Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

I think most of them will go pretty quickly. Thanks.

OK. He's not here, so we've got Crispin. We're going to get started. Good morning, everyone. My name is Andrea Boo. I'm chair of the Finance, Governance, and Public Safety Committee. I will call the May 12th meeting to order. And I will have my colleagues introduce themselves.

Quentin Lucas, Mayor. Wes Rogers, 2nd District. Crispin Ray, 4th District.

And if Councilman Robinson, if you'll introduce yourself.

Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Melissa Robinson, third district.

And to my left, my esteemed colleague from this fellow colleague from the sixth district.

Hold on, let me lower this chair really quick. Houseman Duncan, sixth district.

He's sitting in my seat and he always does that. And so when I come in on Thursday, I'll be sitting low. And if staff will introduce themselves.

Howard Rice, city clerk's office.

Tammy Queen, city manager's office.

We have some new faces today because we're going to delve into the different topics.

Today we have I believe just one hold. I have last week's No, maybe not. Under Held in Committee, we will be holding item 260065 for one week. That is relating to the Board of Police Commissioners or the police funding. So that will be held for one week. I believe that is all the holds that we have. We're going to go a little bit out of order, but we will start with the first item on the agenda.

260431, authorizing the Director of General Services to execute a one-year lease agreement with two options to renew for one year each with community capital fund for the purpose of office space at Robert J. Mohart Multipurpose Center, 3200 Wayne Avenue, number 105, 106, 107, 108, 109A, 109B, 110, 111, 112, 204, 204A, 205, 206, and 207. Kansas City, Missouri, 64109.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. I'm Ashley Wise, Real Estate Manager with General Services Department. This is a simple lease renewal for one of our very valued tenants at the Robert J. Mohart Center Community Capital Fund. They're a sister company of AltCap, and they've actually been there for about 15 years now, so we would really like to retain them. They provide grants, technical assistance, coaching. to support under-resourced neighborhoods, businesses, and residents. And their lease is currently expired, so we would like to execute that as soon as approved.

All right. Are there any questions? Is there any public testimony for ordinance number 260431?

There's no testimony submitted for this ordinance. No one appears by his own.

Madam Chair, I move that ordinance 260431 be reported for council with the recommendation of advance, do pass. Second. And placement on the consent agenda? Still second.

All right, it's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260431 be reported out of council with the recommendation of advance and do pass and be placed on the consent agenda. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. I think I said pass out of council. I meant committee, but I think the motion still stands.

Thank you.

We'll hear it on Thursday. Sorry, Howard. Let's take up Councilwoman Robinson's ordinance 260448.

260448, amending Chapter 2 Code of Ordinances entitled Administration by repealing Section 2-1956 entitled Quarterly Budget Reports and enacting in lieu thereof a new section of like number and subject number for the purpose of analyzing the allocation of use tax revenues received in excess of budgeted amounts, which may be used in alignment with corresponding sales taxes.

Good morning, Chair Boo, Honorable Mayor, members of Finance, Governance, and Public Safety Committee. My name is William Choi, Deputy Director of Finance, and today we'll be presenting on ordinance number 260448. So just wanted to re-acclimate the committee to the history of the use tax. The city adopted its use tax pursuant to RSMO 144.757 as approved by voters back in August 6, 1996. The state's use tax law and ballot language does not restrict the use tax revenue to any particular purpose. Thus, the city categorizes use tax as general revenue. However, I do want to mention that there was a recent change just last year with Senate Bill 271 that does require the local use tax corresponding to emergency services to be administered the same way as that corresponding sales tax. And thus, in fiscal year 27, we did do a budget amendment that moved use tax revenue associated with the fire sales tax to the fire sales tax fund and according adherence to that Senate bill so by comparison many of our sales tax imposed by city are dedicated to specific purpose because of limitations and statutory authorizations themselves however with with the overall sales taxes we do have them by the specific purpose as outlined by this table here so we have a description the rate expiration and also various uses And so ultimately, this is a city council policy decision. The city council has the authority to adopt a policy on the allocation of where that use tax revenue goes. However, I do wanna note that the policy would not recategorize use tax revenue away from the classification of general revenue. Thus, there's no limitation for that in regards to our calculation for the 25% to KCPD funding. And the reason for that is because there's no limitations related to state statutes or ballot language, except for the Senate bill I mentioned earlier that did do the fire sales tax. And so this warrants today, ordinance number 260-448, does make a modification to our section two of the code of ordinances. And what it does is simply adds a new section to where each time the finance department comes to you with our quarterly budget reports, we would give you... let you know what the delta is between what we actually annually budget for, for use tax revenue, and what the overage for it as far as what we would actually receive. And we would come back with recommendations on how that overage could be allocated, and nothing would happen automatically. That would ultimately be a policy decision for council to be able to vote on and decide where that money could be appropriated to. And with that, we can answer any questions. And I know that Council Member Robinson did sponsor it. I don't know if she wants to say a couple things.

Councilwoman Robinson, do you want to?

No, he, Mr. Choi, explained it quite well. Thank you.

Are there questions? Are there any from the committee? And then I'll go to Councilman Duncan.

My only question might be, what's the form of the, I guess, policy update that you provide? I've had a running disagreement, but I haven't won it because I think staff views things differently as to what the impact is of a resolution that directs the manager sometimes either to find funds or identify them often we'll see an item later just in ordinance form which as presumptions go actually gives it a presumption of I think favorability even though we do get to make the choice so how does staff articulate what that notification is is it a mere notification or are you promulgating ordinances based upon this

So with our third quarter budget, I guess our third quarter budget report, we would come to City Council with an ordinance for those. However, the way I interpret this ordinance here, if it were to be passed by City Council, is that we would come back to City Council with recommendations, and based off whatever those recommendations may be, we would draft a corresponding companion ordinance that simply would go through the legislative process.

Does that suggest then that that comes to us with an ordinance, or is there some other form of recommendation? I guess you do provide us communications, which are always received and filed. Just some clarity as to what that might be exactly.

So I think there's some interpretation as far as how we can actually implement this in practice. However, there's a couple things we could do. With the third quarter budget ordinance, we could simply just do an amendment to that ordinance to where Finance department has identified this excess revenue above and beyond what we budget for via use tax City Council's will is that we would like to appropriate that money towards X Y&Z purposes or as I mentioned earlier simply just Do a separate ordinance there could also be something as simple as maybe just a memo from the same manager's office to City Council perhaps notifying them of where that money would be appropriate to I don't know if that answers your question.

I mean, it does. I mean, I think it says that you kind of have a set of options as to how you would look to share it. And there is the city manager memorandum separately. There is a quarterly cleanup ordinance. And then always there could just be some separate ordinance. Staff is, I guess, retaining the discretion to decide how best to promulgate that for us.

that's correct and ultimately just want to go back to it nothing would happen automatically from your finance departments and we would come back to City Council for direction on where those those excess revenues may potentially go.

Councilman Duncan.

Thank you madam chair you know I can I tend to agree with the mayor on this point especially when we're talking about cleanup ordinances and what may or may not be buried within them and that while they do take a council action sometimes it feels that though the there's some subversive nature of how those things are being promulgated. I think this ordinance is a judicious way to inform us of excess funds and ways that we can use them. I think one of my biggest contentions in the last three years of being on this council is not always given all the information to make the best informed decision, which is what we've been elected to do, and that this will give us that information so that we can make decisions. While I, on the face, understand the use tax and what folks would like it to do and what the law actually intends it to do, I do think that Councilman Robinson's points are impactful. I will support this ordinance and will want to be added as a cosponsor.

MS. Thank you, Madam Chair.

So as a practical matter, it doesn't really seem to change anything, right? I mean, we still have the power to take up use tax, potential uses every quarterly budget if someone requested or introduced an ordinance or staff decided to put this forward.

That's correct.

What you're doing, though, in this ordinance is making it part of the suite of codified financial policies that the city has. So you are kind of setting it in stone, much like we do the fund balance policy, the revenue policy, the debt policy, all the things that we as staff abide by as we do the work of the city, the financial work of the city.

correct this doesn't give the council or the finance committee new power as it relates to use taxes it just kind of puts it at the forefront when we're having conversations during quarterly updates and talking about excess revenues i think it kind of it it does in a sense because in the past we would provide to you uh what is the difference between budgeted

and expected revenues on use tax. And then often we might come and say, this is what we think should happen with it. This requires us to come and tell you, which we always tell you what we expect the excess to be, but then we would formulate a recommendation using everything we know at that moment. Does the general fund need money? Does this particular other fund need money? Are we aware of a need here that we would say, oh, yeah, we're aware that this fund needs additional funding, so we recommend it go to the sales tax fund, for example.

I'm assuming you already do that work, and you... come to the conclusion that it should stay in the general fund?

Yes.

Does this require you to present that information on a quarterly basis?

Somewhat to the point that's been raised by all questioners, though, to resolve the clarity that perhaps Mr. Choi was speaking to and that I asked about, I'd like to make it clear we can either do it through committee sub or just to discuss it, that this comes from more of the memorandum approach to city council so that we get purely what Councilman Ray, I think, is describing, which is the update as it relates to it. leaving to us the ability to do whatever thing we want with that report.

I mean, I think you could also tell, you know, maybe direct even as part of this, make it more clear that it has to be part of the quarterly budget report that is provided. And it would be anyway, but that explicitly that recommendation would be spelled out within that report and called out as part of the presentation of that report. That's the way I envision this coming out. MR. Understood. MR.

Happy to do that, although I think if you all understand that, then that works for us that it's part of the quarterly budget report.

MS. Are there any other questions? Is there any public testimony on ordinance number 260448?

MR. No testimony submitted and no one appears by Zoom.

Councilman French, did you have one?

I did, yes. I have been watching up in my office with another meeting. I just want to be added as a co-sponsor to this as well. Okay. All right.

Madam Chair, I move that ordinance number 260448 be reported advance and full pass. Yeah. Full council. Yeah. Advance, do pass.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260448 be reported out of committee with recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We're going to promise from 260379, promised place. 260379.

Ordinance number 260379, reducing a revenue estimate and appropriation in the amount of $4,166,667 with the General Obligation Series 2022A, Question 1 Fund, originally established for the Promise Place Housing Project. Estimating and appropriating surplus TIF revenue in the amount of $1,100,000 from the anticipated termination of the Blue Ridge Mall TIF plan and providing for an additional appropriation from the Shared Success Fund for the promised place housing project restating the city manager's authorization to execute an agreement with the promised place LLC for utilization of funds appropriating herein modifying the timeline for substantial completion of the project and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective day.

Thank you Madam Chair. Evan Shirley division manager of local initiatives at the housing and community development department.

Tammy Queen assistant city manager.

So ordinance 260379, in effect, will appropriate additional dollars from sources outlined in the ordinance to the Promise Place project. This project is an 85-unit affordable housing development inside the Housing Trust Fund portfolio, providing service-enriched housing at a development at the intersection of 45th and Olive. It's about a block from Ivanhoe Park and a block from two different bus stops on the Prospect Corridor. On-site tenant services provided by Bring It Home Inc., which is an organization that provides serviced and rich housing opportunities across the nation. We have a small breakdown of both the site map and the unit mix for this project. We anticipate all 85 of the units remaining affordable at these specific AMI levels. And to give a little bit of context as to The rents we are looking at, those 30% AMI households are projected to rent at a little over $500, and then the 60% and 80% units will rent out at about $1,055. So giving some color and some context as to the type of units we are providing, and again, activating a vacant lot at that intersection close to public transit routes and Ivanhoe Park.

There's a history of city funding for this project that's outlined on this slide. So back in 2021, there was an ordinance passed that allocated 2.7 million from the housing trust fund plus estimated and appropriated 2.7 million from question one geo bond funds. There also has been an allocation in 2022 from the central city economic development sales tax as well as a further allocation from the housing trust fund of 1.5 million in 2025 so that at this point in time we have on the books about $10.4 million worth of support for this project. This ordinance would reduce the revenue estimates that dealt with the GO bond proceeds because at the time when that was appropriated, there was thought that there would be enough infrastructure money in the project to really qualify for question one. And really when we get down to it, there really isn't very much there. And so this would reduce those so there would not be any bond issuance relative to this project at all. And then it appropriates, in place of some of that money, $1.9 million for the project from the proceeds of the surplus revenue from the Blue Ridge Mall TIF, about $1.1 million there, and then about $800,000 from the Shared Success Fund. The shared success fund balance after this appropriation, should this pass, would be about $300,000 is what we would anticipate at year end. The ordinance also modifies the required substantial completion date. It extends that time frame for a couple of years from December 31st of 27 to December 31st of 29. So just to recap, in terms of funding, what we're doing is taking out kind of that first business of $2.7 million for GO bond funding and replacing that with, as I mentioned, the surplus TIF revenue and shared success fund. And that brings the total support for the project to about $9.7 million, so less than what was originally anticipated.

Yeah, and then as far as next steps out of here, this is a project that has had a long and winding road that we are close to taking effective action on. We are on financial closing calls every other week with the investors and the developer team associated with this project. We anticipate city written agreements being finalized and executed within the next 30 days, a full financial closing of the project at the end of June so that they may begin construction July or August of this year, with the hope being that the project is finished and we are moving in and maintaining occupancy through late December 2027 into early 2028. And we'll entertain questions.

I have just a quick question. I was trying to remember this project back from 2021, 22. It looks like that the city's contributions, the CCD, CDBG, Housing Trust Fund, and what we're doing today has fallen somewhat because it was about 10.4 and 9.7. Where is the gap funding going to come from at this point? And are we assured that we're going to be able to move forward to construction now?

As I understand it, the developer is covering that gap. We made kind of clear to him what the amount that was available from additional city sources. you know, kind of said we're going to be reducing this 2.7 and we can only give back 1.9. That's all we've got.

I would concur with that. I don't think the project would financially close unless they were prepared to move forward. That $1.9 million that we're discussing today was a part of that. The $1.5 million that was provided to the project last year was conditioned on their receipt of low-income housing tax credits. They've since received those and So we feel confident that this project is prepared to move forward, recognizing the long timeline that it has had previously.

And what is the total project cost for this?

Yeah, so the total project cost at this moment is a shade over $28 million. Okay.

All right. Mayor?

No question. One just brief comment that is somewhat responsive to the last question. It is my understanding in talking to the developer and their representative that with successful passage of this ordinance, we're looking at contracts within weeks in terms of how we can move forward. So an important part of getting this project resolved and hopefully seeing that success soon.

Any other questions from the committee? Our colleagues from the third district, y'all good?

We don't know what the motion is. That's right.

Well, at that point, it's too late. No, I'm kidding.

It appears to be going fine.

Is there any public testimony for, let's see, ordinance number?

379. 379.

I have lots of cards here. Yes, Pastor, I have your card here. All right. Come right on that.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you all for allowing me this privilege to address the committee on today. I just want to say that. It's all right.

Don't worry about it, man. I think we got one person testifying. I don't know if the ad is interesting. Okay. Go ahead, Pastor.

I just have a few things to say. Again, as has already been stated, we've been in the process of trying to get this project done for the past six years, actually, and it's a very worthwhile project. We know, everyone in the room knows that. affordable housing has been in the fore of the news for several years now and we have been given this opportunity to provide quality affordable housing in an area where it's much needed and we're asking, we're hoping that you all will see fit to do something here that will positively and greatly impact the community in which this project is being built, the people there are in need of something that will help them to become even more uplifted and give them a greater sense of hope, a greater sense of dignity, and more than anything, it will provide a desperate need in that community as it stands this day. That property over there has sat vacant for over 20 years now. And I think that this would be a wonderful time. As a matter of fact, I know that this would be a wonderful time to see this project come to pass and provide glimmers of hope for the people in that community. So I urge you, I urge you with all of my heart. that you would please, please allow this to go through and be approved so that we can head on down the road to our final destination. Thank you again for this opportunity to address you.

Thank you. Are there any others?

No, Ms. Pierce.

Madam Chair, I move that Ordinance 260379 be reported advance and due pass to the full council.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260379 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes.

We'll hear it on Thursday.

All right, let's do the second one in, or the one in helping committee on the copiers. Let's see. Sorry, Howard. 373. 373.

the manager of procurement services to execute a five-year $1,665,960 contract with sumner once incorporated to provide multi-functional copier printer scanners authorizing the manager of procurement services to amend and extend the contract appropriating $1,000 from the information technology unappropriated fund balance and recognizing Good morning, council. My name is Philip Asante.

I'm the chief procurement officer. And to my right, I have Mike Newhouse, the chief technology officer.

Good morning. Good morning.

Just by background, this contract, it's a five-year term with no renewals under Omni Partners Corporation, a partner agreement. Also, the contract is a lease-type contract. the source selection committee, which included general services, aviation, finance, and water services as well, participate in this evaluation. We have a total of seven proposals that were received from GFI Digital ImageNet Consulting, Konya Montola, Matrix Business Solutions, Summer One, Tabashi Business Solutions, and also Xerox Corporation. The proposed partner is Summer One, which they are here in terms of representation. The negotiated contract value is $1.6 million. And I would like to also introduce Mike again.

I'm on there, Council. This next slide has a lot of information on it, but in summary, right, we have a current printer fleet that's over 10 years old and is in pretty dire disrepair. We have a large cybersecurity concern on the current environment as well. We are moving from a purchase to a lease contract to keep the environment up to date. And we are moving the currently procurement managed to printers, and we're moving that into IT. producing a chargeback model to the departments for better visibility on the printer fleet and printing. We are also emphasizing some modern practices to try to reduce printing in total. And the final slide is just the financial impact the lease amount and then the click rate and you'll see we are already going to pay a smaller rate for clicks and the point is to reduce, emphasize the reduce of those clicks and prints. Any questions?

Any questions?

I'll be good. I mean, it's just too cheap, I guess. We're doing belt tightening all the time. We're going from $105,000 a year on print and copy expenses to $333,000. No, sir. It's $105,000 to the 96.

There is currently not a fee as we already paid for the printers up front 10 years ago.

So go to that last slide so I understand your point. I'm sorry. Just roll it back. So our current annual cost, $333,000 is the lease. We pay that lease one time. Annually. We pay that annually. Yes, sir. Plus $96,000 in the printing costs annually? Correct. And then what's your second bullet then?

The second bullet is our current, since the printers are currently paid for, our current cost is $105,000 for printing.

Understood. So you're saying... So a really good comparison would be what is our kind of pro-rata share if we built out the cost of the printers compared to the cost of the lease?

Correct. It's about $10,000 less per year, but obviously our goal is to reduce it from there. And that's why we're going to a lease so we have the ability to bring that number down.

Okay. Just like the $20 million other thing and the $600,000 consultant.

It comes with its own consultant that comes and repairs the copiers.

How much does this guy make? You're doing your job, man. I assume it's the cheapest. You worked hard to get us the best value.

Are there any other questions from the committee? Is there any public testimony on... Why can't I keep up with the ordinances? 260373.

No testimony submitted and no one appears.

I'll move 260373. We report it advance and do pass to the full council.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260373 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. We'll hear it on Thursday. Let's go now to 260446.

260446 resolution directing the city auditor to perform an expedited audit of the city's contracts with the greater city Kansas the greater Kansas City Coalition to end homelessness to confirm that the city funds have been used in accordance with the contract terms and applicable applicable requirements and to report findings to the City Council within 45 days of the adoption

Madam Chair, this is a resolution I introduced following staff notification as it relates to the continuum of care in Kansas City. Nothing to change in the ordinance other than I believe the city auditor sent a notification that it asked for this to not be named an audit but instead a compliance review because an audit It contains a much lengthier process with different steps. Compliance review allows us to get that faster review timeframe for 45 days. So I guess I would offer a committee substitute to that effect, but that is about it.

Is there any way we can do this? Thank you, Madam Chair. Is there any way we can do this in 30 days? Do we need the full? I'm not aware of a lot of work that's bogging the auditor's office down right now and so I would offer a separate amendment that we make it a 30-day timeline rather than 45 days if that's feasible. I have no concern with that.

He recommended changing the 45 days to 30 days. All right. I would object. Councilman Duncan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to, for everyone watching, that this compliance review does not preclude or prevent us from looking for other remedies for the COC. I'll steal the mayor's line. We can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. This is a necessary step to seeking compliance out of the COC. And I know that our housing department and others are working with community partners to see what other remedies we can do to ensure that those $20 million of federal monies for our most underserved are not in jeopardy. And I'd also like to be added as a co-sponsor.

You would also like to?

Be added as a co-sponsor.

All right. Any other questions? Is there any public testimony for ordinance number 260446?

No testimony submitted for this ordinance, and no one appears to by zone.

Madam Chair, I move that ordinance 260, the committee substitute for ordinance 260446 be reported advance and do pass to the full council.

Second.

It's been moved and seconded that resolution number 260446, as committee sub, be reported out of committee with recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes.

447 committee substitute for this number 260447 partially exempting the city of Kansas City from the provisions of section 311.2026 RSMO, which temporarily extends hours of operation for liquor licenses during the 2026 FIFA World Cup tournament.

Madam Chair, I introduce this ordinance, which you'll have in committee substitute form. The state of Missouri passed the relevant statutory provision, which permits all licensed bars to stay open until 5 a.m. A number of different jurisdictions around the state of Missouri have acted, some of which are still acting right now. in connection with what ours will be. Of our peer communities nearby, for example, North Kansas City has opted out. Lee's Summit has had qualifications. Others have said just proceed. I have a committee substitute that I want to thank the industry on a good deal. with several bar owners and other licensees, and I think we have some level of consensus that lays out the following. All bars, including those with earlier closing times, 1.30 a.m., midnight, will be granted the 3 a.m. dispensation under state law. That's instead of the 5 a.m. that they would otherwise be entitled to. License holders who are located in entertainment districts, entertainment districts as cited by the city, but no one can actually get me the ordinance that establishes them, but we'll find that at some point. But entertainment districts, which would be off the top of my head, Greater Downtown, which really runs from the river down to Crown Center, the Country Club Plaza, Westport, 18th and Vine, and I feel like I'm leaving out one other, would be permitted a 5 a.m. license. However, they need to submit a security plan in connection with that to the city of Kansas City prior to being able to receive that license. That is the committee substitute. That is the ordinance language for us. And I want to thank both industry actors, Councilman Rogers, who I know met with a lot of different folks from the hospitality industry and beyond to get us to this point. Madam Chair.

Anybody from the committee? Yes, we still have a quorum. Councilman Duncan.

Mr. American provides some additional information in regards to what that security plan is and I'll provide some color behind my question. I understand the logic of and the reasoning of why the industry wants to be open later for increased revenue. My fear and my main concern is that it will come at additional cost to the city in regards to the additional public safety that will be required for folks who are drinking until 5 a.m. Mama always said, ain't nothing happen good after midnight, and dang sure ain't nothing happen good around 5 a.m. So what does that public safety plan consist of, and will it require additional private security paid by the operator rather than us picking up that public safety cost?

Currently the ordinance is defined and the most clear answer is it puts no contours on the nature of the public safety plan that must be submitted. Full stop. The public safety plan that I would look to from owners is actually the retention of private security as part of it, and the relationship they've had with law enforcement in terms of regular calling, reporting, and beyond. There are a number of establishments that have already set up camera systems, have suggested that they have hired private security, some of the local security firms in connection with it, and are part of regional districts. So think, for example, of if there was a business league for, I guess that's still in the fourth district, but right in Westport or greater downtown or that sort of thing. And so it is looking for them to provide us with what that plan is, allowing more interaction likely through ACM Klein and others in that team to engage in terms of what the security apparatus will look like, what types of costs there may be, and frankly, notification to us as to who will be opening and who's operating.

My mama used to say nothing good happens after 10 o'clock. I think the law department is here to define entertainment districts, which I think are defined in Chapter 10. But if we want to... Thank you.

I would just let the committee substitute citation to Chapter 10.

If that's where it is, then... Just to clarify, we have two different definitions depending on where we're at in the code. In Chapter 64, we have the definition of an entertainment district, and we also have the definition of a downtown entertainment district in Chapter 10, as you're referencing.

So it sounds like Chapter 64 is the clearer definition.

I think that is more in line with the intent of the ordinance per the use of the word entertainment district.

Okay. Chapter 64 is more broad, right? Yeah.

Correct.

All right. Are there any questions from the committee?

Mr. Mayor, has the police board of commissioners or the chief expressed any input or recommendation on this committee sub or the previous version of it?

I've spoken with the police chief. She will not be making a statement in connection with it one way or the other. And she can speak to that or why. I think they're not interested in engaging on the political issue necessarily. I more recently spoke to the... It's not a political issue. You'd have to ask her. You'd have to police those areas. You'd have to ask her on that. I did speak with her, and she did not wish to opine. The Jackson County prosecutor has, and I think has shared rather clearly her concern with later hours broadly, but I'd also let her speak to that as well.

Any other questions? I do have a few cards for this. I have two cards, so I'll go ahead and call them. Buddy Law and Mariah Kettler.

Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, for allowing me to speak today on behalf of Missouri's restaurant and hospitality industry. My name is Buddy Law. I'm the CEO of the Missouri Restaurant Association. I'd like to begin by noting that the opportunity to weigh in on this issue began more than 18 months ago. We worked alongside regulated industries and the Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control to help draft the state law allowing retail establishments to serve for 23 hours and remain open for 24 hours. This legislation was championed in Jefferson City by Senator Barbara Washington and Representative Sherry Gaelic, and ultimately signed into the law by the governor nearly a year ago. Throughout the process, there were multiple opportunities for concerns to be raised and addressed before implementation. This law was not created in a vacuum. It was developed through discussions with previous World Cup host cities, tourism and sports authorities, and others directly involved in planning major international events. One message remained consistent throughout that research. Many international visitors come from cultures where nightlife, late dining, and gathering in hospitality venues are part of the experience. These visitors expect vibrant entertainment districts and late night hospitality options in a World Cup host city. Our guests will contribute significantly to our local economy. Kansas City prides itself on being welcoming and inclusive, not only to its residents but also to travelers from around the world. This is a rare opportunity to showcase our hospitality industry, our businesses, and our city on an international stage. Restricting operating hours at the last minute sends a conflicting message to visitors, operators, and event partners who have spent months preparing for this moment. Restaurants and bars have invested in staffing plans, security arrangements, inventory purchases, programming, and anticipation of extended operating hours. Changes at this stage create operational challenges and potential revenue losses for business that have planned in good faith. The reality is that we should be embracing this opportunity, not restricting it. It's also important to recognize the competitive implications of the decision. The state of Kansas passed similar legislation, and inconsistent policies across state lines continue to place Missouri businesses at a disadvantage and shift commerce outside of our city and state. The restaurant and hospitality industry is a major economic driver for both Missouri and Kansas City. Our industry is the third largest private employer in the state and contributes millions of dollars annually in tax revenue, tourism spending, and local economic activity. Events of this magnitude provide rare opportunities for small businesses, restaurants, bars, hotels, and employees to benefit from increased visitor spending.

Mr. Doyle, if you'll wrap your testimony up.

Getting real close. We understand the importance of public safety and responsible operations. The hospitality industry has consistently supported reasonable regulation in partnership with local government and law enforcement. Our industry wants this event to be successful, safe, and economically impactful for everyone involved. With that said, the Missouri Restaurant Association supports the ordinance amendments allowing restaurants and bars with designated districts to serve until 5 a.m. with an approved security plan in place while allowing all license holders to remain open till 3 a.m. We appreciate the council's willingness to consider a balanced approach that supports public safety while recognizing the economic and hospitality opportunities associated with the visibility of hosting a global event of this size.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Mariah Kettler.

Hold that microphone down before you start so we can hear you. There you go. Thanks.

My name is Mariah Kettler, and I'm a resident of the 4th District at 106 West 11th. I've sent a reference cited list for quoted statistics to your emails. Today I would like to address the potential impacts of this statute to the residents and their access to emergency medical care. The CDC states there is a strong and consistent international evidence that changes in trading hours, particularly for bars, influence levels of alcohol-related harms in communities. They concur that reducing trading hours even by a few hours should be considered a key strategy for reducing alcohol-related violence. To address the inevitable strain on public services, a study was conducted in Aberdeen on the correlation between increased trading hours and ambulance call-outs. The study concluded the later trading hours policy applied led to a statistically significant 11.4% increase in alcohol-related ambulance call-outs and 8.5% increase in reported crime. The public service most in demand as a result of the increased trading hours will be EMS. Researchers have characterized violence against paramedics under normal circumstances as a serious public health problem. EMS are the first responders most likely to suffer from non-lethal physical attacks. In 2025, the FBI reported that the police had a non-lethal assault rate of 13.8, while EMS had 44. Kansas City's emergency medical services have knowledge and a skill set that is both unique and indispensable. The military police unit being deployed by the National Guard cannot replace the services provided by EMS. Private security cannot replace the services provided by EMS. Match Ready KC's goal of training 100 or more residents in CPR and emergency response so they can feel confident stepping in to help during medical emergencies cannot replace the services provided by EMS. I would hope as city leaders you would look to not only protect the financial health of local business owners, but the physical health of your constituents and the first responders you entrust to protect us all. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Is there anyone online, Howard?

No, ma'am. No one else appears.

All right.

Madam Chair, I move that committee substitute for ordinance number 260447, reflecting reference to the entertainment districts, is laid out by the assistant city attorney. We report to the full council with a recommendation of advance. Do pass.

Second.

All right. It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260447. Seven.

Seven.

As further amended, be reported out of committee with a recommendation to advance and to pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We'll hear it on Thursday. And let's take the final one in before we go to the plaza ordinances. 449.

Committee substitute for ordinance number 260449, authorizing the city manager to execute a betterment. and improvement funding agreement with the Port Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, for the purpose of reimbursing certain water utility infrastructure to be constructed on the city's behalf, accepting certain rights of way and easements, granting certain easements, conveying certain property, and authorizing the execution delivery and recording of such documents as are required to effectuate the foregoing all-in furtherance of road bridge work for the Missouri River Terminal project.

Good morning Madam Chair. Fellow committee members, Chase Johnson with Port KC presenting on the ordinance here. Finney Sachs with the mayor's office. Chad Pinko with GFT. Just one moment while I pull up the presentation here. So this ordinance is basically related to a progressive design build project that 4KC is working on, and it's currently underway for our MRT site. We really see this as a piece of a larger project in coordination with UMKC and the Critical Material Crossroads Initiative that's taking off rapidly here in the last year or so. So what is MRT? Basically, MRT is a Missouri River Terminal or Marine River Truck for an acronym there. But it's basically a state-of-the-art inland port container facility that we've been working on for several years, in the last several years. A little bit of history on the site. It's the former Arco Steel Plant or AK Steel Plant. After it closed in about 2001, we came in and purchased the site in 2018. We've been working on a progressive design build project here recently, but before that, really looking for a public-private partnership project and looking for a private partner to help really take off the project. Over the last several years, we've been awarded several grants. We spent about $2.8 million on preliminary engineering and design. And just a couple years ago, we were awarded a $30 million grant from the state for this progressive design build for the bridge project. And fast forward to today, critical material of the CMC in partnership with the UMKC. There's been some news lately that the National Science Foundation, this project is a finalist for that. We're hearing really good things going forward with that award. It's a $160 million award for critical material research right here locally in Kansas City. It's obviously big for the region, big for the nation as well. Going down to the actual bridge project, basically on the left side of the screen is phase one, which is the $30 million funded project that we're currently undertaking. On the right side of the screen is a phase two alignment that would basically take it down to Winter Road and help connectivity on the east side of Kansas City and that north-south connection that's very lacking in the Blue River Valley corridor. MRT site has definitely a lot of constraints. You can see by the aerial, there's the energy plant or Hawthorne plant just to the north of the MRT site. Bexar obviously has a facility there as well. But there's various railroad crossings, river access, have to obviously bridge the river. There's levee constraints there as well, and some environmental contamination that's left over from the AK Steel sites and the operations back in the day. Several different right-of-way easements, just from the complication of matching kind of the public-private partnership with the city, so some land swapping and easements in terms of construction, but also permanent construction with the reconfiguration of the existing road. Because the Evergy plant is just to the north, also had some transmission line relocations that have already been completed. There's a betterment project that the ordinance kind of speaks to with City Water, a relocation of a water line that's a betterment for Casey Water as well, and various other utility work that needs to take into place for the actual project. Future connections to MRT, we've already been thinking about, you know, what the actual bike pad connections could be for MRT. Obviously, it'll be, you know, a highly kind of industrialized, secure facility, especially with the CMC campus at play. There's an existing CPKC bridge that is non-active in terms of rail. It's actually how you access the site today. That'll be up for opportunity to add pet bike connections to the actual site as opposed to the bridge that'll go over the river into the site. Little background and overview of the critical material crossroads, just in case people are asking what that really is. It's an initiative by UMKC. It's a nonprofit that's really trying to get, build critical material productions and capacity here in the United States, but also in Kansas City here locally. Projected 3,500 jobs, 10,000, over 10,000 jobs within the states of Kansas and Missouri. really from all the universities in the surrounding states, from Manhattan to Columbia and other parts of Missouri as well. Couple highlights in terms of the news reports that have been here the last six months or so. Like I mentioned before, this project is a finalist for that NSF award, $160 million, really transforming jobs and advanced manufacturing, advanced technology sectors for Kansas City, the region, and also the nation. I think with that, that is the basic overview. Happy to answer any questions. Obviously, my colleagues are here, can touch on anything as well.

All right. Are there any questions?

Very exciting.

All right. Would you all like to introduce yourselves since you're here?

No, you already did, yeah.

Is there any public testimony for ordinance number 260449?

There's no testimony submitted and no one appeared by zone. Madam Chair, I'll note first the 6th District and District Councilman, Big Port Authority guy, which I always...

When they're not taking money from our city.

Amen. I'll move ordinance 260449 be reported full council with the recommendation of advance and do pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that Ordinance Number 260449 be reported out of the Committee with a recommendation to advance and do best. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We'll hear it on Thursday. Thank you. Thank you. All right.

of about 23.5 acres, generally located at 4710 Jefferson Street from District B4-5 to District MPD, and approving a development plan to allow for maintenance and redevelopment of the Country Club Plaza.

MS. Howard, you can go ahead and read both of them. We are going to take them separately. MR.

Yes, ma'am. 445 vacating the sidewalk right away in proposed district MPD generally located within the area known as the Country Club Plaza and directing the city clerk to record certain documents.

All right as I mentioned we will take up both of these separately we'll take testimony on them separately just to be clear. We'll let everyone get situated.

Good morning, committee. Good morning. Sarah Copeland. I'm the division manager for development management. Is that better?

It's better. Thank you.

So ordinance 260443 is the rezoning for the Country Club Plaza. master plans development. And I have to say up front, I'm pinch-hitting a little bit. The staff planner for this case was Anna Nanoski, who's currently on maternity leave. The site is located in the middle of Kansas City in the Country Club Plaza area. Here is a close-up aerial view of the area that's included in the rezoning from Summit Street on the west to Mill Creek Parkway on the east. and then roughly between 46 Terrace and 47th Street on the north down to Ward Parkway on the south. Just a really quick overview of master plan developments since they don't typically come before your committee. This is a special purpose district that provides the flexibility to accommodate development that doesn't comply to the strict standards of the zoning and development code. Generally these come in one of four categories. Either the plan is to and protect natural resource areas, or it's to accommodate more traditional forms of urban development, or it's for mixed-use development or for mixed-housing developments. In this case, this plan is to accommodate mixed-use development. There are two parts to a master plan development. First, we have the preliminary development plan, and that's what's before you today. This sets the framework for future development. It can approve separate rules and deviations from the zoning code, which is why it's approved by council, and it includes an entire district. And then the final plan, which is not before you today but would come in the future, is more specific, specific development standards, details, et cetera. This can happen on a phase-by-phase basis and is reviewed and approved by the city plan commission. So the preliminary development plan lays the groundwork for a future final plan. that is more specific and it precedes the permitting for the actual construction. The MPD that's before you today actually is in two parts. There is a set of plan sheets and there is a design guidelines document. The plan sheets include a sheet on general notes that include permitted uses, parking requirements, density, there are site plans, there's a plan for character contributing elements, and then existing grading and utility sheets. For example, here's the plan sheet that shows character contributing facades, character contributing vertical elements, and the location of courtyards throughout the area. And then we have a sheet that shows for each block the planned maximum height for these buildings. I've noted here in yellow the blocks that include new heights above the current limit of 45 feet. so block F would go up to 150 feet, block M, 150 feet, block O, 178 feet, block J, 120 feet, and block D, 178 feet. And the MPD design guidelines document includes standards for those developments in the categories of street topologies, public realm, building transparency, awnings, fencing, landscaping, and screening, and signage. And these, again, separate standards from the zoning and development code and in many cases deviations from those so in reviewing this i want to just highlight a few things here our review criteria for master plan developments includes first that the plan be consistent with any adopted land use plans for this area i think in the broad strokes this is inconsistent with the kc spirit playbook and the midtown plaza area plan There are some areas where our community planning group in doing their assessment had some concerns in the areas of design and uses. Starting with uses, the original plan when it was first submitted included some auto-oriented heavy commercial and industrial uses that we felt were in conflict with the area plan. And so we've worked with the applicant team to ensure that first floor uses are active uses that promote a pedestrian environment. They had made some updates to the plan to show that a special use permit would be required in the future for drive-through facilities, gasoline and fuel sales, outdoor retail sales, any warehousing on the first floor, any limited or general manufacturing, and to prohibit data centers unless they are an accessory to another permitted use. In the area of design, we had a concern about the applicability of the design guidelines. There are a lot of historic character contributing buildings and elements in this district that the community loves and values. And we want to make sure that these design guidelines apply to all of those. On the other hand, the applicant needs some flexibility when they're dealing with tenants who are moving in and out and making storefront updates. So we have a compromise in the design guidelines that these apply to major facade replacements where they're impacting more than 20% of the facade. And there's an exception for storefront tenant finishes. Another concern about design would be building heights and architectural style. There's a concern about maintaining compatibility with the Spanish Mediterranean Revival style of the area and alignment with the Midtown Plaza area plan and the codified Plaza Bowl. The CPC made a recommendation to add design guidelines for buildings that are above 45 feet in height and to reduce height on two blocks. I'll show those two, block M and block O. They recommended a reduced height of 120 feet. Another concern would be the reliability of the design guidelines and their use. A lot of the language in that document is more optional language. CPC did recommend that the guidelines be updated to remove language that softens the application of those design guidelines. There were also recommendations about adding some additional character contributing buildings and towers to the site plan, noting them on the site plan, requiring a salvage plan for demolition of buildings over 50 years old, and conducting a character contributing study of the MPD district to identify significant fountains, art, and sculptures. And those are still conditions that CPC added that are in the ordinance that's before you. Second review criteria is that the plan is consistent with the NPD district provisions of 88280, and we do feel that it is. And the third is that sufficiency of terms and conditions to protect residents of the NPD over a long period of time. I want to note here that there are a series of deviations that are included in the ordinance. City Council can approve deviations from strict compliance to the standards of the code or public improvement standards that's laid out in the zoning and development code, but it's not permitted to deviate from processes or procedural requirements. CPC did recommend several deviations that are included in the introduced ordinance to a couple of standards related to boulevard and parkway standards, parking and loading, spillover lighting, and signs. We would have specific concerns about any deviations to 84.514, which concerns outdoor advertising signs or billboards, some deviations from parking, and 52004 would be a procedural requirement. So with that, staff does recommend approval subject to conditions. City Plan Commission recommended approval subject to conditions. And there are some outstanding corrections that are contained in the introduced ordinance in condition number 12 that I would just note for you. I'd be happy to answer any questions about the MPD, or if you want Matt to roll right into the sidewalk vacation element.

Let's hold that. Let's go ahead and take up this one, and then we'll do them separately. So do we have any questions? Let's first, Councilman Duncan, since we're going to stick with the 6th District and the sponsors. Go ahead, Councilman Duncan.

Can you speak more about the architectural guidelines? And, you know, I know some of the main concerns that I've heard from residents and community members is about the architectural style of the plaza and making sure that's maintained. Can you talk more about the architectural guidelines and then maybe Dustin or Roxanne talk about what your intention is with this and how this master development plan will fit into that?

Sure, so the design guidelines that are attached to this MPD do recognize the importance of maintaining that Spanish style in the area. It includes in the design guidelines permitted and prohibited materials for the buildings that are built. We have a lot of discussion about transparency because that's a concern particularly for active pedestrian areas that's included there. There's also some flexibility, though, because the developer wants some flexibility to determine where they start with this development and what the use of the building is that would help drive some of that design. I would note that there was significant discussion before CPC about tall buildings and how the design guidelines might address additional height of buildings in this area, and I think that's one you know, kind of open issue is that CPC recommended the inclusion of specific standards for taller buildings that are not contained in the design guidelines that are before you.

Councilman Ryan.

Can you go back to slide? Oh, I forgot the number. Maybe it was 18. Yes. Okay, so... Maybe it wasn't this slide, but it looks similar. There was a bullet point about including buildings that were over 45 feet, which is your point contemplates new construction of higher, of greater heights. So then for buildings or renovations of buildings under 45 feet, are the same requirements for design going to be imposed on those buildings as well?

Yes, the design guidelines, you know, do include, they apply to all buildings. The concern about over 45 feet is that, you know, the plaza right now is a, you know, all lower heights. We have one-story buildings. The current height limit is 45 feet. The concern is, you know, they had a lot of discussion in front of CPC was if we are expecting there to be taller buildings over time,

what do those upper floors look like in order to maintain consistency with the spanish revival style thank you are there other questions thank you thank you madam chair uh just i guess a little history background um is this the same master plan that you guys have been following and going along with all along or has this changed somewhat

Good morning. This is Dustin Boyd with Gillen Property Group on behalf of the plaza. Thank you for your time. So to answer your question, Councilman Curls, This master plan has been created over the course of call it 18 months. We have worked diligently with the community, with city staff, with city planning commission. It's kind of evolving that as we move to this final approval process. Hopefully that answers your question. But this is kind of the guidepost that we've been going on since acquisition.

And there had been community engagement and meetings

Yes, sir. So we've tracked over 50 touchpoints with community members, stakeholder groups, aligned organizations, and others. I don't believe we've said no to any community meeting or phone call since I've arrived here over two years ago.

And the general consensus from the community is split, mostly in favor. What would you judge it as?

That's a great question. Put me on the hot seat already. So I think with the community we understand that change and an asset and a treasured asset such as this, there may be concerns with change and we have worked very hard with the community to listen to those concerns and address that. We believe And we know that there are others in the community that believe that the plaza does need to evolve. You know, we use preserve, enhance, evolve internally with our shop, and that's what we see today. So we understand not everybody may agree with our approach, but we hope everybody understands that the plaza does need to evolve and meet the needs of today's consumers and your city as it grows as well. Thank you.

All right, and I just want to kind of piggyback on one thing that Councilman Duncan said and the design guidelines, because I know we've received several emails about the concerns, several of the concerns. Some of it is height. Some of it is about the architectural. of the plaza, and I know having lived here and near the plaza for a long time, and I've seen some of the changes that have occurred and then have had to be reversed because of the outcry of those who love the plaza, like I do. many pictures of my children getting Easter pictures at the plaza with the bunnies. But I think what is very helpful with this proposal is the design guidelines because now there are none. They're the only way to ensure that the architectural design is enforced is with the outcry that we've had. So I think that is one positive for this and I think taking that time to go through this and ensure that there's something written down to preserve the architectural design of the plaza is a good step. So I think that is something that I'm glad Councilman Duncan brought up because there have been some concerns raised about ensuring that any development occurs, maintains that architectural style. I don't know if you all want to go ahead and have a presentation or statement. I think what would be important for us to hear is, I think that the ordinance that we have before us, I suspect that you all have some changes. I think being very clear and precise, for those in the audience, I think we anticipate we will not pass this out today. We will hear from, you know, we've heard from staff, we will hear from applicants, we will hear from those who wish to testify. This committee will take it, those comments, and then we will be back next week to make that determination. This, you know, this committee is not we've heard development plans before this is likely a part of a larger financing plan that we will will come to us and i think it's important that we are seeing the entire package of of what occurs on the country club plaza this is you know not only as a development plan but it's also really a rezoning so there are certain criteria that we will have to review and make a determination so So just kind of, I've said it before, I actually enjoy having these development plans and finance committee because that's just what I love to do. But anyway, so if you want to make a brief presentation and then we may have additional comments for.

Thank you for that, Madam Chair. Again, Dustin Boyd with the Owen Property Group. Just as introductions for the record, I do have Roxanne Cope with Postinelli here with me as well at the table. Chris Herron, our local senior VP of development based here in Kansas City. And Jim McClure as well behind me. Based on comments, I'm going to skip through a few of these slides because staff did a great job in theirs. But again, what do we do? this is an example of highland park village one of the shopping centers that we're well known for another place that has spanish and mediterranean style architecture and buildings that we have added additional height on in keeping with that form we think that is very important we bought the plaza because it is an amazing place to be and has an architectural lineage that we want to enhance I'm going to skip through some of these things just in the interest of time. I think we all know that Plaza did have some challenges and still has some challenges, including infrastructure. But I do want to stop here for a second. We talked about the NPD and the design guidelines. There are challenges out there today that are around the built environments. experience interruptions we have streets that are upscale for today's environment that are too wide and too much space allocated to the vehicle and then we have these storefronts where over the years storefronts have been added on or changed that are not congruent again with that architectural style and in fact we are working on a restoration project on the block you see down there on the right today if you were to go to the plaza really working on a restoration and bringing it back to its original glory The other headwind that we're here is a challenged retail environment and the changes that have evolved over the last hundred years. And we want to bring the plaza back into a great place for future generations and future retail. So again, preserve, enhance, and evolve are the basis for our planning work here today. I do want to dwell on this real quickly. You know, we have owned the plaza almost two years, July of 2024. It was when we acquired it, one of the first things we were told was it was unsafe. We felt that. We've enhanced public safety through a new security team. and contractor, but also things like lighting, painting, cleaning, and really just making operational tweaks. I do want to hit on our leasing, over 10 new retail leases and counting, and over 25 renewals of existing tenants and counting. Restoration, you know, we hear this a lot. Well, are you going to knock buildings down? And I'll tell you, I'm not going to invest money in structures that I plan on knocking down, right? So if you go out there and look today, We have done significant restoration work on the Plaza Medical Building. The Heralda Tower Bells are working for the first time in many, many years. Multiple roofs, air conditioning, life and fire safety issues, and facade restoration again. What are our plans? Really looking back at the architectural lineage, we captured a lot of this already through staff comments and CPC. Mill Creek building, the original building there that we think is so special. One thing I do like to highlight here is the articulated ground plane that originally existed within the plaza and the immersive tree canopy. Our design guidelines and MPD speak to bringing that back. through future development. These were already covered by staff. This speaks to Councilman Kroll's question, so we do believe we've had very robust engagement, and we believe that great planning in a place that is so beloved needs multiple voices at the table, and we have shifted our plans and tried to adjust from what we hear. We actually started that engagement prior to purchase, and have hosted over 50 meetings with neighborhood associations, condo associations, labor groups, trade groups, etc., and then have had many, many meetings with city staff, departments, and city council members. So this was refinement work that we worked through with staff and CPC, much of which Sarah covered already. I want to jump into the meat here. shortly again, given your time constraints. We did talk about character-contributing elements. You can see that we've evolved that, and the map has been added, too. And I wanted to highlight our last submission, which Sarah showed there, but really highlighting that we did add the sods along Block K, the corner of Block A, and additional portions of I, and also the vertical elements there at the theater. Height, initial plans, refinement after a meeting with community members and other stakeholders. The CPC did pull the height down along Ward Parkway. We would request adding height back along Ward Parkway. You'll notice that the height is on the edge of the plaza and not within the center, which we think is very important. The other thing I would like to note is that the buildings and the design guidelines and the MPD do require what we call step backs and setbacks. So that allows breathing room around these very important vertical elements and historic character contributing facades and structures out there. Building M being a very good example of that, you can see that we are not allowed to build on the entire block, but just a portion of the block, which is currently three parking structures that have been combined over the years. So we have not talked sidewalk vacations so I'm going to skip through this and we'll go back. So CPC unanimous recommendation of the MPD 1217. We've had additional staff comments and conditions that we've been working through since city plan commission and we have some additional areas here to discuss. So some of what you see with red lines and additions here is cleanup, minor updates to legal descriptions, including a track that was not within Country Club Plaza that we own down in Waldo related to a maintenance shop. Clarity on what constitutes major facade changes, staff covered that. We are requesting a change to the salvage plan. So we have agreed that the salvage plan for Block F, which is the Seville East site, would be required to undergo a salvage plan. However, we do not believe that we should create a salvage plan for everything on the plaza as it exists today. If at some time a building needed to be demolished, we believe that a salvage plan would be required as the design guidelines in MPD are currently written. and would go through as a major change. And also the removal of the shade study requirement. Shade will be created with new vertical development. The greatest impact of any shade would be on our property. I'll also note that as we add trees, shade will also be added by the tree canopy. Ability to appeal the city plan commission conditions on future final MPD plans for full city council. I believe that was one of the items that Sarah mentioned as well. Modification of height that I have already spoken to, but it's outlined there as well. And then we did not add the Seville East as a care contributing facade. We've already discussed that. We do not believe that structure has a viable future, but we are open to doing a salvage plan with staff. All other recommendations related to care contributing facades and towers were added, except a little portion down there on the southwest corner close to Graham and Dunn. As mentioned, we've already started restoration work on those properties and submitted those through planning. The feedback from CPC was very positive, and we are appreciative of their comments. There is some additional clarifying language around water service and access roads. Again, we believe that any changes to those would be heard by the appropriate parties through the permit process or final MPD. And then parking, as Sarah mentioned as well, you all have updated your parking ordinance since we started working on this. So there's some cleanup there. We have set a shared parking model or proposed that for the district. We also are asking for a deviation around street loading. Those of you that are through the plaza know that we do have loading that occurs within the right of way today. We think it's important to keep that. We would clean that up through street work, but these historic buildings were not built to load, and so for them to be a viable commercial structure, we need that ability. The MPD also I wanted to highlight does require us to add about 250 bike parking spaces spread throughout the plaza during our development horizons. We also do not set a maximum number of parking spaces, and this allows us flexibility for new tenants and operators relating to their parking plans. Some sign code deviations, as Sarah mentioned, and then a couple deviations on boulevard and parkway standards. Again, mostly focused around the way that the existing buildings already load and function today related to the parks and boulevard. And that also encapsulates some fencing and training standards, again, as we look at the way that some of these structures interact with the parks and boulevard standards today. So with that, I think that's the high level of the MPD submission. We did have some conversations, Councilman Duncan, I think this was one of your questions, and some concerns Sarah shared. We believe that the MPD document design guidelines through the material palette and through some other development controls outlined in there like FAR begin to force a building that looks something like this and is congruent with the architectural style that exists within the plaza today. So with that, I will pause for next steps. Thank you.

Questions from the committee? I do want to go back to one of the items that you're requesting to bring the final MPD plan to council because I think that that goes back to Ms. Copeland's comment about deviations, you know, the nature of deviations being that of what is permitted from, I think Ms. Baxter is here. I'm gonna refer to, and Sam, unless you wanna answer this question, but I'm gonna refer to our traditional. So I'm gonna ask this of Ms. Baxter. Under our code, I know when we talk about like, We cannot have variances to use but I'm not as familiar with deviations. And so, what does our code allow us to do with respect to deviations and normal deviations are those that the code permits and how does that relate to the, the process as Ms. Copeland mentioned?

So, normal deviations would be to standards, I guess I would call them substantive standards, right? To lot and building standards or setbacks or anything of that nature. I think what the plaza team is referring to is, and what Sarah was referencing, would be deviations to process. So one of the things that I believe they had mentioned previously would be allowing administrative approval, for example, of something that really should be either approved by CPC or council. That is something in particular that I would advise against. Because in that situation, you're taking away from the public process, right? You're eliminating the hearing and notice requirements.

And I guess the theory behind the final plan versus the preliminary plan is that a final plan is traditionally an administrative because you're not supposed to have any changes to the final plan from the preliminary plan.

But the final plan would typically go to CPC.

Right.

Yeah. Right. So, yeah, when I said administrative, I meant, you know, being approved by staff.

OK. OK. Yeah. But.

Yeah. good afternoon roxane coke with polsonelli um so i think that what our i think that one of the statements was a concern that it doesn't allow for the public input but this would allow for additional public input so in other words what we're asking for is that if there are that we ourselves could appeal a decision that came out of cpc with regard to a final plan we could go on to the city council for further consideration. And so this adds additional opportunity for discussion.

But I don't think that's, but I think if you, I don't, that's what I was saying is the purpose of the preliminary versus the final plan. A final plan says you're not allowed to make any changes from the final plan to the preliminary plan. Are you?

So we would not be asking for changes to the preliminary plan at that stage. It would only be because we could be in a situation in which we bring forward a final plan and additional conditions be placed on that that aren't necessarily something that would be required by the preliminary plan.

So can CPC add additional conditions to a final plan?

CPC would probably add additional conditions to a final plan to ensure that the development is consistent with the preliminary plan and other standards of the zoning and development code so is that possible yes but they would be based on what's approved in the preliminary development plan and other applicable standards in a

In any other final plan that goes to CPC, what is the appeal procedure?

So if CPC does not approve a final development plan, that can be appealed to the city council within 60 days if it's not approved. Conditions cannot be. So if it's approved with conditions, that is not appealable to the city council. Again, Ms. Baxter may have more details about legal requirements, but in general, the place for conditions to be discussed and approved is at CPC.

Right, and the code allows an appeal to counsel, though, when there's a disapproval. I mean, we just received some of these requested changes. Yesterday, it looks like it's been modified to allow... of disapproval or approval of conditions?

I think I'd have to ask the development team to explain that. I know there was a lot of changes to the ordinance, but I'm trying to understand the normal process. talk about that later, but I think just in a normal final plan, the process would... Because the intent of a final plan is so there would not be significant changes. And really... You don't normally want public, I mean, you don't, there shouldn't be the need for public testimony on a final plan because a final plan should not change anything significantly from the preliminary plan. Or you would need to go through the process again. Right.

Right. Yes. So to be clear, the concern that we have is that at final plan, there could be added conditions that make it more restrictive than what the underlying preliminary development plan would have considered. And so that is where we would like to have an appeal. It doesn't mean that we would necessarily be appealing to change the preliminary plan and to lessen conditions that would be required by the preliminary plan, but we don't want it to necessarily be more restrictive and not have the ability to appeal to the City Council.

I think that's possible, but I think it, I mean, has that ever occurred? Has conditions ever occurred? I mean, I don't think that is, is it possible? I, you know, has, is it realistic? Maybe it's realistic because you have a plan that covers such a significant amount of space for a long period of time that you're trying to do an NPD plan on an area where you don't necessarily know what you're going to build right now. And so you want to come back with a final plan on an area and make some changes later on that

You know, for example, we could be on Block M where we are asking for that additional height. Council may grant that. We could come for a final plan at CPC and they say, well, we're okay with it, but we want you to restrict it to something less than what's authorized by the underlying preliminary plan. And that could be a condition that they could

All right, well, we can discuss that later. That's been Duncan.

Madam Chair, we're not, we're holding this, correct?

We're holding it. We don't have to come to that decision now. Monraya?

Thank you, Madam Chair. In the event that that were to happen, the council could also impose whatever conditions you would be concerned about. Is that fair?

Yeah, that is fair. So, I mean, we literally could have a situation in which we are at CPC on a final development plan the preliminary development plan would allow for, say, 150 feet. And they say, we will approve this subject to it only being 130 feet. And then we could come to council, and we would not expect to ask for 160 feet. We would expect to potentially ask for the 150 feet. I mean, that's the broadest type scenario. There could be smaller conditions than that, but that would be one that would merit, I think, full council review. to be able to come back to the council and ask for the conditions to not be additive to what's already in the preliminary development plan.

So I guess my point is, no matter what CPC does, it comes before us to ultimately decide.

No, MPD final plans do not come before city council in the course of normal business. They're approved by the CPC.

Okay, I see. And that's at the core of...

And we're asking for the additional opportunity to come to the council to appeal a CPC decision on a final plan.

All right, Councilman Curls.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So that I'm clear, what's the next steps? We're holding this today. We're bringing it back to committee next week.

Yes.

And... Are we voting at that time or there's more? Are we looking at more plans coming or some what's?

I think that we could possibly entertain a committee substitute. I think they have presented several and I would love it if we could get your slides. They have presented some additional recommendations to change from the additional from what we have before us right now which was what came out of CPC. I think you will probably hear some testimony very soon of some suggestions of possibly alternatives to what we have before us now.

So we're getting ready to hear public testimony now? Yes. And will we have public testimony next week?

No.

No. So this is the only opportunity for public testimony.

Yes. All right. Anything else? All right. If there are no other questions, I will go to public testimony. I'm going to call, I have several, not a lot, but I'll go ahead and call just so you'll know the order that you're in.

Sorry.

That's all right. Amelia, you have walk-up music. We'll have Amelia McIntyre, Thomas Davis, and Marshall Miller. We have a very live microphone here. You will have two minutes when Howard gets the...

time we're going here all right amelia mcintyre i am a resident in the north plaza area and a member of the plaza westport neighborhood association we met with the mayor in december of 2025 we were asked to gather a coalition of neighborhood associations and condominium association for a uniform position so the city could more effectively measure the community center we did so We have provided in the testimony a letter that is from multiple neighborhoods in condominium association, including Plaza Westport, Rock Hill Homes Association, Hyde Park, Southmoreland Neighborhoods, Parkway Towers, Hemingway East, 46 Jefferson, Townsend Place, and Oak Hall condominiums. We've supported the staff's recommendation to the City Plan Commission, in which they recommended five to six stories. We are adding an additional request of putting a maximum of 75 feet on four building sites on the east end along Ward Parkway. Those sites are labeled in the NPD as D, which is the Commerce Bank site, O, which is the Hull site, J, Jack Stack, and M, the True Food Capital Grill Block. We are sharing with you a depiction to contrast the heights as in the ordinance at 120 feet with the changes made in that by the CPC to those of ours which are 75 feet. We are specifically requesting that there be a committee sub to change section B12C of the ordinance to limit those four sites, J, O, M, and D, to 75 feet. We are also requesting that Deviation 11 in Section C be changed to state a lower height of 75 feet instead of 178 feet for Site D. For some of you will recall that that site was limited to 45 feet as recently as 2017. If there is more density that is needed to support their financial investment, I would encourage you to look at sites M and F, which are closer to the 275 feet at Seville West, which we would note we did not object to because that was intended to hold Lockton in place, even though that was now a failed effort. Thank you.

Thank you. And... We have to do the ads. We don't have a free timer. You don't have a premium account here. We're on a budget here at the city, so we can't have the free... Go ahead.

Hi, Tom Davis. I'm the board of the Plaza Westport Neighborhood Association. I want to touch on this discussion that was held earlier about the breadth of this MPD. It is our position that the MPD is too broad. By allowing an MPD that is so broad and undefined as to future use and building structures, then the council is abandoning its future oversight to solely the city plan commission. as only the CPC approval would be needed to shift from the preliminary to the final MPD. The Council should require that each new building should go through the public engagement process, including Council approval. is therefore that we recommend, and we've circulated a committee substitute that has this language, Section B8 of the ordinance needs to be amended because otherwise it effectively eliminates council oversight and the excessively broad MPD. We don't have a traditional final development plan here. We don't have actual building. renderings with actual number of units or anything like that. So we circulated this and recommending that the following substitute sites J, O, M, D, and F are not specific in the MPD The approval of the final development plan for each of the development sites of J, O, M, D, and F shall be treated as a major development to the MPD and require approval of the Council, not just the City Plan Commission. including the full engagement process. Otherwise, I question the legal validity of this proposed MPD. It is more than just a deviation in a part of the building. It is our understanding the developer has already agreed to this in principle several times, but yet it is not appearing in this proposal, and therefore, I believe other council members have expressed similar concern, which is Councilwoman Boo has put her thumb on this. We request that change in a committee substitute.

Mr. Miller?

My name is Marshall Miller. I live at 701 East 45th Street. I've been in this room since the 1970s on exactly the same issues. I also own the building at 4929 Main Street. I've lived in my home for 51 years, my building for 31 years, half a city block, I was the first person to ever give back 353 status when I bought my building and didn't need it and didn't want it. I'm not here to oppose this project, but I'm here to stress that while I welcome and the organizations I've been involved in welcome development, there's a reason for these plans. And that was the last time there was a height issue at the plaza was the Sailors Project. I organized and shared the committee that opposed the Sailors Project in 1984. That was a long drawn out event. 33 hearings in this room. I have the videotapes. The reason then when that project had a 53-story building and four 40-story buildings and the city had no height restrictions or controls whatsoever. As a result, the city hired very expert people from New York that came in There was a community effort of everyone involved, developers, landowners, and the community, and we spent literally several years arguing out exactly what midtown Kansas City should look like from a height. And the interesting thing about the bowl concept that nobody thinks about is that was J.C. Nichols' concept. he wanted apartments to support the buildings but they were one block away so people could walk to not in the center so the idea then was first in in 1989 we then came back with new owners in 2014 to 16 for the midtown plaza plan again a large group of people talking and then third in 2019 with a third owner of the plaza for the first time having the plan and the overlay. So there has been a long, long history here. There's nothing new. It's exactly the same. It's a treasured area, but all of Midtown needs to be carefully considered. Thank you for your time.

Christy Wilson, Dan Ryan, and Vicki Notice.

Are we good here? Christy Wilson, 121 West 48th Street. Whether you consider the requested plaza height deviations excessive is based upon your objective. Is your objective financial returns? thus maximizing the ultimate payday of the sale of the property? Or is your objective preserving the welcoming scale and beautiful sight lines to which we are accustomed? To balance these objectives, our city planning staff looked to Seville, Spain for their guidance and their recommendation of five and occasionally up to six stories. Considering the major influence Seville provides to the character of the plaza, that's a credible north star. Establishing a height maximum of 75 feet would provide clarity and allow for five- and six-story developments. Due to prior approval, Seville West is excluded from this maximum. Yet the 275-foot decision's outsized impact to increased financial returns should not be excluded from the overall MDP discussion. Approval of Seville East at 150 feet is in line with its neighbor at 275. These two exceptions, along with the height maximum of 75 feet for other proposed development sites, achieves approximately 80% of the requested height increase. Fortunately, 90% of the targeted pedestrian density is in place today, rendering this change insignificant. Not insignificant, though. is the resulting preservation to the overall character of the Country Club Plaza. An important revision to the current MDP is the addition of a requirement for any new buildings to follow the established process of public input and City Council approval. Bypassing these guardrails would be irresponsible governance. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Dan Ryan. I live at 4545 Warnell, about a block off the plaza. We've gotten to the point where we have an old fat guy getting up to complain about parking. More seriously, my wife and I moved to Parkway Towers five years ago, a block off the plaza, because we love this area. We chose it for our retirement years. I'm not here as somebody who wants the plaza frozen in amber. I really want it to thrive, but I am concerned about the parking situation. The proposal I've seen would cut plaza parking from 5,000 spots to 2,500 spots. I understand the argument that a lot of the parking is poorly designed. I agree that Garage by O'Dowd's is an escape room with oil stains. but badly designed parking is still parking, and those spots are used every day, and they are necessary. The plaza is not just a neighborhood shopping strip. It is a regional destination with a million square feet of retail and commercial space. The traditional standard is around five spaces per thousand square feet. Five thousand spaces, which we're at now, fits that. Cutting it in half is way off. Highland Park Village in Dallas, owned by the same group, has already had real neighborhood parking concerns, and they have 5.4 spaces per thousand feet. And valet parking, more than twice what they want us to have. Their mayor in Highland Park said residents were upset not only about parking, but about losing community charm and not being able to get in and out. That's our warning sign. That's twice the parking, and they're having trouble. If we cut parking in half and add people, those cars will land in the surrounding neighborhoods. I have a six-year-old grandson, and I want to host a high school graduation party for him in 12, could be 13 or 14 years from now, and I want people to park in my neighborhood, my friends to park there without battling the employees and visitors to the plaza. Please protect the plaza and also protect the people who live around it.

Thanks, Dan.

Good afternoon. My name is Vicki Notice. I live at 14 East 55th Terrace. I'm an architect and planner and currently president until tonight of the historic Kansas City. Besides the specific concerns that you're hearing today, I think we also need to look at the plaza in context. It's 100 years old. It's never been stagnant. It's survived through floods and the depression and wars and all kinds of things that have continually kept it changing, including changes in the market for retail and office and housing. The city has always taken the lead in managing this growth and using the plans that Marshall Miller has talked about, using the original plaza plan, its update, and then the plaza district overlay zoning. Even under those guidances, we have built more than a million square feet of office, retail, and residential, and hotel in the plaza within the last 35 years. We've never, I don't think anybody's opposed to change. I think we all recognize that it's gonna change. And that the architectural diversity that's there, I think they're probably going to address. And we know they need to make a return on their investment within the boundaries that they own. And that's why this coalition of neighborhoods in HKC have agreed that raising the heights from 45 to 75, which the staff recommended, or even 90, which CPC recommended, is a huge compromise. That's more than double what the zoning requires now. If they make a case that they need more than that later when they come to these five reconstruction sites, then do that when the details of each of those redevelopment blocks is known. the deal with the major plan amendment that uh... we've been requesting so that it does come back through the whole process including the council is that uh... as Ms. Koch described, if it goes the other way and you treat these empty blocks that are nothing right now, we don't know what they're gonna be, as minor amendments and it only goes through CPC, they're the only ones who can appeal it to the council. The neighborhoods and regular citizens who may oppose what they're doing have no way to appeal that. You need to take care of that now while you have the chance. And the city leadership has always been there to guide complicated development on the plaza without making huge mistakes. And I think if this goes through with these heights and no way to correct them later, this could be an unfixable hundred-year mistake. Thank you.

Jim Wansner, Ethan Starr, and Mike Talboy.

Good afternoon, my name is Jim Wanzer and I reside at 612 Brush Creek Boulevard in historic Rock Hill, which is just east of the plaza. I wanted to start by saying I appreciate the opportunity for a public testimony. I was a PIAC representative for eight years and I understand it takes a lot of patience and persistence to sit through long processes. I also wanted to give just a little shout out to the Gillen Group. We've met with them several times. I'm here on behalf of historic Kansas City. We found them to be a smart, knowledgeable, polished, and sophisticated organization. But they came to town and they got the purchase of the century. They got 15 square blocks of prime real estate in Kansas City. for 175 million i believe that had just sold eight years earlier for 660 million so they by everybody's standard they got a rock bottom price they also hired one of the best real estate development attorneys in the city that's you roxen and um and they've been engaging but when we've engaged them nothing seems to change much from their original MPD. And so they play their plans very smart. They ask for the moon and I think they hope to settle for some stars. because they're asking for exemptions to almost everything. The height, the process, the sidewalks, the list goes on. We had a two-page list of deviations they are seeking, and probably the density and the height are the most important. Over the last four or five years, Historic Kansas City has worked with four developers who each proposed projects had over 200 units in them most of them on the west side of the plaza one on the north side of the plaza we worked through their deviations of 10 feet of some setbacks and we had positive outcomes and those plans were adopted by the city but of all those four plans and a thousand units not a single shovel of dirt has been turned um i'm short so thank you thank you

Good afternoon, all. My name is Ethan Starr. I'm speaking on behalf of Historic Hinn City as executive director and as an architectural historian. Our preservation advocacy organization has a history of deep involvement with plaza planning efforts, 1989, 2016, 2019, and we've met repeatedly with the applicant, as you've heard. All those previous efforts, planning efforts, included historic preservation as part of their aims. The current MPD includes some provisions in this area that we've heard. I'll touch quickly on the notion of, in the plan, these character contributing facades. This mechanism serves to demarcate certain features and building exteriors of commercial storefronts as worthy of preservation. We need to take a close look at these provisions, though, to see how new construction envisioned by the plan adjacent to those properties might compatibly interface with the existing historic buildings. This most consequential effect of the character contributing designation is supposed to be a 10-foot step back for adjacent new construction rising above 45 feet in height, towers, right? At heights approaching or exceeding 150 feet, such limited setbacks would do little to prevent towers from visually overwhelming adjacent historic storefronts. A particular concern here is the plaza's oldest block, identified as Block D in the NPD, containing the 1923 Mill Creek Building, where the plaza lights tradition was born, and the 1924 buildings just to the west along 47th Street and Wyandotte, known historically as the Tower and Wolferman's Buildings, today Housing Commerce Bank and such. This block is identified as a site for new construction presumably centered on the rear north side, though the MPD plan doesn't delineate footprints for prospective development sites. These step-backs are really the only indicator we have of these development sites, of how expansive the projects may be in terms of their footprint. With only a 10-foot step-back, Those two 1924 buildings are not protected against being largely demolished to be incorporated within adjacent new construction. The 1923 Mill Creek building, likewise, is not safeguarded by its 20 foot step back. Each of those buildings, I should note, is 75 feet deep and should have at least 45, 50 feet protected, right? I'll note The MPD includes language denouncing facadism. That is precisely the phenomenon I'm saying we're at risk of, though, demolishing everything up to the storefront. And the staff recommendations, the CPC recommendations that we should expand that character contributing list, those are valid recommendations on the southwest, southeast corners, 1930s, 1940s buildings. We should really take a look at that. Thanks so much.

Thank you very much. Mike Talboy, the Greater Kansas City Building and Construction Trades Council. I'm just going to go on record in support of having a development plan move forward. The development team has been very supportive of the working men and women in the area. They have been engaged with us for several weeks and months, and we've had great discussions on how to team up moving forward. And so I just want to go on record in support. Thank you.

Thank you. The next three are Duke. I know. I was going to even try it this time, Duke.

Just say Duke.

I know. That's what it is. Kate Marshall and David Westbrook.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you very much, committee members and council members. I've told you before, it took me three years to learn how to say it. You should probably just give up at this point.

But how long have I known you, Duke?

Yeah, so I'm Duke Diakovich. I'm president of the Greater Kansas City AFL-CIO. I'm here today to report that we have been in active discussions developing a robust and meaningful and impactful community benefits agreement with Gillen Property Group. And for that reason, organized labor here in Kansas City supports this project moving forward. Thank you very much, and thank you for your service.

Thank you very much. Good morning, or good afternoon, I should say. I'm David Westbrook. I am chair of the Plaza District Council. We have offices at 425. and we are delighted to be here to offer enthusiastic and cautious support of the proposals on the table. Nobody likes change, everybody wants progress. We have to hear what the public has to say and we've organized a group that exercises convening authority so we can have a safe place where we can have reasonable and rational conversations about the development of the plaza and the area district, including the cultural institutions that are there. I was the family who gave birth to David Westbrook. Father fought in World War II. I was born in St. Luke's. I went to Swinney Elementary School. I walked to school when I was a kid and could see. from an apartment near the Country Club Plaza. I've lived here all of my life. I had an office in Johnson County in Corporate Woods, paid taxes in Kansas, and for 30 years owned a home in Sunset Hill. I'm a metropolitan citizen. The plaza is a metropolitan asset. All of us should be concerned about its future, be concerned about the decisions that are being made in the present. Nobody can retreat to the past in order to prepare for the future. Nobody can live with a future that is so distant from the present that it brings us no sense of heritage or a sense of belonging to community. I'm here because I trust the people who are developing this project. I trust the city that is developing a process by which we can be transparent and can work with one another to achieve progress. I'm here because I believe that this community can build this asset so that it can continue to be a destination that is not only embraced with pride by the people who live here, but by the nation who has seen the plaza as a destination for retail innovation. And retail innovation means you come to a shop, you try on an outfit, you like it, you go home, it's delivered to your house that night or the next day at the latest. Retailing is changing, it will be innovative, it will be transformative, and the people who are behind this project know that and will embrace that. I really appreciate the process you have at play. We will continue to be available to you. I heard my beep, I'm blind but not deaf. I know that I have to go, but you will continue to hear from us, and we will continue to draw from this process to make it rich and rewarding and beneficial to the entire community. We appreciate your time and the way you are being so thorough in considering this development project.

Thank you. Is Kate here? She left. Okay. Rebecca, you can come on.

Good morning. My name is Rebecca Page. Thank you for allowing me to speak. I am a resident of the plaza at 4508 Mill Creek. My husband and I own a condo only two blocks away, and I'm here on behalf of the Mill Creek Homeowners Association. I'm also employed on the plaza and have worked on it for many years. Forgive me, I am a layman, and this is my first time addressing a city council, so I'm going to just let my address speak for itself. I came here today to speak out loudly in favor of Gillen Property Management regarding their plans to refurbish the plaza. and add height, with not just my own voice, but the authority of eight other owners actually on the plaza. I hear a lot of these people talking and see them, and not only are they in the later stages of their life, they're talking about Hyde Park in Southmoreland, and that's not the plaza. I hear about them harping on the concept of Gillen making a profit. They should make the profit. They are the owners, and they have been doing so much to improve the quality of life on the plaza. And I think we should just be grateful for them trying to make the plaza the jewel of the city again the loud minority who is an opposition are not emblematic of the young owners and the people who will be living in the city for many years and are excited to see more more modern plaza I would encourage City Council to take that into account and because the plaza is safer under their care. I was not able to walk my dog previously until Gillen Property Management showed up safely and without worry of being harassed. Now I can. And that's an incredible thing for the plaza and the plaza ownerships because we definitely love our dogs and being able to just safely walk around our neighborhood is absolutely incredible. They have done so many improvements. They've repaired pavement. They have done remodeled areas and they have added landscaping and made dark areas lit again. And they are doing exactly what they said they were going to do. So I am very thankful for them. And I just wanted to say from the bottom of my heart, I appreciate you guys. Thank you for your time.

All right. Thank you. Howard, do we have anybody online? That's all the cards I have.

Let me check one more time.

All right, and I know that we have received some... We have two people up here online. You have two people? Okay, go ahead and promote them. Amelia, I know that you submitted your testimony and it had not been posted. We'll make sure... I told Katrina that we make sure that we get that posted on the clerk's website so that we can... We everyone can see that not just the committee, but everyone will follow up on that. So let's go ahead. Robert, go ahead with your testimony. You have two minutes.

Thanks so much. It's really good to be here and thank you for this process. We very much appreciate Gillen Properties, but I do want to raise a concern about the process. It seems like there are several elements of this process that are flawed or that have been changed from the regular process and it would be good if those changes were explained transparently. First, an ordinance approving an MPD is ordinarily approved by the Neighborhood Planning and Development Committee. But instead, this ordinance has been referred to this committee. The question is why? We're wondering, is this railroading through the MPD? The second is the sponsor is listed as the City Manager's Office, also the Mayor and Chair Boo. Thank you very much for that. The director of city planning and development is not listed as a sponsor. And we wonder, is that because the staff's recommendations are being ignored? There is, third, no updated city planning staff report, as is ordinarily done after the CPC hearing, and is a part of the consideration of a rezoning and approval of an MPD. We ask why. If consistent with prior processes, the updated city planning staff report would give information and analysis to be weighted by the council committee and ultimately the full council. we're also very concerned that zoning goes with the land and if the current developer may transfer or sell all or portions of the property to another of another developer Without more specifics in the MPD, the plaza may become fragmented and less cohesive, losing its historic character. If the Finance Committee and the Council say yes now to this excessively broad MPD, they cannot say no later. Why would the Council give up its responsibility and its ability to oversee this development? There are no assurances about the timing or phasing of the MPD. Will it continue to deteriorate? Will the plaza continue to stagnate and deteriorate? We recommend tightening the implementation timeline. The developer needs to prove that they can perform on a more timely basis. So we hope that you will both clarify the process and explain why it has deviated in the ways that it has. Thank you so much.

First of all, I've explained a little bit about why it was in Finance Committee at the beginning. This is not the first time we've had zoning matters in this committee. This is a project that has a multitude of ordinances that will come to the City Council. And it is part of a large financing plan. We will have other ordinances that will come to it. So I don't think it was necessarily a way to divert the process. This project is in the sixth district. I represent the sixth district. I also represent the city at large. I think it was a decision that the mayor made to send it to this committee. There are five members of this committee, including myself and the mayor, on this committee. We have had numerous meetings with the public as well as the owners on this project. I think we are very familiar with this project and the issues. And I think the mayor made a determination to send it to finance because of all of the component parts of this project. And the, you know, not only the finance, but the development. Just from a personal standpoint, I do have some experience in the area of planning and zoning. And I think that members of this committee have seen ordinances like this. So I think that this was not at all intended to divert the process, but to have this committee who's going to see ordinances related to the plaza be able to have some consistency moving forward. So I just, I said it at the beginning, so it would be clear, and I just want to say it again in response to that, those questions. So Chris, I think you're next.

Thank you. We have Chris Koch speaking today as an architect, as well as the president of Hyde Park Neighborhood Association. Good afternoon, council members. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to provide our community's feedback to you all. We still have significant concerns about preserving the view corridors from the east and the south specifically. We feel that even 125 or 125 heights recommended by the city CPC would effectively seal off the plaza to the east and the south. And this potentially sends the wrong message to residents outside of the plaza core, including the nearby lower density residential neighborhoods, such as Hyde Park, sophomore land, Rock Hill. The plaza would become insular and focused only on those residents that can afford to live in the high rise multifamily residences. By walling off the plaza, it becomes exclusionary to other residents and even the visitors that this district attracts. A maximum height of 75 feet on the four sites would help preserve the investment of the adjacent community's residences and other property owners. We do support an increase in the height from east to west, enhancing the visual corridor from the east, which draws people into the Country Club Plaza and reduces the impact on that historical character, while still encouraging the enhancements that we are excited and welcome to share with this community from Gillian Properties. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is that it, Erin?

Pierce.

All right. As I said, we will hold this ordinance. I do think we have to go to the street vacation since you waited patiently. Let's go ahead and take that up. Just so we will be prepared next week at that. And we still have 45 minutes before the next committee.

Right on time.

Mm-hmm.

Good afternoon, Chair Buu and council members. Matthew Barnes, city planning and development with ordinance number 260445, which is the vacation of public sidewalks for the Country Club Plaza. Site is located within the Country Club Plaza in the sixth district, which is the Midtown area, Midtown Plaza area plan. The vacation requested is for the sidewalks highlighted in yellow, which is within the MPD district that was previously heard. This does not include any sidewalks or right-of-way under the ownership of the Parks Department, so Ward Parkway or Mill Creek Parkway are not under consideration today. This also does not include any of the public streets, so this is strictly the sidewalks. If the applicant does want to come back in the future to widen the sidewalks or reconfigure or create pedestrian plazas, that will come before you again. This is strictly for the sidewalks. An approval of this vacation would allow for the property owner to assume all full control of the sidewalks, including responsibility for maintenance and the ability to install elements within that, such as planters, benches, public art, and similar amenities. So here's just a site plan showing the sidewalks again in orange. Blue sidewalks, teal, are not under consideration. There are several utility companies that do have utilities within this right-of-way, so they are requesting that utility easements are placed and those facilities are protected. And there's KCMO Water Services, Traffic Signal Equipment, AT&T, Averagee, Spectrum Charter, and Spire. At the February 4th CPC, I apologize, this is kind of a lot to read on one slide, but they requested the applicant and city enter into an easement agreement, which requires the following 12 terms. These are generally the public pedestrian access that allows for continued pedestrian access 24-7, 365. This prohibits any checkpoints or controlled access, as we've seen at Westport. This is the reservation of utility easements, as I previously said, for water services, traffic signal equipment, and other utility companies. Coordination between the landowner and the city for any improvements, contacts for the landowner and city, and then requirement that the landowner maintain the private improvements within that vacated right-of-way. dexterous streetlights maintained by the owner, that landowner comply with all ADA requirements, that the landowner make public its code of conduct, a good neighbor provision, and that this agreement runs with the land, no matter the owner. The applicant has provided that easement. I am not sure that it has been reviewed by our law department thoroughly at this time. But with that, the City Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions of that vacation of sidewalks, and I can take any questions.

Councilman Ray.

Could you go back a slide? So what happens in the event that there is a conflict between number one and number 10? say there's a violation of the code of conduct that limits someone's 24-7 access. I mean, I can imagine an extreme example, someone commits a crime. I'm sure there are many less extreme examples that get into some gray area. And so to what extent is that going to be, how is that going to be navigated?

I'll take a stab at that, Councilman. So the way that we talked through this, and we had a lot of conversations with the City Planning Commission about, you know, theoretical what-ifs, I'll call it. Our team is in an education, right? Education and ask for compliance if there is an infraction within that code of conduct. That's the way it works today. I do want to highlight that we have many areas within the plaza today, the fountain courts, that are actually private property but appear to function as public property. So we would assume that our operations that exist today and our standard kind of operating procedures will just apply over the new vacated sidewalks. And so in that instance, if there is an infraction of the code of conduct, our security staff or other staff on site would visit with that individual, educate them on the code of conduct, and ask for compliance. If compliance is not achieved through that process, then that would escalate to your police department through KCPD. At that point, the police officer would have the discretion and the authority to deal with it as they so choose, right? That becomes something that's outside of our hands. So hopefully that answers your question, but I think that's how we see it operating, much as it operates today. Who will create the code of conduct? Currently the code of conduct is posted on our website and posted publicly in the garages, and so we would propose that that code of conduct maintains and moves forward.

Questions?

All right. Is there any public testimony for 260-445? No one appears.

We lose Duke?

I think he wanted to testify on this one. Go ahead.

No one appears by Zoom and there was no further testimony.

All right. We will hold this one as well and take it up when we take up the MPD. All right. We do have one item to go back to. Sam has pointed out that one ordinance number. Thank you, I'm sorry, you're done.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

I will have some more follow up. I am just if we could do it separate out, maybe I'll include staff. You know, I think there are other important constitutional concerns around the first amendment uh and access and and whether it's a protest or whether it's a reporter whether it's some other exercise of the first amendment and how that will be handled given what you're contemplating under here but i think that's we can have a conversation before we take this up next week.

Yeah, I do think we, there's probably a lot more to discuss on this, and I don't know if it's just because of the hour, but we may have more discussions or more questions, but we'll, there's going to be a lot more discussions before we pass either one of the ordinances out next week. All right. Mr. Miller, as... Mention that on 260449, which was the 4KC ordinance, there was a committee substitute. And we are not sure that the motion was to pass the committee substitute. So do we need to just make a new motion or how do we, what do we need to do to correct that?

I think for the record it would be best if it was, if it's this committee's intent to pass the sub that we move and adopt the substitute specifically.

Okay, so move and adopt. So. Which item are we talking about? It was 449. This was the funding agreement with the Port Authority, the Betterment and Improvement Funding Agreement.

What does the motion need to be? The motion that was made was to advance and do pass on the original ordinance, but there was a committee sub that was read by the clerk as the ordinance was taken up. So I was seeking clarity on which version the committee wants to advance out of now.

Madam Chair, I move that committee sub for ordinance number 260449 be reported out of committee with recommendation to advance and do pass.

Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that committee sub for ordinance number 260449 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? If that motion passes, then we will hear the committee sub. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that to our attention. With that, I believe that the business before the committee is concluded, and we will adjourn. Thank you, Sam. I was still too focused on the entertainment district.