[28:24] There is a total in the treasurer or the finance director can correct me from wrong, but there's a total capacity for a no tax bond issuance of total of 200 million.
[28:40] Let's do it.
[28:41] Yeah.
[28:41] That's one hundred and eighty.
[28:43] That's why.
[28:44] Right now, the total is 175 between these committee subs.
[28:48] Well, I'll kind of learn something new that it's a 100 or 200 rather than 180.
[28:56] I've got to go in with the, we put 75 million in last time, so it's can do 75 million again.
[29:02] 18 million last time, right?
[29:04] Yeah, but it was 25 million of our, we have cemented another place, so we capitalized it first of 75 million.
[29:13] I know we have a 65,000 units deficit of portable housing, why wouldn't we go for Gustav Mr. Mayor?
[29:22] I mean, I guess the proof point that I would ask for is with the extra funding, you've already probably laid out the number of units that you would look to add to that, but does the program become more compelling?
[29:35] Do I have a slight concerns sometimes the policy matter of just putting more money in something if I don't know if the performance will be that much better?
[29:43] But maybe it will be, you'll probably say it is, they'll tell us more.
[29:48] Sure, I mean we could absolutely create more units with additional funds.
[29:56] I think the question might be, if you can spend the...
[30:00] Full 20 million in a year. So that would basically take it to 20 million dollars per year, four or five years, and can that actually be distributed and spent.
[30:11] And because we always want to make sure that we're borrowing that we're actually spending the money in a timely manner.
[30:18] We have applications, has interest fund applications to come in in each round that are either not fully funded or don't get funded.
[30:30] because of a lack of funds.
[30:35] And I feel like that's been part of the story every round of funding is that it's competitive.
[30:41] There's limited funds.
[30:43] I can think of the last couple rounds.
[30:45] There's been several projects that I think would be a great candidate.
[30:49] But because of the lack of funding, we weren't, we weren't able to provide support.
[30:52] So I think the question as to whether or not we would have enough demand to spend the money is clear.
[30:59] I think the question is, can we turn that through staff, through staffing, and if I wait
[31:05] more projects to make sure we're moving the red direction, right?
[31:08] We would need additional staff.
[31:11] You need additional staff.
[31:14] I just wanted to make another point that we would be able to be a little bit more dynamic
[31:18] with housing trust fund.
[31:21] We've right now we provide about $16,000 per affordable unit and with a deeper investment
[31:28] And the housing trust fund we would be able to more deeply subsidize some of the projects that are harder to develop.
[31:34] So I think that it would allow us to have a little bit more flexibility with the projects that we fund that may not be able to, to pencil out otherwise.
[31:45] One final question, and I do support the request and what hope we could put it in the
[31:50] committee's sub.
[31:51] The only question I have is that I don't think this would be the case, but it wouldn't
[31:54] change how we can present this to voters and place it on the ballot.
[31:57] I think if we are expanding the bond capacity, we can still call it a renewal of tax rather
[32:03] than a new tax.
[32:04] Is that correct?
[32:06] Well, yeah, I think what you're getting at is, can we call it a no tax increase bond issue
[32:11] Yes, because we've given you that's the maximum capacity.
[32:16] If you said we want to do 225 or 201, we would say no, we'd have to increase taxes to do that for that extra million dollars.
[32:25] So, yes.
[32:26] If you're answering your question.
[32:29] And I want to go back to what you said about the five years and the spending the $20 million each year.
[32:36] to the extent that there is money left over, what is our ability to roll it over to the next year or subsequent year.
[32:48] It's absolutely possible to do that. We want it to be deployed. It doesn't have to all be deployed in the year one.
[32:55] These are taxable bonds, which have a little bit more flexibility than a tax exempt issuance where the IRS will come knocking on the door if we don't spend within a certain amount of time.
[33:05] So I think there's there's flexibility there. My concern was really about what Councilman
[33:11] Raya got to, which was deployment of the money. Can it actually, I know there's need, but can it actually be deployed in the time a lot?
[33:20] And I think I would also ask we have talked about the possibility of looking at the criteria for the housing trust fund and should that be expanded to some extent.
[33:32] and would this allow us the possibility to look at different criteria in funding certain projects.
[33:43] And I'm assuming the answer would be as, but to the extent that that would give us a little
[33:48] bit more leeway to do that, I think I would support it as well.
[33:52] I know Councilman Patterson has a comment, but I think the House of Tristan is controlled entirely
[33:57] by us.
[33:57] So if we could pass and we can draft a new ordinance, frankly, to the detriment of I think those of us who served before, when we didn't have any state guards on and then we just started spending on all these projects real quickly.
[34:11] That's my one concern, Councilman, talking to your point sometimes.
[34:15] Not that I necessarily, we all get the need.
[34:19] I, something Ms. Owen said, to kind of concerns me, the deeper subsidy, but I don't know
[34:26] if I love the spirit of that.
[34:28] I mean, the whole way, this was supposed to work at the beginning, and we'll leave out
[34:32] our private sector partners.
[34:33] The philanthropy was going to raise a whole bunch of money.
[34:36] It was going to max with our program.
[34:38] We were going to have a public private partnership that creates these opportunities, and
[34:42] it's fine to have a tax payer's play pretty heavily in this, but we're still trying to get
[34:48] a lot of volume, and then you made a few times
[34:52] Councilman Patterson Hazley, not just get
[34:54] a density of affordable housing, one part of our city,
[34:59] basically we're...
[35:00] We're not trying to go back to the housing projects model. I don't think. And I didn't want to create a program that
[35:07] have us create a program that does that. And so I mean, I guess that could be fixed by ordinance, but I
[35:14] would want to make sure that we don't find ourselves in that place if we perceive ourselves as flush with cash.
[35:27] I think this is worth saying out loud because this is going to be something we're putting before voters and they're going to know that we have the right processes in place and all that I have been very very impressed with the staff and Evan Cheerlean the work that they do with the valuing these projects.
[35:46] I mean, even projects that have supported as a council member, and they go there objectively.
[35:52] They look at the criteria very, very thoughtful and how they do it.
[35:56] It makes the recommendation, I think, very reliable, even if I want to see a project advance
[36:01] that doesn't.
[36:03] And so I think the way that they've handled the funding so far, and maybe more recently in
[36:09] the last two years, gives me a lot of confidence that if we're putting more money into this,
[36:13] It's going to continue to be used that way.
[36:16] Now, what council members do when the ordinance comes before us, that's us.
[36:21] That's what the Patterson has.
[36:22] Thank you.
[36:23] Madam Chair, I'm not miss.
[36:26] I think that the Housing Trust Fund
[36:28] extends to be increased $400,000.
[36:31] I don't know if it's necessarily smart to do both of them
[36:36] because we'll approach the maximum
[36:39] getting to the 200, where we're in territory, where we may need to increase taxes.
[36:45] But also, I did request some housing trust fund data about a week ago, and there are
[36:55] 3,568 total units, and 1,499 units are only in the third district, and so I think
[37:08] there's some work to do in terms of making certain that affordable housing has available across the city.
[37:15] I think that will require some additional analysis and thoughtfulness and so it's, you know,
[37:22] one thing to make more dollars available, but if we're not being careful about how we distribute the units,
[37:31] and perhaps the city just perceives that they're supposed to do affordable housing projects
[37:38] in my district and so they do and so the concern of deeply subsidizing more housing
[37:47] is a real concern that I hope you guys will be empathetic toward. We need to start
[37:54] moving toward 80% AMIs as we've done so much of the 60 and 30 in the third district
[38:00] I would just caution actually the increase because we haven't come up with a plan to diversify housing,
[38:09] and it's having a really immediate impact on the third district and our ability to improve the economy.
[38:17] Councillor Pate.
[38:19] Councillor Pate.
[38:20] Councillor Pate.
[38:20] Councillor Pate.
[38:21] Councillor Pate.
[38:23] Councillor Pate.
[38:27] Councillor Pate.
[38:28] You know, I will speak for Councilwoman Boo, we absolutely want more affordable housing in the sixth district.
[38:35] We need it.
[38:36] If you work in the sixth district serving coffee or in some type of service position,
[38:42] it's likely that you don't, or you can't live in the sixth district.
[38:46] Even if you work in the sixth district, you can't live in the plaza if you work in the plaza.
[38:52] And that's an issue.
[38:53] So, absolutely, I think what we're talking about is what is our policy vision versus how much money do we have at our disposal to implement that?
[39:03] I would say let's move forward with increasing the amount to better implement it.
[39:09] And I would be happy to sponsor an ordinance with you to ensure that we're directing more strategically what we're putting those affordable units.
[39:21] It's been very well stated by both of my colleagues, and I've brought the attention to this body as well, and just the diversity of the affordable housing throughout the city.
[39:32] And I've requested that to be looked at in my district as well.
[39:35] So I very much am not going to belabor the points.
[39:38] would support the increase in the bondage to it as well and then having a larger robust
[39:45] conversation about what that looks like and how we can expand the availability of
[39:52] horrible housing throughout the city.
[39:55] Mayor, did you?
[39:56] Yeah, I'll just say this and happy to make motions on both other, I guess.
[40:00] We'll need public comment to, I mean, part of how we got to this monetary amount because I thought we had
[40:06] 180 million available, but we have 200. And that's, there's no financial issue with going up to the level.
[40:13] All right. So that part's good. On housing question for the day that we actually get to the housing conversation, there will be a, there's a policy discussion.
[40:23] I will also say, and I have seen some of you do this the last time, so we had a long discussion
[40:31] when we were last trying to put affordable housing in the Northland and one of our projects,
[40:35] and there's going to be a lot of like how do we make sure that we engage the developers and others to be part of that, too,
[40:41] because right now our current system, which is largely developed or driven, and they submit applications to us,
[40:47] and also say this in fairness to the housing department, they get the applications they get, all of those,
[40:52] a lot of them are in certain places and so I think it'll be worked for us to suggest to
[40:57] sound that this is a good math to go. That's all I would have on this, and then I
[41:00] can make committee self-student motions when we're ready.
[41:04] Okay, let's cover public testimony on let's do both the 260483 and 484. So if you would like
[41:13] on 483, or 484, that's the Housing Trust Fund,
[41:20] ordinance for the ballot, or the convention, and buildings.
[41:26] Please come forward.
[41:27] May I test my out?
[41:28] No one appears by the time.
[41:29] There's no red and testimony submitted.
[41:32] Mayor?
[41:32] I'll do them separately.
[41:33] Madam Chair, I move the committee steps to forward
[41:35] at number 264483.
[41:37] That's the $100 million amounted as buildings constructed before 1950.
[41:42] We report to the full Council of the Recommendation of Advancing Do Pass.
[41:45] It's been moved in second to the committee's substitute for an December 264 report.
[41:50] We report it out of the committee with the recommendation of Advancing Do Pass.
[41:53] All those in favour please say aye.
[41:55] Any opposed?
[41:56] In the motion passes.
[41:58] Madam Chair, I move the committee's substitute for the number 20404A4 with an additional
[42:02] increase from $75 million to $100 million.
[42:05] We report to the full Council of the Recommendation of Advancing Do Pass.
[42:09] It's been moved in second half in a committee substitute for an December 20404, increasing to 100 million.
[42:16] I've been reported out the committee with the recommendation of the Banson DuPath, so I'll
[42:19] have us in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. KneePaths, the motion passes.
[42:23] How much will we go to the CCED-45?
[42:27] 2044 is number 206045, calling an election on August 4th, 2026 for the purpose of renewing a
[42:35] One eighth-central city economic development sales tax, 14 years, and I think the sales
[42:41] tax contention upon a voter approval, directing the city clerk to provide notice of the
[42:46] election, directing the city clerk to provide notice to the director of revenue if the sales
[42:52] tax question is passed by voters, and recognizing this recognizing and accelerated effective
[42:59] day.
[43:00] Good morning.
[43:01] of honorable mayor Lucas, Cherbu, and members of the Finance Covenants and Public Safety Committee.
[43:05] My name is William Choy, Deputy Director of Finance, and today I will be presenting
[43:09] on ordnance number 260485, calling for Central City Economic Development Sales Tax
[43:14] Renewal.
[43:16] So, I want to start off by providing a brief history of the CCT Sales Tax, as originally submitted
[43:21] to voters via ordnance number 160861 for a 1-8-cent sales tax.
[43:27] purposes of that sales tax, we're going to help with economic development in the area
[43:32] that moved by ninth-street on the north, Gregory Boulevard in the south, a sail Boulevard
[43:38] on the west, in Indiana Avenue on the east, and these economic development projects will be
[43:43] recommended by the CCED board. On April 4, 2017, voters approved the initial 10 year CCED sales tax
[43:51] with an approval rating of approximately 60%. And that CCED sales tax is set to expire on September
[43:57] 30th, 2027. So it's the dire to submit to voters a renewal of the CCD
[44:03] sales tax for a new 10 year period. So finance isn't normally a, isn't normally
[44:10] known for their maps, but we want to provide a map of the CCD area. So as outlined
[44:15] earlier, ninth street in the north, fragility bulb on the south, the sale bulb
[44:19] on the west, and Indiana Avenue on the east. So it's true right here, kind of in this
[44:24] pink outline grid line pattern. This is that CCED area map.
[44:32] So the ballot language is proposed. Is outline here?
[44:34] I'll show the city of Kansas in Missouri,
[44:36] be authorized to renew a self-sex authorized,
[44:39] but in Missouri statute, for a period of 10 years at a rate of 1.8 cent,
[44:43] as outlined by the bounded area.
[44:45] And of course, this is set to expire September 30, 2027.
[44:50] We also won't provide just kind of brief revenue history
[44:53] the CCD sales tax. Over the past couple of years it's generated approximately 13 million
[44:58] to about 13.5 million.
[45:00] Over the course of the CCD thus far, it's generated approximately $99 million, and there is still some to be collected here at fiscal year 27, just because it expires in September of this year.
[45:13] All right, September, play some.
[45:16] And with a while answering questions, you may have.
[45:19] Are there any questions from the committee?
[45:22] Here, I may just say briefly, even though there may be support, just for a little bit of background, because I don't sleep.
[45:28] And so it was looking at outcomes from before this came to us in 2017, there was a package
[45:33] and actually we have Johnny Wickham here, who probably remembers it all well, there was
[45:36] a package of five questions on that ballot, three geo-von questions, this Central City
[45:42] economic development sales tax, any marijuana decriminalization question on the ballot.
[45:46] So it's not unheard of that we've had a large number of items as we would have this time.
[45:52] that CCD, first time passed 52 percent, yes, in the public, our hope, certainly would be with the staff, some of whom just left the room, who been in the housing space and others that they could share with us some of the effectiveness that we've had on this program over the last decade.
[46:07] So we'll have a good mission to share.
[46:09] August ballot for the same reason we are articulated before.
[46:12] All right.
[46:13] Are there any other questions from the committee?
[46:15] You've heard that slide from the beginning.
[46:16] Sergeant Public testimony boards is number 204045.
[46:22] No, I'm serious, but.
[46:23] No it doesn't.
[46:23] There's not read testimony submitted for this one.
[46:25] The committee is up again.
[46:27] Just changes this to the August state.
[46:29] Would it entertain a motion?
[46:30] Madam Chair, I'm sure there's number 204045.
[46:33] We reported the full council with a recommendation.
[46:36] It's been been identified.
[46:37] The committee's sub-40s is Number 2045.
[46:40] We reported the committee with a recommendation
[46:41] of that.
[46:42] It was in favor, please say aye.
[46:44] Aye.
[46:44] Any opposed?
[46:45] The motion passes.
[46:46] We'll hear it on Thursday.
[46:47] Two, six, zero.
[46:48] Four, eight, one.
[46:50] Providing for submission to the qualified voters of the city.
[46:54] For their approval, add an election card on August 4th.
[46:57] Twenty, twenty, six.
[46:58] The question of authorizing the issuance of sanitary sewer.
[47:01] We have a new bond of the city and a pressable amount of $750 million for the purpose of
[47:08] rehabilitating and improving and extending the sanitary sources to the Kansas City, including
[47:15] requiring necessary land and rights of way in order to provide for its continuing operation
[47:21] and to maintain compliance with federal state and judicial requirements, directing the city
[47:26] clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of the selection declaring the
[47:32] attention to set race, attention to set, increase the clearing of the city's attention to
[47:42] reimbursement itself from revenue bond proceeds for bond-related expenditures, expenditures,
[47:49] recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effectors date, and establishing
[47:53] the effector date for voter authorization.
[47:56] I was going to ask Howard to go ahead and read the hard ordinances as well and you know that was a lot that
[48:04] 26042 providing for submission to the qualified waters of the city of Kansas City of the city for their approval
[48:12] at an election called on August 4th, 2026 the question of authorizing the issuance of waterworks revenue bonds of the city
[48:20] In the principle amount of $750 million for the purpose of rehabilitating and improving and extending the water work system of the city, including acquiring necessary land and rights of way in order to provide for the continuing operation and to maintain compliance with federal state and judicial requirements.
[48:41] directing the city clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of the election, declaring
[48:46] the city's intention to severates, declaring the city's intention to reimburse itself from
[48:52] revenue bond proceeds for bond-related expenditures, recognizing this ordinance is having
[48:57] an accelerated effect today and establishing an effect today for water authorization.
[49:02] And I'm going to jump in because I'm guessing this is what the mayor is going to say.
[49:06] I think we've heard part of this, the water part of it because we had discussed this, if you would give kind of a brief highlight of this, I think now you're here not only for a water bond, but a sewer bond.
[49:20] So if you can give the highlights on the water and the highlights on the sewer and and we'll take that up.
[49:25] That's right. I can read his mind.
[49:27] So everybody, wait, yeah.
[49:30] All right, thank you.
[49:31] Good morning.
[49:32] Phil, could have all water services with me today.
[49:34] It's you, what, and also water services?
[49:38] So before I get started, though, and tell us who you are.
[49:41] Yeah, I'm sorry.
[49:41] She wouldn't, financial analyst, KC Water,
[49:44] come back to the first slide, please.
[49:46] Before I get started, the last time water bond authorization
[49:50] was on the ballot.
[49:51] It was April 2014, and it was the only item on the ballot.
[49:55] and the last time sewer revenue bond authorization was on the ballot was April 20.
[50:00] 22, and it was the only item on the ballot at that time as well. So we've never done this before, at least in recent history, with other items on the ballot. So keep that in mind as you're listening to this.
[50:12] Okay, so these two ordinances are requesting to put 750 million of water revenue bond authorization on the ballot and 750 million of sewer revenue authorization on the ballot. The deadline to be on the ballot is Tuesday May 26, the day after Memorial Day.
[50:26] The benefits of revenue bond authorization for the utilities, basically, last time we were here we were going through the reasons why the utilities need to have revenue bond authorization as a financing tool.
[50:44] We're back here today to go through this again and ask for your approval to advance these ordinances for a full vote on Thursday and to refresh everyone.
[50:51] Now, let me start by saying that we are requesting in these ballot initiatives are to continue
[50:55] to use these as a financing tool we have to use for decades.
[50:59] So this is the beginning of the capital planning process, essentially, for us.
[51:02] Revenue bond financing is a way to keep water and sewer rates manageable rather than use
[51:07] cash to finance capital projects by using revenue bonds.
[51:11] We can spread capital costs out over many years.
[51:14] However, in order to use this financing tool authorization to do so requires approval from the voters.
[51:20] If approved, there are several benefits that will be realized from issuing revenue bond authorization.
[51:25] Most importantly, it will enable us to utilize the states revolving clean water fund and the states revolving drinking water fund.
[51:31] These long programs allow the utilities to take advantage of significantly subsidized loan rates from Missouri DNR for large scale projects.
[51:39] This is especially important in an environment of rising interest rates that we are currently in.
[51:44] Bond authorization approval by voters also signifies to our bondholders that we can continue to meet our obligations as a utility, as well as access to lowest cost of capital possible in the debt markets.
[51:57] So what happens if we don't put water into a revenue bond authorization on the ballot or if we do, put it on the ballot and it doesn't pass.
[52:05] When existing authorization runs out, we would be forced into a situation where we would have to seek out capital at a higher cost in order to complete future capital projects for the utilities.
[52:14] We would have to use appropriation debt most likely and more cash financing, resulting in higher interest costs to the utilities, but also higher rate increases to our rate payers.
[52:24] We would not be able to utilize the SRF financing through the state, the lowest cost of financing available for water and sewer utilities in Missouri, since this program requires utilities to have voter approved bond authorization.
[52:37] We would see decreases in our debt service coverage ratio, which could result in a downgrade
[52:41] of our existing debt, and potentially an increase in our overall debt service and interest
[52:45] costs.
[52:46] The bottom line is not having revenue bond authorization for the utilities with some
[52:50] a negative message to the municipal debt markets and our bond holders that the utilities
[52:54] are not managing their balance sheet in a fiscal irresponsible manner by not pursuing the
[52:58] tools that give us the lowest cost form of debt financing.
[53:03] The good news is we've always had high voter approval for revenue bond authorization for the
[53:08] For the water utility, the last time we asked for revenue bond authorization was April 2014.
[53:14] We requested 500 million and it passed for 79% voter approval.
[53:18] We've issued six bonds against that authorization.
[53:21] The last one being almost two years ago in March of 2025 for roughly 145 million.
[53:26] And we currently only have 15 million remaining authorization.
[53:29] And that is why we need to get water revenue bond authorization on the ballot very soon.
[53:33] On the wastewater side, we asked voters for 750 million in April of 25 million.
[53:37] And it also passed for 79% approval, with issue two revenue bonds against that authorization and currently have 554 million left and sewer bond authorization.
[53:48] However, we have plans in the works right now to pursue three SRF loans through DNR for large scale projects.
[53:54] We'll quickly eat up most of that remaining authorization.
[53:58] To give you an understanding of why we're asking for 750 million water revenue bond authorization,
[54:03] Our current capital plan projection show over a billion in water utility capital projects over the next five years.
[54:11] Revenue bond authorization is the finance and tool that enables management to maintain appropriate leverage on the balance sheet of each utility with level rate increases over time.
[54:20] Just to be clear, 750 million in authorization will not be issued all at once.
[54:24] It will be issued over several years, over bonds like I showed on the previous slide.
[54:29] As we always do, each bond issuance will come to Council for approval, along with the projects that bond proceeds we spend on.
[54:37] Furthermore, each project within each bond issuance will come to Council for a review and approval just like the current process allows for.
[54:44] Voter approved authorization is just the first step in the capital planning process.
[54:49] This slide gives you a quick view of the next five years of CIP for the sewer utility.
[54:53] It's obviously a lot more because we're under a consent decree.
[54:56] Our capital plan projections for the sewer utility show approximately 1.
[55:00] 7 billion in projects over the next five years, mainly driven by OCP, the consent decree, the Kansas City, as well,
[55:06] and several other cities across the country are under. In an effort to be most efficient for our rate
[55:11] payers, we do plan to take advantage of the DNR's SRF program for several large scale and large dollar sewer capital
[55:17] projects. This is the proposed ballot language for the proposed water revenue bond authorization.
[55:28] Again, we're
[55:29] board by May 26 next week and week from today. And this is the revenue bond or the
[55:35] ballot language for the sewer revenue bond authorization, same thing, and it's beyond
[55:39] the ballot August 4th. This is our timeline. So I had a first read last week, now we're
[55:45] in front of committee, hopefully in two days you all will vote on this and approve it with
[55:49] the accelerated language. And we'll meet the deadline and then we'll spend the next two
[55:53] months going around to community groups to educate them on both of these ballot initiatives
[55:59] and hopefully get passage on August 4th, and with that that's all I have. I'll entertain
[56:04] any questions. All right, are there any questions coming in the committee?
[56:09] I can't spend time can. So you're telling us we need to pass this today?
[56:13] Yes. Okay. Well, please make us. I just wanted to make sure. Right. Is there any public
[56:20] testimony for December 26, 401 or an December 26, 402? No, I'm not. It's the major. No one
[56:30] question for you, to the extent that there are questions from the voters on what impact
[56:34] of any does this have on rates? What is the answer?
[56:38] The answer is it helps us keep rates that level rate increases like we've been doing. If
[56:42] you look at our long term financial plan, we take into account our ability to issue continued
[56:47] to issue debt in future years for future capital projects, but also be very judicious in
[56:55] we're managing the leverage on our balance sheet between debt and cash.
[56:59] So rates may increase as is the natural plan from correct services has.
[57:04] However, this is not for someone to be concerned that it actually has the impact of increasing
[57:11] rates anymore rapidly or anything of that sort.
[57:13] Correct.
[57:14] I will say this, though.
[57:15] If this does not pass, we will have to pursue very high forms of cost to capitalists.
[57:21] So just to give you an example, the difference between pursuing an SRF loan for a hundred
[57:25] million dollars and using a appropriation debt and this current rate environment that we're
[57:30] in, would be about $70 million in incremental interest, which case we would have to
[57:37] ask for significant rate increases above the ones we've been asking for year after year.
[57:42] I'm just to it.
[57:43] Thank you.
[57:44] And very good presentation, although I will note that you scare me even more than Tammy Queen.
[57:49] I don't know about that.
[57:54] Madam Chair, I move the order that's 260481 be reported advancing due past the full council.
[57:59] Thank you.
[58:00] I've been moved in seconded that ordinance number 260481 be reported out of committee with
[58:03] recommendation of the bans in due past.
[58:07] We also.
[58:08] Oh.
[58:09] Oh.
[58:09] This is a favor please.
[58:11] Sorry.
[58:13] Any opposed?
[58:15] The motion passes.
[58:16] Sorry.
[58:16] I forgot the second half.
[58:17] Go ahead.
[58:18] Madam Chair, I move it ordinance 260482.
[58:21] We reported events of due pass to full council.
[58:24] It's been moved in second.
[58:26] The ordinance number 260482.
[58:27] Be reported out of committee with recommendation of the banks in due pass.
[58:30] All those in favor please say aye.
[58:32] Aye.
[58:32] Any opposed?
[58:33] Okay.
[58:34] That motion has this.
[58:34] I was thinking ahead.
[58:36] Thank you.
[58:37] Thank you.
[58:38] Thank you.
[58:38] Thank you.
[58:39] Thank you.
[58:39] Thank you.
[58:39] Thank you.
[58:47] from District B, 4-5, to District MPD, and approving the development plan to allow for maintenance and redevelopment of the Country Club Plaza.
[58:58] Great.
[59:12] .
[59:13] .
[59:13] 0, 0, and amended by orders number 2, 2, 0, 7, 2, 9, and which establishes use and height
[59:21] regulations for the area generally located on the south and north sides of West 47th Street.
[59:29] Between Madison Avenue, on the west, and Mill Creek Parkway, on the east, in order to remove
[59:35] two parcels generally located on the east side of the wind industry, and between West
[59:40] 46 terrorists on the North and West 47th Street on the South, from the Overlay District.
[59:50] 2040-445 vacating the sidewalk right away and proposed the district MPD generally located
[59:58] within the area known as...
[1:00:08] Let's set aside the vacation for a while. Let's start with the MPD plan. If you will give us an update and talk about the new
[1:00:21] and how that interface with the MPD.
[1:00:24] So let's start there, I think.
[1:00:26] And whatever else you information you have for us.
[1:00:33] So first, just a reminder, there's not yet a committee
[1:00:37] study before you all.
[1:00:38] So since we last presented this to you last Tuesday,
[1:00:42] we have had several conversations with the Plaza
[1:00:46] Development Team about what was contained in the design
[1:00:50] guidelines and the conditions and deviations in the introduced ordinance.
[1:00:56] And they have shared with staff an updated version of their design guidelines document.
[1:01:03] And we've had a lot of discussion about how perhaps the conditions and deviations could be revised.
[1:01:10] So I think that you have a couple of proposed committee sums that might be shared with you.
[1:01:16] One, we would note that there does need to be a correction in the legal descriptions from the, there was a, part of it was included around easily.
[1:01:26] We've discussed quite a bit revising things to remove references to digital signage and the puzzle.
[1:01:33] We've had some discussion in the design guidelines about adding some additional design guidelines, which for taller buildings,
[1:01:40] and they have also proposed some revised language
[1:01:44] to make the design guidelines, I would say, stronger.
[1:01:48] General, more is, you know, striking word consider
[1:01:51] and using language like use, utilize.
[1:01:55] We've had some discussion about changes to the deviations
[1:02:03] related to our update, to the parking ordinance,
[1:02:06] And just some clarity around what is required for both vehicle parking and for bicycle parking.
[1:02:14] And then we've also discussed a changes to a salvage plan for block F.
[1:02:20] If that were to be redeveloped, that's the old Sears Building where the theater used to be.
[1:02:27] It changes related to, I'm leaving something out, Dustin, but now I don't see where it isn't made up.
[1:02:41] Some other changes regarding doing a inventory of items that aren't attached to a building.
[1:02:51] So, it fountains a public art sculptures in noting that if any changes were to be made,
[1:02:57] that there has to be a plan submitted about how those items would be preserved.
[1:03:02] I think that would be another notable change that we've discussed.
[1:03:08] So I'm happy to answer any questions or to ask further into any of those details.
[1:03:15] I'd also be happy at this point to discuss the ordinance 26486 regarding the plausible overlay.
[1:03:22] Yes, why didn't you go ahead and do that?
[1:03:24] Because I think there's some questions about why this was introduced.
[1:03:28] And so I rolled that has any over all in PD plan.
[1:03:32] Sure. So ordinance 26486 that was introduced last week and is before you for the first time today.
[1:03:38] would it be an amendment to the possible overlay?
[1:03:41] This was discussed before CPC with the original MPD.
[1:03:47] Again, here's the site in the midtown area of the city,
[1:03:53] and you all are familiar with the area.
[1:03:55] It's included in the MPD plan.
[1:03:57] I would note that there are two parcels here,
[1:04:00] at the corner of Lyon dot in West 47th Street,
[1:04:04] that are not owned by the General Plaza ownership
[1:04:06] are owned by commerce bank, and they are located within the plausible overlay.
[1:04:12] So this map shows you in blue the area that is defined by the zoning
[1:04:16] ordinances being part of the country club plaza that's in blue.
[1:04:21] And then in orange is the area that's governed by the plausible overlay, which was adopted
[1:04:27] as ordinance 190 100, and so these two parcels are in that area.
[1:04:34] We had discussed, as part of this, an amendment to the plausible to take those out, and after some additional discussions decided that would be cleaner as a separate ordinance rather than being included in the MPD rezoning.
[1:04:50] One of the plan sheets that's included in the MPD does show these two parcels in green with the cross hatch is being removed from the plausible overlay.
[1:05:00] This is important for two reasons, as we're concerned about conflicts between the adopted MPD and the overlay. One would be in terms of height, the plausible overlay does establish lower height limits for those two, but also in terms of permitted uses.
[1:05:17] There are some differences between the uses that are permitted or permitted with an S special use permit or prohibited in the plausible overlay and what's being proposed in this MPD.
[1:05:27] and I've summarized a few of them here in this slide, we feel that making this change will
[1:05:32] provide some clarity to staff and the developer in the future, and that's why we're
[1:05:36] showing this as a separate ordinance. And again, this was came before, is that you plan
[1:05:42] commission with the NPD in general and they did recommend approval. And I'm happy to answer
[1:05:47] any questions you might have.
[1:05:49] And just to be clear, those two parcels while I'm on own by the very are included in
[1:05:54] the MPD plans, and I think that was the, the, all for I think there was in discussion last
[1:06:03] week about what the, the applicant or the owners suggested committee subsidies, suggested
[1:06:10] changes included removing those two parcels from the overlay, but the suggestion of staff
[1:06:19] was to have that as a separate ordinance, so it would be cleaner because there's a map that
[1:06:26] says those parcels, and if you go back to the slide number four, if you will,
[1:06:37] the area
[1:06:38] and blue is a separate, it has separate rules governing,
[1:06:45] it's sending parcels that parcels in forage.
[1:06:51] So I think that is, in my mind, that is why dealing with it
[1:06:59] separately is very complicated that took me a while
[1:07:05] and a few maps to go through the process because we have different ordinances, different places
[1:07:12] in which the restrictions are included, somewhere in the code, somewhere in ordinances.
[1:07:20] So I just wanted to make it clear for everyone because I know there are some questions
[1:07:26] and why we're doing this.
[1:07:28] Councilman Duncan. Yes Madam Chair, I have failed to communicate to the clerk, but I would like to be added as a
[1:07:36] co-sponsor for 26, 0, 4, 8, 6. So for those in the audience, this is a new ordinance. We will take
[1:07:43] order testimony in a bit on the sole issue of removal from these two parcels from the overly
[1:07:53] districts, I would ask that you combine your testimonies specifically to whether or not to exclude
[1:08:00] these two parcels from the Plaza Bowl overlay district. But I think we should go back to the
[1:08:10] original kind of overarching topic of the MPD ordinance and kind of the questions that we
[1:08:23] have, and I think that you mentioned Ms. Copeland of the possibility of some committee
[1:08:31] substance, which I think that have been suggested, and there's some that have been agreed
[1:08:38] to from the underside, and how we proceed with them. And perhaps I think from ease of discussion
[1:08:50] from the Council, because we will not take additional testimony on the MPD. I think we have taken significant
[1:08:56] testimony on that. We received substantial email testimony, which I think has all been attached
[1:09:03] to the clerks website. It's kind of walking through each of those and preparing a committee
[1:09:15] I think we should start with each of those items and have that discussion.
[1:09:24] I think the one item you mentioned, probably non-controversial,
[1:09:30] the removal of the parcel that is not adjacent to the plaza.
[1:09:33] I think it's actually in the Waldo area.
[1:09:35] I believe that is a property owned by the owners of the Plaza, it is used as a storage or maintenance facility.
[1:09:46] And so that is something, unless anyone has objection, we will remove that from the MBD plan.
[1:09:54] The second question would be,
[1:10:02] Perhaps the loading and loading spaces, is that the next one, or, sir, do you want to walk us through?
[1:10:11] From the introduced ordinance, staff was suggest that condition number 3 could be struck.
[1:10:17] It's no longer needed because of the updated parking ordinance.
[1:10:22] Right. We would suggest striking condition number 6, because that would be addressed by a couple of deviations
[1:10:29] that the applicant has requested, that's with regards to loading and unloading in the right of way.
[1:10:36] We don't actually have a can city plan commission was supportive of this approval to allow them to use the right of way for loading and unloading.
[1:10:46] That's something that happens now.
[1:10:48] It's just that we can address that with a deviation because those are standards contained in the ordinance.
[1:10:53] Let me stop you there.
[1:10:56] Doesn't you have the presentation that you have your list of requests available?
[1:11:04] I'm just wondering if there's a way that we can put some additional on this screen.
[1:11:08] If you'll give me just a minute, let me pull my laptop up and see if I have a presentation that may help facilitate this.
[1:11:14] Okay.
[1:11:14] All right.
[1:11:16] Go ahead and let's, I think we can, I don't want to take up too much time.
[1:11:21] but I know we have that last week.
[1:11:32] Yes.
[1:11:33] Just to nail down where we are, I know that on Friday we had a conversation
[1:11:38] and you had paired 10 major points that we wanted to ensure
[1:11:42] we're included in a committee substitute from what I
[1:11:47] understood it would Sarah had spoken with.
[1:11:50] I believe it was Chris on Friday there's been additional documents
[1:11:55] It's funny, I think, as early as this morning, I would love for us to nail down where
[1:12:02] the gaps are between the 10 points that we'd agreed to.
[1:12:06] Mayor staff is in that meeting as well, and where the plaza folks are to see if we can
[1:12:12] get something out today.
[1:12:22] And looking at for that list of 10 items, and I think I think the, I think the, I think the,
[1:12:29] go ahead.
[1:12:29] Well, if I may, yeah, just for clarity, for those of us who aren't quite that,
[1:12:33] as involved. I mean, to city planning and development have its own, if you were to draft
[1:12:39] a committee's substitute, have a version of that. Have the class as the applicants seen,
[1:12:47] or at least, do you have an understanding for what are the proposals of city planning and development?
[1:12:53] I believe that we have a spirit of probably where staff is. I have not seen verbatim what they
[1:13:01] I have drafted, we had an extremely productive meeting, right, and have had additional conversations.
[1:13:08] So I would, I think, holistically, we're probably on the same page, if not on the same
[1:13:16] verse, but I have not seen final language.
[1:13:20] I'm happy to step through that real time and hammer this out today.
[1:13:25] Because what, yeah, because my thought might be if there is a committee substitute that would
[1:13:30] worthy of our review and perhaps you have sent it, but if that could be circulated to the
[1:13:36] committee in the form, I'll make it mine since—thank you for following the rules—we
[1:13:42] do the committee sums. Sometimes people forget that, but I'd be happy to circulate this as
[1:13:48] a potential committee substitute that I will introduce and then to the councilman's point,
[1:13:53] perhaps that's the subject of our discussion where both the applicant and others that we
[1:13:59] heard from have a chance to inform our viewpoints.
[1:14:03] So can you?
[1:14:04] Yes, and we can send it right now.
[1:14:07] That's actually what you're talking about.
[1:14:09] You are working from, so I think it's, yeah, I think if we can, let me see, I will send
[1:14:14] it right now.
[1:14:16] But I think, kind of highlighting the big points of this, so those in the audience will
[1:14:22] know as well. But I think parking and loading,
[1:14:29] having a salvage plan with respect to block
[1:14:36] F, which is the Sears Building or Swapsers Block, within, I can't talk and send an email
[1:14:45] at the same time. So, Duncan, do you have it?
[1:14:48] I will pull it up.
[1:14:54] I think another large one while you're playing that up, if you don't mind.
[1:14:57] Okay.
[1:14:57] Chairman, was the removal of digital.
[1:15:00] Signage throughout the Plaza, so that was something we had a great discussion with with staff on Friday.
[1:15:06] We have agreed to remove digital signages of provision. Just getting some highlights here while you guys pull up those documents.
[1:15:13] We also had some conversation and some refinement related to the monument sign location, so that would be kind of monument signs in the right of way.
[1:15:21] Really focused on visibility triangles and really kind of tightening that up.
[1:15:25] We also, Sarah mentioned this, but I think it's important to highlight any new multi-family
[1:15:32] development would be required to provide long-term bike parking as required by City
[1:15:36] Code, which we think is important and was our intention.
[1:15:39] So if some of this was just ensuring that everybody's intention was captured through the
[1:15:45] deviations and or the design guidelines, speaking to the design guidelines as Sarah mentioned,
[1:15:51] we did spend a significant amount of work,
[1:15:55] tightening up that language,
[1:15:56] removing the word consider and adding stronger language in there,
[1:16:00] like utilization or use.
[1:16:02] We also added a section related to buildings
[1:16:05] that could be greater than eight stories,
[1:16:08] putting additional design controls there
[1:16:10] within the design guidelines.
[1:16:13] So I think that kind of at a high level is a few
[1:16:16] to kind of help as you look through your email there
[1:16:20] Yes.
[1:16:21] Thank you.
[1:16:23] Thank you.
[1:16:25] So it was the salvage plan, shades study.
[1:16:30] I don't think we've touched on the Council of Peel provisions within the original
[1:16:38] master plan development, which would essentially provide an additional appeal to Council
[1:16:43] from any CPC decision.
[1:16:46] And then the phasing, I think there is additional phasing plan for this, and then thank you for touching on the design lines.
[1:16:54] I can't stress enough that the design guidelines given the communities concern regarding height are paramount.
[1:17:04] And parking signs, which are touched on, fencing, and that's the bulk of it.
[1:17:11] And I think the question I'm fencing. I don't think that has been addressed. I think it was just a question.
[1:17:18] There was a condition that the deviation to allow six foot fence in the front and side yard.
[1:17:26] Can you just comment about why that is necessary? And this is more of a question and it was unclear to me why that was necessary.
[1:17:36] Yeah, I'll do my best here.
[1:17:39] So I think our concern is that it exists today,
[1:17:42] and I'll use some examples kind of closer
[1:17:45] to a breast creek and ward parkway.
[1:17:48] We have some existing building,
[1:17:49] or a lot of existing buildings out there today,
[1:17:51] that have traps, compactors, and dumpsters,
[1:17:54] is I read the existing code related to defencing and screening,
[1:17:58] those are probably not in compliance today.
[1:18:00] And so we have a little hard burn
[1:18:02] as we begin to do renovation and redevelopment
[1:18:05] that the ability to screen a trash compactor might require a fence greater than 4 feet, and I think that would be in the side yard, because the way I interpret the code is it exists today to side yard, some of those dumpsters and facilities would be within there.
[1:18:22] So we would want to fence potentially greater than 4 feet there. So that's our concern. I don't think this is a major sticking point, chairwoman, but that's our perspective as we sit today.
[1:18:35] And that, I think, in the committee's subsidy, that deviation was left in there in number.
[1:18:45] But the committee's subsidy didn't see aid was allowed.
[1:18:49] So it's more relating to fencing and screening as opposed to putting a full fence around a building.
[1:18:59] Absolutely.
[1:19:00] intention is not related to security fencing or fencing off any portion that rough. It's more
[1:19:07] frustrating. So I think, you know, looking at the committee's absolute bet is being proposed
[1:19:14] by CPC staff or not CPC staff, but planning department staff. I think the only,
[1:19:36] Let's couple and I'll see 11.
[1:19:40] I'll put it at the top of your inbox.
[1:19:44] For deviation in the height of the bottom line,
[1:19:48] or block D, I'm sorry.
[1:19:51] So if you remove those two parcels from the possible overlay,
[1:19:55] that deviation is not needed.
[1:19:57] Okay.
[1:20:00] All right. So,
[1:20:06] other apart from what is being discussed so far, there are other deviations that you are seeking
[1:20:15] them what we've talked about.
[1:20:16] I don't believe so.
[1:20:17] And you're not seeking the appeal from the commission.
[1:20:24] We are fine striking that deviation.
[1:20:27] There are any other questions,
[1:20:35] right?
[1:20:37] So, Mr.er.
[1:20:42] All right.
[1:20:43] The committee steps to reflect what I guess we've now circulated.
[1:20:47] You can call it the mayor's committee's substitute to make it easier for council,
[1:20:51] which would reflect entirely the city planning and development department.
[1:20:55] The committee's steps to do.
[1:20:57] Yes.
[1:20:58] I'm sorry, interrupt.
[1:20:59] Can I just ask one clarifying question?
[1:21:01] We had a kind of last minute, just session about finance.
[1:21:05] That's fine.
[1:21:07] Yes, that I don't think was included in when I first received, but maybe you've updated that in the draft that you sent to the mayor.
[1:21:16] I have not.
[1:21:17] Outdoor advertising.
[1:21:19] A point of just procedure.
[1:21:22] Should I email this to the committee?
[1:21:25] I think that this committee said I think we have.
[1:21:29] Okay, that's what I'm done in that has, so this, the red line that shows all what is being
[1:21:37] proposed by planning staff, the deviations has been prepared, has been emailed.
[1:21:43] It does include the additional deviation that you and I discussed this morning with regards
[1:21:49] to sign it up for.
[1:21:54] So I'm going to call for public testimony, ordinance number two, 60 or four, eight, six.
[1:22:01] This is relating to the removal of the two parcels from the Plaza Boe overlay.
[1:22:07] I have three cards. I'm just going to call each of them. Ethan Star, Vicki Noetis,
[1:22:12] and a million back in time. If you will go ahead and come forward.
[1:22:21] Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Vicki Noetis.
[1:22:25] I live at 14 knees, 50 fifth terrace. And I'm speaking on behalf of the organizations
[1:22:30] and the neighborhood coalition that's had concerns about the MPD.
[1:22:34] Our concern today, well, one, apparently you guys are meeting Friday that hashed out a bunch of details.
[1:22:40] We've been asking questions since Friday and haven't received any answers about them.
[1:22:44] So, excuse us, if we're behind a table here.
[1:22:49] I don't think there's any reason to take these two parcels out of the overlay to accomplish what you want to do.
[1:22:55] For the same reason, we didn't take the entire MPD out of the overlay.
[1:23:00] When we talked to the Gill and Girl early on last year, the year before about the benefits
[1:23:07] of staying in the overlay, which is important to them, as anybody else who is around
[1:23:13] it, is that it protects you from unwanted uses if you go back to before five, before five,
[1:23:22] it's a horrible zoning category, which we've been trying to get rid of for years.
[1:23:27] And the only way we've been able to do that is with and overlay if this if these two
[1:23:32] parcels ever revert back to be four or five everybody's in trouble because of the uses
[1:23:37] that are allowed you don't get any you can build stuff without even coming to the city at all
[1:23:42] just go get a building permit for some of this stuff which includes some of the uses that are
[1:23:48] excluded so that that seems to me like the best thing to do is treat this like we did
[1:23:53] in the first ordinance with the MPD, don't resone it from B45 because it's not B45.
[1:24:02] Resone it from the overlay with whatever it is you want in there.
[1:24:05] The same way you did is the MPD because any parcels that come out of the overlay,
[1:24:10] you're going to see a domino effect of everybody else who once out of the overlay.
[1:24:15] When it was first discussed in first past, most of the property owners,
[1:24:20] which are the orange ones, they're multiple property owners in there,
[1:24:23] which is why it was done after the first one,
[1:24:25] which was all owned by high loads at the time,
[1:24:28] is that they all said, well, we'll agree to this.
[1:24:31] We'll come into this as long as everybody stays in this
[1:24:34] because if somebody else wants out, then we want out.
[1:24:38] That's gonna create huge problems in the future
[1:24:41] for everybody and including the Gillian Group.
[1:24:45] So my request is that if you're gonna do a separate
[1:24:49] substitute, committee substitute for this, that you change it to not get rid of the overlay,
[1:24:58] just amend the overlay the same way.
[1:25:02] So that that's more consistent than taking this out of the overlay entirely, which I'm still not sure why we're doing that.
[1:25:12] Thank you. Please consider not taking it out of the overlay.
[1:25:16] Thank you,
[1:25:26] Elia McIntyre. In this context, I'm representing both Plaza Westport and Parkway
[1:25:34] Towers as both were very much involved in the passage of ordinance 19.0100. That was very
[1:25:44] involved and it took a lot of collaboration with those owners along the north. We are very concerned
[1:25:55] about the precedent that this will set for others to come in, so suddenly we have a
[1:26:03] height war going on to the detriment of everyone else who's already invested in their homes
[1:26:11] in their businesses along that building and ability to rely on what zoning is in place is important.
[1:26:20] What I just heard and we not have the benefit of seeing the committee's sub so we're fencing in the dark
[1:26:26] But what I heard is that the deviation imposing a height limit was no longer necessary
[1:26:33] Why is that does it revert to be for five at some point?
[1:26:37] Which is unlimited height?
[1:26:39] That is very concerning to us. That was the purpose of ordinance
[1:26:45] 19,000, 100, not passed all that long ago and it was very important and engaged many people
[1:26:53] in the community. We fear that that is being overlooked, that public engagement to keep
[1:27:00] those buildings and when you do this, you know the next people are going to be asking is David
[1:27:07] Block for the Plaza Medical Building that's got the murals on it at 4620 Mill Creek Parkway
[1:27:12] another height. It's going to be other owners and you've started a war of height.
[1:27:19] 19100 was to do a plan to be implemented and honored and that put a height on sight
[1:27:28] D that's being ignored. Thank you.
[1:27:37] Ethan Star from Historic Kansas City, I'll speak very briefly
[1:27:39] just to the buildings affected by this ordinance. Complete between 1923, 1924.
[1:27:46] The set of buildings we see along 47th Street, Wine Dot, No Creek Parkway.
[1:27:51] This established the original nucleus of the Plaza, the adjacent tower and Wolframin's
[1:27:56] buildings.
[1:27:57] That's a commerce bank building along 47th Street and Wine Dot.
[1:28:00] The latter serving his home to commerce for many decades were among the first buildings
[1:28:05] of the Plaza.
[1:28:06] Our interpretation over the last decade here has been that the 45 foot height limit has protected
[1:28:12] these buildings from demolition.
[1:28:14] And that's all there is, essentially, in terms of zoning protections that disincentivized
[1:28:19] demolition, that would be going away if this rezoning were to go through.
[1:28:26] The related MPD plan, because of course, a height of 178 feet for this block, well,
[1:28:31] demarcating a boundary of only 20 feet behind these historic storefronts, the exterior storefronts
[1:28:38] at which construction of a tower could reach that full height.
[1:28:41] The narrow buffer here comes from the character contributing designation created by the applicants,
[1:28:47] which proposes the proposal extends to a few buildings on this block, but notably excludes
[1:28:54] both of the wine dot facing exterior facades of the two buildings subject to the resounding.
[1:29:01] This is a mistake, which city planning staff recommendations sought to remedy months ago,
[1:29:06] And which should be addressed in a committee substitute,
[1:29:10] all plans of buildings we believe over a century in age are worthy of the character contributing status and should be granted it.
[1:29:17] These buildings are over 75 feet in depth at even their narrowest point,
[1:29:22] and there's nothing in the MPD associated with this rezoning that would stop the demolition of the vast majority of the building footprint.
[1:29:30] It's our view that at least the first 45 feet toward the street front of these buildings should be left off limits to demolition and
[1:29:38] Otherwise we're putting ourselves at risk of a facade act to me. Thanks so much
[1:29:45] Thank you
[1:29:49] Howard and gentlemen, I'm lying is there
[1:29:54] Bring these two items back to committee will hold up on the vacation
[1:30:01] Yes, thank you Madam Chairwoman. I want to address the concerns raised regarding height.
[1:30:11] You know, we've had a lot of discussions about the future of the plaza, the history of the plaza, and where we want to see the plaza to go.
[1:30:20] We've had a lot of conversations, there's been a lot of debate at the port authority and other places regarding incentives.
[1:30:30] I believe that by ensuring that we have established strong desired guidelines in this master plan development,
[1:30:40] that the character of the plaza will be maintained.
[1:30:42] Councilman Boone, I traveled to Dallas. We visited Highland Park and saw the great care that
[1:30:50] you all have taken care of in that development. And I trust that with these design guidelines
[1:30:55] established within this master plan development that that care will continue regardless
[1:31:00] of how high the buildings are. Additionally, I believe that the Plaza is one of the most
[1:31:08] densely populated places in Kansas City other than downtown.
[1:31:13] I think that it can handle the density.
[1:31:16] I think it will be good for the plaza.
[1:31:18] And I think when we think about the future incentive requests,
[1:31:23] that that brings some of that down to Earth
[1:31:25] provides better pay for our teachers,
[1:31:30] that provides better protections for our libraries
[1:31:33] and protects our tax and jurisdictions and our children.
[1:31:36] And so for those reasons, I support additional height on the plaza, and I want to make that clear.
[1:31:48] Ready for motion?
[1:31:49] That means
[1:31:56] you also have a month, I'm sorry, friend.
[1:31:59] Yeah, I stepped in on a midway through the presentation here, and I was trying to figure out where we are with,
[1:32:09] You know, maybe what the Councilman Doug can just mentioned is the committee's substitute
[1:32:16] envisioning increasing the height, or what exactly are we, because I share some of the
[1:32:24] same thoughts is that, you know, on one hand, we're obviously we're trying to, we're really
[1:32:29] trying to balance historic preservation, place, the preservation of place, architectural character,
[1:32:38] balancing that with the need to increase housing density, increase housing options. We need to build
[1:32:48] more housing period. That's a policy goal of this bodies and perhaps which one, which one
[1:32:58] outweighs. I think that's what this committee is really charged with here. But then the other part
[1:33:06] that as Councilman Duncan mentioned was that you get a higher economy of scale with density
[1:33:11] in so many ways, but particularly in this case, potentially as we've discussed in the past,
[1:33:16] potentially on the overall value of the incentive request and how much can that come down
[1:33:24] with that density?
[1:33:25] I think that's still a question that needs to be answered one that I've asked and would appreciate
[1:33:28] more clarity on, but I think when we're talking about, when we're talking about the balance
[1:33:34] between these two things, I think Council and Duncan is absolutely right that their design
[1:33:39] guidelines in place and already protections on essentially all of the plaza from demolition
[1:33:47] with maybe some exceptions, as was discussed previously.
[1:33:52] In the end, are we preserving, are we preserving buildings, are we preserving a view?
[1:33:57] And I think that when we're talking about preserving of view,
[1:34:02] then my, I'm always going to lean in the direction of adding density
[1:34:07] in this case, adding some height, because those two things,
[1:34:13] it's more efficient delivery of services for the rest of the city,
[1:34:17] including reduction of potentially the incentive request
[1:34:20] to, it adds more housing into the, into the, into the market here.
[1:34:25] And I'm sorry, but we have to rethink what the plaza looks like.
[1:34:29] I know that everyone agrees to that, but when we constantly, and I say all these things,
[1:34:35] this is a former representative of this used to be in the Fort District.
[1:34:38] And so I hope I'm not stepping on toes of this accessory, but we have to diversify the quote
[1:34:44] quote, quote, portfolio of land uses, because we hear all the time about how the plaza retail
[1:34:52] environment. Retail environment curi it is struggling. The way that we address that is by adding
[1:34:58] more rooftops in this case.
[1:35:10] We've got to add more housing to the city, and we've got to diversify the land uses and the building types and the housing types in this district in order for it to continue to thrive. I would argue in order for it to survive. Not just thrive, so I'll just leave it at that.
[1:35:29] May I clarify something about the committee's ad?
[1:35:32] There's submitted plan sheets,
[1:35:35] show the developers requested heights for each block.
[1:35:40] If you and the committee's sub removes the deviation
[1:35:43] about the plausible overlay, if you're going to take those two parcels out,
[1:35:48] if city plan commission recommended lowering heights on two blocks,
[1:35:53] and that is a condition that's still in the committee's sub,
[1:35:55] if you wanted to go with the heights requested by the developer, you would want to remove
[1:36:00] condition 12B from the committee substitute.
[1:36:07] That was the recommendation from CPC.
[1:36:21] I had a chance to see Island Park last year. I think it was, and one of the things that really
[1:36:28] stuck out to me was a, I don't know, six or seven story building. You might remember which building
[1:36:34] I'm talking about, that you used as an example to explain how good design can make sure
[1:36:41] height is not overbearing and all is to mention all that I'm stair stepped up if you are
[1:36:48] standing at the base of the building that did not feel like
[1:36:56] you stepped away.
[1:37:00] In a way that
[1:37:01] did not seem overbearing.
[1:37:05] I guess two part question one is that similar approach you are intent
[1:37:11] with the kind of height filled into these locations on the plaza.
[1:37:17] Yes, so to answer your question there, I think that is a very good example that you
[1:37:20] saw in person of a project we've completed previously.
[1:37:23] These are relates here.
[1:37:24] We firmly believe that the experience within the streets are really the first 30 feet is
[1:37:30] very important.
[1:37:31] And so you'll see within a design guidelines there's a chart that is established a set
[1:37:36] back and step back throughout the plaza for any vertical development, it also creates buffer
[1:37:41] zones around existing vertical towers and coopalas, those type of vertical elements that
[1:37:47] are so important to the plaza today. So we believe that that sets kind of the bare minimum
[1:37:52] standard, so to speak, right, those guardrails, and then also we've created in the design
[1:37:58] guidelines and as part of the MPD, FAR regulations as well that will begin to allow our designers
[1:38:05] some flexibility, right?
[1:38:06] It's not highly prescriptive, but it, again, sets those kind of design parameters around that.
[1:38:11] So we ensure that we create buildings that are, we say, we don't want to building the
[1:38:15] just file out of the sky or file off a piece of paper that's not contextual, and it does not
[1:38:20] interfere or interrupt the experience that exists today.
[1:38:24] So we think that we've crafted through the design guidelines and throughout a lot of work with
[1:38:28] staff and other consultants, those guardrails and guidelines that mold the final design.
[1:38:36] And that was my second question for staff was if that was included in the guidelines sounds like it is.
[1:38:41] Yes, they've added tall building section to the design guidelines and the plan sheets note that the floor area ratio, maximum floor area ratio for this entire area would be six.
[1:38:55] Madam Chair, I offer a motion to you.
[1:38:58] I think the only thing that I would add to this is, although I did serve on the Board of
[1:39:02] Zoning Adjustment for a while, four years, and then the predecessor to the Neighborhood
[1:39:07] Planning Development Committee, I don't pretend to know everything and I have not been
[1:39:11] in all the meetings, so I put a lot of faith first in our city planning commission to be
[1:39:15] planning and development, and then serve the colleagues for the district.
[1:39:19] As we did in 2019, with the passage of a prior ordinance, and as I'll do this time, so
[1:39:24] Make a following motion to advance and do pass recommendation committee steps to afford
[1:39:30] its 20443 with a following additional modifications removal of Section 12B from the staff committee
[1:39:38] steps to do.
[1:39:39] Which actually the mayor's committee steps to do.
[1:39:41] And then I would add a $5,000 appropriation to ensure a communication and notice of changes
[1:39:46] personal and to the ordinance.
[1:39:48] I'd be to committee steps to do.
[1:39:51] It's a move to the second.
[1:39:52] I think committee substitute board and it's number 240 or 260 or 440.
[1:39:58] 440.
[1:39:59] 440.
[1:40:00] We reported out of committee with a recommendation at the Bansendee Pass. All those in favour please say aye.
[1:40:07] Any opposed? Here's the mission passes. We will now take out the removal, the next ordinance before the.
[1:40:20] For four stations. So four, four, four, oh, we'll do the first one. Yes, that would be.
[1:40:26] It's just my agenda.
[1:40:29] Four, eight, six.
[1:40:31] Yes.
[1:40:31] Didn't he overlead?
[1:40:34] Madam Chair,
[1:40:37] there's no committee substitute to this item.
[1:40:42] And let me just check real quick.
[1:40:50] The pass item two, six, zero, four, eight, six to the full council.
[1:40:55] Seconded.
[1:40:55] Seconded.
[1:40:56] Seconded.
[1:40:56] Seconded.
[1:40:56] Seconded.
[1:40:56] Seconded.
[1:41:00] Seconded.
[1:41:05] Seconded.
[1:41:06] Now, let's go to the Vacation Ordinance.
[1:41:13] I'm sorry, I know you had some questions, you want to.
[1:41:18] I did.
[1:41:21] I don't want to do anything about that.
[1:41:24] It's a good lesson.
[1:41:25] I'll pose the question to, who is in best position to answer,
[1:41:28] is probably an attorney of some sort.
[1:41:31] Anyone of us, maybe legal.
[1:41:33] So my question is about implications for the first amendment and what the vacation would mean.
[1:41:45] I know that there are items that the CPC required in regard to 247 pedestrian access,
[1:41:57] but it doesn't really get at the conduct while accessing the sidewalk, whether it's protesting,
[1:42:03] reporting, standing on the corner, like the folks that preach,
[1:42:12] and so if this is going to
[1:42:16] become private, then those rights are applied in a different way. And I know that
[1:42:25] there is a code of conduct, I know that it has to be listed publicly, but I am concerned
[1:42:31] about taking space that has all the protections of the first amendment and changing that.
[1:42:38] No matter what the intent might be in a code of conduct or what might be spelled out in
[1:42:43] a code of conduct, which I don't know is legally binding sure isn't as high and glad
[1:42:49] as constitutional rights.
[1:42:51] So I guess I mean my question initially is for legal when we vacate sidewalks, how does
[1:42:58] the first amendment apply or not apply moving forward, and then I think my follow
[1:43:04] question will be for you all and how you will exercise whatever changes there are.
[1:43:13] Sir, sir, I'm actually just looking at me, so I'll ask her to back me up here.
[1:43:16] Okay, yeah, I'm happy to take so I mean if it's if it's if it's vacated it's
[1:43:21] private property, right?
[1:43:22] So it's no longer going to be a traditional public forum, like it would be a
[1:43:26] sidewalk. We do have some conditions in the ordinance, one of which includes their code of conduct.
[1:43:35] We also have obviously the provisions about 24-7 access, but there isn't anything that
[1:43:42] addresses protests or whether that would be allowed. I think their code of conduct is not
[1:43:56] that conduct if it became disruptive, is somebody able, yeah, somebody's putting it on the screen.
[1:44:02] That sort of thing. So it is different. It's not, it wouldn't be considered a traditional public form anymore.
[1:44:09] First amendment purposes.
[1:44:10] Correct.
[1:44:15] And what can you tell us about the forceability of the code of conduct?
[1:44:22] Well, I mean, let me put it this way, both their ability to enforce it and our ability to ensure that it is not being
[1:44:30] forced in a discriminatory manner.
[1:44:34] So I would say they would have the ability to enforce this because it would be private property.
[1:44:42] In terms of our ability to, there's a general section in the Eastman which we're still negotiating
[1:44:50] which addresses a breach and so if we believe that they were being, you know, two stringent
[1:44:58] with that we could.
[1:45:00] So, perhaps an injunction to try to resolve that. I mean, the first step would be to give them notice under the easement as they drafted it, but if we were not able to come to a consensus, I think that would ultimately be the remedy for that.
[1:45:16] And as I'm looking through the list here, just about every one of these seems to correlate with something already included in our code that would make any of this activity already prohibited or criminal.
[1:45:31] And so, what is the vacation and this code of conduct give you that you would not already be able to rely on that's in our code that you could call the police what?
[1:45:42] May hazard a brief answer because this came up in Westport.
[1:45:47] Same side, opposite sides of the same coin.
[1:45:50] The second amendment concerns is the one that I would have some sort of issue with and the
[1:45:56] carrying of firearms and others on the property of the remains of our traditional not just only a public
[1:46:02] form of public space, certain abilities to control carrying in certain spaces and to enforce the
[1:46:09] possession of firearms and the types of carry would be rather different.
[1:46:13] They just can as compared to private property owners having something different.
[1:46:18] I think I've raised it once before, and some discussion, that's my primary concern.
[1:46:22] Well, in the way that Westport forces have been most far as through metal detectors and checkpoints.
[1:46:28] And I know there's something in here.
[1:46:30] I know there's something in here that's interesting.
[1:46:32] That's great.
[1:46:34] How do you, otherwise, how do you force,
[1:46:40] you know, second of them in that situation,
[1:46:43] or the possession of a firearm, or it's not allowed,
[1:46:46] I suppose it gives you some power after the fact if someone has a gun or they're not supposed
[1:46:50] to in your prosecution, but not necessarily preventative if you're not doing anything to ensure
[1:46:54] it's being complied with.
[1:46:56] And so I hear you that it would be great to make an area where that probably can prohibition
[1:47:01] exists.
[1:47:02] It doesn't really give you any product of power unless you're doing something to screen people.
[1:47:06] I would argue that if you actually see the weapon, that's does happen in these districts
[1:47:10] and areas you would be able to have the person much like inside any other type of property.
[1:47:15] where you don't have mental detectors up front, right?
[1:47:18] And we have many buildings like that in this city, right?
[1:47:22] You can't ask the person to leave, that establishes your trespass rights as the property owner.
[1:47:28] It certainly gives you more steps.
[1:47:30] And this is the central and essential legislative tool that allows you to do so without it.
[1:47:36] You actually just don't have that right, at all.
[1:47:38] And so you're a cop fairly far beyond the aid volume I opinion, in terms of being able to address
[1:47:47] So is that the basis, is that the reason for the request for the vacation is to...
[1:47:54] I'm having to answer that from our perspective.
[1:47:56] Thank you mayor for your perspective as well.
[1:47:59] So it's really a two part thing here is a relates to sidewalk vacation from our perspective as our
[1:48:05] One is we are highly focused on the experience of someone has an
[1:48:11] approach, and that goes from the visual appearance, from the physical appearance.
[1:48:16] And so, sidewalk vacation cuts out this whose responsibility is to
[1:48:20] maintain the sidewalk and invest.
[1:48:22] As you look at our design guidelines and our plans, we intend to
[1:48:27] heavily reinvest within that sidewalk space.
[1:48:29] And so, having those sidewalks be under our control and authority
[1:48:33] and a long-term position gives us certainty in that level of financial commitment on the reconstruct.
[1:48:40] That's one piece of it.
[1:48:41] Secondly, and you note this, the rules and regulation of the code of conduct does near many existing city codes and ordinances.
[1:48:50] What I find across the country dealing with public space is often times, even though that may be in our ordinance,
[1:48:56] enforcement may not follow that, right?
[1:48:59] That is a low priority often times for law enforcement, and so what I have found and we have found historically is when we have an additional layer in there
[1:49:09] Our private security and or law enforcement, sometimes, are more willing to address infractions that may already be city code and have really have no additional bearing on the code and so that's kind of a two part answer to your question, hopefully sir
[1:49:27] We do have to have control of the sidewalks to invest in them.
[1:49:31] We would prefer to have control of the sidewalks to make long-term capital investments, yes,
[1:49:35] or yes.
[1:49:36] I think we'd prefer it, but we don't actually have to have it if you were wanting to work
[1:49:41] with the city to invest in the sidewalks.
[1:49:44] We would still maintain the asset or liability dependent on how you see it, but you would
[1:49:50] still be able to put those investments in work with the city on the sidewalks and those
[1:49:56] kinds of improvements.
[1:49:56] There's nothing that would prohibit a public private.
[1:50:00] Work in relationship to do so.
[1:50:08] And are your private security not able to address these types of activities if the land is, if the sidewalks are publicly owned?
[1:50:21] I would say what we run into is if we do have an issue of non-compliance, oftentimes law enforcement may say, well that's a public sidewalk they can do whatever they want.
[1:50:33] I run into that across the country, that's not picking on any law enforcement here.
[1:50:38] I deal with that across the country.
[1:50:40] I would hope our folks are a little more aware.
[1:50:45] We've had several go-around this last year and conversations
[1:50:48] about loitering and ordinances we've passed,
[1:50:52] and I would hope that they're in a good position
[1:50:54] to know what activity,
[1:50:58] right?
[1:50:58] Honestly, what you're saying sounds like a cop out and seems more.
[1:51:07] Okay, yeah, I just,
[1:51:16] when you're taking an asset out of the public realm, specifically one that vote,
[1:51:37] and, you know, I'm not talking
[1:51:46] about relations that turn,
[1:51:50] destruct, recent, peaceful protests of folks walking up and down the sidewalk and thinking of the guy that
[1:51:58] I walked past that,
[1:52:00] not really listening to what he's saying, but he's reading something from some religious text, you know, whatever might be.
[1:52:09] To those examples, if I may, to those examples, and I think you go one slide up.
[1:52:20] Yeah, I was going to suggest that.
[1:52:22] Thank you, because we were kind of cut off, and they provide examples.
[1:52:28] Things that aren't allowed that are quite broad, some of them.
[1:52:30] So play, dressing inappropriately.
[1:52:34] That's where it thinks so.
[1:52:35] I do want to highlight, so if I may briefly hear, we think, and I go back to the experience.
[1:52:42] We think great places have that stickiness and kind of have some unexpected nature.
[1:52:48] We want people to be walking through the puzzle.
[1:52:51] We are happy for people to have the ability for their free expression under the first amendment.
[1:52:57] Or I would ask for a change into a hater would be very offensive, aggressive nature of a sign or something that interrupts that or blocking at the sidewalk.
[1:53:08] And I think we can all agree that if you are expressing your first amendment, but preventing
[1:53:14] people from entering a store or something of that nature, that creates an experience
[1:53:19] in a option.
[1:53:20] And so we think that that's very important, but I did want to highlight here, activities
[1:53:23] that we believe would be allowed throughout here.
[1:53:27] And so that's really important, and that also speaks to photography, to videoing.
[1:53:32] Again, what we don't want to see without a permit, I think this actually aligns with the
[1:53:36] that you manage some of your parks here locally, you know, if you're setting up tents and
[1:53:40] bringing in catering trucks and having, you know, a production issue to commercial, we
[1:53:45] ought to be aware of that.
[1:53:46] And I think that's a baseline expectation, or I would hope it is within your city.
[1:53:51] So I did want to kind of highlight, we agree with you, in the fact that people should come
[1:53:56] down to the plaza and express themselves and I think it's a great place to do that.
[1:54:00] And I think that your recent examples of folks walking through the plaza, you know, quite
[1:54:05] frankly, whether the sidewalks are vacated or not, that's not of our control when someone comes down there.
[1:54:12] So hopefully that helps some of your concerns.
[1:54:15] Yeah, I appreciate it.
[1:54:15] I believe you, I think you understand very well what makes a dynamic and interesting requirement.
[1:54:28] I don't doubt how to understand that.
[1:54:31] Once we make that vacation, we lose a lot of authority.
[1:54:34] and I
[1:54:38] am hesitant to make such a permanent decision if the answer is we would just like to
[1:54:45] please department to be more responsive when there is a certain conduct or behavior.
[1:54:50] I understand.
[1:54:52] I have councilman Rogers.
[1:54:55] So I mean, just a couple of obvious comments and points here, so...
[1:55:00] Anybody pulls up, pulls out a barbecue grill, threats, grill on on the sidewalk, you're saying no to that, right? Absolutely.
[1:55:07] Somebody seems to sit.
[1:55:11] And somebody's exercising the first minute ride, so long as it's not being
[1:55:14] violent, you're saying that as it's indicated on this presentation, they're allowed to do that.
[1:55:20] Yes. We've also talked with labor representatives here, as well, to help ensure that they feel comfortable with their right to protest.
[1:55:27] I know you've been talking to organized labor and they're comfortable with their right to protest based on your conversation
[1:55:34] I believe they are yes, and so and I come from the the legislators
[1:55:37] We had a lot of flights about the second moon when I was down there in Missouri's an open curie state
[1:55:41] You walk around the gun all day long
[1:55:46] But if you're in private property and you post a sign saying no firearms, then people have to comply without or they have to leave
[1:55:53] I would anticipate that you would have signed up on the
[1:55:56] Plasas and don't bring your gun.
[1:55:58] We have currently not had that conversation in detail.
[1:56:01] The mayor has brought this up a couple of times,
[1:56:04] but just to be very frank, our internal team is not
[1:56:07] had the discussion related to weapons.
[1:56:10] Is it fair to say that you would discourage people
[1:56:12] walking around guns?
[1:56:14] These were Texas.
[1:56:16] Yeah, you got it careful.
[1:56:20] What I would say to that is,
[1:56:22] We want to make a place that people feel comfortable in and so we get if you are walking around with a long arm
[1:56:27] I don't know your your gun regulations, but if you're walking around with a long gun
[1:56:33] I'm probably gonna ask you what your reason is
[1:56:37] And yeah, I wouldn't try and ask you the trick question. I think I take my kids to the plaza all the time. I think
[1:56:45] I would rather not see guns on the plaza
[1:56:47] So I appreciate what you go on.
[1:56:49] I'm glad that labor is on board with their ability
[1:56:51] to exercise their personal right.
[1:56:53] And I do hope that you continue doing that.
[1:56:56] So thank you.
[1:56:56] Thank you, sir.
[1:56:57] I could just have one more point on that.
[1:56:59] He didn't ask if Mr. Jackson could stand
[1:57:01] on the sidewalk and broadcast.
[1:57:03] He certainly came out of that with this attorney.
[1:57:05] No, I had to go ahead.
[1:57:07] Go ahead.
[1:57:07] What's the correct answer?
[1:57:08] What's the correct answer?
[1:57:09] This is, who's making a determination on whether or not
[1:57:12] a constitutional right exists,
[1:57:14] or you're going to impose a restriction
[1:57:16] And that is consistent with the constitutional right.
[1:57:19] Those are two very different things.
[1:57:21] If you're telling me that right now,
[1:57:23] people speech is protected by someone who is instilled
[1:57:27] with the power by the United States Constitution
[1:57:29] to protect that speech versus someone who's not
[1:57:32] under that requirement, but is saying that,
[1:57:35] yeah, we're going to work really hard
[1:57:36] to make sure free speech is protected.
[1:57:37] Those are two very, very different things in my opinion.
[1:57:42] And I think that's the difference is well-intentioned
[1:57:45] And we're going to let everyone exercise their freedom of speech.
[1:57:50] That's great.
[1:57:50] I appreciate that.
[1:57:51] I believe you.
[1:57:52] But you're not required to do that by the constitution.
[1:57:55] And there are, I think, very importantly,
[1:57:58] go to distinction between how, in infringement on speech
[1:58:03] would be analyzed under those two very different situations.
[1:58:05] One would be legal and bin down legal.
[1:58:07] And so that's all I have to say on that is I think that's an important
[1:58:13] point.
[1:58:14] Madam Chair, may I just make a clarifying point.
[1:58:16] The web, I'm looking at the code of conduct on the website.
[1:58:21] This is not part of that.
[1:58:23] The reason I mentioned that is because the ordinance
[1:58:25] incorporates the code of conduct into the eSman agreement.
[1:58:29] I don't know if somebody wants to show that,
[1:58:31] but it mentions these examples that would be violations
[1:58:34] dressing inappropriately, running horse play,
[1:58:37] things like that, soliciting of any kind.
[1:58:40] So this slide is not part of that.
[1:58:44] So if you're interested in incorporating this into the agreement,
[1:58:49] I think you need to add that to the ordinance.
[1:58:52] I'll just make a motion.
[1:58:55] So I'll just make my one public point.
[1:58:57] I'm scared of my ticketing murdered in this
[1:58:59] got forsaken place with our guns everywhere.
[1:59:02] I mean, we can have a chat on that some other time.
[1:59:05] Probably my biggest fear.
[1:59:06] I appreciate and largely there's nothing.
[1:59:11] And you guys do what you're going to do, like I said.
[1:59:13] But there's almost nothing we can do about that here, other than.
[1:59:18] And it's a big legislative problem, but I don't think I would be elected governor soon.
[1:59:23] So I think allowing private spaces to be able to create, I think as you described it,
[1:59:30] the most comfortable environment possible for families and others to be part of things in the city,
[1:59:36] is a positive, been mayor for seven years now. I've been around way too many public forum,
[1:59:42] massacres, or shootings, and others. And I think that this is a creative way to continue to
[1:59:48] balance the first amendment rights at issue with the very real, I think, other issues that we
[1:59:55] may face. And that's a balance that we should drop legislatively in other parts of the city.
[2:00:00] And frankly, I think it's a novel, a way to approach it. What I may offer is a motion with a recommendation of advance and do pass.
[2:00:08] It'd be a committee set to, in the same way, I did before, that it has a $5,000 appropriation for communications and notice relating to now the vacation issue.
[2:00:18] I realized in a prior motion, I did not include a fund source, which would be the development services fund, by the way.
[2:00:26] Yes, that's the motion.
[2:00:31] It's been mentioned.
[2:00:31] Seconded at that.
[2:00:32] Ordnance.
[2:00:33] Number.
[2:00:34] 6445.
[2:00:35] Part of it.
[2:00:36] Committee.
[2:00:37] Thank you.
[2:00:39] We report out.
[2:00:40] Committee with the recommendation of advance into pass.
[2:00:41] Health is in favor of please say aye.
[2:00:43] Aye.
[2:00:44] Any opposed.
[2:00:45] The motion passes.
[2:00:46] I don't know.
[2:00:49] Any opposed?
[2:00:50] No.
[2:00:52] The motion passes.
[2:00:53] Three to one.
[2:00:53] I'm sure if I may just very briefly recall item,
[2:00:57] but at the same reason in some ways that I have before,
[2:01:01] item 260486, I would add the same appropriation
[2:01:05] from the development services fund.
[2:01:07] So I would move for reconsideration, and if I can combine
[2:01:13] them here, the person who gets to review all these motions,
[2:01:16] move for reconsideration, and put in that emotion,
[2:01:20] advance and do pass, a committee substitute
[2:01:22] if it has 5,000 dollar appropriation from the development services fund.
[2:01:26] This is on 260486.
[2:01:29] We've been selling.
[2:01:30] Yes.
[2:01:31] Okay.
[2:01:33] It's been moved in seconded that we're in December 2605.
[2:01:36] Committee substitute for 26040403.
[2:01:39] We reported out of committee with our recommendations.
[2:01:41] 486.
[2:01:42] Or maybe I didn't do the other.
[2:01:44] We voted on the other one.
[2:01:46] This would be 486.
[2:01:47] 486.
[2:01:48] I'd be a part out of committee with a recommendation of answer to pass.
[2:01:51] On committee substitute.
[2:01:51] I think it may be said, yes.
[2:01:54] All those in favour of this AI?
[2:01:56] Hi.
[2:01:56] Hi.
[2:01:56] May I post a much past?
[2:01:58] Do we get there right now?
[2:01:59] Thank you.
[2:02:01] I'm getting the intense.
[2:02:02] We'll get it done.
[2:02:03] It's good.
[2:02:04] All right.
[2:02:12] Great job.
[2:02:13] I think.
[2:02:15] Bye.