Finance, Governance and Public Safety Committee - Regular Meeting

Welcome to budget week, the end of a budget season. We do have I good I am Andrea Boo. I will call the 03/24/2026 finance and public safety committee meeting to order I am andrew a chair of the finance committee I will ask my colleagues to introduce themselves

west rogers second district chris benerea fourth District

general curls 5th District At Large.

And if my colleagues who are joining us would introduce themselves, starting with my esteemed colleague from the 6th District to my left.

Jonathan Duff in 6th District.

And my colleagues to the right are esteemed too, but but

Kevin O'Neill, first district at large.

Definitely to the right. Nathan Willard, first district.

Lindsey French, second district at large.

Good morning. Melissa Robinson, 3rd District.

And mayor, if you want to introduce yourself. My

name is Quentin Lucas. All right.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone. We do have some additional business besides the budget to, take up before we begin that discussion. We're going to go a little bit out of order. We do have some holds, so I want to announce the holds first. Ordinance number let me consult my agenda first so I can go in order. It's number 260276 relating to a license agreement on a sculpture. This item will be held for one week until March 31. Ordinance number two six zero two seven seven. This relates to street vending.

This item will be held until August 7 at the request of the April 7.

Okay. Was like, oh.

April 7 at the request of the sponsor. Yes. Okay. Great. Bye.

Item number ordinance number two six zero two eight two regarding the Columbus Park tip plan. That item item will be held for one week. Yeah. Whenever you're here. Ordinance number two six zero two eight six Regarding the prevailing wage in MBEWBE, this item will be held for one week until March 31.

Let's see. Item number two six zero two zero five, and that's our budget ordinance. We will hear that. Two six zero two two two, that for one week. That is an item that is has been held in committee. We've already held that before. Unless there's any objection, we will hold that for one week. Let's see. And item number two six zero two five zero, unless there's any objection, we will hold that for one week as well. So I believe that is all of the holds for now.

We will start with two items out of order. I did want to mention that there are three budget items that we will read together later in the agenda. That is item 260,287. 260,205. 02/60287 relates to funding of overtime for KCPD.

02/60700 is our budget ordinance, and 260,224 is funding relating to the violence prevention fund. Those will all be discussed together with our budget ordinances. And because those are related to budget and we have had three public testimonies or public hearings related to that, we will take no additional testimony. We will begin, Howard, with ordinance number two six zero two seven eight.

Two six zero two seven eight authorizing the manager of procurement services to execute a contract amendment to EV 3,851 with trainer trainer incorporated for design professional services related to the permanent detention facility in an amount not to exceed $1,252,000 from previously appropriated funds and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effective date.

Good morning.

Good morning. Good morning. Keely Golden, assistant chief procurement officer. I have with me Rakshauna Reyes, the city architect. This ordinance is for the design services of the Community Corrections and Rehabilitation Center, the CCRC, located at Front Street.

Some history on the contract. Procurement Services issued the RFQ in late twenty twenty four, receiving submissions from four different teams in mid January twenty twenty five. Once the public safety sales tax was passed in April 2025, Trainer was selected. A contract in the amount of $300,099.99 was executed in September 2025 to begin programming the temporary detention center in advance of the permanent detention facility. A $15,000,000 sorry, 1,513,837 amendment one for site work, staff planning, and coordination was executed in 2025.

An $865,650 Amendment two for a feasibility study to relocate the CCRC to Front Street was executed in late November twenty twenty five. Today, we are requesting a $1,252,200 Amendment three for developing a concept study for both the CCRC and the relocated tow lot community engagement presentations and cost estimates as directed by ordinance 260,061, which was passed on 01/15/2026. Amendment three will be funded by ordinance 260,238, which appropriated $5,000,000 towards design of the CRC, which was passed on 03/05/2026. Rakshana will now provide details on the next steps of the process.

Good morning, everyone. I presented some of this in our previous update, but some of the next

steps I'll just briefly ask a question, madam chair. Yes. I may very well like this ordinance. Does this need to be done today? This is the broader design?

I was told that this does need to be done today.

And what's the reason it has to go to does this relate to the what we once called temporary modular?

This is for the permanent facility and the relocated to lot. It's in response to the for us to enter contracts to move forward on that. So that was directed by previous ordinance. I don't know if there's another additional reason that it needs to go today.

Just from a sheer time perspective, Madam Chair, I might just suggest that on budget day, unless unless everybody's on the same page on both a detention facility and the CRC, perhaps just a date with, frankly, a little bit more time for us would be appropriate, like next week? If it's ordinance that made us do it, then

Mayor, I asked that question, and I was told that it needed to go today. If I'm if I'm told that it doesn't need to go today, I would be more than happy because I was trying to clear our calendar. So if if if the answer is no, doesn't need to go today and it can be held, then I'm more than happy to hold it.

Morning, mister chair, madam chair, members of the committee. Jeff Martin, city manager's office. So, this particular ordinance, it's not mandated to go today per any previous council action. However, with the end of the budget year coming up and the desire by council through previous ordinances to continue to advance the design of the CCRC, it is the desire to move this forward at this time. If it's the desire of the committee to hold it one week, that would be acceptable. But we will be pushing up against the end of the fiscal year, which will delay the ultimate contracting of this particular amendment.

Madam Chair, maybe I'll just offer this as a half step for this point of the hearing. Why don't we hold this until at least the end of today's finance docket? And if we're all in a great mood to keep talking about things, then maybe that's when we would bring it back up.

That's that's fine. I think we need to hold 278 and 269 then to the end of the docket. Correct, Jeff?

Well, so so 269 is related to the Front Street Detention Facility. So that that ordinance is needed in order to keep that construction on schedule and on track.

So Okay.

So it it it really does need to go today. If we if we miss a day, I have very big concerns with getting this completed, this fiscal year in order to meet our June 1 date for that facility that's currently under construction.

If I may, Madam Chair, but you'll still be here at the end of our Finance Committee meeting, right?

I will, yes.

I'd still have both at least held to the end of the meeting, and then we

can vote. Mayor, we just had a discussion in premeeting that we would try to clear out a few items before we got to the budget meeting. I would like to clear out 275 and 276.

25.

260275. Authorizing the city attorney to execute a sole source specialized legal services contract with the law firm of Grant in Eisenhoff, PA for the provision of legal services related to certain firefighter protective gear and waiving contract solicitation and award provisions.

Good morning. Good morning. Charlotte Ferns

with the city attorney's office. This ordinance would authorize engagement of the firm Grant and Eisenhoffer to represent the city in certain litigation efforts related to property purchased by the city. I believe that there's a the contract and a great deal of information is provided in the ordinance package, and you may also have received a separate communication from the city attorney explaining our thought process in recommending engagement.

Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? Is there any public testimony for ordinance number 260,275?

There was no testimony submitted for this ordinance.

All right. I would entertain a motion.

Madam Chair, I'd recommend advance due pass and placement on the consent agenda for item 260,275.

SPEAKER: Second.

SPEAKER: Moved and seconded. All those in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? The motion passes. We will hear it on Thursday. Thank you. All right. Let's just move on to the budget ordinances.

Madam chair, we have two 60285.

Yeah. We'll we'll do it after the budget ordinances.

Okay.

Actually no. Let's do correct. Let's do two 85.

Two 60260285, declaring certain real property generally located between East 25th Street and East 26th Street and between Gillen Road and Cherry Street, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, surplus to the city's needs, authorizing director of parks and recreation to offer the sale of the city's interest in this real property in accordance with city regulations and execute related documents to complete the transfer of the real property while reserving easements as necessary for any existing city owned sewer, storm water, and waterline infrastructure on the said property.

Thank you madam chair and members of the committee. Ryan drege parks and recreation I have with me today tammy green bird from the ron mcdonald house. This is a final checkoff on our process. The sale of this park was approved by voters last April approved by our park board earlier this month, and now just need this one final agreement. We have the sale agreement in place with Ramadan House. They're gonna be expanding their footprint to help more families with sick kids, and all green space on the property will still be open to the public. I can take any questions if you have them.

Are there any questions? Is there any public testimony for ordinance number two hundred sixty thousand two and eighty five?

There's no public testimony submitted for this ordinance.

Madam Chair, I move that ordinance two six zero two eight five be reported, advanced, do pass, in placement on the consent agenda. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that ordinance number two six zero two eight five be reported out of the committee with the recommendation of advance and do pass. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? The motion passes. Alright. We'll be here on Thursday. Thank you. Great. Now 287205224.

Two six zero two eight seven. Weighing the limitations established by the fund balance and reserve policy in section two dash one nine five four of the code of ordinances. The unappropriated general fund balance appropriating $2,000,000 from the unappropriated fund balance of the general fund as a transfer to the general fund and transferring same to the police department for overtime in patrol and investigations directing the city manager to include a request for appropriation in the fiscal year twenty twenty seven first quarter ordinance for the public safety sales tax fund in an amount of $2,000,000 as a transfer to the general fund if not allocated from the public safety sales tax fund in the fiscal year twenty twenty six-twenty twenty seven budget and recognizing this ordinance is having an accelerated effect today.

All right. Good morning.

Good morning. Britton severley, deputy director for the finance department. I have with me Teresa Danielson, madam chair, mayor Lucas, and members of the committee. Before we get started into amendments, do want to hit on a couple of slides from a previous presentation when the budget was submitted as well as go over the economic outlook that's kind of revised since we last discussed the budget back on February 12, summarize some of the public feedback we had through the public budget hearings before getting into amendment A and then amendment B. There are seven amendments total that are part of the fiscal year 'twenty seven budget package.

The one that we'll be amending today is 260,205. There are two proposed amendments to ordinance two sixty-two 11. That ordinance was passed out of committee on March 10. Those will needed to be made on the floor. I will talk about those when we go through amendment B.

I did want to highlight the city's fund balance reserve policy one more time. This is the official policy used as the guideline for staff when putting together the city's budget and financial planning efforts. And as part of that policy, the city's general fund reserve should be between 1725% of general operating expenditures, and that reserve policy outlines steps that need to be taken if the fund balance reserve drops below 25%. This is a key factor in determining the city's credit rating. It's been highlighted by both rating agencies as we reviewed debt issuance for calendar year 2026.

Back when we met in October, we estimated $100,000,000 operating deficit as part of fiscal year 2027. The submitted budget closed that deficit to about $54,000,000 with an estimated ending balance in the general fund of $218,500,000 about $7,000,000 above the fund balance target of $211,000,000 and but there is still a structural imbalance between revenues and expenses that we'll continue to monitor and evaluate in future fiscal years. Since we submitted the budget since the budget was submitted in February, war in the Middle East has impacted major cost drivers for the city that could also impact revenues. Fuel being a driving determinant there, gallon of gas has gone up almost $1 per gallon since February 12. That impacts what consumers are able to buy, impacting many different tax collections within the city, and that is a component that was not factored into the fiscal year 'twenty seven budget revenues.

Additionally, increased fuel costs will drive city costs as well. There were three public budget hearings as well as a Speakeasy available for public feedback February 12 through March 7. Through those public engagement, there were more than 600 people that either attended or visited the Speakeasy website. In the public budget hearings, almost 130 people or 130 topics were commented on, and about 25 people in Speakeasy were also commented common themes were KCATA, violence prevention, homelessness, arts KCE. Before getting into amendment A, I want to hit on some of the key funds you'll see reoccurring throughout both amendment A and amendment B.

As mentioned earlier, the general fund was estimated to end the year with an ending balance of $218,000,000 Convention and tourism is estimated to end the year with a zero balance. There is an $816,000 transfer from the general fund to balance that fund in fiscal year 'twenty seven. Development services had an ending balance of $1,600,000 PMT also ended the year with a zero dollars balance with a general fund transfer of $3,800,000 And then finally, street maintenance, just under $1,000,000

I'm

going to go ahead and get into amendments, starting with amendment a. So amendment a

do you just

sorry. Let's let's just start why don't you start with the first line item, and then we will and describe it, and then we will take them up each individually.

Perfect. Sounds good. So amendment a is increase in debt service payment for the Roy Blount Luminary Park debt service. It's an increase in the appropriation in the amount of $85,000. It is from the convention and sports complex fund after this amendment, and the following one, the estimated ending balance in that fund will be about $19,800,000 This is needed due to a change in the debt service schedule associated with this particular debt issuance.

I assume we should take up the second one, too, because

They are related in terms of being both debt service. So the other one is also Barney Alice Plaza. That increases the debt service by $140,000 also from convention and sports complex.

Madam Chair, I think if we do it like last year's, we basically kind of treat it like almost an ordinance itself even if truncated. So and all of you have been on committee for a little while, nonetheless, as a reminder, we'll end up with a committee substitute for any changes, assuming So that there this is just the equivalent of what goes into our committee substitute. I'll also note for reference that amendment A is supposed to be just pure administrative changes made by staff that are more like mistakes, errors, all those sorts of things, rather than policy determinations and choices. And so in a perfect world, there shouldn't be much change. But I'll I'll just recommend then that we have amendment one and amendment two in our committee seven.

Okay. So any comments on one and two? All right? Any none?

Oh, I have

a Oh, yes.

I'm sorry.

Did you ask for questions on on amendment one or On

amendment one one and two. Lines one and two.

Lines one. Okay. I have a question on the on the I'm sorry.

I wanna give the don't

wanna I didn't see any other hands. So I was ready to move on. So go ahead.

The Roy Blunt Luminary Park debt service. I guess my concern is every month, every two weeks, we seem to be voting on something that brings us deeper and deeper into this project that we haven't actually approved yet. I'm not sure what this does, but it bothers me that I'm voting on my third Roy Park Luminary Parks Department service, and I have yet to see an approval of this project. It also concerns me while we're at it that there are two staff members on the board of this project and that would give anybody the indication that the city has already approved it, and that bothers me. So I'm just struggling with that and have been for the last three months.

So I just wanted to make that point.

I would defer to Brentin, but I think this is the existing So that so while you voted on it for three times, I think you're voting on the same thing.

Yes. Yes. There's something wrong with that process. This is

the debt service payment. So a couple weeks ago, council approved the debt issuance related to estimating and appropriating debt from back in October. Is the actual debt payment that will occur in fiscal year twenty seven. When we put together the budget, the number was just a little wrong. We had to correct it, which is why it is inherent as a technical amendment.

Yep.

Oh, I'm sorry. I couldn't see you.

That's fine. I'm so kind. Thank you, madam chair. I've also asked for a copy of the development agreement for the park. My understanding is that we're funding, several 6 figure salary staff members, and also, I think we've committed to, a little over a million dollars per year forever.

And so I would like to know how those appropriations were made because I don't recall seeing those coming to counsel and being obligated to those for the life of the asset. So I requested a copy of the development agreement. So I think that's something that we all should see and be made aware that those appropriations maybe were

made administratively? I'm not sure. Madam Chair, so the $1,200,000 that you're referencing, that would be basically it's tunnel maintenance and operation because we will effectively if this is approved and built, we will own a tunnel, and that will be over a major interstate. So it will cost money to monitor the activity in that tunnel, fire suppression, all the things. However, that we haven't done any appropriation relative to that to this point because we have not approved the project going forward.

All that has been approved thus far is $15,000,000 worth of design work to get to the point where we can then bring back a package with hopefully funding from partners, private partners and whatnot, that then we can say, okay, we have a complete program here for you to give us a thumbs up or a thumbs down. So there has not been yet any appropriation for operation and maintenance. We're not to that point yet.

I would argue that that's a $25,000,000 allocation at this point. We've got 10,000,015 million.

You you are not wrong. You're correct. Yes.

Councilman Garris.

Thank you,

madam chair. It leads me to a a question. I wasn't gonna comment on it because, you know, I voted against this every time that it could come up. So so is this I thought that in the past we voted for bonds. Is this bonds or is this actual dollars?

It's debt service on the bonds.

We have yeah, imagine just the costs to get the bonds. I don't know who exactly we're paying, but we when we approve the bond, you've got to get bond counsel, you have to get some other bond service person.

Is related

This is a cost increase to the debt service. We planned for debt service in a certain amount. What we have learned now that we are ready to go to market and we're here, we need $85,000 more in fiscal year twenty seven to actually pay the debt payments to bondholders. Thank

you, Chair. I agree with my colleagues' questions on there because especially with Councilman Patterson Hasley for already agreeing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in salaries a year, yet we're talking about $85,000 going for debt service to it. It sounds like whereas we're piecing this together, it's like it kind of needs to be all or nothing. And then I saw in the last financial report for the first time that there would be a 1.2 or $3,000,000 a year maintenance for this project, and that was something that I did not know about until we got that email. So this is continuing to grow on the request of not only private dollars, but also public dollars to get this project done.

And we all know what we are trying to do, potentially even talking about Royals downtown baseball. That is a priority over something like this. That's where my position is. Thank you.

All right.

Let's move

on. Never mind.

Oh, sorry. Okay.

Go

ahead. Row three, unhoused solutions. Is a program move between unhoused solutions and homeless prevention program as the housing department reviews these programs and broke them out in relation to priority based budgeting, the funding allocation between the two programs wasn't quite correct so this amendment makes that adjustment in the amount of $667,000 It's all general grant funds. Net impact is zero.

Questions?

Row four the fire use tax revenue. So in 2025 senate bill two seventy one was signed by the governor requiring use tax collections proportional to emergency services sales tax to be allocated to the same purpose as the sales tax. This moves $17,600,000 of revenue and expenses to the fire safety sales tax fund from the general fund. The net impact for this particular change is zero. Aircraft rescue and firefighting.

During budget discussions, we noted that this particular program within the fire department was directly placed on the aviation funds. There's some reporting requirements within the aviation department where we just can't make that work, so we're putting them back on the general fund and fire sales tax, and then there will be billings from aviation. Net impact, again, is zero. Ground emergency medical transportation. There's a state audit so this particular revenue source relates to Medicaid billings to the state for ground emergency medical transportation that the city provides.

It is typically a revenue source for the city. However, a state audit found that we had overbilled in fiscal years 'twenty two and 'twenty three. When we talk about the third quarter projections in a couple of weeks, you'll hear us talk about this again, that we will not collect any GMT revenue from the state. This amendment reduces the revenue we're estimated in the fiscal year 'twenty seven budget by $4,500,000

Okay. Keep going.

In law, sunshine request staff, dollars 146,000 to add two staff related to sunshine requests in the law department. Again, this came up in department budget presentations, and these were inadvertently excluded from the budget. Row eight, Northland Workforce Development Center. So $3,000,000 of tiff surplus was utilized to reduce borrowing costs for the northland workforce development center. This in turn then reduces a general fund transfer to support the debt service payment for the center in the amount of 269,780.

This is a net positive to the general fund by that amount. Health safety net providers. In the fiscal year twenty seven submitted budget, all of the safety net providers were in a line identified as special projects. This amendment just breaks those out as in the amounts as shown below. Net impact on this on the health levy fund is zero.

Go ahead.

Loews hotel catering agreement. We identified that there's an update to the catering agreement where a 14% of revenue transfer to the Conventions and Tourism Fund was no longer needed. We're limiting that transfer. However, both funds do receive a general fund transfer, so it's kind of just moving deck chairs, where a general fund transfer to one fund is now going to another. Net impact on all funds is zero.

I think we need the next page.

Oh, sorry. Thank you.

Right. Okay. Go ahead. Oh, wait. Wait. Councilman, I know I

Yeah. Just had a quick question on that Loews agreement. That's been a a a net loss pretty much every year. Does this change that current process where we're overfunding or we're whatever they don't come up with, we have to supplement?

I think it helps slightly.

It doesn't

correct the imbalance that we have with that agreement.

Go ahead.

Row 11. So this is related to ordinance that was passed yesterday. Still hasn't passed by committee yet. Would be or it hasn't passed out of counsel yet, rather. But if that passes, then also allocating $26,000,000 that is the amount that is above the 25% calculation from KCPD after the use tax amendment that I previously mentioned, too, that would be directed to a fund of revenue above 25%.

Right. Mayor?

So I think I mean, there are a few different steps on this amendment that seem a tinge off, and I'll speak to the ACM who was here yesterday. As I understood it, there is no change to be made in the budget as it relates to police department for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven because the amendment that I believe the city attorney is to provide us speaks to the 5,900,000.0 that is already to be allocated was to be currently is to be allocated to the legal expenses fund. As I see the effect of any change in discussion yesterday, it would simply change the name of that fund to this overage fund but would not address the other 20 well, the totally separate $26,000,000

Section one really is what this Section one of yesterday's committee said is really what this is designed to reflect. And if that's not wasn't intention of the committee to make it effective for fiscal year 'twenty seven, then that's fine.

We can I took see it to committee was that was not to be the impact that Section three is to control fiscal year 'twenty six, 'twenty seven?

Okay. Okay. And so

I would just recommend this amendment line be stricken entirely.

I don't know, Brenton, if you need an amendment then to move this 5,900,000.0 to the KCPD overage fund.

We would need so right now the budget has it going to the legal expense fund. We would at least need the 5,900,000.0 to move to the overage fund for fiscal year 'twenty seven.

That being said, since we're slightly out of sequence although we could be we appropriate to the legal expense fund, does it already exist in the budget, what does that mean? I guess it just goes to the legal expense fund. Does the city have the opportunity to transfer it to a different fund as well?

We could

We could come back in a quarterly and adjust it as well. Understood.

We could strike the

whole I would strike. Point

of clarification, madam chair.

Let me go to Willett, and then I'll come to you. Willett.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I just want to talk about how it's classified as an overage fund. The thing is we should be funding police based off the needs of our community, whether that's 20 it's normally above 25%, and that's 20 as you said, 27.7%. And I don't think it should be viewed as an overage fund. Think that should be money transferred strictly to the police department. And I also want to remind you that we are $16,000,000 short of the budget request from KCPD. So we're not overage by any mean. We're overage of the state mandated 25%, but we're still not funding the police fully as requested to be able to do what they need to do. And so I have a budget amendment later on this afternoon that will make sure we get that 16 millions put back to the police department.

But this whole overage thing, that's just political jargon. It's not overage at all. We need to be fully funding our police.

Thank you, madam chair. This is just this amendment. Britain is just a it's it's an accounting feature, right, that we're transferring one we're transferring money from one account to another with zero fiscal impact. Is that correct?

Overall,

the impact on the budget, regardless of what the outcome of this, is a net impact of zero. So whether it goes to the legal expense fund or an overage fund, the impact dollar wise on the budget is zero. But we can, as we discussed earlier, move this in a quarterly to an overage create the overage fund through a quarterly or future ordinances related to 02/60065, include language associated with that.

Madam Chair, if I may, just very briefly, and I would never disagree with Brent, you're right, net broad impact zero. We're looking we're talking about two different corpuses of funds. What came out of committee and what actually exists in the budget is $5,900,000 for a legal expense fund. To the extent that there is any change from committee discussion, it's $5,900,000 that goes from legal expense fund to overage fund, which is debate for another day of what it's called, right? The $26,000,000 though, is a material change, at least as to, I would articulate, impact, right?

Because it would then shift a large amount that was to be allocated to Kansas City Police Department into a different space. Not I'm not making you get into the substance of it, but anyway, my proposal is to strike amendment 11 anyway, we don't actually have to talk about it that long. Second. Yeah. So just I ask

a point of clarification? I I am a little bit confused. So what what's the practical impact of striking this amendment?

The budget at present would be just like the budget exists. So KCPD would get whatever amount total that we've listed. There is still separately in the world a $5,900,000 allocation that goes to a legal expense fund in a nonamendment world.

That is addressed in 02/60065. Assuming it passes on Thursday.

Like we said, we can correct that after a decision on that ordinance has been made through future processes, too. Row 12 is a so originally, the number in here referenced $68,500 for a local 500 vacancy. Just within the last twelve hours, identified a couple more local 500 vacancies that were eliminated in air. The dollar amounts for those are $249,000 from the general fund for four vacancies, 25,000 from capital expense fund for one vacancy and $117,000 for two vacancies in the water fund. We'd ask that these get added back as those vacancies were removed in error.

Row 13, economic mobility implementation. Again, ordinance 02/50176 directed the city manager to appropriate $250,000 in fiscal year twenty six and $250,000 in fiscal year twenty seven for an economic mobility strategy. That $27 amount was removed in air, adding that back as an administrative amendment. So stay true to 02/50176. Then rows fourteen and fifteen, I'll also just talk about collectively.

So 13 row 14 allocates the PIAC projects per third district funding request. Typically these are included in the submitted budget. We got the request a little bit late. Didn't have time to get this included in the budget itself. We're just having this as an amendment. It's something that finance does as part of the PIAC process. And then also on the sixth district PIAC, there's a project that was listed inadvertently, and we're correcting that with this as well.

Madam Chair, I would move then that we adopt amendment a in its entirety, recognizing the deletion of section 11. Right?

Right. It's moved moved and seconded that we adopt amendment a with the deletion of row 11. Girls?

Madam chair, I I I just really have a problem with, amend or amendment 1a with Luminary Park. I support the rest of the proposals. I just find it difficult again to vote in favor of that one. So I just I don't know about striking that one or what that effect would have on this as well. Have further discussion about that, but I'm just torn on that one.

I'll I'll just say yes to the motion. I hear you. I just, I think in some ways that the debt service and and heard on your point, but is is kind of necessary to the prior appropriation. So That's why it likely wouldn't move it for that same motion, but understand your disagreement on that point.

We can note your no vote for that reason if you

want. Yeah.

Basically we have to have that because we have to be able to demonstrate to folks that we have fully appropriated for all of our debt service.

All right. So it's been moved and seconded that we it has, yes, for adoption of amendment A minus section 11. All those in favor please say aye.

Any

opposed? No. All right. So we've adopted amendment a. We will move to amendment b.

I'm sure can

I ask

a quick question Yes? While we transition? I just wanna make sure I know where we are. Before amendment a, we were roughly $7,000,000 above the target reserve. After Amendment A, we are about $5,500,000 above the target reserve. Is that correct?

You're in luck. Have an updated So rack what kind of moves the needle on here is also the changes in expenses associated with the aircraft aviation fund as well as moving the use tax and corresponding expenses off of the general fund. That was like $17,000,000 of expenses. So when we calculate 25% of operating expenses, which is everything except for transfers, that calculation changes a little bit, too. So our year ending balance after the loss of the GMT revenue and the changes in the operating expenses is about a $59,000,000 operating deficit.

Estimated ending balance is about $214,000,000 We were at $218,000,000 The real impact on that is the GEMT, again, the fund balance target, because of all the ins and outs associated with the expenses, is $208,600,000 So we're sitting about $5,000,005,500,000 above the general fund target.

So is it fair to describe our situation now as we head into amendment B that anything that exceeds $5,488,326 puts us under our reserve target unless there is something it's being exchanged for?

Correct. And I would like us to not get to the dollar amount that we are within the submitted within that operating reserve budget if possible too.

And and so I I think as we go through this, there's I think there's about $72,000,000 in amendments on b.

Yes.

As we go through this, I think it's important we discuss what alternative sources Mhmm. Not only funds, but but if there are things outside of the budget that we can move some of these amendments to. Please proceed. Yes.

And councilman rea asked it. Yes, so we have 5,488,000.000 to play with. And

the general fund. And as we go through and look at other sources of funds, we also have to keep in mind the fund reserve policy for those funds as well.

There are several amendments that were kind of like in purpose where we've lumped them together. The easiest one we'll talk about is street resurfacing. Mayor Lucas and councilmember Rogers had street resurfacing amendments. Mayor Lucas offered $8,500,000 Councilman Rogers offered a total of 10. So what you see here is Lucas and Rogers, the $8,500,000 and then the increment for Councilmember Rogers, the $1,500,000 in combination, their two amendments would be $10,000,000 So that's how this sheet is set up.

You'll also see there were multiple amendments associated with KCATA in the next line. In terms of funding sources, general fund, we mentioned earlier, we're at about a $5,000,000 operating deficit. The capital improvements fund, there were several there's about $1,000,000 in ending balance in that fund for fiscal year 'twenty seven. Projects would have to come off. There's about $13,000,000 in projects in the capital improvements five year forecast that would need to that could come off to supplement this fund as well.

I think my first ask would be if councilman Rogers is amenable to just the $8,500,000 which then leads me to a discussion of because I don't love using general fund, but I'm going to move to there's a TIF surplus source in the ether? So there

is TIF surplus out there. We distributed a memo several months ago related to TIF surplus. About $12,500,000 in total surplus was identified at that point in time. Dollars 3,000,000 of that was utilized to reduce the borrowing cost for Northland Career Center. That would leave about $9,500,000 of TIF surplus from that memo.

So

because I'm just trying to understand, and I know it's the last column that I think is most relevant to this discussion. Because currently, you're suggesting and I don't want to steal everything at the beginning, but I guess if we have to, we have to. But you're recommending $5,000,000 from general fund and then capital improvement, and then there's nothing left other than we'd make everybody open up the patient of G. O. Bond? Is that the

We're open to discussion on Yeah. Like in providing additional information as we go through.

That last column there is designed to just show you what is left before we start talking about this. You've got the 5,000,000 from general fund. I don't think that is not intended to say, We think you should take 5,000,000 from the general fund.

Understood.

You'll see that comment repeated on every general fund item because we're just kind of level setting and getting everybody understanding what we have left.

So just so I know, we kind of have to do the work, which is fine. I just want to make sure I know.

And we're here to help.

Yes.

So to get to 8,500,000.0 more, you told me in that TIF fund, there's 12,000,000?

So there there was originally 12. 3,000,000 has been utilized for Northland Career Center. There's about 9,500,000.0.

There's 9,500,000.0. And here's what I'll propose for my colleagues to save us the time. I'm hearing I've heard that there's general consensus around at least 6,000,000 more for KCATA, and I've heard some consensus around 8,500,000.0 more for roads. We need to find $14,500,000 then. And there's $9,000,000 that remains with this TIF fund you're talking about. So I'm agnostic as have a in market. And

a

market.

The position right? So as far as a finance perspective is aware, we're not aware of any other new projects That's that would be coming from helpful.

So that gets us to 10,600,000.0 and then we need to get another $4,000,000 in the world for either Rhodes or KC ATA, as I'm thinking about it. Right? And then on the KC ATA one, you and again, I'm just there's no real recommendation for us on that either. Except for the general fund.

General fund, I also want to flag so currently in the fiscal year 'twenty seven budget, as part of 'twenty six KCAT discussions, I wish was limited to the Northland only.

You're creating more problems for me, right? I mean, guess, do what you got to do. But how about I'll just solve the $14,500,000 and then you tell me what else does it cost in So a we have nine plus the 5.4, right?

Nine plus 5.4.

9.5 plus four plus the 1.6 gets us to kind of solving at least the roads plus ATA ish. So if we did a TIF at $9,000,000 plus if we extinguished $5,400,000 excess of general fund that we have, plus the $1.6 And actually, let me be just be better because we don't need to use it all. Our 9,000,000 plus $1,600,000 is getting us to 10,600,000.0 We need $4,000,000 more, so we could leave $1,400,000 for something later. So I think, Madam Chair, what I would suggest is a recommendation that we use the TIF surplus plus the general fund to address Amendment one and Amendment three.

So

Mr. Mayor, your proposal would be to draw down the TIF surplus funds by $4,000,000 or by what amount? By their

I would draw down by its entirety. Okay.

Could you run through the TIF districts that have contributed to this fund?

I have it up. Do you it up?

Do you I have have a memo.

Oh, okay. I

do. Go ahead.

So I'm going to jump around because some of it is received and then some of it is total. So second district, SHOTOTIF, 1.9. Do not have the breakdown of the 3,000,000. So out of Northland, there are just 3,000,000 too. 4th District, this includes Showto, 1200 Main, South Loop, Judicial Square, Hotel Phillips, Midtown Summit, Union Hill, total of 3,272,000.

Briarcliffe as well. Briarcliffe.

Well, those

are That's in a different list. He's reading kind of off of two lists. The first one is we've got the money here, we just haven't done anything with it. The second list, which is where Briarcliffe falls, is we are expecting the money. We could we are expecting it and have a reasonable expectation of receiving it such that we could estimate that revenue now. Yes.

Sorry. Didn't mean that.

We can reforward this to everyone as well.

Is that the list?

We've got more. 5th District on the already received side, a total of $333,000.87 Hillcrest, $4,566 Southtown, dollars 328,000 Winchester, dollars $7.00 3 In the 6th District, Country Club Plaza, 63,746. So on the received side, dollars 5,500,000.0 total. On the anticipated list, which ACM Queen had referenced, going back to 2nd District, 2,600,000.0 Briarcliffe, 224000 Showto, 935000 Prospect North for a total of $33,764,000. 3rd District, Brush Creek, 204935 5th District, Southtown, 236006th District, Brush Creek, 2,980,000 for a total on that list of $7,184,000 Again, can redistribute that.

Thank you. And by state statute, I believe surplus TIF funds are required to be used proximity to the TIF district that generated the funds. Is that correct?

We act oh.

I don't believe that that is state statute. That is our surplus TIF revenue policy that you all adopted Can

you confirm? Because I feel that I've read that in state in the TIF statute.

Yeah. We we have always right or wrong, we have always considered TIF surplus funds as general funds, and they are available for any general use of the government. One time general use, by the way, because

Yeah.

It's not a continuing.

Can you confirm that that's not in the statute? Because I

I feel like read it

in the statute. Okay. Concern with the proposed funding source is that, you know, these are funds generated by by TIF districts within council districts. We've used our surplus TIF dollars for actually four road resurfacing, 31st Street as an example, Southwest Boulevard as an example. We've done that in conjunction with working with our neighborhood groups, our community associations, our small business owners.

I certainly haven't agreed to a number of 4th District surplus TIF funds going elsewhere. In fact, we've recently been having conversations with restart as they close the funding gap on their new homeless shelter on Main Street and providing support for that project through several of those 4th District funding sources. That would allow them to open up other shelter beds at their current location downtown that our housing department staff have been discussing how the city could further utilize. I think it's about 38 beds. And so I I would object to the use of surplus tiff funds in that way. And I'm gonna see if I can find that in the statute while we're talking.

Well, Collar is also

Yeah. Surplus tiff funds, there's no I mean, surplus tiff funds are general funds because they are supposed to be surplus to the taxing jurisdictions. They are not to be held for use by council members to be used for their own pet projects. They are really supposed to be surplus to the taxing jurisdictions.

Yeah. And I wouldn't categorize as pet projects.

I And I I didn't I didn't mean to say that.

That directly that were generated

by the district. Does not say they are you know, you are you are allowed to keep them. I I can almost guarantee that. And, I mean, I would want to rely on Emily to provide that, but it does not say that surplus TIF funds are to be held and to be used in that. I mean, there's there's a policy that we have because they have been used several times, but I think the the general rule is once a project that has been approved by the TIFF Commission and the city council is over, that money should be dispersed to the taxing jurisdictions, including the city.

So I think the fact that we have in the past used those for specific projects is something that is unique in the city of Kansas City. So I think using them for roads is a legitimate source. We'll go in order here.

Chairwoman, I don''t necessarily disagree. I appreciate the cleverness of the mayor trying to come up with the money for something our city desperately needs and the street was resurfacing. The heartburn I have is that I think over half of these surplus TIF funds come out of district, and the 2nd District is the vast majority of the older part of the Northland. So we've got more infrastructure needs South Of Gray Road than, frankly, a lot of parts of the entire city. So high level, I appreciate the solution, but as it specifically impacts the 2nd District, am struggling a little bit to put in more than half of the money into this citywide project.

Madam chair?

Yes. Go ahead.

What I might be perfectly happy to offer is, both to address councilman Raya's concern and perhaps councilman Rogers' is we can fund resurfacing in the applicable district with the TIF funds from the applicable district. I mean, we will have I I wouldn't necessarily be concerned if you're in another district because your every district is gonna have some certain amount of resurface. Right? And the way this is just more of a legal fiction for those who are concerned. So if we're doing $8,000,000 of resurfacing per district, 3,000,000 of that could be funded out of TIF surplus in the 2nd District.

3,000,000, I guess, could be funded out of that in the 4th District. It doesn't mean that the 6th District doesn't still get its 8,000,000. That would just come from a broader general fund source. But I think that actually, at its core, that speaks more to counsel Reyes' concern, and and I would hope, at least the spirit of it, speaks to some of yours. But that would be I think we do it so everybody's still getting an equal amount or whatever the amount will be, and I don't pretend to know that. But the funds help offset the cost in your district. Just a thought.

I'm trying

to get Madam Chair.

I have Yes. You Yeah.

You. I

I guess I need a point of clarification in regards to the TIF on the 87th Street in Hillcrest. How much was that you indicated?

It was 4,566.

4,000?

Mhmm. Okay.

You could do a patch of stuff.

Get a project. A project you want that money for? Right.

Go ahead.

No. I I I just wanna make sure because we did a ordinance also for I thought it was 80 out of the 87th 5th 87th Street TIF to go to Robin D. Shopping Center. Is that different?

So this is the remaining balance. The prior revenue estimate for that was would have been included more, but this is what's left.

Oh, okay. I just wanna make sure that we weren't touching that money. Okay. I I don't care about the 4,000. I care about the 300,000 that we were talking about. Okay. Thank you.

Let's see. We're gonna

You have waited for a while.

One of those two was first.

Well, was first.

Well, let's go Councilman Willett. No. Apparently, you've been waiting for a while.

I just wanted to say appreciate part of the agreement with the Northland Workforce Development Center is to look at TIF dollars up in the Northland. That was part of you making us iron it out and have a fiscally sound plan. And so we did meet on that, that money is being spent in the nexus of the area because it's benefiting.

Right.

So, I have no problem with taking that from from that but as Councilman Rogers said, on the 2nd District does have a lot of high infrastructure needs and so whenever we do pilot projects like around Berry Road, normally the 1st District pays the larger chunk of the dollars. That's how we're able to work together.

So Sorry. Okay. Go ahead, Councilman French.

Thank you. No. Appreciate the the creativity and street resurfacing is is a high need as well. And I just I have the same kind of reservations as my my colleague in the 2nd District. We've generated a lot of the surplus TIF dollars, and we have a lot of need, infrastructure need, in our district.

As stated, you know, below Berry Road, we just have a lot of aging infrastructure, a lot of communities that have aging infrastructure, and it goes beyond just street resurfacing. So just using the money for street resurfacing, just kind of band aiding this infrastructure, the need goes well beyond that. And we've already had several discussions of projects in our area that we could allocate these TIP dollars for, and some of those cross with the 4th District, some of those cross with the 1st District. We work together, you know, in the Northland to try to get these infrastructure projects going. And so using, over half of these TIF dollars for street resurfacing, I just don't think that's more of a band aid fix than we need in the 2nd District.

Great. Councilman O'Neill.

Just

quickly, I'm a little confused because conversation started about tiffs and how we use them internally or in our districts and all that. But I think 3,000,000 of this came about going to the north career center to reduce debt. And I'm just curious if it came out of surplus TIF funds, why weren't we notified and asked if that was where we wanted that money spent. I guess that's confusing to me.

To the Northland TIF?

Well, it was a Northland TIF that was expiring, and that money, that 3,000,000, I understand, was sent and I'm not saying that I wouldn't direct it there anyway, but I'm I I don't remember ever having a say in where those extra TIF surpluses were going to go.

So we go to Northland.

Within the 2nd District, and so the majority of those TIF dollars came from the 2nd District. So the $3,000,000 that go towards the Northland Career Development Center is already coming out of the 2nd District surplus TIF dollars. So now we're wanting to use even more of the 2nd District surplus TIF dollars to put towards street resurfacing, which was we had about $6,000,000 and we put three already into the north lane career center, and now we are talking about three more into the street resurfacing.

Councilwoman Robinson. Thank you. I appreciate the earlier comment about the way that tips are the money is generated obviously by giving a tax incentive that would essentially be taxes that would go to the general fund to pay for roads, sidewalks, basic city services. And so I appreciate the comment saying that essentially that money goes back into the general fund to do those very sad things. And then when you think about the TIFs across the city, You get the development because of the TIF.

We're giving incentives so that you can have more things in your neighborhood or in your district. And if you want to do a pilot payment taxes to address your infrastructure at the time that the TIFF didn't do that then. But this money should be spent citywide. We should not be continually creating these inequities. We're doubling down when we say, yes, you get the development.

Then the surplus money needs to stay in that development area. That's wrong. And so I appreciate us spending the money the the surplus on roads. We have a huge amount of of of resurfacing that needs to be done in our city, and let's put the money there so that the resurfacing can be done, and let's allow our professionals to determine how that happens. But the I I have strong issues with the structural inequities that we continue to create for our city.

Here you go. I guess I'm gonna ask you.

Thanks for Melissa Patterson has a Yes.

Sign sign a difference today. I think I just wanna agree with my colleague that it's a chicken and egg situation, I think, and if you put yourselves in from our perspective. So the development goes there that allows you to even discuss such a surplus. And so as we continue to put very large developments primarily in the 4th District for the last two and a half years, then we will continue to have these large surpluses of dollars. And if you then redirect them back to the same district, the rest of the city doesn't benefit from twenty five years of giving tax dollars away.

And so I think we just have to to me, I think we have to be more collaborative in that, you know, we are making very large investments in being team players, and so we should realize that investment coming back in two decades, you know, somehow. And this is an example of just kind of hoarding it, and it continues to flow to the same area. And then as soon as you cross Paseo, as soon as you get to Troost, you do see a massive infrastructure. She's saying you're not next, Chris councilor Moriah. So you try to rebut me directly.

You gotta go after w. But if get to Troost and you keep going West, there is a market difference in the quality of the infrastructure,

in

the quality of the amenities, in the quality of the housing. And so if we keep doing this as a city, it will continue to be perpetuated.

I just never heard.

It will it will continue to be like that.

Alright. Councilman Duncan.

Thank you, madam chair. I agree with my esteemed colleagues from the 3rd District. And as being a team player, Councilwoman Boo and I thought that we had allocated that plazitif dollars to another project, but seemingly, it's not allocated. I would say that we do use it for the street resurfacing, something that lifts all boats citywide. I

just wanted to clarify that when we're talking about surplus TIF, we're not talking about continuing to redirect from the TIF the expiration of the TIF. Like we're not we have done that. We did it for the North White Soccer Complex last term, continue to redirect the Eats from that TIF after two TIFs after they were expired. And we're continuing to do that to a lesser degree with Midtown TIF to support affordable housing to go into the housing trust fund. But generally speaking, we're not talking about continuing to redirect after they expire.

So, I just wanted to make sure that that is clear. So, if there's a fourth most of the tips aren't in the 4th District. Most the really highly productive ones are East TIFFs in the Northland. So I just want to also clarify that. But just we're talking about, in some cases, small amounts of money in various TIFFs that after they've expired that are surplus.

We've used it in one case to improve sidewalks on 31st Street, for example, through Martini Corner, in this still in the very much the spirit of the original TIFF plan. So I'm not saying we depart from the conversation that we're having here. I think this is I agree that when we generate extra revenue that we don't actually need, then we should probably redirect it back to the tax jurisdictions most often. However, I just wanted to be clear that we're not talking about continuing to redirect fourth district TIFFs beyond the expiration date. We're simply talking about taking, in some cases, slivers of that leftover in order to support small infrastructure projects. But just wanted to make sure that that is clear.

Councilman Raya.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And I

think there's one important thing to point out, you know, especially when 4th District is accused of exacerbating disparities. One challenge I didn't expect when I was elected to city council was how much of the burden we carry on citywide infrastructure. I'm glad we're talking about citywide infrastructure because when we work with staff to rank sidewalk projects through the capital improvements plan, every sidewalk downtown ranked highest. And then when we took downtown out, every sidewalk and crossroads ranked highest because of usage, because of what it connects to, because of the condition. When we took crossroads out, every sidewalk in Westport ranked highest.

And that's who neighborhoods like Sheffield and Indian Mound and Blue Valley and Shamir up north and Sherwood Estates and Midtown and the Westside are competing for, for 4th District PIAC dollars, for fourth district geobond dollars, for fourth district park geobond dollars. Those are citywide assets that we get requests from. We get requests from the downtown neighborhood association to maintain downtown infrastructure, which is citywide infrastructure. And so if we want to be serious about citywide conversations, then we then need to create a separate PIAC district for downtown in some of these areas. Or when staff rank these streets that we're going to be resurfacing, and they're all in the areas that are downtown, crossroads and citywide, we need to follow that and not start picking and choosing what projects are going be included and what aren't.

Because I'm telling you, when staff starts ranking these based on the criteria that we've used over and over, it's going to be the same issue because that's where the greatest burden on our infrastructure is. And the goal is to never, never to increase the disparities with neighborhoods like where I grew up, it's that we carry a significant burden to maintain citywide infrastructure, specifically imposed on 4th district funds that no other district has to has to worry about or answer requests for. And so, yeah, we do like to keep our surplus TIF dollars because it helps alleviate that burden.

Thank

you. Councilman Rogers. This

is Rick.

So I'm going to channel my dear Darryl Hurls here for a minute and say that, you know, I do like these solutions both on street resurfacing and PCAT. But, you know, for once, a lot of the money is coming from the 2nd District, which doesn't happen very often. We don't have the diffs that the 1st District has or that the 4th District has. It's mostly residential. In fact, I welcome anybody here to and I've done this.

I've had HOA meetings the same night in Graciemore by Worlds of Fun and had to get in the car and drive all the way to Weatherby Lake and still be in the 2nd District after cutting through two counties and three school districts and multiple municipalities and so on and so forth. So we've this great big district. We very rarely have any opportunities to invest extra money. We've got two profitable tips here, which is great, and much more demand than we have needs, just like everybody else, and I get that. So that's my comment there.

That said, I think that almost every point that I have heard during this conversation was right. This is especially from the 3rd District, this is a citywide surplus. I think the chairmanwoman is right on what she said about this. As much as it pains me to actually have some extra assets in the 2nd District that are probably going to go elsewhere, I think it's the right thing to do for our city based on the comments of my colleagues, and I will be proud to support this amendment so we can have buses that councilman kurz I will tell you we rarely get to use in the north of things we don' have any but we need them citywide. We need resurfacing citywide. I will quit talking and support the amendment as presented. Thank you guys for your comments.

Alright. Councilwoman Patterson, Hasley, and then Robinson.

Thank you, madam chairwoman. I think this is a very healthy conversation that we do need to start having out loud and not necessarily in closed sessions. We talk about this pretty candidly when we're just off camera. But I think we do need to consider that the 4th District carries too much of our citywide assets. And I've said that.

And I said if we keep stuffing things in the 4th District, it's not gonna be sustainable. The amenities will never spread out. You will keep having your infrastructure problems that will be unaffordable for you, and that you that these assets need to be spread across the city, and that we don't have to go into a very congested geographical area to have fun. We can drive other places and and and have a good time. And those districts can realize the revenue generation from having big infrastructure projects like a downtown baseball stadium.

We don't actually have to put it in the 4th District. And we can put it elsewhere where there's more space, where there's better infrastructure, where you still can see the city skyline. That's something that we can do as a city. We've probably chosen not to do that. But since we make those choices, I don't think it's entirely fair to then complain that you're overburdened by the infrastructure you need to support it Because you're we're gonna probably have to make significant, garage infrastructure improvements where we have where we think we're gonna put the park, the ballpark, and we're gonna be right back at the same conversations of whose responsibility it is to pay for that, how are we gonna redirect any revenue we realized from a new park, from a new ballpark, and it's probably gonna stay right there in that small footprint.

So as long as we keep doing that, this is the kind of city that we'll have. I think it's inequitable. I think it's getting ridiculous because the lid is gonna be on our backs to the end of time, you know, a million bucks a year, probably more. We'll have a whole a whole new infrastructure to take care of, Councilman Raya, that you and your successors are gonna have to take care of forever. And so if that's the kind of city we wanna build, then that's the kind of decisions we'll keep making. I think that we should diversify geographically where we put cool projects, and I'll continue to say that.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Okay. I just hope that me belaboring this point will remind us that when we when we enter these discussions about the divisiveness, that we remember how we, again, started the discussion. The discussion was started they started this conversation about who gets what in what district when, our colleague said that the TIF surplus needed to remain in the, corresponding jurisdiction, and is it a state statute? That's where we started the conversation about division. We have over $2,000,000,000 of deferred maintenance on street resurfacing, and we're here for, you know, thirty minutes talking about 10 adding 10,000,000 more dollars, because we wanna keep our TIF surplus in our respective districts.

We have $2,000,000,000 of deferred maintenance. So let's this isn't to me a discussion about, you know, making sure we hold on to these dollars. This is about addressing one of the major city services, and that's the potholes, the resurfacing, 318 square miles, and we don't have enough money to do that. So we have this surplus dollars, and so we should just put it there to help with the resurfacing. So Of

course.

Course. Yes. Councilman Gray.

Thank you,

madam chair. And I'll be very brief because to my colleague's point, we spent thirty minutes on this and probably got a whole lot more to talk about. But I'll get back on my so far for once again, and that is is that we can always find money for everything else except for money to go into the 3rd And 5th District. We can never find any money to invest in the 3rd And 5th District. That's why I voted against this Bloch Luminary Park because that's gonna saddle us $90,000,000 that none of my constituents are gonna be able to take advantage of and and be able to utilize.

We are talking about money that is needed in the 3rd And The 5th District. And every time we talk about investments in the 3rd And 5th District, it seems like there's always some type of issue. I don't understand it. I don't know why, but we we can never really get to that point where we really focus on concentrating on putting more money into the 3rd And 5th District. So as long as I'm here, I'm gonna continue to shout that point out. Councilman Rogers, thank you for that shout out. But, hey, this is my point exactly as to why we have these discussions, and I'm gonna continue to bring it out that we do not invest that we like we should in the 3rd And 5th Districts.

Madam chair, I think I'll just move on to the motion. I I should, and I'll make one little point. I have been here for a while. I have had the blessing of voting on some things in the the 3rd and fifth. I'm I'm just gonna pick a fight from, 2018. We had GO bond funds. We put almost all our 5th district GO bond funds into the Kansas City Zoo. I disagreed at that point. I don't think that was what we should have necessarily done with it. There are other sources they can fundraise.

So some of it is even back to the 4th District point and others. And I think it's something for all of us to figure out what your citywide assets versus others. When I was on the 3rd District, I don't know if it was a great idea. We put a lot into the urban youth academy, and we used our own PIAC to right. And I was like, I I don't know if I love the choice.

The one question that I would hope that we focus on is, to a point, that citywide means citywide no matter where it is. So if there's a special project in the 5th District that's citywide or one in the 3rd District, we actually get to a point where the city is funding it. We're not just making 3rd District buy at, for example, fund the entirety of something that would be special. I was going to just do a motion, but go ahead. I'm not in my

place to say.

Go right ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to say hate the division of this because all parts of our city need investment in it. Obviously, we have a geo bond plan that was put into place. I want to talk about the numbers of the geobond plan.

The approved fiscal from 2019 to 2026 by council district, there's no other council district that got more than 10% of citywide geobond funding, then the 4th District, and then the 5th District. 5th District got 24% of the geobond dollars, followed by 4th District, which is about 16.5, which is probably what we all should be. And District 1 got seven or about 6.9%, and then District 2 got 5.4%, District 3 got 5.9%, and District 6 got 8.5%. And so let's talk about the numbers. Budgets don't the numbers don't lie.

The 5th District overwhelmingly got the majority of support the projects over there. We all have projects that are important. And when I stepped on the city council, District 1 had $0 allocated for geobond projects from the get go. And now we had to make an agreement to even get some funding for roads by our schools, which, by the way, don't rank very high because they're not in a low income stressed area, but those kids are getting wrecks on those roads and deserve infrastructure, too. Let's not think about this as a fixed set of competition. We all have things in our districts that matter and we care about, but the facts don't lie. District 5 got 25% of the dollars. That's where we need it.

I will move for then to, adopt amendment one to strike amendment two with the agreement of the sponsor. And I don't know what everybody amendment three thinks, but I'm gonna try to fund that too in the same motion. And so what that would mean is the cost is $14,500,000 The sources are the TIF surplus entirety,

which is how much? About $9,500,000 I have two other sources I could bring up.

No. We went through you you just did it. You're late. No. I'm gonna make the motion. I'm gonna make because if we're figuring it out in this position, then we're figuring it out. Yeah. I mean, what are what are your two other sources? It's it's they're small. Forty minutes on talking about this source. So Go ahead.

It it's 900,000 from street preservation and 1,600,000.0 for CIP. What it does is allows for more of the general fund to go to the smaller items later on.

Well, 1.6, we talked we added that in there,

right? Yes. So we'll do your 9.5. There's 9.5, right? We'll do the 9.5. We'll use the 1.6. And then how much is remaining for the

General fund $5.4

That's $11,100,000 total that I've funded so far?

Yes, 9,500,000.0, So dollars 1 point

we have $3,400,000 that we'll use from the remaining general fund, which is that $5,400,000 So in essence, this amendment gets us to $2,000,000 more of fund money remaining.

The general fund, yes.

And then with $3,400,000 general fund, the full amount in TIF surplus, and 1,600,000.0 in CIP. That's the motion to address one three striking two.

And striking four?

Not necessary. Will I

will be back Yeah. Okay. Is there a second?

Second.

Alright. It's been there's a motion to strike two, fund one and three with the aforementioned sources. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any opposed? We're not counting councilman O'Neill, but

We support all of you.

He is he's noted his support.

One question. If we are including ATA, KC ATA Yes.

In this

We're for the 6,000,000. Is that correct? Yes.

That's correct.

Do we know what that 6,000,000 is gonna fund is my question. Because I I if if we're talking about which KCATA was talking about cutting routes, I wanna make sure that the one route that was going to Hickman Mills, the only bus route, is included.

75 sorry, don't want to I just want to clarify the 70 five route. Yes. The intent is to keep that route intact. The additional 6,000,000 would preserve a substantial amount of the weekend transit service but also would retain the 75,000,000 route. So that is what one of the routes that was, as you mentioned, on the chopping block. This would actually preserve that route. And that is the plan. The plan could change. That's why it's going to be really important for us to continue this conversation as to what the priorities are. As stated, the first priority of the 6,000,000 would be to preserve

the 75. Thank you for that

clarification. Okay.

So there's a motion do

you I just wanted to make a comment to make sure. Like, part of that $6,000,000 that you said would reinstate weekend services because a lot of that weekend service that was being cut was in the Northland as well, leaving us down to one route in the weekend. We have not adequate transportation in the Northland, much less the 2nd District at all, and leaving us down to one route during the weekend is just not acceptable.

I I think yeah. You said it right down. So the motion is on the table. All those well, we've been voted for it. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. The motion passes. Now we'll move on, I think, to four. Right? Because you denied

the decision. Madam chair, point of clarification. I sent an email last night that the amendment four wasn't quite correct. That amendment four, as had stated it, was supposed to be $6,000,000 from the KCPD legal fund, 9,474,495 from KCPD overage.

So we can discuss.

6,000,000 from the kcpd legal fund, $9,474,495 from kcpd overage. Minus pensions, the current budget allocates $17,000,000 over the 25% mandate.

I mean, I guess to if if I may start the discussion, heard on the point, I would probably ultimately make a motion to strike this amendment. I I think, and I appreciate Commissioner Bunch, who was a KCATA commissioner, bringing the $6,000,000 not that he wouldn't want to provide more, but I think this addresses some of our key issues. So on the merits, while heard, would recommend the committee not include that in the amendment.

6,000,000,000 is not enough to cover? We're going to cut routes, correct? Commissioner Bunch?

Yes. The $6,000,000 isn't a panacea for our public transit challenges. It is, for my part, adding in this amendment was seemed like, I would say, a reasonable compromise. I support your amendment as well if we need as much as we can get. But yes, you're right.

The $6,000,000 doesn't get us to retain service for the entirety of the year. And that's the reality that we're facing. But so I hear you on that and agree, but also recognize the challenges of the budget that we're facing. Think Willett will still

Councilman Willett?

Yeah. Thank you, chair.

Oh, don't have boy.

And Daphne, if

you just want to.

Trust me. I'm gonna I'm gonna stand up on this issue. I I'll sign that autograph later for you, Daryl. We're trying so I just wanna put it this way. We have a bus system, which we cut we took fares away from it. So we cut about $12,000,000 of revenue every year. Northland people are not even appointed properly to the KCTA board, right? And yet you're gonna try to then pull money from the police to fund the buses because we just let our bus system fail. Now we finally have some good leadership, Bridget. I'm glad you're there on the board and and making some decisions there.

But this is typical government. It's failing in one direction, and we're gonna try to cut from another direction where we need our police fully funded. We have the World Cup coming to Kansas City this summer. Every single police officer needs to know that they're fully funded and fully supported by city hall. If we aren't doing that, why the heck do we have the World Cup coming to Kansas City? And we're pinning buses against police? It's unacceptable. It's outrageous. I've never been more disappointed that that is even a conversation, an amendment there. I want the buses funded.

But you know how you fund the buses? You have some fares. Alright? And you also support the bus drivers who've been asking for fares and asking for protection. They did not want to have free fare. They wanted to be protected. They have a free for all the buses where bus drivers are getting assaulted left and right because we just let anyone and everyone come on the buses. We have no workers' protection there. I am absolutely sick that it's getting to this point. We need the bus fare instituted immediately, then we can fund our buses, but do not touch my police. Do not touch our first responders. What? They are putting their lives on the line for us, and it's time for us to have our back. That is an absolutely disgusting amendment, and I wanna fully fund our police.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Thank you, officer.

You can stand up too if you want. Yes.

It is well for a different reason. No. I do think it is problematic when we pit one service against the other service, but I think that this conversation should be had separately at rates regarding the 25% funding above 25% of the state mandate. But my issue with not fully funding the buses and the discussed the the the the issues that I have and what I'm discussing about is really lays at the feet of the finance committee, quite frankly. When we passed the budget last year, I brought a resolution to you all that was held off docket, and that was to address the local use tax.

To begin to look at how we're collecting money from the buses, $26,000,000, by the way, that when someone purchases something online, our park system, our CCED, our fire department, and our fire department, they went down to the state to get their local use money, by the way. So we had to require the state government to tell us what how to govern and steward these dollars. We would not be in this situation had the finance committee approved a resolution that essentially just said, let's come up with a plan. You don't have to move it, but let's figure out how do we stop not being transparent. And when individuals vote on a tax to say, I want my money to go to the bus system, we then take the money and put it wherever we want it to go to the to the general fund.

So that's what's disgusting to me about not being able to fund our bus system. $26,000,000 is being diverted from online sales that were supposed to be used for our bus system to the general fund. So I wanted to go on record, to say that we would not be in this position had we, planned for this last year.

Madam chair? Yes. Thank you. I am I am not disgusted at all. I I actually appreciate a a good budget discussion. This is what we're supposed to do. Everyone has the opportunity to represent any set of viewpoints. There are many who share viewpoints in connection with it. So I thank all of the, different proposals that have come our way. We may have a, difference on, our view of use tax long term.

I see the Wayfair decision to have given slightly different authority from the supreme court. That being said, there'll be an election soon in Kansas City. I'm sorry about the next candidate election where the voters will get a chance to opine on what we all view of I mean, I'm not running, but what the people then view the use tax should be used for. Just to to bring it back, I guess, I'll just say I'd still move to strike amendment four heard on many of the points. I think we can have a separate discussion, by the way, as to the police budgeting issue. I know Councilman Willett has an amendment for $20,000,000 more. There may be others who have different views on that. I appreciate. I had the chance to meet with KCATA a few weeks ago. And don't get me wrong.

Sure. If they were here, they'll say, give us the money, or give us all that you're willing to. I think they have strong leadership in place. I think the board has been cooperative and collaborative with us, and I trust the initial $6,000,000 amendment to be something that gets us moving in a strong direction in terms of what we're looking for in delivering our next contract. So that's still my motion for the committee.

Councilwoman Bunch.

Yeah. Just needed to clarify. Councilwoman Willett brought up some points about fair. I just wanted to clarify that the ATA Board of Commissioners has approved a plan to bring fares back that is on its way. And while it's bittersweet because it's zero fare was something that I was obviously very supportive of, and I think that there's still a lot of benefits that we saw from that.

However, to be clear, the budget of KCATA accounts for the additional 8,000,000 to $10,000,000 in fair revenue, and the cost of everything is going up. And the ATA's operations is no exception to that. So, fares are coming back, and I just want to make sure that that is clear and that is on its way before the World Cup. So just with 15% farebox recovery, it's never going to generate enough revenue to pay for itself. That's not the case for any public transit system in the country.

Any transportation system, it does not pay for itself. It has to be subsidized in some way. So again, fares are coming back.

Right. Councilman Duncan?

Yes, Madam Chair, thank you. A couple points of clarification. It's not in me to pit one service against another, but I think it bears repeating that KCPD re receives the largest share of our funding, for our city services, and it's not even close. 10,000,000 of that, will be comprised of lawsuits. $10,000,000 is going to lawsuits, and that lawsuit fund will be expended as of May.

So when we think about a return on investment, I think it's important that we adequately fund our buses. When we think about a return on investment, I think that we need to look at, you know, what is our police force doing? What what what what are again, what are the ancillary services that they're that they are working on? What do we want to ensure that they are focused on? And I think that's violent crime, responding to crime. Police don't stop crime. Police respond to crime. Right? So what a violence prevention tactic is ensuring that our buses are fully funded and that we're not cutting routes that eliminate jobs. And when you eliminate jobs, you create crime.

Yeah.

And so it's a self repeating process. That was that's that's the that is the intent, of this budget amendment. It is not to vilify our police department. It's to make policy choices, which

is our job.

Right. Councilman Ryan.

Thank you, madam chair. Just a couple of comments on the police budgets. I think we've got a couple more coming up. I don't think anyone likes the amount of money we're spending on lawsuits. And the fact of the matter is that it's not a budgetary solution. It's never going to be a budgetary solution. We could provide $0.00 for lawsuits. They're still gonna happen. Judges and juries are still gonna allocate awards, and it's gonna get paid out of somewhere. We could quadruple the budget for lawsuits.

It's not a budgetary solution. It is something very different that we gotta continue to work with the police department. And so I I I just don't want us to continue to use this budget as though it's going to solve that or address that. We've got to provide some money for it. Otherwise, it's gonna get pulled from somewhere else.

What I will say is, you know, we have finally turned the corner on some pressing public safety issues we've had. Two summers ago, our districts, at least the 3rd, 4th, and some areas of the 6th, were were were just ravaged with small business break ins. You had weekend after weekend where you had 10 small business break ins, 12 small business break ins over and over, and it wasn't until it and burglary detectives caught those folks that were doing that stuff that it stopped. We didn't experience it to this level last year, this last summer. It was because of good investigative work, they caught those folks, who, I think, one group was responsible for dozens and dozens of burglaries on both sides of the state line.

We turned the corner on that issue. We turned the corner on street racing with the crackdown in enforcement, in the police department, putting the resources into it. It cost us some overtime costs, but it dramatically reduced the extent to which that was happening. I had folks reaching out saying that for the first time in years, they were able to sleep with the windows open and were able to experience the benefits to their mental health. You know, we were on the brink, last summer.

We were really on the brink with our public safety issues, and we turned the corner, because we funded the police department to address those things. And I will agree that not all police work stops crime or deters crime, but in those instances, when those small business break ins were happening, they caught the folks that were doing it. And we still continued to experience some, but not to the level that we were before. So I say that as a cautionary note because we can't take a step back on call takers. We can't take a step back on filling, vacant police positions or expanding expanding the force, certainly not before the World Cup.

Madam chair, I still move. I just want to move to

I'll stay seated for this one.

Okay. I mean, it's my committee debate. Can I do the motion on just moving forward on amendment on the fourth section so we go somewhere?

We still have, like

because we're in police debate. We'll have other police opportunities. Budget. I don't We strike provision four and then just resolve strike provision four and move on. Second.

It's been moved and seconded that to strike four and move on. All those in favor, please say

aye. Aye.

Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Let's go to five.

Okay. I

know why y'all are acting like we're not supposed to talk about these things.

Because we're gonna get a $20,000,000 police budget amendment in two spots. I mean, for

I see it now or I see it then. I'm not gonna repeat

You can say what you like and we can make motions. You're up.

Go ahead.

Bike

share. Row five, bike share, 500,000. The current submitted budget is $432,800 If it were to be funded from PMT, that would require a general fund transfer in the same amount of $500,000 How much is currently in bike share now? So for the contract, it's $432,800

So this is just increasing it to $500,000 or additional 500,000

Oh,

sorry. Go ahead.

I'm happy elaborate. So basically, this is wanted to put this up there because this helps get us gets the city to a point where we can match a federal grant for additional so they have several years of several tranches of federal funding to expand. This would allow them to expand, hopefully, in time for the World Cup. But this is just, again, a slight increase to help with that match. Without this, it's discontinued operations with the current fleet.

So this would unlock a substantial amount of extra revenue from the federal government. That was the point of this and the intent behind this amendment.

Assistant City Manager Quayne, did you have

CHAIRMAN Yeah, I have a comment just to keep kind of level set. So following amendments one and three, you now have about $2,000,000 over the fund balance target in the general fund to work with. This amendment would take that down to 1,500,000.0 effectively because we would fund it out of the public mass transportation fund, but that fund will not have enough money to cover it, so it will require a general fund transfer in the same amount. So just making sure that we know where we are as we move forward.

Councilwoman Patterson Haslam.

Thank you, madam chairwoman. I just had a question. When we apply for grants that require a match, that's supposed to be an ordinance that comes before the body to review the parameters of the grid, where the bike share is gonna be located, and things of that nature. So did we already pass that step?

No. So this isn't our application, so it doesn't have that this is just a they can do this or if they don't get the money, then the money goes away. So it's not a situation where it's our city's project. It's bike share's project.

Respectfully, thought the purpose of the ordinance whenever we committed funding to a match is that that would be an ordinance that gets reviewed. Because I've had to do it three times, and I was held to that standard, that that would be an ordinance to say, this is the name of the grant. This is the applicant. This is where we're going to put, I'm assuming, bike racks or maybe something else.

Yeah. So this this would require a further ordinance in the future. This is just ensuring amendment, making sure that it gets in the budget is all.

So but respectfully, council member Bunch, it's it's going backwards. Like, we're supposed to be able to review what we're appropriating in the budget so that we can understand what the grant application is.

It's it's it's not our grant application. It's Understood. Theirs. And so

That probably makes it even more prop I mean

Okay.

I think it should be an ordinance to to hold to the standard that other people are held at whenever we require matching funds. That's just my opinion. I'm not on the committee, but I think that's happened to me numerous times, and so I think it should just be consistent.

I'll just say to keep us moving so the committee has something to respond to, I would recommend striking this amendment section not for disfavor for the proposal necessarily, but given the low dollar value which we do often see generated in quarterly budget updates and others, the ability for further ordinance process, and frankly the low number of funds currently available from general fund sources, I just think that perhaps this and probably many others that may follow hit the cutting room floor.

Councilman O'Neill.

Thank you. I didn't think you'd notice me. To this proposal, like everything you're doing, and I want to help. I want to see more of this up north. Yeah.

And I would just say that first district is willing to talk, you know, about how do we get stuff up north, and we'll be willing to piax some of this so that we can help out. But it always kind of bothers us when we're putting money into something that never comes to us. And so I would argue I I I support this amendment, but I do want I do want to see more bikes up north. I do want to see we have all these great trails, and we don't really have a huge allotment of such. We'd be willing to share PIAC dollars to help get this started up north as needed. But I just share that.

Yes. I'm happy to help facilitate that conversation. It's one that we discussed last this budget last year. I'm happy to help with that. I know that you all had suggested that, and I think that there was maybe some back and forth, and I'm not quite sure where the conversation went. But I'm happy to sit in on those meetings, too. I hear you.

So, Madam Chair, would just move to for us to move forward, I would move to strike, recognizing that subsequent discussions can always occur.

Second.

Moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. You need to opposed. Number six.

Row six is increased funding to KCPD's funding request. That is our KCPD funding in the budget.

Yeah. Appreciate it. I just this is amendment just to show, and I appreciate staff preparing this, that there's a $16,500,000 difference between the police department submittal and what they are currently receiving from the city hall. So I guess I don't need to give them 20,000,000. I think it's just maybe 16,500,000.0,

and we'll call it a day.

All right. I'll, chair, move to strike for any number of reasons. I do want to commend KCPD. Chief, during her entire tenure, has done a very good job of working with the city to get us to a good budget proposal that I think looks to what we're able to spend, where their challenges are, recognizing, of course, that they could always use more as could other programmatic efforts. I'm going to respect that discussion and where we got to and likely not support any real amendments to take money off away or add a lot of money on. And so that's the rationale for moving to strike the $20,000,000 amendment.

All right. Just one quick Go ahead.

Yes. Thank you. I understand that, but then I wanted us to both be transparent. You know, we had the Chief come in here last year or last couple of months ago to talk about last year's budget, and we were talking about $3,000,000 difference, right? We are allocating them a $16,000,000 difference between what they requested. So the next time we have chief come in here for two hours and we grill her with questions like no other chief has been grilled, just understand she's requested for 16 extra million dollars to serve her department. Okay?

I'll answer first, and then I know you're so with with greater respect, because I wanna be fair to all of our other chiefs. We we have had other chiefs here.

Sorry. In my tenure.

Fair enough. That's the only one we have. And and by the way, hate to speak for, but but I I will say that I think, yes, while I think the chief is fine to speak to us, think she's been very willing to speak to us, and I respect that. And I think that's helpful. That's why I have a budget amendment three down from here that helps address some of that funding issue. That's all

I get.

Right. Councilwoman Robinson? Yes. While I will

be supporting seven I hope we don't support six. Here is the reason why. Here is the reason why. Because every department had a budget that they submitted to the city manager. And we can't pick winners and losers. Everybody was cut. So all of our departments have to be held equally and none of our departments have a 25% mandate. Okay. Have to live with that. And I understand that it may not be enough, but the reality is is that you can't say that, oh, x department came before us.

We're not giving them what they want, and we're not giving any other department what they want. So let's be fair with this budgetary process, and not pick winners and losers. But we do need overtime for FIFA.

So I'd move, madam chair, for the strike of section six.

I'll second. Any other it's been moved and seconded to strike six. All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye. I think I heard three. Any opposed?

No. I

think that passes. We're at number seven.

Row seven, dollars 2,000,000 for KCPD overtime offered by councilmember Rogers.

I'll start by asking to amend this briefly to eliminate the conversation on FIFA. We're seeing this right now. For this last year's budget, we've already come back to find more money for overtime for Casey Heady. And you may have seen on the news that we have over $60,000,000 for law enforcement public safety from the feds for the World Cup. Only some expenses are reimbursable, not all expenses are reimbursable for that.

So inevitably, when we've got bars and restaurants open twenty three hours a day, when we've got at least 650,000 people, probably more like 850,000 or 900,000 people coming in from all over the world, I feel bad even saying this because my heritage is mostly English, but they've got a reputation for drinking and fighting. So I expect to see a lot of that this summer. Now all of that's going be reimbursable. So we can chuckle about it, but at the end of the day, and I and I concur with my colleague, Councilman Willett, here is the police have a hard job. They're gonna have a really big job.

They always have a big job. It's gonna be as hard and challenging as it's ever been, and they ask for more overtime than we've given them already. We took a little bit of that away already. We've got more people coming to our city this year than we've ever had coming before. So I don't think we can either do it now and give them the peace of mind that they've got the money they need for overtime or we can run down their budget and they're going be coming back here in eleven months asking for the same thing they're doing right now. So I'm saying, let's get out in front of them. Let's put $2,000,000 into overtime. Let the police do their job, which will be even harder than usual this year.

Madam Chair, I think I would move to strike for the same articulations that were raised as to the $20,000,000 point. To a separate point, two amendments down from this, I do have something that helps effectuate that gap that is indicated currently by Councilman Rogers. Obviously, that's for this fiscal year. But going back to the earlier point by the way, I acknowledge Councilman Robinson's point, every group was cut, right? We've dealt with that.

I think I would articulate that the police budget, as introduced and submitted to the city council, was the product of extensive discussion and negotiation, us just throwing out extra amounts of dollars, while it may seem wonderful, isn't really a substantial way to generate that. So I move to strike on that amendment. All

right. Councilman Raya.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So question on that item. If you're suggesting that nine would essentially cover what seven is trying to do, I would like to hear what nine is proposing.

My view is nine does not cover what seven is trying to do because as I understand it, Councilman Rogers is looking to put that in the next fiscal year. They are they are of a similar strain, because it is a surplus funding ordinance. It's just for FY 2526 in which we're currently present based on the chief's earlier testimony to city council.

So number nine provides funding for this fiscal year? Correct. Until the April?

I believe so. That was the request. This came from KCPD.

That provides funding for so there's an ordinance that has actually been read, that is kind of under consideration while we're talking all of this, that would fund $2,000,000 for police overtime in fiscal year twenty six, the current year. This amendment number nine allows for the repayment of the use of general fund money in fiscal year twenty six by the public public safety sales tax in the fiscal twenty seven budget as authorized by the ordinance that is before you, but has not been passed yet. So it's a little chicken and egg, but it's something we have to plan for.

And would it be, let's say a hypothetical statement of to the extent that there is overtime for FIFA, then a similar ordinance could be presented next fiscal year to cover the overtime in the next fiscal year. I think what we're dealing with now is the expenses in this fiscal year that have been presented to us is actually have occurring. This is over time that has not yet occurred that may occur. But let's I think the thought is let's wait and deal with that to the extent it occurs.

And it sounds like that's the direction we're heading, and that's fine. But I'll just tell you, it is my anticipation we'll be back here a year from now asking for money that for this exact purpose.

Councilwoman Robinson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I had a question for the sponsor. Was this something that has been articulated by kcpd that they need the $2,000,000 for overtime for

Yes. It was part of their and I don't have to give you the exact numbers, but it was part of their original budget request too. It's less than what they had asked for.

Okay. Here's the I just want to make sure that I voice the concern and then just really trying to understand number nine, can they use that for overtime?

They can use that for current overtime expenses. And actually, I believe it was in our board books for this month, but I'm not there. I don't want to misspeak, but I think there's an articulation that KCPD could run out of money. By state statute they're not allowed to run out of money. So that would mean that you would have to for the remaining months within the fiscal year cut pretty quickly certain areas that generate more cost. That would likely be tied to overtime and whatever outstanding expenses remain for the remaining six weeks or so in the fiscal year?

While I recognize that they're coming to us at the end of the budget cycle to address issues that happen throughout the year, Because FIFA is such a dynamic event, I don't want them to pull back on the overtime especially if they're structurally preparing to provide coverage throughout the city for a hope and a wish later on in the budget cycle. Our colleague talked about some of the the strategic ways that the police department has been addressing property crimes. We will probably see a rise in that as it relates to this event, and I wanna make sure that we support the chief in the the communications I've heard her share in that the residents will continue to be able to rely upon KCPD services during the World Cup. And my fear if we don't pass this is that we might we may not have those services available because remember, this true up ordinance that we're looking at for this fiscal year is for the regular business. So, like, this is just, you know, the standard business of the police department.

We're talking about adding on FIFA, and we're going to need that extra coverage because when people pick up the phone and call 911, they're gonna expect a response. And so I am concerned, and I do wanna be on record that we wanna make sure that we have that support during this event.

I might say, and I think you're probably more aware than I am, and I think my articulation would be aligned with somewhat how Councilwoman Boo noted it, heard on the reimbursement model for federal funding. That being said, there is substantial federal funding that is available for public safety agencies in connection with it, yes, again, a reimbursement model. My view would be that we actually look to exhaust those funds, particularly because at this point, right, we've, I think, gotten pretty close to the end of our available general fund dollars. And then what I would suggest is that we do have that flexibility to address any number of issues, particularly because, for better or worse, FIFA comes fairly early in the fiscal year, too. It's in our largely our first and second quarter.

And so to the extent that there are later budget challenges in the same way that we've seen it, then I would think that they can be addressed later. A few other points that I'll make relating to it. We have not recently seen many true up ordinances. When we last used to see them, which was during my first counsel term, those usually only came midyear or after. And so the second quarter budget update, which would have been August or so, was typically when we would see a request for additional appropriation. I see no reason we can't, to the extent we have to make that sort of determination, use that normal process.

Madam Chair, just one quick thing, if I may. Just for, again, the sake of the record, the federal funds are for FIFA related activities, and what I'm speaking to is the, again, cost for service from residents. And those funds, to my understanding, cannot be used for non FIFA related activities.

Thank you.

I'm just a little confused on the method of payment. It's a $2,000,000 expense in the 'twenty six, 'twenty seven budget. And I keep hearing, well, we're going to go to 'twenty seven, 'twenty eight budget to pay it. Or if what that confuses me.

So two different amendments. And I don't want to if we're just doing Rogers, that is a pure next year budget. And I believe, although we haven't debated this yet, the source would be the general fund.

Okay. So it's just a $2,000,000 general fund. Now it's a special, event, not normal for the police budget to to they're not prepared to have an extra special event based on our budget. So I guess I'm concern I I'm I I understand the hesitation on adding $22,000,000 to anything, but they're gonna bill us, and we're gonna have to pay it eventually because that's what that's what happens. So why wouldn't we just include it now rather than hold off till later and then debate whether we're gonna pay the 2,000,000?

I I just don't think it's fair to the police department to just not have a source of revenue to pay for a bill we know is coming to us.

I think the articulation would be we're not sure it's coming.

Madam chair, if I if I could, the benefit of waiting is that you have a fully funded contingent appropriation starting May 1, and that could be a source for any additional overtime. You could do an ordinance on May 2 if you wanted to fund this $2,000,000 if you felt like prefunding it was very important. The issue that we'll have pre May 1 is that we're running very close to our amount on our 25% target. So is the benefit of waiting, is that you'll have a new budget, you'll have a new contingent worth over $8,000,000 and so that would be one benefit I could think of.

I guess I'm sorry. To finish my thought, mean, that could be said about any budget item we pass. Everything could be better off held. I mean, that 2,000,000 contingency is a $2,000,000 up to $2,000,000, I assume. We get billed,

we pay up to that amount. But we don't get it back is the difference. If we send the 2,000,000 over with greatest respect to our friends at the department, it it doesn't.

I thought I thought every dollar we sent to the police department had a invoice attached to it.