Director of Aviation - Regular Meeting

Welcome to T I know it's only 830 so we'll wait a half hour My name is Kevin O'Neill I'm the chair first district at large Jonathan Duncan 6 district Good morning.

Melissa Robinson vice chair third district.

It's been right at fourth district.

I have part the Ross City Clerk's Office

Hi, McGee and Creo Department.

Jeff Martin, City Manager's Office. Andrew Gronkowski, Law Department.

Thank you all. Anybody else? We're going to hold. We have three holds today. 260535 will be held for two weeks. 260573 will be held for one week. And 260508 will be held for two weeks. First ordinance.

Amending Chapter 64 Code of Ordinance by repealing and replacing Section 64-118 for the purpose of reducing the area utilized to calculate the degradation fees that Public Works Director is authorized to charge.

I don't know the password. Good morning, Chair and committee members. Mark Montgomery, Associate Director of Construction for Public Works. I'm here to talk about basically repealing a section of Chapter 64 on degradation fees. It is not repealing, it is reducing the fee down. The current section of 64 basically says that when we go out to measure a degradation fee on a cut in the street, that we measure a degradation fee based on the pavement restoration area. So if you see someone that's cut into a street that's less than five years old, you'd see something where it's 24 feet by 250 feet long, so that'd be the degradation fee. It would be 24 feet by 250 feet long. That was not... The intent of the degradation fee to start with, that was what happened was the SR1 got updated to that new standard to the 250 feet by 24 foot width for less than five years. And before that, it was basically the cuts in the roads were basically the excavation hole plus one foot on either side was what the degradation fee was set on. So that's what this is going back to. It's going back to the old way of us measuring degradation fees. It's basically just the excavation hole plus one foot on all four sides. It is... this picture right here. You can see the area of the repair is where we're actually making a hole in the road and then the degradation area is actually just one foot area around that area. It's the area of where we're actually, you know, you'd be seeing damage to the actual full depth of the road was that actually extra foot outside the repair area instead of you're not seeing any damage to the, you know, we're not having any damage to our full depth area of the road 250 feet away from the actual hole area. So the only difference is changing the degradation area down to a smaller area that's actually defined as what the actual repair needs to be at.

Mark, sorry to interject. I believe we had a committee sub on this. Correct.

I said committee sub. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Did I do it?

If you did, I did it right.

We're doing a committee sub to do it. A committee sub reduces it from two feet down to one foot, one foot around the actual area of the cut. Kind of missed, Mark, the purpose of that? Is to get it down to basically down to the area of what we're actually defined as the actual degradation of the road itself. This is a fee for us to recoup the cost back for the damage to the road that the utilities or whoever's done the damage to the road to get back. So it's only that little area around the excavation plus one foot is what's actually getting damaged when they're doing that excavation. Not based on historical data on it. Yeah, that's where it came from.

So the area of the degradation fee is one foot around the area of the repair, but the entire area is being mill and overlaid?

Yes.

Okay. So, yeah, we're not changing the area of the resurfacing. We are working on a future conversation. We're working on updating the SR1. This is just dealing with the degradation fee. We are updating the SR1.

Yeah, I was part of that conversation, I think. I almost feel like this might solve that issue. That was the main issue.

Yeah.

Yeah, I'm done. Sorry. Any other questions from my colleagues or any public testimony?

Yes, I do have a question, several actually. Good morning. So this looks to be like we're repealing the work that Michael Shaw did, the former director, as it relates to making sure that when a road is disturbed that they don't have to do as much work to repair the road. And this is something like For example, on Paseo that we're dealing with right now, we just got the road resurfaced in the past year, and utilities have already cut up the road and didn't completely repair it. And so what you're saying is that now they have a smaller width or circumference around the repair that they have to deal with when we put in a road repair.

Within five years? Jeff Martin's going to answer your question.

Yeah, good morning, Councilwoman. So this actually does not change the size of the repair that is required. So the area that has to be resurfaced, milled and overlaid two inches, is tied to the SR1, which is the street restoration standard drawing. So that will still remain as it currently stands, which is one lane wide for streets resurfaced greater than five years and two lanes wide for streets resurfaced less than five years. What this does is it changes the calculation area of the degradation fee. So the degradation fee is tied to the area of the roadway subgrade that's actually disturbed by the excavation.

Okay, it seems like we should have more of a... Can you walk me through exactly how this works in terms of the fees or an example? Because I want to make sure that we're not going backwards and that when we invest money into our roads, that if we're not adequately coordinating with the utilities, that we just don't let them off the hook and we're not losing money. So if you could please walk me through that.

Yeah, definitely can. So I'll mark, jump back a couple of slides to where the red line of the changes to the, let's go back one more mark. Go back one more to the red line of the language. So as, and I'm sorry, I can't see it super well, but as the code was previously written and as it had stood for many years since the degradation fee was actually, I think, first written, the degradation fee was tied to the size of the pavement restoration area. And it's the area of influence around the restoration. So previously... the SR1 required that the utilities only have to resurface an area one foot beyond the area of their excavation repair. So with that, the repair area and their degradation fee area were the same. So when the SR1 was updated approximately five years ago, five or six years ago, IT INCREASED THE AREA OF THE PAVEMENT RESTORATION. SO THAT IN TURN AFFECTED, IMPACTED THE WAY THIS DEGRADATION FEE WAS CALCULATED. The degradation to the pavement is tied to the area of the street that is full depth cut.

Okay, but are people, and I'm just making sure I understand this because you're using a lot of big public works words. Are people paying more or less based off of this?

So they will pay less degradation fees. However, they will still have to repair... the same size area of roadway with their surface restoration.

Okay. Thank you.

And to dig in a little further on this, Councilwoman, I've been working with some of the folks that do this work, and they're saying, you know, essentially the city's paying double, right? They're doing the work, but then we're then charging them for the entire mill and overlay area rather than just the impacted area that has been impacted by the subgrade. So this just reduces the fee. They're still doing the same work to ensure that our streets meet the SR1 standards.

Yeah, I think the incentive for them to better coordinate And Councilman Bunch and I worked really hard over the last four or five years to make sure utilities are coordinating better with our street resurfacing program. And so essentially, we're reducing the incentive for individuals to coordinate to make sure that you do your utilities before the mill and overlay is done. Instead of, okay, we'll just have to pay. Yes, we have to pay their resurface it, that's great to know that we're doing that. However, we're removing that incentive for them to coordinate from a standpoint of the fees that they have to pay.

I think some of that's right, Councilwoman. The problem is that we're also having to pay those fees. So it's not just Spire and other folks. It's our own folks that are doing water work, right? So then we're paying extra on top of that. So that's That was the issue that I heard from local contractors. And we can't just charge the bad actors extra, which is what I would like to do.

Yeah, and so with that, we had a significant, poignant conversation about water and our own impacts. It would be actually water spoke up when we originally passed this to say this is going to cost the city more. but coordinate so you don't have to pay the fee, these fees. We need better coordination for a multitude of reasons in terms of disruption to traffic, when people, when you have to close the street to pave it, and then you're closing the street again a couple months later because utilities need to go underground. This is not progressive. as it relates to the technology that we could be utilizing related to coordination. And again, we're letting ourselves off the hook by not allowing people to be incentivized to make that coordination and reduce the fees. So I totally understand where you're coming from. I'll be a no on this just because it really undoes, it undoes and unravels the hard work that's been done to make sure that utilities were coordinating with Public Works when we're doing underground work.

Councilwoman?

So I will say to the point on the coordination, so Public Works does coordinate very closely with Spire and Water on their uh their planned work and the street researching program so i know they meet with spire monthly isn't that right mark yeah to uh to coordinate on projects they have and uh and meet with water services regularly i don't know what that that cadence is now but it was uh it was multiple times a year previously when i was in my my previous role so um there is a lot of data sharing there's a lot of cord a lot of coordination um there are some areas that get missed i'll i'll definitely admit there are some areas that uh that determination is made to move ahead with a water main replacement following street resurfacing due to the water main breaks in that area.

Yeah. Well, it's hard. Yeah. Director Martin, you're a consummate professional. I trust you, but it's our job to trust and verify. And so from this committee, at minimum, I would expect for us to review the work. and to review how many times that our utilities are having to address this, especially with water, because of lack of coordination, because of lack of use of technology. So I know for a fact along Paseo, we just redid it and it's been disturbed because of utilities two or three times. And I get that water main breaks happen and things, like there's emergencies and things of that nature, but I just don't, I think that we should get more data and make sure that our staff are adequately doing their best to coordinate with the utilities. So that's all, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Mr. Chair. All right, is there any public testimony on this?

No public testimony.

Yes, Mr. Chair.

I move that Committee Sub 460 be recommended by the Committee of Advancement. Or with DUPAS, with DUPAS. Second. Oh, yeah, she doesn't want it to move. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. All those in favor, aye.

Do we have a second?

I second.

Oh, that's a new Robert Rules order that the chair could second.

I am Robert today.

Can I just get an inquiry from the law department that that's kosher for us for the chair to second the motion?

I made the motion. You second it.

Helpful checking on the rules. I know typically the chair is... Can he speak into the microphone?

I can't hear.

My apologies. Are you able to hear me now? Councilwoman?

Yes, go ahead, sir.

Yeah, I am confirmed. Typically, I do know that that is not practiced to permit chairs to second motions. I will... right now. I don't believe our standing rules provide specifically to that. To the extent that's not provided in our standing rules, we will default to the Robert rules.

Is there a way, Mr. Chair, that maybe we can hold this for a week so that we could double check the standards of... Why don't we put this on hold until the law department comes back and gives us... Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

And I'd like to, so I would like to move up in a, let's go to 570, so next in line.

Ordinance 260570, resolution directing the city manager to develop a plan to implement a small business support fund for qualifying street corridor infrastructure projects.

Councilman?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a pretty straightforward directive to the city manager. Just to give a little bit of background in why I sponsored this resolution after we completed infrastructure corridor infrastructure projects on 31st Street and Southwest Boulevard. These were projects that moved very quickly. Thank you to the Public Works Department for that work, probably more quickly than we ordinarily push projects because of some World Cup-related deadlines. However, there was still great burden placed on the businesses, and some of those folks were hanging on by a thread. They would reach out. They would come to us. They would say, is there anything you could do? We're weeks away from having to cut staff or possibly consider closing down for the month, and there was nothing at our disposal that I could offer. And so... What this would do is direct the city manager to come back with a recommendation on what that kind of a small business interruption fund would look like. Decide a criteria for qualifying projects. Obviously some projects might not qualify. And then come up with a criteria of qualifying businesses. And my expectation would be they would have to demonstrate some direct negative impact caused by the city's work. And then some limited stipend would be available, probably wouldn't make them whole, but would be built into the project budget so that everyone knew this going forward. I think there's some good examples out there. I received a document of a program in Minneapolis, I believe, from some of the Crossroads folks that I thought was interesting, but I'll defer to staff on what the best recommendation is.

Okay. Question is, would this apply to all of our departments? So this would apply not only to public works, parks, anybody that's interrupted.

Streets and sidewalks. Yeah. Yeah. And with the emphasis on corridors, because like what we saw with Southwest Boulevard is you could impact the off ramp from the highway on this end and impact the flow of business and traffic on the other end of the corridor and this could get away from us very quickly. And so what I would expect staff to do is design this to be a very limited program in extreme or extraordinary circumstances. Yeah, well, and I think the difference is that with the streetcar, we had a robust communications budget and staff that could respond and take care of issues very quickly. most of our projects don't have that any other questions from my colleagues like a direct subsidy to accept city to small businesses I think it could be I I would defer to staff on what that might look like if there is fees or permitting fees or something else that could be waived that could alleviate the pressure. Maybe that's one way we address it. If it is a matter of a business who we want to benefit from the infrastructure work is at risk of closing and it's evident from where they are this time this year versus last year and anything else staff would need to look at, then I would imagine it could be a direct subsidy that could help them stay afloat while the project is being completed. Or it could be built into the project. Say you carve out a certain percentage of the project budget that will be set aside for this, and if it's not used, it could roll over into another project. But I have lots of suggestions on that, but I think staff are probably in the best position to come back with a recommendation. Any other questions?

Mr. Chair, just real quick, I just want to thank our colleague for bringing this to us. As the Long Main Street, during the streetcar build-out, this would have been very helpful if we would have, you know, been thoughtful about how we could help to support small businesses during these upgrades. So thank you, Councilman Rhea, for bringing this forward.

Absolutely. And the only thing I'll add is our investment's not worth it if we're building new sidewalks and streets to empty storefronts. and that's what I was very concerned was going to happen on Southwest Boulevard and 31st Street. That's not a good investment on our end.

I'd like to be a co-sponsor if the sponsor would have me.

I'll think about it and let you all know. Please do. Please join.

Any public testimony?

No public testimony.

And a second, Councilwoman Robinson.

Oh, yes, sir. Was there a motion?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I move that ordinance number 260570 be recommended out of the committee with a recommendation out of advance to pass.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. All those opposed? Ordinance passes. We'll go back to the original order.

260550 authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute a $1,488,612 construction contract with Sarai Construction for sidewalk repairs authorizing the Director of Public Works to increase this contract by up to 20% without further council approval and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, Chair and committee members. Mark Montgomery, City of Kansas City, Associate Director of Public Works. Next to me is Sam Kula, head of the Go Bond Sidewalk Program. We're here to talk to you about the contract here. This is a citywide Go Bond project. Was it to replace sidewalks in Districts 4, 5, and 6? Was it the... Basically, it's just to do repairs through using the walkability study. We have different maps of what we'd come at and talk to you guys about. This is District 4's map of the walkability of the ones that are the highest rated walkability sidewalks that need to get replaced. We had meetings with each one of you to talk about which sidewalks you guys preferred or thought we might want to look at. was that we've selected each one in each district to concentrate on this year. In District 4, it was 39th Street. In District 5, it was Parkway. And in District 6, it was 75th Street from Warnell going to State Line. And Holmesville. Was it we are, was it one of the questions you may ask is where is districts one, two, and three? That contract is going to be coming here in the next week. It's ordinances are just spaced apart.

And I'm assuming those will be the same approximate values. Yes, same value. In fact, the same contractor. Any questions?

Without public testimony.

By the way, I did find out. Chair can. Chair is a member of the committee.

Okay.

Mr. Chair, I move that ordinance number 260550 be recommended out of committee with a recommendation.

Second. Aye. All those opposed. Ordinance passes. Thank you. Mark, you guys did a great job.

Ordinance 260530, authorizing the Director of Aviation to execute a third amendment to the Concession Management Operation and Development Agreement with Vantage Airport Group.

He's running up here quick. I can't get him off there now.

I'm just happy to see you, Councilman.

You can lift up.

I get that, too. You can pull it up. Big man in a little chair.

Okay, so we're off to a glorious start here. Good morning, Chairman O'Neill, members of the committee, Pete Fullerton, Deputy Director of Properties and Commercial Development for the Aviation Department, and I'm joined by short Steve Ogo, Senior Director of Commercial Performance with the Vantage Group, and Jason Parsons, founder. Parsons is an associate, but Jason's also a co-developer with Vantage on the concessions program at Kansas International Airport. So we have a little bit of a program update, as well as discussions of how to update our contract with the Vantage group. It's a perfect timing for us to be in front of the group today as we catch our breath in between FIFA World Cup matches. It's been an extraordinary few weeks that we've had as we've welcomed the world to our community. but equally as important as saying thank you for visiting on the way out. We've organized with Vantage over the last, oh gosh, at least a year, year and a half, two years, of presenting Best Foot Forward by doing pop-ups for our community and our retailers and tastings, as well as having some pop-ups relative to some music. So it's been very busy, and one thing that I've noted is everybody's happy The smiles, even if folks aren't exactly sure where they're going and we have our volunteers redirect, they're still smiling and that's pretty cool. So let's get on with doing a quick program overview. You may recall for those that were around during the time that we did the RFP back in early 2021. and went through that process and selected Vantage Group to be our developer manager of our program. Had some significant strengths in that proposal relative to our sense of place. We wanted to make sure when folks came off the airplane, either they knew they were home, but they also knew they were in Kansas City, not just in the next generation airport. The other thing that has been a very strong play is our participation by our local community and regional community and participating in multiple ways. This program not only creates avenues for products to be sold in the terminal, but also there's a number of ways that folks are involved with licensing their their restaurant, licensing their not-for-profit. We have folks that are involved in joint venture partnerships in both our news and gift as well as the food and beverage. We have some folks that are actually directly operating. And even our franchises, even though they might be a national franchise, they actually are local folks that own that. and of course with Jason's participation even in program ownership. So I'm going to hand it off to first Steve and then Jason to kind of jump into the implementation of what we did.

Yeah, so Pete kind of talked about what we promised. And in terms of how we delivered that, ownership at every level was really important and very rare in the airport industry in terms of concessions. And so a big thing that we offered out was a $20 million opportunity fund loan, which eliminates a huge barrier for local business to be in the airport. as they can't leverage the property for the loan. In addition, complicated RFP processes can make it really difficult for people that haven't worked in an airport before to figure out how to become part of that community. So reducing the complexity of how to participate was a big piece of that. And then the ongoing mentorship, Operating in an airport for the first time, cost structures and all of that are very different than operating on the street, and so having experience with multiple airports and multiple operators really helped us partner more closely with operators to make sure that they were successful. Opening a brand new terminal in itself offers a lot of challenges, and then when you couple that with the ownership at every level and first time operators in the airport, There were a lot of early challenges that we navigated in partnership with KCAD. Everything from the volume of trash that was accumulating around the terminal a new badging process which made it difficult for operators to staff their stores and get their people into the secure area of the airport. And then I mentioned the cost structure and things like that but we were able to navigate that pretty quickly and are really happy with how things settled down in that first six months and operators were able to figure out how to operate successfully and provide a great experience for the passenger as well. And as any program is envisioned, there are things that resonate really well, and there are things that maybe don't quite show up the way that we thought that they would. So we do have a lot of examples of ongoing improvements that we've made over time. And that includes brands like Cervasi, which people didn't really know what it was, replacing it with a recognizable brand. That operator saw about three times the sales immediately when that happened. bringing in local products to retail that were never offered in the airport before. A lot of the liquor brands, spices and goods and things like that, that just have really resonated with the traveling public. And then, We as traditional, I should say routine business in our industry is that things like Dunkin' Donuts was recently purchased, a large franchisee was purchased and new operators took over, very seamless to the environment and we have a new, or sorry, an existing food and beverage operator that's considering a future transaction as well but no impact to the passenger or the city and everything continues seamlessly.

And our commitment to the city has always been beyond just the airport, beyond the four walls. Our partnerships go, as you can see, there are many logos on this page, and there are many more that we've worked with over the many years. There's programs that we support, for example, like Turn the Page and others that extend beyond the airport. We have an exciting barbecue experience every year where we bring in a new operator, Kansas City. There are a few things we're known for, barbecue, jazz, and we wanted to make sure as passengers get off the plane that they are able to experience the absolute best of Kansas City. And again, we've done that by building an amazing program, but we also have done that by making sure that we're in the fabric of this community, which extends, again, beyond the four walls of the airport. In addition to that, when Steve and Pete talked about our program and the commitment, one of the things I wanted to make sure as an owner of this is that local representation matters. And not just local representation, but minority and women and small businesses. And we've been able to do that. And we've done that by not exposing them to risk that otherwise would prohibit them from being able to participate in the airports. And on the screen, there are a number of quotes, but if you look at the quotes, the theme in all of them is support from our group. Support in a way that positions them for success, not only short-term success, but long-term success. And to the point that some, in fact, are looking at opportunities to go beyond just here in Kansas City. And that's been our commitment from day one. How do we have a program that supports local, small, minority businesses, but also support it in a way where it's successful in the immediate future and what it's like for us and them going forward?

So over the last three years since we've been open, we've been fortunate to win a number of awards for this creative program, this entrepreneurial way of addressing concessions at an airport. So we've received three awards from national and international organizations for the overall program, as well as, and in fact, probably even more importantly, individual locations have won an additional eight awards from various entities. One, in fact, you might remember last year where The airport food and beverage group recognized the KC BBQ experience, as Jason noted, as the best casual dining restaurant globally. So that's a very significant award. Also, another significant award is very recent, as in last week, where Vantage was recognized by ACI, Airport Council International, with the best concession employee recognition program for their work at our airport. So taking care of the folks that take care of us is important. And we look forward to mid-July when the airport food and beverage group comes back from their conference where finalists are seven more awards. So award winning, but how did it go to the bottom line in activity from overall financial activity? Annual sales in our terminal for food and beverage, news and gift increased $46 million from our old terminal in the last year, which was 2022. So from 2022 to 2025, grown from $31 million to $77.4 million. Spend per passenger is up 104% from the previous terminal. That metric is called sales per in-plane passenger or sales per departing passenger. And in the 2022, we were at $6 per in-plane passenger. In the last calendar year, 2025, it had grown to $13.46. I should also note that on June 17th, this past June 17th, which was departure day after the Argentinian delegation was hitting our – airport hard, we were over $16 for that day. So that $13.46 is actually a leader in our peer airport group. You know, being selfish, our goal is to get to the $16.17 all the time, which would put us at a leader even with larger airports. As far as tax revenue, you know, the food and beverage, news and gift purchases at the airport do pay general sales tax, Kansas City, Missouri sales tax. And that's grown significantly over the years. And look at right now, $2 million in Kansas City sales tax has been provided over the first couple years of the program. Not surprising, too, with that increase in sales is the jobs have also grown significantly, more than tripled to over 650 jobs. So now let's step back and why we are here today to talk about some of the improvements. So looking at our performance analysis, we really are looking at how to make a great program better and have really kind of come to the conclusion there's three areas of cost drivers that we believe can be amended. and help with our cost structure for our concessions. First issue is in regards to lowering the overhead relative to the build-out. We had issues when we started. We were going to start this RFP process back in 2020 during the building program. Because of the COVID pandemic, that was deferred to 2021. However, our opening day stayed hard with the 2023. So we were real proud of being on time on budget, but that also squeezed our concessions partners in the build-out. So concession build-out cost about $64 million in real terms. That was about 10% higher than was anticipated when they put together the program. Some of that was, again, because of the crunch of time. But also, recall, we also hit a big inflationary portion of that. So much like your loan on your car or your house, you extend the term. It lowers the overall price of the monthly expense. So that's what we're really looking at here is extending the agreement with Vantage Group, extending it five years to go from a 15-year agreement to a 20-year agreement. and believe that that will help with that amortization schedule for our concessions. So a benefit to all concessions. Second issue is with regards to our Terminal A South concessionaires. Again, one of the things that we were proud of is that we were going to be open 100% of the program, open day of opening. Others that we're presenting, we're going to have coming soon. on on there and that was not a look that we we wanted so that was another value add that the vantage group brought but in the step back and look at it we have about 11 of our concession space in a south where there's one percent of air traffic so one of the things that we need to do is align the cost with the sales so the recommendation here is to temporarily exclude concession rents from Concourse ASouth concessions. When I say temporary, the Amendment 3 from the execution of Amendment 3 until April 30, 2030. So this will help really align, again, those costs with the anticipated sales. It gives everybody a little bit of time to continue to work on how to improve traffic as well as how to improve operations. So the third issue is with regards to our dock operations and our consolidated single receiving dock. Part of the RFP, we really outsourced that to the concessions with the thought that a vast majority of the use of the dock would be coming from those concessions, be it food and beverage, news and gift supplies, and so on and so forth. And why not have the concessions then pay that if they're going to be 90% of the use of the dock? Three years later, looking back, we've seen that really it's a 50-50 split between concessions and other tenants such as the airlines. So this amendment also then allows for Vantage to go back and equitably distribute those costs to all tenants that utilize the dock. And that way, again, that lowers the cost overall in our cost structure to help all concessions. That's kind of some background on that. I should also note that it's also in the agreement verbiage that states that any of the benefits that accrue to Vantage are to be pushed to the concession, so it's not just a one-sided deal. It's actually good to get there, and we will be working with Vantage to verify that as we go forward, so. With that, I'd be open for questions.

So at the beginning of the process when you were bidding, Steve, there was expectations put into all the presentations that they would generate this much revenue. south been a major impediment to reaching those, or have you reached them anyway, but you're not getting the bang for your buck out of concessioning?

I'd have to get back to you with the exact percentage, but we're quite a bit under our original projection. But that's actually airport-wide based on a consultant that was used to forecast traffic. Ironically, we used the same consultant that KCAD used as well. The timing was a little different, so they came back with a little bit of a different forecast. But we built our model on that forecast, and it's at least 10% under what we forecasted it to be.

You're saying that the forecasters initially, the consultants actually gave you wrong numbers?

I think it was a difficult time to forecast. So this was all during COVID. And so trying to assess how the rebound from COVID would happen. The consultant was, I think it was probably a year before our forecast was made. Kansas City got their forecast. So I think it's just a matter of timing and COVID really around some of that. It was difficult to forecast the future on that. right we're talking about per per passenger though that that those numbers traffic in the airport is particularly in that first couple of years yeah that's getting back in line now with what we originally looked at but I think it's that curve of returning of the passenger was the airport layout the terminal layout

knew that South was going to be the internet right yes that's correct yeah so I guess cutting in and out can you bring the microphone closer mr. chair I'm sorry we could okay yes sir thank you so I'm just curious Projections are still, you know, that's how you get contracts. And I'm still, you know, in the world, you're about 10% short of projections. How do you see that going forward? Do you see that 10% picking up? Do you see it going over that?

Yeah. I think, you know, and that's airport wide. So I would say there are city gates down in the suburbs. international terminal as well. So there are domestic flights that come in and out of that area. So, you know, that area is always going to be a challenge. You know, I don't think that that's going to be at all. And we think that this buys some time to get the right businesses up and running and not up and running, but, you know, stabilized, I guess I should say, and in a more successful situation. So we've got, you know, that... Cafe that's down there is doing, obviously, well during FIFA, but I think we're continuing to learn how to push traffic down there and how to help those businesses succeed. So I don't think it's going to be just traffic coming there. That's going to be farther out than the next five years.

But my question was, do you see, regardless of the current setup, do you see what you've learned going forward in the last three years? Mr. For years, have you learned, have you seen light at the end of the tunnel that says we're going to get to that initial projection and go over it in the next?

Mr. Oh, yes. So, we do anticipate that we will exceed, like, ultimately, over the course of our contract, we do see that happening, yes.

Mr. So, to understand this correctly, Are we removing concessions from ASouth, or what are we?

No, we're committed to, I think that's what we're trying to make sure that doesn't happen. We want to provide service for passengers that are down there, but we have to make sure that the operators can, that that pencil's out for them, so they're not losing money every month. So we're requesting through April of 2030 some rent relief for that area of the terminal. So it's directly passed to those operators. They're the only beneficiaries of it, which we believe buys enough time to try to get things stabilized over there.

Have we lost operators in ASouth?

We've got one unit that sits closed today, and that is the one that's in the hold room of the international gate. But everything else has been able to, in some way or fashion, be maintained. But that's, you know, I think it's not a stable situation, I would say.

I think one of the things that we asked when we were going through this analytic is, are these recommendations meaningful? Do they make a difference on the bottom line? So we had Steve and the Vantage Group do some analysis of that and roughly with this roughly stated that their costs go down that we can control about 40%. That is significant and that I think does turn the thing over to be able to make some money and to be able to be sustainable.

I think the big thing is they all have loans that were taken out to build their units and So this really helps them. They don't have an option to repay those loans. So I think, you know, this really helps in a big piece that part of their equation.

I'll follow up on two of those things. One on the loans. I know you loaned up to a million dollars to several of the concessionaires for build-out. How has your reclaiming that, you know, how?

We've worked individually with each operator. We have had to amend some of those agreements to make it work, but we're pretty limited. That's where the term part comes in, because we can't extend a loan past the contract. So that's really, you know, we feel like we've probably exhausted almost everything that we can do to try to make it more equitable, including pausing interest and all that kind of stuff.

How many companies are... have left the airport with significant debt owed back to you guys? None yet. None yet, okay. So how many have left altogether? How many changeovers have you had in the entire three years that you've been there?

So the Duncan that I mentioned is the only operator change that we've had. The others are just brands? Correct, yeah. The others were license agreements, yeah.

Thank you guys. I mean, I think you've done a great job. I really, when I went out to the airport a couple of months ago at 10 o'clock at night, I came in and there was still people in the bar, restaurants were open. It was like, wow, am I somewhere else? So I would, uh, any other questions from my colleagues?

Mr. Chair, if there's a way that Mr. Fullerton can send us a copy of the new agreement, That would be great. Thank you.

Appreciate that. That would be good Cooper for your wonderful I would Public testimony on this issue now public testimony motion That's one Robson, okay

Did you? I can't hear the motion. Are you speaking in the mic?

Yes, I'm sorry. Let me speak into the mic.

Okay.

Yes, Mr. Chair, I move that Ordinance Number 260530 be moved out of committee with a recommendation of advance to do pass.

Second.

All those in favor?

Aye.

All those opposed? Ordinance passed, like I said. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right.

Ordinance 260551, directing the city manager to submit an application for the FY2026 pilot program for transit-oriented development planning program funding to the Federal Transportation Administration.

You got the short one.

I'm not going to show.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and council members. I'm Luke Ranker. I'm a planner in the community planning division, and I'm here with Jill Lawler.

Hi, I'm Jill Lawler with Mayor Lucas's office, grant strategy officer.

I'm Gerald Williams, division manager for community planning.

We want to just talk to you really briefly about a federal funding opportunity that we have right now that we've utilized in the past that will help us build more transit-oriented development. This is a program through the Federal Transit Authority's TOD pilot program that helps cities marry their land use and transportation systems together more clearly, and it encourages more private investment. With our partners at the Streetcar Authority, we would like to use this grant to explore a corridor from 18th and Vine to the state line for a new streetcar extension. I can go into some details about why we picked this corridor, but the nuts and bolts here are that we're going to request $400,000 from the federal government with a $100,000 match, which is the standard 80-20 match, for a $500,000 study. We've previously done this, most recently with the Prospectus TOD overlay on the east side that has been supporting the Prospect Max bus line. This map is a little bit hard to see because we're looking quite a bit high up in the air, but we have picked kind of a half-mile perimeter around 18th Street down to Southwest Boulevard from 18th and Vine to the state line. And that half-mile, we consider a half-mile a pretty walkable distance. And if you can see this area, that half-mile, it takes up all of the 18th and Vine District as well as a good portion of some of those neighborhoods on the east side. And as we move west, we have a good chunk of The crossroads, we have the Union Station and we're on the edge of the new Royal Stadium site at Crown Center. We also have a good portion of the downtown loop with the Sprint Center and the Convention Center captured, and then a very big chunk of the west side is captured. And in here, there are several barriers to traversing east-west, including two highways and the railroad. So one of the reasons we picked this is that we really think this is going to be an opportunity to connect these two culturally significant neighborhoods, the west side and the 18th and Vine District. We can mitigate these long-time barriers, and we can build off the success of the current streetcar, because this will directly connect to the main street portion of the streetcar line. And these grant programs that the FTA does are really about how do we take an existing or a new start transit corridor. So this would be a new start transit corridor. And make it safe and convenient to access for everybody. And how do we incentivize private development along that line so it's not just the city or the government encouraging the development? But what do we need to do to have some of those service parking lots or some of those uses that are not the highest and best turn into housing and job opportunities that can connect people? So this is due next Friday. It's due July 10th. We're confident that we can have this done by then. Typically, the grant are awarded, we find out, within three to four months. That has not been the case this past year. It's been more like six to eight months. So I put January on the slide. I think we'll probably find out end of this year, first of next year, if we receive this grant. And then we would do the bulk of the work next year, the study, and then have a deliverable probably sometime in 2028, late spring, early summer. And that could look like a number of things. It could look like some incentives that we might need to change, an overlay for zoning, some design guidelines, kind of could run the gamut on what it might look like.

Can I ask how many studies have we done to this point, excluding the ones we've already built? But how many studies? I know we've done a Northland study. This is a side study.

The streetcar is currently doing a study from Maine to 18th and Vine. And so this would sort of supplement that or work with that. Because that just stops at Maine. And this will take us all the way to the state line. So we've done that one. We've done the 39th to Linwood study. The streetcar authority has done that, as well as the North Rail that you were discussing. Those are along the way. They're far advanced. This is for like a brand new startup line. So the North Rail one is spending down its money for its study right now. And the 39th to Linwood, it's the second phase of that study. So this would be a brand new study. This would be our third study.

And as Gerald reminded me yesterday, we've looked at how we connect the west side and 18th and Vine for over 30 years, going back to the focus plan. And I think this is, we probably were just looking for an opportunity. What does that mean? And I think streetcars could be a very logical connection.

Brooklyn to State Line.

So that's the footprint of the study area, not necessarily the footprint of what a streetcar would be.

I didn't show the streetcar on here because we haven't picked a street yet. The study will help us understand. The streetcar authority is studying right now also includes 19th. They're looking at a loop system possibly on that end, but 18th would be the most logical.

Questions for my colleagues? Sorry, Councilwoman.

Chair, I had a question, a couple questions. Typically, when we do these studies, do we include our Kansas City Area Transit Authority

We did for Prospectus. They were our partner organization because that is the Prospect Max bus line. Because we're looking at a streetcar specifically for this study, our partner organization is the Streetcar Authority, but we have been in communication already with the KCATA, and we will be working with them on this as well.

They're definitely one of the stakeholders.

And then can you mention, and I appreciate our chair talking about the other studies that have been done, you mentioned the Linwood corridor. Where are we at with talking about rail along Linwood?

I don't have that off the top of my head. That's a good question for the streetcar authority. But if you'd like me to, I can follow up with them and give you some information.

Okay, that would be helpful.

Jason might have a comment on this.

Hi, Jason Waldron, Transportation Director in Public Works. Actually, the East-West study has a raise grant, and the grantee is actually KCATA and not the Streetcar Authority, and the City of Kansas City, Missouri is a partner in that project. That project, we just finalized. We haven't executed, but we finalized a partnership agreement, and an RFP is due to go out very soon. For which location?

Yeah, what is this?

The Linwood and the 39th Street is one single project. Both corridors are included in that study.

And is ATA buses?

No, the preferred alternative from the previous effort is streetcar, fixed rail.

Okay, I'm confused. This is working through ATA but without the streetcar?

No, KC Streetcar Authority is a partner in that study along with the City of Kansas City, Missouri, along with KU Med and along with KCK.

Okay. And so I do want to be more explicit and definitive around when our KCTA is going to be brought into the loop regarding this particular study. So can you talk about how that's going to work with this?

Oh, you're referring to the TOD grant, the resolution in front of you. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. Thank you. Yes.

Yeah, I believe the KCATA will be a partner in the study. They're just not leading the study. The Kansas City Streetcar Authority is leading the study of 18th Street with KCATA and City of Kansas City, Missouri as partners.

Okay, but they already have a route that they already run. The KCATA is operating within the corridor that we're proposing currently, right?

Right. And so, they'll be a primary stakeholder, but the partnership agreement is basically around who's funding it and who's staffing the work. So, we'll include and involve KCATA at every step of the way, and they'll be at the table. They're just not necessarily funding it or staffing it. So, that's the difference between where we are with a partner and a stakeholder.

Okay. Thank you so much for that insight. So, and then finally, Just again, making sure that I understood all the pieces. When we extended the streetcar and other parts, did the streetcar lead that as well?

So we're the lead agency on this because we have the land rights, but Casey Streetcar is a partner. So we will have the contract on this, and we will manage the grant, and we'll also be the lead on the work, but Streetcar is a partner.

Okay. You mean the city?

I mean the city. So Streetcar will also staff it, but we will have the ultimate decision-making. Okay.

Right, and we can talk a little bit more offline. I totally support moving in this direction. I just, when I hear transit-oriented development and KCATA not playing a central role, I just have questions around that because they're our area transit organization. And so them as a stakeholder versus a leader seems a little strange, especially as we're going for federal dollars. And so, you know, we, I'm assuming we qualify for this grant. Otherwise we wouldn't be doing it. Um, uh, but it just seems a little bit, um, out of the ordinary. So I will follow up. Um, if one of you could send me a note to follow up, um, we can have more discussion around the intersectionality of KCTA in this work.

I want to follow up on that. It is confusing. Um, I'm not quite sure I understand how one becomes a stakeholder, one becomes the lead, one becomes the partner.

You know what I mean?

We've got all these studies that have different connections and different leaders and different, and I guess it would help, I think, all of council if we knew how you determine you're going to be a stakeholder or you're a, Who determines that and what and why? And what's the significance of KCATA being a stakeholder versus being a leader in asking for this?

Dr. When we say leader, it's very, very just project specific. So, who's managing the contract? Who's staffing the work? So, that's just very specific. KCATA is, of course, going to be involved in everything we do transit related, but they're not providing any staff and they're not providing any of the matching funds. That's been the case with every streetcar transaction at this point? I'm not familiar with all of them. They are a lead agency on the 31st and 39th street line, because at the time that we applied for that grant, it wasn't determined whether that would be a streetcar line or that would be a bus line.

Okay, that's helpful. That helped determine who was the leader in that category.

But they have been involved, and we've been talking with them about the grant and their... Always at the table, of course. They just aren't staffing it or aren't providing any funding for it.

All right. Any other questions from my colleagues? If not, I would ask for public testimony, if any.

Call that a motion, Mr. Chair. And Ms. Ross, can you add me as a co-sponsor to this? Mr. Chair, I move that Ordinance No. 260551 be moved out of committee with a recommendation of advance.

second favor aye all those opposed ordinance passes thank you guys thank you luke you did a great job i haven't seen you about it oh yeah i appreciate it i know i thought i'd clean myself up run up to his office and change into his shorts last one i think taking sneaking some money out Go on.

Committee Sub 260576, authorizing the Director of Public Works to execute a funding agreement with the Phillips Edison Company in an amount not to exceed $800,000 for the relocation and reconstruction Northeast Carrop Drive at North Oak Trafficway, reducing appropriations in the Capital Improvement Sales Fund by $400,000 from District 1 Project project holding in $400,000 from capital contingent appropriation, appropriating $800,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the capital improvement sales tax fund for relocation and reconstruction of Northeast Carob Drive at North Oak Trafficway, and recognizing that this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

I'm not quite sure I like the wording of the ordinance. kind of always says $800,000 coming out. And actually, in reality, it's $400,000 out of the city contingency fund and $400,000 out of in-district PIAC. So I just, for my colleagues, I just want them to know we've got skin in this game.

Good morning, Chair and members of Transportation Committee. I'm Heather Bray, Capital Administrator.

Brenton Siverly with the Finance Department.

We're here today to talk about the committee sub for Ordinance 260576, the Northeast Carapat Drive relocation. So this ordinance is relocating and reconstructing Northeast Carapat Drive to allow for the grocery store going in on site. The project has been scored through the Capital Improvement Rating System. It scored a rating of 38. The project total is $1.2 million. The developer is contributing $400,000 with $400,000 coming from Council District 1 PIAC funding and $400,000 coming from capital improvement sales tax fund project contingency. After this ordinance is adopted, if it is, the remaining capital contingency will total just over $1.1 million.

I do want to add some history to this. This is This is in Dylan's grocery store that's going in at that spot and that store hat that that road cuts into their kind of parking area and They're asking to have it moved and originally water was going to be a participant in this Unfortunately water can't participate because this doesn't help their any expenditure by the Water Department has to be shown to help ratepayers. And this actually does not help ratepayers. What this does do opens the door for millions of dollars in new taxes coming in, sales taxes specifically. And not only, I don't know, Patricia, what number do you have as far as sales taxes generated over the life of this plan? $64 million for this one store. That's for this store. We have another store going into plat purchase that isn't asking for anything. So we're looking at an addition of $100 and some plus million dollars in new taxes. And so that's why, as a first district council person, that's why both Nathan and I have agreed to put in the $400,000 because we feel it's or of the new taxes that we're generating from this. So I would ask my colleagues, any questions from them? Well, yes.

So I'm trying to read this map here, Mr. Chair. So on what slide? Three? So the red is what is going to be the new road. Is that what we're talking about, or is that the existing road?

That's the existing. That's the existing. We're going to the yellow. And this is an actual street that goes into a subdivision. And then just if you've ever been up to the Northland, North Oak, there's a huge water tower right behind us, and that's what that street is for to feed into the – part of it feeds into the water tower so water department can do work there.

And what is the contingency fund?

What do we usually use that for? We use it for various capital projects throughout the city that need additional funding to meet matches.

This year we've used it for World Cup contingency. There was a $300,000 appropriation earlier in the year that was funded for that. Last year it was for various capital projects as well.

Councilman Johnson.

Mr. Chair, what is the, so can you, Ms. Bray talked about the actual funding mechanism. Yes. You said that, how much is in that fund?

One point, there's 1.2 million left after that withdrawal.

There's, okay.

1.371.

Okay. All right. Thank you.

Councilman Duncan, just some more background for you. This arose out of your approval of the MPD for the Dillon's grocery store, and there was a condition added at the time. That was condition number 57, which required us to enter into discussions with the city for the funding agreement. This is the result of that. And once the store is built, the first year alone, generates $1.3 million in city sales taxes alone.

One more question. What's this parcel? Parcel 2, the green? What's that going to be?

That will be additional retail.

Oh, there will be additional retail.

Right, but we haven't. approved a development plan for that. We've only approved the development plan for the Dillon's Grocery Stores.

And the Dillon's- So this is opening up, when you say this is going to increase tax revenue, you're opening up a new parcel by doing this, right, essentially? Correct, correct. Is that where the projections are coming from?

No, the projections are just coming from the Dillon's Grocery Store, which is 100,000 square feet.

You're saying without this change, there is no Dillon's Grocery Store?

It will be very, yes, basically, yes. I mean, Cassie Foote is on with the Phillips Edson Company. She can speak to it. But as we stated, it's very important. Dillon's is reentering the Kansas City Metropolitan Market. They've located this store. We've just filed for another store. Chairman O'Neill doesn't know this. We have another store located in the first district, which he'll love. Yes, but the requirements is that they are located within three miles of each other.

And does Dillon's own this other parcel, parcel two?

I don't think so. They will buy it, yes. Cassie, do you want to? It's all owned by Mr. Mann.

Oh, okay. Cassie, do you want to speak to that?

Cassie, do you want to say anything? She doesn't have to.

Sorry, I was trying to figure out how to unmute. Oh, can you all hear me?

Yes, barely, barely.

Well, thank you. So I'm with Phillips Edison, the developer. The other parcel, parcel two, we are... Can you speak closer to the microphone? Sorry, is that better?

Get closer. Do we have any more volume, Bertha?

I was trying to see. I don't. I think you're great online. We can hear Councilwoman Robinson. Are my coming into the computer?

OK, well, I think we just.

Is this any better?

Yeah, yeah.

OK, so sorry I was just going to explain parcel 2. We are at LOI on that one. So that will be additional retail. And Philip Setson will know that parcel and just grant it to him.

Ultimately, Philip Setson is going to own parcel two. Dylan's Grocery Store, when it's finished, will own the Dylan's parcel.

Well, actually, we will own the entire parcel.

The Phillips will.

And they'll lease to Dillon's. So Phillips is the?

Overall developer. There are two overall developers for the Dillon's grocery stores. One is called National Retail Shopping Centers, and the other one is Cassie's Entity, which is Phillips Edson.

My main question would be, you know, Why isn't the developer picking up the $400,000? I have no problem with First District utilizing funds for their district, but for the contingency fund, it would feel more appropriate, since we're opening up a parcel for the developer to profit, that they would pick up the $400,000 rather than that coming out of the contingency fund.

They are picking up $400,000. The total cost is 1.2, so they are picking up a third of the cost. Mm-hmm.

Oh, so, okay, so it's not Dylan's doing the 400,000, it's the developer doing the 400,000? Yeah. Okay.

All right. Any other questions for my colleagues? Any public testimony?

No public testimony.

I'll accept a motion.

And then we would ask for it to be advanced, too. Thank you. Come on.

Mr. Chair, I move that ordinance number 260576 be moved out of the committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass.

Second. I believe there's a sub for it.

Please don't oversell. Yes.

Correction. Mr. Chair, I move that committee sub for ordinance number 260576 be moved out of the committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass.

Second. Those in favor?

Aye. Aye. Councilman?

Oh, aye. I'm sorry. All those opposed, ordinance passes. Thank you, guys.

Thank you all.

We're still on time, so Councilman Boo wasn't doing that at all. Did you want to go back to the top to force us through?

Oh, yes. And just to confirm, there is no rules in the standing rules or either in the Roberts rules that specifically prevents a chair from making or seconding a motion. There's a member with similar rights to make a motion.

Yeah.

to robert's rules of order brother i'm telling you that that's not robert's rules of orders those are our rules so which i totally understand um can we get a can the motion be to do pass so that i can meet with um with Jeff Martin about the coordination activities.

Jeff said he doesn't want to meet with you, but we'll do it anyway. Well, I can just leave the meeting if y'all want. Okay.

All right, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to be petty. Just leave the meeting. I'm not going to do that, okay? Thank you for doing the due pass.

Mr. Chair, I move that Ordinance Number 260. Is there a committee sub on this? I move that Committee Sub for Ordinance Number 260-460 be moved out of committee with a recommendation of do pass second oh all those in favor all those opposed and the motion

Are we permitted to leave, Mr.

Chair? Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I've got to gavel out.