Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

Everyone, welcome to the April 14 finance governance and public safety committee meeting. My name is Andrea Boo. I am chair of the committee. I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves.

Quentin Lucas, the mayor of Kansas City.

West Rogers, 2nd District.

Crispin Rand, 4th District.

Darryl Kearls, 5th District At Large.

And we have several of our colleagues introducing or attending today. I will start. Let's start with councilman Bunch.

Eric Bunch, 4th District. Glad to be here today.

Thank you.

Reina Parkshaw, fifth in district councilwoman and mayor pro tem.

Great.

Good morning, Melissa Robinson, 3rd District.

Good morning, Lindsey French, second district at large.

Kevin O'Neill, first district at large.

Right. And if staff will introduce themselves.

Director Ross, city clerk's office.

Tammy Queen, city manager's office.

Sam Miller, Assistant City Attorney.

William Troy, Interim Director of Finance.

Mario Veska, City Manager.

All right. We have one item on the agenda that we will hold. It is the item that is currently held in committee, Item 260,286. If there's no objection, we will hold that one additional week. All right. Adam, quick let's start with Item 260,340. We will take that up

and get that out of the way. Thank you.

Right. It's two six zero three four zero, reducing appropriations in amount of $5,900,000 for the legal expense fund appropriating $5,900,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the legal expense fund as a transfer to the Kansas City Police Department for legal settlement expenses designating requisition authority in establishing an effective date.

Madam chair, this relates to actually budget activity and an ordinance we actually have on the floor at city council. In the elect we in the event we elect not to move forward on that ordinance, this would, simply fund the, legal expenses due with KCPD, prior to the end of our fiscal year.

As we remember, there are $5,900,000 of outstanding expenses that come due based on settlement activity in the

prior year. Passing this advance of new pass would allow it to, be reviewed at full counsel consistent with the other ordinance before us.

Alright. Are there any questions from the committee? Is there any public testimony for ordinance number two six zero three four zero?

Chair, may I ask some questions? Yes. One of the rationales that we gave to do this this way was to have more visibility and discussion about said settlements. Is this committee going to have that discussion?

It does not appear that there is timing, right now for that discussion. We certainly can, and I think the police department at least should be willing to do so. Both closed session opportunity on Thursday, we could always have it at committee next week. It's really just, we're coming up to the end of the month sort of, thing. But I I agree on more robust discussion, and that was the spirit of the other ordinance. This is just a making sure we fulfill the, statutory necessity.

So do I hear you say, mister mayor, that this discussion can be had heard at the council meeting in a closed session on Thursday?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I look forward to that.

Agenda, please.

Alright. Mister chairman. Yes.

Just just

for a

clarification, mayor, Isn't this, like, a time sensitive issue as well? I think

What are they saying?

If I'm not mistaken, that this has to be approved or it should be approved by May 1

Yes.

If I'm not mistaken.

Yep. By April 30 would be the requirement for it.

Yeah. So but I I welcome the conversation as well.

Yep. Willett.

Alright. Councilman Willett.

Thank you, chairwoman. Nathan Willett, 1st District Northland. Can you bring me up to speed on this? I know you had the overage fund. When are the funds be available, for the police department? Is that the ordinance we're on right now?

Yes.

What's what is your recommendation with the current ordinance?

On this ordinance, my recommendation would be passage of this ordinance. Counsel would then have two ordinances that could effectuate spending on the police litigation point. This ordinance just independently provides the money. There are no other types of discussions. The other ordinance provides funding, but adds extra steps in connection with it, particularly as to future years. And so that's that would that would be what's before city council.

Just wanna state my belief on that. One, I don't believe that there should be ever considered an overage fund. 25. We've funded the police above that many times throughout the last decade, including this year, well above 25%. I don't think we should look at it as once you get to that number, then we're going to put all these conditions and constraints on the police department.

We fund the police department of what the chief comes to us with a responsible budget, and they do their job. I think what happens is you'll get more political, fights continuing to be done if we go into a position like that. So I wanna make sure that they get their money, for the settlements, I and wanna make sure that our chief and the police department are set up to do what their job. They're having the World Cup come, obviously, here this summer. They should not be having to worry about, funding in any situation whatsoever, and I wanna make sure that they get the funds that they deserve on time.

All right. Are there any other questions? Yes. Oh, Councilman Duncan.

Sorry, Emily, madam chair. Just to be clear, this 5 0.9 exhausts the legal settlement fund for the fiscal?

Right.

And do are we your question directed to you, chair, and board of police commission member, are we expecting additional lawsuit payments this fiscal?

I I would not. This I mean, not recognizing that this fiscal year just has three weeks remaining.

I mean, this exhausts the the settlement fund for this fiscal and next fiscal.

Correct? Yes. That is correct. So for next year, would one expect lawsuit costs to exceed what was placed within the budget, I think I I think the answer to that is

yes. Alright.

Any other questions? Councilor? Clarifying question then. So you're proposing that we set this side this fund aside for the legal expenses, but this is already exhausting the legal expenses. So if it exhausts the legal expenses, where then do those expenses come from? Does that go back to the original police budget, or do they come to us now to get additional funds to put into this new fund?

In some way, it depends, but this corpus of funds relates to legal settlements that were entered into previously for which they are paying structured settlements over a term of years. So these are costs that accrue to KCPD for the next fiscal year because in their legal settlement, they said, for example, we will pay you for four years, 2,000,000, for example, every year in advance. That's where this come from. So it's a so it is a fiscal year 2627 cost even though the liability well, the incident occurred some time prior. The assent to the settlement occurred for most of these settlements within the fiscal year in which we are sitting now, but that's why you're seeing it.

It's interesting in how it lays out, but it really just speaks to the structured settlements over the years ahead.

Okay. So ACM Queen, I guess if we were to if additional funds were to be requested in the future, where would those funds come from?

So this ordinance provides 5,900,000 under the requisitioning authority of the police department out of the legal expense fund for what the mayor described for structured settlements. There will still exist about $600,000 in the police department's budget itself, for additional legal settlements. So if they go above and beyond that, then they would have to come and ask for additional funding that would likely either come from contingent appropriation or the general fund, depending on what the council's pleasure was.

Okay. That answered my question.

Have Robinson.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Madam chair, I certainly agree with my colleague in that we need to make sure that our police department has what it needs in order to be successful. I do take contention with the governance part of that and making sure that I mean following that line of logic we should all pack up and go home because we're just rubber stamping what people are bringing to us and that's not what the voters voted on us to do. They voted on us to provide oversight and governance and and represent their interests. And so I'm concerned and critical about this committee hearing because we should be asking what happened, when did it happen, and how do we make sure it doesn't happen again. But we're just passing this without that discussion at the committee level, which I do take concern with.

I do appreciate wanting to do it at the council level, but people are expecting us when it comes before us to ask those critical questions that, unfortunately, without a closed session, we're unable to do right now.

Counselor I

also have a question. And if if this is not gonna have robust conversation within committee, where does the public comment fall for this particular ordinance?

It would

would now. You're gonna take it today. Okay.

Didn't I asked for it.

And You did. Yes. I must have missed that. Sorry.

No. No. It's been loud in here. Councilman Willett.

Thank you, chairwoman. Just wanna Just for folks to know, what traditionally happens is number one priority of the police department is to fund its personnel, the folks who are on the front lines. The second thing is to equipment and other upgrades needed. Then And the other thing is so what and then the legal funds. So what happens if the legal funds go above a budget of what they currently have allocated, it dips into equipment upgrades.

It it dips into technology upgrades. And our chief protects the salaries of the folks who work in the police department. That's the first and foremost important thing. If there is overage on the legal funds, traditionally what happens is you're not getting new upgrades that you normally would get for the police department in terms of technology. And so that's why it's appropriate to fund the legal defense fund, what we anticipate, so we don't have to keep dipping in to getting the tools and resources our first responders need.

I agree. Councilman Duncan.

Madam chair, I do want to express concern shared with, as councilman Robinson, Councilwoman Robinson stated, this is going to put us into a future financial bind later this fiscal, and, you know, we need better governance. We we need better governance. We have to be more judicial. It is not this body that is putting the police department in a financial bind. It is the police department's lawsuits that are putting it in a financial bind.

When we continue to fund these lawsuits, we defund other things, whether that be housing, whether that be our health department, or whether that be our buses, which will exacerbate public safety concerns and putting us all in a more dangerous position.

Madam chair, I may just say, to councilman Robinson's point, there are a few ways to address this. Right? They're sitting at full council an ordinance that would effectuate the same point in some ways just adds two sections that there's been more debate and discussion over. There's obviously this ordinance. I will echo one point to many who have mentioned things. It is a very real concern. Across the state, the St. Louis police department got hit by a $37,000,000 verdict about two weeks ago. If that is kind of the amounts that we are seeing, right, to councilman point. There no.

There's no advanced budgeting for that and understanding how we can prevent that and and more, I think, is essential as a governance matter, long term. And so I heard on the concern. I think think more discussion is very worthwhile in connection with it and perhaps vehicles that let us do so that may be at full counsel are an effective way to do it.

Well, one of the things that the chamber had recommended was to have a level of certification for our police department. And I we don't know if these settlements would be impacted by that certification or not because we don't know what the settlement is for. When I say prevent, I mean what structural changes

Yeah. No. I agree.

Regarding our behaviors and our policies that will help to decrease our liability. And and that's our only opportunity to insert those types of discussions are when we're passing these ordinances. Great.

Madam chair, I move ordinance number two six zero three four zero be reported to the full council with the recommendation of advance and do pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 26,340 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? If the motion passes, we'll hear it on Thursday. Right. Adam Clark.

Here we go.

260339. Reaffirming the intent of the city council to continue good faith negotiation with the Kansas City Royals for the retention of the team in Kansas City, then the city manager to negotiate and execute a term sheet lease and development agreement with the Kansas City Royals or an affiliate entity for design, construction, and operations of a new stadium, offices, and supporting infrastructure in the Washington Square Park Crown Center area, authorizing the execution of additional cooperation cooperative agreements in connections with the term sheet lease development agreement directing the city manager to apply for a tax increment financing plan for the project appropriating $250,000 for the development services funds and authorizing the use of previously appropriated funds for the purpose of executing certain professional services agreements and further furtherance of the object objective of this ordinance. Finding this project is a a public benefit to the city and to the state of Missouri, directing the city manager to apply for various financial and tax incentives through state agencies, directing the city manager to negotiate intergovernmental cooperative agreements with the state of Missouri and related entities, and authorizing the execution of additional agreements necessary to comply with the directives of this ordinance, waiving the contract solicitation in article five chapter three requirements and otherwise set out the code of ordinance as the to the agreements authorized in this ordinance directing the city manager to conduct public engagement related to the lease and development agreement and declaring the intent of the city council to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for certain expenditures and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

Okay. Just some housekeeping measures before the presentation begins. You can see several people filling out these forms, these cards. If you want to testify, there are cards on the ledge here. They will be making presentations. So if you will fill out a card and just lay it here on the ledge, someone will pick it up. Actually, I'm gonna ask Katrina to be in charge of collecting the cards. So she will stand she will just bring them up to Katrina. She will collect them. I hope she doesn't have anything else to do today.

So please fill out a card, bring it to Katrina. She will bring it to to me. When we get to testimony, you will have two minutes. We have a lot of cards. So please, I will call them three at a time, line up, and we will go through them relatively quickly so we can hear from everyone who wishes to speak. Without further ado let' proceed.

Morning, Madam Chair, Mario veska city manager. Thank you for the opportunity to say a few words about this ordinance. What this ordinance does lays out the necessary steps for the city to begin negotiation discussion for the construction of major league baseball stadium in the area of Crown Center and Washington Square Park. This is the first step. We' had a lot of conversations with the team and I think this is a step that we need to take forward in order to proceed. I'm not going to say anymore.

I'm going to turn it over

to assistant city manager Tammy Queen and our chief development strategy, Mark Nachalczyk, go with the details. But I will be on my spot if you have any questions for me. Thank you.

Alright. We will go ahead and get started with a little bit of background on this legislative background. Resolution two three zero six five six for good faith negotiations, retaining McKenzie Royals. And then following that ordinance, two six zero zero three two committed funding for down for downtown entertainment and recreation projects. Since then, staff has continued to explore the feasibility of a downtown baseball stadium.

A bit about what this ordinance does, and we'll talk a little bit about what it does not do as well. Broken into a few kind of categories to make this a bit more digestible, starting with intergovernmental partnership. This ordinance directs the application for state funding through specifically the Missouri Development Finance Board and the Show Me Sports Act. It also directs negotiation of intergovernmental agreements to see what more we can do to work with our governmental partners. Public private partnership, this directs negotiation and execution of a term sheet, lease and development agreements and related agreements with those needs.

All funding agreements related to the stadium, and we'll get through project scope here in a bit. We'll come back to city council for final approval with a TIF plan and more detail on how that's going to be funded. That time line can take somewhere around three months if we're moving pretty quickly. But municipal funding kickoff process, we this directs the application for a TIF plan and authorizes $250,000 for predevelopment expenses and declares the intent for reimbursement related to bond proceeds. Finally, public engagement and benefit.

This ordinance directs engagement be conducted regarding the lease and development agreements and declares the project as having a public benefit to the city of Kansas City and

the state

of Missouri. And I think just to reiterate on this slide that these agreements and any funding agreements do have to come back to counsel prior to for approval. So the mechanism for how all of this will be funded will come back to counsel for review, as will the TIF plan. I wanted to also just talk a little bit about what that intent to reimburse says, and it's in I lost what section it's in. Municipal funding.

Yeah. So it's in the ordinance itself, and it has a big number in it. It declares the city's intent to reimburse itself from bond proceeds. That is what we call belt and suspenders language for the IRS. So that basically is anything that we might spend starting from the moment this ordinance passes through the time we issue bonds doesn't get stranded, and we have the ability to reimburse ourselves for any of those costs.

Not saying we intend to do that, but we want we always want to preserve that capability. This is something that probably breezes by all of you when we do bond ordinances, but it's always in a tax exempt bond ordinance, and so just wanted to make sure that that was clear. Okay, and continuing on with what our project is, it's obviously, as the city manager described, a Major League Baseball stadium project in the area of Washington Square Park and Crown Center. It is also office facilities for the team and then any necessary infrastructure improvements, and those could be parking, that could be utility relocation upgrades that might be necessary, could be street, and any other public realm improvements that might be necessary. The ownership structure of the stadium is contemplated to be with the city, and the development timeline is a brisk pace of forty to forty eight months' worth of construction.

Project location anticipated, a little bit repetitive here, but Washington Square Park, Crown Center area. Based on some initial research, we anticipate there's almost 20,000 parking stalls within the area, nearly adjacent to the Kansas City streetcar for access. And some preliminary traffic studies being done support infrastructure that exists for major inflow and outflow of events in Downtown Kansas City as we see for major things throughout the year, like World Cup and the fun stuff like that. Another note on this location is the existing asset alignment. Existing entertainment helps manage project costs and creates benefit for those existing local businesses, along with central assets in Kansas City that stand to be revitalized through this project.

Anticipated project funding. Total estimated project cost is 1,900,000,000.0 looking at stadium infrastructure and offices. This does not include any ancillary development that may take place as a part of this project. So estimated participation being at $600,000,000 is a number that we've come to based on some initial research and modeling of different scenarios on what this project could create in uplift for the city of Kansas City, capturing primarily that increment and the activity it will create for the localized area for

a term of thirty years? Yes. So this ordinance and the term sheet would contemplate the issuance of bonds by either directly by the city or through a conduit issuer. Certainly, the city's annual appropriation pledge

backing for those bonds, with ideally we're using those

city's incremental economic activity tax revenues that come from a potential impact area, a localized impact area, and the stadium itself to help make those payments. And then we would also provide direct infrastructure support included in that same number, in that $600,000,000 The anticipated term of the bonds and the lease associated with this would be thirty years. That's the contemplation at this point. Again, the final project authorization and the funding for this project will come back to city council. That's after we get through the TIF process, the Tax Increment Finance Commission and their process, and we are also having a third party financial feasibility review of the models and scenarios that Morgan mentioned that are being reviewed and developed.

And so that will be a requirement of the bonds themselves. The bondholders would not be comfortable with just us saying, yeah, we're good for $600,000,000 They're going to want a third party feasibility study to be included in the offering document for the bonds, no matter who the issuer is, to ensure that there is enough revenue to generate that level of revenue, as we anticipated. There's also contemplated in here, as Morgan mentioned, the state partnerships through the MDFB tax credit program, as well as the Show Me Sports Investment Act to add to the participation that the city is anticipating at this point. So that is what we know at this point. I don't know if you want to walk through a few next steps.

Some next steps would be certainly we would, if passed, we would get to work on negotiating that term sheet and start working on lease and development agreements and get all of those negotiations done and certainly go at a pretty brisk pace through the TIF process and the financial feasibility process. So with that, we are happy to answer questions that you might have.

I

don't think any questions, just some thoughts that I think will probably be questions down the road as we get through all the reviews and approval processes, so on and so forth. And since the city manager and staff will be doing all the legwork from this point forward, I do want to share what, at least just speaking for myself, my priorities are in this conversation as you go forward and think about what has to come back for approval before us. First, that this the structure of this only be dependent on new or additional revenues generated by the project. We're talking $600,000,000 It doesn't exist right now. It's nowhere in our budget.

It's not being drawn from anywhere in our budget. It only comes to fruition if the project moves forward and then generates it, but that we're talking about new revenues that has zero impact on our current budget, future budgets, and our ability to deliver services. Second, that we do everything we can to limit the risk of exposure to the city's finances, to the taxpayer, to our ability to deliver those services. And I think we discussed a number of ways that that could be done and mechanisms that we could have in place. Part of it's going to be how conservative our estimates are of the projected revenues, how we are drawing district boundaries to ensure that it's gathering sufficient revenue generated by the project, how we're structuring the deal for the city's end, including business interruption fund, debt service coverage, all these things we can put in place to make sure that the scenario where a project doesn't perform the way that we think it should, the city is not on the hook, at least in a way that's impacting our ability to do sidewalks, fund police and fire and streets and all the stuff that we always talk about are very, very important.

So for me, that's what I'm looking for as you move forward. I do wanna point something out because what has become clear to me is how much accountability is built into this process. So you either are you either have or are going to hire a third party consultant whose fiduciary responsibility is to the city as we review and negotiate and figure out the financial implications of this project. Is that correct?

Correct.

And then we're going to have an independent third party do the third party analysis of the product of all that work. Is that correct?

Those are kind of one and the same.

Okay. So the so the entity that we have contracted out to do the to consult will also do the third party analysis?

So, we have we'll have somebody come on board to do a third party analysis for the TIF plan and the process that's required there. We also are going to have a revenue consultant come on board as we're looking at that incremental lift. We are forecasting that out and what that's going to look like. We have many smart people in this building, but building a baseball stadium is not anyone's full time job in this building, and we'll need somebody who is very has a lot of that industry expertise and what that economic impact will look like. And so there will be an economic impact study as far as jobs created and things like that, and then there will also be a third party analysis to make sure we can cover our bonds and that our projections and assumptions are correct.

Okay.

Understood. And all that information, as it becomes available, is going to be part of future staff presentations as certain parts of this require city council approval moving forward.

We spent a lot of

time on these projects talking about what we might not be able to do if we do this, such as people worried we won't be able to afford the police or fire potholes. I think that's the wrong way to look at this. Think it's alright for us to be aspirational and think about what we can do big and what happens if we do something big well. And I'm looking at this project that the city is gonna put in less than a third of. The return of that is going to be at least $2,000,000,000 with the B dollars in economic development. That's going to be built by people making really good wages. We're going to employ people already at the stadiums in a bigger not a bigger stadium, but in a bigger entertainment area with more opportunity. We're we're gonna need more police. We're gonna need more firefighters probably. There will be housing.

You go to any big massive economic development project like this in any other big city in this country, there's more housing. That will be housing across the economic spectrum. That's a really good thing. We're going to do infill on the streetcar line. We're going be close to the Amtrak. This is something that if we do it right and we do it well, it will change our city for a generation. Now that said, we've got a lot of work to do, and I'm looking forward to you guys coming back and saying, this our investment, and this is what we're going to get in return for that investment. And I expect, as a small business owner, it's going be very easy to say, yes, this is a really good deal for our city. Let's put everybody to work. Let's create value for Kansas City but really the entire region. So thank you for being here. Thank you for your hard work and let's do something big as a city.

Councilman curls.

Thank you, Madam Chair. A couple of questions in regards to the city participation of the $600,000,000. That's a estimate. Right? So it's not set in stone that it's a $600,000,000 commitment yet. Right. This ordinance

does not authorize us to spend $600,000,000. This ordinance just authorizes us to start researching that and come back to you with a TIF plan and the details that would, at that point, have more robust answers to the financials.

So it could be less, it could be more, or we don't know yet, right?

Although doesn't the ordinance put a limit on the 600, isn't it up to 600, so it would be less or that?

Mhmm. Yep. Okay. So I I I just wanted for public perception out there that we are committing 600,000,000. The other question, I am am am not opposed to a downtown stadium. I I had some concerns about the location, and and I've shared that already about, you know, is this the best location? I understand that. I I guess this is where the royals wanna go.

This is Is it? Maybe.

Talked Okay. To them too.

Okay. But is this a final location, I guess? Is this or is this still negotiable?

I think we'll when we come back with a CHIP plan, we'll come back with project areas and maps and things that have more definitive nature, and that's the time that you'll authorize us to sign funding agreements and move forward. Going to do to then

And then, you've got, 20,000 parking stalls. How does that compare to what the parking is currently at Kaufman Stadium?

Don't

Truman Sports Complex, I believe, currently, because it was discussed during chief's times, it changes sometimes, but I believe it was 25,000 parking spaces at its height. Now they've they make changes at different times, which are between twenty and twenty five thousand, currently determined sports complex, for chiefs or royals, theoretically.

And then I I I think and I I don't wanna take up a lot of time. I know we've got a lot of public testimony,

and I've

I've got other questions, and maybe we can have some offline. But my other question is, is there a possibility when we have these discussions, city manager or whatever, that we are looking at a community benefits agreement as well to be incorporated in these negotiations and these talks? I don't know who could answer

that question.

We put that in the ordinance. Yes.

Yes. It's in

the ordinance?

Yes. I believe it is in the ordinance.

As the ordinance contemplates a commitment to community benefits to Kansas City Parks and Boulevard system and public engagement. That is four gs. And

I just wanted to say I think what is important to know here is this is the initial steps. This is the authorization for the city manager to begin to take the official step of negotiation, to work on the term sheet. And this is really our opportunity and the public's first opportunity to have these discussions. But there's nothing written in stone, as Morgan said. And there will be multiple steps for this to come back.

There will be multiple steps for public testimony as it goes through the TIF process. And this is just the beginning of the discussion and the plan beginning of the public discussion and plan. And it's something that is not often done in a TIF plan. There's not an initial kind of public discussion of how we put together a project. So there's a lot of information here, but the only thing that we're committing to right now is having the city manager start discussions and negotiations and $250,000 that will benefit the city by ensuring that the calculations that have been done to date are accurate and will produce a sound plan.

I'll leave it at councilwoman Patterson Hasley. We'll get

Thank you, madam chairwoman. So my comments are very specific to the language in the ordinance itself, And I wanna be clear that I support the royals being retained in Kansas City. I've had a number of conversations with mister Sherman myself, so I don't need to rely on said, she said. So I've done that work myself. So a few things in the ordinance that I wanna point out and ask for some consideration.

The first is eight h h in section section one section two h. So section two h, outline outlines a period of exclusivity, with Kansas City team with the location being at the parking in Crown Center. So I just wanna point out that, mayor Lucas, I've had numerous conversations with you, and you said you were site agnostic. But this section illustrates that you are no longer site agnostic for whatever reason. The royals have not explicitly said in public that they, would like to go to Washington Square Park.

I understand that a lot of people like that location, and they may like that location. But I'm just calling out, that our conversations are in conflict right here. So

May may I just note

Oh, yeah. Definitely.

As I read the exclusivity provision, the exclusivity runs between the city of Kansas City, the Kansas City Royals. And so in the event that there was some other site within Kansas City, exclusivity is as to the parties itself, not as to the location.

But the location is in the section.

That is that is referenced because you have to reference it to the exclusion of locations outside of Kansas City, Wisconsin.

Not what you nor the city manager told me. You said that you would do a financial analysis of our ability to pay back some number. I'm I'm assuming 600 is the number no matter where. And what the conversation was is that it would be site agnostic. Agnostic. I want the record to reflect that this ordinance does not honor the conversations that I had. Understood.

And I

want that to be known. Okay. We can move on from that one. Section four, the supplemental agreements. I would wanna recommend that c says a commit a commitment to issue bonds, just a sense just a sentence to clarify subject to the approval of city council. And so I understand that we need to do a financial analysis to determine what is the amount of financial commitment. And so do you think it's reflected in another section?

No. Wait. What what is the

you It said it's Or in sections yeah. Now I'm in section four

Yeah.

C. And it says a commitment by the city to issue bonds. And I and I'm not the lawyer in the room. So it reads as though we are a bit in the middle of a rock and a hard place. And so my recommend that and I don't think that's what we're trying to do in terms of being commitment to issuing the bonds prior to an analysis. Yeah. And so to rectify that, I would just say, add a sentence right after the comma that says a commitment to by the city to issue bonds, comma, subject to the approval of city council. Okay.

At the very end, it says subject to necessary appropriations and approval by city council. Okay. Is that okay? Or is it the amount

I think it's the I think it's the word commitment, you know, because what I've seen happen is even though the language gives us a way out, I feel like we get so far into the project where council people feel that there's not a way out to make another decision politically. And so I don't know. Maybe remove the word commitment. If

we put that subject to necessary appropriation approval by city council at the beginning, would that be And remove the word commitment. And just move the word commitment. Yeah.

You just

Oh, what's that intent?

You in intent works. You do need you you need a verb Yeah. Basically. The the problem is if you delete the

I mean, I think that you can say Intent. Subject to the necessary appropriation of of approval of the city council, we will issue bonds.

Can we use intent?

You could just flip to her to the council at this point, I think. I

think the word commitment is too strong. So if we could just find another one, somebody would have the source or something. Okay. Section four, if you are amenable to that, section four e, it says the responsibility for construction of parking facilities and coordination with existing businesses regarding parking rights. I think that we need to add a sentence that that illustrates our commitment to revenue sharing of the parking revenue.

So what I've seen happen in other instances, if we've built parking garage and gifted it to the developer, and then we didn't have any way to capture the revenue from that very important piece of infrastructure. And I know that with the garage in the Vine area, I did make sure that there was revenue sharing back to the city such that we can reappropriate that somewhere else in the footprint. And so I think it's important to actually say that there will be revenue sharing for these pieces of infrastructure that are very expensive, both build and maintain.

Easiest easiest way to easiest way to do that is just to add probably a put a conjunction on in section e that would have irrelevant revenue sharing or and relevant revenue capture.

I mean, would argue that all of it's relevant relevant if we paid for it and built it.

That's yeah. And I think that the way this is drafted, we may not actually pay for and build anything. So you would have to

It says responsibility for the okay. Here we got a strong word. Well, we got responsibility right here. So consideration.

Yes.

And then okay.

But to that point, so section four, your trigger provision is agreements may include subject but not limited to. So there not everything in here will actually potentially end up in the agreement.

I just want the language to be softened such that nobody has the impression that we are making commitments and taking responsibility, and then the council is politically politically not financially, politically in a position where we can't pull back. And so my recommendation would just be to remove the the word responsibility and put consideration for the construction of parking facilities. And I would strongly recommend that revenue sharing stays.

Yeah.

And let me ask a question. Does this not ask decide on whose responsibility is it? Correct. It does not. It's not it's not saying that it's our responsibility. Yes. Saying these are the things that we will be included in the terms of the development agreement. Who's responsible?

I mean, history is the best teacher. We've been responsible we've been responsible for parking garages in many projects that, by the way, are not generators, revenue generators. No. If we just go off past I'm not being argumentative here. I'm I'm going off of me learning about city finance. And and I'm not meaning to be confrontational. I'm meaning to say, I have watched us gift parking garages to developers over the course of thirty years, and they've primarily been located in the 4th District.

Alright now.

So we should do something about that right now and let the record reflect that we're gonna do revenue sharing should we be responsible for any parking garage.

I know. I think adding So that's

how I'm trying to get done here.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah.

No. Alright. Alright. G, which is just a few down, same page. It says a commitment to community benefits to the Kansas City Parks and Boulevard system of public engagement.

I wanna make a point about rec representation. So I went through a few days ago with the help of some friends, and I looked at all these economic development boards. The TIF Commission, Port KC, LCRA, chapter one hundred, chapter three fifty three, EDC KC, visit KC, and the parks board has no third district representation. And so I think that we need to make a a some type of amendment to to deal with that if we're gonna have the parks board be the managing entity of any surplus funds. And I know that the 3rd District has a lot of friends, but we need actual representation from people that understands us and has to drive through our district every day.

I will just note this briefly. I believe commissioner Taylor now

I looked it up, sir.

I I believe she now lives in the 3rd District. We appointed her out of the 5th District.

No. I looked it up, and you all can fact check that. But I looked it up, and my data right here says and I'm sure she's a wonderful person. I think she's great. I think everybody loves her. That's not the point. I'm saying that we need representation. And right now in the economic development community within Kansas City, the 3rd District does not have proper representation, and so we gotta fix that. Her and I can't do it all. I mean, I'm holding the door as much as I can, and I need people in these places that are fierce fighters for the 3rd District. So that needs to be rectified. What's your suggestion?

I believe there's a member. I I think we may have a disagreement. There is a member from the 3rd District right now.

There's not.

We can confirm it in a moment, but I Read

if you're listening.

Right. You see he's back there, but I guess we could just text miss Taylor.

But Or

just look at the map.

I when I appointed her, she was a 5th District resident. People have

told have anything to do with miss Taylor, so let's please stop calling

her out.

There's no recommendation on on a dozen economic development boards.

Well and I think we have some vacancies, so I think the mayor could probably appoint some I'm

happy to serve.

Alright.

Okay. We

we have a lot of cards, so we have some vacancies. And I would welcome the mayor to a point because some of those boards that I'm on, we we need some people.

So we'll get to the your point is noted. So vacancy on the parks board, I'm available, and then we can come back to my other points as we move through because I have more.

Councilwoman Robinson, did

you have any I

think she got you think

she got it? Alright. We'll we'll stay over here and we'll come. Councilwoman French.

Yes. I want to go back to some of the points that some of my colleagues brought up as far as when we go through the negotiations because we're authorizing the negotiation. So just to reiterate that we are dependent on the new revenues that are collected from the project area itself and that we're not using the current budget or any of the city budget or anything like that and how we structure this to look for to protect our taxpayers and our abilities to fund our basic city services. So I want to reiterate that. And then go back to also the community benefits agreement.

So to Councilman Kearls' point, I don't see anything in here as any robust community benefits agreement or anything that indicates that at all. It's amazing to put a lot of funding back into our parks and boulevard system, and I think that's very important to do as well. That's something that's very much lacking, and we need to do that. But as we go through these negotiations, if this is going to be a transformative project for Kansas City, I want to have a transformative community benefits agreement as well. So that looks like,

you know, what affordable and

attainable housing look like, what workforce housing looks like, what workforce and labor, and using local labor and apprenticeship benefits and what that looks like for small businesses, and for small business benefits, childcare, what that looks like even to the account of streets like streetscaping, parking benefits, sustainability, green infrastructure. It's very robust that we can look at for a workforce I mean, sorry, community benefits agreement beyond just putting money into our park system. So as we go through those negotiations, I'd really like to be involved in that. Think a lot of us would like to be involved in those conversations and have a lot of community engagement that's around that as well.

Councilman Willett.

Thank you, chairwoman. Thank you to the folks that are out here today. I see some good folks from the Northland. I wanna walk it back to 2023 when I first was running for city council and knocking on constituent stores and and Platt and Clay County about this. After I got elected, never spent time in city hall, and I had a difficult time figuring out the one way streets downtown and figuring out how to get here. And I hear a lot from my constituents about the you know, being a downtown stadium. Everyone wants a state in Kansas City, Missouri. I think everyone understands that. A lot of my constituents love the k, love the tradition that it represents. A lot of my constituents like the old airport still.

You know? And it's and I made a commitment to my folks that I would never vote on something like this. This is something that should be up to the taxpayers to be able to decide. However, I wanna say something. Our city manager, Mario Vasquez, is one of the most competent persons to ever serve as city manager for this city, a thirty year veteran who has done a lot of impressive projects, who has competent people around him.

And I think that he can put together a proposal that I think the taxpayers would be able to look at with good light and probably make their decision themselves. What has changed since the last time you had the Royals vote now? You had the Show Me Sports Act passed. You have state investment over in this side state. And I think if you put something on the ballot, I think you can make a clear case.

I don't want to see this project turn into, it's going to solve every problem in this gosh darn city. When you're putting people to work, when you're when you're when you're actually having employing hundreds and thousands of people to build something, jobs, that's that's what puts people to work. We don't need to solve childcare with building a new stadium. We don't need to solve crime with building a new stadium. I I believe it should be up to the people on this.

I'm concerned about how it could affect police and fire budgets. I'm concerned how it could affect other basic services. I am not a PhD educator like my colleague over there who asked, you know, some of those certain questions. I'm an algebra high school math teacher, and I do wanna look at the algebra behind this and seeing, you know, is that district as as big as that Kansas, you know, Starbond District, is pretty much half of the state of Kansas? Or is this something that's gonna be, you know, tailored towards downtown?

I think we have competent people at city hall doing this, but made my commitment to my constituents that I will never vote on something like this. This should be up to them to decide. The other concern I have or or I think it could also turn out to be a good thing. The Korean War Memorial that's there at Washington Square Park, that needs to be prioritized as somewhere that could be located that's accessible to our veterans and their families, that's just as good, if not better, than where it is right now. And that's something that I'm gonna be introducing a resolution this week to make sure that we identify spots throughout Kansas City, including places up in the Northland, that could house not house, could have our our creating war memorial to make it as prominent as as a place right there.

We'll be diving into the math on this. I'm someone who who believes it should be up to the people to decide on this, but I also recognize that we have really good, competent city manager and a team behind us. And I don't think that you would even be in this room, all these folks in this room, you wouldn't be here if we didn't have Mario Vasquez as our city manager. That is a fact. That is an absolute fact. Thank you.

Alright. Councilwoman Robinson. Thank you, madam chair. I did have one amendment, and this is something that the mayor and I talked about briefly, and that was more of the benefit area. We talked about parks. This being a potential parks asset, if that's the case, this particular asset will be leaving the 3rd District and moving into another district. And so we only feel that it will be equitable to preserve that revenue share to the 3rd District as Parks' assets. So just asking the sponsor if he would be amenable to that

change. I

think that we probably need to discuss a bit more, so we're all going through that one list. So I am amenable to that discussion. I think that will be a discussion for all of us. But I think in terms of how we could draft it, how do you replace the community benefits that we estimate now from 3rd District salaries, activity, and probably even businesses, to councilman French's point. So the businesses that are near the stadiums, right, how do you make sure that there is some equivalent benefit that comes to the 3rd District? Haven't drafted that yet, but I think they're I I think that's a fair approach. And, councilor Bullock just left, but I I think that that would be something that I'd be intent on. I only mentioned him because he made kind of a counterpoint, but I agree with you.

Yes. Not interested in his counterpoints, but prioritizing the 3rd District, I think, would be a open enough language as you start to delve into the details of it. But I do think that if we talk about equity, we talk about how we continue with investments just exacerbating the red lines, historical red lines. And so, yes, we know that this is our central business district. Yes.

This asset will probably be more accessible to more 3rd District residents just based off of where it sits, but we do recognize that we're losing that asset. And so we the the only fair thing to do is to make sure that those benefits center the 3rd District. And then when you talk about the taxing area, it goes all the way to Brooklyn. And so that also impacts, again, the 3rd District. So

What about this for a potential? Because I know y'all want language. It could work with a small amendment that I think is fair to our other colleagues, although other colleagues are welcome. If we noted that the community benefit, you would say emphasis, focus, I'm trying to think of the right word, on areas and probably impact areas around, frankly, where former stadium facilities were. Because if you think about it, right, municipal stadium wasn't is in what is now the 3rd District.

The Truman Sports Complex is in the 3rd District. If we were to say I'm thinking about, like, a circle around kind of the Truman Sports Complex and saying because we're taking so much activity of it, if you said within and I haven't come up with the geographic area, but, you know, kind of that as a step one, parks, whatever assets within, I don't know, five minute drive of it. And if you did the same with Municipal Stadium, you hit a lot of the 3rd District. And then I think there is a very good nexus to why we're investing in that because we are taking something away. Does that speak to of what you're

I think narrowly, it does, but more broadly, it I mean, it's a whole 3rd District. We don't have a lot of parks assets. And if we're talking about parks assets, we don't have a lot in that particular vicinity. And so there needs to be a benefits district or some language that suggests that we provide an equitable approach for third district assets. And I think being more broad, because we're in the broad lane right now, we're not talking about specifics, and to the chair's earlier point, there's going to be more opportunities to come back to this body to review this work and continue to pass items.

And so if we can keep it broad but recognizing that it's a third district asset, the other point is that we invest in the Truman Complex. It might not be a lot, but the city does invest in that realm and, you know, folks are gonna be looking to redeveloping that space as well. So there's a lot of pieces.

This is an idea, which would include so it would it would be on the community benefit set section, you would say, including a benefits district based on departing sports and entertainment assets. It gets you the idea that your base we're funding more in one area because we're taking things away, and, thus, the benefits district needs to be based on

The geographical.

As long as

you put a like, based on, you know, some geographical element, I think it's important.

Okay.

Okay. Councilman Kearls, and then we'll go. I promise.

I'm gonna

have him over there.

Yeah. Yeah. And and I I just wanna on on that note, I I mean, I I just wanna make sure that and I get your point, councilwoman Robinson, about the 3rd District, but we we always forget about the 5th District. And I'm gonna off I'm a always bring up the 5th District about stuff that we always get left out of whenever there's any type of development or any type of funding that takes place, and we are included. And that's one of the reasons why I brought up the community benefits aspect as well so that if if this is gonna be a citywide asset, this is gonna be something that the city my constituents in the 5th District have a difficult time getting to downtown.

But needless to say, if there's some type of agreement that can be made where they're gonna benefit from some of it, I think that that would be a a bit a better sale to them as opposed to just saying that it's only going to the 3rd District or to the 4th District. I just wanna make sure that we can have those conversations. Mm-mm. That's all I'm saying.

If I if I may just briefly to resolve it, hearing the 3rd District member's point and yours, I think that's why and I appreciate councilwoman Robinson's invitation. It is more of where are we taking something from? And so I would think the focus isn't necessarily a district Yeah. Battle. It is a Truman sport. And to be fair to our Kansas Cityans who live East Of 435

Yeah.

Right, this is a substantial asset that will be leaving them, be And we're to

going

done. That I didn't take the councilwoman's invitation to be exclusive able to Right. Everywhere else in the city.

Especially when I can throw a rock, you hit the 5th District from there. So, I mean, what

I don't understand.

My my point is on this point. Oh, okay. My point is on this point before because I think you're gonna take us somewhere else.

I'll I'll

defer to

councilman president.

I do have a recommendation for that. That's a little bit more surgical. I think that we should add in language that as a part of this project, conducts a financial analysis for revenue loss of the 3rd District as a as a result of the relocation of the stadium, now both potentially, and an analysis and commitment to replace losses and a repurposing of the Truman Sports Complex. And so I think that that deals with the nature of 3rd District loss. So I repeat it.

A financial analysis for revenue loss to the 3rd District as a result of the vacation of Truman Sports Complex and a commitment to replace those losses through revenue generation from the new stadium.

Through what's the last part?

Revenue generation from the new stadium. Because her statement is saying the revenue because I think you all had a conversation that the revenue generation, like, if there's any surplus to be had Mhmm. It will go to parks. And then I just illustrated that there's not 3rd District representation on parks. Technically, it's not. And so this handles that. This says that we're going to have an analysis of the revenue loss. We're going to make a commitment to revenue generation due to that loss in the 3rd District. And that means don't matter who's on what board. Can I ask what would be on the board and then, you know, I'll get it done? But other than that Sure.

It doesn't matter.

Maybe two points I I make with that. One, this will be in perpetuity beyond us too. So even so right there will be a new mayor, Boynton Park's board members, and all of that.

Point of order. We are paying for powering, like, district beyond us as well.

No. I'm just saying, well, that that doesn't change my blood. There are two things that will change. The and I'm not worried about, like, who's on the board now. District boundaries may change and obvious so I kind of like if we could tie it even in a district in which the former asset sits. I don't want a redrawn the 4th District actually gets somewhat close to the stadiums, for example. Right? If the 4th District has those stadiums in the future, right, then are aren't we still are still trying to help the area near the stadiums? Right?

So I mean, with the point I'm trying to make is is a formal look at the revenue loss. That's that's what I'm trying to say. Let's let's not be let what is the revenue loss? Let's bring this put that in the sunlight, and then a commitment to somehow reinvesting that loss for other marquee projects. You know? And so I think we start with just figuring out what the revenue loss is.

I think the mortgage is trying to get attention.

Mr. Mayor, madam chair, may I suggest this language that might be helpful, which is would be to say a plan that prioritizes reinvestment in areas that have been historically subject to disinvestment and areas that have been affected by the relocation of sports teams.

Yes. That's great. Okay.

He's section g, counselor.

In section g. Okay. Alright. See, it's been well, it was right.

He's I

I did all that.

I'm gonna go to

At this point, I just think that any amendments we do here that you're writing down need to be voted on.

They don't want

have have these I don't wanna have these amendments mister Mike.

You I

just think it's important that we vote on these amendments individually because I've heard two or three different amendment ideas, and that's great. But I don't want this to bog down the, the original ordinance. And I think that if we have four to five or six well, how many ever ordinances or amendments we are asking for that they are voted on to go into the original ordinance.

So you

want us to do it like the budget?

Yeah. I mean, I

I Okay. That's

yes. But that said, it'll still just be the committee. Substitute. Yeah.

Yeah.

But, I mean, it's gonna come tomorrow as a full ordinance.

Right? So are you asking for separate committee substitutes?

Think any of us that want to introduce an amendment should have it voted on by the whole council.

We will They will be, mister Olegman. But you can't

separate them tomorrow. Well, there's

But I I would just say this, though. Why don't we just because they're really I only count three so far. Maybe this is just a recentering moment. One is with parking, evaluation of revenue sharing, if we construct any new parking, and we may not. Right? But the second relates to the community benefits discussion that just ended, and that's the city manager looking to historically underinvested areas with a focus on places where we have taken out sports facilities. Right? And then the third related to commitment versus intent

Right.

As to bond obligations. Three. And all of this comes back to us, and that's it. Those are the those are the only three.

Yeah. But, I mean, we're not done.

I I we might be, actually. I don't

May not be.

Well, that I think that'll so to to your point's heard, we'll see what comes ahead.

Yeah. Okay. Councilman Duncan, thank you for your patience.

Madam chair, I'll always wait for

you. Aw. So I

first and foremost, I I I don't think it's any secret that, you know, my position is, you know, two two years ago, Jackson County voted on a stadium tax to pay for to pay for these stadiums and resoundingly voted that Jackson County voters to include a majority of Kansas City residents and voters voted that down. So I I have a particular issue, with funding a billionaire stadium with taxpayer dollars. K.

Alright. I'm gonna ask you to hold your applause. We have a lot. We have a lot. Love Jonathan too, but councilman Duncan, excuse me. But we have a lot of testimony, and we wanna get to your comments as well.

And and thank you and and concur with with chairman Boo. I'll probably say some more things you wanna clap about, but please reserve your clapping. I do have a question for ACM Queen in regards to something that councilman Raya brought up because it's a question that I have too. You know, a lot is a lot has been said about how this is a difference just different than a tax, and I agree. However, this is putting us at in in a financial precarious bind, especially when we're issuing 600,000,000, potentially, bonds, and we're gonna be backing that, right, with the full backing of this city.

And so my question is, you know, would we see the bonds being issued, right, and then when would we start seeing revenue generating to pay back those bonds? Because if we if if we're put in a position similarly like we we we have been with the one light, two light, three light, four light, we'll continue to be paying on these things because they're not generating enough revenue, or we'll be paying on them if there's a delay in construction because I imagine the bonds are going be issued at the beginning of the project and not the end. And so my question is, where does that put us in a financial liability?

So from a timing perspective, we've modeled it a lot of different ways. There is a model, there's a thought that you could issue everything all at once and you eliminate your interest rate risk. You eliminate the fact that in two years, if you want to issue more bonds because you only issued a little at the beginning, that interest rates go up. So we've modeled kind of all at once. We've modeled over a period of four years the entire construction timeline, with varying levels of, oh, a little bit more in year two, because that's going to be a heavy construction year type thing.

With regard to when there's no revenue to pay for them, we use something called capitalized interest. And so, you're borrowing more so that you have money to pay interest on the bonds during the construction period when you're not generating revenue. That is also built into the model that we have. And so we can slice and dice this in many, many different ways, and we will do it in the most financially advantageous way for the city, certainly that will have the least impact. You are not wrong.

This is backed by any legally available revenue source of the city, ultimately, should no revenue come to fruition. We don't anticipate that. We also have the feasibility consultant that will give bondholders their comfort. When we go out to sell bonds, we'll include the financial feasibility consultant's report in the bond offering document, so that the bondholders can look at that and say, yes, we have a third party who says this is conservative, it's got the right assumptions in it, they are not over counting revenues, that type of thing will go in the bond document itself. Another thing that I will tell you is that we have built into the models debt service coverage ratios, so that we are basically we believe that we can get we've done it at different levels: 1.1 times coverage, 1.2 times coverage, 1.25 times coverage, just basically trying to build in a little more conservatism in that model.

And so, have, like I said, we have analyzed this lots of different ways, and we'll continue to do that as we lead up to what this project looks like should it pass and it move forward, and we determine that it is financially feasible.

But it's not without risk, correct?

Absolutely not without risk, certainly.

Madam Chair, if I could, I never thought I would have to do this, which is to add to something that Ms. Queen has said, but I also want to highlight the fact that when we talk about economic impact and the work that we have done, it's really measured on incremental revenue, number one. Number two, just thinking about the length of the baseball season, which is roughly about four months, five months in a good year, not going going able We're that. Into this assumption because we We're know we're not talking not to the fact that council member re has said, we don't want to have a negative impact to service and we don't want to draw on our general fund. That's why we're being conservative in our assumptions.

Yes. I appreciate that, city manager. And I think my concern stems from we are bearing the burden of feasibility studies that were wrong, right, for the power and light, for instance. So I mean, it it I think it bears recognition that, you know, while we're saying this is the first step to something that's gonna be an economically viable project and bring untold benefit, it is untold. Right?

So So, I mean, I think it it is untold. It's $600,000,000 of public dollars that we could be on the hook for coming out of our general fund. We know we're already struggling with revenues. The the other question that I have is this has been stated as a first step, but this does this does give the city manager broad broad authority to negotiate and execute a number of a number of different deals, and I I think I'd like to dig in on a on a few of those more in a few different sections. The in section three, the city manager is hereby directed to negotiate and execute in coordination with appropriate agencies, lease and comprehensive development agreement with the organization, developers, city incentive agencies, and relevant parties.

I think I'd like to know exactly which incentive agencies what what are we what are we granting the city manager the ability to execute? You know, I my my what gives me pause is that any time we include, negotiate and execute, then that's not coming back for this body. Can provide some illumination as far as the there are there are seven different execute portions in this, and I'd like to understand all of them.

I can try to oh, you got one question. I'll speak as a sponsor,

and then I'll I'll I'll let

the others. I think that the goal of this is city manager works up all agreements. Right? This would be largely of a nonfinancial obligation category. And so what remains with city council are obviously the financial obligations, which would be really, as you would expect, the core of what the agreement is. So I see if successful, this ordinance authorizes the manager to bring back, right, well, to produce a development agreement, ancillary agreements relating thereto any others that speak to the nonfinancial terms. Think almost about our union obligations. Right? This is our nonfinancial package. The financial package fundamentally has to come back to city council given the fact that we would issue the bonds.

To your concern, I don't know if it would be persuasive or not to, but I, am exceedingly confident that a team partner would not enter into the agreements with us unless, right, we also do the underlying bond issuances. Issuances. So that would be the nature of those. As to the agencies at issue, I believe it is the extent to which they can actually be cooperative in delivering terms of the agreement. Parks being a referenced example so far, there are several different incentive agencies already that overlay projects in that area, including the TIFF Commission, Chapter three fifty three, which is part of LCRA, and I believe it's coordination more broadly with them as part of it.

But it doesn't limit those agencies, right? I mean, Port Authority could be involved, and we're talking also about ancillary development. I think my other question would be, you know, if we're issuing bonds and we're issuing bonds under what agreement, right? I mean, we're talking about a broad benefits package, but we we don't know what that benefit benefit package entails, right? And so when we're talking about public dollars for public good, I think it's important that this body have have an understanding fully before we're issuing bonds of exactly what that benefit is going to be, I think, the third district's portion, you know, and who's going to benefit. And so I I I have serious qualms with issuing bonds when we don't even know what the benefits are going to be for those bond issuance.

Yes. And I've heard, I think the only rejoinder I would have is that since we will have the since the bonds require us to act further, right, all of those conditions will be fulfilled prior to our issuance.

I have a broader question for ACM Queen. What happens after thirty years? Is the stadium going to be retained by the city? Does it come under the tax portions of these ancillary developments come under tax rolls? And and what what what is our what is our long term vision

for that?

This this ordinance doesn't deal with ancillary development, and Anything related to that that would be related to ownership structure, tax abatement, tax incentive on that ancillary development would come back to this body for approval. In terms of thirty years, ideally we have a thirty year lease, we have thirty year bonds. That lease would likely have some sort of provision that would say, you know, some sort of renewal provision that included in it so that it could continue for another period of time, and we would have our debt repaid at that point by the end of the initial lease term, and then it would be operations, maintenance, maybe major capital improvements at that point that we'd be dealing with.

And my other question is regarding the TIF district itself. It's my understanding that Crown Center is currently under a TIF. Did that roll off?

No, it is under I believe it's a Chapter three fifty three abatement, so it's a tax abatement for property taxes.

So is this TIF district going to include Crown Center? How does that work?

Female I

don't think we have a finalized map of what that's going to be, partially because, to the point, I think it's this is the starting point. There's still things to figure out. There's still numbers for us to validate. For us to draw understand all of the variables together and how they play with each other, and we don't have all of those answers quite yet. So I think that would be something that we would have to come back with to say, these are the exact boundaries of what this is going to look like, and here are the different levers that you can pull to get there.

And then my final note, and thank you, Madam Chair, is when we're talking about benefits in, I believe, it is section

four G. G.

While

I understand this this is this is relegated to the stadium itself, I have concerns regarding you know, I've spoken to SEIU. They have not been at the table, with the Royals ownership. And so if there's language that we can include to ensure that there's some type of harmony agreements with workers, residential tenants for this development and future developments, I think these would provide necessary protections that would lead to a true benefit. That's suggested amendment.

The small legal point, and this came up on the airport, the extent to which you could incorporate certain labor agreements within the documents. And I'm trying to remember how we solved it to the airport, but we made it, I think, ancillary as a private arrangement between contracting party and the organizations themselves rather than council legislation. And so I just don't know if this is the document that permits us to.

What about a commitment to community benefits to the Kansas City Parks and Boulevard system as well as

Workers. Work beds. Residential tenants. Residential tenants being all residential tenants in the city or residential tenants of

Can hold on just a second. Can everyone make sure their their phone is silenced, please?

Not in the city. In in any in any development associated with this one. Future development. Ancillary development?

So that's so the one I like workers. I may just push back. So theoretically, the largest residential space there are residents in San Francisco Tower, for example. So we would look to have benefits accruing Well,

I mean, I don't believe that the the San Francisco Tower would be a development associated with this development. I'm talking about future future development.

What are we looking for, for them?

I mean, if there's going to be a hotel, right, I want to ensure that the workers of the hotel have some type of protections and agreement if they choose to organize, if they're going to be housing associated with this development, that there's protections for the tenants should they choose to organize. I would like true protections for for those folks that that essentially we're we're gonna be footing the bill for to make this possible.

Heard on the point with workers. I I don't necessarily think we wanna extend too broad a a scope to to your point, if we were to pass language with that, it would really accrue to if we use residential tenants as drafted, it would accrue to someone in San Francisco Tower today, which would then become part of the development. And I don't know if that's the body of

I'll settle for workers and work on an amendment.

Yes, sir.

Can we add workers to g?

G four or g or g? Four g. Sure.

Councilman Ray, did you have something?

Or No.

Yeah. Pro Tem.

Thank you. I'll then I think I'm last here. I'll be brief in my comments. So thank you for the presentation. Thank you for the work, city manager and ACM, and staff who participated in this.

I think for me, it's important to really talk about from the outset the definitely the importance that this can mean for economic development for generations as has already been stated. But but what hasn't been talked about yet is we talk about the TIF plan, authorizing the city manager to establish a TIF plan, and we haven't talked about the impact on our taxing jurisdictions, especially the schools. And I believe it was actually this morning I saw a study or one of the one of the new stations actually is going to have a report this week about how, I think it's 27% of our African American students and some percent of our of our Hispanic students are not reading at their reading level. And so I wanna ensure that as, these incentive plans, wherever they are, because I know there's a a myriad of of projects and plans that you all will be putting together that we uplift our taxing jurisdictions, especially the schools. And as you look to build out that plan over the thirty years that we try to hold them as harmless as possible.

And so, you know, I'm not necessarily asking for an amendment, but I think whatever comes back to the council, I wanna make sure that, we're thoughtful upfront about how we address that for our our youth. So that's that's the point that I'd like to make. Thank you. Alright.

Okay. If there's no other comments, we will move on to public testimony. We'll call the first three. Bruno, Gabriela. I know that's not right, but please bear with me. Duke. And Duke, I have no idea how to say your last name. I've only known you as Duke. Djokovic. Randy Landis.

Randy Landis. You

know, Bruno, Gabriola. Maybe we've lost them. Okay. Duke, come on.

Thank you very much. Don't worry. It took me three years to learn how to say it.

Like, I don't know if I've ever said you

last time.

I know.

I know. I'm I'm Duke Yakovich. I'm president of the Greater Kansas City AFL CIO. Thank you very much for taking testimony today. The AFL CIO is a national organization of sixty sixty unions.

And as labor leaders, we are governed by federal law, and we are elected by our members. We're elected to be the exclusive collective bargaining agent and the exclusive spokesperson for those workers. There are basically two unions that are directly directly employed by the royals, the Major League Baseball Players Association and SEIU. And thanks for the questions about SEIU. They couldn't be here, but I got a text from Rose and Chris Rack saying, we are glad the royals have committed to worker protections and a smooth transition process for their direct employees and hope that they, will honor that process when it comes to the contracted employees in concession and other fields like the stagehands and a lot of construction that's going on.

We fully support this. We we need to get this done. So we're asking simply, please just do your job so we can start doing ours again. Thank you very much.

Alright. I'm gonna, again, ask you to hold your applause so we can move through these very quickly. I have a lot of cards.

Councilwoman, I object to this next speaker.

I'm gonna object to you. Go ahead.

Madam chair, mister mayor, members of the council, Randy Landis. I'm here today representing the Convention and Business Bureau of Greater Kansas City. We are a member organization, a not for profit member organization with 600 with 900 members representing the hospitality industry, hotels, attractions, and and restaurants. As you know, we're also the designated destination management organization for the city. Our job is to work with your convention staff to fill the convention center with group business and also to market and promote the city as a destination for leisure business travelers.

I'm here today on behalf of our board and our, President and CEO, Kathy Nelson, to lend our full throated support to the ordinance and to move forward with the project as proposed. We think this will be a tremendous asset, not only for the city, but also be give us an advantage as we go about our mission to attract more leisure and business travelers, groups and then also new athletic events. We think the project will be particularly catalytic as it relates to where it will be located. This will be a great advantage to us as we attract leisure visitors and then also work with our meeting and event planners. The adjacency to the expanded streetcar line, Union Station, Crown Center, all tremendous advantages.

And then as we think too about the crossroads in the 18th And Vine District as well, the cradle of baseball in Kansas City. We also think this will help us to lever on our existing investments, the Power And Light District, the Convention Hotel, the planned improvements to Barney Alice Plaza, and then also what we're going to be doing with Illuminary Park Lid. To aid your deliberations, we have sent you a handy dandy worksheet that outlines the economic benefits of this project, which we think are tremendous. Dollars 800,000,000 of economic impact in the first year alone, dollars 1.2 thereafter, dollars 79,000,000 in additional tax revenue annually, dollars 1,400,000.0 incremental hotel room nights in the first decade. So, again, we urge you to approve this or this particular ordinance and bring the crown downtown.

Thank you.

Is there a way to make this on

your team? Yeah. I'll I'll

just I'll tell you. I'll just do it and just say time.

Dave Burkhart, Floyd May, and Jenny Johnston.

Patrick, do remind folks about two minutes?

Two minutes is your

Two minutes. Yes. Two minutes is your time, and I guess the mayor's gonna be timekeeper. So, Dave, go ahead.

Best of that. Please.

Hi. Good afternoon, madam chair, mayor Lucas, committee members. I appreciate your time. I'm Dave Borchert, vice president of corporate and community relations with the Kansas City Sports Commission. Our president, Kathy Nelson, apologized. She can't be here today. She had a previously scheduled business trip, so she is out

of the

state. Like Visit KC, the Sports Commission would also like to express our strong support for the advancement of this ordinance. We of state proud

of leader the the to

that will positively impact our community for years to come. You heard from Randy of Visikese about the the numbers and the estimated economic impact. I don't wanna repeat that, but just wanted to point out two big success stories here in our community from new major venues in the last twenty years. The first being T Mobile Center opened in 2007, huge factor in the revitalization of downtown Kansas City. T Mobile Center has hosted most of the biggest musical acts in the world since then.

A lot of these acts, they used to skip over Kansas City in favor of other cities with newer venues. So that's been a big plus. In addition, the venue and the great staff at T Mobile Center has helped us secure the economic impact of the Big twelve Conference and the men's and women's basketball tournaments, which are committed to Kansas City through 2031. Another big positive new venue more recently, CPKC Stadium down on the riverfront, home of the Kansas City Current. This has become a real source of civic pride here in Kansas City as the first purpose built stadium in the world for a women's professional sports team.

And I know we've all seen the development down on the riverfront. It's been pretty incredible to see all the new things going up down there. And I would argue that that likely would not be happening without the addition of CPKC Stadium. Baseball in Kansas City has a steep history from

We're the gonna call time.

Oh, you're good.

Thank you, everybody, for your consideration.

I have Jenny.

All right. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you all so much for hosting us. I'm Jenny Johnson, president of the Northland Regional Chamber of Commerce. And on behalf of our board of directors, we are in full support of this ordinance. And I do wanna point out that just because we are the Northland chamber and we primarily serve Clay and Platt Counties that our 2026 legislative priorities specifically say that we wanna retain the royals in Missouri. So we have very intentionally elected to not pick a side of the river, not pick a favorite location, that we feel that it is important that the team remains here in Missouri. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair Boo, mayor Lucas, and members of the city council. My name is Floyd May. I'm the president of the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City. Since 1964, the Civic Council of Greater Kansas City has focused on accelerating growth in the region's prosperity and quality of life for all. We are encouraged by the city of Kansas City's move towards presenting the Royals organization with the proposal to bring the crown downtown.

Kansas City is a baseball town. From the legacy of the Kansas City monarchs and legends like Satchel Paige to the enduring impact of the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum. Baseball isn't just part of our history. It's woven into the fabric of Kansas City's identity. We believe this process is good for the region and helps reserve Kansas City's legacy as a major league region and premier sports destination. The chiefs have committed to the Kansas City region. Now it's time to get the Royals across the finish line and secure Kansas City's future as one of the most desirable, sports destinations in the country. This is a regional competitiveness issue. Many other regions want a Major League Baseball team and are ready to with offers to lure ours away. Let's not let's make sure that doesn't happen. Thank you.

Thank you. Anthony Sherman, Kim Davis, and Frank Mason, I think, or Fran. Hold on. Let me put my glasses on. Fran.

Anthony left.

Okay. Anthony Sherman left. Kim Davis, Fran, and Michael Gavoli.

I would say good morning but it is afternoon now. Good afternoon madam chairman, mister mayor, and committee. It is an honor to be here. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak. As the president and CEO of the Heartland Black Chamber of Commerce, I represent the small businesses in Kansas City, both on the East, West, and center Kansas City.

And we believe that it is a good thing for the royals to come downtown. We strongly approve it. We think it's an opportunity for this city and for the royals. But we also want to make sure that there will be true impact for the neighbors and the community around it, that we are not just bringing the royals down here for the entertainment of those who will make all the money. So we do wanna make sure that whatever you do, that you do it with the consciousness of the people that voted for you. Thank you.

Thank you. Alright. Fran, are you here? Go Michael, go ahead. But, Fran, please line up.

Good afternoon, madam chair, mayor Lucas, council members, mister O'Neil, sir. My name is Mike Evoli. I serve as a district director for the Kansas City and Western Region of the Mid America Carpenters Regional Council. I'm here today on behalf of our proud and skilled membership, our carpenter's mill rights and floor layers to express our strong support for the construction of the new Downtown Kansas City Royal Stadium. This project represents more than just a ballpark.

It's an investment in our city's future, our workforce, and the continued growth of Downtown Kansas City. For our members, it means family sustaining jobs, opportunities to apply years of training and craftsmanship, and the chance to contribute to the to a project that will stand as a source of pride for generations. We are ready to partner in delivering a stadium that reflects the strength, pride, and character of Kansas City, and on behalf of our entire membership, with this project and helping moving our city forward. Thank you for your time.

And Ralph Orpizza, John Overfelt, and Dana Alcover. Alco Alco they're closed. Okay. Thank you.

Go ahead.

Good afternoon.

No. Yeah. It's been a little

bit, but, thank you for having us here. My name is Ralph Orpazza, and I represent the Greater Kansas City Building Trades. And I am also a member of the Greater Kansas City AFL CIO along with the state AFL CIO. Would, all the members of the construction trades and AFL CIO please stand up behind me? We represent tens of thousands of working men men and women here in Kansas City.

We build your skylines, and we most importantly, we put apprentices to work. Here is something that I would like to see with this, and something that we do. And I want to make sure that if this project goes away, it hurts us in being able to help University Health, because we fund a lot of stuff with University Health. Working families, friends, we help our working families. Guadalupe Centers, Matty Roads, and we also have this little crazy thing called the Missouri Works Initiative, of which in '20 in 2025, we graduated a 125 students.

Of those 125 students, 34% of them were women. 68% are minority, identifying as black and Hispanic Latino. 25% are severely wage distressed. We are giving them opportunities to get into our trades, not only to have jobs, but to have long time careers with a healthy retirement and great benefits as they

go along.

Please pass this ordinance so that we can have a stadium, so that we can continue to provide these opportunities to our community. Thank you.

Thank you.

John and Dana?

Hello. My name is John Overfield. I'm here with the Missouri Workers Center, and I stand in opposition because of the blatant ignorance of the implied subtext when we voted as a county, which includes this city, to oppose a tax using taxpayer money to build this development. Instead, you have pivoted and found a new way to use city and taxpayer money to fund the project of a billionaire while neglecting things like our poor school system that is under serving our black community, our poor housing, the danger in our streets, the slums that many of our citizens have to live in. That is my point.

It stands and reflects upon how you view the public's opinion on how you use our money.

Hello. My name is Dana Alcoser. I represent Stand Up KC, my brothers and sisters. How I feel about the royals tax, let me give you an example. I think we're getting cosmetic surgery when we have actual medical conditions.

We're trying to look pretty when we have actual problems. Instead of trying to make it look pretty, need to fix schools, fix the future because our kids, they need that. We need different outlets of training and job opportunities, and y'all are just trying to paint it as that, but that is not what what's gonna happen. You we we already voted for this previously, and here we are having another conversation about it. And like I said, it's a cosmetic surgery.

It's to look nice. It's to make us look good. But in reality, it's not solving our true core problems and using taxpayer money towards things that could actually be useful in the community, like offering assistance with legal help with ICE coming into our city, issues of public schools closing down or stuff just generally updating those community centers to have children have somewhere to go while their parents are at work. Because, I mean, all that that's all we truly want is just to have a better living. Thank you for hearing us out. Thank you.

Thank you. Aneeb Bland, David Mitchell, and Daniel Heisman. Is he gone? Is Rodney gone?

Rodney, she's there. Oh, Rodney?

Rodney? Clan?

Well, thank you very much for testimony. I'm Dave Mitchell. I've been living in Kansas City since 1988. I represent myself. I do have a couple of articles here that I'd like to staff to pass out to the city council people. Thank you. There's two separate articles, seven copies apiece supporting my statements. So, yeah, I have no doubt that the people supporting this ordinance are well met. I do have some real serious concerns. On 04/09/2026, KCUR reported the Royals claim Kaufman Stadium is deteriorating quickly due to faulty concrete.

I have a real concern about that statement. Channel nine news reported in 2024 that 2022 Barton McDonald engineering study indicated Kaufman Kaufman Stadium is in a satisfactory condition consistent with a first class Major League Baseball stadium. So there's that concern. I would suggest that that the Royals provide an engineering study supporting their statement. The city narrative, that $600,000,000 bond will be repaid by sales taxes primarily by new economic development is a real serious concern for me.

I would definitely recommend a feasibility study on that. Lacking dedicated parking for the new stadium, the narrative the city narrative asserts 19,000 park spaces available. There needs to be a feasibility study on that. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the with the Kaufman Stadium in 2020

time, sir.

You're done.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, mayor, chairman, councilman, and attendance. Want to take this my name is Rodney Bland. I'm president of Freeman incorporated here in Kansas City, Missouri. I want to take a pause and thank councilwoman Hasley. We've had long deliberative conversations regarding this issue of stadium and I want to thank her for diligence and her ad vent arguments for her position.

I also want to say continue that and keep that strong. To the argument earlier about land development at the current site stadium, may you consider a land economic parcel to parcel development swap because that encompasses an economic building trade that encompasses all the issues that you're surrounding jobs, applications, lost revenue, and that could do you could do that well with a parcel parcel land swap development that would impact the fifth and the third, the black folks in our community. I wanted just to say that two years ago, Freedom Incorporated supported this stadium effort very heavily, and we believe that this is a good choice, a good opportunity to continue jobs in our community, 5,000 plus jobs, labor, intensified construction jobs, and I think it helps us continue commitment to a world class city and to a national figure at the Kansas City Royals at a time when we need that kind of legacy to continue. Thank you for the opportunity to visit. Talk to you soon.

Good afternoon, mayor and council. My name is Dan Heisman. I'm here on behalf of IFF Local forty two. With me is brother Carl Molley, who represents the chief officers Local thirty eight zero eight. We stand in support of this ordinance as an important step toward keeping the Kansas City Royals right here in our city and moving forward with the transfer transformational downtown project.

This proposal is about more than baseball. It's about long term investment in our community, our workforce, and the future of KC. This project has the potential to generate good union jobs, both in construction and the operation thereafter, increase tourism, and create sustained economic activity in the urban core, bringing people downtown not just on game days, but year round. But as we move forward, we wanna be clear about one critical piece of that success, which is public safety must always be part of the plan from day one. As we are bringing tens of thousands of additional visitors downtown on a regular basis, we must ensure that fire protection, EMS response, and overall public safety infrastructure are scaled appropriately to meet that demand.

That means planning for staffing, resources, and long term support, not after the fact, but as a part of the development itself. Local forty two and thirty eight zero eight stand ready to be a partner in that conversation. We believe this project can be a win for the city, for organized labor, and for the community, but only if it's done responsibly and with full picture in mind. We would urge the council to support this ordinance and continue moving this project forward with public safety included as a core component of that vision.

Thank you, guys.

Thank you. Thank you.

Jason Worrell, Mike Tauboy, and Gibb Kerr.

Whoever's whoever's first, come on up. Come on up, Mike or Gib. You're fine. Just

Thank you, council mayor. Mike Taubley. I'm the building trades political director. And just wanted to talk a little bit about something that kinda got glossed over, but the revenues that are generated from this, the the opportunities that are generated from this are real, and they are substantial. And they won't they won't go away. Careers are made on this project. Hospitality jobs are made on this project. Retail jobs are made on this project. Commercial jobs are made on this project. It's construction careers will be made on this project, as Ralph talked about earlier.

But the revenues generated on this will benefit everybody in the city. The projects that we want to be able to fund, the things that we have budget shortfalls for, those matter, and these revenues generated would not be generated other than having this project down where it is. This isn't a we have a bunch of different options to go down there. This is a very substantial transformative project that would not be seen anywhere else or in any type of different circumstance. And the revenues generated will allow us as a city to move forward and fund things that we also need to go fund and need to find revenues for.

It will also help create density. And as we want to move forward as a city, revenues and density are vital to being able to fund things that we want to in the future, and we'll keep our baseball team right here in Kansas City. So thank you very much for your time. I appreciate

it. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Gibb Kerr. I'm representing or speaking on behalf of the downtown council. Kansas City is fortunate to be a major league city. Of the 30 major league teams, Kansas City is probably the second or third smallest market depending on how you how you count. So we cannot take this team for granted. A made being a major league city elevates the stature of the team. It helps to attract businesses. It helps to attract tourists, visitors. It helps to attract new generations of talent.

When kids are getting out of college, they decide, you know, where do they wanna move. It it puts Kansas City back on the map. So it it helps attract the the best and the brightest. This is a watershed decision. For you as council members, this may be the most important vote that you make in your careers. And this is how you're gonna be remembered. This is gonna be your legacy. And I know I've heard some talk about the risk associated with this vote. There's risk in everything, but sometimes there's greater risk in doing nothing. When you do nothing, you could risk losing a team.

And when you when you risk losing a team, imagine, I don't even wanna think about the jobs, the businesses that we could lose if we don't do this today. So this downtown stadium is something that will catapult Kansas City into the top tier of downtowns throughout our country. It's a great opportunity, and I thank you for considering it. I urge your support of it. Thank you.

Jory Watkins, Joe Rairdon, and Jimmy Cortez.

Madam Chair. Yes. Jason Morell that

we hadn't heard from. From. Okay.

I You do want to call him again, you're saying?

Yeah. Jason Morell. Did is Jason here? Okay. Jory?

Okay. Hello.

My name is Jory Watkins, and I work at Cornerstones of Care in Jackson County. I work going into homes of families in need and crisis. And a lot of times the crisis they're having are housing crisis as well as many other types of crisis. When I am trying to face their housing crisis, I pull up a long list of about 40 organizations that are meant to assist them. But 90% of those organizations are defunct or underfunded, and they have no assistance to offer.

And it's just really tough to watch us try to make a decision to give $600,000,000 to a billionaire while we have all these under underfunded resources within our city and people truly in need. And for this reason, I'm asking you to reject this ordinance. It's already been voted no once, and it's strange to see it proposed in another way where we have less say on the choice, and I just wanted to share that.

Thank you.

Thank

you. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chairperson Boo, mayor, and members of the city council. I'm Joe Reardon with the KC chamber. On behalf of the greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce, I want to express our strong support for this ordinance and for the continuing negotiations with the Kansas City Royals. At this stage, the proposal represents a strong positive effort to structure a public private partnership that strikes a vision for great urban development and long term community impact. We understand that this ordinance is not the final deal.

It's a critical step that allows thoughtful, good faith negotiations to continue and a plan developed with council oversight and approvals to come. The opportunity in front of us is significant and potentially transformative. A downtown ballpark is not just about baseball. It's about completing downtown Kansas City and creating a more vibrant, connected urban core that better leverages our hotels, convention assets, transit and small business. We are at momentum, real momentum at this moment. Now is the time to move forward with intention and urgency to bring the crown downtown, as we say, and secure a strong future for the royals and for Kansas City. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks for having us. My name is Jimmy Cortez. Live at Manhunt Park in Kansas City. I've lived in Kansas City for twenty years. I put two kids through Kansas City public schools. And I like to say that they succeeded in spite of those schools, frankly. So I'm standing here and knowing full well, I can't articulate as well some of these arguments, but we've already voted on this. We resoundingly rejected this. And now you're asking now you're doing an end run around democracy. You're doing the same thing that the folks in Jefferson City who are trying to redistrict our communities and rob us of our votes.

You're doing the same kind of stuff. I mean, what is what why? Like, we have already said no to this. You know, in my community, when I walk around, storefront after storefront is boarded up. Potholes. Just you guys, you talk about something this is gonna be transformative and we're gonna do great things for the city. You can't do basic things now. You can't provide basic services now. It's absurd. And now you're asking us, and you don't have money to come up with the buses, but you can wave a wand.

And now you billions of dollars out of nowhere. And and meanwhile, our schools are suffering, our communities are suffering, my street has got potholes up and down it. I mean, come on. What are you trying to like, it's like mark my words, if you do this, there will be consequences for you electorally. You will be thrown out on your asses, justifiably so.

Right. Are you

Hello. I'm Jason Worrell. And eight months ago, I was homeless and having a rough time, and I never I never got no help from city or nobody except the reconciliations that helped me get a place to live and help me get back on my feet. And, you know, there's a lot of issues that we need to deal with besides a baseball field, which we already have. Football field, a football team's left.

You know? This is this is really terrible. This is reckless spending at the worst. Borrow money from federal government, city funds, taxpayers, when homeless needs help, hospitals, roads. This is there's more important things we could use this money for than for a baseball field we don't need. This is reckless spending that is at the worst. And we need to not ban the people of Kansas City to make a dollar. Help those who need help. Do what's right for our city and the people of this city. Thank you.

Bill Dietrich. You'll hear this. Bill, Dietrich, Melanie Gray, and Daisy Melton.

Is that my

Good afternoon. My name is Melanie Gray. I'm a constituent in the 3rd District in Kansas City, and I'm an organizer with KC Tenants. I'm opposed to ordinance two six zero three three nine. As of April 2024, I and many other KC Tenants leaders knocked hundreds of doors around this city, and we resoundingly heard how tenants and poor and working class folks in our city are struggling and do not have enough funding for the basic necessities that they need.

What we heard is that we do not want to fund a billionaire's ballpark, a billionaire's playground in the center of our city while folks are houseless, while we don't have health care, while we don't have subsidies to be able to support people in our city. The issue from the last vote and today's are simply the same. Public dollars going towards billionaires do not support the people who make this city what it is. The recommendation that the stadium will provide enough of a return to the city by the cells in the stadium and the surrounds are not supported by any data. Economist economists have consistently stated stated that stadiums do not offer an economic return worthy of the public dollars being offered.

Not only in Kansas City, but everywhere. When this council decides to put public dollars to tourist attractions and billionaires, they are making a strong and clear statement that the people's needs do not matter. Currently, public transit is sitting at a $16,000,000 deficit, but you're offering a $600,000,000 bond to the Royals billionaire owners. The public has already spoken. Is this the legacy you wanna leave behind as you leave office in 2027? That you're willing to undermine the voters for billionaires profits to provide billionaires with more handouts while Kansas Citians continue to face economic hardship?

Hello. My name is Daisy Melton. I'm a resident of Kansas City and a leader with KC Tenets. I strongly oppose this proposal as a downtown stadium would rob our city of funds for critical services for decades, lower quality of life for those who actually live in the city, and directly go against their recent votes, all with no real evidence of economic development for anyone except for John Sherman, Tim Dunn, Ron Lockton, and the other elites that own the royals and cannot wait to profit off of us. Including interest, this proposal will cost Kansas City an estimated $1,020,000,000 Meanwhile, this finance department is scrambling for savings as it is, with talks of making cuts to lower priority programs in the coming years.

In your own 2024, twenty twenty five resident survey, you asked thousands of Kansas City households what they valued for our city. You know what I don't see anywhere in their answers? Giving billionaires money for a pet project that we already voted against. What I do see is a priority on infrastructure and public transportation. If we're spending years digging ourselves out of a billion dollar hole, our public transit and school systems are going to struggle even further to fund their vital services. Services which, by the way, are proven to generate new economic development. Not just move it from one business to another, which is the only development that stadiums like this bring. You aren't the first ones to have this idea. They've tried this in other cities. It does not work.

Removing a public park and slapping a stadium in the middle of downtown will make existing in will make existing in Kansas City a nightmare, which is why when we were given a chance to vote, we overwhelmingly rejected the same idea just two years ago. You don't care about us? We're used to that. But there's an election next year. You wanna be mayor? You wanna stay on the council? Because my opponent stole a billion dollars from your children to fund a project you already voted against is a pretty easy platform to run on.

If you

pass this without even giving us a chance to vote on it Okay. Expect that right to be exercised against you in 2027. Thank you for your time.

Chairman Boo, mayor Lucas, council members, my name is Bill Dietrich, president of the downtown council. Thank you for this opportunity to stand in strong support of this ordinance. Downtown is Kansas City's authentic, flourishing hub of history, culture, tourism, hotels, restaurants, and arts. A downtown ballpark would exist within a constellation of major civic and cultural anchors, including UMKC, The Plaza, Midtown, Union Station, Liberty Memorial, the Stark 18th Divine Jazz District, Negroes League Baseball Museum, Crossroads Arts District, the River Market, Kaufman Center for Performing Arts, Power and Light District, Barney Hills Plaza and Future Luminary Park, the River Market Riverfront CPKC Stadium, all connected by one of the country's most successful streetcar systems, 33 existing bus routes, five interstates, and when you expand that parking circle, that number grows meaningfully from 20,000 available stalls. Rather than competing with these amenities, the Downtown Ballpark amplifies them.

Unique assets like a Downtown Ballpark create synergy, mutually benefiting each other, and exponentially adding to the region's economic development. This this mutually supportive relationship means millions of Royal Sands will have the opportunity to experience downtown's amazing offerings, supporting and experiencing our neighborhoods, rich diversity, entertainment venues, restaurants, and retail. The proposed stadium at Washington Square Park in Crown Center already has the infrastructure to accommodate large crowds and vehicular traffic. We witnessed this in last October when Chaparral was in town. Over a 100,000 people attended both the Chaparral concert, a concert Liberty Memorial, first Friday, October fifth on PBR radio, and it works seamlessly, 100,000 people.

Now is the opportunity to bring baseball back to where it began, woven into the daily fabric of our city. We are excited about bringing baseball home once again for all of Kansas City. Thank you for your leadership and support in investing in our future.

Thank you. Bridget Williams, Benjamin Astridillo, and Elle Hudson.

Good afternoon.

Afternoon.

Bridget Williams, executive director of

the Heavy

Constructors Association of Greater Kansas City. We cover both Kansas and Missouri. So I feel that that's important to understand why we support the royals coming downtown. We support this ordinance because it is vital to the region's success. We support this ordinance because the earnings tax we just approved, those baseball players pay earnings tax, which feeds into the basic services for this community.

We support this ordinance because of the workforce that it will employ. We spoke to the the new airport, the new KCI, the regional airport. I was vital in the negotiations for the workforce agreement for that. The the number of union members that it employed and the workforce and the and the number of individuals that we were able to bring in from the community to take part in that project was amazing. It was hundreds of workers, many of which are still in the union and are have been promoted to various positions.

So this is another one of those this those instances where it's not only important for the temporary jobs, which are construction, it's vital for the permanent jobs, which are the ones that remain year round. So with that, I ask you guys to support the ordinance so that we can continue to be a a world class city and bring the crown downtown.

Thank you.

Hi. Hi.

Hi. My name is Benjamin Aasudillo. I'm with MO Workers Centers. I'm gonna start by asking why are we here. And then we vote this down in 2024. Why are we back here voting on this again? Why are we talking about this? How dare you guys, honestly? I was born and raised under the statement all men are created equal, that a government should be for the people and by the people. So why is it that a single individual, single billionaire can sway your ears?

Why can why can we give 600,000,000 to for a billionaire's ballpark when we have a homeless epidemic, we have a sexual trafficking problem, and we have funding cuts to schools, funding cuts to health care? What is really going on? What is really swaying your ears here, guys? Money. What is it that you guys aren't really after?

Why aren't you helping your people who are suffering on the streets? The ones that I have to see every single day and I have to do my best to help, but it's never enough. It will never be enough because you guys are breaking the system down while there are people suffering. Do you understand that? Do you understand that there are people on the streets? And for you guys over here saying it's gonna create jobs, there's a million different ways to create jobs. This doesn't have to be a stadium. I want you guys to take ownership for the things that you're doing to our people because we will not forget. And next year, I hope you guys fill out those applications because you're gonna be needing a new job.

Hi, council people. Thank you. My name is Elle Hudson, and I work at the campground in the West Bottoms. I live in 64110, and I'm a leader with Missouri Workers Center and Stand Up Stay Stand Up KC, and I am asking you all to reject this ordinance. Like my fellow members have come up here, we've already voted on this. We have voted no. It was a no. It still is a no. And the fact that you guys are trying to pull this around over our eyes is disgusting. We already voted no.

And the fact that folks are saying that this is gonna be a big good for the public in general, when I think of a public good, I think of the library. It's free. It's accessible. They actually give services to free for homeless, for folks looking for jobs. I think of the zoo. The zoo actually sends us out free coupons to visit the zoo. If this is a tax funded public interest thing, are they sending out free coupons for us to visit the Royal Stadium? Are they gonna be kicking out homeless folks from this free public park? Like, where is the public interest? What interest does the public have if the public can't even access this without even paying hundreds of dollars for a ticket?

So please vote no. We already voted no, and we will vote no. If we are allowed to bring this to public and if this isn't in the public to be voted on, you guys should fill out another job application. Thank you.

Wade Keefer, Ursula Copeland, and Ruby Watson.