Council - Regular Meeting

All right, it is very loud. All right, it is 6.03. We'll go ahead and call this meeting of the City Council to order. Roll call, please.

Council Member McGrone? Here. Council Member Kane? Here. Council Member Alvarez? Here. Council Member Wells? Here. Council Member Larson? Here. Council Member Click is absent tonight. Council Member Saper? Here. Council Member Bailey? Here.

All right, now I have the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council Member McGrone. Next we have approval of the agenda do we have a motion So moved second all in favor. Yes any opposed motion passes Any comments from the public if you remember the public wishing to speak Please approach the podium state your name for the record and please limit your comments to five minutes. Thank you so much Oh Thank you.

My name is Matt Grise. I am the president and owner of Alliance Fire Protection here on behalf of the North Kansas City Business Council. I was going to start out like one of those self-help meetings. My name is Matt, and I don't live in North Kansas City. I know, right? I do the best I can. But in all seriousness, I am really pleased and honored to be able to be here, even though I'm not necessarily one of your constituents. The fact that the city council is interested in hearing about our thoughts, it means a lot. Part of the reason we're in North Kansas City is because it's an easy place to do business. We've been here since 2009. over on 130 West 9th Avenue on kind of the other side of XL Tube Atlas Tube. I think they've changed their name recently. But the location's fantastic, and I've been here long enough that I know to say it's not the north part of Kansas City, but it's north Kansas City. And it is a lot more accessible, in my opinion, and easier to work here. We don't necessarily need a lot from the city, but whenever anything comes up, you guys are all right here. And it feels a lot less like a faceless machine, I think, than Kansas City proper can sometimes. Additionally, just why are we here? All our suppliers are here. We're a construction company, so we don't necessarily do, by necessity, much work within North Kansas City, but we spend millions of dollars a year from our suppliers, Whitecap Viking over on Warren Street. NTA over on Swift does all of our fleet maintenance. We get employee assistance from Express Pros. AC Fiber does our internet and data. We bank with Country Club right over there. So when you're buying a pair of shoes on the internet, it's okay if you don't ever see them, can't get ahold of them, don't know who you're dealing with. But when you're trying to do you know, real actual business, and we employ 85 people and 25 in our office, the fact that, you know, in a location that's really as compact as North Kansas City, we can get not just straight by for what we need, but really what we need, the way we need it with people that we know and can get in touch with, it makes it a lot easier for us. You know, so that just aside from the location. Beyond the business aspects of it, As someone who has a job, and I imagine a lot of you probably do, I spend as much time here almost as I do at home. I get my teeth cleaned over at Dunsing on 23rd. I work out at the YMCA that was the North Kansas City Community Center when I first signed up. Groceries that save a lot, all that sort of thing. Additionally, just personally, it's easy to be here. I worked, oddly enough, in the same building with a different company in high school. Richard from the business council was pretty clear that I shouldn't grouse about the city too much while I'm speaking, but the joke's on him because I think North Kansas City's doing great. High school Matt would not recognize North Kansas City today.

Substantially fewer abandoned grain silos.

But in terms of all the positives I listed out, it seems to be on a pretty continuous upward trajectory over the last 30 years. So if we can keep doing that, Alliance never had any intention of leaving, but certainly it'd be a hard sell for somebody to try and talk us into a different location. That was about all I had. I don't know if you guys have any questions for me or how close I am to five minutes. I didn't bring my phone up.

You've got a minute and a half to spare if you want to do a song and dance for us.

I feel like that would not be a great idea. I'd like to leave on a positive note if I could.

Any questions from the council? Well, thank you for telling us about your connection with North Kansas City, and thanks for doing business here. Thank you so much.

I appreciate your time and your attention.

Absolutely. Further public comments? Good evening.

Good evening. My name is Rita Pierce. I'm the executive director of Northland Assistance Center, 2016 Gentry, and a resident at 2117 Erie Street. I'm here to address agenda item number 13. I was unable to attend the meeting, the last meeting, when you were talking about the ordinance. I am not here about the ordinance. I'm here about agenda item 13, which sort of resulted, I think, from a very long discussion, which was very confusing to me because the presenter shared information about programs that are not available by grant to North Kansas City or Clay or Platt County. I have researched this issue, and I tried to reach out to him. I had a couple of questions. He's a very busy man. So we ended up having a text conversation. So guess what? You not just have to listen to me. I would really like to just share a text, if I may.

Okay.

It's not very long, actually. He asked, you know, back-to-back meetings. I'm busy. Can you email me? Of course. I am happy that discussion tonight will be limited to Zero Kansas City. I researched Zero Kansas City in regarding to funding. Grant opportunities through the Office of the Unhoused Coalition clearly states that the applicant must be a 5013 or religious organization recognized by the state, and this is the important part, KC proper, KCK, or Jackson County related. My agency is the only 5013C in North Kansas City, and there are no faith-based opportunities. Sorry about this. I'm not really good about this. in North Kansas City that qualify. I also could not find any information regarding general funding by county cities aside from KCMO. Two questions. How would the Northland Assistance Center qualify to request funding? In lieu of that, what avenue does North Kansas City have to fund your organization, and what parameters and accountability would be placed on such funding? I will provide counsel with possible state and federally funded grant opportunities advise them that pursuing these grant opportunities may require hiring a grant writer. You of all people know how tedious that mission is. I look forward to your response to this email. Thank you for your time. Have a great weekend. Thanks for the questions. Zero Kansas City's strategic plan is not a source of funding, which I already knew. It's just the name of a strategic document. Last year, there was a one-time Zero KC grant, but it wasn't renewed. That grant no longer exists and wasn't really designed to be. I'm unaware of organizations with North Kansas City seeking funding from the city of Kansas City, and that's certainly not the intent of Zero KC or the discussions currently happening with North Kansas City municipal government regarding potential related cold weather. The most likely path for North Kansas City making funds available is within the low barrier shelter network created by Kansas City's Division of Unhoused Solutions regarding the municipal municipality seeking state or federal funds, the most efficient course of action would to bring on a grant consultant. Kansas City has some great grant consultants, he shares. Thanks again for reaching out. My questions were not related to cold weather. That said, as you know, KCMO does not have shelter for their service areas. NAC, under our current MOU with our city, is to inquire regarding placement prior to placing in the hotel. Back to agenda item number 13, quote, discussion of contracting for unhoused services with Zero Kansas City, KC Moe, unquote. I will share your response with the consul. Discussion with the city of North Kansas City is related to utilizing Missouri's low barrier shelter. That's his response. The agenda item clearly states partnering with Zero Kansas City. For the record, I never implied that Zero Kansas City is a source of funding. I am only referencing the only possible grant that is listed on the site, which, by the way, is not available to us. I only got 48 seconds. So there is no possibility to partner with this agency. There's none. It's not an agency. It's a grant that's already gone. He suggested also we reserve shelter place within the low barrier network. They will not allow for shelter space. Those grants for those entities are for, as I indicated, Metropolitan, Kansas City, and KC agencies. I have one quick solution. Not a solution, but a suggestion. You've already approved the agenda, but I think you might table this and have the opportunity to meet with my agency and a turning point who actually works in this area. Invitation to my agency, which is right over across the street, on Thursday, July 30th at 630. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Right at 5. There you go. For a point of clarification, you're correct. Item 13 does say contracting with unhoused services with zero KC. The actual group that we would be looking to work through is the Division of Unhoused Solutions. Zero KC is one of their programs. That's just a point of clarification with how it probably should have been presented on item 13. Further public comments? Going once? Tom? All right. Moving forward, we're going to go on to the consent agenda. Do we have a motion on the consent agenda? So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Yes.

Any opposed? Motion passes. Regular items. Item 11.

Consideration of an ordinance approving the First Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated Development Agreement for Bloom NKC. Bill number 7997, ordinance number 9794. Who's got it?

Mr. Tom.

Yes, Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, good evening. You were in the packet was a somewhat detailed memorandum explaining this first amendment to the second amended and restated development agreement with Bloom. And the items essentially, you know, rather than go over each of these, it has been fairly well, hopefully it's fairly well explained. The whole concept, though, is there's been a request by the developer that the city agree to amend certain scope and timing requirements in the existing second amended and restated development agreement. The developer, Bloom NKC LLC, is here represented tonight by Russell Pearson. and who is obviously, well, in case you don't know, Russell's been the driving force behind that project since day one. And I'm sure if you have specific questions that you would like to ask, he'd be more than happy to come up to the microphone and answer them. It's probably better to come from him than from me anyway, since it's their request rather than mine. But for us to move forward with this, it requires the passage of an ordinance approving the First Amendment. And just so you know, I'm not saying you have to do anything, but the next item on the agenda, the omnibus amendment of the bond documents, et cetera, that will be taken from the agenda if this is not passed, okay? They're tied together, if you will. So I don't know. I really don't want to go over each of these items. I know the mayor and I have talked about doing that kind of thing before. And if you. Staff recommends that it be approved that we move forward to keep this project alive and going forward. I think that's fair to say, Mr. Nichols. If you have any questions, though, of me, of staff, as well as Mr. Pearson, I'd be glad to answer them.

Appreciate that. So the long and short of this one is we're pushing the timeline out a little bit. This is a project that has encountered some headwinds, financing and otherwise, and it's a tricky parcel where there's an easement for utilities that run underneath, a lot of things that we required. And then it would take the proposed building to phase two and move it to mostly, if not all, residential units, some termed live-work units. And that's really the crux of what we're looking to do here. Any questions from the council? Go ahead.

Yeah, that is the crux of the issue, that as a mixed-use section, which was the building that is not yet constructed there, was to have mixed use, was to have a large commercial use on the first floor and restaurants, things like that, which made this project so very attractive. It was, in some ways, a linchpin of why I approved it. Now, I understand that the developer, who has done a very good job so far, has indeed run into some kinds of problems proceeding. And this is a cautionary tale. No matter how good a project looks on paper or in a watercolor rendering, These things can fall apart, and this one is falling apart. Whether it can be resurrected in the future, I don't know. But at this point, I am opposed to this amendment and change because it's not what we were sold. We bought, I hate to say, a pig in a poke because that was not the intention, but it's working out that way. And I would rather see that ground stay vacant for a while and then maybe resurrected in the future as the project was originally intended. For that reason, I cannot support it.

Further questions or comments? And to clarify, yes, the original proposal was ground floor retail restaurant space. Because of the financial headwinds and because of how this project has sort of played out and the way lenders look at retail versus residential, I do believe that this is essential to keeping the project moving forward. It's also not a lot due to the underground utilities that could be subdivided and built by a different developer. So taking time to pause at this point would ultimately very likely mean that stays vacant ground forever. Not necessarily... Forever's a very long time. But it would likely, for a very, very long time, stay vacant ground. I believe that the developers are operating in good faith. They've brought us a workable solution to complete the project, and I support passing this. Do we have motions? We'd need a first reading. First reading.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. Any opposed? No. Motion passes.

An ordinance adopting and approving first amendment to second amended and restated development agreement between the city of North Kansas City, Missouri and Bloom NKC LLC regarding a certain development project in the city.

I move that bill number 7997 be placed under second and final reading and passes ordinance number 9794. Second.

Call the roll.

Council Member McGrone? Yes. Council Member Kane? Yes. Council Member Alvarez? Yes. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Larson? Yes. Council Member Saper? No. Council Member Bailey?

Yes.

And ordinance, adopting and approving first amendment to second amended and restated development agreement between the City of North Kansas City, Missouri and Bloom NKC LLC regarding a certain development project in the city.

All right, item 12.

Consideration of an ordinance approving the omnibus amendment of bond documents for Bloom NKC, bill number 7998, ordinance number 9795.

Tom, do you have any further on this one?

Probably not much further except to say that the author of the ordinance and all of the bond documents themselves themselves is here with us, Mr. David Martin with Gilmore and Bell. Gilmore and Bell's been this city's bond council for many, many years. So he has appeared to answer any questions you may have about the omnibus. He can answer much better than I can.

Does anyone have questions on the omnibus bill? Do we have a motion? First reading.

Second.

All in favor?

Yes.

Yes. Any opposed?

No.

Motion passes.

An ordinance approving the amendment of certain documents in connection with the city's taxable industrial development revenue bonds, Bloom NKC Project Series 2023.

I move that bill number 7998 be placed on second and final reading and passes ordinance number 9795.

Second. Call the roll.

Council Member McGrone? Yes. Council Member Cain? Yes. Council Member Alvarez? Yes. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Larson? Yes. Council Member Saper?

No.

Council Member Bailey?

Yes.

An ordinance approving the amendment of certain documents in connection with the city's taxable industrial development revenue bonds, Bloom NKC Project Series 2023. Very good.

All right. Item 13.

Discussion of contracting for unhoused services with zero KC, KCMO.

Okay, I'll take this one. So after the discussion at the last council meeting with Josh Hinges, who came and presented and answered a lot of questions, we had a great, gosh, hour-plus long discussion. I asked Josh to come and meet with senior staff and one of our officers, Officer Riley. That was last Monday at 930. Okay. And so we sat down and talked about what a framework could look like for a partnership. And what emerged from that discussion is two potential memorandums of understanding. So I got notes here. If I sound like I'm reading, I am. So the first one would be for a homeless court style agreement. He mentioned the homeless court here. The goal of that is to take citations that were issued to those experiencing homelessness and rather than going through the standard court process for fines or incarceration or other penalties, that could be channeled through the homeless court, which is held offsite in a more friendly, less confrontational style of location. And then there's even a mobile option that has been presented through one of the proposals that those cases could be referred from our court to theirs for adjudication and then ultimately dismissal of whatever citation in line with services and community service. And so we're working through the legal framework of how that works. My understanding is that other cities in Clay County, I believe Josh mentioned Liberty, have made similar referrals through their court. So there's a way to do it. We just need to figure out if it has to go from us to Clay County, to the homeless court, or if we can refer directly. So we're lining that out. The second one is for a resource sharing, sort of what we discussed, spent the bulk of the time discussing last time. So sharing resources to include outreach, shelter bed reservations at various shelters that they work through, access to services that are specific, tailored to the need of the individual, coordination with local assistance, help with transport, and more. We talked for a little over an hour about what this could look like, and Josh has sent over, as of yesterday evening, sent over a kind of a checklist for things that we can think through as we're trying to build this, and a lot of things that we can ask questions on. What this will need is some funding, and the way we're looking at doing that is applying for grants. There's other options as well, but there's the Balance of State Continuum of Care grant, and I've learned that that window that we talked about, that window that might be opening soon, might be closing soon, closes Thursday at 5 p.m. So we are in contact with a grant consultant that Josh has referred. We're also asking for the grant they used to apply last time because we would be looking at balance of state, not the stuff that's specifically allocated toward Kansas City proper. And this would be something that we would have a good chance to qualify for, but we're going to need to move quickly. And one piece of that that Josh brought up last time is the scoring made scoring matrix includes the presence of a camping ordinance. So that will impact our ability to score on this. And we're, we're hoping to apply and have everything in by Thursday. Uh, I also met actually at lunch today with the former executive director of synergy services, who had other options and additional possible funding sources and additional frameworks that others have used using faith based organizations and other nonprofits to, um, find care, housing and other services. So I'm going to follow up with her as well as we start to build this out. Um, let's see, Josh, uh, let's see. I already said he shared the docs to clarify our thoughts. And then one thing to note is that during that meeting, it was about an hour and 15 minutes, Officer Riley was there. And Officer Riley, for her participation, she's been sort of our de facto front line in interacting with our unhoused community. And she shared some very visceral examples of how she has reached out, she knows everything pretty much everyone by first name, so she could point to a specific place that people normally are, they can be found, she knows them by name, she mentioned getting Beacon Mental Health involved, having a turning point present with a lot of these interactions, so that there's already being services offered that are oftentimes refused at this point, Um, but she did talk through what those interactions look like at the street level. Um, but while we were there, she got six calls. It's about an hour, 15 minutes, six calls for service related to the issue at hand just, just during that meeting. Um, which shows that things are progressing. There are, there's a need for something, um, sort of this two pronged approach we're looking at. And so this discussion, and I want to open the floor in just a minute, we'll dovetail into the second piece, which is item 14, and that's consideration of prohibiting camping on public property. So what we're looking to do is have council direct the mayor and city administrator to work on this, to get this sort of an MOU, basically these two MOUs in place. If we're going to pass this ordinance, we want to be seeking this. So it's a both and. So what questions do we have on the potential partnership with Josh and the Division of Unhoused Solutions? Council Member Alvarez.

I'm actually very impressed with all the work that's been done. I was impressed with what Josh said last time he was here. I think there's a lot of potential to go ahead and go with this. more work than I've seen I think in the past of getting the like permanent maybe permanent but the more steady people that we've seen around the area looking for places to stay it sounds like there's a lot of help a lot of people are willing to reach out and do the hard work and and get the people help that need it. So I just want to sound very impressed with it. So I think it's great.

Thank you. And what we're hoping for here is a durable solution, one that has impact that lasts beyond a cold weather season or a single interaction where we can build that trust and get people the help they need. Council Member Wells.

Yeah, during your meetings, I'm interested in what was discussed about sort of training and interactions with city staff, like how would that exchange between the Unhoused Solutions office and our staff work?

The actual partnership, like what would that coordination look like?

Yeah, and just, I mean, I'm specifically interested in sort of training. It sounds like we already have You mentioned, I forget the officer's name. Officer Riley. Riley, who's sort of the point person locally, so I'm sure that Officer Riley and others already have had training in dealing with these kinds of problems and issues. But I'm just curious as to if that was brought into the discussion, like what more can we do through this partnership?

Yeah, the checklist that I referenced kind of gives... I would say each, it slices and dices the issue into different segments, and then it gives options like A through F on how granular we want to get into it. And so whether this would be a we run point, we're the first ones there, and then do we call the Division of Unhoused Solutions where they bring an outreach or a, I forget the word they use there, but bring someone in to then work together with us or to be the first point of contact. And so all the way down to, well, we would just get their advice to work directly with something like a turning point or restart or Synergy Services, depending. And so there's a full continuum. And I would, I mean, we haven't gotten as far as how that training would go or what the specific words would be used, but that would have to be part of it.

Okay, I've got thoughts.

First, I have a couple of, like, just very basic questions. One is, do we have any idea what this is going to cost? So, and I'm not going to ask you to answer that right now, but that's something that we need to know before we get into any agreement. Also, Rita mentioned that she's done some investigation into this, and it sounds like the Department of Unhoused Solutions may have guardrails on it that only allow it to work with Kansas City proper, Jackson County, and not necessarily, you know, places like North Kansas City or Gladstone for their services. I could see us connecting with, like, the court, but are we sure that we can partner with them, that they can partner with us, and what kind of hoops do we have to jump through to get that going? So that's another question. Also, the COC builds competition, the community of care grant, I'm really glad that that was brought to our attention. And I really think that we should get some grant funding to help address this. But it's my understanding that that grant is a capital program for building housing and not for addressing unhoused people outside of constructing housing. So I could be wrong about that, but everything that I found about that particular grant involved building, not providing services. So I'd just kind of like us to look into that more. I think my biggest thing is this particular discussion goes hand in hand with the next item on the agenda, which is passing the ordinance. And I'm going to say up front that I am very hesitant to pass this ordinance without some kind of piece in place that addresses these services. And I know we can't decide that right now, but I will not, I'm only going to vote to approve this ordinance if we put a deadline on when we expect city staff and the mayor to get back to us with an arrangement for services. So I say, If nothing has come about within 90 days, and I will ask at every meeting where are we at on this, if nothing has happened by our first meeting in November, I'm going to ask us to put an agenda item on the agenda to repeal the ordinance. if it passes, because I want to make sure that we don't just let the horse out of the barn and then try to get it back later. We have to actually put these services in place. And Josh made a really good point when he said that Services without enforcement don't work. The same goes for enforcement without services. And we're getting ready to be asked to pass enforcement without services. And I don't feel comfortable doing that. I want our police officers to have the tools that they need. But I also want us to be aware that this is a bigger issue than just using a stick. Every problem is a nail when all you have is a hammer. We need to actually... have other resources in place before I say we pass this long term. That's just me.

All right. You asked a couple questions at the top there. Cost, rough, rough estimate, depending on which checkboxes we use in the metrics there that Josh mocked up, would be anywhere from $45,000 to $200,000. That's the rough, rough numbers. And it could go much higher or be more bare bones, depending on. Correct.

Yeah.

To be grant supported if we're going to go beyond the lower tier. Can we partner? So what Rita was mentioning is zero KC being restricted. That was a one-time, point-in-time grant. According to Josh, yes, we can partner. We even discussed in the meeting, can we, given that we are essentially the Vatican City of the Kansas City metro, we're fully surrounded, can we just become part of that service area that they consider Kansas City, we're already in the middle of it. Would they be able to bring their outreach teams and have services in coordination with our police department? And he seemed to agree with that. Now, I haven't been able to finalize that to be certain that there's not barriers to it, but that's something we're building toward. And then the COC grant, I found out about that window yesterday that it's 48 hours out, so I have not had time to dig deeply into that as I've been working on this ordinance. Yep.

Yes, thank you. And I also want to start off too by saying that I think the supportive service side, I think that sounds really great. Like I think in terms of like that opportunity for progressive engagement, having a homelessness court, I think that alleviates a lot of the concerns that folks have, sort of the punitive measures that I think folks are concerned about, and rightfully so. But I had a couple of quick questions, and these might have to be, you know, relayed to Josh, or just, you know, some evidence gathering. But, Council Member McGrone, I think you had a really good question about, like, long-term outcomes. We were talking about the approximately I'm sorry, the 1,000 available shelter beds, and talking about, okay, what's, you know, Zero KC's success with placement, but also long-term, you know, how many of those folks are ultimately getting permanent housing. I'd be curious to see, you know, for the life of the program so far, what evidence they have. And then, two, what that available bed space looks like, because obviously shelter space is going to have a lot of different barriers. So I'd just like to kind of see that breakdown and then get an understanding of what that means for our community and for the barriers for folks that are unhoused here.

Somebody's keeping a list of all these questions, right? We want to check the record and make sure we get them all written down. These are good questions. Further questions or thoughts? Council Member Wells.

Going back to the two MOUs that you outlined, the homeless court being the first one, is that an element that would be brought into the second approach if the grant funding materialized and everything?

As far as I understood, the referral out to the homeless court, I don't know that there's cost attached to that. But it would be integrated in so that if people are being issued a citation, that's already been communicated to our prosecutor who is very much on board with that. I haven't heard back today, but last night we had court and he was supposed to speak with the judge about also those referrals, but figuring out the legal framework for how it actually is done, how the handoffs happen, so that we're not just handing things off and then they're not actually clearing citations.

Go ahead. This is a major issue, both in terms of costs and in terms of policy and direction that North Kansas City is going to go into. We've got at least three prongs. the housing court, the housing itself, and camping ordinance requiring it. And there's another little fill up that's tossed in here. We're chasing a grant due in two days. All of that, to my mind, speaks to Well, bad policy and bad government. This is too big a thing to be rushed into because there's a grant due in two days. This is something we need to do and do it right. Not haphazard, not something we're going to regret in six months, six years that we didn't do it the right way. So let's take a breath and pause and put together a real three-pronged kinds of approach, coordinated and in one package. And that might actually get additional grant money down the future. But chasing a grant due in two days doesn't make sense

So to clarify, we would be seeking additional grants in the future. It wouldn't just be like, well, we try this one. If we don't get it and we're done, we try the thing. I would also push back a little bit on this being rushed, that this has been a thing we've talked about for a long time. And done nothing, essentially.

Or very little except for cold weather issues.

Yes. So we really haven't done anything. Council Member Bailey? Yes.

I think regarding this exact item, I am in favor of staff continuing to plumb the depths of this very thorny issue. I appreciate the time that both you have provided and staff has of talking to Josh and coming up with options. I would hope that the entire council is open to hearing what comes out of those conversations, and then taking them at their merits. I don't think we're making a decision at this point other than to say, at least for my part, to say, yes, I am continuing with my ears wide open with very hopeful enthusiasm that we can come up with even a step forward on a very difficult issue. So that's my perspective.

Go ahead.

Mayor, as you said, we are the Vatican City of the Kansas City Metro. Have there been other discussions with Riverside, Parkville, Gladstone to see if there are ways that we can all work together?

Yeah, so pending the discussion tonight, we have lunch scheduled with the five Super Friends cities mid-August, and this will be item one on the agenda. So as we work toward building out this agreement that hopefully the council directs us to continue these conversations, hopefully we have a framework to share with our other Northland cities to say, like, hey, the more of us that get in with this, the more resources we can have at the table, the better we can build it. So, yes, that's the plan. Council Member Alvarez.

Yeah, I'd just like to have input in saying that the original discussion is the ordinance of prohibiting camping on public property. That's the main crux of this, and I believe that I just want to make everyone aware i i don't think that anyone or any employees police department fire department whoever is like out to hurt people that are camping i don't think that's the issue and i hope that people understand that no matter where you're coming from i think everyone within the city is is actually wanting to help i think you need this tool in order to even approach people that are camping on public property i don't think anyone is out to like get somebody or to cause harm we want to protect the people that live within the city and i think you need these tools in order to do that i was very impressed with all the work that's been put in and all the options that we may add to what we already have but i believe that the general um i guess is that when we do approach these people, if they are camping on public property, that help is being offered. It may not be to the extent of what we have options here, but it has been offered in the past. I think it continues to be offered. And like I think Joshua had said when he was here, you cannot force people to seek help. So if people are looking at that as if we contact somebody that's camping and we offer them help, it's not our failure that they don't want to receive the help or it's not that we are displacing them on purpose or sending them out somewhere else without help, it's because, like he said, a lot of times people, it's either substance abuse or maybe mental issues, they don't want to help. So it's not that we're not offering, it's not that we're not doing our best to offer the help that we do have. So I hope people keep that in mind, that the spirit of the no ordinance is not necessarily to go in and disrupt what people are doing. It can be a hazard for people that live within the city because a lot of times there are problems around where they set up the camping, disposal of personal items, and it just grows and becomes bigger. It's a harder problem to get rid of if you let it grow. And I think if you... If you give our department or our police department, whoever, the tools that they need to work with, then I think it's a problem that stays small enough that we can work with it and get them the help that they need. But I don't think that because we haven't done these things in the past or we don't have something specific written down, it doesn't mean that we haven't been doing that in the past so far. So I just kind of wanted people to remember that. Great, Eric.

Appreciate that. And one thing that I sort of touched on in the meeting with Josh and staff, Officer Riley, I just can't say how impressed I was. I kind of wish I had a camera in the meeting to share her story in her own words. But just the way she spoke about the approach that the police department takes, I think there's some idea with maybe what you've seen on TV where people are more aggressive. That's not the sense I get here.

I agree. I think people sometimes think we go in, not we, but the police, the city, go in with like baseball bats and we'd be, you know, and we're running. That's not what happened. I hope people remember that.

She could name people, first name basis, was almost in tears telling stories about a young lady she encountered in one of the camps. And I mean, it's just, It's real people dealing with real things. And since this is sort of a 13 and 14 together, this isn't about criminalizing homelessness. That's the thing we keep hearing. It's recognizing, as Josh put it, it's in nobody's best interest to live or sleep outside. It's not in the best interest of the people doing it. It's not in the best interest of the people who live here in North Kansas City and public health. And it's not in the best interest of the businesses that are nearby. Sorry, I got more notes here. So when our officers, we're looking to enhance what we do already, but when our officers approach, they're not just offering a stick. They also have mental health professionals ready to go. They have a turning point and resources that are on offer. This is looking to expand that network through the office or the Division of Unhoused Solutions. And it's not meant to be punitive. We're not trying to collect fines. We're not trying to put people in jail. We're trying to offer an off-ramp from that, from living outside to services, whether that has to push them through the homeless court or they just take the services on offer at that first interaction or second or third interaction. And I think this is a net benefit to everyone involved, not just our police department, not just the businesses, but everybody. And it will, as I noted, it will allow us to be competitive in these grant applications because the scoring matrix needs to see this. So further thoughts. I know there's a lot here. Go ahead.

This is kind of a question for item number 14, but Chief Freeman, have you, have we continued to be offering services to the unhoused as we've approached them, and have they been accepted in the past two weeks since we last spoke?

Absolutely. Every time. Like the mayor said, every time. That's what we start with. Specifically in the last two weeks, I don't know. I can't speak to that, but I would say that specifically every time it is offered, we are working with professionals with Turning Point, Beacon Mental Health. Again, like the mayor said, this could just expand those resources into another realm that we have not been able to tap into yet. to add more help, add more opportunities. But yeah, every time. And they've been doing it for a long time. This isn't just news since we started this discussion. This is something that we do on a daily basis. We'd rather not be the front people on it, honestly. We'd rather organizations in the private sector and community health be the front lines to that. But you can't send a community health worker into some of these situations because they're dangerous. You saw some of the pictures. So that's why we're there.

And what do you think the acceptance rate is for services? Do you have that statistic?

To my knowledge, one person is actively working with Turning Point to try to find some shelter out of the 30-plus interactions probably at this point, maybe higher than that. Thank you. You're welcome.

The other thing that Josh mentioned is the concept of least restrictive environment said that this, that homelessness will flow toward the least restrictive environment. And currently with Casey Moe, Casey K and Gladstone, our nearest in neighbors having passed, uh, no camping ordinance, we are the least restrictive environment. And I'm hearing now from business owners who have had notable upticks in, um, people coming in and panhandling in their businesses, or hanging out right outside their front door and asking for money. And again, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy as you remain in the least restrictive environment.

Go ahead.

Thank you. I want to start off, because I know we're kind of dipping into item 14 a little bit, so I may as well. Go ahead. But I do really appreciate the conversations I've had with folks over the last... month, month and a half or so at this point. I've had a lot of opportunities to talk to residents, go out on a walk, go grab coffee, go to have brunch in people's homes, go talk to other cities and learn about their experiences with this too. Because I think we're in a situation where in the Midwest, we have a lot of cities that have taken a Houston-style approach, a Kansas City-style approach. And to try to learn about their strategic planning processes, their processes with the service provision, to really try to learn the ins and outs of it. And what I've heard from a lot of people is just concern about displacement without resolution. And that's the whole impetus of the program is ultimately getting people housed and getting people permanently housed. And I think that's everybody's goal here is to ultimately seek that. But the concern about having more enforcement mechanisms relative to the social service that we're trying to put in is the concern about where folks are ultimately going to go. We heard it from public comments two weeks ago. And what cities often see, I had a chance to talk to some folks from Tulsa and Tulsa County. That's where I'm originally from. And I reached out to some of those folks, service providers there, to talk a little bit about their strategy now that they're years in. Like, what are they seeing? And they talked a lot about the growing pains that come from displacement without resolution. ultimately folks are told to move along and then you move to other public property, other private property. There's a significant back and forth there between like state property and city property. And I know what a few years ago we had that come up with a state statute as far as staying on state property. But there's a lot of concern about the displacement without resolution. And long-term analyses of these kinds of ordinances before and after implementation, they don't show a reduction in unsheltered homelessness. And that's the reason why, right? If you have an ordinance that doesn't necessarily speak to housing provision or addressing a barrier to housing, then you're not going to see a change. And I think that's what we're trying to address, and that's why I really appreciate the positive elements in working with a lot of folks that can provide more resources to our city and make sure that everyone's part of the equation, whether it's public safety, the hospital, the school, that's really ultimately what I want to see. And I have been really hopeful and kind of holding out that there might be a strategic planning process somehow involved in this to kind of get our goals defined. to get our strategy defined. And I think that's the part where I agree with Council Member Saper. I think that it feels like a rush because ultimately we are a planning city. We've planned so much. I've moved to North Kansas City, and as a policy wonk, I've had a lot of good reading because I've got a lot of good plans to read. And we care about our source water. We care about pedestrians. We care about cyclists. We invest a lot of time and money into planning, into thinking about what we're going to do to protect people and protect our residents. And I want to see similar levels of investment. But we were kind of scrambling when we first saw this ordinance to think about what to do and how to respond. And we ultimately had a temporary measure But I think now we're at a point where we can really stop and think about long-term policies because, again, this could be part of our homelessness strategy. It doesn't say anything about homelessness. It's talking about camping and public sleeping, but it ultimately is because it's going to affect people that are unhoused. And that's something that I hope to see. There are consequences of displacement without resolution, public health consequences. And it's really important to highlight what those are. We're talking about a population that lives three decades shorter than the rest of the public, right? It's a very dangerous thing to be unhoused. And there are long-term studies, some commissioned by the CDC and published by the American Medical Association, that found that continual displacement when projected over time, was associated with a 50% increase in hospitalizations, an 11% decrease in life expectancy, and a 151% increase in opioid-related mortality. So when I look at that, I think we should really sit and plan about this. We should really sit and think about what our strategy's gonna be as a city. And that's something I really am hoping for. And again, I trust that city staff are going to do a great job in pursuing what those services are. And I look forward to being part of that solution with you all and rolling up the sleeves. That's what I want, too. But ultimately, I just think we should stop and think and talk to every stakeholder that we have in our community. Talk to the public. Hold focus groups. Do what we can to ultimately make a comprehensive effort.

Council Member Larson. I just want to say that I appreciate Council Member Kane for sharing all his research. I know you've really dug into this. And I wonder if we could pass another temporary ordinance and then take the time to have our longstanding ordinance be more planned and thought out and really solidified. But I know our police department would like to have something in place since the current ordinance is going to sunset today, tonight.

Our police department would really like to have something permanent in place unless repealed. So adding in like a sunset again would be, it could also impact our grant application ability. Now I don't know if they're going to read that deeply, but according to the consultants that we've really touched, early touch base with, having something in there can impact it. But sort of what Lindsay alluded to, sorry, Council Member McGrone alluded to, um putting in a time in the future where we will revisit this so putting it in without a sunset but we're hey if we're not either moving in the right direction or have something concrete in place by date we'll revisit this like we'll come back and look at it and give it a real good honest like evaluation of how has it been going that's where over is

I would like to suggest that we at least get the basic ordinance on the record and then continue to our efforts to offer additional solutions or whatever after that. But I do think that the base thing that we need for the city is at least providing the tools that we need to address the problem. And I think you have to have that first before you move on. And solving the homeless situation, it's more than just North Kansas City. It's more than Kansas City. It's all over. It's the United States. It's California. I've seen videos on the Kensington connection. I mean, it's a huge, huge problem. I don't think that we can solve this today, tomorrow. I think it's a long, long process. But just for the basics, I think we need to have an ordinance at least with something to start with. and continue to find solutions or if Officer Riley or any other officers on the department want to add to that and work with them, I think that's great. But I think you need the foundation having an ordinance in place first.

That's my- A couple things, Council Member Cain, what you said. We are a city that plans. We plan, we do master plans, strategic plans, source water plans. That can also have the impact of planning things into the ground so that we're talking and talking and talking in circles and it takes a monumental effort to actually take those and make them work. We've had plans that we've spent lots of money on that are ultimately sitting on the shelf now. because they took so long and went through so many changes in leadership. Leadership will change, different economics change, other external factors change while we were talking and talking in circles. And while I think your points are very valid, that the statistics you bring are real, The other thing you said is it's very dangerous to be unhoused. That resonates. It is. It's very dangerous to be unhoused, to live outside, to be in that environment, in that lifestyle. And this is not a perfect effort, but it's a way to say, We're trying, we're making steps, taking effort to say, you can't camp, you can't sleep in our public spaces, but we are offering resources, we are expanding our network, we're partnering with other community partners that are already marching in that direction, and that will only get better over time. And I would love to have you bring as many solutions as we go along with this. Because the goal, you're right, the goal is to not have people living outside. Go ahead.

Yes, thank you. And I just wanted to address a couple of things there. So I think talking about, you know, like planting something into the ground, I hear you, I understand. But I think like a good concrete example, at least in this case, is like a needs assessment of folks that are unhoused here. Like, and I think that's something that's direct, immediate, concrete, and not, doesn't take too long to plan. So again, thinking about like, well, if we want to partner with Zero KC, understanding their shelter space and their shelter beds, we know that there are barriers to a lot of shelters, right? So we need to think about the folks that are unhoused here. What barriers do they have currently? And does that match? Because if there's a gap, I think it'd be important to know before we jump into an MOU with an organization like that. So that's just one example, again, of a planning process that could, or something we could learn from a planning process that would be helpful immediately. And then two, just having that exercise of being able to say, okay, I'm going to make this policy. Does it impact you? Does it impact you? Does it impact you? And thinking about the ways that it can impact other folks. I mentioned McKinney-Vento, the obligation for schools to have folks that are unhoused and provide transportation for youth that are unhoused and ultimately to enroll them just the same as anyone who is housed. So making sure that education remains the same for youth in our community, regardless of whether you have an address or not. That's, I think, pretty standard. And then three, I want to circle back, because I know last time we talked a little bit about the Clay County Public Health Center. I mentioned it, and I kind of, you know, stepped back a little bit because I thought the process might be kind of rushed to get a resolution today. But I circled back with the public health department, and they talked a little bit about what a planning process could look like. Again, they can act as a facilitator and get folks to the table, go through a health impact checklist and provide information that's going to be directly relevant to our decisions. But also, again, like hold focus groups, set forums, like do the kinds of things that we can engage with and invite folks to that are no or low cost. I think the only costs that were mentioned is if we wanted to have, like, food, you know. So, again, I'm not necessarily even talking there about, like, large years-long projects like, you know, like Tulsa or Kansas City or Houston has. Just a planning effort of some kind.

And that can, any and all of that can be part of this, what we're building. And that's why when you said 90 days, in my brain I was like, that's pretty quick. I had at least six months built out in my mind. And I see you shaking your head. I don't know if anyone else has thoughts on the timeline. Two weeks for... Yeah, Mike.

So whatever – I mean, when we implemented this ordinance temporarily, that was kind of like the clock starting as far as I'm concerned. I don't think 90 days is too short. I mean, that's – maybe that's me. I'm not working on – getting into this, but I want to set the expectation with our community that we truly care about talking about this. And the longer the runway that you give yourself, the longer it's going to take to actually do this stuff. So if you feel like it's going to be six months, then I can agree to six months, but that's going to be six months of meetings of me going, where are we? Where are we? Where are we? Where are we? I'm going to do that, and I'm going to be annoying about it. And then in six months, if we don't actually have a plan, then we're going to ask to repeal it. But I do want to say, I don't... I do understand why there is a need for a camping and sleeping ordinance. I really do. I understand that if Harrah's calls and says that there's a camp on their property, and the police go and say, you all need to leave, or they offer services or whatever, and some people don't, and they're like, you guys need to clear out of here, that they can go 100 yards away and be on city-owned property. And then at that point, there really isn't a recourse for the police to say, OK, you guys need to clear out of here, too. I understand that, and I don't want to take that away. But because there is so much, essentially, baggage around this type of ordinance being associated with the unhoused, I want to make sure that we include that thoughtful consideration that Councilmember Cain has talked about, and Councilmember Saper, and Councilmember Larson, and we are all trying to make sure that we are getting this right. And that looks different for a lot of different people. But I do want us to, whatever, when we give guidance to city staff to look into this, I want a date. I want either 90 days, I want three months, four months, five months, whatever. But I want us to have a date that we're working towards so that we can actually make this happen or admit to ourselves, okay, this wasn't, working or we can't figure this out. The other thing that I would really like to have as part of this is every month the police department does a really great job of creating a monthly report. And if we could have in that monthly report times that this particular ordinance was used and the circumstances of how it was used. Was it a camp? Was it somebody sleeping on a bench? Did they accept a referral? Where did they go? And then we'll be able to, as a council, have some information every month with that report, and we can look back at it and go, oh my gosh, they did 40 interactions with people, and we know that this ordinance was necessary, or they did no interactions with people, and maybe we don't need this so um those would be my two considerations a hard date on when we need some kind of services piece and inclusion in the monthly police report of how this ordinance is being used very both very reasonable um how about heading into cold weather time so first meeting in december we revisit I think that's really great, and I think this is also a really good opportunity for me to say that I want to recognize the Northland Assistance Center and the work that Rita has done with that organization. And I think that the goal is that we would never have to fund cold weather shelter because they would already have it before winter comes. Ultimately, whoever we partner with, hopefully, we never have to refer anybody to Rita's organization for that again, or to the NAC again. But... I do want to, if it gets down to we have cold weather situation and we are not partnered with anybody, I do want to make sure that we continue to commit some funding to help our unhoused people during cold weather through the NAC.

Absolutely. The other part on the police report, I like that. So the monthly report, having times this ordinance has been needed, and then additionally calls for service. I don't know if we have a current calls for service related to unhoused individuals or something along those lines because as as I mentioned we got six calls during that meeting and And so while those might be from private businesses, one feeds the other. If you're a less restrictive environment, you're bringing people in, or people will come this way, then show up in the businesses, show up, and then they might be trespassed or might be asked to leave, or there's a call for service. So something like that on the police report to show the magnitude of what we're working with. I saw a hand.

Go ahead. Since we're dealing with both of them, On 14, we're talking about camping on public property and nets, as per the ordinance proposed, extended to things like the levy district. Now, already, if people are camping in a levy district, the police can go in there when the levy district calls up on them. It's a trespass, as all the other private businesses. So I'm not sure we need another ordinance to cover something that we already have an ordinance for, which is trespass. So on private property and the levy district is a private entity.

I will note we got a very, very strong letter of support from the head of the levy district.

That's because I think part of the obligation of the private property owner is to call upon the city for assistance for trespass. They would like to avoid that kind of policing activity and cost involved and pass it on to the city. And I think they have responsibility to patrol and maintain their property and, if necessary, call upon the city for assistance, but not to pass their cost on to the city. So I'm not sure we even need this particular ordinance at this time unless we can put it together in a comprehensive package, as several people have talked about so far. And to put a temporary time stamp on it, three months, six months, that just kicks the can down the road and is an anathema to any real planning and good government as far as I'm concerned. We need to do this in the right way now. Council Member Wells.

Microphone. So yeah, talking about dates, something that was mentioned in the last meeting when we discussed this, kind of keeps hitting me. And it's that nothing that we pass or do is necessarily set in stone. We can always revisit it. We can take it off the books. We can change it, whatever we want to do. So in that sense, I am interested in exploring a partnership with Zero KC. And I do think that getting the ball rolling on that is ultimately a good thing for people. I think that the planning can happen while that relationship is being explored. I think sometimes planning is good, and I see opportunities there. But I also think that sometimes if we choose not to act on something when we have the opportunity to, that's also equals a policy decision of sorts. I think if you can say anything about the homeless, unhoused problem anywhere, it's that the traditional tools that we've tried to apply to it and in action have not worked. And so this, I think, is at least an opportunity where we can explore a different avenue and see what comes of it. And if it leads to great outcomes, that's great. If in six months we decide that things aren't going as planned, the money didn't materialize, we can always revisit any kind of ordinance or anything else that comes about. But I am supportive of exploring this partnership and think that I would like to seize on that opportunity now.

Council Member Larson.

What I'm hearing is a general consensus that everybody agrees that investigating these services is the right path forward. Can we do that while working on an ordinance? Or do we need to have the funding secured before we can start exploring service options?

It's a both and. And if we are not, if we don't, like people will do what they will with this, but if we don't pass the ordinance, we're cutting a leg out of our funding opportunities. That's part of that. But Absent the funding opportunities, it's, in my view, the right policy decision to make at this point while we build the rest of it. Council Member Alvarez.

so what you're saying is we could pass the ordinance and then just continue to work with other agencies or just zero kc and just keep moving forward rather than i worry that we just go back and forth and back and forth and we don't do anything or make any progress so these two could be somewhat separate you could approve the ordinance and then as long as we continue to build on it i think that's progress rather than just keep waiting and going back and forth in another meeting and not making any headway. So I would like to suggest that we would pass the ordinance and then continue to work on different services available.

All right.

Go ahead. I just want to let you know regarding your question, Council Member Marone, or comment. From what we found from the grant, we would find out about award in December, mid-December or so, as far as timeline.

Then I would be okay with going until the end of this year.

You're in. And I'm just curious.

Yeah, the year end, like the last council meeting of this year.

Is that a request for an agenda item on the second council meeting in December? Yes. Would you want to do a first council meeting in January if you're in?

First council meeting in January, and then hopefully we won't have to put it on there at all.

Yes, that is the goal, to not need it. Requests received.

Perfect.

Okay.

And we're good with some kind of report, monthly, just an item in the monthly report from PD.

I see a head nod and a thumbs up.

Awesome.

Glasses are on, he's at work. All right. Further thoughts or comments before we start giving some direction? All right. Item 13. The request here is, is council looking to direct the mayor and city staff to work out an agreement that addresses unhoused services, whatever that ends up looking like. And that they can be worded differently.

So move. Do we need to include anything about get it within by the end of 2026?

I would say we could say that with this one, or we could add it to item 14, not be written into the ordinance, but to direct staff to bring it back if needed.

Yeah, then I'm good with that.

So we got a motion on that.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. Opposed? Motion passes. Item 14.

Consideration of an ordinance prohibiting camping on public property. Bill number 7996, ordinance number 9793.

All right, we've talked to this one quite a bit. Do we have other thoughts or comments before we might do a first reading? All right, do we have a motion?

Motion to approve.

First reading? First reading.

First reading.

Second. All in favor? Yes. Any opposed?

No.

How many no's did I have? One, two? Two no's. All right, motion passes.

An ordinance amending Title IX, Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare of the Code of the City of North Kansas City, Missouri, by adopting Chapter 9.23, Prohibited Camping and Sleeping on Public Property, relating to camping and sleeping on public property in the City of North Kansas City, Missouri, and providing for certain penalties.

I move that bill number 7996 be placed on second and final reading and passes ordinance number 9793.

Second. Call the roll.

Council Member McGrone? Yes. Council Member Kane?

No.

Council Member Alvarez? Yes. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Larson? Yes. Council Member Saper? No. Council Member Bailey?

Yes.

Motion passes. An ordinance amending Title IX, Public Peace, Morals, and Welfare of the Code of the City of North Kansas City, Missouri, by adopting Chapter 9.23, prohibited camping and sleeping on public property, relating to camping and sleeping on public property in the City of North Kansas City, Missouri, and providing for certain penalties.

All right. And you've got the directive, first meeting in January 2027. We will revisit this if needed. And monthly reports, you have homework to do, unless you're already done with it. And again, like I said last week, thank you all for a very, very in-depth and thoughtful discussion. This is a tough issue, and we're going to do our very, very best to do the best by everyone who is here in North Kansas City. Item 15.

Discussion regarding Burlington median closures at 20th and 21st Avenues.

All right. I'll hand this one off to you in a second. So this is the evergreen forever issue of the turn at the car wash on Burlington at 21st where I will remind people there's three lanes of traffic in each direction and And people are stopping in the leftmost lane of the northbound Burlington to make a left turn across three lanes of traffic into a 90-degree entry point at a car wash. It's a dangerous maneuver. It has been dangerous ever since that building was built and that median was left open. And we have had many discussions, many plans. talked over, and I think we're at a point where we have something that our engineers have signed off on two options. One where we would fully close the median at 20th and 21st, and then an option where we would fully close 20th and leave an opportunity for a turn from southbound Burlington on to 21st. Thoughts and questions on this before we hand it off to MoDOT for their final sign off. Go ahead.

It sounds like it's going to prohibit people from entering the car wash that are heading north on Burlington. There's no way for those people to hit the car wash without making an illegal U-turn at the next stoplight. So what are we doing to mitigate that so that that business doesn't lose a significant customer base?

Apparently through MoDOT we can allow the U-turn. And our engineers with Olson have done the evaluation that the intersection would support a U-turn.

So signage could be put up that would indicate that somebody could do that?

Remove the no U-turn sign.

Well, it's illegal to make a U-turn at any stoplight in Missouri, period.

According to MoDOT, obviously we're going to have to run through this final. There was one other thing, sorry.

Go ahead. The MoDOT had asked us to have our engineers do U-turn calculations at that intersection. So we are waiting on that component back. In the memo, I think they do say that they think it's feasible there, but I think MoDOT had more information requested.

but it seems like they are if they can't make a u-turn there or there's not some other way for somebody going north to get to that car wash i don't i'm fine with the 20th street and i don't ever do that turn anyway because it's like a death wish but i you know and i don't want people to have to do that but i also don't want to remove the ability for people to go to the car wash so

Part of the risk that it's, I don't make that turn either because I would rather go through a bunch of neighborhoods to make, to get back to it. But it's when you're driving on Burlington and somebody in front of you decides to do it, you're kind of hosed because like there is no, there's no way to stop anywhere else but that lane. So under the assumption that we're able to get the U-turn approved, which of these options would council like to see is sort of the thrust of the, go ahead.

The one that closes 20th permanently and leaves 20, I think leaves, well, do we need to leave 20, why do we need to leave 21st open for people going south to turn onto 21st?

Because there is a turn lane there, so they can get into a turn lane. It's a non-signalized left turn across three lanes of traffic.

I would say the option that leaves 21st partially open and closes 20th permanently.

For what it's worth, that's where I'm at as well. Go ahead. To add the left turn southbound Burlington onto 21st would be channelized, for lack of a better term. As an example, if you're going north on Vivian at North Oak and you're going to turn west or left, you've got barriers or curbs on either side. So that's the intent. So it would disallow cars northbound on Burlington. You couldn't turn. That's how it would be, yeah.

Further thoughts on this? Go ahead.

Yeah, I was hoping maybe Chief Freeman could educate us a little bit on the accident statistics there at that particular point. Going either direction, left turns across and right turns into the however it works.

Car wash and neighborhood. Sure. Yes and no. Not specifically. As the Mayor mentioned, we have discussed this ad nauseum. Many, many council's through in the past. And we have looked at crash data. We haven't looked at it recently. But it is relatively nonexistent. It is dangerous. I will fully agree with that. And we're waiting for a bad thing to happen there, potentially. But I think during the 12-month period that we looked at it, one of the last times we talked about it, I think we were able to show five crashes there in a 12-month period. That's my recollection.

So not a lot of high-speed crash data, but I would prefer to never have that data. And we had the operators of the car wash out, and they supported that, like closing the opportunity to turn, but they needed a way for people to get back as council members were grown. And so that's where, at that point, the U-turn was an impasse. And through the discussion with MoDOT, it's not necessarily an impasse. So if we can get that open, then we do the thing. Is that where we're at? All right. Do you need further questions?

That, like you said, what option is preferred? I mean, that helps us send Olson in a direction, so to speak.

So it sounds like leaving, I mean, I saw a lot of head nods, but leaving the opportunity for a channelized turn from southbound Burlington on to 21st, closing everything else.

Given that a U-turn can be performed. Given a U-turn.

Do we need a motion on that, or is that just general bring it to us? Okay.

We've got it.

Got it.

Anthony, head shakes.

Very good. For the record, lots and lots of head nods in the room. All right. Item 16.

Discussion regarding KCATA Route 201 bus stop locations from 23rd Avenue to 2019.

Okay, this is another example where reaching out as a citizen can have an impact. So I've received a handful of emails from a couple different individuals at the Gardens apartments at North Cape who want to take the bus, the 201, and they've gone to the stop up near IHOP at 29th and Burlington. And we've done a walk audit of that area. It is an aggressive area to be a pedestrian. The sidewalk just abruptly ends. There's some bushes that limit visibility. And then when you get out to the sign, there's a stick in the ground and some grassy area at best. If it's raining, it's quite muddy. not ideal to be a pedestrian and somebody trying to wait for a bus. What we've learned through KCATA is there's enough people using that particular portion of Burlington to warrant a full service stop, which includes covered area, bench to sit on. And they would, at their cost, put those improvements in, but we have to get the sidewalk to a point and then put a concrete pad in. And that's where the discussion sort of went off the rails. So we brought in KCATA and MoDOT and Mike and Anthony, and we had just a really good talk about what would this look like. And there are utility boxes directly between where we would need to extend the sidewalk to put a concrete pad in and getting around those or moving those would be pretty costly. So one of the folks in the room said, well, not to open a can of worms, but let's do it. What if we move the stops to closer to where the people would want to be getting on them anyway and consolidate the stop at 23rd, 26th, and 29th to two stops on Buchanan? And there's space on Buchanan. There's parking that are kind of angle-in parking areas in front of, sort of between Quick Trip and the apartments there that could fit a concrete pad. It would attach to sidewalk. And spacing those two stops where, yes, if you get a map pull-up or the memo, to be able to place the stops along Buchanan so it's easier to get to for people living in those apartments or in the neighborhoods there. And at this point, we don't have specific dollar amounts tied to these. But between moving all of the utilities and extending the sidewalk at the one on Burlington, which then again, you're on Burlington, which is a, or I guess that's North Oak at that point. You're on a high traffic road versus being on Buchanan, which is a much more pedestrian friendly spot. And we could basically put the pads right adjacent to the concrete without having to move a bunch of utilities. So that's what we talked about. thoughts or questions on that. Go ahead.

I like it. I think it's a good idea. I think after doing the walk audit, our group didn't walk over on that side, but we did walk on Buchanan. There are some issues with Buchanan, too, that we should talk about at some point. But I think that that stretch of road is plenty wide to accommodate buses. It doesn't have a ton of traffic on it. We drive that route every day multiple times. So when we see people walking, the bus stops on Burlington I mean, they're just, there's, you see people waiting out in the rain, sitting in the grass, and it's just not, it doesn't say we care about the people in our community who want to ride the bus or use public transportation. And I think this moves more toward, we recognize that this is a community benefit and we are trying to help the people who use it the most.

And this would offer full service stops at those locations. And we looked at different routings. This is also a quick right turn onto 23rd off of Burlington, straight up Buchanan, very, very easy maneuvers for the bus to make, and then right back on 29th out to Burlington. So it doesn't materially add time. I don't know if you, did you get an answer on how much time or cost that would add on the route?

Not yet, no. AJ Ferris at KCATA is routing this through all the different channels at their organization. They actually even want to start taking some buses that way just to kind of test it, see if there's anything that stands out to them. But they're going through that process now.

And it avoids potentially, obviously long-term, with North Rail, if we're looking at using Swift for North Rail, it doesn't move the bus over to – because that was another option we looked at. Do we go all the way to Swift and then North? But that adds time and turns, and it's harder to get back across – So the Buchanan route, and if we're on Buchanan, it gives people who ride to work on the other side of Burlington a closer path to get across that way. So go ahead.

I'd like to evaluate the Swift route. We already have two very nice bus stops. I happen to live, used to live right next to one. That they're just sitting there primed to be used. It's a main thoroughfare. If we want to bring it, the routes closer to more people, I think you'd have a higher population density by bringing it over to Swift. And it's already there. And so if the logic is, well, it's only one block over, well, what's one more block? I recognize it is additive. You will add just a little bit more cost. but I would at least like to hear good reasons why that's not the right move, and Buchanan's the better one.

I'll give you a couple reasons we talked about. First, the stops you're referencing, I believe, have signs and maybe a bench, but they're not the full stop. They have the full covering? Okay. Second piece is That is a route that we would need to, if we put it in place, we'd have to repeal it if we were sending the streetcar down that route. And then third piece is if you come off of Burlington at 23rd and go to Swift, then you go up Swift to 32nd and make the turn back to get on North Oak. The turn at Swift and 32nd is a very difficult turn to make timing-wise.

You guys are looking at me.

Yeah, you're in control of the computer. I'm looking at the map. Any chance you can help here? I'm a visual person.

Scroll up to 30 seconds, Swift. So this turn, right there by the dog park, this one is becoming a much harder turn than it's ever been. And as we add 390 new friends up the top of the hill, making... For the record, there was a laugh in the audience. As we try to make a left turn from Swift onto 32nd, there's going to be a lot more traffic through that.

Wouldn't you cut across on 29th?

Scroll down. It doesn't cut through. Yeah. Yeah.

I appreciate the desire to use the stops that are on Swift. That area of Swift, it's wide, but it's also a little more constricted than it may appear since they've added in the 23rd and Swift Apartments, and they've added in the bike lane, and they've added in the curb dividers. it just feels like tighter and there really isn't, I'm looking at the maps and it doesn't look like there's a really great way to get around that.

29th is not a straight shot. It's more the timing it takes to get through and around. And many of the people riding that route are taking it to places like to Nemec or to work over on that side of Burlington. So if we're moving it another block and a half to Swift, it's making it less user-friendly for both options. Council Member Kane.

Thank you. So the memo mentioned the bus stop design guide. I know you all referenced it a little bit in terms of, like, ridership warranting a bench on Burlington. So do you know, say, because this would be a completely new bus stop, right, on Buchanan, so would that still warrant in KCATA's eyes having a bench at both stops?

I think so, yeah. The conversation, like Mayor Smith said, kind of went from looking at that one stop to then looking at the entire like cohesiveness of the system. Um, that one stop at 29th and Buchanan that was very under improved at 75 daily boardings. So that, you know, as we're kind of talking about the high density area of Northgate, you know, that, that, that's all coming to that one spot. So if you move that equal distance just onto Buchanan, you're probably going to pick up the exact same. Um, I don't have that information from ATA, but that's, that's kind of the concept. Um, one other thing to add, um, this is, just the North mountain that we're talking about, the North mountain would veer over. The other thing is I think the bus stops, I did not create a good map. I just created a really quick map. And so those yellow circles you see on that map that was distributed, those are the old stops that exist on Swift. That was an old, that was a different route than the 201. So that might be one other thing to consider is that that was a separate route from the 201. There's still, like you were saying, there's different people on Burlington that are using that for getting to work. And so you wouldn't want to maybe, you know, you're, that used to divide out two different routes where this would be one. And so this kind of centralizes it more than bringing it over to Swift or back over to Burlington. Just one other consideration.

OK, perfect. Thank you.

Go ahead. Yeah, just curious. When you were speaking with KCATA, this was how they preferred to rearrange this route, right?

They seemed fairly agnostic to the options. Numbers dictate that this would be full-service build-out. They're willing to do the build. We just need to land a platform, and they will put the piece on. The only concern they had was additional time on the route.

Okay.

Unless you picked up on something else.

They like the consolidation. They do like the consolidation. They thought that was great, being able to consolidate three into two for the timing. Yeah.

Council Member Alvarez.

Yeah, I'd like it moving over to Buchanan. It's just one street off of the busy street, Burlington. Like you said, there's a lot of traffic. If you move it away from the high-density traffic, I think that's a good idea. It's safer. If you move it even farther down, you're more in the residential area, but as it is on Burlington, it's just one street off of the business area, too, so I think that's a good compromise, so I like it.

Council Member King.

Thank you. I just realized I never expressed my support. I appreciate it. The Gardens, City View, 23rd and Swift, that's a lot of one-car, no-car households that now have a closer transportation option. So I'm in support.

Absolutely. That's a big part of the goal. Moving over a block might not seem like much, but getting into a more comfortable, like, again, having done the walk audit, and thank you for coordinating those, and to Jordan and the Bike and Pedestrian Group, it is eye-opening. So if you ever get a chance to go on one of these walk audits, You can see how tough it is to be a pedestrian on Burlington. Further thoughts? So, I'm hearing directive from the council, pursue the two-stop on Buchanan model and bring back some cost comparisons. Very good. Okay, moving to item 17.

Approving a task order with Burns and McDonald for industrial pretreatment services.

Who's got this one? That's all right. Anthony. So we've had a previous conversation about our industrial pretreatment program, which I kind of refer to as the sewer police. We are tasked with monitoring our larger industrial users and what they're putting into our waste stream. That program has been audited by the EPA, is looking at different changes. They're wanting to restructure how we work with Kansas City, who ultimately has the wastewater treatment plant. And in the parallel working with that is also that the three employees that run that program after 48 and 40 years are retiring. And so we are losing basically everyone that runs that program. So we are looking to have some continuity in that service. We have to keep that program going. But we are also at the same time dealing with the EPA, DNR, Kansas City discussions on how the future of this program will work out. So this task order with Burns and Mack kind of covers that gap. For the last year and a half, we've been working with Burns & Mack, and their sub-consultant dropped collaborative on improving our program, and so they're very familiar with the operations and are kind of the best position to continue these operations while we have this interim period. So any questions that we have to answer?

It sounds like, um, you know, we'll have people rolling off. So this is kind of timely. Uh, we can, you know, wish them the best retirement and then end up potentially saving nearly a hundred thousand dollars a year by not running our own program. Is that the long and short of it?

There's some cost savings there between how we operate now with, with this task order. And then, again, normally without the program being in consideration with the regulatory agencies that allow us to operate it, we would have gone out and hired to replace these employees, but that is still kind of a question up in the air. So we don't want to bring on employees that we have to remind them to say goodbye to. So this is helping bridge that gap.

Outsourcing can be useful for cost savings and for stopgaps as we need it. And then we'll be working on the IJA, the inter-jurisdictional agreement with Kansas City to figure out what that'll look like long term. All right, so we need a motion on the approval.

Move to approve. Second.

All in favor? Yes. Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes. Item 18.

Consideration of an ordinance approving accounts due and payable by the city through July 17, 2026. Bill number 7999, ordinance number 9796. Who wants to pay the bills tonight?

First reading.

Second.

All in favor? Yes. Any opposed? Motion passes.

An ordinance authorizing payment for certain accounts due and payable by the city through July 17, 2026.

I move that Bill No. 7999 be placed under second and final reading and passed as Ordinance No. 9796.

Second. Call the roll.

Council Member McGrone? Yes. Council Member Kane?

Yes.

Council Member Alvarez? Yes. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Larson? Yes. Council Member Saper? Yes. Council Member Bailey?

Yes.

An ordinance authorizing payment for certain accounts due and payable by the City through July 17, 2026.

Staff comments.

All right, tonight is department reports, but Kim also has a couple comments, I believe, and then we'll do the department reports, and I'm going to follow at the end with kind of the budget memo that I have in there. And then we'll go from there.

All right, who's kicking us off? I am. All right.

So just a couple of quick comments. I'd like to thank everybody who participated in SwiftKick. That event happened since the last time we met, and that was really an entire city response. We had every single department that was part of making that particular event happen participate. We had gotten a report that we had over 1,500 people participate in that event. So overall, we considered a pretty good success. We've heard quite a few positive comments, and we are happy that everybody who came kind of got to discover perhaps their new favorite place in Northtown. Then number two item would be, as the council recalls, we were awarded a $250,000 housing and urban development grant through their economic development initiative. And that was sponsored through Congressman Emanuel Cleaver's office. Last week we attended a training for that particular grant through HUD. of better understood exactly what requirements the city would need to file should we accept those those funds specifically what this focused on was the build america by america grant provision. So some of the things that we have learned is even though we had kind of earmarked those dollars to be used for soft costs or professional services, specifically design and construction documentation that we would have to comply with those provisions for the entirety of the project, including the building and construction. We are trying to kind of evaluate what the potential fiscal and operations would be should the city receipt those dollars through that grant to get an understanding really is that are we ahead if we receive those grants. So more to come. We're kind of again trying to get an understanding of what the fiscal impact of that particular provision would be specifically in the constructing process. Yes.

Was that a grant for something specific? It was for town square. Okay.

To be clear, we asked for $3 million and we got 250,000, which as you're kind of heading in the direction of won't pay for enough to make it worth the headache of the doing the thing.

We still have some understanding of, of what that would be, um, having to kind of incorporate those provisions into the construction. So I can't tell you today if we're money ahead, money behind on it, but it made us question it.

All right. Who's kicking off reports?

I think that's me. Good evening, Mayor, Council. Before I go into the report, not nearly as sexy as $200,000, but the police department was awarded $29,000. in a grant from the state of Missouri in the Blue Shield grant program. If you recall last year, it was $50,000, but more agencies applied this year, so the money got divvied up just a little bit more. So we plan on using that to offset some of the funding that we have in the upcoming budget as well. So in this month's report, a couple of highlights there are some multi-jurisdictional cases that we worked during the month of July that got some significant arrests out of it. It just shows some of the stuff that We're doing not only on a local level, but partnering with the regional partners and federal partners to bring some bad people to some charges. So any questions on that, I have to answer as much as I can without divulging ongoing criminal investigations. But see our six-month stats. I included those this year, or this month, a little bit about what's been going on, reports that we've taken, calls we've gone on, cars stopped, tickets written, all that stuff. And then hot off the press at Councilman Member McGrone's request, some significant, not really significant, some cursory research into some of the stuff that we've been doing since June 1st.

We've gone on 41 camping sleeping calls.

Those may not all be calls for service. Some of those may be self-initiated activities by the officers. And just a quick search, 16 of those were related to someone on city property. either on a bench, on a sidewalk, on the grass, something like that. I just didn't count. I had to use all my fingers and some of my toes for that. But I didn't count anything that was specifically business-related that would have been also covered under a trespassing ordinance. Any questions on the police department's report? Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. For the Fire Department, the report itself, if you have any questions, I'll answer them. One of the things I would highlight for, you know, it is summertime, a lot of public service going on. You see the guys out and about, not only attending block parties and things like that, but a lot of CPR classes and just being out and about and being present and doing a lot of public service things. One of the things that I do want to highlight is being the emergency manager for the city. You know, I want to thank every department in this city as far as employees goes. They worked tirelessly for pretty much the last 40 days. And the six months prior to that, there was a lot of work and effort that went into it regionally. behind the scenes. It's not public. It's not, we didn't put it out there, but there was a lot of time and effort that went into the last six months, you know, preparing for that. And we were a part of that. That was not just here, but regionally. And I want to thank all of those employees that were a part of doing that. And specifically the July 11th watch party, there was a lot of work and effort that went into that also. It was a long day. It was a long time. There was a lot of hours put into that. I personally appreciate all of that work that went into it. That's all I got. Any questions?

No, but thank you, and thanks to all the police department as well for the swift kick stuff. We'll get around to that as well.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. The Public Works Department report is in the packet. It has various project updates and different numbers for the Public Works Department. Two that I just wanted to highlight. We are getting ready to try to increase awareness of what is probably going to be one of our larger projects this year and all through next year, the replacement of the Burlington water main. We mailed out, I think, close to 2,000 mailers to kind of bring attention to July 23rd, which is this Thursday, from 430 to 630 at 1301 Burlington. That's Olson's office. They are the engineering firm designing it for us and happen to be located right along the project corridor. And so they're going to host our first public meeting on this to kind of help bring awareness, mainly to the businesses adjacent to the corridor. We use the mail routes to get this out there. So it went out in the mail and actually has a very large widespread cast. So a lot of people are becoming aware of this project. So that's this Thursday. Just want to highlight that. And then another thing that we are looking into, every year we look at ADA ramps that we try to improve throughout the city. We are currently looking at one at 23rd and Knox. It is kind of difficult to design, and it's kind of leading us to believe that should be a four-way stop. It's currently a stop just on the minor road, which is 23rd, and then free flow on Knox. But we're looking at making that a four-way stop. So just want to kind of highlight that. Any other questions on the whole packet report, I'll be happy to answer.

Good evening. So in June, we finalized our single audit for fiscal year 2025. Had two fairly common findings for first-time reportees. On this, one was related to preparation of our statement of expenditures for federal awards, which we were anticipating. I asked a lot of questions of the auditors during that time. That's a very simple fix for next year. Now that we know how that process goes, we know how to prepare that should we go into another single audit. And then the second one was related to documentation of checking businesses for suspension and debarment. We did check for that during the grant that they looked at, which was the River Forest Park grant, but it was not the documentation that they wanted. So what we have started doing is just adding that to all of our vendor profiles so in the future it's an easy thing to just pull up and present. So I know Mike's gonna talk a little bit about the budget, but I appreciate being a part of that process and look forward to the next month discussing that with you.

All right, Nick was my segue. Yeah, tomorrow's a great day for us. We're going to send you the preliminary 2027 budget. You'll see this will be the long spreadsheet form. So you'll see we've done things a little bit different for 2027. Last year we had one worksheet that was all the capital projects. This year we've taken the capital projects by department and put them right next to their budgets. and then taking the capital amounts, though some of them are funded by gaming, they're in the budget. So you can see the projects related to transportation and police and fire and every department we have, you can see kind of that impact of that department or the needs and whatnot. So again, we'll send that out tomorrow. The goal is for you to have plenty of time before the August 5th meeting to review it, any questions you have, shoot over to us. As with last year, as we get questions, we'll keep track of them, and they'll be in the memo for the next succeeding memo, or meeting, with answers, of course. So everybody can see everybody's questions and the answers associated with it. Big part, as you saw yesterday with the amended agenda, there was a mistake in the memo that went out last Thursday. Saturday, you know, I discovered that some cells were pointing in the wrong spot. So it's drastic, but I'm happy to say that as of right now, our general fund budget is, I say balanced, but actually to the good, about 14 grand. That's, you know, like I said, there were some cells pointing in the wrong spot. There was a revenue for a grant, if awarded, that was not counted. But then there was a lot of sharpening between last Thursday, well, Saturday, and today. I mean, a lot of sharpening to get down to this. We looked at historical spending. There's a lot of times we'll budget in, you know, a little bit of a might happen. So we've sharpened up on those. But thrilled to say that what you're going to get tomorrow is a balanced or a little bit better general fund. So we'll send that out, review, ask questions. There's a whole, you know, August 5th. Anyway, we're excited.

Yeah. Well, thank you for that. Mike came in my office on Thursday and said we had about a million dollar, a little over a million dollar budget deficit. And by today it's zero or 14,000 to the good. So, Holy smokes, good work. And it sounds like everyone's talking about budget on the 5th, and I love budget so much that I'll be on vacation for that. So I will leave with a balanced budget, and hopefully it's at least balanced by the time I get back. I'm looking at all of you. All right. Anything else from staff? Tom, you got anything for us? Crystal?

Okay.

All right. One thing I noticed in here, in the bike walk KC contract for services, there was a lot of skepticism around Do we keep going with this? The numbers had kind of fallen off a cliff last year. We had him in and he explained what happened. There was theft and vandalism. I'm happy to say that as of the June numbers, we hit the highest we've ever had in a month, 923 rides booked. So we're back, baby. Let's go. Okay. Council member comments, starting with council member McGrone.

Okay. Just two quick things. One, I am always fascinated by the way that Mike and Kim talk about the budget. It's like, We all know it's going to be hard to talk about, but they're like, hey, guys, we got spinach tonight, and it's going to be so good.

And so it's like, we're going to eat it, and we're going to love it.

So can't wait. And then the other thing is, like, huge kudos to everybody who worked on the swift kick thing. Chief Williams, what made me – your comments reminded me that people often forget how – much work goes into events like this. And they especially forget when it's run really well. Like the better it's run, the less people see the hidden hands that are maneuvering the entire event and their experience. And I thought this was really well done. And I thought everybody did a great job. And the fact that people didn't notice the things that your crews were doing is a testament to how much work and planning you all did. And I just thought everybody did an outstanding job. So thank you to everybody for making our city feel like the most welcoming place in Kansas City to watch a soccer game.

Council Member Cain.

Thank you. So first I want to thank folks that came out for public comment, Matt and Rita. I also want to congratulate Alicia Stewart and Kaylee Rangel for their reappointments to the library board and Craig Leonard for his reappointment to the hospital board. And I also want to call out that today's the last council meeting before Missouri's primaries. On Tuesday, August 4th, I know our mayor has led the charge against Amendments 4 and 5, and so will I. On Saturday, I had the chance to join Representative Eric Woods and fellow council member Cynthia Larson to chat with North Kent City voters about Amendments 4 and 5. And for those of you who can't see at home, I do have a pretty major sunburn, and that is the reason why. So I won't go on about Amendments 4 and 5, but be sure to vote no or at least be informed before you go to the polls.

Council Member Alvarez.

Yeah, just again, the KC, you know, the swift kick-out function, it was very, very nice. I thought we had a perfect-sized crowd. It wasn't too much, but it was just fun. It was hot, but it was still fun to be there. The big screen TV that we have, it was awesome. I thought that's really, really added to the exhibit that night. So that's about it.

customer wells um yeah i'll start with uh reporting about the library board um so yeah echoing dylan's uh sentiments i just want to congratulate the the folks who were reappointed to the board um they are also in budget season and have uh approved their their draft budget for the next coming year and the library will keep chugging along as all good public libraries should They are very excited about the Northland Kids Drawing Contest, which is on the website now. If you go to the start page there, you will see the graphic for it, and you can click on it and download the form. The theme is If Animals Played Sports. So I am really looking forward to some stellar entries. I can't wait to see what folks come up with.

Entries are due by July 31st.

There are prizes, I am told. YOU WILL HAVE TO ENTER TO FIND OUT, BUT YOU WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE A CHILD BETWEEN THE AGES OF 5 AND 12 TO ENTER AND FIND OUT. SO GOOD LUCK TO EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATES IN THAT. AND ECHOING SIMILAR THINGS THAT EVERYONE HAS SAID, I JUST WANT TO PUT IN MY SPIEL ABOUT THE WORLD CUP, TOO, ECHOING CHIEF WILLIAMS' STATEMENT AND COUNCILMEMBER MCGRONE AS WELL. Work life, I was also involved in World Cup planning and it took so much of my time. I wasn't involved in anything that the city did, but I'm sure to put on an event like, we did not do anything to the level of SwiftKick. So just a huge congratulations and thank you to everyone who had a part in putting that together. It was a magical evening. If you weren't there, get on, Mayor Jesse's social media and check out the incredible sunset that we were all greeted with once the sun went down and quit punishing us throughout the day. And then also just the budget news from Mike was great. I'm, as someone who doesn't understand spreadsheets or numbers or bank accounts or anything, at all remotely related to those kinds of things. I'm just so grateful that we have people that can actually balance the books and correct million-dollar deficits when we need it most. So thank you, everyone, and that's it for me.

Council Member Larson.

I also want to say well done, everybody, for the Swift Kick event. I think I didn't hear one negative thing about it, and that's a miracle. Like Councilmember Cain said, August 4th is an election coming up, but if you're so excited about it, no-excuse early voting is available starting today. There are four locations nearby where you can do that no-excuse early voting, including a turning point in Gladstone and the Clay County Election Board Office in Liberty. If you have any questions about Amendments 4 or 5 or 1 and 3, Two, sorry, forget about three. One and two, or four and five, reach out. We'd love to talk about it. Friday night, we're having a movie at Mackin, A Bug's Life. The movie will start at 7.30. We'd love to see everybody out there. Bring a blanket, bring a lawn chair. It'll be a great time. That's all I have.

Councilor Saber.

Again, everybody who's associates with GIC, thank you very, very much. And it wasn't just the city staff. It was the whole process, the whole Go North process that was involved. Lots of people, lots of time, lots of sweat, and lots of work. And special thanks to JD for helping do his part in pulling all of this together. I think we're going to see this as an investment, this whole process that we engaged in as an investment for the future and growth of the Northland and in future cooperation on many other projects with the other municipalities. Thank you to all.

Councilmember Bailey.

Quick thanks to the organizing folks, Jordan and Ashley, for the 30th Avenue block party. It was a great time, even though I am from the Great White North and melted pretty quickly. Thanks to everybody else who hung out and stuck it out.

All right, that brings it around to me. So Alicia, Kaylee, and Craig, thank you for your willingness to serve on our boards and commissions. Congrats on your reappointments. We did the Officer Daniel Vasquez fourth annual Memorial RUC, third annual Memorial RUC, third annual Memorial 5K RUC. I would like to commend both of the chiefs for leading the contingent on that 5K. RUC in all packs and weight, Right at the front, no complaints. And I would also like to commend Zach Stoneking for just forgetting where his shirt was the entire time. Swift kick, can't say enough good things. Fire, police, NKC health, parks department, public works, and city staff, and even our internal exit with all the hype reels leading up. I'm going to have to learn how in the world she does those because they're very engaging. And then Go North, obviously, what we can all do together is amazing. And we're going to continue the Go North work beyond World Cup. So stay tuned for more from that. Block parties, there have been a handful of those. And I will again remind people it is block party season. We will give you $400 and shut down the ends of your block so you can party with your neighbors. Send in an application. More people need to do this. And yes, thank you to those who organized the 30th Avenue and to Rebecca for making like two dozen pies the day of. Unbelievable. Colombian Independence Fest is something we talked about here. We sort of thought like what in the world, we've just had this one big street party, now we're going to green light another. I brought my daughter down there and it was phenomenal. It was over 100 degree heat index and there were still hundreds of people in the street, selling all manner of delicious food. And they welcomed me so much that they shoved me up on stage and said, tell everybody welcome. Here's the microphone. Most of them don't speak English. And so I'm not sure what I said, but it was something along the lines of, me amo todos los colombianos. Bienvenidos a Norte Kansas City. So welcome to North Kansas City. They had such a good time that they're looking to come back next year. We would love to have that. And I hope that we can

get a little better weather for that because it was brutal.

So come out next time. We'll try to get the word out to the public a little better. We had a Northtown Hall, and one thing that I took away from that is we will have our smart compost bins coming into North Kansas City soon, within the next few weeks, so keep an eye out for those. One will be over by the YMCA, and the other will be in the Mackin Park parking lot over by where the dumpsters currently sit near the festival shelter. And one thing to note is you'll need I don't think need is the right word, but they're asking for people to use compostable liners that you can get on Amazon. We will also likely work with KC Can Compost to hopefully make those available at City Hall, but we've got to figure that out. As others have noted, early voting, no excuse, early voting opens today. Let's get those percentages up. I think we're running somewhere in the single digits in North Kansas City voting. This is a very important primary, and we have some amendments on the docket that are pretty detrimental if passed. Councilmembers Kane and Larson, along with Rep Woods, have been out pounding the pavement and knocking on doors. I had a thing that I said at my North Town Hall that I thought went pretty well, and the recording cut off, so I will reiterate here. Amendment 4 would kill the citizen ballot initiative process. It would be dead. It would allow any of our eight districts to veto a ballot initiative with a simple majority in that district. You have to win all eight districts, and that's not going to happen in Missouri. It would work against both sets of interests. What the communication is, is it gives rural Missouri a voice, but what if there's a bill that would be good for farmers, or an initiative that would be good for farmers that St. Louis, for example, didn't like. Gone. It's not that it gives anyone else a voice. It just takes away the voice of the citizens. And it's effectively the lawmakers saying, we don't trust you with the process. Amendment 5 would roll back income tax. That would punch a $9 billion hole in Missouri's budget. And the solution to that is trust us. We'll figure out how to fill that gap. It might be sales tax on goods, services, all manner of things. It will decimate school funding despite what that ballot language says. The North Kansas City School District is already cutting $16 million out of their budget due to underfunding from the state now, and this is before they aspire to punch a giant hole in the budget. So in a nutshell, Amendment 4 says we don't trust you, and Amendment 5 says trust us. So hard no on both of those. Go vote. Thank you very much. Moving on to item 22.

Consideration of a request to hold in recess into an executive session is requested by the city administrator to be held on this date pursuant to Missouri revised statute section 610.0212, real estate matter, and section 610.021, legal matter. One real estate matter, one legal matter.

Do we have a motion? So moved.

Second.

Call the roll.

Council Member McGrone? Yes. Council Member Cain? Yes. Council Member Alvarez? Yes. Council Member Wells? Yes. Council Member Larson? Yes. Council Member Saper? Yes. Council Member Bailey?

Yes. All right. At this time, the live stream and Channel 2 will cut off. There will be no further votes or business this evening. Thank you for tuning in.