Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

Governance and Public Safety Committee. And I will call the May 19th, 2026 meeting to order. And I would ask that my colleagues introduce themselves.

Wes Rogers, Second District. Crispin Ray, Fourth District.

And if additional colleagues from the council who are joining us, starting to my left.

Jonathan Duncan, Sixth District.

Lindsay French, 2nd District at Large. Melissa Patterson-Hasley, 3rd District at Large.

And if staff will introduce themselves.

Howard Rice, City Clerk's Office.

Tammy Queen, Finance, not Finance, Assistant City Manager.

Brenton Cirelli, Finance. Travis Keefer, Casey Water. Sam Miller, Assistant City Attorney.

Sarah Baxter, Law Department. Right. And we have a couple of items that we are going to hold. The first item is item number two, ordinance number 260480. That is the contract with the EDC. We will hold that for one week, but that will actually be to the June 9th. June 9th meeting then on under held in committee item number two six zero zero six five that is the Board of Police Commissioners ordinance relating to the overage fund we will hold that forum a month Let's see, let's hold that until June 16th, as well as the Midtown Justice Campus until June 16th. Do you all meet that week? I don't think we meet that week.

I don't think you meet that week.

We don't meet that week?

No, it's Juneteenth. Oh, okay. I believe that's right.

Well, let's then push it back to June 9th, I guess. All right, Howard, if you will read the first item.

260457, approving and authorizing settlement of a lawsuit entitled Kenya Mitchell v. City of Kansas City, Missouri, case number 2516-CV05505992 and related claims in the amount of $400,000.

All right, this is an item you each should have received. In fact, the entire council received a memorandum from the law department. If you have any questions, we would entertain them or go into closed session. But if there are none, I'll ask for a public testimony.

No testimony submitted for this ordinance.

Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. I would say on this we would probably not put it on consent agenda just because of the amount.

Thank you. I move that ordinance number 260457 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260457 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes.

260474, approving and authorizing settlement of a lawsuit entitled Andrea Dorch v. City of Kansas City, Missouri et al. Case number 2416-CV06268 in the amount of $500,000.

Right, this too, the council received a memorandum from the law department. Are there any questions on this item? Is there any public testimony for ordinance number 260474?

No public testimony submitted for this ordinance.

Right, I would entertain a motion on this item.

Madam Chair, I move that ordinance number 260474 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and due pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260474 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes. Howard, we're going to hold off just a minute to wait on the mayor's arrival, but when we come back, we're going to take up... take about a 10 minute break, but just for those in the audience reference, we're first gonna take up the ballot measures beginning with the Housing Trust Fund Ordinance, which is 260484. Then we will go to 260483, Then 485, 481, and 482. Then after we have taken up those items, we will proceed with the three items related to the plaza. the MPD, which is held in committee, 443, then we will discuss along with that 260486, which is the new item, and 445, which is the vacation of the sidewalk right-of-way. So we're going to jump around a little bit, but we will proceed. I'm told he will be here first 1050, which is why we started, but now around 11. So we will take a few minute break. I apologize for the delay, but he especially wanted to be here for the ballot measure item. So hold tight, and we will be back with you in a few minutes. Thank you.

Yep. We'll see. It's the meeting before the meeting. That's great. Oops, I did not make it do that. I was reading something. but it's not funny but it's kind of funny how are we all pink off a little bit today no i was looking at All right, we are ready to begin again.

say hi you know we just approved a uh a stealth bomber airport uh hotel so all right mayor um howard if you will read 484 committee substitute orange number 260484 calling an election on august 4th 2026 for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of an amount not to exceed $75 million in general obligation bonds to finance affordable housing projects through the Housing Trust Fund, directing the city clerk to provide notice of the election, declaring the city's intention to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for bond-related expenditures, directing the city clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of this election recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date and establishing an effective date for voter authorizations.

Madam Chair, if I just may, on the election ordinances, the issue that came to us at City Council or comes to us now is a request actually from Water Services to run ballot questions relating to sewer and water bonds. Of course, those haven't been called yet. Because of both the cost of a municipal election and the campaign apparatus that is often built up, consideration for us a committee is whether to run all potential municipal questions at the same time and so that's where these questions arise from in the November of 2022 we had a similar arrangement where I believe we ran water bonds but also ran bonds that were in part for conventions parks and then there was a housing trust fund bond as well and so that's the spirit from which these come and I know nothing about the presentation ahead

So the ordinance does include 260483 as well as a combined presentation.

Okay. Howard, go ahead and read 483. Thank you. Or 483.

Committee substitute for ordinance number 260483 calling an election on August 4th, 2026 for the purpose of authorizing the issuance of an amount not to exceed $100 million in the general obligations bond to, in general obligations bonds to finance capital improvements of city conventions facilities and other governmental buildings constructed before 1950, directing the city clerk to provide notice of the election, declaring the city's intention to reimburse itself from bond proceeds for bond-related expenditures, directing the city clerk to notify the responsible election authority of this election, recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date and establishing an effective date for voter authorization.

So good morning.

Good morning.

Kimberly Carter from the Finance Department I have with alongside me Director Proctor from the Housing Department and Director Gilmore from the Conventions Department. So the ordinances before you 260483 and 484 is pertaining to the new GO ballot measure. Both ordinances together proposed up to $150 million in general obligation bonds. So $75 million for convention and entertainment facilities for the purpose of paying for the acquisition, construction, and renovation, improvement, equipment, and furnishing of city convention and entertainment facilities, which includes parking structures as well. $75 million for affordable housing, and that's going to include rehabilitation, renovation, and construction of houses and buildings to include blight removal, as well as to provide affordable housing for low to moderate income households. A key point is that the proposed GEO bond program is structured as a no-tax increase initiative, similar to our GEO 2022 authorization. So the issuance itself is intentionally phased over multiple years, and this will allow our levy to remain stable. So depicted on the slide, we would anticipate a two-year issuance for the convention facilities equal tranches of $37.5 million. And then we'll continue on our affordable housing pattern as a five-year period with $15 million issued annually. So whether or not the ballot is approved or not, the authority, there is no impact to the general fund under this proposal. So if it's approved, the additional debt service is fully offset by property tax capacity that would otherwise decline as existing debt would roll off. If, for instance, the measure is not approved, there is still no impact on the general fund. The city would simply see the property tax decrease over time as debt is retired. The next few slides illustrates the projected debt levy under the different scenarios. So this particular one, you'll see that it's absent of the new authorization, and the levy declines over time as we pay off the existing debt. On slide six, we're going to add in the proposed authorization today. And essentially, it layers in the new debt as old debt rolls off, which keeps the overall levy relatively stable. Now slide seven includes our 2017 authorization. So this is all of our geo bond debt that's gonna affect our levy. And so basically this is a capacity replacement type of strategy. So it allows the city to continue making strategic capital investments without increasing our taxes and without creating pressure on our general fund. So I'll pause here if you have any questions. If not, I'll move on to conventions and housing as they can present their projects.

Good morning, Chair and Mr. Mayor and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity. Kimiko, could you pull this a little closer? Yes, ma'am. Sorry. Thank you. Kimiko Gilmore, Executive Director for Convention and Entertainment Facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to speak about Ordinance Number 260483 and the proposed investment in Kansas City's Convention and Entertainment Facilities. While the presentation outlines project categories, I think it is equally as important to talk about what these investments represent and what has already been accomplished. Over the past several years, Convention Entertainment Facilities is in the process of more than $45 million in capital improvements, including ADA upgrades, escalator replacements, lighting improvements, seating upgrades, and critical infrastructure work throughout the convention complex and municipal auditorium. Those investments are producing results. Kansas City continues to attract major conventions, sporting events, and entertainment activity that generate significant economic impact for our community. This proposal allows us to continue protecting and modernizing these public assets without increasing taxes by aligning new investment with roll-off of existing debt. These are not cosmetic projects. They are core infrastructure investments that directly impact our ability to operate safely, efficiently, and competitively. At the same time, we are planning for the future. The city is partnering with Populous on a long-term modernization plan for Bartow Hall and Municipal Auditorium to ensure today's investments align with the next generation of convention, entertainment, and tourism activity in Kansas City. That work is especially important as we prepare for FIFA World Cup 2026 and continue building on the momentum created by transformational projects like the new airport terminal, Lowe's Hotel, and the convention center campus. Simply put, these proposals are about stewardship, maintaining and modernizing public assets that support jobs, tourism, economic development, and civic pride in a physically responsible way. Thank you, and after Blaine finishes, I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Good morning, Blaine Proctor, Director of Housing and Community Development. I'm here to talk about the Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Trust Fund is probably one of the most flexible funding sources that we have in the Housing Department because of the various projects that it supports. neighborhood affordability, displacement, new and rehabilitated affordable housing, addressing blight through vacant property renovation. And it is also the largest funding tool that we have. We prefer that the Housing Trust Fund is used for gap financing as opposed to projects and developers coming in to the Housing Trust Fund as a first ask for their projects. I think it's important to note that there is currently a 64,000 unit shortage in affordable housing in Kansas City. And that is really made up of very low income and extremely low income households. That doesn't include workforce housing. We are guided by a very strong stakeholder and community base. We have an advisory board of housing development experts and community members. When the trust fund is fully seated, when its board is fully seated, we have nine members. The trust fund was established to address Kansas City's growing affordable housing crisis. It supports the development and preservation of housing at or below 60% AMI. In November 2022, voters approved a $50 million GEO bond, creating the city's largest affordable housing investment funding source. And this slide shows what we have accomplished in the funding rounds that we've had up until this date. There's been $60 million awarded 263, excuse me, 3,316 total units, 2,635 of which are affordable. 365 of those units have been completed at this point in time. There's an image there of the parade park groundbreaking, which is to date the largest housing trust fund investment that's been made. This is just a list of some of the completed projects that we've seen so far. Forecasting the impact of a $75 million bond, we anticipate that this would support an estimated 3,571 affordable housing units over the next five years. The funding rounds would increase from the $12.5 million that we've had up until now to $15 million, permitting deeper subsidy levels and more affordable housing projects per year. And we will be happy to take any questions.

All right, I did want to point out that I believe on ordinance number 260483 with respect to the conventions, the committee substitute would add additional language, well increase the amount from 75 million to 100 million and add additional language to allow for

Yeah, I can speak to that, Madam Chair. The committee substitute that's been circulated to committee would add a $25 million amount to the corpus using available amount of funding and add the following which is and other governmental buildings constructed before 1950. The idea there being that City Hall, and I'd like to ask the Assistant City Manager to speak to it. I regret there's not a presentation on it, but I believe there's been estimated $90 million in maintenance and other challenges at City Hall itself that continually goes unfunded, and so would love to learn a little bit about how we can address that.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Mayor. Yeah, the additional projects that we are contemplating, and we have a lot more needs than this $25 million would support, but they include Phase 2 of the HVAC project that has taken us out of this chamber at times, but that would take care of the lower floors, I think 1 through 15. There is water piping infrastructure in the amount of about $10 million. additional fire alarm and intercom replacements so that we've got all the life safety things ensured that we're meeting those. Windows is a big problem in the building, so exterior window replacement and then also waterproofing and sealing the envelope. So it's about a total of $51 million in projects that exist right now that have been identified that could be used, this money could be used for.

Are there any questions from the committee on ordinance number, committee substitute for ordinance number 260483 or committee substitute for ordinance number 260484? Thank you, Madam Chair.

ACM Queen, I want to talk about the question I had for you in regards to the Housing Trust Fund, GO bond dollars, and the idea that in our search for some sustainable municipal funding source for our homeless programming, Would this be the avenue to do so? I think your answer was compelling, but I would just ask that you share your response to that question.

So the housing trust fund works as a taxable bond issuance because we are creating units of housing that tangible assets that we can point to. The Housing Gateway Program doesn't really provide that. It provides a lot of services. It might provide housing in the form of a homeless shelter or something like that, but it's not as clear to us that it would qualify for what we like to use bond financing for, which is long-lived assets that hopefully go on our balance sheet. They don't always have to, but it's really just not a good use of this authority that the city has in terms of bonding. We just would not recommend that.

Yeah, and I think it's important as we... I think it's important as we look for what that source could be that we talk about those that would be a good avenue and those that would not. And originally, I thought this might be one that we could discuss, but I think your answer is compelling.

Councilman Duncan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. For the committee substitute for the housing trust fund, it's just for an increase of the $25 million of the corpus, right? Is there an additional language?

For housing trust fund, there's no change other than the date. and then the conventions, etc. I thought we had a committee substitution to increase it from $75 to $100 million. $75 to $100 million on the conventions and buildings, $75 million stays on the housing, and then the other change is the date of the election.

ACM Queen, do we have the bond leverage to increase the housing trust fund from $75 to $100 million?

There is a total, and the treasurer or the finance director can correct me if I'm wrong, but there's a total capacity for a no-tax bond issuance of a total of $200 million.

Let's do it. Yeah, I used to think it was $180. That's why.

Right now, the total is $175 between these committee subs.

Well, I kind of learned something new that it's $100 or $200 rather than $180. I'm kind of going with that we put $75 million in last time, so it's going to do $75 million again. We did $50 million last time, right? Yeah, but it was $25 million of ARPA that we could have spent in another place, so we capitalized it first with $75 million.

I know we have 65,000 units of deficit of affordable housing. Why wouldn't we go for gusto, Mr. Mayor?

I'll ask staff kind of. I mean, I guess the proof point that I would ask for is... With the extra funding, you've already probably laid out the number of units that you would look to add to that, but does the program become more compelling? I do have a slight concern sometimes as a policy matter of just putting more money in something. I don't know if the performance will be that much better, but maybe it will be. You'll probably say it is, so tell us more about it.

Sure. I mean, we could absolutely create more units with additional funds.

I think the question might be if you can spend the full $20 million in a year. So that would basically take it to $20 million per year for five years, and can that actually be distributed and spent? Because we always want to make sure that if we're borrowing that we're actually spending the money in a timely manner.

We have applications, housing trust fund applications that come in in each round that are either not fully funded or don't get funded. Because of a lack of funds?

And I feel like that's been part of the story every round of funding is that it's competitive, there's limited funds. I can think of the last couple rounds, there's been several projects that I think would be a great candidate, but because of the lack of funding, we weren't able to provide support. I think the question as to whether or not we would have enough demand to spend the money is clear. I think the question is, can we turn that through staffing and evaluate more projects and make sure we're moving in the right direction?

We would need additional staff.

You would need what?

Additional staff.

I just wanted to make another point that we would be able to be a little bit more dynamic with the Housing Trust Fund. Right now, we provide about $16,000 per affordable unit. And with a deeper investment in the Housing Trust Fund, we would be able to more deeply subsidize some of the projects that are harder to develop. So I think that it would allow us to have a little bit more flexibility with the projects that we fund that may not be able to pencil out otherwise.

One final question. I do support the request and would hope we could put it in the committee sub. The only other question I have is, and I don't think this would be the case, but it wouldn't change how we can present this to voters and place it on the ballot. I think if we are expanding the bond capacity, we can still call it a renewal of tax rather than a new tax. Is that correct?

Well, yeah, I mean, I think what you're getting at is can we call it a no tax increase bond issue and yes, that did because we've given you that's the maximum capacity. If you said we want to do 225 or 201, we would say no, we'd have to increase taxes to do that for that extra million dollars. So, yes, to answer your question.

And I want to go back to what you said about the five years spending the $20 million each year, to the extent that there is money left over, what is our ability to roll it over to the next year or subsequent years?

It's absolutely possible to do that. We want it to be deployed. It doesn't have to all be deployed in year one. These are taxable bonds, which have a little bit more flexibility than a tax-exempt issuance, where the IRS will come knocking on the door if we don't spend within a certain amount of time. So I think there's flexibility there. My concern was really about what Councilman Rhea got to, which was deployment of the money. Can it actually, I know there's need, but can it actually be deployed in the time allotted?

Yeah. And I think I would also ask, we have talked about the possibility of looking at the criteria for the housing trust fund and should that be, expanded to some extent, and would this allow us the possibility to look at different criteria in funding certain projects? And I'm assuming the answer would be yes, but to the extent that that would give us a little bit more leeway to do that, I think I would support it as well.

I know Councilman Patterson-Hasley has a comment, but yeah, I think the housing trust fund is controlled entirely by us. So if we could pass and we can draft a new ordinance, frankly to the detriment of, I think, those of us who served before, when we didn't have any safeguards on and then we just started spending on all these projects real quickly. That's my one concern, Councilman, talking to your point sometimes. Not that I necessarily, we all get the need. Something Ms. Owens said actually kind of concerns me, the deeper subsidy. I don't know if I love the spirit of that. I mean, the whole way this was supposed to work at the beginning, And we'll leave out our private sector partners. Philanthropy was going to raise a whole bunch of money. It was going to match with our program. We were going to have a public-private partnership that creates these opportunities. And it's fine to have taxpayers play pretty heavily in this. But we're still trying to get a lot of volume and then point you made a few times, Councilwoman Patterson-Hasley, not just get a density of affordable housing in one part of our city. Basically, we're not trying to go back to the housing projects model, I don't think. And I didn't want to create a program that have us create a program that does that. And so, I mean, I guess that can be fixed by ordinance, but I would want to make sure that we don't find ourselves in that place if we perceive ourselves as flush with cash. Go ahead.

I'm gonna exercise my privilege as a committee member. And to that point, and I think this is worth saying out loud because this is gonna be something we're putting before voters and they're gonna know that we have the right processes in place and all that. I have been very, very impressed with the staff and Evan Chiarelli and the work that they do with evaluating these projects. I mean, even projects that I've supported as a council member and they go, they're objective, they look at the criteria, very, very thoughtful in how they do it. It makes the recommendation, I think, very reliable, even if I want to see a project advance that doesn't. And so I think the way that they've handled the funding so far, and maybe more recently in the last two years, gives me a lot of confidence that if we're putting more money into this, it's going to continue to be used that way. Now, what council members do when the ordinance comes before us.

Council Member Patterson has it.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that the Housing Trust Fund could stand to be increased $400,000. I don't know if it's necessarily smart to do both of them because we'll approach the maximum, getting to the 200, where we're in territory where we may need to increase taxes. But also, I did request some Housing Trust Fund data about a week ago, and there are 3,568 total units, and 1,499 units are only in the third district. And so I think there's some work to do in terms of making certain that affordable housing is available across the city. I think that will require some additional analysis and thoughtfulness, and so it's one thing to make more dollars available, but if we're not being careful about how we distribute the units, and perhaps the city just perceives that they're supposed to do affordable housing projects in my district. And so they do. And so the concern of deeply subsidizing more housing is a real concern that I hope you guys will be empathetic toward. We need to start moving toward 80% AMI since we've done so much of the 60 and 30 in the third district. And so I would just caution actually the increase because we haven't, come up with a plan to diversify housing and it's having a really immediate impact on the third district and our ability to improve the economy.

Councilman Patterson-Hasley's point is well taken. And as a representative of the 6th District, which is one of the most least affordable places to live, I will speak for Councilwoman Bu. We absolutely want more affordable housing in the 6th District. We need it. If you work in the 6th District serving coffee or in some type of service position, it's likely that you can't live in the 6th District, even if you work in the 6th District. You can't live in the plaza if you work in the plaza, and that's an issue. So absolutely, I think what we're talking about is what is our policy vision versus how much money do we have at our disposal to implement that. I would say let's move forward with increasing the amount to better implement it. And I would be happy to sponsor an ordinance with you to ensure that we're directing more strategically where we're putting those affordable units. Yeah, I'm sorry.

I just want to say it's been very well stated by both of my colleagues, and I've brought this to the attention of this body as well, just the diversity of the affordable housing throughout the city. And I've requested that to be looked at in my district as well. So I very much am not going to belabor the points. I would support the increase in the bond issuance as well, and then having a larger, robust conversation about what that looks like and how we can expand the the availability of affordable housing throughout the city.

Mayor, did you?

Yeah, I'll just say this. I'm happy to make motions on both, although I guess we'll need public comment, too. Yeah, I mean, part of how we got to this monetary amount was because I thought we had $180 million available, but we have $200. And there's no financial issue with going up to that level. All right. So that part's good. On the housing question for the day that we actually get to the housing conversation, There will be a, there's a policy discussion. I will also say, and I have seen some of you do this, the last time, so we had a long discussion when we were last trying to put affordable housing in the Northland in one of our projects, and there's gonna be a lot of like, how do we make sure that we engage the developers and others to be part of that too? Because right now, our current system, which is largely developer driven, and they submit applications to us, and I'll say this in fairness to the housing department, they get the applications they get, all of those a lot of them are in certain places and so i think it'll be work for us to suggest to some that this is a good path to go that's all i would have on this and then i can make committee substitute motions when we're ready okay um let's um call for public testimony on um let's do both 260-483

And 484. So if you would like to testify on 483 or 484, that's the Housing Trust Fund, um, um, ordinance, uh, for the ballot, um, or the convention and, uh, buildings. Please come forward. Any testimony, Howard?

No one appears by Zoom and there's no written testimony submitted.

I'll do them separately. Madam Chair, I move the committee substitute for ordinance number 260483. That's the $100 million amount. It adds buildings constructed before 1950. We report to the full council with a recommendation of advance and do pass. Thank you.

It's been moved and seconded. The committee substitute for ordinance number 260483 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? And the motion passes.

Madam Chair, I move the committee substitute ordinance number 260484 with an additional increase from $75 million to $100 million be reported to the full council with a recommendation of advance and due pass.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that committee substitute ordinance number 260484 increasing to $100 million be reported out of the committee with a recommendation of advance and due pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Howard, we will go to the CCED 485.

Committee substitute for orders number 260485, calling an election on August 4th, 2026, for the purpose of renewing a one-eighth central city economic development sales tax for 10 years, enacting the sales tax contention upon voter approval directing the city clerk to provide notice of the election, directing the city clerk to provide notice to the director of revenue if the sales tax question is passed by voters, and recognizing an accelerated effective date.

Good morning, honorable Mayor Lucas, Chair Boo, and members of the Finance, Governance, and Public Safety Committee. My name is William Choi, Deputy Director of Finance, and today I'll be presenting on ordinance number 260485, calling for our Central City Economic Development Sales Tax Renewal. So I want to start off by providing a brief history of the CCED sales tax. It was originally submitted to voters via ordinance number 160861 for a one-eighth cent sales tax. Purpose of that sales tax were to help with economic development in the area founded by 9th Street on the north, Gregory Boulevard on the south, Paseo Boulevard on the west, and Indiana Avenue on the east. And these economic development projects would be recommended by the CCED board. On April 4th, 2017, voters approved the initial 10-year CCD sales tax with an approval rating of approximately 60%. And that CCD sales tax is set to expire on September 30th, 2027. So it's the desire to submit to voters a renewal of the CCD sales tax for a new 10-year period. So finance isn't normally known for their maps, but we want to provide a map of the CCED area. So as outlined earlier, 9th Street in the north, Gregory Boulevard in the south, Paseo Boulevard in the west, and Indiana Avenue on the east. So if you're right here, kind of in this pink outline grid line pattern, this is that CCED area map. So the ballot language as proposed is outlined here. Shall the city of Kansas City, Missouri be authorized to renew a sales tax authorized by a Missouri statute for a period of 10 years at a rate of 1.8 cent as outlined by the bounded area. And of course, this is set to expire September 30th, 2027. We also wanna provide just kind of a brief revenue history for the CCED sales tax. Over the past couple years, it's generated approximately 13 million to about 13 and a half million dollars. Over the course of the CCED thus far, it's generated approximately 99 million dollars, and there is still some to be collected here in fiscal year 27, just because it expires in September of this year, or September of 2027. And with that, I will answer any questions you may have.

Are there any questions from the committee?

Here, I may just say briefly, even though there may be support, just for a little bit of background, because I don't sleep, and so I was looking at outcomes from before. This came to us in 2017. There was a package, and actually we have Joni Wickham here, who probably remembers it all well. There was a package of five questions on that ballot, three GO bond questions, the Central City Economic Development sales tax, and a marijuana decriminalization question. on the ballot. So it's not unheard of that we've had a large number of items as we would have this time. That CCED first time passed 52% yes in the public. Our hope certainly would be with the staff, some of whom just left the room, who've been in the housing space, and others that they could share with us some of the effectiveness that we've had on this program over the last decade. So we'll have a good mission to share. August ballot for the same reason we articulated before.

Are there any other questions from the committee? Is there any public testimony of ordinance or a committee substitute for ordinance number 260485?

No, it appears by Zoom, and there's no written testimony submitted for this ordinance.

Right, and the committee substitute, again, just changes this to the August date. All right, I would entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I move that ordinance number 260485 be reported to the full council with a recommendation of advance and due pass. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that committee substitute for ordinance number 260485 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and due pass. Those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. We'll hear it on Thursday.

260481, providing for submission to the qualified voters of the city for their approval at an election called on August 4th, 2026, the question of authorizing the issuance of sanitary sewer revenue bonds of the city and the principal amount of $750 million for the purpose of rehabilitating, improving, and extending the sanitary sewer system of Kansas City, including acquiring necessary land and rights of way in order to provide for its continuing operation and to maintain compliance with federal, state, and judicial requirements, directing the city clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of this election, declaring the city's intention to set rates intention to set declaring the city's intention to reimburse itself from revenue bond proceeds for bond related expenditures expenditures recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date and establishing the effective date for voter authorization

I was going to ask Howard to go ahead and read the other ordinance as well. I know that was a lot.

Yes, ma'am. 26042, providing for submission to the qualified voters of the city of Kansas City, of the city for their approval at an election called on August 4th, 2026, the question of authorizing the issuance of Water Works revenue bonds of the city in the principal amount of 750 million dollars for the purpose of rehabilitating improving and extending the water work system of the city including acquiring necessary land and rights of way in order to provide for the continuing operation and to maintain compliance with federal state and judicial requirements directing the city clerk to notify the responsible election authorities of this election declaring the city's intention to set rates, declaring the city's intention to reimburse itself from revenue bond proceeds for bond-related expenditures, recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date and establishing an effective date for voter authorization.

And I'm going to jump in because I'm guessing this is what the mayor was going to say. I think we've heard part of this, the water part of it, because we had discussed this. If you would give kind of a brief highlight of this. I think now you're here not only for a water bond, but a sewer bond. So if you can give the highlights on the water and the highlights on the sewer, and then we'll take that up. Is that what you're going to say? That's right. That's exactly right. I can read his mind.

So everybody, I'm waiting. All right. Okay. Go ahead.

Good morning. Phil Cote of All Water Services with me today. It's Hugh Wood and also Water Services.

Yeah, so before I get started though.

And tell us who you are, Hugh.

Yeah, I'm sorry, Hugh Wooden, financial analyst, KC Water. Can you go back to the first slide, please? Before I get started, the last time water bond authorization was on the ballot was April 2014, and it was the only item on the ballot. And the last time sewer revenue bond authorization was on the ballot was April 2022, and it was the only item on the ballot at that time as well. So we've never done this before, at least in recent history, with other items on the ballot. So keep that in mind as you're listening to this. Okay, so these two ordinances are requesting to put 750 million of water revenue bond authorization on the ballot and 750 million of sewer revenue Authorization on the ballot the deadline to be on the ballot is Tuesday May 26 the day after Memorial Day the the benefits of revenue bond authorization for the utilities. Basically, last time we were here, we were going through the reasons why the utilities need to have revenue bond authorization as a financing tool. We're back here today to go through this again and ask for your approval to advance these ordinances for a full vote on Thursday. And to refresh everyone, Let me start by saying that we are requesting in these ballot initiatives are to continue to use these as a financing tool we have used for decades. So this is the beginning of the capital planning process essentially for us. Revenue bond financing is a way to keep water and sewer rates manageable rather than use cash to finance capital projects. By using revenue bonds, we can spread capital costs out over many years. However, in order to use this financing tool, authorization to do so requires approval from the voters. If approved, there are several benefits that will be realized from issuing revenue bond authorization. Most importantly, it will enable us to utilize the state's revolving clean water fund and the state's revolving drinking water fund. These loan programs allow the utilities to take advantage of significantly subsidized loan rates from the Missouri DNR for large-scale projects. This is especially important in an environment of rising interest rates that we're currently in. Bond authorization approval by voters also signifies to our bondholders that we can continue to meet our obligations as a utility, as well as access the lowest cost of capital possible on the debt markets. So what happens if we don't put water and sewer revenue bond authorization on the ballot, or if we do put it on the ballot and it doesn't pass? When existing authorization runs out, we would be forced into a situation where we would have to seek out capital at a higher cost in order to complete future capital projects for the utilities. We would have to use appropriation debt, most likely, and more cash financing, resulting in higher interest costs to the utilities, but also higher rate increases to our ratepayers. We would not be able to utilize the SRF financing through the state, the lowest cost of financing available for water and sewer utilities in Missouri, since this program requires utilities to have voter-approved bond authorization. We would see decreases in our debt service coverage ratio, which could result in a downgrade of our existing debt and potentially an increase in our overall debt service and interest costs. The bottom line is not having revenue bond authorization for the utilities would send a negative message to the municipal debt markets and our bondholders that the utilities are not managing their balance sheet in a fiscally responsible manner by not pursuing the tools that give us the lowest cost form of debt financing. The good news is we've always had high voter approval for revenue bond authorization for the utilities. For the water utility, the last time we asked for revenue bond authorization was April of 2014. We requested $500 million, and it passed with 79% voter approval. We've issued six bonds against that authorization, the last one being almost two years ago in March of 2025 for roughly $145 million, and we currently only have $15 million in remaining authorization, and that is why we need to get water revenue bond authorization on the ballot very soon. on the wastewater side we asked voters for 750 million in april of 2022 and it also passed with 79 approval we've issued two revenue bonds against that authorization and currently have 554 million left in sewer bond authorization however we have plans in the works right now to pursue three srf loans through dnr for large-scale projects which will quickly eat up most of that remaining authorization To give you an understanding of why we are asking for 750 million in water revenue bond authorization, our current capital plan projections show over a billion in water utility capital projects over the next five years. Revenue bond authorization is the financing tool that enables management to maintain appropriate leverage on the balance sheet of each utility with level rate increases over time. Just to be clear, 750 million in authorization will not be issued all at once. It will be issued over several years, of our bonds like I showed on the previous slide. As we always do, each bond issuance will come to Council for approval along with the projects that bond proceeds will be spent on. Furthermore, each project within each bond issue will come to Council for review and approval just like the current process allows for. Voter approved authorization is just the first step in the capital planning process. This slide gives you a quick view of the next five years of CIP for the sewer utility. It's obviously a lot more because we're under a consent decree. Our capital plan projections for the sewer utility show approximately 1.7 billion in projects over the next five years, mainly driven by OCP, the consent decree that Kansas City as well as several other cities across the country are under. In an effort to be most efficient for our rate payers, we do plan to take advantage of the DNR's SRF program for several large scale and large dollar sewer capital projects. This is the proposed ballot language for the proposed water revenue bond authorization. Again, we're seeking to be on the ballot on August 4th, which means this needs to get approved quickly and notify the election boards by May 26th next week, a week from today. And this is the revenue bond or the ballot language for the sewer revenue bond authorization. Same thing, needs to be on the ballot August 4th. This is our timeline. So I had a first read last week. Now we're in front of committee. Hopefully in two days, you all will vote on this and approve it with the accelerated language. And we'll meet the deadline, and then we'll spend the next two months going around to community groups to educate them on both of these ballot initiatives and hopefully get passage on August 4th. And with that, that's all I have. I'll entertain any questions.

All right. Are there any questions from the committee? Councilman Duncan.

So you're telling us we need to pass this today? Yes. Okay. Well, just make us. Just wanted to make sure.

Right. Is there any public testimony for ordinance number 260481 or ordinance number 260482?

No written testimony submitted and no one appears by zone two.

question for you to the extent that there are questions from the voters on what impact, if any, does this have on rates? What is the answer?

The answer is it helps us keep rates at level rate increases like we've been doing. And if you look at our long-term financial plan, we take into account our ability to issue, continue to issue debt in future years for future capital projects, but also be very judicious in how we're managing the leverage on our balance sheet between debt and cash.

So rates may increase as is the natural plan from water services has. Correct. However, this is not for someone to be concerned that it actually has the effect of increasing rates anymore rapidly or anything of that sort.

Correct. I will say this, though. If this does not pass, we will have to pursue very high forms of cost of capital. So just to give you an example, the difference between pursuing an SRF loan for $100 million and using appropriation debt in this current rate environment that we're in would be about $70 million in incremental interest. at which case we would have to ask for significant rate increases above the ones we've been asking for year after year. Understood.

Thank you. A very good presentation, although I will note that you scare me even more than Tammy Queen. I don't know about that. Madam Chair, I move that Ordinance 260481 be reported, advance, and do pass to the full council.

Thank you. We move and second it that Ordinance 260481 be reported out of committee with recommendation of advance and do pass.

We all say aye.

All those in favor, please say aye. Sorry. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Sorry, I forgot the second half. Go ahead, Mayor.

Madam Chair, I move that Ordinance 260482 be reported advance and due pass to the full council.

Second. It's been moved and seconded that Ordinance 260482 be reported out of committee with the recommendation of advance and due pass. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. I was thinking ahead.

Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Appreciate it.

Thank you. 443, rezoning an area of about 23.5 acres generally located at 4710 Jefferson Street from District B4-5 to District MPD and approving the development plan to allow for maintenance and redevelopment of the Country Club Plaza.

Great. 46. 486 and read all three of them, please.

Yes, ma'am. 260486, amending the Plaza Bowl overlay, which was created by committee substitute for ordinance number 190100 and amended by ordinance number 220729 and which establishes use and height regulations for the area generally located on the south and north sides of West 47th Street. between Madison Avenue on the west and Mill Creek Parkway on the east in order to remove two parcels generally located on the east side of Wyandotte Street and between West 46th Terrace on the north and West 47th Street on the south from the overlay district. 260-445, 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.

Right. Ms. Copeland, let's set aside the vacation for a while. Let's start with the MPD plan and if you will give us an update and talk about the new ordinance and how that interplays with the MPD. So let's start there, I think. And whatever else information you have for us.

Sure. So first, just a reminder, there is not yet a committee sub before you all. So since we last presented this to you last Tuesday, we have had several conversations with the plaza development team about what was contained in the design guidelines and the conditions and deviations in the introduced ordinance. And they have shared with staff an updated version of their design guidelines document. And we've had a lot of discussion about how perhaps the conditions and the deviations could be revised. I think that you have a couple of proposed committee subs that might be shared with you. One, we would note that there does need to be a correction in the legal descriptions from the, there was a parcel that was included erroneously. We've discussed quite a bit revising things to remove references to digital signage in the plaza. We've had some discussion in the design guidelines about adding some additional design guideline language for taller buildings. And they have also proposed some revised language to make the design guidelines, I would say stronger in general, more, you know, striking the word consider and using language like use, utilize. We've had some discussion about changes to the deviations related to our update to the parking ordinance, and just some clarity around what is required for both vehicle parking and for bicycle parking. And then we've also discussed changes to a salvage plan for Block F. If that were to be redeveloped, that's the old Sears building where the theater used to be. Changes related to, I'm leaving something out, Dustin, but now I don't see where it is in my notes.

Process.

And some other changes regarding doing an inventory of items that aren't attached to a building, so fountains of public art sculptures, and noting that if any changes were to be made, that there has to be a plan submitted about how those items would be preserved. I think that would be another notable change that we've discussed. So I'm happy to answer any questions or to dive further into any of those details. I'd also be happy at this point to discuss the ordinance 26486 regarding the plausible overlay, if you...

Yes, why don't you go ahead and do that, because I think there's some questions about why this was introduced and what role that has in the overall NPD plan. Sure.

So, Ordinance 26486 that was introduced last week and is before you for the first time today, would it be an amendment to the plausible overlay? This was discussed before CPC with the original NPD. Again, here's the site and the midtown area of the city and you all are familiar with the area that's included in the mpd plan i would note that there are two parcels here at the corner of lion dot and west 47th street that are not owned by the general plaza ownership they're owned by commerce bank and they are located within the plausible overlay so this map shows you in blue the area that is defined by the zoning ordinance as being part of the Country Club Plaza. That's in blue. And then in orange is the area that's governed by the Plaza Bowl overlay, which was adopted as ordinance 190100. And so these two parcels are in that area. We had discussed as part of this an amendment to the Plaza Bowl to take those out. And after some additional discussions, decided that would be cleaner. as a separate ordinance rather than being included in the MPD rezoning. One of the plan sheets that's included in the MPD does show these two parcels in green with the crosshatch is being removed from the plausible overlay. This is important for two reasons. We're concerned about conflicts between the adopted and adopted MPD and the overlay. One would be in terms of height. The plausible overlay does establish lower height limits for those two, but also in terms of permitted uses. There are some differences between the uses that are permitted or permitted with an S special use permit or prohibited. in the plausible overlay and what's being proposed in this MPD. And I've summarized a few of them here in this slide. We feel that making this change will provide some clarity to staff and the developer in the future. And that's why we're showing this as a separate ordinance. And again, this came before City Plan Commission with the MPD in general, and they did recommend approval. And I'm happy to answer any questions you might have.

And just to be clear, those two parcels while not owned by the group are included in the MPD plan. Yes, they are. And I think that was the offer. I think there was some discussion last week about what the applicant or the owners suggested committee substitute or suggested changes. included removing those two parcels from the overlay, but the suggestion of staff was to have that as a separate ordinance so it would be cleaner because there's a map that says those parcels. And if you go back to the slide number four, if you will, the area in blue is is a separate, it has separate rules covering it than the parcels, the parcels in orange. Yes. So, I think that is, in my mind, that is why dealing with it separately. It's very complicated. It took me a while and a few maps to, to go through the process because we have different ordinances, different places in which the restrictions are included. Some are in the code, some are in ordinances. So I just wanted to make it clear for everyone because I know there are some questions and why we're doing this. Councilman Duncan.

Yes, Madam Chair. I have failed to communicate to the clerk, but I would like to be added as a co-sponsor for 260486.

So, for those in the audience, this is a new ordinance. We will take testimony in a bit on the sole issue of removal from these two parcels from the overlay district. I would ask that you combine your testimony specifically to whether or not to exclude these two parcels from the Plaza Bowl Overlay District. But I think we should go back to the original kind of overarching topic of the MPD ordinance and kind of the questions that we have. And I think that you've mentioned, Ms. Copeland, the possibility of some committee substitutes, which I think that have been suggested, and there are some that have been agreed to from the owner's side, and how we proceed with them. And perhaps I think from ease of discussion from the council, because we will not take additional testimony on the MPD, I think we have taken significant testimony on that. We received substantial email testimony, which I think has all been attached to the clerk's website, is kind of walking through each of those and preparing a committee substitute at this point. So if I think we should start with each of those items and have that discussion. I think the one item you mentioned, which was a Probably non-controversial is the removal of the parcel that is not adjacent to the plaza. I think it's actually in the Waldo area. I believe that is a property owned by the owners of the plaza. It is used as a storage or maintenance facility. Yes, ma'am. And so that is something, unless anyone has objection, we will remove that from the NPD plan. The second question would be perhaps the loading and unloading spaces. Is that the next one? Or Sarah, do you want to walk us through?

From the introduced ordinance, staff would suggest that condition number three could be struck. It's no longer needed because of the updated parking ordinance. We would suggest striking condition number six because that would be addressed by a couple of deviations that the applicant has requested. That's with regards to loading and unloading in the right-of-way. We don't actually have a city plan commission was supportive of this approval to allow them to use the right-of-way for loading and unloading. That's something that happens now. It's just that we can address that with a deviation because those are standards contained in the ordinance.

Let me stop you there. Dustin, do you have the presentation that you have your list of requests available? I'm just wondering if there's a way that we could put some of this up on the screen.

If you'll give me just a minute, let me pull my laptop up and see if I have a presentation that may help facilitate this really quickly, Councilwoman.

All right. Go ahead and let's, I think we can, I don't want to take up too much time, but I know we had that last week.

Madam Chair, just to nail down where we are, I know that on Friday we had a conversation and you had prepared 10 major points that we wanted to ensure were included in a committee substitute. From what I understood, Sarah had spoken with, I believe it was Chris, on Friday. There's been additional... Documents flying, I think, as early as this morning. I would love for us to nail down where the gaps are between the 10 points that we had agreed to, Mayor's staff was in that meeting as well, and where the plaza folks are to see if we can get something out today.

looking for that list of 10 items unless you have i can go i think the uh go ahead well if i may yeah just for for clarity for those of us who aren't quite as uh involved i mean does city planning and development have its own if you were to draft a committee substitute have a version of that have the plaza as the applicant seen or at least Do you have an understanding for what are the proposals of city planning and development?

I believe that we have a spirit of probably where staff is. I have not seen verbatim what they may have drafted. We had an extremely productive meeting Friday and have had additional conversations. So I would, I think... Holistically, we're probably on the same page, if not on the same verse, but I have not seen final language. I'm happy to step through that in real time and hammer this out today.

Because what, yeah, because my thought might be if there is a committee substitute that would be worthy of our review, and perhaps you have sent it, but if that could be circulated to the committee, in the form, I'll make it mine since thank you for following the rules that we do the committee subs. Sometimes people forget that. But I'd be happy to circulate this as a potential committee substitute that I will introduce and then to the councilman's point, perhaps that's the subject of our discussion where both the applicant and others that we have heard from have a chance to inform our viewpoints. So, can you?

Yes, and we can send it right now. That's actually what we were working from. Oh, that's what you're reading off of. We were working from, so I think it's, yeah. I think if we can, let me see. I will send it right now. But I think kind of highlighting the big points of this, so those in the audience will know as well. But I think the parking and loading, having a... A salvage plan with respect to Block F, which is the Sears building, or Sears Block. Within, I can't talk and send an email at the same time, so. Jonathan, do you have it?

I will pull it up.

I think another large one while you're pulling that up, if you don't mind, Chairwoman, was the removal of digital signage throughout the plaza. So that was something we had a great discussion with staff on Friday. We've agreed to remove digital signage as a provision. Just hitting some highlights here while you guys pull up those documents. We also had some conversation and some refinement related to monument sign location, so that would be kind of monument signs in the right-of-way, really focused on visibility triangles and really kind of tightening that up. We also, Sarah mentioned this, but I think it's important to highlight any new multifamily development would be required to provide long-term bike parking as required by city code. which we think is important and was our intention. So some of this was just ensuring that everybody's intention was captured through the deviations and or the design guidelines. Speaking to the design guidelines, as Sarah mentioned, we did spend a significant amount of work tightening up that language, removing the word consider and adding stronger language in there like utilization or use. We also added a section related to buildings that could be greater than eight stories, putting additional design controls there within the design guidelines. So I think that kind of at a high level is a few to kind of help as you look through your email there or send it out to the committee?

Yes. Time, Phil. Yes, thank you. So it was the salvage plan, shade study. I don't think we've touched on the council appeal provisions within the original master plan development, which would essentially provide an additional appeal to council from any CPC decision. And then the phasing, I think there is additional phasing plan for this. And then thank you for touching on the design guidelines. I can't stress enough that the design guidelines, you know, given the community's concern regarding height, are paramount. And parking signs, which you touched on, fencing, and that's the bulk of it. Yeah.

And I think the question on fencing, I don't think that has been addressed. I think it was just a question. There was a condition that the deviation to allow six-foot fence in the front and side yard. Can you just comment about why that is necessary? And this is more of a question and it was unclear to me why that was necessary. Yeah.

I'll do my best here. So I think our concern is it exists today. And I'll use some examples kind of closer to Brush Creek and Ward Parkway. We have a lot of existing buildings out there today that have trash compactors and dumpsters. As I read the existing code related to fencing and screening, those are probably not in compliance today. And so we have a little heartburn as we begin to do renovation and redevelopment that the ability to screen a trash compactor might require a fence greater than four feet, and I think that would be in the side yard, because the way I interpret the code as it exists today, the side yard, some of those dumpsters and facilities would be within there. So we would want a fence potentially greater than four feet there. So that's our concern. I don't think this is a major sticking point, Chairwoman, but that's our perspective as we sit today.

And that, I think in the committee substitute, that deviation was left in there in number, what the committee substitute in C8 was allowed. So it's more relating to fencing and screening as opposed to putting a full fence around the building?

Absolutely. Our intention here, and if there's a language cleanup, I'm open to it. Our intention is not related to security fencing or fencing off any portion thereof. It's more of a screening.

So I think, you know, looking at the committee substitute that is being proposed by CPC staff, or not CPC staff, but planning department staff, I think the only... Ms. Copeland, on C11.

I put it at the top of your inbox.

For a deviation in the height of block nine, or block D, I'm sorry.

So if you remove those two parcels from the plausible overlay, that deviation is not needed. Okay.

Got it.

All right. So... Are there other, apart from what is being discussed so far, are there other deviations that you are seeking than what we've talked about?

I don't believe so.

And you're not seeking the appeal from the commission?

We are fine striking that deviation.

Are there any other questions?

The committee substitute would reflect what I guess we've now circulated. You can call it the mayor's committee substitute to make it easier for council, which would reflect entirely the city planning and development department committee substitute.

Yes. I'm sorry to interrupt. Can I just ask one clarifying question? We had a kind of last minute discussion about signage.

Sarah?

Yes, that I don't think was included in what I first received, but maybe you've updated that in the draft that you sent to the mayor.

I have not. Outdoor advertising? A point of just procedure. Should I email this to the committee?

I think the... This committee said? I think we have. Okay. Kutzman-Duncan has. So this, the red line that shows all what is being proposed by the planning staff, the deviations, has been emailed.

It does include the additional deviation that you and I discussed this morning with regards to signage. Okay.

So I'm going to call for public testimony for ordinance number 260486. This is relating to the removal of the two parcels from the Plaza Bowl overlay. I have three cards. I'm just going to call each of them. Ethan Starr, Vicki Notais, and Amelia McIntyre, if you will just go ahead and come forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name is Vicki Notice. I live at 14 East 55th Terrace, and I'm speaking on behalf of the organizations and the neighborhood coalition that's had concerns about the MPD. Our concern today, well, one, apparently you guys had a meeting Friday that hashed out a bunch of details. We've been asking questions since Friday and haven't received any answers about them, so excuse us if we're behind the eight ball here. I don't think there's any reason to take these two parcels out of the overlay to accomplish what you want to do for the same reason we didn't take the entire MPD out of the overlay. When we talked to the Gillen Group early on last year, the year before about the benefits of staying in the overlay, which are as important to them as anybody else who is around it, is that it protects you from, unwanted uses if you go back to B45. B45 is a horrible zoning category, which we've been trying to get rid of for years. And the only way we've been able to do that is with an overlay. If these two parcels ever revert back to B45, everybody's in trouble because of the uses that are allowed. You don't get anything. You can build stuff without even coming to the city at all and just go get a building permit for some of this stuff, which includes some of the uses that are excluded. So it seems to me like the best thing to do is treat this like we did in the first ordinance with the MPD, don't rezone it from B45 because it's not B45. Rezone it from the overlay with whatever it is you want in there the same way you did as the MPD because any parcels that come out of the overlay, you're going to see a domino effect of everybody else who wants out of the overlay. When they were, when it was first discussed and first passed, most of the property owners which are the orange ones, multiple property owners in there which is why it was done after the first one which was all owned by highwoods at the time is that they all said well we'll agree to this we'll come into this as long as everybody stays in this because if somebody else wants out then we want out that's going to create huge problems in the future for everybody and including the gillen group so my request is that if you're going to do a separate substitute committee substitute for this, that you change it to not get rid of the overlay, just amend the overlay the same way you're amending the first one. So that that's more consistent than taking this out of the overlay entirely, which I'm still not sure why we're doing that. But please consider not taking it out of the overlay. Thank you.

Amelia McIntyre. In this context, I'm representing both Plaza Westport and Parkway Towers as both were very much involved in the passage of Ordinance 19-0100. That was very involved and it took a lot of collaboration with those owners along the north. We are very concerned about the precedent that this will set for others to come in. So suddenly we have a height war going on to the detriment of everyone else who's already invested in their homes, in their businesses along that perimeter. Building an ability to rely on what zoning is in place is important. What I just heard, and we not have the benefit of seeing the committee sub, so we're fencing in the dark. But what I heard is that the deviation imposing a height limit was no longer necessary. Why is that? Does it revert to B45 at some point, which is unlimited height? That is very concerning to us. That was the purpose of Ordinance 19-0100, not passed all that long ago, and it was very important and engaged many people in the community. We fear that that is being overlooked, that public engagement to keep those buildings, and when you do this, you know the next people are going to be asking is David Block for the Plaza Medical Building that's got the murals on it at 4620 Mill Creek Parkway, another height. It's going to be other owners, and you've started a war of height. 1901 was to do a plan to be implemented and honored. And that put a height on site D that's being ignored. Thank you.

Ethan Starr from Historic Kansas City. I'll speak very briefly just to the buildings affected by this ordinance. Completed between 1923 and 1924, the set of buildings we see along 47th Street, Wyandotte, Mill Creek Parkway, this established the original nucleus of the plaza. The adjacent Tower and Wolferman's buildings, that's a Commerce Bank building along 47th Street and Wyandotte, the latter serving as home to Commerce for many decades, were among the first buildings of the plaza. Our interpretation over the last decade here has been that the 45-foot height limit has protected these buildings from demolition. That's all there is essentially in terms of zoning protections that disincentivize demolition. That would be going away if this rezoning were to go through. The related MPD plan proposes, of course, a height of 178 feet for this block while demarcating a boundary of only 20 feet behind these historic storefronts the exterior storefronts at which construction of a tower could reach that full height. The narrow buffer here comes from the character contributing designation created by the applicants which proposes, the proposal extends to a few buildings on this block but notably excludes both of the wine dot facing exterior facades of the two buildings subject to the rezoning This is a mistake which city planning staff recommendations sought to remedy months ago and which should be addressed in a committee substitute. All plaza buildings, we believe, over a century in age are worthy of the character contributing status and should be granted it. These buildings are over 75 feet in depth at even their narrowest point, and there's nothing in the MPD associated with this rezoning that would stop the demolition of the vast majority of the building footprint. It's our view that at least the first 45 feet toward the street front of these buildings should be left off limits to demolition, and otherwise we're putting ourselves at risk of a facadectomy. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Howard, there's someone online, is there?

No, ma'am. OK.

I will bring these two items back to committee. We'll hold up on the vacation. Councilman Duncan.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I want to address the concerns raised regarding height. We've had a lot of discussions about the future of the plaza, the history of the plaza, and where we want to see the plaza to go. We've had a lot of conversations. There's been a lot of debate at the Port Authority and other places regarding incentives. I believe that by ensuring that we have established strong design guidelines in this master plan development, that the character of the plaza will be maintained. Councilman Vu and I traveled to Dallas. We visited Highland Park and saw the great care that you all have taken care of in that development. And I trust that with these design guidelines established within this master plan development, that that care will continue regardless of how high the buildings are. Additionally, I believe that the plaza is one of the most densely populated places in Kansas City other than downtown. I think that it can handle the density. I think it will be good for the plaza. And I think when we think about the future incentive requests, that that brings some of that down to earth, provides better pay for our teachers, that provides better protections for our libraries, and protects our tax and jurisdictions and our children. And so for those reasons, I support additional height on the plaza, and I want to make that clear. All right. Are you ready for motions?

Let me check one thing. Councilman Bunch. Councilman Bunch, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Yeah, I stepped in midway through the presentation here, and I was trying to figure out where we are with maybe what Councilman Duncan just mentioned. Is this committee substitute envisioning increasing the height or what exactly are we because because I share some of the same thoughts is that you know on one hand we're obviously we're trying to we're really trying to balance historic preservation place preservation of place architectural character balancing that with the need to increase housing density, increase housing options. We need to build more housing, period. That's a policy goal of this body's, and perhaps which one outweighs, I think that's what this committee is really charged with here. But then the other part of that, as Councilman Duncan mentioned, was that you get a higher economy of scale with density in so many ways, but particularly in this case, potentially, as we've discussed in the past, potentially on the overall value of the incentive request. And how much can that come down with added density? I think that's still a question that needs to be answered, one that I've asked and would appreciate more clarity on. But I think when we're talking about the balance between these two things, I think Councilman Duncan is absolutely right that there are design guidelines in place and already protections on essentially all of the plaza from demolition, with maybe some exceptions as was discussed previously. are we preserving buildings or are we preserving a view? And I think that if we're talking about preserving a view, then I'm always going to lean in the direction of adding density, in this case, adding some height, because it does two things. more efficient delivery of services for the rest of the city, including reduction of potentially the incentive requests. And two, it adds more housing into the market here. And I'm sorry, but we have to rethink what the plaza looks like. I know that everyone agrees to that, but when we constantly, and I say all these things as a former representative of this, this used to be in the fourth district, and so I hope I'm not stepping on toes of the sixth district, but we have to diversify the quote unquote portfolio of land uses because We hear all the time about how the plaza retail environment, retail environment period is struggling. The way that we address that is by adding more rooftops, in this case more people, and to help balance out that portfolio event. So I know that that is a tough balancing act, but in the end, We've got to add more housing to the city, and we've got to diversify the land uses and the building types and the housing types in this district in order for it to continue to thrive, I would argue, in order for it to survive, not just thrive. So I'll just leave it at that.

May I clarify something about the committee, Saad? So their submitted plan sheets show the developers requested heights for each block, If you in the committee sub removes the deviation about the plausible overlay, if you're going to take those two parcels out, if city plan commission recommended lowering heights on two blocks and that is a condition that's still in the committee sub, if you wanted to go with the heights requested by the developer, you would want to remove condition 12b from the committee substitute. That was the recommendation from CPC.

Understood.

Ming?

Ming. I had a chance to see Highland Park last year. I think it was. And one of the things that really stuck out to me was a, I don't know, six or seven story building. You might remember which building I'm talking about that you used as an example to explain how good design can make sure height is not overbearing or overwhelming. And it was dimensional. kind of stair-stepped up. If you were standing at the base of the building, it did not feel like you were under a big, big, large building. When you stepped away, it was much larger than you realized, but still done in a way that did not seem overbearing. I guess two-part question. One, is that similar approach your intent with the kind of heist you want to build into these locations on the plaza?

Yes, so to answer your question there, I think that is a very good example that you saw in person of a project we've completed previously. As it relates here, we firmly believe that the experience within the streets are really the first 30 feet is very important. And so you'll see within the design guidelines, there's a chart. that is established as setbacks and stepbacks throughout the plaza for any vertical development. It also creates buffer zones around existing vertical towers and cupolas, those type of vertical elements that are so important to the plaza today. So we believe that that sets kind of the bare minimum standards, so to speak, right? Those guardrails. And then also we've created in the design guidelines and as part of the MPD, FAR regulations as well that will begin to allow our designers some flexibility, right? It's not highly prescriptive, but it again sets those kind of design parameters around that. So we ensure that we create buildings that we say we don't want a building that just fell out of the sky or fell off a piece of paper that's not contextual and it does not interfere or interrupt the experience that exists today so we think that we've crafted through the design guidelines and through a lot of work with with staff and other consultants those guardrails and guidelines that mold the final design okay and that was my second question for staff was if that is included in the guidelines sounds like it is so

Yes, they've added tall building section to the design guidelines, and the plan sheets note that the floor area ratio, maximum floor area ratio for this entire area would be six.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I offer a motion to you. I think the only thing that I would add to this is, although I did serve on the Board of Zoning Adjustment for a while, four years, and then the the predecessor to the neighborhood planning development committee. I don't pretend to know everything, and I have not been in all the meetings, so I put a lot of faith first in our city planning commission, city planning and development, and then certainly my colleagues for the district, as we did in 2019 with the passage of a prior ordinance, and as I'll do this time. So I'll make a following motion to advance and do pass recommendation committee substitute for ordinance 260443 with the following additional modifications. Removal of section 12B from the staff committee substitute, which is actually the mayor's committee substitute, and then I would add a $5,000 appropriation to ensure communication and notice of changes pursuant to the ordinance. I'd be the committee substitute. Second.

Okay, it's been moved and seconded. The committee substitute for ordinance number 260443 be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes. We will now take out the removal, the next ordinance before we do the application.

4-4. So 4-4. Oh, we'll do the first one.

Yes. That would be... 4-8-6. I've lost my agenda.

4-8-6. Yes. Need any overlay?

Yes.

Madam Chair, there's no committee substitutes to this item.

There's no committee substitute for this. And let me just check real quick.

I would move a recommendation of advance and do pass item 260486 to the full council. Second.

Moved and seconded that ordinance number 260486 be reported out of council committee with recommendation advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, the motion passes. Now let's go to the vacation ordinance. Councilman Ray, I know you had some questions. Do you want to?

I did.

I don't want to put you on the spot, but you did last time.

I'll pose the question to who is in the best position to answer it. Probably an attorney of some sort, any one of us, maybe legal. My question is about implications for the First Amendment and what the vacation would mean. I know that there are items that the CPC required in regard to 24-7 pedestrian access, but it doesn't really get at the conduct while accessing the sidewalk, whether it's protesting, reporting, standing on the corner like the folks that preach. And so, If this is going to become privatized, then those rights are applied in a different way. And I know that there is a code of conduct. I know that it has to be listed publicly. I am concerned about taking space that has all the protections of the First Amendment and changing that, no matter what the intent might be in a code of conduct or what might be spelled out in a code of conduct, which I don't know is legally binding sure isn't as ironclad as constitutional rights. And so I guess maybe my question initially is for legal. When we vacate sidewalks, how does the First Amendment apply or not apply moving forward? And then I think my follow-up question will be for you all and how you will exercise whatever changes there are.

Sarah Baxter's looking at me, so I'll ask her to back me up here.

Oh, okay. Yeah, I'm happy to take it. So, I mean, if it's vacated, it's private property, right? So it's no longer going to be a traditional public forum like it would be as a sidewalk. We do have some conditions in the ordinance, one of which includes their code of conduct. We also have, obviously, the provisions about 24-7 access, but there isn't anything that addresses protests or whether that would be allowed. I think their code of conduct, it's not attached. It's pretty general. I would interpret that to give them the right to prohibit that conduct if it became disruptive. Is somebody able? Yeah, somebody's putting it on the screen. That sort of thing. So it is different. It's not, it wouldn't be considered a traditional public form anymore for First Amendment purposes.

Correct. Okay. And what can you tell us about the enforceability of the Code of Conduct? Well, I mean, if let me put it this way, both their ability to enforce it and our ability to ensure that it is not being enforced in a discriminatory manner.

So I would say they would have the ability to enforce this because it would be private property. In terms of our ability to, there's a general section in the easement which we're still negotiating. which addresses a breach. And so if we believed that they were being too stringent with that, we could pursue perhaps an injunction to try to resolve that. I mean, the first step would be to give them notice under the easement as they drafted it. But if we were not able to come to a consensus, I think that would ultimately be the remedy for that.

And as I'm looking through the list here, just about every one of these seems to correlate with something already included in our code that would make any of this activity already prohibited or criminal. And so, what is the vacation in this code of conduct give you that you would not already be able to rely on that's in our code that you could call the police for?

Matt has a brief answer because this came up in Westport. opposite sides of the same coin, the Second Amendment concern is the one that I would have some sort of issue with, and the carrying of firearms and others on the property, if it remains our traditional, not just only a public forum, but public space, certain abilities to control carrying in certain spaces and to enforce the possession of firearms and the types of carry would be rather different, i.e., they just can, as compared to private property owners having something different. I think I've raised it once before in some discussion. That's my primary concern. MR.

Westport enforces that for the most part is through metal detectors and checkpoints. And I know there's something in here, and I hear you, I know there's something in here that says you're not doing that stuff, so that's great. How do you otherwise, what's, how do you enforce, you know, Second Amendment in that situation or the possession of a firearm where it's not allowed and I suppose it gives you some power after the fact if someone has a gun where they're not supposed to in your prosecution, but not necessarily preventative if you're not doing anything to ensure it's being complied with. And so I hear you that it would be great to make an area where that prohibition exists, but it doesn't really give you any proactive power unless you're doing something to screen people.

I would argue that if you actually see the weapon, and that does happen in these districts and areas, you would be able to ask the person, much like inside any other type of property where you don't have metal detectors up front. And we have many buildings like that in this city. You can't ask the person to leave. That establishes your trespass rights as the property owner. it certainly gives you more steps. And this is the central and essential legislative tool that allows you to do so. Without it, you actually just don't have that right at all. And so you're caught fairly far beyond the eight ball, in my opinion, in terms of being able to address that concern.

Yeah. And so is that the Is that the reason for the request for the vacation is to...

I'm happy to answer that from our perspective. Thank you, Mayor, for your perspective as well. So it's really a two-part thing here as it relates to sidewalk vacation from our perspective as ownership. One is we are highly focused on the experience of someone has in a place. and that goes from the visual appearance from the physical appearance and so sidewalk vacation cuts out this whose responsibility is it to maintain the sidewalk and invest as you look at our design guidelines and our plans we intend to heavily reinvest within that sidewalk space and so having those sidewalks be under our control and authority in a long-term position gives us certainty in that level of financial commitment on the reconstruct. That's one piece of it. Secondly, and you note this, the rules and regulation or the code of conduct does mirror many existing city codes and ordinances. What I find across the country dealing with public space is oftentimes, even though that may be in your ordinance, enforcement may not follow that, right? That is a low priority oftentimes for law enforcement. And so what I have found and we have found historically is when we have an additional layer in there. Our private security and or law enforcement sometimes are more willing to address infractions that may already be city code and really have no additional bearing on the code of conduct. And so that's kind of a two-part answer to your question, hopefully, sir. Do you have to have control of the sidewalks to invest in them? we would prefer to have control of the sidewalks to make long-term capital investments. Yes, sir. Yeah.

I don't even prefer it, but you don't actually have to have it. If you were wanting to work with the city to invest in the sidewalks, we would still maintain the asset or liability, depending on how you see it. But you would still be able to put those investments and work with the city on the sidewalks and those kinds of improvements. There's nothing that would prohibit a public-private you know, work in relationship to do so?

Correct.

And is, are your private security not able to address these types of activities if the land is, if the sidewalks are publicly owned?

I would say what we run into is if we do have an issue of non-compliance, oftentimes law enforcement may say, well, that's a public sidewalk. They can do whatever they want. I run into that across the country. That's not picking on any law enforcement here. I deal with that across the country.

Yeah. I would hope our folks are a little... a little more aware. We've had several go-arounds this last year in conversations about loitering and ordinances we've passed, and I would hope that they're in a good position to know what activity they can address and what they can't address. Honestly, what you're saying sounds like a cop-out and seems more like a training issue rather than an application of the law. Okay, yeah, my concerns are First Amendment implications, and when you're taking an asset out of the public realm, specifically one that folks have a very strong expectation around, that changes things, and I don't know that I'm ready to make the move and deprive folks of that exercise of the First Amendment, right? And I'm not talking about scenes of the plaza where there are large-scale demonstrations that turn destructive. I'm thinking of recent peaceful protests of folks walking up and down the sidewalk. I'm thinking of the guy that I usually walk past that's not really listening to what he's saying, but he's reading something from some religious text, whatever it might be. I just have concerns about that.

To those examples, if I may. To those examples, and I think if you go one slide up. Oh, back, back. One more. Other direction.

Yeah, I was going to suggest that, thank you, because we were kind of cut off and they provide examples. Are there more below? Yeah. Of things that aren't allowed that are quite broad, some of them. Horseplay, dressing inappropriately, that sort of thing, so.

I do want to highlight, if I may, briefly here. We think, and I go back to the experience, we think great places have that stickiness and kind of have some unexpected nature. We want people to be walking through the plaza. We are happy for people to have the ability for their free expression under the First Amendment. Where I would ask for a change in behavior would be very offensive aggressive nature of a sign or something that interrupts that, or blocking of the sidewalk. And I think we can all agree that if you are expressing your First Amendment but preventing people from entering a store or something of that nature, that creates an experience interruption. And so we think that that's very important. But I did want to highlight here activities that we believe would be allowed throughout here. And so that's really important. And that also speaks to photography, to videoing, again, what we don't want to see without a permit. And I think this actually aligns with the way that you manage some of your parks here locally. You know, if you're setting up tents and bringing in catering trucks and having, you know, a production to shoot a commercial, we ought to be aware of that. And I think that's a baseline expectation or I would hope it is within your city. So I did want to kind of highlight, we agree with you in the fact that people should come down to the plaza and express themselves. I think it's a great place to do that. And I think that your recent examples of folks walking through the plaza, You know, quite frankly, whether the sidewalks are vacated or not, that's out of our control when someone comes down there. So hopefully that helps some of your concerns. Yeah, I appreciate that.

I believe you. I think you understand very well what makes a dynamic and interesting environment and includes things like that. And I don't doubt at all that you understand that. Once we make that vacation, we lose a lot of authority and I am hesitant to make such a permanent decision if the answer is we would just like the police department to be more responsive when there is certain conduct or behavior. I understand.

Councilman Rogers.

So, I mean, just a couple of obvious comments and points here. So, somebody pulls out a barbecue grill and starts grilling on the sidewalk, you're saying no to that, right?

Absolutely.

Somebody's in the city. And somebody's exercising their First Amendment rights as long as they're not being violent. You're saying that that's, as it's indicated on this presentation, they're allowed to do that.

Yes. We've also talked with labor representatives here as well to help ensure that they feel comfortable with their right to protest.

And that was my next question. So I know you've been talking to organized labor. Yes, sir. And they're comfortable with their right to protest based on your conversation.

I believe they are, yes.

And so, and I come from the state legislature, so we had a lot of fights about The second one when I was down there in Missouri is an open carry state. You can walk around with a gun all day long. But if you're in private property and you post a sign saying no firearms, then people have to comply with that or they have to leave. I would anticipate that you would have signs up on the plaza saying don't bring your gun.

We have currently not had that conversation in detail. The mayor has brought this up a couple times. Just to be very frank, our internal team has not had the discussion related to weapons.

Is it fair to say that you would discourage people walking around with guns? He's from Texas.

Yeah, you've got to be careful. Yeah. What I would say to that is, We want to make a place that people feel comfortable in. And so again, if you are walking around with a long arm, I don't know your gun regulations, but if you're walking around with a long gun, I'm probably going to ask you what your reason is.

And I wouldn't try and ask a trick question. I take my kids to the plaza all the time. I would rather not see guns on the plaza. So I appreciate what you're doing. I'm glad that Labor's on board with their ability to exercise their First Amendment right, and I do hope that you continue to invest. So thank you. Thank you, sir. If I could just add one more point on that.

He didn't ask if Mr. Jackson could stand on the sidewalk and broadcast.

He certainly can. Oh, that's what this is turning on. Go ahead. But I think that's what the core of this is, is who's making a determination on whether or not a constitutional right exists or you're going to impose a restriction that is consistent with the constitutional right. Those are two very different things. If you're telling me that right now people's speech is protected by someone who is instilled with the power by the United States Constitution to protect that speech versus someone who's not under that requirement but is saying that, yeah, we're going to work really hard to make sure free speech is protected, those are two very, very different things, in my opinion. And I think that's the difference, is well-intentioned folks saying, well, yeah, we're gonna let everyone exercise their freedom of speech. That's great, I appreciate that, I believe you, but you're not required to do that by the Constitution. And there are, I think, very important legal distinctions between how an infringement on speech would be analyzed under those two very different situations. One would be legal, and one would be not legal. That's all I have to say on that. I think that's an important point here.

Madam Chair, may I just make a clarifying point? I'm looking at the Code of Conduct on the website. This is not part of that. The reason I mention that is because the ordinance incorporates the Code of Conduct into the easement agreement. I don't know if somebody wants to show that, but it mentions as examples that would be violations, dressing inappropriately, running, horseplay, things like that, soliciting of any kind. So this slide is not part of that. So if you're interested in incorporating this into the agreement, I think you need to add that to the ordinance.

I'm going to make a motion soon. I'll just make my one public point. I'm scared of my kid getting murdered in this godforsaken place where there are guns everywhere. I mean, we can have a chat on that some other time. It's probably my biggest fear. I appreciate, and largely there's nothing, and you guys do what you're going to do, I guess. But there's almost nothing we can do about that here other than, and it's a big legislative problem, but I don't think I would be elected governor soon. So I think allowing private spaces to be able to create, I think as you described it, the most comfortable environment possible for families and others to be part of things in this city is a positive. I've been mayor for seven years now. I've been around way too many public forum massacres or shootings and others. And I think that this is a creative way to continue to balance the First Amendment rights at issue with the very real, I think, other issues that we may face. And it's a balance that we struck legislatively in other parts of the city, and frankly, I think it's a novel way to approach it. What I may offer is a motion with a recommendation of advance and due pass. It'd be a committee substitute, in the same way I did before, that adds a $5,000 appropriation for communications and notice. relating to now the vacation issue. I realize in a prior motion, I did not include a fund source, which would be the Development Services Fund, by the way. And yes. That's the motion. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 60445 be reported as a committee sub. Committee sub, sorry. Thank you. Be reported out of committee with a recommendation of advance and do pass all those in favor. Please say aye aye aye any opposed the motion passes Oh Any opposed no The motion passes three to one sure if I may just very briefly recall item for the same reason in some ways that I have before Item two six zero four eight six.

I would add the same appropriation from the development services fund so I would move for a We move for reconsideration, and if I can combine them, you're the person who gets to review all these motions. Move for reconsideration and put in that a motion, advance and do pass a committee substitute that has $5,000 appropriation from the Development Services Fund. This is on 260486. We've been accelerated. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number 260 committee substitute for 260443 be reported out of committee with recommendation.

486 on this. Or maybe I didn't do the other one. We voted on the other one. This is going to be 486.

Oh, 486. Be reported out of committee with recommendation of plans to do pass. On the committee substitute. On the committee sub, yes. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Do we get that right, Sam? Thank you.

I understand the intent. We'll get it done.

All right.