Director of Aviation - Regular Meeting

I'm I'm you. Proud

Eric Bunch, 4th District.

Yeah. Duncan, 6th District.

Leslie French, 2nd District. Pat Large.

And staff.

Bertha Ross, city clerk's office.

Jeff Martin, city

clerk's office. Andrew Bonkowski, law department.

Ken Morgan, water services department.

Microsoft of Quarks. Alright. We will read the, oh, we are gonna be holding, two six zero four zero seven, which is councilman Boo's ordinance. They'll be held for one week, and, we will go to 26371. 260371. Written. Can the clerk read?

Written is 260371 authorizing the director of water services to execute a $5,389,697 construction contract with the Bay Construction for the water main replacement in the area of Oak Street to Virginia Avenue, East 43rd Street to East 47th Terrace project, authorizing a maximum expenditure of 5,928,667 thousand dollars excuse me, $1,337 recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

David?

Good morning, Chair O'Neill and council members. David Poirier, the deputy director of engineering at Water Services. And today, with ordinance number 260,371, is the first of several water main replacement projects that will come before you as we enter the new fiscal year. So this is the first one. This one is in the Midtown on the South Side, just south of UMKC campus.

It's a $5,300,000 construction project that will be awarded to Bay Construction for the replacement of various break prone and aging infrastructure. As a reminder, these projects improve the distribution system reliability, increase hydraulic conveyance and capacity, support fire protection and replace aging structure that is past its useful life. Here's a map of the project area. It's about 9,400 linear feet. It's out of the node.

It will replace a 16 inches transmission main along Troost, and it's, like I said, just south the UMKC campus there. We with every project, we use a proactive public engagement where we send out mailers to those impacted and then conduct a virtual public meeting where they invite we inform them about the project and then invite them to ask questions and what to expect.

You, sir. Who is the construction company and who owns that?

Abe. Abe.

Is that an old friend of mine?

Old friend of yours.

Are you?

I

the able to And

first be

20, our we're

goal.

To

of we're

And going first get a better

of we'll we're able looking at the 20.

20.

We'll the And

And

Yes, The projects, those last four you're talking with about if the second bond issuance The

bond issue doesn't pass. Those Okay. Those are the ones we've

cut. And

then I thought I'd show you geographically where those areas would be, and we've already identified those projects that we cut out of the budget. So there is real impact, and I just

kind of wanted to show

that today. What was the how was the selection done on choosing the three that you would cut?

Really, it's how it's done is through which projects are ready for construction, okay? So every year, we do a risk assessment. We identify those

to

business. And to

going that.

Thank you. I have two questions and one request for information. The water bond, can you give us an update as to where we are in the process of getting that passed?

Well, first week, there has to be a vote to counsel

ballot initiative.

Is that an ordinance that's on hold? Is it on held on agenda?

Yes. So, essentially, based upon other items that may be placed on the ballot, in all likelihood, we're probably gonna get pushed back to, November. And so what what our goal is here is to just show the impacts based upon the based upon the availability and not availability of that.

Okay. So, we would have to pass this in November in order to keep our program intact?

Yeah. That's the impact. It's so the goal first is to bring it before council so that it can be placed on the ballot for citizens in November. And so when that's passed, then that allows us to move forward with these programs. If it's not passed, then that that these are some of the potential impacts that may that we may see.

Okay. I'm familiar with the process process in terms of this the it being on an ordinance and then we put in put in on the ballot. What I'm asking is, is that ordinance being held right now on the docket? Has it been introduced?

It's it's it's been introduced, and then it's been we we've been directed to present it later for consideration for later this year.

Okay. Do you know? Because I I'm vaguely remembering that we passed this without a whole lot of conversation at this committee, and then it went to the floor, and then we talked about other items on the April ballot, and so we wanted to put I'm just making sure that No. We're all in the same No. That's exactly right.

Page. So we need to check and maybe just a request for the chair to, check with our illustrious mayor to see when we would like to bring that back up before the body to take action so that we don't have these service these impacts on our infrastructure. The thank you for helping us to understand the projects and where they are located. I think it's something that we requested from the committee, and you guys have done a good job of keeping that as a static slide when we pass these. One column that is missing that typically is here is the environmental justice census tracts.

And while I know and understand those federal programs have changed, the areas are still the same. And so can you give us some insight as to why that's missing off of slide six, and can we expect that to be added back on?

I can absolutely add it back. I was under the impression and understanding that the environmental impacted or environmental justice impact areas was were out of date, essentially, that the website by which we got that information was no longer up to date. So I was concerned that it wasn't accurately reflecting to reality of the situation. But I I can refer back to the historical data and add that data to

the data. When we're talking about historical, we're talking about six to seven months. And so, yes, it's not that historical.

That's not a problem.

Thank you. Appreciate that. And then just one request for information. If you could let us know and send to the committee which, water main replacements are in the design phase for next year so that we are aware of what you anticipate to be designed?

To able

part of

the Can you

send do that. That in the format of slide six so we know the well, you won't have probably a project number, but the project name, it's the in the council district that it's in because you probably won't know the estimated cost because it's in the design.

Right.

But whatever you can give us, that would be great.

Sure. Yeah. It's no

problem. Right. Thank you. Any other questions from my colleagues?

If not, I would ask for public testimony.

There's no public testimony.

No public testimony. I would, welcome here

you go. Motion.

Yes, mister chair. I move that ordinance number two six zero three seven one be reported out of committee with a recommendation of evidence that do pass. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those opposed? Ordinance passes. Thank you, David. Appreciate it. Next,

26260374. 260374, committee sub detaching from the Kansas City of excuse me. Detaching from the city of Kansas City approximately 8.129 acres generally included 12 properties located in the south half of Section 3233, And 34 of township, 47 North Range 32 West of the fifth Principle Meridian contingent upon the city of Raymore passing an ordinance and annexing the same, retaining easements, and directing the city manager to file certified copies of the ordinance while with the required Jackson County officials.

Good morning. My name is Andre with Public Works Department right of way manager.

Thank you guys for being here.

Thank you. So

the reason we're here, the, the city wants to de annex 155th Street between Quarswell and Kentucky Avenue, giving them the right of way because they built a bridge and they felt it would be more cost effective for them to maintain that portion of road than to take for the city to take it on. So if you want to present your case.

Thank you, sir. I'm going to have Mr. Zir pass out the history packet for this particular item to you all. The essence of it is the initial discussions for this particular detachment and annexation began in March 2017. And within the packet on the left hand side, you see the entire history of this. Oh.

I'm sorry. We'll need you to repeat that. I apologize. We're trying to get our paperwork together. Okay. Last two to two.

You just wanna wait. Right? Sorry. Originally, we came to the city in 2017 asking for this detachment. And it proceeded through. And as you can see, you can see the entire history of it. The right hand side of your packet was the last time it was in front of the city of Kansas City. The as is indicated, the detachment is the North side of 155th Street, which is also considered County Line Road. North side of the street is Kansas City and Jackson County. South side of the street is Raymore and Cass County.

The different priorities we assume from the city of Kansas City after it made it through time, some time between the committee approval and city council approval, Kansas City, City of Raymore, some different priorities

of of

Directors

the

which is starting of to manifest itself again, are infrastructure repairs. And there was a major one in 2016 that a bridge on 155th Street gave out. And the culvert collapsed underneath it, and it was more than a year before Kansas City and us met on how to get this bridge repaired. And the bridge itself was entirely the responsibility of Kansas City under the mutual aid agreement, if you will. So I met at the time with Troy Schulte, that's how far back this goes, and came to an agreement that we would do a cost share agreement, which you also see here in the back.

$750,000 for both cities to both upgrade the road and repair the bridge and get the bridge back to functional. The reason it was more of a priority for the city of Raymore is because a lot of our citizens use 155th Street compared to the 12 citizens from Kansas City who live along this exact same stretch. We probably have 1,000 to 2,000 cars a day minimum that utilize this road to get to Kansas City and lease on it going north. The so Troy and I agreed on Mr. Schulte and I agreed on the cost share agreement, passed both cities.

The cost share agreement itself, the warehouse clauses that you can see in there, which we recognize are not binding, actually indicated that city of Kansas City would detach and we would annex immediately after the work was done. And again, then there was a pause. During the pause, interestingly enough, the city of Kansas City passed the amendment to the Longview area plan, which actually called for this detachment to take place during that. So we knew it was still working in Kansas City, so we just wanted to do kind of the wait and see. The so then when there was the change in the administration and the new city manager took over, I took the opportunity to come down and meet well, our team took the opportunity to come down and meet again, and that has led to us being here now the second time, tasked the city of Kansas City for this detachment with the assurances within the amended ordinance that's in front you all that we will immediately go ahead and annex this in as soon as we have something to annex in.

There was some discussion about who goes first on this because the statute that's being used actually says concurrently, since we can't get both city councils in one room to do this at the exact same time, we're asking for the deannexation before we annex. If it were to go to if we get the approval from this committee and it goes to the council on Thursday, it would be in front of my city council for an emergency read on Monday night. Otherwise, we have the Memorial Day holiday. It would wait until the June. That concludes our report. Happy to answer any questions.

To

we're

the And And

twenty

twenty first

had had a

strong

that you were looking at?

Got you. Jeff, you were the engineer on this project. What do you know about what happened?

Yes. So I was actually an engineer when we started these discussions with Cineri Moore and kind of got everything

the extent

can extent

I credit Raymore we for reaching back out and percolating this back to the top for us so we can get finalized.

Any questions from my colleagues? Councilman?

Yes. One, I would have loved to have been briefed about this before committee. It's a lot to digest when we're talking about annexing property. The annex, excuse me. I think some of my questions are practical. What where is where is the shared responsibility? What how how do the how do the property lines meet up between Kansas City and Raymore? Who and then how do we how how does that get divvied up? So so looking at you, Jeff, because I assume you know I'm talking about.

Yes. So with this, as it currently stands, the city limit line runs down the approximate centerline of 155th Street. So what this does is it actually moves that city limit line to the north right of way we'll next And

we'll

Yes. I I would just say go that this is a long time coming, honestly. This I'm going be honest, it doesn't make a lot of sense for this to continue to be in the city limits of Kansas City, Missouri. Most of the it's mostly these streets are mostly serving the city of Raymore. And we have 6,000 lane miles of streets already.

If we're looking at giving up a couple of miles of those in total, actually, it may not be that much. But it seems like getting this off our books is probably a good idea, especially, and it just makes a lot more sense for this to be conjoined with the city of Raymore. So just that's my opinion. I get the concern for not being brief before, but

I think about precedent and just what I mean, what are we I mean, because we share a lot of boundaries with other municipalities and obviously the state of Kansas, we generally split the road down the middle, correct?

Depends on the location. Sorry to jump in. State line road varies as you second And

the

And very quarter of

quarter

progress we've in the of those. It works out really well when it really comes to agreement.

Hold on, got a phone call. But

there's times where if one municipality wants to improve the road and KCMo or the other municipality can't necessarily have the budget to do it, they end up with half street improvements. So it definitely ends up with some inconsistencies with service providers.

For simplicity's sake, what do we give up and what do they get by doing this? By giving them the land, what does that achieve? I guess that might be a question for you guys.

Thank you. And as a matter of fact, I was briefing my counsel in work session last night on this. And councilmember, you're exactly right. The shared road approach exists in my mind at this point after twenty five years of doing this. With few exceptions, sharing infrastructure I don't think is great policy because there is confusion one hundred and fifty fifth Street is a perfect example with the bridge going up.

There is confusion and delay for both citizens on getting public projects done, daily maintenance, potholes, shoulder work. Each one has you have to have these cost share agreements that take time and the citizens suffer through it. Law enforcement and public safety, this road has had a number of significant issues with public safety on it over the years where delay was actually caused in getting including a couple of fatality accidents, as a matter of fact. So having one snow plowing is another one. Having one jurisdiction on the roads is actually something that several years ago, when I made that same plea to my counsel, we have been working on pretty steady because being in a more rural area, we have a number of situations where sections cross two and three municipalities at a time.

So we're do And to that. From South Metro are the two things that you'll be giving up. We've actually been doing most of the potholing for the eternity that we have had this road. Kansas City did come in a few years ago and do an overlay on this road, Kelly and Peterson at the same time. So the road is in great shape.

One of my council members asked me last night the exact same question. There's an area, a pretty long area, that's going to need some shoulder maintenance in the next couple of months. We'd be picking that up. That wouldn't be a burden of Kansas City's. While we're going to be taking on the costs that are associated with this, Kansas City maintains the right of way in the easements on the north side.

And part of the ordinance that's in front of you that we intend to mirror is if there is the need to go under the road for any reason, there will be no unreasonable withholding of that ability on either side for the city. So we really think it's a really good partnership with you all.

A question. You mentioned the dates, the timeliness and the advance of this. What was your reasoning for the advance?

I'm sorry? When I

say advance, you you wanted it done this week so we could have it on Thursday. And then

I'm a Just

Well, I'm I'm just saying is that

State state statute seventy one zero one one subsection one says that it's going to be done concurrently, and it makes it sound like everything has to be done almost at the exact same time. And it was a conversation that I had the ability to speak with Mr. Chaw about yesterday. We just want Kansas City to be assured that we are going to be annexing you're not detaching into space here without a plan on the city's part to have this in front of our council as soon as possible after Kansas City de annexes it.

I'm just trying to digest all this information as well. I would have loved to have been debriefed before committee. I think some of my questions have already been answered. Just making sure that this this is a rule of roadway, so there's not a lot of residents being affected. Correct?

It is totally road that is being done. The residents that the Kansas City residents that are going to be having their driveways come out onto this road are minimal. I want to say there's eight properties that are actually going to come out on this. Most of them, we probably know better than Kansas City. They're all retired Kansas City police officers and firefighters who are living down in the farthest Southeast corner of the city.

Okay. And when you say then minimal impact, their driveway comes out onto the road. What does that do then for their city address? Remains the They're

still in Kansas City.

Correct. That's gonna stay in Kansas That's correct. That's what I wanna make sure. That's that's well stated that

Any public testimony on

There's no public testimony.

I would entertain a motion.

Is this a committee substitute?

It is. Yes.

Okay. And I think

Advance. Advance on this.

Yes. Absolutely. Honored to. Mister chair, I move that committee substitute for ordinance number two six zero three seven four be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? We wanna thank the city of Raymore for being so well represented here and having the mayor here and the chief. Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, sir. Okay.

Somebody's gotta tell us what

to do. Okay. I know.

260381, approving various traffic regulations in compliance with chapter 70 of the code of ordinances.

Jeff and Monica, welcome to the I nine. You want to read the ordinance? I think it's three eighty

Board

Directors

Board Board

Board

make permanent a number of traffic regulations that have been in place for more

than ninety

days. Do you have any questions?

We'll need a few This is more. You

get the award for the best presentation of

the week.

I got to ask, so are these five, the things we're changing? Or are there more and these are just samples?

These are examples. These have everything in here has been read before counsel in communications at no less than ninety days ago. Going do do

And And quarter be be

we're

that. To going

ir

do

trying to do I don't think we're changing anything in our standards. Own

These are signs that just

in place and they have to have them piloted for ninety days and then they come back. So they're like actually out on the street. They're changed is what this is.

Okay. I just saw that it looked like they were changing some of the standards or okay.

All right. Any other questions?

Do you have any comments?

Yes. I agree.

Right. Any public testimony on this?

No public testimony.

I would entertain a motion for the consent agenda.

Yes, sir. And I might just add that it might be helpful to give us that reminder each time of what this actually is. I've seen it probably 10 times since we've been on the council, maybe fewer, eight times. Just it's helpful for us to have our memory jogged on what we're actually doing here.

I agree. I think when you say Chapter 70 of the code of ordinance, it makes you what does that mean?

I actually this is the trafficking. I know you. I mean, there are a lot, actually.

There are lot of chapters. Yeah.

Makes sense.

Thank you. Of us some of us read the law.

Oh, whatever.

Well Chapter and night.

Yes, sir. You know, if I may.

You may.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I know I'm looking at the fact sheet here. And who would I mean, it would be helpful to know what was the impetus of some of these changes. I mean

If you happen to have a copy of the traffic regulation fact sheet, every single does one the have basically why the change was made. In selling accessible parking because the resident requested it, removing accessible parking because the applicant doesn't live there anymore, Removing traffic signals on homes on Hospital Hill because accommodating the two way conversion, those were switched to stops. If you have the full documentation, it should be on there.

I don't know if there was a specific question, something specific you had in mind as well. I mean,

would say either we go through this or we don't do a presentation. But I mean, just presenting us with one slide, I don't think is enough to make an informed decision. So in the future, I would appreciate maybe a brief of what we're doing, why we're doing it, and what was the impetus for each change. It wouldn't take very long.

In the interest of that, how many to the presenter, about how many changes are we making

roughly? This time, just under 100. Under 100. If you would like me to go through the entire list, I can do that.

No. I think, like so the interest would especially as it's impacting residents, to have that information, like, just in terms of where it's happening would be helpful as well. I

believe I uploaded it with all the documentation. Okay. I can start printing out copies and bringing them for you.

Yeah. Especially when we talk about, like, parking, I think is the issue that we get a lot of feedback from residents about when parking is allowed, why are we taking away park parking, why are we adding parking. There's 37,000 viewed. It's probably up to 50 down just based off of parking right now in my district. So as we're making these changes

And when they are communicated to council, that is also in there.

Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. This has been

in place since December

'20 to to kind of expand upon what my colleagues are saying as well. I know it's you've attached it to our packet, I think, but when we have a presentation, it makes it very public. So then we're able to discuss that out here and then the public is able to watch and kind of understand and go along as well instead of having to go back and fine tune comb through an agenda packet or a docket packet I understand.

And if you have a request for a like concerning a specific change, I can absolutely discuss it with you. This would turn into a very long presentation if I went through the entire packet.

Yeah, I'm not asking to go through the entire packet, just to have more of a presentation or an explanation on

then

get get a So if there are questions within that list, we could ask those.

As I said,

they should be uploaded,

but I can start bringing copies. Mean, typical procedure is a request from a resident, a request from KACPD, a request from Gladstone.

Those would be good to know.

Or just that explanation that you had right there would be great, Yes, like just on a

we can

put together that information.

Yes. Okay.

Thank you.

All right.

John? John, are you there? Alright. And 987654321.

Uh-huh. There it is. Thank you. K. If I catch you doing that again, you and your who's your partner? Oh,

gone. Alright.

Okay. Try.

Okay. Back on. Hello?

Alright. This isn't working.

I to

I would entertain a motion for this.

Did you still want it on the consent agenda?

Yeah.

That's what is. That's on your record, but because you requested it. Okay. Alright. Mister chair, I move that ordinance number two six zero three eight one be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance that do pass and place on the consent agenda.

Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? When it passes. Thank you. Appreciate it, gentlemen. Ladies and gentlemen.

Gentlemen.

Workplace violence. Like the,

I'd like the clerk to note the threat of violence by the vice chair.

I've been pinching before it happened.

On that note, ordinance two six zero four zero two authorizing an agreement not to exceed $85,578,976 with the Kansas City ATA excuse me. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority to provide transit services for the city of Kansas City, Missouri between 05/01/2026 and 04/30/2027, reducing contingent appropriation in the general fund in the amount of $1,000 and appropriating the same, directing the city manager to work collaboratively with k c a t k c a t a to define, advance, and implement f y 26 through 27 transit properties and recognizing this ordinance as having an accelerated effective date.

Before we start, explain to me the $85,000,000 we're appropriating, and it's only costing us $1,000 I don't understand that.

To accelerate it.

Accelerate it.

Yes. Provision is included so that the acceleration provision can be included also.

We

need a detailed expense of how that $1,000 is going to be spent.

Good morning, Chairperson O'Neill, Vice Chair Robinson and committee members. My name is Angie Larey. I'm the associate director of transportation within the Public Works Department. With me this morning, we also have representatives from the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority. To my far right, we have the Chief Operations Officer and Interim CEO, Chuck Ferguson. In the middle, we have Mr. Tyler Means, their Chief Mobility and Strategy Officer and to my right, Mr. A. J. Ferris, KCATA's director of planning and scheduling.

Ordinance 260,402, as just read, authorizes an agreement not to exceed the $85,578,976 with the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority to provide transit services in our fiscal year 2026 through 2027, effective 05/01/2026 through 04/30/2027. We'll move on. This ordinance also authorizes that expenditure of $85,578,000 from funds appropriated to the following accounts in the approved fiscal year 'twenty seven budget. That stems from $46,200,000 from the public transportation fund, the $05 sales tax and $39,352,000 from the $0.38 KCATA sales tax, totaling the $85,579,000 presented. We are finalizing an agreement with the KCATA.

That agreement is almost complete. The performance management provisions of that contract remain consistent with past years. And at this point, I'm going to pass the microphone to Mr. Chuck Ferguson to explain the service levels that are being proposed by the fiscal year twenty seven contract.

Mr. Chair, before she does that, can I just ask one quick question On about her slide six, you outlay where the money's coming from? Can you share with us how much was actually collected in each of those taxes? Oh, here comes Brent. Our new you have a new role. Right? Congratulations. Direct. Enter introduce yourself.

Brent is a really

the finest department.

So Oh,

you just said fine. You just rushed past that. Your your mother your your your family's proud. So Thank you. Okay. So who are you again?

Brenton Soverely with the Brenton Soverely with the finance department.

Director. Director.

I will say it.

Thank you. So KCATA sales tax total revenue is $39,500,000 of revenue in fiscal year 'twenty seven. That full amount is allocated towards ATA. On the PMT fund, we're business.

Doing.

We'll get was 48,000,000? 40 And $8,100,000 in sales tax.

Okay. And then

There's a $9,800,000 transfer from the general fund to the PMT fund also to balance that fund in fiscal year twenty seven. Yes. Okay.

A people And to

And we've

so on. On we've the Cup funds. I'll just kind of tell you that that that line that you see that will be in the contract is at 5.1 because that is direct service provided by KCATA and KCMo, but it is an account for all the funds that are gonna be spent in Kansas City during the World Cup. I'll kick it to Chuck, who has been really leading the effort on the World Cup funds to kinda walk through all those expenditures.

So thanks, Tyler. So good question, Councilman. The total sum that we have with the World Cup funds as well as we adjusted some previous grants, some CMAF funds as well as some leftover funds from Prospect MAX, the total amount of money we have is $7,438,836 which will be spent in Kansas A chunk of that goes to Streetcar. You see some of this breakdown here where we've moved some of the money around. Streetcar, the bus bridge is something we'll be operating on.

Let me step back up to that top here, the $515,200,000, that is to maintain the service levels through June and July that we have today as well as about $1,400,000 in East West service expansions. We're increasing frequencies and spans of service on several of our East West routes to serve the streetcar to provide service to FanFest. So what you see here in total, again, the total money we'll be spending in Kansas City is just under $7,500,000 7.4388

that's that's the

And the way we're doing

then that. That. It.

To to

Kansas City. You said through Kansas City. Me, And Kansas City.

This is this is service we're operating in Kansas City. We're we we haven't included, say, the one zero one from KCK. That's a separate fund. Gotcha. Got Can I

ask a quick question on that streetcar bus bridge and overcrowd support? What does that mean?

So we have a contract with the streetcar for a bus bridge. Matter of fact, we're running a run today. Whenever the streetcar goes down, either one of the segments, we won't run a bus bridge. We immediately move buses over. It says bus bridge or streetcar bridge on the destination sign, and we run the streetcar So we are expecting to have to utilize that contingency operation during the World Cup at some point in time.

So we're going to have buses staged and ready to go so there's very little miss. The other service that you see, the well, the yes, overcrowd support, we're going to run something like a shadow service on Grand in case we have some problems on Main Street, in case people are out of bars, they shut down the streetcar, they slow the streetcar down, we want to have another service that runs parallel to the streetcar.

And I assume this is because CPKC Stadium will be a hotbed for travel during their

practice Well, it's during

I mean, it's the FanFest. It's at Liberty Memorial, which is

There's going to be the big

eighteen days of FanFest activation. That's during our six matches plus some other primary matches and weekend days. There is every expectation that we understand from police and security that there could be problems on Main Street as far as just movement and flow. So we're ready for that.

So this is like more people will park down there and take the streetcar up to

the Yes. People will be parking probably not around the Fanfest area, but taking the streetcar. The streetcar is admittedly the primary service for the Fanfest area.

Own

service, service, their the regional own connection, the airport connection as well as the match day service to the state.

Just publicly, I want to make that very clear that this is our buses, and we'll be running on time, and we're going to have buses still working throughout the World Cup.

I want to make

sure that's very clear. How much of that is then how much of this extra funds is being put into the Northland and the Northland services?

A. J, do we have

that broken down somewhere? Somewhere?

A. Yes. So we will get to this right here. You see on

the second

bullet. The second bullet is where we kind of talk about the different service levels that we will be expecting. So the 201 will be the main corridor getting people down through the Northland to connect to services that can connect people to FanFest and some of those other important KC-twenty 26 services.

And the other part is the on demand services, the ParatransitBoost. We're running a unique service model to ensure that we're able to handle at likely an increase in service demand. We'll be doing hotshot service from all of the Park and Rides. So any Park and Rides in Northland that is associated with the World Cup will have extra vehicles to support anybody traveling to and from on the on demand from the Northland. So part of that's, I think, 780,000 to be spent in Kansas City, Missouri will be spent in Northland to ensure access from that area to Fan Fest and out to the stadiums.

Okay. I just want to make that very clear understand. And the extra funds that you received, you said, were through CEMAC and through our Prospect North?

So we there there were three levels The of the there was a congressional a federal congressional amount that came to this area of $8,600,000 that was distributed regionally. But we have maintained from that $8,600,000 we have nearly $5,000,000 for KCATA to operate services. And then we adjusted some two old former CMAT grants, adjusted mitigation air quality grants, and there was some leftover funding with Prospect MAX that we have reconverted those funds, and the FDA has approved to allow us to use those for World Cup operations.

Okay. Prospect MAX. You had said Prospect North. So that's

what Sorry, we Prospect MAX.

Thank you.

Question on that on the North's portion, you said on demand will be available at all the various park and rides. What is is that coming out of the Irish budget? Or is that extra money coming out of this?

No. So there are three levels of service we operate and contract out with WACC trip to flight service. One is the Irish service that you referenced, and then there's two other. There's a paratransit, which is a service that is adjacent to one that's predominantly for personal disabilities and older adults for on demand service. We call that Freedom On Demand, and that's paid through 5003 and 10 funding to pay for half the cost.

We're taking that service and bolstering it to make sure that we can support visitors, especially from out of the country where paratransit doesn't exist. Kind of a weird federal thing. In order to use the paratransit service when you're from out of town, you have to be registered in another location's paratransit program. Well, people in England that may be visiting or from Algeria or from Netherlands, they don't have that. So we want to make sure that we bolstered a service that they could have access to. And so we're just going to bolster money to that, and we've worked with WHC to put more drivers and vehicles out to support moving folks around during that time.

Rates will be on Iris for a park and ride? You want you park here in a park and ride, and you drive you're driven by Iris down to, FanFest. What what would that cost?

Well, with Iris, you will not be able to access FanFest. You'll be able to access the streetcar and the river market. It is the same race. We are not adjusting any race with Iris during the World Cup.

Okay. And that's supposed to be for the Northland only.

It's Northland. Figure out how they're

gonna get to FanFest if if it's for the Northland only. Like, they're gonna they're gonna be they'll they'll be connected to the River Market?

For the Irish service. Okay. The Freedom on Demand bolster is citywide. Citywide.

Gonna to get there and not get back?

No. It was it it'll you have a connection point from the River Market. So they would take streetcar to River Market, schedule their ride for pickup to if that is how they chose to move around using ours. Yes.

Yes.

Thank you. I have several questions. And first, recognizing that you aren't able to get get through your whole presentation, so I'm able to be able to digest it. But I'm more concerned about people who ride the bus every day and less concerned about World Cup implications.

Then

that. Able to

that. And

that.

Question. And

question. Next and you're using them for the World Cup.

Correct.

Okay. Yep. That's problematic. But let's move on to talk about the actual technology, if you can go or, actually, you're there with the map. So most the majority of these routes, specifically in transportation deserts, they are going to be now waiting forty five to fifty minutes.

So one would be able to just question right off the bat from your your conversation about over a $100,000 being used that was an overage from Prospect Max. Why aren't we investing capital improvement dollars in technology to help these folks that are now gonna be waiting forty five minutes to fifty minutes to ride the bus? Could we find another way to invest those dollars, capital dollars, to help individuals that are in transportation deserts? And how are we upgrading our technology to help those individuals that will be waiting fifty minutes for a bus?

So to answer your first question, yes, we we perhaps could have asked to adjust the Prospect MAX capital expiring funds to utilize for some form of technology. We don't have that technology in mind beyond what we already have. We have an app today. We have a website today. We track the buses. Somebody can go active on our app and see where the bus is today. I don't yet know what improvements we have available to that, but we can certainly research this. Let me back up a little bit. I don't know that all of these funds will be spent for World Cup. We read the papers like everybody else does, and there's a lack of hotel rooms as far as bookings.

There's significant concerns two big stories today: Significant concerns about what the actual demand is gonna be here from visitors.

Well, my significant concern is that we didn't think about repurposing the money for my constituents. That's my significant concern.

I hear what you're saying.

Okay. So when you talk about research because we've had this conversation before, and I'm hoping that there's been some activity and some progress forward as it relates to when we're cutting these services and these routes twelve, twenty four, 31, 39, 47, 63, two zero one, twelve, or all of these routes that will

be So

those are counsel. Hold on. I'm not I'm I'm not

additional services. Those aren't cuts.

There's those aren't limitations.

So let's go to the ones that are gonna be cut. So that I make elimination of routes. I apologize. I'm on the wrong slide. Nine twenty one, route 23, 25, 27, 57. 71, the elimination of routes, and then we're doing all of these headway changes as well. So we've had a conversation about who are these individuals, where are they?

Right.

How does it impact the transportation deserts that we're currently experiencing, and where are they trying to go that we're now cutting off access to? When I say we, I'm talking about the collective we. Talking about the city of Kansas City, the council that's decided to divert online sales from the PMT tax and from our half cents tax for general fund purposes. I'm talking about the collective we, not just you all. So let me be really clear about that.

Where are we when we talk about these elimination of routes, provide the answer to the question that I ask regarding the impact to the users. Where are they not gonna be able to go because we've decided to cut these routes? How many people total are going to be impacted? And where do they live? Do they currently live in transportation deserts?

So the answer to the question regarding how many people will be impacted is a little bit less than 14% of our daily riders.

Okay. I don't want percentages. I want numbers of people. How many people?

I have the percentage in front of me. I would have to get that number back to you and and send it to you.

Okay. So it says on here, hold on. In your presentation, there was some reference to the number. I thought that there was a reference to the number of people that would be impacted. So you don't know that? You don't know

the public? So I I pulled back out the memo that was sent previous to you all. So as I said, it's an estimated so 4,384 average weekday riders. The number is actually a little bit less than that if we had the opportunity to go through presentation. We would show you that with the amended budget and the amended $6,000,000 coming back into the KZATF budget, we would be adding back in weekend service as well as adding back in the 75. So it would most likely be closer to around 3,000 average daily riders impacted. Oh, average daily boardings impacted.

So that's boarding. That doesn't impact that's not riders.

A boarding yeah. So a boarding is one rider.

Board, you know, four times a day. So that's one person.

Yeah.

So do we know how many people are gonna be impacted?

No. We we we can't track the individuals. We don't know that.

We don't know the specific repairs.

Okay. Especially with zero fare, but will we be able to track that once we bring fare back?

We would. Account based people, yes, we would be able to.

Okay. And then have we looked at the developments along, like, are these places of employment? Are they hospitals? Are they grocery stores? Are they childcare centers? When we're cutting this, we can't just say, okay. We're gonna cut this service. We have to think about how we're cutting off opportunity for people to go to work, feed their families, go to the doctor. So how do these cuts impact that?

Well, it's difficult to say, to be perfectly honest with you, because we have not met with every single person that might ride the bus. So it's difficult to say what

their what

their ridership intent is.

Okay. Now that's not what I'm asking. Okay? What I'm saying is the the VA hospital has been in the same location since it's been built.

Yes.

So what I'm saying is what are the things along this route that people aren't going to be able to access because we've decided that the investment isn't necessary?

Okay.

So there's this is mostly a residential area and small business area in general. As far as large hospitals go, those will maintain access. Large centers of education and employment would still be maintained to access, especially with bringing back the 75 areas that are South Of 63rd and on the Eastern Side Of Truist would still be maintained with the level of service. When we were looking at these in that memo that was sent to you, we 're able do do

to

that. While someone could still make the same trip and maybe have to walk four blocks instead of two. That was what we were calling as duplicative service. So these suggestions not only maintain ridership to the vast majority of the bus riders and the locations, but also ensures that we're trying to have the most minimal impact as possible to the city of Kansas City, Missouri and use the tax dollars the most appropriately.

Well, when I supported my Northland colleagues in paying, what is it, $1,800,000 for Iris, the notion behind that is that we would make sure that we had a strong system in the inner core where there's less access to transit. And it seems like the people who are impacted the most are in this yellow box area or an overlay of transportation deserts. So that's where my issue lies. But, finally, my last question is around the municipal contracts that you other municipal contracts that you have currently. Can you just tell us who is helping to, also pay into this system?

We have contracts with the unified government, which is the city of Kansas City, Kansas, Wyandotte County. We have contract we have small contract with North Kansas City. Those are our biggest. The state the of state

we have a small contract at Johnson County.

Yeah. Johnson County. A small contract, which not not an operating contract. It's an administrative contract.

And lease some lease some some extra.

And and we administer the lease on the service.

Okay. And if it would be great to to get that information just to know what the amounts of those contracts are Sure. In addition to if there's any information that's not in your memo that talks about where people would not be able to go based off of this these changes, if you could follow-up with that. And then you have on here the actual amount that we would need to have in order to maintain services. Is that

I don't know that that's on this presentation. It's not

15,000,000 that we were that we were down

right now.

Yeah. We're that would that's what's short basically.

Is that sub the six?

16,000,000.

16,000,000.

It's about 16

because we're I

believe the I believe the total by now the total amount for all service was about $116,000,000 less KCATA contributions, it was about $100,000,000 If I could go back to my backpack, I have that old presentation that we gave you that has those numbers in it.

All right. I think

22,000,000 gap.

The gap right now.

The amount being as the amount as from Kansas City the last time we presented to you all was asking for a little over 100,000,000 in order to maintain existing service levels

Yeah.

As they operate today. Okay.

But the fares, when you bring back the fares, it's only representing 4.3. Is that historically what we've

I think that's just for the half

of your

That is 50% going to Kansas City, Missouri, and 50% being retained by us to purchase vehicles and other, improvements within the fleet.

This is not

it's at 100.3.

Okay. So okay. That would be interesting. And maybe that's for our case ATA and commissioner to ask, like, why are we putting all of that money back into restoring services? I know that capital improvements are important, but doesn't the feds they

Yeah. So so traditionally, the fairs we we do we have split fairs a variety of ways, but the the fairs is the only funding that we have direct that we utilize for matching federal grants. That's what use a lot of our fair revenue for, which we haven't had for the last few years.

And some of that we do plan as far as planning projects and capital improvements to go to Kansas City, Missouri, like the procurement of new shelters, which we've already been doing. We've been in coordination with your planning department about identifying corridors in this upcoming planning for sustainable places project to specifically look at increasing connection in ADA services at those stops. And so those fair dollars

government,

like, when we talk about economic development, and we talk about workforce development, we talk about, you know, big these large capital projects that we're investing in, and those individuals who are least have the least access to opportunity are the ones who are bearing the most brunt of of these cuts. And it does have a impact on people going to work, going to school, which has a direct impact on crime and violence in our city. So if we are saying that we want a city that's less violent, we want a city where everybody has access to opportunity, but our actions are actually you're gonna have to wait forty minutes, fifty minutes for a bus. And I'm looking at you, but I'm talking about the collective weight because

Look within.

And so yeah. Well yeah. Look within. But I've been saying, you know, we lose $15,000,000 based on the redirection of funds. And so I looked within when I went to the finance committee and said, this is wrong. It's immoral. It's it's we're lying to the people. We're manipulating the public trust, and we need to restore those funds. Now, Brent, if you could your your, comments based off of the funds, those are based off of projections. Right?

And so okay. So we we need to make sure that as revenues come in, that we're spending those dollars for public transit, because, again, that's just a projection. And I we'll be working with my colleagues to figure out how do we get those headways up in the urban core because it's unconscionable. Look. Okay.

To be speaking to because this is a bigger challenge. We're trying to fit the ATA is trying to fit six pounds of sugar in a five pound sack, trying to get enough service under the budget that we've got. And unfortunately, we just know it's never enough. So I absolutely share those concerns. But I wanted to ask something specific about the fare revenue.

Yes, I know that when revenue is collected, it is allocated based on jurisdiction largely. It's categorized in the budget that way. With the fare, we're talking about half and half. That other half that is staying within for, say, match for capital expenses, dollars, is that still categorized under KCMO? Is that fair revenue to be spent on bus shelters and match for some of those things that

are I'll add some clarity to you, Councilman. So what we did to calculate that 8.6 and then split in half was we did 95 point whatever, two percent, I think it is. The service we operate is within KCMO. So 95.2% of the fares, KCMO, split split, anything that we spend, infrastructure, buses, etcetera, is for service in KCMo.

Thank you.

I just had a opportunity for a committee sub.

Hold on. Hold on. Two more questions. You first.

And And

to

we

City will stay within Kansas City. So how does that work when you're actually matching using federal grant matchup? Because that's going to be, you know, a larger grant for

Right. So so let's look at our 4.3. If we unplug our point three, the first thing that's gonna come off the top of that is us operating the fare program. So we don't wanna take additional cash or put a new line item in a budget to all our community contracts saying, we gotta pay for this fare system we now set up. We'll deduct it from the fares So that comes off the top. And then we use the rest of it to look through our capital grants. Many of them, as Ajay alluded to, are kind of like sidewalk or adjacent stop improvements, so access improvements and also stop amenity improvements that we can locate, geolocate and say what is the match that and calculate, saying, are we putting these in the right place? So when we are audited at the end of the year, we can see that where the money goes is in the right places.

Okay. And then not having the fare before, where did those dollars, those match dollars come from before?

We dwindled. I mean,

Chuck can speak to

it, but we we've dwindled our reserve almost to nothing. And that's where we are right now in terms of not buying buses for the last two years. And one of the challenges we have is we have an aging fleet because we lacked the local dollars to match the eightytwenty matches on vehicle purchase. So so we are in dire need of these funds in order to bring our fleet age down, which then will reduce our operating costs because we're using younger buses that don't require as many parts being manufactured in aluminum, So this is a big opportunity for us to also help reduce the operating costs on the back end as well.

Thank

you, Mr. Chair. And just to set the record straight, A. J. Was correct.

Was about $100,367,014 was was needed to from the city of Kansas City to ensure that no routes were cut, no headwinds were changed. City provided $77,800,000 Councilman Bunch helps divert $6,000,000 to shore us up, but we're still $17,000,000 short, which we all knew was going to result in headway changes and route cuts. And we made choices. We made budget decisions to fund KCPD over a department that isn't is not that's shown repeatedly that's not accountable to this body, and we chose to cut bus service. Was our choice.

So look within. Hold up

the mirror to your own face.

I will say, while I appreciate the presentation, I have some serious questions about what the rollout for fairs is going to be and what the public engagement is going to be on that. Can you provide a time line for what that's going look like?

Yes. So as we speak right now, fares are the fare box equipment is being installed on the vehicles. We have put out brochures onto all the vehicles that are letting people know the timeline. Essentially, the Phase I rollout will be June 1 still, to your question about public engagement. We have two webinars planned to occur here in about two weeks.

And then the final week before June 1, we'll be having public engagement events at pretty much every time of the day leading up to that day. So I believe we have four days. And during that four days, it won't only just be time where we can give information to people, we'll also have a bus with validators out there so people can use them. And then we'll also have staff ready to help people purchase passes, verify eligibility for any of the reduced fare programs. This is something that we are going to be all hands on deck for.

And so we're going to be starting off with those webinars. Little in United Way, please. Yeah. The other thing that we've done is partnered with the United Way. We'd be happy to send you that information. They will be basically facilitating the functionally free fare program that the city was social service providers to those people who need it and before we get into the phase two rollout where we can start having those smart cards

be used.

So thank you for that connection.

Well, I had a committee oh, I wanted to discuss a committee substitute to look at the ensuring that the online sales for these two taxes, that we have a funding plan. So just looking at oh, no. This isn't yours. The public mass transit fund and also the KCTA sales tax, a committee substitute that would look at the manager coming up with a plan to redirect the online sales that we collect to make these funds whole as well as as we get additional revenue if we're over our targets, that we also increase the contract to reflect those expenditures, the actual expenditures. So I wanted to discuss that with my colleagues to see how we can make sure that we don't continue to betray public trust.

I understand and sympathize with my colleague that talks about looking at one of our dozen departments and saying, could we use money more? Is it a better use of funds? When we talk about our different departments, but people voted on these taxes, and we're diverting them to the general fund, and we should be coming up with a plan to make sure that they're used for transit. So, I just will offer that committee substitute.

So let me so the plan would be to redirect redirect online sales, that exceed revenue projections?

Well, it would it would be to to to two things. One is to direct the online sales for the PMT tax and the KCATA sales tax to give us a plan on how what that would look like because I know that those are baked into our general fund, so we don't want to strip our general fund without a plan. So it would be the manager coming back to us with a plan on how to do that before the end of the year to make the fund whole. And then in addition to that, that as the revenues come in for these two funds, that in our cleanup ordinances, we can address the contract at those times.

So in in in other words, if those if those if the taxes come in at a higher rate than the projected revenues, those taxes would be converted back to

Right. Sales. Because that's not automatically done, is it?

I don't know. Okay. You. Can you help us with this? Tax goes directly to

general fund for the DOT in case

No. But but any Currently. But if we say the minus the use tax. Let's just say these funds perform over and above. Do the contracts automatically change because we have more funding?

It would be fund balance that we could then use to support next year's contract.

So we just keep that money there.

And then it supports the following year's contract?

Yeah. So that so it would be two part. Does that make sense?

K. What's the first part?

What's the

first part?

Two of them.

To clarify, every year, we do an ordinance that takes the

Excess.

Excess, and we actually give it to KCAHA. At the end of the year, in the fourth quarter cleanup, that money is rolled over into the next contract year because it's fourth quarter cleanup.

So the sec okay.

First, second, third cleanup does go to them.

Okay. It does

go to the contract.

Okay. So that's automatic, and that's not something that needs to be done. But my aim is to make sure that we're purposing the local use tax for what the voters intended for it to be used for. So there's over a $100,000,000, and it impacts a lot of different things. But for the manager to come back with us with a plan on how do we use these dollars and how the the taxpayers

interpret Question for Michael. Michael, when we took the money out of the public safety sales tax, I can't remember if it was the PMT or the the ACIT a tax, but when we did the the light bulbs on the streetlights, we changed those out, and there was a pretty hefty price tag on that.

11,000,000, I think.

Dollars 11,000,000. And have we is that money now paid? And that 11,000,000 strong

foundation

strong And the ir we're

be that.

And I we're appreciate councilwoman's committee sub. I would take it a step further. I would say that I would direct the city manager to look at future cleanup ordinances and ways to to utilize the excess dollars to not just for the use, but for for all funds, to direct it to KCATA until we get to that $100,000,000 mark or to a mark to a mark that that. That. And

to that. Then

be able

And

And to

revert

back to The general revenue. Okay.

Yeah.

To look at to To look at what we And I'm and Andrew, it it would essentially direct the city manager to look at future cleanup ordinances for, what would it be, second and third quarter? And quarter, we're see impact of to prevent route the cuts.

Is that something Does

that sound

like a separate can

amend here or is that something that

deserve or that should have its own Own ordinance?

Well, I feel like

the should

have its own thinking

that way. I think that I think that needs to be separate from this because I think

And we can we can do whatever we want.

Well, the challenge with that is it it's you're essentially you're essentially reintroducing what's already been reintroduced and is held on the docket or it's probably been disposed of by now. But the goal here is to focus on how do we fund transit.

Right. But we're also looking at a a, really, resolution here

Mhmm. Rather than an ordinance.

Yeah. And that's why I don't know if that would fit body of this ordinance.

Would would it fit, Andrew?

And

that. That. Do other actions that are related to the execution of this document to the extent that they are related to this cooperative agreement.

I

can understand and appreciate that it might be

do that. To able You guys have a preference?

I prefer that it be buttoned up here at those belts and suspenders, to this actual allocation. That would be my preference.

So so, Andrew, just to be clear, you're saying we can we can amend this ordinance with this direction to the city manager, and, then he will come back to us with his proposal, I guess, and that works.

Complicated, like convoluted. Like, I feel like it would be best if it was set aside, excuse me, as a separate resolution because you're basically directing the city manager to gather information, come back, present to us, and then we would create an ordinance directing from that information. And putting that all into this ordinance just seems really complicated and convoluted.

What's complicated

Yeah. I don't think it's well, in my opinion, it's not complicated or because what we're saying is we have a shortfall and we're trying to find additional resources so to address the shortfall. And one thing that we can do is to work to make those funds whole, and the first step is to get the information information to to do do that. That. And I

agree with that, and I will support that. I just feel like it would be best to do it separate from this service contract.

Alright. Let's kinda take a straw poll here. Councilman.

Councilman? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I might have missed part of the conversation when I was coming down on the elevator, but I believe you're still discussing the committee sub in regards to ATA funding. One thing we did during the budget was we utilized citywide TIF dollars to help close the gap. What I would suggest is there's now $1,100,000 sitting in the Blue Ridge TIF that was not included in that amendment, dollars 1,100,000 in surplus TIF revenue. And so what I would suggest you is that you actually use that money to go towards k c a t a consistent with what we did with the other surplus TIF revenues when we passed the budget.

Well, we already have an ordinance that is using some of those dollars that's gonna be heard today. So we wanna make sure that we what I'm asking is the voters voted to fund public transit, and we're taking part of those dollars and we're putting it in the general fund. And so why are we grasping for funds when the voters have already said we want public transit? This is how we wanna pay for it, and we've decided to put those monies elsewhere. So there's the city has hundreds of funds.

We could take money from the health levy. We could take money from this could take but all I'm asking is do what we said we would do. Do right by the voters.

Alright. Let's let's we're voting on case up.

Running into Board of of of

of

of

Excuse me, Chair. Just to confirm, the amendment that we're considering here is the amendment suggested by Councilman Duncan regarding looking back at the second and third quarter for revenue overruns?

Looking back, I think we're looking forward

looking Looking forward, yes.

Well, and it has to do with the local use tax and a plan to make this fund whole regarding the local use tax, and we're looking forward on a quarterly basis.

Understood. Okay. Thanks.

I

agree with with this approach. In general, I think that it is I think that the fact that we divert all of the online use tags to general fund and don't split it out is it just makes it less and less predictable as more sales go online. I'm 100% behind that. I have some concerns about the potential for this disrupting this This particular is really we've got to get a contract in place. I don't want it to create more uncertainty for our partners at the KCATA and like there was last year.

I think that this I agree that this should be a stand alone piece of legislation to continue to move down that path. I think that adding this in absolutely jeopardizes when it goes to full council because we have not discussed this with I our kind of want to stay the course on this right now. That's going to be my vote, But would absolutely cosponsor something that is like more of resolution in nature, directing the city manager to look at to model out what this financially looks like, what fiscal impact would it have if we were to divert excess use tax funds to the ATA?

I think it's incumbent upon this body that if we pass this out, which I recommend that we do, that we remind our colleagues that this is not redirecting any funds. This is just ensuring that the city manager takes a look at future cleanup ordinances to see how we can supplement KCATA for future. And additionally, and I will look to KCATA, we're going to vote on a contract or vote on this budget because those are the monies that we know are going to be in the budget and look for additional revenue down the way to ensure that maybe in the future, can curb some of these route adjustments. Is that amenable to you all? Very.